Terrorism in the Ancient World

[Northern Neil]

JR was not calling it a 'tactic' today, Septimus - he suggested that in a future age, it may well be interpreted as one. There is a difference. I backed him up, and implicit in my statement - seeing you have raised it - was the horrific scenario of today's Islamic terrorists somehow winning this 'war on terror', for instance, and having a huge say in the writing of today's historyof it. Imagine, too, if Hitler had won the war: how would future generations be forced to see the Holocaust?

I would like to expand on Augusta's point here by giving a few historical examples. Prior to the American Civil War factions on both sides carried ot attrocities and used 'tactics' which are similar to those used by modern day terrorist groups and insurgencies. The same can be said for the revolutionary forces of France.

 

I believe there is an economical side to this debate. Individuals with very little economic 'clout' tend to use force dictated by their limited means. These means are usually the ones associated with terrorism. Using civilians as shields, deception, kidnapping, the hitting of soft targets to gain a demoralising effect on civilian populations, are the best ways to use and conserve limited resources to the maximum effect. As the French revolutionaries grew in power and economic backing, they moved away from kidnapping people and torching houses, and started to use more orthodox military means. If groups like Al - Quaida and ETA were to acquire the economic and logistical means to use fighter planes, regular uniformed troops and cruise missiles, they probably would do.

[Ursus]

I believe there is an economical side to this debate. Individuals with very little economic 'clout' tend to use force dictated by their limited means. These means are usually the ones associated with terrorism.

 

 

Absolutely. Terrorism has been defined as the weapon of the weak. Those groups lacking a powerful state to fund their efforts don't have the means to hit major military-industrial targets. Instead they attack the civilian population in an effort to undermine morale. If the best someone can do is blow up a bus or shopping mall by strapping explosives to themselves, they have revealed their weakness.

 

However, with all those Weapons of Mass Destruction from the former Soviet Empire floating around, the definition of terrorism as the "weapon of the weak" could change. Armed with such devices they would have the capability to do serious damage to military, industrial and political targets. This the gravest threat to Western security. My criticism of Neoconservative foreign policy on invading rogue states is not that it is immoral - it is that it is besides the point. A stateless Al-Queda cell armed with a "dirty bomb" or nerve gas is the main danger, and I don't think all the NATO soldiers in Iraq can really address the problem.

[Gaius Octavius]

Yet, the attacks on civilian targets generally back fired during WWII as it did in NYC.

[The Augusta]

Thank you, Neil and Ursus, for excellent posts which address the very point I was trying to make in my own ham-fisted way. Terrorism was traditionally 'the weapon of the weak', and some of the posts in this thread went off at a tangent to include armed forces attacking civilians. To go back to the beginning of the thread - which did actually have something to do with Rome - some of us disputed the internet article because you could hardly class Rome as 'weak'. However, the definition of terrorism has subtly shifted in recent years to include any sort of organised violence against civilians. I would still want to make the point, however, that an army's actions are not usually carried out in secret and without warning. Such actions follow a declaration of war or some other state of accepted hostility exists between both parties. This does not mean that we can condone such actions - its just a question of how we all define 'terrorism' I suppose. Another traditional view is that groups of terrorists do not act with the backing of their governments, whereas an army does. Would it not be more correct to term the vicious actions of armies targeting civilians as a 'war crime' rather than an act of 'terrorism'? Or isn't there a difference? Are we just in the world of semantics here?

[Northern Neil]

Yes. The morale and resolve of Londoners in WW2 and New Yorkers in 9/11 rose as a result of those attacks, and both peoples have reason to be proud of the way they met those attacks.

 

EDIT: I sent this seconds after as Augusta's last post; it is meant to answer the last one by Gaius Octavius. Augusta is quite correct here that we are discussing semantics, although th point about terrorism not being on the orders of a government raises other interesting issues - what about so-called 'State Sponsored Terrorism'? Is the term a misnomer? Perhaps the various governments isuing the orders would call it 'Covert actions'.

Edited March 24, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Julius Ratus]

If groups like Al - Quaida and ETA were to acquire the economic and logistical means to use fighter planes, regular uniformed troops and cruise missiles, they probably would do.

 

I think this is being proved in the world today. In the last bout between Israel and Hizbollah, Hezbollah was using more conventional troops. They general dressed similarly, if not in uniform, and utilized machinegun nests and such, as a regular army would. They even carried out rocket artillary strikes against Israeli targets. Unlike the Iraqi insurgents, Hezbollah had the economic means to build up forces and has a nation that they largely control, using it as a base.