No one really did conquering - they would take land, take slaves,
… that’s what conquest is.
But Vikings were Vikings, even if they occupy a settlement, the people of the settlement do not become Vikings
… only because the Vikings were typically small numbers of warriors? And post-Roman, for that matter.
When Rome conquered a place, they’d levy most of the men into the legion, and when they finished their service they became Roman
That’s… not how it works.
First, the Legions were for citizens only. Non-citizens were not permitted to enlist.
Second, the Auxiliaries, what you’re probably thinking of, were partly conscripted, but mostly volunteer, and very selective about their recruits. In no reality would they have taken most of the men of a region.
Third, the process of Romanization was gradual and largely unenforced - the Romans did not care if the native provincials became Romans or kept their native culture. The Romans, in fact, held a worldview wherein other peoples were better at certain things than the Romans, and that this was a good thing, because it meant Rome could organize their superior efforts for the greater good of the Republic.
Fourth, most regions after Roman conquest retained a great deal of self-government, as the Romans did not want the trouble of overturning local practices, unless they interfered with something like collecting taxes.
Fifth, Roman conquest was rarely so simple as “The Romans have conquered this place now” - there were often many graduations of Roman control which regions went through, and few regions had the same journey. The moment of conquest you’re imagining, where the Legions march through after putting the enemy’s armies and leaders to the sword, is not very common.
Sixth, the process of ethnic cleansing and assimilation are both widely attested to in the pre-Roman world, by peoples much more brutal about it than the Romans.
The difference between Vikings (or wherever else, they’re just an example) and Romans is the assimilation. That’s why there were so many more Romans, because they constantly expanded what it meant to be Roman. There were concentric circles of Roman-ness starting with just the city inhabitants down to the newly conquered territory at the fringes
Also, Rome was around for a long time. Their practices changed drastically during that time. It ranged from much worse than what I described to completely peaceful assimilation.
But my real problem wasn’t the violence, it’s the wealth extraction… That model lived on through the holy Roman empire, then “the West”. There’s so many horrible knock on effects to this, ones we’re living through now
The difference between Vikings (or wherever else, they’re just an example) and Romans is the assimilation.
… do… do you think pre-Roman peoples didn’t practice assimilation?
That’s why there were so many more Romans, because they constantly expanded what it meant to be Roman. There were concentric circles of Roman-ness starting with just the city inhabitants down to the newly conquered territory at the fringes
By the time that people on the fringes of the Empire were considered Romans, Romans had lost the cultural hegemony necessary for assimilation, which makes this a very dubious claim.
Also, Rome was around for a long time. Their practices changed drastically during that time. It ranged from much worse than what I described to completely peaceful assimilation.
I can honestly think of no period of Roman history in which the scenario you described was the norm.
But my real problem wasn’t the violence, it’s the wealth extraction… That model lived on through the holy Roman empire, then “the West”. There’s so many horrible knock on effects to this, ones we’re living through now
…
… do you think wealth extraction doesn’t predate the Romans? For that matter, you think the HRE is more rooted in Roman practice than Germanic practice? For that matter, you think the West demonstrates the most horrific form of wealth extraction in the modern day?
… do… do you think pre-Roman peoples didn’t practice assimilation?
Yes! That’s my whole point. Not literally - you seem caught up on the word conquest too - but the kind of institutional pattern of expansion and assimilation is what was different about Rome
There was war, there were other empires. People intermingled and intermixed, sometimes under rule from another group. There was assimilation, but in an organic process
Rome industrialized the process. They turned it into a mechanical process that has never stopped. It didn’t stop when the empire split, it didn’t stop when power shifted to the aristocracy of Europe, it didn’t stop as America rose as the latest empire after WW2
I do think the HRE was more Rome than Germanic - what language did they speak? Not Greek, Aramaic, or any Germanic language - it was Latin. And in the East you had the Byzantine empire doing the same damn thing, spreading soft influence to Eastern Europe
Christianity became a tool of Rome under Constantine. Jesus said we don’t need temples or coin. Jesus was born in the summer. Jews keep the Sabbath on Saturday. Jesus was represented by a fish, and died on the cross so that he could not be used as a tool of control against his people
Sol Invictus was born on December 25, Constantine declared the day of the sun as the day of rest. Sol Invictus is associated with gold. The cross is a symbol of Roman order
Constantine rebranded the Roman religion under Jesus’s name, and carefully picked it’s practices to control the people
The HRE kept control over the aristocracy through marriage, ceremony, and through relatives in the clergy. They let the kings have their kingdom while controlling the secret little club of European royalty. They held the legitimacy of all of them in Rome.
They also controlled the people directly. They were a parallel power structure. They had a ton of direct power until the 19th century, when things started shifting to mercantilism then capitol
And even now, a few family lines always seem to be the ones in power. The meeting places and the titles change, but each rising and falling empire goes back to Rome
There was war, there were other empires. People intermingled and intermixed, sometimes under rule from another group. There was assimilation, but in an organic process
And… what part of the process was less organic about Roman assimilation?
I do think the HRE was more Rome than Germanic - what language did they speak? Not Greek, Aramaic, or any Germanic language - it was Latin.
Are you fucking kidding me right now?
The HRE was overwhelmingly a German-speaking state.
And in the East you had the Byzantine empire doing the same damn thing, spreading soft influence to Eastern Europe
This… this the same Byzantine Empire whose cultural footprint outside of religion is negligible outside of the Greek heartland it clung to?
Jesus said we don’t need temples or coin.
That is a profound misunderstanding of early Christianity.
Constantine rebranded the Roman religion under Jesus’s name, and carefully picked it’s practices to control the people
… except the practices and values of Nicaean Christianity differ radically from traditional Roman religion, traditional Hellenic religion, and the Neoplatonism of the 3rd century AD.
The HRE kept control over the aristocracy through marriage, ceremony, and through relatives in the clergy. They let the kings have their kingdom while controlling the secret little club of European royalty. They held the legitimacy of all of them in Rome.
Fucking what.
And even now, a few family lines always seem to be the ones in power. The meeting places and the titles change, but each rising and falling empire goes back to Rome
The HRE kept control over the aristocracy through marriage, ceremony, and through relatives in the clergy. They let the kings have their kingdom while controlling the secret little club of European royalty. They held the legitimacy of all of them in Rome.
Okay, this is just objectively how the holy Roman empire worked. That’s not even a slightly controversial statement
How do you think the Pope was able to dictate terms to royalty? They controlled coronations, marriages, and pacified the people. The nobility tolerated this because there was a give and take, their relatives were given high rank… It’s the origin of the term nepotism
This is also very basic European history.
A lot of this I can excuse as you being a too literal and uncharitable, but there’s no two interpretations on this one
I don’t know if you have a hard on for Rome or what, but I don’t think you’re being serious
Okay, this is just objectively how the holy Roman empire worked. That’s not even a slightly controversial statement
The HRE was one player in European politics in the Medieval period and Early Modern period. There was no ‘secret club’ of European royalty; dynasties ruling European polities rose and fell all the goddamn time. The HRE in particular was infamous for being unable to control its aristocracy, or its bourgeois, for that matter.
Legitimacy of other European royalty was not significantly connected to the HRE or to Rome.
How do you think the Pope was able to dictate terms to royalty? They controlled coronations, marriages, and pacified the people.
Jesus fucking Christ.
The only coronation the Pope nominally controlled was that of the Holy Roman Emperor himself. And that only nominally. The Pope was involved in royal marriages only insofar as issues of consanguinity or dissolving marriages was concerned. The Pope’s control over the common people was fucking marginal, considering how many kings were excommunicated and considered it only a minor annoyance.
The Pope didn’t ‘dictate terms’ to royalty. Fuck, the Pope was literally imprisoned and overthrown by royals numerous times throughout the Medieval period, including by the Holy Roman Emperor.
The nobility tolerated this because there was a give and take, their relatives were given high rank… It’s the origin of the term nepotism
The origin of the term nepotism is from Popes appointing their own nephews as cardinals. Nepos.
This is also very basic European history.
A lot of this I can excuse as you being a too literal and uncharitable, but there’s no two interpretations on this one
I don’t know if you have a hard on for Rome or what, but I don’t think you’re being serious
Nothing about this discussion, regarding the Medieval period and the HRE, has anything to do with the Roman Empire. This is purely over some really bizarre Da Vinci Code level perception of the Catholic Church and Medieval period that you have.
Jesus… They’re the same damn group! Yes the power of the Pope waxed and waned. The church and the nobility were intertwined! The Pope doesn’t matter, the institution does!
And every coronation was done by at least an arch bishop. Who were a compromise between the church and the king.
And do you have any idea how incestuous the royal families of all of Europe were? Not just individually, but between each other
Your don’t seem to understand the difference between hard and soft power. And my whole point is people in power flowed from Rome, to the church, to the aristocracy of Europe, to capitol
Jesus… They’re the same damn group! Yes the power of the Pope waxed and waned. The church and the nobility were intertwined! The Pope doesn’t matter, the institution does!
The same Catholic Church whose dictates were repeatedly ignored by both the common people and the nobility?
And every coronation was done by at least an arch bishop. Who were a compromise between the church and the king.
That’s not even close to true. In many coronations in many kingdoms, bishops presided, or even no clergy at all. You really don’t have the slightest clue about what you’re talking about.
And do you have any idea how incestuous the royal families of all of Europe were? Not just individually, but between each other
For most of the Medieval period, not very. The intensified incest was largely a product of consolidated royal families and increased international travel in the Early Modern Period.
Your don’t seem to understand the difference between hard and soft power. And my whole point is people in power flowed from Rome, to the church, to the aristocracy of Europe, to capitol
No, my point is that your perception of the soft power of the Church and of Rome is utterly bizarre conspiracy shite with an extremely modern view of how society functioned at a basic level during the Medieval period, and thus having no fucking relation to the reality of the Medieval period.
… that’s what conquest is.
… only because the Vikings were typically small numbers of warriors? And post-Roman, for that matter.
That’s… not how it works.
First, the Legions were for citizens only. Non-citizens were not permitted to enlist.
Second, the Auxiliaries, what you’re probably thinking of, were partly conscripted, but mostly volunteer, and very selective about their recruits. In no reality would they have taken most of the men of a region.
Third, the process of Romanization was gradual and largely unenforced - the Romans did not care if the native provincials became Romans or kept their native culture. The Romans, in fact, held a worldview wherein other peoples were better at certain things than the Romans, and that this was a good thing, because it meant Rome could organize their superior efforts for the greater good of the Republic.
Fourth, most regions after Roman conquest retained a great deal of self-government, as the Romans did not want the trouble of overturning local practices, unless they interfered with something like collecting taxes.
Fifth, Roman conquest was rarely so simple as “The Romans have conquered this place now” - there were often many graduations of Roman control which regions went through, and few regions had the same journey. The moment of conquest you’re imagining, where the Legions march through after putting the enemy’s armies and leaders to the sword, is not very common.
Sixth, the process of ethnic cleansing and assimilation are both widely attested to in the pre-Roman world, by peoples much more brutal about it than the Romans.
You’re describing what I said with more words
The difference between Vikings (or wherever else, they’re just an example) and Romans is the assimilation. That’s why there were so many more Romans, because they constantly expanded what it meant to be Roman. There were concentric circles of Roman-ness starting with just the city inhabitants down to the newly conquered territory at the fringes
Also, Rome was around for a long time. Their practices changed drastically during that time. It ranged from much worse than what I described to completely peaceful assimilation.
But my real problem wasn’t the violence, it’s the wealth extraction… That model lived on through the holy Roman empire, then “the West”. There’s so many horrible knock on effects to this, ones we’re living through now
“Romans were the first to do conquest.”
“No, they weren’t.”
“You’re just saying what I said.”
???
… do… do you think pre-Roman peoples didn’t practice assimilation?
By the time that people on the fringes of the Empire were considered Romans, Romans had lost the cultural hegemony necessary for assimilation, which makes this a very dubious claim.
I can honestly think of no period of Roman history in which the scenario you described was the norm.
…
… do you think wealth extraction doesn’t predate the Romans? For that matter, you think the HRE is more rooted in Roman practice than Germanic practice? For that matter, you think the West demonstrates the most horrific form of wealth extraction in the modern day?
Yes! That’s my whole point. Not literally - you seem caught up on the word conquest too - but the kind of institutional pattern of expansion and assimilation is what was different about Rome
There was war, there were other empires. People intermingled and intermixed, sometimes under rule from another group. There was assimilation, but in an organic process
Rome industrialized the process. They turned it into a mechanical process that has never stopped. It didn’t stop when the empire split, it didn’t stop when power shifted to the aristocracy of Europe, it didn’t stop as America rose as the latest empire after WW2
I do think the HRE was more Rome than Germanic - what language did they speak? Not Greek, Aramaic, or any Germanic language - it was Latin. And in the East you had the Byzantine empire doing the same damn thing, spreading soft influence to Eastern Europe
Christianity became a tool of Rome under Constantine. Jesus said we don’t need temples or coin. Jesus was born in the summer. Jews keep the Sabbath on Saturday. Jesus was represented by a fish, and died on the cross so that he could not be used as a tool of control against his people
Sol Invictus was born on December 25, Constantine declared the day of the sun as the day of rest. Sol Invictus is associated with gold. The cross is a symbol of Roman order
Constantine rebranded the Roman religion under Jesus’s name, and carefully picked it’s practices to control the people
The HRE kept control over the aristocracy through marriage, ceremony, and through relatives in the clergy. They let the kings have their kingdom while controlling the secret little club of European royalty. They held the legitimacy of all of them in Rome.
They also controlled the people directly. They were a parallel power structure. They had a ton of direct power until the 19th century, when things started shifting to mercantilism then capitol
And even now, a few family lines always seem to be the ones in power. The meeting places and the titles change, but each rising and falling empire goes back to Rome
And… what part of the process was less organic about Roman assimilation?
Are you fucking kidding me right now?
The HRE was overwhelmingly a German-speaking state.
This… this the same Byzantine Empire whose cultural footprint outside of religion is negligible outside of the Greek heartland it clung to?
That is a profound misunderstanding of early Christianity.
… except the practices and values of Nicaean Christianity differ radically from traditional Roman religion, traditional Hellenic religion, and the Neoplatonism of the 3rd century AD.
Fucking what.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Okay, this is just objectively how the holy Roman empire worked. That’s not even a slightly controversial statement
How do you think the Pope was able to dictate terms to royalty? They controlled coronations, marriages, and pacified the people. The nobility tolerated this because there was a give and take, their relatives were given high rank… It’s the origin of the term nepotism
This is also very basic European history.
A lot of this I can excuse as you being a too literal and uncharitable, but there’s no two interpretations on this one
I don’t know if you have a hard on for Rome or what, but I don’t think you’re being serious
The HRE was one player in European politics in the Medieval period and Early Modern period. There was no ‘secret club’ of European royalty; dynasties ruling European polities rose and fell all the goddamn time. The HRE in particular was infamous for being unable to control its aristocracy, or its bourgeois, for that matter.
Legitimacy of other European royalty was not significantly connected to the HRE or to Rome.
Jesus fucking Christ.
The only coronation the Pope nominally controlled was that of the Holy Roman Emperor himself. And that only nominally. The Pope was involved in royal marriages only insofar as issues of consanguinity or dissolving marriages was concerned. The Pope’s control over the common people was fucking marginal, considering how many kings were excommunicated and considered it only a minor annoyance.
The Pope didn’t ‘dictate terms’ to royalty. Fuck, the Pope was literally imprisoned and overthrown by royals numerous times throughout the Medieval period, including by the Holy Roman Emperor.
The origin of the term nepotism is from Popes appointing their own nephews as cardinals. Nepos.
Nothing about this discussion, regarding the Medieval period and the HRE, has anything to do with the Roman Empire. This is purely over some really bizarre Da Vinci Code level perception of the Catholic Church and Medieval period that you have.
Jesus… They’re the same damn group! Yes the power of the Pope waxed and waned. The church and the nobility were intertwined! The Pope doesn’t matter, the institution does!
And every coronation was done by at least an arch bishop. Who were a compromise between the church and the king.
And do you have any idea how incestuous the royal families of all of Europe were? Not just individually, but between each other
Your don’t seem to understand the difference between hard and soft power. And my whole point is people in power flowed from Rome, to the church, to the aristocracy of Europe, to capitol
The same Catholic Church whose dictates were repeatedly ignored by both the common people and the nobility?
That’s not even close to true. In many coronations in many kingdoms, bishops presided, or even no clergy at all. You really don’t have the slightest clue about what you’re talking about.
For most of the Medieval period, not very. The intensified incest was largely a product of consolidated royal families and increased international travel in the Early Modern Period.
No, my point is that your perception of the soft power of the Church and of Rome is utterly bizarre conspiracy shite with an extremely modern view of how society functioned at a basic level during the Medieval period, and thus having no fucking relation to the reality of the Medieval period.