With the Romans using wood and charcoal for cooking, heating and everything else, it must have been a very dirty and smoky sort of a place in which to live. I wonder then for how long those marble faced buildings would have retained their original shining white brilliance; not for very long I imagine, and I think ancient Rome, unlike the way in which it is portrayed in Victorian paintings, would in reality have been rather a grubby, grey and soot-stained city.
I watched Gladiator II when it came on streaming, for free.
I still want my money back. It made the historicity of the first one look like an original source in Latin. And the special effects were bad. Geta and Caracalla were the palest creepiest gingers possible.
Denzel and Pedro Pascal left no scenery unchewed, which was the only fun part. Must point out that both movies are British, though, so you can't blame that on America... of course, Britain were slavers too, out among the "lesser breeds without the law".
OK. My ancestors were too damn poor to ever own any slaves so it's no skin off my nose.
But, really, do yourself a favor and don't watch Gladiator II. It was a bad movie all around. Denzel pointed out in an interview that the real Macrinus probably had lighter skin than he did, but hey, work is work.
Biggest howler at the beginning: Rome not conquering Numidia till the reign of Commodus?
Yes, and it is a most interesting and informative piece which I greatly enjoyed
. I still maintain though that the Romans were racist, just not in the ways we currently think of. They frequently portrayed specific races like the Jews in humiliating postures of defeat. They identified certain outgroups, like Celts or Gauls as ‘barbarians’. Thus race for them was an active construct- it just never occurred to them to link it with skin colour.
There was apparently an edict that required Roman slaves to dress differently until they realised that it might incite a revolt when the slaves realised how many they were compared to the citizens.
I think you might be confusing Sparta with Rome regarding mandates requiring slave dress codes. The only dress codes in ancient Rome revolved around the use of the toga, which was reserved for citizens, which is why so many people, both freeborn and otherwise, proudly display themselves in them on funerary monuments.
Sparta had rules that defined what the helots should wear, but I'm not an expert on ancient Sparta.
I would argue that the Romans were racist, it’s just that their racial prejudices didn’t centre around melatonin, but instead around culture.
They for instance viewed the Celts with utter disdain, and justified widespread slaughter in Gaul on the basis of Gauls being intrinsically lesser than Romans.
If racist is viewed through the lens of a social construct rather than it being tied to physical attributes then many other societies besides Rome are racist. For instance I spent some time in NI and was amused/bemused to be told that there was such a thing as a ‘Protestant face’ - there isn’t btw. But the desire to superimpose differing physical characteristics on an outgroup is at the root of racism- not the other way around.
But the point that our view of Roman is seen through the lens of white Europeans is correct. (As is btw our view of the first century Jewish make called Jesus, who was definitely not blond and blue eyed). Perhaps this stems from a desire to have ‘bridging’ characters that is people with whom we feel an identification with because they look like us. This often a plot device in films about Africa, where the pov of the leading character is often assumed to be European because they are in reality an audience substitute.
Thanks for another great piece.
With the Romans using wood and charcoal for cooking, heating and everything else, it must have been a very dirty and smoky sort of a place in which to live. I wonder then for how long those marble faced buildings would have retained their original shining white brilliance; not for very long I imagine, and I think ancient Rome, unlike the way in which it is portrayed in Victorian paintings, would in reality have been rather a grubby, grey and soot-stained city.
Don't forget the trash everywhere and the animal (and probably human) poop.
Yes indeed; thank goodness for my lectina.
My garbage company has been on strike for 2 weeks and everyone's complaining, but at least all our trash is in bins.
If discrimination existed in the Roman Empire, it was based on social class, not race.
I watched Gladiator II when it came on streaming, for free.
I still want my money back. It made the historicity of the first one look like an original source in Latin. And the special effects were bad. Geta and Caracalla were the palest creepiest gingers possible.
Denzel and Pedro Pascal left no scenery unchewed, which was the only fun part. Must point out that both movies are British, though, so you can't blame that on America... of course, Britain were slavers too, out among the "lesser breeds without the law".
I didn't mean to infer any blame on America, or indeed 'blame' at all.
OK. My ancestors were too damn poor to ever own any slaves so it's no skin off my nose.
But, really, do yourself a favor and don't watch Gladiator II. It was a bad movie all around. Denzel pointed out in an interview that the real Macrinus probably had lighter skin than he did, but hey, work is work.
Biggest howler at the beginning: Rome not conquering Numidia till the reign of Commodus?
Yes, and it is a most interesting and informative piece which I greatly enjoyed
. I still maintain though that the Romans were racist, just not in the ways we currently think of. They frequently portrayed specific races like the Jews in humiliating postures of defeat. They identified certain outgroups, like Celts or Gauls as ‘barbarians’. Thus race for them was an active construct- it just never occurred to them to link it with skin colour.
There was apparently an edict that required Roman slaves to dress differently until they realised that it might incite a revolt when the slaves realised how many they were compared to the citizens.
I think you might be confusing Sparta with Rome regarding mandates requiring slave dress codes. The only dress codes in ancient Rome revolved around the use of the toga, which was reserved for citizens, which is why so many people, both freeborn and otherwise, proudly display themselves in them on funerary monuments.
Sparta had rules that defined what the helots should wear, but I'm not an expert on ancient Sparta.
I believe it was Seneca who proposed it. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23232665?read-now=1
But it was never implemented.
But thank you for the reference to Sparta that’s really interesting.
I would argue that the Romans were racist, it’s just that their racial prejudices didn’t centre around melatonin, but instead around culture.
They for instance viewed the Celts with utter disdain, and justified widespread slaughter in Gaul on the basis of Gauls being intrinsically lesser than Romans.
If racist is viewed through the lens of a social construct rather than it being tied to physical attributes then many other societies besides Rome are racist. For instance I spent some time in NI and was amused/bemused to be told that there was such a thing as a ‘Protestant face’ - there isn’t btw. But the desire to superimpose differing physical characteristics on an outgroup is at the root of racism- not the other way around.
But the point that our view of Roman is seen through the lens of white Europeans is correct. (As is btw our view of the first century Jewish make called Jesus, who was definitely not blond and blue eyed). Perhaps this stems from a desire to have ‘bridging’ characters that is people with whom we feel an identification with because they look like us. This often a plot device in films about Africa, where the pov of the leading character is often assumed to be European because they are in reality an audience substitute.
I address the cultural bigotry of the Romans in the article.