Lyre

I feel your argument might be more compelling were it the case that romans never conquered by force of arms and their arguments were always compelling. Yet for some reason i seem to remember them being at war a lot of the time.

Furthermore, you're forgetting that those ideas were never really roman in the first place, and they disappeared from even the core provinces during the decline, not just those conquered lands. The romans were never interested in innovation, you know that. They were on the cusp of an industrial revolution but never pursued it because what they liked their slaves, their traditions, and their conquest.

Also btw I'm in no way attacking you, im having fun debating and I hope you are too 👍

..... Bro where were you yesterday?? Hahaha we've started a whole philosophy debate now uuuuuuughhhhh

Thats really easy to say in hindsight, in a world where almost all the sources are roman. But imagine you could go back in time, do you think your argument would be very compelling to people being subjected by romans?

Not to mention how doubtful it is that every single tribe and nation conquered by Rome somehow ended up bountiful and happy like some history enthusiasts would have you believe.

Theres also the question of whether these people could have made said advancements on their own, or through peaceful trade and exchange of ideas. Personally, i think they probably could have.

Hmm, personally I dont think you can so casually brush off the conquest part. How many people would you accept being murdered, raped, and enlaved in order to justify this positive benifit? Is there a specific number? If the supposed benifit was greater, would you accept more people being killed? How big does a benefit to future generations need to be to justify killing and enslaving the current population?

Raises interesting philosophical questions i guess. Is an action taken with the intention of exploitation that unintentionally ends up being beneficial ultimately a good action?

They were famed for their metalwork, poetry, art, and horsemanship. But i suppose if one's metric for cultural worth is aqueducts per square kilometer then ya i guess they needed to be conquered.

You... You responded to the wrong comment my guy

Edit: No actually I'll take this one. Do you seriously think romans invented roads and aquaducts? They didn't. Or are suggesting Romans were some kind of benevolent force bestowing these technologies for free? Because that wasn't the case either.

Brittain before Roman rule was probably even happier. But i guess when you're the conquering army you get to decide what is and isnt "civilized"

Ya and if memory serves i think he clawed his own eyes out and committed suicide after finding out.

Hey no worries dude, thanks for considering how I'd feel.

If it matters, i wasn't trying to be rude on my original comment either. I was genuinely asking the question. Its tough to convey tone online...

I looked it up, a cycle refers to disconnected body of works that cover the same event such as the siege of Troy. A series refers to a linear body of works that cover different events, such as Dune and most other modern books.

So ya everyone downvoting me is straight up wrong. The op was wrong, and also I was wrong. Go figure.