Thread:MrBismark/@comment-34650195-20200502162335/@comment-34650195-20200509214355

MrBismark wrote: FLAH!2.0 wrote:

MrBismark wrote: WestKoreaBestKorea wrote: > had badass military > unified and kept peace in Europe for century > preserved tradition > chad emporers

bruh what. >had many more tyrannical leaders than good ones

>collapsed at the hands of barbaric tribes

>overthrew a prosperous republic

>stole other nations' religions

>slavery >had many more tyrannical leaders than good ones

bruh

>collapsed at the hands of barbaric tribes

After standing for 2000 years and that's the fate of most pre-modern empires.

>overthrew a prosperous republic

Carthage tried to do same to them.

>slavery

Practiced by the rest of the world  as well and they had laws to protect slaves.

>stole other nations' religions

>converting to Christianity is stealing

>carthage did the same to the roman republic

The Punic Wars were a conflict over expansion between the Carthaginian Empire and Roman Republic because the Carthaginians were afraid that Rome was expanding too quickly. There was no known intent of overthrowing the Romans, Carthage wanted to stop them from expanding. This argument is also a fallacy, stating that because Carthage went to war first, Julie Cæsar attacking the Republic is okay.

>practiced by the rest of the world as well

This is another fallacy of mob mentality. A group doing something does not male something right. Regardless of laws, Roman slavery was still slavery.

>converting to christianity is stealing

Ok I probably was not too clear on this one. The Romans straight up stole other nation’s pagan gods. When going to war, the Romans would pray to a city’s god for their victory. If the Romans won, the god would get integrated into the state cult, which was also a mandatory belief system. >The Punic Wars were a conflict over expansion between the Carthaginian Empire and Roman Republic because the Carthaginians were afraid that Rome was expanding too quickly. There was no known intent of overthrowing the Romans, Carthage wanted to stop them from expanding. This argument is also a fallacy, stating that because Carthage went to war first, Julie Cæsar attacking the Republic is okay.

But Carthage would have likely have done the same for them though.

Caesar did attack the Ptolemaics yeah but it was kinda an inside thing.

>This is another fallacy of mob mentality. A group doing something does not male something right. Regardless of laws, Roman slavery was still slavery.

You should analyze entities based taking in account context they existed in. Following this logic the Akkadian Empire was small by modern standards so it should be considered irrelevant.

And again they actually tried to do something about it and they did have protective laws.

>Ok I probably was not too clear on this one. The Romans straight up stole other nation’s pagan gods. When going to war, the Romans would pray to a city’s god for their victory. If the Romans won, the god would get integrated into the state cult, which was also a mandatory belief system.

Ok but I don't see anything super horrific about it if you don't count that polytheism is bruh to begin with.

I include a file in my every post so here: