The Roman Debt to Greece

[Ghostmojo]

As a member here who is primarily concerned with matters Greek - I would be interested in hearing what the more Romanophiles think about the subject of just how much Rome owed to Greece in her establishment, culture, politics, military, etc. etc.

I do, however, also have a passing interest in Rome. The two periods that particularly interest me are her early republican period (especially when she clashes with Carthage, Pyrrhos and Makedon etc.) and also her later 'end of empire' days in Britain.

It seems clear to me that the debt was huge. You can start with the gods and goddesses; work down through the aspects of society that seem 'borrowed' from either Sparta or Athens; continue with the mythical connections (via either Sparta or Troy); the clear influence from the Italiote Greeks; early hopite type armies; certain Roman's love of Greece and her culture; the occasional ease with which Rome acquired or was bequeathed slices of Hellenistic empires; Caesar and Anthony with Cleopatra; Roman architecture; military science (particularly siege equipment and artillery) and so on ...

It is a fairly large area of discussion I would suggest and I would be interested to hear some opinions.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Every thing good..... :wink:

From their medicine, their architecture, art, military, even the Gods they prayed to.

[M. Caecilius]

For some reason, this reminds me of Life of Brian, but set in Rome. I can already see Cato the Censor rise up in the Senate and ask: "What have the Greeks ever done for us?" :mrgreen:

Seriously, though: Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artis intulit agresti Latio as Horace says: "Greece took her wild captor captive, and introduced the arts into rustic Latium". However, it's an extremely complex issue.

First, the chronology of this hellenisation is much, much earlier than the Roman conquest of even the Greek cities on Italian soil, never mind the conquest of Greece proper. The connection to the Trojan War was made first in the 5th century, by Hellanicus of Lesbos and Damastes of Sigeum), long before the Romans got around to write their own histories. Finds from the Volcanal show the myth of Hephaistos (and thus the syncretism Vulcan-Hephaistos) as early as 570 B.C. It can be difficult throughout to separate the Greek from a purely Roman culture almost right down to the mythical 753 B.C.

Other introductions - such as the first wound doctor in Rome, in the late 3rd century B.C. - were later (although this one backfired, as the Romans, who flocked to him at first, came to regard him as a butcher - carnifex - soon afterwards). Matters get confusing in the 2nd century, when people became increasingly conscious of the Greek "infiltration" and the period produced extreme hellenophiles (Scipio) and hellenophobes (Cato Maior).

Second, thanks to this confused chronology, it becomes very difficult to say which elements of a particular topic are Roman, which are Greek, and which are from yet another culture - Etruscan, for instance - which may itself have been influenced by Greece. Rome owes a lot to Greece, but not all of it directly: much of the engineering seems to have been adopted from the Etruscans, for instance. They may have got it partly from the Greeks, of course. It's a truism that one of Rome's formulae of success was to adopt and adapt whatever they found elsewhere and worked, be it Gallic shields, Spanish swords or Greek medicine and religious rites. Of course, since the Greeks were so advanced, there was a lot to adopt from them.

Apart from those features already mentioned, one could add that the Romans claimed that their XII Tables, the earliest written laws of Rome (450 B.C.) were based on fact-finding missions in Athens. This may be a myth, as the Romans had many peculiar laws of their own, but still goes to show the influence of Greece on Rome.

The earliest Roman history was written in Greek, on the Greek model, although soon Rome developed her own take and style. Plautus remodeled Greek plays for his comedies, but again managed to bring in peculiar Roman elements.

So, yes: Rome was, probably already in the regal period, a heavily Greek-influenced city which managed an exceptional mixture between outside influences, native traditions, and improvements on both. Although they never lost a feeling of inferiority to Greek culture, compounded by a tendency to despise the luxury and decadence of the Graeculi to whom they admitted themselves owing so much.

[Epictetus]

To just add a small footnote to Max's excellent post: today many historians speak of an orientalising phase for very early Rome (and elsewhere), meaning the influence from Greek sources, including sources filtered through the Etruscans and Phoenicians. Some have suggested that even Rome's proto-urban and urban stages were due to orientalising influences. So, yes, Rome owed much to Greece throughout its history.

[Lyceum]

Rome owed much less to "Greece" in ways people are quick to claim and much more in ways in which people are often dismissive or have no idea about, i.e as someone above has said there is a marked Greek element on Rome's early urbanisation and military matters.

The problem of Roman culture being subservient to the Greek is mainly one of methodology, i.e early researchers, primarily of a literary bent, coming to such conclusions and these conclusions simply being propagated through generations.

It's worth bearing two things in mind: Firstly it's insanely difficult to quantify "influence" and secondly that much of what we think of as "Greek" is actually derived from earlier Near Eastern sources. Also I would say that blanket terms like "Greek" aren't very helpful and that one might rather use terms like "Italiote-Greek" or something in this case.

I think this is definitely something which needs re-assessing and one of the principle sources of disagreement between those of a more philological bent and those of a more historical bent within the Classics. It's a misnomer that the Roman's took things like their gods from the Greeks. As always with such things the truth is much, much, more complex. Unfortunately Greek and/or Roman religion is not something many people are truly aware of, it remains an obscure topic.

With the gods in particular one must first grasp the MASSIVE difference between Greek literary constructs and cultic reality and the problem of establishing proper points of contact and likewise with the Roman side of things. The Etruscans were a much, much, larger religious influence on the Romans. One also has problems of shifting through Indo-European heirlooms and the like.

Also, just because the Romans struck up concordances between their gods and the Greeks doesn't mean that they were copies. Venus might have been seen roughly akin to Aphrodite (herself a Semitic import....) but there were marked, important!, differences i.e Venus' role in state religion, her persona as a mother goddess and so on.

Following that logic then because the Greeks/Phoenicians equated Herakles with Mel'qart (and the Persian Veragthan...) these are also "borrowings" from the Greek...no, it was simply the way people viewed the world, cultural relativity and all that.

I would not hesitate to say that the way in which the Romans represented their gods was heavily influenced by Greek art forms, but the actual cultic reality was much, much, different.

EDIT: I would also be highly skeptical of Roman claims that various institutions of theirs, i.e Law etc went back to the Greeks. One must think of Hellenism as some sort of Mediterranean cultural currency in the Hellenistic world and forward. Think of it in the way the Etruscans were said to have been lead to Italy by Odysseus....utterly fictional but still an important fiction to maintain.

There was also a massive difference between the literary landscape, i.e the fawning Roman master indulging their slaves and the actual reality of "shut up, we're the Romans" Despite Horace's clever little lines, I can't see many Romans readily admitting to inferiority. And indeed, there really wasn't much, if we are to chastise the Romans for the Greek influence then we have far, far, far more to say to the Greeks for the incalculable influences of the Near East....

[Q Rutilius]

Let us remember that Rome had gods that were numina. My understanding is that these were the important gods that held Romans in awe. I cannot give a reference as this is based on readings from many sources over the years. I have never heard of any Greek equivalent. Also, it seems illogical to assume that Rome imported its religion from Greece. Surely the Romans had religion before they had even heard of the Greeks. More likely, in my opinion, is that over the years Rome imported some Greek gods, as for example in later years they imported Mithras.

[Lyceum]

Let us remember that Rome had gods that were numina. My understanding is that these were the important gods that held Romans in awe. I cannot give a reference as this is based on readings from many sources over the years. I have never heard of any Greek equivalent. Also, it seems illogical to assume that Rome imported its religion from Greece. Surely the Romans had religion before they had even heard of the Greeks. More likely, in my opinion, is that over the years Rome imported some Greek gods, as for example in later years they imported Mithras.

Mithra, an important Indo-Iranian god with a very transparent name meaning "treaty" and still worshiped all over India.

For Roman religion there aren't as many good books as one would like, however must haves would be the Blackwell Guide (various authors) "Religion in the Roman Empire" by Rives and of course the introductory textbooks by Beard, North and Price.

The best way to truly get under Rome's skin (clumsy expression, forgive me) would be to examine its religion and its laws.

[M. Caecilius]

Surely the Romans had religion before they had even heard of the Greeks.

Certainly, but it is very difficult to untangle these Roman elements from the Greek ones at times. As said above, the Romans venerated Vulcan as god of fire, amongst other things. He was possibly a homegrown god combined with the Etruscan Vechlans (etymological connection), and with Hephaistos (very early evidence from the Volcanal). They did not import their religion wholesale from the Greeks, but they did pick out elements they liked (consciously or not).

The Romans certainly kept some very particular deities, peculiar aspects of deities equated with Greek deities through syncretism, and unique ways of venerating them - a good way to quickly gather information about this would be to check Plutarch's Roman Questions.

But let's remember that the traditional foundation date of Rome is 753 B.C. That of Pithekoussai, the earliest Greek colony in Italy, is ca. 800-750.

True, Rome was not founded, historically, when someone called Romulus ploughed some earth on the Palatine. True, there is evidence for settlement going back beyond the 8th century. But Greek influence started very early, possibly even before the creation of the permanent emporion at Pithekoussai. The question I would ask is whether the Romans were properly "Romans" rather than members of the "Latial" or borderline-"Villanovan" cultures at that time. By the time Rome emerges as such, the Greeks are right on their doorstep, their influence and trade with the Etruscans was growing, and it would have been difficult for Rome to ignore them for long.

More likely, in my opinion, is that over the years Rome imported some Greek gods, as for example in later years they imported Mithras.

They did. Aesculapius was quite officially fetched from Greece and given a home on the Tiber Island. But there's a difference between adopting a new god, and syncretism - combining a god from a different culture with yours. Both happened: Caesar calls the Gallic gods by Roman names ("Their chief god is Mercury..."). Incidentally, it's sometimes unclear who did the syncretising: the Greeks adored this too, for instance claiming both Hermes and Hercules to be the Egyptian Toth, and the Hephaistos-shard in the Volcanal may have been deposited by a Greek rather than a Roman making the association. And then there's the unconscious adoption, as Rome's population was increased by Greeks (slaves, immigrants, merchants, fugitives, freedmen...), as people forgot what the old traditions meant, or when they misunderstood them, saw something similar elsewhere, and unconsciously made a connection.

All that being said, you are very right about the numina and other features that are ideosyncratically Roman. Incidentally, I also agree with what you said in your other post above, which is very well argued, especially on the wider and mutual influences between Greeks, Phoenicians, Etruscans and so forth; I also agree that a lot of reassessment is needed, and that the superiority complex of Rome versus Greece outmatched the fad of Horace's inferiority complex (which he doesn't show elsewhere), but we're really off into the difficult question on when we can clearly label a culture as "Roman", "Greek", etc. So far, arguments I've read about the Etruscans can't find a line between proto-Villanovan, Villanovan, Etruscan, etc... especially when parts of them show up in unexpected places.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

The Greeks had a vast presence in the medeterenean.
The evidence is there for al lto see.
Greek is related to what language?
Further back in history, the Greeks had links wit hte other Eastrn medeterenana cultures through trade and other cultural links.
For modern people to constantly decry the sources over their own reinterpretation of evidence
is a bit strange. Of course the Romans saw themselves as superior, but obviously the influence of the Greeks even overcame that. They adopted many things, practically raped the Greeks of its culture.....
they owed the Greeks a great debt.

[Q Rutilius]

Thank you for the kind words Lyceum and Caeclius, especially now that I go back and read my post I realize that I did not express myself very well. The main point I was trying to make was that there are aspects to Roman religion like the numina that have no counterpoint in Greek religion. I beleive it is Cornell (I do not have my library handy at the moment) that talks about nexum, and as far as I know there is no Greek equivalent for that either. These are just examples that show that there are aspects of Roman culture that have nothing to do with Greece. It seems logical to assume that there must be others. Did the Romans accept much of Greek culture? Sure they did. But as Lyceum said, it may best if we took a second look at commonly accepted theory.

[Lyceum]

Thank you for the kind words Lyceum and Caeclius, especially now that I go back and read my post I realize that I did not express myself very well. The main point I was trying to make was that there are aspects to Roman religion like the numina that have no counterpoint in Greek religion. I beleive it is Cornell (I do not have my library handy at the moment) that talks about nexum, and as far as I know there is no Greek equivalent for that either. These are just examples that show that there are aspects of Roman culture that have nothing to do with Greece. It seems logical to assume that there must be others. Did the Romans accept much of Greek culture? Sure they did. But as Lyceum said, it may best if we took a second look at commonly accepted theory.

Oh no I completely understood what you were saying, just adding a bit. I fully agree that there was massive swathes of Roman culture that have naught to do with the Greeks and that in many cases Hellenistic ancestry was manufactured for various reasons. Largely because, as I said, it was THE cultural currency of the day. It really doesn't mean that, just because a Roman said it, it has to be true.

You're right that we should take a second look at received knowledge, I would counter though that for most Classicists, at least most of those not solely working with Literature..., our views of Greece, Rome etc have been different from what many people seem to believe for a rather long time.

It's largely down to new evidence and applying new methodology, often filched from disciplines like anthropology.

Roman religion and Roman Law are fascinating topics, admittedly far from my research interests (I'm a Hellenist you see, yes yes stone me for being in the wrong subforum :lol: ) and give a different insight into Roman life and culture. I really think anyone truly interested in Rome should get a semi decent grasp of the key concepts of these areas. Especially if you're trying to build an accurate picture.

[Ghostmojo]

I thought I was going mad when I couldn't find this thread where I originally placed it! How can you lose a thread I thought ... anyway here it is in the Ancient Civ (Civic?) Talk section!!! hock: :?

Thanks to all those that have responded.

Of course I recognise that Rome had its own aspects of culture that were entirely original and indigenous (or as indigenous as is possible) and that geographically it was going to be influenced from the north as well as the south. Many have commented upon the religious aspects. Well, it is true that there are dimensions of this that do not correspond (in both cultures) because the spiritual worlds were complicated and expansive with hosts of minor deities, cults and regional and local rites. However, there does seem to be some correspondence between the major 'Olympian' figures (Zeus=Jupiter/Poseidon=Neptune etc.) and of course the Romans embraced the Olympic Games and Delphic oracle and a whole host of other Hellenic and Hellenistic practices and occasions.

When the Roman Empire split you had of course the Latin-speaking Roman west and the Greek-speaking Byzantine east halves. Greek had been the Lingua Franca in much of the eastern Mediterranean for a long time anyway - and further afield due to Alexander and his successors. I think Greek culture was endemic throughout the ancient world. They were unmatched when it came to colonisation and they ended up pretty much everywhere! Constantinople itself was a Greek city (Byzantion/Byzantium).

Nobody has made much mention yet of either architecture (which seems a pretty closed case really) nor the early military formations and equipment.

[Lyceum]

I thought I was going mad when I couldn't find this thread where I originally placed it! How can you lose a thread I thought ... anyway here it is in the Ancient Civ (Civic?) Talk section!!! hock: :?

Thanks to all those that have responded.

Of course I recognise that Rome had its own aspects of culture that were entirely original and indigenous (or as indigenous as is possible) and that geographically it was going to be influenced from the north as well as the south. Many have commented upon the religious aspects. Well, it is true that there are dimensions of this that do not correspond (in both cultures) because the spiritual worlds were complicated and expansive with hosts of minor deities, cults and regional and local rites. However, there does seem to be some correspondence between the major 'Olympian' figures (Zeus=Jupiter/Poseidon=Neptune etc.) and of course the Romans embraced the Olympic Games and Delphic oracle and a whole host of other Hellenic and Hellenistic practices and occasions.

When the Roman Empire split you had of course the Latin-speaking Roman west and the Greek-speaking Byzantine east halves. Greek had been the Lingua Franca in much of the eastern Mediterranean for a long time anyway - and further afield due to Alexander and his successors. I think Greek culture was endemic throughout the ancient world. They were unmatched when it came to colonisation and they ended up pretty much everywhere! Constantinople itself was a Greek city (Byzantion/Byzantium).

Nobody has made much mention yet of either architecture (which seems a pretty closed case really) nor the early military formations and equipment.

Well again on the religion thing, it's not so close cut. Cultic reality varied greatly from the stuff people glean from literature. For starters in Greek cult we find no expression of 12 Olympians on mount Olympos, this is an Ugaritic borrowing and not at all reality. Instead we have various shrine/festivals etc to various locale deities who may or may not be equivalent to some broader Greek concepts.

Take Orthia (Worthia) from Sparta or Alea in Arkadia, both began as normal goddess figures but by the Hellenistic age were equated retroactively with Artemis and Athena. In the case of the later we can actually see the gradual shifts thanks to numismatic and votary evidence.

So a Zeus Ombrios was markedly different from a Zeus Basileus and so on. What a Thesallian thought of Demetra was much different from an Athenian of Demeter or a Spartan of Damatar...

Admittedly these distinctions blur with time and the poor handling of cultic material by the Macedonians (where we first tend to get gods without epikliseis/particular cult spheres but even then that's not so common) but still. In actual cult there would have been very little for the Romans to compare to, since there was no golden standard.

We can spot general equivalences, Iove Pater = Zeus and so on but, as I said, this is no more significant than the way in which the Greeks in turn equated foreign gods (i.e Phoenician Mel'qart or Persian Verethgan) with Herakles or the Romans (see Caesar) would call Celtic deities by their own familiar names.

So there's a difference between our literary constructs on both sides and the actual gods. Then you're forgetting the very, very, different festivals, rites of passage and all that. I would say that outside of literary depictions Greek influence on Roman religion is minimal, rather one should look towards the Etruscans.

I think in general the Etruscans are being under estimated here, think of them next time you consider the providence of the lictors with their fascae, someone on a curule chair and so on and forth. Now THAT would be a fascinating area of study...

I can't really comment about military matters, weren't the early Romans pseudo hoplites anyway? As for architecture, many of the buildings were heavily Hellenic, though if I remember correctly there were some really old crappy ones that were markedly "native-Italic" or something. Sorry guys I despised Roman archaeology and used to practically switch off in class.

[Robert Vermaat]

When the Roman Empire split you had of course the Latin-speaking Roman west and the Greek-speaking Byzantine east halves. Greek had been the Lingua Franca in much of the eastern Mediterranean for a long time anyway

Well, actually, Greek was the lingua franca (what's in a name) for the Eastern part throughout Roman history. The army seems to have spoken Latin, but the administration spoke Greek to a large extent. I mean, look at the sources: when Arrian (in his capaticy as governor of cappadocia) wrote a military treatise for his Emperor, he wrote it in Greek. The civilan population spoke their local languages and Greek and Syriac, I think.

[M. Demetrius]

Could that be because Greek had been the language of commerce for many centuries?