AHQ: Why not Corinth?

Anyone who looks at a map can tell that Corinth has one of the most strategic locations of any Greek city. Located in a commanding position on the isthmus connecting the Peloponnesian peninsula to the rest of Greece, it had harbors on both the Gulf of Corinth and the Saronic Gulf, offering it an unmatched ability to communicate with any of the seas around Greece without having to round the Peloponnese, while also controlling all land communications between the Peloponnese and the rest of the world. Thanks to this position, the city was incredibly wealthy and had trade connections across the Greek world. Moreover, it had a large network of colonies, including wealthy and developed locations like Syracuse, Corcyra, and Epidamnus around the Ionian Sea and Magna Graecia.

Yet it never seemed to play the role in Greek politics this geography and these connections destined for it. Instead of being the great competitor to Athens at sea, or Sparta or Thebes on land, it always seemed to play a subordinate role in the classical era of Greek politics. Conflict between Corinth and Athens concerning Corcyra and Epidamnus was the nominal cause of the Peloponnesian War, yet that war is widely and correctly considered a conflict between Athens and Sparta, with Corinth just another Spartan ally. They played a more important role in the Corinthian War, but were still only part of a larger alliance, and that mostly a Persian proxy against Sparta. Afterwards, like the rest of Greece, they slipped into being subordinate to the Macedonians and, later, Romans.

So, why wasn't Corinth one of the big players in classical Greek politics, the way that Athens, Thebes, and Sparta were? Why don't we hear about a Corinthian League aligned against Athens, or a Corinthian Empire against Sparta? What kind of changes would be necessary to make Corinth spoken of in the same breath as those other cities?
 
So, why wasn't Corinth one of the big players in classical Greek politics, the way that Athens, Thebes, and Sparta were?
They were actually, in the sense that when they never became regional hegemons, they repelled relatively efficiently foreign influences and presence (contrary to the vast majority of poleis). Contrary to Athenian or Spartan interests, which were more on regional hegemony, Corinth seems to have been more interested on maritime and central Mediterranean features (partially due to its situation).

Why don't we hear about a Corinthian League aligned against Athens, or a Corinthian Empire against Sparta?
The proximity of other competing centers as Argos or Megara could explain it : Sparta, Thebes and Athens more or less "cleaned the orbit" and established relatively early local dominance.
Corinth found itself not only surrounding with pretty much equally powerful cities, but between two or three blocks.

It's possible that Corinth beneficied from this situation, tough : hellenic congress in Corinth seems to point that they were seen as one of the centers of diplomatical network, and enviable position that might not have been possible if an hegemonic power.
Eventually, I think that it's the key : Corinth did enjoyed a central political and diplomatical situation that allowed it to take an important role into hellenic politics such as the Corinthian War*, and the confederation they formed with Argos during the conflict (trough the democratic victory) that ended up broken, much like the Beotian confederation was, as a result of the conflict.

*Let's be clear : at least partially, most of greek conflicts in the classical era are involving Persians interests.


What kind of changes would be necessary to make Corinth spoken of in the same breath as those other cities?
You may need to curb down either Spartan or Athenian dominance, as until the VIth century, Corinth looked (politically) on par with these cities; but probably more importantly, to make the social and political troubles of the archaic period being significantly lowered.
These led to the formation of colonial expeditions (as it happened in Asia Minor) that could have made the city interests less hegemonic than Athens.

Eventually, you certainly need to prevent the rise of Argos as the peloponesian hegemon in the archaic period : more powerful Argos is, less room for Corinth to rise.
 
They were actually, in the sense that when they never became regional hegemons, they repelled relatively efficiently foreign influences and presence (contrary to the vast majority of poleis). Contrary to Athenian or Spartan interests, which were more on regional hegemony, Corinth seems to have been more interested on maritime and central Mediterranean features (partially due to its situation).
Ah, yes, perhaps I should have been more clear; I meant specifically that they never became regional hegemons, despite their strong strategic location and great wealth. My question was why this didn't happen, and how it could have happened.

It's possible that Corinth beneficied from this situation, tough : hellenic congress in Corinth seems to point that they were seen as one of the centers of diplomatical network, and enviable position that might not have been possible if an hegemonic power.
Eventually, I think that it's the key : Corinth did enjoyed a central political and diplomatical situation that allowed it to take an important role into hellenic politics such as the Corinthian War*, and the confederation they formed with Argos during the conflict (trough the democratic victory) that ended up broken, much like the Beotian confederation was, as a result of the conflict.

*Let's be clear : at least partially, most of greek conflicts in the classical era are involving Persians interests.

I did specifically mention that it was mostly a Persian proxy war against Sparta ;)

Your point about benefiting by not really being a hegemon and therefore somewhat "neutral" (or at any rate not a competitor to the hegemonic powers) is also well-taken.

You may need to curb down either Spartan or Athenian dominance, as until the VIth century, Corinth looked (politically) on par with these cities; but probably more importantly, to make the social and political troubles of the archaic period being significantly lowered.
These led to the formation of colonial expeditions (as it happened in Asia Minor) that could have made the city interests less hegemonic than Athens.
I apologize, because sometimes I have trouble understanding you, but what you're saying is that the unrest of the archaic period involving the fall of the hereditary kingship and rise of populist tyrants led to Corinth sending out many colonial expeditions, presumably with a heavy involvement of political dissidents, and this in turn meant that Corinth itself was less interested in exerting hegemony within Greece itself, correct? Would that be because the "grasping men" who might have driven such involvement tended to be involved in either colonial expeditions or internal politics?
 
I apologize, because sometimes I have trouble understanding you, but what you're saying is that the unrest of the archaic period involving the fall of the hereditary kingship
I was more thinking about the late VIIth and VIth centuries struggles between various tyrannic, aristocratic and popular factions.

led to Corinth sending out many colonial expeditions
I was under the impression it was generally assumed that Greek colonial expeditions were much more issued from political infighting (as convenient exile, or way to have a non-zero sum game), than economical causes (altough it was never entierly written off).

Would that be because the "grasping men" who might have driven such involvement tended to be involved in either colonial expeditions or internal politics?
I was more thinking about how it represented a net loss of political and human resources (altough not at the point it made Corinth or Phokaia second-rate cities) that could have been turned for local domination. Less as a cause, tough, than a consequence of political instability : if you manage to have a relatively stable Corinthian tyranny AND to curb Argos (whom influence maybe had something to do with an unstable Corinth? I'm not too knowledgable about Archaic Greece to say if it was the case or not, just thinking out loud there), you may end with a more strong Corinth in the VIth, a bit like Athens managed to do.
 
Remind me of Sterling or Panama; sometimes, barring being front loaded by an empire like Constantinople or Quebec or w/e, being an obviously crucial geo-strat crux can be detrimental, as controlling you is so important to surrounding powers that they're always going to hamstring your efforts at power gathering and taking you is always near the top of the list for any of their own power plays.

But it is a puzzler...always thought it was the natural capital of Greece.
 
Remind me of Sterling or Panama; sometimes, barring being front loaded by an empire like Constantinople or Quebec or w/e, being an obviously crucial geo-strat crux can be detrimental, as controlling you is so important to surrounding powers that they're always going to hamstring your efforts at power gathering and taking you is always near the top of the list for any of their own power plays.

But it is a puzzler...always thought it was the natural capital of Greece.

New Orleans would agree.
 
Corinth cared mostly about its colonies , in fact one of the biggest reason the Pelloponesean war started was because of the war between Corinth and its colony Corcyra(Corfu). Corinth was wealthy and didn't really need to be leaders of a hegemony to shine in their particular "niche".
 
Top