this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2025
74 points (100.0% liked)

Rough Roman Memes

555 readers
218 users here now

A place to meme about the glorious ROMAN EMPIRE (and Roman Republic, and Roman Kingdom)! Byzantines tolerated! The HRE is not.

RULES:

  1. No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, bigotry, etc. The past may be bigoted, but we are not.

  2. Memes must be Rome-related, not just the title. It can be about Rome, or using Roman aesthetics, or both, but the meme itself needs to have Roman themes.

  3. Follow Lemmy.world rules.

Not sure where to start on Roman history?

A quick memetic primer on Republican Rome

A quick memetic primer on Imperial Rome

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
 
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PugJesus 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Explanation: In the Republican era of Rome, their foreign policy was very aggressive. We often assume 'imperialism' with, well, the Roman Empire, but this is just naming of convenience; most expansion was done under the Roman Republic. Why is that? Well, one of many reasons (as historical causes are rarely simple) is that civic pride is a prickly thing. When the people see themselves as part of the government, and the government is insulted, they feel insulted. For this reason, despite Rome not having a standing army during the Republican era, and needing a popular vote to declare war, they went to war constantly. Didn't you hear? Those filthy [insert barbarian tribe here] TROD ON the rights of a ROMAN citizen! They disrespected an OFFICIAL of the REPUBLIC! OUR Republic! That could have been me! Or you! Or our sons! Does it not make your blood BOIL?

The Principate, the early Empire, put great effort into keeping this republican facade, but under the Principate, all real power rested in the hands of the Emperor. And autocrats are less predictable and less tenacious than entire populations. An autocrat can be apologized to; populations rarely take apologies well enough to simmer their passions; an autocrat can be bribed or reasoned with; populations are expensive to bribe and can be reasoned with only slowly, as word passes from one citizen to the next - usually too slowly to prevent them from going to war. Thus, the Principate had every interest in maintaining the reputation of Rome for warlike behavior (to preserve the Emperor's political power at home), but, in practical terms, had less desire to prosecute wars to the bitter end.

By the Dominate and Byzantine periods, the Emperor was no longer reliant on the political support of the people of Rome, and so were free to make 'rational' choices, like preferring paying tribute to expensive and uncertain wars. Unfortunately for them, rational choices do not always have an ideal outcome; it was Rome's irrational level of aggression which allowed it to cow so many foes for so long, and sustain the safety of the polity. Strange how that can work. Furthermore, the sense of the citizenry's identification with the polity had been weakened by hundreds of years of shit policy, instability, and aristocratic abuses, and there was not nearly the outpouring of support against foreign foes which Rome could previously rely upon.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Civic pride is a powerful motivator, especially for defense. However, I think that the Roman Republic was remarkably belligerent even by the standards of polities where the common people had a great deal of civic pride. Civic pride also doesn't explain why Roman socii were so enthusiastic about fighting alongside the Romans.

(I'm not a historian and I don't have any explanation of my own to propose as an alternative to yours.)

[–] PugJesus 6 points 1 week ago

Oh, yes, you are absolutely correct there! Like I said - there were a great many causes for the Republic's level of... enthusiastic expansion. We could go into the fact that the entire Roman state was organized around war, or the cultural value placed by Romans on their own superiority, or the relative equality of citizenry in the state, or the Republic's willingness to include outsiders to a place within the polity (and not just under it); but the full list of reasons takes up entire books and libraries.

At the same time, you can see a distinct difference in the consistency of aggressive policy between city-state style polities, like Rome and most pre-Alexander Greek city-states, which cultivated intense bonds between their citizenry and the very abstract state they belonged to; and traditional kingdoms and broader confederations, whose aggression waxed and waned with their leadership's decisions.