Delian League/athenian Empire, What it was, what is wasn't and what it could have been. Options

[Neos Dionysos]

This topic has always interested me, and I would love to hear from others on this as well. A little background, the Delian League was established as an offensive and defensive alliance against Persia and originally Sparta led the crusade against the Persians but the failed invasion of the '10 thousand', was something Sparta could not shake and so relinqushed the leadership of the campaign to Athens, who then established the league and began to make itself known to Persia. Soon, Athens used it hegemony of the league to become imperialistic in her aims and would persecute league members who tried to leave, forced 'liberated' cities to join the league and commuted all league members to give money instead of men or ships or supplies thereby allowing Athens to increase her navy in a huge manner and the final major act was making the league treasury mov from Delos to that of Athens herself. Athens actions, forced on the Peleponnesian War which is so well known to us by Thucydides. Thoughts, comments anyone?

This post has been edited by Neos Dionysos: Jan 23 2006, 02:27 AM

[Ursus]

I think the Delian League is one of the great "what if's" of history. What if this Athenian led federation had endured and became the principle player in the East rather than Alexander and his successors?

Aside from that, there might be an interesting discussion on the relation of democray to imperialism. Is imperialism something repugnant to democracies, or is it something demanded by democracies? Trying to have this discussion without it falling prey to to modern politics would be a challenge.

[FLavius Valerius...]

Didn't Sparta have its own league or some sort in response to Athenian influence over other city-states?
Oh also, how does the religious fervor of the Spartans affect them in the war if at all?

[Neos Dionysos]

I think the Delian League is one of the great "what if's" of history. What if this Athenian led federation had endured and became the principle player in the East rather than Alexander and his successors?

Aside from that, there might be an interesting discussion on the relation of democray to imperialism. Is imperialism something repugnant to democracies, or is it something demanded by democracies? Trying to have this discussion without it falling prey to to modern politics would be a challenge.

I know... I was hesitant to post it because I am afraid this will turn into modern politics, though I am sure we know not to, I am refereing to new comers but I am sure we are on guard on that.

You know, to be honest I have never thought about that 'what if'. Perhaps Philip would never have had an independant Macedonia to build up to produce his kingdom for Alexander, Of course, Philip was the 3rd and youngest son of Amyntas III so perhaps had Macedonia been dependant on Athens or under her protection, the other brothers would have continued to regin and Alexander who have never been.

I also think that Imperialism is not something democracies hate, or is demanded, I think Imperialism is something that democracies publicly deny and avoid but strong democracies hold close and even promote imperial attitudes because it is to their very beniefit and to thier ideals and forms of government, which is shown in the actions Athens had done to secure herself.

This post has been edited by Neos Dionysos: Jan 23 2006, 02:25 AM

[M. Porcius Cato]

In my opinion, the attempt of Athens to become an imperial power was both an inevitable result of its direct democracy and the cause of its failure to accomplish this end. On the one hand, the mob was itching to slaughter the weaker members of the League; on the other hand, it had its best military officers arrested for any set-back, thereby undercutting any chance it had at an empire.

As is typical, the mob never holds ITSELF responsible for its mistakes (after all, the very idea of democracy is vox populi vox dei). Republics are much better than democracies in this regard because they allow men of merit to compete for the reins of government while being answerable to the people only for their jobs, not their very lives.

[Honorius]

Didn't Sparta have its own league or some sort in response to Athenian influence over other city-states?
Oh also, how does the religious fervor of the Spartans affect them in the war if at all?

I do recall reading somewhere that sparta did have its own league but i cant remeber the name...maybe achaen?

[Neos Dionysos]

Didn't Sparta have its own league or some sort in response to Athenian influence over other city-states?
Oh also, how does the religious fervor of the Spartans affect them in the war if at all?

I do recall reading somewhere that sparta did have its own league but i cant remeber the name...maybe achaen?

Yes, it was the Peloponnesian League, which was headed and lead by Spartans by known more so as the Lacedaemonians.

This post has been edited by Neos Dionysos: Jan 23 2006, 07:46 AM

[Pantagathus]

In essence the basic Greek form of the ‘heroic ideal’ did not lend itself to imperial ends as did the Roman’s with theirs focusing on servitude to the State... They were naturally inclined to a sort of selfishness that hindered the League’s growth into an actual imperial power.

Best said by Thucydides:

”Again, wherever there were tyrants, their habit of providing simply for themselves, of looking solely to their personal comfort and family aggrandizement, made safety the great aim of their policy, and prevented anything great proceeding from them; though they would each have their affairs with their immediate neighbors...

Thus for a long time everywhere in Hellas do we find causes which make the states alike incapable of combination for great and national ends, or of any vigorous action of their own.”

[Neos Dionysos]

In essence the basic Greek form of the ‘heroic ideal’ did not lend itself to imperial ends as did the Roman’s with theirs focusing on servitude to the State... They were naturally inclined to a sort of selfishness that hindered the League’s growth into an actual imperial power.

Best said by Thucydides:

”Again, wherever there were tyrants, their habit of providing simply for themselves, of looking solely to their personal comfort and family aggrandizement, made safety the great aim of their policy, and prevented anything great proceeding from them; though they would each have their affairs with their immediate neighbors...

Thus for a long time everywhere in Hellas do we find causes which make the states alike incapable of combination for great and national ends, or of any vigorous action of their own.”

Ok, so you are arguing that thier selfishness hindered thier ability to grow imperially? I agree to an extent, they did not have loyalty to the state like Rome, but they did to thier own respective cities etc, so Athens was doing what best suited Athens and to hell with the other cities they came across, essentially what they did.

I wonder then, is imperial designs an inevitable part of being the leading role in a league or alliance? It happened to Athens, it happened to Sparta, it happened to Thebes, and to Athens again during the 'Second Naval Confederation'.

[Ursus]

I wonder then, is imperial designs an inevitable part of being the leading role in a league or alliance?

Within the context of Ancient Greek cultural values, I would say yes. To be paramount in anything and everything was the Greek way.

[Pantagathus]

Ok, so you are arguing that thier selfishness hindered thier ability to grow imperially? I agree to an extent, they did not have loyalty to the state like Rome, but they did to thier own respective cities etc, so Athens was doing what best suited Athens and to hell with the other cities they came across, essentially what they did.

But there were quite a numerous amount of powerful/influencial city states in the vicinity all trying to accomplish the same thing (to varying degrees) which hindered them from creating an elaborate Empire. That is the essence of Thucydides' comment.

[tflex]

Athens as usual made the mistake of annoying the Spartans who were the military backbone of the Delian league. The Athenians throughtout their history were ungrateful backstabbing swines that owed their security and existence to the Spartans. Whenever their security was threatened they ran like dogs to the Spartans begging for help, only to betray them once they were saved. I think Sparta should have stepped away and let the Persians teach those wothless currupt Athenians a lesson.

Had the Athenians behaved in a proper manner and yielded to Sparta once and for all, I think Greece living under Spartan laws would have grown into a formidable empire that would have challenged Rome itself.

This post has been edited by tflex: Jan 27 2006, 08:54 PM

[M. Porcius Cato]

Within the context of Ancient Greek cultural values, I would say yes. To be paramount in anything and everything was the Greek way.

What effort did the Spartans make to be paramount in trade, in art, or in philosophy? Seems to me that they were pretty content with their mediocrity in these domains.

[Neos Dionysos]

Athens as usual made the mistake of annoying the Spartans who were the military backbone of the Delian league. The Athenians throughtout their history were ungrateful backstabbing swines that owed their security and existence to the Spartans. Whenever their security was threatened they ran like dogs to the Spartans begging for help, only to betray them once they were saved. I think Sparta should have stepped away and let the Persians teach those wothless currupt Athenians a lesson.

Had the Athenians behaved in a proper manner and yielded to Sparta once and for all, I think Greece living under Spartan laws would have grown into a formidable empire that would have challenged Rome itself.

The Spartans were never a part of the Delian League. The Delian League came about after the failed 'March of the Ten Thousand' which was led by a Spartan commander and they lost credibilty. Sparta relienquished control to Athens who then took the lead against Persia and set up the league.

The problems were that no matter who was in charge, each city-state acted for itself. I don't think a true pan-hellenic empire or state could have been created and headed by any of the Greek city-states. They were too focused on particularism, meaning just thier own communities and individual cities.

Within the context of Ancient Greek cultural values, I would say yes. To be paramount in anything and everything was the Greek way.

What effort did the Spartans make to be paramount in trade, in art, or in philosophy? Seems to me that they were pretty content with their mediocrity in these domains.

Look at the bright side, while they did not excell in any of these areas, they did at least allow these fine abilities to exist because they refrained from leveling and destroying Athens when they defeated her. We could have lost a lot of what we now know and have.

[Segestan]

The leagues were the unionization of the cities. Some were for plunder and conquest , while others more philosophical , or economic unions. The center of the World could be placed at Rhodes. Rhodes was the Economic and Philosophical center. The Rhodians had great wealth and most students of business went to their academies. Athens was certainly a great city with a very high degree of civilized thought; but the leagues could not have over-come the struggles between the Monarchial or capitalist needs of ruling the everyday affairs of the ancient world.
The power in ancient times really rested with a few families of great wealth and power.They inter-mixed throughout most kingdoms. The commoner was really without the securities needed for self and family, was helpless in a savage world without a membership in one form of rule or another. Slavery was the price of non-membership.

Athens could have become a great power if only the Aetolian League had not for selfish means brought Roman power into Greece. Had the Athenian allied themselves with the Diadochi and not the upstart Roman senate than Athens would have joined in a new revival of Greece power. I think the Hellens having had long standing colonist in southern Italy lead them to believe Rome would be a good counter to the Diadochi? They were wrong!


regards,