Most arabic people presently occupying peninsula Italy are though. Maybe one day they'll return it to it's rightful owners. Those with the highest Roman DNA. The English.
To quote Monty Python... “All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?” “Brought peace.” “Oh. Peace? Shut up!”
My last coach was a philosophy professor in Chicago. He would have loved the Aristotelian way you defined your terms to move towards rhetoric and away from debate.
For their time, the Romans were only unusual in that they were more powerful than anyone else. Any in-depth reading of history will demonstrate that slavery, human sacrifice, genocide, gladiatorial fights, etc. were the norm to greater or lesser degrees in most cultures.
It depends what qualifies as genocide. Still a hotly debated topic even today. That said it's already actually hard to argue it was the norm for that reason alone. However if we hold it to the general of organized violence with the direct intention of exterminating or otherwise culling another population it's not as common back in the ancient age as you would think. Instance of pillaging do not count because those were acts of basically violent looting and not actual genocide. That said the only people we have records of using organized violence to commit genocide are the Neo Assyrians who debatably invented the concept of organized extermination, Athens in the infamous Melian dialogue, the Isrealites on several occasions but notably during the destruction of the Midianates, Pontus when they killed people specifically of latin decent, an instance in China when General Ran Min order the extermination of an ethnic minority, an instance in Sassianian empire against a religious minority, and we suspect a conflict in southwest American involving the Anasazi resulted in genocide. As you can see all of these instance are in random places and far between on the dating. Meaning no, Genocide was not common back. Infact most empires and kingdoms did not engage in whole sale extermination of a population after achieving military victory. Looting and pillaging did happen. Genocide was rare. It's not until you get to the middle ages that you see more and more instances of Genocide. That said the Romans were infact more brutal then most powers before them (though the Assyrians might have them beat they could get to mongol levels of brutality) the sack of Carthage is an event like non other before it. Julius Caesar essentially did to the Celts the same thing Japan did and to do to the Chinese. Hadrian's actions during the Bar Koba revolt were excessively brutal. So let's not actually try to give these Romans an execuses by saying it was the norm. Because it wasn't the norm. It wasn't even the norm in Roman history. There was no whole sale extermination when they conquered Greece and Syria hell there was non when Pontus fell and you would think there would've been given the fact that Pontus triggered the war with genocide. Trajan didn't commit genocide in Parthia or Dacia. The Germanic wars while brutal were not fought with same brutality as Ceasar's Gallic wars. What you are seeing is indivuals who get into position of power and use their reasources to infact exterminate people. They may have been a cold but rational strategy behind it. As Ceasar was certainly able to successfully control and assimilate Gaul by exterminating tribes that proved resliant something that probably could not be done otherwise. But the fact of the matter is their actions were not the status quo. Keep in mind whole sale extermination was way more difficult on the technology of even the Romans then it is now with machine guns, helicopters,gas, air planes, and trucks. So it took more effort and reasources to actually exterminate an entire population back then. Hence why it wasn't done very often. Like you couldn't even do near the same damage as a bunch of modern religious militants with AK47s and trucks efficiently with legionaries. One could argue the fact genocide becomes easier over time is why it becomes more frequent and why the worlds view of violence as a concept takes a 180.
@@theempiredidnothingwrong3227 you'd think it was easier back then as food was more scarce and shelter less evolved. Hence why the Romans completely exterminated the early Frisians. P.S. Also, Romans took millions of slaves and there no admixture of all these enslaved Germanic people's in Italy. Meaning they didn't even get to breed even among themselves, worked to death. They took slaves as tribute mind you, not just war, so it was a general view of the lower other applied most harshly to non Romans.
@@ngnxtan slavery? Every civilized society practices a form of slavery. We do. It’s just debt based, no less cruel. In some ways more cruel because they lie to us all and we are told we are free when we are not. At least other slaves k ew they were property. The romans were only “evil” (subjective) when they imported new romans to take the place of their own children. Traded their children’s birthright away for a couple more years of comfort. The elderly always do this, and why they should have no say or power in our society.
But some don't bother putting them in the closet when they have guests over, and a couple have so many they just put the guest in the closet instead then told them that was all there was to see.
@Jacqueline Davis No, some nations have shit locations and get railed by more powerful nations all the time. Hard to have skeletons in a closet when you take it in the ass all the time.
NOPE, the barbarians surrounding Rome had far more skeletons in their closets. The barbarians surrounding USA have far more skeletons in their closets.
A show that I found handled gladiators well was Spartacus. Even though it's heavily stylized, it shows that the gladiators owners did not enjoy fights to the death, because a gladiator's death was loss revenue.
Spartacus was great from the cast and the plot point of view. As far as depicting Romans and particularly- gladiator fights... No comment. But yes, Andy Whitfield was great.
But... professional gladiators are not what first comes to mind when one thinks about the cruelty of the Roman circus. I mean it is kinda brutal for modern standards, but most people would agree that the fact that they were properly equiped and prepared and somewhat even-footed to one another makes it feel somewhat sport-like in it's fairness. I can see how that would be exiting, specially knowing as you mentioned that death or mutilation of those priced fighters is probably bad for business. Most people would take more issue at the cruelty displayed in the truckloads of executions of helpless captives and animals sadistically torn and tortured for the amusement of the crowd. That mostly does seems to be indicative of a rather f*ck*d up people _or_ governance. "Into the Shadows" has an interesting video on the matter. Maybe it was the lead pipes that twisted their minds thusly.
They may have had different social conventions back then and there, but reading and hearing about the ancient romans makes me believe they were as human as we are. AND as humans they were capable of great kindness and good as well as terrible atrocities - just like us.
I dont understand why your comment has not more likes. Its absolutley on point. Its eactly the essence of what Metatron tried to convey and I for one wholeheartedly agree with. From the beginning of time of humans to the present we always had the capacity for "good" and "evil". And I believe that we as humans have an intrinsic understanding/feeling for it. Maybe there is a gene for ethics I dont know but for sure do we have a moral compass in us. And we all have the same capacity for good and evil. Thats whats on the one hand frieghtens me and on the other hand is deeply comforting.
Bones of small children have often been found in Roman mines, where slaves of all ages were literally worked to death. And there’s also that time they crucified like 500 innocent slaves, (men, women and children) because one of them killed their master. But yes aside from the other countless examples of such behavior we’re morally no different.
Oh I forgot to mention the TOTAL obliteration of Carthage- it’s entire history, culture, all the standing structures and people, completely obliterated. And let’s not forget Caesar’s mass genocide of the Gauls, just one of several ancient world holocaust equivalents committed by the Romans. Of course there are more examples, but these also seemed important. Not that I believe they were pure evil, but I think we should always remember the endless, endless people who suffered and died under them when remembering their accomplishments too, most of which were only made possible by slave labor.
@@TheMarshmelloKing Oh, Caesar decided to punish the Gauls after they broke the peace treaties SEVERAL times. HOW DARE HE. Caesar did fight a war in Gaul and in war people die. Especially if the beaten ones do not realize they are beaten - but sign peace treaties just to brake them as soon as they think they can get away with it. After they did this the third time Caesar decided to sent a message. And he was very correct in doing this. As was his behaving in Alesia. Vercingetorix could have capitulated any time. He chose not to. And when food run out it was Vercingetorix who decided to cast out all woman and childrend and let them starve. I guess you blame this on the Romans too, yes? Well, nonsense. It was not the Romans who decided to continue the fight, even though supplies ran out. And after the war Gaul had centuries of peace, something Gaul NEVER had. Because whole tribes were slaughtered / driven off by Germanic invaders. In the end the Roman conquest was the best that could happen to Gaul. I am with you on the destruction of Carthage. The last Punic war was absolutly unneccesary and unprovoked (in fact Carthage did everything it could to fullfill the terms that were established after the second Punic war) and the third Punic war and the destruction of Carthage is a very black point in Romes history. Slaves were used everywhere and NOBODY saw anything wrong with it and called for an ending of slavery. That INCLUDED the slaves themselves.
This reminds of a book I read in uni for my ethics class, a haunting quote the rough translation from spanish to english is "In the quest to elevate mankind to the divine, we become demons"
@@limp_dickens that's why non-steppe nations don't miss Mongol's rule. Even Syria and Iran respect Greek and Roman but none will miss Mongol. For me is simple, "evil" or not depends how they missed by future conquered generations.
@@patriciaeddy7629 compared with Mongols, Roman has remarkable restraint. People tend to confused between respect and admiration of power projection. Mongols doesn't received any respect but admiration of power projection, that's why the conquered don't miss them. The Jawanese and Vietnamese laughed at Mongols failure to invade; China Mid Autumn Festival became significant of driving out Mongols from China starting Ming Dynasty. Mongol's over-specialisation for warfare became it's evolution bottleneck that caused its demise. Without soft power as glue to bind hard power together, eventually it broke down. When there is nothing to conquer, it started to devour itself and almost impossible to rise again from ashes.
"You can't make the most powerful empire in history by being nice about it" History Buffs. He was talking about Britain but it applies to all empires including Rome. I don't think they were evil but they weren't angels
By the same token, you can't make the most powerful empire in history through mindless or excessive brutality. That is also counter-productive. You have to strike a balance somewhere in-between.
@@eliharman I think that makes sense. You gotta be mean to establish an empire (via conquering everyone else) first, but then you gotta be nice (enough) to maintain the empire to prevent infighting and civil unrest. It's all a balance, as you say, that probably changes over time based on the progress of your empire (rise vs peak vs fall).
It doesn't really matter the domain, optimal behavior is usually somewhere in between the extremes. That's why Aristotle identified virtue as the golden mean between two vices, for e.g., courage is the golden mean between cowardice and foolhardiness. But the exact optimum can vary depending on circumstances. As far as brutality goes, the Romans had to be somewhat brutal to conquer and subjugate other peoples, and they had to continuously threaten brutality to keep them in the fold, and extract tribute. But for the most part, they let subject people govern themselves in the manner to which they were accustomed and keep their culture and religion. Usually, it seems, those subject peoples found the loss of sovereignty and tribute more than offset by the benefits of the pax Romana, or at least offset enough that they didn't wish to try their luck again against the legions. It's like the old Monty python skit... "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?” “Brought peace.” “Oh. Peace? Shut up!”
You are one person that I believe could be a great philosophy teacher. You break down terms to have a set meaning that is discussed and that's one of the things I appreciate most about your content. I watch everything even if I'm not overly interested in the topic because I know I will learn something. Thank you for the great content
Rome was not black and white bit a shade of grey they did have slaves and some genocide but they also created great advancements in warfare and architecture
Thank you so much Metatron for sharing my book with other Noble Ones! I really can't thank you and this community enough. The topic of this video is a very interesting one as well and I really like the perspective you bring. My personal feelings towards the Romans have, generally speaking, been a bit more on the hostile side, I must have been a Germanic tribesmen in a past life, but I do understand the historical context and times they were living in. My general dislike probably comes from the fact that when I was learning ancient history there were many cultures I became very interested in and wanted to see where they would go only for them to be conquered by Rome and so I developed a disdain for them. But that's just my perspective and experience and I still find their armor and tactics interesting as always and like to understand ancient people as best as I can well keeping in mind the times they were living in. Again that you so much for everything and I hope that everyone enjoys my book.
It's always worth noting that the Romans were not a monolithic society and much of their success came from the way they absorbed other societies and tactics. The Gauls contributed many metalworking advancements to the Romans, the Carthaginians introduced a great many military tactics, etc. So in a way it's fascinating to see a flourishing example of a heavily multicultural empire that would later have emperors from Dalmatia (Diocletian), and an Arab (Elagabalus).
@@n8pls543 Romans started as Latins, then it was any Italian, then anyone under the eagle ,which Roman became more than just a people. I don't think something like that can be done so well again.
(sorry for my english) I think like many say it's just because roman empire was "famous" somehow that we are asking this question only for them, for example germanic people did orrible things in England and invaded it, as far as I know sometimes even more brutal than romans to conquere it and sometimes I ask myself what England would it be without the latin influence but ALSO without the saxon influence. Also there are places in the mediterranean that during their history, were heavly invaded by: romans, africans, middle east people, french, north europe countries and so on. And this is only for Europe area, you can imagine the same for all other parts of the world. It's not a justification, just saying this because maybe we focus only on what was more renown.
In the eyes of their enemies yes they were. In their own eyes ofcourse not. It just depends on the perspective, an enemy civilization like the Sassanid and Parthian empires would have seen Rome as evil because they were constantly fighting them. But like all cultures there are negatives and positives they brought with their empire.
I don't even think their enemies would have always seen them as evil. I'm sure some saw them as worthy opponents, or as just another nation in the world.
Exactly. Calling a civilization or a country as evil is pretty much propaganda. A recent example is WW2. Every single side (Allies and Axis) called the other side "Evil".
“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either - but right through every human heart.” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Well to be fair that's some prescriptive, well intended load of malarkey that excuses society and blames everything on the individual. It's not that people in the past had lower moral standards than us today; the people is the same, they were just even more susceptible to the whims of rulers than we are today, and thus, in order to survive to a morally bankrupt status quo, you have to adapt and morally bankrupt yourself in one way or another, or at least learn how to accept it and be complacent/not too vocal about your ideals for positive change.
I always found it fascinating that amidst all the blood and gore of the colloseum, the Roman public found it distasteful when Giraffes were slaughtered as part of the games...
"All the blood and gore" Is the problem there. Gladiator events were NOT generally Bloody or Gory. Think modern NFL. Tons of Money and training went into each guy, popular gladiators put butts in seats... which was the bottom line, then as now. It makes NO SENSE for them to die or be injured regularly and all the sense in the world to keep them healthy. It was a sport, based on combat... like boxing, or MMA and just like boxing or MMA the rules exsist to keep fighters in fighting shape
Technically speaking the first order was made up of the Imperial remnant and they used the same equipment and similar star ships so it is close enough I feel.
"Romans were brutal at times" Oh no, you mean how exactly every single other ancient and medieval civilization has been throughout Human history, as far back as the Mesopotamian era, were? Say it ain't so. The idea of an Empire being evil is an easily romanticized concept, ideal for entertainment...but when people use entertainment as a substitute for actual history, I hang my head in disappointment.
I think every empire is evil by default. If we go by the modern concept of the nation state as the standard of how a people should be able to live multicultural empires are morally repugnant because they go against it.
@@aramhalamech4204 i disagree, empires have been a very stable form of government throughout history. you cant moralise history through a contemporary lens.
The fact that people ask this question only shows that people have lost the ability to discern nuance. People and their nations are not wholly one or the other. They are a blend of good and bad with varying degrees of both.
"There once was a dream, a dream to purge this rotten world from the barbarians that infest it, a dream called Rome." -Dovahhatty, Unbiased History of Rome Sounds pretty clear to me, the Romans were the good guys.
Joan of Arc's trial and execution was a plot of the English Church Court, not the main Roman Catholic Church itself. The English did not want her especially from their loss of the Hundred Years War. The Roman Catholic Church later investigated her trial in the 20th century and revoked the penalties
Actually the Church didn't do anything to Joan of Arc. It had this neat trick by which heretics would be "handed over to the secular arm"-the "secular arm" being the local king, who was king because the Church had acknowledged and consecrated him, and who knew full well what the Church wanted of him.
@@thekingshussar1808 It was also of course done by people that were sympathetic to the English crown and of course didn't like someone their side was fighting against
Could you make a video about the Roman assimilation of Iberia? Specifically the Lusitanians, the Gallaeci, the Celtici and the Conii (Cynetes)? Pre-Roman and Early Roman history of Portugal is barelly known
Yeah, honestly its rarely talked about how iberians and french people are probably more of the cloth of the original people than Italian settlers, specifically french people, so much vocabulary is straight up gaulish, very interesting
I like that you defined evil. The way I grew up, I automatically associated evil with going against the Bible, and I actually wondered what does he mean by evil? And then you explained… this is why I love watching your vids: you assume pretty much nothing. People normally assume everything just to get by… we really have no choice.
Yeah, that part was very clumsy. I mean, these guys are sent there to *make friends* with this tribe, and what do they do? They boss people around and then they start awkwardly shouting "ROMA VICTRIX" to the wrong crowd. It's like they were asking to get slaughtered. Historically, that's not what happened, but I guess the Austrian production needed to make it look like the Germanic tribes were innocent, good and pure by modern day standards and the Romans were just terrible.
@@happyslapsgiving5421 the germanic tribes just follow an OLD romantic cliche of the noble savage. I think the term was coined in the 18th century, mainly for the native of the New World, possibly for African tribes too... basically, civilization has corrupting influences, while uncivilized people are pure, brave, truthful, etc It's much older however. Sometimes has different concepts, but similar. I think Gaius Julius Caesar himself write that the Gaul or Germanic barbarians fought bravely, unlike Romans, who had been softened by civilisation. Something like that. A weird complaint since it were Romans conquering the world...
Romans were terrible diplomats. This is because a diplomat saw himself as a representation of the Roman state, and because of that, they were not very polite and political when they came to negotiate with representatives of other states, or even kings.
The first image of the Romans I saw was in church on the 14 Stations of the Cross at elementary school age. I wondered who those people were, being so mean to a nice guy like Jesus. And during that time "sword and sandal" movies were popular and recommended at Catholic school. Since then I've been fascinated and repulsed at the same time by the Romans.
Western civilization as a whole has a real love/hate relationship with the Romans. We vilified their culture for a thousand years, then spent the next 500 years glorifying them. During the twentieth century the pendulum slowly swung back toward condemnation, partly because the cult of fascism was inspired by ancient Rome. I think it's very misguided and dangerous to fetishize any culture, whether Roman or American or whatever. Judge people as individuals instead.
Romans werent actually mean to Jesus. Romans did actually try to save him. They didnt want to kill an innocent man, he looked nut, mentally disabled, but not guilty of any crime or conspirancy. What Pilato did was to finally leave the destiny of the man to his tribe, and WANTED to kill him. Now Pilato, like any other governer back then, didnt want to cause riots and inner conflicts thruough the cities of Palestines, and Jesus was already making things complicated as he was claimed to be the son of God and king of Jersualem, but the Romans werent interested in that stuff. They just wanted peace and stability in the province, and if a man had to be killed in order for the mob to be quiet, than it was ok, i presume.
I love your videos! Very informative, well thought out and transparent. You do a very good job at laying down the facts in a politically unbiased fashion. Subscribed, keep up the great work!🙌😎💚
OK but can we apply that in both directions? Because it's super common for modern people to glorify the ancients and to look back on (an idealized version of) what they did with full-on nostalgia
@@hrotha We glorify the ancients because their blood flows through us all. Our glorification is not an endorsement of their entire life or moral codes. It's unfair to judge their morality when we are removed from their world and their knowledge. Never smear your heritage based on modern standards. It's unfair to both of you.
@Metatron When Rome and Genocide are mentioned, the first thing I think of is not Carthage, but the Dacians, specifically what was done to them after they had lost the war to Traianus's legions. Not entirely unheard of in its time (or in the ages before and after), but definitely something that would qualify for the term if you ask me. A pity you didn't mention that episode.
They also mass murdered the Gauls by starving them to death when they retreated to a city fortified called alesia, the Gauls suffered various attacks from Romans and they were getting captured as slaves. The romans were in fact evil, they set out to conquer territories and enslave people, that's undeniably evil from a Human morality standpoint The romans were successful because they focused their society in a unified militaristic empire, while the other populations, specially in Europe, cared more about Nature and their animist cosmology, and living in tribes. But when the other civilizations like the celts and later the Germanic tribes united, they gave romans a good run, and the Germanic people's destroyed Rome The reason Rome was successful is because they adopted the tech from the people's they met that were superior to theirs, like the chainmail and gladius sword used by the Gauls, and the spatha sword from the Germanics. The legions in Europe were comprised by the very population and race they were trying to conquer, they were made of soldiers of Germanic backgrounds too, that's why they were strong enough to take on the Germanic warriors
@@MybeautifulandamazingPrincess As far as i know, other nations didnt live in peace while caring about nature. They didn't keep so good records on that, but we know from Greeks and Romans that they too were attacking them throught years.
I love how completely impartial you are and the detached, dry calm you invariably maintain in all your videos. I would never have guessed you're Italian! I was so surprised when I found that out only bc Shad mentioned it at some point. ;-P ... but that aside, seriously, I like your scientific, logical outlook and diligence. I am absolutely not a fan of Italy, but I'm a fan of the Metatron.
I must say I think you are being very soft on the Romans here. This was an exceptionally violent culture, even by ancient standards. On r*pe, you say that this violated Roman law. That is true, with respect to citizens. But slaves, who were in fact the majority of the population, could be freely assaulted in any way by their master (paterfamilias), up to and including the worst imaginable torture and death, with impunity. The arrival of the barbarians actually diluted this total power of life and death over slaves. For instance, the Visigothic laws set out fines for physical abuse of the unfree. As for the question of genocide, it is true that the Romans did not reach the Nazi standard of having an agenda of total ethnic annihilation. But they went a lot further than, for instance, the Serbs at Srebrenica. In that incident, Milosevich et al were convicted at the International Criminal Court of genocide for the massacre of the male population, although they spared the lives of the majority of women and children. Compare (for instance) this account of the actions of the Roman army on the northern frontier, related by Ammianus Marcellinus... "[Emperor] Julian, with words of encouragement sent the light-armed auxiliaries...to perform a memorable feat, if fortune would favour them...[When they found a settlement] they butchered everyone they found, men and women alike, without distinction of age, like so many sheep." Needless to say this level of brutality, all done by hand at close quarters, makes Srebrenica look pretty restrained. It would very, very easily hit the threshold for genocide at the ICC. But Ammianus has nothing negative to say about this whatsoever, quite the contrary. And I could multiply this kind of incident endlessly. The most egregious example was Gaul, in which campaign Julius Caesar bragged about killing as many as a million Gauls. Again this could be exaggeration, but the fact that it was the perpetrators rather than their critics who were making these claims tells us that the Roman attitude to mass killing sometimes verged into truly psychopathic territory. Even the Nazis were not disposed to boast about their head-count in such a brazen way. As for "the games", as the Romans called them, it is a stretch to assume that they were mostly non-lethal. Certainly trained gladiators were quite valuable, so could not be thrown away willy-nilly, but the games also drew heavily on slaves, criminals and especially prisoners of war, who were plentiful and totally disposable. Gladiators and exotic wild animals were the meat-grinder through which this human meat was processed for entertainment. As for moral reservations, they existed but were not sufficient to prevent the continuance of this practice for several hundred years, so we may assume that most people who counted were quite happy with 'the games', at least until the 4th century. There is no other civilization in history with such a long and illustrious record of killing human beings for fun (as opposed to in war or to appease the gods etc). Does this make the Romans 'evil'? I think the question is the wrong one, since it quickly devolves into a philosophical question about cultural relativism. What I would say is that that in some respects (certainly not all), Rome was more violent (and more relaxed about violence) than any other regime, anywhere in the world, ever.
when judging th past i have this to say: were romans good at war? of course not, they had no tanks no airforce and would get smashed by any modern military. judging the past with modern standards is like claiming the romans lacked tanks, it is ridiculous. they should be judged in context
@Andree De haan slaves weren't Just casually yeeted at Lions y'know. And people are told of how he killed in Battle a fuckton of Gauls, but you omit that he made many Counsuls After conquering the region. Genocide isn't "Killing alotta people", that Is a massacre, a Genocide Is targeting and wipingn or otherwise mistreating a specific group of people based on ethnic origin, wich the Romans didn't do. You're an enemy? You die. Simple as. Stop misusing the term, It makes It loose weight.
@Andree De haan Celts made a living of capturing and selling germanic people to romans. The would also occasionally peel their captured enemies skin, bleed them out, break their legs and bury them in a crack in the ground, sacrifice and mutilate slaves when they were under the weather attack each other for gain (...). not a great counterexample of nonbarbaric behaviour. At least the romans only did it sometimes.
Because of those Star Wars movies, people got the mentality that Authority=Bad while Resistance=Good. As I grew older I just realize that it was not always like that.
The death star itself is analogous to WW2. Turning everyone against you by your want to be feared. Turns out if you take the long slow route to conquering people, they don't care nearly as much as when you decide to destroy them all forthright at the same time.
It's not because of Star Wars, people will always associate power with negative stigmas simply because most people don't have power and are prey to those who do have it.
I studied roman law at university. As a whole, and to be short, I was absolutely fascinated of the spirit behind - it's a constant search for aequitas / fairness, especially in ius gentium. Even in old law they made a step over the border and into humanity: We all know Hammurabi's "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth", which sounds cruel, but in the context of time it is a hindering of exaggeration - meaning ONLY an eye for an eye; the romans went further then: "Si membrum rupsit, ni cum eo pacit, talio esto" - first oncoming not to pay back with the same (law of the 12 tables). This spirit, vivid in their laws, spread over the globe, and for many of it, nothing better could be found until today. If one adds all the other benefits known - Rome was sort of a gift for mankind.
The term "Eye for an eye" in Hammurabi's code, as told to me by an Egyptian Copt, just means in ancient Semitic and modern Arab cultures: just recompense for injuries occurred. In other words, if you owe me $30 then you pay me $30 or whatever a court of law requires you to surrender for injuries upon my person. Usually, your life, freedom, or money depending on the laws of those peoples.
For those wondering, that Latin phrase translates to: If a body part is damaged, and doesn't reconcile with it, let there be retaliation AKA Lex Talionis
Just going by the title here - The Romans were very much a mixed bag, just as with any other nationality. On average, they wanted the same things we want. To live their lives with as much joy as possible, to have their needs met, and for the most part, to be left alone. It's not until you get into the politics that things begin to change.
A brilliant, informed and compassionate discussion of a very thorny subject. On a side issue, there is no doubt that during the long Pax Romana the level of general literacy for ‘the common people’ was at a hight not to be regained in Europe till the mid 19th century... it was due to the number of common but literate citizens that we have such a wealth of (often quite rude!) Roman graffiti..... Even Brian’s knowledge of Latin, whilst not perfect was still pretty impressive!
Whaat, Roman literacy was around 50 60%? Because that's how it was in the mid 19th century as you mentioned. Literacy in the Roman Empire was faar lower as they didn't have any public schools, they had the far more primitive private schools and tutors. Public schools is a product of the age of enlightenment and tax reforms, it's waay ahead the Roman society at every level. Also, it's hard to generalize an entire population for graffitis in Pompeii, besides, there are over a thousand runic inscriptions written by the laity(non-clergy), including gay sex even, but that doesn't prove the population was "largely literate", it just proves that there might be some more literacy than originally thought. Originally thought being 3-10%. Without public schools you can't produce a literate society, I'm sorry.
Exactly. I have had pushback from stating that we should not judge slave owners for simply owning slaves but for how they treated them. Some slave owners treated them like we would treat a live in nanny and others treated them worse than a rabid dog.
"remember that time I killed Commodus, flipped a switch, and made a herd of post-fascist livestock magically transform into a self-governing republic that doesn't tolerate corruption because.... Um, because Commodus got stabbed. Oh, also, I fucked the emperor's daughter supposedly so no shit I like Rome." -the same guy, whose name is Russell.
“Look daddy, teacher says, every time Metatron says context an Matt Easton gets his military sabre,” - from It's A Wonderful Life (or something like that)
@@chengkuoklee5734 So you're saying it's acceptable to murder someone, as long as you can point to someone worse and say "Well look at him! He murdered 5 people!"
Them: Napoleon is evil! Caius Julius Caesar: *allow me to introduce myself* Chinggis khan: something something meatshield something Alexander: hippity hoppity your lands are now my property Charlemagne: ah ah saxons go brrrrrr
Hey Metatron, do you think you could make a video about the Sicilian king and German emperor Federico secondo, maybe about his fathers campaign in Sicily ? Federico/Friedrich is probably one of the coolest characters in the history of the Middle Ages. And congrats on half a million subs. 👊🏻
I think the main problem, is that in those ages, either you were the conqueror, or the conquered. If rome didnt invade and defeat the etruscans, the etruscans wouldve invaded rome, and we might have had an etruscan empire. If rome didnt destroy carthage, the carthaginian empire would been the powerhouse of the mediterranian. If they didnt conquer gaul (france), the gauls wouldve kept raiding roman territory, and might have united and invaded en masse. Its harder for me ti come up with a justification for taking greece...
Great Republic, great Empire... One must laugh when someone tries to impose morals of 21th century on those times. That is utter stupidity coming from cringe ideologies of our time.
@@tafazzi-on-discord "Do people unironically have a voice in their head?" Yes, most people do, in fact, have a literal voice in their head that verbalizes thoughts. Not having one is quite strange. While not a 'disorder', lacking an inner monologue is not the norm.
@@minutemansam1214 I can verbalize everything I want in my head, especially when reading or writing, but I've never had that voice "tell" me anything, I have complete control over it and I don't verbalize everything I think.
My takeaway from this video is that instead of seeings the Roman empire as evil, we should study and understand their actions through the context of their time and circumstances. And to not cast judgement on them hypocritically. They were as human as we are today. Every bit of study in the ancient world will serve us well into the future. "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana
Applying modern morals to past societies is in my mind a game for losers. Every nation has practices or behaviors that another group will define as immoral.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 I completely agree, but being a Christian I believe that everyone has failed to live up to the standard that God has set. With that in mind, I see no utility in judging the morality of past. Usually the only thing that finds utility in this is modern day politics, which is why I think the modern day lens thing is important (as political narratives will tell you group A are better because group B did X, but usually group A was also doing X but that part is left out.) I will point out that although morals from God are objective and perfect, our understanding of them is subjective. For example, I have no doubt that God can solve the trolley problem, but I can't find any way to make it black and white. It's grey because I (as a human) have limited understanding.
And politicians are too focused on themselves and holding power. The United States now looks similar to the time of Julius Caesar in the late Roman Republic, rather than the end of the Western Roman empire.
1:17 - Rome: Total War! Had to include that one! Haha. Seriously though, I felt like a Roman General in that game, it was awesome and very atmospheric.
I’m a Rome fanboy too but at the end of the day I think Carthage was a genocide as much as Troy. Scipio fully intended to completely destroy the Carthaginian culture and way of life through death and destruction, I think its enough to consider a genocide. Not hating on good ol Cornelius or anything just my opinion.
"They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace." ~Tacitus, Agricola, Chapter 30.
And, this could be said of Spain in the New World, Britain’s Empire, Australia and the Aborigines, and the United States with the Native Americans and our later interference in Central and South America - the list goes on.
Super interesting topic. Reminds me of the similar question I’ve asked myself, we’re the Assyrians evil? Or were the *insert great power here* evil? I think you put it perfectly by asking the follow up question are humans evil? Well done my friend i think you hit every point here.
"Self defense justifies murder". No. Self defense is called self defense. The killing of someone thru self defense is just that. Self defense. Murder is the unneeded killing of someone. Edit: "Murder is the malicious killing of someone"
Yes, the example should have been more about "killing" somebody. And then we can talk about the ethics behind things like "murder", "execution", "self defense" etc which even linguistically already show that we differentiate the action according to its circumstances. And we can do similar things to, ie, stealing - if you're starving to death and steal some bread from a rich person any sane person would see that as a different thing compared to if you are a rich person and steal some bread from a starving beggar ... But either way I think the point he was making came through fine so that's really a detail.
Modern "better" People today: "Rome (and any other gone Societies)was so brutal and primitive! I mean look at the Gladiator fights!" Also modern "better" People today: "YEEEEAS! MMA! I Hope someone dies today! Why isnt Mcgeorge getting up again?! He is sooo weak! I would have done better!"
I can respect people who decide to dedicate themselves to fighting in full contact like that for their dedication and hard work. But such sports still disgusts me both physically and morally. I want nothing to do with humans who violently hurt each other for fame and money, nor any desire to watch such misery.
Are they? Seems like the Greeks contributed more in terms of philosophy and democracy, I think we would find the Roman ideas about society quite alien. Law is a pretty big contribution though. I think foundations of modern progress is overstating it.
Same can be said about modern colonization and slavery should we forget about British colonialism and slavery because how much they contributed to modern civilization?
@@LyndonLaRoucheArchive European feudalism was a contribution by the Germanic tribes that inherited the rule of Europe from Rome. Rome itself would have regarded feudalism and monarchy with contempt.
Romans ain't got nothing on the later periods, - when humans got so evolved and civilized - that they invented and perfected the clerical entertainment known as "the inquisition". Europeans, - both east and west, did things that Romans can not be compared to. Mary Tudor and a Russian czar Ivan the Terrible - could single-handedly "outshine" the Romans in whatever sick game that may come to mind. Kings and queens tortured and exterminated people like it was a youtube channel of their time. They could make 'The Jigsaw Killer' blush - over and over, until he'd run away with tail between legs and break his little devices. They and many others (like Tomas de Torquemada and his..."corporation LTD") are simply overlooked, cause they are less known to the general public. People like those, were true embodiment of evil, while the Romans were just Romans...not unlike any other ancient civilization, and likely even superior - considering for how long were they able to resist collapse under enemy swords, avalanche of time and human vices.
exactly. the romans destroyed every threat to thieir military control, as everybody ever did and sadly will always do, but they did it for good. The greco-persian wars, for example, were nothing but the empire trying to re-establish its dominance over city states in their land that rebelled against it. Can you guess the result? Mass murder and ensalvement (miletus was the first and not the last city to experience the persian "kindness") Rome did it more effectivly. Just think about the third Roman-Jewish war: they rebelled to the power of rome and massacred all roman cityzens in rebel-controlled areas as happened in the "kitos war". Hadrian responded for good provoking the jewish diaspora. No one was good and no one was evil. Everybody just fought for thier own survival
@@mariuspoenariu7021 you’re arguing they did for the greater good. If you argue this you could argue the Holocaust was being done for the greater good that’s what the nazis said. They were killing people for a subjective good desire.
They aspired to extract the resources of other nations by means of coercion LIKE EVERY EMPIRE. It's silly to put the Roman Empire on a pedestal just because they pretended to be enlightened.
That question depends. Are you a Gaul? Then yes. Are you an Alleman? Then yes. Are you a Carthaginian? Then yes. Are you an Etruscan? Then yes. Are you a Dacian? Then yes. Are you a Judean? Then yes. Are you an Egyptian? Then yes. Are you a Cyrenaican? Then yes. Are you a Bedouin? Then yes. Are you a Persian? Then yes. Are you a Goth? Then yes. Are you a Scythian? Then yes. Are you a Parthian? Then yes. Are you a Roman? Then no. Are you a greek? Then maybe.
Depends on who the aggressor is, right? Conquerors dont conquer just by defending themselves. Of course ancient times where cruel and bloody in general and people where used to violence to some extant. But taking territory and crushing other people was evem expected from roman leaders. Why did Crassus march against Parthia against the Senat's will? Caesar and Pompey had more victories in their vita while he was a Leech that got rich on Sulla's proscriptions. Crassus was an evil roman.
Great video & discussion, Metatron. In the end, we have to see the Romans for what they were: exceptional. It's hard to overstate the influence they continue to exert on the modern world. Another interesting discussion might be surviving Roman influences that can be seen in our modern surroundings, Governments, Legal systems, Science, et cetera.
Irrelevant, they still did worse to most because they could, Egypt and Greece, for example, was nowhere as worse as Rome ! Those influences could have been done easily without them destroying and exploiting people and resources all around. Egypt was a better example, or nations that did not do such things
Oddly enough, I was just listening to Simon on the question Were the Romans Psychopaths? He mentioned many of the things you mentioned, including context. One thing he got into as well was the LEADED WATER. He explores this as a possible influence, and ameliorates it as well, depending on circumstance. Very interesting to me, Flint Mi being a short drive from here, and knowing it's not the only town with this problem today.
Leaded water is probably a myth. Lead reacts with the lime in water, resulting in a thick patina on the inside of the tube; the fresh water wont have conteact with lead.
More stimulating food for thought, Metatron, thank you. re: GENOCIDE--The fact that a human, Raphael Lemkin, came up with the word thousands of years after the actions were committed, and still are being committed, nation upon other nation, does not negate the act of "genocide" in the past, (as it is defined in mid 20th century) . By taking the "word", and acting upon the deep strength of its meaning, such as International Tribunals against Crimes committed (in various countries), and calling the act for what it is, (and thereby bringing to account the perpetrators), tells me that perhaps we are progressing somewhat as a species. At least in this respect, the power of the 'naming of an act' may bring more awareness worldwide to the oppression of one group of people against another, and hopefully stem the occurrence of genocide. Let us hope it does.
In 390BC the Gallic chieftain Brennus invaded the Italian Peninsula, defeated a Roman army, raped the women, and sacked and pillaged the city of Rome. When the Roman's begged for mercy the reply of Brennus was "woe to the vanquished" or the better known quote " to the victor go the spoils." Romeo's invasion of Gaul was in response to years of conflict and raids by Gauls.
You're right about the heart of the issue. "Are humans evil?" That's the real question. And the answer is "yes." Humans always have the capacity for evil, and thus no nation will ever be devoid of evil. A man made Utopia will never exist. And denial of humanity's evil nature is just as evil as denial of humanity's good nature. So, the assessment of the morality of a civilization can only be a matter of scale. "Were the Romans more evil or less evil than other civilizations in that same period?"
Sorry to break it to you but evil is a made up concept so trying to scientifically label humans as “evil” makes no sense because evil is not a recognized concept in science. Evil is a figment of humans and its completely subjective based on each person.
You have readed my mind, i was wondering after watching "kingdom of Heaven" and "Arn - the templar knight 1 & 2" movies that did Saladin after conquering Jerusalem really spare Christian and why and i found answer (unusually from finnish woman from quora, my countrywoman who works at Aalto University) that custom was that if city surrendered it would be spared as a "non written rule" of the time. There was mention that Romans and Mongols did not abide by these "rules" so you could say that i tought "were ancient romans evil ?" But i think no, there is logic behind they're actions and i'm a rome fan boy.
"Were the ancient Romans evil?" - no more than anyone else, we just have more extant records of their ways and means. "Were/are humans evil?" - EMPHATIC *YES* ...that's my opinion, at least, but yeah. But YES thank you for sharing all of this! I knew some of it, but not all. Fascinating all around, and thank you for tackling this subject!
I’d say that the question is malformed. When studying history, I find it easier to focus on individual facets as a means of organisation. If the question is specifically about the moral compass of the Romans, then by modern standards they would both be horrendous, and also uncomfortably similar. Cassus belli wise, we’re almost as bad today as the Romans. “Peacekeeping” and “defensive fighting” are birthed from the same self deceiving beast. In short, I can love the culture and history, and still declare certain things to be deplorable. Rome wasn’t one homogenous being, but made of individuals and events.
There's a great deal of subtlety in Roman law and concepts of justice and un/acceptable behavior that muddies the waters when you look for parallels in a modern context. We're used to compartmentalizing law and criminal justice as a thing mostly separate from social and group dynamics so naturally we look to those same sources to determine whether a particular society is 'just', but we should also be looking at morality as expressed in values that define particular groups of people at particular times. For instance if you compare christian and pre-christian rome you'll see a gradual shift away from the concept of pre-christian roman stoicism as something that shapes personal choices in behavior outside of whether a thing is legal or not and how others see you as a result of those choices. So using the example in the video, if you look at the laws regarding r--e (don't want to cause demonetization!) in pre-christian rome, you'll see, as pointed out, that whether or not it's a crime depends on your socio-economic status, but what you don't see is that crime or no, if you're someone who makes a habit of r--ing non-citizen girls outside of wartime then you are someone who lacks self-control - a major personality failing, a weakness that doesn't stay confined to that one act. You wouldn't want to go into business, for example, with a man who cannot control his base urges. Stoicism falls to the wayside in christian rome, and with it some of the social pressures relating to an individuals actions as being wholly his own; behaviors formerly seen as a failure of character are now externalized as 'sin' - a temporary state brought about by a force outside oneself. The presence of a more robust legal system doesn't necessarily mean a more just society overall, and that's just one example of why wildly broad, speculative questions on immensely subjective topics like the nature of evil as presented in a society that hasn't existed for a couple thousand years just don't make sense :P Also, hollywood hasn't done roman history any favors, so there's that.
" I am a Rome fanboy " as he wears full lorica segmentata. Thanks for the hint
It takes a trained eye, and years of experience to pick up on the little details. 🤪
He fooled me I thought he was cosplaying the soldiers from the movie gladiator 😛
Ah damn. I thought he was wearing loincloth
Most arabic people presently occupying peninsula Italy are though. Maybe one day they'll return it to it's rightful owners. Those with the highest Roman DNA. The English.
@@bashkillszombies wat
To quote Monty Python...
“All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”
“Brought peace.”
“Oh. Peace? Shut up!”
But the Roman did take everything from them, their fathers, fathers' fathers, fathers' fathers' fathers ...
@@GuitarsRockForever it's the price for peace, just a small payment in the grand scale
@@kyomademon453
You meant to play alone with Monty Python. Or you must be "Woman" 😉😉😉
@@kyomademon453 its literally not. If thats the lens in which you look at history with you'll become a facist in no time
@@tofuteh2348 yes I'm a fascist in fact
"The combat is based."
-Metatron, 2021
Best ever recommendation
Yea I caught that too lmao
can you timestamp it for me, i dont recall.
@@carbonado2432 8:47 . He actually does it again in the next sentence.
Took me awhile to find lol
My last coach was a philosophy professor in Chicago. He would have loved the Aristotelian way you defined your terms to move towards rhetoric and away from debate.
Roman: Dark humor is like independence.
The World: Why?
Roman: 😂 You wouldn’t get it.
HAHAHAHAHA
b a s e d
*Knock knock*
Who's there?
*I Crew.*
I Crew who??
*I crucified your parents. Get it?*
@@burbanpoison2494 😂👌
The Huns: life is just like your empire, it comes and also go
The Romans: huh? Okay.
The Huns: we shall put an end to it.
For their time, the Romans were only unusual in that they were more powerful than anyone else. Any in-depth reading of history will demonstrate that slavery, human sacrifice, genocide, gladiatorial fights, etc. were the norm to greater or lesser degrees in most cultures.
the Greek was even more brutal when it comes to slavery and misogyny lmao
It depends what qualifies as genocide. Still a hotly debated topic even today. That said it's already actually hard to argue it was the norm for that reason alone. However if we hold it to the general of organized violence with the direct intention of exterminating or otherwise culling another population it's not as common back in the ancient age as you would think. Instance of pillaging do not count because those were acts of basically violent looting and not actual genocide. That said the only people we have records of using organized violence to commit genocide are the Neo Assyrians who debatably invented the concept of organized extermination, Athens in the infamous Melian dialogue, the Isrealites on several occasions but notably during the destruction of the Midianates, Pontus when they killed people specifically of latin decent, an instance in China when General Ran Min order the extermination of an ethnic minority, an instance in Sassianian empire against a religious minority, and we suspect a conflict in southwest American involving the Anasazi resulted in genocide. As you can see all of these instance are in random places and far between on the dating. Meaning no, Genocide was not common back. Infact most empires and kingdoms did not engage in whole sale extermination of a population after achieving military victory. Looting and pillaging did happen. Genocide was rare. It's not until you get to the middle ages that you see more and more instances of Genocide. That said the Romans were infact more brutal then most powers before them (though the Assyrians might have them beat they could get to mongol levels of brutality) the sack of Carthage is an event like non other before it. Julius Caesar essentially did to the Celts the same thing Japan did and to do to the Chinese. Hadrian's actions during the Bar Koba revolt were excessively brutal. So let's not actually try to give these Romans an execuses by saying it was the norm. Because it wasn't the norm. It wasn't even the norm in Roman history. There was no whole sale extermination when they conquered Greece and Syria hell there was non when Pontus fell and you would think there would've been given the fact that Pontus triggered the war with genocide. Trajan didn't commit genocide in Parthia or Dacia. The Germanic wars while brutal were not fought with same brutality as Ceasar's Gallic wars. What you are seeing is indivuals who get into position of power and use their reasources to infact exterminate people. They may have been a cold but rational strategy behind it. As Ceasar was certainly able to successfully control and assimilate Gaul by exterminating tribes that proved resliant something that probably could not be done otherwise. But the fact of the matter is their actions were not the status quo. Keep in mind whole sale extermination was way more difficult on the technology of even the Romans then it is now with machine guns, helicopters,gas, air planes, and trucks. So it took more effort and reasources to actually exterminate an entire population back then. Hence why it wasn't done very often. Like you couldn't even do near the same damage as a bunch of modern religious militants with AK47s and trucks efficiently with legionaries. One could argue the fact genocide becomes easier over time is why it becomes more frequent and why the worlds view of violence as a concept takes a 180.
@@theempiredidnothingwrong3227 you'd think it was easier back then as food was more scarce and shelter less evolved.
Hence why the Romans completely exterminated the early Frisians.
P.S. Also, Romans took millions of slaves and there no admixture of all these enslaved Germanic people's in Italy.
Meaning they didn't even get to breed even among themselves, worked to death.
They took slaves as tribute mind you, not just war, so it was a general view of the lower other applied most harshly to non Romans.
@@ngnxtan slavery? Every civilized society practices a form of slavery. We do. It’s just debt based, no less cruel. In some ways more cruel because they lie to us all and we are told we are free when we are not. At least other slaves k ew they were property.
The romans were only “evil” (subjective) when they imported new romans to take the place of their own children. Traded their children’s birthright away for a couple more years of comfort. The elderly always do this, and why they should have no say or power in our society.
Yup, humans going to human
Every nation has plenty of skeletons in their closet. The more powerful the nation, the more skeletons there are.
But some don't bother putting them in the closet when they have guests over, and a couple have so many they just put the guest in the closet instead then told them that was all there was to see.
Muhrica😎
@Jacqueline Davis No, some nations have shit locations and get railed by more powerful nations all the time. Hard to have skeletons in a closet when you take it in the ass all the time.
Let's not forget that sometimes when you conquered a nation you inherited their closet skeletons whether your nation helped make them or not.
NOPE, the barbarians surrounding Rome had far more skeletons in their closets. The barbarians surrounding USA have far more skeletons in their closets.
A show that I found handled gladiators well was Spartacus. Even though it's heavily stylized, it shows that the gladiators owners did not enjoy fights to the death, because a gladiator's death was loss revenue.
Gladiator Owner: Awww Shit, I hope I get compensated for this.
That is so not the reason why Spartacus was a great show. It was all about big burly men in cloth diapers giving each other a bad time.
@@Vesnicie I know.
But considering that they were practically runaway slaves the owners would have to be compensated one way or another
Spartacus was great from the cast and the plot point of view. As far as depicting Romans and particularly- gladiator fights... No comment. But yes, Andy Whitfield was great.
But... professional gladiators are not what first comes to mind when one thinks about the cruelty of the Roman circus. I mean it is kinda brutal for modern standards, but most people would agree that the fact that they were properly equiped and prepared and somewhat even-footed to one another makes it feel somewhat sport-like in it's fairness. I can see how that would be exiting, specially knowing as you mentioned that death or mutilation of those priced fighters is probably bad for business.
Most people would take more issue at the cruelty displayed in the truckloads of executions of helpless captives and animals sadistically torn and tortured for the amusement of the crowd. That mostly does seems to be indicative of a rather f*ck*d up people _or_ governance. "Into the Shadows" has an interesting video on the matter. Maybe it was the lead pipes that twisted their minds thusly.
The last time I heard "context" so many times in a UA-cam video, I was on the Scholagladiatoria channel. 🤣
History channels be like:
"they we're good people.....
u n t i l t h e y w e r e n ' t.."
Dramatic music kicks in
History Channel: Coliseum and aqueducts were built by aliens
@Gwyn and Gold True to Caesar
I'd argue that compared to their contemporaries, they were better than most in some ways and worse in other ways.
Aliens
They may have had different social conventions back then and there, but reading and hearing about the ancient romans makes me believe they were as human as we are. AND as humans they were capable of great kindness and good as well as terrible atrocities - just like us.
I dont understand why your comment has not more likes. Its absolutley on point. Its eactly the essence of what Metatron tried to convey and I for one wholeheartedly agree with. From the beginning of time of humans to the present we always had the capacity for "good" and "evil". And I believe that we as humans have an intrinsic understanding/feeling for it. Maybe there is a gene for ethics I dont know but for sure do we have a moral compass in us. And we all have the same capacity for good and evil. Thats whats on the one hand frieghtens me and on the other hand is deeply comforting.
Bones of small children have often been found in Roman mines, where slaves of all ages were literally worked to death. And there’s also that time they crucified like 500 innocent slaves, (men, women and children) because one of them killed their master. But yes aside from the other countless examples of such behavior we’re morally no different.
Oh I forgot to mention the TOTAL obliteration of Carthage- it’s entire history, culture, all the standing structures and people, completely obliterated. And let’s not forget Caesar’s mass genocide of the Gauls, just one of several ancient world holocaust equivalents committed by the Romans. Of course there are more examples, but these also seemed important. Not that I believe they were pure evil, but I think we should always remember the endless, endless people who suffered and died under them when remembering their accomplishments too, most of which were only made possible by slave labor.
Wow dude so deep. You friggin simpleton.
@@TheMarshmelloKing Oh, Caesar decided to punish the Gauls after they broke the peace treaties SEVERAL times.
HOW DARE HE.
Caesar did fight a war in Gaul and in war people die. Especially if the beaten ones do not realize they are beaten - but sign peace treaties just to brake them as soon as they think they can get away with it. After they did this the third time Caesar decided to sent a message. And he was very correct in doing this.
As was his behaving in Alesia. Vercingetorix could have capitulated any time. He chose not to. And when food run out it was Vercingetorix who decided to cast out all woman and childrend and let them starve.
I guess you blame this on the Romans too, yes?
Well, nonsense. It was not the Romans who decided to continue the fight, even though supplies ran out.
And after the war Gaul had centuries of peace, something Gaul NEVER had.
Because whole tribes were slaughtered / driven off by Germanic invaders. In the end the Roman conquest was the best that could happen to Gaul.
I am with you on the destruction of Carthage. The last Punic war was absolutly unneccesary and unprovoked (in fact Carthage did everything it could to fullfill the terms that were established after the second Punic war) and the third Punic war and the destruction of Carthage is a very black point in Romes history.
Slaves were used everywhere and NOBODY saw anything wrong with it and called for an ending of slavery. That INCLUDED the slaves themselves.
This reminds of a book I read in uni for my ethics class, a haunting quote the rough translation from spanish to english is "In the quest to elevate mankind to the divine, we become demons"
I've heard someone once say that the Romans conquered Europe in self defense.
I mean maybe not Europe, but they probably got pissed off with Egyptians using some of their people as slaves.
I have a feeling we heard from the same person
Those damn Celts!
Kind off I guess because off their laws on going to war.
that may be how the Romans viewed it
“Hadrian, are we the baddies?”
I love that reference
hahaha yess
@@a.wadderphiltyr1559 nah, he did a lot wrong. Even by his own time's standards.
@@prs_81 IVDEA DELENDA EST
@@AlexanderDiviFilius Hadrian to Bar Kokhba: *I'll make the flood look like a fucking Joke!*
“Mister Spock, you misunderstand us. We can be against him and admire him all at the same time.”
You really made a half hour long video asking if a nation that committed genocide and was in a near constant state of war was evil?
Mate, you are one seriously interesting dude. What I would give to spend a week in conversation with you.
Thanks!
@@metatronyt I second that! 👍🏻
Fuck settle down I'd be grateful for just five minutes. Greedy bastard. I'd get a brutal headache talking to one person for a week straight anyway.
@@mrwhat5094 😂😂😂
I'll bring beer and milk.
Well done, mate. An excellent review of the entire question from all angles.
God of Latin himself has graced this comment section.
*01:17** The lack of ROME: Total War here deeply saddens me, Metatron.*
Indeed, we need more streams
ik, i noticed that too :(
Hello Noble One. I greatly enjoy your content, Sir. It is magnificently well thought out, researched, presented, and thoughtful. Keep it up!
Compared with Mongols, Roman's "evil" was just a cute kitty cat.
I think a lot of Mongolians would consider that a huge compliment.
@@limp_dickens that's why non-steppe nations don't miss Mongol's rule. Even Syria and Iran respect Greek and Roman but none will miss Mongol.
For me is simple, "evil" or not depends how they missed by future conquered generations.
Yeah, real cute kitty,but extremely deadly.
@@patriciaeddy7629 compared with Mongols, Roman has remarkable restraint.
People tend to confused between respect and admiration of power projection.
Mongols doesn't received any respect but admiration of power projection, that's why the conquered don't miss them.
The Jawanese and Vietnamese laughed at Mongols failure to invade; China Mid Autumn Festival became significant of driving out Mongols from China starting Ming Dynasty.
Mongol's over-specialisation for warfare became it's evolution bottleneck that caused its demise.
Without soft power as glue to bind hard power together, eventually it broke down. When there is nothing to conquer, it started to devour itself and almost impossible to rise again from ashes.
Mongols were absolutely brutal during conquest but ruled much less cruelly than Rome
SUCH a good video babes! Super well researched! 💖 always proud of you!
Thank you pie!!! You're adorable
Noble one says hello
Metatron you guys are so cute, im sorry it had to be said
Haha what a simp
@@nickd.9955 haha what a virgin
"You can't make the most powerful empire in history by being nice about it" History Buffs. He was talking about Britain but it applies to all empires including Rome. I don't think they were evil but they weren't angels
By the same token, you can't make the most powerful empire in history through mindless or excessive brutality. That is also counter-productive. You have to strike a balance somewhere in-between.
@@eliharman I think that makes sense. You gotta be mean to establish an empire (via conquering everyone else) first, but then you gotta be nice (enough) to maintain the empire to prevent infighting and civil unrest. It's all a balance, as you say, that probably changes over time based on the progress of your empire (rise vs peak vs fall).
@@eliharman Thats the reason the mongol empire collapsed so fast and Germany during ww2
It doesn't really matter the domain, optimal behavior is usually somewhere in between the extremes. That's why Aristotle identified virtue as the golden mean between two vices, for e.g., courage is the golden mean between cowardice and foolhardiness. But the exact optimum can vary depending on circumstances.
As far as brutality goes, the Romans had to be somewhat brutal to conquer and subjugate other peoples, and they had to continuously threaten brutality to keep them in the fold, and extract tribute. But for the most part, they let subject people govern themselves in the manner to which they were accustomed and keep their culture and religion. Usually, it seems, those subject peoples found the loss of sovereignty and tribute more than offset by the benefits of the pax Romana, or at least offset enough that they didn't wish to try their luck again against the legions.
It's like the old Monty python skit...
"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”
“Brought peace.”
“Oh. Peace? Shut up!”
Why do you have to make the most powerful Empire in history, though?
You are one person that I believe could be a great philosophy teacher. You break down terms to have a set meaning that is discussed and that's one of the things I appreciate most about your content. I watch everything even if I'm not overly interested in the topic because I know I will learn something.
Thank you for the great content
The first question I ask when someone asks if X historical civilization or country was evil is “by modern standards or by the standards of its day?”
Precisely. Sadly, it's an understanding that's all too rare nowadays, in our age of iconoclasm.
Do you think that pulling down statues of slavers is judging people by modern standards?
@@andrewharing2637 yes
@@andrewharing2637 yes
Rome was not black and white bit a shade of grey they did have slaves and some genocide but they also created great advancements in warfare and architecture
Thank you so much Metatron for sharing my book with other Noble Ones! I really can't thank you and this community enough.
The topic of this video is a very interesting one as well and I really like the perspective you bring. My personal feelings towards the Romans have, generally speaking, been a bit more on the hostile side, I must have been a Germanic tribesmen in a past life, but I do understand the historical context and times they were living in. My general dislike probably comes from the fact that when I was learning ancient history there were many cultures I became very interested in and wanted to see where they would go only for them to be conquered by Rome and so I developed a disdain for them. But that's just my perspective and experience and I still find their armor and tactics interesting as always and like to understand ancient people as best as I can well keeping in mind the times they were living in.
Again that you so much for everything and I hope that everyone enjoys my book.
It's always worth noting that the Romans were not a monolithic society and much of their success came from the way they absorbed other societies and tactics. The Gauls contributed many metalworking advancements to the Romans, the Carthaginians introduced a great many military tactics, etc. So in a way it's fascinating to see a flourishing example of a heavily multicultural empire that would later have emperors from Dalmatia (Diocletian), and an Arab (Elagabalus).
@@n8pls543 Romans started as Latins, then it was any Italian, then anyone under the eagle ,which Roman became more than just a people. I don't think something like that can be done so well again.
(sorry for my english) I think like many say it's just because roman empire was "famous" somehow that we are asking this question only for them, for example germanic people did orrible things in England and invaded it, as far as I know sometimes even more brutal than romans to conquere it and sometimes I ask myself what England would it be without the latin influence but ALSO without the saxon influence.
Also there are places in the mediterranean that during their history, were heavly invaded by: romans, africans, middle east people, french, north europe countries and so on. And this is only for Europe area, you can imagine the same for all other parts of the world.
It's not a justification, just saying this because maybe we focus only on what was more renown.
In the eyes of their enemies yes they were. In their own eyes ofcourse not. It just depends on the perspective, an enemy civilization like the Sassanid and Parthian empires would have seen Rome as evil because they were constantly fighting them. But like all cultures there are negatives and positives they brought with their empire.
True
I don't even think their enemies would have always seen them as evil. I'm sure some saw them as worthy opponents, or as just another nation in the world.
Exactly. Calling a civilization or a country as evil is pretty much propaganda. A recent example is WW2. Every single side (Allies and Axis) called the other side "Evil".
This is true for all nations in all time periods
Well there’s the roads, plumbing, it’s safe to walk the streets at night and don’t forget the wine……
“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either - but right through every human heart.” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Are you trying to tell me I'm not better than others? RRREEEEEEE
This is really funny to hear from the famous lier
Well to be fair that's some prescriptive, well intended load of malarkey that excuses society and blames everything on the individual.
It's not that people in the past had lower moral standards than us today; the people is the same, they were just even more susceptible to the whims of rulers than we are today, and thus, in order to survive to a morally bankrupt status quo, you have to adapt and morally bankrupt yourself in one way or another, or at least learn how to accept it and be complacent/not too vocal about your ideals for positive change.
@@Goran1138 what do You mean?
@@ivnrik441
Solzhenitsyn was an imposter, who played a martyr, but in reality he always was a hypocrite lier.
I always found it fascinating that amidst all the blood and gore of the colloseum, the Roman public found it distasteful when Giraffes were slaughtered as part of the games...
I mean, Giraffes can't fight back really. So maybe that is the point.
"All the blood and gore"
Is the problem there. Gladiator events were NOT generally Bloody or Gory.
Think modern NFL. Tons of Money and training went into each guy, popular gladiators put butts in seats... which was the bottom line, then as now.
It makes NO SENSE for them to die or be injured regularly and all the sense in the world to keep them healthy.
It was a sport, based on combat... like boxing, or MMA and just like boxing or MMA the rules exsist to keep fighters in fighting shape
@@brotherjongrey9375 Gladiators yes. Captured slaves, bloody as it gets.
Rome slew 10k captured enemy in a single game. One day.
People today will eat cows but abhor the eating of dogs. Or in some places eating cow is a sacrilege. It's all about culture.
Must be them vegans
The empire is evil
*shows picture of the first order*
Vader: *confused breathing
Technically speaking the first order was made up of the Imperial remnant and they used the same equipment and similar star ships so it is close enough I feel.
From my point of view the Jedi are evil!
Fascist Jedis and their oppressive theocracy were evil!
Its literally a copy and paste...
"Romans were brutal at times"
Oh no, you mean how exactly every single other ancient and medieval civilization has been throughout Human history, as far back as the Mesopotamian era, were? Say it ain't so.
The idea of an Empire being evil is an easily romanticized concept, ideal for entertainment...but when people use entertainment as a substitute for actual history, I hang my head in disappointment.
too often "entertaiment history" recplaces real history nowadays, what a disgusting world
except for the assyrians, they were really nice
I think every empire is evil by default. If we go by the modern concept of the nation state as the standard of how a people should be able to live multicultural empires are morally repugnant because they go against it.
@@aramhalamech4204 i disagree, empires have been a very stable form of government throughout history. you cant moralise history through a contemporary lens.
@@tommske They are stable because they opress. That's evil by default.
I like how this guy answers questions. Its sad that most people don't have the patience for the right perspective.
The fact that people ask this question only shows that people have lost the ability to discern nuance. People and their nations are not wholly one or the other. They are a blend of good and bad with varying degrees of both.
sometimes you have to ask a question to get a conversation.
"There once was a dream, a dream to purge this rotten world from the barbarians that infest it, a dream called Rome."
-Dovahhatty, Unbiased History of Rome
Sounds pretty clear to me, the Romans were the good guys.
I see that you are also a man of culture and refinement.
@@MrHanderson91 Indeed, fellow patrician.
If we use beautiful quote as standard then that makes ISIS good guys.
That sounds better in the original Greek.
@@chengkuoklee5734 lurk moar, pleb
"It wasn't just the Romans that had public executions. After all, Joan of Arc was burned alive by the Roman Catholi--- wait a minute..."
Joan of Arc's trial and execution was a plot of the English Church Court, not the main Roman Catholic Church itself. The English did not want her especially from their loss of the Hundred Years War. The Roman Catholic Church later investigated her trial in the 20th century and revoked the penalties
@@thekingshussar1808 yes but you could argue English culture by that time was allready yoked from the busom of Rome's occupation.
@@thekingshussar1808 Joan of Arc was exonerated by Rome already in 1456. She was recognized a Blessed in 1909 and a Saint in 1920.
Actually the Church didn't do anything to Joan of Arc. It had this neat trick by which heretics would be "handed over to the secular arm"-the "secular arm" being the local king, who was king because the Church had acknowledged and consecrated him, and who knew full well what the Church wanted of him.
@@thekingshussar1808 It was also of course done by people that were sympathetic to the English crown and of course didn't like someone their side was fighting against
What many fail to realize, like you said, is that we tend to look at people in the past with modern sensibilities.
As always, it all comes down to Context, Context, and especially Context.
Could you make a video about the Roman assimilation of Iberia? Specifically the Lusitanians, the Gallaeci, the Celtici and the Conii (Cynetes)? Pre-Roman and Early Roman history of Portugal is barelly known
Yeah, honestly its rarely talked about how iberians and french people are probably more of the cloth of the original people than Italian settlers, specifically french people, so much vocabulary is straight up gaulish, very interesting
Iberia was a state in the Caucases.
Ahhh, that good old problem of evil. It's been there since the beginning of time. Loved the vid.
ua-cam.com/video/6kLYLwWIx30/v-deo.html
Nice profile picture
I like that you defined evil. The way I grew up, I automatically associated evil with going against the Bible, and I actually wondered what does he mean by evil? And then you explained… this is why I love watching your vids: you assume pretty much nothing. People normally assume everything just to get by… we really have no choice.
The Bible is fake anyway.
More than half of the entire world is automatically evil?
@wargames He said it does a good job, not that it's perfect
it's because Romans are evil in Christian perspective
Religion as a whole is important in defining good and evil. Christianity, Buddhism, etc.
The Romans in the Barbarians series have the diplomatic skills of orcs.
Yeah, that part was very clumsy.
I mean, these guys are sent there to *make friends* with this tribe, and what do they do? They boss people around and then they start awkwardly shouting "ROMA VICTRIX" to the wrong crowd.
It's like they were asking to get slaughtered.
Historically, that's not what happened, but I guess the Austrian production needed to make it look like the Germanic tribes were innocent, good and pure by modern day standards and the Romans were just terrible.
@@happyslapsgiving5421 Oh, Austrian production. That makes sense.
@@happyslapsgiving5421 the germanic tribes just follow an OLD romantic cliche of the noble savage. I think the term was coined in the 18th century, mainly for the native of the New World, possibly for African tribes too... basically, civilization has corrupting influences, while uncivilized people are pure, brave, truthful, etc
It's much older however. Sometimes has different concepts, but similar. I think Gaius Julius Caesar himself write that the Gaul or Germanic barbarians fought bravely, unlike Romans, who had been softened by civilisation.
Something like that. A weird complaint since it were Romans conquering the world...
@Viktor Samoja
Frankly, that's just based assumptions.
Source?
Romans were terrible diplomats. This is because a diplomat saw himself as a representation of the Roman state, and because of that, they were not very polite and political when they came to negotiate with representatives of other states, or even kings.
The first image of the Romans I saw was in church on the 14 Stations of the Cross at elementary school age. I wondered who those people were, being so mean to a nice guy like Jesus. And during that time "sword and sandal" movies were popular and recommended at Catholic school. Since then I've been fascinated and repulsed at the same time by the Romans.
Western civilization as a whole has a real love/hate relationship with the Romans. We vilified their culture for a thousand years, then spent the next 500 years glorifying them. During the twentieth century the pendulum slowly swung back toward condemnation, partly because the cult of fascism was inspired by ancient Rome. I think it's very misguided and dangerous to fetishize any culture, whether Roman or American or whatever. Judge people as individuals instead.
Romans werent actually mean to Jesus. Romans did actually try to save him. They didnt want to kill an innocent man, he looked nut, mentally disabled, but not guilty of any crime or conspirancy. What Pilato did was to finally leave the destiny of the man to his tribe, and WANTED to kill him. Now Pilato, like any other governer back then, didnt want to cause riots and inner conflicts thruough the cities of Palestines, and Jesus was already making things complicated as he was claimed to be the son of God and king of Jersualem, but the Romans werent interested in that stuff. They just wanted peace and stability in the province, and if a man had to be killed in order for the mob to be quiet, than it was ok, i presume.
I love your videos! Very informative, well thought out and transparent. You do a very good job at laying down the facts in a politically unbiased fashion. Subscribed, keep up the great work!🙌😎💚
It's dumb hold people of the ancient world to the moral standards of today.
Best thing I read today
Exactly.
OK but can we apply that in both directions? Because it's super common for modern people to glorify the ancients and to look back on (an idealized version of) what they did with full-on nostalgia
It's dumb to hold people today to the moral standards of today.
@@hrotha We glorify the ancients because their blood flows through us all.
Our glorification is not an endorsement of their entire life or moral codes. It's unfair to judge their morality when we are removed from their world and their knowledge.
Never smear your heritage based on modern standards. It's unfair to both of you.
_”There is only one good - knowledge - and one evil - ignorance.”_
*- Socrates*
there have been many very good but ignorant people. there have been many knowledgeable but wicked people.
Sorry, man, but Socrates never said such a shit.
- Tzeentch
@@dumbcat Socrates had a very specific idea of what Knowledge and Ignorance were.
Was not Socrates that pedophile who was sentenced to death for molesting the youth?
@Metatron When Rome and Genocide are mentioned, the first thing I think of is not Carthage, but the Dacians, specifically what was done to them after they had lost the war to Traianus's legions. Not entirely unheard of in its time (or in the ages before and after), but definitely something that would qualify for the term if you ask me. A pity you didn't mention that episode.
The romans got btfo by then prevopusly so they were mad
@@GOF-pk9mg Yeah, that's usually how that sort of thing happens, roughly speaking.
They also mass murdered the Gauls by starving them to death when they retreated to a city fortified called alesia, the Gauls suffered various attacks from Romans and they were getting captured as slaves. The romans were in fact evil, they set out to conquer territories and enslave people, that's undeniably evil from a Human morality standpoint
The romans were successful because they focused their society in a unified militaristic empire, while the other populations, specially in Europe, cared more about Nature and their animist cosmology, and living in tribes. But when the other civilizations like the celts and later the Germanic tribes united, they gave romans a good run, and the Germanic people's destroyed Rome
The reason Rome was successful is because they adopted the tech from the people's they met that were superior to theirs, like the chainmail and gladius sword used by the Gauls, and the spatha sword from the Germanics. The legions in Europe were comprised by the very population and race they were trying to conquer, they were made of soldiers of Germanic backgrounds too, that's why they were strong enough to take on the Germanic warriors
@@MybeautifulandamazingPrincess As far as i know, other nations didnt live in peace while caring about nature. They didn't keep so good records on that, but we know from Greeks and Romans that they too were attacking them throught years.
@@MybeautifulandamazingPrincess
Under your words, then germany was genocided by the british in WW1 with the blockade
I love how completely impartial you are and the detached, dry calm you invariably maintain in all your videos. I would never have guessed you're Italian! I was so surprised when I found that out only bc Shad mentioned it at some point. ;-P ... but that aside, seriously, I like your scientific, logical outlook and diligence. I am absolutely not a fan of Italy, but I'm a fan of the Metatron.
No
Reject Nihilism. Embrace Rome!
Ave!
Ave
Ave!
True to Ceasar? Or is that not appropriate here?
Let it burn in hell, with all other empires!
I love how he whips out different Roman items throughout the video that has nothing to do with any context he is talking about XD
Yet another fantastic topic, glad to see the channel booming
I must say I think you are being very soft on the Romans here. This was an exceptionally violent culture, even by ancient standards.
On r*pe, you say that this violated Roman law. That is true, with respect to citizens. But slaves, who were in fact the majority of the population, could be freely assaulted in any way by their master (paterfamilias), up to and including the worst imaginable torture and death, with impunity.
The arrival of the barbarians actually diluted this total power of life and death over slaves. For instance, the Visigothic laws set out fines for physical abuse of the unfree.
As for the question of genocide, it is true that the Romans did not reach the Nazi standard of having an agenda of total ethnic annihilation. But they went a lot further than, for instance, the Serbs at Srebrenica. In that incident, Milosevich et al were convicted at the International Criminal Court of genocide for the massacre of the male population, although they spared the lives of the majority of women and children. Compare (for instance) this account of the actions of the Roman army on the northern frontier, related by Ammianus Marcellinus...
"[Emperor] Julian, with words of encouragement sent the light-armed auxiliaries...to perform a memorable feat, if fortune would favour them...[When they found a settlement] they butchered everyone they found, men and women alike, without distinction of age, like so many sheep."
Needless to say this level of brutality, all done by hand at close quarters, makes Srebrenica look pretty restrained. It would very, very easily hit the threshold for genocide at the ICC. But Ammianus has nothing negative to say about this whatsoever, quite the contrary. And I could multiply this kind of incident endlessly. The most egregious example was Gaul, in which campaign Julius Caesar bragged about killing as many as a million Gauls. Again this could be exaggeration, but the fact that it was the perpetrators rather than their critics who were making these claims tells us that the Roman attitude to mass killing sometimes verged into truly psychopathic territory. Even the Nazis were not disposed to boast about their head-count in such a brazen way.
As for "the games", as the Romans called them, it is a stretch to assume that they were mostly non-lethal. Certainly trained gladiators were quite valuable, so could not be thrown away willy-nilly, but the games also drew heavily on slaves, criminals and especially prisoners of war, who were plentiful and totally disposable. Gladiators and exotic wild animals were the meat-grinder through which this human meat was processed for entertainment. As for moral reservations, they existed but were not sufficient to prevent the continuance of this practice for several hundred years, so we may assume that most people who counted were quite happy with 'the games', at least until the 4th century. There is no other civilization in history with such a long and illustrious record of killing human beings for fun (as opposed to in war or to appease the gods etc).
Does this make the Romans 'evil'? I think the question is the wrong one, since it quickly devolves into a philosophical question about cultural relativism. What I would say is that that in some respects (certainly not all), Rome was more violent (and more relaxed about violence) than any other regime, anywhere in the world, ever.
I don't know they are even evil or good. But I know they are Glorius
when judging th past i have this to say:
were romans good at war? of course not, they had no tanks no airforce and would get smashed by any modern military.
judging the past with modern standards is like claiming the romans lacked tanks, it is ridiculous.
they should be judged in context
That's actually a great way to put It. Will definitely recicle this One!
Straight facccsssss
They did lack tanks though.
@Andree De haan slaves weren't Just casually yeeted at Lions y'know. And people are told of how he killed in Battle a fuckton of Gauls, but you omit that he made many Counsuls After conquering the region. Genocide isn't "Killing alotta people", that Is a massacre, a Genocide Is targeting and wipingn or otherwise mistreating a specific group of people based on ethnic origin, wich the Romans didn't do. You're an enemy? You die. Simple as. Stop misusing the term, It makes It loose weight.
@Andree De haan Celts made a living of capturing and selling germanic people to romans.
The would also occasionally peel their captured enemies skin, bleed them out, break their legs and bury them in a crack in the ground, sacrifice and mutilate slaves when they were under the weather attack each other for gain (...).
not a great counterexample of nonbarbaric behaviour.
At least the romans only did it sometimes.
Because of those Star Wars movies, people got the mentality that Authority=Bad while Resistance=Good. As I grew older I just realize that it was not always like that.
I would say that Star Wars is more a consequence of the idea of “authority bad, resistance good” than the cause
@@Leo-ok3uj yes because every faction is inspired by the second world war hence the sides
The death star itself is analogous to WW2. Turning everyone against you by your want to be feared. Turns out if you take the long slow route to conquering people, they don't care nearly as much as when you decide to destroy them all forthright at the same time.
It's not because of Star Wars, people will always associate power with negative stigmas simply because most people don't have power and are prey to those who do have it.
I studied roman law at university. As a whole, and to be short, I was absolutely fascinated of the spirit behind - it's a constant search for aequitas / fairness, especially in ius gentium. Even in old law they made a step over the border and into humanity: We all know Hammurabi's "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth", which sounds cruel, but in the context of time it is a hindering of exaggeration - meaning ONLY an eye for an eye; the romans went further then: "Si membrum rupsit, ni cum eo pacit, talio esto" - first oncoming not to pay back with the same (law of the 12 tables). This spirit, vivid in their laws, spread over the globe, and for many of it, nothing better could be found until today. If one adds all the other benefits known - Rome was sort of a gift for mankind.
Hold up. You can study Roman law in an university?
@@myhandlehasbeenmishandled I study law, and we have one year of roman law mandatory, because it's basis for continental law.
The term "Eye for an eye" in Hammurabi's code, as told to me by an Egyptian Copt, just means in ancient Semitic and modern Arab cultures: just recompense for injuries occurred. In other words, if you owe me $30 then you pay me $30 or whatever a court of law requires you to surrender for injuries upon my person. Usually, your life, freedom, or money depending on the laws of those peoples.
For those wondering, that Latin phrase translates to: If a body part is damaged, and doesn't reconcile with it, let there be retaliation
AKA Lex Talionis
No they weren’t Metatron!!! They were just like you only less awesome, legendary and manly! You’re da best! Numero uno!!!
Just going by the title here - The Romans were very much a mixed bag, just as with any other nationality. On average, they wanted the same things we want. To live their lives with as much joy as possible, to have their needs met, and for the most part, to be left alone. It's not until you get into the politics that things begin to change.
A brilliant, informed and compassionate discussion of a very thorny subject. On a side issue, there is no doubt that during the long Pax Romana the level of general literacy for ‘the common people’ was at a hight not to be regained in Europe till the mid 19th century... it was due to the number of common but literate citizens that we have such a wealth of (often quite rude!) Roman graffiti..... Even Brian’s knowledge of Latin, whilst not perfect was still pretty impressive!
Whaat, Roman literacy was around 50 60%? Because that's how it was in the mid 19th century as you mentioned. Literacy in the Roman Empire was faar lower as they didn't have any public schools, they had the far more primitive private schools and tutors. Public schools is a product of the age of enlightenment and tax reforms, it's waay ahead the Roman society at every level. Also, it's hard to generalize an entire population for graffitis in Pompeii, besides, there are over a thousand runic inscriptions written by the laity(non-clergy), including gay sex even, but that doesn't prove the population was "largely literate", it just proves that there might be some more literacy than originally thought. Originally thought being 3-10%. Without public schools you can't produce a literate society, I'm sorry.
When you first start to learn about history one thing must come in mind
"One should necer judge the actions of the past with the moral of the present"
Exactly. I have had pushback from stating that we should not judge slave owners for simply owning slaves but for how they treated them. Some slave owners treated them like we would treat a live in nanny and others treated them worse than a rabid dog.
"Rome was the light".-Maximus
*is*
Ave
"Rome is shining brightest" Nero.
"And yet you have never been there."
"remember that time I killed Commodus, flipped a switch, and made a herd of post-fascist livestock magically transform into a self-governing republic that doesn't tolerate corruption because.... Um, because Commodus got stabbed. Oh, also, I fucked the emperor's daughter supposedly so no shit I like Rome." -the same guy, whose name is Russell.
Not necessarily like every other civilization they had their ups and downs.
“Look daddy, teacher says, every time Metatron says context an Matt Easton gets his military sabre,” - from It's A Wonderful Life (or something like that)
a*
How is it possible to have only just come across this gem of a chanell ? Simply amazing content !
Compassion is something we have always had a choice to show. Evil? No they were not. Cruel? Oh yes..They were.
Compare with Mongols, they are way way better. If Roman are evil, then what makes Mongols?
@@chengkuoklee5734 Demons from hell?
@@chengkuoklee5734 Twice wrong doesn't make once right.
@@chengkuoklee5734 So you're saying it's acceptable to murder someone, as long as you can point to someone worse and say "Well look at him! He murdered 5 people!"
@@SRosenberg203 Whataboutery seems to permeate this comment section heavily.
Them: Napoleon is evil!
Caius Julius Caesar: *allow me to introduce myself*
Chinggis khan: something something meatshield something
Alexander: hippity hoppity your lands are now my property
Charlemagne: ah ah saxons go brrrrrr
I shed the blood of the Saxon man.
Basil the Bulgarslayer
Amateurs
@@lilestojkovicii6618 Tiglatpileser: *laughs in Assyrian*
@@szarekhthesilent2047 Yeah the Assyrians really didn't fuck around.
Failed art student: 😏
Hey Metatron, do you think you could make a video about the Sicilian king and German emperor Federico secondo, maybe about his fathers campaign in Sicily ?
Federico/Friedrich is probably one of the coolest characters in the history of the Middle Ages.
And congrats on half a million subs. 👊🏻
I think the main problem, is that in those ages, either you were the conqueror, or the conquered.
If rome didnt invade and defeat the etruscans, the etruscans wouldve invaded rome, and we might have had an etruscan empire.
If rome didnt destroy carthage, the carthaginian empire would been the powerhouse of the mediterranian.
If they didnt conquer gaul (france), the gauls wouldve kept raiding roman territory, and might have united and invaded en masse.
Its harder for me ti come up with a justification for taking greece...
Great Republic, great Empire... One must laugh when someone tries to impose morals of 21th century on those times. That is utter stupidity coming from cringe ideologies of our time.
Sometimes evil is the voice in your head telling you that everything you do is good.
Do people unironically have a voice in their head?
@@tafazzi-on-discord I'm sure everyone has had one sometime or the other.
@@Vlad_Tepes_III I don't
@@tafazzi-on-discord "Do people unironically have a voice in their head?"
Yes, most people do, in fact, have a literal voice in their head that verbalizes thoughts. Not having one is quite strange. While not a 'disorder', lacking an inner monologue is not the norm.
@@minutemansam1214 I can verbalize everything I want in my head, especially when reading or writing, but I've never had that voice "tell" me anything, I have complete control over it and I don't verbalize everything I think.
I'd argue that compared to their contemporaries, they were better than most in some ways and worse in other ways.
Well, it had a nice underbelly of laws and order. Shame not everyone was protected by it
My takeaway from this video is that instead of seeings the Roman empire as evil, we should study and understand their actions through the context of their time and circumstances. And to not cast judgement on them hypocritically. They were as human as we are today. Every bit of study in the ancient world will serve us well into the future.
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
- George Santayana
I think the issue with modern morals is we try to make everything black and white because of popular media.
Because of God.
Applying modern morals to past societies is in my mind a game for losers. Every nation has practices or behaviors that another group will define as immoral.
@@mpetersen6 Morality isn't relative, nor is it defined by culture. It is defined by God.
@@annaclarafenyo8185
I do not mean to be flippant. Who's god?
@@annaclarafenyo8185 I completely agree, but being a Christian I believe that everyone has failed to live up to the standard that God has set. With that in mind, I see no utility in judging the morality of past. Usually the only thing that finds utility in this is modern day politics, which is why I think the modern day lens thing is important (as political narratives will tell you group A are better because group B did X, but usually group A was also doing X but that part is left out.)
I will point out that although morals from God are objective and perfect, our understanding of them is subjective. For example, I have no doubt that God can solve the trolley problem, but I can't find any way to make it black and white. It's grey because I (as a human) have limited understanding.
And the same way Rome fell, USA and Western is falling in the same way, weakened from internal division :(
And politicians are too focused on themselves and holding power. The United States now looks similar to the time of Julius Caesar in the late Roman Republic, rather than the end of the Western Roman empire.
The United States hasn't had dozens of destructive civil wars yet
Lucas Dimoveo They will.
Usa will fall bc of greed and degenaration of its people sadly dragging everyone else with them
@@Gravelgratious
American Empire when?
Anything done for the Glory Of Rome is morally justified
Anything done to keep Rome west of the Rhine is as well.
Anything done for the glory of British empire was justified
Anything I want to do is OK because it makes me happy and I'm a king
@@oattyrant2035 "First Citizen" lol
1:17 - Rome: Total War! Had to include that one! Haha. Seriously though, I felt like a Roman General in that game, it was awesome and very atmospheric.
Life is more often grey than we like it to be
I’m a Rome fanboy too but at the end of the day I think Carthage was a genocide as much as Troy. Scipio fully intended to completely destroy the Carthaginian culture and way of life through death and destruction, I think its enough to consider a genocide. Not hating on good ol Cornelius or anything just my opinion.
You forgot to mention Carthaginians sacrificed their own children.
@@krushervimose4599 that's not to take in account, killing an entire civilization/culture/whatever of bad people is still a genocide
@@bruschetta7711 Righteous genocide?
@@krushervimose4599 i guess?
@@krushervimose4599 righteous genocide is like positive stoning
Neither of these combinations of words work no matter how you look at it.
"They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace."
~Tacitus, Agricola, Chapter 30.
Cute
Describes the Russian Empire and the later USSR perfectly :))
And, this could be said of Spain in the New World, Britain’s Empire, Australia and the Aborigines, and the United States with the Native Americans and our later interference in Central and South America - the list goes on.
@@Timeflyer2 virtually every single race, culture and civilization with little exceptions, all did same thing.
@@gennarosavastano9424not only is that mislabeling but also an understatement. The word your really looking for is accurate.
Super interesting topic. Reminds me of the similar question I’ve asked myself, we’re the Assyrians evil? Or were the *insert great power here* evil? I think you put it perfectly by asking the follow up question are humans evil? Well done my friend i think you hit every point here.
That's the problem of using words like that if you don't use them properly they lose their true value in meaning and basically a deflation of the word
"Self defense justifies murder". No. Self defense is called self defense. The killing of someone thru self defense is just that. Self defense. Murder is the unneeded killing of someone.
Edit:
"Murder is the malicious killing of someone"
and when you kill one of your homies it is called a homicide
@@MasterOfWarLordOfPeace Heh. That wus funny.
Yes, the example should have been more about "killing" somebody. And then we can talk about the ethics behind things like "murder", "execution", "self defense" etc which even linguistically already show that we differentiate the action according to its circumstances. And we can do similar things to, ie, stealing - if you're starving to death and steal some bread from a rich person any sane person would see that as a different thing compared to if you are a rich person and steal some bread from a starving beggar ...
But either way I think the point he was making came through fine so that's really a detail.
Modern "better" People today:
"Rome (and any other gone Societies)was so brutal and primitive! I mean look at the Gladiator fights!"
Also modern "better" People today:
"YEEEEAS! MMA! I Hope someone dies today! Why isnt Mcgeorge getting up again?! He is sooo weak! I would have done better!"
I can respect people who decide to dedicate themselves to fighting in full contact like that for their dedication and hard work.
But such sports still disgusts me both physically and morally. I want nothing to do with humans who violently hurt each other for fame and money, nor any desire to watch such misery.
Woman: people back then were so barbaric and cruel!
Also woman: *aborts her child*
Over all their contributions to philosophy and civil society as a concept are the foundations of modern progress
Are they? Seems like the Greeks contributed more in terms of philosophy and democracy, I think we would find the Roman ideas about society quite alien. Law is a pretty big contribution though. I think foundations of modern progress is overstating it.
Same can be said about modern colonization and slavery should we forget about British colonialism and slavery because how much they contributed to modern civilization?
Such as? Their fundamental legacy was European feudalism. Not exactly a glowing recommendation.
@@LyndonLaRoucheArchive European feudalism was a contribution by the Germanic tribes that inherited the rule of Europe from Rome. Rome itself would have regarded feudalism and monarchy with contempt.
@@Vlad_Tepes_III European Feudalism was a result of the codes and edits of Emperor Diocletian.
Romans ain't got nothing on the later periods,
- when humans
got so evolved and civilized - that they invented and perfected the clerical
entertainment known as "the inquisition". Europeans, - both east and west, did
things that Romans can not be compared to. Mary Tudor and a Russian czar
Ivan the Terrible - could single-handedly "outshine" the Romans in whatever sick
game that may come to mind. Kings and queens tortured and exterminated
people like it was a youtube channel of their time.
They could make
'The Jigsaw Killer' blush - over and over, until he'd run away with tail between
legs and break his little devices. They and many others (like Tomas de
Torquemada and his..."corporation LTD") are simply overlooked, cause they are
less known to the general public. People like those, were true embodiment of evil,
while the Romans were just Romans...not unlike any other ancient civilization,
and likely even superior - considering for how long were they able to resist
collapse under enemy swords, avalanche of time and human vices.
weren't the romans basically doing the same thing everyone else was doing but "better" and more "decisive"?
exactly. the romans destroyed every threat to thieir military control, as everybody ever did and sadly will always do, but they did it for good.
The greco-persian wars, for example, were nothing but the empire trying to re-establish its dominance over city states in their land that rebelled against it. Can you guess the result? Mass murder and ensalvement (miletus was the first and not the last city to experience the persian "kindness")
Rome did it more effectivly. Just think about the third Roman-Jewish war: they rebelled to the power of rome and massacred all roman cityzens in rebel-controlled areas as happened in the "kitos war". Hadrian responded for good provoking the jewish diaspora.
No one was good and no one was evil. Everybody just fought for thier own survival
No the chines where xenafobes
@@mariuspoenariu7021 you’re arguing they did for the greater good. If you argue this you could argue the Holocaust was being done for the greater good that’s what the nazis said. They were killing people for a subjective good desire.
Better and more decisive mass r*pes and crucifixions
You are deluded if you thing eveeryone was horrible as the romans were.
Rome was full of flaws, yet they aspired to be something better, in my opinion.
@Max Powers Rome is the light...
I think the aspired to maintain the status quo, and nothing more.
They aspired to extract the resources of other nations by means of coercion LIKE EVERY EMPIRE. It's silly to put the Roman Empire on a pedestal just because they pretended to be enlightened.
"A Human once said "Romans were evil!" while looking at the mirror"
That question depends.
Are you a Gaul? Then yes.
Are you an Alleman? Then yes.
Are you a Carthaginian? Then yes.
Are you an Etruscan? Then yes.
Are you a Dacian? Then yes.
Are you a Judean? Then yes.
Are you an Egyptian? Then yes.
Are you a Cyrenaican? Then yes.
Are you a Bedouin? Then yes.
Are you a Persian? Then yes.
Are you a Goth? Then yes.
Are you a Scythian? Then yes.
Are you a Parthian? Then yes.
Are you a Roman? Then no.
Are you a greek? Then maybe.
Its all a matter of perspective. One man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.
Depends on who the aggressor is, right? Conquerors dont conquer just by defending themselves. Of course ancient times where cruel and bloody in general and people where used to violence to some extant. But taking territory and crushing other people was evem expected from roman leaders. Why did Crassus march against Parthia against the Senat's will? Caesar and Pompey had more victories in their vita while he was a Leech that got rich on Sulla's proscriptions. Crassus was an evil roman.
Yeah and?
ROMA INVICTA!!!!
Great video & discussion, Metatron. In the end, we have to see the Romans for what they were: exceptional. It's hard to overstate the influence they continue to exert on the modern world. Another interesting discussion might be surviving Roman influences that can be seen in our modern surroundings, Governments, Legal systems, Science, et cetera.
Irrelevant, they still did worse to most because they could, Egypt and Greece, for example, was nowhere as worse as Rome ! Those influences could have been done easily without them destroying and exploiting people and resources all around. Egypt was a better example, or nations that did not do such things
Oddly enough, I was just listening to Simon on the question Were the Romans Psychopaths?
He mentioned many of the things you mentioned, including context.
One thing he got into as well was the LEADED WATER.
He explores this as a possible influence, and ameliorates it as well, depending on circumstance.
Very interesting to me, Flint Mi being a short drive from here, and knowing it's not the only town with this problem today.
What is flint mi
Leaded water is probably a myth. Lead reacts with the lime in water, resulting in a thick patina on the inside of the tube; the fresh water wont have conteact with lead.
@@sit-insforsithis1568 Flint, Michigan
More stimulating food for thought, Metatron, thank you. re: GENOCIDE--The fact that a human, Raphael Lemkin, came up with the word thousands of years after the actions were committed, and still are being committed, nation upon other nation, does not negate the act of "genocide" in the past, (as it is defined in mid 20th century) . By taking the "word", and acting upon the deep strength of its meaning, such as International Tribunals against Crimes committed (in various countries), and calling the act for what it is, (and thereby bringing to account the perpetrators), tells me that perhaps we are progressing somewhat as a species. At least in this respect, the power of the 'naming of an act' may bring more awareness worldwide to the oppression of one group of people against another, and hopefully stem the occurrence of genocide. Let us hope it does.
The genocide I was thinking of was Caesar's campaigns in Gaul.
Caesar's campaign wasn't unusual for the time in anything except for its scope.
I was thinking of Dacia
In the words of the Gallic chieftain Brennus, "Vae Victis."
Killing a third and forcebly relocating another third of the Gauls in France. Qualifies for the term genocide.
In 390BC the Gallic chieftain Brennus invaded the Italian Peninsula, defeated a Roman army, raped the women, and sacked and pillaged the city of Rome. When the Roman's begged for mercy the reply of Brennus was "woe to the vanquished" or the better known quote " to the victor go the spoils." Romeo's invasion of Gaul was in response to years of conflict and raids by Gauls.
You're right about the heart of the issue. "Are humans evil?" That's the real question. And the answer is "yes." Humans always have the capacity for evil, and thus no nation will ever be devoid of evil. A man made Utopia will never exist. And denial of humanity's evil nature is just as evil as denial of humanity's good nature.
So, the assessment of the morality of a civilization can only be a matter of scale. "Were the Romans more evil or less evil than other civilizations in that same period?"
Sorry to break it to you but evil is a made up concept so trying to scientifically label humans as “evil” makes no sense because evil is not a recognized concept in science. Evil is a figment of humans and its completely subjective based on each person.
Rome, from 270 BC to 1453 AD is the literal definition of Lawful Natural
You have readed my mind, i was wondering after watching "kingdom of Heaven" and "Arn - the templar knight 1 & 2" movies that did Saladin after conquering Jerusalem really spare Christian and why and i found answer (unusually from finnish woman from quora, my countrywoman who works at Aalto University) that custom was that if city surrendered it would be spared as a "non written rule" of the time. There was mention that Romans and Mongols did not abide by these "rules" so you could say that i tought "were ancient romans evil ?" But i think no, there is logic behind they're actions and i'm a rome fan boy.
If you play Medieval two, exterminating the populace reduces dissenters.
"Were the ancient Romans evil?" - no more than anyone else, we just have more extant records of their ways and means. "Were/are humans evil?" - EMPHATIC *YES* ...that's my opinion, at least, but yeah. But YES thank you for sharing all of this! I knew some of it, but not all. Fascinating all around, and thank you for tackling this subject!
I’d say that the question is malformed. When studying history, I find it easier to focus on individual facets as a means of organisation. If the question is specifically about the moral compass of the Romans, then by modern standards they would both be horrendous, and also uncomfortably similar. Cassus belli wise, we’re almost as bad today as the Romans. “Peacekeeping” and “defensive fighting” are birthed from the same self deceiving beast.
In short, I can love the culture and history, and still declare certain things to be deplorable. Rome wasn’t one homogenous being, but made of individuals and events.
Thank you for your historical documentaries. I've learned a lot. More tan I did in school. 👍🏻❤
There's a great deal of subtlety in Roman law and concepts of justice and un/acceptable behavior that muddies the waters when you look for parallels in a modern context. We're used to compartmentalizing law and criminal justice as a thing mostly separate from social and group dynamics so naturally we look to those same sources to determine whether a particular society is 'just', but we should also be looking at morality as expressed in values that define particular groups of people at particular times. For instance if you compare christian and pre-christian rome you'll see a gradual shift away from the concept of pre-christian roman stoicism as something that shapes personal choices in behavior outside of whether a thing is legal or not and how others see you as a result of those choices. So using the example in the video, if you look at the laws regarding r--e (don't want to cause demonetization!) in pre-christian rome, you'll see, as pointed out, that whether or not it's a crime depends on your socio-economic status, but what you don't see is that crime or no, if you're someone who makes a habit of r--ing non-citizen girls outside of wartime then you are someone who lacks self-control - a major personality failing, a weakness that doesn't stay confined to that one act. You wouldn't want to go into business, for example, with a man who cannot control his base urges. Stoicism falls to the wayside in christian rome, and with it some of the social pressures relating to an individuals actions as being wholly his own; behaviors formerly seen as a failure of character are now externalized as 'sin' - a temporary state brought about by a force outside oneself. The presence of a more robust legal system doesn't necessarily mean a more just society overall, and that's just one example of why wildly broad, speculative questions on immensely subjective topics like the nature of evil as presented in a society that hasn't existed for a couple thousand years just don't make sense :P
Also, hollywood hasn't done roman history any favors, so there's that.