Athens was clearly the ideal candidate for the leadership of the war against Persia. The present and future campaigns would demand a ‘hegemon’ (leader) who could conduct a vigorous, naval offensive, and one who was sympathetic to the aspirations of the Ionians. The Athenians’ 200 ships, their Ionian kinship with many of the allies, and their support of the Ionians in 499 and in 479 made them the natural and very popular choice. But the big question was: of what should she become the leader? The Hellenic League? There was little doubt that Athens would become the hegemon in the annual elections for 477/6, especially after Sparta’s withdrawal. However, this leadership had little to attract the Athenians. The annual election for hegemon would give little security to the Athenians and was not a fair basis for their commitment of so many ships and men. In addition, the Peloponnesians with their votes would still have influence in deciding policy, and the Ionian mainlanders would still be excluded from membership. Consequently, the obvious solution was the establishment of an entirely new league – hence the creation in 478/7 of the Delian League.
Aims
They made an assessment of which allied cities should provide money for the war against the Persians and which were to provide ships. They did this because a pretext for the alliance was to take revenge for their losses by devastating the Persian king’s territory.
(Thucydides 1.96.1; AE11 p. 15)
Thucydides’ enigmatic choice of words –‘a pretext’ (‘proschema’) – implies very strongly that one of the stated aims (he uses ‘a’ not ‘the’), i.e. vengeance, was not the genuine aim. The Greek word ‘proschema’ has unpleasant connotations of falsehood and is normally used as a cloak for real motives or intentions. Various views have been expressed as to the reason why Thucydides used this word. One view is that, as it comes early in the ‘Pentecontaetia Excursus’, the purpose of which is to demonstrate the growth of Athenian power and the fear that this caused in Sparta, he believed that the Athenians from the outset deliberately intended to impose their power on the League allies. Furthermore, Thucydides’ selection of events in the Pentecontaetia places more emphasis on the Athenians’ suppression of their allies than their campaigns against Persia. However, such a viewpoint either credits the Athenians with remarkable and cynical foresight in 478/7 or criticizes Thucydides for using hindsight in imputing such motives to the Athenians. Another viewpoint is that the war against Persia was a pretext and that the real war that the Athenians were preparing for was against Sparta and the Peloponnesian League. However, although the sources disagree about whether the transfer of the leadership from Sparta to Athens was amicable or contentious (see below and Chapters 11 and 12), the main thrust of the League’s campaigns in the 470s and 460s was against Persia and during this period the Athenians were led by the fervently pro-Spartan Cimon.
Yet another viewpoint is that the Athenians’ real aim was simply and solely to gain leadership itself in 478/7 and the war against Persia was a good pretext for this. The Athenians clearly saw that their status as one of the two super-powers in Greece would be confirmed and increased by being the hegemon of a strong naval league. The example of the Spartans’ dominant influence in Greek affairs owing to their leadership of the powerful Peloponnesian League was a great incentive to the Athenians to create something similar, in which they could invest their newly acquired military strength and prestige. Indeed it can be argued that this stated pretext was beneficial to both the Athenians and the Delian League allies since all the members could agree upon it, although harbouring different ideas as to what they actually wanted from the League. The Athenians, for their part, had suffered severe material loss from the two Persian occupations of 480 and 479. The allies, for their part, especially the cities on the Asiatic mainland and the neighbouring islands, fresh from deliverance from Persian domination, wanted continued freedom, as the envoys from Mytilene stated in 428 when asking for Spartan support for their revolt:
‘We first became allies of the Athenians when you [the Spartans] abandoned us after the Persian War and they remained to see to the rest of the job. We became allies, however, not in order to subjugate the Greeks to the Athenians, but to free the Greeks from the Persians.’
(Thucydides 3.10.2–3; AE12 p. 15)
Constitution
Both Aristotle and Plutarch (Aristeides 25.1; AE17 p. 17) mention an event not recorded in Thucydides:
and he had the Ionians swear oaths to have the same friends and enemies, oaths over which they sank iron bars in the sea.
(Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 4–5; AE16 p. 16)
Until recently it was believed that this sinking of iron bars signified that the alliance was to be a permanent one, i.e. the League would last until the iron bars should rise to the surface. This interpretation was reinforced by Herodotus’ description of a similar action: the Phocaeans, having been forced to desert Phocaea because of the growth of the Persian Empire in the later sixth century, returned briefly and killed the Persian garrison before setting off for a new homeland. However, before leaving, they called down curses on any of their number who stayed behind in Phocaea, and then they sank a mass of iron in the sea and swore that they would never return until this iron reappeared (1.165). However, H. Jacobsen has suggested a different interpretation of this action: in other ancient Mediterranean societies the practice of taking oaths and throwing down objects is not to signify permanence but the death or exile of any person breaking the oath. In Plutarch’s and Aristotle’s accounts, it is the oaths that are sealed by the throwing of lumps of metal into the sea. Therefore it is possible that Herodotus misinterpreted the action of the Phocaeans, and that the meaning of Aristeides’ action in 478/7 was to threaten death or exile to anyone who broke the oath ‘to have the same friends and enemies’ and not to suggest permanence for the League.
Structure
One of the most important and the most problematic of the original terms concerns the structure by which the Athenians and the allies reached their decisions about League policy. The choice lay between either a unicameral or a bicameral decision-making structure. In a unicameral structure, every member, including the hegemon, has only one vote in a single chamber – a simple majority deciding policy. In a bicameral structure, there are two chambers, consisting of the hegemon in one chamber and the rest of the allies in the other chamber. Each chamber is constitutionally equal in power to each other, and therefore a policy is only authorized when both chambers vote in favour. If one chamber opposes the proposed policy and passes a veto, then the policy is rejected. In this structure, the allies’ decision would be reached by a majority verdict within their chamber.
Thucydides gives the following information:
Delos was their treasury and it was at the sanctuary there that their meetings were held. They were leaders of allies who at first were independent and took counsel in meetings open to all.
(Thucydides 1.96.2–97.1; AE15 p.16)
In the above quotation, the crucial section is ‘who. … took counsel in meetings open to all’.Ifthe‘who’ refers solely to the ‘allies’, then this would be evidence for the allies meeting separately from the hegemon to make their own decisions, thereby confirming the League as being bicameral. On the other hand, if the ‘who’ refers not only to the allies but also includes the subject of the sentence i.e. ‘they [the Athenians]’, then it suggests that the Athenians and the allies met in general meetings together to make decisions in a unicameral structure. It is clear that this source is ambiguous and can be interpreted in either way, although it is worth observing that in the original Greek the ‘who’ is a participle agreeing with ‘the allies’, thereby strengthening the claim for a bicameral institution. Further support for a bicameral structure comes from Diodorus:
Immediately, therefore, Aristeides advised all the allies, who were holding a general meeting, to choose Delos as their common Treasury, to deposit there all the money they collected.
(Diodorus 11.47.1; AE19 p. 17)
This source strongly suggests that the allies were having their own meeting and that Aristides, whether in an official or private capacity, was an outsider, offering advice to their deliberations.
There is one literary source, however, which strongly supports the idea that the League was unicameral. In 428, the Mytileneans, after revolting from Athens, were addressing the Spartans at Olympia in an attempt to persuade them to support their revolt by armed intervention, and were explaining how the Athenians had gained mastery over the League:
On the other hand, our position demonstrated that those who had equal votes (isopsephoi) did not take part in campaigns against their will, and that those whom they attacked must have done something wrong.
(Thucydides 3.11.4; AE126 p. 61)
‘Isopsephoi’ means literally ‘equal in vote’ and therefore the Mytileneans were apparently stating that their vote was equal to the Athenians’, which situation could only have existed in a unicameral league. However, it has been pointed out (by de Ste Croix) that this Greek word has been used elsewhere by Thucydides to mean ‘having the same power of effective decision’. If this is so, then the Athenians were claiming that the Mytileneans, because they were autonomous allies and consequently had the same power as the Athenians to make their own independent decisions, must have agreed to the policy of suppressing allies in revolt, since they had the power to refuse. However, earlier in the same chapter, the Mytileneans stated:
But since they had most of the allies under their thumb, our continuing equality was something they reasonably would find increasingly difficult to put up with. They would contrast us who alone remained their equals with the majority who had submitted to them.
(Thucydides 3.11.1; AE126 pp. 60–61)
The second sentence in particular strongly suggests a unicameral organization with Mytilene having an equal vote with Athens but subsequently being outvoted by the subject-allies, who voted as the Athenians wished.
The ambiguity of the literary sources certainly causes difficulty in the attempt to establish the facts about the decision-making structure of the Delian League. However, the Athenians and the allies were hardly likely to have made their judgement in a political vacuum in 478/7. There were in Greece three other leagues, whose success or failure would probably have played a significant and influential role in the preliminary discussions leading up to the formation of the Delian League. There was the unicameral Ionian League, which operated during the Ionian Revolt (499–494) and of which many of the new Delian League allies had been members. The lack of decisive and authoritative leadership in this league led to disastrous disunity at the battle of Lade in 494 and the collapse of the revolt. There was also the unicameral Hellenic League, which was successful in achieving its aim of saving Greece from Persia, but there had been many serious, potentially destructive disagreements over policy within the League with repeated Athenian threats to desert. The third League was the bicameral Peloponne-sian League with Sparta as its hegemon. This league was the backbone of the Spartans’ success in Greek affairs from the second half of the sixth century onwards and was the dominant element in gaining Sparta the hegemony of the Hellenic League. A bicameral league would be attractive not only to the Athenians, with the success of the Peloponnesian League before them, but also to the Ionians, whose previous hopes of liberty had failed in a unicameral league. Finally, exactly one hundred years later, the Second Athenian League was set up as a bicameral alliance. The allies were determined that this time they would avoid the mistakes that had led to their former subjugation to Athens by a carefully drafted constitution. It is difficult to believe, if the Delian League was unicameral, thus exercising more control over the Athenians as hegemon, that the allies would give the Athenians so much extra power in the fourth century by establishing a bicameral league. What else can be said about the general meetings, apart from the issue of whether they were unicameral or bicameral? How often were they held? What were the topics of discussion? Did they have a judicial role in dealing with breaches of discipline by the League members, as the allied chamber in the Second Athenian League had? Presumably there was originally provision for a general meeting at least once a year before the beginning of the sailing season to decide upon the strategy for the forthcoming campaigning season. However, after 454 and the probable removal of the treasury from Delos to Athens, the matter becomes academic as the removal probably also marked the demise of these general meetings.
Finance
It was at that time [spring 477] that the Athenians first established the office of Hellenotamiai [Treasurers of the Greeks]. These were the men who received the tribute, as the money that was contributed was called. The first tribute that was assessed amounted to 460 talents. Delos was their treasury and it was at the sanctuary that their meetings were held.
(Thucydides 1.96.2; AE15 p. 16)
These financial regulations established the treasury at Delos, which was a centre of religious importance to the Greeks; the treasurers were called the ‘Hellenotamiae’ (Treasurers of the Greeks), and these officials would be Athenian, selected by and responsible to the Athenian demos. The Delian League allies would make their contribution either by paying phoros (tribute) or by supplying ships (1.96.1; AE11 p. 15). It was essential at the beginning of this great enterprise that there was no perceived unfairness in the assessment of each ally’s contribution:
Wanting the burden on each city to be moderate, they asked the Athenians for Aristeides’ help, and instructed him to consider the land and income of each city and to fix the contributions according to the resources of each.
(Plutarch, Aristeides 24.1; AE20 p. 17)
Aristides, by making an assessment with which all the allies agreed, earned the title of ‘Aristides the Just’ (Diodorus 11.47.2; AE19 p. 17).
The first assessment of ‘phoros’ (tribute) was 460 talents, although Diodorus, writing much later and prone to error, made the sum 560 talents (11.47.1; AE19 p. 17). This figure of Thucydides has caused problems, as it appears to be too high when compared with other evidence. In 454/3, the Athenians probably moved the League treasury to Athens and devoted one-sixtieth of each ally’s phoros to Athena as ‘first fruits’; these offerings were recorded on stone and are always referred to as the ‘Athenian Tribute Lists’ (ATLs) by modern historians. Although these lists are fragmentary, there is confidence in accepting the figure of c.430 talents as the collection in the late 430s, when membership of the League had increased (e.g. Carystos and Aegina) and when the number of those who had converted from supplying ships to paying phoros had risen dramatically (only Lesbos and Chios still supplied ships). Therefore a figure well in excess of 460 talents would have been expected by the 430s, not a decrease. There have been various attempts to resolve this dilemma: the Athenians may have reduced the assessment in the years following 478/7; or 460 talents may have been an optimistic sum, and included the assessment not only of those who joined in 478 but of those whom the Athenians hoped would join the League; or the ATLs are unreliable, as some phoros was collected at source and not recorded on the quota lists. The most attractive solution is to accept that the ship-suppliers were assessed in a phoros equivalence (possibly one ship was the equivalent of 1 talent), and therefore the 460 talents includes cash, ships and men. Certainly, when, in the 460s onwards, ship-suppliers wished to convert to phoros-paying status, a cash equivalence was worked out (1.99.3; AE29 p. 21). It may even have been the case that Athens’ naval contribution to the new League was assessed in a phoros equivalence and included in the original sum of 460 talents – if this represented a third or more, then the allies’ original contribution would have been much smaller in 478, and there would be no problem about the later collection of c.430 talents as it would represent a rise. Many problems, similar to those surrounding the financial arrangements above, still exist owing to the lack of detail in Thucydides’ account of the League.
From ‘League’ to ‘Empire’, 478/7–446/5
The sources
Literary
The main and best literary source for the account of the transition from league to empire from its establishment in 478/7 to the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War in 431 is Thucydides. He covers this period, which is usually referred to as the Pentecontaetia (the ‘Fifty Years’), in Book 1 chapters 89–117. However, care must be exercised when using Thucydides, as he had no intention of writing a full and thorough history of the development of the Athenian Empire – that was reserved for his account of the history of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides’ main contention or, as he states it in 1.23, ‘the truest cause of the war’ was the growth of Athenian imperial power and the fear that this caused among the Spartans, forcing them to go to war. Thus the main purpose of the Pentecontaetia is to persuade the reader of the correctness of Thucydides’ judgement about the real cause of the war. Therefore, by a process of selection and omission, of emphasis and understatement, he shapes his account of these years to demonstrate the stages in the gradual breakdown of the Athenian–Spartan relationship: the willing and harmonious change of leadership in the war against Persia in 478/7, the early Delian League campaigns against the Persians, the gradual but progressive intensification of Athenian imperial control over their allies, the campaigns and successes against Sparta’s Peloponnesian League allies in the First Peloponnesian War, until finally the fear of the Spartans for their power and security became so great in the 430s that they declared war on the Athenians (1.88; AE1 p. 9).
Aspects of Greek History (750–323BC) Page 27