Scholia Reviews ns 17 (2008) 4.

Kurt A. Rauflaub (ed.), War and Peace in the Ancient World. The Ancient World: Comparative Histories. Malden, Oxford, Victoria: Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Pp. xii + 385. ISBN 978-1-4051-4526-8. US$36.95, UK£19.99, AUS$54.95.

Geoff Harris, Conflict Resolution and Peace Studies,
University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban.

This fascinating book is the proceedings of lecture series at Brown University on war and peace in a range of ancient societies. My qualification for reviewing it is that I have been involved in teaching and research in conflict resolution and peace studies for the past eighteen years.

The book tackles two major questions. First, is war endemic or, as Matthew Melko and others have proposed, is peace really the norm? Second, how did ancient societies attempt to build peace? Following a superb introductory chapter by Raaflaub, these questions are examined in nineteen chapters which cover the ancient near east, China, India, Japan, Rome, Greece and the central and north Americas.

I must admit to being sympathetic to Melko’s view that peace is far more prevalent than war -- peace is ‘ubiquitous, incessant, normal’ and it is war and violence which are abnormal.[[1]] The evidence presented in this book, however, certainly goes against that view. Even if we accept that the voices we are likely to hear on the matter are more likely to be heavily involved in war and violence, the evidence seems to be overwhelming; war is pervasive and deeply ingrained in human thought and action. For ancient India, for example, which has the image of being a realm of peace and non-violence, Salomon finds that ‘even a cursory study . . . suffices to show that war was the rule and peace was very much the exception’ (p. 60), a fact that he links to the absence of a single ruling authority over the sub-continent. Hassig asks ‘where peace is located in the Aztec social system. And the answer is nowhere . . . virtually everyone benefited from warfare . . .’ (p. 325).

In many ancient societies, war was purposeful and its costs were recognized. Raaflaub quotes a character from the writings of Herodotus (1.87) as declaring ‘No one is fool enough to choose war instead of peace -- in peace sons bury their fathers, but in war fathers bury their sons’ (p. 24). What means were available in ancient societies to build peace?

Two extreme examples are provided. The chapters by Barton and Debrohun show that ancient Rome, at least up to the civil war period, was only interested in one kind of peace -- that resulting from the defeat and humiliation of enemies and their integration into the empire. ‘Keeping the peace required teaching other nations to know their place, demonstrating to them in the most unmistakable terms that they would not stand a chance against the Roman colossus and that horrible things would happen to them if they were so foolish as to try’ (p. 229). At the other end of the spectrum, Crawford describes the Iroquois League of five (later six) Indian nations whose negotiations and agreement changed their relationship from one of war to one of peace for over 300 years. There were indeed a range of ways of building peace available -- intimidation, arbitration, the just cause/just war, peace restoration efforts and alliances. The conception of peace prevalent is the society seems to be central in explaining such differences. While there was no such conception for the Aztecs, in others (ancient India, ancient Israel) there were important linkages between personal or inner peace and political peace, although an emphasis on the importance of the former did not necessarily translate into tolerance towards political neighbours.

These questions and answers have, of course, been suggestive of present day debates. Is peace possible or is war inevitable? Can we find effective ways of building sustainable peace? It is interesting to note that since 1990, contrary to common impressions, there has been a significant reduction in the number and intensity of armed conflicts world-wide. One possible explanation is that the international community has been more willing to intervene to prevent the escalation of armed conflict. Scholars of ancient history will no doubt want more than seventeen years data to be convinced that something is indeed changing.

Two final thoughts. One of the arguments against war is that it is very costly (to which I would want to add ineffective and immoral). In 225, Rome had perhaps 271 000 infantry and cavalry drawn from its citizens and 361 000 from its Italian allies (p. 236), which used up around half the government’s annual expenditure (p. 228). In the event, as I understand it, this cost became too much to bear and was a major reason for the decline of the empire.

In fact, structural violence -- social and economic policies which support some groups and neglect others -- is far more deadly these days than warfare, although the picture is complicated by the deadly indirect effects of war such as causing the breakdown of food supplies and health services. This does not get much mention in the book, although Kruger’s analysis of the Hebrew vision of peace demonstrates its dependence on justice.

Overall, this is an excellently written and utterly stimulating book. It has been a delight and privilege to read it.

NOTES

[[1]] Matthew Melko, ‘Peaceful Societies’, in S. Young and Perez de Cuellar (edd.), World Encyclopedia of Peace (New York 1999[2]). Vol. 3, p. 303.