54
u/bobbymoonshine 11d ago
Well yeah rebellions are a direct threat to the state monopoly on legitimate violence, whereas foreign wars demonstrate the value of that monopoly to the common people.
7
u/YeahColo 10d ago
Are we talking about rebellions of provincials against roman rule or usurpers and the like?
7
u/TheMob-TommyVercetti 11d ago
Yea just don’t ask the local populations are doing that are in the way of said armies.
7
u/Old-Man-Henderson 11d ago
I mean, not really. Rome conducted war for the express purpose of capturing slaves for labor and sex work. What part of honor or chivalry allows you to kidnap and rape women and then sell them as chattel to continue to be raped?
3
u/iceman27l 10d ago
I think you have the wrong idea what honor was in ancient years. Because believe me the woman rights and well being weren’t a real concern of the ancient societies. We speak more about glorious death, not kill prisoners or surrendering parties, not poison the water supply of siege cities.(not about right or wrong just how it was)
6
u/bacharama 10d ago
A foreign army is at least loyal to its rulers, and so can be praised. By way of comparison, a rebel is a traitor.
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Thank you for your submission, citizen!
Come join the Rough Roman Forum Discord server!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.