How do you think Roman society compares with modern day European-American society ? Were they enlightened, and better than us, or have we evolved into a better society ?

I've always been interested n roman values. The sexual freedom, brutality, and arrogance. Yet, while by performing all of these taboo acts, Rome was still the greatest society in the ancient world. It wasn't until the 20th century that we were able to achieve Rome's standard of living.

I'm puzzled by your claim that "sexual freedom" is a negative for Roman society, together with brutality and arrogance!

I don't really see that the Romans were the greatest society in the ancient world: they just had the best army. But it's surely obvious that modern European society, at least, is more enlightened than Roman society. We don't keep slaves, we don't execute criminals, we don't engage in massive slaughters of civilian populations when they annoy us, and we don't kill people for fun. All of this is as a general rule, of course. Moreover, there was no welfare state to speak of in the Roman republic, and none in the empire until the church started building hospitals and providing free legal aid in the fourth century.

On the other hand, the Romans didn't have Celebrity Big Brother, so it's not all been an improvement.

Well, sexual freedom is nice, but some of the stuff the Romans did were a little out there. And, I put it together with brutality and arrogance, because these are taboo acts in our society. Yet, our society suffers from problems the Romans never had, and our values are kind of out of wack in general. Roman society just seems more effective, and geared toward the needs of the society than ours is. Hard to explain.

Maybe the Romans were more enlightened than we are today. They're not blinded by religion, divided by racial issues, or troubled by morality in general. What needed to be done was done, by any means. People knew their place (Well most did.)

I wouldn't describe modern Europe as blinded by religion, divided by racial issues, or troubled by morality in general either, though. Perhaps America is different. Still, I think the points I made above show real advance on Roman values. And I'm not so sure that the Romans weren't blinded by religion anyway. It's worth pointing out that in modern Europe we don't slaughter people for following "unpatriotic religions", as many of the Roman emperors did. Neither do we execute witches in enormous pogroms, as happened under the Republic. If that sort of thing is being untroubled by morality, then I think I'd rather live in a moral society.

To put it more generally, you are right that Roman values were geared more towards the needs of society than towards those of the individual, but this is one of the things that made it basically brutal and immoral. The notion of charity towards those less fortunate than yourself was virtually unknown in Roman society before the Christians made it central. In the Republic, wealthy people donated money to the city, not to the poor. The success of the empire was built upon aggressive warfare and slavery. All fine if you want to build a strong empire, but not so great to live in if you're not one of the privileged few.

Well, I guess I'm mostly speaking from an American point of view, however, from what I've heard, mainland Europe is just as driven by religion as we are. Also, I was speaking of the period before Pax Romana, during the early years of the empire. Before religion became a vital part of Roman life.

But you make some good points. I guess it depends on what you consider to be more important; the whole, or the individual. And if you havn't already guessed, I'm siding with the whole. But still, Rome allowed its citizens more freedoms than we do today, even if they did counter this with harsher punishments.

No way is Europe anything like as driven by religion as the United States, with the possible exception of some of the largely Orthodox countries in eastern Europe. The US is the only modern western nation where religion is still really important - even Canada is largely secular today, and virtually all of Europe is virtually completely secular. Religion is still important in these countries at the individual level, but it has very little influence on national life.

I'm not sure what freedoms a Roman citizen of the period mentioned would have enjoyed which we do not. A Roman citizen could travel throughout the empire without restrictions - no passports and visas required, but a European citizen can travel throughout the EU in the same way today. There was no freedom of religion even in the early empire - recall that it was Nero who started persecuting the Christians. And the witch hunts that I mentioned took place in the second century BC, before the empire was even founded. If we're talking about the empire, Roman citizens had no say in how they were governed, and the imperial throne was often simply snatched by brutal opportunists who didn't have the welfare of either their subjects or the empire itself in mind. In imperal times, Roman law functioned on something similar to the case-by-case precedent system that we use today, but it was not codified until the time of Justinian. People didn't have rights under the law in the same way that we do: if the governor decided to throw you in prison or execute you, that's what happened to you. Look at what happened to Jesus, for example: the prefect simply authorised his execution and it took place almost immediately with no trial or chance of appeal. At least today Guantanamo Bay is the exception, not the rule. This is how crime or internal threats to the state were dealt with, because the Romans did not have a police force as we know it today: criminal matters were dealt with by the army. And we all know what happens when the army becomes too powerful within a state - precisely what did happen in the third century AD, a series of military-backed coups and juntas that brought the empire to its knees. Plus of course the Romans didn't have anything like free speech. Justin Martyr addressed two books to the emperor defending Christianity, and look what happened to him.

Wow, you got me there. I need to brush up on my history I suppose.

What i found intresting about roman society was the right to throw your baby in the trash if you didn't want him (physical handicap and stuff like that).
By comparison the Gauls had programs that supported handicaped people; they weren't outcasts of the society.

It seems barbarians were more civilised than the romans. :)

Like Plotinus said: the needs of the society were more important then the needs of the individual.

There's a lot of exagerations here. Technically, you were allowed to throw your baby in the trash: but that almost never happened, because of public opinion. Yes, the romans prosecuted the christians (AND NO OTHER RELIGION, EXCEPT THE JEWS): but the christians thought that the romans worshipped demons and were going to hell, because they weren't christian. So that kind of justifies the romans, a bit. Yes the romans liked to watch gladiator games: but the gladiators were supposed to be criminals, and we have a lot of violent video games too (not the same, of course, but not that far away). Yes, the romans executed Jesus: but he wasn't a roman citizen, so there weren't that many obligations towards him. Yes the romans executed criminals:so do a lot of american states, so that shouldn't be on the list. Yes, the romans executed civilian populations wen they annyed them: so did the nazis in the 40s, and until the 60s blacks in the south were persecuted as well. Yes, the romans didn't have a govermental welfare state: But rich people would often give, food, money and so on to the poor for their reputation, so it has the same effect. So, if roman society isn't comparable to today's society, then it was like western society of the 50s or 40s.

[bob bobato] I think that's pretty specious, to be honest. What is your source for the claim that exposition of infants was rare? It was common enough right up to the time of Valentinian for that emperor to try to stamp it out; I have heard it estimated that 20-40% of all babies born in the later Roman empire were abandoned by their parents. It happened to pretty much all physically disabled babies, and was especially common when families simply couldn't afford to feed another mouth. Most of those babies would have been found and rescued by other people, to be brought up as slaves. Bear in mind that this sort of thing was perfectly common throughout the ancient world, not just among the Romans; at least the Romans didn't sacrifice babies to the gods as the Carthaginians are supposed to have done. That's a pretty qualified recommendation, though.

The Romans did persecute other religions than Christians - I've already mentioned the witch hunts. In imperial times, followers of some of the mystery religions also suffered periodic persecution from the authorities, who were suspicious of their supposed excesses. More importantly, though, the reason why Christians were persecuted (officially) is that they refused to sacrifice to the emperor's genius. In other words, there was no freedom of religion: everyone had to subscribe to the official pagan belief system. The Christians suffered because they refused to do this. The Jews also refused to do this but eventually received special dispensation. Besides all of which, even if the Romans had only persecuted the Christians, that would still be pretty bad, wouldn't it?

Furthermore, not all Christians believed that pagans worshipped demons and were bound for hell - I've already mentioned Justin Martyr, who died for his faith, and who did not believe this. Besides which, even if all Christians had believed such a thing, that would hardly justify torturing them to death.

You can't possibly compare the gladiatorial games to modern video games! Video games aren't real. Moreover, those who died in the arena were not necessarily criminals: many were professional gladiators. Who they were, though, is really neither here nor there: people took pleasure in watching other people die. There's no way anyone can defend that as civilised behaviour. Similarly, it is true that Jesus wasn't a Roman citizen - but one of the things that makes our society better than the Roman one is that your legal rights do not vary depending on your nationality. If you commit a crime in Britain you will be tried under exactly the same system and in exactly the same way as anyone else, no matter what your nationality. If the Romans really thought they had no obligations towards the inhabitants of the countries they ruled (and Judea, in the time of Jesus, was officially under Roman rule, although Galilee was not), then that is a serious strike against the Romans in the civilisation stakes.

Many US states may execute criminals, but no European one does - indeed, no state with capital punishment may join the EU. That is another reason why modern Europe is morally more advanced than the Roman empire. Rich Romans typically donated to the city, not to the poor; the notion of giving specifically to the poor did not filter into mainstream Roman society until the fourth century, under the influence of the church. Certainly there's no way that even by that stage the poor had anything like the support they would enjoy today from a European welfare state. Finally, if the best you can say is that the Romans were no worse than the Nazis or those who persecuted black people in the American South, then it doesn't seem to me like that's much of a recommendation of their society! Examples like those are, thankfully, the exception, not the rule - and they become more and more the exception as time wears on, at least in Europe. For the Romans, on the other hand, this sort of thing was the very basis of their empire.

When I said that the nazis killed people, I didnt mean it as a justification: I just meant to show that western civilization hasnt always been 'elightened', and cruel things have happened in relativelly recent times. You mentioned witch hunts in the 2nd century BC. That would be about 300 years before the empire. 300 years ago from today, there were still witch hunts, so witch hunting shouldn't count. In a way, gladiator games were public executions (at least criminal parts were), and public executions were still being carried out in France up to the 30s. And I know video games arent real, but it still has to do with people taking pleasure from killing (even though its not real).

I believe Rome was enlightened compared to many other nations at their time, but not compared to us.

I believe Rome was enlightened compared to many other nations at their time, but not compared to us.

Id sy it was about as enlightened as the west was until about a hundred years ago.

[bob bobato] The question was about modern society, though, not Europe sixty or a hundred years ago. Even so, you're still exaggerating. The witch hunts of antiquity dwarfed those of early modern times (it's an irony that many modern pagans call themselves witches and blame the Christians for the witch hunts, when in reality, ancient pagans killed far more "witches" than early modern Christians ever did). The crimes of the Nazis were an aberration; Roman emperors consistently slaughtered enormous numbers of people. Even someone like Theodosius the Great, were he alive today, would be considered as bad as Saddam Hussein. And people who play computer games don't get pleasure from killing, they get pleasure from something that looks like killing. If you really think that playing a computer game is morally indistinguishable from cheering on two real people hacking each other apart then I don't know what more to say...

How do you think Roman society compares with modern day European-American society ? Were they enlightened, and better than us, or have we evolved into a better society ?

I've always been interested n roman values. The sexual freedom, brutality, and arrogance. Yet, while by performing all of these taboo acts, Rome was still the greatest society in the ancient world. It wasn't until the 20th century that we were able to achieve Rome's standard of living.

I wouldn't judge any ancient society by modern values. Ancient societies had different concerns and pressures than we do today. For its time, Rome was the most efficient and prosperous society in the world, and that is what makes it impressive. In many ways, the Romans were more enlightened than us. For example, they did not have racism or religious intolerance. On the other hand, Romans were slaveholders. The most impressive thing to me about the Romans is that they were pragmatic. Actions were deemed good if they were useful.

I wouldn't judge any ancient society by modern values. Ancient societies had different concerns and pressures than we do today. For its time, Rome was the most efficient and prosperous society in the world, and that is what makes it impressive. In many ways, the Romans were more enlightened than us. For example, they did not have racism or religious intolerance. On the other hand, Romans were slaveholders. The most impressive thing to me about the Romans is that they were pragmatic. Actions were deemed good if they were useful.

Quoted for truth.

OK, I dont think the romans were as 'enlightened' as we are. But they weren't far behind.

For example, they did not have racism or religious intolerance.
Yes they did. Rome was not simply "Rome". Rome during the early Republic was a different Rome, than Rome during the late Empire. At various periods in it's time, the Romans had both racism and religious intolerance.

They especially looked down upon the Gauls...

Yes they did. Rome was not simply "Rome". Rome during the early Republic was a different Rome, than Rome during the late Empire. At various periods in it's time, the Romans had both racism and religious intolerance.

They especially looked down upon the Gauls...

The Romans looked down on barbarians in general because they believed them to be uncivilized, not because of a racial prejudice. Once the Gauls were conquered and assimilated as Romans, this bias quickly evaporated. So yes, the Romans did have a kind of cultural bias, which invalidates them as more enlightened than ourselves, but this wasn't racially motivated. (They applied a similar bias towards Germans, for example.)

In a similar vein, classism was far more pronounced by the Romans than today. A Roman of low social class was regarded by upper class Romans as being barely capable of organized thought. This is why it was so easy for a Roman to own slaves. Slaves were simply the lowest class people, and any race could be a slave, even another Roman.

Religious intolerance only existed when cults were regarded as seditious or disruptive to public order. As long as a religion wasn't disruptive to the operations of the state or public good (whatever that meant at the time), it remained free of suspicion and therefore free to practice as it wished. The existence of countless religions and cults throughout Roman history is a testament to this tolerance.

I'm puzzled by your claim that "sexual freedom" is a negative for Roman society, together with brutality and arrogance!

I don't really see that the Romans were the greatest society in the ancient world: they just had the best army. But it's surely obvious that modern European society, at least, is more enlightened than Roman society. We don't keep slaves, we don't execute criminals, we don't engage in massive slaughters of civilian populations when they annoy us, and we don't kill people for fun. All of this is as a general rule, of course. Moreover, there was no welfare state to speak of in the Roman republic, and none in the empire until the church started building hospitals and providing free legal aid in the fourth century.

On the other hand, the Romans didn't have Celebrity Big Brother, so it's not all been an improvement.

most of your quote changes if you let the turks into the EU! har har!

They are my favorite civilization of all. Honestly, if I would be able to get modern medicine, and I'd be sure I won't be in some of the lower classes, I'd move to ancient Rome any day. Preferably in the ADs, after Trajanus, when they empire reached its glory and we could look behind at their achievements, also after the apparition of Christianity and preferably in the days when Christians weren't "hunted". I think the modern society has the means necessary to create a civilized, cult and just society, like the one of the Romans, maybe even better. I'm a very optimistic person, and I trust the future.



By the way, this forum is the least religious I've ever been to, so I know people won't like me for saying this, but I'd be all for a more religious society.

Well, one of the main points that people who attack the roman civilization is their prosecution against christians and jews. But this must be clarified. There was no official roman religion through the entire empire. Every time romans conquered a new country, they began to assimilate that civilization, by integrating their religion. The egyptian cult of Isis, for example was allowed to endure. Every god was integrated in that pantheon. So religious tolerance was possible, as long as every religious group admitted the existence of other gods. This was impossible with jews and later on with christians, because they were monotheists. Monotheism was impossible to integrate in the roman empire.

As for the point that romans had the best army, that's also flawed. Best army doesn't allow an empire to endure for centuries, culture does. And roman culture was more advanced. Their entire expansionist concept was to integrate in their orbis romanus (roman world) every civilized society. That's why large portions of Europe were simply ignored or conquered only for their natural resources.
Also at the very base of today's modern society is the old roman society. The roman law system is now the base of the law system of every occidental society.
You must look at the roman empire from two perspectives. One the current one, is for the legacy of the roman empire, illustrated in the law system and society and another from the ancient history point of view. At that time slavery was not something evil. You can't claim the moral high ground from a modern point of view.

Well, one of the main points that people who attack the roman civilization is their prosecution against christians and jews. But this must be clarified. There was no official roman religion through the entire empire. Every time romans conquered a new country, they began to assimilate that civilization, by integrating their religion. The egyptian cult of Isis, for example was allowed to endure. Every god was integrated in that pantheon.

Yes, this was called Roman Religious Sincretism (or is it Syncretism? I know the word exists in English but Mozilla underlines it...), and I think this is a great proof of Roman tolerance and "open-mindness". :D I don't know how anyone can say Romans were intolerant. But also true it's impossible to do this with Monotheist religions.

Well, technically, most religions at that time were syncretic. Even christianity had some syncretism with other religions. That sparked intresting heresies. :D
But i dunno what emperors popularised the cult of Sol Invictus and of Isis (and Mithras i think) just to counteract the rise of Christianity.
That doesn't sound too open-minded - more like dispair.

Yes, but I Redrake mentioned why Christianity and Judaism don't fall in the same category with the other religions of that time. It's impossible to mix Christianity with any of the Ancient Roman religions, while it's very easy to mix two polytheistic religions. And yes, many religions were syncretic, but on that time, everywhere, really everywhere, when someone conquered you, you had to adopt his religion. :)

It's perfectly possible to have a syncretistic monotheistic religion. Just look at some of the forms that both Christianity and Islam have taken in parts of Africa, for example, where you find worship of one God combined with veneration of ancestor spirits.

However, I don't think it's right to equate syncretism with tolerance. Tolerance means you let people follow whatever religion they want. Syncretism means you basically co-opt their religion into your own. The way the Romans did it was really a sort of religious imperialism, the creation of a single religion by combining elements from everyone's. That's completely different from allowing different religions to coexist. Want to worship Osiris? Fine - we'll graciously let him into the official pantheon and you can do that. Want to worship Christ? Sorry, he's not part of the official pantheon, so we'll tie you into a net and throw you to the lions. I don't call that open-mindedness.

You didn't have to worship every god if you didn't want to. If youre egyptian, you could go on worshipping Osiris;you didn't have to worship Jupiter.

Of course not. But that's not my point. My point is that there's nothing tolerant about permitting people to worship only the gods that you've decided are allowed to join your religion. Tolerance means letting people keep their own religions, intact and distinct.

Well you could argue that this is inforced tollerance. Any religion that could co-exist ith the others can join the pantheon but monothaestic religions that keep banging on about how everyone else is wrong and is going to burn for all eternity can sod off.

Not that Im claiming this, just that it would be a position one could take.

My point is that there's nothing tolerant about permitting people to worship only the gods that you've decided are allowed to join your religion. Tolerance means letting people keep their own religions, intact and distinct.

But that does happen today. Fundamentalist Mormons, in the US, arent allowed to have multiple wives (just an example!), even though its part of their religion. France doesn't allow religious head coverings in public,( or something like that). So even in the 'enlightened' west, gouverments still decide what parts of which religions it wants to keep.

[GinandTonic] Ah, but as I already pointed out, Christians in Roman times typically didn't bang on in such a way. In fact, most hellfire preaching in the early church arose as a response to persecution - sort of "Well, you may be torturing us all to death, but you'll get your just deserts one day!" Note that the New Testament itself instructs people to obey the (pagan) authorities since their authority is divinely ordained.

[bob bobato] But those are examples of the state preventing people from carrying out certain religious practices where they conflict with the country's laws. It's not a matter of interfering with the religion itself. In both of those countries, the state doesn't "keep" or "reject" any religion - the state endorses no religion and permits people to follow whatever religion they like as long as they don't break the law. The Romans, by contrast, effectively endorsed a single religion composed of the bits of other religions that they approved of.

You didn't have to worship every god if you didn't want to. If youre egyptian, you could go on worshipping Osiris;you didn't have to worship Jupiter.
Yes but iirc the specific problem for the Christians was that alongside tolerating all these religions the Roman empire also required you to worship the divine, deified in fact, emperors. And when the Christians refused, well... you get the picture.

So no you didn't have to worship every god, but you had to worship the emperor.

It's worth pointing out that there were different justifications for persecuting the Christians at different times and in different places. Before the third century, most persecutions were local, initiated by governors rather than by emperors. And they were usually carried out because of a belief that Christians were incestuous child-murderers. Judges and governors typically did not bother to investigate whether this charge was justified; if they found people who claimed to be Christians, they simply put them to death because everyone knew what Christians got up to. This is another example of the wildly unjust legal system that I mentioned before in connection to the execution of Jesus: there was no proper procedure for establishing guilt, and it was perfectly possible to be sentenced to death on the basis of nothing more than wild rumours and prejudice against your religion. That goes for Roman citizens just as much as for foreigners.

In the middle of the third century, however, the persecutions became more widespread and systematic, and the emperor Decian made a deliberate attempt to force Christians to "come out" by insisting that everyone in the empire sacrifice to Caesar's genius, on pain of death. Of course he knew that Christians wouldn't do this and thousands were killed. Their leaders were typically not killed, for fear of creating martyrs; they were instead tortured in the hope that they would recant their faith, making their followers lose hope. In the event, most of the Christian leaders, such as Origen, stood firm and were released broken but faithful. Others, such as Cyprian, were executed. And in the Diocletian persecution, fifty years later, simple possession of a Bible was made a capital offence, all Christian priests were arrested, and all Christians were once again forced to sacrifice to the gods on pain of death.

Judges and governors typically did not bother to investigate whether this charge was justified; if they found people who claimed to be Christians, they simply put them to death because everyone knew what Christians got up to. This is another example of the wildly unjust legal system that I mentioned before in connection to the execution of Jesus: there was no proper procedure for establishing guilt, and it was perfectly possible to be sentenced to death on the basis of nothing more than wild rumours and prejudice against your religion. That goes for Roman citizens just as much as for foreigners.

This argument is flawed. Roman law was applied only to roman citizens. Jesus was not a roman citizen, therefore you can't expect that to be applied to him. Christians were also mostly no roman citizens. Some were and those were judged. Take the example of Paul, who was christian but also a roman citizen and he was taken to Rome to be judged. So no judge would make a measure against a non-roman citizen (a christian for example), simply because they didn't have to. If the military governor of a province wanted to kill a community, he also needed an imperial edict to do so. This has nothing to do with the roman law system.
For the non-roman citizens or peregrins the old laws of their countries still applied and in some cases a more simple version of roman law, called jus gentium was instated.
Unjust law system? Not so. Read my previous post. Look at that law system from the ancient point of view, not the modern one. Slavery was perfectly normal, as the right of life and death over the slaves. The roman law system was considered of divine inspiration, just like the other law systems later on during the middle ages.
You see, a law system is more than just a system made in order to punish. The basis of the roman law system, was not the penal law, it was the civil one. And most of the ideas in the roman civil law system are found even today in many modern law systems. The Napoleonic Civil Code of 1805 was created starting from Justinian's Digestes. Most of the european civil codes are based on the Napoleonic Code.

However, I don't think it's right to equate syncretism with tolerance. Tolerance means you let people follow whatever religion they want. Syncretism means you basically co-opt their religion into your own. The way the Romans did it was really a sort of religious imperialism, the creation of a single religion by combining elements from everyone's. That's completely different from allowing different religions to coexist. Want to worship Osiris? Fine - we'll graciously let him into the official pantheon and you can do that. Want to worship Christ? Sorry, he's not part of the official pantheon, so we'll tie you into a net and throw you to the lions. I don't call that open-mindedness.
Well, I (and not only I) mentioned Christianity was a totally different story. Saying "we'll tie you into a net and throw you to the lions" is just another way of saying Christianity was forbidden. So I'll repeat what I said earlier: All religions were mixed in the traditional Roman religion. But Christianity is a MONOTHEISTIC religion, so you can't mix it with the others! Saying "we'll tie you into a net..." is just meant to make it sound as ugly as possible.

[Redrake] Paul wasn't arrested for being a Christian. This was before the persecutions began. He was arrested for causing an almighty disturbance (just like Jesus, in fact). In fact, after the first generation, most Christians were as Roman as anyone else. I'm not sure why you say otherwise. And the fact is that governors didn't, as a rule, bother to investigate what, if anything, they were guilty of. If someone claimed to be a Christian, they were killed with no more questions asked. Just read the correspondence between Pliny the Younger and the emperor Trajan on the subject, or the accounts, preserved by Irenaeus, of the trial and execution of Christians in second-century Lyon. These cases all concerned Roman citizens and they made the execution of Saddam Hussein look thoughtful and dignified. Remember that at the time of the Diocletian persecution, some 10% of all Romans were Christians.

However, even if none of this were true and in fact the Christians, like Jesus before them, were not Roman citizens, I don't see what difference that would make. The claim seems to be that Roman law was fantastic but it didn't apply to everyone; for incredibly unjust actions to be taken against those whom it didn't cover therefore doesn't affect the fantastic nature of Roman law. That argument is obviously daft. Maybe Roman law itself was fine, but a society that chooses to apply that law to only some of its inhabitants and treat the rest in such a cavalier way is clearly not a just society.

I understand the point that we shouldn't judge ancient societies by modern standards. But the OP asked us to do precisely that.

Maybe Roman law itself was fine, but a society that chooses to apply that law to only some of its inhabitants and treat the rest in such a cavalier way is clearly not a just society.

I understand the point that we shouldn't judge ancient societies by modern standards. But the OP asked us to do precisely that.
I'd say this is the rub of the matter. We live in egalitarian societies with a legacy form Christianity and French and US revolution secular citizenship.

Roman society was nothing like that, and most importantly it wasn't egalitarian in any way shape or form. Quite the opposite in fact. Same with the ancient Greek.

If you praise Roman society for its tolerance (specifically, it might have other things going for it) you might as well praise ancien régime French absolute monarchy for the same thing.

But those are examples of the state preventing people from carrying out certain religious practices where they conflict with the country's laws.

But the law of latter example is made against religious practice, and I think laws against multiple marriages are also some kind of religious reliques.

On the persecution of christians, I've read from couple of books that it was at some point a fashion among christians to be martyrs, and they really tried to get convicted. This of course isn't a counterargument to cruelty of roman justice, but just an intresting detail (and I'm not sure if it's even true, the sources weren't most reliable ones).

Western law is very much based on Roman Law. Especially civil law. If we read classical iurists (Paulus, Ulpianus, Celsus, Papinianus and even Cicero) we see, that their society was very much based on honesty, honor and trust. Only when empire started to grow and trade along with it, need for more developed civil law system occurred.

Plus, at least in Republic, you couldn't get prosecuted by the state, Romans didn't knew inquisitory procedures. You'd have to get accused by someone and he had to prove your guilt before independent judge (iudex). Romans came closer to The Rule of Law standards than anybody for the next 1500 years. As far as Roman citizens are concerned, off course. Non-citizens used their own law.

Inquisitory procedures started to evolve in Principat and Dominat times. By this times Roman society was very, very different than in times of early Republic. It became less morale, less just and less democratic. Their own success has spoiled them. So I think we should point out, that Roman society was constantly changing, so we cannot give claims on Roman society without telling of witch era we talk about.

Romans used slaves, yes, but slavery was abolished only because it was economically not justifiable any more and not because our ancestors were more moral.

On religion. Religion became really important in times when Empire started to grow. Emperors from Augustus onwards saw religion as something that could connect all the people in the state. Augustus invented cult of himself, he claimed he is some kind of ancestor of gods. People had to acknowledge this, once a year go to his shrines, at home they could worship anybody they liked.
Jews and Christians were monotheistic, they couldn't acknowledge princeps as a god. So, they were prosecuted. Most of polytheist had no problems with that. Besides, different emperors showed different amount of interest in this, new, religion. I really don't think, that prosecution of Christians and Jews has anything to do with Roman culture and its morality, but with interests of an empire and it's leaders to keep empire together.

On the persecution of christians, I've read from couple of books that it was at some point a fashion among christians to be martyrs, and they really tried to get convicted. This of course isn't a counterargument to cruelty of roman justice, but just an intresting detail (and I'm not sure if it's even true, the sources weren't most reliable ones).

I wouldn't call it a fashion exactly, but this is true. After the second century or so there arose a cult of the martyrs: Christians believed that martyrdom was a surefire way to go straight to heaven, and they started to venerate the relics of the martyrs. During periods of no persecution, such as the first half of the third century, they would complain about how the lack of persecution meant that people were less zealous for the faith. Origen complained like this (and look what happened to him!). And it is also true that in the Decian and Diocletian persecutions, some governors were besieged by Christians all insisting that they weren't going to sacrifice to the gods, and what were they going to do about it?

The most extreme were the circumcelliones in northern Africa, who in the fourth century would do their hardest to get martyred. However, Christianity was legal by this stage, so they used to waylay travellers and beg for them to kill them. Sometimes they would just throw themselves off cliffs. But the circumcelliones were heretics, and schismatics too (Donatists), so they are an extreme example.

Of course, the cult of the martyrs arose in response to the persecutions. You could see it as a sort of reaction to reduce psychological dissonance, to explain why God could allow such things to happen: it's actually good to be martyred, so God knows what he's doing. In any case, you're right to say that it makes no difference to the justice or otherwise of Roman law.

Romans used slaves, yes, but slavery was abolished only because it was economically not justifiable any more and not because our ancestors were more moral.

I'm not convinced by that. In the late empire, many wealthy Christians used their resources to buy and free slaves, although there was no "official" policy against slavery. An example is a noblewoman called Melania, who freed so many she lost count. St Patrick also denounced slavery quite vehemently in a famous letter. In the early Middle Ages, Christians became increasingly convinced that slavery was immoral, and they gradually eradicated the practice. Bathilde, a former Anglo-Saxon slave who married Clovis of the Franks and ruled after his death, made it illegal to acquire any more slaves. By the end of the first millennium, slavery had virtually died out within western Europe, and this was entirely because it was regarded as immoral, not because of economic factors. Of course, in the Middle Ages there were plenty of Muslim slaves in Europe (just as there were plenty of Christian slaves in the Middle East), so they still had some way to go...

Teachings of Jesus are off-course very much against slavery. Maybe that's the reason Christianity grew popular so fast and why some call Jesus the first socialist.
But slavery was outdated even before times of Constantin. Too many slaves were bad for Roman economy and new forms of agricultural relationships started to emerge (colons). I don't know if leaders of Christianity would be willing to abolish slavery so fast if they saw any good in it.
What I wan't to point out is, that much like in Roman times, Christian leaders also were tweaking the society as they felt it. So they were not really any more moral. At least that is my opinion.

Christianity was particularly popular among slaves, the lower classes, women, and other marginalised groups (we haven't even gone into the very sexist nature of Roman society yet). This remained the case until after Constantine and was one of the reasons why most Romans, being snobbish and sexist, despised the religion. However, I don't think there was any real opposition to slavery from the Christians until after the time of Constantine. I'm certainly not aware of any reason to attribute anti-slavery sentiments to Jesus.

Sorry to say it but Plotinus you are an idiot. The roman society was way above any other anceint society. They were certainly not sexist more than any other empire of their time. They even had antisexis reforms. The modern world has to go a long way to achieve the greatness of the great Roman Empire.

sexist? Maybe compared to today, but pretty equal to about 100 years ago.

I wouldn't judge any ancient society by modern values. Ancient societies had different concerns and pressures than we do today. For its time, Rome was the most efficient and prosperous society in the world, and that is what makes it impressive. In many ways, the Romans were more enlightened than us. For example, they did not have racism or religious intolerance. On the other hand, Romans were slaveholders. The most impressive thing to me about the Romans is that they were pragmatic. Actions were deemed good if they were useful.

I do believe there was some level of religious intolerance. Maybe not so much in the Republic, but definitely after that around the time when Christianity was being founded.

@Reprtedo: Yay for your arguments.
But you should read a bit about other things in the "barbarian" lands, the health care in Gaul is but one of them.

Christianity was particularly popular among slaves, the lower classes, women, and other marginalised groups (we haven't even gone into the very sexist nature of Roman society yet). This remained the case until after Constantine and was one of the reasons why most Romans, being snobbish and sexist, despised the religion. However, I don't think there was any real opposition to slavery from the Christians until after the time of Constantine. I'm certainly not aware of any reason to attribute anti-slavery sentiments to Jesus.

From what I recall, slavery was never outlawed in European states until much later. It's just that the supply of slaves decreased with time, in part because there were fewer "barbarian" states in Europe to conquer and capture slaves from, but also because the medieval economy was based on serfdom, which is just a milder form of slavery. These trends actually began at the end of the Roman Empire.

As a matter of fact, due to your scenario, I was able to learn that slavery was not outlawed in England until about 1100 AD.

As a matter of fact, due to your scenario, I was able to learn that slavery was not outlawed in England until about 1100 AD.
It was ? But what about the english colonies ? Shouldn't that've applied there too ?

It was ? But what about the english colonies ? Shouldn't that've applied there too ?

The colonies outlawed slavery in 1831, I believe.

Ah, so the laws from the Homeland were different than from the colonies ... I didn't know that.

:)

[Nanocyborgasm] You're right! England was a slightly odd case, though. It was one of the very few areas where Christianity was actually wiped out by paganism (in this case, by the pagan Anglo-Saxon invaders). When Christianity returned there, it took correspondingly longer to filter through society and for the social reforms associated with it to come into place. Compare this to the Franks, who were already Christian at the time of the fall of the empire. Many Gallic-Romans in the fifth and sixth centuries regarded their imperial heritage and their Christian faith as different sides of the same coin (Gregory of Tours was a good example of this sort of person). This meant there was considerably more social and cultural continuity throughout the fall of the empire and beyond than there was in Britain. Thus, slavery was effectively outlawed here long before it was in England.

There's really no historical continuity between slavery in the ancient world and slavery in early modern times. The Anglo-Saxons didn't exactly have many overseas colonies to legislate about!

So, are we ready for conclusion now? Was Roman society any more evil than ours?

You'd need to define "evil" before you could do that. It's not a historical category so it wouldn't really be possible. If you rephrase it to ask whether Roman society was less in keeping with modern common moral standards than modern society is, then the answer is that that is obviously the case. But that should hardly be surprising given that a society's moral standards are in part determined by the state of that society, and in part determine it themselves. In other words, whatever a society's moral standards, that same society probably meets them more than any other really existing society.

How do you think Roman society compares with modern day European-American society ? Were they enlightened, and better than us, or have we evolved into a better society ?

I've always been interested n roman values. The sexual freedom, brutality, and arrogance. Yet, while by performing all of these taboo acts, Rome was still the greatest society in the ancient world. It wasn't until the 20th century that we were able to achieve Rome's standard of living.

This entire post is reeking with misinformation.

So, are we ready for conclusion now? Was Roman society any more evil than ours?
I think we're safe with "different".:)

Dunno. Some philosophers believed in universal and unchangeable ideas (Plato for instance), so we could still discuss evil/good as this is universal standard. But I do agree, that what seems evil is today very different from what seemed evil 2K years ago. Question is also if we can condemn some civilization evil or not. Were mass sacrifices in pre-Columbian America evil? They certainly did not seemed evil to those civilizations.

Evil is very fluid word. More appropriate question is, were Romans any worse in social justice?

Plotinus,

You said that the Romans were more enlightened than other ancient civs. I have to disagree with you on this point. Are you forgetting the Jewish people? Though not saints by our standards, I suspect they were a lot better than the Romans.

Othan than this, I am really enjoying reading your comments. :)

And you base your opinion on....? :rolleyes:


In my opinion, Plotinus supports Rome too little. By this I mean I admire the Roman civilization even more. (much more, I would guess, but I can't know this)

It's the second time in my life that I use this smiley without responding to someone who used it

Plotinus,

You said that the Romans were more enlightened than other ancient civs. I have to disagree with you on this point. Are you forgetting the Jewish people? Though not saints by our standards, I suspect they were a lot better than the Romans.

Othan than this, I am really enjoying reading your comments. :)

Jews??????? You gotta be kidding me. The Romans are definetely more cultured, civilized, with a better system of laws than any civilization of their time. And if there's a civilization that was awful on the time, that's the Jews.

Plotinus,

You said that the Romans were more enlightened than other ancient civs. I have to disagree with you on this point. Are you forgetting the Jewish people? Though not saints by our standards, I suspect they were a lot better than the Romans.

Othan than this, I am really enjoying reading your comments. :)

You have obviously not read the Old Testament.

I think by common definititions of "enlightened" they can't be even compared with modern Europe.

However, that is not fair. Any historical figure/country/people must be judged based on the context of their times. The Romans were brutal, violent, and in many ways oppressive. However, most peoples were. In terms of the functioning of government, few MASS societies of the time reached the level of enlightenment of the Romans. Only small bands approached anything like egalitarianism.

Sure, the Greeks had "democracy", but only for the few, not the many.

Sobieski,

I can agree with you on that. There are ancient societies that do have some positive aspects that others don't; however none can be said to be perfect.

The reason I said the Jewish people is because they did have things in their culture that encouraged the looking after the poor and were more likely to care for the disabled. From the earlier messages in this thread, I take it that it wasn't the case for Romans. I'm sure if we were talking about democracy for a society's citizenry than yes I'd agree about the Romans. Although, I am not too impressed with any man made system of government. This include democracy and Republic (Rome's system of government).