Page 1 of 1

Rome - Liberator or Conqueror?

PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2008 11:19 pm
by Nerva
It's somewhat difficult for me to write this as I'm somewhat myopic on the subject, but how do other people view Rome, an agressive conquering power or one who brought liberation and enlightenment?

Re: Rome - Liberator or Conqueror?

PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2008 11:48 pm
by Zip
I fell they where more Liberator than Conqueror. Couse they did give you rights and citazenship. But that change at some point.

Re: Rome - Liberator or Conqueror?

PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2008 9:51 pm
by femgeek
Interesting topic. For Romans I guess the system worked really well, some advances in politics, government, architecture were inspiring. But to outsiders, they were simply conquerers. They implied bringing enlightenment to savage barbarians and all that, but it seemed more like a very long campaign of terror against anyone who did not conform to Roman rule. I've always seem Rome as the ultimate war-machine, just plain attacking and subduing nearby, and not so nearby, civilisations. And when they got bored of that, they started oppresing and warring with each other. i've always thought Rome would have done a lot better if they had coexisted with thoses they subjegated.

Re: Rome - Liberator or Conqueror?

PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2008 10:00 pm
by Nerva
I am intentionally going to stirr things up in this thread. No to act the twat, but just to try and draw the debate out. I'm really interested in how this will go. If any of you feel I'm going too far then please just let me know ;)