Jihad in Modern Context Link

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/magazine/mag-20Salafis-t.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire

When studying Britain under the Roman Empire it is only natural to look further down the road and examine the British Empire.  Questions begin to rise of the similarities and differences between these two nations.  While this could be quite an endeavor to examine all disparities and similarities, I’ll only try to focus on one area; a key difference that sets the Roman Empire apart from all previous and subsequent empires.

First it may be useful to examine a few facts about the British Empire.  At its height, 458 million people were under the crown and Britain controlled nearly a quarter of the Earth’s total land area.  Here is a map of all areas that were at one time a part of the British Empire.  It has been said that “the sun never sets on the British Empire.”  After examining the map, it’s easy to see this is not an exaggeration.  At its height the British Empire was certainly one of the most, if not the most, powerful and far reaching empire of all time. 

It would be safe to say that the Roman Empire ruled over a similarly diverse group of people.  Perhaps it wasn’t quite to the extent of the British Empire, but it was impressive nonetheless.  Most of the empire centered around the Mediterranean, the sea made moving troops and goods simple.  Britain was an anomaly as a territory under the Roman Empire.  It was located geographically far from the capital and had few goods to offer.  Britain also had three legions posted to it, one of the most for any region.  Now we have that both empires ruled over a diverse group of people but we are still lacking how exactly Rome was different from other empires.

The difference lies in how and who controlled each empire.  The Roman Empire was not controlled by an elite class governing from Italy.  Instead the Romans were more accepting as to who they allowed to rule.  Over time, provincial aristocrats were incorporated into the ruling orders as senators and equestrians.  As a prime example, during the late second century the North African Septimius Severus was appointed to the throne.  Herein lays what I believe set Rome apart from all other empires; their goal to essentially “Romanize” those who they conquered.  The Romans sought to spread the tales of their own glory through foreign authors as evidenced by Polybius and Josephus.  But this only extended to those who were for the Roman cause.  If we look at Carthage instead, the entire library was nearly destroyed after the city was captured by Rome.  This is essentially the difference between Rome and all other empires.  While other empires looked to control a group of people, Rome sought to effectively destroy their culture and replace it with their own.  This was achieved with varying amounts of success.  There was certainly unrest and opposition to this plan, especially in Britain and Palestine.  Ultimately, though, we can see the effects of Roman rule in these places from military establishments to the formation of large cities.  This view is taken in light of the fact that life under Roman rule may have been more oppressive than past histories let on.

Eleazar's Speeches

Eleazar’s speeches at the end of Josephus’ Jewish Wars offer some interesting commentary on how this particular sect of Judaism viewed the Roman occupation.  Or rather the views Josephus ascribed to this group of people.  While it is clear that not all Jews were opposed to Roman rule, after all Josephus himself believed that Judaism and Roman rule could coexist, this particular group of people were vehemently against it.  When examining these speeches it is important to remember that Josephus was not present when the speeches were actually given.  Instead they were conveyed by a group of people that avoided suicide by hiding in a well.  Now what makes this section interesting is how Josephus appears sympathetic to Jewish cause.  He certainly didn’t have to be.  He could have written this section to make Eleazar appear as lunatic; he was commissioned to write this history under Roman rule, they certainly did not care how the Jewish revolt was viewed.   If anything, they would most likely prefer to view their enemies as barbarians hardly worthy of thinking twice about.  Instead Josephus illustrates the scene as one of imminent destruction with the Jewish leader Eleazar maintaining his composure and humanity.  Eleazar decides instead surrendering to torture and slavery he and his followers would commit suicide.  Viewed today this may seem like a cowardly escape, but Eleazar saw it as the only remaining option to control his own fate.

So if this wasn’t to be a means of escape then what was it?  Eleazar himself answers this.  He claims that he already has a commitment that he will serve no other person except God.  He sees this as only keeping his word.  “Since we, long ago, my generous friends, resolved never to be servants to the Romans, nor to any other than to God himself, who alone is the true and just Lord of mankind, the time is now come that obliges us to make that resolution true in practice.”  This is Eleazar keeping his word and in interesting attribute to have for scoundrel and enemy of the Roman Empire.

The next discourse I find very intriguing.  Eleazar claims that they have not been defeated by the Romans, but by the wrath of God.  That “God hath convinced us that our hopes were in vain, by bringing such distress upon us in the desperate state we are now in, and which is beyond all our expectations; for the nature of this fortress which was in itself unconquerable, hath not proved a means of our deliverance.”  He goes on to say that they are being punished for revolting against the Romans.  I find it interesting that Josephus would write this.  I understand that he was writing for a Roman audience, but he didn’t have to make the Jews appear sorry for their actions.  Perhaps as a Jew himself, he sought to gain sympathy from his own people and try to mend any misgivings between the Romans and Jews.  But I think it extends beyond this.  I believe we can see a bit of Josephus through these speeches.

Granted, Josephus had no qualms about serving under Rome.  Still, he didn’t decry the actions of Eleazar and his followers.  Even in these dire and absolutely dreadful circumstances, Josephus shows the resiliency of his people.  Instead of surrendering to slavery they decide to take the last thing they own, their lives.  It’s an interesting statement that Josephus is making.  That although revolting against the Romans may have been the wrong course of action, Josephus still held some allegiance with his Jewish ancestry and wasn’t willing to abandon that quite yet.

Eleazar's First Speech
Eleazar's Second Speech

Cicero Against Verres, Secondary Oration, Book 4

                Cicero takes a unique approach to his first case and spends much of his time convincing his audience of Verrus’ “evil” nature, but also tries to make him look ridiculous. Cicero begins by reviewing Verrus’ history before being named governor of Sicily, avoiding the main charges of extortion against him. Cicero focuses much of his attention on the theft of statues, paintings, and other art. Though odd at the time, this gives us the basis for ethical acquisition of art and what should be considered unethical.

                Cicero’s fourth oration against Verres is of specific interest as he digs into Verres’ nature of greed and theft. Cicero points out that Verres had not only stolen from the likes of individuals, but he had even stolen artifacts from temples, valuable statues which would today be considered historically and culturally important, and other works of art. In particular, Cicero comments on several of Verres’ best known plunders including that of Heius, a Messanian, Philarchus, Centuripa, Antiocus the king, and of the temples of Diana, Mercury, and Ceres. The sacking of temples carries significant importance as the act can be seen as disregard for the gods.

                As part of his defense, Verres often “plays dumb” and tries to portray his ignorance with respect to painting and sculpture, even to the point of seeming to take pride in his ignorance. He also suggests that a taste for art is a taste unworthy of a Roman.

                Cicero takes a strategy of not dwelling on how horrible Verres’ actions were and instead focuses on trying to convince the audience of Verrus’ ridiculousness. He has no problem with making fun of Verrus and plays with his name which means boar, likening him to “the boar of Erymanthus”. At one point Cicero refers to him as “the dragnet of Sicily” due to the resemblance of his name with the word everriculum referring to a dragnet.

                Cicero shines a spotlight upon the greed of Verres and in doing so he gives us a detailed look at how greed actually played a role in the Roman Empire. Although Verres’ case may seem extreme, we are able to see just how ridiculous greed became in certain instances throughout Rome. A passage from this oration captures the extent of this greed.

“I will speak even more plainly; I will say that he has left nothing in any one's house, nothing even in the towns, nothing in public places, not even in the temples, nothing in the possession of any Sicilian, nothing in the possession of any Roman citizen; that he has left nothing, in short, which either came before his eyes or was suggested to his mind, whether private property or public, or profane or sacred, in all Sicily.” (Oration 4, Ch. 1)

I felt this quote was a good representation of Verres’ greed and how his greed in turn affected the lives of those living in Sicily.

               

Cicero, M. T. (n.d.). Secondary Orations Against Verres. In Book 4.

The Jewish War by Josephus

                Josephus was born as the son of Matthias in Jerusalem in 37 AD; he was the combination of priestly descent on his father’s side and supposedly a royal blood line on his mother’s side. Although he claims to have studied all three Jewish political/religious movements including the Sadducees, the Essenes, and the Pharisees, we see that this was not possible within the time frame he suggests. He was however, born as an aristocrat and a Sadducee which was the more conservative movement of the three and largely comprised of wealthy Jews. Josephus has a tendency to twist the truth and we see he likes to align his interests with those of the prevalent movement at any given time. This is evident as he is not very fond of the Pharisees in some of his earlier works such as The Jewish War, but he becomes a Pharisee as the movement becomes popular. Josephus witnesses the beginning of the Jewish revolt against the Roman governor at the time, Gessius Florus. Contrary to his roots as an aristocrat, he joins the rebels in the revolution against the Roman oppression of the Jews. The rebel destruction of the Roman garrison in Jerusalem was an important event in this revolt and shortly after Josephus was assigned by Temple authorities to organize and lead the resistance in Galilee. The Romans approaching Galilee were led by Vespasian who would later become emperor of Rome and an important alliance in Josephus’ life. In 67 AD while under siege in Jotapata, Josephus surrenders to Vespasian after a strange twist of fate in which he and his countrymen drew lots to determine who would kill the rest and then commit suicide, Josephus by the will of God (or so it is suggested) comes out the lucky one and decides against suicide.

"However, in this extreme distress, he was not destitute of his usual sagacity; but trusting himself to the providence of God, he put his life into hazard [in the manner following]: 'And now,' said he, 'since it is resolved among you that you will die, come on, let us commit our mutual deaths to determination by lot. He whom the lot falls to first, let him be killed by him that hath the second lot, and thus fortune shall make its progress through us all; nor shall any of us perish by his own right hand, for it would be unfair if, when the rest are gone, somebody should repent and save himself.' This proposal appeared to them to be very just; and when he had prevailed with them to determine this matter by lots, he drew one of the lots for himself also. He who had the first lot laid his neck bare to him that had the next, as supposing that the general would die among them immediately; for they thought death, if Josephus might but die with them, was sweeter than life; yet was he with another left to the last, whether we must say it happened so by chance, or whether by the providence of God. And as he was very desirous neither to be condemned by the lot, nor, if he had been left to the last, to imbrue his right hand in the blood of his countrymen, he persuaded him to trust his fidelity to him, and to live as well as himself. "(Book III, Sec. 387)

He manages to escape death after surrender by convincing Vespasian of an oracle (believed to refer to the Messiah) implying Vespasian would become emperor. Vespasian likes his idea and decides to keep Josephus under detention instead of crucifying him. Josephus befriends Titus, Vespasian’s son, and begins to create ties that would ensure his well-being. In 69 AD, Vespasian becomes emperor and makes Josephus an advisor to Titus and awards him with Roman citizenship, a wife, etc. Titus is tasked with ending the war and so begins to lay siege to Jerusalem with Josephus at his side. From this viewpoint, Josephus sees the war from the Roman perspective while witnessing the atrocities like the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. He then follows Titus back to Rome and lives under the protection of the house of Vespasian until the murder of Domitian in 98 AD, after which we have no record of Josephus.
              An overview of Josephus’ life is important to note in order to set the context for his book The Jewish War in which he gives us a detailed description of the events leading up to the Jewish War of 66-73 CE and those of the war itself. Including the period beginning with the capture of Jerusalem by the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes (in 164 BC), and up to the fall and destruction of Jerusalem. The causes of this war are a great example of the greed involved in Roman imperialism as the Romans had been taxing the Jews for 60 years before the Roman emperor Nero needed money and demanded Gessius Florus (a representative in Judaea) to confiscate it from the Temple treasure. This and underlying class divisions contributed the most to the actual cause of the war. Aside from the connection to greed, this book also gives an interesting look at conquest from different perspectives. Josephus begins on the side of the Jews during the revolution against the Romans and then gives us a look at the war from the Roman perspective as he accompanied Titus on his siege and sacking of Jerusalem. Josephus as both a general (elected by temple authorities) and a historian looking with hindsight gives an account of the causes of the war, events of the war, and the horrific destruction of Jerusalem. It should be taken into account though, that there are many inaccuracies in Josephus’ tale of the war and that he was under the censorship of the Roman Empire as he wrote this book, granted permission by Vespasian.

Josephus, F. (n.d.). The Jewish War.

Josephus and the Jewish Wars

The character of Josephus presents an interesting study on both the events of the Jewish Wars and also the nature of the Roman Empire.  What makes Josephus such an interesting case is that previous to being a Roman historian, he was a Jewish rebel on the frontlines of the resistance.  When examining Josephus, it is important to first examine his past as an orthodox Jew.  He was of priestly and royal ancestry and well studied in both the teachings of the Sadducees and Pharisees.  It is quite apparent that as a young man, and throughout his life, he was sympathetic to the Jewish cause.  He had been sent to Rome to present the case for the release of Jewish priest to Nero and upon his return to Jerusalem, he was drafted as the commander of the Galilean forces. 

Roman bust said to be of Josephus (from Les Dossiers d' Archéologie)

The remainder of Josephus’ life after this event is what provides interest.  As commander of these rebel forces and surrounded by the Roman army, Josephus suggested a mass suicide for himself and his men. But Josephus did not kill himself and surrendered to the Romans as the sole survivor. Now what the Romans did next speaks to how the Romans sought to control a revolting people under their jurisdiction. Instead of killing or enslaving Josephus, which they could have easily done, he was appointed to write the histories of the Jewish War under Vespasian and Titus.  So in this manner, his account can be seen as explaining Judaism to the Romans and Roman rule to the Jews. The Roman rulers may have been sympathetic to Josephus for the reason that he felt Roman rule was compatible with Judaism. It would not be hard to argue that his work can be viewed as Roman propaganda. After all he was commissioned by the Romans to write his works. He only has praises for the Roman rulers and lauds the army in its efficiency

“One cannot but admire the forethought shown by the Romans, in making their servant class useful to them not only for the ministrations of ordinary life but also for war. If one goes on to study the organization of their army as a whole, it will be seen that this vast empire of theirs has come to them as the prize of valor, and not as a gift of fortune… one might say without exaggeration that, great as are their possessions, the people that won them are greater still.”

Josephus The Jewish Wars Book 3, Chapter 5

At the same time though he is sympathetic to the Jewish cause his sorrow is evident when he explains the destruction of the Temple and the sack of Jerusalem.

“And as for those that are already dead in the war, it is reasonable we should esteem them blessed, for they are dead in defending, and not in betraying their liberty; but as to the multitude of those that are now under the Romans, who would not pity their condition? and who would not make haste to die, before he would suffer the same miseries with them? Some of them have been put upon the rack, and tortured with fire and whippings, and so died.”

Josephus The Jewish Wars Book 7, Chapter 8

The Romans saw Josephus as an important tool to control the revolting Jews.  Here was a man of Jewish decent speaking well of the Romans and asserting that Judaism and Roman rule could be compatible. The question is how the common Jews viewed Josephus. Did they see him as a traitor now sympathetic to the Romans or possibly paid off to speak well of them?  Either way, his work provides great insight into the tactics the Romans used to control conquered lands and people, from the use of propaganda to the brute force of the Roman military.

Bibliography

Secondary Sources:

Beard, Mary. (2007) The Roman Triumph. First Harvard University Press.

Mary Beard’s The Roman Triumh paints a vivid picture of exactly what a triumph would entail.  She details just how violent these triumphs could be, with the captives being put to death at the end. She goes on to say how this was an exercise by the Roman Empire to show its clout. It is difficult to argue with that point; the descriptions of the triumphs by Pliny are nothing short of amazing in terms of the brutality and the spoils that were put on display. The main point of Beard’s writing is to show the importance of the triumph as a representation of Rome’s power over conquered peoples.

Varhelyi, Zsuzsanna. (2007) The Specters of Roman Imperialism: The Live Burials of Gauls and Greeks at Rome. Classical Antiquity, Vol. 26, No. 2.

This article is an examination of live burials performed under Roman Imperialism.  The author interprets human sacrifice of Gauls and Greeks in Rome as showing how little we know of the psychological effects of continuous warfare on the Romans. She argues for the connection between warfare and religion that does not support the idea of defensive Roman imperialism. That is, that Rome had to go to war to protect her own interests.

Hanson, Victor. (2010) The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern. Bloomsbury Press.

This book examines the principles of the Roman military and what values they held. This is important to examine because these were the people often in charge of occupying the Roman held lands. It also examines the similarities of the Roman military to that of ours today. What he finds is quite striking. He claims that the strength of these militaries comes from the egalitarian nature from which they are founded. He also looks at how Rome and America today use their military to control the foreign people and lands.

Mattingly, David. (2006) An Imperial Possession Britain in the Roman Empire. Penguin Books.

Mattingly examines the sweeping history of the Roman rule of Britain. This book examines the lives of the people that lived in Britain during this period including the experiences of the Roman military leaders and the conquered natives.  There are no large surviving Roman works that specifically deal Britain, thus this excursion is rather difficult. Mattingly draws upon archeological evidence and inscriptions to further support historical information.

James, Lawrence. (1997) Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India. St. Martin’s Griffin.

This book takes a wide perspective examination on a key component of both British and Indian history. He deals with matters as diverse as racial attitudes, the part played by the Raj in Britain's position in the nineteenth century world, and the rise of Indian nationalism.  The focus was on the development of an Indian identity under British rule.

Edwards, Douglass. (2004) Religion and society in Roman Palestine: old questions, new approaches. Routledge.

This is a collection of papers that examines important archaeological and textual evidence concerning religion and society in Roman Palestine. Some of the topics covered include: the impact of Roman rule, the role of peasants, the nature of ethnicity and ritual, and the character of public and private space in Jewish society.

Poesche, Theodore. Goepp, Charles. (1853). The new Rome; or, The United States of the world. GP Putnam.

An interesting read that intends to be “a horoscope” for future events.  This book purports a few key events: the reuniting of the United States and the British Empire, the conquest of Germany and Russia, and the eventual rise of the United States as “Empire of the World” through capitalism.

Judd, Denis. (2005) The lion and the tiger: the rise and fall of the British Raj, 1600-1947. Oxford University Press.

This is an overarching examination of the history of the British Raj. Judd focuses on the British impact in the development of India and the consequences of British rule for both rulers and ruled.  Aspects discussed include: the first contacts between East and West, the foundation of the East India Company in 1600, and Gandhi's tactics to overthrow the Raj and restore India to the Indians.

Primary Sources

Julius Caesar. Commentaries on the Gallic Wars.

This is a third-person narrative on the Roman conquest of the people of Gaul.  Although the description of the Roman Empire is most likely skewed, this work provides an important insight into the manner that Rome dealt with its enemies and how it treated conquered lands.

Flavius Josephus. Books of the History of the Jewish War against the Romans.

Josephus describes the Jewish rebellion against Rome between AD 66 and 70.  Josephus remains controversial as an author today because he was originally a Jewish rebel who defected to Roman rule after he was captured. 

Tacitus. Agricola.

Tacitus is one of the most critical primary authors that writes about the Roman Empire. In this work he praises the accomplishments of his father-in-law Agricola, who at the time was the governor and commander of the army in Britain while contrasting it to the corruption in Rome.  Tacitus also favorably contrasts the liberty of the native Britons to the corruption and tyranny of the Empire.

Josephus description of Jewish Cannibalism

First Josephus describes the events leading up to the siege of Jerusalem.  The main topic he discusses is that of the starvation of the Jewish people inside Jerusalem.

                                                A portrait of Josephus
                                                          
One example he tells of is that of Mary, who was a respectable women from a high class family, who was starving in Jerusalem.  Her predicament as described by Josephus was " she perceived her labours were for others, and not for herself; and it was now become impossible for her any way to find any more food"  Therefore she resorts to drastic measures.  This is how it is describe by Josephus with Mary talking to her son. "The famine also will destroy us, even before that slavery comes upon us; yet are these seditious rogues more terrible than both the other. Come on; be thou my food, and be thou a fury to these seditious varlets and a byeword to the world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the calamities of us Jews. As soon as she had said this, she slew her son; and then roasted him, and ate one half of him."  She then saved the other half and offered it to soldiers after telling them what is was "those men went out trembling, being never so much affrighted at anything as they were at this, and with some difficulty they left the rest of that meat to the mother."

This passage is obviously one that is very disturbing since it tells of a mother having to resort to eating her own son.  However, this was one way in which the Roman people were able to justify the fact that they had just committed genocide on the Jewish people.  This is so because it painted the Jew as cannibals.  That these people were willing to eat each other.  In a society such as Rome this would be something that was not look at as a human trait.  Therefore this passage by Josephus really helps them to dehumanize the Jewish people and make them feel less guilty about killing so many of them.

This also has ramification on Josephus as the author of these texts.  He himself was a Jew and had fought alongside the Jews until he joined forces with Titus.  So it must have been hard for him to be able to justify what the Romans were doing to his own people.  So in dehumanizing them and making them seem as lesser people he is able to distance himself from the Jews.  This therefore will make his decision to join the Romans the correct one in his mind.  He would rather be part of the enemy then to be a cannibal.  So this description is very telling about Josephus.

Pericles' Funeral Oration by Thucydides

Pericles' funeral oration from Thucydides' History of the Pelopponnesian War has many overlapping themes with ancient just war theory, even though it does not address it directly.

Pericles starts his oration with discussing the honor that a public funeral holds for the slain soldiers. "But I should have preferred that, when men's deeds have been brave, they should be honored in deed only, and with such an honor as this public funeral, which you are now witnessing" (Thucydides). By framing a public funeral as a place to honor dead soldiers Pericles is effectively asserting the soldiers should be honored for going to war and that is some way their action were just.

Next, Pericles talks about their Athenian ancestors that also died in effort to create the Athenian city state that everyone is currently enjoying. "There has never been a time when they did not inhabit this land, which by their valor they will have handed down from generation to generation, and we have received from them a free state. But if they were worthy of praise, still more were our fathers, who added to their inheritance, and after many a struggle transmitted to us their sons this great empire" (Thucydides). Pericles is essentially justifying the action of his ancestors that fought for the free city state of Athens. As I have discussed before, fighting for freedom and peace is part of the ancient just war rhetoric. Augustine, Aristotle, and Cicero all see fighting for freedom and peace as a just cause in going to war.

Pericles also mentions the altruism of the Athenian city state that makes them righteous in preserving their way of life through war."Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. Our government does not copy our neighbors', but is an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few. But while there exists equal justice to all and alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognized; and when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit" (Thucydides). With this quote, Pericles is telling the funeral goers how great and just Athens is and that this in some way justifies the men that died in war to protect the Athenian way of life. This is gray area in the classical just war theories. The ancient authors did not expressly say that preserving a good way of life is a just cause in going to war. Defensive wars are permitted and preserving peace and freedom are also just causes. It seems as though Pericles is insinuating that preserving the Athenian way of life is a just cause in war for the simple reason that Athens is a just society.

Pericles also mentions the superiority of the Athenian army and that they fight in a just manner. "Then, again, our military training is in many respects superior to that of our adversaries...We rely not upon management or trickery, but upon our own hearts and hands" (Thucydides). This quote shows that Athenian warriors fight fairly, which is a very important part of just war theory. To fight a just war, they must fight with proper force against their enemies and show them mercy where necessary.

The main theme of Pericles' funeral oration is that war is just if you are fighting for a just and great society. Pericles asserts that these warriors have died defending the great city of Athens and that this is an honor and a just thing to do. "I have dwelt upon the greatness of Athens because I want to show you that we are contending for a higher prize than those who enjoy none of these privileges, and to establish by manifest proof the merit of these men whom I am now commemorating" (Thucydides). Although it may be a bit of a stretch, Pericles' funeral oration puts an interesting spin on the classical idea of just war theory.

British India

                 Although the grandeur associated with the Roman Empire seems unrivaled, the British Rule of India may have been a little grander.  The peak population of the Roman Empire around the age of the Antonines is estimated at 120,000,000, with the Italian population included in this figure. The population of India at the time of British rule was no less than 150,000,000 without including any of the British population.

                 It should also be noted that Rome had the advantage of location on its side with Italy perfectly situated in the Mediterranean, the basis of the Roman Empire’s power. The Mediterranean was a clear “boundary” of this power as, “a short journey in almost any direction from it would have taken the traveller completely from under the protection of the eagles”. England did not have this same advantage as India and England are separated by sea, land, and some of the most powerful European nations. It is no coincidence then that England’s conquest of India can be solely attributed to the superiority of the British navy. As Hazewell phrases it, “The condition of Indian dominion is ocean dominion”.

                While there are some considerable differences in the British and Roman Empires, they share one resemblance. Both empires were comprised of a multitude of different countries and cultures. This is obviously more evident in the case of the Roman Empire which ruled over Syrians, Greeks, Egyptians, and other Eastern peoples. India was at the time, made up of ten different civilized nations with entirely different cultures. In both cases, this division played into the hands of the conqueror. With so little in common, the nations and cultures on the defensive did not combine against their conquerors. Without this key factor at play, both empires would have been hard-pressed to build the grand empires remembered in history.

 (http://georgeorwellnovels.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/british-indian-empire-map-1909.jpg) 

(http://sis-giantempires-afroeurasia.wikispaces.com/file/view/746px-Roman_empire_395.jpg/50792219/746px-Roman_empire_395.jpg)

Hazewell, C. C. (1857, November). British India. The Atlantic Monthly, 1, pp. 85-93.

Bibliography

Primary:

Josephus, F. (n.d.). The Jewish War.

                In this text, Josephus gives us a detailed description of the events leading up to the Jewish War of 66-73 CE and those of the war itself. Including the period beginning with the capture of Jerusalem by the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes (in 164 BC), and up to the fall and destruction of Jerusalem. The causes of this war are a great example of the greed involved in Roman imperialism as the Romans had been taxing the Jews for 60 years before the Roman emperor Nero needed money and demanded Gessius Florus (a representative in Judaea) to confiscate it from the Temple treasure. This and underlying class divisions contributed the most to the actual cause of the war. Josephus as both a general (elected by temple authorities) and a historian looking with hindsight gives an account of the causes of the war, events of the war, and the horrific destruction of Jerusalem.

Livius, T. (n.d.). Chapter 6. In T. Livius, The History of Rome, Book 31.

                Livy’s “History of Rome” gives an exhaustive account of Roman history. Livy writes about various aspects of Roman history and culture such as arguments in the senate concerning issues like extending a commanders term or granting a triumph. This chapter takes a closer look at the assembly’s authority in declaring war and Livy gives only one account of the assembly raising objections (during the 2nd Macedonian War). The tribune Q. Baebius convinces the people to reject the proposal for war, but the consul then convinces the assembly to reverse their decision soon after. This helps display how factors such as politics complicated the process of war and how Roman imperialism was not as simple as following an aggressive or defensive strategy. 

Cicero, M. T. (n.d.). Secondary Orations Against Verres. In Book 4.

                Cicero takes a unique approach to his first case and spends much of his time convincing his audience of Verrus’ “evil” nature, but also tries to make him look ridiculous. Cicero begins by reviewing Verrus’ history before being named governor of Sicily, avoiding the main charges of extortion against him. Cicero focuses much of his attention on the theft of statues, paintings, and other art. Though odd at the time, this gives us the basis for ethical acquisition of art and what should be considered unethical.

Secondary:

Harris, W. (1979). War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327-70 B.C. OUP Oxford.

                Harris shatters the conventional image of Roman imperialism being defensive in nature. He suggests a theory of “aggressive imperialism” and makes the argument “that the most important of the factors which brought about the wars was the Romans’ desire for the glory and economic benefits which successful warfare conferred.”

Malamud, M. (2009). Imperial Consumption. In M. Malamud, Ancient Rome and Modern America (pp. 229-252). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.            
          
                  An interesting article on the comparison and relation of the imperial consumption found in ancient Rome and the comsumption of modern america. In particular, Malamud examines the consumption exhibited in Las Vegas by the casinos.

Perkins, J. (2004). Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

                Perkins describes the imperialistic strategy of our nation in the modern world along with his personal experience carrying out our country's missions of conquest. In the book, Perkins describes how we use debt to conquer nations and force them into acting in our best interest. The underlying mechanics of the strategy work by us first identifying a nation of interest (with desired resources for instance), then a loan to the nation (typically from the World Bank etc. and these are very large loans), the large loans will end up going to an american corporation to develop infrastructure etc., the nation clearly cannot pay off the loan and is then forced to accept terms such as access/rights to resources we desire. This presents an interesting contrast between Roman imperialism based upon greed and glory and the modern form of imperialism with greed at its heart (but taking a more subtle form).

Rich, J. (2004). Fear, Greed, and Glory. In C. B. Champion, Roman imperialism: readings and sources (pp. 46-62). Blackwell Publishing.

                Rich takes a look at the applicability of roman imperialism theories, including a defensive theory and an aggressive theory (as presented by William Harris). Roman society was thought to be a militaristic culture which valued military achievements and was geared towards fighting wars continuously to maintain the flow of opportunities and profits that result from war. War generated a cheap supply of slaves, slaves which transformed Italian agriculture. In addition, one of the main benefits ordinary Romans received as a result of war was land. Although Harris’ categorization of Roman imperialism as “aggressive imperialism” is more intuitive than the previously held notion of “defensive imperialism”, the assumption of constant warfare and expansion is inaccurate. In all reality, Roman conquest was irregular and not constant by any means. Many expansive opportunities were passed up and in many cases warfare was avoided all together.

Woolf, G. (1992, February). Imperialism, Empire and the Integration of the Roman Economy. World Archaeology, 23, 283-293.

                This article explores the relationship between Roman imperialism and the Roman economy. The two main arguments provided are that of a locally/regionally based economy and a completely integrated economy in which politics were important. Support for the notion of an integrated Roman economy can found in evidence of wide spread trade throughout the empire. Looking at the remains of trade such as the amphorae (a ceramic jar commonly used by Romans to store goods like wine and olive oil), the extent of Roman trade and the rate of trade throughout different periods of the Roman Empire are explored.  The basic conclusion reached by the article is that while trade within the empire rarely took an integrated form above the regional level, the integration of trade throughout the empire during the last two centuries BC was created not by the infrastructure of a staple Roman Empire but by the imperial expansion at the time.

(2009). The Pleasures of Empire. In M. Malamud, Ancient Rome and Modern America (pp. 150-185). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hazewell, C. C. (1857, November). British India. The Atlantic Monthly, 1, pp. 85-93.

                This article is a juxtaposition of the Roman Empire and the British Empire, specifically British ruled India. The scale of the British Empire outweighs that of the Roman Empire, a fact that is not well-known. While both empires differ greatly, they share the resemblance of conquering a multitude of divided nations who failed to unite against them.

(2008). Conquests and Glories, Triumphs and Spoils: Caesar and the Edeology of Roman Imperialism. In W. J. Tatum, Always I Am Caesar (pp. 42-60). Wiley-Blackwell.

                Caesar represents the height of Roman greed and Conquest, giving us an example of how greed played a role Roman culture and how it helped to fuel countless Roman conquests. Rome can easily be identified as an imperialistic state, but Rome was the result of a grand transformation with a humble beginning in a small village along the Tibur. Much of this is due to Roman imperialism which was at the heart of Roman ideology.

Other:

Apted, M. (Director). (2005). "The Stolen Eagle" Rome (HBO Series) [Motion Picture].

Tykwer, T. (Director). (2009). The International [Motion Picture].

Lendering, J. (n.d.). Wars between the Jews and Romans: the subjugation of Judaea (63 BCE). Retrieved March 2011, from Livius: http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/jwar01.htm

               

Bibloigraphy for Just War Theory

1. Isaac, B. (2004). The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
a. Secondary
b. This book touches on how racism was used in the ancient world. There is one section in the book that talks about how ancient peoples were discriminated against based on race by dehumanizing them. The dehumanization of the enemy is also an important part of fighting an enemy in a just war. I used this book in my comment on the ancient slavery blog
2. White, C. M. (2010). Iraq: The Moral Reckoning. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
a. Secondary
b. This book talks about ancient just war theory in a modern context. It focuses on how the ancient just war theory was used on the American public while the federal government was justifying the Iraq War. This was used in my midterm post.
3. Jones, J. D., & Griesbach, M. F. (Eds.). (1985). Just War Theory in the Nuclear Age. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
a. Secondary
b. This book explores an interesting area of modern just war theory. It proposes that there is a new just war theory due to the fact that we are living in a “nuclear age.” President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize winning speech also makes note of just war theory in a time when the stakes of war are so much higher than they have been in the past due to nuclear weapons.
4. Fiala, A. (2008). The Just War Myth. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
a. Secondary
b. This book asserts that there is no such thing as a “just war.” The ancient accepted war as a natural part of life. This book, on the other hand, says that there is no real way to apply just war theory and that war is inherently unjust.
5. Fotion, N. (2007). War & Ethics: A New Just War Theory. New York, NY: Continuum.
a. Secondary
b. Fotion goes through how just war theory was applied to a variety of wars and military conflicts in the twentieth century. This source was used in my midterm post.
6. Bethke Elshtain, J. (Ed.). (1992). Just War Theory. New York, NY: New York University Press.
a. Secondary
b. This book by a variety of authors goes through the entire history of just war theory from antiquity to how it can be applied in the nuclear age.
7. Evans, M. (Ed.). (2005). Just War Theory: A Reappraisal. Edinburgh, Great Britain: Edinburgh University Press.
a. Secondary
b. Various authors go into detail about the just causes of war and the just practice of war. This book explores the two sides of justice war theory. Justice in going to war, and the actual practice of a just war.
8. De Officiis by Cicero
a. Primary
9. City of God by St. Augustine
a. Primary
10. Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas
a. Primary
11. Politics by Aristotle
a. Primary
12. History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides
a. Primary

Holy Wars and Jihads Compared to Just War Theory

The idea of a Jihad, or a Muslim Holy War, can be seen in conflict with the Western world's idea of a just war. This is an interesting area to see how just war theory applies to other cultures.

The Institute of Islamic Information and Education goes into detail about the criteria of a jihad. To Arabic speakers, the word "jihad" literally means "struggle." For example, a student may struggle to get an education or pass a test; this would be considered a jihad. This institute asserts that westerners incorrectly equate a jihad with a holy war, although there is a great deal of overlap between jihad and holy war.

There are several applications of jihad in the Qur'an. One example of jihad is putting Allah before all other loved ones in your life. Another application of jihad is striving for righteous deeds. There are also other examples of jihad that are more applicable to the idea of jihad as a holy war. The Qur'an talks about having courage to convey the message of Islam to non-believers. The Qur'an says, "The (true) believers are only those who believe in Allah and his messenger and afterward doubt not, but strive with their wealth and their selves for the cause of Allah. Such are the truthful." 49:15. This is one example of how jihad can be used by Islamic terrorists to "justify" their actions. This is also a point that differs from the classical western views of just war. None of the ancient writers that I have discussed in my blog thus far have used spreading of religion as a just cause of going to war.

Defending Islam and the community is one way that jihad is similar to ancient western just war theory. There are many instances in the texts that I have discussed in the past where waging a defensive war is considered to be just. Allah declares in the Qur'an, "To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to defend themselves), because they are wronged - and verily, Allah is Most Powerful to give them victory - (they are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right - (for no cause) except that they say, 'Our Lord is Allah'.... " 22:39-40.

There are also passages in the Qur'an that allow for jihad in cases of helping allied peoples, removing treacherous rulers from power, defending through preemptive strikes. All of these reasons are consistent with western just war theory.

It is very interesting to note the similarities between the justifications for jihad and the classical western just war theory that I have studies this semester. It seems as though the same rationale is used for Islamic holy war as western war, however, it differs because it uses vague religious texts to justify violence. Islamic terrorists view western society as a threat to Islamic teachings, and therefore believe that they are justified in attacking the west. The passages in the Qur'an referring to jihad are vague and to not outline in detail what is considered a just war like the western theories do. This is most likely a major reason why Islamic holy wars are fought so differently than western wars.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosphy on Just War

http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/

Here is a link from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is a peer-reviewed academic resource.

The article provides a great deal of information in Just War theory from ancient times, all the way to its revival in the twentieth century with the rise of the nuclear age.

The article also touches on how just war theory was applied to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq following the September 11th, 2001 attacks.

Timeline of Just War Theory

(1000) BC: The Bible

(426) BC: Augustine's City of God

(400) BC: Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War

(350 BC): Aristotle's Politics

(44 BC): Cicero's de officiis

(1265 AD): St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica

(1486-1546): Francisco de Vitoria

(1548-1617): Francisco Suarez

(1583-1645): Hugo Grotius

(1632-1704): Samuel Pufendorf

(1679-1754): Christian Wolff

(1714-1767): Emerich de Vattel

In the twentieth century, just war theory has undergone a revival mainly in response to the invention of nuclear weaponry and American involvement in the Vietnam war. The most important contemporary texts include Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars (1977), Barrie Paskins and Michael Dockrill The Ethics of War (1979), Richard Norman Ethics, Killing, and War (1995), Brian Orend War and International Justice (2001) and Michael Walzer on War and Justice (2001), as well as seminal articles by Thomas Nagel “War and Massacre”, Elizabeth Anscombe “War and Murder”, and a host of others, commonly found in the journals Ethics or The Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs.

Comment on Ancient Slavery Blog

...a slave is a living possession, and property a number of such instruments; and the servant is himself an instrument which takes precedence of all other instruments. For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which, says the poet, of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods; if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves. Aristotle Politics Chapter 3, Book 1,

There are many ties between ancient imperialism and ancient slavery. A large part of the Just War Theory is justifying wars against “lesser” people. The same thought process goes into the dehumanization of slaves in the ancient world. In ancient times it was not uncommon to dehumanize your enemy thereby justifying a war with a less than human people.
In Benjamin Isaac’s book, “The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity”, he talks about Aristotle’s thoughts on cannibalism. It is important to note, as discussed in my earlier posts, that Aristotle was a key figure in theorizing about slavery and the just war theory. He dehumanized cannibals and in ancient times cannibalism was attributed to peoples that did not even practice it as a means of justifying war or slavery with these people. Aristotle also said that people who live in excessively hot or cold climates are naturally beastlike in both habits and appearance. In ancient times, this was a well-known extension of the environmental theory.
Aristotle said that people of the Pontus area show “an inclination for murder and cannibalism”. Herodotus also calls people from this area “Man-eaters”. It is interesting how ancient thinkers attributed cannibalism to beastliness. It is interesting that ancient people would attribute this trait to enemies and people that they wanted to enslave. Saying that you are enslaving or fighting a war against cannibals or murderers “justifies” war and slavery to the ancients.
Slavery was always closely tied to imperialism in the ancient world. As Aristotle’s theory suggests, those who win the war are naturally superior to those who lost and it is permissible to enslave these lesser people. Although slavery is not as common as it was in the ancient world, we still attribute sub-human characteristics to our enemies in war in order to justify killing them. The war-time propaganda during World War II depicted the Germans and beastly animals and the Japanese as apes. The dehumanization of the enemy is a very important part of justifying war both in ancient times and modern.

This is an ancient Greek depiction of a slave being punished.

Jewish Genocide Across Cultures

Genocide vs. Jews
Rome
The Romans led by Titus, during the first Jewish-Roman war, in 70 tried “to wipe out completely the Jewish people, since they alone of all nations avoided dealings with any other people and looked upon all men as their enemies.”

Titus wanted to destroy Jews so they destroyed the Jewish temple in Jerusalem because in their religion you needed a sanctuary and if they destroyed this the Jewish religion would be abolished.

Titus was able to destroy the entire city in his siege. In this siege over 1,100,000 people were killed. Most of them were Jewish and of the Jews that did survive they were then sold into slavery.

Josephus describes this siege in detail in his book.  He talks in length about how the people in Jerusalem were cut off from food and therefore were starving.  He even goes into such detail to describe a women who had no choice but to eat her own baby.

Josephus then tells of the tactics used in the siege.  How the Romans stormed the first two of the thee walls and destroyed them without much trouble.  Then they were sent in to capture the temple and castle where the Jews where fortifying themselves.  The Castle was taken and all the Jews inside were killed.  Then, even though Titus had not wanted to destroy the temple, it was made clear that this would be the only way to defeat the Jews.  So they burnt down the temple, killing those inside.  Finally they finished their capture of the city and took the rest of the Jews to be slaves.


This genocide was similar to the genocide of Melos. This is so because Titus, the roman leader, gave the Jews many chances to save themselves and their city which they did not take. Just as the Melodian leaders chose to bring war upon themselves, the Jew refused to surrender into slavery and instead were killed and their civilization was destroyed.  This, however, is simplifying the situation.  It was not as if these people wanted to die.  They could not live with themselves if they were to stand idly by and let their home be destroyed by the Romans.  As the first group to really attack a Roman occupation, they were not willing to sacrifice their freedom without a fight.  So they decided to fight and in the end lost.  

After destroying Jerusalem the Romans then went to the next Jewish hot spot on Masada. There they had trouble taking siege to the city since it was well barricaded on a mountain top. However, by the time they were able to break into the city, all of the inhabitants had committed mass suicide. So this was a complete annihilation of these people since none of them survived.

http://www.truthnet.org/Spiritual-warfare/10pulling-down-strongholds/pulling-down-strongholds.htm

Germany
Hitler tried to do get rid of all Jews, Gypsies, Gays, and other minority groups. He killed 6 million Jews and around 12 million total people. It was his dream to create a master race and the Jews did not fit into this plan.

Hitler created concentration camps where Jewish people were taken to provide free labor and then to be killed. These camps were very highly organized and were very effective in the mass murder of the Jewish people.

Hitler, however, was unsuccessful in his genocide. The Allied nations were able to defeat the Hitler and save the Jews that remained alive. Although this was not a complete genocide on the Jewish population, it wiped out a huge part of it population which the effects can still be seen today.

This genocide was more like the one committed by Rome. This was a major nation at the time trying to gain more power by wiping out completely other people that got in their way. The Romans did this with Carthage during the 3rd Punic War. This is a struggle for world domination but in the end both parties failed to do this.

Genocide Bibliography

1)War and Imperialism in Republican Rome by Harris
In this work he describes the struggle between Rome and Carthage the main genocide that I have been studying in the ancient world. In this he tell how this was one powerful state looking to decimate another state. He tells how this Carthage did not really bring this war upon themselves but instead had it thrust onto them by Rome. He goes into length how Rome would find any excuse they could muster to get this war started. They blamed in on a skirmish they had with Roman allies in North Africa and the fact that they were experienced a very prosperous time in their history. This infuriated the Romans because they though themselves to be far superior and they therefore attacked and eventually destroyed Carthage.

2)The Worlds Bloodies History: Massacre, Genocide, and the Scars Left on Civilization By Joseph Cumming
This book goes into even greater detail of this genocide. He first gives another reason for the attack on Carthage. He gives proof of the child sacrifices that the Carthaginians had been performing. This was against the Roman way of life and therefore was another reason they wanted to destroy Carthage. He also tells of how the Carthaginian people did all they could to try to avoid this war from coming upon them. They gave up 300 of their most noble youth and sent them to Rome. They also gave every weapon that they had to the Romans in hope that they would not attack. However, this did not stop the Romans and when they did attack the Carthaginians had to scramble to make new weapons.

3)Carthage Must Be Destroyed: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Civilization by Richard Miles
In this book he describes how before the Roman destruction, Carthage was experiencing one of the most prosperous times in their history. One reason for this may have been the fact that they no longer had a standing army that they had to finance and keep, since part of the treaty at the end of the Second Punic War had made it so that they could not have an army. During this time they had used their location on the Mediterranean Sea to continue their high levels of commerce. So even though they had to pay taxes to Rome, another part of the treaty, they were still able to maintain a high level of success in their other facets of life.

4)History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides
He describes the Athenian genocide of the island nation of Melos. This is called the Melian Dialogue. In this passage it is the Athenian envoy telling the leader of Melos that they need to either surrender to Athens and become part of its empire or it will be destroyed. In the end the Melian leaders decide that it is better to die free then to live as part of the Athenian state. After they decide this they are then destroyed by Athens and the remaining people sold into slavery. This shows how this was another genocide committed in the ancient world. It was interesting in this text about how the leaders of Melos were given a choice and they basically chose genocide, which the Athenians then brought down upon them.

5)Appian's History
The part of Appian's History related to genocide describing the conflict between Rome and Carthage. His text really gets into the heart of the conflict. It describes in detail the Roman advance into the Carthaginian city and their complete destruction of its people. There is one passage that describes the brutality of the genocide that was taking place. It tells how the Romans were just running through the street slaughtering every man, woman, and child in their path. Then it describes how they level all the building, many of them with people still inside and how in the rubble there were limbs sticking out all over the place. His description of the genocide is very in depth and thorough.

6)The Jewish War By Flavius Josephus
This text was useful to describe many attacks on the Jewish people. It detailed some genocides like the attack and mass suicide on Masada. He goes into great detail on these subjects and give a firsthand look at these wars and each side.

7)Periochae 48-50 by Livy
This is a text describing the Third Punic War. This is the attack by Rome on Carthage. He goes through what let up to and how the conflict went. He gives very good detail about the genocide and this work give us another inside look into this genocide.

8)The Third Punic War, 149-146 BCE [The Histories, Book XXXVI-XXXIX] by Polybius
This is another look inside the Carthage genocide. This gives a strong view from the Carthaginian side before they are wiped off of the face of the earth. Goes into the decisions that were made prior to the war and then what happened. Again gives a good look at this genocide.

In Defense of War Video Clip

Double Click to Play Video Clip

You must be logged in to Ctools to view this movie

This video clip is from an anti-Iraq War demonstration. The demonstrator is explaining to the interviewer, an Iraq War supporter, why the Iraq War is immoral and thus not a Just War.

This clip is an example of how ancient Just War theory is applied to modern wars. It is interesting to note how the demonstrator explains what a just war is in much the same way that ancient authors did.

Boudica

Double click to play. You must be a member of this course to view this video.

This clip, while most certainly not an accurate portrayal of Romans, show the changing view we have of the Roman Empire today.  Instead of seeing the Roman Empire as infallible, more people view it as oppressive.  Here the Romans themselves see that.  It is most clear when the general rhetorically asks what they are fighting for, for the Britons are fighting for the livelihood. 

Schindler's List Clip

Double Click to play, Click to stop. Only those signed into ctools can view this clip.

This clip shows the Jews being rounded up by the Nazi's during WWII. This shows the way in which genocide is carried out. It shows how the extermination of a race/culture is done at the base level.

"The Stolen Eagle"

            This clip is from the first episode of the HBO series Rome. The following scene is set in 52 B.C., the day after the Seige of Alesia denoting the end of Caesar's eight-year-long Gallic Wars which brought him further wealth and popularity. The king of the Gauls, Vercingetorix is brought before Julius Ceasar, stripped of his clothes and forced to kiss the the Aquila of the 13th Legion. The Aquila being the eagle standard of the Roman Legion. This act signifies the end of the Gallic Wars.

            Caesar himself represents the pinnacle of Roman greed and conquest. While a consul (around 59 BC), Caesar was granted significant military command due to legislation proposed and passed by Publius Vatinius. Going against tradition, Caesar became the proconsul of Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum for 5 years with three (later ten) legions under his command. Pompey the Great then added Transalpine Gaul to Caesar's command. As a proconsul for 5 years then 10 years, Caesar was immune and could not be touched by Roman courts. Consequently though, much was expected of Caesar considering his exceptional command. Caesar eventually decides to execute this power by conquering the Gauls, a conquest that saw both women and children murdered and millions sold into slavery. As a result, Caesar ammassed great wealth and was provided with enough legions to give him a position of "absolute power". His conquest of Gaul became recognized as his greatest achievement and today many celebrate him as "the founder of Europe".

              Rome is easily identified as an imperialistic state, but it was not always so. Rome was the result of a transformation from a small village along the Tibur into a historic world power. Much of this is due to Roman imperialism which was at the heart of Roman ideology. However, imperialism is "never a simple or straightforward matter". Military requirements formed the basis of Roman organization. Command of troops and the right to give orders to civilians was granted to magistrates, consuls, and praetors. In latin, power is imperium from which imperial and imperialism are derived.

(2008). Conquests and Glories, Triumphs and Spoils: Caesar and the Edeology of Roman Imperialism. In W. J. Tatum, Always I Am Caesar (pp. 42-60). Wiley-Blackwell.



Roman Greed and Conquest and their role in Genocide

The one major genocide by the Romans was on Carthage during the 3rd Punic War. Was this a defensive or aggressive imperialism at work? This question was raised about the Roman Empire during their imperialistic age. The answer for this was pretty obviously aggressive. Since the Carthaginians at the time did not pose a real threat to Roman control, this was not a defensive attack.

They had even taken all of the weapons from the citizens of Carthage so they would had little to no defense for their civilization. This shows that Carthage was not a threat and therefore there was a total aggressive action to destroy their civilization.

Now Carthage had been a big threat earlier on in Roman rule but by this point they had already relieved that threat in the first two Punic Wars. So this furthers the hypothesis that the Roman conquest was an aggressive attack and not a defensive necessity.

Roman Occupation

If we want to compare ancient cultures to our culture today the first step is to see exactly how similar these cultures are.  Afterall, if they hold no parallels then then this endeavor can prove to be very difficult. The first step will be to examine how the ancients viewed occupying and controlling foreign lands using both primary sources from the time and modern discussion on the issue.  Then in the end, we can use this information to compare the cultures to ours today and to examine how similar they are.

The first telling insight into how Rome felt about occupying and conquering foreign lands can be seen in the creation of the triumph, a type of ancient parade where the newly defeated people would be led through Rome so all the citizens could see the spoils of war.  Mary Beard’s The Roman Triumh paints a vivid picture of exactly what a triumph would entail.  She details just how violent these triumphs could be, with the captives being put to death at the end. She goes on to say how this was an exercise by the Roman empire to show its clout. It is difficult to argue with that point; the descriptions of the triumphs by Pliny are nothing short of amazing in terms of the spoils. The main point of Beard’s writing is to show the importance of the triumph to the Roman leaders.

The next is an examination of live burials performed under Roman Imperialism.  This article interprets human sacrifice of Gauls and Greeks in Rome as showing how little we know of the psychological effects of continuous warfare on the Romans. The author argues for the connection between warfare and religion that does not support the idea of defensive Roman imperialism. That is that Rome had to go to war to protect her own interests.

The final source is based around the ideas of the Roman military and what values they held. This is important to examine because these were the people often in charge of occupying the Roman held lands. Dr. Hanson’s book The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern, examines the similarities of the Roman military to that of ours today. What he finds is quite striking. He claims that the strength of the these militaries comes from the egalitarian nature from which they are founded. He also looks at how Rome and America today use their military to control the foreign people and lands.

We can also examine how Roman rulers controlled conqeured lands by examining ancient texts. The first of these is Caeser’s Gallic Wars, a personal account on how he counquered the land of Gaul. The book outlines basic princilples of how Rome conquered and ruled. If the subjects under Roman law would pay taxes and support the Imperial cult then for the most part they would not be bothered. It was only in the case when Rome was acquiring new land or controlling an uprising was this not true. Which begs the question what was the reason for the uprising in the first place.

One such instance is characterized by Josephus’ account of the Jewish War. Josephus was himself a Jew who believed in the compatibility of the Jewish custom and Roman rule. (wish I had more time to write more)

This image shows how pervasive violence and the idea of conquering was to the common Roman. The picture is from a Roman general's sarcophagus and it depicts a cavalry battle between the Romans and barbarians. The average Roman was no stranger to violence. Most Romans I would argue were quite alright with conquering and controlling foreign lands.

The question now is can we compare ancient Roman imperialism to our culture today and just how relevant is it. The idea of American imperialism does not come as surprise to some. If we examine the principles of imperialism but disregard the means, then the two cultures are strikingly similar. The United States would most likely not conquer a nation for the outright control of that area. But if we examine the spread of American culture throughout the world, striking similarities can be drawn between the impacts of both the Roman and American cultures. In this way, we ancient Rome and our modern nation are very similar.

Midterm Post

The issue I am looking at is how greed and conquest relates to ancient Roman imperialism. I am particularly interested in what fueled the Roman’s desire for conquest. Were the Romans acting defensively, aggressively, or was conquest primarily fueled by greed. These three concepts of defensive imperialism, aggressive imperialism, imperialism fueled by greed, along with the role economy and politics will serve as the main parameters of this discussion.

The first of my sources Fear, Greed, and Glory discusses the notions of defensive imperialism and aggressive imperialism. Before 1979, the widely accepted theory pertaining to Roman imperialism was that it served a primarily defensive purpose. By constantly going to war with neighboring states and those that presented a threat, Rome was able to keep their enemies weak. However, the author William Harris shattered this theory in 1979 with his book War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327-70 B.C. which presents the theory of aggressive imperialism. Harris argued that, “the most important of the factors which brought about the wars was the Romans’ desire for the glory and economic benefits which successful warfare conferred.” While Harris’ categorization of Roman imperialism as “aggressive imperialism” is more intuitive than the previously held notion of “defensive imperialism”, the assumption of constant warfare and expansion is largely inaccurate. Factors such as politics complicated the process of war and how Roman imperialism was not as simple as following an aggressive or defensive strategy. Some of these politics become apparent when looking at the assembly's authority in declaring war or lack thereof. The ancient Roman historian Livy gives one account of the assembly raising objections to declaring war (during the 2nd Macedonian War). The overview of the event includes the tribune Q. Baebius convincing the people to reject the proposal for war, but the consul then convincing the assembly to reverse their decision soon after.

        "This province fell to P. Sulpicius, and he gave notice that he should propose to the Assembly that "owing to the lawless actions and armed attacks committed against the allies of Rome, it is the will and order of the Roman people that war be proclaimed against Philip, King of Macedonia, and against his people, the Macedonians." The other consul, Aurelius, received Italy for his province. Then the praetors balloted for their respective commands. C. Sergius Plancus drew the City; Q. Fulvius Gillo, Sicily; Q. Minucius Rufus, Bruttium, and L. Furius, Gaul. The proposed declaration of war against Macedonia was almost unanimously rejected at the first meeting of the Assembly. The length and exhausting demands of the late war had made men weary of fighting and they shrank from incurring further toils and dangers. One of the tribunes of the plebs, Q. Baebius, too, had adopted the old plan of abusing the patricians for perpetually sowing the seeds of fresh wars to prevent the plebeians from ever enjoying any rest. The patricians were extremely angry and the tribune was bitterly attacked in the senate, each of the senators in turn urging the consul to call another meeting of the Assembly to consider the proposal afresh and at the same time to rebuke the people for their want of spirit and show them what loss and disgrace would be entailed by the postponement of that war." (Livius, T. (n.d.). Chapter 6. In T. Livius, The History of Rome, Book 31.)

My second source Imperialism, Empire and the Integration of the Roman Economy explains the role the Roman economy had in conquest. First it’s worth describing who had the most influence on the Roman economy and conquest. The Roman Empire was largely imperialistic in its nature and the surpluses extracted from Roman citizens and provinces under Roman rule were reinvested by the elites of society on infrastructure and other means of maintaining their power. Much of the Roman  Empire's resources and energy was spent on securing revenue streams and supplies of labor and agricultural produce from the regions under Roman rule. Due to the hierarchy of power in ancient Rome, the profits extracted were distributed to groups of Roman elites which help them to consolidate their power. Taking a closer look at the economy it is important to examine both local trade and trade reaching throughout the empire and how they relate to imperialism at the time. The two main arguments describing the Roman economy and empire are that of a locally and regionally based economy and a completely integrated economy in which politics were important. Support for the notion of an integrated Roman economy can found in evidence of wide spread trade throughout the empire. By researching remains of trade such as the amphorae (a ceramic jar commonly used by Romans to store goods like wine and olive oil), we can understand the extent of Roman trade and the rate of trade throughout different periods of the Roman Empire.

(Ancient Roman amphorae)

An interesting discovery which sheds light on the relationship between economy and conquest is the distribution of Italian wine which began gradually in the 3rd century BC, reached its peak during the 3rd quarter of the last century BC and then declined rapidly afterwards. This pattern of wine distribution matches that the rhythm of Roman imperial expansion which supports the notion that the Roman economy and therefore the prosperity of the Roman elite was fueled by Roman imperialism.

For contemporary culture, I juxtaposed ancient Roman imperialism and modern American imperialism. I was interested in which aspects of conquest were different in the ancient world and which aspects continue to this day. In examining modern imperialism, the source I looked at was I Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins along with the corresponding documentary. At the beginning of the documentary there is an interesting quote from one of this country’s founders, John Adams. Adams pointed out that, “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword, the other is by debt.” This statement captures the essence of imperialism in ancient Rome which took the visible form of a sword and bloodshed and the modern form of imperialism which is much more subtle. Roman imperialism was highly publicized with large events celebrating a conquest known as triumphs. Conquering other regions was glorified and was turned into a spectacle. Modern imperialism has taken on a subtle form which uses economic tools such as debt to obtain and consolidate power throughout the modern world. In his book, Perkins describes how we use debt to conquer nations and force them into acting in our best interest. The underlying mechanics of the strategy work by us first identifying a nation of interest (with desired resources for instance), then a loan to the nation (typically from the World Bank etc. and these are very large loans), the large loans will end up going to an American corporation to develop infrastructure etc., the nation clearly cannot pay off the loan and is then forced to accept terms such as access/rights to resources we desire. This is one example of how conquest takes place in the modern world, with other tools such as fluctuating monetary values also being applied.

Imperialism in the ancient Roman Empire was utilized for a variety of reasons including defensive reasons, aggressive reasons, and those solely due to greed. Today however, greed plays a much larger role in imperialism. The true reason behind modern conquest is financial not for “the glory of Rome”.  This is the largest difference I determined.