While we joke a lot about barbarians here, the Roman view of non-Roman cultures was more nuanced. A barbarian wasn’t necessarily some ‘savage’ who needed to be ‘civilized’ - in the view of the Romans, most societies had strengths and weaknesses, and the Romans were more than willing to acknowledge the strengths of other societies, even in excess of the Romans…
… in everything except the SUITABILITY to RULE over EARTH’S PEOPLE
The Romans often put no effort into assimilating or moving provincials of a ‘barbarian’ culture precisely because they didn’t mind if they continued their traditional ways, in most cases. Indeed, adherence to ancient ways, even non-Roman ways, could be very respectable - the Romans respected tradition even if it wasn’t their tradition (so long as it wasn’t offensive to their cultural norms). Aristocratic Romans often cultivated friendships across cultural lines precisely because they were capable of valuing foreign ways, even if it wasn’t an equal valuation to Roman ways.
To the Romans, Romans were, of course, better than barbarians on the balance - the Romans were the best possible balance of moderate and reasonable cultural traits, but that only meant that Romans should be proud (and they were annoyingly proud) and that Romans should rule - for the good of everyone, including the barbarians, of course!
But the barbarians also held many valuable traits and skills which the Romans freely admitted that Romans lacked. The rhetorician Fronto noted in a letter to the Emperor that Latin had no word for human warmth because Romans lacked that virtue entirely. As a rhetorician, this is obviously him engaging in hyperbole - but it does show that Romans did not regard their culture, even in the abstract, as perfect compared to others.
In this, a Roman could freely praise Gallic artisanship, Syrian academia, Egyptian theology, African cunning, Greek art, and Germanic bravery without ever challenging his own cultural chauvinism. Rome wanted to think of itself as team captain (or team centurion, complete with authority to beat subordinates) who marshalled every culture’s unique skills for a team victory (with them at the head, of course, also picking how the spoils of victory are divided), not the sole (cultural) inhabitant of the world.
Ah so similar to how the persian empire was perfectly fine with freedom of religion and self determination so long as they bent the knee to them and paid their taxes. I could see being a conquered people’s of the romans would be better than most other kingdoms as the status quo was to kill all the leaders and most of the men, rape the women, and outlaw the worship of the old gods.
as the status quo was to kill all the leaders and most of the men, rape the women, and outlaw the worship of the old gods.
Not quite - most peoples of antiquity were generally nonchalant about the gods of their subjects continuing to be worshipped, and certainly the Romans were not shy about killing leaders or abusing civilians during the conquest.
The big difference in this theology/pluralism comes in toleration vs. acceptance. The usual scenario for this period is the conquerors going “You have your gods, we have our’s. Clearly your’s are weak if they’re different from our’s, but you can keep them if you want.” - the Romans come in and essentially say, “I see you worship the gods too! Very good, very pious, we do the same thing!” It changes what is a fairly major cultural divide (different pantheons) into a nearly literally nominal difference (“You call the gods different names than we do? That’s quite alright, I’m sure the gods don’t mind”) that makes conqueror and conquered share in a common religious-cultural tradition. People are generally more amiable when they feel they have something in common with you, even something as abstract as religion.
Other culturally imperial powers of the period will build shrines to their own gods and exclude your gods - very annoying, especially since that’s YOUR tax money they’re spending. The Romans will build shrines and tell you that worshipping your gods at these shrines is a-okay, because it was always meant for those gods, and make sacrifices to your gods (“OUR gods”). That’s nearly a public service! Maybe these toga-wearing weirdos aren’t ALL bad?
The Achaemenid approach was slightly different - more of a “You have your gods, we have our’s, but we will guard your religious traditions and buildings from abuse just as we guard our own.” Which is also preferable to the “I’m going to use your taxes (or plunder your temples) to worship MY gods” approach-by-neglect by culturally imperial powers of the time without deeply ingrained notions of tolerance.
*note - the Romans plundered temples too, but it was okay, because they would use some of that plunder to build other, grander temples to the same gods. The gods basically won’t notice if their summer home gets a little ‘renovated’ and moved a few miles to the west, right?
*note - the Romans plundered temples too, but it was okay, because they would use some of that plunder to build other, grander temples to the same gods. The gods basically won’t notice if their summer home gets a little ‘renovated’ and moved a few miles to the west, right?
They did steal the entire inventory of the temple, including the god(s) that resided there. They even had a formal procedure for doing exactly that, evocation deorum. They basically called for the local gods to abandon the place about to be conquered and promised a better temple in Rome in return for that favour.
Right, Mars Lenus agreed with this, he already has a much better temple in Rome, and surely will greatly appreciate some of the inventory of this pathetic attempt of a temple being transferred there.
While we joke a lot about barbarians here, the Roman view of non-Roman cultures was more nuanced. A barbarian wasn’t necessarily some ‘savage’ who needed to be ‘civilized’ - in the view of the Romans, most societies had strengths and weaknesses, and the Romans were more than willing to acknowledge the strengths of other societies, even in excess of the Romans…
… in everything except the SUITABILITY to RULE over EARTH’S PEOPLE
The Romans often put no effort into assimilating or moving provincials of a ‘barbarian’ culture precisely because they didn’t mind if they continued their traditional ways, in most cases. Indeed, adherence to ancient ways, even non-Roman ways, could be very respectable - the Romans respected tradition even if it wasn’t their tradition (so long as it wasn’t offensive to their cultural norms). Aristocratic Romans often cultivated friendships across cultural lines precisely because they were capable of valuing foreign ways, even if it wasn’t an equal valuation to Roman ways.
To the Romans, Romans were, of course, better than barbarians on the balance - the Romans were the best possible balance of moderate and reasonable cultural traits, but that only meant that Romans should be proud (and they were annoyingly proud) and that Romans should rule - for the good of everyone, including the barbarians, of course!
But the barbarians also held many valuable traits and skills which the Romans freely admitted that Romans lacked. The rhetorician Fronto noted in a letter to the Emperor that Latin had no word for human warmth because Romans lacked that virtue entirely. As a rhetorician, this is obviously him engaging in hyperbole - but it does show that Romans did not regard their culture, even in the abstract, as perfect compared to others.
In this, a Roman could freely praise Gallic artisanship, Syrian academia, Egyptian theology, African cunning, Greek art, and Germanic bravery without ever challenging his own cultural chauvinism. Rome wanted to think of itself as team captain (or team centurion, complete with authority to beat subordinates) who marshalled every culture’s unique skills for a team victory (with them at the head, of course, also picking how the spoils of victory are divided), not the sole (cultural) inhabitant of the world.
Ah so similar to how the persian empire was perfectly fine with freedom of religion and self determination so long as they bent the knee to them and paid their taxes. I could see being a conquered people’s of the romans would be better than most other kingdoms as the status quo was to kill all the leaders and most of the men, rape the women, and outlaw the worship of the old gods.
Not quite - most peoples of antiquity were generally nonchalant about the gods of their subjects continuing to be worshipped, and certainly the Romans were not shy about killing leaders or abusing civilians during the conquest.
The big difference in this theology/pluralism comes in toleration vs. acceptance. The usual scenario for this period is the conquerors going “You have your gods, we have our’s. Clearly your’s are weak if they’re different from our’s, but you can keep them if you want.” - the Romans come in and essentially say, “I see you worship the gods too! Very good, very pious, we do the same thing!” It changes what is a fairly major cultural divide (different pantheons) into a nearly literally nominal difference (“You call the gods different names than we do? That’s quite alright, I’m sure the gods don’t mind”) that makes conqueror and conquered share in a common religious-cultural tradition. People are generally more amiable when they feel they have something in common with you, even something as abstract as religion.
Other culturally imperial powers of the period will build shrines to their own gods and exclude your gods - very annoying, especially since that’s YOUR tax money they’re spending. The Romans will build shrines and tell you that worshipping your gods at these shrines is a-okay, because it was always meant for those gods, and make sacrifices to your gods (“OUR gods”). That’s nearly a public service! Maybe these toga-wearing weirdos aren’t ALL bad?
The Achaemenid approach was slightly different - more of a “You have your gods, we have our’s, but we will guard your religious traditions and buildings from abuse just as we guard our own.” Which is also preferable to the “I’m going to use your taxes (or plunder your temples) to worship MY gods” approach-by-neglect by culturally imperial powers of the time without deeply ingrained notions of tolerance.
*note - the Romans plundered temples too, but it was okay, because they would use some of that plunder to build other, grander temples to the same gods. The gods basically won’t notice if their summer home gets a little ‘renovated’ and moved a few miles to the west, right?
They did steal the entire inventory of the temple, including the god(s) that resided there. They even had a formal procedure for doing exactly that, evocation deorum. They basically called for the local gods to abandon the place about to be conquered and promised a better temple in Rome in return for that favour.
I love evocatio, I’d just like to note that it was a specific ritual, and that it isn’t always recorded as accompanying Roman looting of temples.
No need to perform an evocation on a god who isn’t powerful enough to interfere with your conquest, I guess…
“Lenus is basically Mars, and we already have Mars.” - Romans, trying to Catch 'em All
Right, Mars Lenus agreed with this, he already has a much better temple in Rome, and surely will greatly appreciate some of the inventory of this pathetic attempt of a temple being transferred there.