1 Rome and Imperialism expansion, so as to avoid importing con- 2 notations of competing hegemonies led by 3 modernising nation states (Veyne 1975): 4 those who follow Lenin’s notion of impe- 5 Rome in the history of rialism as a distinct stage of capitalism 6 imperialism (1934) would also have to reject the label as 7 Rome has long occupied a central place in it applied to Rome. 8 the theorisation of empire. One reason is that In practice it is not feasible to dispense with 9 imperial symbols and language – eagles, fas- the labels ‘empire’ and ‘imperialism’, as simi- 10 ces, laurel wreaths, and the Latin titulature of lar problems face any alternative terminol- 11 empire – have been repeatedly appropriated ogy. The most thoughtful recent approaches 12 in the Western tradition by expanding powers treat Rome as one of number of similar 13 and states. The Frankish King Charlemagne political entities often termed early empires. 14 had himself crowned emperor by the Pope Depending on the focus of the analysis 15 in Rome in 800. The title Kaisar (Caesar) was these are often qualified as tributary empires 16 used by the rulers of successive German (in relation to their political economy) or 17 emperors in the Middle Ages, and Czar by pre-capitalist or pre-industrial if their eco- 18 various Eastern European powers up to and nomic life or technology seems more impor- 19 including the rulers of Russia. Medieval tant. Broadly similar to Rome would be the 20 appropriations related as much to the contem- sequence of Chinese empires that began in 21 porary presence of the emperors of Byzantium 221 BCE with the creation of the Qin dynasty, 22 (who continued to be Caesars and to rule a a series of empires based on the Iranian pla- 23 Roman Empire into the 15th century) as to any teau including those of the Achaemenid, 24 close connection with earlier periods. But the Parthian, and Sassanian dynasties, prob- 25 increased interest in the classical past across ably the Neo-Assyrian Empire that controlled 26 Europe from the early modern period meant Mesopotamia and surrounding states in the 27 that Rome was repeatedly a mode. After the first half of the last millennium BCE, a series 28 French Revolution and Napoleon’s abolition of empiresONLY based on the Indo-Gangetic plain 29 of the Holy Roman (German) Empire, Roman beginning with the Maurya dynasty of 322– 30 titulature was adopted by French, Austrian, 185 BCE, the larger Macedonian-ruled king- 31 and British rulers. Many titles and symbols of doms that divided the territory of the former 32 Roman origin remained current until the mid- Achaemenid Empire in roughly the same 33 dle of the 20th century. period, and a series of much later New World 34 That reception history has been a mixed empires including those of the Aztec and 35 blessing for the study of ancient Rome the Inka. Each of these represented a system 36 (Harrison 2008). While it has meant that Rome of political domination created by one peo- 37 has received much closer attention than many ple through the conquest and intimidation 38 other early empires – such as Achaemenid of a number of other peoples and often by 39 Persia, the Hellenistic kingdoms of the the absorption of a number of earlier states. 40 Abbasid Caliphate – the repeated comparisons Typically they were sustained by exactions of 41 have introduced many anachronisms. Among labour (military and other), of agricultural 42 these have been debates over the economic produce, and of metals, and typically much 43 motors and costs of Roman imperialism, of this was spent on rewarding various privi- 44 and over its civilising or brutalising effects. leged populations or classes and supporting 45 To some extent this remains the case in con- military forces. Most of these entities invested 46 temporary comparisons between Rome and in infrastructure – roads, canals, fortifica- 47 America and even with post-colonial interpre- tions, storehouses, and ports – and in cer- 48 tations of ancient Rome, which sometimes emonial and monuments. Almost all were 49 seem tinged with post-colonial guilt. The best ruled by autocrats. Most (with the exception 50 comparisons have in fact repeatedly drawn out of the New World examples) had iron metal- 51 PROOFcontrasts between ancient Roman and mod- lurgy; most used writing and had imperial 52 ern European imperialism, and exposed the systems of weights and measures. None had 53 ideological component of claims to the con- any source of energy beyond human and ani- 54 trary (Brunt 1965; Malamud 2009). It has even mal labour, and none had any system of com- 55 been suggested that we should not employ munications faster than a sailing vessel or a 56 the term ‘imperialism’ to describe Roman relay of riders or runners could provide. © Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited. Any reuse requests to be sent to [email protected] cha100.indd 1 06-10-2015 10:32:49 2 Rome and Imperialism 1 There is disagreement on the most appro- immediate neighbours. During the fourth 2 priate boundaries of this analytical category. century BCE Rome first defeated the larg- 3 Some scholars would include some of the est of the cities of southern Etruria, Veii, 4 earlier and generally smaller expansionist and then extended its control over its Latin- 5 states of the Bronze Age Near East, includ- speaking neighbours and the hill tribes of 6 ing New Kingdom Egypt, and analogous central Italy. Wars fought almost every year, 7 states in Central and South America like that supported by contingents from its defeated 8 of Wari, and some would include the short- ‘allies’, extended a hegemony over most of 9 lived hegemonies exercised by powerful city Italy south of the Apennines, although this 10 states over their neighbours in city state civi- was not expressed in regular extraction of 11 lisations (see Hansen 2000, 2002). Whether tribute, and most of the cities and people 12 medieval and early modern empires were of the peninsula remained autonomous even 13 essentially similar is also debated. A num- if they had lost effective control of their for- 14 ber of recent synoptic studies deal with these eign relations. A demonstration of the resil- 15 questions (Alcock et al. 2001; Bang and Bayly ience of Roman control came in 280–275 BCE 16 2003, 2011; Morris and Scheidel 2009). Some when Tarentum, one of the largest Greek cit- 17 of these draw on historical sociologies of ies of southern Italy, persuaded Pyrrhus, King 18 empire (Doyle 1986; Eisenstadt 1963; Hardt of Epirus, to cross the Adriatic and challenge 19 and Negri 2000; Kautsky 1982). Despite these Rome. Although successful in several battles, 20 disagreements over the proper limits of com- Pyrrhus was unable to establish a power base, 21 parison, consideration of at least some other and his retreat in effect solidified Roman con- 22 early empires provides a useful perspective on trol of Italy. This was also the period in which 23 Roman imperialism. In particular, compara- Greek writers noticed the rise of Rome, and 24 tive analysis often reveals what was unique from this point on a more precise and accu- 25 or unusual in the solutions Romans adopted rate kind of history can be written. 26 to problems that were widely faced by early The Mediterranean world in the third and 27 imperial powers, such as peripheral revolts, second centuries BCE was dominated by a 28 the integration of minorities, or the formida- small numberONLY of political hegemonies. In 29 ble limitations on long-distance communica- the east the Achaemenid Empire conquered 30 tions before the industrial revolution. by Alexander the Great had been divided 31 between three large kingdoms – Seleukid 32 Syria, Ptolemaic Egypt, and Antigonid 33 The phases of Roman Macedon – and a number of smaller states 34 expansion that aspired to the same status, among 35 The full story of the growth, stabilisation, them the kingdoms of Bithynia, Pontus, and 36 and collapse of Roman political domina- Pergamum in Asia Minor and that of Epirus in 37 tion can only be sketched out here (see the Balkans. Between and around them were 38 Champion 2004; Nicolet 1977; Woolf 2012). cities, leagues of cities, and tribal peoples like 39 Roman tradition dated the foundation of the the Thracians, variously allies, suppliers of 40 city to the middle of the eighth century BCE, mercenaries, and victims of the wars between 41 and archaeological research suggests that the Great Powers. Some cities, like Cyrene, 42 the site of Rome was at least occupied by that Corinth, Athens, and Rhodes, were larger 43 point. The institutions of a city state emerged players than others. West of the Adriatic 44 around the seventh and sixth centuries BCE, Rome had only one serious rival, the city of 45 probably a little later than in Etruria (Tuscany) Carthage close to modern Tunis, which exer- 46 just to the north or in the areas to the south cised a loose control over other Phoenician 47 where Greek cities were created. During the foundations in north Africa, western Sicily 48 first half of the last millennium BCE, urban and southern Spain. Sardinia and Corsica, 49 settlements and archaic states were created the remainder of Mediterranean Spain, and 50 all around the Mediterranean and Black Seas. most of southern France outside the small 51 PROOFBy the fifth century BCE some larger states – area controlled by the Greek city of Marseilles 52 Athens, Sparta, Syracuse, and Carthage are and her colonies were settled by tribal peo- 53 the most famous – were coming to dominate ples with little resembling cities or states.