Thursday, April 14, 2011

Jihad in Modern Context Link

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

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

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

Thursday, April 7, 2011

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.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

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.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

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.

Sunday, April 3, 2011

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.





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