The empire is a different creature altogether. We're talking about the Republic which is what's covered in EB. Although you'd be silly to say the Empire was a multicutural hodgepodge of univeralism, as well ..
Printable View
The empire is a different creature altogether. We're talking about the Republic which is what's covered in EB. Although you'd be silly to say the Empire was a multicutural hodgepodge of univeralism, as well ..
Sure there were, and there were powerful black people in the Jim Crow South. That they appeared occasionally doesn't disprove racist/ethnicist mindsets of the majority of powerholders. Rather, they had to work usually twice as hard to justify their ascent. Now, I think the Jim Crow South comparison is actually a harsher situation than Rome, where plenty of Hellenes could do relatively well, but hopefully the hyperbole helps to illustrate the basic point.
EDIT: and guys, let's be careful with either implying negative ideas about one another, or saying them outright.
Anyway, the Hellenic emperors didn't pop up till after the second dynasty.
Or the comparison of the foreign policy of the early and mid republic of Rome and the US foreign policy until 1910.( A friend of mine made his scription ("thesis") on that subject for his master degree in History.)Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
Fascists were impressed by the cult held around the state, the city, the empire in ancient Rome, by the mighty Legions and what not. Ancient Rome is argueably the best idol for the fascist states of the 20th century. And of course, Roman state ideology was not about italic superiorty over all other races. It was about Roman superiorty over the rest of the world. The rise of Emperors like Germanicus belongs to the very end of the Western Roman Empire, which is (funny that) characteristically marked by its inevitable decline, at least partly caused by the "barbarization" of the society.
The Greeks were highly racist from what I know. Funny that the Germanic people of that days basically saw everybody able and willing to fight as part of their tribe.
Isn't Zak. talking / speaking about Roman REPUBLIC oligarchies ... ? And BTW about the Rome EB is covering ... ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Baryonyx Walkeri
Yours,
Treverer
EDIT: Ooops, a bit late ... my reply
But the repubblic was multicultural, of course not like Carthago (but only because Carthago was older) who were the romans? they were local italians!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Rome had also been dominated by the etruschians, so it is naive to say the "roman race" because there were no roman race.
Roman citicens of course they will always have more right than other non romans, but that is the same what happens in modern time, a american citicen (or Danish, Italian, Rumenian or whatever) will always be able to do more than who doesent have the citicenship, like voting and this means a citicen of a state will always have more rights. Rome needed more people to work and fight for them....and here we have the plebs. Who were poor local people, but also many individual (not migration) who settled in rome or around rome.
About the multicultural of the empire, well rome builded a empire above the nations so the multicultural element was actually the core of the empire, otherwise it would not have survived for so long time.
Carthage is an entirely different league. A different world, pehaps. Carthage relies first and foremost on it's commercial activities - Rome on it's military. Hence, Carthage cannot afford to be anything but multicultural - by depending on trade, you depend on a relatively open, and multicultural society. You need it, because you rely on foreign relations to trade with to provide for the tax you need.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baryonyx Walkeri
Race isn't entirely correct, we should speak of ethnicity. And in such sense, the Romans did understand the concept. Gens, anyone?
The plebs is basically consists of everyon who are:Quote:
Originally Posted by Baryonyx Walkeri
1) Roman (citizen)
2) Not a patrician.
And the Plebs mostly consisted of voting citizens - however that hardly meant anything in Rome. You were expected to vote as your Patronus wished. If anything being Patronus or Cliens mattered a great deal more than being a member of the Plebs or a Patrician. (Though the Patricians were de facto always Patroni.) To a certain extent, you may compare Roman citizenship with being member of a the maffia. Being the Pater familias of your Gens can be compared to being a Godfather.
You cannot compare modern day citizenship with Roman citizenship: those are two entirely different species. Roman citizenship meant protection from the law, especially against non-Romans. Non-Romans couldn't rely on such protection.
Now that's a contradictio in terminis. Romans created their empire by Romanizing their subjects. That's got more to do with Star Trek than with Multicultural Society. Anyway: it was a matter of removing the previous culture in favour of the Roman one. The one big exception to this was, of course, Hellenic culture. Here, Roman & Hellenic culture met and adapted to each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baryonyx Walkeri
hmm I have much to say, but I have little time, so for now a short reply...
ok can you tell me then what etnicity was the romans? the romans were local italians, and in Italy there were many different cultures (greek, etruschian, celt ect) so it is basically impossible to NOT have a "multicultural" view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
The Quirites let me say were a mix of latins, sabines, etruschians and perhaps some greek individual. All those differences explain also why the romans were between the must tollerant dominator the world ever had.
are you kidding me? you cant compare modern day situation with ancient my friend :wall: what is the godfather? what has mafia to do with ancient governmental structures...pleaaaase! why not compare it with star trek or Buffy the vampire slayer then? ;) (im just bein ironically if somebody dont understand)Quote:
The plebs is basically consists of everyon who are:
1) Roman (citizen)
2) Not a patrician.
And the Plebs mostly consisted of voting citizens - however that hardly meant anything in Rome. You were expected to vote as your Patronus wished. If anything being Patronus or Cliens mattered a great deal more than being a member of the Plebs or a Patrician. (Though the Patricians were de facto always Patroni.) To a certain extent, you may compare Roman citizenship with being member of a the maffia. Being the Pater familias of your Gens can be compared to being a Godfather.
The Plebs voted, but later in time they got also their own representation, something similar we will only see in modern time, when lower classes were permitted to vote and get their own representative in the parliament.
Anyway who were the plebs? local poor citicen and foreigners.
yes I can, this topik is about similarities in history. Otherwise I will agree with you, and if you read my posts you will see I always mention to not compare the modern world with the ancient.Quote:
You cannot compare modern day citizenship with Roman citizenship: those are two entirely different species. Roman citizenship meant protection from the law, especially against non-Romans. Non-Romans couldn't rely on such protection.
Roman citicenship means also protection but Rome was based on the RIGHTS and LAWS so it means citicens had to know the law and their rights and dutyes. Children in the early rome they had to learn the roman law who were written on 12 tables (Dvodecim Tabvlarum Leges) and this was more than 2500y ago. And I can also do other comparision with the modern world, the plebs when did the big strike (one of the first strikes in the history) they got their right. Intersting because many times is also what happen in the modern world.
no and yes, the romanitation was rarely and I mean RARELY forced. Must of the time local people choosed to adopt roman lifestyle (perhasp somebody dont like it, but that's the trut) romans were wery well known for their tollerance and respect of other culture. You can see the roman occupyed places kept their tradition and religions (must of the time).Quote:
Now that's a contradictio in terminis. Romans created their empire by Romanizing their subjects. That's got more to do with Star Trek than with Multicultural Society. Anyway: it was a matter of removing the previous culture in favour of the Roman one. The one big exception to this was, of course, Hellenic culture. Here, Roman & Hellenic culture met and adapted to each other.
PS.
Star trek is about multiculturality ;)
Im sorry, but your answers show your ignorance on the subject, friend. Foremost, Romans were not "local Italians". There was no such thing at the time. There were several distinct Italic peoples, with their own various cultures, religions, and governmental systems. The Romans were Latins, and only one of several Latin groups, actually. The Romans viewed other Italic peoples and even other Latins as inferior racially to themselves. Your claim that the Romans were a tolerant people is ludicrious. THe Romans were one of the most isolationist, conservative, and superstitious people in history. Who not only abhorred change and progression, but were frightened of it.
Your lack of understanding of Tellos' analogy to the mafia is telling. The system of patronage is indeed very similar to mafia patronship, and stems from the same idea of the patronus and cliens.
Plebs are certainly NOT foreigners. The plebs were made up of the lowest 3 strata of the property classes, the lowest of which being the capite censi, or the head count (what you might call the mob), who had no property to speak of and where often freedmen or indentured servants.
Your arguments are ridiculous. You just said you cant compare ancient with modern, and in the very next paragraph you claimed you could. This conversation is over.
P.S-- rarely forced? please.
Zaknafien please....man, cant you read? that was what I said. The Romans were a mix of LATINS SABINES AND ETHRUSCHIANS. LEARN TO READ BEFORE REPLY!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
lol isolationist, sure. Excuse but that's not possible, and I told you already why. (scroll up). Of course the romans belived their were better than others, but that's normal. Almust everyculture in the world did that sin (Greek, Israelites, Egyptians ect ect).Quote:
The Romans viewed other Italic peoples and even other Latins as inferior racially to themselves. Your claim that the Romans were a tolerant people is ludicrious. THe Romans were one of the most isolationist, conservative, and superstitious people in history. Who not only abhorred change and progression, but were frightened of it.
again, reread my post (i guess I hit a exposed nerve, since you were so fast to reply even without reading properly my post.Quote:
Your lack of understanding of Tellos' analogy to the mafia is telling. The system of patronage is indeed very similar to mafia patronship, and stems from the same idea of the patronus and cliens.
I say the between the plebs there were ALSO foreigners who was permitted to settle in Rome.Quote:
Plebs are certainly NOT foreigners. The plebs were made up of the lowest 3 strata of the property classes, the lowest of which being the capite censi, or the head count (what you might call the mob), who had no property to speak of and where often freedmen or indentured servants.
A little advice, next time, read my post AND then reply, emotional responses are no use.Quote:
Your arguments are ridiculous. You just said you cant compare ancient with modern, and in the very next paragraph you claimed you could. This conversation is over.
P.S-- rarely forced? please.
Uh, fine. Here are your quotes, then to preserve for history's sake, in case you decide to edit your post lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Baryonyx Walkeri
Zak, I dont know what your problem is, and I dont have time for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
why you dont quote everything I wrote in my previous post?
PS
Maybe you dont realize but what you quoted atually confirm my answer to you.
this is ridiculous. Im sorry if this seems to antagonize you. Maybe theres a language barrier here, but your posts are entirely wrong about Roman culture, and the quotes I posted are explicitly so. I dont know exactly what you're trying to say, but if you have a question on one of these topics I'd be happy to answer it for you.
Your view of the Romans seems to come from a romanticized movie portrayal of them.
no need to apologice, but why dont you tell me, with your own words, and by your extensive culture how am I wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
And I will be more than happy to discuss with you. Dont missunderstand me, I cant be always right, I know that. But that's apply also to you (and to everybody else.
I dont like football mentality when we are talking about history. And excuse me since I found this board I saw lot if not to much ignorance about the romans (somebody even claim romans invented genocide) and all this lack of respect for history outrage me.
Excuse me Zak, but when you quoted me, I dont understand why you didnt quote everything? like this?
are you kidding me? you cant compare modern day situation with ancient my friend what is the godfather? what has mafia to do with ancient governmental structures...pleaaaase! why not compare it with star trek or Buffy the vampire slayer then? ;) (im just bein ironically if somebody dont understand)
You just get some pieces of what I wrote and then quoted it. That is the footballmentality I dont like (I know sometimes I also guilty of this sin).
anyway let us forget this unfortunate incident and let us go back on topik. Shall we? ~:cheers:
I should probably point out that your quote comes from "Gladiator" of all things..which doesnt really help your credibility :)
I thought I had explained in my first post to you what you were confused on.. I didnt take your entire quote because its irrelevant. In one sentence, you claimed that comparisons with modern day are silly, in the next, you claimed that you could compare roman citizenship with modern citizenship. Thats called a non sequitur.
And sure, there are plenty of people on this forum who like the Romans just because they watched Gladiator or HBO Rome and have no idea how inaccurate those depictions are.
If you dont understand the relationship of the mafia to the Roman patronage system, I can explain to you how patronage works if you like.
my quote? damn! you got me! :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
no, you cant do that (of course you can, but it's not correct) on one line it was pure ironia (and I explained that) and on the others I also gave my reason. It is not irrilevant...sorry buddy! But that's up to you, belive what you want.Quote:
I thought I had explained in my first post to you what you were confused on.. I didnt take your entire quote because its irrelevant. In one sentence, you claimed that comparisons with modern day are silly, in the next, you claimed that you could compare roman citizenship with modern citizenship. Thats called a non sequitur.
again the football mentality.....Quote:
And sure, there are plenty of people on this forum who like the Romans just because they watched Gladiator or HBO Rome and have no idea how inaccurate those depictions are.
If you ignore what I write my friend how can we debate?Quote:
If you dont understand the relationship of the mafia to the Roman patronage system, I can explain to you how patronage works if you like.
um.. ok, here's what you wrote.
Now, do you understand what patrons and clients were?Quote:
are you kidding me? you cant compare modern day situation with ancient my friend what is the godfather? what has mafia to do with ancient governmental structures...pleaaaase! why not compare it with star trek or Buffy the vampire slayer then? ;) (im just bein ironically if somebody dont understand)
The Plebs voted, but later in time they got also their own representation, something similar we will only see in modern time, when lower classes were permitted to vote and get their own representative in the parliament.
Anyway who were the plebs? local poor citicen and foreigners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
ok as i see you finally you learn how to quote (but you must agree with me that quoting is not your forte) why next time, instead wasting time trying to quote you just write what you want to say? ;) .
Client and patrons? well I did my home work back then, how about you? because it seems you dont understand (or dont want to understand) what I mean.
Clients (clientes, from cliere = obey) were the subject of the singles gentes quirinaries (or gentiles groups), and they had to obey to their pater familias to witch they were enthrust. And from who they got protection (Patronatus) so as you can see here is the similarity, BUT:
Now during the V and the IV century there was the crisis of the quiritial structure. The "ancient" istitution (rex, patres, comitia curata) were blurred, on the political plan, from the exercitus centuriatus patrizitian-plebs, were the praetor had lot of influence. The turnover of the monarchy (Brutus, Tarquinius, Lucrezia)along with the Etruschian domination and later the sack of rome, favour the socalled "revolt" of the Plebs.
Who were the Plebs (again and again) the Plebs, poor people, foreigners ect were the large population WITHOUT the citizenship, so it means they were NOT giuridical subject not for the pubblic law and for the private. They understod their importance for the army and for the local economy and for the function of the state of rome. So they start to claim their pretensions (claim for earth and also equality at certan degree with the patritians, including representationin the senate) so they got they asked and also 1 or two consul to be elected.
Later the number of the rapresentative of the plebs increased.
The plebs got their rapresentations after they did their massive strike on the avventinus.
So explain to me....HOW DOES THIS CONTERDICT WHAT I SAID?
Youre speaking completely out of our time frame. Please make your argument relative to the situation. Plebian members of Roman society held citizenship, they were simply the poorest of the 5 classes of citizen at the census. The head count were plebs as well, though they held no property. Plebs were enrolled in the census, could own property, and served in the army. There were no "foreigners" in the plebeian assembly.
The patron and client system is VERY similar to mafia familial and protectorive ties, indeed, the very word patronvs is the forebear of the modern Italic padrino, which means "godfather".
Interestingly enough, the plebeian vote counted for little in the assemblies to elect magistracies.
And I like also to add, we need to distinguish the concilia Plebis of the 494, it means the council only for the plebs, and the meeting of the tribunes, that was a assembly were plebs and patritian were reunited, but this is from late age.
The concilia Plebis are born like a one side assembly (for the plebs only) the plebi scita commit only the plebs. This uintil the Ortensia law were the plebi scita commited everybody (including the Patritian).
About the senate, at the beginning there were also plebeian consul (nothing prohibit that) and there were also plebeian consul in the repubblic, but they were rapidly excluded from the office. Later, when the law change the situation changed.
no, originally the citicenzip was granted only to the patritian or quirites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
true..Quote:
The patron and client system is VERY similar to mafia familial and protectorive ties, indeed, the very word patronvs is the forebear of the modern Italic padrino, which means "godfather".
could be "very similar" according to you two, but there is not relation. I noticed that one of you two has corrected himself, at first he was speaking of "relationship" and then, he sayd "similar". The second one is right, if we are talking of similitude, but that's not history.
It is patrician, and it is not the same thing as quirites. But foremost, please keep your discussions within EB's time frame, we are not discussing earlier eras.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baryonyx Walkeri
I dont understand what point you're trying to make here. What exactly are you aruging, anyway?
thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Originally was, Quirites was the oldest name of the romans, and since only the patritian got the citizenship it is proper call them Quirites (or patrician).Quote:
and it is not the same thing as quirites. But foremost, please keep your discussions within EB's time frame, we are not discussing earlier eras.
I am teaching you a little of the history of Rome, and if you cant see the connection, it's not my fault.Quote:
I dont understand what point you're trying to make here. What exactly are you aruging, anyway?
again:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Padrino is not related with patronus, that is a false statement.
You are using a sort of "transitive regle" here that is not corrected in linguistic:
pater=> (A) lat patronu(m),
pater=> (B) lat medieval patrinu(m)
then (A) = (B) that is not correct.
the first one (A) is used in roman "diritto" and i guess both you two know what it means patronu(m)
the secon one (B) is from medieval latin and it was used in church as "spiritual parents" and it later become also a slang for what you was talking about (mafia): a padrino is your new acquired "(spiritual) father"....
please dont create a false relation between mafia and roman clienteral system.
If you're not interested in your audience to understand what you're talking about, why bother to post at all? A summary of your arguments and conclusions will help many, I believe, because this discussion has become disjointed. At least I fail to understand what you want to arrive at.Quote:
I am teaching you a little of the history of Rome, and if you cant see the connection, it's not my fault.
I agree. I fail to see what, if anything, we are arguing about. Obelics, there is a connection between the patron system and the mafia. How can you argue there is not? What is a mafia boss to his clients if not a patron? I think you fail to understand either system if you cannot see their similarities.
Denmark guy, I am always interested in learning more Roman history that my professors may have missed, but I fail to see what point you are trying to get at. You seem to have a very misconstrued view of Roman culture that is not entirely accurate.
mafia is somethink related to the modern (post-unitarian) italian state, the situation of the agricoltural masses of the South, who were still linked to the old feudal system in vigor in the old Borbonic kingdom, and the new sort of colonialist system of the northern conquerors, who weren't able to interpretate the instances of the southern system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
if you see some "similitude" between the roman clienteral system and the link that a "servus of the gleba" had with its "Lord" (beware im using the word "lord" not patron) that's the same as to see the same similitude in other european feudal system. It was the "sudden" and "not gradual" ropture of this system that generate what you are talking about.
again if with "relationship" you are referring to some sort of "national genius" a word much used in the '800, that is as saying that if the roman had that clienteral system, than it still continue to be in the italian Dna as the mafia sembiante, than is a very forced thing, but im sure we are not talking of this.
again we are talking of similitudes, not of direct connections (and at last i would like to see what "exactly" are these "connection" and how much proved they are trough the whole course of history).
we can discuss on the matter forever and find as much of similitudes we want, but these are not probant of a direct connection on history, like to say A generate B.
I think it is very more fruitfull to go to investigate how it failed the system that Federico II wanted to give to the southern italy, and make a comparison with the new postunitarian system and its faults. Or again to go to investigate the social instances of the Vice-Realm centuries.
We, non-Italians often are told this (brief) explanation of Cliens-Patronus system along the lines of:
You've got a big boss. You've got the humble servant.
The big boss has lot's of cash, lot's of business or lot's or real estate or any mix you want. He has political influence, he's a member of the ruling class. He tries to ensure that all his clientes are being fed, employed, and housed. In exchange he demands a solid, unquestionable allegiance from his clientes. It's a virtue called pietas - both ways.
A Cliens can be a patronus to other clientes, but always knows where his true loyalities are to be. Most clientes, though, are people who simply look to their patronus for protection and aid should events turn against them. They'll support their Patroni whatever the cost - he is the only protector they have. They do not rely much on trials, minor offences are settled by a Patronus who decides on what is just and what is not. That can be anything from theft to rape - really. All Clientes will act as a voting block to support their chief of chiefs in times of elections, or law proposals.
--------------------------
See; there are some very striking similarities between the maffia as we, non-Italians, perceive it and the Patronus-Cliens system. You could also argue that there are striking similarities between Feudalism & Patronus-Cliens relationships - but then again it's is equally arguable that there are similarities between the maffia and Feudalism. For exactly the same reasons.
--------------------------
But anyways: I am much more looking forward to an update on your latest sentence than to continueing this pointless exchange of words (no offence meant, but to me the discussion between Zak and Baryonyx Walkeri comes across as such):