When did the Romans stop being "Roman"

[SigniferOne]

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?

This seems to refer exactly to the ~300AD period (already referred to above as a "Gibbonesque" perspective). And I agree with your judgment. Just as the Byzantine Empire cannot be considered "Roman" in the classical sense, Late Empire was indistinguishable from the Byzantine, and thus also scarcely Roman for that same reason. Once the 3rd century crisis dealt a severe blow to the Roman sense of life, the last chance was given by Tacitus, Probus and the Senatorial revival of the late 3rd century.

With Diocletian you see a massive transformation of Rome into a quasi-Persian society, the final adoption of the absolute monarchy, and the dissolution of the Roman constitution. With Constantine and successors you are basically dealing with a "Byzantine" Western Empire; and to the extent that you would think of 10th century Byzantines as fighting "for Rome" is the extent to which their 300s AD parallels should be seen to do so. Even the 'job titles' such as "Count Theodosius" already speak of something entirely alien to the entire previous 1000 years.

[Epictetus]

Watcher, yes there certainly were steps along the ladder to citizenship, some of which were quite long and arduous. Often it was not conferred until the second generation. One of the major contributing factors to the Social War was the lack of citizenship given to Italian allies, so I don’t want to claim that it was a perfect system. But I do think the open social structure was the main factor for Roman success.

Defining “Romanâ€

[Timotheus]

Cicero the "third founder of Rome" :roll: as if the little worm did not do a good enough job exxagerating his role and creating false crisis we have Gibbon sucking up to him as well.

Cicero has to be one of the most overrated people in the ancient world.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

And that, I believe David, is all down to GJC! Cicero was not much help in that way, despite coming from the plebs himself.

[Epictetus]

Marius and Cicero, the former of whom deserved, after Romulus and Camillus, to be styled the Third Founder of Rome; and the latter, after saving his country from the designs of Catiline, enabled her to contend with Athens for the palm of eloquence

I think Gibbon meant that Marius was styled the Third Founder of Rome. :wink: Cicero was the latter, and enabled Rome to contend with Athens in eloquence.

And yes, Gibbon was writing here at the very start of his work, detailing the Empire around the time of Augusutus. There were many more notables to come later.

[Robert Vermaat]

I think the answer to this question turns about what exactly one beholds to be 'Roman' or not. I mean, the Romans bought off the Celts when they besieged Rome - would that mean that they did not behave martial enough for our standards?

Any answer would depend on that definion of 'Roman-ness'.

[Timotheus]

I think the answer to this question turns about what exactly one beholds to be 'Roman' or not. I mean, the Romans bought off the Celts when they besieged Rome - would that mean that they did not behave martial enough for our standards?

Any answer would depend on that definion of 'Roman-ness'.

True, that happened after the legions were destroyed. In the mid and late Empire the moneypurse was the first not the last choice.

[Crispvs]

I think that it must be said that the identity of a people is not simply defined by people standing outside it but just as much if not more by the people within that culture. Therefore, rather than making arbitary judgements based on an imperfect understanding of an imperfectly recorded history, we should be looking at which point it was exactly that the people of the Roman empire stopped thinking of themselves as 'Roman'. Then again, we need to consider whether populations and their leaders even shared a common conception of what it was to be Roman. We can say that the Western empire fell when the Ostrogoths arrived, but the Ostrogoths were already heavily Romanised. Similarly, even Anglo-Saxon kings in Briton styled themselves as Roman emperors as best they could, obviously in partial recognition of the former borders of the empire. Again, Charlemagne, as late as AD800, was able to be declared a Roman emperor. Then, as mentioned elsewhere, we have the Eastern Roman empire, who, although we call the Byzantine, called themselves Romans and were thought of by their neighbours as Romans.

To turn things around a little bit, did the Greeks stop being Greeks when they became subject to Rome, or are they still Greeks today?

Fitting the peoples of the pst into pidgeon holes we make ourselves is not necessary the best way to achieve a good understanding of who they were.

Crispvs

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Greeks have always been Greeks, in a wider cultural sense.
The Romans were whoever felt themselves to be a part of the great whole...the extent of which would vary from region to region, from period to period.....
We have Judaens who felt themselves to be part of the Roman system, and those who didn't.....

[SigniferOne]

I think that it must be said that the identity of a people is not simply defined by people standing outside it but just as much if not more by the people within that culture. Therefore, rather than making arbitary judgements based on an imperfect understanding of an imperfectly recorded history, we should be looking at which point it was exactly that the people of the Roman empire stopped thinking of themselves as 'Roman'.

But the question (at least as I understood it) isn't about 'what they thought'. Surely that is a bit subjective too; some 16th century Russians thought of themselves as Roman. Should we not dismiss that according to your perspective? An objective determination can be made, sometimes irregardless of a people's wishes.

Byzantines thought they were as Roman as can be (and in some legal sense they even were). But nobody will be able to find a single fundamental commonality between them and Augustus.

[Eleatic Guest]

If we adopt a non blood and soil view, Roman influence in the world is today stronger than at anytime in antiquity. We should also not forget that the Catholic church, which carries on the imperial administration, is the oldest continuous organisation globally (leaving aside the Eastern churches). Generally, the Christian belief to which every third man adheres, and the Latin alphabet, Roman law, arch, vault and dome construction (see chruches and mosques), Romance languages, and and and

[Crispvs]

"Byzantines thought they were as Roman as can be (and in some legal sense they even were). But nobody will be able to find a single fundamental commonality between them and Augustus."

This may be so, but the venerable Bede was writing in the eighth century AD and was English. I doubt that I would share any commonality with Bede past a generally human body shape and an interest in history but I would challenge you to make a convincing case for me not being English. Why then should the Byzantines, whose culture and identity was part of a continuum stretching back to the days of the kings of Rome, not be thought of as Roman? The Eastern part of the empire was just as Roman as the western part - just look at Diocletian's preferences. The fact that the Roman empire survived much longer in the east than the west does not preclude its being Roman.

Crispvs

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

And there I wuz thinkin yooz wuz a Noosseeelunder! :o P

[Crispvs]

Check my birth certificate. :wink:

Besides, when you speak to me, do I sound like a N'Zelnda (for something a bit closer to the local pronuciation).

Crispvs

[SigniferOne]

"Byzantines thought they were as Roman as can be (and in some legal sense they even were). But nobody will be able to find a single fundamental commonality between them and Augustus."

This may be so, but the venerable Bede was writing in the eighth century AD and was English. I doubt that I would share any commonality with Bede past a generally human body shape and an interest in history but I would challenge you to make a convincing case for me not being English.

Yes but, in what way was Bede "English"? Do you actually share anything in common with him? You'd find much more in common with 8th century AD Arabs who were pursuing science, inventing machines, and suggesting evolution. He even exists prior to William's conquest, which was perhaps the beginning of what may be called Britishness. You and Bede live on the same plot of land, but in the mental contents of your minds you couldn't be further apart. When we speak of identity, is there anything other than mental contents that we refer to?


To speak back on the Romans: Rostovtzeff has the following weighty judgment at the end (p. 531) of his Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire:

"The social revolution of the third century, which destroyed the foundations of the economic, social, and intellectual life of the ancient world, could not produce any positive achievement. On the ruins of a prosperous and well-organized state, based on the age-old classical civilization and on the self-government of the cities, it built up a state which was based on general ignorance, on compulsion and violence, on slavery and servility, on bribery and dishonesty."