Number Six

Greeks had knowledge of foreign stuff, even during the age of the polis (sometimes wrong opinions, for they lacked direct access): they had travellers and quite obviously they had official interpreters and random bilingualists. But the point I was trying to make was not about just having bilingualism: it's about a whole nation teaching a foreign language to its upper class, letting it absorb a more advanced culture and even re-using the same foreign language (and culture) by themselves: there is no equal to what happened in ancient Rome with Greek. Also the pre-Roman Hellenistic era produced a lot of bilingualism: the Hellenistic kingdoms themselves were Greek and yet had knowledge of local languages; but it was a bit different there: Hellenistic kingdoms were Greek establishments that naturally developed an interest and sometimes an official use for the language of their locals. Sure it produced a lot of cultural meltings, though. If anything, what happened in Rome is more similar to what happened in pre-Alexandrian Macedonia (and probably there are other examples alike): the father and the ancestors of Alexander tried to assimiliate themselves to the Greek nation; they set a divide between them and their subjects, claiming they were Greek themselves, Greek descendants, and carrying Greece-centetered politics. Yet it's not a phenomenon of the nature and the dimensions of what happened in Rome.

It's hardly in our historical heritage.

Well, if you wanna tell some funny fact that'd make them think, you can tell that Romans taught us bilingualism: starting at least with the Scipions era and going down to the imperial era, learned Romans read and spoke Greek fluently. That's how they conquered the world: they were eager for Greek works and Greek thought. Unlike the ancient Greeks, who were a bunch of parochialist cities that would not as much as care to learn other languages: during classic, Hellenistic and Roman era (I'm not talking of the late empire, when some knowledge of Latin was somehow present in the East, although briefly) what was not written in Greek simply wasn't read by Greeks (I'm quoting Momigliano on this line of thought). Roman diplomatic, during the late Republic and during the Empire, even had two official languages: Latin and, if the document was going to the East, Greek.

Yeah, I didn't mean that it was invented by stoics, just that Rome took it from stoicism (and with its features). I'm well aware that the 'invention' of cosmopolitanism traces back to the crisis of the polis.

Like I told you in PM, guides often say what tourists wanna hear: gossip. And as always, some gossip is true, some is not. Also, the fact that he's an archeologist (although self-proclaimed, I guess: it's not like they checked his papers ), doesn't mean that he's a mastermind: also people with higher education do happen to believe hilarious things. Anyway, the siblings of yours should learn one thing if they wanna deal with history: we must always be able to check the source of our information. In this case we weren't put in the condition to do so. We were just told... by a touristic guide. But one thing your siblings did do well: if we cannot check the source, we should ask ourselves: why did this person say this thing? And I told you my opinion on that. In the end, it's also possible that there is anecdotal evidence that something like this once happened. The guide transformed it into a general fact.

Yeah, but the idea of universal citizenship comes from stoicism, that's what I was referring to, not to the plain legal fact. The Roman empire and its universal claim had stoic foundations.

I would have ranked universal citizenship among the things that were invented by Greeks during the Hellenistic era and only continued by Romans, for that's how it went. But I admit that the Greek nation overall remained quite elitarian and indeed the idea mostly rooted thanks to contributions from the outside.

Wait what? So why are Roman statues in Rome also headless? The Greeks chopped them on revenge?

Law and christianity (whether we think they're good or bad stuff). The modern concept of law is profoundly Roman, although Common Law had an evolution of its own. Christianity is pretty much a Roman phenomenon, but not in the way the guy thinks in the other topic about Jesus Caesar. Beside this, they brought us a lot of stuff from ancient Greece: mainly an idea of literature, an idea of philosophy and an idea of science. But those ideas were elaborated (in the way we still hold them, which isn't always the same as 5th century BC Athens') during the pre-Roman hellenistic era; Rome only continued it.

About Ernesto De Martino, as far as I can see, there are two of his works that have been translated into English: The Land of Remorse and The World of Magic (the latter is also published as Primitive Magic). The Land of Remorse is something that does not concern antiquity; it's an etnographical study on a modern times phenomenon of southern Italy: the belief that a frenzied dance will cure you from the bite of a certain spider. The phenomenon is known as tarantism and De Martino attempts an explanation of its social and psychological causes. Beautiful and insightful book, but not of our interest right now. The other book, The World of Magic / Primitive Magic, instead, analyses the structural significance of magic. Also this book dwells on the concept of presence, which is a central theme in De Martino's thought. Hence you should read this book if you want to read De Martino, rather than an untranslated and unfinished La fine del mondo, which is difficult as it is in its own language. The World of Magic is one of the most important books by De Martino and it contains most of his ideas. Probably it's also the most scholarly quoted, in the field of ancient history. De Martino writes in Italy during Fascim and after the war. At first he adheres to Fascism, and that's why he's not a mainstream author, just like any other European intellectual who was close to either the Fascism or the Nazism. Anyway, in the aftermath of the war, he becomes close to the socialist and the communist parties. I believe he was fascinated with the mystical aspect of fascist movements, and politically interested in their socialist soul. Anyway, I don't care about the political ideas of great authors, I only care about their works, so don't have to justify him. But I wanted to give you an insight on the political context, because you may find discordant opinions about him. He was not a mainstream author during Fascism either, anyway. In fact, his interest on magic drove him far from the idealistic perspective that was dominant in Italy at that point (and partially still is). His thought is rather close to Heidegger's philosophy. Also, since he writes on magic, his books may be edited by crappy publishers (not in Italy, but I don't know about the translations: in fact, I have at least seen some easy-selling title: Primitive Magic: The Psychic Powers of Shamans and Sorcerers is the complete title of his translated work. Ugh... what the fuck?); don't get misguided: De Martino is a solid author and scholarly esteemed. Enough about De Martino. --- Going back to our topic, I do believe that, in fact, the ancients were afraid of the outer world. Hell, we are afraid, why wouldn't they? They didn't have our scientific explanations (except few intellectuals who were on the correct path) nor a 'social net' as wide as ours: going out of their field, their town or their country was indeed perilous. The world they lived in was a hostile one: hence we have the Roman obsession with boundaries rites; hence we have the frightening zoomorphic figures of Germanic art during the migrations era. Does it mean they were afraid to go out of their yard? Yes, but they also had means to control their fears: rites were one of them. Rites were meant to ground the human action within the cosmos, to coordinate it with its other forces, to allow it, because it would not be allowed if it broke the accord with the cosmos, the pax deorum. This is De Martino's line of thought, but also illustrious historians', such as Dario Sabbatucci, historian of religions, or Aldo Schiavone, legal historian, whose recent work, The Invention of Law in the West, marks a milestone in Roman studies and legal history and has also been translated into English. Rites were particularly needed in any kind of 'transition': hence we have the importance of rites of passage, as far as transitions in the age (or status) of men are concerned. But travelling was another transition; the war was something alike: the complex, strong rites that preceeded war were needed to ground Roman action out of their ager, to ensure that while going there Rome wouldn't break the accord with the cosmos: in fact, war didn't have to be only iustum (right), it had to be also pium (bellum iustum ac pium). So, in the end, their fears didn't prevent them from travelling as much as they didn't prevent them from evolving; Roman Law is a proof of constant and elaborate evolution: it was born as rites that were meant to coordinate human action with the hostile forces that inhabitate the cosmos, and yet it was bent and adapted so much that it became more or less laical. Because, like Dum

You centered the point here. A lot of our misconceptions about antiquity and early middle ages are taken from late middle ages and modern era. Many peoples are even convinced that the ancients thought Earth was flat just, just because Columbus mariners were afraid so. Hell, even Dante's Earth is not flat, let alone ancients'. But, while I do agree with many of your points, you should read Ernesto De Martino's La fine del mondo (The end of the world)... but... it has not been translated into English (nor any other language, as far as I could find), unlike some other ones of his works. The end of the world is an unfinished study (he died before completing it) on various forms of cultural apocalypses; among other things, it deals with the concept of presence. De Martino tells about one of his journeys in southern Italy, during Sixties or so: he and his collaborators needed a guide, so they asked a local shepherd to join them in their car, with the promise that they would bring him back once he showed them the way. The man accepted and was already suspicious to begin with, but panicked completely when the bell tower of his town disappeared from the view. They had to turn and bring him back already, while he scouted with his head out of the window for the reappearance of the bell tower. When he saw it, he calmed again. The book compares this episode with similar ones taken from modern indigenous peoples. Now, while I do agree that De Martino's theories do not apply to each and every ancient population just as well, his theories on magic and primitive psychology are often used by historians who adopt an antropological perspective, just like L

Just because Eugenius may not have been a romantic hero, doesn't mean that he wasn't pagan (or close to pagans) either. I don't see this coin as giving the wrong evidence: Eugenius' beard may indeed be a symbol of his paganism. Being a romantic champion of paganism doesn't equal favouring paganism! Hence disproving the first doesn't disprove the latter. Anyway, I believe that Cameron exaggerates: the picture where basically nobody cared about religion is just as bad as the rendering of the last pagans as romantic heroes. I wonder if Cameron speaks of Late Antiquity or modern Europe.

This kind of books are dangerous, unless written by a real specialist: they risk to encourage as many commonplaces as they're supposed to dismantle. Anyway, I don't know this Peter Jones and I never read anything of him.

We're talking of the beginning of the 7th century: it's not that late, if you think of it. Pretty obviously the Roman Senate survived under Odoacer and under Theoderic and his heirs, since Cassiodorus and Boethius were senators themselves. Then there was the Gothic War, 'edning' in 554 with the Pragmatic Sanction, which brough Italy under the Justinianian law. During 568-569 the Langobards invaded, and isolated the city of Rome from the rest of the empire: the senate survived few more decades. There is hardly a problem with recognizing the continuity at least up to the Langobard invasion: any serious historian hasn't been talking of a strict 'fall' of the Roman Empire for at least thirty years.

Do you realize that this might as well be what Europeans think of US?

Just because we cannot support a romantic view of late pagans and, indeed, Eugenius may have not been a 'champion of paganism' (on the other hand, Constantine wasn't a 'champion of christianity' either), you shouldn't easily drop the idea of a contrast between late paganism and post-Constantinian christianity. I did not read Cameron's Last Pagans (I'm noticing just now that a paperback edition was released in 2013: the previous one was a bit more costy and I couldn't get my hands on it yet), but I'm familiar with some of the ideas behind it. You may wanna widen Cameron's perspective with Ramsay MacMullen, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries. Cameron's judgement is just representative of a certain historiographical current, which is not the only authoritative one.

Yes, Dum

Dum

The thing is that Roman law had very little to do with modern civil law. The point that I am trying to convey is that, regardless of derivation, Roman law was indeed more similar to common law (and I am specifically talking of the British original model, here) than to civil law: Roman and common law are both created by legal operators and they both ehnance precedents, while civil law is made by the state and typically doesn't observe precedents.

You're not looking at the qualifying features of Roman law. And I am not talking of derivation. (Anyway, as far as contamination is concerned, you're right when you say that here may have been Islamic influences, but we must not forget that the legal assistants of Norman kings were trained canonists, they knew Roman Law and they borrowed a few concepts. Roman law was also thaught in England since early). Anyway, as I said, I am not talking of derivation, but of inner similarity. The idea is well known among schiolars, I'm not saying anything new or debated. In fact, since I have no time right now, I'll just copy few lines from a book: in both cases the actual decision, the law-finding, was the work of amateurs: the judge in Rome, the jury in England. In both cases they acted on the basis of instructions, from the praetor in Rome, from the judge in England. And in both cases the complaint had to go through a process of screening: to conform to the praetor's edict in Rome, to be within the categories of written royal commands or writs which could be used to start up the royal procedures in England (Glenn Patrick H., Legal Traditions of the World: Sustainable Diversity in Law; a book that I do not advise, though, except the first two chapters... as long as cleared of few misconceptions).

In the later Roman Empire, though, you may say that the Emperor was the state. There was also Dea Roma, which was worshipped in shrines together with the living emperor, but was never 'felt' too much. Anyway, I don't think this is what your question is about. Funny enough, one could easily answer your question if we were to follow Dum

Roman law as a whole is very similar to common law in the way they work, hence we may find similarities also in their constitutions. But we must keep in mind that an unwritten constitution doesn't always mean a flexible one: it's often easier to change a written constitution, rather than one which is based on consuetude, for only time and practice can change the latter. The British constitution surely is far from flexible, which cannot be said of the Roman constitution in late antiquity.

I answer the OP, for I just noticed this thread with its latest reply. Well, I think you're asking the wrong question if you wonder why would the hoplite warfare be more terrifying than others. The right question is: what information is your quoted author trying to convey? If I read those two lines correctly (although they should be read within context), your author is thinking of something that was unique to the hoplite warfare and that made it psychologically demanding. The thing with hoplite warfare is that each and every hoplite had very little control over their own choices; the phalanx was strong as long as it acted as a whole, in a way that is common to any military action, but that was particularly enchanced in the phalanx: hell, you couldn't either protect yourself entirely with your own shield, it was the soldier to your right that protected you, while your shield would party cover the mate to the left. When the phalanx clanged with another unit, there was no way to go: you had to stand steady, hoping the mate to your right was as steady as you, while pressing the enemy front line and being pressed between the enemy and your own mates. So, the hoplite warfare was indeed terrifying, because it was a long, exhausting face to face that also suppressed your individuality, leaving you with the responsibility for the entire unit and the need for their perfect execution. Outside of this was death. So your author is just trying to say this: since you needed to rely on others to this extreme extent and as much as others needed to rely on you, you couldn't be a hoplite without an arduous mental and physical training. It doesn't mean it's more terrifying than any other warfare, but sure it must have been quite terrible.

Like others have already said, the Senate approval cannot be considered to give legitimacy to 4th century emperors. Where would we derive such a general rule? From already dubious leges de imperio which date back to the 1st century? It would be arbitrary and baseless, for we need to look at the recent developments of Roman constitutional practices. In general, the emperors of the 4th century and beyond seem to gain their legitimacy from being appointed by their predecessor or by the living Augustus. For example, you may look at Julian, who tried to get Constantius approval after being acclaimed Augustus by his own soldiers. Although the dynastic tendency is apparent from Constantine and beyond, family membership was not enough: it gave an expectation to the throne, but the emperors always provided to associate or appoint their heirs, in order to give them legitimacy. It has also been speculated (correctly, in my opinion) that an emperorship which comes from God can be rightfully placed upon men only by the one who represents God, i.e. the living emperor. Of course panegyrists and political thinkers embraced the belief that when an empeor was acclaimed by his soldiers or by other means, it was just another manifestation of God's will, but the prime source of such manifestations was obviously his earthen vicar: the emperor. Finally, the Senate approval was still looked for anyway, but it should be considered on the political ground: fresh emperors tried to gather as much consensus as they could, including the senate's. On the other hand, also Julian's behaviour towards Constantius may be considered 'political'. The point is, Rome never had a stable constitution, let alone a written one: we may say that every act of new emperors was constituent, rather than constitutional. We can't think Roman consitution in the same way as we think ours. But if a general trend has to be found in the formal mechanisms of the 4th and 5th centuries, I believe it was the appointment by the predecessor or by the living Augustus.

Yep