Question about ancient greek colonies

[atreides]

Hi,

I was thinking the other day about how exactly the ancient greek colonies got founded: a bunch of greeks appeared off the coast somewhere in the Med, disembarked, built a city, and we have Neapolis, Massilia, etc...but no fighting? That land belonged to someone, and even in ancient times with so much less people, I just don't see a king accepting five thousand armed colonists and their families with equanimity. What was the colonizing mechanics, precisely? What was the most common scenario: invasion, strike a deal years before the big trip, or fait accompli and hello we are here, suckers? Anybody knows?

A.

 

[Practical Lobster]

Colonization is perhaps the wrong word for what the Greeks did - the first settlers came to the land that would eventually be "colonies" in search of trade, and as such would enter into what were generally mutually profitable arrangements with the natives. This explains why the Greeks rarely penetrated much deeper than the coastline - these colonies started as small marketplaces and expanded from there. Only in areas of genuinely large-scale colonization were the Greeks able to press inland.

 

[atreides]

Colonization is perhaps the wrong word for what the Greeks did - the first settlers came to the land that would eventually be "colonies" in search of trade, and as such would enter into what were generally mutually profitable arrangements with the natives. This explains why the Greeks rarely penetrated much deeper than the coastline - these colonies started as small marketplaces and expanded from there. Only in areas of genuinely large-scale colonization were the Greeks able to press inland.

Yeah, but at some point surely there would have been a reaction against the "encroaching foreigners", or whatnot. And the Greek colonies were everywhere and not just outposts or "chinatowns", but full-fledged cities. There should be more to that story than that.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Yeah, but at some point surely there would have been a reaction against the "encroaching foreigners", or whatnot. And the Greek colonies were everywhere and not just outposts or "chinatowns", but full-fledged cities. There should be more to that story than that.

I'd imagine it was much like the European settlements in North America: by the time the locals decided that these settlers were encroaching too much on their lands, the colonies were already too big to uproot.

 

[Xenophonte]

The problem with your question

The problem with your question is that overestimates the population density in a colonized regions and the level of political organization in these regions and underestimated the superiority of military, cultural and organizational Greeks about the original inhabitants of most settled areas: To the northwest of the Hellas- the Chalkidiki península, Tasos, Thrace, the Euxeinos Pontos, Hospitable Sea, the Black Sea and its current access.
In the Western Mediterranean: the future Magna Grecia (Megale El'lás), Provence (Μασσαλία: MASSALIA), the Iberian peninsula, were colonies of settlement and entry points for the expansion of trade and cultural influence inwards.
There were various forms of colonization and land acquisition needed to found a colony, varying according to the type of region of destination of the future Greek colony, while in some areas of the Mediterranean were fully assimilated by the Greek polis established in other areas were only temporary or permanent positions trade almost entirely inhabited by merchants and sailors, the latter could be established by agreement with the ruler of the region (where it exists) an example would be the poleis of Naucratis in Egypt.
But the only thing that prevented theirs progress was not the resistance Native... the determining factor in slowing colonization and stoped it, was the political and commercial enmity of the Carthaginians and a lesser extent of the Etruscans. This enmity was what led to the Battle of Alalia happen, battle whose outcome was that decided who would be the dominant power in the western Mediterranean.
The Battle was a victory for the Greeks thanks theirs tactical superiority but for their losses was actually a pyrrhic victory for the Phocians, whose losses were so large , that they had to give up its expansionist Policy.
The Etruscan-Carthaginian losses are unknown, but it is assumed that the fleet sent to fight was completely destroyed but Cartagneses could face their loss and recover unlike the case of the Greeks who had to relinquish control of Corsica and finalize its expansion Western Mediterranean, leaving free passage to the Carthaginian domain. Corsica as neighboring Sardinia, later become dependencies of Carthage. For its part, the Greek colonies of the Spanish east coast and southern France were isolated from their cities and began the economic boom of the Carthaginean Gadir in the southern of Iberia.

 

[atreides]

The problem with your question is that overestimates the population density in a colonized regions and the level of political organization in these regions and underestimated the superiority of military, cultural and organizational Greeks about the original inhabitants of most settled areas: To the northwest of the Hellas- the Chalkidiki península, Tasos, Thrace, the Euxeinos Pontos, Hospitable Sea, the Black Sea and its current access.
In the Western Mediterranean: the future Magna Grecia (Megale El'lás), Provence (Μασσαλία: MASSALIA), the Iberian peninsula, were colonies of settlement and entry points for the expansion of trade and cultural influence inwards.
There were various forms of colonization and land acquisition needed to found a colony, varying according to the type of region of destination of the future Greek colony, while in some areas of the Mediterranean were fully assimilated by the Greek polis established in other areas were only temporary or permanent positions trade almost entirely inhabited by merchants and sailors, the latter could be established by agreement with the ruler of the region (where it exists) an example would be the poleis of Naucratis in Egypt.
But the only thing that prevented theirs progress was not the resistance Native... the determining factor in slowing colonization and stoped it, was the political and commercial enmity of the Carthaginians and a lesser extent of the Etruscans. This enmity was what led to the Battle of Alalia happen, battle whose outcome was that decided who would be the dominant power in the western Mediterranean.
The Battle was a victory for the Greeks thanks theirs tactical superiority but for their losses was actually a pyrrhic victory for the Phocians, whose losses were so large , that they had to give up its expansionist Policy.
The Etruscan-Carthaginian losses are unknown, but it is assumed that the fleet sent to fight was completely destroyed but Cartagneses could face their loss and recover unlike the case of the Greeks who had to relinquish control of Corsica and finalize its expansion Western Mediterranean, leaving free passage to the Carthaginian domain. Corsica as neighboring Sardinia, later become dependencies of Carthage. For its part, the Greek colonies of the Spanish east coast and southern France were isolated from their cities and began the economic boom of the Carthaginean Gadir in the southern of Iberia.

Very interesting! So, if the Phocian Greeks had won the battle of Alalia more decisively, the Greeks would have expanded even more. How far could they go? Perhaps planting colonies beyond the Mediterranean, in the Atlantic coast of Europe?

 

[Xenophonte]

The battle was a Pyrrhic victory ..

The battle was a Greek victory but is called Pyrrhic because the cost of it to the Phocaeans, on ships and crews were made up of citizens cams was unaffordable and even fewer could continue in the region confronting the hostility of the two major regional powers.

The Phocaeans were refugees from the Persian conquest of the Metropolis and therefore lacked more support and given the inability of the Greeks to collaborate with each other and join, rare exception and counted exceptions, against the common enemy was very difficult to be another outcome Battle.

Maybe if the colonization effort would have involved Photios as some other allied Greeks emigrated group backed by their own Metropolis, Corsica and Sardinia would be settled and assimilated into the Greek civilization and would have continued and expanded the Greek colonial settlements in the Mediterranean region Gaul in the future Provence with consequent impact on the peoples of the rest of the Gaul, facilitating and accelerating its cultural and political evolution.

With regard to the regions to colonize is reasonable to assume that the Balearic Islands and at least the Mediterranean coast of Iberia could be settled.

Finally perhaps even more speculatively Tartessos, assumed that controlled the commercial traffic to and from the Atlantic regions as well as through the 'Pillars of Hercules',would have managed to survive to the aggressive Punic competition and expand its influence and the most developed forms of political organization as the Greek, could have an opportunity of autonomous development by the Iberians and Celts altering the history of Iberia.