No one really did conquering - they would take land, take slaves,
… that’s what conquest is.
But Vikings were Vikings, even if they occupy a settlement, the people of the settlement do not become Vikings
… only because the Vikings were typically small numbers of warriors? And post-Roman, for that matter.
When Rome conquered a place, they’d levy most of the men into the legion, and when they finished their service they became Roman
That’s… not how it works.
First, the Legions were for citizens only. Non-citizens were not permitted to enlist.
Second, the Auxiliaries, what you’re probably thinking of, were partly conscripted, but mostly volunteer, and very selective about their recruits. In no reality would they have taken most of the men of a region.
Third, the process of Romanization was gradual and largely unenforced - the Romans did not care if the native provincials became Romans or kept their native culture. The Romans, in fact, held a worldview wherein other peoples were better at certain things than the Romans, and that this was a good thing, because it meant Rome could organize their superior efforts for the greater good of the Republic.
Fourth, most regions after Roman conquest retained a great deal of self-government, as the Romans did not want the trouble of overturning local practices, unless they interfered with something like collecting taxes.
Fifth, Roman conquest was rarely so simple as “The Romans have conquered this place now” - there were often many graduations of Roman control which regions went through, and few regions had the same journey. The moment of conquest you’re imagining, where the Legions march through after putting the enemy’s armies and leaders to the sword, is not very common.
Sixth, the process of ethnic cleansing and assimilation are both widely attested to in the pre-Roman world, by peoples much more brutal about it than the Romans.
The difference between Vikings (or wherever else, they’re just an example) and Romans is the assimilation. That’s why there were so many more Romans, because they constantly expanded what it meant to be Roman. There were concentric circles of Roman-ness starting with just the city inhabitants down to the newly conquered territory at the fringes
Also, Rome was around for a long time. Their practices changed drastically during that time. It ranged from much worse than what I described to completely peaceful assimilation.
But my real problem wasn’t the violence, it’s the wealth extraction… That model lived on through the holy Roman empire, then “the West”. There’s so many horrible knock on effects to this, ones we’re living through now
The difference between Vikings (or wherever else, they’re just an example) and Romans is the assimilation.
… do… do you think pre-Roman peoples didn’t practice assimilation?
That’s why there were so many more Romans, because they constantly expanded what it meant to be Roman. There were concentric circles of Roman-ness starting with just the city inhabitants down to the newly conquered territory at the fringes
By the time that people on the fringes of the Empire were considered Romans, Romans had lost the cultural hegemony necessary for assimilation, which makes this a very dubious claim.
Also, Rome was around for a long time. Their practices changed drastically during that time. It ranged from much worse than what I described to completely peaceful assimilation.
I can honestly think of no period of Roman history in which the scenario you described was the norm.
But my real problem wasn’t the violence, it’s the wealth extraction… That model lived on through the holy Roman empire, then “the West”. There’s so many horrible knock on effects to this, ones we’re living through now
…
… do you think wealth extraction doesn’t predate the Romans? For that matter, you think the HRE is more rooted in Roman practice than Germanic practice? For that matter, you think the West demonstrates the most horrific form of wealth extraction in the modern day?
… do… do you think pre-Roman peoples didn’t practice assimilation?
Yes! That’s my whole point. Not literally - you seem caught up on the word conquest too - but the kind of institutional pattern of expansion and assimilation is what was different about Rome
There was war, there were other empires. People intermingled and intermixed, sometimes under rule from another group. There was assimilation, but in an organic process
Rome industrialized the process. They turned it into a mechanical process that has never stopped. It didn’t stop when the empire split, it didn’t stop when power shifted to the aristocracy of Europe, it didn’t stop as America rose as the latest empire after WW2
I do think the HRE was more Rome than Germanic - what language did they speak? Not Greek, Aramaic, or any Germanic language - it was Latin. And in the East you had the Byzantine empire doing the same damn thing, spreading soft influence to Eastern Europe
Christianity became a tool of Rome under Constantine. Jesus said we don’t need temples or coin. Jesus was born in the summer. Jews keep the Sabbath on Saturday. Jesus was represented by a fish, and died on the cross so that he could not be used as a tool of control against his people
Sol Invictus was born on December 25, Constantine declared the day of the sun as the day of rest. Sol Invictus is associated with gold. The cross is a symbol of Roman order
Constantine rebranded the Roman religion under Jesus’s name, and carefully picked it’s practices to control the people
The HRE kept control over the aristocracy through marriage, ceremony, and through relatives in the clergy. They let the kings have their kingdom while controlling the secret little club of European royalty. They held the legitimacy of all of them in Rome.
They also controlled the people directly. They were a parallel power structure. They had a ton of direct power until the 19th century, when things started shifting to mercantilism then capitol
And even now, a few family lines always seem to be the ones in power. The meeting places and the titles change, but each rising and falling empire goes back to Rome
There was war, there were other empires. People intermingled and intermixed, sometimes under rule from another group. There was assimilation, but in an organic process
And… what part of the process was less organic about Roman assimilation?
I do think the HRE was more Rome than Germanic - what language did they speak? Not Greek, Aramaic, or any Germanic language - it was Latin.
Are you fucking kidding me right now?
The HRE was overwhelmingly a German-speaking state.
And in the East you had the Byzantine empire doing the same damn thing, spreading soft influence to Eastern Europe
This… this the same Byzantine Empire whose cultural footprint outside of religion is negligible outside of the Greek heartland it clung to?
Jesus said we don’t need temples or coin.
That is a profound misunderstanding of early Christianity.
Constantine rebranded the Roman religion under Jesus’s name, and carefully picked it’s practices to control the people
… except the practices and values of Nicaean Christianity differ radically from traditional Roman religion, traditional Hellenic religion, and the Neoplatonism of the 3rd century AD.
The HRE kept control over the aristocracy through marriage, ceremony, and through relatives in the clergy. They let the kings have their kingdom while controlling the secret little club of European royalty. They held the legitimacy of all of them in Rome.
Fucking what.
And even now, a few family lines always seem to be the ones in power. The meeting places and the titles change, but each rising and falling empire goes back to Rome
The HRE kept control over the aristocracy through marriage, ceremony, and through relatives in the clergy. They let the kings have their kingdom while controlling the secret little club of European royalty. They held the legitimacy of all of them in Rome.
Okay, this is just objectively how the holy Roman empire worked. That’s not even a slightly controversial statement
How do you think the Pope was able to dictate terms to royalty? They controlled coronations, marriages, and pacified the people. The nobility tolerated this because there was a give and take, their relatives were given high rank… It’s the origin of the term nepotism
This is also very basic European history.
A lot of this I can excuse as you being a too literal and uncharitable, but there’s no two interpretations on this one
I don’t know if you have a hard on for Rome or what, but I don’t think you’re being serious
That’s not true about Danish colonization that happened to huge swaths of English and France, the whole Norman conquest of England was due to a Danish man having technically had a claim to the English throne because his dad was a Danish colonize of England.
The Anglo-Saxons originated from a mix of tribes from northern Germany and southern Scandinavia, primarily the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. They began settling in Britain around 410 AD, following the decline of Roman rule, and their culture significantly influenced the development of early medieval England.
Notice how they displaced the original population. The British are the resulting mix. They did not become Dutch or proto-German, but they did use Roman roads and still have Roman structures
I think they were evil. They kind of invented the idea of conquering other civilizations, and were not cool about it at all
The world would probably be a much better place without them
You have a very Euro-centric view of the world.
We’re literally talking about “the West” right now… The whole damn conversation is euro-central
I, uh, got some really bad news for you about the pre-Roman world
No one really did conquering - they would take land, take slaves, occasionally take buildings
But Vikings were Vikings, even if they occupy a settlement, the people of the settlement do not become Vikings
When Rome conquered a place, they’d levy most of the men into the legion, and when they finished their service they became Roman
Bruh, you’re thinking about Fallout, not Ancient Rome
Bruh, where do you think fiction cames from? It’s like 99% shit that has already happened, exaggerated and twisted in new ways
… that’s what conquest is.
… only because the Vikings were typically small numbers of warriors? And post-Roman, for that matter.
That’s… not how it works.
First, the Legions were for citizens only. Non-citizens were not permitted to enlist.
Second, the Auxiliaries, what you’re probably thinking of, were partly conscripted, but mostly volunteer, and very selective about their recruits. In no reality would they have taken most of the men of a region.
Third, the process of Romanization was gradual and largely unenforced - the Romans did not care if the native provincials became Romans or kept their native culture. The Romans, in fact, held a worldview wherein other peoples were better at certain things than the Romans, and that this was a good thing, because it meant Rome could organize their superior efforts for the greater good of the Republic.
Fourth, most regions after Roman conquest retained a great deal of self-government, as the Romans did not want the trouble of overturning local practices, unless they interfered with something like collecting taxes.
Fifth, Roman conquest was rarely so simple as “The Romans have conquered this place now” - there were often many graduations of Roman control which regions went through, and few regions had the same journey. The moment of conquest you’re imagining, where the Legions march through after putting the enemy’s armies and leaders to the sword, is not very common.
Sixth, the process of ethnic cleansing and assimilation are both widely attested to in the pre-Roman world, by peoples much more brutal about it than the Romans.
You’re describing what I said with more words
The difference between Vikings (or wherever else, they’re just an example) and Romans is the assimilation. That’s why there were so many more Romans, because they constantly expanded what it meant to be Roman. There were concentric circles of Roman-ness starting with just the city inhabitants down to the newly conquered territory at the fringes
Also, Rome was around for a long time. Their practices changed drastically during that time. It ranged from much worse than what I described to completely peaceful assimilation.
But my real problem wasn’t the violence, it’s the wealth extraction… That model lived on through the holy Roman empire, then “the West”. There’s so many horrible knock on effects to this, ones we’re living through now
“Romans were the first to do conquest.”
“No, they weren’t.”
“You’re just saying what I said.”
???
… do… do you think pre-Roman peoples didn’t practice assimilation?
By the time that people on the fringes of the Empire were considered Romans, Romans had lost the cultural hegemony necessary for assimilation, which makes this a very dubious claim.
I can honestly think of no period of Roman history in which the scenario you described was the norm.
…
… do you think wealth extraction doesn’t predate the Romans? For that matter, you think the HRE is more rooted in Roman practice than Germanic practice? For that matter, you think the West demonstrates the most horrific form of wealth extraction in the modern day?
Yes! That’s my whole point. Not literally - you seem caught up on the word conquest too - but the kind of institutional pattern of expansion and assimilation is what was different about Rome
There was war, there were other empires. People intermingled and intermixed, sometimes under rule from another group. There was assimilation, but in an organic process
Rome industrialized the process. They turned it into a mechanical process that has never stopped. It didn’t stop when the empire split, it didn’t stop when power shifted to the aristocracy of Europe, it didn’t stop as America rose as the latest empire after WW2
I do think the HRE was more Rome than Germanic - what language did they speak? Not Greek, Aramaic, or any Germanic language - it was Latin. And in the East you had the Byzantine empire doing the same damn thing, spreading soft influence to Eastern Europe
Christianity became a tool of Rome under Constantine. Jesus said we don’t need temples or coin. Jesus was born in the summer. Jews keep the Sabbath on Saturday. Jesus was represented by a fish, and died on the cross so that he could not be used as a tool of control against his people
Sol Invictus was born on December 25, Constantine declared the day of the sun as the day of rest. Sol Invictus is associated with gold. The cross is a symbol of Roman order
Constantine rebranded the Roman religion under Jesus’s name, and carefully picked it’s practices to control the people
The HRE kept control over the aristocracy through marriage, ceremony, and through relatives in the clergy. They let the kings have their kingdom while controlling the secret little club of European royalty. They held the legitimacy of all of them in Rome.
They also controlled the people directly. They were a parallel power structure. They had a ton of direct power until the 19th century, when things started shifting to mercantilism then capitol
And even now, a few family lines always seem to be the ones in power. The meeting places and the titles change, but each rising and falling empire goes back to Rome
And… what part of the process was less organic about Roman assimilation?
Are you fucking kidding me right now?
The HRE was overwhelmingly a German-speaking state.
This… this the same Byzantine Empire whose cultural footprint outside of religion is negligible outside of the Greek heartland it clung to?
That is a profound misunderstanding of early Christianity.
… except the practices and values of Nicaean Christianity differ radically from traditional Roman religion, traditional Hellenic religion, and the Neoplatonism of the 3rd century AD.
Fucking what.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Okay, this is just objectively how the holy Roman empire worked. That’s not even a slightly controversial statement
How do you think the Pope was able to dictate terms to royalty? They controlled coronations, marriages, and pacified the people. The nobility tolerated this because there was a give and take, their relatives were given high rank… It’s the origin of the term nepotism
This is also very basic European history.
A lot of this I can excuse as you being a too literal and uncharitable, but there’s no two interpretations on this one
I don’t know if you have a hard on for Rome or what, but I don’t think you’re being serious
That’s not true about Danish colonization that happened to huge swaths of English and France, the whole Norman conquest of England was due to a Danish man having technically had a claim to the English throne because his dad was a Danish colonize of England.
Ok? When did the English become Danish? And the French?
Nobility was totally interrelated in Europe. This is just a thing that happened, it’s not the machinery of empire
… do you know where the term ‘English’ comes from?
Can you point to me on a map where the Anglo-Saxons came from?
Do you know what a ‘Briton’ is?
Easy.
Notice how they displaced the original population. The British are the resulting mix. They did not become Dutch or proto-German, but they did use Roman roads and still have Roman structures
Don’t say that in front of the Shahansha