Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Unconquered races within the Roman Empire
#1
Avete,

I was wondering if we can make a list of all the unconquered peoples living within Roman territory who remained untouched by Roman tax collectors, soldiers, and influence. That last part may be considered somewhat relative since it would be almost impossible to remain completely isolated from external influences.

There are two peoples I know of who remained 'free' from Roman rule throughout all or most of the history of Rome.
I'd like to know if there are many more besides them that are known to have remained unconquered. So, I'll sit back and read the responses.

By the way, I don't mean invaders like the Huns, Goths, Franks, Vandals, Islamic Arabs etc.., but native peoples who lived in isolated enclaves that the Romans ignored and never bothered to conquer for various reasons.

~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#2
Quote:There are two peoples I know of who remained 'free' from Roman rule throughout all or most of the history of Rome.

Who?

I always wonder why the Isaurians were only 'dicovered' at such a late date (the late 5th c.) as very good soldier material.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#3
Quote:... all the unconquered peoples living within Roman territory who remained untouched by Roman tax collectors, soldiers, and influence.
You win! Big Grin I cannot think of any territories within the empire that remained "independent" of Roman involvement.

(Incidentally, there is a common misconception -- which may, or may not, be at the root of your question, Theo -- that the Romans had to directly administer a territory in order to benefit from it. This was not the case, as the multiplicity of "friendly kingdoms" shows. Think of Judaea under Herod the Great -- not part of the empire, but Rome had a very close interest in the running of the kingdom, and would interfere at the drop of a petasus. Other territories -- Cottian Alps, Mauretania, Crimea, Thrace, Commagene, Palmyra ... -- fall into the same category, but were eventually absorbed into the Roman administration.)
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#4
Quote:
Theodosius the Great:1w40v6wa Wrote:There are two peoples I know of who remained 'free' from Roman rule throughout all or most of the history of Rome.

Who?

I always wonder why the Isaurians were only 'dicovered' at such a late date (the late 5th c.) as very good soldier material.
Yes, they are one of the two I read about. In their case they may have been ignored completely by Roman offcials and only emerge from obscurity because the Romans were desperate to find a new source of recruits as you mentioned.

The other group I read about were the Basques. Hence the survival of their unique language.

Both groups live(d) in mountainous terrain which the Roman probably found too inaccessible to justify the costs of conquering them, IMO. Also, maybe both groups were too impoverished to attract tax collectors ?

Now that I've had time to think more about my question, maybe I can add certain Berber tribes who were semi-nomdic, living on the very fringes of the Sahara. I don't know any of the tribal names though.


Quote:You win! I cannot think of any territories within the empire that remained "independent" of Roman involvement

Yes, I imagine the Romans didn't really want to call attention to any free peoples living within 'their' territory since they would represent an embarrasment, contrary to their 'empire without end.' These free tribes would have to live in difficult areas to access like mountains or deserts, as I just mentioned above, or maybe certain small islands (e.g. off the British or Gallic coasts, perhaps?) The African coast, IIRC, wasn't really entirely accessible by land. For example, to travel west from Cyrene or Tripoli the Romans would not take any roads but would rather sail. So, some areas in between the great cities of Africa were not really under supervision which is why modern maps of the Roman empire are somewhat misleading, I've read.

About the client states, yes, I didn't really mean to include them as examples since they were tributaries to Rome in any event.

~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#5
I guess a lot depends upon definitions. How "free" and "independent" were these peoples and for how long?
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
Reply
#6
Quote:The other group I read about were the Basques. Hence the survival of their unique language.

Both groups live(d) in mountainous terrain which the Roman probably found too inaccessible to justify the costs of conquering them, IMO. Also, maybe both groups were too impoverished to attract tax collectors ?

Hello Theo

That the basques were not romanized is a wrong but extended conception, that has been used for political purposes by the basque nationalists in Spain. In fact ancient vascones din´t live in what nowadays it is called the Basque Country, but eastwards, in what nowadays we call Navarra and northern Aragón.
There we find Roman involvement early in their presence in the Iberian Peninsula,with foundations as Pompaelo, modern Pamplona, by Pompeius Magnus.
If you can read spanish there are plenty of articles dealing with the issue, here you have one that tries to explain the survival of basque language: http://antiqua.gipuzkoakultura.net/aspe ... cos_eu.php

Best regards
"nos Celtis genitos et ex Hiberis" - Marcial, Epigrammata, IV, 55.

Blossio/Alberto Pérez
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.despertaferro-ediciones.com">www.despertaferro-ediciones.com
Reply
#7
Quote:
Vortigern Studies:3nep6tz9 Wrote:I always wonder why the Isaurians were only 'dicovered' at such a late date (the late 5th c.) as very good soldier material.
Yes, they are one of the two I read about. In their case they may have been ignored completely by Roman offcials and only emerge from obscurity because the Romans were desperate to find a new source of recruits as you mentioned.
You set us a trick question, Theo. :lol: Prior to the time of Diocletian (when Isauria was split off as a mini province), the Isaurian highlands were simply a periodic trouble spot within the province of Cilicia. The Roman governors of Cilicia and neighbouring Lycia-Pamphylia hadn't forgotten your Isaurian tribes; they periodically stamped on them with a heavy caliga. :wink:
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#8
Quote:The other group I read about were the Basques. Hence the survival of their unique language.
I think not. Roman rule did not involve any changes in the local language. Hence the bitter complaints from the later 5th c. statesman but above all poet Sidonius Appolinaris, when he complains about the local Gallic language being spoken by his fellow-provincials... there was no reason for a provincial population to change their language, because they only needed it for trade (when the trader came from afar) or for the local government/tax, and then the common man had a patron who could speak for you to the magistrate.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#9
Quote:
Theodosius the Great:30qwpzxi Wrote:The other group I read about were the Basques. Hence the survival of their unique language.
I think not. Roman rule did not involve any changes in the local language.
Although the majority of subjects of the western empire ended up speaking Latin dialects somehow. (There are obvious exceptions like Welsh and Breton of course, and the British went over to the language of their Germanic conquerors/neighbours). Was Sidonius complaining that the people of Gaul didn't speak Latin, or that their Latin was nothing like the polished literary form that educated nobiles still used?
Nullis in verba

I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Reply
#10
Quote:That the basques were not romanized is a wrong but extended conception, that has been used for political purposes by the basque nationalists in Spain. In fact ancient vascones din´t live in what nowadays it is called the Basque Country, but eastwards, in what nowadays we call Navarra and northern Aragón.
There we find Roman involvement early in their presence in the Iberian Peninsula,with foundations as Pompaelo, modern Pamplona, by Pompeius Magnus.

Hello Blossio, thank you for correcting me. I thought that some tribes remained unconquered during the Roman period but I'm probably wrong. (I should suggest to Jona Lendering to add this misconception to his latest book on common historical errors :wink: )


Quote:You set us a trick question, Theo. Prior to the time of Diocletian (when Isauria was split off as a mini province), the Isaurian highlands were simply a periodic trouble spot within the province of Cilicia. The Roman governors of Cilicia and neighbouring Lycia-Pamphylia hadn't forgotten your Isaurian tribes; they periodically stamped on them with a heavy caliga.
Sorry, I didn't formulate my question properly :oops: . But were the Isaurians ever permanently subdued ? I mean, the Romans periodically stamped on the Caledonians too. The only difference I see is that the latter were outside the empire. Please let me know where I'm wrong.
Quote:I think not. Roman rule did not involve any changes in the local language. Hence the bitter complaints from the later 5th c. statesman but above all poet Sidonius Appolinaris, when he complains about the local Gallic language being spoken by his fellow-provincials... there was no reason for a provincial population to change their language, because they only needed it for trade (when the trader came from afar) or for the local government/tax, and then the common man had a patron who could speak for you to the magistrate.

St Augustine in City of God 19, 7 seems to say the exact opposite : But the imperial city has endeavored to impose on subject nations not only her yoke, but her language, as a bond of peace, so that interpreters, far from being scarce, are numberless. But maybe he is speaking of an earlier time ? Or maybe Appolinaris is complaining about provincial resistance to Latin which was actively being imposed on the Gauls ?

~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#11
Quote:Sorry, I didn't formulate my question properly :oops: . But were the Isaurians ever permanently subdued ? I mean, the Romans periodically stamped on the Caledonians too. The only difference I see is that the latter were outside the empire. Please let me know where I'm wrong.
A better parallel, I think, is Spain: while the Spanish provinces were being annexed, the native peoples caused trouble, year after year, but eventually they were brought under Roman control. Similarly, we hear of the Isaurians causing trouble during the late Republic (e.g. Servilius Vatia's siege of Isaura Vetus in 76 BC), when the area seems to have been entrusted to "friendly kings" (Strabo 14.5.6), but they caused only periodic trouble during the early empire (e.g. Tac., Annals 12.55), after which we hear nothing until the third century. This is no different from other areas that tended to flare up and die away again. So I do not think the Isaurians are necessarily a special case. (But I am open to debate! Big Grin )
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#12
Quote:
Theodosius the Great:1u06uh0g Wrote:Sorry, I didn't formulate my question properly :oops: . But were the Isaurians ever permanently subdued ? I mean, the Romans periodically stamped on the Caledonians too. The only difference I see is that the latter were outside the empire. Please let me know where I'm wrong.
A better parallel, I think, is Spain: while the Spanish provinces were being annexed, the native peoples caused trouble, year after year, but eventually they were brought under Roman control. Similarly, we hear of the Isaurians causing trouble during the late Republic (e.g. Servilius Vatia's siege of Isaura Vetus in 76 BC), when the area seems to have been entrusted to "friendly kings" (Strabo 14.5.6), but they caused only periodic trouble during the early empire (e.g. Tac., Annals 12.55), after which we hear nothing until the third century. This is no different from other areas that tended to flare up and die away again. So I do not think the Isaurians are necessarily a special case. (But I am open to debate! Big Grin )

Hello Duncan

I agree with the parallel with Spain for the second and first centuries BC. For example 133 BC, the fall of Numantia, is always quoted as the end of Celtiberian resistance to Rome, but we find that in 105 Celtiberians are able to repulse the Cimbri and Tetutones that had invaded Spain, without Roman help. And still in 96 BC the Romans had to crush the revolt of the oppidum of Termantia, let alone the wide support enjoyed by Sertorius in Celtiberia, that enabled him to mantain his fight.
I believe that the situation was more fluid than we sometimes conjecture, with Roman control more or less tight depending on the political circumstances, the local elites supporting Roman control or not depending of their interests and the political climate, periods where the "conquered" enjoyed more freedom, etc...

Best regards
"nos Celtis genitos et ex Hiberis" - Marcial, Epigrammata, IV, 55.

Blossio/Alberto Pérez
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.despertaferro-ediciones.com">www.despertaferro-ediciones.com
Reply
#13
Quote:
Theodosius the Great:1nnxm09n Wrote:The other group I read about were the Basques. Hence the survival of their unique language.
I think not. Roman rule did not involve any changes in the local language. Hence the bitter complaints from the later 5th c. statesman but above all poet Sidonius Appolinaris, when he complains about the local Gallic language being spoken by his fellow-provincials... there was no reason for a provincial population to change their language, because they only needed it for trade (when the trader came from afar) or for the local government/tax, and then the common man had a patron who could speak for you to the magistrate.

Hum, not really. There's plenty of languages that are directly derived from Latin. Look at the Romace languages (from Wkipedia):

"The Romance languages (sometimes referred to as Romanic languages, Latin languages, Neolatin languages or Neo-Latin languages) are a branch of the Indo-European language family comprising all the languages that descend from Latin, the language of ancient Rome. There are more than 600 million native speakers worldwide, mainly in the Americas, Europe, and Africa, as well as many smaller regions scattered throughout the world. The six most widely spoken Romance languages are Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, Romanian and Catalan. Among numerous other Romance languages are Corsican, Galician, Leonese, Occitan, Aromanian, Sardinian and Venetian."

A portuguese without any contact with english won't be abble to understand it. But it will be abble to understand a lot of Italian, for example. Latin certainly became widespread among the general populace in these areas at some point. It's curious because Germanic didn't leave much of an influence in Iberia (the Visigoths, Sueves, etc of Iberia) and Arabic only left mostly place names, object names and maybe a few verbs or so. But the Latin heritage always remained the main basis for the Iberian languages.

I guess we need to see this on a case by case basis and not extrapolate and say that Latin did not involve any changes in the local language of Roman subjects. That is clearly false.
Pedro Pereira
Reply
#14
I seem to remember the Cottii Kingdom remained more or less independent until the time of Nero?
Reply
#15
Ah, I seem to have not made my point clear enough. It was made in the light of the claim that the Basque language survived due to the Basques being outside Roman control. I think those two are not related.

1) my point was that Roman RULE did not make any changes in the language. I have come across a lot of folks who think that the Romans stamped out other languages and made Latin compulsary or something. That of course did not happen.

2) That Spanish, Portugese and French a Romance languages of course has a lot to do with the Romans. My guess is that Latin spread as a second language for a great deal of people, but that for the lower classes, the original languages (at least for a long time) remained in place. We have a accounts of Celtic survival not only in the 5th c., but even into the Middle Ages. But Latin spread through many of the Western provinces as the common language. I guess the spread of Christianity would have given this process and extra boost.

3) Celtic languages are a lot closer to Italian languages (and hence Latin) than Germanic languages, which would account for an easier switch to a Romance language.

4) We don't have a good detailed picture of what was spoken where at the end of Roman rule. It is very possible that the Romance languages spread further after that time, unrelated to 'the Rimans'.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What is this small (unconquered?) white area north east of Italy? Theodore Arthur Rabbit 8 3,276 11-12-2019, 12:45 AM
Last Post: Americus

Forum Jump: