Delian League Essay Aims

To what extent did the Delian League fulfill its aims? The Delian League was formed in 478BC and consisted of an amalgamation of Greek-city states (Athens being the hegemony). The key aims of the league were to “compensate themselves for their losses by ravaging the territory of the King of Persia” (Thucydides) , to “protect those Greek states which had already revolted from Persia and to liberate those still under Persian rule” (J.Fine). However, in the longer term, the aim of the league was to provide security against future Persian attacks and to remain a unified force against such a threat. Thus, the Delian league was an offensive and defensive alliance against the threat of a common enemy-Persia. Through the quintessential roles of particular leaders (such as Cimon and Aristides) and Athens superior approach, the Delian League was able to fulfil its initial aims to a considerable extent. Consequently, it is crucial to recognise that in the latter part of the Delian League, with not written constitution available, Athens was able manipulated and even alter the initial aims of the league. Both Aristotle and Plutarch mention the oath taken by members of the League and how it was Aristides “who swore the oaths to the Ionians that they should have the same enemies and friends, to confirm which they sank lumps of iron in the sea”. This oath, sworn between the Athenians and allies indicated that Athens was to be the hegemon for as long as the League existed and that the League was meant to be permanent (a unified force). Contribution to the League was decided by Aristides who “was popular with the allies and had a reputation for integrity” (Bury & Meiggs). Members fell into two categories: Ship contributors and money contributors; both crucial and essential for the league to carry out its original aims. For the first ten years, the Delian League concentrated on supressing any further Persian expansion. The League’s first action was the recapture of Byzantium , which the exiled Pausanias had held. This caused the Persians to be isolated from their garrisons in Thrace, and gave Athens valuable control of the valuable Black Sea trade route. It also diminished the potentially dangerous base from which the Persians could launch new offensives. Strictly speaking, this occurred before the formation of the league, but it still had significance in displaying the League’s aims. Furthermore, Cimon led the capture of Eion (476-475BC) in Thrace which was of great economic and strategic importance. On the mouth of the Strymon River , it dominated the main east-west land route and was a natural centre of exchange for a hinterland rich in precious timber, corn, gold and silver. Eion had been a supply depot for the Persian forces, and was its strongest garrison west of the Hellespont. Cimon’s actions here led to Athenian dominance in the area, reopened the way for Athenian Commerce, and removed significant Persian threat. Thus, it contributed to the league compensating itself for its losses during the Persian Wars. The conquest of Scyrus in 474-473BC “seems to have nothing to do with the Leagues stated aims” (P.Bradley: Ancient Greece) as the Island was inhabited by non-Greek Pirates, not Persians. However, the Pirates were disrupting trade and the capture and enslavement of the island may have guaranteed the freedom of the seas for trade. Thus, Scyrus became the first of Athenian cleruchies, a settlement of Athenian citizens, which allowed Athens to guard their trade routes and solve the land shortage problem in Attica. Thus, the “capture of Scyrus indicates the flexibility of the league’s aims” (Thucydides) and how Athens was able to alter the aims to suit its own needs. The notion of Athens manipulating the league’s initial aims is also demonstrated when Carystus was coerced into membership in 472BC . Carystus had remained neutral during the Persian Wars, so while the threat remained it was possible that its position near Athens could be utilised by the Persians. Carystus dominated the trade route to the Hellespont, so its capture was beneficial for Athens’ commercial interests. However, being forced into the Delian League as a subject paying tribute outraged the other Greek states, as it was not the original purpose of the league to attack and dominate other Greek states. The league justified the move by claiming it was a ‘political necessity’. Consequently, Naxos, a first-class member wishing to leave the league revolted in 469BC. Athens used force to demonstrate its power and ensure that obligations were met. Thus, Naxos lost autonomy and became a tribute-paying subject state; “Despite the harshness of the treatment, the League had the right to insist that a member fulfil its obligations…Naxos had acted in defiance with the League’s constitution” (Bradley).