Subject: (urth) Archaic Rome in Soldier

From: Andrew Bollen <abollen at internode.on.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 01:30:58 +0000

How anachronistic are the glimpses we get? Eg: at the very start of Mist, Latro says that he would have though the commander of a warship would be a "horseman". Presumably by this he means somebody of equestrian rank, rather than a low-status money-grubbing merchant. This seems like an accurate portrayal of Roman attitudes during later times, but what do we know of such distinctions from the archaic period? I guess I need to go back to Livy or something.

Also, I have doubts about the picture of Athens presented in the same little passage. Did merchants really have high status in classical Athens? I have a mental picture of a society where the honorable path to wealth was through land, and booty taken in wars, and where on the nitty-gritty side of things the silver mines were a far more important part of the "GDP" and the war economy, than anything to do with trade & merchandise. Maybe I'm wrong, but the Hypereides character doesn't feel right.

--

---

From: Josh Geller <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 03:14:10 +0000

On Sun, 2003-06-15 at 18:30, Andrew Bollen wrote:
> ... I have doubts about the picture of Athens presented in the same 
> little passage. Did merchants really have high status in classical
> Athens? 

It would depend who you were talking to.

> I have a mental picture of a society where the honorable path to
> wealth was through land, and booty taken in wars, 

There was an country party and a city party. Peasants and aristocrats
on the one hand, businessmen and urban laborers on the other. You are
describing the attitude of the country party.

> and where on the nitty-gritty side of things the silver mines were a 
> far more important part of the "GDP" and the war economy, than 
> anything to do with trade & merchandise.

Trade was very important. All of those Greek vases that we find, all 
over the Mediterranean, those were largely packaging for olive oil or
wine or whatever. 

> Maybe I'm wrong, but the Hypereides character doesn't feel right.

Seems fine to me.

J.

--

---

From: Andrew Bollen <abollen at internode.on.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 03:23:40 +0000

> over the Mediterranean, those were largely packaging for olive oil or

I guess I'm influenced by Finley, esp. passages like Chap 5 of "The Ancient
Economy". His position, of course, is that large-scale trade in the ancient
world was very rare. He can find only two significant sources of "trade"
related income for Athens from the 4th Century on - silver and tourism. Fine
pottery is the only significant manufactured export he can find evidence for
(which apparently died out in the 4th cent). With few exceptions, he
believes that manufacture in the local world was for local consumption, and
quotes Hume: he "could not remember a passage in any ancient author where
the growth of a city is to be ascribed to the establishment of a
manufacture." Almost all available evidence for the manufacturers themselves
present them as being very small operators, "not even little Wedgewoods".
The largest operation he can find in 5th century Athens is Cephalus' shield
factory, employing 100+ slaves - note that it is *slaves*, not craftspeople,
who do the work, and that Cephalus was a metic, not a citizen.

Is there any historical evidence of a merchant like Hypereides fitting out
and commanding warships in classical Athens?

--

---

From: The Wynns <the.wynns at usa.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 07:42:20 +0000

>Then Andrew replied:
> [Finley in "The Ancient Economy"]  can find only two significant sources
> of "trade" related income for Athens from the 4th Century on - silver and
> tourism. Fine pottery is the only significant manufactured export he can
> find evidence for (which apparently died out in the 4th cent)...
>

I'll take on Finley first. I haven't read Finley and I don't know what he
means by "evidence" or "rare". The impression I get from Herodotus is that
sea-trade was not rare among Ionic Greeks and Phoenicians (although
sometimes one gets the idea that it was considered a seemly profession for
no one else). Greek traders seemed inclined to buy anything -- including
things for which there was no local value (Herodotus 2:39).

And what about all the trade routes in the Near and Middle East some dating
back into prehistory? Cyrus may have not thought much of the Ionians markets
(according to Herodotus 1:153) but he did build the Royal Road from Sardis
(capitol of Ionic Greece) to Susa (sixth century) which immediately became
an important trade route.

However, Herodotus' history is rife with references to Ionic Greek and
Phoenician merchant ships. Does Finely explain this discrepancy?

It is true that I know of no reference from Herodotus or Thucydides that
Athens created its navy on the backs of the merchant class, but it would be
a reasonable inference on Wolfe's part. Athens' extensive standing navy was
built only after the Persian War, from tribute of client states. Where would
Athens' "wooden wall" have come from? Where would their competent sailors
have come from?  Reasonably, since the Ionians were sea-traders -- they had
to defend themselves from (and fight as) pirates and privateers.

The following are some quickly drawn references from Herodotus suggesting
that traders were not rare world-wide and could be competent warriors....

Herodotus 2:141
Tale of an Egyptian king that neglected the "warrior class" and went to war
and conquered drawing his army entirely from the "traders, artisans, and
market-people".

Herodotus 5:9
"Sigynnae is the name which the Ligurians who dwell above Massilia [modern
Marseilles] give to traders, while among the Cyprians the word means
spears."

--- Crush

--

---

From: Andrew Bollen <abollen at internode.on.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 07:54:57 +0000

> Phoenician merchant ships. Does Finely explain this discrepancy?

I don't think Finley's argument against widespread trade, rather it's
against widespread *economically important* trade of anything except
rarities. In the chapter I referred to, after a discussion of Athens, he
says this:

"To sum up: essentially the ability of ancient cities to pay for their food,
metals, slaves, and other necessities rested on four variables: the amount
of  *local* agricultural production [...]; the presence or absence of
special resources, silver above all [...]; the invisible exports of trade
and tourism; and fourth, the income from [empire, tribute, gifts etc.]   The
contribution of manufactures was negligble ..."

On his model, manufacture is almost entirely for a local market; communities
usually didn't balance their accounts with a manufacture-for-export
approach; and "when Greek and Roman moralists allow [grudgingly] that
foreign traders have some virtue, unlike local pety shopkeepers, they
invariably credit them with public service as importers."

Your example from Herodotus wouldn't contradict this; the head of a
sacrificed beast presumably isn't something which is going to figure large
in any city's balance of payments :)

I would be extremely surprised if the Royal Road was built for any explicit
purpose other than the movement of troops, like every other state-sponsored
road in antiquity. But maybe I'm wrong. You have to remember that moving
goods by road, even fine Roman roads, was a hellishly uneconomic
proposition. The example I've seen cited in different places is the way it
was cheaper to move a load of cargo from one end of the Mediterranean to the
other, than it was to move it twenty miles by bullock cart.

There are lots of people who diagree with Finley, I know, but he's certainly
worth reading.

> to defend themselves from (and fight as) pirates and privateers.

Well, specifically, the silver mines funded much of the ship-building, if
not most of it. (Her. 7.144). Themistocles championed using surplus funds
from the new find at Laurium to build 200 ships for a prospective war
against Aegina which "proved to be the salvation of Greece, because it
forced the Athenaians to turn towards the sea". When the conflict with
Persia approached, "they felt obliged to to undertake further
ship-building". Just from that passage, it apears that ship building was a
state thing, funded by the silver which was really what made Athens much of
anything compared to say Thebes, and not some kind of public liturgy on
wealthy citizens. But maybe there's other evidence somewhere.

> and conquered drawing his army entirely from the "traders, artisans, and

But surely one of the elements of this little tale is the unlikely image of
marketplace "rabble" forming an army, coupled with the folk-tale thing about
mice chewing through the enemies' bowstrings etc.

--

---

From: Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:55:15 +0000

I don't have the book on hand to reference as someone else did, but I 
remember a passage in Herodotus that explicitly says that traders were 
looked down on in Greece, more in some cities and less in others. He cites 
one city in particular - Corinth, I think, but I'm not sure - where they are 
hardly looked down on at all. But we can infer that there would be some 
prejudice in the other cities. Probably not quite as much in Athens as in 
Sparta, but still there.

re: Latro as an Immortal, I didn't actually know that foreigners were 
allowed in that unit - Herodotus didn't say an awful lot about it, and I 
haven't read other sources. But certainly that would help to explain things. 
Though, I'm not so sure his entire unit would have been used that way. If 
they were, it seems more likely that they would have been caught in the 
later fighting around Thebes than to have gotten so far away.

>How anachronistic are the glimpses we get? Eg: at the very start of Mist, 
>Latro says that he would have though the commander of a warship would be a 
>"horseman". Presumably by this he means somebody of equestrian rank, rather 
>than a low-status money-grubbing merchant. This seems like an accurate 
>portrayal of Roman attitudes during later times, but what do we know of 
>such distinctions from the archaic period? I guess I need to go back to 
>Livy or something.
>
>Also, I have doubts about the picture of Athens presented in the same 
>little passage. Did merchants really have high status in classical Athens? 
>I have a mental picture of a society where the honorable path to wealth was 
>through land, and booty taken in wars, and where on the nitty-gritty side 
>of things the silver mines were a far more important part of the "GDP" and 
>the war economy, than anything to do with trade & merchandise. Maybe I'm 
>wrong, but the Hypereides character doesn't feel right.
>
>--

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

--

---

From: The Wynns <the.wynns at usa.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 01:48:01 +0000

Andrew responds to Crush:
> Well, specifically, the silver mines funded much of the ship-building,
> if not most of it. (Her. 7.144). Themistocles championed using surplus
> funds from the new find at Laurium to build 200 ships for a prospective
> war against Aegina...

Crush responds:
Okay, good point. Rawlinson says that this build-up increased the size of
the Athenian navy "up to" 200 ships, which was the number of ships Athens
used at the battles of Artemisium and Salamus. So Athens did have a standing
navy of 200 ships and this was the number of ships it employed in the war.
So there is probably no compelling evidence from Herodotus of Athens forcing
merchants to outfit ships for the fleet.

Andrew originally said:
> I have a mental picture of a society where the honorable path to wealth
> was through land, and booty taken in wars, and where on the nitty-gritty
> side of things the silver mines were a far more important part of the
> "GDP" and the war economy, than anything to do with trade &
> merchandise. Maybe I'm wrong, but the Hypereides character doesn't
> feel right.

Then Andrew said:
> I don't think Finley's argument against widespread trade, rather
> it's against widespread *economically important* trade of
> anything except rarities. In the chapter I referred to, after a
> discussion of Athens, he says this:
> [Finley says] "To sum up: essentially the ability of ancient cities to pay
> for their food, metals, slaves, and other necessities rested on four
> variables: the amount of  *local* agricultural production [...]; the
> presence or absence of special resources, silver above all [...]; the
> invisible exports of trade and tourism; and fourth, the income from
> [empire, tribute, gifts etc.]   The contribution of manufactures was
> negligble ..."

> On his model, manufacture is almost entirely for a local market;
> communities usually didn't balance their accounts with a manufacture-
> for-export approach; and "when Greek and Roman moralists allow
> [grudgingly] that foreign traders have some virtue, unlike local petty
> shopkeepers, they invariably credit them with public service as
importers."

Crush responds:
Okay, I think I understand your point now: That a manufacturer being
involved in distributing and shipping leather rather than a maker of leather
tools or cattleman is anachronistic (but growing olives for export would be
a different matter). But is that really the case for Hypereides?  Now that I
look back, he does not seem to have been involved directly with ships in his
business before he was called on to build and command his three ships. He
only says that "a man does learn a bit about  ships in the leather trade"
(SotM, chap. 7). Hmm. looking back, it seems we really know very little
about Hypereides' business. He doesn't say he's a tanner. He could be a
large cattleman who recently became a war profiteer. He might have slaves
rather than employees. Athenians would need leather for armor and shields
and triremes. There is money to be made there. Athens voted money to go into
ships, but someone has to make those ships, maintain the ships, hire the
rowers, pick the soldiers. Is Hypereides existence really contrary to what
Herodotus or Finley say?

Also, trade would not be as important to municipalities because it would be
much more obvious how agriculture and mining could be taxed rather than
traders and sellers. But that does not mean they were not vital to the
economy and represented an unrecognized but significant chunk of the GNP
of any advance culture that did not deliberately base its economy on tribute
or plunder (such as Sparta or Susa). But even then, when one thinks about
what would be required to field and maintain scores of thousands of
soldiers, cavalrymen, and sailors just for **two days**  it is difficult to
imagine
how the Persian war could be conducted without a significant
craftsman/trader
class.

You know, Hypereides makes me think of Marrow. They are both mildly
prominent merchants whose physical description makes me think of Gene Wolfe.

Regarding Herodotus 2:141, Andrew says:
But surely one of the elements of this little tale is the unlikely image of
marketplace "rabble" forming an army, coupled with the folk-tale thing about
mice chewing through the enemies' bowstrings etc.

Crush responds:
I don't think so. For the tale to have the ring of credibility to Herodotus,
it suggests that the artisans, traders, and merchants had a significant
degree of self-organization rather than being merely milling rabble. And
there had to be a lot of them.

Chris said:
> ...I remember a passage in Herodotus that explicitly says that traders
> were looked down on in Greece, more in some cities and less in others.

Crush responds:
This is in Her. 2:166. It says:
"Like the Hermotybians, [the Kalasirians] are forbidden to pursue any trade,
and devote themselves entirely to warlike exercises, the son following the
father's calling. Whether the Greeks borrowed from the Egyptians their
notions about trade, like so many others, I cannot say for certain. I have
remarked that the Thracians, the Scyths, the Persians, the Lydians, and
almost all other barbarians, hold the citizens who practice trades, and
their children, in less repute than the rest, while they esteem as noble
those who keep aloof from handicrafts, and especially honor such as are
given wholly to war. These ideas prevail throughout the whole of Greece,
particularly among the Lacedaemonians. Corinth is the place where craftsmen
are least despised. "

I think Herodotus' characterization represents the hostility always felt
toward the middle class in highly class-conscience societies. They are a
threat to privileged classes who in turn mock them as absurd pretenders, and
the poorer classes view them with envy. But as Herodotus admits, Ionic
Greeks were very deeply employed in the shipping trade (and, yes, piracy
too).

-- Crush

--