Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Imperial Rome] Re: The error of mass enslavement.

Expand Messages
  • Richard
    I would agree with you that it was a grave error. Never leave people with nothing to loose. People with hope are a lot easier to deal with. In the specific
    Message 1 of 31 , Aug 1, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I would agree with you that it was a grave error. Never leave people
      with nothing to loose. People with hope are a lot easier to deal
      with.

      In the specific case of Rome the fact that the sale of slaves was the
      generals personal plunder certainly did not encourage a more
      enlightened attitude. After all virtually any Roman with influence
      could reasonably expect to end up commanding an army and coming home
      with slave revenue. You could even argue that it was the more honest
      senators who would be most in favour as this revenue stream was legal
      where as disreputable governors had other methods of extracting money
      from their provinces.

      --- In imperialrome2@..., me-in-@d... wrote:
      > The one thing the ancients made a big mistake on, but quite often
      behind the scenes did not when civil war was concerned, was in
      massacre and total enslavement being the order of the day. That
      ensured the enemy would fight to the last even if disaffected. The
      more modern approach of taking over but letting them live gives much
      greater encouragement to mutiny. The chivalric nicities that allowed
      Samurai to switch sides if they no longer had a Master to lead them
      (even if top retainers might be expected to follow him to death),
      perhaps because he had not been beaten as much as unfortunately
      assassinated by shameful forces unknown, allowed a similar kind of
      end to wars. Of course it actually encourages a lot more wars but
      they are less bloody.
      >
      > Caesariensis
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From : khakiberetman <no_reply@...>
      > To : imperialrome2@...
      > Date : 30 July 2003 22:34:46
      > Subject : [Imperial Rome] Re: Caesar at Alesia
      > Starving ALL the occupants of a besieged place,
      > >non-combattants included, was a standard Roman siege tactic
      > >when outright assault was ruled out. It was practiced by Scipio
      > >before Carthage and Numantia, and later on by Titus before
      > >Jerusalem (he blockaded the city after letting in all the Passover
      > >pilgrims so as to increase the food crisis there). It is not very
      > >surprising Caesar did just the same.
      > >
      >
      >
      > I have often maintained that a human, taken alone, is no human at
      all; only as a member of a reasoning group can a person be completely
      human - Konrad Lorenz, Abbau des Menschlichen (The Waning of
      Humaneness) 1987.
      >
      >
      >
      > --
      > Personalised email by http://another.com
    • me-in-@disguise.co.uk
      ... From : jachthondus Date : 04 August 2003 15:11:58 Interesting stuff and ever so complicated, this Abraham-legend! So ... Isn t
      Message 31 of 31 , Aug 4, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        -----Original Message-----
        From : jachthondus <no_reply@...>
        Date : 04 August 2003 15:11:58

        Interesting stuff and ever so complicated, this Abraham-legend! So
        >many theories about it... F.i. Does Mecca also come in; and if “yes?
        >How, where and when?
        >
        Isn't it :))
        >
        >About “Eden“: Some theorists place the location in the Northern-
        >region of the Eufrate/Tigris; but the favourite theory is to place it
        >in the South at, or currently below the Persian Gulf sea-level.
        >
        Yes: Dilmun at the mouth of the Euphrates. The version I saw claims this a misunderstanding from Sumerian through Akkadian and Greek, that Sumerian rivers flowed *from* the Mouth. Makes sense.

        >The rivers you mentioned are the Gihon and the Pishon (Genesis 2; 10-
        >14. They are not clearly identified, and therefore the subject of
        >much dispute.
        >
        It's the identification with Kush. There is a region where rivers flow roughly to the 4 directions though one turns (might be the later Oxus) . The *City* of Kush was not known when first identifications were made but the later *Country* assumed to be in Africa was.

        No Mecca. Mohammed had to get out and later attacked it and 'sanctified' its Ka'aba. I think they claim 'Ibrahim' visited. Another curiosity: The Christians of Medina joined in that attack while the Jews did not. Arabia has 600+ churches and there was specific policy to leave Christians alone. So what happened to them? They could not have been Orthodox either because Orthodoxy required recognition of the Emperor as God's Regent, 13th Apostle etc etc, so effectively, if you were Orthodox you had to bring Imperial rule with you. Were they perhaps the Jewish-Christian Ebionites fled South and found no difficulty accepting another Prophet? St. Paul says he spent 3 years studying Christianity in 'Arabia'. That too is strange: if it only started a few years before, how had it reached Arabia and what needed 3 years of study? And when Paul got to Rome, why did he leave the Churchh there alone? He interfered in every other! And why do we hear nothing of this evangelical mission to the Capital of Civilisation?


        --
        Personalised email by http://another.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.