Rumsfeld Charged with War Crimes in German Court

[Ali]

Makes a change from Nuremburg, eh?

Human rights lawyers were joined by two winners of the Nobel Peace prize in filing charges in Germany Tuesday, accusing outgoing U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld of committing war crimes in Iraq and the U.S.-controlled Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba.

The criminal case is being brought under the legal doctrine of universal jurisdiction, which says that crimes against humanity may be tried anywhere in the world. Read the rest here (http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/142509/1/4536?PrintableVersion=enabled).

Wonder if he'll get the same treatment as his old pal (http://michael.ellerman.id.au/misc/Rumsfeld-Saddam.jpg).

[QueenAdrock]

Interesting. I doubt it will do much though:

It is the second time human rights lawyers have filed charges against Rumsfeld. Last year, German courts dismissed a similar complaint against the Secretary of Defense on the eve of his visit to the European nation.

[D_Raay]

Interesting. I doubt it will do much though:
Difference is now though, he is out of office...

Although I tend to agree. I doubt the sitting powers would throw him to the wolves unless it were to save themselves.

[jprescott]

if he got tried in England he'd be given an electronic tag and released with a slapped wrist....

[sam i am]

The criminal case is being brought under the legal doctrine of universal jurisdiction, which says that crimes against humanity may be tried anywhere in the world.

And that is the exact right reason to live in a free, independent country like the USA, where you don't have to ascribe to such asinine ridiculousness as "the legal doctrine of universal jurisdiction."

What idiocy.

[Schmeltz]

Reason #1 to live in the USA: so you can commit crimes against humanity that can never be prosecuted!

[QueenAdrock]

USA! USA! USA!

[Echewta]

Free and independent? Hmmm. Then wouldn't Iraq be free and independent to have WMD? They didn't use them on anybody outside of Iraq. Why did we get to be the judge?

[sam i am]

Free and independent? Hmmm. Then wouldn't Iraq be free and independent to have WMD? They didn't use them on anybody outside of Iraq. Why did we get to be the judge?

Might makes right. The rest of the world doesn't have the might to impose it's will on the citizens of the USA.

Simple.
.

See the doctrine of national sovereignity with the protocol of "don't tread on me.";) :p

[Schmeltz]

I would like to thank sam for enunciating the definitive ethical philosophy of political conservatives everywhere, and reminding the rest of us that we made the right choice.

[sam i am]

I would like to thank sam for enunciating the definitive ethical philosophy of political conservatives everywhere, and reminding the rest of us that we made the right choice.

You're welcome, as you agreed with me on another thread when we discussed this exact same idea.

Guess you're a "political conservative" now?:confused: :eek: (y)

[Ali]

Might makes right. The rest of the world doesn't have the might to impose it's will on the citizens of the USA.While the US does have the might to impose its will on the rest of the world.

A bit like the Roman Empire. What happened to them, again?

[sam i am]

While the US does have the might to impose its will on the rest of the world.

A bit like the Roman Empire. What happened to them, again?

Yes. We're just like the Roman Empire : with patricians and plebians, an emperor, demanding tribute from our "subsidiary" nations, etc. et al.

The same lame comparison has attempted to be made by minds and historians far greater than yourself, Ali. So....don't hurt yourself too much trying to stretch that shibboleth as far as it will go.

[Schmeltz]

You're welcome, as you agreed with me on another thread when we discussed this exact same idea.


I don't ever recall agreeing with you that "might makes right" on any level of human relations. You'll have to refresh my memory.

[Ali]

Yes. We're just like the Roman Empire : with patricians and plebians, an emperor, demanding tribute from our "subsidiary" nations, etc. et al.

The same lame comparison has attempted to be made by minds and historians far greater than yourself, Ali. So....don't hurt yourself too much trying to stretch that shibboleth as far as it will go.Let's wait and see, shall we?

[Schmeltz]

By the way - just so everyone knows, by the time the Roman Empire actually became an Empire, the patricians and plebeians had all but ceased to exist as well-defined social orders. That sort of thing was more a feature of the Roman Republic. Also, the Romans did not exact direct tribute from the provinces that they administered and tribute was a rare feature of their relationships with other societies.

Just to clear things up a little.

[sam i am]

By the way - just so everyone knows, by the time the Roman Empire actually became an Empire, the patricians and plebeians had all but ceased to exist as well-defined social orders. That sort of thing was more a feature of the Roman Republic. Also, the Romans did not exact direct tribute from the provinces that they administered and tribute was a rare feature of their relationships with other societies.

Just to clear things up a little.

Wrongo.

Patricians and Plebians continued to be an important distinction that was made for citizenship and rights / perogatives. If one could trace ancestry (as Julius Caesar claimed to do) back to Romulus and Remus, one had a higher standing in Roman society throughout the Imperial period as well.

Direct tribute DID come from the provinces they administered in Cisalpine Gaul, the old Latin provinces (north of Rome in Umbria, etc. and south in Brindisi, etc.), etc. Some of the newer provinces (Mesopotamia, Mauretania, etc.) had governors or more esoteric tribute extraction systems that operated under varied names and administrative types throughout the Republic and Imperial years.

If you'd care to get into MORE specifics, feel free. I'll educate you and turn you on to some books that can more in depth explore your incorrect readings of Roman history.


Just to clear things up a little;)

[sam i am]

Let's wait and see, shall we?

Nah. We'll all be dead by the time we "wait and see." Let's debate it now so we can PROVE who's right and wrong later:rolleyes: :p

[sam i am]

I don't ever recall agreeing with you that "might makes right" on any level of human relations. You'll have to refresh my memory.

Actually, we were discussing the Israel/Palestine thing on another thread and you agreed that Israel's control of the land could not be unjustified by the fact it was conquered by force of arms.

To truly twist the point all the way home, you are factually correct that you did not say "might makes right," but rather that might does not necessarily make wrong.

[Schmeltz]

Patricians and Plebians continued to be an important distinction that was made for citizenship and rights / perogatives.


By the end of the Republican period there were only fifteen patrician families left in existence and Julius Caesar (and, to a much greater extent, Augustus) had to resort to perpetuating the increasingly artificial and arbitrary distinction by conferring the status upon the wealthier plebeian and equestrian families. Throughout the later Republican and Imperial periods, moreover, the distinction had virtually no impact on the definition of Roman citizenship - especially after the Social War, when it was conferred on all the peoples of Italy, and especially after the Severans conferred it on everybody in the Empire in 193 AD. The patricians continued to identify themselves as a distinct group for centuries (they wore their own unique kind of shoes as late as the fourth century) but for all practical purposes the differentiation had ceased to hold any meaning long before. Roman society continued to be heavily stratified, but pats and plebs went out of fashion by the end of the Conflict of the Orders.


Direct tribute DID come from the provinces they administered in Cisalpine Gaul


Well, it depends what you want to call "tribute," I suppose. Does taxation count as a form of tribute when collected from areas directly administered by the Roman Senate or Emperor? Do mandatory troop levies from autonomous allied communities count as tribute? I think tribute is best understood as the payment (usually in kind) of a proportion of goods produced by one community or society to another in recognition of subservience, or as the price for protection or freedom from more direct interference - a feature, in other words, of the relationship between two autonomous but unequal societies.


I'll educate you


You are in no position to educate me on this topic or any other.


you agreed that Israel's control of the land could not be unjustified by the fact it was conquered by force of arms.


I most certainly did not; I disagreed with Zount's assertion that there exists some kind of imposable barrier on the practice of subjugating other people by military force. I countered by saying that since this is a fairly common feature of human interaction, he must be incorrect. I never made nor meant to imply any kind of comment on the ethics involved, I only meant to refer to the practical considerations of the subject. For what it's worth I find the conquest and forced expulsion of anybody, anywhere, anytime a deplorable and disgusting fact of human affairs - one that ought to be remedied, not cited as moral justification for the perpetuation of atrocities. But that doesn't change the fact that people will still do it if they're misguided enough to think it's a good idea.

[sam i am]

By the end of the Republican period there were only fifteen patrician families left in existence and Julius Caesar (and, to a much greater extent, Augustus) had to resort to perpetuating the increasingly artificial and arbitrary distinction by conferring the status upon the wealthier plebeian and equestrian families. Throughout the later Republican and Imperial periods, moreover, the distinction had virtually no impact on the definition of Roman citizenship - especially after the Social War, when it was conferred on all the peoples of Italy, and especially after the Severans conferred it on everybody in the Empire in 193 AD. The patricians continued to identify themselves as a distinct group for centuries (they wore their own unique kind of shoes as late as the fourth century) but for all practical purposes the differentiation had ceased to hold any meaning long before. Roman society continued to be heavily stratified, but pats and plebs went out of fashion by the end of the Conflict of the Orders.

I suppose we'll both have to asign some arbitrary dates to our assertions in order to avoid prolonged conflict over this minor point. I'll agree with you that the distinction became less important over time as the Imperial period progressed, however, you commented above on the dividing line coming into being during the transition to the "Imperial period." IF you begin the Imperial period with Augustus' assumption of "power" in 27 B.C., then his deference to Senatorial (i.e., Patrician) perogative stretched easily until his death in 14 A.D. The Severan conferrence in 193 A.D. is a dividing line I can much more easily agree with you on, but I am glad you acknowledge the distinction was upheld, at least in name, until well into the 4th Century A.D.

As for your earlier assertion in that paragraph of "...only fifteen patrician families left in existence," see the following : http://experts.about.com/e/p/pa/patrician.htm

I count at least 32, with more added as Caesar and Augustus expanded the name (Caesar was especially profligate in doing so).

Also, here's a fun link for Roman historians : http://www.romanempire.net/romepage/ForumRomanum/mosmaiorum/mosmaiorum.htm#PATRICIANS

Well, it depends what you want to call "tribute," I suppose. Does taxation count as a form of tribute when collected from areas directly administered by the Roman Senate or Emperor? Do mandatory troop levies from autonomous allied communities count as tribute? I think tribute is best understood as the payment (usually in kind) of a proportion of goods produced by one community or society to another in recognition of subservience, or as the price for protection or freedom from more direct interference - a feature, in other words, of the relationship between two autonomous but unequal societies.

So....you are acknowledging that tribute did exist and was directly administered (I know you understand the distinctions between provinces, directly administered areas, and conquered, unicorporated areas as well as tributary nations such as Armenia, etc.). Also, I appreciate your depth of commentary, but you (and I) need to be sure we are being careful with our language, as we both seem to take positions that are easily subject to undermining by further research and commentary as people with more expertise on these subjects than the vast majority.

You are in no position to educate me on this topic or any other.

I think I just did above.

I most certainly did not; I disagreed with Zount's assertion that there exists some kind of imposable barrier on the practice of subjugating other people by military force. I countered by saying that since this is a fairly common feature of human interaction, he must be incorrect. I never made nor meant to imply any kind of comment on the ethics involved, I only meant to refer to the practical considerations of the subject. For what it's worth I find the conquest and forced expulsion of anybody, anywhere, anytime a deplorable and disgusting fact of human affairs - one that ought to be remedied, not cited as moral justification for the perpetuation of atrocities. But that doesn't change the fact that people will still do it if they're misguided enough to think it's a good idea.

I agreed with you and made the distinction you requested. I think we were both saying the same basic thing....regardless of what we each think about the efficacy of the outcomes.

[Schmeltz]

IF you begin the Imperial period with Augustus' assumption of "power" in 27 B.C., then his deference to Senatorial (i.e., Patrician) perogative stretched easily until his death in 14 A.D.


"Senatorial" shouldn't be conflated with "patrician," especially at that date in Roman history; plebeians and equestrians had been serving in the Senate and in all of the major Roman magistracies for centuries before Augustus' time. Furthermore, I don't see why I should hesitate to consider Augustus' reign as the beginning of the Imperial period when historians have been doing exactly that for generations. And also, Augustus' deference to the Senate, if you ask me, was made only on the symbolic level as a means of formulating a compromise meant to avert a repetition of the vicious civil wars that had nearly destroyed Roman society over the preceding seventy or so years - with half a million men soldiers under his personal command and the resources of Egypt under his personal control, it was the Senate who did most of the deferring to him.

I like your link, too, since it supports my position quite nicely. One question, though - why do you use the list of patrician families to counter my claim that only fifteen such groups existed at the end of the Republic, when nowhere in the link does it say when those families flourished or died out? It's only a list of families who held patrician status at some time in Roman history. I stand by my points.


So....you are acknowledging that tribute did exist and was directly administered


I never claimed that Rome never exacted tribute from other societies. But I do dispute your assertion that, for example, the taxes collected from a Roman province (whether administered directly by the Senate, the Emperor, or a proconsular official) constitute such tribute. I offered a definition of tribute that I think differentiates it from such practices as tax collection or troop levying. Armenia is a good example of an actual tributary relationship - much, much different from any of the other examples you cited.

Here's a question, though - following the First and Second Punic Wars, Rome demanded extremely punitive war indemnities from Carthage, which took years to pay and were made in annual installments for a period of time. Would you consider that "tribute"? I think a case could be made for and against that definition, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.


I think I just did above.


Wrong. :D


I think we were both saying the same basic thing


Mmmm... to an extent. It seems to me that we agree, at least partially, on the need for a realistic approach to the interpretation of events, as opposed to the perpetuation of ideology that has little practical applicability to any given situation. Where we go from there, however, is quite dissimilar.

[sam i am]

"Senatorial" shouldn't be conflated with "patrician," especially at that date in Roman history; plebeians and equestrians had been serving in the Senate and in all of the major Roman magistracies for centuries before Augustus' time. Furthermore, I don't see why I should hesitate to consider Augustus' reign as the beginning of the Imperial period when historians have been doing exactly that for generations. And also, Augustus' deference to the Senate, if you ask me, was made only on the symbolic level as a means of formulating a compromise meant to avert a repetition of the vicious civil wars that had nearly destroyed Roman society over the preceding seventy or so years - with half a million men soldiers under his personal command and the resources of Egypt under his personal control, it was the Senate who did most of the deferring to him.

This point is certainly open to debate, but I tend to agree with you, generally, that Augustus' reign demarcated the "Republic" period from the "Imperial" period. My point of difference from yours would come in the form of the line of succession AFTER Augustus, whereas he named his own successor, who was NOT a "Consul" in the Republic sense of the term. Augustus' successors, by all accounts, were "Emperors," with much of the power and prestige such a title denoted at that time.

The deference I was referring to was for Augustus' ability to cannily manipulate the Senate, and the old Patrician and Plebian families, into thinking that they held sway over the perogatives of power within the Roman societal and governmental structure. Of course, he was slowly but surely garnering more and more power unto himself while ostensibly maintaining the forms of Republican governance. So much so, that by the end of his reign, he named his own successor and the Imperial period was in full bloom.

I like your link, too, since it supports my position quite nicely. One question, though - why do you use the list of patrician families to counter my claim that only fifteen such groups existed at the end of the Republic, when nowhere in the link does it say when those families flourished or died out? It's only a list of families who held patrician status at some time in Roman history. I stand by my points.

My point was to show that there were numerous more family titles of both Patrician and Plebian origins that were quite important to the upper echelons of Roman society throughout the Republic and Imperial periods, despite your assertion that only 15 existed at the beginning of the Imperial period. Even families that died out still had adoptive family members that held onto the titles, if not the land, monies, and prestige, associated with said familial titles.

I never claimed that Rome never exacted tribute from other societies. But I do dispute your assertion that, for example, the taxes collected from a Roman province (whether administered directly by the Senate, the Emperor, or a proconsular official) constitute such tribute. I offered a definition of tribute that I think differentiates it from such practices as tax collection or troop levying. Armenia is a good example of an actual tributary relationship - much, much different from any of the other examples you cited.

Transalpine Gaul, Cisalpine Gaul, Mauretania, Bithynia, Macedonia, etc. ALL had tributes levied upon them at one time or another through direct tribute from proconsular, consular, and varied other methods. You implied, above, that tribute was rare and far between, when it really was an integral part of Roman administrative affairs throughoput much of Roman history (and Byzantine as successors to the Romans).

Here's a question, though - following the First and Second Punic Wars, Rome demanded extremely punitive war indemnities from Carthage, which took years to pay and were made in annual installments for a period of time. Would you consider that "tribute"? I think a case could be made for and against that definition, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Not only were the payments made in annual installments, but also throughout the year (indirectly) through bribery, extortion, and threats of further action against Carthage if they didn't pay exorbitant sums. Kind of reminds me of the Allies and their Versailles extractions of German indemnities after WWI, in some respects.

As for the tribute part of your query....yes, I would called it tribute. My reasoning would be that much of the funds went directly to the coffers of the largest Roman families (both Patrician and Plebian) and was used to build-up the Roman system of docks, acqueducts, roads, fitting of armies, purchasing of lands for Roman soldiers, etc. This "tribute" was employed to glorify Rome and it's environs and financed many other foreign conquests during this same period.

Of course, after the Third Punic War, Carthage ceased to exist, but by then the Romans had moved on to larger enemies (the Gauls, etc.).

Wrong. :D

Right.:)

[Ali]

Yes, but what did the Romans really do for us???

[Schmeltz]

My point was to show that there were numerous more family titles of both Patrician and Plebian origins that were quite important to the upper echelons of Roman society throughout the Republic and Imperial periods, despite your assertion that only 15 existed at the beginning of the Imperial period.


But that list doesn't demonstrate that either. It's just a list of known patrician family names. It's not even exhaustive; there are hundreds of patrician families known to have existed during the Republican period. But the fact is that the number of patrician families, as well as the importance of the distinction between patricians, equestrians, and plebeians, declined drastically throughout the Republic and was virtually nonexistent by the Empire, whether you mark it at the beginning of Augustus' reign or its end.


You implied, above, that tribute was rare and far between


Yes, and according to the definition I submitted I think my point still stands. Certainly the Romans were adept at extracting concessions from all of their neighbours at various points in history, but not all of these can be defined as "tribute" per se. Direct tribute, in the form of material economic concessions paid in kind by one autonomous society to another as a means of formally acknowledging subjugation or as a form of protection payment, was still comparatively rare. Certainly the Romans didn't exact "tribute" in the same form as, say, the Persian Empire did. Their relationships with other societies were much more complex.


Kind of reminds me of the Allies and their Versailles extractions of German indemnities after WWI, in some respects.


Ah, very nice - I was hoping to raise the same point. Would you then describe the war reparations exacted from Germany after WWI as a form of tribute? I wouldn't. Because the point isn't how the funds exacted from Carthage were used; the Romans employed the taxation collected from their directly administered provinces to do the exact same things you mention. The point is what the tribute signifies. Tribute is meant as a perpetual material acknowledgement of the supremacy of one society over another, and is paid in order to prevent the further loss of autonomy on the part of the disadvantaged society. Hence the indemnity paid by Carthage could rightly be called tribute to a certain extent, insofar as it served as an acknowledgement of Roman supremacy over Carthage, and as a guarantee that Rome would not interfere any further with Carthaginian affairs so long as the payments were made.

However, it is more proper to call the concession an indemnity, and not a tribute, because this was a temporary measure - ie, the sum paid was to top out after a certain period of time after which no more payment was expected in order for the status quo to be maintained. Similarly, Germany was not expected to be in the thrall of France indefinitely, but was only expected to pay a fixed amount in order to compensate the military victors for their losses. In other words, there was no understanding that Carthage was to serve a perpetually subservient role to Rome, as would be expected from a truly tributary state. Rather, it was expected that the partnership would essentially be one between equals once the military victors in the war had been sufficiently compensated for their losses.

A truly tributary relationship is meant to serve as a perpetual indicator of an unequal relationship between a stronger and a weaker society. Indeed, this is why tribute in the ancient world was almost always rendered in kind, and not in coin - by requiring the tributary state to turn over a significant portion of its produce (usually its agricultural production), the stronger society theoretically guaranteed that the payee would stay weak and remain exploitable. And I don't consider that to have been a dominant feature of the Romans' interaction with other societies, which was instead informed in large measure by a system of reciprocal rights and obligations not unlike the patron-client relationship that defined so much social interaction between the Romans themselves. At least for the Republican period.


Right.


Mmmm... nope. Still wrong. :D


Yes, but what did the Romans really do for us???


They gave us topics for our Honours paper in History. And for discussing on the BBMB.

[sam i am]

But that list doesn't demonstrate that either. It's just a list of known patrician family names. It's not even exhaustive; there are hundreds of patrician families known to have existed during the Republican period. But the fact is that the number of patrician families, as well as the importance of the distinction between patricians, equestrians, and plebeians, declined drastically throughout the Republic and was virtually nonexistent by the Empire, whether you mark it at the beginning of Augustus' reign or its end.

Ok. You keep hedging with your "virtually nonexistent," etc, so I guess I'll not pin you down to make a verifiable stand and we'll just have to agree to disagree over this (admittedly) minor point.

Yes, and according to the definition I submitted I think my point still stands. Certainly the Romans were adept at extracting concessions from all of their neighbours at various points in history, but not all of these can be defined as "tribute" per se. Direct tribute, in the form of material economic concessions paid in kind by one autonomous society to another as a means of formally acknowledging subjugation or as a form of protection payment, was still comparatively rare. Certainly the Romans didn't exact "tribute" in the same form as, say, the Persian Empire did. Their relationships with other societies were much more complex.

Well stated, except for the ongoing caveat of "per se." Direct tribute did not always nor exclusively come in the form of material economic concessions. It is quite easy to attribute (nice, eh?) the capture and control of human slaves as a form of tribute as well. Mineral concessions, water rights, the ability to exploit other commercial ventures (especially the rights to land and the right to "tax farm") like housing contracts, etc., et al can also be viewed as "tribute," when viewed through the context of the times.

That being said, tribute was exacted from all of the subject areas I listed above, plus client states like Armenia, Mesopotamia, Egypt (of course), etc.

Ah, very nice - I was hoping to raise the same point.

Glad I got to it first...as I said above, it's good for me to "educate" you (and, I hate to admit, but you have forced me to re-educate myself on a subject I've not studied in depth since being at University myself, all of 16 years ago :eek: )

Would you then describe the war reparations exacted from Germany after WWI as a form of tribute? I wouldn't.

I would because not only were their reparations, but their were "penalty" indemnities, the seizure of goods and services when payments were not made (especially during the beginning of the Depression); even the occupation of lands (the Rhineland, the Saar) to ensure the flow of goods to the victors (the French and British). Heck, the Germans did the same to the Russians when the Commies sued for peace in 1917.

Because the point isn't how the funds exacted from Carthage were used; the Romans employed the taxation collected from their directly administered provinces to do the exact same things you mention. The point is what the tribute signifies. Tribute is meant as a perpetual material acknowledgement of the supremacy of one society over another, and is paid in order to prevent the further loss of autonomy on the part of the disadvantaged society.

Here's where I most disagree with you. Tribute, in my estimation, is NOT meant as "perpetual," but rather as a waxing and waning form of "protection" (much like the mob "protects" businesses from the mob by extracting "tribute" : i.e, pay us or we'll not protect you from us - nice gig if you can swing it). I also would quibble, though not outright disagree with your point, that the "tribute" (or protection money) is meant to "prevent the further loss of autonomy..." Carthage, after the First Punic War, rebuilt it's military infrastructure so much that they became a direct threat to Rome in Spain and, once Hannibal got going, in Italy proper. This, despite the fact that they were paying "tribute."

Hence the indemnity paid by Carthage could rightly be called tribute to a certain extent, insofar as it served as an acknowledgement of Roman supremacy over Carthage, and as a guarantee that Rome would not interfere any further with Carthaginian affairs so long as the payments were made.

Ok.

However, it is more proper to call the concession an indemnity, and not a tribute, because this was a temporary measure - ie, the sum paid was to top out after a certain period of time after which no more payment was expected in order for the status quo to be maintained. Similarly, Germany was not expected to be in the thrall of France indefinitely, but was only expected to pay a fixed amount in order to compensate the military victors for their losses. In other words, there was no understanding that Carthage was to serve a perpetually subservient role to Rome, as would be expected from a truly tributary state. Rather, it was expected that the partnership would essentially be one between equals once the military victors in the war had been sufficiently compensated for their losses.

Semantic distinction only. Further explicated above. I think we mostly agree.

A truly tributary relationship is meant to serve as a perpetual indicator of an unequal relationship between a stronger and a weaker society.

You're repeating yourself here.

Indeed, this is why tribute in the ancient world was almost always rendered in kind, and not in coin - by requiring the tributary state to turn over a significant portion of its produce (usually its agricultural production), the stronger society theoretically guaranteed that the payee would stay weak and remain exploitable. And I don't consider that to have been a dominant feature of the Romans' interaction with other societies, which was instead informed in large measure by a system of reciprocal rights and obligations not unlike the patron-client relationship that defined so much social interaction between the Romans themselves. At least for the Republican period.

Republican period = yes. Imperial period = no. Talk to the Etruscans or Samnites, etc., et al about their "patron-client" relationship with Rome in the Republic period. I believe they'd have a different take on your perception.



Mmmm... nope. Still wrong. :D

mmmmmmmmmmmm............yep. Still right ;) :)

They gave us topics for our Honours paper in History. And for discussing on the BBMB.

Too right. This is one of the best discussions I've ever engaged in on this board.

Regards to you, schmeltz. Despite our completely opposing positions, we found a common interest in Roman history. Renewed respect to you.

[Schmeltz]

Regards to you, schmeltz. Despite our completely opposing positions, we found a common interest in Roman history. Renewed respect to you.


Yeah, when I made the original post I certainly didn't imagine I'd have to put so much thought into defending my position. I tip my hat to you as well, sam. :)


You keep hedging with your "virtually nonexistent," etc, so I guess I'll not pin you down to make a verifiable stand


Both Freeman (2004) and Shelton (1998) emphasize the dwindling of patrician stock throughout the Republican period as the families died out due to absorption into each other through intermarriage, or extinction due to lack of male heirs. All the evidence points this way too. You can continue to disagree if you like, but I don't think you'd be able to mount a defensible position to the contrary.


Tribute, in my estimation, is NOT meant as "perpetual," but rather as a waxing and waning form of "protection"


Here's the crux of the matter. Tribute, I think, is indeed meant to be perpetual - this is what separates it from other forms of economic bondage like indemnities and taxation. The crucial distinction lies in what each form of concession signifies, on the social level; and this is much more than merely a semantic distinction. If you distinguish them from one another on this basis you'll grasp my point:

Taxation is essentially voluntary, a means by which the citizenry contributes to the maintenance of the infrastructure and other social benefits enjoyed by everybody (although of course its implentation is always vastly more nuanced than that); it signifies a form of relationship between citizens and state in which the coercive power of the latter is directed toward the betterment of the former through economic concession. In other words, it defines the terms on which different groups interact with one another within society.

An indemnity is different; it's a temporary form of redress paid by one militarily defeated but still politically autonomous people to the foreign victors of an armed confrontation. The payees derive no benefit other than the guarantee of future non-interference in their affairs, but they can also rest assured that relations between themselves and the victors will be fully normalized after a certain period of time, after which the relationship will be one of equals. Hence neither Carthage nor Germany really paid tribute to either Rome or France; they merely accepted a temporary economic concession in order to redress the losses of their defeators as a means of normalizing social relations between the parties involved.

But a tribute serves a much different purpose than either of these things. A tribute is meant to permanently define the relationship between two foreign parties, to establish the terms by which all future relations will be conducted. The victors of an armed confrontation exact a periodic contribution from the defeated not in order to better them, and not as a temporary redress before the resumption of a previously equalized state of relations, but as a means of rendering them permanently subjective to their own control without the need to resort to another military conflict. The imposition of tribute, in the ancient world, was meant to signify the permanent terms by which social interaction between two parties would henceforth exist. For a subject nation to interrupt the flow of tribute was always a gamble, since it took the chance that the dominant society would be unable or unwilling to continue to enforce it. If they were, the payees could count on a particularly vindictive military retribution that might result in an even greater loss of autonomy than that which they had endured before. History is plentiful with examples of this phenomenon - if you'd like some particularly interesting ones, consult the Old Testament. The Israelite relationship with the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires kind of hints at how things probably were.


Carthage, after the First Punic War, rebuilt it's military infrastructure so much that they became a direct threat to Rome in Spain and, once Hannibal got going, in Italy proper. This, despite the fact that they were paying "tribute."


So, you see, as I pointed out above - no, the Carthaginians were not paying tribute. Rome was not interested in permanently subjecting the Carthaginians to their will, only in redressing the savage losses they had incurred in the First and Second Punic Wars. Once those losses had been made good for, Carthage was permitted to resume its normal relations with Rome as a fully independent power - an equal. Until, of course, the interests of those equals clashed again and produced another military confrontation - not a retributive confrontation, as one would expect between a tributary and a dominant nation, but one that stemmed from other issues.


It is quite easy to attribute (nice, eh?) the capture and control of human slaves as a form of tribute as well.


Not really; when the Romans sold people into slavery it meant that those people were done. There was to be no more formal relations with them; they had been reduced essentially to sub-humans. But - when the Romans demanded troop levies from their allies, on an annual basis, I think that could be considered a form of tribute, although it doesn't conform to the classic truly coercive, subjugating idea. Tribute, to me, carries a connotation of permanent redefinition of how people interact with each other. If you have a contrary idea, I'd love to hear it further explained.


Talk to the Etruscans or Samnites, etc., et al about their "patron-client" relationship with Rome in the Republic period.


Now this is a very good point, and indeed it shows that the Romans could be just as vicious and vindictive as they could be accomodating and generous. Yes, it is true that the Romans were on occasion given over to ideas of retribution and the direct subjugation and even destruction of other societies. But I think the larger picture shows that the inherent strength of Roman society did not lie in the Romans' ability to destroy other people but instead to arrive at productive compromises with them. To return to our overriding theme, in the Second Punic War Hannibal was unable to destroy Rome's alliances with other Italian peoples (by and large), which demonstrates the depth to which other societies felt an affinity and admiration for Rome, even if their relationship with it was unequal or exploitative. Roman civilization did not endure thanks to bloodthirstiness and subjugation, but because it offered people something more than that.


mmmmmmmmmmmm............yep. Still right


Mmmmm... nope. Still wrong. :D

Edit: just cleaned that up a little

[Bob]

Yes, but what did the Romans really do for us???

....the aqueducts? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29TmjpoO3JQ)

[drizl]

one of those responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqi and afghanistan deaths. send him to prison for the rest of his life. give him a big powerful man for a cell mate to break him in.