The city of Roma was founded much on the premise that most large groups are formed: protection. Romulus, the founder of Roma, or Rome, did indeed avow defense of the city state above all else. Yet Rome grew larger than a city, and into two other continents. The history of Rome to its Imperial roots was one of conquest and expansion, like any other Empire that boasts a huge military complex. The timeline of Rome was that of modernization and technological growth with intermittent war. In these years before the dawn of Augustus, a Roman senate is formed after a monarchy is broken, the twelve tables of Roman law are produced, and Rome itself is blessed with a sewage system among other innovations of dear necessity. Yet the war machine was also quite active as the Roman military might spread out to defend itself against the Gauls, while attacking the other native inhabitants, the Etruscans- all apparently in self-defense. During this time Rome would fight the Punic wars with Carthage of Northern Africa, another mighty power in the Mediterranean. These wars would be an exercise in Roman military law, as well as its brutality. It seems sort of suspicious that in these first few centuries of Rome’s existence that it would expand its foothold in the world overtaking vast amounts of land. Yet the citizenry and the Republic upheld the rules of war, they claim, even while pledging itself to defense through the idea of ius fetiales. Works Cited
DeForrest, Mark E. “Just War Theory and The Recent U.S. Air Strikes Against Iraq.” Gonzaga University Press: Spokane, WA., 1997.
Halsall, Paul. “The Roman Way of Declaring War”: Internet Ancient History Sourcebook, 06-1998.
Leonard, Ira. “Violence is the American Way.” AlterNet Media Online, 22-Apr-2003
Schell, Jonathan. “The Case Against the War.” The Nation: New York, N.Y. 03-Mar-2003 issue
Testimony by John Maresca to the House Committee on International Relations. 12-Feb-1998
Radio broadcast online. “Afghanistan Plans Pipeline.” British Broadcasting Center, online. 13-May-2002.
In 1998 an executive of UNOCAL, a huge oil trader, testified to the House of Representatives that the Taliban was a burden on a ‘new silk road’ through the region, hampering efforts to build a huge natural gas pipeline (WWW, LOC). Guess what? As the BBC reported on May 13 2002, the new intermin President of Afghanistan has entered into agreement with Pakistan and Turkmenistan that will indeed allow Americans to build the longest pipeline constructed in history (WWW, BBC). The rhetoric from the Bush administration has only leant more evidence to the contrary of a nation in pursuit of peace. With words like “crusade” and the use of almost prophetic terms, it is obvious that we have prepared the U.S. for another round of good old fashion Imperialism. So where is the blood tipped spear? It came in a more modern version: U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441- a hands down contract that not only did Iraq accept, but comply with. So what did the Americans do? The same thing the Romans did to many of its conquests, including the Sassanian Persian Dynasty in seventh century C.E.: they convinced the Romans that it was for the best interests of the people within the country to receive the grace of the Roman protectorate. Sound like a familiar chant? Can anyone say “Operation: Iraqi Liberation?”
When summarizing the ideas brought forth in this paper, we have examined the Roman Rise to power, as well as the method it used to achieve it: machiavellian tactics of offense through defense, using the grandiose rules of ‘fetiales.’ It should not be surprising then to see the comparisons made with that of the United States today. We banter the words just war, while at the same time are doing nothing but what has been done time and time again. Perhaps Tolstoy, the owner of the opening words, gets the last laugh. Indeed, it seems as if every or any tactic or reason as to the causes of war can be contemplated and weighed, yet next to this vice of human existence, the causes mean very little to the soldier on the battle field or the innocent victims torn in half by bombs. In the end: defensive, offensive, just or unjust war, it leaves all who witness this ‘event of magnitude’ with a bit of distaste and a little more critical of those who would continue this most horrendous tradition.Yet congruent with this perhaps violent trend, is also our ignorance to our own history. While this could be a paper, or a book, in and of itself, I merely make the point as a statement of validation for my future claims. It is because of this lack of knowledge, contempt for our pretexts and history in general that we allow the current administration, and many before, to wave the flag of patriotism and abide by the fetiales’ heralds. The most recent example of United States tailored Imperialism has been with Iraq. The daunting questions that must be asked at this point are: was war with Iraq just? Was it a defensive war, and not just a ploy, as the Romans used? Again, countless evidence points to the fact that Saddam Hussein did not have plans to attack the United States, nor an effective means of doing so, and furthermore was not in any position to go rampaging any where else in the middle east. Yet we certainly see the sort of panacea to all of the U.S. foreign policy makers who want to expand our control over the world. As Jonathon Schell reports in the Nation:
“How has it happened that President Bush has revived and implemented this long-buried, long-rejected idea [of hegemony in the middle east]? We know the answer. The portal was September 11. The theme of the "war on terror" was from the start to strike pre-emptively with military force. Piece by piece, a bridge from the aim of catching Osama bin Laden to the aim of stopping proliferation on a global basis was built. First came the idea of holding whole regimes accountable in the war on terror; then the idea of "regime change" (beginning with Afghanistan), then pre-emption, then the broader claim of American global dominance. Gradually, the most important issue of the age--the rising danger from weapons of mass destruction--was subsumed as a sort of codicil to the war on terror” (Schell, 12-16).
Of course, something to stir the public up and confuse them with history, culture and facts they cannot possible hope to decipher and understand. That is what the American government has done. The push for war has been synonymous with our own defense, yet no evidence has shown that we, or any of our allies, were ever in danger. The United States has a history of invading or attacking countries, and calling it ‘defense’ when it is not. In fact, in 1996, U.S. warplanes bombed military zones along Iraqi borders in response to Iraqi offensives to the Northern Kurds (DeForrest). International law, as well as the generally premises of Just war, did not give us clearance to aid the Kurds, as it was within Iraqi borders. But what it did allow the U.S. to do was further whittle away at the remnants of the Iraqi military, so that when the time came- and it has- it would be much simpler to topple Iraq. Afghanistan is yet another story.While the doctrine was not an established rhetoric term until the time of Cicero, the tradition of finding excuse to make war ‘just’ was used time and time again. A ready example is that of the Punic wars, those with Carthage that would leave it a blithe mark upon the world. Indeed, because of a treaty signed by Carthage to hold itself to non-aggression unless given permission otherwise by Rome, which was broken by the Carthage General Hannibal’s attack on Saguntum. Moreover, the Romans called for Carthage to dismiss Hannibal and send him to Rome, to which Carthage would of course not do. This gave all the justification that Rome needed to push them into a second war, which would obliterate the Phoenicians of Carthage. This whole process is eerily ironic. The process of declaring war was, as Plutarch explains as follows:
“The fetiales were charged with a ritualistic conduct of certain foreign relations under the direction of the Senate. They carried Rome’s offer of a treaty to a foreign state- witnessed by Jupiter, as a token of good faith. If, after the time stipulated time, the treaty was not accepted, they proceeded again from Rome to the boundary of the foreign state and hurled a spear dipped in blood across the border as a declaration of war” (Brand, 86).
Indeed, this justification for war, the rituals involved the frenzy that the Senate would proclaim in Rome never ceased to fail. Marcus Aurelius in his campaigns against the barbarians quoted in his journals: “Our war, our war, is but simply a duty of all Romans, for we are the protectorate of the world.” This fallacy of a peaceful state seemed to go to the wits and brains of the Romans, as this accepted practice is retailed again and again- all the way back to 650 BC and the time of Livy, and perhaps instituted by the fourth King of Rome: Ancus Marcius (WWW, Fordham). Taking a step back to realize the awe of this quasi-policy tradition that was as much a part of the fabric of Rome as it’s Games, it is not difficult to see the United States with it’s own blood-dipped spear.
America has been around for Two hundred and twenty-seven years and has fought eleven wars. According to Ira Leonard of Alternet, “America’s path has always been an aggressive one. We have, for some reason, a tendency towards violence. Indeed, in the twentieth century alone, there were more homicides than deaths in service of all wars combined” (WWW, Alternet).
« return.