|
From what I know about Roman history, for the most part no "master" race developed that held primacy over other races (unlike the early Islamic empire). I realize race relations is a large issue so are there any generalizations as to why this phenomenon occurred and how it progressed throughout the rise and decline of the empire? Was otherization and race-based propaganda ever a thing in Roman writing (against say, Persians or Carthiginians)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
I am far from an authority on the matter, but the Romans didn't have the concept of race. You were either Roman or you weren't. Otherisation was prevalent though. Carthaginians were portrayed as baby murderers, Christians faced harsh treatments up until Constantine, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 19:05
|
|
|
az jan jananam posted:From what I know about Roman history, for the most part no "master" race developed that held primacy over other races (unlike the early Islamic empire). I realize race relations is a large issue so are there any generalizations as to why this phenomenon occurred and how it progressed throughout the rise and decline of the empire? Was otherization and race-based propaganda ever a thing in Roman writing (against say, Persians or Carthiginians)? Tacitus is interesting because he describes the Germans as poor, primitive drunkards but at least they weren't the loving pussies he thought the Romans were.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
I think you guys and ladies are underestimating the degree to which Romans were (what we today call) racist. I can recall many instances where generals or other Romans and non Romans were blocked from higher political office because they weren't Latin or whatever. These racist attitudes were probably concentrated in the old Senate, which was cleansed after Caesar, but the attitudes lived on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
Race was not the Roman aristocracy's primary concern in regards to otherization, though. Don't get me wrong - Romans had just as much capacity to hate entire groups as hardcore racists, and Caesar writes in multiple places in The Gallic War of wiping out entire polities with apparently no regard for their value as humans. Since it was written with a propagandistic purpose, one can assume its readers shared similar values. However, the Roman senate saw plenty of citizens as complete scum. The entire rise of the Optimates faction hardly allows for another interpretation. As does the career of Cicero, who despite in later ages was seen as a paragon of Roman prose, during his lifetime was kept out of the highest social circles because his family was nothing special. The Roman political order was consciously designed to promote the interests of a semi-closed elite order. One can argue that the system of clientela expanded those benefits to a degree of the non-elite, but I would argue this was more along the lines of scraps from the table than a true piece of the pie, so to speak.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I think you guys and ladies are underestimating the degree to which Romans were (what we today call) racist. I can recall many instances where generals or other Romans and non Romans were blocked from higher political office because they weren't Latin or whatever. These racist attitudes were probably concentrated in the old Senate, which was cleansed after Caesar, but the attitudes lived on. Rome lasted from 753 BC to 1453. There used to be a time that if you weren't born in the city of Rome or weren't descended from someone who wasn't, you were nothing but filth. And there used to be a time when every free man in Roman Empire was granted citizenship. Sometimes Rome was pretty loving racist, sometimes it was surprisingly advanced for the time it existed in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
Racism in the classical world is a complicated subject. There's no ancient source that I'm aware of that makes an argument for anything like the "race science" of eighteenth and nineteenth century Europe, but there's certainly a lot of stereotyping of tribes and places. Part of the difficulty is that in the cases where there's a source that talks a lot about "barbarian" social customs, there's also a political conflict going on, so it's hard to determine how much we could properly call racism and how much is wartime propaganda or embellished traveler's tales. There was an idea that environmental factors (geography, climate, and so on) imparted qualities to people who lived in them, as an explanation for differences in size, skin tone, propensity toward living in cities, et cetera, and some scholars see that as evidence of racist or proto-racist thinking. From what I understand, this book makes an argument in that vein, though I haven't read it so I can't offer an opinion on its quality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 20:47
|
|
|
The way I've always heard it described is that in classical times cultural discrimination was much more common than racial discrimination. Seems fairly sensible, especially since you can still see it in practice nowadays considering most every place has (negative) stereotypes about its neighbors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
I don't think ancient republican or imperial rome could fairly be described as fascist. The biggest parallel to draw would be the veneration of the state/nation and perhaps certian leaders (triumphs, monuments, etc), but I'm not sure how real that is, further I'm not sure the state/nation was ever elevated above the gods/religion - which is one of the hallmarks of fascism. There's also little 'corporate control of the means of production,' 'revolutionary narratives,' or 'cults of victimization/decay' -- all of these are typically associated with fascist movements/upheavals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
Smart Car posted:The way I've always heard it described is that in classical times cultural discrimination was much more common than racial discrimination. Essentially, yes. You were Roman because you were a citizen and accepted Roman culture and values, it didn't matter what color you were. Now, there is definitely snobbery and discrimination. The old families in Rome look down their noses at Romans from the provinces, even if those people are "racially" Romans who moved there from Italy. There's discrimination, especially earlier on when the distinction between ~*~Rome~*~ and the rest of the empire is strong. But as citizenship is spread and Rome stops being the only important part of the empire, this fades. It's more aristocratic snobbery than racism. The biggest difference is there was little conception of a set race. Gauls are outsiders, we have stereotypes about their nature, but a Gaul could become Roman and his descendents would eventually be as accepted as anyone else. A black person can't just choose to accept whiteness. People are discriminatory, othering assholes at all periods of time but the Roman method was different. Greeks, too--if you spoke Greek and accepted Greek culture, congrats, you're Greek.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:People are discriminatory, othering assholes at all periods of time but the Roman method was different. Greeks, too--if you spoke Greek and accepted Greek culture, congrats, you're Greek. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this was a crucial area where Romans and Greeks differed. Only people born to a citizen of a polis were citizens of that polis. A Syrian merchant in Athens was a Syrian, not an Athenian, even if his family had lived there for generations. Of course, we've seen how Roman citizenship laws changed over time. But I don't think the independent Greek states (or even the Greek empires post-Alexander) ever considered their subjects to be Greeks (which is why Cleopatra is such a stand out). Again, correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I worded that poorly. I just meant there was no concept of Greek as a racial category, Greek-ness was cultural. You're right, you could not just become Greek the way you could become Roman. Rome is unique in the classical world in that regard, and the Romans seem to have been proud of it. My overall point is that racism the way we think of it didn't really exist. The classical world's equivalent was based on culture more than an idea of skin tone or ethnic category. They were still assholes but they were assholes in a different way. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Aug 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
I was thought that before Europe started colonizing the poo poo out of everything there wasn't really an idea of there being such a thing as a monolithic and superior White people. People defined themselves more by what ethnicity they were off and what religion they had than the colour of their skin. There was of course a lot of xenophobia but a medieval Castilian or Basque would despise the Moors more for being filthy foreigners and infidels than he would care about their skin color. Although if they were to meet an Ethiopian, who would most likely be Christian*, they would probably assume he probably be assumed to be a Moor simply because he was black. Kind of like how everyone even vaguely Middle Eastern was assumed to be a Turk when the Ottoman Empire was bogeyman to most of Europe(except the French who had a thing with the Turks ).Grand Fromage posted:You're looking at it wrong. It wasn't a decline in quality but a change in style. At the time of Augustus, hyper realism was the popular style. One of the things I loved about the Asterix cartoons and comics is that most of the historical characters are based on descriptions and statues and such. So their Julius Caesar is actually recognizable as a caricature of Caesar etc. All thinks to those rascally Romans making realistic statues. *and thus know very well if it was Christmas, Mr.Geldof. FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Aug 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
Did Romans have any kind of board games or card games? I know there was the coliseum and probably horse racing but what else did people do for fun back then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
Don't just assume probably horse racing, especially in Rome itself. The Circus Maximum was huge, could seat anywhere between 100,000-150,000 people, and the imperial palace eventually bordered it. The colored teams were huge deals, almost political factions in their own right minus the politics even into the Byzantine era.(See the Nika riots and the giant hippodrome in Constantinople). Sometimes there would even be politics, some emperors made it clear what color they supported at the races. Popular and important enough that this dude may be the wealthiest athlete in history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Appuleius_Diocles Greeks/Romans had their own strategy game like chess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latrunculi Dice were also popular, I would assume because then like now they make a good gambling game. Don't forget the public baths and theater which would be popular leisure activities. And GF can take it from here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Popular and important enough that this dude may be the wealthiest athlete in history Could you talk more about the teams? I noticed on the Wikipedia page for Diocles it seemed implied that the Red team he ended his career with was one of the dominant teams. Is this true? I find it kind of amusing that a modern Italian racing team also chose red as their color. Is that because of the old Roman Red team?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
^^: Red makes it go faster.  They had dice games of some kind. I remember a Sotheby's auction from a few years ago featured a Roman d20.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
They had all kinds of dice and board games. Backgammon was popular. I don't know if we know about card games, I haven't read any descriptions of them and cards would be unlikely to survive. Wouldn't surprise me if they had something equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
Can someone explain the Hippodrome Riots of ~530? Apparently half of Constantinople was destroyed and tens of thousands were killed, all over sporting rivialry. I can understand hooliganism, but the scale of destruction is insane.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 05:24
|
|
|
I don't know it in great detail, but Justinian was unpopular at the time and the riot turned political. First it was just a mob assaulting imperial power, then some of the senators saw it as an opportunity to overthrow Justinian and started pulling strings and making everything worse. The chariot teams sort of formed political parties, so it was more like a civil uprising than a soccer riot. People have asked about documentaries before, I just finished watching Meet the Romans with Mary Beard and it was very good. Focused on details of the lower classes, lots of cool stuff to see, and I didn't notice anything stupid. Edit: The last episode also mentioned the estimates on child mortality. About a third of babies died in the first year, and a bit over half of all children died before ten. So, not much different than later. And we've talked about it earlier but this is why average lifespans are so short in the pre-modern world; they're averages. If you made it past childhood you could reasonably expect to live into your 60s. 70+ wasn't as common as today but it wouldn't have been surprising. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Aug 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 05:28
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Fun fact, the very term fascist goes back to these dudes -  It was a popular symbol until the Fascists ruined it for everyone. I actually have one of these dimes but not in that good of a state. I think it's pretty ironic that it says "In God we trust" with a picture of Mercury's head next to it. There's a lot of Roman symbolism on older US coins, still some today but not as much. Liberty was on a lot of coinage and the "Liberty nickel" has a picture of Liberty and the Roman numeral for 5 within a laurel. The US really needs to get back to its roots like the Founding Fathers intended, paying homage to Pagan deities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 06:22
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I don't know it in great detail, but Justinian was unpopular at the time and the riot turned political. First it was just a mob assaulting imperial power, then some of the senators saw it as an opportunity to overthrow Justinian and started pulling strings and making everything worse. The chariot teams sort of formed political parties, so it was more like a civil uprising than a soccer riot. If I'm not mistaken, Justinian wanted to say gently caress this and flee during that riot but his wife convinced him to stay because fleeing would basically mean giving up his power as emperor. Be interesting to see what would have happened had Justinian fled and someone else come into power, because from what I understand Justinian was a pretty important emperor. Amused to Death posted:Don't just assume probably horse racing, especially in Rome itself. Yeah I don't know why I said probably. I knew of course they engaged in a lot of horse racing, though I didn't know it was quite that popular. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume they gambled like crazy on it too? Some things never change, I guess. Ginette Reno fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Aug 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 06:26
|
|
|
This may be hard to answer, Roman sources said that Gauls and other European barbarians were really tall, right? If so, does archaeological evidence support Roman writers' claims?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 06:27
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Dice were also popular, I would assume because then like now they make a good gambling game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 11:10
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I don't know it in great detail, but Justinian was unpopular at the time and the riot turned political. First it was just a mob assaulting imperial power, then some of the senators saw it as an opportunity to overthrow Justinian and started pulling strings and making everything worse. The chariot teams sort of formed political parties, so it was more like a civil uprising than a soccer riot. That's really interesting. Did Green and Blue have different political views then? I wonder which one was loyal to Justinian (if any).
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 14:58
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:That's really interesting. Did Green and Blue have different political views I believe reading once Justinian was a supporter of the Blues, but at the time obviously neither of the teams were in much favor of Justinian. I believe what started the whole riot was the fact a couple of members from both factions had been arrested and were due to be hung, the crowd that day ask for mercy, there was no visible response, and as the race went on the chants against each team threw against each other eventually turned into one overwhelming chorus against Justinian. The teams may have been political in the sense it might be known who say the emperor or other top nobility, generals or whatever supported, but they definitely didn't hold some kins of set political views. Basically, if there is one thing that hasn't changed in 2,000 years, people hold seriously deep and irrational attachments to their sports teams. Vigilance posted:If I'm not mistaken, Justinian wanted to say gently caress this and flee during that riot but his wife convinced him to stay because fleeing would basically mean giving up his power as emperor. Theodora had also risen from stripper to empress and I would think at that point was going to die as an empress. Theodora was such a badass, one of the most powerful woman in Rome's 2,000 year history, possibly even more so than say Zenobia or Irene who actually held power due to her influence over Justinian and his power at the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 15:39
|
|
|
Don't forget Agrippina the Younger, who could validly claim to have been Empress of Rome with actual power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 15:42
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:That's really interesting. Did Green and Blue have different political views then? I wonder which one was loyal to Justinian (if any). From what I read the Green's were partisans of the house of Anastasius, and Monophysite. Blues were orthodox and generally supported the house of Justinus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
Awesome thread, thank you. What books, if any, do you recommend on daily life in Rome? (Acknowledging that that's a big question, both in timespan and across classes.) I have John R. Clarke's Roman Sex, which is fun as far as it goes and has good footnotes, but is (ahem) narrow in scope.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
Speaking of works on Rome, the September issue of National Geographic has an article on Roman border defenses. Haven't had a chance to read it yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 17:01
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Awesome thread, thank you. You could start with "Greek and Roman Life" by Ian Jenkins.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Awesome thread, thank you. Roman Civilization by Naphtali Lewis Meyer Reinhold. It's divided into two sourcebooks, one for the Republic and one for the Empire. They're not specific on daily life itself, rather they cover almost all aspects of Roman society using original sources, but this includes of course many aspects of normal life for Romans. e: Also, if you want to go further into time, "Byzantium, The Empire of New Rome" by Cyril Mango offers a great insight into the culture and mindsets of the eastern empire. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Aug 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Speaking of works on Rome, the September issue of National Geographic has an article on Roman border defenses. Haven't had a chance to read it yet. Thanks for the heads up. Here is a link.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
This thread confused me a bit so clear this up for me. I've read since the beginning and a lot of times you guys emphasize that racism wasn't about skin color or where you were from. Rather the culture. And that if you accepted the "Roman" way of life you were a Roman. So, what determined your social class? Whether you were a slave or gladiator or something? I assume it's somethig you were born into but I remember it mentioned that some Empererors came from poverty and rose through the ranks. So obviously it's not a caste type system? And I know slaves then weren't slaves in the traditional sense of what we consider slaves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Awesome thread, thank you. Daily Life in Ancient Rome by Jerome Carcopino is also pretty good on this subject. Amused to Death posted:Theodora She was clearly an extraordinary woman, but unfortunately a lot of the information about her background comes from Procopius' Secret History and there's no telling how reliable it is and how far it may have been motivated by jealousy or disapproval of powerful women (Procopius' "day job" was as Justinian's official historian and he was a leading courtier). Of course, the same is true of most stuff written about Roman emperors at the time. Various people posted:Roman "racism." There is some evidence for Roman anti-Semitism. Cicero said of the Jews:- quote:Even while Jerusalem was standing and the Jews were at peace with us, the practice of their sacred rites was at variance with the glory of our empire, the dignity of our name, the customs of our ancestors. But now it is even more so, when that nation by its armed resistance has shown what it thinks of our rule. How dear it was to the immortal gods is shown by the fact that it has been conquered, let out for taxes, made a slave. Tacitus called the customs of the Jews "preposterous and mean."
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
Christoff posted:This thread confused me a bit so clear this up for me. This is a pretty basic and not very descriptive answer, so someone else can elaborate. Anyway, a lot of it had to do with merit and wealth. While there was often some kind of ceiling that couldn't be surpassed, except in rare circumstances, if you were smart enough or good enough at something you could raise your status, no matter what class you were born in to. This is because social class, for the most part, was based on how wealthy you were. A basic run down of social classes in the Republic goes like this: 1. Patricians - members of noble families who could trace their ancestry back to the founding and early days of Rome. These are the guys who usually won consulships, led Roman legions, were fabulously wealthy, and held tons of the most important positions throughout Roman history. Families like the Julii and the Claudii are two notable examples, as evidenced by the Julio-Claudian dynasty which produced the first five emperors of Rome. 2. Plebeian - also members of noble families who could trace their ancestry back to the beginnings of Rome. They were also wealthy, had consulships, but were considered a step below Patricians. I'm not super clear on what the real difference between patricians and plebs was, to be honest. Some Roman families would have both patrician and plebeian branches. According to legend the difference is that the patricians traced their ancestry to the first 100 senators of Rome, appointed by Romulus. 3. Senators - to be a senator you pretty much had to meet a certain level of wealth. This means the overwhelming majority of senators came from noble families, but some didn't. 4. Wealth - this basically includes people who made themselves rich but were not from noble families and not wealthy enough to become a senator. They became what was called equites, called so because to own horses you had to be pretty rich. By the time of the empire equites were even allowed to govern provinces, most notably Egypt because the emperors did not trust the richest and most valuable province of Rome to senators. 5. Citizenship - there were different degrees. You might be a citizen but if you lived in the provinces you couldn't vote, Roman women were technically citizens but also couldn't vote, etc. Citizens who distinguished themselves, such as war heroes for example, might be considered a step above others, which would allow them to potentially become wealthy through prestige and therefore rise up the ranks if they were smart. 6. Non-citizens - think natives of the provinces. Later in the Empire they could occasionally get citizenship though. Important allies might have the nobility given citizenship, people who aided the legions with important supplies or information which proved crucial to a victory might be rewarded with citizenship, or entire settlements which proved especially loyal to Rome might be given citizenship as well. 7. Slaves As far as slaves go, there were definitely slaves on the same level as what we consider slaves today. These were prisoners of war or other criminals who worked some of the worst and most dangerous jobs (mining, for example). Other slaves though were sought after for their knowledge and served as doctors or teachers, especially Greek slaves, some were even paid. Slaves could be freed by their masters, or even buy their freedom. Jamwad Hilder fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Aug 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:
Wealth was not a pass into the halls of power though. Bloodlines were far more important to you becoming a Senator or Consul. You did not hit a certain point of wealth and then get let into the club like in Carthage. High class Romans also did not see wealth as a end in itself, they wanted glory for themselves and their family, and you got glory through service to the State. Money bought you clients, allies, servants, and voters, essentially the means to acquire power. Once you had power, you had to use it to attain some form of distinction, most preferably through military victory and failing that political service like Cicero. The rich Equites and other merchants were often looked over for membership in the Senate and other government offices since they were "unworthy" of such distinction, despite clearly being the most competent at managing money and organizations. Their eternal chafing under the Patricians was used and abused by politician after politician for hundreds of years. A good example of how Romans viewed wealth was the life of Crassus. Crassus was so wealthy it boggles the mind. His worth I have seen estimated at something like 100-400 billion of today's dollars, with some people claiming even more ludicrous numbers. His wealth equaled that of the treasury at one point. Despite this, he cared little for his money, instead spending his entire life and much of his fortune trying to achieve military glory, and being foiled multiple times by Pompey. He was never regarded as highly as Caesar and Pompey, or even people like Cicero or Cato the Younger. He was simply a super rich and famous guy, not a great hero or admirable man. This drove him crazy. His foolhardy expedition into Persia and the disaster at Carrhae is one of the most infamous Roman defeats. The reason a 62 year old man was recklessly invading Persia was that he was desperately trying to gain himself military glory before he died.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
In regards to the equites and merchant class, wasn't one of the problems there in terms of Senate membership the fact that technically under law Senators weren't allowed to engage in trade? So nominating a man with 20 vessels sailing to India every year might be a bit of a political problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Wealth was not a pass into the halls of power though. Bloodlines were far more important to you becoming a Senator or Consul. You did not hit a certain point of wealth and then get let into the club like in Carthage. High class Romans also did not see wealth as a end in itself, they wanted glory for themselves and their family, and you got glory through service to the State. Money bought you clients, allies, servants, and voters, essentially the means to acquire power. Once you had power, you had to use it to attain some form of distinction, most preferably through military victory and failing that political service like Cicero. Absolutely, the point I was trying to make was the wealth played an extremely big role in how far you could rise in Roman society, yet still not make it to the top. Crassus is a great example of this. He crushed the Spartacus rebellion with legions he trained, equipped, and paid out of his own fortune, yet Pompey Magnus swooped in at the end and stole all the credit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Another good book on the day to day lives of Romans is Life in Ancient Rome by E.R. Cowell. Even tells you how ancient Romans used to take a dump. Has some good illustrations too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 03:37
|
|
