Bauslaugh, Robert A. The Concept of Neutrality in Classical Greece

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

Peloponnesians in the war and were ultimately defeated. Yet the terms of peace provided for Aegina's
continued autonomy despite the imposition of tribute payments to Athens.[30] Unfortunately, it
remains unclear whether the specified autonomy included the right to maintain an independent foreign
policy. Other evidence suggests, however, that this seemingly inconsistent arrangement was
possible.[31] So, even in defeat, Aegina seems to have maintained what amounted to nonaligned
status.
For the Cycladic islands of Melos and Theta the situation was quite different. There is no evidence
that these ethnically Doric states either took sides or were in any way affected by the war or
[29] Thuc. 1. 98.2; cf. Plut. Cim . 8.3-6; Thes . 36.1-2.
[30] Bengtson, SVA no. 144; de Ste. Croix, Origins of the Peloponnesian War , 293-94.
[31] Thuc. 1. 67.2, 108.4, 139.1, 140.3; Diod. 11. 78.4.
103
its outcome.[32] Whether their position involved a declared policy of neutrality has not been recorded,
but their status was clearly recognized in the terms of the Thirty Years' Peace of 446/445. According to
Thucydides, the Corcyraeans later argued (1.35.1-2) and the Corinthians acknowledged (1. 40.2) that
"it is stated in the treaty [of 446/445] that if any Hellenic state is allied with neither side, it is
permitted to enter whichever alliance it pleases."[33] This stipulation not only formally recognized the
existence of nonaligned states but also acknowledged that they possessed certain rights. It must be
admitted, however, that the exact intention of the belligerents was clearly not the defense of neutral
status but the assurance that they would have the right to convert neutrals to allies without violating
the peace. Therefore, just how much protection the treaty provided to states seeking to avoid
commitment to either alliance in the event of aggression by one or the other depended entirely on the
willingness of the opposing alliance to defend the neutral as a matter of self-interest. A test of this
reality was not long in coming.
C. The Corinthian-Corcyraean War (435-432)
Near the end of the Pentecontaetia, neutrality became a debated issue. After two years of defending
themselves in a bitter war against Corinth and its allies, the Corcyraeans decided to seek help from
Athens. At the same time the Corinthians sent a counter-embassy to prevent the Athenians from
taking any action. Thucydides gives an account of the debate that occurred at Athens when the issue
61 of 236 7/9/2006 11:49 AM
The Concept of Neutrality in Classical Greece http://content-backend-a.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft4489n8x4&chunk.i...
of an alliance with Corcyra came before the Assembly (1. 32-36, the Corcyraean speech; 37-43, the
Corinthian). We have examined how the language of these two speeches subtly reflects the respective
speakers' attitudes toward the former uncommitted policy of Corcyra and the proposed change to
alignment with Athens (see chapter 1, pp. 7-9). At present, we will consider what the speeches say
about neutral policy.
In their speech, the Corcyraeans insist that it is not right (ou dikaion ) that the Athenians allow the
recruitment of sailors within
[32] On Miletus, see 5.1 above; on stipulations for renegade Thracian cities in the Peace of Nicias, see
6.7 below (Thuc. 5. 18.5).
[33]
104
their empire by the Corinthians. The Corcyraean ambassador says bluntly: "Either you should prevent
them from recruiting mercenaries from your dominions or also send aid to us on whatever terms you
may be induced to accept" (1. 35.4). The point of this statement seems to be that the current
laissez-faire policy of the Athenians is unfair because it benefits the Corinthians. But behind the
complaint lies the implication that nonbelligerents could allow their citizens to serve foreign states and
could even send military supplies to the belligerents without necessarily being considered to have
committed a hostile act as long as both belligerents were provided equal assistance or access.[34] The
issue, then, is not the freedom of recruitment but the alleged lack of impartiality.
For their part, the Corinthians argue that strict neutrality is the only proper policy for Athens.
While acknowledging the right of nonaligned states to ally themselves with the parties of the treaty (1.
40.2-3), the Corinthians nevertheless warn the Athenians that in this case they must either remain [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

pobieranie @ do ÂściÂągnięcia @ ebook @ download @ pdf