Whelp, might as well get to screaming while I still have a mouth.

Haha thanks man, same. If we came to the internet expecting everyone to agree with us we’d go insane pretty fast.

Ah, ok I understand. Personally I do think we can project our morals backwards and judge historical figures and cultures. I think it helps us analyse them so long as it doesn’t result in us misconstrueing the truth. I think remaining completely objective can result in repeating the past, or excusing morally reprehensable things in the present. I come from a litarary background, so maybe I’m predisposed to that kind of analysis.

But i see your side as well, I’ll admit how alien the past can be and how different the idea of morality can be from culture to culture.

Well to be honest at this point we’ve both moved outside the realm of history and into theoreticals so its difficult to continue this without going in circles.

I disagree with you, but thats the nature of life and the internet. Likewise is the tendency to assume negativity when all I have to go on is a screen. Still, i feel confident that if we had this discussion in person I’d be smiling the whole time.

I suppose we might have reached a philosophical impass, Mr. Jesus. I’d like to ask one more question to try and get to the root of this disagreement. In a completely theoretical situation, disregarding any real world examples: Is there any action that could not be justified morally should the eventual end be an equal or greater good. Or, in other words, is there anything at all that you would not allow should the ends justify the means?

You have a very… Unique world view, my friend. Given what you know about me from this conversation, do you genuinely think that root of my morality is that I just don’t like winners? I am a real, breathing person on the other side of this screen and i have studied philosophy and history. Could I really not ask you to give me the benefit of the doubt on that?

Ah i see the misunderstanding, you think I’m picking on Rome specifically, but i promise you I’m not. I would apply this argument to any aggressive state, its only that Rome happened to be the biggest and the most aggressive around. Were it the case that rome did nobly refuse to conquer and you were posting pro Gallic Empire memes we’d still be here in this same position with me arguing against forced celticization.

The thing is, it doesn’t really matter if the things rome brought were “good” (and i mean good from our modern perspective) if people didn’t have a choice in the matter. Wouldn’t you agree to that?

Very interesting, I’m curious now as to where your historical studies are focused. What is your primary area of study? I promise you that my morals are by no means modern in any sense of the word, in fact questions like these were being discussed long before Rome even existed. As to your question, i would say yes, war is inherently a moral negative even in times when war is commonplace.

I’m having a lot of fun with this by the way 😄I never thought I’d be in an argument defending the position that war is bad haha

But you see, my concern isnt really with the ones who signed up for romanization.

If I may try to analyse your world view for a moment, you seem very convinced that all the good things which happened to conquered lands couldn’t have happened without Rome, yet you also seem to hold true that all the bad things which happened under Roman control would have happened regardless.

This is a very long comment chain so I’ll just summarise my core values here: No amount of appealing to future prosperity can justify inflicting harm in the present. People rome conquered didn’t want to be conquered, so Rome shouldn’t have done it. It happened, that’s history, but there’s no world where you can justify it morally.

This is a… Confusing comment. Im not sure how to respond. Just to clarify, you dont see Roman conquest as racially motivated? And, are you saying that the act of conquest via force is morally neutral so long as its not racially motivated? And furthermore, you don’t see acts of violence as morally negative so long as others are committing the same acts of violence?

It might be, but if you take that stance then I’d ask you to take the argument to its logical end point. Was American manifest destinty acceptable because it technically put a stop to tribal warfare? Was the British colonization of India ok because it unified waring states? Or, on the flip side, is Rome morally exceptional amoung aggressive conquerer states? And why?

I feel your argument might be more compelling were it the case that romans never conquered by force of arms and their arguments were always compelling. Yet for some reason i seem to remember them being at war a lot of the time.

Furthermore, you’re forgetting that those ideas were never really roman in the first place, and they disappeared from even the core provinces during the decline, not just those conquered lands. The romans were never interested in innovation, you know that. They were on the cusp of an industrial revolution but never pursued it because what they liked their slaves, their traditions, and their conquest.

Also btw I’m in no way attacking you, im having fun debating and I hope you are too 👍

… Bro where were you yesterday?? Hahaha we’ve started a whole philosophy debate now uuuuuuughhhhh

Thats really easy to say in hindsight, in a world where almost all the sources are roman. But imagine you could go back in time, do you think your argument would be very compelling to people being subjected by romans?

Not to mention how doubtful it is that every single tribe and nation conquered by Rome somehow ended up bountiful and happy like some history enthusiasts would have you believe.

Theres also the question of whether these people could have made said advancements on their own, or through peaceful trade and exchange of ideas. Personally, i think they probably could have.

Hmm, personally I dont think you can so casually brush off the conquest part. How many people would you accept being murdered, raped, and enlaved in order to justify this positive benifit? Is there a specific number? If the supposed benifit was greater, would you accept more people being killed? How big does a benefit to future generations need to be to justify killing and enslaving the current population?

Raises interesting philosophical questions i guess. Is an action taken with the intention of exploitation that unintentionally ends up being beneficial ultimately a good action?

They were famed for their metalwork, poetry, art, and horsemanship. But i suppose if one’s metric for cultural worth is aqueducts per square kilometer then ya i guess they needed to be conquered.

You… You responded to the wrong comment my guy

Edit: No actually I’ll take this one. Do you seriously think romans invented roads and aquaducts? They didn’t. Or are suggesting Romans were some kind of benevolent force bestowing these technologies for free? Because that wasn’t the case either.

Brittain before Roman rule was probably even happier. But i guess when you’re the conquering army you get to decide what is and isnt “civilized”

Ya and if memory serves i think he clawed his own eyes out and committed suicide after finding out.