Romans & non Romans: Ethnicity in the ancient world

Рет қаралды 9,256

Күн бұрын

The Roman Empire was massive, extending over North Africa, and much of Europe and the Middle East. Due to its size and the nature of its development, it absorbed numerous cultures and peoples, and as a result was a multi-lingual, multi-ethnic empire. But, what exactly was the Roman conception of all of this? How was ethnicity determined in the ancient world? That is what we’ll be exploring in this video.
SOURCES
People’s of the Roman World, Boatwright
SPQR, Beard
Romulus’ Asylum, Dench
Rome: An Empire of Many Nations, Price et. al.
Ethnicity in the Ancient World: Did it matter?, Gruen

Пікірлер: 38

@victorgaba8980 2 жыл бұрын

The Edict of Caracalla has always fascinated me, glad you touched this subject in this video, even if briefly. You mention we are not really sure the exact reason, and you seem to do a fairly nice overview of the possible reasons, however I'd be very interested in hearing a bit of a more in-depth discussion on the Edict. Any chance you make a dedicated video on it, even if shorter than usual, or at least have some reading you could point me to?

@chins9217 Ай бұрын

I want to begin diving deeper into studying the Roman’s. Do you have any recommendations for learning about Rome’s early history? Or just recommendations in general

@TheFallofRome Ай бұрын

I would recommend starting with Adrian Goldsworthy and Mary Beard

@73288 2 жыл бұрын

In 2:23 two possibility of translation could not be the case. Because english lack declension system the understanding could be challenge. It is just my theory but i think that neither one is correct. In my language it is the same, there is the way how to say certain things but they have only one meaning, they are just confusing if you don´t know the language deep enough. That can give impresion of two meanings which is not the case. But as I´ve said, it´s just my opinion.

@cyrilchui2811 2 жыл бұрын

Your description on adding more tax confused me, as I thought non-citizen paid poll tax, while citizen paid none. I think the following extract from Wiki make more sense. That those "promoted" Roman Citizen, had to pay BOTH poll tax as before, and all the other inherit tax that a Roman Citizen had to pay. I guess most Peregrini didn't mind, because they wouldn't have much estate to pass on. But a new status gave them equal legal right, of which a big thing to a civilian trading/living/working in a city/town.

@Gorboduc 2 жыл бұрын

Did Augustine write Punic, or just speak it? 🤔

@TheFallofRome 2 жыл бұрын

Both

@zwatwashdc Жыл бұрын

Wait, where is episode 5 of this series?!?

@patrickblanchette4337 2 жыл бұрын

7:11 It’s really interesting that just like today, Roman’s also had arguments about inclusion.

@johny16G 2 жыл бұрын

Most of Man's History already happened in one way or another. That's what fascinates me about History

@specialnewb9821 2 жыл бұрын

A summation. Our ideals are greek, but our structures are Roman.

@TheFallofRome 2 жыл бұрын

I would broadly agree with that, I guess. There’s a reason the early American republic has strong Roman symbolism. Not an exact mirror, of course, but it’s there

@mustplay7212 2 жыл бұрын

yeah thats not a good thing.

@TriColorMonk 2 жыл бұрын

@@mustplay7212 why not

@mustplay7212 2 жыл бұрын

@@TriColorMonk mostly because romans and greeks worshipped war and treated women bad. I get studying them and see from their own time but glorifiyng them is a bad thing. Cultures that endorses slavery are all inherently bad

@mustplay7212 2 жыл бұрын

@@TriColorMonk also i am strictly talking about ideals. Not the structure part

@buddermonger2000 2 жыл бұрын

I'm going to be honest I can already see the parallels between the Americans and the romans but I can also see the key differences: mainly that romans assimilated conquered people's while the Americans are mostly assimilating voluntary immigration.

@geordiejones5618 Жыл бұрын

Honestly though, most "conquered" nations south of the US follow their example, as well as decolonized nations that cropped up in the 50s and 60s. And though culturally distinct, much like the rest of the world, the internet has done that job of Americanizing most of the planet inasmuch that most discourse and money moves are done through American business, protected by a global US military and backed up by a currency/language that almost every country accepts. You could very well argue that this itself is entirely reliant on the work of the British Empire, and while I can't speak to the future of American influence, I think its undeniable that the modern world is at the very least covered in American frosting, no matter what the innards of each nation cake may be. Its all under the umbrella of the US until their military is taken down a peg by whichever rising nation takes the top spot next.

@robendert7617 2 жыл бұрын

Very interesting and enlightening; I certainly learned from this. I'm pleased with your approach for two main reasons. First, the warning to those who want to see everything through the coloured glasses of current, mostly "woke", neo-marxist glasses. The ideas of the people of a certain period must be seen the way those people probably saw it. Secondly, I like that you make a distinction between what is supported by evidence and its interpretation, and what is speculative hindsight because of lacking sources. It is a sign of intelligence and conscience of true self-worth to express what you don't know, and not to pretend that you know.

@masstv9052 2 жыл бұрын

The moment you use "woke" and "neo-marxist" you lose all credibility on speaking about a topic. Showing your just another person inflicting their bias.

@robendert7617 2 жыл бұрын

@@masstv9052 No, it shows that you escaped indoctrination, can still think for yourself, and can see history in un unbiased way.

@sagittariusa7662 2 жыл бұрын

Roman did have a concept of ethnicity, but not race. "Of course they did." Nope. Race is a Spanish invention. Romans that categorize people, but not on lines of race, but on geography. Ethiopians or the South of the Mediterranean, Germanics or the North of the Mediterranean, Celts (which once were a separate people until absorbed into Roman ethnicity), Greeks (anyone who spoke Greek), Syriacs (Anyone from the Middle East under Roman control or authority) Asiatics (All people in Asia not under Roman authority or Control), and Romans (which originally was just the citizens of Rome, but eventually everyone throughout the Empire no matter their appearance). What about Dacians? Dacians were considered to be Celtic people and later as Germanic people and then Roman people at some point. This is how Romanians remember it.

@nsa6865 Жыл бұрын

Completely ignores the concept of Gens and Romanitas, and entire texts by Romans. Lol 😂 ma che cazzo

@mustplay7212 2 жыл бұрын

The Romans were probably very xenophobic. THey based their culture from the greeks and they were probably even more racist and xenophobic than romans (btw antiguity didnt have the same morals as us so its difficult to judge them from just the texts)

@wheresmyeyebrow1608 2 жыл бұрын

I think 'xenophobic' is a bit different from 'racist' just in that 'civilisational superiority' is a bit different from the Latins all thinking themselves as having purer blood or whatever

@mustplay7212 2 жыл бұрын

@@wheresmyeyebrow1608 i do think they were both. Especially back at Rome. But again roman sources do ofte exaggerate their own propaganda

@abababababa8 2 жыл бұрын

They thought they were superior to all other people's, but people with non-roman blood could become citizens, after years of faithful slavery that is..

@hyokkim7726 2 жыл бұрын

Ironically, Romans gradually became more xenophobic by late empire period. I think this is a case of people inventing myth to feel different, and adopting that myth as the truth, disregarding facts.

@nsa6865 Жыл бұрын

@@huwhitecavebeast1972 he didn’t say it was a bad thing, it’s the truth. They viewed the italics as a ruler race and the Greeks as a brother race who needed guidance lol.