Sir, Martin Sugarman’s facts may be accurate but his analysis appears partisan (letter, July 22). The Romans were surprisingly non-racist, when compared, say, with the Greeks, and certainly so if he chooses to compare them with the Third Reich. As examples, the Emperor Trajan was Spanish, the Emperor Severus was Libyan — even in today’s US a foreigner cannot be head of state. Unquestionably, the Roman Empire was unstoppable, merciless and genocidal, but it was also, largely, non-selective. It was unforgiving to all and to any who resisted. Its slaves were of all colours and all races. By today’s standards it behaved very badly — but to everyone.

It is very modern to be concerned about “cultural suppression”, but to the Romans, only the suppression was important. Their object was a quiet life with well-controlled tax-paying, client states, hence the need for defensive walls. These were required to exert control, thereby minimising troop commitment. Culture was not the issue.

David Simpson
Stirling

Sir, Mr Sugarman makes the mistake of assuming Hadrian’s Wall is a border between England and Scotland. In fact, one of the largest English counties, Northumberland, lies north of the wall.

Michael Cullen
Dunvegan, Isle of Skye

Explore Letters

• Feedback