Remarks on the Ancient Evidence for Democratic Peace Author(s): Spencer R. Weart Source: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 38, No. 5 (Sep., 2001), pp. 609-613 Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/424778 . Accessed: 10/03/2011 14:37 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Peace Research. http://www.jstor.org ? 2001 Journal PeaceResearch, )r^^^^Q^M of vol. 38, no. 5, 2001, pp. 609-613 SagePublications (London, Thousand Oaks, CAand New Delhi) [0022-3433(200109)38:5;609-613; 019471] Remarks on the Ancient Evidence for Democratic Peace SPENCER R. WEART Center for History of Physics, American Institute of Physics Responding to Eric Robinson, it is argued that evidence from ancient Greece is inadequate to provide reliable counter-examplesto the democratic peace proposition, provided that the proposition is cor- rectly defined. For the best-documented case, the Athenian invasion of Syracuse,the preponderanceof evidence does make Syracusea well-establisheddemocracy like Athens. But there is contradictoryevi- dence not addressed by Robinson. More important, it is arguable that the decisionmaking body in Athens (the majority of the assembly) did not perceive Syracuseas behaving like a fellow democracy. That is what matters, according to an explanation of the democratic peace based not on institutional or normative causes but on the decisionmakers'perception of a shareddemocratic political culture. In more modern cases where such ambiguities can be checked against primary evidence, the proposition that this sharedperception prevents war holds almost without exception. Other ancient cases cited by Robinson, including all those tabulated by Bruce Russett and William Antholis, involve either (1) regimes even less likely to have perceivedeach other as democracies,or (2) conflicts that apparently fell below the level of 200 combat deaths, which is a thresholdfor violence between democracies.Finally, Robinson fails to addressthe theoreticallycrucial finding that peace has also held with high consistency between oligarchic republics, from ancient times to the present. Evidence on Syracuse with Robinson'simpressive case for a demo- cratic Syracuse. Yet the case is far from What can we learnabout war and democracy certain, for all evidence from the period is from the history of ancient Greece? As flimsy. Robinson (2001) understands,the surviving Consider a single passage in Thucydides informationis so limited that at most we may (6.32-41), which Robinson has not men- find hints that could modify arguments tioned, although a significant fraction of the based on more modern evidence. Robinson historians' debate has revolved around it. It has attempted just that, moving the dis- is no firsthandaccount, but a literaryrecon- cussion forward usefully. However, he has struction based on unknown sources missed some key points. (perhaps Thucydides' notes of talks with Discussions of the democratic peace in Spartans who recalled what they were told ancient Greece have mostly focussed, as by Syracusans?).Weak as it is, this passageis Robinson does, on the search for counter- the best, indeed the only, surviving descrip- examples and particularlythe single case of tion of political activity in Syracuse at the the Athenian expedition against Syracuse. time of interest. The passage summarizes a Historians have long debated whether Syra- session in the assembly of Syracuse after cuse should be classifiedas a 'democracy'in rumors arrived of Athenian plans for an the Athenian sense, and most would agree invasion. A democratic faction argued that 609 610 journal of PEACE RESEARCH volume38 / number5 / september2001 no military preparations were needed, for plistic view of democracy,which there might the Athenians were friendly. Apparently be enough ancient evidence to support. open debate:score one point for democracy. The debate ended without any vote, and Perceptions and Peace Syracuse'sgenerals went ahead on their own authority to make military preparations. I have arguedthat neithertype of explanation Apparent control by an elite: score one for the democraticpeace is valid.A more reli- point for oligarchy. The other passages able explanationlooks to the political culture known to historians, all far briefer, add of leaders,by which I mean their accustomed points for one side or the other, most but practicesas shaped by both institutions and not all for democracy. norms. Democratic leaders climb to power Robinson makes clear that using these and stay there through negotiation and sources (Diodorus Siculus, for example) puts accommodationwith their peers, ratherthan us in the position of someone trying to by forcing one another into exile, jail, or understand 12th-century English politics death. When such leadersare in conflict with using a 16th-century condensed history of foreign counterparts,they follow the normal the world, known to be unreliable.The pit- human conservatism,well known to cogni- falls become visible by comparison with tive, behavioral, and social psychologists: study of more modern cases. In respected they attempt first to solve the problem in secondaryhistories I have found mentions of their accustomed way, namely, peaceful severalearly modern conflicts that sound like negotiation. Violence enters only when they counter-examples,but here one could inspect confront foreign leaderswhom they believe detailed primarysources. This closer inspec- do not themselves adhere to this political tion consistently finds that in the particular culture. year when the war broke out, the democracy In my book Never at War (Weart, 1998, of one side or the other was very new and hereinafterNAW) I do not assertthat democ- scarcelyestablished (less than four yearsold), racies have never made war on their own or else it had just that year fallen under some kind. I assertthat leadersof well-established kind of autocratic or elite-junta control. democracieshave never made war on leaders Thus, a touch of historiographicalmodesty they perceived as their own kind, that is, might curb confidence that the Athenianwar sharing their culture of political behavior. against Syracuseis a sure counter-exampleto The distinction holds high significance for the propositionthat 'well-establisheddemoc- understandingthe causesof wars.A largepart raciesdo not make war on one another'. of NAW is given to studying how leaders But is the validity of that bald proposition decide whether the foreignersthey confront the central question?Yes, accordingto some can be dealt with as fellow-democrats.The explanations of the democratic peace. key is always whether a foreign regime Perhaps democratic executives don't go to appearsto be forciblysuppressing its domes- war because they are constrainedby fear the tic democratic opponents. In a few border- public will vote them out of office, or because line cases where the other regime'sdomestic legislaturesdrag their feet, or for some other behavior was ambiguous, a democracy did institutionalcause. Or perhaps democracies indeed attackwhat some objective observers don'tgo to war becauseordinary folks or their might call a fellow democracy. chosen leaders despise bloodshed, or some Did the Atheniansperceive the Syracusan similar normativecause. In either case, the regime as behaving democratically? proposition standsor fallsaccording to a sim- Emotionally, the Athenians were motivated Spencer R. Weart REMARKS ON ANCIENT EVIDENCE 611 partlyby learninghow their allies, the demo- Greek history. This oligarchic restraintalso cratsof Leontini, had been brutallyrepressed prevailed in periods where the historical by the regime of Syracusein collusion with documentation is far better. The pattern of Leontini's oligarchic elite (Thucydides 5.4, peace between similar republicanregimes - 6.6, 6.19). In more practicalterms, there is but only between similarones, for there have good evidence that the Athenians believed been many dreadfulwars between democra- they would be welcomed and aided by a cies and oligarchies- undercuts both insti- democratic faction within Syracuse itself. tutional and normative explanations of the Indeed without that hope the invasionwould democratic peace, but leaves the political have been entirelyfoolish, for invadersrarely culture explanationstanding. got through the walls of a Greek city unless Robinson has also missed the key point