Huns were at their time the greatest military power on earth. Still they are not in the game. I think huns could be some kind of "super barbarians".

When we have events in BTS, some kind of event including Huns could could be done.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/firsteuro/imgs/A451EU.GIF

Huns were at their time the greatest military power on earth. Still they are not in the game. I think huns could be some kind of "super barbarians".

When we have events in BTS, some kind of event including Huns could could be done.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/firsteuro/imgs/A451EU.GIF

Could you explain what makes the Huns barbarians in your view???:confused: :confused: :confused:

the Huns are barbarians, i.e., in the Western view, because they weren't very nice people. :)

but that doesn't stop them from becoming a civ, just look at the Mongols! but i think the Huns have little chance because Firaxis wouldn't really care, they think the Huns are represented enough by the Mongols.

Oh my gosh... if the Huns are made a civ, who in the world would be a barbarian? The Huns are indirectly responsible for the collapse of Rome!

It would be fun to see them in the game, though.

Oh my gosh... if the Huns are made a civ, who in the world would be a barbarian?

we Viets wouold always like to take a try... we are what the Chinese call... "southern barbarians"... Pho can be quite barbaric sometimes too...:mwaha:

When mongols are in the game, why not huns? Attila would be very cool leader.

When mongols are in the game, why not huns? Attila would be very cool leader.

because the Mongols, in the long run, were actually more "civilized" then the Huns. when they conquered, some of them actually sat down and began administrative work and stuff. they were actually very humane, the Mongols, sometimes - they supported Freedom of Religion, helped protect merchants on dangerous caravan routes - Kublai Khan even founded orphanages, places for the homeless, free welfare, conquered a city without anyone dying (except for three unlucky soldiers in an accident)...

and plus, anyways, Genghis Khan can own pretty much anywhere civilized that allows him to graze his horsies.

false map those arn't the Hunnic Empries but I do agree with Huns being in the GAME
100%!

Map is indeed not very correct.
Huns had a great Empire once, but it was a very loose structure.
The huns we're a people that moved around a lot in their typical buildings, and the lands they conquered we're mostly left alone after they moved on.

I don't think you should compare the Huns to the Mongols. The Mongols were far better organized and had planned and administered a large empire. Mongol planning was legendary!

Many military historians (Liddell Hart, for one) considered the Mongols as the greatest army of all time. The Huns, of course, weren't bad, especially as individuals, but they didn't have anything like Mongol organization.

I don't think the Huns are a horrible pick, but their glory period in the West was very short. I guess I don't think they were a major contributor to the Fall of Rome (the Late Cambridge professor J. Bury felt that the Huns actually helped Rome survive by the whooping they put on the Germans like the Ostrogoths, And Aetius often used Huns in his army before Chalons), but they were clearly the greatest military power in the west for much of the 5th century and perhaps the fourth. I suspect that they were also a power in the Heartland for longer.

I've always been shocked at how they just seemed to disappear from history so abruptly after Attila.


Best wishes,

Breunor

Firaxis probably (un-rightly so) lumps the Huns in with the Mongolians, but after HRE anything is possible . . . .

also, there are no hunnic cities,

btw.the huns have never been in sweden :P

Huns might be interesting, but what would their cities list be like?

Campus Hunni
Campus Hunni II
Campus Hunni III...

I don't think you should compare the Huns to the Mongols. The Mongols were far better organized and had planned and administered a large empire. Mongol planning was legendary!

Many military historians (Liddell Hart, for one) considered the Mongols as the greatest army of all time. The Huns, of course, weren't bad, especially as individuals, but they didn't have anything like Mongol organization.

I don't think the Huns are a horrible pick, but their glory period in the West was very short. I guess I don't think they were a major contributor to the Fall of Rome (the Late Cambridge professor J. Bury felt that the Huns actually helped Rome survive by the whooping they put on the Germans like the Ostrogoths, And Aetius often used Huns in his army before Chalons), but they were clearly the greatest military power in the west for much of the 5th century and perhaps the fourth. I suspect that they were also a power in the Heartland for longer.

I've always been shocked at how they just seemed to disappear from history so abruptly after Attila.


Best wishes,

Breunor

to add to Breunor, the Mongol army was so freakin' efficient and fast that its speed was unrivaled until the armies of World War II. the Mongol army units were also resourceful; each soldier had 4-5 horses, and if there was a shortage of food, they'd just make a small cut in their horse and drink the blood (and not kill the horse!). the Mongol army also effectively utilized seige equipment, gunpowder-based units, and foreign troops.

Genghis Khan was also ridiculously organized, (surprising for a barbarian), even more organized than his own countrymen (who were surprisingly very organized). i mean, its not that easy to manage fifty thousand crazy barbaric men. the Mongols, and Genghis Khan with them, were also very good at using whatever they had. if Genghis Khan had led the invasion of Iraq, well, i don't think we'd be talking much about it these days (well, there wouldn't be much to talk about then...)

the Mongols, however, unlike the Huns, were a group of united tribes, the Huns were just one tribe. so, think to ourselves - what is usually more dangerous? one, or many?

and so, in conclusion, Genghis Khan could own Attila any day of the week, he could own him in heaven or in hell, in real life or in Civilization.

I thought the Mongols did invade Iraq (Baghdad)?

I thought the Mongols did invade Iraq (Baghdad)?

They certainly did, it was part of the Il-Khanate. the Il-Khanate was founded by Hulegu, Ghengis' grandson. He was Tolui son, a brother of Kublai. Mongke was the Great Khan at the time.

Baghdad was taken in 1258, and sacked horribly. EVEN BY MONGOL STATUS, this was a horrible sacking and tremendously cruel.

Breunor

I thought the Mongols did invade Iraq (Baghdad)?

Something I would never forget was the sack of baghdad of 1258:mad: , a blow baghdad has never recovered from to this day. Not to mention other glorious cities of the middle east. It makes me angry just thinking about what they did.

The huns were not a civ but merely a nomadic tribe that were very successful in their raids and their empire was merely either their grazing grounds or areas they had ravaged enough was no longer under the control of really anyone. The mongols though I hate to say it are much more of a civ and there successors lasted until the 19th century, the khanate of crimea. You could even make a claim the mughals were descendants of the mongols but I won't go into that.

As chinese <<history record>> which written by scholar "Si Ma Qian" , When Huns ,as an ancient nation on north china ,once captured the first emporor of chinese Han Dynasty-Liu Bang-and so chinese emporer married one of their daughter to Hun's lord to buy time.For more than 100 years this condition remains until "Wu Di" appears ,he trains more than 100,000 elite knights and after several battles( some battles like more than 1k-km sneak) ,finally drived them away from north china .
We believe the remaining hun hordes go into Eueurope-Asia area,thinking today's India and Turkey. What they do to the native nations in these area.
Chinese ancient history record does not descript.

So as this point of view ,Hun was considered as a Horsebackriding nation but not a tradtional agriculture country.

As chinese <<history record>> which written by scholar "Si Ma Qian" , When Huns ,as an ancient nation on north china ,once captured the first emporor of chinese Han Dynasty-Liu Bang-and so chinese emporer married one of their daughter to Hun's lord to buy time.For more than 100 years this condition remains until "Wu Di" appears ,he trains more than 100,000 elite knights and after several battles( some battles like more than 1k-km sneak) ,finally drived them away from north china .
We believe the remaining hun hordes go into Eueurope-Asia area,thinking today's India and Turkey. What they do to the native nations in these area.
Chinese ancient history record does not descript.

So as this point of view ,Hun was considered as a Horsebackriding nation but not a tradtional agriculture country.

The chinese like to be romantic in their histories. There's nothing wrong with that in my opinion though.:)

The huns were demonized by Rome for not wanting to become roman.

To Rome, Anything that cant be assimilated, must be absolute evil and must be destroyed. If it can be, WHY isnt it already?

The Romans were careful about the picture they painted of the "barbarians" knowing it would someday be in history, and to speak bad of them now, could lead to them being spoken of bad forever.

Anyone they didnt portray as "uncivilized brutal barbarians", they portrayed as "socially inferior".

Wasnt it the Romans who ran in, burned everything and sold every man, woman and child avilible to sex slavery? (mostly for the turks)

Who are the barbarians now?

The Romans did everything that every other ancient culture did... The weren't unique in their enslavement or brutality; they just did it with greater efficiency. :)

And I should point out that one major difference between the Romans and Huns was that the Romans had law, art, literature, philosophy, in short a civilization. The Romans left the areas they conquered better off than they found them; the Huns did not. However, their methods were strikingly similar at times. :)

The huns were demonized by Rome for not wanting to become roman.

Breunor -- I don't agree with this at all. The Romans never cared about making people 'Roman', ever. They didn't want people to use religion as a form of civil disobedience, so they had trouble with Jews and Christians, but I don't see any evidence of the Romans trying to assimilate people, including the Huns. Nero and a few others were exceptions, not the rule.

Indeed, Aetius was a hostage of the Huns and was a great admirer. Your statement seems to the 'catch all of all bad people, they want to assimilate us'. This doesn't apply well to the Romans at all.

Yes, the Romans did prefer city cultures. So, for instance, the Romans were successful in the lowlands of Britain, as people formed cities, but not so much in the highlands. But they didn't want to make people 'Roman'. They generally wanted to have a well-ordered society. For instance, they did not impose Roman language or religion on conquered peoples.

The Romans were careful about the picture they painted of the "barbarians" knowing it would someday be in history, and to speak bad of them now, could lead to them being spoken of bad forever.

Breunor -- I don't see a Roman historian worried about the fate of the Romans in later history. Of course, they used propaganda, but that was usually for current, not future reasons. Virgil wanted to establish Roman ties to Troy, Livy romanticized earlier leaders -- but what people don't do this? You can read the people ON THIS FORUM talking about their great people of the past doing the same!

To Rome, Anything that cant be assimilated, must be absolute evil and must be destroyed. If it can be, WHY isnt it already?

Breunor -- Why do you say this? I don't see any evidence of this at all and I've been a Greco-Roman historian for 35 years. Do you have any evidence for this?

The Romans adopted a lot of other cultures, especially Greek. They invited foreign gods into their pantheon, adopted foreign architecture, traded regularly, learned about their opponents' weaknesses, etc.

Anyone they didnt portray as "uncivilized brutal barbarians", they portrayed as "socially inferior".

Breunor -- Well, this is probably true. But the Romans weren't social snobs that, say, the Greeks were. Indeed, the Romans during the Republic usually viewed the Greeks as more advanced culturally. I view it as similar to the way the US viewed British culture as kind of 'high-brow'. No doubt, however, that they didn't admire the Huns in this way. It is pretty clear, however, that they admired the Hun competence.

Wasnt it the Romans who ran in, burned everything and sold every man, woman and child avilible to sex slavery? (mostly for the turks)

Breunor -- Not sure what you are referring to here? The Romans did enslave populations, but they weren't a people that did this as a practice. In general, the Romans were fairly 'nice' conquers compared to the Greeks or the Phoenicians, although they weren't as 'nice' the Persians. Slaving entire populations was fairly rare for the Romans, and usually happened at a town level. This business about sex slavery - where did you get this? Don't believe everything you read from Suetonius.

Not sure what you mean by the Turks here? The Turks I think of weren't even around in Roman times in Turkey. There were Turkls in central Asia but the Romans didn't really interact with them.

Who are the barbarians now?

The Romans were probably the greatest civilization of the period in the West; during the second century, Rome and China both had powerful, stable, empires with general success both on a national and individual level. Don't let revisionist history go too far. The nomads like the Huns did devastate areas, especially the Balkans and modern Bulgaria. They needed to raid for political power, since their horse archers had no ability to take the walls of Constantinople. But its hard to say that the Huns weren't barbarians. They lived a hard life but were often very cruel.

I hate to say this, but your whole post seems to be form a 'the Romans are evil incarnate' script without any context. Everybody wanted to emulate the Romans, and NOT just their success. The whole HRE debate is about trying to recieve the legitimacy of the Roman rulers. There is a REASON for this. How many periods in history can compare to the rule of Antoninus Pius?


Breunor

The huns were demonized by Rome for not wanting to become roman.

To Rome, Anything that cant be assimilated, must be absolute evil and must be destroyed. If it can be, WHY isnt it already?

The Romans were careful about the picture they painted of the "barbarians" knowing it would someday be in history, and to speak bad of them now, could lead to them being spoken of bad forever.

Anyone they didnt portray as "uncivilized brutal barbarians", they portrayed as "socially inferior".

Wasnt it the Romans who ran in, burned everything and sold every man, woman and child avilible to sex slavery? (mostly for the turks)

Who are the barbarians now?

Why bring the turks into this, they didn't appear on the scene untilat least 500 years after the fall of the roman empire.

Gaius is right that however rome and the huns have similar, rome left lasting achievements, and what they could have done had they not been overrun with corruption and barbarians like the huns would have been simply outstanding. The huns however contributed to throwing back time and tehcnological advancement the romans had created wasn't restored for another 1000 years. There defintiely is a diffference.

Ochra,

I don't want to pick on you, I agree with you and admire your post.

But the only point I want to make is: Why do people think the Huns had a lot to do with the overthrow of the Romans? It was the Germans, not the Huns, that overthrew the Romans. The Huns were stopped. They did sack Aquilia after Chalons, but it was mild realtive to the Alaric sack in 410. Giaseric, however, was actually more effecitive. (Gaiseric was the Vandal king and appeats to have coordinated with the Huns).

As I pointed out above, many historians (Bury the leader) view that the Hun invasion helped perpetuate the Romans by suppressing the Germans (you know, 'the enemy of my enemy is my firend' stuff?) For instance, see 'The Invasion of Rome by the Barbrians' by J Bury.

So, thanks for the nice post, I hope you don't mind that I'm trying to set the record straight?

Best wishes,

Breunor

But the only point I want to make is: Why do people think the Huns had a lot to do with the overthrow of the Romans?

They say this because the Hunnic migration westward displaced German tribes who were living on the opposite side of the Danube to cross into Roman territories, leading to (among other things) the battle of Adrianople and widespread use of "barbarian troops."

As for whether Huns should be in Civ, why not? At differing times they were both a threat to Han China and Rome, and how many civs can say that?

Ok, "A people who roamed the land that in 500 years would be turkey" better?

Yes, they did a lot more than many other empires in history, earning their place. Reminds me of the borg. Yes, they did allow select religions into their empire, but not druidism. Druids, they persecuted.

I never knew the Hun were a threat to Han China, How far did their reign truely extend? I thought Constantinople was the farthest they went eastward. I would like to see them added in for my own many reasons, but i fear i must admit they did not have a "centerpiece" of impat that history would look up to, no "wonders" or revolutionary thinkers.

Of course they played a part in the downfall of rome, as each drop of water plays its part in a flood. Believe it or not, in my history class, our teacher told us that if it werent for the Hun, Rome would still rule europe to this day. He also insisted Attilla was the leader of "Hungary", referencing a fictional movie that used to play on USA all the time.

Then again, this would be the same history teacher who scolded me for thinking it was Narcisus and not Persephone who fell into the lake...

Also, im sure the Hun believed the Romans to be evil. Just as some mid east nations think Israel is evil and want to destroy and eradicate it, many barbarians felt the same of rome. Through the eyes of the beholder, if Rome is evil, and what they teach is evil, and how they live is evil, then purging the lands does not shackle it in a dark age, it frees it from imprisonment.

Now what i find amazing, is that after its collapse, and the dark ages neared its end, how civilization pieced itself back together. It tells me that though i hate rome, the heart of rome never died, the soul that drove it forward never perished, it may have had to slumber for a while, but the areas it influenced started wanting for itself what rome was aiming for. (not world domination per say, but to take the next step in going from being a group of towns to being a self sustaining empire.)

Now, if i may ask, what happened to the Huns after the fall of rome? Hungary is still on the map last i checked, so how did the areas around rome like theirs that rome couldnt tackle get along after its fall?

Bruenor -

From what my studies have shown me, while intollerant, vile leaders like Caligula, Nero, and Gaias Julius (anti-celt racist) were the exception as opposed to the rule, the actions of these people toward their enemies were greater than the mercy of the other leaders they had.

Yes, i come from a standpoint that rome was part of an evil incarnate. Baseless no, but i dont think a thread would be long enough for a debate where we wouldnt change anybodies mind.

My feeling that they were evil surpasses my respect for the culture, thinkers and advancements that would not have been possible without them. I admit their place in history for better or worse, was perhaps the greatest empire.


I will argue one point though, a lot of their propaganda was aimed at the future. "If you wont change your mind, ill put a church in your town, and brainwash your kids and grandchilderen with it". Maybe the church and the throne didnt act as intricately together as i would love to believe, but i am under the impression that rome used the church as a brainwashing mechanism, and the church used rome for a foothold to reach everyone.

Perhaps if other civ's had thought about the long term future as often and deeply as rome did, history would have turned out different.
Bruenor, what do you feel rome could have done to save itself?

They say this because the Hunnic migration westward displaced German tribes who were living on the opposite side of the Danube to cross into Roman territories, leading to (among other things) the battle of Adrianople and widespread use of "barbarian troops."

As for whether Huns should be in Civ, why not? At differing times they were both a threat to Han China and Rome, and how many civs can say that?

There is no doubt that the Huns pushed the Germans into the Roman empire. Bury's view is that this was going to happen anyway.

So, if you want to say this hastened Rome's fall, that's fine. It may be true! I don't think so, but its a legitimate view.

But I doubt this is the reason most people view that the Huns caused Rome to Fall, based on the endless number of people I use d to talk to, teach, etc. At least here in the US, most people 'on the street' think the Huns overran Rome.

I don't have a problem with the Huns in the game.

Best wishes,

Breunor

Bru - Until today, you could count me among them.

America gets most of its history lessons from hollywood and in the movie "Attila" it portrays at the end...

"With no Attila left to keep the huns united, they would soon fall but not until their final quest..."

"And with no Atteus left to protect Rome, The northern tribes would over-run them".

Not specifying northern as Germanic has caused people to believe naturally, that the huns united one final time after Attilas death. (i dont get lessons from movies or anything, but a lot of people do, and until i started playing civ again i didnt feel a need to know any of these things anymore).

So now i ask, In your opinion, had the germans not sacked rome, do you think it would have still fallen?

I never knew the Hun were a threat to Han China, How far did their reign truely extend?
No-one's quite sure. There have been attempts to connect the Hsiung-Nu (Wade-Giles, Pinyin"Xiongnu") central Asia and the Huns, largely based on the similarity of the names, but the idea is questionable.This is a fairly decent explanation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsiung-nu#Did_the_Northern_Xiongnu_become_the_Huns.3F)
But, whatever the case, it's incorrect to believe that Attila personally ruled an empire that spanned Eurasia. If the Huns ever did threaten China, it was a long time before they reached Europe.

Something I would never forget was the sack of baghdad of 1258:mad: , a blow baghdad has never recovered from to this day. Not to mention other glorious cities of the middle east. It makes me angry just thinking about what they did.

That's what you get for having a weaker military, corrupt leadership, and a horrible diplomatic situation.
Jesus Christ, that was 750 years ago. Forgive and forget. I thought Muslims were supposed to be forgiving, like Hindus or Buddhists.

Wasn't it sacked again by Tamerlane?

false map those arn't the Hunnic Empries but I do agree with Huns being in the GAME
100%!

True, the map is very flawed. :)

The huns were demonized by Rome for not wanting to become roman.

To Rome, Anything that cant be assimilated, must be absolute evil and must be destroyed. If it can be, WHY isnt it already?

The Romans were careful about the picture they painted of the "barbarians" knowing it would someday be in history, and to speak bad of them now, could lead to them being spoken of bad forever.

Anyone they didnt portray as "uncivilized brutal barbarians", they portrayed as "socially inferior".

Wasnt it the Romans who ran in, burned everything and sold every man, woman and child avilible to sex slavery? (mostly for the turks)

Who are the barbarians now?

Wow, the first thing the Romans did after conquering something was building theaters and baths! I have no idea where you took the idea that "every man, woman and child" were sold to sex slavery to the Turks. The children of the huge majority of the conquered population became a Roman citizen, with all rights a guy from Rome or Messina had.

Bru - Until today, you could count me among them.

America gets most of its history lessons from hollywood and in the movie "Attila" it portrays at the end...

"With no Attila left to keep the huns united, they would soon fall but not until their final quest..."

"And with no Atteus left to protect Rome, The northern tribes would over-run them".

Not specifying northern as Germanic has caused people to believe naturally, that the huns united one final time after Attilas death. (i dont get lessons from movies or anything, but a lot of people do, and until i started playing civ again i didnt feel a need to know any of these things anymore).

So now i ask, In your opinion, had the germans not sacked rome, do you think it would have still fallen?

Interesting question, if the Germans hadn't sacked Rome, would it have fallen?

I think there are two perspectives here. The 'main' view of historians goes back to perhaps the greatest, and certainly the most famous of the Roman historians, Gibbon (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire). Cutting Gibbon's 2000 pages to one sentence, Gibbon felt that Rome 'collapsed' more than was conquered; of course, its a step by step process (corruption, plagues, leads to military weakness, which leads to destruction, population loss, etc.), but moral decay was the central issue. Nonetheless, the view of the Gibbons of the world is that the Roman state collapsed, and that the Germans who overran them were hardly the power or threat of their old enemies like Carthage or Persia (this is clearly true).

Bury (who I guess you figured out is my favorite historian) In 'The Invasion of Rome by the Barbarians' intentionally takes the other tactic, of looking at the Germans from their standpoint, making a keen distinction between Eastern and Western Germans. Bury also agrees that the Germans weren't the Persians or the Carthaginians, but did view their dynamism and power as a key factor. For instance, literacy among many of the Germans in the fifth century matched the Romans, and most of the literate Germans were bi-lingual. Note that when Theodoric and the Ostrogoths conquered Italy, they ran the place better than it had been run for a very long time. (It was the Lombards, not the Ostrogoths, that brought the Dark Ages to Italy).


So, where does this leave us? The Gibbon interpretation is that it wasn't the Germans who effectively caused Rome to Fall, so the conclusion would be that Rome would have fallen anyway. The Bury view is more complex. If the Germans weren't there, the question is, who would have been there? SOMEBODY would have been a threat, bbut it is hard to speculate.

This is why I think the Huns helped keep Rome together. The most powerful German kingdom in the 4th century was probably the Ostrogoths, who pretty much ruled all the way from Western Germany to the Ukraine and beyond. The Huns did two things -- suppress the Germans, and for instance conquered the Ostrogoths. But they pushed the Visigoths into Rome. The Romans could have worked with the Visigoths, but acted terribly and the Visigoths attacked/revolted. It was a very complex period. The Visigoths wre the most promising people in Europe inthe early to mid fifth Century. After the Huns, the Ostrogoths revive, and of course, the fFranks becoem the ultimate victor.

Altogether, I do think Rome would have fallen. If the Germans hadn't been there, somebody tough would have at that time. I tried to say the critical issue in my last post -- with the GERMANS overrunning Rome, we had German tribes settle what is now England, France, a large part of Spain, Northern Italy, and the lands that now speak German. If the Huns had set up a new empire (very unlikely), then the Western world would have developed differntly.

Breunor

Wow, the first thing the Romans did after conquering something was building theaters and baths! I have no idea where you took the idea that "every man, woman and child" were sold to sex slavery to the Turks. The children of the huge majority of the conquered population became a Roman citizen, with all rights a guy from Rome or Messina had.
Except for all the massacres, slavery and genocide, of course.
The Romans may not have been as bad as some people like to make out, they committed their share of war crimes, just like everyone else. They weren't genocidal maniacs, but they had a straighforward world view: foreigners could either be assimilated or destroyed. Ethnocide or genocide, neither are particularly pleasant.

Except for all the massacres, slavery and genocide, of course.
The Romans may not have been as bad as some people like to make out, they committed their share of war crimes, just like everyone else. They weren't genocidal maniacs, but they had a straighforward world view: foreigners could either be assimilated or destroyed. Ethnocide or genocide, neither are particularly pleasant.

Why do you think the Roman view is that foreigners could either be assimilated ofr destroyed? What is your source for this comment? This seems liek such a steeotype! Where did the Romans commit ethnocide or genocide besides Carthage? Even with cArthage, they sacked and salted the city and enslved the population.

Romans had many sorts of political deals, like client states, Allies, and a variety of in-between states. Indeed, Roman expansion was halted mostly by economic concerns, that the Romans didn't think conquest was worth the trouble in their best times like the second century. Pergamum was a very close ally. The Romans admired the Greek states and actually left them alone for a long time after their conquest, but came down hard in the second Century BC after frequent revolts and even worse incessant in-fighting.

Conquest was often done for personal economic or political reasons. Caesar conquered Gaul mostly for the money and prestige, not for ethnic cleansing of any sort. Claudius conquered Britian to show he could do attain a military victory. Caesar and Augustus felt Britian could be conquered with 4-5 legions but that it wasn't worth the trouble. Hadrian returned most of Trajan's conquests effectively to independence. They didn't even try to assimilate Trajan's conquests.

The Romans were NOT xenophobes and didn't hate foreigners, as a rule. Over 800 years you had many bad apples and many good ones.

As a rule, the Romans were PRACTICAL, and cared about two things more than anything else -- security first, money second. If a country/nation/movement was a threat to security, it was dealt with in the most expedient way. This ususally meant bribery, trade, war, and if necessary, extermination. They would sometimes be conquered to bring glory tot he commander, but they didn't have any views of genocide or ethnocide.

They resorted to settlement and harsh conquest far less than most of the world at that time, again perhaps for a practical reason -- Italy had a declining birthrate even in its glory years. Settlement for soldiers occurred, but the Romans did not conquer to settle. They usually tried to incorporate the conquered people, and if you look around, say at the time of Antoninus, you have people happy to be in the Roman empire from Spain and England to Syria and Egypt.

I agree that the Romans preferred to assimilate people, but I don't agree AT ALL that they would exterminate people otherwise. More important, they viewed assimilation as mutually beneficial and were probably correct for the most part. I don't see how you can charge them with genocide and ethnocide as a policy.

Breunor

Why do you think the Roman view is that foreigners could either be assimilated ofr destroyed? What is your source for this comment? This seems liek such a steeotype! Where did the Romans commit ethnocide or genocide besides Carthage? Even with cArthage, they sacked and salted the city and enslved the population.

Romans had many sorts of political deals, like client states, Allies, and a variety of in-between states. Indeed, Roman expansion was halted mostly by economic concerns, that the Romans didn't think conquest was worth the trouble in their best times like the second century. Pergamum was a very close ally. The Romans admired the Greek states and actually left them alone for a long time after their conquest, but came down hard in the second Century BC after frequent revolts and even worse incessant in-fighting.

Conquest was often done for personal economic or political reasons. Caesar conquered Gaul mostly for the money and prestige, not for ethnic cleansing of any sort. Claudius conquered Britian to show he could do attain a military victory. Caesar and Augustus felt Britian could be conquered with 4-5 legions but that it wasn't worth the trouble. Hadrian returned most of Trajan's conquests effectively to independence. They didn't even try to assimilate Trajan's conquests.

The Romans were NOT xenophobes and didn't hate foreigners, as a rule. Over 800 years you had many bad apples and many good ones.

As a rule, the Romans were PRACTICAL, and cared about two things more than anything else -- security first, money second. If a country/nation/movement was a threat to security, it was dealt with in the most expedient way. This ususally meant bribery, trade, war, and if necessary, extermination. They would sometimes be conquered to bring glory tot he commander, but they didn't have any views of genocide or ethnocide.

They resorted to settlement and harsh conquest far less than most of the world at that time, again perhaps for a practical reason -- Italy had a declining birthrate even in its glory years. Settlement for soldiers occurred, but the Romans did not conquer to settle. They usually tried to incorporate the conquered people, and if you look around, say at the time of Antoninus, you have people happy to be in the Roman empire from Spain and England to Syria and Egypt.

I agree that the Romans preferred to assimilate people, but I don't agree AT ALL that they would exterminate people otherwise. More important, they viewed assimilation as mutually beneficial and were probably correct for the most part. I don't see how you can charge them with genocide and ethnocide as a policy.

Breunor

sounds a bit like America. a bit. ;)

anyhow, the Romans wre just your ordinary empire. epmires kill people. thats normal for an empire. the Han Empire killed people. the Persians killed people. the Egyptians killed people. the Magadhan Empire killed people.

sorry, but when there is someone powerful out there, someone always has to suffer. its part of life.

so i agreâ with Breunor. :)

Where did the Romans commit ethnocide or genocide besides Carthage?
Gaul, Britain, Germy, Dacia. Y'know, the "barbarian" regions. The Romans barely considered the inhabitants of those countries human, at least not without the benefit of Roman culture. So, to enforce this, the Romans took it upon themselves to stamp out the culture of these barbarians whenever and however they could, from restricting their religous practices to massacring civilians. In Britain, the Romans devoted considerable effort to tracking down and destroying the druids, to prevent their cultural influence screwing with their conquest.
I'm not saying that the Romans were fanatical proto-Nazis, I'm just saying that they're policy, at least as far as the barbarians were concerned, was clear- they could either bow to Roman culture, or they could be destroyed, plain and simple
I'm not invoking stereotypes here, this is just truth. I know the Romans are often criticised as a knee-jerk reaction against traditional Imperialist Romanticism, but that doesn't mean that all criticism is wrong.

I'd kind of like to see the return of the 'barbarian uprisings' of Civ III. A random stack of 10 barbarian horsemen rising up was fun to deflect.

Except for all the massacres, slavery and genocide, of course.
The Romans may not have been as bad as some people like to make out, they committed their share of war crimes, just like everyone else. They weren't genocidal maniacs, but they had a straighforward world view: foreigners could either be assimilated or destroyed. Ethnocide or genocide, neither are particularly pleasant.

Gaul, Britain, Germy, Dacia. Y'know, the "barbarian" regions. The Romans barely considered the inhabitants of those countries human, at least not without the benefit of Roman culture. So, to enforce this, the Romans took it upon themselves to stamp out the culture of these barbarians whenever and however they could, from restricting their religous practices to massacring civilians. In Britain, the Romans devoted considerable effort to tracking down and destroying the druids, to prevent their cultural influence screwing with their conquest.
I'm not saying that the Romans were fanatical proto-Nazis, I'm just saying that they're policy, at least as far as the barbarians were concerned, was clear- they could either bow to Roman culture, or they could be destroyed, plain and simple
I'm not invoking stereotypes here, this is just truth. I know the Romans are often criticised as a knee-jerk reaction against traditional Imperialist Romanticism, but that doesn't mean that all criticism is wrong.

Bolded part: That is such a stereotype!

Restricting religious practices? Where did you hear that? Ever heard of Roman Religious Synchretism? The Romans were adding all the Gods in conquered countries to their Parthenon! People were allowed to worship their religion, just as long as they also accepted the Roman Gods, and also built temples for them. In Dacia, I know for a fact that it happened. And it's only an example of the many places in which it happened.

And I also know for a fact that there was no genocide there.

Gaul, Britain, Germy, Dacia. Y'know, the "barbarian" regions. The Romans barely considered the inhabitants of those countries human, at least not without the benefit of Roman culture. So, to enforce this, the Romans took it upon themselves to stamp out the culture of these barbarians whenever and however they could, from restricting their religous practices to massacring civilians. In Britain, the Romans devoted considerable effort to tracking down and destroying the druids, to prevent their cultural influence screwing with their conquest.
I'm not saying that the Romans were fanatical proto-Nazis, I'm just saying that they're policy, at least as far as the barbarians were concerned, was clear- they could either bow to Roman culture, or they could be destroyed, plain and simple
I'm not invoking stereotypes here, this is just truth. I know the Romans are often criticised as a knee-jerk reaction against traditional Imperialist Romanticism, but that doesn't mean that all criticism is wrong.


The Roman policy here is NOT clear. The Romans did NOT consider these people less than human and did NOT perform genocide. They did consider themselves culturally superior, but so did pretty much everyone in the ancient world.

Where was there genocide? Where do you see any Romans saying this? The Romans did not exterminate the Germans, the Dacians, the Gauls. There were a lot more Gauls in Gaul 100 years after the Roman conquest than before. There were Gauls in the senate two generations after Caesar.

Yes, they destroyed the druids on Angelsey, but I see it for political reasons. My view (was to stop the druids because of their POLITCAL ability to unify the Celts, not because of their cultural ability to stop Roman culture from spreading. The Romans had Allies in the Celtic tribes and the Romans didn't want a pan-Celtic movement. When the Gauls finally unified in the last year of the conquest, they were a tremendous threat.

It is the same reason they didn't want the Jews to practice. The Romans didn't CARE about religion. They NEVER tried to change the German religion, or any of these others. This is just plain wrong. If the religion were a cause for rebellion, though, they tried to take it out for expediency. Indeed, the Romans wre religiously tolerant to a fault, trying to incorporate other dieties into their pantheon and trying to universalise religions, which often caused problems at home. This is why we see Lugh associated wtih Mercury. When the Romans saw the Gauls worshipping a god, they immediate tried to reconcile the religions.

If the priest of Belinus, Lugh, or any other god tried to invoke revolt, though, they certainly would have been taken out. It wasn't cultural extinction, it was simply Romans pragmatism. The Romans did not force people to practice any religion, speak Latin, etc. This was also true for the eastern world, and most of the East continued to speak and write in Greek.

So, after the first Jewish revolt, which they viewed as political, they destroyed the Temple as the center of the religion since it was the unifying force of the Jewish peopel as a political entity. They did NOT try to forcibly convert the people, did NOT impose Latin. After the Bar Kochba revolt they were scattered and forbade from practicing the religion and treated extrmely harshly in Palestine, but the Romans did not, for instance, persecute Jews in the rest of the empire for the Bar Kochba revolt. They were not 'forced to adopt Roman ways or wiped out.' The Romans, as always, did what was best for the Romans, and that was to be pragmatic.

The Romans did destroy the druids, but they clearly didn't care about exterminating the Celtic peopel there. Yes, they wanted to assimilate them, but saying that they practised assimialtion or destruction doesn't appear right. I don't see them wiping out anyone except for Carthage.

The reason I am reacting so violently to this whole line is that it runs counter to the traditional view of the Romans which has been borne out by the words of the Romans, scholars, etc. The Romans were political conquerors, and were probably about as culturally accepting as any power in antiquity besides maybe the Persians. Pulling the example of the druids out of context and saying it was Roman policy to exterminate people who opposed them, as I said, doesn't match any recorded Roman policy, doesn't match facts, doesn't match Roman historians like Momsen, Gibbon, Bury. Its the opposite of how the Romans acted, which was always try to do whatever they could to make sure conquered people behaved and paid taxes. Forcibly assimilating and exterminating is bad politics, and its just not the Roman way. If people revolted a lot, they were often treated harshly, because that was also good politics for the Romans.

I'm open to discussion, but its hard to buy a position that is the exact opposite of the 'considered' theory. I'm not going to argue this any more. If you want to view the Romans as forced culture spreaders, go ahead. I don't see it and its certainly different from mainstream view. Mainstream view isn't always right, but I think its justified in this case. The mainstream view is that the Romans were smart, and didn't settle conquered areas (except some soldier colonies that are pertty small). They wanted to rule a large area, and being practical, they chose the path that made rule easiest. Occasionally they were very harsh, but always because it was smart. This just isn't compatible with your view.

Best wishes,

Breunor

to add to Breunor, i can say these few words:

when you got power, you get a little tough sometimes.