Roman Occupation

If we want to compare ancient cultures to our culture today the first step is to see exactly how similar these cultures are.  Afterall, if they hold no parallels then then this endeavor can prove to be very difficult. The first step will be to examine how the ancients viewed occupying and controlling foreign lands using both primary sources from the time and modern discussion on the issue.  Then in the end, we can use this information to compare the cultures to ours today and to examine how similar they are.

The first telling insight into how Rome felt about occupying and conquering foreign lands can be seen in the creation of the triumph, a type of ancient parade where the newly defeated people would be led through Rome so all the citizens could see the spoils of war.  Mary Beard’s The Roman Triumh paints a vivid picture of exactly what a triumph would entail.  She details just how violent these triumphs could be, with the captives being put to death at the end. She goes on to say how this was an exercise by the Roman empire to show its clout. It is difficult to argue with that point; the descriptions of the triumphs by Pliny are nothing short of amazing in terms of the spoils. The main point of Beard’s writing is to show the importance of the triumph to the Roman leaders.

The next is an examination of live burials performed under Roman Imperialism.  This article interprets human sacrifice of Gauls and Greeks in Rome as showing how little we know of the psychological effects of continuous warfare on the Romans. The author argues for the connection between warfare and religion that does not support the idea of defensive Roman imperialism. That is that Rome had to go to war to protect her own interests.

The final source is based around the ideas of the Roman military and what values they held. This is important to examine because these were the people often in charge of occupying the Roman held lands. Dr. Hanson’s book The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern, examines the similarities of the Roman military to that of ours today. What he finds is quite striking. He claims that the strength of the these militaries comes from the egalitarian nature from which they are founded. He also looks at how Rome and America today use their military to control the foreign people and lands.

We can also examine how Roman rulers controlled conqeured lands by examining ancient texts. The first of these is Caeser’s Gallic Wars, a personal account on how he counquered the land of Gaul. The book outlines basic princilples of how Rome conquered and ruled. If the subjects under Roman law would pay taxes and support the Imperial cult then for the most part they would not be bothered. It was only in the case when Rome was acquiring new land or controlling an uprising was this not true. Which begs the question what was the reason for the uprising in the first place.

One such instance is characterized by Josephus’ account of the Jewish War. Josephus was himself a Jew who believed in the compatibility of the Jewish custom and Roman rule. (wish I had more time to write more)

This image shows how pervasive violence and the idea of conquering was to the common Roman. The picture is from a Roman general's sarcophagus and it depicts a cavalry battle between the Romans and barbarians. The average Roman was no stranger to violence. Most Romans I would argue were quite alright with conquering and controlling foreign lands.

The question now is can we compare ancient Roman imperialism to our culture today and just how relevant is it. The idea of American imperialism does not come as surprise to some. If we examine the principles of imperialism but disregard the means, then the two cultures are strikingly similar. The United States would most likely not conquer a nation for the outright control of that area. But if we examine the spread of American culture throughout the world, striking similarities can be drawn between the impacts of both the Roman and American cultures. In this way, we ancient Rome and our modern nation are very similar.

Midterm Post

The issue I am looking at is how greed and conquest relates to ancient Roman imperialism. I am particularly interested in what fueled the Roman’s desire for conquest. Were the Romans acting defensively, aggressively, or was conquest primarily fueled by greed. These three concepts of defensive imperialism, aggressive imperialism, imperialism fueled by greed, along with the role economy and politics will serve as the main parameters of this discussion.

The first of my sources Fear, Greed, and Glory discusses the notions of defensive imperialism and aggressive imperialism. Before 1979, the widely accepted theory pertaining to Roman imperialism was that it served a primarily defensive purpose. By constantly going to war with neighboring states and those that presented a threat, Rome was able to keep their enemies weak. However, the author William Harris shattered this theory in 1979 with his book War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327-70 B.C. which presents the theory of aggressive imperialism. Harris argued that, “the most important of the factors which brought about the wars was the Romans’ desire for the glory and economic benefits which successful warfare conferred.” While Harris’ categorization of Roman imperialism as “aggressive imperialism” is more intuitive than the previously held notion of “defensive imperialism”, the assumption of constant warfare and expansion is largely inaccurate. Factors such as politics complicated the process of war and how Roman imperialism was not as simple as following an aggressive or defensive strategy. Some of these politics become apparent when looking at the assembly's authority in declaring war or lack thereof. The ancient Roman historian Livy gives one account of the assembly raising objections to declaring war (during the 2nd Macedonian War). The overview of the event includes the tribune Q. Baebius convincing the people to reject the proposal for war, but the consul then convincing the assembly to reverse their decision soon after.

        "This province fell to P. Sulpicius, and he gave notice that he should propose to the Assembly that "owing to the lawless actions and armed attacks committed against the allies of Rome, it is the will and order of the Roman people that war be proclaimed against Philip, King of Macedonia, and against his people, the Macedonians." The other consul, Aurelius, received Italy for his province. Then the praetors balloted for their respective commands. C. Sergius Plancus drew the City; Q. Fulvius Gillo, Sicily; Q. Minucius Rufus, Bruttium, and L. Furius, Gaul. The proposed declaration of war against Macedonia was almost unanimously rejected at the first meeting of the Assembly. The length and exhausting demands of the late war had made men weary of fighting and they shrank from incurring further toils and dangers. One of the tribunes of the plebs, Q. Baebius, too, had adopted the old plan of abusing the patricians for perpetually sowing the seeds of fresh wars to prevent the plebeians from ever enjoying any rest. The patricians were extremely angry and the tribune was bitterly attacked in the senate, each of the senators in turn urging the consul to call another meeting of the Assembly to consider the proposal afresh and at the same time to rebuke the people for their want of spirit and show them what loss and disgrace would be entailed by the postponement of that war." (Livius, T. (n.d.). Chapter 6. In T. Livius, The History of Rome, Book 31.)

My second source Imperialism, Empire and the Integration of the Roman Economy explains the role the Roman economy had in conquest. First it’s worth describing who had the most influence on the Roman economy and conquest. The Roman Empire was largely imperialistic in its nature and the surpluses extracted from Roman citizens and provinces under Roman rule were reinvested by the elites of society on infrastructure and other means of maintaining their power. Much of the Roman  Empire's resources and energy was spent on securing revenue streams and supplies of labor and agricultural produce from the regions under Roman rule. Due to the hierarchy of power in ancient Rome, the profits extracted were distributed to groups of Roman elites which help them to consolidate their power. Taking a closer look at the economy it is important to examine both local trade and trade reaching throughout the empire and how they relate to imperialism at the time. The two main arguments describing the Roman economy and empire are that of a locally and regionally based economy and a completely integrated economy in which politics were important. Support for the notion of an integrated Roman economy can found in evidence of wide spread trade throughout the empire. By researching remains of trade such as the amphorae (a ceramic jar commonly used by Romans to store goods like wine and olive oil), we can understand the extent of Roman trade and the rate of trade throughout different periods of the Roman Empire.

(Ancient Roman amphorae)

An interesting discovery which sheds light on the relationship between economy and conquest is the distribution of Italian wine which began gradually in the 3rd century BC, reached its peak during the 3rd quarter of the last century BC and then declined rapidly afterwards. This pattern of wine distribution matches that the rhythm of Roman imperial expansion which supports the notion that the Roman economy and therefore the prosperity of the Roman elite was fueled by Roman imperialism.

For contemporary culture, I juxtaposed ancient Roman imperialism and modern American imperialism. I was interested in which aspects of conquest were different in the ancient world and which aspects continue to this day. In examining modern imperialism, the source I looked at was I Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins along with the corresponding documentary. At the beginning of the documentary there is an interesting quote from one of this country’s founders, John Adams. Adams pointed out that, “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword, the other is by debt.” This statement captures the essence of imperialism in ancient Rome which took the visible form of a sword and bloodshed and the modern form of imperialism which is much more subtle. Roman imperialism was highly publicized with large events celebrating a conquest known as triumphs. Conquering other regions was glorified and was turned into a spectacle. Modern imperialism has taken on a subtle form which uses economic tools such as debt to obtain and consolidate power throughout the modern world. In his book, Perkins describes how we use debt to conquer nations and force them into acting in our best interest. The underlying mechanics of the strategy work by us first identifying a nation of interest (with desired resources for instance), then a loan to the nation (typically from the World Bank etc. and these are very large loans), the large loans will end up going to an American corporation to develop infrastructure etc., the nation clearly cannot pay off the loan and is then forced to accept terms such as access/rights to resources we desire. This is one example of how conquest takes place in the modern world, with other tools such as fluctuating monetary values also being applied.

Imperialism in the ancient Roman Empire was utilized for a variety of reasons including defensive reasons, aggressive reasons, and those solely due to greed. Today however, greed plays a much larger role in imperialism. The true reason behind modern conquest is financial not for “the glory of Rome”.  This is the largest difference I determined.

                                                                                                                   

Midterm- Genocide

The issue that I have been researching for this class is genocide.  Genocide as defined by dictionary.com is “the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.”  In simpler terms it means the wiping a way of life off of the face of the planet through the killing and destruction of its people and property.   

            The first secondary source that I read was War and Imperialism in Republican Rome by Harris.  In this work he describes the struggle between Rome and Carthage the main genocide that I have been studying in the ancient world.  In this he tell how this was one powerful state looking to decimate another state.  He tells how this Carthage did not really bring this war upon themselves but instead had it thrust onto them by Rome.  He goes into length how Rome would find any excuse they could muster to get this war started.  They blamed in on a skirmish they had with Roman allies in North Africa and the fact that they were experienced a very prosperous time in their history.  This infuriated the Romans because they though themselves to be far superior and they therefore attacked and eventually destroyed Carthage.

            The next source I read The Worlds Bloodies History: Massacre, Genocide, and the Scars Left on Civilization By Joseph Cumming it goes into even greater detail of this genocide.  He first gives another reason for the attack on Carthage.  He gives proof of the child sacrifices that the Carthaginians had been performing.  This was against the Roman way of life and therefore was another reason they wanted to destroy Carthage.   He also tells of how the Carthaginian people did all they could to try to avoid this war from coming upon them.  They gave up 300 of their most noble youth and sent them to Rome.  They also gave every weapon that they had to the Romans in hope that they would not attack.  However, this did not stop the Romans and when they did attack the Carthaginians had to scramble to make new weapons.

The third secondary source I read on this topic was Carthage Must Be Destroyed: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Civilization by Richard Miles.  In this literature he describes how before the Roman destruction, Carthage was experiencing one of the most prosperous times in their history.  One reason for this may have been the fact that they no longer had a standing army that they had to finance and keep, since part of the treaty at the end of the Second Punic War had made it so that they could not have an army.  During this time they had used their location on the Mediterranean Sea to continue their high levels of commerce.  So even though they had to pay taxes to Rome, another part of the treaty, they were still able to maintain a high level of success in their other facets of life.

One of the ancient authors that I looked at was Thucydides in his book History of the Peloponnesian War.  In the passage that I focused on was of a different genocide then that of Carthage.  It was of the Athenian genocide of the island nation of Melos.  Here is the passage that I was able to find on the internet.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm

This is called the Melian Dialogue.  In this passage it is the Athenian envoy telling the leader of Melos that they need to either surrender to Athens and become part of its empire or it will be destroyed.  In the end the Melian leaders decide that it is better to die free then to live as part of the Athenian state.  After they decide this they are then destroyed by Athens and the remaining people sold into slavery.  This shows how this was another genocide committed in the ancient world.  It was interesting in this text about how the leaders of Melos were given a choice and they basically chose genocide, which the Athenians then brought down upon them.

The second ancient source I read was Appian and his description of the Carthaginian genocide.  Here is the online version of his writings.

http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_punic_00.html

  His description is one of the ones used by the previous author I wrote of about describing the conflict between Rome and Carthage.  His text really gets into the heart of the conflict.  It describes in detail the Roman advance into the Carthaginian city and their complete destruction of its people.  There is one passage that you can read here http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_punic_26.html#%A7130 that describes the brutality of the genocide that was taking place.  It tells how the Romans were just running through the street slaughtering every man, woman, and child in their path.  Then it describes how they level all the building, many of them with people still inside and how in the rubble there were limbs sticking out all over the place.  His description of the genocide is very in depth and thorough.

Carthage Before and After:

These two images are the before and after shots of Carthage.  The first one is an artist animation of what Carthage would have looked like right before it was destroyed by Rome.  The second one is a modern day picture of what is left of Carthage.  As one can see it is ruins.  This is a living picture of genocide and what it actually looks like.

            Genocide is an issue that was not left in antiquity.  There are still many examples of genocide in modern times.  One such example is that of the genocide in Rwanda.  In this conflict two rival groups both based in Rwanda were struggling for power.  The group with a majority in the country was the Hutu people and they set out to destroy to minority group, the Tutsi in 1994.  In the end they were pretty successful in their genocide.  The death toll estimate reached 800,000 people slaughtered. 

            Now this genocide is different than the two I discussed earlier, Carthage and Melos.  In genocides in antiquity were done by empires looking to expand and they saw these states as getting in their way, and therefore destroyed them.  In the case of Rwanda these were two groups in a third world country that despised each other.  This was not one people trying to take over the world and the other group was standing in the way. 

            For a moment let us compare ancient Rome to the modern United States.  Were the USA to try and take over another nation and genocide its people, they would be stopped almost immediately by other nation and by the UN.  However, in the time of the Romans this infrastructure was not yet set up and since Rome was the most powerful state in the world, there were no other nations to keep them in check.  This is the main difference between genocide in modern times and antiquity.  Not since the time of Hitler has a modern genocide been similar to that of the ancient Romans or Athenians.

Midterm (Jason)

            The ancient Greek and Roman empires, originating over 2000 years ago, seem so far in the past that it is difficult to believe that these ancient cultures have anything to do with our modern culture. To assume this would be a big mistake. Many of the same ethical and moral dilemmas that faced the ancient world are still salient in today’s culture. Issues of sexuality, violence, and the ethics of medicine are all still just as much in contention today as they were 2000 years ago.

            In our blog on the ethics of ancient imperialism I am focusing on the just war theory. Although the just war theory dates back at least to Cicero around 100 BC, it is still extremely relevant to today’s society. So far in my research I have found countless examples of the ancient just war theories being explicitly referred to in modern day justifications for war. Just war theory is essentially the criteria that are thought to make a war just and the right thing to do.

            There are many ancient texts that refer to the just war theory. In a previous blog I gave several direct quotations from Cicero’s De Oficiis. This was my first step in getting a good foundation for how the ancients thought about the idea of a just war. I then began reading a book by Craig M. White called IRAQ The Moral Reckoning. This book was very helpful in connecting the ancient ethics of war to modern just war theory. White’s book began with an overview of the many ancient philosophers that discussed just war theory. He compares how Aristotle’s Politics, Augustine’s City of God, Cicero’s Commonwealth and De Oficiis, and Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica defined the criteria for a just war. The synopsis of all of their arguments is in a previous blog entry of mine. What I found interesting about looking at the primary texts for all of these ancient just war theories were their inherent similarities.

            To first look at some primary text, here is an excerpt from Cicero’s Commonwealth: “Then, too, in the case of a state in its external relations, the rights of war must be strictly observed. For since there are two ways of settling a dispute: first, by discussion; second, by physical force; and since the former is characteristic of man, the latter of the brute, we must resort to force only in case we may not avail ourselves of discussion. The only excuse, therefore, for going to war is that we may live in peace unharmed; and when the victory is won, we should spare those who have not been blood-thirsty and barbarous in their warfare”. This quote is one of the first times that a person wrote about just war theory. It provides an example of the criteria that ancients thought were necessary to go to war. According to this passage it must be a last resort after discussion, and must be for the greater cause of achieving peace in the future. There are many excerpts from primary sources in my previous blogs that outline in greater deal how these ancient texts defined just war.

            Nicholas Fotion’s book, War and Ethics: a new just war theory, nicely outlines the major points of what most of western culture considers a just war. A just war must have a just cause, war must be used as a measure of last resort, war must be fought to the right proportion, the war must have likelihood of success, it must have the right intentions, and a legitimate authority must sanction it. It is absolutely remarkable that all of the ancient authors that I mentioned above essentially agreed with this basic outline. What is even more stunning is that this basic outline has not changed since ancient times. The theories of just war developed by Cicero 2000 years ago are still relevant today and current world leaders still cite these ancient texts and authors when selling the idea of going to war to the public.

            Fotion’s book gives a great example of how the just war theory has been applied in more modern wars. He uses World War II as an example and more specifically Germany’s justifications for invading Poland. As Fotion points out, most times a nation goes to war they have ways of justifying their acts of aggression. In the minds of the leaders, they have a just cause in going to war. One such just cause may be to restore lands seized from them in previous wars. Another just cause may be that its own people living abroad are being oppressed. Even another reason may be that the nation that is the victim of the attack is not really a victim because there have been other incidents in the past that hinted at aggression. In 1939, Germany used all of these justifications in invading Poland. Germany was very concerned with portraying that its leaders had a just cause in initiating a war. It is obvious in retrospect that Germany both fabricated these claims and exaggerated others, but nonetheless German leaders tried very hard to convey to the public that their attack was justified.

            White’s book deals with more recent applications to the just war theory, namely how it was applied in the United States’ decision to go to war with Iraq. Craig White outlines in detail how the US applied all the aspects of the ancient just war theory when selling the Iraq war to the public. It began with the United States, a sovereign authority, declaring the war. In all of the ancient texts on just war theory a key requirement is a sovereign authority declaring the war. One example of this is from Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica: “Judgment is lawful insofar as it is an act of justice. Now it follows from what has been stated above…that three conditions are requisite for a judgment to be an act of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; secondly, that it comes from one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according to the right ruling of prudence. If any one of these be lacking, the judgment will be faulty and unlawful.” The United States also gave three just causes for the war. First the US declared that it was attacking an armed and reckless regime that was harboring terrorists. The second just cause was that it was attacking Iraq as a preemptive measure. President Bush said, “Before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed”. In this just cause the US also said that it had the right to attack due to United Nations resolutions, also drawing on a sovereign authority giving the US a right to wage war. Also part of this just cause was that the US promised a “New Iraq” that would in the end be better for the Iraqi people. The US also argued that the war they were waging was of the right proportion, it is being used as a last resort, and that it had a reasonable chance of success. It is astounding that all of the ways that the US tried to justify its waging war on Iraq comes directly from the ancient theories of a just war.

            Yet another modern reference to the ancient just war theory came in President Obama’s acceptance speech after receiving a Nobel peace prize. In his speech he specifically mentions the just war theory, as I discussed in a previous blog. One line from his speech made me think about how just war theory is applied in the modern world that may be different than in the ancient world since up until this point I have discussed how remarkably similar ancient and modern just war theory is. Obama mentions that living in this modern time with increasingly dangerous weapons of war we need to strive for peace more than ever. This statement by Obama made me further research the idea of perhaps a “New Just War Theory”. John D. Jones and Marc F. Griesback have a book called Just War Theory In The Nuclear Age. This book brings up many interesting ideas about how there perhaps needs to be a new just war theory. The ethics of war in present day society must take into account the possibility of nuclear war. Is dropping nuclear bombs on a country ever just? Perhaps in ancient times war was more common because it was not as lethal as it is today. The Romans fought hand-to-hand combat; they did not have weapons of mass destruction to wipe out entire cities within seconds. The issue of fight a “proportional war” is much different today than in the ancient world because we now possess the power to destroy the earth many times over with nuclear weapons.

            I have provided to video clips below that directly tie into applying ancient just war theory in modern ethical dilemmas. Both clips are of American intellectual Noam Chomsky. In these clips he is giving a speech in 2003 about the United States decision to go to war with Iraq. In the first clip he talks about the idea of the war with Iraq being a “preemptive war” thereby giving it a just cause. This modern application of the just war theory dates back to antiquity. Chomsky is saying that the war with Iraq is a preemptive war, thereby making it seem that the US is justified in war because it is for future defense. In the second clip Chomsky talks specifically about the just reasons in going to war with Iraq. It is very interesting to note the parallels between the ancient just war theory and how it is still being applied to our modern theory of war. 

War and History

This ventures outside of the realm of Roman occupation but I found this video to very intriguing. The discussion covers Dr. Hanson's book "The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern".  Dr. Hanson is a classicist and military historian and in this talk examines how the American way of war is distinctive as compared to nations in the past.

Dr. Hanson starts off with the idea that war is inseparable from the human condition, a sort of intrinsic condition present in all people.  One idea he holds is that Americans lack a basic understanding of military issues saying that it comes from a sense of optimism and that with enough effort we can change the nature of man. But this idea has been present through most of Western civilization. The idea was always to relieve world tensions through different law and protocols. One of the most interesting quotes is, "Victory goes to those not who make mistakes, but those who make the fewest mistakes and press on and learn from their lapses." I have to agree with this idea. When viewing war as a whole you have to expect losses; it would be ignorant not to.  Even if you do not agree with the reasons of a war, this is certainly a way to win a war.

He also relates the modern American military to other ancient Western civilizations. The key similarity, he feels, is the sense of democracy.  That the military of these civilizations is not subject to authoritarian rule.  He says it reflects a society in which people participate. One example he uses is a testimony of a Spartan hoplite stopping his unit from drifting to the right. Its this flow of ideas through the military ranks that he argues strengthens the military overall.

The most apparent idea that Dr. Hanson focuses on is learning from past military history. In this way he makes a direct connection to the past. We can learn what will work and what will not. By using the ideas of war through history, we can gain important insight into how exactly war should be waged. This starts to venture into the realm of what constitutes a just war and how a war should be fought which is a path I will not begin to go down. Overall, this is great discussion.  And while I may not agree with all of the statements, I do believe this makes interesting connections to the history of war and how it applies to us as Americans today.

Ancient Genocide a collection of sources

In reading Harris’ thoughts on the 3^rd Punic War, he made it clear that this war was not really instigated by the Carthaginians but instead had been planned by Rome years before.  He reads through many of the original texts which point to Rome just wanting to destroy Carthage because they were scared that they would become too powerful.  At the time Carthage was paying huge taxes to Rome from the treaty that ended the 2^nd Punic War and had been very obedient.  The Romans found one excuse in a small military transaction that Carthage had had with a neighboring King Massinissa which was against the treaty mentioned above.  This was one excuse they could use to destroy Carthage.  However, it seems clear that Rome did not want to compete with Carthage’s trading port or have to possibly compete with them militarily as they grew in population.  So in 149 BCE they went to war and eventually destroyed Carthage and took the inhabitants into slavery.

                                   Map of Roman Empire

Appian in his account of the 3^rd Punic War paints a similar picture to that of Harris just more in depth.  He really goes to show that Carthage did nothing to really deserve being destroyed.  They had even in negotiations given up 100 of their best infants but also all of their arms to the Romans.  They did everything in their power to try and convince the Romans to take pity on them and not come into their city.  They sent many ambassadors to try to persuade the Romans that they should not attack Carthage.  However, the Romans were not willing to hear any of this and with that attacked a Carthaginian city that was truly overmatched.

Roman ships maneuvering out of port: (1) a merchant ship, (2) a trireme, (3) a liburna

Not only had the Carthaginians just given up all of their arms to the Romans but they had also just fought a war in which 50,000 soldiers had been killed.  This was in the war versus Massinissa which was the excuse the Romans used to show that Carthage was gaining military strength and might be a threat.  So when Rome finally attacked Carthage they were a beaten down city who had very few weapons and not a full army.  However, the people of Carthage held of the Romans for three years before the genocide was brought down on their people.

In Thucydides account of the dialogue between Athens and Melos he tells of the Athenian delegation giving the Melians the options of either becoming a colonized nation or being destroyed by their army. 

Thucydides

The Melians refuse to give up the freedom of their people and in discussion tell the Athenians that they think the Gods and the Spartans are on their side.  They feel that they cannot just surrender over their island which they had ruled for 700 year without at least putting up a good fight.  However, in the end their civilization was destroyed and the remaining inhabitants became slaves to the Athenians.    

Map of Athenian Empire with the Isle of Melos located toward the South Eastern part of the map

These two genocides have similarities but also some differences.  The main similarity is that in both cases a much stronger nation was attacking a much weaker nation.  In the genocide of Melos it was a small island nation against a burgeoning empire while in the case of Carthage it was a falling empire who had given up their weapons supply to the enemy against the strongest empire in the world at that time.  So in both cases a much strong force was attacking these nations.  The main difference is that the people of Melos brought the war to themselves.  In Thucydides Melian Dialogue he shows that Melos was not going to give up its freedom without and fight and because of this the much more powerful Athenian empire crushed them and took the rest of their people into slavery.  The slavery part is actually another similarity as survivors of both wars (men, women, and children) were captured as slaves.

Modern American Imperialism and Conquest

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword, The other is by debt," (John Adams). During the Roman Empire, conquest took place by sword making it easy to determine which nations had been conquered and which had not. The act of conquering a nation was simpler during these times; if Rome wished to "acquire" a region which in turn defied Rome's wishes, Rome likely went to war in order to conquer the desired region. Aside from politics which did play a role in the process of declaring war, the act of conquest itself was a glorified public display of the Roman Empire's power.

Today, conquest takes on a more machiavellian nature, primarily in the form of debt. Many believe that in the current day America is not an imperialistic nation, the evidence however points to the contrary. America is in control of a modern day global empire, one which conducts itself more on the basis of pure economics and leverage of debt than the use of "sword". In high school I read a book called Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins who describes in depth the imperialistic strategy of our nation in the modern world along with his personal experience carrying out our country's missions of conquest. In the book and the four parts of the corresponding documentary attached below, Perkins describes how we use debt to conquer nations and force them into acting in our best interest. The underlying mechanics of the strategy work by us first identifying a nation of interest (with desired resources for instance), then a loan to the nation (typically from the World Bank etc. and these are very large loans), the large loans will end up going to an american corporation to develop infrastructure etc., the nation clearly cannot pay off the loan and is then forced to accept terms such as access/rights to resources we desire.

The first four clips below go into detail about the birth of this form of conquest along with the different methods of obtaining/maintaining power. The last clip is from the film, The International, which is about this concept of debt as a tool of power and even (economic) enslavement.

Ancient Just War Theory in Modern Times

Although the just war theory from Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, and Saint Thomas Aquinas derive from antiquity, their theories are still being used today. When President Obama won the Nobel Peace prize in 2009 he directly referenced the just war theory from antiquity.

Like ancient theories of just war, President Obama recognizes the connection between war and peace and our efforts to replace one with the other. President Obama says that wars appeared with the first man and it is a natural part of the human experience. He also believes that there are certain criteria that constitute a just war and just reasons to go to war. His conditions for a just war are very similar to those of ancient theorists: "if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence".

President Obama believes that the modern context for a just war has changed for the explicit reason that we are living in a nuclear age where complete destruction of mankind is well within reach. He believes that it is for this reason that now, more than ever, we should avoid wars because the consequences could be so costly. President Obama appears to try to move away from the idea of a just war for peace and rather an ideal of pacifism. President Obama quotes Martin Luther King Jr.: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely created new and more complicated ones."President Obama then goes on to say that he is "a living testimony to the moral force of non-violence."

For President Obama war is a necessary part of leading the United States and that is why it is important to engage is just wars.

Genocide of Carthage vs. Genocide of Rwanda

Carthage is considered to be the first genocide during the 3rd Punic War in 146 BC between Carthage and Rome.  The genocide of Rwanda in 1994 is one of the most recent genocides and occurred between the two ethnic groups of Rwanda.

Can there be similarities found between these two besides the destruction of a people?

At first it seems as if these two scenarios are very different.  Firstly Carthage was fighting a war against Rome which ended in their genocide.  In Rwanda however the Tutsi people were not fighting the Hutu people.  They were just an ethnic minority in the country and blamed for many of the problems that the ethnic majority was having.  So in one sense Carthage was more to blame in their genocide because they were actively battling the people who in the end killed them.  The people of Rwanda just happened to be born into a minority and for that they were murdered.  So in this sense the genocides are very different because one was the fruits of war and the other was murdering a minority group.

                                          Rwandans slaughtered in genocide

A second factor that make these genocides different is that in Carthage the Romans took the survivors of the genocide as Roman slaves.  However, the people of Rwanda just wanted a complete destruction of this race.  They had been using some Tutsi people as slaves before the genocide but during the genocide they just wanted to wipe the ethnic group off the face of the earth.  So this shows that similar to my first point the Carthage genocide was a result of waring nations and the Rwandan genocide was for control of the nation.

                                            Destruction of Carthage

This makes it seem as if these are very different events.  However, there is one obvious link between the two, and that is the destruction of a culture.  Both the Romans and Rwandans were trying to destroy a rival culture and both succeeded in doing so.  Carthage was wiped off the face of the map after the 3rd Punic war and most Tutsis were killed once the genocide was complete.  This shows basically how these were both very intense genocides even if they were for different reasons and done differently.

On idea about the ethics of both of these genocides is different.  In Rwanda in the current time frame this is a genocide in a third world country that has a bad leadership culture.  While Rome on the other hand was the major empire at the time and was very well run.  This gives a very good look into the ethics of the ancients.  It shows that the majority people were the ones doing the genocide.  To look at this in modern times would be like the USA committing genocide on another culture.  This would not be allowed in current times.  The people of America would not allow this to happen and would create a huge uproar.  Today genocide is done in smaller scales in third world countries where in the ancient times it was the major powers doing the genocide.

                        Skull and other bones from the Rwandan Genocide

                                           Remains of Carthage

Battle Sarcophagus

This Roman relief depicts a cavalry battle scene between the Romans and barbarians.  The images are from a Roman sarcophagus from the Via Tiburtina. It dates between 190 and 200 CE, and it was used for the burial of a Roman general involved in the campaigns of Marcus Aurelius and shows influences similar to those of the Column of Marcus Aurelius.

Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas' Theories of Just War

            I have been reading a book by Craig M. White called IRAQ The Moral Reckoning. The book applies the ancient just war theory to the 2003 decision to go to war with Iraq. Although the book has a large focus on modern applications of the just war theory it also gives a very good overview of the different just war theories that originated in antiquity.

            There are two main branches of the just war theory: jus ad bellum and jus in bello. The former is concerned with the justice in going to war and the latter the justice in the conduct of war. White’s book only focuses on the justice in going to war as I will in this post.

            According to White, just war theory does have its roots in ancient Greece and Rome, however he believes that it has changed a great deal in the modern world. The first reason for this is that ancients had a very different set of beliefs about what was right and wrong. The second reason is that even when ancient writers addressed a series of moral issues they never unified these issues into a single coherent whole.

            Aristotle’s ideas of morality are much different than ours today for example. Aristotle says that some just causes for war for people of his time are: repelling or avenging aggression; fighting on behalf of kinsman or allies; the need to increase the glory, strength or resources of our home state. In Aristotle’s politics he says that wars “of acquisition” are like hunting, and says that wars that subjugate men who “ought to be governed” by others is “naturally just”. This idea from Aristotle relates to the ancient’s belief in slavery as moral and just. Today it would be very rare for a political leader to say that we ought to go to war to subjugate others that ought to be governed.

“Neither should men study war with the view to the enslavement of those who do not deserve to be enslaved”

            Aristotle believes that the dominion over one’s neighbors is a perfectly acceptable justification of war if it is done in moderation. Aristotle still rejects that war is good in of itself and says that peace is what we should strive for in general. Like Cicero’s idea of a just war from my last post, Aristotle also believes that “We make war in order that we may live at peace”. Cicero takes it a step further by concluding that when there is a dispute the first course of action should be discussion and then one should only result to physical force if discussion does not resolve the problem. Aristotle and Cicero both agree that war is not honorable itself and one should always strive to avoid it.

            At the end of one of Cicero’s books in the Commonwealth he says that “honor” and “safety” are the only two reasons that one can make a just war. In Cicero’s Commonwealth Book III he outlines exactly the criteria for a just war: a proper motive, a due announcement and proclamation, and a prior demand of restitution.

            Augustine who lived through the sack of Rome in 410 AD was the first Christian writer to address the subject of when a war may be just. Previously the teachings of Jesus suggest that self-defense was not permissible, hence the phrase “turn the other cheek”. Augustine bases much of his theory on Aristotle and Cicero. Augustine argues that the proper role of the government is to maintain peace, and this requires the ability to wage war when necessary. He says that “lawful authority” must authorize going to war. On the other hand, Jesus states in the gospel, “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword”. This suggests that early Christian teachings taught pacifism instead of just war. Augustine takes that quote to mean that to mean that one cannot take up arms against another unless authority was given to do so. I found it very interesting that he made this assumption based on the passage from the Bible.

            Thomas Aquinas was a medieval philosopher and theologian who essentially gathered and synthesized Augustine’s theories. Aquinas’ title from the section in Summa Theologica was “Whether it is always sinful to wage war?” In this he denies that it is “altogether” sinful to wage war. Aquinas then lays out three conditions for waging war: sovereign authority, just cause, and right intention. He then goes further than Cicero by offering a wide range in the meanings of these terms.

Aristotle

Cicero

Augustine

St. Thomas Aquinas

Roman Economy

"Empires are political systems based on the actual or threatened use of force to extract surpluses from their subjects." The Roman Empire was largely imperialistic in its nature and the surpluses extracted from Roman citizens and provinces under Roman rule were reinvested by the elites of society on infrastructure and other means of maintaining their power. The hierarchy of power within this imperial society led way to profits from these extracted revenues being distributed to the groups of Roman elites. As this process continued, elites were able to retain their power and wealth.

Due to the fact that pre-industrial empires such as the Roman Empire could not sustain large government institutions which are commonplace today, the elites within the empire retained their power by building a "community of interest". On the economic side, much of the Roman  Empire's resources and energy was spent on securing revenue streams and supplies of labour and agricultural produce from the regions under Roman rule.

This environment of power and the effort to retain it supported the notion of a political economy. The two main arguments describing the Roman economy and empire are that of a locally and regionally based economy and a complelely integrated economy in which politics were important. Support for the notion of an integrated Roman economy can found in evidence of wide spread trade throughout the empire. By researching remains of trade such as the amphorae (a ceramic jar commonly used by Romans to store goods like wine and olive oil), we can understand the extent of Roman trade and the rate of trade throughout different periods of the Roman Empire.  

                                                        (Ancient Roman amphoraes)

One interesting discovery was that the distribution of Italian wine which began gradually in the 3rd century BC, reached its peak during the 3rd quarter of the last century BC and then declined rapidly afterwords. This pattern of wine distribution matches that the rhythm of Roman imperial expansion. This supports the notion that the Roman economy and therefore the prosperity of the Roman elite was fueled by Roman imperialism.

While trade within the empire rarely took an integrated form above the regional level, the integration of trade throughout the empire during the last two centuries BC was created not by the infrastructure of a staple Roman Empire but by the imperial expansion at the time.

Woolf, G. (1992, February). Imperialism, Empire and the Integration of the Roman Economy. World Archaeology, 23, 283-293.

War Strategies of Ancient times in terms of Genocide

Hannibal During 2^nd Punic War

Hannibal’s strategies as reported by LTC James Parker of the US Army in his article

Comparing Strategies of the 2d Punic War: Rome’s Strategic Victory Over the Tactical/Operational Genius, Hannibal Barca were “1) Defeat Roman field armies   2) Move south and separate allies 3) Invade Latium and besiege Rome.”  However, this strategy ended up backfiring and causing him to lose the war.

Hannibal Barca was the leader of the Carthaginian army during the 2^nd Punic War. He is considered one of the best tactical generals in all of history.  He led the army of Carthage into Italy and stayed their defeating Roman armies for 15 years.  However, his resistance to a complete genocide of Rome came back to bite him in the end (and eventually led to the genocide of Carthage in the 3^rd Punic War).  Hannibal’s plan as listed above was to go into Italy and in defeating Roman armies get their allies to join Carthage.  He did not want to destroy Rome but instead his goal was to bring Rome into the Carthaginian Empire.  This in the end was his downfall.

Hannibal’s major victory was at Cannea, where he destroyed 16 legions of Roman armies, in what is considered today to be one of the best tactical victories of all time.  However, even after defeating a large piece of the Roman army he continued to stay in Southern Italy and not attack Rome.  His ambivalence coupled with the lack of reinforcements from Carthage caused the Carthaginian loss in the war.  This is how one of the greatest generals of all time was defeated in the 2^nd Punic War.  

This lends an interesting view on genocide.  Had Hannibal sacked and killed the people of Rome when he had a chance (which he had a few when he had a clear path to Rome with the Roman Army out of his way) he could have been victorious in this battle and in making Carthage the most powerful empire in the world.  Does this mean that genocide is the right move for Hannibal?  Does the victory in what could have been a major turning point in the history of the world make genocide the correct option?  These are the questions that Hannibal’s failure brings up.        

Rome During 3^rd Punic War

As was described in the earlier section, Hannibal decided not to sack Rome and this was one reason he was defeated.  In the 3^rd Punic War, Rome would not make the same mistake.  Even after showing their might during the 2^nd Punic War, Rome decided that they were not satisfied with the homage that Carthage was paying them.  In this case they would wage war on Carthage and take their burgeoning army into Northern Africa. 

The Romans would not make the same mistake Hannibal did.  According to Appain the Romans would totally destroy Carthage.  In his words “Then came new scenes of horror. As the fire spread and carried everything down, the soldiers did not wait to destroy the buildings little by little, but all in a heap…Scipio that he would spare the lives of all who might wish to depart from Byrsa. This he granted to all except the deserters. Forthwith there came out 50,000 men and women together, a narrow gate in the wall being opened, and a guard furnished for them.”   This tells of how the Roman leader completely destroyed the city and then took the surviving Carthaginians back to Rome and turning them into slaves.

This shows that the respect that Hannibal showed Rome was not reciprocated.  Rome did not care about taking Carthage as part of their empire.  This is what led to their victory and the end of Carthage.  So this again poises the question if genocide can be the smart way to go about defeating other nations?  Rome used it and finished off its opponent while Carthage chose not to and paid the price.

Appian

http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_punic_26.html#%A7129

LTC James Parker

http://www.iwar.org.uk/military/resources/hannibal/Parker_J_P_01.pdf

Cicero's Just War Theory

            Marcus Tullius Cicero was a great Roman orator, statesman, and philosopher and is known as the father of the “Just War Theory”. Although there are many classical philosophers who had their own versions of just war theory, Cicero was the classical originator of the idea. For Cicero, war had a clear purpose and he outlined how and when wars should be fought and how each type of enemy should be fought. He outlines many of his ideas in the following quotes from his De Officiis.

Cicero believes that the only reason in going to war is in hopes of eventually securing long-term peace in the future. He also believes in sparing those who were not barbarous in the fighting. He even goes as far as to suggest giving full rights to those who are conquered during war in certain cases.

“The only excuse, therefore, for going to war is that we may live in peace unharmed; and when the victory is won, we should spare those who have not been blood-thirsty and barbarous in their warfare. For instance, our forefathers actually admitted to full rights of citizenship the Tusculans, Acquians, Volscians, Sabines, and Hernicians, but they razed Carthage [in the 3rd Punic War] and Numantia [in Spain, 134 BC] to the ground.”

“I wish they had not destroyed Corinth; but I believe they had some special reason for what they did — its convenient situation, probably — and feared that its very location might some day furnish a temptation to renew the war. In my opinion, at least, we should always strive to secure a peace that shall not admit of guile.”

            Cicero also believes that in a just war soldiers must have consideration for those who lay down their arms and show them mercy.

“Not only must we show consideration for those whom we have conquered by force of arms but we must also ensure protection to those who lay down their arms and throw themselves upon the mercy of our generals, even though the battering-ram has hammered at their walls. And among our countrymen justice has been observed so conscientiously in this direction, that those who have given promise of protection to states or nations subdued in war become, after the custom of our forefathers, the patrons of those states.”

            Cicero also addresses the legality of war stressing that only legally registered soldiers should be allowed to fight the enemy.

“So extremely scrupulous was the observance of the laws in regard to the conduct of war. There is extant, too, a letter of the elder Marcus Cato to his son Marcus, in which he writes that he has heard that the youth has been discharged by the consul, when he was serving in Macedonia in the war with Perseus. He warns him, therefore, to be careful not to go into battle; for, he says, the man who is not legally a soldier has no right to be fighting the foe.”

            Individuals must also keep any promises made to the enemy no matter what the circumstance. Promises to the enemy can only be broken if the promise would prove harmful to those whom the promises were made.

“Again, if under stress of circumstance individuals have made any promise to the enemy, they are bound to keep their word even then. For instance, in the First Punic War, when Regulus was taken prisoner by the Carthaginians, he was sent to Rome on parole to negotiate an exchange of prisoners; he came and, in the first place, it was he that made the motion in the Sen ate that the prisoners should not be restored; and in the second place, when his relatives and friends would have kept him back, he chose to return to a death by torture rather than prove false to his promise, though given to an enemy.”

“Promises are, therefore, not to be kept, if the keeping of them is to prove harmful to those to whom you have made them; and, if the fulfilment of a promise should do more harm to you than good to him to whom you have made it, it is no violation of moral duty to give the greater good precedence over the lesser good. For example, if you have made an appointment with anyone to appear as his advocate in court, and if in the meantime your son should fall dangerously ill, it would be no breach of your moral duty to fail in what you agreed to do; nay, rather, he to whom your promise was given would have a false conception of duty if he should complain that he had been deserted in time of need”

            Cicero recognized that in some cases wars are fought for supremacy and glory but that these wars must still not fail to start from the same motives for peace that he outlined above.

“But when a war is fought out for supremacy and when glory is the object of war, it must still not fail to start from the same motives which I said a moment ago were the only righteous grounds for going to war. But those wars which have glory for their end must be carried on with less bitterness. For we contend, for example, with a fellow-citizen in one way, if he is a personal enemy, in another, if he is a rival: with the rival it is a struggle for office and position, with the enemy for life and honour. So with the Celtiberians and the Cimbrians we fought as with deadly enemies, not to determine which should be supreme, but which should survive; but with the Latins, Sabines, Samnites, Carthaginians, and Pyrrhus we fought for supremacy. The Carthaginians violated treaties; Hannibal was cruel; the others were more merciful.”

Books:

Just War Theory (Readings in Social and Political Theory)

By Jean Bethke Elshtain