Tolerance and the Law in Rome

[Jansi]

I would like to write a paper concerning tolerance and how it contributed to the rise of Empires. Imperium Romanum is the primary focus of the investigation and I was thinking about looking into whether it was the rise of tolerance (at least in that time

[Lex]

The Emperor Caracalla was the first to grant citizenship to all inhabitants of the Empire in 212 AD with the Constitutio Antoniniana. My understanding is that it had to less with tolerance but rather with economic benefits, a wider tax base and a bigger pool of conscripts to join the regular army. I'm also thinking that the majority of the inhabitants were already very much Romanised so it seemed to make sense and would have made entering into contracts far more simpler since the same laws would apply to all.

[Ursus]

I'd say a good place to start is to look at the "federal" arrangements Rome made with the Latin cities, and how they remained loyal to Rome even with Hannibal at the gates.

[ASCLEPIADES]

I would like to write a paper concerning tolerance and how it contributed to the rise of Empires. Imperium Romanum is the primary focus of the investigation and I was thinking about looking into whether it was the rise of tolerance (at least in that time

[ASCLEPIADES]

I'd say a good place to start is to look at the "federal" arrangements Rome made with the Latin cities, and how they remained loyal to Rome even with Hannibal at the gates.

A quite interesting issue, indeed.

 

As a preliminary guess, I think that among the contributing factors were:

 

- The development of a strong Romanophile ruling class in the Italian cities after several decades of Roman hegemony.

 

- Economic ties established between Rome and other Italian cities.

 

- Ancestral fear and distrust to both the Carthaginians and their Gaulish allies.

 

- The obvious fear to the Roman retaliation.

 

- The previous experience of the Pyrrhic War.

 

- The reinforcement of such convictions after the demise of Syracuse and Capua.

[Jansi]

Firstly, you have to operatively define "tolerance".

 

Christians and other groups (Jews, Manicheans, Druids et Cetera) were fiercely persecuted by the Roman Empire; the climax of those persecutions actually happened after the Constitutio Antoniniana.

 

And after the Edict of Milan, the tide simply reversed, so the persecuted became persecutors.

 

That's not my regular idea of "tolerance".

 

Well, what I truly need is a hypothetical question that I could find several answers to. I shall go for one and dispute others, maybe, or simply compare things. Tolerance could actually not be defined as a term from the beginning, but throughout the paper. Perhaps I need some evidence that they were, in fact, tolerant towards some people when they needed them.

I was thinking a bit more - I need quite a "small" topic for 3000 words, see - perhaps I may compare Roman Citizenship laws and how they attempted to romanise peoples for their own benefit and compare that to the techniques used in other Empires (e.g. Persian, Mughal, Dutch). They did, effectively, try to do the same thing and strengthen their Empires by attracting talent from other places, cultures, ethnical groups and absorbing it. That is how their armies (pardon the Dutch) became so large, after all. If you try to only use blonde blue-eyed purebloods in your army, you can only have so many.

 

The only problem is that I cannot seem to be able to pin point any particular little thing from this that I could make the subject of my paper and hypothesis. The topic just seems too grand for 3000 words, non?

 

I like your ideas, however, and do agree that Romans were far from the Human Rights kind of tolerant! They did however, "welcome" various peoples to live "under one roof" with the actual Romans. That is some tolerance.

 

Thank you!

[Jansi]

The Emperor Caracalla was the first to grant citizenship to all inhabitants of the Empire in 212 AD with the Constitutio Antoniniana. My understanding is that it had to less with tolerance but rather with economic benefits, a wider tax base and a bigger pool of conscripts to join the regular army. I'm also thinking that the majority of the inhabitants were already very much Romanised so it seemed to make sense and would have made entering into contracts far more simpler since the same laws would apply to all.

 

Perhaps tolerance had to be triggered by something in those days (Take away the Rights and the public opinion of a country, and people could potentially become much less or even completely intolerant even today.); economic and military benefits outweighed prejudices and Roman Empire began to absorb peoples like there was no tomorrow and then granting citizenshhip to "keep" everyone. One can only assume they were prejudiced, of course.

Another line of thought could be that because they were willing to change laws and "absorb" people the Empire could only grow.

 

As a matter of fact, that would be a perfect issue to explore if only I could find enough depth in it.

[caldrail]

The Emperor Caracalla was the first to grant citizenship to all inhabitants of the Empire in 212 AD with the Constitutio Antoniniana. My understanding is that it had to less with tolerance but rather with economic benefits, a wider tax base and a bigger pool of conscripts to join the regular army. I'm also thinking that the majority of the inhabitants were already very much Romanised so it seemed to make sense and would have made entering into contracts far more simpler since the same laws would apply to all.

 

Considering how intolerant Caracalla was as an individual his granting of citizenship was very much a way of widening the tax base. I don't think Cracalla had any intention of using that wealth for the benfit of ordinary romans, more likely to bolster his own political strength and fund military adventures. I also doubt that Caracalla cared too much how romanised people were. He wanted their obedience and servitude. Culture wasn't his subject at all. In fact, I see Caracalla as something of a man who really didn't like Rome at all. He was a soldiers man, someone who enjoyed military life and had little time for courtesy or ettiquette.

Edited October 7, 2007 by caldrail

[ASCLEPIADES]

They did however, "welcome" various peoples to live "under one roof" with the actual Romans. That is some tolerance.

 

I don't think so. Such peoples were there before the coming of the Romans; they had no other choice than to "tolerate" their conquerors.

 

Not to talk about a little bit of genocide (Carthage, Corinth, Capua, the Jews, Cimbri/Teutons et Cetera), arguably most of it during the Republican period.

[Ursus]

I like your ideas, however, and do agree that Romans were far from the Human Rights kind of tolerant! They did however, "welcome" various peoples to live "under one roof" with the actual Romans. That is some tolerance.

 

 

I think you need to clarify something: The Romans generally had nothing but contempt for non-Romans. However, the other side of that is that they were more willing than most cultures before or since to let non-Romans become Romans. During the Republic, the Latin subjects had control of their own internal affairs. During the empire, service in the military and homage to the imperial cult was all that many provincials needed to become Roman citizens themselves. I'm not sure if that is tolerance, but it was a liberal naturalization policy for the ancient world.

 

One area where I really see "tolerance" is the area of religion. The Romans were so superstitious they felt they had to go out of their way to respect every god they encountered, lest they invite that deity's wrath on themselves. If the establishment cracked down on a cult, it was not for religious reasons, but because they were perceived as a socio-political threat.

[Jansi]

Were "Romanisation" tactics more successful in Empire building than other ways of incorporating ethnical and religious tolerance in Persian, Mongol and Dutch Empires?

 

How does this sound?

 

Gosh, I'm growing more and more confused..

[ASCLEPIADES]

Were "Romanisation" tactics more successful in Empire building than other ways of incorporating ethnical and religious tolerance in Persian, Mongol and Dutch Empires?

 

How does this sound?

 

Gosh, I'm growing more and more confused..

Sorry for my contribution to your confusion.

 

I think I would agree with your last statement.

 

In fact, the Empire ("Romania") went on when Rome (the city) didn't, ie after the Tetrarchy and, through the "Byzantine" Millennium, until 1453.

[Ursus]

Were "Romanisation" tactics more successful in Empire building than other ways of incorporating ethnical and religious tolerance in Persian, Mongol and Dutch Empires?

 

 

I'm not an expert on the Persian, Mongol or Dutch empires (The Dutch had an empire...?) so I can't compare.

 

The prevailing view is that Rome was highly successful in Romanizing the Western half of its empire. The Eastern half had its own cultures, of course. Lately there has been some questioning as to how Romanized the West really was .... though I think the limits are more a matter for Britain than on the Continent.

 

 

Common sense tells me that since most of Western Europe owes Rome a debt in language, law, religion and architecture, it was highly successful.

[caldrail]

Were "Romanisation" tactics more successful in Empire building than other ways of incorporating ethnical and religious tolerance in Persian, Mongol and Dutch Empires?

 

How does this sound?

 

Gosh, I'm growing more and more confused..

 

One area where the romans were extraordinarily tolerant was religion. Despite the christian persecutions, which were occaisional and unusual, foreign religions were often adopted and 'romanised'. For instance, a celtic god in britain becomes Sulis Magna. Greek gods are renamed and become part of the state religion. Cults like Bacchus and Serapis gave some romans a chance to belong to secretive clubs. Culturally, the romans thought they were the center of the universe, and that all barbarians should be ideally be romanised. Senior romans liked nothing more than to see a former barbarian come to his senses and fit in. That said, there were always people in roman lands who did not accept roman culture, and much like foreign immigrants today, formed ghettoes. I'm not aware that the romans ever persecuted these ghetto populations apart from some nasty incidents performed by the likes of Caracalla in Alexandria, but even then he did that over a personal slight and not for racial or cultural reasons.

 

In response to your question, the answer is yes, in that the acceptance principal has left us with a long lasting legacy of roman influence in our modern culture. Persians simply said - "You must obey your new lords". I doubt the mongols cared much. Dutch? Their empire emerges in the late medieval period with the increase in sea trade.