Fun fact: Part of the Roman Empire’s strength was its tolerance and integration of other cultures instead of trying to impose their own. Their various Italian subjects were “allies” in name and bound by pacts of mutual assistance, but otherwise largely left to govern themselves as long as they paid their tithes.
The prospect of becoming Roman Citizens in exchange for military service enticed them to serve as auxiliary units. These units were also tightly integrated with the Roman troops, often leading to a gradual blending of cultures, a layering of identities rather than exclusively choosing them.
Sure, this wasn’t some altruistic act of goodwill so much as political strategy to maximise their power, but it worked. Part of the fall was the fracturing of loyalties because later Emperors abandoned that policy and it’s just not as appealing to send your sons off to war for an empire that will only ever treat you as second class subjects.
Of course, the whole thing is more complicated than I could convey in a single comment, but check out this ancient historian’s blog series on “Who were the Romans?” and “Decline and Fall?”.
In support of your point, here’s a nice little quote from Emperor Claudius, who was also a scholar and a historian:
What was the ruin of Sparta and Athens, but this, that mighty as they were in war, they spurned from them as aliens those whom they had conquered? Our founder Romulus, on the other hand, was so wise that he fought as enemies and then hailed as fellow-citizens several nations on the very same day. Strangers have reigned over us. That freedmen’s sons should be intrusted with public offices is not, as many wrongly think, a sudden innovation, but was a common practice in the old commonwealth. But, it will be said, we have fought with the Senones. I suppose then that the Volsci and Aequi never stood in array against us. Our city was taken by the Gauls. Well, we also gave hostages to the Etruscans, and passed under the yoke of the Samnites. On the whole, if you review all our wars, never has one been finished in a shorter time than that with the Gauls. Thenceforth they have preserved an unbroken and loyal peace. United as they now are with us by manners, education, and intermarriage, let them bring us their gold and their wealth rather than enjoy it in isolation. Everything, Senators, which we now hold to be of the highest antiquity, was once new. Plebeian magistrates came after patrician; Latin magistrates after plebeian; magistrates of other Italian peoples after Latin. This practice too will establish itself, and what we are this day justifying by precedents, will be itself a precedent.
I have a fantastic book on the subject, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire, highly recommend.
The more things change, the more they stay the same, right?
More seriously, it’s one of the reasons I adore Rome so much - many of the records and systems depict something that feels modern, asking the same fundamental questions and getting into the same arguments, as we do today.
And it’s always hilarious that bureaucracy is timeless.
Yeah, exactly! Nothing else comes close. The medieval and early-modern periods are just very different (and non-civilisational, I guess?), and then modern industrial civilisation grows up on top of it before the old is fully gone everywhere. If you want eerie parallels, you do Rome.
The history of unrelated civilisations on other continents seems inaccessible in English, or in the case of the Americas just poorly preserved in general, thanks to said early-modern Europeans.
Stuff on other continents seems inaccessible in English, or in the case of the Americas just poorly preserved in general, thanks to said early-modern Europeans.
God, what the Spanish did to Mesoamerican codices will forever haunt me as a student of history. Just pure barbarism, literal book-burning.
Claudius is a madlad all around. The gall to write an apparently too honest history while the subject of that history is still alive and your emperor is amazing.
After losing the book in an apartment the size of a thimble and, after some effort, re-finding it in this hellhole, I managed to give it a look-over! It’s more accessible than I remember, even. Very friendly, even if your only background is reading a beginner’s guide to Roman history or the like. Detailed, yes, but with explanations of any context that would be unfamiliar to your average layman.
I was going to say yes, but let me find it so I can reread a chapter or two and be sure. It’s not for beginners, but if you’re looking into niches like the question of ideology and regional loyalty, it reasonably presumes that you know what the Roman Empire is and its basic aspects.
Fun fact: Part of the Roman Empire’s strength was its tolerance and integration of other cultures instead of trying to impose their own. Their various Italian subjects were “allies” in name and bound by pacts of mutual assistance, but otherwise largely left to govern themselves as long as they paid their tithes.
The prospect of becoming Roman Citizens in exchange for military service enticed them to serve as auxiliary units. These units were also tightly integrated with the Roman troops, often leading to a gradual blending of cultures, a layering of identities rather than exclusively choosing them.
Sure, this wasn’t some altruistic act of goodwill so much as political strategy to maximise their power, but it worked. Part of the fall was the fracturing of loyalties because later Emperors abandoned that policy and it’s just not as appealing to send your sons off to war for an empire that will only ever treat you as second class subjects.
Of course, the whole thing is more complicated than I could convey in a single comment, but check out this ancient historian’s blog series on “Who were the Romans?” and “Decline and Fall?”.
In support of your point, here’s a nice little quote from Emperor Claudius, who was also a scholar and a historian:
I have a fantastic book on the subject, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire, highly recommend.
Wow, that’s a hell of a quote. That’s a sentiment that rankles people today.
The more things change, the more they stay the same, right?
More seriously, it’s one of the reasons I adore Rome so much - many of the records and systems depict something that feels modern, asking the same fundamental questions and getting into the same arguments, as we do today.
And it’s always hilarious that bureaucracy is timeless.
Ever seen the scene of The Place that Sends You Mad in Asterix?
Yeah, exactly! Nothing else comes close. The medieval and early-modern periods are just very different (and non-civilisational, I guess?), and then modern industrial civilisation grows up on top of it before the old is fully gone everywhere. If you want eerie parallels, you do Rome.
The history of unrelated civilisations on other continents seems inaccessible in English, or in the case of the Americas just poorly preserved in general, thanks to said early-modern Europeans.
God, what the Spanish did to Mesoamerican codices will forever haunt me as a student of history. Just pure barbarism, literal book-burning.
Claudius is a madlad all around. The gall to write an apparently too honest history while the subject of that history is still alive and your emperor is amazing.
It’s a shame his writings haven’t survived, I’m sure they’d be fascinating.
Is the book you recommend accessible to non-historians?
After losing the book in an apartment the size of a thimble and, after some effort, re-finding it in this hellhole, I managed to give it a look-over! It’s more accessible than I remember, even. Very friendly, even if your only background is reading a beginner’s guide to Roman history or the like. Detailed, yes, but with explanations of any context that would be unfamiliar to your average layman.
I was going to say yes, but let me find it so I can reread a chapter or two and be sure. It’s not for beginners, but if you’re looking into niches like the question of ideology and regional loyalty, it reasonably presumes that you know what the Roman Empire is and its basic aspects.