The mighty Claudius

[Cambyses]

Are you sure you have actually read about this and aren't simply unconsciously projecting your own views on romanisation into the ancient world? Sure, there was Tacitus and a few other intellectuals who questioned Rome's policies, but they could be compared to the Americans who were agaisnt the Iraq war after 9/11: a very small minority who hardly echoed the opinion of any conspecific segment of society.

With the greatest respect, I did an entire module on how ancient people's defined themselves and others as part of the final year of my Ancient History degree. So yes, I know the theory. I am also aware that is is just that, a theory, and a great many people may not agree with it.

Of course you are absolutely right concerning the difference between the opinions of the average man on the street and the philosophical vogue of the day. But the difference between ancient societies and modern is that with the overwhelming majority of the population disenfranchised from any meaningful power, a small number of opinion formers and decision makers could have a vast impact.

The basis of the argument is not concerning the barbarians - inevitably. It is more that many ancient peoples (especially the more conservative societies, ie Rome) tended to look back to their own past at the time before they were an empire - or during their ascension to it - as a time when people were better, life was simpler etc. On a very simple level, certain Greeks after the Persian wars bemoaned the spread of "barbarian/foreign" customs in their cities, such as excessive attention to oiling their hair etc, as it was seen as a corruption and weakening of the traditional virtues of the state. ie "this is what we were, but our contact with others in changing our nature, that is bad".

The Romans - to a certain extent shared these views - as can be seen in some of the reforms of Octavian, re morality, marriage etc etc. Then, considering their own "modern" society corrupt, due to their increased wealth and power, it was tempting to look at the supposedly simpler "barbarian" societies as a doorway into their own past. "That is what we used to be like before we became corrupted".

Clearly the more progressive people in the society, would not see increased education and awareness as negative, but if you are part of the elite than as often as not change is bad. The theory goes, not that the Romans felt "guilty" from replacing other people's existing culture with their own - but that they were bringing the evils of civilisation and inflicting them on a more virtuous people.

Anyway, the point I was making isnt that I subscribe to this theory, simply that Tacitus is setting Caratacus up to be the mouthpiece of Roman views about themselves, and quite possibly has very little to do (apart from obvious shared sentiments) with the actual views and opinions of contemporary Britons.

[Africanvs]

With the greatest respect, I did an entire module on how ancient people's defined themselves and others as part of the final year of my Ancient History degree. So yes, I know the theory. I am also aware that is is just that, a theory, and a great many people may not agree with it.

Of course you are absolutely right concerning the difference between the opinions of the average man on the street and the philosophical vogue of the day. But the difference between ancient societies and modern is that with the overwhelming majority of the population disenfranchised from any meaningful power, a small number of opinion formers and decision makers could have a vast impact.

The basis of the argument is not concerning the barbarians - inevitably. It is more that many ancient peoples (especially the more conservative societies, ie Rome) tended to look back to their own past at the time before they were an empire - or during their ascension to it - as a time when people were better, life was simpler etc. On a very simple level, certain Greeks after the Persian wars bemoaned the spread of "barbarian/foreign" customs in their cities, such as excessive attention to oiling their hair etc, as it was seen as a corruption and weakening of the traditional virtues of the state. ie "this is what we were, but our contact with others in changing our nature, that is bad".

The Romans - to a certain extent shared these views - as can be seen in some of the reforms of Octavian, re morality, marriage etc etc. Then, considering their own "modern" society corrupt, due to their increased wealth and power, it was tempting to look at the supposedly simpler "barbarian" societies as a doorway into their own past. "That is what we used to be like before we became corrupted".

Clearly the more progressive people in the society, would not see increased education and awareness as negative, but if you are part of the elite than as often as not change is bad. The theory goes, not that the Romans felt "guilty" from replacing other people's existing culture with their own - but that they were bringing the evils of civilisation and inflicting them on a more virtuous people.

Anyway, the point I was making isnt that I subscribe to this theory, simply that Tacitus is setting Caratacus up to be the mouthpiece of Roman views about themselves, and quite possibly has very little to do (apart from obvious shared sentiments) with the actual views and opinions of contemporary Britons.

That's an interesting theory you have. I can only speak for myself, but there have been many times that I have looked at a simpler society and wondered if we weren't better off without all of our technology and "civilization." I imagine there were ancient Romans who felt the same. I believe it is incorrect however to assume that a foriegner, even someone the Romans labeled "barbarian" could not be highly intelligent and capable of making such a speech. There are many cases throughout history where these "barbarians" have gained prestige and demonstrated intelligence. Take for example Priscus reporting of a state banquet with Attila where Attila uses merely a wooden plate and a wooden cup while the other guests are offered gold and silver cups. Attila is making a statement that he is not impressed by such trivial things. Arminius the German served in the Roman army and achieved both citizenship and equestrian rank. At any rate the Britons traded extensively with Romanized Gauls and many of them must have spoken Latin. While I am sure that many speeches and quotes made by both Roman characters, and barbarian in these histories have been embellished, if not entirely made up, whatever Caratacus said saved his life, and he was able to live out his days on land provided by the state. As another person said, I believe the people who felt that Romanzation was not necessarily a good thing were an enlightened minorit. For the majority of Romans, new conquests meant spoils for the army, fresh slaves, glory for generals, new land to colonize, and one more people subjugated who couldn't attack the empire. To be fair, the collapse of the empire really began when the empire stopped expanding, and tried to maintain a set border.