this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
101 points (91.1% liked)
A Comm for Historymemes
1391 readers
484 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Lemmy.world rules.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As opposed to now? I think believing we are inherently different than ancient people is a byproduct of how we record and review historical context.
When the US invaded Iraq, it was professing to "spread freedom". A couple decades later and it's pretty apparent that freedom was a pretext to fulfill thinly veiled self interest.
How exactly are we determining this? Thats probably what the Romans thought of the Germanic tribes and the Gauls, but we don't exactly have a lot of primary sources from the people we're talking about. Of course the empire is going to boil down their enemies motives while guiding their own.
I don't really see any evidence of this..... Most of their justifications were just to convince others in the ruling class to get on board with one person's or a groups personal vendetta or get rich quick scheme.
The Romans didn't really need a justification to rape and pillage their own cities, let alone others.
... believing that we're culturally similar to ancient peoples is an incredibly dangerous and distorting way to view the past.
Where to begin?
"Obfuscated self-interest" was specified.
The justification for the illegal invasion of Iraq wasn't to 'spread freedom', it was a (false) allegation of violation of international law regarding possession of WMDs.
What self-interest was fulfilled by invading Iraq? Ideology was a bigger factor there than any conception of national self-interest.
Because the Greeks and the Persians wrote of their own motivations in largely the same way - largely sans justification. Because both later and earlier European civilizations wrote of their motivations in the same way. Because just-war theory doesn't re-emerge until the ascendency of Christianity and Islam, and even then, it is usually ignored in internecine faith conflicts until the 16th century AD.
What evidence would you accept? How much should I fetch for you?
What
Right, But you also claimed that other societies at the time didn't do the same...
My point was that all societies thinly veil their self interest.
Lol, a bit of a pedantic argument. It and Afghanistan were obviously marketed as a stand for "freedom" at the time.
You're asking what self interest the Bush administration had for invading Iraq......? How much time do you have?
First of all, Persians and Greek often justified their conquest via the gods, or nationalism.
Secondly Motivation and justifications can be the same thing depending on the social mores of the society.
Lastly, you are utilizing examples of societies where the only people who were writing within the historical context were part of the ruling structure. Thats akin to getting acess to the email of Dick Cheney's actual motivations for invading Iraq vs the story they told the media.
Any would be a good start?
During the year of 4 emperors Cremona was occupied by vitellian troops, they battled an army outside Cremona led by Antonius and lost. Cremona immediately surrendered and was subsequently raped and pillaged for no good reason.
"Antonius then attacked Cremona, which surrendered. Cremona was sacked and then burned by the victorious troops over four days; many residents were raped, murdered and robbed.[3] Antonius was embarrassed by the episode and forbade the keeping of Cremonans as slaves, resulting in many being murdered by their captors to evade punishment.[4]"
Edit: accidentally skipped your first claim
This is kinda ridiculous considering that our legal and political bodies are highly influenced specifically by the Romans, who were in turn highly influenced by the Greek and Persians.
How many quotes will it take from societies not veiling their self-interest and, in fact, taking great pride in their naked self-interest, would it take to change your mind? Or is that a lost cause?
Jesus Christ.
Enough time to easily show that ideological concerns were major, and national interest was minimal, despite the claims peddled.
Holy shit. We're really just applying the casus belli of much later periods to antiquity, because it 'feels right', huh?
That's an excellent way of saying nothing useful at all.
Oh, okay, so we're changing our argument from "It was only the Romans who wrote about the matter!" to "All pre-modern writing is untrustworthy!", cool cool cool.
Why would I fetch anything without criteria for what would be regarded as a valid counterargument? I've done this stupid fucking dance with too many fucking people to count - people who come in with bizarre preconceptions about the past and have no interest in re-examining them, who freely dismiss any evidence given and delight in pissing away time and effort.
Tell me what you'll accept as valid, or there's no point in me playing dumb games for you to move the goalposts like you did with the judgement of written sources in general already.
"A city during the first civil war in almost 100 years was looted by out-of-control troops hailing from the other side of the Empire against their commander's orders and was roundly condemned by the histories", clearly, you have proven that the Romans loved looting their own cities for no reason.
I can trace Roman legal influence in the West through some 1500 years, and let me fucking tell you, that's a very far cry from being culturally similar to the fucking Romans at any point, much less the diverse sources Western influence of some 500 years of Roman law drew from.
Well you haven't give men any quotes, even if you had isolated quotes aren't exactly enough to even make a reductionist claim that the Romans were the only people justifying their conquest.
What ideological shift occurred between the time of the first and second gulf war? You are honestly claiming that the bush administration wasn't motivated by things as simple as consolidating power under the administration, or even things like halliburton getting tens of billions of dollars?
Lol, you're saying going to war over a God's will only happened after the Romans? You do know some of the earliest recordings of wars occured in ancient mesopotamia utilizing capturing the idols of gods as a pretext.
I never claimed that it was only the Romans.....that's your argument which I am rebutting.
I am saying that sources need to be examined within their historical context.
Ahh yes, everyone else is the problem.....not me, the only common denominator.
You've literally not given any evidence. I'm the only person in this particular argument who's used sourced material.
Lol, so salty that I provided a source despite your baffled "What?"
There are plenty of examples of similar events throughout the history of Rome.
I forgot I was talking to the dictator of cultures... I so glad you could make that opinion of your official.
... do you think the First Gulf War wasn't waged on ideological grounds...?
I would say it's astounding that you're so goddamn close to the point yet missing it, but it's really not. Do I have to outline why stealing idols is different from religiously justified wars, or is naked theft a justification in your mind?
This you?
This you?
Me: "Give me your criteria for valid sources and I'll gladly provide them."
Wow, yes, clearly I am the one being unreasonable. Excuse me while I go fetch a dozen quotes so you can say something brilliant like "Well, those were the ELITES, of COURSE they would say that" or "Well, that's a ROMAN source, of COURSE they would say that" or "It's just one/two/ten/twenty quotes, you can't just extrapolate from that!" You know, things you've already fucking said. Things I've literally quoted you fucking saying.
Excuse me for not being a fucking moron without pattern recognition skills for how people with no fucking foundation on a topic argue for their 'intuitive' preconceptions.
Salty is when I outline why the incident doesn't say what you think it does and you have no actual response to that. Okay. Fantastic.
Holy shit, are you really sitting here saying "War without cause is when there's a revolt or civil war, and the more revolt or civil war there is, the less justification is used for it"?
"Dictatorship is when you say something that contradicts my assertion" - A Very Brilliant Commenter, apparently
You're considering intervening in an invasion of oil rich Kuwait a war fought on ideological grounds?
My dude, the gods of mesopotamia were thought to be literally represented by their idol. In their belief, stealing an idol was the same thing as stealing their god.
Yes, I'm still rebutting your wild claims...
Lol, you provided a source to begin with, you just claim to have sources that agree with your argument. How about a paper over the topic of your claim?
How performative, very dramatic. I'm not asking for dozens of quotes, I asked for one. Your interpretation of a few primary sources aren't enough to draw sweeping conclusions. How about any modern historian covering the topic?
Primary sources of ancient authors are important, but they require a surrounding body of contextual evidence to support any theory based on them. That's why historians work with people like archeologists and anthropologists to explain interpretation of historical writings.
Salty and delusional....what a catch.
Lol, I we were talking about justifications, not "war without a cause".
Nope, just when people declare they can determine if cultures are similar or not based on a whim.
Do you think the civil wars and revolts you linked to occurred... without justification? Because otherwise you were just posting a link of Roman conflicts with utterly no relevance to the conversation at hand, which is about what I've come to expect over the course of this conversation.
Sure.
Here's one briefly covering the very Roman origins of the concept of Just War and the contrast with Greeks and other civilizations of antiquity, as well as covering how the concept of just war primary had a resurgence with the Enlightenment, not as some eternal and intrinsic value held by mankind as you seem to think. Though I could go through considerable dispute with their view on Just War in the medieval period
Here's one covering the importance of justifications for war in Roman culture and its origins
Here's one covering the abhorrence of Romans at what they saw as an unjust war waged by one of their own
Here's one covering the common and brutal amoral realpolitik espoused by Thucydides in examining and explaining the Greek wars of his time, including the attitudes of the actors involved
Here's one on the very nakedly self-interested justifications of the Hellenic Macedonians in the conquests of Phillip and Alexander and how utterly unremarkable they were in context of contemporary societies
Here's one on Germanic legal and moral thought regarding violence and war in antiquity
Here's one on the Germanic ethos of violence for personal gain in late antiquity/early medieval period
But, you know, fuck all those, they're reliant on the writing of elites and ethnic authors. What the fuck do they know?
Fuck's sake.
The first example I gave is a scenario where a city was raised without justification. There are plenty of examples on the list I gave you of soldiers destroying cities because they were previously occupied by a rival general. The justification for the civil war isnt the justification used to attack a city who's crime was only being occupied by an armed force
The etymology of a phrase isn't the same as originating the very idea of justifying a war. In the chapter about the ancient world the first sentence runs counter to your summary. It states that the iliad was the first western writing to pose the conflict based on contingency instead of nature.
Again, this is explaining the origins of what a just war is to the Romans, it's not saying that justifying wars was unique to or invented by the Romans.
None of your Citations claim that Romans were the only people justifying their conquest. Nor do they make any arguments claiming that the Romans invented the concept of justifying conflicts.
The problem with making giant sweeping claims is that it only takes one Example to counter them.
Lol, no they're pretty decent papers, they just don't make the claims you assume they do.
I think you're conflating the codified concept of the Roman "just war" with the concept of justifying wars in general.
Which is kinda hilarious, because Rome had a far eastern counterpart that was active during the same periods and had very similar problems with "barbaric" neighbors. There are plenty of examples of the Han Empire justifying their own wars for nearly the same exact reasons. I just think you have a extremely eurocentric view of history.
And now you're demonstrating an utter inability to differentiate between the actions of soldiers and the actions of the polity. Wonderful.
If you'd've fucking bothered reading what I've been saying, this might look familiar:
Me: "Romans had a concept of just war, and placed a relatively high value on that concept for their time and in comparison to their contemporaries."
You: [some long fucking diatribe trying to link the sacking of a city with the idea that the Romans didn't have an idea of just war, despite the fact that it is not relevant either as a data point or as an assertion of standing policy, along with denying that ancient societies very often operated wars without justification because of some bizarre fucking universalist idea of intrinsic moral ideas being present in all cultures in the past, whilst simultaneously trying to paint the Roman Empire as acting without justification]
I can quote you for every part of that characterization of your position, mind you.
This is literally the fucking explanation I offered in the very first comment of this fucking thread
Like, Jesus fucking Christ, do I have to fucking spoon-feed you, here?
Lol, by that logic America wasn't responsible for the My Lai massacre.... If soldiers keep doing it and aren't dissuaded or stopped, then it's an implicit policy.
Ahh, so now we're creeping away from the claim "very Roman origin of Just War"?
Lol, "How many quotes will it take from societies not veiling their self-interest and, in fact, taking great pride in their naked self-interest, would it take to change your mind? Or is that a lost cause?" This you?
So now that we've confirmed that Romans weren't unique, the argument is how much more value the Romans placed on this compared to other contemporary societies....?
Lol, man that single example has you fuming! It was just an example I provided because of your flabbergasted response of "what".
I see you're not mentioning the other source that spoke about how the Han, who were contemporaries with the Romans, justified their wars.
But hey, being a little drama queen is certainly a way to get your point across, not a good way. But you do you.
Literally outlined in the paper you didn't read, yes, Roman ideas of Just War were very Italic (ie Roman in this context, putting aside questions of the differences of contemporary Italic peoples and the process of cultures forming or changing) in origin.
Yes, it absolutely is me, in response to you denying that contemporary societies didn't act in naked self-interest much of the time. Like, are you incapable of remembering what you yourself said, or just unwilling to?
Holy fucking shit, literally in my first comment
Please point out where I said the Han didn't have a strong conception of just war.
I've spoken to some dumb fucking cunts. But you're the stupidest this month, easy.
You stated the origin of the concept of just war is Roman, not that the justifications they utilized were "italic". Moving the goal post.
Again, my rebuttal was that societies justify their actions within their own cultural framework. Your claim was that Rome was the only empire who were commiting to just wars.
Ahh so this was a subjective comparison the whole time.... And you've just been dramatically pedantic with all of your claims. Great....
"How many quotes will it take from societies not veiling their self-interest and, in fact, taking great pride in their naked self-interest, would it take to change your mind?"
"Yes, it absolutely is me, in response to you denying that contemporary societies didn't act in naked self-interest much of the time"
"Here's one briefly covering the very Roman origins of the concept of Just War and the contrast with Greeks and other civilizations of antiquity,"
If you weren't trying to imply that Romans were unique in justifying their wars, then why did you have a problem with the rebuttal of "all cultures justify their wars from within their own cultural framework"? Why did you freak out when I gave examples of religious wars in ancient mesopotamia?
You're just being academically dishonest and moving the goal post out of pure pigheadedness.
Lol, so spicy..... Maybe try going outaide and touching some grass?
Jesus fucking Christ. The mention of Italic origins was because Rome didn't spring out fully formed; the point of the comparison was to demonstrate that it was an unusual cultural affectation that was not widely shared by other major cultures of the period.
Yes, in response to you denying that societies acted in accordance with naked self-interest. You, quite literally and explicitly, denied that claim. Are you reversing your opinion now? If so, I commend your ability to admit when you've made a brazenly stupid claim.
The word contrast means nothing to you, I see. You may want to invest in a dictionary.
... you mean when you did the exact opposite of that, and claimed that me saying
was incorrect?
Like, fuck, can you not hold the same position for more than two comments? Is this pathological?
Because you have no conception of what the justification of wars were in ancient Mesopotamia, you just saw 'idols' and thought 'religious ideal of a just war'. Anything else, apparently, would be too complex for you to grasp.
I'm not being 'academically dishonest', you're seeming simply incapable of recognizing that your reading comprehension is subpar, and that several of the claims you made were not only baseless but utterly bizarre in some weird attempt to cling to your original contrarian position.
So you finally got around to reading literally the very first comment in this thread? Excellent. I'm so happy for you. Maybe in the future, you should work on your enduring incapacity to exercise basic literacy.