Position:Home>History> Was ancient roman rule vicious? I want to know...?
Question: Was ancient roman rule vicious!? I want to know!.!.!.!?
In Catholic school as vicious as Roman rule
I got my knuckles brusied by a lady in black
And I held my toungue as she told me
"Son fear is the heart of love"
So I never went back
Taken from I'll Follow You Into The Dark - DCFC
Just wondering whether Roman rule was actually vicious!.!.!.i always thought Roman rule was fine!. Didn't they let people practice their religion and promoted freedom of religion!?
P!.s!. the Romans didn't WANT to crucify Jesus Christ, they did because his own people turned on him & said crucify him, if this is gonna turn into a religious argument!.!.!.
Matthew 27:23-25
23 "Why!? What crime has he committed!?" asked Pilate!.
But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!"
24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd!. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said!. "It is your responsibility!"
25 All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
First things first!. The "Blood libel" is an old argument, but one for which there is 0 support for historically!. The ROMANS ruled Judea, not the priesthood!. The Romans would not be likely to buckle under the threat of rioting, and execute a person!. They would not have heisitated to execute Jesus however, if they thought him some sort of a threat to their rule!. If Jesus was being hailed as "king of the jews" or a messiah who was leading them to freedom from Roman rule, they would have not heisitated to do what they did, with or without the support of the priesthood!. Besides, why would the Priesthood push for Jesus' death on or just before one of their most sacred Holidays!?
Onto your question!. Roman rule COULD be viscious!. When the Romans conquered a territory, they were interested in how much tax they could extract from it!. And while Roman citizens enjoyed certain rights and priviges, those rights did not extend to non Roman residents in Roman territory!. So people under roman rule could be legally robbed of most of their wealth, beaten, tortured, executed, or enslaved by a legal system that didn't guarantee them rights we consider basic today, and othewise be treated as less than livestock!.
BUT, the Romans weren't total idiots, and they understood the concept of the hen laying the golden egg!. So as long as a conquered people would not actively rebel, and would make their tax payments, the Romans generally would be content to leave them alone!. They did tend to tolerate religous differences, so long as people offered token sacrifices to the State Gods!. This was considered a civic responcibliity, not a religious one!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Compared to other empires of ancient times, the Romans were not cruel at all!. They allowed other cultures to flourish underneath their rule and generally brought prosperity and peace to areas they conquered!. Roman roads, aqueducts and empire-wide trade were available to all!. They tended to react harshly to rebellion, but that's even common today -- see Tibet in the 1950s!. They were slave holders and being a slave in Roman times, particularly in mines or other hazardous areas, was not particularly life lengthening, and their punishments tended to make public examples of criminals, but that was par for the course!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
It was not particularly vicious!. It had little tolerance however for anything resembling revolt or uprising!. So from the point of view of nationalists in conquered territory, yes they would say it was vicious!. Rome was a large Empire created through conquest, naturally the conquered didn't like them all that much!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
the romans werent vicious least not in my book they were just willing to do what they had to to maintain law and order!. if anything we can learn alot from them our judical system is way to laxed and far to many criminals get off way to easy!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
well if you classify bruised knuckles as vicious then!.!.!.!. sure!. let's say there was no worry about cruel and unusual punishment!. i mean - stoning someone!.!.!.!.!. compared to today's society - yes they were more macabre!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
the ancient roman rule was very visious in order to keep order in the many cities the conqueredWww@QuestionHome@Com
Roman rule by and large was benevolent!. They allowed great freedom in conquered lands, and many areas they controlled was actually acquired through diplomacy or some other means, not conquest (though most was conquered)!. There are few examples of really severe actions on behalf of the Roman state!. The Judaean revolts are one such example, and wanting to avoid such an episode could very well have provided incentive to acquiesce to the demands of the Jewish leaders to crucify Jesus!. Roman rule in Britain was also fairly violent early on, but Britain later became one of the most thoroughly Romanized provinces!. Overall, Rome preferred to let people rule themselves!. So long as they paid their taxes and lent military assistance when necessary, provincial people were almost completely free to govern themselves!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
The Roman penal code was extremely harsh!. Death was the punishment for a great many crimes, and crucifixion was a particularly gruesome Roman punishment!. Thieves were crucified, and rebellious slaves!. And of course criminals could be condemned to be killed by wild animals in the arena, or forced to fight as gladiators!. Criminals could also be condemned to the galleys, which was a very brutal life, or to work in mines, where they endured terrible conditions!.
Under roman law, the male head of the family had the power of life and death over all his children, and possibly over his own wife as well, if her father had allowed it!. Even adult male children remained under his authority until he died!. After his death, guardianship of any under-age male children, and all female children whatever their age, passed to the his heir!. And of course he also had power of life and death over his slaves!.
The romans were tolerant of other religions up to a point, but only if the followers of other religions acknowledged the Roman gods and did hommage to them!. They were not tolerant of those who denied the divinity of the Roman gods, i!.e!. the jews and the Christians!. jews and Christians were persecuted, and could end up in the arena as well!. The Emperor nero, for instance, blamed the Christians for the great fire of rome, and many were put to death with great cruelty as a public spectacle!. Some of them were set alight as human torches, others torn apart by wild animals!.
Life under Roman rule might be all right for some, but a very large section of the population were slaves, and many free people lived in extreme poverty!. And if you fell foul of the law, it was pitiless!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
I think it depends on what time period you're talking about, or even which emperor if you want to be specific!.
Augustus, for example, has been argued to be a very benevolent emperor who secured peace after a long period of bloody civil war, though he is criticized by many who look at his policy of propaganda and occasional force that he used to keep control!.
You won't find many fans of Nero or the Flavian emperors (during their dynasty the Colosseum was built, for example)
Then again, you may ask about the republic!. There were fans of that system since it was ruled by a senate among other elected officials, but there was still a sharp class divide between the patricians and plebians!.
Basically, it's not really black and white!. I think the best answer would be that, compared to modern society, the Romans were more vicious rulers at most points in their history, but considering the wealth and prosperity of their empire compared to the rest of the Mediterranean world, being a Roman under such rule may have been your best option in the first millenium!Www@QuestionHome@Com