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

[The Brain]

This is a bizarre discussion.

[alfred russel]

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.

Can you repost? I may have missed it.

[alfred russel]

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.

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.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

[grumbler]

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."

[Eddie Teach]

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.

[Razgovory]

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.

[alfred russel]

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")

[alfred russel]

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.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

[alfred russel]

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?

[Admiral Yi]

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?

[alfred russel]

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.

[Admiral Yi]

You answer my question and then I will address yours.

I don't know.  I'm saying enslavement introduces some ambiguity.

Now answer mine.

[Norgy]

This is a bizarre discussion.

I imagine it to be a bit like what purgatory would be like, if it existed.