The concept of amicitia has long been recognized, but not fully understood, as a determining factor in Rome's rise to supremacy in the Mediterranean world. Burton's monograph, which is based on a PhD thesis written in the 1990s, conclusively shows that this ‘ultimate non-institutionalized institution’ (357), by virtue of its informal and adaptable nature, perfectly lent itself to the changing requirements of Roman foreign policy during the initial stages of overseas expansion. Following a recent trend in the study of ancient diplomacy, the book is embedded in the broader debates of International Relations theory. In particular, B. uses the tools and concepts of Constructivism to bring out the significance of language, norms, and ideas, thus providing a valuable antidote to the traditional prevalence of Realism with its focus on power and security. Interestingly, this implies that his perspective sharply diverges from the avowedly Realist position adopted by his PhD supervisor Arthur Eckstein.
The main object of the book's attacks is not Eckstein's Realism, however, but the hierarchical clientela model of Roman foreign relations as put forward by Ernst Badian more than a half-century ago. Thus, B. rejects the proposition that status inequality is a distinctive feature of patronage and instead accommodates disparities and fluctuations in power within a broadly conceived amicitia paradigm. Drawing on both ancient and modern definitions of friendship, he forcefully argues that a processual model of exchange dynamics is the most appropriate way of understanding the increasingly asymmetrical relationships between Rome and her foreign amici. This interpretive framework is applied in a very substantial body of case studies that focus on the various stages of friendship formation, its subsequent evolution, and eventual dissolution. As regards the first phase, B. highlights the uncertainties of an initial ‘reconnaissance dance’ and provides an insightful discussion of deditio, which he views as a ritual regulated by habitus. Given that deditio could be contested if its consequences were manifestly unjust, he contends that the practice was by no means entirely arbitrary but rather opened up discursive space and ultimately encouraged moral restraint. The processual character of friendship emerges very clearly from the ensuing analysis of the longue durée of amicitia and the manifold obligations it involved. Building on this, B. concludes that Rome's friends enjoyed considerable freedom of action within a certain ‘arc of political possibility’, not only before but also after the city's rise to undisputed hegemony. While this may be true in principle, it should not obscure the fact that his catalogue of typical duties of amici, such as the provision of troops and supplies, is quite different from that of the services performed by Rome herself, which includes items like responding to calls for protection, phrasing demands as requests, and — rather controversially — intervening in internal conflicts.
Regarding friendship breakdown and dissolution, the issue of trust betrayal is duly highlighted as the foremost concern of the ancient sources, though it is clear that opportunistic motives or, as B. prefers to put it, the ‘salience of Roman power’ played a crucial rôle as well. On an abstract level, the failure of amicitia is thus reasonably explained in terms of conflicting expectations, perceptions, and interpretations by the parties involved. What is striking, however, is the author's reluctance to engage critically with the exercise of Roman power, which he generally considers to be ‘hard but fair’. For instance, he argues that, after the Battle of Pydna, Roman harshness towards the Rhodians and Eumenes II of Pergamum was ultimately due to the latter's failure to understand the implications of the growing asymmetry between themselves and the hegemonic superpower (278–99). Overall, Roman violations of fides are played down as ‘perhaps not exceptional’ (300) and tend to be blamed on individuals, culminating in the astonishing claim that there were ‘few exceptional cases where the Romans were unable to punish bad faith in their own representatives’ (332).
Undoubtedly, the chief merit of B.'s book is its consistent concern to approach amicitia relations from the perspective of the sources. Thus, the study convincingly argues for the significance of moral discourse as a key element of ancient diplomacy and aptly demonstrates its impact on the ‘real’ world. In this respect, B.'s larger conceptual framework greatly helps to generate new insights, though it is quite deplorable that he fails to look beyond Constructivism and Realism to explore the potential of other theoretical strands, such as Institutionalism and the so-called ‘English school’, which could arguably make a major contribution to understanding elements of order in the essentially anarchic world of ancient interstate relations. What is truly odd about this book, with its profound concern for moral issues, is the author's persistent attempt to avoid the intricacies of historical judgement. Notwithstanding its professed impartiality, the study actually shows a marked pro-Roman bias, which to a large degree reflects the emphasis of the overwhelmingly Romanocentric sources. This has serious consequences when it comes to drawing conclusions on the nature of Roman imperialism. While B. repeatedly insists that this is not what his book is about, the truth is that he almost invariably interprets Rome's foreign policy moves as defensive (e.g., 159 on the ‘light touch’ of amicitia: ‘The Romans did not seek out opportunities for aggrandizement and aggression …, but sought to contain and control violent systemic anarchy’). Granted, he may be right to consider the debate on the defensive or aggressive character of Roman expansionism ‘an intellectual dead end’ (356), but the often one-sided readings presented in his otherwise very perceptive enquiry will undoubtedly add further fuel to this old controversy.
