# Ancient to medieval diplomacy



## Jabrosky (Mar 8, 2013)

I have to write a character sketch/study as my final assignment for a Creative Writing class. I've chosen to write a diplomatic discussion between two fantasy civilizations, one roughly based on ancient Egypt and the other on classical Rome. However, I am not sure how such diplomatic discussions would have progressed in ancient to medieval monarchies. My initial impulse was to have the pseudo-Roman Legate visit the pseudo-Egyptian Pharaoh in her throne chamber, but did foreign ambassadors really visit kings in this kind of setting? How would a diplomatic meeting between an ambassador and a king progress anyway?


----------



## MadMadys (Mar 8, 2013)

I would hardly consider myself a total expert on these matters, at least from the Egyptian point of view, but I have some knowledge of the Roman side of things (thank you Tacitus).

How Rome often dealt with the countries under their rule was quite elegant, I'd say.  They'd allow kings/queens to rule their lands with authority with the knowledge that they pay tax to Rome, sometimes ships, food, troops and legions as well if necessary.  The relationship was typically one of Rome being hands off, mostly, and letting them do their thing so long as they obeyed the rules.  Obviously there are times when this was not the case but generally, during the early Empire at least, this was the way things worked.

Assuming you want to maintain a similar relationship, the Egyptian ruler would likely know exactly their relationship with whomever came knocking at their door which would either be a governor of the region or maybe a visiting senator of some kind depending on the issue.  In their court they may act like they're on equal footing but behind closed doors there would be no question that Rome was the one in charge.  It wouldn't be a discussion so much as Rome saying what would happen and Egypt doing it's best to appease big brother without seeming too weak-willed (if they had any pride left).  There would likely be an adviser of some kind present for both sides as well functioning in some capacity as well.

To the outside world it would almost carry on like you'd imagine a diplomatic meeting here would.  Some feasts, maybe a hunt, mild-debauchery, and the usual fair.


----------



## Shockley (Mar 8, 2013)

First off, in both cases your dealing with what we call 'ancient' civilizations. If Rome is in the picture, at all, it's not medieval. 

 As to how Egypt would respond, that depends on what phase of Egyptian existence it is. Are you talking Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, New Kingdom or Hellenistic? It would have been different during each phase.

 On the other hand, Roman diplomacy was pretty consistent in that it was gruff, direct and they always assumed (accurately, I should add) that they had the upper hand. A great example of Roman diplomacy is as follows: 

 Gaius Popillius Laenas, a two-time consul of Rome, was part of a diplomatic mission to the Seleucid Empire during the reign of Antiochus IV. I'll let Livy pick it up: "After receiving the submission of the inhabitants of Memphis and of the rest of the Egyptian people, some submitting voluntarily, others under threats, [Antiochus] marched by easy stages towards Alexandria. After crossing the river at Eleusis, about four miles from Alexandria, he was met by the Roman commissioners, to whom he gave a friendly greeting and held out his hand to Popilius. Popilius, however, placed in his hand the tablets on which was written the decree of the senate and told him first of all to read that. After reading it through he said he would call his friends into council and consider what he ought to do. Popilius, stern and imperious as ever, drew a circle round the king with the stick he was carrying and said, "Before you step out of that circle give me a reply to lay before the senate." For a few moments he hesitated, astounded at such a peremptory order, and at last replied, "I will do what the senate thinks right." Not till then did Popilius extend his hand to the king as to a friend and ally. Antiochus evacuated Egypt at the appointed date, and the commissioners exerted their authority to establish a lasting concord between the brothers, as they had as yet hardly made peace with each other."


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 8, 2013)

Don't know how much it would change things, but I want to add that I'm not totally married to the Counterpart Culture trope here. I can rub off some of the resemblances to real-world civilizations if I have to (actually, after talking to some peers about the idea, that's probably what I'll end up doing anyway). I do appreciate the help though.


----------



## Shockley (Mar 9, 2013)

If you want the most awesome possible historical diplomacy, the Mongols mastered the art of ending wars with sternly worded letters. 

 John of Plano Carpini was sent to the Mongols in order to deliver a letter explaining to them why they had to become Christians and make peace with the pope. John had no way of knowing this, but the words 'peace' and 'submission' are the same in Mongolian, so the reply he took back to the Pope is absolutely priceless as far as medieval diplomacy goes. 



> A Letter from Kuyuk Khan to Pope Innocent IV
> 
> By the power of the Eternal Heaven, we are the all-embracing Khan of all the Great Nations.  It is our command:
> 
> ...



 Between different cultures, this would have been a fairly standard reply - but the Mongol flourishes are awesome.


----------

