Do you agree? can anyone confirm what he wrote?
Stop cringing and wetting your pants every time some liberal calls you racist for resisting the onslaught against the values of our founding fathers and of Western civilization in general!
Smooth, you're a good man. No matter what culture you and I came from, we're both brothers on this little rock spinning through space.
As for the non-American "vermin." I'd ask your friend to take of look at his own "family tree." My ancestoral chart contains every sort of vermin known to man. I suspect his does as well. There is no crime so vile that my ancestors did not commit it. America was founded and nurtured on such "vermin" from every corner of the world.
can you name one country where blacks are dominant in number and it isn't a "hell hole"?
What is totally ignored by our corrupt and worthless educational system is that the Eastern half survived for another thousand year
The West was destroyed by multiculturalism and illegal immigration, which destroyed both the resistance of its Armed Forces and the integrity of the civilization itself.
The brave East Romans who defended Western civilization have been slandered with the ignominious title of "Byzantine Empire" by the Roman Catholic Church of Pedophiles, to whom they also refused to submit.
To see the "glory of Rome" and miss the misery and destruction it produced is analogous to looking at the pretty begonias planted by Frau Hoss
As I am sure you aware, the 'Roman' capital had long been an eastern city, Constantinople, by the time of the collpase of the Western empire. The power base of Rome remained, its (now) less important territories, like Rome, were subsumed by ostrogoths from northern europe and asia.
the philosophy of the romans was not to enslave those it conquered, but to subjugate them, and eventulaly to make them romans themselves.
gavtmcc wrote:This is something which can easily be gleaned from reading the most elementary guides to Roman conquest.
It is certainly not a matter forr debate whatsoever!
No, Michael, the Roman Empire civilized europe in most areas it conquered. they provided methods of agriculture, law, science and ways of life taht had not existed in previously warring, tribal factions. the goal of the empire was to achieve unity, to move man away from his tribal, primitivist instincts.
The West was destroyed by multiculturalism and illegal immigration, which destroyed both the resistance of its Armed Forces and the integrity of the civilization itself.
Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was primarily responsible for disseminating all this praise for the "virtues" of the Roman Empire.
Given that most everyone read Gibbons in high school, is it really any wonder the "elementary guides" picked up his view?
However, that is not the universal view among classical scholars and historians today. Take, for example, Rome and the Enemy; Imperial Strategy in the Principate, by S. Maltern, 1999:
"...the glory of victory - is so prevalent in the literature, art, coins and epigraphy of the Principate as almost to defy coherent discussion. Over 300 triumphal arches survive or are known form coins or inscription...
...signs of weakness on Rome's part, such as a show of deference to a foreign people, or failure to avenge a defeat in war, or to punish a revolt with sufficient ferocity, are considered invitations to disaster.
For these reasons the Romans sometimes seem to react very aggressively to apparently minor breaches of treaty, to exaggerate the threat posed by rivals...while insisting that their concerns are for their own security; they place a high value on victory, conquest and the humiliation of the enemy...although the superiority of the Romans is ultimately a superiority of military strength, the most essential element in this system is the state of mind of the enemy: Rome's empire depends on its ability to assert and enforce an image of itself as awesome and terrifying....
..as a state, the Romans behave like Homeric heroes, Mafia gangsters, or individuals in any society based on violent competition for honor or respect." pp. 168-172
And consider this passage from Human Rights in Ancient Rome, by Richard Bauman, 1999:
External genocide is stigmatized by Seneca; 'We are a mad people, checking individual murders but doing nothing about war and the 'glorious' crime of slaughtering whole peoples under the authority of duly enacted laws.' "
The Roman Empire was built and maintained not primarily by diplomacy or trade, but by the might of its legions. The "glory of Rome" was made possible by a steady stream of returning war booty and heavy tribute from those nations it had vanquished and enslaved.
Bauman tells of L. Pedanius Secundus being murdered by a domestic slave. His entire household of slaves, some 400 men, women and children were tortured and executed as a matter of policy.
"An inscription has the funeral director at Puteoli obliged to torture slaves on request; he had to supply the crosses, yokes and floggers, and to see to the removal of the corpses." Bauman, ibid., p. 117
I can see their business sign in my mind's eye: Crucifixions R Us
But it's a mistake to think that Rome brought the rule of law to the lawless. The nations that Rome conquered already had their own leaders, laws and customs.
Gavtmcc, if life under Roman rule was so wonderful then riddle me this:
Why were the conquered nations forever revolting against Roman rule?
What was it about Roman rule that men so often would revolt despite the risk of slaughter and crucifixion?
I attempted to find this elusive book on amazon, but to no avail.
'Honour'? 'Respect'? These are Homeric values, not Roman ones, and it is foolish to apply them to the case of the Romans.
Contrary to what you might think, periods of peace, in the context of the history of the Roman world as a whole, were very, very long, in comparison to the short interruptions of violent conflict.
...once conquered, it was taxes, NOT 'war booty and heavy tribute' of any other kind which subjugated nations contributed to the Roman cause.
I am not aware of the context of this quote, Could you provide source details?
Many conquered (+ subjugated peoples) were very thankful for the improvements the Romans made to their civilisations. Example of this are manifold in ROman Britain for instance.
stale wrote:thank you both very much for your input. although the essay seems to support white supremacy, i just wanted to let you know that he does have many non white friends (including me). i could never really counter his arguments, especially when he throws in so many 'facts' at once. another question he asked me that i would like answer: can you name one country where blacks are dominant in number and it isn't a "hell hole"?
i though of countries in africa, but i'm not quite sure. i know not all of africa is jungle and huts, but i'm not quite sure if it's only a small portion of the countries.
About the Author
Susan P. Mattern is Assistant Professor of History at the University of Georgia.
Book Description
How did the Romans build and maintain one of the most powerful and stable empires in the history of the world? This illuminating book draws on the literature, especially the historiography, composed by the members of the elite who conducted Roman foreign affairs. From this evidence, Susan P. Mattern reevaluates the roots, motivations, and goals of Roman imperial foreign policy especially as that policy related to warfare. In a major reinterpretation of the sources, Rome and the Enemy shows that concepts of national honor, fierce competition for status, and revenge drove Roman foreign policy, and though different from the highly rationalizing strategies often attributed to the Romans, dictated patterns of response that remained consistent over centuries.
Mattern reconstructs the world view of the Roman decision-makers, the emperors, and the elite from which they drew their advisers. She discusses Roman conceptions of geography, strategy, economics, and the influence of traditional Roman values on the conduct of military campaigns. She shows that these leaders were more strongly influenced by a traditional, stereotyped perception of the enemy and a drive to avenge insults to their national honor than by concepts of defensible borders. In fact, the desire to enforce an image of Roman power was a major policy goal behind many of their most brutal and aggressive campaigns.
Rome and the Enemy provides a fascinating look into the Roman mind in addition to a compelling reexamination of Roman conceptions of warfare and national honor. The resulting picture creates a new understanding of Rome's long mastery of the Mediterranean world.
Decus or honor, was a thoughly Roman value.
Here's what Harris (Professor of History at Columbia University) says on the second page of the above mentioned War and Imperialism in Republican Rome; 327-70 B.C.
It wasn't a taxpayer's revolt, the whole squabble was about the idolatry associated with paying tribute to the Roman emperor and his gods.
That's not good enough, Gavin. You can find Austrians, Norwegians, Danes, Frenchmen, by the thousands in 1944 saying the very same thing about the Nazi invaders. A great many of those people who opposed the invasion and subjugation never survive long enough to give their opinion on the matter. You ought to know that its the victors and their collaborators who leave their memoirs and write the histories.
You disagree with me that rebellion was on ongoing problem for Rome. Strange then, that Rome bothered to garrison troops (at a huge expense) in its conquered provinces?
gavtmcc wrote:Not good enough for me, I'm afraid, zen. Nietzsche, like all educated Germans of the 19th century transposed the 'qualities' of Athens onto themselves indiscriminately: this explains this sentiment. The Germans were very much enemies of the Roman Empire, you see, so they were uncomfortable about deferring any praise to its achievement. The Greeks, on the other hand, had no bone to pick with Germany.
To be blunt, there is no historical validity in the claims in your Nietzsche quote, at least none of any worth. The historical worth comes in the reflection of Nietzsche's own ethnic and national identity which was characteristic of his culture.
I draw upon a historian of world renown to make it succinctly on my behalf.
But I am generalising here and I am aware of it (as are you). In fact, the whole of our discussion has been fraught with generalisations I ma usually very hesitant to make.
To see the "glory of Rome" and miss the misery and destruction it produced is analogous to looking at the pretty begonias planted by Frau Hoss (wife of the camp Commandant Hoss)...but never looking over the wall to see the hell contained within."
No, Michael, the Roman Empire civilised europe in most areas it conquered. they provided methods of agriculture, law, science and ways of life taht had not existed in previously warring, tribal factions. the goal of the empire was to achieve unity, to move man away from his tribal, primitivist instincts.
Return to Non-Philosophical Chat
Users browsing this forum: WendyDarling