Popular Misconception About Ancient Rome

Historiography is the study of how history is researched and written. And one of its key lessons is that looks can be deceiving. During the Renaissance, people became fascinated by the art produced by the ancient Greeks and Romans, especially statues. These statues had originally been painted in a variety of shades and colors by their original creators. But by the Renaissance, all of these paints and dyes had chipped off due to wear and elemental exposure. Modern researchers have since used ultraviolet and infrared technology to analyze the ancient statues, examining layers of paints and coatings that remain invisible to the naked eye. I wonder if any of these artists draw that cool S we were all obsessed with in middle school. But the Renaissance artists, who took their technically incorrect inspiration from the Greeks and Romans, made their sculptures unpainted, giving us the pure white marble look we still associate with ancient sculptures today. Copying someone's homework incorrectly-- who wasn't guilty of that crime? As many of these statues depict the ancient Romans wearing togas, this led to the widespread presumption that togas were everyday casual wear throughout the Roman Empire. But in fact, togas were not all that common.

They were a bit like a tuxedo, a kind of formal wear donned for special occasions, denoting a person's significance in Roman society. Only full Roman citizens were even permitted to wear togas. So let's hope John Belushi had his citizenship paperwork in order before they filmed that iconic Animal House scene. To understand how so many misconceptions about the Romans came to be, it helps to look at how we know anything about ancient Rome. The Romans borrowed their view of history in a study from the Greeks, with a great focus on their own central place in the narrative. I guess we can forgive them for that. It is Roman history written by Romans, so it's going to be Roman-centric. Romans saw history not as a definitive, objective attempt to get at fact but more of an ever-changing narrative rooted in the concerns of the present day. If a legitimate modern historian re-imagines history from a present day perspective, it's bad history. But in Roman times, it was good writing, which often meant writing to please an individual or group, such as the patron who hired you. What would Roman society have thought of Lin-Manuel Miranda? Let's take Rome's reputation as a society where public depravity and orgies were common. This is almost certainly not historically accurate. There are only a few accounts of group sex taken from any primary Roman sources. And when the subject does come up, it's usually cited as a distasteful or inappropriate act. The debauchery that did occur was probably exaggerated later by those who morally opposed it and by those who could market it. I mean, minutes from the Roman Plebeian Council versus good old-fashioned Roman orgies.

The emperor Caligula, for example, is remembered today as a perverted, incestuous, and incompetent monster. Horror stories about his brutal reign of terror included watching his subjects get fatally tormented, turning the royal palace into a brothel, inviting a horse to serve as a consul in the Senate, and an array of other scandals and atrocities. If he were around today, he'd have a serious political career. Many of these accounts come from two historians who were contemporaries of Caligula-- Philo and Seneca the Younger. Philo had to resent Seneca for getting that billing. These two writers would refer to Caligula's insanity, particularly after an unknown illness in the year 37 AD. This illness has led some to believe that Caligula was the victim of a mental illness that progressed throughout his reign. However, in Roman and probably every culture, perversity and insanity were considered bad for public governance. But these kind of juicy tales tend to be embellished over time. So it may be possible what started as criticisms of Caligula's character became exaggerated for political or entertainment purposes, sort of like an ancient world precursor to The Daily Show but entertaining. This doesn't mean we should dismiss historical accounts made by the Romans. In fact, there are pioneering scholars from that period. But there are contrasting narratives about every past, even in primary sources. And you have to be careful what you consider bona fide and what's fluff. Here's a tip-- don't look to Hollywood, like that 1979 film Caligula. Hey there, Weird Historians.

Another Roman emperor who suffered a real reputational downgrade is Nero. He's most associated today for playing the fiddle while watching the city of Rome burn. While Rome did burn uncontrollably for nearly two weeks in the summer of 64 AD, wiping out nearly 70% of the city, there's little evidence that the emperor celebrated the devastation or provided musical accompaniment. Maybe he just threw on low-fi beats to burn a city-state to. The Roman historian Tacitus tells us that Nero was actually at his villa in Antioch when the fire started and that he returned to the city to organize relief efforts upon hearing of the devastation. The connection between Nero, his fiddle, and the fires was not random but maybe an example of historians embellishing stories for dramatic or political purposes. Of course, Nero didn't do his reputation any favors. He used some of the areas cleared by the fires to erect palatial estates and monuments to himself, including a 30-meter tall statue called the Colossus of Nero that once stood where the Colosseum is located now. He may not have celebrated the burning of Rome, but he did use it to pioneer the field of narcissism. Nero was also enamored with the arts, including a deep admiration for his own singing, and at one time planned an exorbitant theatrical production of the siege of Troy. So it's possible to read the story about him fiddling as Rome burned as a criticism for ignoring the needs of everyday people and the fate of the city while indulging his personal passion projects. So he was a "one for me, none for them" kind of artist.

Roman historians frequently referred to women as political power players, maneuvering behind the scenes and influencing their spouses and other high-ranking players by whatever means they had to achieve their political aims. Some people today who didn't pay attention to any history classes have concluded from this that ancient Roman women had formal positions in governance. But they didn't. Women were allowed to own property and even start their own businesses, which was unusual for the time. But they had few formal political rights. They didn't even have the right to vote. Women were present in Rome but lacked a formal voice in elite society and had to resort to indirect methods to influence power. That came with a downside of being an easy target to blame when policies went bad. This made Roman women perhaps the most politically astute and exposed politicians who were never formally politicians. Some misconceptions about Roman politics are even easier to track. According to historian Mary Beard, Julius Caesar's final words spoken to his assassin Brutus were, "And you, my child?" Caesar was likely referring to the fact that Brutus and some of his compatriots had themselves been wounded or injured in the fighting in the Ides of March. Though Brutus survived the ordeal, he was likely covered in blood when Caesar saw him, explaining the observation. Today, it's more widely believed that Caesar died saying, "Et tu, Brute?" or "Even you, Brutus?", a more direct accusation aimed at his killer. For that malapropism, we have William Shakespeare to blame, who embellished his source material in his famous play. Et tu, Willie? Another common misconception is that the ancient Romans took ancient Greek mythology and claimed it for themselves simply by swapping out the names of the major deities. In this view, Zeus, the master of lightning from Greek myths who served as the ruler of the gods on Mount Olympus, neatly transitions into the Roman God Jupiter, which neatly transitions into the Train song "Drops of Jupiter." There's certainly a nougat of truth here. Greek religion and culture predated ancient Rome and did have a key influence on how the Romans saw themselves and their origins. But the intermingling of these two cultures over hundreds of years can't be reduced so simply into Romans stole their gods from the Greeks.

In fact, historians are still sifting through what elements of their shared mythologies were Greek in origin and which were Roman and which may have been influenced by other cultures around the ancient Mediterranean. All in all, it was less burgers and fries and more melting pot. A memorable sequence from the 1959 Hollywood epic Ben-Hur finds Charlton Heston chained up in the belly of a giant Roman warship, moving a massive oar in pace with a steadily beating drum. This is a vivid rendering of a so-called galley slave, chained up in a naval ship and forced to constantly row at the end of a whip. You damn dirty Romans. But in most ancient fleets, including the Roman navy, rowers were free men who had been hired specifically for the task, not slaves. During the peak of the Roman Empire, rowers were most commonly non-citizen freeborn provincials, often coming into the empire from nations that had a strong maritime or navigational tradition, such as Greeks, Phoenicians, Syrians, or Egyptians. I hope their benefits package was competitive. Speaking of movies about Romans fighting, the film Gladiator and similar sword and sandal epics are rooted in some degree of truth. Gladiators, armed combatants that would engage in violent confrontations to entertain the masses, really were a popular form of entertainment in ancient Rome over a period of nearly 1,000 years, reaching their peak between the first century BCE and the second century AD. And just like in the movies, these battles would sometimes include not just slaves or condemned criminals but also wild animals. Nothing sells tickets like a rabid elephant. Still, the movies present a heightened Hollywoodized version of the real gladiatorial events.

Most significantly, gladiators were costly investments for their owners. So the goal was to keep them healthy and fighting for a long time rather than sending them out to suffer grisly deaths for the audience's amusement. Showy cinematic face-offs between multiple skilled fighters or skilled fighters and tigers would have been rare occurrences in the actual arena. It would be far more likely to see a gladiator fighting, say, a wild boar. Hakuna matata. So what do you think? Which of these popular misconceptions surprised you the most?