Julius Caesar battlefield unearthed in southern Netherlands
theguardian.com
Julius Caesar battlefield unearthed in southern Netherlands
1–10 of 32 posts
Re: Julius Caesar battlefield unearthed in southern Netherlands
#2The Dutch National Geographic article contains more detail and reads reasonably with computer translation:
http://www.nationalgeographic.nl/artikel/genocidaire-slachti...
Regardless, the scale of slaughter is staggering.
Re: Julius Caesar battlefield unearthed in southern Netherlands
#3Picking a round number of 200MM people in the world at the time [1], this is 0.1% of the entire population killed in a single event, which is staggering.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates
Re: Julius Caesar battlefield unearthed in southern Netherlands
#4According to Caesar he made 430000 casualties, while historians now estimate it were about 160000. Among these were women an children. On the Roman side there were zero casualties so it was more a genocide than a battle.
Re: Julius Caesar battlefield unearthed in southern Netherlands
#5Picking a round number of 200MM people in the world at the time [1], this is 0.1% of the entire population killed in a single event, which is staggering. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates
[deleted]
Re: Julius Caesar battlefield unearthed in southern Netherlands
#6According to Caesar he made 430000 casualties, while historians now estimate it were about 160000. Among these were women an children. On the Roman side there were zero casualties so it was more a genocide than a battle.
>On the Roman side there were zero casualties so it was more a genocide than a battle.
there was definitely a genocide after the battle. Rome legions excelled at both. Caesar had 8 legions, while here there were only 2 legions against about the same size of force Caesar faced:
Re: Julius Caesar battlefield unearthed in southern Netherlands
#7According to Caesar he made 430000 casualties, while historians now estimate it were about 160000. Among these were women an children. On the Roman side there were zero casualties so it was more a genocide than a battle.
>On the Roman side there were zero casualties so it was more a genocide than a battle. there was definitely a genocide after the battle. Rome legions excelled at both. Caesar had 8 legions, while here there were only 2 legions against about the same size of force Caesar faced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Watling_Street
The name Caesar was adopted by later emperors, but Gaius Julius Caesar was long dead by the time of Boudica's revolt.
Re: Julius Caesar battlefield unearthed in southern Netherlands
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
>On the Roman side there were zero casualties so it was more a genocide than a battle. there was definitely a genocide after the battle. Rome legions excelled at both. Caesar had 8 legions, while here there were only 2 legions against about the same size of force Caesar faced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Watling_Street
The name Caesar was adopted by later emperors, but Gaius Julius Caesar was long dead by the time of Boudica's revolt.
Caesar wasn't shy about slaughtering civilians (though it was likely a widespread habit at the time). However, he was a political animal, and behaved in an unusually forgiving way toward his Roman opponents when he made his bid for power (in contrast with the bloody purges of his predecessor Sulla and the triumvirate which succeeded him).
Re: Julius Caesar battlefield unearthed in southern Netherlands
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
The name Caesar was adopted by later emperors, but Gaius Julius Caesar was long dead by the time of Boudica's revolt.
Caesar wasn't shy about slaughtering civilians (though it was likely a widespread habit at the time). However, he was a political animal, and behaved in an unusually forgiving way toward his Roman opponents when he made his bid for power (in contrast with the bloody purges of his predecessor Sulla and the triumvirate which succeeded him).
Sadly, humanity hasn't improved at all really. American and British forces weren't shy about intentionally slaughtering
over 1,000,000 civilians in WW2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World...
Caesar wrote proudly of the punishment he dealt out to tribes, but he didn't do it out of any particular cruelty. He could rationalize it as saving lives in the end, in a way that most people would agree with, given the same context. The same way most Americans justify dropping nukes, firebombs, and missiles on women and children. The way Trump justifies the idea of killing the families of terrorists.
People can always rationalize killing civilians by claiming it saves more lives in the end. This exactly the argument that Hitler, Caesar, Roosevelt, and Churchill (among others) used.
> Hitler with the idea of poisoning the poisoners suggested: "If at the beginning of the War and during the War twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth
Re: Julius Caesar battlefield unearthed in southern Netherlands
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Caesar wasn't shy about slaughtering civilians (though it was likely a widespread habit at the time). However, he was a political animal, and behaved in an unusually forgiving way toward his Roman opponents when he made his bid for power (in contrast with the bloody purges of his predecessor Sulla and the triumvirate which succeeded him).
Sadly, humanity hasn't improved at all really. American and British forces weren't shy about intentionally slaughtering over 1,000,000 civilians in WW2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World... Caesar wrote proudly of the punishment he dealt out to tribes, but he didn't do it out of any particular cruelty. He could rationalize it as saving lives in the end, in a way that most people would agree…
...I was going to reply to something in your earlier post, but you stripped it out. It ended up in this post and when I noticed it I clicked to reply, and now you've edited it again.
I guess what I was going to reply with would now come off as a non sequitur, but is there some reason you won't leave your posts alone for 10 minutes?