Diminishment of Roman Civilization?

[Nerva]

Subjective history varies not only from person to person but also over time. The Founding Fathers of our republic placed great emphasis on the positive aspects of Roman history and you'd be hard pressed to find a FF who could not read/write/speak Latin. I would imagine Napoleon's France, the Prussians, and other expansionist regimes saw much that was positive in Rome of the Principate. I would also imagine that in the post WWII era, with the collapse of European and the Japanese empires, Rome fell out of fashion. And there is no denying the attraction of the intimacy of the Classical Hellenic city state (doomed to ultimate failure that they were).

Excellent point. Understanding how to govern an Empire was essential knowledge in the days of European colonialism. Now that those days have past, so too has the need for learning about the Romans from the perspective of Empire building or controlling an Empire. I think the lack of interest sells Roman History short though and I do think it should be a separate entity from some generic Mediterranean History.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Nerva

[WotWotius]

I too get annoyed at Western post-colonial guilt at its own heritage and the downplaying of the classics. It's a self-flagellation that needs to end. But I do agree that the legacy of Roman greatness did owe something to surrounding cultures who were there first.

 

The cultural relativism (i.e. the belief that, by definition, all cultures are equal) of the postcolonial backlash is indeed an annoyance. Yes, all cultures are worthy of further study, but some clearly had a more of a resounding impact on the world than others - in reference to Ancient Rome, this is clearly the case. We thus should not marginalize the study of Rome on the basis modern, and somewhat irrelevant, ethics.

[caldrail]

There is something deep in the human psyche that emerges when confidence and power are attained. Some historians have commented that Hitler was trying to create a germanic Rome, and since he he was justifying his regime with all sorts of invented connections, there is reason to believe this. However, the romans did not simply create their own grandiose ideas of Rome out of nowhere - it was for them a natural expression of their own success, and modern dictators who follow the same route might also be said to be expressing the same sentiments.

 

Roman republicanism was a slowly evolving step for Rome, but resulted over time in a giant leap for mankind

Roman republicanism was an ideal, not an an established paradise. Was it such a giant leap for mankind? That seems a little overstated, and there are other political forms that claim the same moral high ground. If we want to see roman republicanism as a giant leap, we have to see it in terms in the improvement of mankind for the better. There the romans failed. In fact, the romans had little intention in improving things for the common man. Instead it was a system of government evolved to suit the ruling oligarchy. In the Republic, the idea was that no single man would dominate politics, that no excessive rule from a king would again scandalise and ruin Rome. For that reason, power was shared, power was temporary, and power was by consent. On the face it this system appears very egalitarian and perhaps our view of it is coloured by our own experience of extended democracy. The romans had no such illusions. Although they ensured that power was not hijacked by dictators (modern sense), they chose their leaders from amongst those who were qualified by wealth. There were senators who thought kindly of the common man and made some rulings in his favour, there were also plenty who wanted the common man kept firmly in his place.

 

They to me so clearly defined the all important ideas of family , nation and God. Not exclusive virtues but Rome seems to have held it leadership to these ideas better than others. The result .....Rome was a superior culture.

Lets be a little more precise here. Rome did not have a national identity as we understand it. It was a city state, a dominant power, the ruler of an empire. Citizens did not live within a nation, they lived within an empire who ultimately answered to one city. Thats what SPQR meant. Senate and People of Rome. Notice the differentiation in status. The people of Rome were something seperate from their ruling class, people who must look to their leaders for support and protection. It is an identifiable marker of patronage, a system of very basic human interaction across social class that said - "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours". Is that your superior culture? Also, we need to understand the extent of corruption that coloured roman life long before the Pricipate let its hair down. Corruption was a roman way of life. It was how they did business, and even though some individuals attempted to curb or eradicate it, the majority simply accepted that the way to get what you want was to slip a few sestercii. There are cases of ordinary soldiers complaining because the opportunities to bribe their senior commanders were becoming scarce. The superiority of roman civilisation is somewhat illusory, and is based on the imagery and hype we see in film, tv, and ancient monuments. Make no mistake, the addition of these stone edifices was intended both to glorify the individual commerorated, and to demonstrate the superiority of Rome both to its own citizens and to visitors. That does not imply the superiority is real, merely that wealthy romans were building public images to sell to the bystander, usually to ensure personal success. Dominance does not imply moral superiority. Ok, Rome was a cruel culture - we know that - but that was not unusual for the ancient world and once you examine contemporary civilisations, whatever their redeeming features, they always demonstrate a harsh and unforgiving side. If Rome held leadership to these ideas then thats a success of propaganda, military, and political will that has endured in the popular conciousness via the christian churches to this day, and has assumed a legendary status in true traditional human manner. Superior? No, of course not, it wasn't any better a system than anyone elses, but it was a successful one for some time, whose hellenistic and capatlistic principles are the bedrock for our own cultures. But aren't we therefore guilty, by building our world on theirs, of swallowing the same roman hype?

 

The point about 'mediterranean culture' also brings up an interesting aspect of human psychology - our need to classify. We like labels. We like to pigeon-hole, to put everything in its place. There are also people who like to place other peoples opinions in their place (Yes, I get accused of that too!) and therefore a 'new' label' is one way of taking this knowledge and giving a different credibility and perhaps even devaluing the opinions of those who supported an older label.

[Northern Neil]

One thing that seems to be absent in this debate thus far - unless my hasty skim reading has missed it - is language. Half of Europe, from portugal to the Black sea, speak languages whose foundation is the Latin imported to those regions from Central Italy. The Germanic languages have heavily borrowed words from latin, and even Finno - ugric languages use latin derived words for technical/scientific terms. Not enough? ok...

 

European architecture from 1650 - 1920 heavily influenced by Roman (not greek) variants of classical architecture. Political models such as the US Senate. Britain's arterial road system overlying an already existing system of Roman Roads.

 

In my day - to - day life in Barrow-In-Furness, the most humdrum town in the world, I hear teenagers using expressions such as 'etcetera' 'Vice - versa' and even 'Ergo'. Our calendar is an adjusted version of one implemented by Julius Caesar. Religious believers I am acquainted with follow a religion spread - and largely re-invented by - the Roman state.

 

Contrast this against the influence on my life of Tamil, Indus-valley or chinese imperial culture. There aint that much, reallly, is there? I - or rather we - should rest our case. Eastern, African and middle eastern people do not seem to be embarrassed about their colonial and imperial pasts and do not appear to want to diminish the role of their parent cultures in history. Why, then, in the West, do so many of us?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Rome did not have a national identity as we understand it. It was a city state, a dominant power, the ruler of an empire. Citizens did not live within a nation, they lived within an empire who ultimately answered to one city.

 

This doesn't seem accurate to me at all. Rome was more than the domination of one city over others. By the age of Cicero, all Italians considered themselves 'Roman', and a fair number of them--Cicero and Pomey, for example--even attained the height of power. After Cicero, emperors were often drawn from outside Rome and even Italy. Moreover, the connection between Roman government and city governments were not simply Rome-down arrangements. Local governments had tremendous autonomy, and as citizens of Rome as well as their local cities, non-Romans were enrolled in the Roman tribes so they could vote for Roman magistrates. The system was not completely federalist, but it was far closer to federalism than is implied by the response above. There is a good reason that the Byzantines considered themselves "Romanoi" long after the fall of Rome -- Rome was a national identity that transcended even the city of Rome itself.

 

The people of Rome were something seperate from their ruling class, people who must look to their leaders for support and protection. It is an identifiable marker of patronage, a system of very basic human interaction across social class that said - "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours".

 

Again, this simply isn't accurate of the Roman republic. There was no official ruling class in Rome, like the House of Lords or hereditary aristocracy. The people of Rome themselves passed all laws, elected all magistrates, and had to endorse all treaties. Moreover, the system of patronage -- such as we have any evidence of it -- was apparently an ad hoc affair and didn't correspond to permanent class divisions. The best evidence that this is the case is the tremendous social mobility (both up and down) that we see in novi homines--who by the time of Sulla made up nearly half the senate -- and in the impoverished patrician families that simply died out.

 

The superiority of roman civilisation is somewhat illusory, and is based on the imagery and hype we see in film, tv, and ancient monuments. Make no mistake, the addition of these stone edifices was intended both to glorify the individual commerorated, and to demonstrate the superiority of Rome both to its own citizens and to visitors. That does not imply the superiority is real, merely that wealthy romans were building public images to sell to the bystander, usually to ensure personal success.

 

If Roman feats of architecture and engineering were limited to public monuments and buildings, like the Pyramids or the Parthenon, I'd agree. But Roman superiority in these fields was actually best expressed in purely private works, like private baths, toilets, gutters and roofs, and in public works that served practical purposes, such as roads and aqueducts. Undoubtedly, all of these improved the personal standing of their owners and builders, but let's not pretend that Roman civilization was some barbaric backwater plastered over with a marble edifice for the benefit of their chieftain. Roman life was vastly more comfortable --even for the masses--than was life elsewhere. In my opinion, this counts as a case of authentic Roman superiority, though I understand that primitivists may like to disagree (from the security of their heated homes and within a telephone call's distance from a hospital!)

[caldrail]

The romans certainly considered their civilisation as superior, yet I 'm not sure the poor had things much more comfortable than anywhere else. Life in a city has advantages for sure, but then, such a focus of human contact and therefore waste and the plague and pestilence that goes with it must count against comfort surely? Even those outwardly impressive insulae were often jerry built rat havens, overcrowded firetraps, structurally unsound, probably unheated, no running water, no cooking facilities - are there any other disadvantages I haven't considered? Roman civilisation was great if you could afford it, or if you could live off the wealthy.

 

Again, this simply isn't accurate of the Roman republic. There was no official ruling class in Rome, like the House of Lords or hereditary aristocracy. The people of Rome themselves passed all laws, elected all magistrates, and had to endorse all treaties.

Maybe so, but my point was that the senate considered themselve a class apart - even the abbreviated name for their civilsation hints at that. Also, the wealthy members of Rome established an desire to retain the privikleges of society for themselves. Isn't that why the Gracchi got bumped off? You see, republican traditions had a strong democratic element (I can't disagree) yet the wealthy had no intention of giving a poorer man more say than necessary. Human beings love building pecking orders. Its part of our social animal behaviour, and the romans were no exception.

 

Moreover, the system of patronage -- such as we have any evidence of it -- was apparently an ad hoc affair and didn't correspond to permanent class divisions.

But it did form networks of fuedal obligation, and even if it didn't correspond to establish social order, it did correspond to wealth, which after all is the decider of who has influence in roman life.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The Romans certainly considered their civilisation as superior, yet I 'm not sure the poor had things much more comfortable than anywhere else.

Nobody can be certain how well the poor lived in Rome versus, say, Belgae, but with free bread and circuses, free clean water and baths, and a high demand for causal labor, it's difficult for me to believe that it was better to be poor in Germania than poor in Rome. After all, why were the Germans so eager to cross the Rhine if it weren't for the fact that it safer and wealthier on the other side?

 

Maybe so, but my point was that the senate considered themselve a class apart - even the abbreviated name for their civilsation hints at that.

But that abbreviation is an historical remnant from the early republic. Mind you, I don't disagree that social competition is universal among societies, but what isn't universal are the enforcement of ground rules for the competition. And the republic had a large number of safeguards to protect ordinary civilians from the arbitrary rule of their elected officials. These limits on government were lacking in Persia, Egypt, and among the Celtic tribes ruled by kings. The whole idea of the republic was a rebellion against these arbitrary powers, giving rise to such founding legends as the rapes of Lucretia and Verginia.

 

Moreover, the system of patronage -- such as we have any evidence of it -- was apparently an ad hoc affair and didn't correspond to permanent class divisions.

But it did form networks of fuedal obligation, and even if it didn't correspond to establish social order, it did correspond to wealth, which after all is the decider of who has influence in roman life.

That's exactly what I'm disputing. Your original post made Roman society sound like a feudal one--which it DID eventually become, but the classical Roman civilization was far more individualistic than feudal. Even wealth wasn't enough to decide who had the greatest influence (though it helped). The Claudii were wealthier than M Curius Dentatus, the Metelli wealthier than Marius, Lucullus wealthier than Pompey, Hortensius wealthier than Cicero, Pompey wealthier than Caesar--yet in each case, military and political talent was far more influential than wealth. I just don't see this happening to the same extent in truly feudal societies, and I'd say that this is another dimension in which Rome was culturally superior.

[caldrail]

I'm not suggesting that Rome had a medieval fuedal society, it wasn't structured like that, but you might view patronage as its ancestor? Maybe, maybe not, it might be simply a facet of human behaviour emerging whereby a person seeks aid from someone with more personal power and in return agrees to certain conditions. In that respect, patronage and fuedalism are similar. I'm not disputing your knowledge of roman social structure - what I'm pointing out is that despite safeguards, there are always those who exploit the weak, exploit gaps, or just plain refuse to play by the rules. Now thats a general point and you could easily pick holes in it, but any society accepts rules to govern their citizens behaviour, which includes how people get to rule. Rome certainly did that - and even I have to say, their answer to this was fairly unique and worked for centuries. Then again, wasn't it the mavericks - those who refused to play by the rules- the ones that pushed the system to one side?

 

I get a little bothered by people who say that one society or another is superior. You might claim that ours is, because immigrants flock to our nation in droves. Of course they do. They're getting handouts of cash and pay is better than back home. That doesn't mean our society is better than theirs. We might have a much colder, less friendly, more authoritarian and officous regime than theirs. You could apply the same arguements to the germanic immigrants of roman times. There must have been plenty of them who couldn't give a fig for roman culture. What they wanted was roman cash. Roman luxury, and if they could get it without doing all the competitive roman stuff, so much the better. I know that there were immigrants in the late empire and after its expiry that adopted roman ways. I'll bet they were the people incharge. The ones with cash in their pockets and access to roman houses and such. They were if you will, playing at being roman and enjoying its luxury, without worrying too much about roman civic responsibility which had all but died by that time anyway.

[TaylorS]

Could you give us more details? who are the people who are supposly diminishing the glory of Rome?

 

Well, the book itself does entirely. In fact, it refers to the period of Rome not as the Roman Empire, but merges Greece and Rome and calls it "Mediterranean civilization."

 

My history teacher too, he really hasn't said much - next-to-nothing - on Rome.

 

Perhaps I don't know any famous people so far who have said that....but it's frustrating.

 

IMO Greece and Rome were part of the same "Hellenic" or "Graeco-Roman" Civilization in the same way the US and Western Europe are both part of Western Civilization. The late British historian Arnold J. Toynbee referred to the Roman Empire as a "universal state," that is, a state that comes to dominate the territory of an entire civilization after 3 or 4 centuries of intense militarism and inter-state and inter-class strife.

 

When I took a Word History course at my university the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire was covered fairly well, it just might be your particular AP course, teacher, and textbook giving Rome the short shaft.

[Antiochus III]

I don't understand what's going on...

 

Lately all I've been noticing is a played down and diminished role of the Roman Empire in history.

 

That is, people are playing down the significance of this wonderful civilization and what it's done to the world.

 

I mean, all that I hear of late is:

 

- Rome is nonsense, it's only a copy of Greece

- Rome is not original in anything

- Rome wasn't that important to world history, China was

 

I mean, I just don't understand it. Even in my AP History class, the impact of the Roman Empire has been played down immensely. My history book, for instance, tells a few words about the Roman Empire and that's it. It mostly echoes most of what was bulleted above. It just astonishes me that Rome has been so diminished by these people.

 

How do you respond to this? Do any of you hear or read any of this?

 

I HATE when they pull that "copy" crap. In fact, Rome was much more influential than greece because it left an alphabet we still use today (well, a very similar one), and eliminated enemy cultures entirely, so htat their legacy was passed down, and has more influence than Greece. I find, however, that it is usually english teachers who are generally moronic when it comes to Roman history who say that Rome copied greeece. Actually, the Romans were just smart and used good ideas, which happened to come from many places besides Greece. Also, the Romans were obviously more successful militarily than the greeks, which contrary to what many think, is the most important thing of all. Does anyone really care about Socrates? No. Not at all. This is because the human world revolves around warfare. I'm sure the Incas had a great "culture" but it is irrelevant because of their conquest. See, culture doesn't mean anything because the armies are what made the world go round, and continue to today. Cutlure is nonsense. Also, if they try to tell you that, think of England and the US. Is the US just a continuation/copy of England. No way.

 

Antiochus III

[Antiochus III]

There is something deep in the human psyche that emerges when confidence and power are attained. Some historians have commented that Hitler was trying to create a germanic Rome, and since he he was justifying his regime with all sorts of invented connections, there is reason to believe this. However, the romans did not simply create their own grandiose ideas of Rome out of nowhere - it was for them a natural expression of their own success, and modern dictators who follow the same route might also be said to be expressing the same sentiments.

 

Roman republicanism was a slowly evolving step for Rome, but resulted over time in a giant leap for mankind

Roman republicanism was an ideal, not an an established paradise. Was it such a giant leap for mankind? That seems a little overstated, and there are other political forms that claim the same moral high ground. If we want to see roman republicanism as a giant leap, we have to see it in terms in the improvement of mankind for the better. There the romans failed. In fact, the romans had little intention in improving things for the common man. Instead it was a system of government evolved to suit the ruling oligarchy. In the Republic, the idea was that no single man would dominate politics, that no excessive rule from a king would again scandalise and ruin Rome. For that reason, power was shared, power was temporary, and power was by consent. On the face it this system appears very egalitarian and perhaps our view of it is coloured by our own experience of extended democracy. The romans had no such illusions. Although they ensured that power was not hijacked by dictators (modern sense), they chose their leaders from amongst those who were qualified by wealth. There were senators who thought kindly of the common man and made some rulings in his favour, there were also plenty who wanted the common man kept firmly in his place.

 

They to me so clearly defined the all important ideas of family , nation and God. Not exclusive virtues but Rome seems to have held it leadership to these ideas better than others. The result .....Rome was a superior culture.

Lets be a little more precise here. Rome did not have a national identity as we understand it. It was a city state, a dominant power, the ruler of an empire. Citizens did not live within a nation, they lived within an empire who ultimately answered to one city. Thats what SPQR meant. Senate and People of Rome. Notice the differentiation in status. The people of Rome were something seperate from their ruling class, people who must look to their leaders for support and protection. It is an identifiable marker of patronage, a system of very basic human interaction across social class that said - "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours". Is that your superior culture? Also, we need to understand the extent of corruption that coloured roman life long before the Pricipate let its hair down. Corruption was a roman way of life. It was how they did business, and even though some individuals attempted to curb or eradicate it, the majority simply accepted that the way to get what you want was to slip a few sestercii. There are cases of ordinary soldiers complaining because the opportunities to bribe their senior commanders were becoming scarce. The superiority of roman civilisation is somewhat illusory, and is based on the imagery and hype we see in film, tv, and ancient monuments. Make no mistake, the addition of these stone edifices was intended both to glorify the individual commerorated, and to demonstrate the superiority of Rome both to its own citizens and to visitors. That does not imply the superiority is real, merely that wealthy romans were building public images to sell to the bystander, usually to ensure personal success. Dominance does not imply moral superiority. Ok, Rome was a cruel culture - we know that - but that was not unusual for the ancient world and once you examine contemporary civilisations, whatever their redeeming features, they always demonstrate a harsh and unforgiving side. If Rome held leadership to these ideas then thats a success of propaganda, military, and political will that has endured in the popular conciousness via the christian churches to this day, and has assumed a legendary status in true traditional human manner. Superior? No, of course not, it wasn't any better a system than anyone elses, but it was a successful one for some time, whose hellenistic and capatlistic principles are the bedrock for our own cultures. But aren't we therefore guilty, by building our world on theirs, of swallowing the same roman hype?

 

The point about 'mediterranean culture' also brings up an interesting aspect of human psychology - our need to classify. We like labels. We like to pigeon-hole, to put everything in its place. There are also people who like to place other peoples opinions in their place (Yes, I get accused of that too!) and therefore a 'new' label' is one way of taking this knowledge and giving a different credibility and perhaps even devaluing the opinions of those who supported an older label.

 

 

Well then, you could say the same exact thing about Athens and its empire.

 

Antiochus III

[Adelais Valerius]

I realize a downplay of Rome in American Insitutions at least. Both in high school and college. It saddens me. Of course the forums help immensely in my quest from Roman knowledge, but I would like to see more about Rome, as it was one of the largest and most influential empires ever created. We use the Roman names of the months still for christ sake!

[P.Clodius]

Again, this simply isn't accurate of the Roman republic. There was no official ruling class in Rome, like the House of Lords or hereditary aristocracy. The people of Rome themselves passed all laws, elected all magistrates, ....

I agree almost entirely (for once, hehehe) with MPC except for the above statement. The people did have legislative power but ONLY after a long struggle, (Struggle of the Orders). And there was a ruling class in the early Republic from which the Patricians descended. Can anyone provide examples of Plebeian senators in the Early Republic, (something I haven't looked into)?

[Adelais Valerius]

Subjective history varies not only from person to person but also over time. The Founding Fathers of our republic placed great emphasis on the positive aspects of Roman history and you'd be hard pressed to find a FF who could not read/write/speak Latin. I would imagine Napoleon's France, the Prussians, and other expansionist regimes saw much that was positive in Rome of the Principate. I would also imagine that in the post WWII era, with the collapse of European and the Japanese empires, Rome fell out of fashion. And there is no denying the attraction of the intimacy of the Classical Hellenic city state (doomed to ultimate failure that they were).

 

 

I think that interest in the Roman world went into a sort of decline following the Second World War. Maybe it's because the fascist empires copied Roman symbols, architecture and the militarty. Even as far as Japan, Mussolini payed for the erection of statues in honour of samurai heroes (especially the White Tigers of the 1860's) with SPQR written beneath them. Along with the depiction of Rome as an evil militaristic empire in the Hollywood epics of the 50's and 60's - The Roman Empire's image has been badly tarnished in the last few decades.

 

Most people's view of Rome is based on its image in popular culture, and not many people actually bother to pick up the works of Tacitus or Cicero. As a result its easy for many people to believe that Rome was decadent and worthless, as they simply have no real knowledge of it beyond films like 'Gladiator'.

 

I find it very interesting that Greece and Rome are now referred to as 'Mediterranean Civilisation'. It's similar to the Celts being renamed Iron Age Tribes or the Anglo-Saxons having their existance questioned. I think this stems from historians and archaeologists problems with forcing identities on diverse peoples with catch all labels . They are even thinking of doing away with the word 'medieval' as "it is a word that carries too much baggage."

Personally I don't see the point in using 'Mediterranean Civilisation' as it is far too generic. Plus it tells you nothing about the Romans or the Greeks.

 

Wonderfully put, I couldnt agree with you more, especially the last paragraph, I find that more disturbing than interesting. I think that people are more worried about labels and names then they are worried about content. Mediterranean civilisation is an EXTREMELY generic phrase. We have all the greek islands, which include crete which had its own civilisation, and the myceneans, etruscans, etc...I believe that these need to be named appropriately, not just greeks and Romans, because they were different. I mean, you can't get much more different than the Minoans and and the myceneans....It just pushes my buttons....i need a whiskey...