Project description
When power corrupts the powerful
Why did Roman governance grow increasingly arbitrary and brutal? Supported by the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions programme, the Imperial Affliction project suggests that ruling an empire may have damaged the rulers themselves. Drawing on modern imperial comparisons, the project argues that Rome’s reliance on ad hoc, forceful tactics (born from limited manpower) gradually reshaped those in power. Emperors, governors, and commanders absorbed the very violence they enacted, normalising despotic rule. This challenges long-held assumptions by linking Rome’s reactive administration with its rising cruelty. The project findings will shed light on how imperial systems warp governance when rulers treat populations as inferiors. It also echoes EU concerns about participatory democracy.
Objective
This project explores the impact of ruling the Roman Empire on the rulers themselves and asks how this fed back into the practice of rule, as an explanation for well-recognized, but poorly explained, trends in Roman administrative practice towards greater arbitrariness, violence, and despotism. Inspired by comparative evidence and scholarship on modern imperial systems, it hypothesizes that the tactics by which Rome compensated for its limited manpower, such as ad-hoc decision-making and the empowerment to deal summarily with provincials, incrementally changed the practice of those figures—emperors, governors, officials, military commanders—who enacted them. This brings together two poorly-theorized observations of Roman imperialism—its reactiveness, and its increasing arbitrariness—in a compelling explanatory thesis with comparative payoffs. It has relevance for the study of all imperial systems in which the ruling class consider themselves superior to the ruled, re-conceptualizing arbitrary and violent practice as a pathogen contracted through the experience of ruling subject communities. It ties into EU objectives concerning citizen participation in institutions of the state, since it argues that when a state views its citizens as subjects, rather than partners, a tendency towards arbitrariness is inevitably involved.
Fields of science (EuroSciVoc)
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
This project has not yet been classified with EuroSciVoc.
Be the first one to suggest relevant scientific fields and help us improve our classification service
You need to log in or register to use this function
Keywords
Project’s keywords as indicated by the project coordinator. Not to be confused with the EuroSciVoc taxonomy (Fields of science)
Project’s keywords as indicated by the project coordinator. Not to be confused with the EuroSciVoc taxonomy (Fields of science)
Programme(s)
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
-
HORIZON.1.2 - Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA)
MAIN PROGRAMME
See all projects funded under this programme
Topic(s)
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Funding Scheme
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
HORIZON-TMA-MSCA-PF-EF - HORIZON TMA MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships - European Fellowships
See all projects funded under this funding scheme
Call for proposal
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
(opens in new window) HORIZON-MSCA-2024-PF-01
See all projects funded under this callCoordinator
Net EU financial contribution. The sum of money that the participant receives, deducted by the EU contribution to its linked third party. It considers the distribution of the EU financial contribution between direct beneficiaries of the project and other types of participants, like third-party participants.
80539 Planegg
Germany
The total costs incurred by this organisation to participate in the project, including direct and indirect costs. This amount is a subset of the overall project budget.