This blog post examines the intellectual evolution and historical context that led Greek intellectuals under Roman rule to progress from compliance and compromise toward eventual assimilation.
In the mid-2nd century CE, Aristides, a Greek from a Roman province, delivered the Oration Against Rome, a speech describing the characteristics of Roman rule. This text holds particular significance as a contemporary witness account of the Roman Empire and as commentary offered from the perspective of a provincial, or colonial, intellectual—not that of a conqueror. However, his explanation of the principles of Roman governance was actually unfamiliar to the Romans themselves. For instance, he highly praised the openness of Roman citizenship policies, interpreting them as an ideological principle aimed at realizing universal citizenship. Yet Romans themselves did not perceive any ideological deliberation behind these policies. To them, granting citizenship to provincial elites was merely a strategy of divide-and-rule governance.
However, Aristides had good reason to seek to understand Roman policy on an ideological level. For over 300 years, Greek intellectuals had engaged in discourse about the nature of Roman power and the attitude Greeks should adopt under Roman rule. Since falling under Roman domination in the mid-2nd century BCE, Greek intellectuals had deeply pondered how Greeks should respond. The first to discuss this were the philosophers Panaetius and Posidonius, active in the 2nd to 1st centuries BCE. Their argument was based on the claim that the rule of the best over the weak was beneficial even to the weak. Through this logic, the Greeks adopted a conformist attitude by acknowledging the moral legitimacy of Roman rule. But were the Romans truly the best? Considering the frequent accusations by provincial inhabitants against the military commanders and officials stationed in the provinces at the time, the answer was not difficult.
Meanwhile, after Rome’s political system transitioned from republic to empire in the early 1st century CE, substantive administration began in regions that had previously been subject to little more than occupation. Consequently, Roman rule became more firmly established, and the benefits of the peace Rome brought were gradually accepted as self-evident. Moreover, as Roman emperors increasingly showed consideration for Greek culture, the Greeks’ sense of lost freedom significantly diminished. During this period, Greeks were prepared to compromise with Roman power in exchange for recognition of their cultural authority in literature and philosophy. This could be termed a spirit of compromise. For instance, the early 1st-century historian Dionysius, lacking empirical evidence, asserted that Romans were essentially of Greek origin, advancing a kind of assimilationist theory. However, this was not mere flattery toward Romans but a signal of compromise for the benefit of Greeks. The perception took hold that there was no need to deliberately antagonize the Romans, who had succeeded as conquerors. The rhetorician Dio, active around the same time, predicted that if the emperors did not degenerate, Rome would exercise generous rule and realize the harmony that Greeks had long idealized. At that time, Greeks were still striving to preserve their identity.
Yet by the time of Aristides, the attitude of provincial intellectuals gradually shifted toward assimilationism. The historian Appian viewed the imperial system as bringing stability, peace, and prosperity, describing Rome’s transition from republic to empire as a kind of blessing. This shows he felt a stronger sense of unity with the new system than the traditional Roman ruling class, who still harbored nostalgia for the republic. Furthermore, Aristides no longer emphasized benefits and consideration for Greece in his Roman pleadings, instead placing the perspective of imperial citizenship front and center. He stated that within the peace brought by imperial rule, the Greek regional elites no longer fought amongst themselves over governing authority, effectively positing the depoliticization of the colonial elites. The world Aristides depicted was one where the political autonomy of all provincial cities dissolved within the framework of the vast empire.
Moreover, from his perspective, Rome held a clear advantage over previous empires, particularly Persia, in terms of administrative organization and governing ideology. The Roman administrative structure was characterized by its vastness and systematic nature; this systematization signified the depersonalization of governance, contrasting sharply with the arbitrary rule of the Persian king. Thus, Roman Songsa vividly illustrates the attitude of Greek intellectuals during the mid-2nd century AD, when Pax Romana reached its zenith. They sympathized with and aligned themselves with Roman policy, ultimately assimilating into the empire. This attitude reflects the provincial intellectuals’ thinking about the new order and identity formed under Roman rule. It holds significant historical meaning even today, as it explains the cultural foundation that enabled the empire’s continuity and integration.
