How 'Roman' was the Roman Empire?

[Zim]

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).

[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.

[bobbin]

right.....

[Alsatia]

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.

[Reality=Chaos]

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

[ARCHIPPOS]

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...

[Skullheadhq]

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.

[Ludens]

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.

[Reality=Chaos]

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

Indeed

[johnhughthom]

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.

[ARCHIPPOS]

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" ...

[Macilrille]

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.