EJ

Imperial Visions

Numantia and Roman Legacy

  • Northern Iberia: Numantia, a small fortress town inhabited by Celts, resisted Roman rule in the middle of the 2nd century BC.
  • Rome’s response: In 134 BC, Scipio Aemilianus (Rome’s foremost general, famed for leveling Carthage) led an army of more than 30{,}000 soldiers to Numantia.
  • Strategy: Scipio valued restraint and avoided unnecessary combat, instead encircling Numantia with fortifications to cut off outside contact.
  • Outcome: After more than a year, the Numantians ran out of food and, when hope was gone, burned their town; many reportedly killed themselves to avoid Roman enslavement.
  • Legacy and symbolism: Numantia became a symbol of Spanish independence and courage; Cervantes wrote "The Siege of Numantia" (a tragedy celebrating heroic resistance and hinting at Spain’s future greatness).
  • Cultural memory in Spain: Numantia’s ruins were declared a national monument in 1882 and became a pilgrimage site for patriots; El Jabato, a late-20th-century Iberian hero in popular culture, celebrated the anti-Roman spirit.
  • Language and culture: Numantians spoke a Celtic language; Cervantes used Latin script for his work; Numantia’s artistic memory followed Graeco-Roman models; there were no theatres of Numantia itself.
  • Catholic tradition: Admirers of Numantia tend to be loyal to the Roman Catholic Church (Latin liturgy and Rome as spiritual center).
  • Roman vs Celtic legacies: Spanish law and much of modern Spanish culture derive more from Roman legacies than from Celtiberian origins (Roman law, cuisine, architecture).
  • Final note: What survives of Numantia is largely the memory shaped by Roman historiography; the victory narrative was co-opted by Rome.
  • Conclusion: The Numantian story is not “our” story of underdogs triumphing; it illustrates how empires absorb and reinterpret conquered peoples and their memory.
  • Broader claim: Empires, though brutal, leave durable legacies; most twenty-first-century people are the offspring of one empire or another.

What is an Empire?

  • Two defining characteristics:
    • (1) Rule over a significant number of distinct peoples, each with different cultural identities and a separate territory. Threshold: roughly 20 ext{ or }30 groups is plenty to qualify.
    • (2) Flexible borders and an almost unlimited appetite to absorb more peoples without altering the empire’s basic structure or identity.
  • Cultural diversity and border flexibility: These two traits allow empires to unite diverse ethnic groups under a single political umbrella, forging larger segments of humanity.
  • Definition beyond origins or form: An empire is defined by cultural diversity and flexible borders, not by its origins, governing form, territorial extent, or population size.
  • Not only conquest: Empires can arise from voluntary leagues or dynastic unions. Examples include:
    • Athenian Empire began as a voluntary league.
    • Habsburg Empire formed through strategic marriages.
    • Democracies can govern empires (e.g., British Empire).
  • Size is not the sole measure: The Athenian Empire at its height was smaller than modern Greece; the Aztec Empire ruled 371 tribes/peoples, yet both qualify as empires. ¹
  • Historical scope: Empires reduced human diversity by weaving many distinct groups into a larger political order (the imperial “steamroller”).
  • The baton metaphor for the Middle East: From the Neo-Assyrian era (8th century BC) to the mid-20th century, power moved from one imperial center to another in a relay-like pattern.
  • Footnote: The claim about the Aztec Empire ruling 371 tribes and peoples is cited as a taxation/structure detail. ¹

Evil Empires?

  • Contemporary critique (two common forms):
    • 1) Empires do not work: ruling many conquered peoples over the long run is ineffective.
    • 2) If possible, empires should not exist because they are inherently unjust, exploiting subject peoples who deserve self-determination.
  • Historical counterpoint:
    • The first statement is dismissed as nonsense; the second is problematic.
    • Empires have been the world’s most common political form for about 2{,}500 years and have proved to be remarkably stable, typically quelling rebellions with relative ease.
    • Conquered peoples rarely free themselves; empires often outlive their subjects by absorbing and transforming them.
  • Middle East dynamics: The post-imperial Middle East has resembled a rotation of successive empires, highlighting how old imperial patterns persist long after formal rule ends.
  • Moral complexity: While it’s tempting to demonize empires, imperial legacies also financed culture, philosophy, and major architectural and scientific achievements (e.g., Taj Mahal, Mozart, Cicero).
  • Tacitus’ Calgacus speech: The famous line—"to plunder, slaughter and robbery they give the lying name of empire; they make a desert and call it peace"—is widely regarded as possibly legendary or invented to reflect Roman anxieties about empire.
  • Nuance: There is value and cost in imperial rule; the question is not simply “good” or “bad” but how empires shape cultures and futures.

The First Empires: Akkadian and Cyrus the Great

  • Akkadian Empire (c. 2250 BC): Sargon the Great, originally king of Kish, conquered Mesopotamia and large adjacent territories; claimed to conquer the entire world, though real extent stretched from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean (roughly modern Iraq, Syria, parts of Iran and Turkey).
  • After Sargon: The empire did not last long after his death, but the imperial mantle persisted for about 1700 years as later powers claimed to follow in his footsteps (Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites).
  • Cyrus the Great (c. 550 BC): Claimed to rule the whole world for the benefit of all peoples, not just as Persian overlord.
    • Notable policy: Allowed the exiles in Babylonia (Jews) to return to their homeland and rebuild their temple; offered financial assistance.
    • Cyrus’s model framed imperial rule as a duty to the welfare of subject peoples, not mere domination.
  • Imperial universality: Cyrus’s benevolent vision seeded a broader pattern in which rulers claimed universal legitimacy and responsibility toward all inhabitants.
  • Mandate of Heaven and beyond (China): A parallel, autonomous tradition in which Heaven legitimates rulers who govern for the common good and justice across Tianxia (All Under Heaven).
  • Qin Shi Huangdi and Tianxia: The first Chinese emperor proclaimed that “throughout the six directions everything belongs to the emperor” and that every place benefits under his rule; this period was seen in Chinese memory as a golden age of order and justice, in contrast to fragmentation which was viewed as chaotic.
  • Implications: Universal rule concepts emerged independently in multiple civilizations, shaping political theory and legitimacy across time.
  • Fragmentation, reunification, and legitimating ideologies: The impulse to unify and to justify rule across vast domains persisted across cultural boundaries, influencing governance long after empires collapsed.
  • Concept of “All Under Heaven” contrasted with later European notions of sovereignty and nation-states, highlighting divergent paths to universal legitimacy.
  • The interplay of universal rule and local identities underscores the persistent tension between central authority and diverse cultures within empires.

When They Become Us: Assimilation, Hybrid Cultures, and the Imperial Cycle

  • Amalgamation vs. annihilation: Empires often merged many small cultures into bigger cultural wholes, spreading ideas, people, goods, and technologies within imperial borders.
  • Why spread a common culture? Two primary reasons:
    • Administrative ease: Standardisation of laws, writing systems, money, taxes, and governance.
    • Legitimacy: Justifying rule as a civilizing mission that benefits the conquered, a rhetoric used across empires.
  • Concrete benefits sometimes delivered by empire:
    • Law enforcement, urban planning, standardisation of weights and measures.
    • Tax collection, conscription, and emperor-worship in some contexts.
    • Education and Crossover: Promoting a shared imperial culture to create social cohesion.
  • Imperial “education” as policy: Rulers claimed they educated the world (e.g., Mandate of Heaven as civilizing mission; Romans as peace and refinement; Mauryan dissemination of Buddha’s teachings; Muslim caliphs spreading Islam).
  • Western empires and liberal ideals: The British Empire linked imperial rule with liberal ideals (liberalism, free trade); Soviet and American empires framed their missions as advancing human rights or social systems, albeit often through coercion.
  • Hybridity of imperial cultures: Imperial cultures were frequently hybrids—Rome’s culture was Greek in practice; Abbasid culture blended Persian, Greek, and Arab elements; Mongol-modifications toward Chinese culture; American culture was a mosaic of influences.
  • Accessibility vs. acceptance: Assimilation was often painful and traumatic for conquered peoples; even after adoption, they could be treated as outsiders within the empire.
  • Example: Iberian post-Numantia life cycle:
    • An Iberian of good stock speaks Celtic dialect at home but uses impeccable Latin for commerce and administration; adopts Roman fashion and law; builds a Roman villa; can recite Virgil in Latin, yet still faces social and political ceilings as a “semi-barbarian.”
  • Roman citizenship diffusion: By AD 48, Claudius admitted Gallic notables to the Senate; Romans noted marriage and cultural ties had blended with local elites; many senatorial families traced lineage back to conquered peoples.
  • Emperors with diverse origins showing assimilation:
    • Trajan to Marcus Aurelius: Iberian emperors who carried Roman citizenship into the elite.
    • Septimius Severus: Punic Libyan origin; Elagabalus: Syrian origin; Philip the Arab: Arabian origin.
  • Arab Empire and integration: Egyptians, Syrians, Iranians, Berbers adopted Islam, Arabic, and a hybrid imperial culture; the Arab elite sometimes resisted but eventually non-Arab Muslims became integral; non-Arab subjects gained equal standing within the empire.
  • China’s imperial integration: Over two millennia, many groups formerly labeled barbarians were absorbed into Han Chinese identity, with modern China still primarily Han (>90%).
  • Decolonization parallels: Europeans conquered and spread Western cultures; billions adopted languages, legal systems, and institutions of their former rulers (e.g., Indians, Africans, Arabs, Chinese, Maoris adopting Western ideas and languages).
  • Gandhi anecdote (late 19th c.): An Indian leader who mastered English, Western manners, and law in London, yet faced discrimination and exclusion in South Africa—illustrative of the tensions within empire-era assimilation and residual hierarchies.
  • The paradox of assimilation: Even when conquered populations adopted imperial culture, they often remained excluded from full membership in the imperial world until mid- and late-twentieth-century transformations.
  • Example of citizenship expansion: Roman citizenship extended to many non-Romans over time, and elite positions opened to people from conquered areas.
  • Summary takeaway: Assimilation built multi-ethnic, multi-cultural elites that could both legitimize and eventually challenge imperial rule.

The Imperial Cycle

  • Diagrammatic sequence (as described in the Stage diagram):
    • Rome, Islam, European imperialism: successive phases of empire-building.
    • Step 1: A founder group establishes an empire (e.g., Romans, Arabs, Europeans).
    • Step 2: The empire forges an imperial culture (Graeco-Roman, Arab-Muslim, Western culture) that spreads within the empire.
    • Step 3: The imperial culture is adopted by subject peoples (Latin, Roman law, Roman political ideas; Arabic, Islam; English, French, etc.).
    • Step 4: The subject peoples demand equal status in the name of common imperial values (Roman, Muslim, Western values like nationalism and human rights).
    • Step 5: The founders lose dominance as power shifts to a multi-ethnic elite that embraces the new values.
    • Step 6: The imperial culture persists and evolves, while control by the original founders wanes.
  • Outcomes for different eras:
    • Romans give way to a multi-ethnic elite; Illyrians, Gauls, Punics continue to influence post-Roman society.
    • Arabs lose control of the Muslim world to a multi-ethnic elite; Egyptians, Iranians, Berbers continue to shape the empire’s culture.
    • Europeans lose control of the global sphere; a multi-ethnic elite remains, committed to Western values and ways of thinking.
    • Indians, Chinese, and Africans continue to develop adopted Western and imperial cultures into native systems of meaning and governance.
  • The power of Western ideologies: Over time, subject peoples internalize Western values such as nationalism, liberalism, capitalism, feminism, and human rights, often importing these into post-imperial political orders.
  • Modern reflection: The cycle underlines how imperial cultures morph, adapt, and persist long after the original imperial founders fade from direct power.

Good Guys and Bad Guys in History

  • The temptation to label empires as universally evil is strong due to their history of conquest and oppression.
  • However, the legacy of empires is complex and deeply embedded in modern cultures:
    • They often produce both oppression and remarkable cultural, legal, and scientific legacies.
    • Modern states and identities are built on imperial legacies (e.g., Indian democracy rooted in British legal and administrative structures; shared languages; education systems; rail networks; tea culture).
  • Indian example: The British Raj cost lives and exploited Indians, yet also unified a fragmentary political landscape, laid foundations for a centralized judiciary and administration, and exported democratic ideas.
    • The Indian polity and identity today still reflect that imperial inheritance (e.g., English as lingua franca, cricket culture, the rail grid).
  • The Taj Mahal and other monumental works pose a cultural inheritance problem: Great works can be attributed to empires that also imposed unequal rule; deciding whether such artifacts are authentic to “pre-imperial” cultures is often fruitless.
  • The broader lesson: Simplistic binary judgments (good guys vs. bad guys) misread history; imperial legacies blend coercion with cosmopolitan cultural and legal innovations.
  • Conclusion: The New Global Empire will require global cooperation to address shared challenges (weapons, climate, technology) without resorting to coercive or imperial means.

The New Global Empire

  • A long arc since around 200 ext{ BC} suggests most humans have lived in empires; a future global order is plausible but may not resemble a single nation-state empire.
  • Possible forms of a future empire:
    • A multi-ethnic elite sharing common interests and culture, possibly controlled by a few powerful states or coalitions, but not a single sovereign nation.
  • Global interdependence in the present:
    • About 200 states exist, yet none is truly independent; economies form a single global network of trade and finance influenced by capital, labor, and information flows.
    • Global issues require cross-border cooperation: intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear risk, climate change, global health, and cyber-security.
  • Cultural globalization:
    • Common experiences and goods cross borders: curry in many places, Hollywood cinema, English-speaking media, football (soccer), and K-pop.
  • The role of technology and power:
    • Emerging technologies (bioengineering, artificial intelligence) hold the potential to redefine life, bodies, minds, and even evolution, with immense ethical and political implications.
  • The central question: Can humanity secure global cooperation to manage such technologies and global risks without re-imposing coercive empire-like structures?
  • The ultimate caution: Across 2,500 years since Cyrus the Great, empires promised universal order but rarely delivered on that promise. Will a future empire or coalition do better? The text remains skeptical about universal, lasting peace through empire, yet it signals the possibility and necessity of global cooperation to face shared threats.

Connections, Implications, and Key Takeaways

  • Empires as engine and archive: They compress vast cultural diversity into manageable political units, but also homogenize, assimilate, or erase many local identities.
  • Universality vs. particularism: Imperial ideologies claim universal benefit, yet practices rely on hierarchy and coercion; the tension shapes governance and resistance across centuries.
  • Language, law, and culture as imperial legacies: The spread of languages (Latin, Arabic, English, etc.), legal systems, and cultural norms outlive political sovereignty and shape modern states.
  • Assimilation is not guaranteed equality: Even when peoples adopt imperial cultures, they may still be excluded from full participation for generations.
  • Economic foundations of empire: Imperial profits financed arts, science, and public works; yet exploitation and oppression were often central to wealth accumulation.
  • Ethical and philosophical questions: How should modern societies assess past empires’ legacies? How to honor heritage while addressing injustices?
  • Real-world relevance: Contemporary global politics, language distribution, legal systems, and cultural norms all bear imprint of imperial histories; current debates about decolonization, cultural inheritance, and global governance echo these themes.
  • Final reflection: The prospect of a truly universal global order remains contested; what matters is how humanity uses collective institutions to manage shared risks, distribute benefits, and respect diverse identities without resorting to coercive empire.