The Legal Logic of Wars of Conquest: Truces and Betrayal in the Early Modern World

Lauren Benton

Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law2018article
ABDC A
Weight
0.55

Abstract

By definition, the term "conquest" implies the dominance of one political community over others.By definition, too, "conquest" denotes war, and histories of conquest tend to feature episodes of extraordinary brutality, including the complete destruction of civilian settlements.This basic understanding of conquest as political dominance through warfare brings unity to narratives about historical settings as diverse as Inner Asia under Mongol assault, Muslim and Christian advances across the Iberian Peninsula, and the Spanish takeover of indigenous South America.The history of the early modern world has sometimes been styled as a history of invasion, occupation, and the sweeping cultural and institutional consequences of both.These basic assumptions about the nature of conquest deserve closer scrutiny.Rather than the stark opposition of conquering and conquered societies or the clear-cut dominance of victors over vanquished, early modern campaigns of conquest depended on, and also gave rise to, pluripolitical formations.Conquering and conquered societies boasted multiple corporate entities and jumbles of overlapping jurisdictions, and these plural structures guided the strategies and determined the pace and designs of conquest.Campaigns of conquest also produced new patterns of association in fragmented political fields, from experiments in confederation to the construction of fragile networks of alliances.The overwhelming power of conquerors and the catastrophic defeat of the conquered could coexist with the persistence of indigenous polities' autonomy and often produced powerful constraints on the actions of imperial rulers.A closer look at conquest reveals, too, that peace pacts formed an integral part of the process.Whether labeled as imperial projects or not, conquests enlarged composite polities, and truces created allies and established tributary arrangements such that zones of relative, if unstable, calm sat adjacent to frontiers of open warfare.Parties to truces recognized

18 citations

Cite this paper

@article{lauren2018,
  title        = {{The Legal Logic of Wars of Conquest: Truces and Betrayal in the Early Modern World}},
  author       = {Lauren Benton},
  journal      = {Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law},
  year         = {2018},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

The Legal Logic of Wars of Conquest: Truces and Betrayal in the Early Modern World

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.55

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.51 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.80 × 0.15 = 0.12
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.