What made Rome Rome?

[Flocculencio]

A question thrown out to everyone just to see what y'all think.

What was it that made Rome Rome and not just some other Hellenised state like so many?

[Valdemar II]

Originally Posted by Flocculencio

A question thrown out to everyone just to see what y'all think.

What was it that made Rome Rome and not just some other Hellenised state like so many?

At first it was just a Hellenised state like so many, it was when it gave citizenship to people outside the polis, it became what we think of as Rome.

[Polish Eagle]

Originally Posted by Flocculencio

A question thrown out to everyone just to see what y'all think.

What was it that made Rome Rome and not just some other Hellenised state like so many?

Fierce Independence, individualism, and the Latin language. Mostly the last one.

[Atreus]

Originally Posted by Flocculencio

A question thrown out to everyone just to see what y'all think.

What was it that made Rome Rome and not just some other Hellenised state like so many?

Such a difficult question...

I would say that it is a combination of factors: Militant expansionism, a military system which was more flexible than its opponents, their adaptation and ability to rebound from setbacks,...

[Boto von Ageduch]

Rome has eagerly attracted Hellenization because that gave a lot of chances to them. But it is not wise to let our picture of them be biased completely.

The Romans had a variety of cultural elements completely contrasting the Hellenistic world. These derived partially from their Italic traditions, partially from Etrurian rule.

For instance, they had different religiosity than the Greeks, though all superficial similarites; they had different views on ethics; dignified behavior in public, in particuar, poiltics; keyword being virtus.

In doubt, you'll find differences detailed by xenophobes. So as to Roman-Greek issues, you might want to consult Cato the Elder ...

[Communist Wizard]

In my opinion Rome is almost a classic example of the periphery taking control of the center. In this case it was the periphery of the Hellenised world (at the time dominant due to Alexander). In this manner it joins the ranks of Austria, Prussia, Macedon, and etc.
There are several factors which allowed it to dominate so. First is it's frontier flexibility. It was not purely Hellenic but took cues from the Etruscans, Phoenicians, and others in addition to the Greeks.
Second is of course it's patriotism which was quite effective at it's beggining.
Thirdly, it ruled it's conquests in Italy effectively, making use of the peninsula.
From there, however, what was soon more important was the conquest of Carthage. With the large resources of Iberia untouchable by the eastern Meditterranean powers, Rome slowly but surely advanced. In addition, the legion was superior to the phalanx which just made things easier.

[carlton_bach]

I know I'm not the person you'd expect to say this, but I don't really believe in any great degree of Roman exceptionalism. Rome was lucky - right place, right time, right combination of factors. If it hadn't been Rome, it could have been another similar power from the Western Med, but because it was Rome, the Roman Empire could emerge in the form it did.

First of all, I think it cannot be underestimated that Rome was at heart still a tribal warrior society and managed to remain one for a very long time. UNlike many of the Hellenes it came to face in its wars, but like many of its enemies in Italy and to the North and West, Roman fighting men were eager to distinguish themselves. Peer pressure must have been intense. By all accounts, the vaunted Roman discipline was a hard-won and fragile thing. Roman soldiers were above all aggressive, vicious bastards who wanted you dead. A reservoir of such men was an unbelievable asset to the state as long as they could be controlled, and Rome's system of government was extremely good at that.

Another thing that goes with this tribal mindset is the cult of loyalty. It enabled them to be fairly undiscriminatingly integrative, but also to hold together a strong system of alliances, but this wouldn't have worked if the Italic tribes hadn't shared similar attitudes. In a way, Italy was full of little Romes.

Another issue is geography - Rome is good for controlling the Latin League, the Latins good for controlling Central Italy, Central Italy good for connecting the resources of Cisalpine Gaul and the Western Mediterranean with the Magna Graecia. Rome is just Greek enough to beat the barbarians on organisation, but barbarian enough to beat the Greeks by savagery.

Finally, it was flexible. Rome was a traditional, oral society for a long time, and it retained the adaptability of a deeply traditional society much past that point. I'd argue that it wasn't so much Rome being Rome that gave it an Empire and Rome gaining an Empire that made it Rome.

[Mark-ITSOT]

Surely a more pertinent question would be: "What made Rome roam?"

[Skokie]

Rome's greatness was tied to its innovation of city-state-as-empire. Citizenship would not be tied to ethnicity. It would become a cosmopolitan ideal linked to humanity. In this way and others, Rome was the forerunner of the modern, multicultural world.

Also, their orgies.

[William Blake]

Originally Posted by Skokie

Rome's greatness was tied to its innovation of city-state-as-empire. Citizenship would not be tied to ethnicity.

Yes, where else could a horse hope to ascend to Consul?

[minifidel]

Originally Posted by Skokie

Rome's greatness was tied to its innovation of city-state-as-empire. Citizenship would not be tied to ethnicity. It would become a cosmopolitan ideal linked to humanity. In this way and others, Rome was the forerunner of the modern, multicultural world.

Also, their orgies.

The role "multiculturalism" played in the rise of Rome may be a tad overrated. For much of its history, Roman citizenship was just as exclusive as that of other city-states, and it wasn't until their allies rebelled that they got the citizenship that their centuries of service had earned them. Before then, Roman franchise was quite limited, and very few if any polis that were conquered or became allies received citizenship rights.

And we have to keep in mind that the reason the Republic ended up failing was precisely because of its inability to innovate and adapt to the fact that it was no longer a city state. The Roman Republic had the same institutions from 509 BC up until 37 BC more or less.

As for what made Rome Rome, I think that the best answer I've seen so far was carlton_bach's: they were just savage enough to thrash other civilized states, and they were just civilized enough to out-organize the barbarian states. But, of course, this doesn't quite seem like enough reason for its precipitous rise, but more importantly, its ability to maintain itself as the preeminent power for so long.

It is undeniable that Rome benefited enormously from a very favorable position. It was just far enough from the Etruscan center of power that they benefited from Etruscan culture without being absorbed. Rome also happens to more or less straddle the middle of the peninsula, giving it a strategic position in relation to the rest of Italy. Its early engagements are notable mainly because they seem quite fortunate in their outcome, for example the way they managed to defeat and absorb Alba Longa (of course, much of Rome's early history is shrouded in propaganda and is of questionable veracity...).

But then, I think there was one piece of the Roman puzzle that was absolutely vital, especially in the early days when the city was on mostly equal footing with its allies, and that is the indomitable spirit of the Roman ruling elite, who would continue to fight even in the face of casualties so high that any sensible party would have capitulated (they had enemies in the city, and they fought on anyway). This became less vital once Rome's position had been solidified and they could rely on allies and clients for manpower as well as their own populace, but by then they had also more or less abandoned the die-hard attitude.

[yourworstnightmare]

The Vestal not-so- Virgins.

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by minifidel

And we have to keep in mind that the reason the Republic ended up failing was precisely because of its inability to innovate and adapt to the fact that it was no longer a city state. The Roman Republic had the same institutions from 509 BC up until 37 BC more or less.

Actually, that is exactly what I meant when I wrote of the flexibility of traditional institutions. There is a world of difference between the putative farmer-patriarchs who began dominating the Latin amphictyony in the 6th century and the Hellenised military aristcracy that disposed of the known world in the 1st. Their continuity is largely a fiction, though one that was created by the Romans themselves. And, this is one thing that moidern historians tend to overemphasise, this fiction of continuity did not stop with Augustus. It wasn't just that Augstus called himself the saviour of the Republic, it was that the Senate called emperor Valerian that over 250 years later. Rome changed all the time, usually in response to crises, but it did.

[Earling]

I would need more information but if I were making a general guess I would study the education, or simply the lives of the young people, both across the centuries and comparatively with the various neighbouring states, and from that draw certain conclusions. If there was no apparent difference at this cultural level between Rome and elsewhere, or I could not see how that difference explained Rome's exceptionalism, I would then turn to studying material conditions such as climate, topography and so on in order to explain the presumerably economic reason for why Rome became Rome.

[minifidel]

Originally Posted by carlton_bach

Actually, that is exactly what I meant when I wrote of the flexibility of traditional institutions. There is a world of difference between the putative farmer-patriarchs who began dominating the Latin amphictyony in the 6th century and the Hellenised military aristcracy that disposed of the known world in the 1st. Their continuity is largely a fiction, though one that was created by the Romans themselves. And, this is one thing that moidern historians tend to overemphasise, this fiction of continuity did not stop with Augustus. It wasn't just that Augstus called himself the saviour of the Republic, it was that the Senate called emperor Valerian that over 250 years later. Rome changed all the time, usually in response to crises, but it did.

Yes, the traditional institutions evolved, not least because of the rise of the plebeians, which forced first the creation of entirely new positions as well as the opening up of older ones, but I think it's more a case of the landed aristocracy expanding from only nobles to include wealthy families as a whole; a landed aristocrat in the early republic still led the armies more often than not, and this held true in the Empire even. Then again, I admit that I'm not entirely sure what you really mean, and I'd rather not assume and end up putting words in your moth.

As for the continuity of Republic institutions, it's pretty difficult to properly measure, since everything before about 216 BC (or thereabouts, I don't quite remember right now) is more or less a fabrication meant to cement the Republican ideal for the Romans more than to actual reflect history (this is true up until the founding of Rome itself; the history of early Rome is essentially interwoven with Roman mythology, as I'm sure you know). It's true that Roman institutions were always quite... variable, as the ever-changing roles played by certain positions (praetors and tribunes in particular) demonstrate, as well as the general complexity of the Roman system that goes beyond the popular perception of the Res Publica. Most telling in this case I think is the fact that, for extended periods of Republican history that historians know is more than likely truth, the office of "consul" was suspended and replaced by several (IIRC the record being 12) military tribunes, and again you're right when you say that this is mostly due to responding to crises.

The Empire is quite fascinating precisely because it did nothing that wasn't already possible with the old order, it simply eliminated the divisions of power, meaning that the Emperor was essentially all magistrates at once.

[Flocculencio]

Originally Posted by carlton_bach

Rome is just Greek enough to beat the barbarians on organisation, but barbarian enough to beat the Greeks by savagery.

Thanks Carlton- that's an excellent point. Everyone has always said that the thing about Rome is that they didn't at all see war as a semi-ritual activity as did most of the other Mediterranean cultures and so, unlike them, would keep on fighting wars despite losing battles but I think you've provided an excellent explanation for why they were like that. Looking at Rome, you're right, even in the Late Republic the underlying social structure was pretty tribal.

When would you say that the actual view of Rome at least notionally as a Republic really died out? We call the rulers from Augustus on Emperors but as I understand it they still maintained the polite fiction that they were ruling on behalf of the Senate and People of Rome as opposed to being monarchs. Is that the fundamental difference between the Principate and the Dominate?

[Skokie]

Originally Posted by minifidel

The role "multiculturalism" played in the rise of Rome may be a tad overrated.

But we're not talking about the rise of Rome. I thought this thread was about what made Rome Rome rather than just another Hellenistic empire.

What do you all think about the old charge that the Greeks and Orientals were decadent and luxuriant? Is it Roman jealousy? Historiographical cliché? Proto-racist view of history (Romans were a "virile" and young race; Greeks had allowed themselves to grow slack)?

[minifidel]

Originally Posted by Skokie

But we're not talking about the rise of Rome. I thought this thread was about what made Rome Rome rather than just another Hellenistic empire.

What do you all think about the old charge that the Greeks and Orientals were decadent and luxuriant? Is it Roman jealousy? Historiographical cliché? Proto-racist view of history (Romans were a "virile" and young race; Greeks had allowed themselves to grow slack)?

There are several prominent anti-greek orators amongst the Romans, the most famous being Cato the Elder, but generally speaking, even though all educated aristocrats learned greek, they tried very hard to not be greek; it was, as you say, a proto-racist view, which originated in Rome itself. In truth, Rome wasn't much less decadent or luxuriant than other Hellenistic societies, but their idea of virtus was very stoic in its nature, and that naturally led them to look down upon others.

As for multiculturalism, well, the Romans handed out citizenship rather grudgingly at first, as evidenced by the Social War (itself caused by the refusal of the Senate to extend the franchise to all their Italic allies, amongst other things), and they more often than not exported their culture more than they integrated subjugated cultures, although I suppose that that could be viewed as a form of multiculturalism.

[Atreus]

Originally Posted by Skokie

But we're not talking about the rise of Rome. I thought this thread was about what made Rome Rome rather than just another Hellenistic empire.

I can see where you are coming from. When I first read it, my impression was more along the lines of "What was different about rome that enabled it to be rome?"; that is, why did rome become the empire that it did?

What do you all think about the old charge that the Greeks and Orientals were decadent and luxuriant? Is it Roman jealousy? Historiographical cliché? Proto-racist view of history (Romans were a "virile" and young race; Greeks had allowed themselves to grow slack)?

History is written by the victors. The romans beat the greeks, and incorporated a lot of greek culture into their own. it became convenient for the romans to claim that they were the true heirs to the classical greeks, and that their conquests proved this. Justifies their role as hegemon of the mediterranean, and also gives them a richer cultural history.

that said, i can understand one making the argument that the hellenistic world was stagnant at the time.

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by Flocculencio

Thanks Carlton- that's an excellent point. Everyone has always said that the thing about Rome is that they didn't at all see war as a semi-ritual activity as did most of the other Mediterranean cultures and so, unlike them, would keep on fighting wars despite losing battles but I think you've provided an excellent explanation for why they were like that. Looking at Rome, you're right, even in the Late Republic the underlying social structure was pretty tribal.

When would you say that the actual view of Rome at least notionally as a Republic really died out? We call the rulers from Augustus on Emperors but as I understand it they still maintained the polite fiction that they were ruling on behalf of the Senate and People of Rome as opposed to being monarchs. Is that the fundamental difference between the Principate and the Dominate?

I think this is more a matter of where than when. WE have to keep in mind that most modern histories of Rome look almost exclusively at the centre of power and base themselves on narratives by people who lived and interacted there. Many senators felt that the changes following the Civil War were a betrayal of the 'free republic' (IIRC Tacitus uses 'res publica libera'), and there was a clear sense that after Augstus, things were never the same. The problem with that view is that even well before Augstus, things would neverbe the same again. The old Republic was effectively dead with the Sullan conquest. He just kept it on life support.

The thing is, though, that as far as most people were concerned, things hadn't really changed in a systemic way with Augustus. Aristocrats still contested offices and had clienteles. There was a strong man in charge, but that had been almost the rule during the last half century. If anything, things got better: Roman officials did what they were supposed to do and people didn't risk their lives playing politics. In the provinces, the only thing that changed was that Roman government became less predatory and more responsive. You couldbe forgiven for thinking that things had become the waythey were supposed to be (this is what Cicero says the good old days were like).

In the provinces, treating Rome like a hellenistic monarchy was normal from the word go. Much of Asia Minor counted its years from the campaign of Sulla. This attitude drifted back into Rome over the following period, until it became perfectly normal for a Roman to think of the Augustus as a divine being. There are a number odf landmarks along this process, but I don't think any of them qualifies as a turning point. Roman soldiers and citzens thought of Republican strongmen in dynastic terms already. Themain shift took placein the thinking of the upper classes, and there I doubt it took that much genuine conversion. senators and generals were happy enough to off emperors, whether they called them dominus or not (domine was a difficult word in political circles until the third century, but perfectly normal in theinteraction between upper and lower ranks as early as the first century AD, if not earlier)