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公元前 3 世纪至公元前 1 年间罗马在地中海的权力扩张。围绕罗马帝国主义的问题引起了学术界的广泛关注，但我认为，它们被锁定在一套不合时宜的简化框架中，这些框架误解了整个现象的很大一部分。最值得注意的是，这涉及“进攻性帝国主义与防御性帝国主义”的争论，这一争论在 1979 年由威廉·哈里斯 (William Harris) 发起，现在由阿瑟·埃克斯坦 (Arthur Eckstein) 和保罗·伯顿 (Paul Burton) 通过使用国际关系理论而得以维持，这与他们最初的目标大相径庭。我采用意识形态（意识形态被宽松地理解为包含一组特定的思想及其相关的信仰、价值观、情感和话语）方法来理解罗马权力的放大：也就是说，认识到权力的表现是文化上偶然的，物质力量被当代社会的各种概念边界、描述和类别赋予意义——用托尼奥·霍尔舍尔的话来说，“现实也是如此” 一种建构……对现实的感知也是一种建构……这种心理建构是由文化环境决定的，特定于不同历史时期的个体社会”（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）。我们的任务不再是确定罗马帝国主义的原因和明确的分类，而是探索确立了动机、行动和话语参数的罗马意识形态。我们对中共和国时期罗马帝国建设的研究需要考虑到多种不同的帝国分类法、无数不同的分层结构和塑造这种分类法的意识形态，以及可以观察、体验和构建罗马帝国的多种视角——这三者都因时间、地点和个人机构而存在显着差异。我的中心重点是重建我所说的“迈斯特意识形态”（罗马民众的迈斯特/尊严的情感、价值观、语言和话语的简写）。这种意识形态的重要性来自于其“迈斯特意识形态”的双重能力来决定行为（增强或捍卫迈斯特和尊严可以激发战争、征服和扩张；影响 政治家或代表所说的话，他是如何说的，以及他是如何表现的；塑造特定地区使用的帝国结构）并影响罗马人概念化战争和征服、空间和地理、历史和时间、权力和权威的方式。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，正如人们经常对待的那样。然而正是在理解不同的影响和表现 时间和空间上的“迈耶斯塔意识形态”（如上所述）以及它与其他意识形态模式之间的交叉、影响和冲突（例如，作为罗马成功基础的和平、统治和民兵、定义罗马价值观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，它有望提供诱人的见解和 引发了关于罗马人如何看待和谈论他们的世界的新问题。在博士学位的后期阶段，我将能够开始重建意大利、伊比利亚、高卢、非洲、西西里岛、撒丁岛和东方“帝国”的不同动机和建构，从而对罗马在中共和国的扩张进行整体重新概念化。