History of practice of Quarter, Parlay, ζωγρία, "taking alive" in war.
March 29, 2016 6:18 AM Subscribe
So there is this odd little reference in Hobbes, Leviathan (1651) to the practice in defeat in war to "demand Quarter (which the Greeks called ζωγρία, taking alive)" (Pt II, Ch20). I am trying to find something (book, text etc) on the legal-philosophical origin or history of this practice. However, I"m not having much luck finding info on it at all. Any suggestions? History of rules of war perhaps?
Most of the references on the internet to the practice of Quarter are to the negative "to grant no quarter" meaning show no mercy nor indulgence to the defeated. Wikipedia - "no Quarter" suggests an etymology related to "Relations with, or conduct towards, another" as in Shakespeare Oth. II. iii. 180". Which would also then suggest the connection of quarter with "parlay" in the "pirate code" a demand for discussion / talk / speech with the captain (French: parler). But was this real? or merely a kind of exotic daydream of pirates?
But its interesting that for in 1651 Hobbes also specifically calls it an act that "deferred till farther deliberation" - and that there is another meaning of "quarter" being 3 months.
German translation of ζωγρία is given here as: Lebendiggefangennehmen, Verschonen des Gefangenen. But that seems to just mean capture alive.
Its interesting that Hobbes mentions it though, because of his otherwise absolutist ideas of sovereign as the origin of all law. He doesn't really go into Quarter though - is it custome or a contract?
Most of the references on the internet to the practice of Quarter are to the negative "to grant no quarter" meaning show no mercy nor indulgence to the defeated. Wikipedia - "no Quarter" suggests an etymology related to "Relations with, or conduct towards, another" as in Shakespeare Oth. II. iii. 180". Which would also then suggest the connection of quarter with "parlay" in the "pirate code" a demand for discussion / talk / speech with the captain (French: parler). But was this real? or merely a kind of exotic daydream of pirates?
But its interesting that for in 1651 Hobbes also specifically calls it an act that "deferred till farther deliberation" - and that there is another meaning of "quarter" being 3 months.
German translation of ζωγρία is given here as: Lebendiggefangennehmen, Verschonen des Gefangenen. But that seems to just mean capture alive.
Its interesting that Hobbes mentions it though, because of his otherwise absolutist ideas of sovereign as the origin of all law. He doesn't really go into Quarter though - is it custome or a contract?
According to the Trésor de la Langue Française, the expression would come from "quartier de sauveté", which was a place the defenders could go to in order to be safe after surrendering a siege.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 6:59 AM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 6:59 AM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
You might try How Fighting Ends: A History of Surrender and The Art of Surrender: Decomposing Sovereignty at Conflict's End.
posted by zamboni at 7:25 AM on March 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zamboni at 7:25 AM on March 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
One of the words you're looking for is parole. You are a POW, but you just go home and promise not to fight until you're exchanged.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:56 AM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:56 AM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
For the larger question of where the practice of quarter comes from, you should look into the Law of war.
posted by zamboni at 8:18 AM on March 29, 2016
posted by zamboni at 8:18 AM on March 29, 2016
The ancients had the choice of wiping out the enemy or taking the vanquished as slaves, and Greeks and Romans distinguished their own relatively merciful behavior with the eastern and norther barbarians who just killed 'em all.
Thucydides mentions the practice of ransom or exchange after various battles. Partly out of honor, partly to ensure reciprocal behavior should fortunes turn. This between Greeks, mind you - once the war was against Persians, the Greeks, appalled at the torture and execution of POWs, began to give as good as they got. See also Xenophon's Cyropaedia. And Homer, of course.
Romans were more into selling the vanquished as slaves - those salt mines weren't going to mine themselves, you know! That said, they were also willing to grant Roman citizenship to willing surrenderers, both individually and en masse. Or death, depending. Caesar executed Vercingetorix after conquering Gaul. Claudius was theoretically on the verge of doing the same to Caratacus, but changed his mind once the Briton gave an impassioned speech on his own behalf, for which Claudius spared the fellow and his family and even gave him a pension. (Conversely, Romans were willing to fall on their own swords rather than surrender to anyone themselves. Noblesse oblige or something.)
I'm rambling. But this should help get you back a few millenia in any event.
posted by BWA at 10:33 AM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thucydides mentions the practice of ransom or exchange after various battles. Partly out of honor, partly to ensure reciprocal behavior should fortunes turn. This between Greeks, mind you - once the war was against Persians, the Greeks, appalled at the torture and execution of POWs, began to give as good as they got. See also Xenophon's Cyropaedia. And Homer, of course.
Romans were more into selling the vanquished as slaves - those salt mines weren't going to mine themselves, you know! That said, they were also willing to grant Roman citizenship to willing surrenderers, both individually and en masse. Or death, depending. Caesar executed Vercingetorix after conquering Gaul. Claudius was theoretically on the verge of doing the same to Caratacus, but changed his mind once the Briton gave an impassioned speech on his own behalf, for which Claudius spared the fellow and his family and even gave him a pension. (Conversely, Romans were willing to fall on their own swords rather than surrender to anyone themselves. Noblesse oblige or something.)
I'm rambling. But this should help get you back a few millenia in any event.
posted by BWA at 10:33 AM on March 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thucydides mentions the practice of ransom or exchange after various battles. Partly out of honor, partly to ensure reciprocal behavior should fortunes turn.
There's the interesting case of the Battle of Sphacteria, where taking live prisoners was a fantastic coup for the Athenians (well, for Cleon) and a great shame for the Spartans. It's odd to reflect on how giving quarter could be seen by some opponents as a huge insult.
I suppose that, to answer the point of the question, the ancient Greeks might have had mixed feelings or additional baggage about the practice of "taking alive".
posted by Emma May Smith at 11:09 AM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
There's the interesting case of the Battle of Sphacteria, where taking live prisoners was a fantastic coup for the Athenians (well, for Cleon) and a great shame for the Spartans. It's odd to reflect on how giving quarter could be seen by some opponents as a huge insult.
I suppose that, to answer the point of the question, the ancient Greeks might have had mixed feelings or additional baggage about the practice of "taking alive".
posted by Emma May Smith at 11:09 AM on March 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
For what it's worth, ζωγρία in Greek does mean simply "taking alive", from ζωός "alive" + ἀγρέω "take".
posted by hoist with his own pet aardvark at 1:10 PM on March 29, 2016
posted by hoist with his own pet aardvark at 1:10 PM on March 29, 2016
Any suggestions?
From what I gather, the code of honor or knightly code was something that applied only to people who were knowledgeable about the code and beholden to it. This was done because you could not assume "uneducated savages" would know that they also needed to abide by certain things. So you might consider looking up info on that. Some of the "nicer" practices of war were developed in that context.
Resources concerning the American Civil War may be useful places to look. The end of the war was noteworthy because it broke ground, departing from the practice of forcing the losing side to pay war reparations. The practice of war reparations in WWI is part of why there was a WWII and the precedent set in the American Civil War of having the victors go in and help rebuild was replicated at the end of WWII.
Historically, surrender was undesirable because it basically made you their bitch. War reparations were charged and people were sold into slavery, etc. So it was often viewed as a fate worse than death.
Looking up honor codes, war reparations, and historical accounts related to the end of the American Civil War and the end of WWII may be good places to start finding clues for wherecelse to look.
posted by Michele in California at 1:33 PM on March 29, 2016
From what I gather, the code of honor or knightly code was something that applied only to people who were knowledgeable about the code and beholden to it. This was done because you could not assume "uneducated savages" would know that they also needed to abide by certain things. So you might consider looking up info on that. Some of the "nicer" practices of war were developed in that context.
Resources concerning the American Civil War may be useful places to look. The end of the war was noteworthy because it broke ground, departing from the practice of forcing the losing side to pay war reparations. The practice of war reparations in WWI is part of why there was a WWII and the precedent set in the American Civil War of having the victors go in and help rebuild was replicated at the end of WWII.
Historically, surrender was undesirable because it basically made you their bitch. War reparations were charged and people were sold into slavery, etc. So it was often viewed as a fate worse than death.
Looking up honor codes, war reparations, and historical accounts related to the end of the American Civil War and the end of WWII may be good places to start finding clues for wherecelse to look.
posted by Michele in California at 1:33 PM on March 29, 2016
Thucydides is an interesting place to go here, because (as you're doubtlessly aware) Hobbes provided the first English translation of The Peloponnesian War. So it's no stretch to say that we know Hobbes was aware of Thucydides, and it's not hard to show how the PW text influenced his thinking.
Emma is right to point to Cleon here. The Mytilene Debate in book 3 is also instructive, as that's the moment in which Cleon's rough justice ("No quarter" in punishing the revolting colony) gives way to Diodotus' argument for leniency -- not because it's just, but because it fits Athens' interests.
(By the way, and this is sidelong to the main point, but some suggest that this switch from the language of justice to the language of interests, noted in this debate, is the decisive turning point they dooms Athens; all the rest is denouement. I'm finding this reading more and more compelling lately.)
posted by .kobayashi. at 7:25 AM on April 10, 2016
Emma is right to point to Cleon here. The Mytilene Debate in book 3 is also instructive, as that's the moment in which Cleon's rough justice ("No quarter" in punishing the revolting colony) gives way to Diodotus' argument for leniency -- not because it's just, but because it fits Athens' interests.
(By the way, and this is sidelong to the main point, but some suggest that this switch from the language of justice to the language of interests, noted in this debate, is the decisive turning point they dooms Athens; all the rest is denouement. I'm finding this reading more and more compelling lately.)
posted by .kobayashi. at 7:25 AM on April 10, 2016
This thread is closed to new comments.
*shrug* But this is based more on reading Hornblower books than a close study of primary sources, so...maybe I should just excuse myself....
posted by wenestvedt at 6:40 AM on March 29, 2016