Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8491837" data-attributes="member: 18">Sorry but this is ahistorical nonsense. I'll keep as brief as I can.You want to consider the positives and the negatives? Then you cannot argue that. I mean, it's just outright false anyway (&quot;just better documented&quot; because archaeology doesn't support that claim). I studied ancient history, note. Roman slavery was not the same as slavery throughout the ancient world. The scale of slavery, who got enslaved, what slaves were used for, the role in slaves in society, and the laws surrounding slavery were highly unusual with Rome. It's like, you say Roman roads and aqueducts were amazing and different those of other people? There's some truth in that, but equally, their slavery was not the same. Likewise their executions. They were not necessarily any more horrific - it is true everyone seems to have ridiculous execution methods reported (archaeology does not support most of them actually existing - though crucifixion sure did!), but Romans executed people on unheard-of scales, in some cases tens of thousands at once (take that Aztecs and your mass sacrifices!), and they executed people for reasons other cultures wouldn't consider (for example, when a slave-owner was killed by a slave he owned, all his slaves were executed - in one case this was 400 slaves - some of whom literally weren't even in the same city as the crime). I would advise that you stop trying to argue stuff you really don't know much about. If you really want to keep arguing it, DM me.(Just as an aside it's pretty funny when Caesar is all like &quot;OMG Druids put a handful of criminals in a wickerman and burned it! So barbaric!&quot; when the Romans were happily nailing people to crosses left right and center. And there's actual archaeological evidence for the latter.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8491837, member: 18"] Sorry but this is ahistorical nonsense. I'll keep as brief as I can. You want to consider the positives and the negatives? Then you cannot argue that. I mean, it's just outright false anyway ("just better documented" because archaeology doesn't support that claim). I studied ancient history, note. Roman slavery was not the same as slavery throughout the ancient world. The scale of slavery, who got enslaved, what slaves were used for, the role in slaves in society, and the laws surrounding slavery were highly unusual with Rome. It's like, you say Roman roads and aqueducts were amazing and different those of other people? There's some truth in that, but equally, their slavery was not the same. Likewise their executions. They were not necessarily any more horrific - it is true everyone seems to have ridiculous execution methods reported (archaeology does not support most of them actually existing - though crucifixion sure did!), but Romans executed people on unheard-of scales, in some cases tens of thousands at once (take that Aztecs and your mass sacrifices!), and they executed people for reasons other cultures wouldn't consider (for example, when a slave-owner was killed by a slave he owned, all his slaves were executed - in one case this was 400 slaves - some of whom literally weren't even in the same city as the crime). I would advise that you stop trying to argue stuff you really don't know much about. If you really want to keep arguing it, DM me. (Just as an aside it's pretty funny when Caesar is all like "OMG Druids put a handful of criminals in a wickerman and burned it! So barbaric!" when the Romans were happily nailing people to crosses left right and center. And there's actual archaeological evidence for the latter.) [/QUOTE]

Verification