Ancient imperialism has been a subject
of debate between historians for centuries. The matter consists of a number of
questions – some which still remain to be answered. For example, what were the
motives of expansion? Why did ancient cultures seek to impose their rule upon
foreign states? What circumstances
would allow for a successful “empire” and how does a culture go about achieving
this? In this essay I will look at these questions, drawing some conclusions as
to the “what’s” and “whys” of ancient imperialism.
The first topic I will address is the
factors that drive the desire to expand. For example, the Romans and Athenians had
varying motives in their conquests for imperialism. Athenian motives included
economic desires that fuelled their need for an empire – much like the British
Empire was based around the economic effects of trade in the late nineteenth
and early to mid-twentieth centuries. The Romans saw their empirical conquest
as both economic and ideology, as it Roman rulers wanted to spread their ideas
and culture, as well as exploit other country’s resources. It is therefore also
important to understand that different rulers had varying ways of justifying
their rule of other countries. One of the justifications used by Athenian
rulers would be the economic advantage for the colonized state of being part of
an imperial power. One of the many factors driving Roman imperialism was indeed
economic: for example the need for slaves.[1]
These justifications dominated the reasons behind many other ancient (and modern)
imperial powers, including the Ottoman and Greek empires. These justifications
were necessary for the subjugated lands to understand, as it acted as an
appeasement process to combat dissidence and revolt.
The requirements of a central power were
often the reason that ancient cultures sought to impose their rule upon foreign
states. A common reason was natural resources and land for cultivation. For
instance, the Greeks and Athenians had a strong desire to expand due to their
highly infertile and mountainous land, which was making it difficult for
farming and hindering the economy. However, as Thucydides argues, imperialism
could simply be put down to human nature.[2]
Thucydides creates the argument that it is the natural need for power that
plays the dominant role in the motives for an empire – the practicalities that
accompany it are mere convenience: for example, the Greeks would gain the
fertile land that they needed to keep their economy alive the further they
expanded.
Expanding an empire is an infinite task,
as empires continued to expand further and further until their eventual
decline. The phases of achieving an empire were complex: in the case of the
Roman Empire, it was crucial to build a strong army and navy. Goldsworthy’s The Roman Army at War 100BC to 200AD
depicts the strengths of the Roman army which made them such a viable force.[3]
The fact that this army was able to overcome others much larger than itself
portrays one key factor of physically achieving an empire, as other lands had
to be conquered. Another crucial feature of any aspiring imperial role is the
maintenance of control over subjugated states. The Romans took the general
stance of appeasing their foreign lands and not imposing their religion and
political and economic systems on them. This reduced revolts, which in turn
decreased unnecessary drains on the military that Goldsworthy depicts as so
crucial to the upkeep of the empire. However this policy of appeasement also
overcomes other obstacles. The Roman Empire, for many, offered a better way of
life than many had previously. This meant that citizens were not as widely
against being swallowed into the Roman Empire as one could initially think.
With Roman technology and governing, many subjugated lands were much better
equipped than they ever had been before. Military force and domestic policies
are just a few of the many methodological ways for an empire to expand, but
they are amongst the most crucial.
The difference between a ‘successful’
and an ‘unsuccessful’ empire is a common cause for debate. For example, one
could argue that the Ottoman Empire was the longest lasting and one of the
largest empires in history, so therefore should be considered a successful empire.
However, the occurrences within the empire must surely contribute to the
success of an imperial power. With the case of the Ottoman Empire, within its
approximately six centuries of power, there were many uprisings against rulers
– for example the Jelali revolts, which were arguably the empire’s most serious
challenge to power.[4] These
revolts occurred for a number of social, political and economic factors,
including oppression. Being a common factor of society at the time, it can be
widely accepted that oppression was simply a way of life. However, clearly, it
was a source for unrest throughout a supposed ‘successful’ empire. The fact
that this empire can be regarded as successful yet had internal issues, shows
the conception that it was a matter of how far the imperial power’s influence
spread across continents and how long it lasted that determined its success.
In conclusion, this essay briefly
outlines the motives, requirements and successes of imperialism in ancient
times. These three aspects are widely debated: the motives of ancient
imperialism can never fully be known, as only documentation that has survived
can be translated – this does not give historians the much insight into the
truthful motivations of imperialistic rulers. The way in which rulers went
about achieving varied almost as much as the motivations for them: however it
is undoubted that military strength was absolutely necessary for the successful
subjugation of foreign nations. Within historiography, it is a common
conception that a ‘successful’ empire simply lasted an extended period of time
and expanded over far distances. However it must also be considered the issues
within those empires, such as revolts and uprisings, could affect the scale of
success of an empirical power. Therefore, there is no definitive answer to the
process in which an empire can be achieved and no strict scale of success to
empirical powers: one historian’s success could be another’s failure.
[1] North, J.A., The Development of Roman
Imperialism, The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 71 (1989) 1-9,
pp.4
[2]
Thucydides, ed. Ford, F., Thucydides on
the Causes of Athenian Imperialism, American Political Science Review, Vol.
80 No.2 (1986)
[3]
Goldsworthy, A. K., The Roman Army at War,
Oxford University Press (1996) pp.215-246
[4]
Surhone, M., Tennoe, M., Hennsonow, S., Jelali
Revolts, Betascript Publishing (2010)
No comments:
Post a Comment