How 'Roman' was the Roman Empire?

Yonks ago, I posted a thread titled 'The Melting Pot?', wherein I put forward the question of whether the world, in this case the geographical area and timeframe depicted in EB, was or not a melting pot of cultures and peoples. I asserted, in that post, that it seemed to to me given the seemingly large numbers of either ethnic minorities that were the result of cross-cultural integration (The Liby-Phoenicians, the Celto-Iberians, the practices of the Baktrian kingdom, etc) or of different peoples and tribes aiding the superior power at a given time (Gaulish tribes aiding the Romans as they were advancing through Italy and Southern Gaul, the Diadochoi empires in general...)

Despite some good input, let's just say things didn't work out on that thread. Now that enough time has passed, I've decided to post forward a related question, albeit dealing with our old friends the Romani.

The title gives away everything here. How 'integrated', for lack of a better word, was the Roman empire? Obviously, Rome was one city with a limited population. It's somewhat ridiculous to say that its armies were always made up of Romans, or that the ruling classes in every region of the Roman empire at its height was made of Romans. That implies some unbelievably superhuman breeding power in the peoples of that city. Not that I'm ruling that out...

How much did Rome encourage its citizens, either from Rome or Italy itself, to colonize distant lands and inter-breed with the local population? Everyone here on EB will have read the quote 'What shore knows not our blood?' but how true is that? Did the Roman empire try to create greater harmony by encouraging its people's to mix and inter-relate and, by proxy, make the empire more stable? Were there ruling classes made up of only 'pure' Romans who refused to mix with the local populations? Could important members of other ethnicities in the empire, such as the Iberians, Gauls, or Greeks, rise to important positions of power within the fully-Roman power structure? History would seem to support this one, as emperors such as Hadrian and Severus are documented as having been from Spain and Libya respectively (Severus has even been described as dark-skinned). However, to me these always seemed to be the exceptions rather than the rule.

So, how well-integrated was the Roman empire? How much power rested in Rome itself, and how much rested in the hands of its subjects? Were its people even willing to mix?

Obviously, the empire was a huge place that lasted for many centuries, so I'm not expecting a simple dry and cut answer. I do think, though, that certain trends would have been evident, or more or less persistent, throughout the empire's existence, even in EB's timeframe when it was forming.

So, who's got any thoughts?

Oh, and of course if this thread gets derailed or off-topic, or degenerates, well...

French, English, Italian, Spanish, and Romanian all have significant Latin elements in their language even 2000 years after the empire, and many of Europe's greatest cities were founded by Romans, so it seems that the local population must have become highly Romanized - culturally at least, if not ethnically. Of course the East became Greek, and eventually Islamic civilization came to dominate North Africa, Egypt and Anatolia. My guess is that long term Romanization existed primarily in the west as many barbarian tribes turned to the catholic church and the existing Roman bureaucracy to help them after their initial conquests. Arguably Rome's influence has outlasted that of other major cultures of the EB time frame such as the Celts in Gaul, the Carthaginians in Africa, or the Greeks in the East. Rome's long term influence is only (in my memory) eclipsed on a world level by the dominance of Chinese culture in China - a geographically different area in its design. India might also be a candidate for having an ancient culture with modern transnational influence.

My opinion (I am not an academic expert) is that Roman cultural influence was profound in Europe 2,000 years ago, and it remains very significant to this day in Europe - although aspects of Roman culture (the Catholic church and Latin language) have had a significant effect on the new world as well. The languages of North and Latin America (LATIN America) are based on the Roman language, and the republican system of the USA includes a Senate.

Ethnically, Rome has had much less influence. There are probably genes from 2,000 year old legionnaires in the populations of most western European countries, and quite likely in Africa and the East as well - but really, only people in the Mediterranean region "look" or "act" in any way similar to Romans now, and I make that statement very loosely (please don't flame me...). Still, I think that there could be some case that if the Romans heavily colonized Spain, and the genetics of the regional people of Iberia weren't too washed out by subsequent invasions (Germans and Arabs) - then the Spanish and Portuguese conquest and colonization of Latin America might to this day guarantee that Roman Genetic influence exists at least a tiny bit over entire continents...

Finally, archaeological evidence suggests that during the height of the Empire Estates and cities followed a plan that was ubiquitous. The cities of Britain followed the same street plan as those of Africa, or Anatolia. The same economy, language, city plan, religion - essentially the same culture was followed throughout the empire. At its height, I would say that the Roman Empire as a whole was, on the surface at least, pretty Roman.

Romans were pretty much Hellenized Celts.

..Or Celticized Greeks...who knows?

Barbaroi, nonetheless.

Satalexton's posts can be summed on a single catchphrase: Romaioi Barbaroi.

you're opening a huge subject here J.Alco... socioeconomic Roman history offers a massive amount of things to chew on and absorb because of the empire's sheer spatial expansion and time span ...

there is a great book by Fernard Braudel (very influential historian) called the "memories of the Mediteranean" ... the book deals with how different ancient civilisations around the Mediteranean region were formed and organised... each chapter more or less offers a very brief account of a civilisation (Greek,Roman, Carthaginean and so on)... i was really impressed by the chapter on Carthage's trade and economics... (note however that ancient history was NOT Braudel's specialty) ... if you feel like learning more i would suggest getting your hands on some of the numerous other historians/sources etc Braudel uses all throughout the book ...

this book though is good for a start... plus it's rather easy to find within a decent sized uni library ...

Quote:

---

French, English, Italian, Spanish, and Romanian all have significant Latin elements in their language even 2000 years after the empire, and many of Europe's greatest cities were founded by Romans

---

Well i will add the portuguese language, wich is the language with more latinisms in his gramar today. I will add also, catalan, and alot others. Even polish wich is a slavic language but still has latin influences.

If we talk about genetics i can say for sure the portuguese population, as well In spain. 80% of the genes come from people of the Paleolithic, the rest 20% is romans, sarmatians, Visigoths,Vandalls, Arabs, Moorish, berbers, alans, slavs, etc.Total. What i say is roman people didnt breed more then the others... lol some may have colonize other parts of the empire of course mainly veteran legionares and his families, on these new lands, but was a minority, the power of the empire was translated by its culture and and his legions not by is demographic entenicty. It never is in history. So yes we can see roman briges, romans roads, romans aquaducts etc, in all cornners of the empire.
As we all kown the roman citezenship was given to other peoples for instance on the course of the time.
I wouldnt call Romans helenistic celts. they werent that. The helenist influnces come alot after, if at all the romans have alot of Etruscans influences. Their culture, their art, the tradition of the triumphs... these were Etruscan traditions, not greek. Its interisting, becouse they absorve alot of cultures, in the course of time. Its a caraterictic in this warrior and militaristic society, who rely his survival on military expansion.
At the same time was expanding to survive, the same time was absorving other cultures, like the greeks, like the carthaginian cultures, and iberian cultures. this we can all view in EB, if you can take attention, on military reforms, as well on the naval descriptions. Example: The use of the falcata,the gladius the use of Iberian tactics etc etc. not to mention greek architecture, alphabet, etc.

So we can say for sure,and there is hard evidences all around that the roman empire was indeed roman in culture, and not in ethenicity.


Im sorry for my unperfect english..was on a hurry.

Also i cant see any problem of being a barbaroi. i kown the génesis of the word might not be ofensive, still why you people saying it? wish i kewn the word used by celts and such to describe others peoples. So i can use in this forum. Dont kown if manny people would like that though.

Like Alexander said, "for me every good barbarian is a greek , and every bad greek is a barbarian."

I could be very wrong (I studied political science in college, not history, as interested as I was in the latter) but from what I read the Roman Empire's culture seems as "Roman" as American culture is "English". That is, some pretty heavy cultural influences but very little ethnically (probably some 10% of Americans are of "English" ethnicity but 80% speak English as their first language).

Romans are the Americans fom back then, Uncivilized, Imperialist Barbaroi who have absolutely zero culture and are constantly boasting about their miltary might. Eat worthless food and say they are the best of the best. And they have plebeians and patricians, you can only become senator with enough money for bribes etc.

It's the same really. And they both have the Capitol. Both a fake democracy, both an emperor. Both have "Allies" (read puppet states) and they both look down on other peoples (Greeks and Carthaginians for Romans, Blacks and Hispanics for Americans)

Ther are very few differences if you sum it up.

:inquisitive: right.....

Come to think of it, Romans were heavily influenced by greece early in it's history, then spread it to as much of the (known) world as possible. The Romans are like the italian greeks.. They turned back to greece when the east lost most of the orient.

I think the romans were quite pragmatic in their romanisation.... Those people that saw the benefits of the roman system and had abilities were integrated into the bureaucracy and/or military.... Ethnically the roman empire was very diverse. Also local traditions were kept in place by the romans if they did not hinder them....

I'd like to add one other thing. quite a few people on here seem to visualize the roman empire as a modern Nation State, and I think that is wrong. The idea of a nation state, is quite new and only started to gain ground in the 19th century. The definition of a nation state as taught in history is that it's a territorial entity whose inhabitants feel connected through language and culture. Following this definition one might even argue that a lot of modern states in Africa and Asia are not nation states at all.... Now Latin quickly became the langua franca (quite obvious) but culturally the empire was very diverse. It's only to easy to look at the roman empire in the context of the world today, but I don't think that's very useful. Just some food for thought

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Romans are the Americans fom back then, Uncivilized, Imperialist Barbaroi who have absolutely zero culture and are constantly boasting about their miltary might. Eat worthless food and say they are the best of the best. And they have plebeians and patricians, you can only become senator with enough money for bribes etc.

It's the same really. And they both have the Capitol. Both a fake democracy, both an emperor. Both have "Allies" (read puppet states) and they both look down on other peoples (Greeks and Carthaginians for Romans, Blacks and Hispanics for Americans)

Ther are very few differences if you sum it up.

---

that was a typical argument made by Academia and political theorists during the 90's , when the US became the one undisputed superpower surviving the Cold War... back then it seemed like the USA would establish a global hegemony based on military/cultural/economic suppremacy and shape a world under the "western moral standards" ... i think the pinacle of those visions of PAX AMERICANA was the 1998 NATO operation at Kosovo... today with the US fighting rearguard wars all over Asia i think we are safe to say that the Romans proved infinitely more politicaly wise...

At least the Romaioi tryed to justify all their wars by saying they defended allies. Classical Wars were always tryed to be justified in some way, nowadays we just attack and go for the oil.

Caesar was really good in justifiying his wars. Just read his Comentarii de bello Gallico, Everything he tries to justify what he does.

1) Leave modern politics out of this. If you feel you absolutely have to bash Americans or whoever, sign up for the Backroom.

2) No "Romans are Barbarians" spam. Keep this on topic, please.

[QUOTE=Ludens;2279105]1) Leave modern politics out of this.

Indeed:2thumbsup:

Very predictable, but hard to take seriously. I am certain somewhere there is a forum where you can take out your hatred of America, but this is not the place, so stuff it if you please. Perhaps also read some history and learn that the world is not so simple black and white as you depict it, search some enlightenment.

And I am no lover of America, but I am also not a hater.

Now, I also suggest the OP do the same; search enlightenment, read books. Numerous tomes has been written on the subject. The Internet is not the place to search enlightenment and by installing EB you have agreed to read more history. I suggest you go do so. Any general Roman history book will have a chapter dealing with the subject and a literature list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

No "Romans are Barbarians" spam. Keep this on topic, please.

---

Indeed to this also, was mildly amusing at first. Now it is tiresome opening a thread on the Romans, knowing 50% of the posts will be these.

errr, ok back to the topic ...
The fundemental building block of the Roman empire was the "Polis"(=city) with its surrounding agricultural areas (="hora")... those "Poleis" varied in populace, strategic importance and wealth but stretched by the hundreds from one side of the empire to the other... they were politicaly autonomous in regard to their internal affairs/governing and each polis had her own "Vouli" (=a micrography of the Roman senate) which dealed with all the local issues (like wellfare, education, social inequalities and so on) ... the polis was also responsible for maintaining and building infrastructure (roads, aquadects,didaskaleia(=schools) ,gymnasiums, temples and so on) within its "hora"(which could stretch for hundreds of klms) ... those works were largely financed by the local aristocracy (essentialy the "vouli" ) in the form of obligatory commisions imposed on the region's wealthiest citizens...

A very important aspect was that within the empire (the numerous provinces as well as Rome) the aristocratic titles were NOT hereditary but rather based on income... so basicaly everyone wealthy enough could ascend to the higher echelons of regional (or Roman )nobility.This also meant that some families who had declined economicaly gave way to nouveau-riches thus progress,social vitality and costant aristocratic regeneration became possible... this system of aristocratic merit tied to income was called "timocracy"...

As said before the "poleis' varied in their importance and significance... the most important of them would elevate to the position of provincial capital housing the bulk of Rome's administrators in that region... needles to say that there was A LOT OF CONTEST AND ANTAGONISM between neighboring poleis which usually involved MAJOR LOBBYING in Rome itself... contested areas and strategic resources (like mines) between cities (remember that within the empire war between cities was not an option=PAX ROMANA) , imperial funds (=dorees), "cultural" prestige were typical causes of such antagonisms...

the local councils and self-regulation of poleis enabled Rome to drasticaly ECONOMISE by reducing the numbers of needed "public functionairies" to the absolute minimum... the majority of the empire's gentilia (greatest proportion of civil servants) was of native origin and was FOR FREE (pretty neat,huh???) ... needless to say that this provincial aristocracy enjoyed greater popularity amongst the natives...this native aristocracy was multi layered into higher aristocrats (ultra rich and usually living in the city) and various degrees of petty nobles (living in the countryside and enjoying prestige amongst the peasant populations)... client relationships between higher and petty gentilia was the order of the day... the petty tribal leader of a small peasant village would pledge allegiance to the city's aristocrat who would in return be dependant of a senate member in Rome... so a continuous chain of client relationships ( =favors, protection of mutual interests, mutual support amongst outsiders and so on) stretched from Rome to even the most insignificant corner of the empire...
Emperor > Senate > Higher Local nobility > Petty Local Nobility (OR Rome> Poleis > Villages)... this system allowed favors to be asked for by both sides: the centre as well as the periphery... as usual it involved a quid-pro-quo kind of mutual satisfaction ...

On to the ethnological issues : Romans typicaly sent Italic or Roman colonisers ... those could be granted fertile lands or permission to conduct trade or exploit some kind of profitable regional resource ... urban living however encouraged mixed marriages ... why??? the Romanism was essentialy an "Urban Lifestyle"... poleis made avalaible at least a minimum of this "urban lifestyle " which the natives were encouraged to share too ... (the benefits of civilisation over barbarous living blah blah blah) ... gymnasiums, didaskaleia, Roman baths, city fests and worshipping of Roman deities, obedience to the law and civic duty were seen as manifestations of this Romanism ... an other important aspect was that the local nobility was oftenly rewarded with the honorary title of ROMAN CITIZENSHIP for exceptional services or after a succesful carreer in a city's administration (this also involved some connections in the right paces though)... those CITIZENSHIPS WERE HEREDITARY (passed from father to sons ) so basicaly Italic colonisers and city gentilia became merged under the title ROMANI... the subject of Roman citizenship is sooooooo big on its own you could write a number of massive books abt it but the general idea is that as time progressed citizenship was granted to more and more people until by the third century with the CONSTITUTIO ANTONIANA it was awarded to "to all free male inhabitants of the Empire" ...

The empire centered in Rome lasted about 12 centuries from 748 BCE to 476 CE. As such the chronological majority occured before the time of the Augustan Empire. Imperial era historians like Livy often demonstrated an attitude of pessimism towards the newfound splendour of the Empire, Livius in his preface refers calls it "haec nova" (these new things) and says that the energies of the Roman people are near exhausting themselves (1.5). Similarly Florus used a senectitude analogy to describe Roman history with the Regal period marking the childhood of the populus Romanus, the Early to mid-Republic marking the flower of adolescence and adulthood, and the high imperial period its old age. I agree with Florus' analogy and see the SPQR as modifying its disposition over time regarding citizenship and cultural assimilation/exclusion.
I view Rome basically as a Helleno-Trojan city dedicated to a central ideal of military might (Roma being cognate with Hellenic Rome- might and ronnumi -to grow mighty) and essentially an experiment in extreme militarism. As such early regal-era citizenship standards were extremely liberal for that time, runaway slaves, brigands, renegades, soldiers of fortune were all embraced only be they willing to accept the laws and become strong and vigorous (strenuus ac fortis, a phrase often used in old Roman history to represent the basic Roman ideal of manhood.) So at this time in the early kingship I think Rome was highly assimilationist, a melting pot with a radically militaristic twist.
After the "childhood" of the populus Romanus under the kings then they entered their "adolescence" in which as Sallust observed Romans sought not luxury but rather military decorations and horses, and "virtus omnia domuerat"- manhood overcame all things. Cicero and other Romans recalled the early Romans as a "durum genus" (hard race) and during this period the Roman people as a whole resolved their basic character and recognized the superior brutal qualities and discipline that qualified them to steadily overpower all their neighboring populations in perrenial war and maintain hegemony over the other Latin cities and slowly and inexorably extend their imperial hegemony over the Etruscans, Sabines, Aequi, Volsci etc. So during this period Rome ceased to be a melting pot and became more of an ethnocultural supremacist, waging wars for total unconditional subjection of all rights and property to the dictum of the senate and Roman people. The ultimate manifestation of this was the voluntary self-subjugation of the opulent city of Capua to Rome in order for the Capuans to gain Rome's protection against Samnite invasion c 340 BCE.
The Samnite war marks the high point of Roman ethnocultural supremacism, when Titus Manlius Torquatus famously executed his own son for transgressing consular imperium during a campaign waged to prevent the Latins from assuming Roman citizenship rights and gaining the right to elect one consul. With the subjugation of the Samnites and decisive victories over the Sabines, Etruscans and Gauls, and establishment of military colonies throughout much of Italy, Rome became the hegemonic power of Italy and entered into its "mature adulthood" during which it became less ethnocentrist and progressively more merciful towards its military opponents, since Rome fought less and less for survival and preservation of family, and more and more for empire, hegemony, and economic advantage.
The invasion of Sicily which initiated the first Punic War was in a sense the poisoned apple, the matter was hotly disputed at great length in the senate, and ultimately definitively signified the beginning of Rome's relentless drive towards hegemony which became the full time obsession of the upper nobility. During this period I view Rome becoming more culturally assimilationist, they destroy Carthage and then adopt its agricultural systems, destroy the Celtiberians and adopt their swords, "protect" the Hellenes and hire/purchase Hellenic pedagogues. Following the dissolution of the Roman agrarian tradition and the decline of vigor among the urban populace Rome became increasingly dependent on non-Roman Italian manpower to fill the legions leading to the revolts of the Social War (91-88 BCE) and the Lex Iulia that extended Roman citizenship to many Italian and Latin cities.
As for the Augustan period, Archippos has already discussed that well, so I would only add that in my opinion the Caracallan decree/Constitutio Antoniana which extended Roman citizenship throughout the Imperial boundary, signified the final genetic merging of the ancient Roman ethnos with the general population masses that the Romans had conquered through the previous centuries so that the ancient ethnic supremacism which the Romans asserted during the early Republic no longer had any basis in fact. This is to say that the ancient inhabitants of the city of Rome during the Republican Era were in fact more disciplined, more austere, more indefatigable and more virtuous than other men, and the Antonine era residents of the city of Rome were nothing of the sort. And though the legions were still fairly well manned, drawing soldiers from throughout the vast empire, the essential virtues of the old Roman mos maiorum were no longer consistently maintained in any civilian population in the Empire. This moral dissolution, which was well foreseen by earlier historians such as Livius, would ultimately lead to the military disasters of the 3rd century CE and the definitive military collapse of Rome following the rise of the Huns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

The empire centered in Rome lasted about 12 centuries from 748 BCE to 476 CE. As such the chronological majority occured before the time of the Augustan Empire. Imperial era historians like Livy often demonstrated an attitude of pessimism towards the newfound splendour of the Empire, Livius in his preface refers calls it "haec nova" (these new things) and says that the energies of the Roman people are near exhausting themselves (1.5). Similarly Florus used a senectitude analogy to describe Roman history with the Regal period marking the childhood of the populus Romanus, the Early to mid-Republic marking the flower of adolescence and adulthood, and the high imperial period its old age. I agree with Florus' analogy and see the SPQR as modifying its disposition over time regarding citizenship and cultural assimilation/exclusion.
I view Rome basically as a Helleno-Trojan city dedicated to a central ideal of military might (Roma being cognate with Hellenic Rome- might and ronnumi -to grow mighty) and essentially an experiment in extreme militarism. As such early regal-era citizenship standards were extremely liberal for that time, runaway slaves, brigands, renegades, soldiers of fortune were all embraced only be they willing to accept the laws and become strong and vigorous (strenuus ac fortis, a phrase often used in old Roman history to represent the basic Roman ideal of manhood.) So at this time in the early kingship I think Rome was highly assimilationist, a melting pot with a radically militaristic twist.
After the "childhood" of the populus Romanus under the kings then they entered their "adolescence" in which as Sallust observed Romans sought not luxury but rather military decorations and horses, and "virtus omnia domuerat"- manhood overcame all things. Cicero and other Romans recalled the early Romans as a "durum genus" (hard race) and during this period the Roman people as a whole resolved their basic character and recognized the superior brutal qualities and discipline that qualified them to steadily overpower all their neighboring populations in perrenial war and maintain hegemony over the other Latin cities and slowly and inexorably extend their imperial hegemony over the Etruscans, Sabines, Aequi, Volsci etc. So during this period Rome ceased to be a melting pot and became more of an ethnocultural supremacist, waging wars for total unconditional subjection of all rights and property to the dictum of the senate and Roman people. The ultimate manifestation of this was the voluntary self-subjugation of the opulent city of Capua to Rome in order for the Capuans to gain Rome's protection against Samnite invasion c 340 BCE.
The Samnite war marks the high point of Roman ethnocultural supremacism, when Titus Manlius Torquatus famously executed his own son for transgressing consular imperium during a campaign waged to prevent the Latins from assuming Roman citizenship rights and gaining the right to elect one consul. With the subjugation of the Samnites and decisive victories over the Sabines, Etruscans and Gauls, and establishment of military colonies throughout much of Italy, Rome became the hegemonic power of Italy and entered into its "mature adulthood" during which it became less ethnocentrist and progressively more merciful towards its military opponents, since Rome fought less and less for survival and preservation of family, and more and more for empire, hegemony, and economic advantage.
The invasion of Sicily which initiated the first Punic War was in a sense the poisoned apple, the matter was hotly disputed at great length in the senate, and ultimately definitively signified the beginning of Rome's relentless drive towards hegemony which became the full time obsession of the upper nobility. During this period I view Rome becoming more culturally assimilationist, they destroy Carthage and then adopt its agricultural systems, destroy the Celtiberians and adopt their swords, "protect" the Hellenes and hire/purchase Hellenic pedagogues. Following the dissolution of the Roman agrarian tradition and the decline of vigor among the urban populace Rome became increasingly dependent on non-Roman Italian manpower to fill the legions leading to the revolts of the Social War (91-88 BCE) and the Lex Iulia that extended Roman citizenship to many Italian and Latin cities.
As for the Augustan period, Archippos has already discussed that well, so I would only add that in my opinion the Caracallan decree/Constitutio Antoniana which extended Roman citizenship throughout the Imperial boundary, signified the final genetic merging of the ancient Roman ethnos with the general population masses that the Romans had conquered through the previous centuries so that the ancient ethnic supremacism which the Romans asserted during the early Republic no longer had any basis in fact. This is to say that the ancient inhabitants of the city of Rome during the Republican Era were in fact more disciplined, more austere, more indefatigable and more virtuous than other men, and the Antonine era residents of the city of Rome were nothing of the sort. And though the legions were still fairly well manned, drawing soldiers from throughout the vast empire, the essential virtues of the old Roman mos maiorum were no longer consistently maintained in any civilian population in the Empire. This moral dissolution, which was well foreseen by earlier historians such as Livius, would ultimately lead to the military disasters of the 3rd century CE and the definitive military collapse of Rome following the rise of the Huns.

---

Gaaaah use enter button!!!


But still, very nice information. I don't agree with the idea of Helleno-Trojan city though, because there's no real historical evidence at all that the Romans were related to the Trojans. The Romans were just an Indo-European tribe at first, little different from their neighbors and constantly adapting to the current situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olaf The Great

Romans were pretty much Hellenized Celts.

..Or Celticized Greeks...who knows?

---

Rasna weren't quite Celts, homes. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

The empire centered in Rome lasted about 12 centuries from 748 BCE to 476 CE. As such the chronological majority occured before the time of the Augustan Empire. Imperial era historians like Livy often demonstrated an attitude of pessimism towards the newfound splendour of the Empire, Livius in his preface refers calls it "haec nova" (these new things) and says that the energies of the Roman people are near exhausting themselves (1.5). Similarly Florus used a senectitude analogy to describe Roman history with the Regal period marking the childhood of the populus Romanus, the Early to mid-Republic marking the flower of adolescence and adulthood, and the high imperial period its old age. I agree with Florus' analogy and see the SPQR as modifying its disposition over time regarding citizenship and cultural assimilation/exclusion.
I view Rome basically as a Helleno-Trojan city dedicated to a central ideal of military might (Roma being cognate with Hellenic Rome- might and ronnumi -to grow mighty) and essentially an experiment in extreme militarism. As such early regal-era citizenship standards were extremely liberal for that time, runaway slaves, brigands, renegades, soldiers of fortune were all embraced only be they willing to accept the laws and become strong and vigorous (strenuus ac fortis, a phrase often used in old Roman history to represent the basic Roman ideal of manhood.) So at this time in the early kingship I think Rome was highly assimilationist, a melting pot with a radically militaristic twist.
After the "childhood" of the populus Romanus under the kings then they entered their "adolescence" in which as Sallust observed Romans sought not luxury but rather military decorations and horses, and "virtus omnia domuerat"- manhood overcame all things. Cicero and other Romans recalled the early Romans as a "durum genus" (hard race) and during this period the Roman people as a whole resolved their basic character and recognized the superior brutal qualities and discipline that qualified them to steadily overpower all their neighboring populations in perrenial war and maintain hegemony over the other Latin cities and slowly and inexorably extend their imperial hegemony over the Etruscans, Sabines, Aequi, Volsci etc. So during this period Rome ceased to be a melting pot and became more of an ethnocultural supremacist, waging wars for total unconditional subjection of all rights and property to the dictum of the senate and Roman people. The ultimate manifestation of this was the voluntary self-subjugation of the opulent city of Capua to Rome in order for the Capuans to gain Rome's protection against Samnite invasion c 340 BCE.
The Samnite war marks the high point of Roman ethnocultural supremacism, when Titus Manlius Torquatus famously executed his own son for transgressing consular imperium during a campaign waged to prevent the Latins from assuming Roman citizenship rights and gaining the right to elect one consul. With the subjugation of the Samnites and decisive victories over the Sabines, Etruscans and Gauls, and establishment of military colonies throughout much of Italy, Rome became the hegemonic power of Italy and entered into its "mature adulthood" during which it became less ethnocentrist and progressively more merciful towards its military opponents, since Rome fought less and less for survival and preservation of family, and more and more for empire, hegemony, and economic advantage.
The invasion of Sicily which initiated the first Punic War was in a sense the poisoned apple, the matter was hotly disputed at great length in the senate, and ultimately definitively signified the beginning of Rome's relentless drive towards hegemony which became the full time obsession of the upper nobility. During this period I view Rome becoming more culturally assimilationist, they destroy Carthage and then adopt its agricultural systems, destroy the Celtiberians and adopt their swords, "protect" the Hellenes and hire/purchase Hellenic pedagogues. Following the dissolution of the Roman agrarian tradition and the decline of vigor among the urban populace Rome became increasingly dependent on non-Roman Italian manpower to fill the legions leading to the revolts of the Social War (91-88 BCE) and the Lex Iulia that extended Roman citizenship to many Italian and Latin cities.
As for the Augustan period, Archippos has already discussed that well, so I would only add that in my opinion the Caracallan decree/Constitutio Antoniana which extended Roman citizenship throughout the Imperial boundary, signified the final genetic merging of the ancient Roman ethnos with the general population masses that the Romans had conquered through the previous centuries so that the ancient ethnic supremacism which the Romans asserted during the early Republic no longer had any basis in fact. This is to say that the ancient inhabitants of the city of Rome during the Republican Era were in fact more disciplined, more austere, more indefatigable and more virtuous than other men, and the Antonine era residents of the city of Rome were nothing of the sort. And though the legions were still fairly well manned, drawing soldiers from throughout the vast empire, the essential virtues of the old Roman mos maiorum were no longer consistently maintained in any civilian population in the Empire. This moral dissolution, which was well foreseen by earlier historians such as Livius, would ultimately lead to the military disasters of the 3rd century CE and the definitive military collapse of Rome following the rise of the Huns.

---

:2thumbsup:

Romanian has many latin aspects as well, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havok.

Romanian has many latin aspects as well, right?

---

Oh yes alot. And if you listening portuguese and romanian, you will notice very similaries.
Like portuguese and spanish, italian , and even french. theres alot of similaries betwen this languages. Their gramatical basis was founded from latin gramar. thats why we call this languages latin languages.


For instance number 4 in portuguese quatro. In romanian sounds the same.

It's weird how Romanian sounds very siilar to Latin, but was probably the province in Europe that was under their control for the least amount of time.

Apart from a certain part of Germany...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Apart from a certain part of Germany...

---

Damn Varus....

:wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satalexton

Barbaroi, nonetheless.

---

If you just insert Romaioi barbaroi in your sig it would save you all the time you spend writing.:2thumbsup:

~Fluvius

Romaioi Barbaroi...

I'l write it many times:

Romaioi Barbaroi barbarizing Barbaropolis
Romaioi Barbaroi barbarizing Barbaropolis
Romaioi Barbaroi barbarizing Barbaropolis
Romaioi Barbaroi barbarizing Barbaropolis
Romaioi Barbaroi barbarizing Barbaropolis
Romaioi Barbaroi barbarizing Barbaropolis
Romaioi Barbaroi barbarizing Barbaropolis
Romaioi Barbaroi barbarizing Barbaropolis
Romaioi Barbaroi barbarizing Barbaropolis
Romaioi Barbaroi barbarizing Barbaropolis
Romaioi Barbaroi barbarizing Barbaropolis
Romaioi Barbaroi barbarizing Barbaropolis
Romaioi Barbaroi barbarizing Barbaropolis
Romaioi Barbaroi barbarizing Barbaropolis
Romaioi Barbaroi barbarizing Barbaropolis
Romaioi Barbaroi barbarizing Barbaropolis
Romaioi Barbaroi barbarizing Barbaropolis
Romaioi Barbaroi barbarizing Barbaropolis


:laugh4: