Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GoLightly
If the practice of sacking a city, the whole raping & pillaging deal made a member of an armed force into a barbarian, why weren't Romans ever called barbarians?

In the case of the Greeks (which is where the word barbarian comes from), any one who didn't speek Greek was a barbarian because when a non-Greek spoke, it sounded like "bar-bar", simply nonsense. The Greeks did their share of pillaging and raping under the conquests of Alexander the Great. But that doesn't make them barbarians by this definition.

As for the Romans, I haven't studied their word for barbarian. I assume it would have to do with the political organization of the opponent. Those invading Germanic (even if Arian Christian) tribes were not a well-organized empire. But the Roman legions did their share of raping and pillaging. Look what they did to Jerusalem in the late first century AD--they leveled it to the ground. There are many other examples of Rome doing this sort of thing. In this context I don't think barbarian refers to the destructive power of an army.

I think it did too. I couldn't believe my son, a history major had never heard about that battle before I asked him to go to that movie with me.

I am not surprised. The teaching of history is much worse in the high schools. I read recently that school children in London were confused about a statue in that city to Lord Nelson. They thought it had something to do with Nelson Mandella. Those children aren't being taught much about their own history.

39 posted on 12/12/2007 2:54:55 PM PST by stripes1776 (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: stripes1776
In the case of the Greeks (which is where the word barbarian comes from), any one who didn't speek Greek was a barbarian because when a non-Greek spoke, it sounded like "bar-bar", simply nonsense. The Greeks did their share of pillaging and raping under the conquests of Alexander the Great. But that doesn't make them barbarians by this definition.

I knew the word had something to do with language of outsiders, but had been thinking it had to do with the lack of a writing system. Thanks for the info. Hopefully I'll remember it the next time a topic about it comes up.

All or most armies raped & pillaged, but not all gained a reputation about it. How do you think the word got the connotation that's been passed down to us, if all it meant was those who's language sounds like "nonsense"? Even nonsense is a weighted word, assumes a touch of superiority of those who didn't speak & understand the language that sounded like "bar-bar". Belittle your foes if you don't make them evil, as simple "savages" are easier to defeat than an army you allow to be perceived as your equal.

Beware Greeks bearing gifts = Greeks are not to be trusted or have no honor. It is not known whether or not the wooden horse was real. On the one hand you've got cool smart move, but on the other, to "outsiders" you need to "cheat" to win.

As for the Romans, I haven't studied their word for barbarian. I assume it would have to do with the political organization of the opponent. Those invading Germanic (even if Arian Christian) tribes were not a well-organized empire.

The Vandals didn't need a well-organized empire to sack Rome & gain a reputation that lives to this day in the word vandalism.

But the Roman legions did their share of raping and pillaging. Look what they did to Jerusalem in the late first century AD--they leveled it to the ground. There are many other examples of Rome doing this sort of thing. In this context I don't think barbarian refers to the destructive power of an army.

Those who wrote the history were "civilized" & those who were defeated by them were all "barbarians".

41 posted on 12/12/2007 4:53:58 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: stripes1776
As for the Romans, I haven't studied their word for barbarian. I assume it would have to do with the political organization of the opponent.

I thought it had to do with who lived in cities. If you lived in fixed permanent cities you were civlilized. If you were a tribe of wandering nomads you were barbarians.

51 posted on 12/12/2007 9:42:21 PM PST by FreedomCalls (Texas: "We close at five.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: stripes1776

The original Greek word for barbarian did indeed refer to all non-Greek speakers. By the time of Alexander, if not earlier, it had altered to mean more or less “uncivilized,” which is roughly its present meaning. It was generally used to refer to the “outer peoples” away from the Mediterranean, not the city-dwelling peoples along its shores.

In later Greek and Roman writing, I don’t think the term was used for such peoples as Egyptians, Persians or Carthaginians except in hyperbole, as we still use it today. In late Hellenistic and Roman times, some of the original language-based meaning may have crept back in, as people who had no Greek were considered by definition uneducated and somewhat uncivilized.


55 posted on 12/13/2007 5:35:41 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson