Originally Posted by
Cambyses
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.
Bookmarks