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.

我的研究致力于系统地尝试重新概念化罗马权力在地中海的扩张。公元前3 - 1年。围绕罗马帝国主义的问题已经吸引了大量的学术关注，但我认为，它们被锁定在一套过时的和还原的框架中，误解了整个现象的很大一部分。最值得注意的是，这涉及到“侵略性与防御性帝国主义”的辩论，最突出的是1979年由威廉·哈里斯发起的，现在由亚瑟·埃克斯坦和保罗·伯顿通过他们的国际关系理论支持，这与他们最初的目的很不一致。我把一种意识形态（意识形态被松散地理解为包含一套特定的思想及其相关的信仰，价值观，情感和话语）理解罗马权力扩张的方法：也就是说，认识到权力的表现是文化上的偶然性，物质力量被各种概念界限赋予意义，当代社会的描绘和分类--用托尼奥·霍尔舍的话说，现实也是一种建构。对现实的感知也是一种建构这种心理结构是由不同历史时期的各个社会所特有的文化环境决定的“（Hölscher（2003）2）。本文没有考虑罗马帝国主义（通常被视为需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）所说的“帝国模式的马赛克”（Richardson（2008）4）。我们的任务与其说是建立罗马帝国主义的原因和明确的分类，不如说是探索罗马的意识形态，这些意识形态确立了动机、行动和话语的参数。我们在研究罗马帝国在中共和国时期的建设时，需要考虑到帝国分类的多样性、塑造这种分类的无数不同的分层结构和意识形态，以及观察、体验和构建罗马帝国的各种视角--所有这三种视角都因时间、地点和个人因素而显著不同。我的中心重点是重建我称之为maiestas的意识形态（对罗马人民的maiestas/dignitas的情感，价值观，语言和话语的简写）。这种意识形态的重要性来自于它的“maiesta意识形态”决定行为的双重能力（maiesta和dignitas的增加或维护可能会激发战争，征服和扩张;影响政治家或代表说什么，他怎么说，他怎么做;塑造帝国在特定地区的结构），并影响罗马人对战争和征服、空间和地理的概念化方式，历史和时间，权力和权威。与此同时，我承认罗马的“帝国主义”并不是一个地理上或时间上统一的过程，就像人们经常对待的那样。然而，正是在理解不同的影响和表现的'maiesta意识形态'在时间和空间（如上所述）以及它与其他意识形态形态之间的交叉、影响和冲突，（例如，作为罗马成功的基础的“德权治下的和平”，“主人”和“忠诚”，作为罗马价值观定义的美德和信仰的配对，对迦太基和高卢人的恐惧），特别是在国内政治话语中，这有望提供诱人的见解，并引发关于罗马人看待和谈论他们的世界的方式的新问题。在我的哲学博士的后期阶段，我将能够开始重建不同的动机和“帝国”在意大利，伊比利亚，高卢，非洲，西西里，撒丁岛和东方的建设，来罗马在中共和国扩张的整体重建。