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

[grumbler]

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.

[alfred russel]

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.

First, 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.

Second, do you think all cases of enslavement should be considered genocide?

No.

[alfred russel]

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.

[crazy canuck]

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. 

[grumbler]

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.

[Maladict]

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.

[The Minsky Moment]

150,000 would still be a huge number.  Any indication how they confirmed that number?

[Scipio]

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.

[grumbler]

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.