roman atrocities

[tlclark]

What made the Romans special was not so much that they were particularly cruel (the refined cruelty some other people came up with is hard to match, anyway) but that they were particularly good at war, and fond of it.

Actually, I disagree on both counts. I think that for the most part Romans were not cruel, but when it came to the games, there is just no way around it, they had a peculiar bloodlust unmatched except for the Aztecs.

As far as being war-like, I think that is also inaccurate. I think if you weighed the balance of pro-peace statements against pro-war statements in Latin literature you'd be amazed. The georgics are as far removed from war as possible.

I think it would be more accurate to say that they were very competent at war, and recognized its' uses, and didn't shy away from it, but when Pliny compares the arts of the Greeks to the arts of the Romans, he doesn't say the Roman arts are "war" but statecraft, of which war is an essential part.

Scipio, Cincinatus, and many others retired from war and enjoyed the pastoral life and I doubt they ever looked back.

Other than that qualifier I think your post is dead on, especially this observation

For all the horrors that Rome inflicted on the world, it gave its Empire stability, unity, and prosperity. It is hard to overstress the cost of war in the ancient world, and the Pax Romana was perhaps the most prosperous age in Western history until the advent of the late middle ages. Similarly, many of the other threats to life and property that had plagued the ancient world were reduced under Roman rule. PIracy and brigandage, tyranny and ethnic persecution were at a remarkable low.

This was the Roman goal, not necessarily atrocity, but they were not above atrocity when it served the first goal of state and empire building.

Travis