Athenian Empire = Proto Ionian Nation State?

I studied Ancient History for three years of my life, but I never took a great deal of interest in the history of classical Greece, being more interested in Iranian, Hellenistic and Roman stuff. So, the contention argued in an essay by Prof. Ian Morris that I am reading quite surprised me: essentially that Athens' so called "Empire" of 479-404BC was nothing of the sort, and is best understood as the beginnings of a "national" state of Ionian Greeks, albeit one dominated strongly by Attica.

I was wondering what AH.com thinks of this proposition. Morris says that, in the absence of defeat in the late fifth century BC, Athens' state would have "undoubtedly" continued to centralise and gain more trappings of a proper nation: do we agree?
 

Randy Andy

Banned
Wasn't the state of the Athenian Empire basically one of "you give us money, we protect you"? The member cities were more low-grade tributaries than direct subjects; I mean, there was no Athenian governor directly controlling each city or group of cities.

What I'm saying is, of course it wasn't an Empire in the most common sense; however, I don't quite know if the Ionian Greeks joined the Delian League due to a consciousness of their common ethnicity, or because the trade boons and the Persian threat beckoned them (I'm leaning toward the latter option). The League also had some Dorians, right?
 
My understanding is that, according to classical sources i know of, there was no politically relevant shared feeling of "Ionianness" in the relvant timeframe. As far as Thucydides goes, IIRC, the Athenians did not give a rat's ass about whether the Delian League poleis were Ionian or not.
Most Delian League cities happened to actually be Ionian, but as far as I know, no known source made much of a deal about it.
However, if he has some evidence, it is not particularly outlandish. It may be that most known historical sources (that were often somewhat unsympathetic to the League) just show a bias against the notion of some sort of "Ionic" identity that actually existed at the time.
I'm mildly skeptical, but not hostile.
 
Adding to what others said, the Athenians were more interested in exploiting the other city states in the league to their own ends. The fact that during the Peloponnesian Wars the Athenians had repeated problems with rebelling cities attests to this. Many of them weren't getting any real benefit from being in the league (aside from military protection I guess, and IIRC, they had to contribute substantially to their own protection anyway), which only really served to benefit Athens only.
 
Eh, other than differences in language, I wouldn't agree that the Ionian Greeks were much different than the Dorian Greeks. Now, the argument can be made for a more governmental bent to the Pelopponessian War (oligarchies/Sparta vs. Athenian "democracies") but I don't think the ethnic component was really there.
 
I am actually now reading Morris' essay, and it's rather interesting.
I think he has a point, although, pending further reading, I hold to my formerly stated view insofar "national Ionian identity" is concerned; I don't think that "national" identity politics had any major relevance to the Athenian "Empire".
 

Randy Andy

Banned
Now, the argument can be made for a more governmental bent to the Pelopponessian War (oligarchies/Sparta vs. Athenian "democracies") but I don't think the ethnic component was really there.

It could've just been trade, convenience, and defense, honestly. Weren't there some tiny kingdoms that were part of the Delian and Peloponnesian Leagues? If so, government type really didn't come into it. I don't think that differences in systems of governance led to wars until the 17th or 18th century.

So basically Mafia :D

But then again, isn't that every government?
 
It could've just been trade, convenience, and defense, honestly. Weren't there some tiny kingdoms that were part of the Delian and Peloponnesian Leagues? If so, government type really didn't come into it. I don't think that differences in systems of governance led to wars until the 17th or 18th century.

Well, this is overstating. Ancient sources are pretty clear in that there was at least the perception of the form of government as being at stake in the Peloponnesian war and in some other cases.
A similar case for some Medieval conflicts, although less clear-cut, could be made as well.
One could argue that most inter-state conflict are ultimately about power and resources than any ideological notion, but usually all these factors tend to come out as heavily intertwined in the players' perception.
That for us it's relatively easier to unmask some of the ideological trappings of long past conflicts where the issues at stakes are no longer relevant does not mean that the people involved saw things the same way.
I won't be shocked if the average Athenian hoplite in 410 thought something about "we are fighting to spread democracy to the other Greeks" (although I have to say that the ancient Greeks were, on average, more honest than modern imperialists in admitting they were out for loot and plunder).
 
There very much was a sense of oligarchy vs democracy. The oligarchs were usually in support of Sparta, and it's no surprise that Athenian / spartan sponsored rebellions in cities were one trying to overthrow the other type of government.
 
From what I've learned I'd disagree to hell and back, but I'm also not at all focussed on that kind of thing in what I study so I very well could be wrong. But I'd doubt it personally.
 
The Delian League, to me, always seemed much more similar to the state of things in the Italian theater in the following centuries, where a single hegemony lorded over a group of semi-voluntary members in kind of military pact. Had Athens 'won' in the Pelopennesian War and not been knocked over by one of the other prospective hegemony states that had subsequently knocked over Sparta IOTL (Thebes, Macedon), I can only imagine Athens evolving in a way mildly similar to how Rome evolved, with Greece tied together in an increasingly tight series of alliances and leagues with Athens as a clear senior partner in all these deals.

The interesting difference is that the hegemony would be a democratic republic, rather than a mixed republic
 
I think the Delian League started as an alliance of like-minded poleis, although dominated by Athens, of course. It then evolved into an Athenian Empire of sorts. Id love to see a tl where it evolves into federal republic, but I dont know how to reign in Athenian overwhelming superiority.,
Mind you, not moving the Treasury to Athens might be a good start.
 
Top