The Romans always fought defensive wars. Prove me wrong

By like the second samnite war most of the wars had stopped being defensive

Not an argument

not an argument

We discussed this topic multiple times, I hope this thread gets pruned.

not an argument

not an argument

What are you new here? I don't have to disprove shit. You made the claim, support it or fuck off.

What about the battle against the latins and the etruscan league?

Not an argument

T. Gaius Cornelius

You do know that the gauls attacked and sacked rome in 400 bce?

Well, around that time.

Are you one of these deep thinkers who think Crusaders were justified because Muslims had conquered shit 500 years before?

not an argument

The Romans respected and feared the Gallic tribes. Only fifty years before, in 109 BC, Italy had been invaded from the north and saved only after several bloody and costly battles by Gaius Marius.

Around 62 BC, when a Roman client state, the Arverni, conspired with the Sequani and the Suebi nations east of the Rhine, to attack the Aedui, a strong Roman ally, Rome turned a blind eye. The Sequani and Arverni sought Ariovistus’ aid and defeated the Aedui in 63 BC at the Battle of Magetobriga. The Sequani rewarded Ariovistus with land following his victory. Ariovistus settled the land with 120,000 of his people. When 24,000 Harudes joined his cause, Ariovistus demanded that the Sequani give him more land to accommodate the Harudes people. This demand concerned Rome because if the Sequani conceded, Ariovistus would be in a position to take all of the Sequani land and attack the rest of Gaul. They did not appear to be concerned about a conflict between non-client, client and allied states.

By the end of the campaign, the non-client Suebi under the leadership of the belligerent Ariovistus, stood triumphant over both the Aedui and their coconspirators. Fearing another mass migration akin to the devastating Cimbrian War, Rome, now keenly invested in the defense of Gaul, was irrevocably drawn into war.

looks like the nordis are scurrying out of their snowdrifts

Back to the cuckshed Sven.

Yup and with this type of reasoning the Goths were completely justified when they sacked Rome in 410 AD.

Because the Romans invaded gothic territory and sacked their capital?

It was a preemptive defense

The Romans definitely mishandled the Goths and treated them like shit, but I don't remember that they attacked them.

The Romans always fought defensive wars.
The Romans always fought defensive wars.
Find a flaw with that argument.
The existence of Non-Romans and their barbaric subRoman culture is direct offense, attack, assault, and affront to the glorious and noble Nordic Empire that is Rome.

It doesn't matter. The blood of a thousand barbars is worth less than a drop of a Roman's.

>I'm on your side. I swear!!
t. user who lives somewhere in northern europe

Well and then the Romans got GOTHED and VANDALED.

A historical mistake that God will permanently fix in the future.

Nah, Korean shitposter living in US

btfo

kek

This is mostly Roman propaganda. If Caesar only wanted to "defend" Gaul from the Germans, why did he also attack Britain? Because gold, that's why.

Defend gaul from British raiders

Defense against possible future invasions.

Sure, and after that when the tribes united in rebellion against the Romans, Caesar was just defending the Gauls from themselves, amirite?

Romans dindu nuffin

>Caesar was just defending the Gauls from themselves, amirite?

it was clear they would never settle down and stop migrating, conspiring and fucking with eachother(and whatever state Rome chose to ally with), it was either let them kill eachother forever and occasionally invade Rome or go and civilize them non-consensually.

Of course, seizing all their gold, murdering a million and selling another million into slavery were also necessary things to do to defend Gauls from themselves, I get it.

>The Romans always fought defensive wars
What is the Battle of Carrhae?

well you wouldn't civilize people for free either would you

>What is the Battle of Carrhae?

I can tell you what it wasn't: A war.

You mean the Gauls that by Caesar's own admission were already quite civilized and well on their way to establishing city states? Everything you list them doing there is shit the Romans did on the regular too (in fact, I'd wager Rome got invaded more times by Romans than anyone else).

>You mean the Gauls that by Caesar's own admission were already quite civilized and well on their way to establishing city states?

Caesar would say anything, but let's be honest, Gauls had existed as a culture for thousands of years, they had direct contact with mediterranean cultures and yet they still migrated around, exhausted the lands and lived off plunder, they had plenty of time to become stable states but they didn't, the world was changing and their way of life needed to be left behind.

The Romans fucking migrated around and lived off plunder just as much as they did. The Gauls had agriculture and stable cities.

You're a goddamn dishonest sack of crap.

>The Romans fucking migrated around and lived off plunder just as much as they did

fucking how, establishing permanent outposts and colonies?

He's just baiting with this "if your enemies kill you you win" shit. Ignore him.

By the fact they were constantly sending their soldiers on the move to conquer and plunder. They had the same need to expand and take that every society had. The Gauls had permanent settlements; not all of them were permanently settled, but they were well on their way to the being as stably settled as the pre-Hellenic Greeks.

Muslims didn't cease hostilities after their initial expansion...

I wonder what Caesar would think of some nerds getting butthurt about his glorious conquest 2000 years after his death.

"By Jupiter, these nerds can see through my propaganda and know that I'm a tyrant. Maybe they're in league with Cato..."

>By the fact they were constantly sending their soldiers on the move to conquer and plunder.

Their enemies, not their own people.

>They had the same need to expand and take that every society had

they expanded mostly economically, through alliances, partnerships and clienteles

>Their enemies, not their own people.

How do you qualify this?

The Romans warred regularly with the Latins and then the rest of the Italians, by the time Caesar was invading Gaul they'd already had to quash a few revolts by other Italian cities, created colonies in Italy, and the Romans still didn't extend all the same rights to other Italians as the citizens of Rome held. So who was "a Roman"? The people from Rome specifically? Then why are you holding Gauls to an entirely different standard by going "everyone from Gaul"? Why does it strike you as so different that two different tribes of Gauls might war with each other, but it was acceptable for the Romans to be warring with other Italians?

No, but they were justified in that there were continually Muslim attacks against the Byzantine empire, and the Emperor himself personally requested help from the Pope to fight off the muslims.

even with all it's troubles Rome formed allies with it's neighbor states and cities, not stick to being a "tribe" forever

the fact that Gauls were still fucking migrating like nothing is what made them a pain in the ass

>Their enemies, not their own people.

They frequently warred against "themselves."

>they expanded mostly economically, through alliances, partnerships and clienteles

Also through conquest, a lot of fucking conquest.

Further, it's not like the Gauls didn't trade.

The Romans were not "good boys who didn't do anything" in their conquest of Gaul, it was a brutal act of genocidal slaughter and plunder.

Wait so Veeky Forums doesn't like the Romans?

>sack rome
>nearly do it again
>be constant thorn in Rome's side
>wtf rome why are you attacking us?

I do believe the incidents you're referring to were separated from the conquest of Gaul by centuries. The only recent thing that happened in Roman territory regarding the Gauls was a migration that was trumped up in its damages, and not worth killing a million people and enslaving another million.

I'm not sure what it is with Veeky Forums and Rome. It's either "they're the perfect beacons of western civilization who did no wrong" or "the worst evil to grace this world."

In 58 b.c., the Helvetii, a tribe from what is now Switzerland, tried to migrate across part of Transalpine Gaul. When Caesar repulsed them, the migrants took another route, crossing the territory of peoples allied to Rome, including the Aedui. Those Gauls complained of depredations, and Caesar as the proconsul of Rome felt it his duty to intervene and defend the republic’s friends.

Shifting his forces, he ruthlessly hunted down the Helvetii, defeated them and forced the survivors to return to their original territory. After that, he received pleas from the same allies along with other tribes for protection from the Germanic warlord Ariovistus. Another tribe had originally invited Ariovistus into Gaul to assist it in its struggle with the Aedui.

Caesar continued in the same vein in the following year, marching far away from his province to smash the Belgic tribes of northeastern Gaul. This followed another request for protection, in this case from a group allied to one of Rome’s existing allies. In time Caesar would take his legions throughout Gaul and beyond—in forays across the Rhine and over to Britain—defending Rome’s interests and those of her allies.

...

Yes, the fact the conquest of Gaul stood to advance his political career as well as enrich him and his generals had nothing to do with it. Good old altruistic Rome. They killed a million Gauls and enslaved a million more to protect their allies. Caesar just happened to have political advancement foisted on him.

Also that would be the trumped up migration I talked about.

Caesar was originally going to go after Dacia, til shit hit the fan.

How was the migration trumped up? The Helvetii leader was moving atleast 100,000 people, attacking roman allies, and taking their land. Remember that migrating tribes fucked rome up and nearly lead it to disaster like 50 years prior to this. That was fresh in their mind.

hello where r the argument

>go and civilize them non-consensually

If Gauls were so savage, why does literally ever source portray them as the group most willing to "Romanise?" It's kind of ironic that Gaius Vindex, a member of the race you call a bunch of uncivilised, migratory barbarians would play the greatest role in overthrowing the last of Caesar's descendants only 100 years after Alesia.

>not being for aggressive wars

faggot

>If Gauls were so savage, why does literally ever source portray them as the group most willing to "Romanise?"

not too much left after the Caesar was done

Ridiculous. Gauls had been romanising for decades, Caesar's account is full of Gaulic tribes who had been allied to Rome for generations.
Pic is my captcha, I think it's pertinent.

so you're answering your own question?

Very mature

Buttdevestated German savage or WEWUZ Turkorach?

Why should the Germans be buttdevastated? I mean compared to the butthurt of romaboos over the sack of Rome by the goths it is almost trivial.

Pro tip: they're already dead, and yet a thread was made to boast about dead people's past accomplishment to satisfy your boring life, and now you're here created another thread...

Go back to/b/