Rome II

[mikeck]

References to homosexuality as a basis for a Roman perception of Greeks as effeminate make no sense from a historical perspective. Homosexuality was just as prevalent in Roman society. So long as the Roman was the dominant individual in the homosexual relationship, there was no adverse implication on one's masculinity. Really, I would question the accuracy and impartiality of any source where you are getting this information from.

It's not just the acceptance of homosexuality (and remember , there is a difference between whether it is openly accepted and whether it happens), it was also about the Greeks pursuit of philosophy, debate and arts that, although admired and copied by the Romans, were considered effeminate pursuits.

I can't dig through the books so I can't provide citations so I don't expect to win the argument (if it is one)...my original point was that i didn't want you or anyone else thinking the I was stereotyping anyone as anything...I was discussing Roman Stereotypes. Not even sure how we got there but it had something to do with my admiration of Rome, their administration, their ruthlessness and their willingness to steal what works from others

[Jarhead0331]

(if it is one)...

It's not.   :P

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Not even sure how we got there but it had something to do with my admiration of ... their ruthlessness and their willingness to steal what works from others

Yes, that vs my memory of your line of work is what made me bring it up.

[Gusington]

For the record I thought mikeck was a border patrol agent...

[undercovergeek]

Can't you remember his wg avatar?

[Gusington]

No.

[Staggerwing]

Was it the police car?

[mikeck]

I was a border patrol agent for 4 years, them left and earned my law degree (and passed the bar)
And then became a cop. Worked patrol and street crimes for 4 years until
I was promoted and told I was being moved up to the legal section. We had 1 atty and needed more. So now I do legal work for the Sheriffs office but am still certified and still get to go out and have fun on warrant services and such.

To answer the original question, I wouldn't suggest that modern policing should bear any resemblance to what the Romans did. I just admire how they were able to accomplish all they did and the professionalism of their military; not just the fighting ability but the administration and logistics.
To be able to enter an area defeat it's army, subdue it's people, and them rule them
Without many problems for 400 years (Gauls) means they are doing more than just raping and pillaging.

The Romans were ruthless, but once you were beaten and submitted to them, you gained the benefits of access to roads and a trading network that could be navigated safely, safety from attack by neighboring tribes, sanitation and stable currency. You could do worse than to be defeated and submitted by the Romans.

[Jarhead0331]

The Romans were ruthless, but once you were beaten and submitted to them, you gained the benefits of access to roads and a trading network that could be navigated safely, safety from attack by neighboring tribes, sanitation and stable currency. You could do worse than to be defeated and submitted by the Romans.

Unless you were Carthage.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Every slaver through history has probably tried to explain what a good master they will be. Meanwhile they are thinking we can do this the easy way or the hard way.

[Bison]

Didn't Carthage get their asses kicked and relegated to the dustbin of history or something?

like Rome didnt?  :P

Rome eventually fell after a few thousand years of kicking ass.  Carthage not so much.  The only reason anyone remembers Carthage is something about elephants and the alps, but who can possibly remember any of the details?   I blame sun tanning beds for your memory lapses.

Bison, you're just joking I presume.

Yeah I was joking. 

[Dolan50]

Rome makes the 20th century Nazis and Stalin look like a bunch of novice amateurs when it comes to invading, enslaving and killing off and uprooting its neighbors.

I would even venture to say that if you weren't a Roman living in those times you most likely had no love or admiration for them and you either fought them,joined them out of fear or profit or put as much distance as possible between yourself and Rome.

[mikeck]

Rome makes the 20th century Nazis and Stalin look like a bunch of novice amateurs when it comes to invading, enslaving and killing off and uprooting its neighbors.

I would even venture to say that if you weren't a Roman living in those times you most likely had no love or admiration for them and you either fought them,joined them out of fear or profit or put as much distance as possible between yourself and Rome.

I would disagree. Stalin and Hitler did not proceed to build advanced architecture, life improvements or security to any of the nations they conquered. If you were in the army fighting the Romans...yeah, it was bad for you. Same as if you were in a besieged town taken by the Romans. But if you were a regular peasant trying to just get by, you probably had it a lot better under roman rule than you did whatever warlord happened to be in charge that month

[mikeck]

The Romans were ruthless, but once you were beaten and submitted to them, you gained the benefits of access to roads and a trading network that could be navigated safely, safety from attack by neighboring tribes, sanitation and stable currency. You could do worse than to be defeated and submitted by the Romans.

Unless you were Carthage.

Carthage, god bless 'me, wouldn't submit...so they got the platinum wash

[Nefaro]

Rome makes the 20th century Nazis and Stalin look like a bunch of novice amateurs when it comes to invading, enslaving and killing off and uprooting its neighbors.

I would even venture to say that if you weren't a Roman living in those times you most likely had no love or admiration for them and you either fought them,joined them out of fear or profit or put as much distance as possible between yourself and Rome.

Naaa.   Not unless there was some serious history between themselves and the one in question (Carthage for example).

One of the most influential facets to Roman "subjugation", if not the most, was the luxury, wealth, and trade they brought and the infrastructure to support it.

After conquering a population center, they'd construct all kinds of niceties and boost trade in the area to new levels.  Such things certainly made the commoner & tradesmen happy.  Who doesn't like being wealthier?  Well.. except for the old noblemen who had then become underlings.  Even then, it could be hit & miss depending on how much wealth & power they gained afterward.

Despite whatever myths you've heard about a typical Roman takeover, they often went pretty easy on many of the conquered and brought prosperity.  Hauling enemy soldiers off as slaves was just part of the legions' war spoils, like extra hazard pay.  They didn't burn the places to the ground and kill everyone other than some unusual cases.

Numerous "invading" barbarian tribes, in later days, weren't raiding to pillage and run away.  They were trying to get into the Roman empire and become Romans!  That should tell you just how comparatively well they did with their "subjugation".  Can't get much better advertisement than that.