Cicilian pirates = terrorism?

[Ursus]

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.

 

 

Let's try to keep this conversation focused on ancient history, not modern politics.

[caldrail]

i think whats not appreciated is that whilst the pirates get away with it, they tend to become arrogant and daring. That doesn't mean they're particularly heroic at all, its just that criminals only operate because they believe they will get away with it. As for Ostia, that was a raid, and it makes sense to see it that way. They went, grabbed what they wanted for profit, burned something else to distract the romans, and sank ships to assure they weren't pursued. Job done lads!

 

I can't see any political gain from this. Further, since terrorism is not concerned with the profit motive (although many such groups have no choice but to) but to frighten the enemy public rather than its leaders or armed forces in order to achieve their ends, the comparison has to be made on that principle. Now I dare say the romans afflicted by the raid were none too happy, and worrried such things might happen again - thats only natural - but were the pirates attacking Ostia for that purpose? I would say not. The cilician pirates wanted a coup, a victory, something to brag about. Such operations by criminal groups are only sustainable if the group has achieved a certain level of experience and organisation, and judging from what happened when Pompey turned up you get the impression they weren't at that stage. Without such sustained campaigns, the act or terror does not impact on the roman public as a whole. As a violent raid it struck at the heart of roman commerce, so the romans were naturally incensed at the sheer gall of it. Off you go Pompey, sort them out.

[sullafelix]

Salve all

 

Just a point or two about piracy in the ancient word to add to this thread. I like this thread, it is passionate and relevant. However, I think we are in danger of simplifying a complex relationship. Roman trade drove piracy, piracy was also a deeply embedded cultural activity that was centuries old. I had not before considered Cilicia a failed state and I suspect that such a view might be in danger of overlooking the history of piracy but on the other hand in a purely factual way it has to be said to be true relative to the cultures around it. I do not know enough about it to be authoritative. Apologies for the length of this post

 

Also I hate to be a boor but the below constitutes my own work and a part of my thesis and so is my own intellectual property (which sounds so arrogant but many of you will know why I write this):

 

Piracy was endemic in parts of the Mediterranean and Black Sea during the Hellenistic period. The activities of pirates had almost certainly been helped by the Roman destruction of Rhodian sea power in the second century. However, it was not until the anti-piracy laws of 102 onward and eventually the actions of Pompey that pirates were stopped from large scale predation on sea trade in, especially, the Eastern Mediterranean.

 

Piracy was renowned as a source of slavery, partly perhaps because of the romantic plot twists it provided in the comedies of Menander and later Plautus and Terence. The idea of a reunion after many years was just a dramatic device, but the capture by pirates provided a familiar means by which it could be made to work.

 

Undoubtedly many slaves arrived in the markets of Mediterranean courtesy of pirates. There are references to large scale raids targeting settlements. Pausanias gives us an account of a raid on Mothone some time after 232:

 

[6] Now the Illyrians, having tasted empire and being always desirous of more, built ships, and plundering others whom they fell in with, put in to the coast of Mothone and anchored as in a friendly port. Sending a messenger to the city they asked for wine to be brought to their ships. A few men came with it and they bought the wine at the price which the inhabitants asked, and themselves sold a part of their cargo.

[7] When on the following day a larger number arrived from the town, they allowed them also to make their profit. Finally women and men came down to the ships to sell wine and trade with the barbarians. Thereupon by a bold stroke the Illyrians carried off a number of men and still more of the women. Carrying them on board ship, they set sail for the Ionian sea, having desolated the city of the Mothonaeans.

 

An inscription at Amorgos is dated from the mid-third century and commemorates the bravery of two individuals in persuading a pirate commander to release a number of captives from the town.5 Another at Delos thanks Samos, a Delian, for his efforts in freeing a number of Theangelan women in the late third century, and a similar inscription records the gratitude of Athens to Eumanidas for rescuing the victims of Aetolian pirates in 217-6.6

Delos was, by virtue of its free port status, the centre of the slave trade in the Mediterranean after 167. However, very little physical trace of this specific commodity has been found at Delos, perhaps not unsurprisingly. In this instance we rely on the account of Strabo:

Tryphon was the cause of originating among the Cilicians a piratical confederacy. They were induced also to do this by the imbecility of the kings who succeeded each other on the thrones of Syria and Cilicia. In consequence of his introduction of political changes, others imitated his example, and the dissensions among brothers exposed the country to the attacks of invaders.

The exportation of slaves was the chief cause of inducing them to commit criminal acts, for this traffic was attended with very great profit, and the slaves were easily taken. Delos was at no great distance, a large and rich mart, capable of receiving and transporting, when sold, the same day, ten thousand slaves; so that hence arose a proverbial saying, `Merchant, come into port, discharge your freight--everything is sold.' The Romans, having acquired wealth after the destruction of Carthage and Corinth, employed great numbers of domestic slaves, and were the cause of this traffic. The pirates, observing the facility with which slaves could be procured, issued forth in numbers from all quarters, committing robbery and dealing in slaves.

14.5.1-3

 

We know also that may of the slaves that were traded came originally from ports on the Black Sea which Strabo himself would have been familiar with having grown up on the southern shore. Here piracy was a practice that helped to supplement the meagre living that the area afforded. As such it was not a practice which flourished from time to time at moments of instability; rather it was a practice that was deeply embedded in the society of the area around towns like Colchis. The pirates predated not only other communities on the shoes of the Black Sea but also their own people. It is also interesting to note that Strabo is in no doubt as to where these slaves were ending up. He says that demand from the Roman market was what was driving the trade.

As the slaves who passed through markets like Delos have left few traces it is often hard to find slaves of a specific nationality. Many slaves will not have kept there own names. Although the nationality of a slave was supposed to be stipulated at the time of sale, it is not unlikely that traders lied in order to raise the value of their goods. This would have been the case when revealing the true nationality of a slave might in fact damage their market value. This may go some way to explaining why some peoples seem underrepresented in our records of slaves in the Mediterranean

[Northern Neil]

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.

...in which case, were the Romans as incorrect in their categorisation of them as 'Pirates' as we are in calling the PLO a 'terrorist organisation'? Maybe then the term 'Pirate' was used as we sometimes now use the word 'terrorist', to psychologically remove or diminish legitimacy? Perhaps it is the nomenclature in the original sources which is incorrect: The 'failed states' they operated from do not to me seem much different from the many 'successful' minor states which predated them by only a few generations, and Like SF in the last post, I would hesitate to describe Cilicia as a failed state. An oppositional one, maybe. Like the PLO of today, were they not exercising independence which was theirs anyway a few generations previously? Maybe they were pirates (terrorists) according to the winners, and we all know who history is written by. But surely they should be more accurately be called 'Rebels', as they had military force on a par with those they fought against, which terrorists / pirates do not.

Edited July 9, 2008 by Northern Neil

[Antiochus III]

Yeah. Nice vocab word to know, even though I already use it.

 

Antiochus III

[Northern Neil]

Yeah. Nice vocab word to know, even though I already use it.

 

Antiochus III

Indeed -and thanks. I believe that words such as 'terrorist' and 'Terrorism' etc should be kept clear of historical debate. These words have a degree of emotional baggage attached to them. Mr. Holland navigates a dangerous course by using such words, and could find himself aground on a sandbank with the word 'populist' attached to the nearby buoy. Anyway - less of the nautical similes, mateys!

 

The definition of terrorist can have different meanings to different states, even those who are friends, and circumstance can alter the definition as applied to a specific group. To the British, people putting bombs into rubbish bins and blowing up schoolchildren in Warrington, Northern England, are terrorists in every meaning of the word. To some Americans, Australians and Canadians, they are freedom fighters liberating Northern Irish people from British domination. (Interestingly, in the wake of 9/11 they turned overnight, and almost universally, into terrorists and their funding base dramatically dropped). My own views on this particular episode of recent history are realistic - I respect the motives, but not the act, and I use this example to demonstrate why the 'T' word should be excluded from a dispassionate, historical debate.

 

Modern pirates operate from actual failed states such as Somalia, use light craft with light armament, and prey upon commercial and tourist sea traffic for personal gain. Maybe if they were part of an actual state being gobbled up by a larger neighbour, and preyed upon the commercial traffic of that neighbour to sustain themselves, and had a couple of destroyers and a submarine to boot, they could be regarded as analogous to the Cilician pirates. But then, we would almost definitely call them rebels.

[ASCLEPIADES]

As the slaves who passed through markets like Delos have left few traces it is often hard to find slaves of a specific nationality. Many slaves will not have kept there own names. Although the nationality of a slave was supposed to be stipulated at the time of sale, it is not unlikely that traders lied in order to raise the value of their goods. This would have been the case when revealing the true nationality of a slave might in fact damage their market value. This may go some way to explaining why some peoples seem underrepresented in our records of slaves in the Mediterranean

Edited March 11, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

...in which case, were the Romans as incorrect in their categorisation of them as 'Pirates' as we are in calling the PLO a 'terrorist organisation'? Maybe then the term 'Pirate' was used as we sometimes now use the word 'terrorist', to psychologically remove or diminish legitimacy? Perhaps it is the nomenclature in the original sources which is incorrect: The 'failed states' they operated from do not to me seem much different from the many 'successful' minor states which predated them by only a few generations, and Like SF in the last post, I would hesitate to describe Cilicia as a failed state. An oppositional one, maybe. Like the PLO of today, were they not exercising independence which was theirs anyway a few generations previously? Maybe they were pirates (terrorists) according to the winners, and we all know who history is written by. But surely they should be more accurately be called 'Rebels', as they had military force on a par with those they fought against, which terrorists / pirates do not.

Edited March 11, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

Also, since terrorism is defined as using terror to achieve their political ends, surely they would have been most effective as such within the roman world, amongst them, not as a quasi-community way off down the coast. That makes them no different to any potential organised enemy with some form of territorial border.

[sullafelix]

Salve, SF et congratulations, Sir!

Gratiam habeo for sharing such wonderful research with us.

Would you suggest any sources on the Cilician pitares besides Appianus and Plutarchus?

What differences and similarities would you find between the Cilician pirates and the XVII century Caribbean buccaneers?

As the slaves who passed through markets like Delos have left few traces it is often hard to find slaves of a specific nationality. Many slaves will not have kept there own names. Although the nationality of a slave was supposed to be stipulated at the time of sale, it is not unlikely that traders lied in order to raise the value of their goods. This would have been the case when revealing the true nationality of a slave might in fact damage their market value. This may go some way to explaining why some peoples seem underrepresented in our records of slaves in the Mediterranean

Roman slaves' names were totally misleading. Across all their history, Romans were always jingoistic and hellenophile, both to an almost unbelievable degree. Consequently, Latin names were too good for most slaves, but Greek names were the best; most of the time, any Greek slave (or product) was better than the non-Greeks equivalent.

 

Thanks for the loveliness and to answer your question Pausanius and Strabo are both particularly interesting as is any decent book on Delos. For an idea of the way in which piracy was seen by the Romans and Greeks as impacting on their lives, then the speeches regarding Pompey's command are useful. Also on a more social history level the plays of Plautus and later Terence use piracy as plot device extensively showing that the practice of the abduction of free citizens by pirates was familiar enough to be used in comedy.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Thanks for the loveliness and to answer your question Pausanius and Strabo are both particularly interesting as is any decent book on Delos. For an idea of the way in which piracy was seen by the Romans and Greeks as impacting on their lives, then the speeches regarding Pompey's command are useful. Also on a more social history level the plays of Plautus and later Terence use piracy as plot device extensively showing that the practice of the abduction of free citizens by pirates was familiar enough to be used in comedy.

Edited March 11, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES