Читаем The Historians' History of the World 04 полностью

The supremacy of Sparta was exercised in the expeditions of the whole confederacy, and in transactions of the same nature. In the first, the Spartan king—after it had been thought proper never to send out two together—was commander-in-chief, in whose powers there were many remains of the authority of the ancient Homeric princes. Occasionally, however, Sparta was compelled to give up her privilege to other commanders, especially at sea, as, for instance, the fleet at Salamis to Eurybiades. When any expedition was contemplated, the Spartans sent round to the confederate states, to desire them to have men and stores in readiness. The highest amount which each state could be called on to supply was fixed once for all, and it was only on each particular occasion to be determined what part of that was required. In like manner the supplies in money and stores were regularly appointed; so that an army, with all its equipment, could be collected by a simple summons. But agricultural labour, festivals, and the natural slowness of the Doric race, often very much retarded the assembling of this army. The contributions, chiefly perhaps voluntary, both of states and individuals, were registered on stone: and there is still extant an inscription, found at Tegea, in which the war-supplies of the Ephesians, Melians, etc., in money and in corn, are recorded. But the Lacedæmonians never exacted from the Peloponnesian confederacy a regular annual contribution, independent of circumstances; which would have been, in fact, a tribute: a measure of this kind being once proposed to King Archidamus, he answers, “that war did not consume according to rule.”

Pericles, however, properly considers it as a disadvantage to the Peloponnesians that they had no paid troops, and that they had amassed no treasure. The object of an expedition was publicly declared: occasionally, however, when secrecy was required, it was known neither to the states nor to their army. The single allied states, if necessity demanded it, could also immediately summon the army of the others; but it is not clear to what extent this call was binding upon them. The Spartan military constitution, which we will explain hereafter, extended to the whole allied army; but it was doubtless variously combined with the tactics of the several nations. To the council of war, which, moreover, only debated, and did not decide, the Spartan king summoned the leaders of the several states, together with other commanders, and generally the most distinguished persons in the army.

According to the constitution of the Peloponnesian league, every common action, such as a declaration of war, or the conclusion of a peace or treaty, was agreed on at a congress of the confederates. But, as there was no regular assembly of this kind, the several states sent envoys (ἄγγελοι), like the deputies (πρόβουλοι), of the Ionians, who generally remained together only for a short time. All the members had legally equal votes (ἰσόψηφοι); and the majority sometimes decided against a strong opposition; Sparta was often outvoted, Corinth being at all times willing to raise an opposition. We have, however, little information respecting the exact state of the confederacy; it is probable, from the aristocratic feelings of the Peloponnesians, that, upon the whole, authority had more weight than numbers; and for great undertakings, such as the Peloponnesian War, the assent of the chief state was necessary, in addition to the agreement of the other confederates. When the congress was summoned to Sparta, the envoys often treated with a public assembly of the Spartans.

But upon the internal affairs, laws, and institutions of the allied states, the confederacy had legally no influence. It was a fundamental law that every state should, according to its ancient customs, be independent and supreme; and it is much to the credit of Sparta, that, so long as the league was in existence, she never, not even when a favourable opportunity offered, deprived any Peloponnesian state of this independence. Nor were disputes between individual states brought before the congress of the allies, which, on account of the preponderance of Sparta, would have endangered their liberty; but they were commonly either referred to the Delphian oracle, or to arbitrators chosen by both states. For disputes between citizens of different states there was an entirely free and equal intercourse of justice. The jurisdiction of the states was also absolutely exempt from foreign interference. These are the chief features of the constitution of the Peloponnesian confederacy; the only one which in the flourishing times of Greece combined extensive powers with justice, and a respect for the independence of its weaker members.

[580-479 B.C.]

Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

100 великих интриг
100 великих интриг

Нередко политические интриги становятся главными двигателями истории. Заговоры, покушения, провокации, аресты, казни, бунты и военные перевороты – все эти события могут составлять только часть одной, хитро спланированной, интриги, начинавшейся с короткой записки, вовремя произнесенной фразы или многозначительного молчания во время важной беседы царствующих особ и закончившейся грандиозным сломом целой эпохи.Суд над Сократом, заговор Катилины, Цезарь и Клеопатра, интриги Мессалины, мрачная слава Старца Горы, заговор Пацци, Варфоломеевская ночь, убийство Валленштейна, таинственная смерть Людвига Баварского, загадки Нюрнбергского процесса… Об этом и многом другом рассказывает очередная книга серии.

Виктор Николаевич Еремин

Биографии и Мемуары / История / Энциклопедии / Образование и наука / Словари и Энциклопедии
1221. Великий князь Георгий Всеволодович и основание Нижнего Новгорода
1221. Великий князь Георгий Всеволодович и основание Нижнего Новгорода

Правда о самом противоречивом князе Древней Руси.Книга рассказывает о Георгии Всеволодовиче, великом князе Владимирском, правнуке Владимира Мономаха, значительной и весьма противоречивой фигуре отечественной истории. Его политика и геополитика, основание Нижнего Новгорода, княжеские междоусобицы, битва на Липице, столкновение с монгольской агрессией – вся деятельность и судьба князя подвергаются пристрастному анализу. Полемику о Георгии Всеволодовиче можно обнаружить уже в летописях. Для церкви Георгий – святой князь и герой, который «пал за веру и отечество». Однако существует устойчивая критическая традиция, жестко обличающая его деяния. Автор, известный историк и политик Вячеслав Никонов, «без гнева и пристрастия» исследует фигуру Георгия Всеволодовича как крупного самобытного политика в контексте того, чем была Древняя Русь к началу XIII века, какое место занимало в ней Владимиро-Суздальское княжество, и какую роль играл его лидер в общерусских делах.Это увлекательный рассказ об одном из самых неоднозначных правителей Руси. Редко какой персонаж российской истории, за исключением разве что Ивана Грозного, Петра I или Владимира Ленина, удостаивался столь противоречивых оценок.Кем был великий князь Георгий Всеволодович, погибший в 1238 году?– Неудачником, которого обвиняли в поражении русских от монголов?– Святым мучеником за православную веру и за легендарный Китеж-град?– Князем-провидцем, основавшим Нижний Новгород, восточный щит России, город, спасший независимость страны в Смуте 1612 года?На эти и другие вопросы отвечает в своей книге Вячеслав Никонов, известный российский историк и политик. Вячеслав Алексеевич Никонов – первый заместитель председателя комитета Государственной Думы по международным делам, декан факультета государственного управления МГУ, председатель правления фонда "Русский мир", доктор исторических наук.В формате PDF A4 сохранен издательский макет.

Вячеслав Алексеевич Никонов

История / Учебная и научная литература / Образование и наука