WI: Rome became Spiritual

bellamy-salute00.jpg


What if Rome, or rather the aspect of being "Roman" took on a spiritual connotation during the time of the Republic and Empire to point where being "Roman" was similar to the pseduo-spiritual/volkish nature of being French, Russian or German during the age of nationalism.

Could the Empire cope with an earlier rise of ethno-nationalism from its most enfranchised citizenry?

Would see see "Romans" (people who could genelogically claim descendancy from those of antiquity) around today if this occurred.
 
This was Rome was like very early on in its history. It had its spiritual connectionn to local deities, and their temples and temple societies, priests, Foundation myth etc.

As Rome became the centre of an Italian, later Mediterranean empire, all These traditions slowly withered.

Staunchly clinging to them would have brought the downfall: it would have excluded others from Romanising, it would have meant an ultimate defeat in the Socii Wars aat the latest.

Towards the end, the Empire got a new spiritual dimension, with Rome seen as the centre of Christianity.

I'm not quite sure how Rome could have transited more directly from local spirituality to universal, but Rome-centered spirituality.
 
Are you asking for an empire wide Roman identity, or one basically limited to Latin = Roman with everyone else just being provincial subjects? The former was true for most of the imperial, era, while the latter was true until Rome grew too big for that to be feasible. I.e., really the social war.
 
Are you asking for an empire wide Roman identity, or one basically limited to Latin = Roman with everyone else just being provincial subjects? The former was true for most of the imperial, era, while the latter was true until Rome grew too big for that to be feasible. I.e., really the social war.

Your latter proposition.

A strong ethno-nationalism around a genealogically defined "Roman" identity (which I assume would have to be tied to ethnic Latins of the Italian peninsula)

Would Rome survive as an empire if some ground swell (similar to the strength of nationalism in the 19th and 20th century) occurred during the imperial period?
 
Would Rome survive as an empire if some ground swell (similar to the strength of nationalism in the 19th and 20th century) occurred during the imperial period?

It`s quite possible.

For me, one of the many reasons of the downfall of (western) Rome was, that the people of Rome weren`t as militaristic anymore as their predecessors.
Think about it....during the Punic wars, a much smaller Rome with a much smaller population lost the Battle of the Trebia, lost the Battle of the Trasimenian Lake, lost the battle of Cannae...alone at Cannae 80.000 roman soldiers died. But NEVER did they consider to surrender. They just armed more and more of their population. With other words: Most romans were willing to fight and die for Rome.

By contrast, in the fifth century, the roman army was dominated by barbarians (partly romanized, but still) and most romans who lived in italy didn`t really show the will to fight and die for rome anymore. Italy (and even spain and gaul) were still densely populated by romans, but where did the hundreds of thousands of roman soldiers go? I mean even in the fourth century there were signs of weakness already....in the battle of adrianople (378) Rome lost 20.000 soldiers and it is labelled as a defeat which weakened the empire tremendously....on the other hand....20.000 soldiers, that`s only a fourth of the army a much smaller Rome lost at Cannae!

What changed the roman mentality so dramatically? Was it christianity? Was it the decadence of hundreds of years? Was it the loss of republican values?
 
Last edited:
Your latter proposition.

A strong ethno-nationalism around a genealogically defined "Roman" identity (which I assume would have to be tied to ethnic Latins of the Italian peninsula)

Would Rome survive as an empire if some ground swell (similar to the strength of nationalism in the 19th and 20th century) occurred during the imperial period?

That can't realistically happen. The Italians were not going to subject themselves to only being Romans subjects with none of their voting rights etc. At the very least, Rome has to have an Italian identity, and then once you do that, there's no reason not to expand it to the provinces. You have to keep Rome small, not much larger than Italy, for this to work.
 
It`s quite possible.

For me, one of the many reasons of the downfall of (western) Rome was, that the people of Rome weren`t as militaristic anymore as their predecessors.
This is fundamentally untrue. The empire suffered from manpower problems, but that was due to a myriad of things including plague and the rise of neo-serfdom. Pound for pound, a late imperial soldier could mop the floor with a soldier from the Augustan age.
Think about it....during the Punic wars, a much smaller Rome with a much smaller population lost the Battle of the Trebia, lost the Battle of the Trasimenian Lake, lost the battle of Cannae...alone at Cannae 80.000 roman soldiers died. But NEVER did they consider to surrender. They just armed more and more of their population. With other words: Most romans were willing to fight and die for Rome.
See, this isn't entirely true. Rome had many more landowners in that era, and land was not concentrated in the hands of the vast latifundia of the elite. Rome was already feeling the effects of the lack of landowners by the 2nd and 1st centuries, hence the change to a professional soldiery. The problem, as I understand it with the rise of semi-serfdom, after the plagues and population devastation of the 3rd and early 4th century, manpower was a precious commodity for landowners. They didn't want their tenants working the land to be sent off to war-then they wouldn't be working the land. So in general, the empire didn't have as much of a manpower base to draw from as the Republic did.

By contrast, in the fifth century, the roman army was dominated by barbarians (partly romanized, but still)
Not any moreso than they had been for centuries. Half of a Roman army was always made up of non-Roman allies. The Roman armies were no more barbarized in the 5th century than they were in the 2nd century.
and most romans who lived in italy didn`t really show the will to fight and die for rome anymore. Italy (and even spain and gaul) were still densely populated by romans, but where did the hundreds of thousands of roman soldiers go?
Once again, you get to the latifundia. Plus the fact that AFAIK, Italians had been exempted from serving in the army since Augustus.

I mean even in the fourth century there were signs of weakness already....in the battle of adrianople (378) Rome lost 20.000 soldiers and it is labelled as a defeat which weakened the empire tremendously....on the other hand....20.000 soldiers, that`s only a fourth of the army a much smaller Rome lost at Cannae!
Again, population. You seriously underestimate the demographic effects of the plagues and climate change of the 3rd century. Then there's also something I haven't touched on: the Roman army in the 4th century was actually much larger than it had ever been. But it had many more commitments, particularly in the east, which required mass expense of money and manpower to garrison fortresses and defend against the Sassanians, something that wasn't necessary in the 1st or 2nd centuries, when Rome's enemy was the relatively weak and decentralized Parthian Empire. Rome in the 2nd century BC could pool all their manpower and throw them against a single enemy. Rome in the fourth and fifth centuries had commitments against highly organized opponents on all fronts-In Britain, along the Rhine, along the Danube, and in the east. Combine that with the lack of available manpower, and a loss of 20,000 men is very hard to replace.



So in short, the Romans did not become any less militaristic in the late empire. They just combined increasingly strong and organized foes and commitnents all frontiers, along with a general lack of manpower. Internecine civil war draining more soldiers didn't help much either I suppose. But I'll reiterate, a comitatense in the 4th century was a far better soldier pound for pound than his Pax Romana era counterpart.
 
@Desert Fox

I thank you very much for your input, that was really valuable information.

Although I still think that the mentality of the Romans changed between let`s say 220 BC and 350 AD.

You say structural changes (like latifundia, a decrease of population and serfdom) were a big part of the problem. You also mention that Italians didn`t have to go to war anymore. I think you are right, these are some of the reasons for the "weakness" of the roman army.
But structural changes always affect the mentality. It is the existence that determines the consciousness. If the Italians weren`t required to go to war anymore for centuries, if the owners of the latifundia didn`t allow their serfs to go to war, then it`s no miracle that the people of Italy/the serfs became more peaceful or at least weren`t as eager to go to war as before.

When I look e.g. at Germany, a country which was extremely militaristic 80 years ago and is pretty much pacifistic now, I can see how fast a mentality can change. While I don`t want to compare Germany with the Roman Empire, my point stands: Mentality changes are possible if the structures change.


Personally I believe the western Roman Empire ceased to exist because of a combination of all these things: Change of mentality, decrease of population, worse economy, plagues, stronger and numerous enemies, other structural changes (like the latifundia /serf thing), barbarization of the army (while it`s true that the empire always employed allied troops, it was at least uncommon that they held the top positions in the army IIRC), climate changes
 
Last edited:
Sly Desert Fox has it right indeed.
But, Ilairen, your point about mentality change is true, too, and it fits the probable mindset of a society with a small elite and a large disenfranchised populace: Late Roman (but not only Roman...) society is often ascribed a culture of fatalism and millennarianism, of religious quest, of asceticism and various other tendencies which are more otherworldly and less hands-on and defiant.
Also, of course a Roman state which has become an overstrained, hollow frame for the maintenance of privileges cannot complain if its citizens welcome Germanic invaders, which is what really happened in some places.
 
Would Rome survive as an empire if some ground swell (similar to the strength of nationalism in the 19th and 20th century) occurred during the imperial period?

Actually the romans were pretty nationalistic, but not in the sense of the 19th century; and definately not fascistic. Actually they have been world champion in integration, which is the opposite.

Without that, the roman empire would never have grown beyond the Tiber. They started with this strategy during the conquest of Latium. Without that, it would have been impossible to grow to such an extent. Integration was the critical success factor of the romans. A fully new approach, unknown in the ancient world. In the 2nd century AD the majority of the roman elite and the legionaries were provincial romans with roots outside of Italy. So no way, you can alter this strategy in the imperial period. It would perhaps immediately lead to the collapse of the empire.

One major reason most historians list for the Fall of Rome is, that the romans finally failed to manage the mass integration which came with the "Völkerwanderung". If they just would have done better with the Goths, like they somewhat did with the Franks, history would have gone fully different. So more and better integration is needed, not more nationalism.
 
Last edited:
@Desert Fox

I thank you very much for your input, that was really valuable information.
Thanks, yours as well. Always enjoyable to have a friendly Roman Empire discussion!

You say structural changes (like latifundia, a decrease of population and serfdom) were a big part of the problem. You also mention that Italians didn`t have to go to war anymore. I think you are right, these are some of the reasons for the "weakness" of the roman army.
Well I may be wrong on the Italians not have to serve in the army, so I'm gonna hold off on addressing that for the moment.

But structural changes always affect the mentality. It is the existence that determines the consciousness. If the Italians weren`t required to go to war anymore for centuries, if the owners of the latifundia didn`t allow their serfs to go to war, then it`s no miracle that the people of Italy/the serfs became more peaceful or at least weren`t as eager to go to war as before.
Well that's the thing. The owners of the latifundia were perfectly willing for the Romans to go to war. It was in their best interests to have a Roman military that was able to protect their assets, which simply could not be moved, as you can not just move your land somewhere else. The problem was they also wanted to protect their capital, the tenants, who made their estates productive. And, to an extent, there's some logic in this: The Roman military cannot just recruit every poor sob that can carry a sword. Those men need to work the farms to provide for the army and the empire as a whole. Now, the Romans were able to recruit the necessary men needed to fully service their much enlarged army. The problem though creates itself: Plague and devastation from the third century hurting population centers---->Massive increase in army size to protect frontiers against foreign raiders and empires who are devastating the land ------>Manpower shortages when the time comes to replace troops lost -----> Problems in funding the army and the machinery of the state.

Basically, the Romans had a population devastated by climate change, war, and plague, that had to support a massively enlarged army and an increased tax burden. That's a recipe for a whole host of problems.

Now, even the manpower shortage was not an insurmountable problem for most of this time. As long as blows were not successive and few and far between, the empire could contain the situation and then recover their strength. Even if there were blows in quick succession, as long as they were contained, the situation could be salvaged without much fanfare. A perfect example of this is the Goths before and after Adrianople. They were devastating the Balkans, but never posed any serious threat-they could be contained inside the Balkans, blocked off at strategic passes, and kept at bay by the walls of the major cities in the region.

But what happens when all these things come together, like it did for the Western Roman Empire? The WRE suffered horrible losses in two successive and ruinous civil wars against Theodosius. Then they dealt with Radagaisus threatening Italy. Then, at the same time, they were hit with a New Year's eve crossing of the Rhine occuring almost simultaneously with a usurper moving into Gaul from Britain, preventing any serious action to be taken to contain the barbarian tribes crossing over, and, ultimately, allowing them to break into Spain. From there they dealt with a civil war, the death of Constantius III on the cusp of restoring the situation, two more civil wars, and the conquest of Africa by the Vandals coming as a direct result of the depletion of North African forces in Bonifacius's civil war with Aetius.

So in a span of 30 years the empire was dealt blow after blow, with tragedy striking at the most inopportune of times. Their major recruiting base, Gaul, was placed into turmoil. Their other major recruiting base, Illyricum, was given over to Theodosius by Gratian after Adrianople. Their two major money producing regions, North Africa and Hispania, were out of their control. North Africa was also the breadbasket of the western empire, dealing the western empire another bad blow.

Structural problems perhaps allowed this to happen but the immediate cause of the fall of the WRE was incredibly bad luck at the worst possible time.




When I look e.g. at Germany, a country which was extremely militaristic 80 years ago and is pretty much pacifistic now, I can see how fast a mentality can change. While I don`t want to compare Germany with the Roman Empire, my point stands: Mentality changes are possible if the structures change.


Personally I believe the western Roman Empire ceased to exist because of a combination of all these things: Change of mentality, decrease of population, worse economy, plagues, stronger and numerous enemies, other structural changes (like the latifundia /serf thing), barbarization of the army (while it`s true that the empire always employed allied troops, it was at least uncommon that they held the top positions in the army IIRC), climate changes

Yet when I look at the Eastern Roman Empire, I don't see an incredibly militaristic outlook on foreign policy. The emperors after Theodosius until Justin were mostly controlled by the civil administration in Constantinople, where the opposite is true in the west, where the empire was controlled by the military officers. There is a great book that I read on Byzantine foreign policy, "The Grand Strategy of The Byzantine Empire" ( I highly recommend it, it's at the very least a fantastic summary of Byzantine foreign policy throughout Byzantium's existence). The ERE's foreign policy, particularly after Adrianople, was entirely based on skilled diplomacy. We first see this with Theodosius's deal with the Goths, and then especially with Eutropius's attempts to push Alaric west. It's repeated throughout Byzantine history. Attila was placated with gold simultaneously while ERE envoys tried to assassinate, or bribe others to assassinate, him. When new threats appeared on the Danube, the Byzantine emperor would play the tribes beyond the Danube off each other, often contacting the next furthest group and persuading them to attack their immediate enemies around the Balkans.

Tl;dr the entire Byzantine strategy was predicated on the idea that militarism is not necessarily the best strategy for survival. There's nothing militaristic about defeating your enemies by getting others to do the battle for you. Since the 4th century, they had to consider defeating their enemies while preserving their manpower, and they survived for quite some time with this strategy.


No, they weren't.
Not before Augustus, not during his time and not after him.

Huh, really?

EDIT: So I just looked this up. While you are technically correct, according to this, Italians only made up under 10% of the Roman military. Though, admittedly, that probably has more to do with a greater use of provincials in the army than some special treatment of Italians.
 
Sly Desert Fox.

Thank you for educating me.

Triple that :D
:D
Sly Desert Fox has it right indeed.
But, Ilairen, your point about mentality change is true, too, and it fits the probable mindset of a society with a small elite and a large disenfranchised populace: Late Roman (but not only Roman...) society is often ascribed a culture of fatalism and millennarianism, of religious quest, of asceticism and various other tendencies which are more otherworldly and less hands-on and defiant.
Also, of course a Roman state which has become an overstrained, hollow frame for the maintenance of privileges cannot complain if its citizens welcome Germanic invaders, which is what really happened in some places.
How much of this though is projection from future historians, who already knew/know the outcome, onto the Roman populace, rather than the true attitudes of the time though.
 
Are you asking for an empire wide Roman identity, or one basically limited to Latin = Roman with everyone else just being provincial subjects? The former was true for most of the imperial, era, while the latter was true until Rome grew too big for that to be feasible. I.e., really the social war.
After the Social Wars I'd say. The Aeneid ties "Latinity" and even being Ifalian, intrinsically with a Roman identity. However, if Rome continues to expand it's going to need to bring the provincials into the fold or collapse. The best they can do is make learning Latin a requirement for citizenship, but that's no guarantee of ethnic nationalist unity.
 
Top