Hand on heart, I'm sorry about all that. I ended up making some poor judgements and observations when attempting to class the case of the Eburones as genocidal in intent or not when it genuinely was. 

My intention with this post was not to give the impression of a cringe LARPer who is dead set on defending every action made by Caesar but moreso, based on what I'd read from R/askhistorians, to challenge the specific charge of genocide that I've seen levelled now and again.  

I'm not interested in treating historical events and figures like some sports team, and vehemently try to avoid falling into the so-called narrative trap of history. I am genuinely interested in getting to the truth of the matter and being open to all perspectives when it comes to understanding the events of the past. 

But at the end of the day, regarding the Eburones, I did make some poor arguments that looking back on were absolutely incorrect and illogical when it comes to answering the question at hand. I was overconfident in the conclusion I'd seemingly come to. 

Sorry about all that again. 

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with the actual artistic depiction in and of itself (from a certain theological pov), just how the art itself is used.

And of course, there's the obvious thing where people should (generally) be allowed to practice whatever beliefs/traditions they follow regardless of how you yourself feel about them.

I'm absolutely, staunchly opposed to the concept of holy relics but I think it's awful to read about how the Crusaders looted, melted down, or sold so many of them during 1204 as those items meant something immensely deep to the Romans, even if they would have meant nothing to myself.

What forcing your stepson to marry his stepsister does to a mfer.

Pros:

• He saved Constantinople from the Arabs during the 717-718 siege

• He brought an end to the Twenty Years Anarchy and crushed a revolt in Sicily.

• He created a new law code (the Ecloga)

• He won a great victory over the Arabs at Akroinon, which partly served as a reason for the lack of Arab raids for several decades after.

• He made attempts to feed Constantinoples population using confiscated papal land 

• Although he doesn't seem to have like icons, he also doesn't seem to have enforced any iconoclast policies.

Cons:

• None lol

Oh, I didn't think I'd be walking down the streets of 12th century Constantinople lol. I knew and had heard much about the current state of the old sights and ruins there.

Even still, it was interesting to compare old and new Rome in terms of what remains and what the general 'feel' of the place was like.

I will admit it's not the first time I've done the foolish thing of 'speedread through a perfectly logical response/counter example and miss the bloody point'.

One of the links I've provided gives a response to Carlins arguments on the topic.

He was such an Alexander fangirl lol

Yeah, I've grown to have loads of problems with him, but he is without a doubt fascinating. I remember when I wrote my timelines for East Roman history, I was aghast at just how much happened during his reign and how much was documented.

I honestly wonder if he's the Roman emperor with the most detail written about him and his rule.

He actually used to be my favourite East Roman emperor to read about because of what a turning point his actions were. Leo III's reign kind of felt like the gateway between the classical and medieval Roman history.

Well, if by 'favourite' you mean most interesting...

In terms of just East Roman history, it's got to be Michael VIII Palaiologos for me. He was such a cold and calculating figure who took very unpopular (and cruel) measures to secure both himself and the empire. Alongside the fact that he took back Constantinople, I just think it's interesting how his cruel, Machiavellian streak paid off as opposed to someone like Andronikos.

Favourite Roman emperor period? DIOCLETIAN. He is just such a fascinating figure to me what with how he attempted to fix every problem the empire was suffering from after the 3rd century crisis. He refounded the Roman state in such a drastic way that would probably make Augustus blush, and had a grand vision for what he wanted to achieve.

The biggest thing for me is that, in order to secure his vision for imperial security, he VOLUNTARILY stepped down and retired to become a cabbage farmer. For all the Enlightenment rhetoric of how Diocletian introduced oriental despotism to Rome, I don't know how they still argue it in the context of his abdication. Cincinnatus may have been semi-historical, but Diocletian was solid, real person who chose to give up immense power.

No probs! As controversial a topic as it is , it's certainly sparked discussion.

1) Oh, I didn't know that. I thought they were classed as separate conflicts. 

2) So, that is very interesting as it does point to the death to being around/over 1 million (we'll probably never know how precise), which explains where that figure came from in relation to Plutarch's mention of 3 million men.

I'm... pretty sure enslaving and massacring people would be a war crime. He absolutely DID commit what we would class as war crimes.

That makes sense. But then surely that would include the military actions in Egypt and Pontus?

By the Lusitanian wars, are you referring to when Caesar was  governor of Hispania?

It was reading the remains of one r/ask historians response to Carlins claims of a 'Celtic Holocaust' that partly prompted me to make this post...

Podcast wise, the History of Rome is perfect to understand the narrative history from 753BC to 476AD and then the History of Byzantium is a worthy successor to it. If you want to simply learn the history from start to finish, those podcasts are pretty much the perfect thing.

Alternatively, you may wish to focus on specific, popular periods of Roman history and then build you knowledge forwards and backwards from there. I'd recommend the YT video 'Ranking periods of Roman history' by Romaboo Ramblings for this, which gives a good overview and breakdown of all the different eras, what they consist of, and thr best reading material to get into and understand them more.

Well I think that massacring dozens of men, women, and children would be pretty abhorrent by most standards...

1) Hmm that's interesting. So it would seem that the 3 million number came from a misconception regarding the wording of Plutarch's 'three million men'.   

2) The excerpt from Pliny (unless I'm mistaken) focuses on non-Romans killed during Caesars wars, so it may also account for casualties in Egypt, Pontus, or even perhaps non-Romans who allied with his enemies during the civil war. In other words, the number of 1,192,000 human might not JUST consist of Gauls.

Yeah, the Eburones (as I now realise) were actually a clear cut example of genocide in the Gallic Wars.

Yes, you are right 

 There's just no point in digging your heels in when you realise you are wrong about something.

Update and upvote: You are completely right and I am completely wrong.

Hmm... actually you have a point here.