Most economically motivated wars resulted from the desire to take control
over the means of production – land and people – or the means of
exchange – markets, ports, and trade routes – or simply to appropriate
accumulated wealth. The imposing of favorable trade terms on a defeated
neighbor or the seizing of some valuable asset such as a metal deposit was
often the outcome of a successful war. But states rarely admitted that trade
or some other economic issue was their principal motive for engaging in
hostilities, preferring to use political or ideological arguments. Historians, on
the other hand, may too often be inclined to impose economic motivations
on the many conflicts of the past for which we don’t have adequate doc-
umentation to determine cause since from the outside this appears to be the
most obvious and rational explanation.
In examining the various ways in which rulers, governments,and states related
to long-distance trade and traders, the most important consideration was the
type of economy a state had. In this, states could be divided into two ideal cate-
gories, each with an infinite range of varieties. Thefirst and more common
type had an essentially agricultural economy ruled by a bureaucratic mon-
archy based on taxing peasant surpluses. Most cities were primarily political,
administrative, or religious in nature, with trade playing a secondary role.
The second type was generally smaller, often a city state ruled by a com-
mercial oligarchy. These“trade states”existed only under special conditions
in which they served as hubs or nodes for long-distance trade. They were
more interested in controlling routes and strategic points than large chunks
of land and masses of people. In outward expansion their main interest was in
establishing stations or at most colonies, which in due time usually became
independent. Sometimes trade states created their own empires, as in the
cases of Carthage, Athens, and Srivijaya, in the hope of taking over whole networks
or commercially valuable regions. Trade in such states was much less gov-
ernment directed and dependent on the needs of military or religious elites
and more responsive to market pressures. The manufacturing sector tended
to be highly specialized, and often the people depended on the import of food
and raw materials for their very existence.
Land of gold 53