GREEK INTERSTATE ASSOCIATIONS AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS BY A. E. R. BOAK Professor of Ancient History, University of Michigan The political achievements of the Greek people are so manifold and so important that any student of modern politics naturally is tempted to turn to ancient Greece to find the origin of, or parallels to, recent developments in his own field. And so there are not wanting those who would see in certain unions or associations of Greek states anticipations of the ideas which are incorporated in the newly constituted League of Nations. However, the view that any close parallel to the League of Nations existed in the ancient Greek world is due, I believe, to a misinterpretation or idealization of the character and aims of these ancient associations. Accordingly, in the present article I shall try to give a survey of the chief types of interstate associations that arose in ancient Greece, besides suggesting certain changes in their current English nomenclature, which is apt to mislead the casual reader as to their true character. When the Greeks made their way into the lower part of the Balkan peninsula which we now call Greece, they came in large racial groups, each distinguished by its ethnic name-Arcadians, Achæans, Baotians, Thessalians, and so forth. Each of these ethne, if we may employ this convenient Greek term (corresponding to the German stamm), was itself composed of a number of smaller groups, which we call peoples or tribes. The ethnos constituted a religious as well as a loosely-knit political unit; it was the primitive Greek state, consisting of an association of larger and smaller kinsman groups. Many of these ethne were broken up into smaller units in the course of the successive Greek migrations; others met a like fate after the final settlement of the Greeks in their historic abodes. This later dissolution of the ethnic associations was due in some cases to the rise of the poleis or city-states, in others to the development of independent rural communes, within the territory settled by the larger groups. However, although the ethne thus came to lose their original political significance, they regularly remained as religious associations, in which city-states or rural communes were united for the maintenance of their ancestral, ethnic cults. In many cases the states which had a common ethnic bond maintained some sort of a political as well as a religious alliance, and later, as we shall see, the ethnos came to form the background of a new form of political association. On the eastern coast of Greece city-states arose at a very early date upon the sites of towns of the Minoan epoch, and this type of political organization was carried by the Greeks to the islands of the Ægean Sea and the western coast of Asia Minor. It spread farther with the establishment of Greek colonies along the shores of the Mediterranean and Black Seas during the great period of expansion which began about the middle of the eighth century B.C. The result was that the Greek world was divided into hundreds of small sovereign states, some of them rural communes, but the great majority city-states, the presence of which made the history of Greece resemble that of the modern world rather than that of any modern nation, and also gave opportunity for the development of all forms of interstate associations.1 The polis or city-state came to be the characteristic type of Greek state and was the determining factor in the political as well as the cultural development of the Greek peoples. From the primitive tribal associations the polis inherited the conception of the state as a union of persons of common descent participating in a common cult. This conception fostered in each community an attitude of jealous exclusiveness towards its neighbors. The ideal of the city-state came to be self-sufficiency in the economic as well as in the political sense. Politically, this was expressed in a passionate devotion to freedom in foreign relations (eleutheria) and the right of each state to determine its own constitution (autonomia). However, in fact, the city-states were rarely, if ever, economically self-sustaining, and, in spite of their passion for their own political independence, they did not display the same regard for the freedom of their neighbors. Their foreign relations were usually determined by materialistic or imperialistic aims. And out of the welter of common and conflicting interests which consequently developed among the Greek states themselves or between them and their barbarian neighbors, arose the various forms of interstate relations which I now propose to examine. Since we are only concerned at present with such relations as led to associations or unions of a more or less permanent character, involving the surrender of certain of the sovereign rights of the contracting parties in their international relations, we may pass over the peculiarly Greek institution of proxenia, and likewise the special treaties between states which aimed to secure commercial or legal advantages for their respective 1 For a more detailed account of this transformation of the earlier ethnic groups, see Francotte, La Polis grecque, pp. 96-105; B. Keil, Griechische Staatsaltertümer, in Gercke and Norden's Einleitung, iii, pp. 299-311; H. Swoboda, in Hermann's Lehrbuch der griechischen Staatsaltert mer, iii, pp. 3-15. citizens, or even to provide for the peaceful settlement of interstate disputes. However, in passing, we should note that the practice of settling such differences by arbitration was well established and frequently resorted to. The interstate relationships which remain for our consideration might be either religious or political. A religious association of states was called either an amphictyony or a koinon. As far as we can see, there was no essential difference implied in the use of one or other of these terms, for an amphictyony is merely an association of "dwellers around" or neighbors, and a koinon is simply a "commune" or joint association, which might be either religious or political in character. But, although neither the word amphictyony or koinon in itself gives any clue as to the nature of these associations, it is clear that the joint maintenance of some particular cult was the raison d'être of each. The members of a religious league either might be states associated in the maintenance of the ancestral cult of the ethnos to which they belonged, or they might be peoples or communities which lacked this racial bond. The famous Delphic Amphictyony is the only one of the religious leagues whose organization is known in any detail. Its members were twelve of the Greek ethnic groups, such as the Ionians and Dorians; a fact which places the origin of the Amphictyony prior to the disruption of these hordes and the rise of the sovereign city-states. The religious center of this league was at first the shrine of Artemis at Thermopylæ and later that of Apollo at Delphi. The policy of the Amphictyony was determined by a council in which each of the associated peoples had two votes, although in historic times the city-states of Athens and Thebes had acquired a permanent right to one of the votes of the ethne to which they belonged, the Ionians and the Baotians respectively. The character and purpose of the Delphic Amphictyony is revealed in the words of the oath taken annually by the delegates sent to the council by the several peoples. They swore "not to raze to the ground any city belonging to members of the Amphictyony, nor shut it off from running water either in war or in peace; and, if any member transgresses these provisions, to proceed against him and destroy his cities; and, if anyone plunders the property of the god, or agrees upon, or plots anything against the sacred treasures, to take vengeance upon him with hand and foot and voice and full military force." (Eschines, ii, 115.) From this it is clear that the Delphic Amphictyony was an association for religious and not for political purposes. It is true that it insisted upon certain humane observances in war waged among members of the league, but it did not aim to prevent war even between them, probably because war was regarded as a perfectly normal condition. The Amphictyony was not active politically in the cause of Greek independence nor in the settlement of disputes among Greek states. However, it was at times exploited in the interest of the political ambi tions of some of its more influential members, especially Philip II of Macedon and the Etolian Confederation.2 Turning from the religious to the political associations of Greek states, we find that the latter are of two distinct types: (1) those which are temporary and created for joint action under definite circumstances, i.e., leagues or alliances, and (2) those which aim at the permanent establishment of a new and larger state, i.e., confederations. Let us consider each of these types separately. Apart from the religious leagues, alliances among the Greek states were regularly concluded for military purposes. Such military alliances were familiar to the Greeks from the earliest times, and can hardly be considered a development from religious associations. They might be concluded between all types of states, tribal, city or federal. They could be either offensive and defensive, or purely defensive in character. In the former case they were technically called symmachiai, in the latter epimachiai. The essential characteristic of these alliances was that each of the contracting parties retained its independence and its constitution, while all placed their military resources under a common authority in time of war. Most of the Greek military leagues were shortlived: two, however, were more stable unions whose presence profoundly affected the course of Greek history. The older of the two was the Peloponnesian League, which was organized in the latter half of the sixth century and lasted until 371 B.C. This league was a Spartan creation, having as its basis a series of special alliances between Sparta and the majority of the states of the Peloponnesus, whereby each was obligated to give military aid to Sparta in case of an attack upon the Peloponnesus. Questions affecting the action of the league were decided by a council convoked to discuss each particular case. In this council each of the allied states had equal representation. The meetings were called by Sparta, and that state assumed command of the allied forces in time of war. The position which Sparta held in relation to her allies was termed by the Greeks an hegemony. It is to be noted that the Spartan allies had the right to carry on war against one another or against outside parties without reference to Sparta or the league.3 The second of the great leagues was the Delian League of 477 B.C., often miscalled the Confederacy of Delos. It was a symmachia under Athenian 2 On the Amphictyonies, see Cauer, in Pauly-Wissowa's Realencyclopädie, i, 1905 ff. A list of the pre-Roman religious koina among the Greeks is given in P. Giraud, Les Assemblées provinciales dans l'empire romain, pp. 40 ff. 3 For the symmachiai, see Francotte, op. cit., pp. 162 ff.; Keil, op. cit., pp. 370 ff. 4 For example by Bury, History of Greece, p. 328, etc. Coleman Phillipson, International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece and Rome, ii, pp. 13 ff. and 19 ff., with more exactness speaks of the First and Second Athenian Leagues. See the protest of Fougères in Daremberg and Saglio, iii, 1, 832, against the loose use of the epithet federal, and allied terms. British writers apparently use the word confederacy with hegemony, organized for mutual protection and the avenging of the losses incurred at the hands of the Persians by Athens and the Ionian maritime states. The official designation of the league was 'the Athenian symmachia.' 5 In it, as in the Peloponnesian League, the allies were bound by special treaties with the leading state, whereby their eleutheria and autonomia were guaranteed. Here, too, provision was made for a council of the allies to determine the policy of the league, but Athens was entrusted with the command of the allied forces, the supervision of the treasury of the league, and the task of enforcing the other cities to fulfil their obligations. This position the Athenians used to deprive the majority of their allies of their freedom in external and internal affairs, so that they became subjects instead of allies, and the league developed into an empire (arché).o Another good example of a symmachia is the second Athenian naval league, to which also the misleading term confederacy is sometimes applied. This league was formed in 378 B.c. to protect the independence of its members against Spartan aggression. Its organization is well known from an Athenian decree of 378/7 B.C. The territorial integrity and the freedom of the contracting parties was expressly guaranteed in the following words: “If anyone of the Greeks or of the barbarians dwelling upon the mainland or upon the islands, provided that they are not subjects of the king, wishes to become an ally of the Athenians and their allies, he may do so, preserving his freedom and autonomy, in the enjoyment of the constitution he may prefer, without receiving a garrison or a governor, and without paying tribute, upon the same conditions as the Chians, the Thebans, and the other allies." The object of the alliance appears in the clause: "And if anyone shall make an attack upon those who have made the alliance either by land or by sea, the Athenians and the allies are to come to their rescue by land and by sea with their full strength in so far as they can." The members of this league were bound together not merely by separate treaties with Athens but also by treaties between each allied state and the group of the other allies. Provision was made for regular sessions of a council representing the allied states, but the final decision in matters affecting the policy of the league rested with the Athenian assembly. Before leaving the discussion of Greek military alliances, we should, I think, devote a little attention to the plan for an alliance of the Greek states advocated by the Athenian publicist Isocrates, and to the Hellenic reference to an association of states to which they do not apply the title confederation. See Encyclopedia Britannica, art. Confederation. However, there is no justification for its application to a Greek symmachia. 5 Inscriptiones Græcæ, i. 9. 6 Francotte, 162 ff.; Keil, 371 ff.; Thucydides, i, 96 ff. 7 C. I. A., ii, 17=Michel, No. 86. 8 Keil, 373-4. |