Review / An Imperial Possesion - Britain in the Roman Empire

"Every telling of history is a product of its age"

The opening words by the author of An Imperial Possession - Britain in the Roman Empire underline what is perhaps the entire purpose of this book. David Mattingly makes it clear from the outset that the story of the Roman occupation has been studied and written before, many times. The setting has been described, the characters outlined, and the plot established. Like an old favourite story by the fireside, the Roman occupation of Britain has become something familiar and comfortable. But is it correct?

...read the full review about An Imperial Possesion - Britain in the Roman Empire by David Mattingly

While a very interesting read all round, the most interesting were raised in the first few pages on archaeological theory. What was most fascinating about this part, at least in my opinion, was the way in which Mattingly deconstructs the concept Romanisation - i.e. the idea that Rome was a civilising entity on lesser peoples - as an imperialist hangover; but, at the same time, replaces this deconstucted concept with something which is just as imbued with the author's own cultural zeitgeists as the 19th-century architects of Romanisation. By this I mean that his work seems to be rife with the postcolonial guilt of the late 20th century (empire as a negative force etc.).

I still am very much in favour of Mattingly's work; it is just find it odd how an author, who has written so much on cultural biases in Roman historiography, was able to miss this huge blip on the radar.

"All science is either physics or stamp collecting".

Ernest Rutherford (1871 - 1937)

A pearl from the first chapter (The Spectre of Empire, page 6):

"Much of the early history of Rome concerned the progressive subjugation of the Italian peninsula in a more or less continuous sequence of wars.

Anyone familiar with Livy's History of Rome will appreciate the remorseless nature of this process as year after year army levies were raised and sent off to fight, despite the expense and inconvenience that this imposed on a basically agrarian society.

Compared to other ancient Italian peoples the Roman state was exceptionally aggressive and warlike.

The unification of Italy, the Mediterranean and a large part of the Temperate Europe under Roman rule was a lengthy process and achieved at huge human cost.

For instance, more than 300 triumphs are recorded from the sequence of wars between 509 and 19 BC and a "triumph" was only awarded for a victory in a battle that ended a declared war and killed at least 5,000 of the enemy.

The total casualties must have far exceeded the minimum of 1,500,000 implicit in the figure.

The human impact went much deeper than that, due to the practice of enslaving certain categories of prisoners taken in war.

For example, in the five-year period of the Third Samnite War (297-293 BC), figures from Livy indicate that over 66,000 captives were enslaved from a variety of defeated enemies".

What can we say? Mr. Mattingly really masters the physics side of History.

While a very interesting read all round, the most interesting were raised in the first few pages on archaeological theory. What was most fascinating about this part, at least in my opinion, was the way in which Mattingly deconstructs the concept Romanisation - i.e. the idea that Rome was a civilising entity on lesser peoples - as an imperialist hangover; but, at the same time, replaces this deconstucted concept with something which is just as imbued with the author's own cultural zeitgeists as the 19th-century architects of Romanisation. By this I mean that his work seems to be rife with the postcolonial guilt of the late 20th century (empire as a negative force etc.).

 

I still am very much in favour of Mattingly's work; it is just find it odd how an author, who has written so much on cultural biases in Roman historiography, was able to miss this huge blip on the radar.

Why is this such a suprise? History is intrinsically conservative for two reasons. Firstly, the hubris and vested interests of learned men who regard revisionism as an affront to their expertise, secondly, that history is interpreted according to personal experience which is for the most part always going to be within certain limits. Few infantrymen for instance write erudite volumes on roman legionaries. Few pokliticians describe the ramifications of republican events. These people deal with issues relevant or important to them. In the same way, how objective is it possible to be? How can we seperate our experience of the human condition from that described by roman authors, especially since there are bound to be similarities and parallels due to human behaviour, which hasn't fundamentally changed since roman times. As for postcolonial guilt, I think thats overstating it. Our colonial past has been extremely influential in moulding the british mindset, but rather than guilt it seems to reflect our modern inclination to see the success of our colonies as somewhat biased and self-important, which is what Mattingly has argued. Its the comparison between roman and british experience that underpins his reconstruction of the roman occupation, but he quite rightly points at the differences in circumstances.

It is very my opinion that, regardless how self-aware an author is, he cannot escape his culture background. I just found it curious that Mattingly does not explore this concept in the context of recent scholarship on Romanisation.

Anyway, on a slightly different note, I may be able to arrange an internet interview with Professor Mattingly; mainly because his work ties in with my dissertation, and also, judging by my experiences of him, he would probably be fine with me asking him a few questions.

Any thoughts on publishing my (possible) interview on UNRV.com?

It is very my opinion that, regardless how self-aware an author is, he cannot escape his culture background. I just found it curious that Mattingly does not explore this concept in the context of recent scholarship on Romanisation.

Why? All this 'post-imperialist guilt' you mention is a myth. Am I guilty about british history? I think not. I agree with Mattingly that the benefits of empire favour the imperial power, which is the whole point of it surely? But why would anyone need to feel guilty about the actions of individuals who died in the last two centuries? Ok, there must have been people who did 'bad' things - there always is with any nation or culture - but isn't that a matter of history rather than personal shame?

Quite frankly, 'post-imperial guilt' is an invented concept by people who want us to join their way of thinking, and that generally means socialist rather than capitalist (the principle behind our own empire that was) because socialism doesn't have an empire, and whilst I believe that as a movement it genuinely desires one, all it can do is sneer at its political rivals achievements and persuade us that we need to feel guilty that it ever happened.

I don't feel guilty about it all. There is no shame in success. What we might feel guitly about are the actions of the few reprehensible members of our previous generations, if indeed most people actually care about it. But then, since members of our current generation behave shamefully as a matter of course in foreign countries, perhaps we ought to be more guilty of our contemporary binge culture?

Any thoughts on publishing my (possible) interview on UNRV.com?

Go for it.

"Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception.

Any thoughts on publishing my (possible) interview on UNRV.com?

Submit it to Viggen if you do it. I look forward to it.

me too...