5 Misconceptions about Ancient Rome

❶ "Roman wine was super strong."

 

The first misconception I would like to address concerns wine in ancient Rome: It is often said that Roman wine was much, much stronger than modern-day wine, which usually has an alcohol percentage of approximately 12%.

There’s two arguments that are often given to support this claim:

* The first one is that it was a common practice to dilute wine with water before drinking it [I]. Although this was in fact very common, we have no way of knowing the average alcohol percentage of neither the pure wine nor the diluted beverage.

Using this as an argument for the claim that undiluted wine must have been much stronger than modern-day wine assumes that the ancient Romans would have wanted to drink a beverage that has a similar alcohol level to the wine we drink today, but there are simply no grounds for this. Compared to whiskey or tequila, 12% to 15% seems like it isn’t that much, but if you drink a beverage with this amount of alcohol all day, every day, the risk of getting too intoxicated to get anything done is quite high.

* The second argument is taken from Plinius Maior (Pliny the Elder). He says that Falernian wine would catch fire when a flame was held near [II]. First of all, we are not sure that his was due to the amount of alcohol and not some other ingredient, but even if it was, the flashpoint of modern-day wine is only at about 52°C (126° Fahrenheit) [III], so briefly heating the wine could have been enough to cause it to become flammable.

The highest percentage of alcohol you can get by fermentation seems to be about 20%. [IV] Such wines have a flashpoint as low as 36°C (97°F), which must have been easy to attain under the Italian summer sun.

In any case, there is no evidence that the practice of distilling drinks to get a higher alcohol level was widespread in the Roman Empire, if it was even known at all.

❷ "All Roman statues were white." + "All Roman statues were brightly coloured."

A second misconception I would like to mention, is a very old one, but it can still be seen in many movies today. Many people still think that all Greek and Roman statues where virginal white, because that’s what most marble statues from antiquity look like when they are excavated. Sculptors from the Renaissance period and the Neo-Classical period were very fond of the pure appearance of white marble statues from antiquity so they tried to copy this look when making their own statues. By doing so, they further spread the idea that marble statues are meant to be white. 

Fig.➀ Left: Roman marble statue of the Muse Clio (photo by TIMOTHEVS); middle: mosaic showing bust of Sappho (photo by Carole Raddato); right: polychrome statue of the Goddess Minerva (photo by Jastrow)

However, there is sufficient evidence (Fig.➀) that shows that many Greek and Roman statues where not left white like the early modern and modern ones. Some, like the one shown on the left here still have traces of the pigmentation that was applied to marble and others are were made by fitting together several differently coloured materials like the one on the right.

Many people that are interested in Antiquity have heard about coloured statues by now, but we shouldn’t be tempted to think that ALL statues were brightly coloured either.

Fig.➁ Left: fresco depicting marble bust of the God Apollo (photo by Romain Bréget); middle: fresco depicting statue of the God Mars (photo by Carole Raddato); right: mosaic depicting statue of boxer (photo by WolfgangRieger).

Roman frescos and mosaics (Fig.➁) reveal that at least some statues were not that colourful at all. They seem to have been left unpainted, at least partially. Of course, another explanation would be that the depicted statues were already old enough for the colouring to have faded. Perhaps, some Romans of the Imperial period appreciated the weathered look of antique republican or Greek statue?

Apart from painting statues or leaving them white, gilding them seems to have been fairly common as well. (Fig.➂) Of course Roman statues made entirely out of metal were also common.

In the end, there also is a great variety in the appearance of statues of catholic saints or Hindu deities, so why would this be any different for Roman statues?

Fig.➂ Roman statue of a politician, gilded bronze, 2nd century CE (National Museum of Slovenia, Ljubliana).

❸　"The Romans just copied Greek religion."

Many people think that the Romans basically adopted Greek polytheism and just changed the Greek names to Latin names, but reality is a lot more complex than that.

First of all, both Greek and Roman polytheism most likely derive from Indo-European religion [V] [VI], so they have a common ancestor so to speak, but they developed into distinct religions.  Influenced by the Gods of the Greek settlers of Southern Italy, the vague native Italic Spirits acquired more complex personalities and family ties, along with temples and statues in Their honour. [VII]

The Roman Neptunus for example originally was a spirit that dwelled in springs and fresh water streams (as the early Romans were not sea-oriented), but through association with the Greek Poseidon [VIII], He became a bearded man with a trident and horses who was the brother of Iuppiter and Pluto, husband of Salacia and ruler of the seas.

The Romans may have enriched their native religion with many Greek elements, but a number of typically Roman peculiarities remained or were invented later on.

When it comes to the concrete religious rituals for example, both the Greeks and the Romans made offerings of wine and incense and sacrificed animals to gain a certain deity’s favour, but in general, the Romans covered their heads ("capite velato") while praying [IX] while the Greeks did not.

It was common in both cultures to eat the victim’s meat after the sacrifice, but the Romans did not eat the entrails like the Greeks did. Instead, they burned them on the altar. [X]

And, more importantly, some of the most prominent Deities in Roman religion, especially during the Imperial period, had no Greek counterpart. Let me just mention these 3:

* Ianus

It feels only natural to mention the two-headed Ianus [XI] first in this list: This God of beginnings and gateways after whom the month of January was named, had to be mentioned first in every prayer. As Ianus was the gatekeeper of the Gods, failing to mention Him would keep your prayer from reaching the Gods [XII]  (that being said, not all prayers recorded in Roman rituals start by mentioning Him).

* The household Gods called the Lares were also unknown to the pre-Roman Greeks. These Deities were believed to protect the familia and, despite their humble status, received daily offerings in the household [XIII], which actually makes them among the most prominent Deities in everyday life in ancient Rome.

* Another prominent set of sacred beings that did not receive religious attention in Greece prior to the Roman rule, were the Emperors. Many Emperors were deified [XIV] and enshrined in temples after they died. At some point, Roman citizens were even required to offer incense to the living Emperor. [XV]

❹ "Every gladiator had his own unique set of armour."Hollywood often depicts gladiators with random armour, but evidence indicates that the kinds of swords, helmets, shields etc. were dependent on the type of gladiator. There was only a handful of popular types and each type had a regulated set of weapons.

I dedicated a few videos entirely to the 7 most popular types of gladiators, so if you would like to learn more about that, take a look at this playlist.

❺ "All slaves were treated like trash."

Based on what one can see in Hollywood movies, one could be inclined to think that every slave in the Roman Empire was subject to constant physical and psychological abuse. But, several sources [XVI] [XVII][XXV] indicate that mistreating slaves was frowned upon by at least a part of the free Roman population.

Perhaps the treatment of slaves in ancient Rome can compared to that of domesticated animals in today’s society: Like slaves, most pets and farm animals are not free to go where they want and need to obey their master. Some pets are mistreated, but others are loved and cared for in a way that it is safe to assume they are quite happy.

Apart from the character of the master, the purpose of the slave also would have played a roll.

Just like a chicken in a battery cage doesn’t receive the same treatment as a lapdog, a common quarry slave or mine slave wouldn’t have received the same treatment [XVIII] [XIX] as a highly educated Greek slave who worked as a teacher for a wealthy young Roman [XX].

During the imperial period, the treatment of slaves gradually improved. In the course of the first 2 centuries CE, slaves acquired the right to take legal action when they were mistreated [XXI] Also, murdering a slave for no good reason became illegal.[XXII]
Throughout the Roman period, freeing a slave for good service was not uncommon and in some cases, they might have had better lives than some of the poorer freeborn Romans. A slave that was freed by a Roman citizen was granted some rights, e.g. the right to vote [XXIII], but he could not hold public office. [XXIV] Furthermore, he was usually not allowed to become a priest. However, when a freedman fathered a son after his manumission, the son could acquire full citizinship so the stigma of slavery was erased relatively quickly.

References:

[I] Dalby, Andrew (2013) Food in the Ancient World from A to Z. Routledge: p354.

[II] Pliny. Natural History. Book XIV.62.

[III] Wolke, Robert L. (2006) "Combustible Combination", washingtonpost.com <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400283.html> (retrieved March 10, 2017).
[IV] Meyer, Scott (2013) Hooch: Simplified Brewing, Winemaking, and Infusing at Home. Hachette UK: "Alcohol Tolerance".
[V] Sacks, David, Oswyn Murray and Lisa R. Brody (2014) Encyclopedia of the Ancient Greek World. Infobase Publishing: p292.
[VI] de Laet, Sigried J., Joachim Herrmann (1996) History of Humanity: From the seventh century B.C. to the seventh century A.D. UNESCO: p64.[VII] Dunstan, William E. (2010) Ancient Rome. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: p34.
[VIII] Forsythe, Gary (2006) A Critical History of Early Rome: From Prehistory to the First Punic War. University of California Press: p132.

[IX] Plutarch. Roman Questions: 10.[X] Dillon, Matthew & Lynda Garland (2013) Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook. Routledge: p135.]
[XI] Ovid. Fasti: Book I: 90.[XII] Ovid. Fasti: Book I: 173.[XIII] Plautus. The Pot of Gold. prologue: 23.[XIV] McIntyre, Gwynaeth (2016) A Family of Gods: The Worship of the Imperial Family in the Latin West. University of Michigan Press: p17.
[XV] Kaatz, Kevin W. The Rise of Christianity: History, Documents, and Key Questions: p31.

[XVI] Seneca minor. Epistulae morales ad Lucilium: 47.
[XVII] Cicero. De Officiis. 1.41
[XVIII] Diodorus Siculus. Ἱστορικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη: 5.38.1.
[XIX] "Slavery in Rome" (2010) in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome. Oxford University Press: p323.
[XX]  Dillon, Matthew & Lynda Garland (2013) Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook. Routledge: p303, 333.[XXI] McGinn, Thomas (2003) Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law in Ancient Rome. Oxford University Press: p309.
[XXII] Dillon, Matthew and Garland, Lynda (2005) Ancient Rome: From the Early Republic to the Assassination of Julius Caesar. Routledge: p297.
[XXIII] Fergus Millar (2002) The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic: pp23, 209.
[XXIV] Renshaw, James (2012) In Search of the Romans. A&C Black: p183.
[XXV] Macrobius. Saturnalia. Book I:115.