The Roman Empire was one of history's most successful melting pots. In comparison to some of history's more recent super-powers, Roman society was relatively tolerant of foreign cultures and religions, provided they did not disturb the peace. Issues of skin color and physical characteristics, as far as can be told, were of little or no importance in the Empire, presumably due to the cosmopolitan nature of its major cities from the early Republic.
By the 1st Century AD, inscriptions and historic writings attest to the many cultural and national groups represented amongst the political and military elites of the Roman Empire. Gaulish chieftains were serving in the Senate at least as early as the reign of Claudius. Jews, Greeks, and Syrians were holding military commands from Egypt to Britain. Some of the most rich and powerful men in 2nd Century Rome were Africans and Spaniards, many of whom still spoke their Latin with Celtiberian or Punic accents.
It's not surprising that, by the 2nd Century, most of the Caesars were not even Romans - if one defines a "Roman" as being an Italian born in Rome or in the traditional Roman territories of Italy. In fact, most of the Emperors after the Julio-Claudians were provincial, or at best non-Roman Italian in origins.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Quote of the day
If you are going to look back to Rome as an example of how Europe should be (or Europeans in general):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Most of the intolerance I see every day is from progressives. It's a different kind of bigotry, usually trying to marginalize and "protect" certain groups from unapproved opinions. You are right that they are a threat to liberty and stability.
ReplyDeleteBTW, you are tone deaf on what makes a good "quote of the day." This is a passage, not a concise quote.
That's total nonsense about progressives and intolerance. It's the racist, bigoted, Republican conservative assholes that oppose welfare and immigration reform. Compared to them, progressives are not intolerant at all.
DeleteBut what was their position on gun rights?
ReplyDelete"But what was their position on gun rights?"
DeleteAn interesting question Anon. They seemed quite permissive in regards to stand your ground laws,
"Roman law was very protective of the individual’s right to defend himself and his property from violence, whether offered by a thief on a darkened highway or a soldier in search of plunder.viii A provision attributed to the late fourth century A.D. reads:
We grant to all persons the unrestricted power to defend themselves (liberam resistendi cunctis tribuimus facultatem), so that it is proper to subject anyone, whether a private person or a soldier, who trespasses upon fields at night in search of plunder, or lays by busy roads plotting to assault passers-by, to immediate punishment in accordance with the authority granted to all (permissa cuicumque licentia dignus ilico supplicio subiugetur). Let him suffer the death which he threatened and incur that which he intended (Codex Justinianus (“CJ”) 3.27.1).
The legislator then explains the rationale for this provision, stating, “For it is better to meet the danger at the time, than to obtain legal redress (vindicare) after one’s death.” And he concludes:
We therefore permit you to seek your own revenge (ultionem) and we join to this decree those situations which a legal judgment would be too late to remedy (quod serum est punire iudicio). Thus, let no one shrink from facing (parcat) a soldier, whom it is fitting to challenge with a weapon (telo), just as it is fitting to challenge a thief (A.D. 391).ix"
"Though the unauthorized carrying of arms was perhaps prohibited after the mid fourth-century, the Code indicates that prior to that time, at least, private weapon ownership was commonplace. Weapons allowed private individuals not only to defend themselves from violent assault and their property from illegal seizure, but also to hunt, to punish and recapture and maintain the obedience of slaves, and to protect the Roman imperium itself from barbarian invasion or internal revolt. Under these circumstances, Rome seemingly would have had little to gain by disarming her citizens, and potentially much to lose. Nor is it clear, in any case, that complete disarmament would even have been practicable.xxviii"
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVxeC42xUrTQAzRZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzY2kxNTA2BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDU0Ml8x/RV=2/RE=1416451074/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fsaf.org%2fjournal%2f16%2fTheRomanLegalTreatmentofSelfDefenseandthePrivatePossessionofWeaponsintheCodexJustinianus.pdf/RK=0/RS=516QgzNZ6bArgxV9EmPldcQsV84-
Lets see, were guns around back then?
Delete"the unauthorized carrying of arms was perhaps prohibited after the mid fourth-century"
So it was OK to defend yourself but not carry a weapon.
The custom of not carrying a weapon is 1,800 years old.
Just because something has been done for a long time doesn't make it a good thing Anon. For example, the paper I cited also discusses how these rules are applied in regards to slaves.
DeleteCertainly you wouldn't suggest the continuation of slavery using the argument that the "custom" is 1,800 years old. It's inherently wrong, and seems to cast this cosmopolitan melting pot in a different light in regards to equal opportunity. Non discriminatory slavery, what a wonderful role model for how Europe should be. (Or Europeans in general)
"Just because something has been done for a long time doesn't make it a good thing"
DeleteWhat's not a good thing? Self defense?
You are defending a gun culture based on a culture where guns did not exist.
I would not suggest the continuation of slavery because of custom, or any other reason, but the founding fathers did.
The founders started an American culture of guns. Unintentionally, but that happens when words and meanings get bastardized. And why do you worship their centuries old words simply because they are old and part of our culture, especially when it's proven they are the cause of so much innocent death.
You talked plenty about weapons, but not guns. As world history shows, the gun as a new weapon changed the world because of its ability to kill 100 more times efficiently than other weapons. Their is a great difference between guns and any other primitive weapon.
The same people you quote about self defense also proclaimed slavery as not only a good thing, but a cultural necessity and an upper class distinction.
If the world still did not have guns we would not have 10's of thousands of needless death by guns, that blades, or other primitive weapons could not have caused. A blade cannot travel 500 yards and still kill an unintended innocent victim; nor can a blade go through a wall and kill an unintended innocent victim. So stop comparing apples to oranges and expecting us to accept they are the same.
"You are defending a gun culture based on a culture where guns did not exist. "
DeleteAnon, lets not forget that you took Laci's comment which I was thinking dealt more with a perceived superiority of European values and decided to introduce gun issues into it. I merely commented on your question.
As I've said before, we seem to have no problem applying the First Amendment to modern technologies that weren't in existence when it was written.
Trying to use a different standard with the very next Amendment on the list is very dishonest.
I do appreciate your introduction of gun issues into the debate though. Without you doing that, I likely would have ignored the post and not been able to comment on the Romans' use of slaves.
SS, you are the one who took the discussion to self defense, even though there was no mention of that in the post. So yes, since you are a gun loon I believed you were referencing guns.
DeleteYes, you do have a problem applying modern technology to the 1st A. You and GC have said more than once the 1st A means a personal PC is a protected right under the 1st A. Just one reason you are a loony idiot, not to mention the multiple lies you tell about me, the latest being you falsely claimed I said a politician should be removed if they said something I disagreed with. A total blatant lie, but nothing new for you.
"AnonymousNovember 19, 2014 at 6:58 PM
DeleteBut what was their position on gun rights?"
Remember this Anon?
Wasn't me. Probably GC. My first comment was 2:10am.
Delete