The \'Stato da Mar\' as a Colonial Empire - A Reappraisal

The 'Stato da Mar' as a colonial empire — a reappraisal Aron Kecskes University of Glasgow 14/07/2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

•

Abstract – 1

•

Introduction – 2

•

Part I — 2

•

Part II — 3

•

Part III — 7

•

Conclusion — 9

•

Bibliography – 11

1

ABSTRACT The development of European colonial empires in the 16th-17th centuries was not without precedence. Historiography has long drawn attention to instances of European expansion on the continent's western peripheries that provided 'testing grounds' for European colonialism. Traditionally the conquests of Ireland and the Canaries have been treated as providing patterns for colonial expansion in England and the Iberian kingdoms, respectively. This paper aims to examine whether such roots reach back even further and deeper into the late medieval past; raising fundamental questions about continuities and periodisation regarding the genesis of European colonial enterprises. Indeed, Italian city-states such as Venice have occupied holdings in the Eastern Mediterranean from the 11th century up until the rise of the Ottoman Empire. The epithet 'colonial' is frequently used to identify a vague relationship between the city-state and these possessions, maintained to further the prosperity of the former. This paper argues that the relationship was that of metropolis and colonies with the implication that the Stato da Mar—due to its similar structure to Atlantic colonial empires—could be defined as a colonial empire par excellence. This means that patterns of European colonialism existed in the Eastern Mediterranean in the late medieval era. Following on this proposition the paper will endeavour to examine if such conceptualization would also necessitate a re-examination of current historiography with the ambition to establish whether a transfer of knowledge and ideas existed between early Mediterranean colonial empires and those established in the New World and Africa.

2 INTRODUCTION The question of continuity and innovation has long been a crucial fixture of historiography. Various topics in history (such as the Industrial Revolution and the Renaissance) are subject to debates emphasising aspects of phenomena as an organic consequence of past events or as truly new occurrences. I would like to demonstrate that more attention should be paid in this respect to the origins of early modern colonial empires – treated as a phenomenon of modernity. This paper attempts to prove that colonial empires existed in the medieval period – that Italian city-states possessed wide-ranging colonial holdings in the Mediterranean. This is done so by analysing the case of the most successful and sophisticated, that of Venice and her Stato da Mar. After proposing a definition for colonial empire the paper proceeds to describe the Venetian Empire outlining its colonial features. Having demonstrated that the Stato da Mar could be seen as a colonial empire, a structural comparison with the Iberian colonial empires follows. The Iberian peninsula and Venice existed in the same interconnected Mediterranean space, where the exchange of ideas, technology, knowledge and capital was a common occurrence. The last part will cite examples that prove that Italian expertise, capital, technology and personnel did take part in early Iberian colonisation. Thus it will be concluded that the perception of early modern colonial empires as a genuinely new phenomena may be unfounded. This then necessitates further research to the field to decide on the validity of this perception. I. It is expedient to define the notion of colonial empire before engaging with the narrower question. The core features of empire are that of difference, domination and exploitation. 1 Empires forcefully incorporate various groups whose differences in religion and culture are recognised but treated as subjects of the empire nonetheless. These groups are exploited to the benefit of the group ruling the empire. For our purposes distinction has to be made between territorial and colonial empires. Territorial empires are created by land-based expansion that aims to incorporate the conquered territories to the imperial administration. Colonial empires are not necessarily land-based – they are a collection of holdings far from each other unified forcefully for the benefit of the metropole and governed by a permanently separate administration imposed from the centre. The two are not exclusive – a state can possess both a colonial and a territorial empire. The obvious 1

pp8-10, BURBANK J.&COOPER, F.: (2010) Empires in World History, Power and Politics of Difference, Princeton University Press, Princeton

3 example for this is 16th century Spain, possessing a colonial empire in the New World and a territorial empire in Italy and the Netherlands. II. Trade was always central to Venice. First engaged with the transportation of salt, wood and slaves2, Venetian commercial activities expanded by capturing a portion of the rare commodities trade in the Levant. As Gertwagen put it: “For Venice, the key was ensuring its survival as an international emporium for the Far Eastern and eastern Mediterranean commodities destined for western and southern European markets.”3 The creation of a widespread trading network necessitated the acquisition of naval bases that could provide protection for Venetian ships. The Venetian colonial empire, the Stato da Mar was a fruit of this necessity4. The following discussion is limited to holdings under Venetian rule, excluding the trading communities dispersed across Europe, the Levant and the Black Sea. Described by Lane as an 'empire of naval bases'5 the Stato da Mar spread across the Adriatic and the Eastern Mediterranean sheltering Venetian shipping, providing marketplaces and other necessary facilities. Yet there was an other dimension to it. The ports, cities and islands under Venetian rule were subject to the meticulous micromanagement of the Venetian state to extract the maximum benefit for the mother city. Revenues, resources, ships and men were requisitioned on demand from all subject territories.6 This rule was distinctly colonial. The existence of a strong colonial administration separate from that of the metropole, a mercantilist economic policy directed from the capital to her own interests, an independent imperial judiciary structure and the presence of an imperial elite with economic interests dispersed in the whole empire are all factors that contribute to its colonial character. However, the main reason why this empire was colonial is the fact that it was a collection of places spatially distant from each other, inhabited by peoples of markedly different customs, culture and 2 3 4 5 6

pp5-10. LANE, F. C.: (1973) Venice; A Maritime Republic, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore p548, GERTWAGEN, R.: (2014) Venice's policy towards the Ionian and Aegean Islands, c. 1204-1423 in International Journal of Maritime History, Vol. 26 (3), 529-548 p5, O'CONNELL, M.: (2009) Men of Empire; Power and Negotiation in Venice's Maritime State, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore p42, LANE: Venice See Stallsmith on Crete as an example: “The settlement of Venetians on the island would provide military control and estates for landless citizens; taxation from the rich agricultural produce of the island would support the Serene Republic; commodities such as grain and wood, in shorter and shorter supply on terra firma could be exported by mandate to the mother city; and production of exports, particularly the sweet malmsey wine, would benefit the Venetian state, whose galleys monopolized the trade” p152, STALLSMITH, A. B.: (2007) One Colony, Two

Mother Cities: Cretan Agriculture under Venetian and Ottoman Rule in Hesperia Supplements,Vol. 40 pp151-171

4 religion assembled for the sole reason to benefit Venice. The Venetian empire was a fluid one, constantly expanding on places and contracting on others. The below is a description of the Stato da Mar in the beginning of the 16th century, when the colonial features are mature enough to manifest themselves clearly. 7 By this point Venetians were endowed with a well-developed sense of pride and proprietorship in this empire which consisted of a large number of holdings.8 It was kept together and the exploitation of the colonies was organised by a colonial administration closely supervised by the Venetian state and kept under control by a judiciary independent of it. All holdings were ruled by a governor (bearing different titles in different locations to accommodate local custom) who was helped by a group of Venetian officeholders, the number depending on the importance of the colony. A military official, the captain was usually appointed to deal with matters of defence, and a castellan-treasurer was charged with the fiscal duties. A host of minor offices were attached to these positions. Written reports were demanded by Venice about all matters in the colonies. The officials were subject to an examination after they served their term, in which their performance was evaluated. Colonies were arranged in a flexible hierarchy to each other to facilitate regional cooperation. Travelling agents of the empire, syndics and provedditore exercised another layer of imperial authority were immediate intervention was necessary. The relative distribution of power between local elites and Venetian officials was different in each holding. This was acknowledged by the varying degree of autonomy granted to local councils ranging from absolutely none to the widespread privileges of Zara. Yet, the colonies' subjection to Venice was never in question. While Venetian rule over the Stato da Mar was negotiated, there can be no question that all negotiations were heavily skewed by Venetian military and economic power.9 The administration was supplemented with a powerful judiciary centred in Venice and under the direct control of the state. The extent to which local customs were respected and members of the local elite could participate in dispensing justice depended on the relative power and importance of the colony. While dispensing justice was in the hands of the governors on the first instance, a system of appellation ran from peripheries to the centre to keep the rectors in check. 10 Appellation against unjust verdicts was encouraged by state support to those who travelled to Venice to pursue the case further. By the end of the 16th-17th century regional appellate courts developed, further 7 8

The description below is largely based on LANE: Venice and O'CONNEL: Men of On the Venetian perception of empire see for example p5, O'CONNELL: Men of and p30, CHAMBERS, D. S.: (1970) The Imperial Age of Venice, 1380-1580, Thames and Hudson, London 9 p1, O'CONNELL: Men of 10 pp84-85, ibid

5 stratifying the judiciary and allowing tighter control over the administration.11 Both branches of the state were manned by members of the Venetian nobility. Patrician dynasties carried a tradition of service complemented with a heavy investment in trade – thus allowing for furthering the good of the family and serving the state. The Venetian nobility was connected to the indigenous elites of the colonies via marriage ties and common business enterprises. The acquisition of land in colonial domains was frequent. This way the Venetian nobility became heavily invested in maintaining the empire – and the empire was reliant on their talent. The practical necessity of having trained officials continuously clashed with and triumphed over the republican idea of equal access to offices. The Venetian state was thus able to draw on a pool of experienced and well-trained officials to fulfil positions in Venice itself, in the Terraferma or in the Stato da Mar. The above paragraphs thus provide basis to think about the Venetian holdings as a colonial empire. It was a highly complex structure of governance, covering various parts of the Eastern Mediterranean, administered by a bureaucracy for the benefit of the city-state and supervised by a judiciary centred on the capital. These structures were distinctly colonial in that they were separate from the administration of the metropolitan areas and in that their primary function was the promotion of the benefit on Venice, the imperial state in the colonial territories. It is worthwhile to illustrate Venetian control over the colonies by describing Venetian policy in two fields vital for the empire, one being shipping and shipbuilding and the other agricultural policy. It is difficult to over-emphasise the importance of merchant shipping in holding the empire together. Round ships, used for carrying goods doubled as troop and supply transports in times of war. Great galleys were used for transporting spices and other valuable commodities on the statesponsored voyages.12 Smaller craft was used for the daily needs of each colony as described by Braudel.13 The Venetian state fought and lost a battle to try and force her citizens to only use ships built in Venice. When Ragusan-built ships posed a competition, the Signoria banned them from Venice to preserve the shipbuilding industry crucial to maintain the empire. 14 It is worthwhile to 11 p87, ibid 12 For a detailed study on Venetian shipping see LANE, F.C.: (1992) Venetian Ships and Shipbuilders of the Renaissance, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 13 p296-Vol I, BRAUDEL, F.: (1972) The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II, Vol III trans. by Sian Reynolds, Collins, London 14 pp224-225, LANE, F. C.: (1933) Venetian Shipping During the Commercial Revolution, The American

Historical Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp219-239

6 mention the Arsenal – a state-owned shipyard building galleys for combat and trade alike. This institution was a unique feature of the Venetian state and crucial in maintaining naval power. Another method to enhance Venetian sea power was to encourage subject shipping. Colonies were encouraged to conduct trade and build ships to add on Venetian transport capacity. As Pagratis shows, major ports were allocated areas in which they exercised privileges within the maritime empire.15 In times of war these ships could be requisitioned or were freely offered to serve the Serenissima.16 Thus we see policies aiming at the strengthening of the Venetian navy (merchant and military alike) and the usage of these forces in the service of the mother city. The second set of policies to be analysed concerns agriculture. All Mediterranean cities invested enormous effort in supplying the population with adequate quantities of foodstuff.17 Venice was no different but she had the advantage of a grain-producing colony, that of Crete. |As shown by Stallsmith, Cretan agricultural production was a constant target of Venetian rulings and orders. 18 While these might not have always been obeyed, the fact of the matter was that Cretan interests were displaced in order to feed Venice and to generate profit for her merchants by selling malmesy.19 In a similar way, Corfu's salt or the olive oil production of the empire were under metropolitan control.20 To sum up; Venice exercised a meticulous control over the production, transportation and consumption of agricultural products in the empire. It has been demonstrated thus that the Venetian state had a set of holdings under her rule treated as separate subject entities, under a separate colonial administration and exploited for the benefit of Venice. The sole factor unifying these far-flung and culturally distinct territories was that of coercion – Venetian military and economic power kept the empire together for the sole reason of benefiting the metropole with their revenues, resources and strategic location. We can thus conclude with O'Donnel that the Stato da Mar - neither accidental nor philanthropic – was a colonial empire built to benefit its ruler.21

15 p245 PAGRATIS, G.D.:(2011) Ships and Shipbuilding in Corfu in the First Half of the Sixteenth Century, Storia Mediterranea, vol. 22, pp237-246 16 pp243-244, ibid. 17 For a detailed discussion see pp570-604, BRAUDEL; Mediterranean 18 p157, STALLSMITH: Crete 19 p152, ibid 20 See Stallsmith on olive oil: p157, ibid 21 p18, O'CONNELL: Men of

7 III. The Iberian colonial empires are usually considered to be the first in early modern history. However, as the above section endeavoured to outline, Venice's Stato da Mar could be considered a colonial empire preceding the Iberian empires in time. As lack of space does not allow for an indepth comparison the following will outline similarities in the structural framework created to exploit the respective colonial empires and address the question of differences. The conditions in which the Iberian colonial empires and the Stato da Mar existed were rather different. On the one hand Venice was a city-state focused on trade and her chief motives were that of 'honour and profit'.22 On the other hand the Iberian kingdoms were shaped by the Reconquista and they conquered and ruled the new territories to spread Catholicism, extract maximal revenue, assert and extend royal authority and to maintain justice.23 The presence or absence of active prostelyzation does constitute a huge difference. In addition, there is the difference of environment, both human and geographical. Middle- and South-America, Sub-Saharan Africa, India and Indonesia constituted an environment unfamiliar to the Iberians as opposed to the Levant which was thoroughly known in Venice. And yet, despite the huge differences in circumstances and motivation all three states developed a remarkably similar structural framework for the exploitation of their empires. The three aspects examined below – administrative, infrastructural and regulatory – provide insights on the exploitation of a colonial empire from three important angles. The reason for singling out these three aspects is that analysed together they allow for a good understanding of the structural frameworks developed to exploit the colonial empires. The institutional aspect describes governance directed in the interests of the imperial state; the infrastructural aspect shows the material investment in the exploitation of the colonies and the regulatory aspect shows the subjection of the colonies to metropolitan interest. Taken together they provide the three main elements of a structure geared to exploit a colonial empire. A trained bureaucracy was present in all three states to formulate and execute decisions centrally made.24 Drawing on certain sectors of society, the office-holders provided informal training to their 22 p57, ibid 23 p236, PARRY, J.H.:(1981) The Age of Reconnaissance, University of California Press, Los Angeles 24 On Venice see O'CONNELL: Men of, pp39-57, on the Iberian empires see pp290-303, PARRY, J.H.: (1981) The Age of Reconnaissance, University of California Press, Los Angeles

8 descendants who then took these offices on. 25The system of governance for individual colonies followed a similar structure. The governor (viceroy) was equipped with detailed instructions from the centre and subject to constant enquiries on his conduct. He was assisted in his tasks by a council made up partially by locals and partially by metropolitan officials. 26The fiscal administration was independently supervised from local governance.27Individual colonies were arranged in a flexible hierarchy to facilitate defence and local decision-making.28 The activities of the administration were supervised in the capital29, and a sophisticated judicial system kept it in check 30.The Church was subject to state control and used as a means to keep the indigenous population under control. 31 Thus in all three empires separate bureaucratic structures existed that were supervised centrally and provided governance to facilitate exploitation. The infrastructure created for the exploitation of the colonial empires was rather similar. All three states possessed a central organisation, the Casa de Indias, the Casa de Contratacion and the Arsenal for equipping ships, training sailors and navigators and charting maps. The existence of a central institution geared to supply all necessary things for the defence of the colonies and providing maps, personnel, ships and equipment for trading with the colonies is unique to these empires. Another feature worth mentioning is organized sailing. The muda in Venice,32 the Carreria in Portugal33 and the Carrera de Indias in Spain34 the organisation of private ships in convoys which had set timetables and ports of call was an essential feature in providing merchants with the means to cope with the dangers of long-distance trade. The difference, that the end points of the muda were ports not under Venetian rule is misleading – one function of these organised yearly convoys was to connect the Venetian colonies. Thus in all three states we see a central organization and an organised system of shipping facilitating colonial trade and defence.

25 pp39-40, O'CONNELL: Men of, and p104, GÓNORA, M..: (1975) Studies in the Colonial History of Spanish America, trans by Southern, R., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 26 On Venice, see pp41-42, O'CONNELL: Men of, on Portugal: pp323-325, DIFFIE, B.W.&WINIUS, G.D: (1977) Foundations of the Portuguese Empire, 1415-1480, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, on Spain: pp9192, GÓNORA, M.: Studies 27 On Spain see p238, PARRY: The Age, on Venice: p100, LANE: Venice 28 Venice: p42, O'CONNEL: Men of, On the Portuguese East Indies: pp323-324, DIFFIE&WINIUS: Foundations, on the Spanish Americas: pp423-424, MCALISTER, L.N.: (1984) Spain and Portugal in the New World 1492-1700, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis 29 By the Council of Indies in Spain (p183, MCALISTER: Spain), the Council of India and Overseas Conquests in Portugal (pp444-445, ibid), the Savii ai Ordini in Venice (p254, LANE: Venice) 30 See pp89-91 GÓNORA: Studies on the audiencia-system, pp325-326 DIFFIE&WINIUS: Foundations on the Portuguese East Indies and pp443-444 MCALISTER: Spain for Brazil for Venice see the above discussion 31 See p424&442, MCALISTER: Spain and on Venice: pp104-105 O'CONNEL: Men of and p356 LANE: Venice 32 p70, LANE: Venice 33 p312, DIFFIE&WINIUS: Foundations 34 pp233-234, MCALISTER: Spain

9 The economic policies applied to exploit the colonies to benefit the centre were rather alike. Restricting the production of certain products to protect the centre from competition was a practice employed in all three empires.35 Organizing trade routes, designing markets and limiting the transport of colonial wares to subjects were features present both in the Stato da Mar and the Iberian empires. All three empires exercised a vigorous control over staple rights – witness the Portuguese in India36, the Spanish exclusion of non-Castilian ships from the trade with the New World and the Venetian staple over the upper Adriatic. 37 To sum up: a set of policies were in place, rather resembling each other, that were aimed to ensure the exploitation of the colonies by establishing a set of economic regulations benefiting the metropole. In conclusion: while there were huge differences between the three analysed empires, a number of crucial similarities can be highlighted. The existence of a similar structural framework resting on the triad of administrative, infrastructural and regulatory structures provides ample grounds to raise the question of possible transfer of knowledge between Venice and Iberia. CONCLUSION Could there have been any transfer of ideas, practices, structures and technology between the Stato da Mar and the Iberian empires? I argue that we have ample evidence to answer affirmatively. Emphasising the interconnectedness of the Mediterranean region is something of a cliché. To mention but a few examples: Catalan mercenaries served the Byzantines in Asia Minor, Genoese slavers carried slaves from the Black Sea to Egypt and Venetian convoys plied the seas from Flanders to Alexandria. Such an extensive network of connections naturally facilitated the diffusion of ideas, technology, capital and commodities everywhere around the Mediterranean. An example of this is the cultivation of the sugar cane, widely practised in the Italian colonial holdings in the Levant, then spreading to the Atlantic islands and the Americas. The enormous number and type of connections existing between Italy and the Iberian peninsula indicate that transfer of ideas, technology, capital and personnel was a well-established practice on behalf of the Iberian kingdoms. Genoese admirals led Portuguese navies, 38 Communities of Italians were present in major ports all around the Iberian peninsula and provided models for the Portuguese 35 See p426, MCALISTER: Spain on prohibitions on producing silk, olives, wine and textiles in the New World, on Venice see for example STALLSMITH''s cited article 36 pp320-321, DIFFIE&WINIUS: Foundations 37 p62, LANE: Venice 38 p63, VERLINDEN, C.: (1970) The Beginnings of Modern Colonization; Eleven Essays with an Introduction, Cornell University Press, Itacha

10 feítorias.39 This set of connections could have played a major role in the development of Iberian colonial empires. Charles Verlinden's studies on the colonisation of the Canaries and Cape Verde Isles provide further basis to support this hypothesis. Italians provided sailors and settlers, knowledge in working with the sugar cane and capital.40 One field where transfer of techniques is rather likely to have taken place is the development of Atlantic slave trade. Genoese and Venetian traders for long took part in organized and wholesale slave trade in the Black Sea, carrying as many as 200 slaves in one ship.41 We have evidence of Italian slavers operating in the Atlantic at the beginning of colonization.42 It is not far-fetched to suppose that the expertise acquired on the Black Sea was utilized in these new fields. Later on, Italians continued to be involved in the exploration and settlement of the New World by providing men and capital.43 The above described connections allow for a reformulation of the question; what was the nature of knowledge transfer between the Iberian peninsula and the most developed Italian colonial empire, the Stato da Mar? An exchange of ideas, techniques, skills and personnel definitely took place. An answer could be provided as to what was the nature of this exchange was, in what fields and ways this took place and to what extent it influenced the Iberian colonization. This would either allow the historian to prove that the roots of early modern colonisation reach back to the medieval period, raising fundamental questions about periodization and the role of colonial empires in history, or provide further proof that the emergence of the early modern colonial empires was a genuinely new phenomenon. The proposed questions reach way beyond the capacities of this paper. In conclusion; it would be worthwhile to examine the extent of connections present between Italian colonial empires in the medieval ages and Iberian early modern colonial empires to establish whether our perception of colonial empire as an early modern phenomenon is justifiable.

39 On feítorias: p313, DIFFIE&WINIUS: Foundations, on Italian trading communities see for example pp98-132 VERLINDEN: Beginnings 40 See his The Italians in the Economy of the Canary Islands at the Beginning of Spanish Colonisation in VERLINDEN: Beginnings, pp132-160 41 p94, ibid. 42 pp155-156, ibid. 43 See for example p241, MCALISTER: Spain

11 BIBLIOGRAPHY BRAUDEL, F.: (1972) The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, Vol I-II trans. by Sian Reynolds, Collins, London, BURBANK J.&COOPER, F.: (2010) Empires in World History: Power and Politics of Difference, Princeton University Press, Princeton CHAMBERS, D. S.: (1970) The Imperial Age of Venice, 1380-1580, Thames and Hudson, London DIFFIE, B.W.&WINIUS, G.D.: (1977) Foundations of the Portuguese Empire, 1415-1480, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis GERTWAGEN, R.: (2014) Venice's policy towards the Ionian and Aegean Islands, c. 1204-1423 in International Journal of Maritime History, Vol. 26 (3), pp529-548 GÓNORA, M..: (1975) Studies in the Colonial History of Spanish America, trans by Southern, R., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge LANE, F. C.: (1933) Venetian Shipping During the Commercial Revolution, The American Historical Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 219-239 LANE, F. C.:(1973) Venice; A Maritime Republic, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore LANE, F.C.:(1992) Venetian Ships and Shipbuilders of the Renaissance, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore MCALISTER, L.N.: (1984) Spain and Portugal in the New World 1492-1700, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis O'CONNELL, M.: (2009) Men of Empire; Power and Negotiation in Venice's Maritime State, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore PAGRATIS, G.D.: (2011) Ships and Shipbuilding in Corfu in the First Half of the Sixteenth Century in Storia Mediterranea, vol. 22, pp237-246 PARRY, J.H.:(1981) The Age of Reconnaissance, University of California Press, Los Angeles STALLSMITH, A. B.: (2007) One Colony, Two Mother Cities: Cretan Agriculture under Venetian and Ottoman Rule in Hesperia Supplements, Vol. 40 pp151-171 VERLINDEN, C.: (1970) The Beginnings of Modern Colonization; Eleven Essays with an Introduction, Cornell University Press, Itacha