Our ‘Brexit’ from the Roman Empire

There are optimistic lessons to be drawn from Britain's ancient past.

Lee Rotherham

Share
Topics Brexit Culture

On 25 July 2006, the press officers for Britain’s Labour government were hard at work. There was an NHS breastfeeding drive to sell; a new law targeting men who took their shirts off in town centres; and, ironically, an imminent Tony Blair speech about the need for less of a nanny state.

What was lacking was mention of the significance of the date – the 1,700th anniversary of the acclamation of Constantine the Great as co-emperor of the Roman Empire. He was made emperor in what is now York. Despite the global significance of that event, its commemoration was left to a county museum.

Perhaps we might ascribe such indifference to a leftist preference for focusing on the history of the masses. Public broadcasters were certainly going through a phase of pushing ‘people’s history’ around that time, absurdly trying to erase VIP decision-makers from the narrative. Historical focus serves contemporary needs. Communist iconography, for instance, found the crucifixion of the revolted slaves under Spartacus a powerful counter-image to the sacrifice and message of Golgotha, the site of Jesus’s crucifixion.

Not everyone misses contemporary relevance in ancient cultures and events. In The Dream of Rome, noted columnist and current UK prime minister Boris Johnson introduced the nation to the delights of garum, the Marmite of its day. In Asa Bennett’s zingy new book, Romanifesto, the lessons learned are extended to British politics.

The significance of the Roman parallel was certainly noted by the founders of the EU itself.

Italy has made two main contributions to the Brussels project. The first was when Mussolini deposited politician and political theorist Altiero Spinelli in internal exile on the island of Ventotene, with enough ink, paper and thumb-twiddling time to draft a Federalist Manifesto for postwar Europe in 1941. It was to earn Spinelli recognition as one of the EU’s founding fathers.

The second was in providing a suitable venue, and retro-imperial lustre, for the signing of the founding Treaty of Rome. Tellingly, the signatories did not meet in the Doge’s Palace in mercantile Venice. They eschewed the options of multicultural Palermo, and avoided any driver of the Renaissance that lies on the Padane Plain. Nor, for that matter, did they elect to pick some bland trade-union hall near a Turin automotive factory. Instead, the founders of the new Europe went full-on Roman purple by picking the Capitoline Hill.

Cynics might wonder if the scenery of the Palazzo dei Conservatatori remains impressed on the EU’s psyche. The launch venue, nestled on the site of the Temple of Jupiter Maximus, is perhaps still lending its austere divine certainties to the European Commission. It sat near the Tarpeian Rock, inspiring the European Court of Justice to the most robust of judgements. The delegates themselves perched under the statued gaze of two infallible popes, surrounded by tapestries relating incidents of bad relations with neighbouring states, including the Sabines, an Italic people from the central Apennine Mountains.

Should we then embrace the metaphors – both obvious and hidden – that Rome brings to the Brexit debate? The soil is fertile but misunderstood. In particular, there was not just one ‘Roman Brexit’, in around 410 CE, but several – and arguably, none of them intended as Brexits at all. On many occasions, parts of the Empire slipped away from central control, to be seized by Roman generals and commanders who took the opportunity, supported by their troops, to declare themselves regional emperors, but who never then managed to expand their mini-empires beyond what they had seized. In Britain’s instance, this happened under Clodius Albinus, a Roman commander who was proclaimed emperor by the Roman legions in Britain and Hispania in 193 CE; Carausius, a commander who declared himself Emperor of the North in 286 CE; his successor Allectus (who established the now familiar precedent of a chancellor knifing his leader); or Constantine III, a Roman general who declared himself Western Roman Emperor of Britannia in 407 CE, but under whose militarily stretched reign Britain finally slipped from direct Imperial control.

What is telling about these cases is how an immense, intense, and no doubt to many frightening, political rupture did not create a social and cultural rift with the continent. Even in the case of Constantine III, with the traditional date of 410 CE assigned to the end of Roman Britain, a measure of cultural and trading links remained that might have led to a restored unity had the continental power been in a position to supply it. Britons subsequently emigrated in two waves to Brittany. The historian Jordanes also mentions a Riothamus who lent major military support to the last fragments of the continental Empire around 470 CE. Saints from Britain and Gaul visited each other’s territories, to found monastic houses and fix ecclesiastic problems, but also to provide counsel and support. The power drain did not mean an absolute and immediate vacuum.

Why are these examples significant? Simply because in each of the above cases there really was a ‘cliff edge’ scenario in play. Political breaks were extreme, involving warfare and dynastic destruction. Regimes were in direct conflict, adding to existing major economic strain and external pressures.

Yet despite this, at repeated points of strife and rupture over the centuries the inhabitants of these Romanised islands kept their sense of place in the world, and did not sink into ready barbarism, isolationism and decay. It suggests with our own political realignment that we can afford to be rather more optimistic about our own prospects as an outward-looking state today.

Dr Lee Rotherham is author of A Fate Worse Than Debt: A Beginner’s Guide to Britain’s National Debt from Boadicea to Jeremy Corbyn and The Discerning Barbarian’s Guidebook to Roman Britain.

Romanifesto: Modern Lessons from Classical Politics, by Asa Bennett, is published by Biteback Publishing. (Buy this book from Amazon(UK).)

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

juliusB

18th March 2020 at 7:25 am

Magna Carta didn’t fail but in its first incarnation it was mainly a revolt of the upper classes for their own benefit. The Peasants Revolt failed when the peasants were double crossed. However the Black Death helped the remaining peasants to be more valued.

juliusB

18th March 2020 at 7:27 am

That was a reply to Stephen J

Paul Winfield

17th March 2020 at 9:32 pm

What is it with this “CE” dating? What is wrong with the original BC / AD that we were all taught as we grew up? Isn’t CE a EU standards marking???

juliusB

18th March 2020 at 7:16 am

The BC/AD way of dating is too Christian to be inclusive for modern taste. BCE/CE is considered more acceptable even though it refers to the Christian Era. Presumably non Christian might object to years being referred to as “The Year of Our Lord”. ( in Latin no less!)

Neil McCaughan

20th March 2020 at 8:26 pm

A system preferred by fat ignorant females in further education colleges. Since no historical book written by a woman is worth reading, the system can safely be ignored.

Stephen J

17th March 2020 at 9:53 am

I wonder what it is about us freedom loving Brits that ensures that every few years we engage in some sort of revolt?

I am thinking of Magna Carta, Henry VIII, Ollie Cromwell, and many more that for reasons of brevity (and a need to look them up 😉 )….

On all of these occasions, the rebellion was quashed pretty swiftly, and we returned to “normal” within a short time.

juliusB

18th March 2020 at 7:21 am

Oliver Cromwell and his Commonwealth was not exactly a failure. It lasted until he died and arranged for his son to inherit (sounds familiar). Apart from his son being useless, presumably the people decided if a son was going to inherit it might as well be the son of the murdered king rather than the son of the murderer.

a watson

18th March 2020 at 10:54 am

Yes, and many of the objectives of those who rebelled in the 17thC reappeared in 1945 (instituted democratically by a citizen’s army). It seems that those egalitarian and democratic objectives are just taking longer to squash.

Dominic Straiton

16th March 2020 at 8:55 pm

Rome would take the sons of conquered chieftains to Rome.Corrupt them and send them home as vassals. They then created a multi racial monoculture to serve the Roman state. The whole thing fell apart because of the bread dole or the welfare state as we would call it today. A ravenous beast that nothing can slake.

Alan Healy

16th March 2020 at 9:57 pm

Not centuries of civil war and barbarian invasions , then ?

NEIL DATSON

16th March 2020 at 5:37 pm

Ah, but wasn’t it the centre telling the periphery to hop it? Surely Honorius wrote to the citizens of Britain, telling them to look to their own defence? Whereas this time the British are casting themselves into the outer darkness.

While I have little respect for the EU’s phalanx of terribly important presidents I doubt that any are quite as simple minded as Honorius himself; google ‘The Favourites of the Emperor Honorius’ by Waterhouse for more information.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.