As Tom Holland pointed out any military campaign now the military make a point of saying how few civilian casualties there were and we have rules around protecting civilians that we think are self evident but you go back and read Caesar or other Roman war memoirs and they glory in how many people they killed, Caesar in his Gallic War wri…
As Tom Holland pointed out any military campaign now the military make a point of saying how few civilian casualties there were and we have rules around protecting civilians that we think are self evident but you go back and read Caesar or other Roman war memoirs and they glory in how many people they killed, Caesar in his Gallic War writings brags about killing 2 million people, so this stuff isn’t self-evident at all but a way of seeing things that you can argue are based in the enlightenment/Christianity fusion
Fair enough, good points. But Caesar's conquests were controversial even at the time; he was condemned as a war criminal by other Romans. Also, the kill numbers can always be inflated, so don't take those at face value.
True, though he was condemned for cynical political reasons, but even that doesn’t detract from your point because the simple fact they had the language of war criminal to use, suggests the difference might not be as clear cut as Holland suggests
I really enjoyed Dominion and thought it raised some really interesting points and is one of those rare books that really does make you look at things in a fresh light but I did think at times it was too definitive in its conclusions, saying something was ‘shown’ when it really it was just ‘suggested’, too often treating conclusions that were persuasive as being proven
As Tom Holland pointed out any military campaign now the military make a point of saying how few civilian casualties there were and we have rules around protecting civilians that we think are self evident but you go back and read Caesar or other Roman war memoirs and they glory in how many people they killed, Caesar in his Gallic War writings brags about killing 2 million people, so this stuff isn’t self-evident at all but a way of seeing things that you can argue are based in the enlightenment/Christianity fusion
Fair enough, good points. But Caesar's conquests were controversial even at the time; he was condemned as a war criminal by other Romans. Also, the kill numbers can always be inflated, so don't take those at face value.
True, though he was condemned for cynical political reasons, but even that doesn’t detract from your point because the simple fact they had the language of war criminal to use, suggests the difference might not be as clear cut as Holland suggests
I really enjoyed Dominion and thought it raised some really interesting points and is one of those rare books that really does make you look at things in a fresh light but I did think at times it was too definitive in its conclusions, saying something was ‘shown’ when it really it was just ‘suggested’, too often treating conclusions that were persuasive as being proven