Roman Unity

[sonic]

When I was at school I was always taught that the Roman Empire was the greatest Empire ever, and that the people that lived within it were lucky to be a part of such a glorious enterprise. People from Africa and Syria would be able to go to the northern limits of Hadrian's Wall in England and still hold a conversation with the inhabitants in Latin and vice-versa.

 

Slowly, with increased research, I am coming to the conclusion that the idea that the Roman Empire was one social 'whole' was, at best, simplistic and, at worst, completely unjustified.

 

So, given that - for example - during the 'Third-Century Crisis' the provinces of the West and the East revolted from central control, are we right to see the Roman Empire as one, single, unified whole, or was it rather a collection of separate regions with distinct identities living under the Empire simply for convenience? Or was it something in between?

 

As I can't quite make my mind up, I thought that maybe some of you could help me sort this out?

[Primus Pilus]

Slowly, with increased research, I am coming to the conclusion that the idea that the Roman Empire was one social 'whole' was, at best, simplistic and, at worst, completely unjustified.

 

It's unquestionably simplistic and hardly representative of the diversity of the empire (especially by the mid imperial era.) However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest central and relatively uniform authority throughout the empire. What I think is often lacking when we think of Rome is the myriad of cultures and identities that made up the social framework. Clearly the structure of local authority would have had a different flavor based on social customs from region to region, but what Rome did brilliantly throughout its conquests was to incorporate these existing ruling hierarchies.

 

So, given that - for example - during the 'Third-Century Crisis' the provinces of the West and the East revolted from central control, are we right to see the Roman Empire as one, single, unified whole, or was it rather a collection of separate regions with distinct identities living under the Empire simply for convenience? Or was it something in between?

 

I view the 3rd century crisis as less a condemnation of "Rome" as a central authority but rather a condemnation of the leaders that held that authority. For the most part, the provinces had little reason to reject the concept of Roman authority especially the longer they were accustomed to it. However, it is easy to understand what civil war and oppressive rule can do to a mindset of a population. While we may look at breakaway provinces and regions as a rejection of a central authority, we must also understand that these "revolts" took place where rogue governors (whether legitimate rejection of corrupt authority or personal ambition) had access to large standing armies. The population did not reject the Roman idea per se, but rather the current imperial regime in favor of their own favored local general.

 

It's a start anyway

[Ingsoc]

You shaould also remember the deep diffrences between the Latin spaeaking west and the Greek speaking east, this division existed even before the empire was officialy divided, for example in the days of Augustus, Agrippa were given full powers over all eastern provinces.

[caldrail]

When I was at school I was always taught that the Roman Empire was the greatest Empire ever, and that the people that lived within it were lucky to be a part of such a glorious enterprise. People from Africa and Syria would be able to go to the northern limits of Hadrian's Wall in England and still hold a conversation with the inhabitants in Latin and vice-versa.

 

Slowly, with increased research, I am coming to the conclusion that the idea that the Roman Empire was one social 'whole' was, at best, simplistic and, at worst, completely unjustified.

 

So, given that - for example - during the 'Third-Century Crisis' the provinces of the West and the East revolted from central control, are we right to see the Roman Empire as one, single, unified whole, or was it rather a collection of separate regions with distinct identities living under the Empire simply for convenience? Or was it something in between?

 

As I can't quite make my mind up, I thought that maybe some of you could help me sort this out?

What comes across from my reading is this cosmopolitan ideal that the romans preferred. They regarded their culture as the civilisation, the center of everything worthy about humanity. It was a little arrogant, but they had a point, despite the brutality involved, but then europe wasn't a friendly place back then and brutality wasn't unusual. Although these barbarians were tolerated amongst their midst, the romans much preferred them to speak latin. Many didn't of course, and the greek language was in many ways far more important given that it was used for commerce. Becoming 'roman' was something that might open doors for you. It gave you the right bearing, the right accent. I've mentioned this before, but on Trajan's first speech in the senate the senators rolled in the aisles at his spanish accent. Barbarians were encouraged to become romanised. It meant they were thinking in terms of being part of roman society. That didn't always work of course (arminius being an obvious example). A lot is said of the greek-speaking east and how this led to a split in later years, but I think that factor was only one of many for this political event. Constantine wanted a new capital. Rome was tired, shabby, run-down, and romans were possibly disinterested and suspicious following the civil wars. Byzantium on the other hand was a thriving town and a good location for a great city, something not lost on Constantine, who was striving for icons to weld his shattered empire back together. The fact they spoke greek is actually irrelevant. When the split occured, it had more to do with the failure of government over a wider empire. Costs had risen, people were perhaps lazier, the old republican zeal had long since evaporated.

 

We see Rome as a monolithic empire sending its legions to crush dissent for one simple reason - thats exactly how the romans wanted it to be seen. So did Constantine I should say, and lets not forget his attempt to bring the christian church together as a unified whole. One religion - one empire. Its no coincidence therefore that since the church has preserved latin, so it has also preserved the image of Rome as this monolithic state. Perhaps thats not entirely fair. The legend of Rome has survived through folklore and story-telling. Notice how the uneducated person sees Rome - Power, Glory, Wealth, Decadence, Excess. These are powerful images underpinned by stories of those ever colourful Julio-Claudians. The last two attributes, decadence and excess, are definitely imperial in origin. The civil wars of the republic were behind them, Rome was then an autocracy and would be thereafter, the old republican austerity had been buried by the new imperial 'good times' brought in by augustus. Let the good times roll. Public morality was longer constrained, and whereas a woman of good birth but dubious behaviour may have been outrageously scandalous in the republic, she was an object of gossip and almost celebrity status in the empire.

 

Whether Rome was a 'social whole' is partly down to opinion. Superficially it was. Rome wanted its foreign acquisitions to become roman, to adopt the same language, ways, and lifestyles. Yet even the city of Rome itself had ghettoes. Much like today. Our own cities have 'chinatowns', or areas where foreigners group together. So not everyone wanted to buy into what Rome was even if they wanted to shelter in its culture. Again, the parallel today is these foreign immigrants taking advantage of the western welfare but not relinguishing their own culture. Its not for nothing that these people do not rise to the fore in society. The foreign provinces, at least for the poor lower classes who may have lived pretty much as they had always done, carried on doing their thing quietly under the roman aegis. When in Rome, do as the Romans.