Carthage?

[Louis XXIV]

Blasphemy

Actually, at this point, I think Babylon would probably be better than Assyria to add, just because they are culturally more significant (you can say anything the Assyrians did Persia did better, since everyone had to top someone else in the Middle East).

The one thing that is shocking about the second punic war to me is, inspite of the fact that Hannibal was operating in Italy, Rome still sent out Legions to foreign lands to conquer allies of Hannibal (Hannibal's brother was defeated in Spain and the Illyrian Provinces were taken during war with Macedon). They even maintained a garrison in Sicily when they probably could have used those soldiers.

Once the delaying tactics were reintroduced after Cannae, I think Rome itself was relatively safe from Hannibal, regardless of his earlier successes that would seem catostrophic to any other power of the time (or perhaps any time).

 

[BlueStar]

I would disagree. After the First Punic War, Carthage did surprise the Romans by quickly paying off the compensation that the Romans asked for in return for waging war against them, not to uncommon a practice between major nations, due to their extensive mines in Hispania (Spain). But Carthage wasn't the larger power, but was the wealthier. Hiring a large amount of mercenaries doesn't count as a large power base.



As for Hannibal, the only reason he was able to wreck havok in Northern Italy was because he moved faster than the Romans anticipated, and they probably didn't expect him to cross the Alpes. They sent a majority of their legions to Provincia and Hispania to counter him by boat, but he instead marched all the way. So while it took time for the Romans' to regroup and figure out that Hannibal was attacking in the north, Hannibal had found that he could use the Gauls in his armies to replace the countless men he lost in the Alpes, because they hated the Romans as much as he did. When the Romans finally regrouped in Italy and tracked him down, he did put up a good fight, but that ended most of it. Guerilla tactics isn't the most brilliant approach to waging a war, mainly because there are no territorial rewards to this style of fighting.[/

Check out the battles of Canne and Lake Trasamine-whole Roman armies destroyed-the former was a double envelopment against a larger force-something the U.S. army thought was impossible-untill they ran into the Viet Cong-even though Forrest did it in the War Between the States.

 

[BlueStar]

Indeed, fluke; if the conditions were as bad as you argue, one woudl think these would have happed on a fairlly reguler basis, wouldnt you? instead, I know fo a gradn total of two slave revolts, and both started in Southern Italy; what dopse this infer? It infers that A)the known Roman though that you should treat your slaves (but didnt have to) with some degree of kindness wasnt very well practiced in souther Italy, but otherwise seems to have been the common mode of thought in the empire, so explaining the curious lack of slave revolts, which agian, if conditions where as bad as those that lead to the spartican and sicillian revolts, should have had rebellion brewing on a constant basis through out the thousand years of the Roman state...yet didnt....

as a side note, your three examples should be the three servile wars; lsave reolts, three of them did occure in the late Republic; and Spartacus lead the las tof these (my question was more pointed to see where you actually stand on Roman historia then examples of slave revolts, though if you care to look, you'll thier arnt many -if any- others)



-well, one looks at the egyptians, who kept a really unknown amount fo slaves; soem evidence points to few; other evidence points to hordes (its not my specialty subject, so I'm no entitled to say for certain, really), but the common opiinion is that Egypt, in a vein similer to Rome, was a society in which treating slaves badlly to the point of rebellion was the exception, and not the norm

-Rome during the Imperial era is the most prudent example to include, as that is my "particuler" subject. Agian the societal norm was that those lower (such as a slave, servant, children) should be obediant to those above them, but but that those above them who were to be obeyed should act with moderation, and humanity to those below them, and it was during this period that slaves actually gained soem significant rights

-while not nations in and of themselves, a suitible example of what the societal norsm in the west during the Roman empire can be found in the philosiphy of Stocism, and in the religion fo christianity, both of wich preached what was the societal norm in Rome; obey masters, but master treat with kindness
-

Xen-I asked for three examples of happy slaves-not examples of benign
slave cultures-which did all of these things to try and avoid what they feared-slave revolts-but the individual dosn't seem to figure in your institutional information juggernaught As for the other 3 examples of slave revolt-thanks for providing them and proving my argument Case closed-your a big man and areal Roman

 

[Capt Ajax]

.................after Cannae, I think Rome itself was relatively safe from Hannibal, regardless of his earlier successes that would seem catostrophic to any other power of the time (or perhaps any time).

I agree the ultimate defeat of the Romans at Cannae was devestating and a cripling blow to the harts and minds of the Citizens, however, I do not believe Hannibal had the resources at his disposal to sack Rome itself. There is only so much one Loyal Carthaginian can do.

 

[Ranger99]

Hannibal was the most brilliant Ancient Age General of all time. The Romans have HIM to thank for their mastery in strategm and tactical warfare, Hannibal taught it al lto the Roman's over the course of his stay in Italy.

The choice to assign the Scipio's to Spain was one of the Roman's more brilliant manuever's. Hannibal had NO Siege equipment at all, and no matter how badly the people were worried it was impossible for Hannibal to take Rome, and tjhat kept the Roman heart safe, but not their army's.

By placing the Scipio's in Spain they prevented Hasdrubal from getting to Italy to reinforce his brother with much needed re-inforcements and Siege equipment. Without the Roman Presenc in Spain Hasdrubal could've reinforced his brother in a much more timley fashion ad they had a large chance of marching to Roma and taking her, but sadly it didn't play out that way...ohh welll......

-Ranger99-

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Xen-I asked for three examples of happy slaves-not examples of benign
slave cultures-which did all of these things to try and avoid what they feared-slave revolts-but the individual dosn't seem to figure in your institutional information juggernaught As for the other 3 examples of slave revolt-thanks for providing them and proving my argument Case closed-your a big man and areal Roman

You could find probably 30 examples of happy slaves from any slave culture (if they are well enough documented)... depending on what you mean by happy...if you mean totally self-fulfilled and perfectly content with all circumstances surrounding them, I'd challenge you to find 3 happy people from any culture, but if you mean overall content with their lot in life, you could probably find them even in some of the more brutal slave cultures (partially since those are more recent so a larger fraction is documented)

 

[Xen]

Xen-I asked for three examples of happy slaves-not examples of benign
slave cultures

you expected me to take you serious when asking for three examples of happy slaves? proof that the cultures are indeed benighn is worht the testimonie sof a thousand slaves

-which did all of these things to try and avoid what they feared-slave revolts-but the individual dosn't seem to figure in your institutional information juggernaught

all right, proove it.

As for the other 3 examples of slave revolt-thanks for providing them and proving my argument

very much the contrary; if you actually knew what you were talking about (slaver in ancient Rome) one woudl have expected you to be able to easilyl rattle off these three major war instead not only could you not (because you, in fact, have no great basis of argument) rather, I have fiarlly plainlly showed that you have no such knowledge, and that all of your "arguments" are in fact arbitary judgment sbased on yoru own opinions on how you woudl like things to have been, or view things to have been, as based on rathe rlimited pool of knowledge on the subject at hand.

Case closed-your a big man and areal Roman

wonderful job at attempting to patronaize, really, it primo; but your main mistake is that its YOU who have no supporting facts for your argument, not me.

 

[BlueStar]

You could find probably 30 examples of happy slaves from any slave culture (if they are well enough documented)... depending on what you mean by happy...if you mean totally self-fulfilled and perfectly content with all circumstances surrounding them, I'd challenge you to find 3 happy people from any culture, but if you mean overall content with their lot in life, you could probably find them even in some of the more brutal slave cultures (partially since those are more recent so a larger fraction is documented)

1. The Dahli Lama {which would count for all three if you think about it}
2, Buhhda
3. Robert Louis Stevenson
4. Yoda
5. Me


And I think, in his own way,Xen is perfectly happy. as for your examples
probably isn't an answer exactly'but I think I know what you mean.

 

[Capt Ajax]

Slavery is wrong, but a necessary part of the Roman era. The only difference of opinion we are harboring here is over the quality of life for a Roman slave.
I personaly believe that the institution of slavery is different for every culture that practiced it. Slavery in the Agri. South (CSA) was a bad example because it portrays one race mastering another. Thus makeing it easer to dehumanize slaves simply because they are so visualy different than the slave holders.....leading to a more brutal institution than the Romans had. A good point to consider is that if all the slaves in the Agi. South were caucasian the institution itself would not have been as brutal and may have lasted much longer. Racism and civil rights would not be an issue until much later in our history, perhaps not until present times due to the recent growth of non-caucasians and other's who have naturaly migrated into our country.

I am saying that being a slave in Rome (white or black) was not as bad as being a disenfranchised black african slave on a plantation in GA. Having said that, I do not believe that being a slave in any culture or period of time is better than being poor and free. I do not think that the slaves in Rome had it good compared to the general population and I believe that, the vast magority of them did not relish the idea of being common property and existing at the leisure of their masters.

Just remember those Sythian Circus Preformers
I am a Senetor of ROME and if I want to be amused by watching my slaves oversexed by Sythian Circus Preformers, by the Gods I shall! If they protest of speak of it, I will have them put to the sword, or send them to my farm up North and put them to work in the fields!

 

[Princeps]

Slavery is wrong, but a necessary part of the Roman era. The only difference of opinion we are harboring here is over the quality of life for a Roman slave.

There was no debate about slavery being bad during those times. It was completely accepted part of life. There were one or two voices that said that Rome should build its power on slaves but none that said that slavery was morally wrong.

Today, with the absolute morals, it is considered to be absolutely wrong.

 

[BlueStar]

Xen-I wouin"t think of patronizing you. I wouldn"t patronize you if you were the last Roman in town. Nothing in your learned recitation counters my thesis-much of what you say actually supports it, in the end nothing you have said supports your position thar Rome was morally superior to Carthage or that Rome as the "winner" and writer of the history wasn't as sef serving as any other empire in the same situation-as for what I know- tne fact of Spartacus and his actions is it's own proof-and again all you can say is that was a fluke.


If you could go back in time and be a Roman-what would you choose to be-Emperor- aristocracy-or slave?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

If you could go back in time and be a Roman-what would you choose to be-Emperor- aristocracy-or slave?

If you could go forward in time to 2006 what would you rather be inheritor of millions or abondoned high schooldropout... easy question? In some societies it may be worse or better than others but there will ALWAYS be better or worse positions in society. So saying that some positions in a society are better than others only says thath that society actually contained more than about a dozen score of human beings.

 

[BlueStar]

If you could go forward in time to 2006 what would you rather be inheritor of millions or abondoned high schooldropout... easy question? In some societies it may be worse or better than others but there will ALWAYS be better or worse positions in society. So saying that some positions in a society are better than others only says thath that society actually contained more than about a dozen score of human beings.

Dropout. Most rich kids I know are spoiled brats-lots of people make it without lots of education-it's the options as a free person in a free society that make the difference-many people born in the 80"s and later for instance have no idea how bad it was to be a minority or a woman in the 50's-and don't realize how many more options they have, thanks to the revolution.

Closer to the topic when I started on this thread I was playing Carthage and Rome was one of the other civs-as I've was fighting quite a bit I have lor's of captured workers-and Rome? They have no iron-so no legions-i have lot's of iron-and they ain't getting any.

 

[Kyriakos]

Carthago delenta est!

 

[Kyriakos]

There was no debate about slavery being bad during those times. It was completely accepted part of life. There were one or two voices that said that Rome should build its power on slaves but none that said that slavery was morally wrong.

Today, with the absolute morals, it is considered to be absolutely wrong.

Iirc in Aristotle's Politics the slaves are argued to be on the one hand born as equal human beings (ie they are not slaves by divine law or other metaphysical stuff) but still the slave class is seen as important to be maintaned, for the good of the state.

 

[Capt Ajax]

.........for the good of the state.

Oh, boy..

 

[h4ppy]

I'm glad they aren't in because I'd prefer they include Phoenica.

 

[Red Door]

I'm glad they aren't in because I'd prefer they include Phoenica.

They really should include both.

 

[Xen]

Xen-I wouin"t think of patronizing you. I wouldn"t patronize you if you were the last Roman in town. Nothing in your learned recitation counters my thesis-much of what you say actually supports it, in the end nothing you have said supports your position thar Rome was morally superior to Carthage or that Rome as the "winner" and writer of the history wasn't as sef serving as any other empire in the same situation-as for what I know- tne fact of Spartacus and his actions is it's own proof-and again all you can say is that was a fluke.

well, simply put, stop saying all that, and start explaining it I suppose thats the difference; I can give examples of events; of proclimations, of facts known to be tried and tested about the status of slaves int he empire; you merelly repeat your opinion over, and over, and over.

If you could go back in time and be a Roman-what would you choose to be-Emperor- aristocracy-or slave?

none of the above, actually; I'd much prefer to be soldier in the legions, specifically, in the heavy cavalry wings installed under the reign of Trajan

 

[Xen]

Oh, boy..

ironic considering you seem to idealize Sparta, THE nation of slavery and service to the state