Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The nature of the thalassocracies of the sixth century B.C. Finnegan, Cathaleen Claire 1975

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1975_A8 F55.pdf [ 3.57MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0093418.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093418-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093418-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093418-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093418-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093418-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093418-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

THE NATURE OF THE THALASSOCRACIES OF THE SIXTH-CENTURY B. C. by CATHALEEN CLAIRE FINNEGAN B.A., University of British Columbia, 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of CLASSICS We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1975 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree ly ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thes is for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th i s thes is fo r f i nanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten pe rm i ss ion . Department o f p l a s s i p s . The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 D a t e October. 197 5. ~t A ~ A A P. r~ i i The Nature of the Thalassocracies of the Sixth-Century B. C. ABSTRACT The purpose of this thesis i s to study the nature and extent of the sixth century thalassocracies through the available ancient evidence, particularly the writings of Herodotus and Thucydides. In Chapter One the evidence for their existence i s established and suggested dates are provided. Chapter Two is a study of their naval aspects and Chapter Three of their commercial aspects. This study leads to the conclusion that these thalassocracies were unaggressive mercantile states, with the exception of Samos during Polycrates' reign. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Abbreviations iv Chapter 1: The Evidence 1 Chapter 2: The Naval Aspects 23 Chapter 3: The Commercial Aspects 53 Bibliography iv ABBREVIATIONS AJA CAH CQ Cons. ad. Helv. Matrem JHS NH Qu. Gr. Rhein. Mus, American Journal of Archaeology Cambridge Ancient History Classical Quarterly De consolatione ad Helviam Matrem Journal of Hellenic Studies Naturalis Historia Quaestiones Graecae Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie 1 CHAPTER ONE. THE EVIDENCE The physical geography of Greece i s such as to force her inhabitants to turn to the sea to ensure their survival. Sea-routes, complete with a l l the hazards of sudden squalls and hidden rocks, were preferable to land-routes because of the latter's many natural and almost impregnable barriers. Since the s o i l was thin throughout much of the country, few of the Greek poleis could be self-sufficient. Thus t r a f f i c and communication by sea became an important factor in Hellenic history at an early date. Given this state of affairs i t would be natural to suppose that the various Greek states would attempt to gain a measure of strength at sea, or to establish some form of control over the major sea-routes. Minos is reputed to have controlled the seas and cleared them of pirates"'". Both the character and extent of the thalassocracy of fifth-century Athens are well known through the writings of Thucydides. However, the evidence for the thalassocracies of the late seventh and sixth centuries B. C. is vague and scattered, and the authenticity of some of i t is doubted. This study is an enquiry into the nature of these thalassocracies through an examination of the available evidence. Herodotus, 3.122; Thucydides, 1.4. 2 9 Eusebius' Chronicon contains a l i s t of thalassocracies from the f a l l of Troy until the crossing of Xerxes into Greece in 480 B. C. This outline gives names, the duration of each thalassocracy, and the years of i t s control. It thus includes a general tabulation of sixth-century thalassocracies, but an understanding of their character and extent must be sought through Herodotus and Thucydides, both their specific statements about the names given i n Eusebius' Chronicon and their h i s t o r i c a l allusions to the period in general. 3 There has been some debate whether the "List of Thalassocracies" in Eusebius can be used as valid evidence that originated in the f i f t h century For a study of the manuscripts see M. Miller, The Thalassocracies; J. L. Myres, "On the 'List of Thalassocracies' in Eusebius", JHS 26 (1906) 84-130; J. K. Fotheringham, "On the 'List of Thalassocracies' in Eusebius", JHS 27 (1907) 75-89. 3 For validity: F. Berk, "Zur altkleinasiatischen Geschichte", Klio 28 (1935) 16-19; A. R. Bum, "Greek Sea-Power 776-540 B. C. and the 'Carian* Entry i n the Eusebian Thalassocracy L i s t " , JHS 47 (1927) 165-177; W. G. Forrest, "Two Chronographic Notes; The Tenth-Thalassocracy in Eusebius", C£ NS19 (1969) 95-106; D. Hogarth, "Lydia and Ionia", CAH 3.517; W. W. How and J. Wells, Commentary on Herodotus, 1.295; G. Murray, The Rise of the Greek Epic, 322; J. L. Myres, op_. c i t . , 84-130; "On the 'List of Thalassocracies' in Eusebius; A Reply", JHS 27 (1907) 123-130; P. N. Ure, The Origin of Tyranny, 95. 3 4 B. C. J. L. Myres argues that the l i s t of Eusebius is a descendant of one composed in the f i f t h century between the time of Herodotus' writing and that of Thucydides. He believes that Thucydides' brief survey of sea-powers shows his acquaintance with such a work while Herodotus nowhere attempts to outline them"*. Further, since the l i s t covers the period from the f a l l of Troy to the crossing of Xerxes, while Diodorus and others recorded Minos and pre-Achaean thalassocracies, i t corresponds to the period surveyed by Thucydides. He asserts that the fact that this register ends with the Persian Wars favours a fifth-century origin. Myres admits the possibility that the l i s t may have been composed in the generation of Castor and Diodorus, that i s , the f i r s t century B. C. Nevertheless, he feels that i t can be shown to be of fifth-century origin and that i t did not undergo any serious modification in i t s transmission i f i t agrees with the statements of Herodotus. Against validity; W. Aly, "Kastor als Quelle Diodors im 7 Buch", Rhein. Mus. 66 (1911) 585-606; J. K. Fotheringham, "On the 'List of Thalassocracies' i n Eusebius", JHS 27 (1907) 75-89; R. Helm, "Die Liste der Thalassokratien in Der Chronik des Eusebius", Hermes 61 (1926) 241-262; E. Meyers, Geschichte des Alterturns, 2.2,61 n.l;M. B. Sakellariou, La Migration Grecque, 473. 4 J . L. Myres, "On the 'List of Thalassocracies' in Eusebius", JHS 26' (1906) 81-130. W^. G. Forrest, op_. c i t . , 95, does not agree that the l i s t was unknown to Herodotus. 4 W. G. Forrest suggests that : the catalogue of thalassocracies is doubly theoretical in that i t attempts to credit states with sea-power similar^ to that of fifth-century Athens as early as the Trojan War and also because i t tries to do so chronologically. He does believe that the work was based upon history and that both Herodotus and Thucydides thought of naval history in a way that was broadly similar to the tone of the l i s t ; and both historians may have been acquainted with some such work as the Eusebian source. J. K. Fotheringham thinks that the "List of Thalassocracies" is of no hi s t o r i c a l value since i t cannot be determined when i t was drawn up. He states that the catalogue shows l i t t l e resemblance to Thucydides' brief survey of sea-powers and that the dates of Thucydides disagree with those in i t . He admits the possibility that Thucydides' survey suggested the idea of composing an outline of the thalassocracies but, since i t is impossible to ascertain this, he argues that the attempt to date i t s origin i s useless. In the view of W. Aly , the "List of Thalassocracies" given in Eusebius was taken from the work of Castor of Rhodes"^, a contemporary of Diodorus. He does not believe that i t has any value as evidence originating in the f i f t h century B. C , but that i t is a work of the f i r s t century B. C. He thinks W. G. Forrest, op_. c i t . , 95. ^The l i s t i t s e l f gives names and dates. It does not make any reference to Athenian naval power, g J. K. Fotheringham, op_. c i t . , 89. 9 W. Aly, c>p_. c i t . , 585-606;see also M. Miller, The Thalassocracies, 52-54. "^Suidas assigns a history of sea-powers to Castor of Rhodes. 5 that the tabulation of sea-powers was based on various passages in Herodotus in which the latter makes some comment on a city's seamanship. Not a l l the material i s Herodotean. If Castor of Rhodes formed the l i s t through a study of Herodotus' work and that of other writers, then Eusebius' l i s t , for the most part, would contain a general idea of the fifth-century view of the thalassocrats of the previous century. The main d i f f i c u l t y i s that, i f this were the case, then Herodotus' comments could not be used to reinforce the validity of the names given i n Eusebius' Chronicon. Yet I can see no reason to regard the l i s t as taken from Herodotus by a first-century writer; rather, i t may be from an earlier lost source and we should ascertain whether Herodotus and Thucydides confirm i t . Thucydides, when he cites previous sea-powers, gives his opinion of them, or the reason for their greatness, while Eusebius' outline gives only names and dates. Nonetheless, the combination of Eusebius' names and the comments of the historians would provide us with a reasonably accurate impression of the nature and extent of the sixth-century thalassocrats, i f Eusebius' l i s t i s accepted as representing fifth-century information. It seems reasonable to think, with J. L. Myres, that Eusebius' catalogue i s the descendant of some such work composed in the f i f t h century"*"^. The idea 12 of thalassocracies was obviously familiar to Herodotus and Thucydides, 13 since Herodotus does mention several states that controlled the seas and J. L. Myres, ap_. c i t . , 84-130. 12 _ . Herodotus uses ^«*\euj)'*«fri only once, in 3.122.2, concerning Polycrates; and©o>Xcx«c*ot«paorcup once, 5.83.2, to describe the Aeginetans. 1 3Herodotus, 1.17.3; 3.122.2. 14 Thucydides cites the previous thalassocracies . Also the fact that the l i s t ends with the Persian Wars tends to confirm the view of a fifth-century origin. By comparing the "List of Thalassocracies" in Eusebius with the informa-tion in Herodotus and Thucydides, I conclude that the majority of states found in the l i s t can be shown to have had some sea-power. Also I think that the absence of confirming evidence in the historians for some of the states may be explained by Thucydides' comment on the smallness of a l l navies before the Persian Wars^. The Armenian version of Eusebius 1 Chronicon, as edited by Alfred Schoene''"^ , is as follows. Jam inde ex Diodori scriptis breviter, de temporibus Thalassocratorum, qui maria tenebant. Post bellum Trojanum, Mare obtinuerunt I L i d i et Maeones annos XCII II Pelasgi annos LXXXV III Thrakii annos LXXIX IV Rhodii annos XXIII V Phrygii annos XXV VI K i p r i i annos XXXIII VII Phynikii annos XLV VIII E g i p t i i annos (...) 14 Thucydides, 1,13-1,16. 1 5Thucydides, 1.14.3. 16 A. Schoene, Eusebi Chronicorum Liber: Primus, 226. 7 IX Melesii annos (...) X (...) annos (...) XI Lesbii annos (.. .) XII Phokaei annos XL IV XIII Samii annos (...) XIV Lakedemoni annos II XV Ncixii annos X XVI E r e t r i i annos XV XVII Egineses annos X usque ad Alexandri"^ transfretationem. This study is concerned with numbers IX-XVII inclusive. The interval between the Milesians and the Lesbians was occupied by the Carians, whom 18 A. Schoene removed to a footnote. This entry is open to serious doubt 19 and alternate readings have been suggested. A. R. Burn argues that there are d i f f i c u l t i e s in placing a Carian thalassocracy during the age of the so-called Ionian Renaissance, which had i t s economic basis in the new development of maritime commerce, since i t seems impossible that a Carian 20 thalassocracy existed without destroying i t . Also Herodotus and 21 Thucydides mention Carian sea-power only in very early times . J. L. Myres "^This is generally agreed to be a scribal error for Xerxis; J. L. Myres, £p_. c i t . , 89; M. Miller, op_. c i t . , 5-6. 18 A. Schoene, op_. c i t . , 226. 19 A. R. Burn, op_. c i t . , 166. 20 Burn dates the tenth thalassocracy to the mid-seventh century while I accept Forest's lower date. See pp. 19-20. W. G. Forrest, op_. c i t . , 98 and J. L. Myres, op_. c i t . , 107-109, also state that the Carian entry in place . 8 conjectures that the Carians should come at the top of the l i s t immediately i following the Trojan War, or else that entry IX originally had M i l e s i i et 22 Cares and they became separated through error . A. R. Burn suggests that 23 the entry Cares is a corruption and the original reading was Megares , while W. B. Forrest believes that the original reading was Corinthii. \ Although either the Megarians or the Corinthians would f i t reasonably well, I prefer to use W. G. Forrest's suggestion of the Corinthians since the 25 evidence in ancient authors favours i t . Also Burn's arguments for Megara are based on the Megarian colonization of the mid to late seventh century, while I accept the dating of the tenth thalassocracy to the late seventh and early sixth century. The information in Herodotus and Thucydides regarding a thalassocracy for each of these states is as follows. IX M i l e s i i Herodotus, 1.17.3: y^/0 ©^ »*<£«r,erfyj K t X ^ n o t X is impossible. 2 1Herodotus, 1.171; Thucydides, 1.8. 2 2 J . L. Myres, op_. ext., 108-109. 23 A. R. Burn, c>p_. c i t . , 167. 24W. G. Forrest, op_. c i t . , 99. 2 5See pp.'9-10. 0 9 This statement is made during Herodotus' discussion of Alyattes' and his predecessors' wars against the Milesians. It provides confirmation for the Milesian entry in Eusebius' l i s t . Thucydides, 1.13.6: K<\<- ^lu>tf^ tfcrepov xroXu ve-r<xi_ Kupvu Tr©AejL<o\jv-r£.g e.Kparrq<yQ.V Tuva- j^povov^. If the Milesians are included in Thucydides' statement, as is a reasonable assumption, he does not confirm a Milesian thalassocracy, or a Lesbian one. Yet Thucydides is speaking of the time of.Cyrus, which is later than the Milesian supremacy mentioned by Herodotus, and more appropriate for the time of the Phocaean and Samian thalassocracies, which he goes on to mention. Herodotus' definite statement is sufficient to counteract the omission in Thucydides' brief survey of maritime affairs, and to substantiate the inclusion of Miletus in the "List of Thalassocracies". X Corinthii Herodotus, 1.24.1: fotJrov twv^pwsv*. XeyowerUj Tov rtoXXov f^ " Kopwv^Lot-tfi-- j^<,erGoJtracerTxXo'u=>v a-v<5pujv 10 This i s Herodotus' only notice of the competence of Corinthian sailors, but Thucydides has a great deal to say about them. Thucydides, 1.13.2: •pp$i-rc>u 6k \<op^vG>t.o^ Aey-ONfifecu-fe^yuTOtTO. T o o V u v T p o f ro ^fcTex^e<-pwcro-w -rc«_ crept. Tax, Vo-i/Sj v«.u S rtocr{«rCt5 -r • «rr^ iPea-T*./-v»Aocrra. T p conacre O-This statement shows that there was a tradition of Corinthian excellence in shipbuilding, while the passage that follows makes i t clear that the Corinthians not only built ships but made extensive use of them. Thucydides, 1.13.5: ffe ©ulsXXrye^ i^fltXAov errAiugwv -ra.5 Va.u^ K-r^o-o^fiV©v_-ro A ^ C T T I - K O V V\<*.©^pooV K f t t T T p o c y O s O U J T r ^ V T T O A w " . Thucydides does not date this but in his next sentence he discusses the Ionians during the time of Cyrus, so i t is conceivable that he i s referring to the early part of the sixth century in this comment. There are indica-tions in both authors of Corinthian naval superiority but Thucydides gives more definite statements, in view of which W. G. Forrest's emendation Corinthii instead of Ca r i i as number X in the "List of Thalassocracies" «. 1 - V I 2 6 seems most plausible 26 Nicolaus Damascenus, frag 58: Periander plied both seas; also Herodotus, 11 XI Lesbii No argument can be made for a Lesbian thalassocracy from the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides. Herodotus does provide some negative informa-tion. 2>.3^' M. Iv Se £ ^ K O U * A e e r £ c o o s , TT«vcrTpeu-ri.r^  ^ rjPeovns.^ j^iAr^auoucru >AO.u^i©.;£ Kpo-Trjcrct^ fctNe (Tl e>Ao*P<vrrj^ ^ o t f r y / ' " r ^ p o v wefsu T O T€c^c>5 T O « V L O ^ U ^ t T a c a v c £«S e / ^ e / o c -The only information that this gives us is that Herodotus thought the defeat of the Lesbian and Milesian fleets was one worthy of note, which, however, is not evidence for any Lesbian supremacy, or even competence at sea. This leaves one entry on the l i s t unsupported by the comments of the . . . 27 historxans. . XII Phokaeii Herodotus, 1.163.1: oL £fc O^UJKa-i-eecj Q U T O L Voa/rCkCr^f^ 6.89: Corinth rented ships to Athens at the end of the sixth century; thus she s t i l l had a fleet of considerable size. 27 Lesbos contributed a large contingent of ships in the Ionian revolt (Herodotus, 6.8). Only Miletus and Chios provided more. She continued to have a strong fleet in the f i f t h century. It is probable that Lesbos had 12 This i s a comment on the maritime excellence and daring of the Phocaeans. Although i t is not a definite indication of control of the seas, i t does show that the Phocaeans were noted for their a b i l i t y . Thucydides, 1.13.6: $u>HOu^ T 6 ^xescraXitAV ©iA<t!U"^o«/Te5 Thucydides included Phocaea in his survey of sea-pcwers, mentioning their defeat of the Carthaginians. Thus the inclusion of Phocaea in the l i s t i s confirmed by both historians. XIII Samii Herodotus, 3.122.2: TToAuKpcxnr^ f a p i<TTt. T I p i o T ^ T U J V ' ty^et^ '£Sy\tvC^\>\r\vix>v ot, QcxJ\c^aero K^pa-Tfc€i.V eTT6\/or^9rj, TTOpe^ Herodotus, 3.39.3: £v .^povuy oe. oXcyu-> <x.uTU<.«- T O W , y v. / 3/. s „ * z s some maritime power in the sixth century. ^Thucydides then says, Soviuruj-rtxrot* »f«*p TOJJVX.-TU»< V A J U T I X C O V rjV He has discussed the Corinthians, the Ionians in general, the Samians and the Phocaeans. 13 ' - y = r- -•' » > s /. 3/ *^r \ V^ y-fe rf©-v-re^^ O u ^ r ^ t v t o y o u 6 £ / a - 1 TCM y a p ^ ^ ^ w J(Apt£i.0 ,t«lJfc. j ^ a x X o V » T T o S c 5 o i i ^ - T O . ~ e X a £ l & ^ o-pn/yv A\r\£e Aa^wov. a-u^vdl<j Thucydides, 1,13.6: wcotL TTaXwHpcvrq^ TupewYtwy eTK l<Pf 3^Vfter<©W> VCMJTW«v*£J utT-^ Uiwv <a-XAO^ T<£ TlWV vr^ CTWJ»V UTTr^KOOt/^ Thucydides, 3.104.2: e»,Tr«j(fc<_ &e. Piy 6 0 5*- Tr^ <> ZlrjAou OUTUJ<-c?Xv-f o v uJfiFTe TT©XuK;p<»STj<j o Z.^^ut-oy T u ^ j / y o ^ wjo^uffia^ T L V O - . J ^ a o v o v vcLwrux.iw? K<xu TWV owXXiov v/rynwy °Sp5*\S ^ ° " u T r\ v' *• *» t S ^ 'U. 'a i <"> a * ' ft v / >r ^  ^ PnV£ux,*^ & X U J V t*.vtt©i^ >c.e T U O A i b M u j / i / t w t^ r^ N w aOsUae L a r ^ r a ^ rrpo^ The testimony of both Herodotus and Thucydides makes i t clear that Samos, during the tyranny of Polycrates, was a thalassocracy, and, in fact, a rather remarkable one. Thucydides mentions Polycrates' fleet as his means of gaining power over the neighbouring islands, and Herodotus credits him with being the f i r s t , with the exception of Minos, to plan the control of the seas. There can be no doubt that the Samian entry in Eusebius' l i s t is correct, as i t is so well attested by the historians. XIV Lacedemonii The case for a Spartan thalassocracy is as weak as that for Samos is strong. Perhaps the Spartans were included because they attempted to 14 besiege Polycrates, the recognised power of the time. Herodotus, 3.54.1: Ao-ws©a^ovce*.. S&>ervo\\j^ tug O - T T U W O V T O J fcTroXt-opKe ov "£.*^oV.. . . 3.56.1'. Ae^Keoov^ovx©*. oe, u^ g, erf As in the case of Lesbos, there i s only a defeat of Sparta mentioned by Herodotus, although he does credit Sparta with a large fleet, while Thucydides says nothing about a Spartan thalassocracy. Nonetheless, i t i s possible that the attempt to besiege Samos while Polycrates was so powerful was seen as such a daring undertaking that the Spartan fleet acquired some notoriety from i t . XV Naxii Herodotus, 5.28.1: TODTO vflp t\ hiaJ^O^ 6Uo"au.^ O«/U£j fUO/' x/r>«rtur trpoetfjep^ .. .. S.30.H' • TTuV BtCvappj^ yap OKnawAuet^tXtr^V" a^ontcTiOu v4oJ^totjoru V^<S»-L Ke^t, TTXOUO. n^aKpk. TTO^AX . «•• TOWTO £e vry3«»v>5 g,ow3ftAe'^  rrpoeyKf xyr&>~^- o^/Tr^Te Kia^ov y^V -TO^ Although Thucydides does not mention Naxian power, these statements of Herodotus confirm that Naxos had some stature at sea, although certainly not as a great or extensive power. 15 XVI E r e t r i i Herodotus, 5.99:.. . * J ^ ^o^vo u "'gpSTpcetuwfTfivre (CXUTUJV X».Xr|erC««v o^6*-Xo/^ev.dL o-^o aTte>£o£©vTG.5.... $";3i.3 %I v&euT<ev Once again there i s no evidence for a thalassocracy in Thucydides and the statements of Herodotus are not evidence of a thalassocracy or even vague indications of one, although he does speak of the prosperity of the island. Herodotus' mention of the five Eretrian ships occurs again at the time of their defeat by the Persians. Thus, for the three states in the "List of Thalassocracies" for which Herodotus does not give any indication of sea-power, he mentions their fleets when they are defeated by other powers. XVII Egineses Herodotus, 5.81.2: Aav.v cv-fyraA. • Se 6u£»i^6* T f r ^ & Y ^ i ^ 16 Thucydides, 1.14.3: A^urfyra-u yap Y«xt- ^ A&r\VoZo (k^ Kelt frf The ancient evidence confirms the entry of the Aeginetans in the "List of Thalassocracies". It has been shown that the majority of the states in the "List of Thalassocracies" of Eusebius are mentioned in either Herodotus or Thucydides as having some control over, or influence in, maritime affairs. Evidence is lacking to confirm the thalassocracies of Lesbos, Sparta and Eretria. The common factor for these three states is that Herodotus mentions naval defeats. Possibly each was powerful at sea before i t s defeat, thus making the defeat i t s e l f worthy of note, as putting an end to, or diminishing, i t s power. This is not the case for Sparta, since she was defeated by Polycrates, who had been the leading thalassocrat for some years, and the Spartan thalassocracy is shown as succeeding the Samian in Eusebius' outline. Yet the Eretrian thalassocracy is supposed to have existed just before the Persian destruction of Eretria. Thus Herodotus made note of the beginning 29 of i t s end. Strabo states that Eretria had control over Andros, Ceos, Teos . 30 and other islands and Myres , following W. W. Goodwin, believes that the passage refers to the establishment of a regular hegemony over the Cycladic islands in the late sixth century, although Strabo does not give an indica-tion of the date. If so, Eretria not only succeeded Naxos chronologically but took over control of her former possessions. This information is late 2 9Strabo, 448. 30 J. L. Myres, ojp_. c i t . , 97. 17 but I think that i t , combined with Herodotus' comment on Eretrian prosperity and the sending of five Eretrian ships to Miletus, perhaps marking the end of Eretria's power, is enough to confirm the Eretrian entry in the "List of Thalassocracies". The Lesbian fleet was defeated by Polycrates, and according to Eusebius' register Phocaea maintained control of the seas between the hegemonies of these two thalassocrats. This defeat could have been the f i n a l blow to a state whose naval power had been waning for some time, while that of Phocaea increased. The thalassocracies of Lesbos and Phocaea would not have interfered with each other as Phocaea was interested mainly in transporting goods to the far west. They could have lived peacefully side by side. However, Polycrates attempted to gain complete control of the seas and, 31 according to Herodotus' description , i t is unlikely that he allowed even a second-rate power to exist within close range. Thus the defeat of the Lesbian and Milesian fleets might have been an attempt f i n a l l y to eliminate former powers, now somewhat weakened. It is possible and reasonable to think that Lesbos had some sea-power before the time of Polycrates, but 32 there is no proof . Possibly the lack of evidence for the thalassocracy of the Lesbians can be explained i f one considers Thucydides' remark on the 33 smallness of fleets before the Persian Wars , but the entry on Eusebius' l i s t cannot be confirmed from ancient historians. 3 1Herodotus, 3.122.2; 3.39.3. 32 See also note 27 above. 3 3Thucydides, 1.14.3. 18 Perhaps the defeat of the Spartans by Polycrates heralded the beginning rather than the end of the Spartan thalassocracy. An attempt to lay siege by sea to a power that was noted and marvelled at by the Greeks as the greatest and most extensive sea-power since the legendary times of Minos would not go unnoticed. This attempt, although unsuccessful, and magnified by talk, could be responsible for the inclusion of the Spartans in the 34 "List of Thalassocracies" . Also, the time given to Sparta as a thalasso-35 crat is very short , leading one to believe that, in the absence of any great power, the action taken by Sparta against Samos caused her to be named as a thalassocrat. 36 Miller suggests that the Spartan thalassocracy was the result of a struggle between the Chilonian and Agiad parties in Sparta, during the reign of Kleomenes. Dorieus, when Kleomenes succeeded to the throne, l e f t Sparta to establish a colony in Libya. He returned a few years later, having been driven out of Libya by the Carthaginians. Then he set out to establish a colony in western S i c i l y . The attempt of Dorieus in North Africa has been interpreted as an attempt to set up tributaries, or areas under Sparta's 37 control . Thus Sparta may have tried to establish herself . as a thalasso-crat, and this attempt brought about her inclusion in the l i s t of Eusebius. J - J . L. Myres, op_. ext., 100, suggests that this shows Sparta aiming to be a thalassocrat. 3 5See pp. 20 below. 36M. Miller, op_. c i t . , 39. 3 7 J . L. Myres, op_. ext., 98. 19 A l l the en t r i e s i n Eusebius' " L i s t of Thalassocracies" have been confirmed by the comments of Herodotus and Thucydides, and Strabo i n the case of E r e t r i a , with the exception of Lesbos and Sparta, f o r whom there i s l i t t l e or no ancient evidence. Nonetheless I believe that the thalassocracy of Lesbos e x i s t e d and should remain i n i t s place on the l i s t . I intend to use Lesbos, as w e l l as the other thalassocracies that are attested by Herodotus and Thucydides, i n my in q u i r y i n t o the character of these s i x t h -century t h a l a s s o c r a c i e s . I consider the alleged thalassocracy of Sparta to be an exaggeration. I s h a l l use Sparta yet, i f i t i s necessary or h e l p f u l i n understanding these th a l a s s o c r a c i e s . The others have been shown to be h i s t o r i c a l . The sequence of the thalassocracies i n Eusebius' l i s t i s generally accepted, with the exception of the Carians i n place X, yet the dates and durations f o r some of these have been questioned and v a s t l y d i f f e r e n t ones 38 proposed. The following scheme was derived by W. G. Forrest No. Power Eusebius' dates Approximate r '39 Duration Scheme I Scheme II~ r e a l date I Lydians 92 1172-1080 1184-1092 II P elasigians 85 1080-995 1092-1003 II I T h r a c i a n s 79 995-916 1003-928 IV Rhodians 23 916-893 928-905 38, W. G. Forr e s t , op_. c i t . , 105. 39 Scheme I i s based on 1172 B. C. as the date f o r the f a l l of Troy. Scheme II i s c a l c u l a t e d by the a d d i t i o n of the three Anolympiads as bonuses of four years (668, ca. 600, 364 B. C ) . Thus Forrest adjusts the beginning 20 V Phrygians 25 893-868 905-880 750-720 VI Kypriots 32 868-836 880-848 720-710 VII Phoenicians 45 836-791 848-803 710-668 VIII Egyptians 43 791-748 803-760 668-625 IX Milesians 18 748-730 760-742 625-600 X (Karians) 71 730-669 742-681 600-585 XI Lesbians 96 669-573 681-581 585-575 XII Phokaians 44 573-529 581-533 575-540 XIII Samians 17 529-512 533-516 540-516 XIV Spartans 2 512-510 516-514 516-510 XV Naxians 10 510-500 514-504 510-500 XVI Eretrians 15 500-485 504-489 500-490 XVII Aiginetans 10 485-475 489-479 490-480 These dates are not accepted by a l l , as some prefer to use the dates in Eusebius' l i s t , making adjustments such as the ending of the Eretrian and 41 Aeginetan thalassocracies. J. L. Myres' dates are slightly different but correspond closely enough to raise no major problems, except in the case of each thalassocracy by twelve years down to 669 B. C. (no. XI); by eight for no. XII, by four thereafter. 40 Accepting lower dates: F. Bark, op_. c i t . , 19; J. Fotheringham, op_. c i t . , 76; J. L. Myres, op_. c i t . , 88; not accepting: A. R. Burn, op_. c i t . , 165; D. Hogarth, op_. c i t . , 517; M. Miller, op_. c i t . ; R. Helm, op_. c i t . , 252. But see A. R. Burn, "Dates in Early Greek History", JHS 55 (1935) 130-146. 41 J. L. Myres, op_. c i t . , 88. 21 of Miletus, whose prominence Myres dates as beginning in 604 B. C., a differ-ence of twenty-one years from Forrest's suggested date. The ancient evidence ties the Milesian thalassocracy to the time of 42 Thrasybulus . When speaking of Corinthian sea-power Thucydides refers to the dates 704 B. C. and 664,B. C. but he implies that Corinthian control 43 continued for some time . Herodotus' reference to Corinthian seamanship 44 is in the time of Periander . This corresponds to Forrest s suggested dates. As for Lesbos, since we have no evidence in Herodotus or Thucydides that i t was a thalassocracy, obviously we have, none with which i t could be dated. The suggested dates for the thalassocracies of Phocaea and her successors as far as Aegina conform more closely to the dates derived from Eusebius, and the ancient evidence provides confirmation. Phocaea had a 45 powerful navy about the time of her defeat of the Carthaginians and Samos 46 enjoyed a thalassocracy under Polycrates . Naxos possessed a powerful 47 fleet before the Ionian revolt and Aegina owned a navy before the Persian 48 Wars . Thus the ancient evidence substantiates the dates suggested by 4 2Herodotus, 1.20.1. 4 3Thucydides, 1.13.5. 4 4Herodotus, 1.24.1. 4 5Thucydides, 1.13.6. 4 6Herodotus, 3.122.2. 4^Herodotus, 5.30.4. 48 Herodotus, 5.81.2. 22 Forrest and Myres. This i s particularly important as far as Miletus and Corinth are concerned since these dates differ as much as one hundred years from those of Eusebius. Unfortunately, one cannot resolve the difference between Forrest's and Myres' dates for the start of the Milesian thalasso-cracy, since i t i s known only that Thrasybulus ruled about the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the sixth. There are no absolute dates for his reign. It has been established that the majority of the names i n Eusebius' "List of Thalassocracies" can be confirmed by the evidence of Herodotus and Thucydides, and that the suggested dates of Forrest f i t the ancient evidence. Thus we have a l i s t of thalassocracies and approximate dates for them. 25 CHAPTER TWO. THE NAVAL ASPECTS Since the evidence for the thalassocracies has been established, I shall inquire into the naval aspects of a thalassocracy of the late seventh and sixth centuries. In order to do this I shall consider the naval battles engaged in by these states and their causes, and I shall ascertain whether the a l l i e s , i f there were any, of each thalassocrat were land forces or inferior naval powers, and whether these a l l i e s were necessary to maintain the superiority of the thalassocrat. I shall consider also whether a thalassocrat had many challengers and the extent and influence of piracy among these states. It w i l l be useful to inquire into the type of boat used and innovations or adaptations to the boats effected by a thalassocrat. Once again Herodotus and Thucydides provide the bulk of the ancient evidence. By applying the information in those historians to these questions, one should obtain a general idea of the naval aspects of these thalassocracies, i f they contain common factors; or else i t w i l l be seen that these states were totally individual in the way in which they obtained and exercised power. First let us consider the naval and other battles. There is evidence that Erythrae aided Miletus against Naxos"*" and that Miletus aided Chios 2 3 against Erythrae . Then Chios assisted Miletus against Ardys . These three Plutarch, De Mulierum Virtute, 17. Herodotus, 1.18.3. Herodotus, 1.18.3. 24 wars are early. The only datable one is that between Miletus and Ardys, which came during the reign of Thrasybulus, sometime in the late seventh or 4 early sixth century, and the war between Chios and Erythrae predated i t . These battles imply an interesting fluctuation in Miletus' attitude towards other poleis. She turns against Erythrae, who was obviously an a l l y , in order to aid Chios, who later helps her in a war against a foreign power. Or, i f the war against Erythrae came f i r s t then i t was either beneficial to Erythrae, or necessary to aid her former enemy. A. G. Dunham suggests that Chios was a more important ally for Miletus than Erythrae, because the anchorage at Chios was better than what Erythrae could offer and i t was necessary for Miletus to use i t . These two battles were probably disputes over a few acres of land or possibly, in the case of Chios against Erythrae, over the control of the straits between the island and the mainland. The struggle between Naxos and Miletus could have been over rights to a trade-route or trading area. It is not known whether these were land battles or sea battles. The battle between Miletus and Alyattes, according to Herodotus' description , was an annual raid for plunder by the Lydians, which ended in a treaty of friendship, since the Milesians controlled the seas and the Lydians were not able to overcome them7. These battles took place during, or just before, Miletus' hegemony. Herodotus, 1.18.3. A. G. Dunham, The History of Miletus, 63. Herodotus, 1.17.3. Herodotus, 1.22.4. 25 g They appear to be local quarrels and thus f i t into Thucydides' description of wars of this period as local affairs between neighbours. They certainly do not resemble the aggressive actions of a thalassocrat attempting to establish or expand her control. Indeed, Miletus was not the aggressor in the wars against Ardys and Erythrae, and that against Naxos appears to be retaliatory . There is also a record of a battle, or the threat of one, between Miletus and Sicyon"^. In this account Thrasybulus appears in the harbour of Sicyon, attempting to seize i t . Frontinus includes i t in a discussion of attacks in which the generals managed to obtain their objectives by surprise tactics. This is characteristic of an aggressive leader, who, in this instance, is some distance from his local waters. Such an attack seems out of character compared with the other h o s t i l i t i e s in which Miletus was involved, and the evidence i t s e l f i s doubtful"^. However, i f i t is accepted, perhaps Miletus pursued a more aggressive policy towards Greek poleis than appears likely from her previous quarrels. On the other hand i t may be the effort of a waning power to regain some of her former glory by asserting herself. In any case Frontinus' reference confuses our understanding of Miletus' behaviour as a thalassocrat. ".1 think i t more li k e l y that Miletus was an unaggressive leader who became involved in local struggles for the immediate advantages that she would gain and that this appearance in the harbour of Sicyon was unusual, i f i t occured at a l l . g Thucydides, 1.15.2. 9 Plutarch, De Mulienum Virtute, 17, "^Frontinus, 3.9.7. 11W. G. Forrest, "Two Chronographic Notes; The Tenth Thalassocracy in 26 12 Lesbos fought against Athens in Sigeum . This battle is dated to 13 about 590 B. C. It appears to have been a prolonged struggle, the outcome 14 of which was f i n a l l y decided by arbitration . Sigeum was the colonial territory of Lesbos but Athens l a i d claim to i t , arguing that the Lesbians had no more right to the land than they, or any other Greeks who fought in the Trojan War. Sigeum was an important colony, strategically located at the entrance to the Propontis, and the benefits to a mother-city, such as harbourage and free passage through the area, could be considerable. The colony was awarded to Athens by Periander"^. This took place a short time before Lesbos' reputed thalassocracy. Possibly the battle was fought mostly on land, as i t is unlikely that Lesbos suffered much harm at sea immediately before becoming a thalassocrat. Again, the loss of a colony that could benefit a trading state did not affect her leadership at sea. This battle ended during the Corinthian thalassocracy and i t was the arbitration of Corinth's tyrant that took i t from Lesbos. Yet there is nothing to indicate any h o s t i l i t y between these two states; on the contrary, the arbitrator in 16 such an af f a i r had to be acceptable - to both parties involved . This battle was initiated by Athens. Lesbos, according to the evidence, did not establish or try to strengthen her power through a show of force. However, there is l i t t l e evidence concerning Lesbos. Eusebius", CQ N.S. 19 (1969) 98. 12 Herodotus, 5.95.2. 13. D. Hogarth, "Lydia and Ionia", CAH 3. 516. ^Herodotus, 5.95.2. 1 5Herodotus, 5.96. 16M. N. Tod, International Arbitration Amongst the Greeks, 96. 27 Corinth, during her thalassocracy, fought against Corcyra"^ and against 18 19 Epidaurus . According to Herodotus , Periander undertook these wars for motives of personal revenge and won both of them. It i s possible that these wars were attempts by Corinth to subdue or injure competitors, although 20 Herodotus does imply that Corcyra initiated her feud with Corinth . That i s to say, Periander took the opportunity to destroy Corcyraean interference in his thalassocracy, after Corcyra started the dispute. Possibly the war against Epidaurus was a dispute over territory or an attempt to impress her strength upon her neighbours. These battles apparently concerned only the competitors, as Corinth fought unaided. Nonetheless Corinth appears also to have been an unaggressive leader, involving herself only in matters that directly affected her. During the Corinthian thalassocracy Athens and Megara fought over 21 Salamis , which was an important possession for both these states, given i t s location. This is another case of a long drawn-out struggle, which was 22 fi n a l l y submitted to a Spartan board of arbitrators . The matter was a local concern and did not affect the thalassocrats but i t does contain a point of interest. Athens and Corinth were reasonably friendly at this 17 Herodotus, 3.53.7. "^Herodotus, 3.52.7. 1 9Herodotus, 3.50; 3.52. "^Herodotus, 3.49. 21 Plutarch, Solon, 8. 22 Plutarch, Solon, 8. 28, 23 24 time , while Megara and Corinth had been age-old rivals ; the fact that Corinth at no time interfered in this struggle possibly confirms that she was a peaceful thalassocrat. It probably was beneficial to Corinth that Salamis was under Athenian control; she might thus avoid harassment of her ships sailing east. Corinth kept out of a struggle whose outcome, although indirectly, was of concern to her. 25 26 Samos fought against Priene , as did Miletus a few years later . . It is not known whether these were land battles or sea battles, but they were probably struggles over land, or the control of the straits between the island and the mainland. This is the type of battle in which Miletus was usually involved. These disputes take place before the thalassocracy of Samos and probably after that of Miletus. They provide examples of local struggles apparently of concern to no one other than the participants. 27 Samos fought against Megara in Perinthus , during the Milesian thalassocracy. This battle i s clearly of the same type as that between Lesbos and Athens i n Sigeum, a dispute over colonial territory. Samos won this battle and Megara received no help from Miletus, although Miletus had 28 apparently allowed Megarian colonization in territory that she dominated Samos took the colony from Megara in order to have friendly territory in the Propontis; for trade and moorage. Once again, the affair was l e f t to the 23 See A. R. Burn, "The So-Called 'Trade Leagues' in Early Greek History and the Lelantine War", JHS 49 (1929) 22; M. N. Tod, op_. ext., 96. 24 See A. R. Burn, op_. c i t . , 22. 25 Plutarch, Qu. Gr. no. 20." . 26T, ., Ibxd. 27 Plutarch, Qu. Gr. no. 57. 29 combatants and Miletus took no interest in i t , even though i t was in an area through which her ships must pass to reach her colonies i n the Black Sea. 29 The Persians la i d siege to Phocaea at a time when Phocaea controlled the seas. This ended the Phocaean thalassocracy in Ionia, as the Phocaeans 30 emigrated to Corsica A few years later the Phocaeans fought against the Carthaginians in 31 A l a l i a . Herodotus states that the cause of this battle, which was initiated by the Carthaginians, who had interests in the western trade, was the piracy of the Phocaeans. The Phocaeans won, but their power was destroyed because 32 of the number of ships lost or damaged . Thus there were two attacks made against the Phoceans, one by land and one by sea, which ended her thalasso-cracy. Phocaea did not pursue an aggressive policy to obtain or strengthen her power, but she was almost certainly destroyed by force. Samos fought against the combined fleets of Miletus and Lesbos, during 33 her thalassocracy . The aggressor in this instance is not known, but Samos succeeded in destroying the fleets of both states. It seems more than lik e l y that this battle was not merely a struggle over territory, but a question of deciding power and supremacy, since we find two previous 2 8A. R. Burn, op_. c i t . , 24. in Herodotus, 1.163. on Herodotus, 1.165. Herodotus, 1.166.1. 32 Herodotus, 1.166. 3 3Herodotus, 1.39.4. 30 thalassocrats engaged in a struggle with the existing leader. Herodotus' 34 description of Polycrates' activities leads one to believe that he insisted on a maritime monopoly. Thus i t is possible that he was the aggressor. It is equally possible, however, that Miletus and Lesbos found 35 his piracy so detrimental to their prosperity that they combined to take action against him. In any case, this i s the f i r s t example of a recognized sea-power fighting against states with reputations as thalassocrats. Sparta and Corinth l a i d siege, by sea, to Samos during Polycrates' 36 37 tyranny . Herodotus gives the piracy of the Samians as the cause for the attack made by Corinth and Sparta. This siege was completely unsuccessful 38 and resulted in the withdrawal of Sparta within forty days . Polycrates was the acknowledged power of the eastern Greek world, and in this instance was merely defending himself against attack, not conducting any aggressive actions or reprisals against these states. Yet, once again we find a former thalassocrat, Corinth, engaged in an attack on the present leader. Although i t i s not known whether Polycrates committed any aggressive action besides his continuous and widespread piracy, his thalassocracy was certainly unacceptable to other powerful Greek poleis. Samos is the f i r s t state found to be involved not in local disputes only, but in struggles with leading poleis. 3 4Herodotus, 3.39. 3 5Herodotus, 3.39.4. "^Herodotus, 3.54.1. 37 Herodotus, 3.48. 38 Herodotus, 3.56. 31 39 The Persians ended the rule of Polycrates and the Samian domination 40 of the sea. The Persians also put an end to the Naxian hegemony and that .41 of Eretria 42 The Aeginetans and Cretans fought against the Samians in Zancle Herodotus states that this battle arose from an attack made, many years 43 previously, by the Samians on the Aeginetans . The cause was probably a dispute over territory, or possibly piracy. This attack occurred either at the end of the Samian control of the seas, or during that of Sparta, but i t seemed to concern only the antagonists. 44 Aegina fought against Athens twice in the later sixth and the early f i f t h century. Herodotus states that the f i r s t of these disputes arose from 45 the long-standing hatred between these two poleis . Again i t is more probable that i t was caused by the struggle over control of local waters and the long-standing hatred was merely a convenient excuse. The f i r s t battle marks the rise of Aegina as a thalassocrat and, while i t was a local struggle, i t is the f i r s t instance we have of a thalassocrat establishing herself by means of force. Nonetheless Aegina does not seem to have been an aggressive leader involved in other than local disputes. Herodotus, 3.125.3 Herodotus, 5.34. Herodotus, 6.101. Herodotus, 3.59.3. 'Herodotus, 3.59.4. Herodotus, 5.81.2* Herodotus, 5.81.2, 32 The majority of the battles mentioned f i t Thucydides' description of them as local affairs between neighbours. They were disputes over bits of land, or control of local waters, or colonial territory,, and they did not have any effect on others than the combatants. The thalassocrats, for the most part, do not seem to have made any attempt to force their supremacy on other Greek states, or to have established their supremacy through naval battles. Possibly Samos, under Polycrates' tyranny, pursued a more aggressive policy than the others, and Aegina did establish her supremacy more firmly by her defeat of Athens, yet Miletus, Lesbos, Corinth, Phocaea, Sparta, Naxos and Eretria seem to have been peaceful leaders, involved only in local struggles, i f any. Thus far, i t appears that the late seventh- and sixth-century thalassocrats were unaggressive, establishing and keeping their control of maritime affairs by other means than naval battles. Was the supremacy of a thalassocrat ever challenged by another pblis? There are several cases in which a thalassocrat, during i t s suggested period of power, is found fighting another state. However, in most cases, i t i s impossible to determine whether a thalassocrat has been challenged, or i f the thalassocrat is attempting to strengthen i t s control. One example of 46 this i s Polycrates' defeat of the Milesians and the Lesbians . While i t is clear that Lesbos did not i n i t i a t e the struggle, since she went to the aid of Miletus, whether Miletus or Polycrates was the aggressor is unknown and either i s possible. Was Miletus challenging Polycrates' control of the sea or was Polycrates strengthening his control by getting r i d of competitors? We cannot provide the answer. On the other hand, i t is known that Sparta, Herodotus, 3.39.4. 33 with the aid of the Corinthians, initiated an attack on Samos during 47 Polycrates' rule . Since piracy seems to have been an integral part of 48 Polycrates' policy, and i t i s the cause given for the attack , i t is quite possible that these states were attempting to end the Samian hegemony. Although no one succeeded in the struggles against Polycrates, i t appears that other Greek poleis were unwilling to accept a Samian thalassocracy, though those of other states do not seem to have disturbed them. This perhaps can be explained by Polycrates' interference with others, unusual conduct in a sixth-century thalassocrat. 49 Corinth, during the time of Periander, had trouble with Corcyra This information presents d i f f i c u l t i e s , since the troubles between these two states were continuous. Thucydides"^ states that the f i r s t known sea-batter took place between these two states, and that they fought again just before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War"'"'". Herodotus clearly implies 52 that Corcyra initiated the trouble during Periander's rule , so possibly this instance can be considered a direct attack on a thalassocracy. Again i t was unsuccessful. It i s reasonable to conclude that Corinth won, since 53 Periander sent three hundred Corcyrean boys to Alyattes at i t s conclusion Herodotus, 3.54.1. Herodotus, 3.48. Herodotus, 3.49. 'Thucydides, 1.13.4. Thucydides, 1.29. Herodotus, 3.53.7. 'Herodotus, 3.48.2. 34 54 Corcyra certainly had a fleet at the beginning of the Persian Wars and Thucydides"^ mentions her as one of the f i r s t to have triremes in any numbers; i t is probable that she had a fleet during the time of Periander. Possibly she was attempting to gain power on the seas by defeating Corinth. Yet Corcyra tended to stay out of Greek af f a i r s " ^ and operate on her own. So she may have had no interest in a position of thalassocracy. It seems like l y that this incident was just another of the many struggles between these two states, arising from Corinth's ambitions in the west. In the preceding cases actions taken against a thalassocrat were both direct and unsuccessful, yet the battles between Lesbos and Athens in 57 58 Sigeum and Megara and Samos in Perinthos are of a different order. Sigeum and Perinthos were colonies established in an area dominated by 59 Miletus and the battles over them involved Milesian a l l i e s . These wars took place about the end of the seventh century or the beginning of the 60 sixth , at the end of the suggested time of Miletus' thalassocracy. This presents a possible challenge to a thalassocracy through attacks on i t s a l l i e s , or perhaps i t is a sign of the weakening of the power of Miletus. 54 Thucydides, 1.14. 5 5Thucydides, 1.14.2. ^ ^ Thucydides, 1.32. "^Herodotus, 5.95.2. CO Plutarch, Qu. Gr. no. 57. 59 A. R. Burn, op_. c i t . , 24. 6 0Herodotus, 5.95.2, speaks of Periander's arbitration. 35 There are other explanations offered for these events: that Miletus had changed alliances, or that the change in control of these two colonies was unimportant to her, or that her thalassocracy had already ended. It becomes a very slight possibility that a thalassocracy was being challenged through her a l l i e s . I believe that Miletus, since she was an unaggressive thalasso-c r a t ^ , simply took no part i n a matter that was not of immediate concern to her. Thus i t seems that no Greek thalassocracy was ever seriously threatened by another Greek state, although attempts were made against Polycrates' Samos. On the other hand the thalassocracies of the Phocaeans, Samians, Naxians, Eretrians and Aeginetans were not only threatened but ended by the Persians. A l l these states, except Aegina, were overrun or destroyed. The Aeginetans did not suffer at Persian hands, but on the contrary disabled many Persian ships at Salamis and were said to have given the most distinguished service 63 of a l l the Greeks . Yet after the Persian invasion of 480 their power was eclipsed by Athens. Thus the rise of Persia was a disaster for the Greek thalassocracies of the time. The Persians did not defeat the Greeks at sea. The Persians were dependent on the Phoenician navy, which was defeated by the Ionian fleets at the time of the Ionian revolt^ 4. Thucydides states*^ that the Ionians when they fought against Cyrus were masters of a l l the Ionian sea, yet were forced to pay tribute and come to terms^. During the time of See page 25. Herodotus, 8.91. Herodotus, 8.93. Herodotus, 5.112. Thucydides, 1.13.6. 'Herodotus, 1.169. 36 Darius, although the Persians were said to be afraid of the smaller Greek 67 fleet, the Ionians chose not to fight . Thus a land power was able to put an end to many Greek thalassocracies. However the Greek states do not seem to have challenged the position of a thalassocrat. The coastline of Greece, with i t s many inlets and islands, is particu-larly suited to the activities of pirates. It is known that piracy was an honourable profession among the early Greeks and Thucydides makes several 68 69 comments about i t . Minos used his power at sea to get r i d of pirates Even as more dishonour became associated with piracy, i t flourished, since i t was very profitable. It has been suggested that the Dipylon ware, which portrays Athenian ships, shows a force intended to protect Attica from p i r a t e s ^ . The Athenian thalassocracy of the f i f t h century once again cleared the seas of pirates. What may be said about professional piracy during the late seventh- and sixth-century thalassocracies? According to Herodotus7"'" some battles among the Greek states were reprisals against piracy. Piracy would obviously have a strong effect on seafaring nations, but i t is d i f f i c u l t to know how widespread i t was during the late seventh and sixth centuries. Ancient evidence gives some indication of where and why piracy flourished. Histiaeus of Miletus organized eight 6 7 Herodotus, 6.9; 6.14. 68 Thucydides, 1.4; 1.5; 1.7. 69 Herodotus, 3.122; Thucydides, 1.4. 7°P. N. Ure, The Origin of Tyranny, 324, following Helbig. 7^Herodotus, 3.47.1; 1.166.1. 37 Lesbian ships to s a i l to Byzantium and seize a l l vessels coming; out of the 72 Black Sea and hold them until they agreed to obey his orders . Plutarch 73 states that the Samians, in obedience to an oracle, changed their abode from Samos to Mycale and supported themselves by piracy there for ten years, after which they sailed again to Samos and overcame their enemies. After the failure of the Ionian revolt, the Phocaean commander Dionysius sailed to S i c i l y , which he made his base for p i r a t i c a l raids against Carthaginian 74 and Tyrrhenian ships; but he never attacked Greek ships . We have a p o l i t i c a l figure using piracy as a means to gain his own ends, and examples of nations supporting themselves by piracy. These instances, except that given by Plutarch, are at the end of the period with which we are concerned. Nevertheless they do help to give some idea of the prevalence and strength of piracy. There are examples of Greek thalassocrats engaging in piracy. Apparent-ly the Phocaean emigration to A l a l i a resulted in the Phocaeans supporting themselves by p i r a c y ^ . There is no evidence that the Phocaeans practised piracy during their thalassocracy in Ionia. Perhaps the change in their residence brought about a change in their practices. Samos, under Polycrates' rule, i s known to have practised widespread 76 piracy, attacking the ships of both friends and enemies . The two states Herodotus, 6.5.3. 'Plutarch, Qu. Gr. no. 55. Herodotus, 6.17. Herodotus, 1.166. Herodotus, 3.48. 38 mentioned as engaging in piracy, Samos and Phocaea, are the only Ionian sea-powers Thucydides notes 7 7, so possibly the idea of thalassocracy contained some notion of successful piracy. Yet Thucydides does not discuss 78 the piracy of these states; the information comes from Herodotus . Also the Phocaeans do not seem to have been pirates while they were operating in Ionia, as the leading sea-power, although the Samians engaged in piracy, while in this position. Possibly a thalassocracy included p i r a t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s , but there are several other logical explanations of Thucydides' having singled out Samos and Phocaea as sea-powers. Perhaps Samos and Phocaea are mentioned because each indulged in piracy as a national policy, or Samos is noted because of her strength and Phocaea because of her venturesome traders and innovations in seafaring. The question remains whether Samos' behaviour during her thalassocracy was exceptional or whether i t was the greatest example of a conventional practice. There i s no evidence that any other thalassocrat engaged in piracy as a regular policy, although i t is not unlikely that individual citizens of a thalassocracy did so. I think that Polycrates' Samos was unusual in this respect, as in so many others, for a sixth-century thalassocrat, which caused i t to be noted. The Corinthians 7 9, and Minos in legendary times^, are said to have cleared the sea of pirates, which would be a more likely pursuit of the Thucydides, 1.13.6. Herodotus, 1.166; 3.48. Thucydides, 1.13.5. 'Thucydides, 1.4. 39 sixth-century thalassocrat. Since the evidence concerning piracy i s scanty., and i t s significance hard to determine, i t i s possible that the thalassocrats 81 engaged in piracy to a greater extent than I have allowed Obviously the piracy of Samos would have had a strong effect on other seafaring states during Polycrates' rule. But what effect did the piracy of individuals throughout the century have on the thalassocrat? It is more than likely that the profession continued to flourish during this time, since there i s no evidence that any state succeeded in clearing the seas of pirates. While the pirates obviously would not face a state's fleet, they could do much damage to the prosperity of the state by constant attacks on it s merchant vessels. It is possible that the thalassocrats joined together with other states in an amphictyony or some such league in order to dis-82 courage pirates from preying on their ships . For example, Miletus and neighbouring states, or Lesbos and Chios, could show enough force, and o perhaps provide some sort of patrol, so that the pirates would consider their chances to be better elsewhere. But this is conjecture. It i s equally possible that the Milesians, Lesbians and the rest, regarded piracy as an inescapable e v i l and accepted the losses rather than defended themselves against i t . Phocaea changed from using merchant vessels to penteconters, usually 83 naval vessels, on her long voyages . Perhaps1 this change was caused in 81 L. Casson, Ancient Mariners, 83. He states that merchants had to ward off attacks from commercial rivals since such attempts were an acknowledged means of discouraging competition. 82 Cf. J. P. Harland, Prehistoric Aigina, 108. He believes that the mutual protection offered by an amphictyony would tend to suppress piracy in a 40 84 part by the need to defend h e r s e l f against p i r a t e s . L. Casson suggests that the Phocaeans t r a v e l l e d i n packs. Again, t h i s could be an attempt to f r u s t r a t e the p i r a t e s . Samos, by becoming a powerful p i r a t e state, probably found the best defence against i n d i v i d u a l piracy, although the defensive aspect was almost c e r t a i n l y not the motivating cause. Just as there i s l i t t l e evidence to show whether or not the thalasso-crats were also p i r a t e s , there i s l i t t l e to show how, i f at a l l , they defended themselves against piracy. P i r a c y was a constant condition i n t h e i r world and perhaps the losses to a thalassocrat were not great enough to do much to her p r o s p e r i t y . On the other hand, since i t was the merchants who were the greatest l o s e r s , perhaps the organization of some sort of defense was l e f t to them. The only c e r t a i n t y i s that the extent of piracy, what e f f e c t i t had, and the defenses taken against i t are unknown. We can assume that piracy existed and made l i f e uncomfortable for the merchants, but we cannot be more s p e c i f i c . I 'shall now consider the a l l i e s of each thalassocrat, whether they were land- or sea-powers, and whether they were necessary to maintain the s u p e r i o r i t y of each thalassocrat. Herodotus i s our main source of informa-ti o n f o r these a l l i a n c e s , but, as he nowhere l i s t s the a l l i e s , the information i s given haphazardly and undoubtedly i s not complete. S t i l l , we may have enough information to obtain a general idea of the a l l i a n c e s and l i m i t e d area. 83 Herodotus, 1.163. 84 L. Casson, op_. c i t . , 81. 41 thus come closer to determining the nature of the thalassocrats. 85 86 Miletus was al l i e d to Chios during her thalassocracy, to Erythrae 87 when she was fighting against Naxos, and to Lesbos . Thrasybulus, the 88 tyrant of Miletus, was friendly with Periander , the tyrant of Corinth, and 89 also was a friend and ally of Alyattes . Miletus was on good terms with 90 91 Sybaris , and possibly with Megara , as well as the Egyptian rulers as 92 proved by her appearance at Naucratis . The Greek states with which Miletus was friendly were mostly islands or coastal cities that had fleets. The only land powers with whom she had alliances were non-Greeks. Possibly the intention was to prevent their encroaching on her territory, and to obtain trading rights in their countries. Most of Miletus' Greek a l l i e s were within her area, with the exception of Corinth, Megara and Sybaris. It i s known that Corinth and Miletus were on good terms during this period, although the only explanation of this friendship is the common denominator of tyranny. 93 It has been suggested that Miletus' relationship with Sybaris was a result of the friendship of Periander and Thrasybulus. This seems plausible, as Miletus did not have other connections with the west. That Miletus, while supreme by sea, formed alliances with her neighbours was probably the result of her desire to continue her trade undisturbed. This desire might also explain her choice of sea-powers, for the most part, Herodotus, 1.18.3. Plutarch, De Mulierum Virtute, 17. r Herodotus, 3.39.4. Herodotus, 1.20. i Herodotus, 1.22.4. Herodotus, 6.21. 42 as a l l i e s . Battles would diminish prosperity and, since Miletus was in a relatively well-populated area, she would have to befriend those who"could help her in trade or those who could cause serious disruptions, i f unfriendly We have seen that the battles that Miletus fought during her control were local and, in the case of one ally fighting another, Chios against Erythrae, 94 for example, she helped the one who could benefit her more in her trade At any rate, Miletus appears to have followed a policy of getting along with as many states as possible and antagonizing only when necessary. This attitude also explains why Miletus kept clear of the battles between her a l l i e s and other states over colonial territory in an area that she dominated The number and type of Miletus' a l l i e s reinforce the suggestion that her thalassocracy was unaggressive. Periander, the tyrant of Corinth, was on good terms with the Egyptian 96 97 98 99 rulers and Alyattes , as well as with Athens and probably Lesbos I have mentioned that Periander was friendly with the Milesian tyrant. Corinth seems to have been a l l i e d mainly with eastern states, both Greek and foreign, and apparently dominated in the west unaided. Possibly the friend-ship between Corinth and Lesbos was an offshoot of the relationship between Miletus and Corinth, or, since Periander's thalassocracy came between that of Miletus and that of Lesbos, he might have been merely keeping himself on good terms with the eastern Greek powers. Since there does not appear 9 1 C f . A. R. Burn, op_. c i t . , 15-37. 92 Herodotus, 2.178. 93 A. R. Burn, op_. c i t . , 21. 94 See page 24. 95 See above, note 28. 43 to have been any f r i c t i o n between Miletus and Lesbos, even though they were successive powers in Ionia, Periander would have had no trouble remaining friendly with both. Periander was also a l l i e d with the eastern foreign powers, probably for the sake of trade. Nicolaus Damascenus says that Periander plied both seasl^ Thus, being on good terms with the eastern Greek sea-powers and the foreign land-powers, Periander could carry on trade with no harassment. Periander was quite probably well-disposed towards Athens, as shown by his arbitration of Sigeum. It was beneficial to Corinthian merchants to be free from trouble while sailing through the Saronic Gulf towards the east. Corinthian wares were in competition with Athenian in the early sixth century, when the latter was beginning to show better craftsmanship"^"'"; this suggests friendly co-existence between trading states. Corinth does not seem to have had many a l l i e s in western Greece. However, the only other Greek state with a large fleet was Corcyra, whom 102 Corinth fought and defeated during Periander's rule . Thus, since Corinth had the dominant fleet, she did not need alliances in the west and she 96 Nicolaus Damascenus, Fragment 60. 97 Herodotus, 3.48.2 9 8 Herodotus, 5.95.2; see Tod, op_. c i t . , 96, 99 Herodotus, 5.95.2; see Tod, op. c i t . , 96, "'"^Nicolaus Damascenus, Fragment 58. "^John Boardman, The Greeks Overseas, 29. 102 Herodotus, 3.53.7. 44 procured those that were of use to her in the east. Once again, Corinth does not seem to have been aggressive as a thalassocrat and her alliances appear to follow a policy of befriending those with whom she might collide through her trading interests or those who might be of use. Lesbos was present at Naucratis and thus probably on friendly terms with Egyptian rulers'*"^3, as well as with Miletus"^ 4. There is not much evidence for the alliances of Lesbos, but i t is quite likely that she was placed in much the same position as Miletus. She would need to be a l l i e d to the neighbouring islands and coastal ci t i e s in order to carry on her trade unmolested. Not much information can be gained from Lesbos. 105 Phocaea asked Sparta for help against Cyrus but Sparta refused She was present at Naucratis also"*"^. Most of Phocaea's trade was in the far west where no other Greeks were in competition with her. Phocaea's troubles, i f any, would come from the natives of the far western countries in which she traded, and^ since the other Greeks did not usually travel so far, Greek alliances would be of l i t t l e use. For the most part, she seems to have gone her own way quietly. She would have had less need of co-operation from surrounding states than the other Ionic powers because of her practice of travelling in warships rather than merchant vessels. She appears to have avoided involvement with other poleis, except for her request for aid from Sparta. "^^Herodotus, 2.178. 104 Herodotus, 3.39.4. "'"^Herodotus, 1.152. "'"^Herodotus, 2.178. 45 Cambyses asked Polycrates for help against Egypt"*"^, and Amasis had 108 previously sent signs of goodwill to Polycrates . According to Herodotus, 109 overtures for alliance were made to Polycrates by the Lydians . Samos again breaks the general pattern of the sixth-century leaders. Polycrates was on good terms, or apparently good terms, with the foreign powers while antagonizing the Greek states. Thus Samos was a l l i e d with land-powers and no sea-powers. Polycrates, through his piracy and through his defeat of the Milesian and Lesbian fleets"'""'"^, was able to dominate the sea t r a f f i c of the time, while his alliances with foreign land-powers would enable Samos to trade in their countries. Samos did not seek the friendly co-operation of others in order to carry on her trading, but rather she destroyed the competition. Perhaps this is part of the basis of Herodotus' comment that Polycrates was the f i r s t thalassocrat after the time of Minos"'"''"''". That i s , Samos was the f i r s t state to be the recognized power on the seas, unsupported by any other Greek poleis. There had been other states who controlled the seas, but none of them did so while making enemies of and then defeating other Greek states. Samos' lack of alliances combined with her naval actions against Greek states confirm the suggestion that she followed an aggressive policy against other Greeks during her thalassocracy. "^^Herodotus, 3.44. "^^Herodotus, 2.182.2. 109 Herodotus, 3.12. "'""'"^ Herodotus, 3.39.4. "'""'""'"Herodotus, 3.122.2. 0 46 112 113 Croesus asked Sparta for an alliance and aid while both Phocaea and Miletus^"'"4 sought her help. Amasis of Egypt sent presents to Sparta'^"'. Sparta did not seek alliances but other states turned to her for help, Sparta agreed to help Croesus and was preparing ships to send to him when she was defeated, but she refused to help Phocaea and Miletus when they asked for aid against the Persians. However she did send one penteconter to Phocaea and a herald from the boat went to Sardis to t e l l the Persians 116 not to advance . It is more li k e l y that Sparta was asked for help as a land-force than as a naval force, since the Ionians were capable of defeating the Persians at sea but could not defend their c i t i e s . At any rate, Sparta did not involve herself in the alliance and affairs of the other Greeks, and she does not appear aggressive as a sea-power. Her behaviour does not add much to our information about sixth-century thalassocrats and i t need not be of concern, since I have already stated that Sparta's thalassocracy was the result of the reputation and glory gained by her unsuccessful attack on Polycrates. While i t is known that Lygdamis, the tyrant of Naxos, was friendly with 117 Peisistratus, the tyrant of Athens , this alliance precedes the Naxian 112 Herodotus, 1.69. 113 Herodotus, 1.152. 114 Herodotus, 5.49. "'""'"^ Herodotus, 3.47. 116 Herodotus, 1.152. ^Herodotus, 1.61.4. thalassocracy. There is no evidence of Naxian alliances during her period of power. As to Eretria, i t is known only that she helped Miletus against 118 the Persians . I assume that these two states, Naxos and Eretria, also kept on reasonably good terms with other seafaring states. 119 Aegina was aided by Thebes in her war against Athens early in the f i f t h century, though Argos refused to help because of a previous trans-120 121 gression by Aegina . Aegina was also among the Greek states at Naucratis. Aegina, as a trading nation, was probably on peaceful,terms with most other Greek states, although antagonistic to Athens, a neighbouring polis who was acquiring a fleet. The majority of the Greek states were on good terms with one another, or at least had no trouble with one another, and were friendly with foreign powers. The conclusion is that the Greek states cultivated friendships and avoided enmities, with the notable exception of Samos, who acted in the opposite fashion. One very noticeable point is that most of these states were a l l i e d to or on good terms with Asiatic rulers. Miletus, Lesbos, Samos, Phocaea and Aegina a l l had trading interests in Naucratis, which shows not only that the Egyptians accommodated Greeks but also that the merchants of the various 122 states had no trouble existing alongside one another . In a few cases Herodotus, 5.99. 119 Herodotus, 5.89. 120 Herodotus, 6.92. 121 Herodotus, 2.178. 1 9? J. Boardman, op_. c i t . , 148. He argues that the agreeable state of affairs among the merchants in Naucratis does not necessarily reflect the situation 48 Asiatic rulers, such as Necho"'"23 and Cambyses^24, appear to have called upon their Greek a l l i e s for additions to their fleet. Possibly the trade brought by the Greeks into the eastern Asian countries increased the prosperity of, the Asians. The alliances confirm the impression given by the naval battles of the various states, that they were, for the most part, unaggressive in their relations towards other states. I shall now consider the type of boats used, or adaptations and innova-tions made, by the thalassocracies in order to improve their fleets. Once again we are hindered by lack of information. Thucydides states that the Corinthians were skilled in ship-building and were the f i r s t to use the 125 methods s t i l l prevalent in his day . Herodotus t e l l s us that the Phocaeans used to travel in penteconters rather than merchant vessels on 126 their trading voyages . Merchant vessels were built to carry heavy loads and could accommodate easily the necessary food supplies' for a long voyage, while the penteconter was usually a troop-transport with a ramming device 127 on i t s bow. Gomme points out the difference in the routes used by merchant vessels and by triremes. The triremes had to hug the coastline in order to obtain food, a problem that did not face penteconters as they wer large ships and could carry their own supplies. The use of a warship as a at home. 1 2 3Herodotus, 2.159.2. ^ 2 4Herodotus, 3.44. 125 Thucydides, 1.13.2. l"2^Herodotus, 1.163. 1 2 7A. W. Gomme, "A Forgotten Factor of Greek Naval Strategy", JHS 53 (1933) 16-24. 49 merchantship would ensure the Phocaeans and their cargo of greater safety on long voyages. There is no indication that Phocaea made the changes in order to act aggressively against the merchantships of other states, but i t 128 is a possibility , according to some. Did this innovation of the Phocaeans 129 help to make them thalassocrats? Thucydides mentions them as a sea-power but does not speak of this practice, while Herodotus gives us the 130 information without dating the innovation, so we cannot know. I doubt that this change of i t s e l f made thalassocrats of the Phocaeans but i t would make their trading more stable and profitable, thereby increasing their prosperity. It i s known that the Corinthians were skilled ship-builders and among the f i r s t to build triremes. It is reasonable to suppose that the Corinthi-ans made improvements or adaptations, but there is no evidence of this. We know of Corinth's reputation but not of specific improvements. A new type of ship, the Samania, was invented during Polycrates' rule. According to Plutarch i t was a swift ship, with a ram, and a good deep-sea 131 traveller . Obviously i t would make a sound merchant vessel, well able to ward off attack, or a ship that could be used aggressively. Unfortunately, although we have a record of i t s invention, evidence of how or when i t was used is lacking. 128 L. Casson, op_. c i t . , 83; see above, note 81; A. G. Dunham, op_. c i t . , 63, states that trade secrets were jealously guarded and the appearance of a r i v a l was a question of l i f e or death. I can see no evidence for this; the evidence shows co-operation. 129 Thucydides, 1.13.6. 130 Herodotus, 1.163.1. 50 There is some question whether Polycrates had a fleet of triremes also. 132 When triremes f i r s t came into use in Greece is disputed. Some scholars believe that Thucydides is referring to the triremes in his statement and thus the trireme was invented in the late eighth century. Others believe that Thucydides is not referring to triremes, and that these ships were 134 invented in the last half of the sixth century . Davidson states that i t is doubtful that the trireme evolved during two hundred years into the clumsy and unseaworthy shape that fought at Salamis while the Athenians improved i t in ten years by changes in construction, manning and tactics that gave them 135 sixty years of supremacy on the sea . He also thinks that i f triremes had been invented earlier the Phocaeans would have used them on their long 136 voyages . It is possible that the triremes were invented at the end of the eighth century, but, because they were so strikingly innovative, did not become popular until the last half of the sixth century. At any rate, i t is 131 Plutarch, Pericles, 26, 132 J. S. Morrison and R. T. Williams, Greek Oared Ships, 159; A. W. Gomme, Commentary of Thucydides, 1.122; P. N. Ure, The Origin of Tyranny, 325. 133 Thucydides, 1.13.3. 1 3 4 J . A. Davidson, "The First Greek Triremes", CC; 41 (1947) 18-24; Rhys Car-penter, "Greek Penetration of the Black Sea", AJA 52 (1948) 7. 135 J. A. Davidson, op_. c i t . , 18-24. 1 3 6 C f . A. W. Gomme, "A Forgotten Factor in Greek Naval Strategy" JHS 53(1933) 16-24. 51 known from Thucydides that triremes were in use in the late sixth century, but no one state had many, except the Corcyraeans and the S i c i l i a n tyrants 137 just before the Persian War It has been suggested that Polycrates during his tyranny acquired a 138 fleet of triremes . Herodotus credits him with a fleet of one hundred 139 penteconters at the beginning of his tyranny , but, when Cambyses was 140 invading Egypt, Herodotus says, Polycrates sent forty"triremes to his aid. It is d i f f i c u l t to reconcile this information with Thucydides' statement. Davidson suggests that Polycrates shifted from penteconters at the beginning of his reign to triremes a few years later, as three years sufficed for the 141 building of the Athenian fleet that fought at Artemisium and Salamis Nonetheless, i f Polycrates sent forty triremes to Cambyses, which assuredly would not have been a l l his fleet, he must have had a sizable number. A 142 few scholars have suggested a fleet of about one hundred triremes . A hundred triremes could certainly not be considered a negligible number and i t is very doubtful that Corcyra and the S i c i l i a n tyrants had a significantly larger number. Davidson asserts that Polycrates may have been the f i r s t Greek to adopt the trireme as the line-of-battle ship of his navy and that this might help 143 to explain the important role that he played in international po l i t i c s 1 3 7Thucydides, 1.14.2. 1 3 8 J . A. Davidson, op_. c i t . , 21; M. Miller, The Thalassocracies, 28; J. S. Morrison and R. T. Williams, op. c i t . , 130. 139 Herodotus, 3.39.3. ^^^Herodotus, 3.44.2. ^ ^ J . A. Davidson, op_. c i t . , 20. 52 Certainly a sizable fleet of triremes would have been of great benefit to Polycrates, but i t s existence is not necessary to explain the position he occupied. Rather, we should posit his aggressive attitude towards other Greek states. Thucydides' comment is in total opposition to the idea that Polycrates had a fleet of triremes numbering one hundred. For the most part, there is no evidence to show that the thalassocrats made any improvements or adaptations to their fleets, although i t is l i k e l y . An examination of the ancient evidence, which in some respects is too scanty to allow one to do more than guess at the behaviour of the sixth-century thalassocrats, shows that these sea-powers were relatively peaceful states, except, of course, Samos. Each state appears to have been involved only i n local quarrels and to have sought alliances rather than become naval combatants as well as commercial r i v a l s . Although the information we have undoubtedly is not the whole story, i t is enough to give a general picture of the naval aspects of these thalassocracies. 142 J. S. Morrison and R. T. Williams, op_. c i t . , 130; J. A. Davidson, op. c i t . , 21. 143 J. A. Davidson, op_. c i t . ,24. 53 CHAPTER THREE. THE COMMERCIAL ASPECTS In this chapter I shall inquire into the trading and colonizing prac-tices of each thalassocrat to see i f they controlled trade to any extent and, i f so, over how large an area. I shall ascertain whether these states show any appreciable difference in their pattern of behaviour throughout the sixth century, and whether there were different powers simultaneously in the Aegean and Ionian seas. I shall inquire whether there are periods during some of the eras assigned to the individual states by Eusebius' l i s t in which power was divided. I shall also explain the absence from the l i s t of some states that seem to have a l l the attributes of the thalassocrats. First I shall look at the colonizing of each state to see i f the number of colonies, or the area in which they were situated, was of importance to the power of a thalassocrat. Miletus is known to have colonized extensively in the area of the Black Sea. Strabo mentions many Milesian colonies"'". Dunham l i s t s about thirty colonies of Miletus in the Hellespont, Thracian Chersonese, Propontis, on the coasts of the Euxine, and some in the region of Maeotic Lake and the 2 Tauric Chersonese that she dates to the seventh century . Miletus was one 3 of the most active colonizers and tradition assigned to her the founding of 1Strabo, 7.3.17; 7.4.4; 7.6.1; 13.1.19; 13.1.22; 13.15.2; 12.3.4; 12.3.11; 12.3.14; 7 fragment 52. 2 A. G. Dunham, op_. c i t . , 56-62. 3 Seneca, Cons. ad. Helv. Matrem, 7.2; Pliny, NH 5.112. 54 seventy-five to one hundred colonies, mostly established in the eighth and seventh centuries. Both Herodotus and Strabo 4 speak of the abundance of fis h in the area of Milesian colonies such as Olbia on the Borysthenes and others on the coasts of the Euxine. The d i s t r i c t around the Borysthenes also 5 6 provided excellent grazing and Strabo comments on the flocks of sheep there . Herodotus mentions the rich harvests on the banks of the Borysthenes^ and Strabo notes that the area between Theodosia and Ponticapaeum, both Milesian colonies, was f e r t i l e and much corn was grown there . Thus Miletus' colonies, which were established well before her thalassocracy, were both numerous and 9 concentrated in a f e r t i l e area. It is probable that the ensuing co-operation and trade between Miletus and her colonies were of great benefit to her as a naval power and in becoming one also. She dominated a productive area and thus would have some control over which states colonized and traded there. Her colonies also furnished a strong basis of trade with other states. Corinth founded Corcyra"^ ca. 734"'""'", after overcoming an earlier Eretrian settlement, and Strabo says that she established colonies in 4Strabo, 7.6.2; 12.13.19; Herodotus, 4.53. ^Herodotus, 4.19. 6Strabo, 7.3.18. ^Herodotus, 4.53. °Strabo, 7.4.4; 5.6. 9Cf. A. J. Graham, Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece, 212. 1 0Plutarch, Qu. Gr., 11. "'"'''Thucydides, 6.1-7. 55 12 13 Apollonia, Potidea and Syracuse , the latter £a_, 734 . She also establish-14 ed colonies overlooking the entry to the Gulfs of Corinth and Ambracia These colonies were founded in the late eighth and the seventh centuries "\ It has been suggested that the Corinthian colonies were established as ports 16 along a trade route to the west , although Corcyra proved to be a disadvant-age. Nevertheless i t seems lik e l y that the colonies of Corinth, like those of Miletus, were useful i n gaining power on the sea. The colony of Potidea, in the Chalcidice, was founded by Corinth ca. 600 B. C.^^ just before her period of thalassocracy. This colony was rather isolated from other Corinthian colonies and i t is doubtful that i t was beneficial to Corinth in becoming a thalassocrat. 18 Lesbos established the colonies of Sestus and Madytus , in the Helles-19 20 pont, and Aenus on the Thracian coast, probably in the seventh century The f i r s t two colonies gave her a position of importance in that the states wishing to colonize or trade in the area of the Propontis or the Black Sea, such as Miletus, would have to keep on reasonably good terms with her. However, Lesbos fought with Athens, and was defeated, over the colonization 21 of Sigeum, a strategic site at the entrance to the Hellespont, ca. 590 B. C. , just before her thalassocracy. Thus defeat weakened her control over those 1 2Strabo, 7.5.8; 7 fragment 25; 8.6.22. 13 Thucydides, 6.1-7. 1 4 C f . J. G. O'Neill, Ancient Corinth, 153-156; N. Hammond, History of Greece to 322 B. C^ ., 116. 1 5 C f . H. T. Wade-Gery, "The Growth of the Dorian States", CAH 3, 533-535. 16 J. G. O'Neill, op_. c i t . , 158; R. M. Cook, "Ionia and Greece, 800-600 B.C.", 56 entering the Hellespont, but did not destroy i t . The fact that Athens was not yet powerful and Sigeum was her only colony in that area probably allowed Lesbos to retain her influence. Lesbos did not colonize widely;" her colonies could have been useful in gaining influence, even though she lost Sigeum, perhaps the most important of them. Phocaea established her colonies in the far west, largely during the sixth century. Massilia, an important foundation, was established ca. 600 22 23 B. C. A l a l i a , in Corsica, was not established until £a. 560 B. C. , twenty years before the Phocaeans emigrated from Ionia. It has been suggested that Phocaea concentrated on the far west because she was late in 24 colonizing . Phocaea could colonize the west without the rivalry of other Greek states and without having to take over previous Greek settlements. These western colonies most l i k e l y helped Phocaea gain her reputation as a thalassocrat, since they provided a basis of trade. Phocaea also founded 2 some colonies in the Hellespont and the Black Sea during the seventh century. JHS 66 (1946) 80. 17 3 Strabo, 7 fragment 55b J. L. Myres, "The Colonial Expansion of Greece", CAH 3,652, 18, 19 Strabo, 7 fragment 51. 20 J. L. Myres, op_. c i t . , 657-660; A. J. Graham, "Patterns in Early Greek Colonization", JHS 91 (1971) 42. 21 D. Hogarth, £p_. c i t . , 516. 22 Strabo, 4.1.4; for date see J. Boardman, o_p_. c i t . , 220. 23 Herodotus, 1.165; for date see W. G. Forrest, op_. c i t . , 105. A. R. Burn, "The So-Called Trade Leagues in Early Greek History", JHS 49 (1929) 17. 57 These were often joint efforts with other colonizing states, and while they were probably of some use in trade i t was the western colonies that were most beneficial in Phocaea's establishing herself as a thalassocrat. Samos, according to Strabo, founded Perinthus, in the Propontus, and Plutarch relates the struggles of the Samians against the nearby Megarian 26 settlements . Samos also founded Amorgus in the Aegean Sea, and Nagidus 27 28 and Celenderis in C i l i c i a . Apparently these colonies were not successful Samos did not colonize widely and, although Perinthus was in an important region, i t was the only Samian colony there. Thus colonization was of l i t t l e importance to Samos in establishing herself as a thalassocrat, or i n creating a basis of trade. 29 Sparta founded Thera in the eighth century , and the Therans in turn 30 founded Cyrene in the seventh century . The Lacedaemonians also founded 31 Selge . In the sixth century Sparta attempted to establish a colony in 32 Libya, and, when this was unsuccessful, established one in Si c i l y . This sixth-century attempt at colonization has been connected with the Spartan 33 period of thalassocracy in Eusebius' l i s t by some scholars . However, Sparta i s the most prominent example of a state that annexed neighbouring territory rather than colonize and i t is doubtful that Sparta's few colonies^ Cf. A . G. Dunham, op_. c i t . , 57, 59. Strabo, 7 fragment 55; Plutarch, Qu. Gr. 57. Suidas; Pomponius Mela, 1.13. ' A. R. Burn, op_. c i t . 18. Strabo, 10.5.1. 'Herodotus, 4.156. "Strabo, 12.7.3. 58 including the sixth-century attempt at colonization, increased her strength or influence. Colonization was not important or helpful to the last three thalasso-cracies of the sixth century, Naxos, Eretria and Aegina. Aegina did not colonize at a l l . Eretria colonized extensively in the eighth and seventh 34 centuries but she lost control of many colonies and her thalassocracy appears 35 to be based on control of the Cyclades, as was that of Naxos. Colonization was not a function of the sixth-century thalassocrats, with the exception of Phocaea, since most colonies were founded well before the probable time of their naval power. Yet in the case of several thalassocrats, such as Miletus, Lesbos, Corinth and Phocaea, i t appears that the founding of colonies was of some use in establishing their thalassocracies and provid-ing a basis of trade. On the other hand colonization did not affect the power of Samos, Sparta, Naxos, Eretria and Aegina. This is one difference between the thalassocrats of the f i r s t half of the sixth century and those of the last half, who flourished during the rise of Persia. A l l the states l i s t e d as thalassocracies were of major importance in trade, either as merchants or because of their control of routes, but none to Herodotus, 5.42; 5.46. 33 M. Miller, op_. c i t . , 39; J. L. Myres, "The'List of Thalassocracies' in Eusebius", JHS 26 (1906) 98. Cf. A. J. Graham, op_. c i t . , 46; J. L. Myres, "The Colonial Expansion of Greece", CAH 3, 649-653; 616-623. 35 See :discussion in Chapter One. 59 the exclusion of a l l others. The ancient evidence for the trade of the late seventh and sixth centuries is scanty since Herodotus, for the most part, mentions only unusual incidents connected with trade, not common events. Archaeology can provide some views of daily activity but i t cannot identify precisely the wares of each state, nor can i t explain a l l the finds. Nonetheless ,we should be able to reconstruct in outline this aspect of the thalassocracies to complete the inquiry into their nature and extent. It is obvious that Miletus drew upon numerous trading connections, such as her colonies in the Black Sea, since she was able to feed her citizens, although Ardys, Sadyattes and f i n a l l y Alyattes burnt her crops and trees for 36 twelve consecutive years, during the time of Thrasybulus . Then Alyattes arranged a truce with Miletus as he was not able to starve the Milesians by this method. It is possible that special efforts were made by the Milesian colonies to aid the mother-city during this struggle but i t is also possible that Miletus had regular trading connections within this area, both to supply her own citizens and to trade with other states, Herodotus states that the Milesians built a temple to Apollo in 37 Naucratis , which had been given to the Greeks as a commercial headquarters 38 by the Egyptian ruler ca. 625-600 B. C. Archaeological studies have identified the site of the Milesian temple and coin-boards of Milesian 39 type have been found, but there are d i f f i c u l t i e s in identifying Milesian 3 6Herodotus, 1.18-20. 37 Herodotus, 2.178. 38 W. G. Forrest, op_. c i t . , 105; J. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas, 134. 39 J. Boardman, op_. c i t . , 146. 60 pottery. J. Boardman argues that, among the latest finds at Al Mina, dated to the end of the seventh century, and the earliest at Naucratis, Miletus chould be represented, but too l i t t l e is known about Milesian pottery. He thinks that when more information is available some of the pottery now known 40 as Rhodian w i l l be found to be Milesian . This type of pottery seems to have been used throughout the Dorian states of East Greece and probably Miletus produced and used pottery of this sort. Much of the pottery found in the sites on the Black Sea, for the f i r s t half of the sixth century, is 41 of the Rhodian type . The archaeological finds show that Miletus was probably involved in trade in :the Black Sea, Ionia and Egypt in the late seventh and early sixth centuries. Although the evidence is scanty i t does give us an indication of Milesian trading a c t i v i t i e s . 42 The Lesbians took part in the building of the Hellenium at Naucratis , and Herodotus relates the story of Charaxus of Mytilene, the brother of 43 Sappho, who purchased the freedom of the courtesan Rhodapis there 44 Sappho regrets the absence of luxury items from Lydia during the tyranny Perhaps imports of anything other than necessities were curtailed then. Also several pieces of Lesbian ware of the sixth century have been found at J. Boardman, op_. c i t . , 74, 139. J. Boardman, op_. c i t . , 251. Herodotus, 2.178. Herodotus, 2.134. Sappho, fg. 98b PLF. 61 45 Naucratis . It is probable that Lesbos exercised some control over trade routes as well. Lesbos and her colonies were strategically located to deal 46 with the trade going into or coming out of the Propontis and Black Sea Again i t i s possible that Lesbos, and perhaps Miletus, served as carriers for Chian and Clazomenian wares as they are found in large quantities in 47 the Euxine area, at Naucratis, and throughout Ionia . It seems likely that Lesbos influenced trade through several different kinds of a c t i v i t i e s . Thucydides states that Corinth was a mercantile centre from the time 48 when the Greeks took to seafaring and implies that she remained so Herodotus does not mention Corinth as one of the states participating at Naucratis, but Corinthian coin-boards and Corinthian wares of the seventh 49 to mid-sixth centuries have been found there . However, Corinthian wares of this period are found throughout the Greek world and i t ; i s most likely that many of them were carried by merchants of other states, and that the wares do not necessarily show the range of Corinthian merchants. Probably the Aeginetans carried the Corinthian wares found in Naucratis, as they did not manufacture their own, and also those found in the Black Sea c i t i e s . The Phocaeans might have carried Corinthian wares too, as some have been found in the south of Spain"^. Corinthian and Ionian pottery has been 45 J. Boardman, op_. c i t . , 141. 46 . For discussion of strategic location of Lesbian colonies see pp, 55-56. 47 J. Boardman, op_. c i t . , 250. 48 Thucydides, 1.13. 49 J. Boardman, op_. c i t . , 138, 146. ~^J . Boardman, op_. c i t . , 221. 62 excavated at Smyrna"'"'", which was at the height of i t s prosperity at the end of the seventh century, before the sack by the Lydians. It was also plentiful in the west and in Si c i l y until Athenian ware became more popular about the middle of the sixth century. J. Boardman states that on both the Athenian and Corinthian wares merchants' marks scratched on the bases of vases reflect 52 Ionian carriers . He suggests that the Phocaeans, Chians or others from the 53 eastern Aegean carried them . It appears that Corinthian trade flourished during the seventh century u n t i l the middle of the sixth, but i t is d i f f i c u l t to know what trade was the result of Corinthian merchants travelling to a particular area and what resulted from other states acting as carriers. Herodotus states that the Phocaeans, after the advance of the Persians, made an offer for the islands known as Oenussae, but the Chians, who were afraid that they might be turned into a new centre of trade to the exclusion 54 of their own island, refused to s e l l . This statement together with Herodotus' remarks about the Phocaean voyages to the west imply that they had a reputation as traders among their contemporaries. Herodotus also notes that the Phocaeans helped to build the Hellenium^^, a joint effort of " ^ J . Boardman, op_. c i t . , 113. 52 J. Boardman, op_. c i t . , 211. 53 J. Boardman, op_. c i t . , 211. Yet Chian pottery i t s e l f was widespread. See note 88 below. I think i t unlikely that the Chians carried a l l their own ware, to say nothing of that of others. 54 Herodotus, 1.165. "^Herodotus, 2.178. 63 several Greek states, at Naucratis. The Phocaean merchants are d i f f i c u l t to trace through archaeological studies since they were, for the most part, carriers and not manufacturers. The Greek wares found in the far west are 56 considered to have been brought by Phocaean merchants. At Massalia there is Corinthian and Athenian pottery, alongside Spartan, Etruscan and "Chalcidian" pieces. There are also Chian vases and wine jars, and much East Greek pottery. Bronze belts have been found in the south of France and the north of Spain, which the Phocaeans are thought to have brought"*7. In Italy, S i c i l y and Gaul there are plain striped vases, which are thought to 58 be from East Greek centres, possibly Phocaea . At any rate the ancient evidence shows that the Phocaeans were adept traders, Herodotus relates the story of a Samian vessel bound for Egypt that was driven westward by easterly winds unt i l i t came to Tartessus; the merchants on their return home made more money than any other Greek except a famous 59 Aeginetan . The story i s dated to about 638 or 620 B. C. by modern scholars and thus much earlier than the Samian thalassocracy, but i t does show that the Samians were engaged in regular trade then. According to Herodotus, the Samians had a temple in honour of Hera at Naucratis^"*". The separate temples of the Milesians, Samians and Aeginetans at Naucratis are a sign of their 56 Herodotus, 1.165. ^ 7 J . Boardman, op_. c i t . , 226. 58 J. Boardman, op_. c i t . , 179. 60 N. Hammond, op. c i t . , 120; J. Boardman, op. c i t . , 131. 61 Herodotus, 2.178. 64 62 early arrival there . Samian pottery has not been identified certainly yet but the Fikellura vases, which are thought to be Samian, have been found at Naucratis, in Syracuse and Gela, at Daphnae in Egypt, and in the Euxine 63 colonies. In fact, Boardman states that, wherever there is evidence for Greeks, Fikellura, Clazomenian and the plainer vases are found. There i s no doubt that the Samians traded with the eastern nations and the Greek states. During her thalassocracy, Samos also influenced trade by her widespread piracy. Obviously the other trading states would be cautious of travelling near Samos at this period but i t is most probable that they lost valuable cargoes to the Samian pirates. There is no ancient evidence for Spartan trade but Spartan vases of the f i r s t half of the sixth century have been found at Naucratis^, and those of 65 the second and third quarters of the sixth century have appeared in Etruria Boardman argues that the Spartan vases in Naucratis may be there because Samos was a foreign market for them and the Samians participated in trade at Naucratis, or possibly these finds reflect Spartan interest in Cyrene^. There was some trading of Spartan wares, either through Samian or Spartan merchants. Nonetheless i t does not appear to have been extensive and i t is doubtful that Sparta exercised any influence on trade during the suggested period of her thalassocracy. 62 N. Hammond, op. c i t . , 118; J. Boardman, op_. c i t . , 137, 63 J. Boardman, op_. c i t . , 251. 64 J. Boardman, op. c i t . , 141. 65 J. Boardman, op_. c i t . , 179. 66 J. Boardman, op_. c i t . , 141. 65 It is known that Naxos was a very rich island . during her thalassocracy 6 7 and exercised control of the Cycladic islands . Probably Naxos influenced trade by this control of the trans-Aegean route. After Naxos had trouble with the Persians, Eretria appears to have taken over control of this route unti l she was sacked by the Persians. 68 Strabo refers to Ephorus' comments that silver was f i r s t coined in 69 Aegina by Pheidon , and that the island became a mercantile centre, since, on account of the poverty of the s o i l , the people employed themselves at sea as merchants, and thus petty wares were called Aeginetan merchandise, Herodotus notes that Aegina built a temple at Naucratis 7^, the only western Greek state to do so. Aeginetan coin-boards have been found there7"*", but, since she produced no pottery of her own, i t is thought that she was responsible for the Corinthian and Athenian pottery recovered there. Aegina, like Phocaea, mostly carried the wares of other states and thus i t is extremely d i f f i c u l t to trace her merchants through archaeological finds. Yet the ancient evidence shows that the Aeginetans took part in trade consistently. No one state had complete control over trade in the sixth century, but i t was of utmost importance to a l l of them. In fact trade was the common 6 7Herodotus, 5.29-30. 6 8Strabo, 8.6.16. 69 This i s incorrect. See Percy Gardener, A History of Coinage 700-300 B.C., 109-121. 7^Herodotus, 2.178. 7"*"J. Boardman, op. c i t . , 146. 66 denominator for these thalassocracies, and i t was this that apparently dictated their alliances and caused their struggles. The thalassocracies of the late seventh and sixth centuries B. C. were unaggressive mercantile states who exercised some form of control over, or some influence on trade. There are many differences among the states mentioned, but these are partly due to the different aspects of trade pursued by them. Phocaea and Aegina were s t r i c t l y carriers and distributors of wares made by others; Miletus, Lesbos and Corinth traded their own wares and probably exercised some control over trading routes. Samos traded her own wares and indulged in extensive piracy, while Naxos and Eretria controlled the trans-Aegean route. A l l these states participated in trade but none had extensive control. The majority of the suggested thalassocracies were powerful throughout the late seventh and sixth centuries, each suffering checks to i t s power and regaining i t . That i s , their thalassocracies did not result from any sudden change in their pattern of behaviour, but the suggested time of thalassocracy in each case corresponds to a particular peak of their power, or the waning of others. It i s known that Miletus was in command of the seas at the end of the 72 seventh century and presumably had good trading connections . About the middle of the sixth century Miletus was the only polis among the Ionians to 73 gain the same terms from Cyrus as she had won from Croesus , thus she was able to carry on her trade without check from the Persians. Yet, at the time See p. 5 4 . Herodotus, 1.141. 67 of the Samian thalassocracy, the Milesian fleet together with the Lesbian was destroyed by Polycrates, and this would have been a disaster to Milesian 74 trade and influence. According to Herodotus , at the time of the Naxian thalassocracy Miletus was at the peak of her prosperity and the glory of Ionia, and Hecateus urged her citizens to take money from the treasury and work for mastery of the seas. Apparently Miletus had been weakened by two generations of c i v i l s t r i f e before this, but i t seems lik e l y that the merchants continued to trade. At the end of the sixth century the Milesians revolted from Persia with the rest of the Ionians, providing eighty vessels 75 ' for the combined fleet , and this attempt ended her power. The late seventh and early sixth centuries, during the reign of Thrasybulus, were Miletus' period of thalassocracy; after this she appears to have carried on relatively well until she received her f i r s t serious check from Polycrates, She recovered from this before the end of the century, as is shown by the size of her fleet at the time of the Ionian revolt. Thus Miletus, from the end of the seventh century to the end of the sixth, was prosperous and influential except for a few intervals. Corinth, during Periander's tyranny of the late seventh and early sixth centuries, apparently flourished. O'Neill collects the references to the laws made against luxury and extravagance, as well as projects to employ the 76 poor . The tyranny was overthrown in 584 B. C. and an oligarchy established. It has been suggested that this was a timocracy, that i s , government by an 74 Herodotus, 5.36. ^Herodotus, 6.8. 7 6 J . G. O'Neill, 0£, c i t . , 13Q, 128. 68 aristocracy of merchants^. At the beginning of the f i f t h century Corinth 78 lent ships to Athens for her war against Aegina ; later she contributed 79 forty vessels to the Greek fleet at Salamis . Corinth's suggested period of thalassocracy was in the early sixth century but her trade and influence • continued throughout the century. Corinth received no checks to her power through aggression from other states but the Athenian pottery did lessen the demand for her own from mid-sixth century onwards. The information concerning Lesbos throughout the sixth, century is scanty but i t is known that Pittacus was the tyrant of Mytilene ca. 590-580, or ca. 80 585-575 and i t is with him that the Lesbian thalassocracy is generally equated. Lesbos was involved in a war with Athens at the beginning of the 81 sixth century, but i t did not appear to be markedly detrimental to her power. In the last quarter of the century her fleet was destroyed by Polycrates but she also had sufficiently recovered by the end of the century to provide 82 seventy vessels for the Ionian revolt . Lesbos suffered a setback ^a. 525 but otherwise seems to have continued a course of peaceful trading throughout the century. Nothing is known of Phocaean affairs until the Persian invasion when her citizens emigrated to Corsica. It appears that Phocaea carried on her trade 77J. G. O'Neill, op_. c i t . , 134. 78 Herodotus, 6.88. 79 Herodotus, 8.1. 80 W. G. Forrest, op. c i t . , 98; J. L. Myres, op. c i t , , 107. 8"*"See pp. 55-56. 82 Herodotus, 6.8. 69 83 throughout the f i r s t half of the sixth century , but was not.really of any consequence after her citizens l e f t Ionia. Samos' period of thalassocracy was during the tyranny of Polycrates. Herodotus mentions three building efforts that he regards as the greatest in the Greek world, that i s , a tunnel driven through the base of a h i l l carrying the town's water supply, an a r t i f i c i a l harbour enclosed by a breakwater, and 84 the largest of a l l known Greek temples . These were probably built before 85 Polycrates' time . Samos carried on trade throughout the sixth century and 86 apparently practised some piracy even before her thalassocracy . The Samians were checked by the Persian invasion of their island in the last quarter of 87 the sixth century but they contributed sixty vessels to the Ionian revolt Samos had some influence on Greek affairs throughout the sixth century, while the tyranny of Polycrates represents the height of her power in the Greek world. Naxos and Eretria, however, seem to be two states whose only period of importance throughout the sixth century was that of their thalassocracies, during which they controlled a sea-route. It appears that the rise'of the Persian power, by checking the prosperity of the Ionian states, made It possible for these two states to become influential in trade for a short 83 See pages 7-8; 20-22. 84 Herodotus, 3.60. 85 M. White, "The Duration of the Samian Tyranny", JHS 74 (1954) 36-43. 86 M. White, o£. c i t . , 36-43. 87 Herodotus, 6.8. 70 period. They are the exception among the sixth-century thalassocrats in that they seem to show only a brief flourishing throughout the century. The Aeginetans were traders throughout this period as is attested by their early appearance at Naucratis and the distribution of Corinthian wares in the Greek world. Aegina does not seem to have suffered any setbacks in these years, although the Athenian fleet eclipsed her fleet after the Per-sian Wars. While Aegina was not a great power, she was involved in trade continuously. This summary of the thalassocracies' behaviour throughout the sixth century leads one to question whether there were different powers simultan-eously in the Aegean and Ionian Seas and whether there were periods during some of the eras assigned to individual states by Eusebius' l i s t in which, power was shared. I think that this was the case, particularly in regard to the thalassocracies of the f i r s t half of the century. The suggested dates for the sea-powers separate them entirely, yet i t is reasonable to suppose that, while Miletus was powerful in the Aegean sea, so was Corinth in the Ionian. The start and duration of their thalassocracies were not identical but there was probably some overlapping. Such overlapping is also possible for the thalassocracies of Corinth and Lesbos as well as of Lesbos and Phocaea, since the latter operated in the far west. Again i t is possible that Miletus, while her power was ' fading, and Lesbos, while gaining i n f l u -ence, shared power in the Aegean Sea for a few years. The intervening thalassocracy of Corinth would have been exercised mostly in the Ionian sea. There was less overlapping among the thalassocrats of the last half of the 71 century. The predecessors of Samos l e f t Ionia, and Miletus and Lesbos were defeated by Polycrates. Samos did not operate in the Ionian Sea; nonetheless she seems to have been the sole power throughout her thalassocracy. Since Eretria succeeded to the control that the Naxians had possessed i t is very unlikely that they overlapped at a l l . Yet, since the thalassocracies of these two states were very limited in extent i t i s probable that other states were operating in different sections of the Greek world with slightly less, or perhaps even equal, power. Aegina, on the other hand, did not share power during her thalassocracy as the Persian advance had destroyed most of the substantial fleets; yet i t is quite possible that Corinth, or possibly Corcyra, operated with equal strength in the Ionian Sea as Aegina's trade was, for the most part, in the east. Thus I conclude that, while the suggest-ed dates offer a rough chronological outline, there was some overlapping in the exercise of power of these thalassocracies, and that the existence of a power on one sea, though perhaps more influential or more vi s i b l e , does not preclude a separate power in another region. So Eusebius' "List of Thalassocracies" contains an outline of the sea-powers of the sixth century and the suggested dates for them represent the acmes of their power. These sea-powers were the most influential of the trading nations of the sixth century, and they were, for the most part, non-aggressive, in that they accepted the existence and power of one another. Yet there are differences in some of these powers other than the aspect of trade pursued. Miletus, Lesbos, Corinth and Phocaea are relatively similar as thalassocrats in that they have colonies as a basis for trade and, except Phocaea, were probably involved in more than one aspect of trade. 72 Samos, under Polycrates, completely changed the nature of the sixth-century thalassocracy. She had few colonies, was without a l l i e s among the Greek states, and was very aggressive towards other trading nations. Yet she was stopped by Persia and i t seems to have been the Persian advance that account-ed for the nature of the remaining thalassocrats. Naxos and Eretria had a very limited influence on Greek trade but they were thalassocrats, perhaps in the absence of any state having more extensive power. On the other hand, Aegina was a consistent, i f somewhat unremarkable, part of the trade. She was a carrier of merchandise and had been for some time. The growth of Persian power and i t s intrusion into the Greek world, gave the Greek states with less power and a more restricted part in trade than the thalassocrats of the f i r s t half of the sixth century the opportunity to appear as sea-powers . Finally, i f the Greek thalassocracies of this period are defined as mercantile states that exercised some form of control over, or some influence on, contemporary trade, then some explanation is needed for the absence of 88 Chios and Corcyra from the l i s t . Chian pottery was widespread in the late seventh and sixth centuries and Chios also provided the largest fleet, one 89 hundred vessels, for the Ionian revolt . Thucydides mentions the Corcyraeans 90 as among the f i r s t to use triremes in any number . The absence of the Corcyraeans can be attributed to their non-involvement in Greek affairs before 8 8 J . Boardman, op_. c i t . , 73, 140, 179, 225, 244, 250, 258, 275. 89 Herodotus, 6.8.2. 90 Thucydides, 1.14.2. 73 91 the f i f t h century B. C. , but that of Chios i s more d i f f i c u l t to explain. Possibly Chios was always a second-rate power following the lead of Miletus, to whom she was a l l i e d , or Lesbos, and on her own had no noticeable control over or impact on the general trade. Again, possibly, Chios traded her wares to the powerful Ionian states and they acted as carriers and traded them to other parts of the Greek world; yet the Chians took part in the building of the Hellenium at Naucratis. The most logical, though not entirely satisfact-ory, explanation seems to be that Chios operated under the shadow of the existing thalassocrat. Thucydides, 1.32. Herodotus, 2.178. 74 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ancient Eusebius Eusebi Chronicorum Liber Prior edited by Alfred Schoene (Dublin 1967) Frontinus Strategemata edited by M. B. McElwain (Leob Classical Library, London and New York,1925). Herodotus Historiae edited by C. Hude (Oxford Classical Texts, Oxford 1927) Nicolaus Damascenus in Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiken edited by Felix Jacoby (Leiden 1926) volume 2 A no, 90 Naturalis Historia 2 edited by H. Rackham (Loeb Classical Library, London and Cambridge, Mass. 1947) Vitae Parallelae 1,3 edited by B, Perrin (Loeb Classical Library, London and Cambridge, Mass. 1958, 1959) Moralia 3,4 edited by F. C. Babitt (Loeb Classical Library, London and Cambridge, Mass. 1931, 1936) Pomponius Mela Pomponii Melae de Chorographia L i b r i Tres edited by C. Frick (Stuttgart 1967) Seneca I,. Annaei Senecae Dialogorum L i b r i X, XI, XII edited by J. D. Duff (Cambridge 1915) Strabo Geographica 8 volumes edited by H, L. Jones (Loeb Classical Library, London and New York 1917-1932) Suidas Lexicon edited by A. Adler (Leipzig 1928-1938) Pliny Plutarch 75 Thucydides Histbria edited by H. S. Jones and J. E. Powell (Oxford Classical Texts, Oxford 1955) Modern Aly, W. Boardman, J. Bork, F. Burn, A. R. Carpenter, Rhys Casson, L. Cook, R. M. Davidson, J. A. Dunbabin, T. J. "Kastor als Quelle Diodors im 7, Buck", Rhein. Mus. 66 (1911) 585-606 The Greeks Overseas (Baltimore 1964) "Zur altkleinasiatischen Geschichte", Klio 28(1935) 16-19 "Greek Sea Power 776-540 B. C. and the 'Carian' Entry i n the Eusebian Thalassocracy L i s t " , JHS 47 (1927) 165-177 "The So-Called Trade Leagues in Early Greek History and the Lelantine War", JHS 49 (1929) 14-37 "Greek Penetration of the Black Sea", AJA 52 (1948) 1-10 The Ancient Mariners, Seafarers and Sea Fighters of the Mediterranean in Ancient Times (London 1959) Ships and Seamanship i n the Ancient World (Princeton 1971) "Ionia and Greece, 800-600 B. C", JHS 66 (1946) 67-98 "The F i r s t Greek Triremes", CJ} 41 (1947) 18-24 The Western Greeks. The History of S i c i l y and South Italy  from the Foundation of the greek Colonies to 480 B. C. (Oxford 1948) 76 Dunham, A. G. Forrest, W. G. Fotheringham, J.K Gomme, A. W. Graham, A. J. Hammond, N. G. L. Harland, J. P. Helm, R. Hogarth, D. How, W. W. and J. Meyers, E. Miller, M. The Greeks and Their Eastern Neighbours. Studies in the  Relation Between Greece and the Countries of the Near  East in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B. C_. (London 1937) The History of Miletus Down to the Anabasis of Alexander (London 1915) "Two Chronographic Notes: The Tenth Thalassocracy in Eusebius", CQ NS. 19 (1969) 95-106 . "On the 'List of Thalassocracies' in Eusebius", JHS 27 (1907) 75-89 "A Forgotten Factor of Greek Naval Strategy", JHS 53 (1933) 16-24 "Patterns in Early Greek Colonization", JHS 91 (1971) 35-47 Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece (Manchester 1964) A History of Greece to 322 B. _C. (Oxford 1959) Prehistoric Aigina, A History of the Island in the  Bronze Age,(Cincinnati 1925) "Die Liste der Thalassokratien in Der Chronik des Eusebius", Hermes 61 (1926) 241-262 "Lydia and Ionia" CAH 3. 501-526 Wells Commentary on Herodotus 1 (Oxford 1928) Geschichte des Alterturns (Basal 1953) The Thalassocracies. Studies in ChrQnography II (Albany 1971) 77 Murray, G. Myres, J. L Morrison, J. S. and R. T. Williams Greek Oared Ships 900-322 B. £, (Cambridge 1968) The Rise of the Greek Epic (London 1934) "On the 'List of Thalassocracies' in Eusebius", JHS 26 (1906) 84-130 "On the 'List of Thalassocracies' in Eusebius: A Reply", JHS 27 (1907) 123-130 "The Colonial Expansion of Greece", CAH 3. 631-686 Piracy in the Ancient World. Ah Essay in Mediterranean  History (Liverpool 1924) Ancient Corinth. Part;I. From the Earliest Times to Omerod, H. A. O'Neill, J. G. " Roebuck, C. Tod, M. N. Ure, P. N. Wade-Gery, H. T. White, Mary 404 B. CI. (Baltimore 1930) Ionian Trade and Colonization (New York 1959) International Arbitration Amongst the Greeks (Oxford 1913) The Origin of Tyranny (New York 1962) "The Growth of the Dorian States", CAH 3. 527-570 "The Duration of the Samian Tyranny", JHS 74 0.954) 36-43 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items