Imperial Peace Research Articles

Imperial Homecoming(s) and the Ara Pacis Augustae in 13 BC

AbstractAfter reflecting on the many dimensions that homecoming involves both in the present and in antiquity, the ceremonial enhancement of various returns of Caesar Augustus from military campaigns are briefly rehearsed through the Res Gestae Divi Augusti (4. 1–2) and other sources. These include the triumph following the battle of Actium (31/29 BC) and the celebration after the re-establishment of peace with the Parthians, which resulted in the cult of Fortuna Redux (19 BC). The Ara Pacis Augustae was decreed after Augustus' victories in Gaul (Res Gestae 12; Cassius Dio 54. 25. 1–4). The famous procession friezes have often been regarded as depicting the emperor's arrival celebrated as a ‘thanksgiving’ (supplicatio) in July 13 BC, but are better understood as memorializing the day on which the sacred space for the Ara Pacis was inaugurated in September. The friezes depict the emperor's family members as well as divine and mythical figures; while presented as naturalistic or historical, they are open to symbolic readings. In a certain sense, the senators enshrined the motif of Augustus' homecoming into the cult of Roman Peace (and Prosperity) and eternalized the ritualized blessing that this should bring to the Roman people. Cassius Dio's highly conflated account of the Senate's decrees in honour of the returning emperor was composed as criticism against servile flattering, but indirectly confirms the ideas underlying the Senate's decrees on the Actian Triumph, the cult for Fortuna Redux, and the sanctuary of the Ara Pacis: the salutary effect of Augustus' victorious return(s) to Rome should become a permanent blessing irrespective of the singular historical events.

Regensburg Convention of Electors 1636/1637
 and Brandenburg's Struggle for Imperial Peace

The subject of this article is the policy of the Electorate of Brandenburg, aimed at concluding peace with the warring powers of the anti-Habsburg coalition during the Regensburg Convention. According to the ruling emperor, the purpose of the convention
 was to elect a Roman king – the future Emperor Ferdinand III. However, the Brandenburg Elector Georg Wilhelm set as his task the conclusion of peace, which should be preceded by an amnesty for the classes that did not sign the Prague Peace. During the
 preparation for the convention and the convention itself, it became clear that the Saxon Elector Johann Georg was pursuing an anti-Brandenburg policy. On his initiative, Brandenburg found itself drawn into a war with Sweden, then Johann Georg invited his colleague Georg Wilhelm to make concessions: to transfer Pomerania to Sweden in the name of peace in the Empire. During the convention, Brandenburg proposed to begin negotiations using the mediation of the Polish king. This was rejected by the majority of the Electors. Then a proposal was made to begin negotiations together with the emperor on concluding peace with Sweden and France. As a result, negotiations with Sweden
 failed. On the issue of amnesty for the Duchy of Württemberg, the Brandenburg delegation failed. As a result, under the influence of the leader of the delegation and a supporter of the Emperor Schwarzenberg, Brandenburg agreed to the election of the Roman king. As a result, Brandenburg's peace policy failed.

The Roman Revolution: ThePax Romana

SummaryThe creation of the Roman Peace involved technical and quantitative developments in a particular type of political rule that produced the appropriate imperial subjects. It also involved concepts of what thatpaxwas to be and how it was to function. These ideas, in turn, demanded new kinds of subjectivity that conflicted with the strong concepts of freedom enjoyed by the citizens of a city-state. The following essay attempts to investigate the development of the intertwining strands of subservience and peace in the middle Republic and their fruition in the transition to the Principate. The core concern is one raised by Momigliano: How did this sea change in political identity affect the mentality of the new subjects of empire?

Kultura śródziemnomorska jako uniwersalna cywilizacja zachodnia. Dociekania filozoficzno-literackie

The Author asks whether the Mediterranean culture developed a higher civilization, explicitly a European universal civilization? He tries to answer for this question having at his disposal various philosophical views, historical facts, thesis of culturologists and sociologists, often referring to the literary contexts and exemplification. In this work, the thesis that „Every civilization is a culture, but not every culture is also a civilization” has been reversed. The transition from the culture to the civilization is close to the thesis of V.S. Naipaul, who noticed, that in the 20th century a universal civilization was created, which concerns the cultural unification of humanity and the increasingly common acceptance of the common values, beliefs and customs. Analyzing the spirit of the Mediterranean civilization, the authortries to explains that it is the Western civilization, and with his rich inventory of notions of symbols, ideas, phenomenas, and creating the universal reservoir and „the pattern for the future” constantly immersed in the ancient past. Also climate – philosophy – literature – religion and politics – the idea of Living Thought), created the basic determinant of the Western civilization. Moreover, when recording the durability of logos, individualism, „circular” and pax romana lists the features of the Mediterranean culture, considering anthropocentrism and individualism as the main dominant feature.

UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF DANTE ALIGHIERI AND IMMANUEL KANT

Ideals of universal power able to manage and solve social and ethical (religious) questions as many ways to reach the highest wisdom, and consequently, fullest well-being of humankind to reach a perpetual peace are present throughout human history so that we can find these ideals in Plato’s Republic, in Aristotle’s Politeia and other works concerning the establishment of more or less utopic “states” and commonwealth since our days. In the present essay we shall scrutinize the universalistic vision of Italian thinker Dante Alighieri (1265–1321) and the cosmopolitan idea of German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). We decided to analyze the political philosophy of those thinkers on the following grounds: on one hand, D. Alighieri took as the basis of his rumination Roman Empire that having as solid basis of its universalistic ideology Right of every Roman citizen (lying on the observance of religious and civil obligations), and the so-called pax romana[1], a theoretical ground on which D. Alighieri would create a communitas a secular led by Reason commonwealth, which might have replaced the so-called humanitas (in Augustinian understanding of such idea); and, on the other hand, I. Kant tried to explain how human self-improvement under the right use of Reason (that we understand like ethical ruling principle of humankind) can be achieved to lead human beings from the state of nature (a semi-brutal one) to the state of reason, which would have as final end a perpetual peace in a universal republic. On those bases we shall try to detect common theoretical and ideal features between D. Alighieri and I. Kant’s vision, so to prove that universalistic power is not a despotic power, but a unifying power under ethical and spiritual principles of the whole humankind.
 
 [1] The Pax Romana (Latin for "Roman Peace") is a roughly 200-year-long time span lasting from accession of Caesar Augustus, founder of the Empire (27 BC) to the death of Marcus Aurelius (180 AD) identified as a period and golden age of increased as well as sustained Roman imperialism, order, prosperous stability, hegemonial power and expansion, despite several revolts and internal political riots.

UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF DANTE ALIGHIERI AND IMMANUEL KANT

Ideals of universal power able to manage and solve social and ethical (religious) questions as many ways to reach the highest wisdom, and consequently, fullest well-being of humankind to reach a perpetual peace are present throughout human history so that we can find these ideals in Plato’s Republic, in Aristotle’s Politeia and other works concerning the establishment of more or less utopic “states” and commonwealth since our days. In the present essay we shall scrutinize the universalistic vision of Italian thinker Dante Alighieri (1265–1321) and the cosmopolitan idea of German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). We decided to analyze the political philosophy of those thinkers on the following grounds: on one hand, D. Alighieri took as the basis of his rumination Roman Empire that having as solid basis of its universalistic ideology Right of every Roman citizen (lying on the observance of religious and civil obligations), and the so-called pax romana[1], a theoretical ground on which D. Alighieri would create a communitas a secular led by Reason commonwealth, which might have replaced the so-called humanitas (in Augustinian understanding of such idea); and, on the other hand, I. Kant tried to explain how human self-improvement under the right use of Reason (that we understand like ethical ruling principle of humankind) can be achieved to lead human beings from the state of nature (a semi-brutal one) to the state of reason, which would have as final end a perpetual peace in a universal republic. On those bases we shall try to detect common theoretical and ideal features between D. Alighieri and I. Kant’s vision, so to prove that universalistic power is not a despotic power, but a unifying power under ethical and spiritual principles of the whole humankind.
 
 [1] The Pax Romana (Latin for "Roman Peace") is a roughly 200-year-long time span lasting from accession of Caesar Augustus, founder of the Empire (27 BC) to the death of Marcus Aurelius (180 AD) identified as a period and golden age of increased as well as sustained Roman imperialism, order, prosperous stability, hegemonial power and expansion, despite several revolts and internal political riots.

From the War on farc to the War on Dissidents: a Critique of Imperial Peace in a Post-Agreement Theatre of War

Abstract In 2016, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia—People’s Army (farc-ep) signed a peace deal (The Final Agreement to End the Conflict and Establish a Stable and Long-lasting Peace) in Havana, Cuba to end a 50-year-old civil war. This paper argues that, contrary to the conventional view, the relinquishing of weapons was a mistake, which is best understood through the context of regional power relations and politics of the Pink Tide and United States imperialism. It also argues that the peace deal has only favoured repressive political forces. It is hoped that this critical analysis of imperial peace will provoke further debate and discussion of the policies and movements which have disintegrated or survived, and can spark genuine solidarity amongst liberation struggles to achieve better strategic outcomes that are independent of any state power, however great or small.

Apuntes para una ideología de la guerra y la paz en época Antonina: ¿tradición o cambio?

The aim of this article is to analyse the conception of war ideology and peace during the Antonine dynasty (96-192) by using comparative criteria. To the elements which survived from the 1st century are added new aspects specific to the 2nd century. The analysis was built on two levels, first, the narrative construction of war ideals and peace, and second, the numismatic presence of some values such as peace and victory, reflected by the interests and ideals of Roman Emperors. We are going to show that during the 2nd century there was an ideological diversification of topics related to war and peace, keeeping nevertheless certain symbols and ideals from previous times, all issues which led to a renewal of the idea of pax romana.

Thelexof the earth? Arendt’s critique of Roman law

How political communities should be constituted is at the center of Hannah Arendt’s engagement with two ancient sources of law: the Greek nomos and the Roman lex. Recent scholarship suggests that Arendt treats nomos as imperative and exclusive while lex has a relationship-establishing dimension and that for an inclusive form of polity, she favors lex over nomos. This article argues, however, that Arendt’s appreciation occurs within a general context of more reservations about Rome than Roman-centric interpretations admit. Her writings show that lex could not accommodate the agonistic spirit and Homeric impartiality that helped the Greeks achieve human greatness and surpassing excellence. Arendt also points out that Roman peace alliances occurred at the expense of disclosive competition among equals and assumed some form of domination. Indeed, although Arendt appreciates lex’s relationship-establishing aspect, she is undoubtedly critical of anti-political practices accompanying lex, manifested when the Romans required enemies’ submission to terms of peace the Romans themselves set. In the end, Arendt’s statements regarding nomos and lex highlight the fundamental challenge in free politics: balancing the internal demand of agonistic action with the external need to expand lasting ties.

The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century

The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century

Pax Romana: War, Peace and Conquest in the Roman World by Adrian Goldsworthy

Reviewed by: Pax Romana: War, Peace and Conquest in the Roman World by Adrian Goldsworthy Anthony Smart Adrian Goldsworthy. Pax Romana: War, Peace and Conquest in the Roman World. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2016. Pp. xiii, 513. $32.50. ISBN 978-0-300-17882-1. In his best-known oration, the skilled rhetorician Aelius Aristides spoke of Rome as the pinnacle of civilization, defender of the righteous and bringer of [End Page 241] peace. This is a peace that was won at great cost, defended by the emperor and his legions, and supported by the columns of Roman government. It is a prize whose worth is all but impossible to quantify. It is not just a good thing, but the defining victory of the Roman world order. In contrast, in a speech within his Agricola, Tacitus introduced us to Calgacus, leader of the Caledonians. This barbarian spoke of Rome, and of the peace the Romans brought. It was a peace won through slaughter and slavery, a manifestation of an unquenchable greed that would never be satisfied. The notion of the Roman peace is a complex topic for us to decipher, as it was for ancient contemporaries. It has both positive and negative consequences, depending on when we are looking, and what we are looking for. There is a danger here in oversimplifying what is a nuanced and shifting sense of political order. It can invite a simplistic and rather unhelpful dichotomy: that Rome was a depriver of liberty and consequently peace was achieved at the expense of freedom (e.g., Tacitus); or, more worrying for modern commentators, that imperialism is a good thing (e.g., Aelius Aristides). A full discussion of the reality of Roman imperial power, and of the creation and maintenance of peace, is needed perhaps now more than ever, as the ancient world begins once more to be drawn upon to defend the realities of modern political rule. The volume by Goldsworthy is a fluently written and in parts persuasive interpretation of the Pax Romana. The great strength of this work is its confident portrayal of the Roman and barbarian characters who shape the narrative of the late Republic and the early Empire. Cicero, Caesar, Pliny, Boudicca and Arminius appear as dynamic historical actors, fully realized as key players in Goldsworthy’s plotline. The book is also successful in navigating a course between celebration and castigation, and it demonstrates throughout an excellent understanding of the importance of peace to the Roman political order, as well as Roman alertness to the constant threat of violence at the hands of the legions and their enemies beyond their borders. This is, then, a good historical analysis, with much to praise; but there is a single crucial weakness. The argument is at no point presented as strongly as needed, and this becomes more apparent as the book proceeds, when some of the points would have benefited from a much tighter articulation of the main argument, and exploration of the most recent scholarly perspectives. This is a strange omission, as in the introduction Goldsworthy stresses quite strongly how “[d]islike of empire tends to encourage scepticism over its achievements” (14), and presents the hint of an important revaluation of the Pax Romana. The book is set out in two broad chronological sweeps, looking first to the Republic, and then to the Principate. Each section contains thematic chapters that dip into different areas and different characters of the Roman world (e.g., provincial government, benefits of empire, political institutions). There is much to praise here. The first tranche on the Republic (21–160) is insightful, and students will gain much by reading Goldsworthy’s account of the rise of Rome (21–36), the role of war (37–62) and the political value of friendship and enmity (63–86). Each of these chapters provides a good balance between narrative flair and clear historical analysis. Although the argument only appears sporadically, these are among the strongest elements of the book. The sections on Roman mercantile efforts and the governing of provinces remind the reader of the different manifestations of Roman power, but in truth these stretches become rather too descriptive, as indeed...

Rad škola na području dalmacije pod vlašću tzv. NDH u toku drugog svjetskog rata (1941—1945)

Following the April catastrophe of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia a peace treaty was signed in Rome between the Italian government and the government of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH). Part of the Dalmatian region owing to the Roman peace treaty (May 18, 1941) was thus annexed to NDH. Three big parishes were formed Bribir-Sidraga with its seal in Knin, Cetina with Its: seat in Omiš, and Dubrava with, its seat in Dubrovnik. NDH was in fact not independant from its start since live Italian army occupied the Dalmatian region which according the treaty agreement belom- ged lo the rule of Italians. The best proof that this region was occupied by Italians. I lien afterwards following the Italian capitulation in the coume of World War II (September 8, 1943) by Germans were the documents which school authorities had to deliver not only to the Department of Education, but also to military authorities of the enemy-occupier of the region. In the course of World War II elementary and secondary schools worked irregularly, that is, from time to time according the circumstances of a given region. The school-day was schortened, the school-hour was to last less than 30 minutes or even less at times. Some changes were introduced in some schools regarding the leaching staff; many teachers were fired, some were transfered to another post, some arrested and many prosecuted. Educational policy and instruction were subservient to the Nazi and racist ideology, many new laws were installed as well as new acts and regulations brought forth going as fair as to assert racial adherence etc. Education and teaching was enacted according the Ustasha-principles, subject matter of the curricula changed according the government requirements, that is, was according the interests of the enemy-occoupier, and the Fascist and Nazi politics’ instructions. In secondary schools the anti-Fascist youth organized and offered resistance to this kind or educational policy, the most agressive agitatora were the secondary school-pupils in Knin, Sinj, and Dubrovnik. Many teachers and professors left their schools and joined the partisan war-fare. They worked in peoples' government organized schools and teaching on the liberated territories of Dalmatia, and finally following the liberation of the whole country continued to wonk in schools. Their teaching in the liberated country was based on the ideological principles of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (KPJ), and ideals that led them to wage the wair for peoples' liberation.

Cosmopolitan and/or Imperial Peace as the Foundation of Global Governance

Cosmopolitan and/or Imperial Peace as the Foundation of Global Governance

Zu Wasser und zu Land

Abstract The paper lines up with studies that discuss the impact of the Jewish War and Vespasian’s advancement on the composition of the Gospel According toMark. Its topic is to show that Mk 4,35-41 and Mk 5,1-20 form a structural unity that insinuates the idea of a Christian peace, distinguished from Roman warfare and peace. Following those scholars who read Mk 5,1-20 as an allusion to the legio X Fretensis it is argued that Mk 4,35-41 and Mk 5,1-20 are tied together in light of the Roman peace propaganda that claimed apeace by land and by sea - as did Vespasian after the civil war, when he reminded the Romans of Octavian’s victory at fretum Siculum.

The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture by Peter Garnsey, Richard Saller (review)

Reviewed by: The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture by Peter Garnsey, Richard Saller K. R. Bradley Peter Garnsey and Richard Saller. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture. 2nd edition. Oakland: University of California Press, 2015. Pp. xviii, 328. $29.95 (pb.). ISBN 978–0-520–28598–9. With Jaś Elsner, Martin Goodman, Richard Gordon and Greg Woolf. The first edition of this book was published in 1987 and quickly established itself as an indispensable guide to the economic and sociocultural history of Rome under the Principate. Almost thirty years later—mirabile dictu!—no one is likely to gainsay the appearance of an updated version. The main text, clinically lucid, has not been altered, but to accommodate the vast quantity of relevant scholarship from the intervening years Garnsey and Saller have supplied a series of addenda and expanded their bibliography. There are also two new chapters: an introduction to the political and institutional foundations of the Principate—the first edition gave no chronological direction, a serious issue for students coming to the subject for the first time—and a survey, written by Martin Goodman, of opposition to and unrest within the empire which valuably offsets the emphasis otherwise placed on imperial peace and the relatively restrained form of imperial autocracy. Altogether, the innovative qualities of the original, its thematic approach and annaliste methodology, remain admirable, while the supplementary material ensures that this book will long retain its prominence. Many of its findings still communicate their first freshness. The attention given to contemporary perceptions of Rome’s empire as a sophisticated Mediterranean rim surrounded by an unsophisticated periphery, the firm characterization of imperial government as small-scale, the tripartite model of elite landownership, and the demonstration of Roman women’s remarkable legal independence in marriage are just a few examples. Likewise, its honesty of exposition continues to impress, as in the statements that virtually nothing is known about how emperors formulated policy, that reliable demographic information from antiquity is nonexistent, and that Romans’ understanding of economic concepts and behavior was extremely limited. This, however, may provoke ironic reflection. The attribution of specific objectives to individual emperors found, for instance, in imperial biographies of the sort recommended for further reading becomes inherently suspect when a distinction has to be drawn between what an emperor did and how the decision to do it was made; and the absence of suitable primary materials has not prevented a recent flood of research, in no way receding, on the interrelated subjects of demography and economy which is marked by reliance on highly speculative propositions. Here, in this respect, the commendably frank statement, “We know little in detail about the economy of the Roman world,” opens a typically abstract discussion of the possibilities of economic functionality and integration in which human subjects play a notably minimal role. The two longest addenda follow the chapters on religion and culture. They are the work of eminent specialists. This is a response both to the volume of new research and to the chapters’ relatively limited coverage. Richard Gordon offers [End Page 263] a wide-ranging and learned survey of current trends in religious history, but I suspect that undergraduate readers will find much of it impenetrable and that advanced readers may not always enjoy its polemical tone. In contrast, Jaś Elsner and Greg Woolf provide an accessible and well-balanced review of developments in cultural history, incorporating items such as festivals, dining habits, gender roles, housing types and decorations, spectacles, architectural monuments, and much more, as elements of “a series of different kinds of cultural play between universal and local identities, broad identities and minority ones—play through which the empire found more of a unity than in any pretended cultural homogeneity.” They show also how visual evidence has assumed a key role in Roman historical research in the last generation. In their new preface, Garnsey and Saller indicate that limits to updating had to be drawn, but they are confident that the addenda will take readers further afield and permit views alternative to their own to be seen. One topic on which more is ideally needed is Roman education. The rigidly conceptualized “system” the authors describe was available...

The Habsburg Monarchy in Conflict with the Ottoman Empire, 1527–1593: A Clash of Civilizations

From 1527 until 1606, there was nearly constant fightingon the long frontier in Hungary and Croatia that divided the Ottoman Empire from the Habsburg monarchy. The conflict began when Sultan Suleiman the Lawgiver invaded Hungary in 1526 and defeated King Louis II Jagellio, who died trying to escape. Thereafter, Hungary was claimed by Suleiman, by Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, and by thevojvodof Transylvania, Janós Szapolyai. Apart from the “Long” Turkish War of 1593–1606, major invasions from either side were infrequent. The Habsburg monarchy and the Ottoman Empire also agreed to several multiyear treaties of peace, starting in 1547. When a treaty had elapsed, both powers usually accepted truces in the interim. Yet the 1547 Treaty of Edirne reflected the priorities of distant capitals. Emperor Charles V had to have calm in Hungary in order to pursue his plans against the Protestant Schmalkaldic League in Germany; Suleiman needed quiet in the west, so as to march east against Shi'ite Iran, the Ottoman Empire's main enemy. But neither Charles nor Suleiman required more than a semblance of peace in Hungary. Hence, Ferdinand, like his new adversary, thepaşaor governor-general of Buda, had to deal with border garrisons eager for booty and angry subjects demanding retaliation. The counterpart of imperial peace wasKleinkriegin Hungary and Croatia.

Une tentative pontificale de reprise en main du Midi : la légation du cardinal Pietro Beneventano en 1214-1215

Pascal Montaubin, A pontifical tentative to take in hand the south of France again : the legateship of Cardinal Peter Beneventano in 1214-1215 In 1213, Innocent III sought to give priority to his project of a crusade towards Jerusalem. This project implied, first of all, the pacification of the south of France that the Albigensian Crusade had profoundly destabilised. In order to contain the territorial appetites of the crusaders and to obtain the submission of the southern barons, the Pope resolved to send a legate drawn from the Sacred College to replace Arnaud Amalric, who was too favourable to Simon de Montfort. Announced in May 1213, the despatch of this alter ego of the Pope was delayed by the rebellion of Pedro II of Aragon. Innocent Ill’s choice fell in January 1214 on his faithful cardinal Peter Beneventano, a great jurist with a good experience of the affairs of the Curia. From spring 1214 to summer 1215, the legate travelled through Provence, Languedoc and Aragon, trying to limit the consequences of the battle of Muret. He worked towards the submission of the Occitan barons, in the conditions of the Roman peace, which constituted the means of protecting them from the crusaders while awaiting the pontifical judgement provided for by the Fourth Lateran Council. His success was particularly remarkable in the Kingdom of Aragon, vassal of the Apostolic See, where he preserved the interests of the young James I. His religious action was less visible than his political overtures, but the Council of Montpellier of 8th January 1215 constituted a high point of the ecclesiastical reform and manifested itself in the work of cardinal-legate Robert de Courson on the subject. But this encounter demonstrates also the solidarity of the Languedocian episcopacy with Simon de Montfort, and the legate is obliged to apply, from May onwards, a policy more favourable to the crusaders, consistent with the orders of Innocent III, who is more and more surrounded by the enemies of the Raimondins.

Philo’s Perception of the Roman Empire

AbstractPhilo’s perception of Rome is less positive than has generally been argued. Although Philo appreciated the pax romana and the religious freedom generally enjoyed by Jews in the Roman Empire, he was nevertheless critical of Rome. In particular, he rejected the idea that the Roman empire was the outcome of divine providence and would last forever. He opposed the spiritual kingship of Israel to the worldly and transitory dominion of Rome. Moreover, he expected Roman rule to fade away in the end, and Israel to blossom as no other nation ever had in the past.

Imperialism and Nationalism in Early Modernity: The ‘Cosmopolitan’ and The ‘Provincial’ in Shakespeare's Cymbeline

The discourses of conquering empire and vassal nation are varied, often internally contradictory. The empire may represent openness and diversity, or militarist brutality. The underling nation may represent autonomy and self-determination, or narrow provincialism. Those discourses spawn ideologies of liberation (‘the empire liberates the nation’, ‘the nation must be liberated from the empire’) and counter-ideologies of oppression (‘the empire oppresses the nation from without’, ‘the empire prevents oppression by dominant national groups of subordinate national groups’). Such concepts are central to Shakespeare’s Cymbeline. Bound to pay tribute to Caesar Augustus, Britain’s King Cymbeline contemplates a national rebellion against pax romana, while at the same time exercising its own dominance over Wales and other conquered territory in the Isles. Parallels to the reign of James I are apparent, where England is embarking upon its ascent to empire, its pax britannica, in the face of Welsh, Scottish or Irish resistance. Several discourses emerge as hallmarks of power politics in early modernity: cosmopolitan empire, oppressive empire, cosmopolitan nation, oppressive nation.

The Liberal Moment Fifteen Years On1

Fifteen years ago, Charles Kegley spoke of a neoidealist moment in international relations. This article examines how the number of armed conflicts has declined in the decade and a half since Kegley’s presidential address and shows that the severity of war has been declining over a period of over six decades. The number of countries participating in war has increased, but this is in large measure due to coalition-building in several recent wars. Overall, there is a clear decline of war. It seems plausible to attribute this to an increase in the three factors identified by liberal peace theorists: democracy, trade, and international organization. Four alternative interpretations are examined: the temporary peace, the hegemonic peace, the unsustainable peace, and the capitalist peace. The article concludes that the latter, while running close to the liberal peace interpretation, also presents the greatest challenge to it. Indeed, we seem to be living in a commercial liberal period rather than a world of neoidealism.