How 'Roman' was the Roman Empire?

[J.Alco]

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...

[Irishmafia2020]

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.

[Olaf The Great]

Romans were pretty much Hellenized Celts.

..Or Celticized Greeks...who knows?

[satalexton]

Barbaroi, nonetheless.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

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

[ARCHIPPOS]

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 ...

[Fluvius Camillus]

Barbaroi, nonetheless.

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

~Fluvius

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

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

[satalexton]

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

~Fluvius

Nah, there are times when the romaioi are not being barbaric. When they're dead, for example. Of course, better still, a dying Romaioi that tells you where the rest of his mates are!

[Constantius III]

Romans were pretty much Hellenized Celts.

..Or Celticized Greeks...who knows?

Rasna weren't quite Celts, homes.