Yes, except... There's a dark side to the Roman legal system, civilization, and everything that came with it. Justice on Earth shouldn't require legions to conquer hearts and minds...
It was good for the vicious savages worshipping demons to be civilised, and the Romans did so more charitably, mercifully and kindly than any other people of the time. While the Gauls may have not been as bad as the Aztecs, they were still bestial savages. The best thing that ever happened to them is to be conquered by Rome and eventually made into Catholics. Be grateful.
That is NOT what even Roman historians say about Rome's conquests. No; they talked about the savage brutality of their own legions in the 'civilizing' process.
And I can't seem to recall the "Thou shall conquer thy neighbour by force" or "Burn the heretics and their books" commandments...
Or were all these bestial savages rightful sacrifices in the name of God?
Again, you lie and talk absolute nonsense. Comparatively speaking, the Romans treated their conquered enemies rather well, allowing them to retain their laws and their gods as long as they paid taxes and realised any interaction with Roman citizens would be under Roman law.
That's historical fact that is not in dispute by anyone honest.
secondly, your conflation of the initial conquering act with the first point of how a people was treated AFTER conquest, is typical of the deceiver. It is a separate point and goes to God's grace that even through evil or wrong acts, a greater Good can result. In this case:
A lesser evil is still evil. What's in dispute is the need to conquer and enslave entire populations, not the tact of the invaders or lack thereof when they did.
But since you're bringing it up, check Sallust, Cicero, Livy, among others. They're Romans, and historians. Are they honest enough for you to consider Roman kindness and warmth with the conquered disputed?
again, you are acting deceitfully Gamma-boy. Don't try to pretend I said things other than what I said. Last warning. The next gamma comment will see you perma-banned. This is not a gamma friendly zone.
This is interesting. So could you say Roman law is human-centric (concerned primarily with actual justice in each individual case) and Anglo law is system-centric (concerned primarily with preserving a smoothly-running system)?
This would explain why people bring up “but is it legal” as though that had any real bearing on whether something is intrinsically right or wrong. If “right” is defined as “what keeps the system running” then that question makes sense.
Yes, I would say that is a very good and concise way of explaining the main difference between the systems of law.
And yes, the "is it legal" means very little to any Catholic, whose first thought instead is "Is it just? (fair, honourable, good for human beings to have as a rule)"
Principle vs precedent is basic justice and should not surprise anyone that principle should come first in any just society.
Similarly, I would rather have Justice than efficiency, but I would also put it to you that if you DID have Justice, efficiency would absolutely skyrocket past anything ever imagined by the Protestants or Anglos etc. Don't forget that pretty much ALL major inventions of the modern world were done by people who were not actually anglo-pretties. Tesla was nominally orthodox, Da vinci was nominally Catholic, the Nazis who built rockets were certainly not Anglos in their thinking regardless of whether you assume them to have been occult-driven blends of various "christian" sects or not. The "progress" made by the English and the yanks tends to always be systemic, mechanising and reductive of human dignity and nature.
According to Roman law, pretty much the entire Latin west is a mass of treasonous, rebellious heretics. The actual, real Christian Roman Empire, which was what preserved,. Christianized, protected, and enforced that Roman law which you love, had its capital in Constantinople, the true bastion of Christendom, shielding the ungrateful west from screaming persian and mohametan hordes for centuries.
*According to Roman law, pretty much the entire Latin west is a mass of treasonous, rebellious heretics.* Yes. And your point is?
And no. The Roman Empire lasted about 800 years and the Easterners bent over and took the Muslims all the way in. AFTER splitting from the West.
Then they squealed like piggies for help and despite their typical treachery and schism, good Catholic went over and fought off their muslim invaders for 200 YEARS!
during which time, the treasonous, treacherous and heretic schismatics, IMMEDIATELY began to backstab, and even join forces with the Muslims to attack, the very Catholics that had come to save them and who then guarded and protected the entire Middle East for 2 centuries. After three times of this backstabbing the fourth crusade gave Constantinople a mild spanking, which you still whine about almost a thousand years later.
And when after 200 years of subsidising the protection of your lands from Catholic Europe we said, "look, we have done enough. At least take all the fortifications we built for you and keep protecting your own lands." you refused and handed it to the Muslims.
Now sit down and shut up and go read an actual historical account of events as they happened, not as some fake "priest" put in place for politics has taught you to blurt out.
I finally had the chance to look around a little bit, and I've found a few examples of books that delve into Roman Law:
* "Textbook on Roman Law (3rd Edition, 2005)" by Borkowski, A. & du Plessis, P.
* "An Introduction to Roman Law (1975)" by Nicholas, B.
* "Roman Law and the Legal World of the Romans (1st Edition, 2010)" by Andrew M. Riggsby
I've also found a couple sites on Roman Law, but I guess there's much more out there.
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/contract-in-roman-law.php
https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/article/literal-contracts-in-the-roman-law/
Oh, and when I used Bing as a search engine, and typed "basic principles of logic", It gave me this:
The basic principles of logic are:
* The law of contradiction: a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time.
* The law of excluded middle: a statement is either true or false, there is no third option.
* The principle of identity: a statement is identical to itself, and different from any other statement.
* The principle of sufficient reason: every statement must have a reason or evidence to support it.
* The structure of a logical argument: an argument consists of propositions, premises, inference, and conclusion.
indeed. Well done.
Yes, except... There's a dark side to the Roman legal system, civilization, and everything that came with it. Justice on Earth shouldn't require legions to conquer hearts and minds...
https://open.substack.com/pub/heyslick/p/the-romans-ruined-everything
As the South African say: KAK!
It was good for the vicious savages worshipping demons to be civilised, and the Romans did so more charitably, mercifully and kindly than any other people of the time. While the Gauls may have not been as bad as the Aztecs, they were still bestial savages. The best thing that ever happened to them is to be conquered by Rome and eventually made into Catholics. Be grateful.
That is NOT what even Roman historians say about Rome's conquests. No; they talked about the savage brutality of their own legions in the 'civilizing' process.
And I can't seem to recall the "Thou shall conquer thy neighbour by force" or "Burn the heretics and their books" commandments...
Or were all these bestial savages rightful sacrifices in the name of God?
Again, you lie and talk absolute nonsense. Comparatively speaking, the Romans treated their conquered enemies rather well, allowing them to retain their laws and their gods as long as they paid taxes and realised any interaction with Roman citizens would be under Roman law.
That's historical fact that is not in dispute by anyone honest.
secondly, your conflation of the initial conquering act with the first point of how a people was treated AFTER conquest, is typical of the deceiver. It is a separate point and goes to God's grace that even through evil or wrong acts, a greater Good can result. In this case:
1. Conquering by Romans was "the best" kind of conquering you could get at the time
2. Rome became Catholic which meant the entire Roman Empire did, which was the best thing for humanity at large compared to what existed before.
If you can use God's grace to justify murder and slavery, I wonder who's shilling for murderous savages. I feel like I am denouncing them.
The conquest was bloody, the aftermath was slavery. They're very different indeed.
"Comparatively speaking", "rather well"...
A lesser evil is still evil. What's in dispute is the need to conquer and enslave entire populations, not the tact of the invaders or lack thereof when they did.
But since you're bringing it up, check Sallust, Cicero, Livy, among others. They're Romans, and historians. Are they honest enough for you to consider Roman kindness and warmth with the conquered disputed?
again, you are acting deceitfully Gamma-boy. Don't try to pretend I said things other than what I said. Last warning. The next gamma comment will see you perma-banned. This is not a gamma friendly zone.
This is interesting. So could you say Roman law is human-centric (concerned primarily with actual justice in each individual case) and Anglo law is system-centric (concerned primarily with preserving a smoothly-running system)?
This would explain why people bring up “but is it legal” as though that had any real bearing on whether something is intrinsically right or wrong. If “right” is defined as “what keeps the system running” then that question makes sense.
Yes, I would say that is a very good and concise way of explaining the main difference between the systems of law.
And yes, the "is it legal" means very little to any Catholic, whose first thought instead is "Is it just? (fair, honourable, good for human beings to have as a rule)"
Principle vs Precedent. Justice vs Efficiency. Reason vs Research.
Principle vs precedent is basic justice and should not surprise anyone that principle should come first in any just society.
Similarly, I would rather have Justice than efficiency, but I would also put it to you that if you DID have Justice, efficiency would absolutely skyrocket past anything ever imagined by the Protestants or Anglos etc. Don't forget that pretty much ALL major inventions of the modern world were done by people who were not actually anglo-pretties. Tesla was nominally orthodox, Da vinci was nominally Catholic, the Nazis who built rockets were certainly not Anglos in their thinking regardless of whether you assume them to have been occult-driven blends of various "christian" sects or not. The "progress" made by the English and the yanks tends to always be systemic, mechanising and reductive of human dignity and nature.
According to Roman law, pretty much the entire Latin west is a mass of treasonous, rebellious heretics. The actual, real Christian Roman Empire, which was what preserved,. Christianized, protected, and enforced that Roman law which you love, had its capital in Constantinople, the true bastion of Christendom, shielding the ungrateful west from screaming persian and mohametan hordes for centuries.
*According to Roman law, pretty much the entire Latin west is a mass of treasonous, rebellious heretics.* Yes. And your point is?
And no. The Roman Empire lasted about 800 years and the Easterners bent over and took the Muslims all the way in. AFTER splitting from the West.
Then they squealed like piggies for help and despite their typical treachery and schism, good Catholic went over and fought off their muslim invaders for 200 YEARS!
during which time, the treasonous, treacherous and heretic schismatics, IMMEDIATELY began to backstab, and even join forces with the Muslims to attack, the very Catholics that had come to save them and who then guarded and protected the entire Middle East for 2 centuries. After three times of this backstabbing the fourth crusade gave Constantinople a mild spanking, which you still whine about almost a thousand years later.
And when after 200 years of subsidising the protection of your lands from Catholic Europe we said, "look, we have done enough. At least take all the fortifications we built for you and keep protecting your own lands." you refused and handed it to the Muslims.
Now sit down and shut up and go read an actual historical account of events as they happened, not as some fake "priest" put in place for politics has taught you to blurt out.