To what extent was the League of Corinth an instrument of Macedonian control PDF

Preview

Summary

essay...

Description

To what extent was the League of Corinth an instrument of Macedonian control?

The League of Corinth, established in 337BC by Philip II, could be defined as an alliance of Greek states which, through bilateral treaties, were bound to Macedon. Its aims were relatively clear – to create a common peace in order to pass efficient legislation for the campaign against Persia. However, one must take into consideration the idea that there may have been an underlying reason for the creation of the League of Corinth, which was to gain control of Greek city states in order that the Macedonians might be able to expand their rule. In order to explore whether the League of Corinth was an instrument of Macedonian control, one must firstly look at the composition of the League itself; how it was structured, what the benefits and drawbacks were for the members, the scale of pressure the members were under to partake in the League and how effectively its aims were carried out. Corinth’s geographic placement played an important role in the League’s establishment as it was a weak and powerless city state, and therefore uncontroversial due to its strategic and political centrality.1 The reason that Corinth was chosen by Philip was because it had been the site of a recent victory dedication over barbarians, which linked well to the underlying purpose of a ‘unifying panhellenic campaign against a barbarian’.2 This strategic positioning was a clever way of enticing the states into the league, giving an air of unification instead of the city states thinking that they were being ruled by the Macedonians. This meant that it was a solid foundation for Philip to base the League as the envoys that were sent to Corinth were more likely to want to participate. The League itself was comprised of delegates from the allied city states who formed a council which policed common peace and passed legislation for the Persian campaign. Although the King of Macedon was the appointed hegemon, the council were allowed to act autonomously in his absence. The League was mainly united by the common cause - to combat the Persians - and as a result each member state had to contribute a certain amount of soldiers or money in order to support the war effort. 1 Hornblower, S. The Greek World, 479-323 BC, 4th edition (London 2011), 287 2 Hornblower, S. The Greek World, 479-323 BC, 4th edition (London 2011), 287

However, we must investigate the extent of freedom that the allied states actually had, as they were still restricted by various agreed regulations which they swore to keep when joining the league, such as performing executions and exiling citizens in any way contrary to existing laws, land redistribution, freeing slaves, debt cancellation, supporting exiles in any attack on home states or altering constitutions. It should also be noted that the oath mentions ‘I shall not subvert the kingdom of Philip and his descendants’, which could be interpreted as Philip’s way of cementing their control and hegemony. However Perlman argues that this was not in fact unusual for the Greeks, ‘The inclusion of Philip and especially of his descendants in the clause prohibiting subversion of Macedonians monarchy is certainly not a contravention of Greek diplomatic practice’3 showing that this was not an aggressive addition, with the intention of maintaining a dictatorship through generations, but instead another method to maintain long term peace. It could be said that the League was not really of Macedonian origin as it was based on many previous Greek symmachies and peace treaties. Perlman states, ‘Philip did not invent it and did not use it excessively in comparison with the Greek states’4, when talking about the idea of a hegemony and peace treaty being combines in order to control the city states. The initial apparent strictness of these restrictions could actually be seen as effective methods for peacekeeping, as faults were identified in the King’s Peace which ‘failed, because it did not preserve peace within the Greek poleis’5, and therefore the tightening of control could be deemed valid due to the ‘common cause’ that was prolonged peace in order to effectively fight against Persian forces. When we delve deeper into the actual ruling power of the delegates, we start to see clearly that the Macedonians have the ‘upper hand’ due to their position as the most powerful state within the alliance. As described in Bosworth’s writings, ‘A peace treaty might guarantee autonomy for all Greeks, but the most powerful state would impose its own concept of autonomy while ignoring the most blatant violations in its own sphere of interest’. This describes the high interests for the ruling power – as it is unlikely any case will 3 Perlman, S. ‘Greek Diplomatic Tradition and the Corinthian League of Philip of Macedon’. Historia 34 (1985) 170 4 Perlman, S. ‘Greek Diplomatic Tradition and the Corinthian League of Philip of Macedon’. Historia 34 (1985) 170 5 Perlman, S. ‘Greek Diplomatic Tradition and the Corinthian League of Philip of Macedon’. Historia 34 (1985) 170

go against Macedon given the presidency of the Macedonian officials within the council itself. This means that Macedon has the ability to sidestep the restrictions as it could arraign any other state, whereas a single state would have to present its complaints to the council and may not necessarily be guaranteed a resolution. Therefore, the ability that Macedon had to exploit the system could be deemed a reason as to why the League of Corinth was an instrument of Macedonian control. Examples of this could be when Alexander alters the constitution of Eresus from oligarchic to democratic and imposing the return of the exiles from Chios. The considerable lack of aggression towards the majority of Greek states from Philip and Alexander regarding the formation of the League of Corinth could show how peace was very important in this time, and the lack of force used (with the exception of Thebes, where a garrison was put in place after its rebellion against the King’s Peace) could show that Philip did not want to have extreme measures of control put in place – and therefore the League was not his primary focus. It could be said that instead he wanted to concentrate on the liberation of other city states which were in Asia Minor or under Persian control, as he thought that he had already strengthened the Macedonian throne enough after the battle of Chaeronea. The control of the Greek city states was not Alexander’s primary focus, therefore the League of Corinth did not need to be a very secure instrument of control. An important factor in the making of the League of Corinth, and indeed the ‘liberating’ of other Greek states in the Aegean and Asia Minor, was Philip’s (and later on, Alexander’s) focus on maintaining Greek diplomatic methods and how he ‘did not intend to impose his own royal rule over the Greek poleis’.6 Philip needed the troops that would be given to him if the League of Corinth was to be formed in order to take on the Persians, and the simplest and smoothest way of this happening was for him to not impose monarchy and instead understand well ‘the importance of Panhellenic sentiments for the propaganda in favour of an expedition against Persia’7 to ensure there were no rebellions and he could focus on Asia Minor. The League was also capable of many things that were not linked to Macedonian gains, and Hornblower states that ‘it would be rash to dismiss the League as simply an instrument of 6 Perlman, S. ‘Greek Diplomatic Tradition and the Corinthian League of Philip of Macedon’. Historia 34 (1985) 167 7 J.R. Ellis, Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism, London, 1976, pp 198-200

repression’ as it had other functions, such as being a court of arbitration between states in order to prevent them from going to war. This helped to maintain the peace, which although peacetime meant that Macedon had control, it also meant that no further tightening of control would be needed. In conclusion, the League of Corinth could be said to be an instrument of Macedonian control, although indirectly. Its official aim was to maintain peace and help the campaign against Persia, but the lack of direct interference with traditions and governing of individual city states shows that not much ‘control’ was needed in the first place, due to Philip and Alexander’s understanding of the importance of not forcing their Macedonian royalty and customs upon them. The Greek city states were not Macedonia’s main concern; they needed to rectify the problems that occurred with the King’s Peace, and instead focus on the mission against Persia....