Did the Romans have Ethnic Stereotypes?

[Your Old Comrade]

This edition of the Toldinstone Q & A answers four more of your questions about the Greeks and Romans. If you have questions you'd like to ask, or want more detail about some aspect of my answers, please don't hesitate to let me know in the comments!



Check out my other channels @toldinstone and @scenicroutestothepast


Chapters:
0:00 How much did the average Roman know about Parthia?
3:31 What did the Romans know about the city of Babylon?
5:33 What were the most stable periods in Roman history?
9:24 Did the Romans have ethnic stereotypes?

[Sebastianus Rex]

This should be interesting, let's bump it.

[renaissance12]

The concept of race did not exist in the Roman Empire. This was not due to any magnanimous impulses on the part of the Romans, however. The Romans absolutely believed in the existence of nationalities and ethnicities; they just didn’t see skin coloration to be important in determining such things.

The Romans were cultural supremacists par excellence.

They believed themselves and their Roman way of life to be self-evidently superior to that of all other nations and peoples.
The success of their conquests was all the proof they needed to justify this belief.
As far as the classical Romans were concerned, anyone who 1) had Roman citizenship, 2) spoke at least some Latin or Greek, 3) was subject to Roman law, and 4) acknowledged the existence of the Greco-Roman pantheon was a Roman. Basically, if you acted like a Roman and were considered Roman by other Romans, then you were a Roman. It was that straightforward. Appearance didn’t matter in this respect.

All of this isn’t to say that Romans were completely blind to physical differences.
Interestingly, they referred to people of Ethiopian stock (the only dark-skinned Africans they would have had contact with) as “burnt,” not black. Roman writers assumed that their coloration had to do with the harsh sun of Ethiopia. We now know that they were correct, though for more complicated reasons than they could have ever grasped. However, the “burnt” status of Ethiopians was simply a curiosity that had no further implications. The Ethiopians were considered by most Romans to be among the relatively few “civilized” barbarian nations, quite in contrast with the light-skinned German tribes, who were true barbarians in the Roman mind.
By all accounts, the few Roman citizens of Ethiopian extraction (most of whom were merchants or soldiers) were treated exactly the same as any other Roman.

[thatoneton]

All of this isn’t to say that Romans were completely blind to physical differences.
Interestingly, they referred to people of Ethiopian stock (the only dark-skinned Africans they would have had contact with) as “burnt,” not black. Roman writers assumed that their coloration had to do with the harsh sun of Ethiopia. We now know that they were correct, though for more complicated reasons than they could have ever grasped. However, the “burnt” status of Ethiopians was simply a curiosity that had no further implications. The Ethiopians were considered by most Romans to be among the relatively few “civilized” barbarian nations, quite in contrast with the light-skinned German tribes, who were true barbarians in the Roman mind.
By all accounts, the few Roman citizens of Ethiopian extraction (most of whom were merchants or soldiers) were treated exactly the same as any other Roman.

This is a misunderstanding. The Romans (and Greeks who made the term) referred to any black person as "Ethiopian" ("burnt face") as this was the term for any black person in general, and was later carried over to a specific place/country.

[Etelfrido]

From Benjamin Isaac's Attitudes towards Provincial Intellectuals in the Roman Empire

We may start with Posidonius who came from the Syrian city of Apamea on theOrontes (c. 135-c.51 BC). His work has not survived, but a fairly large number ofdirect quotations by later authors are available for consideration. Interesting for ourinquiry is a passage in which he tells of the cities in Syria and how luxurious theywere, writing as follows: ‘The people in the cities, at any rate, because of the greatplenty which their land afforded, (were relieved) of any distress regarding thenecessaries of life; hence they held many gatherings at which they feasted continually,using the gymnasia as if they were baths, anointing themselves with expensive oil andperfumes, and living in the “bonds” – for so they called the commons where thediners met – as though they were their private houses, and putting in the greater partof the day there in filling their bellies – there, in the midst of wines and foods soabundant that they even carried a great deal home with them besides – and indelighting their ears with sounds from a loud-twanging tortoise-shell (i.e. a lyre), sothat their towns rang from end to end with such noises.’18

[...] Posidonius does not identify himself as a Syrian. His negative view of Syrians andSyria echoes the usual stereotypes of weak, decadent easterners found in Greece andRome, just as his positive views of Italians echo their own chauvinist views of theirown ancestors. Apparently he fully identifies with the familiar prejudices of theimperial elite and prefers not to insist on his own origins in Syria.

[...] A similar phenomenon may be found a century later in the work of Ptolemy ofAlexandria (c.146-c.170) in his Tetrabiblos, the work in which he attempted to adapthoroscopic astrology to the Aristotelian natural philosophy of his day.39 Here we arefaced with yet another type of text: scientific prose. It is fascinating to see how thiswork repeats the usual stereotypes concerning various peoples of the Roman Empire,basing them very firmly on astrological analysis. Thus northern peoples, especiallythose of western Europe are ‘independent, liberty-loving, fond of arms, industrious,very warlike, with qualities of leadership, cleanly, and magnanimous ... but withoutpassion for women and they look down upon the pleasures of love, but are bettersatisfied with … men.40 Gaul, Britain, Germany and Bastrania are … fierce, moreheadstrong and bestial.41

However, men from the western Mediterranean are clearly superior and destined torule: ‘Italy, Apulia, Cisalpine Gaul and Sicily … are more masterful, benevolent andco-operative.’ The same is true for Greece and its neighbours: ‘[The peoples in] theparts of this quarter which are situated about the centre of the inhabited world, Thrace,Macedonia, Illyria, Hellas, Archaia, Crete, and likewise the Cyclades, and the coastalregions of Asia Minor and Cyprus …. have qualities of leadership and are noble andindependent, because of Mars; they are liberty-loving and self-governing, democraticand framers of law, through Jupiter..’42

When he comes to the peoples of the Near East, neighbours or in the vicinity of hisown province of Egypt, the tone changes drastically: ‘Idumaea, Coele Syria, Judaea,Phoenicia, Chaldaea, Orchinia, and Arabia Felix … more gifted in trade and exchange; they are more unscrupulous, despicable cowards, treacherous, servile, andin general fickle … Of these, again, the inhabitants of Coele Syria, Idumaea, andJudaea are … in general bold, godless, and scheming.’ 43

All this repeats in general terms the usual stereotypes for those peoples. The only trueexception is the description of Ptolemy’s native Egypt: 2.3.49.1-50.1 ‘Lower Egypt:thoughtful and intelligent and facile in all things, especially in the search for wisdomand religion; they are magicians and performers of secret mysteries and in generalskilled in mathematics.’ This is entirely different from the usual complex of negativestereotypes found about Egypt throughout antiquity: the Egyptians are fraudulent,promiscuous, greedy, fickle, rebellious, etc. etc.44 It is in itself interesting to see theflexibility of astrology as applied to ethnography, but that is not the issue of thepresent paper. The point to be considered here is the obvious indication of ill-will andhostility that could exist between neighbouring peoples and provinces of whatundoubtedly was a reasonably well-integrated empire at the height of its power.Ptolemy is chauvinist regarding his own provincial background, but aggressivelynegative about neighbouring peoples and provinces and those farther away.

[...] In the followingpassage in On Hirelings, Lucian Greek in culture, from Samosata in Syria, satirizesthe local, Roman response to the presence of Greeks in the society of contemporaryRome:

‘That was still left for us in addition to our other afflictions, to play second fiddle tomen who have just come into the household, and it is only these Greeks who have thefreedom of the city of Rome. And yet, why is it that they are preferred to us? Is it nottrue that they think they confer a tremendous benefit by turning phrases?’55

The speaker here is a fictional character, a local Roman who feels he is being pushedaside in Roman society by Greeks with their smooth talk. In another passage of thesame work, 40, there is a suggestion that there was an automatic presumption thatevery Greek is less reliable than any local Roman.56

[Etelfrido]

As for the concept of race in the Roman Empire, I've already written a post on the topic:

From The Works of Lucian of Samosata:

Then one of them might proceed to question me like this: Suppose, Lycinus, that an Ethiopian who had never been abroad in his life, nor seen other men like us, were to state categorically in an Ethiopian assembly that there did not exist on earth any white or yellow men— nothing but blacks—, would his statement be accepted? or would some Ethiopian elder remark, How do you know, my confident friend? you have never been in foreign parts, nor had any experience of other nations. Shall I tell him the old man's question was justified? what do you advise, my counsel?

"Yellow men" referred to Northern Europeans and could also be interpreted as blond men.

[Etelfrido]

I'm curious as to the existence of stereotypes among Romans or Greeks of the Chinese and Indians as well as vice-versa.