Genocide/Expulsion

Will we be allowed to remove native peoples?

It wouldn't be too bad:
-You build the 'Genocide/Expel' which replacings a particular 'People' building which gives you MASSIVE penalties to growth, health, public order, trade, economics and takes a few turns to build(maybe 1 to 2 ingame years). That way you need to pile a ton of soldiers in there.

-When it completes, you get the option to bring in your people by building a settlers thing. Perhaps also spawn a large army as well when it completes to represent an organized resistence of survivors.

-Then you can finally build your people marker.:smash:

Is that accurate though? I didn't think there were that many genocides back in Antiquity. Genocide feels like a much more recent concept.

Genocide as in killing the population of an area.

The enslavery option seems to fit the bill quite nicely.

Genocide as a concept, i.e. attempting to exterminate people of a certain race didn't really appear until the 20th Century.

Besides, I'm not sure why this is needed.

Would Spartans culling Helots, Romaioi culling Everyone and Romaioktonoi pruning Barbaropolis count then?

Spartans never attempted to exterminate the helots: that would have undermined their economical and social arrangements. They just terrorized them. Romans didn't exactly cull everyone either. They were notably brutal when cities refused to surrender, but otherwise had no problem leaving the conquered in place. Terry Jones and Alan Eneira make a case that the Romans exterminated the Dacians, but that is debatable and outside of time-frame anyway.

Personally, I would avoid the word genocide. Outright extermination attempts are indeed something new, but marginalizing ethnicities into unsustainable positions is very old.

i do recall the athenians doing this to the people located on the island of melos/milos

I think he just meant killing the population when you conquer a town / city. Nothing else.

The discussion of historical genocide is, nevertheless, fascinating.

Okay expulsion as in people being forced out of a location by the conquerors and being replaced to expand the AOR of a faction. Didn't it happen to the Ligurians?

I wuld think that the only way to have it in game is to have recruitable troops linked to your 'people' building thingy similar to the way hidden resources work in EBI. But that means that its either all or nothing with troop recruitment. It would be a little hard to control recruitable troops effectively. Having said that, I would love to do it; I just don't think its very historical.

Didn't the Athenians did a similar thing when they captured Naxos?

We can't say of the Spartans that they ever did such a thing. Closest would be them killing all Argive men after a bloody war but they spared the women and children.

Mmm... interesting idea, munkey. I can't think of any examples of successful, state-sponsored genocide in the ancient world off the top of my head, but I really like the idea of using the building queue in a little more abstract sense. Why limit yourself to physical structures? We can use it to represent monetary expenditure on anything. I like.

Well, we could go pure 'expel' and use this to depict one group moving in and pushing people out. THAT has definitely been done by many factions especially the mass migration groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Well, we could go pure 'expel' and use this to depict one group moving in and pushing people out. THAT has definitely been done by many factions especially the mass migration groups.

---

How many mass migrations can you think of? (besides the obvious germans-across-the-rhine)

I'd also be curious as to whether anyone knows how successful migrations are in actually displacing the original population. Migrations are usually small relative to the native population, so it would seem difficult to replace their genome with yours in such a big pool. Anyone have any info?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Okay expulsion as in people being forced out of a location by the conquerors and being replaced to expand the AOR of a faction. Didn't it happen to the Ligurians?

---

Livy 40.38:
First consulting the senate by letter, Cornelius and Baebius determined to
move them down from the mountains to lands on the plains, far from home,
that there might be no hope of return, thinking that there would be no end
to the Ligurian war until this was done. There was a tract of land in Samnium,
the public property of the Roman people, formerly occupied by the Taurasinians.
When they intended to transplant the Apuan Ligurians to this country, they
published an order, that this people should quit the mountains, with their wives
and children, and bring all their effects along with them... Forty thousand men,
of free condition, with their women and children, were transplanted at the
expense of the public, and a hundred and fifty thousand sesterces were given
them, to provide necessaries for their new habitations.

However, this expulsion wasn't necessary in order to found colonies, and in fact Livy mentions only one colony (at Luna) in the area. It probably supported a policy of diviso et impera intended to pacify both the Ligurians and the Samnite peoples living near the resettled area.

Quote:

---

Genocide as a concept, i.e. attempting to exterminate people of a certain race didn't really appear until the 20th Century.

---

But genocide is not only defined as the simple extermination of all members of a group of people. It can also mean the systematic destruction of their cultural and ethnic identity. Forcing them to assimilate into another population. That form of genocide at least, is very common throughout history. By the time of the fall of the Roman Empire, how many citizens of Italy considered themselves to be Etruscans? Or Samnites? Or Ligurians? You don't need to kill everyone in order to destroy a people. In fact, that's probably the least efficient or effective way of doing it.

Genocide is "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

That, which you mention, is more commonly known as assimilation. However, the exact definition is not important. Atilius was no doubt referring to Genocide as defined in the 1948 CCPCG. The assimilation of one culture by another (or rather the hybridisation, as there is not one event in history where one culture has completely assimilated another without changing itself in that region) will be present to some extent in game for those factions that did or we have decided were able to do so.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

The assimilation of one culture by another (or rather the hybridisation, as there is not one event in history where one culture has completely assimilated another without changing itself in that region) will be present to some extent in game for those factions that did or we have decided were able to do so.

Foot

---

That sounds real nice, mah man. Do you think you might be able to reveal whether that would be limited solely to the Romans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

for those factions that did or we have decided were able to do so.

Foot

---

Sounds like more than just the romans, megas. Although i am interested in who it would be and how you would portray it ingame.

I suppose something like Baktria taking a small part of Indian culture into itself. Or the saka? Parthians would be a good choice for mixing cultures. Celts seemed to get on reasonably well with Greeks in their colonies, or would you do it as greeks with celts, or maybe both ways? Hmm, possibilities are endless.

pew as long as we won't see any black clad Pretorians on three wheeled Chariots killing civilians I'm happy.

my celtic history might be a bit blury bit the celts did this all the time according to what i read when the bituriges where rulling gaul they would grab the excess population of the diferent tribes and sent them out looking for new lands and displacing the old people further away

wich was what happened to the ligurians and to some extent to the iberians that continously got displaced by new migrating celts

that "assimilation" was made on the borders or new borders of these new celtic lands

megas alexandros destroyed several people almost exterminating them when they proven hard to rulle (or it says so in the description of several eastern mercenary´s that they where hunted and destroyed in such great numbers that they became a minority in their own lands)

ofc this can/should be used in lands where the there´s setled people but in desert areas and the steppes this shouldn´t be able to be done considering that the steppe people would run before they where allowed to be butchered or enslaved

Quote:

---

Spartans never attempted to exterminate the helots: that would have undermined their economical and social arrangements. They just terrorized them.

---

They culled them annually in large numbers in order to make sure they didnt outnumber Spartan citizens enough that they could revolt and overthrow them. In the long run that and their bizarre rules on sex and marriage (making both extremely difficult for Spartans) and leaving 'weak' babies on the mountainside to die resulted in their manpower collapsing. So they destroyed their own military power by the rigid application of the same rules that created it in the first place and by refusing the helots equality until it was too late.

They had a revolution in which slavery was abolished eventually, but it was too late by then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ca Putt

pew as long as we won't see any black clad Pretorians on three wheeled Chariots killing civilians I'm happy.

---

Triscythles?

Mass enslavement was effecively genocide in the ancient world IMO. It would have completely destroyed the people as a cultural force and one or two generations later any memories would have effectively been extinguished completely. That is with families split up and sent all over Europe, more basic slaves having no education / contact with people from their own cultural background. Would they have even spoke their parents' language?

My memory is a little rusty. Didnt Marius effectively commit genocide against the Cimbri and Teutones? I appreciate these were somewhat different circumstances...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cambyses

Mass enslavement was effecively genocide in the ancient world IMO. It would have completely destroyed the people as a cultural force and one or two generations later any memories would have effectively been extinguished completely. That is with families split up and sent all over Europe, more basic slaves having no education / contact with people from their own cultural background. Would they have even spoke their parents' language?

My memory is a little rusty. Didnt Marius effectively commit genocide against the Cimbri and Teutones? I appreciate these were somewhat different circumstances...

---

Not in all cases, the Messenian Helots kept feeling Messenian the entire time they were enslaved and eventually became free Messenians again when the Thebans defeated the Spartans.

I think he killed many of them and enslaved the rest (those who didn't kill themselves like the Cimbri mothers killing themselves and their children).

Quote:

---

Not in all cases, the Messenian Helots kept feeling Messenian the entire time they were enslaved and eventually became free Messenians again when the Thebans defeated the Spartans.

---

Well, like Cambyses said, slaves that were scattered throughout the conquerors' empire would lose their cultural identity, but the Messenian helots lived together in family units on pretty much the same land for centuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azathoth

Well, like Cambyses said, slaves that were scattered throughout the conquerors' empire would lose their cultural identity, but the Messenian helots lived together in family units on pretty much the same land for centuries.

---

Exactly, Spartans allowing this was just part of their ways but it gave them more problems I gues. Then again with the Laconian Helots with the same rules there were no problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Genocide is "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

That, which you mention, is more commonly known as assimilation. However, the exact definition is not important. Atilius was no doubt referring to Genocide as defined in the 1948 CCPCG. The assimilation of one culture by another (or rather the hybridisation, as there is not one event in history where one culture has completely assimilated another without changing itself in that region) will be present to some extent in game for those factions that did or we have decided were able to do so.

Foot

---

So would the concept of the Mameluks, and Jannisaries be considered acts of genocide? They were children forcibly transerred from one group to the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artavazd

So would the concept of the Mameluks, and Jannisaries be considered acts of genocide? They were children forcibly transerred from one group to the other.

---

I'm neither a lawyer or knowledgeable in those areas, however, if that is the case current UN law may view those events as genocide. However, it is important to note that we cannot apply the standards of today to those of yesterday when describing history. The historians role is primarily descriptive, not nominative.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

I'm neither a lawyer or knowledgeable in those areas, however, if that is the case current UN law may view those events as genocide. However, it is important to note that we cannot apply the standards of today to those of yesterday when describing history. The historians role is primarily descriptive, not nominative.

Foot

---

Yes you are right. However sometimes habits seen in history dont fade out :shame:

But yes under UN law the concepts of Mameluks and Jannisaries would be considered Genocide. It was just interesting, because I did not know the " forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." was part of the defenition for Genocide.

Yeah, it's a part of cultural genocide. Happens all the time.