Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mischief_Makers t1_j1s9les wrote

> The name of another, perhaps a Gallic chieftain who fought Rome, escapes me, but he too retired to the Italian countryside after I believe giving a speech on the Senate floor

Caratacus, who took up the reign when Togodumnus was killed. He was sentenced to death and basically told the senate "I had it all, is it any wonder I fought to keep it. And If I hadn't fought so hard, you wouldn't have as much glory in my defeat. Kill me now and I will be just another fallen to Rome that time will soon forget, but let me live and I will forever be a symbol of your mercy";

​

>If the degree of my nobility and fortune had been matched by moderation in success, I would have come to this City as a friend rather than a captive, nor would you have disdained to receive with a treaty of peace one sprung from brilliant ancestors and commanding a great many nations. But my present lot, disfiguring as it is for me, is magnificent for you. I had horses, men, arms, and wealth: what wonder if I was unwilling to lose them? If you wish to command everyone, does it really follow that everyone should accept your slavery? If I were now being handed over as one who had surrendered immediately, neither my fortune nor your glory would have achieved brilliance. It is also true that in my case any reprisal will be followed by oblivion. On the other hand, if you preserve me safe and sound, I shall be an eternal example of your clemency.

366

oga_ogbeni OP t1_j1spqu3 wrote

That's the one! Thank you.

58

Mischief_Makers t1_j1sr3sy wrote

He was from the tribe beginning "Ca-" that i can never spell. Camalluivani? Catelluvaini? Cataullvianne? Cat Stephens? Whatever it is, he was one of that lot

28

melkipersr t1_j1w4q0n wrote

The tribe goes by Yusuf Islam now, but that’s the one!

7

Shoopdawoop993 t1_j1sb2ng wrote

Damn thatsbthe kind of speech writing you get when you dont have democracy.

52

znoefzzz t1_j1ss7in wrote

That’s the kind of speech you get when it’s paraphrased and embellished after the fact

75

Tiako t1_j1sy01e wrote

By the same guy who wrote "make it a desert and call it peace" no less!

17

Scitianwarrior t1_j1seq34 wrote

Rome could only sustain her Empire by conquest and plunder and extermination of the peoples who offered resistance.

20

Tiako t1_j1sxuwn wrote

This is often asserted but I think a simple glance at a timeline provides a real challenge to it. The Roman empire's expansion was more or less ended by about halfway through Augustus' reign (so roughly "year zero"), and while there were a few border expansions after that they tended to be fairly specific and "one off"--the conquest of Britain by Claudius and the conquest of Dacia about sixty years later by Trajan being the main examples. Exceptions aside, there is not a steady, constant expansion of Rome's borders by military conquest. And yet, these two hundred years are by most measures the period of the height of Rome's prosperity. Which becomes difficult to explain if Rome's prosperity depended on a constant stream of new conquests.

Ed: to clarify a bit I'm not saying the Roman empire functioned on hugs and teddy bears, it was certainly a creation of an extremely intense period of military conquest and was maintained by the threat of military force, but its actual functioning was not dependent on continuous border expansion.

70

tevors t1_j1ui46m wrote

I don't remember were i read or saw it, but i remember being said that Roman Empire had a lot of politics destined to incorporate the conquered nations into the empire, not just by force, making the conquered nations actually fight for the empire just as much as anyone else, and was not by force or threat, as i recall they didn't go killing everyone that said no to them.

Movies tend to be very nonchalant about that facet of history, people tend to like war, deaths and plot, not actual facts.

8

Tiako t1_j1v6uww wrote

While this can sometimes be taken too far, yes, Roman imperialism and the maintenance of the Roman empire was always a combination of force, co-option, and diplomacy. In particular, one of the greatest tools in its toolbox was a fairly open handed approach to bestowing citizenship to allies and later participants in the administrative system.

9

Usernametaken112 t1_j1srzta wrote

That's kind of what happens when you live in 200bc.

1

999_deathkult t1_j1sumka wrote

Roman Empire didn't exist at that point bud

−19

TheBoozehammer t1_j1svcqh wrote

Rome was an empire ("a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority") long before it had an emperor. Even just Italy had enough distinct peoples to qualify.

24