Informal diplomacy and Rome from the First Macedonian War to the assassination of Ti. Gracchus
View/ Open
Ito2016.docx (453.2Kb)
Date
28/06/2016Author
Ito, Masayuki
Metadata
Abstract
This study examines the influence of Rome’s diplomatic management in
channels apart from official ones and open contacts among states, on her
expansion and Republic from the 200s to 133 BCE. In this thesis such involvement
in foreign affairs is called informal diplomacy. This terminology was not used by
the Romans directly but is useful in showing the following. In the period of Rome’s
advance into the Greek world, she approached not only foreign states but also
individuals, while individual Romans also increasingly participated in such
contacts independently. These acts sometimes took place openly and/or while
using formal diplomatic exchanges and sometimes informally and secretly. The
aim of the Romans concerned was to win over the people approached and their
fellow citizens, and international public opinion, and these approaches were
developed in parallel to official negotiations among states. This diplomacy enabled
Rome to manage foreign affairs flexibly and contributed to her increasing the
dependence of foreign states and individuals on her, in particular those in the
Greek world. This thesis also argues that informal diplomacy caused struggles
among the Romans symbolised by the violence that occurred in the tribunate of
Ti. Sempronius Gracchus. This situation originated from the ill-defined
relationship between informal diplomacy, legality, and the collective leadership of
the senators. As informal diplomacy became more common among the Romans,
the users individually rose among the leading Romans. This tendency
undermined the dignity of the Senate, but this organ had no method to control it.
Consideration of legitimacy of using informal diplomacy had been tacitly avoided
by the Romans because of its ad hoc utility, and the Senate had not necessarily
been the sole decision-maker in the Republic. Its leadership could be legitimately
denied by the users of informal diplomacy if they had some authority and were
supported by the people in and beyond Rome. All the Senate could do in order to
maintain its dignity was to attempt to control them with political tactics and
violence. This was a foretaste of the conflict that was to occur in the final century
of the Republic. Through demonstrating these advantages and disadvantages of
informal diplomacy to Rome, I show this diplomatic concept is a valuable and
fruitful one to employ in the study of Rome during the period of remarkable
expansion and afterwards.