Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:20:40.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reflections on British and Roman Imperialism*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

P.A. Brunt
P.A. Brunt
Affiliation:
Oriel College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the heyday of British imperialism some fifty years ago, when Lord Cromer could find that the empire was “the main title which makes us great”, imperialists were apt to compare the British with the Roman empire and to seek “in the history of imperial Rome for any facts or commentaries gleaned from ancient times which might be of service to the modern empire of which we are so justly proud”.1 A critic of imperialism, J. A. Hobson, sourly remarked of such enterprises that “history devises reasons why the lessons of past empires do not apply to our own”. Prima facie, however, the comparison was encouraging. Both the Romans and the modern imperial powers claimed that it was their purpose to govern in the interests of the subjects; both had undoubtedly established peace and order in a large part of the world; both had extended their own law and their own civilization.

Type
Empires
Information
Comparative Studies in Society and History , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , April 1965 , pp. 267 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Polit. and Lit. Essays, 5 and 80 (where he is quoting Sir Alfred Lyall, 1835–1911). This paper had its origin in a revaluation of comparisons between British and Roman Imperialism drawn by Cromer (also in his Anc. and Mod. Imperialism), Lord Bryce, The Roman and the British Empires (in Stud, in Hist. Jurispr.), and Sir Charles Lucas, Greater Rome and Greater Britain, which all appeared between 1900 and 1914. They discuss points of defence policy and administration ignored here.

2 Imperialism, revised ed. (1938), 221.

3 So Lucas (n. 2).

4 New Cambridge Modern History, XI, 616,Google Scholar summarizing the contention which the writers, Robinson, R. and Gallagher, J., argue at length in Africa and the Victorians (1961),Google Scholar esp. 17ff.; 462ff.

5 Frank, T., Roman Imperialism (1914),Google Scholar took this too seriously. See for the period to 146 B.C., Badian, E., Foreign clientelae (1958).Google Scholar

6 Frank, T., American Historical Review, 1912–1913,Google Scholar and my paper in the Proceedings of the Economic History Conference of 1962, separate volume on ancient history, against mercantilist interpretations of Roman policy. For the ideal of world-rule persisting into Augustus' reign, my article in Journal of Roman Studies (1963).

7 Quoted by Cromer, Essays, 68.

8 Stokes, E., English Utilitarians and India (1959), xiii and 27.Google Scholar

9 De imperio Gnaei Pompeii, 65.

10 Brunt in Historia, 1961. Others take a more favourable view.

11 Jones, A.H.M., Later Roman Empire (1964),Google Scholar 1053ff.

12 Westermann, W.L., Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity (1955),Google Scholar though often inaccurate, is the fullest general account; the best introductions to the subject are the essays of Jones, A.H.M. and Finley, M.I. reprinted in Slavery in Classical Antiquity, ed. Finley, M.I. (1960). Cf. n. 33.Google Scholar

13 Mommsen, Röm. Strafrecht, 400ff.

14 Ammianus Marcellinus, XXII, 16, 23.

15 Lord Cromer, Modern Egypt, 77 Iff.

16 Imperialism, 247–8, cf. 136.

17 The End of Empire, 328–9.

18 After Imperialism (1963), 26.

19 Hugh Last gave a learned but too favourable account in Cambridge Ancient History, XI, ch. XI. For a recent balanced survey see Grant, Michael, The World of Rome (1960).Google Scholar For the extension of the citizenship and Romanization see Sherwin-White, A.N., Roman Citizenship (1939).Google Scholar

20 Devoto, G., Scritti Minori, I,Google Scholar 287ff.

21 Syme, R., Roman Revolution (1935),Google Scholar ch. XX.

22 Imperialism, ch. 3. His account contains many historical solecisms.

23 E.g., Tacitus, , Histories, IV, 74.Google Scholar

24 Aelius Aristides To Rome, 69. This panegyric, translated with commentary by Oliver, J.H., The Ruling Power (in Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 1953),Google Scholar is the fullest statement of the admiration for Rome that the upper class in the empire had come to feel.

25 No comprehensive works on Roman administration have superseded Marquardt, J., Röm. Staatsverwaltung (1884);Google Scholar cf. Arnold, W.T., Roman System of Provincial Administration (1914).Google Scholar On the cities see Abbott, F.F. and Johnson, A.C., Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (1926),Google Scholar and especially Jones, A.H.M., The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (1940);Google Scholar the last chapter gives a just appreciation of the limitations of the civilizing work achieved by cities in the eastern part of the Roman empire, cf. now his Later Roman Empire, ch. XXIV, also dealing with the west. Cf. also the great work of Rostovtzeff, M., Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, vol. 2 (1957).Google Scholar

26 Josephus, , Jewish War, II, 345–401.Google Scholar

27 Jones, , The Later Roman Empire (1964),Google Scholar ch. XXIV, on the survival of native languages.

28 There is a good instance in Claudius' grant of citizenship to a town in Morocco, half Berber, half Punic, which had rendered the Romans good services in suppressing nomad tribes, and petitioned for the grant.

29 Velleius (II, 110) says that Pannonians in the army in A.D. 6 had learned to speak and even read Latin. Latin papyri of soldiers in Egypt (e.g., private letters) illustrate the process.

30 Jones, A.H.M., Studies in Roman Government and Law (1960), ch. IV.Google Scholar

31 Syme, R., Colonial Elites (1958),Google Scholar ch. 1, illustrates the process.

32 Jones, , Later Roman Empire, 1052–3.Google Scholar

33 I have discussed the effects of slavery more fully in Journal of Roman Studies (1958), 164ff.

34 White, Lynn Jr., Medieval Technology and Social Change (1962).Google Scholar

35 For security and social prestige the rich preferred to invest in land, and spent lavishly on shows, doles and monuments to earn popularity and commemorate their names. Roman law did not permit the formation of joint stock companies or the limitation of liability.

36 See the discussions of various theories by Rostovtzeff (n. 26), ch. XII, Piganiol, A., Hist. Romaine, IV (1947),Google Scholar 41 Iff and Jones (n. 12), ch. XXV. Both the last writers stress the invasions.

37 Jones, Later Roman Empire, 1033, notes that there were fewer civil wars after c. 300, but perhaps the harm had then been done; and he admits that the record in the West is worse than in the East; this may be a major factor in explaining the greater endurance of the eastern empire.

38 Baynes, N.H., Byzantine Studies and other Essays (1955),Google Scholar 307ff.

39 Thompson, E.A., in Past and Present, II.Google Scholar

40 Lot, F., Les invasions germaniques (1945),Google Scholar 249ff.

41 Fontes luris Romani Anteiustiniani, I3 ed. Riccobono no. 102. See Charlesworth, M.P., in Harvard Theological Review, 1936.Google Scholar

42 See for instance Tacitus, , Annals, VI, 39;Google Scholar XIII 53; Agricola, 1–3.

43 Hist, of Rome, Everyman, ed., IV,Google Scholar 439f. (Book V, ch. XI). Mommsen clearly had in mind the memorable passage of Gibbon at the end of ch. 3 (Bury's ed. I, 78ff.).

44 Perhaps mistakenly. See Morris, M.D., Journal of Economic History, XXIII (1963), 612–13.Google Scholar

45 , Marx and Engels, , First Indian War of Independence (1939), 32 ff. (from New YorkDaily Tribune, 22 07 1859).Google Scholar

46 Stokes, op. cit., see index under Anglicization; J. S. Coleman, Nigeria: Background to Nationalism, 63ff.

47 Foundations of New India (1963).

48 Schulz, F., Classical Roman Law (1951), 463;Google Scholar 542ff.

49 Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs (1937), I, 175–6.Google Scholar

50 Brunt in Latomus, XVIII, 543ff.; XIX, 497ff. For the councils, Larsen, J.A.O., Representative Government in Greek and Roman History (1955),Google Scholar chs VII–VIII. Jones, A.H.M., Journal of Theological Studies, X, 280ff., convincingly argues against the view that religious differences in the late empire can be explained by national (or social) quarrels. Panikkar, op. cit., 68, 131–2Google Scholar, and Hodgkin, T., Nationalism in Colonial Africa (1956),Google Scholar 170ff. on connexion of historical studies and modern nationalism.

51 Cromer, Modern Egypt, 909; Behr, E., Algerian Problem (1961),Google Scholar 35ff.; Nehru, , Autobiography, 24.Google Scholar

52 The decree of 16 Pluviôse 1792 proclaimed that “all men, without distinction of colour, domiciled in French colonies, are French citizens and enjoy all the rights assured by the Constitution.” Paternalistic in practice, the French could not withhold these ideas from their subjects.

53 Complete Works, XI, 585f.

54 For analyses of views of British nineteenth century statesmen and thinkers on the empire see Bodelsen, C.A., Studies in Mid-Victorian Imperialism (1960);Google ScholarBarie, , Idee e dottrine imperialistiche nell'Inghilterra vittoriana (1953);Google ScholarThornton, A.P., The Imperial Idea and its Enemies (1959).Google Scholar

55 Autobiography, 436.

56 Essays, 25ff.; 167ff.; Ancient and Modern Imperialism, 118ff. Bryce and Cromer thought that centuries would elapse. Robinson and Gallagher (274ff.) criticize Cromer for paternalism in Egypt and not nursing the Egyptians more quickly into independence. Paternalism was natural in those who thought that centuries were needed to educate Asiatics for self-government.

57 Essays 84. Cf. 50–1 for view that repression would be “false to our acknowledged principles of government and our civilizing mission”.

58 Perham, Lugard, 645.

59 Imperialism, 117.

60 Autobiography, 142.

61 Indians preponderated in the lower ranks of the administration, but though higher posts had been open to them since 1833, over 80% of these were still in British hands in 1913, and Indians were likewise debarred from all but subaltern army commissions. See Coupland, R., India, a Restatement (1945),Google Scholar 46ff.

62 Modern Egypt, 572ff.; cf. 882f. where he professes ignorance of Japan.

63 Autobiography, 6. There is a curious instance in Cromer, Essays, 13: “though we can never create a patriotism akin to that based on affinity of race or community of language, we may perhaps foster some sort of cosmopolitan allegiance grounded on the respect always accorded to superior talents and unselfish conduct, and on the gratitude derived both from favours conferred and from those to come.” This claim to The debt immense of endless gratitude, So burdensome, still paying, still to owe could only evoke resentment.

64 Quoted by Stokes, 252.

65 See Perham, Colonial Reckoning, 41–3 and 106ff. For British criticisms of British rule in India, Historians of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, ed. Philips, C.H. (1961),Google Scholar 332ff., 382, 391. Administrators and ex-administrators also often stood up for native interests, for instance Lugard, against the Kenya settlers.