Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
0.Introduction
13
scholarlytraditiondatingbacktoBusolt,Iwillcallthisapproachatraditionalist
one.Inageneraloutlineitlooksasfollows:
4
TeSpartansymmachywasomciallynamedCtheLakedaimoniansandtheir
allies)
.TealliancewasfoundedupontreatiesconcludedCforalleternity);these
treatieshadessentiallyidenticalstructureandboundparticularallieswithSparta
withoutcreatingbondsbetweenthealliesthemselves.Tetwomostimportant
clausesofthesetreatiesobligedthealliestoChavethesamefriendsandenemiesas
theLakedaimonians)(theso-calledFreund-Feind-Klausel)andCtofollowtheLake-
daimonianswheresoevertheymayleadthem)(theso-calledHegemonie-Klausel).
Itwasimpossibletoleavethesymmachy.TeCfoundationtreaty)ofthePelopon-
nesianLeagueandthemodelforsubsequentbilateralarrangementsofthistype
wasthetreatywithTegeafromc.560-550.
5
Whatfollows,PeloponnesianLeague
precededallknown“leagues”andasthefirstknownleague,mightserveasamodel
orthepointofreferencetosuchalliancesasHellenicLeagueandDelianLeague.
TechiefdriveroftheSpartanpolicyofallianceswastheneedtostabilisetheex-
ternalrelationsinviewofthethreatposedbySparta)sownsubjects,thehelots,
whohadtobeisolatedfrompossibleoutsidehelpincaseofrebellion.Formallythe
allieswereindependent(autonomoi)asfarastheirinternalafairswereconcerned,
but,inpractice,theSpartanstriedtoexertadiscreetinfluenceonthembysup-
portingoligarchswell-disposedtowardsSpartainparticularpoleis.Sincetheallies
wereboundbynothingbutSparta)shegemony,theycouldfighteachother,except
forsituationsofhighernecessitywhentheallianceundertookactionsasawhole.
Spartawasobligedtohelpanallyattackedbyanenemyfromtheoutsideofthe
leagueandtheallieswerecompelledtohelpSpartaincaseofattack.
Perhapsfromtheendofthesixthcenturyonwards,
6
accordingtosomemore
cautioustraditionalists,thePeloponnesianLeaguepossessedarudimentary
4
TemostimportantcontributionsareBusolt(1878),Kahrstedt(1922),Busolt&
Swoboda(1926),Larsen(1932),(1933),(1934),Wickert(1961),Moretti(1962),Ste.Croix
(1972),Tausend(1992),Baltrusch(1994),Cartledge(2002a)andnow(withsomereserva-
tions)Bayliss(2013).SeealsotherecentdiscussionoftheliteratureinCaprio(2005)1-19.Of
course,theaforementionedcontributionsarenotunanimousineveryrespect(forsomeofthe
diferences,seenotesbelow).Tisdoesnotchangethefactthatinspiteoftheirpolemicsabout
details,theirauthorsfunction,sotospeak,inthesameparadigm.
5
SomeofthetraditionalistsgiveprioritytothetreatywithElisfromc.600,see,e.g.
Tausend(1992)167.Teconclusionofsuchatreaty,whichisnotdirectlyattestedinanyof
theancientrecords,isusuallyassumedinthelightoftheinformationabouttheSpartan-Eleian
collaborationinthesixthcentury,seebelow,pp.98-101.
6
Onotherpropositionsofthedateoftheappearanceoftheconstitution,seebelow,p.169
n.30.
