Login

03-21-2001, 10:51 PM

I was recently on another forum unrelated to roman history but an individual began to talk about what he believed to be black africans in the military and seemed to say that most north africans were black. I had not heard this and many can craft sources and other things in a manner that would seem 'official' . I had not heard this anddo not know if it is true. Anyone who could answer would be appreciated. Please do not construe this as any sort of racial thing as this subject quickly degenerated into a flame war on that forum. Thanks

JRSCline · 03-22-2001, 07:01 AM

It is always a sensitive subject; unfortunately most people have a hard time disengaging their modern ideas about how "race" is defined from the ancient idea of race, which was so poorly developed as to be near non-existent. It is not too far a generalization to say that racism, as we know it today, simply didn't exist in the ancient world. 
 
I don't want to divert the thread to a general discussion of race in ancient times, but a very good scholarly treatment is Frank Snowden's "Blacks in Antiquity." It's in print and the ISBN is 0-674-07626-5 for the paperback. Snowden is Professor of Classics (emeritus) at Howard University, and is also a black man who takes "Afrocentrist" proponents to task for making all sorts of unfounded claims, such as "all Africans were black [in the modern American sense of black, which is based on West-African appearance]." 
 
North Africa was a rich recruiting ground for Roman auxiliaries and later, legionaries as well. Some of the most formidable warrior peoples Rome ever encountered were natives of Africa -- the Carthaginians (who were Semitic Phoenician colonists, originally), the Mauri (Moors), the Blemmyes, the Numidians whose light cavalry was highly prized as ally troops by Caesar, or the Ethiopian guerillas of the Kandake (queen) of Nubia, who incessantly raided Roman Egypt. There's no question that Africans were in the Roman military, nor that they fought the Romans and were fully capable of beating them. 
 
If the question is whether these peoples were "black" in the modern sense, the answer is no, for most North Africans living along the Mediterranean rim at that time were descendents of either Semitic or European stock. The Ethiopians were considered by the Romans to be a different sort of people than North Africans; they described their hair and facial features differently, and called them "Aethiopes," though there was no stigma attached to the term. 
 
The Aethiope description used by the Romans and Greeks fits very well with stereotypical modern concepts of blackness -- woolly hair, flat broad nose, everted lips, dark eyes and skin. Their descriptions of North African peoples, however, do not match the modern concept. 
 
Any posts on any thread which remotely resemble personal attacks or "flames" will be immediately deleted and the abuser will receive one private warning. This is why we have moderators, and they are watching for this very thing. So don't be too concerned about getting flamed. Any fires will be instantly snuffed by the firemen. 
 
Cheers, 
Jenny

Catiline · 03-22-2001, 03:21 PM

THe vigiles are about to put out the fires, though they've been concentrating on the troubles caused by that damn Livius Drusus and his radical policies. How much paperwork can that man generate, stirring up Italians, getting those hairy etruscans in to Rome complaining about him... 
 
I think part of the issue in this context is not race but culture. As Jenny says, the concept of race was largely foreign to the ancients (excuse the pun, to long at the org, Shai's rubs of on you). What was at issue was the behaviour of individuals. hence sections of Roman society were hugely critical of people displaying what they regarded as for instance Greek or Oriental behaviour. This wasn't even necessarily critical of the culturre itself, just of the betrayal of Romans to their own heritage who behaved in this fashion. There was certainly a notion of the noble savage with regard to say the Gauls at times, but they were respected those capable of defeating them. I'm drifting OT here... 
 
I think in the end the issue of coloured troops serving in the Roman army comes down to whether or not they lived within the Empire. As Jenny says most of North Africa was not black in the sense we think of it, nor is it now. Much more important in all respects than race for military and civil issues was the possession of citizenship of the Empire. That is where any clashes lay, not in the colour of skin It's not a bug, it's a feature

03-22-2001, 10:48 PM

thank you for your posts so far. I do understand that racism was not the sort of thing that we have today. I really doubted what this individual was saying and picked it for afrocentrism of some sort. I have a BA in ancient history and have come across this sort of thing before but never had it been presented to me like it was. I was not under the impression that north africans were necessarily black as I have known people from egypt and morocco. I found it a little fishy because his argument was presented as the racist romans did not divulge the work of the black africans , etc. On the contrary is would appear that such an issue would not even have been an issue.

03-24-2001, 03:16 AM

I think one can make a strong case for the defining feature being national origin. Either you were a Roman or you weren't. The bestowal of citizenship in the mightiest nation in existence was a prize to be won, like a 100 Million dollar lottery. If race was a factor it didn't help the Greeks much before they became 'Roman'. Conquered provinces gave up slaves and color was no protection. Allied nations gave up soldiers and, again, color was no barrier. Being a citizen, while it wouldn't get you into the Senate, did provide the difference between being somebody of importance and a subject without status.

03-24-2001, 04:36 AM

Was not Septimius Severus a black man? I refer to the well known image of him and his family. (Can't recall what it's called or where it's from.) ...or not.

03-24-2001, 08:09 PM

Salve, 
 
The portrait you are referring to is probably the Egyptian painting which is now in Berlin and on the cover of the Routledge edition of A.R. Birley's Septimius Severus, the African emperor. It mentions that John Malalas wrote that Septimius Severus was dark skinned on page 22. The Berlin painting, the only colour portrait that has survived, shows him with a dark complexion. Born at Lepcis Magna, he was probably of Phoenician descent. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

11-30-2002, 07:21 PM

I thought he was black as well from looking at that same painting (the one with his wife next to him, and young, murderous Caracalla sitting in his lap)... upon further reflection, however, he is probably more likely to look African in the Libyan/Morroccan sense of the word.

Goffredo · 12-01-2002, 10:25 AM

The romans were certainly not racists in any form we would recognize. 
 
"Racism" is hard to define. But we would be dangerously naive if we stopped at thinking that it is a western phenomena. Actually primitive societies were/are even more harsh and violent when it comes to defining who is IN and who is OUT. Skin color is only one possibile parameter. It could also be nose shape, height, build,... Mankind has always been very inventive in finding ways to define who should not be allowed to enter a group. "Racism" based on physical attributes? If physical attributes weren't enough to make distinctions then mankind invented costumes! 
 
Men want/need to belong and want/need to be exclusive. Hence the the necessity to define who is to be excluded. The need to be exclusive probably comes from some perception of threat (few resources). But this is another story. 
 
Personal consideration: 
Probably one of the reasons Christianity and even more so Islam were so successful was that anyone could participate and all are brothers. But Islam was more revolutionary and rigorous on this point than the superficial Christian Europeans, at least until recently when other social forces brought secular concepts into play (separation state from relgion, egalitarianism, democracy...). 
 
I believe that modern european racism started about 500 years ago, but embryonic forms can be found during the crusades. I am tempted to say that it can be recognized in its present form by the time the Catholic Spaniards and Portuguese took control of Central and Southern America. Maybe the Christians had to further perfect that type of mind set to sustain the re-conquest of Spain and by the time Columbus made his journey, the ideology was ready. 
 
But in trying to remain open to the possibility of making new connections one should then ask what went thru the minds of the Islamic slave traders that sold the slaves to the racist europeans. I think the deep african animistic blacks were guilty not of being black, but of being 100% pagan. They had no status. The Islamic attitude towards Christians and Jews was certainly more tollerant because the Jews were the first people to worship the true God (Jews = people of the book) and even the later Christians were on the right track.

12-01-2002, 09:13 PM

I've read somewhere, a long time ago, that modern racism was born of a dilemma facing the XVIIIth century slavers: those people were --or thought they were-- good christians. But good christians do not enslave other people, so they had a theological problem there. 
After some brainstorming they figured out that, since those people whom they enslaved --for stricly economic motives-- definitely looked different and moreover were pagans, they were probably not really human and thus fit to be turned into slaves. 
I don't know if it's true but it's interesting. 
Racism is just another word for prejudice. And of course it easy when the other person is different. The more different the easiest. 
I seriously doubt racism didn't exist in ancient times, although maybe not in its present "scientific" aspect, which took its fully developed form under Adolf Hitler. 
But the feelings of the general greco-roman population towards the "barbarians" was not really one of brotherly love and besides persons of learning like Tacitus, I'm pretty sure that the average Marcus Vulgum Pecus thought of them as nothing more than a dangerous species of wild beasts. 
The first ghetto was created in Alexandria and the race riots between Jews and Greeks there are legendary. 
And I doubt old Cato would not have objected much, had he been told "scientifically" that slaves are not really human. He may have been comforted by that.. 
Humans are animals and just like horses, you have different breeds. Modern "scientific" racism, consist in using these differences to deem one breed superior or inferior to the others. In that sense racism did not exist in ancient times. But that doesn't make much difference, IMHO.. 
Incidentally, and just like horses, the mixing of breeds gives generally good results in humans.. Helps ameliorate both breeds. 
I think racism-prejudice began with Cain and Abel, or whatever their names were.. 
In "Blazing Saddles", Mel Brooks wrote some pretty definitive words on racism. 
The fact that bonobo chimpanzees are genetically closer to humans than they are to gorillas tends to put things into perspective too...E EM Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> at: 12/1/02 10:15:27 pm

**Robert Vermaat** · 12-03-2002, 08:34 AM

Maybe one could compare the north Africans with today's Berber people, who look very similar to the western European population. 
I don't remember the quote, but did not Ceasar speak of 'blond' Lybia, where the people were of a more fair complexion than the Germans? 
 
Cheers, 
Robert 
 
'Cives Francorum, Miles Romanorum' 
www.fectio.org.uk/

12-10-2002, 03:33 PM

I'd just like to add that I remember a part of Herodotus that stuck in my mind. He lists the characteristics of various and in many cases far away peoples. I noted at the time how completely non-racist and matter-of-fact Herodotus was. This would lend support to the idea that the ancients were not racist in the modern sense.

rekirts · 12-10-2002, 05:25 PM

How odd that I never noticed before reading this thread that Septimius Severus does appear to be somewhat dark-skinned. I have looked at that picture many times before today and only just noticed that his skin appears darker than that of his wife and non-obliterated son. Must be the result of some preconceived notion I had about Roman Emperors. Weird how the mind works. 
 
Wendy

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Borders folk may descend from Africans from Hadrian\'s Wall	Robert Vermaat	30	9,353	10-26-2021, 07:26 AM Last Post: John1
	Sub Saharan Africans in Roman army	richsc	33	9,603	01-17-2019, 02:43 PM Last Post: Nathan Ross
	Africans at Vindolanda?	Nathan Ross	20	5,678	03-17-2017, 01:55 PM Last Post: Nathan Ross