What made Rome Rome?

[The Kiat]

It was full of Romans!

 

[Horgus]

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)?

Bunch of hogwash. The 'oriental' and largely Hellenized Byzantine Empire that was the spiritual and political successor of the Roman Imperial legacy lasted for a thousand years, and was able to disprove that tired old (and racist) notion of certain 'races' being superior by virtue of age, through its durability and staying power.

I don't think anyone would call Nicephorus Phocas, John Tzimiskes, or Basil II 'decadent' or suspiciously 'oriental' and effete.

 

[Nikephoros]

Bunch of hogwash. The 'oriental' and largely Hellenized Byzantine Empire that was the spiritual and political successor of the Roman Imperial legacy lasted for a thousand years, and was able to disprove that tired old (and racist) notion of certain 'races' being superior by virtue of age, through its durability and staying power.

I don't think anyone would call Nicephorus Phocas, John Tzimiskes, or Basil II 'decadent' or suspiciously 'oriental' and effete.

Pardon me if I seem to put words in your mouth. I'm not entirely sure he means that Greeks and "Orientals" were decadent. I think he is actually referring to the Roman views of them. Besides, Nikephoros Phocas, John Tzimiskes, and Basil II believed themselves to be Romans anyways. By the end of the Western Empire, all important members of the provincial aristocracy considered themselves Romans.

 

[Flocculencio]

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)

Another good point- thanks once again. I think I do need to go investigate the developments around the time of Sulla in more detail.

 

[Cythia]

Rome is Rome because Remus lost the fight.

 

[EvolvedSaurian]

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

Senones under Brennus in Urbs Roma really messed with the psyche of Rome, paranoia galore. Then they went a-conquering, which created more threats for them to be paranoid about... And you see how this goes?

The whole point of expansion was to keep the City itself safe, by repelling or conquering the 'barbarians'.