How did Rome manage to pacify the people they conquered, and why can't we accomplish that today?

> They didn't. Constant uprising played a major role

Erm, no.

Not being able to control later German migrants does not equal local uprisings of already conquered natives.

> wiki link with like a couple rebellions

lol dude, over a millenia of a time period and all you can do is some minor war and a few slave rebellions.

> And that's not countring the minor peasant revolts

Oh, you can count them, there were like 2 of them.

>over a millenia
Are you talking the Roman Empire? Because OP's pic is the Roman empire and that didn't last for a millenia.
>minor war
Boudica's uprising was not a minor war

absolutely not.

Rome's main cornerstone was not mass genocide and repopulation efforts, that just can't even be accomplished with the logistics available at the time.

Rome's cornerstone to success was making people Roman, teaching Latin, appointing locals to positions of administration and governance, building cities and infrastructure to provide for the new provinces, etc. As well as making the peoples of conquered provinces citizens, granting them all the rights as an Italian in the capital would.

Even the Latin language was mostly used only on the government level outside of Italy and the surrounding area, with the locals still speaking Greek, Aramaic, etc wherever the language was spoken. Hence why Greek took over as the language of the Eastern Roman Empire, because it was still widely known and taught.

The Romans made sure to let the conquered peoples know that they are citizens of the state, not conquered subjects, as the sale of slaves from conquered lands only really consisted of prisoners of the war, rather than the general civilian populace.

>Boudica's uprising was not a minor war

It also wasn't a fucking uprising of conquered people, Rome still did not rule those areas, it was a regular war with outside foes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rebellions_against_the_Roman_Empire

1) Pirates
2) A slaughter in Germany, not a fucking uprising.
3) An opera somehow linked with wikipedia lol
4) An actual rebellion for once.
5) Not an internal revolt but a war against tribes outside Roman rule
6) Part of the Roman civil conflict, not a native uprising
7) Again, a war against tribes outside Roman rule, not an internal uprising.
8) Again, a war against tribes outside Roman rule, not an internal uprising.

Fucking hell dude, pathetic.

>why can't we accomplish that today?

We don't have the balls to wipe out opposition.

no muslims back then

2 big things.

1) Rome was a structured society. Like the Greeks, Carthaginians, Persians, etc. They conquered tribal peoples. Tribes are fucking easy to take down (look at USA). They can't really organize a come back very well.

2) Genocide. Rome committed genocide against the most uppity of it's opponents. Gaul, Carthage. Utterly destroying a people and all of their cities and farms will ensure that they cannot return.

The world has changed.

Ok, how about that time where Gaul/Brits left for like 50 years? Same with Spain, I believe. That was generations of fracturing. Also Spartacus. The slaves were mostly subjugated people, and they rose up enough that Scipio had to take them down.

Rome stood for over a thousand years. You don't have to get butthurt about them not having a 100% flawless record. They were still amazing.

kek

Lel

> Ok, how about that time where Gaul/Brits left for like 50 years? Same with Spain, I believe.

Those were Roman political machinations and conflicts between Romans, they were not some tribal insurrections.

> That was generations of fracturing.

Not by native revolt.

> Also Spartacus.

Which lasted shortly and was a slave revolt within Italy, not a native revolt in a conquered province.

> Rome stood for over a thousand years. You don't have to get butthurt about them not having a 100% flawless record.

Yes, but re-read the claims I was responding to, he speaks of constant revolts and upheavals, which is not the case.

and they lasted like 15 years and were at war for a third of that?

>The Romans made sure to let the conquered peoples know that they are citizens of the state

Except this wasn't true at all until Commodus

It paid to be conquered by the romans, since they would generally upgrade everything in your region.

1) Genocide is looked down upon
2) Communication is faster everywhere so it's much easier for small bands of rebels to coordinate
3) There is no longer a desire for countries to expand in such a way (mainly due to increased availability of resources due to modern trade routes and transportation technology not allowing for the same types of shortages that may motivate such action)

It was different then, people were much less organisation, though more organised than people think, but in different ways. They lacked a central authority, people without a central authority are relatively easy to conquer and control when you have one.

Also the Romans did the whole thing of getting the nobility on side, same as the Spanish and Portuguese and later British. This was especially helpful in barbarian cultures where basically if your lord/chief thinks Romans are cool, then you do, or else.

carrot and stick policy mostly

people that attacked them they genocided until they stopped rebelling. Naturally we can't do that anymore, and you might blame "dem bleedin heart liberals" but even you probably cringe when those "developing countries" start taking out their "dissidents" in gruesome ways.

the carrot is that when they don't bother them they make their lives better they build better infrastructure for their societies, lavish their elites with wealth, protect them and their rule from rivals (which is good for the Romans because they now have an excuse to take said rival's territory), and then leave them alone when they're done not bothering them again rather than colonialism methods of exploiting economies, fucking their policies, and forcing their religions down their throats.

of course the love and hate depends on their own prosperity. If they benefit during their rule the people will regard the rule as awesome, but if they decline under it they'll lash out.

So Commodus was an early republican council who began absorbing the Italian City states who were loyal to Rome, and awarded that loyalty with citizenship?

Better luck next time.

>rome's main cornerstone not genocide
i'm sure a couple of million Gauls would tend to disagree

>making people roman
hence why so many people were essentially left to self-govern while rome just extracted taxes and slaves.

if it was rome in 1939 instead of germany i'm sure i'd have learned in school about how the romans believed they were superior, etc.

then again people being evil on a massive scale is just how people are, i guess it just depends which people you want to brutalize.

not that I disagree with you that rome wasn't nazis, btw

Basically this.

youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE

>i'm sure a couple of million Gauls would tend to disagree
Genocide means killing people not barbarians

so the spanish?

>How did Rome manage to pacify the people they conquered,
Confederation system, upgrade of citizenship of the community by degree and history of loyalty, Romanization through trade, colonization by settling nearby or replacing the upper class.

Jews and Slavs are barbaric though

Bar Khokba Revolt

They fought sole defensive wars and so the population they were now administrating realized their new rulers were in the right and she be followed

Because it was a fucking empire where the core dealt rewards and punishments to whole peripheral groups when needed.

Nowadays we have shit like "nation state" "right to exist" "equality" to base shitloads of rebellions on.

Meanwhile Empires ruled because "we're the ones keeping order. Toe the line or else."

>intermarry

This would have just made them absorbed by the natives.

A better example is China. China gained control of areas like Guangdong by basically having the men intermarry with the women until the natives didn't exist as a population group anymore. You need to have demographic dominance or selective marriage practices (e.g. polygamy plus restricting who your women marry) for this to work.

because they brought justice to those who didn't behave, while now we give those who don't behave 4k euros per month because they migrated from some thirld world shithole

Nationalism. Without it, citizens are more likely to be loyal to and identify with the state so long as they are treated fairly.

Human rights ideology.

Romans knew when to push unity and when to leave well enough alone. For the immediate territories, they quickly romanized the culture and created avenues to citizenship through military service and paid homage to Roman gods.

The further from Rome you got, the less they were inclined to push that as long as you paid your taxes and didn't start any shit.

>Dacians
>Germanics
>pacified

>Germanics
>Conquered

Because Rome tried to turn conquered people into Romans

Army.

population density. Roman holdings were low density in the early empire and fragmented because they grew to the holding capacity of independent polities, which then started fighting with each other

The constant threat of "pay your taxes and stay in line or else every last one of you is fucking dead" and showing a willingness to back up that threat helps.

Except citizenship wasn't even awarded until dire circumstances forced their hand, like during civil war. It wasn't awarded to conquered people as a matter of course like you seem to imply. Citizenship was jealously guarded and one of the most volatile political issues that Rome faced. Anyway most inhabitants of the roman state weren't citizens until Commodus bestowed it to everyone.

>One of the oldest places of civilization in the world didn't have irrigation, education, or infrastructure until the Romans gave it to them.

This. You don't even have to go that far back in history to understand that, if given the option of total annihilation or total assimilation, most cultures will gladly choose the later.

It took two atomic fucking bombs, as well as millions dead and massive infrastructure damage from firebombing to pacify the Japanese. The more we fuck around in the middle east without putting down a serious ultimatum, the worse the situation is going to get.

of course

that's why Europe is the only place with civilization

Carthage would counter-argue the Gauls but they aren't here with us now