Rome's "Civil Rights Movement"

[kurtedwr]

Would you consider King Alaric to be a civil rights leader? I've read about the Goths and how badly they were discriminated and them fighting back.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Would you consider King Alaric to be a civil rights leader? I've read about the Goths and how badly they were discriminated and them fighting back.

 

 

I wouldn't consider Alaric to be a civil rights leader. There's a fundamental difference between fighting for the rights of your tribe and fighting for human rights per se. Alaric sought merely to transfer oppression from his group to another group. In this, he was much like Spartacus, who sought to liberate many slaves, but who did not fight (like the Abolitionists of the 19th C.) to end slavery everywhere. That's a crucial difference.

 

Now, there was a hugely important civil rights movement in Roman history -- and that was the movement seeking civil rights for plebeians. The leaders of this movement, by the way, weren't merely seeking the right to stand for office for their particular families, but for all plebeians, and they didn't do it by trying to take away the rights of patricians to seek office too.

 

So, if you're looking for a Roman civil rights hero, I'd nominate Publicola and M. Curius Dentatus over Alaric any day.

[Kosmo]

Romans were not racists.

Goths invaded the Empire and established within it's borders by force. The fact that Romans were not happy with this situation is not a form of discrimination but a power struggle.

[caldrail]

However we can describe the Romans as 'culturalist' as they certainly did have opinions about other civilisations compared to theirs. The initial incursions of goths were by initation, as they were desperate to avoid the Huns (and opposing gothic factions), and since Valens had already fought and won a war against them with an agreement to become arians (the religion, that is), Valens was well disposed to allow them to cross the Danube and settle.

 

The Romans in the area immediately took the Goths for everything they had including children sold as slaves to pay for overpriced goods by rapacious merchants. The resulting 'rebellion' of goths was in response to this situation and the attempted assassination of gothic leaders. Those goths that went on the rampage afterward were gradually obstructed, mostly very successfully, by Roman raiding forces put together for that purpose. The goths lost a small battle at the River Maritsa but Valens was unwilling to wait for western support and encouraged by an over-eager Sebastianus (who was by that time desperate to keep his job against the intrigue aimed against him) met at Adrianople. Constantinople was not however seriosuly challenged by the goths and Fritigern (the foremost gothic leader at the time) was reputed to have said "we do not make wars on walls".

 

In some respects then the hostilities were the only course of action left to the goths if they wished to remain free (although not explicitly stated, it does look like the local Roman administration had in mind to exploit their visitors to the absolute maximum). In other respects the Romans were consumed with inner rivalries and resistance against gothic violence, at least to begin with, was disorganised and in some respects rather feeble.

Edited July 18, 2012 by caldrail

[kurtedwr]

Maybe he wasn't a civil rights leader, but there seemed to have been a rise of anti-nordic bigotry during Honorius' reign:

 

http://www.jaysromanhistory.com/romeweb/romarmy/art10.htm

http://www.jaysromanhistory.com/romeweb/romarmy/art11.htm

http://jaysromanhistory.com/romeweb/enemies/art17.htm

http://jaysromanhistory.com/romeweb/empcont/e241.htm

http://www.mmdtkw.org/VAlaric.html

[caldrail]

That I suspect was circumstantial Not only because of violence, theft, and territorial encroachment, but also because of their political infuence as outsiders to the accepted regime. Also...

 

Where now is the ancient wealth and dignity of the Romans? The Romans of old were the most powerful, now we are without strength. They were feared, now it is us who are fearful. The barbarians peoples paid them tribute, now we are the tributaries of the barbarians. Our enemies make make us pay for the very light of day, and our right to life has to be bought. Oh what miseries are ours! To what state have we descended? We even have to thank our the barbarians for the right to buy ourselves off them! What could be more humiliating andand miserable.

 

Why has god allowed us to become weaker and more miserable than all the tribal peoples? Why has he allowed us to be defeated by the barbarians, and subjected to the rule of our enemies?

 

We enjoy immodest behaviour, the goths detest iit. We avoid purity, they love it. Fornication is considered by them a crime and a danger, we honour it.

Salvian (writing in the 440's)

 

Although Salvian is stressing the differences in culture to underline his sermon, it would appear to based on a very real perceived comparison of morality. In other words, the bigotry was evolving because of a conflict in culture. We see the same trends in our modern times.