DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.13851#0460
433
ok the mi li tar v affairs vF greece.
CHAP. V.
of the officers in the athenian and lacedjemonian armies.
The Grecian cities being governed by different laws, the nature and
titles of their offices, whether in military or civil affairs, must of conse-
quence be distinguished- Wherefore, it being an endless undertaking to
recount the various commands throughout the whole Grecian nation, I
shall only present you in this place with a short view of the chief offices
in the Athenian and Lacedaemonian armies.
In the primitive times, when most states were governed by kings, the
supreme command belonged to them of course ; and it was one principal
part of their duty towards their subjects, to lead them forth in person
against their enemies, and in single combat to encounter the bravest of
them at the head of their armies. And it may be observed, that when
any prince, through cowardice, or other weakness, was judged unable to
protect his people, it was customary for them, withdrawing their allegi-
ance, to substitute a person better qualified in las place ; a memorable
instance whereof we have in Thymcetes an Athenian king, who declin-
- ing a challenge sent by Xanthus king of Bceotia, was deposed without far-
ther ado, and succeeded by a foreigner, one Melanthius a iVlessenian, who
undertook to revenge the quarrel of Athens on the Boeotians (1).
Yet, on some occasions, it was not impracticable for the king to nomi-
nate a person of eminent worth and valour to be his IIoXffAap^os, or ge-
neral, who either commanded under the king, or, when the emergency
of other affairs required his absence, supplied his place : which honour-
able post was conferred by king Erectheus upon Ion, the son of Xuthus5
in the Eleusinian war (2).
But the government being at length devolved upon the people, affairs
were managed after a new method ; for all the tribes being invested with
an equal share of power, it was appointed that each of them should no-
minate a commander out of their own body. That this was done in the
time of Cimon, appears from Plutarch (3). But whether each of the
tribes perpetually made choice of one of their own body, or sometimes
named men of other tribes, is not very certain. No person was appoint-
ed to this command, unless he had children and land within the territory
of Athens (4). Those were accounted pledges to the commonwealth.
And sometimes the children were punished for the treason of their fa-
thers ; which, though seemingly cruel and unjust, was yet antiquum et
omnium civitatum an ancient custom, and received in all cities, as Cicero
hath observed (5). He gives us in the same place an instance in The-
mistocles's children, who suffered for the crimes of their father. Hence
Sinon in Virgil, pretending to have quitted the Grecian for the Trojan
interest, speaks thus of his children (6) :
Quos illifors adpaenas ob nostra rcposcent
Effugia, et culpam hane miserorum mortepiabunt.
(1) Vide Arcliseolog. nostr. lib. ii. cap. 29. in - (5)Epist. xvi.ad Brutum. Conf. Coeliu? Rho-
Att: Tafia di^inus, lib. xiv. cap 12.
(2) Pausan. Atticis. (3)Cimone. (6) ^Eneid. lib. ii. v. 139.
(4) Conf. Pctitus Comment in Leges AUicas. Dinarchus in Demosthenem,
ok the mi li tar v affairs vF greece.
CHAP. V.
of the officers in the athenian and lacedjemonian armies.
The Grecian cities being governed by different laws, the nature and
titles of their offices, whether in military or civil affairs, must of conse-
quence be distinguished- Wherefore, it being an endless undertaking to
recount the various commands throughout the whole Grecian nation, I
shall only present you in this place with a short view of the chief offices
in the Athenian and Lacedaemonian armies.
In the primitive times, when most states were governed by kings, the
supreme command belonged to them of course ; and it was one principal
part of their duty towards their subjects, to lead them forth in person
against their enemies, and in single combat to encounter the bravest of
them at the head of their armies. And it may be observed, that when
any prince, through cowardice, or other weakness, was judged unable to
protect his people, it was customary for them, withdrawing their allegi-
ance, to substitute a person better qualified in las place ; a memorable
instance whereof we have in Thymcetes an Athenian king, who declin-
- ing a challenge sent by Xanthus king of Bceotia, was deposed without far-
ther ado, and succeeded by a foreigner, one Melanthius a iVlessenian, who
undertook to revenge the quarrel of Athens on the Boeotians (1).
Yet, on some occasions, it was not impracticable for the king to nomi-
nate a person of eminent worth and valour to be his IIoXffAap^os, or ge-
neral, who either commanded under the king, or, when the emergency
of other affairs required his absence, supplied his place : which honour-
able post was conferred by king Erectheus upon Ion, the son of Xuthus5
in the Eleusinian war (2).
But the government being at length devolved upon the people, affairs
were managed after a new method ; for all the tribes being invested with
an equal share of power, it was appointed that each of them should no-
minate a commander out of their own body. That this was done in the
time of Cimon, appears from Plutarch (3). But whether each of the
tribes perpetually made choice of one of their own body, or sometimes
named men of other tribes, is not very certain. No person was appoint-
ed to this command, unless he had children and land within the territory
of Athens (4). Those were accounted pledges to the commonwealth.
And sometimes the children were punished for the treason of their fa-
thers ; which, though seemingly cruel and unjust, was yet antiquum et
omnium civitatum an ancient custom, and received in all cities, as Cicero
hath observed (5). He gives us in the same place an instance in The-
mistocles's children, who suffered for the crimes of their father. Hence
Sinon in Virgil, pretending to have quitted the Grecian for the Trojan
interest, speaks thus of his children (6) :
Quos illifors adpaenas ob nostra rcposcent
Effugia, et culpam hane miserorum mortepiabunt.
(1) Vide Arcliseolog. nostr. lib. ii. cap. 29. in - (5)Epist. xvi.ad Brutum. Conf. Coeliu? Rho-
Att: Tafia di^inus, lib. xiv. cap 12.
(2) Pausan. Atticis. (3)Cimone. (6) ^Eneid. lib. ii. v. 139.
(4) Conf. Pctitus Comment in Leges AUicas. Dinarchus in Demosthenem,