The Social World

Tag: Ancient and Modern

  • What did the ancients consider a ‘just war’?

    What did the ancients consider a ‘just war’?

    Since the UN does not provide a definition of the “just war,” it is interesting to see the ancient take on the matter.

    The Greeks contributed little. For Plato, war was necessary for the creation and survival of the city, but it was not its ultimate purpose: that was peace. For Aristotle, life consisted of three arenas of activity: war for the sake of peace, work for the sake of leisure and necessary and useful activities to demonstrate one’s worth.

    But Cicero (d. 43 BC) understood war in ways that have shaped our own understanding. His starting point was that there were two ways of settling an issue: by discussion, or by force. As he said, “the former [is] appropriate for human beings, the latter for animals.” Further, although Rome always marked a just war with a religious ceremony, Cicero thought a just war should flow not from religious sanction but from natural law.

    The search, then, was on for a iusta causa to rectify the rupture of mankind’s natural state, peace. Clearly, self-defense was the most obvious, but equally no war would be just unless the enemy had been given the chance to offer redress. War should advance some good beyond merely self-interested expansion. Other legitimate reasons for going to war, Cicero suggested, should be as a response to an earlier wrong, such as an attack on allies or ambassadors, or to a breach of treaties; or against those who supported an enemy of Rome (which might involve punishing an enemy). Further, Cicero believed that Rome must fight honorably, must not involve civilians and must show mercy to the conquered, though Roman rules of war permitted the seizure of property and enslavement. Most significantly, the word “revenge” plays almost no part.

    But Cicero’s world was torn apart by civil wars in the 1st century BC, triggering his reflections. He lamented that those unjust wars had destroyed the republic and ruefully commented: “As long as the sway of the Roman people was maintained by the bestowal of benefits, not by injustice, our sovereignty might then have been termed patronage, rather than domination, of the world.” Cause for thought?

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s October 27, 2025 World edition.

  • How the Spartans got fighting fit

    How the Spartans got fighting fit

    Donald Trump has brought back the Presidential Fitness Test for American children, once used in state schools to gauge young people’s health and athleticism with one-mile runs, sit-ups and stretching exercises. He could usefully add elements of the early training invented by the Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus to create disciplined, physically and mentally resilient soldiers and citizens.

    Every baby was examined for fitness. They were trained not to fuss about food, or be frightened of the dark when left alone, or to get angry or cry. At seven, they joined bands in which they grew up together while their elders registered their progress in obedience and courage. They were also taught to stay silent rather than drivel on, and if they did talk, to use language clearly and trenchantly (our term “laconic” derives from Lakôn, “Spartan”). Famous examples: “We do not ask how many the enemy are: just where they are.” And to a Persian boasting “Our arrows will block out the sky”: “Good, we shall fight in the shade.”

    Girls, while not being formed into the companies, also underwent state-sponsored training that emphasized physical strength and endurance, preparing them for their roles as mothers of warriors. They too learned to express themselves incisively. A girl saw a Milesian having his shoes put on and laced by a slave and said: “Father, the foreigner hasn’t any hands!” Being asked by an Athenian woman “Why is it that you Spartan women are the only women that lord it over your men?,” she said: “Because we are the only women that are mothers of men.” Another, when her sons had fled from battle back to her, said “Where have you come from now, you craven slaves? Do you intend to creep back in here, where you came from?”, and she pulled up her garment and showed them. Another, as her son was going to war, gave him his shield and said: “Your father kept this safe for you; do the same, or do not exist.” Another, asked by a man if she would be good if he bought her, said: “Yes, and if you do not buy me.”

    Fine lessons in exploiting the potential of language, rather than waving it flabbily about.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s September 15, 2025 World edition.