What did the Romans think about Race? DOCUMENTARY
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 มิ.ย. 2024
- In this history documentary we ask the question: What did the Romans think about race? Get your free trial of MagellanTV here: try.magellantv.com/invicta. MagellanTV is a new kind of streaming service run by filmmakers with 3,000+ documentaries! Check out our personal recommendation and MagellanTV’s exclusive playlists: www.magellantv.com/explore/hi...
In our last video we discussed language in the multi-ethnic Roman army. In this episode we follow up on the idea of a diverse Rome to ask what ancient people of antiquity thought about race.
Research: Chris Das Neves
Script: Invicta
Narration: Invicta
Art: Beverly Johnson
Music: Dreamnote
#Rome
#History
#Documentary
Romans: man these people are so weird, they don’t even wear shirts
Barbarians: man these people are so weird, they don’t even wear pants
😂🤣
Fuck discrimination based on skin colour, all my homies discriminate depending on wether you wear pants or not.
Pants?
@@_KingPin_-jm4st Can't refute that logic.
To each his own.
They liked races, the best paid athlete in history was a roman chariot racer
Underrated comment
so how much was he paid?
Top tier comment
@@histguy101 $15 billion his name was Gaius Appuleius Diocles
@@artoriuscasca424 was that Commodus's stage name?
Romans: „Those Germans wear pants, how uncivilized!“
Also Roman soldiers: „Man, being stationed at the German border during winter literally freezes your balls, better get some pants going“
Germans: „YOU DON‘T SAY!“
Legionaries, like soldiers everywhere, quickly realised that sometimes the regulations need to be adapted to deal with local conditions. XD
Thy did wear woolen underpants tho
Germany wasn't as cold as the Romans described it according to science.
Well, the Scots did use kilts with no underwear. At least in the army, it was against regulation, because the standard issue underwear at the was too long and it would be visible and look kind of ridiculous under a kilt. I would wager their balls didn't freeze. So if the Scots could do it, there is no excuse for those Germans not to be decent. XD
Patrolling the Rhine makes you wish for a brief service in Libyan wastelands...
Roman: Germans are naturally used to being hungry.
Could it be because you confiscate massive amounts of food to feed the legions?
Roman: No. They're just naturally like that.
X race is used to bad things happening to them.
Could it be because of conditions created by specific circumstances?
No, X race always suffered that problem.
Romans never conquered Germania
@@muslimcrusader5987 but Germanic conquered Rome.
@Neb If not earning it means beating a weaker enemy then Rome itself and most of the big empires in history didn't earn many (if not most) of the territory they conquered
@Neb its a bit more.
a) the germans were not beaten or kicked in their asses by romans. the romans suffered heavy defeates, had to build an extrem defense mechanism and wasted tons of momentum to contain the german area, because they knew the dangers of this region.
b) the romans were not directly conquered, most local militia simply realiced, that they didnt need a roman autority. most generals were simply paid to join the germanic side and on some pont large parts of the legions were german foreigners in roman "legions" to get rights of settlement in rome as a citizen. so at some point germans fought with germans to protect just the empty shell of roman autority in gallia.....
c) the whole collaps of western rome was a process and not a big apocalyptical singular action. in some sense the bytcantinic advances to the western areas under justitian hints the crule reality, that "conquering" areas of the roman empire was easy, but it was nearly impossible to conquere all areas of the mediterian sea AND to prevent a better alternative power system reappearing in these recent conquered areas.
"I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally. Except for the Greeks. They're one of the good ones."
"So good i stole their Gods!"
@@thatsnodildo1974 and their entire culture
@@abbestaabouri they didn't steal their culture roman culture is a mix of Etruscan and Greek culture
@@shadowxxe well, the Roman Gods are basically all equivalents of Greek Gods.. sure they didn't "steal" the entire Greek culture, but parts of it.
I'm half italian and I always felt Italians are better than greeks but I'm not racist either
Roman: "I don't see color. I just see slaves."
@Caleb P Man, this is great. I can't wait to time travel and teach emperors human rights.
LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
loooool accurate
Libertarians in a nutshell.
@Severus The original Patricians were all ITALIANS ie Latins. But as the Republic & then the Empire expanded, a lot of different cultures, which included peoples that today are NOT considered 'white', were given Roman citizenship. This meant that all the races WE recognize today could easily be Roman Patricians.
BTW, Roman Plebians were most CERTAINLY citizens.
Romans be like: “I’m not racist. I enslave everyone equally!” 🤷♀️
They weren't mass enslaved, the Romans actually just assimilated.
@@toade1583 Rome was 'Roman' only in and around the city of Rome, rest of the places, even the far end of Italian province, wasn't quite Romanised let alone the whole empire.
a lot more the people from different cultures who began citizens of the empire than the people enslaved, integration was the main factor that made Rome so great
@@toade1583 tell that to all those poor soles who died in the coliseum or the mines.
@@chrisb.7787 lmao, Coliseum fights were not among slaves that's a misconception. Gladiators were actual star, fighters that fought in the arenas for sport and no, they did not fought to death.
*Romans:* “we must stop the pants. This is the end game.”
*Pants:* “Dread it, run from it, destiny still arrives”.
Winter weather: "I am inevitable"
Great comment
Jorts: “My time will come”
@@forrestpowell12 🤌 (Couldn't find a "Fingersnap" emoji, so I went with one that sort of looks like one.)
Caligula: If you have a problem figuring out if you're for my horse, then you ain't Roman.
im bored af My bad.
And his arch rival corn pompius.
Roman Empire First! Roman Empire First!
Ahh Emperor Biden
Senator explaining why Caligula is an irresponsible Emperor
Caligula: Will you shut up man?
Romans: if it breathes, it's a slave
Ave true to Caesar
Woke Murikans: if it breathes, it must be cancelled.
Slav*
Romans: We're not racist. We are equal opportune enslavers.
Julius Caesar had a child with Cleopatra, so they probably weren't racist
Bingo! A Roman could, in extreme cases, be enslaved for debt...
@@yusufgazi7 She was ethnically Greek,
@@dannydonnelly8198 Above all she was beautiful...
honestly, ancient romans saying "we're the best cus we're in the middle, best of both worlds. rome is in the center cus we were destined to be the center of everything" is the most italian explanation imaginable xD
We are, in fact we are the most influential, cultured area on the world. Definitely in Europe.
@@budibausto Every European Nation thinks that. If you'd ask me - the most influence on modern times, probably comes from the british. When is comes to culture, all of Europe is pretty rich in culture especially compared to the yanks =)
@@sebastianb5036 the cultural heritage that Italy has is unparalleled in Europe. You can compare the influence they made with any other civilisation in fact, not only in Europe. First with the Romans then the Rainassance and all geniuses throughout the centuries. I'm not saying others didn't contribute, but to suggest that all European nations are equally cultured and charismatic is a bit naive
The Greeks thought exactly the same thing about themselves, using the same reasoning.
@@a.j.fenwick7232 In fact it was not only greeks. This whole concept carries on throughout all of european history.
My country started and fought two world wars because "Am deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen".
And of course that whole third Rome concept.
It's a ludicrous claim that one european Nation is far superior than another and leads nowhere.
But it's save to assume that the British and den French had the biggest impact globally due to their colonial empires if we focus on modern times.
Ancient writers often described peoples they had not met, and places they had never visited. The farther away the scene, the wilder the description was likely to be. When a writer starts holding forth on people with no heads, or dog heads, or no mouths, you can be sure the author has never shaken hands with anyone from that town.
True
I indeed think they mostly got second-hand reports and some details were lost in translation...
U dont say?
The "dog-headed men" were probably them misunderstanding what a hamadryas baboon is. Romans also did explore into Africa's interior a bit, and they assumed that chimpanzees and gorillas were races of human, not different species. We even get the scientific name for chimpanzees, pan troglodytes, from a Roman legend about cave-dwelling humans that lived in the southern parts of Africa and spoke using chirps and hoots.
True, and in this video we see descriptions from Pliny the Elder who is not a reliable source of factual information at all, he most likely never travelled anywhere far away from Rome and just spewed nonsense based on his own imagination (Read his writings regarding celtic driuds for example).
Imagine using pants
Absolutly barbaric
Do you believe Antinoo didn't exist?
Come on, Julius Caesar himself made impression on Roman ladies, by wearing gallic trousers...
@@antinoofromgreece6560 I think we can assume OP's account name is a joke
Lmao that’s my favourite yt account name I’ve seen in a while hahaha
whos the guy in the pfp tho? sorry my barbaric ways in advance
Greeks: * Exist *
Juvenal: And I took that personally
"In Ethiopia, there is a race of people who have no noses"
"No noses? Then how do they smell?"
"AWFUL!"
Bu-dump Tssh!
XD
Based
badum tiss
Mostly to describe that many african people don't really have a defined nose bridge... but that's my guess.
@@JoeMartinez18 I don't think you've seen an Ethiopian then lol. They have the most Caucasian looking features (amharic, eritrean people etc)
Lets not forget he said some Ethiopian tribes had no tounges either 🙄
For the romans other people where like pokemons, they wanted to catch them all!
Lol, i have a level 20 Mexican and a level 2 Greek.
Then throw em in the coliseum/gym to win badges from the Caesar
@@jeebus6263 whoa, level 20 Mexican? Did you trade it with someone else? Those don't appear in this region.
@@ronjayrose9706 Defeat gym leader Arminius and get the "Bar Bar" badge.
@@alinalexandru2466 lmao
A wild Spaniard appeared!
Roman 1: Hi I’m from Rome
Roman 2: No way me too!
Roman 1 & 2: let’s be friends
Roman 3: Hey guys I’m new to town I’m from a small village 5 miles from Rome
Roman 1 & 2: Fucking Foreigners
Cicero dealt with this a lot.
I’d wager that Roman 3 would be regarded as a filthy peasant more so than a foreigner. This discrimination against people from rural communities exists in our time too.
Accurate depictions of the Plebians and the Equites.
@@octaviantimisoreanu5810 unfortunately😔
@Octavian Timisoreanu it really depends on when in Roman history. Early on, only people from the City of Rome itself were considered citizens. Over the course of the Republic, citizenship was extended through Italy as various tribes were incorporated formally into the Republic as more than socii (allies). For someone from the City of Rome, especially an older and more conservative person, they may still view non-Romans (i.e. from the city) as foreigners even after citizenship was extended (see Hispanic people in the SW United State after annexation or African Americans in the US's South after the 14th Amendment). Coming as they do from the tradition of city-states, Romans tended to have a VERY wide definition of "foreign".
@@blackjack2526 Actually, no! Catilina was a Patrician and he was the most vehement in reproaching Cicero for being a « perigrinus »!
So they weren't "racist", they were "culturist".
ethnonationalist might be the more modern term.
They would need tp become much more inclusive for other ethnic and culture groups to be even considered as racist.
@@starwarfan8342 "They need some political diversity in there." No one forbids it, just so far the main influx of creators were those banned from yt, those thinking that they are next on the chopping block or those who are serious about freedom of speech. There is clearly some left (example: feministfrequency) just very few bothers to watch. There is clearly some thought diversity within bitchute... uhm... mainstream as top creators there is a centrist / disillusioned left winger (Tim Pool) or libertarian (Styxhexenhammer666).
Well, I dislike echo chambers. That's the reason why I'm less than thrilled by artificially boosting on yt established media with their particular bias or banning edgy content. Moreover, banning or forcing to self censor a few creators that I liked left me with little choice but to watch it somewhere else.
@@starwarfan8342 "ethnonationalist" nope, stick to star wars
Xenophobic is the better term. A dislike or distaste of other cultures
Boomers: "I miss the good old days when everything was simple"
The good old days: "wHY arE YoU wEAriNg PANTS?!?!?
WHATBTHE SHIT IS THAT!!?????
FUCKING SHIRTS?????
I got one question for you, Goth: "WHAT ARE THOOSE!??"
Moron
„Spend ONE winter in germania and you‘ll know!“
what's wrong with that question
I think the great Roman commander R. Lee Ermicus summed it up best: "Here you are all equally worthless!"
Brilliant! Made my day.
HAHAHA
Full metal pilum, a movie set in the Marcomanni war (or Gothic War) would be great actually.
"Holy Ares!" - looks at unlocked foot locker - "WTF is that?"
@@clefsan "A globi ball, sir"
The Greeks were able to look down on Rome until they were crushed in glorious combat, but Rome still admired them more than other conquered nations
Admired feels like the wrong word but fits fairly well. They shared their history and even believed themselves descended of heroic age greeks and it makes sense since they looked similar compared to other 'civilized' people groups like egyptians or phoenicians.
@@kristiannicholson5893 Many say the cultural relationship was a-lot like UK & USA
*glorious melee combat
They look alike just languagw difference. All are olive ppl.
@@monstersamator5288 there's no such thing as olive people
"Certain types of shoes, which were associated with the Goths" so there were laws restricting platform combat boots
Romans: "THESE shoes with PANTS - how barbaric..."
Romans be like: "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Except Romans, we were created by Jupiter"
"-and the greeks, they're cool too"
@@dapperfield595 "-I suppose the Egyptians are OK as well... And the Batavians and Britons make good auxiliaries..."
Jupiter speaks greek. And no we have been created by Prometheus not "Jupiter"
@@aarengraves9962 Romans: My brother, why do the peoples of the Middle East resemble us in appearance? This is strange. We cannot differentiate between them and us in appearance.
Romans: "This is a NO PANTS zone."
With all this talk about pants, where’s David Letterman?
@@suzygirl1843 Why do you look for black history in Europe anyways that's like trying to find gold in an iron mine
@@suzygirl1843 What does that have to do with this comment...?
Red pantsless guy from cow and chicken: OOHH MY, this is PARADISE!!!
@@suzygirl1843 Ok, an interesting point, but uh.... why post this as a reply to a joke about Romans not wearing pants instead of making your own comment?
In the time Pliny was writing, the Bantu people had not yet dispersed across sub Saharan Africa, and an area to the south of Ethiopia was inhabited by Khoisan people, who use clicking sounds in their languages other groups don’t use
That could account for him saying a tribe lives that speaks by squeaks. Also, some people in Africa have much less pronounced button nose than a Roman nose. It could be the comments about lacking a nose come from that difference
And as he may. Have collected tales from others instead of traveling himselve there and strafe tales might grow in retelling...
Also lot's of body modifications in Africa, like lip plates.
@@sualtam9509 Yes but those are more recent, as they began as a way of discouraging Omani slave traders from taking their women, but then spread from there. Its entirely possible that their were many body modifications, but lip plates in particular, are quite modern.
@@jacksonp2397 Oh, I didn't know that. Thank you.
@Adrian Bradey how can “it could be..” be false
"Race is one of the most relevant aspect of my life. If the Greens don't win at the Hippodrome, I'll start an *f-ing RIOT*!!"
Interviewed Romans, 532 AD
Ah yes when that one Roman senator stood up and said “you know this whole thing with civil wars is really getting in the way of the discussion of Gaul on Gaul crime”
"Perfectly balanced guide to Rome: If you don't come to Rome, then Rome comes to you."
With a serving of glorious Yorkshire Tea... and *decimation* .
11:30 That lady prefers her child to see a man without pants.
cuz ur crotch is bulging with loose breeches and ur bare chest is exposed. With a toga, it's loose and there's no traction on the groin area.
CURSED
I see you EVERYWHERE
@@maaz322 Y'know, biologically speaking, men should be wearing skirts and women should be wearing pants
@@xxxxxx5868 not if you're running... clap clap clap and the man is keeled
The description of people from Africa as physically small ties in with the fact that, in Roman times, the Bantu tribes (tall people) were still largely confined to central Africa.
Bantus was not known for being tall.
@@denisegroce7135 That would be the Nilotics.
@@denisegroce7135 some groups classed as bantus were considered be tall such as the Tutsis of east and central africa or the Masaai. But this why I don't agree with the word "bantu" which just means "people" being used as an ethnic classification because its wayyy too broad. And I think it works better as a lingual classification instead even though there are still problems with it. About the niolotes..it's also still such a broad classification because not all nilotes are tall. Now, I don't know about the "tall people" being confined to central africa like how OP said because Rome had long standing relations with African kingdoms like Nubia, Ethiopia, Punt, Egypt and others.
@@babyramses5066 my tribe the Tutsis and Massaai are nilo cush people not bantus
The idea of culture being a more important distinguishing factor rather than race has not been extinguished. In South America we have such a diverse amount of groups of people that we distinguish each other based on culture primarily, even though we recognize that culture tends to tie in to race. Amerindians tend to behave in a certain way, Mestizos and Criollos in another, Morenos in another. The thing is, we generally don't talk about these groups often if we share the same culture. I can be in a group with Amerindians, Criollos and Mestizos and we're all gonna believe we're the same type of people even though we may technically be a different race and have different appearances. If we share the same cultural values, we are part of us (If that makes sense). These tendencies of distinguishing primarily by culture are not exclusive to antiquity, they are present in Hispanoamerica and maybe even Lusoamerica (Although I've heard the racial tendencies there are more similar to Anglo-Saxon tendencies like in the US).
Something I wanted to add as an example: People we perceive as indigenous are primarily considered that because they act indigenous, but if they cut their hair and start adopting hispanic cultural traits, we start considering them mestizos (Even if they're 100% Amerindian genetically), the same applies to Morenos (Black?); here their culture is closer to their african origins compared to the US where the cultural development has distanced them from their origins. Here, if they act with African cultural values, we tend to consider them a different group. But if they act with hispanic cultural values, we can relate to them more easily and subconsciously consider them one of us. I don't deny that appearance has a role to play, but it's because of the evident tendency for people of a certain appearance to have certain cultural values that we associate each "race" with that. But once we get to know someone and if that person turns out to share cultural values with us, we relate and consider them just like us. Edit: Everything I'm sharing here is considered from a Hispanic point of view, there are indigenous groups that don't share this tendency and will discriminate against mestizos because of their genetic makeup (Sometimes considered treason in their culture).
Yeah this focus on biological race is mostly an American thing that it tries to export to the rest of the world with damaging results because it often doesn't make sense in other countries where there are clear ethnic groups and people don't think about biological race.
This is a really long paragraph to say "We're not racist. We can't be racist. Only those 'Anglo-Saxon' morons in the USA are racist."
@@chaosXP3RT Much of what he says is true. Of course we are not free of any prejudice and racism. For example, in my country of birth which Is El Salvador the majority of us are mestizos and around 12 percent "pure" Caucasians or of more European descent, there are also a small community of afro- descendants and natives. Now, the afro-descendants are always linked with voodoo practice and superstition and discriminated based on this (although everyone can be quite superstitious in E.S) while the more European traits are sometimes adored as superior. There are lots of Salvadorans and other Central American people in the U.S city where I live, and I have observed that the amount of prejudice and racism against black people as savages and uncultured people is staggering especially among the older. Everyone can be racist unfortunately. In fact the statistics of the city shows that "Hispanics or Latinos" are more racist towards black people than Caucasians.
@@chaosXP3RT This is a long sentence to say "I am an ideologue and take personal offense to this for some reason."
Or so it seems to me.
The OP's take is pretty nuanced and rather fair, even as a generalization, so wouldn't it be fair to reply in a nuanced way as well? Instead of an inflammatory reaction like this?
@@chaosXP3RT not really he's basically saying, if they act like Hispanics then their like us, if they don't then their not. It's basically racism only worded smartly to deflect.
Personally I despise the Spanish for how they conducted themselves in south America. Not saying the locals weren't crazy like the old worlders where, but they had nothing to do with the problems in the old world. And their wealth was the only thing that saved Europe from the brownies of the middle east. Even with their wealth saving Europe they still got shafted.
Ironic cause I'm Inka and Spanish so I guess half brownie half Spaniard idk. Only new world brownie... Who knows.
I personally have a respect for the Inka non monetary system as it seems to be such an intriguing concept. I love the quipus. Love their agricultural accomplishments. Their discovery of penicillin ages before it was discovered. Their use of hybridization, climate alteration of plant modification. Their construction methods. Etc. It's all quite fascinating. and decades ahead of the old worlders, who were literally only good at killing each other in new and improved ways.
Well that was their main accomplishment at least.
Maybe you guys should make a video about the standard of living in different areas of the empire
I would be interested in this too.
i bet everything outside italy and greece looked like brazil but with hairy women.
Carius Marucus will have words with you.
@@drewinsur7321 like São Paulo? Or Camboriú? Or Gramado?
@@rogeriopenna9014 a battle rifle-less Baixada Santista eu diria. beaultiful, plenty of space and nature, lotta stealing, lacking jobs for everyone, hustling everyday, and judged by os nego that lives on big metropolis. 5 out of 10 for those far from rome or greece living ni
Brings new meaning to: “No shirt, no service”
And they were right about these corrupting influences: we've been wearing pants ever since.
Speaking as a guy, maybe we should go back to Togas. I imagine they're quite comfortable.
@@StephensCrazyHour i propose clothing based on seasons... in summers and springs everybody wears skirts and togas ; and in autumn and winter everybody wears pants.
Seems like the logical thing to do.
Romans had the understanding of Tribe and Ethnicity but the mass grouping of Ethnicities into larger races based on continent and complexion wasn’t a thing.
It totally was. In the war against the galates, in a speech, a roman informs his troops that the personality is based on blood, not on climate.
Also they believed that gods made the people, for exemple gauls are sons of galate and hercule.
So what you call ethnicism is more racist in fact.
@@pierren___ Do you have a link so I can learn more about this?
@@SomeInfamousGuy en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism
Blood being one of the corporal liquids defining a character. However, while some liquids were being considered dominant among certain groups, it was still an individual feature.
And every tribe had its own mythological ancestor: a god, an animal, a powerful hero, etc. He or she enabled members of sauf tribe to feel as relatives and be solidar to each other. Funny fact, when two members of different tribes met, they started to name all their ancestor in the hope of finding a shared link. It would facilitate their trust and interaction.
@@michelrobra6999
I've heard of different tribes doing that, but I've not been able to find any sources to learn more about that, which is frustrating
Even in modern times, unless you live in the new world (or follow their cultural values), this isn't the case. It's very much a new world thing to base it on complexion and continent. For reference, we fought a world war in part because a dude saw others with the same skintone and continent as him as inferior but not part of the right culture, religion and ancestral heritage. We also have loads of wars in Africa and Asia based on the same definition of ethnicity, and it's pretty recent that the same happened in Europe (and mainly due to the UN and EU power that stopped).
"Juutalais-kaupunginosa"? Invicta seems to be buying map services from a Finn, for those interested it means "Jewish quarter"
Also "Suuri satama" means "Large port" and "Eunostoksen satama" means "Eunostos' port"
Torilla tavataan!
Suuri satama "Grand Harbor" or as said large harbor. ..
It is too cold and covid to meet in square "tori"...maybe later in summer.
Perkele
Finnish was the official language for maps in Alexandria untill 1453
@@mimzim7141 for real?
One more factor to "race" for Romans: a people's gods. Usually intrinsic to their separate cultures, yes, but adopting Roman gods was yet another way of assimilating and becoming a citizen of the Empire.
Excellent doc on this subject! Well done!
The Romans practised religious syncretism. They would note which of the local gods had similar attributes to their gods and then say that they were the same gods, just going by a different name. Being gods they were not regarded as being bound by time, space or having just one identity. The religion they did require you to adhere to though was the Imperial Cult, the worship of the emperor, which was in effect worship of Rome itself.
@@gamebook727 Every religious did that. Most of christian celebrations were already celebrated by paians before.
@@petitesayo4542 Obviously not the same. Christians would not allow you to continue worshipping Zeus. Syncretism is very broad in Hinduism, very very narrow in Islam.
@@gamebook727 Can you expend a bit on this notion of synchretism?
It seems to me, as far as I understand it, that it allows one religion to still have its elements but it must adhere to the fundamental principles of the dominant religion.
Christianity, for example, allowed some Pagan traditions but fused them with core Christian teachings.
@@const1453 The Romans made no attempt to impose their religious notions on others, as they didn't really have a dominant religion as such. They were expansive polytheists, able and willing to pay honour to any and all gods so long as they were pro-Roman. They cheerfully accepted that the diverse peoples of the lands they conquered worshipped the gods in many ways and under many names, it was all good so long as the powers divine were paid their due respect (not to do so would bring down the wrath of the gods in the form of ill fortune, so the Romans did not like any form of impiety to any god). The Romans don't seem to have had our concept of denying the existence of god or gods, to them the proof of a god's existence was that they were worshipped, there was no such thing as a false god to them. This made Roman religious practices extraordinarily diverse with little or no attempt at imposing scripture or dogma. The gods the Romans worshipped changed constantly in popularity, with Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the goddess Isis, the heroic Mithras, the sun god Helios, the wise god Serapis and many others being adopted from all over and experiencing rises and falls. The only thing they wouldn't tolerate was defiance of Imperial authority, that brought violent persecution and at times even banning of a religion, such as Judaism after the Bar-Kokhba revolt or Britannic druidism for practising human sacrifice which was illegal under Roman law.
Christianity changed all that. While it often co-opted religious sites, practices and beliefs from other religions it rebranded them as Christian and sought to erase their pagan origins and the deities originally honored by them, something the Romans rarely did. The Romans would identify other peoples gods with theirs, but they would add their names onto the names they had for their gods rather than seeking to impose theirs, such as the Briton goddess Sulis of the Bath hot springs who they identified as their goddess Minerva, who was in turn the Greek goddess Athena. At Bath she was honored under the syncretic name Sulis Minerva, using both Roman and local rites. Over time the dominance and prestige of Roman culture tended to cause people to adopt more Roman religious practices, as can be seen in the spread of Roman style temples with pillars, towers amd ambulatory's across provinces like Britain in place of older cultic sites like circles and henges. Pagan religion though was always rather informal and a bit wild, it would seem more like the practice of black magic to us, long entrenched in Abrahamic forms of religion as our culture is.
As a blued eyed northerner, I can confirm I'm dull-witted.
Silence, barbarian!
@@SirBojo4 As a Numidian, I have to disagree with your statement my good sir.
*Bonks you with a stick.*
The Romans were very racist, the historian Suetonius wrote that Augustus thought it very important not to allow the movement of too many Non-Romans (ethnic/ race) into Rome as it risked tainting the native Roman people with foreign or servile blood. For that reason he was unwilling to create new citizens or even permit the manumission of more than a certain amount of slaves.
Considering much like the Greeks the Romans considered ancestry of extreme importance, giving Citizens (those who could trace their lineage back to the founding of the Polis) far greater rights than non-citizens, it stands to reason they would also have a concept of race given that the people all sharing a common ancestry would have similar phenotypes, while depending on distance foreigners would have different phenotypes. In essence, not only were they racist, they were far more racist than todays racists. An English racist will vilify a Nigerian, but not see a lot of difference between themselves and a German. An ethnic Roman didn’t care if you were Ethiopian or Gaulish, only that you weren’t an ethnic Roman.
They were more discriminatory than today, which ironically kinda made them less discriminatory than today.
Everyone was equally wierd (except the Greeks, their frenemies) but if they worked hard enough to assimilate, you'd be mostly accepted.
For example, this can be seen in all the Palmyran (Syrian) nobels who's tombs in Britian were just as lavish as the Romans themselves.
They were of nobility and probably were descendants of at least some Roman colonists .
@@o-o2399 right. Don’t listen to modern liberal propaganda. Romans only started accepting non Romans at the late stage of the Roman Empire.
@@SI-cd7xs right that's why i said they were at least probably part roman or descendants of colonists .
@@SI-cd7xs
Rome went multi-culti... and soon thereafter collapsed and was overrun by barbarians. 🤔
@@ZekeMan62 correct.
Banning pants was Honorius's only legitimate success.
honorius is the worst emperor but yet people still praising caligula and Nero
4th century Roman emperors is very ruthless, for example, Constantine killing a 11 years old son of licinius and killing his son and his spouse. Constantius II killed his entire family member. Valentinian I ordered brutal justice of execution either you're a criminal or innocent. Valens wanted exchange Gothic babies for exchange for food on the Gothic refugee. Theodosius massacring entire population of thessalonica for not following the edict. honorius killed stilicho supporter and killed Gothic refugee (including children) as he can, many were deserted to Roman army and join to Alaric side.
@Definitely a George Soros funded bot The last good emperor is majorian or Anthemius, both were puppet but they did really decent job.
@@bustanut5876 Yes, Honorius was an INCOMPETENT IDIOT. That was the WORST thing he could have done. He sure wasn't an able military mind, and he took out his best military officer and added strength to his enemies. A fatal combination. He is the one that began the true fall of the Western Realm. Although his equally incompetent successors, including the idiot who ruled until 455 A.D. finished the deed. I wonder if a Trajan quality man instead of these bumblers would have been able to turn it around. I think certainly had it been Honorius' successor, since the Western territories were still intact, except for Britain, abandoned in 410. It could have been easily reoccupied as apparently the Romano British at the time requested desiring protection. A combination of proper diplomacy and competent military action would have saved the realm by 415. No angry Goths and Vandals tearing through the Empire. They actually being part of the effort to preserve the realm, the Constantine successful approach to the situation. I wonder who was the actual idiot advisor who thought killing the most capable general and turning on the ethnic group that comprises the majority of the soldiers of your army was a good idea? As only a COMPLETE MORON would actually think that is a good idea. It lead DIRECTLY to the downfall of the Western Roman government!
@@jonathancummings6400 oh God, I wish praetorian guard was not abolished
Rome: "We're in the middle, so we get a mix of these traits!"
Me: "So... Slow, dull-witted, and cowardly?"
Probably the most midwit take in these comments
15 r5 my dude it's literally a joke. you dont need to get this tilted over people who enslaved your ancestors
@@ned5231 Haha, dude, it was a joke.
They said they were in the middle zone & therefore had a mix of traits, but of course they picked the best traits of the more extreme zones, when by their logic they could've also had a mix of every bad trait.
@@15r52 It was a joke, lol. I explained it in a reply in the same comment thread, if you take a look.
@@aerialpunk Must be because Aristotle taught that virtue was about finding the right balances between extremes in each category, a bit like the Goldilocks story, so Vitruvius applies it to formative climates. The term "Temperate" to describe that type of climate is probably a legacy of this idea.
It's interesting to note that we know very little of the Picts of Caledonia, not even if they had their own name for their race. They were a warrior race who painted their bodies with intricate designs, and thus it was the Romans who called them "Picti", meaning "the painted people". Some historians have claimed that may in fact have been a derogatory term.
Rome: You Don't Need Pants For The Victory Dance.
The celts response "it just allows us to celebrate free and better than your dress". The Romans got whipped by the men in trousers.
Especially during the sack of an enemy city.
Damn, a Baboon and Weasel reference? That's a flashback...
Pants dance 💃
We reserve the right to refuse submission to anyone without pants
I'm guessing they were pro-races but bigger fan of gladiator games
Chariots are the superior race.
Prove me wrong.
@@GoogleRuinsAnythingItTouches Of course they were, Romans had them racing up until the 1400s.
@@GoogleRuinsAnythingItTouches Byzantines would approve of some nice racing in the Hippodrome.
This joke... is actually good
@@saucyyikers3877 Finally I make a good one
"Holy shit, this guy's skin is black - that's a bad omen - I'm gonna die." - Rome.
based
Stfu
@@Strawhalo no
typical troll.
@@hiddenafitlhile8909 It was taken from the Metatron's video on Roman perception about race, where a scholar asserted that Romans didn't see race, but then made their point by talking about a Roman general who got a sense of despair and impending doom because he saw a legionary with black skin.
8:20 Don't you hate it when the sun absorbs your animal spirit? Happens to me all the time.
Man, what ever happened to all those *STRANGE* African tribes. Especially those without heads.
Now they're just French
Bantu expansion had wipe out more people than the black death.
Lizard people are your illuminati overlords 😈
It's a matter of proximity, the further away they are more intermediates they have and more distorted the discriptions would get.
Did you see how the first thing he says is "they have no noses"? To this day some idiots are racist about how short the noses of some black peoples are. If you were to hear french and turkish being discribed with such distortions you'd get anything from "their noses are long and narrow, some as long as all the rest of the head" (already quite distorted but not absurdly unhuman) to the point it would get bizarre like "their eyes are in their foreheads and they have no mouths as the nose takes most of the area of their heads. Through such noses that they feed and it weights so much that the back of their necks is bigger than their torso".
The Bantu ethnolinguistic migrations
People today: Judges race on skin color
Ancient Romans: HOW MUCH BLOOD DO THEY HAVE
How would they have known that though? Creepy…
Don't forget pants.
believe me if there is one thing Romans know its how much blood is in each type of person.
Ya know, the guy attributing human features to climate was kinda ahead of his time, although a lot of his reasons is wrong
It's the Greek physician Hippocrates (ca. 460 BCE-370 BCE) complete wrong concept of the four humors of the body needing to be in some balance for prefect health and abilities and mental acuity and mood: blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm.
This idiocy wasn't abandoned until about the mid 1800's.
Anyway, that's where that comes from: ancient bullshit that was only recently abandoned via the discovery of microbiology, chemistry, physics, etc.
"Sure these dark skinned Ethiopians are weird, but they have noses and can talk and don't slither around..." -Pliny, probably.
2:58 That has got to be the warmest looking smile I've ever seen! Such a Beautiful lady, I'd gladly answer any of her questions!
These drawings and depictions of ancient peoples is one of THE best parts of these videos, it really brings such long past people to life in a way that is refreshing and brings history into a context that few seem to see it as. That is not just learning about cultures from a distant time but seeing experiences that we can emphasize with even if not always necessarily approve of such ancient outlooks or ways of dealing with similar challenges and pressures but certainly understand them as people being people.
Pliny was high AF.
Imagine being the translator for Pliny's writings
Lead pipes: Not even once.
@Fuck Google pretty funny, considering that even isolated tribes develop languages. Language seems to be inherent in human groups
@Fuck Google Race is a social construct though...
@Fuck Google Yeah, but they also never really got to meet people south of the Sahara.
It seems consistent in human mythology and history for people to be like _"And that is the unknown region! Monsters probably live over there, don't go over there"_ It's very childlike [not in an insulting way] when you think about it, "there are monsters in the dark" it's endearing in a way.
“If you ain’t from Rome, you best go home😡”- Julius Caesar
Circa the Invasions of Gaul
say that to his Iberian legions loose civil war
Facts
You ain’t Roman unless you vote for Caesar
then proceed dating cleopatra
I'm REALLY interested in more detailed videos on roman culture and racial relations! PLEASE make more videos like this
"Race" is mostly a Germanic, Anglo-saxon construct. No Mediterranean civilization has ever thought in terms of "race" but of civilization. Asking in the census or whatever what "race" you are is an American thing. You don't see that in Spain or South American countries.
If yoga pants were a thing back then the Romans would probably rethink their views on pants
Pants Are womenly , skirts Are manly
LOL true that’s probably what would happen
By JUPITER, that ass must be conquered! ROMA INVICTA!
Hmmm, maybe not so bad these yoga pants
@bred BrEd real, traditional Scottish kilts were more like togas, and they went down to near the feet. The "skirt" version of the kilt was invented in the 19th century for the use roof Scottish regiments in the British army. Also, in ancient times Picts (Scottish ancestors) most likely wore trousers, though Roman's describe them going into battle naked.
Sounds like Pliny ran out of descriptions and then resorted to his monster manual or something
Gotta get that inspiration somehow 😄😎🙈🤦🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️😅👌🏻😝👍🏻🌞🙌🏻😌
Choose your race: 3:30
"The new slave girls are quite beautiful"
-Recruit Legionary
The Romans were the best of the ancient world.
I prefer the Greeks
Egypt ftw
Aww, you guys are adorable. But no one can beat this civilisation:
⚡️ *Ancient-Mesopotamia* ⚡️
@@youllseemeallovertheintern3682 Somome just brought out the big guns.
Perhaps in the west, but don't forget the Chinese and African empires at that time ,and even earlier!
Romans loved other races, they bought them all the time
One of the most underappreciated creators on this platform. You make better documentaries than the History Channel, Discovery or Nat Geo.
Roman pizza place: "Are you wearing pants?! Get out of my shop! We don't trust anyone who can't feel the breeze here!"
13:52 Why is that map in Finnish? In case anyone is curious, here's what the Finnish texts mean:
Eunostoksen satama = Harbor of Eunostos
Suuri satama = Great Harbor
Juutalaiskaupunginosa = Jewish District
Best video to tackle “race” in the ancient world. I’ve seen several other videos bring in critical race theory and overlay our modern construction of race over the Roman view - which was about culture and traditions then skin color.
I’ve always loved this story from John Romer, the well known Egyptologist: “Was the Egyptian afterlife only for Egyptians? Not exactly, but the gods were not likely to let a foreigner into the afterlife - even if they followed the proper rituals. Why? You see, the unpleasant odors of their local cooking left a smell on their clothes and skin. And the gods found this smell most unpleasant.”
This was from a companion scroll to the book of the dead and was written over 5,000 years ago. Assuming gods are avatars of the people, it shows how “human” the notion of “us and them” is. Or at least it does to me.
"Primary Sources or GTFO": best way to handle history regarding sensitive issues.
The only modern racism that is solely based on ethnicity and not culture is the one in America. Europeans focus on cultures still today and not skin color.
@@Hedmanification Chinese and blacks, Ethiopians and darker skin blacks vs light skinned blacks, Japanese & Cambodian’s and the indigenous tribes, South African Blacks and whites.
There are plenty of countries that identify who is outside the group by skin color. Tribalism is a genetic human trait. The method of identifying who is outside the tribe vs in varies in a multitude of ways; skin color being just one of many.
@@Hedmanification
Did your communist professor tell you that lie?
@@skorpaofthewhitehorse9170 Lol - A bit rough! (But yea, probably.)
The Romans: "If you can't kill it or screw it, it's not really conquered."
Like the old dog said"if you can't eat it or fuck it then just piss on it
11:45 Vatican now be like: "Within the city of Rome, no man shall make use of pants"
Roman's and Vikings had something in common.
They didn't care where the slaves came from.
@Alstro Else People the Vikings became
Except Vikings were not a nation.
The north-south-middle divide is really interesting in that it is almost the opposite of our modern western biases. For instance on a football pitch when two players make the seemingly same type of play it tends to be described differently... if its a black player its described as “what an athletic display” whereas if its a white player it tends to be “a really intelligent reading of the match” while the romans viewed the darker skinned southerners as intelligent but weak and the northmen as strong but dull....
True
The ones in the video are not black skinned Africans who were further south but North Africans and Ethiopians who are dark brown
@@spardahellkin5814 the Romans referred to all black people as Ethiopian and all of Africa as Ethiopia
@@shakezist really ? they did not call Egypt ethiopia and i am pretty sure they didnt call it all ethiopia either bro
North Africa was colonized by Semitic people from Asia. Such as the Phoenician and Egyptian civilizations. Not to mention they were a Roman province and Greek Kingdom once, so they were exposed to some European admixtures. They are not too different from modern Egyptians, which definitely aren't dark brown skinned. Look at Roman Egypt portraits.
Romans: They use curved swords. Curved swords...
And they kept making fun of conquered peoples: "Someone stole your sweetroll?"
@@octavianpopescu4776 "Lemme guess, someone stole your phial of gallum"
The GLADIUS or short sword was not curved, you you ignorant Barbarian, you.
@@richardcollier1912 unsure if joke, will treat as non-joke. it's a Skyrim reference about race. Nords, who generally use straight swords, view Redguards' usage of curved swords as weird.
@@TMTM7 this Guy got It!
The racial construct you point to as "the modern one" is itself local to the American racial paradigm.
I think modern Europeans wouldn't agree to being one race.
yes, even within the UK there are different races of people with pale skin, the Scots English and northern Irish all came from different tribes
Also the cultural paradigm of Rome is also very similar to the American cultural paradigm. If you are not seen as displaying Western or American liberal values, you are seen as uncultured and not willing to assimilate, when in fact it's probably Western culture's inauthenticity and materialism that alienates certain people when they come into direct contact with it for the first time.
@@invidusspectator3920 Rome and America are so different that i don't know how you can even draw this conclusion
@@shadowxxe Well, not really. Both are imperial cultures with a high opinion of themselves. That kind of it's my way or the high way attitude is present in most empires. Both are militaristic, they value superficial things, privilege and material things, are very moralistic, started their economies off of slave labour, have ellites that are getting richer and richer and as a result exerting more influence on the government, are multiethnic, both want to lay claim to being the only universal empire etc. These are all things you probably couldn't pick out if you were living in one of the imperial centres of the world, but if you live in the periphery, it's quite noticable and easy to pick up on.
@@invidusspectator3920
US culture is not really imperial. This is one of the silliest points of the left. Any kind of comparisson with it's progenitor which set the gold standard for empire should make that plenty clear. As it stands US culture is up for contention even more so than what you would expect for it's size and vibrancy and neither of the main two camps are for any kind of imperial attitude. The coin toss seems to be between isolationism and a cosmopolitan sort of outreach at the moment save for a few cold war fossils in the Republican old guard.
It's expansion-minded adventures of the past are more of an open question. Hawaii and the Philipines and a few pacific islands come to mind. However most of these abberations seem to stem either from inheriting parts of the British empire that the Brits could no longer keep or from some perceived urgent strategic interest. On the whole, manifest destiny died before the British Empire had transitioned into the Edwardian era. It's brief revivals seem to be an echo of an echo, jingoism grasping at straws, little more than that.
It's important to point out that though the US was heavily into slavery, it was very different both morally and practically than it's ancient counterparts. Slaves in the US were acquired by trade rather than conquest and it's moral justifications were mostly pseudo-anthropological garbage and fringe christian hysterics (or at least, they are fringe now) rather than rival nationalisms and war enmity. This was worse in many ways. Vae victis slavery is horrific but the implication of an entire race being supplicants to another is totalitarian on a whole different level. In any case, it did leave a scar even after it was abolition. However it was abolished and the scar has healed a great deal and these are the signs of a society marching forward that Rome utterly lacked.
Returning to the states, it might be closer to the mark to refer to an economic hegemony rather than any type imperial structure. There is no longer a gold standard but there is a standard in the american currency after all... If we did we would be half right. It was the great construction of the post-world war two left that set the standard for reconstruction and economic stability once the fascist shadow had been lifted. The Bretton Woods system. The aftermath of the best moment of the US labor movement. Locally it meant maintining the strong production front that had catapulted american industry during the second world war. Globally it meant that surpluses could be maintained in virtually every other country in the world. It was not a perfect system but it served well until it was destroyed by the "free market" minded right wing which was eager to return power to the hands of speculators and bankers. On the whole, we are experiencing the catastrophic consequences of this change to this day. If this indicates any sort of imperial ambition, it seems at least to suggest great idiocy in carrying it out.
What I think is the case then? I think that the "empire" narrative is an anti-american smear and an idiotic simplification. The left at it's worst can produce such as readily as any other political force. Take it from a fairly radical socialist and a european, it's not up to snuff as a critique and there are many much more apt charges you could open up regarding the US.
In a lot of ways the Roman view on "race" is actually the one that feels most intuitive to me. I think it's kind of dumb to focus on only skin color in determining what group someone falls into. I tend to pay at least as much attention to things like accent and how someone dresses or behaves to get an idea of what "tribe" they're in. A dark-skinned person in a business suit that speaks my regional accent wouldn't really stand out to me, but a strangely-dressed white person with a thick foreign accent definitely would. Many forms of tribalism get lumped in with racism, but I'd say there is technically a difference between people who just want people from other places to speak the language, dress normally, and fit in, and people who mindlessly obsess over skin color and use it to divide people who otherwise have a lot in common culturally, and perhaps feel a weird solidarity with people who look like them but behave in a totally different way.
I agree with you, in South America things tend to work this way since it's a very diverse place. We can consider people of different appearances our own sometimes based on cultural values and see past the superficial appearance because we have an indicator of how they are likely to behave so we feel comfortable that way.
Well said, problem is the white people have been infected with the idea of "WHITENESS" which makes skin color the first and often most important perammeter
Exactly! A person's physical appearance/skin color doesn't tell me what language they speak, what they believe, or their morals and values. What does it matter if I'm grouped with people who all share my skintone but don't value what I value, believe what I believe, dress like I dress, or speak how I speak? We don't "belong" together just based on our skin colors. It's a very narrow minded view of the world to simplify everyone based on only one factor like skin color, class or country.
@@tesmith47 Saying how all white people are a certain way isn't helping what you are trying to say.
@@firehazzard8497 problem is the power group at this time has made COLOR the defining criteria.
"Pants are an illusion, so is life" - Huu
Avatar 💪🏼
Avatar TLA was fantastic world building as well
*death.
even before watching this video,it seems like the only peoples whose physical appearance the romans payed that much attention to were the peoples living far north of the alps because of their blonde/red hair and pale skin or the peoples living far south of the sahara because of their dark skin.
Well when your empire is in the middle of the world the only people who stick out are pretty far off
Ancient Romans: "Light eyes, light skin and tallness are exotic attributes of northern barbarians."
Most people today: "Ancient Romans were blond and looked exactly like the barbarians they found to be remarkably different!"
Original Romans were black-haired and light-skinned with brown eyes, just like my original Iberian stock.
The thing is they did pay attention and classified man accordingly. Philosophers from the time and peior to rome were hyper aware of race and even moreso ethnicity. Rome was more unique in its social strcture however. But any attempt at making romw out to be a succesful multikulti empire where race, ethnicity didnt matter is fooling themselves. The language video even shows just how deep a lot of the divides went, if langiage is amy proxy to go on.
Yet some extremes were so extreme to them that they had a unique place.
@@scintillam_dei I mean...
Look into the character descriptions of their leaders
Which makes sense. Most of the people they interacted with had the same look as themselves once you took away cultural things like clothing or hairstyles. I doubt more than a dozen Romans in the whole of the Roman period so much as saw an East Asian.
I just love the art style, it's so cheerful and beautiful. Great job
I am happy someone more informed than myself took the time to address this. I was recently having a dialogue with myself regarding the ethno-centric view of slavery in America and doing some cursory research on the history of slavery in order to formulate a more universal understanding of the subject throughout human history. Rome seemed like an easy starting point and this was a great addendum to that overarching inquiry. Thanks!
"Gauls have entered the pomerium! They are asking for directions to the senate."
(Caesar's appointment of senators after winning his civil war)
Those Gauls were from Cisalpine Gaul or what we consider today Northern Italy and I've heard Historia Civilis state they were mostly romanized at this point.
HISTORIA CIVILIS!
Yes, then Claudius appoimted some high born Aeduii (gauls long term Rome's allies) senators.
I remember this youtube historian video about something but the jist was...
When a legion with nubian/Ethiopian auxiliary went to England to relieve a pervious legion in garrisoning Hadrian wall. A centurion saw one of them atop the wall and thought that he'll die. The dude thought the auxiliary was a bad Omen since black was considered a representation of death or something.
can you remember the channel or at least which emporer itwas during the time
That is an anecdote about the emperor Septimius Severus (a North African himself): "After inspecting the wall near the rampart in Britain… just as he [Severus] was wondering what omen would present itself, an Ethiopian from a military unit, who was famous among buffoons and always a notable joker, met him with a garland of cypress. And when Severus in a rage ordered that the man be removed from his sight, troubled as he was by the man's ominous colour and the ominous nature of the garland, [the Ethiopian] by way of jest cried, it is said, “You have been all things, you have conquered all things, now, O conqueror, be a god.” " (ianjamesross.com/journal/2018/4/28/aethiops-quidam-e-numero-militari-black-africans-in-the-roman-army )
@@KamikazeKatze666 thank you
@@KamikazeKatze666 thank you so much
@@joelgottfried5849 Not sure if this is the video the OP was referencing but the anecdote is shared in this video by the TH-camr "Shaun", at the 6:32 minute mark.
th-cam.com/video/qJ_Nql0p8UA/w-d-xo.html
I hadn't realized the climate-based theory of race went back that far.
Highly interesting passage about Weakness in regards to sickness, in Ref to Northerners. As most disease's of a serious nature evolve and/or spawn in equatorial zones ( heat and moisture ) it actually is a very interesting observation of "weakness" or lack of exposure to them when we came south.
The Romans were focused on nationality, not race.
Historically race was synonymous with people group, at any level, whether referring to an instance of a tribe or entire broad population group (Gothic Vs Germanic race). Nation was also synonymous. Somebody who wasn't of germanic heritage wouldn't have adopted germanic customs nor have been considered a member of the germanic people. The distinction you are trying to make literally just doesn't exist before the post-WW2 era.
@@lostalone9320 the germanic tribes were literally a people group, as recognised by the Romans and themselves, it's really weird to object to that. What else could people possibly mean when they even discuss them as germanic, as opposed to literally any other distinction?
Secondly the polity is obviously not a clear cut thing when it comes to exactly what we're discussing, the people's romans described outside themselves. Again, people from Germania for example were organised on a loose tribal basis which frequently shifted. Even ununited, they recognised certain groups as being the same. E.g goths taken in by the Romans and those by the Huns were recognised as the same people even though they were apart of distinct polities.
People never used the word race to mean skin colour, it was to denote population groups (which are almost always defined, even in the most contemporary anthropology, as having shared ancestry) in their narrowest and broadest senses. The idea that Romans only understood people groups in terms of their government is weird and untrue, and records of scholars we have show they took great interest in who the people's who lived in said polities were, like the Huns, of whom the Romans inform us of their confederated nature, being made up of many races (population groups).
@@lostalone9320 Lmao what
Can´t stop myself from replying to the OP. He uses two terms: race and nationality. Both of them don´t make any sense. There is in the species of humans no such thing as ´races´ and in my views such distinction is purely made up. If we have a german, a french, a spanish and a moroccan man, which people are in the same race? Also in a world where chieftains could refuse a call to arms, there is no such thing as a nationality or even Polity. When Ceasar fought in Gual for example, he also had Gallic allies.
I think people are thinking too much that there was a black and white in antiquity.
@@lostalone9320 Germanic tribes spoke dialects of the same language. They also shared the same culture. So seeing them as some kind of nation was not really wrong and definitely the concept of nations is much more correct than the concept of race.
The book, Chronicles of the Barbarians: First Hand Accounts is a good compilation of how high civilizations like the Romans and Greeks viewed other races.
In other words, as long as the slave is submissive and on his knees, the Roman does not care about his race, nationality, skin color, and religion.
Romans: Sees Scottish man wearing skirt
Also Romans: I see you are a man of culture
There's been some speculation that the descriptions of the "Bleymme" and "dog faced people", and other strange people, he may have been describing apes, gorillas and monkeys; the dog-faced people may have been referring to Lemurs.
That's really interesting and makes sense since a lot of people in ancient times viewed apes as wild men. The names of the three main genera of great apes mean something in reference to humans in all of their names. Chimpanzee means mock man in a West African language (I forget which language), gorilla comes from a tribe of large hairy women in I think Greek myth and orangutan means old man of the forest in Malay.
So if the people who lived with these apes named them after men, as with chimps and orangutans, it makes sense that people not familiar with them as part of the fauna from where they came from would also see human qualities in them. Great comment that really got me thinking.
Edit for punctuation.
@@Kaiser-gt4rr gorillas were discovered by carthaginians
@@Logan-cu9di No they we're not.!...Gorillas were already known by the people that called them gorillas. when the Carthaginians asked what they were called. Thats like me coming to your house and for the first time in my life I see a cat and , I ask you , what is that called?You say cat. I then record it in my logs and thousands of years later a numb nut sees a video and says I discovered cats.
@@guynado402 the tribes my have known about them but they did not name them gorillas. The word gorilla means "tribe of hairy women" in Greek. I doubt the native tribes were speaking Greek so yes the hano the navigator named them himself.
@@Logan-cu9di sorry buddy but , you are wrong
this is what Hanno says himself
18) In this gulf was an island, resembling the first, with a lagoon, within which was another island, full of savages. Most of them were women with hairy bodies, whom our interpreters called "gorillas".
here are two sources you can check
www.livius.org/articles/person/hanno-1-the-navigator/hanno-1-the-navigator-2/
Pliny the Younger: "The Greeks invented Gayness"
Is he wrong though?
@@dubuyajay9964 almost definitely, the ancient Greeks may have been the first to have incorporated into their culture; but there is evidence to suggest that it predates modern homo sapiens. As it has been documented in other species.
Sodom and gomorrah existed way before greeks
@@Hotboytrue Take it up with Pliny, not me.
@@Hotboytrue and secondly, (I took a moment to check this) Sodom and Gomorrah are estimated to have been destroyed around 1900 BC wereas the oldest Greek civilisation, Minoan Crete, was in existence from 3000 BC onwards.
loved the video! it would be great if you could add the research sources in the description so we can check it out too.
Sounds like picking skyrim classes lmao
have you heard about the high elves?
13:52 Ah, Roman Egypt and their Finnish language.
That is the cultural diversity of Rome!
Simply splendid
Picts "Pants? No thanks, I've got a layer of paint on and it's only -5C"
I have little trust in historical videos on youtube as they contradict one another more than confirm. Certain terms give us an idea also. Multi enthic is a give away for example.
The Romans were a judging society, they thought that the Celts and Germanics are Barbarians or the Greeks smart!
The comment section is gonna be charming in this one...
I love how there always has to be a comment preemptively bitching about other people bitching.
I also have no doubts this comment will fuel even further bitching, so let's get this bucket chain started.
Where are the popcorns ?
There’s a good deal of racism still knocking about sadly.
Bug and a good deal of false accusations of racism, sadly
@@GoogleRuinsAnythingItTouches I don't know what you're talking about. As I said I expected this comment section to be charming, nothing but civilised conversations about history with no objectionable remarks to be seen...
Races? Aren't ethnicities more accurate?
👍
race is appropriate here as it is just an enlarged concept of ethnicity, which is what the environmental theories deal with.
Yeah it's unfortunately correct in English. In German, you're completely doomed if you use race (rasse) to describe someone. Race means something like a different breed of dog for example here. We use ethnicity (ethnie).
We're all humans.
@@acupofcoffee693 yes we're all humans but think of race as a subspecies of humans. We're different whether we'd like to admit it or not. For instance black people have denser bones leading to the stereotype that they can't swim. However they have longer limbs on average and more fast twitch muscle fibers leading to greater runnners (look at the olympics if you deny this) i could go on about other differences between the races but i've already quite offended many by saying just this
@@li6706 Blacks do not have thicker bones than anybody. Where do you get this stuff? lol
"Greeks are effiminate"
-Romans
Lmao 🤣
didnt he say feminine
Imagine what the Romans would think if they survived long enough to meet Koreans.
@@Retaliatixn They would go to war with them due to sheer disgust in the Roman Republic, and would be extra xenophobic under the Empire
"There are the slaves, and there are the Romans"
Social status was also important in Ancient Times.
A King or Tribal Chief would be treated with dignity and respect unlike the peasants.
Replace King and Tribal Chief with CEO and Hedgefund manager and turns out not much has changed.
@@songcramp66 lol
@@songcramp66
HOLD THE LINE!
@@comradepolarbear6920 ok
Unless the tribal chief was being conquered by Rome, in that case the tribal chief would be forced to submit and kiss the eagle standart as a show of undying loyalty, if he did submit to Rome's might, otherwise, if the conqueror was fortunate enough to be given a Triumph, the chief be stripped naked and taken along with his now enslaved people back to Rome, where they'd be paraded across the streets as thousands shouted until they reached the temple of IVPITER OPTIMVS MAXIMVS, where they'd be executed in religious rite.
Yes, please expand more on this concept, it helps bring context to how humanity has navigated this poorly and successfully historically. Makes today's conflicts and prejudices seem a little more surmountable
I think you've misunderstood what alot of this is saying and interpreted it through the lense of modern multicultural liberalism but that's OK.
This topic is so fascinating, more of this type of content please.
"Hey, so there's this guy down in Judea who apparently can turn water into wine."
"Watered down wine?"
"No, pure wine."
"Filthy savage."
They then proceeded to kill him, for him to come back and his ideas make the Roman Empire one of the first nations following him and God
That's quite the reverse card
You would never hear that spoken except in the Bible. There is no history at all about Jesus written anywhere but the Bible. I wonder why that is?
@@kevineug Bullshite. The TH-camr Metatron - who is a Roman history and culture enthusiast - has a video on this, let alone that this information is easy to find on the Internet. Jesus of Nazareth absolutely was a real living breathing person. He's not just mentioned in the Bible, as you so falsely spewed. Even the historian Tacitus, who never hid his *_vehement_* hatred of Christianity and Christians, spoke of Jesus as a real person. We also literally still have Roman documents that prove that Jesus was being talked about on a bureaucratic level in the Roman hierarchy.
Believe in the supernatural stuff or not, that's entirely up to you. But to say that Jesus was nothing more that a mere fabrication of the Bible is either woefully ignorant, or extremely and intentionally dishonest.
Especially when the Bible itself is a historical source, because both secular and religious archaeologists and historians have literally used the Bible to find peoples and locations that stubborn secular scholars had insisted were fabrications themselves. Using the Bible itself as reference has found us the Hittites, the Assyrian capital of Nineveh, Gath - Goliath's birthplace, and countless other examples like them.
@@maxxor-overworldhero6730 also a little defensive don’t you think?
@@kevineug To be fair, a random barbarian getting a bunch of funny ideas and spreading them before the governor executes him by request of the local religious authorities wouldn't exactly be on the top of anyone offical's priorities to write about. I think the Romans only ever started carring about that newfangled Christianity thing when it started spreading in Rome itself and they loudly protested rites honoring the Emperors.
TLDR: Who at the time would go out of their way to write about a random, poor, schismatic jew who probably wore pants and can't read.