Roman Atitude Towards Greeks

[Kosmo]

Since the begining Rome borrowed heavily from the greeks until in many aspects became hellenic. Still, from the begining until the end many romans despised the greeks.

Rome claimed to protect hellenism, but nobody else destroyed so many greek cities. Tarent, Syracusa and Corinth or the wide destruction of W. Greece show that romans used a heavy hand on greeks.

Thruout the imperial era people from various nations gained high ranks and even the purple, but I know no greeks among them. Hadrian used a greek in a high position and this was unusual for an empire that soon was led by a african with a punic accent and his syrian wife.

For example, greeks from the cities along the west Black Sea coast kept their institutions long, but had to accept the tribe of romans along the traditional ones and many gained roman citizenship in the time of Traian when most of the elites became named Ulpius Trajanus.

In many areas romans tried to romanize greeks or hellenized people like it happened in Macedonia, S. Italy and Sicilly.

Even Hadrian founded a roman colony with a greek name, Adrianopolis, in the middle of hellenized tracians.

Some roman writers despised the greeks and the hellenized people of the East regarding them as girly, trecherous, unrational, cruel, cowerds and weak. This people and their philosophers spread corruption and immorality. Marcus Aurelius comments on egyptians (no doubt the hellenic elite from Alexandria) are quite racist.

Despite the fact that Rhodos, the most important trading center of the east, was always their friend and fought along side romans in all wars, Rome ruined his trade with no pity.

So, I believe that romans took what ever they liked from the greek culture and keeping an attitude of formal respect destroyed the greek political entities and tried to replace their language and influence with her own.

[DecimusCaesar]

The Romans did hold a strange attitude towards the Greeks. They considered them inferior but placed them on a higher pedestal, along with the Persians, above northern people like the Gauls or Germans.

 

When Rome first started having a stronger relationship with the Greek Colonies in southern Italy many conservative Roman senators were utterly opposed to what they saw as the Hellenization of their people. To the Romans the greeks were people "who spoke too much" and who were too clever for their own good. This was opposed to the Roman idea of 'gravitas' and being solid and serious. The Greeks cam across as being too fun loving. Cato the Elder was a big critic of things Greek and many Romans would have liked to expel their corrupting nature out of Roman society.

 

Polybius, being Greek also believed the Romans to be rather odd, especially their emphasis on ceremony and religion in numerous aspects of life, so this attitude went both ways. The Romans were traditionalist while the Greeks were more innovative when it came to science, technology and philosophy.

Even so the Romans did admire their 'brains' even if many were loathe to admit it. One Roman wrote that the Greeks had contributed very little to technology yet archaeological discoveries in Greece have shown that some aspects of Greek engineering weren't surpassed until the 17th Century AD. They even claimed that the level of technological and engineering brilliance declined and even disappeared during the Roman era.

 

During Republican times the Romans saw the Greeks as enemies no doubt after Tarentum called on Pyrrhus to come to their rescue, while Pyrrhus proceeded to destroy Roman armies while decimating his own. As such Greece became an enemy to be conquered as they posed a threat to Rome's expansion to the east. Later on we have the example of Greek cities like Athens throwing in its support to Mithridates leaving Sulla no choice but to attack the city. If Greeks would show support to Rome's enemies (as had happened earlier during the Second Punic War) then Greece needed to be subdued.

 

It wasn't until Hadrian's time that Greece really found any sort of true acceptance in Rome, but they still remained wary of them and would never consider them to be a people equal to their own. Even so at least the Greeks could see they were more admired by the Romans thatn the other 'barbarian' peoples.

[AEGYPTUS]

Since the begining Rome borrowed heavily from the greeks until in many aspects became hellenic. Still, from the begining until the end many romans despised the greeks.

Rome claimed to protect hellenism, but nobody else destroyed so many greek cities. Tarent, Syracusa and Corinth or the wide destruction of W. Greece show that romans used a heavy hand on greeks.

Thruout the imperial era people from various nations gained high ranks and even the purple, but I know no greeks among them. Hadrian used a greek in a high position and this was unusual for an empire that soon was led by a african with a punic accent and his syrian wife.

 

 

I would agree Rome has borrowed form many cultures including the Greeks. I would agree claming to be the Protectors of Hellenism and destroying all these cities under Greek influence is rather hypocritical. However I think it is important to note that the Greeks as a people valued freedom above all else. Rome may have had to use a few harsh examples to make sure the other Greek cities did not step out of line. Alexander the Great did it (Destruction of Thebes) and I am sure he and the Romans are not unique in this respect. What better way to establish one authority particularly in such a patriotic region such as Greece. The Ancient Greeks have always been very independent wishing to govern themselves just like every other nation I suppose so they are bound to be revolts if The Romans did not establish their authority over Greece. Perhaps they could have gone another way about it but they didn't unfortunately.

In regards to the last couple of sentences I always thought Greeks held quite well respected positions in society (Physicians, Teachers, and Craftsmen). Also correct me if i am wrong but didn't the Romans use Greek administration at least to a certain extent in the east. Also that it was due to the fact that Greek administration was not an alien concept to the east (Alexander the Great) so it would have made it slightly easier for the Romans to implement their on administration structures which had similarities to the Greek style?

 

 

AEGYUPTUS

[Krackalackin]

History shows it is apparent in my opinion that the Romans deeply admired the Culture the Greeks made but did not admire the creators. I don't think the Greeks at this time had the same behavioral traits as they did during the peloponesian wars. It was sort like Rome was during it's end. The Greeks were serious determined people but they had grown so rich and had done so many things, they were not the stern determined people anymore the Romans embodied. Basically what I'm saying is it was way past their heyday and they were more enjoying their heritage then looking to complete another chapter.

[caldrail]

Greeks as ordinary people are despised by romans. Even to call somewhat a greek is a term of disrespect. They are seen as crude and untrustworthy people. A very odd attitude when so much of roman culture is derived from Greece.

[Ursus]

I believe the Romans (aside from diehard conservatives) admired the Greeks of the classical era. They could appreciate the warrior arete found therein, and Sparta was a favorite tourist destination for Romans in Greece. The Roman literati modeled their works after Homer and the great tragedy writers. Greek myths and cults began influencing Roman religion since the beginning.

 

The Hellenistic era, with its softer Oriental side, was a phase of Greek culture more ambivalent in the minds of Romans. Hellenistic philosophies like Stoicism became popular with the Roman elite, but it was purely the ethical side that concerned the Romans, and they were adapted by Roman thinkers to the Roman mentality. The Hellenistic religious cults began penetrating Rome since the mid-Republic - but the establishment frowned heavily on these, and it wasn't until about the mid Principate that the state made peace with them all (with the exception of Christianity, of course).

[DecimusCaesar]

It's not so strange to think that the Romans despised the Greeks, even if they had inhereted most of their culture from them. One example on the other side of the world is Japan, which inherited some of it's culture from China, yet some Japanese still despise China. They even go as far as to claim that China had no influence on Japan at all.

[docoflove1974]

Greeks as ordinary people are despised by romans. Even to call somewhat a greek is a term of disrespect. They are seen as crude and untrustworthy people. A very odd attitude when so much of roman culture is derived from Greece.

 

I was under the impression that for Modern Italians, particularl those of the southern provinces, the only thing worse than calling someone a 'Greek' is to call them a 'Turk'...is this true?

[Rameses the Great]

In the early stages of Rome, many saw Greek civilization as highly advanced and sophisticated. During the early era of Rome, even the smallest of the Greek provinces were more impressive in sophistication and wealth then Rome itself.

 

I was under the impression that for Modern Italians, particularl those of the southern provinces, the only thing worse than calling someone a 'Greek' is to call them a 'Turk'...is this true?

 

Maybe, I remember some Europeans referring to Greece as, 'the dogs of Europe.' So beeing a Turk would probably be the worst thing possible, so it is believable.

 

Although the Greeks won the UEFA and the baskeball championship in Europe so I don't know how much validation there is to them beeing 'the dogs of Europe.'

[Kosmo]

AEGYPTUS - Physicians, Teachers, and Craftsmen were sometimes slaves. This proffesions were usually frowned upon by the elite like any other phyisical labour. If one loves a sexslave from Clazomenai this does not make him a admirer of greek culture.

Acces to power was the key to status and wealth. Romans denied that to greeks. They gave small administrative position to hellenistic minorities in some areas of the East like Syria and Egypt.

They also displaced greek language from many areas and replace it with latin and carried this as a deliberate policy that it's not tolerant but looks at greek subjects as potential opponents.

So, I guess that DC comparison with Japan-China relation it's correct.

[Julius Ratus]

Interestingly, they both saw the other as barbari/barbaroi. Here is a question, did the Roman word Barbarus come from the Greek word Barbaros? In Latin Barbarus means "bearded", correct me if I'm wrong. Did this come about because Greeks had beards or because of bearded Germano-Gauls? In Greek Barbaroi comes from them calling the Persians Bar-Bars because of how they sounded when they talked ("Hi, my name's Cyrus, bar bar bar bar bar..."). Did the Romans call people Barbari before they came into contact with the Greeks?

[Krackalackin]

Did the Romans call people Barbari before they came into contact with the Greeks?

 

I'm pretty sure they did or at least had another name for them. Like anywhere, phrases take shape in time and become popular while old ones die out. So I'm gonna wager if the Romans did not call the Gauls, cimbri, Cathaginians, Spanish, Barbari, they probably called them something different but meant the same thing.

 

I write that I'm pretty sure they did call the other people they met before the Greeks Barbarians because neighboring hostility by less civilized people is inseperable in roman history and there must have been slang of what to call them and they must have had a word to describe them as primitive or stupid.

 

Another reason why is I think they needed a word to call their neighbors inferior to rally themselves when a time came when they needed to take forceful action.

 

All together, it's most likely they called their neighbors barbaric in the early days of the city.

[georgious]

Since the begining Rome borrowed heavily from the greeks until in many aspects became hellenic. Still, from the begining until the end many romans despised the greeks.

Rome claimed to protect hellenism, but nobody else destroyed so many greek cities. Tarent, Syracusa and Corinth or the wide destruction of W. Greece show that romans used a heavy hand on greeks.

Thruout the imperial era people from various nations gained high ranks and even the purple, but I know no greeks among them. Hadrian used a greek in a high position and this was unusual for an empire that soon was led by a african with a punic accent and his syrian wife.

For example, greeks from the cities along the west Black Sea coast kept their institutions long, but had to accept the tribe of romans along the traditional ones and many gained roman citizenship in the time of Traian when most of the elites became named Ulpius Trajanus.

In many areas romans tried to romanize greeks or hellenized people like it happened in Macedonia, S. Italy and Sicilly.

Even Hadrian founded a roman colony with a greek name, Adrianopolis, in the middle of hellenized tracians.

Some roman writers despised the greeks and the hellenized people of the East regarding them as girly, trecherous, unrational, cruel, cowerds and weak. This people and their philosophers spread corruption and immorality. Marcus Aurelius comments on egyptians (no doubt the hellenic elite from Alexandria) are quite racist.

Despite the fact that Rhodos, the most important trading center of the east, was always their friend and fought along side romans in all wars, Rome ruined his trade with no pity.

So, I believe that romans took what ever they liked from the greek culture and keeping an attitude of formal respect destroyed the greek political entities and tried to replace their language and influence with her own.

 

It is a very central question concerning antiquity which we term Graeco-roman.I happen to be a modern Greek and I have to point out that some modern Greek authors write books in Greek about the relationship between Greece and Rome. I remember Edgar Alllan Poe's "To HELEN" that includes the stanza "the glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome".This is a modern cliche- the ancient cliche is atributed to Horace who said that captive Greece took captive Latium-approximatelly.Those clisches appart we do not know the relationship of Greeks and Romans exactly.Anderson described the process of the conquest of the Mediterrean basin by Rome and equated the Roman ruling class with a vampire-bat. I do not think that Greece escaped such a process.Some people were assimilated in the system such as Polybius for example who made a career out of it-as Josephus did as a Romanized Jew.Bertrand Russel gave a good depiction of the relationship between Greece and Rome in "the history of Western philoshophy" where he described the flower of Roman youth whom Cato seeked to admonish and Carneades to lecture as imperialistic and stupid.I do not think that the average Roman soldier looting Greece could appreciate it's heritage in any way that modern american troops appreciate the cultures of Iraq-for that matter. Rome, as Toqueville noted was a city united to conquer the world. That was the unifying glue of Rome's governing class who viewed the rest of the world as fair game. Some warlords were cultivated true but that does not make them pro-Greek neccesarily.Caesar's cultivation made him more tolerant towards the Gauls? I do not read much in Rome's respect of other cultures-it was pragmatic accomodation,even Roman imperialism could not swallow the whole world.Greeks were a more favoured part of the conquered-as Christians and Jews were in the Ottoman Empire-but that could not humanize an empire or a Republic that was essentially a huge war machine. The Roman elite were a bunch of world-conquerors full of animus dominandi and I do not think that we should idealize this aspect of the social union of Rome. Rome looted Greece both really and metaphorically. The only literary genre that is originally Roman is satire.Roman imperialism was merciless when meeting Greek or Jewish or Hellenistic or Gaulish political entities.The intellectualism of Greeks was seen by the Romans as effeminacy and decline.Whether being a paedagogue to the children of a rich Senator, that is a slave who takes children at school, can be seen as laudable occupation depends on the eye of the beholder.After it's demise the BRitish Empire played Athens to USA's Rome. The example is instructive I think.Green's books: "From Alexander to Actium" and a recent one paint I think vividly the true character of the Empire. When I was a student our books noted that the law of the Twelve Tables was influenced by the reforms of Solon in Athens-an idea that a French historian of institutions-whose name escapes me finds "tres douteuse".The whole point is an effort to compensate MODERN Greeks for their present political weakness.Roman senators were as indifferent to Greek literature as American milionaires are to Shakeaspeare.The whole process is a sentimentalizing effort trying to transform aggressive and acquisitive warlords to a species of cultural connoiseurs. A modern example:Season one of HBO''s Rome-how are the ptolemies and their court depicted in front of Caesar?Effeminate(one is an eunuch, sceming and treacherous-even in their physique-someone thought they were reminiscent of Star WARS creatures.Caesar shouts that Pompey was a Consul of Rome(which means that his life is valued more than that of other creatures). He demands payment of a debt due according to law-and when one of the Ptolemaic Court observes that he means roman law, he shouts that there is no other kind of law) I think this popular series captures the zeitgeist, feeling of superiority,been the judge and the judged,gradation of human beings according to been Romans or not.The attitude of Romans towards Greeks was the same as the attitude of Western Imperialism towards the East, which the late Edward Said labelled "Orientalism".There is nothing to romantisize here.