+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: When did the Romans stop being "Roman" (/showthread.php?tid=13963)
When did the Romans stop being "Roman" - Timotheus - 11-11-2008
Ok, as a followup to my previous thread here is a new one. When did the Romans of the Republic or Empire stop being "Roman"?
I know that doesnt make too much sense but I will try to explain what I am getting to. To me the Romans were great expansionist soldiers lead by powerful statesmen or Emperors.
In that vein to me the Romans stopped being "Roman" when the first response to foreign incursion was to bribe with gold instead of sending 1, 10, 30, or whatever number of legions were necessary to crush you and make you subserviant to Rome. Once Romans turned from the gladius to their moneypurse as their primary weapon of foreign policy they just no longer feel Roman to me.
What about you?
Re: When did the Romans stop being "Roman" - Tita Iuventia Martia - 11-11-2008
I agree with you, your opinion sounds exactly like my own thoughts.
True Romans were warriors and diplomats, not just bribers.
Re: When did the Romans stop being "Roman" - Gluteus Maximus - 11-11-2008
Many people adopt the Gibbonesque view that after about 300 Roman culture was somewhat diminished and something different from what went before. But then, Rome was always changing. The founders of the Republic would have found the adoption of Classical culture and Greek style architecture by Rome a couple of centuries later startling and un-Roman. Again, Marius would have found the Empire of Hadrian just as bewildering and somewhat alien, with its legions staffed by non-Italians and sitting behind fixed frontiers.
For these reasons, my feeling is that people did not suddenly stop being Romans once the army stopped wearing Lorica and having short haircuts, or once Christianity was adopted, or when Romulus was deposed in 476. The senate carried on until sometime in the 7th century, and Roman material culture continued to thrive in Italy until the Lombard invasions. Latin speakers in spain were called 'Romans' both by themselves and their Visigothic overlords, and a similar situation existed in Gaul. Although vulgar latin was starting to diversify into Romance languages, the process was by no means complete until the 9th century. Now, if you were to press me for a 'cut-off-date' as to when Romans started to become Italians, French, Spanish etc. I would have to err on the side of cowardice and say 'Dont know'. But my feeling is that latin speakers in the western provinces and Barbarian successor states were bona fide Romans until well into the 7th century. After that we are on dodgier ground, but they continued to regard themselves as Romans up until about the 800's.
Re: When did the Romans stop being "Roman" - Servio Caro (Javier Sánc - 11-11-2008
Well, I think we shouldn't think about romans only as a militar machine. I mean the culture, traditions, religion, language, etc. There are a lot of factors that define a whole culture, not only military power. In fact in Spain, after the fall of the western empire and the visigothic invasion all cities were roman cities (except new ones built by visigothicts) with roman population who spoke latin, with its own tradtions and culture appart from visigothics, and still goes on into early Middle Ages, with the islamic invasion. Other thing is the lost of politic and military power in that time, but I think it is another story..
Re: When did the Romans stop being "Roman" - Gaius Julius Caesar - 11-11-2008
I reckon the Romans still think of themselves as Romans...ducks for cover
I have to agree that one side of me strongly identifies with your
opinion Timotheus, but also the logic of an evolving entity is a strong arguement too, even if not the palletable one for me.
Re: When did the Romans stop being "Roman" - Watcher - 11-11-2008
Everyone has their own opinion, of course.
Mine is that Rome ceased to be Roman once Christianity was allowed to fuse itself into Roman culture. This, combined with allowing foreigners to become citizens of Rome would necessarily change the very foundation of Rome.
[part of message removed by moderator - see PM]
Re: When did the Romans stop being "Roman" - Gluteus Maximus - 11-11-2008
Indeed - We in Britain might have lost our empire, and all the current silly debates on 'what is Britishness' display the fact we are losing our culture and identity. But myself and many others for a few more generations perhaps will call themselves British and identify with what was once great.
Re: When did the Romans stop being "Roman" - Robert Vermaat - 11-12-2008
Quote: This, combined with allowing foreigners to become citizens of Rome would necessarily change the very foundation of Rome.So, that would be around the time of Caesar? Or maybe earlier, when those nasty Etruscans were allowed citizenship.
Define 'foreigners.
Re: When did the Romans stop being "Roman" - Timotheus - 11-12-2008
Quote:I reckon the Romans still think of themselves as Romans...ducks for cover
I have to agree that one side of me strongly identifies with your
opinion Timotheus, but also the logic of an evolving entity is a strong arguement too, even if not the palletable one for me.
But then that begs the question. When did the Romans evolve to the point that they were no longer Romans?
Re: When did the Romans stop being "Roman" - Watcher - 11-12-2008
I would define foreigners as when Rome opened up citizenship to non-Romans. The exact date escapes me off hand, but was well before Julius Caesar. Once Christianity came along, it was no longer the beginning of the end for Rome, but rather the end of the beginning.
Right or wrong, good or bad, if you change the people of a nation, the nation and its values will change.
That change might be for the better, and it might be for the worse, and whether or not the change is good or bad will vary depending on the opinion of the person being asked, and of course the judgement of posterity.
Re: When did the Romans stop being "Roman" - Epictetus - 11-12-2008
Quote: This, combined with allowing foreigners to become citizens of Rome would necessarily change the very foundation of Rome... I would define foreigners as when Rome opened up citizenship to non-Romans
On the contrary! Roman openness was one of its defining characteristics, and in my opinion the main reason why the Roman civilisation grew and thrived. It was Rome’s strong point, not its weak point. Besides occasional backslides, Rome was always open to foreign blood up until the time of its decay and decline. Tradition says it started with Romulus, who opened an asylum and granted citizenship to any person who wanted to join the City.
This is not new information. It was recognised as early as the start of the Principate (and probably before). Dion wrote to his Greek audience that the reason for Rome’s success was its willingness to grant citizenship to foreigners, and I think that he was right. In modern times both Cornell and Forsythe also point to Roman openness as one of its best features and a cause for Roman success. Comparisons with America are quite popular: both civilisations were open to outside influences and used this as a defining characteristic of their own culture as well as a source of strength against outside enemies.
I would in fact take the opposite tact: Rome ceased to be Roman when it became exclusive, protectionist, and turned inwards. But I can’t put an exact date on this.
Re: When did the Romans stop being "Roman" - Gluteus Maximus - 11-12-2008
Quote:Quote:
I would in fact take the opposite tact: Rome ceased to be Roman when it became exclusive, protectionist, and turned inwards. But I can’t put an exact date on this.
This is a very inciteful point, Epictetus, and the evidence is out there. I would, however, like to suggest a date, or at least a period: The second half of the 4th century, starting with Valens fatal refusal to grant the visigoths full membership of the Roman state when he grudgingly allowed them to settle on the Roman side of the Danube. These areas were underpopulated anyway - if he had adopted the same policy towards the Goths as was used vis-a-vis the Bastarnae a century earlier, and many other people not considered 'Roman' until they were assimilated, he would have gained a grateful ally rather than a resentful subject population. By adopting Christianity, many Barbarian tribes had already shown their willingness to adopt Roman ways. This attitude of only partially accepting them into the Roman World continued into the 5th century with disastrous results, and I believe it was the partial Romanisation of these tribes and a refusal to allow them the full package which made them so dangerous, and caused many problems later on.
Re: When did the Romans stop being "Roman" - Hibernicus - 11-12-2008
It's not that "they" stopped being Romans its more about how we in the 20th/21st C define what it is to be "Roman".
Our concept of what it is to be "Roman" is perhaps narrow, maybe too narrow. Their's changed as they changed. It's still the Roman church still led by a Pontifex Maximus and he was Alexander Romanov, a Csar.
Re: When did the Romans stop being "Roman" - Watcher - 11-12-2008
Epictetus,
That is the beauty of a forum where these types of things can be discussed in an adult fashion. We each have our own opinions, including Dion.
I specifically did not make the comparison you mention between Rome and the USA as I did not wish to potentially offend any Americans. But since you brought it up, then yes, the USA has been called "The Modern Romans".
Yes, Rome rewarded loyalty with citizenshio, but how many years did an auxlia soldier have to serve in the Roman army before being granted citizenship? Wasn't it some 20 years?
This is quite different from unilaterally allowing other people to become citizens.
Re: When did the Romans stop being "Roman" - sonic - 11-12-2008
The other side of the question is 'How far did the Peoples in the Provinces think of themselves as Roman?'
I have no doubt that the majority recognised that they were a part of the Empire, but how far did the common people absorb the cultural identity of Rome?
By this, I mean to include more than just the language. A language can be adopted to a large degree simply because it is used by those in charge. But how far did other cultural norms permeate non-Italian society?