Mary Beard

Keep believing it then

Sometimes i think i'm going to get an aneurysm for all the stupid shit i get to read here

is that way! get out of your stupid bubble

The funny thing is, IF there really were black Romans, they would vehemently despise the foreign mud hordes as much as the regular Romans, and fight just as hard to secure the borders

And they'd be equally appalled at the cuckoldry that modern Europe has embraced

you can only see the world through /pol/ glasses. This is the value of a liberal arts education; objectivity

you're incapable of it, consider taking some classes or reading a book, mr. altright

@3466358

You need to tone your bait well back. I'm not even giving a (you) for that garbage

I don't think about is saying that Romans held contemporary values, user. The fact that they had millions of slaves kind of precludes that.

>muhammed
Shlomo you mean ?

The fact that they had borders, armies, and a concept of citizenship suggests that their views on those things at least were similar to our own

And the existence and acceptance of slavery does even further damage to the misguided narrative that ancient Rome was some kind of egalitarian multicultural paradise

>several emperors were black
>is that way! get out of your stupid bubble
The fact that you can unironically claim that several Roman emperors were black shows that you are the one surrounding yourself in some stupid pseudo-historical bubble.

Go ahead and name these black emperors.

>got BTFO by the guy from infowars

>And the existence and acceptance of slavery does even further damage to the misguided narrative that ancient Rome was some kind of egalitarian multicultural paradise

Roman slavery wasn't based on ethnicity and male slaves were automatically considered full citizens upon being freed.

>Roman slavery wasn't based on ethnicity and male slaves were automatically considered full citizens upon being freed.
Not quite, but close. They were considered freedmen, a type of limited citizenship. The children of freedmen, however, were considered full Roman citizens.

This is what made Roman slavery different from modern chattel slavery. Romans saw slavery as a multi-generation civilizing process. They didn't think in terms of race, but rather culture, that newly conquered people had to be integrated into Roman culture in a process called Romanization. As the field of biology had yet to be invented, they did not ascribe biological imperatives like "race" as a justification for lawfully depriving people of the fruits of their labor.

This process broke down in the empire when citizenship became a cruel joke, and when they actually tried keeping Germanics as permanently disenfranchised second class citizens, it didn't end well for them.

Well, romans got what they deserved, they destroyed many cultures with their romanization and they got destroyed culturally and genetically by germanics

That is what you get for destrying carthage

...

T childburner

The US absolutely deserved 9/11, this is actually a common opinion outside of Anglosphere

Crazy hag btfo by /ourarab/

Remind me, why does this skitskin think that there were no niggers in the Roman Empire

wew lad... where to begin
>Well, romans got what they deserved, they destroyed many cultures with their romanization
The cultures they destroyed were disorganized and practiced raiding culture. Romans introduced rule of law and brought an end to endemic, perpetual fighting and petty blood feuds. The Pax Romana led to an unprecedented exchange of ideas as now a citizen could travel from town to town (most of whom didn't even need to build walls) without having to worry about getting murdered for being an outsider. The cultures that flowered in the aftermath of Rome's fall were far more vibrant and sophisticated than the ones which came before.

>got destroyed culturally and genetically by germanics
genetically speaking, modern Italians are virtually identical to ancient Latins. Culturally speaking was varied, the Ostrogoths were quite cosmopolitan and deeply influenced by Rome, and when they took over Italy believed themselves to be preserving Rome's true spirit against latter day hijackers, and more actual damage was done by the Byzantines during the Gothic War, who also considered themselves Rome's one true preserver. Later tribes like the Longobards had little heritage of being Roman

>That is what you get for destrying carthage
Carthage was a child sacrificing oligarchic merchant state which couldn't unify politically in the face of unexpected Roman determination.

I think she presumed too much on the topic, and should of held her tongue at least in the public forum.
At the same time, I think it is disappointing that people did not use the circumstance for actual discourse, but quickly gave
way to people just rallying around personalities qua Beard and Taleb, assuming theirs was a just position,
then willfully shouting over a medium inconducive to actual conversation.

People who chose a side in this petty scuffle - a bar-fight they made out to be a war, of what was in reality, "They are trying to push a narrative!" vs. "They are trying to push a narrative!",
and claim intellectual victory just disgusts me. There are weaknesses to both sides, and neither attempted to rise above and correct the course.
The fact that ideological beliefs are so transparently coming first while both sides shrilly cry "YOU are not being objective" is disheartening.

WE

any particular reason you labelled that egyptian man as roman.jpg?

>modern Italians are virtually identical to ancient Latins
Lol they dont
Most of them are germanic and ancient roman portraits proof that and how you say that germanics didnt damage those lands?

Compare WRE with post germanic italy, even the church didnt have all that power, pope was useless then germanics come and brought their paganism which ruined roman Christianity

They and greeks ruined the levant, anatolia and egypt with their culture, i understand western europe as roman/greek culture was better than theirs
>citizen could travel from town to town (most of whom didn't even need to build walls) without having to worry about getting murdered for being an outsider.
Achaemenids did that and they didnt imposed their culture on nobody, they understood that every culture is important and people want to preserved

Achaemenid was a true empire, it was different everywhere while in roman empire, all was the same

Because Fayum mummy portraits date from the first to the third century, when Egypt was a Roman province. Some are so intricate that we can tell by the fashion choices which years they lived around

>Lol they dont
lol yes they do. Go take your cuck fantasies somewhere else

>Achaemenids did that and they didnt imposed their culture on nobody
Tell that to the Ionian Greeks.

Lol
Deniro is a Germanic, im on phone right now, i have romans mosaic that show the roman elite, they werent pigskins with blonde hair and light eyes

>It's believed that several emperors were black
True!
There's also evidences that some emperors were obese Mexican women.

I didn't make that picture, I only kept it because of how well sourced its points were.

the Roman empire was a diverse place, but there's no evidence to suggest that they were cucked out of existence by Germanics

Many of them were greek, they copied that from egyptians
Sad none of egyptians exist

>There were plenty of blacks all over the Empire
Sure. They did control a little area where 'black' people probably lived, below Egypt. Chances are there was a couple here and there...
>at all sorts of levels.
Ehhh, mostly drafted soldiers. Maybe in far south Egypt there were a few above peasents.
>It's believed that several emperors were black
No.

What?
Where are romans now?
Where is their culture?
Their language?
Most italian people have germanic blood and i know you didnt make that pic, LARPers italians post it everytime and they get BTFO by their own pic, deniro is a a germanic

Yeah, the fact that even an Infowars nutcase knows that there were no black people in Celtic-era Britain is pretty sad.

The Roman Empire is our central nervous system, its in our hearts, and in our minds

So its my cock

>Where are romans now?
The same place where all the Germanics are: reflections of their descendent cultures.
>Where is their culture?
fragmented into numerous daughter cultures. Some would argue that the Roman Catholic Church is a living fragment.
>Their language?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages
>LARPers italians post it everytime and they get BTFO by their own pic, deniro is a a germanic
I noticed that you are so busy fixating on the pretty pictures that you don't actually have any sources to back up your claim, but I'm sure that's a common behavior for you when there are too many words on a page

*smacks lips*

we are all the roman empire, wherever we feel, so its more than that. And that is just "your" roman empire, dick-swinging

>male slaves were automatically considered full citizens upon being freed
Not true, they became freedmen generally dependent entirely upon their old masters as patrons and slavery had to be "bred out" up to the third generation for it to be totally gone, freedmen couldn't join the army or hold civil office, their children could join the army (?) but couldn't hold civil office, and for their grandchildren I'm not entirely sure if they were given full citizenship, maybe civitas sine suffragio, can't remember.

>but I'm sure that's a common behavior for you when there are too many words on a page
Hahahahaa, nice one

Also i said i have those pics ON MY PC
Today germanics just make excuses and blame christianity

christians are just pagans, some of you christians like to convert and start worshipping the greek gods and they get shot in the streets

>called beard
>clearly clean shaven

I dont do that

>Also i said i have those pics ON MY PC
A few pictures of some light skinned elites is not a "source". I'm referring to actual genetic studies from reputable research.

Now shit or get off the pot

>few pictures of some light skinned elites is not a "source".
Except ITS THE SOURCE as romans made it
>I'm referring to actual genetic studies from reputable research
You mean the ones Made by germanics to proof that ancient romans were blonde with pale skin?

Wew lad

the severan dynasty was founded by a guy from modern day northwestern libya with mixed punic and italian ancestry. that he spoke or was related to the berbers is only conjecture and that itself does not automatically equal black, furthermore aside from him and his sons the rest of the dynasty were a mix of romans and syrians with little relation to himself
>The cultures they destroyed were disorganized and practiced raiding culture. Romans introduced rule of law and brought an end to endemic, perpetual fighting and petty blood feuds.
inter-tribal warfare among the celts was, while it could be considered "endemic", was by and large ritualized with little to no casualties, on the other hand caesar's conquest of gaul killed by his own account 1 million (majority civilians, some consider it inflated), enslaved another million (which is most likely not inflated considering there would have been records of the resultant transactions) and destroyed nearly a thousand cities

>The Pax Romana led to an unprecedented exchange of ideas as now a citizen could travel from town to town (most of whom didn't even need to build walls) without having to worry about getting murdered for being an outsider. The cultures that flowered in the aftermath of Rome's fall were far more vibrant and sophisticated than the ones which came before.
lol, you are acting as if there was no contact between different cultures before the romans came and ""civilized""" them, maybe this was true in northeastern europe, but there was a huge trade network throughout western europe that spread all the way to the british isles, something that could be not done if everyone is getting "murdered for being an outsider"

its hilarious how leftypol retards try and excuse rome's expansionism and genocidal wars of conquest as some sort of civilizing mission in a void of culture

>Except ITS THE SOURCE as romans made it
From a methodological standpoint, it's way too small.
>You mean the ones Made by germanics to proof that ancient romans were blonde with pale skin?
Such as?

fuck off you namefagging new world nigger

Phoenicians don't really exist, they are the Sea People (and as you can see they come from the Atlantic ocean).

he has some german ancestry from his mother's side, if anything that proves the earlier poster's point, as his mediterranean features are very apparent

He wasn't related to berberine and many of the severance dinasty were phoenician/Latin mix or even 80% phoenician
It's weird you know, Phoenicians came to rule the román empire, luck for Romans they were mostly romanized

>Molecular anthropology found no evidence of significant Northern geneflow into the Italian peninsula over the last 1500 years. On the other hand, the bulk of Italian ethnogenesis occurred prior to Germanic or non European invasions. Dna studies show that only the Greek colonization of Sicily and Southern Italy had a lasting effect on the local genetic landscape.[11][12]

>inter-tribal warfare among the celts was, while it could be considered "endemic", was by and large ritualized with little to no casualties,
Head-hunting was an important aspect of Gallic culture. And endemic means "on-going and pervasive" so even if there were few casualties, it still would have had a devastating impact on the families of the people who were killed. A single successful raid could ruin an entire clan for generations.

>on the other hand caesar's conquest of gaul killed by his own account 1 million (majority civilians, some consider it inflated), enslaved another million (which is most likely not inflated considering there would have been records of the resultant transactions) and destroyed nearly a thousand cities
And within a few generations, there was no more raiding culture, and Romanized Celts were eagerly providing soldiers for the legions.

When you consider the size of the Roman empire compared to the size of its army, there was no way that they could have been keeping peace through simple naked force. They did it because even a bad rule of law is preferable to no rule of law, where your neighbors could invent any perceived slight as an excuse to come murder your family members of fighting age and pilfer your belongings

>but there was a huge trade network throughout western europe
Nobody's denying this, but what's also true is that these cities no longer needed walls after the Romans brought peace, and trade truly exploded in ways that could never have been possible before, like importing ice to the mediterranean during the summer months

>its hilarious how leftypol
I think it's hilarious how you think dragging politics into the discussion makes your argument seem more compelling. You're only demonstrating the limits of your interest in authentic history.

Puc related
All the ones that exists
Why you are so mad?

/pol/ types fucking despise her so she must be saying something right.

>that's a "dumb nigger still beliving north africans to be black episode"

>All the ones that exists
still waiting for one

That kind of attitude just makes pol stronger.

as i said septimus was only half punic himself, and his sons would have been only a quarter punic, the ones that came after were varying degree of syrian unless you are equating that with phoenician by some vague connection regarding their semitic-ness

Isn't it an agreed uppon fact that punics were mixed with the berbers by the time Severus was born?

Still was a Phoenician roman dinasty

I have a question for you, were there roman emperor with greek ancestry?
Look above, someone quote one

>Puc related
Prove me wrong, show me a single proof that shows that Phoenician were a culture or a civilization in itself. They only appeared after the Sea People, they appeared where the Sea People showed up and they settled along the path of the Sea People...

phoenicia.org/history.html

>oh look at all these dates establishing the culture around 1200 BC
Funny isn't it?

>why does this skitskin think that there were no niggers in the Roman Empire
>Falling for the bullshitters argument.
The argument was over the fact that Beard stated that negroids were a relative commonality in the Roman Empire, particularly in Britain rather than a once in a generation sight utilizing that retarded idea that Roman ethnic diversity meant racial diversity.

>It's believed that several emperors were black

(you)

>Head-hunting was an important aspect of Gallic culture.
everyone knows this

>And endemic means "on-going and pervasive" so even if there were few casualties,
everyone also knows this

>it still would have had a devastating impact on the families of the people who were killed. A single successful raid could ruin an entire clan for generations.
do you not know what ritualized means? you will have to prove this "devastating impact" because despite the arverni, aedui and sequani having been engaged in generational feuds they still all joined together against caesar in vercingetorix's revolt

you are falling into the mistake of thinking of the "gauls" as some anarchic amalgamation of petty clans engaged in intermittent warfare, there was several different polities with varied governmental structures and levels of development, and no there was not "no rule of law" where neighbors "murder your family members of fighting age and pilfer your belongings" (funnily enough that is exactly what caesar did in his conquest of gaul) the gauls had their own laws which were more than simple "might makes right"

i don't understand your fixation with "raiding culture" are you implying that romans themselves did not engage in raids?

>but what's also true is that these cities no longer needed walls after the Romans brought peace
at the cost of genocide and mass enslavement, and you realize the romans tore down their conquered foes wall so that should they rise in rebellion they would not have a fortress to take shelter in

>trade truly exploded in ways that could never have been possible before, like importing ice to the mediterranean during the summer months
this benefited romans not the natives, who are now either dead, enslaved, or dispossessed and disenfranchised

afrocentrists literally do not care about things like facts, history, objectivity, and truth.

>and Romanized Celts were eagerly providing soldiers for the legions.
this was the easiest way to gain any rights from their new roman overlords, would you leftypol retards say that the british empire was some benevolent nation with a civilizing mission because many of the natives in its various colonies joined the ranks of its military?

>I think it's hilarious how you think dragging politics into the discussion makes your argument seem more compelling.
it was put at the end, mainly to gauge whether you were some leftypol retard or neonazi romaboo, so how do you justify rome's imperialism while condemning europe's later ventures into it?

>You're only demonstrating the limits of your interest in authentic history.
t. before rome there was no cultural exchange and everyone got murdered for being outsiders

in the beginning punics were mainly if not completely phoenician though you are right that mixing did probably occur later down the line, him and his father spoke punic, and identified as such, not berber

constantine the great comes to mind, i would assume many of the emperors that came from the balkans would have at least some greek ancestry

and there is of course the byzantines : ^ )

seriously, what the fuck is wrong with leftypol? why the fuck are they defending retarded we wuz shit?

>Go ahead and name these black emperors.

Dunno about black, per se, but there were a bunch from Africa:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septimius_Severus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrinus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elagabalus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severus_Alexander
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Arab
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aemilianus

most of those names already addressed here macrinus and aemilianus are berbers, philip was an arab born in southern syria, the two from the severan dynasty were syrians with little relation to septimus severus himself (and were of course not from africa)

>do you not know what ritualized means?
They sacrificed prisoners of war to their gods and druids were the ones who organized people to war. I don't know how you think that makes it better

>"devastating impact"
psychohistory.com/books/the-origins-of-war-in-child-abuse/chapter-7-child-abuse-homicide-and-raids-in-tribes/
Study virtually any unorganized pre-modern society that practices raiding culture, abuses are pervasive. Read up on the Romans pacification of Iberia, you'll find stories of Romans negotiating with tribes who could only maintain their lifestyles through raiding, and openly considered it their heritage.

> the arverni, aedui and sequani having been engaged in generational feuds they still all joined together against caesar in vercingetorix's revolt
They unified far, far too late to actually stop him, and even then the divisions were still quite stark between them.

>this benefited romans not the natives
So trade is bad when they're doing more of it ?
>dead, enslaved, or dispossessed and disenfranchised
Only for the time it took to Romanize them.

>this was the easiest way to gain any rights from their new roman overlords
Versus their previous Druidic overlords who frolicked peacefully in sacred groves?
> leftypol retards
stop posting. You're too emotionally invested in the outcome of the discussion to actually give a shit about history except when it suits your political agenda, that''s why you keep trying to shoehorn contemporary politics into the discussion.
>so how do you justify rome's imperialism while condemning europe's later ventures into it?
Romans were products of their era, playing the game that everybody else was playing, but doing it better than anyone else, and they suffered the consequences of living in a society poisoned by unearned wealth, which is ultimately what made their system was unsustainable and why it collapsed. Latter day colonialists were also products of their environment, and also suffered the consequences of unearned wealth poisoning their society, especially when there were contemporaries telling them not to exploit and abuse natives for personal gain, a moral quandary which a city-state beset by an invading gallic horde didn't have the luxury of pontificating on. And unlike the Romans, who had no concept of race, colonialists justified perpetual exploitation through pseudoscience which any legitimate scientist would have told them was junk

>They sacrificed prisoners of war to their gods and druids were the ones who organized people to war. I don't know how you think that makes it better
no... they were rarely the military leaders and inter-tribal wars involved mainly single combat and champion warfare

>psychohistory.com/books/the-origins-of-war-in-child-abuse/chapter-7-child-abuse-homicide-and-raids-in-tribes/
Study virtually any unorganized pre-modern society that practices raiding culture, abuses are pervasive.
so..... a study on papa new guinea... a hunter gatherer society living in small villages in a jungle, who correct me if i am wrong, did not even develop metallurgy, is the same as a largely agrarian culture with developed towns and cities?

>Read up on the Romans pacification of Iberia, you'll find stories of Romans negotiating with tribes who could only maintain their lifestyles through raiding, and openly considered it their heritage.
what does iberia have to do with gaul?

>They unified far, far too late to actually stop him, and even then the divisions were still quite stark between them.
that is my point, despite the stark division they still unified against an outward enemy, which according to you they would not have since they "go and kill all the males then pilfer each other" just for "small slights" or something

>So trade is bad when they're doing more of it?
yah european dominance of the african diamond trade is not bad theyre just doing more of it : ^ )
they arent "doing more of it" they conquered the land and took the resources for themselves as you yourself even said in your later post, so yes it is obviously bad for the natives

>Only for the time it took to Romanize them.
so they could become a part of the glorious landless and poor plebeian mass... that is not an improvement but the opposite

>Versus their previous Druidic overlords who frolicked peacefully in sacred groves?
if you are implying they had less rights under "druidic overlords" then no, they had more

druids were not the tribal shaman warlords constantly calling for war so they can sacrifice more people to their tree gods you are trying to paint them as, they were more celtic society's middle class with priesthood as just one part of the druidic strata's job

>You're too emotionally invested in the outcome of the discussion to actually give a shit about history except when it suits your political agenda,
uhhh right.... and what exactly even is my political agenda? i am only pointing out you leftypol retards' blatant hypocrisy

>a moral quandary which a city-state beset by an invading gallic horde didn't have the luxury of pontificating on
as the story goes that began after their own envoys slaughtered the gauls', who after demanding the murderers be handed over, the senate instead went on to reward them

>And unlike the Romans, who had no concept of race, colonialists justified perpetual exploitation through pseudoscience which any legitimate scientist would have told them was junk
are you trying to say romans were some sort of racial egalitarians and that makes their imperialism okay? so... its the justification that matters and not the actions themselves.... that makes sense considering what you leftypol retards usually spout

WE WUZ CAESAR AND SHEEEEITTT

>no... they were rarely the military leaders and inter-tribal wars involved mainly single combat and champion warfare
Druids were still important instigators, and throughout Greek and Roman history invasion by a Gallic horde was an ever present threat. And single combat/champion style warfare would have been normal among feuding clans, but the losers still would have gotten the shaft when their best fighter was killed and they knew that it was time to either pay up or get wiped out. Even if only 1 out of 7 died in combat, that's still roughly the percentage of the total population of Celts that Caesar wiped out, so the only difference is scale.

>so..... a study on papa new guinea...
And the most in depth case study of pre-modern unorganized society free from author bias and "muh noble savage" memes that you're going to find.

>what does iberia have to do with gaul?
Celts lived in both places. Iberian Celts flat out admitted that their culture would disappear if they weren't allowed to sustain it with raiding.

>that is my point, despite the stark division they still unified against an outward enemy
Only at the very last minute, even after Caesar had been playing them off of each other for years. It literally took an act of genocide to get them to put aside their differences, and even then it was a day late and a dollar short.

>so yes it is obviously bad for the natives
Romanized Gaul was integrated, eventually they were made citizens. Colonial Africa was kept permanently disenfranchised until achieving independence.

> they could become a part of the glorious landless and poor plebeian mass... that is not an improvement but the opposite
It's an improvement over being a subsistence farmer faced with a choice between letting his children starve after a bad harvest or raiding his neighbors and letting their children starve, instead.

>druids were not the tribal shaman warlords constantly calling for war so they can sacrifice more people to their tree gods you are trying to paint them as,
You're putting words in my mouth. Romans weren't the bloodthirsty despotic invaders that you paint them as. Keep in mind that Caesar was actually invited in from the provinces to help settle disputes between the tribes, which is the precedent which lead to their eventual pacification: he deftly played them off of each other, literally writing the book on divide and conquer by appealing to the Gaul's common mistrust of each other, that was the weak spot in their otherwise well developed and cosmopolitan culture.

>uhhh right.... and what exactly even is my political agenda?
You make it obvious when you fling around buzzwords like /leftypol/

>as the story goes that began after their own envoys slaughtered the gauls
You do realize that there were numerous invasions, right?

>are you trying to say romans were some sort of racial egalitarians and that makes their imperialism okay?
No, I am saying that they were products of their environment. Yes, they did shitty things but the Celts weren't exactly angels, either, and for all the suffering that the Romans caused, good did come from their presence.

Is this top tier bait? I really can't tell anymore.

Because /pol/ is still /pol/.

It says they are canaanites

>Lifting in those shoes

Literal revisionist.

>africa is heavily colonized and dominated by romans
>people born into roman families based in africa
>this means they were negroid sub-saharan africans, clearly

You people need to consider "Africa" in the context of Roman times rather than that of today.

Elabalbus was from Emesa (hims) Syria. Native Syrian (Aramean)

Phillip the Arab was fromSyria but an Arab

Honest question. Why do you give a shit about the public perception of history when their perception has always been horribly innacurate? Whether its niggers or moon-men if they become interested enough by thit shit to actually study up on it they'll eventually figure out the truth anyways. Who cares what some faggot whose extent of knowledge is a few History Channel programs anyways.

>Druids were still important instigators, and throughout Greek and Roman history invasion by a Gallic horde was an ever present threat.
throughout history everywhere invasion by neighbors was an ever present threat

>And single combat/champion style warfare would have been normal among feuding clans, but the losers still would have gotten the shaft when their best fighter was killed and they knew that it was time to either pay up or get wiped out. Even if only 1 out of 7 died in combat, that's still roughly the percentage of the total population of Celts that Caesar wiped out, so the only difference is scale.
those that died in intertribal warfare were members of the warrior class, people whose sole purpose was to fight and that is without a doubt better than conventional ancient warfare which saw entire armies wiped out, and if we go by caesar's estimates that is 1 in 5 killed, with another 1 in 5 enslaved

>And the most in depth case study of pre-modern unorganized society free from author bias and "muh noble savage" memes that you're going to find.
yet gaul was not as i explained some anarchic "unorganized society" you are trying to make it out to be

>Celts lived in both places. Iberian Celts flat out admitted that their culture would disappear if they weren't allowed to sustain it with raiding.
celtiberians were pastoralists and farmers just like their kin in gaul, and as roman writers attest their society was not "disorganized tribes" but organized around their fortified cities and its outlying settlements

>Only at the very last minute, even after Caesar had been playing them off of each other for years. It literally took an act of genocide to get them to put aside their differences, and even then it was a day late and a dollar short.
the genocide came after, they were convinced by vercingetorix to put aside their differences and unite because, rightly so, he had convinced them that caesar was an external threat to their entire society

>It's an improvement over being a subsistence farmer faced with a choice between letting his children starve after a bad harvest or raiding his neighbors and letting their children starve, instead.
you sound like you are getting this all from some video game, they did not have a """""bad harvest""""" every other fall and then resort to raiding their neighbors, not only did the celts practice crop rotation and take other measures specifically so this would not occur, the people farming would be an entirely different class than the ones performing the raids,

>You're putting words in my mouth. Romans weren't the bloodthirsty despotic invaders that you paint them as. Keep in mind that Caesar was actually invited in from the provinces to help settle disputes between the tribes, which is the precedent which lead to their eventual pacification:
"pacification" caesar invaded gaul for political and monetary gain, killing and enslaving more than a quarter of its population so he could better enact his political agenda

>he deftly played them off of each other, literally writing the book on divide and conquer by appealing to the Gaul's common mistrust of each other, that was the weak spot in their otherwise well developed and cosmopolitan culture.
so what is it? well developed and cosmopolitan culture or anarchic and "unorganized" with whatever "raiding culture" means and "murdering everyone for being outsiders"

>You make it obvious when you fling around buzzwords like /leftypol/
nice non answer but you still havent said what my political agenda is..?

>You do realize that there were numerous invasions, right?
i thought you were referring specifically to brennus' sack of rome

>and for all the suffering that the Romans caused, good did come from their presence.
yes but does the good outweigh the bad? a leftypol such as yourself should at least realize that empires rarely ever benefit anyone but its elites

Mixed Punic + Italian Ancestry = Black