The State

How the development of the state is intrinsically linked to diplomacy.

History can provide the context for thoughts and actions and international relations and political theory provide a reflective academic detailed account of political history, giving it a known context. What is critical about history, ‘is what is included and what has been left out or ignored’ by historians; what political agendas may construct an argument at any given point, systems or ideas read in context of global world histories and the perspectives of other nations to fuse something, which begins to look like a more complete reality, rather than ‘ours’ or ‘their’ account of truth. A global picture of reality is necessary to understand human thought and a desire for equality of thought amongst all people and genders. Therefore, where western thought has also taken root in the world and survived through hundreds of years, it has also become ‘their’ and ‘our’ shared reality as truth. Similarly, arguments about race and gender equality, anti-slavery movements, concepts about injustice and indigenous environmental equality and sustainability movements; also become our shared reality over hundreds of years. Ideas that are tried and tested in ‘political concepts’ are generally ‘accepted’ worldwide, similarly shared values and notions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Therefore, when political movements upset this shared historical truth and try to write themselves in only ‘their’ truth, ignoring what is already known by humanity; it begins to raise concerns about ‘its’ intentions or validity. New populist governments are therefore, seen as questionable as they seek to find a place in history. State boundaries may be fought over by nations of people, but their value or virtue, is their ability to negotiate their survival and to thrive; their trade, to settle disputes and lands, and to secure freedoms for its people and to provide resources, education, and government.  This is done by using tools of; good governance, taxation, raising armies, providing schools, healthcare and  security (peace). These are valued commodities of a state; which should not be normally bartered for, but are secured through diplomacy, treaties, agreements, agreed international policies and adherence to international law. A common ground of values allows for stability and common agreement between nations in international relations.

Key Examples of political events that have survived the test of time in world political history and that apply to diplomacy.

Classical diplomatic history and international relations

A classical western conception of the state is derived from Greek and Roman philosophy, evolving from human thought and political rhetoric and discourse.  Even prior to 1200 the Classical Italian state was already well defined by these conceptions and the values of liberty or the lack of them, described in oratory and political thoughts of Cicero On the State (Treaties on Commonwealth) and Treaties on Law, as early as 62-43BC. Peloponnesian wars Sparta and Athens, the Greek and Roman Empires and then European Statehood. It is essentially defined by concepts and practise of democracy, liberties, rights, economic security (for some such as trade), and wars from 43AD-1300s.  The state entity develops into government, institutions, monarchy, councils, elections, and state militia. Complex international relations arise from interactions between states, often dominated by waring families or classes of elites, over one thousand years; within and across continents and then, with the development of these relationships states begin to experience more modern and defined diplomatic relations from 1400.

On the whole modern diplomacy as described by G.R Berridge (2015), is a modern construction and Classical diplomatic history really begins from the mid 1400’s, every act of international relations before then, was really a cruder event, with less defined and less sophisticated arrangements.  Yet it is possible to identify messengers, foreign visits and within the courts of early Greek and Roman states, and secret meetings. 1400-1900 sees a rapid development of state governance structures across Western Europe and fighting over territories and within colonial territories struggling towards independence. Today, through the diplomatic processes described by G.R Berridge we continue to experience the need for ‘continuous negotiation’, defined first by a Foreign Ministry government policy, which deals with staffing and supporting missions abroad, policy making and implementation, co-ordination of foreign relations, dealing with foreign diplomats at home and building support at home. In modern diplomacy studies we identify categories of activity; such as pre-negotiations, negotiations, diplomatic momentum, packaging agreements and examples of diplomatic relations, which include embassies, consulates, secret intelligence, summits, and public diplomacy.[1]

The external development of the state in international relations

We discuss in modern diplomatic studies and international relations events at conferences and historical events which involve diplomacy, political scientists identify the Westphalian System (1648), of state sovereignty where all states are treated equally, and where states respect the internal integrity of the nation state and its boundaries as a key development.  This developed after the decline of the Roman Empire (Holy Roman Empire) and the rise and implementation of religious Reformation which split Christian Empires, that had once been protectors of Christian States.  The system was intended to see a decline in expensive wars in Europe appeasing all Christian states. This did not apply to colonial territory.  Theories about the state develop about this time, for the next two hundred years we can read about the development and application of international relations theory.  Carl Clausewitz (1780-1831) is an important international relation theorist in the development of ‘real politik’ and waring states. He uses the Napoleonic wars as examples to reflections and he wrote On War, which is still read today.  He is said to have rejected the notion that war was in fact chaotic and unnecessary like the Enlightenment thinkers, such as Hegel. Today, those who engage in war agree that it has a place in statecraft as a solution, or response to external attack for the purpose of protecting a state’s sovereignty. His theories have stood the test of time. Diplomats look to international relations to dictate the rules of engagement. European liberal enlightenment might disagree and soo to those liberals who wanted to create a peaceful society of states after 1919.

Classical International relations is the conduct of affairs between states, or ‘real politik’. Those influential theorists who helped to evolve state relations include amongst many in the realist school; Thucidydes (460BC-406BC), Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), Jean-Jacque Rousseau (1712-1778), Classical Realism, E.H Carr, 20 Years Crisis (1892-1982) Hans Morgenthau (1904-1980) Politics Amongst Nations and in neo-realism Kenneth Waltz, Theory of international Relations (1970). The framework for diplomacy studies is found within international relations and the events theorists discuss, such as the League of Nations, and the subsequent UN System (1945). E.H Carr was a diplomat who was part of the delegation at the British Paris Peace Conference (1919) and negotiated the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations (1920-1946). He saw the realities of World War I and its devastation, the move towards agreements amongst world nations was entirely for the purpose of peace and reconstruction. Hans Morgenthau concentrated on the Cold War (1947-1980) in America and provided accounts and opinions of events during the Soviet era and wrote a Politics Amongst Nations, he looked to political theorists of the state to help shape his ideas of international relations, such as Max Webber who is important to democratic government theory and western politics and conceptions government bureaucracy (how the civil service work). Kenneth Waltz also (1924-2013) An American political scientist a founder of neo-realism and structural realism who wrote about the interactions with the Soviet Union, Man the State and War (1959) and The Struggle of International Relations (1979) and worked at the Institute of War and Peace Studies and Harvard. These are the foundations of the framework in which diplomats have worked in the last 600 years. Modern state theories are founded on much of this classical IR literature. States for the realist are the central focus of power and sovereignty, which cannot be ceded, they acquire capabilities through war or high politics. The Diplomat in this system is focused on acquiring all possible capabilities and leverages for the State. Neo-realism allows for structural realism as well, so that it accepts that State actors are part of a whole system, to which they are subject. The world of international relations is in fact one of ‘complex interdependence’, enshrined in foreign policy. A theory proposed by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye in the 1970’s.

The framework provided by Woodraw Wilson (1918), in his 14 points, strengthened the western alliance and dominance of norms and values which are still evident and important to diplomatic studies today.  The subsequent international systems may need modernising, but their structures have developed to provide sustained diplomatic negotiations for 100 years.[2] From this framework of International Relations arises the possibility of cooperation, choice and peace.  Liberalism enables us to accommodate more actors in which diplomacy can be delivered, where state power is not simply about state capabilities in competition or in perpetual anarchy. This is a deliberate attempt to create new structures in which the state can make gains through non-governmental organisations, international organisations and states which want to trade with one another. Hence the creation of the League of Nations 1920(to assure European Peace pacts), the United Nations in 1945 (to maintain world peace and avert world war).  These states are less likely to want to live in perpetual anarchy, and war, instead they will seek peace, democracy and then in-turn create a safe system in which to trade and make mutual agreements. Western Europe and Latin America has tended to prefer this system, which has resulted in widespread democracy, but it can also be argued that Europe is largely democratic because of its ability to maintain peace. This has enabled liberal forms of democracy, networks of state actors, not just states, to arise using multinational organisations, and charities (non-governmental actors), through multilateral relations, through which state interests are also protected. This is where diplomacy also has an expansive diverse modern role. Questions arising for the diplomat, in a post-liberal framework; are about what good governance must look like and how foreign policy must change within a framework of liberal-realism from 1950.[3] There is tension therefore, between realism and liberalism which is more aspirational about an international system of ‘good governance’, regulated and bound by stricter rules of behaviour and conduct, rather than one of states based on loose interdependence within an international system. Martin Wright on the English School allows us to consider Hedley Bull’s The Anarchical Society 1977, allows us to conceive of a greater good through international society, systems and world society, enabling like minded states to work together, with shared norms and institutions. A place between realism and liberalism. Relationships between European States establishes international society, and relationships with European states and say the Ottoman Empire, establishing an accepted international system of relations (today the EU and Turkey).[4]

International Relations: Realism and the English School

For realists the nation state is the principle actor in international relations, other bodies exist such as individuals and organisations, but their power is limited.  The state is a unitary actor concerned with national interests and security, decision makers are rational actors in the pursuit of national interest. These states live in a state of anarchy and so humans are trapped in patterns of behaviour towards one another. Therefore, war becomes very common amongst one another, and the Italian state of the Renaissance becomes a good example to study. Also, our approach to Islamic State (IS) has been seen through the glasses of realist thinking, war was about dealing with a new threat, within what was reasonable action, as IS began to acquire territory and aspects of statehood.[5] In response to this threat the realist would say that it was only natural that a loose coalition of states should decide to act as allies against a terrorist threat of this kind. It provoked and unbalanced the Middle East and to liberals it caused terrible fallout, wrecking the fine balance that existed between the West and the Middle East. Neo-realists would analyse the balance of power and the structure at work and decide that it would be a ‘just war’ to attack. Orientalism would suggest that any analysis, must include a historical understanding of how these groups evolved and why and the history and competition between western ideology, including religion and the Middle East. History plays a factor possibly, as past Empires and competition for trade with the west since late 500-1500, established age old tensions which give context to the discontent of many centuries, but does not and cannot excuse terrorist.

Hedley Bull continues to be used today as the theorists which brings together these two camps of thinking more easily, to enable us to understand and in historical terms, accommodates knowledge about the dark ages in Europe, through the later history of the Renaissance City state and the revival of medieval disorder in Europe today. This interaction which is Eurocentric to other cultures, and nation states which are different from itself, creates the opportunity to understand historic, present and possible future world structures. Bull is largely concerned with the society of states to analyse and assess the possibilities of order in world politics. Largely his work focused on the order of social life, and mechanisms of the balance of power, international law, diplomacy, war, and great power central roles. The state system is the best way of achieving order in world politics, as described in Society of States in World Politics (1977).  One problems, however, is that anarchy and disorder created decline and so these structures are always captured in moments of decline (Empires at an end, or city states at war with one another). The English School of international relations shaped eurocentrism in international relations, where ideas and conviction shape the world structures and the conduct of international politics.

Useful counter theories to understand global politics and history.

The place of Marxist theories and class-based revolutionary framework analysis is not totally ignored here, but it makes sense to begin to think about states differently, to think about world orders and how the state can function in a different order (somewhere between liberalism and realism).[6]  Studies of Latin American politics and some African international relations helps us see the world through these theory lenses; class based ownership of land, feudal systems and modes of production, acquired by elites to drive an economy largely for themselves within a state hierarchy.

Changes to international structures affect International Relations and therefore, critical approaches, through Critical Theory potentially have an impact on the way in which actors, state and non-state actors behave in the world. This causes some hesitation as diplomats must begin to make sense of changing situations, norms and possibly even values.  These can be long or short moments of changes to world orders, such as the Cold War and even today with the fall of Afghanistan in 2022 questions arise about how to respond. The fall-back position is that states will or could fall into a realist framework of behaviour again, changing the flexibility of diplomacy once acquired during peace time. History is often cyclical, and yet it is possible as it has been shown to make different decisions, and to structure the world differently, and progressively through conceptions of good governance, and the right state behaviour. There are rational choices to be made. A little like Anthony Giddens proposes in his analysis of globalisation in 2000, examining the role of none-state actors who in balance of the state are able to manage national affairs or interests, as the realist state structure is in decline across the world, this better networked international order of better governance, helps us to understand the world and changes in global economy.

Post-structuralist theories can serve the diplomat who faces an adversary possibly someone who questions the imposition of an international structure, policy, or agreement. The diplomat in this situation sets out to prove what is wrong with the system and why a new more realist or liberal approach may be necessary, or structure. Post-Colonial theories are also useful in moments where critical theory arising from the global south does not provide agreed solutions by international institutions and where foreign policy decisions are held back by past behaviours and histories.  By focusing on the inequalities created by regional economic and political inequalities and that still impact local communities in post-colonial countries, we can better identify problems and solutions, or decide to enable people to make their own decision.[7] How can we work better with other states and build a better future – can result in a better outcome especially on topics such as the environment. The realist, however, may seek out the past to solve foreign policy problems. Tensions can therefore exist between wanting to achieve real environmental protections for individual states and the globe which are sustainable in 2022, with the realities linked to past state behaviours from 70 years ago.

Other approaches to analysis

Constructivism, as described by Alexander Wendt (1992), promotes construction, and explains to us that it is not the state that interacts, but that it is in fact its agents, such as diplomats which interact – their experiences are therefore constructed by the state. Constructivism accepts the reality of anarchy in the international state system, which are perceived in differing quantities by states/agents, who know that norms and ideas have power.[8]  More recently, we might label some of political narrative in Russia, as constructivism, critical of the west, seeking to work within an international system (new friends), but with a set of new defined norms which fit the purpose of the Russian State and not the international system or any society of European States.  Therefore, it is the interaction between individuals which matters most, and tensions inevitably arise when different ideas compete. The English School has provided some safe ground from which to develop and integrate other concepts which are global. Post-colonial theories enable us to understand its limitations to integrate all states and to hear the voice of marginalised communities. This is why I have chosen to describe and identify the individual decisions and diplomats involved in IR and foreign policy decisions, that advance state actors within the context of history and historical structures; Medieval, Renaissance Reformation, Colonial or Cold War.  States can forge new identities between their interactions with other states, they become bilateral or multilateral partners as social entities.[9] It may be time for Liberals to claim constructivism critically and evaluate how it is used, as it has implications for how states can manipulate ideas and foreign policies.  It is therefore necessary as described by Stephen McGlinchy etal (2017) to assert that IR theory is about “creating maps of workable theories around, states, organisations, people, enemies, histories, ideas class, race and gender”.[10]

The internal development of the state and political theory

International Relations theory is influenced by political theory which has shaped the internal workings of the state and which diplomats serve. In terms of the development of western political values, The Enlightenment movement included John Locke (1632-1704) in the 17^th centuries and later Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in the 18^th centuries sought knowledge through science application and rationality, it sought the separation of Church and State and embraced the glorious revolution of 1668, providing a rejection of absolute Monarchy. John Locke wrote on political philosophy, his Two Treaties on Government (1689), and rejected Thomas Hobbes’ classical defence of absolutism. John Locke’s social contract theory contributed to a global enlightenment movement, which sought liberty from tyranny, he also influenced artists and writers in the movement such as Voltaire (who socialised with Alexander Pope) and who wrote on ‘toleration’, ethics, and religion, he wrote on Christianity. Locke worked with Robert Hooke and Robert Boyle, who were developing their theories on natural science. This was an exciting time in human development. Constitutional Monarch and Parliament was developing. He was however, confused by the notion of equality and slavery, but favoured the education of the poor. He did however influence, John -Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) who wrote Discourses on Inequality, and The Social Contract on Political Right, (1762), which has influenced western notions of the relationship and responsibility of the state and citizen, his conception of the state, he rejected the concept of original sin and challenged both the teachings of Catholic and Protestant Churches, which he offended. This movement influenced the Scottish Enlightenment Movement and of course the American Revolution.[11] These theorists shaped the world in which diplomats lived and functioned, many worked as advisors and as clergy, scientists, educators, and traders.

Did Christianity shape the concept of Statehood?

For Saint Augustine of Hippo there is exists a world in which man exists and one in which God dictates all spiritual laws, it is possible to cross from God’s city into a temporal or manmade society, to do His bidding, but it is less possible to cross over from this world into God’s city and therefore His laws exit is a separate world.  If you are a theologian you may agree with Saint Augustine, for the political scientist is most concerned with the manmade world, of laws and established institutions and government. A temporal order is not impossible, if you are Christian, but as many people are not Christian any conception and then construction of a city-state, must include those who are also not Christian and therefore many theologians argue that a city on God’s terms cannot be made on earth.  Dante’s depiction of a spiritual order in this case must arise, where spiritual purgatory exists and places where the physical body are punished are created, described in his long polemic. This is clearly a different dimension, and one in which the spiritual aspect, but not the human quality of people resides. In his Books on The City of God, St Augustine influenced by Cicero writes on Christian ethics the foundations of modern theology and religious teaching; that violence against Christian women suffering persecution in society as described in Christian teaching; is a crime against women and she is not responsible for the crime of violence against her. Such ideas are fundamental to common and criminal law in western nations today.  The City of God by St Augustine of Hippo reflects on the Roman laws of society, wars, and Cicero’s writings on Rome.

St Augustine sees no power in the gods of the Romans, but instead argues that it is God which has conferred assistance to Rome. He reflects on the men Rome finds glory in such as Marcus Cato and Gaius Caesar, the art of ruling, commanding, and subduing and subjecting nations.[12]  Glory and power to Augustine were the result and achieved through merit by the exercise of virtue. And any happiness felt by them was a result of God and not their own power. And so, like the Second Punic Wars, also fell into this realm were determined by God, but shorter ones were achieved through Him. St Augustine points out that in his time.

“if in this Christian era any war seems unduly protracted, they seize the chance for impudent attacks on our religion, crying out that if Christianity did not exist, and the divinities were worshipped with the ancient rites, this war would now have been brought to an end.”[13]

There are conceptions of early Christian political economy, which are evident in theology and which contradict feudal systems that developed during medieval times, their purpose to ensure protection of ones labour from abuse by one’s lord was a Christian concept, based around the idea that it was the family and the main provider (the father) that had the right to keep the value of its labour to provide for its development. These early conceptions created norms around loans, taxation, and indentured labour (which was frowned upon in early Christian communities) and slavery, which was rejected. Here springs forth the idea of Christian resistance evident later in many revolutions and uprisings for 2000 years.[14]  Marxism lends itself to these ideas around class, rights and ownership of one’s own produce and this comparison would produce an interesting sperate piece of work on political economy.

Some might argue that this problem between the God, the spirit and man and politics has been resolved through the very existence of the development of Papal States some one thousand or so years later and long after the Medieval period (late 500-1500); through concordats with the Holy See and the steadfast Holy Roman Empire until 1700. These Confessional Concordats exist, even today signed between the Holy See and the Dominican Republic in 1954 and with various state Agreements with Spain, Italy and France, Venezuela, Portugal, Bolivia. In fact the list is long, and these are not arcane agreements all signed after 1920, the most recent being between the EU and the Vatican in 2009 on currency. These are human and temporal arrangements for nations who do call themselves essentially catholic and Christian. The central theme being that we know what is fundamentally right and wrong, moral, and immoral, in both spiritual and state law. This structure of Europe arose before Reformation and then the rise and challenge from other forms of Christianity like Protestantism. Ideas about neo-medievalism in modern times in Europe are interesting, but are not used here. Where the globalised world becomes analogous to high medieval Europe. Globalization has resulted in a medieval arrangement of states, with overlapping bodies, principalities, empires, and city-states instead of a single sovereign unit. The European Union being the prime example, which has devolved powers to city entities, sub-national and devolved governments in Spain, Germany, Italy and France and Northern Europe including Switzerland the United Kingdom also, which has recently left the Union contains these features of Government. The notion that sovereign states might disappear completely into a universal political organisation, like that structure of the Middle Age, has not been recognised and is far too challenged by the rest of world to be realised completely. Political Islam, multinational corporations (twitter, pharma- companies, crypto currency) and decentralised power (Devolution in Spain) are not its only challenges. Global environmental problems, global economy, Covid and Russia (Empire from the past looking to absorb neighbouring countries like Ukraine), and China’s possible expansion towards Taiwan, demonstrates that world politics impacts the European Union daily.

The Development of European States Systems

Development of the values of the Democratic State

Quinten Skinner describes the evolution of the ideal liberty, the pursuit of Empire and the role of the city state or city republics which emerged from Greek and Roman conceptions of cities for the people.

Cicero’s selected works such as his Treaties on Commonwealth ‘De Republica’ and Treaties on Laws, provide an account of ideal government, defined by a careful blending of monarchy, democracy, and aristocracy, in equal balance. It was a system in balance, where Royalty was the ‘best man’ and the common people should have a vote within Tribunes. The Senate was full of aristocratic families, generals, and those of important families. True Laws are always based on clear reason in agreement with nature, it is of universal application and unchanging. In a Republic royalty cannot have the ultimate power, and justice and law derive their origin from God. Cicero describes this as one true God. He is both a statesman and a philosopher and like Saint Augustine of Hippo, was concerned about man’s existence in a city state, which must be in perfect harmony with the law.  It is Saint Augustine who preserves some of Cicero’s work and there are three books which are referred to in detail in studies.[15]Pope Clement VI later asked for Cicero’s work to be examined and preserved. It is important to know how a state works and its politics before conducting diplomacy, agreements, treaties, or wars. Politics is and was highly complex, resulting in life-or-death situations. Two centuries later students were still following his laws. Reflecting on Francis Barham (1841) who writes that it is Cicero’s work which influences St Augustine in his writing ‘The City of God’ and that it is these virtues that the state aspires to.[16]  The  first book, Book I on Commonwealth constitution describes the correct principle of justice and law, such as regulations of legislation and decisions by judges. Cicero states that “justice and laws are derived from God himself, that they have an eternal and immutable mortality, that they are institutions of universal virtue or rather nature itself; the bond that attaches…to society with bonds to each other and elicits a Creator”.[17]  Book II discusses the Laws which govern religion, and worship of God at festivals and other events. Book III presents the law of magistrates, respecting public rights the duties of magistrates, their authorities, powers, and functions.  There may be up to six books of which some are lost.

Cicero produced vast amounts of work, his Selected works provides us with an insight into the ‘demos’ and the effectiveness of courts, justice, and the law. In his case Against Verres, he sets out how he painstakingly collects evidence for his investigation against the Governor and his people, who allow the theft of properties of farmers, who complain against him. He outlines his investigation into the Governor’s affairs, travelling to Sicily to gather evidence, and how he tries to bribe a court to prevent his prosecution.  He also outlines evidence provided by those who fall victim to his corruption, “Gnacus Papirius Carbo having public funds stolen from him by his own quasestor, Counsul and commanding officer, Carbo was left stranded and defenceless; deserting his army, abandoning his province, Verres spurned the official lot by which he had been appointed”.[18] Officials were set up to fail under his mismanagement, “The most conspicuous and numerous instances and demonstrations of his criminality come from his governorship of Sicily. For three long years he so thoroughly despoiled and pillaged the province that its restoration to its previous state is out of the question”. [19] Cicero describes that under Verres no one had the right to the Sicilian laws nor those of the Senate of Rome, Verres was prosecuted and is brought to justice.  Cicero leaves behind more than 800 letters, dealing with a wide variety of subjects, these were written with reed pens and in ink papyrus, the pages were pasted together to form a scroll, and which was then tied together with thread and a seal.  What was the context of Cicero’s work as an orator and Consul?

Nobody without ancestry in the Senate had ever become Consul, but Cicero became Consul.[20] He was involved in uncovering plots and networks of the Catiline anarchist movement, which was aristocratic, and not a serious ‘threated’ to Rome. Cato the Stoic who was a rigorous conservative Republican had the advantage of sitting on the Senate already and through wars, knew that it was necessary to execute the Catiline and his supporters; and so, the deed was done.  Cato made a decisive decision to support the conservative opinion of Cato and remained a Consul of value.[21] The Senate would suffer a different mind, Pompey a Commander of war presented intrigue and on his return to Italy and its political scene would frustrate Cato by introducing a Bill to transfer military forces to him against the Catilinarian conspirators. Cato had opposed Caesar’s legislative programme in 59BC and therefore had a history of opposition. Caesar and Pompey were of one mind. As is evident the politics of the Senate was complex and shaped by past relationships and ruling elites. Cicero would need to be careful. After Caesar’s murder proved it impossible to restore the Republic; “Anthony had quickly made unscrupulous use of Caesar’s papers, recruited armed supporters for himself, and irregularly passed a law giving himself north and central Cisalpine Gaul for five years. When Cicero returned from his abortive trip towards Greece, in August; “Anthony (Caesar) criticised him in the Senate on the following day for absenting himself from the meeting…On 2 September Cicero attended the Senate and delivered the First Philippic (of which there are at least 13 Speeches which attacks Anthony)”.[22] These speeches are the foundations of deliberative democracy.

What we know from his letters is the reality of his exile from the senate, his separation from his wife being prompted by his dislike and intolerance of Caesar, and his speeches reflect this is the case, however in later correspondence he is glad that Pompey, Caesar and Crasuss (once at odds with another), begin to work together for and is assured by their nature that it will be of benefit to the Republic. Crasuss was a wealthy ally and had been in opposition to Pompey in the Senate, but he crushed The Servile Wars, which were led by Spartacus the Gladiator and slave against the Roman Republic, through military might. Caesar had been bitterly hard on Cicero and in is returning speeches against Cicero at the Senate[23]. Generals could also be rewarded by positions later as Governors or could sit as Consuls. Messengers and diplomats were only subject to ‘laws of war’, if they were caught or were members of the Senate or had been Consuls for which they represented Roman interests. Militia was raised from across the Empire. They could not work outside of those laws themselves and could be subject to investigation, but their day-to-day activities were under the scrutiny of their function; so, incompetence in war and diplomatic negotiations could also be ‘prosecuted’ and positions removed, or rewarded at the Senate or Consuls.

These cases tell us about early Rome governing value systems, the activity of the law, and about Roman justice systems and the desire to stamp out corruption by its most esteemed statesmen and philosophers of law and constitution (the foundations of public law). These are the values of the state and democracy which lawyers, diplomats and politicians aspire to even in modern times; this work is of fundamental democratic value in defence of the state. Roman law was complex and real, and the case is long and detailed. This is early democracy, but which developed and is deeply rooted in rationality and ethics. The uprising of the slaves, under Spartacus created such a situation, where a General and Governors were removed from the Senate, by the elite Families of Roman (Caesarean to a point) for failing to prevent the uprising spreading across parts of the Empire. Caersar had been concerned with wars in Gaul, and this later uprising was unwelcome (Caesars were from the Caesarean family line which eventually died with Nero). The law was applied, by those ready to support it in defence of what was best for Rome, and executions and assassinations happened more regularly in this period. Religion is also part of the state system, and it is only until Constantine I that Christianity begins to be introduced into state functions and ideology. Ethics had been purely rational, like the law.

It is through Cicero that we arrive at conceptions in international law on bellum (wars – just and unjust), ethics and rhetoric, he transmitted the philosophy of Plato (and the teachings of Socrates), through his own arguments and ethics.  He was a Consul and would naturally use logic through argument to state his case, as forms of evidence. This is found in his legal cases, such as Pro Roscius Amerino, in defence of the younger Sextus Roscius, his first significant legal case.

Christian notions of the State

Christian states are formed as St Augustine describes from conceptions of the good and difference, one a city created by man like Plato described in his day-to-day life and an aspirational state one defined by a God like Ruler or King who is ‘perfect’ in The Republic. Plato, the creator of the Republic and the ‘ideal ruler’, was not a Christian, nor Socrates his teacher, nor Aristotle, or Cicero, as they were born before Christ and it is not until an Emperor such as Constantin I of Rome, that Christianity begins to take root and to find its place amongst religions in an established State.  It is argued that the conception of a Christian state, was redefined by Christian values and is brought into conception, arising from Constantine’s own conversion before his death to Christianity. A view of the world now conceived by Christian theology and laws, on the treatment of minorities and women. It was left to St Augustine in his City of God (City of Man)[24] to define the human and divine difference within the state and from there sprung the political state; arising from the tensions between a world created by God and the world created by man in His name.

In his introduction by G.R Evans to his 1972 translation, he outlines how St Augustine describes Cicero’s thinking and existence within the Republic of Rome, we later learn through a significant body of work available on both Cicero and St Augustine of Hippo, how the Saint draws and is inspired to write this large work the City of God, through the study of works by Cicero. In Studies of Philosophy, John Hammond Taylor (1963) states that  “the fact is that the study of rhetoric in Augustine’s day included certain philosophical works”.[25] Whether he, St Augustine transmitted Cicero and his philosophical predecessors is debatable as he would not have included anything in his text which would have been considered heretical.[26] Cicero’s Philosophy however, is influenced by Cicero and work edited in 2013, by Jed W Atkins, discusses how St Augustine approaches Cicero’s philosophical thought, that being the Ciceronian protreptic Hortensius, On Philosophy and his dialogues, and major philosophical topics, including epistemology, ethics and providence.[27] Hortensius had been Cicero’s rival and this is lost dialogue about his rival, which may be important. St Augustine is concerned with foreknowledge (the existence of God), which Cicero tried to disprove in On Nature and other topics such as republicanism and passions, which he tried to translate into a Christian framework.[28] Did St Augustine read Cicero? There is evidence that he did, and that he derived knowledge from his texts. Hammond describes that early philosophical dialogues that Augustine wrote when he was preparing for Baptism as both neo-platonic and Ciceronian, he used concepts from both traditions of thought to develop his own Christian theology, either through comparison or direct logic of thought. “In fact, he quotes lengthy passages from Hortensius even in his later years when he is writing his theology on the Holy Trinity”.[29] Cicero was concerned about the death and coming home of a person in his text, and St Augustine grabbed onto the notion that his soul passed over, but the body had died. The person in his story never returned home, the body had died, but his soul travels home. Having read some of the City of God, I would agree with Carols M Rodriguez (2008) that St Augustine would resist any ideas which could be described as heresy.[30] Here the two concepts of a city of man and a city of God are divided in two; the religious order of the world, and the political (created by ‘man’).  Although St Augustine embraces Ciceronian virtues of fortitude, prudence, moderation, and justice, he does not argue that they are unnecessary, they must therefore be absorbed into meaning of the Holy Trinity.  This cannot be the case entirely; few states could be created upon scripture and religious teaching alone, and it was ‘man’ within the Church that created structure, hierarchy and then institutions, universities, education (teaching) and art, across the world. As Republicanism in Rome died, there was a vacuum for government, Christianity helped to fill that space. 

One very important aspect of Saint Augustine’s’ City of God, easily ignored, is his treatment of Christian women and their sacrifices during times of persecution. He treated the violation of women and in some cases their subsequent suicides, as you would today, with sensitivity, providing protection, to those living victims of persecution, who through not fault of their own he says have been targeted by persecutors of Christianity.[31] He discusses the case of Lucretia who kills herself, who honourably under Greek rules of society had committed suicide, as she had been violated out of jealousy by her husband’s rival. Saint Augustine responds to this old version of heroinism, by supporting the living who were victimised, but condemns the decision to commit suicide as a sin, which remains central to Christian teaching today.[32] In his description of the incident, Lucretia is left somewhat foolish and he treats Cato’s suicide with disdain, as a man of learning should not commit a sin against his own body.[33]  In terms of examining the laws, Saint Augustine does acknowledge that all murder is not homicide, in law it was possible to distinguish crimes of passions, malice and premeditation, also those committed in self-defence (individually and on the principle of an attack on Rome) and for the purpose of war.[34] Much is dependent on the citizen proving their innocence, and virtues as a Roman, which will prove their just worth before the laws, magistrates and Consuls. St Augustine is careful to distinguish between Roman Republican arguments and Christian teaching, although influential, the laws are not the same. He does, however, seek in the Old Testament the judgement that there is a difference between those acting in obedience of God and gives Abraham as an example, in the treatment of his son. Today these arguments, in defence of Abraham would be reprehensible under common and criminal law, and certainly with Roman law there would have been some difficulty accepting such arguments. Much later interpretations of Saint Augustine’s teaching is used to condemn women and he is blamed for the idea the fall being the consequence of Eve. But in his life’s story written in his Confessions, St Augustine discusses his positive relationships with women, his mother St Monica, and his common law wife. He leaves his Manichean up-bringing and religion in Egypt and travel to Rome in search of a different life and at first marriage, until he finds Christianity, when he abandons his common law wife, but not his children. John O’Mera (1984), discusses St Augustine’s conception of the fall of man, which would shape Christian teaching for the next two centuries and influence even today’s religious thoughts and education.

Attitudes towards Women in Christianity: the issue of equality.

In Genesi ad litteram, O’ Mera points out that his teachings on Genesis and his writings, his interpretations of describes, how Adams is made in the image of God, and later the making of Eve from a rib of Adam. Making woman of man had serious consequences as woman arrives fully formed to give birth to new life from Adams. “This appears to put women in a position of inferiority…”.[35] He admits that St Augustine, like I do, has made certain strikes for women and he discusses their equality with man, and their abilities to be eventually likely to be the same as man, but inevitably he was shaped by the ideas and rules of Roman Society, and they would have influenced his thinking. O’Mera argues that he inevitably absorbed and inherited the prejudice of his day against women. Roman society venerated women as mothers, but legally they were a ‘chattel’ to their husband by law, and were not free like male citizens. Adultery was punishable by death.[36] Augustine uses stoic ideas, from Socratic theory, the concept of man living side by side another man, is more real to him, than that of a man living side by side a woman (who is not yet equal).  However, St Augustine’s concept of equality, opened the door for the hope of feminism and provided significantly more equality for Christian women in a modern world yet to come after the Fall of Rome.

Christianity inspires new rules as the Roman Empire disintegrates.

Christianity began to thrive after Augustine and spread widely. The middle-ages saw the rise of Byzantium, books in Latin verse, art, music, architecture, medicine, and education in Latin prescribed by Christian teaching, defined by a Christian social discipline across Europe. The Pope however and his clergy remained the most powerful source of truth and order.  And although Christianity spread, social hierarchy in the form of Monarchs, and well-connected families, led by elites dominated as before in Britain, Southern and Northern Europe and Byzantine Eastern Europe. Orthodoxy developed, as a form of social structure, but the Pope would always hope for their allegiance and to bow to His Command. Royal Marriages were made and broken, political allegiances, and state boundaries were inevitably agreed by Popes through his powers, and the structure of the Church alone had direct contact with God.  Wars have been conducted such as the Crusades in 1095, 1291 and l230 and later Inquisitions across continents in Latin America; by Spain and Portugal who declared themselves supporters of the Pope and living Catholicism.

But it was classical political theorists such as Plato, Socrates, Aristotle the founding fathers of classical Academy and Philosophy that created the language of political thought, and it can be found in the many writings left behind, translated from Greek to Latin to Persian, where conceptions of liberty, humanism are revived time and time again throughout different ages and found rooted later and translated by tradition into modern languages for students across the modern free world to read and study.  There is a decisive break with St Aquinas after 1225, where Christian states and actions are justified and reinvigorated by his Christian philosophy a divisive figure to the Pope, he later inspires challenge from Roman Catholics against the power of the Papacy, and those who aspired to Lutheranism and Protestant values. Liberty (for citizens and not slaves), contract, common law, democracy, and the development of modern democratic institutions happened much later with the Enlighten movement in the 18^th Century. The foundations for diplomacy, however, were already in existence.

Global Diplomacy: An approach

We can find these conceptions of the state and later tensions between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ actions in ethics in all modern political work from conceptions of early Greek, Roman, Ottoman/Persian ideas, and in western political thought, a concise history of political thought translated by Ian Hampshire Monk; Thomas Hobbes to Karl Marx, can provide the foundations to modern political philosophy,  modern political economy founded on the ideas about how states and the ideal political universe, and political human-self must function to be successful, it is in fact almost a human obligation to Kant, and Marx and a vital contract to John Lock and Jean Jacques Rousseau.[37] These are purely western conceptions, but  Greek classical ideas had already reached India and the Middle East and North Africa to shape and influence political discourse centuries before (to degrees).  Divergence occurs throughout history, and during different period, yet you can argue that most states today reflect one another to degrees, nor was China completely isolated from Greek and Roman and Christian philosophical traditions; through the exchange of letters and trade and the printing press cultural values were also transferred even before Marco Polo by Christians (although often under very challenging and difficult circumstances).

But what of discreet diplomacy.  Although classical Greek and Roman wars between states provide for moments of high scale and secret diplomatic meetings in which treaties were signed, peace made, or people subjugated into slavery and Empire; these moments are described in writings about classical history and international relations. They do not provide for documented and evidence of well thought out diplomatic intent and actions, but certainly provide the backdrop for the creation of diplomatic endeavour and historical accounts. The Peloponnesian wars of the 5^th Century are said to have included meetings between rival heads of state, described as negotiations, but there was little use for diplomatic missions and fewer remains of the chronicling of discussions. Sates from 1200 however, are a different concern for some political scientists and certainly by 1400 the state and its institutions had developed sufficiently for the role of Italian, French, German, and Spanish diplomats to be better described and evolved for missions to take place across the Courts of Europe for hundreds of years until today.

Papal states, and Papal rule and allegiance seem completely out of step today with modern international relations, aside from the Vatican today, no other state is subject to the rule of the Papacy nor do modern states seek the grace of God to conduct international relations in His name. Papal states were, however before 1400, very much alive and dependent on Papal favour. Allegiances were made to the Roman Catholic state by Monarchs, such as Spain, Portugal and Italy even England and for two hundred years the Roman Catholic Church had sent emissaries, first religious emissaries, later there were diplomats from the Papal state who exchange with Italian Republics, and Latin America via diplomacy. They were also in competition with The Holy Roman Emperor, The Archdukes of Austria who had absorbed territories over centuries from previous Empires of Europe.  At the same time France develops diplomacy a feature of the state, it first develops as a characteristic of negotiations between leaders with its own culture and significance to each denoted by sets of actions, letters, discussions, and secret discussions before public treaties.

Although diplomacy and diplomatic action can be found amongst the early Greek, Roman and Persian Italian Republics from 1400, and Papal states; modern western classical diplomacy is first understood as a set of discreet and deliberate set of sequenced documented actions by Cardinal Richelieu found in his letters from 1608-1616 and his Testament Politique describes ‘continuous diplomatic negotiations’ for the King of France.  This activity is also described as diplomacy and statecraft, in Machiavelli’s 1532 The Prince, and The Discourses in which the darker arts of diplomacy are revealed in response to his own service to the Florentine Republic on mission in the Court of Louis XII. Here exists the embryo of modern diplomacy which describes human thoughts behind a desired goal to achieve peace, trade, or war. In England there were certainly diplomats at work and on mission from before Queen Elizabeth I in 1558 in the English Queen’s Court. There are always tensions in diplomacy and ethics, war is not good, but must be necessary in matters of defence of territory, treaties should be advantageous always to the people, but there are always concessions; and peace is almost always most desirable and just but cannot always be kept or fulfilled on decision of the King, Emperor, or Pope.

Although classical Greek and Roman wars between states provide for moments of grand scale and secret diplomatic meetings in which treaties were signed, peace made or people subjugated into slavery and Empire, these moments are described in writings about classical history and international relations. They do not provide for well thought out diplomatic intent and actions, although these are moment of diplomacy. There is no ‘documented space for texts’ for diplomatic theory in ancient diplomacy, but for discreet action only documented in limited writing, songs poetry and inscriptions and art work and buildings, particularly in the first 400 years as it involved providing a service to a King or Ruler, within a set of values which involved allegiance to that power of authority, for the purpose of service to the people which that monarch or emperor may rule. This is certainly the case for Machiavelli, who describes his service in detail in his History of Florence. A good introduction to diplomatic history includes David Jayne Hill A history of diplomacy in the international development of Europe (1906).[38] His analysis of the development of the state is valuable, although it is entirely Eurocentric and he is limited by his own experiences and background, as global diplomacy frameworks are new, but his views on conduct of affairs are accurate.[39] The context in which he was writing would have not been open enough possibly to write beyond European Empire and he may not have had access to those resources beyond those found at home.

History of diplomacy: The arise in the state and government as described by Machiavelli.

There is a history of diplomacy found in the lives and actions of great early diplomats, paid by the state or Crown, there is almost always a question about their role and unquestionable loyalty to the state and Christian conceptions of ideal values and action; some were both officials and clerics, others holding a variety of interests in the arts, printing, science, academia, and commerce. It has always been a role in which a variety of characters could fill, upon appointment, with a vast range of experience and cultivated interests.  It is useful to look at diplomats, in closely associated roles and who are historically significant, what they achieved and where they differ in perspectives and in their thoughts about diplomacy and the state.

Nicolo Machiavelli and Francesco Guicciardini are said to differ on close analysis, in their approaches to political history, the first being concerned about how government can achieve and then maintain political success -evident in The Discourses (1517-1519) , in Books I-III he compares the Republic of Florence with the history and statecraft and institutions of Rome under Caesar, (dictatorship) and the institutions of Tribunes controlled by the Plebs (people). He discusses the reality of the limits to a Tyrant’s power; the rewards rulers must provide to their ruling classes and His need for fast decision making; also, His ability to raise an army (the role of Generals at the Senate) and the mechanisms to control of power to protect Rome that were considered a virtue.  Machiavelli’s work is in effect a critical political review of The First Ten Books of Titus Livy on Rome. There is a difference between the Florentine Republic (1494-1512), which is governed by signoria (Counsel) and the newly created Great Counsel provided greater democracy, which was also politically aligned with and in support of a Catholic Pope. Florence had been previously ruled by the Medici family (1434-1494) who had control and influence of every aristocratic and noblemen, appointments, and institutions. Piero de Lorenzo is unfortunate and looses, the Medici hold over Florence two years,  after his father’s death, when France invades Italy. Machiavelli’s ideal ruler was also embodied as a nobleman, with society giving up its possession, remaining poorer than its rulers to avoid the possibility of taking too much ‘property’ from the state, however he was like many weary of their power. Like the Romans, Machiavelli is interested and preoccupied with the ‘rule of law’; those that govern land and food production and inheritance. In terms of war, Rome was always at war as it sought expansion and resources and people. Florence however, had lost his dominion at this time, such as Pisa and Arezzo and had declared war via the Council, Ten of War, which administered forces against those holding these towns.[40] Machiavelli was conferred second Chancellor of the Republic (1498) and went on Mission to see Louis XII of France and the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I. The people of Florence tiered of the taxes and cost of war, decided to let the Council close and appointed a Signoria to govern. Sickness and disorder spread and so the Council was re-elected. The Medici regained power in 1512, Pope Leo a member of the Medici family commissioned Machiavelli to write a history of Florence. The Medici are challenged again and in 1527 it loses its authority of Florence until 1531, and but regains power more strongly to rule Florence until 1737 (creating a hereditary Monarchy). Machiavelli left letters, and documents about his missions, he produced many written documents, some which were published which allows historian, archivists, and political scientists interested in diplomacy and political theory to study and analysis his thoughts.

This period is a good example of how diplomats manage complex change. Historical factors impact Machiavelli’s career. The King of France, Charles VIII decides to make a claim to the throne in Naples and subsequently invades Italy, consequently the ruler of Florence, Piero De’ Medici made a series of concessions to the King of France, without consulting the Florentine Government, the ‘Signoria’. This causes the city to throw the Medici out of the city, establishing in its place a Republic, creating a recognisable democracy by rule through ‘The Great Council’ and some participatory politics. Machiavelli took up office during this time.[41]

The second focused on the narrative of history, to explain how events unfolded with human action (its cause and effect).[42]In their accounts both diplomats provided an approach to analyse political history, “Machiavelli strove to isolate how political choices and decisions influence a government and consequently history, Guicciardini sought to isolate the motives behind choices and decisions”.[43]  Gucciardini left his career in 1512, whilst Machiavelli began his, and Gucciardini made is return whilst  sought to re-establish his work. To Machiavelli history appears in cycles of events which can repeat themselves, and therefore reflection upon Roman history of the state and its rule provided a reflection upon Florentine government.[44] This idea is valid today, cycles of wars, agreements and Conferences and their histories provide evidence of the existence of the state; although the detail of the story can be very different, history does repeat itself. 

The Renaissance Diplomats:

Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527)

On taking up appointment, diplomats must believe and understand their aims and goals, and their position within Government. They must have their own strategies for dealing with problems and its goals, when it failed to achieve its aims, this was due to lack of stability impacting relationships with other states. The Ruling elite the Medici Family were blamed and replaced. In not having sufficient strength to achieve its aims it was necessary to create diplomacy between them. To Machiavelli there was a limit to what could be achieved in a form of ‘real politik’, at best diplomacy might achieve influence, but there was a reason a “raison d’etat”. He became Second Chancellor of the Republic and Secretary (1498-1512) to the “Ten of War”, highly prized even by today’s standards it was an important official position of state. He was entrusted with Commissions and Embassies, involved in negotiations, he had also observed and reported back on diplomatic missions. In 1506 he was virtually Florence’s Defence Minister. On return of the Medici, the Republic of Florence was dissolved, and he dismissed and imprisoned and accused of plotting against the Medici, but was later released after little proof and he retired, to his farm in near San Casciano where he lived with his wife and children.  In 1520 he secured a Commission from the Medici, Cardinal Giulio, to write the History of Florence, an account of their influence on history, which took him four years. There was now a Medici Pope, and this Republic changed. As a diplomat he was in effect servant to both, before and after institutional changes to state took place, but was criticised for supporting opposition and instead of a much more significant official post, he was commissioned to write until his death in 1527.  In 1521 he had been given a mission to Capri, North of Moderna, I wonder whether it was because he was an anti-clericalist; “there he was to urge the Chapter General of the monorite Friars from those in wider Tuscan regions, to split off their convents in Florentine territory from those under the wider Tuscan region, so Florentine officials could more readily keep them under surveillance. These were not the highly prized missions he had once had, but he wanted to remain in the service of Florence.  This servant of Florence gave us The Prince, The Discourses, and The Art of War (studies of power and military science).

In The Prince, which was published in 1532, (a copy was available from 1512), Machiavelli sets out the qualities of a good ruler, his inspiration being Cesear Borgia; it is political commentary and not a story of fiction, written with the intention of impressing on new Florentine rulers how to rule with authority and power. In that year Savonarola took power, as Lorenzo De Medici the hereditary and monarchical ruler of Florence was considered a traitor when he tried to renegotiate with France, dominated by Spain for protection, which partitioned with agreement of France, Naples, Venice, Milan, and the Papal State once it had invaded Italy (Charles VIII and later Louis XII).   France had supported the separation of Pisa from Florentine Rule and overtime Florence had lost power and territory. The Medici family, a banking hereditary family, had ruled Florence since before 1433 and for three centuries, raising four Popes and the founding of the Banking system. Lorenzo was considered a weak ruler, in 1494, they lost their seat temporarily.

Machiavelli is considered cruel and nationalistic in his depiction of events, and gives advice on ‘wise advisors’, inspired by Cesear Borgia’s ability to carve out a state in the centre of Italy for himself and the use of cruelty rather than kindness, with ones’ enemies, but ‘never’ to make themselves the enemy of the people.[45] He believes as George Bull explains that Cesear Borgia lost power due to his inability to control the Papacy and on the appointment of a new Pope, he lost power. Machiavelli was able to describe the political condition of the state with near ‘genius’, but he was not a successful diplomat.[46] Machiavelli was favoured by Soderini, Florence’s next ruler until 1512, when the short-lived Republic came to an end. Machiavelli was in power for fourteen years.[47] He advises to on the role of militia and raising an army to fight in wars to protect the state. “Therefore, one must be a fox in order to recognise traps, and a lion to frighten off the wolves. Those who simply act like lions are stupid”.[48] The main concern for the Medici, would have been to keep Florence free of foreign future invasion from the French (or even the Spanish), who had breached its borders in 1495 and Milan, its ally in 1499.  In The Prince, he describes the use of power even through deception.  In The Art of War, he uses earlier Roman republics as described by Livy,  as a paradigm for Florence, an imitation where the soldiers belong to the state, imitating antiquity in a form Renaissance and humanism, these soldiers belong to a higher ideal and purpose for the state’s defence and wars.[49] The purpose of war is to assure freedoms, to the state and its people, and these are said to be full of ‘virtue’.[50] Powerful rulers acquire virtu and prestige through their armies and will form powerful alliances. Italy was in constant battle, war a in defence of territory and this period was turbulent time. It managed to redeem itself in 1529-30 when it successfully  used the militia to push back and resisted a further siege.[51]

In The Discourses Romans represent certain virtues, as in classical conception, they represent virtues of statecraft, citizenship, and humanism. [52] It is from this ancient model of the state that Machiavelli seeks political theory, about the Florentine republic; government, managing militia, the rule of law and judiciary and freedoms, he derives from these older conceptions of state “that the origins of all religions, republics, and kingdoms, must have some goodness, thanks to which they regain their original prestige and expansiveness”.[53] He is not shy to point out that all states are in jeopardy and can fall into corruption losing sight of the principles which define the ‘good’ and valued state. Machiavelli asks for a return to standards and the original arrangements of the state, when there is a distortion of the component parts of the state and its institutions and functions, by dealing with dictatorships and ‘ingratitudes’. This is set out in his Discourses. Princes on his advice should never relinquish anything to avoid war, but only if he thinks he can hold on to it over time (Book II).[54] War to Machiavelli is a more natural position, which fosters respect from supporters and adversaries, even if your army is inferior.[55] This was only natural within the context in which the Florentine state would have to defend itself; to fight for lost territories, this was only to be expected in his writing as an historical account.  He advises, even if you have enemies, it is a good thing to give them gifts, so as to win some loyalty back and guarantee loyalty to protect the state and not to leave it too late. In his work, he proves to himself that the masses are ineffectual without rulers the Roman state is held up as a good example of Republicanism, with working institutions.

Who is Francesco Guicciardini? (1483 -1540)

Both he and Francesco Guicciardini were friends, and this friendship and their difference of opinions and perspective and almost administrative ‘banter and opinion, and most of all irony’ is written about by James Atkinson and David Scies in The Sweetness of Power (2007). Although Machiavelli was of a lower social class, by position and connection, Guicciardini gives him his opinion on his Discourses; these are set out in good humour in his letters to Machiavelli in conversation about his diplomatic mission, and Machiavelli’s scepticism about clerics. Machiavelli responds to his letters. This exchange is also evident in his Considerations on Machiavelli’s Discourses, now highly published documents and the foundation for many students taking political science courses in political theory and global diplomacy.[56]

Francesco Guicciardini held allegiance to the Medici from his marriage in 1508 and he studied law, and became a diplomat and in 1512 was sent on mission to the Spanish Court, by the Signoria to Embassy at the King of Aragon.  He leaves for Spain as Ambassador from Florence to meet with King Ferdinand the Catholic King of Spain, whilst the Medici (Lorenzo de Medici) returned to power, it took two years for him to then be appointed to the Signoria itself. The Medici reclaim the upper hand, Giovanni de Medici, the Lorenzo de Medici’s son becomes elected Pope Leo X in 1513.  Lorenzo the Great’s aim was to consolidate power of influence in states like Florence, through his brother Giuiliano de Medici the Duke of Nemours and his nephew Leo X, and his cousin Guliano who became Cardinal, then Pope Clement VII in 1523.  Guicciardini documented his own diplomatic life’s work with fantastic detail and attention in the Ricordi  and it is evident that he was greatly marked by his own life’s experiences and contact with the rulers he served. This is the historical context and Guicciardini’s connection to the family remains valuable. He was himself from a more noble class of Florence than Machiavelli, and by 1514 he was already working for the Council.  Guicciardini remains loyal to the Medici, reporting begins and ends within a set of social values enshrined in diplomatic service, which Machiavelli also reflected in his life, but not in all his writings. He is appointed to defend Palma and later serves as advisor on the League of Cognac, advising Pope Clement who succeeded Leo X an alliance with France, which leads to war with the Holy Roman Emperor (The Arch Duke of Austria), a role for which he was highly criticised. He became Lord Lieutenant to the Papal Army of Clement, averting an attack by Clement on Florence, he has him arrested and serves under the next Pope, after the sacking of Rome in 1527.

Both a diplomatic characters from Italian Renaissance, Machiavelli appears to be a stronger committed Republican the other, Guicciardini a loyalist to a hereditary powerful family The Medici, and within a few years even Machiavelli might be persuaded to live quietly under their reign at San Casiano until about 1527-1530, when the Republic is reinstated, but for a short period. Machiavelli managed his career like other officials at the time, in the context of Florentine republicanism.[57]

How do the two diplomats relate to one another serving different loyalties?

In The Prince, he describes the qualities and acts of a Prince who must maintain his rule, even through deception.  In The Art of War, he uses Rome as a paradigm for Florence, an imitation where the soldiers belong to the state, imitating antiquity in a Renaissance humanism, these soldiers belong to a higher ideal and purpose for the state’s defence and wars.[58]  In The Discourses Romans represent certain virtues, as in classical conception, they represent virtues of statecraft, citizenship and humanism. [59] It is from this ancient model of the state that Machiavelli seeks political theory, about his republic; government, managing militia, the rule of law and judiciary and freedoms, he derives from these older conceptions of state “that the origins of all religions, republics, and kingdoms, must have some goodness, thanks to which they regain their original prestige and expansiveness”.[60] He is not shy to point out that all states are in jeopardy and can fall into corruption losing sight of the principles which define the ‘good’ and valued state. Machiavelli asks for a return to standards and the original arrangements of the state, when there is a distortion of the component parts of the state and its institutions and functions, by dealing with dictatorships and ‘ingratitudes’. This is set out in his Discourses. Princes on his advice should never relinquish anything to avoid war, but only if he thinks he can hold on to it over time (Book 2).[61] War to Machiavelli is a more natural position, which fosters respect from supporters and adversaries, even if your army is inferior.[62]  Even if you are enemies it is a good thing to give them gifts, so as to win some loyalty back. To the question, which are more trustworthy Republic’s of Princes, Machiavelli might respond that “after weighing up everything, that in the cases where there is imminent danger, you will find somewhat more reliability in republics than in princes. Because even though republics might have the same courage and will as a prince, their being slower to react will always make them take longer in making up their minds than a prince; therefore, they take longer to break their promises than a prince does”.[63] What Machiavelli is concerned about in his writing is the concept of ‘virtue’ embodied in the Roman State and its institutions and how these reflect upon the Italian Republics, of his time. This ‘quality’ he gives to the authority of nobles in Florence, to rule over the populace. This virtue is also embodied in a states army and how it conducts itself in war. In Machiavelli mercenaries and auxiliaries are not as reputable or reliable as a state army, prone to plunder and chaos. Today, this attitude amongst generals towards government and states in the western world; is that it is far better to have a salaried army, with appropriate controls, and hierarchies subject to international law.  This was also certainly an idea which Republican rulers of the Renaissance had to begin to settle, as resources for war were more limited.

In both cases the diplomat is only as good an instrument as the rulers who drive and make the ultimate the decisions, which in The Prince, Machiavelli describes as often being required to commit uncomfortable acts which may be excused and where ‘deception is necessary’. Guicciardini is interesting as a diplomat sourcing government document in his work, whilst Machiavelli is now regarded largely as contributing to political theory in The Prince and analysis on the Roman state and forms of stable governments and their rulers within The Discourses. He seeks to correct Machiavelli’s interpretation of Roman institutions in relations to the Plebians and ruling elite in his Considerations (a much shorter piece of work) of The Discourses (Three Books).  Rome (on the accounts of Livy) he argues was more complex and not Plebian ‘ruled by the mob’, and although they do discuss the same Roman state and institutions, Guicciardini describes the Tribunes as elected Councils to protect the Plebs from the Nobility.  For Machiavelli such protection would be less necessary as the nobility would have fought for the survival of the state more strategically. These are subtle differences of opinion. The Tribunes system he would argue would be more complex, more controlled and would serve the Plebs better as laws were passed and voted upon – they curtailed the power of rulers. Whether Machiavelli already adhered to this idea is difficult to know completely, and it is possible that he did, but looked to expediency. Despite this reality, I agree with him, that the mixed government was essentially a conversation between the Senate and the Plebs. Gucciardini disagrees, as his view lacked these details of complexity of Government and that they were far from perfect, where Machiavelli describes this system as ‘perfect’, Gucciardini describes the Tribune system as unruly.[64]

Guicciardini also experienced the Medici rule as tyrannical but he does not have the same reputation as Machiavelli as someone who went beyond his position as a diplomat to object and seek republicanism, he was a loyal Medici supporter and would not work in support of the new Republic like Machiavelli. Although they deal with similar themes about deception and government in writing about rulers that reflect upon their life experiences of tyranny of Roman rule.  Guicciardini describes more gently and delicately the dangers of tyranny. He goes on to describe the consequences of tyranny.  “The Title of this Discourse is quite right, for the founders of kingdoms and Republics deserve the highest praise and the founders of tyrannies the highest blame…The other case is when men inherit tyrannical power: they deserve less blame for remaining in power than those who have founded it from the outset”. [65]Once a Republic changes ruler, he adds “…that he has to stay in power long enough for the passage of time and experience to stabilize them, and during this period it is possible for the sweetness of power and the unbridled power to rule to change his initial good intentions into evil ones”.[66] Both deal with the concept of virtu, Machiavelli about the right to protect the state through virtuous quality and its army, Gucciardini on the ‘virtu’of the ruler.  Gucciardini warns against the excesses of power described in The Prince. Guicciardini was seen as suspect because of his work for the Medici, an unfortunate consequence of holding a diplomatic post. The Considerations were probably written in 1830; he had voluntarily exiled as he had sided with ‘tyrannical and destructive Medici rejecting the freedoms of the short-lived Florentine Republic”.[67]His survival depended upon showing loyalty to the new governing Medici upon their return to Florence as rulers in 1827, he was brutal in enforcing their corporal punishments against those who resisted the new regime.  Much like he described in his Considerations, rulers on response to taking back power should be server. Both were suspicious of foreigners and would work to protect the Florentine states borders from invasion. Gucciardini was not always successful.  Both were suspicious of clergy and their role and intention in state affairs.

The network of diplomacy under Charles V (1519-1556)

Christendom had failed to defend territory it had sought for Empire, the Ottomans had conquered Egypt and Syria and had challenged the Portuguese for the Indian Ocean, by 1520 its expansion had strengthened, and it sought the territory of Belingrade and the Balkans, invading Hungary it has created its own Islamic Empire.  It spanned continents and 15million people.[68] Competition for trade dominance continued between Germany, France, Spain, Portugal and now Britain. Such powerful expansion saw agreements where tensions had once existed between groups of nations defined by complex religious issues and trade competition. Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and Archduke of Austria fought both Protestantism and Lutheranism, and the Ottomans, but prayed that Protestantism would win against Catholic Spain. Between 1545-47 Charles V was at war first in Algiers and with Lutheran forces in Germany.  He lost in 1545 but won the war in Germany in 1547.[69] His son Philip II had married Mary I in 1554 and had inherited his Spanish lands on abdication of his father, both were committed Catholics who had support from mercantile classes in London.[70] In 1559 Philip has sought peace with France which had been at war with Charles V,  who had allied with Pope Leo X against France and the Venetians, peace agreements were ratified in the Treaty of Cateau Camvresis , formalising peaceful relations. Multi diplomatic networks were already at work before Elizabeth’s reign. Charles V had many enemies and had need of spies and diplomats and he travelled extensively within his realm exhausting resources and creating debt for the Empire as he fought his own wars, taking the German Crown and outlawing the Protestantism at the diet of worms in 1521, but in1527 his own troops some of which were Lutheran sacked Rome, but he held parts of Spain in Castile through hereditary rights from his mother, which passed to Phillip II and therefore had interests in Latin America such as Peru and Venezuela.

Central to this activity is the creation of Empire, Charles V inherited states in Spain and Italy (Naples as Head of Hapsburg Family) which he intended to hand down to his son, he then spent 40 years trying to amass Empire, in Germany and Italy. He placed regents in Spain and Austria, a Governor in the Netherlands, and named his brother King of Germany, as he travelled a lot across the Empire.

This was done through the clever negotiation of marriage contracts between Royal Families, many of which were already loosely related to one another. This constant competition between Royal Households and relatives caused instability in Europe and constant war, although he sought peace through these allegiances and agreements, he was also in constant conflict; as a strategy this was tiering and resource intensive. Most importantly to trading relations, he had inherited the lands in Latin America from his mother Isabell of Castille who had funded the colonization of the Americas from 1493. Holding the Empire together under the name of Christendom was complex and he created Councils from which to govern the Americas overseas Territories. This also involved a ‘spiritual conquest’ and missionaries were sent to convert indigenous people to Catholicism, Dominicans, Franciscans and Augustinian Friars. This was a complex network of colonization and active diplomacy and military and religious forces; intended to subdue, acquire, and retain resources from the Americas such as silver from Mexico.

To give some understanding of the size and activity of the Holy Roman Emperor’s interests, the Aztec Empire had already been colonized by the Spanish in 1519-21 by Hernan Cortes, he established Councils from which to rule, the Council of Castille and the Council of the Indies in 1524. He then created a Vice Royalty of New Spain in Mexico (1535), founded on Aztec ruins, he had also conquered the Inca Empire in 1530, a Vice Royalty of Peru was founded in the capital of Lima in 1544. And in 1546 he fought of rebellion from Spanish colonists against him. Colonization was resource intensive in terms of officials, military forces, and clerical Christian agents. In 533 he defended Tunis, in North Africa under Spanish protection from the Ottomans, Barbarossa was ordered to attack by Sulemain the Magnificent and the French under treaty with him declined to support Charles V. He also had intentions for Britain in his youth having been engaged to Queen Mary I first as a child, he later married his son Philip II to Queen Mary I of England, they bore no children and the Empire was handed down the Castilian line. Instead, he married Isabella of Portugal his cousin and mother of Phillip II, as co-Monarchs Portugal and Spain were mighty. Popes agreed marriages, and their role in Europe was highly political.

Phillip II of Spain and Queen Mary I of England built upon the mercantile trading arrangements which they inherited from Charles V. Richard Chancellor (1553) represents many similar figures on this time who set sail on expedition to discover new lands through the Norwegian Sea, he reached Russia the Tsar, Ivan the Terrible, others in his expedition travelled to Africa to create a lucrative trade route. On return to England, he was pleased to find the Co-Monarchs on the Throne. To prevent further competition with the Spanish Empire in Africa, Philip convinced Mary to focus on the northern trade routes. Charter merchant to Russia was provided in 1555, for the Muscovy Company, reaching out to trade with the Russian Czar and who had access to Persia for the purpose of trade. Merchants were ordered to ‘subdue cities’, for the purpose of trade. [71]

The diplomatic arrangements and governance institutions in place were for the sole purpose of serving the Spanish Throne, and to spread the institutions of Catholicism, irrespective of the desire of new settlers to live out independent lives and intermarry with some indigenous families, new political factions began to arise.  This kind of diplomatic activity by the Spanish state was highly centralised and dependent upon Royal Commission, ships, sailors, traders. The other aspect of the Empire was held under the title of Archduke of Austria and Holy Roman Emperor, which upon his death was handed to a relative, his nephew and his daughter Maria, The Holy Roman Empress. Monarchy had centralised absolute power, more so than the examples from the Renaissance, which relied on systems which could not be easily overruled to protect the rule of some laws. This Empire contrasts the arrangements of Republics of Italy, people were less involved in politics of the state which was ruled absolute by the Crown. Charles V abdicated in favour of his brother, Ferdinand I (Hapsburg) and Philip II (Astro-Spanish), in 1556 drawing the Empire towards Norther Europe.

The Elizabethan Court (1533-1603)

Queen Elizabeth, I inherited the throne from Queen Mary I, and those trading links with Russia, via the Muscovy Company and allegiances with Norway and any trading routes which Britain had to Persia. As a Protestant Queen she was committedly against Catholicism and catholic interests.  This put the Crown at odds with much of Catholic Europe, Spain, France and Italy. Yet she sought to trade with them. Britain was now a Protestant State, defending protestant interests in Europe raising tensions with large parts of catholic Europe. Different Islamic nations had also been at war with another, Persia (Iraq), and the Ottoman Empire, but Persia was a possible trading option for England which had also, remained in good terms with the Ottomans Sultan Suleyman who had threated Catholic states. In 1553-554 explorer diplomats without training such as Anthony Jenkinson had already assured these bonds in Aleppo and was well used by the Muscovy Company.[72]  He produced essential maps to inform the Court.  Elizabeth intended to use the Company for Her benefit and would not now consider encroaching on Spanish and Catholic domains for some time until it was necessary. There was ignorance in her court about the Persian rulers, and began writing to the Ottomans, she requested safe passage through to Persia for the purpose of trade.

Elizabethan Anglo-Russian relations

Protestant England sold its cloth to the Russian Court of Ivan the Terrible, and the trader Anthony Jenkinson had become de facto Ambassador (1551-56) in his Court, making agreements with the Persian Ambassador in the Russian Court he set out to make those trading agreements. As formal Ambassador possibly in 1566, after considerable work was undertaken to create new trading links. He had completed a second expedition in 1561-64, travelling through the Caspian Sea. He made a second expedition in 1564 to a dispute in the Czar’s Court, a third in 1566 to renegotiate lost terms and in 1567 he had a new trade agreement with Russia. He  reached the Shah in 1562, who ran a new Shi’ite political and religious power, having disbanded the beliefs of Sunni Islam.  Here to existed a tension between two different factions of the same religion. Yet Elizabeth with the diplomacy of trade and her diplomats and use of Embassy in Her own Court and in those of Ottomans and The Czar, she was able to negotiate around these tensions.[73] It showed a unique ignorance towards world politics, but more likely or a unique scrupulous power which provide insight into the need to create global trade, to survive changes to European Monarchies and religion. [74]

In 1914 Inna Lubimenko on behalf of the American Historical Association, wrote about “The Correspondence of Queen Elizabeth with the Russian Czar in The American Historical Review, that Elizabeth sent English agents to act on behalf of Her interests and the Company. That The Czar agreed the advice of the Chancellor, to make the discovery of the new country a profit to the company of merchant advantageous which had sent him out”.[75]  The Russia Company described in the documents is known as the Muscovy Company, organised regular expeditions which became a new and rich domain for commercial activity.

At first the relationship was not only commercial but political.  We are asked by Lubimenko to consider the English Policy in Russia and the Russian Policy in England, that when the Muscovy had rights and privileges removed that they were in response to a political perspective, “the reason is not to be looked for in the defects of its organisation, or in the lack of activity on its part, but in the reluctance of England to accept a political alliance with Russia”.[76]

The research describes those 90 letters dated from 1554-1603, were found and some may have been lost, they tell us about the psychology of the Ivan the Terrible and Queen Elizabeth I. His letters were said to be written in rich parchment. [77]  Queen Elizabeth I was styled “Elizabeth by the grace of God Queene of England, France and Ireland Defender of the Faith, her subscription was always at the bottom of the page”, in contrast with the Czar.[78]  Both sets of letters are considered diplomatic writings. The Czar’s letters were interestingly structured and he always summarised the precedent letters from The Queen. This was of value as it enabled private and secret letters to be recalled where they may no longer exist or were not in Her hands. The Queen’s letters appear to be short and simply expressed, Lubimenko describes this as expressing a great diplomatic style. These letter were written irregularly and at other times regularly on average two or three a year, from 1575-1581.  Queen Elizabeth, I held correspondence with three Russian Czars, Ivan the Terrible (1561-1603), Feodor Ivanovitch (1584-) and Boris Fedorovitch, (1598-1603). She is clearly trying to defend The Muscovy Company interests, but the Czars see some advantage in this perceived political alliance, where they may seek the Queen’s protection and allegiance to their political interests and have access to Western Europe from which they had been guarded from by opposing Empires, Persia, Ottoman and Northern Europe (Norway).

In 1569 Elizabeth tried to avert the blow from her merchants to give some satisfaction to Ivan the Terrible and so she accepted articles of Treaties that he had contrived, and she agreed that “Russia and England should be in perpetual friendship that the enemies of the Czar should become Her’s”. In 1570 she promised by a secret letter, which raised the signature of ten Privy Councillor’s to receive the Czar and all his family honourably in England if he should be obliged by political troubles in Russia to seek shelter abroad”.[79] However motivated by the interest of the Muscovy Company to speak on behalf of its merchants who have been molested, the Czar sees advantage in trade and that the English had found a new route to find Russia to trade. His embassy to England demonstrates a close political alliance, he was used to unbending will and influence and so she was a formidable force and stated that she would not need his protection which offended Him, she complained that Her merchants had lost their privileges. English Merchants had properties confiscated, in 1571 the Czar complained of English merchants conduct. Lubimenko writes that the following year in 1572, that Queen Elizabeth I explains that the “alliance had to be given up, as his personal interests in the commercial realities had bever been great, Elizabeth had to make the effort, that the correspondence and the friendship should not be dropped also”.[80]  It is said that politics was abandoned and the correspondence was left to safter commercial interests.

The Dutch and French followed the English to Russia, the Queen sought protection of merchants which she secured and restriction to confiscated goods. By 1573 the Company had sent more ships to Russia, The natural commodities such as wool fabrics of England were accepted and welcomed by Muscovites. These are examples of historical diplomatic missions, letters and decisive actions which resulted in political alliances of a kind and trade, in addition to royal protection.  

The conduct of secret affairs was of great importance to Queen Elizabeth I, who had a network of agents working from within the Privy Council.  Lord Burghley and Lord Walsingham, her Ambassador to France.  Most significant was Her targeted response to the threat from Mary Queen of Scots, her cousin and disputed claim to the throne of England. In response the Scottish Queen ran a counter espionage campaign, recent research shows how She conducted secret affairs through a complex system of ‘sypher’, secret letters and messages. The letters were found in France and were so difficult to read the sypher, that it has taken two computer systems to break her codes again.[81] Such evident secret activity, provides evidence of diplomatic agent activity in 1578 and 1584.

Global historical trading arrangements

The Elizabethan Court

Maintaining her position as Monarch was soo important that Queen Elizabeth I had another Queen, Mary Queen of Scots her cousin executed. By today’s diplomatic standards, such ‘assassinations’ would not be permitted and would breach the law by international standards.  Anglo-Persian relations may have plateaued, but those closer to home, in North Africa are very important to Queen Elizabeth I. She invests further in the privateering of the Spanish Armada but focuses her energies into new trade around Morocco. The Portuguese Ambassador in 1562 complains to her about Britain selling arms to the Moroccans in order to fight the Portuguese. Queen Elizabeth, I wanted to trade and it was Moroccan resources ‘that she was after to make Elizabethan explosives. Merchants like John Williams were sent out to write a report to the Court on what he had found and how abundant this resource was available to buy. The only problem was that the ruler of Morocco was not interested in trading with the English, but his nephew Abd Al’Malik was cosmopolitan and willing to challenge Abdhallah Muhammed, inevitably he took over by force with secret support, and entered league with England, opening a global trade in English cloth. However, Queen Elizabeth I had learnt from previous trading arrangements in Russia and began to raise trading complaints as soon as these rights were granted. As there was competition from other traders including Jewish traders, who were also regularly attacked, had dominated coastal trade in North Africa from the Iberian coast.[82]Today such activity is frowned upon and is considered illegal and undermining of stable trade arrangements.  There was at the time no overarching fair global trading system of markets, or oversight of trading regulations so that other than Ambassadorial complaints to a Monarch, there was no recourse from international law like there is today, nor international courts for the purpose of arbitration. Much of the political action of the times was also driven by religious tension, between Catholic Empires, Lutheranism and between factions of Islamic cultures and rulers, as well as Jewish trading merchants who feature less in the stories due to geography but had been expelled from Spain due to religious inquisition and prejudice.[83] Jewish dominance in banking and trade had been perceived as threatening to Catholic Spain, who wished to drive out non-religious conformity.[84]  This period shows a picture of ultra-competition and state in-fighting and between Empires, with vested interests and early forms of trading Colonialism.

Reformation: Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642)

Another of the great diplomat includes Cardinal Richelieu he reaches episcopal office before the normal age in 1606 as he Impressed the Pope and develops a reputation as a promising administrator.[85] Like modern day diplomats after some years of appointment as representative of Estates General, he gains the attention of the Queen Mother Marie de Medici and became Secretary of State. It later became his role to mediate between the Queen Mother and the young King Louis XIII and comes back from a fall in grace, as a cardinal to listen to the young Monarch in 1622 and upon subduing the King becomes Prime Minister in 1624.[86] Louis XIII made mistakes and he needed the Cardinal to mediate for him as conflicts arose between his mother. This is described by Betram Hill in his account of Richelieu and his Political Testament.[87] He develops a programme to make the King Louis XIII master of his realm and to achieve this develops skilful arts in ‘subtlety’, yet he did not create a systematic theory of state, but a long-range purpose, which required patience and a tailored approach. He was also highly dangerous, imprisoning members of the Royal Family and driving the Queen Mother out of France. Although a catholic clergyman, he also took France into the Thirty Year’s War (1618-48), supressing protestants at home, whilst seeks alliance with Protestant Countries such as England and the Netherlands, so as to undermine Spain and Austria, in order for France to win the war.

“I would esteem myself extremely fortunate if, after my death, my spirit as reflected in these memoirs could contribute ever in a small way to the governing of this great country in whose direction you were pleased to give me a part to play far beyond my merit.  With this in mind, and knowing with what success it has pleased God in the past to favor the decisions Your Majesty has reached in collaboration with your most faithful servants, I rest confident you will be influenced by what advice I can provide for your future”.[88]

Armand, Cardinal Duc of Richelieu

Cardinal Richelieu was first a patriot of France and a man of religion second, everything he did, planned and organised was in defence of France (an essential quality found in diplomats today).  He did not live to see the war reach its conclusion but left everything in place for a successor to manage its outcomes. His life’s work can be found in his letters and writings on diplomatic instructions and his political testaments[89]. His diplomatic journey transformed catholic and protestant religious conflict into a political one, in his drive to end the hegemony of the Hapsburg Empire and its hold over Europe. This took a further 200 years until the position of Holy Roman Emperor was abolished. French nationalism under Richelieu as Minister for the war won, but without royal patronage trust and the Kings Patronage, Richelieu’s position would have been untenable. His foreign policy strategy to strengthen France and weaken other powerful catholic nations worked to shift power back to the Crown, whilst he negotiated with the Protestant Queen of England at the same time, he sought to appease the Pope in Italy. He was weary of ‘abuses of power by the clergy before his but saw no difficulty in his own position’. Cardinal Richelieu teaches us the importance of secrecy – “because a knowledge of letter is entirely indispensable to a country, it is certain that they should not be indiscriminately taught to everyone.” Most importantly intent could not be shared by the Crown without creating difficulty and defying its purpose, “A body which had eyes all over it would be monstrous, and in like fashion so would be a state if all its subjects were learned; one would find little obedience and an excess of pride and presumption”.[90] He suggests the education of clergy for diplomacy and office to be tested and educated properly, for the minimum of three years, to ensure the right qualities and education of candidates. He argued that schooling by Jesuits would not be sufficient, and that further education and training was necessary. In his advice he proposed reformation of ecclesiastical order: These are extraordinary and insightful requests without his evident prejudice about what training they should all receive.

            “Also, since the frailty of the human condition re-quires a counterweight in all things, which is, indeed, the foundation of all justice, it is most reasonable that the universities and the Jesus should teach in emulation of each other, so that the competition might stimulate their virtue.  The prosperity of the science would then be all the more assured to the country because if they are in the care of two guardians, one could carry on if the other should lose sight of its sacred charge”.[91]

He also sought to reform the nobility, a ruling class of people central to the state, capable of contributing, and providing stability to the state, much like Machiavelli, and Gucciardini,  he sees their value and contribution to the ‘virtu’ of the state, but with limits on their abuse of position and of others less fortunate than themselves in God’s eyes. He advises limiting their power within a class of people;

“While the nobility merits to be generously treated if it does well, it is necessary at the same time to be server with it if it ever fails in what its status demands of it.  I do not hesitate to say that those nobles who, degenerating from the virtuous conduct of their forebears, fail to serve the crown constantly and courageously with both their swords and their lives, as the laws of the state require, deserve the loss of the privileges of their birth and should be more of a punishment to them to be deprived of the former than the latter.”[92] (this relates to duals)

These two extracts provide an example of the type of advice Richelieu would give the Crown/The King of France. Most importantly he would give advice on reform of institutions. The Judiciary, and Finance “Just as in the case of the ecclesiastical order, everything depends more on those who administer it than upon the laws and regulations, which will remain useless if those responsible for their execution do not have the necessary good intentions”.[93]  He warns of people making money too easily, as for financial institutions, “I conclude that the best thing possible, and to substitute for their use in important public matters, the temporary employment of men of known good repute and capability.  This is better than to establish such persons in titled positions they feel allow than to robe with impunity”. [94]

Finance Officers who are found to have wealth above their original status should be investigated for corruption if it is more than what would be assumed by their status but are not guilty if their accounts show that what they acquired was through honest gain and effort. “Those that serve well must be treated well”. It is important to employ those with capabilities and good reputation.[95] Like Machiavelli and Gucciardini he also advises on maintaining and keeping a military force to protect France and he advises on constitutional matters like, the role of the King, “…who is exempt by the grace of God, from the most conspicuous imperfections of princes”.[96] He provides advice on who to appoint as a good councillor, and on reformation of the Royal Household, themes which were relevant to Monarchies then and possibly today in the running of their day to day affairs. He questions who is in service of the King?

Richelieu gives political science students some key concepts, offices in the Royal Household cannot be bought and sold. That the Church has a position in the State; since princes are expected to establish His (God’s) Church and should ‘banish’ false imitations. There is little on the reflection of women at this point in the French state’s development, to Richelieu they are vulnerable, or dangerous to the King if they possess Him. He argues that good reason and judgement like the Greeks of ancient times and Plato; ‘is essential to govern’. He also reintroduces good in the form of ‘public interest’, and now an important modern concept in political science, theory, law and public policy. Richelieu describes this as the pursuit of public welfare.[97] And just like the two renaissance diplomats, Richelieu also sets about describing a scheme of rewards and punishments in response to actions which could harm the state, as a reminder to those in positions or offices of duty. What is astonishing about this work is how close he is to the King and how his guiding hand is able to shape France, which could have only been achieved by his position and Office, in which he could even justify cruelty. [98]

In diplomacy studies Cardinal Richelieu gives us the concept of ‘continuous negotiations’, today this remains a key concept both in international relations and the practise of diplomacy.

“States receive so much from interrupted foreign negotiations if they are conducted with prudence, that it is unbelievable unless it is known from experience. I confess that I realised this truth only five or six years after I had been employed in the direction of your affairs.”[99] [There must always be a programme of action, full resources and written documents and the right person for the job of Ambassador]; “An Ambassador poorly chosen for the making of an important treaty can, by his ignorance, commit a great blunder”.[100]

The King is reminded that his purpose is to serve God, in this sense he is also subject to the Papacy and Christianity. In his view, the highest offices are for those with little personal attachments but are in service to God. But a King can be damaged by too much flattery and slander, and this can be damaging to the state and must be banished.[101]

The King Louis XIII, died shortly after the Cardinals death and was replaced by Cardinal Manzini in 1642. He was also responsible for the next young Monarch and his education Louis of XIV. Voltaire a political theorist also reflects on Richelieu’s contributions critically, as his work is only later published when it is not considered dangerous to the Crown, a second edition is printed but not until 1764, the first public edition being secretly published in 1688 in Amsterdam. (Today matters of state handled by diplomats are still considered highly confidential and often secret; telegrams and official documents remain hard to find without official agreement to release the private documents of Ambassadors).

Cardinal Manzini ends the wars and settles peace with the Hapsburgs upon the marriage of his charge to a Spanish Princess and Austrian Archduchess. The Westphalian system of states arises from his time in office in France acting on behalf of the King (over two decades), created the principle of ‘exclusive state sovereignty over its territory’. Today, this principle remains in international law and a foundation of international relations in action, enshrined in the UN Charter.

A word about Pre-Enlightenment and the American Revolution

Examples from before this period until the 1600s demonstrate a development between religion, church and state and discussions about the state and the individual are always that at the heart of all political philosophy and theory. Diplomatic action as an extension of the state is the concept and conviction of values, and adherence to rules created by ‘the state’.  Western diplomacy has always been defined by a set of moral and human sometimes Christian sets of values, yet there is always and still today an unresolved tension between the ‘good diplomat’ and his/her role as the ‘instrument of rulers or government’.

Conclusion and notes: The role of western history in diplomacy

This paper describes a selection of frameworks and perspectives from which to analyse global diplomacy and European diplomacy, in relation to international relations and political theory within key moments of historical events (1400-1700), recognised as key moments in diplomacy for Master’s students. These pages have been derived from study notes and from further reading after graduation.

Furthering this work.  More should be done to account for the actions of diplomats in a large body of work such as the history of diplomacy, diplomats and ambassadors, an academic area of its own in global diplomacy. This paper is not a full account of diplomatic history, nor an attempt to cover all topics and themes, but an explanation about where the field of study developed, how it relates to political science and conceptions of state theory. This paper aims to give a glimpse of developments in diplomacy where political theory has shaped diplomatic actions. It gives some acceptance that history and Christianity has shaped western Europe and large parts of the world and inevitably the state in which historical diplomacy functioned.  This is not to ignore the enormous contribution and role that people and societies from Islam and Judaism have played in shaping our own identities, cultures, trade, and diplomacy throughout history. Diverse identities have lived, intermarried, and shared side by side one another. Enabling humanity and human existence to flourish.

I am not a natural Republican, instead shaped by the context of Britain and therefore suggest that Cicero’s desire for balance amongst all constitutional institutions is necessary even today, and in the United Kingdom, where we have a constitutional monarchy, parliament, and separate court and Justice systems (the rule of law), populist government seem to tear at our institutions. Like Cicero, I have faith that democratically elected statesmen and women would seek what is best for society and the state, and like many pragmatic people, I would accept change if it happened.  But change is often only sought with instability and force, which is not always a peaceful, but positively a mostly negotiated process.

It is not the end of Democracy if political sciences and the law see the continued value of its function. Today the numbers of Christians in the UK are in decline and many Catholic theologian believe that there is a continuing erosion of Christian values in the State; proposed changes in prayers by the Church of England and discussions about gender neutrality identity, are political discussions and are not theological, although they are beginning to become more like a serious discussion amongst some Christians. However, the laws of the state and true notions of equality must be defended for all and not just a few and so all this discussion must be accommodated within the State.  It is something most tolerant people accept and many Christians. Disestablishment of the Church of England contentiously, is not an impossibility nor an inevitability, in the UK as the world of politics determines the world of religion in a more marked away today, and there is an overlap of the institutions, which are blurred in Parliament. The Vatican is the only European state with a functioning religious Head of State, who leads a state, ministers, government departments and the Vatican has had clerical diplomats from before the Renaissance.  For Catholics there is a clear distinction between mans laws and the Church and those of the state, and catholic doctrine; they agree that they are rationally subject to state civil and criminal law and are subject the rules of man as well as God. Soo for the now, some of the fundamental guards of Christian democracy and virtues and values are protected by State institutions in many countries across the world. There is no existential threat to Catholicism in England which sees itself as a friend to all Churches but it may suffer the erosion of membership; as throughout periods of history.

But can the ‘State’ function without Christianity, yes.  Conceptions from the classical world describe that institution, education, civil society and democracy, justice and law can exist before Christianity and under different religious rules and Republicanism worldwide has demonstrated it can in a modern sense deliver democracy without an established Church. It has given us much historically in the form of social structure and values that it could never be ignored as a necessary State constitutional framework, and it is more likely that billions of Catholics and Christians would agree and support continued education in theology through the State, universities, and schools and accept republicanism. Republicanism may ask for a clearer distinction from such arrangements in Europe, but not all its Constitutional Monarchies would agree.

None of this impacts the diplomatic mission in Europe historically, however it simply provides context for the diplomat, who works for the State. The Woodrow Wilson era in1919 sparked new conceptions of diplomatic conference, beyond European international relations, a place to discuss openly in public diplomatic moments of significance. The United Nations, G7 and G20 form part of that new condition, of international diplomacy and open discussion in full view of the media and the public. It enables even the most marginalised in society to speak and to be represented. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) is also driven in large part by delivering international conference and the WTO, aspires to global health equality and UN Organisations to global environmental sustainability and a more equitable world for all and peace along with the protection of human rights. The system has been biased at times and has had to change to enable global aspirations to become real. Diplomacy in this open public space is more equal and more visible and more aspirational, more diverse, expanding the possibilities of what humans can achieve alone in a homogenous European bloc, or as lone states.

The Modern world no-longer asks us to lead with ‘Christian values and Christian, which would be out of place with real structure of international relations, such as war and peacekeeping missions. Yet Christian NGO’s today and since before the 1980s and new Charities have found their place again, founding charitable organisations which deliver humanitarian aid, education and provide protection to women and children; and some of the most vulnerable people in societies, amongst the poorest countries. They provide a space for diplomats to work and to reach out and integrate important values and functions with the international system. Often working in difficult human circumstances, volunteers to the Red Cross and other organisations founded on religious principles, engage with states and their diplomats daily to protect their citizens. They have become the allies to diplomacy. The diplomat however, remains first neutral in this context but an agent of the state is dictated by the politics of their governments and can therefore not move independently, to meet modern day to day demands; they must work with international organisations and institutions, to deliver their state’s objectives, which must be in large part be in agreement with the institutions that they belong to; their constitutions, their laws and their overall objectives cannot be in contradiction with the international framework of human rights and principles.  It is a place for all people of all backgrounds, however difficult; it is always necessary for diplomats to be open and to engage.

We have learnt about the process of diplomacy by returning to Renaissance diplomats and Pre-Enlightenment periods. The origins of the profession. Diplomats must comply with rules of international law and order. In 2023, diplomats from the UAE are accused of abusing their positions and being involved in trafficking gold illegally from Africa. Different states are in the tricky position of having to negotiate daily for space, resources, and political influence with other states who do not share their same vision or values, and so we have an international system which acts as arbiter for complaints and general agreements which enables states to co-exist with one another. 

Bibliography

Arel, Maria Salomon (1999) Masters in their own home: The Russian Merchant elite and complaints against the English, in the first half of the 17^th Century. The Slovonic and East European Review, Vol.77, No3.

Atkinson, James and Sices, Davis (2007), The Sweetness of Power, Machiavelli’s Discourses and Guicciardini’s Considerations. Published by Northern Illinois University Press.

Ash, Eric (2002) A note and a Caveat for the Merchant, Mercantile Admissions in Elizabethan England, The Sixth Century Journal, Vol.33, No.1.

Berridge G.R (2015) Diplomacy Theory and Practise, 5^th Edition, Palagrave MacMilian.

Brotton, Jerry, The Secret History of Elizabeth I’s Alliances with Islam. National Geographic Review.

Brotton, Jerry, The Queen, The Untold Story of Elizabeth, and Islam. Penguin.

Bull, Hedley (1977) Society of States and Order in World Politics.

Butcher, Charles and Griffiths, Ryann (2020) International Theory, A Journal of International Politics, Law and Philosophy, Vol 46. Issue 2.

Ferro-Adams, Rocio (2018) The Civilising Mission, SOAS Assignment published online. Global Diplomacy.

Hill, Betram (1961) The Political Testament of Cardinal Richelieu, The University of Wisconsin Press.

Hill, Davide Jayne A History of Diplomacy in international development of Europe, The establishment of Territorial Sovereignty, New York Longman, Green and Co.

Bouton-Touboulic, A & Sheaf, L (2021). Cicero and Augustine. In J. Atkins & T. Benatouil (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero’s Philosophy (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy, pp252-267. Cambridge University Press.

Evans G.R and Betterson Henry (1972) Translations of Saint Augustine, City of God. Penguin.

Lubimenko, Inna (1914) The Correspondence of Queen Elizabeth I with the Russian Czar. The American Historical Association. Oxford University Press.

Mc Glinchley, Walters, Rosie and Scheinpflung, Christian (2017) International Relations Theory, e-international relations publications.

O’Mara, John (1984) The Creation and Fall, The Maynooth Review, Vol 10, May 1984, Cambridge University Press.

Phipps, Geraldine M (1990) The Russian Embassy to London 1645-46. The Abrogation of the Muscovy Company Charter. Slavonic and East European Review, Vol 68. No.2.

Probasco, Nate (2014) Cartography as a Tool of Colonization: Sir Humphrey Gilbert’s 1583 Voyage to North America, Renaissance Quarterly, Vol 67, No2. Summer (2014)

Schaefer, Alexander and Sohn, Jin-Yeong (2021) Unravelling into war trust and social preferences in Hobbes’s State of Nature. Economics and Philosophy Journal, Volume 38, Cambridge University Press.

Skocpol, Theda (1977) Wallerstein’s World Capitalist System. A Theoretical and Historical Critique, American Journal of Sociology, LXXXII 5, March 1075-90.

Taylor, John Hammond (1963) St Augustine and Cicero, St Augustine the Hortensius of Cicero, Studies in Philosophy, Volume LX July 1963, pp 487-498.

---

[1] G.R Berridge (2015), Diplomacy, Theory and Practise, Fifth Edition, Palgrave Macmillan. An introduction.

[2] National Archives President Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points (1918) | National Archives

[3] There is tension therefore, between realism and liberalism which is more aspirational about an international system of ‘good governance’, regulated and bound by stricter rules of behaviour and conduct, rather than one of states based on loose interdependence within an international system.

[4] Stephen McGlinchley, Rosie Walters and Christian Scheinpflug (2017) Ed International Relations Theory.e-international relations, page 29.

[5] Ibid pages

[6] Stephen McGlinchley, Rosie Walters and Christian Scheinpflug (2017) Ed International Relations Theory.e-international relations, page2.

[7] Ibid pages 1-7.

[8] Ibid page 6.

[9] Ibid Chapter on Constructivism Chapter 4 by Sarin Theys, page 36-41,

[10] Ibid pages 2.

[11] Iain Hampshire Monk (1992) A History of Modern Political Thought, Major Political Thinkers from Hobbes to Marx.

[12] G.R Evans (1972) translation of Saint Augustine, City of God, Penguin page 196-198.

[13] Ibid, pages 217.

[14] Notes from a seminar by Dr Alan Fimister, Advanced Theology/Philosophy Group, for St Bede’s Parish Community, London 25 February 2023.

[15] Francis Barham (1841) The Political Works of Marcus Tullius Cicero: Compromising his Treaties on the Commonwealth and his Treaties on Laws. Translated with dissertation and notes in Two volumes. London Edmund Spettigue.

[16] Ibid, from online publication on this site by Olly Cicero’s Commonwealth | Online Library of Liberty (libertyfund.org).

[17] Ibid.

[18] Cicero, Selected Works, Penguin Classics, page 40-41.

[19] Ibid page 41.

[20] Ibid page 59.

[21] Ibid page 60.

[22] Ibid pages 101-10

[23] Ibid pages 65-69.

[24] Henry Bettenson, Introduction by G.R Evans, St Augustine, concerning the City of God against the Pagans.

[25] St Augustine and Cicero, St Augustine the Hortensius of Cicero, Studies in Philosophy, Volume LX, July 1963, No3.

[26] Cicero’s Philosophy summary, Cicero and St Augustine Cambridge University Press, Chapter 16. Anne Isabelle Bouton – Tou Boulic and Lucy Sheaf.

[27] Note: Hortensius had been Cicero’s rival, and this is lost dialogue about his rival. 

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid pages 497-498.

[30] Carols M Rodriguez, (2016) The City of God, Topics of Aristotle’s Protepticus in Traditio, Vol 171, p1-13. Cambridge University Press Publications.

[31] Henry Benetton, Translation of St Augustine, Concerning the City of God against the Pagans, with an introduction by G.R. Evans, Penguin Books, pages 26-34.

[32] Ibid page 28-31.

[33] Ibid page 31.

[34] Ibid page 32.

[35] John O’Mara (1984) The Creation and Fall, The Maynooth Review, Vol 10. May 1984, pages 52-62.

[36] Ibid pages 55-56.

[37] Ian Hampshire-Monk (1995), The History of Modern Political Thought, Major Political Thinkers from Hobbes to Marx. See also work by Quinten Skinner.

[38] David Jayne Hill, A History of Diplomacy in the international development of Europe, The Establishment of Territorial Sovereignty, New York Longman, Green and Co.

[39] Ibid pages 409-519. The reign of Queen Mary I and Phillip, the Elizabethan Court, and inspiration for later Reformation.

[40] James Atkinson and David Scies, The Sweetness of Power, page 113.

[41] Ibid page 14.

[42] James Atkinson and David Scies, The Sweetness of Power, pages 13-

[43] Ibid.

[44] Notes: in Book 2 of the Discourses, Machiavelli makes mention of Alexander the great. Wars require soldiers and money, applying diligence and the power of money, James Atkinson and David Scies write however; “But Livy gives the a truer witness to his opinion than anyone else. In discussing whether Alexander the Great would have beaten the Romans if he had come to Italy, he shows three things necessary in war: plenty of soldiers, wise commander, and good fortune. Analysing whether the Romans or Alexander would have prevailed in these matters he then draws his conclusion without ever mentioning money”, page 187. Today most people would agree that wars cannot be fought without resources and money.

[45] Note: Cesear Borgia was the illegitimate son of Pope Alexander VI and was of from the House of Borgia, a Spanish- Italian dynasty.

[46] Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, penguin Books, 1995, an introduction, page 13.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Penguin Books 1995, pages55.

[49] Ibid, page 21.

[50] Ibid page 223. Many states in Italy at the time were being contested, Milan was occupied by Massimiliano Sforza, (after the Germans had driven out the French) a ruler from another powerful Italian family, but parts of Italy had been occupied by the Swiss and they also pushed French forces out of Italy until 1512.  Italy was in the midst of a war 1494-1559, between Papal States in Italy, Venice and France.  In 1508 the Austrian King travelled into Venetian territory causing further tension between the Holy Roman Emperor and Venice.  The Pope also wanted to curb Venetian influence. To help Louix XII of France and Ferdinand II of Spain, Catholic countries supported the Pope’s ambition to prevent further Venetian dominance (the League of Cambri), but Venice sought an alliance with France for a period of time. Another clash occurred in 1515 when the Swiss moved to push the French out of Italy again. Italy was in constant turmoil and in a battle for alliances.

[51] Ibid page 19.

[52] Ibid.

 

[54] The Sweetness of Power, pages 197.

[55] Ibid pages 197.

[56] Notes from tutorial, MA Global Diplomacy 2016-2018, by Rocio Ferro-Adams.

[57] James Attikinson and Davis Sices, The Sweetness of Power, Machiavelli’s Discourses and Guicciardini’s Considerations. Northern Illinois University Press, 2007, pages 11-38.

[58] Ibid, page 21.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Ibid page 23-26.

[61] The Sweetness of Power, pages 197.

[62] Ibid pages 197.

[63] The Sweetness of Power, page 151.

[64] Ibid page 392.

[65] Ibid page401.

[66] Ibid page 400.

[67] Ibid page 403.

[68] Jerry Brotton, The Sultan and the Queen, The Untold Story of Elizabeth and Islam, Penguin Classics, 2017, pages 1-39.

[69] Ibid, pages 27.

[70] Ibid.

[71] Ibid page 30-31.

[72] Ibid page 40.

[73] Jeremy Brotton, The Sultan and The Queen, the Untold Story of Elizabeth and Islam, 2016, Penguin Books. Pages 42-56.

[74] Ibid.

[75] Inna Lubimenko The Correspondence of Queen Elizabeth I with the Russian Czars, The American Historical Review, April 1914, pages 525-542, the Oxford University Press on Behalf of The American Historical Association.

[76] Ibid page 525.

[77] Ibid pages 527.

[78] Ibid.

[79] Ibid page 530.

[80] Ibid page 532.

[81] Jennifer Nalewiki, Mary Queen of Scots, cryptic prison letters, finally deciphered, 8 February 2023. Mary, Queen of Scots’ cryptic prison letters finally deciphered | Live Science

[82] Jerry Brotton. The Sultan and the Queen, The Untold Story of Elizabeth and Islam, Penguin, 2017, 63-67.

[83] Notes, worth reading; Letters of Medieval Jewish Traders, Translated from the Arabic with Introductions, and notes by S.D Goitein (1973) Princeton Legacy Library.

[84] Ibid.

[85] Betram Hill, The Political Testament of Cardinal Richelieu, 1961, page 5-15.

[86] Ibid page 6.

[87] Ibid and introduction. Cardinal Richelieu’s A Political Testament.

[88] Ibid pages 5-6.

[89] Ibid page 7.

[90] Cardinal Richelieu Reformation of the Ecclesiastical Order, page 15.

[91] Ibid page18-19.

[92] Ibid page 20-21.

[93] Ibid pages 27-29.

[94] Ibid page 31

[95] Ibid.

[96] Ibid page 47.

[97] Ibid Richelieu chapter III Book 2, public interest the objective pages 76.

[98] Ibid Cardinal Richelieu on punishments and rewards pages 88-89.

[99] Ibid Chapter VI the need for continuous negotiation in diplomacy, page 96.

[100] Ibid page 104.

[101] Ibid page 111-117.

@ResearchCapacityLtd.