# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Romans: the most cruel and most barbaric nation ever existed

## Echetlaeus

History has shown that these people became masters of the sword, killed and enslaved many people around Europe, Asia and Africa. Their tendency for territory and slavery was superb, for example, from Epirus, the region that I come from, when they defeated the Molossians, they enslaved about 150,000 people. I am sure that there are other numerous cases like that.

Bros, your thoughts are welcome.

----------


## Angela

> History has shown that these people became masters of the sword, killed and enslaved many people around Europe, Asia and Africa. Their tendency for territory and slavery was superb, for example, from Epirus, the region that I come from, when they defeated the Molossians, they enslaved about 150,000 people. I am sure that there are other numerous cases like that.
> 
> Bros, your thoughts are welcome.


What an 'agent provocateur'...and to think I treated one of your posts seriously. I never learn. :)

The bait is too obvious, BRO.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> What an 'agent provocateur'...and to think I treated one of your posts seriously. I never learn. :)
> 
> The bait is too obvious, BRO.


My beloved Angela,
you hurt my feelings with your statements. Please explain in detail where I am wrong. Maybe my statement is a little bit harsh for some to "swallow", but I expressed an idea that is in other minds as well, ergo I do not think that I should be treated this way by you.

You called me "agent provocateur" for no obvious reason. I find that statement quite offensive and a lady like you should be very cautious when she expresses her thoughts.

Now, to the point history is history and cannot change. I happen to study the old times with much love and, lemme be honest with you, the traces that Romans left in this world are not meant to have come from Paradise. I think that [they] have committed many cruelties during their reign. Nonetheless, I acknowledge some positive effects in the European civilisation.

And Roman woman, remember what your ancestors said: «Delenda est Carthago», for no obvious reason ...

----------


## Angela

> My beloved Angela,
> you hurt my feelings with your statements. Please explain in detail where I am wrong. Maybe my statement is a little bit harsh for some to "swallow", but I expressed an idea that is in other minds as well, ergo I do not think that I should be treated this way by you.
> 
> You called me "agent provocateur" for no obvious reason. I find that statement quite offensive and a lady like you should be very cautious when she expresses her thoughts.
> 
> Now, to the point history is history and cannot change. I happen to study the old times with much love and, lemme be honest with you, the traces that Romans left in this world are not meant to have come from Paradise. I think that [they] have committed many cruelties during their reign. Nonetheless, I acknowledge some positive effects in the European civilisation.
> 
> And Roman woman, remember what your ancestors said: «Delenda est Carthago», for no obvious reason ...


I remember it as if it were yesterday!  :Grin:

----------


## Echetlaeus

My point exactly. Similarities of Roman expansionism can be found in today's society as well. If your country lives well, that is what matters, although at the expense of others !

P.S. Dear Countess, I am your humble servant, after all I am just a squire. But forgive my impertinence, would it be a difficult task for you to tell me from which part of Italy you come from? North or South?

----------


## LeBrok

> What an '*agent provocateur*'...and to think I treated one of your posts seriously. I never learn. :)
> 
> The bait is too obvious, BRO.


You got yourself on Angela's ignore list. Why don't you provoke audience by saying, as a Greek, that the Spartans were the most barbaric and cruel? Instead of degrading other ethnicity and possible creating a war with proud Italians, you would have the whole world coming to the thread to defend Spartans on your behave. That would have been devilishly smart.
On other hand I don't expect a proud Greek to criticise Spartans, it would be so unnatural and counter intuitive, almost unhuman. 
I have more than a hunch, that it must feel so much better and way more exciting for you to start a conversation from degenerating others.

----------


## Echetlaeus

Probably now the whole world will be against me just from the title of this thread. Like you do, like Angela did, like others will do. 

It is obvious when people see the tree instead of the whole forest. Sometimes the truth bites, but what can we do, c'est la vie.
I greatly acknowledge however that I am a bit cynical, perhaps a little bit more than the usual.

----------


## Sile

> History has shown that these people became masters of the sword, killed and enslaved many people around Europe, Asia and Africa. Their tendency for territory and slavery was superb, for example, from Epirus, the region that I come from, when they defeated the Molossians, they enslaved about 150,000 people. I am sure that there are other numerous cases like that.
> 
> Bros, your thoughts are welcome.


My take on the Romans is

They became cruel due to the Punic wars, especially during the third one, where they destroyed all the people , the city and salted the lands. This war gave Rome the idea of Empire, I do not think they thought about Empire before these Punic wars.
So, yes they where one of the cruelest , but made amends with what they built later on in their history. 

What would Europe be like in those days if the Romans stopped at tuscany, south-Italy and Sicily............one will never know

----------


## Echetlaeus

I have been thinking about this post for quite a long time now. I think that I have made a mistake by choosing this title (both the thread and the poll). Do not blame me bros and broettes. Sometimes it happens to me and I use these kinds of words. And I am quite stubborn to actually say that I am wrong. I do not know why, I really do not know.

----------


## Angela

> You got yourself on Angela's ignore list. Why don't you provoke audience by saying, as a Greek, that the Spartans were the most barbaric and cruel? Instead of degrading other ethnicity and possible creating a war with proud Italians, you would have the whole world coming to the thread to defend Spartans on your behave. That would have been devilishly smart.
> On other hand I don't expect a proud Greek to criticise Spartans, it would be so unnatural and counter intuitive, almost unhuman. 
> I have more than a hunch, that it must feel so much better and way more exciting for you to start a conversation from degenerating others.


He isn't on the list quite yet, mainly because he's amusing, and I don't think he's totally serious, although I may be giving him far more credit than he deserves.  :Smile: 

I found the reference to Cato the Elder particularly amusing...when my future husband and I were courting, he was in a Classics phase, studying Latin and the history of the Empire, and he, having a more martial nature than I ever had, was quite an admirer of Cato, while I was not, finding him a tendentious rather obsessive bore. My 'ragazzo' also had a bit of a tendency to rant on political topics, and to obsess, although he had the grace to recognize it. Often, after getting lost in his oratory, he would pause and finish with "And Carthage Must Be Destroyed!", or I would say it, to tease him. I guess you had to be there, and a bit of a nerd, to get the humor. :Grin: 

Seriously, I think I have a pretty balanced view of the Romans and all their doings, and of Renaissance Italians, and twentieth century Italians as well, for that matter. (although of course I would say that) There's a lot to be proud of, in my opinion, as well as much to regret, as with all countries or ancient empires. All flawed...all fallen, to use a term with which you might be familiar.

Also, whatever criticisms I level, at whatever group, I try to remember the context and the era.

@*Echetlaeus*
I'm the descendent of Ligures, and the Neolithic peoples who preceded them, and the Roman colonists from Luni, and some first century B.C. Gallic tribes, and perhaps a few Greeks from Luni or who wandered down the coast from Marseilles, and perhaps a few Lombards, given the number of Lombard castles in my native valley, and a stray Byzantine as well. Oh, and my favorites, the Etruscans, although they were on the periphery. 

That's a long winded way of saying that so far as I can tell, all my ancestors back to the mid 1500s, and on some lines back to the 1400s, came from within the region that is sometimes called Lunezia. (and immediately adjoining areas) Let me be clear that Lunezia doesn't exist as an administrative unit, nor, in my opinion, will it, or should it.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> He isn't on the list quite yet, mainly because he's amusing, and I don't think he's totally serious, although I may be giving him far more credit than he deserves. 
> 
> I found the reference to Cato the Elder particularly amusing...when my future husband and I were courting, he was in a Classics phase, studying Latin and the history of the Empire, and he, having a more martial nature than I ever had, was quite an admirer of Cato, while I was not, finding him a tendentious rather obsessive bore. My 'ragazzo' also had a bit of a tendency to rant on political topics, and to obsess, although he had the grace to recognize it. Often, after getting lost in his oratory, he would pause and finish with "And Carthage Must Be Destroyed!", or I would say it, to tease him. I guess you had to be there, and a bit of a nerd, to get the humor.
> 
> Seriously, I think I have a pretty balanced view of the Romans and all their doings, and of Renaissance Italians, and twentieth century Italians as well, for that matter. (although of course I would say that) There's a lot to be proud of, in my opinion, as well as much to regret, as with all countries or ancient empires. All flawed...all fallen, to use a term with which you might be familiar.
> 
> Also, whatever criticisms I level, at whatever group, I try to remember the context and the era.
> 
> @*Echetlaeus*
> ...


Thanks for finding the courage to answer me noble Angela given what I said.
I beg you a pardon ma'am. I think this is due to impulsivity of youth :P

----------


## LeBrok

> Thanks for finding the courage to answer me noble Angela given what I said.
> I beg you a pardon ma'am. I think this is due to impulsivity of youth :P


Bucket of cold water, that's what we serve to the youth. :Grin:

----------


## LeBrok

> He isn't on the list quite yet, mainly because he's amusing, and I don't think he's totally serious, although I may be giving him far more credit than he deserves. 
> 
> I found the reference to Cato the Elder particularly amusing...when my future husband and I were courting, he was in a Classics phase, studying Latin and the history of the Empire, and he, having a more martial nature than I ever had, was quite an admirer of Cato, while I was not, finding him a tendentious rather obsessive bore. My 'ragazzo' also had a bit of a tendency to rant on political topics, and to obsess, although he had the grace to recognize it. Often, after getting lost in his oratory, he would pause and finish with "And Carthage Must Be Destroyed!", or I would say it, to tease him. I guess you had to be there, and a bit of a nerd, to get the humor.


Definitely my type of humor.  :Grin:

----------


## kamani

The Romans were calculatively cruel, meaning they were punitive the most with the people that could beat them or had beaten them. An example would be with Carthage, another example would be with Illyrians and Macedonians. Their strategy was to permanently take the big players out of the game and not put much effort in the small ones. Kind of like Italy in the World Cup :). That's why the Germanic barbarians were a nightmare for Rome; they had no permanent settlement that you could wipe out; they lived in woods and villages far away that could be easily abandoned or rebuild; and they were moody, unpredictable, and "disorganized", raiding Rome whenever they felt like it.

----------


## Icebreaker

Attila, the savior of Europe  :Laughing:

----------


## Ua'Ronain

No, I find it hard to pinpoint any one nation or civilization as the most cruel or barbaric. Every nation has skeletons in their closet and even if we tried to dig through history and try to tally deaths caused by each and every nation I don't think it would solve anything.

----------


## Vallicanus

> My take on the Romans is
> 
> They became cruel due to the Punic wars, especially during the third one, where they destroyed all the people , the city and salted the lands. This war gave Rome the idea of Empire, I do not think they thought about Empire before these Punic wars.
> So, yes they where one of the cruelest , but made amends with what they built later on in their history. 
> 
> What would Europe be like in those days if the Romans stopped at tuscany, south-Italy and Sicily............one will never know


A few points here about the Roman Empire.

Western Europe was already well on the way to a "high civilisation" before the Roman expansion. Greeks and Phoenicians together with local Iberian elements had set up an advanced civilisation along the south and east coasts of what is now Spain.

The Greek city states of Marseilles (Massilia) and Nice (Nicaea) had spread Mediterranean trade and civilisation into the very heart of Gaul.

From the time of the Emperor Trajan (ruler from 98 to 117), himself of Spanish origin, most Roman Emperors were no longer Italian, but Spanish, or from the Balkans and occasionally North Africa (eg Septimius Severus).

From the time of Hadrian (117 to 138) most legionaries were from outside Italy and only the Praetorians remained mainly Italian.

----------


## Angela

> The Romans were calculatively cruel, meaning they were punitive the most with the people that could beat them or had beaten them. An example would be with Carthage, another example would be with Illyrians and Macedonians. Their strategy was to permanently take the big players out of the game and not put much effort in the small ones. Kind of like Italy in the World Cup :). That's why the Germanic barbarians were a nightmare for Rome; they had no permanent settlement that you could wipe out; they lived in woods and villages far away that could be easily abandoned or rebuild; and they were moody, unpredictable, and "disorganized", raiding Rome whenever they felt like it.



Another example is Judea...they used a relatively light hand in the beginning, even trying to accommodate the 'to them' peculiar religion of the natives, but a large scale rebellion that could have spread to other regions? They wound up scattering most of the Jews all over the world, and eventually took the temple down stone by stone.

As for Carthage....
After they killed or enslaved or scattered all the inhabitants, they razed it to the ground and then sowed the land with salt so that it couldn't be rebuilt...a pretty thorough job.

They did much the same in my area. The Ligures stood in the way of a coastal route to Gaul. My ancestors also made the serious mistake of serving as mercenaries for Hamilcar. Although the campaigns were difficult, precisely as you say because the "natives" could employ hit and run tactics and hide in the mountains, they were eventually "pacified". The Roman accounts say the area was ethnically cleansed, and all the Apuani, at least, were transported to Samnium. 

Although I'm sure many were, I think that's probably an exaggeration. Lots of places to hide in those mountains and hidden valleys and nothing very attractive there for the Romans. They stuck to the coast.

As to my collateral ancestors who may have wound up in Samnium, I've sometimes wondered if they are responsible for the relatively unusual (for southerners) phenotype that sometimes appears in inland Campania. Although perhaps not...Italian geneticists tried to find traces of the R1b clades common in Liguria in that area, and weren't successful. Then, on the other hand, we have no ancient DNA for the Ligures, so we don't really know their yDNA signature for certain.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> My ancestors also made the serious mistake of serving as mercenaries for Hamilcar.


Angela,
are you talking about when the Ligourians united with Hamilcar in the Battle of Himera against the noble Greeks of Magna Graecia?

P.S.1 Point out the use of the adjective noble :Grin: 
P.S.2 See how the Greeks treated the Carthaginians after the battle, that is, with no total annihilation.
P.S.3 Another evidence of Roman cruelty and I am about to vote "Yes".

----------


## Vallicanus

The Romans later rebuilt Carthage which became again one of the great cities of North Africa.

----------


## Angela

> A few points here about the Roman Empire.
> 
> Western Europe was already well on the way to a "high civilisation" before the Roman expansion. Greeks and Phoenicians together with local Iberian elements had set up an advanced civilisation along the south and east coasts of what is now Spain.
> 
> The Greek city states of Marseilles (Massilia) and Nice (Nicaea) had spread Mediterranean trade and civilisation into the very heart of Gaul.
> 
> From the time of the Emperor Trajan (ruler from 98 to 117), himself of Spanish origin, most Roman Emperors were no longer Italian, but Spanish, or from the Balkans and occasionally North Africa (eg Septimius Severus).
> 
> From the time of Hadrian (117 to 138) most legionaries were from outside Italy and only the Praetorians remained mainly Italian.


And precisely how are these "points" relevant to a discussion of the "cruelty" of Rome as shown in the history of its expansion and rule? Were they less "cruel" once they started using a lot of barbarian mercenaries? More "cruel"? Less discriminate in their cruelty, perhaps? Were foreign emperors less or more cruel and/or competent?

I shouldn't address the "substance" of your remarks, but sometimes I just can't seem to help myself.

We have had this discussion at least twice before, to my recollection. Please provide any proof you have for the proposition that Trajan, as just one example, was not a descendent of Roman colonists in Baetica. (as were his successors in that dynasty) You have heard of Roman colonies, have you not, settled by Romans?

Let me save you the trouble...scholarship in fact indicates that they were descendents of Roman colonists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan


Not that it really matters to me, as I'm neither a "racist" nor an "ethnicist", but I'm allergic to unsubstantiated claims, particularly when they're obviously in furtherance of an agenda, as yours about Rome always seem to be. (One of the things I most admire about the Romans, in fact, is precisely that these kinds of ethnic distinctions were not terribly important to them. A man could become a Roman...he didn't have to have been born one. Even their take on family relationships, i.e. genealogy, was rather fluid...adoption was, in fact, quite common.)

Oh, and these are the dominions of Rome *before* 117 AD and the heavy use of legionnaires from outside the peninsula. They did quite well without them; actually, I think it turned out to be a very bad mistake to come to rely on foreign mercenaries, as was the case with other empires. Perhaps Rome was unable to put an end to the threat from beyond the Danube partly because they were relying heavily on barbarian mercenaries, including many Germanic tribesmen, although, given the multitudes fleeing in panic from the Huns and climate change, it was probably only a case of staving off the inevitable. 


And, as we have also discussed before, you cannot compare the Gallic world of the time, much less the world of the British Isles, with that of the contemporaneous Roman Republic and Empire. No disrespect to them, (or to those of my ancestors who were Ligures) but you're talking about "civilizations" that were on quite different levels. The "glory" times for these people came later.

And I see that you have now posted that Carthage was rebuilt...once again, not quite accurate given the context of the discussion. Carthage was rebuilt *by the Romans*...i.e. a Roman town for Roman purposes. The sowing of salt was, I admit, probably a later embellishment.

You know, given what can be discovered today on the internet, there's really no excuse for the posting of totally erroneous information...unless the purpose is to mislead...you don't need to have taken university courses in Classics.

----------


## oriental

> took the temple down stone by stone.


The Western Wall is still there and a yearly pilgrimage site for Jews. In the triumphal arch in Rome show the looting of the Temple. They revolt was that the Jewish Messiah Bar Kochbar was the leader and lost. The Jews eventually committed suicide in Mesada. The Christians had left for the hills after Jesus crucifixion. That is another story and explains how the new Testament is accepted by Islam as Holy Scripture.

http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/jwar05.html

----------


## Angela

> Angela,
> are you talking about when the Ligourians united with Hamilcar in the Battle of Himera against the noble Greeks of Magna Graecia?
> 
> P.S.1 Point out the use of the adjective noble
> P.S.2 See how the Greeks treated the Carthaginians after the battle, that is, with no total annihilation.
> P.S.3 Another evidence of Roman cruelty and I am about to vote "Yes".


P.S.1 Given that we are living in the modern era, "Signora" will do, or "La Signora" when speaking of me to others. 
(Btw, we have real Classics scholars on here, so they may correct me if I'm wrong, but my Latin teacher used to say that Romans didn't actually use the terms Dominus and Domina as forms of address, except in moments of privacy between husband and wife. 

P.S.2 Perhaps they were tired after all the brutality with which they had treated one another? The Doric vs Ionian conflicts in Sicily make for some very gory reading. I don't know if you're aware of it, but they've found the remains of 5,000 soldiers at Himera.
P.S.3 

The Ligurians had, as the Italians have had in later eras, quite a penchant for choosing the losing side. I was actually thinking about the First and Second Punic Wars. They fought as mercenaries in both, and then in the Second Punic War, they augmented the Carthaginian forces once they had reached Italy after crossing the Alps.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> P.S.1 Given that we are living in the modern era, "Signora" will do, or "La Signora" when speaking of me to others. 
> (Btw, we have real Classics scholars on here, so they may correct me if I'm wrong, but my Latin teacher used to say that Romans didn't actually use the terms Dominus and Domina as forms of address, except in moments of privacy between husband and wife.


Yes, the direct way, by your first name in singular was also used by the ancient Greeks.

There is a point here though (or at least what my "dirty" mind thinks). During the erotic action I suppose, the husband wanted to be addressed as Dominus = the master, the owner (of the woman) \footnote{The same is true for Domina = the Mistress, the owner of the man}. This kind of behaviour and talk increases the libido somehow, but maybe a sexologist can say more about these stuff.

P.S. I have not read "Justine" yet  :Embarassed:

----------


## Angela

@*Echetlaeus


*
Have you ever seen "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum"? I know, not a funny topic, but a very funny play.

I was thinking of using this picture of "Domina" in the play as a temporary avatar. What do you think?


I could always go with her...Agrippina the Elder...unfortunate in her children and grandchildren, but I always liked her... still, I don't like to take myself too seriously. I even got tired of the Victoria Colonna one.

----------


## Echetlaeus

Signora,
Agrippina as a moral character is more appropriate and I think it fits you better. I do not hide, nonetheless, that a part of me also likes the Dominatrix  :Ashamed: .

P.S.1 Are you a psychologist, for I believe this question is related to that profession?
P.S.2 And also, I happen to believe that you are the "Irene Adler" kind of woman Signiora!

----------


## Angela

> Signora,
> Agrippina as a moral character is more appropriate and I think it fits you better. I do not hide, nonetheless, that a part of me also likes the Dominatrix .
> 
> P.S.1 Are you a psychologist, for I believe this question is related to that profession?
> P.S.2 And also, I happen to believe that you are the "Irene Adler" kind of woman Signiora!


I'm afraid you've quite mistaken the character of "Domina" and the tone of the musical. 




As for me, it's either Agrippina the Elder or Vesta...and you're being very impertinent, young man!

----------


## oriental

Seems more like Lucy as in "I Love Lucy" :Laughing:  :Laughing:  :Laughing:

----------


## Echetlaeus

> I'm afraid you've quite mistaken the character of "Domina" and the tone of the musical.


My sincere apologies, it will not happen again.

----------


## Vallicanus

> And precisely how are these "points" relevant to a discussion of the "cruelty" of Rome as shown in the history of its expansion and rule? Were they less "cruel" once they started using a lot of barbarian mercenaries? More "cruel"? Less discriminate in their cruelty, perhaps? Were foreign emperors less or more cruel and/or competent?
> 
> I shouldn't address the "substance" of your remarks, but sometimes I just can't seem to help myself.
> 
> We have had this discussion at least twice before, to my recollection. Please provide any proof you have for the proposition that Trajan, as just one example, was not a descendent of Roman colonists in Baetica. (as were his successors in that dynasty) You have heard of Roman colonies, have you not, settled by Romans?
> 
> Let me save you the trouble...scholarship in fact indicates that they were descendents of Roman colonists.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan
> 
> ...



What errors am I posting? I KNOW that Carthage was rebuilt by the Romans but you take pride in Roman bloodthirsty thoroughness.

*The writer Cassius Dio wrote that Trajan was not Italian either by descent or adoption and it is well documented that most Roman Emperors after Domitian (96-98) were partly or wholly of non-Italian origin. 
It's a "cop-out" to imply they were just "Italians" settled abroad. Most colonists by Imperial times had LOCAL wives.
Roman and Italian colonists quickly intermarried with local Romanised aristocrats who came more and more to dominate the Senate in Rome.
The presence of a Latin or Latinised name does not imply Italian descent, least of all "pure" descent from Italy.*

Italians largely disappeared from the legions from the reign of Hadrian. Read the books about the Roman army. These books are common and easily accessible.

Most of the top architects and artists of ancient Imperial Rome were of *Greek descent* and it was mainly their work that inspired the architecture and sculpture of the Renaissance.

*As for Roman cruelty, they were certainly very bad with animal and gladiatorial games and the longest-lasting large-scale slavery system in history.

You need to read much more deeply into Roman history.

The Hellenistic World would have "civilised" Western Europe more peacefully through trade and cultural diffusion. Rome had only blood and corruption to offer.*

----------


## Angela

> What errors am I posting? I KNOW that Carthage was rebuilt by the Romans but you take pride in Roman bloodthirsty thoroughness.
> 
> *The writer Cassius Dio wrote that Trajan was not Italian either by descent or adoption and it is well documented that most Roman Emperors after Domitian (96-98) were partly or wholly of non-Italian origin. 
> It's a "cop-out" to imply they were just "Italians" settled abroad. Most colonists by Imperial times had LOCAL wives.
> Roman and Italian colonists quickly intermarried with local Romanised aristocrats who came more and more to dominate the Senate in Rome.
> The presence of a Latin or Latinised name does not imply Italian descent, least of all "pure" descent from Italy.*
> 
> Italians largely disappeared from the legions from the reign of Hadrian. Read the books about the Roman army. These books are common and easily accessible.
> 
> ...


For the adults and/or the literate and/or those not emotionally disturbed in the audience, may we stipulate that all ancient empires, (including that of Alexander of Macedon and those of the Ionian and Dorian city states (honorable mention should be given to the Huns, of course), and some not so ancient ones (it's only about seventy years since the defeat of Nazism, after all, and who can forget the Spanish Inquisition?) were cruel? To attempt to quantify or rate them on some sort of horrific scale is childish and useless. What we should do is resolve to do anything in our power not to emulate them. 

As to the rest of your post, it is all off-topic, Vallicanus or whomever you are (Must you really hide behind such a childish name? I'm pretty sure anyone soiled even slightly by acquaintance with some "anthrofora" knows exactly where you're coming from...) and just more of your pathetic series of attacks on all things at all related to Italians. However, I will try once more to approach you with logic. 

Please...read...this...all...slowly...so...that... you...can...understand.

It is *immaterial* to me in any *real* sense whatsoever whether Trajan and his dynasty were of *whole* or *part* or *no* Roman "blood". I explained that upthread, but apparently you didn't understand it. He was a Roman in every way that really mattered. 

However, when points of scholarship are involved, no one should be taken seriously unless they provide the *evidence.* Please provide the attested statement from "Cassius Dio" that Trajan did *not* come of a Roman family settled in southern Spain. In Latin, if you please, not translated by you. I'm afraid a statement that he *came from* *Spain* will not do.

Until then, I will go with the following, among other choices:
Attachment 6338

And please, do not pretend to a scholarship which you obviously don't possess. Anyone who has ever taken a course in ancient history would know better than to say that Hellenism was spread peacefully. *Have you ever heard of Alexander of Macedon?* Or the generals who followed him who battled over it?

As to your illogical comments about the legions, I...will...repeat...
Most of the empire was conquered well before the period of mass enrollment of legionaries from outside the peninsula. Since you didn't seem to understand the first map, I will provide another...*THE EMPIRE AT THE TIME OF AUGUSTUS.* 


The future dependence on mercenaries was without doubt, in my opinion, a mistake, one which other empires have also made. Turncoats, many of them... even thirty years in the legions wasn't enough to turn some barbarians stationed on the peripheries of the Empire into Romans. If you want to leave the brute, "wet" work to others, the Ottoman system seems better than most...get them very young, detach them from home and tribe, and indoctrinate them, preferably in the state religion. I don't at all approve, but it seems to have worked better than the Roman system in some ways, at least. 

Do you have the history clear now? What I claimed and didn't claim? Why do I doubt your understanding Celt-Iber? Oh, Let me count the reasons!

It's my own fault for not updating my "ignore list". Consider it updated.

Ed. Ah, forgive me...Vallicanus!

----------


## Echetlaeus

> Anyone who has ever taken a course in ancient history would know better than to say that Hellenism was spread peacefully. *Have you ever heard of Alexander of Macedon? Or the generals who followed him who battled over it?*.


Angela, it may be the case, but Alexander's brutality cannot be compared with the Roman one. The only incident that I call brutal, was perhaps the fall of Tyre.

P.S. What do you mean about Vallicanus? I don't get it.

----------


## Vallicanus

Angela knows as much about Hellenic and Roman history as a cat knows about the stock exchange.

I have a history degree while Angela seems to get her knowledge from Wikipedia.

She is a victim of the superficial Italian educational system.

There are degrees of cruelty and the Romans were remarkable for the intensity and longevity of their cruelty.

She does not know or want to know about the cruelty and teachery that built up Roman power (broken treaties, assassination of enemy leaders), the cynical cruelty that maintained it and the cowardice and incompetence that brought it down, at least in the West.

In fact Scipio would not have beaten Hannibal at Zama without Numidian cavalry; Greek cavalry helped the Romans beat the Macedonians and German mercenary cavalry helped Julius Caesar beat the Gauls at Alesia.

Greek-speaking Constantinople alone kept "Roman" power going in the Eastern Mediterranean for a thousand years and for a time in parts of Italy too, against all sorts of attacks by powerful, hostile neighbours.

----------


## Echetlaeus

I have two main questions about the Italian policy towards Greece in the modern era (and actually that is why I do not trust Italobros sometimes) :

1) Why the Italians, along with the Austro-Hungarians, created the Albanian state and left half of Epirus outside Greece (see the case of Northern Epirus).
2) Why the Italians attacked Greece in the WW2 and kept the Dodecanese until 1947.

I thought we were una faca, una raca ... but apparently not!

----------


## Vallicanus

Basically Italians thought they were better than Greeks although they owe most of their culture to Greek antecedents not only in Sicily and Southern Italy where actual Greek city-states flourished in antiquity but at Rome where most of the high culture was directly Greek or Greek via the Etruscans. 

No Greeks...no Italian Renaissance, essentially.

Of course the Greeks showed that Mussolini's revived Roman Empire was a sham in the winter of 1940-41.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> Basically Italians thought they were better than Greeks although they owe most of their culture to Greek antecedents not only in Sicily and Southern Italy where actual Greek city-states flourished in antiquity but at Rome where most of the high culture was directly Greek or Greek via the Etruscans. 
> 
> No Greeks...no Italian Renaissance, essentially.
> 
> Of course the Greeks showed that Mussolini's revived Roman Empire was a sham in the winter of 1940-41.


Yeah, I am proud of that. Actually I heard that Romans called Greeks barbarians, can you imagine that? They called the creator of the word "barbarian", barbarian.

----------


## Vallicanus

> Yeah, I am proud of that. Actually I heard that Romans called Greeks barbarians, can you imagine that? They called the creator of the word "barbarian", barbarian.


Italians have no sense of irony.

----------


## Sile

> What errors am I posting? I KNOW that Carthage was rebuilt by the Romans but you take pride in Roman bloodthirsty thoroughness.
> 
> *The writer Cassius Dio wrote that Trajan was not Italian either by descent or adoption and it is well documented that most Roman Emperors after Domitian (96-98) were partly or wholly of non-Italian origin. 
> It's a "cop-out" to imply they were just "Italians" settled abroad. Most colonists by Imperial times had LOCAL wives.
> Roman and Italian colonists quickly intermarried with local Romanised aristocrats who came more and more to dominate the Senate in Rome.
> The presence of a Latin or Latinised name does not imply Italian descent, least of all "pure" descent from Italy.*
> 
> Italians largely disappeared from the legions from the reign of Hadrian. Read the books about the Roman army. These books are common and easily accessible.
> 
> ...


The map is distorted in facts especially the 218BC part
The Venetic of north east italy where allies of Rome in this period and also supplied half their army in the battle of Cannae
When and what period the Venetic where "annexed" into the Roman Empire has never been truly resolved.

The albanian/Epirus area are also allies of Rome based on the Epirote migrations and settlement into the heal of Italy as well as taranto. 

Clearly this map maker included allies of Rome as part of Rome........a poor effort IMO

----------


## Vallicanus

> The map is distorted in facts especially the 218BC part
> The Venetic of north east italy where allies of Rome in this period and also supplied half their army in the battle of Cannae
> When and what period the Venetic where "annexed" into the Roman Empire has never been truly resolved.
> 
> The albanian/Epirus area are also allies of Rome based on the Epirote migrations and settlement into the heal of Italy as well as taranto. 
> 
> Clearly this map maker included allies of Rome as part of Rome........a poor effort IMO


I posted no maps!

----------


## Echetlaeus

> The map is distorted in facts especially the 218BC part
> The Venetic of north east italy where allies of Rome in this period and also supplied half their army in the battle of Cannae
> When and what period the Venetic where "annexed" into the Roman Empire has never been truly resolved.
> 
> The albanian/Epirus area are also allies of Rome based on the Epirote migrations and settlement into the heal of Italy as well as taranto. 
> 
> Clearly this map maker included allies of Rome as part of Rome........a poor effort IMO


Please do not make the mistake to treat Albania and Epirus as the same entity, because it is simply not!

----------


## Sile

> Angela knows as much about Hellenic and Roman history as a cat knows about the stock exchange.
> 
> I have a history degree while Angela seems to get her knowledge from Wikipedia.
> 
> She is a victim of the superficial Italian educational system.
> 
> There are degrees of cruelty and the Romans were remarkable for the intensity and longevity of their cruelty.
> 
> She does not know or want to know about the cruelty and teachery that built up Roman power (broken treaties, assassination of enemy leaders), the cynical cruelty that maintained it and the cowardice and incompetence that brought it down, at least in the West.
> ...


Its a fact all great empires and armies of the ancient times *had many races fighting for them*. Numbers of troops from one region in the period of history was never enough to do major conquests.
Alexanders armies, Persian armies, Roman armies, gallic armies etc
Even the Goths and Vandals absorbed many many races into their armies to conquer western Roman empire

After the Roman conquest of southern Italy by the Romans before the punic wars was basically the end of a "pure" Roman army.

----------


## Sile

> Please do not make the mistake to treat Albania and Epirus as the same entity, because it is simply not!


Stop being nationalistic as i used the modern terms for the areas I was speaking about..........which of the 14 ancient epirote tribes did you want me to mention?

----------


## Echetlaeus

> Stop being nationalistic as i used the modern terms for the areas I was speaking about..........which of the 14 ancient epirote tribes did you want me to mention?


I cannot stop being that, because I have relatives living in this part of Epirus which is not yet free.

----------


## bicicleur

they were the most cruel and most barbaric, and it made them very succesfull, unfortunately

----------


## kamani

> I cannot stop being that, because I have relatives living in this part of Epirus which is not yet free.


Then you might be more Albanian than Greek yourself. But sometimes people hate the most those they are the most similar with.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> Then you might be more Albanian than Greek yourself. But sometimes people hate the most those they are the most similar with.


People living in Southern Albania are not different from the rest of the Greeks (by phenotype). What do you talk about hate? I have no problems with Albanians whatsoever! Nonetheless there are groups in both countries that have deadly hatred to each other, for no reason actually. I strongly believe however that for sure there is some kind of connection between the two peoples, actually, correct me if I am wrong, maybe the Greeks and Albanians have many things in common in terms of genome, but I am not expert in these kind of stuff. I do not even know about my DNA as well, I have never tested it.

You have to understand one thing though. Before 1912 Epirus was one part under the Ottoman rule. After the frontiers were set, it happened that people of the same family had relatives in both sides.

----------


## kamani

> I strongly believe however that for sure there is some kind of connection between the two peoples, actually, correct me if I am wrong, maybe the Greeks and Albanians have many things in common in terms of genome, but I am not expert in these kind of stuff. I do not even know about my DNA as well, I have never tested it.


In general, Greeks, Italians, and Albanians are very similar genetically, although Italians are the more Western of the three. More specifically, Greeks North of the Pindus Mountains and West of Kozani, cluster closer with Southern Albanians. But there is also 10-15% Slavic influence in this area because in Ottoman times the villages were mixed, some were Slavic, some Greek, some Albanian. So if you're from Northwest Greece, you're probably a mix of recent Greek, recent Albanian, and some Slavic. By "recent" I mean the last 500 years.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> In general, Greeks, Italians, and Albanians are very similar genetically, although Italians are the more Western of the three. More specifically, Greeks North of the Pindus Mountains and West of Kozani, cluster closer with Southern Albanians. But there is also 10-15% Slavic influence in this area because in Ottoman times the villages were mixed, some were Slavic, some Greek, some Albanian. So if you're from Northwest Greece, you're probably a mix of recent Greek, recent Albanian, and some Slavic. By "recent" I mean the last 500 years.


Yes, exaclty, that is why Epirus should not be separated. But my name indicates a Cretan origin as well. Whatever, Balkans is a truly mixed place.

----------


## giuseppe rossi

Hahahahah

Vallicanus. Please.

"Greek" culture was largely copied from the Egyptians and other Middle Easterners.

And we won countless of wars against them in the past.

Keep the slurs out of your posts

----------


## Vallicanus

The Italians were well beaten by the Greeks in 1940-41.

ROME WOULD NOT HAVE HAD AN ADVANCED CULTURE WITHOUT THE GREEK AND ETRUSCAN INFLUENCES.

----------


## Sile

> The Italians were well beaten by the Greeks in 1940-41.
> 
> ROME WOULD NOT HAVE HAD AN ADVANCED CULTURE WITHOUT THE GREEK AND ETRUSCAN INFLUENCES.


Are you truly scottish , since you show the scotland flag?

----------


## Yetos

> Hahahahah
> 
> Vallicanus. Please.
> 
> "Greek" culture was largely copied from the Egyptians and other Middle Easterners.
> 
> And we won countless of wars against them in the past.
> 
> Keep the slurs out of your posts


only your eternal dream, from Rome's times was Greece, why?
why every Italian leader is dreaming of Greece?

besides, Egyptians or middle Estern never had Democracy, δικανικος λογος, and κοινον,
although they had astronomy and maths in a good level for that ages

so yoy better say that Romans copy Greeks even in Alphabet and Senate

----------


## Vallicanus

> only your eternal dream, from Rome's times was Greece, why?
> why every Italian leader is dreaming of Greece?
> 
> besides, Egyptians or middle Estern never had Democracy, δικανικος λογος, and κοινον,
> although they had astronomy and maths in a good level for that ages
> 
> so yoy better say that Romans copy Greeks even in Alphabet and Senate


Italians have always copied other cultures.

----------


## Angela

> Italians have always copied other cultures.


Perhaps you would care to list those peoples who have _not_ "copied" from other cultures?

Well, maybe the first agriculturalists...the first metallurgists of the Near East? Certainly the Indo-Europeans can't be included, nor the Greeks, nor any modern European culture, nor the Japanese....Shall I go on?

----------


## Vallicanus

> Perhaps you would care to list those peoples who have _not_ "copied" from other cultures?
> 
> Well, maybe the first agriculturalists...the first metallurgists of the Near East? Certainly the Indo-Europeans can't be included, nor the Greeks, nor any modern European culture, nor the Japanese....Shall I go on?


Well, the peoples of the Fertile Crescent were certainly pretty innovative inventing many aspects of urban life and agriculture.

The Romans however were very barren when it came to invention.

The Greeks developed science and philosophy from foreign roots.

The Romans only developed better ways to kill,exploit and enslave.

----------


## Angela

> Well, the peoples of the Fertile Crescent were certainly pretty innovative inventing many aspects of urban life and agriculture.
> 
> The Romans however were very barren when it came to invention.
> 
> The Greeks developed science and philosophy from foreign roots.
> 
> The Romans only developed better ways to kill,exploit and enslave.


That is totally unresponsive to my question. Do you wish to try again?

Do you really think that it isn't apparent that all your remarks in this thread and others are meant as a provocation against Italians? Do you think you score any points with anyone here who has a brain in his head?

People can disagree, even get testy*, but this is different. What on earth is your problem? 

*Oh, that applies to moderators too. :Smile:

----------


## Fire Haired14

What's with the ethnic tension? People are influenced by foreign cultures all the time. Rarely is any any-type of tradition 100s or 1000s of years old. America is a great example of this. Americans are more patriotic and traditional minded than most old-world people, despite its extremely young and diverse history. In one generation a brand new culture and identity can be formed which is as original as a culture that's 10,000 years old.

Stuff distant ancestors of modern people did doesn't change the greatness of modern nations. Besides there's no use in seeing who's superior and who's inferior, because there's little evidence any one pop in the world is better or worse at much of anything compared to another.

----------


## Vallicanus

@Angela

Let me give you a modern example.

Britain has far more patents and Nobel Prizes to its credit than Italy.

Britain has more universities in the European Top 100 than any other
nation. ITALY HAS NO UNIVERSITIES IN THE TOP 100.

----------


## giuseppe rossi

> only your eternal dream, from Rome's times was Greece, why?
> why every Italian leader is dreaming of Greece?
> 
> besides, Egyptians or middle Estern never had Democracy, δικανικος λογος, and κοινον,
> although they had astronomy and maths in a good level for that ages
> 
> so yoy better say that Romans copy Greeks even in Alphabet and Senate


No the senate and the Democracy are Indo European inventions. Even Vikings had them too.

Greeks simply got lucky to live next to advanced MENA groups and copied everything from them including the Alphabet from the Phoenicians.

----------


## giuseppe rossi

> @Angela
> 
> Let me give you a modern example.
> 
> Britain has far more patents and Nobel Prizes to its credit than Italy.
> 
> Britain has more universities in the European Top 100 than any other
> nation. ITALY HAS NO UNIVERSITIES IN THE TOP 100.


UK has the advantage to be an English speaking country so it attracts the best students and scientists from the whole world.

----------


## Vallicanus

> No the senate and the Democracy are Indo European inventions. Even Vikings had them too.
> 
> Fetaeaters like you simply got lucky to live next to advanced MENA groups and copied everything from them including the Alphabet from the Phoenicians.



And Romans and other Italians got lucky living next to Greeks.

----------


## Vallicanus

> UK has the advantage to be an English speaking country so it attracts the best students and scientists from the whole world.


What about all the BRITISH inventions and Nobel Prizes.

The Italian education system is rubbish.

----------


## giuseppe rossi

Yeah sure British and Italian scores on PISA tests are basically the same, so our education system is not so rubbish after all.

The Greeks are still claiming Archimedes as one of them.

Just to show how much desperate they have become.

----------


## Vallicanus

Southern Italy has very poor PISA scores.

The fact remains that Italy is poor in science and invention.

In antiquity the Romans were heavily dependent on Greek culture
Read your Virgil and Vegetius.

----------


## Vallicanus

Archimedes WAS Greek not a native Sicilian.

----------


## giuseppe rossi

Southern Italy scores better than Greece on the PISA test.

Another thing is that the UK had the industrial revolution 100 years before Italy because of:

1. Centralized government.

2. Lack of Catholic Church.

3. Colonial Empire and Atlantic trade.

----------


## giuseppe rossi

Heavily dependent on what? 

The whole world has been heavily dependent on our culture for the last 2000 years.

Read some books.

----------


## Vallicanus

> Heavily dependent on what? 
> 
> The whole world has been heavily dependent on our culture for the last 2000 years.
> 
> Read some books.


What culture do you mean?

Greco-Levantine Byzantine or Germanic Longobard and Frankish or Arabic and Norman in Sicily?

The best and most impressive Romanesque archiecture was in Germany,France and Northern Spain.
Gothic architecture was Northern French in origin. 
The (mainly Florentine)art and sculpture had classical Greek and Byzantine roots.

And so on and so on.

----------


## Vallicanus

Stick to your Italic Roots propaganda for you have done little serious reading.

----------


## giuseppe rossi

:Laughing: 

What are you babbling about?

In the 1400-1950 period only UK, France and Germany have done better than us.

If they had included everything before 1400 (Etruscans, Magna Graecia, Roman Empire, Renaissance, Humanism, Norman kingdom...), we would be the first in the World.  :Bored:

----------


## giuseppe rossi

Italy tops in both PISA problem solving tests and real measured IQ tests.

http://italicroots.lefora.com/topic/314

http://italicroots.lefora.com/topic/570

----------


## Maleth

Education is an evolutionary process that has started many thousands of years ago and excelled through time through various situations and innovations very often combined with economic factors environmental and social needs through a general changing acceptable way of thinking at particular point of time, all contributing to more advanced societies. Others will soak it up and even add more to it as the education evolutionary history shows. It dose not seem that its going to stop here either and so be it. 

What is a fact today might be history tomorrow. No point in bragging over current situations visa vi, what happened 200 years ago to what might be in 200 years time. Example some East Asian nations are already outsmarting other traditional renowned education systems world wide. That is the world for you..........

----------


## Angela

I just got finished saying threads should be kept open if at all possible, but there is a limit. Any further off topic and provocative posts and it will be closed. Vallicanus, any further off topic or provocative posts anywhere devoid of content which smack of harassment of other groups and you'll be out of here.

Giuseppe, I'm glad to see you kept it civil, but I meant it by no more off topic posts.

----------


## Hauteville

> Archimedes WAS Greek not a native Sicilian.


The Greeks of Magna Grecia identifies themselves as Italiotes or Siceliotes and most of them were mixed with the local Italic population. In the biggest cities of Magna Grecia like Siracusa,Agrigento,Crotone,Taranto,Cuma lived both ethnicities, the Greeks called Gomorroi and the Italic called Killikirioi.

----------


## Angela

You people don't seem to understand the English language. I said no more off topic posts. The thread is now closed.

----------

