Rome was not Exceptional: Interstate Anarchy of the Classical Mediterranean

[stormbringer951]

Okay, this whole diplomatic thing is actually much more interesting than Romes exceptionalism or lack thereof. Where the game theoretical constraints that made diplomacy impossible culture in nature, or a fairly straightforward result of the technological capabilities and basic structure of society? Was this sort of 'how not to diplomacy' common across other parts of the world ("Empires wax and wane; states cleave asunder and coalesce"?) ?

Click to shrink...

Everyone is vulnerable. Every threat has to be taken seriously. Your state's honour and military reputation is a measure of real security in such a system, and is worth going to war to protect (everyone believing this did not help with the systemic problems). There was no general concept of a greater good, as you see in the Latin Christian kingdoms of the Medieval period.

There were no embassies or diplomatic infrastructure so no real way to communicate concerns and interests privately and effectively before a crisis happened. An embassy might be arranged but between deliberation and travel time the aggrieved parties had time to stew. Often, envoys had to publicly present their demands to a people's assembly or similar, after which point walking them back became difficult and might become a humiliation to be avoided for the envoy's own state. Also there was no diplomatic corps, so it was quite possible your chosen diplomat might turn out to have been a hotheaded idiot.

EDIT: @Cetashwayo is faster on the draw.

 

[Mortis Nuntius]

Honorable suicide was practically a cultural universal of the era. Generals who died in battle, in both defeat and victory, were praised heavily. The "Come back with your shield or on it" is very illustrative of the whole thing. The idea of shame was extremely big, too, and the idea of non-military success for most leaders as a primary focus of their reign was pretty unheard of.

Here is an example of how the ancients felt about non-military pursuits:



One of the most famous and prolific playwrights in classical Greece- and not a word about anything except his military valor.

Click to shrink...

Its odd how the anarchy we associate with the medevial era is actually better placed in antiquity. I mean the Emperor's infant son being cut to pieces by a rebellious general, a general getting shot full of arrows after his palace was burned with him inside by political rivals accusing him of sacrilege. An army betrayed wholesale with an emperor and half the court to the Sassinarids, various disasters, mass suicides and very personalised power.

In comparison medevial warfare was mostly taking ransomable hostages, splitting hairs over feudal arrangements and adjusting the border with pillaging and financial constraints thrown in with disease to tire everyone out until the nonsense is settled. Hell wars being ended via actual bribes listed as such in treaties... Very structured and civilised if you aren't a peasant.

 

[Cetashwayo]

Everyone is vulnerable. Every threat has to be taken seriously. Your state's honour and military reputation is a measure of real security in such an anarchic system, and is worth going to war to protect. There was no general concept of the greater good, as you see in the Latin Christian kingdoms of the Medieval period.

There were no embassies or diplomatic infrastructure so no real way to communicate concerns and interests effectively before a crisis happened. An embassy might be arranged but between deliberation and travel time the aggrieved parties had time to stew. Often, envoys had to publicly present their demands to a people's assembly or similar, after which point walking them back became difficult and might become a humiliation to be avoided for the envoy's own state. Also there was no diplomatic corps, so it was quite possible your chosen diplomat might turn out to have been a hotheaded idiot.

Click to shrink...

And when diplomacy was initiated, every diplomatic interaction became a july crisis because it was presented in the form of an ultimatum that would be accepted, or if not, would lead to war. Envoys were never selected, really, for diplomatic skill- they were selected for their ability to overawe the enemy. The roman ambassadors that were sent to Spain to negotiate with Hannibal were the most austere and prestigious and powerful old aristocrats- Rome sent them in an attempt to overawe the Carthaginians into accepting their terms. There were no Talleyrands, and never would have been room for them. Negotiation was just an extension of a nation's power, but in the form of coercion rather than outright force.

Its odd how the anarchy we associate with the medevial era is actually better placed in antiquity. I mean the Emperor's infant sun being murdered by a rebellious general, a general getting shot full of arrows after his palace was burned with him inside. An army betrayed wholesale with an emperor and half the court to the Sassinarids, various disasters, mass suicides and very personalised power.

In comparison medevial warfare was mostly taking ransomable hostages, splitting hairs over feudal arrangements and adjusting the border with pillaging and financial constraints thrown in with disease to tire everyone out until the nonsense is settled. Hell wars being ended via actual bribes listed as such in treaties... Very structured and civilised if you aren't a peasant.

Click to shrink...

It's notable, and very important, that in the medieval era outright sacking of cities and selling them into slavery was extremely uncommon. Obviously part of this was that slavery was not a thing, but it was also because you often wanted to preserve as much of the city's resources as possible to expand limited resources. They were centers of commerce as well as population and were fellow Christians.

When they end up taking non-Christian cities...well.

 

[stratigo]

And when diplomacy was initiated, every diplomatic interaction became a july crisis because it was presented in the form of an ultimatum that would be accepted, or if not, would lead to war. Envoys were never selected, really, for diplomatic skill- they were selected for their ability to overawe the enemy. The roman ambassadors that were sent to Spain to negotiate with Hannibal were the most austere and prestigious and powerful old aristocrats- Rome sent them in an attempt to overawe the Carthaginians into accepting their terms. There were no Talleyrands, and never would have been room for them. Negotiation was just an extension of a nation's force, but in the form of coercion rather than outright force.



It's notable, and very important, that in the medieval era outright sacking of cities and selling them into slavery was extremely uncommon. Obviously part of this was that slavery was not a thing, but it was also because you often wanted to preserve as much of the city's resources as possible to expand limited resources. They were centers of commerce as well as population and were fellow Christians.

When they end up taking non-Christian cities...well.

Click to shrink...

i would add that the Romans had many allies. And treated them extremely paternalistically. The arrangements of alliances and diplomatic in the period was an extension of culture and honor, in where you had the dominant state that could demand pretty much whatever from the subservient state. The Greeks did the same before Rome was sacked the first time.

Also, I remember a story in the crusades where crusaders cannibalized an entire town. So yeah.

 

[Mortis Nuntius]

And when diplomacy was initiated, every diplomatic interaction became a july crisis because it was presented in the form of an ultimatum that would be accepted, or if not, would lead to war. Envoys were never selected, really, for diplomatic skill- they were selected for their ability to overawe the enemy. The roman ambassadors that were sent to Spain to negotiate with Hannibal were the most austere and prestigious and powerful old aristocrats- Rome sent them in an attempt to overawe the Carthaginians into accepting their terms. There were no Talleyrands, and never would have been room for them. Negotiation was just an extension of a nation's power, but in the form of coercion rather than outright force.



It's notable, and very important, that in the medieval era outright sacking of cities and selling them into slavery was extremely uncommon. Obviously part of this was that slavery was not a thing, but it was also because you often wanted to preserve as much of the city's resources as possible to expand limited resources. They were centers of commerce as well as population and were fellow Christians.

When they end up taking non-Christian cities...well.

Click to shrink...

How would alliances work? I know most Roman allies were more clients officially or not and usually found themselves annexed but I believe some chiefs at least would be courted with great gifts and promises of protection or even asked to fight along side Roman armies against greater local threats. Ceaser got in hot water once for attacking a tribe that had provided military assistance years previously and were counted as friends of Rome so there must have been some mechanisms of friendship at least for states and tribes outside Italy.

 

[Cetashwayo]

How would alliances work? I know most Roman allies were more clients officially or not and usually found themselves annexed but I believe some chiefs at least would be courted with great gifts and promises of protection or even asked to fight along side Roman armies against greater local threats. Ceaser got in hot water once for attacking a tribe that had provided military assistance years previously and were counted as friends of Rome so there must have been some mechanisms of friendship at least for states and tribes outside Italy.

Click to shrink...

The Romans were actually well known for extremely lenient and friendly alliance terms compared to many other powers. In 88 BCE after the social war when Rome offered citizenship to all its allies in Italy, the Neapolitans actually almost opposed it because they felt that their alliance had better terms than full citizenship, which would have them paying taxes. Rome came into conflict with Tarentum precisely because she was able to both better fight the hill tribes that had bedeviled the Greeks of the region and to offer better terms- their hegemony was much lighter than Tarentum, and they offered all sorts of partial benefits that other states could not because Roman citizenship had a unique partial option. The Romans were absolutely alone in the ancient world besides maybe the Persians for offering full rights to people who did not even share the same language- the Greeks could barely provide common citizenship between cities in the Achaean League.

 

[Mortis Nuntius]

The Romans were actually well known for extremely lenient and friendly alliance terms compared to many other powers. In 88 BCE after the social war when Rome offered citizenship to all its allies in Italy, the Neapolitans actually almost opposed it because they felt that their alliance had better terms than full citizenship, which would have them paying taxes. Rome came into conflict with Tarentum precisely because she was able to both better fight the hill tribes that had bedeviled the Greeks of the region and to offer better terms- their hegemony was much lighter than Tarentum, and they offered all sorts of partial benefits that other states could not because Roman citizenship had a unique partial option. The Romans were absolutely alone in the ancient world besides maybe the Persians for offering full rights to people who did not even share the same language- the Greeks could barely provide common citizenship between cities in the Achaean League.

Click to shrink...

Sorry for not being clear but I was asking how it actually worked diplomatically. I mean if concessions were a no go and demands the only option how could any alliances and pacts be formed?

 

[Cetashwayo]

Sorry for not being clear but I was asking how it actually worked diplomatically. I mean if concessions were a no go and demands the only option how could any alliances and pacts be formed?

Click to shrink...

Compellance diplomacy was used for conflicts. When it came to alliances there was no confrontation and less concession involved. Howver it's very notable that in most cases Roman alliances were formed by terrified city states who needed help against some power or another. They would usually concede all right to negotiate- it is a credit to the Romans that the terms were often fairly slight.

 

[stratigo]

How would alliances work? I know most Roman allies were more clients officially or not and usually found themselves annexed but I believe some chiefs at least would be courted with great gifts and promises of protection or even asked to fight along side Roman armies against greater local threats. Ceaser got in hot water once for attacking a tribe that had provided military assistance years previously and were counted as friends of Rome so there must have been some mechanisms of friendship at least for states and tribes outside Italy.

Click to shrink...

That's the thing, the gallic world and the hellano roman world functioned in culturally diverse ways. The shit the Romans and Greeks (and carthage and the other polities in italy) would do to each other was not replicated amongst the gauls, though they certainly fought plenty. But guallish history is also a lot more obfuscated and often comes to us through the lens of romans and greeks.

Also the Romans treated clients in an extension of the patronage system. Eg, Rome demands and you obey. Which is why the Greek city states that originally asked for Rome to defeat Macedon turned around and begged macedon to free them from rome.

There's also an important distinction in that a conquered people aren't made romans. Italy wasn't Roman. The clients and allies in italy bowed to roman will with no recourse (except revolt, which they did.). A roman citizen was Roman, and was born of romans. This only changed in the late republic, and only after a massive revolt amongst the roman allies in italy where Marius pretty much made all italians romans (and those that weren't were killed, mostly the cities that openly revolted verse the ones that didn't).

 

[stratigo]

Compellance diplomacy was used for conflicts. When it came to alliances there was no confrontation and less concession involved. Howver it's very notable that in most cases Roman alliances were formed by terrified city states who needed help against some power or another. They would usually concede all right to negotiate- it is a credit to the Romans that the terms were often fairly slight.

Click to shrink...

I'd disagree, the roman understanding of the world would give them the right to treat their allies like a patron treats his clients. Which can be rather poor. One of the reasons the Romans had such a deep manpower pool was that they ruthlessly exploited their allies in Italy for men and material.

 

[Cetashwayo]

There's also an important distinction in that a conquered people aren't made romans. Italy wasn't Roman. The clients and allies in italy bowed to roman will with no recourse (except revolt, which they did.). A roman citizen was Roman, and was born of romans. This only changed in the late republic, and only after a massive revolt amongst the roman allies in italy where Marius pretty much made all italians romans (and those that weren't were killed, mostly the cities that openly revolted verse the ones that didn't).

Click to shrink...

Recent research has shown this isn't totally the case. There have been many cases of mass grantings of citizenship to Non-Latins. One of Rome's early consuls was from a Sabine tribe that migrated to Latium and was granted citizenship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appius_Claudius_Sabinus_Inregillensis

There was also the case of Capuan nobles who were all granted citizenship. Full citizenship. It's true that it was more exclusive than it would grow to be, but in comparison with their rivals it was utterly mad in its inclusivity.

I'd disagree, the roman understanding of the world would give them the right to treat their allies like a patron treats his clients. Which can be rather poor. One of the reasons the Romans had such a deep manpower pool was that they ruthlessly exploited their allies in Italy for men and material.

Click to shrink...

I honestly think that this was a later development of the later 2nd century BCE, TBH. Earlier, revolts by allies that aren't coerced ones (Like Tarentum) were fairly rare. Obviously groups like the Samnites and such constantly revolted, but their "alliance" was never consensual.

 

[stratigo]

Recent research has shown this isn't totally the case. There have been many cases of mass grantings of citizenship to Non-Latins. One of Rome's early consuls was from a Sabine tribe that migrated to Latium and was granted citizenship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appius_Claudius_Sabinus_Inregillensis

There was also the case of Capuan nobles who were all granted citizenship. Full citizenship. It's true that it was more exclusive than it would grow to be, but in comparison with their rivals it was utterly mad in its inclusivity.



I honestly think that this was a later development of the later 2nd century BCE, TBH. Earlier, revolts by allies that aren't coerced ones (Like Tarentum) were fairly rare. Obviously groups like the Samnites and such constantly revolted, but their "alliance" was never consensual.

Click to shrink...

I think it may just be that the romans needed the men more in the 2nd century BCE because the intricate social system set up to provide the mass levies the romans relied on was collapsing.

 

[Hykal94]

It's notable, and very important, that in the medieval era outright sacking of cities and selling them into slavery was extremely uncommon. Obviously part of this was that slavery was not a thing, but it was also because you often wanted to preserve as much of the city's resources as possible to expand limited resources. They were centers of commerce as well as population and were fellow Christians.

When they end up taking non-Christian cities...well.

Click to shrink...

Could you go more into detail about this? I was of the belief that sacking, raping, pillaging and enslaving was the modus operandi of all armies, regardless of religion or kingdom. Didn't every single Muslim, Christian, Chinese, or whoever army did this for spoils?

I'm also wondering about soldiers' wages. Were wages, in lack of a better term, common? Or was payment expected in spoils, regardless of wage?

 

[horngeek]

Could you go more into detail about this? I was of the belief that sacking, raping, pillaging and enslaving was the modus operandi of all armies, regardless of religion or kingdom. Didn't every single Muslim, Christian, Chinese, or whoever army did this for spoils?

I'm also wondering about soldiers' wages. Were wages, in lack of a better term, common? Or was payment expected in spoils, regardless of wage?

Click to shrink...

IIRC, it was much reduced in wars between Christian nations because, well, if you did so to fellow Christians that was a good way to get the Pope pissed off at you and excommunicated. The major sacking of a Christian city by Christians I can think of was Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade, which did result in all involved being excommunicated IIRC.

Against Heretics and Infidels, there was, uh, less restraint.

 

[Terra Novan]

When they end up taking non-Christian cities...well.

Click to shrink...

That said-if what i read from various sources are correct-once the initial phase of brutality and butchery passed, some form of implicit agreement seems to have reached between Christians and non-Christians.

 

[CrackedCosmonaut]

I enjoyed the essay.

What were the pressures and motivation for invading Britain? It wasn't easy. I don't think there was much in the way of mineral, slave, or agricultural wealth.

 

[Cetashwayo]

Could you go more into detail about this? I was of the belief that sacking, raping, pillaging and enslaving was the modus operandi of all armies, regardless of religion or kingdom. Didn't every single Muslim, Christian, Chinese, or whoever army did this for spoils?

I'm also wondering about soldiers' wages. Were wages, in lack of a better term, common? Or was payment expected in spoils, regardless of wage?

Click to shrink...

Sacking and pillaging is the modus operandi of nearly all pre-modern armies. However, sacking cities is an entirely different matter. Looting the countryside is often a requirement of the trade because there is no independent supply line and your armies need food. Sacking cities was purely a profit-based measure and was far more brutal than devastating the countryside, because cities were the nodes of commerce and population. In the ancient world some regions had urbanization levels of up to 50%- wiping out a city was the end of that polity. It was done.

By contrast in medieval Europe, unlike almost any other time in history, cities were not the main power base of lords who stuck to rural castles. Which completely changed the dynamic and turned cities from a center of administration and a population center to independent centers of commerce. Why would you sack a city that you relied on to sell your grain through and held a famous bishop of the region and who you have a claim on?

This is not to say cities were not sacked, but they were far more restrained than in the ancient world. At Selinous the Carthaginians ordered every man, woman, and child be put to the sword.

IIRC, it was much reduced in wars between Christian nations because, well, if you did so to fellow Christians that was a good way to get the Pope pissed off at you and excommunicated. The major sacking of a Christian city by Christians I can think of was Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade, which did result in all involved being excommunicated IIRC.

Against Heretics and Infidels, there was, uh, less restraint.

Click to shrink...

Indeed. In the ancient world the sacking of Constantinople would have shocked the world- but not because it was unlawful, but because a major power's capital had been sacked.

That said-if what i read from various sources are correct-once the initial phase of brutality and butchery passed, some form of implicit agreement seems to have reached between Christians and non-Christians.

Click to shrink...

It really depended on time and place. There were a lot of violent taking of cities from the Muslims during the reconquista. It depended on the leader, but uniquely there wasn't a great obsession over taking large amounts of people- because the lack of slavery made as much frankly unprofitable.

I enjoyed the essay.

What were the pressures and motivation for invading Britain? It wasn't easy. I don't think there was much in the way of mineral, slave, or agricultural wealth.

Click to shrink...

Tin and silver were both major resources that Britain had in abundance. Now, when push came to shove Britain became far more expensive than it was worth, but such is empire. Built upon aggrandizement of resources, they will constantly expand until they hit some significant block or there are no resources to be had.

 

[AKuz]

I enjoyed the essay.

What were the pressures and motivation for invading Britain? It wasn't easy. I don't think there was much in the way of mineral, slave, or agricultural wealth.

Click to shrink...

IIRC correctly it was also a chance for Claudius to pad his resume, so he could go another few days without someone forming a plot to kill his ass because he was perceived as a lame-o

 

[Fell]

I can't hear you over the hobnailed sandal descending repeatedly on my ancestors faces.

 

[Mortis Nuntius]

Tin and silver were both major resources that Britain had in abundance. Now, when push came to shove Britain became far more expensive than it was worth, but such is empire. Built upon aggrandizement of resources, they will constantly expand until they hit some significant block or there are no resources to be had.

Click to shrink...

Fertile lands and tens of thosuands of slaves from captured enemies.

The Emperor made a name for himself as a conqueror to secure his position. His generals got rewarded with honours and probably financial rewards and a leg up the political ladder and individual legionaries were given something to do and a source of profit instead of being bored out of their skulls and possibly more open to being bribed or won over by the Emperor's enemies. Then there are all those merchants and land agents who got a brand new market and virgin territory to make a fortune opening up.

Imperial conquests don't need to be profitable to be worth the price. They just have to please the right groups.

 

[Memphet'ran]

So basically international relations in this period worked on jingoistic ITG logic?

 

[CrackedCosmonaut]

So basically international relations in this period worked on jingoistic ITG logic?

Click to shrink...

ITG may refer to:

Integrated Technology Group (ITG), Jordanian company
Investment Technology Group
Iraqi Transitional Government, a former (2005–2006) ruling institution of Iraq
In The Game Trading Cards, a manufacturer of hockey trading cards
In The Groove (video game), a music video game
Institute of Tourist Guiding
Irish Traction Group
ITG digital terrain model generation system, an automated system for generating digital elevation models
IT Governance
Interconnector Turkey-Greece, a natural gas pipeline
International Trumpet Guild
Inferior temporal gyrus, a region of the brain
ITG Brands LLC, the U.S. subsidiary of Imperial Tobacco Group

 

[Cetashwayo]

So basically international relations in this period worked on jingoistic ITG logic?

Click to shrink...

Machismo diplomacy might be a better word for it.

 

[CrackedCosmonaut]

Tin and silver were both major resources that Britain had in abundance. Now, when push came to shove Britain became far more expensive than it was worth, but such is empire. Built upon aggrandizement of resources, they will constantly expand until they hit some significant block or there are no resources to be had.

Click to shrink...

I knew this.
But this is what I don't quite understand.
By this point, Rome was well into the iron age. Tin and copper were still valuable, but not the bronze age wonder material it was before.
If anything, bronze was worth more the Scandinavians than the Romans.
I can imagine it being worth sending merchants, but legions? Silly Romans. Brits is for Picts.

 

[Bullmoose]

I knew this.
But this is what I don't quite understand.
By this point, Rome was well into the iron age. Tin and copper were still valuable, but not the bronze age wonder material it was before.
If anything, bronze was worth more the Scandinavians than the Romans.
I can imagine it being worth sending merchants, but legions? Silly Romans. Brits is for Picts.

Click to shrink...

As was said before, Claudius was in a rather precarious position , having been unwilling pushed into power by the Praetorians after the assassination of Caligula. He was in desperate need to add something to his resume to shore up his position, and Britain was a prime target. In terms economic value, the invasion might be questionable(though Britain would actually become fairly wealthy way down the line). In terms of propaganda value, it was very valuable. Claudius could point and say to everyone "see, I finished something even Caesar could not accomplish. I conquered Britain."