My query mostly stems from this: Hardcore History Podcast kind of equates Caesar's war on the Gauls as like a genocide. On par with wiping out Native Americans. Wiping out the Incas and Mayans. Rowanda and all that.

I haven't read any books on the subject. But I thought the Gauls sacked Rome and were the ones that initiated hostilities. Not Rome was just expanding and the Gauls kinda happened to be there. LOL

Julius needed money and an battle hardened Army.  He got it killing Gauls and stealing.  He would have done the same regardless of which province he governed.  Gaul was just unfortunate.

Yes. It was.

Arguably they tried that with the Carthaginians first. Also it was the Punic wars that gave Rome its first major lessons on fighting off their homefield.

Ah ha

@steinhab

Oh good, another thread where I'm going to get to learn something new!

Kicking back for the education. I love these threads.

I don't think it was his goal to kill all of them. He was going to kill as many as need be.

Ended up being a bunch of them.

To the Romans, you were either a resource or an enemy.

"cultural genocide." excellent podcast.

I don't know if it was genocide considering there were plenty of Gauls still around more than a century after Caesar's death. Tacitus even mentions the Helvetii by name and their involvement in the wars following Nero's death. They certainly gave as good as they got throughout centuries of conflict with the Romans. I could be wrong as I am no expert but ultimately I define the result of the Gallic Wars in Brennus' supposed utterance to the defeated Romans - "Vae Victis."

The history of Rome podcast is what you all seek

It was pretty much the same with the Jews with Vespasian and the Dacians  with Trajan.

Lots of wars back then were almost genocidal in nature.

Back then, every war was a potential genocide because if you lost your people were:

A) Became slaves
2) Forcibly assimilated
Third) Forcibly Removed
IV) Killed outright

Julius was fortunate to be close to Rome with his governorship as well because it helped him keep his fingers in the day to day politics.

Having a huge territory under your patronage right next to your major adversary (Pompey's Spain) was a strategic advantage as well.

Julius cooked up propaganda and ignited the war he needed.

It was a war that required exterminating people, but really, don't all well run wars.

Letter
Number
Word
Roman Numeral

Can you not keep a simple numbering scheme straight?

As a descendant of both all I have to say is.....




Damn it's good to be here.

Good I wasnt the only one.

Bizarre

Marius did similar with his legions.............his troops went up against the Germanic Teutones and Ambrones, and he slowly got them acclimated to fighting them, then basically whipped their asses at Aquae Sextiae

The gauls were a sufficient pain in the ass that if he could have killed every one of them he would have.

ARFCOM is either psychic, or hacking my electronics. I just finished this episode of hardcore history this week.

You mean non-blacks were enslaved throughout history?

Alt-left academia history fail...

Were they?

Besides the berserker rage of the battlefield and the ordinary course of raping and pillaging that followed there was no more incentive to keep on killing to genocidal amounts. Armies were led by pragmatic men and the human pool of the ancient world provided all the things that made a society work: mechanical power/slavery, breeders for more humans/sex, ready supply of soldiers, important local skills and crafts, a trading and consumer base, possible greater political clout through making more people dependent upon you, and so on.

These two put up one hell of a fight, if the graphic novels I read in France as a kid are to be believed..

It was a genocide in a way.  Not in the way Nazis killed jews or communists killed everybody; a one-sided affair where hardly anyone fought back.  But yes it was more like the Indian Wars or the Spanish conquest.  Lots and lots and lots of people died in a war of conquest.  I don't think he killed anyone who didn't resist.  

There were a number of Gallic tribes that became allies and prospered under Caesar.

If you find non-fiction history books dry, there's an excellent series based on Caesar's campaign in Gaul.  Each book covers one year.  I've been addicted to them.  Not to mention the author keeps them deliberately cheap because he loves writing.

No genocide.

Caesar was knocking out two birds with one stone when he went Triumph hunting and to secure Northern border.

He was governor of a large part of Gaul that had already been Roman controlled for better part of hundred years. A growing fear was of another Germanic invasion like the previous Cimbri Migration 50 years earlier that had seriously scared the Roman people. Another was brewing, a people called the Helvetti started invading a section of Gaul whose people were friend and ally to Rome, so Caesar intervened after they asked for help and defeated the Helvetti Germans and then he settled the remnants who signed peace treaties with Rome.

Then he got into it with a confederation of central/northern Gallic tribes of present day Belgium and Netherlands who were jusy trying to check Roman expansion. Caesar them beat them and had the remnants sign peace treaties with Rome.

Then he went into Germania, to show up the Germans (who were raiding across the Rhine), basically a show of force. And got a bunch of them to sign treaties too.

Then he invaded Britain, that took two trips to work. He slapped around the tribes from the southern half of modern England and then got them to sign treatises too.

Then back in Gaul there was a small uprising of some Gallic tribes who were challenging Rome controlling their foreign policy (which was the prime stipulation in a Friend and Ally treaty, surrender control of foreign policy to local Roman governor). Caesar defeated that one but that other Gallic kings, chieftain, noblemen thinking that if they waited their independence would be gone. This was the HUGE Vercengetorix revolt.  Caesar crushed it through utter brilliance, severely punished the worst rebels and pardoned the rest...and got them to sign another treaty.

Then the Civil War started because his 10 years as Proconsul ran out and the Senate wouldn't let him run for Consul again in absentia...

But the overall pattern was make allies, punish rebels, not exterminate Gauls. Romans liked Gauls, great cavalry, later made great legionaires, and served as a buffer for the natural land route from the Danube and Germania. No genocide, actually a whole lot of mercy. He barely even depopulated.

Ps. I'm on vacation and am on phone and half drunk, part of above might be out of order. Also not genocide, just a mistake.

Romans actually exercised a whole lot if restraint against Carthage and only finally destroyed it reluctantly. The general who did it supposedly cried when he saw it burning after the breach, as he knew that by Rome doing Carthage that way someone else would eventually do Rome that way to. Essentially he believed by sacking Carthage he was thusly sealing Rome's fate too.

It was out of a long history of bitter battles and the military wisdom it synthesized that formed the ancient maxim "flet victus, victor interiit" ... the conquered mourn, the conqueror is undone.

Sounds alot like they got bad karma and the tables turned on them. Like the Assyrians did horrible things and those things were eventually done to them. 

 Sacking came after Rome attacked Gaul. But Romans took woe to the vanquished literally

There's a video game too

Not just that, it's that wars were always exhaustive and risky affairs, they drained even the victorious country of their best men and treasury and earned them the hate of the conquered peoples.
Plus even when you concentrate all that wealth it just makes you a juicy target for a hungrier and hardier people. No one keeps the barbarians out forever.

How much wealth could Cesare get from Gaul?  We know Spanish gold was what help fund the Roman Empire (post Julian era).  What Julius needed was an army and military victories.  This was the path to becoming First Counsul.  Ave Cesare!

and psychological warfare: Mongol catapaults and 100,000 Muslim heads

True enough, even though ironically the Mongols under Genghis were the one exception to the "people are a precious resource" rule; the Great Khan contemplated depopulating all of China but his more level headed advisers persuaded him that living Chinese pay more taxes than dead ones

I remember seeing them in France.  Asterik.  Wasn't there an amusement park near Paris that featured them?

You know you're a real bastard when none of your sons are remembered

@Durka-Durka, love the avatar.


Let me be the first to congratulate you on a clever twist.
Or the 2nd. Or am I the C'th? How about the IV'th?

The Rwandan genocide was purely ethnic cleansing one group eradicating another group to control the battle space occupied by both groups. It wasn't very well organized. It was, however , extremely effective with over 750,000 KIA in a very short period of time. In a lot of cases it was neighbors killing neighbors.

There's definitely a pattern here but its meaning is hidden from my sight

I'd say the romans pulled the genocide card on most countries they dealt with.  Kill everyone or enslave them.  Their level of brutality was as bad as  the nazis, maybe worst

The Visigoths and shortly after them, the Vandals sacked Rome in the 5th century AD.

You'd be hardpressed to give actual examples that show a clear cut pattern. Rome rarely depopulated regions,  when they did it was usually the result of LONG TERM rebellious behavior. Most of the time they were about as brutal as everyone else.

The only ones who were wimpy were Hellenic kingdoms/Greek city states who'd created a very civilized form of warfare where mercy was given to surrendering soldiers (Because them the winner would integrate them into their army). These guys got caught off guard with the Roman, who like everyone else in Italy, showed little to no mercy during a rout after winning a pitched battle.

Everyone else generally operated at a level of brutality far exceeding the Romans.

Bump

Oh, didn't realize there was a new free episode, dling it now!

Such as the Germans and the Britons, who would regularly sacrifice prisoners to their gods. In particular, the Cherusci and Suebi sacrificed a bunch of captured Roman legionaries to Wotan/Odin.

You got genocided if you balked Rome or would not accept terms.. entire tribes of people died for the ammusement of rome in thei theatres. I have read as many as 200,000,000 people died as crowd sacrifices in just the city of a Rome itself.

You compare that with the biggest new world city which only sacrificed a few million in the same period on their pyramids, and they ate them..

I figure the romans ate their dead too, and nnow we eat imaginary Jesus.

I find that hard to believe. 200.000.000? I mean, they didn't even have a billion people alive on the entire planet, in those times.

Rome's glory demands exaggeration