[lit-ideas] Resistance against Rome and others
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas " <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 11:17:58 -0700
We used to have someone from France on this forum, ran a bookstore if memory
serves me. He once took offense at my suggesting that France was a "client"
of the U.S. after WWII. It is perhaps natural that we think "my country,
right or wrong," and try to make excuses for its weakness if we lived
through Vichy France, and for its excesses if we were like Heidegger, living
in Nazi Germany. I was happy to be part of the U.S. which defended Western
Europe against Nazi Germany, but the aforementioned Frenchman didn't like my
attitude, nor no doubt the attitude of the arrogant Americans who swept into
France in 1945 like conquerors. In the meantime (not quite but nearly)
Heidegger bemoaned the fact that the Germans hadn't relied upon "tradition"
in quite the manner he had hoped.
I've been reading David Mattingly's An Imperial Possession, Britain in the
Roman Empire. I recall reading Tacitus not especially critically eons ago,
but Mattingly is noticeably critical: In regard to the "resistance" of 47
A.D. he writes, "Tacitus says the Briton's chosen field of battle was a
defended enclave, which illustrates the character of this so-called revolt.
Far from being on the rampage, some part of the Iceni had refused to hand
over arms, and retreated into a defended site. They only 'chose' the field
of battle in the sense that that was where the Roman army found them."
But when the Icenian leader, Prasutagus died, "Roman centurions and imperial
slaves plundered the kingdom. . ." Prasutagus' widow Boudica "was flogged,
her daughters raped . . ." Tacitus implied that responsibility for this
rested with minor officials abusing their power. Only at the end of this
section of his account did he reveal the key information that these events
had taken place in the context of the annexation of the kingdom and its
incorporation into the province." The enraged Boudica caused a huge force
to be fielded in retaliation against the Romans and Mattingly speculates
about the "Total Roman and provincial dead" was around 40,000.
In regard to the war with the Silures, Tacitus notes that the loss of
several senior officers and well over 1,000 casualties were major setbacks.
"Tacitus speculated that either Rome had reduced the vigour of its
operations believing the war to be over, or the Britons had been moved by
some strange passion to avenge Caratacus. The more likely scenario is that
Roman pacification measures in Silurian territory misjudged the preparedness
of the Silures to lay down their arms. The construction of forts, the
seizure of crops and animals by foraging parties, and the pillaging of
Silurian settlements were provocative acts. After these two major actions,
the Silures mainly reverted to hit-and-run tactics, although two Roman
auxiliary units, incautiously engaging in pillage, were cut off by a
larger-scale attack. Roman frustration with this obdurate resistance was
such that they evidently declared their intent to exterminate the people or
transport them - the extreme reaction of an imperial power to unremitting
resistance."
What happened to the Silures? The governor fighting them died and it wasn't
until 57 that Quintus Veranius resumed Rome's offensive against the Silures.
Tacitus wasn't impressed with Veranius, but the "Silures disappeared from
the pages of Tacitus at a stroke and the policy seems to have been continued
against the Ordovices by his successor. "Suetonius Paullinus, another
military careerist . . . conquered Ordovician territory within two years and
at the start of his third season of campaigning stood facing the island of
Anglesey (Mona) across the Menai Straits. The island's population was
swelled by a large number of refugees (or fugitives to use the Roman
terminology). Tacitus gave the Roman view of the enemy lined up on the
opposing shore: armed men, fanatical women bearing torches and druids
invoking terrible curses. From a Roman perspective these were the remaining
dregs of British resistance, further tainted by their barbaric religious
practices such as human sacrifice. They could expect no quarter now they
had nowhere else to run. In a well-planned amphibious assault, Suetonius
Paullinus led his army across the Straits to 'cut down all the men'. There
is little doubt that this was a massacre, followed up by the destruction of
sacred groves."
Comment: Bryan Sykes in his The Seven Daughters of Eve argues that all
Europeans (meaning if memory serves me "western Europeans" ) are descended
from seven mitochondrial "Eves" whose descendants immigrated to Europe
between 10,000 and 45,000 years ago. Perhaps there are more Eves than
seven, but my impression is the Sykes arguments are generally accepted. The
point being that the Romans, who in Mattingly's interpretations seem every
bit as ruthless as German Nazis, Imperial Japanese, or Stalinist Communist
are all part of the same mitochondrial groupings that we belong to (if we
are genetically European). Perhaps Rome early on sought to preemptively
defeat cities or peoples likely to present a threat later on, but they
became so good at it that their soldiers committed atrocities almost
casually.
Sykes also wrote Saxons, Vikings and Celts, the Genetic Roots of Britain and
Ireland. Unlike Mattingly, Sykes merely wants to know who we are
genetically. The British Isles have only been inhabited this last time
(since the most recent ice age) for about 8,000 years. So whichever Eve or
Eves we descended from they were some place in Western Europe before then.
Y-Chromosome and Mitochondrial analyses did permit Sykes to distinguish
between the Romans and those more "native" to the Islands (bearing in mind
that invasions did occur prior to the Roman Invasion). On page 287 Sykes
writes "true Roman genes are very rare in the Isles." We might ask, if we
could resurrect one of their British governors, "so what was the purpose?"
He would have his answer: The glory of Rome, the protection of Rome against
future incursions, the Roman need for food and supplies, etc.
"How would you like it if someone did that to you," we might ask? And he
would answer, "that was done and many would have like to do it again. That
was why we became so martial in attitude. We were forced into it."
And as we know Hitler said something like that as did the Imperial Japanese
and Stalin. There are always reasons; which isn't to say that none of them
are legitimate, for who can determine that other than the leaders of the
city state or nation in question. It is difficult though not to sympathize
with Queen Boudica after she was flogged and her daughters raped by
representatives of Rome. There seems a huge gap between the
rationalizations of a British governor and the application of those
rationalizations by the Roman soldiers.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
