As an American citizen, it’s impossible to watch the news without hearing some kind of reference to diplomacy – be it Barack Obama’s promise to meet America’s enemies in his first year of presidency, Hillary Clinton’s chastising of that naivety, or calls for discussion with Iran and North Korea on their nuclear weapons programs, and that must lead one to inquire just what exactly is diplomat at its roots? According to most people’s exposure to it, it is a manner of discussion between two states in the hopes of resolving their differences through agreement and harmony – a unique outlook to diplomacy that appears to be a modern phenomena.
During the times of the Roman Republic, and later into the Principate that we now refer to as the Roman Empire, diplomats had a variety of roles in their assignments – and were as much at risk of death from foreign policy decisions as any of the Roman soldiers. In fact, during the end of the Second Punic War, as Rome continued to batter the Carthaginians on all fronts, a peace agreement was decided between Publius Cornelius Scipio and Carthage – which was later broken when they learned of Hannibal’s imminent return. As a sign of just how dead serious they were about being uninterested in maintaining their current agreement with Scipio, they burned the emissaries’ ship with them aboard, a sign of contempt and challenge.
If the diplomat appeared out of turn, or had a slip of the tongue, it wasn’t unusual for that diplomat to be returned to their respective government in as little more than a head, making the job of diplomacy something of a danger that sprung the phrase “Don’t shoot the messenger.
But how was diplomacy handled in the ancient times?
There was a dramatic shift in diplomatic behaviors between the Roman periods and the Medieval periods – as Rome capitulated neighbors looked upon themselves more as equals than before, two nobles had equal strength and territory, a dramatic shift between the time when the world was dominated by a lone super power. Diplomacy transformed from a single entity declaring its demands upon a lower entity, into two competing sides that had to duel as much with wit and tongue as with blades.
During the times before rapid communication however, diplomats served as more than simply figures who met with other foreign dignitaries – they were often the secretaries of high members of court who acted as their aides and representatives in important matters. In a time when nationalism is hard to define because there are few recognized borders or states, even the lowest lords needed a figure to be sent to speak for them, to represent them with authority. There are many poor depictions of kings as bored, lone figures who sit on their thrones waiting to be cheered up by a jester – when in truth, the king was usually pressed into matters until he finally fell asleep, both administering his immediate territory such as the kingdom’s capitol and the matters of their kingdom or empire: often times they were absolutely required at court, and to disappear for the weeks on end required to meet with other dignitaries or foreign leaders was simply unacceptable.
In the case of the Holy Roman Empire, each of the many dukes and princes who made up the conglomerate of nobility and royalty were often pressed with managing their own cities, and then their regions, and then national Imperial politics, and this is without factoring in the needs of the empire’s foreign affairs, of which it was usually heavily involved. The princes were often sending their diplomats on flurries of assignments, between dispensing letters to Rome to meeting with Imperial dignitaries from nearby provinces, to representing the prince at the Imperial court. In many ways, the diplomat was seen as an absent, but present figure of their specific person of authority: while it was sometimes considered rude for a diplomat to appear in the place of the leader, all that he said was spoken as though from the mouth of the leader in question.
In a time where parchment and letters were the only means of communication, diplomats once more served as the harbingers of information. Where an efficient postal system was established in the Roman Empire, and newsletters would often stand in town squares to extol information from across the empire, the breakdown of national unity also inhibited the free flow of information. Therefore it was highly exciting to see the arrival of a foreign dignitary such as a diplomat, who would bring with them the much coveted news about their specific kingdom – ranging anywhere from news of a bad harvest to information that a new heir was present to take hold of the throne.
In the league of diplomacy itself, during the Medieval era there were no masters of it like the Byzantines – a society who many consider to be the logical continuation and heirs of the Roman Empire. When Constantine split the Roman Empire into two self autonomous entities (the Eastern Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire), it was only the West that later capitulated to Barbarians and collapsed, the East retained most of its Imperial qualities, medical advancements, societal structure, legal codes, and all other aspects that essentially allowed it to carry on the ways of the empire of old. They even referred to themselves as the Roman Empire, as seen in the historic work The Alexiad, by Anna Comnena.
The Byzantines were situated in such a way that diplomacy would be the only way to allow their empire to continue. Throughout the ages, they were constantly at ends with the Roman Catholic Church and the Italian city-states – and even in the 11th century both sides excommunicated each other and called the other damned to Hell. With the Hungarians, Germans, and Italians on one side, and the always aggressive Turks on the other, there was no way the Byzantines were going to be able to withstand both sides that sought the annihilation of the Greeks.
The Byzantines were the masters of a tiny army, comparatively. It rarely numbered more than a hundred thousand soldiers – although it was often times unique in its recruiting methods and fighting styles, acting somewhere between the mounted Eastern fighting style and the heavily disciplined Roman fighting styles. In addition to mounted cavalry archers, the Emperor would levy his personal guard, the Varangians, onto the battlefield, and where these mighty forces could not win the day, the much fabled Greek Fire usually filled the necessary strategic gap.
But the Empire was still in a position of incredible weakness from all sides – when the Slavs and the Normans weren’t pressing against the Empire, it was the Turks or the Poles or the Russians or the Hungarians, and the only way to negate each of these factions was through cold, hard diplomacy. When the Byzantines approached diplomacy, however, they did not see it as a way to see eye to eye with their neighbors – but a way to defeat them with tongue, quill, and gold. It was an art form to them, and victory was striven for as much there as in any other aspect of warfare.
They achieved this diplomatic supremacy through several seemingly revolutionary practices for the time period: other kingdoms and empires were encouraged to have forums and embassies inside of Constantinople, which served a number of goals. In the ancient world, diplomacy was often based around hostages and ransom, but not in the way one would expect with the modern connotations of the word. Dignitaries, high officials, and royal family members were left over in another government’s hands as hostages, which would act as a sort of leverage to prevent one side from behaving poorly. When Julius Caesar acquired the support of the Gauls against Britannia – who later betrayed him – he kept a number of Gallic nobles’ children as hostages, as a formality/insurance policy to keep them from attacking him. Typical practice would have been to kill these hostages if the Gauls behaved as they did.
By having foreign emissaries stay in something of a permanent residence in Constantinople, they were hostages in all but name, as the Byzantines were sure to apprehend both the dignitaries and their considerable wealth and hosts if their respective government proved to be threatening. It also helped the Emperor stay completely informed about foreigners – the diplomats had to be constantly updated by their respective governments or else the entire diplomatic process broke down, and when the emissaries knew, it could be safely assumed that the emperor knew, either through his direct questioning or excellent network of spies, which themselves were an integral part of the diplomatic process.
The emperor always wanted to know the secrets of his enemies – and his allies for that matters – so that they could be used against them if necessary, and thanks to this intricate web of spies that kept the Byzantine Empire afloat, the Emperor knew that events were happening almost before they happened. This allowed him to buy out the enemies of whoever was threatening him quickly, using his permanent diplomats who were creating groundbreaking relationships with their method of foreign deployment.
While many despised and hated the Byzantines, the importance of not angering the Greeks could not go unstated, as they controlled the safest and surest way to the East, as well as the center of international trade. Constantinople was the New York City of its day – everyone met there to trade information, gold, money, spices, gems, jewels, and most importantly, education. Before the United States, the Byzantines were the smelting pot of culture.
Intrigue and espionage played key roles in Byzantine diplomatic efforts, which allowed them to entirely stave off conflicts. Emperor Heraclius, considered by some to be among the greatest of the Byzantine Emperors, was constantly at odds with the Persians during his rule in the 7th century. The Sassanids – the ruling party of the Persian Empire at the time, successfully wrangling power from the Parthians – made it clear their desire to drive the Byzantines out of Asia Minor, and hopefully establish as the sole Middle Eastern power. Heraclius, rather than face battling the Persians, intercepted a message from King Khosrau II, which carried with it a writ of execution against a dissident general.
Heraclius simply added the names of 400 known and popular figures in Sassanid society, then let the letter continue to its previous destination. When it arrived, the names on the list revolted against Khosrau’s rule, massively destabilizing the Sassanid empire.
Another key aspect of Byzantine rule and diplomacy involved keeping potential candidates for the throne in their pockets – it was said that they kept a potential challenger to the throne of every nation under their command, and if the nation in question threatened or challenged the Byzantines, they would simply fund this faker’s attempt to taking the throne. The faker did not need to actually ascend the throne – but the civil wars wrought by the figure more than paid for themselves.
This type of diplomacy made an eternal mark on the world – and it is unfortunate that modern diplomacy has so rapidly departed from the extension of warfare it is today, to an attempt for major powers to “see eye to eye” with their enemies.
