Define Roman

[Ursus]

Most of us would agree that "Roman" is a cultural rather than genetic designation.

 

 

If that be so, how do we define those central cultural traits? What makes a Roman a Roman?

[Segestan]

Roman ......?

 

Like all great Kingdoms , Democracies and Republics; it took person with a vision of greatness to realize them.

The Imperial Roman; An self-willed collection of persons. Persons who are organized into an

[PerfectimusPrime]

Most of us would agree that "Roman" is a cultural rather than genetic designation.

 

 

I do not think that any one being part of any people, is up to the genetics.

 

If that be so, how do we define those central cultural traits?  What makes a Roman a Roman?

Most of us would agree that "Roman" is a cultural rather than genetic designation.

 

 

I think...

 

A Roman is a citizen of the Roman Republic/Empire or is highly Romanized non-citizen, those who are only partly Romanized could be considered to be half-Romans or something.

[Ursus]

[Ursus]

A Roman is a citizen of the Roman Republic/Empire or is highly Romanized non-citizen, those who are only partly Romanized could be considered to be half-Romans or something.

 

 

 

 

Well, yes, but .... the point of the exercise is to define Roman culture. What are some ideals or worldviews which makes a Roman a Roman in a way that a Roman is not a Greek or Egyptian or Celt?

 

For instance, one organization defines "The Roman Way" in a long list of "virtues" :

 

http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/virtues.html

 

 

Perhaps a good start, but I'm trying to dig a little deeper and reduce this to something a little more pithy than a long list of nouns. Segestan's passage from Vergil is along the lines of possibilities I was looking at.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Roman can be a genetic designation depending on how far back you go...

[Onasander]

Doubt it very much, even from day one a patriarchal lines would of been quite diverse (I'm given to the Roman's being a bunch of Brigands theory, for the reason of... I like it, and it's just as plausable as any other.)

 

However, thier wives, they can be traced.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Doubt it very much, even from day one a patriarchal lines would of been quite diverse (I'm given to the Roman's being a bunch of Brigands theory, for the reason of... I like it, and it's just as plausable as any other.)

 

However, thier wives, they can be traced.

Uh...ok...looks like someone doesen't like the Romans.

 

Anyway, I still believe you can pinpoint a specific tribal unit of the Latins as being Roman, and later on you could even group all the Latin tribes together as being Roman. Of course there were cross-overs aplenty, but what ethnic group does not have them.

[Demson]

Don't be silly, Favonius. Who can't like the Romans? They invented stuff like running water and sliced bread!

 

Back on-topic: doesn't it depend on time period?

 

In their early stage, they were brigands or a latin tribe. Or perhaps a brigand tribe, who wasn't back then? In the early republic, it where the inhabitants of Rome. In the late republic, it were the Italians. At the end of the Empire, all were 'Romans'.

 

We ought to look at the standards the people used back then instead of set our own. Who considered themselves to be Roman, half-Roman or non-Roman? Did a Gaul or Greek in 50 AD see himself as Roman? Did a Gaul or Greek in 350 AD see himself as Roman?

[Primus Pilus]

I think everyone is missing the point. Ursus is not asking for a tribal/genetic definition. He is asking what is the true definition of 'Roman'.

 

I liken it to Caesar who defined himself as a descendent of Aeneas (associating his status, and that of Roma itself, as of being divine nature) whose dignitas must be beyond reproach. Everything he strived for was designed not only to support that dignitas but to further the glory of the City, proving its superiority over the rest of civilization.

 

Whether or not Caesar's actions can be interpreted this way or only with the intention of furthering his own individual cause is irrelevent. It was the public persona he put upon everything, because that is what true Romans supported, the ultimate glory of the state, through the accomplishments of its greatest heros.

 

(Also this is not intended to be a discussion of Caesar or his actions, but his example provides an easy way to illustrate my thoughts on the subject.)

[Favonius Cornelius]

In that case, you could simply say: a citizen.

 

 

Demson, thanks for that explanation...I understand fully. As another analogy, one could summon the countless brigand tribes of Celts that ravaged lands across Europe.

[Spurius]

Here's my take on the subject:

Pietas => Industria => Felicitas, Pax => Libertas => Pietas

 

Honor and duty to other Romans and society, by means of hard work, yields happiness, prosperity and peace for self and others, empowering the individual to seek and find personal freedom ,which can only be served and maintained by duty and honor to self and society.

 

What sets a "Roman" apart from contemporaries is this dichotomy between freedom and service. The ideal "Roman" knew his place, worked to the best of his abilities with the ambition to raise himself in society. This raising could only come about if his social betters would permit it ... and that would only happen if the superiors and/or society profited (or at least didn't lose anything). This is along the lines of The Wealth of Nations.

 

Then, once raising himself, he would still profit his patron and perhaps become a patron to someone else...keeping the honor and duty to other Romans going. Once one part of this ring broke down with greed, sloth, etc., then you hit situations like the late republic civil wars, corrupt tax farming, insular imperials courtiers and the like.

 

So...in a short hand version... A Roman is Duty and Freedom linked, circled and protected by hard work.

 

IMHO.

[Ursus]

Thanks, PP, for getting my point across. :-)

 

So far I like Spuirius' answer the best.

[Ursus]

I also like your answer. PP. And, really, I don't see a dichotomy between Caesar's personal ambitions and the glory of the Roman State. Individual ambition and public glory seem to dovetail nicely when you're a Roman.

[Primus Pilus]

I also like your answer. PP. And, really, I don't see a dichotomy between Caesar's personal ambitions and the glory of the Roman State. Individual ambition and public glory seem to dovetail nicely when you're a Roman.

True enough I suppose, I just don't wax very eloquently on such philosophic subjects so I thought I should pre-qualify my answer.