The Athenian Empire in the Fourth Century BCE

Studying the Athenian empire has always been a bit of a paradox—“a tiny empire surrounded by a vast but narrow rampart of scholarship” (Morris 2005: 1). But in spite of all this scholarly attention, the Athenian empire is still under-conceptualized. Historians generally take it for granted that the Athenians had an empire in the fifth century and then irrevocably lost it in the fourth, but few actually find it necessary to define what empire is and how imperial rule differs from other forms of political and economic domination (Ma 230). The lone exception is Morris’ recent reappraisal, which, borrowing concepts and theoretical lenses derived from political science and sociology, delivers a startling conclusion: Athens’ expansion in the fifth century was akin not to empire building, but rather to “state formation” (Morris 2009). Be that as it may, Morris’ study raises the bar by bringing some much needed analytic rigor to the study of the Athenian empire. In this paper, I too will draw on a representative body of scholarship from the social sciences to demonstrate that the Athenians reestablished their empire in the fourth century, which was largely (but not exclusively) predicated upon indirect forms of rule, especially those relying on the control of economic resources. Empire can be defined as a political system in which one state controls or dominates other societies, both politically and economically, so that their effective sovereignty is infringed (Doyle 45; Motyl 118-19). As such, it lends itself well to structural analysis, the most successful and well known of which has been from the perspective of center and periphery (Shils). According to this model, imperial structure resembles an incomplete wheel with a hub (center) and spokes extending to the edge (periphery) but without a rim, in which the center controls the periphery (e.g., by setting foreign and domestic policy agendas, appointing local ruling elites, passing laws, monopolizing trade, etc.), while the periphery exerts no such control over the center (Galtung 89; Motyl 121). The structure is said to be rimless because significant interactions among peripheral states are missing or monopolized by the center. That the Athenians exerted this kind of control over some societies’ political and economic relations, to the extent that important interactions among some states were eliminated, is evidenced well in the sources (e.g., Delos and Ceos). Moreover, my paper will explore the varied political and economic relationships (the above-mentioned “spokes” of empire) that existed between Athens and the Aegean periphery. Here I will draw on the work of Nexon and Wright, who insist that all empires engage in “heterogeneous contracting,” a divide and conquer tactic in which centers develop distinctive contracts or bargains with each peripheral state under their control (259). In appraising Athens’ foreign policy, much of the scholarly attention has focused on their formal allied relationships (e.g., Griffith, Cargill, and Harding), a necessary but not sufficient litmus test for understanding Athens’ imperial rule. My aim then is to extend the analysis to include non-allied states of the periphery and examine other forms of domination, not just those relying on direct political control. A variety of sources (literary and inscriptional) attest to the fact that the Athenians increasingly relied on ruling the seas to dominate the periphery in more indirect ways, particularly controlling resource flows and trade through taxes and other extortionate measures. Works Cited Cargill, J. 1981. <i>The Second Athenian League</i>. University of California Press. Berkeley. Doyle, M. 1986. <i>Empires</i>. Cornell University Press: Ithaca. Galtung, J. 1971. “A Structural Theory of Imperialism,” <i>Journal of Peace Research</i> 8: 81–117. Griffith, G.T. 1978. “Athens in the Fourth Century,” in Garnsey, P. and Whittaker, C. eds. <i>Imperialism in the Ancient World</i>. Cambridge. Harding, P. 1995. “Athenian Foreign Policy in the Fourth Century.” <i>Klio</i> 77: 105-25. Ma, J. 2009. “Afterword: Whither the Athenian Empire,” in Ma, J., Papazarkadas, N. and Parker, R. eds. 2009. <i>Interpreting the Athenian Empire</i>. Duckworth: London. 223-31. Morris, I. 2009. “The Greater Athenian State,” in I. Morris and W. Scheidel eds. <i>The Dynamics of Ancient Empires</i>. Cambridge. --2005. “The Athenian Empire (478-404 BC).” 120508. December. Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics Motyl, A. 1999. <i>Revolutions, Nations, Empires: Conceptual Limits and Theoretical Possibilities</i>. Columbia: New York. Nexon, D. and Wright, T. 2007. ‘What’s at Stake in the American Empire Debate,” <i>American Political Science Review</i> 101: 253-71. Shils, E. <i>Center and Periphery</i>. University of Chicago Press; Chicago.