Racism was a lot more common back then, and most people were guilty of it. Remember that people were enslaved based on race, and most people fought for their own race at the expense of others. Rome was just more powerful, did more damage, and it was better documented. I doubt they weren't any worse than the barbarians on racism.
2007-08-03 23:19:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by Steve C 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
There is a lot of truth to what you say, but in some cases I think you are a bit misinformed. But, yes, the Romans held very racist views toward all cultures besides their own. In their way of thinking, all non Romans were barbarians. Although Attila didn't seek to conquor Rome as soon as he was crowned king of the Huns, he only went after Rome when Constantinople started running out of money. Racism was a fact of life and was more or less accepted by most cultures, considering that others would have held similar views of the Romans, as the Romans held towards them. Attila's motives for conquest were more political and financial then anything else. And yes although the Huns and Germans didn't always get along, Attila's sons left to find conquests of thier own. His eldest son ending up in Hungary, where his followers became known as the Magyars, and Attila's youngest son ending up in Romania where his followers became known as the Tzecaly(I'm not sure if the spelling of that is right).
2007-08-04 06:47:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by Stefan 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
it's possible, but completely unverifiable. For all we know, Atilla was scorned by a Roman woman, and that was why he hated Romans. However, racism as we know it did not exist in Rome. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just being sensational, forming their own conclusions after watching a few "HollyRome" movies.
Romans were conquerers, to be sure, but Rome was also unique among the ancient civilizations in that it was not jealous with its citizenship. We see in history instances of Roman citizens in Spain, Greece, Egypt, and Asia. Biblical Paul, for example, was a Roman citizen from Tarsus. The Severan dynasty was African. Emperors Diocletian and Constantine were Illyrian. One of the Christian saints was a Nubian Roman Centurian; meaning that he was, what we would call, black, and in a position of authority. All inhabitants of the Empire were made Roman citizens by Emperor Caracalla in 211 A.D, which, while motivated by the desire to increase taxation, was still an indicator that Romans themselves held citizenship as not being something dictated by race.
The three major religions of the late empire were the worship of Sol Invictus, Mithras, and Christianity. All three were imported religions. Worship of the classical Roman gods such as Mars and Jupiter were virtually extinct at this time. Hardly an indicator of a people who hold their race as being better than every other!
Romans judged people by how civilized they acted. This was different from modern imperialism because it was not motivated by religious values such as "civilize and christianize" or "the white man's burden". Slaves in Rome could look forward to being freed by their masters if they showed exemplary behavior or their master died. Slaves were even able to buy themselves from their master! This is a sharp contrast to say, the United States, where African-Americans faced perpetual slavery due to their race, and were not allowed to own property nor purchase their own freedom.
At least 5% of the entire population of Rome were freedmen, which is remarkable because the population would have constantly been in flux; Children of these freedmen were Roman citizens with full priviliges, and slaves would have trickled down from the frontier.
Romans saw slavery as a finite process of a civilizing process. It usually only took a generation under Roman rule for a captured location to become a fully priviliged Roman province. These Provinces frequently had lighter legal burdens than their previous rulers, their religion was tolerated (unless it disturbed civil order), and their protection by the Roman Legions gave them centuries of peace. After the Second Punic War, places like Italy, Spain, and Africa would go over 500 years without seeing a major conflict. None of these traits demonstrate a civilization built upon racist principles.
To conclude, Rome was not an intrinsically Racist society, and while it is not impossible (By the time of Atilla, Rome was thoroughly Christianized, and Christianity was a major factor of later European Imperialism), it is highly unlikely, given Rome's past actions.
I am not as well versed in ancient Germanic culture to give you an answer regarding their occupation by the Huns, although the the ethnicity of Southern Germany and Austria probably has to do with the fact that the settlers of modern Germany were members of the Allemanni tribe, while closer to the alps and modern Austria was where the Burgundian tribe migrated. It would have also been a place where Goths, Slavs, and Lombards would have mingled. Their variation probably has more to do with that than the relatively brief period of Hunnic occupation.
2007-08-04 11:24:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Huns are asians. They once threatened Han Empire(the first Chinese empire which was born couple hundred years earlier than Rome empire). But Han wipe them out of Asia. The group of soldiers Attila lead was what was left of it. Therefore, you shouldnt think of Huns as part of Germans or Slavians
2007-08-04 06:27:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Race wasn't a big issue until relatively recently. In Ancient times race wasn't a big issue.
Racism is new.
2007-08-04 06:24:45
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
Every race has encountered racism.
2007-08-06 06:01:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by patriot333 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Yes I would imagine so.
2007-08-04 11:41:48
·
answer #7
·
answered by David D 3
·
0⤊
0⤋