When in Rome, do as the Roman's do?

[BigP]

""Generally, I believe such "rules" should be applied with caution. Ancient Rome was a brutal civilisation, which condoned slavery, human sacrifice and other unsavoury practices""

Brian , all cultures were ruthless back then , a lot of them more so than the Romans. Peeps understand what it means ,,

Yes they were but none carried to the height that the Romans did. No one else built massive arenas where men slaughtered one another, where animals slaughtered men, women and children, now did they? Only the Aztecs exceeded the blood spent by the Romans on satisfying their bloodlust.

However, that is all in the past. As I suggested, I believe such "rules" should be applied lightly and with fairness, not universally and with an iron hand, as it appears all too often many here seek to. The Romans were remarkably liberal in allowing people to dress how they liked, speak in the languages they wanted to (although, obviously Latin was the lingua franca that was used between the various groups), eat what they wanted and to practise what ever religion they wanted. Something which those who seek to force immigrants to Australia to become "Australian" (without of course ever defining what being "Australian" is, of course). Immigrants will assimilate, just as will the host culture, to accept the attributes which both groups are comfortable with. Without the Italians introducing fine coffee, fine food, eating out doors, without the Greeks introducing fine sea food, a love of Wine and drinking outdoors, the Australia we enjoy today would not exist. The flow of culture must be both ways. Muslims will become more liberal, the dominant culture will become well, perhaps we'll learn to love sweet foods?

The Romans just added a little theatre to it, The others just satisfied themselves with the slaughter lol

[brian ross]

The Romans just added a little theatre to it, The others just satisfied themselves with the slaughter lol

Ah, yes, the typical excuse of the Xenophobe, hey?

I doubt you'd have loved their idea of "theatre", particularly if you were one of the millions of slaves which sustained the Roman Empire (and according to one argument, eventually was it's undoing). Rome was a nasty, brutal culture in pretty clothes and with a largely ineffectively Government.

[BigP]

The Romans just added a little theatre to it, The others just satisfied themselves with the slaughter lol

Ah, yes, the typical excuse of the Xenophobe, hey?

I doubt you'd have loved their idea of "theatre", particularly if you were one of the millions of slaves which sustained the Roman Empire (and according to one argument, eventually was it's undoing). Rome was a nasty, brutal culture in pretty clothes and with a largely ineffectively Government.

The Goths and the Vandals were equally violent but less cultured

[brian ross]

The Romans just added a little theatre to it, The others just satisfied themselves with the slaughter lol

Ah, yes, the typical excuse of the Xenophobe, hey?

I doubt you'd have loved their idea of "theatre", particularly if you were one of the millions of slaves which sustained the Roman Empire (and according to one argument, eventually was it's undoing). Rome was a nasty, brutal culture in pretty clothes and with a largely ineffectively Government.

The Goths and the Vandals were equally violent but less cultured

Without a doubt, yes, they were. However, a lot of their PR comes from romantics like you, who just wanted a bit o' theatre to appease their eyes.

[BigP]

The Romans just added a little theatre to it, The others just satisfied themselves with the slaughter lol

Ah, yes, the typical excuse of the Xenophobe, hey?

I doubt you'd have loved their idea of "theatre", particularly if you were one of the millions of slaves which sustained the Roman Empire (and according to one argument, eventually was it's undoing). Rome was a nasty, brutal culture in pretty clothes and with a largely ineffectively Government.

The Goths and the Vandals were equally violent but less cultured

Without a doubt, yes, they were. However, a lot of their PR comes from romantics like you, who just wanted a bit o' theatre to appease their eyes.

No romance here Brian, all ancient cultures were brutal , It was all about taking and holding territory

[brian ross]

No romance here Brian, all ancient cultures were brutal , It was all about taking and holding territory

You introduced the concept of "theatre" to the discussion, not me. It is all about the method of doing both. The Romans decided it was better to use bloody spectacle rather studied politics...

[BigP]

No romance here Brian, all ancient cultures were brutal , It was all about taking and holding territory

You introduced the concept of "theatre" to the discussion, not me. It is all about the method of doing both. The Romans decided it was better to use bloody spectacle rather studied politics...

You took me a little to literally Brian, And it still comes back to the point that the Romans were no worse than their contemporary's, It was a bloody period in human history

[brian ross]

No romance here Brian, all ancient cultures were brutal , It was all about taking and holding territory

You introduced the concept of "theatre" to the discussion, not me. It is all about the method of doing both. The Romans decided it was better to use bloody spectacle rather studied politics...

You took me a little to literally Brian, And it still comes back to the point that the Romans were no worse than their contemporary's, It was a bloody period in human history

You wrote it, how else was I to take it?

All history is bloody, some more so than others. The Romans enjoyed blood sports, they liked keeping slaves, they liked destroying entire peoples. I suppose we can thank them for the Jewish Diaspora, the spread of Christianity, great (for the period) science and learning. However should not allow that to obscure how or why they did such things.

[BigP]

No romance here Brian, all ancient cultures were brutal , It was all about taking and holding territory

You introduced the concept of "theatre" to the discussion, not me. It is all about the method of doing both. The Romans decided it was better to use bloody spectacle rather studied politics...

You took me a little to literally Brian, And it still comes back to the point that the Romans were no worse than their contemporary's, It was a bloody period in human history

You wrote it, how else was I to take it?

All history is bloody, some more so than others. The Romans enjoyed blood sports, they liked keeping slaves, they liked destroying entire peoples. I suppose we can thank them for the Jewish Diaspora, the spread of Christianity, great (for the period) science and learning. However should not allow that to obscure how or why they did such things.

lol, are you a little on the spectrum Brian .

[BigP]

""However should not allow that to obscure how or why they did such things.""

They enjoy a good piss up and a little blood letting