War between the Utopians and the Aleopolitans

The War between the Utopians and the Aleopolitans is presented by Raphael Hythloday as a recent example of the Utopians’ war policy: they claimed to fight only for defensible ends, yet the conflict they entered on behalf of an ally spread widely and ended in the conquest and enslavement of their opponents. Their refusal to take spoils distinguishes their conduct, but does not erase the scale of the harm they helped bring about.

Background and Stated Justification

The Utopians detest war and regard martial glory as an unworthy form of fame. They nevertheless train men and women in military exercises, saying that preparation is necessary if they must defend themselves or their friends against unjust aggression, or help an oppressed people escape tyranny. In the case of an ally, they say they first require consultation and examine the grounds for conflict; they enter the war only after demands for reparation have been rejected and war has become unavoidable.

The dispute that led them to support the Nephelogetes concerned merchants whom the Utopians believed had suffered injustice among the Aleopolitans. Their account includes abuses carried out under unjust laws or through the perverse application of good ones. Raphael allows that the alleged treatment might in itself have been right or wrong, while explaining that the Utopians judged it a grievance serious enough to justify war. He identifies this as the only ground for their intervention in this conflict.

Course and Outcome

The Utopians’ support helped turn the dispute into a terrible war involving many neighboring peoples. The fighting shook several flourishing states and brought severe suffering to others. After a prolonged course of damage, the Aleopolitans were wholly conquered and reduced to slavery. Raphael stresses the reversal in their fortunes: before the war, they had been superior to the Nephelogetes in every respect, but were ultimately defeated.

The Utopians claimed no share of the spoils despite having assisted in the campaign. That refusal sets a limit on their material claim to victory, but the outcome remains severe: their ally’s cause was advanced through a war that ended not merely in reparation, but in the destruction of the Aleopolitans’ independence and their enslavement.

Utopian Methods of War

Raphael places the conflict within a broader account of Utopian military practice. The Utopians say their object in war is to secure by force what would have prevented war if granted in time, or to punish an aggressor so decisively that similar injury will be deterred. They measure their plans by security rather than fame, and regard victory won through intelligence and conduct without bloodshed as more honorable than a bloody triumph.

Their methods, however, include covert attempts to fracture an enemy’s political order. They distribute sealed schedules in conspicuous places throughout an enemy country, offering rewards for the death or capture of its prince and other figures they hold responsible for the war. The reward for capture alive is doubled; those named may also be offered money and protection if they turn against their own countrymen. Raphael reports that these inducements have sometimes led trusted associates to betray their leaders, even the prince himself. If such efforts fail, the Utopians try to foment internal rivalries, encourage a prince’s brother or nobles to seek the crown, or bring neighboring powers into the conflict by reviving old claims. They provide these allies with money but sparingly with troops, which they are reluctant to risk.

Restraint and Its Limits

The Utopians also describe rules intended to limit harm during war. They observe truces, do not burn crops or lay enemy lands waste, and take care not to trample fields that may later be needed. They spare disarmed people unless they are spies. When a town surrenders, they protect it; if it is taken by storm, they do not plunder it, and direct punishment at those who resist surrender. These principles frame their account of themselves as careful about unnecessary destruction and unwilling to profit personally from conquest.

Yet the fate of the Aleopolitans exposes the limits of that self-description. The Utopians’ restraint in taking spoils coexists with their participation in a war that ended in the enemy’s total defeat and enslavement. Their preference for indirect pressure and bloodless victory may reduce the risks to their own citizens, but it does not make their political ends or the consequences for their enemies mild.

Significance

The conflict places the Utopian ideal of peace beside a forceful and consequential practice of intervention. Their declared threshold—an ally’s grievance, prior consultation, and refusal of reparation—gives the war a procedural justification, while the uncertain merits of the merchants’ complaint and the sweeping outcome complicate that justification. The Utopians’ rejection of plunder separates them from victors seeking ordinary spoils, but their role in conquest and enslavement makes clear that disinterestedness is not the same as harmlessness.