Day of Empire_ How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance--And Why They Fall - Amy Chua [33]
Claudius's point was clear: Barbarism could be shed. And the sooner it was shed, the better. Like the British nearly two millennia later, the Romans believed firmly in their civilizing mission. As described by Pliny the Elder, the goal was “to soften people's ways, ritus molliret, to bring the clashing wild speech of infinite different peoples to a common conversation through a common tongue, and to supply civilization, humanitas, to men, that all races might, in a word, belong to a single patria.” Claudius thus hoped “to see the whole population of the world in togas—Greeks, Gauls, Spaniards, Britons, the lot.”
Similarly, the historian Tacitus described how his father-in-law, Agricola, the governor of Britain, sought to create “Britons in togas” by encouraging his subjects to build Roman-style houses and temples and by educating the sons of the leading men in the liberal arts. According to Tacitus, the Britons, who initially lived in “primitive settlements” and were “inclined to war,” eventually grew “accustomed to peace and quiet by the provision of amenities.” “Even our style of dress came into favour and the toga was everywhere to be seen,” he said. As time went on, the Britons were seduced by “the allurement of evil ways, colonnades and warm baths and elegant banquets. The Britons, who had no experience of this, called it ‘civilization,’ humanitas, although it was part of their enslavement.”24
In other words, the Romans were not cultural relativists. Roman officials encouraged subjugated elites to accept the Roman cultural formula, creating a political and economic system that rewarded assimilation. What was remarkable was that nationality and ethnicity did not affect one's ability to be Roman. It was Rome's willingness and ability to incorporate and assimilate an endless stream of new peoples into its empire that held the secret to its greatness.
RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN THE HIGH EMPIRE
One of the most striking features of Rome's golden age was its cosmopolitan approach to religion. As Gibbon shrewdly observed, “The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. And thus tolerance produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord.”25 The only requirement Rome imposed on local religions was that they pay sufficient respect to Roman authority and official rituals.
In some ways, Rome's religious tolerance is not surprising. Like the Persians, the Romans were polytheists and believed that different peoples would naturally worship different gods. Moreover, Rome's system of multiple gods was based almost entirely on Greek mythology—with Zeus, Athena, and Aphrodite reincarnated as Jupiter, Minerva, and Venus. According to the Greco-Roman worldview, there were gods for almost everything. If other people worshipped new gods, what was wrong with that?
By the second century AD, it was virtually impossible to isolate a “pure” Roman religion. As the Roman legions marched across Europe and North Africa, they “captured” new gods nearly as often as they conquered foreign cities and cultures. After the conclusion of a battle, Roman generals often would adopt the defeated enemy's deity in order to steal the source of their enemy's power. Far from desecrating these local gods, enterprising legionnaires would carry them back to Rome, frequently incorporating them in their hometown temples.
In addition to “capturing” foreign deities, Rome often “summoned” a prestigious foreign god to come to Rome to help the city cope with a natural emergency such as an epidemic or invasion. If