I feel your argument might be more compelling were it the case that romans never conquered by force of arms and their arguments were always compelling. Yet for some reason i seem to remember them being at war a lot of the time.
Furthermore, you’re forgetting that those ideas were never really roman in the first place, and they disappeared from even the core provinces during the decline, not just those conquered lands. The romans were never interested in innovation, you know that. They were on the cusp of an industrial revolution but never pursued it because what they liked their slaves, their traditions, and their conquest.
Also btw I’m in no way attacking you, im having fun debating and I hope you are too 👍
I feel your argument might be more compelling were it the case that romans never conquered by force of arms and their arguments were always compelling. Yet for some reason i seem to remember them being at war a lot of the time.
You didn’t ask if their arguments were 100% successful in all cases, you asked if the people being subjected would find them compelling; my answer was that it doesn’t need to be a hypothetical - the Romans put great effort into persuasion, and those subjected peoples very often did find those arguments compelling.
Furthermore, you’re forgetting that those ideas were never really roman in the first place,
In the sense that no idea belongs to a single culture, uh, sure; but in the sense that the Romans were the only people doing the things we’re talking about at scale in Europe at the time? It was very much, and very exclusively, Roman.
and they disappeared from even the core provinces during the decline, not just those conquered lands.
Those core provinces which were so thoroughly depopulated by plague and invading Germanic tribes that you can read it in the ice caps? Yes, it does tend to make skill transmission difficult when everyone who isn’t dead has to go back to farming. Furthermore, that, if anything, reinforces my point - the Roman Empire offered something that was not easily replicated. When it was destroyed, that was not just swapping out one ruler for another - it was the loss of something of great value.
The romans were never interested in innovation, you know that.
That’s not even close to true. The Romans had a great deal of respect for innovation - arguably even more than the Greeks. What the Romans disdained was ‘impractical’ theory. Technological innovation was something that was not only recognized by the Romans, but regarded as laudatory and a key piece of civilization.
They were on the cusp of an industrial revolution but never pursued it because what they liked their slaves, their traditions, and their conquest.
Not even close to true. The question of a Roman industrial revolution is a common topic for alt-histories, but not one seriously considered in academia. Material technology was simply nowhere near where it needed to be. Roman ‘traditions’ were notoriously flexible, and conquest was in no way a replacement for the economy - and, in fact, most of Rome’s greatest conquests are in the less-wealthy era of the Republic, not that of the much-wealthier Empire, which only has a handful of provinces to its name.
But you see, my concern isnt really with the ones who signed up for romanization.
If I may try to analyse your world view for a moment, you seem very convinced that all the good things which happened to conquered lands couldn’t have happened without Rome, yet you also seem to hold true that all the bad things which happened under Roman control would have happened regardless.
This is a very long comment chain so I’ll just summarise my core values here: No amount of appealing to future prosperity can justify inflicting harm in the present. People rome conquered didn’t want to be conquered, so Rome shouldn’t have done it. It happened, that’s history, but there’s no world where you can justify it morally.
But you see, my concern isnt really with the ones who signed up for romanization.
Almost every Roman conquest involves aspects of a civil war amongst the conquered. I take it both sides of every civil war, thus, are also immoral and unjustifiable?
If I may try to analyse your world view for a moment, you seem very convinced that all the good things which happened to conquered lands couldn’t have happened without Rome, yet you also seem to hold true that all the bad things which happened under Roman control would have happened regardless.
Not even close. I am saying that things which the Roman Empire quite literally and explicitly brought to the lands it conquered, things which did not show up before the Roman Empire, nor, for that matter, after it, nor contemporarily outside of the lands they controlled, were brought by the Roman Empire. For some reason this seems to be a radical idea to you, despite all evidence.
This is a very long comment chain so I’ll just summarise my core values here: No amount of appealing to future prosperity can justify inflicting harm in the present.
What’s your opinion on law enforcement?
What’s your opinion on the Allies in WW2?
What’s your opinion on medicine?
People rome conquered didn’t want to be conquered, so Rome shouldn’t have done it. It happened, that’s history, but there’s no world where you can justify it morally.
Cool, Rome nobly refuses to conquer its warlike neighbors; Rome is then conquered in turn. I don’t know why so many people have so thoroughly absorbed the ‘martyrdom is Morality, Actually’ axiom of Christianity, but it’s terribly irritating.
You’ve passed through, so far, “Roman rule wasn’t that great”, “Roman rule was good but it could have been done by anyone else”, and now we seem to be sliding into “Sure, Roman rule was unique and positive, but was it worth being conquered?” and then into “All consequences of conquest are bad because conquest is bad”
Brittain before Roman rule was probably even happier. But i guess when you’re the conquering army you get to decide what is and isnt “civilized”
“Roman rule wasn’t that great”
Theres also the question of whether these people could have made said advancements on their own, or through peaceful trade and exchange of ideas. Personally, i think they probably could have.
“Roman rule was good but it could have been done by anyone else (despite the fact that no one else actually did, including those who were involved with peaceful trade with Rome)”
Hmm, personally I dont think you can so casually brush off the conquest part. How many people would you accept being murdered, raped, and enlaved in order to justify this positive benifit? Is there a specific number? If the supposed benifit was greater, would you accept more people being killed? How big does a benefit to future generations need to be to justify killing and enslaving the current population?
“Roman rule was unique and positive, but was it worth being conquered?”
This is a very long comment chain so I’ll just summarise my core values here: No amount of appealing to future prosperity can justify inflicting harm in the present. People rome conquered didn’t want to be conquered, so Rome shouldn’t have done it. It happened, that’s history, but there’s no world where you can justify it morally.
“All consequences of conquest are bad because conquest is bad”
Ah i see the misunderstanding, you think I’m picking on Rome specifically, but i promise you I’m not. I would apply this argument to any aggressive state, its only that Rome happened to be the biggest and the most aggressive around. Were it the case that rome did nobly refuse to conquer and you were posting pro Gallic Empire memes we’d still be here in this same position with me arguing against forced celticization.
The thing is, it doesn’t really matter if the things rome brought were “good” (and i mean good from our modern perspective) if people didn’t have a choice in the matter. Wouldn’t you agree to that?
Ah i see the misunderstanding, you think I’m picking on Rome specifically, but i promise you I’m not. I would apply this argument to any aggressive state, its only that Rome happened to be the biggest and the most aggressive around.
Hardly. Only the most successful in its aggression. You, earlier in this conversation, attempted a defence of pre-Roman British polities despite the fact that they were no less interested in making war on each other.
Were it the case that rome did nobly refuse to conquer and you were posting pro Gallic Empire memes we’d still be here in this same position with me arguing against forced celticization.
The process of Romanization was very far from forced.
In that case, the only real argument here is that you’re upset that Rome was successful, unlike other contemporary polities. You acknowledge that none of the states they conquered were in any way morally superior, and, in fact, would have done the exact same thing if not worse to their neighbors, their countrymen, and to distant peoples like the Romans, had they been successful. You’re arguing for the value of the sovereignty of one group of elites because you identify them with a nebulous ‘people’ or ‘nation’ in the way that 19th century nationalism has taught us to, not because of some essential popular element of their rule. Again, I point back to you opening this argument with
Brittain before Roman rule was probably even happier. But i guess when you’re the conquering army you get to decide what is and isnt “civilized”
The thing is, it doesn’t really matter if the things rome brought were “good” (and i mean good from our modern perspective) if people didn’t have a choice in the matter. Wouldn’t you agree to that?
No. People weren’t going to have a choice in the matter either way. The past was not some democratic utopia punctuated only by outbreaks of war; British people were not getting a say under British native elites over their fate, or whether violence was performed upon them.
Furthermore, the use of violence and suffering to further a common good is, as I highlighted in the questions I asked regarding medicine, law enforcement, and the Second World War, is not inherently bad; and if you still hold to that view, I would ask again for you to answer your opinions on those three matters.
I suppose we might have reached a philosophical impass, Mr. Jesus. I’d like to ask one more question to try and get to the root of this disagreement. In a completely theoretical situation, disregarding any real world examples: Is there any action that could not be justified morally should the eventual end be an equal or greater good. Or, in other words, is there anything at all that you would not allow should the ends justify the means?
Increasingly repugnant actions must have increasingly disproportionately beneficial results to balance them out, I would say. There’s nothing that I would automatically disqualify from a utilitarian analysis, but the more repugnant the action, the less likely there’s any real-world justification for a scenario where that’s the lesser evil out of the choices presented.
But again, my argument is not an absolute assertion of “Roman conquest was good”, and I initially rejected the argument entirely precisely because it is a different argument from the question of Roman rule entirely, my argument is that the conflict of Roman and British polities and the conquest that resulted does not have the very modern dynamics you are ascribing to it.
Ah, ok I understand. Personally I do think we can project our morals backwards and judge historical figures and cultures. I think it helps us analyse them so long as it doesn’t result in us misconstrueing the truth. I think remaining completely objective can result in repeating the past, or excusing morally reprehensable things in the present. I come from a litarary background, so maybe I’m predisposed to that kind of analysis.
But i see your side as well, I’ll admit how alien the past can be and how different the idea of morality can be from culture to culture.
I feel your argument might be more compelling were it the case that romans never conquered by force of arms and their arguments were always compelling. Yet for some reason i seem to remember them being at war a lot of the time.
Furthermore, you’re forgetting that those ideas were never really roman in the first place, and they disappeared from even the core provinces during the decline, not just those conquered lands. The romans were never interested in innovation, you know that. They were on the cusp of an industrial revolution but never pursued it because what they liked their slaves, their traditions, and their conquest.
Also btw I’m in no way attacking you, im having fun debating and I hope you are too 👍
You didn’t ask if their arguments were 100% successful in all cases, you asked if the people being subjected would find them compelling; my answer was that it doesn’t need to be a hypothetical - the Romans put great effort into persuasion, and those subjected peoples very often did find those arguments compelling.
In the sense that no idea belongs to a single culture, uh, sure; but in the sense that the Romans were the only people doing the things we’re talking about at scale in Europe at the time? It was very much, and very exclusively, Roman.
Those core provinces which were so thoroughly depopulated by plague and invading Germanic tribes that you can read it in the ice caps? Yes, it does tend to make skill transmission difficult when everyone who isn’t dead has to go back to farming. Furthermore, that, if anything, reinforces my point - the Roman Empire offered something that was not easily replicated. When it was destroyed, that was not just swapping out one ruler for another - it was the loss of something of great value.
That’s not even close to true. The Romans had a great deal of respect for innovation - arguably even more than the Greeks. What the Romans disdained was ‘impractical’ theory. Technological innovation was something that was not only recognized by the Romans, but regarded as laudatory and a key piece of civilization.
Not even close to true. The question of a Roman industrial revolution is a common topic for alt-histories, but not one seriously considered in academia. Material technology was simply nowhere near where it needed to be. Roman ‘traditions’ were notoriously flexible, and conquest was in no way a replacement for the economy - and, in fact, most of Rome’s greatest conquests are in the less-wealthy era of the Republic, not that of the much-wealthier Empire, which only has a handful of provinces to its name.
But you see, my concern isnt really with the ones who signed up for romanization.
If I may try to analyse your world view for a moment, you seem very convinced that all the good things which happened to conquered lands couldn’t have happened without Rome, yet you also seem to hold true that all the bad things which happened under Roman control would have happened regardless.
This is a very long comment chain so I’ll just summarise my core values here: No amount of appealing to future prosperity can justify inflicting harm in the present. People rome conquered didn’t want to be conquered, so Rome shouldn’t have done it. It happened, that’s history, but there’s no world where you can justify it morally.
Almost every Roman conquest involves aspects of a civil war amongst the conquered. I take it both sides of every civil war, thus, are also immoral and unjustifiable?
Not even close. I am saying that things which the Roman Empire quite literally and explicitly brought to the lands it conquered, things which did not show up before the Roman Empire, nor, for that matter, after it, nor contemporarily outside of the lands they controlled, were brought by the Roman Empire. For some reason this seems to be a radical idea to you, despite all evidence.
What’s your opinion on law enforcement?
What’s your opinion on the Allies in WW2?
What’s your opinion on medicine?
Cool, Rome nobly refuses to conquer its warlike neighbors; Rome is then conquered in turn. I don’t know why so many people have so thoroughly absorbed the ‘martyrdom is Morality, Actually’ axiom of Christianity, but it’s terribly irritating.
You’ve passed through, so far, “Roman rule wasn’t that great”, “Roman rule was good but it could have been done by anyone else”, and now we seem to be sliding into “Sure, Roman rule was unique and positive, but was it worth being conquered?” and then into “All consequences of conquest are bad because conquest is bad”
“Roman rule wasn’t that great”
“Roman rule was good but it could have been done by anyone else (despite the fact that no one else actually did, including those who were involved with peaceful trade with Rome)”
“Roman rule was unique and positive, but was it worth being conquered?”
“All consequences of conquest are bad because conquest is bad”
Ah i see the misunderstanding, you think I’m picking on Rome specifically, but i promise you I’m not. I would apply this argument to any aggressive state, its only that Rome happened to be the biggest and the most aggressive around. Were it the case that rome did nobly refuse to conquer and you were posting pro Gallic Empire memes we’d still be here in this same position with me arguing against forced celticization.
The thing is, it doesn’t really matter if the things rome brought were “good” (and i mean good from our modern perspective) if people didn’t have a choice in the matter. Wouldn’t you agree to that?
Hardly. Only the most successful in its aggression. You, earlier in this conversation, attempted a defence of pre-Roman British polities despite the fact that they were no less interested in making war on each other.
The process of Romanization was very far from forced.
In that case, the only real argument here is that you’re upset that Rome was successful, unlike other contemporary polities. You acknowledge that none of the states they conquered were in any way morally superior, and, in fact, would have done the exact same thing if not worse to their neighbors, their countrymen, and to distant peoples like the Romans, had they been successful. You’re arguing for the value of the sovereignty of one group of elites because you identify them with a nebulous ‘people’ or ‘nation’ in the way that 19th century nationalism has taught us to, not because of some essential popular element of their rule. Again, I point back to you opening this argument with
No. People weren’t going to have a choice in the matter either way. The past was not some democratic utopia punctuated only by outbreaks of war; British people were not getting a say under British native elites over their fate, or whether violence was performed upon them.
Furthermore, the use of violence and suffering to further a common good is, as I highlighted in the questions I asked regarding medicine, law enforcement, and the Second World War, is not inherently bad; and if you still hold to that view, I would ask again for you to answer your opinions on those three matters.
I suppose we might have reached a philosophical impass, Mr. Jesus. I’d like to ask one more question to try and get to the root of this disagreement. In a completely theoretical situation, disregarding any real world examples: Is there any action that could not be justified morally should the eventual end be an equal or greater good. Or, in other words, is there anything at all that you would not allow should the ends justify the means?
Increasingly repugnant actions must have increasingly disproportionately beneficial results to balance them out, I would say. There’s nothing that I would automatically disqualify from a utilitarian analysis, but the more repugnant the action, the less likely there’s any real-world justification for a scenario where that’s the lesser evil out of the choices presented.
But again, my argument is not an absolute assertion of “Roman conquest was good”, and I initially rejected the argument entirely precisely because it is a different argument from the question of Roman rule entirely, my argument is that the conflict of Roman and British polities and the conquest that resulted does not have the very modern dynamics you are ascribing to it.
Ah, ok I understand. Personally I do think we can project our morals backwards and judge historical figures and cultures. I think it helps us analyse them so long as it doesn’t result in us misconstrueing the truth. I think remaining completely objective can result in repeating the past, or excusing morally reprehensable things in the present. I come from a litarary background, so maybe I’m predisposed to that kind of analysis.
But i see your side as well, I’ll admit how alien the past can be and how different the idea of morality can be from culture to culture.