Harsh Martinet
Consul
I bet evil George is behind this!!!
-
Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.
JD's bazaar
- Thread starter doe1971
- Start date
I bet evil George is behind this!!!
Harsh Martinet
Consul
I'm sure George has convinced Parliament to allow the wooden horse to be used as an instrument of judicial punishment.
doe1971
Tribune
Harsh Martinet
Consul
Definitely goes into my personal Hall of Fame! Absolutely a fantasy portrayed! Excellent!!!!
Harsh Martinet
Consul
That single tail will wrap so nicely around her while she rides!
doesn't look much like Cornwall -
but never mind - always best to leave our legs free,
so we can dance to the Whip - a skilled Flagellator
knows how to keep clear of our kicking,
making sure we keep keep skipping and squirming about!
Not by name, but by inference.
doe, if you spend much time around here you’re going to hear about this guy.
Lucius Pedanius Secundus - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
All of his 400 slaves were crucified, men and women and, presumably, children.
Yuck.
Silent_Water
Tribune
I always wondered if there were ever descriptions of the (most probably also) pitiful slaves who had to clean up after such a mass crucifixion mess. Only once I read about an ancient Roman writer who thought the mass crucifixion of 6.000 (!) rebellious slaves by Crassus' soldiers after the Spartacus rebellion was an incredible pollution of the air and the streets along the Via Appia between Rome and Capua, one of the most used traffic lines in ancient Rome. A writer in our days was of the opinion that the Romans sometimes were simply crazy in their belief to have the most superior culture of all nations which made a simple encounter with them as being non-Roman really more dangerous than for example simply encountering the inhabitants of Gallia or Germania.
The Romans would always have thought first if they could be a danger because of their culture for their empire or if they could take profit by this encounter in making a slave deal because the empire always needed new slaves. From our point of view today, all the foreign wars of Julius Caesar were simply war crimes. Then there were these strange first military campaigns with many ships of Caesar to ferry across the sea to Britannia, where he probably wanted to find legendary treasures although he publicly explained to stop the military help from the Celts in Britannia to the celtic Gauls / Galli in Gallia.
(Sounds if you are going with 10.000 soldiers by ships into a foreign country just to look if you could be attacked from the inhabitants there and such a surprise for you and your 10.000 soldiers: You will be and you are really attacked from the inhabitants there! Incredible unfriendly by the people in that foreign country, isn't it?)
Gallia had already a very high Celtic-European culture but that was almost completely destroyed by Caesar and probably one third of all inhabitants there were killed during the war, which Caesar so nicely described in his "De Bello Gallico".
The Romans would always have thought first if they could be a danger because of their culture for their empire or if they could take profit by this encounter in making a slave deal because the empire always needed new slaves. From our point of view today, all the foreign wars of Julius Caesar were simply war crimes. Then there were these strange first military campaigns with many ships of Caesar to ferry across the sea to Britannia, where he probably wanted to find legendary treasures although he publicly explained to stop the military help from the Celts in Britannia to the celtic Gauls / Galli in Gallia.
(Sounds if you are going with 10.000 soldiers by ships into a foreign country just to look if you could be attacked from the inhabitants there and such a surprise for you and your 10.000 soldiers: You will be and you are really attacked from the inhabitants there! Incredible unfriendly by the people in that foreign country, isn't it?)
Gallia had already a very high Celtic-European culture but that was almost completely destroyed by Caesar and probably one third of all inhabitants there were killed during the war, which Caesar so nicely described in his "De Bello Gallico".
Last edited:
doe1971
Tribune
Must be a SJW writer, lol .... when you have a culture that enables you to conquer and control for hundreds of years the surrounding cultures, you must be doing something right. If you look into history, the Roman garrisons present in conquered lands were minuscule compared to the local population yet, for most of the time they were able to keep the lid on.
Sorry, cultural relativism doesn't fit it. It's a good for modern day classrooms, where hating Western culture (or any successful one) is a rigueur du jour for young, clueless activists.
windar
Teller of Tales
The Chinese absolutely believed that their culture was superior to all others and, unlike the Romans, they are still around, so perhaps they weren't wrong. Unlike the Romans, though, they believed that the best way to preserve their culture was not to spread it to foreign lands, where it would inevitably be diluted, but to wall the country off, both literally and figuratively. They did attempt expansion into Vietnam (successful for a time) and, under the Mongols, Japan (defeated according to legend by the divine wind or kamikaze). Most cultures generally have strains that consider themselves superior to all others, including modern Western culture...
doe1971
Tribune
Any culture that does away with religion and thus removes one of the most common casus belli its a good one, in my book. True, it produced the hive mentality that begged the Needham question later but still, not a bad cultural choice.
Harsh Martinet
Consul
She's nicely positioned for the lash.
Silent_Water
Tribune
I am sorry, too, because maybe, I got sources which are a bit different about the Roman conquering, which was only possible by the Roman military superiority and steadily established by means of suppression and terror. When the Romans were so gracious to allow a very faithful tribe to become citizens of Rome, ok, that might have been an advantage because you could then be protected by Roman troops and you could live for centuries in peace. But that was not the normal case which was terror towards the defeated. Do you know e.g. the details about the war of Boudica against Rome in ancient Britannia (?), of which most historian see the guilt on the side of the Roman military commanders, who often saw only "savages" on the other sides to be killed, even if they had been disarmed before or even tried to surrender:
Tacitus also wrote of Suetonius addressing his legionaries:
Although Tacitus, like many historians of his day, was given to invent stirring speeches for such occasions, Suetonius' speech here is unusually blunt and practical. Tacitus' father-in-law, the future governor Gnaeus Julius Agricola, was on Suetonius' staff at the time and may have reported it fairly accurately.
(Confer: )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeat_of_Boudica
For example, my sources tell me this:
"Ancient historiography notes the possible reasons for the uprising of the German tribes under Arminius in the more restrictive administration and jurisprudence of Varus, the consequent loss of influence and power, the demands for tribute, and the arrogant and insensitive attitude of Varus and other Romans to the Cherusci and other tribes involved to the insurgency attested by ancient Roman sources."
As you may know, the rebellion of the German tribes, led by Arminius led also to the the worst defeat of the Roman empire in centuries and all historians I know of today say, this would not have happened, if the Romans had been less arrogant in their behaviour. Because of rebellions on the Balkans, there were less legions in Germania and the German tribes knew that. After the killing of three entire Roman legions, there were no Roman legions any more between Germania and Italia and this sent shockwaves through the capital Rome, because the German tribes could have conquered the whole terrain from the rivers Elbe & Rhine down to the Alps and beyond, if they had been more united and had a more global military approach like the Romans had.
OK, I must admit, the German tribes of those days had more in common with the Klingons from Star Trek than with any other nation of today. But knowing that, it was a terrible mistake by the Roman military commanders to tell German tribe leaders of those times, that the Romans are chosen by their Gods to reign over other nations because the Romans are braver and better warriors than all the others. "Savages" like the German tribes of those days were waiting decades to prove the Romans to be wrong:
Arminius - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
And the German tribes did a similar thing in 955 against Hungarian invaders which probably indeed was the first time that all German tribes felt to have something in common against an enemy.
Battle of Lechfeld - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
This battle on the Lechfeld at Augsburg was prepared by the German tribes for decades and as you may know, even the Germans of today always prepare or plan something. (We were and we are probably planning and building our latest airport in Berlin for at least 30 years!)
A French comedian in Germany, "Alphonse" , is making usually a lot of fun of the differences between Germans and French and one of his best jokes is that he is always astonished how well these Germans around him prepare everything: For example, big demonstrations are announced to the German police by telling them, next week on Friday, we will really be angry and telling this to everyone and the German police then closes the perfect streets to be really angry for these demonstrators. In France, he said, we do this always more spontaneously and we are getting angry and crazy very quickly. The Germans on the other side of the Rhine are planning even to get crazy at least one year ahead, for example in their carnival in Cologne or Mainz. That is a difference, we in France will never understand.
By the way, I do not exactly know from which word in all the other languages it is derived but in the Roman languages and in Russian the word for "work / labour" is derived from "slave & slavery", in German the word "Arbeit" is really derived from the ancient "are-be-it", which meant to "fight like a hero in order to kill all the enemies". So, we know, what different tribes, people and nations think about work and how to do it.
Last edited:
