<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://prole.wiki/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Literallywho+Ingodsname</id>
	<title>ProleWiki - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://prole.wiki/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Literallywho+Ingodsname"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/wiki/Special:Contributions/Literallywho_Ingodsname"/>
	<updated>2026-10-26T06:19:47Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.43.11</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Smith&amp;diff=88135</id>
		<title>Smith</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Smith&amp;diff=88135"/>
		<updated>2025-11-10T21:52:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Removed redirect to Adam Smith&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Stub}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Smith&#039;&#039;&#039; is an extremely common [[England|English]] [[occupational surname]], the most popular in all of the [[United States of America|United States]], [[Canada]], [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|United Kingdom]], [[Australia]], and [[New Zealand]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://forebears.io/surnames/smith &amp;quot;Smith Surname Origin&amp;quot;]. &#039;&#039;forebears.io&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-11-10.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is so common, in fact, that &amp;quot;John Smith&amp;quot; is frequently used as a [[placeholder name]]. [[Cognate]] with the [[German language|German]] [[Schmidt]]/[[Schmitt]], it derives from the [[Old English]] &#039;&#039;smītan&#039;&#039;, meaning &amp;quot;to smite&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Variants ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Dutch language|Dutch]]&lt;br /&gt;
** De Smet&lt;br /&gt;
** Desmet&lt;br /&gt;
** Smid&lt;br /&gt;
** Smit&lt;br /&gt;
** Smits&lt;br /&gt;
* English&lt;br /&gt;
** DeSmith&lt;br /&gt;
** Smethe&lt;br /&gt;
** Smyth&lt;br /&gt;
** Smythe&lt;br /&gt;
* German&lt;br /&gt;
** Schmidt&lt;br /&gt;
** Schmied&lt;br /&gt;
** Schmitt&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== People ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Given name ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Smith Hamilton]] (1822–1891), Statesian major general and industrialist&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Elias Smith Dennis]] (1812–1894), [[Illinois]] politician and Union brevet major general&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Friend Smith Rutherford]] (1820–1864), Statesian lawyer, prison superintendent, and military officer who was posthumously promoted to brigadier general&lt;br /&gt;
* [[John Smith Phelps]] (1814–1886), Statesian brigadier general, Military [[Governor of Arkansas]] during the [[Statesian Civil War|Civil War]], and [[Governor of Missouri]] from 1877 to 1881&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Milo Smith Hascall]] (1829–1904), Statesian brigadier general, banker, and real estate agent&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Smith Larimer]] (1829–1881), Statesian soldier and [[Medal of Honor]] recipient&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speed S. Fry|Speed Smith Fry]] (1817–1892), Statesian lawyer, judge, and brigadier general&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Surname ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Adam Smith]] (1723–1790), Scottish economist and philosopher often called the &amp;quot;father of [[capitalism]]&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Al Smith]] (1873–1944), Statesian politician, twice [[Governor of New York]], and [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] nominee in the [[1928 United States presidential election|1928 presidential election]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Bullen-Smith]] (1898–1970), British general of both [[World War|World Wars]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Daniel Bennett Smith]] (1956–), Statesian diplomat who served as director of the [[Foreign Service Institute]] and briefly as acting [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Danielle Smith]] (1971–), Canadian politician and the current [[Premier of Alberta]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Eddie Liger Smith]] (1997–), Statesian [[Communism|communist]] activist, wrestling coach, and director of the [[Midwestern Marx|Midwestern Marx Institute]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Howard W. Smith]] (1883–1976), Statesian lawyer, politician, leader of the [[conservative coalition]], and namesake of the [[Smith Act]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James Francis Smith]] (1859–1928), Statesian lawyer, judge, general, and politician who served as 8th U.S. [[Governor-General of the Philippines]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[John Smith (explorer)|John Smith]] (c. 1579–1631), English soldier, adventurer, and colonial administrator best-known for founding [[Jamestown (Virginia)|Jamestown]], the first permanent English settlement in the [[New World]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[John Smith (Labour Party leader)|John Smith]] (1938–1994), Scottish politician who served as [[Leader of the Labour Party (UK)|Leader of the Labour Party]] and [[Leader of the Opposition (UK)|of the Opposition]] from 1992 until his death&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Joseph Smith]] (1805–1844), Statesian cult leader who founded [[Mormonism]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Noah Smith (writer)|Noah Smith]], Statesian economics professor and journalist who publishes the &#039;&#039;Noahpinion&#039;&#039; blog on [[Substack]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Robert Burns Smith]] (1854–1908), Statesian attorney and politician who served as the [[Governor of Montana]] from 1897 to 1901&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Thomas Kilby Smith]] (1820–1887), Statesian lawyer, diplomat, and brevet major general&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Walter Bedell Smith]] (1895–1961), Statesian general and diplomat who served as [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]&#039;s [[chief of staff]] during [[World War II]] and [[Director of Central Intelligence|CIA Director]] from 1950 to 1953&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Walter George Smith]] (1854–1924), Statesian attorney&lt;br /&gt;
* [[William Forgan Smith]] (1887–1953), Australian politician, unionist, and [[Premier of Queensland]] from 1932 to 1942&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Will Smith]] (1968–), Statesian actor, director, and rapper&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fictional characters ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Winston Smith]], the protagonist of [[George Orwell]]&#039;s novel [[Nineteen Eighty-Four|&#039;&#039;Nineteen Eighty-Four&#039;&#039;]] (1949)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Places ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== North America ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== United States ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fort Smith (Arkansas)|Fort Smith, Arkansas]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Faber]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Kovač]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lefebvre]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Schmidt]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Schmitt]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Edward_Smith&amp;diff=88133</id>
		<title>Edward Smith</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Edward_Smith&amp;diff=88133"/>
		<updated>2025-11-10T21:13:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Literallywho Ingodsname moved page Edward Smith to Eddie Liger Smith over redirect: To avoid confusion with other Edward Smiths&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Betterpicofedwardsmith.jpeg.jpg|thumb|Edward Smith circa 2024]]&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Edward Smith&#039;&#039;&#039;, who goes by the name &#039;&#039;&#039;Eddie &#039;Liger&#039; Smith&#039;&#039;&#039;, is a [[United States of America|Statesian]] &amp;quot;[[patriotic socialist]]&amp;quot; and an &amp;quot;Institute co-director&amp;quot; at [[Midwestern Marx]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Midwestern Marx|title=Staff|url=https://www.midwesternmarx.com/staff.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221011214738/https://www.midwesternmarx.com/staff.html|archive-date=2022-10-11|retrieved=2022-10-16}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Despite calling himself a Marxist, Edward smith has been moving further to the [[Opportunism|right]] with time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Positions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Tailism ===&lt;br /&gt;
Smith has been increasingly [[Tailism|tailing]] the [[reactionary]] segment of the [[United States of America|Statesian]] population. On December 20th, 2023, he published a post on his Twitter account adopting the idea that [[Donald Trump]] was being unjustly affected by &amp;quot;...[[lawfare]] being used to manipulate elections&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=@EdbieLigerSmith|title=Twitter Post 2023-12-20|date=2023-12-20|url=https://twitter.com/EdbieLigerSmith/status/1737580869206921463|archive-date=2023-12-23|quote=If you admit to unfollowing us because we don’t support lawfare against Trump you’re admitting to living in a liberal echo chamber with no alternative analysis of Trump allowed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The State is a dictatorship of the ruling capitalist class… If you think that State is going after Trump because it has the best interests of the American people in mind, you’re either delusional or ignorant about the true function of the State.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We should condemn lawfare being used to manipulate elections on principle… because if they’ll do it to Trump they’ll do it to us… just look at how Lula da Silva was jailed before the election in 2018.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Have some principles and learn to engage in a sober materialist analysis… enough of the Trump derangement syndrome, Marxists should be smarter than that.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; following the [[2021 United States Capitol insurrection]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the tweet, he dismisses critics (including [[Marxists]]) as &amp;quot;living in a [[liberal]] echo chamber&amp;quot;, but doesn&#039;t go against [[MAGA movement|MAGA]] supporters for their conservative echo chamber. He further adds that:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;We should condemn lawfare being used to manipulate elections on principle… because if they’ll do it to Trump they’ll do it to us… just look at how Lula da Silva was jailed before the election in 2018.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Despite that Marxists are well aware that [[Electoralism|elections]] in a [[Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie|bourgeois dictatorship]] only exist to benefit the [[bourgeoisie]] and that communists will be targeted by the state sooner or later regardless of the opposition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2023, he made the absurd claim that the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Bolsheviks]] were &amp;quot;reaching out&amp;quot; to members of the [[Black Hundreds]] in their time,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=@EdbieLigerSmith|title=If Modern day Western communists lived in Russia|url=https://twitter.com/EdbieLigerSmith/status/1673102904436113409|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230626023258/https://twitter.com/EdbieLigerSmith/status/1673102904436113409|archive-date=26 Jun 2023|quote=If Modern day Western communists lived in [[Russian Empire|Russia]] they would have tweeted pictures of the [[Bolsheviks]] reaching out to the [[Black Hundreds|black hundreds]] and demanded that people cancel them for it.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the Black Hundreds being a [[Far-right politics|far-right]] [[Monarchism|monarchist]] group in the [[Russian Empire (1721–1917)|Russian Empire]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Exploitation of the Palestinian genocide ===&lt;br /&gt;
Smith once compared his self-imposed diet to the [[Israel-Gaza war and genocide|genocide in Gaza]], as [[State of Palestine|Palestinians]] are being intentionally starved by &amp;quot;[[State of Israel|Israel]]&amp;quot; to accelerate their genocide.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Twitter|title=Tweet by @jonnysocialism|date=2025-01-20|url=https://x.com/jonnysocialism/status/1881182136151236995}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In a now deleted conceited tweet that contained two &#039;thirst traps&#039; (selfies of him shirtless looking at the camera), Smith said that &amp;quot;anyone COULD do [a diet] &amp;amp; if you were born in Gaza you&#039;d have no other option.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; He called his self-imposed diet that he undertook for aesthetic and athletic purposes an act of &amp;quot;solidarity with [his] brothers [in Gaza]&amp;quot;, and further added that he was &amp;quot;honestly grateful [he] get[s] the opportunity to dehydrate and starve [him]self&amp;quot;, despite being able to stop his diet at any time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== American Communist Party ==&lt;br /&gt;
Edward was a founding member of the [[American Communist Party]], a patriotic socialist project. There, he calls himself an &amp;quot;Executive board member&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=@EdbieLigerSmith|newspaper=Twitter|title=Proud to announce that I’ve been selected to the executive board of the American Communist Party.|date=2024-07-22|url=https://x.com/EdbieLigerSmith/status/1815447344973779099|archive-url=https://archive.ph/wip/KOmis}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Statesian communists]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Patriotic socialists]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Smith, Edward}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nazi&amp;diff=88109</id>
		<title>Nazi</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nazi&amp;diff=88109"/>
		<updated>2025-11-09T17:09:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; (plural &#039;&#039;Nazis&#039;&#039;) is a derogatory term for a supporter of [[national socialism]] (better known as &#039;&#039;Nazism&#039;&#039;), a [[Fascism|fascist]] movement which emerged in [[Federal Republic of Germany|Germany]] during the [[interwar period]]. Post-[[Second World War|World War II]] adherence to Nazism is often called [[neo-Nazism]]. Someone who supported Nazism before 1945 and continued to adhere to Nazism even after the end of the Second World War is sometimes referred to as an &amp;quot;Old Nazi&amp;quot; (&#039;&#039;Altnazi&#039;&#039;). Nazis themselves tend to reject the label due to the negative connotation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Etymology and usage ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Origins as a nickname ===&lt;br /&gt;
The term &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; was already in-use in [[German-speaking countries]] long before the national socialist movement arose. It is a diminutive of [[Ignaz|Igna[t]z]], the [[Germanisation|germanised]] version of the [[Latin]] [[given name]] [[Ignatius]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Karl Breul]] (1906).: &#039;&#039;Heath&#039;s German and English Dictionary.&#039;&#039; [[London]]: [[D. C. Heath and Company]]. p. 522.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Gustav Michaelis (stenographer)|Gustav Michaelis]] (1856).: &#039;&#039;Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gebräuchlichsten Taufnamen&#039;&#039;. Berlin: Verlag von Franz Duncker. p. 15.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; which was historically common in majority-[[Catholicism|Catholic]] regions such as [[Austria]], [[Bavaria]], and [[Bohemia]]. This is also present in the [[Hungarian language]] (which was heavily influenced by [[German language|German]] due to nearly four centuries of [[House of Habsburg|Habsburg]] rule), with the Hungarian form [[Ignác]] sometimes being shortened to &#039;&#039;Náci&#039;&#039;. Other similar versions are &#039;&#039;Nace&#039;&#039; (chiefly [[Republic of Slovenia|Slovenian]]), &#039;&#039;Gnazi&#039;&#039; ([[Swiss Confederation|Swiss]]), &#039;&#039;Ignacy&#039;&#039; ([[Republic of Poland|Polish]]), &#039;&#039;Ignazi&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;Nazrl&#039;&#039;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Examples of the word being used in this context include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The 1910 comedic novel [[Nazi Semmelbachers Hochzeitsreise|&#039;&#039;Nazi Semmelbachers Hochzeitsreise&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;Nazi Semmelbacher&#039;s Honeymoon&amp;quot;) by [[Anton Noder]] (writing under the [[pen name]] A. de Nora) follows Ignatius &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot; Semmelbacher, a municipal councillor and gingerbread maker who leaves behind his wife in [[Munich]] to travel to [[Venice]] with the poet Franz Paul Müller.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A. de Nora (1910).: &#039;&#039;Nazi Semmelbachers Hochzeitsreise&#039;&#039;. [[Leipzig]]: [[L. Staackmann Verlag]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Ignaz Semmelweis]], the [[Empire of Austria (1804–1867)|Austrian]] physician famous for introducing the revolutionary practice of [[handwashing]] in medicine, was frequently called &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Semmel-Nazi&amp;quot; by his colleagues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Elias Haffter]] (1898).: &#039;&#039;Dr. L. Sonderegger: In seiner Selbstbiographie und seinen Briefen&#039;&#039;. [[Frauenfeld]]: [[J. Huber Verlag]]. p. 23.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This is reflected in the 1979 Hungarian drama [[Gyilkosok (1979)|&#039;&#039;Gyilkosok&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;Murderers&amp;quot;), in which Semmelweis is referred to as &#039;&#039;Semmelnáci&#039;&#039; a total of 14 times.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Száraz György|György Száraz]] (1979).: [https://www.ponticulus.hu/rovatok/hidverok/szaraz-gyilkosok.html#gsc.tab=0 &#039;&#039;Gyilkosok&#039;&#039;]. [[Ponticulus Hungaricus]]. Retrieved 2025-10-30.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* In a 1907 eulogy to [[Ignaz Auer]] (a prominent [[Social Democratic Party of Germany|Social Democratic]] politician from [[Lower Bavaria]]), [[Eduard Bernstein]] affectionately refers to his deceased friend as &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eduard Bernstein|Bernstein, Eduard]] (1907).: &#039;&#039;Ignaz Auer: Eine Gedenkschrift&#039;&#039;. [[State of Berlin|Berlin]]: [[Buchhandlung Vorwärts]]. p. 6.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* The satirical magazine &#039;&#039;[[Kikeriki]]&#039;&#039;, which was banned under [[Federal State of Austria (1934–1938)|the Austrofascist regime]] due to its links to the [[German National Socialist Workers&#039; Party (Austria)|Austrian Nazi Party]], once told a short story called &#039;&#039;Der Kosename&#039;&#039; (&amp;quot;The Pet Name&amp;quot;) about a married couple named Mr. Ignaz and Mrs. Klara. One day Ignaz headed off to work, forgetting to bring his eyeglasses with him. Klara, concerned, opened a window and shouted for her husband: &amp;quot;Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!&amp;quot;, whereupon the man was immediately arrested as an [[enemy of the state]] (&#039;&#039;staatsgefährliches Subjekt&#039;&#039;; literally &amp;quot;state-dangerous subject&amp;quot;).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;No author (1933-06-18).: [https://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?aid=kik&amp;amp;datum=19330618&amp;amp;seite=7&amp;amp;zoom=51 &amp;quot;Der Kosename.&amp;quot;] &#039;&#039;Kikeriki&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-06-07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution into an insult ===&lt;br /&gt;
Given the nickname&#039;s popularity in [[Southern Germany]], it was eventually picked up as a pejorative for Southerners, whom [[Northern Germany|Northern Germans]] often viewed as backwards, foolish, [[Conservatism|conservative]], and unsophisticated [[Rural stigma|due to their rural background]] (comparable to &amp;quot;[[redneck]]&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;[[hillbilly]]&amp;quot;, and especially &amp;quot;[[Cleetus]]&amp;quot; in [[English language|English]]).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nirmal Dass (2022-01).: [https://chroniclesmagazine.org/society-culture/the-strange-origin-of-the-word-nazi/ The Strange Origin of the Word &#039;Nazi&#039;]. [[Chronicles (magazine)|&#039;&#039;Chronicles&#039;&#039;]]. Retrieved 2025-11-09.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This lead to &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; gaining a negative connotation, which some sources claim is the reason why opponents of Nazism favoured the term.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.etymonline.com/word/Nazi &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot;]. &#039;&#039;Etymonline&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-10-30.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[National Socialist German Workers&#039; Party|Nazi Party]] itself was founded in Munich and [[Adolf Hitler|its leader]] was an Austrian, which may have played into this stereotype. Additionally, as is much more well-known, the term &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Na&#039;&#039;&#039;tionalso&#039;&#039;&#039;zi&#039;&#039;&#039;alist&#039;&#039; (&#039;national socialist&#039;) could be shortened to &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;, just as &#039;&#039;[[Sozi]]&#039;&#039; (also derogatory) was a [[Clipping (morphology)|clipping]] of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Sozi&#039;&#039;&#039;alist&#039;&#039; (&#039;socialist&#039;) or &#039;&#039;[[Kozi]]&#039;&#039; was a clipping of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Ko&#039;&#039;&#039;mmunist&#039;&#039; (&#039;communist&#039;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Classical Nazis almost always avoided the term &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;, instead favouring &amp;quot;national socialist&amp;quot;. One notable exception is the title of [[Joseph Goebbels]]&#039; 1926 pamphlet [[Der Nazi-Sozi|&#039;&#039;Der Nazi-Sozi: Fragen und Antworten für den Nationalsozialisten&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;The Nazi-Sozi: Questions and Answers for National Socialists&amp;quot;), in which he seeks to address common misconceptions about national socialist politics, though the word is not mentioned in the text itself. Hitler also used the term &amp;quot;anti-Nazi&amp;quot; on one occasion in reference to unfavourable coverage of national socialism in the international media, though likely in air-quotes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;In the same speech Hitler said&#039;&#039;: &amp;quot;Recently endeavours have been made to place broadcasting, also, in the service of this international campaign of hate [against Germany]. With regard to this, I wish to make the following warning public: If the broadcasts sent from certain countries to Germany do not cease we will soon answer to them.... I believe, as I always have done, that our work of enlightenment will be more effective than the campaign of lies of those Jews who stir up hatred between the peoples. Announcements by American film companies that they intend to produce &#039;&#039;&#039;anti-Nazi—that is, anti-German&#039;&#039;&#039;—films, can but induce us to produce anti-Semitic films in Germany....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;[[Norman H. Baynes]] (1942).: &#039;&#039;The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922–August 1939&#039;&#039;. Volume I. London: [[Oxford University Press]]. p. 742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Otherwise, as [[William Shirer]] noted in his [[Berlin Diary|&#039;&#039;Berlin Diary&#039;&#039;]] in 1940, &amp;quot;For some time now our censors have not allowed us to use the word &#039;Nazi&#039; on the air. They say it has a bad sound in [[United States of America|America]]. One must say &#039;National Socialist&#039; or avoid the term altogether, as I do.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[William L. Shirer]] (1941).: &#039;&#039;[[Berlin Diary]]: The Journal of a Foreign Correspondent, 1934–1941&#039;&#039;. New York: [[Alfred A. Knopf]]. pp. 494-5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; was likewise intentionally eschewed in the [[Eastern Bloc]]. [[Communism|Communists]] view &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; as a [[misnomer]] since, in all practical respects, [[Nazi Germany|Germany under national socialism]] was a [[Capitalism|capitalist]]-[[Imperialism|imperialist]] country. Therefore, in order to avoid any confusion, risk giving credence to the notion that the Nazis were authentic [[Socialism|socialists]], and damaging socialism&#039;s good name, the terms &amp;quot;German fascism&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Hitlerism&amp;quot; were favoured.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Modern usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
Modern neo-Nazis continue to avoid the term due to the historical baggage associated with Nazism, as [[World War II]] and the [[Holocaust]] are still deeply ingrained in the [[West|Western]] psyche today. Instead, they often conceal their true beliefs in order to appeal to as wide a demographic as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, the word &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; is also synonymous with being needlessly strict, intolerant, or fanatical (see, e.g., &amp;quot;[[grammar Nazi]]&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Separate Swiss etymology ===&lt;br /&gt;
In [[Basel]], Switzerland, the [[Basler Zeitung|&#039;&#039;National-Zeitung&#039;&#039;]] (NZ), a [[Liberalism|liberal]] daily newspaper which ran from 1842 to 1977, was colloquially known as the &#039;&#039;Nazi-Zyttig&#039;&#039;, or the &amp;quot;National Newspaper&amp;quot;. From 1950 until the paper&#039;s merger with the [[Basler Nachrichten|&#039;&#039;Basler Nachrichten&#039;&#039;]] in 1977, it also published a weekly children&#039;s supplement called &#039;&#039;Dr glai Nazi&#039;&#039;, or &amp;quot;The Little Nazi&amp;quot; in English. In this case, &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; was just shorthand for &#039;&#039;National&#039;&#039;, and was used in reference to this newspaper specifically.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[German Reich (1933–1945)]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[National Socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[National Socialist German Workers&#039; Party]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sozi]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Disambiguation pages]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nazi&amp;diff=88108</id>
		<title>Nazi</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nazi&amp;diff=88108"/>
		<updated>2025-11-09T17:04:05Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; (plural &#039;&#039;Nazis&#039;&#039;) is a derogatory term for a supporter of [[national socialism]] (better known as &#039;&#039;Nazism&#039;&#039;), a [[Fascism|fascist]] movement which emerged in [[Federal Republic of Germany|Germany]] during the [[interwar period]]. Post-[[Second World War|World War II]] adherence to Nazism is often called [[neo-Nazism]]. Someone who supported Nazism before 1945 and continued to adhere to Nazism even after the end of the Second World War is sometimes referred to as an &amp;quot;Old Nazi&amp;quot; (&#039;&#039;Altnazi&#039;&#039;). Nazis themselves tend to reject the label due to the negative connotation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Etymology and usage ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Origins as a nickname ===&lt;br /&gt;
The term &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; was already in-use in [[German-speaking countries]] long before the national socialist movement arose. It is a diminutive of [[Ignaz|Igna[t]z]], the [[Germanisation|germanised]] version of the [[Latin]] [[given name]] [[Ignatius]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Karl Breul]] (1906).: &#039;&#039;Heath&#039;s German and English Dictionary.&#039;&#039; [[London]]: [[D. C. Heath and Company]]. p. 522.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Gustav Michaelis (stenographer)|Gustav Michaelis]] (1856).: &#039;&#039;Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gebräuchlichsten Taufnamen&#039;&#039;. Berlin: Verlag von Franz Duncker. p. 15.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; which was historically common in majority-[[Catholicism|Catholic]] regions such as [[Austria]], [[Bavaria]], and [[Bohemia]]. This is also present in the [[Hungarian language]] (which was heavily influenced by [[German language|German]] due to nearly four centuries of [[House of Habsburg|Habsburg]] rule), with the Hungarian form [[Ignác]] sometimes being shortened to &#039;&#039;Náci&#039;&#039;. Other similar versions are &#039;&#039;Nace&#039;&#039; (chiefly [[Republic of Slovenia|Slovenian]]), &#039;&#039;Gnazi&#039;&#039; ([[Swiss Confederation|Swiss]]), &#039;&#039;Ignacy&#039;&#039; ([[Republic of Poland|Polish]]), &#039;&#039;Ignazi&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;Nazrl&#039;&#039;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Examples of the word being used in this context include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The 1910 comedic novel [[Nazi Semmelbachers Hochzeitsreise|&#039;&#039;Nazi Semmelbachers Hochzeitsreise&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;Nazi Semmelbacher&#039;s Honeymoon&amp;quot;) by [[Anton Noder]] (writing under the [[pen name]] A. de Nora) follows Ignatius &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot; Semmelbacher, a municipal councillor and gingerbread maker who leaves behind his wife in [[Munich]] to travel to [[Venice]] with the poet Franz Paul Müller.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A. de Nora (1910).: &#039;&#039;Nazi Semmelbachers Hochzeitsreise&#039;&#039;. [[Leipzig]]: [[L. Staackmann Verlag]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Ignaz Semmelweis]], the [[Empire of Austria (1804–1867)|Austrian]] physician famous for introducing the revolutionary practice of [[handwashing]] in medicine, was frequently called &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Semmel-Nazi&amp;quot; by his colleagues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Elias Haffter]] (1898).: &#039;&#039;Dr. L. Sonderegger: In seiner Selbstbiographie und seinen Briefen&#039;&#039;. [[Frauenfeld]]: [[J. Huber Verlag]]. p. 23.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This is reflected in the 1979 Hungarian drama [[Gyilkosok (1979)|&#039;&#039;Gyilkosok&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;Murderers&amp;quot;), in which Semmelweis is referred to as &#039;&#039;Semmelnáci&#039;&#039; a total of 14 times.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Száraz György|György Száraz]] (1979).: [https://www.ponticulus.hu/rovatok/hidverok/szaraz-gyilkosok.html#gsc.tab=0 &#039;&#039;Gyilkosok&#039;&#039;]. [[Ponticulus Hungaricus]]. Retrieved 2025-10-30.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* In a 1907 eulogy to [[Ignaz Auer]] (a prominent [[Social Democratic Party of Germany|Social Democratic]] politician from [[Lower Bavaria]]), [[Eduard Bernstein]] affectionately refers to his deceased friend as &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eduard Bernstein|Bernstein, Eduard]] (1907).: &#039;&#039;Ignaz Auer: Eine Gedenkschrift&#039;&#039;. [[State of Berlin|Berlin]]: [[Buchhandlung Vorwärts]]. p. 6.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* The satirical magazine &#039;&#039;[[Kikeriki]]&#039;&#039;, which was banned under [[Federal State of Austria (1934–1938)|the Austrofascist regime]] due to its links to the [[German National Socialist Workers&#039; Party (Austria)|Austrian Nazi Party]], once told a short story called &#039;&#039;Der Kosename&#039;&#039; (&amp;quot;The Pet Name&amp;quot;) about a married couple named Mr. Ignaz and Mrs. Klara. One day Ignaz headed off to work, forgetting to bring his eyeglasses with him. Klara, concerned, opened a window and shouted for her husband: &amp;quot;Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!&amp;quot;, whereupon the man was immediately arrested as an [[enemy of the state]] (&#039;&#039;staatsgefährliches Subjekt&#039;&#039;; literally &amp;quot;state-dangerous subject&amp;quot;).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;No author (1933-06-18).: [https://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?aid=kik&amp;amp;datum=19330618&amp;amp;seite=7&amp;amp;zoom=51 &amp;quot;Der Kosename.&amp;quot;] &#039;&#039;Kikeriki&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-06-07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Use as an insult ===&lt;br /&gt;
Given the nickname&#039;s popularity in [[Southern Germany]], it was eventually picked up as a pejorative for Southerners, whom [[Northern Germany|Northern Germans]] often viewed as backwards, foolish, [[Conservatism|conservative]], and unsophisticated [[Rural stigma|due to their rural background]] (comparable to &amp;quot;[[redneck]]&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;[[hillbilly]]&amp;quot;, and especially &amp;quot;[[Cleetus]]&amp;quot; in [[English language|English]]).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nirmal Dass (2022-01).: [https://chroniclesmagazine.org/society-culture/the-strange-origin-of-the-word-nazi/ The Strange Origin of the Word &#039;Nazi&#039;]. [[Chronicles (magazine)|&#039;&#039;Chronicles&#039;&#039;]]. Retrieved 2025-11-09.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This lead to &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; gaining a negative connotation, which some sources claim is the reason why opponents of Nazism favoured the term.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.etymonline.com/word/Nazi &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot;]. &#039;&#039;Etymonline&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-10-30.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[National Socialist German Workers&#039; Party|Nazi Party]] itself was founded in Munich and [[Adolf Hitler|its leader]] was an Austrian, which may have played into this stereotype. Additionally, as is much more well-known, the term &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Na&#039;&#039;&#039;tionalso&#039;&#039;&#039;zi&#039;&#039;&#039;alist&#039;&#039; (&#039;national socialist&#039;) could be shortened to &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;, just as &#039;&#039;[[Sozi]]&#039;&#039; (also derogatory) was a [[Clipping (morphology)|clipping]] of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Sozi&#039;&#039;&#039;alist&#039;&#039; (&#039;socialist&#039;) or &#039;&#039;[[Kozi]]&#039;&#039; was a clipping of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Ko&#039;&#039;&#039;mmunist&#039;&#039; (&#039;communist&#039;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Classical Nazis almost always avoided the term &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;, instead favouring &amp;quot;national socialist&amp;quot;. One notable exception is the title of [[Joseph Goebbels]]&#039; 1926 pamphlet [[Der Nazi-Sozi|&#039;&#039;Der Nazi-Sozi: Fragen und Antworten für den Nationalsozialisten&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;The Nazi-Sozi: Questions and Answers for National Socialists&amp;quot;), in which he seeks to address common misconceptions about national socialist politics, though the word is not mentioned in the text itself. Hitler also used the term &amp;quot;anti-Nazi&amp;quot; on one occasion in reference to unfavourable coverage of national socialism in the international media, though likely in air-quotes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;In the same speech Hitler said&#039;&#039;: &amp;quot;Recently endeavours have been made to place broadcasting, also, in the service of this international campaign of hate [against Germany]. With regard to this, I wish to make the following warning public: If the broadcasts sent from certain countries to Germany do not cease we will soon answer to them.... I believe, as I always have done, that our work of enlightenment will be more effective than the campaign of lies of those Jews who stir up hatred between the peoples. Announcements by American film companies that they intend to produce &#039;&#039;&#039;anti-Nazi—that is, anti-German&#039;&#039;&#039;—films, can but induce us to produce anti-Semitic films in Germany....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;[[Norman H. Baynes]] (1942).: &#039;&#039;The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922–August 1939&#039;&#039;. Volume I. London: [[Oxford University Press]]. p. 742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Otherwise, as [[William Shirer]] noted in his [[Berlin Diary|&#039;&#039;Berlin Diary&#039;&#039;]] in 1940, &amp;quot;For some time now our censors have not allowed us to use the word &#039;Nazi&#039; on the air. They say it has a bad sound in [[United States of America|America]]. One must say &#039;National Socialist&#039; or avoid the term altogether, as I do.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[William L. Shirer]] (1941).: &#039;&#039;[[Berlin Diary]]: The Journal of a Foreign Correspondent, 1934–1941&#039;&#039;. New York: [[Alfred A. Knopf]]. pp. 494-5.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; was likewise intentionally eschewed in the [[Eastern Bloc]]. [[Communism|Communists]] view &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; as a [[misnomer]] since, in all practical respects, [[Nazi Germany|Germany under national socialism]] was a [[Capitalism|capitalist]]-[[Imperialism|imperialist]] country. Therefore, in order to avoid any confusion, risk giving credence to the notion that the Nazis were authentic [[Socialism|socialists]], and damaging socialism&#039;s good name, the terms &amp;quot;German fascism&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Hitlerism&amp;quot; were favoured.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Modern neo-Nazis continue to avoid the term due to the historical baggage associated with Nazism as [[World War II]] and the [[Holocaust]] are still deeply ingrained in the [[West|Western]] psyche today. Instead, they often conceal their true beliefs in order to appeal to as wide a demographic as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Separate Swiss etymology ===&lt;br /&gt;
In [[Basel]], Switzerland, the [[Basler Zeitung|&#039;&#039;National-Zeitung&#039;&#039;]] (NZ), a [[Liberalism|liberal]] daily newspaper which ran from 1842 to 1977, was colloquially known as the &#039;&#039;Nazi-Zyttig&#039;&#039;, or the &amp;quot;National Newspaper&amp;quot;. From 1950 until the paper&#039;s merger with the [[Basler Nachrichten|&#039;&#039;Basler Nachrichten&#039;&#039;]] in 1977, it also published a weekly children&#039;s supplement called &#039;&#039;Dr glai Nazi&#039;&#039;, or &amp;quot;The Little Nazi&amp;quot; in English. In this case, &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; was just shorthand for &#039;&#039;National&#039;&#039;, and was used in reference to this newspaper specifically.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[German Reich (1933–1945)]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[National Socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[National Socialist German Workers&#039; Party]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sozi]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Disambiguation pages]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nazi&amp;diff=88103</id>
		<title>Nazi</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nazi&amp;diff=88103"/>
		<updated>2025-11-09T01:24:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; (plural &#039;&#039;Nazis&#039;&#039;) is a derogatory term for a supporter of [[national socialism]] (better known as &#039;&#039;Nazism&#039;&#039;), a [[Fascism|fascist]] movement which emerged in [[Federal Republic of Germany|Germany]] during the [[interwar period]]. Post-[[Second World War|World War II]] adherence to Nazism is often called [[neo-Nazism]]. Someone who supported Nazism before 1945 and continued to adhere to Nazism even after the end of the Second World War is sometimes referred to as an &amp;quot;Old Nazi&amp;quot; (&#039;&#039;Altnazi&#039;&#039;). Nazis themselves tend to reject the label due to the negative connotation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Etymology and usage ==&lt;br /&gt;
The term &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; was already in-use in [[German-speaking countries]] long before the national socialist movement arose. It is a diminutive of [[Ignaz|Igna[t]z]], the [[Germanisation|germanised]] version of the [[Latin]] [[given name]] [[Ignatius]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Karl Breul]] (1906).: &#039;&#039;Heath&#039;s German and English Dictionary.&#039;&#039; [[London]]: [[D. C. Heath and Company]]. p. 522.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; which was historically common in majority-[[Catholicism|Catholic]] regions such as [[Austria]], [[Bavaria]], and [[Bohemia]]. This is also present in the [[Hungarian language]] (which was heavily influenced by [[German language|German]] due to nearly four centuries of [[House of Habsburg|Habsburg]] rule), with the Hungarian form [[Ignác]] sometimes being shortened to &#039;&#039;Náci&#039;&#039;. Examples of the word being used in this context include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The 1910 comedic novel [[Nazi Semmelbachers Hochzeitsreise|&#039;&#039;Nazi Semmelbachers Hochzeitsreise&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;Nazi Semmelbacher&#039;s Honeymoon&amp;quot;) by [[Anton Noder]] (writing under the [[pen name]] A. de Nora) follows Ignatius &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot; Semmelbacher, a municipal councillor and gingerbread maker who leaves behind his wife in [[Munich]] to travel to [[Venice]] with the poet Franz Paul Müller.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A. de Nora (1910).: &#039;&#039;Nazi Semmelbachers Hochzeitsreise&#039;&#039;. [[Leipzig]]: [[L. Staackmann Verlag]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Ignaz Semmelweis]], the [[Empire of Austria (1804–1867)|Austrian]] physician famous for introducing the revolutionary practice of [[handwashing]] in medicine, was frequently called &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Semmel-Nazi&amp;quot; by his colleagues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Elias Haffter]] (1898).: &#039;&#039;Dr. L. Sonderegger: In seiner Selbstbiographie und seinen Briefen&#039;&#039;. [[Frauenfeld]]: [[J. Huber Verlag]]. p. 23.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This is reflected in the 1979 Hungarian drama [[Gyilkosok (1979)|&#039;&#039;Gyilkosok&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;Murderers&amp;quot;), in which Semmelweis is referred to as &#039;&#039;Semmelnáci&#039;&#039; a total of 14 times.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Száraz György|György Száraz]] (1979).: [https://www.ponticulus.hu/rovatok/hidverok/szaraz-gyilkosok.html#gsc.tab=0 &#039;&#039;Gyilkosok&#039;&#039;]. [[Ponticulus Hungaricus]]. Retrieved 2025-10-30.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* In a 1907 eulogy to [[Ignaz Auer]] (a prominent [[Social Democratic Party of Germany|Social Democratic]] politician from [[Lower Bavaria]]), [[Eduard Bernstein]] affectionately refers to his deceased friend as &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eduard Bernstein|Bernstein, Eduard]] (1907).: &#039;&#039;Ignaz Auer: Eine Gedenkschrift&#039;&#039;. [[State of Berlin|Berlin]]: [[Buchhandlung Vorwärts]]. p. 6.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* The satirical magazine &#039;&#039;[[Kikeriki]]&#039;&#039;, which was banned under [[Federal State of Austria (1934–1938)|the Austrofascist regime]] due to its links to the [[German National Socialist Workers&#039; Party (Austria)|Austrian Nazi Party]], once told a short story called &#039;&#039;Der Kosename&#039;&#039; (&amp;quot;The Pet Name&amp;quot;) about a married couple named Mr. Ignaz and Mrs. Klara. One day Ignaz headed off to work, forgetting to bring his eyeglasses with him. Klara, concerned, opened a window and shouted for her husband: &amp;quot;Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!&amp;quot;, whereupon the man was immediately arrested as an [[enemy of the state]] (&#039;&#039;staatsgefährliches Subjekt&#039;&#039;; literally &amp;quot;state-dangerous subject&amp;quot;).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;No author (1933-06-18).: [https://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?aid=kik&amp;amp;datum=19330618&amp;amp;seite=7&amp;amp;zoom=51 &amp;quot;Der Kosename.&amp;quot;] &#039;&#039;Kikeriki&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-06-07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given the nickname&#039;s popularity in [[Southern Germany]], it was eventually picked up as a pejorative for Southerners, whom [[Northern Germany|Northern Germans]] often viewed as backwards, foolish, [[Conservatism|conservative]], and unsophisticated [[Rural stigma|due to their rural background]] (comparable to &amp;quot;[[redneck]]&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;[[hillbilly]]&amp;quot;, and especially &amp;quot;[[Cleetus]]&amp;quot; in [[English language|English]]). This lead to &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; gaining a negative connotation, which some sources claim is the reason why opponents of Nazism favoured the term.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.etymonline.com/word/Nazi &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot;]. &#039;&#039;Etymonline&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-10-30.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[National Socialist German Workers&#039; Party|Nazi Party]] itself was founded in Munich and [[Adolf Hitler|its leader]] was an Austrian, which may have played into this stereotype. Additionally, as is much more well-known, the term &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Na&#039;&#039;&#039;tionalso&#039;&#039;&#039;zi&#039;&#039;&#039;alist&#039;&#039; (&#039;national socialist&#039;) could be shortened to &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;, just as &#039;&#039;[[Sozi]]&#039;&#039; (also derogatory) was a [[Clipping (morphology)|clipping]] of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Sozi&#039;&#039;&#039;alist&#039;&#039; (&#039;socialist&#039;) or &#039;&#039;[[Kozi]]&#039;&#039; was a clipping of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Ko&#039;&#039;&#039;mmunist&#039;&#039; (&#039;communist&#039;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Classical Nazis almost always avoided the term &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;, instead favouring &amp;quot;national socialist&amp;quot;. One notable exception is the title of [[Joseph Goebbels]]&#039; 1926 pamphlet [[Der Nazi-Sozi|&#039;&#039;Der Nazi-Sozi: Fragen und Antworten für den Nationalsozialisten&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;The Nazi-Sozi: Questions and Answers for National Socialists&amp;quot;), in which he seeks to address common misconceptions about national socialist politics, though the word is not mentioned in the text itself. Hitler also used the term &amp;quot;anti-Nazi&amp;quot; on one occasion in reference to unfavourable coverage of national socialism in the international media, though likely in air-quotes as he immediately clarified that opposition to Nazism was in reality opposition to Germany (at least in his mind).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;In the same speech Hitler said&#039;&#039;: &amp;quot;Recently endeavours have been made to place broadcasting, also, in the service of this international campaign of hate [against Germany]. With regard to this, I wish to make the following warning public: If the broadcasts sent from certain countries to Germany do not cease we will soon answer to them.... I believe, as I always have done, that our work of enlightenment will be more effective than the campaign of lies of those Jews who stir up hatred between the peoples. Announcements by American film companies that they intend to produce anti-Nazi—that is, anti-German—films, can but induce us to produce anti-Semitic films in Germany....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;[[Norman H. Baynes]] (1942).: &#039;&#039;The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922–August 1939&#039;&#039;. Volume I. London: [[Oxford University Press]]. p. 742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Modern neo-Nazis continue to avoid the term due to the historical baggage associated with Nazism as [[World War II]] and the [[Holocaust]] are still deeply ingrained in the [[West|Western]] psyche today. Instead, they often conceal their true beliefs in order to appeal to as wide a demographic as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; was likewise intentionally eschewed in the [[Eastern Bloc]]. [[Communism|Communists]] view &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; as a [[misnomer]] since, in all practical respects, [[Nazi Germany|Germany under national socialism]] was a [[Capitalism|capitalist]]-[[Imperialism|imperialist]] country. Therefore, in order to avoid any confusion and risk giving credence to the notion that the Nazis were authentic [[Socialism|socialists]], the terms &amp;quot;German fascism&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Hitlerism&amp;quot; were favoured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[German Reich (1933–1945)]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[National Socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[National Socialist German Workers&#039; Party]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sozi]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Disambiguation pages]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Aluminum&amp;diff=88100</id>
		<title>Aluminum</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Aluminum&amp;diff=88100"/>
		<updated>2025-11-08T22:48:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Redirected page to Aluminium&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Aluminium]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nazi&amp;diff=88098</id>
		<title>Nazi</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nazi&amp;diff=88098"/>
		<updated>2025-11-08T21:56:38Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Typo&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; (plural &#039;&#039;Nazis&#039;&#039;) is a derogatory term for a supporter of [[national socialism]] (better known as &#039;&#039;Nazism&#039;&#039;), a [[Fascism|fascist]] movement which emerged in [[Federal Republic of Germany|Germany]] during the [[interwar period]]. Post-[[Second World War|World War II]] adherence to Nazism is often called [[neo-Nazism]]. Someone who supported Nazism before 1945 and continued to adhere to Nazism even after the end of the Second World War is sometimes referred to as an &amp;quot;Old Nazi&amp;quot; (&#039;&#039;Altnazi&#039;&#039;). Nazis themselves tend to reject the label due to the negative connotation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Etymology and usage ==&lt;br /&gt;
The term &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; was already in-use in [[German-speaking countries]] long before the national socialist movement arose. It is a diminutive of [[Ignaz|Igna[t]z]], the [[Germanisation|germanised]] version of the [[Latin]] [[given name]] [[Ignatius]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Karl Breul]] (1906).: &#039;&#039;Heath&#039;s German and English Dictionary.&#039;&#039; [[London]]: [[D. C. Heath and Company]]. p. 522.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; which was historically common in majority-[[Catholicism|Catholic]] regions such as [[Austria]], [[Bavaria]], and [[Bohemia]]. This is also present in the [[Hungarian language]] (which was heavily influenced by [[German language|German]] due to nearly four centuries of [[House of Habsburg|Habsburg]] rule), with the Hungarian form [[Ignác]] sometimes being shortened to &#039;&#039;Náci&#039;&#039;. Examples of the word being used in this context include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The 1910 comedic novel [[Nazi Semmelbachers Hochzeitsreise|&#039;&#039;Nazi Semmelbachers Hochzeitsreise&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;Nazi Semmelbacher&#039;s Honeymoon&amp;quot;) by [[Anton Noder]] (writing under the [[pen name]] A. de Nora) follows Ignatius &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot; Semmelbacher, a municipal councillor and gingerbread maker who leaves behind his wife in [[Munich]] to travel to [[Venice]] with the poet Franz Paul Müller.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A. de Nora (1910).: &#039;&#039;Nazi Semmelbachers Hochzeitsreise&#039;&#039;. [[Leipzig]]: [[L. Staackmann Verlag]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Ignaz Semmelweis]], the [[Empire of Austria (1804–1867)|Austrian]] physician famous for introducing the revolutionary practice of [[handwashing]] in medicine, was frequently called &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Semmel-Nazi&amp;quot; by his colleagues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Elias Haffter]] (1898).: &#039;&#039;Dr. L. Sonderegger: In seiner Selbstbiographie und seinen Briefen&#039;&#039;. [[Frauenfeld]]: [[J. Huber Verlag]]. p. 23.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This is reflected in the 1979 Hungarian drama [[Gyilkosok (1979)|&#039;&#039;Gyilkosok&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;Murderers&amp;quot;), in which Semmelweis is referred to as &#039;&#039;Semmelnáci&#039;&#039; a total of 14 times.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Száraz György|György Száraz]] (1979).: [https://www.ponticulus.hu/rovatok/hidverok/szaraz-gyilkosok.html#gsc.tab=0 &#039;&#039;Gyilkosok&#039;&#039;]. [[Ponticulus Hungaricus]]. Retrieved 2025-10-30.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* In a 1907 eulogy to [[Ignaz Auer]] (a prominent [[Social Democratic Party of Germany|Social Democratic]] politician from [[Lower Bavaria]]), [[Eduard Bernstein]] affectionately refers to his deceased friend as &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eduard Bernstein|Bernstein, Eduard]] (1907).: &#039;&#039;Ignaz Auer: Eine Gedenkschrift&#039;&#039;. [[State of Berlin|Berlin]]: [[Buchhandlung Vorwärts]]. p. 6.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* The satirical magazine &#039;&#039;[[Kikeriki]]&#039;&#039;, which was banned under [[Federal State of Austria (1934–1938)|the Austrofascist regime]] due to its links to the [[German National Socialist Workers&#039; Party (Austria)|Austrian Nazi Party]], once told a short story called &#039;&#039;Der Kosename&#039;&#039; (&amp;quot;The Pet Name&amp;quot;) about a married couple named Mr. Ignaz and Mrs. Klara. One day Ignaz headed off to work, forgetting to bring his eyeglasses with him. Klara, concerned, opened a window and shouted for her husband: &amp;quot;Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!&amp;quot;, whereupon the man was promptly arrested as an [[enemy of the state]] (&#039;&#039;staatsgefährliches Subjekt&#039;&#039;; literally &amp;quot;state-dangerous subject&amp;quot;).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;No author (1933-06-18).: [https://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?aid=kik&amp;amp;datum=19330618&amp;amp;seite=7&amp;amp;zoom=51 &amp;quot;Der Kosename.&amp;quot;] &#039;&#039;Kikeriki&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-06-07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given the nickname&#039;s popularity in [[Southern Germany]], it was eventually picked up as a pejorative for Southerners, whom [[Northern Germany|Northern Germans]] often viewed as backwards, foolish, [[Conservatism|conservative]], and unsophisticated (comparable to &amp;quot;[[redneck]]&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;[[hillbilly]]&amp;quot; in [[English language|English]]). The [[National Socialist German Workers&#039; Party|Nazi Party]] itself was founded in [[Munich]] and [[Adolf Hitler|its leader]] was an Austrian, which may have unintentionally played into this stereotype. This lead to &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; gaining a negative connotation, which some sources claim is the reason why opponents of Nazism favoured the term.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.etymonline.com/word/Nazi &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot;]. &#039;&#039;Etymonline&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-10-30.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Additionally, as is much more well-known, the term &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Na&#039;&#039;&#039;tionalso&#039;&#039;&#039;zi&#039;&#039;&#039;alist&#039;&#039; (&#039;national socialist&#039;) could be shortened to &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;, just as &#039;&#039;[[Sozi]]&#039;&#039; (also derogatory) was a [[Clipping (morphology)|clipping]] of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Sozi&#039;&#039;&#039;alist&#039;&#039; (&#039;socialist&#039;) or &#039;&#039;[[Kozi]]&#039;&#039; was a clipping of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Ko&#039;&#039;&#039;mmunist&#039;&#039; (&#039;communist&#039;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Classical Nazis almost always avoided the term &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;, instead favouring &amp;quot;national socialist&amp;quot;. One notable exception is the title of [[Joseph Goebbels]]&#039; 1926 pamphlet [[Der Nazi-Sozi|&#039;&#039;Der Nazi-Sozi: Fragen und Antworten für den Nationalsozialisten&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;The Nazi-Sozi: Questions and Answers for National Socialists&amp;quot;), though the word is not used in the work itself. Hitler used the term &amp;quot;anti-Nazi&amp;quot; on one occasion in 1939 in reference to unfavourable coverage of national socialism in the international media, though likely in air-quotes as he immediately clarifies that opposition to Nazism is in reality opposition to Germany (at least in his mind).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;In the same speech Hitler said&#039;&#039;: &amp;quot;Recently endeavours have been made to place broadcasting, also, in the service of this international campaign of hate [against Germany]. With regard to this, I wish to make the following warning public: If the broadcasts sent from certain countries to Germany do not cease we will soon answer to them.... I believe, as I always have done, that our work of enlightenment will be more effective than the campaign of lies of those Jews who stir up hatred between the peoples. Announcements by American film companies that they intend to produce anti-Nazi—that is, anti-German—films, can but induce us to produce anti-Semitic films in Germany....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;[[Norman H. Baynes]] (1942).: &#039;&#039;The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922–August 1939&#039;&#039;. Volume I. London: [[Oxford University Press]]. p. 742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Modern neo-Nazis continue to avoid the term due to the historical baggage associated with it, as [[World War II]] and the [[Holocaust]] are deeply embedded in the [[West|Western]] psyche today. Instead, they typically conceal their true beliefs in order to appeal to as wide a demographic as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; was likewise intentionally eschewed in the [[Eastern Bloc]]. [[Communism|Communists]] view &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; as a [[misnomer]] since, in all practical respects, [[Nazi Germany|Germany under national socialism]] was a [[Capitalism|capitalist]]-[[Imperialism|imperialist]] country. Therefore, in order to avoid any confusion and risk giving credence to the notion that the Nazis were authentic [[Socialism|socialists]], the terms &amp;quot;German fascism&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Hitlerism&amp;quot; were favoured in its stead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[German Reich (1933–1945)]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[National Socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[National Socialist German Workers&#039; Party]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sozi]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Disambiguation pages]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nazi&amp;diff=88096</id>
		<title>Nazi</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nazi&amp;diff=88096"/>
		<updated>2025-11-08T20:51:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; (plural &#039;&#039;Nazis&#039;&#039;) is a derogatory term for a supporter of [[national socialism]] (better known as &#039;&#039;Nazism&#039;&#039;), a [[Fascism|fascist]] movement which emerged in [[Federal Republic of Germany|Germany]] during the [[interwar period]]. Post-[[Second World War|World War II]] adherence to Nazism is often called [[neo-Nazism]]. Someone who supported Nazism before 1945 and continued to adhere to Nazism even after the end of the Second World War is sometimes referred to as an &amp;quot;Old Nazi&amp;quot; (&#039;&#039;Altnazi&#039;&#039;). Nazis themselves tend to reject the label due to the negative connotation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Etymology and usage ==&lt;br /&gt;
The term &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; was already in-use in [[German-speaking countries]] long before the national socialist movement arose. It is a diminutive of [[Ignaz|Igna[t]z]], the [[Germanisation|germanised]] version of the [[Latin]] [[given name]] [[Ignatius]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Karl Breul]] (1906).: &#039;&#039;Heath&#039;s German and English Dictionary.&#039;&#039; [[London]]: [[D. C. Heath and Company]]. p. 522.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; which was historically common in majority-[[Catholicism|Catholic]] regions such as [[Austria]], [[Bavaria]], and [[Bohemia]]. This is also present in the [[Hungarian language]] (which was heavily influenced by [[German language|German]] due to nearly four centuries of [[House of Habsburg|Habsburg]] rule), with the Hungarian form [[Ignác]] sometimes being shortened to &#039;&#039;Náci&#039;&#039;. Examples of the word being used in this context include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The 1910 comedic novel [[Nazi Semmelbachers Hochzeitsreise|&#039;&#039;Nazi Semmelbachers Hochzeitsreise&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;Nazi Semmelbacher&#039;s Honeymoon&amp;quot;) by [[Anton Noder]] (writing under the [[pen name]] A. de Nora) follows Ignatius &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot; Semmelbacher, a municipal councillor and gingerbread baker who leaves behind his wife in [[Munich]] to travel to [[Venice]] with the poet Franz Paul Müller.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A. de Nora (1910).: &#039;&#039;Nazi Semmelbachers Hochzeitsreise&#039;&#039;. [[Leipzig]]: [[L. Staackmann Verlag]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Ignaz Semmelweis]], the [[Empire of Austria (1804–1867)|Austrian]] physician famous for introducing the revolutionary practice of [[handwashing]] in medicine, was frequently called &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Semmel-Nazi&amp;quot; by his colleagues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Elias Haffter]] (1898).: &#039;&#039;Dr. L. Sonderegger: In seiner Selbstbiographie und seinen Briefen&#039;&#039;. [[Frauenfeld]]: [[J. Huber Verlag]]. p. 23.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This is reflected in the 1979 Hungarian drama [[Gyilkosok (1979)|&#039;&#039;Gyilkosok&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;Murderers&amp;quot;), in which Semmelweis is referred to as &#039;&#039;Semmelnáci&#039;&#039; a total of 14 times.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Száraz György|György Száraz]] (1979).: [https://www.ponticulus.hu/rovatok/hidverok/szaraz-gyilkosok.html#gsc.tab=0 &#039;&#039;Gyilkosok&#039;&#039;]. [[Ponticulus Hungaricus]]. Retrieved 2025-10-30.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* In a 1907 eulogy to [[Ignaz Auer]] (a prominent [[Social Democratic Party of Germany|Social Democratic]] politician from [[Lower Bavaria]]), [[Eduard Bernstein]] affectionately refers to his deceased friend as &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eduard Bernstein|Bernstein, Eduard]] (1907).: &#039;&#039;Ignaz Auer: Eine Gedenkschrift&#039;&#039;. [[State of Berlin|Berlin]]: [[Buchhandlung Vorwärts]]. p. 6.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* The satirical magazine &#039;&#039;[[Kikeriki]]&#039;&#039;, which was banned under [[Federal State of Austria (1934–1938)|the Austrofascist regime]] due to its links to the [[German National Socialist Workers&#039; Party (Austria)|Austrian Nazi Party]], once told a short story called &#039;&#039;Der Kosename&#039;&#039; (&amp;quot;The Pet Name&amp;quot;) about a married couple named Mr. Ignaz and Mrs. Klara. One day Ignaz headed off to work, forgetting to bring his eyeglasses with him. Klara, concerned, opened a window and shouted for her husband: &amp;quot;Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!&amp;quot;, whereupon the man was promptly arrested as an [[enemy of the state]] (&#039;&#039;staatsgefährliches Subjekt&#039;&#039;; literally &amp;quot;state-dangerous subject&amp;quot;).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;No author (1933-06-18).: [https://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?aid=kik&amp;amp;datum=19330618&amp;amp;seite=7&amp;amp;zoom=51 &amp;quot;Der Kosename.&amp;quot;] &#039;&#039;Kikeriki&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-06-07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given the nickname&#039;s popularity in [[Southern Germany]], it was eventually picked up as a pejorative for Southerners, whom [[Northern Germany|Northern Germans]] often viewed as backwards, foolish, [[Conservatism|conservative]], and unsophisticated (comparable to &amp;quot;[[redneck]]&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;[[hillbilly]]&amp;quot; in [[English language|English]]). The [[National Socialist German Workers&#039; Party|Nazi Party]] itself was founded in [[Munich]] and [[Adolf Hitler|its leader]] was an Austrian, which may have unintentionally played into this stereotype. This lead to &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; gaining a negative connotation, which some sources claim is the reason why opponents of Nazism favoured the term.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.etymonline.com/word/Nazi &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot;]. &#039;&#039;Etymonline&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-10-30.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Additionally, as is much more well-known, the term &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Na&#039;&#039;&#039;tionalso&#039;&#039;&#039;zi&#039;&#039;&#039;alist&#039;&#039; (&#039;national socialist&#039;) could be shortened to &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;, just as &#039;&#039;[[Sozi]]&#039;&#039; (also derogatory) was a [[Clipping (morphology)|clipping]] of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Sozi&#039;&#039;&#039;alist&#039;&#039; (&#039;socialist&#039;) or &#039;&#039;[[Kozi]]&#039;&#039; was a clipping of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Ko&#039;&#039;&#039;mmunist&#039;&#039; (&#039;communist&#039;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Classical Nazis almost always avoided the term &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;, instead favouring &amp;quot;national socialist&amp;quot;. One notable exception is the title of [[Joseph Goebbels]]&#039; 1926 pamphlet [[Der Nazi-Sozi|&#039;&#039;Der Nazi-Sozi: Fragen und Antworten für den Nationalsozialisten&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;The Nazi-Sozi: Questions and Answers for National Socialists&amp;quot;), though the word is not used in the work itself. Hitler used the term &amp;quot;anti-Nazi&amp;quot; on one occasion in 1939 in reference to unfavourable coverage of national socialism in the international media, though likely in air-quotes as he immediately clarifies that opposition to Nazism is in reality opposition to Germany (at least in his mind).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;In the same speech Hitler said&#039;&#039;: &amp;quot;Recently endeavours have been made to place broadcasting, also, in the service of this international campaign of hate [against Germany]. With regard to this, I wish to make the following warning public: If the broadcasts sent from certain countries to Germany do not cease we will soon answer to them.... I believe, as I always have done, that our work of enlightenment will be more effective than the campaign of lies of those Jews who stir up hatred between the peoples. Announcements by American film companies that they intend to produce anti-Nazi—that is, anti-German—films, can but induce us to produce anti-Semitic films in Germany....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;[[Norman H. Baynes]] (1942).: &#039;&#039;The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922–August 1939&#039;&#039;. Volume I. London: [[Oxford University Press]]. p. 742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Modern neo-Nazis continue to avoid the term due to the historical baggage associated with it, as [[World War II]] and the [[Holocaust]] are deeply embedded in the [[West|Western]] psyche today. Instead, they typically conceal their true beliefs in order to appeal to as wide a demographic as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; was likewise intentionally eschewed in the [[Eastern Bloc]]. [[Communism|Communists]] view &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; as a [[misnomer]] since, in all practical respects, [[Nazi Germany|Germany under national socialism]] was a [[Capitalism|capitalist]]-[[Imperialism|imperialist]] country. Therefore, in order to avoid any confusion and risk giving credence to the notion that the Nazis were authentic [[Socialism|socialists]], the terms &amp;quot;German fascism&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Hitlerism&amp;quot; were favoured in its stead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[German Reich (1933–1945)]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[National Socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[National Socialist German Workers&#039; Party]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sozi]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Disambiguation pages]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nazi&amp;diff=88095</id>
		<title>Nazi</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nazi&amp;diff=88095"/>
		<updated>2025-11-08T20:38:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; (plural &#039;&#039;Nazis&#039;&#039;) is a derogatory term for a supporter of [[national socialism]] (better known as &#039;&#039;Nazism&#039;&#039;), a [[Fascism|fascist]] movement which emerged in [[Federal Republic of Germany|Germany]] during the [[interwar period]]. Post-[[Second World War|World War II]] adherence to Nazism is often called [[neo-Nazism]]. Someone who supported Nazism before 1945 and continued to adhere to Nazism even after the end of the Second World War is sometimes referred to as an &amp;quot;Old Nazi&amp;quot; (&#039;&#039;Altnazi&#039;&#039;). Nazis themselves tend to reject the label due to the negative connotation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Etymology and usage ==&lt;br /&gt;
The term &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; was already in-use in [[German-speaking countries]] long before the national socialist movement arose. It is a diminutive of [[Ignaz|Igna[t]z]], the [[Germanisation|germanised]] version of the [[Latin]] [[given name]] [[Ignatius]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Karl Breul]] (1906).: &#039;&#039;Heath&#039;s German and English Dictionary.&#039;&#039; [[London]]: [[D. C. Heath and Company]]. p. 522.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; which was historically common in majority-[[Catholicism|Catholic]] regions such as [[Austria]], [[Bavaria]], and [[Bohemia]]. This is also present in the [[Hungarian language]] (which was heavily influenced by [[German language|German]] due to nearly four centuries of [[House of Habsburg|Habsburg]] rule), with the Hungarian form [[Ignác]] sometimes being shortened to &#039;&#039;Náci&#039;&#039;. Examples of the word being used in this context include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The 1910 comedic novel [[Nazi Semmelbachers Hochzeitsreise|&#039;&#039;Nazi Semmelbachers Hochzeitsreise&#039;&#039;]] by [[Anton Noder]] (under the [[pen name]] A. de Nora) follows Ignatius &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot; Semmelbacher, a municipal councillor and gingerbread baker who leaves behind his wife in [[Munich]] to travel to [[Venice]] with the poet Franz Paul Müller.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Ignaz Semmelweis]], the [[Empire of Austria (1804–1867)|Austrian]] physician famous for introducing the revolutionary practice of [[handwashing]] in medicine, was frequently called &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Semmel-Nazi&amp;quot; by his colleagues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Elias Haffter]] (1898).: &#039;&#039;Dr. L. Sonderegger: In seiner Selbstbiographie und seinen Briefen&#039;&#039;. [[Frauenfeld]]: [[J. Huber Verlag]]. p. 23.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This is reflected in the 1979 Hungarian drama [[Gyilkosok (1979)|&#039;&#039;Gyilkosok&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;Murderers&amp;quot;), in which Semmelweis is referred to as &#039;&#039;Semmelnáci&#039;&#039; a total of 14 times.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Száraz György|György Száraz]] (1979).: [https://www.ponticulus.hu/rovatok/hidverok/szaraz-gyilkosok.html#gsc.tab=0 &#039;&#039;Gyilkosok&#039;&#039;]. [[Ponticulus Hungaricus]]. Retrieved 2025-10-30.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* In a 1907 eulogy to [[Ignaz Auer]] (a prominent [[Social Democratic Party of Germany|Social Democratic]] politician from [[Lower Bavaria]]), [[Eduard Bernstein]] affectionately refers to his deceased friend as &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eduard Bernstein|Bernstein, Eduard]] (1907).: &#039;&#039;Ignaz Auer: Eine Gedenkschrift&#039;&#039;.[[State of Berlin|Berlin]]: [[Buchhandlung Vorwärts]]. p. 6.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* The satirical magazine &#039;&#039;[[Kikeriki]]&#039;&#039;, which was banned under [[Federal State of Austria (1934–1938)|the Austrofascist regime]] due to its links to the [[German National Socialist Workers&#039; Party (Austria)|Austrian Nazi Party]], once told a short story called &#039;&#039;Der Kosename&#039;&#039; (&amp;quot;The Pet Name&amp;quot;) about a married couple named Mr. Ignaz and Mrs. Klara. One day Ignaz headed off to work, forgetting to bring his eyeglasses with him. Klara, concerned, opened a window and shouted for her husband: &amp;quot;Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!&amp;quot;, whereupon the man was promptly arrested as an [[enemy of the state]] (&#039;&#039;staatsgefährliches Subjekt&#039;&#039;; literally &amp;quot;state-dangerous subject&amp;quot;).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;No author (1933-06-18).: [https://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?aid=kik&amp;amp;datum=19330618&amp;amp;seite=7&amp;amp;zoom=51 &amp;quot;Der Kosename.&amp;quot;] &#039;&#039;Kikeriki&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-06-07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given the nickname&#039;s popularity in [[Southern Germany]], it was eventually picked up as a pejorative for Southerners, whom [[Northern Germany|Northern Germans]] often viewed as backwards, foolish, [[Conservatism|conservative]], and unsophisticated (comparable to &amp;quot;[[redneck]]&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;[[hillbilly]]&amp;quot; in [[English language|English]]). The [[National Socialist German Workers&#039; Party|Nazi Party]] itself was founded in [[Munich]] and [[Adolf Hitler|its leader]] was an Austrian, which may have unintentionally played into this stereotype. This lead to &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; gaining a negative connotation, which some sources claim is the reason why opponents of Nazism favoured the term.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.etymonline.com/word/Nazi &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot;]. &#039;&#039;Etymonline&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-10-30.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Additionally, as is much more well-known, the term &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Na&#039;&#039;&#039;tionalso&#039;&#039;&#039;zi&#039;&#039;&#039;alist&#039;&#039; (&#039;national socialist&#039;) could be shortened to &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;, just as &#039;&#039;[[Sozi]]&#039;&#039; (also derogatory) was a [[Clipping (morphology)|clipping]] of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Sozi&#039;&#039;&#039;alist&#039;&#039; (&#039;socialist&#039;) or &#039;&#039;[[Kozi]]&#039;&#039; was a clipping of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Ko&#039;&#039;&#039;mmunist&#039;&#039; (&#039;communist&#039;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Classical Nazis almost always avoided the term &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;, instead favouring &amp;quot;national socialist&amp;quot;. One notable exception is the title of [[Joseph Goebbels]]&#039; 1926 pamphlet [[Der Nazi-Sozi|&#039;&#039;Der Nazi-Sozi: Fragen und Antworten für den Nationalsozialisten&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;The Nazi-Sozi: Questions and Answers for National Socialists&amp;quot;), though the word is not used in the work itself. Hitler used the term &amp;quot;anti-Nazi&amp;quot; on one occasion in 1939 in reference to unfavourable coverage of national socialism in the international media, though likely in air-quotes as he immediately clarifies that opposition to Nazism is in reality opposition to Germany (at least in his mind).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;In the same speech Hitler said&#039;&#039;: &amp;quot;Recently endeavours have been made to place broadcasting, also, in the service of this international campaign of hate [against Germany]. With regard to this, I wish to make the following warning public: If the broadcasts sent from certain countries to Germany do not cease we will soon answer to them.... I believe, as I always have done, that our work of enlightenment will be more effective than the campaign of lies of those Jews who stir up hatred between the peoples. Announcements by American film companies that they intend to produce anti-Nazi—that is, anti-German—films, can but induce us to produce anti-Semitic films in Germany....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;[[Norman H. Baynes]] (1942).: &#039;&#039;The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922–August 1939&#039;&#039;. Volume I. London: [[Oxford University Press]]. p. 742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Modern neo-Nazis continue to avoid the term due to the historical baggage associated with it, as [[World War II]] and the [[Holocaust]] are deeply embedded in the [[West|Western]] psyche today. Instead, they typically conceal their true beliefs in order to appeal to as wide a demographic as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; was likewise intentionally eschewed in the [[Eastern Bloc]]. [[Communism|Communists]] view &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; as a [[misnomer]] since, in all practical respects, [[Nazi Germany|Germany under national socialism]] was a [[Capitalism|capitalist]]-[[Imperialism|imperialist]] country. Therefore, in order to avoid any confusion and risk giving credence to the notion that the Nazis were authentic [[Socialism|socialists]], the terms &amp;quot;German fascism&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Hitlerism&amp;quot; were favoured in its stead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[German Reich (1933–1945)]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[National Socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[National Socialist German Workers&#039; Party]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sozi]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Disambiguation pages]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Harpal_Brar&amp;diff=88064</id>
		<title>Harpal Brar</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Harpal_Brar&amp;diff=88064"/>
		<updated>2025-11-07T18:18:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Infobox politician|name=Harpal Brar|political_party=[[CPGB-ML]]|image=14913370281 678c9e814a c.jpg|birth_date=5 October 1939|birth_place=Muktsar, Punjab Province, [[British India]]|death_date=25 January 2025 (aged 85)|death_place=Mohali, Punjab, [[India]]}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Harpal Brar&#039;&#039;&#039; (October 5, 1939 – January 25, 2025) was an [[India|Indian]] and [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|British]] [[communist]] politician, writer and businessman. He was the founder and chairman of the [[Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist)]] (CPGB-ML), a role he stepped down from in 2018.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Born in [[Muktsar]], [[Punjab (British India)|Punjab]], [[British Raj (1868–1947)|British India]], Brar lived and worked in Britain since 1962, first as a student, then as a lecturer in law at [[University of Westminster|Harrow College of Higher Education]] (later merged into the renamed [[University of Westminster]]), and later in the textile business. Brar owned buildings in West London which he used for CPGB-ML party activity, and he part-owned an internet shop called &amp;quot;Madeleine Trehearne and Harpal Brar&amp;quot; which sells shawls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Brar was the editor of the [[left-wing]] political newspaper &#039;&#039;[[Lalkar]]&#039;&#039;, the former journal of the [[Indian Workers&#039; Association]]. Brar wrote multiple books on subjects such as [[communism]], Indian [[republicanism]], [[imperialism]], [[anti-Zionism]], [[anti-colonialism]], and the [[British General Strike]]. He was also a co-founder of the [[Hands Off China (Campaign)|Hands off China campaign]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Views on China ==&lt;br /&gt;
On 19 July 2008, Harpal Brar was one of the people who founded the Hands off China campaign, dedicated to defending the [[People&#039;s Republic of China]] and to defending &amp;quot;China&#039;s sovereignty and territorial integrity&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the country&#039;s just stance on issues of its vital national interest such as [[Taiwan]] and [[Tibet]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Xinhua|title=Britain&#039;s Communist Party launches &amp;quot;Hands-Off-China&amp;quot; campaign|date=2008-07-20|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160114034845/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/20/content_8576443.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160114034845/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/20/content_8576443.htm|archive-date=2016-01-14}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Works&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1045109.Harpal_Brar&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Inquilab Zindabad, India&#039;s Liberation Struggle (2014)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Revisionism and the Demise of the USSR&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;The 1926 British General Strike&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Nato&#039;s Predatory War Against Yugoslavia&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Imperialism and War&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Imperialism – the Eve of the Social Revolution of the Proletariat&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Chimurenga! The Liberation Struggle in Zimbabwe&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Imperialism – Decadent, Parasitic, Moribund Capitalism&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Bourgeois Nationalism or Proletarian Internationalism?&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Perestroika: The Complete Collapse of Revisionism&#039;&#039; (1992)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Trotskyism or Leninism?&#039;&#039; (1993)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Social Democracy: The Enemy Within&#039;&#039; (1995)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:1939 births]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:2025 deaths]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:British communists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Communists]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Charlie_Kirk&amp;diff=88021</id>
		<title>Charlie Kirk</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Charlie_Kirk&amp;diff=88021"/>
		<updated>2025-11-06T15:59:25Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Stub}}{{Infobox politician|name=Charles James Kirk|birth_date=14 October 1993|birth_place=[[Arlington Heights (Illinois)|Arlington Heights]], [[State of Illinois|Illinois]], [[United States of America|U.S.]]|death_date=10 September 2025 (aged 31)|death_place=[[Orem (Utah)|Orem]], [[State of Utah|Utah]], U.S.|death_cause=[[Assassination of Charlie Kirk|Assassination by gunshot]]|nationality=Statesian|political_orientation=[[Christian nationalism]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Neo-fascism]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[MAGA movement|Trumpism]]|political_party=[[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]]|image=Charlie Kirk.jpg}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Charles James Kirk&#039;&#039;&#039; (14 October 1993 in [[Arlington Heights (Illinois)|Arlington Heights]], [[State of Illinois|Illinois]] – 10 September 2025 in [[Orem (Utah)|Orem]], [[State of Utah|Utah]]) was a Statesian [[Conservatism|conservative]] author, [[Podcast|podcaster]], and political [[Activism|activist]] who co-founded and directed the student organisation [[Turning Point USA]] (TPUSA) from 2012 until [[Assassination of Charlie Kirk|his assassination in 2025]].&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:1993 births]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:2025 deaths]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:2025 homicides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Victims of assassination]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Statesian activists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Statesian antisemites]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Statesian Christian nationalists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Statesian Christian Zionists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Statesian conservatives]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Statesian fascists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Statesian homophobes]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Statesian Islamophobes]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Statesian racists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Statesian reactionaries]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Steasian transphobes]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Statesian Zionists]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Category:2025_deaths&amp;diff=88014</id>
		<title>Category:2025 deaths</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Category:2025_deaths&amp;diff=88014"/>
		<updated>2025-11-05T20:05:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Category:Deaths by year]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Category:1939_deaths&amp;diff=88013</id>
		<title>Category:1939 deaths</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Category:1939_deaths&amp;diff=88013"/>
		<updated>2025-11-05T20:04:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Category:1930s deaths]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Deaths by year]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Category:Deaths_by_year&amp;diff=88010</id>
		<title>Category:Deaths by year</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Category:Deaths_by_year&amp;diff=88010"/>
		<updated>2025-11-05T19:45:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Literallywho Ingodsname moved page Category:People by death year to Category:Deaths by year&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;People by the year they died&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:People]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Category:Statesians_of_Welsh_descent&amp;diff=88006</id>
		<title>Category:Statesians of Welsh descent</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Category:Statesians_of_Welsh_descent&amp;diff=88006"/>
		<updated>2025-11-05T19:04:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Created page with &amp;quot;Category:Statesians by descent Category:Statesians of British descent&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Category:Statesians by descent]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Statesians of British descent]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Guido_Fawkes&amp;diff=88001</id>
		<title>Guido Fawkes</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Guido_Fawkes&amp;diff=88001"/>
		<updated>2025-11-05T11:54:54Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Redirected page to Guy Fawkes&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Guy Fawkes]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Paul_Ludwig_Ewald_von_Kleist&amp;diff=87975</id>
		<title>Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Paul_Ludwig_Ewald_von_Kleist&amp;diff=87975"/>
		<updated>2025-11-04T14:23:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Redirected page to Ewald von Kleist (field marshal)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Ewald von Kleist (field marshal)]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Reichsheini&amp;diff=87974</id>
		<title>Reichsheini</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Reichsheini&amp;diff=87974"/>
		<updated>2025-11-04T14:20:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Redirected page to Heinrich Himmler&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Heinrich Himmler]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=The_faithful_Heinrich&amp;diff=87973</id>
		<title>The faithful Heinrich</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=The_faithful_Heinrich&amp;diff=87973"/>
		<updated>2025-11-04T14:19:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Redirected page to Heinrich Himmler&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Heinrich Himmler]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=The_true_Heinrich&amp;diff=87972</id>
		<title>The true Heinrich</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=The_true_Heinrich&amp;diff=87972"/>
		<updated>2025-11-04T14:18:54Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Redirected page to Heinrich Himmler&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Heinrich Himmler]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Der_treue_Heinrich&amp;diff=87971</id>
		<title>Der treue Heinrich</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Der_treue_Heinrich&amp;diff=87971"/>
		<updated>2025-11-04T14:18:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Redirected page to Heinrich Himmler&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Heinrich Himmler]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Henrikh_Luitpold_Himmler&amp;diff=87970</id>
		<title>Henrikh Luitpold Himmler</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Henrikh_Luitpold_Himmler&amp;diff=87970"/>
		<updated>2025-11-04T14:16:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Redirected page to Heinrich Himmler&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Heinrich Himmler]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Henrikh_Luitpol%27d_Himmler&amp;diff=87969</id>
		<title>Henrikh Luitpol&#039;d Himmler</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Henrikh_Luitpol%27d_Himmler&amp;diff=87969"/>
		<updated>2025-11-04T14:16:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Redirected page to Heinrich Himmler&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Heinrich Himmler]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Henrikh_Himmler&amp;diff=87968</id>
		<title>Henrikh Himmler</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Henrikh_Himmler&amp;diff=87968"/>
		<updated>2025-11-04T14:15:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Redirected page to Heinrich Himmler&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Heinrich Himmler]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Heinrich_Hitzinger&amp;diff=87967</id>
		<title>Heinrich Hitzinger</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Heinrich_Hitzinger&amp;diff=87967"/>
		<updated>2025-11-04T14:14:56Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Redirected page to Heinrich Himmler&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Heinrich Himmler]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Heinrich_Luitpold_Himmler&amp;diff=87966</id>
		<title>Heinrich Luitpold Himmler</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Heinrich_Luitpold_Himmler&amp;diff=87966"/>
		<updated>2025-11-04T14:14:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Redirected page to Heinrich Himmler&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Heinrich Himmler]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Himmler&amp;diff=87965</id>
		<title>Himmler</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Himmler&amp;diff=87965"/>
		<updated>2025-11-04T14:14:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Redirected page to Heinrich Himmler&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Heinrich Himmler]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=H._Himmler&amp;diff=87964</id>
		<title>H. Himmler</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=H._Himmler&amp;diff=87964"/>
		<updated>2025-11-04T14:13:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Redirected page to Heinrich Himmler&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Heinrich Himmler]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=BadEmpanada&amp;diff=87956</id>
		<title>BadEmpanada</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=BadEmpanada&amp;diff=87956"/>
		<updated>2025-11-03T14:54:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Infobox youtuber&lt;br /&gt;
|name=BadEmpanada&lt;br /&gt;
|image=BadEmpanada.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|image_size=200&lt;br /&gt;
|nationality=[[Argentine Republic|Argentine]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Australia|Australian]]&lt;br /&gt;
|associated_acts=[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjY9R3_6sxfUViabj93Vnhw BadEmpanada Live]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/@Georsj/featured Georsh]&lt;br /&gt;
|Ideology=[[Ultra-leftism]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Marxism]]&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_name=&lt;br /&gt;
|views=17,472,006&lt;br /&gt;
|subscribers=207,000&lt;br /&gt;
|years_active=2019–present&lt;br /&gt;
|channel_website=[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUzmizB92LJ9oxf5T_snZNA BadEmpanada]&lt;br /&gt;
|stats_update=2025-09-29}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BadEmpanada&#039;&#039;&#039; is an [[Australia|Australian]]-[[Argentine Republic|Argentine]] [[YouTube|YouTuber]]. He makes long-form video essays about [[history]], [[settler colonialism]], [[imperialism]], [[Latin America|Latin American]] politics, and other topics&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=BadEmpanada|newspaper=[[YouTube]]|title=About|date=2019-01-17|url=https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUzmizB92LJ9oxf5T_snZNA/about|retrieved=2023-01-01}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; from a [[Communism|communist]] perspective. BadEmpanada also has a [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjY9R3_6sxfUViabj93Vnhw stream clips channel] and an inactive [https://www.youtube.com/@Georsj/featured Spanish language channel].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 2021, BadEmpanada has been on the receiving end of a [[Zionism|Zionist]] [[doxxing]], [[harassment]], and [[defamation]] campaign for his opposition to the [[State of Israel]] and his pro-[[State of Palestine|Palestinian]] [[Internet activism|online activism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For a detailed discussion, see BadEmpanada (2022-07-21).: [https://youtu.be/hWUt1OByfKc &amp;quot;How a Zionist Defamed Me, How &#039;Leftist&#039; Creators Helped Her Do It, and Why It Will Happen Again&amp;quot;]. &#039;&#039;YouTube&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-04-19.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Political views ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Holodomor genocide question ===&lt;br /&gt;
BadEmpanada argues that the [[Holodomor]], while certainly a major catastrophe for which the [[Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet government]] (led by [[Joseph Stalin]]) deserves a great deal of blame, was not a [[genocide]] orchestrated with the intent to murder [[Ukrainians]]; but rather a failure of government policy. He further contends that [[Holodomor genocide question|the pro-genocide thesis]] in [[Western education|Western academia]] was &amp;quot;an attempt to affirm a process of [[Ukrainian nationalism|[Ukrainian] nationalist]] and [[Anti-Sovietism|anti-Soviet]] [[National myth|myth]]-making rather than simple, honest research&amp;quot;, highlighting how its early proponents in the 1980s were directly funded by Ukrainian nationalist groups, how the notion of &amp;quot;[[Double genocide theory|double genocide]]&amp;quot; is used to legitimise historic [[Collaboration with Nazi Germany#Eastern Europe|collaboration with the Nazis]], and how the current [[Government of Ukraine|Ukrainian government]] is lobbying for the Holodomor&#039;s recognition as a genocide internationally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;BadEmpanada (2022-04-26).: [https://youtu.be/3kaaYvauNho &amp;quot;The Holodomor Genocide Question: How Wikipedia Lies to You&amp;quot;]. &#039;&#039;YouTube&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-11-02.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Criticism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Criticism of AES ===&lt;br /&gt;
BadEmpanada blindly criticises [[Actually Existing Socialism|AES]] projects such as [[People&#039;s Republic of China|China]] calling it &amp;quot;[[Capitalism|capitalist]]&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;[[Imperialism|imperialist]]&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;communist in name only.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{YouTube citation|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpTL_nz0qsw&amp;amp;t=449s|channel=BadEmpanada 2|title=Let&#039;s Read Michael Parenti on Dengist China|date=2021-06-22}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Pro-imperialist talking points ===&lt;br /&gt;
In 2024, BadEmpanada opposed the democratically elected anti-imperialist government of [[Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela|Venezuela]], siding with the [[Zionism|Zionist]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://xcancel.com/MariaCorinaYA/status/1129486995691069440&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; opposition instead.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://yt.artemislena.eu/watch?v=1-vtCFVNa_Y&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He also chose to support the 2024 [[color revolution]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://korybko.substack.com/p/bangladesh-has-descended-into-the&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; in [[People&#039;s Republic of Bangladesh|Bangladesh]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://yt.artemislena.eu/watch?v=suWO2eIbjyA&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His video criticizing [[The Grayzone]] has earned the approval of notorious anti-communist and [[Bellingcat]]-founder Eliot Higgins.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://xcancel.com/RodericDay/status/1291421283998203912#m&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUzmizB92LJ9oxf5T_snZNA YouTube]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.instagram.com/BadEmpanada/ Instagram]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.twitch.tv/badempanada Twitch]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Communist YouTube channels]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:BreadTube]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nazi&amp;diff=87905</id>
		<title>Nazi</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nazi&amp;diff=87905"/>
		<updated>2025-10-30T15:50:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; (plural &#039;&#039;Nazis&#039;&#039;) is a derogatory term for a supporter of [[national socialism]] (better known as &#039;&#039;Nazism&#039;&#039;), a [[Fascism|fascist]] movement which emerged in [[Federal Republic of Germany|Germany]] during the [[interwar period]]. Post-[[Second World War|World War II]] adherence to Nazism is often called [[neo-Nazism]]. Someone who supported Nazism before 1945 and continued to adhere to Nazism even after the end of the Second World War is sometimes referred to as an &amp;quot;Old Nazi&amp;quot; (&#039;&#039;Altnazi&#039;&#039;). Nazis themselves tend to reject the label due to the negative connotation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Etymology and usage ==&lt;br /&gt;
The term &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; was already in-use in [[German-speaking countries]] long before the national socialist movement arose. It is a diminutive of [[Ignaz|Igna[t]z]], the [[Germanisation|germanised]] version of the [[Latin]] [[given name]] [[Ignatius]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Karl Breul]] (1906).: &#039;&#039;Heath&#039;s German and English Dictionary.&#039;&#039; [[London]]: [[D. C. Heath and Company]]. p. 522.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; which was historically common in majority-[[Catholicism|Catholic]] regions such as [[Austria]], [[Bavaria]], and [[Bohemia]]. This is also present in the [[Hungarian language]] (which was heavily influenced by [[German language|German]] due to nearly four centuries of [[House of Habsburg|Habsburg]] rule), with the Hungarian form [[Ignác]] sometimes being shortened to &#039;&#039;Náci&#039;&#039;. Examples of the word being used in this context include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Ignaz Semmelweis]], the [[Empire of Austria (1804–1867)|Austrian]] physician famous for introducing the revolutionary practice of [[handwashing]] in medicine, was frequently called &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Semmel-Nazi&amp;quot; by his colleagues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Elias Haffter]] (1898).: &#039;&#039;Dr. L. Sonderegger: In seiner Selbstbiographie und seinen Briefen&#039;&#039;. [[Frauenfeld]]: [[J. Huber Verlag]]. p. 23.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This is reflected in the 1979 Hungarian drama [[Gyilkosok (1979)|&#039;&#039;Gyilkosok&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;Murderers&amp;quot;), in which Semmelweis is referred to as &#039;&#039;Semmelnáci&#039;&#039; a total of 14 times.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Száraz György|György Száraz]] (1979).: [https://www.ponticulus.hu/rovatok/hidverok/szaraz-gyilkosok.html#gsc.tab=0 &#039;&#039;Gyilkosok&#039;&#039;]. [[Ponticulus Hungaricus]]. Retrieved 2025-10-30.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* In a 1907 eulogy to [[Ignaz Auer]], a prominent [[Social Democratic Party of Germany|Social Democratic]] politician from [[Lower Bavaria]], [[Eduard Bernstein]] affectionately refers to his deceased friend as &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eduard Bernstein|Bernstein, Eduard]] (1907).: &#039;&#039;Ignaz Auer: Eine Gedenkschrift&#039;&#039;.[[State of Berlin|Berlin]]: [[Buchhandlung Vorwärts]]. p. 6.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* The satirical magazine &#039;&#039;[[Kikeriki]]&#039;&#039;, which was banned under [[Federal State of Austria (1934–1938)|the Austrofascist regime]] due to its links to the [[German National Socialist Workers&#039; Party (Austria)|Austrian Nazi Party]], once told a short story called &#039;&#039;Der Kosename&#039;&#039; (&amp;quot;The Pet Name&amp;quot;) about a married couple named Mr. Ignaz and Mrs. Klara. One day Ignaz headed off to work, forgetting to bring his eyeglasses with him. Klara, concerned, opened a window and shouted for her husband: &amp;quot;Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!&amp;quot;, whereupon the man was promptly arrested as an [[enemy of the state]] (&#039;&#039;staatsgefährliches Subjekt&#039;&#039;; literally &amp;quot;state-dangerous subject&amp;quot;).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;No author (1933-06-18).: [https://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?aid=kik&amp;amp;datum=19330618&amp;amp;seite=7&amp;amp;zoom=51 &amp;quot;Der Kosename.&amp;quot;] &#039;&#039;Kikeriki&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-06-07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given the nickname&#039;s popularity in [[Southern Germany]], it was eventually picked up as a pejorative for Southerners, whom [[Northern Germany|Northern Germans]] often viewed as backwards, foolish, [[Conservatism|conservative]], and unsophisticated (comparable to &amp;quot;[[redneck]]&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;[[hillbilly]]&amp;quot; in [[English language|English]]). The [[National Socialist German Workers&#039; Party|Nazi Party]] itself was founded in [[Munich]] and [[Adolf Hitler|its leader]] was an Austrian, which may have unintentionally played into this stereotype. This lead to &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; gaining a negative connotation, which some sources claim is the reason why opponents of Nazism favoured the term.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.etymonline.com/word/Nazi &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot;]. &#039;&#039;Etymonline&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-10-30.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Additionally, as is much more well-known, the term &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Na&#039;&#039;&#039;tionalso&#039;&#039;&#039;zi&#039;&#039;&#039;alist&#039;&#039; (&#039;national socialist&#039;) could be shortened to &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;, just as &#039;&#039;[[Sozi]]&#039;&#039; (also derogatory) was a [[Clipping (morphology)|clipping]] of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Sozi&#039;&#039;&#039;alist&#039;&#039; (&#039;socialist&#039;) or &#039;&#039;[[Kozi]]&#039;&#039; was a clipping of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Ko&#039;&#039;&#039;mmunist&#039;&#039; (&#039;communist&#039;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Classical Nazis almost always avoided the term &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;, instead favouring &amp;quot;national socialist&amp;quot;. One notable exception is the title of [[Joseph Goebbels]]&#039; 1926 pamphlet [[Der Nazi-Sozi|&#039;&#039;Der Nazi-Sozi: Fragen und Antworten für den Nationalsozialisten&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;The Nazi-Sozi: Questions and Answers for National Socialists&amp;quot;), though the word is not used in the work itself. Hitler used the term &amp;quot;anti-Nazi&amp;quot; on one occasion in 1939 in reference to unfavourable coverage of national socialism in the international media, though likely in air-quotes as he immediately clarifies that opposition to Nazism is in reality opposition to Germany (at least in his mind).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;In the same speech Hitler said&#039;&#039;: &amp;quot;Recently endeavours have been made to place broadcasting, also, in the service of this international campaign of hate [against Germany]. With regard to this, I wish to make the following warning public: If the broadcasts sent from certain countries to Germany do not cease we will soon answer to them.... I believe, as I always have done, that our work of enlightenment will be more effective than the campaign of lies of those Jews who stir up hatred between the peoples. Announcements by American film companies that they intend to produce anti-Nazi—that is, anti-German—films, can but induce us to produce anti-Semitic films in Germany....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;[[Norman H. Baynes]] (1942).: &#039;&#039;The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922–August 1939&#039;&#039;. Volume I. London: [[Oxford University Press]]. p. 742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Modern neo-Nazis continue to avoid the term due to the historical baggage associated with it, as [[World War II]] and the [[Holocaust]] are deeply embedded in the [[West|Western]] psyche today. Instead, they typically conceal their true beliefs in order to appeal to as wide a demographic as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; was likewise intentionally eschewed in the [[Eastern Bloc]]. [[Communism|Communists]] view &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; as a [[misnomer]] since, in all practical respects, [[Nazi Germany|Germany under national socialism]] was a [[Capitalism|capitalist]]-[[Imperialism|imperialist]] country. Therefore, in order to avoid any confusion and risk giving credence to the notion that the Nazis were authentic [[Socialism|socialists]], the terms &amp;quot;German fascism&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Hitlerism&amp;quot; were favoured in its stead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[German Reich (1933–1945)]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[National Socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[National Socialist German Workers&#039; Party]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sozi]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Disambiguation pages]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nazi&amp;diff=87904</id>
		<title>Nazi</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nazi&amp;diff=87904"/>
		<updated>2025-10-30T15:31:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Forgot to add a paragraph break&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; (plural &#039;&#039;Nazis&#039;&#039;) is a derogatory term for a supporter of [[national socialism]] (better known as &#039;&#039;Nazism&#039;&#039;), a [[Fascism|fascist]] movement which emerged in [[Federal Republic of Germany|Germany]] during the [[interwar period]]. Post-[[Second World War|World War II]] adherence to Nazism is often called [[neo-Nazism]]. Someone who supported Nazism before 1945 and continued to adhere to Nazism even after the end of the Second World War is sometimes referred to as an &amp;quot;Old Nazi&amp;quot; (&#039;&#039;Altnazi&#039;&#039;). Nazis themselves tend to reject the label due to the negative connotation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Etymology and usage ==&lt;br /&gt;
The term &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; was already in-use in [[German-speaking countries]] long before the national socialist movement arose. It is a diminutive of [[Ignaz|Igna[t]z]], the [[Germanisation|germanised]] version of the [[Latin]] [[given name]] [[Ignatius]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Karl Breul]] (1906).: &#039;&#039;Heath&#039;s German and English Dictionary.&#039;&#039; [[London]]: [[D. C. Heath and Company]]. p. 522.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; which was historically common in majority-[[Catholicism|Catholic]] regions such as [[Austria]], [[Bavaria]], and [[Bohemia]]. This is also present in the [[Hungarian language]] (which was heavily influenced by [[German language|German]] due to nearly four centuries of [[House of Habsburg|Habsburg]] rule), with the Hungarian form [[Ignác]] sometimes being shortened to &#039;&#039;Náci&#039;&#039;. Examples of the word being used in this context include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Ignaz Semmelweis]], the [[Empire of Austria (1804–1867)|Austrian]] physician famous for introducing the revolutionary practice of [[handwashing]] in medicine, was frequently called &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Semmel-Nazi&amp;quot; by his colleagues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Elias Haffter]] (1898).: &#039;&#039;Dr. L. Sonderegger: In seiner Selbstbiographie und seinen Briefen&#039;&#039;. [[Frauenfeld]]: [[J. Huber Verlag]]. p. 23.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This is reflected in the 1979 Hungarian drama [[Gyilkosok (1979)|&#039;&#039;Gyilkosok&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;Murderers&amp;quot;), in which Semmelweis is referred to as &#039;&#039;Semmelnáci&#039;&#039; a total of 14 times.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Száraz György|György Száraz]] (1979).: [https://www.ponticulus.hu/rovatok/hidverok/szaraz-gyilkosok.html#gsc.tab=0 &#039;&#039;Gyilkosok&#039;&#039;]. [[Ponticulus Hungaricus]]. Retrieved 2025-10-30.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* In a 1907 eulogy to [[Ignaz Auer]], a prominent [[Social Democratic Party of Germany|Social Democratic]] politician from [[Lower Bavaria]], [[Eduard Bernstein]] affectionately refers to his deceased friend as &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eduard Bernstein|Bernstein, Eduard]] (1907).: &#039;&#039;Ignaz Auer: Eine Gedenkschrift&#039;&#039;.[[State of Berlin|Berlin]]: [[Buchhandlung Vorwärts]]. p. 6.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* The satirical magazine &#039;&#039;[[Kikeriki]]&#039;&#039;, which was banned under [[Federal State of Austria (1934–1938)|the Austrofascist regime]] due to its links to the [[German National Socialist Workers&#039; Party (Austria)|Austrian Nazi Party]], once told a short story called &#039;&#039;Der Kosename&#039;&#039; (&amp;quot;The Pet Name&amp;quot;) about a married couple named Mr. Ignaz and Mrs. Klara. One day Ignaz heads off to work, forgetting to bring his eyeglasses with him. Klara, concerned, opens a window and shouts after her husband&#039;s retreating form &amp;quot;Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!&amp;quot;, whereupon the man was immediately arrested as an [[enemy of the state]] (&#039;&#039;staatsgefährliches Subjekt&#039;&#039;; literally &amp;quot;state-dangerous subject&amp;quot;).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;No author (1933-06-18).: [https://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?aid=kik&amp;amp;datum=19330618&amp;amp;seite=7&amp;amp;zoom=51 &amp;quot;Der Kosename.&amp;quot;] &#039;&#039;Kikeriki&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-06-07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given the nickname&#039;s popularity in [[Southern Germany]], it was eventually picked up as a pejorative for Southerners, whom [[Northern Germany|Northern Germans]] often viewed as backwards, foolish, [[Conservatism|conservative]], and unsophisticated (comparable to &amp;quot;[[redneck]]&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;[[hillbilly]]&amp;quot; in [[English language|English]]). The [[National Socialist German Workers&#039; Party|Nazi Party]] itself was founded in [[Munich]] and [[Adolf Hitler|its leader]] was an Austrian, which may have unintentionally played into this stereotype. This lead to &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; gaining a negative connotation, which some sources claim is the reason why opponents of Nazism favoured the term.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.etymonline.com/word/Nazi &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot;]. &#039;&#039;Etymonline&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-10-30.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Additionally, as is much more well-known, the term &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Na&#039;&#039;&#039;tionalso&#039;&#039;&#039;zi&#039;&#039;&#039;alist&#039;&#039; (&#039;national socialist&#039;) could be shortened to &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;, just as &#039;&#039;[[Sozi]]&#039;&#039; (also derogatory) was a [[Clipping (morphology)|clipping]] of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Sozi&#039;&#039;&#039;alist&#039;&#039; (&#039;socialist&#039;) or &#039;&#039;[[Kozi]]&#039;&#039; was a clipping of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Ko&#039;&#039;&#039;mmunist&#039;&#039; (&#039;communist&#039;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Classical Nazis almost always avoided the term &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;, instead favouring &amp;quot;national socialist&amp;quot;. One notable exception is the title of [[Joseph Goebbels]]&#039; 1926 pamphlet [[Der Nazi-Sozi|&#039;&#039;Der Nazi-Sozi: Fragen und Antworten für den Nationalsozialisten&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;The Nazi-Sozi: Questions and Answers for National Socialists&amp;quot;), though the word is not used in the work itself. Hitler used the term &amp;quot;anti-Nazi&amp;quot; on one occasion in 1939 in reference to unfavourable coverage of national socialism in the international media, though likely in air-quotes as he immediately clarifies that opposition to Nazism is in reality opposition to Germany (at least in his mind).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;In the same speech Hitler said&#039;&#039;: &amp;quot;Recently endeavours have been made to place broadcasting, also, in the service of this international campaign of hate [against Germany]. With regard to this, I wish to make the following warning public: If the broadcasts sent from certain countries to Germany do not cease we will soon answer to them.... I believe, as I always have done, that our work of enlightenment will be more effective than the campaign of lies of those Jews who stir up hatred between the peoples. Announcements by American film companies that they intend to produce anti-Nazi—that is, anti-German—films, can but induce us to produce anti-Semitic films in Germany....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;[[Norman H. Baynes]] (1942).: &#039;&#039;The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922–August 1939&#039;&#039;. Volume I. London: [[Oxford University Press]]. p. 742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Modern neo-Nazis continue to avoid the term due to the historical baggage associated with it, as [[World War II]] and the [[Holocaust]] are deeply embedded in the [[West|Western]] psyche today. Instead, they typically conceal their true beliefs in order to appeal to as wide a demographic as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; was likewise intentionally eschewed in the [[Eastern Bloc]]. [[Communism|Communists]] view &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; as a [[misnomer]] since, in all practical respects, [[Nazi Germany|Germany under national socialism]] was a [[Capitalism|capitalist]]-[[Imperialism|imperialist]] country. Therefore, in order to avoid any confusion and risk giving credence to the notion that the Nazis were authentic [[Socialism|socialists]], the terms &amp;quot;German fascism&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Hitlerism&amp;quot; were favoured in its stead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[German Reich (1933–1945)]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[National Socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[National Socialist German Workers&#039; Party]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sozi]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Disambiguation pages]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nazi&amp;diff=87901</id>
		<title>Nazi</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nazi&amp;diff=87901"/>
		<updated>2025-10-30T14:49:39Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; (plural &#039;&#039;Nazis&#039;&#039;) is a derogatory term for a supporter of [[national socialism]] (better known as &#039;&#039;Nazism&#039;&#039;), a [[Fascism|fascist]] movement which emerged in [[Federal Republic of Germany|Germany]] during the [[interwar period]]. Post-[[Second World War|World War II]] adherence to Nazism is often called [[neo-Nazism]]. Someone who supported Nazism before 1945 and continued to adhere to Nazism even after the end of the Second World War is sometimes referred to as an &amp;quot;Old Nazi&amp;quot; (&#039;&#039;Altnazi&#039;&#039;). Nazis themselves tend to reject the label due to the negative connotation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Etymology and usage ==&lt;br /&gt;
The term &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; was already in-use in [[German-speaking countries]] long before the national socialist movement arose. It is a diminutive of [[Ignaz|Igna[t]z]], the [[Germanisation|germanised]] version of the [[Latin]] [[given name]] [[Ignatius]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Karl Breul]] (1906).: &#039;&#039;Heath&#039;s German and English Dictionary.&#039;&#039; [[London]]: [[D. C. Heath and Company]]. p. 522.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; which was historically common in majority-[[Catholicism|Catholic]] regions such as [[Austria]], [[Bavaria]], and [[Bohemia]]. This is also present in the [[Hungarian language]] (which was heavily influenced by [[German language|German]] due to nearly four centuries of [[House of Habsburg|Habsburg]] rule), with the Hungarian form [[Ignác]] sometimes being shortened to &#039;&#039;Náci&#039;&#039;. Examples of the word being used in this context include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Ignaz Semmelweis]], the [[Empire of Austria (1804–1867)|Austrian]] physician famous for introducing the revolutionary practice of [[handwashing]] in medicine, was frequently called &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Semmel-Nazi&amp;quot; by his colleagues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Elias Haffter]] (1898).: &#039;&#039;Dr. L. Sonderegger: In seiner Selbstbiographie und seinen Briefen&#039;&#039;. [[Frauenfeld]]: [[J. Huber Verlag]]. p. 23.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This is reflected in the 1979 Hungarian drama [[Gyilkosok (1979)|&#039;&#039;Gyilkosok&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;Murderers&amp;quot;), in which Semmelweis is referred to as &#039;&#039;Semmelnáci&#039;&#039; a total of 14 times.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Száraz György|György Száraz]] (1979).: [https://www.ponticulus.hu/rovatok/hidverok/szaraz-gyilkosok.html#gsc.tab=0 &#039;&#039;Gyilkosok&#039;&#039;]. [[Ponticulus Hungaricus]]. Retrieved 2025-10-30.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In a 1907 eulogy to [[Ignaz Auer]], a prominent [[Social Democratic Party of Germany|Social Democratic]] politician from [[Lower Bavaria]], [[Eduard Bernstein]] affectionately refers to his deceased friend as &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eduard Bernstein|Bernstein, Eduard]] (1907).: &#039;&#039;Ignaz Auer: Eine Gedenkschrift&#039;&#039;.[[State of Berlin|Berlin]]: [[Buchhandlung Vorwärts]]. p. 6.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* The satirical magazine &#039;&#039;[[Kikeriki]]&#039;&#039;, which was banned under [[Federal State of Austria (1934–1938)|the Austrofascist regime]] due to its links to the [[German National Socialist Workers&#039; Party (Austria)|Austrian Nazi Party]], once told a short story called &#039;&#039;Der Kosename&#039;&#039; (&amp;quot;The Pet Name&amp;quot;) about a married couple named Mr. Ignaz and Mrs. Klara. One day Ignaz heads off to work, forgetting to bring his eyeglasses with him. Klara, concerned, opens a window and shouts after her husband&#039;s retreating form &amp;quot;Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!&amp;quot;, whereupon the man was immediately arrested as an [[enemy of the state]] (&#039;&#039;staatsgefährliches Subjekt&#039;&#039;; literally &amp;quot;state-dangerous subject&amp;quot;).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;No author (1933-06-18).: [https://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?aid=kik&amp;amp;datum=19330618&amp;amp;seite=7&amp;amp;zoom=51 &amp;quot;Der Kosename.&amp;quot;] &#039;&#039;Kikeriki&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-06-07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given the nickname&#039;s popularity in [[Southern Germany]], it was eventually picked up as a pejorative for Southerners, whom [[Northern Germany|Northern Germans]] often viewed as backwards, foolish, [[Conservatism|conservative]], and unsophisticated (comparable to &amp;quot;[[redneck]]&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;[[hillbilly]]&amp;quot; in [[English language|English]]). The [[National Socialist German Workers&#039; Party|Nazi Party]] itself was founded in [[Munich]] and [[Adolf Hitler|its leader]] was an Austrian, which may have unintentionally played into this stereotype. This lead to &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; gaining a negative connotation, which some sources claim is the reason why opponents of Nazism favoured the term.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.etymonline.com/word/Nazi &amp;quot;Nazi&amp;quot;]. &#039;&#039;Etymonline&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-10-30.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Additionally, as is much more well-known, the term &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Na&#039;&#039;&#039;tionalso&#039;&#039;&#039;zi&#039;&#039;&#039;alist&#039;&#039; (&#039;national socialist&#039;) could be shortened to &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;, just as &#039;&#039;[[Sozi]]&#039;&#039; (also derogatory) was a [[Clipping (morphology)|clipping]] of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Sozi&#039;&#039;&#039;alist&#039;&#039; (&#039;socialist&#039;) or &#039;&#039;[[Kozi]]&#039;&#039; was a clipping of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Ko&#039;&#039;&#039;mmunist&#039;&#039; (&#039;communist&#039;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Classical Nazis almost always avoided the term &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039;, instead favouring &amp;quot;national socialist&amp;quot;. One notable exception is the title of [[Joseph Goebbels]]&#039; 1926 pamphlet [[Der Nazi-Sozi|&#039;&#039;Der Nazi-Sozi: Fragen und Antworten für den Nationalsozialisten&#039;&#039;]] (&amp;quot;The Nazi-Sozi: Questions and Answers for National Socialists&amp;quot;), though the word is not used in the work itself. Hitler used the term &amp;quot;anti-Nazi&amp;quot; on one occasion in 1939 in reference to unfavourable coverage of national socialism in the international media, though likely in air-quotes as he immediately clarifies that opposition to Nazism is in reality opposition to Germany (at least in his mind).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;In the same speech Hitler said&#039;&#039;: &amp;quot;Recently endeavours have been made to place broadcasting, also, in the service of this international campaign of hate [against Germany]. With regard to this, I wish to make the following warning public: If the broadcasts sent from certain countries to Germany do not cease we will soon answer to them.... I believe, as I always have done, that our work of enlightenment will be more effective than the campaign of lies of those Jews who stir up hatred between the peoples. Announcements by American film companies that they intend to produce anti-Nazi—that is, anti-German—films, can but induce us to produce anti-Semitic films in Germany....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;[[Norman H. Baynes]] (1942).: &#039;&#039;The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922–August 1939&#039;&#039;. Volume I. London: [[Oxford University Press]]. p. 742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Modern neo-Nazis continue to avoid the term due to the historical baggage associated with it, as [[World War II]] and the [[Holocaust]] are deeply embedded in the [[West|Western]] psyche today. Instead, they typically conceal their true beliefs in order to appeal to as wide a demographic as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; was likewise intentionally eschewed in the [[Eastern Bloc]]. [[Communism|Communists]] view &#039;&#039;Nazi&#039;&#039; as a [[misnomer]] since, in all practical respects, [[Nazi Germany|Germany under national socialism]] was a [[Capitalism|capitalist]]-[[Imperialism|imperialist]] country. Therefore, in order to avoid any confusion and risk giving credence to the notion that the Nazis were authentic [[Socialism|socialists]], the terms &amp;quot;German fascism&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Hitlerism&amp;quot; were favoured in its stead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[German Reich (1933–1945)]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[National Socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[National Socialist German Workers&#039; Party]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sozi]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Disambiguation pages]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Takaichi_Sanae&amp;diff=87805</id>
		<title>Takaichi Sanae</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Takaichi_Sanae&amp;diff=87805"/>
		<updated>2025-10-22T16:04:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Infobox politician|name=Takaichi Sanae|native_name=高市 早苗|birth_date=7 March 1961 (age 64)|birth_place=Yamatokōriyama, Nara, [[Japan]]|political_orientation=[[Neoliberalism]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Ultraconservatism&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Japanese [[nationalism]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Imperialism]]|political_party=[[Liberal Democratic Party (Japan)|Liberal Democratic]]|image=Sanae Takaichi October 2025.jpg}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Takaichi Sanae&#039;&#039;&#039; ([[Japanese language|Japanese]] &#039;&#039;高市 早苗&#039;&#039;; born 7 March 1961 in [[Yamatokōriyama]], [[Nara Prefecture|Nara]]), formerly &#039;&#039;&#039;Yamamoto Sanae&#039;&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;山本 早苗&#039;&#039;), is a Japanese politician currently serving as [[Prime Minister of Japan]] and [[President of the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan)|President of the Liberal Democratic Party]] since October 2025. A protégé of [[Abe Shinzō]], Takaichi held various positions during the premierships of Abe and [[Kishida Fumio]], most notably as [[Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications]] (2014–17, 2019–20).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As first female prime minister of Japan, Takaichi has used her [[gender]] as a political weapon, using the language of [[women&#039;s empowerment]] to present her premiership as [[Progressivism|progressive]]. In reality, Takaichi is an [[Ultraconservatism|ultraconservative]] loyal to tradition that seeks to entrench [[Patriarchy|patriarchal]] values under a veil of performative [[reform]]. This is represented in her opposition to changes such as allowing married couples the option to retain separate surnames and her defence of the male-only [[succession to the Chrysanthemum Throne]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Ming Gao|newspaper=Foreign Policy|title=Who Is Japan’s First Female Prime Minister?|date=2025-10-02|url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/10/02/sanae-takaichi-japan-first-female-prime-minister/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251006092803/https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/10/02/sanae-takaichi-japan-first-female-prime-minister/|archive-date=2025-10-06}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:1961 births]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Prime ministers of Japan]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Presidents of the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan)]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_fascists_who_died_by_suicide&amp;diff=87773</id>
		<title>List of fascists who died by suicide</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_fascists_who_died_by_suicide&amp;diff=87773"/>
		<updated>2025-10-21T04:44:27Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;This is a &#039;&#039;&#039;list of [[Fascism|fascists]] who died by [[suicide]]&#039;&#039;&#039;. This list includes members of fascist [[Political party|parties]], the armed forces of fascist states, fascist paramilitary groups, and other fascist organisations. Ideological fascists who don&#039;t fall into any of the previous categories are also included. People who fall into one or more of the previous categories but who were principled [[Anti-fascism|anti-fascists]] and used their positions to undermine the regime or organisation as a whole (e.g. [[Spying|spies]] and [[Sabotage|saboteurs]]) are excluded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== List of fascists who died by suicide ==&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
!Photo&lt;br /&gt;
!Name&lt;br /&gt;
!Date of birth&lt;br /&gt;
!Date of death&lt;br /&gt;
!Suicide method&lt;br /&gt;
!Known for&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Adachi_Hatazō.jpg|100px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Adachi Hatazō]]&lt;br /&gt;
|17 June 1890&lt;br /&gt;
|10 September 1947&lt;br /&gt;
|Adachi committed suicide with a [[paring knife]] two months after being sentenced to [[life imprisonment]] by an [[Commonwealth of Australia|Australian]] military tribunal for war crimes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Edward J. Drea|Drea, Edward J.]] (2003).: &#039;&#039;In the Service of the Emperor: Essays on the Imperial Japanese Army&#039;&#039;. [[University of Nebraska Press]]. p. 109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He had previously stated that &amp;quot;The thought of life imprisonment is unbearable. I would rather have been sentenced to death.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;No author (1947-04-24).: [https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/18022985/ &amp;quot;General Preferred Death, But Given Gaol&amp;quot;]. [[The Sydney Morning Herald|&#039;&#039;The Sydney Morning Herald&#039;&#039;]]. p. 1.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Empire of Japan (1868–1947)|Japanese]] [[Rikugun-Chūjō|lieutenant general]] and [[War crime|war criminal]] who commanded the [[18th Army (Japan)|18th Army]] during the [[New Guinea campaign]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Hitler_picture.jpg|100px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Adolf Hitler]]&lt;br /&gt;
|20 April 1889&lt;br /&gt;
|30 April 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Hitler and his newly-wed wife [[Eva Braun]] [[Death of Adolf Hitler|killed themselves in April 1945]] during the [[Battle of Berlin]] in order to avoid capture by the [[Workers&#039; and Peasants&#039; Red Army|Red Army]]. Hitler shot himself in the right temple with a 7.65 mm [[Walther PPK]] pistol while Braun ingested [[cyanide]]. Afterwards their bodies were doused in [[Petroleum|petrol]] and burnt by [[Otto Günsche]] and [[Heinz Linge]] in the [[Reich Chancellery]] garden, as per Hitler&#039;s wishes.&lt;br /&gt;
|German politician and [[Leader of the Nazi Party|leader]] of the [[National Socialist German Workers&#039; Party|Nazi Party]] who [[German Reich (1933–1945)|ruled Germany from 1933 to 1945]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Albert Deutscher]]&lt;br /&gt;
|18 August 1920&lt;br /&gt;
|18 December 1981&lt;br /&gt;
|A few hours after the [[United States Department of Justice|U.S. Justice Department]] filed a lawsuit against Deutscher accusing him of lying about his past in order to gain entry into [[United States of America|the country]] and seeking to strip him of [[Citizenship of the United States|his citizenship]], Deutscher ran in front of an oncoming train. The train engineer spotted Deutscher and repeatedly whistled for him to move out of the way, but Deutscher stayed put. The engineer then hit the emergency brakes, but couldn&#039;t stop the train in time to prevent a collision, resulting in Deutscher&#039;s death.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;No author (1981-12-19).: [https://www.newspapers.com/image/512471883/ &amp;quot;Alleged Nazi criminal killed by train&amp;quot;]. [[La Crosse Tribune|&#039;&#039;La Crosse Tribune&#039;&#039;]]. p. 13.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The incident was later ruled a suicide.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;No author (1981-12-20).: [https://www.newspapers.com/image/1054987794/ &amp;quot;Nazi&#039;s death ruled a suicide&amp;quot;]. [[Anchorage Daily News|&#039;&#039;Anchorage Daily News&#039;&#039;]]. p. 6.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Black Sea Germans|Black Sea German]] from [[Vinogradnoe|Worms]], [[Ukrainian People&#039;s Republic (1918–1921)|Ukraine]] who served in the &#039;&#039;[[Selbstschutz]]&#039;&#039; paramilitary organisation, allegedly participating in the murder of hundreds of [[Jews]] during [[the Holocaust]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Albert Frey.png|center|thumb|144x144px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Albert Frey]]&lt;br /&gt;
|16 February 1913&lt;br /&gt;
|1 September 2003&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;SS-Standartenführer&#039;&#039; and Knight of the Iron Cross&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Albert Vögler.jpg|center|thumb|135x135px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Albert Vögler]]&lt;br /&gt;
|8 February 1877&lt;br /&gt;
|14 April 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Cyanide poisoning&lt;br /&gt;
|[[German Empire (1871–1918)|German]] politician ([[German People&#039;s Party|DVP]]) and major industrialist who funded the Nazis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Alexander Laak.webp|100px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Aleksander Laak]]&lt;br /&gt;
|24 August 1907&lt;br /&gt;
|6 September 1960&lt;br /&gt;
|A week after being outed as a Nazi collaborator by the [[Tass]] news agency, Laak was found dead in his garage, hanging from a rafter by a rope around his neck. His death was ruled a suicide, but [[Daisy Laak|his wife]] and others suspected foul play.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;No author (1970-09-15).: [https://www.newspapers.com/image/495017115/ &amp;quot;Jury rules Laak killed himself&amp;quot;]. [[Regina Leader-Post|&#039;&#039;The Leader-Post&#039;&#039;]]. p. 40.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Laak had previously gone on record stating that he was worried for himself and his family, fearing reprisals against them.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;No author (1960-09-07).: [https://www.newspapers.com/image/509005478/ &amp;quot;Immigration Dept. Probing Entry of Alleged Nazi Following Winnipeg Suicide&amp;quot;]. [[Saskatoon Star-Phoenix|&#039;&#039;Saskatoon Star-Phoenix&#039;&#039;]]. pp. 1, 8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Zionism|Zionist]] journalist [[Michael Elkins]] claimed in his 1971 book [[Forged in Fury|&#039;&#039;Forged in Fury&#039;&#039;]] that [[Nakam]] agent [[Arnie Berg]] ([[pseudonym]]) tracked Laak down to his home in [[Winnipeg]] and explained in great detail how he planned to kill him and his wife. Laak begged for mercy, so Berg gave him a rope and allowed Laak to hang himself, according to Elkins.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Elkins, Michael (1971).: &#039;&#039;Forged in Fury&#039;&#039;. [[Ballantine Books]]. p. 302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Estonian Canadians|Estonian Canadian]] [[Collaboration with Nazi Germany|Nazi collaborator]] and commandant of the [[Jägala concentration camp]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Alessandro Frontoni]]&lt;br /&gt;
|12 June 1882&lt;br /&gt;
|25 August 1943&lt;br /&gt;
|On 25 August 1943, following [[Fall of Fascism in Italy|the fall of fascism in Italy]], Count Frontoni reportedly killed himself in his apartment by shooting himself in the neck with a firearm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;No author (1943-08-26).: [https://www.e-newspaperarchives.ch/?a=d&amp;amp;d=TGW19430826-01.2.6.1&amp;amp;e=-------en-20--1--img-txIN--------0----- &amp;quot;Fascist erschießt sich.&amp;quot;] [[Berner Tagwacht|&#039;&#039;Berner Tagwacht&#039;&#039;]]. Page 1. Retrieved 2025-05-14.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Italian businessman and politician ([[National Fascist Party|NPF]]) who served as a member of the [[National Directorate of the National Fascist Party]] (PNF), National Inspector of the PNF, and the President of [[National Institute for the Protection of Maternity and Infancy|ONMI]] (1940–1943)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Alfred Freyberg.jpg|center|thumb|129x129px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Alfred Freyberg]]&lt;br /&gt;
|12 July 1892&lt;br /&gt;
|18 April 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Cyanide poisoning&lt;br /&gt;
|Nazi lawyer, politician, and [[Holocaust]] perpetrator who served as the [[Minister President of the Free State of Anhalt|Minister President of Anhalt]] (1932–1940) and [[Mayor of Leipzig|Lord Mayor of Leipzig]] (1939–1945)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1991-0712-500, Alfred Meyer.jpg|center|thumb|150x150px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Alfred Meyer (politician, born 1891)|Alfred Meyer]]&lt;br /&gt;
|5 October 1891&lt;br /&gt;
|11 April 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|Nazi Party official who served as the State Secretary in the [[Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories]] and was present at the [[Wannsee Conference]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Riekstiņš.png|center|thumb|147x147px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Alfrēds Riekstiņš]]&lt;br /&gt;
|30 January 1913&lt;br /&gt;
|11 September 1952&lt;br /&gt;
|Cyanide poisoning&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Republic of Latvia (1918–1940)|Latvian]] soldier, Nazi collaborator, and [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]] agent&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Alwin-Broder Albrecht.png|center|thumb|144x144px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Alwin-Broder Albrecht]]&lt;br /&gt;
|18 September 1903&lt;br /&gt;
|1 May 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm (according to [[Erna Flegel]])&lt;br /&gt;
|German naval officer who served as an adjutant to Hitler (1939–1945)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Tatsumi Amamiya.jpg|center|thumb|134x134px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Amamiya Tatsumi]]&lt;br /&gt;
|15 December 1892&lt;br /&gt;
|30 June 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Seppuku (disputed)&lt;br /&gt;
|Japanese lieutenant general who served as the commander of the [[24th Division (Imperial Japanese Army)|24th Division]] during the [[Battle of Okinawa]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Korechika Anami Portrait c1934.png|center|thumb|133x133px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Anami Korechika]]&lt;br /&gt;
|21 February 1887&lt;br /&gt;
|15 August 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;Seppuku&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|Japanese general of the Second World War who briefly served as the [[Army Ministry (Japan)|Minister of the Army]] (1945)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Andreas Bolek (1894-1945).jpg|center|thumb|139x139px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Andreas Bolek]]&lt;br /&gt;
|3 May 1894&lt;br /&gt;
|5 May 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Ando Rikichi.jpg|center|thumb|116x116px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Andō Rikichi]]&lt;br /&gt;
|3 April 1884&lt;br /&gt;
|19 April 1946&lt;br /&gt;
|Cyanide poisoning&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Aoki Tsune]]&lt;br /&gt;
|16 August 1916&lt;br /&gt;
|7 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:FOrn0s6UcAIEovh.jpg|center|thumb|158x158px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Araki Yukio]]&lt;br /&gt;
|10 March 1928&lt;br /&gt;
|27 May 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;Kamikaze&#039;&#039; attack&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Arno Jahr.jpg|center|thumb|148x148px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Arno Jahr]]&lt;br /&gt;
|12 April 1897&lt;br /&gt;
|9 May 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Kobus1.jpg|center|thumb|150x150px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Arthur Kobus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|9 February 1879&lt;br /&gt;
|April 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Camp-Roedl.jpg|center|thumb|136x136px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Arthur Rödl]]&lt;br /&gt;
|13 June 1898&lt;br /&gt;
|5 April 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Hand grenade&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Artur Sirk.jpg|center|thumb|152x152px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Artur Sirk]]&lt;br /&gt;
|25 September 1900&lt;br /&gt;
|2 August 1937&lt;br /&gt;
|Falling (officially, disputed)&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:1-s2.0-S0940960213000952-gr1.jpg|center|thumb|130x130px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[August Hirt]]&lt;br /&gt;
|28 April 1898&lt;br /&gt;
|2 June 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:August Sabbe.png|center|thumb|138x138px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[August Sabbe]]&lt;br /&gt;
|1 September 1909&lt;br /&gt;
|27 or 28 September 1978&lt;br /&gt;
|Drowning&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Ben klassen cd insert picture.jpg|center|thumb|131x131px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Ben Klassen]]&lt;br /&gt;
|20 February 1918&lt;br /&gt;
|6–⁠7 August 1993&lt;br /&gt;
|Drug overdose&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 119-1998, Bernhard Rust.jpg|center|thumb|115x115px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Bernhard Rust]]&lt;br /&gt;
|30 September 1883&lt;br /&gt;
|8 May 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Carl Friedrich von Pückler-Burghauss.png|center|thumb|100x100px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Carl Friedrich von Pückler-Burghauss]]&lt;br /&gt;
|7 October 1886&lt;br /&gt;
|12 May 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Shortly after surrendering to Allied troops following the [[Battle of Slivice]], Pückler-Burghauss shot himself.&lt;br /&gt;
|German politician and military leader who served as the [[Commander of the Waffen-SS in Bohemia and Moravia]] (1942–43; 1944–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:StrobelCarl.jpg|center|thumb|129x129px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Carl Strobel]]&lt;br /&gt;
|1 April 1895&lt;br /&gt;
|19 April 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Carl Westphal (jurist)|Carl Westphal]]&lt;br /&gt;
|1902&lt;br /&gt;
|5 January 1947&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bedaux.png|center|thumb|128x128px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Charles Bedaux]]&lt;br /&gt;
|10 October 1886&lt;br /&gt;
|18 February 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Drug overdose&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Chō Isamu.jpg|center|thumb|135x135px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Chō Isamu]]&lt;br /&gt;
|31 July 1887&lt;br /&gt;
|22 June 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;Seppuku&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Claus Göttsche.png|center|thumb|133x133px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Claus Göttsche]]&lt;br /&gt;
|26 May 1899&lt;br /&gt;
|12 May 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Cyanide poisoning&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Curt Rothenberger.jpg|center|thumb|132x132px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Curt Rothenberger]]&lt;br /&gt;
|30 June 1896&lt;br /&gt;
|1 September 1959&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Curt von Gottberg.jpg|center|thumb|120x120px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Curt von Gottberg]]&lt;br /&gt;
|11 February 1896&lt;br /&gt;
|31 May 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Daniel Burros.jpg|center|thumb|134x134px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Dan Burros]]&lt;br /&gt;
|5 March 1937&lt;br /&gt;
|31 October 1965&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Dietrich v. Jagow.png|center|thumb|159x159px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Dietrich von Jagow]]&lt;br /&gt;
|29 February 1892&lt;br /&gt;
|26 April 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Dominic Lewitzke.png|center|thumb|127x127px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Dominic Lewitzke]]&lt;br /&gt;
|6 December 1958&lt;br /&gt;
|22 July 1980&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Dominique Venner.jpg|center|thumb|138x138px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Dominique Venner]]&lt;br /&gt;
|16 April 1935&lt;br /&gt;
|21 May 2013&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Dragoș Protopopescu by Ștefan Dimitrescu.png|center|thumb|155x155px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Dragoș Protopopescu]]&lt;br /&gt;
|17 October 1892&lt;br /&gt;
|11 April 1948&lt;br /&gt;
|Decapitation&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Dylan Klebold.jpg|center|thumb|100x100px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Dylan Klebold]]&lt;br /&gt;
|11 September 1981&lt;br /&gt;
|20 April 1999&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1985-048-28, Eberhard Kinzel.jpg|center|thumb|143x143px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Eberhard Kinzel]]&lt;br /&gt;
|18 October 1897&lt;br /&gt;
|25 June 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Edmund Glaise-Horstenau (1882–1946) © Max Fenichel (1885–1942) OeNB 8154602 (1).png|center|thumb|155x155px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Edmund Glaise-Horstenau]]&lt;br /&gt;
|27 February 1882&lt;br /&gt;
|20 July 1946&lt;br /&gt;
|Fearing extradition to [[Republic of Austria|Austria]] for his crimes, Glaise killed himself at the [[Langwasser]] camp in [[Nuremberg]] by taking poison.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/gnd118539647.html#ndbcontent &amp;quot;Glaise von Horstenau, &#039;&#039;Edmund&#039;&#039;&amp;quot;]. [[New German Biography|&#039;&#039;New German Biography&#039;&#039;]].  [https://web.archive.org/web/20250221160654/https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/gnd118539647.html#ndbcontent Archived] from the original on 2025-02-21. Retrieved 2025-07-11.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Eduard Wagner.jpg|center|thumb|134x134px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Eduard Wagner]]&lt;br /&gt;
|1 April 1894&lt;br /&gt;
|23 July 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Eduard Weiter.jpg|center|thumb|144x144px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Eduard Weiter]]&lt;br /&gt;
|18 July 1889&lt;br /&gt;
|27 April or 2 May 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm (disputed)&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Eduard Wirths.jpg|center|thumb|145x145px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Eduard Wirths]]&lt;br /&gt;
|4 September 1909&lt;br /&gt;
|20 September 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Emil Fey (1886–1938).jpg|center|thumb|145x145px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Emil Fey]]&lt;br /&gt;
|23 March 1886&lt;br /&gt;
|16 March 1938&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Emil Haussmann.jpg|center|thumb|138x138px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Emil Haussmann]]&lt;br /&gt;
|11 October 1910&lt;br /&gt;
|31 July 1947&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Enno Lolling cropped.png|center|thumb|173x173px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Enno Lolling]]&lt;br /&gt;
|19 July 1888&lt;br /&gt;
|27 May 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Erich Bärenfänger.jpg|center|thumb|150x150px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Erich Bärenfänger]]&lt;br /&gt;
|12 January 1915&lt;br /&gt;
|2 May 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Eric Harris.jpg|center|thumb|137x137px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Eric Harris]]&lt;br /&gt;
|9 April 1981&lt;br /&gt;
|20 April 1999&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Ernst Bergmann (philosopher).jpg|center|thumb|149x149px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Ernst Bergmann]]&lt;br /&gt;
|7 August 1881&lt;br /&gt;
|16 April 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Ernst Holzlöhner.png|center|thumb|146x146px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Ernst Holzlöhner]]&lt;br /&gt;
|23 February 1899&lt;br /&gt;
|14 June 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Carbon monoxide poisoning&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Ernst-Robert Grawitz.png|center|thumb|142x142px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Ernst-Robert Grawitz]]&lt;br /&gt;
|8 June 1889&lt;br /&gt;
|24 April 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Hand grenade&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Ernst Runde.png|center|thumb|105x105px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Ernst Runde]]&lt;br /&gt;
|12 August 1905&lt;br /&gt;
|1967&lt;br /&gt;
|Runde committed suicide in prison after being indicted for murder by the [[Regional Court of Duisburg]], hanging himself with his belt.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Association of Victims of the Nazi Regime]] (1963).: [[Freedom and Justice|&#039;&#039;Freiheit und Recht: Die Stimme der Widerstandskämpfer für ein freies Europa&#039;&#039;]]. Volume 9. Page 16.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1984-112-13, Ernst Udet.jpg|center|thumb|167x167px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Ernst Udet]]&lt;br /&gt;
|26 April 1896&lt;br /&gt;
|17 November 1941&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Ernst-weiner-ad9f7e50-ee9c-46f8-bab1-a3bfdad4edc-resize-750.png|center|thumb|133x133px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Ernst Weiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
|13 December 1913&lt;br /&gt;
|17 December 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm (disputed)&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Sasrfdsag.png|center|thumb|154x154px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Ernst Zörner]]&lt;br /&gt;
|27 June 1895&lt;br /&gt;
|21 December 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bodenhausen-Erpo-Freiherr-von.jpg|center|thumb|150x150px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Erpo Freiherr von Bodenhausen]]&lt;br /&gt;
|12 April 1897&lt;br /&gt;
|9 May 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Erwin Bumke]]&lt;br /&gt;
|7 July 1874&lt;br /&gt;
|20 April 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Erwin Ding-Schuler]]&lt;br /&gt;
|19 September 1912&lt;br /&gt;
|11 August 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Erwin Müller (SS officer)|Erwin Müller]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|11 September 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Erwin Rommel]]&lt;br /&gt;
|15 November 1891&lt;br /&gt;
|14 October 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Cyanide poisoning&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Francis Parker Yockey]]&lt;br /&gt;
|18 September 1917&lt;br /&gt;
|17 June 1960&lt;br /&gt;
|Cyanide poisoning&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Frank Schubert (neo-Nazi)|Frank Schubert]]&lt;br /&gt;
|28 January 1957&lt;br /&gt;
|24 December 1980&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Franz Böhme]]&lt;br /&gt;
|15 April 1885&lt;br /&gt;
|29 May 1947&lt;br /&gt;
|Jumping&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Franz Schädle]]&lt;br /&gt;
|19 November 1906&lt;br /&gt;
|2 May 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Franz von Bodmann]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[François Genoud]]&lt;br /&gt;
|26 October 1915&lt;br /&gt;
|30 May 1996&lt;br /&gt;
|Poisoning&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Friedrich Alpers]]&lt;br /&gt;
|25 March 1901&lt;br /&gt;
|3 September 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Friedrich Dollmann]]&lt;br /&gt;
|2 February 1882&lt;br /&gt;
|29 June 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Poisoning (disputed)&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Friedrich Mussgay]]&lt;br /&gt;
|3 January 1892&lt;br /&gt;
|3 September 1946&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Friedrich Panzinger]]&lt;br /&gt;
|1 February 1903&lt;br /&gt;
|8 August 1959&lt;br /&gt;
|Poisoning&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Friedrich Tillmann]]&lt;br /&gt;
|6 August 1903&lt;br /&gt;
|12 February 1964&lt;br /&gt;
|Falling &lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Friedrich-Wilhelm Krüger]]&lt;br /&gt;
|8 May 1894&lt;br /&gt;
|10 May 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Fritz Adam (politician)|Fritz Adam]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Fritz Baeßler]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Fritz Bracht]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Fritz Freitag]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Fritz Tittmann]]&lt;br /&gt;
|18 July 1898&lt;br /&gt;
|25 April 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Explosion (disputed)&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Fujioka Takeo]]&lt;br /&gt;
|3 March 1891&lt;br /&gt;
|22 June 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Fujita Shigeshi]]&lt;br /&gt;
|4 August 1920&lt;br /&gt;
|5 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Gavril Olteanu]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Georg Altner]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Georg Meindl]]&lt;br /&gt;
|1 March 1899&lt;br /&gt;
|10 May 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Self-immolation (suspected)&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Georg von Majewski]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Gundolf Köhler]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Gustav Schmidt (general)|Gustav Schmidt]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Gustav Wagner (SS officer)|Gustav Wagner]]&lt;br /&gt;
|18 July 1911&lt;br /&gt;
|3 October 1980&lt;br /&gt;
|Stabbing (disputed)&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Günther Angern]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Günther von Kluge]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hans-Adolf Prützmann]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hans Bothmann]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hans Collani]]&lt;br /&gt;
|13 December 1908&lt;br /&gt;
|29 July 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hans Delmotte]]&lt;br /&gt;
|15 December 1917&lt;br /&gt;
|1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Aasdfsdga.png|center|thumb|132x132px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hans Georg Schmidt von Altenstadt]]&lt;br /&gt;
|21 August 1904&lt;br /&gt;
|25 July 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Von Altenstadt was injured twice, first at the [[Battle of Monte Cassino]] and again in a [[traffic collision]]. He later died at [[Bad Tölz Reserve Hospital]] in [[Free State of Bavaria|Bavaria]] as a result of a [[pulmonary embolism]]. Some of his colleagues maintained after the war that von Altenstadt had killed himself to avoid arrest, torture, and execution following the failure of the [[20 July plot]].&lt;br /&gt;
|German military officer, resistance fighter, and war criminal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hans Jeschonnek]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hans Kammler]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hans Krebs (Wehrmacht general)|Hans Krebs]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hans Langsdorff]]&lt;br /&gt;
|20 March 1894&lt;br /&gt;
|20 December 1939&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Hans Loritz-Rest.jpg|center|thumb|100x100px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hans Loritz]]&lt;br /&gt;
|12 December 1895&lt;br /&gt;
|31 January 1946&lt;br /&gt;
|Hans Loritz hanged himself in his cell at the [[Gadeland internment camp]] in [[Neumünster]], presumably to avoid being transferred to the Soviet Union.&lt;br /&gt;
|German policeman and SS functionary who served as the commandant of several Nazi concentration camps&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hans Schwedler]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Harald Oster]]&lt;br /&gt;
|12 June 1919&lt;br /&gt;
|27 January 1943&lt;br /&gt;
|Oster shot himself in the heart [[Battle of Stalingrad|at Stalingrad]].&lt;br /&gt;
|Son of &#039;&#039;[[Generalmajor]]&#039;&#039; [[Hans Oster]] and&#039;&#039;[[Oberleutnant]]&#039;&#039; in the [[German Army (1935–1945)|German Army]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hatanaka Kenji]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Heinrich Fehlis]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Heinrich Heimann]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Heinrich Himmler]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Heinz Roch]]&lt;br /&gt;
|17 January 1905&lt;br /&gt;
|10 May 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Heinz Rutha]]&lt;br /&gt;
|20 April 1897&lt;br /&gt;
|4 November 1937&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Sudeten Germans|Bohemian German]] architect, paedophile, and politician of the [[Sudeten German Party]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Heinz Thilo]]&lt;br /&gt;
|8 October 1911&lt;br /&gt;
|13 May 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Herbert Backe]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Herbert Linden]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Herbert Wissmann]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|14 January 1947&lt;br /&gt;
|Poisoning&lt;br /&gt;
|Nazi legal scholar and press attaché at the German embassy in Lisbon during the Second World War&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hermann Brandl]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hermann Geyer]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hermann Göring]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hermann Görtz]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hermann Höfle]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hiratsuka Akio]]&lt;br /&gt;
|20 September 1924&lt;br /&gt;
|5 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Honda Ishimatsu]]&lt;br /&gt;
|29 November 1906&lt;br /&gt;
|5 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Honjō Shigeru]]&lt;br /&gt;
|10 May 1876&lt;br /&gt;
|30 November 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;Seppuku&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hoshino Shinroku]]&lt;br /&gt;
|5 March 1914&lt;br /&gt;
|5 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Horst Birr]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Horst Hoffmeyer]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Horst Höltring]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hugo Jury]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Imamura Hōsaku]]&lt;br /&gt;
|4 January 1900&lt;br /&gt;
|24 April 1949&lt;br /&gt;
|Poisoning&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Ilse Koch]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Irmfried Eberl]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Ishimaru Yoshimi]]&lt;br /&gt;
|10 March 1913&lt;br /&gt;
|5 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Ishizaka Otsuji]]&lt;br /&gt;
|13 July 1915&lt;br /&gt;
|5 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Iwabuchi Sanji]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Jakob Sprenger (politician)|Jakob Sprenger]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Jakob Weiseborn]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[James Larratt Battersby]]&lt;br /&gt;
|5 February 1907&lt;br /&gt;
|September 1955&lt;br /&gt;
|Jumping&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Jane Greenhow]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Ruth Fleming]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Stephen Bateman]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Joachim Albrecht Eggeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Joachim Engel (General)|Joachim Engel]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Joachim Rumohr]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Johann Blank (SS member)|Johann Blank]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Johannes Blaskowitz]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Johan Pitka]]&lt;br /&gt;
|19 February 1872&lt;br /&gt;
|22 November 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Lethal injection&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Josef Terboven]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Joseph Goebbels]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[J. T. Ready]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Józef Szeryński]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Kaigi Masanobu]]&lt;br /&gt;
|5 November 1915&lt;br /&gt;
|6 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Train collision&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Kakimoto Enji]]&lt;br /&gt;
|April 1920&lt;br /&gt;
|5 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Kamiya Takekazu]]&lt;br /&gt;
|8 March 1921&lt;br /&gt;
|5 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Karl Astel]]&lt;br /&gt;
|26 February 1898&lt;br /&gt;
|4 April 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Karl-Gustav Sauberzweig]]&lt;br /&gt;
|1 September 1899&lt;br /&gt;
|20 October 1946&lt;br /&gt;
|Poison&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Karl Henke (general)|Karl Henke]]&lt;br /&gt;
|22 July 1896&lt;br /&gt;
|27 April 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Karl Holz (politician)|Karl Holz]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Karl Heinrich Emil Becker]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Karl Jäger]]&lt;br /&gt;
|20 September 1888&lt;br /&gt;
|22 June 1959&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Karl von Treuenfeld]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Karl Zech]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Keith Luke]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Kinoshita Juichi]]&lt;br /&gt;
|20 April 1912&lt;br /&gt;
|5 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Koizumi Chikahiko]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Kojima Masao]]&lt;br /&gt;
|24 October 1917&lt;br /&gt;
|5 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Konoe Fumimaro]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Konrad Barde]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Konrad Henlein]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Kurt Bolender]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Kurt Eberhard]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Kurt Lisso]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Leonardo Conti]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Ludwig Stumpfegger]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Magda Fontanges]]&lt;br /&gt;
|10 May 1905&lt;br /&gt;
|1 October 1960&lt;br /&gt;
|Sleeping pill overdose&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Magda Goebbels]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Manlio Morgagni]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Martin Bormann]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Matthias Kleinheisterkamp]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Max de Crinis]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Max Grosskopf]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Maxim Martsinkevich]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Max Koegel]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Meinoud Rost van Tonningen]]&lt;br /&gt;
|19 February 1894&lt;br /&gt;
|6 June 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Jumping&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Meir Feinstein]]&lt;br /&gt;
|5 October 1927&lt;br /&gt;
|21 April 1947&lt;br /&gt;
|Rather than be hanged by the British authorities, Moshe Barazani and Meir Feinstein decided to follow the Biblical example of Samson by blowing themselves and their executioners up at the gallows with improvised hand grenades that they had hidden in hollowed-out oranges. However, upon learning that Rabbi Yaakov Goldman intended to attend the execution, they instead opted to blow themselves up in their shared prison cell in order to avoid wounding the Rabbi, which they did around midnight on 21 April 1947.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Michael Popczuk]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Moshe Barazani]]&lt;br /&gt;
|14 June 1926&lt;br /&gt;
|21 April 1947&lt;br /&gt;
|Rather than be hanged by the British authorities, Moshe Barazani and Meir Feinstein decided to follow the Biblical example of Samson by blowing themselves and their executioners up at the gallows with improvised hand grenades that they had hidden in hollowed-out oranges. However, upon learning that Rabbi Yaakov Goldman intended to attend the execution, they instead opted to blow themselves up in their shared prison cell in order to avoid wounding the Rabbi, which they did around midnight on 21 April 1947.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Mārtiņš Grundmanis]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Nagumo Chūichi]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Nakagawa Kunio]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Nakajima Tokutarō]]&lt;br /&gt;
|2 April 1890&lt;br /&gt;
|22 June 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Nakano Seigō]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Niino Kenji]]&lt;br /&gt;
|29 August 1917&lt;br /&gt;
|5 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Nils Flyg]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Obata Hideyoshi]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Oda Kensaku]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Odilo Globočnik]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Okamura Motoharu]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Omori Yasuo]]&lt;br /&gt;
|20 July 1913&lt;br /&gt;
|11 November 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Ono Toshio]]&lt;br /&gt;
|13 January 1913&lt;br /&gt;
|5 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Otto-Heinrich Drechsler]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Otto Hess (politician, born 1908)|Otto Hess]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Otto von Schrader]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Otto von Stülpnagel]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Paul Giesler]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Paul Heigl]]&lt;br /&gt;
|29 April 1887&lt;br /&gt;
|8 April 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Drug overdose&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Paul Hinkler]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Paul Otto Geibel]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Peter Donnhäuser]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Peter Zschech]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Philipp Bouhler]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Raven Freiherr von Barnekow]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Richard Glücks]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Robert Ley]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Robert Macher]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Robert van Genechten]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Roman Shukhevych]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Rudolf Batz]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Rudolf Hess]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Rudolf Jung (politician)|Rudolf Jung]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Rudolf Querner]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Saitō Yoshitsugu]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Seki Yukio]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Shiizaki Jirō]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Shimoyama Yoshio]]&lt;br /&gt;
|14 May 1910&lt;br /&gt;
|7 April 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Shimuzu Haruichi]]&lt;br /&gt;
|2 October 1920&lt;br /&gt;
|5 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Shiono Takeo]]&lt;br /&gt;
|3 February 1922&lt;br /&gt;
|5 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Shirota Hiroshi]]&lt;br /&gt;
|27 July 1919&lt;br /&gt;
|7 September 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Shirota died from strangulation. It&#039;s unclear whether he killed himself in order to avoid being recaptured (as many [[Cowra breakout|Cowra escapees]] did) or whether he was killed by someone else.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://cowrajapanesecemetery.org/grave/228/ &amp;quot;228&amp;quot;]. &#039;&#039;Cowra Japanese War Cemetery&#039;&#039;. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220930122347/https://cowrajapanesecemetery.org/grave/228/ Archived] from the original on 2022-09-30. Retrieved 2025-06-02.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Stefan Baretzki]]&lt;br /&gt;
|24 March 1919&lt;br /&gt;
|21 June 1988&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Sugiyama Hajime]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Tamura Yoshitomi]]&lt;br /&gt;
|8 June 1897&lt;br /&gt;
|11 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Tanaka Kiyoshi]]&lt;br /&gt;
|10 June 1914&lt;br /&gt;
|5 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Train collision&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Tanaka Shizuichi]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Teddy Joseph Von Nukem]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Teleki Pál]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Temistocle Testa]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Teramoto Kumaichi]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Theodor Dannecker]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Theodor Rõuk]]&lt;br /&gt;
|14 December 1891&lt;br /&gt;
|21 July 1940&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Tito Agosti]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Tobias Rathjen]]&lt;br /&gt;
|1977&lt;br /&gt;
|19 February 2020&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Tsuda Akira]]&lt;br /&gt;
|10 January 1920&lt;br /&gt;
|5 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Ugaki Matome]]&lt;br /&gt;
|15 February 1890&lt;br /&gt;
|15 August 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;Kamikaze&#039;&#039; attack&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Ugo Cavallero.jpg|center|thumb|156x156px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Ugo Cavallero]]&lt;br /&gt;
|20 September 1880&lt;br /&gt;
|13 September 1943&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm (officially)&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Unity-Mitford.jpg|center|thumb|136x136px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Unity Mitford]]&lt;br /&gt;
|8 August 1914&lt;br /&gt;
|28 May 1948&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Meningitis]] due to gunshot wound&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Ushijima Mitsuru]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Uwe Behrendt]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Uwe Mundlos]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Walter Boenicke]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Walter Borbet]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm (allegedly)&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Walter Buch]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Walter Dönicke]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Walter Frank]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Walter Griphan]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Walter Gross (politician, born 1904)|Walter Gross]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Walter Hewel]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Walter Kexel]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Walter Krüger (SS general)|Walter Krüger]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Walter Model]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Walter-scherff-2fecb91a-6b0c-4783-bad1-3eadde31f9c-resize-750.jpg|center|thumb|144x144px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Walter Scherff]]&lt;br /&gt;
|1 November 1898&lt;br /&gt;
|24 May 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Scherff killed himself while in Statesian captivity in [[Saalfelden]], [[Salzburg]] on 24 May 1945 by ingesting cyanide.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Walter Schimana]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Walther Bierkamp]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Werner Heyde]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Werner Schrader]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Werner von Gilsa]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Wilhelm Burgdorf]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Wilhelm Murr]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Wilhelm Rediess]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Willy Liebel]]&lt;br /&gt;
|31 August 1897&lt;br /&gt;
|20 April 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|Gunshot (officially, disputed)&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Willy Sachs]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Willy Wiederroth]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Yamamura Makoto]]&lt;br /&gt;
|1 January 1917&lt;br /&gt;
|11 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Yamashita Nobuyuki]]&lt;br /&gt;
|26 April 1917&lt;br /&gt;
|5 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Yokota Shigeki]]&lt;br /&gt;
|22 February 1920&lt;br /&gt;
|15 May 1946&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Yoshikawa Tadaichi]]&lt;br /&gt;
|6 March 1921&lt;br /&gt;
|5 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Hanging&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Yoshimoto Teiichi]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Ōnishi Takijirō]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== List of fascists who attempted suicide ==&lt;br /&gt;
Fascists who attempted suicide but weren&#039;t successful. This list does not include those who would succeed in later attempts.&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+&lt;br /&gt;
!Photo&lt;br /&gt;
!Name&lt;br /&gt;
!Date of birth&lt;br /&gt;
!Date of death&lt;br /&gt;
!Suicide method&lt;br /&gt;
!Known for&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Adolf Nassenstein]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Carl-Heinrich von Stülpnagel.jpg|center|thumb|135x135px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Carl-Heinrich von Stülpnagel]]&lt;br /&gt;
|2 January 1886&lt;br /&gt;
|30 August 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Franz Brandl (Police Chief)|Franz Brandl]]&lt;br /&gt;
|14 April 1875&lt;br /&gt;
|15 March 1953&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Hermann Müller-John.jpg|center|thumb|112x112px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Hermann Müller-John]]&lt;br /&gt;
|4 August 1894&lt;br /&gt;
|8 May 1945&lt;br /&gt;
|On 8 May 1945, as [[United States of America|U.S.]] forces were approaching the farmhouse he was hiding in near [[Itter (Tyrol)|Itter]], Müller-John opted to kill himself in order to escape prosecution. He shot his wife and daughter before turning the gun on himself. His own wound was not fatal however, and it took a Statesian soldier delivering a [[Coup de grâce|&#039;&#039;coup de grâce&#039;&#039;]] for him to finally die.&lt;br /&gt;
|Bandleader of the [[1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler|&#039;&#039;SS-Leibstandarte&#039;&#039;]]&#039;s Music Corps and perpetrator of the [[Błonie massacre]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-2007-1010-502, Kurt Daluege.jpg|center|thumb|142x142px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Kurt Daluege]]&lt;br /&gt;
|15 September 1897&lt;br /&gt;
|23 October 1946&lt;br /&gt;
|Daluege attempted suicide at least twice:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;No author (1946-10-24).: [https://www.nytimes.com/1946/10/24/archives/daluege-who-wiped-out-lidice-hanged-execution-follows-two-attempts.html &amp;quot;Daluege, Who Wiped Out Lidice, Hanged; Execution Follows Two Attempts at Suicide&amp;quot;]. [[The New York Times|&#039;&#039;The New York Times&#039;&#039;]]. Page 14. Retrieved 2025-10-01.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* On 21 October 1946, Daluege attempted to have poison smuggled into his cell via a parcel of a dozen cigarettes. A guard noticed that one of the cylinders was thicker than the rest however, leading to the poison&#039;s discovery and their confiscation, much to Daluege&#039;s fury.&lt;br /&gt;
* At 4 a.m. on 23 October 1946, 8 hours before he was set to hang, Daluege, who had covered himself with a blanket (likely in order to hide what he was doing), slit his wrists with fragments of a broken earthenware soup bowl. Daluege&#039;s antics were immediately noticed and his wounds were treated by the prison doctor.&lt;br /&gt;
|German SS and police functionary who served as Chief of the &#039;&#039;[[Ordnungspolizei]]&#039;&#039; and acting [[Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia|Protector of Bohemia and Moravia]], responsible for the [[Lidice massacre|Lidice]] and [[Ležáky massacre|Ležáky massacres]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Maeda Yoshimitsu]]&lt;br /&gt;
|5 May 1918&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Ludwig Beck]]&lt;br /&gt;
|29 June 1880&lt;br /&gt;
|20 July 1944&lt;br /&gt;
|Firearm&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Lists]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=American_Communist_Party_(current)&amp;diff=87714</id>
		<title>American Communist Party (current)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=American_Communist_Party_(current)&amp;diff=87714"/>
		<updated>2025-10-20T04:18:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Infobox political party|name=American Communist Party|logo=ACPlogocurrent.jpg|founded=21 July 2024|abbreviation=ACP|chairman=[[Haz Al-Din]]|split=|newspaper=[[Red America]]|political_orientation=&amp;quot;Unified Tendency&amp;quot; of [[Marxism–Leninism]] (&#039;&#039;de jure&#039;&#039;)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://acp.us/constitution &amp;quot;Constitution of the American Communist Party&amp;quot;]. acp.us. Retrieved 2025-09-06.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Patriotic socialism]] (&#039;&#039;de facto&#039;&#039;)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Social chauvinism]] (&#039;&#039;de facto&#039;&#039;)|position=[[Left-wing]] (&#039;&#039;de jure&#039;&#039;)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Far-right]] (&#039;&#039;de facto&#039;&#039;)|international=[[World Anti-imperialist Platform]]|colours=Red|seats1_title=|seats1=|website=https://acp.us/|twitter=|youtube=|facebook=|instagram=}}{{Stub}}&lt;br /&gt;
The &#039;&#039;&#039;American Communist Party&#039;&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;&#039;ACP&#039;&#039;&#039;) is a self-described [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxist–Leninist]] [[political party]] operating in the territory of the [[United States]] and [[Canada]]. It was founded in [[Chicago]] in July 2024 by several [[Patriotic socialism|patriotic socialist]] social media [[Influencer|influencers]] and claims to be the legitimate successor to the historic [[Communist Party of the United States of America|Communist Party USA]]. Its Plenary Committee consists of [[Haz Al-Din]], [[Henry Ahmad]], and [[Grayson Preutz]] of [[Infrared]]; [[Edward Smith|Eddie &amp;quot;Liger&amp;quot; Smith]], [[Carlos Garrido]], [[Noah Khrachvik]], and [[Kyle Pettis]] of [[Midwestern Marx]]; former [[Party of Communists USA|PCUSA]] International Secretary [[Chris Helali]]; [[Rev Laskaris]] of the [[Research and Technical Studies Group|RTSG]]; and most famously [[Jackson Hinkle]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=American Communist Party|title=Declaration of the American Communist Party|date=2024-07-22|url=https://acp.us/declaration|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241126205435/https://acp.us/declaration|archive-date=2024-11-26}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the party has added the names of various CPUSA sections as signatories of its founding declaration,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; many of these sections were not aware they had signed the document and made statements distancing themselves from the ACP.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=@UncolaMD|newspaper=Twitter|title=Of the 29 orgs. these dinguses claimed, 16 (red) have publicly refuted any association or endorsement, 2 (orange) don&#039;t even exist, and 1 (purple) dissolved roughly a week before this and is no longer active.|date=2024-07-23|url=https://x.com/UncolaMD/status/1815567086074126460|archive-url=https://archive.ph/iG1md}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In response, an ACP supporter claimed that the signing sections had been &amp;quot;unconstitutionally expelled from [CPUSA]&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=JSummit2036|newspaper=Twitter|title=The social media account of a club represents only the illegal Sims clique, not the Communist Party itself. The true representatives were unconstitutionally expelled from the party. And who told you UConn/Storrs wasn’t real?|date=2024-07-25|url=https://x.com/JSummit2036/status/1816482334901727614|archive-url=https://archive.ph/0QcH5}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; admitting that they had no authority to sign the CPUSA name on the ACP declaration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Previously in 2022, patriotic socialists set up fake CPUSA accounts on Twitter to hijack the names of CPUSA sections as part of their failed [[CPUSA 2036]] strategy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The real CPUSA Indiana Twitter account is [https://x.com/indianacpusa @IndianaCPUSA], and a fake one handled by patriotic socialists exists at [https://x.com/CPUSA_IN @CPUSA_IN]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Based on this, it is plausible to say that the ACP only used the name of CPUSA to boost their launch but otherwise had close to no contact with it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== History ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Background ===&lt;br /&gt;
From late-2021 to mid-2024, Infrared and later Midwestern Marx touted the slogan &amp;quot;[[CPUSA 2036]]&amp;quot;, openly encouraging their communities to join the Communist Party USA and struggle against the [[Opportunism|opportunist]] line of [[Joe Sims]], all the while concealing their allegiances if necessary in order to avoid expulsion and &amp;quot;obeying party discipline and [[democratic centralism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haz Al-Din (2021-11-02).: [https://xcancel.com/InfraHaz/status/1455356108671959045 &amp;quot;I know a lot of my tweets are jokes, but here I am, on record, 100% serious: I want my American followers to join the CPUSA. I want you to join and obey party discipline and democratic centralism, while combating both ultra-left tendencies and pro-Democrat right-opportunism.&amp;quot;] &#039;&#039;XCancel&#039;&#039;. from the original on 2025-10-19. Retrieved 2025-10-19.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Haz criticised the CPUSA national leadership for replacing [[Class struggle|class war]] with [[culture war]] and for subordinating the [[working class]] to the [[Neoliberalism|neoliberal]]-[[Imperialism|imperialist]] [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]];&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Infrared (2024-06-09).: [https://showinfrared.substack.com/p/the-32nd-national-convention-of-the &amp;quot;The 32nd National Convention of the Communist Party USA: The Joe Sims Coup&amp;quot;]. &#039;&#039;Substack&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2024-06-09.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; while the national leadership denounced him as a &amp;quot;right-wing&amp;quot; &amp;quot;pseudo-[[Marxism|Marxist]]&amp;quot; and his brand of patriotism as a form of national and social chauvinism (despite being settler nationalists themselves).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joe Sims (2024-07-22).: [https://cpusa.org/article/cp-national-committee-says-keep-your-eyes-on-the-prize/ &amp;quot;CP National Committee says &#039;Keep your eyes on the prize&#039;&amp;quot;]. &#039;&#039;Communist Party USA&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-11-19.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joe Sims (2021-11-01).: [https://www.cpusa.org/article/an-upsurge-worth-fighting-for/ &amp;quot;An upsurge worth fighting for&amp;quot;]. &#039;&#039;Communist Party USA&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-11-19.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This struggle culminated in the lead-up to the [[2024 United States presidential election]] at the [[32nd National Convention of the Communist Party USA|32nd National Convention of the CPUSA]] in [[Chicago]] on 7–9 June 2024. The Convention adopted Resolution 5 which, while asserting their political independence, called for the CPUSA to support &amp;quot;a [[United front|broad people&#039;s front]] to defeat [[fascism]] in all its forms, including [[Donald Trump|Trump]], Trumpism, and the [[MAGA movement|MAGA]] forces&amp;quot; and for the party&#039;s members to &amp;quot;work on neighbourhood-based canvassing and to get out the vote with labor and allies for the strongest pro-worker and progressive candidates at every level.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;CPUSA National Committee (2024-07-25).: [https://www.cpusa.org/article/resolution-on-the-2024-elections/ &amp;quot;Resolution on the 2024 Elections&amp;quot;]. &#039;&#039;Communist Party USA&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-10-19.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It devoted several paragraphs about the dangers of MAGA, treating a [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] victory as an existential threat to the [[workers&#039; movement]] in the country. The Resolution did not mention the Democrats by name, but made repeated references to &amp;quot;democratic allies&amp;quot; and an &amp;quot;anti-extreme-right coalition&amp;quot; whose victory would be &amp;quot;a decisive electoral defeat for the fascist forces&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; The Resolution was widely-recognised as an implicit endorsement of [[Class collaboration|collaboration]] with the Democratic Party, and the manner in which it was adopted was labelled as unconstitutional and undemocratic.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Comrade Myrrh|Cde. Myrrh]] (2024-06-14).: [https://clarion.unity-struggle-unity.org/2024-06-14-we-warned-you/ &amp;quot;We Warned You.&amp;quot;] [[Unity–Struggle–Unity|&#039;&#039;Unity–Struggle–Unity&#039;&#039;]]. Retrieved 2024-06-14.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USU Editorial Board (2024-06-27).: [https://clarion.unity-struggle-unity.org/2024-06-27-support-the-struggle-within-the-cpusa/ &amp;quot;Support the Struggle Within the CPUSA&amp;quot;]. &#039;&#039;Unity–Struggle–Unity&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-10-19.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A week after the National Convention was held, a petition calling for the reopening of discussion and voting on Resolution 5 due to the alleged &amp;quot;breaches in constitutionality&amp;quot; was launched, earning dozens of signatures.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeA3M90tjPMIGClazvRIp-Oo9DqLLenHTJaoOgETn7wutfRdA/viewform?pli=1 &amp;quot;A Comradely Petition to the National Committee of the CPUSA&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Internally, many CPUSA members discussed their dissatisfaction with the national leadership. Some wanted to leave while others expressed a desire to continue the struggle within the party. In response, the entire Austin, Texas chapter of the CPUSA was liquidated for &amp;quot;[[factionalism]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Red Help ATX (2024-07-16).: [https://news.redhelpatx.org/p/austin-moving-on &amp;quot;Austin Moving On&amp;quot;]. &#039;&#039;Substack&#039;&#039;. Retrieved 2025-10-20.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Formation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ideology ==&lt;br /&gt;
The ACP is associated with the &amp;quot;[[MAGACommunism|MAGA Communism]]&amp;quot; trend of Haz Al-Din and Jackson Hinkle, both leaders of the party. In the ACP&#039;s party programme, the party omits properly dealing with the colonial question which dominates American history (never referencing [[land-back]]) and calls for the &amp;quot;Promotion of American Civilization&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=American Communist Party|title=Party Program|date=2024-10-12|url=https://acp.us/program}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Patriotic socialism]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Anti-Socialist_Laws&amp;diff=87681</id>
		<title>Anti-Socialist Laws</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Anti-Socialist_Laws&amp;diff=87681"/>
		<updated>2025-10-17T22:17:25Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The &#039;&#039;&#039;Anti-Socialist Laws&#039;&#039;&#039; or &#039;&#039;&#039;Socialist Laws&#039;&#039;&#039; ([[German language|German]]: &#039;&#039;Sozialistengesetze&#039;&#039;; officially the &#039;&#039;Gesetz gegen die gemeingefährlichen Bestrebungen der Sozialdemokratie&#039;&#039;, &amp;quot;Law Against the Publicly Dangerous Strivings of Social Democracy&amp;quot;) was an act of the [[Reichstag (German Empire)|Reichstag]] of the [[German Empire (1871–1918)|German Empire]] backed by [[Otto von Bismarck]], aimed at suppressing the German [[Social democracy|social democratic]] movement. The law was passed on 19 October 1878 and remained in effect, being renewed every three years, until it was allowed to lapse on 30 September 1890, having failed to prevent the growth in the popularity of [[socialism]]&#039;&#039;.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=G. Becker|year=1979|title=The Great Soviet Encyclopedia|title-url=https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Exceptional+Law+Against+the+Socialists|chapter=Exceptional Law Against the Socialists}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the law 350 workers’ organizations were disbanded, 1,500 people were arrested, and 900 people were exiled, with the [[Social Democratic Party of Germany]] (SPD) being targeted harshly. However, [[Progressivism|progressive]] forces continued to fight the ban with [[Karl Marx|Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] supporting the struggle whilst denouncing [[Opportunism|opportunist]] factions. Eventually, the [[ruling class]] was forced to drop the law and support for socialism continued to grow despite the ban with the social democratic vote growing from 493,000 in 1877 to 1,427,000 in 1890.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Anti-communism in Germany]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:History of Socialism in Germany]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Variable_capital&amp;diff=87648</id>
		<title>Variable capital</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Variable_capital&amp;diff=87648"/>
		<updated>2025-10-17T03:03:24Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Stub}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Variable capital&#039;&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;&#039;V&#039;&#039;&#039;; [[German language|German]]: &#039;&#039;variables Kapital&#039;&#039;) refers to the [[capital]] invested in [[labour power]] (i.e., [[Wage|wages]]) by the [[bourgeoisie]]. It differs from [[constant capital]] in that, whereas the latter merely imparts existing [[value]] to [[Commodity|commodities]], the former enables the creation of new, [[surplus value]], which can quantitatively differ depending on a [[Proletariat|worker]]&#039;s productivity (thus being &amp;quot;variable&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Economic concepts]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Marxist economics]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Capital volume I concepts]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Midwestern_Marx_Institute_for_Marxist_Theory_and_Political_Analysis&amp;diff=87574</id>
		<title>Midwestern Marx Institute for Marxist Theory and Political Analysis</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Midwestern_Marx_Institute_for_Marxist_Theory_and_Political_Analysis&amp;diff=87574"/>
		<updated>2025-10-14T01:08:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Redirected page to Midwestern Marx&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Midwestern Marx]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Midwit_Marx&amp;diff=87573</id>
		<title>Midwit Marx</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Midwit_Marx&amp;diff=87573"/>
		<updated>2025-10-14T01:07:27Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Redirected page to Midwestern Marx&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Midwestern Marx]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Midwit_Marx_Institute&amp;diff=87572</id>
		<title>Midwit Marx Institute</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Midwit_Marx_Institute&amp;diff=87572"/>
		<updated>2025-10-14T01:07:13Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Redirected page to Midwestern Marx&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Midwestern Marx]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=World_War_II&amp;diff=87445</id>
		<title>World War II</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=World_War_II&amp;diff=87445"/>
		<updated>2025-10-10T05:38:20Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Infobox military conflict|conflict=World War II|date=[[German invasion of Poland|1 September 1939]]&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Other dates for the beginning of the war have been proposed, such as [[Marco Polo Bridge incident|7 July 1937]], [[De Bono&#039;s offensive|3 October 1935]], and [[Mukden incident|18 September 1931]]. Also, some observers (e.g. [[Winston Churchill|Churchill]] and [[Charles de Gaulle|de Gaulle]]) held to the view that both World Wars were in reality one singular conflict, a [[Second Thirty Years&#039; War]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; – [[Japanese Instrument of Surrender|2 September 1945]]&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;This date, too, is disputed. [[Hirohito]] delivered his [[Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the Greater East Asia War|surrender broadcast]] to the Japanese nation on 15 August 1945, though [[Japanese Instrument of Surrender|Japan only formally surrendered on 2 September 1945]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Many soldiers continued fighting even after the war officially ended. In [[Central Europe|Central]] and [[Eastern Europe]], local anti-communist forces waged [[Anti-communist insurgencies in Central and Eastern Europe|guerrilla wars against their governments well into the 1950s]]. Thousands of Japanese soldiers stationed across [[Asia]] and the [[Pacific Ocean|Pacific]] likewise [[Japanese holdouts|remained at war]] for decades.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;A formal peace treaty between [[Russian Federation|Russia]] (the legal successor to the Soviet Union) and Japan still has not yet been signed.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;|result=[[Allies of the Second World War|Allied]] victory|status=[[Allies of the Second World War|Allied]] victory|combatants_header=Belligerents|combatant1=&#039;&#039;&#039;Big Four&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{icon|Flag of the Soviet Union (1924–1955).svg}} [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]] (1941–45)&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The Soviet Union officially remained neutral at the beginning of the war, having entered [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact|a non-aggression treaty with Germany]] in August 1939. During this time, it invaded and occupied (in whole or in part) [[Soviet invasion of Poland|Poland]], [[Soviet occupation of the Baltic states|the Baltic states]], [[Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina|Romania]], and [[Winter War|Finland]]. It also provided China with limited military aid in its war against Japan under the [[Sino–Soviet Non-Aggression Pact]] until [[Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact|April 1941]]. The [[Reich Foreign Office|German Foreign Office]] briefly flirted with [[Four Power Pact (Axis)|the idea of an alliance with the Soviet Union]], but these plans were never realised due to ideological differences, exorbitant Soviet demands, and Germany&#039;s need for &#039;&#039;[[Lebensraum]]&#039;&#039;. The U.S.S.R. only joined the Allies in June 1941, when Germany launched [[Operation Barbarossa|its attack on that country]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{icon|ROC flag.png}} [[Republic of China|China]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{icon|Flag of the United States.svg}} [[United States of America|United States]] (1941–45)&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The United States likewise was neutral for the first three years of the conflict, [[United States Congress|its congress]] having passed [[Neutrality Acts of the 1930s|several laws]] limiting the country&#039;s ability to involve itself in foreign conflicts. A sizeable segment of the Statesian public was [[isolationism|isolationist]] or pro-German in sentiment, and the [[United States Armed Forces|military]] had remained stagnant in strength since the end of the Great War. Despite these constraints, [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Roosevelt]]&#039;s government still managed to furnish limited support for the Allies (e.g. [[Cash and carry (World War II)|cash and carry]], [[Lend lease|lend lease]], the [[Allied occupation of Iceland|occupation of Iceland]], and the [[destroyers-for-bases deal]]) while taking measures to limit Axis expansion (e.g. the [[Export Control Act]]). German U-boats, aiming to cut Britain off from Allied supply lines, began sinking neutral Statesian merchant ships, culminating in the U.S. unofficially entering [[Battle of the Atlantic|the Atlantic naval war]] in September 1941. On 7 December, [[Attack on Pearl Harbor|Japan attacked the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor]] before [[Imperial edict of declaration of war by the Empire of Japan on the United States and the British Empire|declaring war on the country 7 hours later]]. In retaliation, the U.S. government [[United States declaration of war on Japan|formally declared war on Japan the day after]]. Three days after that, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{icon|Flag of the United Kingdom.svg}} [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|United Kingdom]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{Collapsible list&lt;br /&gt;
|title = Other [[Allies of World War II|Allied powers]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Communist Party of China]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Second Polish Republic]] (1939)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Czechoslovak government-in-exile]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Third French Republic]] and colonies (until 1940)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Mongolian People&#039;s Republic]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Tuvan People&#039;s Republic]] (until 1944)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Kingdom of Denmark]] (1940)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Kingdom of Norway]] (1940)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Kingdom of the Netherlands]] (1940)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Grand Duchy of Luxembourg]] (1940)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Kingdom of Belgium]] (1940)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Free France]] (1940-1944)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Ethiopian government-in-exile]] (from 1940)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Kingdom of Greece]] (1940-1941)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Kingdom of Yugoslavia]] (1941; switched sides)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Republic of Philippines]] (from 1941)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Federative Republic of Brazil]] (from 1941)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[United States of Mexico]] (from 1941)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Kingdom of Italy]] (from 1943; switched sides)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Kingdom of Romania]] (from 1944; switched sides)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Kingdom of Bulgaria]] (from 1944; switched sides)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Republic of Finland]] (from 1944; switched sides)&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|combatant1a=Various resistance-held territories and militias:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Republic of Užice]] (1941)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Republic of Bihać]] (1942-1943)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Republic of Poland (1944)|Republic of Poland]] (from 1944)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Political Committee of National Liberation]] (1944)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Yugoslav Partisans]] (from 1941)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[National Liberation Front (Greece)|EAM]] (from 1941)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[National Republican Greek League|EDES]] (from 1941)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Various others|combatant2=&#039;&#039;&#039;Main [[Axis powers]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{icon|German Nazi Flag.png}} [[German Reich (1933–1945)|Nazi Germany]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{icon|Kingdom of Italy flag.png}} [[Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)|Fascist Italy]] (1940–43)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{icon|Flag of Japan (1870–1999).svg.png}} [[Empire of Japan (1868–1947)|Imperial Japan]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{Collapsible list&lt;br /&gt;
|title = Other Axis powers&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Albania (1939–1943).svg.png}} [[Kingdom of Albania (1939–1944)|Albania]] (1940–44)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.svg.png}} [[Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (1939–1945)|Bohemia and Moravia]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Bulgarian flag.png}} [[Tsardom of Bulgaria (1908–1946)|Bulgaria]] (1941–44)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Burma 1943.svg.png}} [[State of Burma (1943–1945)|Burma]] (1943–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Croatia (1941–1945).svg.png}} [[Independent State of Croatia (1941–1945)|Croatia]] (1941–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Finland.svg}} [[Republic of Finland|Finland]] (1939–40; 1941–44)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Though Finland only formally joined the Axis powers in 1941, it had pursued a pro-German policy since [[Independence of Finland|its independence]] and fought [[Winter War|a war against the Soviets from 1939 to 1940]]. In addition, from 1940 to 1944, [[transit of German troops through Finland and Sweden|Finland allowed German troops to move through its territory]] in preparation for the war with the Soviet Union.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|1931 Flag of India.svg.png}} [[Provisional Government of Free India (1943–1945)|Free India]] (1943–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Greece (1822-1978).svg.png}} [[Hellenic State (1941–1944)|Hellenic State]] (1941–44)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Old Hungarian flag.png}} [[Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946)|Hungary]] (1941–45)&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;This was briefly interrupted on 15 October 1944 when, upon learning that the Hungarian leadership was seeking an armistice with the Soviet Union, Germany initiated [[Operation Panzerfaust]], deposing [[Horthy Miklós|Horthy&#039;s]] government in a coup and installing the more fervently pro-German [[Government of National Unity (Hungary)|Government of National Unity]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Italy.svg}} [[Italian Social Republic (1943–1945)|Italian Social Republic]] (1943–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Cambodia (1863–1948).svg.png}} [[Kingdom of Kampuchea (1945)|Kampuchea]] (1945)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of the Kingdom of Luang Phrabang (1707-1893).svg.png}} [[Kingdom of Luang Phrabang (1945)|Luang Phrabang]] (1945)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Russian Liberation People&#039;s Army.svg.png}} [[Lokot Autonomy (1941–1944)|Lokot Autonomy]] (1941–44)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Manchukuo.svg}} [[Empire of Great Manchuria (1932–1945)|Manchukuo]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of the Mengjiang.svg.png}} [[Mongol Autonomous Union (1939–1945)|Mengjiang]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of the Philippines.svg}} [[Republic of the Philippines (1943–1945)|Philippines]] (1943–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of China (1912–1928).svg.png}} [[Provisional Government of the Republic of China (1937–1940)|Provisional Government of the Republic of China]] (1937–40)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of China (1912–1928).svg.png}} [[Reformed Government of the Republic of China (1938–1940)|Reformed Government of the Republic of China]] (1938–40)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Romania.png}} [[Kingdom of Romania (1881–1947|Romania]] (1941–44)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Slovakia (1939–1945).svg.png}} [[Slovak Republic (1939–1945)|Slovakia]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Thailand.svg}} [[Kingdom of Thailand|Thailand]] (1941–45)&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Although Thailand never formally acceded to the Tripartite Pact, it did enter a military alliance with Japan following [[Japanese invasion of Thailand|a brief conflict]], declaring war on Britain and the United States.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of the Empire of Vietnam (1945).svg.png}} [[Empire of Vietnam (1945)|Vietnam]] (1945)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of France.svg}} [[French State (1940–1944)|Vichy France]] (1940–44)&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Though Vichy officially maintained a position of neutrality during the war and never formally joined the Axis powers, it was for all intents and purposes a German puppet government.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|ROC flag.png}} [[Reorganised National Government of the Republic of China (1940–1945)|Wang Jingwei regime]] (1940–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Yugoslavia (1918–1941).svg.png}} [[Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918–1941)|Yugoslavia]] (1941)&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Under intense pressure from neighbouring states, the Yugoslavian Foreign Minister reluctantly signed the Tripartite Pact on 25 March 1941 on the condition that the Axis powers would not request military assistance from nor permission to transport troops across Yugoslavia. The country did not join the war however. Shortly thereafter on 27 March, the government of Prince [[Paul Karađorđević]] was overthrown by pro-British [[Royal Yugoslav Air Force|Air Force]] officers in [[1941 Yugoslav coup d&#039;état|a military coup]], triggering [[Invasion of Yugoslavia|the Axis invasion of the country]] 10 days later.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Zuyev Republic (1941–1944)|Zuyev Republic]] (1941–44)}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Collapsible list&lt;br /&gt;
|title = &#039;&#039;&#039;Military support&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Finland.svg}} Finland (1940–44)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Though Finland only formally joined the Axis powers in 1941, it had pursued a pro-German policy since [[Independence of Finland|its independence]] and fought [[Winter War|a war against the Soviets from 1939 to 1940]]. In addition, from 1940 to 1944, [[transit of German troops through Finland and Sweden|Finland allowed German troops to move through its territory]] in preparation for the war with the Soviet Union.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Spain (1938–1945).svg.png}} [[Spanish State (1936–1975)|Francoist Spain]] (1941–44)&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The Spanish government aided Germany in its war against the Soviet Union, raising the so-called &amp;quot;[[Blue Division]]&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;[[Blue Squadron]]&amp;quot; in 1941. These units fought in several battles alongside Axis troops, most notably the [[siege of Leningrad]]. The country only withdrew its support in 1943–44 due to Western Allied pressure.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Sweden.svg}} [[Kingdom of Sweden|Sweden]] (1940–43)&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Sweden allowed German troops to move through its territory in preparation for the war with the Soviet Union.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Collapsible list&lt;br /&gt;
|title = &#039;&#039;&#039;Governments-in-exile&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Armenian National Council (1942)|Armenian National Council]] (1942–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Belarus (1918, 1991–1995).svg.png}} [[Belarusian Central Council]]  (1944–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Bulgaria.svg}} [[Bulgarian National Government-in-exile|Bulgarian government-in-exile]] (1944–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Montenegro (1905–1918, 1941–1944).svg.png}} [[Montenegrin State Council]] (1944–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Romanian National Government (1944–1945)|Romanian National Government]] (1944–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of France.svg}} [[Sigmaringen enclave]] (1944–45)}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Collapsible list&lt;br /&gt;
|title = &#039;&#039;&#039;Paramilitary groups&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of the Chetniks.svg.png}} [[Chetniks]] (1941–45)&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The Chetniks were nominally a group formed to fight the Axis occupation of their country with Western Allied support. However, their will to resist was easily shattered via harsh German reprisals against Serbian civilians. Their [[genocide|genocidal]] [[anti-communism|anti-communist]] beliefs also quickly drew them into conflict with other resistance groups (namely [[Yugoslav Partisans|the Partisans]]), and they eventually scrapped their plans for liberation, choosing instead to collaborate with the invaders (in [[Black Chetniks|some cases]], as early as 1941), destroy the communists, and create the conditions for a Serbian ethnostate.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Montenegro (1905–1918).svg.png}} [[Greens (Montenegro)|Montenegrin Greens]] (1941–43)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Organisation X.png}} [[Organisation X]] (1942–44)&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Roman Legion (1941–1943)|Roman Legion]] (1941–43)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Russia.svg}} [[Russian Protective Corps]] (1941–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Islam creciente.png}} [[Sandžak Muslim militia|Sandžak militia]] (1941–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Serbian State Guard.svg.png}} [[Serbian State Guard]] (1942–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|SerbianVolunteerCorpsBadge.png}} [[Serbian Volunteer Corps (World War II)|Serbian Volunteer Corps]] (1941–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of the Slovene Home Guard.svg.png}} [[Slovene Home Guard]] (1943–45)&lt;br /&gt;
}}|place=[[List of theatres and campaigns of the Second World War|Global]]|image=Photo collage of World War II.png|caption=From left-to-right, top-to-bottom: {{Flatlist|&lt;br /&gt;
* German and Soviet officers [[German military parade at Brest|shaking hands at Brest]], 1939&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] visiting [[Paris]], 1940&lt;br /&gt;
* A &#039;&#039;[[Luftwaffe]]&#039;&#039; bomber flying over [[London]], 1940&lt;br /&gt;
* U.S. ships surrounded by billows of smoke at [[Battle of Pearl Harbor|Pearl Harbor]], 1941&lt;br /&gt;
* A Soviet officer urging his unit to attack, 1942&lt;br /&gt;
* U.S. troops [[Normandy landings|landing on Omaha Beach]], 1944&lt;br /&gt;
* A Soviet soldier raising his flag over the [[Reichstag building|&#039;&#039;Reichstag&#039;&#039;]], 1945&lt;br /&gt;
* The [[Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki|atomic bombing of Nagasaki]], 1945&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
|commander1=|image_size=200px|commander2=&#039;&#039;&#039;Main Axis leaders&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{icon|German Nazi Flag.png}} [[Adolf Hitler]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{icon|Kingdom of Italy flag.png}} [[Benito Mussolini]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{icon|Flag of Japan (1870–1999).svg.png}} [[Hirohito]] {{Collapsible list&lt;br /&gt;
|title = Other Axis leaders&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|German Nazi Flag.png}} [[Joseph Goebbels]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|German Nazi Flag.png}} [[Karl Dönitz]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|German Nazi Flag.png}} [[Lutz Graf Schwerin von Krosigk|Lutz von Krosigk]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Kingdom of Italy flag.png}} [[Victor Emmanuel III]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Japan (1870–1999).svg.png}} [[Hiranuma Kiichirō]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Japan (1870–1999).svg.png}} [[Konoe Fumimaro]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Japan (1870–1999).svg.png}} [[Tōjō Hideki]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Japan (1870–1999).svg.png}} [[Koiso Kuniaki]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
}}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Raising Soviet flag over the Reichstag.png|thumb|The [[Workers&#039; and Peasants&#039; Red Army|Red Army]] raising the [[Flag of the Soviet Union|Soviet flag]] over the Reichstag on 2 May 1945, six days before [[German Reich (1933–1945)|Germany]] surrendered]]&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;World War II&#039;&#039;&#039;, also known as the &#039;&#039;&#039;Second World War&#039;&#039;&#039;, was a global armed conflict which was waged from 1 September 1939 to 2 September 1945. With an estimated total of 50–85 million people dead, it is unanimously considered the deadliest conflict in human history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Background ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Rise of fascism ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Adolf Hitler]] took power in Germany in 1933. [[Francisco Franco]] launched a coup against the [[Spanish Republic (1931–1939)|Second Spanish Republic]] in 1936, leading to a [[Spanish Civil War|civil war]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=John Ross|newspaper=[[Tricontinental]]|title=The United States Is Waging a New Cold War: A Socialist Perspective|date=2022-09-13|url=https://thetricontinental.org/the-united-states-is-waging-a-new-cold-war-a-socialist-perspective/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221104225555/https://thetricontinental.org/the-united-states-is-waging-a-new-cold-war-a-socialist-perspective/|archive-date=2022-11-04|retrieved=2022-11-19}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)|Italy]] and Germany supported the Spanish [[Fascism|fascists]] while [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|Britain]] and [[French Republic (1870–1940)|France]] stayed neutral. Japan and Germany signed the [[Anti-Comintern Pact]] in 1936, and Italy joined soon after.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:185–90&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fascist expansion ===&lt;br /&gt;
Following the [[Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)|Italian]] invasion of [[Ethiopian Empire|Ethiopia]] in 1935, the USSR proposed a collective security system for Europe and signed defense treaties with France and [[Czechoslovak Republic (1918–1938)|Czechoslovakia]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:185–7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Fascist [[Empire of Japan (1868–1947)|Japan]] invaded northeast [[Republic of China|China]] in 1931 while the ruling [[Kuomintang]] focused on fighting the [[Communist Party of China|Communists]] instead of the Japanese invaders.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Italy occupied and colonized [[Ethiopian Empire|Ethiopia]] in 1935. Germany annexed [[Federal State of Austria|Austria]] in March 1938 after announcing a supposed communist uprising. In May, Germany annexed part of [[Czechoslovak Republic (1918–1938)|Czechoslovakia]] with support from the West.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:185–90&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Attempted anti-fascist alliance ===&lt;br /&gt;
In March 1939 after Germany annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia, the USSR tried to organize an [[Anti-fascism|anti-fascist]] alliance with France and the UK. From June to August, the British secretly met with the Nazis and agreed to allow Germany to invade Eastern Europe in exchange for guaranteeing the integrity of the British Empire. The USSR also proposed a defense agreement with [[Republic of Poland (1918–1939)|Poland]], but Poland refused, and the USSR signed a [[Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|non-aggression pact]] with Germany on 23 August 1939.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:185–90&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Class character ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Second World War casualties graph.svg|thumb|Graph showing the percentage of casualties in WWII, showing how the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] was directly affected as a result of imperialist war against [[socialism]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
The character of the war is subject to some contention due to the factor of the [[Socialism|socialist]] [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] as a participant, unlike the [[World War I|First World War]] which was characterised as an [[Imperialism|imperialist]] war for the [[Colonialism|redivision of the world]] among the &#039;great powers&#039; where [[capitalism]] had reached its [[Imperialism|monopoly stage]]. During the period from the invasion of Poland in September 1939 to the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, the [[Communist International|Comintern]] designated the war as a second [[imperialist war]] and did not co-operate with their respective [[Bourgeoisie|bourgeois]] [[Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie|governments]] and then seemingly reversed their position, something which they are highly maligned for.{{Citation needed}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|British]] [[Communist Party of Great Britain|Communist]] [[Rajani Palme Dutt]] clarified that the entry of the Soviet Union only augmented the &#039;anti-fascist, [[National liberation war|liberating]] character&#039; of the war.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Rajani Palme Dutt|year=2005|title=On the Character of the Second World War|chapter=|page=|quote=|pdf=|city=|publisher=On the 60th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany|isbn=|doi=|lg=|mia=|title-url=https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n1/dutt.htm|chapter-url=|trans-title=|trans-lang=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The fascist invasions culminated in more than 30 million casualties in Europe, and more than 61 million worldwide. The war consisted of a [[reactionary]] phase when the ruling classes appeased fascism and did not co-operate with the Soviet struggle for self-determination and then the phase of the united struggle of the peoples against fascism when the Great Alliance was formed in 1941.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Asia-Pacific theatre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Northeast Asia ===&lt;br /&gt;
Japan began its colonial expansion before the outbreak of the war. It invaded Manchuria in 1931 and reached the Soviet border, provoking fears of war.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=Stalin and the anti-fascist war|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:185–90&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; In 1932, [[Kim Il-sung]] founded a guerrilla army to resist the occupation of [[Korea]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Stephen Gowans|year=2018|title=Patriots, Traitors and Empires: The Story of Korea’s Struggle for Freedom|chapter=The Patriot|page=66–72|pdf=https://ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaced4iiga4ngtxusr2civjxewbili5jne2sbpefbx2s3im2kphattzc?filename=Stephen%20Gowans%20-%20Patriots%2C%20Traitors%20and%20Empires_%20The%20Story%20of%20Korea%E2%80%99s%20Struggle%20for%20Freedom-Baraka%20Books%20%282018%29.pdf|city=Montreal|publisher=Baraka Books|isbn=9781771861427|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=8435F6FF91279531705764823FDC2A7F}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The USSR signed a mutual defense agreement with [[Mongolian People&#039;s Republic (1924–1992)|Mongolia]] in 1934. Mongolia&#039;s military spending grew from 34.7% of the state budget in 1934 to 52.5% in 1938, and the term of military service increased from two to three years. In 1938, Japan attacked the Soviet Union at Lake Khasan and tried to capture Vladivostok.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:032&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=A. A. Guber, et al.|year=1973|title=History of the Mongolian People&#039;s Republic|title-url=https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheMPR/page/n160/mode/1up|chapter=The Mongolian People in the Fight for Development on Non-Capitalist Lines|page=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:344–6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to repeated Japanese border attacks, Mongolia requested Soviet troops to return in 1937. Japanese aggression increased in early 1939, and Japan launched a full invasion on 1939 May 11. The [[Mongolian People&#039;s Army|People&#039;s Army]] fought them at the Halkhin River on May 28 and surrounded them with support from the Soviet Red Army in August. Japan lost 60,000 soldiers (killed or wounded), 700 planes, 340 machine guns, and 12,000 rifles. A peace treaty signed in [[Moscow]] took effect on September 15.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0322&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=A. A. Guber, et al.|year=1973|title=History of the Mongolian People&#039;s Republic|title-url=https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheMPR/page/n160/mode/1up|chapter=The Mongolian People in the Fight for Development on Non-Capitalist Lines|page=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:349–50&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On 8 August 1945, exactly three months after Germany surrendered, the Soviet Union sent troops into [[Empire of (Great) Manchuria|Manchuria]] and Korea to oust the Japanese colonizers.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:12&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Pacific Ocean ===&lt;br /&gt;
Japan attacked [[United States of America|U.S.]] forces at Pearl Harbor in [[Hawaii]] in 1941 and then colonized [[Indonesia]], the [[Philippines]], [[Malaya]], and [[New Guinea]] while the USA was recovering.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:12&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; The USA fought an island-hopping campaign and gradually moved towards Japan. Up to 140,000 people, mostly civilians died in [[Okinawa Prefecture|Okinawa]] during the U.S. invasion.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02222&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=David Vine|year=2020|title=The United States of War|chapter=Empire of Bases|page=247–8|city=Oakland|publisher=University of California Press|isbn=9780520972070|lg=http://library.lol/main/191568BFAC73F009132DB00ECD0F0F05}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The United States used [[Nuclear weapon|atomic bombs]] against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, killing 443,000 civilians.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02233232&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=From Stalin to Khrushchev|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=242–244}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== European theatre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Poland ===&lt;br /&gt;
Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939, beginning the European theatre of the war. The Soviet Union forced Germany not to cross the Thasse, Narew, Bug, or Vistula rivers. Following the invasion, France and Britain declared war on Germany but did not actually begin fighting yet.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:185–90&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; The Nazis used 80% of their strength on the Eastern Front, where they lost over three million soldiers.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:05&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Austin Murphy|year=2000|title=The Triumph of Evil|chapter=A Detailed Autopsy of the Collapse of the Superior System in the Divided Germany|page=113|pdf=https://mltheory.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/austin-murphy-the-triumph-of-evil.pdf|city=Fucecchio|publisher=European Press Academic Publishing|isbn=8883980026}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Winter War ===&lt;br /&gt;
Though not yet directly involved in the war in late-1939, there were strong fascist and pro-Nazi elements in [[Republic of Finland|Finland]], and the Soviet government was concerned that at some point or another, Finland might align itself with Nazi Germany, leading Germany to launch an invasion of the Soviet Union from Finland (as the Finnish border was a mere 32 km away from the major port city of [[St. Petersburg|Leningrad]], and the capture of Leningrad could have had disastrous effects for the Soviet Union).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to these concerns, the Soviet government sent a message to the Finnish government on 14 October 1939, asking for Finland to cede the Port of Hanko, the Karelian Isthmus, and four islands to the USSR.  This would have effectively given the Soviets naval superiority in the [[Baltic Sea]] and made it much more difficult for the Germans to send troops to Finland by boat.  In exchange, the Soviets offered Finland a portion of [[Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic (1940–1956)|Karelia]] twice the size of all the other areas combined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finland refused however, and on 30 November, the Soviets invaded Finland following the [[Shelling of Mainila]], a false flag operation conducted by the [[People&#039;s Commissariat for Internal Affairs|NKVD]]. Britain, France, Italy, and the United States sent a total of 700 planes, 1,500 cannons, and 6,000 machine guns to Finland.  France and Britain also sent 150,000 soldiers to Finland, but Finland [[Moscow Peace Treaty|sued for peace in March 1940]], before the Anglo-French troops could arrive.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:185–90&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Western Front ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Nazis invaded Western Europe in May 1940 and began bombing the UK in July. France fell within six weeks. In September 1940, the USA gave 50 old destroyers to the UK in exchange for taking control of British bases in the [[Americas]]. The bases were located in eight British colonies: [[Antigua and Barbuda|Antigua]], the [[Commonwealth of The Bahamas|Bahamas]], [[Bermuda]], [[Co-operative Republic of Guyana|Guiana]], [[Jamaica]], [[Newfoundland]], and [[Saint Lucia]], and [[Republic of Trinidad and Tobago|Trinidad]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0222&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=David Vine|year=2020|title=The United States of War|chapter=Reopening the Frontier|page=|city=Oakland|publisher=University of California Press|isbn=9780520972070|lg=http://library.lol/main/191568BFAC73F009132DB00ECD0F0F05}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:223–4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; The U.S. bases prevented Germany from colonizing the Caribbean, [[Iceland]], or [[Greenland]] after it took over France, the [[Kingdom of the Netherlands|Netherlands]], and [[Kingdom of Denmark|Denmark]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0222&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:235&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The USA created the [[Lend-Lease]] program to give military aid to at least thirty countries, starting with the UK. [[Republic of China|China]], [[Hellenic Republic|Greece]], [[Kingdom of Norway|Norway]], and the Soviet Union later joined the program.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0222&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:237&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Eastern Front ===&lt;br /&gt;
Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941. General [[Dmitry Pavlov]]&#039;s incompetence caused the loss of Minsk, the capital of [[Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (1920–1991)|Belarus]], on 28 June, and the Military Council ordered his execution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Battle of Smolensk began on 10 July 1941 and lasted two months, with Germany losing 250,000 soldiers. The Nazis began their final offensive towards [[Moscow]] on 30 September, and 450,000 of the city&#039;s inhabitants mobilized to build fortifications and anti-tank defences. Germany bombed Moscow, but their offensive was defeated in early November. The Nazis attempted a second offensive against Moscow on 15 November and occupied some of its southern suburbs but were defeated on 5 December, and the Red Army began a counteroffensive of 720,000 soldiers that pushed 800,000 Nazi soldiers back 100 to 300 km.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Red Army failed to liberate [[Crimea]] in April 1942, and the Nazis counterattacked on 8 May. In May 1942, [[Aleksandr Vasilevsky]], a former assistant to [[Georgy Zhukov|Zhukov]], became Chief of Staff. [[Konstantin Rokossovsky]] became the commander of the Bryansk front in July. On 23 August 1942, 1,000 German planes began bombing Stalingrad and set the city on fire.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:224–31&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Red Army entered [[Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946)|Hungary]] on 23 August 1944, and Hungary&#039;s fascist leader [[Horthy]] expected the West to support him against the Soviets.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02233232&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Middle Eastern theatre ==&lt;br /&gt;
In late 1939, French General [[Maxime Weygand]] went to [[Syrian Arab Republic|Syria]] and [[Republic of Turkey|Turkey]] to prepare an attack against the Soviet Union and planned to bomb the Baku oilfields.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:185–90&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; The United States used North Africa to transport cargo by air to Cairo. 65,000 U.S. troops and civilians in [[Islamic Republic of Iran|Iran]] and nearby countries transported supplies to the Soviet Union.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02222&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwGzY25TNHPC_SsXFcIH-ba0nWuNbHOM6 Soviet Storm: WW2 in the East docuseries]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Notes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:World wars]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=World_War_II&amp;diff=87444</id>
		<title>World War II</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=World_War_II&amp;diff=87444"/>
		<updated>2025-10-10T05:37:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Infobox military conflict|conflict=World War II|date=[[German invasion of Poland|1 September 1939]]&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Other dates for the beginning of the war have been proposed, such as [[Marco Polo Bridge incident|7 July 1937]], [[De Bono&#039;s offensive|3 October 1935]], and [[Mukden incident|18 September 1931]]. Also, some observers (e.g. [[Winston Churchill|Churchill]] and [[Charles de Gaulle|de Gaulle]]) held to the view that both World Wars were in reality one singular conflict, a [[Second Thirty Years&#039; War]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; – [[Japanese Instrument of Surrender|2 September 1945]]&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;This date, too, is disputed. [[Hirohito]] delivered his [[Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the Greater East Asia War|surrender broadcast]] to the Japanese nation on 15 August 1945, though [[Japanese Instrument of Surrender|Japan only formally surrendered on 2 September 1945]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Many soldiers continued fighting even after the war officially ended. In [[Central Europe|Central]] and [[Eastern Europe]], local anti-communist forces waged [[Anti-communist insurgencies in Central and Eastern Europe|guerrilla wars against their governments well into the 1950s]]. Thousands of Japanese soldiers stationed across [[Asia]] and the [[Pacific Ocean|Pacific]] likewise [[Japanese holdouts|remained at war]] for decades.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;A formal peace treaty between [[Russian Federation|Russia]] (the legal successor to the Soviet Union) and Japan still has not yet been signed.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;|result=[[Allies of the Second World War|Allied]] victory|status=[[Allies of the Second World War|Allied]] victory|combatants_header=Belligerents|combatant1=&#039;&#039;&#039;Big Four&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{icon|Flag of the Soviet Union (1924–1955).svg}} [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]] (1941–45)&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The Soviet Union officially remained neutral at the beginning of the war, having entered [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact|a non-aggression treaty with Germany]] in August 1939. During this time, it invaded and occupied (in whole or in part) [[Soviet invasion of Poland|Poland]], [[Soviet occupation of the Baltic states|the Baltic states]], [[Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina|Romania]], and [[Winter War|Finland]]. It also provided China with limited military aid in its war against Japan under the [[Sino–Soviet Non-Aggression Pact]] until [[Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact|April 1941]]. The [[Reich Foreign Office|German Foreign Office]] briefly flirted with [[Four Power Pact (Axis)|the idea of an alliance with the Soviet Union]], but these plans were never realised due to ideological differences, exorbitant Soviet demands, and Germany&#039;s need for &#039;&#039;[[Lebensraum]]&#039;&#039;. The U.S.S.R. only joined the Allies in June 1941, when Germany launched [[Operation Barbarossa|its attack on that country]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{icon|ROC flag.png}} [[Republic of China|China]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{icon|Flag of the United States.svg}} [[United States of America|United States]] (1941–45)&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The United States likewise was neutral for the first three years of the conflict, [[United States Congress|its congress]] having passed [[Neutrality Acts of the 1930s|several laws]] limiting the country&#039;s ability to involve itself in foreign conflicts. A sizeable segment of the Statesian public was [[isolationism|isolationist]] or pro-German in sentiment, and the [[United States Armed Forces|military]] had remained stagnant in strength since the end of the Great War. Despite these constraints, [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Roosevelt]]&#039;s government still managed to furnish limited support for the Allies (e.g. [[Cash and carry (World War II)|cash and carry]], [[Lend lease|lend lease]], the [[Allied occupation of Iceland|occupation of Iceland]], and the [[destroyers-for-bases deal]]) while taking measures to limit Axis expansion (e.g. the [[Export Control Act]]). German U-boats, aiming to cut Britain off from Allied supply lines, began sinking neutral Statesian merchant ships, culminating in the U.S. unofficially entering [[Battle of the Atlantic|the Atlantic naval war]] in September 1941. On 7 December, [[Attack on Pearl Harbor|Japan attacked the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor]] before [[Imperial edict of declaration of war by the Empire of Japan on the United States and the British Empire|declaring war on the country 7 hours later]]. In retaliation, the U.S. government [[United States declaration of war on Japan|formally declared war on Japan the day after]]. Three days after that, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{icon|Flag of the United Kingdom.svg}} [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|United Kingdom]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{Collapsible list&lt;br /&gt;
|title = Other [[Allies of World War II|Allied powers]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Communist Party of China]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Second Polish Republic]] (1939)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Czechoslovak government-in-exile]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Third French Republic]] and colonies (until 1940)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Mongolian People&#039;s Republic]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Tuvan People&#039;s Republic]] (until 1944)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Kingdom of Denmark]] (1940)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Kingdom of Norway]] (1940)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Kingdom of the Netherlands]] (1940)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Grand Duchy of Luxembourg]] (1940)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Kingdom of Belgium]] (1940)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Free France]] (1940-1944)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Ethiopian government-in-exile]] (from 1940)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Kingdom of Greece]] (1940-1941)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Kingdom of Yugoslavia]] (1941; switched sides)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Republic of Philippines]] (from 1941)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Federative Republic of Brazil]] (from 1941)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[United States of Mexico]] (from 1941)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Kingdom of Italy]] (from 1943; switched sides)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Kingdom of Romania]] (from 1944; switched sides)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Kingdom of Bulgaria]] (from 1944; switched sides)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Republic of Finland]] (from 1944; switched sides)&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|combatant1a=Various resistance-held territories and militias:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Republic of Užice]] (1941)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Republic of Bihać]] (1942-1943)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Republic of Poland (1944)|Republic of Poland]] (from 1944)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Political Committee of National Liberation]] (1944)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Yugoslav Partisans]] (from 1941)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[National Liberation Front (Greece)|EAM]] (from 1941)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[National Republican Greek League|EDES]] (from 1941)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Various others|combatant2=&#039;&#039;&#039;Main [[Axis powers]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{icon|German Nazi Flag.png}} [[German Reich (1933–1945)|Nazi Germany]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{icon|Kingdom of Italy flag.png}} [[Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)|Fascist Italy]] (1940–43)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{icon|Flag of Japan (1870–1999).svg.png}} [[Empire of Japan (1868–1947)|Imperial Japan]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{Collapsible list&lt;br /&gt;
|title = Other Axis powers&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Albania (1939–1943).svg.png}} [[Kingdom of Albania (1939–1944)|Albania]] (1940–44)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.svg.png}} [[Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (1939–1945)|Bohemia and Moravia]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Bulgarian flag.png}} [[Tsardom of Bulgaria (1908–1946)|Bulgaria]] (1941–44)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Burma 1943.svg.png}} [[State of Burma (1943–1945)|Burma]] (1943–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Croatia (1941–1945).svg.png}} [[Independent State of Croatia (1941–1945)|Croatia]] (1941–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Finland.svg}} [[Republic of Finland|Finland]] (1939–40; 1941–44)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Though Finland only formally joined the Axis powers in 1941, it had pursued a pro-German policy since [[Independence of Finland|its independence]] and fought [[Winter War|a war against the Soviets from 1939 to 1940]]. In addition, from 1940 to 1944, [[transit of German troops through Finland and Sweden|Finland allowed German troops to move through its territory]] in preparation for the war with the Soviet Union.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|1931 Flag of India.svg.png}} [[Provisional Government of Free India (1943–1945)|Free India]] (1943–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Greece (1822-1978).svg.png}} [[Hellenic State (1941–1944)|Hellenic State]] (1941–44)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Old Hungarian flag.png}} [[Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946)|Hungary]] (1941–45)&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;This was briefly interrupted on 15 October 1944 when, upon learning that the Hungarian leadership was seeking an armistice with the Soviet Union, Germany initiated [[Operation Panzerfaust]], deposing [[Horthy Miklós|Horthy&#039;s]] government in a coup and installing the more fervently pro-German [[Government of National Unity (Hungary)|Government of National Unity]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Italy.svg}} [[Italian Social Republic (1943–1945)|Italian Social Republic]] (1943–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Cambodia (1863–1948).svg.png}} [[Kingdom of Kampuchea (1945)|Kampuchea]] (1945)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of the Kingdom of Luang Phrabang (1707-1893).svg.png}} [[Kingdom of Luang Phrabang (1945)|Luang Phrabang]] (1945)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Russian Liberation People&#039;s Army.svg.png}} [[Lokot Autonomy (1941–1944)|Lokot Autonomy]] (1941–44)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Manchukuo.svg}} [[Empire of Great Manchuria (1932–1945)|Manchukuo]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of the Mengjiang.svg.png}} [[Mongol Autonomous Union (1939–1945)|Mengjiang]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of the Philippines.svg}} [[Republic of the Philippines (1943–1945)|Philippines]] (1943–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of China (1912–1928).svg.png}} [[Provisional Government of the Republic of China (1937–1940)|Provisional Government of the Republic of China]] (1937–40)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of China (1912–1928).svg.png}} [[Reformed Government of the Republic of China (1938–1940)|Reformed Government of the Republic of China]] (1938–40)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Romania.png}} [[Kingdom of Romania (1881–1947|Romania]] (1941–44)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Slovakia (1939–1945).svg.png}} [[Slovak Republic (1939–1945)|Slovakia]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Thailand.svg}} [[Kingdom of Thailand|Thailand]] (1941–45)&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Although Thailand never formally acceded to the Tripartite Pact, it did enter a military alliance with Japan following [[Japanese invasion of Thailand|a brief conflict]], declaring war on Britain and the United States.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of the Empire of Vietnam (1945).svg.png}} [[Empire of Vietnam (1945)|Vietnam]] (1945)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of France.svg}} [[French State (1940–1944)|Vichy France]] (1940–44)&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Though Vichy officially maintained a position of neutrality during the war and never formally joined the Axis powers, it was for all intents and purposes a German puppet government.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|ROC flag.png}} [[Reorganised National Government of the Republic of China (1940–1945)|Wang Jingwei regime]] (1940–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Yugoslavia (1918–1941).svg.png}} [[Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918–1941)|Yugoslavia]] (1941)&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Under intense pressure from neighbouring states, the Yugoslavian Foreign Minister reluctantly signed the Tripartite Pact on 25 March 1941 on the condition that the Axis powers would not request military assistance from nor permission to transport troops across Yugoslavia. The country did not join the war however. Shortly thereafter on 27 March, the government of Prince [[Paul Karađorđević]] was overthrown by pro-British [[Royal Yugoslav Air Force|Air Force]] officers in [[1941 Yugoslav coup d&#039;état|a military coup]], triggering [[Invasion of Yugoslavia|the Axis invasion of the country]] 10 days later.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Zuyev Republic (1941–1944)|Zuyev Republic]] (1941–44)}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Collapsible list&lt;br /&gt;
|title = &#039;&#039;&#039;Military support&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Finland.svg}} Finland (1940–44)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Though Finland only formally joined the Axis powers in 1941, it had pursued a pro-German policy since [[Independence of Finland|its independence]] and fought [[Winter War|a war against the Soviets from 1939 to 1940]]. In addition, from 1940 to 1944, [[transit of German troops through Finland and Sweden|Finland allowed German troops to move through its territory]] in preparation for the war with the Soviet Union.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Spain (1938–1945).svg.png}} [[Spanish State (1936–1975)|Francoist Spain]] (1941–44)&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The Spanish government aided Germany in its war against the Soviet Union, raising the so-called &amp;quot;[[Blue Division]]&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;[[Blue Squadron]]&amp;quot; in 1941. These units fought in several battles alongside Axis troops, most notably the [[siege of Leningrad]]. The country only withdrew its support in 1943–44 due to Western Allied pressure.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Sweden.svg}} [[Kingdom of Sweden|Sweden]] (1940–43)&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Sweden allowed German troops to move through its territory in preparation for the war with the Soviet Union.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Collapsible list&lt;br /&gt;
|title = &#039;&#039;&#039;Governments-in-exile&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Armenian National Council (1942)|Armenian National Council]] (1942–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Belarus (1918, 1991–1995).svg.png}} [[Belarusian Central Council]]  (1944–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Bulgaria.svg}} [[Bulgarian National Government-in-exile|Bulgarian government-in-exile]] (1944–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Montenegro (1905–1918, 1941–1944).svg.png}} [[Montenegrin State Council]] (1944–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Romanian National Government (1944–1945)|Romanian National Government]] (1944–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of France.svg}} [[Sigmaringen enclave]] (1944–45)}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Collapsible list&lt;br /&gt;
|title = &#039;&#039;&#039;Paramilitary groups&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of the Chetniks.svg.png}} [[Chetniks]] (1941–45)&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The Chetniks were nominally a group formed to fight the Axis occupation of their country with Western Allied support. However, their will to resist was easily shattered via harsh German reprisals against Serbian civilians. Their [[genocide|genocidal]] [[anti-communism|anti-communist]] beliefs also quickly drew them into conflict with other resistance groups (namely [[Yugoslav Partisans|the Partisans]]), and they eventually scrapped their plans for liberation, choosing instead to collaborate with the invaders (in [[Black Chetniks|some cases]], as early as 1941), destroy the communists, and create the conditions for a Serbian ethnostate.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Montenegro (1905–1918).svg.png}} [[Greens (Montenegro)|Montenegrin Greens]] (1941–43)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Organisation X.png}} [[Organisation X]] (1942–44)&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Roman Legion (1941–1943)|Roman Legion]] (1941–43)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Russia.svg}} [[Russian Protective Corps]] (1941–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Islam creciente.png}} [[Sandžak Muslim militia|Sandžak militia]] (1941–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Serbian State Guard.svg.png}} [[Serbian State Guard]] (1942–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|SerbianVolunteerCorpsBadge.png}} [[Serbian Volunteer Corps (World War II)|Serbian Volunteer Corps]] (1941–45)&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of the Slovene Home Guard.svg.png}} [[Slovene Home Guard]] (1943–45)&lt;br /&gt;
}}|place=[[List of theatres and campaigns of the Second World War|Global]]|image=Photo collage of World War II.png|caption=From left-to-right, top-to-bottom: {{Flatlist|&lt;br /&gt;
* German and Soviet officers [[German military parade at Brest|shaking hands at Brest]], 1939&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] visiting [[Paris]], 1940&lt;br /&gt;
* A &#039;&#039;[[Luftwaffe]]&#039;&#039; bomber flying over [[London]], 1940&lt;br /&gt;
* U.S. ships surrounded by billows of smoke at [[Battle of Pearl Harbor|Pearl Harbor]], 1941&lt;br /&gt;
* A Soviet officer urging his unit to attack, 1942&lt;br /&gt;
* U.S. troops [[Normandy landings|landing on Omaha Beach]], 1944&lt;br /&gt;
* A Soviet soldier raising his flag over the [[Reichstag building|&#039;&#039;Reichstag&#039;&#039;]], 1945&lt;br /&gt;
* The [[Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki|atomic bombing of Nagasaki]], 1945&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
|commander1=|image_size=200px|commander2=&#039;&#039;&#039;Main Axis leaders&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{icon|German Nazi Flag.png}} [[Adolf Hitler]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{icon|Kingdom of Italy flag.png}} [[Benito Mussolini]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;{{icon|Flag of Japan (1870–1999).svg.png}} [[Hirohito]] {{Collapsible list&lt;br /&gt;
|title = Other Axis leaders&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|German Nazi Flag.png}} [[Joseph Goebbels]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|German Nazi Flag.png}} [[Karl Dönitz]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|German Nazi Flag.png}} [[Lutz Graf Schwerin von Krosigk|Lutz von Krosigk]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Kingdom of Italy flag.png}} [[Victor Emmanuel III]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Japan (1870–1999).svg.png}} [[Hiranuma Kiichirō]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Japan (1870–1999).svg.png}} [[Konoe Fumimaro]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Japan (1870–1999).svg.png}} [[Tōjō Hideki]]&lt;br /&gt;
|{{icon|Flag of Japan (1870–1999).svg.png}} [[Koiso Kuniaki]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
}}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Raising Soviet flag over the Reichstag.png|thumb|The [[Workers&#039; and Peasants&#039; Red Army|Red Army]] raising the [[Flag of the Soviet Union|Soviet flag]] over the Reichstag on 2 May 1945, six days before [[German Reich (1933–1945)|Germany]] surrendered]]&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;World War II&#039;&#039;&#039;, also known as the &#039;&#039;&#039;Second World War&#039;&#039;&#039;, was a global armed conflict which was waged from 1 September 1939 to 2 September 1945. With an estimated total of 50–85 million people dead, it is unanimously considered the deadliest conflict in human history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Background ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Rise of fascism ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Adolf Hitler]] took power in Germany in 1933. [[Francisco Franco]] launched a coup against the [[Spanish Republic (1931–1939)|Second Spanish Republic]] in 1936, leading to a [[Spanish Civil War|civil war]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=John Ross|newspaper=[[Tricontinental]]|title=The United States Is Waging a New Cold War: A Socialist Perspective|date=2022-09-13|url=https://thetricontinental.org/the-united-states-is-waging-a-new-cold-war-a-socialist-perspective/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221104225555/https://thetricontinental.org/the-united-states-is-waging-a-new-cold-war-a-socialist-perspective/|archive-date=2022-11-04|retrieved=2022-11-19}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)|Italy]] and Germany supported the Spanish [[Fascism|fascists]] while [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|Britain]] and [[French Republic (1870–1940)|France]] stayed neutral. Japan and Germany signed the [[Anti-Comintern Pact]] in 1936, and Italy joined soon after.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:185–90&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fascist expansion ===&lt;br /&gt;
Following the [[Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)|Italian]] invasion of [[Ethiopian Empire|Ethiopia]] in 1935, the USSR proposed a collective security system for Europe and signed defense treaties with France and [[Czechoslovak Republic (1918–1938)|Czechoslovakia]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:185–7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Fascist [[Empire of Japan (1868–1947)|Japan]] invaded northeast [[Republic of China|China]] in 1931 while the ruling [[Kuomintang]] focused on fighting the [[Communist Party of China|Communists]] instead of the Japanese invaders.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Italy occupied and colonized [[Ethiopian Empire|Ethiopia]] in 1935. Germany annexed [[Federal State of Austria|Austria]] in March 1938 after announcing a supposed communist uprising. In May, Germany annexed part of [[Czechoslovak Republic (1918–1938)|Czechoslovakia]] with support from the West.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:185–90&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Attempted anti-fascist alliance ===&lt;br /&gt;
In March 1939 after Germany annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia, the USSR tried to organize an [[Anti-fascism|anti-fascist]] alliance with France and the UK. From June to August, the British secretly met with the Nazis and agreed to allow Germany to invade Eastern Europe in exchange for guaranteeing the integrity of the British Empire. The USSR also proposed a defense agreement with [[Republic of Poland (1918–1939)|Poland]], but Poland refused, and the USSR signed a [[Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|non-aggression pact]] with Germany on 23 August 1939.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:185–90&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Class character ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Second World War casualties graph.svg|thumb|Graph showing the percentage of casualties in WWII, showing how the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] was directly affected as a result of imperialist war against [[socialism]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
The character of the war is subject to some contention due to the factor of the [[Socialism|socialist]] [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] as a participant, unlike the [[World War I|First World War]] which was characterised as an [[Imperialism|imperialist]] war for the [[Colonialism|redivision of the world]] among the &#039;great powers&#039; where [[capitalism]] had reached its [[Imperialism|monopoly stage]]. During the period from the invasion of Poland in September 1939 to the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, the [[Communist International|Comintern]] designated the war as a second [[imperialist war]] and did not co-operate with their respective [[Bourgeoisie|bourgeois]] [[Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie|governments]] and then seemingly reversed their position, something which they are highly maligned for.{{Citation needed}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|British]] [[Communist Party of Great Britain|Communist]] [[Rajani Palme Dutt]] clarified that the entry of the Soviet Union only augmented the &#039;anti-fascist, [[National liberation war|liberating]] character&#039; of the war.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Rajani Palme Dutt|year=2005|title=On the Character of the Second World War|chapter=|page=|quote=|pdf=|city=|publisher=On the 60th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany|isbn=|doi=|lg=|mia=|title-url=https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n1/dutt.htm|chapter-url=|trans-title=|trans-lang=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The fascist invasions culminated in more than 30 million casualties in Europe, and more than 61 million worldwide. The war consisted of a [[reactionary]] phase when the ruling classes appeased fascism and did not co-operate with the Soviet struggle for self-determination and then the phase of the united struggle of the peoples against fascism when the Great Alliance was formed in 1941.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Asia-Pacific theatre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Northeast Asia ===&lt;br /&gt;
Japan began its colonial expansion before the outbreak of the war. It invaded Manchuria in 1931 and reached the Soviet border, provoking fears of war.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=Stalin and the anti-fascist war|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:185–90&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; In 1932, [[Kim Il-sung]] founded a guerrilla army to resist the occupation of [[Korea]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Stephen Gowans|year=2018|title=Patriots, Traitors and Empires: The Story of Korea’s Struggle for Freedom|chapter=The Patriot|page=66–72|pdf=https://ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaced4iiga4ngtxusr2civjxewbili5jne2sbpefbx2s3im2kphattzc?filename=Stephen%20Gowans%20-%20Patriots%2C%20Traitors%20and%20Empires_%20The%20Story%20of%20Korea%E2%80%99s%20Struggle%20for%20Freedom-Baraka%20Books%20%282018%29.pdf|city=Montreal|publisher=Baraka Books|isbn=9781771861427|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=8435F6FF91279531705764823FDC2A7F}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The USSR signed a mutual defense agreement with [[Mongolian People&#039;s Republic (1924–1992)|Mongolia]] in 1934. Mongolia&#039;s military spending grew from 34.7% of the state budget in 1934 to 52.5% in 1938, and the term of military service increased from two to three years. In 1938, Japan attacked the Soviet Union at Lake Khasan and tried to capture Vladivostok.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:032&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=A. A. Guber, et al.|year=1973|title=History of the Mongolian People&#039;s Republic|title-url=https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheMPR/page/n160/mode/1up|chapter=The Mongolian People in the Fight for Development on Non-Capitalist Lines|page=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:344–6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to repeated Japanese border attacks, Mongolia requested Soviet troops to return in 1937. Japanese aggression increased in early 1939, and Japan launched a full invasion on 1939 May 11. The [[Mongolian People&#039;s Army|People&#039;s Army]] fought them at the Halkhin River on May 28 and surrounded them with support from the Soviet Red Army in August. Japan lost 60,000 soldiers (killed or wounded), 700 planes, 340 machine guns, and 12,000 rifles. A peace treaty signed in [[Moscow]] took effect on September 15.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0322&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=A. A. Guber, et al.|year=1973|title=History of the Mongolian People&#039;s Republic|title-url=https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheMPR/page/n160/mode/1up|chapter=The Mongolian People in the Fight for Development on Non-Capitalist Lines|page=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:349–50&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On 8 August 1945, exactly three months after Germany surrendered, the Soviet Union sent troops into [[Empire of (Great) Manchuria|Manchuria]] and Korea to oust the Japanese colonizers.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:12&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Pacific Ocean ===&lt;br /&gt;
Japan attacked [[United States of America|U.S.]] forces at Pearl Harbor in [[Hawaii]] in 1941 and then colonized [[Indonesia]], the [[Philippines]], [[Malaya]], and [[New Guinea]] while the USA was recovering.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:12&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; The USA fought an island-hopping campaign and gradually moved towards Japan. Up to 140,000 people, mostly civilians died in [[Okinawa Prefecture|Okinawa]] during the U.S. invasion.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02222&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=David Vine|year=2020|title=The United States of War|chapter=Empire of Bases|page=247–8|city=Oakland|publisher=University of California Press|isbn=9780520972070|lg=http://library.lol/main/191568BFAC73F009132DB00ECD0F0F05}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The United States used [[Nuclear weapon|atomic bombs]] against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, killing 443,000 civilians.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02233232&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=From Stalin to Khrushchev|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=242–244}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== European theatre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Poland ===&lt;br /&gt;
Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939, beginning the European theatre of the war. The Soviet Union forced Germany not to cross the Thasse, Narew, Bug, or Vistula rivers. Following the invasion, France and Britain declared war on Germany but did not actually begin fighting yet.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:185–90&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; The Nazis used 80% of their strength on the Eastern Front, where they lost over three million soldiers.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:05&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Austin Murphy|year=2000|title=The Triumph of Evil|chapter=A Detailed Autopsy of the Collapse of the Superior System in the Divided Germany|page=113|pdf=https://mltheory.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/austin-murphy-the-triumph-of-evil.pdf|city=Fucecchio|publisher=European Press Academic Publishing|isbn=8883980026}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Winter War ===&lt;br /&gt;
Though not yet directly involved in the war in late-1939, there were strong fascist and pro-Nazi elements in [[Republic of Finland|Finland]], and the Soviet government was concerned that at some point or another, Finland might align itself with Nazi Germany, leading Germany to launch an invasion of the Soviet Union from Finland (as the Finnish border was a mere 32 km away from the major port city of [[St. Petersburg|Leningrad]], and the capture of Leningrad could have had disastrous effects for the Soviet Union).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to these concerns, the Soviet government sent a message to the Finnish government on 14 October 1939, asking for Finland to cede the Port of Hanko, the Karelian Isthmus, and four islands to the USSR.  This would have effectively given the Soviets naval superiority in the [[Baltic Sea]] and made it much more difficult for the Germans to send troops to Finland by boat.  In exchange, the Soviets offered Finland a portion of [[Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic (1940–1956)|Karelia]] twice the size of all the other areas combined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finland refused however, and on 30 November, the Soviets invaded Finland following the [[Shelling of Mainila]], a false flag operation conducted by the [[People&#039;s Commissariat for Internal Affairs|NKVD]]. Britain, France, Italy, and the United States sent a total of 700 planes, 1,500 cannons, and 6,000 machine guns to Finland.  France and Britain also sent 150,000 soldiers to Finland, but Finland [[Moscow Peace Treaty|sued for peace in March 1940]], before the Anglo-French troops could arrive.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:185–90&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Western Front ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Nazis invaded Western Europe in May 1940 and began bombing the UK in July. France fell within six weeks. In September 1940, the USA gave 50 old destroyers to the UK in exchange for taking control of British bases in the [[Americas]]. The bases were located in eight British colonies: [[Antigua and Barbuda|Antigua]], the [[Commonwealth of The Bahamas|Bahamas]], [[Bermuda]], [[Co-operative Republic of Guyana|Guiana]], [[Jamaica]], [[Newfoundland]], and [[Saint Lucia]], and [[Republic of Trinidad and Tobago|Trinidad]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0222&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=David Vine|year=2020|title=The United States of War|chapter=Reopening the Frontier|page=|city=Oakland|publisher=University of California Press|isbn=9780520972070|lg=http://library.lol/main/191568BFAC73F009132DB00ECD0F0F05}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:223–4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; The U.S. bases prevented Germany from colonizing the Caribbean, [[Iceland]], or [[Greenland]] after it took over France, the [[Kingdom of the Netherlands|Netherlands]], and [[Kingdom of Denmark|Denmark]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0222&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:235&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The USA created the [[Lend-Lease]] program to give military aid to at least thirty countries, starting with the UK. [[Republic of China|China]], [[Hellenic Republic|Greece]], [[Kingdom of Norway|Norway]], and the Soviet Union later joined the program.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0222&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:237&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Eastern Front ===&lt;br /&gt;
Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941. General [[Dmitry Pavlov]]&#039;s incompetence caused the loss of Minsk, the capital of [[Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (1920–1991)|Belarus]], on 28 June, and the Military Council ordered his execution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Battle of Smolensk began on 10 July 1941 and lasted two months, with Germany losing 250,000 soldiers. The Nazis began their final offensive towards [[Moscow]] on 30 September, and 450,000 of the city&#039;s inhabitants mobilized to build fortifications and anti-tank defences. Germany bombed Moscow, but their offensive was defeated in early November. The Nazis attempted a second offensive against Moscow on 15 November and occupied some of its southern suburbs but were defeated on 5 December, and the Red Army began a counteroffensive of 720,000 soldiers that pushed 800,000 Nazi soldiers back 100 to 300 km.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Red Army failed to liberate [[Crimea]] in April 1942, and the Nazis counterattacked on 8 May. In May 1942, [[Aleksandr Vasilevsky]], a former assistant to [[Georgy Zhukov|Zhukov]], became Chief of Staff. [[Konstantin Rokossovsky]] became the commander of the Bryansk front in July. On 23 August 1942, 1,000 German planes began bombing Stalingrad and set the city on fire.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:224–31&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Red Army entered [[Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946)|Hungary]] on 23 August 1944, and Hungary&#039;s fascist leader [[Horthy]] expected the West to support him against the Soviets.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02233232&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Middle Eastern theatre ==&lt;br /&gt;
In late 1939, French General [[Maxime Weygand]] went to [[Syrian Arab Republic|Syria]] and [[Republic of Turkey|Turkey]] to prepare an attack against the Soviet Union and planned to bomb the Baku oilfields.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;:185–90&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; The United States used North Africa to transport cargo by air to Cairo. 65,000 U.S. troops and civilians in [[Islamic Republic of Iran|Iran]] and nearby countries transported supplies to the Soviet Union.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02222&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwGzY25TNHPC_SsXFcIH-ba0nWuNbHOM6 Soviet Storm: WW2 in the East docuseries]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Notes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:World wars]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:Vietnam:_Setting_the_Moral_Equation&amp;diff=87443</id>
		<title>Library:Vietnam: Setting the Moral Equation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:Vietnam:_Setting_the_Moral_Equation&amp;diff=87443"/>
		<updated>2025-10-10T03:00:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: Created page&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Infobox library work|title=Vietnam: Setting the Moral Equation|author=Howard Zinn|published_date=1966-01-17|published_source=&#039;&#039;[[The Nation]]&#039;&#039;|type=Newspaper article}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Vietnam: Setting the Moral Equation&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is an article by [[United States of America|Statesian]] historian [[Howard Zinn]], published in [[The Nation|&#039;&#039;The Nation&#039;&#039;]] on 17 January 1966.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Text ==&lt;br /&gt;
When those of us who would make an end to the war speak passionately of &amp;quot;the moral issue&amp;quot; in Vietnam, only our friends seem to understand. The government continues to bomb fishing villages, shoot women, disfigure children by fire or explosion, while its policy brings no outcry of opposition from Hubert Humphrey, Oscar Handlin, Max Lerner or millions of others. And we wonder why.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The answer, I suggest, involves the corruption of means, the confusion of ends, the theory of the lesser evil, and the easy reversibility of moral indignation in a species which is aroused to violence by symbols. To explain all this, however, is to get involved in a discussion of dangerous questions, which many people in the protest movement avoid by talking earnestly and vacantly about &amp;quot;morality&amp;quot; in the abstract, or by burrowing energetically into military realities, legal repartee, negotiating positions and the tactics of &amp;quot;broad coalition.&amp;quot; Yet it is only by discussing root questions of means and ends—questions such as violence, revolution and alternative social systems—that we can understand what it means to say there is &amp;quot;a moral issue&amp;quot; in Vietnam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To start with, we ought to recognize the escalation of evil means during this century—a process in which few of us can claim innocence. What Hitler did was to extend the already approved doctrine of indiscriminate mass murder (10 million dead on the battlefields of World War I) to its logical end, and thus stretch further than ever before the limits of the tolerable. By killing one-third of the world&#039;s Jews, the Nazis diminished the horror of any atrocity that was separated by two degrees of fiendishness from theirs. (Discussing with one of my students Hochhuth&#039;s &#039;&#039;The Deputy&#039;&#039;, I asked if we were not all &amp;quot;deputies&amp;quot; today, watching the bombing of Vietnamese villages; she replied, no, because this is not as bad as what Hitler did.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Left still dodges the problem of violent means to achieve just ends. (This is not true of Herbert Marcuse and Barrington Moore in the book they have done with Robert Wolff: &#039;&#039;A Critique of Pure Tolerance&#039;&#039;. But it was so true of the Communists in the United States that the government, in the Smith Act trials, had to distort the facts in order to prove that the Communists would go as far as Thomas Jefferson in the use of revolutionary violence.) To ignore this question, both by avoiding controversy about comparative social systems as ends, and forgoing discussion of violence as a means, is to fail to create a rational basis for moral denunciation of our government&#039;s actions in Vietnam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would start such a discussion from the supposition that it is logically indefensible to hold to an absolutely nonviolent position, because it is at least theoretically conceivable that a small violence might be required to prevent a larger one. Those who are immediately offended by this statement should consider: World War II, the assassination attempt on Hitler; the American, French, Russian, Chinese, Cuban revolutions; possible armed revolt in South Africa; the case of Rhodesia; the Deacons in Louisiana. Keep in mind that many who support the war in Vietnam may do so on grounds which they believe similar to those used in the above cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The terrible thing is that once you stray from absolute nonviolence you open the door for the most shocking abuses. It is like distributing scalpels to an eager group, half of whom are surgeons and half butchers. But that is man&#039;s constant problem—how to release the truth without being devoured by it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How can we tell butchers from surgeons, distinguish between a healing and a destructive act of violence/ The first requirement is that our starting point must always be nonviolence, and that the burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocate of violence to show, with a high degree of probability, that he is justified. In modern American civilization, we demand unanimity among twelve citizens before we will condemn a single person to death, but we will destroy thousands of people on the most flimsy of political assumptions (like the domino theory of revolutionary contagion).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What proof should be required? I suggest four tests:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Self-defense, against outside attackers or a counterrevolutionary force within, using no more violence than is needed to repel the attack, is justified. This covers that Negro housewife who several years ago in a little Georgia town, at home alone with her children, fired through the door at a gang of white men carrying guns and chains, killing one, after which the rest fled. It would sacrifice the Rhineland to Hitler in 1936, and even Austria (for the Austrians apparently preferred not to fight), but demands supporting the Loyalist government in Spain, and defending Czechoslovakia in 1938. And it applies to Vietnamese fighting against American attackers who hold the strings of a puppet government.&lt;br /&gt;
# Revolution is justified, for the purpose of overthrowing a deeply entrenched oppressive regime, unshakable by other means. Outside aid is permissible (because rebels, as in the American Revolution, are almost always at a disadvantage against the holders of power), but with the requirement that the manpower for the revolution be indigenous, for this in itself is a test of how popular the revolution is. This could cover the French, American, Mexican, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Algerian cases. It would also cover the Vietcong rebellion. And a South African revolt, should it break out.&lt;br /&gt;
# Even if one of the above conditions is met, there is no moral justification for visiting violence on the innocent. Therefore, violence in self-defense or in revolution must be focused on the evildoers, and limited to that required to achieve the goal, resisting all arguments that extra violence might speed victory. This rules out the strategic bombing of German cities in World War II, the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; it rules out terrorism against civilians even in a just revolution. Violence even against the guilty, when undertaken for sheer revenge, is unwarranted, which rules out capital punishment for any crime. The requirement of focused violence makes nonsensical the equating of the killing of village chiefs in South Vietnam by the Vietcong and the bombing of hospitals by American fliers; yet the former is also unjustified if it is merely an act of terror or revenge and not specifically required for a change in the social conditions of the village.&lt;br /&gt;
# There is an additional factor which the conditions of modern warfare make urgent. Even if all three of the foregoing principles are met, there is a fourth which must be considered if violence is to be undertaken: the costs of self-defense or social change must not be so high, because of the intensity or the prolongation of violence, or because of the risk of proliferation, that the victory is not worth the cost. For the Soviets to defend Cuba from attack—though self-defense was called for—would not have been worth a general war; for the United States to defend Hungary from attack—though self-defense was called for—would not have been worth a general war. For China or Soviet Russia to aid the Vietcong with troops, though the Vietcong cause is just, would be wrong if it seriously risked a general war. Under certain conditions, nations should be captive rather than be destroyed, or revolutionaries should bide their time. Indeed, because of the omnipresence of the great military powers—the United States and the USSR (perhaps this is not so true for the countries battling England, France, Holland, Belgium, Portugal)—revolutionary movements may have to devise tactics short of armed revolt to overturn an oppressive regime.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic principle I want to get close to is that violence is most clearly justified when those whose own lives are at stake make the decision on whether the prize is worth dying for. Self-defense and guerrilla warfare, by their nature, embody this decision. Conscript armies and unfocused warfare violate it. And no one has a right to decide that someone else is better off dead than Red, or that someone else should die to defend his way of life, or that an individual (like Norman Morrison) should choose to live rather than die.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would be foolish to pretend that this summary can be either precise or complete. Those involved in self-defense or in a revolution need no intellectual justification; their emotions reflect some inner rationality. It is those outside the direct struggle, deciding whether to support one side or to stay out, who need to think clearly about principles. Americans, therefore, possessing the greatest power and being furthest removed from the problems of self-defense or revolution, need thoughtful deliberation most. All we can do in social analysis is to offer rough guides to replace nonthinking, to give the beginnings of some kind of moral calculus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, it takes no close measurement to conclude that the American bombings in Vietnam, directed as they are to farming areas, villages, hamlets, fit none of the criteria listed, and so are deeply immoral, whatever else is true about the situation in Southeast Asia or the world. The silence of the government&#039;s supporters on this—from Hubert Humphrey to the academic signers of advertisements—is particularly shameful, because it requires no surrender of their other arguments to concede that this is unnecessary bestiality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bombings aside, none of the American military activity against the Vietcong could be justified unless it were helping a determined people to defend itself against an outside attacker. That is why the Administration, hoping to confirm by verbal repetition what cannot be verified in fact, continually uses the term &amp;quot;aggression&amp;quot; to describe the Vietnamese guerrilla activities. The expert evidence, however, is overwhelming on this question:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Philippe Devillers, the French historian, says &amp;quot;the insurrection existed before the Communists decided to take part. . . . And even among the Communists, the initiative did not originate in Hanoi, but from the grass roots, where the people were literally driven by Diem to take up arms in self-defense.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# Bernard Fall says &amp;quot;anti-Diem guerrillas were active long before infiltrated north Vietnamese elements joined the fray.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
# The correspondent for &#039;&#039;Le Monde&#039;&#039;, Jean Lacouture (in &#039;&#039;Le Viet Nam entre deux paix&#039;&#039;) confirms that local pressure, local conditions led to guerrilla activity.&lt;br /&gt;
# Donald S. Zagoria, a specialist on Asian communism at Columbia University, wrote recently that &amp;quot;it is reasonably clear that we are dealing with an indigenous insurrection in the South, and that this, not Northern assistance, is the main trouble.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One test of &amp;quot;defense against aggression&amp;quot; is the behavior of the official South Vietnamese army—the &amp;quot;defenders&amp;quot; themselves. We find: a high rate of desertions; a need to herd villagers into concentration-camp &amp;quot;strategic hamlets&amp;quot; in order to control them; the use of torture to get information from other South Vietnamese, whom you might expect to be enthusiastic about &amp;quot;defending&amp;quot; their country; and all of this forcing the United States to take over virtually the entire military operation in Vietnam. [See article by Raymond R. Coffey, p. 61].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ordinary people of Vietnam show none of the signs of a nation defending itself against &amp;quot;aggression,&amp;quot; except in their noncooperation with the government and the Americans. A hundred thousand Vietnamese farmers were conducting a rebellion with mostly captured weapons (both David Halberstam and Hanson Baldwin affirmed this in &#039;&#039;The New York Times&#039;&#039;, contradicting quietly what I. F. Stone demolished statistically—the State Department&#039;s White Paper on &amp;quot;infiltration&amp;quot;). Then they matched the intrusion of 150,000 American troops with 7,500 North Vietnamese soldiers (in November, 1965, American military officials estimated that five regiments of North Vietnamese, with 1,500 in each regiment, were in South Vietnam). Weapons were acquired from Communist countries, but not a single plane to match the horde of American bombers filling the skies over Vietnam. This adds up not to North Vietnamese aggression (if indeed North Vietnamese can be considered outsiders at all) but to American aggression, with a puppet government fronting for American power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, there is no valid principle on which the United States can defend either its bombing, or its military presence, in Vietnam. It is the factual emptiness of its moral claim which then leads it to seek a one-piece substitute, that comes pre-fabricated with its own rationale, surrounded by an emotional aura sufficient to ward off inspectors. This transplanted fossil is the Munich analogy, which, speaking with all the passion of Churchill in the Battle of Britain, declares: to surrender in Vietnam is to do what Chamberlain did at Munich; that is why the villagers must die.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vietnam- Setting the Moral Equation map.png|center|thumb|750x750px]]&lt;br /&gt;
The great value of the Munich analogy to the Strangeloves is that it captures so many American liberals, among many others. It backs the Vietnamese expedition with a coalition broad enough to include Barry Goldwater, Lyndon Johnson, George Meany and John Roche (thus reversing World War II&#039;s coalition, which excluded the far Right and included the radical Left). This bloc justifies the carnage in Vietnam with a huge image of invading armies, making only one small change in the subtitle: replacing the word &amp;quot;Fascist&amp;quot; with the word &amp;quot;Communist.&amp;quot; Then, the whole savage arsenal of World War II—the means both justified and unjustifiable—supported by that great fund of indignation built against the Nazis, can be turned to the uses of the American Century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To leave the Munich analogy intact, to fail to discuss communism and fascism, is to leave untouched the major premise which supports the present policy of near genocide in Vietnam. I propose here at least to initiate such a discussion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s refresh our memories on what happened at Munich. Chamberlain of England and Daladier of France met Hitler and Mussolini (this was September 30, 1938) and agreed to surrender the Sudeten part of Czechoslovakia, inhabited by German-speaking people, hoping thus to prevent a general war in Europe. Chamberlain returned to England, claiming he had brought &amp;quot;peace in our time.&amp;quot; Six months later, Hitler had gobbled up the rest of Czechoslovakia; then he began presenting ultimatums to Poland, and by September 3, 1939, general war had broken out in Europe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is strong evidence that if the Sudetenland had not been surrendered at Munich—with it went Czechoslovakia&#039;s powerful fortifications, 70 per cent of its iron, steel, and electric power, 86 per cent of its chemicals, 66 per cent of its coal—and had Hitler then gone to war, he would have been defeated quickly, with the aid of Czechoslovakia&#039;s thirty-five well-trained divisions. And if he chose, at the sign of resistance, not to go to war, then at least he would have been stopped in his expansion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And so, the analogy continues, to let the Communist-dominated National Liberation Front win in South Vietnam (for the real obstacle in the sparring over negotiations is the role of the NLF in a new government) is to encourage more Communist expansion in Southeast Asia and beyond, and perhaps lead to a war more disastrous than the present one; to stop communism in South Vietnam is to discourage its expansion elsewhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We should note, first, some of the important differences between the Munich situation in 1938 and Vietnam today:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# In 1938, the main force operating against the Czech &#039;&#039;status quo&#039;&#039; was an outside force, Hitler&#039;s Germany; the supporting force was the Sudeten group inside led by Konrad Henlein. Since 1958 (and traceable back to 1942), the major force operating against the &#039;&#039;status quo&#039;&#039; in South Vietnam has been an inside force, forming in 1960 into the NLF; the chief supporter is not an outside nation but another part of the same nation, North Vietnam. The largest outside force in Vietnam consists of the American troops (who, interestingly, are referred to in West Germany as &#039;&#039;Bandenkampfverbande&#039;&#039;, Bandit Fighting Units, the real name used in World War II by the Waffen-S.S. units to designate the guerrillas whom they specialized in killing). To put it another way, in 1938, the Germans were trying to take over part of another country. Today, the Vietcong are trying to take over part of their own country. In 1938, the outsider was Germany. Today it is the United States.&lt;br /&gt;
# The Czech government, whose interests the West surrendered to Hitler in 1938, was a strong, effective, prosperous, democratic government—the government of Benes and Masryk. The South Vietnamese government which we support is a hollow shell of a government,unstable, unpopular, corrupt, a dictatorship of bullies and torturers, disdainful of free elections and representative government (recently they opposed establishing a National Assembly on the ground that it might lead to communism), headed by a long line of tyrants from Bao Dai to Diem to Ky, who no more deserve to be ranked with Benes and Masryk than Governor Wallace of Alabama deserves to be compared with Robert E. Lee. It is a government whose perpetuation is not worth the loss of a single human life.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standing firm in 1938 meant engaging, in order to defeat once and for all, the central threat of that time, Hitler&#039;s Germany. Fighting in Vietnam today, even if it brings total victory, does not at all engage what the United States considers the central foes—the Soviet Union and Communist China. Even if international communism &#039;&#039;were&#039;&#039; a single organism, to annihilate the Vietcong would be merely to remove a toenail from an elephant. To engage what we think is the source of our difficulties (Red China one day, Soviet Russia the next) would require nuclear war, and even Robert Strange McNamara doesn&#039;t seem up to that.&lt;br /&gt;
# There is an important difference between the historical context of Munich, 1938, and that of Vietnam, 1966. Munich was the culmination of a long line of surrenders and refusals to act: when Japan invaded China in 1931, when Mussolini invaded Ethiopia in 1935, when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936, when Hitler and Mussolini supported the Franco attack on Republican Spain 1936-39, when Japan attacked China in 1937, when Hitler took Austria in the spring of 1938. The Vietnam crisis, on the other hand, is the culmination of a long series of events in which the West has on occasion held back (as in Czechoslovakia in 1948, or Hungary in 1956), but more often taken firm action, from the Truman Doctrine to the Berlin blockade, to the Korean conflict, to the Cuban blockade of 1962. So, withdrawing from Vietnam would not reinforce a pattern in the way that the Munich pact did. It would be another kind of line in that jagged graph which represents foreign policy.&lt;br /&gt;
# We have twenty years of cold-war history to test the proposition derived from the Munich analogy—that a firm stand in Vietnam is worth the huge loss of life, because it will persuade the Communists there must be no more uprisings elsewhere. But what effect did our refusal to allow the defeat of South Korea (1950-53), or our aid in suppressing the Huk rebellion in the Philippines (1947-55), or the suppression of guerrillas in Malaya (1948-60), have on the guerrilla warfare in South Vietnam which started around 1958 and became consolidated under the National Liberation Front in 1960? If our use of subversion and arms to overthrow Guatemala in 1954 showed the Communists in Latin America that we meant business, then how did it happen that Castro rebelled and won in 1959? Did our invasion of Cuba in 1961, our blockade in 1962, show other revolutionaries in Latin America that they must desist? Then how explain the Dominican uprising in 1965? And did our dispatch of Marines to Santo Domingo end the fighting of guerrillas in the mountains of Peru?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One touches the Munich analogy and it falls apart. This suggests something more fundamental: that American policy makers do not understand either the nature of communism or the nature of the various uprisings that have taken place in the postwar world. They are not able to believe that hunger, homelessness, oppression are sufficient spurs to revolution, without outside instigation, just as Dixie governors could not believe that Negroes were marching in the streets were not led by outside agitators.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, communism and revolution require discussion. They are sensitive questions, which some in the protest movement hesitate to broach for fear of alienating allies. But they are basic to that inversion of morality which enables the United States to surround the dirty war in Vietnam with the righteous glow of the war against Hitler.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A key assumption in this inversion is that communism and Nazism are sufficiently identical to be treated alike. However, communism as a set of ideals has attracted good people—not racists or bullies or militarists—all over the world. One may argue that in Communist countries citizens had better affirm their allegiance to it, but that doesn&#039;t discount for the fact that millions in France, Italy and Indonesia are Communist party members, that countless others all over the world have been inspired by Marxian ideals. And why should they not? These ideals include peace, brotherhood, racial equality, the classless society, the withering away of the state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If Communists behave much better out of power than in it, that is a commentary, not on their ideals but on weaknesses which they share with non-Communist wielders of power. If, presumably in pursuit of their ideals, they have resorted to brutal tactics, maintained suffocating bureaucracies and rigid dogmas, that makes them about as reprehensible as other nations, other social systems which, while boasting of the Judeo-Christian heritage, have fostered war, exploitation, colonialism and race hatred. We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ultimate values of the Nazis, let us recall, included racism, elitism, militarism and war as ends in themselves. Unlike either the Communist nations or the capitalist democracies, there is here no ground for appeal to higher purposes. The ideological basis for coexistence between Communist and capitalist nations is the rough consensus of ultimate goals which they share. While war is held off, the citizens on both sides—it is to be hoped and indeed it is beginning to occur—will increasingly insist that their leaders live up to these values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of these professed values—which the United States is trying with difficulty to conceal by fragile arguments and feeble analogies—is the self-determination of peoples. Self-determination justifies the overthrow of entrenched oligarchies—whether foreign or domestic—in ways that will not lead to general war. China, Egypt, Indonesia, Algeria and Cuba are examples. Such revolutions tend to set up dictatorships, but they do so in the name of values which can be used to erode that same dictatorship. They therefore deserve as much general support and specific criticism as did the American revolutionaries, who set up a slave-holding government, but with a commitment to freedom which later led it, &#039;&#039;against its wishes&#039;&#039;, to abolitionism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The easy use of the term &amp;quot;totalitarian&amp;quot; to cover both Nazis and Communists, or to equate the South Vietnamese regime with that of Ho Chi Minh, fails to make important distinctions, just as dogmatists of the Left sometimes fail to distinguish between Fascist states and capitalist democracies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This view is ahistorical on two counts. First, it ignores the fact that for the swift economic progress needed by new nations today, a Communist-led regime does an effective job (though it is not the only type of new government that can). In doing so, it raises educational and living standards and thus paves the way (as the USSR and Eastern Europe already show) for attacks from within on its own thought-control system. Second, this view forgets that the United States and Western Europe, now haughty in prosperity, with a fair degree of free expression, built their present status on the backs of either slaves or colonial people, and subjected their own laboring populations to several generations of misery before beginning to look like welfare states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The perspective of history suggests that a united Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh is preferable to the elitist dictatorship of the South, just as Maoist China with all its faults is preferable to the rule of Chiang, and Castro&#039;s Cuba to Batista&#039;s. We do not have pure choices in the present, although we should never surrender those values which can shape the future. Right now, for Vietnam, a Communist government is probably the best avenue to that whole packet of human values which make up the common morality of mankind today: the preservation of human life, self-determination, economic security, the end of race and class oppression, that freedom of speech which an educated population begins to demand. This is a conclusion which critics of government policy have hesitated to make. With some, it is because they simply don&#039;t believe it, but with others, it is because they don&#039;t want to rock the boat of &amp;quot;coalition.&amp;quot; Yet the main obstacle to United States withdrawal is a fear that is real—that South Vietnam will then go Communist. If we fail to discuss this honestly, we leave untouched a major plank in the structure that supports U.S. action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the jump is made from real fears to false ones, we get something approaching lunacy in American international behaviour. Richard Hofstadter, in &#039;&#039;The Paranoid Style in American Politics&#039;&#039;, writes of &amp;quot;the central preconception of the paranoid style—the existence of a vast, insidious, preternaturally effective international conspiratorial network designed to perpetrate acts of the most fiendish character.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once, the center of the conspiracy was Russia. A political scientist doing strategic research for the government told me recently with complete calm that his institute decided not too long ago that they had been completely wrong about the premise which underlay much of American policy in the postwar period—the premise that Russia hoped to take over Western Europe by force. Yet now, with not a tremor of doubt, the whole kit and caboodle of the invading-hordes theory is transferred to China.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paranoia starts from a base of facts, but then leaps wildly to an absurd conclusion. It is a fact that China is totalitarian in its limitation of free expression, is fierce in its expressions of hatred for the United States, that it crushed opposition in Tibet, and fought for a strip of territory on the Indian border. But let&#039;s consider India briefly: it crushed an uprising in Hyderabad, took over the state of Kerala, initiated attacks on the China border, took Goa by force, and is fierce in its insistence on Kashmir. Yet we do not accuse it of wanting to take over the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, there is a difference. China is emotionally tied to and sometimes aids obstreperous rebellions all over the world. However, China is not the source of these rebellions. The problem is not that China wants to take over the world, but that various people want to take over their parts of the world, and without the courtesies that attend normal business transactions. What if the Negroes in Watts really rose up and tried to take over Los angeles? Would we blame that on Castro?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only does paranoia lead the United States to see international conspiracy where there is a diversity of Communist nations based on indigenous Communist movements. It also confuses communism with a much broader movement of this century—the rising of hungry and harassed people in Asia, Africa, Latin America (and the American South). Hence we try to crush radicalism in one place (Greece, Iran, Guatemala, the Philippines, etc.) and apparently succeed, only to find a revolution—whether Communist or Socialist or nationalist or of indescribable character—springing up somewhere else. We surround the world with our navy, cover the sky with our planes, fling our money to the winds, and then a revolution takes place in Cuba, 90 miles from home. We see every rebellion everywhere as a result of some devilish plot concocted in Moscow or Peking, when what is really happening is that people everywhere want to eat and to be free, and will use desperate means and any one of a number of social systems to achieve their ends.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other side makes the same mistake. The Russians face a revolt in Hungary or Poznan, and attribute it to bourgeois influence, or to American scheming. Stalin&#039;s paranoia led him to send scores of old Bolsheviks before the firing squad. The Chinese seem to be developing obsessions about the United States; but in their case we are doing our best to match their wildest accusations with reality. It would be paranoid for Peking to claim that the United States is surrounding China with military bases, occupying countries on its border, keeping hundreds of thousands of troops within striking distance, contemplating the bombing of its population—if it were not largely true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A world-wide revolution is taking place, aiming to achieve the very values that all major countries, East and West, claim to uphold: self-determination, economic security, racial equality, freedom. It takes many forms—Castro&#039;s, Mao&#039;s, Naser&#039;s, Sukarno&#039;s, Senghor&#039;s, Kenyatta&#039;s. That it does not realize all its aims from the start makes it hardly more imperfect than we were in 1776. The road to freedom is stony, but people are going to march along it. What we need to do is improve the road, not blow it up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The United States Government has tried hard to cover its moral nakedness in Vietnam. But the signs of its failure grow by the day. Facts have a way of coming to light. Also, we have recently had certain experiences which make us less naive about governments while we become more hopeful about people: the civil rights movement, the student revolt, the rise of dissent inside the Communist countries, the emergence of fresh, brave spirits in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and in our own country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not our job, as citizens, to point out the difficulties of our military position (this, when true, is quite evident), or to work out clever bases for negotiating (the negotiators, when they &#039;&#039;must&#039;&#039;, will find a way), or to dissemble what we know is true in order to build a coalition (coalitions grow naturally from what is common to a heterogeneous group, and require each element to represent its colors as honestly as possible to make the mosaic accurate and strong). As a sign of the strange &amp;quot;progress&amp;quot; the world has made, from now on all moral transgressions take the form of irony, because they are committed against officially proclaimed values. The job of citizens, in any society, any time, is simply to point this out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works about morality]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works about pacifism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works about the morality of violence]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works about the Vietnam War]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works by Howard Zinn]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=File:Vietnam-_Setting_the_Moral_Equation_map.png&amp;diff=87442</id>
		<title>File:Vietnam- Setting the Moral Equation map.png</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=File:Vietnam-_Setting_the_Moral_Equation_map.png&amp;diff=87442"/>
		<updated>2025-10-10T01:38:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:The_Class_Struggle_in_the_Ancient_Greek_World&amp;diff=87430</id>
		<title>Library:The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:The_Class_Struggle_in_the_Ancient_Greek_World&amp;diff=87430"/>
		<updated>2025-10-09T19:53:31Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: /* i) - Exploitation and the class struggle */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Library work|title=The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests|image=61QOWYUrB6L. UF1000,1000 QL80 .jpg|caption=Cover of the first edition|author=G. E. M. de Ste. Croix|publisher=[[Duckworth Books]] ([[United Kingdom]])&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Cornell University Press]] ([[United States]])|published_date=1981|published_location=[[London]] (United Kingdom)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Ithaca, New York|Ithaca]], [[New York]] (United States)|edition_date=1981|type=Book|isbn=0-8014-1442-3 (hardcover)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;0-8014-9597-0 (paperback)|source=https://archive.org/details/classstruggleina0000dest}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is a book by [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|British]] ancient historian [[G. E. M. de Ste. Croix]], first published in 1981 by [[Duckworth Books]] in Britain and [[Cornell University Press]] in the [[United States of America|United States]]. The seminal work attempts a [[Historical materialism|historical materialist]] analysis of [[Ancient Greece]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== To Margaret ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:To_Margaret.png|frameless|463x463px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Preface ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main text of this book is intended not only for ancient historians and Classical scholars but also in particular for historians of other periods, sociologists, political theorists, and students of Marx, as well as for &#039;the general reader&#039;. The use of Greek text and of anything in Latin beyond very brief quotations is reserved for the Notes and Appendices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as I am aware, it is the first book in English, or in any other language I can read, which begins by explaining the central features of Marx&#039;s historical method and defining the concepts and categories involved, and then proceeds to demonstrate how these instruments of analysis may be used in practice to explain the main events, processes, institutions and ideas that prevailed at various times over a long period of history – here, the thirteen or fourteen hundred years of my &#039;ancient Greek world&#039; (for which see I.ii below). This arrangement involves rather frequent cross-referencing. Some of those who are interested primarily in the methodology and the more &#039;theoretical&#039;, synchronic treatment of concepts and institutions (contained mainly in Part One) may wish for specific references to those passages that are of most concern to themselves, occurring either in other sections of Part One or in the more diachronic treatment in Part Two. Similarly, practising historians whose interests are confined to a limited part of the whole period will sometimes need references to a particular &#039;theoretical&#039; portion in Part One that is specially relevant. (This will, I think, be clear to anyone who compares II.iv with V.ii-iii, for instance, I.iii with IV.ii, or III.iv with Appendix II and IV.iii.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The book originated in the J.H. Gray Lectures for 1972/73 (three in number), which I delivered at Cambridge University in February 1973 at the invitation of the Board of the Faculty of Classics. I am particularly grateful to J. S. Morrison, President of Wolfson College, then Chairman of the Faculty, and to M. I. (now Sir Moses) Finley, Professor of Ancient History, for their kindness to me and the trouble they took to make the experiences a delightful one for me and to ensure a large audience at all three lectures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The J. H. Gray lectures were founded by the Rev. Canon Joseph Henry (&#039;Joey&#039;) Gray, M.A. (Cantab.), J.P., born on 26 July 1856, Fellow and Classical Lecturer of Queens&#039; College Cambridge for no fewer than 52 years before his death on 23 March 1932, at the age of 75. His devotion to his College (of which he wrote and published a history), to the Anglican Church, and to Freemasonry (he became Provincial Grand Master of Cambridgeshire in 1914) was equalled only by his athletic interests, in rowing, cricket, and above all Rugby football. From 1895 until his death he was President of the Cambridge University Rugby Football Club; and when that club, in appreciation of his presidency, presented him with a sum of no less than £1,000, he used the money to endow a special lectureship in Classics at Cambridge – &#039;thus making the gladiators of the football field into patrons of the humaner letters&#039;, to quote the admiring and affectionate obituary in &#039;&#039;The Dial&#039;&#039; (Queens&#039; College Magazine) no.71, Easter Term 1932. The obituary refers to Gray&#039;s &#039;vigorous Conservative politics&#039; and characterises him as &#039;an almost perfect incarnation of John Bull in cap and gown&#039;. I am afraid he would have disapproved strongly of my lectures, and of this book; but I am comforted by another passage in the same obituary which speaks of his &#039;hearty goodwill to all men, even to individual socialists and foreigners&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This book represents of course a very considerable expansion of the lectures, and it incorporates, almost in their entirety, two other papers, given in 1974: a lecture on &#039;Karl Marx and the history of Classical antiquity&#039;, to the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies in London on 21 March 1974, published in an expanded form in &#039;&#039;Arethusa&#039;&#039; 8 (1975) 7–41 (here cited as &#039;KMHCA&#039;); and another lecture, on &#039;Early Christian attitudes to property and slavery&#039;, delivered to the Conference of the Ecclesiastical History Society at York on 25 July 1974, also subsequently expanded and published, in &#039;&#039;Studies in Church History&#039;&#039; 12 (1975) 1–38 (here cited as &#039;ECAPS&#039;). Parts of this book have also been delivered in lecture form at various universities, not only in this country but also in Poland (in June 1977), at Warsaw; and in the Netherlands (in April-May 1978), at Amsterdam, Groningen and Leiden. I have many friends to thank for their kindness to me during my visits to those cities, in particular Professors Iza Bieżuńska-Małowist of the University of Warsaw and Jan-Maarten Bremer of the University of Amsterdam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had intended to publish the Gray Lectures almost in their original form, with little more than references added. However, the comments received from most of those to whom I showed drafts convinced me that owing to the extreme ignorance of Marx&#039;s thought which prevails throughout most of the West, especially perhaps among ancient historians (in the English-speaking world at least as much as anywhere), I would have to write the book on an altogether different scale. As I did so my opinions developed, and I often changed my mind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Friends and colleagues have given me some useful criticisms of the many successive drafts of chapters of this book. I have thanked them individually but now refrain from doing so again, because most of them are not Marxists and might not be happy at finding themselves named here, and partly because I do not wish to debar them from being asked to write reviews, as usually happens to those to whom an author makes a general acknowledgment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have incorporated very many essential brief references (especially to source material) in the text itself, placing them as far as possible at the ends of sentences. This, I believe, is preferable, in a work not intended primarily for scholars, to the use of footnotes, since the eye travels much more easily over a short passage in brackets than down to the foot of the page and back again. (Longer notes, intended principally for scholars, will be found at the end of the book.) I give this as a reply to those friends who, out of sheer Oxonian conservatism, have objected to the abbreviation of titles by initial letters – e.g. &#039;Jones, &#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;, for A. H. M. Jones, &#039;&#039;The Later Roman Empire 284-602&#039;&#039; – while themselves habitually using such abbreviations for various categories of references, including periodicals, collections of inscriptions and papyri, and so forth, e.g. &#039;&#039;JRS&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;CIL&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;ILS&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;PSI&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;BGU&#039;&#039;. For me, the only alternatives still allowing the use of references in the actual text itself would have been to abbreviate with date or serial number, e.g. &#039;Jones, 1964&#039; or &#039;Jones (1)&#039;; but initial letters are as a rule far more likely to convey the necessary information to a reader who already either knows of the existence of the work in question or has looked it up in my bibliography (pp. - below), where all abbreviations are explained. I should perhaps add that titles abbreviated by initials represent books when italicised, articles when not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My reading for this book, while concentrated above all on the ancient sources and the writings of Marx, has necessarily been very wide; but there are some &#039;obvious&#039; works which I have refrained from citing – in particular, books which are specifically philosophical in character and which concern themselves primarily with abstract concepts rather than with the actual historical &#039;events, processes, institutions and ideas&#039; (cf. above) that are the subject-matter of the practising historian. One example is G. A. Cohen&#039;s book, &#039;&#039;Karl Marx&#039;s Theory of History, A Defence&#039;&#039;, based on much greater philosophical expertise than I can command, but which I find congenial; another is the massive work in three volumes by Leszek Kolakowski, &#039;&#039;Main Currents of Marxism: Its Rise, Growth and Dissolution&#039;&#039;, which seems to me to have been vastly overpraised, however accurately it may delineate some of the disastrous developments of Marx&#039;s thought by many of his followers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In an interview printed in &#039;&#039;The Guardian&#039;&#039; on 22 September 1970 the released Nazi war criminal Albert Speer said that in the Third Reich &#039;Each Minister was responsible for his own department, and for that only. Your conscience was quiet if you were &#039;&#039;educated to see things only in your field&#039;&#039;; this was convenient for everybody.&#039; Our educational system also tends to produce people who &#039;see things only in their field&#039;. One of the techniques contributing to this is the strict separation of &#039;ancient history&#039; from the contemporary world. This book, on the contrary, is an attempt to see the ancient Greek world in very close relation with our own and is inspired by the belief that we can learn much about each by careful study of the other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dedication of this book expresses the greatest of all my debts: to my wife, in particular for the perfect good-humour and patience with which she accepted my concentration on it for some years, to the neglect of almost everything else. I also wish to record my gratitude to my son Julian for his valuable assistance in correcting the proofs, and to Colin Haycraft for agreeing to publish the book and accomplishing the task with all possible tact and efficiency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SEPTEMBER 1980&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
G.E.M.S.C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== PART ONE ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== I - Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - The plan of this book ====&lt;br /&gt;
My general aim in this book is first (in Part One) to explain, and then (in Part Two) to illustrate, the value of Marx&#039;s general analysis of society in relation to the ancient Greek world (as defined in Section ii of this chapter). Marx and Engels made a number of different contributions to historical methodology and supplied a series of tools which can be profitably used by the historian and the sociologist; but I shall concentrate largely on one such tool, which I believe to be much the most important and the most fruitful for actual use in understanding and explaining particular historical events and processes: namely, the concept of &#039;&#039;class&#039;&#039;, and of class &#039;&#039;struggle&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Section ii of this first chapter, I state how I interpret the expression &#039;the ancient Greek world&#039;, and explain the meaning of the terms I shall be using for the periods (between about 700 B.C. and the mid-seventh century C.E.) into which the history of my &#039;Greek world&#039; may conveniently be divided. In Section iii I go on to describe the fundamental division between &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; (city and countryside) that plays such a vital role in Greek history after the &#039;Classical&#039; period (ending at about the close of the fourth century B.C.) which – absurdly enough – is all that many people have in mind when they speak of &#039;Greek history&#039;. In Section iv I give a brief account of Marx as a Classical scholar and emphasise the almost total lack of interest in Marxist ideas that is unfortunately characteristic of the great majority of scholars in the English-speaking world who concern themselves with Classical antiquity. I also try to dispel some common misconceptions about Marx&#039;s attitude to history; and in doing so I compare the attitude of Marx with that of Thucydides.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter II deals with &#039;class, exploitation, and class struggle&#039;. In Section i I explain the nature and origin of class society, as I understand that term. I also state what I regard as the two fundamental features which most distinguish ancient Greek society from the contemporary world: they can be identified respectively within the field of what Marx called &#039;the forces of production&#039; and &#039;the relations of production&#039;. In Section ii I define &#039;class&#039; (as essentially a relationship, the social embodiment of the fact of exploitation), and I also define &#039;exploitation&#039; and &#039;class struggle&#039;. In Section iii I show that the meaning I attach to the expression &#039;class struggle&#039; represents the fundamental thought of Marx himself: the essence of class struggle is exploitation or resistance to it; there need not necessarily be any class consciousness or any political element. I also explain the criteria which lead me to define Greek (and Roman) society as &#039;a slave economy&#039;: this expression has regard, not so much to the way in which the bulk of production was done (for at most times in most areas in antiquity it was free peasants and artisans who had the largest share in production), but to the fact that the propertied classes derived their surplus above all through the exploitation of unfree labour. (With this section goes Appendix I, dealing with the technical question of the contrast between slave and wage-labourer in Marx&#039;s theory of capital.) In Section iv I demonstrate that a Marxist analysis in terms of class, far from being the imposition upon the ancient Greek world of inappropriate and anachronistic categories suited only to the study of the modern capitalist world, is actually in some essentials much the same type of analysis as that employed by Aristotle, the greatest of ancient sociologists and political thinkers. In Section v I consider some types of historical method different from that which I employ, and the alternatives which some sociologists and historians have preferred to the concept of class; and I demonstrate (with reference to Max Weber and M. I. Finley) that &#039;status&#039; in particular is inferior as an instrument of analysis, since statuses altogether lack the organic relationship which is the hallmark of classes and can rarely if ever provide explanations, especially of social change. In Section vi I consider women as a class in the technical Marxist sense, and I give a brief treatment of the early Christian attitude to women and marriage, compared with its Hellenistic, Roman, and Jewish counterparts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter III is entitled &#039;Property and the propertied&#039;. In Section i I begin with the fact that in antiquity by far the most important &#039;conditions of production&#039; were land and unfree labour: these, then, were what the propertied class needed to control and did control. In Section ii I explain how I use the expression &#039;the propertied class&#039;: for those who were able to live without needing a significant proportion of their time working for their living. (I speak of &#039;the propertied classes&#039;, in the plural, where it is necessary to notice class divisions within the propertied class as a whole.) In Section iii I emphasise that land was always the principal means of production in antiquity. In Section iv I discuss slavery and other forms of unfree labour (debt bondage, and serfdom), accepting definitions of each of these types of unfreedom which now have world-wide official currency. (Appendix II adds some evidence for slave labour, especially in agriculture, in Classical and Hellenistic times.) In Section v I deal with freedmen (an &#039;order&#039; and not a &#039;class&#039; in my sense), and in Section iv I discuss hired labour, showing that it played an incomparably smaller part in the pre-capitalist world than it does today and was regarded by members of the propertied class in antiquity (and by many of the poor) as only a little better than slavery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Chapter IV I discuss &#039;Forms of exploitation in the ancient Greek world, and the small independent producer&#039;. In Section i I distinguish between &#039;direct individual&#039; and &#039;indirect collective&#039; exploitation, in such a way as to make it possible to regard even many peasant freeholders as members of an exploited class, subject to taxation, conscription and forced services, imposed by the State and its organs. I also explain that those whom I describe as &#039;small independent producers&#039; (mainly peasants, also artisans and traders) were sometimes not severely exploited themselves and equally did not exploit the labour of others to any substantial degree, but lived by their own efforts on or near the subsistence level. At most periods (before the Later Roman Empire) and in most areas these people were very numerous and must have been responsible for the largest share in production, both in agriculture and in handicrafts. In Section ii I speak specifically of the peasantry and the villages in which they mainly lived. In Section iii (&#039;From slave to &#039;&#039;colonus&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;) I describe and explain the change in the forms of exploitation in the Greek and Roman world during the early centuries of the Christian era, where the propertied class, which had earlier relied to a great extent on slaves to produce its surplus, came more and more to rely on letting to tenants (&#039;&#039;coloni&#039;&#039;), most of whom at about the end of the third century became serfs. Most working freehold peasants were also brought into the same kind of subjection, being tied to the villages of which they were members: I call such people &#039;quasi-serfs&#039;. (An Appendix, III, gives a large quantity of evidence for the settlement of &#039;barbarians&#039; within the Roman empire, the significance of which is discussed in Section iii of Chapter IV.) In Section iv (&#039;The military factor&#039;) I point out that in the face of external military threat it may be necessary for the ruling class of a society consisting mainly of peasants to allow the peasantry a higher standard of life than it would otherwise have attained, in order to provide a sufficiently strong army; and that the failure of the Later Roman Empire to make this concession induced in the peasantry as a whole an attitude of indifference to the fate of the Empire, which did not begin to be remedied before the seventh century, by which time much of the empire had disintegrated. In Section v I have something to say about the use of the terms &#039;feudalism&#039; and &#039;serfdom&#039;, insisting that serfdom (as defined in III.iv) can exist quite independently of anything that can properly be called &#039;feudalism&#039;, and ending with a few words on the Marxist concept of the &#039;feudal mode of production&#039;. In Section vi I recognise briefly the role of small &#039;independent producers&#039; other than peasants. That completes Part One of this book.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Part One, then, I am occupied largely with conceptual and methodological problems, in the attempt to establish and clarify the concepts and categories which seem to me to be the most useful in studying the ancient Greek world, above all the process of change which is so obvious when we look at Greek society over the period of thirteen to fourteen hundred years with which this book is concerned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Part Two I seek to illustrate the usefulness of the concepts and methodology I have outlined in Part One in explaining not only a series of historical situations and developments but also the ideas – social, economic, political, religious – which grew out of the historical process. In Chapter V (&#039;The class struggle in Greek history on the political plane&#039;) I show how the application of a class analysis to Greek history can illuminate the processes of political and social change. In Section i I deal with the Archaic period (before the fifth century B.C.) and demonstrate how the so-called &#039;tyrants&#039; played an essential role in the transition from hereditary aristocracy, which existed everywhere in the Greek world down to the seventh century, to more &#039;open&#039; societies ruled either by oligarchies of wealth or by democracies. In Section ii I make a number of observations on the political class struggle (greatly mitigated by democracy, where that form of government existed) in the fifth and fourth centuries, showing how even at Athens, where democracy was strongest, bitter class struggle broke out in the political plane on two occasions, in 411 and 404. In Section iii I explain how Greek democracy was gradually destroyed, between the fourth century B.C. and the third century of the Christian era, by the joint efforts of the Greek propertied class, the Macedonians, and ultimately the Romans. (The details of this process in the Roman period are described in greater detail in Appendix IV.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the whole Greek world came by degrees under Roman rule, I am obliged to say a good deal about &#039;Rome the suzerain&#039;, the title of Chapter VI. After some brief remarks in Section i on Rome as &#039;The queen and mistress of the world&#039;, I give in Section ii a sketch of the so-called &#039;Conflict of the Orders&#039; in the early Roman Republic, intended mainly to show that although it was indeed technically a conflict between two &#039;orders&#039; (two juridically distinct groups), namely Patricians and Plebeians, yet strong elements of class struggle were involved in it. In Section iii I notice some aspects of the political situation in the developed Republic (roughly the last three centuries B.C.). In Section iv I briefly describe the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean world and its consequences. In Section v I explain the change of political regime &#039;From Republic to Principate&#039;, and in Section vi I sketch the nature of the Principate as an institution which continued under the &#039;Later Roman Empire&#039; from the late third century onwards. In my picture of the Later Empire there is much less emphasis than usual upon a supposed change from &#039;Principate&#039; to &#039;Dominate&#039;; far more important, for me, is a major intensification of the forms of exploitation: the reduction to serfdom of most of the working agricultural population, a great increase in taxation, and more conscription. I give a characterisation of the position of the emperor in the Principate and the Later Empire and an outline sketch of the Roman upper classes, not forgetting the changes that took place in the fourth century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter VII is a discussion of &#039;The class struggle on the ideological plane&#039;. After taking up some general issues in Section i (&#039;Terror, and propaganda&#039;), I proceed in Section ii to discuss the theory of &#039;natural slavery&#039;, and in Section iii the body of thought which largely replaced that theory in the Hellenistic period and continued throughout Roman times, appearing in Christian thought in an almost identical form. Section iv deals with the attitudes to property of the Graeco-Roman world, of Jesus, and of the Christian Church – or rather, churches, for I insist that the term &#039;the Christian Church&#039; is not a historical but a strictly theological expression. Jesus is seen as a figure belonging entirely to the Jewish &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039;, who may never even have entered a Greek &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039;, and whose thought-world was thoroughly alien to Graeco-Roman civilisation. The chapter concludes with Section v, which attempts a reconstruction of part of the ideology of the victims of the class struggle (and of Roman imperialism), with some attention to &#039;Resistance literature&#039; (mainly Jewish) and Christian apocalyptic. The best example that has survived is the fable, which is explicitly said by one of its practitioners to have been invented to enable slaves to express their opinions in a disguised form which would not expose them to punishment, although some of the examples turn out to speak not merely for slaves but for the lowly in general, and of course the fable could also be utilised by members of a ruling class to reinforce their position.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The final chapter, VIII, seeks to explain the &#039;decline and fall&#039; of much of the Roman empire, leading ultimately to the loss of Britain, Gaul, Spain, and north Africa in the fifth century, part of Italy and much of the Balkans in the sixth, and the whole of Egypt and Syria in the seventh – not to mention the Arab conquest of the rest of north Africa and much of Spain in the later seventh and the early eighth century. Section i shows how the ever-increasing exploitation of the vast majority of the population of the Graeco-Roman world by the all-powerful wealthy classes (a tiny minority) first depressed the political and legal status of nearly all those who were not members of my &#039;propertied class&#039;, almost to the slave level. Section ii describes the way in which, from just after the middle of the second century, the fiscal screw was tightened further up the social scale, on the &#039;curial class&#039;, the richer members of the local communities, who were in theory an &#039;order&#039;, consisting of the town councillors and their families, but in practice were virtually a hereditary class, consisting of all those owning property above a certain level who were not members of the imperial aristocracy of senators and equestrians. Section iii is a largely descriptive account of defection to the &#039;barbarians&#039;, assistance given to them, peasant revolts, and indifference to the disintegration of the Roman empire on the part of the vast majority of its subjects. The last section, iv, explains how the merciless exploitation of a great majority for the benefit of a very few finally led to the collapse of much of the empire – a process too often described as if it were something that &#039;just happened&#039; naturally – whereas in fact it was due to the deliberate actions of a ruling class that monopolised both wealth and political power and governed solely for its own advantage. I show that a Marxist class analysis can provide a satisfactory explanation of this extraordinary process, which proceeded inexorably despite the heroic efforts of a remarkably able series of emperors from the late third century to near the end of the fourth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the whole Greek world eventually came under the rule of Rome has often obliged me to look at the Roman empire as a whole, and on occasion at the Latin West alone, or even some part of it. For example, in Chapter VIII &#039;barbarian&#039; invasions, internal revolts, the defection of peasants and others, and similar manifestations of insecurity and decline have to be noticed whether they happened in the East or in the West, as they all contributed towards the ultimate disintegration of a large part of the empire. Even the settlements of &#039;barbarians&#039; within the Graeco-Roman world – on a far greater scale than most historians, perhaps, have realised – need to be recorded (for the reasons discussed in IV.iii), although they occurred on a far greater scale in the Latin West than in the Greek East.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - &#039;The Ancient Greek World&#039;: its extent in space and time ====&lt;br /&gt;
For my purposes &#039;the Greek world&#039; is, broadly speaking, the vast area (described below) within which Greek was, or became, the principal language of the upper classes. In north Africa, during the Roman Empire, the division between the Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking areas lay just west of Cyrenaica (the eastern part of modern Libya), on about the 19th meridian east of Greenwich: Cyrenaica and everything to the east of it was Greek. In Europe the dividing line began on the east coast of the Adriatic, roughly where the same meridian cuts the coast of modern Albania, a little north of Durazzo (the ancient Dyrrachium, earlier Epidamnus); and from there it went east and slightly north, across Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria, passing between Sofia (the ancient Serdica) and Plovdiv (Philippopolis) and joining the Danube at about the point where it turns north below Silistra on the edge of the Dobrudja, an area containing several cities on the Black Sea coast that belonged to the &#039;Greek&#039; portion of the empire, which included everything to the south and east of the line I have traced.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;It is astonishing how few maps show this very important linguistic division. It does appear in e.g. &#039;&#039;Westermanns Atlas zur Weltgeschichte&#039;&#039; (Berlin etc., 1965) 42. For the situation in the Later Empire, see Jones, &#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039; II.986. In support of my division of north Africa between the Greek and Latin worlds I would cite p.9 of Louis Robert&#039;s book on gladiators in the Greek East (see VII.1 n.3 below): &#039;La Cyrénaïque fait partie de l&#039;Orient grec, et j&#039;ai laissé à l&#039;Occident la Tripolitaine.&#039;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; My &#039;Greek world&#039;, then, included Greece itself, with Epirus, Macedonia, and Thrace (roughly the southern part of Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria, and the whole of European Turkey), also Cyrenaica and Egypt, and all that part of Asia which was included in the Roman empire: an area with an eastern boundary that varied from time to time but at its widest included not merely Asia Minor, Syria, and the northern edge of Arabia but even Mesopotamia (Iraq) as far as the Tigris. There were even Greek cities and settlements beyond the Tigris;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For the cities which were newly founded, or achieved the status of cities, only from the time of Alexander onwards, see e.g. &#039;&#039;Westermanns Atlas&#039;&#039; (n.1 above) 22-3; &#039;&#039;CAH&#039;&#039; VII, Map 4; Bengtson, &#039;&#039;GG&#039;&#039;[5], Map 9.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but in general, it is perhaps convenient to think of the eastern boundary of the Graeco-Roman world as falling on the Euphrates or a little to the east of it. Sicily too was &#039;Greek&#039; from an early date and became romanised by slow degrees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The time-span with which I am concerned in this book is not merely (1) the &#039;&#039;Archaic and Classical periods&#039;&#039; of Greek history (covering roughly the eighth to the sixth centuries B.C. and the fifth and fourth centuries respectively) and (2) the &#039;&#039;Hellenistic age&#039;&#039; (approximately the last three centuries B.C. in the eastern Mediterranean world), but also (3) the long period of &#039;&#039;Roman domination&#039;&#039; of the Greek area, which began in the second century and was complete before the end of the last century B.C., when Rome itself was still under a &#039;republican&#039; form of government. How long one makes the &#039;Roman Empire&#039; last is a matter of taste: in a sense it continued, as J. B. Bury and others have insisted, until the capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks in A.D. 1453. The Roman &#039;Principate&#039;, as it is universally called in the English-speaking world (&#039;Haut-Empire&#039; is the normal French equivalent), is commonly conceived as beginning with Augustus (Octavian), at or a little after the date of the battle of Actium in 31 B.C., and as passing into the &#039;Later Empire&#039; (&#039;Bas-Empire&#039;) at about the time of the accession of the Emperor Diocletian in 284. In my view the &#039;Principate&#039; from the first was virtually an absolute monarchy, as it was always openly admitted to be in the Greek East (see VI.vi below); and it is unreal to suppose, with some scholars, that a new &#039;Dominate&#039; came into being with Diocletian and Constantine, although there is no harm in using, at any rate as a &#039;&#039;chronological formula&#039;&#039;, the expression &#039;Later Roman Empire&#039; or &#039;Bas-Empire&#039; (see VI.vi &#039;&#039;ad init&#039;&#039;.). Many ancient historians like to make a break somewhere between the reign of Justinian in 527-65 and the death of Heraclius in 641,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Norman Baynes, who had said in 1930 that &#039;the reign of Heraclius marks the beginning of Byzantine history&#039;, later came to feel that &#039;Byzantine history begins with Constantine the Great&#039; (&#039;&#039;BSOE&#039;&#039; 78 and n.2). For the Byzantine historian Ostrogorsky it was in &#039;the age of Heraclius&#039; (610-41) that &#039;the Roman period ended and Byzantine history properly speaking began&#039; (&#039;&#039;HBS&#039;&#039;[2] 106). For Arnold J. Toynbee &#039;ancient Greek or Hellenic historical thought... came to an end when Homer yielded precedence to the Bible as the sacred book of a Greek-speaking and Greek-writing &#039;&#039;intelligentzia&#039;&#039;. In the series of historical authors [that] event occurred between the dates at which Theophylactus Simocatta and George of Pisidia produced their respective works&#039; – that is to say, during the reign of Heraclius (&#039;&#039;Greek Historical Thought from Homer to the Age of Heraclius&#039;&#039;, 1952 and rep., Introduction, p.ix).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and speak thereafter of the &#039;Byzantine Empire&#039;, a term which expresses the fact that the empire was not centred at the ancient Byzantium, re-founded by the Emperor Constantine in 330 as Constantinople. My choice of a terminal date is dictated, I must admit, by the fact that my own first-hand knowledge of the source material becomes defective after the death of Justinian and largely peters out in the mid-seventh century: for this reason my &#039;ancient Greek world&#039; ends not much later than the great book of my revered teacher, A. H. M. Jones, &#039;&#039;The Later Roman Empire 284-602&#039;&#039; (1964), which goes down to the death of the Emperor Maurice and the accession of Phocas, in 602. My own terminal point is the Arab conquests of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Egypt in the 630s and 640s. In justification of keeping within the limits I have described I would plead that virtually everything in this book is based upon first-hand acquaintance with original sources. (in one or two places where it is not, I hope I have made this clear.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do believe that &#039;the ancient Greek world&#039; is sufficiently a unity to be worth taking as the subject of this book: if my knowledge of the source material had been more extensive I should have wished to end the story not earlier than the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, and perhaps with the taking of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks and the end of the Byzantine empire in 1453. The alleged &#039;orientalisation&#039; of the Byzantine empire was in reality slight.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For English-speaking readers the most convincing statement of this view is by Baynes, &#039;&#039;BSOE&#039;&#039; 1-82. Different as my own position is from his in some ways, I find him entirely convincing on this particular topic.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Although the Byzantines no longer commonly referred to themselves as &#039;Hellenes&#039;, a term which from the fourth century onwards acquired the sense of &#039;pagans&#039;, they did call themselves &#039;&#039;&#039;Rhōmaioi&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;, the Greek word for &#039;Romans&#039;, a fact which may remind us that the Roman empire survived in its Greek-speaking areas long after it had collapsed in the Latin West – by something like a thousand years in Constantinople itself. By the mid-ninth century we find a Byzantine emperor, Michael III, referring to Latin as &#039;a barbarous Scythian language&#039;, in a letter to Pope Nicholas I. This contemptuous description of the Roman tongue exasperated Nicholas, who repeated the sacrilegious phrase five times over in his reply to Michael (A.D. 865), with indignant comments.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nicholas [I] Papa, &#039;&#039;Ep.&#039;&#039; 8 in J. D. Mansi, &#039;&#039;Sacr. Conc. nova et ampl. coll.&#039;&#039; XV (1770) 186-216, at 191, repr. as &#039;&#039;Ep&#039;&#039;. 86 in &#039;&#039;MPL CXIX&#039;&#039;. 626–62, at 932.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is a fascinating account of the Greek contribution to the Roman empire and the relationship of the two cultures in A. H. M. Jones&#039;s brief article, &#039;The Greeks under the Roman Empire&#039;, in &#039;&#039;Dumbarton Oaks Papers&#039;&#039; 17 (1963) 3-19, reprinted in the posthumous volume of Jones&#039;s essays edited  by P. A. Brunt, &#039;&#039;The Roman Economy&#039;&#039; (1974) 90-113.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - &#039;&#039;Polis&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
In the Archaic and Classical periods, in Greece itself and in some of the early Greek colonies in Italy and Sicily and on the west coast of Asia Minor, the word &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;χώρα&#039;&#039;) was often used as a synonym for the &#039;&#039;agroi&#039;&#039; (the fields), the rural area of the city-state, the &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;πόλις&#039;&#039;); and sometimes the word &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; itself, in the special limited sense of its urban area, was contrasted with its &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; (see my ECAPS 1, nn.2-3). This usage continued in the Hellenistic period and under Roman rule: every &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; had its own &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; in the sense of its own rural area. However, except where a native population had been reduced to a subject condition there was generally, in the areas mentioned, no fundamental difference between those who lived in or near the urban centre of the &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; and the peasants who lived in the countryside, even if the latter tended to be noticeably less urbane (less cityfied) than the normal and in the literature produced by the upper classes are often treated patronisingly as &#039;country bumpkins&#039; (&#039;&#039;chōritai&#039;&#039;, for example, in Xen., &#039;&#039;HG&#039;&#039; III.ii.31), an attitude which nevertheless allows them to be credited on occasion with superior moral virtues of a simple kind (see Dover, &#039;&#039;GPM&#039;&#039; 113-14). Both groups, however, were Greek and participated in a common culture to a greater or lesser degree.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is hardly possible to give a general definition of a &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; that would hold good for all purposes and all periods, and the best we can do is say that a political entity was a &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; if it was recognised as such. Pausanias, in a famous passage probably written in the 170s, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, speaks disparagingly of the tiny Phocian &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; of Panopeus, east of Mount Parnassus – &#039;if indeed you can call it a &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;, he says, &#039;when it has no public buildings [&#039;&#039;archeia&#039;&#039;], no gymnasium, no theatre, no market place [&#039;&#039;agora&#039;&#039;], and no fountain of water, and where the people live in empty hovels like mountain shanties on the edge of a ravine&#039; (X.iv.1). Yet Pausanias does call it a &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; and shows that in his day it was accepted as such.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In those parts of Asia and Egypt into which Greek civilisation penetrated only in the time of Alexander the Great and in the Hellenistic period the situation was very different. In Asia, from at least the time of Alexander (and probably as early as the fifth century B.C., as I have argued in my &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 154-5, 313-14), the terms of &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; had come to be used on occasion in a recognised technical sense, which continued throughout the Hellenistic period and beyond in Asia and Egypt: in this sense the &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; was the whole vast area not included in the territory administered by any Greek &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039;, sometimes referred to as the &#039;&#039;chōra basilikē&#039;&#039; (royal &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039;), it was under the direct, autocratic rule of the kings, the successors of Alexander, and it was bureaucratically administered, while the &#039;&#039;poleis&#039;&#039; had republican governments and enjoyed forms of precarious autonomy which differed according to circumstances. (It will be sufficient to refer to Jones, &#039;&#039;GCAJ&#039;&#039;, and Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039;.) Under Roman rule the same basic division between &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; continued, but the bulk of the &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; came by degrees under the administration of particular &#039;&#039;poleis&#039;&#039;, each of which had its own &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;territorium&#039;&#039; in the Latin West). The cities in the narrow sense were Greek in very varying degrees in language and culture; native languages and culture usually prevailed in the &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039;, where the peasants did not normally enjoy the citizenship of the &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; that controlled them, and lived mainly in villages, the most common Greek term for which was &#039;&#039;kōmai&#039;&#039; (see IV.ii below). Graeco-Roman civilisation was essentially urban, a civilisation of cities; and in the areas in which it was not native, in which it had not grown up from roots in the very soil, it remained largely an upper-class culture: those whom it embraced exploited the natives in the countryside and gave little in return. As Rostovtzeff has said, speaking of the Roman empire as a whole:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The population of the cities alike in Italy and in the provinces formed but a small minority as compared with the population of the country. Civilised life, of course, was concentrated in the cities; every man who had some intellectual interests . . . lived in a city and could not imagine himself living elsewhere: for him the &#039;&#039;geōrgos&#039;&#039; or &#039;&#039;paganus&#039;&#039; [farmer or villager] was an inferior being, half-civilised or uncivilised. It is no wonder that for us the life of the ancient world is more or less identical with the life of the ancient cities. The cities have told us their story, the country always remained silent and reserved. What we know of the country we know mostly through the men of the cities . . . The voice of the country population is rarely heard . . . Hence it is not surprising that in most modern works on the Roman empire the country and the country population do not appear at all or appear only from time to time in connexion with certain events in the life of the State or the cities&#039; (&#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2 I.192-3).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;We can therefore agree wholeheartedly with the American mediaevalist Lynn White, when he says:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Because practically all the written records and famous monuments of Antiquity were produced in cities, we generally think of ancient societies as having been essentially urban. They were, in fact, agricultural to a degree which we can scarcely grasp. It is a conservative guess that even in fairly prosperous regions over ten people were needed on the land to enable a single person to live away from the land. Cities were atolls of civilisation (etymologically &#039;citification&#039;) on an ocean of rural primitivism. They were supported by a terrifyingly slender margin of surplus agricultural production which could be destroyed swiftly by drought, flood, plague, social disorder or warfare. Since the peasants were closest to the sources of food, in time of hunger they secreted what they could and prevented supplies from reaching the cities (Fontana &#039;&#039;Econ. Hist. of Europe, I. The Middle Ages&#039;&#039;, ed. C. M. Cipolla [1972], at 144-5).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Actually, as we shall see in IV.ii below, the opinion expressed in that last sentence is less true of the Roman empire (including its Greek area) than of other ancient societies, because of the exceptionally effective exploitation and control of the countryside by the imperial government and the municipalities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Greek (or Roman) city normally expected to feed itself corn grown in its own &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;territorium&#039;&#039;), or at any rate grown nearby: this has been demonstrated recently by Jones, Brunt, and others, and is now beginning to be generally realised.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See Jones, &#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039; II.841-5 (with the notes, III.283); Brunt, &#039;&#039;IM&#039;&#039; 703-6 (who notes that &#039;Jones has much the clearest conception of the general conditions that obtained for the food supply&#039;).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; (Classical Athens of course was the great exception to this rule, as to so many others: see my &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 46-9.) An essential factor here, the relevance of which used often to be overlooked, is the inefficiency and high cost of ancient land transport.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See esp. the references that follow in the main text above to Jones, &#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;RE&#039;&#039;. Among many other discussions of ancient transport, see e.g. Duncan-Jones, &#039;&#039;EREQS&#039;&#039; 366-9; also C. A. Yeo, &#039;Land and sea transportation in Imperial Italy&#039;, in &#039;&#039;TAPA&#039;&#039; 77 (1946) 221-44; and of course the indexes to Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2, s.v. &#039;Transportation&#039; etc. On any question of navigation or sea transport, see Lionel Cassion, &#039;&#039;Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World&#039;&#039; (Princeton, 1971). There is a great deal of miscellaneous information about travel and journeys by land and sea in the first two centuries C.E. in Ludwig Friedländer&#039;s massive work, &#039;&#039;Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms in der Zeit von August bis zum Ausgang der Antonine&#039;&#039;9-10 (Leipzig, 1919-21) I.316-88, esp. 331-57.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In Diocletian&#039;s day, &#039;a wagon-load of wheat, costing 6,000 denarii, would be doubled in price by a journey [by land] of 300 miles&#039;; and, if we ignore the risks of sea transport, &#039;it was cheaper to ship grain from one end of the Mediterranean to the other than to cart it 75 miles&#039; (Jones, &#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039; II.841-2; cf. his &#039;&#039;RE&#039;&#039; 37). Jones cites evidence from Gregory Nazianzenus and John the Lydian, writing in the fourth and sixth centuries respectively (&#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039; II.844-5). According to Gregory, coastal cities could endure crop shortages without great difficulty, &#039;as they can dispose of their own products and receive supplies by sea; for us inland our surpluses are unprofitable and our scarcities irremediable, as we have no means of disposing of what we have or of important what we lack&#039; (&#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. XLIII.34, in &#039;&#039;MPG&#039;&#039; XXXVI. 541-4). John complains that when Justinian abolished the public post in certain areas, including Asia Minor, and moreover taxes had to be paid in gold instead of (as hitherto) in kind, &#039;the unsold crops rotted on the estate . . . , and the taxpayer was ruined . . . , since he could not sell his crops, living far from the sea&#039; (&#039;&#039;De magistr&#039;&#039;. III.61). This evidence, as Brunt has rightly observed, &#039;is perfectly applicable to every preceding epoch of the ancient world and to every region lacking water communications, for there had been no regress in the efficiency of land transport&#039; (&#039;&#039;IM&#039;&#039; 704). I would add a reference to an interesting passage in Procopius, &#039;&#039;Bell&#039;&#039;. VI (&#039;&#039;Goth&#039;&#039;. II) xx.18, describing how, during a widespread famine in northern and central Italy in 538, the inhabitants of inland Aemilia left their homes and went south-east to Picenum (where Procopius himself was), supposing that that area would not be so destitute of food supplies &#039;because it was on the sea&#039; (cf. IV.ii below and its n.29).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I shall not have occasion to refer again to transport in the ancient world, I will give here a particularly striking – though rarely noticed – example of the great superiority of water to land transport even in late antiquity. In 359 the Emperor Julian considerably increased the corn supply of the armies on the Rhine and of the inhabitants of the neighbouring areas by having corn which was already customarily shipped from Britain transported up the Rhine by river-boats (Libanius, &#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. XVIII.82-3; Zosimus III.v.2; Amm. Marc. XVIII.ii.3; cf. Julian, &#039;&#039;Ep. ad Athen&#039;&#039;. 8, 279d-80a). The fact that transport &#039;&#039;against the current of the Rhine&#039;&#039; was, as Libanius and Zosimus realised, much cheaper than carriage on wagons by road is impressive evidence of the inferiority of the latter form of transport. (It is convenient to mention here that the discovery in recent years of further fragments of Diocletian&#039;s Price-Edict of A. D. 301&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The fragments of Diocletian&#039;s Price Edict known down to 1938-9 were published (with an English translation) by Elsa R. Graser, in Frank, &#039;&#039;ESAR&#039;&#039; V (1940) 305-421; there are some further relevant fragments in her article, &#039;The significance of two new fragments of the Edict of Diocletian&#039;, in &#039;&#039;TAPA&#039;&#039; 71 (1940) 157-74. An edition by Siegfried Lauffer, &#039;&#039;Diokletians Preisedikt&#039;&#039; (Berlin, 1971) was complete down to 1970; another edition (with Italian translation) by Marta Giacchero, &#039;&#039;Edictum Diocletiani et Collegarum de pretiis rerum venalium&#039;&#039; (Genoa, 1974), includes several fragments found subsequently, and is now the most useful single text. A number of fragments of the Edict found at Aezani in Phrygia, on the upper Rhyndacus, make up the most complete Latin version yet available from a single source. These fragments (including a clear price of 72,000 denarii for the pound of gold and 6,000 for the pound of silver) have been incorporated in Giacchero&#039;s edition. On the publication of the Aezani fragments by R. and F. Naumann in 1973, see Joyce Reynolds, in &#039;&#039;JRS&#039;&#039; 66 (1976) 251-2 (with Hugh Plommer) and 183, with the works cited in the latter passage, nn.117-19. I give here, for convenience, a few particularly important prices from the Edict (in denarii) which can now be regarded as certain: (1) the pound of gold: 72,000 (Giacchero 28.1a,2); (2) the pound of silver: 6,000 (G. 28.9); (3) an ordinary slave aged 16-40: male 30,000, female 25,000 (G. 29.1a,2; Lauffer 31.1a,2); (4) the daily wage of an agricultural worker: 25 plus food (G. and L. 7.1a; cf. IV.iii above and its n.1 below); (5) the &#039;castrensis modius&#039;: of wheat 100, of barley 60 (G. and L. 1.1a,2). The last section of all in the Edict, dealing with sea and river transport charges, is no.35 in G. and 37 in L.; the section dealing with land transport charges is no.17 in each. The best attempt to solve the complicated problem of the size of the &#039;&#039;castrensis modius&#039;&#039; (probably 1½ ordinary modii) is by R. P. Duncan-Jones, &#039;The size of the &#039;&#039;modius castrensis&#039;&#039;&#039;, in &#039;&#039;ZPE&#039;&#039; 21 (1976) 53-62, cf. 43-52.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; has advanced our knowledge of the relative costs of land and water transport, a subject I cannot discuss here as it deserves.) I will add a reference to the vivid little sketch in Ausonius of the contrast between river-journeys by boat, downstream with oars and upstream with haulage (&#039;&#039;Mosella&#039;&#039; 39-44). It is also worth drawing attention to the repeated allusions by Strabo to the importance of river-transport in the countries where rivers were sufficiently navigable – not so much in the Greek lands, of course, as in Spain and Gaul (see esp. Strabo III, pp. 140-3, 151-3; IV, pp. 177-8, 185-6, 189). In 537 the Emperor Justinian recorded with sympathy the fact that litigants involved in appeals, who therefore needed to travel (to Constantinople), had been complaining that they were sometimes prevented from coming by sea owing to the unfavourable winds or by land owing to their poverty – another testimony to the greater cost of land journeys (&#039;&#039;Nov. J&#039;&#039;. XLIX. &#039;&#039;praef&#039;&#039;. 2). Yet sea voyages could sometimes involve long delays, because of rough weather or unfavourable winds. The official messengers who brought a letter from the Emperor Gaius to the governor of Syria at Antioch at the end of A.D. 41 are said by Josephus (no doubt with some exaggeration) to have been &#039;weather-bound for three months&#039; on the way (&#039;&#039;BJ&#039;&#039; II.203). In 51 B.C., when Cicero was travelling to Asia to take over his province of Cicilia, it took him five days to sail from Peiraeus to Delos and another eleven days to reach Ephesus (Cic., &#039;&#039;Ad Att&#039;&#039;. V.xii.1; xiii.1). Writing to his friend Atticus after reaching Delos, he opened his letter with the words, &#039;A sea journey is a serious matter [&#039;&#039;negotium magnum est navigare&#039;&#039;], and in the month of July at that&#039; (&#039;&#039;Ad Att&#039;&#039;. V.xii.1). On his way home in November of the following year, Cicero spent three weeks on the journey from Patras to Otranto, including two spells of six days each on land, waiting for a favourable wind; some of his companions, who risked the crossing from Cassiope on Corcyra (Corfu) to Italy in bad weather were shipwrecked (&#039;&#039;Ad fam&#039;&#039;. XVI.ix.1-2).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In point of fact, even the availability of water-transport, in the eyes of Greeks and Romans, could hardly compensate for the absence of a fertile &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039;. I should like to refer here to an interesting text, seldom or never quoted in this connection, which illustrates particularly well the general realisation in antiquity that a city must normally be able to live off the cereal produce of its own immediate hinterland. Vitruvius (writing under Augustus) has a nice story – which makes my point equally well whether it is true or not – about a conversation between Alexander the Great and Deinocrates of Rhodes, the architect who planned for Alexander the great city in Egypt that bore (and still bears) his name, Alexandria, and became, in Strabo&#039;s words, &#039;the greatest place of exchange in the inhabited world&#039; (&#039;&#039;megistron emporion tēs oikoumenēs&#039;&#039;, XVII.i.13, p.798). In this story Deinocrates suggests to Alexander the foundation on Mount Athos of a city, a &#039;&#039;civitas&#039;&#039; – the Greek source will of course have used the word &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039;. Alexander at once inquires &#039;whether there are fields around, which can provide that city with a food supply&#039;; and when Deinocrates admits that the city could only be supplied by sea transport, Alexander rejects the idea out of hand: just as a child needs milk, he says, so a city without fields and abundant produce from them cannot grow, or maintain a large population. Alexandria, Vitruvius adds, was not only a safe harbour and an excellent place of exchange; it had &#039;cornfields all over Egypt&#039;, irrigated by the Nile (&#039;&#039;De architect&#039;&#039;. II, &#039;&#039;praef&#039;&#039;. 2-4).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now the civilisation of old Greece had been a natural growth (&#039;from roots in the very soil&#039;, to repeat the phrase I used above); and although the cultured gentleman, living in or near the city, could be a very different kind of person from the boorish peasant, who might not often leave his farm, except to sell his produce in the city market, yet they spoke the same language and felt that they were to some extent akin.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For a high degree of literacy among the Athenians of the Classical period, see the admirable article by F. D. Harvey, &#039;Literacy in the Athenian democracy&#039;, in &#039;&#039;REG&#039;&#039; 79 (1966) 585-635. Athens was no doubt exceptional, in this as in so many other ways. Illiteracy was very common in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, especially among women: see H. C. Youtie, &#039;&#039;Scriptiunculae&#039;&#039; (Amsterdam, 1973) II.611-27, 629-51 (nos. 29 and 30), reprinting (with minor additions) two articles, &#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;Αγραμματοσ: An Aspect of Greek Society in Egypt&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;, in &#039;&#039;HSCP&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;75 (1971) 161-76; and&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Βραδέως γράφων&#039;&#039;: Between Literacy and Illiteracy&#039;, in &#039;&#039;GRBS&#039;&#039; 12 (1971) 239-61. Sufficient bibliography will be found there. Even a village clerk, a &#039;&#039;κωμογραμματεύς&#039;&#039;, who of course was supposed to be literate, might not be so, or only minimally. Two known cases are mentioned in &#039;&#039;P. Petaus&#039;&#039; 11 and 31: see the articles by Youtie mentioned above, and his no.34 in &#039;&#039;Scriptiunculae&#039;&#039; II.677-95, a reprint of &#039;Pétaus, fils de Pétaus, ou le scribe qui ne savait pas écrire&#039;, in &#039;&#039;CE&#039;&#039; 41 (1966) 127-43.&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the new foundations in the Greek East the situation was often quite different. The upper classes, living in or very near the towns, mostly spoke Greek, lived the Greek life and shared in Greek culture. Of the urban poor we know very little, but some of them were at least literate, and they mixed with the educated classes and probably shared their outlook and system of values to a very considerable extent, even where they did not enjoy any citizen rights. But the peasantry, the great majority of the population, on whose backs (with those of the slaves) the burden of the whole vast edifice of Greek civilisation rested, generally remained in much the same state of life as their forefathers: in many areas the majority probably either spoke Greek not at all or at best imperfectly, and most of them remained for centuries – right down to the end of Graeco-Roman civilisation and beyond – at little above the subsistence level, illiterate, and almost untouched by the brilliant culture of the cities.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The best account of this fundamental opposition between town and country in the Greek East is in Jones, &#039;&#039;GCAJ&#039;&#039; 259-304 (Part V, &#039;The achievement of the cities&#039;), esp. 285 ff. Another major work by Jones, &#039;&#039;CERP&#039;&#039; (frequently cited in &#039;&#039;GCAJ&#039;&#039;), has been reissued in a second edition, &#039;&#039;CERP&#039;&#039;2 (1971), with additions, a few of them substantial. A recent work, limited to the Late Republic and the Principate, is MacMullen, &#039;&#039;RSR&#039;&#039;: the first chapters of this (I. &#039;Rural&#039;, and II. &#039;Rural-Urban&#039;, pp. 1-56) have much well-chosen illustrative material – of an antiquarian rather than historical character, since this book (like the rest of MacMullen&#039;s work) is not supported by any consistent structure of theory or method, and therefore lacks any principle of organisation and is seldom or never able to furnish explanations. For the opinions of a great scholar who knew the archaeological as well as the literary evidence particularly well, see Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2, e.g. I.255-78 (with II.654-77), 344-52, 378-80, 505. For a similar situation in the West, see I.33, 59-63, 203-6 (Italy); 252 (Thrace). I should perhaps add that I know of no parallel to Strabo&#039;s classification into &#039;&#039;agroikoi&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;mesagroikoi&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;politikoi&#039;&#039; (XIII.i.25, p.592): it may be no more than a reflection of Plato, &#039;&#039;Laws&#039;&#039; III.677-81, which he had quoted.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As A. H. M. Jones has said:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The cities were . . . economically parasitic on the countryside. Their income consisted in the main of the rents drawn by the urban aristocracy from the peasants . . . The splendours of civic life were to a large extent paid for out of [these] rents, and to this extent the villages were impoverished for the benefits of the towns . . . The city magnates came into contact with the villagers in three capacities only, as tax collectors, as policemen, and as landlords (&#039;&#039;GCAF&#039;&#039; 268, 287, 295).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;This of course is as true of much of the Roman West as of the Greek East, and it remained true of the greater part of the Greek world right through the Roman period. The fundamental relationship between city and countryside was always the same: it was essentially one of exploitation, with few benefits given in return.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is brought out most forcibly by a very remarkable passage near the beginning of the treatise &#039;&#039;On wholesome and unwholesome foods&#039;&#039; by Galen,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Galen, &#039;&#039;Περὶ εὐχυμίας καὶ κακοχυμίας&#039;&#039; 1.1-7 = &#039;&#039;De bonis malisque sucis&#039;&#039;, ed. G. Helmreich, in &#039;&#039;Corp. Medic. Graec&#039;&#039;. V.iv.2, Galenus (Leipzig/Berlin, 1923) 389-91 = &#039;&#039;De probis pravisque alimentorum succis&#039;&#039;, ed. C. G. Kühn, in Galenus VI (Leipzig, 1823) 749-52, with Latin trans.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the greatest physician and medical writer of antiquity, whose life spanned the last seventy years of the second century of the Christian era and who must have written the work in question during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-80) or soon afterwards, and therefore during or just after that Antonine Age which has long been held up to us as part of that period in the history of the world during which, in Gibbon&#039;s famous phrase, &#039;the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous&#039; (&#039;&#039;DFRE&#039;&#039; 1.78). Galen, setting out to describe the terrible consequences of an uninterrupted series of years of dearth affecting &#039;many of the peoples subject to Roman rule&#039;, draws a distinction, not expressly between landlords and tenants, or between rich and poor, but between city-dwellers and country folk, although for his purposes all three sets of distinctions must obviously have been much the same, and it would not matter much to him (or to the peasantry) whether the &#039;city-dwellers&#039; in his picture were carrying out their exactions purely as landlords or partly as tax-collectors.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Immediately summer was over, those who live in the cities, in accordance with their universal practice of collecting a sufficient supply of corn to last a whole year, took from the fields all the wheat, with the barley, beans and lentils, and left to the rustics [the &#039;&#039;agroikoi&#039;&#039;] only those annual products which are called pulses and leguminous fruits [&#039;&#039;ospria te kai chedropa&#039;&#039;]; they even took away a good part of these to the city. So the people in the countryside [&#039;&#039;hoi kata tēn chōran anthrōpoi&#039;&#039;], after consuming during the winter what had been left, were compelled to use unhealthy forms of nourishment. Through the spring they ate twigs and shoots of trees, bulbs and roots of unwholesome plants, and they made unsparing use fo what are called wild vegetables, whatever they could get hold of, until they were surfeited; they ate them after boiling them whole like green grasses, of which they had not tasted before even as an experiment. I myself in person saw some of them at the end of spring and almost all at the beginning of summer afflicted with numerous ulcers covering their skin, not of the same kind in every case, for some suffered from erysipelas, others from inflated tumours, others from spreading boils, other had an eruption resembling lichen and scraps and leprosy.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Galen goes on to say that many of these wretched people died. He is dealing, of course, with a situation which in his experience was evidently exceptional, but, as we shall see, enough other evidence exists to show that its exceptional character was a matter of degree rather than of kind. Famines in the Graeco-Roman world were quite frequent: various modern authors have collected numerous examples.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;As Brunt says (&#039;&#039;IM&#039;&#039; 703), &#039;comprehensive examination is still needed&#039; of ancient famines. His own brief treatment of the subject is admirable and gives a few references to other works, among which I would single out MacMullen, &#039;&#039;ERO&#039;&#039; 249-54 (an appendix devoted entirely to famines), and H. P. Kohns, &#039;&#039;Versorgungskrisen und Hungerrevolten im spätantiken Rom&#039;&#039; ( = &#039;&#039;Antiquitas&#039;&#039; I.6, Bonn, 1961).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is one phenomenon in particular which strongly suggests that in the Roman empire the peasantry was more thoroughly and effectively exploited than in most other societies which rely largely upon peasant populations for their food supply. It has often been noticed (as by Lynn White, quoted above) that peasants have usually been able to survive famines better than their town-dwelling fellow-countrymen, because they can hide away for themselves some of the food they produce and may still have something to eat when there is starvation in the towns. It was not so in the Roman empire. I have just quoted a very remarkable passage in Galen which speaks of &#039;those who live in the cities&#039; as descending upon their &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; after the harvest, in time of dearth, and appropriating for themselves practically all the wholesome food. There is a good deal of specific evidence from the Middle and Later Roman Empire to confirm this. Philostratus, writing in the first half of the third century a biography of Apollonius of Tyana (a curious figure of the late first century), could describe how at Aspendus in Pamphylia (on the south coast of Asia Minor) Apollonius could find no food on sale in the market except vetches (&#039;&#039;oroboi&#039;&#039;): &#039;the citizens&#039;, he says, &#039;were feeding on this and whatever else they could get, for the leading men [&#039;&#039;hoi dynatoi&#039;&#039;, literally &#039;the powerful&#039;] had shut away all the corn and were keeping it for export&#039; (Philostr., &#039;&#039;Vita Apollon&#039;&#039;. I.15; cf. IV.ii and its n.24 below). And again and again, between the mid-fourth century and the mid-sixth, we find peasants crowding into the nearest city in time of famine, because only in the city is there any edible food to be had: I shall give a whole series of examples in IV.ii below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We must also remember something that is far too often forgotten: the exploitation of the humbler folk was by no means only financial; one of its most burdensome features was the exaction of menial labour services of many kinds. A Jewish rabbi who was active in the second quarter of the third century by our era declared that cities were set up by the State &#039;in order to impose upon the people &#039;&#039;angaria&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039; – a term of Persian or Aramaic provenance and originally relating to forced transport services, which had been taken over by the Hellenistic kingdoms (as the Greek word &#039;&#039;angareia&#039;&#039;, plural &#039;&#039;angareiai&#039;&#039;) and by the Romans (as the Latin &#039;&#039;angaria&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;angariae&#039;&#039;), and had come to be applied to a variety of forms of compulsory labour performed for the State or the municipalities;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See esp. D. Sperber, &#039;Angaria in Rabbinic literature&#039;, in &#039;&#039;AC&#039;&#039; 38 (1969) 164-8, at 166, citing R. Hanina b. Hama. As Sperber indicates, &#039;angaria&#039; as used by the rabbi in question has the general meaning of extortion and oppression. And see P. Fiebig, in &#039;&#039;ZNW&#039;&#039; 18 (1917-18) 64-72. For &#039;&#039;angariae&#039;&#039; in general in the Greek (and Roman) world, see Rostovtzeff, &#039;Angariae&#039;, in &#039;&#039;Klio&#039;&#039; 6 (1906) 249-58; &#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2 I.381-4 (with II.703 nn.35-7), 519-20, II.723 n.46; F. Oertel, &#039;&#039;Die Liturgie&#039;&#039; (Leipzig, 1917) 24-6, 88-90. For the incidence of &#039;&#039;angariae&#039;&#039; falling on the peasant and not the well-to-do landowner, see Lieberschuetz, &#039;&#039;Ant&#039;&#039;. 69 (on Liban., &#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. L, &#039;&#039;De angariis&#039;&#039;), quoted in the text above. For the very wide incidence of transport services of various kinds in the Roman empire, organised by the Roman government as the &#039;&#039;vehiculatio&#039;&#039;, later the &#039;&#039;cursus publicus&#039;&#039;, see Stephen Mitchell, &#039;Requisitioned transport in the Roman Empire: a new inscription from Pisidia&#039; [Sagalassus], in &#039;&#039;JRS&#039;&#039; 66 (1976) 106-31, esp. the list of 21 documents (111-12). A text in the &#039;&#039;Digest&#039;&#039; that is seldom noticed mentions a rescript to the effect that ships belonging to veterans &#039;&#039;angariari posse&#039;&#039; (XLIX.xviii.4.1, Ulpian). In a papyrus we even find the word &#039;&#039;ἀνενγάρευτος&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;SB&#039;&#039; I.4226).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &#039;the Middle Ages applied it to services (&#039;&#039;corvées&#039;&#039;) owned to the &#039;&#039;seigneur&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039; (Marc Bloch, in &#039;&#039;CEHE&#039;&#039; I2.263-4), and in fifteenth-century Italy we still hear of &#039;&#039;angararii&#039;&#039;, and of those bound by fealty in rustic vassalage to their lords, subject to &#039;&#039;angaria&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;perangaria&#039;&#039; (Philip Jones, in id. 406). An example familiar to most people today who have never heard the word &#039;&#039;angaria&#039;&#039; is the story of Simon of Cyrene, who was obliged by the Romans to carry the cross of Jesus to the place of execution: Mark and Matthew use the appropriate technical term, a form of the verb &#039;&#039;angareuein&#039;&#039; (Mk XV.21; Mt. XXVII.32). Only an understanding of the &#039;&#039;angareia&#039;&#039;-system can make fully intelligible one of the sayings of Jesus in the so-called Sermon on the Mount: &#039;Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain&#039; (Mt. V.41). Again, the word &#039;compel&#039; in this text represents the technical term &#039;&#039;angareuein&#039;&#039;. (The passage deserves more notice than it usually receives in discussions of the attitude of Jesus to the political authorities of his day.) Readers of the Stoic philosopher Epictetus will remember that he was less positively enthusiastic than Jesus about co-operation with officials exacting &#039;&#039;angareia&#039;&#039;: he merely remarks that it is sensible to comply with a soldier&#039;s requisition of one&#039;s donkey. If one objects, he says, the result will only be a beating, and the donkey will be taken just the same (&#039;&#039;Diss&#039;&#039;. IV.i.79).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As it happens, it is in a speech &#039;&#039;On angareiai&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;De angariis&#039;&#039; in Latin, &#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. L) that the great Antiochene orator Libanius makes a particularly emphatic assertion of the absolute dependence of the cities upon the countryside and its inhabitants. (The word &#039;&#039;angareia&#039;&#039; does not actually occur in the speech, and &#039;&#039;Peri tōn angareiōn&#039;&#039; as its title may be due to a Byzantine scholar; but no one will dispute that &#039;&#039;angareiai&#039;&#039; of a particular municipal kind are the subject of the document.) Libanius is complaining to the Emperor Theodosius I in 385 that the peasants of the neighbourhood are being driven to desperation by having themselves and their animals pressed into service for carrying away building rubble from the city. Permits are given by the authorities, he says, which even allow private individuals to take charge of particular gates of the city and to impress everything passing through; with the help of soldiers they drive hapless peasants with the lash (§§ 9, 16, 27 etc.). As Liebeschuetz puts it, the animals of &#039;&#039;honorati&#039;&#039; (acting or retired imperial officials and military officers) &#039;were not requisitioned; other notables managed to get their animals excused even if with some difficulty. All the suffering was that of peasants. There is not a word about losses of landowners&#039; (&#039;&#039;Ant&#039;&#039;. 69). Although he has to admit that the practice has been going on for years (§§ 10, 15, 30), Libanius claims that it was illegal (§§ 7, 10, 17-20). He cleverly adduces the fact that a permit was once obtained from an emperor as proof that even the provincial governor has no right to authorise it (§ 22). He also asserts that visitors from other cities are aghast at what they see happening in Antioch (§ 8) – a statement there is no need to take seriously. Towards the end of the speech Libanius explains that the practice he is complaining about has a bad effect on the city&#039;s corn supply (§§ 30-1), an argument that might be expected to appeal strongly to the emperor. (We may compare the complaint of the Emperor Domitian, almost exactly three hundred years earlier, that the infliction on working peasants of burdens of the time of &#039;&#039;angaria&#039;&#039; is likely to result in failures of cultivation: &#039;&#039;IGLS&#039;&#039; V.1998, lines 28-30.) And then Libanius comes to his climax: he begs the &#039;&#039;philanthrōpotatos basileus&#039;&#039;,&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Show your concern not just for the cities, but for the countryside too, or rather for the countryside in preference to the cities – for the country is the basis on which they rest. One can assert that cities are founded on the country, and that this is their firm footing, providing them with wheat, barley, grapes, wine, oil and the nourishment of man and other living beings. Unless oxen, ploughs, seed, plants and herds of cattle existed, cities would not have come into being at all. And, once in existence, they have depended upon the fortunes of the countryside, and the good and ill that they experience arise therefrom.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Any foe to the well-being of working farmers and even of their animals, he goes on,&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;is foe to the land, and the foe to the land is foe to the cities also, and indeed to mariners as well, for they too need the produce of the land. They may get from the sea increase of their store of goods, but the very means of life comes from the land. And you too, Sire, obtain tribute from it. In your rescripts you hold converse with the cities about it, and their payment of it comes from the land. So whoever assists the peasantry supports you, and ill-treatment, Sire, by law, punishment and edicts, and in your enthusiasm for the matter under discussion you must encourage all to speak up for the peasants (§§ 33-6, in the translation of A. F. Norman&#039;s Loeb edition of Libanius, Vol. II).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;I should perhaps add, not only that the practice against which Libanius is protesting is something quite separate from the burdensome &#039;&#039;angareiai&#039;&#039; exacted by the imperial authorities, mainly in connection with the &#039;public post&#039;, but also that Libanius himself sometimes takes a very different and much less protective approach towards peasants in his other writings, notably when he is denouncing the behaviour of his own and other tenants, as well as freeholders resisting tax-collectors, in his &#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. XLVII (see IV.ii below).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The linguistic evidence for the separation between &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; is particularly illuminating. Except in some of the western and southern coastal areas of Asia Minor, such as Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia and the Cilician plain, where the native tongues seem to have been entirely displaced by Greek during the Hellenistic age, the great majority of the peasants of the Greek East and even some of the townsmen (especially of course the humbler ones) habitually spoke not Greek but the old native tongues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;There is an up-to-date bibliography on this subject, for the Western as well as the Eastern part of the Roman empire, in P. A. Brunt, RLRCRE = &#039;The Romanisation of the local ruling classes in the Roman empire&#039;, in &#039;&#039;Assimilation et résistance à la culture gréco-romaine dans le monde ancien&#039;&#039; = &#039;&#039;Travaux du&#039;&#039; VIe [Madrid, 1974] &#039;&#039;Congrés International d&#039;Études Classiques&#039;&#039; (Bucarest/Paris, 1976) 161-73, at 170-2. I should perhaps add Jones, &#039;&#039;CERP&#039;&#039;2 228-30 and &#039;&#039;GCAJ&#039;&#039; 288-95 (partly but not entirely replaced by &#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039; II.966, 968-9, 991-7); Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2 II.626-7 n.1, 666 n.36. J. C. Mann, &#039;Spoken Latin in Britain as evidenced in the inscriptions&#039;, in &#039;&#039;Britannia&#039;&#039; 2 (1971) 218-24, although dealing mainly with Britain, may suggest a way in which research might be conducted in other areas.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Everyone will remember that when Paul and Barnabas arrived at Lystra, on the edge of a mountain district of southern Asia Minor, and Paul is said to have healed a cripple, the people cried out &#039;in the speech of Lycaonia&#039; (Act. Apost. XIV.11) – a vernacular tongue which was never written down and which in due course perished entirely. (And this happened inside a city, and moreover one in which Augustus had planted a citizen colony of Roman veterans.)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;On Lystra, see Barbara Levick, &#039;&#039;RCSAM&#039;&#039; 51-3, 153-6, 195-7.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Such stories could be paralleled again and again from widely separated parts of the Roman empire, in both East and West. And those who did not speak Greek or Latin would certainly have little or no part in Graeco-Roman civilisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We must exaggerate the strictly ethnic and linguistic factors, which are so noticeable in the more eastern parts of the Greek area, at the expense of economic and social ones. Even in Greece itself, the Aegean islands and the more western coasts of Asia Minor, where Greeks had for centuries been settled and where even the poorest peasant might be as much a Hellene as the city magnate (if at a much lower cultural level), the class division between the exploiters and those from whom they drew their sustenance was very real, and it naturally deepened when the humble entirely lost the protection many of them had been able to obtain from a democratic form of government (see V.iii below). And in the &#039;Oriental&#039; parts, newly brought within the great Hellenistic kingdoms, the clear-cut difference between &#039;Hellene&#039; and &#039;barbaros&#039; (Greek and native) gradually became transformed into a more purely class distinction, between the propertied and non-propertied. This is true even of Egypt, where the gulf between the Greeks and the native Egyptians had originally been as wide as anywhere, extending to language, religion, culture and &#039;way of life&#039; in general. In Egypt, indeed, there was more interpenetration between two elements than elsewhere, because until A.D. 200 cities were few (there were only Alexandria, Naucratis, Paraetonium and Ptolemais, and in addition Hadrian&#039;s foundation of Antinoöpolis in A.D. 130), and because far more Greeks settled outside the cities, in the country districts, often as soldiers or administrators, but with a strong tendency to gravitate toward the &#039;metropoleis&#039;, the capitals of the districts (&#039;nomes&#039;) into which Egypt was divided. The exploitation of Egypt under the Ptolemies (323-30 B.C.) was not as intense as under the succeeding Roman administration, and the rents and taxes exacted from the peasantry were at least spent mainly at Alexandria and Naucratis, and at the other centres of population (not yet &#039;&#039;poleis&#039;&#039;) where men of property lived, and were not partly diverted (as they were later) to Rome. Nevertheless, the income of the Ptolemies was enormous by ancient standards, and the fellahin must have been pressed hard to provide it.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The revenue of the reigning Ptolemy is given in respectable ancient sources as 14,800 talents of silver and 1½ million artabae of wheat in the second quarter of the third century B.C. (Jerome, &#039;&#039;In Daniel&#039;&#039;. XI.5), and in the last century B.C. as 12,500 talents (Cic., &#039;&#039;ap&#039;&#039;. Strab. XVII.i.13, p.798) or 6,000 talents (Diod. XVII.52.6): see Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; II.1150-3, with Ill.1607 n.86. The total population of late Ptolemaic Egypt (&#039;&#039;c&#039;&#039;. 60 B.C.) is given as 7 million by Diod. I.31.8 (with the emendation now commonly accepted: &#039;&#039;τούτων&#039;&#039; for &#039;&#039;τριακοσίων&#039;&#039;). That of Roman Egypt in the Flavian period is given by Jos., &#039;&#039;BJ&#039;&#039; II.385, as 7½ million, apart from Alexandria. These figures may be approximately correct. We should perhaps allow a million or so for Alexandria: cf. Fraser, &#039;&#039;PA&#039;&#039; I.90-1; II.171-2 n.358.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After 200 B.C. &#039;some natives rose in the scale and took Greek names, and some Greeks sank; Greek and native names occur in the same family. Some Greeks kept themselves aloof; but a new mixed race formed intermediate between Greeks and fellahin, and Hellene came to mean a man with some Greek &#039;&#039;culture&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039; (Tarn, &#039;&#039;HC&#039;&#039;3 206-7).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cf. Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; II.878-914; Jones, &#039;&#039;CERP&#039;&#039;2 302-11.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In Egypt, as elsewhere, &#039;being a Greek&#039; was certainly very much more a matter of culture than of descent; but culture itself was largely dependent upon property-ownership. Before the end of the second century B.C., as Rostovtzeff says, &#039;From the social and economic standpoint the dividing line between the upper and lower class was no longer between the Greeks forming the upper, and the Egyptians forming the lower, but between the rich and poor in general, many Egyptians being among the first, many Greeks among the second&#039;; but &#039;the old division into a privileged class of &amp;quot;Greeks&amp;quot; (which comprised now many hellenised Egyptians) and a subordinate class of natives remained as it had been&#039; (&#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; II.883). This is true, although some of the documents cited by Rostovtzeff might now be differently interpreted in some respects.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For example, Claude Vandersleyen, &#039;Le mot &#039;&#039;λαός&#039;&#039; dans le langue des papyrus grecs&#039;, in &#039;&#039;CE&#039;&#039; 48 (1973) 339-49, argues that the expressions &#039;&#039;λαός&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;λαοί&#039;&#039;, when occurring in the papyri in reference to Egypt, should be taken to be describing a particular section of the native Egyptian population, indeed a superior section, &#039;couche supérieure de la population égyptienne, existant aussi bien a l&#039;époque pharaonique qu&#039;à l&#039;époque ptolémaïque&#039; (cf. another work of Vandersleyen, which I have not been able to read: &#039;&#039;Les Guerres d&#039;Amosis&#039;&#039; [1971], esp. 182-4 on the Rosetta Stone), and not the general mass of the native population. Rostovtzeff, like many other scholars, will then have misinterpreted the words &#039;&#039;λαοί&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;λαός&#039;&#039; in such documents as the Rosetta Stone (&#039;&#039;OGIS&#039;&#039; 90.12: see &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; II.713-15) and in the papyrus he describes in &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; II.883-4 – he fails to give the reference, which is &#039;&#039;BGU&#039;&#039; VIII (1933) 1768 (W. Schubart and D. Schäfer, &#039;&#039;Spätptolemäische Papyri aus amtlichen Büros des Herakleopolites = Aegyptische Urkunden aus den staatlichen Museen zu Berlin&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Griechische Urkunden&#039;&#039; VIII, Berlin [1933], no.1768, pp.47-9). However, Vandersleyen&#039;s conclusions do not appear to be securely established: contrast W. Clarysse, in &#039;&#039;Anc. Soc&#039;&#039;. 7 (1976) 185 ff., at 195 and nn.22-6 (pointing out that Vandersleyen takes into account only the noun &#039;&#039;λαός&#039;&#039; and not the adjective &#039;&#039;λαικός&#039;&#039;, for which see (e.g. Préaux, &#039;&#039;ERL&#039;&#039; 224 and n.2); and Heinz Heinen, ibid. 127 ff., at 144 n.32, who declares himself unconvinced; cf. Heinen in &#039;&#039;Anc. Soc&#039;&#039;. 8 (1977) 130 n.21.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the Roman period, with the growth of the &#039;&#039;metropoleis&#039;&#039; into something more nearly resembling Greek cities, where the landowners mainly lived, the propertied classes generally regarded themselves as Greeks and the peasants as Egyptians. In a letter surviving on papyrus from the third century of the Christian era, the writer does not want his &#039;brethren&#039; to think of him as &#039;a barbarian or an inhuman [&#039;&#039;ananthrōpus&#039;&#039;] Egyptian&#039; (&#039;&#039;P. Oxy&#039;&#039;. XIV.1681.4-7).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marriages between city folk and peasants must have been very uncommon in all parts of the Greek world. Occasionally, no doubt, a peasant girl might be beautiful enough to attract a well-to-do city gentleman, but as a rule he would probably be far more likely to make her his mistress or concubine than his wife. There is, however, one delightful story, which I cannot resist telling, of love and marriage between two rich young city men and two lovely Sicilian peasant girls, who became known as the Kallipygoi. This is transmitted to us through Athenaeus (XII.554cde), from the iambic poems of Cercidas of Megalopolis and Archelaus of Chersonesus. (How much truth there is in it we have no means of knowing.) The two beautiful daughters of a peasant (an &#039;&#039;anēr agroikos&#039;&#039;), disputing which of them was the more callipygous, went out onto the highway and invited a young man who happened to be passing by to arbitrate between them. Inspecting both, he preferred the elder, with whom he then and there fell in love. His younger brother, when he heard about the girls, went out to see them, and fell in love with the younger. The aged father of the two young men did his best to persuade his sons to make more reputable marriages, but without success, and eventually he accepted the two peasant girls as his daughters-in-law. Having thus risen greatly in the world and become conspicuously rich, the two women built a temple to Aphrodite Kallipygos – a cult title which was not only most appropriate to the goddess of love and beauty but also made a charming allusion to the circumstances of the foundation. (One may feel that this is one of the cases in which paganism had a distinct advantage over Christianity.) Marriages of well-bred girls to peasants must also have been exceedingly rare. In Euripides&#039; &#039;&#039;Electra&#039;&#039; the marriage of the princess Electra to a poor rustic who is not even given a name in the play – he is just an &#039;&#039;autourgos&#039;&#039; (a man who works his farm with his own hands) – is regarded even by the man himself as a grave and deliberate slight on the girl, and in his opening speech he alludes with pride to the fact that he has never taken her to his bed and she is still a virgin – tense and neurotic, as we presently discover.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eurip., &#039;&#039;Electr&#039;&#039;. 31-53, 207-9, 247-57, 302-9, 362-3, 404-5. Ar., &#039;&#039;Clouds&#039;&#039; 46-72 is irrelevant here, since Strepsiades, however boorish by origin, is obviously conceived as well-to-do and does not fall within my definition of a peasant (see IV.ii above).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The contrast between superior city-dweller and unsophisticated countryman could even be projected into the divine sphere. In a collection of fables by Babrius we hear of a belief that it is the simple-minded (&#039;&#039;euētheis&#039;&#039;) among the gods who inhabit the countryside, while those deities who live within the city wall are infallible and have everything under their supervision (&#039;&#039;Fab&#039;&#039;. &#039;&#039;Aesop&#039;&#039;. 2.6-8).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In III.vi below I shall mention briefly the creation by wealthy benefactors in Greek and Roman cities of &#039;foundations&#039; to provide distributions of money or food on special occasions, often graded according to the position of the recipients in the social hierarchy – the higher a person&#039;s social position, the more he was likely to get. Rustics, who in the Greek East would often not be citizens of their &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039;, would very rarely benefit from such a distribution. Dio Chrysostom can make one of his Euboean peasants adduce the fact that his father had once participated in a distribution of money in the local town as evidence that he was a citizen there (VII.49). The only inscription I have noticed that mentions countryfolk benefiting from a distribution instituted by a citizen of a Greek &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; is one from Prusias ad Hyphium in Bithynia, which speaks of handouts both to all those &#039;reckoned as citizens&#039; (&#039;&#039;enkekrimenois&#039;&#039;) and to those &#039;inhabiting the country district&#039; (&#039;&#039;tois tēn agroikian katoikousin/paroikousin&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;IGRR&#039;&#039; III.69.18-20, 24-6).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cf. &#039;&#039;IGRR&#039;&#039; IV.1087, from Cos, for a distinction between &#039;&#039;τοὶ κατοικεῦντες ἐντῷ δάμῳ τῶν Ἁλεντίων καὶ το&#039;&#039;[&#039;&#039;ἱ&#039;&#039;] &#039;&#039;ἐνεκτημένοι καὶ τοὶ γεωργεῦντε&#039;&#039;[&#039;&#039;ς&#039;&#039;] &#039;&#039;ἐν ῾Αλεντι καὶ Πέλῃ, τῶν τε πολειτᾶν καὶ Ῥωμαίων καὶ μετοίκων&#039;&#039;. (I can see no justification for lining-up the two sets of inhabitants in parallel and making the &#039;&#039;κατοικεύντες&#039;&#039; the citizens, the &#039;&#039;ένεκτημένοι&#039;&#039; the Romans, and the &#039;&#039;yeωργεύντες&#039;&#039; the metics, with Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2 II.654 n.4.) I may add that there is some evidence from the Latin West for the extension of distributions to include inhabitants of a city who are not its citizens (&#039;&#039;municipes&#039;&#039;, or &#039;&#039;coloni&#039;&#039;) but &#039;&#039;incolae&#039;&#039; (see below, and Duncan-Jones, &#039;&#039;EREQS&#039;&#039; 259 n.3, 279 n.5). This unfortunately raises a thorny question about the meaning of the expression &#039;&#039;incolae&#039;&#039;. They clearly are people who do not have citizen rights in the &#039;&#039;civitas&#039;&#039; or &#039;&#039;πόλις&#039;&#039; in which (or in the territory of which) they reside. But are they (1) simply residents with a &#039;&#039;domicilium&#039;&#039; in the city who have an &#039;&#039;origo&#039;&#039; elsewhere, or are they (2) primarily the population of territory subject to the city, who have no local citizen rights, whether or not they are officially its &#039;&#039;attributi&#039;&#039; (or &#039;&#039;contributi&#039;&#039;)? The former is the standard view (see e.g. Berger in &#039;&#039;RE&#039;&#039; IX.ii.1249-56), the latter that of Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2 II.632 n.33, cf. 687 n.97. I agree with Brunt, &#039;&#039;IM&#039;&#039; 249: &#039;Though the term &amp;quot;incolae&amp;quot; in my view denotes no more than &amp;quot;residents without local citizen rights&amp;quot;, and is not a technical term designating members of a subject population, it is wide enough to embrace such a class.&#039; Two legal texts seem to me to show a development between the second and third centuries. Pomponius, in &#039;&#039;Dig&#039;&#039;. L.xvi.239.2, writing in about the second quarter of the second century, equates &#039;&#039;incola&#039;&#039; with Greek &#039;&#039;πἀροικος&#039;&#039; and includes in his definition of &#039;&#039;incolae&#039;&#039; not only those who reside in &#039;&#039;oppido&#039;&#039; but also those who have farmland (&#039;&#039;agrum&#039;&#039;) within the boundaries of the town which is in some sense their home (such I take to be the meaning of &#039;ut in eum se quasi in aliquam sedem recipiant&#039;). But around the second quarter of the third century makes no use of the &#039;&#039;εξαίρετα&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;commoda&#039;&#039;, conveniences, benefits) of a city is not to be considered its &#039;&#039;incola&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;Dig&#039;&#039;. L.i.35, in Greek). By then, at any rate, it seems that &#039;&#039;attributi&#039;&#039; and the like were no longer considered to be &#039;&#039;incolae&#039;&#039; – an important exclusion, for since about the third quarter of the second century &#039;&#039;incolae&#039;&#039; had become equally liable with local &#039;&#039;cives&#039;&#039; for &#039;&#039;munera publica&#039;&#039; (Gaius, in &#039;&#039;Dig&#039;&#039;. L.i.29). I find it interesting that in &#039;&#039;ILS&#039;&#039; 6818 (of the third quarter of the second century), from Sicca Veneria in Numidia, the &#039;&#039;incolae&#039;&#039; who are to benefit, with &#039;&#039;municipes&#039;&#039;, from the foundation there established are restricted to those living &#039;in the buildings included in our colony&#039;. and in Italian cities many foundations, where they extend to the lower classes, are specifically limited to the &#039;&#039;urban&#039;&#039; population: see e.g. Duncan-Jones, &#039;&#039;EREQS&#039;&#039; nos. 638, 644 ( = 1165), 697, 947, 962, 976, 990, 1023, 1066, 1079m.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To conclude this section, I cannot do better than quote two summaries by A. H. M. Jones of his researches into a thousand years of Hellenistic and Roman rule in the Greek East. One, from his first major work, &#039;&#039;Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces&#039;&#039; (1937, 2nd edn 1971), deals specifically with Syria, which had previously been only on the fringe of the Greek world but was brought within it by degrees from the time of Alexander&#039;s conquests, from 333 B.C. onwards; but Jones&#039;s conclusions are equally, or almost equally, true of the other areas in western Asia, north Africa, and south-east Europe which became hellenised only in Alexander&#039;s time or later. Summing up &#039;the results of the millennium during which Syria had been ruled by the Macedonian dynasties and by Rome&#039;, Jones says,&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;On paper the change in the political aspect of the country is considerable. In the Persian period cities existed only on the sea-coast, the desert fringe, and two of the gangways between them through the central mountain barrier. By the Byzantine period practically the whole of Syria was partitioned into city states; only in a few isolated areas, notably the Jordan valley and the Hauran, did village life remain the rule. In reality, however, the change was superficial. It was achieved partly by assigning vast territories to the old cities of the coast and of the desert fringe, partly by the foundation of a small number of new cities, to each of which was assigned a vast territory. The political life of the inhabitants of the agricultural belt was unaffected; their unit remained the village, and they took no part in the life of the city to which they were attached. Economically they lost by the change. The new cities performed no useful economic function, for the larger villages supplied such manufactured goods as the villagers required, and the trade of the countryside was conducted at village markets.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;This is well borne out by Libanius, &#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. XI.230: the &#039;large populous villages&#039; in the territory of Antioch exchanged their products with each other at their fairs (&#039;&#039;πανηγύρεις&#039;&#039;) and &#039;had little use for the city because of their exchange among themselves&#039;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The only effect of the foundation of cities was the creation of a wealthy landlord class which gradually stamped out peasant proprietorship. Culturally, the countryside remained utterly unaffected by the Hellenism of the cities;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cf. Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; II.1106-7.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the peasants continued to speak Syriac down to the Arab conquest. The only function which the cities performed was administrative; they policed and collected the taxes of their territories (&#039;&#039;CERP&#039;&#039;2 293-4).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;and in a note later in the book Jones adds,&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The indifference of the villagers to the cities is, I think, well illustrated by the tombstones of syrian emigrants in the West . . . ; they always record their village, but name their city, if at all, merely as a geographical determinant&#039; (&#039;&#039;CERP&#039;&#039;2 469 n.92).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Contrast the official view, expressed by ulpian in &#039;&#039;dig&#039;&#039;. L.i.30, that the &#039;&#039;patria&#039;&#039; of a man who originated in a village is the city (&#039;&#039;res publica&#039;&#039;) to which the village belongs.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The other passage is from p.vi of the Preface to Jones&#039;s &#039;&#039;The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian&#039;&#039; (1940). Summarising the conclusions in Part V of that book, Jones says that he discusses &#039;the contribution of the cities to ancient civilisation&#039; and argues that&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Great as their achievement was, it was based on too narrow a class foundation to be lasting. On the economic side the life of the cities involved an unhealthy concentration of wealth in the hands of the urban aristocracy at the expense of the proletariat and the peasants. Their political life was gradually narrowed till it was confined to a small clique of well-to-do families, who finally lost interest in it. The culture which the cities fostered, though geographically spread over a wide area, was limited to the urban upper class.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Jones, I am sure, meant much the same as I would when he used the expression &#039;too narrow a class foundation&#039;; but for him &#039;class&#039; – a term he used quite often – was not something that needed to be defined, or even, for that matter, thought about. I hesitate to give equal prominence to the final sentence of the paragraph in question (&#039;The great mass of the population, the proletariat of the towns, and still more the peasants of the countryside, remained barbarians&#039;), as it not only uses again the inappropriate expression &#039;proletariat&#039; but ends with a word which the &#039;general reader&#039; is likely to misunderstand unless he realises that it is very much a Classical scholar&#039;s quasi-technical term, almost the equivalent of the Greek word &#039;&#039;barbaroi&#039;&#039;, not necessarily meaning more than &#039;non-Greek&#039;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - The relevance of Marx for the study of ancient history ====&lt;br /&gt;
So complete has been the lack of interest in Marx displayed by nearly all ancient historians in the English-speaking world[1] that many who begin to read this book may wonder what relevance Marx can possibly have to the history of Classical antiquity. I have heard this lack of interest described as &#039;a conspiracy of silence&#039;; but that would be to dignify it with a conscious element which in practice is absent: the reality is just silence. I know of nothing comparable as yet in the British Isles to the symposium on the programme of the American Philological Association in 1973, entitled &#039;Marxism and the Classics&#039;, or to the issue of the American Classical periodical &#039;&#039;Arethusa&#039;&#039;, vol.8.1 (Spring, 1975), with the same title.[2] (The article included in that volume, with the title &#039;Karl Marx and the history of Classical antiquity&#039;, pp.7-41, is virtually a series of extracts from earlier drafts of this book.) One often hears the view expressed that in so far as the ideas of Marx on history have any validity, they have already been absorbed into the Western historiographical tradition. One thinks here of the late George Lichtheim&#039;s description of Marxism as &#039;the &#039;&#039;caput mortuum&#039;&#039; of a gigantic intellectual construction whose living essence has been appropriated by the historical consciousness of the modern world&#039; (&#039;&#039;Marxism&#039;&#039;[2] [1964 and repr.] 406). This is altogether untrue, above all in regard to the modern historiography of the Classical world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now the situation I have described is certainly due in part to a general ignorance of the thought of Marx, and a lack of interest in it, on the part of the vast majority of ancient historians and other Classical scholars in the English-speaking world. But I shall suggest later that this ignorance and lack of interest can be attributed partly to mistaken attempts in modern times, on the part of those who call themselves Marxists (or at least claim to be influenced by Marx), to interpret the essentials of Marx&#039;s historical thought both in general terms and in particular in relation to Classical antiquity. I like to remember that Engels, in a letter written to Conrad Schmidt on 5 August 1890, more than seven years after Marx&#039;s death, recalled that Marx used to say about the French Marxists of the late 1870s, &#039;All I know is that I am not a Marxist&#039; (&#039;&#039;MESC&#039;&#039; 496). I think he would have felt much the same about &#039;&#039;soi-disant&#039;&#039; Marxists – not only the French ones – of the 1980s. As the German poet Hans Magnus Enzensberger says, in his moving short poem, &#039;&#039;Karl Heinrich Marx&#039;&#039; –&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;I see you betrayed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
by your disciples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
only your enemies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
remained what they were.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;(The translation of the poem by Michael Hamburger is reprinted in the Penguin &#039;&#039;Poems of Hans Magnus Enzensberger&#039;&#039; 38-9.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Much modern Marxist writings in languages other than English seems recalcitrant to translation into English. I am inclined to apply to much of this writing some forceful remarks made by Graham Hough in a review in the &#039;&#039;Times Literary Supplement&#039;&#039; of two books on Roland Barthes. Approving a statement by Stephen Heath, that the language evolved by Barthes and his school &#039;has no common theoretical context with anything that exists in English&#039;, he continues:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;To transfer it bodily – simply to anglicise the words, which is not difficult – produces a wall of opacity that blocks all curiosity at the start. To adapt, to paraphrase, which can also be done and often looks inviting, runs the risk of denaturing the original and reducing disconcerting ideas to acceptable commonplace (&#039;&#039;TLS&#039;&#039; 3950, 9 December 1977, p. 1443).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;So it is, I feel, with much contemporary Marxist work, even in French and Italian, and still more in German and Russian.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More and more people in my adult lifetime have become willing to take some account of Marx&#039;s analysis of the capitalist world in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. As I am a historian and not an economist, I shall do no more than mention the revival of serious interest in Marx&#039;s economics in Britain on the part of a number of leading economists of our generation (whether or not they would describe themselves as Marxists): Maurice Dobb, Ronald Meek, Joan Robinson, Piero Sraffa and others.[3] In the Foreword to the first edition of her &#039;&#039;Essay on Marxian Economics&#039;&#039; (1942) Joan Robinson remarked that &#039;until recently Marx used to be treated in academic circles with contemptuous silence, broken only by an occasional mocking footnote&#039;. In the first paragraph of the Preface to the second edition (1966), she mentioned that when she was writing the original edition, a quarter of a century earlier, most of her &#039;academic colleagues in England thought that to study Marx was a quaint pastime . . . , and in the United States it was disreputable&#039;. Matters are rather different now. Within the last few years sociologists too have suddenly become far more willing than they used to be to adopt a Marxist analysis of the problems of contemporary society. I may perhaps be allowed to refer to one particularly impressive recent example: a book entitled &#039;&#039;Immigrant Workers and Class Structure in Western Europe&#039;&#039;, by Stephen Castles and Godula Kosack, published in 1973, the relevance of which for our present study will emerge in II.iii below. Even so, many people would, I think, agree with the opinion of a leading British sociologist, T. B. Bottomore (who is far from hostile to Marx), that &#039;while the Marxian theory seems highly relevant and useful in analysing social and political conflicts in capitalist societies during a particular period, its utility and relevance elsewhere are much less clear&#039; (&#039;&#039;Sociology&#039;&#039;2, [1971] 201). Those who hold such views may be prepared to concede that a very valuable contribution has been made by certain Marxist historians who have dealt mainly with the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example Eric Hobsbawm, George Rudé, and E. P. Thompson; but they may begin to feel that their premise has been somewhat weakened when they take notice of the work of an American Marxist historian, Eugene Genovese, who has produced work of outstanding quality on slavery in the antebellum South; and it is surely strained to breaking-point and beyond when they have to take account of Christopher Hill (formerly the Master of Balliol), who has done so much to illuminate the history of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and Rodney Hilton, who has dealt with English peasants and peasant movements in the fourteenth century and earlier, in various articles and in two recent books, &#039;&#039;Bond Men Made Free&#039;&#039; (1973) and &#039;&#039;The English Peasantry in the Later Middle Ages&#039;&#039; (1975, the publication of his Ford Lectures at Oxford in 1973). We are already a very long way from nineteenth-century capitalism; and if we go still further back, into the Bronze Age and prehistory, in Europe and Western asia, we can find archaeologists, in particular the late V. Gordon Childe, also acknowledging their debt to Marx. [See now VIII.i.n.33 below.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthropologists too, at least outside of Great Britain, have for some time been prepared to take Marx seriously as a source of inspiration in their own discipline. French economic anthropologists such as Maurice Godelier, Claude Meillassoux, Emmanuel Terray, Georges Dupré and Pierre-Philippe Rey have operated to a high degree within a Marxist tradition, which they have developed in various ways.[4] Even the structuralists have often acknowledged a debt to Marx. Over twenty years ago Claude Lévi-Strauss himself referred to his &#039;endeavours to reintegrate the anthropological knowledge acquired during the last fifty years into the Marxian tradition&#039;; and spoke of &#039;the concept of structure which I have borrowed, or so I thought, from Marx and Engels, among others, and to which I attribute a primary role&#039; (&#039;&#039;SA&#039;&#039; 343-4).[5] American anthropologists have also become much more attentive to Marx in recent years: Marvin Harris, for example, in his comprehensive work, &#039;&#039;The Rise of Anthropological Theory&#039;&#039; (1969 and repr.), devotes some serious attention to Marx and Engels as anthropologists, including a chapter of over 30 pages (&#039;Dialectical materialism&#039;, pp.217-49). And then, in 1972, came what I can only describe as a break-through in British anthropology. An anthropologist of the very first rank, Sir Raymond Firth, delivered the inaugural lecture of a new British Academy series in honour of Radcliffe-Brown, gave it a significant title: not merely &#039;The sceptical anthropologist?&#039; (An allusion, of course, to Robert Boyle&#039;s &#039;&#039;The Sceptical Chymist&#039;&#039;) but also &#039;Social anthropology and Marxist views on society&#039;.[6] I should like to quote part of the last paragraph of this lecture, because it urges social anthropologists to interest themselves in particular aspects of human societies which I think historians of Classical antiquity should also be studying, and which – like the social anthropologists to whom Firth is addressing himself – most of them are not studying. Firth says:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;What Marx&#039;s theories offer to social anthropology is a set of hypotheses about social relations and especially about social change. Marx&#039;s insights – about the basic significance of economic factors, especially production relations; their relation to structures of power; the formation of classes and the opposition of their interests; the socially relative character of ideologies; the conditioning force of a system upon individual members of it – [these insights] embody propositions which must be taken for critical scrutiny into the body of our science. The theories of Marx should be put on a par with, say, those of Durkheim or Max Weber. Because they imply radical change they are more threatening.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;That last word is particularly significant. (I shall return to the &#039;threatening&#039; nature of Marxist analysis in II.ii below.) Now Firth, I am sure, would not describe himself as a Marxist. Shortly before the paragraph I have quoted he expresses the opinion that &#039;much of Marx&#039;s theory in its literal form is outmoded&#039;: the examples he gives in support of this claim do not seem to me well formulated or cogent. But what I am primarily concerned to do at the moment is to make a plea for the relevance of Marx&#039;s general historical methodology to the study of ancient history. If it can make major contributions to history between the early Middle Ages and the twentieth century, and even in archaeology and anthropology, then there is good reason to expect that it may be able to shed light upon Classical antiquity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Apart from one negligible book which I shall mention later (in II.i below and its n.20), I know of no single work in English which consistently attempts &#039;&#039;either&#039;&#039; to analyse Greek history – or, for that matter, Roman history – in terms of Marxist historical concepts, &#039;&#039;or&#039;&#039; to expound those concepts themselves and explain why they are relevant for the purpose of such an analysis. In fact both these tasks need to be accomplished together at least once, within one pair of covers (as I am trying to do here), if the new start that I am advocating is to be made successfully. As I have said, most English-speaking ancient historians ignore Marx completely. If they do mention him, or Marxist historical writing, it is usually with ignorant contempt. An exception is a recent well-chosen selection of source material in translation for Greek economic and social history in the Archaic and Classical periods, first published in French by Michel M. Austin and Pierre Vidal-Naquet under the title of &#039;&#039;Économies et sociétés en Grèce ancienne&#039;&#039; (Paris, 1972 and 1973) and then, with some improvements, in English, as &#039;&#039;Economic and Social History of Ancient Greece: An Introduction&#039;&#039; (London, 1977). The introduction (mainly by Austin) devotes several pages (20 ff. in the English version) to the notion of &#039;class struggles&#039;. Now, as I shall explain (in II.iii below), I disagree profoundly with the way these scholars have applied the Marxist concept of class conflict to the Greek world; but at least they are operating with categories that have become thoroughly associated with the Marxist tradition in historiography and are very often repudiated altogether or allowed only a very limited role by non-Marxists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In languages other than English the situation is much better – although, as I indicated near the beginning of this section, many of the Marxist works on ancient history published on the Continent are as foreign to the English reader in their intellectual and library idiom as in their actual language: they tend to take for granted a whole range of concepts to which most people in the English-speaking world are not accustomed and which they find largely unintelligible.[7] The word &#039;jargon&#039; is often used in this context, if not always by those who have earned the right to use it by refraining from a different jargon of their own.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this point I must write briefly about Marx himself as a Classical scholar. He received, in school and university, at Trier, Bonn and Berlin, the thorough Classical education which was given to most young middle-class Germans in the 1830s. At the universities of Bonn and Berlin he studied law and philosophy, and between 1839 and 1841, among various other activities, he wrote, as his doctoral thesis, a comparison of the philosophies of Democritus and Epicurus. This work, completed in 1840-41, before Marx was 23, was not published in full even in German until 1927, when it appeared in &#039;&#039;MEGA&#039;&#039; I.i.1 (the first fascicule of Part i of Vol. I of the Marx-Engels &#039;&#039;Gesamtausgabe&#039;&#039;, published at Frankfurt and edited by D. Rjazanov) 1-144. It has not been republished in &#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; I (the first volume of the complete &#039;&#039;Werke&#039;&#039; of Marx and Engels now in course of publication in East Berlin). An English translation (replacing an inferior earlier one) has recently been published in &#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; I, the first volume of the new English edition of the Marx-Engels &#039;&#039;Collected Works&#039;&#039; (Moscow/London/New York, 1975), 25-107. Cyril Bailey, reviewing the original publication in the &#039;&#039;Classical Quarterly&#039;&#039; 22 (1928) 205-6, was greatly impressed with its scholarship and its originality: he found it &#039;of real interest to a modern student of Epicureanism&#039; and ended by saying that such a student would find in it &#039;some illuminating ideas&#039;. The thesis looks forward to a larger work (never actually written) in which Marx planned to &#039;present in detail the cycle of Epicurean, Stoic and Sceptic philosophy in their relation to the whole of Greek speculation&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; I.29). It is worth noticing that the Foreword to the thesis ends by quoting the defiant reply of Prometheus to Hermes, in Aeschylus&#039; &#039;&#039;Prometheus Bound&#039;&#039; (lines 966 ff.), &#039;Be sure of this: I would not exchange my state of misfortune for your servitude&#039;, and adding that Prometheus (the Prometheus of Aeschylus) is &#039;the most eminent saint and martyr in the philosophical calendar&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; I.31). During this period Marx read extensively in Classical authors, in particular Aristotle, of whom throughout his life he always spoke in terms of respect and admiration which he employs for no other thinker, except perhaps Hegel. As early as 1839 we find him describing Aristotle as &#039;the acme [&#039;&#039;Gipfel&#039;&#039;] of ancient philosophy&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; I.424); and in Vol. I of &#039;&#039;Capital&#039;&#039; he refers to &#039;the brilliance of Aristotle&#039;s genius&#039; and calls him &#039;a giant thinker&#039; and &#039;the greatest thinker of antiquity&#039; (60, 82n., 408) – as of course he was. Later, Marx returned again and again to read Classical authors. On 8 March 1855 we find him saying in a letter to Engels, &#039;A little time ago I went through Roman history again up to the Augustan era&#039; (&#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXVIII.439); on 27 February 1861 he writes again to Engels, &#039;As a relaxation in the evenings I have been reading Appian on the Roman civil wars, in the original Greek&#039; (&#039;&#039;MESC&#039;&#039; 151); and some weeks later, on 29 May 1861, he tells Lassalle that in order to dispel the serious ill-humour arising from what he describes, in a mixture of German and English, as &#039;mein in every respected unsettled situation&#039;, he is reading Thucydides, and he adds (in German) &#039;These ancient writers at least remain ever new&#039; (&#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXX.605-6).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(This is a convenient place at which to mention that I normally cite &#039;&#039;MESC&#039;&#039;, an English translation of 244 of the letters of Marx and Engels, published in 1956, when it includes a letter I am quoting. I need not regularly refer to the German texts, since they print the letters in chronological order, and the dates will enable them to be found easily. The letters exchanged between Marx or Engels to other correspondents, in &#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXVII-XXXIX.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scattered through the writings of Marx are a remarkable number of allusions to Greek and Roman history, literature and philosophy. He made a careful study of Roman Republican history in particular, partly from the sources and partly with the aid of the works of Niebuhr, Mommsen, Dureau de la Malle and others. I have not been able to discover any systematic study of Greek history by Marx after his student days, or of the history of the Graeco-Roman world under the Principate or the Later Roman Empire; but he frequently quotes Greek authors (more often in the original than in translation), as well as Latin authors, in all sorts of contexts: Aeschylus, Appian, Aristotle, Athenaeus, Democritus, Diodorus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Epicurus, Herodotus, Hesiod, Homer, Isocrates, Lucian, Pindar, Plutarch, Sextus Empiricus, Sophocles, Strabo, Thucydides, Xenophon, and others. He could also make use of that charming little poem by Antipater of Thessalonica, in the Greek Anthology (IX.418), which is one of the earliest pieces of evidence for the existence of the water-mill (see II.i below). After his doctoral dissertation Marx never had occasion to write at length about the ancient world, but again and again he will make some penetrating remark that brings out something of value. For example, in a letter to Engels of 25 September 1857 he makes some interesting and perfectly correct observations: for example, that the first appearance of an extensive system of hired labour in antiquity is in the military sphere, the employment of mercenaries (how often has that been noticed, I wonder!), and that among the Romans the &#039;&#039;peculium castrense&#039;&#039; was the first legal form in which the right of property was recognised in members of a family other than the &#039;&#039;paterfamilias&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;MESC&#039;&#039; 118-19). In a footnote in the &#039;&#039;Grundrisse&#039;&#039; (not in the section on &#039;pre-capitalist forms of production&#039;), written at about the same time as the letter from which I have just quoted, Marx has some acute observations on pay in the Roman army, which need to be put beside the remark in the letter:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Among the Romans, the army constituted a mass – but already divorced from the whole people – which was disciplined to labour, whose surplus time also belonged to the State; who sold their entire labour time for pay to the State, exchanged their entire labour capacity for a wage necessary for the maintenance of their life, just as does the worker with the capitalist. This holds for the period when the Roman army was no longer a citizen&#039;s army but a mercenary army. This is here likewise a free sale of labour on the part of the soldier. But the State does not buy it with the production of values as aim. And thus, although the wage form may seem to occur originally in armies, this pay system is nevertheless essentially different from wage labour. There is some similarity in the fact that the State uses up the army in order to gain an increase in power and wealth (&#039;&#039;Grundrisse&#039;&#039;, E.T. 529n.; cf. 893).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;it came naturally to Marx to illustrate what he was saying with some Classical simile, as when he wrote that the trading peoples of antiquity were &#039;like the gods of Epicurus, in the spaces between the worlds&#039; (&#039;&#039;Grundrisse&#039;&#039;, E.T. 858; cf. &#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. III.330, 598), or when he spoke scornfully of Andrew Ure, author of &#039;&#039;The Philosophy of Manufactures&#039;&#039;, as &#039;this Pindar of the manufacturers&#039; (&#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. III.386 n.75). I have heard quoted against Marx his remark that Spartacus (the leader of the great slave revolt in Italy from 73 to 71 B.C.) was &#039;the most splendid fellow in the whole of ancient history. Great general (no Garibaldi), noble character, real representative of the ancient proletariat&#039;; so let me mention here that the statement was made not in a work intended for publication but in a private letter to Engels, of 27 February 1861 – in which, incidentally, he also described Pompey as &#039;reiner Scheisskerl&#039; (&#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXX.159-60=&#039;&#039;MESC&#039;&#039; 151-2).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A recent book by the Professor of German at Oxford University, S. S. Prawer, &#039;&#039;Karl Marx and World Literature&#039;&#039; (1976), has shown in detail how extraordinarily wide Marx&#039;s reading was, not only in German, French, English, Latin and Greek, but also in Italian, Spanish and Russian.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I shall have something to say in II.iii below on Marx&#039;s intellectual development in the 1840s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I may add that Engels too was very well read and received a Classical education. A school-leaving report testifying to his knowledge of Latin and Greek survives, as does a poem he wrote in Greek at the age of sixteen.[8]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, it is not so much as the student of a particular epoch that I wish to regard Marx now, but rather as a historical sociologist: one who proposed an analysis of the structure of human society, in its successive stages, which sheds some illumination upon each of those stages – the Greek world just as much as the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let me first mention and dismiss two or three common misconceptions. It is easy to discredit Marx&#039;s analysis of society by presenting it in a distorted form, as it is so often presented both by those who wrongly suppose themselves to be employing it and by those who are in principle hostile to it. In particular the thought of Marx is said to involve both &#039;materialism&#039; and &#039;economic determinism&#039;. Now the historical method employed by Marx was never given a name by him, but from Engels onwards it has been generally known as &#039;historical materialism&#039;. (It seems to have been Plekhanov who invented the term &#039;dialectical materialism&#039;.) It is certainly &#039;materialist&#039;, in the technical sense of being methodologically the opposite of Hegel&#039;s &#039;idealism&#039; – we all know Marx&#039;s famous remark that Hegel&#039;s dialectic was standing on its head and &#039;needs to be turned right side up again if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell&#039; (&#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. I.20, from the Afterword to the second German edition, of 1873). But &#039;materialism&#039; does not, and must not, in any way exclude an understanding of the role of ideas, which (as Marx well knew) can often become autonomous and acquire a life of their own, and themselves react vigorously upon the society that produced them – the role of Marxism itself in the twentieth century is a conspicuous example of this. As for the so-called &#039;economic determinism&#039; of Marx, the label must be altogether rejected. We can begin with his alleged over-emphasis on the economic side of the historical process, which has even led to the application to his historical methodology – quite absurdly – of the terms &#039;reductionist&#039; and &#039;monistic&#039;. In fact the dialectical process which Marx envisaged allowed to other factors than the purely economic – whether social, political, legal, philosophic or religious – almost as much weight as very many non-Marxist historians would give to them. The alleged &#039;economism&#039; of Marx is no more than the belief that out of all the elements which are operative in the historical process, it is &#039;the relations of production&#039; (as Marx called them), namely &#039;&#039;the social relations into which men enter in the course of the productive process&#039;&#039;, which are the most important factors in human life, and which tend, in the long run, to determine the other factors, although of course these other factors, even purely ideological ones, can sometimes exert a powerful influence in their turn upon all social relations. In five of the letters he wrote between 1890 and 1894 Engels, while admitting that he and Marx had been partly to blame for an unavoidable over-emphasis on the economic aspect of history, stressed that they had never intended to belittle the interdependent role of political, religious and other ideological factors, even while considering the economic as primary. (The letters are those of 5 August, 21 September and 27 October 1890, 14 July 1893, and 25 January 1894.)[9] In an &#039;&#039;obiter dictum&#039;&#039; in one of his earliest works, the &#039;&#039;Contribution to a Critique of Hegel&#039;s Philosophy of Law&#039;&#039;, Marx declared that although material force can be overcome only by material force, yet &#039;Theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; III.182). And Mao Tse-tung, in a famous essay &#039;On Contradiction&#039; (dating from August 1937), insisted that in certain conditions theory and the ideological &#039;superstructure&#039; of a society (revolutionary theory in particular) can &#039;manifest themselves in the principal and decisive role&#039;.[10]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is true that Marx himself occasionally writes as if men were governed by historical necessities beyond their control, as when (in the Preface to the original German edition of &#039;&#039;Das Kapital&#039;&#039;) he speaks of &#039;the natural laws of capitalist production&#039; as &#039;self-assertive tendencies working with iron necessity&#039; (&#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXIII.12. I have altered the misleading translation in &#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. I.8). Such expressions are rare: they probably derive from a conception of historical events in which a high degree of &#039;&#039;probability&#039;&#039; has been momentarily taken as &#039;&#039;certainty&#039;&#039;. In fact there is nothing in the least &#039;deterministic&#039; in the proper sense in Marx&#039;s view of history; and in particular the role of &#039;&#039;no single individual&#039;&#039; is &#039;determined&#039; by his class position, even if one can often make very confident &#039;&#039;predictions&#039;&#039; (of a statistical character) about the behaviour of the &#039;&#039;collective&#039;&#039; members of a given class. To give just two examples: if you have an income of more than, say, £20,000 a year, the statistical probability that you will normally hold right-wing views, and in Britain vote Conservative, is very high indeed; and if you do not belong to the lowest social class you will have a far better chance of achieving individual sainthood in the Roman Church – a sociological analysis in the early 1950s showed that of 2,489 known Roman Catholic Saints, only 5 per cent came from the lower classes who have constituted over 80 per cent of Western populations.[11] (Recent proclamations of sanctity, I understand, have not departed from his pattern.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe that some light may be shed on the last question we have been considering (the &#039;determinism&#039; of which Marx is often accused) by a comparison between Marx and the greatest historian of antiquity, Thucydides – probably the writer who, with the single exception of Marx, has done most to advance my own understanding of history. Thucydides often refers most to something he calls &#039;human nature&#039;, by which he really means &#039;&#039;patterns of behaviour&#039;&#039; he believed he could identify in human conduct, partly in the behaviour of individual men but much more emphatically in tht of human groups: men acting as organised &#039;&#039;states&#039;&#039;, whose behaviour can indeed be predicted far more confidently than that of most individual men. (I have discussed this in my &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 6, 12 &amp;amp; n.20, 14-16, 29-33, 62, cf. 297.) The better you &#039;&#039;understand&#039;&#039; these patterns of behaviour, Thucydides (I am sure) believed, the more effectively you can &#039;&#039;predict&#039;&#039; how men are likely to behave in the immediate future – although never with complete confidence, because always (and especially in war) you must allow for the unforeseeable, the incalculable, and for sheer &#039;chance&#039; (see &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 25 &amp;amp; n.54, 30-1 &amp;amp; n.57). Thucydides was anything but a determinist, although he often speaks of men as being &#039;compelled&#039; to act in a particular way when he describes them as choosing the least disagreeable among alternatives none of which they would have adopted had their choice been entirely free (see &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 60-2). This common feature of the human predicament, I believe, is just what Marx had in mind when he said, in &#039;&#039;The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte&#039;&#039;, &#039;Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; XI.103).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In every situation in which one is making a judgment there are some factors which cannot be changed and others which can only be partly modified, and the better one understands the situation the less forced and unfree one&#039;s judgment becomes. In this sense, &#039;freedom is the understanding of necessity&#039;. Thucydides, by enabling his readers to recognise and understand some of the basic recurring features in the behaviour of human groups in the political and international field, believed – surely with reason – that his History would be for ever &#039;useful&#039; to mankind (I.22.4). Similarly, what Marx wished to do was to identify the internal, structural features of each individual human society (above all, but not only, capitalist society), and reveal its &#039;laws of motion&#039;. If his analysis is largely right, as I believe it is, then, by revealing the underlying Necessity, it increases human Freedom to operate within its constraint, and has greatly facilitated what Engels called &#039;the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom&#039; (&#039;&#039;MESW&#039;&#039; 426).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the third volume of &#039;&#039;Capital&#039;&#039; there is a point at which Marx suddenly and quite unexpectedly bursts out into one of those emotional passages &#039;full of hope and splendour&#039; – an apt phrase of Hobsbawm&#039;s (&#039;&#039;KMPCEF&#039;&#039; 15) – which look beyond the harsh realities of the present towards a future in which mankind is largely set free from the soul-destroying compulsion which still obliges the greater part of humanity to spend most of their time producing the material necessities of life. This passage, one of many in &#039;&#039;Capital&#039;&#039; that reveal the essential humanity of Marx&#039;s outlook, must seem less purely visionary and utopian, in our age of increasing automation, than it may have appeared to those who first read it in the 1890s. It occurs in Part VII of &#039;&#039;Capital&#039;&#039; III (p.820), in a chapter (xlviii) entitled &#039;The trinity formula&#039;, from which I also quote elsewhere. (The German text can be found in &#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXV.828.)&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus int he very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it none the less still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working day is its basic prerequisite. (Cf. Marx/Engels, &#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; V.431-2, from the &#039;&#039;German Ideology&#039;&#039;, quoted in II.i below.)&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Marx and Engels were certainly not among those who not merely speak loosely (as any of us may) but actually think seriously of History (with a capital &#039;H&#039;) as a kind of independent force. In a splendid passage in his earliest joint work with Marx, &#039;&#039;The Holy Family&#039;&#039; (1845), Engels could say,&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;History&#039;&#039; does &#039;&#039;nothing&#039;&#039;, it &#039;possesses &#039;&#039;no&#039;&#039; immense wealth&#039;, it &#039;wages &#039;&#039;no&#039;&#039; battles&#039;. It is &#039;&#039;man&#039;&#039;, real, living man who does all that, who possesses and fights; &#039;history&#039; is not, as it were, a person apart, using man as a means to achieve &#039;&#039;its own&#039;&#039; aims; history is &#039;&#039;nothing but&#039;&#039; the activity of man pursuing his aims (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; IV.93=&#039;&#039;MEGA&#039;&#039; I.iii.265).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Excerpt in so far as the concepts of class and class struggle are involved, I do not propose in this book to undertake any comprehensive discussion of Marx&#039;s general historical methodology,[12] which of course involves much more than class analysis, although that to my mind is central and its rejection entails the dismissal of most of Marx&#039;s system of ideas. Nor do I intend to say anything about such controversies as those concerning &#039;basis and superstructure&#039;,[13] or the so-called &#039;modes of production&#039; referred to by Marx, in particular in the &#039;&#039;German Ideology&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; V.32-5), in &#039;&#039;Wage Labour and Capital&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; IX.212), in the section on pre-capitalist economic formations in the &#039;&#039;Grundrisse&#039;&#039; (E.T. 471-514, esp. 495),[14] and in the &#039;&#039;Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;MESW&#039;&#039; 182). Above all I can legitimately avoid any discussion of the desirability (or otherwise) of recognising an &#039;Asiatic&#039; (or &#039;Oriental&#039;) mode of production, a notion which seems to me best forgotten.[15] When speaking (for example) of various parts of Asia at times before they had been taken over by the Greeks (or the Macedonians), I believe that it is best to employ such expressions as &#039;pre-Classical modes of production&#039;, in a strictly chronological sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not my purpose in this book to defend Marx&#039;s analysis of capitalist society or his prophecy of its approaching end (both of which in the main I accept); but I have so often heard it said that he did not allow for the growth of a managerial and &#039;white-collar&#039; middle class[16] that I will end this final section of my Introduction with a reference to two passages in his &#039;&#039;Theories of Surplus Value&#039;&#039; which rebut this criticism – and are by no means irrelevant to the main subject of this book, because they serve to illustrate a feature of the modern world to which there was no real parallel in antiquity. Criticising Malthus, Marx says that &#039;his supreme hope, which he himself describes as more or less utopian, is that the mass of the middle class should grow and that the proletariat (those who work) should constitute a constantly declining proportion (even though it increases absolutely) of the total population&#039;; and he adds, &#039;This in fact is the course taken by bourgeois society&#039; (&#039;&#039;TSV&#039;&#039; III.63).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And criticising Ricardo, Marx complains that &#039;what he forgets to emphasise is the constantly growing number of the middle classes, those who stand between the workman on the one hand and the capitalist and landlord on the other. The middle classes . . . are a burden weighing heavily on the working base and they increase the social security and power of the upper Ten Thousand&#039; (&#039;&#039;TSV&#039;&#039; II.573=&#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXVI.ii.576).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These passages may remind us of the fact that in the Greek and Roman world there was no proper parallel to our own &#039;white-collar&#039;, salaried, managerial class (we shall see why in III.vi below), except in the Roman Principate and Later Empire, when three developments took place. First, a proper &#039;&#039;standing army&#039;&#039; was established in the early Principate, with (for the first time) regular benefits on discharge as well as fixed pay, found by the state. Those who became what we should call &#039;regular officers&#039;, especially the senior centurions, might become men of rank and privilege. Secondly, an &#039;&#039;imperial civil service&#039;&#039; grew up gradually, consisting partly of the emperor&#039;s own slaves and freedmen and partly of free men who, at all levels, served for pay (and for the often considerable dimensions, although many of its members were technically soldiers seconded for this duty. The third group of functionaries consisted of the &#039;&#039;Christian clergy&#039;&#039;, whose upkeep was provided partly by the state and partly by the endowments and contributions of the faithful. I shall have more to say about all these three groups later (VI.v-vi and esp. VIII.iv). Exactly like the middle classes referred to by Marx, they were certainly &#039;a burden weighing heavily on the working base&#039;, and as faithful bastions of the established order they too – except in so far as sections of the army were drawn into civil wars in support of rival emperors – &#039;increased the social security and power of the upper Ten Thousand&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To conclude this section, I wish to emphasise that I make no claim to be producing &#039;&#039;the&#039;&#039; &#039;Marxist interpretation of Greek history&#039;: it is &#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039; would-be Marxist interpretation. After reading by far the greater part of Marx&#039;s published work (much of it, I must admit, in English translation), I myself believe that there is nothing in this book which Marx himself (after some argument, perhaps!) would not have been willing to accept. But of course there will be other Marxists who will disagree at various points with my basic theoretical position or with the interpretations I have offered of specific events, institutions and ideas; and I hope that any errors or weaknesses in this book will not be taken as directly due to the approach I have adopted, unless that can be shown to be the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== II - Class, Exploitation, and Class Struggle ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - The nature of class society ====&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;The concept of class has never remained a harmless concept for very long. Particularly when applied to human beings and their social conditions it has invariably displayed a peculiar explosiveness.&#039; Those are the first two sentences of a book, &#039;&#039;Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society&#039;&#039;, by Ralf Dahrendorf, a leading German sociologist who in 1974 became Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science. And Dahrendorf goes on to quote with approval the statement by two prominent American sociologists, Lipset and Bendix, that &#039;discussions of different theories of class are often academic substitutes for a rael conflict over political orientations&#039;. I fully accept that. It seems to me hardly possible for anyone today to discuss problems of class, and above all class &#039;&#039;struggle&#039;&#039; (or class &#039;&#039;conflict&#039;&#039;), in any society, modern or ancient, in what some people would call an &#039;impartial&#039; or &#039;unbiased&#039; manner, I make no claim to &#039;impartiality&#039; or &#039;lack of bias&#039;, let alone &#039;Wertfreiheit&#039;, freedom from value-judgments. The criteria involved are in reality much more subjective than is commonly admitted: in this field one man&#039;s &#039;impartiality&#039; is another man&#039;s &#039;bias&#039;, and it is often impossible to find an objective test to resolve their disagreement. Yet, as Eugene Genovese has put it, &#039;the inevitability of ideological bias does not free us from the responsibility to struggle for maximum objectivity&#039; (&#039;&#039;RB&#039;&#039; 4). The criteria that I hope will be applied to this book are two: first, its &#039;&#039;objectivity and truthfulness&#039;&#039; in regard to historical events and processes; and secondly, the &#039;&#039;fruitfulness&#039;&#039; of the analysis it produces. For &#039;historical events and processes&#039; I should almost be willing to substitute &#039;historical facts&#039;. I do not shrink from that unpopular expression, any more than Arthur Darby Nock did when he wrote, &#039;A fact is a holy thing, and its life should never be laid down on the altar of a generalisation&#039; (&#039;&#039;ERAW&#039;&#039; I.333). Nor do I propose to dispense with what is called – sometimes with a slight sneer, by social and economic historians – &#039;narrative history&#039;. To quote a recent statement in defence of &#039;narrative history&#039; by the present Camden Professor of Ancient History at Oxford:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;I do not see how we can determine how institutions worked, or what effect beliefs or social structures had on men&#039;s conduct, unless we study their actions in concrete situations . . . The most fundamental instinct that leads us to seek historical knowledge is surely the desire to find out &#039;&#039;what&#039;&#039; actually happened in the past and especially to discover what we can about events that had the widest effect on the fortunes of mankind; we then naturally go on to inquire &#039;&#039;why&#039;&#039; they occurred (P. A. Brunt, &#039;What is Ancient History about?&#039;, in &#039;&#039;Didaskalos&#039;&#039; 5 [1976] 236-49, at 244).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Can we actually identify classes in Greek society such as I shall describe? Did the Greeks themselves recognise their existence? And is it profitable to conduct an investigation along these lines? Is our understanding of the historical process, and of our own society, illuminated and strengthened by thinking in terms of classes and of a &#039;class struggle&#039; in the Greek world? When I find Lévi-Strauss saying, &#039;I am not a sociologist, and my interest in our own society is only a secondary one&#039; (&#039;&#039;SA&#039;&#039; 338), I want to reply, &#039;I am a historian who tries also to be a sociologist, and my interest in our own society is a primary one.&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not going to pretend that class is an entity existing objectively in its own right, like a Platonic &#039;Form&#039;, the nature of which we merely have to discover. The word has been used by historians and sociologists in all sorts of different senses;[1] but I believe that the way in which Marx chose to use it is the most fruitful, for our own society and for all earlier ones above the primitive level, including Greek and Roman society. Now Marx never, unfortunately, gave a definition of the term &#039;class&#039;, and it is true that he uses it rather differently on different occasions, above all when he is speaking of actual historical circumstances, in which the nature of the particular classes involved could differ considerably.[2] Even when, at the very end of the unfinished third volume of &#039;&#039;Capital&#039;&#039;, pp.885-6 (cf. 618),[3] he was about to answer his own question, &#039;What constitutes a class?&#039; he only had time to say that the reply to this question &#039;follows naturally from the reply to another question, namely: What makes wage-labourers, capitalists and landlords constitute the three great social classes?&#039; – as indeed they did, at the period of which and during which he was writing. He did not live to write down his answer to even that prior question, which would have produced a definition of the classes of nineteenth-century capitalist society rather than of class in general; and whether he would then have gone on to give an explicit general definition of class, we cannot tell. But after collecting scores if not hundreds of passages in which Marx operates with the concept of class (sometimes without actually using that word), I have little doubt what essential form it took in his mind. (I can give only a preliminary sketch here: I shall attempt to provide a proper account in Section ii of this chapter and subsequently.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Class as a general concept (as distinct from a particular class) is essentially a relationship; and class in Marx&#039;s sense must be understood in close connection with his fundamental concept of &#039;the relations of production&#039;: the social relations into which men enter in the process of production, which find legal expression to a large degree either as property relations or as labour relations. When the conditions of production, such as they are at any given time, are controlled by a particular group (when, as in the great majority of such cases,[4] there is private property in the means of production), then we have a &#039;class society&#039;, the classes being defined in terms of their relationship to the means and the labour of production, and to each other. Some of the most important &#039;means of production&#039; in the modern world – not only factories, but also banks and finance houses, even railways and aircraft – were of course absent in Classical antiquity, and so, to a great extent, was that wage labour which is an essential element, indeed the essential element, in the relations of production characteristic of a capitalist economy. (As we shall see in III.vi below, free wage labour played an infinitely less important part in the Greek and Roman world than it does today.) In the ancient Greek world the principal means of production was land, and the principal form in which labour was directly exploited was unfree labour – that of chattel slaves above all; but debt bondage was far more widespread than many historians have realised, and in the Roman empire agricultural labour came to be exploited more and more through forms of tenancy (at first involving mainly free men), which in the late third century were converted into legal serfdom. (I shall give precise definitions of slavery, serfdom and debt bondage in III.iv below.) In antiquity, therefore, wealth may be said to have consisted above all in the ownership of land, and in the control of unfree labour; and it was these assets above all which enabled the propertied class to exploit the rest of the population: that is to say, to appropriate a surplus out of their labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this point I must introduce an important and difficult subject which needs careful treatment and can easily lead to serious confusion, and which I intend to deal with properly in Chapter IV below. I refer to the fact that a large part of production in antiquity was always carried on, until the Later Roman Empire (and to a certain degree even then), by small free producers, mainly peasants, but also artisans and traders. In so far as these numerous individuals neither exploited the labour of others (outside their own families) to any appreciable extent nor were themselves exploited to any marked degree, but lived not far above subsistence level, producing little surplus beyond what they themselves consumed, they formed a kind of intermediate class, between exploiters and exploited. As I shall explain in Chapter IV, this exploitation could be not only direct and  individual (by landlords or moneylenders, for instance) but also indirect and collective, affected by taxation, military conscription or forced services exacted by the state or the municipalities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is very hard to assess the condition of these small free producers accurately. The vast majority were what I shall call peasants (see my definition in IV.ii below), a term covering a wide variety of conditions, which nevertheless can be convenient to use, especially where we are in doubt about the precise situation of the people concerned. In Chapter IV I shall try to show the wide variety of institutions involved, and how the fortunes of some groups might fluctuate very considerably according to their political and legal as well as their economic position.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other categories than those of class, in the sense in which I am using that concept, have of course been proposed for analysis, or at least the description, of Greek society. I shall consider some of them in Section v of this chapter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historians, who are usually dealing with a single society, rarely trouble themselves with any reflections about their choice of categories: they are seldom aware of any problem in this respect; often it does not even occur to them that there is any need to go beyond the concepts employed by the members of the society they are studying. Indeed, a practising historian in the British – and American – empirical tradition may well say to us (as the author of a major recent book on the Roman emperor has virtually done: see the opening of Section v of this Chapter): &#039;Why on earth should we waste time on all this theoretical stuff, about class structure and social relations and historical method? Why can&#039;t we just go on doing history in the good old way, without bothering about the concepts and categories we employ? That might even involve us in the philosophy of history, which is something we prefer to abandon with disdain to philosophers and sociologists, as mere ideology.&#039; The reply to this, of course, is that it is a serious error to suppose that unconsciousness of ideology, or even a complete lack of interest in it, is the same thing as absence of ideology. In reality each of us has an ideological approach to history, resulting in a particular historical methodology and set of general concepts, whether conscious or unconscious. To refuse – as so many do – to define or even to think about the basic concepts we employ simply results in our taking over without scrutiny, lock, stock and barrel, the prevailing ideology in which we happen to have been brought up, and making much the same kind of selection from the evidence that our predecessors have been making and for the same reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, there are very great virtues in the traditional approach of the historian, the essence of which – the insistence on recognising the &#039;&#039;specificity&#039;&#039; of the historical situation in any given period (and even area) – must not be abandoned, or even compromised, when it is combined with a sociological approach. Indeed, anyone who is not capable (whether from a deficiency of intellect or from lack of time or energy) of the great effort needed to combine the two approaches ought to prefer the strictly historical one, for even mediocre works produced by the purely fact-grubbing historian may at least, if his facts are accurate and fairly presented, be of use to others capable of a higher degree of synthesis, whereas the would-be sociologist having insufficient knowledge of the specific historical evidence for a particular period is unlikely in the extreme to say anything about it that will be of use to anyone else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The study of ancient history in Britain has long been characterised by an attitude to detailed empirical investigation which &#039;&#039;in itself&#039;&#039; is most admirable. In a recent assessment of Rostovtzeff&#039;s great &#039;&#039;Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire&#039;&#039;, Glen Bowersock of Harvard University (who had himself been through the Oxford Greats School and was a graduate pupil of Sir Ronald Syme) has spoken of a general raising of eyebrows in Oxford when Rostovtzeff, who had come there in 1918 as an exile from his native Russia, &#039;announced that he would lecture on no less a subject than &amp;quot;The Social and Economic History of Eastern and Western Hellenism, the Roman Republic, and the Roman Empire&amp;quot;&#039;. He adds, &amp;quot;Together with the immodest grandeur of Rostovtzeff&#039;s topic went, perhaps inevitably, an occasional cloudiness of thought&#039;; and he records Rostovtzeff&#039;s own remark in the Preface to his book, &#039;Evidently the English mind, in this respect unlike the Slavonic, dislikes a lack of precision in thought or expression.&#039;[5] Now here we come right up against a problem which faces every historian: how to reconcile full and scrupulous attention to all forms of evidence for his chosen subject and a study of the modern literature relating to it with a grasp of general historical methodology and sociological theory sufficient to enable him to make the most of what he learns. Few if any of us strike exactly the right balance between these very different desiderata. It has been said that the sociologist comes to know &#039;less and less about more and more&#039;, the historian &#039;more and more about less and less&#039;. Most of us fall too decisively into one or other of these categories. We are like Plutarch&#039;s truly pious man, who has to negotiate a difficult course between the precipice of godlessness and the marsh of superstition (&#039;&#039;Mor&#039;&#039;. 378a), or Bunyan&#039;s Christian in the Valley of the Shadow of Death, treading a narrow path between, on the right hand, &#039;a very deep Ditch . . . into which the blind have led the blind in all Ages, and have both there miserably perished&#039;, and on the left, &#039;a very dangerous Quagg, into which, if even a good Man falls, he can find no bottom for his foot to stand on&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel much happier, in dealing with the history of the ancient Greek world, if I can legitimately make use of categories of social analysis which are not only &#039;&#039;precise&#039;&#039;, in the sense that I can define them, but also &#039;&#039;general&#039;&#039;, in the sense that they can be applied to the analysis of other human societies. Class, in my sense, is eminently such a category. Nevertheless, I realise that it is a healthy instinct on the part of historians in the empirical tradition to feel the need at least to &#039;&#039;begin from&#039;&#039; the categories and even the terminology in use within the society they are studying – provided, of course, they do not remain imprisoned therein. In our case, if the Greeks did not &#039;have a word for&#039; something we want to talk about, it may be a salutary warning to us that the phenomena we are looking for may not have existed in Greek times, or at any rate not in the same form as today. And so, in Section iv of this chapter, I propose to &#039;&#039;begin from&#039;&#039; the categories employed by the ancient Greeks themselves, at the time of their greatest self-awareness (the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.), to describe their own society. It will immediately become obvious that there is a striking similarity between those categories and some of the features of Marx&#039;s class analysis: this is particularly clear in Aristotle&#039;s &#039;&#039;Politics&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us now get down to fundamentals. I begin with five propositions. First, man is a social animal – and not only that, but, as Marx says in the &#039;&#039;Grundrisse&#039;&#039; (E. T. 84), &#039;an animal which can develop into an individual only in society&#039;. (Although in the same passage Marx contemptuously and rightly dismissed the individual and isolated hunter or fisherman who serves as the starting-point for Adam Smith and Ricardo – or, for that matter, Thomas Hobbes – as an uninspired conceit in the tradition of Robinson Crusoe, it is impossible not to recall at this point Hobbes&#039;s famous description of the life of his imaginary pre-societal man, in &#039;&#039;Leviathan&#039;&#039; I.13, as &#039;solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short&#039;.) Secondly, the prime task of man in society is to organise production, in the broadest sense, including both the acquisition from outside his society, by trade or forcible appropriation, of such necessary and desirable things as the society needs but cannot produce, or cannot profitably produce, within itself, and the distribution of what is produced. (In an area which is large or, like the Greek world, much split up by mountains or the sea, the nature of the transport system may be an important factor.) I shall use the term &#039;production&#039; in this convenient, extended sense, as Marx commonly does.[6] It should hardly be necessary to add that production, in the very broad sense in which I am using the word, of course includes reproduction: the bearing and rearing to maturity of offspring (cf. Section vi of this chapter). Thirdly, in the very act of living in society and organising production, man necessarily enters into a particular system of social and economic relations, which Marx referred to as &#039;the relations of production&#039; or &#039;the social relations of production&#039;.[7] Fourthly, in a civilised society such as that of the ancient Greeks or ourselves, the producers of actual necessities must (for obvious reasons, to be noticed presently) produce a surplus beyond what they actually consume themselves. And fifthly, the extraction and perpetuation of such a surplus has led in practice to exploitation, in particular of the primary agricultural producers: this exploitation, with which the whole concept of class is associated, is the very kernel of what I refer to as &#039;the class struggle&#039;. (I shall deal with it in Sections ii and iii of this chapter. As I shall there explain, when I speak about &#039;the class struggle&#039; in the ancient world I am never thinking of a struggle on the political plane alone, and sometimes my &#039;class struggle&#039; may have virtually no political aspect at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I should perhaps add, for the benefit of those who are accustomed to &#039;structuralist&#039; terminology, that I have not found it useful or possible to draw the distinction employed by Lévi-Strauss and his school between social &#039;&#039;relations&#039;&#039; and social &#039;&#039;structure&#039;&#039; (see e.g. Lévi-Strauss, &#039;&#039;SA&#039;&#039; 279, 303-4). I shall sometimes speak of a set of social relations &#039;&#039;as&#039;&#039; a social structure, or social formation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am of course thinking throughout in terms of the civilised societies of the last few thousand years, which, having developed technologically far beyond the level of primitive man, have aimed at providing themselves with a sufficient and stable supply of the necessities and luxuries of civilised life, and consequently have had to devote a very considerable volume of effort to ensuring that supply. Some anthropologists have argued that by reducing their wants to a minimum, primitives existing in a favourable environment may be thought happier than men in at least the earlier stages of civilisation, and may even enjoy a good deal of leisure; but for my purposes primitive society[8] is irrelevant, since its structure is totally different from that of Graeco-Roman antiquity (let alone the modern world), and any exploitation which may exist at the primitive stage takes place in quite different ways. Moreover, primitive society has not proved able to survive contact with developed modern economies – to put it in the crudest possible way, with Hilaire Belloc (&#039;&#039;The Modern Traveller&#039;&#039;, vi),&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Whatever happens we have got&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Maxim gun, and they have not.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Now in a primitive food-gathering and hunting tribe the mere day-to-day provision of food and other immediate necessities and of defence against wild beasts and other tribes and so on may be virtually a whole-time job for all adult members of the tribe, at least in the sense that in practice they do not extend their economic activities much further.[9] In a civilised community, however, it is not possible for everyone to spend all his time on these basic activities: there must be at least some members of the community who have enough &#039;&#039;leisure&#039;&#039; – in the technical sense of being released from directly producing the material necessities of life – for governing and organising and administering a complex society; for defending it against outsiders, with whatever weapons may be needed; for educating the next generation and training them in all the necessary skills, over a period of perhaps ten to twenty years; for the arts and sciences (whatever stage of development these may have reached); and for the many other requirements of civilised life. Such people (or some of them) must be at least partly freed from the cruder tasks, so that they may fulfil their specialised functions. And this means that they will have to be maintained by the rest of the community, or some part of it, in return for the services they provide. The producers will now have to produce more than what they themselves consume – in other words, a &#039;&#039;surplus&#039;&#039;.[10] And &#039;the appearance of a surplus makes possible – which does not mean &amp;quot;necessary&amp;quot; – structural transformation in a society&#039; (Godelier, &#039;&#039;RIE&#039;&#039; 274).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In view of the controversy which has been going on for years among economic anthropologists about the whole notion of a &#039;surplus&#039;, I feel it is necessary to make two observations on that concept. First, I use the term in a strictly relative sense and with (so to speak) an &#039;internal&#039; application, to mean that part of the product of &#039;&#039;an individual man&#039;s&#039;&#039; labour of which he does not directly enjoy the fruit himself, and the immediate benefits of which are reserved for others. I would distinguish an &#039;external&#039; application of the term surplus, namely the way in which the notion is employed by anthropologists such as Pearson, to mean something set aside by &#039;&#039;the society as a whole&#039;&#039;, or by those who make its decisions, as &#039;surplus to its needs&#039;, and made available for some specific purpose – feats, war, exchange with other societies, and so forth.[11] Secondly, I agree with Godelier that there is no &#039;&#039;necessary&#039;&#039; connection between the existence of a surplus and the exploitation of man by man: there may at first be exchange considered profitable by both sides, with certain persons taking upon themselves services genuinely performed on behalf of the whole community[12] – its defence against attack from outside, for example.[13] The precise point in history at which exploitation should be conceived as beginning is difficult to decide, and I have not made up my own mind. The question is not important for my present purposes, because exploitation began long before the period with which I am concerned in this book. Perhaps we could say that exploitation begins when the primary producer is obliged to yield up a surplus under the influence of compulsion (whether political, economic or social, and whether perceived as compulsion or not), at any rate at the stage when he no longer receives a real equivalent in exchange – although this may make it very difficult to decide the point at which exploitation begins, since it is hard to quantify, for example, military protection against agricultural produce (cf. IV.iv below). A much more sophisticated definition of exploitation (which may well be preferable) has been offered by Dupré and Rey on the basis of their anthropological fieldwork in west Africa: &#039;Exploitation exists when the &#039;&#039;use&#039;&#039; of the surplus product by a group (or an aggregate) which has not contributed the corresponding surplus of labour &#039;&#039;reproduces the conditions of a new extortion of surplus labour&#039;&#039; from the producers&#039; (RPTHC 152, my italics). Although even a good and fully socialist society must arrange for &#039;surplus labour&#039; by some, to support the very young, the aged and the infirm, and to provide all kinds of services for the community (cf. Marx, &#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. III.847, 876), it would necessarily do so in such a way that no individual or group of individuals had a right to appropriate the fruits of that &#039;surplus labour&#039; in virtue of any special control over the process of production through property rights, or indeed except at the direction of the community as a whole or its organs of government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In every civilised society there has been a basic problem of production: how to extract a sufficient surplus (&#039;sufficient&#039; in a relative sense, of course) from the primary producers, who are not likely to relish their position at the base of the social pyramid and will have to be subjected to a judicious mixture of persuasion and coercion – the more so if they have come to see the favoured few as exploiters and oppressors. Now men&#039;s capacity to win for themselves the freedom to live the life they want to live has always been severely limited, until very recently, by inadequate development of the productive forces at their disposal.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;All emancipation carried through hitherto has been based on restricted productive forces. The production which these productive forces could provide was insufficient for the whole of society and made development possible only if some persons satisfied their needs at the expense of others, and therefore some – the minority – obtained the monopoly of development, while others – the majority – owing to the constant struggle to satisfy their most essential needs, were for the time being (i.e. until the creation of new revolutionary forces) excluded from any development (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; V.431-2, from the &#039;&#039;German Ideology&#039;&#039;; cf. &#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. III.820, quoted in I.iv above).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;If I were asked to name the fundamental features of ancient Greek society which most distinguish it from the contemporary world, I would single out two things, closely connected, which I shall describe in succession. The &#039;&#039;first&#039;&#039;, within the field of what Marx called &#039;the forces of production&#039;, is a technological distinction. The advanced countries of the modern world have immense productive power. But go back to the ancient world, and you go down and down the technological ladder, so to speak. The Greek world, compared with the modern one, was very undeveloped technologically, and therefore infinitely less productive.[14] Great advances in technology occurred long before the Industrial Revolution, in the Middle Ages and even the Dark Ages. These advances were far more important than most people realise, not only in the most essential sphere of all, that of sources of energy or &#039;prime movers&#039; (which I shall come to in a moment), but in all sorts of other ways. To take only one example – I wonder how many people who have not only read Greek and Roman monuments have noticed the absence from antiquity of the wheelbarrow, which at least doubles a man&#039;s carrying capacity, but only appears in Europe in the thirteenth century (in China it was known a thousand years earlier).[15] As for sources of energy, I will say only that animal power, in the form of the tractive effort of the horse and ox, was nothing like fully realised in Classical antiquity, in particular because of the extreme inefficiency of the ancient horse-harness;[16] and that only in the Middle Ages do we find the widespread utilisation of two important forms of energy which were very little used in antiquity: wind and water (cf. n.14 below). Wind, of course, was used for the propulsion of merchant ships, though not very efficiently and without the stern-post rudder;[17] but the windmill was not known in Europe before (or not much before) the early twelfth century. The water-mill[18] (&#039;&#039;hydraletēs&#039;&#039;) was actually invented not later than the last century B.C.: the last earliest known mention is by the Greek geographer Strabo, in a reference to Pontus, on the south shore of the Black Sea, in the 60s B.C. (XII.iii.30, p.556). But the most fascinating piece of evidence is the delightful poem in the &#039;&#039;Greek Anthology&#039;&#039;, by Antipater of Thessalonica, to which I referred in I.iv above as being known to Marx: the poet innocently assures the slave mill-girls that now they have the water-nymphs to work for them they can sleep late and take their ease (&#039;&#039;Anth. Pal&#039;&#039;. IX.418: see &#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. I.408). There is a little evidence, both literary and archaeological, for the use of the water-mill in the Graeco-Roman world, but it was rare before the fourth and fifth centuries, and its full use comes a good deal later (see n.14 again). Marx realised that &#039;the Roman Empire had handed down the elementary form of all machinery in the water-wheel&#039; (&#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. I.348).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is the essential background to my second basic distinction between the ancient and the modern world, which is intimately connected with the first and indeed largely grew out of it. In the ancient world, as we have seen, the producers, as I am calling them (men engaged in essential economic activities), produced a very much smaller surplus than is necessary to sustain a modern advanced society. This remains vitally important, even if we allow for the fact that the average Greek had a far more restricted range of wants and demanded a much lower standard of living than the modern Englishman, so that the volume of production per head could be well below what it has to be today. But even if we make allowance for this the disparity is still very striking. As I have shown, the ancient world was enormously less productive than the modern world. Therefore, unless almost everyone was to have to work practically all the same, and have virtually no leisure, some means had to be found of extracting the largest possible surplus out of any rate a considerable number of those at the lowest levels of society. And this is where we come face to face with the &#039;&#039;second&#039;&#039; of my two fundamental distinctions between the ancient and the modern world, one that occurs this time in the field of what Marx called &#039;the relations of production&#039;: the propertied classes in the Greek and Roman world derived their surplus, which freed them from the necessity of taking part in the process of production, nor from wage labour, as in capitalist society, but mainly from unfree labour of various kinds. The ancient world knew other forms of unfree labour than strict &#039;slavery&#039; (&#039;chattel slavery&#039;, if you like), in particular what I shall call &#039;serfdom&#039; and &#039;debt bondage&#039; (see III.iv below). But in general slavery was the most important form of unfree labour at the highest periods of Greek and Roman civilisation; and the Greeks and Romans themselves always tended to employ the vocabulary of actual slavery when referring to other forms of unfree labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have indicated that it is above all in relation to its function of extracting the maximum surplus of those primary producers who were at the lowest levels of ancient society that I propose to consider slavery and other forms of unfree labour in this book. In treating slavery in this manner I am looking at it in very much the way that both masters and slaves have commonly regarded it. (Whether the ancient belief in the efficiency of the institution of slavery in this respect is justified or not is irrelevant for my purposes.) Perhaps I may cite here the opening of the third chapter of one of the best-known books on North American slavery, Kenneth Stampp&#039;s &#039;&#039;The Peculiar Institution&#039;&#039; (p.86):&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Slaves apparently thought of the South&#039;s peculiar institution chiefly as a system of labour extortion. Of course they felt its impact in other ways – in their social status, their legal status, and their private lives – but they felt it most acutely in the lack of control over their own time and labour. If discontented with bondage, they could be expected to direct their protests principally against the master&#039;s claim to their work.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The feature of slavery which made it appropriate and indeed essential and irreplaceable in the economic conditions of Classical antiquity was precisely that the &#039;&#039;labour&#039;&#039; it provided was &#039;&#039;forced&#039;&#039;. The slave, by definition, is a man &#039;&#039;without rights&#039;&#039; (or virtually without effective rights) and therefore unable to protect himself against being compelled to yield up a very large part of what he produces. Dio Chrysostom, in the early second century of the Christian era, reports an imaginary discussion about slavery in which there was general agreement about the basic definition of the slave&#039;s condition: that someone else &#039;owns him as master, like any other item of property or cattle, so as to be able &#039;&#039;to make use of him at his pleasure&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039; (&#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. XV.24).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I suggest that the most profitable way of approaching the problem of unfree labour is to think of it in precisely the way in which I have introduced it, in terms of &#039;&#039;the extraction of the largest possible surplus from the primary producers&#039;&#039;. I think that in antiquity slavery probably did provide the best possible answer, from the purely economic point of view (that is to say, disregarding all social as well as moral factors), having regard to the low level of productivity, and also to the fact that &#039;&#039;free&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;hired&#039;&#039; labour was scarce, largely confined to unskilled or seasonal work, and not at all mobile, whereas slaves were available in large numbers and at prices the lowness of which is astonishing, in comparison with what is known of slave prices in other societies. But given these conditions – the poor supply of free, hired labour, the easy availability of slaves, their cheapness, and so on – I do believe that slavery increased the surplus in the hands of the propertied class to an extent which could not otherwise have been achieved and was therefore an essential precondition of the magnificent achievements of Classical civilisation. I would draw attention to the fact that the distinction I have just drawn is based not on a difference of &#039;&#039;status&#039;&#039;, between slaves &#039;&#039;and free men&#039;&#039;, but on a difference of &#039;&#039;class&#039;&#039;, between slaves &#039;&#039;and their owners&#039;&#039; – a very different matter. (I shall return to this difference later: see Sections iii and v of this chapter.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may not have been fully obvious that so far I have been preparing the ground for the definition of the terms &#039;class&#039; and &#039;class struggle&#039; which I shall offer in Section ii of this chapter. I had to make clear certain fundamental features of ancient Greek society. I had to make clear certain fundamental features of ancient Greek society. I have now explained one of these, the essential part played by what I am calling unfree labour; and I must now briefly mention another, the fact that by far the most important means of production in the ancient world was land. Wealth in Classical antiquity was always essentially landed wealth, and the ruling classes of all the Greek states, as of Rome itself, invariably consisted mainly of landowners. This is something which most ancient historians now realise; but the whole question, like that of slavery and other forms of unfree labour, will require a more extended discussion than I can give it at this point (see III.i-iii below).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In seeking to use the concept of class as a method of historical analysis there are two quite different dangers that we must guard against: one, a matter of definition, is a question strictly for the historian. After stating them together, I shall briefly discuss them separately. First, we must be quite sure what we mean by the term &#039;class&#039; (and &#039;class struggle&#039;), and not slide carelessly and unconsciously from one interpretation to another. Secondly, we must be careful to make a correct historical identification of any class we propose to recognise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The first problem, that of definition, is of a sociological nature. Marx himself, as I said earlier, never gave a definition of class in general terms. Some may feel that no such general definition is possible, but I believe the one I shall produce in Section ii below will serve well enough, although there may be some special cases in which a unique set of historical circumstances makes qualification necessary. Even if it could be shown that there are too many exceptions for my definition to be considered a general one, I would a least claim that it holds for the society, or rather series of societies, of the Graeco-Roman world, discussed in this book. I hope that others will improve upon it.&lt;br /&gt;
# The second problem is purely historical: one must thoroughly understand the particular society one is considering, and know the evidence about it at first hand, before one can expect to identify its classes correctly and precisely. Some serious mistakes have been made in defining the actual classes existing in particular societies, and the results of employing unreal conceptions of those classes, not corresponding closely with reality, have sometimes been disastrous. Misconceptions about classes existing in historical societies have not, of course, been confined to Marxists, by any means, but since they make more use of class categories than other historians they are likely to commit even worse blunders if they start out with misconceptions about the classes they recognise. It has been standard practice among ancient historians to refer to the governing classes of several Greek cities in the Archaic and Classical periods, in particular Aegina and Corinth, as &#039;commercial aristocracies&#039; or &#039;industrial and merchant classes&#039; (see my &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 264-7, esp. n.61; cf. 216, 218-20, and Appendix XLI, esp. p.396). This extraordinary notion, for which there is not a shred of ancient evidence, was adopted without examination by Busolt, Eduard Meyer and other leading historians (even Max Weber was not entirely free of it), and it is still being reproduced today in some quarters. Not a few Marxists have started out from similarly mistaken positions. It is not surprising that attempts by George Thomson (essentially a literary scholar and not a historian in the proper sense) to expound the intellectual development of the Classical Greek world in Marxist terms have not succeeded in convincing historians or philosophers; for Thomson presents the development of Greek thought, and even of Greek democracy, in the sixth and fifth centuries as the consequence of the rise to power of a wholly imaginary &#039;merchant class&#039;. Thomson even describes the Pythagoreans of Croton as &#039;the new class of rich industrialists and merchants&#039;, who &#039;resembled Solon in being actively involved in development of commodity production&#039;.[19] In my opinion, this is little better than fantasy. The one book I know in English which explicitly seeks to give an account of Greek history (before the Roman period) in Marxist terms is a prime example of the methodological catastrophe involved in giving a would-be Marxist account in terms of classes that are fictions and correspond to no historical reality. The author, Margaret O. Wason, pretends that in the seventh and sixth centuries, in most Greek states, there came to power a &#039;new bourgeois class&#039;, defined as &#039;the class of merchants and artisans which challenged the power of the aristocracy&#039;. It is no surprise to find Cleon referred to in the same book as &#039;a tanner&#039; (this of course reproduces Aristophanes&#039; caricature; cf. my &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 235 n.7, 359-61, 371) and as &#039;the leader of the Athenian workers&#039;.[20]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I may add that it would similarly be absurd to speak of a &#039;class struggle&#039; between Senators and Equites in the Late Roman Republic. Here I am in full agreement with a number of non-Marxist ancient historians of very different outlooks. As P. A. Brunt and Claude Nicolet have so conclusively demonstrated in the last few years, the Equites were part of the class of large landowners to which the Senators also belonged. As Badian has put it, for the Senate they were simply &#039;the non-political members of its own classes&#039;[21] – those who preferred not to take upon themselves the arduous and often dangerous life that a political career would involve. At certain times a purely political contest might develop between these two groups within the propertied class on specific issues, but this must not mislead us into seeing them as two separate classes having irreconcilable interests. I shall in fact speak sometimes of the Roman Senators (though not the Equites) as a class: the &#039;senatorial class&#039;. It is possible that some other Marxists may prefer not to break down my &#039;propertied class&#039; (for which see III.ii below) into two or more classes for certain purposes, as I do – for example, in the developed Principate and the Later Empire, primarily into the senatorial and curial classes, with the Equites perhaps as a kind of sub-class closely attached to the Senators, until in the late fourth and early fifth centuries they were entirely absorbed into the senatorial class (see VI.vi below, &#039;&#039;ad fin&#039;&#039;.) But in my set of definitions, early in Section ii of this chapter, I allow for &#039;&#039;Rechtsstellung&#039;&#039; (legal or constitutional situation) as a factor that can help to determine class in so far as it affects the type and degree of exploitation practised or suffered; and the constitutional privileges enjoyed by Senators surely did materially increase their capacity to exploit – just as the condition of being a slave, with its severe juridical disabilities, greatly increased the slave&#039;s liability to exploitation. But I could quite understand if some other Marxists, feeling that it was above all their great wealth which lay at the root of the Senators&#039; privileged position, rather than the office-holding and the consequential legal privileges it brought them, preferred to treat the Senators merely as an &#039;order&#039; (which they certainly were) rather than a class. Perhaps &#039;sub-class&#039; would be a convenient term; but I have avoided it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have only one more preliminary point to make before proceeding to a definition of my terms: I am deliberately avoiding, at this stage, discussion of the terms &#039;caste&#039;, &#039;order&#039;, &#039;estate&#039; (&#039;&#039;état&#039;&#039;). Caste is a phenomenon which we do not encounter at all in the Greek or Roman world.[22] We do find what can legitimately be described as &#039;orders&#039; (or &#039;estates&#039;) – that is to say, status-groups (&#039;&#039;Stände&#039;&#039;) which are &#039;&#039;legally recognised&#039;&#039; as such and have different sets of juridical characteristics (privileges or disadvantages). Such groups will be noticed when we have occasion to discuss them. I shall have something to say of &#039;status-groups&#039; in general, and (in Section v of this chapter) of &#039;status&#039; as an alternative concept to &#039;class&#039;. But although I shall of course refer at times to particular &#039;orders&#039; (citizens, slaves, freedmen, senators, equestrians, curials), I shall take no special account of &#039;orders&#039; as such, treating them as a rule merely as a special form of status-group, except in so far as they materially affect the degree of exploitation concerned (cf. the preceding paragraph).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - &#039;Class&#039;, &#039;exploitation&#039;, and &#039;the class struggle&#039; defined ====&lt;br /&gt;
We can now attempt to define &#039;class&#039;, &#039;exploitation&#039;, and &#039;class struggle&#039;. As I said in Section i of this chapter, I am not going to pretend that there is an objective entity, class, the nature of which remains to be discovered. I would also deny that there is any definition of class which is so generally agreed upon that we are all obliged to accept it or run the risk of being accused of perversity. The concept has been discussed &#039;&#039;ad nauseam&#039;&#039; by sociologists during the past few decades (cf. n.1 to Section i above). After working through a good deal of the literature, most of which seems to me almost worthless, I feel entitled to insist from the outset that the disagreement about the best way of using the expression &#039;class&#039; has been so great that anyone who attempts an analysis of any society in terms of class is entitled to establish his own criteria, within very wide limits, and that our verdict on the definition he adopts ought to depend solely on its clarity and consistency, the extent to which it corresponds with the historical realities to which it is applied, and its fruitfulness as a tool of historical and sociological analysis. If in addition we find (as we shall in this case) that the notion of class in the sense in which we define it corresponds closely we are examining (in our case, that of Aristotle especially: see Section iv of this chapter), then we shall be fortunate indeed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I should like to quote here a statement by a leading British sociologist, T. B. Bottomore, raising questions which are all too unfamiliar to many historians. Speaking of the construction of general concepts by sociologists, he says:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;In some recent attempts to improve the &#039;conceptual framework&#039; of sociology, and notably in that of Talcott Parsons and his collaborators, the whole emphasis is placed upon definition of concepts rather than upon the use of concepts in explanation. This is a retrograde step by comparison with the work of Durkheim and Max Weber, both of whom introduced and defined concepts in the course of working out explanatory theories. Weber&#039;s exposition of his &#039;ideal type&#039; method deals more clearly with this matter than any later writing, and had his ideas been followed up sociology would have been spared much confused and aimless discussion. In essentials his argument is that the value of a definition (i.e. of a concept) is only to be determined by its fruitfulness in research and theorising (&#039;&#039;Sociology&#039;&#039;2 [1971] 37, cf. 121).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;I should not like it to be thought, however, that I regard Marx&#039;s concept of class as a Weberian &#039;ideal-type construct&#039;, in the sense that Weber himself took it to be. For me, as for Marx, classes and class struggles are real elements which can be empirically identified in individual cases, whereas for Weber all such &#039;Marxian concepts and hypotheses&#039; become &#039;pernicious, as soon as they are thought of as empirically valid&#039; (Weber, &#039;&#039;MSS&#039;&#039; 103, repr. in Eldridge, &#039;&#039;MWISR&#039;&#039; 228).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I propose first to state my definition of class and class struggle, and to explain and justify it in subsequent discussion. I believe that this definition represents the central thought of Marx as accurately as possible: this claim too I shall try to justify.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Class&#039;&#039; (essentially a relationship)[1] is the collective social expression of the fact of exploitation, the way in which exploitation is embodied in a social structure. By &#039;&#039;exploitation&#039;&#039; I mean the appropriation of part of the product of the labour of others:[2] in a commodity-producing society this is the appropriation of what Marx called &#039;surplus value&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A &#039;&#039;class&#039;&#039; (a particular class) is a group of persons in a community identified by their position in the whole system of social production, defined above all according to their relationship (primarily in terms of the degree of ownership or control) to the conditions of production (that is to say, the means and labour of production)[3] and to other classes. Legal position (constitutional rights or, to use the German term, &#039;Rechtsstellung&#039;) is one of the factors that may help to determine class: its share in doing so will depend on how far it affects the type and degree of exploitation practised or suffered – the condition of being a slave in the ancient Greek world, for example, was likely (though far from certain) to result in a more intense degree of exploitation than being a citizen or even a free foreigner.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The individuals constituting a given class may or may not be wholly or partly conscious of their own identity and common interests as a class, and they may or may not feel antagonism towards members of other classes as such.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is of the essence of a &#039;&#039;class society&#039;&#039; that one or more of the smaller classes, in virtue of their control over the conditions of production (most commonly exercised through ownership of the means of production),[4] will be able to exploit – that is, to appropriate a surplus at the expense of – the larger classes, and thus constitute an economically and socially (and therefore probably also politically) superior class or classes. The exploitation may be direct and individual, as for example of wage-labourers, slaves, serfs, &#039;coloni&#039;, tenant-farmers or debtors by particular employers, masters, landlords or moneylenders, or it may be indirect and collective, as when taxation, military conscription, forced labour or other services are exacted solely or disproportionately from a particular class or classes (small peasant freeholders, for instance) by a State dominated by a superior class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I use the expression &#039;&#039;class struggle&#039;&#039; for the fundamental relationship between classes (and their respective individual members), involving essentially exploitation, or resistance to it. It does not necessarily involve collective action by a class as such, and it may or may not include activity on a political plane, although such political activity becomes increasingly probable when the tension of class struggle becomes acute. A class which exploits others is also likely to employ forms of political domination and oppression against them when it is able to do so: democracy will mitigate this process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Imperialism&#039;&#039;, involving some kind of economic and/or political subjection to a power outside the community, is a special case, in which the exploitation effected by the imperial power (in the form of tribute, for instance), or by its individual members, need not necessarily involve direct control of the conditions of production. In such a situation, however, the class struggle within the subject community is very likely to be affected, for example through support given by the imperial power or its agents to the exploiting class or classes within that community, if not by the acquisition by the imperial power or its individual members of control over the conditions of production in the subject community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is one aspect of my definition of class which, I realise, may need clarification. Not all individuals belong to one specific class alone: some can be regarded as members of one class for some specific class alone: some can be regarded as members of one class for some purposes and of another class for others, although usually membership of one will be much the most significant. A slave who was allowed by his master to accumulate a considerable &#039;&#039;peculium&#039;&#039;, and who (like Musicus Scurranus, mentioned in III.iv below, at its n.13) had even acquired under-slaves of his own, &#039;&#039;vicarii&#039;&#039;, might have to be regarded &#039;&#039;pro tanto&#039;&#039; as a member of what I am calling &#039;the propertied class&#039;; but of course his membership of that class would necessarily be qualified and precarious and dependent on the goodwill of his master. A slave who was settled by his landowning master as tenant of a small farm, &#039;&#039;quasi colonus&#039;&#039; (see IV.iii § 12 below), would in strictly economic terms be in much the same position as a poor free peasant leaseholder, and we might be inclined to put him in the class of peasants (see IV.ii below); but his legal status would remain greatly inferior and his tenancy would be much more at the pleasure of the landowner, who could therefore exploit him more severely if he were so inclined. And a poor peasant who owned or leased a plot of land so small that he regularly needed to betake himself to a neighbouring city for part of the year to earn wages would be a member of two classes: small peasants and wage-labourers. I also maintain in Section vi of this chapter that women, or at any rate married women (and so the great majority of adult women in antiquity), must be regarded for some purposes as a distinct class, although membership of such a class (because of its consequences for property-ownership) would in a city like Classical Athens be far more important to a high-born woman than to a poor peasant, who would have had no opportunity to own much property had she been a man and whose membership of the class of women would therefore be of far less significance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course I have no wish to pretend that class is the only category we need for the analysis of Greek and Roman society. All I am saying is that it is the fundamental one, which &#039;&#039;over all&#039;&#039; (at any given moment) and &#039;&#039;in the long run&#039;&#039; is the most important, and is by far the most useful to us, in helping us to understand Greek history and explain the process of change within it. In Section v of this chapter I shall briefly consider alternative approaches, particularly those which have the primary aim – as I have not, and as Marx did not (see Section v) – of establishing a scheme of &#039;social stratification&#039; according to &#039;status&#039;. Such activities are perfectly legitimate and may even have quite useful results, provided we keep them in their proper place and realise that they will not by themselves disclose the real secrets of history: the springs and causes of human behaviour and social change. I would say that social status, and even in the long run political power, tended to &#039;&#039;derive from&#039;&#039; class position in the first place (as indeed political status always did directly in the commonest form of Greek oligarchy in the Classical period, based on a property qualification), and that in the long run distinctions having any other basis than the economic tended to &#039;&#039;decay in favour of&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;ultimately to resolve themselves into&#039;&#039;, distinctions based upon economic class. (We shall notice some examples of this process later: see V.iii and VIII.i and ii below.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us be quite clear about one thing. Whereas descriptions of ancient society in terms of some category other than class – status, for instance – are perfectly innocuous, in the sense that they need have no direct relevance to the modern world (which will of course need to be described in terms of a completely different set of statuses), an analysis of Greek and Roman society in terms of class, in the specifically Marxist sense, is indeed (to use Firth&#039;s adjective: see I.iv above), something &#039;&#039;threatening&#039;&#039;, something that speaks directly to every one of us today and insistently demands to be applied to the contemporary world, of the second half of the twentieth century. If Marx&#039;s analysis, originally derived above all from the study of nineteenth-century capitalist society, turns out to be equally well adapted not merely to &#039;&#039;describe&#039;&#039; ancient society over a long period of many centuries but to &#039;&#039;explain&#039;&#039; its transformations and its partial disintegration (as we shall see it is), then its relevance for the contemporary world becomes very hard to ignore. Of course in some quarters it will be ignored. To quote Marx and Engels, addressing themselves sarcastically in 1848 to the ruling classes of their day:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and reason the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property – historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production – this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; VI.501, from the &#039;&#039;Communist Manifesto&#039;&#039;).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;I shall now glance briefly at the use of the conception of class (and class struggle) by Marx himself. I shall maintain that for five different reasons in particular there has been a widespread and serious misunderstanding of the part this idea played in Marx&#039;s thought. I believe that my definition represents his fundamental thinking more accurately than do the statements of some modern Marxist and non-Marxist writers who have taken different views from mine. My five reasons are as follows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, partly perhaps because of a much-quoted definition by Lenin, in his &#039;&#039;A Great Beginning&#039;&#039;, which (as Ossowski says, &#039;&#039;CSSC&#039;&#039; 72 and n.1) has been &#039;popularised by Marxist text-books and encyclopaedias&#039;, it has been customary to lay particular stress on relationship to the means of production as the decisive factor (sometimes as the one essential factor) in determining a person&#039;s class position. Although his formulation contains a profound truth, it will be seen from the definition of class given above that I regard it as a rather too narrow conception. Secondly, as is well known, Marx himself, although he made important use of the concept of class throughout his work, never gave a formal definition of it, and indeed employed it in very different senses at different times. Thirdly, Marx himself was concerned in his writings almost entirely with a capitalist society which had already undergone a considerable process of development: apart from one section of the &#039;&#039;Grundrisse&#039;&#039; (E.T. 471-514) which is specifically devoted to &#039;pre-capitalist economic formations&#039; (see the excellent edition by Hobsbawm, &#039;&#039;KMPCEF&#039;&#039;), the statements in his work about pre-capitalist societies in general and the Graeco-Roman world in particular are all brief, and many of them are in the nature of &#039;&#039;obliter dicta&#039;&#039;. In these passages, as a rule, he takes no pains to be precise over terminology. Fourthly (and as a consequence of the facts I have just stated), when Marx spoke in particular about &#039;class struggle&#039; he tended – thinking almost always, as he was, of nineteenth-century capitalism – to have in mind the kind of class struggle which was so noticeable in the mid-nineteenth century in the more developed capitalist countries: namely, open class struggle on the political plane. Thus when, for example, he spoke in &#039;&#039;The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte&#039;&#039; of the French bourgeoisie as &#039;doing away with the class struggle for the moment by abolishing universal suffrage&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; XI.153), he simply meant that the law of 31 May 1850, by reducing the total number of electors from ten to seven million (id. 147), made it far harder for the French working class to carry on effective political struggle. And finally, in the work often wrongly taken to be the definitive statement of Marx&#039;s &#039;materialist conception of history&#039;, namely the &#039;&#039;Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy&#039;&#039; (1858-9), we find only a passing reference to classes and none at all to class struggle. There is, however, a perfectly good explanation of this, well brought out by Arthur M. Prinz in an article in the &#039;&#039;Journal of the History of Ideas&#039;&#039; 30 (1969) 437-50, entitled &#039;Background and ulterior motive of Marx&#039;s &amp;quot;Preface&amp;quot; of 1859&#039;. The &#039;&#039;Preface&#039;&#039; was to be published (through the good offices of Lassalle) in Berlin, and it was absolutely necessary for Marx to take careful account of the stringent Prussian censorship and abstain from anything that might be suspected of incitement to class hatred, at that time an actual offence punishable with imprisonment under para. 100 of the Prussian Penal Code. Marx, already well known to the Prussian censors, was now living in England and in no danger of prosecution himself; but he had to be circumspect if there was to be any hope of finding a publisher, for the same paragraph of the Penal Code also prescribed the penalty of confiscation for any offending work. Yet Marx had to publish in Germany, in order to make a bid for the intellectual leadership of the German socialist movement. The &#039;&#039;Preface&#039;&#039;, then, had to steer clear of class struggle. But when on 17/18 September 1879 Marx and Engels – thinking back to the &#039;&#039;Communist Manifesto&#039;&#039; and beyond – wrote to Bebel, Liebknecht, and others, &#039;For almost forty years we have stressed the class struggle as the immediate driving power of history&#039; (&#039;&#039;MESC&#039;&#039; 395), they were making a perfectly correct statement. Even in those considerable parts of Marx&#039;s writing which are concerned entirely with economics or philosophy rather than with the historical process he will sometimes show that the class struggle is ever-present in his mind, as when in a letter to Engels on 30 April 1868 he rounds off a long passage on economics with the words, &#039;Finally . . . we have as conclusion the class struggle, into which the movement of the whole &#039;&#039;Scheiss&#039;&#039; is resolved&#039; (see &#039;&#039;MESC&#039;&#039; 250).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From reactions I have had to drafts of this chapter, I know that some people will protest against what will seem to them an excessive emphasis on collective entities, classes, at the expense of &#039;the individual&#039;. To any such objection I would reply that my main aim in this book is to explain &#039;what happened in history&#039; &#039;&#039;on a large scale&#039;&#039;: the history of the Greek world as a whole over more than 1,300 years – dare I use the rather repellent expression, &#039;macro-history&#039;? But the history of &#039;macro-units&#039; (of classes, as of states and alliances) needs to be explained in terms very different from those appropriate to the behaviour of human groups in organised States. Elsewhere I have explained at length how Thucydides – rightly, in my opinion – recognised that the canons of interpretation and judgment applicable to the actions of States are fundamentally different from those we apply to the actions of individuals (see my &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 7 ff., esp. 16-28). I now wish to advance the following propositions: that the factors governing the behaviour of classes (in my sense) are different again from either of the sets I have just mentioned; that the behaviour of a class as such (that of men &#039;&#039;as&#039;&#039; members of a class) may well be inexplicable in terms we can legitimately apply to their behaviour as individuals; and even that a given individual or set of individuals may behave &#039;&#039;as&#039;&#039; a constituent part of a class in a way that is quite different from the behaviour we are entitled to expect of him or them as individuals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If in that last sentence we substitute &#039;a state&#039; for &#039;a class&#039;, there may be little objection, since the moral standards generally accepted as governing the conduct of individuals are clearly quite different from those applied to the behaviour of states: a man who participated in the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, Berlin or Dresden, Vietnam or Laos, will not be accounted a mass murderer by most people, because he was acting in the interests – or at any rate on the orders – of his own state, against an &#039;enemy&#039; state; and those who gave the orders suffered no criminal indictment, for in the event they were not defeated. It would be similarly easy to find examples from the ancient world that would be universally considered morally atrocious behaviour on the part of individuals acting in their own personal interests, but were yet regarded as unobjectionable and even praiseworthy when employed in the service of the state. Most of the Roman generals against &#039;barbarians&#039; or rebels which are noticed, for example, by Ammianus Marcellinus (a Greek historian who wrote in Latin) are recorded without any sign of disapproval;[5] and the same historian could mention without comment the opinion of &#039;lawyers of old&#039; that sometimes even the innocent may be put to death (XXVII.ix.5), and felt no need to shed any tears over the wholesale extermination of the children of the Maratocupreni, fierce and wily robbers (XXVIII.ii.11-14). I suspect, however, that many people would be far less willing to accept the propositions advanced at the end of the last paragraph in regard to classes, which I will now demonstrate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That slaves who rebelled, or who could even be held guilty of failing to protect their masters from being assassinated by one of their own number, were treated with pitiless ferocity by the Romans is well known: I have given one or two prominent examples in VII.i below. The relationship of the Spartans to their Helots – very much a class relationship, of exploiter to exploited – was one of quite extraordinary hostility and suspicion. In III.iv below I draw attention to the remarkable fact that each set of Spartan ephors, upon taking office, made an official declaration of war on their work-force, the Helots, so as to be able to kill any of them without trial and yet avoid incurring the religious pollution such acts would otherwise have entailed. The Greeks on the whole showed less savagery than the Romans towards their slaves; but even in Classical Athens, where we hear most about relatively good treatment of slaves, all our literature takes the flogging of slaves for granted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Literary sources in abundance from all over the Greek world show that this form of punishment for slaves was commonplace. An epitaph on the tomb of a virtuous matron, Myro (who may be an imaginary character), by the Hellenistic poet Antipater of Sidon, describes quite casually, as if it were the most natural thing in the world, the depiction on her tomb of (among other things) a whip, as a sign that Myro was a &#039;just character of misdeeds&#039; – though not, of course, a &#039;cruel or arrogant mistress&#039;! (&#039;&#039;Anth&#039;&#039;. &#039;&#039;Pal&#039;&#039;. VII.425). No one will doubt that refractory slaves were repressed without mercy, at any rate in so far as this could be done without excessive damage to the interests of their masters, whose property they were (cf. III.iv below).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whom among our main literary sources might we have thought less likely to order a slave to be flogged than Plutarch? – a man conspicuous, surely, for his humanity. But there is a nasty little story which has come down to us from Calvisius Taurus, a friend of Plutarch&#039;s, through Aulus Gellius (&#039;&#039;NA&#039;&#039; I.xxvi.4-9). An educated slave of Plutarch&#039;s who knew his master&#039;s treatise &#039;&#039;On freedom from anger&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;Peri aorgēsias&#039;&#039;, usually referred to by its Latin title, &#039;&#039;De cohibenda ira&#039;&#039;) protested, while being flogged, that Plutarch was being inconsistent and giving in to the very fault he had reprobated. Plutarch was quite unabashed. Insisting that he was perfectly calm, he invited the slave to continue the argument with him – in the same breath ordering the flogger to continue applying the lash. The incident was quoted by Taurus, in reply to a question by Gellius at the end of one of his philosophical lectures, and with complete approval. But we need not be surprised in the least at Plutarch&#039;s action, if we can bring ourselves to see this particular slaveowner and his slave as &#039;but the personifications of the economic relations that existed between them&#039; (Marx, &#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. I.84-5).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The class struggle between the propertied class and those who were relatively or absolutely propertyless was also accompanied at times by atrocities on both sides: see e.g. V.ii below. When we hear of particularly murderous behaviour by those who had the upper hand in a &#039;&#039;stasis&#039;&#039; (a civil commotion), we can be reasonably safe in concluding that the conflict was basically between social classes, even if our information about it is not explicit.[6]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I forbear to cite contemporary examples of the conduct of class warfare in ways which have been widely accepted as &#039;necessary&#039; but which have involved behaviour that would be condemned by everyone as morally indefensible in actions between individuals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - Exploitation and the class struggle ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - Aristotle&#039;s sociology of Greek politics ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (v) - Alternatives to class (status etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (vi) - Women ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== III - Property and the Propertied ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - The conditions of production: land and unfree labour ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - The propertied class (or classes) ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - Land, as the principal source of wealth ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - Slavery and other forms of unfree labour ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (v) - Freedmen ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (vi) - Hired labour ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== IV - Forms of Exploitation in the Ancient Greek World, and the Small Independent Producer ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - &#039;Direct individual&#039; and &#039;indirect collective&#039; exploitation ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - The peasantry and their villages ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - From slave to &#039;&#039;colonus&#039;&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - The military factor ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (v) - &#039;Feudalism&#039; (and serfdom) ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (vi) - Other independent producers ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== PART TWO ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== V - The Class Struggle in Greek History on the Political Plane ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - The &#039;age of the tyrants&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - The fifth and fourth centuries B.C. ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - The destruction of Greek democracy ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== VI - Rome the Suzerain ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - &#039;The queen and mistress of the world&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - The &#039;conflict of the Orders&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - The developed Republic ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - The Roman conquest of the Greek world ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (v) - From Republic to Principate ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (vi) - The Principate, the emperor, and the upper classes ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== VII - The Class Struggle on the Ideological Plane ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - Terror, and propaganda ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - The theory of &#039;natural slavery&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - The standard Hellenistic, Roman and Christian attitude to slavery ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - The attitudes to property of the Graeco-Roman world, of Jesus, and of the Christian churches ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (v) - The ideology of the victims of the class struggle ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== VIII - The &#039;Decline and Fall&#039; of the Roman Empire: an Explanation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - Intensified political subjection and economic exploitation of the lower classes during the early centuries of the Christian era ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - Pressure on the curial class ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - Defection to the &#039;barbarians&#039;, peasant revolts, and indifference to the disintegration of the Roman empire ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - The collapse of much of the Roman empire in the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== APPENDICES ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== I - The contrast between slave and wage-labourer in Marx&#039;s theory of capital ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== II - Some evidence for slavery (especially agricultural) in the Classical and Hellenistic periods ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== III - The settlement of &#039;barbarians&#039; within the Roman empire ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== IV - The destruction of Greek democracy in the Roman period ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Notes ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works about ancient Greece]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:The_Class_Struggle_in_the_Ancient_Greek_World&amp;diff=87429</id>
		<title>Library:The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:The_Class_Struggle_in_the_Ancient_Greek_World&amp;diff=87429"/>
		<updated>2025-10-09T19:52:25Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: /* (ii) - &amp;#039;Class&amp;#039;, &amp;#039;exploitation&amp;#039;, and &amp;#039;the class struggle&amp;#039; defined */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Library work|title=The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests|image=61QOWYUrB6L. UF1000,1000 QL80 .jpg|caption=Cover of the first edition|author=G. E. M. de Ste. Croix|publisher=[[Duckworth Books]] ([[United Kingdom]])&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Cornell University Press]] ([[United States]])|published_date=1981|published_location=[[London]] (United Kingdom)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Ithaca, New York|Ithaca]], [[New York]] (United States)|edition_date=1981|type=Book|isbn=0-8014-1442-3 (hardcover)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;0-8014-9597-0 (paperback)|source=https://archive.org/details/classstruggleina0000dest}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is a book by [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|British]] ancient historian [[G. E. M. de Ste. Croix]], first published in 1981 by [[Duckworth Books]] in Britain and [[Cornell University Press]] in the [[United States of America|United States]]. The seminal work attempts a [[Historical materialism|historical materialist]] analysis of [[Ancient Greece]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== To Margaret ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:To_Margaret.png|frameless|463x463px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Preface ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main text of this book is intended not only for ancient historians and Classical scholars but also in particular for historians of other periods, sociologists, political theorists, and students of Marx, as well as for &#039;the general reader&#039;. The use of Greek text and of anything in Latin beyond very brief quotations is reserved for the Notes and Appendices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as I am aware, it is the first book in English, or in any other language I can read, which begins by explaining the central features of Marx&#039;s historical method and defining the concepts and categories involved, and then proceeds to demonstrate how these instruments of analysis may be used in practice to explain the main events, processes, institutions and ideas that prevailed at various times over a long period of history – here, the thirteen or fourteen hundred years of my &#039;ancient Greek world&#039; (for which see I.ii below). This arrangement involves rather frequent cross-referencing. Some of those who are interested primarily in the methodology and the more &#039;theoretical&#039;, synchronic treatment of concepts and institutions (contained mainly in Part One) may wish for specific references to those passages that are of most concern to themselves, occurring either in other sections of Part One or in the more diachronic treatment in Part Two. Similarly, practising historians whose interests are confined to a limited part of the whole period will sometimes need references to a particular &#039;theoretical&#039; portion in Part One that is specially relevant. (This will, I think, be clear to anyone who compares II.iv with V.ii-iii, for instance, I.iii with IV.ii, or III.iv with Appendix II and IV.iii.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The book originated in the J.H. Gray Lectures for 1972/73 (three in number), which I delivered at Cambridge University in February 1973 at the invitation of the Board of the Faculty of Classics. I am particularly grateful to J. S. Morrison, President of Wolfson College, then Chairman of the Faculty, and to M. I. (now Sir Moses) Finley, Professor of Ancient History, for their kindness to me and the trouble they took to make the experiences a delightful one for me and to ensure a large audience at all three lectures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The J. H. Gray lectures were founded by the Rev. Canon Joseph Henry (&#039;Joey&#039;) Gray, M.A. (Cantab.), J.P., born on 26 July 1856, Fellow and Classical Lecturer of Queens&#039; College Cambridge for no fewer than 52 years before his death on 23 March 1932, at the age of 75. His devotion to his College (of which he wrote and published a history), to the Anglican Church, and to Freemasonry (he became Provincial Grand Master of Cambridgeshire in 1914) was equalled only by his athletic interests, in rowing, cricket, and above all Rugby football. From 1895 until his death he was President of the Cambridge University Rugby Football Club; and when that club, in appreciation of his presidency, presented him with a sum of no less than £1,000, he used the money to endow a special lectureship in Classics at Cambridge – &#039;thus making the gladiators of the football field into patrons of the humaner letters&#039;, to quote the admiring and affectionate obituary in &#039;&#039;The Dial&#039;&#039; (Queens&#039; College Magazine) no.71, Easter Term 1932. The obituary refers to Gray&#039;s &#039;vigorous Conservative politics&#039; and characterises him as &#039;an almost perfect incarnation of John Bull in cap and gown&#039;. I am afraid he would have disapproved strongly of my lectures, and of this book; but I am comforted by another passage in the same obituary which speaks of his &#039;hearty goodwill to all men, even to individual socialists and foreigners&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This book represents of course a very considerable expansion of the lectures, and it incorporates, almost in their entirety, two other papers, given in 1974: a lecture on &#039;Karl Marx and the history of Classical antiquity&#039;, to the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies in London on 21 March 1974, published in an expanded form in &#039;&#039;Arethusa&#039;&#039; 8 (1975) 7–41 (here cited as &#039;KMHCA&#039;); and another lecture, on &#039;Early Christian attitudes to property and slavery&#039;, delivered to the Conference of the Ecclesiastical History Society at York on 25 July 1974, also subsequently expanded and published, in &#039;&#039;Studies in Church History&#039;&#039; 12 (1975) 1–38 (here cited as &#039;ECAPS&#039;). Parts of this book have also been delivered in lecture form at various universities, not only in this country but also in Poland (in June 1977), at Warsaw; and in the Netherlands (in April-May 1978), at Amsterdam, Groningen and Leiden. I have many friends to thank for their kindness to me during my visits to those cities, in particular Professors Iza Bieżuńska-Małowist of the University of Warsaw and Jan-Maarten Bremer of the University of Amsterdam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had intended to publish the Gray Lectures almost in their original form, with little more than references added. However, the comments received from most of those to whom I showed drafts convinced me that owing to the extreme ignorance of Marx&#039;s thought which prevails throughout most of the West, especially perhaps among ancient historians (in the English-speaking world at least as much as anywhere), I would have to write the book on an altogether different scale. As I did so my opinions developed, and I often changed my mind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Friends and colleagues have given me some useful criticisms of the many successive drafts of chapters of this book. I have thanked them individually but now refrain from doing so again, because most of them are not Marxists and might not be happy at finding themselves named here, and partly because I do not wish to debar them from being asked to write reviews, as usually happens to those to whom an author makes a general acknowledgment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have incorporated very many essential brief references (especially to source material) in the text itself, placing them as far as possible at the ends of sentences. This, I believe, is preferable, in a work not intended primarily for scholars, to the use of footnotes, since the eye travels much more easily over a short passage in brackets than down to the foot of the page and back again. (Longer notes, intended principally for scholars, will be found at the end of the book.) I give this as a reply to those friends who, out of sheer Oxonian conservatism, have objected to the abbreviation of titles by initial letters – e.g. &#039;Jones, &#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;, for A. H. M. Jones, &#039;&#039;The Later Roman Empire 284-602&#039;&#039; – while themselves habitually using such abbreviations for various categories of references, including periodicals, collections of inscriptions and papyri, and so forth, e.g. &#039;&#039;JRS&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;CIL&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;ILS&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;PSI&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;BGU&#039;&#039;. For me, the only alternatives still allowing the use of references in the actual text itself would have been to abbreviate with date or serial number, e.g. &#039;Jones, 1964&#039; or &#039;Jones (1)&#039;; but initial letters are as a rule far more likely to convey the necessary information to a reader who already either knows of the existence of the work in question or has looked it up in my bibliography (pp. - below), where all abbreviations are explained. I should perhaps add that titles abbreviated by initials represent books when italicised, articles when not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My reading for this book, while concentrated above all on the ancient sources and the writings of Marx, has necessarily been very wide; but there are some &#039;obvious&#039; works which I have refrained from citing – in particular, books which are specifically philosophical in character and which concern themselves primarily with abstract concepts rather than with the actual historical &#039;events, processes, institutions and ideas&#039; (cf. above) that are the subject-matter of the practising historian. One example is G. A. Cohen&#039;s book, &#039;&#039;Karl Marx&#039;s Theory of History, A Defence&#039;&#039;, based on much greater philosophical expertise than I can command, but which I find congenial; another is the massive work in three volumes by Leszek Kolakowski, &#039;&#039;Main Currents of Marxism: Its Rise, Growth and Dissolution&#039;&#039;, which seems to me to have been vastly overpraised, however accurately it may delineate some of the disastrous developments of Marx&#039;s thought by many of his followers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In an interview printed in &#039;&#039;The Guardian&#039;&#039; on 22 September 1970 the released Nazi war criminal Albert Speer said that in the Third Reich &#039;Each Minister was responsible for his own department, and for that only. Your conscience was quiet if you were &#039;&#039;educated to see things only in your field&#039;&#039;; this was convenient for everybody.&#039; Our educational system also tends to produce people who &#039;see things only in their field&#039;. One of the techniques contributing to this is the strict separation of &#039;ancient history&#039; from the contemporary world. This book, on the contrary, is an attempt to see the ancient Greek world in very close relation with our own and is inspired by the belief that we can learn much about each by careful study of the other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dedication of this book expresses the greatest of all my debts: to my wife, in particular for the perfect good-humour and patience with which she accepted my concentration on it for some years, to the neglect of almost everything else. I also wish to record my gratitude to my son Julian for his valuable assistance in correcting the proofs, and to Colin Haycraft for agreeing to publish the book and accomplishing the task with all possible tact and efficiency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SEPTEMBER 1980&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
G.E.M.S.C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== PART ONE ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== I - Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - The plan of this book ====&lt;br /&gt;
My general aim in this book is first (in Part One) to explain, and then (in Part Two) to illustrate, the value of Marx&#039;s general analysis of society in relation to the ancient Greek world (as defined in Section ii of this chapter). Marx and Engels made a number of different contributions to historical methodology and supplied a series of tools which can be profitably used by the historian and the sociologist; but I shall concentrate largely on one such tool, which I believe to be much the most important and the most fruitful for actual use in understanding and explaining particular historical events and processes: namely, the concept of &#039;&#039;class&#039;&#039;, and of class &#039;&#039;struggle&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Section ii of this first chapter, I state how I interpret the expression &#039;the ancient Greek world&#039;, and explain the meaning of the terms I shall be using for the periods (between about 700 B.C. and the mid-seventh century C.E.) into which the history of my &#039;Greek world&#039; may conveniently be divided. In Section iii I go on to describe the fundamental division between &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; (city and countryside) that plays such a vital role in Greek history after the &#039;Classical&#039; period (ending at about the close of the fourth century B.C.) which – absurdly enough – is all that many people have in mind when they speak of &#039;Greek history&#039;. In Section iv I give a brief account of Marx as a Classical scholar and emphasise the almost total lack of interest in Marxist ideas that is unfortunately characteristic of the great majority of scholars in the English-speaking world who concern themselves with Classical antiquity. I also try to dispel some common misconceptions about Marx&#039;s attitude to history; and in doing so I compare the attitude of Marx with that of Thucydides.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter II deals with &#039;class, exploitation, and class struggle&#039;. In Section i I explain the nature and origin of class society, as I understand that term. I also state what I regard as the two fundamental features which most distinguish ancient Greek society from the contemporary world: they can be identified respectively within the field of what Marx called &#039;the forces of production&#039; and &#039;the relations of production&#039;. In Section ii I define &#039;class&#039; (as essentially a relationship, the social embodiment of the fact of exploitation), and I also define &#039;exploitation&#039; and &#039;class struggle&#039;. In Section iii I show that the meaning I attach to the expression &#039;class struggle&#039; represents the fundamental thought of Marx himself: the essence of class struggle is exploitation or resistance to it; there need not necessarily be any class consciousness or any political element. I also explain the criteria which lead me to define Greek (and Roman) society as &#039;a slave economy&#039;: this expression has regard, not so much to the way in which the bulk of production was done (for at most times in most areas in antiquity it was free peasants and artisans who had the largest share in production), but to the fact that the propertied classes derived their surplus above all through the exploitation of unfree labour. (With this section goes Appendix I, dealing with the technical question of the contrast between slave and wage-labourer in Marx&#039;s theory of capital.) In Section iv I demonstrate that a Marxist analysis in terms of class, far from being the imposition upon the ancient Greek world of inappropriate and anachronistic categories suited only to the study of the modern capitalist world, is actually in some essentials much the same type of analysis as that employed by Aristotle, the greatest of ancient sociologists and political thinkers. In Section v I consider some types of historical method different from that which I employ, and the alternatives which some sociologists and historians have preferred to the concept of class; and I demonstrate (with reference to Max Weber and M. I. Finley) that &#039;status&#039; in particular is inferior as an instrument of analysis, since statuses altogether lack the organic relationship which is the hallmark of classes and can rarely if ever provide explanations, especially of social change. In Section vi I consider women as a class in the technical Marxist sense, and I give a brief treatment of the early Christian attitude to women and marriage, compared with its Hellenistic, Roman, and Jewish counterparts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter III is entitled &#039;Property and the propertied&#039;. In Section i I begin with the fact that in antiquity by far the most important &#039;conditions of production&#039; were land and unfree labour: these, then, were what the propertied class needed to control and did control. In Section ii I explain how I use the expression &#039;the propertied class&#039;: for those who were able to live without needing a significant proportion of their time working for their living. (I speak of &#039;the propertied classes&#039;, in the plural, where it is necessary to notice class divisions within the propertied class as a whole.) In Section iii I emphasise that land was always the principal means of production in antiquity. In Section iv I discuss slavery and other forms of unfree labour (debt bondage, and serfdom), accepting definitions of each of these types of unfreedom which now have world-wide official currency. (Appendix II adds some evidence for slave labour, especially in agriculture, in Classical and Hellenistic times.) In Section v I deal with freedmen (an &#039;order&#039; and not a &#039;class&#039; in my sense), and in Section iv I discuss hired labour, showing that it played an incomparably smaller part in the pre-capitalist world than it does today and was regarded by members of the propertied class in antiquity (and by many of the poor) as only a little better than slavery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Chapter IV I discuss &#039;Forms of exploitation in the ancient Greek world, and the small independent producer&#039;. In Section i I distinguish between &#039;direct individual&#039; and &#039;indirect collective&#039; exploitation, in such a way as to make it possible to regard even many peasant freeholders as members of an exploited class, subject to taxation, conscription and forced services, imposed by the State and its organs. I also explain that those whom I describe as &#039;small independent producers&#039; (mainly peasants, also artisans and traders) were sometimes not severely exploited themselves and equally did not exploit the labour of others to any substantial degree, but lived by their own efforts on or near the subsistence level. At most periods (before the Later Roman Empire) and in most areas these people were very numerous and must have been responsible for the largest share in production, both in agriculture and in handicrafts. In Section ii I speak specifically of the peasantry and the villages in which they mainly lived. In Section iii (&#039;From slave to &#039;&#039;colonus&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;) I describe and explain the change in the forms of exploitation in the Greek and Roman world during the early centuries of the Christian era, where the propertied class, which had earlier relied to a great extent on slaves to produce its surplus, came more and more to rely on letting to tenants (&#039;&#039;coloni&#039;&#039;), most of whom at about the end of the third century became serfs. Most working freehold peasants were also brought into the same kind of subjection, being tied to the villages of which they were members: I call such people &#039;quasi-serfs&#039;. (An Appendix, III, gives a large quantity of evidence for the settlement of &#039;barbarians&#039; within the Roman empire, the significance of which is discussed in Section iii of Chapter IV.) In Section iv (&#039;The military factor&#039;) I point out that in the face of external military threat it may be necessary for the ruling class of a society consisting mainly of peasants to allow the peasantry a higher standard of life than it would otherwise have attained, in order to provide a sufficiently strong army; and that the failure of the Later Roman Empire to make this concession induced in the peasantry as a whole an attitude of indifference to the fate of the Empire, which did not begin to be remedied before the seventh century, by which time much of the empire had disintegrated. In Section v I have something to say about the use of the terms &#039;feudalism&#039; and &#039;serfdom&#039;, insisting that serfdom (as defined in III.iv) can exist quite independently of anything that can properly be called &#039;feudalism&#039;, and ending with a few words on the Marxist concept of the &#039;feudal mode of production&#039;. In Section vi I recognise briefly the role of small &#039;independent producers&#039; other than peasants. That completes Part One of this book.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Part One, then, I am occupied largely with conceptual and methodological problems, in the attempt to establish and clarify the concepts and categories which seem to me to be the most useful in studying the ancient Greek world, above all the process of change which is so obvious when we look at Greek society over the period of thirteen to fourteen hundred years with which this book is concerned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Part Two I seek to illustrate the usefulness of the concepts and methodology I have outlined in Part One in explaining not only a series of historical situations and developments but also the ideas – social, economic, political, religious – which grew out of the historical process. In Chapter V (&#039;The class struggle in Greek history on the political plane&#039;) I show how the application of a class analysis to Greek history can illuminate the processes of political and social change. In Section i I deal with the Archaic period (before the fifth century B.C.) and demonstrate how the so-called &#039;tyrants&#039; played an essential role in the transition from hereditary aristocracy, which existed everywhere in the Greek world down to the seventh century, to more &#039;open&#039; societies ruled either by oligarchies of wealth or by democracies. In Section ii I make a number of observations on the political class struggle (greatly mitigated by democracy, where that form of government existed) in the fifth and fourth centuries, showing how even at Athens, where democracy was strongest, bitter class struggle broke out in the political plane on two occasions, in 411 and 404. In Section iii I explain how Greek democracy was gradually destroyed, between the fourth century B.C. and the third century of the Christian era, by the joint efforts of the Greek propertied class, the Macedonians, and ultimately the Romans. (The details of this process in the Roman period are described in greater detail in Appendix IV.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the whole Greek world came by degrees under Roman rule, I am obliged to say a good deal about &#039;Rome the suzerain&#039;, the title of Chapter VI. After some brief remarks in Section i on Rome as &#039;The queen and mistress of the world&#039;, I give in Section ii a sketch of the so-called &#039;Conflict of the Orders&#039; in the early Roman Republic, intended mainly to show that although it was indeed technically a conflict between two &#039;orders&#039; (two juridically distinct groups), namely Patricians and Plebeians, yet strong elements of class struggle were involved in it. In Section iii I notice some aspects of the political situation in the developed Republic (roughly the last three centuries B.C.). In Section iv I briefly describe the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean world and its consequences. In Section v I explain the change of political regime &#039;From Republic to Principate&#039;, and in Section vi I sketch the nature of the Principate as an institution which continued under the &#039;Later Roman Empire&#039; from the late third century onwards. In my picture of the Later Empire there is much less emphasis than usual upon a supposed change from &#039;Principate&#039; to &#039;Dominate&#039;; far more important, for me, is a major intensification of the forms of exploitation: the reduction to serfdom of most of the working agricultural population, a great increase in taxation, and more conscription. I give a characterisation of the position of the emperor in the Principate and the Later Empire and an outline sketch of the Roman upper classes, not forgetting the changes that took place in the fourth century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter VII is a discussion of &#039;The class struggle on the ideological plane&#039;. After taking up some general issues in Section i (&#039;Terror, and propaganda&#039;), I proceed in Section ii to discuss the theory of &#039;natural slavery&#039;, and in Section iii the body of thought which largely replaced that theory in the Hellenistic period and continued throughout Roman times, appearing in Christian thought in an almost identical form. Section iv deals with the attitudes to property of the Graeco-Roman world, of Jesus, and of the Christian Church – or rather, churches, for I insist that the term &#039;the Christian Church&#039; is not a historical but a strictly theological expression. Jesus is seen as a figure belonging entirely to the Jewish &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039;, who may never even have entered a Greek &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039;, and whose thought-world was thoroughly alien to Graeco-Roman civilisation. The chapter concludes with Section v, which attempts a reconstruction of part of the ideology of the victims of the class struggle (and of Roman imperialism), with some attention to &#039;Resistance literature&#039; (mainly Jewish) and Christian apocalyptic. The best example that has survived is the fable, which is explicitly said by one of its practitioners to have been invented to enable slaves to express their opinions in a disguised form which would not expose them to punishment, although some of the examples turn out to speak not merely for slaves but for the lowly in general, and of course the fable could also be utilised by members of a ruling class to reinforce their position.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The final chapter, VIII, seeks to explain the &#039;decline and fall&#039; of much of the Roman empire, leading ultimately to the loss of Britain, Gaul, Spain, and north Africa in the fifth century, part of Italy and much of the Balkans in the sixth, and the whole of Egypt and Syria in the seventh – not to mention the Arab conquest of the rest of north Africa and much of Spain in the later seventh and the early eighth century. Section i shows how the ever-increasing exploitation of the vast majority of the population of the Graeco-Roman world by the all-powerful wealthy classes (a tiny minority) first depressed the political and legal status of nearly all those who were not members of my &#039;propertied class&#039;, almost to the slave level. Section ii describes the way in which, from just after the middle of the second century, the fiscal screw was tightened further up the social scale, on the &#039;curial class&#039;, the richer members of the local communities, who were in theory an &#039;order&#039;, consisting of the town councillors and their families, but in practice were virtually a hereditary class, consisting of all those owning property above a certain level who were not members of the imperial aristocracy of senators and equestrians. Section iii is a largely descriptive account of defection to the &#039;barbarians&#039;, assistance given to them, peasant revolts, and indifference to the disintegration of the Roman empire on the part of the vast majority of its subjects. The last section, iv, explains how the merciless exploitation of a great majority for the benefit of a very few finally led to the collapse of much of the empire – a process too often described as if it were something that &#039;just happened&#039; naturally – whereas in fact it was due to the deliberate actions of a ruling class that monopolised both wealth and political power and governed solely for its own advantage. I show that a Marxist class analysis can provide a satisfactory explanation of this extraordinary process, which proceeded inexorably despite the heroic efforts of a remarkably able series of emperors from the late third century to near the end of the fourth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the whole Greek world eventually came under the rule of Rome has often obliged me to look at the Roman empire as a whole, and on occasion at the Latin West alone, or even some part of it. For example, in Chapter VIII &#039;barbarian&#039; invasions, internal revolts, the defection of peasants and others, and similar manifestations of insecurity and decline have to be noticed whether they happened in the East or in the West, as they all contributed towards the ultimate disintegration of a large part of the empire. Even the settlements of &#039;barbarians&#039; within the Graeco-Roman world – on a far greater scale than most historians, perhaps, have realised – need to be recorded (for the reasons discussed in IV.iii), although they occurred on a far greater scale in the Latin West than in the Greek East.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - &#039;The Ancient Greek World&#039;: its extent in space and time ====&lt;br /&gt;
For my purposes &#039;the Greek world&#039; is, broadly speaking, the vast area (described below) within which Greek was, or became, the principal language of the upper classes. In north Africa, during the Roman Empire, the division between the Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking areas lay just west of Cyrenaica (the eastern part of modern Libya), on about the 19th meridian east of Greenwich: Cyrenaica and everything to the east of it was Greek. In Europe the dividing line began on the east coast of the Adriatic, roughly where the same meridian cuts the coast of modern Albania, a little north of Durazzo (the ancient Dyrrachium, earlier Epidamnus); and from there it went east and slightly north, across Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria, passing between Sofia (the ancient Serdica) and Plovdiv (Philippopolis) and joining the Danube at about the point where it turns north below Silistra on the edge of the Dobrudja, an area containing several cities on the Black Sea coast that belonged to the &#039;Greek&#039; portion of the empire, which included everything to the south and east of the line I have traced.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;It is astonishing how few maps show this very important linguistic division. It does appear in e.g. &#039;&#039;Westermanns Atlas zur Weltgeschichte&#039;&#039; (Berlin etc., 1965) 42. For the situation in the Later Empire, see Jones, &#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039; II.986. In support of my division of north Africa between the Greek and Latin worlds I would cite p.9 of Louis Robert&#039;s book on gladiators in the Greek East (see VII.1 n.3 below): &#039;La Cyrénaïque fait partie de l&#039;Orient grec, et j&#039;ai laissé à l&#039;Occident la Tripolitaine.&#039;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; My &#039;Greek world&#039;, then, included Greece itself, with Epirus, Macedonia, and Thrace (roughly the southern part of Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria, and the whole of European Turkey), also Cyrenaica and Egypt, and all that part of Asia which was included in the Roman empire: an area with an eastern boundary that varied from time to time but at its widest included not merely Asia Minor, Syria, and the northern edge of Arabia but even Mesopotamia (Iraq) as far as the Tigris. There were even Greek cities and settlements beyond the Tigris;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For the cities which were newly founded, or achieved the status of cities, only from the time of Alexander onwards, see e.g. &#039;&#039;Westermanns Atlas&#039;&#039; (n.1 above) 22-3; &#039;&#039;CAH&#039;&#039; VII, Map 4; Bengtson, &#039;&#039;GG&#039;&#039;[5], Map 9.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but in general, it is perhaps convenient to think of the eastern boundary of the Graeco-Roman world as falling on the Euphrates or a little to the east of it. Sicily too was &#039;Greek&#039; from an early date and became romanised by slow degrees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The time-span with which I am concerned in this book is not merely (1) the &#039;&#039;Archaic and Classical periods&#039;&#039; of Greek history (covering roughly the eighth to the sixth centuries B.C. and the fifth and fourth centuries respectively) and (2) the &#039;&#039;Hellenistic age&#039;&#039; (approximately the last three centuries B.C. in the eastern Mediterranean world), but also (3) the long period of &#039;&#039;Roman domination&#039;&#039; of the Greek area, which began in the second century and was complete before the end of the last century B.C., when Rome itself was still under a &#039;republican&#039; form of government. How long one makes the &#039;Roman Empire&#039; last is a matter of taste: in a sense it continued, as J. B. Bury and others have insisted, until the capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks in A.D. 1453. The Roman &#039;Principate&#039;, as it is universally called in the English-speaking world (&#039;Haut-Empire&#039; is the normal French equivalent), is commonly conceived as beginning with Augustus (Octavian), at or a little after the date of the battle of Actium in 31 B.C., and as passing into the &#039;Later Empire&#039; (&#039;Bas-Empire&#039;) at about the time of the accession of the Emperor Diocletian in 284. In my view the &#039;Principate&#039; from the first was virtually an absolute monarchy, as it was always openly admitted to be in the Greek East (see VI.vi below); and it is unreal to suppose, with some scholars, that a new &#039;Dominate&#039; came into being with Diocletian and Constantine, although there is no harm in using, at any rate as a &#039;&#039;chronological formula&#039;&#039;, the expression &#039;Later Roman Empire&#039; or &#039;Bas-Empire&#039; (see VI.vi &#039;&#039;ad init&#039;&#039;.). Many ancient historians like to make a break somewhere between the reign of Justinian in 527-65 and the death of Heraclius in 641,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Norman Baynes, who had said in 1930 that &#039;the reign of Heraclius marks the beginning of Byzantine history&#039;, later came to feel that &#039;Byzantine history begins with Constantine the Great&#039; (&#039;&#039;BSOE&#039;&#039; 78 and n.2). For the Byzantine historian Ostrogorsky it was in &#039;the age of Heraclius&#039; (610-41) that &#039;the Roman period ended and Byzantine history properly speaking began&#039; (&#039;&#039;HBS&#039;&#039;[2] 106). For Arnold J. Toynbee &#039;ancient Greek or Hellenic historical thought... came to an end when Homer yielded precedence to the Bible as the sacred book of a Greek-speaking and Greek-writing &#039;&#039;intelligentzia&#039;&#039;. In the series of historical authors [that] event occurred between the dates at which Theophylactus Simocatta and George of Pisidia produced their respective works&#039; – that is to say, during the reign of Heraclius (&#039;&#039;Greek Historical Thought from Homer to the Age of Heraclius&#039;&#039;, 1952 and rep., Introduction, p.ix).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and speak thereafter of the &#039;Byzantine Empire&#039;, a term which expresses the fact that the empire was not centred at the ancient Byzantium, re-founded by the Emperor Constantine in 330 as Constantinople. My choice of a terminal date is dictated, I must admit, by the fact that my own first-hand knowledge of the source material becomes defective after the death of Justinian and largely peters out in the mid-seventh century: for this reason my &#039;ancient Greek world&#039; ends not much later than the great book of my revered teacher, A. H. M. Jones, &#039;&#039;The Later Roman Empire 284-602&#039;&#039; (1964), which goes down to the death of the Emperor Maurice and the accession of Phocas, in 602. My own terminal point is the Arab conquests of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Egypt in the 630s and 640s. In justification of keeping within the limits I have described I would plead that virtually everything in this book is based upon first-hand acquaintance with original sources. (in one or two places where it is not, I hope I have made this clear.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do believe that &#039;the ancient Greek world&#039; is sufficiently a unity to be worth taking as the subject of this book: if my knowledge of the source material had been more extensive I should have wished to end the story not earlier than the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, and perhaps with the taking of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks and the end of the Byzantine empire in 1453. The alleged &#039;orientalisation&#039; of the Byzantine empire was in reality slight.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For English-speaking readers the most convincing statement of this view is by Baynes, &#039;&#039;BSOE&#039;&#039; 1-82. Different as my own position is from his in some ways, I find him entirely convincing on this particular topic.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Although the Byzantines no longer commonly referred to themselves as &#039;Hellenes&#039;, a term which from the fourth century onwards acquired the sense of &#039;pagans&#039;, they did call themselves &#039;&#039;&#039;Rhōmaioi&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;, the Greek word for &#039;Romans&#039;, a fact which may remind us that the Roman empire survived in its Greek-speaking areas long after it had collapsed in the Latin West – by something like a thousand years in Constantinople itself. By the mid-ninth century we find a Byzantine emperor, Michael III, referring to Latin as &#039;a barbarous Scythian language&#039;, in a letter to Pope Nicholas I. This contemptuous description of the Roman tongue exasperated Nicholas, who repeated the sacrilegious phrase five times over in his reply to Michael (A.D. 865), with indignant comments.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nicholas [I] Papa, &#039;&#039;Ep.&#039;&#039; 8 in J. D. Mansi, &#039;&#039;Sacr. Conc. nova et ampl. coll.&#039;&#039; XV (1770) 186-216, at 191, repr. as &#039;&#039;Ep&#039;&#039;. 86 in &#039;&#039;MPL CXIX&#039;&#039;. 626–62, at 932.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is a fascinating account of the Greek contribution to the Roman empire and the relationship of the two cultures in A. H. M. Jones&#039;s brief article, &#039;The Greeks under the Roman Empire&#039;, in &#039;&#039;Dumbarton Oaks Papers&#039;&#039; 17 (1963) 3-19, reprinted in the posthumous volume of Jones&#039;s essays edited  by P. A. Brunt, &#039;&#039;The Roman Economy&#039;&#039; (1974) 90-113.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - &#039;&#039;Polis&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
In the Archaic and Classical periods, in Greece itself and in some of the early Greek colonies in Italy and Sicily and on the west coast of Asia Minor, the word &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;χώρα&#039;&#039;) was often used as a synonym for the &#039;&#039;agroi&#039;&#039; (the fields), the rural area of the city-state, the &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;πόλις&#039;&#039;); and sometimes the word &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; itself, in the special limited sense of its urban area, was contrasted with its &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; (see my ECAPS 1, nn.2-3). This usage continued in the Hellenistic period and under Roman rule: every &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; had its own &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; in the sense of its own rural area. However, except where a native population had been reduced to a subject condition there was generally, in the areas mentioned, no fundamental difference between those who lived in or near the urban centre of the &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; and the peasants who lived in the countryside, even if the latter tended to be noticeably less urbane (less cityfied) than the normal and in the literature produced by the upper classes are often treated patronisingly as &#039;country bumpkins&#039; (&#039;&#039;chōritai&#039;&#039;, for example, in Xen., &#039;&#039;HG&#039;&#039; III.ii.31), an attitude which nevertheless allows them to be credited on occasion with superior moral virtues of a simple kind (see Dover, &#039;&#039;GPM&#039;&#039; 113-14). Both groups, however, were Greek and participated in a common culture to a greater or lesser degree.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is hardly possible to give a general definition of a &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; that would hold good for all purposes and all periods, and the best we can do is say that a political entity was a &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; if it was recognised as such. Pausanias, in a famous passage probably written in the 170s, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, speaks disparagingly of the tiny Phocian &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; of Panopeus, east of Mount Parnassus – &#039;if indeed you can call it a &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;, he says, &#039;when it has no public buildings [&#039;&#039;archeia&#039;&#039;], no gymnasium, no theatre, no market place [&#039;&#039;agora&#039;&#039;], and no fountain of water, and where the people live in empty hovels like mountain shanties on the edge of a ravine&#039; (X.iv.1). Yet Pausanias does call it a &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; and shows that in his day it was accepted as such.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In those parts of Asia and Egypt into which Greek civilisation penetrated only in the time of Alexander the Great and in the Hellenistic period the situation was very different. In Asia, from at least the time of Alexander (and probably as early as the fifth century B.C., as I have argued in my &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 154-5, 313-14), the terms of &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; had come to be used on occasion in a recognised technical sense, which continued throughout the Hellenistic period and beyond in Asia and Egypt: in this sense the &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; was the whole vast area not included in the territory administered by any Greek &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039;, sometimes referred to as the &#039;&#039;chōra basilikē&#039;&#039; (royal &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039;), it was under the direct, autocratic rule of the kings, the successors of Alexander, and it was bureaucratically administered, while the &#039;&#039;poleis&#039;&#039; had republican governments and enjoyed forms of precarious autonomy which differed according to circumstances. (It will be sufficient to refer to Jones, &#039;&#039;GCAJ&#039;&#039;, and Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039;.) Under Roman rule the same basic division between &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; continued, but the bulk of the &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; came by degrees under the administration of particular &#039;&#039;poleis&#039;&#039;, each of which had its own &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;territorium&#039;&#039; in the Latin West). The cities in the narrow sense were Greek in very varying degrees in language and culture; native languages and culture usually prevailed in the &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039;, where the peasants did not normally enjoy the citizenship of the &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; that controlled them, and lived mainly in villages, the most common Greek term for which was &#039;&#039;kōmai&#039;&#039; (see IV.ii below). Graeco-Roman civilisation was essentially urban, a civilisation of cities; and in the areas in which it was not native, in which it had not grown up from roots in the very soil, it remained largely an upper-class culture: those whom it embraced exploited the natives in the countryside and gave little in return. As Rostovtzeff has said, speaking of the Roman empire as a whole:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The population of the cities alike in Italy and in the provinces formed but a small minority as compared with the population of the country. Civilised life, of course, was concentrated in the cities; every man who had some intellectual interests . . . lived in a city and could not imagine himself living elsewhere: for him the &#039;&#039;geōrgos&#039;&#039; or &#039;&#039;paganus&#039;&#039; [farmer or villager] was an inferior being, half-civilised or uncivilised. It is no wonder that for us the life of the ancient world is more or less identical with the life of the ancient cities. The cities have told us their story, the country always remained silent and reserved. What we know of the country we know mostly through the men of the cities . . . The voice of the country population is rarely heard . . . Hence it is not surprising that in most modern works on the Roman empire the country and the country population do not appear at all or appear only from time to time in connexion with certain events in the life of the State or the cities&#039; (&#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2 I.192-3).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;We can therefore agree wholeheartedly with the American mediaevalist Lynn White, when he says:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Because practically all the written records and famous monuments of Antiquity were produced in cities, we generally think of ancient societies as having been essentially urban. They were, in fact, agricultural to a degree which we can scarcely grasp. It is a conservative guess that even in fairly prosperous regions over ten people were needed on the land to enable a single person to live away from the land. Cities were atolls of civilisation (etymologically &#039;citification&#039;) on an ocean of rural primitivism. They were supported by a terrifyingly slender margin of surplus agricultural production which could be destroyed swiftly by drought, flood, plague, social disorder or warfare. Since the peasants were closest to the sources of food, in time of hunger they secreted what they could and prevented supplies from reaching the cities (Fontana &#039;&#039;Econ. Hist. of Europe, I. The Middle Ages&#039;&#039;, ed. C. M. Cipolla [1972], at 144-5).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Actually, as we shall see in IV.ii below, the opinion expressed in that last sentence is less true of the Roman empire (including its Greek area) than of other ancient societies, because of the exceptionally effective exploitation and control of the countryside by the imperial government and the municipalities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Greek (or Roman) city normally expected to feed itself corn grown in its own &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;territorium&#039;&#039;), or at any rate grown nearby: this has been demonstrated recently by Jones, Brunt, and others, and is now beginning to be generally realised.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See Jones, &#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039; II.841-5 (with the notes, III.283); Brunt, &#039;&#039;IM&#039;&#039; 703-6 (who notes that &#039;Jones has much the clearest conception of the general conditions that obtained for the food supply&#039;).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; (Classical Athens of course was the great exception to this rule, as to so many others: see my &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 46-9.) An essential factor here, the relevance of which used often to be overlooked, is the inefficiency and high cost of ancient land transport.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See esp. the references that follow in the main text above to Jones, &#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;RE&#039;&#039;. Among many other discussions of ancient transport, see e.g. Duncan-Jones, &#039;&#039;EREQS&#039;&#039; 366-9; also C. A. Yeo, &#039;Land and sea transportation in Imperial Italy&#039;, in &#039;&#039;TAPA&#039;&#039; 77 (1946) 221-44; and of course the indexes to Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2, s.v. &#039;Transportation&#039; etc. On any question of navigation or sea transport, see Lionel Cassion, &#039;&#039;Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World&#039;&#039; (Princeton, 1971). There is a great deal of miscellaneous information about travel and journeys by land and sea in the first two centuries C.E. in Ludwig Friedländer&#039;s massive work, &#039;&#039;Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms in der Zeit von August bis zum Ausgang der Antonine&#039;&#039;9-10 (Leipzig, 1919-21) I.316-88, esp. 331-57.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In Diocletian&#039;s day, &#039;a wagon-load of wheat, costing 6,000 denarii, would be doubled in price by a journey [by land] of 300 miles&#039;; and, if we ignore the risks of sea transport, &#039;it was cheaper to ship grain from one end of the Mediterranean to the other than to cart it 75 miles&#039; (Jones, &#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039; II.841-2; cf. his &#039;&#039;RE&#039;&#039; 37). Jones cites evidence from Gregory Nazianzenus and John the Lydian, writing in the fourth and sixth centuries respectively (&#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039; II.844-5). According to Gregory, coastal cities could endure crop shortages without great difficulty, &#039;as they can dispose of their own products and receive supplies by sea; for us inland our surpluses are unprofitable and our scarcities irremediable, as we have no means of disposing of what we have or of important what we lack&#039; (&#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. XLIII.34, in &#039;&#039;MPG&#039;&#039; XXXVI. 541-4). John complains that when Justinian abolished the public post in certain areas, including Asia Minor, and moreover taxes had to be paid in gold instead of (as hitherto) in kind, &#039;the unsold crops rotted on the estate . . . , and the taxpayer was ruined . . . , since he could not sell his crops, living far from the sea&#039; (&#039;&#039;De magistr&#039;&#039;. III.61). This evidence, as Brunt has rightly observed, &#039;is perfectly applicable to every preceding epoch of the ancient world and to every region lacking water communications, for there had been no regress in the efficiency of land transport&#039; (&#039;&#039;IM&#039;&#039; 704). I would add a reference to an interesting passage in Procopius, &#039;&#039;Bell&#039;&#039;. VI (&#039;&#039;Goth&#039;&#039;. II) xx.18, describing how, during a widespread famine in northern and central Italy in 538, the inhabitants of inland Aemilia left their homes and went south-east to Picenum (where Procopius himself was), supposing that that area would not be so destitute of food supplies &#039;because it was on the sea&#039; (cf. IV.ii below and its n.29).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I shall not have occasion to refer again to transport in the ancient world, I will give here a particularly striking – though rarely noticed – example of the great superiority of water to land transport even in late antiquity. In 359 the Emperor Julian considerably increased the corn supply of the armies on the Rhine and of the inhabitants of the neighbouring areas by having corn which was already customarily shipped from Britain transported up the Rhine by river-boats (Libanius, &#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. XVIII.82-3; Zosimus III.v.2; Amm. Marc. XVIII.ii.3; cf. Julian, &#039;&#039;Ep. ad Athen&#039;&#039;. 8, 279d-80a). The fact that transport &#039;&#039;against the current of the Rhine&#039;&#039; was, as Libanius and Zosimus realised, much cheaper than carriage on wagons by road is impressive evidence of the inferiority of the latter form of transport. (It is convenient to mention here that the discovery in recent years of further fragments of Diocletian&#039;s Price-Edict of A. D. 301&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The fragments of Diocletian&#039;s Price Edict known down to 1938-9 were published (with an English translation) by Elsa R. Graser, in Frank, &#039;&#039;ESAR&#039;&#039; V (1940) 305-421; there are some further relevant fragments in her article, &#039;The significance of two new fragments of the Edict of Diocletian&#039;, in &#039;&#039;TAPA&#039;&#039; 71 (1940) 157-74. An edition by Siegfried Lauffer, &#039;&#039;Diokletians Preisedikt&#039;&#039; (Berlin, 1971) was complete down to 1970; another edition (with Italian translation) by Marta Giacchero, &#039;&#039;Edictum Diocletiani et Collegarum de pretiis rerum venalium&#039;&#039; (Genoa, 1974), includes several fragments found subsequently, and is now the most useful single text. A number of fragments of the Edict found at Aezani in Phrygia, on the upper Rhyndacus, make up the most complete Latin version yet available from a single source. These fragments (including a clear price of 72,000 denarii for the pound of gold and 6,000 for the pound of silver) have been incorporated in Giacchero&#039;s edition. On the publication of the Aezani fragments by R. and F. Naumann in 1973, see Joyce Reynolds, in &#039;&#039;JRS&#039;&#039; 66 (1976) 251-2 (with Hugh Plommer) and 183, with the works cited in the latter passage, nn.117-19. I give here, for convenience, a few particularly important prices from the Edict (in denarii) which can now be regarded as certain: (1) the pound of gold: 72,000 (Giacchero 28.1a,2); (2) the pound of silver: 6,000 (G. 28.9); (3) an ordinary slave aged 16-40: male 30,000, female 25,000 (G. 29.1a,2; Lauffer 31.1a,2); (4) the daily wage of an agricultural worker: 25 plus food (G. and L. 7.1a; cf. IV.iii above and its n.1 below); (5) the &#039;castrensis modius&#039;: of wheat 100, of barley 60 (G. and L. 1.1a,2). The last section of all in the Edict, dealing with sea and river transport charges, is no.35 in G. and 37 in L.; the section dealing with land transport charges is no.17 in each. The best attempt to solve the complicated problem of the size of the &#039;&#039;castrensis modius&#039;&#039; (probably 1½ ordinary modii) is by R. P. Duncan-Jones, &#039;The size of the &#039;&#039;modius castrensis&#039;&#039;&#039;, in &#039;&#039;ZPE&#039;&#039; 21 (1976) 53-62, cf. 43-52.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; has advanced our knowledge of the relative costs of land and water transport, a subject I cannot discuss here as it deserves.) I will add a reference to the vivid little sketch in Ausonius of the contrast between river-journeys by boat, downstream with oars and upstream with haulage (&#039;&#039;Mosella&#039;&#039; 39-44). It is also worth drawing attention to the repeated allusions by Strabo to the importance of river-transport in the countries where rivers were sufficiently navigable – not so much in the Greek lands, of course, as in Spain and Gaul (see esp. Strabo III, pp. 140-3, 151-3; IV, pp. 177-8, 185-6, 189). In 537 the Emperor Justinian recorded with sympathy the fact that litigants involved in appeals, who therefore needed to travel (to Constantinople), had been complaining that they were sometimes prevented from coming by sea owing to the unfavourable winds or by land owing to their poverty – another testimony to the greater cost of land journeys (&#039;&#039;Nov. J&#039;&#039;. XLIX. &#039;&#039;praef&#039;&#039;. 2). Yet sea voyages could sometimes involve long delays, because of rough weather or unfavourable winds. The official messengers who brought a letter from the Emperor Gaius to the governor of Syria at Antioch at the end of A.D. 41 are said by Josephus (no doubt with some exaggeration) to have been &#039;weather-bound for three months&#039; on the way (&#039;&#039;BJ&#039;&#039; II.203). In 51 B.C., when Cicero was travelling to Asia to take over his province of Cicilia, it took him five days to sail from Peiraeus to Delos and another eleven days to reach Ephesus (Cic., &#039;&#039;Ad Att&#039;&#039;. V.xii.1; xiii.1). Writing to his friend Atticus after reaching Delos, he opened his letter with the words, &#039;A sea journey is a serious matter [&#039;&#039;negotium magnum est navigare&#039;&#039;], and in the month of July at that&#039; (&#039;&#039;Ad Att&#039;&#039;. V.xii.1). On his way home in November of the following year, Cicero spent three weeks on the journey from Patras to Otranto, including two spells of six days each on land, waiting for a favourable wind; some of his companions, who risked the crossing from Cassiope on Corcyra (Corfu) to Italy in bad weather were shipwrecked (&#039;&#039;Ad fam&#039;&#039;. XVI.ix.1-2).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In point of fact, even the availability of water-transport, in the eyes of Greeks and Romans, could hardly compensate for the absence of a fertile &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039;. I should like to refer here to an interesting text, seldom or never quoted in this connection, which illustrates particularly well the general realisation in antiquity that a city must normally be able to live off the cereal produce of its own immediate hinterland. Vitruvius (writing under Augustus) has a nice story – which makes my point equally well whether it is true or not – about a conversation between Alexander the Great and Deinocrates of Rhodes, the architect who planned for Alexander the great city in Egypt that bore (and still bears) his name, Alexandria, and became, in Strabo&#039;s words, &#039;the greatest place of exchange in the inhabited world&#039; (&#039;&#039;megistron emporion tēs oikoumenēs&#039;&#039;, XVII.i.13, p.798). In this story Deinocrates suggests to Alexander the foundation on Mount Athos of a city, a &#039;&#039;civitas&#039;&#039; – the Greek source will of course have used the word &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039;. Alexander at once inquires &#039;whether there are fields around, which can provide that city with a food supply&#039;; and when Deinocrates admits that the city could only be supplied by sea transport, Alexander rejects the idea out of hand: just as a child needs milk, he says, so a city without fields and abundant produce from them cannot grow, or maintain a large population. Alexandria, Vitruvius adds, was not only a safe harbour and an excellent place of exchange; it had &#039;cornfields all over Egypt&#039;, irrigated by the Nile (&#039;&#039;De architect&#039;&#039;. II, &#039;&#039;praef&#039;&#039;. 2-4).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now the civilisation of old Greece had been a natural growth (&#039;from roots in the very soil&#039;, to repeat the phrase I used above); and although the cultured gentleman, living in or near the city, could be a very different kind of person from the boorish peasant, who might not often leave his farm, except to sell his produce in the city market, yet they spoke the same language and felt that they were to some extent akin.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For a high degree of literacy among the Athenians of the Classical period, see the admirable article by F. D. Harvey, &#039;Literacy in the Athenian democracy&#039;, in &#039;&#039;REG&#039;&#039; 79 (1966) 585-635. Athens was no doubt exceptional, in this as in so many other ways. Illiteracy was very common in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, especially among women: see H. C. Youtie, &#039;&#039;Scriptiunculae&#039;&#039; (Amsterdam, 1973) II.611-27, 629-51 (nos. 29 and 30), reprinting (with minor additions) two articles, &#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;Αγραμματοσ: An Aspect of Greek Society in Egypt&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;, in &#039;&#039;HSCP&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;75 (1971) 161-76; and&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Βραδέως γράφων&#039;&#039;: Between Literacy and Illiteracy&#039;, in &#039;&#039;GRBS&#039;&#039; 12 (1971) 239-61. Sufficient bibliography will be found there. Even a village clerk, a &#039;&#039;κωμογραμματεύς&#039;&#039;, who of course was supposed to be literate, might not be so, or only minimally. Two known cases are mentioned in &#039;&#039;P. Petaus&#039;&#039; 11 and 31: see the articles by Youtie mentioned above, and his no.34 in &#039;&#039;Scriptiunculae&#039;&#039; II.677-95, a reprint of &#039;Pétaus, fils de Pétaus, ou le scribe qui ne savait pas écrire&#039;, in &#039;&#039;CE&#039;&#039; 41 (1966) 127-43.&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the new foundations in the Greek East the situation was often quite different. The upper classes, living in or very near the towns, mostly spoke Greek, lived the Greek life and shared in Greek culture. Of the urban poor we know very little, but some of them were at least literate, and they mixed with the educated classes and probably shared their outlook and system of values to a very considerable extent, even where they did not enjoy any citizen rights. But the peasantry, the great majority of the population, on whose backs (with those of the slaves) the burden of the whole vast edifice of Greek civilisation rested, generally remained in much the same state of life as their forefathers: in many areas the majority probably either spoke Greek not at all or at best imperfectly, and most of them remained for centuries – right down to the end of Graeco-Roman civilisation and beyond – at little above the subsistence level, illiterate, and almost untouched by the brilliant culture of the cities.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The best account of this fundamental opposition between town and country in the Greek East is in Jones, &#039;&#039;GCAJ&#039;&#039; 259-304 (Part V, &#039;The achievement of the cities&#039;), esp. 285 ff. Another major work by Jones, &#039;&#039;CERP&#039;&#039; (frequently cited in &#039;&#039;GCAJ&#039;&#039;), has been reissued in a second edition, &#039;&#039;CERP&#039;&#039;2 (1971), with additions, a few of them substantial. A recent work, limited to the Late Republic and the Principate, is MacMullen, &#039;&#039;RSR&#039;&#039;: the first chapters of this (I. &#039;Rural&#039;, and II. &#039;Rural-Urban&#039;, pp. 1-56) have much well-chosen illustrative material – of an antiquarian rather than historical character, since this book (like the rest of MacMullen&#039;s work) is not supported by any consistent structure of theory or method, and therefore lacks any principle of organisation and is seldom or never able to furnish explanations. For the opinions of a great scholar who knew the archaeological as well as the literary evidence particularly well, see Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2, e.g. I.255-78 (with II.654-77), 344-52, 378-80, 505. For a similar situation in the West, see I.33, 59-63, 203-6 (Italy); 252 (Thrace). I should perhaps add that I know of no parallel to Strabo&#039;s classification into &#039;&#039;agroikoi&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;mesagroikoi&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;politikoi&#039;&#039; (XIII.i.25, p.592): it may be no more than a reflection of Plato, &#039;&#039;Laws&#039;&#039; III.677-81, which he had quoted.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As A. H. M. Jones has said:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The cities were . . . economically parasitic on the countryside. Their income consisted in the main of the rents drawn by the urban aristocracy from the peasants . . . The splendours of civic life were to a large extent paid for out of [these] rents, and to this extent the villages were impoverished for the benefits of the towns . . . The city magnates came into contact with the villagers in three capacities only, as tax collectors, as policemen, and as landlords (&#039;&#039;GCAF&#039;&#039; 268, 287, 295).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;This of course is as true of much of the Roman West as of the Greek East, and it remained true of the greater part of the Greek world right through the Roman period. The fundamental relationship between city and countryside was always the same: it was essentially one of exploitation, with few benefits given in return.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is brought out most forcibly by a very remarkable passage near the beginning of the treatise &#039;&#039;On wholesome and unwholesome foods&#039;&#039; by Galen,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Galen, &#039;&#039;Περὶ εὐχυμίας καὶ κακοχυμίας&#039;&#039; 1.1-7 = &#039;&#039;De bonis malisque sucis&#039;&#039;, ed. G. Helmreich, in &#039;&#039;Corp. Medic. Graec&#039;&#039;. V.iv.2, Galenus (Leipzig/Berlin, 1923) 389-91 = &#039;&#039;De probis pravisque alimentorum succis&#039;&#039;, ed. C. G. Kühn, in Galenus VI (Leipzig, 1823) 749-52, with Latin trans.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the greatest physician and medical writer of antiquity, whose life spanned the last seventy years of the second century of the Christian era and who must have written the work in question during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-80) or soon afterwards, and therefore during or just after that Antonine Age which has long been held up to us as part of that period in the history of the world during which, in Gibbon&#039;s famous phrase, &#039;the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous&#039; (&#039;&#039;DFRE&#039;&#039; 1.78). Galen, setting out to describe the terrible consequences of an uninterrupted series of years of dearth affecting &#039;many of the peoples subject to Roman rule&#039;, draws a distinction, not expressly between landlords and tenants, or between rich and poor, but between city-dwellers and country folk, although for his purposes all three sets of distinctions must obviously have been much the same, and it would not matter much to him (or to the peasantry) whether the &#039;city-dwellers&#039; in his picture were carrying out their exactions purely as landlords or partly as tax-collectors.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Immediately summer was over, those who live in the cities, in accordance with their universal practice of collecting a sufficient supply of corn to last a whole year, took from the fields all the wheat, with the barley, beans and lentils, and left to the rustics [the &#039;&#039;agroikoi&#039;&#039;] only those annual products which are called pulses and leguminous fruits [&#039;&#039;ospria te kai chedropa&#039;&#039;]; they even took away a good part of these to the city. So the people in the countryside [&#039;&#039;hoi kata tēn chōran anthrōpoi&#039;&#039;], after consuming during the winter what had been left, were compelled to use unhealthy forms of nourishment. Through the spring they ate twigs and shoots of trees, bulbs and roots of unwholesome plants, and they made unsparing use fo what are called wild vegetables, whatever they could get hold of, until they were surfeited; they ate them after boiling them whole like green grasses, of which they had not tasted before even as an experiment. I myself in person saw some of them at the end of spring and almost all at the beginning of summer afflicted with numerous ulcers covering their skin, not of the same kind in every case, for some suffered from erysipelas, others from inflated tumours, others from spreading boils, other had an eruption resembling lichen and scraps and leprosy.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Galen goes on to say that many of these wretched people died. He is dealing, of course, with a situation which in his experience was evidently exceptional, but, as we shall see, enough other evidence exists to show that its exceptional character was a matter of degree rather than of kind. Famines in the Graeco-Roman world were quite frequent: various modern authors have collected numerous examples.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;As Brunt says (&#039;&#039;IM&#039;&#039; 703), &#039;comprehensive examination is still needed&#039; of ancient famines. His own brief treatment of the subject is admirable and gives a few references to other works, among which I would single out MacMullen, &#039;&#039;ERO&#039;&#039; 249-54 (an appendix devoted entirely to famines), and H. P. Kohns, &#039;&#039;Versorgungskrisen und Hungerrevolten im spätantiken Rom&#039;&#039; ( = &#039;&#039;Antiquitas&#039;&#039; I.6, Bonn, 1961).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is one phenomenon in particular which strongly suggests that in the Roman empire the peasantry was more thoroughly and effectively exploited than in most other societies which rely largely upon peasant populations for their food supply. It has often been noticed (as by Lynn White, quoted above) that peasants have usually been able to survive famines better than their town-dwelling fellow-countrymen, because they can hide away for themselves some of the food they produce and may still have something to eat when there is starvation in the towns. It was not so in the Roman empire. I have just quoted a very remarkable passage in Galen which speaks of &#039;those who live in the cities&#039; as descending upon their &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; after the harvest, in time of dearth, and appropriating for themselves practically all the wholesome food. There is a good deal of specific evidence from the Middle and Later Roman Empire to confirm this. Philostratus, writing in the first half of the third century a biography of Apollonius of Tyana (a curious figure of the late first century), could describe how at Aspendus in Pamphylia (on the south coast of Asia Minor) Apollonius could find no food on sale in the market except vetches (&#039;&#039;oroboi&#039;&#039;): &#039;the citizens&#039;, he says, &#039;were feeding on this and whatever else they could get, for the leading men [&#039;&#039;hoi dynatoi&#039;&#039;, literally &#039;the powerful&#039;] had shut away all the corn and were keeping it for export&#039; (Philostr., &#039;&#039;Vita Apollon&#039;&#039;. I.15; cf. IV.ii and its n.24 below). And again and again, between the mid-fourth century and the mid-sixth, we find peasants crowding into the nearest city in time of famine, because only in the city is there any edible food to be had: I shall give a whole series of examples in IV.ii below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We must also remember something that is far too often forgotten: the exploitation of the humbler folk was by no means only financial; one of its most burdensome features was the exaction of menial labour services of many kinds. A Jewish rabbi who was active in the second quarter of the third century by our era declared that cities were set up by the State &#039;in order to impose upon the people &#039;&#039;angaria&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039; – a term of Persian or Aramaic provenance and originally relating to forced transport services, which had been taken over by the Hellenistic kingdoms (as the Greek word &#039;&#039;angareia&#039;&#039;, plural &#039;&#039;angareiai&#039;&#039;) and by the Romans (as the Latin &#039;&#039;angaria&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;angariae&#039;&#039;), and had come to be applied to a variety of forms of compulsory labour performed for the State or the municipalities;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See esp. D. Sperber, &#039;Angaria in Rabbinic literature&#039;, in &#039;&#039;AC&#039;&#039; 38 (1969) 164-8, at 166, citing R. Hanina b. Hama. As Sperber indicates, &#039;angaria&#039; as used by the rabbi in question has the general meaning of extortion and oppression. And see P. Fiebig, in &#039;&#039;ZNW&#039;&#039; 18 (1917-18) 64-72. For &#039;&#039;angariae&#039;&#039; in general in the Greek (and Roman) world, see Rostovtzeff, &#039;Angariae&#039;, in &#039;&#039;Klio&#039;&#039; 6 (1906) 249-58; &#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2 I.381-4 (with II.703 nn.35-7), 519-20, II.723 n.46; F. Oertel, &#039;&#039;Die Liturgie&#039;&#039; (Leipzig, 1917) 24-6, 88-90. For the incidence of &#039;&#039;angariae&#039;&#039; falling on the peasant and not the well-to-do landowner, see Lieberschuetz, &#039;&#039;Ant&#039;&#039;. 69 (on Liban., &#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. L, &#039;&#039;De angariis&#039;&#039;), quoted in the text above. For the very wide incidence of transport services of various kinds in the Roman empire, organised by the Roman government as the &#039;&#039;vehiculatio&#039;&#039;, later the &#039;&#039;cursus publicus&#039;&#039;, see Stephen Mitchell, &#039;Requisitioned transport in the Roman Empire: a new inscription from Pisidia&#039; [Sagalassus], in &#039;&#039;JRS&#039;&#039; 66 (1976) 106-31, esp. the list of 21 documents (111-12). A text in the &#039;&#039;Digest&#039;&#039; that is seldom noticed mentions a rescript to the effect that ships belonging to veterans &#039;&#039;angariari posse&#039;&#039; (XLIX.xviii.4.1, Ulpian). In a papyrus we even find the word &#039;&#039;ἀνενγάρευτος&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;SB&#039;&#039; I.4226).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &#039;the Middle Ages applied it to services (&#039;&#039;corvées&#039;&#039;) owned to the &#039;&#039;seigneur&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039; (Marc Bloch, in &#039;&#039;CEHE&#039;&#039; I2.263-4), and in fifteenth-century Italy we still hear of &#039;&#039;angararii&#039;&#039;, and of those bound by fealty in rustic vassalage to their lords, subject to &#039;&#039;angaria&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;perangaria&#039;&#039; (Philip Jones, in id. 406). An example familiar to most people today who have never heard the word &#039;&#039;angaria&#039;&#039; is the story of Simon of Cyrene, who was obliged by the Romans to carry the cross of Jesus to the place of execution: Mark and Matthew use the appropriate technical term, a form of the verb &#039;&#039;angareuein&#039;&#039; (Mk XV.21; Mt. XXVII.32). Only an understanding of the &#039;&#039;angareia&#039;&#039;-system can make fully intelligible one of the sayings of Jesus in the so-called Sermon on the Mount: &#039;Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain&#039; (Mt. V.41). Again, the word &#039;compel&#039; in this text represents the technical term &#039;&#039;angareuein&#039;&#039;. (The passage deserves more notice than it usually receives in discussions of the attitude of Jesus to the political authorities of his day.) Readers of the Stoic philosopher Epictetus will remember that he was less positively enthusiastic than Jesus about co-operation with officials exacting &#039;&#039;angareia&#039;&#039;: he merely remarks that it is sensible to comply with a soldier&#039;s requisition of one&#039;s donkey. If one objects, he says, the result will only be a beating, and the donkey will be taken just the same (&#039;&#039;Diss&#039;&#039;. IV.i.79).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As it happens, it is in a speech &#039;&#039;On angareiai&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;De angariis&#039;&#039; in Latin, &#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. L) that the great Antiochene orator Libanius makes a particularly emphatic assertion of the absolute dependence of the cities upon the countryside and its inhabitants. (The word &#039;&#039;angareia&#039;&#039; does not actually occur in the speech, and &#039;&#039;Peri tōn angareiōn&#039;&#039; as its title may be due to a Byzantine scholar; but no one will dispute that &#039;&#039;angareiai&#039;&#039; of a particular municipal kind are the subject of the document.) Libanius is complaining to the Emperor Theodosius I in 385 that the peasants of the neighbourhood are being driven to desperation by having themselves and their animals pressed into service for carrying away building rubble from the city. Permits are given by the authorities, he says, which even allow private individuals to take charge of particular gates of the city and to impress everything passing through; with the help of soldiers they drive hapless peasants with the lash (§§ 9, 16, 27 etc.). As Liebeschuetz puts it, the animals of &#039;&#039;honorati&#039;&#039; (acting or retired imperial officials and military officers) &#039;were not requisitioned; other notables managed to get their animals excused even if with some difficulty. All the suffering was that of peasants. There is not a word about losses of landowners&#039; (&#039;&#039;Ant&#039;&#039;. 69). Although he has to admit that the practice has been going on for years (§§ 10, 15, 30), Libanius claims that it was illegal (§§ 7, 10, 17-20). He cleverly adduces the fact that a permit was once obtained from an emperor as proof that even the provincial governor has no right to authorise it (§ 22). He also asserts that visitors from other cities are aghast at what they see happening in Antioch (§ 8) – a statement there is no need to take seriously. Towards the end of the speech Libanius explains that the practice he is complaining about has a bad effect on the city&#039;s corn supply (§§ 30-1), an argument that might be expected to appeal strongly to the emperor. (We may compare the complaint of the Emperor Domitian, almost exactly three hundred years earlier, that the infliction on working peasants of burdens of the time of &#039;&#039;angaria&#039;&#039; is likely to result in failures of cultivation: &#039;&#039;IGLS&#039;&#039; V.1998, lines 28-30.) And then Libanius comes to his climax: he begs the &#039;&#039;philanthrōpotatos basileus&#039;&#039;,&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Show your concern not just for the cities, but for the countryside too, or rather for the countryside in preference to the cities – for the country is the basis on which they rest. One can assert that cities are founded on the country, and that this is their firm footing, providing them with wheat, barley, grapes, wine, oil and the nourishment of man and other living beings. Unless oxen, ploughs, seed, plants and herds of cattle existed, cities would not have come into being at all. And, once in existence, they have depended upon the fortunes of the countryside, and the good and ill that they experience arise therefrom.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Any foe to the well-being of working farmers and even of their animals, he goes on,&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;is foe to the land, and the foe to the land is foe to the cities also, and indeed to mariners as well, for they too need the produce of the land. They may get from the sea increase of their store of goods, but the very means of life comes from the land. And you too, Sire, obtain tribute from it. In your rescripts you hold converse with the cities about it, and their payment of it comes from the land. So whoever assists the peasantry supports you, and ill-treatment, Sire, by law, punishment and edicts, and in your enthusiasm for the matter under discussion you must encourage all to speak up for the peasants (§§ 33-6, in the translation of A. F. Norman&#039;s Loeb edition of Libanius, Vol. II).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;I should perhaps add, not only that the practice against which Libanius is protesting is something quite separate from the burdensome &#039;&#039;angareiai&#039;&#039; exacted by the imperial authorities, mainly in connection with the &#039;public post&#039;, but also that Libanius himself sometimes takes a very different and much less protective approach towards peasants in his other writings, notably when he is denouncing the behaviour of his own and other tenants, as well as freeholders resisting tax-collectors, in his &#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. XLVII (see IV.ii below).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The linguistic evidence for the separation between &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; is particularly illuminating. Except in some of the western and southern coastal areas of Asia Minor, such as Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia and the Cilician plain, where the native tongues seem to have been entirely displaced by Greek during the Hellenistic age, the great majority of the peasants of the Greek East and even some of the townsmen (especially of course the humbler ones) habitually spoke not Greek but the old native tongues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;There is an up-to-date bibliography on this subject, for the Western as well as the Eastern part of the Roman empire, in P. A. Brunt, RLRCRE = &#039;The Romanisation of the local ruling classes in the Roman empire&#039;, in &#039;&#039;Assimilation et résistance à la culture gréco-romaine dans le monde ancien&#039;&#039; = &#039;&#039;Travaux du&#039;&#039; VIe [Madrid, 1974] &#039;&#039;Congrés International d&#039;Études Classiques&#039;&#039; (Bucarest/Paris, 1976) 161-73, at 170-2. I should perhaps add Jones, &#039;&#039;CERP&#039;&#039;2 228-30 and &#039;&#039;GCAJ&#039;&#039; 288-95 (partly but not entirely replaced by &#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039; II.966, 968-9, 991-7); Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2 II.626-7 n.1, 666 n.36. J. C. Mann, &#039;Spoken Latin in Britain as evidenced in the inscriptions&#039;, in &#039;&#039;Britannia&#039;&#039; 2 (1971) 218-24, although dealing mainly with Britain, may suggest a way in which research might be conducted in other areas.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Everyone will remember that when Paul and Barnabas arrived at Lystra, on the edge of a mountain district of southern Asia Minor, and Paul is said to have healed a cripple, the people cried out &#039;in the speech of Lycaonia&#039; (Act. Apost. XIV.11) – a vernacular tongue which was never written down and which in due course perished entirely. (And this happened inside a city, and moreover one in which Augustus had planted a citizen colony of Roman veterans.)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;On Lystra, see Barbara Levick, &#039;&#039;RCSAM&#039;&#039; 51-3, 153-6, 195-7.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Such stories could be paralleled again and again from widely separated parts of the Roman empire, in both East and West. And those who did not speak Greek or Latin would certainly have little or no part in Graeco-Roman civilisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We must exaggerate the strictly ethnic and linguistic factors, which are so noticeable in the more eastern parts of the Greek area, at the expense of economic and social ones. Even in Greece itself, the Aegean islands and the more western coasts of Asia Minor, where Greeks had for centuries been settled and where even the poorest peasant might be as much a Hellene as the city magnate (if at a much lower cultural level), the class division between the exploiters and those from whom they drew their sustenance was very real, and it naturally deepened when the humble entirely lost the protection many of them had been able to obtain from a democratic form of government (see V.iii below). And in the &#039;Oriental&#039; parts, newly brought within the great Hellenistic kingdoms, the clear-cut difference between &#039;Hellene&#039; and &#039;barbaros&#039; (Greek and native) gradually became transformed into a more purely class distinction, between the propertied and non-propertied. This is true even of Egypt, where the gulf between the Greeks and the native Egyptians had originally been as wide as anywhere, extending to language, religion, culture and &#039;way of life&#039; in general. In Egypt, indeed, there was more interpenetration between two elements than elsewhere, because until A.D. 200 cities were few (there were only Alexandria, Naucratis, Paraetonium and Ptolemais, and in addition Hadrian&#039;s foundation of Antinoöpolis in A.D. 130), and because far more Greeks settled outside the cities, in the country districts, often as soldiers or administrators, but with a strong tendency to gravitate toward the &#039;metropoleis&#039;, the capitals of the districts (&#039;nomes&#039;) into which Egypt was divided. The exploitation of Egypt under the Ptolemies (323-30 B.C.) was not as intense as under the succeeding Roman administration, and the rents and taxes exacted from the peasantry were at least spent mainly at Alexandria and Naucratis, and at the other centres of population (not yet &#039;&#039;poleis&#039;&#039;) where men of property lived, and were not partly diverted (as they were later) to Rome. Nevertheless, the income of the Ptolemies was enormous by ancient standards, and the fellahin must have been pressed hard to provide it.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The revenue of the reigning Ptolemy is given in respectable ancient sources as 14,800 talents of silver and 1½ million artabae of wheat in the second quarter of the third century B.C. (Jerome, &#039;&#039;In Daniel&#039;&#039;. XI.5), and in the last century B.C. as 12,500 talents (Cic., &#039;&#039;ap&#039;&#039;. Strab. XVII.i.13, p.798) or 6,000 talents (Diod. XVII.52.6): see Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; II.1150-3, with Ill.1607 n.86. The total population of late Ptolemaic Egypt (&#039;&#039;c&#039;&#039;. 60 B.C.) is given as 7 million by Diod. I.31.8 (with the emendation now commonly accepted: &#039;&#039;τούτων&#039;&#039; for &#039;&#039;τριακοσίων&#039;&#039;). That of Roman Egypt in the Flavian period is given by Jos., &#039;&#039;BJ&#039;&#039; II.385, as 7½ million, apart from Alexandria. These figures may be approximately correct. We should perhaps allow a million or so for Alexandria: cf. Fraser, &#039;&#039;PA&#039;&#039; I.90-1; II.171-2 n.358.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After 200 B.C. &#039;some natives rose in the scale and took Greek names, and some Greeks sank; Greek and native names occur in the same family. Some Greeks kept themselves aloof; but a new mixed race formed intermediate between Greeks and fellahin, and Hellene came to mean a man with some Greek &#039;&#039;culture&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039; (Tarn, &#039;&#039;HC&#039;&#039;3 206-7).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cf. Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; II.878-914; Jones, &#039;&#039;CERP&#039;&#039;2 302-11.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In Egypt, as elsewhere, &#039;being a Greek&#039; was certainly very much more a matter of culture than of descent; but culture itself was largely dependent upon property-ownership. Before the end of the second century B.C., as Rostovtzeff says, &#039;From the social and economic standpoint the dividing line between the upper and lower class was no longer between the Greeks forming the upper, and the Egyptians forming the lower, but between the rich and poor in general, many Egyptians being among the first, many Greeks among the second&#039;; but &#039;the old division into a privileged class of &amp;quot;Greeks&amp;quot; (which comprised now many hellenised Egyptians) and a subordinate class of natives remained as it had been&#039; (&#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; II.883). This is true, although some of the documents cited by Rostovtzeff might now be differently interpreted in some respects.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For example, Claude Vandersleyen, &#039;Le mot &#039;&#039;λαός&#039;&#039; dans le langue des papyrus grecs&#039;, in &#039;&#039;CE&#039;&#039; 48 (1973) 339-49, argues that the expressions &#039;&#039;λαός&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;λαοί&#039;&#039;, when occurring in the papyri in reference to Egypt, should be taken to be describing a particular section of the native Egyptian population, indeed a superior section, &#039;couche supérieure de la population égyptienne, existant aussi bien a l&#039;époque pharaonique qu&#039;à l&#039;époque ptolémaïque&#039; (cf. another work of Vandersleyen, which I have not been able to read: &#039;&#039;Les Guerres d&#039;Amosis&#039;&#039; [1971], esp. 182-4 on the Rosetta Stone), and not the general mass of the native population. Rostovtzeff, like many other scholars, will then have misinterpreted the words &#039;&#039;λαοί&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;λαός&#039;&#039; in such documents as the Rosetta Stone (&#039;&#039;OGIS&#039;&#039; 90.12: see &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; II.713-15) and in the papyrus he describes in &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; II.883-4 – he fails to give the reference, which is &#039;&#039;BGU&#039;&#039; VIII (1933) 1768 (W. Schubart and D. Schäfer, &#039;&#039;Spätptolemäische Papyri aus amtlichen Büros des Herakleopolites = Aegyptische Urkunden aus den staatlichen Museen zu Berlin&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Griechische Urkunden&#039;&#039; VIII, Berlin [1933], no.1768, pp.47-9). However, Vandersleyen&#039;s conclusions do not appear to be securely established: contrast W. Clarysse, in &#039;&#039;Anc. Soc&#039;&#039;. 7 (1976) 185 ff., at 195 and nn.22-6 (pointing out that Vandersleyen takes into account only the noun &#039;&#039;λαός&#039;&#039; and not the adjective &#039;&#039;λαικός&#039;&#039;, for which see (e.g. Préaux, &#039;&#039;ERL&#039;&#039; 224 and n.2); and Heinz Heinen, ibid. 127 ff., at 144 n.32, who declares himself unconvinced; cf. Heinen in &#039;&#039;Anc. Soc&#039;&#039;. 8 (1977) 130 n.21.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the Roman period, with the growth of the &#039;&#039;metropoleis&#039;&#039; into something more nearly resembling Greek cities, where the landowners mainly lived, the propertied classes generally regarded themselves as Greeks and the peasants as Egyptians. In a letter surviving on papyrus from the third century of the Christian era, the writer does not want his &#039;brethren&#039; to think of him as &#039;a barbarian or an inhuman [&#039;&#039;ananthrōpus&#039;&#039;] Egyptian&#039; (&#039;&#039;P. Oxy&#039;&#039;. XIV.1681.4-7).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marriages between city folk and peasants must have been very uncommon in all parts of the Greek world. Occasionally, no doubt, a peasant girl might be beautiful enough to attract a well-to-do city gentleman, but as a rule he would probably be far more likely to make her his mistress or concubine than his wife. There is, however, one delightful story, which I cannot resist telling, of love and marriage between two rich young city men and two lovely Sicilian peasant girls, who became known as the Kallipygoi. This is transmitted to us through Athenaeus (XII.554cde), from the iambic poems of Cercidas of Megalopolis and Archelaus of Chersonesus. (How much truth there is in it we have no means of knowing.) The two beautiful daughters of a peasant (an &#039;&#039;anēr agroikos&#039;&#039;), disputing which of them was the more callipygous, went out onto the highway and invited a young man who happened to be passing by to arbitrate between them. Inspecting both, he preferred the elder, with whom he then and there fell in love. His younger brother, when he heard about the girls, went out to see them, and fell in love with the younger. The aged father of the two young men did his best to persuade his sons to make more reputable marriages, but without success, and eventually he accepted the two peasant girls as his daughters-in-law. Having thus risen greatly in the world and become conspicuously rich, the two women built a temple to Aphrodite Kallipygos – a cult title which was not only most appropriate to the goddess of love and beauty but also made a charming allusion to the circumstances of the foundation. (One may feel that this is one of the cases in which paganism had a distinct advantage over Christianity.) Marriages of well-bred girls to peasants must also have been exceedingly rare. In Euripides&#039; &#039;&#039;Electra&#039;&#039; the marriage of the princess Electra to a poor rustic who is not even given a name in the play – he is just an &#039;&#039;autourgos&#039;&#039; (a man who works his farm with his own hands) – is regarded even by the man himself as a grave and deliberate slight on the girl, and in his opening speech he alludes with pride to the fact that he has never taken her to his bed and she is still a virgin – tense and neurotic, as we presently discover.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eurip., &#039;&#039;Electr&#039;&#039;. 31-53, 207-9, 247-57, 302-9, 362-3, 404-5. Ar., &#039;&#039;Clouds&#039;&#039; 46-72 is irrelevant here, since Strepsiades, however boorish by origin, is obviously conceived as well-to-do and does not fall within my definition of a peasant (see IV.ii above).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The contrast between superior city-dweller and unsophisticated countryman could even be projected into the divine sphere. In a collection of fables by Babrius we hear of a belief that it is the simple-minded (&#039;&#039;euētheis&#039;&#039;) among the gods who inhabit the countryside, while those deities who live within the city wall are infallible and have everything under their supervision (&#039;&#039;Fab&#039;&#039;. &#039;&#039;Aesop&#039;&#039;. 2.6-8).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In III.vi below I shall mention briefly the creation by wealthy benefactors in Greek and Roman cities of &#039;foundations&#039; to provide distributions of money or food on special occasions, often graded according to the position of the recipients in the social hierarchy – the higher a person&#039;s social position, the more he was likely to get. Rustics, who in the Greek East would often not be citizens of their &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039;, would very rarely benefit from such a distribution. Dio Chrysostom can make one of his Euboean peasants adduce the fact that his father had once participated in a distribution of money in the local town as evidence that he was a citizen there (VII.49). The only inscription I have noticed that mentions countryfolk benefiting from a distribution instituted by a citizen of a Greek &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; is one from Prusias ad Hyphium in Bithynia, which speaks of handouts both to all those &#039;reckoned as citizens&#039; (&#039;&#039;enkekrimenois&#039;&#039;) and to those &#039;inhabiting the country district&#039; (&#039;&#039;tois tēn agroikian katoikousin/paroikousin&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;IGRR&#039;&#039; III.69.18-20, 24-6).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cf. &#039;&#039;IGRR&#039;&#039; IV.1087, from Cos, for a distinction between &#039;&#039;τοὶ κατοικεῦντες ἐντῷ δάμῳ τῶν Ἁλεντίων καὶ το&#039;&#039;[&#039;&#039;ἱ&#039;&#039;] &#039;&#039;ἐνεκτημένοι καὶ τοὶ γεωργεῦντε&#039;&#039;[&#039;&#039;ς&#039;&#039;] &#039;&#039;ἐν ῾Αλεντι καὶ Πέλῃ, τῶν τε πολειτᾶν καὶ Ῥωμαίων καὶ μετοίκων&#039;&#039;. (I can see no justification for lining-up the two sets of inhabitants in parallel and making the &#039;&#039;κατοικεύντες&#039;&#039; the citizens, the &#039;&#039;ένεκτημένοι&#039;&#039; the Romans, and the &#039;&#039;yeωργεύντες&#039;&#039; the metics, with Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2 II.654 n.4.) I may add that there is some evidence from the Latin West for the extension of distributions to include inhabitants of a city who are not its citizens (&#039;&#039;municipes&#039;&#039;, or &#039;&#039;coloni&#039;&#039;) but &#039;&#039;incolae&#039;&#039; (see below, and Duncan-Jones, &#039;&#039;EREQS&#039;&#039; 259 n.3, 279 n.5). This unfortunately raises a thorny question about the meaning of the expression &#039;&#039;incolae&#039;&#039;. They clearly are people who do not have citizen rights in the &#039;&#039;civitas&#039;&#039; or &#039;&#039;πόλις&#039;&#039; in which (or in the territory of which) they reside. But are they (1) simply residents with a &#039;&#039;domicilium&#039;&#039; in the city who have an &#039;&#039;origo&#039;&#039; elsewhere, or are they (2) primarily the population of territory subject to the city, who have no local citizen rights, whether or not they are officially its &#039;&#039;attributi&#039;&#039; (or &#039;&#039;contributi&#039;&#039;)? The former is the standard view (see e.g. Berger in &#039;&#039;RE&#039;&#039; IX.ii.1249-56), the latter that of Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2 II.632 n.33, cf. 687 n.97. I agree with Brunt, &#039;&#039;IM&#039;&#039; 249: &#039;Though the term &amp;quot;incolae&amp;quot; in my view denotes no more than &amp;quot;residents without local citizen rights&amp;quot;, and is not a technical term designating members of a subject population, it is wide enough to embrace such a class.&#039; Two legal texts seem to me to show a development between the second and third centuries. Pomponius, in &#039;&#039;Dig&#039;&#039;. L.xvi.239.2, writing in about the second quarter of the second century, equates &#039;&#039;incola&#039;&#039; with Greek &#039;&#039;πἀροικος&#039;&#039; and includes in his definition of &#039;&#039;incolae&#039;&#039; not only those who reside in &#039;&#039;oppido&#039;&#039; but also those who have farmland (&#039;&#039;agrum&#039;&#039;) within the boundaries of the town which is in some sense their home (such I take to be the meaning of &#039;ut in eum se quasi in aliquam sedem recipiant&#039;). But around the second quarter of the third century makes no use of the &#039;&#039;εξαίρετα&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;commoda&#039;&#039;, conveniences, benefits) of a city is not to be considered its &#039;&#039;incola&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;Dig&#039;&#039;. L.i.35, in Greek). By then, at any rate, it seems that &#039;&#039;attributi&#039;&#039; and the like were no longer considered to be &#039;&#039;incolae&#039;&#039; – an important exclusion, for since about the third quarter of the second century &#039;&#039;incolae&#039;&#039; had become equally liable with local &#039;&#039;cives&#039;&#039; for &#039;&#039;munera publica&#039;&#039; (Gaius, in &#039;&#039;Dig&#039;&#039;. L.i.29). I find it interesting that in &#039;&#039;ILS&#039;&#039; 6818 (of the third quarter of the second century), from Sicca Veneria in Numidia, the &#039;&#039;incolae&#039;&#039; who are to benefit, with &#039;&#039;municipes&#039;&#039;, from the foundation there established are restricted to those living &#039;in the buildings included in our colony&#039;. and in Italian cities many foundations, where they extend to the lower classes, are specifically limited to the &#039;&#039;urban&#039;&#039; population: see e.g. Duncan-Jones, &#039;&#039;EREQS&#039;&#039; nos. 638, 644 ( = 1165), 697, 947, 962, 976, 990, 1023, 1066, 1079m.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To conclude this section, I cannot do better than quote two summaries by A. H. M. Jones of his researches into a thousand years of Hellenistic and Roman rule in the Greek East. One, from his first major work, &#039;&#039;Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces&#039;&#039; (1937, 2nd edn 1971), deals specifically with Syria, which had previously been only on the fringe of the Greek world but was brought within it by degrees from the time of Alexander&#039;s conquests, from 333 B.C. onwards; but Jones&#039;s conclusions are equally, or almost equally, true of the other areas in western Asia, north Africa, and south-east Europe which became hellenised only in Alexander&#039;s time or later. Summing up &#039;the results of the millennium during which Syria had been ruled by the Macedonian dynasties and by Rome&#039;, Jones says,&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;On paper the change in the political aspect of the country is considerable. In the Persian period cities existed only on the sea-coast, the desert fringe, and two of the gangways between them through the central mountain barrier. By the Byzantine period practically the whole of Syria was partitioned into city states; only in a few isolated areas, notably the Jordan valley and the Hauran, did village life remain the rule. In reality, however, the change was superficial. It was achieved partly by assigning vast territories to the old cities of the coast and of the desert fringe, partly by the foundation of a small number of new cities, to each of which was assigned a vast territory. The political life of the inhabitants of the agricultural belt was unaffected; their unit remained the village, and they took no part in the life of the city to which they were attached. Economically they lost by the change. The new cities performed no useful economic function, for the larger villages supplied such manufactured goods as the villagers required, and the trade of the countryside was conducted at village markets.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;This is well borne out by Libanius, &#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. XI.230: the &#039;large populous villages&#039; in the territory of Antioch exchanged their products with each other at their fairs (&#039;&#039;πανηγύρεις&#039;&#039;) and &#039;had little use for the city because of their exchange among themselves&#039;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The only effect of the foundation of cities was the creation of a wealthy landlord class which gradually stamped out peasant proprietorship. Culturally, the countryside remained utterly unaffected by the Hellenism of the cities;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cf. Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; II.1106-7.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the peasants continued to speak Syriac down to the Arab conquest. The only function which the cities performed was administrative; they policed and collected the taxes of their territories (&#039;&#039;CERP&#039;&#039;2 293-4).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;and in a note later in the book Jones adds,&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The indifference of the villagers to the cities is, I think, well illustrated by the tombstones of syrian emigrants in the West . . . ; they always record their village, but name their city, if at all, merely as a geographical determinant&#039; (&#039;&#039;CERP&#039;&#039;2 469 n.92).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Contrast the official view, expressed by ulpian in &#039;&#039;dig&#039;&#039;. L.i.30, that the &#039;&#039;patria&#039;&#039; of a man who originated in a village is the city (&#039;&#039;res publica&#039;&#039;) to which the village belongs.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The other passage is from p.vi of the Preface to Jones&#039;s &#039;&#039;The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian&#039;&#039; (1940). Summarising the conclusions in Part V of that book, Jones says that he discusses &#039;the contribution of the cities to ancient civilisation&#039; and argues that&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Great as their achievement was, it was based on too narrow a class foundation to be lasting. On the economic side the life of the cities involved an unhealthy concentration of wealth in the hands of the urban aristocracy at the expense of the proletariat and the peasants. Their political life was gradually narrowed till it was confined to a small clique of well-to-do families, who finally lost interest in it. The culture which the cities fostered, though geographically spread over a wide area, was limited to the urban upper class.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Jones, I am sure, meant much the same as I would when he used the expression &#039;too narrow a class foundation&#039;; but for him &#039;class&#039; – a term he used quite often – was not something that needed to be defined, or even, for that matter, thought about. I hesitate to give equal prominence to the final sentence of the paragraph in question (&#039;The great mass of the population, the proletariat of the towns, and still more the peasants of the countryside, remained barbarians&#039;), as it not only uses again the inappropriate expression &#039;proletariat&#039; but ends with a word which the &#039;general reader&#039; is likely to misunderstand unless he realises that it is very much a Classical scholar&#039;s quasi-technical term, almost the equivalent of the Greek word &#039;&#039;barbaroi&#039;&#039;, not necessarily meaning more than &#039;non-Greek&#039;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - The relevance of Marx for the study of ancient history ====&lt;br /&gt;
So complete has been the lack of interest in Marx displayed by nearly all ancient historians in the English-speaking world[1] that many who begin to read this book may wonder what relevance Marx can possibly have to the history of Classical antiquity. I have heard this lack of interest described as &#039;a conspiracy of silence&#039;; but that would be to dignify it with a conscious element which in practice is absent: the reality is just silence. I know of nothing comparable as yet in the British Isles to the symposium on the programme of the American Philological Association in 1973, entitled &#039;Marxism and the Classics&#039;, or to the issue of the American Classical periodical &#039;&#039;Arethusa&#039;&#039;, vol.8.1 (Spring, 1975), with the same title.[2] (The article included in that volume, with the title &#039;Karl Marx and the history of Classical antiquity&#039;, pp.7-41, is virtually a series of extracts from earlier drafts of this book.) One often hears the view expressed that in so far as the ideas of Marx on history have any validity, they have already been absorbed into the Western historiographical tradition. One thinks here of the late George Lichtheim&#039;s description of Marxism as &#039;the &#039;&#039;caput mortuum&#039;&#039; of a gigantic intellectual construction whose living essence has been appropriated by the historical consciousness of the modern world&#039; (&#039;&#039;Marxism&#039;&#039;[2] [1964 and repr.] 406). This is altogether untrue, above all in regard to the modern historiography of the Classical world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now the situation I have described is certainly due in part to a general ignorance of the thought of Marx, and a lack of interest in it, on the part of the vast majority of ancient historians and other Classical scholars in the English-speaking world. But I shall suggest later that this ignorance and lack of interest can be attributed partly to mistaken attempts in modern times, on the part of those who call themselves Marxists (or at least claim to be influenced by Marx), to interpret the essentials of Marx&#039;s historical thought both in general terms and in particular in relation to Classical antiquity. I like to remember that Engels, in a letter written to Conrad Schmidt on 5 August 1890, more than seven years after Marx&#039;s death, recalled that Marx used to say about the French Marxists of the late 1870s, &#039;All I know is that I am not a Marxist&#039; (&#039;&#039;MESC&#039;&#039; 496). I think he would have felt much the same about &#039;&#039;soi-disant&#039;&#039; Marxists – not only the French ones – of the 1980s. As the German poet Hans Magnus Enzensberger says, in his moving short poem, &#039;&#039;Karl Heinrich Marx&#039;&#039; –&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;I see you betrayed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
by your disciples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
only your enemies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
remained what they were.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;(The translation of the poem by Michael Hamburger is reprinted in the Penguin &#039;&#039;Poems of Hans Magnus Enzensberger&#039;&#039; 38-9.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Much modern Marxist writings in languages other than English seems recalcitrant to translation into English. I am inclined to apply to much of this writing some forceful remarks made by Graham Hough in a review in the &#039;&#039;Times Literary Supplement&#039;&#039; of two books on Roland Barthes. Approving a statement by Stephen Heath, that the language evolved by Barthes and his school &#039;has no common theoretical context with anything that exists in English&#039;, he continues:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;To transfer it bodily – simply to anglicise the words, which is not difficult – produces a wall of opacity that blocks all curiosity at the start. To adapt, to paraphrase, which can also be done and often looks inviting, runs the risk of denaturing the original and reducing disconcerting ideas to acceptable commonplace (&#039;&#039;TLS&#039;&#039; 3950, 9 December 1977, p. 1443).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;So it is, I feel, with much contemporary Marxist work, even in French and Italian, and still more in German and Russian.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More and more people in my adult lifetime have become willing to take some account of Marx&#039;s analysis of the capitalist world in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. As I am a historian and not an economist, I shall do no more than mention the revival of serious interest in Marx&#039;s economics in Britain on the part of a number of leading economists of our generation (whether or not they would describe themselves as Marxists): Maurice Dobb, Ronald Meek, Joan Robinson, Piero Sraffa and others.[3] In the Foreword to the first edition of her &#039;&#039;Essay on Marxian Economics&#039;&#039; (1942) Joan Robinson remarked that &#039;until recently Marx used to be treated in academic circles with contemptuous silence, broken only by an occasional mocking footnote&#039;. In the first paragraph of the Preface to the second edition (1966), she mentioned that when she was writing the original edition, a quarter of a century earlier, most of her &#039;academic colleagues in England thought that to study Marx was a quaint pastime . . . , and in the United States it was disreputable&#039;. Matters are rather different now. Within the last few years sociologists too have suddenly become far more willing than they used to be to adopt a Marxist analysis of the problems of contemporary society. I may perhaps be allowed to refer to one particularly impressive recent example: a book entitled &#039;&#039;Immigrant Workers and Class Structure in Western Europe&#039;&#039;, by Stephen Castles and Godula Kosack, published in 1973, the relevance of which for our present study will emerge in II.iii below. Even so, many people would, I think, agree with the opinion of a leading British sociologist, T. B. Bottomore (who is far from hostile to Marx), that &#039;while the Marxian theory seems highly relevant and useful in analysing social and political conflicts in capitalist societies during a particular period, its utility and relevance elsewhere are much less clear&#039; (&#039;&#039;Sociology&#039;&#039;2, [1971] 201). Those who hold such views may be prepared to concede that a very valuable contribution has been made by certain Marxist historians who have dealt mainly with the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example Eric Hobsbawm, George Rudé, and E. P. Thompson; but they may begin to feel that their premise has been somewhat weakened when they take notice of the work of an American Marxist historian, Eugene Genovese, who has produced work of outstanding quality on slavery in the antebellum South; and it is surely strained to breaking-point and beyond when they have to take account of Christopher Hill (formerly the Master of Balliol), who has done so much to illuminate the history of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and Rodney Hilton, who has dealt with English peasants and peasant movements in the fourteenth century and earlier, in various articles and in two recent books, &#039;&#039;Bond Men Made Free&#039;&#039; (1973) and &#039;&#039;The English Peasantry in the Later Middle Ages&#039;&#039; (1975, the publication of his Ford Lectures at Oxford in 1973). We are already a very long way from nineteenth-century capitalism; and if we go still further back, into the Bronze Age and prehistory, in Europe and Western asia, we can find archaeologists, in particular the late V. Gordon Childe, also acknowledging their debt to Marx. [See now VIII.i.n.33 below.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthropologists too, at least outside of Great Britain, have for some time been prepared to take Marx seriously as a source of inspiration in their own discipline. French economic anthropologists such as Maurice Godelier, Claude Meillassoux, Emmanuel Terray, Georges Dupré and Pierre-Philippe Rey have operated to a high degree within a Marxist tradition, which they have developed in various ways.[4] Even the structuralists have often acknowledged a debt to Marx. Over twenty years ago Claude Lévi-Strauss himself referred to his &#039;endeavours to reintegrate the anthropological knowledge acquired during the last fifty years into the Marxian tradition&#039;; and spoke of &#039;the concept of structure which I have borrowed, or so I thought, from Marx and Engels, among others, and to which I attribute a primary role&#039; (&#039;&#039;SA&#039;&#039; 343-4).[5] American anthropologists have also become much more attentive to Marx in recent years: Marvin Harris, for example, in his comprehensive work, &#039;&#039;The Rise of Anthropological Theory&#039;&#039; (1969 and repr.), devotes some serious attention to Marx and Engels as anthropologists, including a chapter of over 30 pages (&#039;Dialectical materialism&#039;, pp.217-49). And then, in 1972, came what I can only describe as a break-through in British anthropology. An anthropologist of the very first rank, Sir Raymond Firth, delivered the inaugural lecture of a new British Academy series in honour of Radcliffe-Brown, gave it a significant title: not merely &#039;The sceptical anthropologist?&#039; (An allusion, of course, to Robert Boyle&#039;s &#039;&#039;The Sceptical Chymist&#039;&#039;) but also &#039;Social anthropology and Marxist views on society&#039;.[6] I should like to quote part of the last paragraph of this lecture, because it urges social anthropologists to interest themselves in particular aspects of human societies which I think historians of Classical antiquity should also be studying, and which – like the social anthropologists to whom Firth is addressing himself – most of them are not studying. Firth says:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;What Marx&#039;s theories offer to social anthropology is a set of hypotheses about social relations and especially about social change. Marx&#039;s insights – about the basic significance of economic factors, especially production relations; their relation to structures of power; the formation of classes and the opposition of their interests; the socially relative character of ideologies; the conditioning force of a system upon individual members of it – [these insights] embody propositions which must be taken for critical scrutiny into the body of our science. The theories of Marx should be put on a par with, say, those of Durkheim or Max Weber. Because they imply radical change they are more threatening.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;That last word is particularly significant. (I shall return to the &#039;threatening&#039; nature of Marxist analysis in II.ii below.) Now Firth, I am sure, would not describe himself as a Marxist. Shortly before the paragraph I have quoted he expresses the opinion that &#039;much of Marx&#039;s theory in its literal form is outmoded&#039;: the examples he gives in support of this claim do not seem to me well formulated or cogent. But what I am primarily concerned to do at the moment is to make a plea for the relevance of Marx&#039;s general historical methodology to the study of ancient history. If it can make major contributions to history between the early Middle Ages and the twentieth century, and even in archaeology and anthropology, then there is good reason to expect that it may be able to shed light upon Classical antiquity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Apart from one negligible book which I shall mention later (in II.i below and its n.20), I know of no single work in English which consistently attempts &#039;&#039;either&#039;&#039; to analyse Greek history – or, for that matter, Roman history – in terms of Marxist historical concepts, &#039;&#039;or&#039;&#039; to expound those concepts themselves and explain why they are relevant for the purpose of such an analysis. In fact both these tasks need to be accomplished together at least once, within one pair of covers (as I am trying to do here), if the new start that I am advocating is to be made successfully. As I have said, most English-speaking ancient historians ignore Marx completely. If they do mention him, or Marxist historical writing, it is usually with ignorant contempt. An exception is a recent well-chosen selection of source material in translation for Greek economic and social history in the Archaic and Classical periods, first published in French by Michel M. Austin and Pierre Vidal-Naquet under the title of &#039;&#039;Économies et sociétés en Grèce ancienne&#039;&#039; (Paris, 1972 and 1973) and then, with some improvements, in English, as &#039;&#039;Economic and Social History of Ancient Greece: An Introduction&#039;&#039; (London, 1977). The introduction (mainly by Austin) devotes several pages (20 ff. in the English version) to the notion of &#039;class struggles&#039;. Now, as I shall explain (in II.iii below), I disagree profoundly with the way these scholars have applied the Marxist concept of class conflict to the Greek world; but at least they are operating with categories that have become thoroughly associated with the Marxist tradition in historiography and are very often repudiated altogether or allowed only a very limited role by non-Marxists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In languages other than English the situation is much better – although, as I indicated near the beginning of this section, many of the Marxist works on ancient history published on the Continent are as foreign to the English reader in their intellectual and library idiom as in their actual language: they tend to take for granted a whole range of concepts to which most people in the English-speaking world are not accustomed and which they find largely unintelligible.[7] The word &#039;jargon&#039; is often used in this context, if not always by those who have earned the right to use it by refraining from a different jargon of their own.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this point I must write briefly about Marx himself as a Classical scholar. He received, in school and university, at Trier, Bonn and Berlin, the thorough Classical education which was given to most young middle-class Germans in the 1830s. At the universities of Bonn and Berlin he studied law and philosophy, and between 1839 and 1841, among various other activities, he wrote, as his doctoral thesis, a comparison of the philosophies of Democritus and Epicurus. This work, completed in 1840-41, before Marx was 23, was not published in full even in German until 1927, when it appeared in &#039;&#039;MEGA&#039;&#039; I.i.1 (the first fascicule of Part i of Vol. I of the Marx-Engels &#039;&#039;Gesamtausgabe&#039;&#039;, published at Frankfurt and edited by D. Rjazanov) 1-144. It has not been republished in &#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; I (the first volume of the complete &#039;&#039;Werke&#039;&#039; of Marx and Engels now in course of publication in East Berlin). An English translation (replacing an inferior earlier one) has recently been published in &#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; I, the first volume of the new English edition of the Marx-Engels &#039;&#039;Collected Works&#039;&#039; (Moscow/London/New York, 1975), 25-107. Cyril Bailey, reviewing the original publication in the &#039;&#039;Classical Quarterly&#039;&#039; 22 (1928) 205-6, was greatly impressed with its scholarship and its originality: he found it &#039;of real interest to a modern student of Epicureanism&#039; and ended by saying that such a student would find in it &#039;some illuminating ideas&#039;. The thesis looks forward to a larger work (never actually written) in which Marx planned to &#039;present in detail the cycle of Epicurean, Stoic and Sceptic philosophy in their relation to the whole of Greek speculation&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; I.29). It is worth noticing that the Foreword to the thesis ends by quoting the defiant reply of Prometheus to Hermes, in Aeschylus&#039; &#039;&#039;Prometheus Bound&#039;&#039; (lines 966 ff.), &#039;Be sure of this: I would not exchange my state of misfortune for your servitude&#039;, and adding that Prometheus (the Prometheus of Aeschylus) is &#039;the most eminent saint and martyr in the philosophical calendar&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; I.31). During this period Marx read extensively in Classical authors, in particular Aristotle, of whom throughout his life he always spoke in terms of respect and admiration which he employs for no other thinker, except perhaps Hegel. As early as 1839 we find him describing Aristotle as &#039;the acme [&#039;&#039;Gipfel&#039;&#039;] of ancient philosophy&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; I.424); and in Vol. I of &#039;&#039;Capital&#039;&#039; he refers to &#039;the brilliance of Aristotle&#039;s genius&#039; and calls him &#039;a giant thinker&#039; and &#039;the greatest thinker of antiquity&#039; (60, 82n., 408) – as of course he was. Later, Marx returned again and again to read Classical authors. On 8 March 1855 we find him saying in a letter to Engels, &#039;A little time ago I went through Roman history again up to the Augustan era&#039; (&#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXVIII.439); on 27 February 1861 he writes again to Engels, &#039;As a relaxation in the evenings I have been reading Appian on the Roman civil wars, in the original Greek&#039; (&#039;&#039;MESC&#039;&#039; 151); and some weeks later, on 29 May 1861, he tells Lassalle that in order to dispel the serious ill-humour arising from what he describes, in a mixture of German and English, as &#039;mein in every respected unsettled situation&#039;, he is reading Thucydides, and he adds (in German) &#039;These ancient writers at least remain ever new&#039; (&#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXX.605-6).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(This is a convenient place at which to mention that I normally cite &#039;&#039;MESC&#039;&#039;, an English translation of 244 of the letters of Marx and Engels, published in 1956, when it includes a letter I am quoting. I need not regularly refer to the German texts, since they print the letters in chronological order, and the dates will enable them to be found easily. The letters exchanged between Marx or Engels to other correspondents, in &#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXVII-XXXIX.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scattered through the writings of Marx are a remarkable number of allusions to Greek and Roman history, literature and philosophy. He made a careful study of Roman Republican history in particular, partly from the sources and partly with the aid of the works of Niebuhr, Mommsen, Dureau de la Malle and others. I have not been able to discover any systematic study of Greek history by Marx after his student days, or of the history of the Graeco-Roman world under the Principate or the Later Roman Empire; but he frequently quotes Greek authors (more often in the original than in translation), as well as Latin authors, in all sorts of contexts: Aeschylus, Appian, Aristotle, Athenaeus, Democritus, Diodorus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Epicurus, Herodotus, Hesiod, Homer, Isocrates, Lucian, Pindar, Plutarch, Sextus Empiricus, Sophocles, Strabo, Thucydides, Xenophon, and others. He could also make use of that charming little poem by Antipater of Thessalonica, in the Greek Anthology (IX.418), which is one of the earliest pieces of evidence for the existence of the water-mill (see II.i below). After his doctoral dissertation Marx never had occasion to write at length about the ancient world, but again and again he will make some penetrating remark that brings out something of value. For example, in a letter to Engels of 25 September 1857 he makes some interesting and perfectly correct observations: for example, that the first appearance of an extensive system of hired labour in antiquity is in the military sphere, the employment of mercenaries (how often has that been noticed, I wonder!), and that among the Romans the &#039;&#039;peculium castrense&#039;&#039; was the first legal form in which the right of property was recognised in members of a family other than the &#039;&#039;paterfamilias&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;MESC&#039;&#039; 118-19). In a footnote in the &#039;&#039;Grundrisse&#039;&#039; (not in the section on &#039;pre-capitalist forms of production&#039;), written at about the same time as the letter from which I have just quoted, Marx has some acute observations on pay in the Roman army, which need to be put beside the remark in the letter:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Among the Romans, the army constituted a mass – but already divorced from the whole people – which was disciplined to labour, whose surplus time also belonged to the State; who sold their entire labour time for pay to the State, exchanged their entire labour capacity for a wage necessary for the maintenance of their life, just as does the worker with the capitalist. This holds for the period when the Roman army was no longer a citizen&#039;s army but a mercenary army. This is here likewise a free sale of labour on the part of the soldier. But the State does not buy it with the production of values as aim. And thus, although the wage form may seem to occur originally in armies, this pay system is nevertheless essentially different from wage labour. There is some similarity in the fact that the State uses up the army in order to gain an increase in power and wealth (&#039;&#039;Grundrisse&#039;&#039;, E.T. 529n.; cf. 893).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;it came naturally to Marx to illustrate what he was saying with some Classical simile, as when he wrote that the trading peoples of antiquity were &#039;like the gods of Epicurus, in the spaces between the worlds&#039; (&#039;&#039;Grundrisse&#039;&#039;, E.T. 858; cf. &#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. III.330, 598), or when he spoke scornfully of Andrew Ure, author of &#039;&#039;The Philosophy of Manufactures&#039;&#039;, as &#039;this Pindar of the manufacturers&#039; (&#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. III.386 n.75). I have heard quoted against Marx his remark that Spartacus (the leader of the great slave revolt in Italy from 73 to 71 B.C.) was &#039;the most splendid fellow in the whole of ancient history. Great general (no Garibaldi), noble character, real representative of the ancient proletariat&#039;; so let me mention here that the statement was made not in a work intended for publication but in a private letter to Engels, of 27 February 1861 – in which, incidentally, he also described Pompey as &#039;reiner Scheisskerl&#039; (&#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXX.159-60=&#039;&#039;MESC&#039;&#039; 151-2).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A recent book by the Professor of German at Oxford University, S. S. Prawer, &#039;&#039;Karl Marx and World Literature&#039;&#039; (1976), has shown in detail how extraordinarily wide Marx&#039;s reading was, not only in German, French, English, Latin and Greek, but also in Italian, Spanish and Russian.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I shall have something to say in II.iii below on Marx&#039;s intellectual development in the 1840s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I may add that Engels too was very well read and received a Classical education. A school-leaving report testifying to his knowledge of Latin and Greek survives, as does a poem he wrote in Greek at the age of sixteen.[8]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, it is not so much as the student of a particular epoch that I wish to regard Marx now, but rather as a historical sociologist: one who proposed an analysis of the structure of human society, in its successive stages, which sheds some illumination upon each of those stages – the Greek world just as much as the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let me first mention and dismiss two or three common misconceptions. It is easy to discredit Marx&#039;s analysis of society by presenting it in a distorted form, as it is so often presented both by those who wrongly suppose themselves to be employing it and by those who are in principle hostile to it. In particular the thought of Marx is said to involve both &#039;materialism&#039; and &#039;economic determinism&#039;. Now the historical method employed by Marx was never given a name by him, but from Engels onwards it has been generally known as &#039;historical materialism&#039;. (It seems to have been Plekhanov who invented the term &#039;dialectical materialism&#039;.) It is certainly &#039;materialist&#039;, in the technical sense of being methodologically the opposite of Hegel&#039;s &#039;idealism&#039; – we all know Marx&#039;s famous remark that Hegel&#039;s dialectic was standing on its head and &#039;needs to be turned right side up again if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell&#039; (&#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. I.20, from the Afterword to the second German edition, of 1873). But &#039;materialism&#039; does not, and must not, in any way exclude an understanding of the role of ideas, which (as Marx well knew) can often become autonomous and acquire a life of their own, and themselves react vigorously upon the society that produced them – the role of Marxism itself in the twentieth century is a conspicuous example of this. As for the so-called &#039;economic determinism&#039; of Marx, the label must be altogether rejected. We can begin with his alleged over-emphasis on the economic side of the historical process, which has even led to the application to his historical methodology – quite absurdly – of the terms &#039;reductionist&#039; and &#039;monistic&#039;. In fact the dialectical process which Marx envisaged allowed to other factors than the purely economic – whether social, political, legal, philosophic or religious – almost as much weight as very many non-Marxist historians would give to them. The alleged &#039;economism&#039; of Marx is no more than the belief that out of all the elements which are operative in the historical process, it is &#039;the relations of production&#039; (as Marx called them), namely &#039;&#039;the social relations into which men enter in the course of the productive process&#039;&#039;, which are the most important factors in human life, and which tend, in the long run, to determine the other factors, although of course these other factors, even purely ideological ones, can sometimes exert a powerful influence in their turn upon all social relations. In five of the letters he wrote between 1890 and 1894 Engels, while admitting that he and Marx had been partly to blame for an unavoidable over-emphasis on the economic aspect of history, stressed that they had never intended to belittle the interdependent role of political, religious and other ideological factors, even while considering the economic as primary. (The letters are those of 5 August, 21 September and 27 October 1890, 14 July 1893, and 25 January 1894.)[9] In an &#039;&#039;obiter dictum&#039;&#039; in one of his earliest works, the &#039;&#039;Contribution to a Critique of Hegel&#039;s Philosophy of Law&#039;&#039;, Marx declared that although material force can be overcome only by material force, yet &#039;Theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; III.182). And Mao Tse-tung, in a famous essay &#039;On Contradiction&#039; (dating from August 1937), insisted that in certain conditions theory and the ideological &#039;superstructure&#039; of a society (revolutionary theory in particular) can &#039;manifest themselves in the principal and decisive role&#039;.[10]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is true that Marx himself occasionally writes as if men were governed by historical necessities beyond their control, as when (in the Preface to the original German edition of &#039;&#039;Das Kapital&#039;&#039;) he speaks of &#039;the natural laws of capitalist production&#039; as &#039;self-assertive tendencies working with iron necessity&#039; (&#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXIII.12. I have altered the misleading translation in &#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. I.8). Such expressions are rare: they probably derive from a conception of historical events in which a high degree of &#039;&#039;probability&#039;&#039; has been momentarily taken as &#039;&#039;certainty&#039;&#039;. In fact there is nothing in the least &#039;deterministic&#039; in the proper sense in Marx&#039;s view of history; and in particular the role of &#039;&#039;no single individual&#039;&#039; is &#039;determined&#039; by his class position, even if one can often make very confident &#039;&#039;predictions&#039;&#039; (of a statistical character) about the behaviour of the &#039;&#039;collective&#039;&#039; members of a given class. To give just two examples: if you have an income of more than, say, £20,000 a year, the statistical probability that you will normally hold right-wing views, and in Britain vote Conservative, is very high indeed; and if you do not belong to the lowest social class you will have a far better chance of achieving individual sainthood in the Roman Church – a sociological analysis in the early 1950s showed that of 2,489 known Roman Catholic Saints, only 5 per cent came from the lower classes who have constituted over 80 per cent of Western populations.[11] (Recent proclamations of sanctity, I understand, have not departed from his pattern.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe that some light may be shed on the last question we have been considering (the &#039;determinism&#039; of which Marx is often accused) by a comparison between Marx and the greatest historian of antiquity, Thucydides – probably the writer who, with the single exception of Marx, has done most to advance my own understanding of history. Thucydides often refers most to something he calls &#039;human nature&#039;, by which he really means &#039;&#039;patterns of behaviour&#039;&#039; he believed he could identify in human conduct, partly in the behaviour of individual men but much more emphatically in tht of human groups: men acting as organised &#039;&#039;states&#039;&#039;, whose behaviour can indeed be predicted far more confidently than that of most individual men. (I have discussed this in my &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 6, 12 &amp;amp; n.20, 14-16, 29-33, 62, cf. 297.) The better you &#039;&#039;understand&#039;&#039; these patterns of behaviour, Thucydides (I am sure) believed, the more effectively you can &#039;&#039;predict&#039;&#039; how men are likely to behave in the immediate future – although never with complete confidence, because always (and especially in war) you must allow for the unforeseeable, the incalculable, and for sheer &#039;chance&#039; (see &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 25 &amp;amp; n.54, 30-1 &amp;amp; n.57). Thucydides was anything but a determinist, although he often speaks of men as being &#039;compelled&#039; to act in a particular way when he describes them as choosing the least disagreeable among alternatives none of which they would have adopted had their choice been entirely free (see &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 60-2). This common feature of the human predicament, I believe, is just what Marx had in mind when he said, in &#039;&#039;The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte&#039;&#039;, &#039;Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; XI.103).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In every situation in which one is making a judgment there are some factors which cannot be changed and others which can only be partly modified, and the better one understands the situation the less forced and unfree one&#039;s judgment becomes. In this sense, &#039;freedom is the understanding of necessity&#039;. Thucydides, by enabling his readers to recognise and understand some of the basic recurring features in the behaviour of human groups in the political and international field, believed – surely with reason – that his History would be for ever &#039;useful&#039; to mankind (I.22.4). Similarly, what Marx wished to do was to identify the internal, structural features of each individual human society (above all, but not only, capitalist society), and reveal its &#039;laws of motion&#039;. If his analysis is largely right, as I believe it is, then, by revealing the underlying Necessity, it increases human Freedom to operate within its constraint, and has greatly facilitated what Engels called &#039;the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom&#039; (&#039;&#039;MESW&#039;&#039; 426).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the third volume of &#039;&#039;Capital&#039;&#039; there is a point at which Marx suddenly and quite unexpectedly bursts out into one of those emotional passages &#039;full of hope and splendour&#039; – an apt phrase of Hobsbawm&#039;s (&#039;&#039;KMPCEF&#039;&#039; 15) – which look beyond the harsh realities of the present towards a future in which mankind is largely set free from the soul-destroying compulsion which still obliges the greater part of humanity to spend most of their time producing the material necessities of life. This passage, one of many in &#039;&#039;Capital&#039;&#039; that reveal the essential humanity of Marx&#039;s outlook, must seem less purely visionary and utopian, in our age of increasing automation, than it may have appeared to those who first read it in the 1890s. It occurs in Part VII of &#039;&#039;Capital&#039;&#039; III (p.820), in a chapter (xlviii) entitled &#039;The trinity formula&#039;, from which I also quote elsewhere. (The German text can be found in &#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXV.828.)&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus int he very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it none the less still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working day is its basic prerequisite. (Cf. Marx/Engels, &#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; V.431-2, from the &#039;&#039;German Ideology&#039;&#039;, quoted in II.i below.)&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Marx and Engels were certainly not among those who not merely speak loosely (as any of us may) but actually think seriously of History (with a capital &#039;H&#039;) as a kind of independent force. In a splendid passage in his earliest joint work with Marx, &#039;&#039;The Holy Family&#039;&#039; (1845), Engels could say,&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;History&#039;&#039; does &#039;&#039;nothing&#039;&#039;, it &#039;possesses &#039;&#039;no&#039;&#039; immense wealth&#039;, it &#039;wages &#039;&#039;no&#039;&#039; battles&#039;. It is &#039;&#039;man&#039;&#039;, real, living man who does all that, who possesses and fights; &#039;history&#039; is not, as it were, a person apart, using man as a means to achieve &#039;&#039;its own&#039;&#039; aims; history is &#039;&#039;nothing but&#039;&#039; the activity of man pursuing his aims (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; IV.93=&#039;&#039;MEGA&#039;&#039; I.iii.265).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Excerpt in so far as the concepts of class and class struggle are involved, I do not propose in this book to undertake any comprehensive discussion of Marx&#039;s general historical methodology,[12] which of course involves much more than class analysis, although that to my mind is central and its rejection entails the dismissal of most of Marx&#039;s system of ideas. Nor do I intend to say anything about such controversies as those concerning &#039;basis and superstructure&#039;,[13] or the so-called &#039;modes of production&#039; referred to by Marx, in particular in the &#039;&#039;German Ideology&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; V.32-5), in &#039;&#039;Wage Labour and Capital&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; IX.212), in the section on pre-capitalist economic formations in the &#039;&#039;Grundrisse&#039;&#039; (E.T. 471-514, esp. 495),[14] and in the &#039;&#039;Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;MESW&#039;&#039; 182). Above all I can legitimately avoid any discussion of the desirability (or otherwise) of recognising an &#039;Asiatic&#039; (or &#039;Oriental&#039;) mode of production, a notion which seems to me best forgotten.[15] When speaking (for example) of various parts of Asia at times before they had been taken over by the Greeks (or the Macedonians), I believe that it is best to employ such expressions as &#039;pre-Classical modes of production&#039;, in a strictly chronological sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not my purpose in this book to defend Marx&#039;s analysis of capitalist society or his prophecy of its approaching end (both of which in the main I accept); but I have so often heard it said that he did not allow for the growth of a managerial and &#039;white-collar&#039; middle class[16] that I will end this final section of my Introduction with a reference to two passages in his &#039;&#039;Theories of Surplus Value&#039;&#039; which rebut this criticism – and are by no means irrelevant to the main subject of this book, because they serve to illustrate a feature of the modern world to which there was no real parallel in antiquity. Criticising Malthus, Marx says that &#039;his supreme hope, which he himself describes as more or less utopian, is that the mass of the middle class should grow and that the proletariat (those who work) should constitute a constantly declining proportion (even though it increases absolutely) of the total population&#039;; and he adds, &#039;This in fact is the course taken by bourgeois society&#039; (&#039;&#039;TSV&#039;&#039; III.63).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And criticising Ricardo, Marx complains that &#039;what he forgets to emphasise is the constantly growing number of the middle classes, those who stand between the workman on the one hand and the capitalist and landlord on the other. The middle classes . . . are a burden weighing heavily on the working base and they increase the social security and power of the upper Ten Thousand&#039; (&#039;&#039;TSV&#039;&#039; II.573=&#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXVI.ii.576).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These passages may remind us of the fact that in the Greek and Roman world there was no proper parallel to our own &#039;white-collar&#039;, salaried, managerial class (we shall see why in III.vi below), except in the Roman Principate and Later Empire, when three developments took place. First, a proper &#039;&#039;standing army&#039;&#039; was established in the early Principate, with (for the first time) regular benefits on discharge as well as fixed pay, found by the state. Those who became what we should call &#039;regular officers&#039;, especially the senior centurions, might become men of rank and privilege. Secondly, an &#039;&#039;imperial civil service&#039;&#039; grew up gradually, consisting partly of the emperor&#039;s own slaves and freedmen and partly of free men who, at all levels, served for pay (and for the often considerable dimensions, although many of its members were technically soldiers seconded for this duty. The third group of functionaries consisted of the &#039;&#039;Christian clergy&#039;&#039;, whose upkeep was provided partly by the state and partly by the endowments and contributions of the faithful. I shall have more to say about all these three groups later (VI.v-vi and esp. VIII.iv). Exactly like the middle classes referred to by Marx, they were certainly &#039;a burden weighing heavily on the working base&#039;, and as faithful bastions of the established order they too – except in so far as sections of the army were drawn into civil wars in support of rival emperors – &#039;increased the social security and power of the upper Ten Thousand&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To conclude this section, I wish to emphasise that I make no claim to be producing &#039;&#039;the&#039;&#039; &#039;Marxist interpretation of Greek history&#039;: it is &#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039; would-be Marxist interpretation. After reading by far the greater part of Marx&#039;s published work (much of it, I must admit, in English translation), I myself believe that there is nothing in this book which Marx himself (after some argument, perhaps!) would not have been willing to accept. But of course there will be other Marxists who will disagree at various points with my basic theoretical position or with the interpretations I have offered of specific events, institutions and ideas; and I hope that any errors or weaknesses in this book will not be taken as directly due to the approach I have adopted, unless that can be shown to be the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== II - Class, Exploitation, and Class Struggle ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - The nature of class society ====&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;The concept of class has never remained a harmless concept for very long. Particularly when applied to human beings and their social conditions it has invariably displayed a peculiar explosiveness.&#039; Those are the first two sentences of a book, &#039;&#039;Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society&#039;&#039;, by Ralf Dahrendorf, a leading German sociologist who in 1974 became Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science. And Dahrendorf goes on to quote with approval the statement by two prominent American sociologists, Lipset and Bendix, that &#039;discussions of different theories of class are often academic substitutes for a rael conflict over political orientations&#039;. I fully accept that. It seems to me hardly possible for anyone today to discuss problems of class, and above all class &#039;&#039;struggle&#039;&#039; (or class &#039;&#039;conflict&#039;&#039;), in any society, modern or ancient, in what some people would call an &#039;impartial&#039; or &#039;unbiased&#039; manner, I make no claim to &#039;impartiality&#039; or &#039;lack of bias&#039;, let alone &#039;Wertfreiheit&#039;, freedom from value-judgments. The criteria involved are in reality much more subjective than is commonly admitted: in this field one man&#039;s &#039;impartiality&#039; is another man&#039;s &#039;bias&#039;, and it is often impossible to find an objective test to resolve their disagreement. Yet, as Eugene Genovese has put it, &#039;the inevitability of ideological bias does not free us from the responsibility to struggle for maximum objectivity&#039; (&#039;&#039;RB&#039;&#039; 4). The criteria that I hope will be applied to this book are two: first, its &#039;&#039;objectivity and truthfulness&#039;&#039; in regard to historical events and processes; and secondly, the &#039;&#039;fruitfulness&#039;&#039; of the analysis it produces. For &#039;historical events and processes&#039; I should almost be willing to substitute &#039;historical facts&#039;. I do not shrink from that unpopular expression, any more than Arthur Darby Nock did when he wrote, &#039;A fact is a holy thing, and its life should never be laid down on the altar of a generalisation&#039; (&#039;&#039;ERAW&#039;&#039; I.333). Nor do I propose to dispense with what is called – sometimes with a slight sneer, by social and economic historians – &#039;narrative history&#039;. To quote a recent statement in defence of &#039;narrative history&#039; by the present Camden Professor of Ancient History at Oxford:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;I do not see how we can determine how institutions worked, or what effect beliefs or social structures had on men&#039;s conduct, unless we study their actions in concrete situations . . . The most fundamental instinct that leads us to seek historical knowledge is surely the desire to find out &#039;&#039;what&#039;&#039; actually happened in the past and especially to discover what we can about events that had the widest effect on the fortunes of mankind; we then naturally go on to inquire &#039;&#039;why&#039;&#039; they occurred (P. A. Brunt, &#039;What is Ancient History about?&#039;, in &#039;&#039;Didaskalos&#039;&#039; 5 [1976] 236-49, at 244).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Can we actually identify classes in Greek society such as I shall describe? Did the Greeks themselves recognise their existence? And is it profitable to conduct an investigation along these lines? Is our understanding of the historical process, and of our own society, illuminated and strengthened by thinking in terms of classes and of a &#039;class struggle&#039; in the Greek world? When I find Lévi-Strauss saying, &#039;I am not a sociologist, and my interest in our own society is only a secondary one&#039; (&#039;&#039;SA&#039;&#039; 338), I want to reply, &#039;I am a historian who tries also to be a sociologist, and my interest in our own society is a primary one.&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not going to pretend that class is an entity existing objectively in its own right, like a Platonic &#039;Form&#039;, the nature of which we merely have to discover. The word has been used by historians and sociologists in all sorts of different senses;[1] but I believe that the way in which Marx chose to use it is the most fruitful, for our own society and for all earlier ones above the primitive level, including Greek and Roman society. Now Marx never, unfortunately, gave a definition of the term &#039;class&#039;, and it is true that he uses it rather differently on different occasions, above all when he is speaking of actual historical circumstances, in which the nature of the particular classes involved could differ considerably.[2] Even when, at the very end of the unfinished third volume of &#039;&#039;Capital&#039;&#039;, pp.885-6 (cf. 618),[3] he was about to answer his own question, &#039;What constitutes a class?&#039; he only had time to say that the reply to this question &#039;follows naturally from the reply to another question, namely: What makes wage-labourers, capitalists and landlords constitute the three great social classes?&#039; – as indeed they did, at the period of which and during which he was writing. He did not live to write down his answer to even that prior question, which would have produced a definition of the classes of nineteenth-century capitalist society rather than of class in general; and whether he would then have gone on to give an explicit general definition of class, we cannot tell. But after collecting scores if not hundreds of passages in which Marx operates with the concept of class (sometimes without actually using that word), I have little doubt what essential form it took in his mind. (I can give only a preliminary sketch here: I shall attempt to provide a proper account in Section ii of this chapter and subsequently.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Class as a general concept (as distinct from a particular class) is essentially a relationship; and class in Marx&#039;s sense must be understood in close connection with his fundamental concept of &#039;the relations of production&#039;: the social relations into which men enter in the process of production, which find legal expression to a large degree either as property relations or as labour relations. When the conditions of production, such as they are at any given time, are controlled by a particular group (when, as in the great majority of such cases,[4] there is private property in the means of production), then we have a &#039;class society&#039;, the classes being defined in terms of their relationship to the means and the labour of production, and to each other. Some of the most important &#039;means of production&#039; in the modern world – not only factories, but also banks and finance houses, even railways and aircraft – were of course absent in Classical antiquity, and so, to a great extent, was that wage labour which is an essential element, indeed the essential element, in the relations of production characteristic of a capitalist economy. (As we shall see in III.vi below, free wage labour played an infinitely less important part in the Greek and Roman world than it does today.) In the ancient Greek world the principal means of production was land, and the principal form in which labour was directly exploited was unfree labour – that of chattel slaves above all; but debt bondage was far more widespread than many historians have realised, and in the Roman empire agricultural labour came to be exploited more and more through forms of tenancy (at first involving mainly free men), which in the late third century were converted into legal serfdom. (I shall give precise definitions of slavery, serfdom and debt bondage in III.iv below.) In antiquity, therefore, wealth may be said to have consisted above all in the ownership of land, and in the control of unfree labour; and it was these assets above all which enabled the propertied class to exploit the rest of the population: that is to say, to appropriate a surplus out of their labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this point I must introduce an important and difficult subject which needs careful treatment and can easily lead to serious confusion, and which I intend to deal with properly in Chapter IV below. I refer to the fact that a large part of production in antiquity was always carried on, until the Later Roman Empire (and to a certain degree even then), by small free producers, mainly peasants, but also artisans and traders. In so far as these numerous individuals neither exploited the labour of others (outside their own families) to any appreciable extent nor were themselves exploited to any marked degree, but lived not far above subsistence level, producing little surplus beyond what they themselves consumed, they formed a kind of intermediate class, between exploiters and exploited. As I shall explain in Chapter IV, this exploitation could be not only direct and  individual (by landlords or moneylenders, for instance) but also indirect and collective, affected by taxation, military conscription or forced services exacted by the state or the municipalities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is very hard to assess the condition of these small free producers accurately. The vast majority were what I shall call peasants (see my definition in IV.ii below), a term covering a wide variety of conditions, which nevertheless can be convenient to use, especially where we are in doubt about the precise situation of the people concerned. In Chapter IV I shall try to show the wide variety of institutions involved, and how the fortunes of some groups might fluctuate very considerably according to their political and legal as well as their economic position.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other categories than those of class, in the sense in which I am using that concept, have of course been proposed for analysis, or at least the description, of Greek society. I shall consider some of them in Section v of this chapter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historians, who are usually dealing with a single society, rarely trouble themselves with any reflections about their choice of categories: they are seldom aware of any problem in this respect; often it does not even occur to them that there is any need to go beyond the concepts employed by the members of the society they are studying. Indeed, a practising historian in the British – and American – empirical tradition may well say to us (as the author of a major recent book on the Roman emperor has virtually done: see the opening of Section v of this Chapter): &#039;Why on earth should we waste time on all this theoretical stuff, about class structure and social relations and historical method? Why can&#039;t we just go on doing history in the good old way, without bothering about the concepts and categories we employ? That might even involve us in the philosophy of history, which is something we prefer to abandon with disdain to philosophers and sociologists, as mere ideology.&#039; The reply to this, of course, is that it is a serious error to suppose that unconsciousness of ideology, or even a complete lack of interest in it, is the same thing as absence of ideology. In reality each of us has an ideological approach to history, resulting in a particular historical methodology and set of general concepts, whether conscious or unconscious. To refuse – as so many do – to define or even to think about the basic concepts we employ simply results in our taking over without scrutiny, lock, stock and barrel, the prevailing ideology in which we happen to have been brought up, and making much the same kind of selection from the evidence that our predecessors have been making and for the same reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, there are very great virtues in the traditional approach of the historian, the essence of which – the insistence on recognising the &#039;&#039;specificity&#039;&#039; of the historical situation in any given period (and even area) – must not be abandoned, or even compromised, when it is combined with a sociological approach. Indeed, anyone who is not capable (whether from a deficiency of intellect or from lack of time or energy) of the great effort needed to combine the two approaches ought to prefer the strictly historical one, for even mediocre works produced by the purely fact-grubbing historian may at least, if his facts are accurate and fairly presented, be of use to others capable of a higher degree of synthesis, whereas the would-be sociologist having insufficient knowledge of the specific historical evidence for a particular period is unlikely in the extreme to say anything about it that will be of use to anyone else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The study of ancient history in Britain has long been characterised by an attitude to detailed empirical investigation which &#039;&#039;in itself&#039;&#039; is most admirable. In a recent assessment of Rostovtzeff&#039;s great &#039;&#039;Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire&#039;&#039;, Glen Bowersock of Harvard University (who had himself been through the Oxford Greats School and was a graduate pupil of Sir Ronald Syme) has spoken of a general raising of eyebrows in Oxford when Rostovtzeff, who had come there in 1918 as an exile from his native Russia, &#039;announced that he would lecture on no less a subject than &amp;quot;The Social and Economic History of Eastern and Western Hellenism, the Roman Republic, and the Roman Empire&amp;quot;&#039;. He adds, &amp;quot;Together with the immodest grandeur of Rostovtzeff&#039;s topic went, perhaps inevitably, an occasional cloudiness of thought&#039;; and he records Rostovtzeff&#039;s own remark in the Preface to his book, &#039;Evidently the English mind, in this respect unlike the Slavonic, dislikes a lack of precision in thought or expression.&#039;[5] Now here we come right up against a problem which faces every historian: how to reconcile full and scrupulous attention to all forms of evidence for his chosen subject and a study of the modern literature relating to it with a grasp of general historical methodology and sociological theory sufficient to enable him to make the most of what he learns. Few if any of us strike exactly the right balance between these very different desiderata. It has been said that the sociologist comes to know &#039;less and less about more and more&#039;, the historian &#039;more and more about less and less&#039;. Most of us fall too decisively into one or other of these categories. We are like Plutarch&#039;s truly pious man, who has to negotiate a difficult course between the precipice of godlessness and the marsh of superstition (&#039;&#039;Mor&#039;&#039;. 378a), or Bunyan&#039;s Christian in the Valley of the Shadow of Death, treading a narrow path between, on the right hand, &#039;a very deep Ditch . . . into which the blind have led the blind in all Ages, and have both there miserably perished&#039;, and on the left, &#039;a very dangerous Quagg, into which, if even a good Man falls, he can find no bottom for his foot to stand on&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel much happier, in dealing with the history of the ancient Greek world, if I can legitimately make use of categories of social analysis which are not only &#039;&#039;precise&#039;&#039;, in the sense that I can define them, but also &#039;&#039;general&#039;&#039;, in the sense that they can be applied to the analysis of other human societies. Class, in my sense, is eminently such a category. Nevertheless, I realise that it is a healthy instinct on the part of historians in the empirical tradition to feel the need at least to &#039;&#039;begin from&#039;&#039; the categories and even the terminology in use within the society they are studying – provided, of course, they do not remain imprisoned therein. In our case, if the Greeks did not &#039;have a word for&#039; something we want to talk about, it may be a salutary warning to us that the phenomena we are looking for may not have existed in Greek times, or at any rate not in the same form as today. And so, in Section iv of this chapter, I propose to &#039;&#039;begin from&#039;&#039; the categories employed by the ancient Greeks themselves, at the time of their greatest self-awareness (the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.), to describe their own society. It will immediately become obvious that there is a striking similarity between those categories and some of the features of Marx&#039;s class analysis: this is particularly clear in Aristotle&#039;s &#039;&#039;Politics&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us now get down to fundamentals. I begin with five propositions. First, man is a social animal – and not only that, but, as Marx says in the &#039;&#039;Grundrisse&#039;&#039; (E. T. 84), &#039;an animal which can develop into an individual only in society&#039;. (Although in the same passage Marx contemptuously and rightly dismissed the individual and isolated hunter or fisherman who serves as the starting-point for Adam Smith and Ricardo – or, for that matter, Thomas Hobbes – as an uninspired conceit in the tradition of Robinson Crusoe, it is impossible not to recall at this point Hobbes&#039;s famous description of the life of his imaginary pre-societal man, in &#039;&#039;Leviathan&#039;&#039; I.13, as &#039;solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short&#039;.) Secondly, the prime task of man in society is to organise production, in the broadest sense, including both the acquisition from outside his society, by trade or forcible appropriation, of such necessary and desirable things as the society needs but cannot produce, or cannot profitably produce, within itself, and the distribution of what is produced. (In an area which is large or, like the Greek world, much split up by mountains or the sea, the nature of the transport system may be an important factor.) I shall use the term &#039;production&#039; in this convenient, extended sense, as Marx commonly does.[6] It should hardly be necessary to add that production, in the very broad sense in which I am using the word, of course includes reproduction: the bearing and rearing to maturity of offspring (cf. Section vi of this chapter). Thirdly, in the very act of living in society and organising production, man necessarily enters into a particular system of social and economic relations, which Marx referred to as &#039;the relations of production&#039; or &#039;the social relations of production&#039;.[7] Fourthly, in a civilised society such as that of the ancient Greeks or ourselves, the producers of actual necessities must (for obvious reasons, to be noticed presently) produce a surplus beyond what they actually consume themselves. And fifthly, the extraction and perpetuation of such a surplus has led in practice to exploitation, in particular of the primary agricultural producers: this exploitation, with which the whole concept of class is associated, is the very kernel of what I refer to as &#039;the class struggle&#039;. (I shall deal with it in Sections ii and iii of this chapter. As I shall there explain, when I speak about &#039;the class struggle&#039; in the ancient world I am never thinking of a struggle on the political plane alone, and sometimes my &#039;class struggle&#039; may have virtually no political aspect at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I should perhaps add, for the benefit of those who are accustomed to &#039;structuralist&#039; terminology, that I have not found it useful or possible to draw the distinction employed by Lévi-Strauss and his school between social &#039;&#039;relations&#039;&#039; and social &#039;&#039;structure&#039;&#039; (see e.g. Lévi-Strauss, &#039;&#039;SA&#039;&#039; 279, 303-4). I shall sometimes speak of a set of social relations &#039;&#039;as&#039;&#039; a social structure, or social formation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am of course thinking throughout in terms of the civilised societies of the last few thousand years, which, having developed technologically far beyond the level of primitive man, have aimed at providing themselves with a sufficient and stable supply of the necessities and luxuries of civilised life, and consequently have had to devote a very considerable volume of effort to ensuring that supply. Some anthropologists have argued that by reducing their wants to a minimum, primitives existing in a favourable environment may be thought happier than men in at least the earlier stages of civilisation, and may even enjoy a good deal of leisure; but for my purposes primitive society[8] is irrelevant, since its structure is totally different from that of Graeco-Roman antiquity (let alone the modern world), and any exploitation which may exist at the primitive stage takes place in quite different ways. Moreover, primitive society has not proved able to survive contact with developed modern economies – to put it in the crudest possible way, with Hilaire Belloc (&#039;&#039;The Modern Traveller&#039;&#039;, vi),&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Whatever happens we have got&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Maxim gun, and they have not.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Now in a primitive food-gathering and hunting tribe the mere day-to-day provision of food and other immediate necessities and of defence against wild beasts and other tribes and so on may be virtually a whole-time job for all adult members of the tribe, at least in the sense that in practice they do not extend their economic activities much further.[9] In a civilised community, however, it is not possible for everyone to spend all his time on these basic activities: there must be at least some members of the community who have enough &#039;&#039;leisure&#039;&#039; – in the technical sense of being released from directly producing the material necessities of life – for governing and organising and administering a complex society; for defending it against outsiders, with whatever weapons may be needed; for educating the next generation and training them in all the necessary skills, over a period of perhaps ten to twenty years; for the arts and sciences (whatever stage of development these may have reached); and for the many other requirements of civilised life. Such people (or some of them) must be at least partly freed from the cruder tasks, so that they may fulfil their specialised functions. And this means that they will have to be maintained by the rest of the community, or some part of it, in return for the services they provide. The producers will now have to produce more than what they themselves consume – in other words, a &#039;&#039;surplus&#039;&#039;.[10] And &#039;the appearance of a surplus makes possible – which does not mean &amp;quot;necessary&amp;quot; – structural transformation in a society&#039; (Godelier, &#039;&#039;RIE&#039;&#039; 274).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In view of the controversy which has been going on for years among economic anthropologists about the whole notion of a &#039;surplus&#039;, I feel it is necessary to make two observations on that concept. First, I use the term in a strictly relative sense and with (so to speak) an &#039;internal&#039; application, to mean that part of the product of &#039;&#039;an individual man&#039;s&#039;&#039; labour of which he does not directly enjoy the fruit himself, and the immediate benefits of which are reserved for others. I would distinguish an &#039;external&#039; application of the term surplus, namely the way in which the notion is employed by anthropologists such as Pearson, to mean something set aside by &#039;&#039;the society as a whole&#039;&#039;, or by those who make its decisions, as &#039;surplus to its needs&#039;, and made available for some specific purpose – feats, war, exchange with other societies, and so forth.[11] Secondly, I agree with Godelier that there is no &#039;&#039;necessary&#039;&#039; connection between the existence of a surplus and the exploitation of man by man: there may at first be exchange considered profitable by both sides, with certain persons taking upon themselves services genuinely performed on behalf of the whole community[12] – its defence against attack from outside, for example.[13] The precise point in history at which exploitation should be conceived as beginning is difficult to decide, and I have not made up my own mind. The question is not important for my present purposes, because exploitation began long before the period with which I am concerned in this book. Perhaps we could say that exploitation begins when the primary producer is obliged to yield up a surplus under the influence of compulsion (whether political, economic or social, and whether perceived as compulsion or not), at any rate at the stage when he no longer receives a real equivalent in exchange – although this may make it very difficult to decide the point at which exploitation begins, since it is hard to quantify, for example, military protection against agricultural produce (cf. IV.iv below). A much more sophisticated definition of exploitation (which may well be preferable) has been offered by Dupré and Rey on the basis of their anthropological fieldwork in west Africa: &#039;Exploitation exists when the &#039;&#039;use&#039;&#039; of the surplus product by a group (or an aggregate) which has not contributed the corresponding surplus of labour &#039;&#039;reproduces the conditions of a new extortion of surplus labour&#039;&#039; from the producers&#039; (RPTHC 152, my italics). Although even a good and fully socialist society must arrange for &#039;surplus labour&#039; by some, to support the very young, the aged and the infirm, and to provide all kinds of services for the community (cf. Marx, &#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. III.847, 876), it would necessarily do so in such a way that no individual or group of individuals had a right to appropriate the fruits of that &#039;surplus labour&#039; in virtue of any special control over the process of production through property rights, or indeed except at the direction of the community as a whole or its organs of government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In every civilised society there has been a basic problem of production: how to extract a sufficient surplus (&#039;sufficient&#039; in a relative sense, of course) from the primary producers, who are not likely to relish their position at the base of the social pyramid and will have to be subjected to a judicious mixture of persuasion and coercion – the more so if they have come to see the favoured few as exploiters and oppressors. Now men&#039;s capacity to win for themselves the freedom to live the life they want to live has always been severely limited, until very recently, by inadequate development of the productive forces at their disposal.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;All emancipation carried through hitherto has been based on restricted productive forces. The production which these productive forces could provide was insufficient for the whole of society and made development possible only if some persons satisfied their needs at the expense of others, and therefore some – the minority – obtained the monopoly of development, while others – the majority – owing to the constant struggle to satisfy their most essential needs, were for the time being (i.e. until the creation of new revolutionary forces) excluded from any development (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; V.431-2, from the &#039;&#039;German Ideology&#039;&#039;; cf. &#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. III.820, quoted in I.iv above).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;If I were asked to name the fundamental features of ancient Greek society which most distinguish it from the contemporary world, I would single out two things, closely connected, which I shall describe in succession. The &#039;&#039;first&#039;&#039;, within the field of what Marx called &#039;the forces of production&#039;, is a technological distinction. The advanced countries of the modern world have immense productive power. But go back to the ancient world, and you go down and down the technological ladder, so to speak. The Greek world, compared with the modern one, was very undeveloped technologically, and therefore infinitely less productive.[14] Great advances in technology occurred long before the Industrial Revolution, in the Middle Ages and even the Dark Ages. These advances were far more important than most people realise, not only in the most essential sphere of all, that of sources of energy or &#039;prime movers&#039; (which I shall come to in a moment), but in all sorts of other ways. To take only one example – I wonder how many people who have not only read Greek and Roman monuments have noticed the absence from antiquity of the wheelbarrow, which at least doubles a man&#039;s carrying capacity, but only appears in Europe in the thirteenth century (in China it was known a thousand years earlier).[15] As for sources of energy, I will say only that animal power, in the form of the tractive effort of the horse and ox, was nothing like fully realised in Classical antiquity, in particular because of the extreme inefficiency of the ancient horse-harness;[16] and that only in the Middle Ages do we find the widespread utilisation of two important forms of energy which were very little used in antiquity: wind and water (cf. n.14 below). Wind, of course, was used for the propulsion of merchant ships, though not very efficiently and without the stern-post rudder;[17] but the windmill was not known in Europe before (or not much before) the early twelfth century. The water-mill[18] (&#039;&#039;hydraletēs&#039;&#039;) was actually invented not later than the last century B.C.: the last earliest known mention is by the Greek geographer Strabo, in a reference to Pontus, on the south shore of the Black Sea, in the 60s B.C. (XII.iii.30, p.556). But the most fascinating piece of evidence is the delightful poem in the &#039;&#039;Greek Anthology&#039;&#039;, by Antipater of Thessalonica, to which I referred in I.iv above as being known to Marx: the poet innocently assures the slave mill-girls that now they have the water-nymphs to work for them they can sleep late and take their ease (&#039;&#039;Anth. Pal&#039;&#039;. IX.418: see &#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. I.408). There is a little evidence, both literary and archaeological, for the use of the water-mill in the Graeco-Roman world, but it was rare before the fourth and fifth centuries, and its full use comes a good deal later (see n.14 again). Marx realised that &#039;the Roman Empire had handed down the elementary form of all machinery in the water-wheel&#039; (&#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. I.348).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is the essential background to my second basic distinction between the ancient and the modern world, which is intimately connected with the first and indeed largely grew out of it. In the ancient world, as we have seen, the producers, as I am calling them (men engaged in essential economic activities), produced a very much smaller surplus than is necessary to sustain a modern advanced society. This remains vitally important, even if we allow for the fact that the average Greek had a far more restricted range of wants and demanded a much lower standard of living than the modern Englishman, so that the volume of production per head could be well below what it has to be today. But even if we make allowance for this the disparity is still very striking. As I have shown, the ancient world was enormously less productive than the modern world. Therefore, unless almost everyone was to have to work practically all the same, and have virtually no leisure, some means had to be found of extracting the largest possible surplus out of any rate a considerable number of those at the lowest levels of society. And this is where we come face to face with the &#039;&#039;second&#039;&#039; of my two fundamental distinctions between the ancient and the modern world, one that occurs this time in the field of what Marx called &#039;the relations of production&#039;: the propertied classes in the Greek and Roman world derived their surplus, which freed them from the necessity of taking part in the process of production, nor from wage labour, as in capitalist society, but mainly from unfree labour of various kinds. The ancient world knew other forms of unfree labour than strict &#039;slavery&#039; (&#039;chattel slavery&#039;, if you like), in particular what I shall call &#039;serfdom&#039; and &#039;debt bondage&#039; (see III.iv below). But in general slavery was the most important form of unfree labour at the highest periods of Greek and Roman civilisation; and the Greeks and Romans themselves always tended to employ the vocabulary of actual slavery when referring to other forms of unfree labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have indicated that it is above all in relation to its function of extracting the maximum surplus of those primary producers who were at the lowest levels of ancient society that I propose to consider slavery and other forms of unfree labour in this book. In treating slavery in this manner I am looking at it in very much the way that both masters and slaves have commonly regarded it. (Whether the ancient belief in the efficiency of the institution of slavery in this respect is justified or not is irrelevant for my purposes.) Perhaps I may cite here the opening of the third chapter of one of the best-known books on North American slavery, Kenneth Stampp&#039;s &#039;&#039;The Peculiar Institution&#039;&#039; (p.86):&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Slaves apparently thought of the South&#039;s peculiar institution chiefly as a system of labour extortion. Of course they felt its impact in other ways – in their social status, their legal status, and their private lives – but they felt it most acutely in the lack of control over their own time and labour. If discontented with bondage, they could be expected to direct their protests principally against the master&#039;s claim to their work.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The feature of slavery which made it appropriate and indeed essential and irreplaceable in the economic conditions of Classical antiquity was precisely that the &#039;&#039;labour&#039;&#039; it provided was &#039;&#039;forced&#039;&#039;. The slave, by definition, is a man &#039;&#039;without rights&#039;&#039; (or virtually without effective rights) and therefore unable to protect himself against being compelled to yield up a very large part of what he produces. Dio Chrysostom, in the early second century of the Christian era, reports an imaginary discussion about slavery in which there was general agreement about the basic definition of the slave&#039;s condition: that someone else &#039;owns him as master, like any other item of property or cattle, so as to be able &#039;&#039;to make use of him at his pleasure&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039; (&#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. XV.24).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I suggest that the most profitable way of approaching the problem of unfree labour is to think of it in precisely the way in which I have introduced it, in terms of &#039;&#039;the extraction of the largest possible surplus from the primary producers&#039;&#039;. I think that in antiquity slavery probably did provide the best possible answer, from the purely economic point of view (that is to say, disregarding all social as well as moral factors), having regard to the low level of productivity, and also to the fact that &#039;&#039;free&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;hired&#039;&#039; labour was scarce, largely confined to unskilled or seasonal work, and not at all mobile, whereas slaves were available in large numbers and at prices the lowness of which is astonishing, in comparison with what is known of slave prices in other societies. But given these conditions – the poor supply of free, hired labour, the easy availability of slaves, their cheapness, and so on – I do believe that slavery increased the surplus in the hands of the propertied class to an extent which could not otherwise have been achieved and was therefore an essential precondition of the magnificent achievements of Classical civilisation. I would draw attention to the fact that the distinction I have just drawn is based not on a difference of &#039;&#039;status&#039;&#039;, between slaves &#039;&#039;and free men&#039;&#039;, but on a difference of &#039;&#039;class&#039;&#039;, between slaves &#039;&#039;and their owners&#039;&#039; – a very different matter. (I shall return to this difference later: see Sections iii and v of this chapter.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may not have been fully obvious that so far I have been preparing the ground for the definition of the terms &#039;class&#039; and &#039;class struggle&#039; which I shall offer in Section ii of this chapter. I had to make clear certain fundamental features of ancient Greek society. I had to make clear certain fundamental features of ancient Greek society. I have now explained one of these, the essential part played by what I am calling unfree labour; and I must now briefly mention another, the fact that by far the most important means of production in the ancient world was land. Wealth in Classical antiquity was always essentially landed wealth, and the ruling classes of all the Greek states, as of Rome itself, invariably consisted mainly of landowners. This is something which most ancient historians now realise; but the whole question, like that of slavery and other forms of unfree labour, will require a more extended discussion than I can give it at this point (see III.i-iii below).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In seeking to use the concept of class as a method of historical analysis there are two quite different dangers that we must guard against: one, a matter of definition, is a question strictly for the historian. After stating them together, I shall briefly discuss them separately. First, we must be quite sure what we mean by the term &#039;class&#039; (and &#039;class struggle&#039;), and not slide carelessly and unconsciously from one interpretation to another. Secondly, we must be careful to make a correct historical identification of any class we propose to recognise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The first problem, that of definition, is of a sociological nature. Marx himself, as I said earlier, never gave a definition of class in general terms. Some may feel that no such general definition is possible, but I believe the one I shall produce in Section ii below will serve well enough, although there may be some special cases in which a unique set of historical circumstances makes qualification necessary. Even if it could be shown that there are too many exceptions for my definition to be considered a general one, I would a least claim that it holds for the society, or rather series of societies, of the Graeco-Roman world, discussed in this book. I hope that others will improve upon it.&lt;br /&gt;
# The second problem is purely historical: one must thoroughly understand the particular society one is considering, and know the evidence about it at first hand, before one can expect to identify its classes correctly and precisely. Some serious mistakes have been made in defining the actual classes existing in particular societies, and the results of employing unreal conceptions of those classes, not corresponding closely with reality, have sometimes been disastrous. Misconceptions about classes existing in historical societies have not, of course, been confined to Marxists, by any means, but since they make more use of class categories than other historians they are likely to commit even worse blunders if they start out with misconceptions about the classes they recognise. It has been standard practice among ancient historians to refer to the governing classes of several Greek cities in the Archaic and Classical periods, in particular Aegina and Corinth, as &#039;commercial aristocracies&#039; or &#039;industrial and merchant classes&#039; (see my &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 264-7, esp. n.61; cf. 216, 218-20, and Appendix XLI, esp. p.396). This extraordinary notion, for which there is not a shred of ancient evidence, was adopted without examination by Busolt, Eduard Meyer and other leading historians (even Max Weber was not entirely free of it), and it is still being reproduced today in some quarters. Not a few Marxists have started out from similarly mistaken positions. It is not surprising that attempts by George Thomson (essentially a literary scholar and not a historian in the proper sense) to expound the intellectual development of the Classical Greek world in Marxist terms have not succeeded in convincing historians or philosophers; for Thomson presents the development of Greek thought, and even of Greek democracy, in the sixth and fifth centuries as the consequence of the rise to power of a wholly imaginary &#039;merchant class&#039;. Thomson even describes the Pythagoreans of Croton as &#039;the new class of rich industrialists and merchants&#039;, who &#039;resembled Solon in being actively involved in development of commodity production&#039;.[19] In my opinion, this is little better than fantasy. The one book I know in English which explicitly seeks to give an account of Greek history (before the Roman period) in Marxist terms is a prime example of the methodological catastrophe involved in giving a would-be Marxist account in terms of classes that are fictions and correspond to no historical reality. The author, Margaret O. Wason, pretends that in the seventh and sixth centuries, in most Greek states, there came to power a &#039;new bourgeois class&#039;, defined as &#039;the class of merchants and artisans which challenged the power of the aristocracy&#039;. It is no surprise to find Cleon referred to in the same book as &#039;a tanner&#039; (this of course reproduces Aristophanes&#039; caricature; cf. my &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 235 n.7, 359-61, 371) and as &#039;the leader of the Athenian workers&#039;.[20]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I may add that it would similarly be absurd to speak of a &#039;class struggle&#039; between Senators and Equites in the Late Roman Republic. Here I am in full agreement with a number of non-Marxist ancient historians of very different outlooks. As P. A. Brunt and Claude Nicolet have so conclusively demonstrated in the last few years, the Equites were part of the class of large landowners to which the Senators also belonged. As Badian has put it, for the Senate they were simply &#039;the non-political members of its own classes&#039;[21] – those who preferred not to take upon themselves the arduous and often dangerous life that a political career would involve. At certain times a purely political contest might develop between these two groups within the propertied class on specific issues, but this must not mislead us into seeing them as two separate classes having irreconcilable interests. I shall in fact speak sometimes of the Roman Senators (though not the Equites) as a class: the &#039;senatorial class&#039;. It is possible that some other Marxists may prefer not to break down my &#039;propertied class&#039; (for which see III.ii below) into two or more classes for certain purposes, as I do – for example, in the developed Principate and the Later Empire, primarily into the senatorial and curial classes, with the Equites perhaps as a kind of sub-class closely attached to the Senators, until in the late fourth and early fifth centuries they were entirely absorbed into the senatorial class (see VI.vi below, &#039;&#039;ad fin&#039;&#039;.) But in my set of definitions, early in Section ii of this chapter, I allow for &#039;&#039;Rechtsstellung&#039;&#039; (legal or constitutional situation) as a factor that can help to determine class in so far as it affects the type and degree of exploitation practised or suffered; and the constitutional privileges enjoyed by Senators surely did materially increase their capacity to exploit – just as the condition of being a slave, with its severe juridical disabilities, greatly increased the slave&#039;s liability to exploitation. But I could quite understand if some other Marxists, feeling that it was above all their great wealth which lay at the root of the Senators&#039; privileged position, rather than the office-holding and the consequential legal privileges it brought them, preferred to treat the Senators merely as an &#039;order&#039; (which they certainly were) rather than a class. Perhaps &#039;sub-class&#039; would be a convenient term; but I have avoided it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have only one more preliminary point to make before proceeding to a definition of my terms: I am deliberately avoiding, at this stage, discussion of the terms &#039;caste&#039;, &#039;order&#039;, &#039;estate&#039; (&#039;&#039;état&#039;&#039;). Caste is a phenomenon which we do not encounter at all in the Greek or Roman world.[22] We do find what can legitimately be described as &#039;orders&#039; (or &#039;estates&#039;) – that is to say, status-groups (&#039;&#039;Stände&#039;&#039;) which are &#039;&#039;legally recognised&#039;&#039; as such and have different sets of juridical characteristics (privileges or disadvantages). Such groups will be noticed when we have occasion to discuss them. I shall have something to say of &#039;status-groups&#039; in general, and (in Section v of this chapter) of &#039;status&#039; as an alternative concept to &#039;class&#039;. But although I shall of course refer at times to particular &#039;orders&#039; (citizens, slaves, freedmen, senators, equestrians, curials), I shall take no special account of &#039;orders&#039; as such, treating them as a rule merely as a special form of status-group, except in so far as they materially affect the degree of exploitation concerned (cf. the preceding paragraph).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - &#039;Class&#039;, &#039;exploitation&#039;, and &#039;the class struggle&#039; defined ====&lt;br /&gt;
We can now attempt to define &#039;class&#039;, &#039;exploitation&#039;, and &#039;class struggle&#039;. As I said in Section i of this chapter, I am not going to pretend that there is an objective entity, class, the nature of which remains to be discovered. I would also deny that there is any definition of class which is so generally agreed upon that we are all obliged to accept it or run the risk of being accused of perversity. The concept has been discussed &#039;&#039;ad nauseam&#039;&#039; by sociologists during the past few decades (cf. n.1 to Section i above). After working through a good deal of the literature, most of which seems to me almost worthless, I feel entitled to insist from the outset that the disagreement about the best way of using the expression &#039;class&#039; has been so great that anyone who attempts an analysis of any society in terms of class is entitled to establish his own criteria, within very wide limits, and that our verdict on the definition he adopts ought to depend solely on its clarity and consistency, the extent to which it corresponds with the historical realities to which it is applied, and its fruitfulness as a tool of historical and sociological analysis. If in addition we find (as we shall in this case) that the notion of class in the sense in which we define it corresponds closely we are examining (in our case, that of Aristotle especially: see Section iv of this chapter), then we shall be fortunate indeed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I should like to quote here a statement by a leading British sociologist, T. B. Bottomore, raising questions which are all too unfamiliar to many historians. Speaking of the construction of general concepts by sociologists, he says:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;In some recent attempts to improve the &#039;conceptual framework&#039; of sociology, and notably in that of Talcott Parsons and his collaborators, the whole emphasis is placed upon definition of concepts rather than upon the use of concepts in explanation. This is a retrograde step by comparison with the work of Durkheim and Max Weber, both of whom introduced and defined concepts in the course of working out explanatory theories. Weber&#039;s exposition of his &#039;ideal type&#039; method deals more clearly with this matter than any later writing, and had his ideas been followed up sociology would have been spared much confused and aimless discussion. In essentials his argument is that the value of a definition (i.e. of a concept) is only to be determined by its fruitfulness in research and theorising (&#039;&#039;Sociology&#039;&#039;2 [1971] 37, cf. 121).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;I should not like it to be thought, however, that I regard Marx&#039;s concept of class as a Weberian &#039;ideal-type construct&#039;, in the sense that Weber himself took it to be. For me, as for Marx, classes and class struggles are real elements which can be empirically identified in individual cases, whereas for Weber all such &#039;Marxian concepts and hypotheses&#039; become &#039;pernicious, as soon as they are thought of as empirically valid&#039; (Weber, &#039;&#039;MSS&#039;&#039; 103, repr. in Eldridge, &#039;&#039;MWISR&#039;&#039; 228).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I propose first to state my definition of class and class struggle, and to explain and justify it in subsequent discussion. I believe that this definition represents the central thought of Marx as accurately as possible: this claim too I shall try to justify.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Class&#039;&#039; (essentially a relationship)[1] is the collective social expression of the fact of exploitation, the way in which exploitation is embodied in a social structure. By &#039;&#039;exploitation&#039;&#039; I mean the appropriation of part of the product of the labour of others:[2] in a commodity-producing society this is the appropriation of what Marx called &#039;surplus value&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A &#039;&#039;class&#039;&#039; (a particular class) is a group of persons in a community identified by their position in the whole system of social production, defined above all according to their relationship (primarily in terms of the degree of ownership or control) to the conditions of production (that is to say, the means and labour of production)[3] and to other classes. Legal position (constitutional rights or, to use the German term, &#039;Rechtsstellung&#039;) is one of the factors that may help to determine class: its share in doing so will depend on how far it affects the type and degree of exploitation practised or suffered – the condition of being a slave in the ancient Greek world, for example, was likely (though far from certain) to result in a more intense degree of exploitation than being a citizen or even a free foreigner.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The individuals constituting a given class may or may not be wholly or partly conscious of their own identity and common interests as a class, and they may or may not feel antagonism towards members of other classes as such.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is of the essence of a &#039;&#039;class society&#039;&#039; that one or more of the smaller classes, in virtue of their control over the conditions of production (most commonly exercised through ownership of the means of production),[4] will be able to exploit – that is, to appropriate a surplus at the expense of – the larger classes, and thus constitute an economically and socially (and therefore probably also politically) superior class or classes. The exploitation may be direct and individual, as for example of wage-labourers, slaves, serfs, &#039;coloni&#039;, tenant-farmers or debtors by particular employers, masters, landlords or moneylenders, or it may be indirect and collective, as when taxation, military conscription, forced labour or other services are exacted solely or disproportionately from a particular class or classes (small peasant freeholders, for instance) by a State dominated by a superior class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I use the expression &#039;&#039;class struggle&#039;&#039; for the fundamental relationship between classes (and their respective individual members), involving essentially exploitation, or resistance to it. It does not necessarily involve collective action by a class as such, and it may or may not include activity on a political plane, although such political activity becomes increasingly probable when the tension of class struggle becomes acute. A class which exploits others is also likely to employ forms of political domination and oppression against them when it is able to do so: democracy will mitigate this process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Imperialism&#039;&#039;, involving some kind of economic and/or political subjection to a power outside the community, is a special case, in which the exploitation effected by the imperial power (in the form of tribute, for instance), or by its individual members, need not necessarily involve direct control of the conditions of production. In such a situation, however, the class struggle within the subject community is very likely to be affected, for example through support given by the imperial power or its agents to the exploiting class or classes within that community, if not by the acquisition by the imperial power or its individual members of control over the conditions of production in the subject community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is one aspect of my definition of class which, I realise, may need clarification. Not all individuals belong to one specific class alone: some can be regarded as members of one class for some specific class alone: some can be regarded as members of one class for some purposes and of another class for others, although usually membership of one will be much the most significant. A slave who was allowed by his master to accumulate a considerable &#039;&#039;peculium&#039;&#039;, and who (like Musicus Scurranus, mentioned in III.iv below, at its n.13) had even acquired under-slaves of his own, &#039;&#039;vicarii&#039;&#039;, might have to be regarded &#039;&#039;pro tanto&#039;&#039; as a member of what I am calling &#039;the propertied class&#039;; but of course his membership of that class would necessarily be qualified and precarious and dependent on the goodwill of his master. A slave who was settled by his landowning master as tenant of a small farm, &#039;&#039;quasi colonus&#039;&#039; (see IV.iii § 12 below), would in strictly economic terms be in much the same position as a poor free peasant leaseholder, and we might be inclined to put him in the class of peasants (see IV.ii below); but his legal status would remain greatly inferior and his tenancy would be much more at the pleasure of the landowner, who could therefore exploit him more severely if he were so inclined. And a poor peasant who owned or leased a plot of land so small that he regularly needed to betake himself to a neighbouring city for part of the year to earn wages would be a member of two classes: small peasants and wage-labourers. I also maintain in Section vi of this chapter that women, or at any rate married women (and so the great majority of adult women in antiquity), must be regarded for some purposes as a distinct class, although membership of such a class (because of its consequences for property-ownership) would in a city like Classical Athens be far more important to a high-born woman than to a poor peasant, who would have had no opportunity to own much property had she been a man and whose membership of the class of women would therefore be of far less significance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course I have no wish to pretend that class is the only category we need for the analysis of Greek and Roman society. All I am saying is that it is the fundamental one, which &#039;&#039;over all&#039;&#039; (at any given moment) and &#039;&#039;in the long run&#039;&#039; is the most important, and is by far the most useful to us, in helping us to understand Greek history and explain the process of change within it. In Section v of this chapter I shall briefly consider alternative approaches, particularly those which have the primary aim – as I have not, and as Marx did not (see Section v) – of establishing a scheme of &#039;social stratification&#039; according to &#039;status&#039;. Such activities are perfectly legitimate and may even have quite useful results, provided we keep them in their proper place and realise that they will not by themselves disclose the real secrets of history: the springs and causes of human behaviour and social change. I would say that social status, and even in the long run political power, tended to &#039;&#039;derive from&#039;&#039; class position in the first place (as indeed political status always did directly in the commonest form of Greek oligarchy in the Classical period, based on a property qualification), and that in the long run distinctions having any other basis than the economic tended to &#039;&#039;decay in favour of&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;ultimately to resolve themselves into&#039;&#039;, distinctions based upon economic class. (We shall notice some examples of this process later: see V.iii and VIII.i and ii below.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us be quite clear about one thing. Whereas descriptions of ancient society in terms of some category other than class – status, for instance – are perfectly innocuous, in the sense that they need have no direct relevance to the modern world (which will of course need to be described in terms of a completely different set of statuses), an analysis of Greek and Roman society in terms of class, in the specifically Marxist sense, is indeed (to use Firth&#039;s adjective: see I.iv above), something &#039;&#039;threatening&#039;&#039;, something that speaks directly to every one of us today and insistently demands to be applied to the contemporary world, of the second half of the twentieth century. If Marx&#039;s analysis, originally derived above all from the study of nineteenth-century capitalist society, turns out to be equally well adapted not merely to &#039;&#039;describe&#039;&#039; ancient society over a long period of many centuries but to &#039;&#039;explain&#039;&#039; its transformations and its partial disintegration (as we shall see it is), then its relevance for the contemporary world becomes very hard to ignore. Of course in some quarters it will be ignored. To quote Marx and Engels, addressing themselves sarcastically in 1848 to the ruling classes of their day:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and reason the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property – historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production – this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; VI.501, from the &#039;&#039;Communist Manifesto&#039;&#039;).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;I shall now glance briefly at the use of the conception of class (and class struggle) by Marx himself. I shall maintain that for five different reasons in particular there has been a widespread and serious misunderstanding of the part this idea played in Marx&#039;s thought. I believe that my definition represents his fundamental thinking more accurately than do the statements of some modern Marxist and non-Marxist writers who have taken different views from mine. My five reasons are as follows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, partly perhaps because of a much-quoted definition by Lenin, in his &#039;&#039;A Great Beginning&#039;&#039;, which (as Ossowski says, &#039;&#039;CSSC&#039;&#039; 72 and n.1) has been &#039;popularised by Marxist text-books and encyclopaedias&#039;, it has been customary to lay particular stress on relationship to the means of production as the decisive factor (sometimes as the one essential factor) in determining a person&#039;s class position. Although his formulation contains a profound truth, it will be seen from the definition of class given above that I regard it as a rather too narrow conception. Secondly, as is well known, Marx himself, although he made important use of the concept of class throughout his work, never gave a formal definition of it, and indeed employed it in very different senses at different times. Thirdly, Marx himself was concerned in his writings almost entirely with a capitalist society which had already undergone a considerable process of development: apart from one section of the &#039;&#039;Grundrisse&#039;&#039; (E.T. 471-514) which is specifically devoted to &#039;pre-capitalist economic formations&#039; (see the excellent edition by Hobsbawm, &#039;&#039;KMPCEF&#039;&#039;), the statements in his work about pre-capitalist societies in general and the Graeco-Roman world in particular are all brief, and many of them are in the nature of &#039;&#039;obliter dicta&#039;&#039;. In these passages, as a rule, he takes no pains to be precise over terminology. Fourthly (and as a consequence of the facts I have just stated), when Marx spoke in particular about &#039;class struggle&#039; he tended – thinking almost always, as he was, of nineteenth-century capitalism – to have in mind the kind of class struggle which was so noticeable in the mid-nineteenth century in the more developed capitalist countries: namely, open class struggle on the political plane. Thus when, for example, he spoke in &#039;&#039;The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte&#039;&#039; of the French bourgeoisie as &#039;doing away with the class struggle for the moment by abolishing universal suffrage&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; XI.153), he simply meant that the law of 31 May 1850, by reducing the total number of electors from ten to seven million (id. 147), made it far harder for the French working class to carry on effective political struggle. And finally, in the work often wrongly taken to be the definitive statement of Marx&#039;s &#039;materialist conception of history&#039;, namely the &#039;&#039;Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy&#039;&#039; (1858-9), we find only a passing reference to classes and none at all to class struggle. There is, however, a perfectly good explanation of this, well brought out by Arthur M. Prinz in an article in the &#039;&#039;Journal of the History of Ideas&#039;&#039; 30 (1969) 437-50, entitled &#039;Background and ulterior motive of Marx&#039;s &amp;quot;Preface&amp;quot; of 1859&#039;. The &#039;&#039;Preface&#039;&#039; was to be published (through the good offices of Lassalle) in Berlin, and it was absolutely necessary for Marx to take careful account of the stringent Prussian censorship and abstain from anything that might be suspected of incitement to class hatred, at that time an actual offence punishable with imprisonment under para. 100 of the Prussian Penal Code. Marx, already well known to the Prussian censors, was now living in England and in no danger of prosecution himself; but he had to be circumspect if there was to be any hope of finding a publisher, for the same paragraph of the Penal Code also prescribed the penalty of confiscation for any offending work. Yet Marx had to publish in Germany, in order to make a bid for the intellectual leadership of the German socialist movement. The &#039;&#039;Preface&#039;&#039;, then, had to steer clear of class struggle. But when on 17/18 September 1879 Marx and Engels – thinking back to the &#039;&#039;Communist Manifesto&#039;&#039; and beyond – wrote to Bebel, Liebknecht, and others, &#039;For almost forty years we have stressed the class struggle as the immediate driving power of history&#039; (&#039;&#039;MESC&#039;&#039; 395), they were making a perfectly correct statement. Even in those considerable parts of Marx&#039;s writing which are concerned entirely with economics or philosophy rather than with the historical process he will sometimes show that the class struggle is ever-present in his mind, as when in a letter to Engels on 30 April 1868 he rounds off a long passage on economics with the words, &#039;Finally . . . we have as conclusion the class struggle, into which the movement of the whole &#039;&#039;Scheiss&#039;&#039; is resolved&#039; (see &#039;&#039;MESC&#039;&#039; 250).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From reactions I have had to drafts of this chapter, I know that some people will protest against what will seem to them an excessive emphasis on collective entities, classes, at the expense of &#039;the individual&#039;. To any such objection I would reply that my main aim in this book is to explain &#039;what happened in history&#039; &#039;&#039;on a large scale&#039;&#039;: the history of the Greek world as a whole over more than 1,300 years – dare I use the rather repellent expression, &#039;macro-history&#039;? But the history of &#039;macro-units&#039; (of classes, as of states and alliances) needs to be explained in terms very different from those appropriate to the behaviour of human groups in organised States. Elsewhere I have explained at length how Thucydides – rightly, in my opinion – recognised that the canons of interpretation and judgment applicable to the actions of States are fundamentally different from those we apply to the actions of individuals (see my &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 7 ff., esp. 16-28). I now wish to advance the following propositions: that the factors governing the behaviour of classes (in my sense) are different again from either of the sets I have just mentioned; that the behaviour of a class as such (that of men &#039;&#039;as&#039;&#039; members of a class) may well be inexplicable in terms we can legitimately apply to their behaviour as individuals; and even that a given individual or set of individuals may behave &#039;&#039;as&#039;&#039; a constituent part of a class in a way that is quite different from the behaviour we are entitled to expect of him or them as individuals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If in that last sentence we substitute &#039;a state&#039; for &#039;a class&#039;, there may be little objection, since the moral standards generally accepted as governing the conduct of individuals are clearly quite different from those applied to the behaviour of states: a man who participated in the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, Berlin or Dresden, Vietnam or Laos, will not be accounted a mass murderer by most people, because he was acting in the interests – or at any rate on the orders – of his own state, against an &#039;enemy&#039; state; and those who gave the orders suffered no criminal indictment, for in the event they were not defeated. It would be similarly easy to find examples from the ancient world that would be universally considered morally atrocious behaviour on the part of individuals acting in their own personal interests, but were yet regarded as unobjectionable and even praiseworthy when employed in the service of the state. Most of the Roman generals against &#039;barbarians&#039; or rebels which are noticed, for example, by Ammianus Marcellinus (a Greek historian who wrote in Latin) are recorded without any sign of disapproval;[5] and the same historian could mention without comment the opinion of &#039;lawyers of old&#039; that sometimes even the innocent may be put to death (XXVII.ix.5), and felt no need to shed any tears over the wholesale extermination of the children of the Maratocupreni, fierce and wily robbers (XXVIII.ii.11-14). I suspect, however, that many people would be far less willing to accept the propositions advanced at the end of the last paragraph in regard to classes, which I will now demonstrate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That slaves who rebelled, or who could even be held guilty of failing to protect their masters from being assassinated by one of their own number, were treated with pitiless ferocity by the Romans is well known: I have given one or two prominent examples in VII.i below. The relationship of the Spartans to their Helots – very much a class relationship, of exploiter to exploited – was one of quite extraordinary hostility and suspicion. In III.iv below I draw attention to the remarkable fact that each set of Spartan ephors, upon taking office, made an official declaration of war on their work-force, the Helots, so as to be able to kill any of them without trial and yet avoid incurring the religious pollution such acts would otherwise have entailed. The Greeks on the whole showed less savagery than the Romans towards their slaves; but even in Classical Athens, where we hear most about relatively good treatment of slaves, all our literature takes the flogging of slaves for granted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Literary sources in abundance from all over the Greek world show that this form of punishment for slaves was commonplace. An epitaph on the tomb of a virtuous matron, Myro (who may be an imaginary character), by the Hellenistic poet Antipater of Sidon, describes quite casually, as if it were the most natural thing in the world, the depiction on her tomb of (among other things) a whip, as a sign that Myro was a &#039;just character of misdeeds&#039; – though not, of course, a &#039;cruel or arrogant mistress&#039;! (&#039;&#039;Anth&#039;&#039;. &#039;&#039;Pal&#039;&#039;. VII.425). No one will doubt that refractory slaves were repressed without mercy, at any rate in so far as this could be done without excessive damage to the interests of their masters, whose property they were (cf. III.iv below).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whom among our main literary sources might we have thought less likely to order a slave to be flogged than Plutarch? – a man conspicuous, surely, for his humanity. But there is a nasty little story which has come down to us from Calvisius Taurus, a friend of Plutarch&#039;s, through Aulus Gellius (&#039;&#039;NA&#039;&#039; I.xxvi.4-9). An educated slave of Plutarch&#039;s who knew his master&#039;s treatise &#039;&#039;On freedom from anger&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;Peri aorgēsias&#039;&#039;, usually referred to by its Latin title, &#039;&#039;De cohibenda ira&#039;&#039;) protested, while being flogged, that Plutarch was being inconsistent and giving in to the very fault he had reprobated. Plutarch was quite unabashed. Insisting that he was perfectly calm, he invited the slave to continue the argument with him – in the same breath ordering the flogger to continue applying the lash. The incident was quoted by Taurus, in reply to a question by Gellius at the end of one of his philosophical lectures, and with complete approval. But we need not be surprised in the least at Plutarch&#039;s action, if we can bring ourselves to see this particular slaveowner and his slave as &#039;but the personifications of the economic relations that existed between them&#039; (Marx, &#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. I.84-5).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The class struggle between the propertied class and those who were relatively or absolutely propertyless was also accompanied at times by atrocities on both sides: see e.g. V.ii below. When we hear of particularly murderous behaviour by those who had the upper hand in a &#039;&#039;stasis&#039;&#039; (a civil commotion), we can be reasonably safe in concluding that the conflict was basically between social classes, even if our information about it is not explicit.[6]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I forbear to cite contemporary examples of the conduct of class warfare in ways which have been widely accepted as &#039;necessary&#039; but which have involved behaviour that would be condemned by everyone as morally indefensible in actions between individuals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== i) - Exploitation and the class struggle ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - Aristotle&#039;s sociology of Greek politics ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (v) - Alternatives to class (status etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (vi) - Women ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== III - Property and the Propertied ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - The conditions of production: land and unfree labour ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - The propertied class (or classes) ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - Land, as the principal source of wealth ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - Slavery and other forms of unfree labour ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (v) - Freedmen ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (vi) - Hired labour ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== IV - Forms of Exploitation in the Ancient Greek World, and the Small Independent Producer ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - &#039;Direct individual&#039; and &#039;indirect collective&#039; exploitation ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - The peasantry and their villages ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - From slave to &#039;&#039;colonus&#039;&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - The military factor ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (v) - &#039;Feudalism&#039; (and serfdom) ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (vi) - Other independent producers ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== PART TWO ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== V - The Class Struggle in Greek History on the Political Plane ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - The &#039;age of the tyrants&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - The fifth and fourth centuries B.C. ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - The destruction of Greek democracy ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== VI - Rome the Suzerain ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - &#039;The queen and mistress of the world&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - The &#039;conflict of the Orders&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - The developed Republic ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - The Roman conquest of the Greek world ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (v) - From Republic to Principate ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (vi) - The Principate, the emperor, and the upper classes ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== VII - The Class Struggle on the Ideological Plane ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - Terror, and propaganda ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - The theory of &#039;natural slavery&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - The standard Hellenistic, Roman and Christian attitude to slavery ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - The attitudes to property of the Graeco-Roman world, of Jesus, and of the Christian churches ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (v) - The ideology of the victims of the class struggle ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== VIII - The &#039;Decline and Fall&#039; of the Roman Empire: an Explanation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - Intensified political subjection and economic exploitation of the lower classes during the early centuries of the Christian era ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - Pressure on the curial class ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - Defection to the &#039;barbarians&#039;, peasant revolts, and indifference to the disintegration of the Roman empire ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - The collapse of much of the Roman empire in the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== APPENDICES ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== I - The contrast between slave and wage-labourer in Marx&#039;s theory of capital ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== II - Some evidence for slavery (especially agricultural) in the Classical and Hellenistic periods ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== III - The settlement of &#039;barbarians&#039; within the Roman empire ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== IV - The destruction of Greek democracy in the Roman period ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Notes ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works about ancient Greece]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:The_Class_Struggle_in_the_Ancient_Greek_World&amp;diff=87422</id>
		<title>Library:The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:The_Class_Struggle_in_the_Ancient_Greek_World&amp;diff=87422"/>
		<updated>2025-10-09T05:34:28Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Literallywho Ingodsname: /* (i) - The nature of class society */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Library work|title=The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests|image=61QOWYUrB6L. UF1000,1000 QL80 .jpg|caption=Cover of the first edition|author=G. E. M. de Ste. Croix|publisher=[[Duckworth Books]] ([[United Kingdom]])&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Cornell University Press]] ([[United States]])|published_date=1981|published_location=[[London]] (United Kingdom)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Ithaca, New York|Ithaca]], [[New York]] (United States)|edition_date=1981|type=Book|isbn=0-8014-1442-3 (hardcover)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;0-8014-9597-0 (paperback)|source=https://archive.org/details/classstruggleina0000dest}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is a book by [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|British]] ancient historian [[G. E. M. de Ste. Croix]], first published in 1981 by [[Duckworth Books]] in Britain and [[Cornell University Press]] in the [[United States of America|United States]]. The seminal work attempts a [[Historical materialism|historical materialist]] analysis of [[Ancient Greece]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== To Margaret ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:To_Margaret.png|frameless|463x463px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Preface ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main text of this book is intended not only for ancient historians and Classical scholars but also in particular for historians of other periods, sociologists, political theorists, and students of Marx, as well as for &#039;the general reader&#039;. The use of Greek text and of anything in Latin beyond very brief quotations is reserved for the Notes and Appendices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as I am aware, it is the first book in English, or in any other language I can read, which begins by explaining the central features of Marx&#039;s historical method and defining the concepts and categories involved, and then proceeds to demonstrate how these instruments of analysis may be used in practice to explain the main events, processes, institutions and ideas that prevailed at various times over a long period of history – here, the thirteen or fourteen hundred years of my &#039;ancient Greek world&#039; (for which see I.ii below). This arrangement involves rather frequent cross-referencing. Some of those who are interested primarily in the methodology and the more &#039;theoretical&#039;, synchronic treatment of concepts and institutions (contained mainly in Part One) may wish for specific references to those passages that are of most concern to themselves, occurring either in other sections of Part One or in the more diachronic treatment in Part Two. Similarly, practising historians whose interests are confined to a limited part of the whole period will sometimes need references to a particular &#039;theoretical&#039; portion in Part One that is specially relevant. (This will, I think, be clear to anyone who compares II.iv with V.ii-iii, for instance, I.iii with IV.ii, or III.iv with Appendix II and IV.iii.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The book originated in the J.H. Gray Lectures for 1972/73 (three in number), which I delivered at Cambridge University in February 1973 at the invitation of the Board of the Faculty of Classics. I am particularly grateful to J. S. Morrison, President of Wolfson College, then Chairman of the Faculty, and to M. I. (now Sir Moses) Finley, Professor of Ancient History, for their kindness to me and the trouble they took to make the experiences a delightful one for me and to ensure a large audience at all three lectures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The J. H. Gray lectures were founded by the Rev. Canon Joseph Henry (&#039;Joey&#039;) Gray, M.A. (Cantab.), J.P., born on 26 July 1856, Fellow and Classical Lecturer of Queens&#039; College Cambridge for no fewer than 52 years before his death on 23 March 1932, at the age of 75. His devotion to his College (of which he wrote and published a history), to the Anglican Church, and to Freemasonry (he became Provincial Grand Master of Cambridgeshire in 1914) was equalled only by his athletic interests, in rowing, cricket, and above all Rugby football. From 1895 until his death he was President of the Cambridge University Rugby Football Club; and when that club, in appreciation of his presidency, presented him with a sum of no less than £1,000, he used the money to endow a special lectureship in Classics at Cambridge – &#039;thus making the gladiators of the football field into patrons of the humaner letters&#039;, to quote the admiring and affectionate obituary in &#039;&#039;The Dial&#039;&#039; (Queens&#039; College Magazine) no.71, Easter Term 1932. The obituary refers to Gray&#039;s &#039;vigorous Conservative politics&#039; and characterises him as &#039;an almost perfect incarnation of John Bull in cap and gown&#039;. I am afraid he would have disapproved strongly of my lectures, and of this book; but I am comforted by another passage in the same obituary which speaks of his &#039;hearty goodwill to all men, even to individual socialists and foreigners&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This book represents of course a very considerable expansion of the lectures, and it incorporates, almost in their entirety, two other papers, given in 1974: a lecture on &#039;Karl Marx and the history of Classical antiquity&#039;, to the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies in London on 21 March 1974, published in an expanded form in &#039;&#039;Arethusa&#039;&#039; 8 (1975) 7–41 (here cited as &#039;KMHCA&#039;); and another lecture, on &#039;Early Christian attitudes to property and slavery&#039;, delivered to the Conference of the Ecclesiastical History Society at York on 25 July 1974, also subsequently expanded and published, in &#039;&#039;Studies in Church History&#039;&#039; 12 (1975) 1–38 (here cited as &#039;ECAPS&#039;). Parts of this book have also been delivered in lecture form at various universities, not only in this country but also in Poland (in June 1977), at Warsaw; and in the Netherlands (in April-May 1978), at Amsterdam, Groningen and Leiden. I have many friends to thank for their kindness to me during my visits to those cities, in particular Professors Iza Bieżuńska-Małowist of the University of Warsaw and Jan-Maarten Bremer of the University of Amsterdam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had intended to publish the Gray Lectures almost in their original form, with little more than references added. However, the comments received from most of those to whom I showed drafts convinced me that owing to the extreme ignorance of Marx&#039;s thought which prevails throughout most of the West, especially perhaps among ancient historians (in the English-speaking world at least as much as anywhere), I would have to write the book on an altogether different scale. As I did so my opinions developed, and I often changed my mind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Friends and colleagues have given me some useful criticisms of the many successive drafts of chapters of this book. I have thanked them individually but now refrain from doing so again, because most of them are not Marxists and might not be happy at finding themselves named here, and partly because I do not wish to debar them from being asked to write reviews, as usually happens to those to whom an author makes a general acknowledgment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have incorporated very many essential brief references (especially to source material) in the text itself, placing them as far as possible at the ends of sentences. This, I believe, is preferable, in a work not intended primarily for scholars, to the use of footnotes, since the eye travels much more easily over a short passage in brackets than down to the foot of the page and back again. (Longer notes, intended principally for scholars, will be found at the end of the book.) I give this as a reply to those friends who, out of sheer Oxonian conservatism, have objected to the abbreviation of titles by initial letters – e.g. &#039;Jones, &#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;, for A. H. M. Jones, &#039;&#039;The Later Roman Empire 284-602&#039;&#039; – while themselves habitually using such abbreviations for various categories of references, including periodicals, collections of inscriptions and papyri, and so forth, e.g. &#039;&#039;JRS&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;CIL&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;ILS&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;PSI&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;BGU&#039;&#039;. For me, the only alternatives still allowing the use of references in the actual text itself would have been to abbreviate with date or serial number, e.g. &#039;Jones, 1964&#039; or &#039;Jones (1)&#039;; but initial letters are as a rule far more likely to convey the necessary information to a reader who already either knows of the existence of the work in question or has looked it up in my bibliography (pp. - below), where all abbreviations are explained. I should perhaps add that titles abbreviated by initials represent books when italicised, articles when not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My reading for this book, while concentrated above all on the ancient sources and the writings of Marx, has necessarily been very wide; but there are some &#039;obvious&#039; works which I have refrained from citing – in particular, books which are specifically philosophical in character and which concern themselves primarily with abstract concepts rather than with the actual historical &#039;events, processes, institutions and ideas&#039; (cf. above) that are the subject-matter of the practising historian. One example is G. A. Cohen&#039;s book, &#039;&#039;Karl Marx&#039;s Theory of History, A Defence&#039;&#039;, based on much greater philosophical expertise than I can command, but which I find congenial; another is the massive work in three volumes by Leszek Kolakowski, &#039;&#039;Main Currents of Marxism: Its Rise, Growth and Dissolution&#039;&#039;, which seems to me to have been vastly overpraised, however accurately it may delineate some of the disastrous developments of Marx&#039;s thought by many of his followers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In an interview printed in &#039;&#039;The Guardian&#039;&#039; on 22 September 1970 the released Nazi war criminal Albert Speer said that in the Third Reich &#039;Each Minister was responsible for his own department, and for that only. Your conscience was quiet if you were &#039;&#039;educated to see things only in your field&#039;&#039;; this was convenient for everybody.&#039; Our educational system also tends to produce people who &#039;see things only in their field&#039;. One of the techniques contributing to this is the strict separation of &#039;ancient history&#039; from the contemporary world. This book, on the contrary, is an attempt to see the ancient Greek world in very close relation with our own and is inspired by the belief that we can learn much about each by careful study of the other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dedication of this book expresses the greatest of all my debts: to my wife, in particular for the perfect good-humour and patience with which she accepted my concentration on it for some years, to the neglect of almost everything else. I also wish to record my gratitude to my son Julian for his valuable assistance in correcting the proofs, and to Colin Haycraft for agreeing to publish the book and accomplishing the task with all possible tact and efficiency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SEPTEMBER 1980&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
G.E.M.S.C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== PART ONE ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== I - Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - The plan of this book ====&lt;br /&gt;
My general aim in this book is first (in Part One) to explain, and then (in Part Two) to illustrate, the value of Marx&#039;s general analysis of society in relation to the ancient Greek world (as defined in Section ii of this chapter). Marx and Engels made a number of different contributions to historical methodology and supplied a series of tools which can be profitably used by the historian and the sociologist; but I shall concentrate largely on one such tool, which I believe to be much the most important and the most fruitful for actual use in understanding and explaining particular historical events and processes: namely, the concept of &#039;&#039;class&#039;&#039;, and of class &#039;&#039;struggle&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Section ii of this first chapter, I state how I interpret the expression &#039;the ancient Greek world&#039;, and explain the meaning of the terms I shall be using for the periods (between about 700 B.C. and the mid-seventh century C.E.) into which the history of my &#039;Greek world&#039; may conveniently be divided. In Section iii I go on to describe the fundamental division between &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; (city and countryside) that plays such a vital role in Greek history after the &#039;Classical&#039; period (ending at about the close of the fourth century B.C.) which – absurdly enough – is all that many people have in mind when they speak of &#039;Greek history&#039;. In Section iv I give a brief account of Marx as a Classical scholar and emphasise the almost total lack of interest in Marxist ideas that is unfortunately characteristic of the great majority of scholars in the English-speaking world who concern themselves with Classical antiquity. I also try to dispel some common misconceptions about Marx&#039;s attitude to history; and in doing so I compare the attitude of Marx with that of Thucydides.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter II deals with &#039;class, exploitation, and class struggle&#039;. In Section i I explain the nature and origin of class society, as I understand that term. I also state what I regard as the two fundamental features which most distinguish ancient Greek society from the contemporary world: they can be identified respectively within the field of what Marx called &#039;the forces of production&#039; and &#039;the relations of production&#039;. In Section ii I define &#039;class&#039; (as essentially a relationship, the social embodiment of the fact of exploitation), and I also define &#039;exploitation&#039; and &#039;class struggle&#039;. In Section iii I show that the meaning I attach to the expression &#039;class struggle&#039; represents the fundamental thought of Marx himself: the essence of class struggle is exploitation or resistance to it; there need not necessarily be any class consciousness or any political element. I also explain the criteria which lead me to define Greek (and Roman) society as &#039;a slave economy&#039;: this expression has regard, not so much to the way in which the bulk of production was done (for at most times in most areas in antiquity it was free peasants and artisans who had the largest share in production), but to the fact that the propertied classes derived their surplus above all through the exploitation of unfree labour. (With this section goes Appendix I, dealing with the technical question of the contrast between slave and wage-labourer in Marx&#039;s theory of capital.) In Section iv I demonstrate that a Marxist analysis in terms of class, far from being the imposition upon the ancient Greek world of inappropriate and anachronistic categories suited only to the study of the modern capitalist world, is actually in some essentials much the same type of analysis as that employed by Aristotle, the greatest of ancient sociologists and political thinkers. In Section v I consider some types of historical method different from that which I employ, and the alternatives which some sociologists and historians have preferred to the concept of class; and I demonstrate (with reference to Max Weber and M. I. Finley) that &#039;status&#039; in particular is inferior as an instrument of analysis, since statuses altogether lack the organic relationship which is the hallmark of classes and can rarely if ever provide explanations, especially of social change. In Section vi I consider women as a class in the technical Marxist sense, and I give a brief treatment of the early Christian attitude to women and marriage, compared with its Hellenistic, Roman, and Jewish counterparts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter III is entitled &#039;Property and the propertied&#039;. In Section i I begin with the fact that in antiquity by far the most important &#039;conditions of production&#039; were land and unfree labour: these, then, were what the propertied class needed to control and did control. In Section ii I explain how I use the expression &#039;the propertied class&#039;: for those who were able to live without needing a significant proportion of their time working for their living. (I speak of &#039;the propertied classes&#039;, in the plural, where it is necessary to notice class divisions within the propertied class as a whole.) In Section iii I emphasise that land was always the principal means of production in antiquity. In Section iv I discuss slavery and other forms of unfree labour (debt bondage, and serfdom), accepting definitions of each of these types of unfreedom which now have world-wide official currency. (Appendix II adds some evidence for slave labour, especially in agriculture, in Classical and Hellenistic times.) In Section v I deal with freedmen (an &#039;order&#039; and not a &#039;class&#039; in my sense), and in Section iv I discuss hired labour, showing that it played an incomparably smaller part in the pre-capitalist world than it does today and was regarded by members of the propertied class in antiquity (and by many of the poor) as only a little better than slavery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Chapter IV I discuss &#039;Forms of exploitation in the ancient Greek world, and the small independent producer&#039;. In Section i I distinguish between &#039;direct individual&#039; and &#039;indirect collective&#039; exploitation, in such a way as to make it possible to regard even many peasant freeholders as members of an exploited class, subject to taxation, conscription and forced services, imposed by the State and its organs. I also explain that those whom I describe as &#039;small independent producers&#039; (mainly peasants, also artisans and traders) were sometimes not severely exploited themselves and equally did not exploit the labour of others to any substantial degree, but lived by their own efforts on or near the subsistence level. At most periods (before the Later Roman Empire) and in most areas these people were very numerous and must have been responsible for the largest share in production, both in agriculture and in handicrafts. In Section ii I speak specifically of the peasantry and the villages in which they mainly lived. In Section iii (&#039;From slave to &#039;&#039;colonus&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;) I describe and explain the change in the forms of exploitation in the Greek and Roman world during the early centuries of the Christian era, where the propertied class, which had earlier relied to a great extent on slaves to produce its surplus, came more and more to rely on letting to tenants (&#039;&#039;coloni&#039;&#039;), most of whom at about the end of the third century became serfs. Most working freehold peasants were also brought into the same kind of subjection, being tied to the villages of which they were members: I call such people &#039;quasi-serfs&#039;. (An Appendix, III, gives a large quantity of evidence for the settlement of &#039;barbarians&#039; within the Roman empire, the significance of which is discussed in Section iii of Chapter IV.) In Section iv (&#039;The military factor&#039;) I point out that in the face of external military threat it may be necessary for the ruling class of a society consisting mainly of peasants to allow the peasantry a higher standard of life than it would otherwise have attained, in order to provide a sufficiently strong army; and that the failure of the Later Roman Empire to make this concession induced in the peasantry as a whole an attitude of indifference to the fate of the Empire, which did not begin to be remedied before the seventh century, by which time much of the empire had disintegrated. In Section v I have something to say about the use of the terms &#039;feudalism&#039; and &#039;serfdom&#039;, insisting that serfdom (as defined in III.iv) can exist quite independently of anything that can properly be called &#039;feudalism&#039;, and ending with a few words on the Marxist concept of the &#039;feudal mode of production&#039;. In Section vi I recognise briefly the role of small &#039;independent producers&#039; other than peasants. That completes Part One of this book.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Part One, then, I am occupied largely with conceptual and methodological problems, in the attempt to establish and clarify the concepts and categories which seem to me to be the most useful in studying the ancient Greek world, above all the process of change which is so obvious when we look at Greek society over the period of thirteen to fourteen hundred years with which this book is concerned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Part Two I seek to illustrate the usefulness of the concepts and methodology I have outlined in Part One in explaining not only a series of historical situations and developments but also the ideas – social, economic, political, religious – which grew out of the historical process. In Chapter V (&#039;The class struggle in Greek history on the political plane&#039;) I show how the application of a class analysis to Greek history can illuminate the processes of political and social change. In Section i I deal with the Archaic period (before the fifth century B.C.) and demonstrate how the so-called &#039;tyrants&#039; played an essential role in the transition from hereditary aristocracy, which existed everywhere in the Greek world down to the seventh century, to more &#039;open&#039; societies ruled either by oligarchies of wealth or by democracies. In Section ii I make a number of observations on the political class struggle (greatly mitigated by democracy, where that form of government existed) in the fifth and fourth centuries, showing how even at Athens, where democracy was strongest, bitter class struggle broke out in the political plane on two occasions, in 411 and 404. In Section iii I explain how Greek democracy was gradually destroyed, between the fourth century B.C. and the third century of the Christian era, by the joint efforts of the Greek propertied class, the Macedonians, and ultimately the Romans. (The details of this process in the Roman period are described in greater detail in Appendix IV.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the whole Greek world came by degrees under Roman rule, I am obliged to say a good deal about &#039;Rome the suzerain&#039;, the title of Chapter VI. After some brief remarks in Section i on Rome as &#039;The queen and mistress of the world&#039;, I give in Section ii a sketch of the so-called &#039;Conflict of the Orders&#039; in the early Roman Republic, intended mainly to show that although it was indeed technically a conflict between two &#039;orders&#039; (two juridically distinct groups), namely Patricians and Plebeians, yet strong elements of class struggle were involved in it. In Section iii I notice some aspects of the political situation in the developed Republic (roughly the last three centuries B.C.). In Section iv I briefly describe the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean world and its consequences. In Section v I explain the change of political regime &#039;From Republic to Principate&#039;, and in Section vi I sketch the nature of the Principate as an institution which continued under the &#039;Later Roman Empire&#039; from the late third century onwards. In my picture of the Later Empire there is much less emphasis than usual upon a supposed change from &#039;Principate&#039; to &#039;Dominate&#039;; far more important, for me, is a major intensification of the forms of exploitation: the reduction to serfdom of most of the working agricultural population, a great increase in taxation, and more conscription. I give a characterisation of the position of the emperor in the Principate and the Later Empire and an outline sketch of the Roman upper classes, not forgetting the changes that took place in the fourth century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter VII is a discussion of &#039;The class struggle on the ideological plane&#039;. After taking up some general issues in Section i (&#039;Terror, and propaganda&#039;), I proceed in Section ii to discuss the theory of &#039;natural slavery&#039;, and in Section iii the body of thought which largely replaced that theory in the Hellenistic period and continued throughout Roman times, appearing in Christian thought in an almost identical form. Section iv deals with the attitudes to property of the Graeco-Roman world, of Jesus, and of the Christian Church – or rather, churches, for I insist that the term &#039;the Christian Church&#039; is not a historical but a strictly theological expression. Jesus is seen as a figure belonging entirely to the Jewish &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039;, who may never even have entered a Greek &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039;, and whose thought-world was thoroughly alien to Graeco-Roman civilisation. The chapter concludes with Section v, which attempts a reconstruction of part of the ideology of the victims of the class struggle (and of Roman imperialism), with some attention to &#039;Resistance literature&#039; (mainly Jewish) and Christian apocalyptic. The best example that has survived is the fable, which is explicitly said by one of its practitioners to have been invented to enable slaves to express their opinions in a disguised form which would not expose them to punishment, although some of the examples turn out to speak not merely for slaves but for the lowly in general, and of course the fable could also be utilised by members of a ruling class to reinforce their position.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The final chapter, VIII, seeks to explain the &#039;decline and fall&#039; of much of the Roman empire, leading ultimately to the loss of Britain, Gaul, Spain, and north Africa in the fifth century, part of Italy and much of the Balkans in the sixth, and the whole of Egypt and Syria in the seventh – not to mention the Arab conquest of the rest of north Africa and much of Spain in the later seventh and the early eighth century. Section i shows how the ever-increasing exploitation of the vast majority of the population of the Graeco-Roman world by the all-powerful wealthy classes (a tiny minority) first depressed the political and legal status of nearly all those who were not members of my &#039;propertied class&#039;, almost to the slave level. Section ii describes the way in which, from just after the middle of the second century, the fiscal screw was tightened further up the social scale, on the &#039;curial class&#039;, the richer members of the local communities, who were in theory an &#039;order&#039;, consisting of the town councillors and their families, but in practice were virtually a hereditary class, consisting of all those owning property above a certain level who were not members of the imperial aristocracy of senators and equestrians. Section iii is a largely descriptive account of defection to the &#039;barbarians&#039;, assistance given to them, peasant revolts, and indifference to the disintegration of the Roman empire on the part of the vast majority of its subjects. The last section, iv, explains how the merciless exploitation of a great majority for the benefit of a very few finally led to the collapse of much of the empire – a process too often described as if it were something that &#039;just happened&#039; naturally – whereas in fact it was due to the deliberate actions of a ruling class that monopolised both wealth and political power and governed solely for its own advantage. I show that a Marxist class analysis can provide a satisfactory explanation of this extraordinary process, which proceeded inexorably despite the heroic efforts of a remarkably able series of emperors from the late third century to near the end of the fourth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the whole Greek world eventually came under the rule of Rome has often obliged me to look at the Roman empire as a whole, and on occasion at the Latin West alone, or even some part of it. For example, in Chapter VIII &#039;barbarian&#039; invasions, internal revolts, the defection of peasants and others, and similar manifestations of insecurity and decline have to be noticed whether they happened in the East or in the West, as they all contributed towards the ultimate disintegration of a large part of the empire. Even the settlements of &#039;barbarians&#039; within the Graeco-Roman world – on a far greater scale than most historians, perhaps, have realised – need to be recorded (for the reasons discussed in IV.iii), although they occurred on a far greater scale in the Latin West than in the Greek East.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - &#039;The Ancient Greek World&#039;: its extent in space and time ====&lt;br /&gt;
For my purposes &#039;the Greek world&#039; is, broadly speaking, the vast area (described below) within which Greek was, or became, the principal language of the upper classes. In north Africa, during the Roman Empire, the division between the Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking areas lay just west of Cyrenaica (the eastern part of modern Libya), on about the 19th meridian east of Greenwich: Cyrenaica and everything to the east of it was Greek. In Europe the dividing line began on the east coast of the Adriatic, roughly where the same meridian cuts the coast of modern Albania, a little north of Durazzo (the ancient Dyrrachium, earlier Epidamnus); and from there it went east and slightly north, across Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria, passing between Sofia (the ancient Serdica) and Plovdiv (Philippopolis) and joining the Danube at about the point where it turns north below Silistra on the edge of the Dobrudja, an area containing several cities on the Black Sea coast that belonged to the &#039;Greek&#039; portion of the empire, which included everything to the south and east of the line I have traced.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;It is astonishing how few maps show this very important linguistic division. It does appear in e.g. &#039;&#039;Westermanns Atlas zur Weltgeschichte&#039;&#039; (Berlin etc., 1965) 42. For the situation in the Later Empire, see Jones, &#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039; II.986. In support of my division of north Africa between the Greek and Latin worlds I would cite p.9 of Louis Robert&#039;s book on gladiators in the Greek East (see VII.1 n.3 below): &#039;La Cyrénaïque fait partie de l&#039;Orient grec, et j&#039;ai laissé à l&#039;Occident la Tripolitaine.&#039;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; My &#039;Greek world&#039;, then, included Greece itself, with Epirus, Macedonia, and Thrace (roughly the southern part of Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria, and the whole of European Turkey), also Cyrenaica and Egypt, and all that part of Asia which was included in the Roman empire: an area with an eastern boundary that varied from time to time but at its widest included not merely Asia Minor, Syria, and the northern edge of Arabia but even Mesopotamia (Iraq) as far as the Tigris. There were even Greek cities and settlements beyond the Tigris;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For the cities which were newly founded, or achieved the status of cities, only from the time of Alexander onwards, see e.g. &#039;&#039;Westermanns Atlas&#039;&#039; (n.1 above) 22-3; &#039;&#039;CAH&#039;&#039; VII, Map 4; Bengtson, &#039;&#039;GG&#039;&#039;[5], Map 9.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but in general, it is perhaps convenient to think of the eastern boundary of the Graeco-Roman world as falling on the Euphrates or a little to the east of it. Sicily too was &#039;Greek&#039; from an early date and became romanised by slow degrees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The time-span with which I am concerned in this book is not merely (1) the &#039;&#039;Archaic and Classical periods&#039;&#039; of Greek history (covering roughly the eighth to the sixth centuries B.C. and the fifth and fourth centuries respectively) and (2) the &#039;&#039;Hellenistic age&#039;&#039; (approximately the last three centuries B.C. in the eastern Mediterranean world), but also (3) the long period of &#039;&#039;Roman domination&#039;&#039; of the Greek area, which began in the second century and was complete before the end of the last century B.C., when Rome itself was still under a &#039;republican&#039; form of government. How long one makes the &#039;Roman Empire&#039; last is a matter of taste: in a sense it continued, as J. B. Bury and others have insisted, until the capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks in A.D. 1453. The Roman &#039;Principate&#039;, as it is universally called in the English-speaking world (&#039;Haut-Empire&#039; is the normal French equivalent), is commonly conceived as beginning with Augustus (Octavian), at or a little after the date of the battle of Actium in 31 B.C., and as passing into the &#039;Later Empire&#039; (&#039;Bas-Empire&#039;) at about the time of the accession of the Emperor Diocletian in 284. In my view the &#039;Principate&#039; from the first was virtually an absolute monarchy, as it was always openly admitted to be in the Greek East (see VI.vi below); and it is unreal to suppose, with some scholars, that a new &#039;Dominate&#039; came into being with Diocletian and Constantine, although there is no harm in using, at any rate as a &#039;&#039;chronological formula&#039;&#039;, the expression &#039;Later Roman Empire&#039; or &#039;Bas-Empire&#039; (see VI.vi &#039;&#039;ad init&#039;&#039;.). Many ancient historians like to make a break somewhere between the reign of Justinian in 527-65 and the death of Heraclius in 641,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Norman Baynes, who had said in 1930 that &#039;the reign of Heraclius marks the beginning of Byzantine history&#039;, later came to feel that &#039;Byzantine history begins with Constantine the Great&#039; (&#039;&#039;BSOE&#039;&#039; 78 and n.2). For the Byzantine historian Ostrogorsky it was in &#039;the age of Heraclius&#039; (610-41) that &#039;the Roman period ended and Byzantine history properly speaking began&#039; (&#039;&#039;HBS&#039;&#039;[2] 106). For Arnold J. Toynbee &#039;ancient Greek or Hellenic historical thought... came to an end when Homer yielded precedence to the Bible as the sacred book of a Greek-speaking and Greek-writing &#039;&#039;intelligentzia&#039;&#039;. In the series of historical authors [that] event occurred between the dates at which Theophylactus Simocatta and George of Pisidia produced their respective works&#039; – that is to say, during the reign of Heraclius (&#039;&#039;Greek Historical Thought from Homer to the Age of Heraclius&#039;&#039;, 1952 and rep., Introduction, p.ix).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and speak thereafter of the &#039;Byzantine Empire&#039;, a term which expresses the fact that the empire was not centred at the ancient Byzantium, re-founded by the Emperor Constantine in 330 as Constantinople. My choice of a terminal date is dictated, I must admit, by the fact that my own first-hand knowledge of the source material becomes defective after the death of Justinian and largely peters out in the mid-seventh century: for this reason my &#039;ancient Greek world&#039; ends not much later than the great book of my revered teacher, A. H. M. Jones, &#039;&#039;The Later Roman Empire 284-602&#039;&#039; (1964), which goes down to the death of the Emperor Maurice and the accession of Phocas, in 602. My own terminal point is the Arab conquests of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Egypt in the 630s and 640s. In justification of keeping within the limits I have described I would plead that virtually everything in this book is based upon first-hand acquaintance with original sources. (in one or two places where it is not, I hope I have made this clear.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do believe that &#039;the ancient Greek world&#039; is sufficiently a unity to be worth taking as the subject of this book: if my knowledge of the source material had been more extensive I should have wished to end the story not earlier than the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, and perhaps with the taking of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks and the end of the Byzantine empire in 1453. The alleged &#039;orientalisation&#039; of the Byzantine empire was in reality slight.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For English-speaking readers the most convincing statement of this view is by Baynes, &#039;&#039;BSOE&#039;&#039; 1-82. Different as my own position is from his in some ways, I find him entirely convincing on this particular topic.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Although the Byzantines no longer commonly referred to themselves as &#039;Hellenes&#039;, a term which from the fourth century onwards acquired the sense of &#039;pagans&#039;, they did call themselves &#039;&#039;&#039;Rhōmaioi&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;, the Greek word for &#039;Romans&#039;, a fact which may remind us that the Roman empire survived in its Greek-speaking areas long after it had collapsed in the Latin West – by something like a thousand years in Constantinople itself. By the mid-ninth century we find a Byzantine emperor, Michael III, referring to Latin as &#039;a barbarous Scythian language&#039;, in a letter to Pope Nicholas I. This contemptuous description of the Roman tongue exasperated Nicholas, who repeated the sacrilegious phrase five times over in his reply to Michael (A.D. 865), with indignant comments.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nicholas [I] Papa, &#039;&#039;Ep.&#039;&#039; 8 in J. D. Mansi, &#039;&#039;Sacr. Conc. nova et ampl. coll.&#039;&#039; XV (1770) 186-216, at 191, repr. as &#039;&#039;Ep&#039;&#039;. 86 in &#039;&#039;MPL CXIX&#039;&#039;. 626–62, at 932.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is a fascinating account of the Greek contribution to the Roman empire and the relationship of the two cultures in A. H. M. Jones&#039;s brief article, &#039;The Greeks under the Roman Empire&#039;, in &#039;&#039;Dumbarton Oaks Papers&#039;&#039; 17 (1963) 3-19, reprinted in the posthumous volume of Jones&#039;s essays edited  by P. A. Brunt, &#039;&#039;The Roman Economy&#039;&#039; (1974) 90-113.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - &#039;&#039;Polis&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
In the Archaic and Classical periods, in Greece itself and in some of the early Greek colonies in Italy and Sicily and on the west coast of Asia Minor, the word &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;χώρα&#039;&#039;) was often used as a synonym for the &#039;&#039;agroi&#039;&#039; (the fields), the rural area of the city-state, the &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;πόλις&#039;&#039;); and sometimes the word &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; itself, in the special limited sense of its urban area, was contrasted with its &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; (see my ECAPS 1, nn.2-3). This usage continued in the Hellenistic period and under Roman rule: every &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; had its own &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; in the sense of its own rural area. However, except where a native population had been reduced to a subject condition there was generally, in the areas mentioned, no fundamental difference between those who lived in or near the urban centre of the &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; and the peasants who lived in the countryside, even if the latter tended to be noticeably less urbane (less cityfied) than the normal and in the literature produced by the upper classes are often treated patronisingly as &#039;country bumpkins&#039; (&#039;&#039;chōritai&#039;&#039;, for example, in Xen., &#039;&#039;HG&#039;&#039; III.ii.31), an attitude which nevertheless allows them to be credited on occasion with superior moral virtues of a simple kind (see Dover, &#039;&#039;GPM&#039;&#039; 113-14). Both groups, however, were Greek and participated in a common culture to a greater or lesser degree.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is hardly possible to give a general definition of a &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; that would hold good for all purposes and all periods, and the best we can do is say that a political entity was a &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; if it was recognised as such. Pausanias, in a famous passage probably written in the 170s, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, speaks disparagingly of the tiny Phocian &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; of Panopeus, east of Mount Parnassus – &#039;if indeed you can call it a &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;, he says, &#039;when it has no public buildings [&#039;&#039;archeia&#039;&#039;], no gymnasium, no theatre, no market place [&#039;&#039;agora&#039;&#039;], and no fountain of water, and where the people live in empty hovels like mountain shanties on the edge of a ravine&#039; (X.iv.1). Yet Pausanias does call it a &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; and shows that in his day it was accepted as such.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In those parts of Asia and Egypt into which Greek civilisation penetrated only in the time of Alexander the Great and in the Hellenistic period the situation was very different. In Asia, from at least the time of Alexander (and probably as early as the fifth century B.C., as I have argued in my &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 154-5, 313-14), the terms of &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; had come to be used on occasion in a recognised technical sense, which continued throughout the Hellenistic period and beyond in Asia and Egypt: in this sense the &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; was the whole vast area not included in the territory administered by any Greek &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039;, sometimes referred to as the &#039;&#039;chōra basilikē&#039;&#039; (royal &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039;), it was under the direct, autocratic rule of the kings, the successors of Alexander, and it was bureaucratically administered, while the &#039;&#039;poleis&#039;&#039; had republican governments and enjoyed forms of precarious autonomy which differed according to circumstances. (It will be sufficient to refer to Jones, &#039;&#039;GCAJ&#039;&#039;, and Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039;.) Under Roman rule the same basic division between &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; continued, but the bulk of the &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; came by degrees under the administration of particular &#039;&#039;poleis&#039;&#039;, each of which had its own &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;territorium&#039;&#039; in the Latin West). The cities in the narrow sense were Greek in very varying degrees in language and culture; native languages and culture usually prevailed in the &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039;, where the peasants did not normally enjoy the citizenship of the &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; that controlled them, and lived mainly in villages, the most common Greek term for which was &#039;&#039;kōmai&#039;&#039; (see IV.ii below). Graeco-Roman civilisation was essentially urban, a civilisation of cities; and in the areas in which it was not native, in which it had not grown up from roots in the very soil, it remained largely an upper-class culture: those whom it embraced exploited the natives in the countryside and gave little in return. As Rostovtzeff has said, speaking of the Roman empire as a whole:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The population of the cities alike in Italy and in the provinces formed but a small minority as compared with the population of the country. Civilised life, of course, was concentrated in the cities; every man who had some intellectual interests . . . lived in a city and could not imagine himself living elsewhere: for him the &#039;&#039;geōrgos&#039;&#039; or &#039;&#039;paganus&#039;&#039; [farmer or villager] was an inferior being, half-civilised or uncivilised. It is no wonder that for us the life of the ancient world is more or less identical with the life of the ancient cities. The cities have told us their story, the country always remained silent and reserved. What we know of the country we know mostly through the men of the cities . . . The voice of the country population is rarely heard . . . Hence it is not surprising that in most modern works on the Roman empire the country and the country population do not appear at all or appear only from time to time in connexion with certain events in the life of the State or the cities&#039; (&#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2 I.192-3).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;We can therefore agree wholeheartedly with the American mediaevalist Lynn White, when he says:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Because practically all the written records and famous monuments of Antiquity were produced in cities, we generally think of ancient societies as having been essentially urban. They were, in fact, agricultural to a degree which we can scarcely grasp. It is a conservative guess that even in fairly prosperous regions over ten people were needed on the land to enable a single person to live away from the land. Cities were atolls of civilisation (etymologically &#039;citification&#039;) on an ocean of rural primitivism. They were supported by a terrifyingly slender margin of surplus agricultural production which could be destroyed swiftly by drought, flood, plague, social disorder or warfare. Since the peasants were closest to the sources of food, in time of hunger they secreted what they could and prevented supplies from reaching the cities (Fontana &#039;&#039;Econ. Hist. of Europe, I. The Middle Ages&#039;&#039;, ed. C. M. Cipolla [1972], at 144-5).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Actually, as we shall see in IV.ii below, the opinion expressed in that last sentence is less true of the Roman empire (including its Greek area) than of other ancient societies, because of the exceptionally effective exploitation and control of the countryside by the imperial government and the municipalities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Greek (or Roman) city normally expected to feed itself corn grown in its own &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;territorium&#039;&#039;), or at any rate grown nearby: this has been demonstrated recently by Jones, Brunt, and others, and is now beginning to be generally realised.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See Jones, &#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039; II.841-5 (with the notes, III.283); Brunt, &#039;&#039;IM&#039;&#039; 703-6 (who notes that &#039;Jones has much the clearest conception of the general conditions that obtained for the food supply&#039;).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; (Classical Athens of course was the great exception to this rule, as to so many others: see my &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 46-9.) An essential factor here, the relevance of which used often to be overlooked, is the inefficiency and high cost of ancient land transport.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See esp. the references that follow in the main text above to Jones, &#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;RE&#039;&#039;. Among many other discussions of ancient transport, see e.g. Duncan-Jones, &#039;&#039;EREQS&#039;&#039; 366-9; also C. A. Yeo, &#039;Land and sea transportation in Imperial Italy&#039;, in &#039;&#039;TAPA&#039;&#039; 77 (1946) 221-44; and of course the indexes to Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2, s.v. &#039;Transportation&#039; etc. On any question of navigation or sea transport, see Lionel Cassion, &#039;&#039;Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World&#039;&#039; (Princeton, 1971). There is a great deal of miscellaneous information about travel and journeys by land and sea in the first two centuries C.E. in Ludwig Friedländer&#039;s massive work, &#039;&#039;Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms in der Zeit von August bis zum Ausgang der Antonine&#039;&#039;9-10 (Leipzig, 1919-21) I.316-88, esp. 331-57.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In Diocletian&#039;s day, &#039;a wagon-load of wheat, costing 6,000 denarii, would be doubled in price by a journey [by land] of 300 miles&#039;; and, if we ignore the risks of sea transport, &#039;it was cheaper to ship grain from one end of the Mediterranean to the other than to cart it 75 miles&#039; (Jones, &#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039; II.841-2; cf. his &#039;&#039;RE&#039;&#039; 37). Jones cites evidence from Gregory Nazianzenus and John the Lydian, writing in the fourth and sixth centuries respectively (&#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039; II.844-5). According to Gregory, coastal cities could endure crop shortages without great difficulty, &#039;as they can dispose of their own products and receive supplies by sea; for us inland our surpluses are unprofitable and our scarcities irremediable, as we have no means of disposing of what we have or of important what we lack&#039; (&#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. XLIII.34, in &#039;&#039;MPG&#039;&#039; XXXVI. 541-4). John complains that when Justinian abolished the public post in certain areas, including Asia Minor, and moreover taxes had to be paid in gold instead of (as hitherto) in kind, &#039;the unsold crops rotted on the estate . . . , and the taxpayer was ruined . . . , since he could not sell his crops, living far from the sea&#039; (&#039;&#039;De magistr&#039;&#039;. III.61). This evidence, as Brunt has rightly observed, &#039;is perfectly applicable to every preceding epoch of the ancient world and to every region lacking water communications, for there had been no regress in the efficiency of land transport&#039; (&#039;&#039;IM&#039;&#039; 704). I would add a reference to an interesting passage in Procopius, &#039;&#039;Bell&#039;&#039;. VI (&#039;&#039;Goth&#039;&#039;. II) xx.18, describing how, during a widespread famine in northern and central Italy in 538, the inhabitants of inland Aemilia left their homes and went south-east to Picenum (where Procopius himself was), supposing that that area would not be so destitute of food supplies &#039;because it was on the sea&#039; (cf. IV.ii below and its n.29).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I shall not have occasion to refer again to transport in the ancient world, I will give here a particularly striking – though rarely noticed – example of the great superiority of water to land transport even in late antiquity. In 359 the Emperor Julian considerably increased the corn supply of the armies on the Rhine and of the inhabitants of the neighbouring areas by having corn which was already customarily shipped from Britain transported up the Rhine by river-boats (Libanius, &#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. XVIII.82-3; Zosimus III.v.2; Amm. Marc. XVIII.ii.3; cf. Julian, &#039;&#039;Ep. ad Athen&#039;&#039;. 8, 279d-80a). The fact that transport &#039;&#039;against the current of the Rhine&#039;&#039; was, as Libanius and Zosimus realised, much cheaper than carriage on wagons by road is impressive evidence of the inferiority of the latter form of transport. (It is convenient to mention here that the discovery in recent years of further fragments of Diocletian&#039;s Price-Edict of A. D. 301&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The fragments of Diocletian&#039;s Price Edict known down to 1938-9 were published (with an English translation) by Elsa R. Graser, in Frank, &#039;&#039;ESAR&#039;&#039; V (1940) 305-421; there are some further relevant fragments in her article, &#039;The significance of two new fragments of the Edict of Diocletian&#039;, in &#039;&#039;TAPA&#039;&#039; 71 (1940) 157-74. An edition by Siegfried Lauffer, &#039;&#039;Diokletians Preisedikt&#039;&#039; (Berlin, 1971) was complete down to 1970; another edition (with Italian translation) by Marta Giacchero, &#039;&#039;Edictum Diocletiani et Collegarum de pretiis rerum venalium&#039;&#039; (Genoa, 1974), includes several fragments found subsequently, and is now the most useful single text. A number of fragments of the Edict found at Aezani in Phrygia, on the upper Rhyndacus, make up the most complete Latin version yet available from a single source. These fragments (including a clear price of 72,000 denarii for the pound of gold and 6,000 for the pound of silver) have been incorporated in Giacchero&#039;s edition. On the publication of the Aezani fragments by R. and F. Naumann in 1973, see Joyce Reynolds, in &#039;&#039;JRS&#039;&#039; 66 (1976) 251-2 (with Hugh Plommer) and 183, with the works cited in the latter passage, nn.117-19. I give here, for convenience, a few particularly important prices from the Edict (in denarii) which can now be regarded as certain: (1) the pound of gold: 72,000 (Giacchero 28.1a,2); (2) the pound of silver: 6,000 (G. 28.9); (3) an ordinary slave aged 16-40: male 30,000, female 25,000 (G. 29.1a,2; Lauffer 31.1a,2); (4) the daily wage of an agricultural worker: 25 plus food (G. and L. 7.1a; cf. IV.iii above and its n.1 below); (5) the &#039;castrensis modius&#039;: of wheat 100, of barley 60 (G. and L. 1.1a,2). The last section of all in the Edict, dealing with sea and river transport charges, is no.35 in G. and 37 in L.; the section dealing with land transport charges is no.17 in each. The best attempt to solve the complicated problem of the size of the &#039;&#039;castrensis modius&#039;&#039; (probably 1½ ordinary modii) is by R. P. Duncan-Jones, &#039;The size of the &#039;&#039;modius castrensis&#039;&#039;&#039;, in &#039;&#039;ZPE&#039;&#039; 21 (1976) 53-62, cf. 43-52.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; has advanced our knowledge of the relative costs of land and water transport, a subject I cannot discuss here as it deserves.) I will add a reference to the vivid little sketch in Ausonius of the contrast between river-journeys by boat, downstream with oars and upstream with haulage (&#039;&#039;Mosella&#039;&#039; 39-44). It is also worth drawing attention to the repeated allusions by Strabo to the importance of river-transport in the countries where rivers were sufficiently navigable – not so much in the Greek lands, of course, as in Spain and Gaul (see esp. Strabo III, pp. 140-3, 151-3; IV, pp. 177-8, 185-6, 189). In 537 the Emperor Justinian recorded with sympathy the fact that litigants involved in appeals, who therefore needed to travel (to Constantinople), had been complaining that they were sometimes prevented from coming by sea owing to the unfavourable winds or by land owing to their poverty – another testimony to the greater cost of land journeys (&#039;&#039;Nov. J&#039;&#039;. XLIX. &#039;&#039;praef&#039;&#039;. 2). Yet sea voyages could sometimes involve long delays, because of rough weather or unfavourable winds. The official messengers who brought a letter from the Emperor Gaius to the governor of Syria at Antioch at the end of A.D. 41 are said by Josephus (no doubt with some exaggeration) to have been &#039;weather-bound for three months&#039; on the way (&#039;&#039;BJ&#039;&#039; II.203). In 51 B.C., when Cicero was travelling to Asia to take over his province of Cicilia, it took him five days to sail from Peiraeus to Delos and another eleven days to reach Ephesus (Cic., &#039;&#039;Ad Att&#039;&#039;. V.xii.1; xiii.1). Writing to his friend Atticus after reaching Delos, he opened his letter with the words, &#039;A sea journey is a serious matter [&#039;&#039;negotium magnum est navigare&#039;&#039;], and in the month of July at that&#039; (&#039;&#039;Ad Att&#039;&#039;. V.xii.1). On his way home in November of the following year, Cicero spent three weeks on the journey from Patras to Otranto, including two spells of six days each on land, waiting for a favourable wind; some of his companions, who risked the crossing from Cassiope on Corcyra (Corfu) to Italy in bad weather were shipwrecked (&#039;&#039;Ad fam&#039;&#039;. XVI.ix.1-2).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In point of fact, even the availability of water-transport, in the eyes of Greeks and Romans, could hardly compensate for the absence of a fertile &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039;. I should like to refer here to an interesting text, seldom or never quoted in this connection, which illustrates particularly well the general realisation in antiquity that a city must normally be able to live off the cereal produce of its own immediate hinterland. Vitruvius (writing under Augustus) has a nice story – which makes my point equally well whether it is true or not – about a conversation between Alexander the Great and Deinocrates of Rhodes, the architect who planned for Alexander the great city in Egypt that bore (and still bears) his name, Alexandria, and became, in Strabo&#039;s words, &#039;the greatest place of exchange in the inhabited world&#039; (&#039;&#039;megistron emporion tēs oikoumenēs&#039;&#039;, XVII.i.13, p.798). In this story Deinocrates suggests to Alexander the foundation on Mount Athos of a city, a &#039;&#039;civitas&#039;&#039; – the Greek source will of course have used the word &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039;. Alexander at once inquires &#039;whether there are fields around, which can provide that city with a food supply&#039;; and when Deinocrates admits that the city could only be supplied by sea transport, Alexander rejects the idea out of hand: just as a child needs milk, he says, so a city without fields and abundant produce from them cannot grow, or maintain a large population. Alexandria, Vitruvius adds, was not only a safe harbour and an excellent place of exchange; it had &#039;cornfields all over Egypt&#039;, irrigated by the Nile (&#039;&#039;De architect&#039;&#039;. II, &#039;&#039;praef&#039;&#039;. 2-4).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now the civilisation of old Greece had been a natural growth (&#039;from roots in the very soil&#039;, to repeat the phrase I used above); and although the cultured gentleman, living in or near the city, could be a very different kind of person from the boorish peasant, who might not often leave his farm, except to sell his produce in the city market, yet they spoke the same language and felt that they were to some extent akin.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For a high degree of literacy among the Athenians of the Classical period, see the admirable article by F. D. Harvey, &#039;Literacy in the Athenian democracy&#039;, in &#039;&#039;REG&#039;&#039; 79 (1966) 585-635. Athens was no doubt exceptional, in this as in so many other ways. Illiteracy was very common in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, especially among women: see H. C. Youtie, &#039;&#039;Scriptiunculae&#039;&#039; (Amsterdam, 1973) II.611-27, 629-51 (nos. 29 and 30), reprinting (with minor additions) two articles, &#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;Αγραμματοσ: An Aspect of Greek Society in Egypt&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;, in &#039;&#039;HSCP&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;75 (1971) 161-76; and&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Βραδέως γράφων&#039;&#039;: Between Literacy and Illiteracy&#039;, in &#039;&#039;GRBS&#039;&#039; 12 (1971) 239-61. Sufficient bibliography will be found there. Even a village clerk, a &#039;&#039;κωμογραμματεύς&#039;&#039;, who of course was supposed to be literate, might not be so, or only minimally. Two known cases are mentioned in &#039;&#039;P. Petaus&#039;&#039; 11 and 31: see the articles by Youtie mentioned above, and his no.34 in &#039;&#039;Scriptiunculae&#039;&#039; II.677-95, a reprint of &#039;Pétaus, fils de Pétaus, ou le scribe qui ne savait pas écrire&#039;, in &#039;&#039;CE&#039;&#039; 41 (1966) 127-43.&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the new foundations in the Greek East the situation was often quite different. The upper classes, living in or very near the towns, mostly spoke Greek, lived the Greek life and shared in Greek culture. Of the urban poor we know very little, but some of them were at least literate, and they mixed with the educated classes and probably shared their outlook and system of values to a very considerable extent, even where they did not enjoy any citizen rights. But the peasantry, the great majority of the population, on whose backs (with those of the slaves) the burden of the whole vast edifice of Greek civilisation rested, generally remained in much the same state of life as their forefathers: in many areas the majority probably either spoke Greek not at all or at best imperfectly, and most of them remained for centuries – right down to the end of Graeco-Roman civilisation and beyond – at little above the subsistence level, illiterate, and almost untouched by the brilliant culture of the cities.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The best account of this fundamental opposition between town and country in the Greek East is in Jones, &#039;&#039;GCAJ&#039;&#039; 259-304 (Part V, &#039;The achievement of the cities&#039;), esp. 285 ff. Another major work by Jones, &#039;&#039;CERP&#039;&#039; (frequently cited in &#039;&#039;GCAJ&#039;&#039;), has been reissued in a second edition, &#039;&#039;CERP&#039;&#039;2 (1971), with additions, a few of them substantial. A recent work, limited to the Late Republic and the Principate, is MacMullen, &#039;&#039;RSR&#039;&#039;: the first chapters of this (I. &#039;Rural&#039;, and II. &#039;Rural-Urban&#039;, pp. 1-56) have much well-chosen illustrative material – of an antiquarian rather than historical character, since this book (like the rest of MacMullen&#039;s work) is not supported by any consistent structure of theory or method, and therefore lacks any principle of organisation and is seldom or never able to furnish explanations. For the opinions of a great scholar who knew the archaeological as well as the literary evidence particularly well, see Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2, e.g. I.255-78 (with II.654-77), 344-52, 378-80, 505. For a similar situation in the West, see I.33, 59-63, 203-6 (Italy); 252 (Thrace). I should perhaps add that I know of no parallel to Strabo&#039;s classification into &#039;&#039;agroikoi&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;mesagroikoi&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;politikoi&#039;&#039; (XIII.i.25, p.592): it may be no more than a reflection of Plato, &#039;&#039;Laws&#039;&#039; III.677-81, which he had quoted.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As A. H. M. Jones has said:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The cities were . . . economically parasitic on the countryside. Their income consisted in the main of the rents drawn by the urban aristocracy from the peasants . . . The splendours of civic life were to a large extent paid for out of [these] rents, and to this extent the villages were impoverished for the benefits of the towns . . . The city magnates came into contact with the villagers in three capacities only, as tax collectors, as policemen, and as landlords (&#039;&#039;GCAF&#039;&#039; 268, 287, 295).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;This of course is as true of much of the Roman West as of the Greek East, and it remained true of the greater part of the Greek world right through the Roman period. The fundamental relationship between city and countryside was always the same: it was essentially one of exploitation, with few benefits given in return.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is brought out most forcibly by a very remarkable passage near the beginning of the treatise &#039;&#039;On wholesome and unwholesome foods&#039;&#039; by Galen,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Galen, &#039;&#039;Περὶ εὐχυμίας καὶ κακοχυμίας&#039;&#039; 1.1-7 = &#039;&#039;De bonis malisque sucis&#039;&#039;, ed. G. Helmreich, in &#039;&#039;Corp. Medic. Graec&#039;&#039;. V.iv.2, Galenus (Leipzig/Berlin, 1923) 389-91 = &#039;&#039;De probis pravisque alimentorum succis&#039;&#039;, ed. C. G. Kühn, in Galenus VI (Leipzig, 1823) 749-52, with Latin trans.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the greatest physician and medical writer of antiquity, whose life spanned the last seventy years of the second century of the Christian era and who must have written the work in question during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-80) or soon afterwards, and therefore during or just after that Antonine Age which has long been held up to us as part of that period in the history of the world during which, in Gibbon&#039;s famous phrase, &#039;the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous&#039; (&#039;&#039;DFRE&#039;&#039; 1.78). Galen, setting out to describe the terrible consequences of an uninterrupted series of years of dearth affecting &#039;many of the peoples subject to Roman rule&#039;, draws a distinction, not expressly between landlords and tenants, or between rich and poor, but between city-dwellers and country folk, although for his purposes all three sets of distinctions must obviously have been much the same, and it would not matter much to him (or to the peasantry) whether the &#039;city-dwellers&#039; in his picture were carrying out their exactions purely as landlords or partly as tax-collectors.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Immediately summer was over, those who live in the cities, in accordance with their universal practice of collecting a sufficient supply of corn to last a whole year, took from the fields all the wheat, with the barley, beans and lentils, and left to the rustics [the &#039;&#039;agroikoi&#039;&#039;] only those annual products which are called pulses and leguminous fruits [&#039;&#039;ospria te kai chedropa&#039;&#039;]; they even took away a good part of these to the city. So the people in the countryside [&#039;&#039;hoi kata tēn chōran anthrōpoi&#039;&#039;], after consuming during the winter what had been left, were compelled to use unhealthy forms of nourishment. Through the spring they ate twigs and shoots of trees, bulbs and roots of unwholesome plants, and they made unsparing use fo what are called wild vegetables, whatever they could get hold of, until they were surfeited; they ate them after boiling them whole like green grasses, of which they had not tasted before even as an experiment. I myself in person saw some of them at the end of spring and almost all at the beginning of summer afflicted with numerous ulcers covering their skin, not of the same kind in every case, for some suffered from erysipelas, others from inflated tumours, others from spreading boils, other had an eruption resembling lichen and scraps and leprosy.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Galen goes on to say that many of these wretched people died. He is dealing, of course, with a situation which in his experience was evidently exceptional, but, as we shall see, enough other evidence exists to show that its exceptional character was a matter of degree rather than of kind. Famines in the Graeco-Roman world were quite frequent: various modern authors have collected numerous examples.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;As Brunt says (&#039;&#039;IM&#039;&#039; 703), &#039;comprehensive examination is still needed&#039; of ancient famines. His own brief treatment of the subject is admirable and gives a few references to other works, among which I would single out MacMullen, &#039;&#039;ERO&#039;&#039; 249-54 (an appendix devoted entirely to famines), and H. P. Kohns, &#039;&#039;Versorgungskrisen und Hungerrevolten im spätantiken Rom&#039;&#039; ( = &#039;&#039;Antiquitas&#039;&#039; I.6, Bonn, 1961).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is one phenomenon in particular which strongly suggests that in the Roman empire the peasantry was more thoroughly and effectively exploited than in most other societies which rely largely upon peasant populations for their food supply. It has often been noticed (as by Lynn White, quoted above) that peasants have usually been able to survive famines better than their town-dwelling fellow-countrymen, because they can hide away for themselves some of the food they produce and may still have something to eat when there is starvation in the towns. It was not so in the Roman empire. I have just quoted a very remarkable passage in Galen which speaks of &#039;those who live in the cities&#039; as descending upon their &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; after the harvest, in time of dearth, and appropriating for themselves practically all the wholesome food. There is a good deal of specific evidence from the Middle and Later Roman Empire to confirm this. Philostratus, writing in the first half of the third century a biography of Apollonius of Tyana (a curious figure of the late first century), could describe how at Aspendus in Pamphylia (on the south coast of Asia Minor) Apollonius could find no food on sale in the market except vetches (&#039;&#039;oroboi&#039;&#039;): &#039;the citizens&#039;, he says, &#039;were feeding on this and whatever else they could get, for the leading men [&#039;&#039;hoi dynatoi&#039;&#039;, literally &#039;the powerful&#039;] had shut away all the corn and were keeping it for export&#039; (Philostr., &#039;&#039;Vita Apollon&#039;&#039;. I.15; cf. IV.ii and its n.24 below). And again and again, between the mid-fourth century and the mid-sixth, we find peasants crowding into the nearest city in time of famine, because only in the city is there any edible food to be had: I shall give a whole series of examples in IV.ii below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We must also remember something that is far too often forgotten: the exploitation of the humbler folk was by no means only financial; one of its most burdensome features was the exaction of menial labour services of many kinds. A Jewish rabbi who was active in the second quarter of the third century by our era declared that cities were set up by the State &#039;in order to impose upon the people &#039;&#039;angaria&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039; – a term of Persian or Aramaic provenance and originally relating to forced transport services, which had been taken over by the Hellenistic kingdoms (as the Greek word &#039;&#039;angareia&#039;&#039;, plural &#039;&#039;angareiai&#039;&#039;) and by the Romans (as the Latin &#039;&#039;angaria&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;angariae&#039;&#039;), and had come to be applied to a variety of forms of compulsory labour performed for the State or the municipalities;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See esp. D. Sperber, &#039;Angaria in Rabbinic literature&#039;, in &#039;&#039;AC&#039;&#039; 38 (1969) 164-8, at 166, citing R. Hanina b. Hama. As Sperber indicates, &#039;angaria&#039; as used by the rabbi in question has the general meaning of extortion and oppression. And see P. Fiebig, in &#039;&#039;ZNW&#039;&#039; 18 (1917-18) 64-72. For &#039;&#039;angariae&#039;&#039; in general in the Greek (and Roman) world, see Rostovtzeff, &#039;Angariae&#039;, in &#039;&#039;Klio&#039;&#039; 6 (1906) 249-58; &#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2 I.381-4 (with II.703 nn.35-7), 519-20, II.723 n.46; F. Oertel, &#039;&#039;Die Liturgie&#039;&#039; (Leipzig, 1917) 24-6, 88-90. For the incidence of &#039;&#039;angariae&#039;&#039; falling on the peasant and not the well-to-do landowner, see Lieberschuetz, &#039;&#039;Ant&#039;&#039;. 69 (on Liban., &#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. L, &#039;&#039;De angariis&#039;&#039;), quoted in the text above. For the very wide incidence of transport services of various kinds in the Roman empire, organised by the Roman government as the &#039;&#039;vehiculatio&#039;&#039;, later the &#039;&#039;cursus publicus&#039;&#039;, see Stephen Mitchell, &#039;Requisitioned transport in the Roman Empire: a new inscription from Pisidia&#039; [Sagalassus], in &#039;&#039;JRS&#039;&#039; 66 (1976) 106-31, esp. the list of 21 documents (111-12). A text in the &#039;&#039;Digest&#039;&#039; that is seldom noticed mentions a rescript to the effect that ships belonging to veterans &#039;&#039;angariari posse&#039;&#039; (XLIX.xviii.4.1, Ulpian). In a papyrus we even find the word &#039;&#039;ἀνενγάρευτος&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;SB&#039;&#039; I.4226).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &#039;the Middle Ages applied it to services (&#039;&#039;corvées&#039;&#039;) owned to the &#039;&#039;seigneur&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039; (Marc Bloch, in &#039;&#039;CEHE&#039;&#039; I2.263-4), and in fifteenth-century Italy we still hear of &#039;&#039;angararii&#039;&#039;, and of those bound by fealty in rustic vassalage to their lords, subject to &#039;&#039;angaria&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;perangaria&#039;&#039; (Philip Jones, in id. 406). An example familiar to most people today who have never heard the word &#039;&#039;angaria&#039;&#039; is the story of Simon of Cyrene, who was obliged by the Romans to carry the cross of Jesus to the place of execution: Mark and Matthew use the appropriate technical term, a form of the verb &#039;&#039;angareuein&#039;&#039; (Mk XV.21; Mt. XXVII.32). Only an understanding of the &#039;&#039;angareia&#039;&#039;-system can make fully intelligible one of the sayings of Jesus in the so-called Sermon on the Mount: &#039;Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain&#039; (Mt. V.41). Again, the word &#039;compel&#039; in this text represents the technical term &#039;&#039;angareuein&#039;&#039;. (The passage deserves more notice than it usually receives in discussions of the attitude of Jesus to the political authorities of his day.) Readers of the Stoic philosopher Epictetus will remember that he was less positively enthusiastic than Jesus about co-operation with officials exacting &#039;&#039;angareia&#039;&#039;: he merely remarks that it is sensible to comply with a soldier&#039;s requisition of one&#039;s donkey. If one objects, he says, the result will only be a beating, and the donkey will be taken just the same (&#039;&#039;Diss&#039;&#039;. IV.i.79).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As it happens, it is in a speech &#039;&#039;On angareiai&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;De angariis&#039;&#039; in Latin, &#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. L) that the great Antiochene orator Libanius makes a particularly emphatic assertion of the absolute dependence of the cities upon the countryside and its inhabitants. (The word &#039;&#039;angareia&#039;&#039; does not actually occur in the speech, and &#039;&#039;Peri tōn angareiōn&#039;&#039; as its title may be due to a Byzantine scholar; but no one will dispute that &#039;&#039;angareiai&#039;&#039; of a particular municipal kind are the subject of the document.) Libanius is complaining to the Emperor Theodosius I in 385 that the peasants of the neighbourhood are being driven to desperation by having themselves and their animals pressed into service for carrying away building rubble from the city. Permits are given by the authorities, he says, which even allow private individuals to take charge of particular gates of the city and to impress everything passing through; with the help of soldiers they drive hapless peasants with the lash (§§ 9, 16, 27 etc.). As Liebeschuetz puts it, the animals of &#039;&#039;honorati&#039;&#039; (acting or retired imperial officials and military officers) &#039;were not requisitioned; other notables managed to get their animals excused even if with some difficulty. All the suffering was that of peasants. There is not a word about losses of landowners&#039; (&#039;&#039;Ant&#039;&#039;. 69). Although he has to admit that the practice has been going on for years (§§ 10, 15, 30), Libanius claims that it was illegal (§§ 7, 10, 17-20). He cleverly adduces the fact that a permit was once obtained from an emperor as proof that even the provincial governor has no right to authorise it (§ 22). He also asserts that visitors from other cities are aghast at what they see happening in Antioch (§ 8) – a statement there is no need to take seriously. Towards the end of the speech Libanius explains that the practice he is complaining about has a bad effect on the city&#039;s corn supply (§§ 30-1), an argument that might be expected to appeal strongly to the emperor. (We may compare the complaint of the Emperor Domitian, almost exactly three hundred years earlier, that the infliction on working peasants of burdens of the time of &#039;&#039;angaria&#039;&#039; is likely to result in failures of cultivation: &#039;&#039;IGLS&#039;&#039; V.1998, lines 28-30.) And then Libanius comes to his climax: he begs the &#039;&#039;philanthrōpotatos basileus&#039;&#039;,&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Show your concern not just for the cities, but for the countryside too, or rather for the countryside in preference to the cities – for the country is the basis on which they rest. One can assert that cities are founded on the country, and that this is their firm footing, providing them with wheat, barley, grapes, wine, oil and the nourishment of man and other living beings. Unless oxen, ploughs, seed, plants and herds of cattle existed, cities would not have come into being at all. And, once in existence, they have depended upon the fortunes of the countryside, and the good and ill that they experience arise therefrom.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Any foe to the well-being of working farmers and even of their animals, he goes on,&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;is foe to the land, and the foe to the land is foe to the cities also, and indeed to mariners as well, for they too need the produce of the land. They may get from the sea increase of their store of goods, but the very means of life comes from the land. And you too, Sire, obtain tribute from it. In your rescripts you hold converse with the cities about it, and their payment of it comes from the land. So whoever assists the peasantry supports you, and ill-treatment, Sire, by law, punishment and edicts, and in your enthusiasm for the matter under discussion you must encourage all to speak up for the peasants (§§ 33-6, in the translation of A. F. Norman&#039;s Loeb edition of Libanius, Vol. II).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;I should perhaps add, not only that the practice against which Libanius is protesting is something quite separate from the burdensome &#039;&#039;angareiai&#039;&#039; exacted by the imperial authorities, mainly in connection with the &#039;public post&#039;, but also that Libanius himself sometimes takes a very different and much less protective approach towards peasants in his other writings, notably when he is denouncing the behaviour of his own and other tenants, as well as freeholders resisting tax-collectors, in his &#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. XLVII (see IV.ii below).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The linguistic evidence for the separation between &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;chōra&#039;&#039; is particularly illuminating. Except in some of the western and southern coastal areas of Asia Minor, such as Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia and the Cilician plain, where the native tongues seem to have been entirely displaced by Greek during the Hellenistic age, the great majority of the peasants of the Greek East and even some of the townsmen (especially of course the humbler ones) habitually spoke not Greek but the old native tongues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;There is an up-to-date bibliography on this subject, for the Western as well as the Eastern part of the Roman empire, in P. A. Brunt, RLRCRE = &#039;The Romanisation of the local ruling classes in the Roman empire&#039;, in &#039;&#039;Assimilation et résistance à la culture gréco-romaine dans le monde ancien&#039;&#039; = &#039;&#039;Travaux du&#039;&#039; VIe [Madrid, 1974] &#039;&#039;Congrés International d&#039;Études Classiques&#039;&#039; (Bucarest/Paris, 1976) 161-73, at 170-2. I should perhaps add Jones, &#039;&#039;CERP&#039;&#039;2 228-30 and &#039;&#039;GCAJ&#039;&#039; 288-95 (partly but not entirely replaced by &#039;&#039;LRE&#039;&#039; II.966, 968-9, 991-7); Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2 II.626-7 n.1, 666 n.36. J. C. Mann, &#039;Spoken Latin in Britain as evidenced in the inscriptions&#039;, in &#039;&#039;Britannia&#039;&#039; 2 (1971) 218-24, although dealing mainly with Britain, may suggest a way in which research might be conducted in other areas.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Everyone will remember that when Paul and Barnabas arrived at Lystra, on the edge of a mountain district of southern Asia Minor, and Paul is said to have healed a cripple, the people cried out &#039;in the speech of Lycaonia&#039; (Act. Apost. XIV.11) – a vernacular tongue which was never written down and which in due course perished entirely. (And this happened inside a city, and moreover one in which Augustus had planted a citizen colony of Roman veterans.)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;On Lystra, see Barbara Levick, &#039;&#039;RCSAM&#039;&#039; 51-3, 153-6, 195-7.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Such stories could be paralleled again and again from widely separated parts of the Roman empire, in both East and West. And those who did not speak Greek or Latin would certainly have little or no part in Graeco-Roman civilisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We must exaggerate the strictly ethnic and linguistic factors, which are so noticeable in the more eastern parts of the Greek area, at the expense of economic and social ones. Even in Greece itself, the Aegean islands and the more western coasts of Asia Minor, where Greeks had for centuries been settled and where even the poorest peasant might be as much a Hellene as the city magnate (if at a much lower cultural level), the class division between the exploiters and those from whom they drew their sustenance was very real, and it naturally deepened when the humble entirely lost the protection many of them had been able to obtain from a democratic form of government (see V.iii below). And in the &#039;Oriental&#039; parts, newly brought within the great Hellenistic kingdoms, the clear-cut difference between &#039;Hellene&#039; and &#039;barbaros&#039; (Greek and native) gradually became transformed into a more purely class distinction, between the propertied and non-propertied. This is true even of Egypt, where the gulf between the Greeks and the native Egyptians had originally been as wide as anywhere, extending to language, religion, culture and &#039;way of life&#039; in general. In Egypt, indeed, there was more interpenetration between two elements than elsewhere, because until A.D. 200 cities were few (there were only Alexandria, Naucratis, Paraetonium and Ptolemais, and in addition Hadrian&#039;s foundation of Antinoöpolis in A.D. 130), and because far more Greeks settled outside the cities, in the country districts, often as soldiers or administrators, but with a strong tendency to gravitate toward the &#039;metropoleis&#039;, the capitals of the districts (&#039;nomes&#039;) into which Egypt was divided. The exploitation of Egypt under the Ptolemies (323-30 B.C.) was not as intense as under the succeeding Roman administration, and the rents and taxes exacted from the peasantry were at least spent mainly at Alexandria and Naucratis, and at the other centres of population (not yet &#039;&#039;poleis&#039;&#039;) where men of property lived, and were not partly diverted (as they were later) to Rome. Nevertheless, the income of the Ptolemies was enormous by ancient standards, and the fellahin must have been pressed hard to provide it.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The revenue of the reigning Ptolemy is given in respectable ancient sources as 14,800 talents of silver and 1½ million artabae of wheat in the second quarter of the third century B.C. (Jerome, &#039;&#039;In Daniel&#039;&#039;. XI.5), and in the last century B.C. as 12,500 talents (Cic., &#039;&#039;ap&#039;&#039;. Strab. XVII.i.13, p.798) or 6,000 talents (Diod. XVII.52.6): see Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; II.1150-3, with Ill.1607 n.86. The total population of late Ptolemaic Egypt (&#039;&#039;c&#039;&#039;. 60 B.C.) is given as 7 million by Diod. I.31.8 (with the emendation now commonly accepted: &#039;&#039;τούτων&#039;&#039; for &#039;&#039;τριακοσίων&#039;&#039;). That of Roman Egypt in the Flavian period is given by Jos., &#039;&#039;BJ&#039;&#039; II.385, as 7½ million, apart from Alexandria. These figures may be approximately correct. We should perhaps allow a million or so for Alexandria: cf. Fraser, &#039;&#039;PA&#039;&#039; I.90-1; II.171-2 n.358.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After 200 B.C. &#039;some natives rose in the scale and took Greek names, and some Greeks sank; Greek and native names occur in the same family. Some Greeks kept themselves aloof; but a new mixed race formed intermediate between Greeks and fellahin, and Hellene came to mean a man with some Greek &#039;&#039;culture&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039; (Tarn, &#039;&#039;HC&#039;&#039;3 206-7).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cf. Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; II.878-914; Jones, &#039;&#039;CERP&#039;&#039;2 302-11.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In Egypt, as elsewhere, &#039;being a Greek&#039; was certainly very much more a matter of culture than of descent; but culture itself was largely dependent upon property-ownership. Before the end of the second century B.C., as Rostovtzeff says, &#039;From the social and economic standpoint the dividing line between the upper and lower class was no longer between the Greeks forming the upper, and the Egyptians forming the lower, but between the rich and poor in general, many Egyptians being among the first, many Greeks among the second&#039;; but &#039;the old division into a privileged class of &amp;quot;Greeks&amp;quot; (which comprised now many hellenised Egyptians) and a subordinate class of natives remained as it had been&#039; (&#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; II.883). This is true, although some of the documents cited by Rostovtzeff might now be differently interpreted in some respects.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For example, Claude Vandersleyen, &#039;Le mot &#039;&#039;λαός&#039;&#039; dans le langue des papyrus grecs&#039;, in &#039;&#039;CE&#039;&#039; 48 (1973) 339-49, argues that the expressions &#039;&#039;λαός&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;λαοί&#039;&#039;, when occurring in the papyri in reference to Egypt, should be taken to be describing a particular section of the native Egyptian population, indeed a superior section, &#039;couche supérieure de la population égyptienne, existant aussi bien a l&#039;époque pharaonique qu&#039;à l&#039;époque ptolémaïque&#039; (cf. another work of Vandersleyen, which I have not been able to read: &#039;&#039;Les Guerres d&#039;Amosis&#039;&#039; [1971], esp. 182-4 on the Rosetta Stone), and not the general mass of the native population. Rostovtzeff, like many other scholars, will then have misinterpreted the words &#039;&#039;λαοί&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;λαός&#039;&#039; in such documents as the Rosetta Stone (&#039;&#039;OGIS&#039;&#039; 90.12: see &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; II.713-15) and in the papyrus he describes in &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; II.883-4 – he fails to give the reference, which is &#039;&#039;BGU&#039;&#039; VIII (1933) 1768 (W. Schubart and D. Schäfer, &#039;&#039;Spätptolemäische Papyri aus amtlichen Büros des Herakleopolites = Aegyptische Urkunden aus den staatlichen Museen zu Berlin&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Griechische Urkunden&#039;&#039; VIII, Berlin [1933], no.1768, pp.47-9). However, Vandersleyen&#039;s conclusions do not appear to be securely established: contrast W. Clarysse, in &#039;&#039;Anc. Soc&#039;&#039;. 7 (1976) 185 ff., at 195 and nn.22-6 (pointing out that Vandersleyen takes into account only the noun &#039;&#039;λαός&#039;&#039; and not the adjective &#039;&#039;λαικός&#039;&#039;, for which see (e.g. Préaux, &#039;&#039;ERL&#039;&#039; 224 and n.2); and Heinz Heinen, ibid. 127 ff., at 144 n.32, who declares himself unconvinced; cf. Heinen in &#039;&#039;Anc. Soc&#039;&#039;. 8 (1977) 130 n.21.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the Roman period, with the growth of the &#039;&#039;metropoleis&#039;&#039; into something more nearly resembling Greek cities, where the landowners mainly lived, the propertied classes generally regarded themselves as Greeks and the peasants as Egyptians. In a letter surviving on papyrus from the third century of the Christian era, the writer does not want his &#039;brethren&#039; to think of him as &#039;a barbarian or an inhuman [&#039;&#039;ananthrōpus&#039;&#039;] Egyptian&#039; (&#039;&#039;P. Oxy&#039;&#039;. XIV.1681.4-7).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marriages between city folk and peasants must have been very uncommon in all parts of the Greek world. Occasionally, no doubt, a peasant girl might be beautiful enough to attract a well-to-do city gentleman, but as a rule he would probably be far more likely to make her his mistress or concubine than his wife. There is, however, one delightful story, which I cannot resist telling, of love and marriage between two rich young city men and two lovely Sicilian peasant girls, who became known as the Kallipygoi. This is transmitted to us through Athenaeus (XII.554cde), from the iambic poems of Cercidas of Megalopolis and Archelaus of Chersonesus. (How much truth there is in it we have no means of knowing.) The two beautiful daughters of a peasant (an &#039;&#039;anēr agroikos&#039;&#039;), disputing which of them was the more callipygous, went out onto the highway and invited a young man who happened to be passing by to arbitrate between them. Inspecting both, he preferred the elder, with whom he then and there fell in love. His younger brother, when he heard about the girls, went out to see them, and fell in love with the younger. The aged father of the two young men did his best to persuade his sons to make more reputable marriages, but without success, and eventually he accepted the two peasant girls as his daughters-in-law. Having thus risen greatly in the world and become conspicuously rich, the two women built a temple to Aphrodite Kallipygos – a cult title which was not only most appropriate to the goddess of love and beauty but also made a charming allusion to the circumstances of the foundation. (One may feel that this is one of the cases in which paganism had a distinct advantage over Christianity.) Marriages of well-bred girls to peasants must also have been exceedingly rare. In Euripides&#039; &#039;&#039;Electra&#039;&#039; the marriage of the princess Electra to a poor rustic who is not even given a name in the play – he is just an &#039;&#039;autourgos&#039;&#039; (a man who works his farm with his own hands) – is regarded even by the man himself as a grave and deliberate slight on the girl, and in his opening speech he alludes with pride to the fact that he has never taken her to his bed and she is still a virgin – tense and neurotic, as we presently discover.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eurip., &#039;&#039;Electr&#039;&#039;. 31-53, 207-9, 247-57, 302-9, 362-3, 404-5. Ar., &#039;&#039;Clouds&#039;&#039; 46-72 is irrelevant here, since Strepsiades, however boorish by origin, is obviously conceived as well-to-do and does not fall within my definition of a peasant (see IV.ii above).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The contrast between superior city-dweller and unsophisticated countryman could even be projected into the divine sphere. In a collection of fables by Babrius we hear of a belief that it is the simple-minded (&#039;&#039;euētheis&#039;&#039;) among the gods who inhabit the countryside, while those deities who live within the city wall are infallible and have everything under their supervision (&#039;&#039;Fab&#039;&#039;. &#039;&#039;Aesop&#039;&#039;. 2.6-8).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In III.vi below I shall mention briefly the creation by wealthy benefactors in Greek and Roman cities of &#039;foundations&#039; to provide distributions of money or food on special occasions, often graded according to the position of the recipients in the social hierarchy – the higher a person&#039;s social position, the more he was likely to get. Rustics, who in the Greek East would often not be citizens of their &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039;, would very rarely benefit from such a distribution. Dio Chrysostom can make one of his Euboean peasants adduce the fact that his father had once participated in a distribution of money in the local town as evidence that he was a citizen there (VII.49). The only inscription I have noticed that mentions countryfolk benefiting from a distribution instituted by a citizen of a Greek &#039;&#039;polis&#039;&#039; is one from Prusias ad Hyphium in Bithynia, which speaks of handouts both to all those &#039;reckoned as citizens&#039; (&#039;&#039;enkekrimenois&#039;&#039;) and to those &#039;inhabiting the country district&#039; (&#039;&#039;tois tēn agroikian katoikousin/paroikousin&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;IGRR&#039;&#039; III.69.18-20, 24-6).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cf. &#039;&#039;IGRR&#039;&#039; IV.1087, from Cos, for a distinction between &#039;&#039;τοὶ κατοικεῦντες ἐντῷ δάμῳ τῶν Ἁλεντίων καὶ το&#039;&#039;[&#039;&#039;ἱ&#039;&#039;] &#039;&#039;ἐνεκτημένοι καὶ τοὶ γεωργεῦντε&#039;&#039;[&#039;&#039;ς&#039;&#039;] &#039;&#039;ἐν ῾Αλεντι καὶ Πέλῃ, τῶν τε πολειτᾶν καὶ Ῥωμαίων καὶ μετοίκων&#039;&#039;. (I can see no justification for lining-up the two sets of inhabitants in parallel and making the &#039;&#039;κατοικεύντες&#039;&#039; the citizens, the &#039;&#039;ένεκτημένοι&#039;&#039; the Romans, and the &#039;&#039;yeωργεύντες&#039;&#039; the metics, with Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2 II.654 n.4.) I may add that there is some evidence from the Latin West for the extension of distributions to include inhabitants of a city who are not its citizens (&#039;&#039;municipes&#039;&#039;, or &#039;&#039;coloni&#039;&#039;) but &#039;&#039;incolae&#039;&#039; (see below, and Duncan-Jones, &#039;&#039;EREQS&#039;&#039; 259 n.3, 279 n.5). This unfortunately raises a thorny question about the meaning of the expression &#039;&#039;incolae&#039;&#039;. They clearly are people who do not have citizen rights in the &#039;&#039;civitas&#039;&#039; or &#039;&#039;πόλις&#039;&#039; in which (or in the territory of which) they reside. But are they (1) simply residents with a &#039;&#039;domicilium&#039;&#039; in the city who have an &#039;&#039;origo&#039;&#039; elsewhere, or are they (2) primarily the population of territory subject to the city, who have no local citizen rights, whether or not they are officially its &#039;&#039;attributi&#039;&#039; (or &#039;&#039;contributi&#039;&#039;)? The former is the standard view (see e.g. Berger in &#039;&#039;RE&#039;&#039; IX.ii.1249-56), the latter that of Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHRE&#039;&#039;2 II.632 n.33, cf. 687 n.97. I agree with Brunt, &#039;&#039;IM&#039;&#039; 249: &#039;Though the term &amp;quot;incolae&amp;quot; in my view denotes no more than &amp;quot;residents without local citizen rights&amp;quot;, and is not a technical term designating members of a subject population, it is wide enough to embrace such a class.&#039; Two legal texts seem to me to show a development between the second and third centuries. Pomponius, in &#039;&#039;Dig&#039;&#039;. L.xvi.239.2, writing in about the second quarter of the second century, equates &#039;&#039;incola&#039;&#039; with Greek &#039;&#039;πἀροικος&#039;&#039; and includes in his definition of &#039;&#039;incolae&#039;&#039; not only those who reside in &#039;&#039;oppido&#039;&#039; but also those who have farmland (&#039;&#039;agrum&#039;&#039;) within the boundaries of the town which is in some sense their home (such I take to be the meaning of &#039;ut in eum se quasi in aliquam sedem recipiant&#039;). But around the second quarter of the third century makes no use of the &#039;&#039;εξαίρετα&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;commoda&#039;&#039;, conveniences, benefits) of a city is not to be considered its &#039;&#039;incola&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;Dig&#039;&#039;. L.i.35, in Greek). By then, at any rate, it seems that &#039;&#039;attributi&#039;&#039; and the like were no longer considered to be &#039;&#039;incolae&#039;&#039; – an important exclusion, for since about the third quarter of the second century &#039;&#039;incolae&#039;&#039; had become equally liable with local &#039;&#039;cives&#039;&#039; for &#039;&#039;munera publica&#039;&#039; (Gaius, in &#039;&#039;Dig&#039;&#039;. L.i.29). I find it interesting that in &#039;&#039;ILS&#039;&#039; 6818 (of the third quarter of the second century), from Sicca Veneria in Numidia, the &#039;&#039;incolae&#039;&#039; who are to benefit, with &#039;&#039;municipes&#039;&#039;, from the foundation there established are restricted to those living &#039;in the buildings included in our colony&#039;. and in Italian cities many foundations, where they extend to the lower classes, are specifically limited to the &#039;&#039;urban&#039;&#039; population: see e.g. Duncan-Jones, &#039;&#039;EREQS&#039;&#039; nos. 638, 644 ( = 1165), 697, 947, 962, 976, 990, 1023, 1066, 1079m.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To conclude this section, I cannot do better than quote two summaries by A. H. M. Jones of his researches into a thousand years of Hellenistic and Roman rule in the Greek East. One, from his first major work, &#039;&#039;Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces&#039;&#039; (1937, 2nd edn 1971), deals specifically with Syria, which had previously been only on the fringe of the Greek world but was brought within it by degrees from the time of Alexander&#039;s conquests, from 333 B.C. onwards; but Jones&#039;s conclusions are equally, or almost equally, true of the other areas in western Asia, north Africa, and south-east Europe which became hellenised only in Alexander&#039;s time or later. Summing up &#039;the results of the millennium during which Syria had been ruled by the Macedonian dynasties and by Rome&#039;, Jones says,&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;On paper the change in the political aspect of the country is considerable. In the Persian period cities existed only on the sea-coast, the desert fringe, and two of the gangways between them through the central mountain barrier. By the Byzantine period practically the whole of Syria was partitioned into city states; only in a few isolated areas, notably the Jordan valley and the Hauran, did village life remain the rule. In reality, however, the change was superficial. It was achieved partly by assigning vast territories to the old cities of the coast and of the desert fringe, partly by the foundation of a small number of new cities, to each of which was assigned a vast territory. The political life of the inhabitants of the agricultural belt was unaffected; their unit remained the village, and they took no part in the life of the city to which they were attached. Economically they lost by the change. The new cities performed no useful economic function, for the larger villages supplied such manufactured goods as the villagers required, and the trade of the countryside was conducted at village markets.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;This is well borne out by Libanius, &#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. XI.230: the &#039;large populous villages&#039; in the territory of Antioch exchanged their products with each other at their fairs (&#039;&#039;πανηγύρεις&#039;&#039;) and &#039;had little use for the city because of their exchange among themselves&#039;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The only effect of the foundation of cities was the creation of a wealthy landlord class which gradually stamped out peasant proprietorship. Culturally, the countryside remained utterly unaffected by the Hellenism of the cities;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cf. Rostovtzeff, &#039;&#039;SEHHW&#039;&#039; II.1106-7.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the peasants continued to speak Syriac down to the Arab conquest. The only function which the cities performed was administrative; they policed and collected the taxes of their territories (&#039;&#039;CERP&#039;&#039;2 293-4).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;and in a note later in the book Jones adds,&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The indifference of the villagers to the cities is, I think, well illustrated by the tombstones of syrian emigrants in the West . . . ; they always record their village, but name their city, if at all, merely as a geographical determinant&#039; (&#039;&#039;CERP&#039;&#039;2 469 n.92).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Contrast the official view, expressed by ulpian in &#039;&#039;dig&#039;&#039;. L.i.30, that the &#039;&#039;patria&#039;&#039; of a man who originated in a village is the city (&#039;&#039;res publica&#039;&#039;) to which the village belongs.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The other passage is from p.vi of the Preface to Jones&#039;s &#039;&#039;The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian&#039;&#039; (1940). Summarising the conclusions in Part V of that book, Jones says that he discusses &#039;the contribution of the cities to ancient civilisation&#039; and argues that&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Great as their achievement was, it was based on too narrow a class foundation to be lasting. On the economic side the life of the cities involved an unhealthy concentration of wealth in the hands of the urban aristocracy at the expense of the proletariat and the peasants. Their political life was gradually narrowed till it was confined to a small clique of well-to-do families, who finally lost interest in it. The culture which the cities fostered, though geographically spread over a wide area, was limited to the urban upper class.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Jones, I am sure, meant much the same as I would when he used the expression &#039;too narrow a class foundation&#039;; but for him &#039;class&#039; – a term he used quite often – was not something that needed to be defined, or even, for that matter, thought about. I hesitate to give equal prominence to the final sentence of the paragraph in question (&#039;The great mass of the population, the proletariat of the towns, and still more the peasants of the countryside, remained barbarians&#039;), as it not only uses again the inappropriate expression &#039;proletariat&#039; but ends with a word which the &#039;general reader&#039; is likely to misunderstand unless he realises that it is very much a Classical scholar&#039;s quasi-technical term, almost the equivalent of the Greek word &#039;&#039;barbaroi&#039;&#039;, not necessarily meaning more than &#039;non-Greek&#039;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - The relevance of Marx for the study of ancient history ====&lt;br /&gt;
So complete has been the lack of interest in Marx displayed by nearly all ancient historians in the English-speaking world[1] that many who begin to read this book may wonder what relevance Marx can possibly have to the history of Classical antiquity. I have heard this lack of interest described as &#039;a conspiracy of silence&#039;; but that would be to dignify it with a conscious element which in practice is absent: the reality is just silence. I know of nothing comparable as yet in the British Isles to the symposium on the programme of the American Philological Association in 1973, entitled &#039;Marxism and the Classics&#039;, or to the issue of the American Classical periodical &#039;&#039;Arethusa&#039;&#039;, vol.8.1 (Spring, 1975), with the same title.[2] (The article included in that volume, with the title &#039;Karl Marx and the history of Classical antiquity&#039;, pp.7-41, is virtually a series of extracts from earlier drafts of this book.) One often hears the view expressed that in so far as the ideas of Marx on history have any validity, they have already been absorbed into the Western historiographical tradition. One thinks here of the late George Lichtheim&#039;s description of Marxism as &#039;the &#039;&#039;caput mortuum&#039;&#039; of a gigantic intellectual construction whose living essence has been appropriated by the historical consciousness of the modern world&#039; (&#039;&#039;Marxism&#039;&#039;[2] [1964 and repr.] 406). This is altogether untrue, above all in regard to the modern historiography of the Classical world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now the situation I have described is certainly due in part to a general ignorance of the thought of Marx, and a lack of interest in it, on the part of the vast majority of ancient historians and other Classical scholars in the English-speaking world. But I shall suggest later that this ignorance and lack of interest can be attributed partly to mistaken attempts in modern times, on the part of those who call themselves Marxists (or at least claim to be influenced by Marx), to interpret the essentials of Marx&#039;s historical thought both in general terms and in particular in relation to Classical antiquity. I like to remember that Engels, in a letter written to Conrad Schmidt on 5 August 1890, more than seven years after Marx&#039;s death, recalled that Marx used to say about the French Marxists of the late 1870s, &#039;All I know is that I am not a Marxist&#039; (&#039;&#039;MESC&#039;&#039; 496). I think he would have felt much the same about &#039;&#039;soi-disant&#039;&#039; Marxists – not only the French ones – of the 1980s. As the German poet Hans Magnus Enzensberger says, in his moving short poem, &#039;&#039;Karl Heinrich Marx&#039;&#039; –&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;I see you betrayed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
by your disciples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
only your enemies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
remained what they were.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;(The translation of the poem by Michael Hamburger is reprinted in the Penguin &#039;&#039;Poems of Hans Magnus Enzensberger&#039;&#039; 38-9.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Much modern Marxist writings in languages other than English seems recalcitrant to translation into English. I am inclined to apply to much of this writing some forceful remarks made by Graham Hough in a review in the &#039;&#039;Times Literary Supplement&#039;&#039; of two books on Roland Barthes. Approving a statement by Stephen Heath, that the language evolved by Barthes and his school &#039;has no common theoretical context with anything that exists in English&#039;, he continues:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;To transfer it bodily – simply to anglicise the words, which is not difficult – produces a wall of opacity that blocks all curiosity at the start. To adapt, to paraphrase, which can also be done and often looks inviting, runs the risk of denaturing the original and reducing disconcerting ideas to acceptable commonplace (&#039;&#039;TLS&#039;&#039; 3950, 9 December 1977, p. 1443).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;So it is, I feel, with much contemporary Marxist work, even in French and Italian, and still more in German and Russian.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More and more people in my adult lifetime have become willing to take some account of Marx&#039;s analysis of the capitalist world in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. As I am a historian and not an economist, I shall do no more than mention the revival of serious interest in Marx&#039;s economics in Britain on the part of a number of leading economists of our generation (whether or not they would describe themselves as Marxists): Maurice Dobb, Ronald Meek, Joan Robinson, Piero Sraffa and others.[3] In the Foreword to the first edition of her &#039;&#039;Essay on Marxian Economics&#039;&#039; (1942) Joan Robinson remarked that &#039;until recently Marx used to be treated in academic circles with contemptuous silence, broken only by an occasional mocking footnote&#039;. In the first paragraph of the Preface to the second edition (1966), she mentioned that when she was writing the original edition, a quarter of a century earlier, most of her &#039;academic colleagues in England thought that to study Marx was a quaint pastime . . . , and in the United States it was disreputable&#039;. Matters are rather different now. Within the last few years sociologists too have suddenly become far more willing than they used to be to adopt a Marxist analysis of the problems of contemporary society. I may perhaps be allowed to refer to one particularly impressive recent example: a book entitled &#039;&#039;Immigrant Workers and Class Structure in Western Europe&#039;&#039;, by Stephen Castles and Godula Kosack, published in 1973, the relevance of which for our present study will emerge in II.iii below. Even so, many people would, I think, agree with the opinion of a leading British sociologist, T. B. Bottomore (who is far from hostile to Marx), that &#039;while the Marxian theory seems highly relevant and useful in analysing social and political conflicts in capitalist societies during a particular period, its utility and relevance elsewhere are much less clear&#039; (&#039;&#039;Sociology&#039;&#039;2, [1971] 201). Those who hold such views may be prepared to concede that a very valuable contribution has been made by certain Marxist historians who have dealt mainly with the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example Eric Hobsbawm, George Rudé, and E. P. Thompson; but they may begin to feel that their premise has been somewhat weakened when they take notice of the work of an American Marxist historian, Eugene Genovese, who has produced work of outstanding quality on slavery in the antebellum South; and it is surely strained to breaking-point and beyond when they have to take account of Christopher Hill (formerly the Master of Balliol), who has done so much to illuminate the history of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and Rodney Hilton, who has dealt with English peasants and peasant movements in the fourteenth century and earlier, in various articles and in two recent books, &#039;&#039;Bond Men Made Free&#039;&#039; (1973) and &#039;&#039;The English Peasantry in the Later Middle Ages&#039;&#039; (1975, the publication of his Ford Lectures at Oxford in 1973). We are already a very long way from nineteenth-century capitalism; and if we go still further back, into the Bronze Age and prehistory, in Europe and Western asia, we can find archaeologists, in particular the late V. Gordon Childe, also acknowledging their debt to Marx. [See now VIII.i.n.33 below.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthropologists too, at least outside of Great Britain, have for some time been prepared to take Marx seriously as a source of inspiration in their own discipline. French economic anthropologists such as Maurice Godelier, Claude Meillassoux, Emmanuel Terray, Georges Dupré and Pierre-Philippe Rey have operated to a high degree within a Marxist tradition, which they have developed in various ways.[4] Even the structuralists have often acknowledged a debt to Marx. Over twenty years ago Claude Lévi-Strauss himself referred to his &#039;endeavours to reintegrate the anthropological knowledge acquired during the last fifty years into the Marxian tradition&#039;; and spoke of &#039;the concept of structure which I have borrowed, or so I thought, from Marx and Engels, among others, and to which I attribute a primary role&#039; (&#039;&#039;SA&#039;&#039; 343-4).[5] American anthropologists have also become much more attentive to Marx in recent years: Marvin Harris, for example, in his comprehensive work, &#039;&#039;The Rise of Anthropological Theory&#039;&#039; (1969 and repr.), devotes some serious attention to Marx and Engels as anthropologists, including a chapter of over 30 pages (&#039;Dialectical materialism&#039;, pp.217-49). And then, in 1972, came what I can only describe as a break-through in British anthropology. An anthropologist of the very first rank, Sir Raymond Firth, delivered the inaugural lecture of a new British Academy series in honour of Radcliffe-Brown, gave it a significant title: not merely &#039;The sceptical anthropologist?&#039; (An allusion, of course, to Robert Boyle&#039;s &#039;&#039;The Sceptical Chymist&#039;&#039;) but also &#039;Social anthropology and Marxist views on society&#039;.[6] I should like to quote part of the last paragraph of this lecture, because it urges social anthropologists to interest themselves in particular aspects of human societies which I think historians of Classical antiquity should also be studying, and which – like the social anthropologists to whom Firth is addressing himself – most of them are not studying. Firth says:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;What Marx&#039;s theories offer to social anthropology is a set of hypotheses about social relations and especially about social change. Marx&#039;s insights – about the basic significance of economic factors, especially production relations; their relation to structures of power; the formation of classes and the opposition of their interests; the socially relative character of ideologies; the conditioning force of a system upon individual members of it – [these insights] embody propositions which must be taken for critical scrutiny into the body of our science. The theories of Marx should be put on a par with, say, those of Durkheim or Max Weber. Because they imply radical change they are more threatening.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;That last word is particularly significant. (I shall return to the &#039;threatening&#039; nature of Marxist analysis in II.ii below.) Now Firth, I am sure, would not describe himself as a Marxist. Shortly before the paragraph I have quoted he expresses the opinion that &#039;much of Marx&#039;s theory in its literal form is outmoded&#039;: the examples he gives in support of this claim do not seem to me well formulated or cogent. But what I am primarily concerned to do at the moment is to make a plea for the relevance of Marx&#039;s general historical methodology to the study of ancient history. If it can make major contributions to history between the early Middle Ages and the twentieth century, and even in archaeology and anthropology, then there is good reason to expect that it may be able to shed light upon Classical antiquity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Apart from one negligible book which I shall mention later (in II.i below and its n.20), I know of no single work in English which consistently attempts &#039;&#039;either&#039;&#039; to analyse Greek history – or, for that matter, Roman history – in terms of Marxist historical concepts, &#039;&#039;or&#039;&#039; to expound those concepts themselves and explain why they are relevant for the purpose of such an analysis. In fact both these tasks need to be accomplished together at least once, within one pair of covers (as I am trying to do here), if the new start that I am advocating is to be made successfully. As I have said, most English-speaking ancient historians ignore Marx completely. If they do mention him, or Marxist historical writing, it is usually with ignorant contempt. An exception is a recent well-chosen selection of source material in translation for Greek economic and social history in the Archaic and Classical periods, first published in French by Michel M. Austin and Pierre Vidal-Naquet under the title of &#039;&#039;Économies et sociétés en Grèce ancienne&#039;&#039; (Paris, 1972 and 1973) and then, with some improvements, in English, as &#039;&#039;Economic and Social History of Ancient Greece: An Introduction&#039;&#039; (London, 1977). The introduction (mainly by Austin) devotes several pages (20 ff. in the English version) to the notion of &#039;class struggles&#039;. Now, as I shall explain (in II.iii below), I disagree profoundly with the way these scholars have applied the Marxist concept of class conflict to the Greek world; but at least they are operating with categories that have become thoroughly associated with the Marxist tradition in historiography and are very often repudiated altogether or allowed only a very limited role by non-Marxists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In languages other than English the situation is much better – although, as I indicated near the beginning of this section, many of the Marxist works on ancient history published on the Continent are as foreign to the English reader in their intellectual and library idiom as in their actual language: they tend to take for granted a whole range of concepts to which most people in the English-speaking world are not accustomed and which they find largely unintelligible.[7] The word &#039;jargon&#039; is often used in this context, if not always by those who have earned the right to use it by refraining from a different jargon of their own.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this point I must write briefly about Marx himself as a Classical scholar. He received, in school and university, at Trier, Bonn and Berlin, the thorough Classical education which was given to most young middle-class Germans in the 1830s. At the universities of Bonn and Berlin he studied law and philosophy, and between 1839 and 1841, among various other activities, he wrote, as his doctoral thesis, a comparison of the philosophies of Democritus and Epicurus. This work, completed in 1840-41, before Marx was 23, was not published in full even in German until 1927, when it appeared in &#039;&#039;MEGA&#039;&#039; I.i.1 (the first fascicule of Part i of Vol. I of the Marx-Engels &#039;&#039;Gesamtausgabe&#039;&#039;, published at Frankfurt and edited by D. Rjazanov) 1-144. It has not been republished in &#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; I (the first volume of the complete &#039;&#039;Werke&#039;&#039; of Marx and Engels now in course of publication in East Berlin). An English translation (replacing an inferior earlier one) has recently been published in &#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; I, the first volume of the new English edition of the Marx-Engels &#039;&#039;Collected Works&#039;&#039; (Moscow/London/New York, 1975), 25-107. Cyril Bailey, reviewing the original publication in the &#039;&#039;Classical Quarterly&#039;&#039; 22 (1928) 205-6, was greatly impressed with its scholarship and its originality: he found it &#039;of real interest to a modern student of Epicureanism&#039; and ended by saying that such a student would find in it &#039;some illuminating ideas&#039;. The thesis looks forward to a larger work (never actually written) in which Marx planned to &#039;present in detail the cycle of Epicurean, Stoic and Sceptic philosophy in their relation to the whole of Greek speculation&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; I.29). It is worth noticing that the Foreword to the thesis ends by quoting the defiant reply of Prometheus to Hermes, in Aeschylus&#039; &#039;&#039;Prometheus Bound&#039;&#039; (lines 966 ff.), &#039;Be sure of this: I would not exchange my state of misfortune for your servitude&#039;, and adding that Prometheus (the Prometheus of Aeschylus) is &#039;the most eminent saint and martyr in the philosophical calendar&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; I.31). During this period Marx read extensively in Classical authors, in particular Aristotle, of whom throughout his life he always spoke in terms of respect and admiration which he employs for no other thinker, except perhaps Hegel. As early as 1839 we find him describing Aristotle as &#039;the acme [&#039;&#039;Gipfel&#039;&#039;] of ancient philosophy&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; I.424); and in Vol. I of &#039;&#039;Capital&#039;&#039; he refers to &#039;the brilliance of Aristotle&#039;s genius&#039; and calls him &#039;a giant thinker&#039; and &#039;the greatest thinker of antiquity&#039; (60, 82n., 408) – as of course he was. Later, Marx returned again and again to read Classical authors. On 8 March 1855 we find him saying in a letter to Engels, &#039;A little time ago I went through Roman history again up to the Augustan era&#039; (&#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXVIII.439); on 27 February 1861 he writes again to Engels, &#039;As a relaxation in the evenings I have been reading Appian on the Roman civil wars, in the original Greek&#039; (&#039;&#039;MESC&#039;&#039; 151); and some weeks later, on 29 May 1861, he tells Lassalle that in order to dispel the serious ill-humour arising from what he describes, in a mixture of German and English, as &#039;mein in every respected unsettled situation&#039;, he is reading Thucydides, and he adds (in German) &#039;These ancient writers at least remain ever new&#039; (&#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXX.605-6).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(This is a convenient place at which to mention that I normally cite &#039;&#039;MESC&#039;&#039;, an English translation of 244 of the letters of Marx and Engels, published in 1956, when it includes a letter I am quoting. I need not regularly refer to the German texts, since they print the letters in chronological order, and the dates will enable them to be found easily. The letters exchanged between Marx or Engels to other correspondents, in &#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXVII-XXXIX.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scattered through the writings of Marx are a remarkable number of allusions to Greek and Roman history, literature and philosophy. He made a careful study of Roman Republican history in particular, partly from the sources and partly with the aid of the works of Niebuhr, Mommsen, Dureau de la Malle and others. I have not been able to discover any systematic study of Greek history by Marx after his student days, or of the history of the Graeco-Roman world under the Principate or the Later Roman Empire; but he frequently quotes Greek authors (more often in the original than in translation), as well as Latin authors, in all sorts of contexts: Aeschylus, Appian, Aristotle, Athenaeus, Democritus, Diodorus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Epicurus, Herodotus, Hesiod, Homer, Isocrates, Lucian, Pindar, Plutarch, Sextus Empiricus, Sophocles, Strabo, Thucydides, Xenophon, and others. He could also make use of that charming little poem by Antipater of Thessalonica, in the Greek Anthology (IX.418), which is one of the earliest pieces of evidence for the existence of the water-mill (see II.i below). After his doctoral dissertation Marx never had occasion to write at length about the ancient world, but again and again he will make some penetrating remark that brings out something of value. For example, in a letter to Engels of 25 September 1857 he makes some interesting and perfectly correct observations: for example, that the first appearance of an extensive system of hired labour in antiquity is in the military sphere, the employment of mercenaries (how often has that been noticed, I wonder!), and that among the Romans the &#039;&#039;peculium castrense&#039;&#039; was the first legal form in which the right of property was recognised in members of a family other than the &#039;&#039;paterfamilias&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;MESC&#039;&#039; 118-19). In a footnote in the &#039;&#039;Grundrisse&#039;&#039; (not in the section on &#039;pre-capitalist forms of production&#039;), written at about the same time as the letter from which I have just quoted, Marx has some acute observations on pay in the Roman army, which need to be put beside the remark in the letter:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Among the Romans, the army constituted a mass – but already divorced from the whole people – which was disciplined to labour, whose surplus time also belonged to the State; who sold their entire labour time for pay to the State, exchanged their entire labour capacity for a wage necessary for the maintenance of their life, just as does the worker with the capitalist. This holds for the period when the Roman army was no longer a citizen&#039;s army but a mercenary army. This is here likewise a free sale of labour on the part of the soldier. But the State does not buy it with the production of values as aim. And thus, although the wage form may seem to occur originally in armies, this pay system is nevertheless essentially different from wage labour. There is some similarity in the fact that the State uses up the army in order to gain an increase in power and wealth (&#039;&#039;Grundrisse&#039;&#039;, E.T. 529n.; cf. 893).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;it came naturally to Marx to illustrate what he was saying with some Classical simile, as when he wrote that the trading peoples of antiquity were &#039;like the gods of Epicurus, in the spaces between the worlds&#039; (&#039;&#039;Grundrisse&#039;&#039;, E.T. 858; cf. &#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. III.330, 598), or when he spoke scornfully of Andrew Ure, author of &#039;&#039;The Philosophy of Manufactures&#039;&#039;, as &#039;this Pindar of the manufacturers&#039; (&#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. III.386 n.75). I have heard quoted against Marx his remark that Spartacus (the leader of the great slave revolt in Italy from 73 to 71 B.C.) was &#039;the most splendid fellow in the whole of ancient history. Great general (no Garibaldi), noble character, real representative of the ancient proletariat&#039;; so let me mention here that the statement was made not in a work intended for publication but in a private letter to Engels, of 27 February 1861 – in which, incidentally, he also described Pompey as &#039;reiner Scheisskerl&#039; (&#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXX.159-60=&#039;&#039;MESC&#039;&#039; 151-2).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A recent book by the Professor of German at Oxford University, S. S. Prawer, &#039;&#039;Karl Marx and World Literature&#039;&#039; (1976), has shown in detail how extraordinarily wide Marx&#039;s reading was, not only in German, French, English, Latin and Greek, but also in Italian, Spanish and Russian.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I shall have something to say in II.iii below on Marx&#039;s intellectual development in the 1840s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I may add that Engels too was very well read and received a Classical education. A school-leaving report testifying to his knowledge of Latin and Greek survives, as does a poem he wrote in Greek at the age of sixteen.[8]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, it is not so much as the student of a particular epoch that I wish to regard Marx now, but rather as a historical sociologist: one who proposed an analysis of the structure of human society, in its successive stages, which sheds some illumination upon each of those stages – the Greek world just as much as the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let me first mention and dismiss two or three common misconceptions. It is easy to discredit Marx&#039;s analysis of society by presenting it in a distorted form, as it is so often presented both by those who wrongly suppose themselves to be employing it and by those who are in principle hostile to it. In particular the thought of Marx is said to involve both &#039;materialism&#039; and &#039;economic determinism&#039;. Now the historical method employed by Marx was never given a name by him, but from Engels onwards it has been generally known as &#039;historical materialism&#039;. (It seems to have been Plekhanov who invented the term &#039;dialectical materialism&#039;.) It is certainly &#039;materialist&#039;, in the technical sense of being methodologically the opposite of Hegel&#039;s &#039;idealism&#039; – we all know Marx&#039;s famous remark that Hegel&#039;s dialectic was standing on its head and &#039;needs to be turned right side up again if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell&#039; (&#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. I.20, from the Afterword to the second German edition, of 1873). But &#039;materialism&#039; does not, and must not, in any way exclude an understanding of the role of ideas, which (as Marx well knew) can often become autonomous and acquire a life of their own, and themselves react vigorously upon the society that produced them – the role of Marxism itself in the twentieth century is a conspicuous example of this. As for the so-called &#039;economic determinism&#039; of Marx, the label must be altogether rejected. We can begin with his alleged over-emphasis on the economic side of the historical process, which has even led to the application to his historical methodology – quite absurdly – of the terms &#039;reductionist&#039; and &#039;monistic&#039;. In fact the dialectical process which Marx envisaged allowed to other factors than the purely economic – whether social, political, legal, philosophic or religious – almost as much weight as very many non-Marxist historians would give to them. The alleged &#039;economism&#039; of Marx is no more than the belief that out of all the elements which are operative in the historical process, it is &#039;the relations of production&#039; (as Marx called them), namely &#039;&#039;the social relations into which men enter in the course of the productive process&#039;&#039;, which are the most important factors in human life, and which tend, in the long run, to determine the other factors, although of course these other factors, even purely ideological ones, can sometimes exert a powerful influence in their turn upon all social relations. In five of the letters he wrote between 1890 and 1894 Engels, while admitting that he and Marx had been partly to blame for an unavoidable over-emphasis on the economic aspect of history, stressed that they had never intended to belittle the interdependent role of political, religious and other ideological factors, even while considering the economic as primary. (The letters are those of 5 August, 21 September and 27 October 1890, 14 July 1893, and 25 January 1894.)[9] In an &#039;&#039;obiter dictum&#039;&#039; in one of his earliest works, the &#039;&#039;Contribution to a Critique of Hegel&#039;s Philosophy of Law&#039;&#039;, Marx declared that although material force can be overcome only by material force, yet &#039;Theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; III.182). And Mao Tse-tung, in a famous essay &#039;On Contradiction&#039; (dating from August 1937), insisted that in certain conditions theory and the ideological &#039;superstructure&#039; of a society (revolutionary theory in particular) can &#039;manifest themselves in the principal and decisive role&#039;.[10]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is true that Marx himself occasionally writes as if men were governed by historical necessities beyond their control, as when (in the Preface to the original German edition of &#039;&#039;Das Kapital&#039;&#039;) he speaks of &#039;the natural laws of capitalist production&#039; as &#039;self-assertive tendencies working with iron necessity&#039; (&#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXIII.12. I have altered the misleading translation in &#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. I.8). Such expressions are rare: they probably derive from a conception of historical events in which a high degree of &#039;&#039;probability&#039;&#039; has been momentarily taken as &#039;&#039;certainty&#039;&#039;. In fact there is nothing in the least &#039;deterministic&#039; in the proper sense in Marx&#039;s view of history; and in particular the role of &#039;&#039;no single individual&#039;&#039; is &#039;determined&#039; by his class position, even if one can often make very confident &#039;&#039;predictions&#039;&#039; (of a statistical character) about the behaviour of the &#039;&#039;collective&#039;&#039; members of a given class. To give just two examples: if you have an income of more than, say, £20,000 a year, the statistical probability that you will normally hold right-wing views, and in Britain vote Conservative, is very high indeed; and if you do not belong to the lowest social class you will have a far better chance of achieving individual sainthood in the Roman Church – a sociological analysis in the early 1950s showed that of 2,489 known Roman Catholic Saints, only 5 per cent came from the lower classes who have constituted over 80 per cent of Western populations.[11] (Recent proclamations of sanctity, I understand, have not departed from his pattern.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe that some light may be shed on the last question we have been considering (the &#039;determinism&#039; of which Marx is often accused) by a comparison between Marx and the greatest historian of antiquity, Thucydides – probably the writer who, with the single exception of Marx, has done most to advance my own understanding of history. Thucydides often refers most to something he calls &#039;human nature&#039;, by which he really means &#039;&#039;patterns of behaviour&#039;&#039; he believed he could identify in human conduct, partly in the behaviour of individual men but much more emphatically in tht of human groups: men acting as organised &#039;&#039;states&#039;&#039;, whose behaviour can indeed be predicted far more confidently than that of most individual men. (I have discussed this in my &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 6, 12 &amp;amp; n.20, 14-16, 29-33, 62, cf. 297.) The better you &#039;&#039;understand&#039;&#039; these patterns of behaviour, Thucydides (I am sure) believed, the more effectively you can &#039;&#039;predict&#039;&#039; how men are likely to behave in the immediate future – although never with complete confidence, because always (and especially in war) you must allow for the unforeseeable, the incalculable, and for sheer &#039;chance&#039; (see &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 25 &amp;amp; n.54, 30-1 &amp;amp; n.57). Thucydides was anything but a determinist, although he often speaks of men as being &#039;compelled&#039; to act in a particular way when he describes them as choosing the least disagreeable among alternatives none of which they would have adopted had their choice been entirely free (see &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 60-2). This common feature of the human predicament, I believe, is just what Marx had in mind when he said, in &#039;&#039;The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte&#039;&#039;, &#039;Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; XI.103).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In every situation in which one is making a judgment there are some factors which cannot be changed and others which can only be partly modified, and the better one understands the situation the less forced and unfree one&#039;s judgment becomes. In this sense, &#039;freedom is the understanding of necessity&#039;. Thucydides, by enabling his readers to recognise and understand some of the basic recurring features in the behaviour of human groups in the political and international field, believed – surely with reason – that his History would be for ever &#039;useful&#039; to mankind (I.22.4). Similarly, what Marx wished to do was to identify the internal, structural features of each individual human society (above all, but not only, capitalist society), and reveal its &#039;laws of motion&#039;. If his analysis is largely right, as I believe it is, then, by revealing the underlying Necessity, it increases human Freedom to operate within its constraint, and has greatly facilitated what Engels called &#039;the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom&#039; (&#039;&#039;MESW&#039;&#039; 426).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the third volume of &#039;&#039;Capital&#039;&#039; there is a point at which Marx suddenly and quite unexpectedly bursts out into one of those emotional passages &#039;full of hope and splendour&#039; – an apt phrase of Hobsbawm&#039;s (&#039;&#039;KMPCEF&#039;&#039; 15) – which look beyond the harsh realities of the present towards a future in which mankind is largely set free from the soul-destroying compulsion which still obliges the greater part of humanity to spend most of their time producing the material necessities of life. This passage, one of many in &#039;&#039;Capital&#039;&#039; that reveal the essential humanity of Marx&#039;s outlook, must seem less purely visionary and utopian, in our age of increasing automation, than it may have appeared to those who first read it in the 1890s. It occurs in Part VII of &#039;&#039;Capital&#039;&#039; III (p.820), in a chapter (xlviii) entitled &#039;The trinity formula&#039;, from which I also quote elsewhere. (The German text can be found in &#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXV.828.)&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus int he very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it none the less still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working day is its basic prerequisite. (Cf. Marx/Engels, &#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; V.431-2, from the &#039;&#039;German Ideology&#039;&#039;, quoted in II.i below.)&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Marx and Engels were certainly not among those who not merely speak loosely (as any of us may) but actually think seriously of History (with a capital &#039;H&#039;) as a kind of independent force. In a splendid passage in his earliest joint work with Marx, &#039;&#039;The Holy Family&#039;&#039; (1845), Engels could say,&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;History&#039;&#039; does &#039;&#039;nothing&#039;&#039;, it &#039;possesses &#039;&#039;no&#039;&#039; immense wealth&#039;, it &#039;wages &#039;&#039;no&#039;&#039; battles&#039;. It is &#039;&#039;man&#039;&#039;, real, living man who does all that, who possesses and fights; &#039;history&#039; is not, as it were, a person apart, using man as a means to achieve &#039;&#039;its own&#039;&#039; aims; history is &#039;&#039;nothing but&#039;&#039; the activity of man pursuing his aims (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; IV.93=&#039;&#039;MEGA&#039;&#039; I.iii.265).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Excerpt in so far as the concepts of class and class struggle are involved, I do not propose in this book to undertake any comprehensive discussion of Marx&#039;s general historical methodology,[12] which of course involves much more than class analysis, although that to my mind is central and its rejection entails the dismissal of most of Marx&#039;s system of ideas. Nor do I intend to say anything about such controversies as those concerning &#039;basis and superstructure&#039;,[13] or the so-called &#039;modes of production&#039; referred to by Marx, in particular in the &#039;&#039;German Ideology&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; V.32-5), in &#039;&#039;Wage Labour and Capital&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; IX.212), in the section on pre-capitalist economic formations in the &#039;&#039;Grundrisse&#039;&#039; (E.T. 471-514, esp. 495),[14] and in the &#039;&#039;Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;MESW&#039;&#039; 182). Above all I can legitimately avoid any discussion of the desirability (or otherwise) of recognising an &#039;Asiatic&#039; (or &#039;Oriental&#039;) mode of production, a notion which seems to me best forgotten.[15] When speaking (for example) of various parts of Asia at times before they had been taken over by the Greeks (or the Macedonians), I believe that it is best to employ such expressions as &#039;pre-Classical modes of production&#039;, in a strictly chronological sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not my purpose in this book to defend Marx&#039;s analysis of capitalist society or his prophecy of its approaching end (both of which in the main I accept); but I have so often heard it said that he did not allow for the growth of a managerial and &#039;white-collar&#039; middle class[16] that I will end this final section of my Introduction with a reference to two passages in his &#039;&#039;Theories of Surplus Value&#039;&#039; which rebut this criticism – and are by no means irrelevant to the main subject of this book, because they serve to illustrate a feature of the modern world to which there was no real parallel in antiquity. Criticising Malthus, Marx says that &#039;his supreme hope, which he himself describes as more or less utopian, is that the mass of the middle class should grow and that the proletariat (those who work) should constitute a constantly declining proportion (even though it increases absolutely) of the total population&#039;; and he adds, &#039;This in fact is the course taken by bourgeois society&#039; (&#039;&#039;TSV&#039;&#039; III.63).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And criticising Ricardo, Marx complains that &#039;what he forgets to emphasise is the constantly growing number of the middle classes, those who stand between the workman on the one hand and the capitalist and landlord on the other. The middle classes . . . are a burden weighing heavily on the working base and they increase the social security and power of the upper Ten Thousand&#039; (&#039;&#039;TSV&#039;&#039; II.573=&#039;&#039;MEW&#039;&#039; XXVI.ii.576).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These passages may remind us of the fact that in the Greek and Roman world there was no proper parallel to our own &#039;white-collar&#039;, salaried, managerial class (we shall see why in III.vi below), except in the Roman Principate and Later Empire, when three developments took place. First, a proper &#039;&#039;standing army&#039;&#039; was established in the early Principate, with (for the first time) regular benefits on discharge as well as fixed pay, found by the state. Those who became what we should call &#039;regular officers&#039;, especially the senior centurions, might become men of rank and privilege. Secondly, an &#039;&#039;imperial civil service&#039;&#039; grew up gradually, consisting partly of the emperor&#039;s own slaves and freedmen and partly of free men who, at all levels, served for pay (and for the often considerable dimensions, although many of its members were technically soldiers seconded for this duty. The third group of functionaries consisted of the &#039;&#039;Christian clergy&#039;&#039;, whose upkeep was provided partly by the state and partly by the endowments and contributions of the faithful. I shall have more to say about all these three groups later (VI.v-vi and esp. VIII.iv). Exactly like the middle classes referred to by Marx, they were certainly &#039;a burden weighing heavily on the working base&#039;, and as faithful bastions of the established order they too – except in so far as sections of the army were drawn into civil wars in support of rival emperors – &#039;increased the social security and power of the upper Ten Thousand&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To conclude this section, I wish to emphasise that I make no claim to be producing &#039;&#039;the&#039;&#039; &#039;Marxist interpretation of Greek history&#039;: it is &#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039; would-be Marxist interpretation. After reading by far the greater part of Marx&#039;s published work (much of it, I must admit, in English translation), I myself believe that there is nothing in this book which Marx himself (after some argument, perhaps!) would not have been willing to accept. But of course there will be other Marxists who will disagree at various points with my basic theoretical position or with the interpretations I have offered of specific events, institutions and ideas; and I hope that any errors or weaknesses in this book will not be taken as directly due to the approach I have adopted, unless that can be shown to be the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== II - Class, Exploitation, and Class Struggle ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - The nature of class society ====&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;The concept of class has never remained a harmless concept for very long. Particularly when applied to human beings and their social conditions it has invariably displayed a peculiar explosiveness.&#039; Those are the first two sentences of a book, &#039;&#039;Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society&#039;&#039;, by Ralf Dahrendorf, a leading German sociologist who in 1974 became Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science. And Dahrendorf goes on to quote with approval the statement by two prominent American sociologists, Lipset and Bendix, that &#039;discussions of different theories of class are often academic substitutes for a rael conflict over political orientations&#039;. I fully accept that. It seems to me hardly possible for anyone today to discuss problems of class, and above all class &#039;&#039;struggle&#039;&#039; (or class &#039;&#039;conflict&#039;&#039;), in any society, modern or ancient, in what some people would call an &#039;impartial&#039; or &#039;unbiased&#039; manner, I make no claim to &#039;impartiality&#039; or &#039;lack of bias&#039;, let alone &#039;Wertfreiheit&#039;, freedom from value-judgments. The criteria involved are in reality much more subjective than is commonly admitted: in this field one man&#039;s &#039;impartiality&#039; is another man&#039;s &#039;bias&#039;, and it is often impossible to find an objective test to resolve their disagreement. Yet, as Eugene Genovese has put it, &#039;the inevitability of ideological bias does not free us from the responsibility to struggle for maximum objectivity&#039; (&#039;&#039;RB&#039;&#039; 4). The criteria that I hope will be applied to this book are two: first, its &#039;&#039;objectivity and truthfulness&#039;&#039; in regard to historical events and processes; and secondly, the &#039;&#039;fruitfulness&#039;&#039; of the analysis it produces. For &#039;historical events and processes&#039; I should almost be willing to substitute &#039;historical facts&#039;. I do not shrink from that unpopular expression, any more than Arthur Darby Nock did when he wrote, &#039;A fact is a holy thing, and its life should never be laid down on the altar of a generalisation&#039; (&#039;&#039;ERAW&#039;&#039; I.333). Nor do I propose to dispense with what is called – sometimes with a slight sneer, by social and economic historians – &#039;narrative history&#039;. To quote a recent statement in defence of &#039;narrative history&#039; by the present Camden Professor of Ancient History at Oxford:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;I do not see how we can determine how institutions worked, or what effect beliefs or social structures had on men&#039;s conduct, unless we study their actions in concrete situations . . . The most fundamental instinct that leads us to seek historical knowledge is surely the desire to find out &#039;&#039;what&#039;&#039; actually happened in the past and especially to discover what we can about events that had the widest effect on the fortunes of mankind; we then naturally go on to inquire &#039;&#039;why&#039;&#039; they occurred (P. A. Brunt, &#039;What is Ancient History about?&#039;, in &#039;&#039;Didaskalos&#039;&#039; 5 [1976] 236-49, at 244).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Can we actually identify classes in Greek society such as I shall describe? Did the Greeks themselves recognise their existence? And is it profitable to conduct an investigation along these lines? Is our understanding of the historical process, and of our own society, illuminated and strengthened by thinking in terms of classes and of a &#039;class struggle&#039; in the Greek world? When I find Lévi-Strauss saying, &#039;I am not a sociologist, and my interest in our own society is only a secondary one&#039; (&#039;&#039;SA&#039;&#039; 338), I want to reply, &#039;I am a historian who tries also to be a sociologist, and my interest in our own society is a primary one.&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not going to pretend that class is an entity existing objectively in its own right, like a Platonic &#039;Form&#039;, the nature of which we merely have to discover. The word has been used by historians and sociologists in all sorts of different senses;[1] but I believe that the way in which Marx chose to use it is the most fruitful, for our own society and for all earlier ones above the primitive level, including Greek and Roman society. Now Marx never, unfortunately, gave a definition of the term &#039;class&#039;, and it is true that he uses it rather differently on different occasions, above all when he is speaking of actual historical circumstances, in which the nature of the particular classes involved could differ considerably.[2] Even when, at the very end of the unfinished third volume of &#039;&#039;Capital&#039;&#039;, pp.885-6 (cf. 618),[3] he was about to answer his own question, &#039;What constitutes a class?&#039; he only had time to say that the reply to this question &#039;follows naturally from the reply to another question, namely: What makes wage-labourers, capitalists and landlords constitute the three great social classes?&#039; – as indeed they did, at the period of which and during which he was writing. He did not live to write down his answer to even that prior question, which would have produced a definition of the classes of nineteenth-century capitalist society rather than of class in general; and whether he would then have gone on to give an explicit general definition of class, we cannot tell. But after collecting scores if not hundreds of passages in which Marx operates with the concept of class (sometimes without actually using that word), I have little doubt what essential form it took in his mind. (I can give only a preliminary sketch here: I shall attempt to provide a proper account in Section ii of this chapter and subsequently.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Class as a general concept (as distinct from a particular class) is essentially a relationship; and class in Marx&#039;s sense must be understood in close connection with his fundamental concept of &#039;the relations of production&#039;: the social relations into which men enter in the process of production, which find legal expression to a large degree either as property relations or as labour relations. When the conditions of production, such as they are at any given time, are controlled by a particular group (when, as in the great majority of such cases,[4] there is private property in the means of production), then we have a &#039;class society&#039;, the classes being defined in terms of their relationship to the means and the labour of production, and to each other. Some of the most important &#039;means of production&#039; in the modern world – not only factories, but also banks and finance houses, even railways and aircraft – were of course absent in Classical antiquity, and so, to a great extent, was that wage labour which is an essential element, indeed the essential element, in the relations of production characteristic of a capitalist economy. (As we shall see in III.vi below, free wage labour played an infinitely less important part in the Greek and Roman world than it does today.) In the ancient Greek world the principal means of production was land, and the principal form in which labour was directly exploited was unfree labour – that of chattel slaves above all; but debt bondage was far more widespread than many historians have realised, and in the Roman empire agricultural labour came to be exploited more and more through forms of tenancy (at first involving mainly free men), which in the late third century were converted into legal serfdom. (I shall give precise definitions of slavery, serfdom and debt bondage in III.iv below.) In antiquity, therefore, wealth may be said to have consisted above all in the ownership of land, and in the control of unfree labour; and it was these assets above all which enabled the propertied class to exploit the rest of the population: that is to say, to appropriate a surplus out of their labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this point I must introduce an important and difficult subject which needs careful treatment and can easily lead to serious confusion, and which I intend to deal with properly in Chapter IV below. I refer to the fact that a large part of production in antiquity was always carried on, until the Later Roman Empire (and to a certain degree even then), by small free producers, mainly peasants, but also artisans and traders. In so far as these numerous individuals neither exploited the labour of others (outside their own families) to any appreciable extent nor were themselves exploited to any marked degree, but lived not far above subsistence level, producing little surplus beyond what they themselves consumed, they formed a kind of intermediate class, between exploiters and exploited. As I shall explain in Chapter IV, this exploitation could be not only direct and  individual (by landlords or moneylenders, for instance) but also indirect and collective, affected by taxation, military conscription or forced services exacted by the state or the municipalities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is very hard to assess the condition of these small free producers accurately. The vast majority were what I shall call peasants (see my definition in IV.ii below), a term covering a wide variety of conditions, which nevertheless can be convenient to use, especially where we are in doubt about the precise situation of the people concerned. In Chapter IV I shall try to show the wide variety of institutions involved, and how the fortunes of some groups might fluctuate very considerably according to their political and legal as well as their economic position.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other categories than those of class, in the sense in which I am using that concept, have of course been proposed for analysis, or at least the description, of Greek society. I shall consider some of them in Section v of this chapter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historians, who are usually dealing with a single society, rarely trouble themselves with any reflections about their choice of categories: they are seldom aware of any problem in this respect; often it does not even occur to them that there is any need to go beyond the concepts employed by the members of the society they are studying. Indeed, a practising historian in the British – and American – empirical tradition may well say to us (as the author of a major recent book on the Roman emperor has virtually done: see the opening of Section v of this Chapter): &#039;Why on earth should we waste time on all this theoretical stuff, about class structure and social relations and historical method? Why can&#039;t we just go on doing history in the good old way, without bothering about the concepts and categories we employ? That might even involve us in the philosophy of history, which is something we prefer to abandon with disdain to philosophers and sociologists, as mere ideology.&#039; The reply to this, of course, is that it is a serious error to suppose that unconsciousness of ideology, or even a complete lack of interest in it, is the same thing as absence of ideology. In reality each of us has an ideological approach to history, resulting in a particular historical methodology and set of general concepts, whether conscious or unconscious. To refuse – as so many do – to define or even to think about the basic concepts we employ simply results in our taking over without scrutiny, lock, stock and barrel, the prevailing ideology in which we happen to have been brought up, and making much the same kind of selection from the evidence that our predecessors have been making and for the same reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, there are very great virtues in the traditional approach of the historian, the essence of which – the insistence on recognising the &#039;&#039;specificity&#039;&#039; of the historical situation in any given period (and even area) – must not be abandoned, or even compromised, when it is combined with a sociological approach. Indeed, anyone who is not capable (whether from a deficiency of intellect or from lack of time or energy) of the great effort needed to combine the two approaches ought to prefer the strictly historical one, for even mediocre works produced by the purely fact-grubbing historian may at least, if his facts are accurate and fairly presented, be of use to others capable of a higher degree of synthesis, whereas the would-be sociologist having insufficient knowledge of the specific historical evidence for a particular period is unlikely in the extreme to say anything about it that will be of use to anyone else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The study of ancient history in Britain has long been characterised by an attitude to detailed empirical investigation which &#039;&#039;in itself&#039;&#039; is most admirable. In a recent assessment of Rostovtzeff&#039;s great &#039;&#039;Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire&#039;&#039;, Glen Bowersock of Harvard University (who had himself been through the Oxford Greats School and was a graduate pupil of Sir Ronald Syme) has spoken of a general raising of eyebrows in Oxford when Rostovtzeff, who had come there in 1918 as an exile from his native Russia, &#039;announced that he would lecture on no less a subject than &amp;quot;The Social and Economic History of Eastern and Western Hellenism, the Roman Republic, and the Roman Empire&amp;quot;&#039;. He adds, &amp;quot;Together with the immodest grandeur of Rostovtzeff&#039;s topic went, perhaps inevitably, an occasional cloudiness of thought&#039;; and he records Rostovtzeff&#039;s own remark in the Preface to his book, &#039;Evidently the English mind, in this respect unlike the Slavonic, dislikes a lack of precision in thought or expression.&#039;[5] Now here we come right up against a problem which faces every historian: how to reconcile full and scrupulous attention to all forms of evidence for his chosen subject and a study of the modern literature relating to it with a grasp of general historical methodology and sociological theory sufficient to enable him to make the most of what he learns. Few if any of us strike exactly the right balance between these very different desiderata. It has been said that the sociologist comes to know &#039;less and less about more and more&#039;, the historian &#039;more and more about less and less&#039;. Most of us fall too decisively into one or other of these categories. We are like Plutarch&#039;s truly pious man, who has to negotiate a difficult course between the precipice of godlessness and the marsh of superstition (&#039;&#039;Mor&#039;&#039;. 378a), or Bunyan&#039;s Christian in the Valley of the Shadow of Death, treading a narrow path between, on the right hand, &#039;a very deep Ditch . . . into which the blind have led the blind in all Ages, and have both there miserably perished&#039;, and on the left, &#039;a very dangerous Quagg, into which, if even a good Man falls, he can find no bottom for his foot to stand on&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel much happier, in dealing with the history of the ancient Greek world, if I can legitimately make use of categories of social analysis which are not only &#039;&#039;precise&#039;&#039;, in the sense that I can define them, but also &#039;&#039;general&#039;&#039;, in the sense that they can be applied to the analysis of other human societies. Class, in my sense, is eminently such a category. Nevertheless, I realise that it is a healthy instinct on the part of historians in the empirical tradition to feel the need at least to &#039;&#039;begin from&#039;&#039; the categories and even the terminology in use within the society they are studying – provided, of course, they do not remain imprisoned therein. In our case, if the Greeks did not &#039;have a word for&#039; something we want to talk about, it may be a salutary warning to us that the phenomena we are looking for may not have existed in Greek times, or at any rate not in the same form as today. And so, in Section iv of this chapter, I propose to &#039;&#039;begin from&#039;&#039; the categories employed by the ancient Greeks themselves, at the time of their greatest self-awareness (the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.), to describe their own society. It will immediately become obvious that there is a striking similarity between those categories and some of the features of Marx&#039;s class analysis: this is particularly clear in Aristotle&#039;s &#039;&#039;Politics&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us now get down to fundamentals. I begin with five propositions. First, man is a social animal – and not only that, but, as Marx says in the &#039;&#039;Grundrisse&#039;&#039; (E. T. 84), &#039;an animal which can develop into an individual only in society&#039;. (Although in the same passage Marx contemptuously and rightly dismissed the individual and isolated hunter or fisherman who serves as the starting-point for Adam Smith and Ricardo – or, for that matter, Thomas Hobbes – as an uninspired conceit in the tradition of Robinson Crusoe, it is impossible not to recall at this point Hobbes&#039;s famous description of the life of his imaginary pre-societal man, in &#039;&#039;Leviathan&#039;&#039; I.13, as &#039;solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short&#039;.) Secondly, the prime task of man in society is to organise production, in the broadest sense, including both the acquisition from outside his society, by trade or forcible appropriation, of such necessary and desirable things as the society needs but cannot produce, or cannot profitably produce, within itself, and the distribution of what is produced. (In an area which is large or, like the Greek world, much split up by mountains or the sea, the nature of the transport system may be an important factor.) I shall use the term &#039;production&#039; in this convenient, extended sense, as Marx commonly does.[6] It should hardly be necessary to add that production, in the very broad sense in which I am using the word, of course includes reproduction: the bearing and rearing to maturity of offspring (cf. Section vi of this chapter). Thirdly, in the very act of living in society and organising production, man necessarily enters into a particular system of social and economic relations, which Marx referred to as &#039;the relations of production&#039; or &#039;the social relations of production&#039;.[7] Fourthly, in a civilised society such as that of the ancient Greeks or ourselves, the producers of actual necessities must (for obvious reasons, to be noticed presently) produce a surplus beyond what they actually consume themselves. And fifthly, the extraction and perpetuation of such a surplus has led in practice to exploitation, in particular of the primary agricultural producers: this exploitation, with which the whole concept of class is associated, is the very kernel of what I refer to as &#039;the class struggle&#039;. (I shall deal with it in Sections ii and iii of this chapter. As I shall there explain, when I speak about &#039;the class struggle&#039; in the ancient world I am never thinking of a struggle on the political plane alone, and sometimes my &#039;class struggle&#039; may have virtually no political aspect at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I should perhaps add, for the benefit of those who are accustomed to &#039;structuralist&#039; terminology, that I have not found it useful or possible to draw the distinction employed by Lévi-Strauss and his school between social &#039;&#039;relations&#039;&#039; and social &#039;&#039;structure&#039;&#039; (see e.g. Lévi-Strauss, &#039;&#039;SA&#039;&#039; 279, 303-4). I shall sometimes speak of a set of social relations &#039;&#039;as&#039;&#039; a social structure, or social formation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am of course thinking throughout in terms of the civilised societies of the last few thousand years, which, having developed technologically far beyond the level of primitive man, have aimed at providing themselves with a sufficient and stable supply of the necessities and luxuries of civilised life, and consequently have had to devote a very considerable volume of effort to ensuring that supply. Some anthropologists have argued that by reducing their wants to a minimum, primitives existing in a favourable environment may be thought happier than men in at least the earlier stages of civilisation, and may even enjoy a good deal of leisure; but for my purposes primitive society[8] is irrelevant, since its structure is totally different from that of Graeco-Roman antiquity (let alone the modern world), and any exploitation which may exist at the primitive stage takes place in quite different ways. Moreover, primitive society has not proved able to survive contact with developed modern economies – to put it in the crudest possible way, with Hilaire Belloc (&#039;&#039;The Modern Traveller&#039;&#039;, vi),&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Whatever happens we have got&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Maxim gun, and they have not.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Now in a primitive food-gathering and hunting tribe the mere day-to-day provision of food and other immediate necessities and of defence against wild beasts and other tribes and so on may be virtually a whole-time job for all adult members of the tribe, at least in the sense that in practice they do not extend their economic activities much further.[9] In a civilised community, however, it is not possible for everyone to spend all his time on these basic activities: there must be at least some members of the community who have enough &#039;&#039;leisure&#039;&#039; – in the technical sense of being released from directly producing the material necessities of life – for governing and organising and administering a complex society; for defending it against outsiders, with whatever weapons may be needed; for educating the next generation and training them in all the necessary skills, over a period of perhaps ten to twenty years; for the arts and sciences (whatever stage of development these may have reached); and for the many other requirements of civilised life. Such people (or some of them) must be at least partly freed from the cruder tasks, so that they may fulfil their specialised functions. And this means that they will have to be maintained by the rest of the community, or some part of it, in return for the services they provide. The producers will now have to produce more than what they themselves consume – in other words, a &#039;&#039;surplus&#039;&#039;.[10] And &#039;the appearance of a surplus makes possible – which does not mean &amp;quot;necessary&amp;quot; – structural transformation in a society&#039; (Godelier, &#039;&#039;RIE&#039;&#039; 274).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In view of the controversy which has been going on for years among economic anthropologists about the whole notion of a &#039;surplus&#039;, I feel it is necessary to make two observations on that concept. First, I use the term in a strictly relative sense and with (so to speak) an &#039;internal&#039; application, to mean that part of the product of &#039;&#039;an individual man&#039;s&#039;&#039; labour of which he does not directly enjoy the fruit himself, and the immediate benefits of which are reserved for others. I would distinguish an &#039;external&#039; application of the term surplus, namely the way in which the notion is employed by anthropologists such as Pearson, to mean something set aside by &#039;&#039;the society as a whole&#039;&#039;, or by those who make its decisions, as &#039;surplus to its needs&#039;, and made available for some specific purpose – feats, war, exchange with other societies, and so forth.[11] Secondly, I agree with Godelier that there is no &#039;&#039;necessary&#039;&#039; connection between the existence of a surplus and the exploitation of man by man: there may at first be exchange considered profitable by both sides, with certain persons taking upon themselves services genuinely performed on behalf of the whole community[12] – its defence against attack from outside, for example.[13] The precise point in history at which exploitation should be conceived as beginning is difficult to decide, and I have not made up my own mind. The question is not important for my present purposes, because exploitation began long before the period with which I am concerned in this book. Perhaps we could say that exploitation begins when the primary producer is obliged to yield up a surplus under the influence of compulsion (whether political, economic or social, and whether perceived as compulsion or not), at any rate at the stage when he no longer receives a real equivalent in exchange – although this may make it very difficult to decide the point at which exploitation begins, since it is hard to quantify, for example, military protection against agricultural produce (cf. IV.iv below). A much more sophisticated definition of exploitation (which may well be preferable) has been offered by Dupré and Rey on the basis of their anthropological fieldwork in west Africa: &#039;Exploitation exists when the &#039;&#039;use&#039;&#039; of the surplus product by a group (or an aggregate) which has not contributed the corresponding surplus of labour &#039;&#039;reproduces the conditions of a new extortion of surplus labour&#039;&#039; from the producers&#039; (RPTHC 152, my italics). Although even a good and fully socialist society must arrange for &#039;surplus labour&#039; by some, to support the very young, the aged and the infirm, and to provide all kinds of services for the community (cf. Marx, &#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. III.847, 876), it would necessarily do so in such a way that no individual or group of individuals had a right to appropriate the fruits of that &#039;surplus labour&#039; in virtue of any special control over the process of production through property rights, or indeed except at the direction of the community as a whole or its organs of government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In every civilised society there has been a basic problem of production: how to extract a sufficient surplus (&#039;sufficient&#039; in a relative sense, of course) from the primary producers, who are not likely to relish their position at the base of the social pyramid and will have to be subjected to a judicious mixture of persuasion and coercion – the more so if they have come to see the favoured few as exploiters and oppressors. Now men&#039;s capacity to win for themselves the freedom to live the life they want to live has always been severely limited, until very recently, by inadequate development of the productive forces at their disposal.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;All emancipation carried through hitherto has been based on restricted productive forces. The production which these productive forces could provide was insufficient for the whole of society and made development possible only if some persons satisfied their needs at the expense of others, and therefore some – the minority – obtained the monopoly of development, while others – the majority – owing to the constant struggle to satisfy their most essential needs, were for the time being (i.e. until the creation of new revolutionary forces) excluded from any development (&#039;&#039;MECW&#039;&#039; V.431-2, from the &#039;&#039;German Ideology&#039;&#039;; cf. &#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. III.820, quoted in I.iv above).&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;If I were asked to name the fundamental features of ancient Greek society which most distinguish it from the contemporary world, I would single out two things, closely connected, which I shall describe in succession. The &#039;&#039;first&#039;&#039;, within the field of what Marx called &#039;the forces of production&#039;, is a technological distinction. The advanced countries of the modern world have immense productive power. But go back to the ancient world, and you go down and down the technological ladder, so to speak. The Greek world, compared with the modern one, was very undeveloped technologically, and therefore infinitely less productive.[14] Great advances in technology occurred long before the Industrial Revolution, in the Middle Ages and even the Dark Ages. These advances were far more important than most people realise, not only in the most essential sphere of all, that of sources of energy or &#039;prime movers&#039; (which I shall come to in a moment), but in all sorts of other ways. To take only one example – I wonder how many people who have not only read Greek and Roman monuments have noticed the absence from antiquity of the wheelbarrow, which at least doubles a man&#039;s carrying capacity, but only appears in Europe in the thirteenth century (in China it was known a thousand years earlier).[15] As for sources of energy, I will say only that animal power, in the form of the tractive effort of the horse and ox, was nothing like fully realised in Classical antiquity, in particular because of the extreme inefficiency of the ancient horse-harness;[16] and that only in the Middle Ages do we find the widespread utilisation of two important forms of energy which were very little used in antiquity: wind and water (cf. n.14 below). Wind, of course, was used for the propulsion of merchant ships, though not very efficiently and without the stern-post rudder;[17] but the windmill was not known in Europe before (or not much before) the early twelfth century. The water-mill[18] (&#039;&#039;hydraletēs&#039;&#039;) was actually invented not later than the last century B.C.: the last earliest known mention is by the Greek geographer Strabo, in a reference to Pontus, on the south shore of the Black Sea, in the 60s B.C. (XII.iii.30, p.556). But the most fascinating piece of evidence is the delightful poem in the &#039;&#039;Greek Anthology&#039;&#039;, by Antipater of Thessalonica, to which I referred in I.iv above as being known to Marx: the poet innocently assures the slave mill-girls that now they have the water-nymphs to work for them they can sleep late and take their ease (&#039;&#039;Anth. Pal&#039;&#039;. IX.418: see &#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. I.408). There is a little evidence, both literary and archaeological, for the use of the water-mill in the Graeco-Roman world, but it was rare before the fourth and fifth centuries, and its full use comes a good deal later (see n.14 again). Marx realised that &#039;the Roman Empire had handed down the elementary form of all machinery in the water-wheel&#039; (&#039;&#039;Cap&#039;&#039;. I.348).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is the essential background to my second basic distinction between the ancient and the modern world, which is intimately connected with the first and indeed largely grew out of it. In the ancient world, as we have seen, the producers, as I am calling them (men engaged in essential economic activities), produced a very much smaller surplus than is necessary to sustain a modern advanced society. This remains vitally important, even if we allow for the fact that the average Greek had a far more restricted range of wants and demanded a much lower standard of living than the modern Englishman, so that the volume of production per head could be well below what it has to be today. But even if we make allowance for this the disparity is still very striking. As I have shown, the ancient world was enormously less productive than the modern world. Therefore, unless almost everyone was to have to work practically all the same, and have virtually no leisure, some means had to be found of extracting the largest possible surplus out of any rate a considerable number of those at the lowest levels of society. And this is where we come face to face with the &#039;&#039;second&#039;&#039; of my two fundamental distinctions between the ancient and the modern world, one that occurs this time in the field of what Marx called &#039;the relations of production&#039;: the propertied classes in the Greek and Roman world derived their surplus, which freed them from the necessity of taking part in the process of production, nor from wage labour, as in capitalist society, but mainly from unfree labour of various kinds. The ancient world knew other forms of unfree labour than strict &#039;slavery&#039; (&#039;chattel slavery&#039;, if you like), in particular what I shall call &#039;serfdom&#039; and &#039;debt bondage&#039; (see III.iv below). But in general slavery was the most important form of unfree labour at the highest periods of Greek and Roman civilisation; and the Greeks and Romans themselves always tended to employ the vocabulary of actual slavery when referring to other forms of unfree labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have indicated that it is above all in relation to its function of extracting the maximum surplus of those primary producers who were at the lowest levels of ancient society that I propose to consider slavery and other forms of unfree labour in this book. In treating slavery in this manner I am looking at it in very much the way that both masters and slaves have commonly regarded it. (Whether the ancient belief in the efficiency of the institution of slavery in this respect is justified or not is irrelevant for my purposes.) Perhaps I may cite here the opening of the third chapter of one of the best-known books on North American slavery, Kenneth Stampp&#039;s &#039;&#039;The Peculiar Institution&#039;&#039; (p.86):&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Slaves apparently thought of the South&#039;s peculiar institution chiefly as a system of labour extortion. Of course they felt its impact in other ways – in their social status, their legal status, and their private lives – but they felt it most acutely in the lack of control over their own time and labour. If discontented with bondage, they could be expected to direct their protests principally against the master&#039;s claim to their work.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The feature of slavery which made it appropriate and indeed essential and irreplaceable in the economic conditions of Classical antiquity was precisely that the &#039;&#039;labour&#039;&#039; it provided was &#039;&#039;forced&#039;&#039;. The slave, by definition, is a man &#039;&#039;without rights&#039;&#039; (or virtually without effective rights) and therefore unable to protect himself against being compelled to yield up a very large part of what he produces. Dio Chrysostom, in the early second century of the Christian era, reports an imaginary discussion about slavery in which there was general agreement about the basic definition of the slave&#039;s condition: that someone else &#039;owns him as master, like any other item of property or cattle, so as to be able &#039;&#039;to make use of him at his pleasure&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&#039; (&#039;&#039;Orat&#039;&#039;. XV.24).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I suggest that the most profitable way of approaching the problem of unfree labour is to think of it in precisely the way in which I have introduced it, in terms of &#039;&#039;the extraction of the largest possible surplus from the primary producers&#039;&#039;. I think that in antiquity slavery probably did provide the best possible answer, from the purely economic point of view (that is to say, disregarding all social as well as moral factors), having regard to the low level of productivity, and also to the fact that &#039;&#039;free&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;hired&#039;&#039; labour was scarce, largely confined to unskilled or seasonal work, and not at all mobile, whereas slaves were available in large numbers and at prices the lowness of which is astonishing, in comparison with what is known of slave prices in other societies. But given these conditions – the poor supply of free, hired labour, the easy availability of slaves, their cheapness, and so on – I do believe that slavery increased the surplus in the hands of the propertied class to an extent which could not otherwise have been achieved and was therefore an essential precondition of the magnificent achievements of Classical civilisation. I would draw attention to the fact that the distinction I have just drawn is based not on a difference of &#039;&#039;status&#039;&#039;, between slaves &#039;&#039;and free men&#039;&#039;, but on a difference of &#039;&#039;class&#039;&#039;, between slaves &#039;&#039;and their owners&#039;&#039; – a very different matter. (I shall return to this difference later: see Sections iii and v of this chapter.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may not have been fully obvious that so far I have been preparing the ground for the definition of the terms &#039;class&#039; and &#039;class struggle&#039; which I shall offer in Section ii of this chapter. I had to make clear certain fundamental features of ancient Greek society. I had to make clear certain fundamental features of ancient Greek society. I have now explained one of these, the essential part played by what I am calling unfree labour; and I must now briefly mention another, the fact that by far the most important means of production in the ancient world was land. Wealth in Classical antiquity was always essentially landed wealth, and the ruling classes of all the Greek states, as of Rome itself, invariably consisted mainly of landowners. This is something which most ancient historians now realise; but the whole question, like that of slavery and other forms of unfree labour, will require a more extended discussion than I can give it at this point (see III.i-iii below).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In seeking to use the concept of class as a method of historical analysis there are two quite different dangers that we must guard against: one, a matter of definition, is a question strictly for the historian. After stating them together, I shall briefly discuss them separately. First, we must be quite sure what we mean by the term &#039;class&#039; (and &#039;class struggle&#039;), and not slide carelessly and unconsciously from one interpretation to another. Secondly, we must be careful to make a correct historical identification of any class we propose to recognise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The first problem, that of definition, is of a sociological nature. Marx himself, as I said earlier, never gave a definition of class in general terms. Some may feel that no such general definition is possible, but I believe the one I shall produce in Section ii below will serve well enough, although there may be some special cases in which a unique set of historical circumstances makes qualification necessary. Even if it could be shown that there are too many exceptions for my definition to be considered a general one, I would a least claim that it holds for the society, or rather series of societies, of the Graeco-Roman world, discussed in this book. I hope that others will improve upon it.&lt;br /&gt;
# The second problem is purely historical: one must thoroughly understand the particular society one is considering, and know the evidence about it at first hand, before one can expect to identify its classes correctly and precisely. Some serious mistakes have been made in defining the actual classes existing in particular societies, and the results of employing unreal conceptions of those classes, not corresponding closely with reality, have sometimes been disastrous. Misconceptions about classes existing in historical societies have not, of course, been confined to Marxists, by any means, but since they make more use of class categories than other historians they are likely to commit even worse blunders if they start out with misconceptions about the classes they recognise. It has been standard practice among ancient historians to refer to the governing classes of several Greek cities in the Archaic and Classical periods, in particular Aegina and Corinth, as &#039;commercial aristocracies&#039; or &#039;industrial and merchant classes&#039; (see my &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 264-7, esp. n.61; cf. 216, 218-20, and Appendix XLI, esp. p.396). This extraordinary notion, for which there is not a shred of ancient evidence, was adopted without examination by Busolt, Eduard Meyer and other leading historians (even Max Weber was not entirely free of it), and it is still being reproduced today in some quarters. Not a few Marxists have started out from similarly mistaken positions. It is not surprising that attempts by George Thomson (essentially a literary scholar and not a historian in the proper sense) to expound the intellectual development of the Classical Greek world in Marxist terms have not succeeded in convincing historians or philosophers; for Thomson presents the development of Greek thought, and even of Greek democracy, in the sixth and fifth centuries as the consequence of the rise to power of a wholly imaginary &#039;merchant class&#039;. Thomson even describes the Pythagoreans of Croton as &#039;the new class of rich industrialists and merchants&#039;, who &#039;resembled Solon in being actively involved in development of commodity production&#039;.[19] In my opinion, this is little better than fantasy. The one book I know in English which explicitly seeks to give an account of Greek history (before the Roman period) in Marxist terms is a prime example of the methodological catastrophe involved in giving a would-be Marxist account in terms of classes that are fictions and correspond to no historical reality. The author, Margaret O. Wason, pretends that in the seventh and sixth centuries, in most Greek states, there came to power a &#039;new bourgeois class&#039;, defined as &#039;the class of merchants and artisans which challenged the power of the aristocracy&#039;. It is no surprise to find Cleon referred to in the same book as &#039;a tanner&#039; (this of course reproduces Aristophanes&#039; caricature; cf. my &#039;&#039;OPW&#039;&#039; 235 n.7, 359-61, 371) and as &#039;the leader of the Athenian workers&#039;.[20]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I may add that it would similarly be absurd to speak of a &#039;class struggle&#039; between Senators and Equites in the Late Roman Republic. Here I am in full agreement with a number of non-Marxist ancient historians of very different outlooks. As P. A. Brunt and Claude Nicolet have so conclusively demonstrated in the last few years, the Equites were part of the class of large landowners to which the Senators also belonged. As Badian has put it, for the Senate they were simply &#039;the non-political members of its own classes&#039;[21] – those who preferred not to take upon themselves the arduous and often dangerous life that a political career would involve. At certain times a purely political contest might develop between these two groups within the propertied class on specific issues, but this must not mislead us into seeing them as two separate classes having irreconcilable interests. I shall in fact speak sometimes of the Roman Senators (though not the Equites) as a class: the &#039;senatorial class&#039;. It is possible that some other Marxists may prefer not to break down my &#039;propertied class&#039; (for which see III.ii below) into two or more classes for certain purposes, as I do – for example, in the developed Principate and the Later Empire, primarily into the senatorial and curial classes, with the Equites perhaps as a kind of sub-class closely attached to the Senators, until in the late fourth and early fifth centuries they were entirely absorbed into the senatorial class (see VI.vi below, &#039;&#039;ad fin&#039;&#039;.) But in my set of definitions, early in Section ii of this chapter, I allow for &#039;&#039;Rechtsstellung&#039;&#039; (legal or constitutional situation) as a factor that can help to determine class in so far as it affects the type and degree of exploitation practised or suffered; and the constitutional privileges enjoyed by Senators surely did materially increase their capacity to exploit – just as the condition of being a slave, with its severe juridical disabilities, greatly increased the slave&#039;s liability to exploitation. But I could quite understand if some other Marxists, feeling that it was above all their great wealth which lay at the root of the Senators&#039; privileged position, rather than the office-holding and the consequential legal privileges it brought them, preferred to treat the Senators merely as an &#039;order&#039; (which they certainly were) rather than a class. Perhaps &#039;sub-class&#039; would be a convenient term; but I have avoided it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have only one more preliminary point to make before proceeding to a definition of my terms: I am deliberately avoiding, at this stage, discussion of the terms &#039;caste&#039;, &#039;order&#039;, &#039;estate&#039; (&#039;&#039;état&#039;&#039;). Caste is a phenomenon which we do not encounter at all in the Greek or Roman world.[22] We do find what can legitimately be described as &#039;orders&#039; (or &#039;estates&#039;) – that is to say, status-groups (&#039;&#039;Stände&#039;&#039;) which are &#039;&#039;legally recognised&#039;&#039; as such and have different sets of juridical characteristics (privileges or disadvantages). Such groups will be noticed when we have occasion to discuss them. I shall have something to say of &#039;status-groups&#039; in general, and (in Section v of this chapter) of &#039;status&#039; as an alternative concept to &#039;class&#039;. But although I shall of course refer at times to particular &#039;orders&#039; (citizens, slaves, freedmen, senators, equestrians, curials), I shall take no special account of &#039;orders&#039; as such, treating them as a rule merely as a special form of status-group, except in so far as they materially affect the degree of exploitation concerned (cf. the preceding paragraph).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - &#039;Class&#039;, &#039;exploitation&#039;, and &#039;the class struggle&#039; defined ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - Exploitation and the class struggle ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - Aristotle&#039;s sociology of Greek politics ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (v) - Alternatives to class (status etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (vi) - Women ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== III - Property and the Propertied ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - The conditions of production: land and unfree labour ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - The propertied class (or classes) ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - Land, as the principal source of wealth ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - Slavery and other forms of unfree labour ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (v) - Freedmen ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (vi) - Hired labour ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== IV - Forms of Exploitation in the Ancient Greek World, and the Small Independent Producer ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - &#039;Direct individual&#039; and &#039;indirect collective&#039; exploitation ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - The peasantry and their villages ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - From slave to &#039;&#039;colonus&#039;&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - The military factor ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (v) - &#039;Feudalism&#039; (and serfdom) ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (vi) - Other independent producers ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== PART TWO ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== V - The Class Struggle in Greek History on the Political Plane ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - The &#039;age of the tyrants&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - The fifth and fourth centuries B.C. ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - The destruction of Greek democracy ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== VI - Rome the Suzerain ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - &#039;The queen and mistress of the world&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - The &#039;conflict of the Orders&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - The developed Republic ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - The Roman conquest of the Greek world ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (v) - From Republic to Principate ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (vi) - The Principate, the emperor, and the upper classes ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== VII - The Class Struggle on the Ideological Plane ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - Terror, and propaganda ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - The theory of &#039;natural slavery&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - The standard Hellenistic, Roman and Christian attitude to slavery ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - The attitudes to property of the Graeco-Roman world, of Jesus, and of the Christian churches ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (v) - The ideology of the victims of the class struggle ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== VIII - The &#039;Decline and Fall&#039; of the Roman Empire: an Explanation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (i) - Intensified political subjection and economic exploitation of the lower classes during the early centuries of the Christian era ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (ii) - Pressure on the curial class ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iii) - Defection to the &#039;barbarians&#039;, peasant revolts, and indifference to the disintegration of the Roman empire ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== (iv) - The collapse of much of the Roman empire in the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== APPENDICES ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== I - The contrast between slave and wage-labourer in Marx&#039;s theory of capital ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== II - Some evidence for slavery (especially agricultural) in the Classical and Hellenistic periods ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== III - The settlement of &#039;barbarians&#039; within the Roman empire ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== IV - The destruction of Greek democracy in the Roman period ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Notes ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works about ancient Greece]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Literallywho Ingodsname</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>