Laktionov and the history of diplomacy volume 1. Book: Laktionov A. “History of diplomacy. We are not responsible for the operation of retail and online stores
1. We want to see your unique experience
On the book page we will publish unique reviews that you personally wrote about a specific book you read. You can leave general impressions about the work of the publishing house, authors, books, series, as well as comments on the technical side of the site on our social networks or contact us by mail.
2. We are for politeness
If you didn't like the book, give reasons why. We do not publish reviews containing obscene, rude, or purely emotional expressions addressed to the book, author, publisher, or other users of the site.
3. Your review should be easy to read
Write texts in Cyrillic, without unnecessary spaces or unclear symbols, unreasonable alternation of lowercase and capital letters, try to avoid spelling and other errors.
4. The review should not contain third-party links
We do not accept reviews for publication that contain links to any third-party resources.
5. For comments on the quality of publications, there is a “Complaint Book” button
If you bought a book in which the pages are mixed up, there are missing pages, there are errors and/or typos, please let us know about this on the page of this book through the “Give a complaint book” form.
complaint book
If you encounter missing or out-of-order pages, a defective cover or interior of the book, or other examples of printing defects, you can return the book to the store where you purchased it. Online stores also have the option of returning defective goods; check with the relevant stores for detailed information.
6. Review – a place for your impressions
If you have questions about when the continuation of the book you are interested in will be released, why the author decided not to finish the series, whether there will be more books in this design, and others similar - ask them to us on social networks or by mail.
7. We are not responsible for the operation of retail and online stores.
In the book card you can find out which online store has the book in stock, how much it costs and proceed to purchase. You will find information about where else you can buy our books in the section. If you have questions, comments and suggestions regarding the work and pricing policy of the stores where you purchased or want to purchase the book, please direct them to the appropriate store.
8. We respect the laws of the Russian Federation
It is prohibited to publish any materials that violate or encourage violation of the laws of the Russian Federation.
"War is the continuation of politics by other, violent means", - this phrase by Carl von Clausewitz, an outstanding Prussian writer, commander and military theorist, expressed 186 years ago in the book “On War”, sounds very modern and remains relevant for the current generations living on Earth. It is not surprising that humanity, having appreciated the advantages of diplomacy over war, has awarded this area of applied politics the “title” of high art.
Diplomacy has been one of the most complex and responsible types of human activity for many centuries and covers all countries and all peoples. The rules and laws of diplomacy are complex, mysterious, dangerous and always responsible. The history of world diplomacy knows hundreds of absolutely amazing, puzzling, incredible stories, many of which are more interesting than any of the most twisted detective stories. It is not surprising that humanity has assigned this area of applied politics the “title” of high art.
Before us is a solid and already classic edition of 2009 - “History of Diplomacy”. Classic because the book-collection combines 2 Soviet (written by a team of scientists during the Great Patriotic War) volumes from 3 on the history of diplomacy. And naturally, the style of presentation was preserved under the Stalinist regime, namely class terminology (exploiters, imperialists, bourgeois, etc.). But this in no way detracts from the value of this work.
The book includes the works of professors V. S. Sergeev, V. S. Bakhrushin, E. A. Kosminsky, S. D. Skazkin, A. V. Efimov, A. L. Narochnitsky, V. M. Khvostov, I. I. Mints and academician E.V. Tarle.
Two hundred thousand rubles was the amount of the Stalin Prize of the first degree, received by nine authors of the History of Diplomacy. Huge money for a Soviet person... and extremely necessary - labor appeared in 1941. Perhaps, like many others, this prize went to the Defense Fund, but the fact of the award, and therefore official recognition, is still remarkable. Loyalty was a mandatory quality for Soviet historians, and participation in collective work saved some of them, elevated others, and for others became just an episode in a rich scientific biography. Stalin's front-line friend, diplomat Vladimir Potemkin kept an eye on the motley group of authors, which included young Alexei Narochnitsky, the future director of the Institute of History of the USSR, and the largest medievalist Sergei Skazkin, and Klyuchevsky's student Sergei Bakhrushin, and the fighter against cosmopolitans, the Americanist Alexei Efimov, and the repeatedly studied Napoleonist Evgeny Tarle. It can be said without exaggeration that the best minds of Soviet science came together in the work on “The History of Diplomacy.” Each author worked on his “favorite” historical period, from the Hittite-Egyptian treaties to the Versailles system (the period 1919-1939 was excluded from the modern edition).
Note that in the Central City Hospital named after. A. Green has a 3-volume edition of this work from 1945. This publication has already become a bibliographic rarity.
Therefore, it is all the more valuable that a reprint has been published and can be viewed in the reading room.
Of course, when reading, one must make allowances for the time when this book was published, when the entire concept of historical events was considered only from the point of view of historical materialism, the formation theory of Marx - this is about the masses, struggle, the growth of a revolutionary situation, the emergence of productive forces... That is why there are so many references to the works of K. Marx and V. I. Lenin. And it’s still interesting, because next to the cross-cutting story about the transformation of formations there are short essays about the ceremonial of medieval diplomacy, the journey of Marco Polo, the teachings of Hugo Grotius, Metternich, Napoleon, Bismarck, Edward Gray. In the book you can find little-known or forgotten facts: how the head of the British Foreign Office George Canning destroyed the Holy Alliance, what role William Pitt Jr. played in the reconciliation of Austria and Prussia in 1790, when diplomacy ceased to be a personal matter of monarchs and acquired a national character.
Compared to the 1945 edition, the book is supplemented with black and white photographs of maps, reproductions of paintings with historical events, and photographs.
The book offered to the reader's attention is dedicated to the history of diplomacy - from ancient times to the end of the First World War. The 1945 edition also includes the period 1919-1939.
The publication will be of interest not only to students and specialists, but even to the general public: after all, there is no dry academic presentation here - historians of the “old school” write in excellent Russian.
T. Guryeva, chief bibliographer of the Central City Hospital named after. A. Green
History of diplomacy
AST Publishing House, Midgard, 2006, 944 p.
Design and editing: 3-
If you can’t do it yourself, eat at your grandfather’s, as the editors of modern Russian publishing houses know well. Why write a competent introduction that illuminates a modern view of the history of diplomacy, why develop new maps, add a bibliography and worry about design. It’s better to take the classic Soviet work of 1942, reworking it in 1959, and bring it down on your beloved reader’s head without any explanation (after all, the text contains quotes from Marx and Engels!). Let's spice this up with maps stolen from Soviet encyclopedias (magnificent, of course, but outdated), dilute it with not always suitable pictures (black and white, of course) and cover it with a clumsy cap compiled by an idiot designer who cannot distinguish between two portraits of Bismarck. Well, it’s good that they haven’t published the original work from 70 years ago; I bet there were lines about the outstanding role of Comrade Stalin at the Congress of Vienna.
Contents: 4-
Two hundred thousand rubles was the amount of the Stalin Prize of the first degree, received by nine authors of the History of Diplomacy. Huge money for a Soviet person... and extremely necessary - labor appeared in 1941. Perhaps, like many others, this prize went to the Defense Fund, but the fact of the award, and therefore official recognition, is still remarkable. Loyalty was an obligatory quality for Soviet historians, and participation in collective work saved some of them, elevated others, and for others became only an episode in a rich scientific biography. Stalin’s front-line friend, diplomat Vladimir Potemkin kept an eye on the motley group of authors , where there were young Alexei Narochnitsky, the future director of the Institute of History of the USSR, and the largest medievalist Sergei Skazkin, and Klyuchevsky’s student Sergei Bakhrushin, and the anti-cosmopolitan Americanist Alexei Efimov, and the repeatedly studied Napoleonist Evgeniy Tarle. It can be said without exaggeration that the best minds of Soviet science came together in the work on “The History of Diplomacy.” Each author worked on his “favorite” historical period, from the Hittite-Egyptian treaties to the Versailles system (from the modern edition the period 1919-1939 was excluded), and not a single section of the book is similar to the other: some are entertaining, others are written rather dryly, some strictly follow the general line, others are more free. In general, it is a classic Soviet tome, with all its advantages and disadvantages.
For those who are not in the know: 3
Over the years, Soviet readers have learned to skim through quotes from the classics of Marxism-Leninism, without thinking about the meaning, like a prayer. This skill will be useful when getting acquainted with the “History of Diplomacy”, moreover, more in the first sections. It would seem, what classes could the Germanic tribes have? What kind of mythical tasks of national unification did Prince Svyatoslav Igorevich solve? Why does the uprising of a handful of townspeople become the central event of the story? But this is the concept, we remember, historical materialism is about the masses, struggle, the growth of a revolutionary situation, the emergence of productive forces... And it’s still interesting, because next to the cross-cutting story about the transformation of formations there are small essays about the ceremonial of medieval diplomacy, travel Marco Polo, the teachings of Hugo Grotius, Metternich, Napoleon, Bismarck, Edward Gray. The specifics of international relations in Asia also do not fit into the Marxist canon; the United States, obviously, did nothing between 1783 and 1861, and colonial diplomacy does not exist at all for the authors. The main thing is not comprehensiveness and depth, but the correct emphasis and filtering of the material - the publication, of course, is largely pedagogical.
For those in the know: 4-
The book follows the logic of the development of the diplomatic service, becoming more complex and bloated with the passage of time. Half of it is devoted to the events of 1871-1919, while only four hundred pages are devoted to the previous thousand years. For example, a story about diplomacy at the end of the 17th century was completely dropped, and instead there was a large chapter on the foreign policy of the Moscow state, which was of little interest to anyone at that time. According to Russian tradition, the story is told as if from behind the fence that separates us from Europe: sometimes Russia opens the gate, sometimes they break into it. The “objectivity” of such a view is obvious, but different authors use it in their own way: Tarle fascinatingly lists the successive mistakes of Nicholas I that led to the Crimean War, while Vladimir Khvostov repeats old fables about Bismarck’s Russophobia, Disraeli’s machinations, etc. Here and there you can find little-known or forgotten facts: how the head of the British Foreign Office George Canning destroyed the Holy Alliance, what role William Pitt Jr. played in the reconciliation of Austria and Prussia in 1790, when diplomacy ceased to be a personal matter of monarchs and acquired a national character. Historians of the old school, who began even before the revolution, write in excellent Russian, their young colleagues lag behind a little, but on the whole the union turns out to be strong.
Overall rating: 4
Systematicity and simplicity.
History of diplomacy History of diplomacy: [collection] / comp. A. Laktionov. - M: ACT-ACT MOSCOW, 2006. - 943, p. Signed for publication on February 15, 2006. Format 70x100 "/16, Conditional printing sheets 76.11 Additional circulation 3,000 copies. Order No. 1295 The book was prepared by the publishing house "Midgard" (St. Petersburg) UDC 94(100) BBK 63.3(0) I90 From the editor High art diplomacy “War is the continuation of politics by other, violent means,” Carl von Clausewitz once coined. To paraphrase Clausewitz, we can say that diplomacy is the prevention of war by non-violent means. The very essence of diplomacy is to prevent escalation of the foreign policy conflict and its escalation into active hostilities, while achieving the set goals. It is not surprising that humanity, having appreciated the advantages of diplomacy before war, has awarded this area of applied politics the “title” of high art. The book offered to the reader’s attention is dedicated to the history of this art - from ancient times until the end of World War I. Diplomacy has been one of the most complex and responsible types of human activity for many centuries and covers all countries and all peoples. The rules and laws of diplomacy are complex, mysterious, dangerous and always responsible. As a rule, thousands of people pay for the mistakes of diplomats, sometimes without even knowing it. The history of world diplomacy knows hundreds and hundreds of absolutely amazing, puzzling, incredible stories, many of which are more interesting than any of the most twisted detective stories. Even F. Callier, the author of the famous essay “Methods of Negotiating with Sovereigns” (1716), believed that a diplomat needs extraordinary intelligence. This was and remains an axiom. In those dating back to the 18th century. documents of the Russian Collegium of Foreign Affairs noted that the affairs carried out by this department “are the most important,” and therefore its employees must be “smart and trained in business.” Russian Chancellor A. M. Gorchakov, presenting to the State Council in January 1860 the project for transforming the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in particular, noted that it was necessary to “identify educated, mentally developed and capable people in the said institution...” As he wrote outstanding Russian historian, academician E.V. Tarle, a true diplomat, “has perfect command of all the techniques of his craft. He represents the interests of his state in relations with foreign powers with the greatest dignity; with unquestioned authority and impeccable knowledge of the matter, he negotiates with them and concludes agreements that his country needs. At the same time, he knows how to maintain unshakable composure in the most critical moments and strictly maintain state secrets.”1 One of the most prominent European diplomats of the past, Swedish Chancellor Axel Oxenstierna, is credited with saying that a true diplomat “must always have two obedient slaves ready for his services - simulation and dissimulation: what is not there is simulated, otherwise 1 Tarle E.V. On the techniques of diplomacy // History of diplomacy: In 3 vols. M.; L., 1945. what actually is is dissimulated, he explained, citing the well-known Latin definition “Simulantur quae non sunt, quae sunt vero dissimulantur” l. To people far from foreign policy, diplomatic work is often presented as a continuous chain of receptions, conversations, lunches or dinners in luxurious surroundings, with beautiful women, sleek footmen, music and entertainment. But behind this external side of the profession lies painstaking work, sleepless nights, a heavy burden of the highest responsibility, when the fate of thousands of people and entire countries, the fate of the world, and even the entire planet, depend on the decisions made. Diplomacy is often - and wrongly - identified with international relations. In fact, diplomacy is a kind of “superstructure” over these relations, their “formalized quintessence.” The emergence of diplomacy dates back to time immemorial. Perhaps it is not an exaggeration to say that the first diplomat of the genus homo sapiens was that primitive man who preferred a “peace treaty” with his rival to sorting out relations with the help of his fists or improvised means like a branch or a stone. Many millennia have passed since then, during which the techniques and working methods of diplomats have become more and more “civilized” and sophisticated, but the essence of diplomacy has not changed to this day - it is still called upon to ensure the achievement of the foreign policy goals of a particular state through negotiations and other “peaceful technologies”. Of course, not only the methods and techniques of work changed, diplomacy itself also changed. It changed from “diplomacy of leaders” and “diplomacy of kings” to “diplomacy of peoples” and “diplomacy of corporations.” Today, since we live in a consumer society in which economics in all its manifestations rules, the most relevant branch of diplomacy is economic diplomacy, therefore trade, economic and scientific and technical aspects occupy an increasingly important place in activities diplomatic missions of many countries. In recent decades, the point of view has gained some popularity that the role of professional diplomacy in the implementation of foreign policy is declining. However, the experience of many generations of diplomats proves that diplomacy is destined to have a long and necessary life for the world community. The situation in the world does not allow us to doubt for a second the enduring significance of this everyday, seemingly unnoticeable ongoing work of embassies, for the quality and timeliness of which the “center” sternly demands. In fact, the preparation and conduct of visits to various countries by heads of government, foreign ministers, parliamentary and other official delegations, the presentation of specific proposals and draft documents are unthinkable without the voluminous and substantive contribution of embassies, as well as those working in tandem with them from various institutions and organizations in the host country. Chapters on Ancient Diplomacy are written by Professor B.C. Sergeev, on diplomacy of the Middle Ages - by professors S.V. Bakhrushin and E.A. Kosminsky, chapters on European diplomacy of the 17th-18th centuries. -Professors S.V. Bakhrushin and S.D. Skazkin, heads of US diplomacy - Professor A.V. Efimov, heads of diplomacy of the era of the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars - A.L. Narochnitsky and academician E.V Tarle, chapters on European diplomacy during the Crimean War and on the diplomacy of Germany and France during the Franco-Prussian War - by Academician E. V. Tarle, chapters on the history of diplomacy from the Frankfurt Peace to the beginning of the First World War - by Professor V. M. Khvostov , chapter on the Treaty of Versailles - by Professor I. I. Mints. 1 Tarle E. B. On the techniques of diplomacy. Wed. also the words of Talleyrand: “A good diplomat improvises what needs to be said and carefully prepares what should be kept silent.” Diplomacy in Ancient Ages Introduction Diplomacy in the Ancient world carried out the foreign policy tasks of states whose economic basis was slavery. The slave system did not remain motionless. In the process of its historical development, it went through several successive stages. Early slavery, not yet completely separated from the communal-tribal system, underlay the state formations of the Ancient East - such as Egyptian despotism, the kingdom of the Hittites, Assyria, Persia, and the states of Ancient India. In these military-theocratic powers, based on the power of non-economic coercion, foreign policy was guided primarily by aggressive interests: the seizure of lands, slaves, livestock, the robbery of wealth available in neighboring countries were the main goals of the wars of that time. International issues were usually resolved by armed force. However, the states of the Ancient East had to develop very lively diplomatic activity. Diplomatic relations were conducted by the kings themselves. The rulers of the Ancient East were revered as gods, they embodied the entire state in their person, and had at their disposal entire armies of “royal servants” - officials and scribes. In accordance with the main objectives of the aggressive foreign policy of the military-theocratic kingdoms of the East, their centralized diplomacy resolved a relatively limited range of issues. Its greatest strength was the organization of all-pervasive military-political intelligence. More developed slavery, associated with the commodity-money economy and the growth of coastal cities, underlay the ancient states of Greece and Rome. The foreign policy of these slave-owning city-states (polies) was determined by the interests of the struggle for the expansion of territories, for the acquisition of slaves, for markets. This resulted in: the desire for hegemony, the search for allies, the formation of groups, colonial expansion, which aimed at the formation of major powers and caused clashes among the Greeks in the East, with the Persian kingdom, among the Romans in the West, with the richest trade republic of the Ancient world - Carthage. The diplomatic activity of the ancient city-states was expressed in lively negotiations, continuous exchange of embassies, convening meetings, and concluding defensive and offensive alliance treaties. The activity of diplomacy of the states of classical Greece unfolded in its entirety during the Peloponnesian War between the two largest military-political alliances - Athenian and Spartan - which fought for 30 years for dominance in the Hellenic world. Subsequently, no less intense diplomatic activity flared up with the appearance of a new force on the pan-Greek arena - the Macedonian kingdom, which embodied the unifying tendencies of Greece at that time, combined with colonial expansion to the East. In the west, in the Roman Republic, the greatest activity of diplomacy was observed during the Second and Third Punic Wars. At this time, the growing Roman Republic met in the person of Hannibal its largest enemy not only in the military, but also in the diplomatic field. The organization of diplomacy of the ancient republics was affected by the peculiarities of the political system of slave-owning democracy. Ambassadors of the republics were elected at open meetings of full-fledged citizens and, at the end of their mission, reported to them. Every full-fledged citizen, if he considered the ambassador’s actions to be wrong, could demand that he be brought to justice. This was carried out completely in the Greek republics, and to a lesser extent in Rome: here, instead of the People's Assembly, the body of the Roman nobility, the Senate, was the sovereign leader of foreign policy. During the last two centuries of the Roman Republic and the first two centuries of the Empire, slavery reached its highest development within the ancient world. During this period, the Roman state gradually developed into a centralized form of the Empire. The foreign policy of imperial Rome pursued two main goals: the creation of a world power that absorbed all the countries of the then known “circle of lands”, and the defense of its borders from attacks by neighboring peoples. In the east, in its struggle and relations with the Parthian kingdom, the diplomacy of the Roman Empire under the first emperors successfully resolved offensive tasks. Later, forced to retreat, she turns to skillful maneuvering. In the west, in contact with the barbarians on the European borders of the Empire, Roman diplomacy seeks to weaken the pressure of the barbarian elements and use them as military and labor force. At the same time, Roman diplomacy had to solve the problem of maintaining the integrity of the Empire through agreements between individual parts of the Roman state. In connection with the centralization of state power, all management of the foreign policy of imperial Rome was carried out by the head of state - the emperor, through his personal office. The technique of diplomacy of imperial Rome was at a fairly high level: it was distinguished by a complex and subtle development of techniques and forms. Already from the end of the 2nd century. signs of the collapse of the Roman Empire are noticeable, associated with the crisis of the slave-owning mode of production: it is being replaced by new, semi-feudal, methods of exploitation of labor (colonation and freedmanship). All this exacerbated internal contradictions, undermined the economic and military power of the Empire and weakened the activity of Rome’s foreign policy. In accordance with the decline in the political and military power of the Roman power, the level of its diplomacy also decreased. The content and forms of diplomatic activity of the Late Empire show a strong influence of the eastern states, especially Persia, and the barbarian world. DIPLOMACY OF THE ANCIENT EAST 1. Documents of ancient Eastern diplomacy Tell Amarna correspondence (XV-XIV centuries BC) The history of the Ancient East has preserved for us a number of documents - diplomatic letters, treaties and other international acts, indicating lively relations between kingdoms of the Ancient East. The largest state in the Near East was Egypt. The Egyptian borders during the XVIII dynasty (mid-second millennium BC) reached the spurs of the Taurus and the Euphrates River. In the international life of the Ancient East at this time, Egypt played a leading role. The Egyptians maintained lively trade, cultural and political ties with the entire world known to them - with the state of the Hittites in Western Asia, with the states of the north and south of Mesopotamia (the state of Mitanni, Babylon, Assyria), with the Syrian and Palestinian princes, the Kingdom of Crete and islands of the Aegean Sea. Diplomatic correspondence in Egypt was managed by a special state office for foreign affairs. Of the numerous monuments of ancient Eastern diplomacy, the most interesting in terms of volume and richness of content are the Tell Amarna correspondence and the agreement between the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses II and the Hittite king Hattushil III, concluded in 1278 BC. e. Amarna is an area on the right bank of the Nile in Middle Egypt, the former residence of the Egyptian pharaoh Amenophis (Amenhotep) IV. In 1887-1888 In the palace of Amenophis, an archive was opened containing diplomatic correspondence of the pharaohs of the 18th dynasty - Amenophis III and his son Amenophis IV (mid-second millennium, XV-XIV centuries BC). Currently, the Tell Amarna archive is located in the British Museum in London and the State Museum in Berlin. It contains about 360 clay tablets representing the correspondence of the named pharaohs with the kings of other states and with the subject Syrian princes. A significant addition to the Tell Amarna archive is the archive of the Hittite king Subbiluliuma from Bogaz Kay, the capital of the Hittite state (near modern Ankara). Most of the material in the Tell Amarna archive consists of letters from Syrian and Palestinian princes to the pharaoh on whom they depended. The Syrian and Palestinian principalities played the role of buffer states between the two largest powers of the ancient Eastern world - the state of the Hittites, on the one hand, and Egypt, on the other. It was beneficial for the pharaoh to maintain constant hostility between the princes and thus strengthen his influence in Syria. The main content of the letters of the Syro-Palestinian princes consists of: exchange of mutual greetings and courtesies, negotiations on marriages and requests to the pharaoh to send military assistance, gold and gifts. “There is as much gold in Egypt,” it is constantly repeated in letters, “as much as sand.” Greetings and requests are joined by complaints, denunciations and slander of the princes against each other. Along with Egypt, the Hittites laid claim to the Syro-Palestinian regions. Under King Subbilulium (1380-1346 BC), the Hittite kingdom achieved predominant influence in Asia and successfully challenged Egypt for the rights to Asian possessions - Sinai mines, Lebanese forests and trade routes. The growth of the Hittite kingdom forced the pharaohs to look for allies among the Mesopotamian states - Mitania and Babylon - that were hostile to the Hittites. The Tell Amarna archive preserves diplomatic letters from the Babylonian and Mitannian kings to Amenophis III and Amenophis IV. The content of these letters is quite varied, but they are always talking about the kings themselves, whose personality is identified with the entire state. Amenophis III wants to have a Babylonian princess in his harem and notifies his “brother,” the Babylonian king Kadashman-Harbe, about this. The Babylonian king hesitates to satisfy this request, citing the sad fate of his sister, one of the pharaoh’s wives. In his response letter, the pharaoh complains about the dishonesty of the Babylonian ambassadors, who gave the king false information about the situation of his sister. Kadashman-Harbe, for his part, reproaches the pharaoh for not treating his representatives politely enough. They were not even invited to the anniversary celebration. In the end, Kadashman-Harbe agrees to send his daughter to the pharaoh's harem, but in gratitude for this he wants to get an Egyptian princess, gold and gifts as his wife. The letter begins with the usual greetings and expressions of “brotherly” devotion. “To the king of Egypt, my brother, Kadashman-Harbe, king of Karduniash [Babylon], your brother. Greetings to your house, your wives, your whole country, your chariots, your horses, your nobles, greetings to everyone.” The message ends with an insistent demand to send gold and gifts. “As for gold,” the king writes, “send me gold, a lot of gold, send it before the arrival of the embassy. Send him now, as quickly as possible, to this harvest, in the month of Tammuz.” The Mitanni king Tushratta was equally persistent in his demand for gold. He ends his message to Amenophis IV with these words: “So, let my brother send me gold, in such large quantities that it would be impossible to count... After all, in my brother’s country there is a lot of gold, as much as land. May the gods arrange it so that there will be ten times more of it.” For his part, Tushratta is ready to provide any services to the pharaoh and send all kinds of gifts. “If my brother wants anything for his house, I will give ten times more than he requires. My land is his land, my home is his home.” All these documents were written in cuneiform, in Babylonian - the diplomatic language of that time. Treaty of the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses II with the Hittite king Hattushil III (1278 BC) The next century (XIV-XIII centuries BC) was filled with fierce wars between the Hittites and Egypt. The wars exhausted both opponents to the same extent and did not produce positive results. The general weakening and lack of hope for complete victory forced the fighting parties to make mutual concessions and conclude a friendly agreement. In 1278 BC. e. Peace was concluded and an agreement was signed between the 19th dynasty pharaoh Ramses II and the Hittite king Hattushil III. The initiative for peace and a friendly agreement came from the Hittite king. After long preliminary negotiations, Hattushil sent Ramses a draft treaty inscribed on a silver board. To certify the authenticity of the document, on the front side of the board there was an image of the king standing next to the god of wind and lightning, Teshub. The reverse side depicts a queen in the community of the solar goddess Arinna. Ramses accepted the terms of peace offered to him by the Hittite king, and as a sign of agreement, he sent Hattushil another silver tablet with the text of the peace treaty inscribed on it. Both copies were sealed with state seals and signatures. The treaty has been preserved in three editions (inscriptions) - two Egyptian, in Karnak and Ramessey, and one Hittite, discovered in Bogaz-Köy. Both the text of the agreement and the description of the negotiations that preceded its conclusion have been preserved. The contract consists of three parts: 1) introduction, 2) the text of the contractual articles and 3) conclusion - an appeal to the gods, oaths and curses against the violator of the contract. The introduction says that from time immemorial the Hittites and the Egyptians were not enemies. Relations between them deteriorated only during the sad reign of brother Hattushil, who fought with Ramses, the great king of Egypt. From the day of signing this “wonderful treaty” peace, friendship and brotherhood are established between the kings for eternity. “After I became king of the Hittites, I am with the great king of Egypt, Ramses, and he and I are in peace and brotherhood. This will be the best peace and brotherhood that has ever existed on earth.” “Let there be wonderful peace and brotherhood between the children of the children of the great king of the Hittites and Ramses, the great king of Egypt. May Egypt and the country of the Hittites, like us, remain in peace and brotherhood for all time.” A friendly defensive and offensive alliance was concluded between the Hittite kingdom and Egypt. “If any enemy goes against the possessions of Ramses, then let Ramses say to the great king of the Hittites: come with me against him with all your forces.” The treaty provided for support against an enemy not only external, but, apparently, also internal. The allies guaranteed each other assistance in case of uprisings and riots in the areas under their control. They meant mainly the Asian (Syro-Palestinian) regions, in which wars, uprisings, raids and robberies did not stop. “If Ramses becomes angry with his slaves (Asian subjects) when they start a rebellion, and goes to pacify them, then the king of the Hittites should act at the same time with him.” A special article provided for the mutual extradition of political defectors of noble and ignoble origin. “If someone runs away from Egypt and goes to the country of the Hittites, then the king of the Hittites will not detain him in his country, but will return him to the country of Ramses.” Along with the defectors, all their property and people are also returned intact. “If one, two, three, etc. people flee from the land of Egypt to the land of the Hittites, then they must be returned to the land of Ramses.” Both themselves and their property, wives, children and servants return completely unharmed. “Let them not be executed, let not their eyes, mouths and feet be harmed.” The gods and goddesses of both countries are called upon to witness the fidelity and accuracy of the fulfillment of the treaty. “Everything inscribed on a silver tablet, the thousand gods and goddesses of the Hittite country undertake to fulfill in relation to the thousand gods and goddesses of Egypt. They are witnesses to my words." Then follows a long list of Egyptian and Hittite gods and goddesses: “gods and goddesses of the mountains and rivers of the country of Egypt, sky and earth, sea, wind and storm.” For violation of the agreement, terrible punishments are threatened. For its honest implementation, the gods grant health and prosperity. “Let the house, land and slaves of the one who violates these words perish. May there be health and life to him, to the land and to the slaves of him who preserves them.” The exchange of diplomatic letters and embassies continued even after the conclusion of the “wonderful treaty.” Not only kings, but also queens exchanged letters. The Egyptian and Hittite queens expressed joy to each other about the “wonderful peace” and “wonderful brotherhood” established between the two powerful despotisms. After the death of the Egyptian queen, the political union between the Hittites and Egypt was sealed by a dynastic marriage - the marriage of Ramses to the beautiful daughter of Hattushil. The new wife of the great king of Egypt was solemnly welcomed on the border of both kingdoms. At a feast held in honor of her arrival, treats were offered to both Egyptian and Hittite warriors. For the history of diplomacy, the treaty between Ramses and Hattushil is of paramount importance. Firstly, this is the oldest monument of international law known to us. Secondly, in its form it served as a model for all subsequent treaties both for the kingdoms of the Ancient East, and for Greece and Rome. The form of international treaty remained largely unchanged throughout the history of the ancient world. Greece and Rome in this regard copied the ancient Eastern contractual practice. Along with this, the Ramses-Hattushil agreement reflected a characteristic feature of the state system of the Ancient East - complete identification of the state with the personality of the bearer of supreme power. All negotiations were conducted exclusively on behalf of the king. Certain articles of the treaty contain obligations of non-aggression and mutual assistance. It is worthy of attention that this assistance is provided even in the form of mutual intervention stipulated by the parties to suppress internal uprisings. Thus, the Egyptian-Hittite treaty, which dates back more than three thousand years, was to some extent a prototype of later international agreements. International politics of Assyria during the period of its dominance (VIII-VII centuries BC) In subsequent centuries, Egypt and the kingdom of the Hittites weakened and gradually lost their leading role in the international relations of the East. The state of Western Asia - Assyria, with the main city of Ashur in the middle reaches of the Tigris River in Mesopotamia, acquired primary importance. Initially, Assyria represented a small principality (patesi), consisting of several agricultural and pastoral communities. But gradually, from about the 14th century. (BC), the territory of Assyria begins to expand and Assyria turns into one of the most powerful states of the Ancient East. Already in the era of the Tell Amarna correspondence, Assyrian kings referred to themselves in inscriptions as “lords of the universe,” whom the gods called upon to dominate “the country lying between the Tigris and Euphrates.” In the early period of its history, Assyria was part of the Babylonian kingdom, and the king of Ashura was subordinate to the king of Babylon. But this dependence gradually disappeared, and the Assyrian kings became independent. The Babylonians protested against this, but their protests were unsuccessful. The first mention of Assyria as an independent power is found in the Tell Amarna correspondence, which speaks of the arrival of Assyrian ambassadors to Egypt. The Babylonian king Burnaburiash, who considered himself the head of Ashur, strongly protested against their acceptance by the Egyptian pharaoh Amenophis IV. “Why,” he asks his ally Amenophis, “did they come to your country? If you are disposed towards me, do not enter into relations with them. Let them leave without achieving anything. For my part, I am sending you as a gift five mines of blue stone, five horse teams and five chariots.” However, the pharaoh did not consider it possible to satisfy his friend’s request and refuse to receive the ambassadors of the Assyrian king. The strengthening of Assyria alarmed the largest powers of the East - the Hittites and Egypt. Under the influence of this fear, an agreement was concluded in 1278 between Ramses II and Hattushil III, indirectly directed against Assyria. These were the first steps of the Assyrian kings in the international arena. The Assyrian kingdom reached its greatest power under the Sargonids (VIII-VII centuries BC) - Sargon, Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal. Nineveh, north of Ashur, becomes the main city under the Sargonids. The Sargonids - who came from among military commanders - made major reforms in the political and military system of Assyria, increased the number of the Assyrian army to the highest limit for that time - 150 thousand people - and pursued a broad policy of conquest. The driving force of Assyrian policy was the desire of Assyria to take possession of fertile oases, to seize the locations of metals, mining and people, and, in addition, to secure possession of the most important trade routes. Two trade arteries were of greatest importance at that time. One of them went from the Great (Mediterranean) Sea to Mesopotamia and further, in an easterly direction. Another trade route led southwest, towards the Syro-Palestinian coast and Egypt. Before the appearance of Persia, Assyria was the largest ancient Eastern power. Its geographical position caused constant clashes with its neighbors, led to continuous wars and forced the Assyrian rulers to show particular ingenuity both in terms of military technology and in the field of diplomatic art. The offensive policy of the Assyrian kings caused great concern among the states of the Near East and forced them to forget mutual strife in the face of a common danger. Three impressive coalitions were formed against Assyria: the first in the southwest was led by Egypt, the second in the southeast by Elam and the third in the north by Urartu. All these coalitions were very diverse in their composition, which made it easier for the Assyrians to win. At the end of the 8th century. BC e. Sargon, under Raphia in Palestine, defeated the allies of the Egyptian pharaoh and then turned against the second, Elamite-Chaldean, coalition in the East. At the same time, he very skillfully used the discontent of the Chaldean cities against the Babylonian king Marduk-Belieddin. The Assyrian king allegedly acted as a defender of the liberties of the Chaldean cities violated by his enemy. The Chaldean cities received their former rights, and the winner Sargon proclaimed himself king of Babylon. Thus, Ashur and Babylon were bound by a personal union. Political hegemony passed to Assyria, but cultural dominance remained with Babylon. A more formidable coalition formed under Sargon's son Sennacherib (705-681 BC). It included the Syro-Palestinian cities led by Tyre, the Judean king Hezekiah, the Egyptian pharaoh of the Ethiopian dynasty Taharqa, etc. At the same time, a second coalition was created in the East. Its centers were Elam and Babylon. Sennacherib took advantage of the age-old enmity of Tire and Sidon and thereby significantly weakened the forces of the enemies. In 701 BC. e. he besieged Jerusalem and forced King Hezekiah to pay a heavy ransom of 30 talents of gold and 300 talents of silver. At the same time, he concluded a peace treaty with the Egyptian pharaoh (Shabaka), the seals of which with the names of the kings who signed it were found in the ruins of the palace in Nineveh. It is clear from the documents that Egypt's international prestige at this time was low. During negotiations with the city of Jerusalem, the Assyrian ambassador compared Egypt to a fragile cane that would break and pierce the hand of the one who tried to lean on it. The consequence of the defeat of the Western coalition was the conquest of Babylon by the Assyrians (689 BC) - one of the most important cultural centers of the East1. The Babylonian Chronicle reports that the Elamite king, who tried to invade Babylonia in order to assist the Babylonian king, “died without being sick in his palace.” In other words, the king was forcibly removed by supporters of the Assyrian monarch. At the head of the third coalition, which Sargon had to fight, was the kingdom of Urartu (Ararat), or the kingdom of Van, located on the territory of modern (former Soviet and Turkish) Armenia. In the center of Urartu was Lake Van, and the main city was the city of Tushpa. The rise of Urartu dates back to the second half of the 8th century, i.e. to the reign of King Sardur (750-733 BC) and his successors. Urartu - the ancestral home of the ancient Georgians (Colchians, Iberians) and, perhaps, Armenians - gained worldwide fame for its remarkable metal products, irrigation structures, abundance of livestock and richness of fruits. The Urartian peoples formed many small principalities among the mountains and river valleys, ruled by local princes. Sometimes these small “political bodies” 1 Second Book of Kings, 19, 21. united into larger alliances that were dangerous for Assyria. In the foothills of the Caucasus, high-quality varieties of iron have long been mined, which became widespread during the period of political dominance of Assyria. The rise of Assyria is directly related to the transition from bronze to iron. The Assyrians were called "iron men". It is very likely that most of the iron and copper discovered in the ruins of Sargon's palace at Khorsabad came from Urartu. The significance of the state of Urartu, whose acquaintance science owes mainly to the works of Russian scientists (Nikolsky, Marr, Orbeli, Meshchaninov), is very great. Through Urartu, the history of the peoples of the ancient world is organically connected with the past of the peoples of Russia. Diplomacy of King Ashurbanipal (668-626 BC) The last powerful king of Assyria was Ashurbanipal (668-626 BC). The personality and politics of this king are now quite fully illuminated thanks to the discovery of the state archive and library of the Sargonids, which were found in the ruins of the royal palaces in Nineveh and Kuyundzhik, near Nineveh. The cuneiform library of the Sargonids contains rich material on all branches of social and state life of Assyria, including diplomacy. In terms of the quantity and value of historical data, the Assyrian archives, containing about two thousand documents, are not inferior to the Tell Amarna correspondence. Most of the material in these archives dates back to the time of King Ashurbanipal. The entire reign of Ashurbanipal took place in a tense struggle with anti-Assyrian coalitions that arose first on one border and then on the other. The most difficult situation was in Egypt. Here, Assyria's policy encountered desperate resistance from the pharaohs of the Ethiopian dynasty. Like the Sargonids, these pharaohs came from among military commanders, heads of Libyan troops. The largest of them was Taharqa. In order to weaken Ethiopian influence in Egypt, Ashurbanipal supported the Egyptian prince Necho, who lived in Assyria as a prisoner of war. At the Assyrian court, Necho enjoyed special honor. The king gave him expensive clothes, a sword in a golden sheath, a chariot, horses and mules. With the help of his Egyptian friends and Assyrian troops, Necho defeated Taharqa and took possession of the Egyptian throne. However, Necho's son Psametikh betrayed the Assyrian ruler. Relying on the support of Libyan mercenaries and Greeks arriving from the sea, he separated from Assyria and proclaimed the independence of Egypt (645 BC). Founded by Psametikh, a new, according to the XXVI, dynasty with the main center in the city of Sais lasted until the conquest of Egypt by the Persians (525 BC). Ashurbanipal was forced to come to terms with the loss of Egypt due to serious complications that arose in Elam and Babylon. Throughout the reign of the Sargonids, Babylon was the center of international alliances and political intrigues directed against Assyria. In addition, the independence of Babylon prevented state centralization, which was carried out by the Assyrian kings. Finally, the complete subjugation of the ancient commercial and cultural city gave the Assyrian kings a free hand in relation to two countries hostile to them - Egypt and Elam. All this explains the long and stubborn struggle between Assyria and Babylon. Under Ashurbanipal, the king’s younger brother Shamash-Shumukin became the “governor of Bel” (Babylon). Shamash-Shumukin betrayed Ashurbani-pal, proclaimed the independence of the Babylonian kingdom, and declared himself the Babylonian king. Embassies were sent from Babylon to all countries, to all kings and peoples with the aim of involving them in a common alliance against Assyria. Many kings and peoples from Egypt to the Persian Gulf inclusive responded to the call of Shamash-Shumukin. In addition to Egypt, the alliance included the Medes, Elam, the city of Tire and other Phoenician cities, Lydia and Arab sheikhs - in a word, everyone who was afraid of the strengthening of the political hegemony of Assyria. Having learned about the military preparations of Shamash-Shumukin, Ashurbanipal declared him a usurper and began to prepare for war. The enemies of Assyria turned out to be quite strong, and as a result Ashurbanipal had to fight with great caution. It was obvious that the outcome of the entire campaign depended on the behavior of such rich and influential cities of Mesopotamia as Babylon and Nippur, and the neighboring kingdom of Elam. The Assyrian king also understood this. Therefore, he immediately addressed the named cities with a diplomatic message, the text of which was preserved in the royal archive. The content of this most important document of the diplomacy of the ancient Eastern peoples deserves special attention. Appeal of the King of Assyria to the Babylonian people: “I am in good health. May your hearts be filled with joy and gladness on this occasion. I am writing to you regarding the empty words spoken to you by a deceitful man who calls himself my brother. I know everything he told you. All his words are empty, like the wind. Don't trust him about anything. I swear by Ashur and Marduk, my gods, that all the words he uttered against me are worthy of contempt. Having thought it over in my heart, I declare with my own lips that he acted deceitfully and basely in telling you that I “intend to disgrace the glory of the Babylonians who love me, as well as my own name.” I have not heard such words. Your friendship with the Assyrians and your liberties, which I established, are greater than I thought. Do not listen to a single minute of his lies, do not dirty your name, which is not tarnished either before me or before the whole world. Do not commit a grave sin before God... There is something else that, as I know, greatly worries you. “Since,” you say, “we have already rebelled against him, he, having conquered us, will increase the tribute collected from us.” But this is a tribute in name only. Since you took the side of my enemy, this can already be considered a tribute and a sin imposed on you for violating the oath taken to the gods. Look now and, as I already wrote to you, do not discredit your good name by trusting the empty words of this villain. In conclusion, I ask you to respond to my letter as soon as possible. Month of Air, 23rd, the letter was presented by the royal ambassador Shamash-Balat-Suikbi.” Ashurbanipal's appeal to the population of Babylon and the promise to continue to maintain the liberties of the city were of decisive importance for the entire subsequent history of relations with the Babylonian king. The cities fell away from Shamash-Shu-mukin and went over to the side of Ashurbanipal. The preservation of the alliance of Babylon with Ashurbanipal dealt a blow to the entire movement raised by Shamash-Shumukin, who was a usurper in the eyes of the Assyrian king. Another appeal from the same king to the inhabitants of the city of Nippur, in which the Assyrian representative Belibni was then located, has been preserved. Unfortunately, this document is heavily corrupted, which often makes it difficult to accurately convey its meaning. According to the custom of that time, the royal message begins with a solemn greeting. “The word of the king of the universe to Belibni and the citizens of the city of Nippur, to all the people, old and young. I am in good health. May your hearts on this occasion be filled with joy and gladness.” What follows is a statement of the essence of the matter. We are apparently talking about the capture of the head of the anti-Assyrian party, who left Nippur after the city was captured by Assyrian troops. “You know,” the king writes, “that the whole country was destroyed by the iron swords of Ashur and my gods, scorched by fire, trampled by the hooves of animals and prostrated in front of my face. You must capture all the rebels who are now seeking salvation in flight. Like the man sifting grain at the door, you must separate him from all the people. You must take the seats indicated to you. Of course, he will now change his escape plan... You must not allow anyone to leave the city gates without a thorough search. He shouldn't leave here. If he somehow escapes through a loophole, then whoever allows him to do this will be severely punished by me along with all his offspring. Whoever captures him and brings him to me, alive or dead, will receive a great reward. I will order it to be thrown on the scales, I will determine its weight, and I will pay the person who delivered it to me an amount of silver equal to this weight... Away with all slowness and hesitation. Away! I have already written to you about this. You have been given a strict command. Make sure they tie him up before he leaves the city." Another source for getting acquainted with Assyrian diplomacy are the secret reports of the royal commissioners. In all cities, the “king of the universe” had his own people, who usually called themselves royal slaves or servants in correspondence. From these reports it is clear with what attention the Assyrian commissioners followed everything that happened in the border areas and neighboring states. They immediately informed the king and his officials about all the changes they noticed: preparations for war, movements of troops, concluding secret alliances, receiving and sending ambassadors, conspiracies, uprisings, building fortresses, defectors, cattle rustling, harvests, etc. Most of the reports have been preserved from the above-mentioned royal commissioner Belibni, who was during military operations in Babylon or Elam. After the defeat of Shamash-Shumukin, many Babylonians fled from the deserted city to neighboring Elam. Among those who fled was the grandson of the elderly Babylonian king Marduk-Belieddin. Elam became the center of anti-Assyrian groups and the center of a new war. This greatly worried the Assyrian king, who did not dare to immediately open military operations against Elam. In order to gain time, Ashur-banipal sent an embassy to Elam, tried to incite discord in the ruling family, eliminated rulers he disliked, and put his followers in their place. Arriving in Elam, the embassy of King Ashur demanded the immediate extradition of the fugitives. The demand was expressed in a very decisive form. “If you do not give these people over to me,” declared King Ashura, “then I will go to war against you, destroy your cities and take their inhabitants into captivity, and I will overthrow you from the throne and put another in your place. I will crush you just as I crushed the former king Teueman, your predecessor.” The Elamite king (Indabigas) entered into negotiations with the Assyrian king, but refused to hand over the fugitives. Soon after this, Indabigas was killed by one of his generals, Ummalhaldash, who proclaimed himself king of Elam. However, Ummalkhaldash did not live up to the trust of Ashurbanipal and, as a result, was overthrown from the throne, and Elam was subjected to severe devastation (about 642 BC). “I destroyed my enemies, the inhabitants of Elam, who did not want to enter the fold of the Assyrian state. I cut off their heads, cut off their lips and resettled them in Ashur.” In these words, Ashurbanipal depicts his reprisal against the Elamites. After the expulsion of Ummalhaldash, a new Tammarit king was installed on the throne of Elam, supported by the Assyrian court. For some time, Tam-marit successfully carried out the orders of the Assyrian king, but then unexpectedly betrayed him, organized a conspiracy against Ashurbanipal and killed the royal garrisons stationed in Elam. This was the reason for the opening of hostilities between Elam and Assyria. During this war, the Elamite king was killed, and Ummalhal-dash reappeared on the political scene. He captured the city of Madakta and the Bet-Imbi fortress, but that was where his successes ended. Ashurbanipal, having brought up fresh forces, took the capital of Elam, Susa, “entered the palace of the Elamite kings and indulged in inspiration there.” The occupation of the capital of Elam by Assyrian troops did not yet mean the complete conquest of the country. The war continued. Elements hostile to Assyria gathered around Nabu-Bel-Shumat, a Babylonian prince who was located in Elam. The capture of the rebellious Babylonian was entrusted by Ashurbanipal to Ummalkhaldash, who again sought in every possible way a rapprochement with the Assyrian king. Eventually the rebellious movement was suppressed. Nabu-Bel-Shumat took his own life. After this, Elam lost its political independence and became part of the Assyrian kingdom. All of the above events related to the conquest of Elam are reflected in great detail in the reports of Belibni and other conductors of Assyrian influence in Elam. In the 281st letter (according to the publication “Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire” by L. Waterman), Belibni describes the state of affairs in Elam after the entry of the Assyrian troops as follows: “To the King of kings, my lord, your servant Belibni. News from Elam: Ummalkhaldash, the former king, who fled, then returned, seized the throne and, in rebellion, left the city of Madaktu. Having captured his mother, wife, children and all his servants, he crossed the Ulai River in a southerly direction. He approached the city of Talah, his military commanders Ummanshibar, Undadu and all his allies went to the city of Shukharisungur. They say that they intend to settle between Khukhan and Haidalu. The whole country, due to the arrival of the troops of the king of kings, my lord, is seized with great fear. Elam is as if struck by a plague. When they [the rebels] saw such great disasters, they fell into horror. When they came here, the whole country turned away from them. All the tribes of Tahhasharua and Shal-Lukea are in a state of rebellion. Ummalkhaldash returned to Madakta and, having gathered his friends, reproached them with these words: “Didn’t I tell you before I left the city that I wanted to catch Nabu-Bel-Shumat, whom I had to hand over to the king of Assyria so that he would not send against us your troops? Didn’t you understand my words? You are witnesses of what was said." “And so,” Belibni writes further, “now, if it pleases the king of kings, my master, let him send a letter sealed with royal seals to Ummalkhaldash about the capture of Nabu-Bel-Shumat and order me to hand it over to Ummalkhaldash with my own hand. Of course, my master thinks: “I will send a secret message with orders to capture him.” But when the royal envoy arrives, accompanied by an armed retinue, cursed by Bel, Nabu-Bel-Shumat will hear about this, bribe the royal nobles, and they will free him. Therefore, let the gods of the king of kings arrange things so that the rebel is captured without any bloodshed and delivered to the king of kings.” The message ends with assurances of Belibni's complete devotion to his master. “I have exactly carried out the order of the king of kings and am doing everything according to his wishes. I do not go to him because my master does not call me. I act like a dog who loves his master. The master says, “Don’t go close to the palace,” and she doesn’t come. What the king does not order, I do not do.” The Assyrians used the same means against the northern states of Urartu and others. The Assyrians were attracted to the northern countries by iron and copper mines, an abundance of livestock and trade routes that connected north with south and west with east. The kingdom of Van was flooded with Assyrian intelligence officers and diplomats who followed every move of the king of Urartu and his allies. Thus, in one letter, Upakhir-Bel informs the king about the actions of the rulers of the Armenian cities. “To the King of Kings, my lord, your servant Upakhir-Bel. Long live the king. May his family and his fortresses remain in good condition. May the king's heart be filled with joy. I sent a special envoy to collect all the news that concerns Armenia. He had already returned and, as usual, reported the following. People hostile to us have now gathered in the city of Harda. They closely monitor everything that happens. In all the cities as far as Turushpiya there are armed detachments... Let my lord allow me to send an armed detachment and allow me to occupy the city of Shuruba during the harvest.” We find a similar type of report on the state of affairs in Urartu in the letter of Gabbuana-Ashur. “To the king, my lord, your servant is Gabbuana-Ashur. In fulfillment of your command regarding monitoring the people of the country, I inform Urartu. My envoys have already arrived in the city of Kurban. And those who must go to Nabuli, Ashurbeldan and Ashurrisua are ready to go. Their names are known. Each of them performs one specific task. Nothing is missed, everything is done. I have the following data: the people of the country of Urartu have not yet advanced beyond the city of Turushpiya. We must be especially attentive to what the king ordered me. We must not allow any negligence. On the sixteenth day of the month Tam-muse I entered the city of Kurban. On the twelfth day of the month Ab, I sent a letter to the king, my lord..."1. Another Assyrian commissioner reports from Urartu about the arrival of ambassadors from the people of the country of AN of the day and Zakaria in the city of Uazi. They arrived very 1 Royal correspondence of the Assyrian Empire /Ed by L Waterman Michigan, 1930 P J. No. 123. P. 85. An important matter is to inform the inhabitants of these places that the Assyrian king is plotting a war against Urartu. For this reason, they invite them to join a military alliance. It is further indicated that at a military meeting, one of the military leaders even proposed killing King Ashur. The struggle between Assyria and Urartu continued for several centuries, but did not lead to definite results. Despite a series of defeats and all the resourcefulness of Assyrian diplomacy, the peoples of Urartu retained their independence and outlived their strongest enemy - Assyria. Under Ashurbanipal, Assyria reaches the highest point of its power and includes most of the countries of the Near East. The borders of the Assyrian kingdom extended from the snowy peaks of Urartu to the rapids of Nubia, from Cyprus and Cilicia to the eastern borders of Elam. The vastness of the Assyrian cities, the splendor of the court and the splendor of the buildings surpassed anything ever seen. The Assyrian king rode around the city in a chariot harnessed to four captive kings; Along the streets there were cages with the defeated kings placed in them. And yet Assyria was declining. Signs of weakening Assyrian power are felt already under Ashurbanipal. Continuous wars exhausted the strength of Assyria. The number of hostile coalitions with which the Assyrian kings had to fight was increasing. The position of Ashur became critical due to the influx of new peoples coming from the north and east - the Cimmerians, Scythians, Medes and, finally, the Persians. Assyria could not withstand the pressure of these nationalities, gradually lost its leading position in the international relations of the East and became the prey of new conquerors. In the VI century. BC e. Persia became the most powerful state of the ancient world, incorporating all the countries of the Ancient East. Persia's entry into the world arena opens with a broadcast manifesto from the “king of countries” Cyrus, addressed to the Babylonian people and priesthood. In this manifesto, the Persian conqueror calls himself the liberator of the Babylonians from the hated king (Nabonidus), a tyrant and oppressor of the old religion. “I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, mighty king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four countries of the world... the scion of the eternal kingdom, whose dynasty and dominion are dear to the hearts of Bel and Nabu. When I peacefully entered Babylon and, with rejoicing and joy, occupied the royal dwelling in the palace of the kings, Marduk, the great ruler, bowed to me the noble heart of the inhabitants of Babylon because I daily thought about his worship...” Persian power The Achaemenids represented one of the most powerful ancient Eastern political formations. Its influence spread far beyond the boundaries of the classical East, both in the eastern and western directions. Diplomat and diplomacy according to the teachings of Manu (first millennium BC) The most interesting monument of ancient Eastern diplomacy and international law are the Indian laws of Manu. The original text of the laws of Manu has not reached us. Only its later (poetic) transmission has survived, most likely dating back to the 1st century. The Laws of Manu were discovered in this edition by the British in the 18th century. They are written in classical Sanskrit. In the XIX-XX centuries. they were translated into a number of European languages, including Russian. According to Indian legend, the laws of Manu are of divine origin: they date back to the era of the legendary Manu, who was considered the ancestor of the Aryans. By their nature, the laws of Manu are a set of various ancient Indian regulations relating to politics, international law, trade and military affairs. These rules developed throughout the first millennium BC. e. From a formal point of view, the laws of Manu are a set of laws of Ancient India. But the content of the monument is much broader and more varied. He is rich in philosophical reasoning; Much attention is paid to religious and moral rules. Ancient Indian philosophy is based on the doctrine of the perfect man-sage. Diplomacy is also viewed from this angle. The focus is shifted to the personal qualities of the diplomat, on which the success of the diplomatic mission depends. The art of diplomacy, according to the teachings of Manu, lies in the ability to prevent war and strengthen peace. “Peace and its opposite [war] depend on ambassadors, for only they create and quarrel allies. In their power are those matters due to which peace or war occurs between kings.” The diplomat informs his sovereign about the intentions and plans of foreign rulers. Thus, he protects the state from the dangers that threaten it. Therefore, a diplomat must be an insightful, comprehensively educated person and able to win people over. He must be able to recognize the plans of foreign sovereigns not only by their words or actions, but even by gestures and facial expressions1. The head of state is advised to appoint diplomats with greater choice and caution. A diplomat must be a man of respectable age, devoted to duty, honest, skillful, with a good memory, personable, courageous, eloquent, “knowing the place and time of action.” The most difficult issues of international life must be resolved primarily through diplomacy. Strength comes second. These are the basic teachings of Manu regarding diplomacy and the role of the diplomat. DIPLOMACY OF ANCIENT GREECE 1. International relations of Ancient Greece In its historical development, Ancient Greece, or Hellas, went through a series of successive social structures. In the Homeric period of Hellenic history (XII-VIII centuries BC), in the conditions of the emerging slave state, the tribal system was still preserved. For Greece of the classical period (VIII-IV centuries BC), the characteristic type of political formation was city-states, in Greek city-states. Between these self-sufficient little worlds, a variety of forms of international relations arose. Proxenia The oldest form of international relations and international law in Greece was proxenia, i.e. hospitality. Proxenia existed between individuals, clans, tribes and entire states. The proxenus of this city enjoyed in it, in comparison with other foreigners, certain rights and advantages in relation to trade, taxes, court and all kinds of honorary privileges. For his part, the pro-xen assumed a moral obligation in relation to the city where he enjoyed hospitality, to promote its interests in everything and to be a mediator between him and the authorities of his city. Diplomatic negotiations were conducted through the pro-xenos; Embassies that came to the city turned first of all to their proxenus. The institution of proxeny, which became very widespread in Greece, formed the basis of all subsequent international relations of the Ancient World. All foreigners who lived in this city, even exiles, were under the protection of the deity - Zeus-Xenius (hospitable). Amphictyony The amphictyony was an equally ancient international institution. This was the name given to religious unions that arose near the sanctuary of a particularly revered deity. As the name itself shows, these unions included tribes that lived around the sanctuary (ampictyons - living around), regardless of their family relations. The initial purpose of amphictyony was general sacrifices and celebrations in honor of the revered deity, the protection of the temple and its treasures accumulated from private and public offerings, as well as the punishment of sacrileges - violators of sacred customs. If necessary, those gathered for the festivities consulted on public affairs that were of interest to all members of a given amphictyony. During the festivities, war was prohibited and “God’s peace” (jeromemia) was proclaimed. Thus, the amphictyony turned into a religious and political institution of an international nature. There were many amphictyony in Ancient Greece. The oldest and most influential of them was the Delphic-Thermopylae amphictyony. It was formed from two amphictyony: the Delphic one at the temple of Apollo in Delphi and the Thermopylaean one at the temple of Demeter. The Delphic-Thermopylae amphictyony included 12 tribes. Each of them had two votes. The supreme body of the amphictyony was the general meeting. It was convened twice a year, in spring and autumn, at Thermopylae and Delphi. The decisions of the general meeting were binding on all amphictyons. The authorized persons of the assembly, who actually led all affairs, were the hiero-mnemons, appointed by the states according to the number of votes of the amphictyony, i.e. in the amount of 24. One of the main duties of the hiero-mnemons was the observance of “God’s peace” and the organization religious festivals. 2 History of om cabbage soup At the end of the 5th and 4th centuries. BC e. Another new college appears - the Pilagors. Through the Pylagors and Hieromnemons, the cities that were part of the Amphictyonies swore oaths to each other and assumed certain obligations towards the Amphictyons. The Delphic-Thermopylae amphictyony represented a significant political force that had a great influence on the international politics of Greece. Both secular and spiritual power were concentrated in the hands of the Delphi-Thermopylae amphictyony. The Delphic priests declared and ended war, appointed and removed common rulers who were part of the amphictyony. Hierom-nemons were considered the harbingers of the will of Apollo. According to legend, the Delphic priests had “secret books” that contained ancient predictions. Only those who were recognized as descendants of Apollo himself, i.e., priests and kings, were allowed to read them. A powerful weapon in the hands of the Greek priesthood was the sacred wars, which it directed against everyone who caused any damage to the sanctuary of Apollo. All members of the amphictyony, bound by an oath, had to take part in the holy war. The text of this oath read: “Do not destroy any city belonging to Amphictyony; do not divert water either in time of peace or in time of war; with common forces to oppose any violator of the oath, to destroy his city; punish by all means at our disposal anyone who dares to violate the property of God with his hand or foot.” All political treaties, directly or indirectly, were approved by the Delphic priesthood. On all controversial issues of international law, the litigants turned to Delphi. The power of the priesthood lay not only in its spiritual, but also in its material influence. Delphi had enormous capital, formed from contributions from cities, from income from the mass of pilgrims, from temple fairs and usurious transactions. All this explains the passionate struggle that was waged between the Greek states for influence and votes in the Delphic Amphictyony in the V-IV centuries. BC e. Treaties and alliances The third type of international relations of Greece were treaties and military-political alliances - symmachy. Of these, the most significant were the Lacedaemonian and Athenian (Delosekaya) symmachy. The Lacedaemonian symmachy was formed in the 6th century BC. e. as a union of cities and communities of the Peloponnese. The alliance was led by Sparta. The highest union body was the all-union assembly (syllogos), convened by the hegemonic city (Sparta) once a year. All cities that were part of the union had one vote in it, regardless of their size and importance. 1Aesckines. De male gesta legatioue, 115. In Ctosiphontern, 10. Matters were decided by majority vote, after long debates and all sorts of diplomatic combinations. Another major union of Hellenic cities was the Athenian, or Delos, symmachy, headed by Athens. The Delian symmachy was formed during the Greco-Persian wars to fight the Persians. The Delos symmachy differed from the Lacedaemonian one in two ways: firstly, its allies paid a special contribution (foros) to the public treasury in Delos; secondly, they were more dependent on their hegemon - Athens. Over time, the Delian symmachy turned into an Athenian power (arche). Relations between both symmachys were hostile from the very beginning. Ultimately, in the second half of the 5th century. this led to the all-Greek Peloponnesian War. Ambassadors and embassies Conflicts that arose between communities and policies were resolved through special authorized persons, or ambassadors. In Homeric Greece they were called messengers (keryuks, angelos), in classical Greece - elders (presbeis). In the states of Greece, such as Athens, Sparta, Corinth and others, ambassadors were elected by the People's Assembly from persons of respectable age, no younger than 50 years. This is where the term “elders” comes from. Usually, ambassadors were elected from wealthy citizens who enjoyed authority, had proxens in other cities, were sedate, sensible and eloquent. Most often, ambassadorial assignments were given to the archons of a given city, and especially to the archon-polemarch (military commander). There are cases when actors were appointed ambassadors. An actor, for example, was the famous orator Aeschines, who represented the Athenian state to the Macedonian king Philip P. The election of actors to perform the high and honorable mission of an ambassador is explained by the great importance that eloquence and declamation had in ancient societies. The art of the actor gave great weight and persuasiveness to the words of the delegate speaking at a crowded meeting, in the square or in the theater. The number of members of the embassy was not established by law: it was determined depending on the conditions of the moment. All ambassadors were considered equal. Only later did it become a custom to elect the chief ambassador - the “archelder”, the chairman of the embassy board. During their term of office, certain sums of money, “travel money,” were allocated for the maintenance of ambassadors. A certain staff of servants was assigned to the ambassadors. Upon departure, they were given letters of recommendation (symbola) to the proxens of the city to which the embassy was traveling. The purpose of the embassy was determined by the instructions handed over by the elders, written on a letter consisting of two sheets folded together (5isA,otsa). This is where the term “diplomacy” comes from. The instructions served as the main guide for the ambassadors. They indicated the purpose of the embassy; however, within the limits of these instructions, the ambassadors enjoyed a certain freedom and could exercise their own initiative. Ambassadors who arrived at their destination, alone or together with a proxen, were sent to the official of a given city who was in charge of diplomatic affairs. They presented their letters to him and received appropriate instructions and advice from him. In the days immediately after registration (in Athens usually five days), the ambassadors spoke in the Council or People's Assembly explaining the purpose of their arrival. After this, public debates were opened or the case was transferred to a special commission for consideration. As a rule, foreign ambassadors were treated with respect, given a good reception, offered gifts, and invited to theatrical performances, games and celebrations. Upon returning to their hometown, the embassy members gave a report to the People's Assembly on the results of their mission. If approved, they were given honorary awards. The highest of them was a laurel wreath with an invitation to dine the next day in the sanctuary, a special building near the Acropolis in which honored guests of the state dined. Each citizen was given the right to express his opinion during the ambassador’s report and even make accusations against the ambassador. One of the main duties of ambassadors in Greece, as in general in ancient states, was concluding alliances with other states and signing treaties. In the Ancient world, contracts were viewed as something magical. Violation of the contract, according to the superstitious belief of the people of antiquity, entailed divine punishment. Therefore, the conclusion of treaties and the conduct of diplomatic negotiations in Greece were surrounded by strict formalities. Contractual obligations were sealed with oaths that called upon the supernatural force that supposedly sanctified the signed agreement as witnesses. The oaths were taken by both parties in the presence of the magistrates of the city where the contract was signed. The oath was accompanied by a curse that fell on the head of the contract breaker. Disputes and clashes that arose due to violation of the contract were referred to the arbitration commission. She imposed fines on the perpetrators of the violation, which were deposited into the treasury of some deity - Apollo of Delphi, Zeus of Olympia, etc. From the inscriptions such penalties are known as ten or more talents, which at that time amounted to a very large sum. In case of persistent unwillingness to obey the demands of the arbitration court, coercive measures were taken against rebellious cities, up to and including the holy war. After accepting the agreement, each party was required to cut out the text of the agreement and oath on a stone pillar-stella and keep it in one of the main temples (in Athens - in the Temple of Pallas Athena on the Acropolis). Copies of the most important treaties were kept in the national sanctuaries - Delphi, Olympia and Delos. Agreements were written in several languages, depending on the number of contracting parties. One text necessarily entered the state archive. In the event of a break in diplomatic relations and a declaration of war, the stele on which the treaty text was carved was broken, and thereby the treaty was terminated. 2. Diplomacy in the classical period of Greece (U1P-1Uvv.don.e.) The origin of diplomacy in Homeric Greece (XII-VIII centuries BC) The roots of international law and diplomacy in Greece go far back centuries. The beginnings of international relations appear already in the Iliad in the form of intertribal agreements: the head of Argos and the “abundant gold” of Mycenae, Agamemnon, persuades the military leaders - the princes of other Achaean cities - to march on Troy. The leaders confer, make a common decision and set off on a long journey. Agamemnon, on behalf of all the Achaeans, enters into an agreement with Priam, king of Troy. The agreement is sealed with oaths, an appeal to the gods, the making of a sacrifice and the distribution of sacrificial meat between the leaders of the Achaean and Trojan squads1. Violation of the contract was considered as a crime of oath2. Before the start of the war, Achaean ambassadors were sent to Troy to demand the return of Helen, who had been kidnapped by Paris. The Trojan herald presents a peace proposal to the Achaean Assembly. In the assembly, these proposals are subject to comprehensive discussion by the entire people4. The above examples show that in Homeric Greece those diplomatic ties that later developed into an extensive system of international relations already existed in embryo. Periclean project for convening a Panhellenic peace congress (448 BC) In classical Greece, centers of international life first developed in the rich coastal cities of Asia Minor (Miletus, Ephesus, Halicarnassus), on the Aegean Islands and the Balkan Peninsula (Athens, Corinth , Sparta). In Athens, lively diplomatic relations begin from the tyranny of Pisistratus (VI century BC) and especially from the Greco-Persian wars (V century BC). All major statesmen of Greece were at the same time diplomats. The diplomats were Pisistratus, Themistocles, Aristides, the founder of the Delian Symmachy, Cimon and especially Pericles. Under Pericles, serious friction began between Athens and Sparta over hegemony in the Hellenic world. The consequence of this was a war between Athens and Sparta, which ended with the Thirty Years' Peace (445 BC). This peace consolidated the system of political dualism in Greece. In their quest for hegemony, both sides abstained until 1 Homer. Iliad / Transl. Gnedich or Minsky. II, 340, III, 94, 280, etc. 2 Ibid. III, 236. 3 Ibid. XI, 125. 4 Ibid. VII, 371, 456. From time to time, from aggressive actions, they tried to strengthen their influence through diplomatic means. In 448 BC. e. The head of the Athenian state, Pericles, made a proposal to convene a Pan-Hellenic (pan-Greek) congress in Athens. At the congress it was supposed to resolve three issues that worried all the Greeks: the restoration of temples destroyed by the Persians, ensuring free navigation and strengthening peace throughout Hellas. At the same time, by convening the congress, Pericles hoped to contribute to the transformation of Athens into the political and cultural center of all of Hellas. 1 To implement this project, an embassy of 20 people was sent from Athens to all Greek cities with an invitation to send their representatives to the upcoming congress. The deputation was divided into four parts. Some went to the cities and islands of Asia Minor; others - to the shores of the Hellespont and Thrace; others - to Boeotia and Phocis; the fourth - to the Peloponnese. The Athenian ambassadors convinced the citizens of each city to accept the invitation of their representatives to the congress in Athens. Pericles' proposal did not find a response. The Peloponnesians put up especially strong resistance for fear of the strengthening of Athens1. Diplomatic struggle during the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) The strengthening of Athens, which violated the system of political dualism in favor of Athens, caused the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC). The Peloponnesian War exacerbated all the internal and external contradictions of the Hellenic world. The widest field was opened for all kinds of diplomatic combinations. The opening of hostilities was preceded by a fierce diplomatic struggle that lasted five whole years (436-431 BC). All the Greek states that were part of the Lacedaemonian and Athenian symmachy took part in it. 1 Plutarchus. Pericles. The immediate cause of war was the Epidamnian incident. It was a clash of purely local significance, arising from the geographical closeness of the Hellenic world. Soon, however, the local dispute grew into a conflict of pan-Greek significance. The outline of events is as follows. In the rich and populous city of Epidamna (modern Durazzo), a colony of the island of Corfu on the western coast of Greece, in 436 BC. e. There was a clash between democrats and oligarchs. The latter called upon their barbarian neighbors to help them. Pressed by their opponents, the Epidamnian democrats, not receiving help from Kerkyra, their metropolis, sent an embassy to Delphi for advice on whether they should transfer their city to Corinth, which disputed Kerkyra’s rights to Epidamn. The Delphic priesthood spoke in favor of this decision. Then the Corcyraeans, for their part, sent an embassy to Corinth with a demand that the issue of Epidamnus be referred to an arbitration court. Having not received a definite answer from Corinth, who was absorbed in preparations for war, the Corcyraeans sent an embassy to Athens, asking to be accepted into the Athenian symmachy and to recognize their right to Epidamnus. The Kerkyra ambassadors argued to the Athenians that if Kerkyra was not helped, they would be forced to submit to the Corinthians. Then Athens will have to fight with the two strongest naval powers of Greece - Corinth and Kerkyra1. Following the Kerkyra embassy, the Corinthian embassy also arrived in Athens. It accused the Corcyraeans of impudence and greed and protested (against their acceptance into the Athenian symmachy2. The Athenians decided not to accept the Corcyraeans into their symmachy, but to enter into only a defensive alliance with them. Formally, they did not violate the terms of the Thirty Years' Peace, which forbade one symmachy to expand at the expense of other. Entering< керкирянами в дружественный союз, Афины рассчитывали достигнуть ера зу двух целей: 1) посеять вражду между двумя сильнейшими в то врем,? морскими державами Греции - Керкирой и Коринфом - и тем самым ос лабить этих главных своих противников и 2) закрепиться в важнейших га ванях на западном торговом пути в Италию и Сицилию3. 1 Thucydides. Historiae. I, 35. 2 Ibid. I, 40. 3 Ibid. I, 44 Расчеты Афин на поединок Керкиры и Коринфа оправдались. В разразившейся керкиро-коринфской войне обе воюющие стороны были обессилены. Но военная помощь, оказанная Афинами Керкире, вызвала протест Пелопоннесского союза по поводу нарушения Афинами договора 445г. К этому присоединился и второй конфликт между пелопоннесцами и афинянами - из-за колонии Потидеи на Халкидском полуострове. На По-тидею имели виды и афиняне, и коринфяне. На сторону последних стал и македонский царь Пердикка. Он был обижен на афинян за их союз с его братом и врагом Филиппом и поднял против афинян пограничные племена. Воспользовавшись этим случаем, большая часть городов Халкидского полуострова восстала против афинян. Однако отправленная Афинами эскадра в 30 кораблей разбила войска потидеян и коринфян и положила конец восстанию. Союзная конференция в Спарте (432 г. до н. э.) После этого коринфяне, потидеяне и Пердикка направили посольства в Спарту с требованием немедленного созыва общесоюзного совещания (сил-логос) по поводу нарушения Афинами договора 445 г. Этот протест поддержали и другие греческие города, недовольные Афинами. В результате в 432 г. в Спарте было созвано совещание всего Пелопоннесского союза. Совещание 432 г. было настоящей дипломатической конференцией. На ней резко столкнулись интересы ряда греческих государств. Прения носили бурный характер. Первыми выступили коринфские делегаты. Они обрушились на своего гегемона Спарту. Заинтересованные в немедленном открытии военных действий против Афин, они обвиняли спартанцев в бездеятельности, медлительности и неосведомленности в общегреческих делах. «Вы, - говорили коринфские представители спартанцам, - отличаетесь рассудительностью, но вы плохо знаете, что творится за пределами вашей страны. Другое дело - афиняне. Осведомленностью, быстротой и сообразительностью они далеко опередили всех остальных греков. Благодаря этому они одну часть греков уже поработили, а другую намерены покорить в скором времени. Афиняне всегда на словах выступают против войны; на самом же деле они усиленно к ней готовятся». Коринфяне делали вывод о необходимости создания антиафинской коалиции и немедленного открытия военных действий против Афин, похитивших греческую свободу. С ответом на речь коринфян выступили афинские делегаты. В высшей степени искусно построенная аргументация афинских послов развертывалась по двум линиям. С одной стороны, они доказывали, что гегемонию в эллинском мире и среди варваров афиняне приобрели не насилием и интригами. Они достигли ее вполне законным путем во время национальной войны с персами, проявив в защите общегреческих интересов «величайшее рвение и отвагу». Приходится удивляться не тому, говорили послы, что Афины занимают руководящее положение в эллинском мире. Удивительно то, что при такой мощи они столь умеренно пользуются своими преимуществами и проявляют больше справедливости, чем это вообще свойственно человеческой природе. «Мы полагаем, что всякий другой на нашем месте лучше всего показал бы, насколько мы умеренны». Афинские делегаты предлагали Союзному собранию учесть, с каким могущественным государством предстоит борьба членам Пелопоннесского союза, коль скоро они склонятся к решению предпочесть миру войну. «Подумайте, сколь велики неожиданности войны. Не принимайте на себя ее тяжелого бремени в угоду чужим замыслам и притязаниям. Не нарушайте договора и не преступайте данной вами клятвы». После этого все союзные послы покинули собрание. Оставшись одни, спартанцы стали обсуждать вопрос в закрытом совещании, взвешивая до- воды «за» и «против» немедленного объявления войны Афинам. Мнения самих спартанских представителей по этому вопросу разделились. Первым выступил царь Архидам. « Человек рассудительный и благоразумный» , он высказался за осторожную политику. Исходя из чисто военных соображений, Архидам советовал не доводить дела до вооруженного конфликта с первоклассной морской державой - Афинами при недостаточности союзнического флота. «Не следует, - говорил он, - ни проявлять слишком много военного задора, ни обнаруживать излишней уступчивости. Нужно умело устраивать собственные дела, заключая союзы не только с греками, но и с варварами. Главное, всеми способами необходимо увеличивать свою денежную и военную мощь». Против Архидама выступил эфор Сфенелаид. Он предлагал голосовать за немедленное объявление войны. Только быстрым налетом, полагал он, можно захватить Афины врасплох и выполнить свой долг перед союзниками. По оконча- нии речи Сфенелаид поставил вопрос на голосование уполномоченных государств, которые присутствовали на конференции. Большинство высказалось за предложение эфора, признав, что мирный договор 445 г. нарушен Афинами и что неизбежным следствием этого нарушения является война. Таким образом, усилия дипломатов не предотвратили Пелопоннесской войны. Однако они оказали существенное влияние как на ее подготовку, так и на все последующее течение событий. Во всяком случае, благодаря дипломатии общегреческая катастрофа была отсрочена на целых пять лет. Никиев мир (421 г. до н. э.) Обмен посольствами продолжался и после объявления войны. Разница состояла лишь в том, что переговоры велись воюющими странами «без глашатаев», т. е. полуофициальным путем. В 423 г. обессиленные войной противники пришли к соглашению и заключили перемирие, завершившееся так называемым Никиевым миром 421 г. Текст Никиева мира интересен как образец дипломатических документов античной Греции. В передаче Фукидида текст договора гласит: «Настоящий договор заключили афиняне и лакедемоняне с союзниками на следующих условиях, утвержденных клятвами каждого города... Да не позволено будет лакедемонянам с их союзниками браться за оружие с целью нанесения вреда афинянам и их союзникам, ни афинянам с их союзниками-для нанесения вреда лакедемонянам и их союзникам, какими бы то ни было способами». Далее определялись права городов, возвращаемых лакедемонянами афинянам и обратно. Эти города объявлялись независимыми. «Городам, - гласил подписанный текст договора, - быть независимыми, пока они уплачивают дань, установленную Аристидом. Да не позволено будет по заключении договора ни афинянам, ни их союзникам браться за оружие во вред городам». Вторым центральным пунктом Никиева мира был вопрос о возвращении захваченных территорий и об обмене военнопленными. В последнем были больше всего заинтересованы спартанцы, которые потеряли в сражении при Сфактерии свой отборный корпус. «Лакедемоняне и союзники обязуются возвратить афинянам Панакт, афиняне лакедемонянам - Корифаси... и всех лакедемонских граждан, содержащихся в заключении в Афинах или в какой-либо другой части Афинского государства, а равно и всех союзников... Также и лакедемоняне с их союзниками обязуются возвратить всех афинян и их союзников ». Особой статьей были оговорены права Дельфийского храма. Договор заключался на 50 лет. Он должен был соблюдаться заключившими его сторонами «без коварства и ущерба на суше и на море» и скреплялся присягой: «буду соблюдать условия и договор без обмана и по справедливости». Присягу условлено было возобновлять ежегодно и в каждом городе отдельно. В конце договора имелась оговорка, которая позволяла в случае нужды вносить в текст необходимые изменения. Договор входил в силу эа шесть дней до конца месяца Елафеболиона. В конце следовали подписи лиц, заключивших договор. В том же году между Афинами и Спартой было заключено еще одно характерное для рабовладельческих государств «дружественное соглашение». Оно предусматривало взаимопомощь обеих сторон в случае нападения какой-либо третьей державы или восстания рабов, которые всеми без исключения правительствами античных государств признавались опасной силой. В этом сказался вполне определившийся рабовладельческий характер греческого государства того времени. На Древнем Востоке в известном договоре Рамзеса II с Хаттушилем III также предусматривалась взаимная помощь двух царей в случае внутренних восстаний. Но там имелись в виду мятежные выступления подвластных племен. Здесь, в Греции периода Пелопоннесской войны, Афины и Спарта заключают соглашение о взаимной интервенции против класса рабов. Несмотря на свою политическую борьбу, они оказываются солидарными перед лицом враждебного класса рабов, выступления которых угрожали основам античного рабовладельческого строя. Через несколько лет вооруженный конфликт между Афинами и Спартой возобновился и принял чрезвычайно широкие размеры. Исходным моментом второго периода Пелопоннесской войны послужила военная экспедиция Афин в Сицилию (415 г. до н. э.). Посылка этой экспедиции была серьезной ошибкой афинской дипломатии, предварительно не изучившей политического состояния Сицилии и слепо доверившейся сообщениям сицилийских посольств, которые прибыли в Афины просить помощи против Сиракуз. Сицилийская катастрофа имела своим последствием государственный переворот в Афинах (411 г. до н. э.) и глубокие изменения в международных отношениях греческого мира. «Вся Эллада пришла в сильное возбуждение ввиду тяжелого поражения Афин»1. Каждое государство спешило объявить себя врагом Афин и примкнуть к антиафинской коалиции. Все враги Афин, замечает Фукидид, были убеждены, что «дальнейшая война будет кратковременной, а участие в ней почетным и выгодным»2. Дружественный договор Спарты с Персией (412 г. до н. э.) Однако враги Афин скоро убедились, что могущественная Афинская республика даже и после сицилийской катастрофы продолжает сохранять свою морскую мощь. Победить Афины можно было лишь при наличии большого флота, которого ни Спарта, ни союзники не имели. Постройка же флота предполагала наличие богатой казны, которой также не обладали ни Спарта, ни ее друзья. Единственный выход из создавшегося положения антиафинская коалиция видела в том, чтобы обратиться за денежной помощью к персидскому царю Дарию П. Царь охотно принял на себя роль международного банкира. Дарий считал создавшееся положение как нельзя более благоприятным для восстановления своего могущества в Эгейском море и Малой Азии. В качестве дипломата персидского царя в эти годы выступал человек незаурядных способностей - Тиссаферн, царский наместник (сатрап) в Приморской области, в которую входили греческие города. По предложению Тиссаферна в Спарту было отправлено сразу два посольства: от островных греков, которые отпали от Афинского союза, и от самого Тиссаферна. Оба посольства предложили лакедемонянам мир и союз. Тиссаферн надеялся достичь сразу двух целей: ослабить Афины и при поддержке Спарты обеспечить более регулярное поступление дани царю от подвластных ему греческих городов Малой Азии. Имея за своей спиной Афины, малоазиатские греки уплачивали дань крайне неаккуратно и притом постоянно грозили отпадением. Кроме того, при поддержке Спарты Тиссаферн рассчитывал наказать своих врагов, проживавших в Греции. 1 Thucydides. Historiae. VIII, 2. 2 Ibid. VIII, 3. В результате недолгих переговоров в 412 г. в Лакедемоне был заключен союз между Спартой и Персией на выгодных для царя условиях. Согласно этому договору, персидскому царю передавались «вся страна и все города, какими ныне владеет царь и какими владели его предки». По другой статье, все подати и доходы указанных стран и городов, которые до тех пор получали Афины, отныне передавались персидскому царю. «Царь, лакедемоняне и их союзники обязуются общими силами препятствовать афинянам взимать эти деньги и все остальное». Следующая статья гласила, что войну против Афин должны вести сообща царь, лакедемоняне и их союзники. Прекращена война может быть только с общего согласия всех участников договора, т. е. царя и Спартанской симмахии. Всякий, кто восстанет или отделится от царя, Спарты или союзников, должен считаться общим их врагом. Текст договора был скреплен подписями Тиссаферна от имени Персии и Халкидеем, спартанским навархом (начальником морских сил), от имени Спарты. Договор 412 г. был навязан Спарте ее безвыходным положением. Он вскоре вызвал недовольство самих спартанцев, потребовавших его пересмотра. С другой стороны, и Тиссаферн не вполне точно соблюдал принятое им на ©ебя обязательство - выплачивать содержание лакедемонским морякам. Начались новые переговоры. В результате между спартанцами и персами был заключен договор в городе Милете. По сравнению с прежним соглашением Милетский договор был более выгоден для Спарты. Царь подтвер- дил свое обязательство поддерживать и оплачивать войско Лакедемонско-го союза, находящееся на персидской территории1. Впрочем, и этот договор не мог вполне удовлетворить лакедемонян, ибо они претендовали на общегреческую гегемонию. Притом в силе оставалась весьма растяжимая статья, передававшая царю все города и все острова, какими владел не только он сам, но и его предки. «По смыслу этой статьи, - говорит Фукидид, - лакедемоняне вместо обещанной всем эллинам свободы вновь наложили на них персидское иго»2. Требование Спарты устранить эту статью вызвало гнев Тиссаферна. Персидского сатрапа уже начинал беспокоить твердый тон спартанских дипломатов. С этого времени персидская дипломатия делает поворот от Спарты в сторону Афин, своего недавнего врага. Система политического дуализма Алкивиада Советником Тиссаферна был афинянин Алкивиад. В это время он состоял на спартанской службе, но тяготился тамошними порядками и подготовлял почву для своего возвращения в Афины. Алкивиад советовал Тисса-ферну вернуться к исконной дипломатии восточных царей: поддерживать в греческом мире систему политического дуализма и, таким образом, не допускать чрезмерного усиления ни одного из греческих государств. Если, говорил Алкивиад, господство на суше и на море в Греции будет сосредоточено в одних руках, царь не будет иметь себе союзника в греческом мире. Вследствие этого, в случае обострения отношений с греками, он будет вынужден вести войну один с большими расходами и риском. Гораздо легче, дешевле и безопаснее для царя предоставить эллинским государствам истощать друг друга. С точки зрения интересов персидской политики, в данный момент целесообразнее было поддерживать не спартанцев, а афинян. Диктовалось это тем соображением, что афиняне стремились подчинить себе лишь часть моря, предоставляя в распоряжение царя и Тиссаферна всех прочих эллинов, живущих на царской территории. Между тем, в случае перехода гегемонии к Лакедемонскому союзу, спартанцы не только освободили бы эллинов от афинского гнета, но, весьма вероятно, пожелали бы также освободить их и от персидского ига. Из всего этого Алкивиад делал практический вывод: не торопиться с окончанием войны, истощить афинян до последней степени, а потом, соединившись с ними, разделаться также и с пелопонне-сцами. Первым шагом к этому должно было явиться уменьшение жалованья пелопоннесским морякам, по крайней мере наполовину. Алкивиад своей политикой преследовал прежде всего личные цели. Он мечтал вернуться в Афины и заменить демократический строй республики 1 Thucydides. Historiae.VIII, 37. 2 Ibid. олигархией. Достигнуть этого он и его друзья надеялись при помощи Тис-саферна и царской казны. Предательская деятельность Алкивиада достигла своей цели. Персия стала оказывать поддержку Афинам против Спарты. После смерти Алкивиада афинскому стратегу Конону удалось организовать в 395 г. до н. э. антиспартанскую коалицию в составе Афин, Коринфа, Фив и других городов. Началась долгая и ожесточенная Коринфская война (395-387 гг. до н. э.). В результате ее гегемония Афин возродилась, зато Спарта была вконец разорена и истощена. Анталкидов мир (387 г. до н. э.) Победы Конона оживили Афины. Экономическая и политическая жизнь Афинского союза возрождалась. Между Афинами и Пиреем были сооружены новые укрепления (Длинные стены). Афинская рабовладельческая демократия с ее стремлением к панэллинской гегемонии подняла голову. Возрождение демократических Афин пугало не только спартанцев. Оно тревожило и персидских сатрапов, и самого персидского царя, склонного скорее поддерживать спартанских олигархов, чем Афинскую республику с ее демократическими порядками. С этого времени между спартанцами и афинянами возобновляется яростная борьба за влияние на персидского царя. Спартанцы отправили к персидскому сатрапу Тирибазу посольство во главе с Анталкидом. Этому хитрому и ловкому дипломату было поручено любой ценой добиться заключения мира между персидским царем и лакедемонянами. Афиняне и союзники со своей стороны снарядили посольство к тому же Тирибазу. Анталкид предлагал мирные условия, приемлемые как для царя, так и для лакедемонян. «Лакедемоняне, - говорил он, - не оспаривают у царя греческих городов, которые находятся в Малой Азии. С них достаточно того, чтобы прочие города получили автономию. Раз мы согласны на эти условия, чего ради царь станет воевать с нами и расходовать деньги?»1. Тирибаз пришел в восторг от речей Анталкида. Но против предложения спартанского дипломата решительно восстали афиняне и фиванцы. Они рассматривали требование автономии городов как коварный маневр, направленный к уничтожению всех военно-политических союзов в Греции. Тем не менее дипломатический маневр Анталкида увенчался успехом. Обе стороны, истощенные борьбой, вынуждены были согласиться на условия, продиктованные царем Артаксерксом. Тирибаз объявил, чтобы все желающие немедленно прибыли к нему и выслушали присланные персидским царем условия мира. По прибытии послов Тирибаз, указывая на царскую печать, удостоверявшую подлинность документа, прочел следующее: *Царь Артаксеркс полагает справедливым, чтобы ему принадлежали все города Малой Азии, а из островов - Клазомены и Кипр. Всем прочим горо-<дам, большим и малым, должна быть предоставлена автономия, кроме Лем- 1 Xenophon Histona graeca. IV, 8, 14. носа, Имброса и Скироса, которые по-прежнему остаются во власти Афин». Таковы были условия знаменитого царского, или Анталкидова, мира, который узаконил политическую раздробленность, а следовательно, и слабость Греции. В конце мирного текста имелась многозначительная приписка: «Той из воюющих сторон, которая не примет этих условий, вместе с принявшими мир объявляю войну на суше и на море и воюющим с ней государствам окажу поддержку кораблями и деньгами». 3. Греческая дипломатия в македонско-эллинистическую эпоху Филократов мир (346 г. до н. э.) Анталкидов мир явился торжеством персидской политики, которая ставила своей целью раздробление Греции и ослабление как спартанской, так и афинской гегемонии. Но в недрах самой Греции уже развивался противоположный централистический процесс. Носителем этой тенденции стало Македонское царство. При царе Филиппе II (359-336 гг. до н. э.) Македония превратилась в одно из сильнейших государств Эгейского бассейна, которое подчиняло своему влиянию одну греческую область за другой. Этой судьбы не миновали и Афины. Подчинение греческих государств Македонии совершалось военным и дипломатическим путем. Филипп пускал в ход все имевшиеся в его распоряжении средства: подкуп, дипломатические послания («письма Филиппа»), материальную и моральную поддержку греческих «друзей Македонии» , союзы с соседними варварскими князьями, дружбу с персидским царем, организацию восстаний во враждебных ему государствах. Особенно большое значение Филипп придавал подкупу, утверждая, что нагруженный золотом осел возьмет любую крепость. Оплачивалось не только политическое красноречие, но и политическое молчание. На заявление одного греческого трагика, что он получил талант за одно лишь выступление, оратор Демад ответил, что ему царь за одно красноречивое молчание дал десять талантов1. Помимо личных качеств Филиппа, прирожденного политика и дипломата, успехи Македонии исторически объяснялись прогрессивным характером македонской политики. Стремление к созданию крупных государственных объединений вызывалось ростом производительных сил в Средиземноморском бассейне, развитием торговой и промышленной инициативы, увеличением числа наемников и подъемом завоевательных настроений. Замыслы смелого и властолюбивого македонского царя соответствовали стремлениям некоторых греческих идеологов, например популярного оратора Исократа. В своем сочинении «Панегирик» Исократ развивал идею 1 Aucuis Gelhus. Noctes Atticae. XI, 10. объединения всех греческих государств под гегемонией одной страны и одного вождя. «Объединенная Греция, - писал Исократ, - предпримет поход против исконного врага эллинского народа - Персии. Счастливая война с Персией откроет простор предпринимательскому духу и освободит Грецию от массы бедного люда, дав работу бродячим элементам, угрожающим самому существованию эллинского государства и культуре...» «Пусть одушевленное патриотической идеей воинство сделает Грецию обладательни-дай неисчерпаемых сокровищ Востока, центра мирового обмена». В 346 г. до н. э. между Македонией, Афинами и их союзниками был под-дисан Филократов мир. Его горячо приветствовал Исократ как первый шаг к осуществлению его давнишней идеи объединения Греции для «счастливой войны» с Персией. «Ты освободишь эллинов, - писал он Филиппу, - от варварского деспотизма и после этого осчастливишь всех людей эллинской культурой ». Против централистических тенденций Филиппа и македонской партии Л Афинах выступала антимакедонская группа. Во главе ее стоял знаменитый греческий оратор Демосфен. В своих речах против Филиппа («Филип-пиках»), как и во всех других речах, Демосфен со всей страстью своего бурного красноречия обрушивался на «македонского варвара». Но и сам Демосфен не отрицал необходимости объединения Греции. Он полагал лишь, что это дело должно совершиться путем создания союза свободных эллинских городов, без участия Македонии. Однако, как показали последующие события, правильная сама по себе идея создания греческой федерации не могла быть осуществлена вследствие глубокого внутреннего разложения самой демократии полиса, подтачиваемой узостью ее базы, раздорами партий, восстаниями рабов и все обострявшегося соперничества между отдельными греческими государствами. Демосфена поддерживали афинские демократические массы граждан, стоявших вне и выше рабов. Для них победа Македонии означала конец демократических учреждений. Между тем ядро македонской партии, которое составляло богатое гражданство, главным образом купечество, рассчитывало на наживу, в случае «счастливой войны» с Персией, и на поддержку государственного порядка со стороны твердой власти македонского царя. В рядах македонской партии находилось немало и греческой интеллигенции. Величайший представитель ее, Аристотель, удостоен был приглашения на должность воспитателя сына царя Филиппа - Александра, будущего Александра Великого. Дебаты в Афинской экклесии по вопросу о Филократовом мире (346 г. до н. э.) В афинском Народном собрании кипела своя ожесточенная борьба между сторонниками и противниками македонской гегемонии. Дело шло о направлении всей внешней и внутренней политики Афин. В центре спора стоял Филократов мир, заключенный в 346 г. до н. э. между Афинами и Македонией. Демосфен и другие демократические вожди считали этот мир губительным для Афин. Они требовали предания суду Эсхина и Филократа, которые подписали этот договор. По вопросу о Филократовом мире Демосфен произнес целый ряд речей («О мире», «Об острове Галоннесе», «Филиппики»). Для истории дипломатии особенно интересна «Третья Филиппика» Демосфена. В этой замечательной речи оратор предостерегал афинских граждан против лживых заверений Филиппа. Напрасно твердит македонский царь о своих мирных намерениях. Всем известны факты насильственного захвата Филиппом греческих городов. «Я не говорю об Олинфе, Метоне, Аполлонии и о 30 городах Фракийского побережья, - говорил Демосфен, - которые все до единого беспощадно разорены Филиппом... Умалчиваю я и о жестоком истреблении им фокидян. А каково положение Фессалии? .. И разве эвбейскпе государства уже не подчинены тирану? И это - на острове, находящемся в ближайшем соседстве с Фивами и Афинами!»1 Все помыслы и действия Филиппа, продолжал Демосфен, направлены к одной цели - уничтожению греческой свободы и эллинской образованности. Правда, Филипп называет себя филэллином, т. е. другом Эллады. Это - 1 Demosthenes. Orationes. IX, 26. не более как обман. Филэллином царь не может быть уже в силу своего варварского происхождения. «Он не эллин, и ни в каком родстве с эллинами не состоит, он даже не инородец добропорядочного происхождения. Он только жалкий македонец. А в Македонии, как известно, в прежнее время нельзя было купить даже приличного раба»1. Столь же резко обрушивался Демосфен и на афинских граждан, которые стояли за мир с Филиппом. Эсхина и его брата Филократа, скрепивших этот мир своими подписями, Демосфен обвинял в измене интересам родины. Приверженцы Македонии, как и сам Филипп, также не оставались в долгу. В дошедших до нас речах Эсхина и письмах Филиппа содержатся целые обвинительные акты против Демосфена и его друзей. Их обвиняли в клевете, демагогии и продажности. В речи «О недобросовестно выполненном посольстве» Эсхин называет Демосфена заносчивым человеком, который только себя самого считает «единственным охранителем государственных интересов» , а всех остальных клеймит как предателей. «Он все время оскорбляет нас. Он осыпает возмутительной бранью не только меня, но и других». Клеветнические обвинения Демосфена столь многочисленны, запутанны и противоречивы, что трудно их даже и запомнить. Только афинский народ, говорил Эсхин, может избавить его, Эсхина, от возводимой на него гнусной клеветы. К народу, как к единственному прибежищу и носителю справедливости, Эсхин и обращается. «Вам я воздаю хвалу, - восклицает Эсхин, обращаясь к согражданам. -Вас я люблю за то, что вы больше верите жизни обвиняемого, чем возводимым на него небылицам»2. Наряду с обвинениями в забвении государственных интересов противники Эсхина утверждали, что он запятнан насилием над свободной женщиной. Это обстоятельство порочило звание посла Афин, от которого требовалась безупречная нравственная чистота. В развернувшейся в Афинах дипломатической борьбе принял участие и сам Филипп. У него имелись искусные секретари, да и сам македонский царь в совершенстве владел письменной и устной греческой речью. Об этом можно судить по нескольким сохранившимся открытым письмам царя, с которыми он обращался к афинскому народу. Дипломатические письма македонского царя Филиппа II к афинскому народу Поводом для составления одного из таких писем послужил инцидент с островом Ганесом в Эгейском море. В 342 г. до н. э. этот остров был захвачен пиратами. Филипп изгнал их, но остров удержал за собой. На требование афинян вернуть остров царь отвечал отказом. Остров принадлежит ему: при желании он может его подарить афинянам, но не возвратить им как их 1 Demosthenes. Orationes. IX, 31. 2Aeschines. De male gesta legationo. 2. собственность. Демократические вожди подняли в экклесии кампанию против Филиппа. Они упрекали его в самоуправстве и нарушении условий Филократова мира. К этому присоединился еще ряд других правонарушений Филиппа: захват им нейтрального города Кардии, нападение на фракийского князя Керсоблепта и т. д. Филипп был весьма обеспокоен этими нападками. Чтобы оправдаться от возводимых на него обвинений, он обратился к Афинской экклесии с обширным письмом. Последнее было полно укоров по адресу афинских граждан, руководимых «продажными ораторами». Затем следовало приветствие афинскому народу и объяснение цели послания. «Филипп желает всего хорошего Афинскому собранию и народу! После того как вы не обратили никакого внимания на мои частые посольства к вам, имевшие целью обеспечить соблюдение клятвенных обязательств и предлагавшие добрососедские отношения, я решил письменно обратиться к вам по поводу некоторых обвинений, которые, как мне кажется, возводятся на меня несправедливо». Эти обвинения Филипп считает выдумкой «продажных ораторов», которые сознательно разжигают войну. «Ведь сами наши граждане говорят, что мир для них - война, а война - мир. Поддерживая вояк, они за это получают от них, что нужно, а пороча лучших граждан и нападая на людей, пользующихся доброй славой и за пределами Афинского государства, они делают вид, будто служат интересам народа». Филиппу удалось достигнуть поразительных результатов. Он был избран членом Дельфийско-Фермопильской амфиктионии и стал арбитром в спорах между греческими городами. Это дало царю возможность отсрочить войну с Афинами и произвести необходимые преобразования в своем государстве. Однако даже дипломатическому искусству Филиппа не удалось предупредить войну Македонии с Афинами. Слишком велика была противоположность между единодержавной Македонией и демократическими Афинами. В 338 г. при Херонее и Беотии произошла генеральная битва между Филиппом и Греческой союзной лигой, созданной Демосфеном. В этом бою союзная лига была разбита наголову. Такое поражение зависело столько же от силы противника, сколько от внутреннего бессилия самой лиги. Херонея заканчивает классический период античной истории. Она является рубежом, обозначающим начало перехода от классического периода к эпохе эллинизма. Коринфский конгресс (338-337 гг. до н. э.) После Херонеи Филипп отправился походом в Южную Грецию. Все города Пелопоннесского союза, за исключением Спарты, признали власть македонского царя. Филипп избегал практики односторонних повелений. С каждым городом в отдельности им был заключен оборонительный и наступательный союз. Основой этого союза было сохранение внутренней автономии и свободы данного города. Для разрешения вопросов, касавшихся всей Греции, Филипп созвал в 338 г. до н. э. в Коринфе общегреческое совещание - Коринфский конгресс (синедрион). На конгрессе представлены были все греческие государства, за исключением Спарты. Председателем конгресса был сам Филипп. Конгресс провозгласил прекращение войны в Греции и установление всеобщего мира. Затем приступили к обсуждению других вопросов. Греческая раздробленность была преодолена созданием общегреческой федерации с включением в нее Македонии и под председательством македонского царя. Между объединенными государствами и македонским царем был заключен вечный оборонительный и наступательный союз. Под страхом тяжелого наказания ни одно государство, ни один грек не должны были выступать против царя или помогать его врагам. Все возникавшие между греческими государствами спорные вопросы передавались на рассмотрение суда амфик-тионов. Главой же коллегии амфиктионов был Филипп. Преступными актами объявлялись какие бы то ни было изменения в конституции городов, конфискация имущества, отмена долгов, призыв рабов к восстанию и пр. В заключение конгресс принял решение начать войну с Персией. Филипп надеялся отвлечь внимание от греческих дел «быстрой и счастливой» войной в Азии1. Предводителем (гегемоном) союзного греческого ополчения был назначен тот же Филипп. Слово «царь» в актах Коринфского конгресса не встречается. В сношениях с греками Филипп никогда не именовал себя царем (басилевсом). Для свободных эллинов он был не басилевс, а гегемон. 1 Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca historica XVI, 89 В 336 г. до н. э. Филипп был убит, и выполнение его планов принял на себя его сын Александр Великий (336-323 гг. до н. э.). В течение каких-нибудь 10 лет Александр покорил всю Персию, которая включала в себя весь Передний Восток до Индии. Подобно своему отцу, Александр действовал не только силой оружия, но и дипломатическими средствами. Путем дипломатии он склонил на свою сторону малоазиатские города, заключил союз с египетскими жрецами и использовал взаимную вражду индийских раджей. К Александру прибывала масса посольств от самых различных стран и народов - греков, персов, скифов, сарматов, индусов и многих других. С одними он был чрезвычайно любезен и щедр, с другими - открыто жесток. Манифест Полисперхона, регента малолетнего сына Александра Великого (319 г. до н. э.) После смерти Александра наступает самый сложный и запутанный период греческой истории - период эллинизма. После Александра оставалось огромное наследство в виде массы покоренных земель. Совершеннолетних наследников у Александра не было. В качестве претендентов на престол выступили сподвиж
Annotation
Bibliographic rarity. State socio-economic publishing house. Edition edited by V. P. Potemkin.
The entire three-volume cycle aims - based on an analysis of international relations in successively changing eras - to present a brief history of diplomacy from ancient times to the present day.
Section one
Introduction
Chapter first. Diplomacy of the Ancient East
Chapter two. Diplomacy of Ancient Greece
Chapter three. Diplomacy of Ancient Rome
Section two Diplomacy in the Middle Ages
Introduction
Chapter first. Barbarian states and Byzantium
Chapter two. Diplomacy of the period of feudal fragmentation
Chapter three. Diplomacy during the period of strengthening the feudal monarchy
Section three
Introduction
Chapter One General characteristics of diplomacy and diplomatic bodies in the 16th - 18th centuries
Chapter Two Diplomacy in the 16th Century
Chapter three Diplomacy in the 17th century
Chapter Four Diplomacy of European States in the 18th Century
Section four
Introduction
Chapter One Diplomacy of the Young American Republic (1775 - 1794)
Chapter two European diplomacy during the years of the French bourgeois republic (1789 - 1794)
Chapter Three Diplomacy during the years of the Thermidorian reaction and the Directory (1794 - 1799)
Chapter Four European diplomatic relations under Napoleon (1799 - 1814)
Chapter Five The Congress of Vienna (October 1814 - June 1815)
Chapter Seven From the July Revolution in France to the revolutionary upheavals in Europe of 1848 (1830 - 1848)
Chapter Eight From the revolution of 1848 to the beginning of the Crimean War (1848 - 1853)
Chapter Nine Diplomacy during the Crimean War and the Congress of Paris (1853 - 1856)
Chapter Ten The Civil War in North America (1861 - 1865)
Chapter Eleven Napoleon III and Europe. From the Peace of Paris to the beginning of Bismarck's ministry in Prussia (1856 - 1862)
Chapter Twelve Bismarck's diplomacy during the war with Denmark and Austria (1864 - 1866)
Chapter Thirteen Diplomatic preparation for the Franco-Prussian War (1867 - 1870)
Chapter Fourteen Franco-Prussian War. Frankfurt Peace. (1870 - 1871)
Section one
Diplomacy in ancient times
Introduction
Diplomacy in the ancient world carried out the foreign policy tasks of states whose economic basis was slavery.
The slave system did not remain motionless. In the process of its historical development, it went through several successive stages.
Early slavery, not yet completely separated from the communal-tribal system, underlay the state formations of the Ancient East - such as Egyptian despotism, the kingdom of the Hittites, Assyria, Persia, and the states of Ancient India. In these military-theocratic powers, relying on the power of non-economic coercion, foreign policy was guided primarily by aggressive interests: the seizure of land, slaves, livestock, the robbery of wealth available in neighboring countries were the main goals of the wars of that time. International issues were usually resolved by armed force. However, the states of the Ancient East had to develop very lively diplomatic activity. Diplomatic relations were conducted by the kings themselves. The rulers of the Ancient East were revered as gods, embodied the entire state in their person, and had at their disposal entire armies of “royal servants” - officials and scribes.
In accordance with the main objectives of the aggressive foreign policy of the military-theocratic kingdoms of the East, their centralized diplomacy resolved a relatively limited range of issues. Its greatest strength was the organization of all-pervasive military-political intelligence.
More developed slavery, associated with the commodity-money economy and the growth of coastal cities, lay at the basis of the ancient states of Greece and Rome.
The foreign policy of these slave-owning city states (“polises”) was determined by the interests of the struggle for the expansion of territories, for the acquisition of slaves, and for markets. This resulted in: the desire for hegemony, the search for allies, the formation of groupings, colonial expansion, which set as its task the formation of major powers and caused clashes among the Greeks in the East, with the Persian Kingdom, among the Romans in the West, with the richest trading republic of the ancient world - Carthage.
The diplomatic activity of ancient city-states was expressed in lively negotiations, continuous exchange of embassies, convening meetings, and concluding defensive and offensive alliance treaties.
The activity of diplomacy of the states of classical Greece unfolded in its entirety during the Peloponnesian War between the two largest military-political alliances - Athenian and Spartan - which fought for 30 years for dominance in the Hellenic world. Subsequently, no less intense diplomatic activity flared up with the appearance of a new force on the pan-Greek arena - the Macedonian kingdom, which embodied the unifying tendencies of Greece at that time, combined with colonial expansion to the East.
In the west, in the Roman Republic, the greatest activity of diplomacy was observed during the Second and Third Punic Wars. At this time, the strengthening Roman Republic met in the person of Hannibal its largest enemy not only in the military, but also in the diplomatic field.
The organization of diplomacy in the ancient republics was affected by the peculiarities of the political system of slave-owning democracy. Ambassadors of the republics were elected at open meetings of full citizens and, at the end of their mission, reported to them. Every full-fledged citizen, if he considered the ambassador’s actions to be wrong, could demand that he be brought to justice. This was carried out completely in the Greek republics, and to a lesser extent in Rome: here, instead of the People's Assembly, the body of the Roman nobility, the Senate, was the sovereign leader of foreign policy.
During the last two centuries of the Roman Republic and the first two centuries of the Empire, slavery reached its highest development within the ancient world. During this period, the Roman state gradually developed into a centralized form of the Empire. The foreign policy of imperial Rome pursued two main goals: the creation of a world power that absorbed all the countries of the then known “circle of lands”, and the defense of its borders from attacks by neighboring peoples.
In the east, in its struggle and relations with the Parthian kingdom, the diplomacy of the Roman Empire under the first emperors successfully resolved offensive tasks. Later, forced to retreat, she turns to skillful maneuvering.
In the West, in contact with the barbarians on the European borders of the Empire, Roman diplomacy seeks to weaken the pressure of the barbarian elements and use them as military and labor force.
At the same time, Roman diplomacy had to solve the problem of maintaining the integrity of the Empire through agreements between individual parts of the Roman state.
In connection with the centralization of state power, all management of the foreign policy of imperial Rome was carried out by the head of state - the emperor, through his personal office.
Loading...