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