Time, Space, Power, Warfare and Conquest through Roman 'Maiestas-ideology' and the Mediterranean Eco-system of Community Glory in the Middle Republic

罗马“迈耶斯塔意识形态”和中共和国社区荣耀的地中海生态系统的时间、空间、权力、战争和征服

• 批准号: 2586040
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of Oxford
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2021
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2021 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2586040
• 关键词: Time; Space; Power; Warfare; Conquest

My research engages in a systematic attempt to re-conceptualise the amplification of Roman power in the Mediterranean from the C. 3rd-1st BC. Questions surrounding Roman imperialism have attracted copious scholarly attention but, I suggest, they are locked in a set of anachronistic and reductive frameworks which misinterprets a substantial portion of the whole phenomenon. Most notably this concerns the 'aggressive vs. defensive imperialism' debate, initiated most prominently in 1979 by William Harris and now sustained, much against their original aims, by Arthur Eckstein and Paul Burton by their use of International Relations Theory. I take an ideological (with ideology being loosely conceived as encompassing a specific set of ideas and their associated beliefs, values, emotions and discourse) approach to understanding the amplification of Roman power: that is, recognising that manifestations of power are culturally contingent where material forces are given meaning by the various conceptual boundaries, delineations and categories of contemporary societies - in the words of Tonio Hölscher 'reality too is a construct... the perception of reality is also a construct... such mental constructs are determined by cultural circumstances, specific to individual societies in different historical periods' (Hölscher (2003) 2). Instead of thinking about Roman imperialism (so often treated as a singular phenomenon to be defined and explained), this paper treats Roman power as, in the words of John Richardson, a 'mosaic of imperial modes' (Richardson (2008) 4). Our task becomes not so much to establish the causes and definite taxonomies of Roman imperialism as to explore the Roman ideologies which established the parameters of motivations, actions and discourse. Our study of Roman empire-building in the Middle Republic needs to allow for a multiplicity of different imperial taxonomies, a myriad of different layered structures and ideologies shaping such taxonomies, and a variety of perspectives from which Roman imperium could be viewed, experienced and constructed - all three significantly differentiated by time, place and individual agency. My central focus is on the reconstruction of what I term maiestas-ideology (a shorthand for the emotions, values, language and discourse of the maiestas/dignitas of the populus Romanus. The significance of this ideology comes from its dual-capacity of 'maiestas-ideology' to determine behaviour (the augmenting or defending of maiestas and dignitas could motivate warfare, conquest and expansion; influence what a statesmen or representative said, how he said it, and how he behaved; shape the imperial structures employed in a given area) and influence the way that the Romans conceptualised warfare and conquest, space and geography, history and time, power and authority. At the same time, I will acknowledge that Roman 'imperialism' was not a geographically or chronologically uniform process, as it is so often treated. Yet it is exactly in understanding the varying influences and manifestations of 'maiestas-ideology' in time and space (as noted above) and the intersections, influences, and conflicts between it and other ideological modalities, (for example, the pax deorum as the basis of Roman success, the domi and militiae, the pairing of virtus and fides as defining Roman values, fear of Carthage and the Gauls), especially within domestic political discourse, which promises to offer tantalising insights and provoke new questions about the way the Romans viewed and talked about their world. In the later stages of my DPhil, I will be able to begin reconstructing the different motivations for and constructions of 'empire' in Italy, Iberia, Gaul, Africa, Sicily, Sardinia and the East, coming to a holistic reconceptualisation of Roman expansion in the Middle Republic.

我的研究正在系统地尝试从C. BC 3rd-1st the C.第3-1点重新概念化罗马力量。罗马帝国主义的问题引起了大量的科学关注，但我建议，它们被锁定在一系列过时和减少的框架中，这些框架错过了整个现象的很大一部分。最值得注意的是，这与威廉·哈里斯（William Harris）在1979年最突出的“激进与防御性帝国主义”辩论涉及，目前由亚瑟·埃克斯坦（Arthur Eckstein）和保罗·伯顿（Paul Burton）使用国际关系理论持续了很大的目标。我认为理想（构想被宽松地想象为包含一组特定的思想及其相关的信念，价值观，情感和话语）来理解罗马力量的放大：也就是说，认识到权力的表现在文化上是在文化上是有材料的力量，其中各种概念的界限和类别的构造是在现代社会中赋予的含义 - 对现实的感知也是一种结构……这种心理结构取决于文化环境，在不同的历史时期特有的个人社会特有”（Hölscher（2003）2）。本文没有考虑罗马帝国主义（通常被视为要定义和解释的单一现象），而是将罗马权力视为约翰·理查森（John Richardson）的“帝国模式的马赛克”（Richardson（Richardson）（2008）4）。我们的任务并不是建立罗马帝国主义的原因和定义的分类法，而是探索建立动机，行动和话语参数的罗马意识形态。我们对中共和国的罗马帝国建设的研究需要允许多种不同的帝国分类法，无数不同的分层结构和意识形态来塑造这种分类法，以及可以从这些观点，经验丰富和建立罗马帝国的各种观点 - 这三种与时间，时间，地点和个人代理机构都显着差异。我的核心重点是重建我所说的梅斯塔斯（Maiestas-Ideology）（对诗人romanus的情感，价值观，语言和话语的速记。政治家或代表说，他是如何说的，他的行为是在给定领域的帝国结构，并影响了罗马人的概念性的战争和征服，空间和地理，历史和时间，权力和权威的方式。时间和空间（如上所述）的“ Maiestas-Ideology”以及它与其他意识形态方式之间的相互作用，影响和冲突（例如，Pax Deorum是罗马成功的基础，Domi和Domi和民兵的基础关于罗马人观看和谈论他们的世界的方式的新问题。在我的Dphil的后期，我将能够重建意大利，伊比利亚，高卢，非洲，西西里岛，撒丁岛和东方的“帝国”的不同动机和建构，从而对中共和国的罗马扩张进行了整体重新构化。