Propaganda in the Roman Empire

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Propaganda is considered to be a modern political art, but the Romans were masters of 'spin'. How did Rome's leaders communicate their power and their policies to a massive and diverse empire?

 

Have a read of this article and tell me what you think.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/roman...rticle_01.shtml

[Primus Pilus]

Propaganda is considered to be a modern political art, but the Romans were masters of 'spin'. How did Rome's leaders communicate their power and their policies to a massive and diverse empire?

 

Have a read of this article and tell me what you think.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/roman...rticle_01.shtml

 

"His image was stamped on every coin, and thus reached the most remote corners of his domain - for there is hardly a Roman site, however rude, where archaeologists do not find coins."

 

The single easiest method of "reporting" the exploits of the leading Roman families to the masses throughout the empire. Everyone did not necessarily read the histories and other books, not everyone necessarily understood the implications and grandeur of architectural design, and perhaps even statues and other artworks, but most assuredly coins permeated every corner of the empire and beyond. Every transaction was graced with the face of the emperor past or present, and/or his family and their various deeds (true, not true, or embellished). The message was fairly clear... would you bite the hand that feeds you? (Though oft times, somebody was most willing to do just that).

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

How very true PP.

 

Surely one of the best pieces Roman of propaganda has to be Caesar's Gallic Commentries, what better way to 'big yourself up' than to record all your "amazing " victories over those terrible Gauls and then let the people back home know how much of an all conquering hero you really are. How very clever :smartass:

 

Does anybody know of any other pieces of propaganda dating earlier than this period and if so what's the earliest piece available?

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

They are many pieces of evidence relating to earlier acts of propaganda, since at least the war of the Peloponnese in the 5th century BC, and even the war against the Persians at the turn of the 6th century.

 

Be it by building huge tombs for the fallen at Marathon or by erecting inscribed stones glorifying those who died at Platea, be it by singing praise of the Athenians in theater performances or by claiming to fight "for the freedom of the Greeks" as the Spartan did during their long struggle against Athens, be it by building huge buildings like the Attalea stoa in the hellenistic time, greek examples of propaganda abound. But we have even earlier examples of propaganda : simply looks at the monuments of ancient near and middle east ( Assyrians, Babylonians, ... ) or to those build in Egypt, like those of Rameses II where he always speak of his great battle at Quadesh some 1000 years before the roman began to rise.

 

So propaganda is old, very old. Now in roman context, do we have lot's of examples of propaganda ? Yes we do. One of the first to come to the mind is Flamininus proclamation at the Isthmus games where he told the Greeks he had freed them from the Macedonian, 198 BC. Money minted some years before depicting Hannibal's elephant in order to recall the victory over the Carthaginians was another propaganda example. Earlier we've got another example of romans recalling their triumph over an enemy by depicting an elephant on a coin : it's Pyrrus' elephants which are shown.

 

But one of the most ancient roman example of propaganda is probably the institution of the triumph, something that was probably one of the most institutionalized show of propaganda of the whole ancient world.

[Andrew Dalby]

But one of the most ancient roman example of propaganda is probably the institution of the triumph, something that was probably one of the most institutionalized show of propaganda of the whole ancient world.

 

Cato (the Elder, the Censor) wrote a book "Origines" which was about Italian and Roman history. There was a lot about Roman conquests (naturally). Cato followed the official style (mentioned in another thread recently) of not naming military commanders. He just said "the Romans" did so-and-so. And yet, in the surviving fragments of the "Origines", there's an amazing quantity of material about Cato's own military campaigns!

 

In a sense, Caesar in his "Commentaries" was following Cato's example. At a distance. Of course he *did* mention the commander's name (C. Julius Caesar) but he wrote the books in the third person, as if a neutral observer, and you would be hard put to it to find any single sentence where any bias is *obvious*. Yet, somehow, at the end of the book, you agree with him that, yes, Gaul had to be invaded ("pacified") and Caesar was the man to do it.

[Gaius Octavius]

The word 'propaganda' carries the connotation of an 'intentional lie'. I don't believe that anyone can prove that what Caesar wrote was an 'intentional lie'. It is entirely possible that he wrote what he 'knew'' and that what he knew was true. I don't believe that putting G. Washington's crossing the Delaware in winter on a coin or the portrait of Queen Elizabeth on a stamp is 'propaganda'. I can't think of a proper word for this, but the words 'publication' and 'glorification' come to mind.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

propaganda meaning "lie" is only a modern interpretation, it is first of all the art of portraying oneself in a good light and painting the enemies in a bad one. To glorify oneself while diminishing the rivals.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

The word 'propaganda' carries the connotation of an 'intentional lie'. I don't believe that anyone can prove that what Caesar wrote was an 'intentional lie'. It is entirely possible that he wrote what he 'knew'' and that what he knew was true. I don't believe that putting G. Washington's crossing the Delaware in winter on a coin or the portrait of Queen Elizabeth on a stamp is 'propaganda'. I can't think of a proper word for this, but the words 'publication' and 'glorification' come to mind.

 

I wouldn't call it a lie, i think exaggeration is a better way of describing what Caesar wrote

Edited January 12, 2007 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[Primus Pilus]

Propaganda can take many forms... it can be complete truth, bogus lie, embellishment, or any combination thereof. The face of Vespasian on a coin with such legends as "JUDAEA CAPTA" is propaganda intended to inform the masses of conquest and subjugation as a direct result of Flavian leadership, while doing so with general factual data.

 

It's intent is to support an agenda (in the above example, glorification of both the Roman legions and the Flavians), but the definition of the word does not have to include dishonesty.

[DecimusCaesar]

Propaganda was also prevalent in the amphitheatre. The Romans would sometimes stage fights between Gladiators that was directed against a certain real enemy, such as a Roman Gladiator that defeats a stereotyped German etc. After all they really did have Gladiator types called the Samnites, who were based on past enemies.

The Colosseum must have been a fairly large advertising board for the Emperors, as it would draw in the crowds where various demonstrations of the Emperor's might would have been made. A re-enactment of a famous battle perhaps? Or maybe the prisoners from the Emperor's own campaigns might have been displayed before being slaughtered. I wonder how much of the fights that took place in the amphitheatre's had a political reason behind them. Perhaps to cause fear and revulsion of one of the enemies of the Empire?

[caldrail]

Propaganda was also prevalent in the amphitheatre. The Romans would sometimes stage fights between Gladiators that was directed against a certain real enemy, such as a Roman Gladiator that defeats a stereotyped German etc. After all they really did have Gladiator types called the Samnites, who were based on past enemies.

The Colosseum must have been a fairly large advertising board for the Emperors, as it would draw in the crowds where various demonstrations of the Emperor's might would have been made. A re-enactment of a famous battle perhaps?

 

Yes. The romans liked to see portrayals of glorious victories played out before them. It was actually one of the bloodier forms of gladiator combat in that hundreds of men per side might take part. Often these were undesirables such as criminals or prisoners of war. Quite a fitting sentence in roman eyes - to pay for their defiance by dying in battle for the edification of the crowd. These re-enactments were of course abstract - there was no attepmt to make the formations realistic. The same was true of naval re-enactments held on lakes.

 

I wouldn't say the colosseum was an advertising board, it was an arena for public entertainment, but of course emperors had every reason to please the people by putting on lavish games. Remember that a good event was not guaranteed - Titus was embarrased on the inaugral event because the lions refused to attack anyone, preferring instead to slink away in fright.

 

Or maybe the prisoners from the Emperor's own campaigns might have been displayed before being slaughtered.

 

The primary reason to stage a re-enacment, apart from the spectacle that is. The romans derived a sense of cultural self-worth from seeing their former enemies humiliated as second best warriors, reduced to performing in public, which in roman eyes was a dishonorable profession.

 

I wonder how much of the fights that took place in the amphitheatre's had a political reason behind them. Perhaps to cause fear and revulsion of one of the enemies of the Empire?

 

Fights were indeed often politically important. They were put on both to impress the crowd and keep them happy. A successful event was a considerable boost to the sponsors standing. Unfortunately, games were not staged to vilify enemies before the war. Oh no, that was reserved for the victory celebration afterward. To vilify them beforehand was to invite a very horrible political and personal disaster if they started winning!

[Horatius]

Any of you old enough to remember when we wore political buttons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cato_an...aganda_cups.jpg

Edited January 14, 2007 by Horatius

[caldrail]

Roman politics was very much in your face wasn't it? Your home daubed by graffiti for one candidate or another, oraters preaching the virtues of one and the faults of others. These dishes, bearing messages of that nature. Candidates putting on public entertainment at lavish expense purely to gain an electoral advantage.

 

In fact, had the romans invented the printing press, I imagine the amount of junk papyrus coming through your door would be as bad or worse than today!

[Kosmo]

Propaganda was not only made by the state or the emperor. Graves, public monuments, statues, graffity, games etc all were used by most people to embelish the image of themselfs and of their family. Most things that arheolgy tells us it's about this lesser people propaganda. Even a poor freedman could have a nice tomb made with an inscrition that sometimes it's in bad latin.

Also cities made propaganda.

[Andrew Dalby]

Propaganda was not only made by the state or the emperor. Graves, public monuments, statues, graffity, games etc all were used by most people to embelish the image of themselfs and of their family. Most things that arheolgy tells us it's about this lesser people propaganda. Even a poor freedman could have a nice tomb made with an inscrition that sometimes it's in bad latin.

Also cities made propaganda.

Good point. Even if you can't get across the "fact" that you're noble, pious, charitable, a good parent, a fine citizen, during your lifetime, at least (with the stonecutter's help) you can make the point after your death. And with reasonable luck the "fact" will be on record for two thousand years or more.