- 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 specificMessage 1 of 31 , Aug 1, 2003View SourceI 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
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.
> -----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
> Personalised email by http://another.com
- ... From : jachthondus Date : 04 August 2003 15:11:58 Interesting stuff and ever so complicated, this Abraham-legend! So ... Isn tMessage 31 of 31 , Aug 4, 2003View Source-----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?Isn't it :))
>How, where and when?
>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.
>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.
>The rivers you mentioned are the Gihon and the Pishon (Genesis 2; 10-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.
>14. They are not clearly identified, and therefore the subject of
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