How 'Roman' was the Roman Empire?

[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

[Saldunz]

Well, I think there's an interesting and worthwhile question behind this thread, if you can manage to sift through all the... *ahem*, spam-posts. It's a shame you need to sift through all of that at all. But in any case, here's some points that I can add on what's been said.

Ethnically speaking, I don't recall any great movements by the Roman Senate or the later Emperors to promote inter-marriage between different ethnicities. In fact, I would say that the Roman ethnic footprint left across the Empire and the world today is rather small. The Iberians, French, Italians and Romanians all have different ethnic compositions that can vary quite heavily from region to region even within their own countries (for example, in the skin tones of the Northern French vs. the Southern French).

Linguistically, Latin's impact on the world is staggering! But I do wonder how much of it is *really* thanks to the Romans themselves. In the context of EB's timeframe it's almost weird to think of the "Barbarian" tribes just dropping their languages in favour of Latin so that they might profit from it. Undoubtedly there was a great usefulness in knowing and speaking Latin. With Latin, a Celtiberian could travel to the eastern Spanish coastline and speak with the Iberian-speaking people there, or head north to the Aquitanians and, again, communicate with them in Latin. Knowing Latin didn't just let you, as an individual, communicate with the Roman elites but also with people of any other ethnicity who needed to do so as well. Just for the sake of comparison, I remember having to translate an administrative document from Ptolemaic Egypt, concerning an Egyptian man's complaint of being treated unlawfully because he did not Hellenize - meaning, he did not speak Greek. There was clearly an advantage to knowing Greek under the Ptolemies, but still it had trouble catching on.

I think the Roman Empire's linguistic influence is being overestimated by many of the posts here. The influence of Latin on Europe came from the advent of Judaeo-Christianity. The religion effectively "conquered" the Roman Empire, and the religion ascribed great importance to the written word. I think Christianity is what marked Latin's transition from being a useful language to being an absolutely vital language. Under the pre-Christian Roman Empire, Latin was probably primarily a language of trade - but still a second language to many of its subjects. Christianity is what would've really changed this.

As for culturally, well, I think I'll have to defer back to my paragraph on ethnicity. With the exception of the Italic peoples, non-Roman subjects probably did not so much assimilate to Roman culture as they did absord it into their own. Most of Europe's greatest cities are pre-Roman after all. And as far as I remember, the Romans were not keen of urbanizing the provinces. Rather, they sought to exploit them of their resources. Portugal, Spain, France, Romania and even some parts of Italy (like Sicily) are largely descended from slave-populations.

So I guess my supposed answer to the questions is "not very 'Roman' at all, at least not until Christianity popped up".

[Traveler]

The Roman Empire was Roman in language only, no major population movements or intermariages.

The chrurch did play an important part in protecting the linguistic influence of the former empire with one exception, Romanian , which was under the Orthodox Church of slavonic language. So the church language was not an esential factor.
Latin was the church language in Britain, Ireland, Germany, Poland, Baltic lands without turning them into romanised nations, not even Austria and Hungary.

The essential factor in the creation of Romance languages and nations was how Romanised in language was the region before the ending of the Empire.

[Saldunz]

English and German, though not descended from Latin, both have undergone considerable Latin influence because of Latin's importance in religion and later in scholarship.

Romanian may very be an exception, but I have to admit that the development of Romanian national identity (and language) is not terribly well understood by me. I'd imagine Thraco-Dacians speaking populations were still active in Romania and the rest of the Balkans during the middle period of the Empire though. And though Romania is presently an Orthodox nation, at the time it had fallen under the influence of Latin, whereas the souther Balkans had fallen under the influence of Greek. This situation of course changed by the Dark Ages.

[Subotan]

Why is Romainian so close to Latin, or even have any relationship at all, considering most of it was not under Roman rule for very long? You'd think something Slavic or Avar would be more dominant.

[option]

Why is Romainian so close to Latin, or even have any relationship at all, considering most of it was not under Roman rule for very long? You'd think something Slavic or Avar would be more dominant.

It mostly stems from the fact that Trajan didn't want another Decebalus-type incident, so after he conquered the region, he enslaved or relocated almost the entire population and replaced them with Roman settlers.

[Holysahib]

There's a related thing that occasionally comes to my mind, especially when pushing the "enslave" button, something I call "The Great Roman Sperm Machine"
Whenever the Romans conquered a city I imagine the entire legion being allowed to take personal spoils, i.e. raping the shit out of everything. In a time before condoms or survivable abortion, there would be a lot of half breed popping up, anyone have any ideas on this?
Would these "children of the legion" be treated in any different way, perhaps even form the first wave of "civilisation"?
What would the effect be on a community to be conquered first and then have your son resemble the guy that killed your husband?

[Maion Maroneios]

Children that were the product of rape were universally considered bastards. I don't know any society that actually welcomed them or treated them like the rest of the population. And if you think of it, half-breeds were generally (and sometimes still are) viewed with suspicion. I myself am a halfbreed, but due to the fact that my father is Greek I'm respected. At University, I have a fellow student whose father if african and mother Greek. I hear only racist remarks from people who don't know him (and he's a fairly nice and quitet guy, BTW).

It's sad, but it's true. Even more so back those days when race and tribe played an important role and xenophobia was generally more the norm than the exception. I hardly doubt the best way to integrate a newly conquered area is to "rape the shit out everything". This would only lead to a deep hatred against the conquering force, creating a "wound" that may take many generations to heal. The best way to integrate and absorb a conquered area, is to allow them autonomy and slowly introcuce [non violent] customs of your own. Slowly expose them to your culture, until they are deeply affected by it.

Maion

[Holysahib]

I hardly doubt the best way to integrate a newly conquered area is to "rape the shit out everything". This would only lead to a deep hatred against the conquering force, creating a "wound" that may take many generations to heal. The best way to integrate and absorb a conquered area, is to allow them autonomy and slowly introcuce [non violent] customs of your own. Slowly expose them to your culture, until they are deeply affected by it.

Maion

I don't think the meeting between an army and a newly conquered area has much to do with exchanging non-violent customs. Looting and raping is always a part of war, I think. On the other hand, this has little to do with long term integration. Romans weren't that fanatical about colonizing were they? Legions recieved lands mostly in Italy and all fame and political influence lay in Rome, so how much actual contact was there between Romans and the people they subjucated?

Then again, what is a Roman? Someone exclusively from Rome, or also people from the rest of Italy? Pontius Pilate was Samnite, most of Caesar's troops Spaniards. Rome's great power was it's adaptability (is that a word?) so the definition of Roman changes through time.
The ideal Roman was probably a cheap, sour faced old farmer on a moralist's trip.

I don't think that in any empire there is a singular culture that obliterates all others. Both conqueror and conquered change in the contact, look at ol' Megas Alexandros, he brought hellenic culture to Persia, but became half Persian in the process.

Anyway, these are just some barely historically founded thoughts, I wonder what you think of it, or just continue bitching against romaioi

[Maion Maroneios]

There is a huge difference between peaceful intermingling between people (conquered and conquerors) and "raping the shit out of everything" as you put it in the beginning. Of course looting and raping is a part of war, uneducated soldiers tend to focus a lot on satisfying their more "carnal" and materialistic needs. Good generals are those who think of the needs of their soldiers.

As for the definiton of "Roman" and the nationality of large empires, I agree completely with you. Large empires either find a way to integrate their people so that there is a sense of unity between them, or face rebellions in the long run. Especially when the "hard times" come (and those are plentiful), when less loyal subjects always seek to gain their freedom again.

Maion

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

It's important to notice that Roman coin did a far better work in "convincing" local populations than any Roman legion ever did. The masters of lies, the Romaioi, were always keen on bribing people into submission before resorting to arms .

Also, take in mind that unlike Alexander's, the Roman conquest was more of an accident (which I will try to portray in my AAR). There was no "grand plan" or ambition, for most of the earlier time it was simply due to political necessity and for stability that certain patches of land were annexed (such as to prevent enemies like Carthage from getting too large and strong again, the reason why Iberia was invaded), and also only because many times local resistance was too pathetic, as when Pompey conquered the East. Whenever the Romans met strong resistance, as in Carrhae, the prospect of conquest was immediately left behind, more so when Caesar died and with him the imperial dream - The Romaioi then just became content at settling down at a well defined boundary and getting their eagles back.

[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!

[Alsatia]

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!

[Macilrille]

Hmmm... I am trying had to remember the last time Sata contributed a useful post, and I am failing. I seem to recall some strategical advice sometime in the past, but it is all distant in the spam of "Hail Makedonia" and "Down with Rome" posts. Maion contributes usefully and despite a bit of a temper is a nice enough fellow, you Sata...

Using your time here spamming and annoying people instead of useful contributions, perhaps time to revise your ways? You probably have lots to contribute with- I think- so please do so, for your own opinion of people spending their time being a nuisance is probably not too high is it?

I do not know if you care, but you are close to my ignore function. Which is hard to get, only other person there is IrishHitman who called me a liar.

Useful posts please...

[Alsatia]

Well...

Forgive my spam and let's continue the suject.

The Roman empire was in theory, a singular body. In my opinion, I think that each province is practically its own nation and the "Empire" is just a union, saying who has what. The Govenors had almost complete rule and all they had to do was declare loyalty to rome. It is as if the provinces were treated ad allied states.

The romans, as I have said before, were Influenced by other peoples, notably the greeks. The romans had used modified greek architecture. The romans have copied many of the statues of the city states. They even used the sword of another nation (Gladius Hispanesis). By the time the roman empire started to decline, it was considerably different politically and militarily from the republic. The Empire was just a evolution that aquired many infuences, even though the customs of the natives were trampled by it's own.

[Maion Maroneios]

Not to mention the fact that later Byzantine Greeks still called themselves Ρωμιοί or Ρωμαίοι, which means "Romans". This is just a small example on how well the Romans were able to absorb other people into their growing Empire. Basically, what the Romans did was to allow some kind of autonomy and slowly introduce "Roman" customs. Sometimes this inevitably caused a future rebellion, but there was always the fear of a Roman Legion.

Maion

[Skullheadhq]

Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων wasn't Ῥωμαίων at all, more Αχαιων

[Maion Maroneios]

Hardly. The Roman society was well-integrated into what we call "Byzantine Empire" today. The very word "Byzantine" is something only we use to describe the Eastern Roman Empire, while they themselves still viewed themselves as Romans. Not to mention their customs and fighting techniques, which were clearly Roman. The only Greek was probably the official language of the State, as even the local populance spoke a hodge-podge of Greek, Slavic, Latin etc.

Maion