J. examines relations between Greeks, Romans and their neighbours over two thousand years. Within his embrace he includes Greeks, Persians, Romans, pre-state or proto-state societies at the margins of empire and the non-Graeco-Roman subjects of the Roman Empire.
The initial chapter ‘Meeting the Barbarians’ provides a historiographical discussion of the word ‘barbarian’ and its use in antiquity and by modern scholarship from the Renaissance to the twenty-first century. J. points out that when used by ancient authors the label was nuanced and depended on context; this is true from one ancient source to another, and even within various works, or a single work, by one author. By contrast, at least before the later twentieth century, modern authors frequently latched onto the statements of ancient authors to define national character, justify racist ideas, for example ‘White Man's Burden’, and to promote imperialism.
After the superb introduction, J. discusses the peoples of Greece, beginning in the Mycenaean world and moving through the collapse of the Late Bronze Age world, Early Archaic Greece, The Graeco-Persian Wars, the ascendancy of Macedon and the Hellenistic Age. J. then turns the focus to Rome, beginning with Pre-Roman Italy, Roman relations with the Italic peoples, Roman reception of Hellenistic influences, how different cultures subject to Roman rule partially assimilated – or not – to Imperial norms, relations along the frontier, and the influx and transformation of the Roman world. J. ends with a brief chapter that returns to a part of the theme introduced at the beginning.
J. demonstrates an impressive breadth of knowledge in the chapters entitled ‘How the Greeks Became Greek’ and ‘Greeks Encounter the World’, his chapters on the Bronze Age and Early Archaic period respectively. Among the topics he explores are recent views on the origins of the Greek language, including the probability that the emergence of the language presumably resulted more from language shift, rather than from large-scale migration. At the other end of the Bronze Age, he rejects the dated conclusion that the collapse of the Mycenaean palace centres was accompanied by a parallel collapse of Mycenaean population levels, a conclusion no longer supported by the ever-growing body of archaeological research.
In places, however, the study seems either a bit pedantic or obvious to someone familiar with the standard canon of ancient Greek or Roman authors. For example, his discussion of the varied interpretations of the ethical character of the Persians found in the pages of Herodotus' Histories, Aeschylus' The Persians or Isocrates' speeches.
To nit-pick, in the chapter on the Hellenistic Kingdoms, J. identifies the Antigonids as the rulers of Macedonia. While this was ultimately the case, he compresses over 40 years of history into a single sentence. Perhaps this compression is justified by the scope of his study, but it obscures a complicated two generations of history. Not including monarchs who ruled for only a couple of years or less, Alexander's half-brother, son, and then Cassander, held the title from 323 to 297. Demetrius, son of Antigonus the One-eyed, was recognised as King in 294, but was ousted in 288. It was only a decade later, after the death of Lysimachus (281) and one of Ptolemy's progeny, Ptolemy Keraunos (279), that Antigonus Gonatas, Demetrius' son, claimed the Macedonian monarchy.
Turning to the Romans, J. quotes the famous passage from Tacitus' biography of his father-in-law, the Agricola, about the Romans making a desert and calling it peace; he also focuses on Tacitus' characterisation of the Germanic peoples as both noble and savage. However, J. fails to point out Tacitus' hostility to those provincial governors not named Agricola who made efforts to find common ground with the Britons by criticising post-Boudican governors for ‘sheathing the sword’. In fairness, J. quotes Tacitus on the theme of the corrupting influence of civilisation (Agricola 21.2). Still, it seems that J. leaves unmined useful material on Tacitus' complicated attitudes towards both Romans and barbarians.
J. correctly cautions readers on the limits of Romanisation, pointing out that a complicated process of partial assimilation occurred, not necessarily as planned policy, while native peoples, from Britain to Egypt, nevertheless remained quite distinct, adopting, for example, some aspects of Graeco-Roman cultures, but not necessarily the same ones. Other influences were imported and had wide but shallow appeal to specific segments of the empire's population: Mithraism's apparent popularity within the officer corps is a case in point.
One of the undercurrents of J.'s discussion of ‘Being Roman’ is that the Roman Peace provided the space for the dissemination of Hellenistic culture to regions of the Empire that had only limited exposure to it prior to the Roman conquest. Despite this reality, a perspective fully endorsed by recent scholars, J. perhaps could have delved deeper into the obvious differences between town and country. Surely, an ancient traveller leaving the urban environment for the rural could not help but notice the limits of Roman influence: the language spoken by a peasant's landlord might have changed over the centuries, and he paid taxes now to one and then to another governing power, but the timeless rhythms of agricultural life, reinforced by seasons and native culture, left the countryside minimally affected by the processes mentioned above.
Scholars have written extensively on the Roman frontiers over the last generation, and J.’s summary of the current state of these studies is done well. J. refers to the instability of the Empire and that restless troops were a contributing cause, pointing out that some cross-frontier campaigns were carried out to provide troops with the opportunity to pillage communities that were not Roman subjects. One important aspect that J. could have explored more fully is the impact of locally-recruited troops into the army. As early as the Year of the Four Emperors soldiers began to recognise themselves as a potent interest group. This realisation became more obvious after the end of the Roman Peace, and ultimately brought the perspective of the frontiers to the centre by men who spoke Latin with barbarous accents.
J. ends with a brief chapter that returns to the theme introduced at the beginning: the hijacking of the label ‘barbarian’ for a variety of political ends over the centuries. Moreover, he shows that, until quite recently, the lingering undercurrent in classical studies reflected the idea that there was something uniquely superior about Greek culture: J., for example, indirectly refers to John Stuart Mill's famous quote that the battle of Marathon was more important to English history than the battle of Hastings (p. 259). J. takes issue with this perspective and argues persuasively that authors from later civilisations constructed this conceit privileging Graeco-Roman art, literature, philosophy, law and governing institutions over those of rival civilisations, while simultaneously using this construct to underpin both racism and imperialism.
