The Roman empire is often romanticized and seen as a massive civilizer and unifier of the barbaric peoples of Europe. Rome may not be much different from the modern imperialistic empires, especially when it comes to personal beliefs, justifications and domination. Looking at Osterhammel, a imperialist scholar, and his definitions of colonialism, we will see how the Romans can have a sense of superiority, a divine right to rule over barbaric peoples, and can be just as exploitive and dominating as modern empires, specifically in Gaul.
Osterhammel defines colonialism in a long and specific definition. He splits it up into many parts, the first of which being a “relationship of domination between an indigenous majority and a minority of invaders (Osterhammel …show more content…
A modern example of this is when Great Britain moved to colonize south Africa, the Zulu people fought hard against the British oppression. The next part is that the decisions are made in the interests of the metropole. (Osterhammel 1997:17). The colonized are often extorted, and their lives heavily affected and even changed, by this colonization. There was a lot of extortion of labor from all over Africa. A last point made by Osterhammel is that the colonizer has a sense of superiority over the colonized, and a right or mandate by which their rule is justified, therefore they often reject the culture of the colonized. (Osterhammel 1997: 16).
In addition to their being an extortion of the people, Osterhammel’s definition includes a sense of superiority of the colonizer over the colonized. The English and the French saw themselves as inheritors of civilization and thus they were superior to their colonized citizens. This appears to be the case when it comes to the Gauls and the Romans. When looking at Cicero, as he defends Marcus Fonteius against the Gallic people, who accuse him of extortion and misgovernment, he speaks about the Gallic character. Cicero