During this time they kept sending embassies to the Athenians and making complaints so that they might have the best excuse to make war, if the Athenians paid no heed to them.
(Thucydides 1.126.1)
However, it is important to review the events that led up to the outbreak of the war in the light of the terms of the Thirty Year Peace. In this way it will be possible to assess the accuracy of Thucydides’ statement and to determine the degree of blame that each side should incur for infringing the terms of the peace treaty.
The background, 446/5–435
In 446/5, a Thirty Year Peace was agreed between Athens and Sparta on the following (so far as they are known) terms – all references in this chapter are to Thucydides, unless otherwise stated:
1) Athens had to give up control of Nisaea, Pagae, Troezen and Achaea (1.115.1).
2) There should be a list of allies of each side, and each side should keep what it possessed at the time of the treaty with the exception of those mentioned in clause 1 (1.140.2). If any ally were to revolt and be received into the other side’s alliance, then the alliance which received the revolting ally would be deemed to have broken the treaty.
3) Any state not listed was deemed to be a ‘neutral’ and therefore was free to join either alliance, if it wished (1.35.2).
4) Neither side was allowed to make an armed attack on the other, if the latter wished to go to arbitration (1.85.2).
5) Argos, although unlisted, was exempt from clause 3. No military alliance was to exist between Argos and Athens, although diplomatic relations were allowed.
6) There may have been a clause guaranteeing the autonomy of Aegina within the Athenian Empire (1.67.2).
There is a danger with hindsight of believing that the Thirty Year Peace was doomed to end in failure, but this is to deny the skill and optimism with which it was drafted. By producing a list of each side’s allies both spheres of influence had been clearly and legally defined, marking out unambiguous no-go areas. The arbitration clause was very far-sighted, and provided a mechanism to resolve by negotiation rather than a resort to war any future dispute that could not be foreseen in 446/5. There was every hope that the ‘dual hegemony’, now placed on a legal footing, would ensure peaceful relations between the two super-powers for the next generation. The revolt of Samos was to dispel those optimistic hopes.
In 440, Samos, one of the three remaining independent ship-suppliers, clashed with Miletus over the possession of Priene. The Athenians stepped in, resolved the dispute in Miletus’ favour, changed the Samian constitution from oligarchic to democratic, placed oligarchic hostages on Lemnos, installed a garrison and returned home. However, the oligarchs who had escaped earlier, making use of Persian aid, regained control of Samos and revolted from Athens. After a long and arduous campaign, the Athenians crushed the revolt in 439, confiscated the Samian fleet, pulled down their walls, took hostages and forced them to pay an indemnity (1.115.2–117.3; AE64 pp. 39–40). The dispute with Samos should have been an internal Athenian affair, as Samos was a listed ally of Athens, but there is strong evidence that the Spartans had intended to exploit Athens’ problems and launch an attack. The evidence comes from the Corinthian speech to the Athenians in 433:
For when the Samians were in revolt and the other Peloponnesians were divided in their votes whether they should help them, we did not cast our vote against you; we clearly spoke against that, saying each state should punish its own allies.
(Thucydides 1.40.5)
Corinth was referring to a debate in the allies’ chamber of the Peloponnesian League, and the issue under discussion in that chamber was whether to aid Samos in its revolt from Athens. The Peloponnesian League had a bicameral constitution (see Chapter 12), in which the initiative for military action lay with Sparta. Therefore the Spartans had already held an Assembly to discuss the Samos affair and had voted for war, and thus the issue was then submitted to the allies’ chamber for their decision. In the event a majority of the allies, encouraged by Corinth, voted against war, and this decision forced the Spartans to give up their plans. Thus, only six years after the signing of the peace treaty, the Spartans were prepared to break the terms of the treaty and attack the Athenians without provocation – the faction of the hawks was clearly in the ascendant, especially after the exile in 445 of King Pleistoanax, the leader of the doves (see Chapter 12 for an explanation of Spartan hawks and doves). The revelation of Sparta’s hostility and readiness to ignore the treaty must have had a profound effect upon many Athenians, who probably believed that war at some time in the future was now inevitable; it only needed a few Peloponnesian allies to change their minds, when the issue was raised again, to give the Spartans the necessary mandate to wage war. To these Athenians, consolidation and prudent defence throughout the 430s had become imperative. It is reasonable to see the foundation of Amphipolis c.437/6 and Pericles’ Black Sea expedition (Plutarch, Pericles 20) c.436 as part of these measures – the colony of Amphipolis would give the Athenians access to ample timber for their fleet, and Pericles’ show of strength would ensure that the vital supply route for grain was secure.
It was the political unrest in the small polis of Epidamnus in 435 that proved to be the catalyst for the war. Epidamnus was a colony of Corcyra (modern Corfu), which in turn was a colony of Corinth. The democrats had seized power in Epidamnus but the exiled oligarchs, aided by foreign allies, were laying siege to the city. The democrats appealed to Corcyra, their mother-city, for help but the Corcyraeans refused to become involved (1.24.5–7). The democrats then approached the Delphic oracle to ask if they should hand over their city to Corinth, which, in accordance with tradition, had supplied the leader of the Corcyraeans who were about to found the colony of Epidamnus; the Delphic oracle agreed (1.25.2–3). The Corinthians willingly accepted on the grounds that they regarded Epidamnus as belonging as much to them as to the Corcyraeans, and:
at the same time because of their hatred of the Corcyraeans who, although they were colonists of Corinth, did not pay them respect.
(Thucydides 1.25.3)
The Corinthians’ hatred was fuelled by the Corcyraeans’ disdain for them and their belief in the superiority of their navy, which numbered 120 ships. It was this hatred that was to be such a strong underlying motive for the Corinthians’ aggressive behaviour.
The Corinthians sent out a force of troops and settlers to Epidamnus, which in turn led to the Corcyraeans besieging the city (1.26); Corinth then prepared a relief force and declared a new colony of Epidamnus, inviting people to volunteer to become new colonists (1.27). As the issue was fast slipping into armed conflict, the Corcyraeans decided to attempt to resolve the matter by diplomacy. With the backing of Sparta and Sicyon, the Corcyraeans made a generous offer to the Corinthians that, if they were not willing to give up their claims to Epidamnus and recall their troops, the whole matter should be submitted to arbitration, using as arbitrators either mutually agreed cities in the Peloponnese or the oracle at Delphi. They particularly urged the Corinthians not to start a war as this would force the Corcyraeans against their wishes to seek military help from elsewhere – a clear hint of seeking an alliance with Athens (1.28). The Corinthians refused this offer of arbitration and sent out a force of 75 ships and 2,000 ‘hoplites’ to Epidamnus. The battle of Leucimme (435) resulted in a decisive victory for the Corcyraeans, who also gained control of Epidamnus on the same day (1.29). This should have been the end of the matter – the Corinthians, led on by ambition and hatred of the Corcyraeans, had tried to extend their power, but their adventurism had ended in failure. However, the Corinthians were not prepared to let the matter rest.
The grounds of complaint (aitiai)
Having stated the ‘truest explanation’ for the outbreak of the war, Thucydides then deals at length with (in his opinion) the two major openly stated grounds of complaint between the combatants – Athens’ alliance with Corcyra (1.31–55) and the dispute over Potidaea (1.56–65). He also mentions the complaints
of the Aeginetans who protested to the Spartans that their promised autonomy had been infringed, and those of the Megarians who referred to an Athenian decree that banned them from the ports in the Athenian Empire and the market of Athens (1.167). These four issues will be dealt with in turn.
Athens’ alliance with Corcyra
Following their defeat at Leucimme in 435, the Corinthians set about building a new fleet and hiring mercenaries in order to exact revenge against Corcyra. News of these military preparations caused alarm among the Corcyraeans, and so in 433 they sent an embassy to Athens to seek an alliance. The Corinthians, fearing that the combined navies would prevent them from dealing a decisive blow against Corcyra, also sent an embassy to dissuade the Athenians from making an alliance with Corcyra (1.31). A meeting of the ‘Ecclesia’ was held and both sides were given the opportunity to put their case.
The Corcyraeans discussed their reasons for their previous neutrality and admitted that the present circumstances had shown how unwise this policy had been. They spoke of the Spartans’ fear of Athens and their desire for war, and claimed that Corinth’s attack on them was a prelude to an attack on Athens. They particularly stressed that there was no legal impediment for the Athenians in making this alliance:
‘You will not be breaking your treaty with the Spartans, if you accept us into an alliance, since we are neutrals. For it is written down in that treaty that it is possible for any of the Greek states in that position of neutrality to join whichever side it chooses.’
(Thucydides 1.35.2)
The Corcyraeans concluded by pointing out that the three strongest fleets in Greece were those of Athens, Corcyra and Corinth; and that, if the Corinthians gained control of their fleet, the Athenians would have to face their combined navies but, if they allied themselves with Corcyra, the Athenians would have overwhelming superiority in the coming war (1.32–36).
The Corinthians began their speech with abuse of the Corcyraeans, and claimed that Corinth’s current war plans against the Corcyraeans were a result of the Corcyraeans’ provocative behaviour over Epidamnus. The Corinthians stressed that it was not right or just for the Athenians to form an alliance with the Corcyraeans, since the clause in the Thirty Year Peace about the rights of neutral states (see peace terms above) was not meant to include a neutral state which was seeking an alliance for the purpose of waging war against a co-signatory of the treaty. The main thrust of the Corinthian argument concerned the right of a state to discipline its own allies who were in revolt:
‘You should not establish a precedent by which you receive into your alliance those who are in revolt from the other side.’
(Thucydides 1.40.5)
The Corinthians drew a parallel with their refusal to intervene against Athens, when Samos was in revolt in 440 (see p. 306), and expressed their conviction that the Athenians should pursue the same righteous course by refusing to help a Corinthian ally in revolt. They concluded that the Corcyraeans were scaremongering with their claims about the imminence of war; and that there was no certainty that war would break out, although it would not be in Athens’ best interests to make Corinth an immediate enemy, even if they might become enemies in the future (1.37–43).
There was little in the Corinthian speech to assuage the Athenians’ concern about the possibility of war between themselves and the Peloponnesians, and this served to add weight to that particular point of the Corcyraeans. The greatest difficulty for the Corinthians was to produce an argument to counter-act the Corcyraeans’ convincing statement that the Athenians had a legal and legitimate right to make an alliance with them, as it was specifically laid down in the treaty that a neutral state was free to ally itself with whatever side it wished. The Corinthians attempted to cloud and obscure the issue by equating Corcyra’s position with that of Samos. On their interpretation Corcyra was a Corinthian ally that had revolted, and thus they should have the right to discipline their recalcitrant ally without outside interference, as they themselves had argued to the Peloponnesians at the time of Samos’ revolt in 440. The fallacy in the Corinthians’ argument was that Corcyra, although being a colony of Corinth, was not an ally and therefore could not be in revolt – thus there was no comparability between Corcyra and Samos.
It took two meetings of the Ecclesia for the Athenians to reach their decision. In the first meeting a majority were more inclined to favour Corinth but in the second meeting:
They decided not to make an offensive and defensive alliance (summachia) with the Corcyraeans – for if the Corcyraeans asked the Athenians to sail with them against the Corinthians, they would be breaking their treaty with the Peloponnesians – but they made a defensive alliance (epimachia) to help each other if anyone were to attack Corcyra or Athens or one of their allies.
(Thucydides 1.44.1)
The main reason for granting Corcyra an alliance was the Athenians’ belief that war was inevitable and their desire not to forfeit Corcyra’s considerable fleet to the Corinthians. It can be argued that any form of military alliance between Athens and Corcyra was provocative, since a state of war existed between Corcyra and Corinth. However, it can also be argued that the Athenians had a legal right under the terms of the Thirty Year Peace to make a full offensive/defensive alliance, but deliberately refused this option on the specific grounds that they could be held responsible for a breach of that treaty, if the Corcyraeans should go on the offensive. In addition, the alliance was made when there were no military operations taking place, and the Corcyraeans were not planning any offensive action against Corinth. Therefore the initiative and responsibility for any future military clash would lie solely with the Corinthians, as hostilities would only break out if the Corinthians attacked Corcyra. Athens’ defensive alliance was aimed at warning off Corinth, and thus preventing conflict.
The Athenians then sent ten ships and three generals as a reinforcement to Corcyra. Such a small force would have done little to calm Corcyraean fears, especially as the Corinthians were equipping a fleet of 150 ships. However, this small fleet with its large number of generals (the same number as on the Sicilian expedition in 415), including Lacedaimonius the son of Cimon and ‘proxenos’ of Sparta, reveals Athens’ true objective: their preferred means for resolving their difficulties with Corinth was diplomacy and not military force. This is confirmed by the explicit instructions given to the Athenian generals:
The Athenians ordered the generals not to fight a sea-battle with the Corinthians unless they should sail against Corcyra and were about to land there or at some other point in their territory – then they were to prevent it as best as possible. They gave these orders in order to avoid breaking the treaty.
(Thucydides 1.45.3)
It would be interesting to know if these orders were made known to the Corcyraeans and, if they were, what their reaction was. In essence, the Athenians were ordering their generals not to fight unless the Corinthians were about to land on Corcyra or its territory, which situation would only arise if the Corcyraean fleet had already been defeated at sea – an extreme interpretation of a ‘defensive’ alliance.
The Corinthians decided to press ahead with their task force of 150 ships against Corcyra (1.46.1). They may have hoped that the Athenians, when it came to the crunch, would not intervene through fear of provoking a war with Sparta, or, if they did intervene, that Sparta and the Peloponnesians would come to their aid. In the battle of Sybota (433) the Athenian ships showed great restraint, offering moral support to the Corcyraeans but not joining battle with the Corinthians. However, when it was clear that the Corcyraeans had been defeated and the Corinthians were pressing on, the Athenian ships joined in the fighting. After their victory, the Corinthians set about killing the shipwrecked sailors still in the water rather than gather in their disabled ships, which was the usual practice after a sea battle. Then the Corinthians, having finally picked up their dead, sailed out again for a second battle (1.48–50.3). As the two sides prepared to engage battle, the Corinthians backed water
because they had seen 20 Athenian ships (with two more generals) approaching. These had been sent out as a reinforcement by the Athenians as they feared that the original ten ships would be insufficient to save the Corcyraeans from defeat. It was now too dark for a sea battle, but on the next day the remainder of the Corcyraean fleet and the 30 Athenian ships sailed out to offer battle (1.50.4–52.1).
The Corinthians were now worried owing to their need to guard their prisoners, their lack of facilities to repair their damaged ships and the increased size of the Athenian naval forces; but there was a bigger problem, now that they had decided to return home:
The Corinthians were afraid that the Athenians, thinking that the treaty had been broken because they had fought against each other, would prevent them from sailing away.
(Thucydides 1.52.3)
The Corinthians realized how vulnerable their fleet was in this position and how the Athenians could inflict very serious damage on the grounds that a state of war now existed. However, the Athenians had no intention of escalating the conflict nor viewing the situation as a breach of the treaty, but stated clearly that the Corinthians were free to sail away unhindered, provided they made no attempt on Corcyra or its territory (1.53). Once again the Athenians were sticking strictly to the terms of the defensive alliance with Corcyra, and were determined to give the Corinthians no grounds to accuse them of being responsible for breaking the Thirty Year Peace – the conflict, culminating in the battle of Sybota, had been brought about by the Corinthians’ determination to crush Corcyra, and they must take the main responsibility for provoking hostilities.
Aspects of Greek History (750–323BC) Page 45