The rise and quick fall of the theory of

ancient economic imperialism

By SVIATOSLAV DMITRIEV
The theory of ancient economic imperialism has declined for two reasons. The first
is the absence of any reliable evidence that the politics of ancient states was dictated
by economic considerations. Additionally, the usual focus on the Roman provincial
system limits the understanding of economic imperialism to that of a formal
empire and ignores other ancient societies.The second reason, which so far has been
neglected, is the changing vision of modern imperialism. Once the modern colonial
system fell, the understanding of imperialism returned to that of the precolonial
period, which saw imperialism in political and military terms.
The theory of ancient economic imperialism offered a specific vision of ancient
societies as having been imperialistic in political terms and capitalistic in
economic terms, thus explaining their policy as having been guided by economic
interests. Both the emergence of this theory (in the late nineteenth century) and its
eventual downfall, after only a few decades, are interesting for several reasons.This
article examines the theory of ancient economic imperialism from three perspectives:
as a good illustration of how modern developments, and theories, affect our
vision of the past; as the theory that attempted to rationalize ancient imperialism
in economic terms; and, finally, as the theoretical construction that eventually
served as a springboard for many recent studies in ancient imperialism and ancient
economies.
Ancient economic imperialism has been rationalized as either formal territorial
control (of which the Roman Empire with its provinces offered the best example,
so that the adherents of this theory equated ancient imperialism with Roman
imperialism, viewing it as a policy of administration and exploitation of the
formal empire), or as the economic motives behind an imperialistic policy (in
Italy, Greece, and elsewhere), which took the form of wars and conquests. The
following examination will focus on each of these ideas in turn.
I
The original modern idea of imperialism reflected the state of European politics
during the period of the French Second Empire (185270).1 British newspaper
articles from the late 1850s and 1860s referred to imperialism as a specific political
regime.2 Such views underwent a profound transformation once imperialism
began to be rationalized as being primarily a stage in economic and social
1 For example, Sellire, Limprialisme, pp. 17; Schumpeter, Imperialism, pp. 930; Koebner and
Schmidt,
Imperialism, pp. 126; Etherington, Theories, pp. 186, 234.
2 For example, TheTimes, 15 Oct. 1869, p. 6, on imperialism as a form of despotism in the France
of Napoleon
III, and Boehmer, Literature, p. 29.
Economic History Review (2009)
Economic History Society 2009. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road,
Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main
Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
development. This new vision of imperialism first displayed itself in the so-called
Edwardian era, when the origin of the concept of economic imperialism formed
an integral part of the classic Edwardian theories of imperialism.3The emergence
of this trend should actually be traced back a few decades earlier, though,
whenwith the end of the policy of free tradenew colonies started to be
established. This marked the beginning of the colonial era in the late Victorian
period, that is, the 1870s and 1880s. This has commonly been dubbed new
imperialism.4 Among others, John Gallagher and Ronald E. Robinson saw a
qualitative change in the nature of British expansion in the late Victorian age,
connecting it with the establishment of formal British rule over various territories,
by acquiring dominions in the strict chronological sense,5 whereas Richard Pares
viewed colonization and empire-building [as being] above all economic acts,
undertaken for economic reasons and very seldom for any others.6 Finally, at the
turn of the twentieth century, with the foundation of new colonies and the
outburst of colonial warssuch as the Spanish-American war over remaining
Spanish colonies in the Caribbean and Pacific (1898), Britains war against the
Boer over Britains control of South Africa (18991902), or the RussianJapanese
war over Manchuria (19045)imperialism was identified not only with colonialism
but also with the development of capitalism,7 and the fundamental notions of
economic imperialism were conceived.8
Irrespective of whether they accept or reject the economic nature of imperialism,
historians still trace this theory to the ideas of John A. Hobson and Vladimir I.
Lenin,9 thus curiously putting together two people whose political sympathies
were in fact worlds apart: Hobson, who was a critic of imperialism and (one of
the) anti-imperialistic writers on the Left (according to Brunt) and a radical
democratic critic of imperialism (according to Kemp) or, at the very least, a liberal
reformer to others,10 always remained only the frankly pacifist and reformist
Englishman to Lenin.11 What brought Hobson and Lenin together in such
accounts, though, was that they both interpreted imperialism as representing a
certain stage of the worlds economic and social evolution, characterized by
specific political and administrative forms. Hobson (in 1902) advanced the
concept of imperialism as a result of his analysis of the worlds economic development,
12 and his contemporaries and followers proceeded along the same path.13
Setting the tone for his associates and later adherents, Lenin (in 1916) saw
3 Etherington, Theories, p. 227.
4 For example, Gooch, Imperialism, pp. 30910, 389; Luxemburg, Accumulation, pp. 44653;
Strachey,
Empire, pp. 7997; Platt, Economic factors, p. 120; Barratt Brown, After imperialism, pp. 51116;
idem,
Imperialism revisited, p. 44; Amsden, Imperialism, p. 206.
5 Gallagher and Robinson, Imperialism, pp. 12; Hynes, Economics, pp. 13442.
6 Pares, Economic factors, p. 119.
7 For example, Etherington, Theories, p. 267.
8 Koebner, Concept, pp. 23.
9 For example, Betts, Allusion, p. 157 (the Hobson-Lenin tradition); Flach, Imperialismus;
Momigliano,
Polibio, p. 312; Musti, Polibio, pp. 1314; Brunt, Themes, p. 124; Champion and Eckstein,
Study, pp. 23.
10 Brunt, Themes, p. 110; Kemp, Theories, pp. 3044, with further critique of Hobson from the
right:
Fieldhouse, Imperialism , pp. 18892. Cf. Etherington, Theories, pp. 726; Nowell, Hobsons
Imperialism,
p. 88.
11 Lenin, Imperialism, pp. 174, 176.
12 Hobson, Imperialism; see also Etherington, Theories, pp. 4061, for an overview of Hobsons
views.
13 For example, Hilferding, Finanzkapital; Sweezy, Theory, pp. 3078.
2 SVIATOSLAV DMITRIEV
Economic History Society 2009 Economic History Review (2009)
imperialism as the ultimate stage in the development of capitalism; this made the
socialist reorganization of society possible.14
Although Hobsons and Lenins theoretical constructions would serve as premises
for very divergent political implications and practical decisions, each of them
defined imperialism as economic imperialism, that is, a special period in history
with such specific features as (i) accelerated industrial production accompanied by
the concentration of wealth in fewer hands; (ii) correspondingly increasing social
differentiation which would eventually bring about the class of employed
labourersor proletarianswho did not own the means of production; and,
finally, (iii) much faster economic growth in some countries, which made these
countries seek a redivision of natural wealth. This would consist of taking over
colonies from other countries and establishing control over the extraction and
transportation of natural resources, as well as over the largest possible share of the
world market. Only then would the redivision of natural wealth translate itself into
the field of politics and take the form of imperialist wars.15 Hobson and Lenin,
therefore, reflected on the rise of imperialism with its comprehensive programme
of consolidating, developing, defending and subsidising the empire [which] would
obviously entail massive government participation in the economy, or, in other
words, capitalist imperialism.16 In the early twentieth century, others, too, conceptualized
imperialism in economic terms, putting the emphasis either on capital
ventures, as Olivier suggested in 1906, or on commerce, as Woolf proposed in
1919.17 What all the adherents of this theory acknowledged was that the motive
power behind modern imperialism is economic,18 and that the focus was still on
colonies, discussed from the point of view of economic and financial activity.19
Therefore, Lenins dating the origin of the era of economic imperialism to 1880
should have been tied to the beginning of the colonial period; economic imperialism
was inseparable from the establishment of formal control over territories
around the world.20 Because empire designated a territorial empire, empirebuilding
meant, first and foremost, the acquisition of colonies. Thus, in this
situation, imperialism was understood as primarily being an economic activity
connected with the control and exploitation of colonies.21
While some historians enthusiastically supported introducing the idea of economic
imperialism into ancient studies, this idea also encountered several immediate
problems. First, enacting control in the ancient world did not necessarily lead
to, or require, the establishment of formal domination. The Latin word
imperiumhence empire and imperialismderived from imperare, whose original
and dominant meaning was ones right to command and coerce.22 Imperare and
14 Lenin, Imperialism.
15 For example, Lenin, Kautsky, pp. 623, 667; Sweezy, Theory, pp. 3078; Leontiev, Economy,
pp. 924,
1904.
16 Etherington, Theories, pp. 57, 82; Strachey, Empire, pp. 98108 (The Hobson-Lenin
explanation); Platt,
Economic factors, pp. 1202.
17 Olivier, White capital; Woolf, Empire and commerce.
18 For example, Woolf, Economic imperialism, pp. 26, 356, 1012; quotation from p. 35.
19 For example, Etherington, Theories, pp. 17680, 184.
20 For example, Gallagher and Robinson, Imperialism, p. 4.
21 For example, Barratt Brown, After imperialism, pp. 915.
22 For example, Hemme, Sprachmaterial, p. 617; Lewis and Short, Dictionary, pp. 899901;
Tucker, Dictionary,
p. 123; Andr, Dictionnaire, pp. 31011.
ANCIENT ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM 3
Economic History Society 2009 Economic History Review (2009)
imperium could be applied to the status of a paterfamilias in his household or to the
position of a slave owner with respect to his slaves. It primarily referred to the
military command (imperium) of the general (imperator), who, by defeating
enemies, forced on them the rule (imperium) of the Roman people, as Pompey did
in the Greek East in the first century bc.23 Pompeys provincial organization was
more of a display of late republican decay, however, at the time when imperium was
acquiring a meaning close to the traditional understanding of empire as a territorial
entity. Still, the imperium Romanum was not limited only to territorial
provinces, even during the imperial period,24 but also included, for example, the
realms of client kings (although such realms had no Roman administration).25
The Roman imperium, therefore, did not necessarily require a formal organization
and thus, at base, represented an abstract idea of Romes relationship with her
enemies and subjects.26 For this reason, the imperial period still witnessed a lack
of formal relationships between provincials and Roman authority. In the words of
Lintott, the Romans were happy with the sovereignty inherent in their notion of
imperium and did not wish to formulate the connection between rulers and ruled,
between centre and periphery in any other terms.27
Second, arguments in favour of capitalism and economic imperialism in
ancient Greece and Rome had to stand on two basic premises: (i) capitalism was
the dominant economic system in the ancient world;28 and (ii) administrative and
political forms of ancient imperialism were similar to those of modern imperialist
societieswhich also then limited the understanding of ancient imperialism to
the formal control and exploitation of colonies.29 Because neither of these premises
has been supported by evidence, various sorts of theoretical adjustments have
emerged concerning, in particular, the nature of ancient capitalism. Giuseppe
Salvioli distinguished between financial capitalism, which allegedly already
existed in the ancient world, and industrial and agricultural capitalism, which
did not. He was following the marxist idea that the financial capitalism was the
lowest form of capitalism, whereas capitalist production was a genuine characteristic
of modern capitalism.30 Others, like Tenney Frank, sought Roman economic
imperialism in Romes imperialist policy, with reference to the activity and
interests of the publicans and negotiatores.31 Similar ideas would be resurrected
after the SecondWorldWar, again without any success, as we shall see below.
23 Sherwin-White, Lucullus, pp. 26570; Seager, Pompey, p. 61.
24 For example, Dmitriev, History and geography, on phases in the process of the creation of
Roman territorial
provinces.
25 For example, Suet. Aug. 48, in Ihm, ed., Suetoni, p. 76: membra partisque imperii. Arnold,
System, pp. 1014,
referred to the use of client-princes as a system that existed alongside the provincial system or
direct Roman
rule; see also Badian, Imperialism, p. 78.
26 For example, Lintott, What was the Imperium Romanum?, p. 54: We should be wary of
measuring the
Roman empire and Roman imperialism by the amount of territory administered directly by Roman
magistrates;
Richardson, Imperium Romanum, pp. 67 (on imperium as a state or nation from the point of
view of its having
international authority or influence).
27 For example, Lintott, Politics, p. 192.
28 For example, Rostovtzeff, History, freely employed such concepts as industrial capitalism (for
example,
pp. 174, 350), capitalistic agriculture (for example, pp. 19, 63, 195, 223, 228), and municipal
bourgeoisie
(for example, pp. 22, 30, 59, 93, 195); Passerini, Studi, p. 310 (the industrial and land
capitalism).
29 For example, Momigliano, Polibio, pp. 31213.
30 Salvioli, Capitalismo, pp. 15789; cf. Marx, Capital, pp. 71374.
31 For example, Frank, Imperialism, pp. 26176 (Senatorial laissez faire), pp. 27797
(Commercialism and
expansion), 31328 (Pompeys army in the service of capitalists).
4 SVIATOSLAV DMITRIEV
Economic History Society 2009 Economic History Review (2009)
Finally, scepticism about the economic nature of ancient imperialism was
fuelled by the ongoing debate as to whether modern imperialism itself was primarily
political or economic. The idea of economic imperialism received several
significantly different interpretations, which made it difficult to use the concept in
ancient studies.32 Many refused even to accept an economic interpretation of
modern imperialism in the first place, asserting the primacy of political interests
over economic considerations. Joseph A. Schumpeters influential The sociology of
imperialism (first published in 1919, but printed in English only much later and
under a different title) presented imperialism as forcible expansion, declaring that
capitalism is by nature anti-imperialist.33 Pares distinguished between capitalist
imperialism and precapitalist imperialism, thus stressing the political aspect of
the latter.34 Even such prominent figures in the socialist camp as Rosa Luxemburg
and Karl Kautsky thought of imperialism as a political activity that was not
necessarily connected with immediate economic and financial interests. Luxemburgs
Accumulation of capital (1913) presented imperialism as the political expansion
of the accumulation of capital in its competitive struggle for what remains still
open of the non-capitalist environment.35 Karl Kautsky spoke about the social
revolution as a complete transformation of the wonted forms of associated activity
among men, noting (albeit with regret) that the economic development softens
class antagonism, so that the political revolution was not, perforce, to be connected
with the most advanced economic and industrial development.36 Of course,
Lenin argued strongly against such views. His pamphlet, The proletarian revolution
and renegade Kautsky (1918), accused Kautsky of separating politics from economics.
37 Contemplating modern imperialism as a political phenomenon brought
the concept of the informal empire to life.This first became visible in 1940 as part
of the analysis of British imperial history in the precolonial era, when this was
compared with what had happened following the rise of British colonialism in the
1870s and 1880s.38 The concept of the informal empire reflected the original, or
early Victorian, understanding of imperialism as a political and military expansion
divorced from formal colonial domination and the economic exploitation of
colonies.
For these and other reasons, not everybody believed that ancient imperialism
was only an economic system. In the first half of the twentieth century, many still
understood ancient imperialism in political and military terms. Among them
were Wilhelm Capelle in Germany,39 the American historians Tenney Frank and
William S. Ferguson,40 and such towering figures as Lon Homo and Maurice
Holleaux,41 as well as other representatives of French ancient studies during the
32 For the history of the theory of economic imperialism, see Koebner, Concept, pp. 46.
33 Schumpeter, Imperialism, pp. 7, 96.
34 Pares, Economic factors, pp. 137, 140, 142, 144.
35 Luxemburg, Accumulation, p. 446.
36 Kautsky, Revolution, pp. 5, 64, 845, 98102.
37 For a critical summary of this debate, see esp. Leontiev, Economy, pp. 21822.
38 Fay, Movement, p. 399.
39 Capelle, Ethik, pp. 92, 97.
40 Frank, Imperialism, pp. viiix, 3568; Ferguson, Imperialism, pp. 4, 3878.
41 Homo, LItalie, p. 418, who distinguished (pp. 31014) between militaristic imperialism and
economic
imperialism, speaking of the latter as a later and secondary phenomenon; he made a distinction (pp.
3935)
between imperialism on the one hand, and the administrative organization and exploitation of
conquered
territories on the other; Holleaux, tudes, pp. 2675.
ANCIENT ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM 5
Economic History Society 2009 Economic History Review (2009)
interwar period.42 In their opinion, ancient imperialism did not necessarily
require a formal organization, which explains why they could also extend the use
of this concept not only to the Roman Empire with its formal provincial organization,
but also to the Roman Republic and many city-states in ancient Greece,
which had no colonies or protectorates of the Roman kind.
II
D. K. Fieldhouse,43 Lewis H. Gann and Peter Duignan,44 and many others who
thought of imperialism as being, first, a political development,45 continued to
criticize the theory of economic imperialism after the SecondWorldWar. One of
the most authoritative among such works, a book by Ronald E. Robinson and John
Gallagher, discussed imperialism for the period having started as early as the
beginning of the nineteenth century, describing it as the politics of domination.46
Their short article, The imperialism of free trade, presented some of these views
by defining imperialism as a sufficient political function of this process of integrating
new regions into the expanding economy.47
The ongoing discussion of the (political or economic) nature of imperialism in
postwar debates has also resurrected the concept of informal imperialism,48
which, using Etheringtons words, defines domination, political and economic,
without annexations and protectorates.49 Although, as we have seen above, this
concept was refined in the 1940s,50 Etherington perceptively noted that the views
of Robinson and Gallagher were remarkably similar to the conclusions reached
fifty years earlier by Karl Kautsky and Rosa Luxemburg.51 This is hardly surprising,
because Robinson and Gallagher contemplated imperialism as a political
activity, precisely as Kautsky and Luxemburg had advocated. As we have already
seen, one can trace the roots of this opinion even further into the past, to the
Victorian theories that distinguished between imperialism and formal colonial
administration: imperialism is thought to have emerged in the time of informal
empires.52 However, this postwar vision of imperialism as a form of political
activity was reinforced by the downfall of colonialism following the SecondWorld
War, in the period from the 1940s to the 1960s53so that within the last two
hundred [and fifty] years, for example, India had passed from informal to formal
association with the United Kingdom and, sinceWorldWar II, back to an informal
connexion.54 Many other countries survived a similar transformation, which again
dissociated imperialism from formal colonial domination. Everybody could now
42 See also Jouguet, Imperialism; Carcopino, Points de vue, pp. 2168.
43 Fieldhouse, Imperialism .
44 Gann and Duignan, Burden of empire.
45 For an overview of such works, see, for example, Kemp, Theories, pp. 13450.
46 Robinson and Gallagher, Africa and the Victorians.
47 For example, Gallagher and Robinson, Imperialism, p. 5.
48 For example, Magdoff, Imperialism, p. 27, on British commercial and colonial empire and on
the growth of
[British] informal empire; Cain, Foundations, pp. 2733, 402.
49 Etherington, Theories, pp. 2378: the informal empire concerns trade, investment, and
influence.
50 Fay, Movement, p. 399.
51 Etherington, Theories, p. 235.
52 For example, Gallagher and Robinson, Imperialism, pp. 811.
53 For example, Barratt Brown, After imperialism, pp. 189211; Williams and Chrisman,
Discourse, p. 3.
54 For example, Gallagher and Robinson, Imperialism, p. 7.
6 SVIATOSLAV DMITRIEV
Economic History Society 2009 Economic History Review (2009)
see that imperialism remained in place even after the colonial era was over.
Downplaying the immediate economic and territorial aspects of imperialism in
postwar theories was not necessarily, therefore, merely a return to what Kautsky
and Luxemburg had said at the turn of the twentieth century, when colonialism
was still alive and well. At any rate, postwar studies resurrected an interest in the
social, political, and cultural aspects of imperialism, which were receiving more
attention in scholarly publications than was formal colonial control.
Because postwar imperialism revealed itself to be more than formal colonial
control and economic exploitation, the theories of the 1960s introduced several
more concepts of modern imperialism, which, at first sight, might also have looked
like incarnations of pre- and early colonial ideas of imperialism. One of them, the
concept of reactive imperialism, emphasized reluctant expansion because of
strategic interests, thus serving as a response to theories about imperialisms
aggressive nature. Harry Magdoffs fine overview of such opinions about modern
imperialism traced them to Seeleys Expansion of England (1883).55 Magdoff
asserted their connection with Victorian views on imperialism as being primarily a
political and military activity that reflects the rivalry of national states vying to
secure their current and future supremacy, thus causing the fine line between
reactive or proactive expansion, or between protective and anticipatory annexation,
to disappear.56
Seeleys contemporaries not only shared such views but also projected them
onto Roman history.57 By presenting Roman imperialism as reluctant and
reactive and by establishing parallels between Roman and British imperialisms,
they asserted the latter to be of a reluctant and reactive nature as well. Seeleys
famous statement that the British Empire had been acquired in a fit of absence of
mind58 found an immediate public response: according to the Manchester Guardian
in 1884, it is not the habit of the English people to set out with their eyes open
on a career of conquest and annexation.The conquests which we make are forced
upon us.59 Academics mentioned such blessings of British rule in India as the
end of local infighting, alongside relatively lighter taxation and less poverty.60
Among politicians, Cecil J. Rhodes contended that the more of the world we
inhabit, the better it is for the human race; Evelyn Baring also asserted the
reluctant nature of British imperialism, whereas James Bryce claimed that to India
severance from England would mean confusion, bloodshed, and pillage. Anthony
Trollope observed that the [British] Empire was being ruled to the best advantage
of its countless inhabitants.61 Roman history thus inspired and legitimized the
55 Magdoff, Imperialism, pp. 7693 (Imperialist expansion: accident and design).
56 See also, for example, Sweezy, Theory, pp. 3023 (a protective or anticipatory character of
imperialism).
57 Haverfield, Romanization, p. 22; Baring, Imperialism, pp. 267 (with further bibliography);
Haverfield,
Inaugural address, p. xviii; Bryce, Empire, p. 78.
58 Seeley, Expansion, pp. 10 (We seem, as it were, to have conquered and peopled half the world
in a fit of
absence of mind), 207, 248, 351. See also Peardon, Seeley, p. 299: it is clear that his was a
defensive
imperialism, the imperialism of retreat and integration rather than that of advance and aggression.
59 Quoted from Young, Postcolonialism, p. 91, who offered this quote as an example of the image
of Britains
reluctant imperialism. Cf., for example, Bryce, Empire, p. 9 (The English went to India as traders,
with no
intention of fighting anybody, and were led into the acquisition of territory).
60 For example, Gooch, Imperialism, pp. 337, 342, 347, 355.
61 Rhodes, cited in Boehmer, Literature, p. 35; Baring, Imperialism, pp. 267 (with further
bibliography); Bryce,
Empire, p. 78;Trollope, cited in Boehmer, Literature, p. 43.
ANCIENT ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM 7
Economic History Society 2009 Economic History Review (2009)
British Empire.62 This induced vision of Roman imperialism as reluctant and
reactive also survived into the postwar period. For example, Schumpeter summed
up his analysis of the imperialism of Rome by saying that another consequence
that always emerges in imperialism was the phenomenon that the policy of conquest
inevitably led to situations that compelled further conquests.63
A further postwar development was the idea of paying more attention to the
economic aspect of modern imperialism, even when this was dissociated from the
establishment of formal control. Ideas from the 1970s and 1980s thus not only
repeated the early Victorian vision of imperialism as a political activity, but also
connected imperial expansion with economic incentives: the main driving force
behind commercial imperialism was a fear of being shut out of potentially valuable
markets by hostile foreign tariffs. The areas of concern to British businessmen in
these years were almost exclusively those where foreign rivalry threatened to
destroy existing trade or cut off potentially rich markets.64 This vision, which
explained imperialistic activity by using economic rationales, could also have been
easily tied to the downfall of the colonial system: once formal control was removed,
economic connections became even more visible.65
Such postwar re-evaluations of the nature of modern imperialism were also
extended to ancient studies. The concept of the informal empire has been quite
popular with many ancient historians, who distinguished between the system of
indirect rule (that is, when the Romans did not themselves administer the territory
which they controlled) and direct provincial government.66 These observations
served to establish the difference between imperialism as a political and military
activity on the one hand, and as an administrative system, or the formal empire,
on the other. This was a healthy reaction to the ideas of Seeley, who identified the
first century bc as marking both the end of Roman expansion and the beginning
of Roman imperialism, which he rationalized as having been a form of administrative
and economic control.67 Reflecting on the fall of modern colonial empires,
postwar ancient historians made a distinction between the new Augustan imperialism
of governing, as opposed to the traditional Roman imperialism of conquest
and expansion.68
However, it is precisely because the significance of formal control over territories
was downplayed that some postwar ancient studies have advocated the economic
nature of imperialism, focusing on economic rationales of imperialistic policy by
Rome and other ancient states. Such ideas might also look like incarnations, even
if they are in new forms, of theories from the early twentieth century. For example,
Luigi Perelli sought Roman economic imperialism in Romes imperialist policy,
with reference to the publicans and negotiatores, much as Frank had done more
62 For example, Wormell, Seeley, pp. 1623; Hingley, Officers, pp. 115; Young, Postcolonialism,
pp. 1516, 33;
Woolf, Inventing empire, pp. 31213; Hingley, Culture, pp. 212, 26; Alcock, Colonies, p. 327.
63 Schumpeter, Imperialism, p. 69.
64 Cf., for example, Hynes, Economics, p. 92; see also Cain, Foundations, p. 40.
65 For example, Gallagher and Robinson, Imperialism, p. 6: imperialism sometimes extends
beyond areas of
economic development, but acts for their strategic protection, followed more recently by Wolfe,
History,
pp. 4001.
66 Sherwin-White, Lucullus, pp. 2656; Brunt, Themes, p. 451; Kallet-Marx, Hegemony, pp. 35.
67 Seeley, Lectures, pp. 457.
68 Hammond, Ancient imperialism, pp. 1201; Hellegouarch, Limprialisme, p. 69; Woolf,
Imperialism,
p. 283; Mattingly, Introduction, p. 7, n. 1; Champion and Eckstein, Study, pp. 23.
8 SVIATOSLAV DMITRIEV
Economic History Society 2009 Economic History Review (2009)
than half a century earlier.69 John R. Love distinguished between different kinds of
capitalism, suggesting that the ancient world practiced political capitalism (or
politically oriented capitalism) rather than market capitalism, thus largely following
in the footsteps of Salvioli.70 However, the necessary evidence was missing
this time as well. Although Domenico Musti insisted that the understanding of
economic imperialism should not be limited to only mercantile imperialism, his
support for Roman economic imperialism consisted almost exclusively of references
to trade.71
In one of the most influential of such works, William V. Harris asserted that
the desire for these other (i.e., not mercantilistic or commercial) economic
advantages was an important motive in the formation of Roman policy, which
included the eventual abolition of direct taxation on Roman citizens, the expansion
of public works, the rise in grain subsidies, and the profiteering of various
sorts by governors after provinces were annexed.72 However, motive is what
both precedes and leads to action. There is absolutely no indication that
Roman wars ever originated because of a desire on the part of Roman politicians
to abolish direct taxation on citizens, or to increase grain subsidies or to expand
public works programmes.73 Some might wish to refute this statement as an
argument from silence. But, first, the absence of any evidence that documents
economic motivation for imperialist policy by Rome becomes evidence in itself
and, second, ancient sources are in fact filled with references to Romes major
military activities having cost more money than they could possibly generate.
Among other things, we know that Spain as a province cost more than it
brought in;74 in 6 ad, Augustus had to introduce a 5 per cent tax on inheritances
and bequests to help maintain the standing army;75 Claudiuss conquest of
Britain in 43 ad was explained by nothing more than his personal desire for
glory, since economically it was of little importance;76 and contemporaries were
quite sceptical about the economic feasibility of conquests beyond the Euphrates
by Trajan (whose territorial acquisitions were soon abandoned by Hadrian) and
Septimius Severus.77
Some have already noted that most Roman taxes and levies went either to feed
the city of Rome or to maintain armies along the borders.78 At least during the
69 Perelli, Capitalismo, pp. 436, 11853. Cf. Frank, Imperialism, pp. 26176, 27797, 31328
(see n. 31 above).
70 Love, Antiquity, pp. 45, 20945. Not surprisingly, this book, which is in essence an
introduction to some
aspects of Webers sociology of antiquity, ignores the marxist theory of capitalism and makes no
mention of
industrial capitalism. Cf. Salvioli, Capitalismo, pp. 15789.
71 Musti, Polibio, pp. 97115.
72 Harris, War and greed, pp. 1372, 1374, 1375, 1376, 1378.
73 For example, Gruen, Rewards, p. 64: a pattern of planned and deliberate exploitation aimed at
public
enrichment is missing.
74 Crawford, Rome, p. 52.
75 D.C. 55.24.955.25.6, in Bossevain, ed., Cassii, vol. 2, pp. 50910; Suet. Aug. 49.2, in Ihm, ed.,
Suetoni,
p. 77. See Cornell, Expansion, p. 161; Speidel, Geld und Macht, pp. 1312.
76 For example, Suet. Claud. 17, in Ihm, ed., Suetoni, pp. 2023; Strabo 4.5.3, p. 200, in Aly, ed.,
Strabonis,
pp. 2567.
77 Trajan: for example, D.C. 68.29.14, in Bossevain, ed., Cassii, vol. 3, pp. 21718. Septimius
Severus: for
example, D.C. 75.3.23, in ibid., p. 340.
78 For example, Hopkins, Taxes and trade in the Roman Empire, p. 101; Millett, Romanization, p.
7: pay for
the army was the largest single item of state expenditure;Woolf, Analysis, p. 48: the frontiers of
the empire were
major consumers of the tribute and taxation extracted from the rest of the empire; idem,
Imperialism, p. 283.
But see critical comments by Crawford, Rome, p. 47, and MacMullen, Notes, p. 165, n. 9.
ANCIENT ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM 9
Economic History Society 2009 Economic History Review (2009)
imperial period, therefore, the Roman military machine required more money
than it could possibly bring in, which allows one to question the economic motive
behind Roman military policy.79 Roman studies in the postwar period have also
noted a remarkable correlation between (military) expenditure and the volume of
coinage, thus highlighting the true nature of the relationship between politics and
the economy in ancient Rome.80 Although one can hardly doubt that some wars
happened to be profitable for Rome, this profitability alone does not prove that the
Romans were waging imperialist wars (in the usual modern sense of this
phrase).81 Economic interests and activities by the publicans, the negotiatores, and
other similar groups only became noticeable in the wake of Roman conquests.
Certain financial benefits that the Romans received as a result of some wars do not
by themselves affirm that these wars were waged for economic reasons: the
prospect of loot could entice generals and stimulate recruiting, which is not the
same as determining a senatorial decision to make war.82
The idea that Roman wars had economic considerations behind them has been
presented, therefore, as another example of compelling modern analogies applied
without due scrutiny of the ancient background.83 The same observations apply
equally to what is known about ancient Greek history. Wars in ancient Greece
could start because of the prospect of financial benefit of some sort, such as
gaining loot or extracting allied tribute. But no clear indications exist that ancient
Greek wars ever began because of economic rationales, such as obtaining new
markets or getting access to mineral resources.84 Hardly anyone would argue
nowadays in support of the idea that capitalism was the dominant economic
system in ancient Greece and Rome.85 At most, some would speak about similarities,
alongside a great many differences, between the ancient and modern economies.
86 Current investigations into ancient economies, therefore, avoid referring to
imperialism,87 whereas historical studies that still wish to use this word define it
79 For example, Millett, Romanization, p. 3. For the debate on the reason for the decline of Roman
expansion,
which has generally been dated to the time of Augustus, see, for example, Cornell, Expansion, pp.
1604;Woolf,
Analysis, p. 49; Heather, Fall, p. 56.
80 Crawford, Coinage, p. 694; Hopkins, Taxes and trade in the Roman Empire, p. 110.
81 Pace, for example, Musti, Polibio, pp. 97115, and Love, Antiquity, pp. 2038, both following
Harris,
Directions, pp. 14, 17. Harriss reference (pp. 1619) to economic imperialism which the Romans
practised
(p. 16) and his defence of economic explanations of Roman imperialism neither do nor can prove
that Roman
imperialism was of the same nature as modern imperialism, that is, as a certain stage in economic
development.
Not surprisingly, Harriss critique of marxist concepts of base and structure misses the mark: it
acknowledges
imperialism as an economic system in Rome, which is incompatible with marxist economic theory
asserting that
the capitalist era dates from the 16th century (Marx, Capital, p. 717), and also, for example,
Wallerstein,
World-economy, pp. 145, 273.
82 Gruen, Rewards, p. 59, repeated word for word in idem, Hellenistic world, pp. 2889 (and
288315 in
general).
83 Badian, Imperialism, pp. 1628, 76; cf. Gruen, Hellenistic world, pp. 288315.
84 For collections of such views, see, for example, Rose, Imperialism, p. 20; Chaniotis, Cost and
profit (with
further bibliography); Eckstein, Anarchy, pp. 8990.
85 Cf., for example, Meikle, Modernism, pp. 17881; Capogrossi Colognesi, MaxWeber, pp. xv,
xviixviii,
18394, 33157; Mattingly and Salmon, Past, p. 11, rejecting a return to the maximalist view
of Rostovtzeff;
Archibald, Away from Rostovtzeff.
86 Ekholm and Friedman, Capital imperialism and exploitation; Perelli, Capitalismo, pp. 16,
on certain
elements that were common to ancient and modern capitalism; Morris, Foreword, pp. ixxi, xix
xxxi; Capogrossi
Colognesi, MaxWeber, pp. 3427; Morley, Theories, pp. 3350.
87 For example, Duncan-Jones, Economy; Austin and Vidal-Naquet, History, pp. 1258; De
Martino, Storia,
pp. 497516; Archibald et al., eds., Economies; Mattingly and Salmon, eds., Economies; Migeotte,
Lconomie;
Manning and Morris, eds., Ancient economy.
10 SVIATOSLAV DMITRIEV
Economic History Society 2009 Economic History Review (2009)
in political terms as either an extension of power,88 as maintaining power,89 or
both.90
It is not surprising, therefore, that most postwar studies of ancient history have
referred to ancient imperialism not as an economic system or a formal empire,
but as an imperialistic policy, that is, the self-interested policy of invasion and
conquest. Among others, Ernst Badian purposefully limited his definition of
imperialism to the extension of power by ones own group over others and
exploitation by the ruling power, whereas Ryan K. Balot has recently presented
imperialism as the systematic attempt to annex territory and to acquire control
over others, with the goal of maintaining that power in the future, and to the
long-term benefit of the conquering state.91 The latter idea is nothing new, of
course. Balots monarchic imperialism echoes, in particular, Schumpeters imperialism
in the modern monarchy.92 Both emphasize the understanding of imperialism
in political terms. This dissociation of political and economic fields has
profoundly affected modern research on ancient history. After imperialism was
disconnected from a formal empire and understood in political terms, it allowed
the study of imperialism to expand beyond the chronological and geographical
limits of the Roman Empire. Thus, imperialism has also been explored in the
republican period, as a form of interaction between Rome on the one hand, and
the Italians and other peoples of the Mediterranean on the other.93 Others have
asserted the policy of imperialism by such Greek states as Athens,94 Sparta,95 and
Macedonia.96 Postwar studies of other ancient civilizations have followed along the
same path.97 By applying the concept of imperialism and its cognates to all
premodern societies, this approach is surely reminiscent of Evelyn Barings idea
that imperialism was as old as the world.98 However, the emphasis is now
differentsince the Second World War, most ancient historians have primarily
seen imperialism as a political and military activity in ancient Rome, Greece, and
elsewhere.
The other major consequence of the downfall of the theory of ancient economic
imperialism has been the rise of specialized studies on ancient economies. Dissociated
from the ideas of formal empire and economic motives behind imperialist
policies by Rome and other ancient states, these works have, for the most part,
focused either on particular regions or on specifics of ancient economic life (such
88 For example, Hammond, Illyris, pp. 201; Carcopino, Les tapes, p. 9; Harris, War and
greed, p. 1371,
n. 5; Veyne, Imprialisme romain, p. 793; Nicolet, L imprialisme; Witcher, Globalisation,
pp. 219, 223.
89 For example, Finley, Empire, p. 1; Musti, Polibio, pp. 1719, 21, 41.
90 For a notable exception, see, for example, Carandini, Schiavi, p. 338 (Leconomia dell
imperialismo
romano).
91 Badian, Imperialism, pp. 1, 69; Balot, Thought, pp. 141, 146.
92 Schumpeter, Imperialism, pp. 7082.
93 For example, Gabba, Storiografia, pp. 625, 6389; idem, Aspetti, p. 49; Frei, Zeugnisse, p.
73; Garnsey
and Whittaker, eds., Imperialism, pp. 16; Harris, War and imperialism, p. 1; North, Development;
Richardson,
Hispaniae, pp. 2, 1778; Heather, Fall, p. 459.
94 For example, de Ste Croix, Athenian Empire, p. 15; Meiggs, Crisis; Lvy, Athnes, pp. 57
79; H. B.
Mattingly, Athenian Empire, pp. xvxvii; Low, Language.
95 For example, Cartledge, Agesilaos, pp. 7798.
96 For example, Hammond, Illyris, p. 20; Ellis, Philip II; Billows, Kings.
97 For example, Frandsen, Egyptian imperialism; Frankenstein, Phoenicians.
98 Baring, Imperialism, p. 4. For example, Finley, Fifth-century Athenian Empire, p. 104; Podes,
Dependenz,
pp. 170206; Billows, Kings, p. xiii; Raaflaub, Wolves, p. 275; Champion and Eckstein, Study,
p. 3.
ANCIENT ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM 11
Economic History Society 2009 Economic History Review (2009)
as technology, exchange, taxes, consumption, cadasters,99 mining, farming,100 and
other similarly technical matters101). The Cambridge economic history of the Greco-
Roman world (2007) has recently exemplified both trends, with chapters that focus
on production, distribution, and consumption in different regions of the Mediterranean.
Postwar studies on ancient economy have certainly extended beyond the
chronological and geographical limits of the Roman Empire, by examining the
ancient economy or ancient economies.102 Some of these works deal with
evidence from the republican period,103 while others examine various aspects of
economic life in ancient Greece and the Near East.104 A whole group of such
studies, most prominently those undertaken by archaeologists, have emphasized
the exchange and cross-influences of the peoples who lived beyond the Roman
borders, as seen in Roman material culture.105
III
The theory of ancient economic imperialism appears to have declined for two
major reasons.The first is, of course, the absence of any reliable evidence that the
politics of ancient states were (directly or indirectly) dictated by economic considerations,
as they have been for the last 150 years.The second reason, which has
not yet received any noticeable attention in debates on the nature of ancient
imperialism, is that the understanding of ancient imperialism has been directly
determined by the vision(s) of modern imperialism. The economic nature of
imperialism was first questioned in the early twentieth century, and when the
modern colonial system fell following the SecondWorldWar, the understanding of
imperialism returned to that of the precolonial period, which saw imperialism in
political and military terms. As a consequence, the vision of ancient imperialism
also became dissociated from the functioning of a formal empire, which has
almost always been examined with reference to the Roman Empire.The theory of
ancient economic imperialism thus gave way to works on ancient economy and
ancient imperialism (understood as political and military activity), which deal not
99 For example, Nicolet, Linventaire, pp. 15979 (the fiscal control, cadasters); Corbier, City,
territory and
taxation; Duncan-Jones, Money, which deals with wine prices, tax rates, army supply, cost of
labour, and similar
matters; Hopkins, Rome, republished in a shortened version as Rents, taxes, trade and the city of
Rome, in Lo
Cascio, ed., Mercati permanenti, pp. 25367, and reprinted in the original form in Scheidel and von
Reden, eds.,
Ancient economy, pp. 190230.
100 For example, Jongman, Wool; Orejas, Mines anciennes; Kron, Livestock farming.
101 Some of these works, however, have raised theoretical questions, such as the relationship
between the centre
and the periphery (including interaction between the city and the countryside); for example,
Rowlands, Centre
and periphery; Whittaker, Theories. They have also addressed the problem of the growth of the
ancient
economy (including technical and economic progress); for example, Saller, Debate, and Finley,
Economy
and society, pp. 17695. For such problems in debates on the modern economy, cf., for example,
Wallerstein,
World-economy,
pp. 1164 (Core and periphery).
102 For example, Finley, Ancient economy; Archibald et al., eds., Economies; Cartledge, Economy
(economies).
103 For example, Nash, Expansion; Jongman, Gibbon, pp. 1869.
104 For example, Finley, Studies; Austin and Vidal-Naquet, History, pp. 11230 (imports, fiscal
policy, mines,
taxation, tribute, and so on); Davies, Features, pp. 27085 (with extensive bibliography).
105 For example, Haselgrove, Romanization before the conquest; Wigg, Confrontation and
interaction.
12 SVIATOSLAV DMITRIEV
Economic History Society 2009 Economic History Review (2009)
only with evidence from the Roman Empire, but also with material from republican
Rome, ancient Greece, and other ancient civilizations.106
Ball State University
Date submitted 10 December 2007
Revised version submitted 7 May 2008
Accepted 8 August 2008
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0289.2008.00467.x
Footnote references
Alcock, S., Roman colonies in the eastern Empire, in G. J. Stein, ed., The archaeology of colonial
encounters.
Comparative perspectives (Santa Fe and Oxford, 2005), pp. 297329.
Aly, W., ed., Strabonis geographica, vol. 2 (Bonn, 1972).
Amsden, A. H., Imperialism, in J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and P. Newman, eds., The new Palgrave.
Marxian
economics (NewYork, 1990), pp. 20517.
Andr, J., Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots (Paris, 4th edn. 1979).
Archibald, Z. H., Away from Rostovtzeff: a new SEHHW, in Z. H. Archibald, J. Davies, V.
Gabrielsen, and
G. J. Oliver, eds., Hellenistic economies (NewYork, 2001), pp. 37988.
Archibald, Z. H., Davies, J., Gabrielsen, V., and Oliver, G. J., eds., Hellenistic economies
(NewYork, 2001).
Arnold, W.T., The Roman system of provincial administration to the accession of Constantine the
Great (1879).
Austin M. M. and Vidal-Naquet, P., Economic and social history of ancient Greece: an introduction
(1977).
Badian, E., Roman imperialism in the Late Republic (Ithaca, N.Y., 2nd edn. 1968).
Balot, R. K., Greek political thought (Malden, Mass. and Oxford, 2006).
Baring, E., Ancient and modern imperialism (1910).
Barratt Brown, M., After imperialism (NewYork, rev edn. 1970).
Barratt Brown, M., Imperialism revisited, in R. H. Chilcote, ed., The political economy of
imperialism. Critical
appraisals (NewYork and Oxford, 2000), pp. 4163.
Betts, R. F., The allusion to Rome in British imperialist thought of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth
centuries, Victorian Studies, 15 (1971), pp. 14959.
Billows, R. A., Kings and colonists. Aspects of Macedonian imperialism (Leiden and NewYork,
1995).
Boehmer, E., Colonial and post-colonial literature: migrant metaphors (Oxford and NewYork,
1995).
Bossevain, V. Ph., ed., Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiarum Romanarum quae supersunt, 5 vols.
(Berlin, 1895
1931).
Brunt, P. A., Roman imperial themes (Oxford, 1990).
Bryce, J., The ancient Roman Empire and the British Empire in India (Oxford, 1914).
Cain, P. J., Economic foundations of British overseas expansion, 18151914 (1980).
Capelle, W., Griechische Ethik und Rmischer Imperialismus, Klio, 25 (1932), pp. 86113.
Capogrossi Colognesi, L., MaxWeber e le economie del mondo antico (Bari and Rome, 2000).
Carandini, A., Schiavi in Italia.Gli strumenti pensanti dei Romani fra tarda Repubblica e medio
Impero (Rome, 1988).
Carcopino, J., Points de vue sur limprialisme romain (Paris, 1934).
Carcopino, J., Les tapes de limprialisme romain (Paris, 1961).
Cartledge, P., Agesilaos and the crisis of Sparta (Baltimore, Md., 1987).
Cartledge, P., The economy (economies) of ancient Greece, in W. Scheidel and S. von Reden, eds.,
The ancient
economy (NewYork, 2002), pp. 1132.
Champion, C. B. and Eckstein, A. M., The study of Roman imperialism, in C. B. Champion, ed.,
Roman
imperialism. Readings and sources (Malden, Mass., 2004), pp. 110.
Chaniotis, A., The cost and profit of war: economic aspects of Hellenistic warfare, in A. Chaniotis,
ed., War in
the Hellenistic world. A social and cultural history (Malden, Mass. and Oxford, 2005), pp. 11542.
Corbier, B., City, territory and taxation, in J. Rich and A. Wallace-Hadrill, eds., City and country
in the ancient
world (NewYork, 1991), pp. 21140.
Cornell, T., The end of Roman imperial expansion, in J. Rich and G. Shipley, eds.,War and society
in the Roman
world (NewYork, 1993), pp. 13970.
Crawford, M. H., Roman republican coinage (1974).
106 The decline of formal colonial domination also provoked interest in other aspects of
imperialism, including
so-called cultural imperialism, which has also been reflected in ancient studies; for example, Gabba,
Aspetti;
Whittaker, Imperialism; Goldhill, Agenda; Erskine, Unity. I plan to address this problem
elsewhere.
ANCIENT ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM 13
Economic History Society 2009 Economic History Review (2009)
Crawford,M. H., Rome and the Greek world: economic relationships, Economic History Review,
2nd ser., XXX
(1977), pp. 4252.
Davies, J. K., Cultural, social and economic features of the Hellenistic world, Cambridge Ancient
History, vol. 7,
pt. 1 (2nd edn. 1984), pp. 257320.
Dmitriev, S., The history and geography of the province of Asia during its first hundred years and
the
provincialization of Asia Minor, Athenaeum, new ser., 93 (2005), pp. 71133.
Duncan-Jones, R., The economy of the Roman Empire. Quantitative studies (Cambridge, 1974).
Duncan-Jones, R., Money and government in the Roman Empire (Cambridge and NewYork, 1994).
Eckstein, A. M., Mediterranean anarchy, interstate war, and the rise of Rome (Berkeley and Los
Angeles, Calif.,
2006).
Ekholm, K. and Friedman, J., Capital imperialism and exploitation in ancient world systems, in
M. Trolle
Larsen, ed., Power and propaganda. A symposium on ancient empires (Copenhagen, 1979), pp. 41
58.
Ellis, J. R., Philip II and Macedonian imperialism (1976).
Erskine, A., Unity and identity: shaping the past in the Greek Mediterranean, in E. Gruen, ed.,
Cultural
borrowings and ethnic appropriations in antiquity (Stuttgart, 2005), pp. 12136.
Etherington, N., Theories of imperialism.War, conquest, and capital (Totowa, N.J., 1984).
Fay, C. R., The movement towards free trade, 18201853, in J. H. Rose, A. P. Newton, E. A.
Benians, and
H. Dodwell, eds., Cambridge History of the British Empire, vol. 2 (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 388414.
Ferguson, W. S., Greek imperialism (NewYork, 1941).
Fieldhouse,D. K., Imperialism: an historiographical revision, Economic History Review, 2nd
ser., XIV (1961),
pp. 187209.
Finley, M. I., Studies in land and credit in ancient Athens (New Brunswick, 1951).
Finley, M. I., The ancient economy (Berkeley and Los Angeles, Calif., 1973).
Finley, M. I., Empire in the Greco-Roman world, Greece & Rome, 25 (1978), pp. 115.
Finley, M. I., The fifth-century Athenian Empire: a balance-sheet, in P.D. A. Garnsey and C. R.
Whittaker, eds.,
Imperialism in the ancient world (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 10126.
Finley, M. I., Economy and society in ancient Greece (NewYork, 1982).
Flach, D., Der sogenannte Rmische Imperialismus, Historische Zeitschrift, 222 (1976), pp. 27
32.
Frandsen, P. J., Egyptian imperialism, in M. Trolle Larsen, ed., Power and propaganda. A
symposium on ancient
empires (Copenhagen, 1979), pp. 16790.
Frank, T., Roman imperialism (NewYork, 1914).
Frankenstein, S., The Phoenicians in the FarWest: a function of Neo-Assyrian imperialism, in M.
Trolle Larsen,
ed., Power and propaganda. A symposium on ancient Empires (Copenhagen, 1979), pp. 26394.
Frei, P., Spte Zeugnisse fr frhen rmischen Imperialismus?, Museum Helveticum, 32 (1975),
pp. 7380.
Gabba, E., Storiografia greca e imperialismo romano (IIII sec. a. C.), Rivista Storica Italiana, 30
(1974),
pp. 62542.
Gabba, E., Aspetti culturali dellimperialismo romano, Athenaeum, new ser., 65 (1977), pp. 49
74.
Gallagher J. and Robinson, R., The imperialism of free trade, Economic History Review, 2nd ser.,
VI (1953),
pp. 115.
Gann L. H. and Duignan, P., Burden of empire: an appraisal of western colonialism in Africa south
of the Sahara (New
York, 1967).
Garnsey, P. D. A. and Whittaker, C. R., eds., Imperialism in the ancient world (Cambridge, 1978).
Goldhill, S., Setting an agenda: everything is Greece to the wise , in S. Goldhill, ed., Being
Greek under Rome.
Cultural identity, the Second Sophistic and the development of empire (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 1
25.
Gooch, G. P., Imperialism, in C. F. G. Masterman and B. B. Gilbert, eds., The heart of the empire.
Discussions of
problems of modern city life in England.With an essay on imperialism (NewYork, new edn. 1902),
pp. 30897.
Gruen, E. S., The Hellenistic world and the coming of Rome (Berkeley and Los Angeles, Calif.,
1984).
Gruen, E. S., Material rewards and the drive for empire, in The imperialism of mid-republican
Rome.The proceedings
of a conference held at the American Academy in Rome, November 56, 1982 (Rome, 1984), pp.
5982.
Hammond,N.G. L., Ancient imperialism: contemporary justifications, Harvard Studies in
Classical Philology, 58
(1948), pp. 10561.
Hammond, N. G. L., Illyris, Rome and Macedon in 229205 B.C., Journal of Roman Studies, 58
(1968),
pp. 121.
Harris,W.V., On war and greed in the second century B.C., American Historical Review, 76
(1971), pp. 137185.
Harris, W.V., War and imperialism in Republican Rome, 32770 B.C. (Oxford, 1979).
Harris, W. V., Current directions in the study of Roman imperialism, in W. V. Harris, ed., The
imperialism of
mid-Republican Rome (Rome, 1984), pp. 1334.
Haselgrove, C. C., Romanization before the conquest: Gaulish precedents and British
consequences, in T. F.
C. Blagg and A. C. King, eds., Military and civilian in Roman Britain: cultural relationships in a
frontier province
(Oxford, 1984), pp. 563.
Haverfield, F., Inaugural address to the first Annual General Meeting of the Society for the
Promotion of Roman
Studies, Journal of Roman Studies, 1 (1911), pp. xixx.
Haverfield, F., The romanization of Roman Britain (Oxford, 4th edn. 1923).
Heather, P., The fall of the Roman Empire.A new history of Rome and the barbarians (Oxford and
NewYork, 2006).
14 SVIATOSLAV DMITRIEV
Economic History Society 2009 Economic History Review (2009)
Hellegouarch, J., Limprialisme romain daprs loeuvre de Velleius Paterculus, in Lidologie
de limprialisme
romain (Paris, 1974), pp. 6990.
Hemme, A., Das lateinische Sprachmaterial im Wortschatze der deutschen, franzsischen und
englischen Sprache
(Leipzig, 1904).
Hilferding, R., Das Finanzkapital. Eine Studie ber die jngste Entwicklung des Kapitalismus
(Vienna, 1910).
Hingley, R., Roman officers and English gentlemen (NewYork, 2000).
Hingley, R., Globalizing Roman culture. Unity, diversity and empire (NewYork, 2005).
Hobson, J. A., Imperialism. A study (1902).
Holleaux, M., tudes dpigraphie et dhistoire grecques, L. Robert, ed., vol. 4 (Paris, 1952).
Homo, L., LItalie primitive et les dbuts de limprialisme romain (Paris, 1925).
Hopkins, K., Taxes and trade in the Roman Empire (200 B.C.A.D. 400), Journal of Roman
Studies, 70 (1980),
pp. 10125.
Hopkins, K., Rome, taxes, rents and trade, Kodai, 67 (19956), pp. 4175.
Hynes, W. G., The economics of empire: Britain, Africa, and the new imperialism, 187095
(Bristol, 1979).
Ihm, M., ed., C. Suetoni Tranquilli opera, vol. 1: DeVita Caesarum libriVIII (Stuttgart, 1908).
Jongman,W., Wool and the textile industry of Roman Italy: a working hypothesis, in E. Lo Cascio,
ed., Mercati
permanenti e mercati periodici nel mondo romano (Bari, 2000), pp. 18797.
Jongman, W., Gibbon was right: the decline and fall of the Roman economy, in O. Hekster, G. de
Kleijn, and
D. Slootjes, eds., Crises and the Roman empire (Leiden, 2007), pp. 18399.
Jouguet, P., Macedonian imperialism and the hellenization of the East (NewYork, 1928).
Kallet-Marx, R. M., Hegemony to empire.The development of the Roman imperium in the East
from 148 to 62 B.C.
(Berkeley and Los Angeles, Calif., 1995).
Kautsky, K., The social revolution (Chicago, Ill., 1907).
Kemp, T., Theories of imperialism (London and Crawley, 1967).
Koebner, R., The concept of economic imperialism, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., II (1949),
pp. 129.
Koebner R. and Schmidt, H. D., Imperialism.The story and significance of a political word, 1840
1960 (Cambridge,
1964).
Kron, G., Roman livestock farming in southern Italy, in M. Clavel-Lvque and E. Hermon, eds.,
Espaces
intgrs et ressources naturelles dans lEmpire romain (Franche-Comt, 2004), pp. 11934.
Lenin, V. I., The proletarian revolution and the renegade Kautsky (NewYork, 1934).
Lenin, V. I., Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, in V. I. Lenin, ed., Selected works. One-
volume edition (New
York, 1971), pp. 169263.
Leontiev, A., Political economy (San Francisco, Calif., 1976).
Lvy, E., Athnes devant la dfaite de 404. Histoire dune crise idologique (Athens and Paris,
1976).
Lewis, C.T. and Short, C., A new Latin dictionary (NewYork, 1907).
Lintott, A., What was the imperium Romanum?, Greece & Rome, 28 (1981), pp. 5367.
Lintott, A., Imperium romanum. Politics and administration (NewYork, 1993).
Lo Cascio, E., ed., Mercati permanenti e mercati periodici nel mondo romano (Bari, 2000).
Love, J. R., Antiquity and capitalism. MaxWeber and the sociological foundations of Roman
civilization (New York,
1991).
Low, P., Looking for the language of Athenian imperialism, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 125
(2005), pp. 93111.
Luxemburg, R., The accumulation of capital, A. Schwarzchild, trans. (New Haven, Conn., 1951).
MacMullen, R., Notes on romanization, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists, 21
(1984), pp. 16174.
Magdoff, H., Imperialism. From the colonial age to the present (NewYork, 1978).
Manning, J. G. and Morris, I., eds., The ancient economy (Stanford, Calif., 2005).
De Martino, F., Storia economica di Roma antica, vol. 2 (Florence, 1979).
Marx, K., Capital. A critical analysis of capitalist production, vol. 1 (Moscow, 1954).
Mattingly, D. J., Introduction, in D. J. Mattingly, ed., Dialogues in Roman imperialism. Power,
discourse, and
discrepant experience in the Roman empire (Portsmouth, R.I., 1997), pp. 724.
Mattingly, D. J. and Salmon, J., eds. Economies beyond agriculture in the classical world
(NewYork, 2001).
Mattingly, D. J. and Salmon, J., The productive past: economies beyond agriculture, in D. J.
Mattingly and J.
Salmon, eds., Economies beyond agriculture in the classical world (NewYork, 2001), pp. 314.
Mattingly, H. B., The Athenian Empire restored. Epigraphic and historical studies (Ann Arbor,
Mich., 1996).
Meiggs, R., The crisis of Athenian imperialism, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 67 (1963),
pp. 136.
Meikle, S., Modernism, economics, and the ancient economy, Proceedings of the Cambridge
Philological Society, 41
(1995), pp. 17491.
Migeotte, L., Lconomie des cits grecques de larchasme au Haut-Empire romain (Paris, 2002).
Millett, M., The romanization of Britain.An essay in archaeological interpretation (Cambridge and
NewYork, 1990).
Momigliano, A., Polibio, Posidonio e limperialismo romano, in A. Momigliano, ed., Storia e
storiografia antica
(Bologna, 1987), pp. 30315.
Morley, N., Theories, models and concepts in ancient history (London and NewYork, 2004).
Morris, I., Foreword, in M. I. Finley, ed., The ancient economy (Berkeley and Los Angeles, Calif.,
1999),
pp. ixxxxi.
Musti, D., Polibio e limperialismo romano (Naples, 1978).
ANCIENT ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM 15
Economic History Society 2009 Economic History Review (2009)
Nash, D., Imperial expansion under the Roman republic, in M. Rowlands, M.T. Larsen, and K.
Kristiansen,
eds., Centre and periphery in the ancient world (Cambridge and NewYork, 1987), pp. 87103.
Nicolet, Cl., L imprialisme romain, in Cl. Nicolet, ed., Rome et la conqute du monde
mditerranen, 26427
av. J.-C., vol. 2 (Paris, 1978), pp. 883920.
Nicolet, Cl., Linventaire du monde: gographie et politique aux origines de lEmpire romain (Paris,
1988).
North, J. A., The development of Roman imperialism, Journal of Roman Studies, 71 (1981), pp.
19.
Nowell, G. P., Hobsons Imperialism: its historical validity and contemporary relevance, in R. H.
Chilcote, ed.,
The political economy of imperialism. Critical appraisals (NewYork and Oxford, 2000), pp. 85
109.
Olivier, S. H. O., White capital and coloured labour (1906).
Orejas, A., La perception des mines anciennes hier et aujourdhui, in M. Clavel-Lvque and E.
Hermon, eds.,
Espaces intgrs et ressources naturelles dans lEmpire romain (Franche-Comt, 2004), pp. 4958.
Pares, R., The economic factors in the history of the empire, Economic History Review, 2nd ser.,
VII (1937),
pp. 11944.
Passerini, A., Studi di storia ellenistico-romana,VI: I moti politico-sociali della Grecia e i Romani,
Athenaeum,
new ser., 11 (1933), pp. 30935.
Peardon, Th. P., Sir John Seeley: pragmatic historian in a nationalistic age, in E. M. Earle, ed.,
Nationalism and
internationalism. Essays inscribed to C. J. H. Hayes (NewYork, 1950), pp. 285302.
Perelli, L., Il capitalismo nell ultimo secolo della repubblica (Turin, 1978).
Platt, D. C. M., Economic factors in British policy during the new imperialism , Past & Present,
39 (1968),
pp. 12038.
Podes, S., Die Dependenz des hellenistischen Ostens von Rom zur Zeit der
rmischenWeltreichsbildung (Frankfurt a. M.,
1986).
Raaflaub, K. A., Born to be wolves? Origins of Roman imperialism, in R. M. Wallace and E. M.
Harris, eds.,
Transitions to empire. Essays in Greco-Roman history, 360-146 B.C., in honor of E. Badian
(Norman, 1996),
pp. 273314.
Richardson, J. S., Hispaniae. Spain and the development of Roman imperialism, 21882 B.C.
(Cambridge, 1986).
Richardson, J. S., Imperium Romanum: empire and the language of power, Journal of Roman
Studies, 81 (1991),
pp. 19.
Robinson, R. E. and Gallagher, J., Africa and theVictorians.The official mind of imperialism (1961).
Rose, P. W., Theorizing Athenian imperialism and the Athenian state, in Th. M. Falkner, N.
Felson, and
D. Konstan, eds., Contextualizing classics. Ideology, performance, dialogue. Essays in honor of
John J. Peradotto
(Lanham, Md. and Boulder, Colo., 1999), pp. 940.
Rostovtzeff, M. I., The social and economic history of the Roman Empire (Oxford, 2nd edn. 1957).
Rowlands,M., Centre and periphery: a review of a concept, in M. Rowlands,M.T. Larsen, and K.
Kristiansen,
eds., Centre and periphery in the ancient world (Cambridge and NewYork, 1987), pp. 111.
Saller, R., Framing the debate over the growth in the ancient economy, in J.G. Manning and I.
Morris, eds., The
ancient economy (Stanford, Calif., 2005), pp. 22338.
Salvioli, G., Il capitalismo antico. Storia delleconomia romana (Bari, 1985 [1st edn. 1906]).
Scheidel, W. and von Reden, S., eds., The ancient economy (NewYork, 2002).
Schumpeter, J. A., Imperialism and social classes (NewYork, 1951).
Seager, R., Pompey the Great. A political biography (Oxford and Malden, Mass., 2nd edn. 2002).
Seeley, J. R., Lectures and essays (1870).
Seeley, J. R., The expansion of England: two courses of lectures (2nd edn. 1895 [1st edn. 1883]).
Sellire, E., Limprialisme dmocratique (Paris, 1907).
Sherwin-White, A. N., Lucullus, Pompey and the East, Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 9 (2nd
edn. 1994),
pp. 22973.
Speidel, M. A., Geld und Macht. Die Neuordnung des staatlichen Finanzwesens unter Augustus,
in A.
Giovannini, ed., La rvolution romain aprs Ronald Syme. Bilans et perspectives (Geneva, 2000),
pp. 11366.
de Ste Croix, G. E. M., The character of the Athenian Empire, Historia, 3 (1954), pp. 141.
Strachey, J., The end of empire (1959).
Sweezy, P. M., The theory of capitalist development: the principles of marxian political economy
(NewYork, 1942).
Tucker, T. G., A concise etymological dictionary of Latin (Halle, 1931).
Veyne, P., Y a-t-il eu un imprialisme romain?, Mlanges de lcole franaise de Rome, 87
(1975), pp. 793
855.
Wallerstein, I., The capitalist world-economy (Cambridge and NewYork, 1991).
Whittaker, C. R., Imperialism and culture: the Roman initiative, in D. J. Mattingly, ed., Dialogues
in Roman
imperialism.Power, discourse, and discrepant experience in the Roman Empire (Portsmouth, R.I.,
1997), pp. 14364.
Whittaker, C. R., Do theories of the ancient city matter? in T. J. Cornell and K. Lomas, eds., Urban
society in
Roman Italy (NewYork, 2003), pp. 926.
Wigg, A., Confrontation and interaction: Celts, Germans and Romans in the Central German
Highlands, in
J. D. Creighton and R. J. A. Wilson, eds., Roman Germany. Studies in cultural interaction
(Portsmouth, 1999),
pp. 3553.
Williams, P. and Chrisman, L., Colonial discourse and post-colonial theory, in Colonial discourse
and post-colonial
theory. A reader (NewYork, 1994), pp. 120.
16 SVIATOSLAV DMITRIEV
Economic History Society 2009 Economic History Review (2009)
Witcher, R., Globalisation and Roman imperialism. Perspectives on identities in Roman Italy, in
E. Herring and
K. Lomas, eds., The emergence of state identities in Italy in the first millennium B.C. (2000), pp.
21325.
Wolfe, G., History and imperialism: a century of theory, from Marx to postcolonialism, American
Historical
Review, 102 (1997), pp. 388420.
Woolf, G., World-systems analysis and the Roman Empire, Journal of Roman Archaeology, 3
(1990), pp. 4458.
Woolf, G., Imperialism, empire, and the integration of the Roman economy, World Archaeology,
23 (1992),
pp. 28393.
Woolf,G., Inventing empire in ancient Rome, in S. Alcock, T.N. DAltroy, K.D. Morrison, and
C.M. Sinopoli,
eds., Empires. Perspectives from archaeology and history (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 31123.
Woolf, L., Empire and commerce in Africa. A study in economic imperialism (1919).
Woolf, L., Economic imperialism (1920).
Wormell, D., Sir John Seeley and the uses of history (Cambridge, 1980).
Young, R. J. C., Postcolonialism. An historical introduction (Oxford and Malden, Mass., 2001).
ANCIENT ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM 17
Economic History Society 2009 Economic History Review (2009)