"In one proclamation he extended the previously exclusive rights of civitas to nearly every free single person living within his realm"… Indeed linguistic studies show c7% of the free born changed their name to include patronage of the Emperor by inclusion of Aurelius, slaves zero, as being slaves they had no rights to tell their owners what to call them….So we return to you being, willing, nay eager to peddle false history, and when pressed willing to be post that which you know to be false. This is the second time you exhibit that character flaw.
You conflate the argument I made, once again, to suit your purpose. As you can see here, I argue two different things you erroneously combine into one. First, I write:
You claimed Diocletian was a free man and that I fraudulently say he started life as a slave. I gave you three quotes from two sources showing the freedman theory is just as valid.
Your argument is that:
No one born a slave, ever could be an emperor, roman law prevents that.
But according to historians:
The future emperor Diocletian was born on December 22. This detail is almost all that is certainly known about his early life. Everything else regarding his first forty years is generally obscure, deriving from thin and disputed evidence. Later estimates of his age at death suggest this year of birth was in the mid-240s, shortly before Rome reached her momentous yet troubled one-thousandth birthday in 248. His birthplace was in Dalmatia, almost certainly Salona (his choice of retirement home).
His original name was probably Gaius Valerius Diocles. There were different traditions regarding his background. Thus he was either the freed slave of a senator, Anulinus, or else his father was a scribe, or clerk, which makes his father the more plausible freedman (Eutropius 9. 19. 2).
t is also prudent to include a brief biographical sketch of Diocletian, the emperor at the center of the Tetrarchic imperial college. Very little is known about Diocletian’s early life, but Timothy D. Barnes and David Potter have narrowed the date of his birth to 22 December 243, 244, or 245.25
He was likely born in Dalmatia to a family of relatively low status and given the name Diocles. Ancient sources indicate that his father may have worked as a scribe, while others maintain that Diocletian may have even been a slave in his early life.
Most of what we have of Diocletian’s background is a tradition, perhaps a fusion of two traditions, of modest reliability. He came from Dalmatia, and was probably born in 243, probably at Salona, where he grew up with the name Diocles. According to the sources, he was either a freedman himself, or the son of a freedman, in the household of the senator Anullinus; a contemporary senatorial family of that name is certainly recorded. It is also claimed that his father was a scribe.
If Diocles was himself a freedman, then he would actually have been born a slave; if he was the son of a freedman, then he would have been of free birth but of the lowest social strata, the humiliores. Either way he would have received nothing of what Romans counted as education. At most, he would have acquired the practical skills of a servant and perhaps, if his father was indeed a scribe, an elementary literacy of the type appropriate to his station.
Since historians hold the theory that Diocletian was born a slave and then was freed as valid, your assertion that no slave, ever could become emperor is proven manifestly false. If there was no way for a slave to become the Emperor, neither ancient sources would suggest it nor more importantly would modern historians
re-confirm the theory. Period.
Second, I argue Caracalla’s edict dissolved the in-between classes a free person had to go to gain the Roman citizenship:
Caracalla's edict evaporated many of the in-between classes making it easier and faster for a non-Roman to ascent to the Roman citizenship.
Which you can see by the edict itself. Its passing eviscerated the former in between stage of Latin Rights, for example. Its universal application to all foreigners caused an explosion of Aureliuses found after the edict was put to effect. You agree to that here:
Indeed linguistic studies show c7% of the free born changed their name to include patronage of the Emperor by inclusion of Aurelius, slaves zero, as being slaves they had no rights to tell their owners what to call them.
Combining (1) and (2) you can see how easy it became for an ex-slave to get the Roman citizenship after the edict. Especially in the times of Augustus, specific regulations were applied on granting the roman citizenship only for slaves who were considered worthy of it. This placed significant barriers to most freed slaves from becoming citizens, pushing them to be classified as foreigners instead. These people became citizens through Caracalla metaphorically
overnight.
Rome fell, as did had the Western Roman Empire. The ERE continued, but only Italy came under the code so no one in the WRE was ever under it. Muslim also term it a continuation of Rum, Europeans had divided in WRE and ERE for centuries, calling Byz a Greek empire, not least because 90% of its last 22 emperors were Greek, the earlier ones being much more diverse.
The reason its majority of emperors were Greek towards the last centuries of the Byzantine Empire was because at that point the empire had been reduced to what is today a little more than Greek territory. Its emperors were indicative of the stock left in the empire to assume the throne, nothing else.
Romans claimed descent from the sabine women, all slaves, so all Romans were descended from slaves on the female line.
So, were the Romans the master race, yes or no? You contradict yourself here. If everyone were institutionalized racial supremacists since the enslavement of the Israelites, then the Romans could not possibly see themselves as a master race if they also saw themselves as descended from
inferior slaves on the female line. Therefore, your assertion that Romans were the master race of antiquity is also proven manifestly false.
Natural flow of time, the code is full of of anti Semitic legislation
As compared to the pro Semitic legislation of Medieval Europe?
But you have not answered though. You vaguely said that it is who had the right that’s important. If they had the right without any barrier like, say, racism then there has to be at least one example to support this claim immediately after the 14
th Amendment. Incidentally, if black people’s citizenship in America was universal in its application without back clauses on the 14
th Amendment, there wouldn’t be necessary for them to have the Civil Rights movement either.
If you can’t find a single example when the Romans who didn’t even have the societal pressure to change their treatment of slaves accepted ex-slaves as their emperors (like Pertinax), then I can’t see how you can argue that racism wasn’t the origin of slavery in north America. At best you can say religion was the real basis; but then I counter-argue it was the racist interpretation of said religion.
Aside the above, the only thing you have succeeded with this post is giving me a headache trying to determine what you mean by the alternate use of singular and plural of the word ‘incompetent’ following my username as well as confuse me to how you’re still not penalized under the ToS for doing this.