this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
192 points (98.0% liked)

Rough Roman Memes

410 readers
488 users here now

A place to meme about the glorious ROMAN EMPIRE (and Roman Republic, and Roman Kingdom)! Byzantines tolerated! The HRE is not.

RULES:

  1. No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, bigotry, etc. The past may be bigoted, but we are not.

  2. Memes must be Rome-related, not just the title. It can be about Rome, or using Roman aesthetics, or both, but the meme itself needs to have Roman themes.

  3. Follow Lemmy.world rules.

Not sure where to start on Roman history?

A quick memetic primer on Republican Rome

A quick memetic primer on Imperial Rome

founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lyre@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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?

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is a… Confusing comment. Im not sure how to respond. Just to clarify, you dont see Roman conquest as racially motivated?

Not in the sense of race as we would recognize it, a product of the rationalist leanings of the 18th and 19th centuries coinciding with a period of domination by Europeans sharing a certain subset of phenotypes.

And, are you saying that the act of conquest via force is morally neutral so long as its not racially motivated?

Before the modern era, I would not regard wars over resources, which is what land is, as inherently immoral. Unless you think the Sioux and the Pawnee warring is proof that the Sioux were immoral.

And furthermore, you don’t see acts of violence as morally negative so long as others are committing the same acts of violence?

I'm saying that to expect a modern moral code from people who lived long before the development of modern morals is an absurdity. Considering this whole argument opened up with you making a comparison of Roman rule to the rule of elites in pre-Roman Britain, perhaps you should be asking yourself that question as well. I gave an answer - do you have one?

[–] Lyre@lemmy.ca 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Very interesting, I’m curious now as to where your historical studies are focused. What is your primary area of study?

Classical history.

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

Your questions are very much couched in a Christian/humanist/Enlightenment spirit of nonviolence and a 19th century presumption of popular sovereignty and the importance of preservation of native traditions that became universalist and particular (ie applying to other cultures and not just one's own) during the process of decolonization in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. They are very much modern moral positions.

As to your question, i would say yes, war is inherently a moral negative even in times when war is commonplace.

Then your condemnations are meaningless. You're looking at two polities (consolidating the British polities for the sake of simplicity) which were equally warlike and vicious, and condemning only the one who was victorious - in which case your condemnation is not of violence, but of success.

[–] Lyre@lemmy.ca 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

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?

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

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?

No, but the point of view that you are arguing necessarily results in that end conclusion - two violent polities conflict, and you condemn one for having the good fortune to have won. It's not an accusation at your base sense of morality, it's an accusation leveled at the necessary conclusions of the argument you've presented.

[–] Lyre@lemmy.ca 2 points 21 hours ago

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.