Romanisation
What is Romanisation? Romanisation was invented by Mommsen in the late 19th century to study the effect of becoming Roman in the different provinces. In the late 19th century it was overlain by concepts of imperialism, studying the effect of a superior nation on the barbarians it conquered.
In the 20th century, imperialism grew out of fashion, and interest arose in how the Romans affected the peoples it conquered. Increasingly we referred to Roman Britain and le Gallo-Romain, but the explanation of how the Romans affected Britain or France grew weaker, and in the 21st century, studies of Romanisation have lost their way.
Yet in the 21st century, the gap between the rich nations of the West and the poorer nations of the Third World has grown even wider. Large numbers of people from the Third World seek to migrate to the west with huge inconvenience on both sides: it is a sort of colonisation in reverse, and if we can understand better the process of Romanisation, perhaps we can better understand the causes behind the migrations that are happening today.
Part 2: Money
I would like to believe that the title of this book points the way forward in re-thinking the concept of Romanisation: Money, and Freedom. Money plays an important role in our discussions. In three of the four societies we discuss here, in Spain, Gaul and Britain, money has been in use for a century or more, though how far there was a market economy is less certain. But in Germany, money had never been used, and Germany proved impossible to conquer. I would therefore argue that Romanisation will rarely work in a society where money is totally absent.
But how do you introduce money to a primitive society? The answer is to do so gently and to disturb the existing society as little as possible. At both Colchester and St Albans, the two earliest Roman towns in Britain, very rich burials have been found dating to the very beginning of the Roman period and it would seem that in the first generation, the tribal chiefs were kept on, and were rewarded for their loyalty to the Romans by receiving very rich burials. This only lasted for the first generation, after which the chiefs were replaced by the Romanised town councils.
The most important priority is surely to get the market economy working. In London one can see this happening by looking at the pottery industry. In Highgate Woods to the north of London a small scale pottery was established to supply the growing city, while
Londoners were able to lay their hands on money, they spent it on imported luxuries. Where the British went so wrong in the late 20th century was encouraging the rulers to nationalise productive industry, which they promptly misused. Keep the market and politicians separate.
Part 3: Freedom and Taxation
One of the main benefits of monetisation is the benefit of taxation. Here I am being a little provocative, for taxation is seen to be a terrible imposition, but one should see taxation as replacing what is known as corvée labour. In a tribal economy, it is accepted that you are expected to labour in the lord’s fields and to serve in his army. Indeed, in a feudal society, every level of society is under an obligation to his superior. In a market economy this is all put aside, and a caste system is replaced by a more flexible class system. At the one end were the Roman citizens whose numbers were always being extended. In the middle there were the peregrini, and at the other end there were the slaves, though even slaves were allowed to earn money and many gained their freedom and became freedmen with an obligation to their previous masters. Indeed, when Caracalla extended citizenship to all free men throughout the empire, he did so to bring them into the taxation that was only paid by Roman citizens
Part 4: Geography
Monetisation also leads to a new way of living, and can be seen in the layout of the town and countryside. With the Greeks this meant that the towns were based around the marketplace – very different to the palace centred towns of the Minoans.
Romano British towns are in fact distinctly odd: most of them acquired walls in the 2nd century, but it is difficult to see why. The countryside was at peace and defences were not needed. Furthermore there are no signs of barracks for soldiers in the towns, there are no castles, and there are no grand houses for the rulers of the towns to live. Instead in the centre of towns was the forum or market place, and the grand buildings in Roman British towns were the baths where the citizens enjoyed themselves. And for their entertainment there were the amphitheatres where wild beasts were slaughtered – it was left to the genius of the British to invent football.
Then in the countryside, the dominating feature was the Roman villa. This consisted of a winged corridor building for the owner, complete with baths and under floor heating for the main rooms. Then to one side there was a large aisled barn, often with its own baths, which presumably provided accommodation for the farm workers. The whole formed an efficient agricultural machine that operated by itself, often very profitably, paying its taxes. and taking part in the life and activities of the nearby town. But nevertheless enjoying a real feeling of freedom.
Part 5: Conclusion
When we look at the world today, one of the big problems is that of migration, where people from backward societies flock to the allure of the West. Yet the West has lost confidence in itself, and paints a picture of itself which denies all the achievements which others , in practice, seek to obtain. Yet what is the lure that brings so many migrants and their problems to the West? A big element must surely be the appeal that Augustus made to the peoples of Rome, of peace and prosperity. But behind this, Romanisation surely has the appeal of a market economy where you are given choice as to how to live, and what you achieve by your ability, your hard work, and your luck. And behind this, is that most intangible of all attractions, that of freedom.