Excavating that would be creepy as fuck.
http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/150000-fled-their-lives-were-slaughtered-julius-caesar-army-bones-reveal-020659
Quote
150,000 fled for their lives, but were slaughtered by Julius Caesar army, bones reveal
Human bones dating to the Late Iron Age.
14 DECEMBER, 2015 - 21:52 LIZLEAFLOOR
150,000 fled for their lives, but were slaughtered by Julius Caesar army, bones reveal
A cache of bones and artifacts buried at a site near to where the Waal and Meuse rivers meet testify to a genocidal slaughter of tragic proportions. As recorded by Julius Caesar himself, a bloody battle took place in 55 BC resulting in the genocide of between 150,000 and 200,000 Germanic tribespeople, including women and children, in what is now Netherlands.
Archaeologists from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam , working with three decades' worth of archaeological finds as well as historical and geochemical data, have formed conclusions about the dark events that took place thousands of years ago between Julius Caesar and two Germanic tribes, the Tencteri and Usipetes, reports PastHorizons. These finds place Julius Caesar on Dutch soil for the first time in historical record.
A People Betrayed and Destroyed
In Book IV of his De Bello Gallico, Roman Dictator Julius Caesar chronicled in detail the events leading to the mass killings, said to be the earliest known battle on Dutch soil.
The two Germanic tribes, arriving from the east of the Rhine in the spring of the year, had appealed to the Caesar for asylum, after having been driven from their lands by another tribe, the Suebi. The Roman leader refused their request, but instead suggested they share land with another tribe who were also enemies with the Suebi.
Archaeological Finds Reveal Killings, and Ritual
Spearheads, 20 iron swords, a helmet, belt buckles and other metal artifacts dating to the Iron Age, as well as many bones, have all been discovered at Brabant Kessel since 1975. This is the first time, however, that experts have been able to connect the site with the history of Caesar's massacre during the Gallic Wars.
Skeletal remain of men, women, and children were found at the site, broken up and damaged. Marks and holes in the bones indicate injuries by spear, sword and missile.
Radiocarbon dating on the remains date to the Late Iron Age, and strontium analysis on tooth enamel reveal the dead were not native to the Dutch river area, reports PastHorizons.
It is of particular interest that some of the swords were found to be deliberately destroyed or bent, indicating to researchers that ritual was involved.
Nico Roymans, archaeologist at the institution VU University in Amsterdam said at a press conference at the Allard Pierson Museum, "Though Caesar did not explicitly intend [...] to destroy Germanic tribes, he must have realized that his actions de facto resulted in at least the partial destruction of this ethnic groups."
"This explains why Caesar in his war reports, without any shame, gives detailed descriptions of the use of mass violence against Gallic and Germanic peoples who resisted the Roman conquest."
Wow! What purple prose! This web site looks like a joke, frankly. I'm not sure whether it is the translation or the original that uses such absurd words as "genocide" and "betrayed," but, if refusing a truce because you think the other side is just buying time is betrayal, betrayal really doesn't have any meaning.
I note that the author doesn't address at all the "genocide" these people had just perpetrated against the Menapians (allies of Rome) and the attacks they had perpetrated against other clients of Rome. He also doesn't address the fact that, according to his source, Caesar, it was the Germans who attacked the Romans, not vice-versa.
I was an ugly event, no question about it, and Caesar doesn't come off looking all that good in his own account. But real historians can discuss real history without the kinds of over-wrought and intemperate language this web page uses.
Obviously grumbler and Jules were drinking buddies.
Quote from: grumbler on December 18, 2015, 11:17:22 PM
Wow! What purple prose! This web site looks like a joke, frankly. I'm not sure whether it is the translation or the original that uses such absurd words as "genocide" and "betrayed," but, if refusing a truce because you think the other side is just buying time is betrayal, betrayal really doesn't have any meaning.
I note that the author doesn't address at all the "genocide" these people had just perpetrated against the Menapians (allies of Rome) and the attacks they had perpetrated against other clients of Rome. He also doesn't address the fact that, according to his source, Caesar, it was the Germans who attacked the Romans, not vice-versa.
I was an ugly event, no question about it, and Caesar doesn't come off looking all that good in his own account. But real historians can discuss real history without the kinds of over-wrought and intemperate language this web page uses.
Who cares who betrayed who, or if the victims committed genocide against another tribe. You kill 150-200k men, women & children and wipe out an entire tribe, that's genocide, no matter what the extenuating circumstances are.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2015, 01:02:55 AMWho cares who betrayed who, or if the victims committed genocide against another tribe. You kill 150-200k men, women & children and wipe out an entire tribe, that's genocide, no matter what the extenuating circumstances are.
The extenuating circumstances that genocide is 20th century term and concept applied to something that happened a few thousand years ago? Genocide in this contexts suggest this is some kind of war crime when, as grumbler points out, this was a fairly common thing. So yeah lets stick to using genocide in its proper context. It is lazy history to stir outrage at past events using modern values. You might as well not even bother studying or discussing the topic if this is going to be your approach.
Like calling Mohammed a 'pedophile' :bleeding:
As a history guy I expect better from you Tim.
Reparations are obviously in order. I will start with all the baked ziti I can eat and then decide from there.
Time to rename the month of July, the Ceasar's Palace casino and Ceasar's salad! SJWs, get on to it. :mad:
Quote from: Martinus on December 19, 2015, 01:59:00 AM
Time to rename the month of July, the Ceasar's Palace casino and Ceasar's salad! SJWs, get on to it. :mad:
I concur we will call it liberty sakad😬
My impression is that genocide is a word for a physical action, not (just) a legal term that is dependent on legislation in place at the time of said action.
Does the English language distinguish between Germanic people (those of antiquity and the great migrations and encompassing many tribal groups) and Germans (perhaps starting with Louis the German or Otto the Great and becoming eventually the modern Germans)? Is the noun for members of these groups the same?
So Charlemagne is no longer German? :P Just Frank/Proto-French? :D
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2015, 01:02:55 AM
Who cares who betrayed who, or if the victims committed genocide against another tribe. You kill 150-200k men, women & children and wipe out an entire tribe, that's genocide, no matter what the extenuating circumstances are.
I weep for your students.
Calling him a Frank makes more sense than calling him German or French. The earliest reasonable date for Germany is the Treaty of Verdun in 843.
Quote from: Zanza on December 19, 2015, 08:23:20 AM
Calling him a Frank makes more sense than calling him German or French. The earliest reasonable date for Germany is the Treaty of Verdun in 843.
I thought his name was Charles, not Frank. :hmm:
Quote from: The Brain on December 19, 2015, 04:15:31 AM
My impression is that genocide is a word for a physical action, not (just) a legal term that is dependent on legislation in place at the time of said action.
Same here
Quote from: The Brain on December 19, 2015, 04:15:31 AM
My impression is that genocide is a word for a physical action, not (just) a legal term that is dependent on legislation in place at the time of said action.
We cannot escape that nowadays it is a legal, as much as a politically loaded word; it implies ex post facto normative accusations of a party committing "evil".
Hence why President Clinton resisted calling the Rwanda genocide a "genocide" in 1994 when the events were making it obvious it was one. It implied legal and political ramifications.
Quote from: Zanza on December 19, 2015, 08:23:20 AM
Calling him a Frank makes more sense than calling him German or French. The earliest reasonable date for Germany is the Treaty of Verdun in 843.
Incidentally, the same can be said about France, the treaty of Verdun used to be cornerstone of traditional historiography. Not so much now with PC/white guilt/no historical dates to learn trend.
Though Clovis/Chlodwig fans say 496 with the move to Paris as capital in 508 being another possiblity.I guess Karl/Charles Martel and even more so Dagobert (not Onkel) stay Frank(ish).
Quote from: Drakken on December 19, 2015, 09:55:26 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 19, 2015, 04:15:31 AM
My impression is that genocide is a word for a physical action, not (just) a legal term that is dependent on legislation in place at the time of said action.
We cannot escape that nowadays it is a legal, as much as a politically loaded word; it implies ex post facto normative accusations of a party committing "evil".
Hence why President Clinton resisted calling the Rwanda genocide a "genocide" in 1994 when the events were making it obvious it was one. It implied legal and political ramifications.
Same can be said for lots of terms. I don't think discussions of ancient history necessarily have to tread as carefully as a politician talking about current affairs.
Dreamy. :wub:
Quote from: Drakken on December 19, 2015, 09:55:26 AM
We cannot escape that nowadays it is a legal, as much as a politically loaded word; it implies ex post facto normative accusations of a party committing "evil".
We cannot escape that genocide has always been a legal term, just like murder. The same acts can be genocide or not, or murder or not, depending on the circumstances. Calling things you don't like "genocide" merely to stir up audience emotion is intellectually dishonest.
Quote from: grumbler on December 19, 2015, 01:42:30 PM
Quote from: Drakken on December 19, 2015, 09:55:26 AM
We cannot escape that nowadays it is a legal, as much as a politically loaded word; it implies ex post facto normative accusations of a party committing "evil".
We cannot escape that genocide has always been a legal term, just like murder. The same acts can be genocide or not, or murder or not, depending on the circumstances. Calling things you don't like "genocide" merely to stir up audience emotion is intellectually dishonest.
I think in this context people use the term "genocide" to denote something like "massive slaughter that pretty much wiped out the target ethnic group" without intending to suggest anything about the legal ramifications (nor about the moral ones, beyond what comes naturally with the longer phrasing).
Do you have an alternate term or phrasing you prefer for describing that concept?
"War".
Quote from: Zanza on December 19, 2015, 07:13:28 AM
Does the English language distinguish between Germanic people (those of antiquity and the great migrations and encompassing many tribal groups) and Germans (perhaps starting with Louis the German or Otto the Great and becoming eventually the modern Germans)? Is the noun for members of these groups the same?
Yes, no.
Quote from: Jacob on December 19, 2015, 03:57:01 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 19, 2015, 01:42:30 PM
Quote from: Drakken on December 19, 2015, 09:55:26 AM
We cannot escape that nowadays it is a legal, as much as a politically loaded word; it implies ex post facto normative accusations of a party committing "evil".
We cannot escape that genocide has always been a legal term, just like murder. The same acts can be genocide or not, or murder or not, depending on the circumstances. Calling things you don't like "genocide" merely to stir up audience emotion is intellectually dishonest.
I think in this context people use the term "genocide" to denote something like "massive slaughter that pretty much wiped out the target ethnic group" without intending to suggest anything about the legal ramifications (nor about the moral ones, beyond what comes naturally with the longer phrasing).
Do you have an alternate term or phrasing you prefer for describing that concept?
Yeah, im typing on a phone so cant provide links, but there are plenty of reputable dictionaries that have definitions of genocide that dont reference the legal status of the act. Based on dictionary definitions, this act would seem to qualify.
Quote from: Jacob on December 19, 2015, 03:57:01 PM
I think in this context people use the term "genocide" to denote something like "massive slaughter that pretty much wiped out the target ethnic group" without intending to suggest anything about the legal ramifications (nor about the moral ones, beyond what comes naturally with the longer phrasing).
Do you have an alternate term or phrasing you prefer for describing that concept?
I think that many people misuse the word "genocide" for its emotive impact, as in this case. Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" according to Mirriam-Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide) and pretty much every other dictionary, other than the Urban Dictionary (which argues that it just means mass killing, because the word has "suffered the usual media sensationalism and over the years has lost much of its meaning. In the eyes of society these days, genocide is no longer the profound offense to all of civilization that it was taken to be in 1945, but just an obscure problem in an equally obscure nation by an equally obscure dictator"). Note that the UD definition predated this article that fits it by 11 years.
"Massacre" describes what happened well, as does your choice, "slaughter."
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 19, 2015, 12:31:17 AM
Obviously grumbler and Jules were drinking buddies.
Some say Grumbles ordered the slaughter and Jules covered for him. Explains why he is so touchy on the subject.
Quote from: grumbler on December 20, 2015, 09:06:13 AM
Quote from: Jacob on December 19, 2015, 03:57:01 PM
I think in this context people use the term "genocide" to denote something like "massive slaughter that pretty much wiped out the target ethnic group" without intending to suggest anything about the legal ramifications (nor about the moral ones, beyond what comes naturally with the longer phrasing).
Do you have an alternate term or phrasing you prefer for describing that concept?
I think that many people misuse the word "genocide" for its emotive impact, as in this case. Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" according to Mirriam-Webster
The Romans were quite deliberate and systematic about whipping these tribes out.
^_^
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2015, 10:14:28 PM
The Romans were quite deliberate and systematic about whipping these tribes out.
I don't think they engaged in any systematic whipping of these tribes - too busy fighting them.
Quote from: grumbler on December 19, 2015, 01:42:30 PM
Quote from: Drakken on December 19, 2015, 09:55:26 AM
We cannot escape that nowadays it is a legal, as much as a politically loaded word; it implies ex post facto normative accusations of a party committing "evil".
We cannot escape that genocide has always been a legal term, just like murder. The same acts can be genocide or not, or murder or not, depending on the circumstances. Calling things you don't like "genocide" merely to stir up audience emotion is intellectually dishonest.
There are many other legal term that are also used more loosely when talking in a historical, especially pre-modern, context - war, treason or truce come to mind.
Plenty of Germans still around.
As my sister put it:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/12345570_776863575758893_8259365292865891034_n.jpg?oh=10a62c30ae65580b1f9c7da167f96dd5&oe=56D7D2D4&__gda__=1460971198_8db8d0999807eaef798868680c6e150d)
Quote from: grumbler on December 20, 2015, 10:45:32 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2015, 10:14:28 PM
The Romans were quite deliberate and systematic about whipping these tribes out.
I don't think they engaged in any systematic whipping of these tribes - too busy fighting them.
:XD: You know what I meant!
Quote from: Syt on December 21, 2015, 03:54:26 AM
As my sister put it:
[ugly portrayal of Germans]
I am sure the Germans have a "Jews"-as-boogeyman equivalent.
On the OP, that website looks pretty dubious as a serious source of accurate archaeological information. The linked article reads as if translated from another language.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 21, 2015, 03:52:07 AM
Plenty of Germans still around.
He wasn't targeting germans or germanic tribes, but the Tencteri and Usipetes, who may have actually been Celtic.
But there are also plenty of Jews still around.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 21, 2015, 09:58:17 AM
But there are also plenty of Jews still around.
Not in Germany or Poland.
Anyway, the article describes a single massacre, not a formal, extended campaign to end those tribes' existence.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 21, 2015, 11:31:43 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 21, 2015, 09:58:17 AM
But there are also plenty of Jews still around.
Not in Germany or Poland.
Anyway, the article describes a single massacre, not a formal, extended campaign to end those tribes' existence.
Well, those tribes are extinct, and the Celtic speakers now extinct from that region of Europe.
I think the question is to whether a "kill everyone" command when attacking a tribe qualifies as a genocide when resulting in the death of between 150,000 and 200,000 people, including women and children out of a population of maybe two or three that (I would tend to doubt the numbers). Can a single incident be considerable enough to qualify as a genocide even if not extended for a long period?
So Germanic tribes are Germans?
I think the Saxons, Jutes, Goths, Rugians etc would have disagreed.
Or the mysterious Heruls, who according Eastern Roman sources had come from the north to Dacia and Crimea, only to mysteriously trek back to Gothia later.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 21, 2015, 11:49:42 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 21, 2015, 11:31:43 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 21, 2015, 09:58:17 AM
But there are also plenty of Jews still around.
Not in Germany or Poland.
Anyway, the article describes a single massacre, not a formal, extended campaign to end those tribes' existence.
Well, those tribes are extinct, and the Celtic speakers now extinct from that region of Europe.
I think the question is to whether a "kill everyone" command when attacking a tribe qualifies as a genocide when resulting in the death of between 150,000 and 200,000 people, including women and children out of a population of maybe two or three that (I would tend to doubt the numbers). Can a single incident be considerable enough to qualify as a genocide even if not extended for a long period?
I think the answer is likely yes. The intent was to kill off the entire tribe - 100% of that population. No need to extend it beyond killing 100% of the group. I think where you go wrong is assuming other tribes were part of this group.
I still not quite ready to accept the numbers solely on the word of whoever wrote this little web article.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2015, 12:10:51 PM
I think where you go wrong is assuming other tribes were part of this group.
I'm not assuming that.
I was answering ET's presumed argument that this was not genocide because the germans still exist by pointing out that:
a) the tribes targeted do not exist today
b) the tribes were likely celtic rather than german speaking (despite being labeled germanic tribes by caesar, likely due to their geographic origin), and that in that part of europe those languages are indeed extinct
The obvious counterargument is that the tribes in question continued to be mentioned in historic sources after the battle/massacre/genocide, and a punitive action against an enemy with "kill everyone" orders applicable for a limited time was hardly unknown in ancient times and was not a serious attempt to eliminate the entire enemy's population. Rather, it was an attempt to send a "don't fuck with us" message.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 21, 2015, 12:54:48 PM
I was answering ET's presumed argument that this was not genocide because the germans still exist by pointing out that:
a) the tribes targeted do not exist today
b) the tribes were likely celtic rather than german speaking (despite being labeled germanic tribes by caesar, likely due to their geographic origin), and that in that part of europe those languages are indeed extinct
No tribe from that period exists today. No language spoken at that time is still spoken today. The Romans did not eradicate the Gauls or Iberian (Celtic speakers) and yet Celtic languages are not spoken in most of the area once comprised by pre-Roman Gaul or Iberia.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 21, 2015, 01:04:04 PM
No language spoken at that time is still spoken today.
Basque. :smarty:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 21, 2015, 01:04:04 PM
No tribe from that period exists today.
I realize that--but ET is the one bringing up that germans still exist, unlike the jews in that region.
QuoteNo language spoken at that time is still spoken today. The Romans did not eradicate the Gauls or Iberian (Celtic speakers) and yet Celtic languages are not spoken in most of the area once comprised by pre-Roman Gaul or Iberia.
Obviously languages evolve into new languages, but the the celtic languages largely died out on the continent (I think Brittany is the exception) while say latin evolved into the romance languages. The eradication of a lot of the gaulish and iberian languages had to do with Rome, and someone (I wouldn't) could conceivably argue that their policies were genocidal even if they didn't try to physically exterminate the members of the group.
That is different than the case with the incident with the Tencteri and Usipetes discussed in the article, where those specific tribes were apparently generally targeted.
Ok, there's more than enough for The Brain, but not nearly enough for CDM.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 21, 2015, 11:49:42 AM
Well, those tribes are extinct, and the Celtic speakers now extinct from that region of Europe.
I think the question is to whether a "kill everyone" command when attacking a tribe qualifies as a genocide when resulting in the death of between 150,000 and 200,000 people, including women and children out of a population of maybe two or three that (I would tend to doubt the numbers). Can a single incident be considerable enough to qualify as a genocide even if not extended for a long period?
Well, all the tribes of that period are extinct, as are the Romans. I guess they all have been genocided. Genocide is the historical norm.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2015, 01:14:44 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 21, 2015, 01:04:04 PM
No language spoken at that time is still spoken today.
Basque. :smarty:
It's probably changed a lot since then but point taken.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 21, 2015, 01:18:55 PM
The eradication of a lot of the gaulish and iberian languages had to do with Rome, and someone (I wouldn't) could conceivably argue that their policies were genocidal even if they didn't try to physically exterminate the members of the group.
People could argue lots of things, but that isn't a good argument.
The point is that you can't prove a historical genocide by evidence of linguistic change.
BTW I don't necessarily disagree with your "side" here, just questioning the proof.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 21, 2015, 01:48:13 PM
People could argue lots of things, but that isn't a good argument.
The point is that you can't prove a historical genocide by evidence of linguistic change.
BTW I don't necessarily disagree with your "side" here, just questioning the proof.
I think good proof would be if the tribes in question ceased to be mentioned after the event.
They were still mentioned, but some time down the road, and did not feature prominently. That could mean they still existed but were significantly reduced in scope, they were never very prominent to begin with the and numbers mentioned by Caesar were exaggerated, or even that the tribes ceased to exist and the names were just reused by the romans later on (as the romans were inclined to do).
For better or worse, we are left to rely on historic sources, which are likely biased and containing inaccuracies. If the story is that two tribes of ~430k pissed off the romans, and the romans launched an attach with a "kill them all" order of the day, and 150-200k were killed, I think that meets the dictionary definition of genocide. Is that what really happened? Modern evidence of women and children being killed as mentioned in the article can sort of help, but at the least the numbers are likely higher than reality.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2015, 12:10:51 PM
I think the answer is likely yes. The intent was to kill off the entire tribe - 100% of that population. No need to extend it beyond killing 100% of the group. I think where you go wrong is assuming other tribes were part of this group.
Struck by a divine revelation, eh? It amazes me how willing you are to leap to delusions. Caesar's stated intent was to pacify his Gallic allies by forcing these tribes to retreat back to Germany. His actions are consistent with that intent. He succeeded in his intentions, with relatively light losses (he says none, but that's not very credible). One of the reasons he suffered so little was that he forced the German warriors to try to defend their military camp and their dependents. That resulted in a panic and the deaths of most of the dependents and probably nearly all of the warriors.
The delusion that Caesar just decided out of the blue to start genociding tribes isn't even credible; one of his main sources of wealth in these wars was the sale of slaves, and German slaves were particularly prized for hard labor. His mentor, Gaius Marius, wiped out the Cimbri, Teutones, and Ammbrones tribes (probably totaling over 500,000 people) when they invaded Italy in 102 and 101 BCE, taking probably 300,000+ captives as slaves. I'm sure Tim's fevered web page would call that a genocide as well.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 21, 2015, 01:58:30 PM
For better or worse, we are left to rely on historic sources, which are likely biased and containing inaccuracies. If the story is that two tribes of ~430k pissed off the romans, and the romans launched an attach with a "kill them all" order of the day, and 150-200k were killed, I think that meets the dictionary definition of genocide. Is that what really happened?
According to Angus Maddison's estimates, the entire population of the area corresponding to the modern-day Netherlands during the period was 200,000. Assuming that entire population didn't happen to be on the exact battlefield on that day, I think it is safe to assume that Caesar's account is at best a significant exaggeration.
This came up before here when someone (I think Martim Silva?) referenced the migration of the Helvetti, also narrated by Caesar. There was a precise count of over 360,000, which again exceeds the likely population of all of Switzerland at that period. It was also very difficult to conceive of a group that size traversing the terrain on the long migration route they were alleged to have followed.
Bottom line is that I am very suspicious when numbers get thrown about in these kinds of ancient accounts.
Only one person here was there, and he won't incriminate himself.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 21, 2015, 02:10:19 PM
According to Angus Maddison's estimates, the entire population of the area corresponding to the modern-day Netherlands during the period was 200,000. Assuming that entire population didn't happen to be on the exact battlefield on that day, I think it is safe to assume that Caesar's account is at best a significant exaggeration.
This came up before here when someone (I think Martim Silva?) referenced the migration of the Helvetti, also narrated by Caesar. There was a precise count of over 360,000, which again exceeds the likely population of all of Switzerland at that period. It was also very difficult to conceive of a group that size traversing the terrain on the long migration route they were alleged to have followed.
Bottom line is that I am very suspicious when numbers get thrown about in these kinds of ancient accounts.
Not to mention that the article mentions 150-200k killed, while Caesar claims that not a single Roman was lost. It seems incredible that so many could be killed by hand without any losses. Or that so many could even be killed so quickly.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 21, 2015, 12:16:29 PM
I still not quite ready to accept the numbers solely on the word of whoever wrote this little web article.
Neither am I, but based on Caesar's own account he did a pretty good job eliminating that particular tribe so that they would not again be a threat. If we are not going to call it a genocide then some other word meaning wiping out a whole tribe in the ancient world needs to be coined.
Quote from: grumbler on December 21, 2015, 02:02:41 PM
The delusion that Caesar just decided out of the blue to start genociding tribes isn't even credible.
You are correct. Good thing nobody here is making that claim.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2015, 02:40:03 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 21, 2015, 12:16:29 PM
I still not quite ready to accept the numbers solely on the word of whoever wrote this little web article.
Neither am I, but based on Caesar's own account he did a pretty good job eliminating that particular tribe so that they would not again be a threat. If we are not going to call it a genocide then some other word meaning wiping out a whole tribe in the ancient world needs to be coined.
Eliminating them as a threat does not imply eliminating them though.
I am with Minsky - I think nearly all ancient world estimates for army sizes, battle sizes, etc., etc., are gross exaggerations.
I imagine how long it would take to kill 100,000 people by hand - just the simple logistics of it when you start actually thinking about how to go about doing that.
I suspect what actually happened is that a bunch of warriors started slaughtering people, and everyone scattered, and they reported that they killed them all.
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2015, 02:51:51 PM
Eliminating them as a threat does not imply eliminating them though.
I am with Minsky - I think nearly all ancient world estimates for army sizes, battle sizes, etc., etc., are gross exaggerations.
I imagine how long it would take to kill 100,000 people by hand - just the simple logistics of it when you start actually thinking about how to go about doing that.
I suspect what actually happened is that a bunch of warriors started slaughtering people, and everyone scattered, and they reported that they killed them all.
Caesar wanted them to cross back over the Rhine, according to his account. CC claims to know better than Caesar what Caesar intended, but I think logic and knowledge of Caesar's previous actions indicate that CC is, again, full of shit.
I suspect that what actually happened was that a bunch of warriors started killing people, and the people panicked, and some of them drowned, some of them got crushed, some got stabbed, and some escaped. Caesar throws out some amazing numbers (430,000) because that makes him sound better. He doesn't say that he killed them all (and, indeed, it is clear that he didn't, as the tribes are still around two hundred years later), but he describes his victory as complete and that he suffered no losses (again, not at all likely).
If this was a genocide, then the Soviets genocided the Sixth Army at Stalingrad and the Germans genocided Varus's legions at the Teutoburger Wald.
I think that settles the discussion.
History will judge which one of you is right.
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2015, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2015, 02:40:03 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 21, 2015, 12:16:29 PM
I still not quite ready to accept the numbers solely on the word of whoever wrote this little web article.
Neither am I, but based on Caesar's own account he did a pretty good job eliminating that particular tribe so that they would not again be a threat. If we are not going to call it a genocide then some other word meaning wiping out a whole tribe in the ancient world needs to be coined.
Eliminating them as a threat does not imply eliminating them though.
I am with Minsky - I think nearly all ancient world estimates for army sizes, battle sizes, etc., etc., are gross exaggerations.
I imagine how long it would take to kill 100,000 people by hand - just the simple logistics of it when you start actually thinking about how to go about doing that.
I suspect what actually happened is that a bunch of warriors started slaughtering people, and everyone scattered, and they reported that they killed them all.
Yeah, as I said, I think Minsky is correct about being doubtful about the numbers as well. Which is why I don't think it is near 100,000 people and it makes it much more likely that the tribe was wiped out.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 21, 2015, 09:39:45 AM
On the OP, that website looks pretty dubious as a serious source of accurate archaeological information. The linked article reads as if translated from another language.
The original was in Dutch wasn't it?
Guardian says the same
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/11/julius-caesar-battlefield-unearthed-southern-netherlands-dutch-archaeologists
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 21, 2015, 05:26:26 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 21, 2015, 09:39:45 AM
On the OP, that website looks pretty dubious as a serious source of accurate archaeological information. The linked article reads as if translated from another language.
The original was in Dutch wasn't it?
Guardian says the same
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/11/julius-caesar-battlefield-unearthed-southern-netherlands-dutch-archaeologists
The section below doesn't give must confidence that the author had a clue regarding what he was reporting. Also, I'd be interested in where these 150-200k figures are coming from. It seems implausible to me, but the article seems to be attributing it to the university of amsterdam.
"This article was amended on 12 December 2015. It originally used a photo of a statue of Julius Caesar's great-nephew Julius Caesar Augustus. This has been corrected. It was further amended on 14 December 2015. It mistakenly described Caesar as an emperor and said the items dated back to the 1st century, when they dated back to the 1st century BC. These errors have been corrected."
Looking at a few more stories on this, they repeat the account from DBG, but all that is said about the VU discovery is that the found a lot of material. It would be very interesting if the VU team has confirmed number in the 150-200K range - it would alter assumptions about density and population levels and bolster confidence in the specific numbers in DBG - that is what drew my interest. But its not clear in the news accounts that mention that numbers that the VU archaeologists have clear evidence of such exact counts or just that there are a lot and the journalists are just repeating the DBG numbers,
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2015, 02:40:03 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 21, 2015, 12:16:29 PM
I still not quite ready to accept the numbers solely on the word of whoever wrote this little web article.
Neither am I, but based on Caesar's own account he did a pretty good job eliminating that particular tribe so that they would not again be a threat. If we are not going to call it a genocide then some other word meaning wiping out a whole tribe in the ancient world needs to be coined.
I think the term creates a false impression and thus is bad history. Since we cannot dig up Julius Caesar and put him on trial I think the priority needs to be on giving people an understanding of the times. Not using charged modern terms and values to try to demonize past peoples. I just do not see how that contributes to anything.
Quote from: Valmy on December 22, 2015, 12:01:40 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2015, 02:40:03 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 21, 2015, 12:16:29 PM
I still not quite ready to accept the numbers solely on the word of whoever wrote this little web article.
Neither am I, but based on Caesar's own account he did a pretty good job eliminating that particular tribe so that they would not again be a threat. If we are not going to call it a genocide then some other word meaning wiping out a whole tribe in the ancient world needs to be coined.
I think the term creates a false impression and thus is bad history. Since we cannot dig up Julius Caesar and put him on trial I think the priority needs to be on giving people an understanding of the times. Not using charged modern terms and values to try to demonize past peoples. I just do not see how that contributes to anything.
Or you could just leave your outrage hat at home when discussing ancient history and not worry about being PC with every term you use.
The Romans had slavery. It was legal and socially accepted. Slavery today is a very charged and negative term. Should we call Roman slavery something else because of this? That way lies silly.
The Romans knew what slavery was. Genocide was an alien concept.
Genocide was a well established practice in the ancient world.
I just genocided my breakfast sammy.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 22, 2015, 05:22:24 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 22, 2015, 09:09:30 AM
They didn't know the term genocide, but were familiar with the concept of deliberately killing large numbers of particular groups of people.
They didn't have the follow-through of modern nations.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 22, 2015, 09:17:24 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 22, 2015, 09:09:30 AM
They didn't know the term genocide, but were familiar with the concept of deliberately killing large numbers of particular groups of people.
They didn't have the follow-through of modern nations.
I think you are shifting your argument from that they were unfamiliar with the concept to that they did not implement it.
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.
Quote from: The Brain on December 22, 2015, 06:14:16 AM
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?
No one weeps for Gomorrah. :(
Quote from: Norgy on December 22, 2015, 09:55:39 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 22, 2015, 06:14:16 AM
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. :Joos
Quote from: alfred russel on December 22, 2015, 09:45:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 22, 2015, 10:30:52 AM
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.
#SodomLivesMatter
In the ancient world many peoples were tiny, which made genocide fairly easy to achieve.
Try genociding minotaurs. Those bastards were tough.
Quote from: The Brain on December 22, 2015, 11:11:50 AM
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!"
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 22, 2015, 11:27:26 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 22, 2015, 11:11:50 AM
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?
Quote from: alfred russel on December 22, 2015, 09:09:30 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 22, 2015, 05:22:24 AM
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.
:lmfao: 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.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 22, 2015, 09:45:33 AM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on December 22, 2015, 10:18:51 AM
No one weeps for Gomorrah. :(
They weep when they get a case of it.
Quote from: The Brain on December 22, 2015, 11:11:50 AM
In the ancient world many peoples were tiny, which made genocide fairly easy to achieve.
Tiny people have rights, too.
Quote from: grumbler on December 22, 2015, 01:19:22 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 22, 2015, 09:09:30 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 22, 2015, 05:22:24 AM
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.
:lmfao: 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.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 22, 2015, 01:33:15 PM
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.
:huh: 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.
This is a bizarre discussion.
Quote from: grumbler on December 22, 2015, 01:41:33 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 22, 2015, 01:33:15 PM
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.
:huh: 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.
Can you repost? I may have missed it.
Quote from: grumbler on December 22, 2015, 01:41:33 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 22, 2015, 01:33:15 PM
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.
:huh: 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.
Huh. I went and found your post. It has this:
Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" according to Mirriam-Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide.
That doesn't at all ruin my argument. The Romans were certainly familiar with such a concept, and if we are talking about for example Carthage, put it into place.
I wouldn't call Rome's treatment of Carthage genocide. They razed the city and dispossessed the merchant class but they didn't hunt down and kill all Punic speakers.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 22, 2015, 04:55:51 PM
Huh. I went and found your post. It has this:
Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" according to Mirriam-Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide.
That doesn't at all ruin my argument. The Romans were certainly familiar with such a concept, and if we are talking about for example Carthage, put it into place.
The Romans didn't deliberately or systematically destroy a racial, political, or cultural group in the case of Carthage. They destroyed the city, for sure, but lots of cities have been destroyed over the years without the ignoratti yelling "genocide."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2015, 05:02:08 PM
I wouldn't call Rome's treatment of Carthage genocide. They razed the city and dispossessed the merchant class but they didn't hunt down and kill all Punic speakers.
They even had some on hand that they enslaved rather than killed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2015, 05:02:08 PM
I wouldn't call Rome's treatment of Carthage genocide. They razed the city and dispossessed the merchant class but they didn't hunt down and kill all Punic speakers.
Well they claimed to have done so. Since there were Carthaginians left in the Jurgurthine war, it obviously didn't stick.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2015, 05:02:08 PM
I wouldn't call Rome's treatment of Carthage genocide. They razed the city and dispossessed the merchant class but they didn't hunt down and kill all Punic speakers.
Carthage was a city state with dependencies. The punic wars were not against all punic speakers--Rome had some allies that were Punic speaking. It was a war against the city state of Carthage, and while it is debatable the extent of the destruction of the city, the destruction was significant and more than the simple disposition of its merchant class. The city as the Punic political and cultural group it was ended up destroyed. Which fits in with what the war hawks claimed needed to happen before the war: :Carthago delenda est" ("Carthage must be destroyed")
Quote from: grumbler on December 22, 2015, 05:03:36 PM
The Romans didn't deliberately or systematically destroy a racial, political, or cultural group in the case of Carthage. They destroyed the city, for sure, but lots of cities have been destroyed over the years without the ignoratti yelling "genocide."
They set out to destroy a political rival and did it. That is a different nature than opportunistically destroying a city for loot in the course of a war, or out of retribution for not surrendering.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 22, 2015, 05:15:23 PM
Carthage was a city state with dependencies. The punic wars were not against all punic speakers--Rome had some allies that were Punic speaking. It was a war against the city state of Carthage, and while it is debatable the extent of the destruction of the city, the destruction was significant and more than the simple disposition of its merchant class. The city as the Punic political and cultural group it was ended up destroyed. Which fits in with what the war hawks claimed needed to happen before the war: :Carthago delenda est" ("Carthage must be destroyed")
The destruction was so significant some might go so far as to say the city was razed.
The Romans destroyed dozens, if not hundreds, of independent political groups, yet we don't call that genocide. We call it conquest.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2015, 05:24:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 22, 2015, 05:15:23 PM
Carthage was a city state with dependencies. The punic wars were not against all punic speakers--Rome had some allies that were Punic speaking. It was a war against the city state of Carthage, and while it is debatable the extent of the destruction of the city, the destruction was significant and more than the simple disposition of its merchant class. The city as the Punic political and cultural group it was ended up destroyed. Which fits in with what the war hawks claimed needed to happen before the war: :Carthago delenda est" ("Carthage must be destroyed")
The destruction was so significant some might go so far as to say the city was razed.
The Romans destroyed dozens, if not hundreds, of independent political groups, yet we don't call that genocide. We call it conquest.
Arguably the city was left uninhabited, to be refounded sometime later as a Roman colony. While the inhabitant level may not have dropped to zero and the field sown with salt, when the city reemerged a long time later it was as a Roman city.
To draw a modern day analogy, if Malaysia began enunciating rhetoric that Singapore must be destroyed, and eventually attacked, destroying the city, massacring many, enslaving most of the rest, and leaving the city with some minimal level of habitation, only to be refounded as a Malay city, wouldn't that meet the definition of genocide?
Quote from: alfred russel on December 22, 2015, 05:37:52 PM
Arguably the city was left uninhabited, to be refounded sometime later as a Roman colony. While the inhabitant level may not have dropped to zero and the field sown with salt, when the city reemerged a long time later it was as a Roman city.
To draw a modern day analogy, if Malaysia began enunciating rhetoric that Singapore must be destroyed, and eventually attacked, destroying the city, massacring many, enslaving most of the rest, and leaving the city with some minimal level of habitation, only to be refounded as a Malay city, wouldn't that meet the definition of genocide?
First, I think the focus on a city is a total red herring. One commits genocide against a people, not against a city.
Second, do you think all cases of enslavement should be considered genocide?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2015, 05:46:06 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 22, 2015, 05:37:52 PM
Arguably the city was left uninhabited, to be refounded sometime later as a Roman colony. While the inhabitant level may not have dropped to zero and the field sown with salt, when the city reemerged a long time later it was as a Roman city.
To draw a modern day analogy, if Malaysia began enunciating rhetoric that Singapore must be destroyed, and eventually attacked, destroying the city, massacring many, enslaving most of the rest, and leaving the city with some minimal level of habitation, only to be refounded as a Malay city, wouldn't that meet the definition of genocide?
First, I think the focus on a city is a total red herring. One commits genocide against a people, not against a city.
Second, do you think all cases of enslavement should be considered genocide?
You answer my question and then I will address yours. :)
Quote from: alfred russel on December 22, 2015, 05:51:46 PM
You answer my question and then I will address yours. :)
I don't know. I'm saying enslavement introduces some ambiguity.
Now answer mine.
Quote from: The Brain on December 22, 2015, 01:45:21 PM
This is a bizarre discussion.
I imagine it to be a bit like what purgatory would be like, if it existed.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 22, 2015, 05:04:49 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2015, 05:02:08 PM
I wouldn't call Rome's treatment of Carthage genocide. They razed the city and dispossessed the merchant class but they didn't hunt down and kill all Punic speakers.
They even had some on hand that they enslaved rather than killed.
Actually, some accounts have Scipio behaving very courteously to the survivors, and resettling them further inland (as the Romans had originally demanded). The examples of Corinth and Numantia, however, argue against that.
The Carthaginians living outside the city were not enslaved. They were incorporated into Numidia or the Roman African province.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2015, 05:53:12 PM
I don't know. I'm saying enslavement introduces some ambiguity.
Now answer mine.
That isn't an answer.
If you go back to grumbler's definition, it only requires "the deliberate and systematic destruction a racial, political, or cultural group". A combination of slaughter, mass enslavement, and destruction of physical infrastructure can effect that as surely as a simple mass murder.
QuoteFirst, I think the focus on a city is a total red herring. One commits genocide against a people, not against a city.
Cities can be unique in their own right. In the ancient world this was particularly the case. Places like Rome, Carthage, and Athens, in their heyday, were distinct cultural and political entities. Depending on the time being discussed, as especially Rome expanded citizenship beyond just those living in and around the city of Rome, the city state was a unique political and cultural group. This is especially true in the largely non urban ancient world, with so few large cities serving as the generators of culture. The extensive Roman destruction of Carthaginian cultural works to the extent we have almost no sources today, in addition to all the other factors mentioned, just shows the extent it was a campaign against a cultural group.
If we are to define who the people of Carthage were, it is difficult because we have so few sources from them (see above). But the group was almost certainly quite narrow, and this narrow group was targeted and destroyed. I recall Hamilcar arguing that this was one of the great if not greatest tragedies and crimes of world history.
QuoteSecond, do you think all cases of enslavement should be considered genocide?
No.
Quote from: grumbler on December 22, 2015, 06:00:57 PM
The Carthaginians living outside the city were not enslaved. They were incorporated into Numidia or the Roman African province.
There were practical limits at work as well.
Quote from: Norgy on December 22, 2015, 05:59:59 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 22, 2015, 01:45:21 PM
This is a bizarre discussion.
I imagine it to be a bit like what purgatory would be like, if it existed.
More like hell, if it existed. Perhaps BB has a point and I should err on the side of caution with my soul. :hmm:
Quote from: alfred russel on December 22, 2015, 06:16:07 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 22, 2015, 06:00:57 PM
The Carthaginians living outside the city were not enslaved. They were incorporated into Numidia or the Roman African province.
There were practical limits at work as well.
One of the practical limits being that the Romans weren't interested in genocide.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 21, 2015, 11:30:26 PM
Looking at a few more stories on this, they repeat the account from DBG, but all that is said about the VU discovery is that the found a lot of material. It would be very interesting if the VU team has confirmed number in the 150-200K range - it would alter assumptions about density and population levels and bolster confidence in the specific numbers in DBG - that is what drew my interest. But its not clear in the news accounts that mention that numbers that the VU archaeologists have clear evidence of such exact counts or just that there are a lot and the journalists are just repeating the DBG numbers,
The lead VU archaeologist mentions 150-200k as a more realistic number, down from the 430k reported by Caesar. He also says this event would be called a genocide today.
150,000 would still be a huge number. Any indication how they confirmed that number?
Quote from: Maladict on December 24, 2015, 10:29:46 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 21, 2015, 11:30:26 PM
Looking at a few more stories on this, they repeat the account from DBG, but all that is said about the VU discovery is that the found a lot of material. It would be very interesting if the VU team has confirmed number in the 150-200K range - it would alter assumptions about density and population levels and bolster confidence in the specific numbers in DBG - that is what drew my interest. But its not clear in the news accounts that mention that numbers that the VU archaeologists have clear evidence of such exact counts or just that there are a lot and the journalists are just repeating the DBG numbers,
The lead VU archaeologist mentions 150-200k as a more realistic number, down from the 430k reported by Caesar. He also says this event would be called a genocide today.
That sounds like commie bullshit to me.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 29, 2015, 10:44:46 PM
150,000 would still be a huge number. Any indication how they confirmed that number?
I don't think that anyone is saying that they confirmed that number. What I read is that they believe that they have identified the site of the battle to which Caesar referred. Apparently, there has been a debate over exactly how accurate Caesar's description of the location was. They have known for a long time that this was
a battlefield, but only recently did they find evidence that it was this particular battlefield.
The whole genocide thing appears to be just the hobbyhorse of Prof Roymans. The Dutch were jealous that Caesar oppressed everyone around them, but they had no evidence he oppressed anyone on Dutch soil. Now they think they do, so Caesar must equal Hitler so they can catch up on the oppression scale.