Roman and Modern Imperialism: A Reassessment

Abstract

Those who view Rome from the perspective of modern empires have been struck by Rome's longevity (for example, Brunt 1965:267; Doyle 1986:81–103; Syme 1958:1). Attempts to explain this phenomenon, however, have given little if any consideration to why movements of national independence have occurred in modern times, but not in Roman antiquity. This is the more striking inasmuch as nationalist rebellions against imperial rule typically accompanied the dissolution of direct imperial control over native populations during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Certainly the decisions of modern imperialists to give up their empires have been influenced by political idealism or by calculations of economic self-interest unique to their historical situations (Liithy 1964:34). Nonetheless, the role of their subjects must also be taken into consideration, because it was the initiative of the colonial natives, not that of the imperial masters, that typically has resulted in the first calls for independence and, most often, in the nationalist rebellions that provoked imperialists into dismantling their empires. Idealistic impulses and calculations of economic self-interest alike have taken place within the context of that initiative and cannot help but to have been colored by it. It would be a mistake to identify nationalist sentiment and rebellion as the only reasons for the collapse of modern empires, but they must be included among the decisive reasons.

A cultural apocalypse: Apocalyptic impacts of imperialism in E. M. Forster’s A Passage to India

“…Derived from the Latin word 'imperium' used especially by the Roman Empire that meets "to command" or "supreme authority", understanding of imperialism changed so much throughout the history that it has become a new concept that designates a kind of "traditional local ruling hierarchies instead of generating a new basis of power among subject populations" (Chilcote, 2000, p. 175), which is further clarified by Miles (1990), as follows:…”

“American Empire” as an Analytic Question or a Rhetorical Move?

“…Empires can also be differentiated by whether they recognize territorial limits (by acknowledging other polities as equal in status), or whether they recognize no formal borders to their claims. When Virgil remarked that Jupiter had given Rome an empire without end ( imperium sine fine ), he was not merely engaging in dramatic license but also describing Roman claims and perceptions (Miles 1990; Whittaker 1994). The empire had physical limits, but these constituted frontier zones, not agreed borders between equals.…”

Legacies of empire?

“…See comments by DeGaulle in Cooper (2005, p. 153). 11 See Miles (1990). Interestingly, the granting of citizenship may have been a way of increasing the reach of taxation.…”