this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2025
131 points (100.0% liked)
RoughRomanMemes
674 readers
51 users here now
A place to meme about the glorious ROMAN EMPIRE (and Roman Republic, and Roman Kingdom)! Byzantines tolerated! The HRE is not.
RULES:
-
No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, bigotry, etc. The past may be bigoted, but we are not.
-
Memes must be Rome-related, not just the title. It can be about Rome, or using Roman aesthetics, or both, but the meme itself needs to have Roman themes.
-
Follow Piefed.social rules.
MORE COMMS ON THE HISTORYVERSE:
- !historymusic@quokk.au
- !historygallery@quokk.au
- !historymemes@piefed.social
- !historyruins@piefed.social
- !historyart@piefed.social
- !historyartifacts@piefed.social
- !historyphotos@piefed.social
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Egypt wasn't an expansionist empire!"
"Yes, it very much was."
"That's a schizo rant, I refuse to read it"
π
And I guess historical fact is a lizardman conspiracy to you, huh?
tbf, Egypt has an insanely long history. but they were never as expansionist as Rome. During the bronze age and beyond they traded with their neighbours rather than always trying to conquer them (to some degree). while rome was mostly trying to conquer everything it reached. that's the differences. same when most kingdoms. that's the difference between a kingdom and an empire.
you just seem to assume that all states in the past were empires, just some more successful than others. which is false.
BTW, would you mind telling me if you're an historian affictionado or one of those fash who fetishise the Roman empire?
Oh, they only extended into Nubia, Libya, and Anatolia by 'peaceful penetration', huh?
... you... you are aware that one of the core legitimizing actions of a Pharaoh was conquest, right?
Oh yes, quite unlike Egypt, which merely conquered all of its neighbors and was only stopped by the presence of other, larger empires.
Quite unlike every other ancient polity.
The differences would seem to be that you don't understand Ancient Egypt about as much as you don't under Ancient Rome.
... fucking what.
All major polities in the antiquity were expansionist, which is why they survived and why we know about them. Even the smallest city-states on record extended their control by coercion over a wide swathe of the surrounding countryside. Hence the old joke about Sumerian god-kings ruling over two villages and a cow; the difference between vast polities and small ones is only scale.
A basic grounding in IR might help here - in a state of international anarchy (not in the philosophical sense; in the 'no enforcement mechanism' sense), polities are unable to trust one another, and for that reason, seek to advantage themselves and disadvantage others. Polities may conquer, they may vassalize, they may colonize, they may establish hegemonies, but those that do not are inevitably out-positioned and then subjugated by those that do. And military force is always a factor in this pre-modern state of international anarchy.
One of the key fucking problems here is that you keep going back to the word of 'empire' as though it has an important and definable meaning, when in reality it's just being used as a snarl word that triggers a certain set of assumptions from you, as seen with your assertion that the Roman Empire 'destroyed cultures'.
I was an undergrad who majored in History. Fascists are scum of the earth.
glad you're not a fash.
from lived experience, most people who defend the Roman empire end up being fash themselves. which sucks, because having an interest in history should have nothing to do with politics.
see what I mean but schitzo rants???? get help
"Schizo rants is when someone disproves what I say by bringing up basic facts that anyone who passed middle school social studies should have retained"
Okay.
I'm sorry about your illiteracy. I hope you get better - but I know you probably won't. Idiots tend to be proud of their stupidity, after all.
i mean. I write a couple sentences and you reply with a wall of text. that's not an appropriate response.
You're right, from now on, I'll only respond with soundbites free of any actual facts.
Fuck, you make an idiotic assertion about a broad swathe of history, and you complain that the refutation is too wordy because it's a few paragraphs long? What do you expect in response, a 'nuh-uh'?
Is this comment too long for your tastes as well?
dude chill. go drink some water. the conversation died a long time ago. you got way too offended about the whole empire falling and me not being sad about it. but yes. that length is more appropriate size. imagine if you asked someone what time it was and they gave you a 15 minute monologue? you were just wasting your energy
Again, proving your illiteracy.
I don't give a fuck whether you're sad about the Roman Empire falling. I give a fuck about the pop history myths you're uncritically repeating, and then doubling down on when confronted with any sort of historical fact.
Oh, is that what you did? Asked what time it was? Not made an immensely stupid assertion about multiple ancient polities and then whinged when it was it was disproven because too many words made your head hurt?
"I was just asking what time it was π"
It would seem I was writing to someone incapable of reading, yes.
again with the wall of text.
maybe you're just an LLM and don't know better