Delian League and the Athens Empire - Essay Example

Delian League and the Athens Empire Athens, one of the world’s oldest cities has been continuously inhabited by people for an estimated 7000 years. The city is situated in southern Europe. In the first millennium Before Christ, Athens became the leading city in Ancient Greece. The success of Athens as a leading city in Greece did not happen abruptly. She had to fight for her stand, while she struggled with poor resources such as unproductive land. The big and yet prominent cities of the time such as Spartan were more rich, yet greatly advantaged. However, when the Spartans staged a war against the Athenians, the Athenians managed to win against them with an army three times less than theirs. The victory of the Athens against the Spartans won the state a lot of respect form other Greek states. However, it was the rise of the Persians and their conquests against the Greek states and islands that prompted the formation of the Delian League. The formation of the League promoted Athens’ struggle to conquer the Persia. Many things did not go as planned after the formation of League, with Athens hijacking the leadership and control of the union. The activities of the Athens in the leadership of the League prompted the question, were Athens trying to genuinely make a united government under their leadership to promote a better defence against the Persian threat or were the Delian League just an attempt by them to create a Thalassocracy. According to various studies, the Athens was angry for power. Little did they consider the interests of other cities. The Persian threat, although having been key to the formation of the government, in a big way, it was not the main interest of the Athenians. There was more to the unity, as the various scholars suppose. If the Athenians were after uniting the various cities into the Delian League, they would have allowed independence to various states forming part of the league. However, the exercise of supremacy by the Athenian power indicated their intentions to create a Thalassocracy. The forceful pulling of the various groups into the League by the Athens, and intimidating means it used to draw the members into the league was proof enough that Athens was not interested in uniting them into the common interest that united them against Persian. This paper seeks to justify that the reasons why Athens formed a united government under their leadership was not to promote a better defence against Persian invasion, but the Delian League was an attempt to create a Thalassocracy. In explaining whether Athens was genuinely making a united government under their leadership to promote a better defence against the Persian threat, reasons for the formation of the Delian League are discussed. The Delian League as an organization was established in the early 5th Century BC by several Greek states. The main reason why these states formed the league was to defend them against Persian invasion. They had defeated the Persians in the Greaco-Persian wars, and an alliance of several states against them was the best way to ensure immunity (Spielvogel 78). Uniting against a common enemy made states stronger. They created a strong army by bringing the best men together to form one common army. They would also enjoy the best leadership and command from a single source. The unity would also ensure that the states shared a common interest, making them even stronger. Although they had earlier defeated the Persians, its Empire was still powerful. Besides, the reason for the league was to get a little payback for the devastation the member states had suffered in the hands of the Persian forces (Duiker and Jackson 103-104). The common interest between Greek forces united together states consisting of Athens and Greek from Ionia, the Hellespont of the besieged Sentos, a city previously held by the Persians. As a result of this, the Greek fleet under the command of  Pausanias who was a military commander from Sparta, sailed to Cyprus, and freed Greek cities which had been under the control of the Persians. They consequently captured the city of Byzantium. Due to their behaviour, the Pausanias after a while, were recalled by the Greeks. The Greek forces in reality were not happy by seeing their leader acting as an enemy. During the period between the recall of the Pausanias and the replacement by the Spartans, a big development happened in the composition of the allied states. The leaders of the three largest islands lying between Greece and Ionia, the islands of Lesbos, Chios and Samos, opened discussions with Athens. They preferred to be led by the Athens instead of the Spartans. The talks resulted into an agreement that led to the formation of the Delian League 477 BC (Lebow and Robert 599-604). The league was supposed to offer protection of the Greeks who had been recently rescued from Persian control. As an alliance, the Delian League was to gain compensation for the trouble and losses suffered by the Greeks during the war, by plundering the Persian lands. Liberating more Greek cities from Persian rule was yet another reason for its formation. To seal the treaty by swearing, the leaders threw a metal into the sea. They were to remain friends until the time the metal float again. This was somehow ridiculous since metal cannot float in water. But the logic of the idea in it was that the friendship was not meant to end anytime. The allied state friends were to remain friends forever. This was the significance of the metal being expected to float in water. When agreements were on-going to decide on the way forward in the treaty, while the rest of the states were settling on the leadership of the Athenian, their idea was that they would not break up at any time. The naming of the Delian League adopted the name of the Greek island called Delos. The island had been picked as the base for various strategic reasons. The island was too small to have any individual political interests. The island was also strategically placed, close to the Persian Empire which made it an excellent field for the armies to organize and stage attacks on the Persians. The ancient belief that the island was god of Apollo’s place of birth made it religiously favoured her over other states. Entry into the alliance was initially voluntary (Spielvogel 84). Conditions qualifying states to join in the alliance was contribution of a number of ships by each member or an equivalent amount of money, whichever the country preferred. The contribution was however allocated in terms of size. There was democracy during the initial stages of the alliance, with members such as Aristeides being allowed to decide on the most appropriate contributions by each member (Spielvogel 80). Aristeides, the Athenian general, had led the negotiations with other leaders on the takeover from Spartans. His popularity for his honesty won him the title. This was a reason why initially, every state had untrammelled trust for his decisions. Since robbing a temple in those days was considered the worst crime, and the fact that it had never occurred, the money contributed was kept in a temple in Delos. They hoped for God’s protection to the money stored. The democracy in League was seen where every member was allowed equal contribution during the meetings held. However, Athens, the leader of the league was not bust in the division of the positions in the government. Athens wanted to control all of them. Not only did it provide military leaders for the army, it also unofficially awards its own officials the treasurers’ duties to manage the funds contributed (Lebow and Robert 596-603). To prove that the Athenians were more interested in creating a Thalassocracy over defence against the Persian threat in the Delian League, this paper looks closely into the rise of the Athenian empire. Despite the many plans and agreements that the members had, there were still disagreements within the leadership. The Athens had more vested interests in the league than just unity against The Empire. Perhaps, according to historians, this was the main reason why the league disintegrated. Except from leadership, Athens also wanted to control the league. Overtime, the Athenian’s power and influence within the league kept growing. It became so huge that it created an empire by the Athens instead of the organization that had initially been formed. It acted as a dictator to citizens who were against the rule. It even resulted to forcing states to joining the league. This was contrary to the earlier agreement by the members that membership was voluntary (Roberts 245). Delahunty and Yoo (8) state that during the Melian dialogue, the Athens threatened the inhabitants of Melos that in case they did not join the Delian Legue, they risked being destroyed. During the negotiations, the Athenians promised to ignore claims such as the Melians having been the initiate war against them. The Athenians justified their Greece leadership through the Persian war. The melians saw this as intimidating, especially the fact that interest was key to the Athenian negotiations. Athenians did not care about doing the right, a stand that did not create a common interest of protection that would allow them to invoke what was right during war. The Athenians were bent to forcing the Melians into joining the empire despite of their interests having been very different. When they could not fully convince them in joining the empire, the Athenians laid siege on them, finally conquering the city. They killed every man who was the age of a military man, sending the women and children into slavery (Delahunty and Yoo 8). With the increased influence of the Athens in the league and its exercise of power over other members, many states started wishing to withdraw. Persia, the main reason why the league was formed did not pose a threat anymore. This increased the desire of many states to withdraw. However, Athens did not take this lightly. She had overtime set up a strong military army and she used it as an intimidating factor to any member that wished to withdraw. Athens forced the members to remain in the leagues against their will, transforming the leadership to dictatorship. Athens also resulted to instigating sanctions to any state that remained adamant to exit the league. If the state for example had given up building of ships for the league, the Athenians would have the advantage since they had the biggest army. In case a state was defeated, it would be confiscated and the walls of its city pulled down (Evans 76-80). According to (Roberts 245), the Athenian power was evident in the manner she chose to change the membership of the states to bring uniformity whenever she wished. The introduction of Athenian coins by the state, which other members were forced to use showed how determined they were in controlling the league. The use of her coins would give her economic advantage over other states as this was the centre of trade. Official documents referred to others members as allies, although reality indicated otherwise. They were subjects. Increased power of the manner in which the rebel states were treated. Apart from Athens demanding monetary compensation from the rebels, they were also forced to take oath of allegiance to the state. With the leadership of the empire being with the Athenians, they felt that they had the right to treat the rebels in whichever manner that pleased them. They felt obliged to withdraw any civic rights of any rebelling state, as no member would question them. In 454 BC, the Athenians transferred the League treasury from the Delos to the Athenian Empire. This move showed the shift of power by Athens from sharing of decision making to its sole control. This action forced Samos, a founder-state of the League to revolt. Eventually, Athens started using money that had been contributed by member states to build its state. This was the end of the Delian League and a transformation of a democratic organization to dictator-controlled Athenian Empire (Spielvogel, 75-76). The logic by the states forming an alliance against a common enemy is justifiable. They would be immune from the enemy, as together they would to be stronger. Weak states would enjoy support by the big and powerful states. The powerful states would incorporate elements of the weak states into their army and administration to form a strong team. This, having been the idea behind the formation of the League made allied states stronger than Persian. Trusting a single state with leadership was however a blunder. Moreover, leadership in the army came from Athens, who were official leaders. Influential posts in the government of the alliance were in the hands of the Athens. Definitely, this was like giving Athens control over them indirectly. The states were ready to be ruled by a single state. Most influential positions in any coalition should not be given to a single state or person. If neutral persons are not possible, they should be equitably distributed among the members of the League. While the initial plan that prompted the Greek states to form the Delian League was to unite against a common enemy, the Persians, vested interests of Athens led to its crumble. What began as a noble idea by the founding states to choose among them the strongest state to be their leader grew into a power amass by Athens. Some authors see the move by Athens as greed, while others feel that it was the ultimate direction the union was destined to go. Athens rose from a humble poor state into a powerful state through military conquest. By the time the League was formed, Athens had conquered most of the neighbouring states to expand its empire. This trend was expected to continue even in the League. Arguably, the biggest mistake committed by the allied states was awarding Athens leadership. It gave her an opportunity to expand and grow stronger. Access to resources and manpower was unlimited, the exact requirements she needed for expansion. Perhaps this could have come by chance too, with the idea of controlling the League happening by chance. Whichever way authors look at this problem, the interest of Athens remain the same. She was not interested in the League primarily as a defence tool against the Persians, but as a way of creating a Thalassocracy. Works cited Delahunty, Robert, and Yoo, J. (2012). From just war to false peace. Chicago Journal of International Law, 13(1), 1-45. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1032683896?accountid=45049 Duiker, William, and Jackson J. S., World History. Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013. Print. Evans, Nancy. Civic Rites: Democracy and Religion in Ancient Athens. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010. Print. Lebow, Richard N., and Robert Kelly. "Thucydides and Hegemony: Athens and the United States." Review of International Studies 27.4 (2001): 593-609. ProQuest. 17 Apr. 2013 . Roberts, Peter. Excel Hsc Ancient History. Glebe, N.S.W: Pascal Press, 2006. Print. Spielvogel, Jackson J. Western Civilization. Australia: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2012. Print. Spielvogel, Jackson J. Western Civilization: Volume 1. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth, 2011. Print. Read More