Why is conquest viewed differently in antiquity compared to modern times? In ancient times, a conqueror was a hero; today, he is a villain and conquest is a crime.
For the people being conquered its shit and for the people doing the conquering its cash money simple as that
>>18047618yeah but Rome brought prosperity and peace everywhere it conquerednot to mention aqueducts
>>18047624>yeah but Rome brought prosperity and peace everywhere it conqueredAre you stupid
>>18047627>no argument>name callingback to r*ddit sweatie
>>18047634>r*ddit takeShut up and read dipshit. Rome was a righteous and benevolent civilization. The Pax Romana lasted 200 years, an unprecedented period of growth, trade, and constant building. It's civilization spread far and wide, including (partially) the language you speak and the script of course >muh exploitation everyone was doing it. Rome just did it better
>>18047624>yeah but Rome brought prosperity and peace everywhere it conqueredYeah, they built such prosperous cities and strong, beneficial institutions that the moment Roman power croaked, the cities fell apart and the inhabitants fled into dark age shitandmud-hut gatherings.Sounds a lot like colonial states, innit?
>>18047642>denies Rome's civilization>while living in a Roman world>shaped by Rome and in some cases built by RomeHow about (you) argue in good faith, and not like some braindead gender studies major?
>>18047615>In ancient times, a conqueror was a heroFor the winning side.
>>18047615Because today we don't conquer, we "save" from the foreign conqueror, or dictator, or insert bad word here
>>18047615Because none of those ancient nations really exist anymore. There are no Gauls to complain about Caesar.
Expansion wasn’t just for ego, it was essential for security, resources, and survival. An empire always had to be conquered.
>>18047618Ukraine would literally be better off. Jew boy Zelensky needs to hang.
>>18047647Life was simpler back thenjust pick the winning side and you'll get at least some loot, maybe even a good horse who knows
>>18048323Jewtin is a jew as well tho, hes rambling about “neo-nazis” controlling Ukraine when its obviously controlled by jews like Russia is
>>18048357Life was aesthetic, but not really better.
>>18047615because modern people are extreme faggots
>>18047640Your honor, everyone was raping.
>>18048323Yeah they would be better off for the russians who take their shit and dogshit for the ukrainians being raped and pillaged. Exactly what i said
>>18047624Tell that to the people they killed.
>>18047615I would argue it has to do with how the natural world was seenBack in antiquity conquest came often with discoveryMany conquerors often brought in the connection between cultures and the tales of it were often mythicized
>>18048596Brother the whole point with these rape apologists is that they relish doing exactly that. The best response is to die with dignity, like jesus perhaps, let them rule over their kindgom of dirt
>>18047615Because we dont get anything out of it if we conquer some place anymoreThe Romans themself where appaled by their constant military conquest and criticesed their constant military campaigns Cicero and Tacitus wrote at lenght about how Romans could be just as brutall as the barbarians they subjugated but people at large didnt mind because when Caesar came back from his military conquest of gaul he gaver every person in rome a huge handout so people didnt mind that Caesar just atacked on of rome allies
Beacuse the romans were (genrally) more advanced as a civilazation and the barbarians backwards, so the barbarians also benefitted when conqured (writing, reading, roads, hygine, etc etc.).When someone conquers today they have pretty much nothing to give and take everything
>>18047624>and then for absolutely no reason at all Boudicca led a massive popular revolt
>>18047615the world was more basal and animalistic,tribal in instinct, people nowadays have grown more prospective, comfortble and stable and internationalism/globalism has given people a sense of regard for things beyond beyond very specifc ingroups, there is also alot more at stake with modern weapons which incentivices stability over constant conquest. perhaps there is a deeper spritual reason behind
>>18047615Very little people could read and write at that time. The records we have today are from those in the employ of those very conquerers, their descendants, or the institutions they belonged to
>>18047615>a conqueror was a herorespect/favor of a unified people
>>18048583I mean, it's a valid defence. If anything Rome had much higher standards than anyone who preceded it and most of those who followed it. So accusing them of being le big bad sound more than a bit hypocritical
>>18048596Vae victis
Viewed by who?
>>18048614>rape apologistprojecting schlomo?
>>18048821>muh 'noble savage' kweenWhatever. I didn't say they were perfect. Sure, maybe a bit too short-tempered and high handed at times, but it's not like Celtic and Brittanic barbarians were any better morally speaking. In many ways (including warfare) they were much, much worse. By and large, the Roman army was by far the most moral in the Old World
>>18049752bait
>>18048699>being this edgy 2000 years agoMaybe Marc Antony was right about these pampered do-nothing windbags who spread anti-Roman propaganda
>>18049754>no rebuttalI accept (your) cohencession
>>18049756Funny because Marc Antony died a traitor.
>>18049758>predictable brainlet non-sequitirDear Conscript Fathers,For the record, I never said Marc Antony was right about everything. Just about certain scheming over-loquacious plotters.Delenda est Carthago
>>18047615Victim mentality replaced the strive to be strong and powerful
>>18047615One thing, though not the whole story, is the fact that there was much more balance between the sides in antiquity. You didn't have modern armies with artillery and machine guns fighting against tribals with spears. Conquest objectively got less honorable as it became way fucking easier
>>18047615Today's philosophy is "losers good, winners bad" so losers have an excuse to rob winners.
