Define Roman

[Demson]

I understand the point fully. My point was that if you want to define a Roman, you might want to consider what the Romans thought of the matter themselves.

Citizenship doesn't automatically mean people thought of themselves as Romans in a cultural sense. I know plenty of people who have Dutch nationality but consider themselves to be Morrocan, or German, or Japanese.

 

The hoplites of Greece acted to futher the glory of their city to prove their city state's superiority as well.

 

A Celtic 'freemen' followed a noblemen to prove his valour and honour and perhaps earn the right to take care of his nobleman's cattle, making him a bondsman. When a bondsman earned enough cattle, he could futher elivate himself to noblemen by leasing his cattle to freemen, making them his bondsman. As nobleman, he leads the freemen and bondsman of his tribe so that they can prove their valour and honour.

 

Romans had certain charactaristics, but it wasn't the uniqueness of their traits that made them Roman. Rather the whole combination of those traits and more importantly, their success with those traits.

 

The sense of nationalism and teamwork is the first trait I think of when speaking of Romans. Of course, other classical cultures had this sense too but as I'm 'specialising' in the Celtic-Roman relationships I tend to look at Romans in that light. Celts were highly individual, Romans were much more collective.

 

I guess it means different things to different people.

 

As another analogy, one could summon the countless brigand tribes of Celts that ravaged lands across Europe.

 

 

Could you please elaborate?

[Ursus]

Gee, I was expecting this thread to be a big bang, but it just kind of farted and died out. So, maybe we can find different angles.

 

 

 

Celts were highly individual, Romans were much more collective.

 

 

 

And this stands out for me, too. The Romans didn't seem to have much of a use for individuals. When you did get a Roman with some individual eccentricities, like Caligula or Nero, it was usually for the worse.

 

It seems to be the average Roman was locked into a network of overlapping duties and relationships -- to the household and gens, to his gods and ancestors, to his social patrons, and finally to his state and army. And if an individual sought glory and honor - which of course they did - it had to masked under glory and honor for the family, the gods, the state. It echoes what someone said said before of the central Roman trait being duty, and Roman concepts of freedom being submerged within this sense of duty.

 

So it would seem to me that being Roman and adhering to Roman culture is knowing one's place within that social setting, acting accordingly, and advancing the interests and causes thereof. All concepts of dignity and honor and glory are granted by one's community according to one's function and standing within that community. To me that is what makes one "Roman" , and that's kind of the answer I was looking for.

 

Now my question would be .... was this an admirable system? The modern West is a lot more individualistic and solipsistic these days. Some people regard this as critical for the furtherance of individual rights. Others regard it as a degeneration and the annhilation of common bonds.

 

How did the Roman mentality compare to our own? Thoughts, anyone?

[Lex]

It seems to be the average Roman was locked into a network of overlapping duties and relationships -- to the household and gens, to his gods and ancestors, to his social patrons, and finally to his state and army. And if an individual sought glory and honor - which of course they did - it had to masked under glory and honor for the family, the gods, the state. It echoes what someone said said before of the central Roman trait being duty, and Roman concepts of freedom being submerged within this sense of duty.

 

So it would seem to me that being Roman and adhering to Roman culture is knowing one's place within that social setting, acting accordingly, and advancing the interests and causes thereof. All concepts of dignity and honor and glory are granted by one's community according to one's function and standing within that community. To me that is what makes one "Roman" , and that's kind of the answer I was looking for.

 

 

Isn't that essentially the idea that Italian Fascism tried to introduce in Europe? Since one of the aims of the Fascists was to eventually restore the Roman Empire, which caused them some ridicule, since this was one of the reasons why Mussolini wanted Egypt, North Africa, Albania and Greece. And perhaps one of the reasons the Pope supported Fascism?

[Ursus]

I don't think the Roman cultural ethos can be equated with fascism or any other totalitarian system. They believed in freedom in a sense, it just wasn't the liberal freedom of the modern West. It was a very qualified freedom that was inextricably tied to duty and identity with the community.

[Demson]

Wasn't it mostly about freedom from foreign oppression? IE freedom from another community?

 

The republic was also found on the idea of freedom from a monarch. Rulers were to be rulers because of merit rather than bloodline. For allot of Emperors, this was true I think.

[Lex]

Ursus, with regards to the Republic, I agree with. However, when it comes to the Principate (mostly middle and late) and especially the Dominate and Byzantine era, then I disagree.

 

Fascism is a modern term, so the Roman Empire wasn

[Ursus]

I'm not going to deny that the later empire slipped into Oriental style despotism, but I just think we need to be careful when comparing Rome to modern political systems. There is a different spirit at work.

[Lex]

I'd say it was a bit more than just "oriental style despotism", but this is a subject that does cause a lot of debate.

[Quintus Artemis Sertorius]

After reading these posts, I think i may end in being burned a little. To me the definition of being Roman is to be better than everyone else. For most of the history of Rome that is one of the true constants. Whether you were an Egyptian pharoah, a Greek philosopher, or a Celtic iron worker, the lowest Roman head Count was considered better. Simply because they were Roman. At that time, and today to a certain degree, the people were very ethnocentric. Survival was a very "them" and "us" kind of thing. "Us" is always strong, valiant, honorable, civilized, compassionate, and always with the best for humanity in mind. "Them" are always the disgusting, the devious, the sacriligious, the ones that have sex with their children, and kill their parents for money. It has been bred into humanity to divide between "us" and "them" from the begining of homo sapiens as a species. The Romans weren't out to improve the lot of the common man. The Romans were out to improve the lot of fellow Romans. And even then most of the times the only lot that is imporved is the highest Romans', the very highest permutation of "us". I think the definition of the Roman is the same as that of the Egyptian, or the Seracen, or the Japanese: one more group of people out to survive in the world, regardless of how many other "them" must perish along the way. Is that wrong? Depends on who you ask. I don't think so. The game has, is, and always will be survival, and for a long time the Romans won. Along the way of course you have to put a nice marble facing on that rough wall of bricks and then paint it up nice so it looks good to everyone. After all, it is just another tool in the Great Game, but scratch a man from Picentium and you see a Gaul. Scratch away the flowery speeches and words of a Roman and you see another survivor.

 

Of course I could be wrong.

[Demson]

That makes sense. And as the Romans happened to be the best at being the better, it's especially true for Romans.

[Spartacus2]

...And, really, I don't see a

[Ursus]

The problem with defining Roman as a catalog of Roman virtues is tautological.

Rome is all good things, and dissenters must be exterminated.

 

We're trying to find those cultural characteristics that distinguish Romanatis, and thus separate Roman culture as a distinct phenomenon. Whether Romanatis (however one ultimately defines it) is desirable or not to the individual is of course highly subjective.

 

I therefor don't think construing the endeavor in a tautological and antagonistic dichotomy was exactly the point of the thread. But the point of the thread seems to have been aborted from incipience, to be blunt, so I've pretty much given up.

[Spartacus2]

I apologize for my discourtesy.

[Viggen]

hi spartacus2,

 

welcome to unrv and no need to apologize, we are all here to share our thoughts and ideas!

 

regards

viggen

[Ursus]

No need to apologize, I did not see any offense from you. I apologize for not giving you a hearty welcome.

 

I was just saying I think this thread I started drifted woefully off topic from my original premise. But it's all good, I'll make up for it in the future somehow.