@ ttre UnitedNations University, 1979 Printedin Japan tsBN92-808-0053.1 rssN0379-5764 HSDRGP ID.1/UNUP-53 ONTHE DECLINE AND FALLOF EMPIRES: THEROMAN EMPIRE AND WESTERN IMPERIALISMCOMPARED JohanGaltung, Tore Heiestad, and Eric Ruge 'r$ E0 fZ-1.v, %#-VUN CONTENTS t. Introduction tl The Rise and Decline of the RomanEmpire: A Rough Characterization ill The Rise and Decline of WesternDominance: A Short Characteri zat ion ì9 lV. Conclusion 39 Notes 43 Bi bl iography 66 Thispaper by JohanGaltung, Tore Heiestad,and Eric Rugewas first presentedat the GPID lll meeting, Geneva,2-8October 1978. lt canbe consideredas a contributionto the Expansionand Exploitation Processessub-project of the GPID Project. Geneva,June 1979 JohanGaltung Thispaper is beingcirculated in a pre-publicationform to elicitcomments from readersand generate dialogueon the subiectat this stageof the research' ". the decl ine of Romewas the naturar and inevitabre effect of immoderategreatness. prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causesof destruction multipl ied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time or accident had removedthe art ificial supports, the stupendousfabric yielded to the pressure of its own weictht.,' Edward Gi bbon "l think of what happenedto Greeceand Rome,and you see - what is left only the pi I lars. V/hathas happened,of course is that the great civilizations of the past, as they have becomeweaìthy, as they have rost their wiil to rive,' to improve, they have becomesubject to the decadencethat eventually destroys the civilization. The united states is now reaching that period. I am convinced, however, that we have the vitality, I berieve we have the courage, r be.|ieve we have the strength out through this heartland and across this Nation that will see to it that Americanot only is rich and strong, but that it is healthy in terms of moral and spiritual strEiilll- RichardM. Nixon (t97t) I NTRODUCTI ON The fall of the RomanEmpire has fascinated more social scientists than EdwardGibbon, who concludedhis major historical work in Lausanne just before the French Revolution. To draw parallels to the contempor- ary situation was not his major concern; he was concernedwith the fall of the RomanEmpire as such, but evidently also felt that there was muchto learn from it.1 However,for the history of the RomanEmpire to be useful as a heuristic there haveto be deepsimilarities.2 The other systemshould be an empire built in a not too dissimilar manner that evidently has passed its apogeeand may be facing a decl ine, even a fal l. The thesis of the present paper is, in short, that the Roman Empirepresents parallels with ths contemporarysituation in which the western worìd f inds itsel f so deep and _sodense that it is lvarranted to use it as a basis for specu_lation_about reguìarities in th.e I ifs cycle of empires.3 l/e shall only be drawing on the western experience. Cornparative stud ies of non-western empi res (tne I nc.asaird the Aztecs in America ; possibly the Mali empirein Africa; definitely the Egyptian,0ttoman, and Persian empÌres* thenrselves,perhaps, semi-western;the various Mongol/Mogulimperial constructions; someof the Chinesedynasties) should be extremely rewardinghere, both in revealing sÌmilarities and dissimilaríties. But we shall concentrateon the V/est. And two maior characteristics of the western empires, not necessariìy totaìly monopolized by the VJestbut at least not so clearly expressed in any other empire construction to our knowìedge,should be pointed out. First, the Lq.k of I inritatíon,q pushingthe bordersof the empires beyondany limit, as far as (and even further than) technology and mil itary force can carry. Then, the tendencynot only to tax and I exoloit barbarian lands and barbarians but also to westernize5and even incorporate at least part of them. These two pointswill be madeuse of in what follows; they are crucial for the reasoni ng, as a I ist of commondenominators for empires from the VJest . il. THERISE AND DECLINE OF THEROMAN EMPIRE: A ROUGH CHARACTERIZATION Underlyingit all, at somestage, was- possibly- a vision of that tiny unit foundedon the seven hiìls of Romeas the centre of something muchbigger. Moreover,this vision must have been legitimated by an underlying culture or cosmology,and certainly reinforced by successful excursions and expansion. For, if somenotion of that kind had not been there in advance, the entity would have remainedvery limited and more geared towards defence against the external world - encapsulating- than towardsunfolding = Entwicklung. But it was centrifugal rather than centripetal. lmagesof that kind might have beena part of the heritage from the Etruscanor Helìenistic exercises. No doubt they were more successfully implementedunder the Romans, particularly under the Antonines, than under the possible predecessors as holders of such imaqes. Against the knowledgeof what happenedin the various phases of the RomanEmpire and the western empiresof our times (although we have not seen the end of them yet) the story may no\^/even have a ring of the obvious. For the momentcentral ized expansion is decided upon, miI itar i ly, poli t ical ly, economicalI y, cul turaì ly, communicat ionswise, and socially, a numberof consequenceswilì follow. First of all, it should be rememberedthat the expansionin territory is somefunction of the square of the distance from the centre; it is not a I inear function of that distance.6 There is not only an external border to be defendedagainst outer enemies;there is also an internal territory to be controlled against the inner foes of the regime. Even if there are no overt hostilities engagedin by outer or inner enemies, the control machinerystiìl has to be maintained,and it is costly. 5 A part of that controì machinery is the central bureaucracy,whích can be maintainedonry if sufficient surprus is channeìledupwards in society.T There are two main modelsfor obtaining this: taking away locaì assets through piracy and rcbbery (of rninerars, money,pieces of art, cattìe, people), somet ,,taxat imesunder the formula of ionr', and centraì contror over some kinds of production and trade in such a way that major fruits accrue to the centre. rt is assumedthat ar r ernpiresmake use of these methods,but in very different proportions, and that the corour and tone of an empire very muchdepend on which methodprevaiìs. Thus, local taxation is cornpatibìewith maintenance of the locaI systernof product iorr; i t nrayeven beccmea cont ractuaI obligation underv'hich sonethinghas to be paid in return for- I'protection."B central ized exproitation throughexpandíng economic and other cycles .|ocaì w!lr tend to erode the society, economicailv and also cult.uralìy. ,,coron!zationr, In either case there maybe in the sensethat the miì itary/pol itical commandis firnily in the hanos of (envoysfrom) the centre; f.r that reason, they may ìook ar ike. But in the latter type there r^rill be ìong-clistance cycles not onìv for nilitary and political decision-nrakingbut aìso for economicand cultural values. This wil l makeíor a muchdenser conìmunicative network radiatinE from the centre to the periphery, and for muchmore social transfornntion, includingaccuìturation. Given the assumptionfrom the Introduction that western imperialism is characterizedby a decision and a desire to convert, not onry to dominate, the second type shouìd predominatein the evolution of westernempires. The first type is too i imited, too contractual. lt can be legitimated "l through the formuìa offer you protection against enemiesand others who want to treat you rike I do; you pay me for that in commodities and products, in cash, and/or in humancapítar (slaves, gìadiators, raw material for humansacrifice).,r But wesrern imperiaìism seemsto have asked for more, in fact for others to see _tf'*l_"*__"t_J . There has been some kind of wish that others shourd not onry be dorninatedand subjugated - but see and even want to see - themselves as dependenton a western centre for fresh supplies of superior goods I l 4 I I I and services, culture, etc. The legitimating formula might be soniething like this: r'l offer you protecticlnnot only against external enemies but also against dependencyon nature with al 1 its hazarrjsand hostiìities, in return for exchangereìations with nre." In short, dependencyon the centre rather than on the nature. Obvious Iy, in the case of the lìornanErnp i re both methodswere used. The provinces had to contribi.rtetexes in orcier to maintairì an ever- increasingsuperstructure,9 o bureaucracyexercisìng pol itical-nriI itary tasks. At the sametime, exploitation cycìes v;ere set up wherebynet rraìueaccurnulated in the centre. In the case cf the RomanErnpire the first methodwas by far the most important one. The r-ight tei-m is probably "plunder." The most important ob-iects, it seens, r{ere peopìe, lvhowere conqueredand sold to plantation owners, and foodstuffs, grain. Ihe provinceshad to contribute iaxes in order to rnaintainan ever-increasíngsuperstructure, a bureaucracyand an army exercisinq poìitical-miì it,ary tasks. The net result, of course, was that the periphery, the pro,rinceE,were irnpoverishedand t-hecentre(s) enriched. llut the rrechanisnrwas i'iol, or onìy to a very littÌe extent, trade in our sense. The economiccycles were sirort; the g_l.k.=_ ("household'r)was to a large exient self*sufficient; the city'nrith its hinLerìand constituted a s.vstemcf gg!41Sqfa. Labourwas unfree.rnd at least in ìarge periods abundanteriough not to encourageany search for ìabour-extensive forns of production. Long-distarrcetrade was irr luxuries and, importantìy,in grain l'oi-big cities, irandìedby the state, for the centre. By "centrer'rthen, is not necessarily rneant Romebut also the many sub-centres" lhe nrajr:r reascrtr,viry the systerì functioned for such a ìong time was probably that so manyindíviduals were "romanized," having Latin as their langLrageand Ronranriores as their \^Jeltanschaur"rng,thenrselves being part, nrc-rreand rTrore,of'the vast superstructure,a cornbinationol'the centre in the centre arid the centre in the periphery,l0 that had to be maintainedby the system.