The Imperial Order

THE IMPERIAL ORDER

THE

IMPERIAL ORDER

ROBERT G. WESSON

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES

1967

University of California Press

Berkeley and Los Angeles, California

Cambridge University Press

London, England

© by The Regents of the University of California Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 67-11938

Designed by Bud Mall

Printed in the United States of America

PREFACE

A sage observer of human nature, Aesop, related that the frog people of a marsh once prayed for a king to rule over them. Indulgent Zeus granted them a fine log. The frogs soon learned that they could climb over their King Log with impunity; disappointed that it was so unawesome, they pleaded for a more kingly ruler. Annoyed, the god sent King Stork, who proceeded to gobble his subjects.

Unhappily, governments often have inchnations, like the stork, to interfere with their subjects’ fives and to consume their substance. Rulers, whatever their professions, seldom act solely and entirely in the interests of those whom they govern; and no system has been able to compel them to do so. Politicians everywhere strive, within the channels of the political culture, for the sweetness of command, honor, and position; and the urge to power is opposite to almost all hungerings in that it is not appeased but energized by the attainment of its desires. The everlasting fondness for managing and commanding others is essential for effective joint action and the useful organization of human efforts, but it all too often outgrows its rational purposes. Power asserts itself for the sake of power, and the more freely it is exercised the more inescapable and harmful its misuse.

It is a thesis of this book that the degree to which power or political motivation dominates society depends largely upon the degree to which it is checked by contrary power, that is, the degree to which power is divided. If various entities somehow offset one another, there can be no single firm order and omnipotent arbitrary rule; if there are no independent powers, an autocrat is politically unbounded, free to work his will as the stork upon the frogs.

Political power may be variously checked: national or religious cleavages often set parts of a nation against each other, fearful lest any secure absolute predominance; economic groups may be able to exert pressure in their own defense; an accepted constitutional structure may split powers functionally or, more effectively, territorially. But the most fundamental and in the long run the strong- est of divisions is that into independent states which, so far as they are in contact, tend to check one another. In a system of independent states, no ruler can suppose himself king of the universe; competition compels some attention to the needs of the people; foreign ideas can never be entirely excluded; there are always potential sources of inspiration and support for dissidents. On the other hand, political power is freest and most readily made absolute and all-pervading in a great empire that encompasses its world, where there are no equal neighbors or where neighbors are so distant that men cannot look to them, as in imperial China or the Roman empire. Such great unified states, on whose horizons dwell only barbarians or minor states, have always been given over, for good and ill, to unlimited power.

Consequently, one might best see the effects of political power where it is purest, in the vast and noncompetitive empires that largely stand apart from or above the interaction of states. In them one should perceive the results of power unleashed, its means of fortifying itself, the abuses to which it is prone, and the course of its decay. If the divided system is conducive to individualism, inquiry, political freedom, and variety, the unified order favors a rigid and conformist social system, an unassailable ideology, autocratic government, and general uniformity. It is characteristic of the great empires that local and independent authorities are ground down or suppressed, that churches are made subservient to the political center, that rulers are deified or surrounded with great pomp and an aura of sanctity, that a large and usually swelling bureaucracy is set up to carry out the supreme will but serves itself, that the political struggle commonly retreats behind the scenes and to the palace corridors.

Many devices are evolved to protect and fortify the sacred power, the most important of which is perhaps the shaping of minds; obedience is incomplete unless voluntary, and an effective rule must be made philosophically acceptable. Impatient of dissent, the autocratic power discourages free inquiry; resting upon acceptance of the established order, it tends to formalism and conservatism. Where no law stands over the will, there is no measure of morality; and the higher the government stands over its subjects, the more difficult to restrain itself, to avoid capricious abuse of power, corruption, and internal rot.

It is the purpose of this book to consider the grandest creations of humanity and its most monumental failures, the great imperial systems, in which one sees the potency of human masses mobilized by a single will and yet much more the incapacity of men to govern themselves for the general welfare. Their common traits, from the Roman and the Mogul to the Inca empire, may be taken as the result of great and undivided power. That this is pertinent for a world forever beset by tendencies to concentration of power needs no stressing. Moreover, the study of the imperial order is a study of power itself. Wherever there is strong organization there is an element of command, giving some men opportunities of bending others to their purposes. Just as there is every shade and degree of despotism — from the Sapa Inca who decreed immediate death by raising his hand, down to the freedom and equality of a medieval Swiss commune, where no one could be bound without the consent of the whole community — so likewise there are exploitative and coercive elements in all complex societies; in all manner of hierarchies power is a prime motive and men seek to rise and better themselves by controlling their fellows. Most of the ailments of society are related to the inability to manage power. What may be seen in an extreme in the great power-oriented empires is a general sickness, the germs of which are never absent in civilization.

Not a little has been written about these matters, of empires and civilizations, growth, corruption and decay, and the uses of authority. If the present work seeks to go beyond others, it is mostly in stressing the primary role of the political configuration in the shaping of the rest. For example, it is taken herein that kings have been deified primarily because they were in a position to deify themselves and they liked it or it suited the purposes of rule. It may be contended, to the contrary, that deified kingship corresponds to needs for a powerful father symbol and the reassurance it brings, or to religious institutions identifying a symbolic person with the people and making him a necessary link with the supernatural. Imperial decay is here regarded as primarily a result of the misuse of power which follows inevitably from its concentration. Many have felt that an oppressive empire is less the cause than the result of a moral decay, because of which men cease to value independence and freedom; that then, as corruption progresses, economic and intellectual decline breeds tyranny, and despotism becomes less resisted and more necessary to hold to gether the fabric of society. Most treatments rather incline toward the second approach, so far as they venture explanation; that is, they see the political setup as the result of economic or cultural factors rather than the opposite, or view all as bound into a nexus from which cause can hardly be dissected.

It is, indeed, somewhat venturesome to speak of causes in matters so infinitely complicated as the rise and decay of great empires. It is justified only to the extent that emphasis on certain aspects may improve understanding and make more intelligible otherwise confusing developments. It is not a strictly verifiable statement of fact that the formation of a universal empire causes intellectual stagnation, but it is an observable regularity; and, when one considers reasons for the autocratic power to choke individual thinking and ways in which it can do so, this relation and allied ones become fairly understandable.

If something has remained to be explored in this direction, it is partly because only in the past few decades have studies of the great imperial societies of the past advanced sufficiently to permit much comparison. Whatever his perspicacity, Montesquieu lacked factual material for a morphology of the imperial system; he was practically limited to Roman history. In our day, historical studies have burgeoned at an ever-increasing rate, and the student, in connection with the better-known empires, is not starved but overfed. Moreover, there has been some disinclination to stress political power. Almost all of us have some covert admiration for power and a tendency to respect those who can make themselves powerful. At the same time, it has practically been taken for granted until recent years that political studies were concerned with the right uses and management of power, exceptionally, as in Machiavelli, with the means of its increase. The great absolutist or totalitarian states of the twentieth century have contributed much to our sophistication in this regard.

If the glorious universal empires are treated here with less respect than is ordinarily given them, this is not the result of initial prejudice but of convictions that grew during the study. The quest was undertaken, to be sure, with considerable skepticism about the claims of the empires and their apologists, but with no desire to blacken them. Empires have certainly accomplished great, or at least very impressive, things. But so far as they have been unrestrained one should not expect them to be good.

Preface

Thanks are due above all to my wife, Deborah, who has made innumerable suggestions of form and content and who, with care beyond price, has typed and retyped the entire work. I wish also to express gratitude to the University of California, which facilitated the completion of the manuscript through a Summer Faculty Fellowship.

R. G. W. University of California Santa Barbara

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

CONQUEST FROM THE FRINGES

DECADENCE OF THE FREE

NEED FOR UNION

UNIVERSAL EMPIRES

PATTERN OF EMPIRE

REACHING FOR THE WORLD

THE SWORD SHEATHED

THE SELF-CENTERED STATE

FROM CITY REPUBLIC TO WORLD DESPOTISM

VITALITY OF ROME

EXALTED MAJESTY

MONOPOLY OF AUTHORITY

UNFREE ENTERPRISE

RULE WITHOUT LAW

BUREAUCRACY

INNER COURT

WHO RULES?

GREAT ACHIEVEMENTS

EQUALITY IN INFERIORITY

POLITICAL CONTROLS

GUIDANCE OF MINDS

USE OF FAITH

HIGHER DISCIPLINE

GRIP OF EMPIRE

GLEAM OF GRANDEUR

POVERTY OF ROME

STERILITY

THE NONCOMPETITIVE WORLD

WEIGHT OF THE STATE

THE DISPIRITED SOCIETY

BURDENS OF EMPIRE

LANDLORDISM

OVERPOPULATION

THE BANKRUPT SOCIETY

SUCCESSION

THE INEFFECTIVE APPARATUS

PARASITIC HORDES

THE DILAPIDATED STATE

CRUMBLING DEFENSES

THE AMORAL SOCIETY

FAILURE OF REFORM

DECLINE OF EMPIRES

IMPRINT OF UNITY

IMAGE OF AUTHORITY

CELESTIAL EMPIRE

CHINESE BUDDHISM

NEW FAITHS AT ROME

THE ROMAN CHURCH

ETHICAL COMMUNISM

EFFECTS OF DOMINATION

ISOLATION: HAWAIIAN DESPOTISM

SIZE: PRIMITIVE EMPIRES

WAYS OF POWER

THE IMPERIAL ORDER

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX

CONQUEST FROM THE FRINGES

Western culture has risen out of individualism, division, plurality, and contention. It has not known a universal hegemony since the Roman empire nor a general moral authority since the Reformation; its millennial history is of wars and diplomacy, the continual competition and intermittent strife of free and sovereign polities. Consciously or unconsciously, we take such a world for granted; children of the greatest of state systems, we find this international order or disorder the natural way of civilized existence.

This is only a perspective of good fortune. Systems of states in close contact and yet independent have been exceptional and usually transitory; ordinarily single states have ruled areas rather large in terms of their means of communication; and international contact, except for wars, has been of secondary importance. Most humans during the millennia of civilization have hved and died with hardly a glance beyond the horizons of a single state.

This follows because empires are much more easily made than state systems. The latter, indeed, are not made at all but can evolve only where conditions happen to be favorable, while empires can be formed whenever states or leaders can muster military power to carve them, and they can go as far as arms can carry them. Moreover, empires are dedicated to self-preservation, and usually rather effectively so; but a large part of the energies of contending states is directed toward pulling down opponents, which, if successful, means the destruction of the balanced system. This outcome is seemingly inevitable in the nature of sovereignty. As independent states are free to use force at their own discretion, to make war and get the better of their neighbors, and as inequalities of power are Sways arising, a system of closely interacting units can continue to exist for a long time only when special circumstances fortify the independence of the several units. The balance of power is helpful, but it is complex and delicate and can never give full security; independence is enduringly precarious so long as sovereignties hope to increase power at the expense of their fellows. In a state system there is always danger, and fears increase the urge to conquest and so the dangers to all.

Hence the state systems of the past have all been engulfed, after a few centuries of vigorous Ufe, by a conquering nation that has assumed the burden and glory of empire, ending quarrels and imposing a supreme rule, replacing plurality and disorder by unity and supreme government. The earhest recorded example is the downfall of the city-states of Sumeria, the chief originators of civilization. In the generations after 2500 B.C. tensions seem to have been increasing, as wars grew sharper and armies became better organized and professional. One or another of the city-states came to the fore until Lugalzagezzi of Umma about 2300 B.C. made himself hegemon of all Sumeria. He introduced the idea of world rule, proclaiming that he would water the earth with joy [132,1, 224] as all sovereigns lay before him like cows at pasture [135, p. 122]; but he was able to set up no firm empire. Holding to traditional ways and claiming authority not by prerogative but by election in the cities under his sway, he could really rule only the area adjacent to his seat. [100, pp. 172-182,197-201] Lugalzagezzi enjoyed only brief glory; within a few years he was overthrown by a stronger imperiahst, Sargon of Akkad. The latter, a Semite from north of the ancient center, built up a new disciplined mass army based on archers instead of the chariots and spearmen of the older style, and smashed to unexampled conquest. In his campaign against Lugalzagezzi he boasted of killing or capturing fifty chiefs. After conquering Sumeria, he marched far beyond, extending his power from the Persian Gulf to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, perhaps as far as Cyprus [109, p. 24], to form a truly stupendous empire for the times. It is a token of the greatness of his work that Akkadian became and for a thousand years remained the diplomatic language of the Near East.

Although he may have owed much to the model of Egypt, a large state then close to a millennium old, Sargon is the first empire builder of whom we have much knowledge. Having begun his career as an administrator under the king of Kish, he applied his talents to ruling the Sumerian cities as they had never been ruled. It was his practice to destroy the city walls, take leading men as hostages, and install his own governors supported by a garrison. [136, p. 50] He must have built an imperial apparatus of rule; ac cording to his boast, 5,400 men ate bread daily before him. Inaugurating a new era, he chose not to install himself in one of the ancient cities consecrated by tradition, but built a new, artificial capital, Akkad, said to have been the most resplendent city of its day. [122, p. 61]

Not yet, however, were the Sumerians prepared to bow their heads meekly. Each succession after Sargon saw a revolt of the still proud cities, although the apparatus of rule was successively improved. When the dynasty of Sargon was overthrown after about two centuries by new invaders from the relatively barbarian north, something of the old Sumeria reemerged. For approximately a century the cities again enjoyed a degree of independence. Then the ancient leading city of Ur established a new empire, more compact than the Akkadian but similarly administered by governors posted to each city. [136, p. 57] This strictly Sumerian empire lasted slightly more than a century, only to give way to a new group of small competing powers, with shifting leadership and instable alliances. In this Indian summer of more than two hundred years, Sumerian culture, although its highest creativity was long past, reached its apogee of splendor. Thereafter, the whole area was brought into the Babylonian empire by Hammurabi. Since then, the cradle of civilization has almost always paid tribute to alien rulers, of whom the Hittites, Assyrians, Persians, Macedonians, Romans, Arabs, and Turks are only the better known; and it has remained as relatively backward as it once was progressive.

Greek independence was not so long in dying as the Sumerian, perhaps because the Greeks were never out of sight of imperial rule, as perfected and exemplified by the magnificent Persian empire of Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes. The Peloponnesian wars, coming when Hellenic culture was reaching its zenith, bled, drained, and partly demoralized Greece. The successive failure of the greatest cities, Athens, Sparta, and Thebes, to secure dominion seemed to show that only an outside force could unite the land. Philip of Macedon undertook this task. He developed his political ideas during three years spent as a hostage at Thebes; there also he learned strategy from Epaminondas, Greece’s greatest general. Returning to Macedon, a kingdom large compared with a Greek polis, he introduced a much stronger and tighter phalanx supported by a fuller panoply of mobile weapons, light infantry, and archers.

It was an instrument impossible for the Greeks, who relied mostly on the valor, physical fitness, and discipline of their citizens.

Philip rather easily won ascendancy over the individualistic Greeks, unable as ever to unite against an invader; but he had too much respect for Greek culture to make them his subjects. The Macedonian yoke was never heavy; it never brought Greek intellectual and political life to a halt, and it was largely shaken off in a few generations. Then Greek political life partly revived, much as the Sumerian did after the Akkadian empire.

But hardly had Macedonian power receded when a far greater, the Roman, loomed on the edge of the Greek cultural sphere. The Roman empire was peculiarly, not the work of a single driving strategist, organizer, and conqueror, but the accomplishment of a people of imperial virtues, courage, and especially unflinching determination never to accept defeat. Rome had many leaders, good and bad, and many setbacks, but always returned to carry the attack to victory. Rome must, consequently, owe most to its institutions; and various writers, like Polybius, credited it with just the proper degree of oligarchy tempered by democracy. This meant the successful combination of strong leadership with the intense involvement of the citizens, the patriotic dedication of a partly democratic city-state guided by a purposeful Senate instead of a fickle assembly.

Rome did not swoop to empire as Macedon had, but built slowly and surely. The struggle for Italy was most arduous, and many times Rome suffered setbacks. Very early, however, it displayed an imperial bent by refusing to make peace except with a beaten enemy. Dogged determination often turned near defeat into victory; Rome was always victorious in war after 387 B.C., and the long series of triumphs gave confidence in divine favor and the Roman mission. Moreover, a certain forbearance, at least within Italy, added strength. Defeated Italian cities were not so much pillaged as brought into federation; they were made not mere subjects but allies. To be sure, alliance with Rome was permanent and involuntary, and attempts to break away were punished by war, while the Romans interpreted treaties to suit themselves. But Rome was much more successful than Athens or Sparta in gaining the allegiance of conquered neighbors. Roman citizenship, full or partial, was given to many Italians. [285, p. 62] And whereas Athens demanded money from subject towns, Rome required the Latins to furnish soldiers, a less resented form of tribute. Not only were men cheap; they were often quite willing to share the spoils of Roman victory. Adding to military strength by conquest, Rome thus built up in fertile and populous Italy a solid basis for power which no Greek state could hope to rival.

The empire came of age when Rome moved out of peninsular Italy to acquire Sicily, formerly mostly under Carthaginian control; and the crucial time of Roman expansion was the long struggle with Carthage, lasting with intermissions from 265 to 146 B.C. Carthage was the strongest rival in the Mediterranean world. The Greek city-states had faded to relative obscurity, while the major Hellenistic powers of Alexander’s successors were preoccupied with one another and had little westward thrust after the defeat of Pyrrhus, against whom Rome and Carthage once briefly joined in alliance. Hence, although Rome was agricultural and Carthage commercial, expansion inevitably brought the two powers into collision. The First Punic War, fought mostly in and for Sicily, was a hard-earned victory for Rome. In the Second Punic War, Hannibal by sheer virtuosity gained spectacular success, but in the hour of darkness Rome refused to think of compromise and was saved by the faithfulness of the Latin allies. Carthage was unable or unwilling to dedicate the forces necessary for complete victory, and the Romans carried the war to Africa and beat the Carthaginians on their home ground.

Before the decisive battle of Zama, Scipio encouraged his legions by promising that the victor would rule the world [562, p. 57]; and he saw clearly. With Carthage disposed of, there was no great independent state to contest the western Mediterranean, and the gates to the East were open. There was still much hard fighting, and the Hellenistic states from time to time won victories, but the Roman tide was inexorable. When any two nations fought, Rome always sought to interpose its arbitration and usually came out the winner. To be known to be rich was to invite attack by Rome, and concessions made were followed by new demands. Western lands were generally made provinces; Eastern realms of older civilization were made allies — alliance with Rome being a condition of inferiority. Nominal alliance was converted insensibly, as Gibbon notes, into real servitude. [314,1, 31] As the lands that had learned obedience were made provinces under proconsuls, Rome by degrees became capital and ruler of the world, orbis terrarum, an empire that almost coincided with civilization as seen from Italy. Except for the Parthians, too distant for real concern, outside the Roman sphere were left only savage tribes, warlike, often nomadic peoples, from whom nothing could be extracted to repay the cost of conquest.

At nearly the same time that the classical Mediterranean world was being engulfed by the Roman empire, the classical China of many contending states was being forged into the Chinese empire. Again, the state that made itself master of a ripe civilization was one on the rim of the circle, accessible to Chinese culture but slightly alien to it, trained to military ways, as were Prussia and Rome, by contact with still less civilized peoples and by successful expansion against them.

Centuries earlier there had been a more or less united state in the Yellow River valley, and imperial unification might have seemed easier in China because men looked back to and idealized the golden age when sage kings had ruled all China. In fact, however, the continued existence of a shadowy imperial power long impeded a new master’s rise, just as the Holy Roman Empire served not to unite Germany but to support its feudal division. In 722 B.C., when the old Chou dynasty became practically impotent, there were some 170 independent or nearly independent states. In centuries of wars, the weaker or less fortunate were gradually eliminated, until by 481 B.C. thirteen independent powers remained. Jealousies among these continued for a remarkably long time to maintain a balance of power, but one by one the feebler or less determined were swallowed up by the stronger and more aggressive, and the contest for position became more intense and wars fiercer. Chivalry and moderation were forgotten in the struggle; in the final stages of the Ch’in campaign for supremacy it is recorded (probably with horrified exaggeration) that 400,000 soldiers who surrendered on a promise of mercy were butchered, and this was only the worst of many atrocities.

The two principal contenders for supremacy were Chu, to the south, the first to annex a major state, and Ch’in, to the southwest of the Yellow River valley center of Chinese culture. Both were hardened by conflict with barbarians outside the polite code and less bound to the conventions of civilization. [5, p. 7] The Ch’in people themselves at one time were considered barbarians by the refined folk of the inner circle. Ch’in never produced a scholar of consequence but was fashioned into an efficient military state by political advisers from abroad, who imported and applied the stem philosophy of Legalism. A response to the increasing tensions of international relations, somewhat akin to fascism in spirit, Legalism exalted the state and its needs as the principle of right and justified coercion for the sake of power. It also excused harsh rule on the grounds that people had to be controlled because they had multiplied overmuch. [11, p. 123] In accordance with this doctrine, families were organized into groups directly under the central power instead of under the feudal nobility. Everyone was expected to watch his neighbors and denounce crimes or suffer the penalties imposed on the criminals; taxes were increased, rewards given for military service, weights and measures standardized, potential soldiers lured from neighboring states by the promise of free land, and the nobility largely supplanted by a bureaucratic administration. Measures were taken to penalize commerce (trade was less important for Ch’in than for more central states) and to favor agriculture and industry. [21, pp. 205-208] The police was made efficient and powerful, and movement was controlled by passports. The army was given mobility with mounted archers in nomad style while other states still relied on chariots. [30, p. 95]

By such authoritarian measures, Ch’in mobilized, under a Machiavellian foreign prime minister, the strength necessary to vanquish the last rival in 221 B.C. The king of Ch’in then proclaimed himself First Emperor. But the harsh tactics suitable for winning an empire were no way to rule it. After the death of the First Emperor, rebellion broke out, and the dynasty was overthrown. There was then an attempt to reestablish the old states. But it was too late; after a year or two, the Han dynasty restored universal empire and set the pattern of Chinese life for the next two thousand years.

On the other side of the world, the Inca conquerors of Andean civilization likewise came from a region somewhat apart from the old center of civilization. So far as the rapid course of Inca expansion was peculiar, it was in the importance of political organization and methods. The Incas seem to have introduced no important military innovations, but they were superlative organizers, as conquering peoples must be. They also strove perhaps more successfully than any other empire builders to impose their yoke smoothly.

They sent emissaries to mix blandishments and fair words with dire threats, explaining the advantages of the rule of the Son of the Sun. [171, p. 219] It seems that nations often preferred peaceful incorporation to a doubtful resistance, accepting their new masters as bringers of order out of chaos. [172, p. 13] The Incas made this choice easier by avoiding plunder and treating gently those who laid down their arms. [179, p. 88] Subsequently, for those who found themselves laboring mightily for alien lords, resistance was impossible.

Such gatherings of a group of independent states into a broad empire show a certain regularity in that the conquering state stands close enough to the center of civilization to learn the advanced arts of war and administration but far enough apart not to share fully its civilized values. Something like this has occurred often throughout history: the less civilized men of Upper Egypt marched across the delta to unite Egypt; the Hittites and various other conquerors of Mesopotamia (although not the Assyrians) came from the wilder north, as did the Persians; the state of Magadha, which united India in 325 B.C., although itself a cultural center of some importance [204, p. 18], lay to the east of the old center of Indian culture; the Mongols, history’s most successful conquerors, were semibarbarian tribes on the edge of Chinese civilization before Genghis Khan forged them into a mighty force; the Turkic founders of the Mogul empire swooped down from Central Asia to feast on the civilized delights of India; the Aztecs came into central Mexico from the ruder north; the partly Slavic Prussians were slightly crude to the Rhinelanders who came under their aegis.

The superiority of such empire builders has never lain in a higher degree of general civilization nor usually in technical superiority of weaponry. But peripheral states have several advantages. Most obviously, they are likely to be bigger. Macedon had more substantial resources than any single Greek polis, and it was much easier for Rome than for Athens or Sparta to build up a broad base of land power. Ch’in could enlarge its domains and manpower at the expense of weaker and less cultured peoples, whereas the more civilized states of central China could expand only at the expense of one another and against the fiercest resistance. Similarly, the small free states of Italy, after having led European civilization for centuries, were helpless when France and Spain were forged into national powers. On a larger scale, while the states of Europe were battling for frontier fortresses and provinces, often passing them back and forth with shifting alliances, achieving little or nothing at the cost of much blood, Russia was able to spread over hundreds of thousands of square miles to the south and east against feeble resistance. Consequently, by the middle of the twentieth century Russia would have been in a position, but for the fortuitous rise of another huge extra-European power, to assert hegemony of the continent. Big states on the edge of civilization have a moral advantage, too; with the experience of incorporating and managing an imposing territory, they feel capable of governing the world and enjoy the idea that they may be called upon to do so.

Such states may also be more acceptable masters. Although the peoples of a culture-building area may regard the powers on the edges as crude and unpolished, they may resist the hegemony of an outsider less than that of one of their own number. Traditional quarrels rim very deep; the new power stepping into the arena more convincingly proclaims its doctrines of peace and order and presents itself as deliverer as well as master; many are prepared to accept it as protector. For some Greeks it seemed less humiliating to bow to Macedonians or even the cruel Romans than to yield independence to Athens, Thebes, or Sparta. The Italian citystates of the Renaissance bitterly resisted moves toward supremacy by any of their system, but many towns carelessly if not joyously opened their gates to the French invaders, and masses of Italians hailed the French king as a savior. Likewise it would seem that, in the years following the Second World War, Europeans have been more prone to accept American or Russian hegemony than that of any European power. They have been much more easily persuaded of the unselfishness of America (or Russia) than of that of England, France, or Germany; the outside arbiter at least would not favor any one of the ancient rivals over the others. Radical parties could more easily accept dictation from Moscow than from Paris, London, or Rome. The commander of NATO forces in Europe for the defense of Europe could only be an American; and European statesmen have pleaded earnestly for the reduction of old-fashioned nationalism in deference to American leadership as they could not for the benefit of any of their own.

Even if the states of ripe civilization were acceptable as imperial unifiers, they seem to have been poorly qualified for the role. If Lugalzagezzi, becoming master of all Sumeria, had been able to organize his rule with stem imperial efficiency, he surely would not have been so quicldy toppled. The strongest Greek cities were singularly incapable of organizing their domain. After the defeat of Persia, Athens was able to make a large number of cities its tributaries but had no notion of cementing them into a firm union. In the Peloponnesian wars, the Athenian vassals were of very little help to the metropolis; unlike the allies of Rome, they were more inclined to rebel than to aid in the horn- of need. How far the Athenians were from an imperial mentality is exemplified by their overfrank statement to the Melians (according to Thucydides) that they would rule simply by right of strength; proper imperialists would have expounded their duties as protectors of civilization and bringers of order for the benefit of weak and strong alike, and would have done much to give this an appearance of truth. A sugar- coating of righteousness can cover much of the bitterness of subjugation. Sparta, after defeating Athens, had a much better opportunity to cement Greek unity under its sword and, as a land power accustomed to the rale of a surrounding territory, should have been better qualified. But it failed entirely. The Spartan harmosts, or proconsuls, had no concerted imperial policy or direction; and they and the supporting garrisons were soon withdrawn or expelled. Subsequently, Thebes became briefly the strongest power in Greece but made no serious effort to weld the cities together. The Italian city-states of the Middle Ages were likewise unadept in making conquered lands a source of new power.

So have been the nation-states of Europe, even while building, thanks to enormous technical superiority, huge colonial empires. It is particularly instructive how little vocation the British, once overlords of a quarter of the land and the people of the globe by virtue of sea power and economic leadership, have shown for the incorporation of alien peoples. Despite more than seven hundred years of rule they failed entirely to bend the Irish, and even on their own little island they have never entirely overcome the separateness of the Scots and Welsh. To this day, for example, the British straggle with the duality of the Scottish and English legal systems, while Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties are a recurrent nuisance. The British have been too respectful of rights simply to sweep away the obstacles to unity and uniformity. In their overseas colonies, they have taught not so much their own mission of ralership as lessons of law, freedom, and human rights. The West generally has educated dependent peoples not to bow humbly before the supreme power but to aspire to independence; almost all the leaders of nationalist and anticolonialist movements have been formed in Western schools. Free states, by their philosophy, laws, and institutions, give ideas of freedom even when they would not. Weaker but less enlightened and less scrupulous Portugal has known better how to keep its subjects submissive, while Russia, tsarist or communist, has been little troubled by independence movements in Central Asia.

The marginal states thus enjoy a manifold superiority: they have greater resources; they can place themselves above the long-time divisions and enmities of contending states; moreover, they are less inhibited in fighting and in imposing their rule. They are likely to be more warlike because of close contact with still less civilized peoples, while their mentality is less tempered by the experience of dealing with equals. Thus, Rome felt that war should be concluded only by victory; and it was the usage of many world conquerors, like the Mongols and the early Persian kings, never to settle with those who resisted until they were made prisoners. [317, p. 103] Such attitudes would be impossible within a functioning state system like the ancient Greek or modern European. More readily borrowing arts of war than values of civilization, enjoying military ascendancy while suffering cultural inferiority, peripheral states find compensation in the former and stress the values of power. Military and political domination is particularly satisfying to the uncultivated; if we are scorned as uncouth, our sword can speak for us. The will to dominion rises stronger in those who sense their own crudity but are confident of their strength. It may be also that the outer state, less advanced in ways of business and production, sees military power as the easiest way to riches; and success gives huge confidence in the rightness of strength.

Contact with a more advanced civilization seems frequently to bring about a strengthening of rulership among peoples who previously enjoyed more easygoing government. The king or the oligarchs are better situated than their people to learn from abroad, and the lessons that most interest them are those of power. Thus the state of Ch’in, aiming at hegemony in China, imported foreign scholars to teach not the people but the court; and the state was thereby successfully reorganized into a machine for conquest. Peter the Great tightened his control over his vast and unwieldy realm by bringing in Western techniques and advisers; only long afterward, as enlightenment filtered to broader circles, did Westernization become a liberalizing influence. Similarly, in the Hawaiian Islands at the end of the eighteenth century, foreign ideas and counselors helped King Kamehameha to build up a little despotic empire such as the islands had never known; not until decades later did the infiltration of modern ideas bring more freedom.

Inferiority in the more sophisticated aspects of civilization is thus an asset for empire builders. Among states, the most effective qualification for supreme power is the driving urge to clutch it — unqualified self-righteousness and determined will uneroded by civilized refinement.

DECADENCE OF THE FREE

The more successful of universal empires, such as the Roman or the Chinese, have taken over or inherited the civilization of a group of independent states. These, then, failed. Yet free competitive states have sometimes been exuberantly vigorous. Like western Europe from the late Middle Ages until our day, the Greek citystates for centuries were setting up colonies all around the Mediterranean and the Black Sea and ever more widely expanding their cultural sphere. In the creative period of classical Chinese culture, the time of Contending States, there was a strong political and cultural outward thrust against the surrounding barbarian peoples. Probably this has been true of every area of great cultural growth: by improvement of technology, by their morale and good organization, the creators of a new civilization find themselves immensely superior to peoples around and extend their influence or sway as naturally as water flows downhill. It is then a sharp reversal when the thrust comes from outside against the center, as though in delayed vengeance for a long history of cultural and political imperialism: Greece colonized Italy, and Italy conquered Greece; the Europe that gave its civilization to America and Russia finds itself pressed between the two.

This reversal suggests that civilizations have their time of vitality and vigor, as of youth, after which they age and decay to dull impotence; then it is almost an act of mercy to sweep them into an orderly empire. Thus it has been contended that Rome was practically fulfilling a duty in asserting dominion over Greek states whose day was done and whose life had essentially departed. But if aging is a tangible reality in an organism, it is difficult to define in a society, whose parts are continually renewed as new generations and fresh minds come forward. It is clear only if there are material causes for decline, as when a mining community comes to the end of its ore; some of the miners move away while others fall into poverty, and abandoned streets are the image of decay. The exhaustion of silver deposits at Laurium certainly added to the woes of Athens. Wearing out of the soil has been suggested as a possible cause of the mysterious abandonment of Mayan cities in Guatemala; pests or plagues may also be guessed to have played some role. Any sort of change of natural conditions may be postulated as a cause of decay; so far as a favorable environment contributes to the rise of a civilization, the random changes of centuries are likely to be detrimental. Possibly, too, there has been genetic deterioration; a great civilization creates artificial conditions of breeding, the effects of which may be supposed deleterious.

But the search for material causes for the decay of cultures has not been very fruitful. The creativity of the Sumerian city-states appears to have continued up to the time when they were conquered; at most one may suppose that they had lost martial virtues. The Chinese Contending States were in the full bloom of cultural growth up to the day they were cut down; the worst to be said of them was that they were unable adequately to mobilize, although they fought energetically against the militaristic state of Ch’in. In Greece, the Hellenistic period may be considered decadent by comparison with the classical period; but its cultural creation, if in some ways inferior, was in other ways superior and generally far more abundant. In particular, it was much the best season for natural science until modern days, and its high fertility endured until crushed by superior power. The Roman sword was sufficient cause of death for Greek civilization, as for its greatest mathematician, Archimedes, struck down by the plunderers of Syracuse. Nor does there seem to have been any marked failure of courage. The siege of Syracuse, defended by the genius of Archimedes, was long and hard-fought and was brought to an end only by treason. Likewise, in their last battles for freedom, the Greeks displayed a valor worthy of the men of Marathon.

There appears to be no general law of decay. The Phoenicians maintained a high vitality much longer than the Greeks. The trading towns on the Lebanese coast were in the vanguard of civilization by the twelfth century B.C. or earlier, masters, despite their puny size, of much of the Mediterranean. Although the life and ways of commerce are sometimes denigrated as especially debilitating, the Phoenicians were still youthfully vigorous after more than a thousand years of prosperity. Tyre resisted Alexander in 333-332 B.C. with more spirit than any other people he met on his epic march of conquest. And perhaps the best, certainly the noblest, time of Carthage came at the close of Phoenician independence, after defeat in the Second Punic War. Then the Carthaginians so energetically rebuilt that the Romans found their freedom dangerous, although they were stripped of outlying possessions and military power. In three years of nearly hopeless struggle against the Roman hordes, Carthage showed the most magnificent spirit and courage. No people, in the hour of despair, could have seemed less effete, less ready to be slaves.

The West has been developing with great energy for a thousand years; and, while the leadership has shifted from region to region and some areas have fallen behind, there has been no real interruption of the onward sweep. The great rise up to the Renaissance, to which the Italians contributed most, was much less the work of supposedly fresh and vital Germanic invaders, who comprised the nobility, than of the supposedly weary peoples of the decayed Roman empire, the artisans and merchants of the towns. In our time, it seemed to some that Europe, tom and bled by two terrible wars, had come near the end of its historic role. Yet since the Second World War, and perhaps benefiting by the cataclysmic shaking, Europe has shown exceptional economic vitality.

There may be reasons to suppose that a society of free states is especially resistant to decay. Division is an advantage in that a rot afflicting one area need not hurt the rest, as one or another section can take up the banner of progress. Competition should certainly help to keep states alive, as they are driven by fear and pride to keep up with their neighbors. The free community cannot be so stiff and tradition-bound as the great hierarchic empire. Institutions become irrational largely because of inability to adapt to changing circumstances; and the free states of a competitive community, forever driven to reexamination and change by their contacts and conflicts, are most adaptable of all. And if any grow staid and smug, they are likely one day to be aroused from lethargy, as Poland was stirred by partitions, or the complacent Netherlands of the eighteenth century shaken by the French Revolution. Moreover, the more open the political system and the freer the intellectual air, the more capable the society should be of absorbing change and taking measures necessary to combat any real sickness.

No society, however, has been capable of preventing lamentable changes, and debilitation may be inherent in high civilization. The idealization of rural life as purer and healthier than urban is not based entirely on myth. The inhabitant of the slum is usually a less inspiring specimen than his equally poor country cousin, and generals prefer recruits from the farms. Accumulation of wealth, important as it is in providing opportunities for cultural progress, has its dangers, as it may lead to inequality, social tensions, and loss of community spirit. A propertyless proletariat may well be indifferent to what befalls the state. Yet attempts to convert formal into real equality lead to social conflict and possibly to turmoil and dictatorship. At the same time, success and wealth often lead to overconfidence and smug complacency. In free societies, intellectual criticism may undermine all values and social discipline, leaving a sort of moral anarchy. Life in a high civilization comes to seem excessively and dishearteningly complex; the community will is weakened, and pessimism enters as material progress brings more confusion than happiness.

Thus free societies in their ripe maturity may suffer some atrophy of will and determination to be free. In the widening of mental horizons, men look more beyond their own state or nation and think more of the general and universal on the one hand and of the self on the other, thereby weakening attachment to the native land. So far as values are eroded, self-seeking is left alone, and individualism leads to withdrawal from concern for the community, to inwardness and indifference to civic concerns. In late-classical Athens, as in the modern West, people came to think less of their duties to the state and more of what the state owed them. The Theorie Fund, Athenian counterpart of the welfare state, rose to dominate politics as citizenship changed from wholehearted participation to a gainful status; and free distribution of grain was a regular demand and practice in the cities of Hellenistic Greece. Possibly, too, men become a little weary of the uncertainties and unsettlement of freedom, which promises no peace of mind.

Perhaps something like this has occurred in the maturity of each great state system. Certainly, the Chinese states that preceded the Ch’in empire, the Indian states that gave way to the Maurya, and the Hellenistic states that Rome swept away all showed an intellectual ferment and weakening of traditional loyalties which must have encouraged their respective conquerors. The Italian city-states of the Middle Ages in their heyday of leadership in civilization likewise Hved in intellectual and moral turmoil. The contemporary world strikes many as decadent, in the loosening of the moral fabric and the relaxation of standards and values. As old and consecrated ways are abandoned, our society seems disordered, feverish, and at odds with itself. But it also boasts a productivity in most realms of human creativity which is phenomenal for quantity and variety, if not for depth. Never has human knowledge grown at any faintly comparable speed, and the explosive potency of modern technology is beyond the daydreams of centuries past. If this is decadence, it is quite opposite to the decay of stagnant old universal empires, such as the Roman of the fourth and fifth centuries or the Chinese in the downward half of each successive dynastic cycle, marked by material and intellectual poverty, institutional rigidity, and apathy. The aging empires suffer anemia, desiccation, and somnolence; the sickness of modernity is an indigestible excess of change.

It may be, then, that free societies wear themselves out and ease the way for the conqueror who would replace their disorderly diversity and frustrating conflicts with the simplicity of a great and orderly union. However, one can only guess how important such imponderable factors may have been. More obvious and substantial is the breakdown of the international order.

NEED FOR UNION

Only unity promises stability. The existence of a plurality of free states in close contact is always precarious. The anarchy is uncontrollable. By definition, sovereign states are free to injure and destroy one another so far as this is within their capacities. International relations are inherently more hostile than friendly. Between individuals the need to cooperate usually outweighs the impulses of greed or jealousy and the fear of one’s neighbor; the existence of others around us is commonly advantageous to us. In international relations, on the contrary, the gains from cooperation are usually marginal and are submerged by political motives. Other states are most important not as partners in production of goods but as actual or potential antagonists or allies. The clashes of interests are compounded by clashes of ideals, as a large number of people closely joined together reinforce their own prejudices and give moral support to the collective egotism. The drive for power and position is insatiable, and all states are driven by a mixture of ambitions and fears. There are always bones of contention, and states invariably have a higher opinion of their rights and of their capacities for enforcing these rights than others are prepared to concede. There is no definite limit to the range of influence of any state; it might always expand in power or territory and can hope by this expansion to increase its precious security and glorious prestige. One man can enslave others only with the support of his society, but it is very difficult to form an international society able to prevent the subjection of one people by another; and the oppression of nations is more practical and profitable than that of individuals.

For such reasons, a community of states can be born and live only where conditions are somehow favorable to the maintenance of independence of a number of states in close contact and so tempted to aggression; when conditions change and favor amalgamation rather than sovereign independence, then the state system can be expected to die. But if the free states by their lively interaction bring about great material progress, precisely this outmodes them. Indeed, progress is greatest when the ease of communication, density of population, and administrative and military techniques are such as to invite more centralized authority than exists.

Progress inevitably pushes together. With more travel and broader horizons, men come to think more in universal terms; particularism and willingness to die for one’s state decrease. Even in federal systems, progress invariably undermines the smaller units, as attention is drawn away from them toward larger spheres. Economic unification and increased dependence upon foreign trade reduce the apparent viability of small states, raise interest in controlling foreign markets, trade routes, and sources of supplies, and make the extension of frontiers seem more natural and inviting. The improvement of means of transportation, roads and ships, invites their increased use not only by merchants but by armies. Improvement of weapons (perhaps accompanied by decreased willingness of the citizenry to serve as soldiers) brings military professionalism; and the military profession, gaining political importance, thinks not in terms of political balance but of dominant power.

Perhaps most important, as communications and means of administration improve, size increasingly becomes an asset. When little states come to seem outmoded, rulers are more drawn to conquest as they feel capable of profitably managing more extensive lands. If victory promises only a little glory and perhaps a moderate indemnity, war is no serious problem; when it becomes evident that one state can and will engulf another entirely and gain greatly in power thereby, fears and ambitions rise together.

The troubles of the community of states are compounded when, as inevitably occurs, many of the smaller units are swallowed up while a few emerge preeminent as prospective masters. Decreased numbers and increased inequality make international equilibrium harder to maintain, reduce the flexibility and mutuality of the system, and make for the polarization of power; weaker states, despairing of defending themselves, often become clients of stronger ones in hopes of retaining some freedom by submission, while the leaders stand forth as potential champions. Thus the rise of commercial and imperial Athens evoked the fears and hostility of other cities, led by Sparta, and divided Greece into two bitterly opposed camps until Athenian power was broken. Similarly, the rise of Germany by virtue of Bismarck’s unification and the country’s subsequent industrial growth strained to the utmost the European balance of power. As a result, Europe was frozen into opposing alliances, and the resulting general war would have overthrown the state system entirely had not an outside power, America, come to its rescue.

As the system becomes instable, the stakes of conflict change from limited gains and improvement or loss of position to the supreme glory of universal rule or national extinction. The thirst for power and total control rises as princes and ministers drink. Their problems will be solved, as they see it, not by dealing with opposition but by sweeping it away. The nearer the goal of empire, the more alluring; and the assertion of expansive might brings confidence within and reputation for invincibility without. As the gap between supremacy and degradation narrows, the contest becomes one preeminently for power and only slightly for material interests. There was little economic reason for the antagonism of commercial Athens and agricultural Sparta, or for that between Rome and Carthage, similarly land and sea powers. Prior to the First World War, the Austro-German and Franco-Russian alliances were driven much more by fear than by hopes of gain. Today, America and Russia have no claims upon the possessions or vital economic interests of each other; but no two powers can share world leadership in comfort.

In these circumstances of tension, what little international order the community of states was able to build up in better days is lost. The more insecurity, the less room for morality. As the worst sin against the international order, assault, becomes a gainful and accepted practice, there is no longer any sense of community or consensus upon which to base international law, and only a sham remains. Reputation for honor ceases to be important beside reputation for strength; the imperialistic state wishes more to be feared than to be esteemed. Arbitration becomes impossible as issues become more critical and neutrality loses standing. The laws of war are forgotten as wars become desperate, and losers can no longer expect mercy. The era of empire building reverts to barbarism in international politics. Thus, in China, India, Greece, and Europe, the community of states has built up a code to moderate war, and in each case it has been trampled underfoot in the decline of the state system. [For India, see 188, p. 298]

As the struggle grows more critical, the role of the state rises and its mission of power becomes overriding. Militaristic parties, seeking fulfillment in the drive for empire, may assume the direction of society. The state may be reshaped for the needs of military power, as rulers of Ch’in or Macedon and many others have purposefully made their nations into machines for conquest; and when energies are harnessed to the war chariot, it is hard to resist driving it forward.

As the open international system decays into a narrow power struggle, there is less room for freedom and criticism; the state can only strengthen its domination over minds and bodies. There is also likely to be developed an authoritarian doctrine, an ideology of empire and conquest to help strengthen internally and give moral justification for the high costs of power and the shattering of the old system. The imperialists want to feel right as well as strong, and conviction of rightness adds immensely to strength. Chinese Legalists served up a sophisticated political amoralism well suited for ruthless leaders. In India, Kautilya helped his empire-building master of Magadha by sanctioning any means of statecraft, however ruthless and cynical, if it were only justified by probable success. In the decline of the Italian system, Machiavelli advised the prince who would unite Italy to break faith and murder as necessary. In recent times, Prussianism built up an impressive literature of power worship rationalizing the drive for unification of Germany. Most strongly after the First World War, as the obsolescence of the European state system became apparent, fascism arose as a frank espousal of power as the criterion of values and the goal of being.

As Napoleon said, perhaps with some wishful thinking, One fine day, I am sure, we will see the Empire of the West reborn because the weary peoples will cast themselves under the yoke of the best-governed nation. [512, p. 312] The troubles and instability of contending states lead some to long for total dominion, but in others they cause weariness of strife. Must our civilization be split into fragments burdened with separate defense forces, cultivating mutual hatred of men who really belong together, spreading death and destruction in fruitless wars for the sport of kings, the profit of merchants, or causes no one really knows? Should we not have peace and unity, universal order for the strength and prosperity of mankind? Should not all be joined in the universal brotherhood, as dreamed the Stoics and Mo, the Chinese philosopher of love? Or might not a bygone imperial order be restored, as proposed by Mencius and Dante? The mind sighs for simplicity and order, the end of chaos and fratricidal strife. The drive of the competing states is narrow, petty, selfish, and repugnant to high ideals; nationalism elicited by conflict but discredited by violence is seen, not as a vivifying force, but as a nuisance and a danger; the empire builder writes the half-mythical passion of the peoples for peace and united harmony upon his banners in service of his ruthless cause. International relations are the most disorderly and irrational or uncontrollable aspect of human existence, the area of greatest wastage and futility; all attempts to order them by agreement or through international organization fail or are made to fail by the ambitions of the great. From the various Greek leagues through the Concert of Europe and the League of Nations, history has shown that only force can hammer quarreling sovereignties into unity. Despising alike the dreams of the internationalists and the supposed cynicism of balance of power politics, the maker of empire,