Cicilian pirates = terrorism?

[M. Porcius Cato]

(Pompei's campaign against the pirates is entitled "The War on Terror", for instance). So regardless of the issues surrounding the fall of the Republic, realize that Holland may have a deeper agenda.

 

Pompey's campaign against the pirates was a war on terror. Regardless of Holland's political views, he's made an apt analogy.

[ASCLEPIADES]

(Pompei's campaign against the pirates is entitled "The War on Terror", for instance). So regardless of the issues surrounding the fall of the Republic, realize that Holland may have a deeper agenda.

 

Pompey's campaign against the pirates was a war on terror. Regardless of Holland's political views, he's made an apt analogy.

Edited March 11, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES

[Arduumresgestasscriber]

.......

Edited September 7, 2011 by Arduumresgestasscriber

[caldrail]

I'm sure there were many groups in the classical world that would fit in that definition, but I think the Cilician pirates weren't one of them. As far as I know, they were just a bunch of sea bandits looking for easy money. Remember Caesar.

 

I think I will have to disagree with Mr. Holland on this one: he was overestimating the Cilician pirates and/or underestimating present day terrorists.

 

Many so-called terrorist movements are little more than bandits anyway. They have to be, in order to fund their operations. There's a certain status in the word terrorist - it implies a professional status, when most insurgency groups are incredibly amateur in their early years and with increasing expertise, evolve toward a better organised para-miltary. The problem is the modern world has given the 'terrorist' status he does not deserve. Computer games and hollywood have created a professional (and fictional) image of very organised and motivated covert groups. A lot of so-called 'terrorist' outrages are little more than local action inspired by sponsors who remain otherwise uninvolved. Even the 9/11 event falls into this category. Therefore, since the pirates were not acting against the roman state but concerned with brigandage on the Mare Internum, the word 'terrorist' is incorrectly applied. But since the activities of these groups are essentially similar, the action of Pompey against them is correctly classed as counter-insurgency, since the pirates did maintain a modest level of naval threat.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'm sure there were many groups in the classical world that would fit in that definition, but I think the Cilician pirates weren't one of them. As far as I know, they were just a bunch of sea bandits looking for easy money.

 

Their attack on Ostia was no mere monetary target: there were plenty of easier and richer targets. The attack, splendid in its theatricality, was an act to terrify Rome into leaving them alone.

[DDickey]

I'm sure there were many groups in the classical world that would fit in that definition, but I think the Cilician pirates weren't one of them. As far as I know, they were just a bunch of sea bandits looking for easy money.

 

Well, to an extent, I suppose, that's true. But Plutarch says many men saw piracy as a legitimate enterprise through which they could fulfill their ambitions.

 

And presently men whose wealth gave them power, and those whose lineage was illustrious, and those who laid claim to superior intelligence, began to embark on piratical craft and share their enterprises, feeling that the occupation brought them a certain reputation and distinction. (Pompey 24.2)

 

As for comparisons to modern groups, I would hesitate in drawing such lines between the present and the past.

Edited June 26, 2008 by DDickey

[ASCLEPIADES]

Their attack on Ostia was no mere monetary target: there were plenty of easier and richer targets. The attack, splendid in its theatricality, was an act to terrify Rome into leaving them alone.

Edited March 11, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

I'm sure there were many groups in the classical world that would fit in that definition, but I think the Cilician pirates weren't one of them. As far as I know, they were just a bunch of sea bandits looking for easy money.

 

Their attack on Ostia was no mere monetary target: there were plenty of easier and richer targets. The attack, splendid in its theatricality, was an act to terrify Rome into leaving them alone.

 

Possibly, but given the mindset of pirate culture, tending toward organisation and even mini-statehood in some cases, that it was merely bravado. "We're not afraid of the romans, are we lads?" or something similar. I doubt they intended to terrify Rome - they certainly handed over no demands, and since terrorism is technically blackmail, the pirates are not guilty of it. As you say, they saw a rich target, and believed (or convinced each other) like criminals do that they were going to get away with it.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Now look at these two arguments:

 

First, we have Asclepiades' claim that the attack on Ostia was merely an attack by "just a bunch of sea bandits looking for easy money" and thus not terrorist.

Come on, boys; Check the definition, here or in any other dictionary. "Big bad bandits" (ie, Al Capone or John Dillinger) are not synonymous of terrorists.

 

Then, we have Caldrail's argument that the attack was simply bravado and didn't involve blackmail.

Possibly, but given the mindset of pirate culture, tending toward organisation and even mini-statehood in some cases, that it was merely bravado. "We're not afraid of the romans, are we lads?" or something similar. I doubt they intended to terrify Rome - they certainly handed over no demands, and since terrorism is technically blackmail, the pirates are not guilty of it. As you say, they saw a rich target, and believed (or convinced each other) like criminals do that they were going to get away with it.

 

Now both of these arguments can't be true, but both of them can certainly be false and invaid--and they are.

 

Let's recall the facts shall we? As Harris put it nicely, "In the autumn of 68 B.C. the world

[ASCLEPIADES]

Now look at these two arguments:

First, we have Asclepiades' claim that the attack on Ostia was merely an attack by "just a bunch of sea bandits looking for easy money" and thus not terrorist.

Edited March 11, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES

[M. Porcius Cato]

If your working definition for terrorist is "anyone who provokes terror", dark rooms and spiders might qualify. And also virtually all governments, armies and police corporations ever, as all of them try to inflict terror on their enemies.

 

I agree completely that "anyone who provokes terror" shouldn't be considered a serious working definition of terrorist. I also agree that the important difference between terrorists and ordinary criminals is in whether they have political motivations.

 

But the Cilician pirates DID have political motivations. They were born of failed states in Crete and Cilicia, attempted to create their own mini-states, and received protection for their local political ambitions by enemies of Rome (like Mithridates and Diodotus) who wanted to use them for proxy war. In these respects, they were almost identical to the PLO, which received money and support from foreign governments interested in toppling Israel.

 

Note, also, that while political motivation is a feature distinguishing terrorists from criminals, the mere presence of economic motivation doesn't make a difference. Consider, for example, such sundry terrorist groups as FARC, Lehi, ETA, etc, almost all supported financially--like the Cilician pirates--by some combination of criminal activity (kidnapping, extortion, robbery) and support from foreign enemies. Surely it would be absurd to absolve any of these organization of terrorism merely because they mixed kidnapping and extortion with their targeting of civilian populations! Yet this is precisely the logic being applied to the Cilician pirates.

[caldrail]

Now both of these arguments can't be true, but both of them can certainly be false and invaid--and they are.

In your opinion.

 

Let's recall the facts shall we? As Harris put it nicely, "In the autumn of 68 B.C. the world's only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome's port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped."

Thats not a terrorist act at all. Terrorism by definition is the threat of violence. Its supposed to work by creating fear of an attack that causes you death or injury, personally. Unlike a soldier, who is paid to risk his life, the ordinary urban citizen is more fearful of violence and doesn't like being put into the firing line. Just because they set fire to Ostia? Rome was set fire to in AD64, but the accusations of terrorism are pushed aside aren't they? Its no good saying the acts are known - the causes are still in dispute. had the pirates repeatedly set fire to roman towns or such then I might agree with you. The whole thing was a stunt to give themselves credibility.

 

Now neither characterization of the pirates--"just sea bandits" and "handed over no demands"--can accommodate this set of facts. If they were just sea bandits and not terrorists, why would they have audaciously attacked the port city of Rome, setting it afire, and attacking the consular fleet?

Bravado. They'd become a modest naval threat, they wanted to flex their muscles, and they thought if they made this attack they stood to gain prestige and security. Cilician pirates. The ones that sunk the roman fleet? Tough hombres. better pay them the money they want. That isn't terrorism - thats extortion.

 

What mere 'sea bandit' risks his ships to attack a military installation? What mere 'sea bandit' passes by hundreds of richer and easier targets to set a strategically crucial port ablaze? It would be as if Blackbeard passed by all the rich ports of the Bahamas to attack Dover.

You underestimate the extent of of criminal organisation. Also, you're forgetting the possibility of bribes. By attacking Ostia, by making the romans look weak and ineffective, what rich and easy target is going to refuse protection money? The pirates would have sat on their rears earning tons of dosh just by sending a couple of heavies to collect it. No good asking Rome for help, they got well and truly whipped at ostia.

 

And -- there being no honor among thieves, how is one to understand the coordination and aid given by one group of 'sea bandits' to their competitors?... This kind of alliance isn't what you see among squabbling "sea bandits'--it's what you see among terrorist cells like those of al Qaeda.

There's no honour among individual thieves. What you find is that thieves who create familia adopt an honour system of their own. Its also the kind of organised criminal activity and behaviour that you see in mafia and for that matter modern pirates, and the only reason they don't attack in paramilitary fashion is that they cannot compete with modern naval force, whereas the cilician pirates could.

 

And, leaving aside the observation that terrorists often make no demands at all (none were delivered by al Qaeda after they attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon--which is almost exactly what Ostia was to the Romans), the pirates DID make demands. They demanded the ransom of two praetors (Sextilius and Bellienus) and the daughter of a Roman consul, Marcus Antonius, who had waged war against the Cilician pirates in Crete. If this was not a politically motivated attack, it is the certainly the most fantastic coincidence in ancient history!

Ransom is just an earner, not a political statement or demand. South american 'terrorists' are notorious for funding their political activities with cash earned by kidnapping. Its not a coincidence at all - its just cash - thats the business the pirates were in.

[Antiochus III]

(Pompei's campaign against the pirates is entitled "The War on Terror", for instance). So regardless of the issues surrounding the fall of the Republic, realize that Holland may have a deeper agenda.

 

Pompey's campaign against the pirates was a war on terror. Regardless of Holland's political views, he's made an apt analogy.

terrorism- noun:

the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

WordNet

[ASCLEPIADES]

I think your the victim of the propaganda of the American empire. Your trying to tell us that the Cilician pirates were just a bunch of teenagers having fun, and that modern terrorists are the real thing? This is always the argument: well, back then they were just pretenders, and now were facing the real problem. Yeah, right. if anything, Cilician pirates were more dangerous. The Bush administration has just infused fear into the public by making ludicrous claims about the potential of terrorists. WMDs? WOW. NO. people that believe this are just brainwashed. Like the people with power want you to be.

 

Antiochus III

Edited March 11, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES

[Ludovicus]

One nation's pirates are another nation's heroes. I think the same goes for terrorists and freedom fighters. I think we're looking at the Cicilian pirates from the Roman point of view. I can't remember any history books penned by even a single Cicilian, ancient or modern.

 

By the way,

even today nations often reserve the right to employ piracy to further national interests. The term "letters of marque" is used when referring to this right. The US claims this right in its Constitution (Article I, Section 7). I'd be surprised if other nations didn't have the same.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.articlei.html

 

 

 

Letter of Marque:

Archaic. A letter of marque was issued by a nation to a privateer or mercenary to act on the behalf of that nation for the purpose of retaliating against another nation for some wrong, such as a border incursion or seizure.

Edited July 9, 2008 by Ludovicus