How to get a more "original" Roman high culture?

It's no mystery that Rome liberally borrowed from other sources whatever they could get their hands on, from architectural and military innovations to artistic and literary forms; regarding art and literature, it often feels like Rome was so dependent on Greek models, it couldn't come up with anything truly theirs - sure, they were less creatively sterile than classical Sparta, but they seem to have shared something of Sparta's dour, military-centered ethos nonetheless, even though the ideal Roman citizen was (on paper) a peasant as well as a soldier.

What would have to happen in Rome's history, for its culture to become something that, while not overly dependent on Greek models (the Mediterranean being what it was, some amount of Greek influence was inevitable), could measure up to classical and Hellenistic standards nonetheless?
 
It's no mystery that Rome liberally borrowed from other sources whatever they could get their hands on, from architectural and military innovations to artistic and literary forms; regarding art and literature, it often feels like Rome was so dependent on Greek models, it couldn't come up with anything truly theirs - sure, they were less creatively sterile than classical Sparta, but they seem to have shared something of Sparta's dour, military-centered ethos nonetheless, even though the ideal Roman citizen was (on paper) a peasant as well as a soldier.

What would have to happen in Rome's history, for its culture to become something that, while not overly dependent on Greek models (the Mediterranean being what it was, some amount of Greek influence was inevitable), could measure up to classical and Hellenistic standards nonetheless?
A Rome that is more influenced through a mercantile bent rather than an aristocratic military ethos, as in Remus winning in the founding myth, might be enough to get a "native" high culture. Though Rome certainly didn't borrow everything from Greece, they had their own innvoations as well.
 
It's no mystery that Rome liberally borrowed from other sources whatever they could get their hands on, from architectural and military innovations to artistic and literary forms; regarding art and literature, it often feels like Rome was so dependent on Greek models, it couldn't come up with anything truly theirs - sure, they were less creatively sterile than classical Sparta, but they seem to have shared something of Sparta's dour, military-centered ethos nonetheless, even though the ideal Roman citizen was (on paper) a peasant as well as a soldier.

What would have to happen in Rome's history, for its culture to become something that, while not overly dependent on Greek models (the Mediterranean being what it was, some amount of Greek influence was inevitable), could measure up to classical and Hellenistic standards nonetheless?
The Romans should make the Greeks Romans, so that the Greek innovations could become Roman innovations by default. And this happened. By 212 AD, all Greeks were Romans, and in due time, all Greeks came to see themselves as Romans. So does it really matter that the culture were once Greek, or Etruscans, or Christian? In the end, they became Romans all, and contributed to the Roman Cultural Heritage.

Unless you exclusively define Romans as those born in the City of Rome itself, which is quite a narrow definition.
 

Deleted member 114175

Lots of the Greek aspects of Roman culture were so old and divergent that they were basically original and Roman by that point. But then a renewed interest in Hellenic culture after the conquest of Magna Graecia, and then Greece, then Hellenistic cities in the Levant, reversed this and brought Roman cultural aspects back in line with Greek ones.
 
The Romans should make the Greeks Romans, so that the Greek innovations could become Roman innovations by default. And this happened. By 212 AD, all Greeks were Romans, and in due time, all Greeks came to see themselves as Romans. So does it really matter that the culture were once Greek, or Etruscans, or Christian? In the end, they became Romans all, and contributed to the Roman Cultural Heritage.

Firstly, that's a rather simplistic way of looking at things -- just because the Greeks were given Roman citizenship, it didn't make Greek culture the same as Roman culture. Even when the Greeks started calling themselves Romans, they still spoke Greek, educated their children with authors like Homer and Aristophanes rather than Virgil and Cicero, and viewed Latin-speakers as uncultured barbarians. In no meaningful cultural sense were they Romans.

Secondly, even if we do take the view that any innovation produced by someone with Roman citizenship counts as a Roman innovation, the Greek authors whom the Romans most liked to imitate dated back to well before AD 212. Not only that, but after the third century Greek dropped off the western curriculum, meaning that even educated Latins tended to have little or no Greek and the two cultures started diverging more.
 
It's no mystery that Rome liberally borrowed from other sources whatever they could get their hands on, from architectural and military innovations to artistic and literary forms; regarding art and literature, it often feels like Rome was so dependent on Greek models, it couldn't come up with anything truly theirs - sure, they were less creatively sterile than classical Sparta, but they seem to have shared something of Sparta's dour, military-centered ethos nonetheless, even though the ideal Roman citizen was (on paper) a peasant as well as a soldier.

What would have to happen in Rome's history, for its culture to become something that, while not overly dependent on Greek models (the Mediterranean being what it was, some amount of Greek influence was inevitable), could measure up to classical and Hellenistic standards nonetheless?

Part of the issue seems to be that Greek culture during the Archaic and Classical periods was more advanced than what the native Western Mediterranean societies had to offer, meaning that Greek culture became very prestigious and was consequently adopted far and wide. (Cf. how Roman culture would be adopted by the Germanic invaders a thousand years later.) So maybe develop an Italian culture of roughly equal artistic, literary, philosophical, etc., sophistication by the time the Greeks start sniffing around the Italian peninsula, and the peoples of Italy will see less need to adopt Greek ideas and artistic forms.
 
Firstly, that's a rather simplistic way of looking at things -- just because the Greeks were given Roman citizenship, it didn't make Greek culture the same as Roman culture. Even when the Greeks started calling themselves Romans, they still spoke Greek, educated their children with authors like Homer and Aristophanes rather than Virgil and Cicero, and viewed Latin-speakers as uncultured barbarians. In no meaningful cultural sense were they Romans.

Secondly, even if we do take the view that any innovation produced by someone with Roman citizenship counts as a Roman innovation, the Greek authors whom the Romans most liked to imitate dated back to well before AD 212. Not only that, but after the third century Greek dropped off the western curriculum, meaning that even educated Latins tended to have little or no Greek and the two cultures started diverging more.
Unless we say that the Roman Empire post 476 isn't really the Roman Empire, we can't say that the Greeks aren't Romans. Greeks and Romans are not mutually exclusive terms. In fact, if you called Late Romans Hellenes, they would insulted and insisted that they are Rhomaioi, or Romans. And who are we to tell them that they are wrong? Culturally, the late romans, even if they speak Greek, are as culturally Roman as the Romans of the time of Augustus. Because culture is not static. It is ever changing.

Simply put, it might be a simplistic way of looking at things, but that's because that's how it is.
 
Last edited:
Culturally, the late romans, even if they speak Greek, are as culturally Roman as the Romans of the time of Augustus. Because culture is not static. It is ever changing.

Except that the Roman culture of Augustus didn't change into the culture of Byzantium; their culture was a descendant of ancient Greece's, not of ancient Rome's. In fact, the Byzantines tended to consider Westerners -- the people whose culture did actually directly descend from that of Augustan Rome -- as a bunch of uncouth barbarians.

In fact, if you called Late Romans Hellenes, they would insulted and insisted that they are Rhomaioi, or Romans. And who are we to tell them that they are wrong?

For a time, that's true. But the term "Hellenes" came back into use during the early medieval period, when it no longer had connotations of following the pagan Greek religion.
 
It's no mystery that Rome liberally borrowed from other sources whatever they could get their hands on, from architectural and military innovations to artistic and literary forms; regarding art and literature, it often feels like Rome was so dependent on Greek models, it couldn't come up with anything truly theirs - sure, they were less creatively sterile than classical Sparta, but they seem to have shared something of Sparta's dour, military-centered ethos nonetheless, even though the ideal Roman citizen was (on paper) a peasant as well as a soldier.

What would have to happen in Rome's history, for its culture to become something that, while not overly dependent on Greek models (the Mediterranean being what it was, some amount of Greek influence was inevitable), could measure up to classical and Hellenistic standards nonetheless?
Maybe if Carthage and Rome got along better. Even after they destroyed Carthage the Romans had a lot of respect for Carthaginian agricultural techniques. If they'd ripped off Carthaginian farming skills the way they ripped off Etruscan sewer and water systems, from when Rome was small enough not to quarrel with a distant trading city, cultural aspects might have come with it. A very early Roman legion serving as a mercenaries for Carthage? Hannibal Imperator?
 
Except that the Roman culture of Augustus didn't change into the culture of Byzantium; their culture was a descendant of ancient Greece's, not of ancient Rome's. In fact, the Byzantines tended to consider Westerners -- the people whose culture did actually directly descend from that of Augustan Rome -- as a bunch of uncouth barbarians.

Not at all. They certainly believed their culture and people were superior -- that wasn't unusual, as both the Romans & Greeks believed so -- but that doesn't relegate everyone else to uncouth barbarians. Quoting De Administrando Imperio:

"...never shall an emperor of the Romans ally himself in marriage with a nation of customs differing from and alien to those of the Roman order, especially with one that is infidel and unbaptized, unless it be with the Franks alone; for they alone were excepted by that great man, the holy Constantine, because he himself drew his origin from those parts; for there is much relationship and converse between Franks and Romans. And why did he order that with them alone the emperors of the Romans should intermarry? Because of the traditional fame and nobility of those lands and races."

And this idea of "marrying only Franks" was quite loose as well, given that in the post-Macedonian period Byzantine Emperors made marital alliances with non-Frankish nations.

But the term "Hellenes" came back into use during the early medieval period, when it no longer had connotations of following the pagan Greek religion.

Right, but this seems to have been more of an eccentricity of the Constantinopolitan 'high' nobility. The idea of Hellene was still heavily identified with pagan, while Roman was identified as Christian; hence why there were rural people in the early 20th century who identified as Romans.
 
Right, but this seems to have been more of an eccentricity of the Constantinopolitan 'high' nobility. The idea of Hellene was still heavily identified with pagan, while Roman was identified as Christian; hence why there were rural people in the early 20th century who identified as Romans.

That's a matter of semantic change ("Hellene" going from designating a nationality to a religion), not of cultural shift (Greeks adopting Roman culture).
 
It's no mystery that Rome liberally borrowed from other sources whatever they could get their hands on, from architectural and military innovations to artistic and literary forms; regarding art and literature, it often feels like Rome was so dependent on Greek models, it couldn't come up with anything truly theirs - sure, they were less creatively sterile than classical Sparta, but they seem to have shared something of Sparta's dour, military-centered ethos nonetheless, even though the ideal Roman citizen was (on paper) a peasant as well as a soldier.

What would have to happen in Rome's history, for its culture to become something that, while not overly dependent on Greek models (the Mediterranean being what it was, some amount of Greek influence was inevitable), could measure up to classical and Hellenistic standards nonetheless?
So what if Roman High Culture had been more Etruscan ?
 
Top