this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
193 points (98.0% liked)

Rough Roman Memes

425 readers
91 users here now

A place to meme about the glorious ROMAN EMPIRE (and Roman Republic, and Roman Kingdom)! Byzantines tolerated! The HRE is not.

RULES:

  1. No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, bigotry, etc. The past may be bigoted, but we are not.

  2. Memes must be Rome-related, not just the title. It can be about Rome, or using Roman aesthetics, or both, but the meme itself needs to have Roman themes.

  3. Follow Lemmy.world rules.

Not sure where to start on Roman history?

A quick memetic primer on Republican Rome

A quick memetic primer on Imperial Rome

founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ah i see the misunderstanding, you think I’m picking on Rome specifically, but i promise you I’m not. I would apply this argument to any aggressive state, its only that Rome happened to be the biggest and the most aggressive around.

Hardly. Only the most successful in its aggression. You, earlier in this conversation, attempted a defence of pre-Roman British polities despite the fact that they were no less interested in making war on each other.

Were it the case that rome did nobly refuse to conquer and you were posting pro Gallic Empire memes we’d still be here in this same position with me arguing against forced celticization.

  1. The process of Romanization was very far from forced.

  2. In that case, the only real argument here is that you're upset that Rome was successful, unlike other contemporary polities. You acknowledge that none of the states they conquered were in any way morally superior, and, in fact, would have done the exact same thing if not worse to their neighbors, their countrymen, and to distant peoples like the Romans, had they been successful. You're arguing for the value of the sovereignty of one group of elites because you identify them with a nebulous 'people' or 'nation' in the way that 19th century nationalism has taught us to, not because of some essential popular element of their rule. Again, I point back to you opening this argument with

Brittain before Roman rule was probably even happier. But i guess when you’re the conquering army you get to decide what is and isnt “civilized”

The thing is, it doesn’t really matter if the things rome brought were “good” (and i mean good from our modern perspective) if people didn’t have a choice in the matter. Wouldn’t you agree to that?

No. People weren't going to have a choice in the matter either way. The past was not some democratic utopia punctuated only by outbreaks of war; British people were not getting a say under British native elites over their fate, or whether violence was performed upon them.

Furthermore, the use of violence and suffering to further a common good is, as I highlighted in the questions I asked regarding medicine, law enforcement, and the Second World War, is not inherently bad; and if you still hold to that view, I would ask again for you to answer your opinions on those three matters.

[–] Lyre@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I suppose we might have reached a philosophical impass, Mr. Jesus. I'd like to ask one more question to try and get to the root of this disagreement. In a completely theoretical situation, disregarding any real world examples: Is there any action that could not be justified morally should the eventual end be an equal or greater good. Or, in other words, is there anything at all that you would not allow should the ends justify the means?

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Increasingly repugnant actions must have increasingly disproportionately beneficial results to balance them out, I would say. There's nothing that I would automatically disqualify from a utilitarian analysis, but the more repugnant the action, the less likely there's any real-world justification for a scenario where that's the lesser evil out of the choices presented.

But again, my argument is not an absolute assertion of "Roman conquest was good", and I initially rejected the argument entirely precisely because it is a different argument from the question of Roman rule entirely, my argument is that the conflict of Roman and British polities and the conquest that resulted does not have the very modern dynamics you are ascribing to it.

[–] Lyre@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ah, ok I understand. Personally I do think we can project our morals backwards and judge historical figures and cultures. I think it helps us analyse them so long as it doesn't result in us misconstrueing the truth. I think remaining completely objective can result in repeating the past, or excusing morally reprehensable things in the present. I come from a litarary background, so maybe I'm predisposed to that kind of analysis.

But i see your side as well, I'll admit how alien the past can be and how different the idea of morality can be from culture to culture.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Dunno who downvoted you, but I upvoted you, I enjoy a good argument.

[–] Lyre@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Haha thanks man, same. If we came to the internet expecting everyone to agree with us we'd go insane pretty fast.