Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
You have this folk-historical theory, occasionally advanced by real historians (albeit mercifully not real *ancient* historians) that Rome was this homogeneous entity which expanded, thus becoming diverse and then collapsed because of diversity.
It is a theory that cannot survive even momentary contact with any of the actual sources for Roman history. It's a vision of Rome that can't get out of book 1 of Livy - literally the *first* thing you might read - alive.
But it thrives because the public imagines Rome not through the sources, but through BBC and Hollywood productions where Rome is inhabited by a seamless cast of white British actors.
Try to show the Romans looking like they actually did - covering most of the range of human colors, including - yes! - black Romans (for which we have abundant evidence, some detailed in this series) and people get mad and claim you are 'revising' history.
But it is the movie-makers who are the revisionists! I can't stress enough, the evidence is not ambiguous or uncertain here. Rome was a diverse, Mediterranean polity from its foundation to its collapse in the West.
That Rome - the real Rome that actually existed in antiquity, the one that exists in our literary sources, in the archaeological record, in the preserved artwork...that Rome was *always* diverse.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
