Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome

[Dan Diffendale]

(From http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10492.html )

"DESCRIPTION
This ground-breaking study is the first to employ modern international relations theory to place Roman militarism and expansion of power within the broader Mediterranean context of interstate anarchy. Arthur M. Eckstein challenges claims that Rome was an exceptionally warlike and aggressive state--not merely in modern but in ancient terms--by arguing that intense militarism and aggressiveness were common among all Mediterranean polities from ca 750 B.C. onwards.

In his wide-ranging and masterful narrative, Eckstein explains that international politics in the ancient Mediterranean world was, in political science terms, a multipolar anarchy: international law was minimal, and states struggled desperately for power and survival by means of warfare. Eventually, one state, the Republic of Rome, managed to create predominance and a sort of peace. Rome was certainly a militarized and aggressive state, but it was successful not because it was exceptional in its ruthlessness, Eckstein convincingly argues; rather, it was successful because of its exceptional ability to manage a large network of foreign allies, and to assimilate numerous foreigners within the polity itself. This book shows how these characteristics, in turn, gave Rome incomparably large resources for the grim struggle of states fostered by the Mediterranean anarchy--and hence they were key to Rome's unprecedented success.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Arthur M. Eckstein is Professor of History at the University of Maryland, College Park, and the author of Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius and Senate and General: Individual Decision Making and Roman Foreign Relations, 264-194 B.C., both from UC Press."

[amazon]0520246187[/amazon]

And you can buy it as an ebook:
http://web.ebooks.com/ebooks/book_displ ... IID=284431

[Narukami]

Interesting...

I'm not sure I buy his premise, for I think the Romans were a military society and while others may have been war like or used war as a means to an end the Romans raised the art of war to a new, and at that time, unprecedented level.

Be that as it may, this book may bear reading.

Thanks for the heads up and the link!



Narukami

[Epictetus]

I have this. Basically, Eckstein’s entire premise is to refute Harris 1979 book War and Imperialism in Republican Rome.

Harris had argued that Rome was not defensively imperialist, meaning that they expanded to secure their own borders from external threats. Rome was instead exceptionally warlike, aggressive and violent – even in comparison with the norm in historical times. Rome wasn’t motivated by external security, but was instead interested in expansion for economic and competitive reasons.

Eckstein tries a different tact. He tries to refute this and says that Rome was not acting unusually for a state during the period. To prove his point, he mainly uses the Greek states of the East as models and international relations theories.

Unfortunately, he spends 95% of his time trying to disprove Harris instead of arguing for an alternate model for Rome’s growth and success. The basic reasons he gave for Rome’s success: the system of the allies and absorption of foreigners into the Roman social contract, are very powerful and have been recognised since the times of Dion. It is disappointing that he never pursues them, but I suppose that would have been a different book altogether. Eckstein uses some interdisciplinary focuses, namely history and political science.

Anyway, to sum up: it was okay. I’m glad I read it, but it isn’t going to be reread any time soon. It seemed to go time and time again to the same few examples. I get the feeling that his editor kept saying: “This logic doesn’t work. Rewrite it.â€

[Ioannes_Ahenobarbus]

International relations has always interested me, especially political relations during the crusades and the republican era of Rome. One thing I am curious about in regards to this book: does Eckstein discuss how the reaction of non-militarized states to more warlike states leads the former to adopt more aggressive policies or militarization?

[Epictetus]

Not really. Remember, Eckstein’s thesis was basically that all states in the Mediterranean at the time were equally warlike.

Thus whatever their internal structures, a strong argument exists that the nature of the interstate environment forces all states alike into the same militarized, warlike, and expansionist direction. As Waltz proposes, such an environment pushes all states into becoming functionally similar units: they differ in capabilities but not in ends. And here we should underline the fact that every major power in the ancient world (as well as every second-rank power, and many a small and insignificant polity as well) was highly militarized – just like Rome.

Eckstein, Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome, page 28

It is quite possible that Harris discusses your question, though. Unfortunately, it has been several years since I read him and I don’t have a copy.

[Ioannes_Ahenobarbus]

Ah, ok. Thank you, though.


I might have to check it out.