May I please address the question of our necessary ignorance of fundamental
data as to the qualitative condition of the current nation-state system. That
is, specifically, the occurrence of warfare whose occurrence is unknown at
this time merely because the occasion for its occurrence has not yet arisen.
In this we distinguish between wars whose occurrence is premature even
were they possible, which may not be true, and wars whose occurrence was
precluded by diplomatic and military alignments (whatever their cause) which
led to alignments of states (qua politico-military actors) dictating
collaboration or neutrality rather than confrontation. If you do not
understand that, well, neither do I, which is why I'm saying it here.
Even given historical state systems, and mind you, there is no such
thing as a historical situation wherefor new evidence *never* turns up,
we can never know all the diplomatic alignments which simply did not occur
because the most probable, as well as some of the less probable, alignments
are the only ones allowed to occur. That is, hypothetically:
Minister: We should abandon Prussia, and this time ally with the Empire.
Louis XV: You are mad!
given a bit of exploration of underlying realities beneath superficial
appearances, we see that it makes the following sense....
To assess what objectively might have existed as possibility, that is,
immanent within a historical situation, we need to pose every imaginable
counterfactual and adequately respond to it. The classic case is, what would
have, should have, might have, just possibly imaginably have occured had
the German government not cancelled the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia in
1887 and locked in hostile relations between the two states in 1890. (If
I've got the dates wrong, sorry.) We allow for certain modicums of error
or stupidity. We even allow for irrationality.
*Why did the Third Punic War occur*? This is not a very interesting
question to hardly any of you, but it strikes at the heart of any rational
notion of "hegemony." I seem to have read some discussion on this list as
to whether the US is or is not "hegemonic," specifically with regard to
the capacity under whatever circumstances of the US to determine the foreign
policy of China.
If a hegemonic relation between two states prevails, such that the Great
Power will be appeased by the lesser power in any hostile act short of total
annihilation of the lesser power, there is no reason why the Third Punic War
should have been fought. But fought it was, with a racist fanaticism if
anything exacerbated by the certainty that serious resistance by Carthage
was out of the question. The Romans went genocidally ape. They had by this
time developed toward the Carthaginians what amounted to a genuine colour
prejudice, where North Africans then, as now, were possibly on average a
somewhat darker shade of brown than Southern Italians, but not by very much.
(Can't say I've stared intently at a fair sample of either.)
The political purpose of the war had been to intimidate the burgeoning
tribal kingdom of Numidia, turning itself rapidly at this time into a proper
state. It was Carthage's self-defense against Numidian aggression which
provided the *casus belli* by violating the previous Roman Carthaginian
Peace (which required Roman permission even for self-defense, going beyond
its modern imitation, Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, as currently
interpreted).
The war in fact lasted three years, 149-146 BC, with the Carthaginians
exhibiting amazing and unforeseeable ingenuity and capacity to resist. This
had been, actually, the Carthaginians' main defect, as a state, then as an
Inferior Race, all along: Originally a place of refuge (*Kart Hadasht* =
"New Capital," for use in case of emergency should Assyrians or Babylonians
capture Tyre) and naval base, the original Punic [="Phoenician"] settlers
were few, and the indigenous population, which provided forced labour and
mercenaries, scanty (by contrast with Italy and Sicily). The place never
was lavishly subsidized from Tyre, and whatever the settlers did by way of
developing their irrigated agriculture for the support of a dense population,
they did themselves against astounding obstacles. Which included Greek threats
to their toehold in Western Sicily; Agathocles' attack on Carthage itself;
two total wars with Rome in which the latter's deeper resources made the
difference; and finally the peace of 202 BC. When old Cato made his *Carthago
delenda est* speech, he faked dropping a bunch of purported outsized Cartha-
ginian figs, as if to imply that the demonic foe had magical powers permitting
flourishing in any sort of adversity. Typically, it was Carthaginian women
who got stuck with the stereotype of ferocious fertility in spite of alien
superior-race phallocracy. Exactly three Carthaginian women regularly make
the history books. The most famous of these, therefore most important, is
a probable entirely-fictitious character, Dido. She's a sexpot who kills
herself in despair because the noble Aeneas, who's tripping out to found
the ancestors of Rome, or something, doesn't respect her in the morning.
More historic was Sophonisba, daughter of a general, Hasdrubal, who arranged
a political marriage for her with Syphax, a pro-Carthaginian tribal chief.
Syphax was engaged in a blood feud with a younger man and apparent desert
fox, Massinissa, who logically supported Rome. When Syphax's forces were
destroyed by a Roman surprise attack, Massinissa rushed to seize the enemy's
palace, finding Sophonisba [sp?] on her knees in supplication. Guess what
happens. "She was in full flower of her youth and beauty," said Livy. When
the Roman commander Scipio reminded Massinissa that the lady was the property
of the Roman state [sic], he decided on being a Fool For Love only so far;
but he'd made the lady a promise not to surrender her to the vile Romans,
so he sent her poison instead, handing over the body. The third woman we
know about because Polybius "covered" the Roman genocide of the Carthaginians
following the final assault on the walls. The wife of the defending commander
begged her husband to surrender for the children's sake, which he did; but
then she regretted this decision, throwing herself with her children in her
arms into the flames of a burning building.
The site of Carthage was in time repopulated, with the former Berbero-Punic-
speaking population now sefs and tenants on the Vast Estates of rich Romans.
This becomes the setting for the Apology and the Golden Ass of Apuleius, the
devotee of Isis; on the other side, Tertullian's Passion of Sts Perpetua and
Felicitas. Which has taken us to 202 AD from BC, and the reign of Septimus
Severus, who never fully understood his urge for Drive to the East, nor would,
says Benjamin Isaac in The Limits of Empire, 1990, have made any sense of the
Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire attributed to him and his successors.
That's why I live in the Past; the relevant wars have pretty much occurred
already.
Daniel A. Foss
[Note: Important announcement! Do you ever feel like writing, "This post has
been brought to you by the Chinese people, specifically the one whose feet
I found the first worth looking...." STOP! You need The World Party Operative's
Guide To The World, And Other Places, Too! Your problem is completely adequate-
ly Dealt With in Appendix C: The Semiperipheral Woman, And How, If Treated
As A Mere Mass Organizing Object, She Will Conduce To Retrograde Reactionary
Consciousness; But If Left Untreated, Will Do Much Worse. "Framly, I found it
sexist." - Career Magazine.][Coming Next Week: Appendix A: How to survive years
as a clandestine operative in New Zealand without developing incurable
alcoholism. Or, your Maori buddies at the factory, who've got those ferociously
tribal tatoos, invite you for a few beers, which turn out to be a few more
beers than you thought, and you're just a nice Jewish boy form SUNY Binghamton.
"Frankly, I found it racist." - Career Magazine.]