Ethical Questions: Terorism

This collegium and forum are dedicated to the study, discussion, re-creation and application of classical Roman and Greek religion and philosophy.

Moderator: Aldus Marius

Ethical Questions: Terorism

Postby Horatius Piscinus on Thu Nov 06, 2003 12:53 pm

Salvete

Along with the Religio Romana are the many tales of virtue and vice, told by Livy and Valerius Maximus. These stories, myths and tales teach what ancient Romans regarded as the virtuous man and woman. And so today modern practitioners look to these stories of ancient example to determine their personal code of ethics.

The story of Caius Mucius Scaevola is told by Livy at 2.12 f. and by Valerius Maximus 3.3.1. The Etruscan Porsenna had laid siege to Rome. Mucius entered the Etruscan camp and while Porsenna was conducting a sacrifice Mucius sought to assassinate the king. But unfamiliar with the Etruscans, Mucius struck down the wrong man and was captured. He then submitted his right hand onto the brazier, consuming it in fire, saying to Porsenna, ?I am a citizen of Rome and men call me Caius Mucius. You, O King, are my enemy, and I sought to slay you. And now as I did not fear to kill you, I do not fear to die. We men of Rome have courage both to do and to suffer. Think not that I only have this purpose against you: there are many coming after me that seek honour in the same fashion by killing you. Prepare yourself, therefore, to stand in peril of your life every hour, and know that you have an enemy waiting ever at your door. The youth of Rome declares war against you, and this war it will wage, not by battle, but by such deeds as I would have done this day.?

The question then is, does the Religio Romana support the use of terrorism to achieve political goals?

Vale et vade in pacem deorum
M Horatius Piscinus

Sapere aude!
User avatar
Horatius Piscinus
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Primus Aurelius Timavus on Thu Nov 06, 2003 4:16 pm

I would say no. For me the distinction between terrorism and lawful warfare is that terrorism intentionally targets non-military targets for some political effect. The key word is "intentionally". Thus, under my definition, Hitler's genocides, the firebombing of Dresden, the bombing of Coventry, the September 11th attacks, and the Khobar Towers attack would all be examples of terrorism. The atom bomb on Hiroshima (then as now a major port), the bombing of Bagdad, the bombing of the US marine barracks in Beirut, and the attack on the USS Cole would not be.

Since most countries' head of government is also commander in chief of the armed forces, I cannot logically deny that an assassination attempt against him or her would not be terrorism. Indeed, an attempt to remove any member of the chain of command to me is the same as a sniper attack on a high ranking general - legitimate.

Since Porsenna was clearly an enemy leader on a military operation, I would see him as a legitimate target of a non-terrorist operation.

Indeed, the story of Caius Mucius does not explain why he put his right hand in the fire. Could it be that he understood the difference between a legitimate and terrorist target and that he was expiating his mistake in killing the wrong man?

Tergestus
Primus Aurelius Timavus
Curator, Rogator, Praetor et Patricius
Civis Romanus Sum
User avatar
Primus Aurelius Timavus
Curator
Curator
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 11:14 pm
Location: America Italiaque

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Fri Nov 07, 2003 11:21 pm

I always thought Scaevola put his hand into the fire to show his fearlessness rather than to atone for his mistake of striking down the wrong man.

In any case, before we speak of terrorism, I wonder if the religio Romana actually *has* a defined set of moral codes and principles to follow. Secondly, how would terrorism in ancient times have been possible? Perhaps through keeping hostages, that would be an option, but did this actually occur?

Tergestus makes a good point in distinguishing military targets from innocent civilian targets but in an actual war many times this distinction is not made, especially not when they have a genocidal character.

Valete!
Draco
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Horatius Piscinus on Sat Nov 08, 2003 12:52 pm

Salvete

In the story of the Roman seige of the Faliscii a Greek brings out the sons of the leading citizens and presents them to Camillus to use as hostages. Camillus' reply in refusing such a treacherous gift held that "War also has laws even as peace, and to these laws we have learned obedience." Yes, Draco, the Religio Romana does teach that we adhere to moral codes and ethical principles. That is the very point I wish to make by this and future topics based on the stories told in Valerius Maximus and Livy. It is also clear from what Camillus said that Tergestus' point on distinguishing between legitimit targets in the conduct of war would be understood by Roman commanders.

Valete optime
M Horatius Piscinus

Sapere aude!
User avatar
Horatius Piscinus
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Primus Aurelius Timavus on Sat Nov 08, 2003 3:12 pm

Still, I think that the Roman conception of what constitutes a legitimate military target differed from ours. After all, until at least the early principate, soldiers were motivated more by the prospect of booty (I'm not using this word in its urban hip-hop sense) than by salary. And booty meant attacking the civilian population.

Consider the sack of a city: slaughter of the men, rape of the women and girls, sale of the boys into slavery, looting of the valuables, burning of dwellings, etc., etc. All these acts are attacks against the innocent civilian population (and violations of today's Law of War).

I'm not sure whether they would fall under my definition of terrorism, however. It depends on the circumstances and the intent of the sackers and their commander. If the horror that they inflict is designed to create fear among the enemy or to demand future political concessions, then yes it would. But if the soldiers were just enriching themselves, then no it would not.

Tergestus
Primus Aurelius Timavus
Curator, Rogator, Praetor et Patricius
Civis Romanus Sum
User avatar
Primus Aurelius Timavus
Curator
Curator
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 11:14 pm
Location: America Italiaque

Postby Horatius Piscinus on Sun Nov 09, 2003 1:58 am

Salvete

When a Roman army defeated an enemy army they would plunder the enemy camp for spoils of war. Plundering a city was quite another thing and was not often done. Roman Fides mandated that if an enemy surrendered unconditionally then the enemy was placed under the protection of the Roman commander. If the campaign against an enemy city proved difficult or did not result in an unconditional surrender it might prove a harsher result. The idea of a campaign being conducted under auspices meant that everything taken in a campaign belonged to the commander to distribute. A populace (or portion of it) sold into slavery meant the soldiers received a portion of the profits. A percentage was also given to gods or goddesses - Jupiter and Ceres especially, as well as any to whom the commander may have made vows. It was not exactly a free for all plunder after victory. And outright slaughter was unprofitable and rare. Sylla's slaughter of Athens, Praeneste and his order to hunt down all male Samnites (who were btw citizens of Rome by then) are notable exceptions. Another can be the sack of Locri by a subordinate of Scipio Africanus, who was then recalled by the Senate to answer for the act. The result was that the Senate order not only the stolen wealth returned, but doubled it by paying an equal amount to the temple treasuries. Such acts reflected on the person who held the auspices, whether he had ordered it or not, and then too reflected on all Rome, since the auspices were taken on Rome's behald, no the individual commander.

Caesar's slaughter of the women and children of a defeated German tribe was deliberate terrorism. Caesar tried to justify it by saying it would deter other Germans tribes from crossing the Rhine. He only came up with that excuse though after members of the Senate proposed prosecuting him for the sacrilege since this act was a breach of Roman Fides. There was more to the whole affair though. Still, by Caesar's admission, it was terrorism and not simple terror tactics.

Another act of deliberate terror was the burning of crops in the Samnite wars. It was terror since it posed the possibility of famine. It was a legitimit military target because it attacked that untangible "enemy's will to fight." Although an act of terror, I do not think you can call it an act of terrorism. The same holds in a seige of a city, you may attack food and water supplies, causing panic that destroys an enemy's will to continue fighting. Such acts raise terror among the "civilians" (a term maybe not applicable in ancient societies) to a point that it affects the decision of an enemy. This can be taken more directly if you toss infected carcass over the wall, posing disease on top of famine. But there again the terror comes more from the threat than from actually killing indiscriminately. On the other hand, Spartans did kill indiscriminately, and purposely to oppress the helots, which would be taken as institutionalized state terrorism (in much the manner that the old military regime in Guatamala use to control its civilian population.) The same is true of the Roman practice of crucifxion in that its intent was to oppress slaves from revolting, but it was not indiscriminately used.

Standards of conduct differed in ancient times from modern. You might wish to compare the Romans with other civilizations of those times. I think the point is though that Romans did have standards on the conduct of war, they did hold the acts of certain foreign armies and even some Roman commanders to have breached those standards. The Romans did employ terror tactics of a nature still used today and considered legitimit conduct of war. They seem, to me at least, to have had similar concepts as our own when it came to acts of terrorism however. The case Cicero made against Catalina was that he intended a terrorist campaign that would have slaughtered much of the elite of many of the cities of Italy, not just Rome. And the name of Sulla was always abused as that of a butcher because he was regarded o have exceeded Roman standards of conduct in every regard. Just as Tergestus tried to distinguish between legitimit warfare and terrorism I think you can distinguish out acts of (legitimit) terror from terrorism.

Vale
M Horatius Piscinus

Sapere aude!
User avatar
Horatius Piscinus
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Primus Aurelius Timavus on Sun Nov 09, 2003 4:20 am

Salve Piscine,

Congratulations on your promotion to Tribunus Augusticlavus!

Tergestus
Primus Aurelius Timavus
Curator, Rogator, Praetor et Patricius
Civis Romanus Sum
User avatar
Primus Aurelius Timavus
Curator
Curator
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 11:14 pm
Location: America Italiaque

Postby Horatius Piscinus on Mon Nov 10, 2003 11:49 am

Salve Tergeste

Magnas gratias tibi ago.


The title fits rather comfortably on me as does centurian for Marius. Now with a little wine and a warm fire beneath the stars I might tell some of my old war stories. Only to my most intimate friends though :wink:

Vale
M Horatius Piscinus

Sapere aude!
User avatar
Horatius Piscinus
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Ohio, USA


Return to Collegium Religionum et Philosophiarum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron