/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4453843]

What drives people for political independence?

Why is it such a harrowing thought to be part of something greater?

Let's take Rome for example, without it's expansionist foreign policy most of the world today would be hundreds of years behind in pretty much every social, economic and cultural aspect. Rome was an entity of wealth and power, honorable traditions and innovation. They annexed land in hopes of spreading their factually superior way of life so that the world may finally know basic utilities and orderly societies instead of lawless villages with a life expectancy of about 25.

Yet, there were many barbarians who refused to adopt the Roman way of life and offered virtually no reason as to why, other than "m-muh independence". Why is this? Would it not be best to be under the wing of a world-leading empire who seeks knowledge and progress above all else? Why cling so desperately unto your failing, barbaric lifestyle so much simply because it's -YOUR- failing barbaric lifestyle therefore it absolutely has to be preserved?

I really do not get it.

[Anonymous No.4453845]

>>4453843
not wanting to pay taxes to romans
not wanting to send men fight for romans

[Anonymous No.4453846]

>>4453845
>Not grasping the actual function of taxes.
>Not wanting to send men fight to claim other villages where a sewage system will finally be built.

From what I'm reading basically EVERYONE besides Rome, the Greeks and maybe Carthage were literally cavemen who didn't know left from right and were just rolling in their own illiterate shit while being content about their pigsty.

[Anonymous No.4453858]

>>4453846
>Not wanting to send men fight to claim other villages where a sewage system will finally be built.
more like fighting at the other side of the empire against a bunch of kebabs they don't know about

>From what I'm reading basically EVERYONE besides Rome, the Greeks and maybe Carthage were literally cavemen who didn't know left from right and were just rolling in their own illiterate shit while being content about their pigsty.
Nah, you're being influenced. Celts, Persians, Nubians, etc. There are many civs we don't know about because they didn't write much.

[Anonymous No.4453873]

>>4453843
Germans and Anglos did just fine without Rome's cock in their business. Also, Greece > Rome, you war mongering savage

[Anonymous No.4453910]

>>4453843
Your example confuses political independence with cultural and technological independence. Look at the Celtic lands today. They build sewers. They're totally on board with the whole sewers thing. Ditto the roads, the irrigation, the wine...

But political independence is another thing. Usually, losing independence means being conquered, and being conquered is no fun. And you have way too much love for Rome. Look at how they collected their taxes if you want to understand why that was not a great empire to join.

For an example of voluntarily giving up independence, look at today's EU.

[Anonymous No.4453939]

>>4453843

The Celts were fairly advanced themselves OP, true they didn't have a representational republic but the chieftain councils ensured stability in a way each clan and tribe was represented.
Also keep in mind that it was only a 50 years before the gallic invasions were the plebs had absolutly no repressentation in the decisions of the state or the ability to legislate.
Also Caesar didn't invade Gaul in order to spread the light of Rome , but for personal glory and out fear that Gaul could unite and attack Rome again.

[Anonymous No.4453955]

>>4453843
China persians niggas were higher tier.

[Anonymous No.4453967]

[Anonymous No.4453972]

>>4453843
Classic Eurocentristic history at work.

Hey idiot, pro tip. Words like 'barbarian' and 'civilised' are so fucking weighted no decent historian nowadays would use them. Just because a society or culture doesn't do stuff you do (ie write down stuff) doesn't mean they're inherently lesser than you.

[Anonymous No.4453975]

>>4453972
Barbarians do exist though. They exist in every country, so does civilized men.

[Anonymous No.4453990]

I don't know I'm tempted to agree with OP. Sure Rome collected shit taxes and all that, but if you can excuse that and some of the other bullshit they pulled then it would only be a good thing if we all were united under the Roman flag.

Unification is a good thing, world government, etc.

[Anonymous No.4454000]

>>4453843
>Yet, there were many barbarians who refused to adopt the Roman way of life and offered virtually no reason as to why, other than "m-muh independence".

Yeah, because having your land annexed, being enslaved, being forced to pay tribute, etc wouldn't make you angry.

>I really do not get it.

because you're a reactionary moron

[Anonymous No.4454003]

>>4453990

Reinhard, much like the Roman emperors, has been widely sanctified by historians who can appreciate the "long view" he took and the improvements he brought over the political orders that preceded him. But to the people who had to live on the receiving end of his wars of conquest - those who never got to see the supposed improvements that he brought - Reinhard, like the Roman emperors, was never going to be more than a murderous megalomaniacal despot.

[Anonymous No.4454006]

>>4453843

>factually superior way of life

I highly doubt the slaves would agree to this. The Roman Empire was a great deal for the Patricians, but for others not nearly as much.

>What are these chinese child labourers bitching about, our western culture is obviously way better than their shit poverty. Keep making Iphones!

[Anonymous No.4454007]

Imagine faggot aliens flying to Earth and telling us: You will build like us, dress like us, act like us and accept our values.

Independence and freedom are virtues that need no explanation.

[Anonymous No.4454014]

>>4454003

>historians

Actually, not even that. LEGEND of the Galactic Heroes is literally pro-Reinhard propaganda that attempts to mythicize the man while still being somewhat even-handed to his opponents. Only at the end do we hear "the legend is over, the history has begun". For people in the Empire, this is their new founding myth, basically. Reinhard is a totally romanticized character who conquers the entire universe because of his love first for his sister and then for his dead gay pal, he easily surpasses all competition because he is shown to be innately better than them. Clearly the cult of personality had not yet died by the time LoGH's frame story came around.

>tfw no A People's History of the Galactic Reich

[Anonymous No.4454017]

>>4453972
wow
so postmodernist
such cultural relativism
postcolonial wow
forced 2 take a class on an ethnocentric culture so that i am tolerant and learn that european universalism is inherently superior but we wont say it openly because is racys
im in ur base deconstructingur eurocentric phallologocentrism

[Anonymous No.4454023]

>>4453843
Bad example, Rome from the beginning was surrounded by civilised polities like Etruria, Carthage, the various Celtic kingdoms, the Diadochi or Parthia. The Celtic kingdoms in particular are generally viewed as inferior barbarians, which is patently incorrect, before Gaul was conquered by Caesar its constituent chiefdoms had for at least a couple of centuries been well on their way to becoming centralised and civilised states; indeed the Romans took from them a good deal of technology, particularly regarding metalwork and the like. The rise of Rome had much more to do with their political skill in exploiting crises or civil wars in neighbouring states than any inherent civilisational superiority.

[Anonymous No.4454197]

>>4454007
Can I have sex with them?

[Anonymous No.4454201]

>>4453843
freedom is so much more important than having sanitary living conditions it's not even funny

[Anonymous No.4454222]

How different were Romans from present day Italians? I can't for the life of me picture a bunch of bickering manlets with sunglasses in their hair on Vespas conquering Europe.

[Anonymous No.4454234]

>>4454222

>mfw Julius Caesar was exactly like Silvio Berlusconi

[Anonymous No.4454243]

>>4454234

>mfw Julius Caesar wasn't exactly like Silvio Berlusconi

>>4454014

Although it does seem like a romanticized account, they do mention him allowing a planet's surface to be nuked in order to gain political pull so it's not like he was set up as being perfect. LotGH is also one of the very few anime series that's actually interesting to discuss.

[Anonymous No.4454242]

>>4453846
>Not grasping the actual function of taxes.
Jesus christ, I'm sure the romans had a liberal and progressive tax system that went to public schools and hospitals.

And even at that point taxes can be argued against for interfering with the market.

[Anonymous No.4454248]

>>4453955
You're goddamn right they were.

[Anonymous No.4454255]

>>4453843
Your whole idea depends on a lacking, naive interpretation of those other cultures, OP.

>calling others barbarians
>not even having soap

retep kek, satrap step

[Anonymous No.4454259]

>>4453873
>germans and anglos
>not having roman cock in their business

What rock did you crawl out of?

[Anonymous No.4454263]

>>4453846
Yeah, because the fucking romans were the ones writing the books you're reading. Do you really think all written history is factual and unbiased?

It's like getting your world view from American politicians. Grow up.

[Anonymous No.4454266]

>>4454259
it seems me means they were doing fine before the swarthy phallus appeared

[Anonymous No.4454270]

>>4453843
Yes, I too wonder why people have fought for their freedom throughout history.

[Anonymous No.4454276]

>>4454197
You must.

[Anonymous No.4454282]

>>4454243

>Although it does seem like a romanticized account, they do mention him allowing a planet's surface to be nuked in order to gain political pull so it's not like he was set up as being perfect.

This is because the series is framed as the documentation of past events, remember? The nuking of Westerland "already happened", it's not as if the show can simply ignore the event, so it must instead use it to present Reinhard in a positive light and instead blame the nobility for carrying it out - he didn't WANT to let the attack be carried out, but Oberstein took the responsibility, and it couldn't have been stopped, and he was paralyzed by the want of Kircheis' advice...and so on, and so forth. The show is Lohengramm apologia, start to finish: it's not ONLY pro-Reinhard, but it goes out of its way to excuse him of culpability for pretty much anything bad. I agree it's interesting to discuss, and its approach to the material is what makes it so - on the face of it it is a p. bland space opera but in practice the view is much more nuanced - particularly when you look at the portraits of the characters who are Reinhard's antagonists.

[Anonymous No.4454327]

>>4454282

Well, if the historical documentary really is mostly pro-Lohengram then I guess we must assume that the galactic Autocracy never gets toppled. I can't imagine the democrats trying to empathetically discuss Reinhard's psychology when he agreed to use nukes for political advantage.

[Anonymous No.4454337]

>>4454327

Honestly, my guess would be that the future of the Gineiden universe is that Reuenthal Jr. winds up seizing the throne. In which case it would be useful to his purposes to produce a historical document which presents his predecessor, his biological father, and his adoptive father all as somewhat morally complex but fundamentally admirable men. It would also be advantageous to him to present the proponents of democracy as also admirable, but the fruits of democracy as disastrous.

[Anonymous No.4454365]

>>4454337

I like to compare Reinhard with Napoleon and Alexander the Great as their career trajectories are similar. Napoleon because he rises to power from being a poor noble to being emperor and introducing political reforms; Alexander because of his obsession with his rival (Cyrus the Great-stand-in, Yang Wen LI) and his early death due to illness. If you accept these comparisons then you also realise that even if their lives and exploits are romanticised, they're still highly impressive and exemplary. Reinhard seems to me, to be someone easily romanticised because you wouldn't get away with skewing an account of his life too much as he was emperor of the fucking Galaxy. Too many people to decieve.

But one thing that I think might've been faked is his death. Unlike with Alexander, Reinhard lives in a time of great technological achievement. There's no fucking way that he could've died that young from an illness. Seems more plausible that he was assassinated by high-ranking dissenters. So maybe the real romanticising is of his immediate inferiors and their loyalty.

[Anonymous No.4454367]

>>4453939
>representational republic
Basically no one had that until more or less modern times.

If you think the Roman Senate was in any way representative, you could call Germanic Things representative as well.

>>4453846
>From what I'm reading basically EVERYONE besides Rome, the Greeks and maybe Carthage were literally cavemen

Then your knowledge on history is rather limited. Also
>a world-leading empire who seeks knowledge and progress above all else
wouldn't be the exact adjectives I would describe the Roman Empire with. They were good builders and war makers, especially after adopting Hellenic knowledge and culture.

[Anonymous No.4454372]

>>4454337

And I like that Reuenthal Jr. scenario but it would also mean that he would have to face the gauntlet of the various factions within the Empire pulling for the installation of an heir of their choice. This would fracture the Empire greatly and if successful, Reuenthal Jr.'s achievement would be comparable to that of his father and Reinhard.

[Anonymous No.4454447]

>>4454017
Thank you for voicing your amazing criticism through the medium of le funny doge meme.

[Anonymous No.4454462]

>>4453843

Because that's not really the reality of "conquered people". The reality is murder, rape, and the violation of all your culture as you're forced to worship Gods and stories which have nothing to do with your existence.

I really do not get how people can't see through the transparency of the propoganda empires create for themselves.

[Anonymous No.4454464]

>>4453843
>so that the world may finally know basic utilities and orderly societies instead of lawless villages with a life expectancy of about 25.

But that's wrong you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.4454484]

>>4453843
If were talking about Rome, it was pretty corrupt and brutal for the early republic and much of the empire. But later on it had a great deal of preserving the peace,trade, culture and literature. It has extremely warlike in its early days but so was almost a hell of a lot of others, Rome was just a lot better at it.

[Anonymous No.4454523]

>lawless villages with a life expectancy of about 25.

Most un-fucked tribes of hunter-gatherers live very leisurely lives well into their 80's or 90's, and are far healthier than those in industrialized societies. That whole "...solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." thing was wrong.

[Anonymous No.4454538]

>>4454523

> hunter-gatherers live very leisurely lives well into their 80's or 90's,

hahaha

no.

[Anonymous No.4454581]

>>4454538

He's exaggerating but it's widely accepted that once they made it past the critical years of childhood (and like half of kids died before they were 15) a hunter-gatherer could expect to live to be 65 or more

no cancer, no diabetes, exercising all day erry day, eating a lot of roots and vegetables. They were /fit/ as fuck, anon.

[Anonymous No.4454585]

>>4454523
>Most un-fucked tribes of hunter-gatherers live very leisurely lives well into their 80's or 90's

let me guess, you're some sort of far-left twat

[Anonymous No.4454602]

>>4453843
>Let's take Rome for example, without it's expansionist foreign policy most of the world today would be hundreds of years behind in pretty much every social, economic and cultural aspect. Rome was an entity of wealth and power, honorable traditions and innovation. They annexed land in hopes of spreading their factually superior way of life so that the world may finally know basic utilities and orderly societies instead of lawless villages with a life expectancy of about 25.
keep telling that to yourself, OP

[Anonymous No.4454620]

Thinking that the expansion of Rome was some benevolent gesture to the uncivilized world is incredibly naive and uneducated.

[Anonymous No.4454645]

>>4454585
>>4454538
No, I just actually research things.

[Anonymous No.4454650]

>>4454645
>>4454581
also it's around 38% mortality rate before age 15, not half.

[Anonymous No.4454653]

>>4454645

Well then you'd know infant and disease mortality as well as death from injury on hunts lowers the life expectancy significantly.

[Anonymous No.4454657]

>>4454650
>.38*15+.62*100= 67.7

Your numbers don't check out, kid

[Anonymous No.4454691]

>>4454653
>>4454657
quick quick gotta nitpick everything to save face.

He just said that they could live very long, not that it was the average.

[Anonymous No.4454700]

>>4454691

It's not nit picking. He is fundamentally and blatantly wrong. People could live to old age, but this wasn't the rule.

[Anonymous No.4454711]

>>4453846
>>Not grasping the actual function of taxes.
>>Not wanting to send men fight to claim other villages where a sewage system will finally be built.

The Roman sewage system was actually built by the Etruscans funnily enough.

[Anonymous No.4454726]

>>4454657
>>4454653
67.7 vs US life expectancy of 80.1
With the former you have no poverty, no pollution, incidence of chronic illness is VERY low, a person directly provides for themselves and their group daily, with no middleman. With the latter you have grandma sitting in a care facility getting stolen from and taking 5 pills a day for her different ailments, depression, stress, cancer, processed sugar rotting your teeth, etc.

Those 13 years modern medicine blesses you with will be pure suffering. Luckily you'll probably be pretty unaware of what's going on.

jesus christ I'm on my 10th captcha attempt what the fuck

[Anonymous No.4454730]

>>4454691

Nowadays most people live very leisurely well into their 120's and 130's. This is factually true.


Now don't go nitpick this statement, that wouldn't be fair!

[Anonymous No.4454752]

>>4454730
That's actually a possibility with this current generation.

[Anonymous No.4454755]

>>4454752

current generation isnt 130. They might be 100 years from now but I said 'nowadays' didnt I?

[Anonymous No.4454763]

>>4454700
https://condensedscience.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/life-expectancy-in-hunter-gatherers-and-other-groups/

" The modal age of mortality in hunter-gatherers can range from 68 in the Hiwi to 78 in the Tsimane."

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/life-expectancy-hunter-gatherer/#axzz2pvnf0LZx

"The authors have no allegiance to or interest in the Primal Blueprint diet, but we can glean a few things that relate directly to our interests. First, it demolishes the common refrain that hunter-gatherers all die young. Average life expectancy is marred by infant mortality rates, and it’s clear that hunter-gatherers – the closest analogues to our Paleolithic ancestors – can and do enjoy “modern” lifespans with an average modal age of 72 years.

[Anonymous No.4454765]

>>4454755
I meant Gen Y/Millennials, not the Baby Boomers. Which, by the way, is part of "nowadays".

[Anonymous No.4454767]

>>4454726

It's 67 assuming everyone who doesn't die precisely at age 15 dies at 100. It's a very charitable estimate and yet it still doesn't support your claim. Disease spread by animal vectors must have also been common. Bacterial and parasitic infection from improperly treated food sources must have also been common causes of death. Major injury could result in infection and death.

It is not a fine to assume that the average age of death for those who lived past 15 was 100 or even 80.

[Anonymous No.4454768]

>>4454765

THEY WONT BE 130 TILL 100 YEARS FROM NOW WILL THEY?
Your stupidity hurts me and made me use caps ffs.

[Anonymous No.4454775]

>>4454763

"
life expectancy at age 15 is 48 years for Aborigines, 52 and 51 for settled Ache and !Kung, yet 31 and 36 for peas-
ant and transitional Agta.
Survival to age 45 varies between 19 and 54 percent, and those aged 45 live an average of 12–24 additional years
"

I too can selectively quote from that article.

[Anonymous No.4454782]

>>4454775

"There was variability among different populations within each category, of course, and at a later date it might be worth it to examine the differences in lifespan and lifestyle (diet, illness, etc.) among, say, the Ache and the !Kung to see if they align with our Primal perspective. The Ache, for example, rely heavily on hunting, traditionally obtain upwards of 80% of their calories from animals, and have high levels of homicide (including infanticide and warfare with rural Paraguayans), and they tended toward greater adult mortality."

yep you sure can....

[Anonymous No.4454796]

Funny, you all are quick to correct OP on his Eurocentric and distorted view of Empire when it comes to Rome, but I bet at least 8/10 of you believe the United States is a more or less benevolent hegemonic leader that represents progress and development.

captcha: progress omfoher

[Anonymous No.4454825]

>>4453843
>Let's take Rome for example, without it's expansionist foreign policy most of the world today would be hundreds of years behind in pretty much every social, economic and cultural aspect.

nah

[Anonymous No.4454830]

>>4454197
They can have sex with you.

[Anonymous No.4454844]

>>4454763
>an average modal age of 72 years

That places the average around 50.
>45*.2*.67+72*(1-.2*.67-.33)+15*.33=49.5

[Anonymous No.4455014]

>>4454796
>but I bet at least 8/10 of you believe the United States is a more or less benevolent hegemonic leader that represents progress and development.
You have no reason to assume that at all, except maybe to create something to feel superior to.

Everyone knows that Europe represents progress and development. America is it's guard dog.

[Anonymous No.4455034]

>>4455014
>"You have no reason to assume that at all, except"
>Goes on to praise the benevolent Western hegemony

America is dominant over Europe in that relationship bucko. Europe is the US's mafia wife.

[Anonymous No.4455038]

What drives people for freedom?

Why is it such a harrowing thought to be part of something greater?

Let's take Rome, for example: without slavery most of the world today would be hundreds of years behind in pretty much every social, economic and cultural aspect. Rome was an entity of wealth and power, honorable traditions and innovation. They captured slaves in hopes of maintaining their factually superior way of life so that the world may finally know basic utilities and orderly societies instead of lawless villages with a life expectancy of about 25.

[Anonymous No.4455049]

>>4454711
>The Roman sewage system was actually built by the Etruscans funnily enough.
Roman civilisation was arguably mostly Etruscan.

[Anonymous No.4455059]

>>4453843
One word really

Freedom

http://youtu.be/UwLtyvGdNbc

tfw the same old ugly face just takes on another mask anyways.

[Anonymous No.4455335]

Turns out /lit/ is butt fucking clueless regarding Roman history. This entire thread is a perfect example of the trend of schoolboy history + transplanting modern views on empire and conquest onto past eras = Rome bad, Rome rape

Even for a mere history undergrad, this sort of thing, which I encounter all the time, is a real kick in the nuts.

[Anonymous No.4455353]

>>4455335
Just because it happened in the distant past doesn't mean it's somehow exempt from judgment. While it's true there's no place for value judgments in scholarly historical analysis, we as individuals can certainly look at the past and say "yeah, that was pretty fucked up."

This is the sort of nuance an undergrad can't grasp, I guess.

There's no point in having cultural values if we can't apply them.

[Anonymous No.4455349]

>>4455335
iktf bro

[Anonymous No.4455348]

>>4455335
enlighten us based historian

[Anonymous No.4455388]

>>4455353
That would depend on how you apply judgement. Failing to attempt to understand and appreciate the cultural values of those contemporary cultures and instead simply applying our own is anathema to history. There is nothing nuanced about that. Simplified statements like you can find itt are meaningless. I'm not even agreeing with OP's position, I'm just astounded at some of the responses.

[Anonymous No.4455401]

Your talking about a time where death and disease where commonplace. Arguments where settled by swords and education was location based.

All pro Celtic and pro Roman points are being read as though if these arguments came up in a pub you would just stab the man next to you making those points. That's the civilizations we're talking about. Putting them in a 2014 context should be considered. The biggest question should be "which group has updated and has the most relevance in 2014" a place very different from Rome's expansion (that wasn't always done through direct conflict ) days vs. Celtic's resistance (that has resulted in areas of the earth still able to express Celtic pride) days.

Viewing those two groups as foes is a very naive point of view and I'd suggest anyone interested in the topic go and do more research.

[Anonymous No.4455411]

>>4453846
>I am stupid, I am misinformed, I am from the 19th century
>Civil engineering is all that matters to me

[Anonymous No.4455444]

>>4454222
>>4454234
Holy shit are you fucking serious?

[Anonymous No.4455461]

>>4455444
My question was. It's a valid one given all the migration I guess.

[Anonymous No.4455485]

>>4455461
>given all the migration
They aren't a different people, if that's what you're asking. Migrations and influxes of people occurred all over europe, which generally had hardly any effect on 'changing' an indigenous population. I don't know how being a bunch of Vesta riding, bickering 'manlets' would mean their ancestors didn't conqueror Europe.

[Anonymous No.4455523]

>>4454222
the vespa didn't exist yet

[Anonymous No.4456291]

>>4453843

>Why is this? Would it not be best to be under the wing of a world-leading empire who seeks knowledge and progress above all else? Why cling so desperately unto your failing, barbaric lifestyle so much simply because it's -YOUR- failing barbaric lifestyle therefore it absolutely has to be preserved?

Actually, Barbarians really liked Roman stuff. They admired their empire, but that didn't mean they wanted to stop ruling themselves. Still, the tribes did in fact join the Roman world without being conquered, particularly later on in the empire. They would fight for the Romans, and get land within the empire that they would then settle and rule on behalf of Rome. This actually contributed to the formation of states after the fall of the empire, all of which would still admire Rome. Even by Charlemagnes time, the "barbarians," who were now christainized, could remember the glory of the Roman empire even though no one could remember the early life of the current Frankish King. Barbarians outside the empire were even being made "roman" in a roundabout way. Germanic tribes were almost entirely Ariann christians, if they were Christian at all.

Barbarians loved Rome, but no one ever asked to be ruled by Rome

[Anonymous No.4456781]

>This entire thread.