Quote Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios View Post
That depends on which kind of "ancients" you played, I'm afraid. A Hellen, Roman or Iranian would probably respect a culture's "unique buildings" more. On the other hand, I doubt an "uncivilized" German or Celt would show the same respect and instead choose to loot or even completely destroy them.
When the Goths and Vandals sacked Rome, they were actually a good deal more careful then when the Romans took Carthage and Corinth. Although the two "sacks" of Rome had a devastating ideological impact, the actual damage done was small. The Vandals apparently only destroyed one building, while the Romans joined the Goths in hymns when the latter appropriated a few Christian Relics (yes, the Goths were converts at this time, and IIRC so where the Vandals). This seems unlikely to have occurred if the Goths were destroying everything in sight. The Vandals also took from the city a former empress and her daughter, at the ladies' request. This went into history as a "kidnap".

Similarly, the sack of Carthage by the Vandals was supposed to have put an end to the city, yet archaeology does not bear this out. The city was already decaying before the Vandals moved in, and would continue to exist until the seventh century. One contemporary Christian chronicler actually welcomed the Vandal take-over because they put an end to the debauchery in the city. Certainly, archaeologists found that the consumption of fortified wine and gourmet oysters declined sharply, so he probably was right.

Terry Jones (of the BBC series "Barbarians") uses this to argue that the Barbarians were far more humane than the Romans. This may or may not be the case, but it does show how much contemporary prejudice against barbarians skewed our view of history.