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.
How 'Roman' was the Roman Empire?
Reply With Quote
)
right.....
Re: How 'Roman' was the Roman Empire?
- Horseman of the 
Bookmarks