Afterwards...

the roman "victims" of europe also engaged in human sacrifice and cannibalism

>yet his forces were responsible for acts of mass murder and genocide. His victims have zero voice since Gauls did not write their own history, and his victims are thus then just numbers on a page
Is this called retroactive SJW-ing? Why are you writing this drivel?

Give me a source on that, I've never read that before. I knew the Gauls were "savages" by Roman standards. But Caesar and his legions still killed a majority, a lot of it essentially unnecessarily. And all for Caesars debts and personal glory. As much as I admire Caesar he did some horrible things.

Is it not true? I'm not OP but a the Gauls don't have any primary source on their side of the story, it would of been interesting to see what they would of thought of Caesar and his conquest through Gaul. Maybe they considered it was payback for all of the years they had fucked the Romans over.

fake news
filthy barbarians lack the education to speak on these things

>Is it not true?
Dunno dude I wasn't there, could be fake as fuck history as far as we know.

Hail Caesar.

>Now let's engage in an experiment

No, filthy commie

>implying the modern French aren't more culturally and linguistivally connected to the Romans.

This sounds fictitious but in any case Caesar pacifying Gaul was a necessity. He needed the riches the land and the victory. The people were taken slave or simply lived in Gaul now under Roman rule. In modern context? I wouldn't rightly give a fuck if Italy became the Roman Empire Reborn and would be impressed they could take out France after a narrow victory over spearchucking Ethiopians in WW2. One can dream. AVE CAESAR!

Source:
Julius Caesar, Commentaries on the Gallic War vii.

It's useless to judge figures if the past by the ethics of today. Nothing Caesar did was beyond the pale for his era.

Of all boards I would have hoped this one understands historical context.

>Dude everyone was a sociopathic genocider. Everyone was doing it!

are you aware that burning, salting, and enslaving enemy cities was customary in ancient warfare?

this. Gauls were sort of "savage" but it's clear that they were a developing situation and were getting to a stage of civilizational development where htey were starting to write down records, have larger cities, and more complex forms of governance. Had they had more time to develop, trade with the Meds and exchange ideas, they would have well gotten to the level of the Romans within a century or so. I think the Roman conquest is the worst thing that could have happened, as much as I admire Caesar's abilities imperialism was cancer that led to the permanent subordination of the peripheral regions of the empire to Rome, possibly explaining why the WRE never developed into an urban Civ comparable to the Greek East.

>Romans in full damage control mode

Caesar invaded because he couldn't oh debts, but that's not why he massacred people. If money was the priority why would you kill 39,000 slaves?

I also think this is just a symptom of the general decline of the Roman republic into an imperial looting racket. Things got so bad that Rome had to be constantly sacking, looting and draining the wealth of other civilizations to feed its own capital city. They took hundreds of thousands of slaves and melted down the loot of the conquered. Think of the population depletion and brain drrain, disruption of economic and social structures that the Roman conquest of Gaul caused. Imagine how long it would have taken to recover

not worth keeping as slaves. If you have to repair a car too much its not worth keeping anymore.

destroying other 'civilizations' is how progress in all of that is made. Look at how Rome progressed until christianity. Look at Europe until socialism. The opposite, the decadence of peace and tolerance, as stated by Plato, is what causes stagnation.

Yes?

You don't keep them. You take them back to Rome and sell them. If they were so useless Caesar wouldn't have boasted about enslaving a million of them.

It's easy as fuck for an army to kill 39,200 defenseless people. Doesn't matter how starving or not they are. You just have to have the strength to lift a sword. Also, I assume they probably took a breather and ate some looted food before starting to murder.

This depends entirely on whether I can be the one to buy the girls.

No, because you'd have to be an idiot to assume the Gallic wars DIDNT contain "rape, murder, abuse" etc. That's the nature of warfare.

We don't have the Gauls accounts of what happened, but I imagine it's just as horrific as other wars. Which only makes Julius Caesar more intimidating on the senate floor. That he's capable of that, but he doesn't WANT to have to do that to you in order to get your support.

No, if morality means anything, it applies equally in all times. We can excuse the ancients to some extent because of their circumstances, but that doesn't mean we must judge what they did as any less immoral. That, I think, is an important distinction to make.
Also, just to make it clear, I'm an irreligious agnostic, not a Christcuck. I criticize the ancients from the point of view of my conscience, not of some received wisdom about morality (as far as I can tell).
And? So what if it was customary?

>pillaging
This is probably the most autistic thing I'll see today.

Europe has developed enormously in the last 100 years or so. Far from having decayed, Europe is actually more or less at its height currently, in an absolute sense. It's just not at its height relative to other cultures. But I don't think that could have been prevented in any way other than than by absolutely massive murder of non-Europeans. Colonialism was on the way out, it would have taken genocide on an enormous scale to stop that.

>like every culture thriving during the Renaissance wasnt glorifying Caesar and Rome
everyone was doing it, and we're STILL doing it.

In what way was rome progress? I admire some aspects of them but to me its clear that the mediterranean was developing just fine in the previous millennia without them. Jist because you cant imagine other alternative modes to Roman dominance doesnt mean it had to be the only way for history to take. Im not totally convinced about the whig view of history but i think there is a merit to free exchange of ideas, freedom from coercion of smaller powers, and utterly exploitative slave latifundia system and “development of underdevelopment” that Romans effected in the western mediterranean (although i may be exaggerating because im basing it off of the resilience of the greek east vs the oligarchic barbarian praetorian shithole that the WRE

Freedom of commerce as well.* but that said rome broufht that about with pax romana but it was under the aegis of a fucked economic system

Europe is dead, and they had to stich the pieces of their broken nations together with NATO and the EU to save face. It has cost them their empires, standard of living, status as superpowers, ability to create advances in tech like the industrial revolution and the creation of airplanes by Britain.
>on its way out
its still happening. its just that europeons are incapable of remaning pious, so their colonies revolted and they lost everything. Now, muslims rampage through the streets while they all survive of kraft mac and cheese. If the argentines don't invade.

advances in technology, piety, transportation, age of antiquity, advance of plumbing and metallurgy technology, use of computers, a more robust law, less human sacrifices, dead christian dogs, brining civilization to various nations whose descendants formed colonial empires and created the concept of white. Being force-theorsts and socratic kings.

it means that is stupid to blame the romans for it. They are not the ones who created, and you are applying an anachronism to the event because you are too short-sighted to understand that the gauls were nothing like the french and were more like murderers you'd find in tribal anarchies like the native american savages.