Mass grave of Caesar's victims found, remains of 150-200,000 Germans

[The Brain]

No one weeps for Gomorrah.

[alfred russel]

Genocide was a well established practice in the ancient world.

Wasn't JHWE quite good at it too, according to the reports (surely made by liberal media, but still) from Sodom and Gomorrah?

The Bible is full of liberal media bias. The Old Testament puts God in a bad light because he does things like torment Job and destroy the world with a flood, while the New Testament makes his son out to be all about the poor and downtrodden. It takes an insightful christian to see through this and recognize God as a Republican and America as his chosen land.

The Jews as the Chosen people is also obvious media propaganda--even back then those people controlled the press.

[Eddie Teach]

The article asserts a university claim that between 1/3 and 1/2 of two tribes were massacred by the Romans. There is discussion about whether the numbers are accurate, but if so, such a slaughter would be considered a genocide in the modern day, which would indicate they did indeed have the follow through of modern nations. Regardless, I think the example of Carthage would qualify as genocide under modern standards.

Two tribes which were able to gather in one place... The difference, as I see it, between "genocide" and simple massacre(or ancient warfare) is that genocide must be applied systematically. Massacre one town, go to the next, rinse, repeat. Caesar's actions don't fit this m.o. He wanted to subjugate the Gauls & Germans living in Gaul, not to empty the place.

[alfred russel]

He wanted to subjugate the Gauls & Germans living in Gaul, not to empty the place.

He didn't want to subjugate these tribes though--he wanted to be rid of challenges from them. They were requesting to move into Gaul, and he denied their request, they seem to have had limited options and showed signs of not taking no for an answer, so there was a massacre.

[Norgy]

#SodomLivesMatter

[The Brain]

In the ancient world many peoples were tiny, which made genocide fairly easy to achieve.

[Norgy]

Try genociding minotaurs. Those bastards were tough.

[Eddie Teach]

In the ancient world many peoples were tiny, which made genocide fairly easy to achieve.

Which makes it rather arbitrary to distinguish between genocide and razing a city. "Oh, these slaughtered people have cousins in another city twenty miles away that speak the same language? Not genocide! Wait, you say the cousins call themselves something different? Genocide!"

[The Brain]

In the ancient world many peoples were tiny, which made genocide fairly easy to achieve.

Which makes it rather arbitrary to distinguish between genocide and razing a city. "Oh, these slaughtered people have cousins in another city twenty miles away that speak the same language? Not genocide! Wait, you say the cousins call themselves something different? Genocide!"

So?

[grumbler]

The Romans knew what slavery was. Genocide was an alien concept.

They didn't know the term genocide, but were familiar with the concept of deliberately killing large numbers of particular groups of people.

Yeah.  That's called "war" and we are ourselves very familiar with it.  If war = genocide, then we don't even need the term genocide.

[grumbler]

The article asserts a university claim that between 1/3 and 1/2 of two tribes were massacred by the Romans. There is discussion about whether the numbers are accurate, but if so, such a slaughter would be considered a genocide in the modern day, which would indicate they did indeed have the follow through of modern nations. Regardless, I think the example of Carthage would qualify as genocide under modern standards.

None of these statements are true.

[grumbler]

No one weeps for Gomorrah.

They weep when they get a case of it.

[grumbler]

In the ancient world many peoples were tiny, which made genocide fairly easy to achieve.

Tiny people have rights, too.

[alfred russel]

The Romans knew what slavery was. Genocide was an alien concept.

They didn't know the term genocide, but were familiar with the concept of deliberately killing large numbers of particular groups of people.

Yeah.  That's called "war" and we are ourselves very familiar with it.  If war = genocide, then we don't even need the term genocide.

I googled the definition before I wrote that post, to get the dictionary definition. The definition per google is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation." Other sources give other definitions, but all the ones I've seen match concepts that Romans would have been familiar with. I'm sorry if you don't like the current definition of the term genocide, but that doesn't seem to be a reason to disagree with its use in an article.

[grumbler]

I googled the definition before I wrote that post, to get the dictionary definition. The definition per google is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation." Other sources give other definitions, but all the ones I've seen match concepts that Romans would have been familiar with. I'm sorry if you don't like the current definition of the term genocide, but that doesn't seem to be a reason to disagree with its use in an article.

  Google is a search engine, not a dictionary.  I provided the dictionary definition of the term, with links, above.  Sorry it ruins your argument, but that's what happens to crap arguments in the face of facts.