COST A36, Tributary Empires Compared
Report of the meeting of Working Group 1, Copenhagen 18-19 June.
Participants
Management Committee:
Denmark:
Peter Bang
Vincent Gabrielsen
United Kingdom:
C. A. Bayly (17-20 June)
Turkey:
Halil Berktay (17-19 June)
The Netherlands:
Jeroen Duindam (17-19 June)
Finland:
Björn Forsen (17 June – 19 June)
Austria:
Ebba Koch (17-19 June)
Poland:
Dariusz Kolodziejczyk (17-19 June)
Norway:
Christian Meyer (17-19 June)
Italy:
Giovanni Salmeri (16-19 June)
France:
Claire Sotinel (17-19 June )
Extra Working Group Members:
Denmark:
Johny Christensen
Uffe Østergård
Italy:
Fabrizio de Dono (17 June- 19 June)
United Kingdom:
Amira K. Bennison (17-20 June)
Dominic Lieven (17-19 June)
External experts
USA:
Muzaffar Alam (17-20 June)
Andre Wink (17-20 June)
R. Bin Wong (17-20 June).
External discussants
Michael Bregnsbo (Odense)
Niels Brimnes (Aarhus)
Anne Marie Carstens (Copenhagen)
Harald Gustafsson (Lund)
Leif Littrup (Copenhagen)
Noel Parker (Copenhagen)
Historical Sociology and Universal Empire
The purpose of the meeting was to identify questions and problems which could shape and frame discussions of the coming work of the network and in particular of working group 1, responsible for synthesising activities.
The meeting had 3 sessions. The first established a set of themes which, in turn, were dealt with separately by the next two following sessions. Bang opened by posing the question of the character of imperial power and set out to establish a broad historical framework within which one could justify comparing the Romans, Ottomans and Mughals. The empires were situated within a series of world historical phases of empire formation; and a set of shared characteristics were identified in the conception of statehood, ultimately deriving from a common descent in the Middle East, and in the method of government. The paper stressed the need to generate an understanding of the composite and heterogeneous character of imperial government. From the character of imperial power, Bayly then when on to examine the 19th century political discourses, of liberalism, religion, progress, race and nationalism which have fundamentally shaped modern scholarship on the empires both in terms of the questions posed and the answers given. Addressing these preconceptions, head on, will be a necessary step in moving the research agenda beyond the old established framework. Having thus mapped out a common framework in terms of a historical sociology of power and a set of shared ideological issues, the session then moved on to addressing the key question of conquest and empire. Imperial conquerors generally constitute a minority. This is particularly obvious in the case of nomads analysed by Andre Wink. To achieve permanence, the imperial conquering group must to some extent become absorbed by the conquered society. When this happens, the empire enters its post-nomadic phase. The process of absorption and appropriation of imperial governmental power by the conquered society, however, is not restricted to nomads, it is a key theme in Roman history as well and warrants closer examination. The same goes for the other side of this process, the inclusion of provincials in the imperial political culture. This formed the theme of Muzaffar Alam’s contribution. His paper examined the cultural processes whereby the Muslim Mughals succeeded in co-opting élite segments of the majority Hindu population in the imperial edifice. But as the Ottoman colleagues pointed out, this was not something unique to Indian Islam. The Ottoman sultans were faced with a very large Christian population which had to be incorporated in the imperial system. And it is a key theme in Roman history how provincials were gradually admitted to the highest circles of the imperial aristocracy. The twin-processes of including provincial élites in the imperial political system and the absorption of imperial government by provincial societies is a key-issue in understanding the character of great agrarian empires.
The second section of the meeting aimed at transcending the ideological framework informing our understanding of traditional empires. This was done by re-examining the notion of universal imperial rule. Johny Christensen set out by analysing Roman ideas of universal empire within the framework of stoic philosophy. Amira Bennison provided an analysis of Ibn Khladun’s theories of kingship and universal rule, pointing out that the Khilafat was not of primary importance in his conception of state-hood. Other notions were more prominent, even in the idea of empire and universal rule. Fabrizio de Dono then provided an analysis of how old Greco-Roman ideas of universal rule were transformed in the age of colonial empires and reshaped by the idea of the nation. To conclude the day and this session Ebba Koch demonstrated how Mughal ideas of universal rule subscribed to ideas of a “golden age” which in various versions were current in both the Persian, Greco-Roman, Muslim and European traditions of rule. They constituted a shared heritage of state-craft and royal representations which cut across traditional divisions such as Muslim and Christian, West and East. This section identified the various universalist aspirations of these empires as a common point of contact which must be understood as a way of constructing culture before the influence of nationalism and which could usefully be compared.
The second day of the meeting was dedicated to the third and final section now bringing the discussions back from ideology to historical sociology. Halil Berktay bridged the two issues by showing how nationalist ambitions within Turkish historiography had cast our understanding of the Ottoman empire in a much too centralised mould. As Bang also stressed in his talk, it was necessary to devise a more decentralised and less unitary conception of imperial state-hood. This line of thought was taken further by the contribution of Giovanni Salmeri who opposed the well-established notion in Roman history that the imposition of empire meant the abandonment of local politics in the Greek world. On the contrary, he stressed that political institutions remained of great importance for the function of local societies in the Eastern Mediterranean. The processes whereby the instruments of empire merged with provincial communities must be a central concern of the network. Closely related to this question is the problem of imperial durability. This question was raised by R. Bin Wong in his talk on the various constellations of the Chinese empire. He identified the Mongols as a key factor in re-uniting and cementing the unity of the Chinese realm during the Middle Ages. He also raised the question of which comparisons were most useful in looking at ancient empire, whether an analytical approach, combining empires from different ages, would be most rewarding or a more strictly synchronic approach. Dominic Lieven, in his contribution, spoke in favour of a broad analytical approach. The important thing to keep in mind, as was also stressed in several interventions, was to be precise about historical circumstances. At any rate, there is no definitive answer to which comparisons are to be preferred. It depends on the questions and is an issue which the network constantly should keep in mind.
Peter Bang
University of Copenhagen
