[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
147 armada to Magna Graecia in 415, the majority of the Greek city-states of Italy, regardless of past alignment, kinship, or any other pressure, remained strictly neutral. According to Thucydides' catalogue of allies (7.57-58), only Thurii and Metapontum formally aligned themselves, both with Athens and both because of internal dissension that made it impossible for them to do otherwise (57.11).[7] Much information about the policy of the Italian states can be gleaned from the narratives of Thucydides and Diodorus. For example, when the Athenian fleet reached Italy and proceeded along the coast, some states, while refusing the fleet admittance to their cities and providing no market, nevertheless furnished water and anchorage, although Tarentum and Locri refused to supply even these (Thuc. 6. 44.2). At Rhegium, Athens' former ally (see note 6 above), the Athenians were also denied entrance to the city, though a market was provided (44.3). A conference was also held to discuss the question of alliance. Thucydides reports that "[the Athenians] addressed speeches to the Rhegians, claiming that since they were Chalcidians, they should help the Leontines who were also Chalcidians. But [the Rhegians] replied that they would not support either side but would do whatever the rest of the Italians decided in common."s Despite minor differences in what each of the Italian states provided to the Athenian fleet, the position adopted by the majority was a carefully noncommittal balance that was neither hostile to nor supportive of the expedition. Several general principles that underlie the position of the Italians [7] On the meaning of 7. 57.11, see Dover, HCT, vol. 4, 439, who translates: "Thurioi and Metapontion took part on the Athenian side, as was inevitably imposed upon them by the state which their internal conflicts had at that time reached." Thucydides adds this footnote to explain their 84 of 236 7/9/2006 11:49 AM The Concept of Neutrality in Classical Greece http://content-backend-a.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft4489n8x4&chunk.i... exceptional action. Also supporting Athens in Italy but omitted from the catalogue was Artas, an Iapygian chieftain (7. 33.4). Etruscans (6. 88.6, 103.2; 7. 53.2) are also mentioned (7. 57.11). Diodorus (13. 3.4-5) gives essentially the same account but adds that Thurii accorded the fleet every courtesy a detail omitted by Thucydides. Thurii was not allied with Athens at the time; see Thuc. 7. 33.5-6. [8] 148 emerge from Thucydides' account. In the first place, commerce with the belligerents, whether the sale of supplies on the spot (6. 44) or shipment to the war zone in Sicily (6. 103.23; 7. 14.3, 25.1), evidently was not considered inconsistent with neutral status. However, supplies destined for either belligerent were liable to seizure or destruction. One reported incident occurred during 413 when the Syracusans destroyed a number of ships laden with supplies en route from Italy to the Athenian army in Sicily and burned a shipment of timber stockpiled for the Athenians in Caulonia (7. 25.2).[9] Another principle involved the neutral states' right to demand respect for territorial integrity. It was clearly no violation of neutrality for wary nonbelligerents to prohibit the armed forces of the warring parties from entering their cities[10] or to deny water and anchorage to a belligerent fleet[11] or to refuse passage of armed forces through their territory. The last was upheld in 413 when Croton prevented an Athenian army under Demosthenes and Eurymedon from traversing its territory, and thus forced an unexpected detour.[12] Finally, there is a controversial piece of evidence involving the Rhegians that might, depending on its interpretation, have bearing on the question of whether an otherwise neutral state could make contributions to a belligerent without forfeiting its claim of neutrality. At issue are three badly mutilated fragments of an Athenian [9] On neutral commerce, see also Thuc. 5. 28.2; Ar. Peace 475-77 (Argos; see 6.1 above); Thuc. 2. 67.4 (unidentified neutrals; see 6.4 above); and for later evidence, see Diod. 19. 103.4-5 (312); Plut. Demetr . 33.3 (297). The Corinthian decision reported by Thucydides (7. 34.1) to stand guard opposite Naupactus to protect merchants bound for Sicily seems to be a recent necessity resulting from the Peloponnesians' emergency decision to use merchant ships as troop transports (7. 7.3, 18.4, 19.1). [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ] |