Ancient Racism

[Ursus]

I don't care to get into semantics about what constitutes "race" and "racism."

 

But I pose a question: is there not a difference between the following assertions:

 

1) Our culture is superior. All other cultures are beyond redemption. We can ignore them, exploit them, or destroy them as we see fit.

2) Our culture is superior. However, other people may, through a wide variety of means, be allowed to share in that culture and become part of that culture themselves.

 

Perhaps "manifest destiny" is something out of favor today. But Europe is Europe because the Romans were not afraid to bring their culture to Iron Age tribes living in hillforts.

[DecimusCaesar]

I've been wondering if racism would have been dominant in the provinces. Afterall, in the east, the main language and culture was still Hellenistic even during the later years of Roman occupation. I can see the citizens of Rome having their racist attitudes towards the Greeks, although I can't see the Romans having those same views in areas that were dominated by Greek Culture and language - a place where even a large part of government officials and soldiers spoke Greek instead of Latin.

 

Still, The Romans in Judea still held Jewish culture and people in contempt, even though the Romans were in the minority. Do you think that interaction with foreign people throughout Imperial history made the Romans less racist or more racist? Afterall, It might make more "sense" for Romans to think of the Greeks in derogatory terms during the Macedonian wars rather than centuries after the conquest of their country.

 

What is interesting when you consider the history of the Later Empire is that, despite having large numbers of Germans in the army and in important government positions (Stilicho for instance), the Romans still held the Germans in utter contempt. There are many examples of Roman xenophobia towards the Germans even during this later period (despite centuries of interaction). This hatred wasn't just directed at Rome's German enemies but towards Germans that had become Roman citizens.

 

There seems to be a dule attitude towards these Germans. Prudentius for instance, wrote this verse:

 

"A common Law made them equals and bound them in single name...

We live in most diverse countries, like fellow-citizens of the same blood dwelling

within the single ramparts of their native city

and all united in an ancestral home."

 

This might seem like a positive attitude, but Prudentius later writes:

 

"As beasts from men, as dumb from those who speak,

as from the good who God's Commandments seek

differ the foolish heathen, so Rome stands,

Alone in pride above barbarian lands."

[M. Porcius Cato]

is there not a difference between the following assertions:

1) Our culture is superior. All other cultures are beyond redemption. We can ignore them, exploit them, or destroy them as we see fit.

2) Our culture is superior. However, other people may, through a wide variety of means, be allowed to share in that culture and become part of that culture themselves.

They are different but certainly not incompatible.

 

But Europe is Europe because the Romans were not afraid to bring their culture to Iron Age tribes living in hillforts.

If Roman culture had been a continuous force in Europe, that might be said. However, after the Germanic invasions, Europe went right back to the Iron Age level of civilization that had existed before Rome invaded. The Roman language, literature, architecture, political system, and the like had a greater impact on Europe during the Renaissance than it did under Roman occupation. Petrarch did more to Romanize modern Europe than did Caesar.

[The Augusta]

Decimus - do you not think that the hatred of the Germans stemmed from the defeat of the three legions by Varus and other atrocities? Now, this may sound fanciful when you think of the Romans of Stilicho's time (i.e. 4th/5th century) but such wounds not only go deep but they become part of the national consciousness for centuries. As a comparison, think of the Irish catholic hatred of Cromwell four centuries on. And as for the Scottish/English rivalry - it is still a very real thing today. I am not saying that it was the only reason for hatred of the Germans, but it may be worth a consideration.

Edited May 26, 2007 by The Augusta

[DecimusCaesar]

Decimus - do you not think that the hatred of the Germans stemmed from the defeat of the three legions by Varus and other atrocities? Now, this may sound fanciful when you think of the Romans of Stilicho's time (i.e. 4th/5th century) but such wounds not only go deep but they become part of the national consciousness for centuries. As a comparison, think of the Irish catholic hatred of Cromwell four centuries on. And as for the Scottish/English rivalry - it is still a very real thing today. I am not saying that it was the only reason for hatred of the Germans, but it may be worth a consideration.

 

That's a very good point. Afterall, didn't Augustus mark the day that the Varus Legions were defeated as a black day for all? The defeat of Varus Legions certainly played a huge part on influncing Roman and German relations. Another example would be the Gauls' sack of Rome in 390 BC. The Romans of Caesar's day still despised the Gauls for a crime they'd committed centuries earlier.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Do you not think that the hatred of the Germans stemmed from the defeat of the three legions by Varus and other atrocities?

 

The Romans were beaten by other groups from time to time (e.g., Greeks), yet they did not harbor everlasting enmity. Isn't it possible that the German and Gallic victories were so galling to the Romans precisely because the Roman viewed them as especially inferior? To be defeated by an equal is no great dishonor; to be defeated by an inferior is maddening.

[The Augusta]

Do you not think that the hatred of the Germans stemmed from the defeat of the three legions by Varus and other atrocities?

 

The Romans were beaten by other groups from time to time (e.g., Greeks), yet they did not harbor everlasting enmity. Isn't it possible that the German and Gallic victories were so galling to the Romans precisely because the Roman viewed them as especially inferior? To be defeated by an equal is no great dishonor; to be defeated by an inferior is maddening.

 

Yet another good point! Although in the case of Pyrrhus, they had the consolation of inflicting more losses on him than he had gains! But I would agree that the Romans of the Republic would not have seen the Greeks as inferior, no matter what the official line.

 

But what of the Carthaginians? Was there a grudging respect of Hannibal? I detect that there was. Despite Cato the Elder's famous quote, isn't there a case for saying that the Romans of the Republic viewed the Carthaginians as an honourable enemy? Now why was this? Are we agreed that they did not view Carthage as inferior?

 

This discussion gets more and more interesting as we go along.

[Segestan]

Roman racism was a requirement of surviving in a tough world. Without such strong views of Roman Superiority theRepublic and even the Empire seen through out the world as the expansion of Roman Laws of Justice , tempered with wisdom and virtue would never have come out of Rome. Of course that 'rascism' was internally displayed as rivalries as well externally shown in conquest. External rascism, however was in a greater geo-political means through acted out through the ages of Roman inflences ultimately the tool that destroyed Rome.

The uptopian view of the world is not for this world.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Isn't there a case for saying that the Romans of the Republic viewed the Carthaginians as an honourable enemy? Now why was this? Are we agreed that they did not view Carthage as inferior?

 

I wouldn't say they thought the 'treacherous' Carthaginians their equal in honor, but they didn't regard them as wholly inferior as piss-drinking Spaniards, animal-worshipping Egyptians, hairy Gauls, and giant German oafs (to put things in Cicero's terms).

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

Here I think Dubuisson's article on the roman vision of the foreigners ( availlable at http://www.class.ulg.ac.be/ressources/vision.pdf but in french only ) is a must read because it is to my knowledge on of the only real study on the subject. Most interesting is table on page 5 which gives the roman stereotyps people by people.

 

Of less interest but in english is the older book by N.K. Petrochilos "Roman attitudes to the greeks" and of course J.P.V.D. Baldson's Romans and aliens, less a formal study than a catalogue of annecdots.

[The Augusta]

Roman racism was a requirement of surviving in a tough world. Without such strong views of Roman Superiority theRepublic and even the Empire seen through out the world as the expansion of Roman Laws of Justice , tempered with wisdom and virtue would never have come out of Rome. Of course that 'rascism' was internally displayed as rivalries as well externally shown in conquest. External rascism, however was in a greater geo-political means through acted out through the ages of Roman inflences ultimately the tool that destroyed Rome.

The uptopian view of the world is not for this world.

 

Indeed - but you could also be describing the British Empire ideology here, Segestan - an ideology that appeared over a thousand years later. This is quite fascinating. To get back to an earlier post of mine in this thread - is this ideology of superiority a common denominator that we can apply to all imperialist cultures? If so, why did it not change in essence over a millennium?

[Rameses the Great]

I believe some type of racism had existed throughout every civilization in some way. The Egyptians believed they were the perfect race not to dark, like Ethiopians, and not to light, like Semites. The Persians, although did not use slavery to much, believed other cultures were below them such as the Greeks. The Greeks believed anyone who wasn't a Hellenic was a 'barbarian' albeit not racist in our modern sense but certainly nationalistic. I wouldn't say that the Romans were the first to start ancient racism because it had existed well before they arrived on the scene. Whether they took it to a whole new level is very debatable.

[docoflove1974]

is there not a But Europe is Europe because the Romans were not afraid to bring their culture to Iron Age tribes living in hillforts.

 

If Roman culture had been a continuous force in Europe, that might be said. However, after the Germanic invasions, Europe went right back to the Iron Age level of civilization that had existed before Rome invaded. The Roman language, literature, architecture, political system, and the like had a greater impact on Europe during the Renaissance than it did under Roman occupation. Petrarch did more to Romanize modern Europe than did Caesar.

 

I wouldn't disagree with this point, MPC, only to add that especially in the case of literature and other areas, the people of the Middle Ages and Renaissance often viewed the times of the Greeks and Romans with much romanticism (sorry about that) in discussing the glory days gone by.

 

Nevertheless, there were stronger efforts to 're-introduce' Latin, both in the Church and in educated circles. Between the advancing education of the peoples--they had more books at their disposal, and could understand them better--and the advances in technology in all areas--where often Latinized names were used--there were more 'educated' words coming into the system. For example, many of the 3-syllable words in Spanish, particularly those with ante-penultimate stress, come from re-introduced Latin words in the Renaissance period.

[WotWotius]

Do you not think that the hatred of the Germans stemmed from the defeat of the three legions by Varus and other atrocities?

 

The Romans were beaten by other groups from time to time (e.g., Greeks), yet they did not harbor everlasting enmity. Isn't it possible that the German and Gallic victories were so galling to the Romans precisely because the Roman viewed them as especially inferior? To be defeated by an equal is no great dishonor; to be defeated by an inferior is maddening.

 

Yes, this was often the case when the Romans were assessing the Gauls. The Gallic sack of Rome in 390 BC left a profoundly long-lasting effect on the psyche of Rome. From that day on, most Romans assigned themselves to an almost Sun-reader-like mentality, viewing Gallic culture as something that does not go beyond 'sacking things'. As a result, only a few Roman authors try to look beyond this image and delve further into the nature of the Gauls

[Kosmo]

Romans were xenophobic, but in practical things they tended to forget about this stereotypes. For example they despised greeks but used them as teachers, doctors etc. Even more they were always allied with some greek city in conflicts, borrowed heavily from their religion, art and philosophy etc. They deliberatly displaced greek culture from some places but never tried to wipe it out and replace it with the "superior" roman culture.

If they despised iberians they still changed their weaponry after their style. They also adopted syrian and egyptian gods and made use of gaul and german mercenaries.

Emperors were drown from most corners of the empire and while some were descendants of roman colonists like Trajan others were descendants of natives of provinces like Septimius Sever of punic origins.

Roman xenophobia had no practical effect in their attitudes toward groups and individuals. After all they, from an early time, opened their cities and political system to their subjects. Romans embraced those who were willing to came to their way, but had little sympathy for those who clinged to particular views. This is logic for a diverse empire.

 

Maybe this xenophobia was a way to insure that people that refused to be romanized are penalized thru exclusion. Who wants to be called a piss drinking spaniard when he can opt to be a honorable roman?