Immagini della pagina

country, Corinth.

The Megarians complained that their commerce had been ruined by a recent decree of the Athenians excluding them from all ports within the Athenian jurisdiction. Aegina was aggrieved because Athens refused it autonomy. And so on with other States. In 432 B.c. an assembly of representatives from the allied towns met in Sparta. Apart from the numerous Peloponnesian confederates and the others just mentioned, there were the Boeotians, the Phocians, the Leucadians, the Ambraciots, the Anactorians, and the Opuntian Locrians. The main object of the association was to preserve object of the

Peloponnesian Peloponnesus from danger, and every member was to aid any other who happened to be attacked by any town that was not in the league. Thus in the abovementioned treaty between Sparta and the Argives, the sixth clause was to the effect that if any one from without the Peloponnese should come with evil intent, the Peloponnesians were to take counsel together and repel the enemy. It was at all events clear that no ally was to commence hostilities against any other ally fighting a common foe.? Should any disputes arise, they were to be settled by diplomatic methods, or by consulting the oracle at Delphi, or by arbitration. Thus in the second treaty of alliance between Lacedaemon and Argos, 418 B.c., it was expressly laid down in the first clause that, in case of controversy, they should submit to arbitration on fair and equal terms according to their ancient customs. If reference to an arbitral tribunal was refused, or its decision was not accepted, there was nothing to prevent recourse to war."


Sparta decided, probably by separate agreements with 1Τhuc. V. 77: αι δε κα των εκτός Πελοποννήσου τις επί των Πελοπόννασον γαν ίη επί κακό, αλεξέμεναι αμοθεί βουλευσαμένους, υπα και δικαιότατα δοκή τους Πελοποννασίοις. 2 Xenoph. Hellen. v. 4. 36, 37.

επί τοις ίσοις και ομοίοις δίκας διδόντας καττα Trápia.-Cf. ibid. v. 31.

+ Thuc. iv. 134.

8 Thuc. v. 79:

Sparta---and the allied forces.

the allies, what contingents were to be contributed by all, of which the chief command was taken by the Lacedaemonians. Subsequently, however, by a decree of the Federal Council, any State was enabled to commute active service for a money payment. In the case of naval expeditions, maritime towns were obliged to supply vessels, whilst the inland States could send proportionate sums to the common treasury at Sparta. It appears there were no regular taxes analogous to those imposed in the Athenian leagues.

The Federal Council was summoned by Sparta, where the representatives usually assembled. Each State was entitled to one vote ; and the decision of the majority was binding on all. Sparta's counsels did not always prevail to the extent of rendering nugatory those of the other members; we find that on more than one occasion the ultimate resolution was contrary to the persuasions of the leading State. The Council had competence in determining questions relating to the establishment of peace, or to the prosecution of war ; though, in the case of an unexpected attack on the Peloponnese, Sparta was permitted to call out the confederate forces without waiting for a decree of the council. Like Athens in the case of the Delian confederacies, Sparta took the chief part not only in the field, but in the common deliberations, and in the shaping of the policy. Her ephors presided over the federal assembly.

A few words may be added here on one or two other leagues that had been established in Greece.

În Achaea* a league had long existed—largely for

Other Greek leagues.

The Achaean league.

1 Cf. Herodot. v. 91-95.
2 Τhuc. i. 119, 125; ν. 30: ... ειρημένον κύριον είναι ότι αν το

. ; v
πλήθος των ξυμμάχων ψηφίσηται, ήν μή τι θεών ή ηρώων κώλυμα ή.

3 Cf. Herodot. v. 93.

4 See G. de Sainte-Croix, Des anciens gouvernemens fédératifs (Paris, 1798); E. Helwing, Geschichte des achäischen Bundes, nach den Quellen dargestellt (Lemgo, 1829); E. A. Freeman, History of federal government 1 For example, Helwing, op. cit. p. 237, says : “Aus der obigen Darstellung scheint hervorzugehen dass die achäische Eidgenossenschaft nicht, wie wohl geschehen, als ein Staatenbund auzusehen sey, sondern dass sie vielmehr die Benennung eines Bundesstaats verdiene." -Cf. also Heffter, Das Europäische Völkerrecht, SS 20, 21.

the age

religious purposes—between the twelve principal cities of that country. After its suppression by the Macedonians, these towns were subjected to the oppressive measures of Antigonus Gonatas, and, in consequence, they began to coalesce once more. On the withdrawal of Antigonus from Greece, a new Achaean league of a political character was established (about 251 B.c.), mainly owing to the efforts of Aratus of Sicyon. Questions of war, peace, and alliances were decided by a general assembly (designated variously συνέδριον, σύγκλητος, εκκλησία, αγορά) which consisted of all Achaeans of

of thirty or more, and included the representative senate, the Boulí, another senate, the yepovola (a special *council of elders'), the magistrates, and the people. It met twice a year in a sacred grove near Aegium. It enjoyed complete sovereignty in foreign relationships, in regard to matters affecting the league as a whole. No single constituent State could, on its own authority, make war on, or conclude peace with, foreign powers, or conduct diplomatic proceedings by the agency of ambassadors. Indeed the organization of the Achaean confederacy was so perfect (thanks to the absence of any greatly preponderating State and excessive political ambition), that it has been designated a real national government,-a Bundesstaat (or Föderativstaat), and not merely a Staatenbund. It possessed, of course, the right to elect the officers of the confederacy, the chief of whom being the otpatnyós, the commander-in-chief, who performed civil as well as military functions, the ypaunateús, the secretary, and a council of ten magistrates, the demiourgoi.? In 245 B.C., Aratus was in Greece and Italy (London, 1893); M. Dubois, Les ligues étolienne et achéenne. Leur histoire et leurs institutions, Nature et durée de leur antagonisme (Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, 1885).

Cf. Polyb. xxiv. 5. 16.


The Aetolian league.

appointed strategus, and again two years later when he succeeded in wresting Corinth from the Macedonians, and gaining it for the league. It was followed by Troezen, Epidaurus, Hermione, and other cities; and ultimately the league included Athens, Salamis, Megara, Aegina, and all the Peloponnese, except Sparta, Elis, and a few of the Arcadian towns.

The Aetolian leaguel was similarly an association of tribes. Its history is somewhat obscure ; but it must have had a fixed constitution in the time of Philip and Alexander, seeing that Aristotle wrote a treatise on it. We find that it played an important part in the Lamian war (323-322 B.c.). After Alexander's death, the Aetolians conquered Locris, Phocis, Boeotia, and parts of Acarnania, Thessaly, and Epirus, and got both the Amphictyonic Council and the Delphian oracle in their power. In 220 B.c. they defeated the Achaeans, who soon entered into an alliance with Philip. The war which ensued between the two leagues is commonly designated the Social war (220-217 B.c.). Later the Aetolian league suffered various vicissitudes of fortune.

As to its constitution, there was a general council called the Panaetolium (IIavaitóliov), which assembled every autumn, usually at Thermum, to elect the strategus and other officers. The details of the administration were attended to by a kind of

a kind of permanent council, or executive committee, termed the Apocleti (οι 'Απόκλητοι).

In all these and similar confederacies, or alliances of a less comprehensive extent, the reciprocal rights and obligations of the members thereof were either explicitly


1 See Dubois, op. cit. pp. 185 seq. 2 Livy, xxxi. 29, speaks of the “ concilium Aetolorum quod Panaetolium vocant ; and, again, in xxxi. 32, he mentions the “ Panaetolicum concilium.'

3 Strabo, x. 3. 2.

4 Polyb. xx. 1. 1.—Cf. Livy, xxxvi. 29 : “Quum in concilio delectorum quos Apocletos vocant. ..

Rights and duties of confederates.

laid down in the special treaties respectively entered into between them, or were understood as following by a necessary and immediate implication from the avowed objects of the union. Of course, infractions were not by any means infrequent, but the principles were none the less recognized, and often forcibly and drastically insisted on. Thus the confederates were bound to help in war, and usually, as we have seen, by contingents or substituted contributions of a predetermined amount.

Frequently this duty devolved also on the allies of the confederates, that is, of course, when they were not for any urgent reason specifically excluded from the league ; though, as a general rule, express provisions on this matter were made in the major treaties. At the congress of Nicaea, the Aetolian ambassadors demanded the restoration by Philip of all the cities which had formerly been members of the Aetolian league. In reply, Philip pointed out that the Aetolians had not only plundered their enemies, but also their allies when at war with each other,—and even without a formal decree of the people ; that there seemed to be in their eyes no clearly defined line of demarcation between hostility and friendship. How then, exclaimed he, could they have any right to blame him if, as an ally of Prusias, he had acted in support of his own allies against the Ciani, who had been allied to the Aetolians ? i

The federal States or allies were prohibited from As to concluding treaties with the common enemy, or from conclusion of violating their engagement by establishing relationships with another State, even under pressure of an urgent cause. When Cleomenes was blockading the Isthmus, the Megarians, who had been members of the Achaean league, finding themselves cut off from the Achaeans, joined the Boeotians with the consent of the former. Discovering, however, that Boeotia was in a disorganized condition, and disapproving, moreover, of its constitu

1 Polyb. xviii. 5: πόθεν ούν έξεστι τούτοις εγκαλεϊν νύν, ει φίλος υπάρχων Αιτωλοίς εγώ, Προυσίου δε σύμμαχος, έπραξα τι κατά Κιανών, βοηθών τους αυτού συμμάχους;


« IndietroContinua »