Roman depiction of Barbarians (again)

[Nathan Ross]

Erm ok... Travis wrote:

I am interested in what RAT members think about how Romans view Barbarians in art and literature.

I'm an art historian of course, but I'm more than happy to have people jump in with literary references.

Travis

Travis - have you read the book by Derek Williams, 'Romans and Barbarians'? It's been around a while, but it covers much this ground, and is a good read - no mention of othering or abjection as I recall though. Basically, Williams examines the Roman portrayal of barbarians in literature and public sculpture (principally Trajan's Column for the latter, plus Tacitus and Ovid for the former). You've probably seen it already, but if not, check it out. Some good points made about Roman 'boreophobia'.

Incidentally, why do you think the child on the Ara Pacis is a 'barbarian' child? I'd never really considered it before, and can't think who or what else it's intended to be, but is this acknowledged to be the case, and if so, why?

As for 'barbarian' depictions of Roman atrocities, that's a bit tricky - barbarian representations of Romans generally are a bit thin on the ground (except if you count Adamklissi :wink: )... It might, though, be interesting to consider what certain Romans thought the barbarians thought of them - the most obvious example of this being the speech of 'Calgacus' as reported by Tacitus - a sort of early example of the idea of the 'noble savage' perhaps, and a telling correlative to the depiction of Roman military might on the Column, or the (I assume) beneficent and paternal civilising influence portrayed on the Ara Pacis.

Meanwhile - anyone found a good picture of Vandals?

- Nathan

[Robert Vermaat]

I moved this to the enemies of Rome section.

[tlclark]

Moved Again!! Crikey!

Honestly as I framed the question I thought it was more about the Romans than it was about barbarians. After all, Romans made the images of barbarians, NOT the barbarians themselves.

Anyway, the point of the original post was to ask what people thought the Romans' depcitions of the "other" says about the Romans themselves.

Oh well. Sorry about causing so much consternation and trouble for the moderators. Certainly not my intention.

Nathan.

I have come across "Romans & Barbarians", but I have never seriously delved into it. Thanks.

Basically, what I am curious about is what Roman depictions of barbarians say about Roman attitudes towards the barbarians.

For example, it can't be said that the column of Trajan, the column of M. Aurelius are made for barbarian audiences, but barbarians are a very important subject matter, and not always unsympathetic.

Likewise, the CoT doesn't show the aftermath of the campaigns, the CoMA does and it paints the Romans in an unfavorable light, at least from a modern perspective. However, the bathos of the beheading scenes seem beyond the pale, for even Roman standards of casual brutality. (This being Marcus Aurelius' column is an important factor as well)

As far as your other questions

Incidentally, why do you think the child on the Ara Pacis is a 'barbarian' child? I'd never really considered it before, and can't think who or what else it's intended to be, but is this acknowledged to be the case, and if so, why?

Well the inclusion of children all over the ara pacis is exceptional. We have a depiciton of Agrippina and probably Gaius, and maybe Germanicus. In the scene of Agrippa and the Flamines we see a small child that by dress and hairstyle is a barbarian, clinging to Agrippa's clothes.

There are two theories,

1.) This is a member of the imperial household, most likely Gaius, Augustus' adopted heir, in barbarian dress. His unusual dress is done in commemoration of some triumph. In this way it is some sort of role-playing, like "Cowboys & Indians". Considering that we have so many other children, particularly male children with bullae and all the other Roman accoutrements, haircuts, etc, this seems unlikely. That leaves us the second theory.

2.) This is a barbarian child, most likely a prince, being raised in the imperial household as a sort of political hostage. Even if this is the case, he is shown in a remarkable sympathetic fashion.

This serves the propaganda that Augustus is the ruler of all nations and that they directly benefit from Roman paternalism as you suggested.

It might, though, be interesting to consider what certain Romans thought the barbarians thought of them - the most obvious example of this being the speech of 'Calgacus' as reported by Tacitus - a sort of early example of the idea of the 'noble savage' perhaps, and a telling correlative to the depiction of Roman military might on the Column, or the (I assume) beneficent and paternal civilising influence portrayed on the Ara Pacis.

Yeah I think so as well. Seneca is very impressed with German morals where adultery wasn't nearly so casually tolerated as in Roman examples. So my guess is that there is admiration and fear intermingled in Roman's approach to them.

BTW - I aint touching the Adamklissi stuff with a hundred foot pole. I'm still bruised from the last exchange!



Thanks,

Travis

[hoplite14gr]

Erm ok...

Meanwhile - anyone found a good picture of Vandals?

- Nathan

Vandal Archer in this thread!
Kind regards

[Tarbicus]

2.) This is a barbarian child, most likely a prince, being raised in the imperial household as a sort of political hostage. Even if this is the case, he is shown in a remarkable sympathetic fashion.

Unless Augustus and the Imperial household became fond of him? It may actually be a portrait of a particular individual child that became part of the family. "Yes, we must have -insert name- shown, right here!" Adopting as your own was a particularly Roman trait.

[tlclark]

There's a great article on this and I can't find it!

Someone just recently published on the Barbarian children and argued that they are barbarians from all over the empire, so the speculation is that they might be symbols of provinces that have been peacefully romanized. Although the author thinks that they are meant to be real historical individuals.

Travis