This magazine is for sharing artwork of historical events, places, personages, etc. Scale models and the like also welcome!
Generally speaking, actual photos of a historical item should go to [email protected]
Photos of ruins should go to [email protected]
Photos of the past should go to [email protected]
Such cross-border raids were a common during the first ~300 years of the Roman Empire, assaulting hostile Germanic chieftains or supporting Germanic chieftains allied to Rome. Distinction between combatant and noncombatant was rarely made.
Didn't the romans know the words remorse and empathy?
Nothing can be more conscientious than the man, nothing more reasonable, nothing more unassuming; generous also, if I am any authority, and considering the slenderness of his resources as open-handed as his means permit. His characteristics, simplicity, continence, truthfulness, an honour plainly Roman, a warmth of affection, however, possibly not Roman, for there is nothing of which my whole life through I have seen less at Rome than a man unfeignedly φιλόστοργος (Greek, 'tenderness', 'mutually affectionate'). The reason why there is not even a word for this virtue in our language must, I imagine, be, that in reality no one at Rome has any warm affection.
While there's definitely some rhetorical flourish going on here, the Romans were not a very 'nice' people, and did not even regard themselves as such. Diligent? Reasonable? Magnanimous? Truthful? Certainly! But nice? Well... the gladiator games made foreigners queasy, and foreigners at the time were generally not wilting violets themselves.
Unfortunately, more universally, this sort of behavior is extremely common in pre-modern warfare in nearly all cultures. "Laws fall silent in times of war."
Being nice is probably a modern invention. It assumes a lot of things, all unrelated to personal love, family, transactions or honor. It abstracts a bunch of behaviors in a way that must feel weird to people in the past.
Today, people are taught to be nice because it’s a cultural thing, a placeholder for missing family and tribal ties that are lacking. Surely it only arose in the late 1700s and cemented by 1800s middle class
I cannot comprehend a society where it is normal to have people commit those barbaric (ironic) acts in cold blood... The worst is that it's done with swords. Not even a drone thousands of kilometers away, or even a gun... You really need to go up close, hear their pleas, and physically cut them and feel the blade pierce through... What kind of mindset enables this? Were the romans psychopaths or traumatised?
Writing this I remembered that most people still eat meat and that it requires slaughtering animals in the same way... Or it can be automatised somewhat but it's maybe even worse...
I cannot comprehend a society where it is normal to have people commit those barbaric (ironic) acts in cold blood… The worst is that it’s done with swords. Not even a drone thousands of kilometers away, or even a gun… You really need to go up close, hear their pleas, and physically cut them and feel the blade pierce through… What kind of mindset enables this? Were the romans psychopaths or traumatised?
Trauma, or exposure to bloodshed, as the Romans would probably prefer terming it, was definitely a factor. The Romans considered the gladiator games, for example, as a part of a Roman upbringing that would steel the young in the audience if the day came when they took up a soldier's life.
Generally, though, pre-modern societies are much more comfortable with death than we are. I mean, public executions were a family occasion well into the 19th century in Europe and North America.
Barbarism is only a stone's throw in our past.
Barbarism is only a stone's throw in our past.
Let's hope that stone wasn't a boomerang...
Vae victis
Funnily enough, the Romans were actually on the receiving end when these words were recorded for history. But they took that lesson to heart, and it wouldn't be until 476 AD that it would be applicable again.