Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8491763" data-attributes="member: 87792">To me one of the most telling examples is "Chief Sitting Drool". That name alone demonstrates that any claims that any of this nonsense is about the orcs paying respect to their adversaries by imitating them simply doesn't hold up in setting. If there's any respect at all involved you don't call your imitation "sitting drool".And that the writers of Orcs of Thar felt the need for a fig leaf is just as telling. It means that the writers themselves knew that what they were doing wasn't acceptable and pretended it was something else. You don't need to say "this is respectful" if you think that open mockery is fine.The Romans were outstanding at one thing by the standards of the ancient world (and no, it wasn't war). They offered multiple relatively easy paths to full Roman citizenship - which meant that two generations after they'd conquered a region the middle classes in that region were proud to be Roman citizens  or were aspiring to become Roman citizens and knew that it was a practical goal. In short they assimilated conquered peoples in a way almost no one has either before or since. And that's why Rome lasted so long as an empire. (Well, that and some pretty excellent social mobility up to and including someone who was taken captive and paraded in a triumph going on to have a triumph thrown in his own honour).Also, tying this back to the subject of Orcs of Thar (and "Chief Sitting Drool"), the Romans were very good at taking the successful tools of war from their foes and using them right back - or hiring them (such as the ballearic slingers) as auxilia. And on a general note we can see the Romans changing what was acceptable over time even in places like the gladiatorial arena; after Rome conquered the gauls the Gallus was probably turned into the more respectable Murmillo and also replaced by the Thracian as the new enemy heel gladiator.You might want to check your Roman history there. Caesar claimed to have enslaved about a million and killed about a million more - and that was one military leader in one military career. Or you might want to check with the Carthaginians about the way the Romans didn't massively displace the native population (although salting the earth was a later legend). Or you might want to check with the Jews who had the province of Judea renamed the province of Palestine under Roman rule and were kicked out of Jerusalem. For that matter the Romans were forever founding colonies; one of the textbook things the Romans did (other than took slaves) after they conquered somewhere was gave a lot of it as farmland for retiring 20 year veteran legionaries. Which of course displaced yet more people and ensured inter-breeding with these land owning fit military veterans (who were already Roman citizens because they'd done their 20 years in the army) wanting wives and even if the wife wouldn't become a Roman Citizen their kids would.There are plenty of Roman analogies to be used here. Although I'm not sure how relevant they are tbh.</blockquote>

Verification