Romans \'were not colour prejudiced\', research shows

[A_Volpe]

I agree,i remember some vague story about a coloured unit,who served in the army..think they got decimated 3 times or something.

Perhaps you're thinking of the so-called "Thebian Legion", [commanded] by a guy later called Saint Maurice / St. Morris (who happens to be Moor/black apparently). He and his soldiers were either residual elements from either III Cyrenaica, XXII Deiotariana, or II Trajana in Egypt in the 200's AD - Or more likely one of the myriad of Auxiliary units in the province. And apparently based or originated from Thebes (hence "Thebian Legion") ~ I've seen listed in Alston's book of a I Thebaeorum Equitata and II Thebaeorum; appearing in the late 100's - 200's.

He and his troops had been sent up to put down a revolt in Gaul, but when ordered to attack a group of Christians, refused, and was then ordered to Decimate either three times after refusing three times to do so; or decimated until noone was left.

There is also in the Notitia Dignitatum. a Leg. I Maximiana Thebanorum, but apparently this unit existed 10 someodd years after Maurice was reportedly martyred around 286.

According to legend, he also carried the Spear of Destiny, and became a patron Saint of Knights.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Comerus Gallus Romus

To me that shocked me, because to me the aboriginals were those called: Pelasgian...

That is 100% correct. I have been trying to remember that name for ages!

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

The Greeks,tryng to claim that they were there from the beginning of time involved all those people to their Mythology.For example the Pelasgians were supposely named so after their first king Pelasgos. Appart from differences among Ionians,Aeolians Dorians etc,they called themselves Hellenes,after the first man(was he son of Gaia and Ouranios or am I wrong?) who was called Hellenas (Έλλην).So,to link again this discussion to the original one of the thread,how were all those tribes connected and what made them "Greeks"? It was their education(in the sence of customs and morals) and not so much religion,and this perhaps made them more open-minded in race matters.
After all,from the 6th century bc we have anecdotes of wise Egyprian and Lydian and Persian kings...and again this is a time that Greece was not the leading power in the arrea. The case must have been the same with Rome,too.
And Here I think we must verify what do we mean "tehy were not racists"? Are we talking about an official policy of the state,the emperor or the general,or about the common perception of the poor peasant/citizen? Often the one is influenced by the other,true,but they're not always the same...
Khairete
Giannis

PS.Sorry guys,as you can see I'm a Greek,and I live in Macedonia,so I'm pretty much preconceived in that matter :lol: and I feel I have to mention that mount Olympos,the center of Greek religion belonged(and still does) to Macedonia...this is a comment for the statement that macedonians and greeks were something different.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

The Leleges again after their first king,hero Lelegx (Λέλεγξ)

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

To me it's just the strugle of the different Greek tribes to excuse their presence in the arrea. The Spartans produced a whole story around the sons of Heracles to get opposed to the Ionians(and thus the Athenians) who claimed straight forward that they were there from the beginning of time.Who the Leleges and Pelasgians might have been is unknown,perhaps the "uncivilized" early bronze age people of the Aegean,who knows.
Khaire
Giannis

[Quintius Clavus]

To get back to the topic and the Romans: Citing from Sara Elise Phang, "Roman Military Service, Ideologies of Discipline in the Late Republic and Early Principate" Cambridge Univ Press, 2008 Pages 78-80. Summarizing - She is writing about recruiting Roman soldiers. "Aside from criticism of the 'barbarism' of civil war armies, the (elite) literary authors do not show specific concern for the ethnic origins of recruits." Emphasizing the role of discipline in producing Roman soldiers: "Strict training, work and social control produced 'Roman' soldiers regardless of their original ethnicity and social level." The authors tended to depict poorly trained and disorderly soldiers as "barbarian" - for example this is very much how Vitellius' troops, including his legionaries, were regarded when they arrived in Rome in AD 69.
The elite Romans were aware of some of the ideas put out by Herodotus ascribing a role to geography for certain mental and physical characteristics: Gauls and Germans, from the north and cold climates, possessed "abundant blood" and were brave in their native climate, but wilted in the warmer climate of Italy; southern peoples were intelligent but cowardly due to their hot climate (it dried up their "blood"). Asiatics were viewed as effeminate due to their warm climate and easy lifestyle. HOWEVER, there is no evidence that any of these were considered unacceptable as recruits. Vegetius explicitly recommends recruiting based on geography - from temperate zones - but he was arguably putting out an ideal.
Despite the increasing exposure of Gauls and Germans for example to Roman culture including through service in the army, the ethnic stereotypes about them in the literary works don't change much.
In practical terms, this made no difference "on the ground." During the second century AD, legionaries and auxiliaries had similar origins (LeBohuc, 1994, etc).

[Urselius]

We look at the concept of racism as judged by skin colour through the distorting lens of the Slave Trade, where Sub-saharan Africans were trafficked to the Americas to provide labour. As these people were treated abominably by Europeans, who didn't practice slavery amongst themselves, a sort of post-fact reasoning based on their differences from Europeans, the main one being skin colour, was used to justify the trade. That is, Black Africans were sufficiently 'not the same as us' that they could be treated as though they were sub-human. Thus skin colour became an important way of judging people and being prejudiced about them.

Outright slavery of Europeans by Europeans died out gradually from c. 900 to c. 1200 AD. Before that, and especially before Christianity, slave status could be held by people of any racial origin, social status and skin colour were not linked in any way. The Romans, though as guilty as any other people of national chauvanism, were not at all predisposed to be particularly prejudiced towards variations in skin colour. The authors of the piece are guilty of projecting modern expectations on Roman attitudes. I just doesn't work and is very sloppy thinking indeed.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Spot on there!

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

Emphasizing the role of discipline in producing Roman soldiers: "Strict training, work and social control produced 'Roman' soldiers regardless of their original ethnicity and social level."

Right, just found this quote of Vegetius who wrote in his epitomes: "We see no other explanation of the conquest of the world by the Roman People than their military training, camp discipline and practice in warfare. (Epitome, 1.1)

... would be interesting to know, whom he meant with We. :?

[L C Cinna]

There is an interesting part in the Historia Augusta Vita Severi:

22.4:

On another occasion, when he was returning to his nearest quarters from an inspection of the wall at Luguvallum164 in Britain, at a time when he had not only proved victorious but had concluded a perpetual peace, just as he was wondering what omen would present itself, an Ethiopian soldier, who was famous among buffoons and always a notable jester, met him with a garland of cypress-boughs. 5 And when Severus in a rage ordered that the man be removed from his sight, troubled as he was by the man's ominous colour and the ominous nature of the garland, the Ethiopian by way of jest cried, it is said, "You have been all things,165 you have conquered all things, now, O conqueror, be a god."

On the one hand the author says the guy's skin colour is a bad omen, on the other hand it didn't seem to have bothered the people accepting him into a unit. I mean Severus is pretty superstitious but a weird passage anyway :roll: I guess it was just seen as bad omen because Severus was asking for an omen at that moment.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

There was another incident when the soldiers, exiting the camp before the battle of Philippi, killed an Ethiopian whom they met on the way, considering such an encounter a bad omen (Plutarch, Brutus, 48.5).

[Theodosius the Great]

Distinct from the concept of racism (which was never mentioned in the article or by Mateo, the poster of this thread) is the concept of colorism. Colorism is the preference of a skin tone over another within a single ethnic group. Not being a racist doesn't make one color blind. It'd be interesting to know if lighter or darker complexions were considered more beautiful in classical times.

We look at the concept of racism as judged by skin colour through the distorting lens of the Slave Trade, where Sub-saharan Africans were trafficked to the Americas to provide labour. As these people were treated abominably by Europeans, who didn't practice slavery amongst themselves, a sort of post-fact reasoning based on their differences from Europeans, the main one being skin colour, was used to justify the trade. That is, Black Africans were sufficiently 'not the same as us' that they could be treated as though they were sub-human. Thus skin colour became an important way of judging people and being prejudiced about them.

A parallel development may have occurred with the Arabs, the exporters of the black slaves. Since Islam forbids enslaving fellow Muslims the Arabs were reluctant to proselytize among the black tribes. Later they began to espouse racist theories, at least by the 14th century where we read from the Arab scholar Ibn Khaldun :
"beyond [known peoples of black West Africa] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings." "Therefore, the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because (Negroes) have little that is (essentially) human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated".

So, this may be another post-justification of slavery which was / is really economically driven.

The Romans, though as guilty as any other people of national chauvanism, were not at all predisposed to be particularly prejudiced towards variations in skin colour.

I believe this remained true in the post-Roman West for centuries. Saint Maurice, the legendary leader of the "Theban Legion" was depicted as a black knight by the 13th century (and perhaps earlier). We can see this in Germany next to Otto I's grave where he is depicted in carved relief :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sain ... deburg.jpg

~Theo

[Bran ap Maclou]

Well, about Saint-Maurice, He was later assimilated to Mohamed and a lot of people around the mediterranean sea seems to believe that the prophet of Islam is considered as a saint by catholics. I wonder how it happened and if it's not linked to the XIXth cent. french settlement in north Africa or Lebanon??

However, we have a repulsion for racism now because the basic point of view is that all human life equals another (in theory I agree). That wasn't the case then. As would say Einstein, we are not on a same referential.

About the omens, in this particular circumstance a black skinned is probably a bad omen but later on the limes perhaps that a redhead would have been a bad omen also. So, romans are deeply superstitious. Though some omens are general and cultural, some others are personnal, linked to dreams, personnal history, prophecies and so on. IMO, it's a bit difficult to clearly conclude about that.

bye,

Greg

[Urselius]

The Ancient Egyptians were prejudiced against red-heads, they were equated with the 'demonic god' Set (Sutekh), the desert wastes and chaos.

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

I think in most cultures, now and then, visualisations use almost invariably dark colors and especially black to represent the bad, evil or dark aspects of life. propably a evolutionary heritage as the night / darkness means danger and the unknown to us. this applies for civilizations whose people's skin color is black as well, IIRC. so it wouldn't be surprising that a universal "built-in" bias towards whose people is shown, which people aren't necessarily aware of.