wryobserver

http://www.joezias.com/CrucifixionAntiquity.html Unless I am misreading comments above, there is indeed other archeological evidence of the practice of crucifixion in Judea than that suggested and cited above, and it was evidently also used much more commonly that is being suggested above. Not sure whether the comments above are entirely historically objective.

Thanks for those two interesting perspectives. I find Paul's position pretty curious. Does anyone have a good insight into the rights of women in Roman times? Thanks

If you look at the military of Belisarius, it is clear that the Roman army had adapted to changing conditions. They had upgraded their horse archers, for example, along Hunnic lines. barca, Hmmm, so they copied some techniques? That is hardly innovation. The Huns did the same, in copying Roman siege tactics for scaling walls, but we wouldn't argue that the Huns were in any way a technologically innovative society. They managed to wrestle with the Huns by making alliances with former enemies and bringing them into the fray on their side. The fact is that the Hunnic empire just fell apart when Atilla died suddenly of a heart attack. They were never defeated by the Romans. But they did enough damage to leave the empire fatally exposed to its Germanic enemies, who easily pressed home their advantages in Tunis, seizing Cathage and the grain baskets of the empire.

Slavery has got a bad name. But its been around for a long time. I have always been intrigued by the attitude to slaves and slavery in that Roman text called the New Testament, written by a Roman citizen by birth, Paul. In the NT slaves were encouraged to serve their masters faithfully, and not to rebel. Indeed Paul sends one slave who converted back to his christian master with a letter recommending that he look after his new slave brother as becomes a christian. So it wasn't just a mark of pagans to own slaves in 1st century roman society. Christians did it too, and there was no expectation that one would necessarily set one's slave free! Paul did however urge slaves to obtain their freedom if they could. All this clashes brusquely today with our modern perspective, where we have grown up with a strong value for equality, freedom and inate human rights, and where our last great historical example of slave trading involved horrific brutality and racism which we rightly find repugnant. We can ask ourselves how could christian thinkers have ever been tolerant of slavery? So I'm intrigued by the Roman idea of the slave and whether this was any different to the status and treatment that was meted out to black African slaves by white Europeans in the 18th century and beyond. What was the social institution of slavery like under Roman rule and what would life have been like as a slave? Were there any redeeming features that made slavery less morally reprehensible than we assume it be today?

I agree by and large. I'd say the fatal flaw of Rome was its relative lack of social mobility. Progress comes from people trying to make things better. Technology is developed by someone wanting to make money and fix a problem. That didn't happen much in Rome, as there were two kinds of peopls... rich patricians who had no motivation for doing so, and poor plebes who had no ability to be rewarded for it, and lacked education to do it anyway. Not to mention the fact that the conquests and wars of Rome produced a massive quantity of cheap slaves, to the point where even the relatively modest man could own one or more, really did not put labor saving devices at a premium, as they weren't doing the labor anyway. You can make the argument that much of the techonolgical innovation in the West arose from the bulbonic plague. There weren't enough people left to work the fields, so better methods had to be devided. Necessity being the mother of invention and all. Yes I think that's a very good point - western development was helped by the rise of a bourgeois, mercantile class who were social upwardly mobile. We saw very little innovation in medieval and feudal Europe where the landed aristocracy ruled, and lower classes were kept in feudal bondage to their lords. In one sense Rome was pretty similarly socially constructed. Unless you were born into the land owning classes, you either made it by trade or by military success in the army and were able to retire off early with a nice pension. Not much social mobility there. Not many drivers for innovation in that social structure either. Thanks for the commentry

I agree by and large. I'd say the fatal flaw of Rome was its relative lack of social mobility. Progress comes from people trying to make things better. Technology is developed by someone wanting to make money and fix a problem. That didn't happen much in Rome, as there were two kinds of peopls... rich patricians who had no motivation for doing so, and poor plebes who had no ability to be rewarded for it, and lacked education to do it anyway. Not to mention the fact that the conquests and wars of Rome produced a massive quantity of cheap slaves, to the point where even the relatively modest man could own one or more, really did not put labor saving devices at a premium, as they weren't doing the labor anyway. You can make the argument that much of the techonolgical innovation in the West arose from the bulbonic plague. There weren't enough people left to work the fields, so better methods had to be devided. Necessity being the mother of invention and all. Yes I think that's a very good point - western development was helped by the rise of a bourgeoisie, mercantile class who were social upwardly mobile. We saw very little innovation in medieval and feudal Europe where the landed aristocracy ruled, and lower classes were kept in feudal bondage to their lords. In one sense Rome was pretty similarly socially constructed. Unless you were born into the land owning classes, you either made it by trade or by military success in the army and were able to retire off early with a nice pension. Not much social mobility there. Not many drivers for innovation in that social structure either. Thanks for the commentry

I agree by and large. I'd say the fatal flaw of Rome was its relative lack of social mobility. Progress comes from people trying to make things better. Technology is developed by someone wanting to make money and fix a problem. That didn't happen much in Rome, as there were two kinds of peopls... rich patricians who had no motivation for doing so, and poor plebes who had no ability to be rewarded for it, and lacked education to do it anyway. Not to mention the fact that the conquests and wars of Rome produced a massive quantity of cheap slaves, to the point where even the relatively modest man could own one or more, really did not put labor saving devices at a premium, as they weren't doing the labor anyway. You can make the argument that much of the techonolgical innovation in the West arose from the bulbonic plague. There weren't enough people left to work the fields, so better methods had to be devided. Necessity being the mother of invention and all. Yes I think that's a very good point - western development was helped by the rise of a bourgeoisie, mercantile class who were social upwardly mobile. We saw very little innovation in medieval and feudal Europe where the landed aristocracy ruled, and lower classes were kept in feudal bondage to their lords. In one sense Rome was pretty similarly socially constructed. Unless you were born into the land owning classes, you either made it by trade or by military success in the army and were able to retire off early with a nice pension. Not much social mobility there. Not many drivers for innovation in that social structure either. Thanks for the commentry

Thanks abvgd for that facinating and analytical reflection on the question. You sound like someone who has studied the roman period academically, and know more about the social history of the latter period than I do. Your thesis that there was a growing western acculturation is interesting and indicates some growth and development that may have been promising if given enough time. What do you think though were the major drivers of technological progress in the West, do you see evidence of them in Roman Europe? My reading of the empire was that the main drivers for technological progress in Rome were patronage by the emperor or local civic authorities. This seemed to wane and rise on the individual emperor. Even their universities didn't focus too much more than training the ruling elite to read and write immaculate latin. Conversly, the way western civilisation grew and developed in the end was through economic and political competition, vying military power and ambitions, social change creating a merchantile class, and a wealthy nobility which favoured patronage of artists and thinkers, as well as improved communication (printing press). Interestingly the reanaissance grew up in Italy itself, which was the ground of those early Roman ancestors, but not in anyway resembling the political and social and economic world of Rome. For me the clue is right there. Had Roman rule remained in place and not radically changed its formation, I see very limited scope for the kind of growth that we saw in the 1400s. Perhaps some incremental improvement, but no major revolution.

Saudi Arabia?

Thanks Bryaxis Hecatee, Awesome post. Really interesting points. I'll have to read that book. Many thanks.

I understand your point, but why did it have to take so long for Europe to emerge from the so-called "dark ages"? There was no dark age when the Hellenistic Empires fell to the Romans. In fact Roman rule gave them a political stability that the Greeks never experienced before. There were certainly advances in philosophy, literature, art, and medicine (Galen) under Roman rule. The Germanic tribes lived side by side with the Romans for hundeds of years. You would think that they would have acquired some Romaness, just as the Romans aquired Greekness, but when the Germans finally took over the Western side of the empire they didn't have the same effect that the Romans had on the Greeks. What legacy did the Germans leave us? Well finally in the 19th century Germany became a world class power thanks to Bismark. What did this lead to? 2 world wars and a lot of death and destruction. I think the reason why the Germanic tribes didn't establish a stable new order in Europe is because they were just a bunch of large disperate competing tribal groups with tribal leaders. Their leadership structure evolved into kings, and nobles, which was never a stable concoction. The romans has establishes a strong governance structure that was largely uniform across the western empire. It is true that they seemed to depart from romanness and form their own unique style of governance and culture. What can you expect from barbarians??? I expect that the germanic tribes were utterly unroman in culture, and any alliances they had were very uneasy political alliances. Romans never really accepted these Barbarians even when they became significant roman leaders and generals.

Hi Decimus, Yes, I agree with your first point. Re the second I guess my point is that the stability and sameness of the 900 + years of roman rule in the western empire is an indication that they wouldn't, that and the fact that the seeds of radical new innovation were just not there in the social and political life of the empire. My view would be that something like a political and social revolution would have been required to change that, which admitedly is theoretically possible, but it hadn't happened in 900 + years. I don't see the Roman empire as an adaptive society.

No, I think thats an unfair characterisation. The argument is not that they weren't 21st century enough in their ambitions and innovation. That would be historicism. I wouldn't expect them to think like us or have our culture. The point is that the roman empire was perhaps much more technologically and culturally sterile than we have given it credit for. It was a force for technological stagnancy rather than invention, and if it hadn't fallen we'd have been stuck at much the same level. They had nearly 1000 years and didn't really change a great deal. The political system did not create conditions for technological growth, except in very limited areas. Where were the great roman writers and thinkers even? Had they been more innovative they might have found solutions for the Hunnic invasions and the Teutonic tribes that they had to face. I see it as a great big military and administrative machine. But not one that seemed to grow and adapt a great deal during its history.

Greek kinds of democracy. I have always had a problem with idea of Greece as the birthplace of democracy, maybe the idea yes. But in Ancient Greece who had the freedom to vote, to actually Do.. Completely agree, it was never universal suffrage. But even our own model of democracy is very recent historically too. In 18th century Europe most men couldn't vote, let alone women. One could critique the extent to which modern democracies really are democratic anyway, once you start to examine the role of corporate interests in determining the selection of candidates, the political agendas, election funding and exten to which elected representatives are allowed to go politically to implement their policies. Most democractic governments in the west run for the benefit of rich corporate institutions more than the demos. But back to Greece - each island was different and had a different political structure. The concept of democracy was Athenian and as you indicate, class and gendre based only. Go south to Sparta and the Greeks were even more militaristic, macho, and fascist than the Romans had ever been. That was probably the nastiest society that we have on record. No sign of democracy there. I am not sure how developed democratic ideals were in the Roman Republic, but I think they were extremely nascient at that time. They did have a balance of powers and revolving ruler system, with a seperate house of wise senators (men) who wielded soft power. Caesar wiped all that away at a stroke though, basing his political power on his military force. His armies were loyal to him and were prepared to kill and wipe out other roman armies to protect him. The strong man won. A few senators were no match for him.

Caesar Novus, I wasn't defining the domestic political programme of fascism, I was drawing some key similarities between fascist ideology and the roman empire. I wasn't talking about one particular fascist leader either, but the four fascist movements in 1930s Europe which all had several characteristics in common. And if you wanted a 20th century parallel with the roman political system I would suggest that it is closer to facism than an yother model that we have to hand today. The various empires of 19th Europe were not heavily militaristic, ruled by one man, dictatorships, dominated by the cult of personality, rule of the collective good over the individual good, although they were all imbibed with an inate sense of their own cultural/racial superiority. I live in the heart of ex Roman territory, in Southern Gaul. Twenty minutes from here you can see the most complete roman colliseum in the world, the greatest Roman aqueduct surviving today, roman fortresses, complete roman temples, and entire roman towns that have been excavated, along with its Arc of Triumph. I used to love this Roman stuff, and whilst I am still in awe of it, I have come to realise that this was a nasty macho, testosterone feuled empire that was publishing its own ego where it went. If I could work out how to load up photos i'd show you guys some of the examples I am talking about. For some reason I am not permitted to do that here. Do I have to pay for that or something? Anyway, I think we need to reappraise how we see the Roman empire.