Monthly Archives: July 2016

The Rise and Fall of Palmyra: Part One—The Rise

Uncategorized, , , ,

By now, I am sure you’re aware of the destruction that ISIS wrought upon Palmyra. And as if the city hasn’t experienced enough, it seems that after being recaptured, Syrian troops might be looting the city for their own share of the booty. I generally try to keep this light-hearted, but the stealing of a people’s history is unforgivable.

A hero.
A hero.
Credit: Marc Deville/Gamma-Rapho/Getty Images. Sourced: The Telegraph
Khaled al-Asaad would likely agree with me. He was the 82-year-old scholar who was beheaded for failing to lead ISIS militants to valuable historic artefacts. Nevertheless, even he would have to acknowledge that the ruins of Palmyra are hardly the first to be destroyed by depraved fanatics, nor are they liable to be the last. There’s a reason they’re “ruins” after all.

Fortunately, it appears only about 20% of the ruins were seriously damaged. And with the city’s recapture, UNESCO is already discussing restoration works; although there are doubts as to how successful they will be. Also, in a spectacular show of defiance, the Russian Mariinsky Theatre Orchestra has played a concert in the Roman amphitheatre where ISIS held its executions.

We'll just conveniently ignore that this seems to be a concert almost exclusively for President Assad's troops...

Nevertheless, the question that ought to be asked is “What is this history that Khaled al-Asaad deemed to be worth dying for?”

The Rise of Palmyra

Credit:
Credit: Yvonnefm CC BY-SA 3.0
Palmyra is a literal oasis town, or rather was a literal oasis town until its main spring dried up in the 19th century. The establishment of the city is lost in time, but likely involved the settling down of nomadic tribes around the oasis. The town remained small for a long time, and might have forever remained a footnote in history if it weren’t for the Romans’ need for fancy things. Although, as pointed out by Winsbury, you should avoid having too romantic an image of the city. Although desert caravans stretching off into the dunes loaded with spice and incense makes for a beautiful mental scene; inscriptions from the time speak of taxes to be paid on slaves and prostitutes, “which casts a rather more lurid light on Palmyrene trade” (p. 27).

Exactly how trade began in Palmyra us up for contention. Certainly its location directly between Rome and Persia gave the city a prime position to control Roman trade not just with Arabia and Mesopotamia, but also with India and China. Still, Palmyra’s sudden transition from agricultural oasis town to mercantile oligopoly is difficult to explain. One theory is that the Palmyrenes were desert nomads and bandits who set about getting square, changing from bandits to guards to merchants. Apart from offering an explanation of how Palmyrene trade could spring from nowhere, it also offers an explanation for Palmyra’s surprising martial prowess for a trading city.

Sorry, for an image title "Palmyran Trade Routes", the actual word "Palmyra" is tiny...Credit: Shizhao CC BY-SA3.0
Sorry, for an image title “Palmyran Trade Routes”, the actual word “Palmyra” is tiny…
Credit: Shizhao CC BY-SA3.0

Palmyra had a strong militia; however, it was used for far more than just protecting caravans. Being wedged between the Romans and the Persians made for a precarious position. As the Romans expanded into the Middle-East, Palmyra came further and further under their sway, eventually becoming a Roman city; although they did retain special privileges, such as the right to maintain security forces. In this way, Palmyra became responsible for not just guaranteeing trade, but also the Eastern border of the empire.

This became crucially important in the third century AD when things were starting to look pretty grim for Rome. There were separatist movements in Britain, Hispania and Gaul (France) in the west; and in the east, the relatively peaceful Parthians were replaced by the aggressive Sassanians as the pre-eminent power in Persia. Sass wasn’t only in their name, but in their nature. Not entirely enthused about Rome’s recent meddling in the region, the Sassanians were keen to kick them out. More than this, they wanted to restore the empire of Darius and Xerxes (of 300 fame).

The Roman emperor, Valerian, was not going to stand for this in any way, and headed east to deal with this upstart dynasty. Unfortunately for him, however, he was resoundingly defeated, and even captured by the Sassanian king, Shapur.

You always have to wonder how it must feel to have a failure so grand, it still stands thousands of years later, commemorated in stone.
You always have to wonder how it must feel to have a failure so grand, it still stands thousands of years later, commemorated in stone.
Credit: Fabienkhan CC BY-SA 2.5

It is here that the Palmyrans truly started to make a name for themselves. Odenathus, the Palmyran king, stepped into the breach. Gathering an army of Palmyrans, Syrian peasants and whatever Roman forces would rally to his cause, he pursued the withdrawing Persian forces, catching them on the banks of the Euphrates. There he dealt Shapur an embarrassing defeat, failing to free Valerian, but supposedly managing to capture Shapur’s harem. In the following years, Odenathus launched a second campaign against the Persians and, despite an unsuccessful siege against their capital, by 267AD had restored all of the perviously Roman lands. The historian Winsbury describes this as “the Empire Strikes back” (p. 68). Odenathus, even found time to crush a rebellion against Rome in the meantime. For his deeds, Odenathus was granted the title corrector totius orientis or “Restorer of the East.”

We're not 100% certain if this is Odenathus, but it's the best guess we have of an image of the man.
We’re not 100% certain if this is Odenathus, but it’s the best guess we have of an image of the man.
Credit: Marco Prins CC BY-SA 4.0
What is remarkable about Odenathus, beyond his military successes, was that at a time of rebellion, he stayed loyal to Rome. He took Arabic titles, such as “King of Kings”, but appeared content with the Roman titles he was granted (and the Romans couldn’t care less what other titles he took). Of course, there are other interpretations of his actions. Winsbury, for instance, prefers to see Odenathus as a ruler that worked more for Palmyran interests. He makes much of a tale in which Odenathus gave a number of gifts to Shapur to improve relations, but the Persian king simply threw them in a river. Furthermore, in their attack on Rome, the Persians had destroyed Palmyran trading posts all along their advance. In this light, Odenathus’s military campaigns can be seen as opportunistic reprisals as much as valiant conquests for Rome.

Whatever the truth of the matter, Odenathus definitely upset somebody, as both he and the son he bore to his first wife were assassinated in roughly 267AD. To this day, the motives and perpetrators are up for contention, with everyone from wary Roman emperors to his wife who would succeed him, Zenobia, being accused at some point. Either way, the assassination of Odenathus would irrevocably change Palmyran history.

As we’ll see next week, these actions would indirectly spark the sudden expansion of Palmyra’s sphere of influence. Within five years, Palmyra would have become a proper empire, comprising of roughly the eastern third of Rome. However, as fast as it would flare into existence, the Palmyran Empire would be extinguished, and within ten years the city would be sacked, and never again be a world power. All of this would occur at the hands of the beautiful Queen Zenobia, Odenathus’s second wife, who we will learn about next week.

We'll learn more about this incredible Queen next post (NB: Though beautiful, this isn't a contemporary image).
We’ll learn more about this incredible Queen next post (NB: Though beautiful, this isn’t a contemporary image).
Credit: QuartierLatin1968 CC BY-SA 3.0

Academic Sources

Smith II, AM 2013, Roman Palmyra: identity, community and state formation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Southern, P 2008, Empress Zenobia: Palmyra’s Rebel Queen, Continuum, London.

Stoneman, R 1994, Palmyra and Its Empire: Zenobia’s revolt against Rome, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Winsbury, R 2010, Zenobia of Palmyra: History, Myth and the Neo-Classical Imagination, Bloomsbury Academic, London.

The First Federal Election

Uncategorized, , , , ,

Firstly, apologies for such a long break in posts. This blog is far from over, but it turns out the semester just gone was far more time consuming than I had imagined. Either way, I should be able to get out a few more posts during the break.

This is roughly what I imagine Julia Gillard will look like, should either side enter into a minority government.
This is roughly what I imagine Julia Gillard will look like, should either side enter into a minority government.
Source: Ed Dunens CC BY 2.0
So Australia has just conducted its 45th federal election, and it looks like there’s a chance we might end up with a minority government. I thought I’d turn the clock back and look at Australia’s first election, an election which, surprise surprise, also produced a minority government.

Although it’s logical if you think about it, Australia’s first federal election did not produce its first federal government. Who would have organised the election, otherwise? Instead, Australia’s first government was formed by its Prime Minister, who was in turn chosen by the Governor General. I say “chosen”; really the Governor General, John Adrian Louis Hope, Seventh Earl of Hopetoun, had his arm twisted by the total refusal of anyone to serve on the cabinet of his first choice for PM—William Lyne. The Governor General had selected Lyne on the basis that he was the Premier of NSW, the most senior colony, and had been knighted (always important).

John Adrian Louis Hopetoun, Seventh Lord of Hopetoun displaying the requisite number of medals needed to run a country.
John Adrian Louis Hopetoun, Seventh Lord of Hopetoun displaying the requisite number of medals needed to run a country.

The problem was that Lyne had been anti-Federation and most Australians thought this made him a poor choice for the first Prime Minister of said federation. Instead, everyone thought the job should go to the most famous federalist of the time, Edmund Barton. Lyne actually discussed this with Barton and promised him that he had spoken with the Seventh Earl of Hopetoun and was not a candidate for PM. The Governor General then promptly gave Lyne the Prime Ministership and Lyne set about trying to form government. So even 100 years ago “I don’t want to be PM” meant “I want to be PM.”

Nevertheless, while Lyne tried to tempt both Barton and Alfred Deakin, amongst others, into forming cabinet, all refused, and Lyne was forced to return his commission and advise the Governor General that Barton should be offered the position of Prime Minister. Although unknowingly, this effectively set the tone for the upcoming election, as it effectively became a vote of confidence in the incumbents.

This first government was a caretaker government, primarily concerned with the logistics of holding Australia’s first federal election. Apart from that, there was not a lot to do as Prime Minister of the newly formed nation. So little, that in the early days of Australia, Barton could carry around all of the government’s files in his briefcase. His position did have one important effect, however: the advantage of incumbency.

Although we cannot accuse Barton of using his position as PM for personal gain, he and his cabinet were not afraid to take advantage of their status to help their electoral chances. Principally, this was done by campaigning while going about ministerial business. Ministers would often arrive somewhere in the morning for business, and hold a campaign meeting in the afternoon, or vice versa. And that was before one considered the lavish functions put on for the new Prime Minister. For example, when Barton arrived in Brisbane, he was given a large formal reception by the Australian Natives Association (Indigenous Australians weren’t allowed to join, of course), followed by a banquet for 400 people.

400 people who saw no irony in the name of their association.
400 people who saw no irony in the name of their association.

Of course, these had to be 400 of the right people. Eligibility to vote in 1901 was state-based and therefore whether you could vote was largely determined by where you lived. South Australia and Western Australia, to their credit, had already extended women the vote in state elections, and therefore they were eligible to do so in the federal election. Barton campaigned on universal suffrage, and women in all states in Australia would be eligible to vote as of April the following year. This actually turned out to be a live issue Victoria, where legislation to extend the vote to women had recently been rejected. Alfred Deakin, future Prime Minister, was actually a big supporter of universal suffrage, saying that if not approved, Victoria would fall behind the other states. Interestingly, in NSW it didn’t appear to be such an issue. This could be in part because Rose Scott, the lead suffragist in NSW at the time, was an anti-Federalist and hardly referred to the 1901 election at all.

I will admit this is about suffrage in England. But I just love how the whole tone of the cartoon has changed now that women have the vote.
I will admit this cartoon is about suffrage in England. But I just love how the whole tone of the cartoon has changed now that women have the vote.
Source: Punch, 1910. From: The University of Glasgow

It must be acknowledged that when politicians at the time talked about “universal suffrage”, this didn’t include Indigenous Australians or other non-white races. Of course, on the state-by-state basis, the question was still muddied. Although Indigenous Australians didn’t formally get the vote until 1967, in 1901 they were treated as regular British subjects in all states except Western Australia and Queensland.

Of course, being a British citizen hardly guaranteed you the vote. The states’ restrictions on the franchise were diverse. While most states had removed property ownership restrictions for voting for the House of Representatives, many still had them for voting for the Senate. Equally, while Indigenous voters were explicitly excluded in WA and QLD, if they passed the property test, they could vote. In Queensland, you couldn’t vote if you were in the police, military or navy, or if you were receiving aid from a charitable institution. Victoria had excluded the illiterate from voting in 1857. And then excluded them again in 1865, with everyone apparently having forgotten the legislation passed eight years earlier.

But who was the opposition that Barton and his cabinet campaigned so hard against? George Reid effectively took on the role of opposition leader. Although a wealthy man, Reid was liked by workers for his self-depreciating humour. Famed for being massively obese, he was once asked what he would call his stomach. His response: “It’s all piss and wind. I’ll call it after you” (Tink, p. 4).

Did you really think that the Trans-Pacific Partnership was the first time people were up in arms over free trade?
Did you really think that the Trans-Pacific Partnership was the first time people were up in arms over free trade?
The major issue of the election was free-trade versus protectionism, with Reid lining up in the first corner and Barton in the second. At first, Barton tried a compromise position, but Reid had picked his battleground, and it was the issue the election was primarily fought on. This effectively split the states, with New South Wales possessing a firmly free-trade tradition, and Victoria a staunchly protectionist one. The other states stood in between, but with more protectionist leanings. It should be noted that these were not absolute positions, as Protectionists did not want to prohibit trade, and Free Traders still wished to raise revenues from tariffs. The question was more around how much protection was to be offered.

As an aside, incredibly long and confusing senate ballot papers were also there from 1901. This is an original; with 50-odd candidates, you were expected to cross off the names of all those you didn't want to vote for.
As an aside, incredibly long and confusing senate ballot papers were also there from 1901. This is an original, with 50-odd candidates. You were expected to cross off the names of all those you didn’t want to vote for.
Courtesy of the Museum of Australian Democracy
The last major contender in the election was Labor. Although they had aspired to have a federal party for the 1901 election, no agreement was reached, and so across the country, the election was treated as a state-based affair. Labor candidates actually had a free vote on the issue of protectionism, though because of its ties to manufacturing, the party had protectionist leanings. This ended up being the deciding factor for the 1901 elections.

Just like the most recent one, Australia’s first election was a surprisingly close affair. Barton’s Protectionists secured 31 seats, and Reid’s Free Traders 28; neither of which was enough to form government in the 75 seat House of Reps. Fourteen of the remaining 16 seats went to the various Labor parties. Those protectionist leanings ended up being crucial for Barton, as after negotiations Labor sided with the Protectionists as a block, delivering Barton the election. In this way, especially with the Free Traders gaining more seats than the Protectionists in the Senate, Australia’s first government was a minority one, delivered by Labor. This is a lesson that has stuck with the party ever since, determining their high esteem for, and willingness to compromise with the minor parties.

Election 2016: Tell him he’s dreaming: Bill Shorten refuses any deal with Greens

Labor leader Bill Shorten has ruled out forming a coalition government with the Greens, should the July 2 election produce a hung Parliament.

Academic Sources

Australian Politics and Elections Database, The University of Western Australia, Perth, accessed from: <http://elections.uwa.edu.au/>.

Carrol, B 2004, Australia’s Prime Ministers: From Barton to Howard, Rosenberg Publishing, Kenthurst, New South Wales.

Fleming, J & Weller, P 2001, “‘The ballot is the thing’: the labour parties” in Marian Simms (ed.) 1901 : the forgotten election, University of Queensland Press in association with the API Network and Curtin University of Technology, St Lucia, Queensland.

Jaensch, D & Manning, H 2001, “‘We want a white man’s continent’: the free trade and protection campaigns” in Marian Simms (ed.) 1901 : the forgotten election, University of Queensland Press in association with the API Network and Curtin University of Technology, St Lucia, Queensland.

Jupp, J 2001, “Ethnicity, race and sectarianism” in Marian Simms (ed.) 1901 : the forgotten election, University of Queensland Press in association with the API Network and Curtin University of Technology, St Lucia, Queensland.

Simms, M 2001, “Election days: overview of the 1901 election” in Marian Simms (ed.) 1901 : the forgotten election, University of Queensland Press in association with the API Network and Curtin University of Technology, St Lucia, Queensland.

Simms, M 2001, “Voting and enrolment provisions” in Marian Simms (ed.) 1901 : the forgotten election, University of Queensland Press in association with the API Network and Curtin University of Technology, St Lucia, Queensland.

Tink, A 2014, Australia 1901 – 2001: A narrative history, NewSouth Publishing, Sydney.