Montesquieu: Considerations on the
causes of the grandeur and decadence of the Romans, Chapter VI
Since they never made peace in good
faith, and since universal conquest was their object, their treaties were
really only suspensions of war, and they put conditions into them that always
began the ruin of the state accepting them.
They made garrisons leave
strongholds, or limited the number of ground troops, or had horses or elephants
surrendered to them. And if the people was a sea power they forced it to burn
its vessels and sometimes to live further inland.
After destroying the armies of a
prince, they ruined his finances by excessive taxes or a tribute on the pretext
of making him pay the expenses of the war — a new kind of tyranny that forced
him to oppress his subjects and lose their love. When they granted peace to
some prince, they took one of his brothers or children in hostage, which gave
them the means of vexing his kingdom at will. When they had the closest heir,
they intimidated the present ruler; if they only had a prince of distant
degree, they used him to instigate popular revolts.
the Romans never made a peace treaty
with an enemy unless it contained an alliance — that is, they subjugated no
people which did not help them in reducing others.
When they allowed a city to remain
free, they immediately caused two factions to arise within it. One upheld local
laws and liberty, the other maintained that there was no law except the will of
the Romans. And since the latter faction was always the stronger, it is easy to
see that such freedom was only a name.
To keep great princes permanently
weak, the Romans did not want them to make any alliance with those to whom they
had accorded their own. And since they did not refuse their own to a powerful
prince's neighbors, this condition, stipulated in a peace treaty, left him
without allies.
When some prince had made a
conquest, which often left him exhausted, a Roman ambassador immediately
arrived to snatch it from his hands. From among a thousand examples, we can
recall how, with a word, they drove Antiochus out of Egypt.
Knowing how well-suited the peoples
of Europe were for war, they made it a law that no Asian king would be
permitted to enter Europe and subjugate any people whatsoever. The main motive
for their war against Mithridates was that he had contravened this prohibition
by subduing some barbarians.
When they saw two peoples at war,
even though they had no alliance or dispute with one or the other, they never
failed to appear on the scene. And like our knights-errant, they took the part
of the weaker. Dionysius of Halicarnassus says it was an old practice of the
Romans always to extend their help to whomever came to implore it.
They removed the political and civil
links connecting the four parts of Macedonia in the same way that they had
formerly broken up the union of the small Latin cities
But, above all, their constant maxim
was to divide. The Achaean republic was formed by an association of free
cities. The senate declared that thenceforth each city would be governed by its
own laws, without depending on a common authority.
Sometimes they abused the subtlety
of the terms of their language. They destroyed Carthage, saying that they had
promised to preserve the people of the city but not the city itself. We know
how the Aetolians, who had entrusted themselves to the good faith of the
Romans, were deceived: the Romans claimed that the meaning of the words to
entrust oneself to the good faith of an enemy entailed the loss of all sorts of
things — of persons, lands, cities, temples, and even tombs.
They could even give a treaty an
arbitrary interpretation. Thus, when they wanted to reduce the Rhodians, they said
they had not previously given them Lycia as a present but as a friend and ally.
Sometimes they made peace with a
prince on reasonable conditions, and when he had executed them, added such
unreasonable ones that he was forced to reopen the war. Thus, after making
Jugurtha surrender his elephants, horses, treasures, and Roman deserters, they
demanded that he surrender himself — an act which is the worst possible
misfortune for a prince and can never constitute a condition of peace.
The peoples who were friends or
allies all ruined themselves by the immense presents they gave to keep or gain
favor, and half the money sent to the Romans for this purpose would have been
enough to conquer them.
Soon the cupidity of individuals
finished carrying off whatever had escaped public avarice. The magistrates and
governors sold their injustices to kings. Two competitors ruined themselves
vying with each other to buy a protection that was always doubtful against any
rival whose funds were not entirely exhausted.
If, after the Second Punic War or
the war with Antiochus, they had taken lands in Africa or Asia, they would have
been unable to preserve conquests established on so slight a foundation. It was necessary to wait until all nations were accustomed to obeying as free
states and allies before commanding them as subjects, and until they
disappeared little by little into the Roman republic.
Look at the treaty they made with
the Latins after the victory of Lake Regillus. It was one of the main
foundations of their power. Not a single word is found there that might arouse
suspicions of empire. It was a slow way of conquering. They vanquished a people
and were content to weaken it. They imposed conditions on it which undermined
it insensibly. If it revolted, it was reduced still further, and it became a
subject people without anyone being able to say when its subjection began.
That is right. Politics is divorced to any kind of morality or justice. We live in a material world; and should we wish to benefit out of it we have to forget all about our spirituality.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it does not matter how much we gain in this way and for how long. For with our activities we create traces of blood or karma to be followed by other vainglorious conquerors. Inevitably, one day we will perish in favour of a more cruel than us force. This is what has happened to the Roman, Chinese, Ottoman and English Empires, and this is what is happening to the current American Empire as well.
And here is the one thousand kingdoms question: Did we come in this already densed world to learn a lesson or two from it, or to loose ourselves by been involved in an endless process of thickening it more and more?
Thanks
What I mean above is to reject the materially charming barbarian power-games and learn from Alexander the Great. Lets learn from His power-game rules as no one was able understand in His time. We have to become pupils without live teachers. And we have to implement and complete His philosophy NOW & WORLDWIDE or all humanity perishes along with us. We have to become greater than His comrades in arms. And this means that we have to re-hellenise our selves to such a degree as to become more Hellenes than His trusted Generals and that we have to have achieved it very-very soon. And that is a little more challenging task than we can imagine.
ReplyDeleteSo, what are we waiting for?