Romans Friendly

[Tonym77]

I am known as MapkRohe. I am a writer. I live in the United States in the kingdom of America. I have questions about Rome. Were Romans sociable with people outside of their class? Take for example if a Hebrew came from Jerusalem and went to Roman would the Hebrew be allowed to go into places such as markets, and drinking places, or would he have to pretend to be from somewhere else to be allowed in.

 

Next question is would anyone who was related to Caesar could they become king?

[ASCLEPIADES]

I am known as MapkRohe. I am a writer. I live in the United States in the kingdom of America. I have questions about Rome. Were Romans sociable with people outside of their class? Take for example if a Hebrew came from Jerusalem and went to Roman would the Hebrew be allowed to go into places such as markets, and drinking places, or would he have to pretend to be from somewhere else to be allowed in.

 

Next question is would anyone who was related to Caesar could they become king?

Salve, T and welcome. There's a huge amount of information here at UNRV for you, so my answers will intend to be only introductory.

 

1.- Generally speaking, ancient populations were harsh to strangers. The legal category for non-citizens (cives) at Rome was the peregrini; briefly, had no legal capacity ^according to the jus civile Romanorum, but had the capacity-of acquiring rights according to the jus gentium, which rights the Roman courts of justice acknowledged. They had neither connubium (the right to marry a cives) nor commercium (the right to enter into legal contract under Roman law).

 

1b.- Hebrews status under the Roman rule was especially complex, as their relationship varied notoriously thorough the time.

 

2.- Short answer: No. Long Answer: The Roman autocrats during the Empire were Emperors, not Kings; the latter title was specifically avoided by Caesar's successors. Strictly speaking, only Augustus and Caius (aka Caligula) were blood relatives (but not descendants) of Caius Julius Caesar.

Edited October 27, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Ingsoc]

2.- Short answer: No. Long Answer: The Roman autocrats during the Empire were Emperors, not Kings; the latter title was specifically avoided by Caesar's successors. Strictly speaking, only Augustus and Caius (aka Caligula) were blood relatives (but not descendants) of Caius Julius Caesar.

 

You forget to include Claudius and Nero.

[ASCLEPIADES]

2.- Short answer: No. Long Answer: The Roman autocrats during the Empire were Emperors, not Kings; the latter title was specifically avoided by Caesar's successors. Strictly speaking, only Augustus and Caius (aka Caligula) were blood relatives (but not descendants) of Caius Julius Caesar.

 

You forget to include Claudius and Nero.

Not Claudius: he was a Claudian, descendant of Anthony and an adoptive member of the Gens Iulia, but he was not a blood relative of CJ Caesar. (Neither was Tiberius, BTW).

 

On the other hand, C. Octavius (aka Augustus) was the grandson of CJ Caesar's sister, and Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (aka Caligula) was Augustus great-grandson.

 

I certainly forgot that, via Agrippina Minor, Nero was a great-great-grandson of Augustus and so, great-great-great-great-grandson of the sister of CJ Caesar.

 

Sequitur

Edited October 27, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Northern Neil]

Given that the (classical) Roman period lasted for close on a thousand years, it is hard to imagine that there weren't any social interactions between Romans and non - Romans during that immense spread of time. On Hadrians Wall, there is a gravestone dedicated by a Roman citizen to his dead wife, a freed slave. His wife was a non Roman originally, but clearly he loved her very much. From the third century onwards a Hebrew (for example), if free, was by definition a Roman citizen anyway, as he came from the Roman world.

 

As Caldrail has pointed out in an unrelated topic, people are people, the same as us, whichever historical period they are born into, and so there were probably snobs as well as social mixers just like today.

Edited October 27, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Ingsoc]

Not Claudius: he was a Claudian, descendant of Anthony and an adoptive member of the Gens Iulia, but he was not a blood relative of CJ Caesar. (Neither was Tiberius, BTW).

 

As you were talking about blood relative you seem to forget that Claudius was the grsndson of Octavia, sister of Augustus and grandaughter of Caesar sister.

 

And btw Claudius "adoption" into the Iulian family was illegal, since he simply took the name Caesar without any Iulian adoption him. infact Caligula was the last true Iulian.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Not Claudius: he was a Claudian, descendant of Anthony and an adoptive member of the Gens Iulia, but he was not a blood relative of CJ Caesar. (Neither was Tiberius, BTW).

 

As you were talking about blood relative you seem to forget that Claudius was the grsndson of Octavia, sister of Augustus and grandaughter of Caesar sister.

 

And btw Claudius "adoption" into the Iulian family was illegal, since he simply took the name Caesar without any Iulian adoption him. infact Caligula was the last true Iulian.

Of course, you're right on both counts. My bad. Gratiam Habeo.

[caldrail]

Given that the (classical) Roman period lasted for close on a thousand years, it is hard to imagine that there weren't any social interactions between Romans and non - Romans during that immense spread of time. On Hadrians Wall, there is a gravestone dedicated by a Roman citizen to his dead wife, a freed slave. His wife was a non Roman originally, but clearly he loved her very much. From the third century onwards a Hebrew (for example), if free, was by definition a Roman citizen anyway, as he came from the Roman world.

There is that guy from palmyra, a merchant called Barates, who married his freed british slave. Its noticeable that the romans weren't racist. The land of origin counted for very little, and it was your willingness to adopt roman ways and fit in with society that mattered more. However, roman conservatism was present, and it took some time for non-italians to be accepted as roman leaders.

 

As Caldrail has pointed out in an unrelated topic, people are people, the same as us, whichever historical period they are born into, and so there were probably snobs as well as social mixers just like today.

With one proviso - Roman class structure. It was very rigid and although the roman culture had systems in place to allow controlled cross-class contact (like lining up for gifts every morning at the senators house for instance) I don't see the upper class giving much largesse to those of lower status apart from that needed for popularity. Notice how unusual Julius Caesar was by deliberately courting popularity with the lower classes by actually meeting and speaking to them. For another example, a man of lowly birth sitting in the same area as senators during a public performance is acting above his station, and may well receive harsh treatment from a magistrate. The romans were extremely class concious and guarded their privileges. Nonetheless, it must have been impossible for romans to conduct business without contact with foreigners, and lets face it, there were ghettoes in some roman cities of people who refused to be roman and retained their cultural heritage. But they still bought goods and paid taxes.

[DecimusCaesar]

There were snobs and there were social-mixers as Neil pointed out. Even as late as the fourth century when Roman citizenship had already been extended to everyone who lived inside the Empire's borders; there were still those who were contemptuous of 'Roman' citizens from other lands. There is an example of this in a short poem of Ausonius of Bordeaux, about a Romano-Briton called Silvius Bonus:

 

"Who is Silvius?' 'He is a Briton'. 'Either this Silvius is no Briton, or he is Silvius "Bad".

Silvius is called Good and called a Briton....

No good man is a Briton.

 

We see The Britons still being called 'Wild' as late as AD 417 (after the province had been lost to Rome), although throughout much of Roman history they were considered to be 'Wretched little Britons'. This shows that some Romans still hated their fellow citizens from the provinces.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Although the Romans didn't subscribe to 20th century racial categories ("Caucasian", "Negroid", etc), the Romans nevertheless traded in some truly crude stereotypes of non-Romans. Looking eastward, the invective became progressively more caustic. "The words of Greeks issue from their lips; those of Romans from their heart" (Plut. Cat. Mai., 12.5). Phrygians, Cicero tells us, are best improved by whipping; 'worst of the Mysians' was the ultimate insult; Carians were so worthless as to be fit only for human experiments; Cappadocians were paragons of stupidity, tastelessness, and beastliness (Cic. Flac. 65; Cic., Red. Sen., 14). Finally, Asiatic Greeks, Syrians, and Jews were born for servitude (Cic. Flac. 67, Livy 35.49.8, 36.17.4-5). Looking southward, the Punica were considered paragons of treachery, with Sardinians being so rotten that they were abandoned even by the Punica (Cic., Scaur. 42). Egyptians, of course, were animal-worshipping degenerates (Cic. Tusc. 5.78, Nat. D. 1.16.43). Looking westward, the Romans saw nothing but barbarism: Gauls and Spaniards were hairy, cruel, ferocious monsters (Cic. Font 31, 33, 41, 43-4; Cic Q Fr 1.1.27), and Spaniards brushed their teeth in piss (Catull. 37.20, 39.17-21).

 

Legally, all of these peoples could be admitted as citizens, it is true. However, the only gateway to citizenship was slavery. Moreover, the passage from foreign slave to free Roman--with all the rights attendant thereto--was often purchased by the slave himself, who then lived in perpetual obligation to his former master. It was a good system for Rome (until Augustus put the brakes on it), and even the Greeks admired it: Phillip V himself commended it in a letter to the Larissans (Syll. 3, 543: 29 - 34).

 

I think the bottom-line is that the Romans, though inclusive politically, still never doubted their superiority of other peoples, whom they showered with slurs, stereotypes, and slavery. Not exactly friendly behavior, if you ask me.

[ASCLEPIADES]

However, the only gateway to citizenship was slavery.

That was probably not the case for the Porcia Gens, for one; Tusculum was the first municipium obtaining Roman citizenship as early as CCCLXXIII AUC (381 BC). Not to talk about all that Patrician families of Etruscan or Sabine origins

[Kosmo]

Slavery was not the only gateway to citizenship and not even the most used one. Citizenship was often given to individuals and groups. And this is especially true for the empire, but also the Republic.

But citizenship was not the only good status to be held. A rich person from some "allies and friends" city would not feel the absence of citizenship important unless he wanted a political career in Rome.

And for sure many free foreigners made Rome their prosperous home. There is a huge ammount of evidence for that.

There can be several status for that: italian, provincial, foreigner etc. The Republic abandoned early all restrictions and would dislike just some categories and usually for good reason like in the case of philosophers.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Please don't quote me out of context. I wrote, "Legally, all of these peoples could be admitted as citizens, it is true. However, the only gateway to citizenship was slavery." The "these people" referred to Greeks, Phrygians, Mysians, Cappadocians, Asiatic Greeks, Syrians, Jews, Punica, Egyptians, Gauls, and Spaniards. Cicero is not a counter-example at all. All Italians south of the Po enjoyed dual-citizenship (see Cicero himself on this point) and were thus Romans.

[Gaius Octavius]

How did St. Paul become a citizen?

[Ingsoc]

Please don't quote me out of context. I wrote, "Legally, all of these peoples could be admitted as citizens, it is true. However, the only gateway to citizenship was slavery." The "these people" referred to Greeks, Phrygians, Mysians, Cappadocians, Asiatic Greeks, Syrians, Jews, Punica, Egyptians, Gauls, and Spaniards. Cicero is not a counter-example at all. All Italians south of the Po enjoyed dual-citizenship (see Cicero himself on this point) and were thus Romans.

 

It's important to note that this policy changes during the late republic times and Rome tend to grant citizenship to the local aristocrasy for services it has done for her (A good example for this is that Caesar granted Antipater citizenship for his aid during the Egyptian campain) and in the empire auxiliary soldiers were made citizens after they finished there service.