The Roman Concept of Citizenship

[Eleatic Guest]

Was Roman Citizenship Based on Laws for "all of Humanity"?

So, how inclusive were the Romans really about their citizenship?

[Ariovistus]

I think Duchesne hit the nail on the head. Roman citizenship during its era of expansion was wholly objective - breaking apart the homogenous aristocracy of right-holders by extending privileges to those of other classes and ethnicities for the sake of swift romanization: "It was intended as a political measure to ensure the loyalty of conquered peoples, and the acquisition of citizenship came in graduated levels with promises of further rights with increased assimilation..."

That being said, I find Duchesne's article to be wildly opinionated and borderline radical. His implication of Roman history being used as a weapon for propaganda makes me question his credibility, sanity, and whether or not he attended school under the Nazi regime. Never have I been subjected to "this form of intellectual manipulation [that] is now rampant in academia" during my schooling, formal or otherwise.

But I enjoyed the controversial article, thanks Stefan!

[Timianus]

Lets not forget that citizenship was extended to all freemen in the empire in 212 (largely for tax reasons).

[Eleatic Guest]

Opinions naturally differ, but can we do for once a discussion without Adolf? Why must always this Reductio ad Hitlerum be.

[Timianus]

His implication of Roman history being used as a weapon for propaganda makes me question his credibility, sanity, and whether or not he attended school under the Nazi regime. Never have I been subjected to "this form of intellectual manipulation [that] is now rampant in academia" during my schooling, formal or otherwise.

But I enjoyed the controversial article, thanks Stefan!

The article clearly has an agenda, that is for sure. However, having suffered under 4 years of classical studies taught by a cultural Marxist, I am sympathize with the author's plight. The "propaganda" to which I was exposed included:

1. repeated assertions that Rome was tolerant and accommodating to all races and religions, so long as you learned Latin and worshipped roman gods--plainly not true. The romans certainly exhibited racial/cultural bias, even if someone legally had the same rights.
2. The barbarians were not trying to destroy Rome; they simply wanted to "participate in" the pax romana.
3. Contra to #2, we were also "taught" that Rome disintegrated ("transformed") because it failed to offer the barbarians a reason for participating in their system. --Yes, if only the Romans had been a little nicer to the vandals, they would have just stayed put. I mean, if they had just made each tribal leader a senator and given them representation, the tribes would not have been "forced" to turn violent.
4. Rome's "transformation" had nothing to due with civil wars or military capacity, but to "slow-developing, and long-term changes in culture and values"

[Ariovistus]

Opinions naturally differ, but can we do for once a discussion without Adolf? Why must always this Reductio ad Hitlerum be.

I was simply linking his claims of western culture being used to manipulate students to an era in which antiquity in education was actually used for that purpose. Hitler and Mussolini drew upon their historical heritage to incite nationalism.

I quote this exactly from the source (wikipedia) that you included: "The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, if that was the explicit topic of conversation, because a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate[...]"

I apologize if it caused any offense, but I stand behind my metaphor.