Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Roman civilization and Europe's far right |
Post Reply 
|
Page 123> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|
calvo 
General 
Joined: 20-May-2007 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 846 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Roman civilization and Europe's far rightPosted: 11-Jan-2009 at 15:13 |
|
|
One thing I have certainly noticed is that many European fascists and those of the Far Right claim to be admirers of the Roman Empire. The "Fascist salute" is fundamentally the Roman salute, and many fascists even use Roman symbology and signitures (SPQR) as a logo of their ideology. I once heard someone say that "the Romans invented fascism".
Several modern Spanish authors of the Far Right also claim to be admirers of the Romans.
Yet if anyone had remotely read up on Roman history, he'd know that the Roman political system, during the republic, the principate, or the late empire had little or nothing to do with 20th century European fascist ideology.
The base for Fascism is extreme ethnic nationalism and homogenity in culture, race, religion, and thought.
In the Roman world, ethnic nationlism did not even exist; and the Roman Empire was a melting pot of diverse cultures and peoples all under control of the same legal system and the same official language. Although social class, citizen status, and personal connections were important in Rome, citizen status was never determined by "ethnic origin".
During most of their existence, the Roman Empire wasn't even Christian; and you could hardly call it a "European civilization" because it didn't reach northern Europe, but more of a "Mediterranean civilization".
So where did the fascist get their inspiration in the Roman empire?
|
||
 |
||
|
Theodore Felix
General
Joined: 10-Jan-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 769 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 19:20 |
|
That would be a little far. Certainly not as we see it today, but there are numerous revolts which have rather proto-nationalist undertones to them during the empire, the Civilis revolt is one of them. And while Rome was very mixed, there was a great amount of what we would call ethnocentrism on the part of the Greeks and Romans. Anything outside of their culture was seen as the "other" and degraded, where its destruction and complete Romanization was the only answer. And citizenship was not determined by ethnic origin, however the who became citizens were certainly fully if not almost fully assimilated in Roman culture. |
||
|
||
|
calvo
General
Joined: 20-May-2007 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 846 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jan-2009 at 08:42 |
|
|
Tribal instinct is normal, that your tribe is better than the others, but it is distinct to the ethno-nationalist ideology of the 19th and 20th century. The Greeks and Romans were not necessarily more ethno-nationalistic than any other ethnic group of the antiquity, such as the Egyptians, Persians, Carthaginians etc.
By the very fact that Roman citizenship was not defined by ethnicity, and that the Roman republic or empire didn't put into practice the "homogenization" of blood and culture, is clear proof that their political system had nothing to do with European fascism.
|
||
|
||
|
Leonidas
Tsar 
Joined: 01-Oct-2005 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 4613 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jan-2009 at 12:09 |
|
|
I would agree somewhat with Theodore, i could easily imagine Roman or Greek chauvinism, esp toward 'barbarians; from the north. Hec didn't conservative Romans not even like Greek influence amongst their own?
However, I don't think blood was considered important just culture. But the Roman world was not that homogeneous, religion esp at the end was quite fragmented. I cant see what a fascist would connect with Rome though, maybe becuase it was so successful.... or they think having slaves is an acceptable form of economic advancement  Edited by Leonidas - 14-Jan-2009 at 12:09 |
||
|
||
|
||
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke 
Joined: 07-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1810 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jan-2009 at 13:37 |
|
|
Hello to you all The far right needs legitimisation, a basis on which it can justify it ideology and the Roman empire being the ultimate western empire is the perfect historical and cultural reference. Far right always uses the civilized vs. barbarian argument in which they are the civilized and the others are barbarians. Incidently the people whom the Romans considered barbarians are the same people whom the far right considers them now to be "enemies" of the west. ie middle east Islamic countries.
Al-Jassas
|
||
|
||
|
Constantine XI
Suspended 
Suspended Joined: 01-May-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5711 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jan-2009 at 13:50 |
|
Hello Al-Jassas, I thought the Romans had a higher opinion of the Middle and Near Eastern cultures than those of the north. Parthia alone was treated with the respect of an equal. While the major urban centres of the East also drew respect from the Romans. Rome was much less tolerant of the religion of the Britons than any other group in their empire. The Romans (sometimes) conferred respect upon the northerners for their military prowess, but otherwise tended to look down on them more than most peoples. Regarding Leonidas' post, it is certainly true the more strongly conservative Romans also disdained Hellenistic culture as too effeminate and weak. Have a read through Juvenal and you can see someone putting forward such a viewpoint. Though mind you, there were plenty of Philhellenic Romans and Greek culture was generally considered worthy and in some facets even superior to that of Rome. Edited by Constantine XI - 14-Jan-2009 at 13:51 |
||
|
||
|
gcle2003
King 
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jan-2009 at 14:17 |
|
|
Fascism was originally Italian. Mussolini needed the Roman myth to help cement Italian nationalism, just as Hitler needed the nordic myths. It wasn't too hard to convince Italians they were the modern descendants of the Romans, just as it isn't too hard to convince any people they are the modern descendants of the people that used to live in the same place.
Other than that, I don't think you're going to get far finding valid reasons for thinking Fascism has any connection with ancient Rome (other than the logo
 ) |
||
|
||
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1810 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jan-2009 at 14:25 |
|
|
Hello CXI
Well I know that, you know that but most of them don't. They "re interpret" history according to their twisted ideas. These people are more obsessed with power and domination, ie fascists, than what they claim. These people see themselves in a struggle and that struggle began not today or yesterday, but thousands of years ago and in that struggle, they represent the Roman side.
Al-Jassa
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jan-2009 at 15:40 |
|
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jan-2009 at 15:48 |
|
|
||
|
||
|
calvo
General
Joined: 20-May-2007 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 846 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jan-2009 at 11:51 |
|
|
The only remote connection between the Romans and fascism could be the political agenda of the "Optimates" party in the republic. They defended the rights of the patricians and voted against the distribution of land among the plebeians. They were also strongly opposed to the extension of Roman citizenship to the Romanized subject peoples and the Italian allies. They fought hard to preserve the "Roman" identity against the onslought of Greek culture. They even hired mobs and thugs to beat up on "Popularii" leaders like the Fascists black-shirts did to the trade unionists. Nevertheless, there was still quite a distance between Sulla and Mussolini. |
||
|
||
|
tullyccro
Housecarl 
Joined: 25-Feb-2009 Location: North America Online Status: Offline Posts: 36 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Feb-2009 at 02:39 |
|
|
"The "Fascist salute" is fundamentally the Roman salute, and many fascists even use Roman symbology and signitures (SPQR) as a logo of their ideology. I once heard someone say that "the Romans invented fascism"."
----As I understand it, the fascist salute, which apes an ancient Roman military salute, was instituted by Mussolini's Italy first and Hitler's Germany later, as both laid a historical claim to this tradition because they had both been the seat of the Roman and Holy Roman Empires. They wanted to invoke the idea that their nations were somehow connected to the greatness of a previous era since both were so weak economically and militarily when these people came to power. If you have nothing to be proud of, look to your genealogy. It's the whole "my dad can beat up your dad" thinking. It also justified the concept that they needed to cleanse the gene pool, since it had been corrupted, in order to rise to their former greatness. "The base for Fascism is extreme ethnic nationalism and homogenity in culture, race, religion, and thought."
I would disagree, or at least I would say that fascism is a smaller phenomenon of a much bigger political tendency, which is totalitarianism. There's nothing wrong with nationalism or cultural homogeneity. I think all the talk about cultural suppression is utter nonsense. Culture exists and happens, it's constantly changing. I think what you mean to say is that there is an emphasis on a kind of "cult of the state" and specifically how the state exercises power and what it can and cannot tell people to do. The Nazi's were more sadists than anything, and simply worshiped the exercise of power and the effectiveness of weaponry/cruelty. "In the Roman world, ethnic nationlism did not even exist; and the Roman Empire was a melting pot of diverse cultures and peoples all under control of the same legal system and the same official language. "
Absolutely not true. The Roman world was extremely homogenous for a majority of it's existence, only later, after they were decimated by war, did they expand the franchise and throw open the doors to new rituals. True, they were good at adopting cultural and religious practices from other people, but this did not apply to the aristocracy, who had to trace their lineage back to city founders or consuls of Rome in order to qualify for positions of power. The legal system was forced onto people, as was ruthless taxation, several religions and cultures were annhilated in order to control or pacify populations; druidism being just one example. The Romans were cruelly effective imperialists, not welcoming, open societies. They did not interfere in some of the practices of their citizenry, but that was because they demanded contributions in other spheres, specifically through obscene taxation. They demanded conformity somehow or the other. "Although social class, citizen status, and personal connections were important in Rome, citizen status was never determined by "ethnic origin"." Again, this is absolutely false. For at least 600 years this was precisely how it worked and it was more severe because it was economic as well. Poor city founders, plebeians, weren't even admitted to the highest circles of power for at least 400 years, and Italians were excluded for about 500. |
||
|
||
|
tullyccro
Housecarl
Joined: 25-Feb-2009 Location: North America Online Status: Offline Posts: 36 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Feb-2009 at 02:51 |
|
|
"The only remote connection between the Romans and fascism could be the political agenda of the "Optimates" party in the republic. They defended the rights of the patricians and voted against the distribution of land among the plebeians." Not accurate. The Optimates voted against popular agitation and manipulation more than against agrarian reform. Secondly, most optimates supported agrarian reform, the Elder Cato wrote a book about farming one's own lands effectively. They also opposed the methodology of popular agitators who sought to force legislation through the house or through popular assemblies. And you have to keep in mind that the laws on the books at the time prevented patrician Senators from engaging in business of any kind, though they did so informally, taking away their primary source of income would have meant the extinction of aristocratic leadership, and let's face it, the Roman senate in the 2nd and 3rd century BCE was far more educated and capable of ruling than popular assemblies, and they couldn't even handle simple administrative tasks. "They were also strongly
opposed to the extension of Roman citizenship to the Romanized subject
peoples and the Italian allies." Not necessarily, but they were arbitrary about who received citizenship and who didn't. Typically this revolved more around bribery than ethnic distinctions. "They fought hard to preserve the "Roman" identity against the onslought of Greek culture. They even hired mobs and thugs to beat up on "Popularii" leaders like the Fascists black-shirts did to the trade unionists." Most Romans favored the mixed government which Cicero describes in his political works, and most Romans were educated by Greeks, in the Greek language. The consensus in the dominant Academy in Greece at the time was that absolute democracy, or plebiscitary dictatorship was a bad form of government, and mostly Romans were in step with this idea and opposed such initiatives. They were a conservative people who feared drastic reform and extraordinary actions or powers being granted to individuals who had riled the population, which was superstitious, stupid, and often starving. Not the most rational of actors. Hitler was much more like Marius than Sulla, as was Mussolini. |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Feb-2009 at 02:52 |
|
|
I believe "fascism" wasn't invented in Rome but in Sparta.
Sparta has all the elements of Nazi Germany: slavery, ethnic cleaning, militarism, cruelty, eugenesia, eutanasia, xenophoby, etc.
Sparta has been the inspiration for all fascists, nazis, including Plato and the Romans. Edited by pinguin - 26-Feb-2009 at 02:54 |
||
|
||
|
tullyccro
Housecarl
Joined: 25-Feb-2009 Location: North America Online Status: Offline Posts: 36 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Feb-2009 at 03:06 |
|
I know it's currently in vogue to say this kind of thing about the Spartans but we're applying modern political terms to ancient civilizations. Athenians also practiced slavery, ethnic cleansing, militarism, cruelty, and political executions (Socrates anyone?) but you don't see them identified as being fascistic because of all the pretty things they left behind. I'm just saying that by modern standards almost every nation, country or kingdom of antiquity that enjoyed any kind of continuity of life could be called fascist. |
||
|
||
|
edgewaters
Sultan 
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Feb-2009 at 03:25 |
|
|
True, but it was an affected ethnicity, rather than an inheirited one. Anyone could become Roman. The Roman salute, by the way, was not revived by the fascists. It was a common salute in many countries up until WW2. Americans used it (Bellamy salute), French used it, etc. The British did not because it was revived by republicans and anti-monarchists in France and elsewhere - it was a republican salute. There is nothing particularly special about a European political group claiming some affinity with the Romans in the 1930s. The British of the Victorian era had done it (proclaiming a new Augustan era), the French revolutionaries had done it, Czars and Kaisers had done it. A connection to Rome is just an expression of assumed political legitimacy, and it is hardly unique to the fascists. Edited by edgewaters - 26-Feb-2009 at 03:39 |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Feb-2009 at 03:43 |
|
Well, but Athens didn't practised eugenesia and Eutanasia at the scale of Sparta. The later was the model of fascist. No doubt about it.
And it is not something "in fashion". Since long ago Sparta has been considered the evil other side of Greek personality.
|
||
|
||
|
Akolouthos
Sultan
Joined: 24-Feb-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 2091 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Feb-2009 at 03:53 |
|
Yes they have had that reputation, but is it fully justified? After all, what was it the Athenians said to all of those islanders they butchered and sold into slavery? "The strong do what they will; they weak do what they must," or some such statement. And the exposure of infants was commonplace in the ancient world. True, the Spartans had different reasons for the practice, and it was more common there, but this is hardly grounds to demonize them. Remember that it was the Spartans that fought the Athenian imperial ambitions, not vice-versa.
-Akolouthos
|
||
|
||
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Feb-2009 at 03:58 |
|
|
Absolutely ... it's from Thucydides' account of the Peloponnesian War, in which the Athenians are portrayed as the rampaging conquerors who bring themselves and everyone else down with their lust for absolute power, while Sparta leads those who would be sovereign and independant from Athenian rule. And Thucydides' account of that war is regarded as the first example of an attempt to objective and truthful in history. |
||
|
||
|
Akolouthos
Sultan
Joined: 24-Feb-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 2091 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Feb-2009 at 04:09 |
|
Aye, but as it was the first attempt, we need not be too hard on the old boy.
 Seriously though; despite the pro-Lacedaemonian biases of many among the Athenian intellectual elite, I do think Thucydides' take (thank you for reminding me of the source; it has been a good while since I studied my non-ecclesiastical classical texts) is the best that has been offered up thus far. After all, the desire for hegemony -- for hegemony's sake -- doesn't seem to have been the chief motive for Spartan expansion until after the Pelopponesian War, and didn't really come to fruition -- unless I am mistaken, as I may well be, either through ignorance or failure of memory -- until the reign of Agesilaus.
-Akolouthos Edited by Akolouthos - 26-Feb-2009 at 04:10 |
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.072 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.072 seconds.
