THE ACHÆAN LEAGUE[249].
[249] The chief modern authorities for the history of the Achæan
League are Bishop Thirlwall in the eighth volume of his _History of
Greece_, and Professor Freeman in his _History of Federal Government
in Greece and Italy_. I have compiled this chapter, after reading what
those authors say on the subject, from the books by ancient writers
which they cite.
The Achæan peoples of the heroic age, when they were driven by the
invading Dorians from Sparta, Messenia, Argos and Corinth, took refuge
in the northern part of the Peloponnesus and there founded the Achæan
people of the historical period. The district in which they settled
measures only about sixty-five English miles from east to west along
the coast of the Corinthian gulf, and from twelve to twenty miles
from north to south. It is cut off from the rest of the Peloponnesus
by a range of lofty mountains which cannot in any part be crossed
without difficulty. From this mountain range many ridges run northward,
dividing the country into narrow valleys[250]. The past history of the
Achæans and the character of their territory made them well suited
for a federal form of government; that is to say, for having a single
government for some purposes and many governments for other purposes.
They were impelled towards union by their common Achæan race, by common
experience of conquest by the Dorians, and by the certainty that, if an
independent state were formed in each little valley, none of them would
be large enough to be of any importance in Greece: but at the same
time some sort of separate government in each valley was natural in a
country where communications were so much interrupted by mountains. It
is said that they lived for a time under a single government only--the
kingly government of the descendants of their hero Orestes: but at some
very early period each of the valleys must have acquired some sort
of independence, since, on the abolition of the kingly government,
at a time too early to be known to history, the separate cantons or
cities acted for themselves and voluntarily joined together in a
confederation, adopting at the same time institutions of a popular
character. They acquired such a reputation for just government and good
faith in their dealings that after the battle of Leuctra in 371 B.C.
they were singled out from all the Greek states to act as arbitrators,
on some points which were disputed, between the victorious Thebans
and the defeated Spartans: and Polybius believed they had acted in
the same capacity at a much earlier date in the affairs of Croton
and Sybaris, two states which had been founded in southern Italy by
colonists from Achaia[251]. For centuries they lived on, somewhat
isolated from the rest of Greece and little noticed by Greek writers,
but maintaining their union and their system of government. Even in the
days of Philip of Macedonia and his son Alexander the Great they were
left unmolested: but, after Alexander's death, some of the ambitious
princes who contended for power in Greece and Macedonia contrived
to sow discord among their cities: they were consequently unable to
defend themselves, and some of the cities were occupied by Macedonian
garrisons, while others were put under the rule of tyrants. The gradual
destruction of the league which was thus brought about must, from what
Polybius says, have begun at some time after 315 B.C. when Cassander
came to the throne of Macedonia, and have been completed in thirty
years from that date. The earlier part of the mischief was done by
Cassander and Demetrius Poliorcetes, the rest by Antigonus Gonatas son
of Demetrius[252].
[250] Smith's _Dictionary of Geography_, article Achaia: and Smith's
_Atlas of Ancient Geography_.
[251] For the early history of Achaia see Polybius II. 37-41:
Shuckburgh, translation, pages 134-137. The story about Croton and
Sybaris may be incorrect (Grote, Part II. end of chapter XXXVII.): but
it shows that Polybius believed the good government of the Achæans had
been established long before the battle of Leuctra.
[252] Polybius II. 41.
About the year 283 B.C. it chanced that the attention of Antigonus
was called away from the affairs of Greece; and the Achæans, being
thus delivered from his interference, before long began to restore
their federal union. At first, about 280 B.C., the renewed league
consisted of only four of the cities: then it was joined by three
more, and probably before long it included all the rest:--the whole
number being now reduced to ten, for four had ceased to exist, and
only two new ones had grown up[253]. For about thirty years the league
did not include any cities outside Achaia: but in 251 B.C. Aratus of
Sicyon, when only twenty years of age, rescued his native city out of
the power of its tyrant by surprising the garrison, and, in order to
provide for its future safety, induced his fellow-citizens to enrol
their state as a member of the confederation. In the year 245 B.C.
he was elected to the office of strategus or chief magistrate of the
league: and that office he held, as a general rule, thenceforward in
alternate years till his death thirty-two years later. He was most
active and skilful in bringing cities into the league. In his second
term of office he surprised and overpowered the Macedonian garrison
which held Acrocorinthus, and thus set Corinth free. The liberated
Corinthians were glad to join the Achæans, and the league, gaining
possession of the Corinthian citadel which commanded the Isthmus, was
able thenceforth to protect not only its own cities but the whole of
the Peloponnesus against any enemy that came by land[254]. After this
many other cities gave in their adhesion: the most important of those
that joined before 227 B.C. were Megara, Trœzen, Epidaurus, Cleonæ,
Mantineia, Phlius, Megalopolis, and Argos[255].
[253] Polybius II. 41. For the names of the cities see also Mr
Shuckburgh's Introduction, pp. xlviii, xlix.
[254] Polybius II. 43.
[255] For a list of the cities in the league see Freeman, _Federal
Government_, pp. 713-714.
The league, throughout the period of its reconstitution in Achaia and
its extension outside (that is to say from 280 B.C. to 227 B.C.), was
most successful in protecting a number of Greek states from Macedonian
interference. But it was never joined by Sparta nor by several other
Peloponnesian cities: and about the year 227 B.C. Cleomenes III., one
of the two kings of Sparta, wishing at whatever cost to regain for
the Spartans their old predominance in the Peloponnesus, found that
the Achæan league was an obstacle to his designs: and, having first
made an alliance with the Ætolians, who might have put impediments
in his way, he became engaged in a war with the Achæans, and, in the
course of it, defeated them in three important battles. Aratus and his
countrymen in their distress thought it necessary to ask the aid of
Antigonus Dôsôn, who was regent in Macedonia as guardian of his nephew
the young king: Antigonus readily granted their request, but required
them in return to allow him to place a Macedonian garrison in the
Acrocorinthus. He entered the Peloponnesus, and, in 222 or 221 B.C.
at Sellasia in the north-east corner of the Lacedæmonian territory,
the allied armies of Macedonia and Achaia won a great victory and
destroyed the power of Cleomenes[256]: but the Achæans found that,
by re-admitting the Macedonian power to the Peloponnesus, they had
forfeited their independence in regard to foreign policy, and must
conform to the wishes of their too powerful ally. The league continued
to exist "for another period of seventy-five years, retaining its
internal constitution, vastly increased in territorial extent, but,
in external affairs, with only a few short intervals, reduced almost
to the condition of a dependent ally, first of Macedonia and then of
Rome[257]." From the year 146 B.C. Achaia and Macedonia were both
included in the dominions of the Roman republic.
[256] Polybius II. 45-53 and 64-69.
[257] Freeman, _Federal Government_, p. 498.
We have now to examine the structure and constitution of the league
of cities or cantons[258], which, though it eventually succumbed to
Macedonia, had in happier days been distinguished for sixty years of
successful assertion of its independence. We will observe first the
relation of each component state to the central government, and then
proceed to inquire into the nature of the central government itself.
[258] Most of the communities in Achaia and some of those in Arcadia
were rather cantons than cities: Plutarch (_Aratus_, ch. 9) calls the
Achæans μικροπολῖται, citizens of petty towns. Corinth, Argos and
Megalopolis were great cities.
The component states were left free to manage their own internal
affairs, each holding its own assemblies, electing its own magistrates,
and making its own laws on all matters except the few that were
reserved to be settled by the central government[259]. It is probable
that they might even choose their own constitutions: but practically
a state under a tyranny or a close oligarchy or even a strong kingly
power like that of Cleomenes at Sparta, was excluded from membership
in the league because it could not allow its citizens to take part
in the general assemblies which I shall have to describe in speaking
of the central government. In course of time all the cities adopted
constitutions of a popular but moderate character, and in the second
century B.C., when the league included the whole Peloponnesus, Polybius
says that all the states employed the same laws, weights, measures,
and coinage, and were all alike in their administrative, deliberative
and judicial authorities, so that the whole peninsula differed from a
single city only in not having all its inhabitants enclosed within a
single wall[260].
[259] The component states were called πόλεις, and this fact alone, in
the absence of indications tending the other way, is enough to show
that they managed their internal affairs. For further evidence see
Freeman, _Federal Government_, p. 256.
[260] Polybius II. 37.
The central government consisted of two deliberative bodies, the
assembly and the council, and of an executive officer, the strategus,
with several subordinates: its business comprised the conduct of all
foreign affairs, and the management of the armed forces.
The assembly or synod was attended by all citizens of any city in the
league who chose to present themselves[261]: its business was to
settle questions of foreign policy and to elect the executive officers
of the league. The regular place of meeting was Ægium, a small city on
the Corinthian gulf, and it seems that the assembly always met there
till 218 B.C.: afterwards it sometimes came together at other cities in
the territory of the league[262]. There were ordinary meetings every
spring and every autumn[263]: and special meetings could at any time be
summoned by the magistrates to settle important and urgent questions
of foreign policy, the duration of any special meeting being limited
to three days[264]. The votes on questions of policy were taken not by
heads but by states: that is to say, each state had one vote, and its
vote was given Aye or No, according as the majority of those of its
citizens who were present inclined to the one side or the other[265].
[261] Polybius (II. 38) emphatically calls the Achæan system a
democracy with free and equal speech.
[262] Polybius (V. 1) says that in 218 B.C. the assembly met _in
accordance with the law_ at Ægium: but king Philip afterwards
persuaded the magistrates to transfer it to Sicyon. The important
assembly which made the alliance with Rome in 198 B.C. was also held
at Sicyon: Livy XXXII. 19.
[263] For example, in 224 B.C. Antigonus Dôsôn presented himself at an
assembly at Ægium in the spring and at another at the same place in
the autumn (Polybius II. 54). The meeting in the spring had to elect
the officers for the coming year: and the strategus entered on his
duties in May, at the rising of the Pleiades (Polybius V. 1).
[264] Livy (XXXII. 22) after recording the proceedings of two days in
the special meeting of 198 B.C. says "Only one day was left in which
the meeting could act: for the law ordered that on the third day its
decision should be made."
[265] Livy (XXXII. 22) says that in 198 B.C. when the magistrates were
just going to take a vote, most of the _states_ openly showed which
way they would vote (omnibus fere populis ... præ se ferentibus quid
decreturi essent): then the citizens of Dymê and Megalopolis and some
from the Argolid left the assembly: but (XXXII. 23) the rest of the
_states_ of the league, when asked in turn how they voted (ceteri
populi Achæorum, cum sententias perrogarentur), decided in a certain
way.
Of the council almost nothing is known: its meetings were held not only
at the times of the federal assemblies, but at other times also: for
in the year 220 B.C. king Philip had an interview with the council at
Ægium about a question of foreign policy, which he would certainly have
laid before the assembly if it had been possible[266]. The number of
members in the council must have been at least a hundred and twenty,
and may have been larger[267]. From the little evidence that we have
we may perhaps gather that the council sat for a good part of the
year, and acted as a committee of the assembly to prepare the business
that had to be laid before it: and, at times when the assembly was
not sitting, decided any questions that were not so important as to
necessitate a special meeting of the assembly.
[266] Polybius IV. 26 προσελθοντος τοῦ βασιλέως πρὸς τὴν βουλὴν ἐν
Αἰγίῳ. The business related to a question of war against the Ætolians.
[267] The evidence for this is referred to by Bishop Thirlwall
(_History of Greece_, vol. VIII. p. 92). In 187 B.C. Eumenes king of
Pergamum offered to give 120 talents, on condition that the money
was invested and the interest used to pay the councillors (see
Polybius XXIII. 7 in Dindorf's edition: XXII. 10 in Mr Shuckburgh's
translation). The yearly interest of a talent would be about 720
drachmæ:--a large salary for a councillor. The councillors at Athens
were paid about 300 drachmæ yearly, see above, p. 51, note 1.
The executive officers were the strategus, and ten demiurgi or
ministers:--together with a hypo-strategus or under-general and perhaps
a secretary of state[268]. The strategus was elected each year in the
spring meeting of the assembly and entered on his duties a short time
after his election. His office was in its origin military, and he was
by right commander in the field and controller of the armed forces: but
his most important functions were to act as leader in the assembly--to
expound his foreign policy and obtain authority to carry it out--and
to manage negotiations with foreign powers: this last part of his work
was of such moment that the symbol of his office was a seal[269]. It
is shown by the case of Aratus that the Achæans were more anxious that
their strategus should be a good foreign minister than that he should
be a good commander-in-chief: for though Aratus was a very poor general
and lost many battles, his countrymen set such a value on his skill
in dealing with foreign affairs that they elected him over and over
again--not indeed in successive years, for the constitution forbade
it--but as often as the law allowed.
[268] Polybius V. 94 ὐποστράτηγος. Strabo VIII. 7. 3 γραμματεύς: but
this passage proves the existence of the office of secretary only for
the very early days of the re-constituted league soon after 280 B.C.
[269] Freeman, _Federal Government_, p. 299, from Polybius IV. 7.
The ten demiurgi were also elected by the assembly[270]. They acted
collectively as presiding officers in the assembly and determined what
questions should be put to the vote[271]: but they also acted as a
cabinet or council of ministers to the strategus; for on one occasion a
despatch was addressed by Flamininus the Roman general to the strategus
and the demiurgi, and the reply to it was written in the name of the
same authorities[272].
[270] Livy XXXII. 22 Magistratus (damiurgos vocant: decem numero
creantur). The words _magistratus_ and _creantur_ indicate that they
were elected.
[271] Livy XXXII. 22.
[272] Polybius XXIV. 5 in Bekker's and Dindorf's editions: XXIII. 5 in
Mr Shuckburgh's translation.
The federal government of the league, which has just been described, is
called by Polybius a democracy: but it was not a democracy according
to the definition which Aristotle gave in stating his classification
of polities; for he defined democracy as the rule of the many for the
interest of the poor[273]. In the Achæan league it can hardly be said
that the many were the rulers: for, though no citizen was excluded
by law from the assembly, the attendance was in practice limited to
those who had time and money to spend in travelling to the place of
meeting, and to those few who chanced to reside there. Moreover the
meetings were held so seldom and lasted for so short a time that the
assembly could not control the government in regard to details, and,
though of course it had the supreme power in great questions and in
the last resort, it practically left nearly everything in the hands
of the strategus. Finally the policy of the league was conducted in
the interest not of any governing class or governing person but of the
community at large.
[273] Aristotle himself, as we have seen, in one passage uses the term
democracy to denote any government in which a large number of citizens
take part: but in doing so he departs from his original definition of
it.
A Polity or Commonwealth was originally defined by Aristotle as the
rule of the mass of the citizens for the advantage of the whole
community: and he afterwards described it as a mixture of oligarchy and
democracy. Hence it is clear that, on the lines of his classification,
the Achæan league was a Polity. The supreme power in it belonged in
one sense to the whole of the citizens, because no citizen was legally
excluded from the assembly, and thus the constitution had one of the
characteristics of democracy: but in another sense power belonged
to those only of the citizens who possessed a fair income and could
actually attend the meetings, and in this respect the constitution
was oligarchic. Moreover, though oligarchy and democracy when unmixed
both belong to the perverted polities, because their governments rule
selfishly, the mixture of them in the Achæan league produced a normal
polity, viz., a Polity or Commonwealth, whose governors ruled for the
good of the whole people. But these were not the only elements in the
constitution: the aristocratic principle was conspicuously present,
and was seen in the great power and commanding influence which Aratus
possessed in consequence of his high qualifications as a ruler and
adviser.
The federal system of government combined many advantages. It enabled
the Greeks to continue to live as members of small self-governing
communities--a way of living to which the physical features of their
country naturally led them, and to which they were deeply attached:
it gave them, through their union, much greater security than they
could have enjoyed without it: and it formed a large part of them into
a community that more resembled a nation than anything else that had
yet arisen in Greece. The system was tried not only by the Achæans but
also by several other divisions of the Hellenic race: by the Phocians,
the Acarnanians, the Epirots, the Arcadians, and the Ætolians[274]:
and among the Ætolians and Acarnanians it attained such a measure of
success that in the later period of the Macedonian supremacy these two
peoples were, after the Achæans, the most important of the Hellenic
powers.
[274] See Professor Freeman's _History of Federal Government_.
* * * * *
Transcriber's Notes
Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected.
Variations in hyphenation have been standardised, but other variations
in spelling, accents and punctuation are as in the original.
Italics are represented thus _italic_ and gesperrt thus =gesperrt=.
The "ERRATUM.
Page 14, line 21, _for_ empires _read_ empire."
has been implemented.