Roman Slaves

[Rameses the Great]

Gladiators slaughtering each other for sport continued for hundreds of years after Christianity became the state religion. So far as I know, Constantine attended the games with enthusiasm. What's your source to the contrary?

 

More general point: for all their talk about peace and brotherly love, the average Christian was about as blood-thirsty as the average Roman pagan.

 

I have to strongly disagree with that. During the periods of that time Constantine sought out images in his dream that God came and talked to him. It is understandable if the Western Romans did not change as soon as this happened. Although Constantine put an end to this as soon as he saw his dream. Even at before the Christianity spread, the Eatern Roman Empire held no gladitorial fights. Constantine immediately reformed his empire to become strong Christian believers. If God came to him in his dream to spread the word why would he continue to do this.

 

Just a note on the Roman pagan like the Roman Christian. Before Christianity came the only thing the Roman pagans did for entertainement was attend gladitorial fights. Though when the Christianity came it has been stated that so did the gaditorial fights shortly after.

[Germanicus]

Constantine converted to Christianity, and issued an edict banning Gladiatorial contests in 325AD. He did not however, enforce it. Gladiatorial contests continued for at least another 92 years until an incident at the games in 404AD involving a protesting monk being torn to death by a gladiatorial crowd, after which Honorius enforced the ban.

 

I believe Cato is probably correct in that Constantine was certainly enthusiastic about the games prior to his conversion - why else would he mint coins like this one for sale on eBay ?

 

I must admit to not knowing much about what went on over on the eastern side of things - Rameses - as Cato requested, could you advise the source that advises no gladiatorial fights in the east - even before Christianity ?

 

Now - back to Roman Slaves

[Rameses the Great]

I agree Constantine was ecstatic about the gladiatorial games BEFORE converting to Christianity. They did not have gladiatorial fights in the Eastern Empire since the meeting at Nicea. I hope this answered some of the questions now back to Roman slaves. Let me get us started off, the slaves of Rome were scattered all over the world from what I know.

 

Anyone care to shed some light on this?

[julieboy]

Don't ask me "WHY?", but the Dictionary of Races and Peoples, which is connected to the Bureau of Immigration,has Italians divided into two races: South Italian,a Mediterranean race at its base,and North Italian,which is ,if I remember,an Alpine race,BUT GENOESE are classified as South Italian,although Genoa is in Italy's North geographically. My guess for the loggic of this is that the authors consider Genoese to be Ligurians,who might be the same Iberic racial type that was found and that they consider to be the base race in the South of Italy,Spain,Sardinia and Sicily,and North Africa.

[LEG X EQ]

Strange, all the information i have (schopp) state that the Ligurians are Dinaric/Alpine, in the racial sense.

 

Another thing that is strange, is how can the genoese be classified as South-Italians when SOUTH-Italian is a geocraphical term and Genoa and Liguria are undisputed Geocraphically NORTH-Italian??

Tuscany is central Italy, so how can one than claim that Liguria, which is north of Tuscany to be the south???

Edited April 7, 2006 by LEG X EQ

[Gaius Octavius]

Don't ask me "WHY?", but the Dictionary of Races and Peoples, which is connected to the Bureau of Immigration,has Italians divided into two races: South Italian,a Mediterranean race at its base,and North Italian,which is ,if I remember,an Alpine race,BUT GENOESE are classified as South Italian,although Genoa is in Italy's North geographically. My guess for the loggic of this is that the authors consider Genoese to be Ligurians,who might be the same Iberic racial type that was found and that they consider to be the base race in the South of Italy,Spain,Sardinia and Sicily,and North Africa.

 

Assuming that you are speaking of the USA, this was undoubtedly written by some #@*!#'s child, who doesn't know the difference between race and ethnicity. If this moron thinks that there is a 'pure' ethnicity anywhere in Europe, he has been playing with his marbles much too long. Roman legionaries were 'settled throughout western Europe. Campagnia (southern Italy) was loaded with them. That kind of idiotic statement is used to confirm the 'inferiority' of Mediterranian peoples.

[Rameses the Great]

Assuming that you are speaking of the USA, this was undoubtedly written by some #@*!#'s child, who doesn't know the difference between race and ethnicity. If this moron thinks that there is a 'pure' ethnicity anywhere in Europe, he has been playing with his marbles much too long. Roman legionaries were 'settled throughout western Europe. Campagnia (southern Italy) was loaded with them. That kind of idiotic statement is used to confirm the 'inferiority' of Mediterranian peoples.

 

Could not agree with you more.

[julieboy]

Don't know who wrote the "Dictionary of Races and Peoples" but it was in the format of an ecoyclopedia. If you look up any term that dealt with such things as race,ethnicity, or religion, the "dictionary" would break it down. For example if you look up Italian,it would first tell you that Italy is a political entity forming a country. At this point it would describe the people in Italy. If you looked up Puert Rican,it would give a breakdown of the different races and ethnic groups to which Puerto Ricans belong.

 

It went on to say that Italy's "racial " characteristics were broadly broken down into North Italian and South Italian. At its base the race of Southern Italy was said to be related to the race of Southern Spain and North Africa,such as the Berbers. This occured according to the reseaech because at one time North Africa ,Sicily,Malta,and Italy formed one strip og land,as did Spain and North Africa. They felt people were more easily able to flow back and forth from North Africa to Southern Italy than from more northern parts of Europe into Italy,because of Italy's mountainous terrain forming a big barrier with Northern Europe.

 

This book was one of a series of publications that seemed to come out each year(once saw a bunch of different yearly editions, that were offered by a used book store.

 

Agree that this particular year was meant to in part stereotype Southern Italians. While it described North Italians with nothing negative,South Italians were considered "excitable,superstitious,prone to gambling, kidnapping,and violence", and often members of the mafia groups from Sicily,or the Camorra in Campania,as well as Calabrian groups. Actually,outside of South Italians,who were probably coming to America in large numbers at that time,there was nothing negative in the descriptions of any other groups,with the exception perhaps of some Eastern Europeans.

[docoflove1974]

Julieboy, is this what you're talking about?

 

Dictionary of Races and Peoples, vol. 5 or The Dillingham Reports, 1979

Editorial Reviews

Book Description

The Reports of the Immigration Commission - familiarly known as the Dillingham Reports - are directly correlated to the legislation enacted between 1917 and 1924 which effectively closed the gates of America to a vast number of immigrants. As such, they are invaluable to the study of immigration, especially in its economic and sociological aspects. When first issued, the very detailed study of the Commission gave what appeared to be official and presumably scientific proof of the innate inferiority of southern and eastern Europeans. The Commission bent whatever evidence it could find to prove this preconceived idea. Despite this shortcoming, remain essential source material for anyone concerned with the entire history and background of immigration in the United States. Dr. Handlin has written an introduction to the Arno Press edition in which he discusses certain misinterpretations contained in the notes also the significant achievements of the Commission. His introduction provides essential background information for intelligent reading and interpretation of the data presented by the Immigration Commission. The Arno Press edition retains all charts and tables, exactly as they appeared originally.

Edited April 8, 2006 by docoflove1974

[julieboy]

Yes. I believe that is it. Perhaps my recollection of the year that I read was innacurate. Maybe it was 1918.

[caldrail]

Gladiators slaughtering each other for sport continued for hundreds of years after Christianity became the state religion. So far as I know, Constantine attended the games with enthusiasm. What's your source to the contrary?

 

More general point: for all their talk about peace and brotherly love, the average Christian was about as blood-thirsty as the average Roman pagan.

 

I have to strongly disagree with that. During the periods of that time Constantine sought out images in his dream that God came and talked to him. It is understandable if the Western Romans did not change as soon as this happened. Although Constantine put an end to this as soon as he saw his dream. Even at before the Christianity spread, the Eatern Roman Empire held no gladitorial fights. Constantine immediately reformed his empire to become strong Christian believers. If God came to him in his dream to spread the word why would he continue to do this.

 

Just a note on the Roman pagan like the Roman Christian. Before Christianity came the only thing the Roman pagans did for entertainement was attend gladitorial fights. Though when the Christianity came it has been stated that so did the gaditorial fights shortly after.

 

Constantine was not a devout christian, nor did he really believe in christianity. He chose to bcome christian on his death-bed just in case there was some truth in it, and that way he could absolve himself from his sins which were considerable. As for the vision, I really don't believe that was genuine. Constantine used christianity to weld his crumbling empire together shamelessly.

 

I agree, christians of the time were as bloody as pagans. Of course they were. That was how people were at the time, and romantic notions of christian belief shouldn't cloud how we see them. Christians of the time kept slaves and went to church on a sunday then off to the arena to watch them kill each other. Its true that christian belief taught a more humane view of the world, but it would take a long long time for that to become human nature. It was a violent time that bred violent people, christian or not. Christianity today isn't the same that was taught to romans. It's changed over the centuries and is a lot softer in tone than it once was.

 

Gladitorial combat survived in the provinces in a much reduced form after the prohibition, but it did take some time to die out. The killing of animals in the arena survives to this day.

[Guest HeathenPride]

Well, as i know, it's right that Turks and Romans had the first relations during Huns. There is also a Turkish movie about a Hun gladiator. Also, the holywood-made movie, gladaitor was the brand new copy of this movie, that made fun with Turkish people here when it released.

 

There are some pictures from tarkan movies on following website, one small picture is the one that i told you.

http://www.tarkan.com.tr/eserler/tarkan/tarkan_main_ENG.htm

 

So, yes, anyway, the first Turkic visitor to the Roman Empire will surely have been a Hun: they arrived in Europe far earlier than any other Turkic speakers. Thank you!

 

The Turks knew the Romans way before any Huns came around. Turks were undoubtedly forced into slavery Asia Minor beeing very close to the Romans. On the other hand the Indians so far away that the only western civilzation to reach them is Persian, by no means were slaves to Romans. The only reason Romans remotely knew Indians existed at that time was from the trde route from Egypt. India is a lot closer to China then the Mediterranian. No Roman had set foot in India 'till Marco Polo many centuries later.

[Andrew Dalby]

Well, as i know, it's right that Turks and Romans had the first relations during Huns. There is also a Turkish movie about a Hun gladiator. Also, the holywood-made movie, gladaitor was the brand new copy of this movie, that made fun with Turkish people here when it released.

 

There are some pictures from tarkan movies on following website, one small picture is the one that i told you.

http://www.tarkan.com.tr/eserler/tarkan/tarkan_main_ENG.htm

 

So, yes, anyway, the first Turkic visitor to the Roman Empire will surely have been a Hun: they arrived in Europe far earlier than any other Turkic speakers. Thank you!

 

The Turks knew the Romans way before any Huns came around. Turks were undoubtedly forced into slavery Asia Minor beeing very close to the Romans. On the other hand the Indians so far away that the only western civilzation to reach them is Persian, by no means were slaves to Romans. The only reason Romans remotely knew Indians existed at that time was from the trde route from Egypt. India is a lot closer to China then the Mediterranian. No Roman had set foot in India 'till Marco Polo many centuries later.

 

Yes, HeathenPride must be right (even if movies are not always the best sources): it's pretty unlikely that Turkic peoples would have reached Rome before the time of the Huns, they simply lived too far away.

 

This is an old quote by Rameses. As you may know now, Rameses, Turkic peoples did not reach Asia Minor till somewhere around 1000 AD -- they were thousands of miles away to the east in Roman times. As for India, I guess it is an exaggeration to say "No Roman had set foot in India till Marco Polo many centuries later" -- because Roman trading posts existed in India and ship captains and merchants went there, maybe even ambassadors once or twice -- but, you're right, no troops, no conquests.