"genocide" Topic

I think Im correct in thinking that wars of extermination were not common in early ancient warfare? Glorified raiding seems to define most early conflicts dignified by the title of war.
If so one of its first proponents seem to have been the Assyrians.
What is the thinking for the causes of their aggressive approach to warfare and their use of genocide as a method tp gain their political ends?

No different than many I would think, remove the risk, crush opposition, seize the land etc also perhaps put fear into other potential enemies

The theory is that Assyria had NO natural frontiers – no mountains, no major rivers no swamps or deserts.

Eary History was of Assyria, one of the Natural routes from the north into Meopotamia as a stamping ground for passing armies. The Hittites wasted the place big-time.

The Army was based on the Yeoman class – small farmers – serving campaigns away from their property – the same people that formed the backbone of the Roman Army, or earlier the Greek Hoplite Class. Like them, they needed to get the war done and get home. They couln't afford to mess about, and so developed a strategy of extreme brutality. The Greeks met the problem by fighting set-piece battles, no sieges – since BOTH sides wanted to get home, this was doable. The Romans were noted for their extreme Brutality in war.

The other theory is that they just liked it, the nasty Proto-Nazis!

I tend to favour BOTH theories.

Pat

Assyrians were into massed deportation rather than genocide – in fact IIRC this was a not unusual approach in the bronze-age middle east and the Persians continued it (e.g. the Jews in Babylonian exile).

Any particular area of land being able to sustain only a certain population using the technology of the time, elimination of competing populations could be motivated by simple economics. Slavery provides an alternative if the labor can be cost-effectively employed, which would be the case as settled communities and agriculture develop.

Establishing a terrifying reputation has also been a motivation for genocide. I think that fits the Assyrian case.

Punic Wars. Romans sacked Carthage by destroying the city, exterminating most of the population and sending the rest off to the various parts of the empire as slaves.

"were not common in early ancient warfare?"

Well, in one of Jared Diamond's books (I think Guns, Germs and Steel, but it might have been one of the others) he writes of one of his New Guinea friends participating in the extermination of a neighboring tribal group. Both groups were effectively stone-age.

I think it is the essence of very early warfare.

Because it is a lot of fun?

Well, in Rome's defense that only happened after the 3rd Punic War. Carthage was HUGE boogeyman to Rome. The continuation of the war after their defeat in the 2nd Punic War told the Roman's that Carthage would always be a problem. Hence the Roman solution. Typically, they preferred to absorb their opponents when possible.

Thanks,

John

"The continuation of the war after their defeat in the 2nd Punic War told the Roman's that Carthage would always be a problem. Hence the Roman solution."

IMHO the third Punic war was largely caused by Rome, who supported the Numidians who initiated the war, and imposed impossible conditions upon the Carthaginians. Rome continued this policy even after the Carthage had surrendered hostages and the majority of its weapons.

SImon

Corinth got the same treatment – 146BC was a bad year if your city name began with a "C" (OK, "K" would be more approriate for Korinth <g>). Sacked and population sold into slavery – the Romans were quite keen on this, made lots of dosh for the commander and his army.

Extermination almost never happened, since it was a waste of good slaves. Scattering the men along hostile frontiers and enslaving the women and children was the preferred option.

Agree with Mulopwepaul. Get rid of the male population one way or the other and keep the women and children. Stories from the OT deal with this subject several times relating to ancient period.

One exterminates a threat, or deports them, or scatters them. Doubt that many powers bothered with the trouble of doing so unless they felt threatened, or for some sort of weird religious beliefs. Note that even modern period colonialists would move native populations, not just kill them off.

Dan

The Romans would often kill every living thing in a city, down to the last dog, as an example to the next city.

Simon

"The Romans would often kill every living thing in a city, down to the last dog, as an example to the next city."

Documented examples, please?

Cheers,
Scott

…am struggling to remember specifcs; will come back on this one.

Simon

So, what is best in life?

"To crush the enemy, see him driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women".

- Conan (played by Arnold)

:-)

The Romans would often kill every living thing in a city, down to the last dog, as an example to the next city.

Sounds like the Mongols

Or Alexander as after the siege of Tyre.

Vlad the impaler would have been proud of the Assyrians.

picture

CC

In Thucydides there are a few cities that are 'exterminated'. One off the top of my head is Platea. The males are executed and the women sold into slavery. This is expressed in a 'matter of fact' style, so not considered unusual or a big deal.

The reference to Romans slaughtering everything that moved in a captured city (until permission to loot was given) is from Polybius on the fall of New Carthage (Bk 10 Ch 15.)
The only ancient people who seem to have conscientiously exterminated whole tribes, along with their cattle, sheep, goats and pet hamsters, as a matter of religious principle, were the Israelites, and any sparing of prisoners or livestock led to dire consequences from divine wrath.

Indeed bilsonius, beat me to it! My friend George found the reference for me p415 of my Penguin Polybius "Rise of the Roman Empire".

"When Scipio thought that a sufficient number of troops had entered he sent most of them, as is the Roman custom, against the inhabitants of the city with orders to kill all they encountered, sparing none, and not to start pillaging until the signal was given. 5 They do this, I think, to inspire terror, so that when towns are taken by the Romans one may often see not only the corpses of human beings, but dogs cut in half, and the dismembered limbs of other animals, 6 and on this occasion such scenes were very many owing to the numbers of those in the place."

On this occasion, Scipio ordered the slaughter stopped once he was certain the city was captured. This may have been the approach on other occasions; kill everything to break the enemy morale, then loot and take prisoners.

At Jotapa the Romans only took women and babes in arms prisoners, killing an estimated 40,000 and saving 1,200. Nice guys.

Simon

Weren't the Insubres & Teutones a bit kill-crazy?

I got the impression the Romans really went up to 4 on Corinth

Most extermination was not done as a form of genocide but rather terrorism. This is what happens to a city that doesn't surrender immediately. This is what happens to a city that defies us.