Comparing Kipling's Imperium To Imperialism

Mattingly, in ‘Imperium to Imperialism’, undertakes the task of evaluating the Roman Empire in a modern perspective, with focus on the Roman brutality in undertaking its conquests and then its role as occupier, drawing parallels with 19th century empires such as the French or the British Empires, and the American ‘aircraft carrier empire’ of the late 20th-21st century. He does this by illustrating that the contemporary empires looked to Rome for inspiration, which they did, as evidenced by the fact that British provincial governors tended to have classical degrees from Oxford. After that, Mattingly describes the three schools of thought regarding Roman expansionism: metrocentric, pericentric, and systemic impulses, with metrocentric being expansion …show more content…
However, Mattingly’s only point of reference for this claim is Kipling’s infamous “Take up The White Man’s Burden”, a poem which is irrelevant to Roman aspirations, and does nothing to support his interpretation of Roman imperialism. Its purpose within the journal is to present the Roman Empire as an empire which did not need to colonise, nor to subjugate the peoples of the occupied lands; conversely, that the Roman Empire was fuelled by vanity and a thirst for resources, as the European empires of the 19th century were. As well as the modern colonial terminology being misappropriated, Mattingly’s lack of documentary evidence or even contemporary analysis shows that instead of authoritative analysis, Mattingly is engaging in polemical discussion of Roman imperialism to debase historians such as Gibbon, who portrayed Rome in a positive light. He mentions their “sinister” intentions, and accuses earlier writing on Roman imperialism to be “imperialist discourse”, thereby invalidating 19th century and early 20th century writing on Roman