If Greek identity can be seen as a complex interplay of ethnic and cultural elements with kinship always being a prominent, if not the most significant, factor, Roman identity seems different and evidently culturally, or rather politically defined. What mattered in the Roman world was citizenship. This could be inherited, but crucially it could also be acquired - theoretically by anyone: a factor recognized even in antiquity as contributing to the success of Roman imperialism. The myth of Romulus’s grant of asylum (Livy 1.8.5-6) was the ancient sanction for Roman openness. In reality, of course, Rome was not always so open, especially during its early history (Lintott, citizenship). Even in terms of myth, Rome’s position was not as clear-cut as it seems on first inspection. By accepting the Greek foundation myth and grafting it onto their own, Rome was able to insert itself into the system of kinship diplomacy that operated in the Greek world (Erskine 2001: 162-97). This system, however, was predicated on the assumption of blood relationships, and was thus exclusive.
Nevertheless, by the end of the first millennium bc, what mattered was citizenship. Rome was flexible enough to allow local pride to be retained and even celebrated as long as it was complementary to Rome. The notion of pride in both local and Roman identity had existed in Italy for some considerable time. We see it in Ennius’s reference to his “two hearts” (cited in Gell. 17.17.1) and the passage of Cicero mentioned previously. Once extended across the empire, it helped make the provinces governable and ultimately Roman in identity. provincial elites had something to aspire to - the chance to become citizens and later participants in the central system of authority. Their success could then become a matter of local pride. These factors gave individuals and communities a strong motivation to assimilate. Greg Woolf (1998) persuasively argues that provincial elites did not just assimilate the external signs of Roman culture, as a cynical display of conformity to the new regime, but rather internalized (or consciously subscribed to) a Roman identity. This process of what has traditionally been called “Romanization” could be quite rapid, as Woolf demonstrates for Gaul. Local customs were not forgotten, but they were changed and redefined in the Roman context. They could be embraced or ignored by the imperial state provided they did not profoundly contradict Roman norms. Through this open system Rome could incorporate Greeks, Celts, and all manner of others. All could feel equally Roman without abrogating their specific local heritages. The differences that mattered were between citizen and non-citizen within the empire and being under Roman rule or beyond it.
The Romans appropriated Greek notion of the “Barbarian” but changed its meaning. The “Barbarian” lived beyond Rome’s rule at the extreme edges of the world. This way Roman identity came to be seen as synonymous with civilization. Beyond the boundaries of the empire lay wild, dangerous places populated by “Barbarian” savages. Thus, Roman conquest was civilizing - not the last time that civilization would be invoked as a justification for imperialism. These imperialist and culturally supremacist notions sat comfortably with ancient views on geography and its impact on human behavior and society. At the edges of the world, where the environment and climate were untamed and harsh, lived savage men shaped by that world. such peoples needed to be either conquered and brought into the civilized world or shut out from it by strongly defended borders.
In late antiquity there were further changes. The important differences ceased to be between citizen and non-citizen once Caracalla extended the right to virtually all free people with the “Antonine Constitution” (c. ad 212). The boundary between free and slave was permeable, especially in imperial times as manumission became a commonplace. Later on, this division became even less important as a new and fundamental distinction arose - that between Christian and pagan. This new dichotomy appropriated many of the ideas and assumptions that had underpinned the “othering” of the “Barbarian.” The word pagan (paganus) played on the stereotypes of the city dweller as civilized and the rural population as uncouth and backward. The Roman attitude to “barbarianism” could be largely retained as beyond the borders of the empire lay the non-Christian world.
Thus, if we compare the Roman and Greek worlds, we can see how in the former a political concept of identity became increasingly significant. This was coupled to a set of cultural values but ethnic factors were downplayed. By contrast, in the Greek world, while there was a keen sense of a political identity, it was constructed in terms of ethnic (and cultural) factors. Polis affiliation existed within the framework of a larger, though less important, panhellenic identity, again constructed in ethnic and cultural terms. By contrast, in the Roman world, the most important level of identity was also that which operated at the largest scale - citizenship. Other factors making up a person’s identity, including ethnicity and local heritage, were still important but could be subsumed by Romanitas.
World History
