Late Republican Rome

[grumbler]

Medieval generals tended not to slaughter every man of military age in towns that threw open their gates for them.

What's your evidence of customary slaughter of surrendering towns in classical era?

I don't believe he said that.  You were supposed to assume that, I believe, but assuming that would be as foolish as assuming that you have some invisible superfriend or that some undetectable part of you lives on after your death.

[Tamas]

Octavian used cruelty to reach the absolute top of the poltical ladder? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!

Guys FFS since time immemorial you had to be a backstabbing and -even more importantly- ruthless little prick to rise to political leadership even in a small town, for the simple reason that if you weren't, the backstabbing ruthless pricks made mincemeat out of you.

Sometimes the naivity of this supposedly knowledgeable crowd freaks me out.

So yes, if I ever was to decide I want to use my shot at getting the Roman Empire, I would do a proper job at grabbing it, not just fool around.

[Valmy]

Octavian used cruelty to reach the absolute top of the poltical ladder? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!

Guys FFS since time immemorial you had to be a backstabbing and -even more importantly- ruthless little prick to rise to political leadership even in a small town, for the simple reason that if you weren't, the backstabbing ruthless pricks made mincemeat out of you.

Sometimes the naivity of this supposedly knowledgeable crowd freaks me out.

So unless I think ruthless cruelty is a positive good I am naive?

As I said remind me not to get on your bad side 

[Tamas]

Octavian used cruelty to reach the absolute top of the poltical ladder? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!

Guys FFS since time immemorial you had to be a backstabbing and -even more importantly- ruthless little prick to rise to political leadership even in a small town, for the simple reason that if you weren't, the backstabbing ruthless pricks made mincemeat out of you.

Sometimes the naivity of this supposedly knowledgeable crowd freaks me out.

So unless I think ruthless cruelty is a positive good I am naive?

As I said remind me not to get on your bad side 

no I despise almost all politicans and the methods they employ.

Point is, it is naive to think, that there has been a successful politican EVER, who got there without ruthless cruelty.

[Tamas]

And Octavian at least did a lot of good once he established his power. Well, in terms of establishing the Empire.

[alfred russel]

Actually, yes and no, or you are both right.

The "progress" in morality has been, almost consistently, about extending the boundaries of "us". Christian medieval morality extended this from "Romans" to "Christians" - which is quite a progress, admittedly - but once you were outside of these boundaries (like Muslims or Jews of Jerusalem) you still got yourself slaughtered.

First, depending on the eras we want to compare, medieval europe didn't necessarily have many christians. The Roman Empire was at many points much larger geographically. It wasn't until the conversion of the pagans that christianity was much more common, and this was not achieved peaceably.

Second, the boundaries of "us" were more exclusionary among medieval christans than romans. Inquisitions, witch burnings, all sorts of discrimination against jews, excommunications, and internal military campaigns (such as the albigensian crusade) were launched.

Third, medieval christianity was religiously focused to an extent that harmed society. Putting your best educated minds into monastaries to spend large portions of their time in prayer and contemplation of god isn't the best way to get bridges built or fields planted. You also ended up with ridiculous situations such as a legal system reliant on superstition.

[The Brain]

Octavian used cruelty to reach the absolute top of the poltical ladder? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!

Guys FFS since time immemorial you had to be a backstabbing and -even more importantly- ruthless little prick to rise to political leadership even in a small town, for the simple reason that if you weren't, the backstabbing ruthless pricks made mincemeat out of you.

Sometimes the naivity of this supposedly knowledgeable crowd freaks me out.

So unless I think ruthless cruelty is a positive good I am naive?

As I said remind me not to get on your bad side 

no I despise almost all politicans and the methods they employ.

Point is, it is naive to think, that there has been a successful politican EVER, who got there without ruthless cruelty.

Someone has been reading too much Machiavelli.

[Tamas]

Octavian used cruelty to reach the absolute top of the poltical ladder? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!

Guys FFS since time immemorial you had to be a backstabbing and -even more importantly- ruthless little prick to rise to political leadership even in a small town, for the simple reason that if you weren't, the backstabbing ruthless pricks made mincemeat out of you.

Sometimes the naivity of this supposedly knowledgeable crowd freaks me out.

So unless I think ruthless cruelty is a positive good I am naive?

As I said remind me not to get on your bad side 

no I despise almost all politicans and the methods they employ.

Point is, it is naive to think, that there has been a successful politican EVER, who got there without ruthless cruelty.

Someone has been reading too much Machiavelli.

Someone has had too much view on miniscule local politics

[garbon]

Actually, yes and no, or you are both right.

The "progress" in morality has been, almost consistently, about extending the boundaries of "us". Christian medieval morality extended this from "Romans" to "Christians" - which is quite a progress, admittedly - but once you were outside of these boundaries (like Muslims or Jews of Jerusalem) you still got yourself slaughtered.

First, depending on the eras we want to compare, medieval europe didn't necessarily have many christians. The Roman Empire was at many points much larger geographically. It wasn't until the conversion of the pagans that christianity was much more common, and this was not achieved peaceably.

Second, the boundaries of "us" were more exclusionary among medieval christans than romans. Inquisitions, witch burnings, all sorts of discrimination against jews, excommunications, and internal military campaigns (such as the albigensian crusade) were launched.

Medieval Christianity was a lot more narrowing as not only did you have to believe (or pretend to believe) but you also had to believe in the correct version of Christianity.

[Razgovory]

Actually, yes and no, or you are both right.

The "progress" in morality has been, almost consistently, about extending the boundaries of "us". Christian medieval morality extended this from "Romans" to "Christians" - which is quite a progress, admittedly - but once you were outside of these boundaries (like Muslims or Jews of Jerusalem) you still got yourself slaughtered.

First, depending on the eras we want to compare, medieval europe didn't necessarily have many christians. The Roman Empire was at many points much larger geographically. It wasn't until the conversion of the pagans that christianity was much more common, and this was not achieved peaceably.

Second, the boundaries of "us" were more exclusionary among medieval christans than romans. Inquisitions, witch burnings, all sorts of discrimination against jews, excommunications, and internal military campaigns (such as the albigensian crusade) were launched.

Third, medieval christianity was religiously focused to an extent that harmed society. Putting your best educated minds into monastaries to spend large portions of their time in prayer and contemplation of god isn't the best way to get bridges built or fields planted. You also ended up with ridiculous situations such as a legal system reliant on superstition.

Ancient Romans had no problem with killing Witches or launching internal military campaigns.  Antisemitism was already well rooted in the classical world.  There are reports of Pogroms against Jews in Alexandria, and I imagine they occurred else where as well.  Jews were banned in ancient Rome by Claudius.

[The Brain]

Nothing sensible ever goes out of style.

[grumbler]

Octavian used cruelty to reach the absolute top of the poltical ladder? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!

It isn't so.  I cannot think of a single instance in which Octavian employed cruelty.  Violence, yes.  Coercion, yes.  Cruelty, no.

Guys FFS since time immemorial you had to be a backstabbing and -even more importantly- ruthless little prick to rise to political leadership even in a small town, for the simple reason that if you weren't, the backstabbing ruthless pricks made mincemeat out of you.

Sometimes the naivity of this supposedly knowledgeable crowd freaks me out.

Sometimes the ignorance of supposedly knowledgeable posters freaks me out.

[grumbler]

Ancient Romans had no problem with killing Witches ...

From whence do you get this?

Antisemitism was already well rooted in the classical world.  There are reports of Pogroms against Jews in Alexandria, and I imagine they occurred else where as well.  Jews were banned in ancient Rome by Claudius.

I am aware of no "pogroms" among Jews in Alexandria in Roman times (though there was ethnic tensions between Alexandrian Greeks and Jews, but nothing antisemitic), nor does any credible source support the claim that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome (Josephus, a Jew writing about Jewish history, doesn't mention it in Antiquities of the Jews ).  Suetonius in his twelve Caesars volume on Claudius apparently mentions that some Jewish troublemakers were expelled, but this is hardly antisemitism.

[Razgovory]

Are there any serious people who dispute my claims?

[The Minsky Moment]

Putting your best educated minds into monastaries to spend large portions of their time in prayer and contemplation of god isn't the best way to get bridges built or fields planted.

Au contraire, it could be a very effective way to get fields planted.  If you look at a monastery from an economic perspective, it is a corporation that mobilizes physical, and intellectual capital into a unit in a historical period where capital accumulation was otherwise very difficult.  Monasteries led the clearing of the heavily forested continent and were often in the forefront of applying new technologies and techniques in the management of their patrimony.