Top Tens – History: Top 10 Types of Empire & Imperialism (Special Mention) (10) Gunboat Diplomacy

C;lassic gunboat diplomacy, even more so for the depolyment of ships designated as gunboats – The Crisis at Zanzibar, British War-Ships engaged in the Bombardment of the Sultan’s Palace by artist Fred T. Jane for the Illustrated London News, 5 September 1896 (public domain image)

 

 

(10) GUNBOAT DIPLOMACY

 

“An aircraft carrier is 100,000 tons of diplomacy”.

Send in the boats!

Ah yes, a blunter and more prosaic phrase for the reality of imperialism than either civilizing mission or manifest destiny, although the diplomacy part of the phrase is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

While the point is typically to avoid the actual use of military force or at least more than a show of it, the diplomacy of gunboat diplomacy relies on the threat of superior military force to bring imperial power to bear on a weaker opponent, potentially as an imperial subject or supplicant.

Not surprisingly given the reference to gunboat, it was a phrase used particularly for the use of superior naval firepower as an instrument of nineteenth century European maritime empires or the United States.

“Gunboat diplomacy is the pursuit of foreign policy objectives with the aid of conspicuous displays of naval power, implying or constituting a direct threat of warfare should terms not be agreeable to the superior force. The term originated in the 19th century, during the age of imperialism, when Western powers would use their superior military capabilities, particularly their naval assets, to intimidate less powerful nations into granting concessions. The mere presence of warships off a country’s coast was often enough to have a significant effect, making the actual use of force rarely necessary.”

Not that gunboat diplomacy is limited to gunboats in the nineteenth century but has persisted through the twentieth century to the contemporary use of naval power, or the combination of naval and air power encapsulated in Kissinger’s quote about aircraft carriers as diplomacy, or indeed to air power – bomber or drone diplomacy as it were – or the use of special forces.

I would argue that gunboat diplomacy also has a long history before the nineteenth century – indeed for as long as boats have been combined with guns, or even beforehand where massed fleets or other attributed of pre-gunpowder navies could be deployed for shows of force or threats short of the actual use of force.

It would also extend to limited deployment and threats or shows of force on land. The Roman emperor Antoninus Pius reputedly engaged in what might be called legion diplomacy when he “apparently stood off a resurgent Parthian Empire (under Vologasius IV) by writing a letter warning that “encroachment on Roman territory would not be taken lightly”. The Roman Empire also offers the examples of punitive raids, or the “fortification diplomacy” of other states.

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Empires (Special Mention: Revisited) (10) Hunnic Empire

 

Extent of Attila’s empire based on a map from Empires and Barbarians: The Birth of Europe by Peter Heather 2010 – map by Slovenski Volk for Wikipedia “Huns” licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

 

(10) HUNNIC EMPIRE

 

A classic nomadic empire founded by horse blitzkrieg of mounted nomadic tribes from the Eurasian steppes that should be ranked as the fourth great empire of late antiquity and menacing the other three – Persian Empire as well as eastern and western Roman empires – in turn.

(Although I tend to agree with the observation of Youtuber Tominus Maximus that the Huns generally hated the eastern Roman empire but liked the western Roman empire. Well, you know, until they didn’t.)

However, despite its classic status and notoriety, the Hunnic Empire remains somewhat nebulous because like most nomadic empires, they preferred riding to writing – so we are mostly reliant on what other people wrote about them.

Apparently according to tradition, they were first reported living east of the Volga River. Their origins remain uncertain, other than broadly sweeping across central Asia – with some theories resembling an extent almost as wide as the Mongols, particularly those theories linking them to the Xongniu and other nomadic peoples that menaced China, often stylized as Huns, such as in the Disney version of Mulan.

They are also often linked to other nomadic tribes, sometimes also stylized as Huns, that menaced the Persian Empire and even India. It’s not helped by the tendency, as with the Scythians, to identify or name nomadic tribes across Eurasia as Huns – both before and after the classical Hunnic Empire.

Classical sources have them suddenly appear in Europe or west of the Volga from 370 AD – where they triggered the Migration Period or at least the westward movement of Goths into the Roman Empire and bringing about the latter’s fall.

By 430 AD, they had “established a vast but short-lived empire on the Danubian frontier of the Roman Empire” – with various Germanic or other tribes “either under Hunnic hegemony or fleeing from it”. The Hunnic empire largely crystallized around the charismatic leadership of the most notorious Hun, Attila – and rapidly disintegrated after his death.

Under Attila, the Huns won not just peak empire but also the historical infamy of being extremely barbaric and ruthless towards their adversaries. Although I have to admit Attila being identified as the Scourge of God earns him badass points.

From their empire, the Huns raided the more robust eastern Roman Empire, invading the Balkans and threatening the capital Constantinople, with little to stop them until the emperor opted for the pragmatic policy of paying tribute for peace.

The Huns then invaded the western Roman Empire in 451, with Attila claiming the sister of the western Roman emperor as his bride and half the empire as his dowry – with some fairness, as she had swiped right on him in preference to her betrothal to a Roman senator.

 However, there the Huns encountered the general Flavius Aetius, often hailed as “the last of the Romans”. Ironically, Aetius had effectively risen to power by relying on the Huns – with whom he had previously been a court hostage – as his allies. Now he had to face off against his former allies as Attila invaded Gaul, drawing on the waning resources of an increasingly vestigial empire to field one of its last major military operations in alliance with the Visigoths and its other Germanic allies – and won, defeating the Huns at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains.

Or not, as historians dispute how conclusive a victory it was. Attila and the Huns withdrew from Gaul, only to invade Italy the following year – and there was little Aetius could do to stop them there, except for the Pope to ask Attila nicely if he would leave without sacking Rome.

Surprisingly, it worked. Attila left Italy – albeit probably more for lack of supplies or expectations of tribute as well as an eastern Roman campaign against the Huns in their homeland. He died the following year, aborting his plans for further campaigns against either empire – as with the Mongols, Europe was saved from invasion by a fortunately timed death (from Attila partying too hard celebrating his latest wedding to his hot new bride).

The Huns took one last shot at the eastern Roman Empire under one of Attila’s sons in 469, vanishing from history with their defeat.

 However, much about the Hunnic Empire remains mysterious, even the empire’s full territorial extent – some maps tentatively suggest their empire extended to the Baltic, but we just don’t know. Similarly, we can only speculate on why Attila agreed to leave Italy, setting aside papal mojo. We only have glimpses of fascinating aspects of the Huns such as their practice of cranial deformation, with their subsequent appearance no doubt adding to their fearsome reputation.

Top Tens – Mythology: Top 10 Mythology Horror (1) Underworld

A particularly horrific scene, as depicted in William-Adolphe Bougeureau’s 1850 painting “Dante and Virgil in Hell” (publlic domain image)

 

 

(1) UNDERWORLD

 

Chthonic horror!

God is a hole in the heart of the world and he’s hungry – omnipotent, omniscient, omnivorous.

Yes, I know my top entry for mythology horror is a common denominator across mythologies – dare I say lowest common denominator in a different sense – rather than any specific mythology.

But you don’t get more horror in mythology than chthonic horror, the horror of the underworld.

Even when it isn’t literal hell or pandemonium, the underworld is a bleak and dark place, that hole in the heart of the world.

Even when its gods aren’t literal demons or devils, they are those hungry gods representing the force of death in a world of the dead. The underworld lies between death and destruction or between the proverbial devil and the deep blue sea – the adversarial forces of nature between predation and parasitism, between evolution and entropy. Or is that devolution (heh)?

And of course its denizens are the dead.

While there tends to be mythic horror in descent into the underworld, literally or metaphorically, particularly if one remains there for good or rather for evil (heh), mythic horror usually involves the underworld or its supernatural forces moving in the other direction, invading our own world. For that matter, that’s usually the default plot or premise of horror fiction, literally or metaphorically.

Hell, even the intrusion or invasion of mythic worlds other than the underworld into our own can be terrifying. “Be not afraid” as Biblical angels say to soothe the terror from their appearance.