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.

Quite agree! This isn't the "History Channel" after all. As to Christianity being Roman, I'm afraid I still disagree. It was alien to Roman rule, historical roots, culture or religious belief. It grew up inspite of Roman rule not because of it, and was a counter culture, persecuted for 300 years at times ruthlesly. Christians were in conflict with Rome who worshipped the Emperor as a deity in his own right. You can claim that the institutionalisation of christianity as a state religion was a uniquely Roman invention though. The adoption of christianity as the official roman religion by Constantine was an exact replacement of old pagan deities with a new Christian one. Every thing was the same, except the name and exact manner of worshipping the God. The new Christian God was meant to guarantee the success of the Roman state, bless its armies, protect it from its enemies in exactly the same way as the earlier gods were meant to. They had a nasty shock when Alaric sacked Rome, and caused a massive crises of faith throughout the empire. Saint Augustus wrote his best work on the back of the incident in which he wrestled the concept of God away from a paradigm of a Roman god who existed to protect and serve the Roman empire. The christian God had never offered to defend anyone's empires.

I don't know if it was the best period for the Roman empire in any sense of the word, but the point when I most cheered a Roman army and felt moved was when Aetius led an assembled Roman army, made up of hastily arranged alliances with large Visigoth tribes who had previously been enemies to confront the invasion of Attila the Hun in 447. Attila had swept across northern France and had hithero been undefeated and unbeatable. He was creul and vicious, and the empire was in great fear. Aetius was a gifted Roman general who was trying to hold the empire together whilst the emperor was just a child, Valentiniun 111. He was a brilliant strategist and he led his army and stopped Atilla at Chalons, racing to get there before Atilla, so he could seize the higher slopes to his advantage. Atilla attacked and was repulsed with heavy losses. So shocked was Atilla to actally loose a battle that he demanded his troops kill him and burn him on a pire, but they refused. He sloped back up north and eastward, with Aetius tracking him from a distance, resisting calls from his advisors to go after Atilla. Aetius knew that if he lost the whole empire would fall and it was too much to risk. He did the right thing because Atilla retreated to lick his wounds, take a bride the year after and then died of a heart attack on his wedding night. Nasty piece of work that he was. This battle/campaign was truely the first world war, because it was built up of alliances on both sides from large tribal groups across Europe, from Spain to the Baltics. It would make an amazing film. I think Aetius was an amazing hero, but if I am not mistaken he was eventually killed by a jealous emperor who feared his popularity! Power battles between emperors were like watching power battles between the Mafia today. The fastest way to an early grave was to try to become emperor, or even be sucessful and popular enough to be a threat.

Caesar Novus, I have a different view of the Roman empire to you. I indeed see it as a early - maybe even the original - fascist dictatorship. It had many of the nasty hallmarks of the 20th century Fascist ideologies that looked back to empires like the Roman one for inspiration. For example, it was led by a big deified personality who weilded absolute power and who used public budgets to build massive buildings and statues everywhere in crude propaganda to his greatness and that of the empire. Have you seen the monuments built celebrating the massacres and the enslavement of conquored peoples? Their foreign policy was purely intended to expand the emperor's power and wealth, and they didn't mind a spot of genocide if it was necesary to grab resources. It believed in the inate superiority of the Roman over the Barbarian, almost a racism (even though Roman citizenship was made up of a wide mixture of tribes and origins). It was a militaristic society, with little discourse around human rights, although the propertied classes enjoyed some civil rights and some protection from the justice system. It was a society where the collective ruled over the individual. All of these are characteristics of fascist totalitarian dictatorships. I would suggest that whether being alive in the Roman empire was a great thing depended on who you were in that empire. I'm interested in the status of slaves, but I doubt that being a Roman slave was a lot of fun. I think most people who were not rich land owners probably had quite a tough life, and it would make paying Obama's health reform taxes look like a very reasonable proposition from a quasi paradisical civilisation that one couldn't even dream about under Roman rule.

Thanks Kosmos, I agree with you, with maybe the exception pointed out by Princeps about Christianity. This came out of Judaism rather than Roman culture. The idea of a Christian State came uniquely from Constantine and the jury is still out in my view as to whether this was a good thing or not. I definately think that the post Roman empire and the competivity that it bred became an environment for greater innovation and social change than had ever been available under Roman rule, whether this was in the Carolingian Empire or any other fiefdom.

I would like to ask others to comment on this theory that I have had since reading a number of books on the Roman empire which I have never heard expressed anywhere else before. Traditionally we look back at the Roman empire with a certain amount of admiration and see it as a high point in social organisation, achievement and civilisation (in the broad sense of the world). The classic view is that the fall of the Roman empire was a catastrope for western civilisation and caused the onset of the "dark ages" which were dominated by fiefdoms, religious oppression, instability, economic difficulty and lack of learning. I'd like to propose that the Roman empire had reached a technological and social plateau for hundreds of years which actually blocked change, and blocked advancement - culturally, socially, economically and intellectually. The reason why I have come to this conclusion is that when I scan the entire length of the Western empire (and the same thing is true of the Eastern empire which lasted much longer in the form of the Byzantine empire), I don't see a society in evolution, in growth and development. In fact it appears to be a sterile empire from that point of view. This is what I mean - can anyone think of any intellectual movements of thought that emerged from the Romans? Any great cultural works of art that have been worth noting after the fall of the republic? (One could of course argue that Roman art took the form of great buildings and monuments, but personally I think that is like pointing to the statues of any other great dictator and claiming this to be art. It was usually crude propaganda, even though admittedly there was great craft in the buildings). Any radical political ideas or discourse that evolved post the onset of empire? Any great advances in medicine, in science that weren't linked to military conquest or engineering works built for the agrandisment of the emperor? Can anyone think of great Roman philosophers, or any renown centres of Roman learning? The only great thinker after the fall of the republic I can think of was Augustus, but can anyone name any others? (Thats not a rhetorical question, I would be interested to know). When I review the Roman period it seems to me that they had clever engineering for their public buildings which were the most advanced in the world at the time, and great discipline and organisation militarily. They had a developed administration and legal system which seemed to function quiet effectively. Apart from these three areas I can't think of any great other really achievements. In fact I would go further and suggest that under the Roman empire there was little impetus for development. Most of the public works had been sponsored directly by the emperor, which seemed to be the main driver for new building projects, but this flagged if the emperor wasn't interested or too busy staying alive, or fighting wars. So what we see is an period of rule that lasts for nearly 1000 years which is a very stable plateau of knowledge and technology because the main driver for investment in this was the state itself, and namely the emperor. So, if we asked what would Europe look like today if the Romans had maintained their hegenomy for another 1000 years? I would suggest that - all things being equal (which they are not) - we would never have developed the innovative, dynamic, technologically advanced society we have today - socially, politically, economically and technologically. Today we have more innovation and change take place in one month than the Romans had in 300 years. I would suggest that the break up of the roman empire allowed divergent social and political communities to emerge, competing with each other, which had to adapt and change to survive. In that fall were the seeds of the rebirth of western civilisation - which didn't truely kick off until the renaissance. But by then there were enough new drivers in society to drive change - centres of learning, patronage by nobility, states vying for power, business models emerging, trade as a driver for social change etc. Through this period/process we eventualy developed a discourse around human rights and political rights which the republic had in nascent form but which had been crushed by empire. It is true that we had to rediscover the things that the Romans had had to get there, but the Romans having all of that never used it to go anywhere else, and thats the point. I'd be very interested to hear what others think of this perspective.