Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire

Classics and Contemporary Thought

by Clifford Ando

The Roman empire remains unique. Although Rome claimed to rule the world, it did not. Rather, its uniqueness stems from the culture it created and the loyalty it inspired across an area that stretched from the Tyne to the Euphrates. Moreover, the empire created this culture with a bureaucracy smaller than that of a typical late-twentieth-century research university. In approaching this problem, Clifford Ando does not ask the ever-fashionable question, Why did the Roman empire fall? Rather, he asks, Why did the empire last so long?

Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire argues that the longevity of the empire rested not on Roman military power but on a gradually realized consensus that Roman rule was justified. This consensus was itself the product of a complex conversation between the central government and its far-flung peripheries. Ando investigates the mechanisms that sustained this conversation, explores its contribution to the legitimation of Roman power, and reveals as its product the provincial absorption of the forms and content of Roman political and legal discourse. Throughout, his sophisticated and subtle reading is informed by current thinking on social formation by theorists such as Max Weber, Jürgen Habermas, and Pierre Bourdieu.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Classics, Ancient History

494 pages, Hardcover

First published September 16, 2000

Reviews

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Scholars and amateur historians alike have long asked 'How and why did the Roman Empire fall?' Some are even asking whether or not it actually fell or was gradually replaced, while questioning the whole historiographical notion of 'decline and fall'.

Clifford Ando wants to know why the Roman Empire held together so long in the first place. His argument, based on a broad range of literary, numismatic, and archaeological evidence, is that imperial ideology was accepted in the provinces by consensus: Rome ruled, but Rome's rule was viewed as beneficial. Provincials learned to exploit the imperial bureaucracy, indicating their willingness to play by imperial rules. This cooperative relationship lasted long as Roman values, culture, and law were willingly internalised by those she ruled.

[Jack O'Connell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating ideas, though it has a tendency to get lost in a sea of philosophical jargon.

[Boone Ayala · Rating 4 out of 5]

Extremely dense. But interesting, especially when considered in a comparative imperial context. Why did the Roman Empire last so long and enjoy such relative quietude? Ando argues that the charisma of the imperial office, coupled with several features of the Roman legal system (written records, appeals, the fact that it bound magistrate and subject alike) actually led provincials to identify with the empire, to see it governed not by an imperator but by a father. The emperor’s godly favor was largely due to consensus, expressions of support and unity.

Ando spends a lot of time talking about imperial propaganda and the formation of provincial ideology. Yet the most interesting chapters are 8 and 9, where he discusses the actual process by which conquered peoples became imperial subjects. He argues in chapter 8 that when Augustus linked divine favor to the imperial throne (as opposed to a particular individual) he made it possible for the empire to take on a less explicitly expansionist character (because emperors no longer HAD to go to war to show their divine favor). When Hadrian officially announced an end to imperial expansion, this in turn allowed for provincials to avoid seeing themselves in newly conquered people. Instead, legal thinkers, historians, and provincials appear to have divided not between Romans, conquered peoples, and peoples as yet unconquered, but between civilized people and barbarians.

The cult of the emperor, the justice of Roman laws (as expressed in imperial propaganda, but acted upon by provincials) and the end of imperial expansion all served to make provincials see themselves as equal subjects, benefitting from imperial rule.

One may ask: if Ando is right, what precisely differentiates early modern empires from Ancient Rome? Why was Rome predicated on “consensus” - why did it seek and inspire provincial loyalty when so many other empires did not? Why was this imperialism not colonialist as we understand that term today?

Also: significant doubt must be cast by the fact that Cliff ignores the Republican period, which was both imperial and responsible for more of Rome’s expansion. Roman NATIONALISM?

[Erik Wirfs-Brock · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thick book touching both on the "civic religion" of the Roman Empire, and how the Empire actually communicated to its subjects. Gets really into the weeds, and with untranslated greek or latin in some footnotes clearly mostly meant for specialists, but I found it fascinating. For the first time the idea of a "god-emperor" kind of made sense, and who knew Rome had such a relatively advance archive system.

[Emily · Rating 2 out of 5]

I found this to be far denser than it needed to be and also far longer than it needed to be, so the low rating is really about my enjoyment of the book rather than the academic qualities of the book.

My favorite chapter was Ch 4 "The Communicative Actions of the Roman Government." It was one of the best explanations of "mass communication" before the printing press.

Ando lays out (sometimes less than clearly) the ways that ideology and consensus worked in the Roman Empire. It will be essential to refer back to this book in the study of Imperial identity and politics.

My main criticism is two-fold: 1. the book is largely a-historical, with evidence drawn from 5 centuries and little clarification of the changing historical contexts and 2. in my opinion, Ando didn't adequately address the difference between traditional Roman ideology and Christian ideology - but to be fair, his book was not focused on analyzing the CONTENT of ideology and "you didn't write what I would have" isn't a legitimate critique. That said, I think it's under explored in this book.

[Jonathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Drawing on the insights of Bourdieu, Habermas, and other sociologists, Clifford Ando's book offers in my view the best treatment to date of Roman identity and the ideological bases of loyalty to the empire.