Again, it can scarcely be doubted that the expedition against Troy involves the existence of relations of some kind between Agamemnon and the other kings. But the character of Agamemnon's position in Greece itself is never clearly defined in the poems. According to Od. XXIV 115 ff. he has considerable difficulty in persuading Odysseus to take part in the expedition. On the other hand in Il. XIII 669 we hear of a fine (θωή) for those who refused to serve[578]. This passage however refers to a native of Corinth, who was doubtless a much nearer neighbour. Indeed the Catalogue of Ships (Il. II 569 ff.) represents the Corinthian contingent as under Agamemnon's immediate command. According to this section of the poem Agamemnon's own territories consist of the north-western part of Argolis, together with at least the eastern half of Achaia, while the rest of Argolis belongs to Diomedes and his colleagues. But in IX 149 ff. (291 ff.) it is clear that Agamemnon possesses part of Messenia, bordering apparently on Pylos (the territory of Nestor). Further, we have to take into account that, apart from the Catalogue, neither poem gives evidence for the existence of anything which can fairly be called a kingdom in the Peloponnesos, except Pylos, Elis and the territories of the two brothers[579]. Taking the positive and negative evidence together it seems probable that Agamemnon and his brother were regarded as ruling over the greater part of the peninsula, though certain cities and districts remained in possession of native princes, perhaps in a dependent position. Again, I am not aware that there is any evidence apart from the Catalogue for supposing that the territories of the two brothers were regarded as definitely marked off from one another. From Il. IX 149 ff., taken together with the references to Sparta and Mycenae, we may infer the contrary. On the whole it seems more probable that we have here to do with a case of divided kingship, as so frequently among the Teutonic peoples, rather than with two separate kingdoms. In that case too we shall obtain a satisfactory explanation of the later tradition (cf. p. [240]) which claimed Agamemnon for Sparta or Amyclai.
Beyond his own territories Agamemnon's authority does not seem to be represented as anything more than a somewhat indefinite hegemony—comparable probably with the relationship of Theodric the Ostrogoth to his northern allies (cf. p. [373] f.). The army which he leads against Troy is furnished partly by his own subjects and partly by a number of princes whose positions may have varied from complete dependence to something which may best be described as alliance. A good parallel is to be found in the army led by the Mercian king Penda against Oswio, which according to Bede (H. E. III 24) consisted of thirty legiones under regii duces. Among these were the king of East Anglia and several Welsh kings.
How Agamemnon acquired his imperial position we are not told; for scarcely anything is recorded of his doings before the Trojan war. From Il. II 104 ff. we may perhaps infer that his family had held a preeminent position before him[580], although Pelops was located by later tradition in a different part of the peninsula[581]. Nor again is it made clear whether the hegemony remained with the family after Agamemnon's death. All that can be said is that the Odyssey represents Menelaos as a very wealthy king and that neither the poems nor later tradition give any hint of the rise of a new power in the Peloponnesos before the 'Return of the Heracleidai.' What may be regarded as certain is that no individual Greek prince attained to such a supremacy again, for many centuries after the close of the Heroic Age.
In conclusion we must consider briefly the question how far the Homeric kingdoms rested upon a national or tribal basis (cf. p. [375] ff.). Upon this question the nomenclature of the poems seems to throw some light. In the north of Greece, except the plain of Thessaly, the inhabitants of the various kingdoms bear what are apparently national or tribal names, e.g. Βοιωτοί, Λοκροί, Δόλοπες, Ἐνιῆνες, Μάγνητες, Αἰτωλοί, Ἄβαντες—probably also Φωκῆες and Μυρμιδόνες (Ἕλληνες). The same is true of kingdoms outside Greece, e.g. Φαίηκες, Τρῶες and the various Trojan allies. But in the Peloponnesos the only names of this type are Ἐπειοί, Ἀρκάδες and Καύκωνες; for Πύλιοι and Ἀργεῖοι are not primary national names but derivatives of Πύλος and Ἄργος, while Ἀχαιοί is a name, like Engle, applied to the inhabitants of many kingdoms. This evidence, so far as it goes, tends to indicate that the southern kingdoms rested on a political or military rather than a tribal basis—which is natural enough if we are right in believing that the Peloponnesian Achaeans were an offshoot from the Achaeans of northern Greece. It would seem then that these kingdoms are to be compared with the newer kingdoms of the Teutonic Heroic Age, the nucleus of which consisted of the kings with their military followings; and I am not aware of the existence of any evidence inconsistent with this view. I do not mean of course that these kingdoms were necessarily areas carved out by the sword, like the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. What I mean is that we have no reason for supposing that Agamemnon's subjects believed themselves to be of a different nationality from Nestor's subjects or the rest of the Achaeans and that each of these kingdoms had a separate tribal organisation and tradition of its own.
If our observation is correct it is important to notice that several of the chief Achaean leaders belong to kingdoms which apparently rest on a non-national basis. Among them we have to include not only Agamemnon, Menelaos and Nestor, but also probably Idomeneus; for the name Κρῆτες in the Homeric poems can scarcely mean anything else than inhabitants of Crete. The followers of Diomedes and of Aias, the son of Telamon, likewise appear to bear no national names. The case of Odysseus is doubtful, since his subjects are described both as Ἀχαιοί and Κεφαλλῆνες. The question is whether he is king of the Cephallenes in general or only king of Ithaca, with a temporary lordship over the rest of the nation. The only 'heroes of the first rank' who clearly represent national kingdoms are Achilles and Aias the son of Oileus.
In the course of this chapter we have noticed many remarkable resemblances between the Homeric and the early Teutonic systems of government. Not all of these however can be regarded as characteristic of the Heroic Age; some have been inherited in all probability from an earlier stage of development. Such are the religious type of kingship, the council of twelve and the national gathering for religious (sacrificial) purposes[582]. The form of government truly characteristic of the Heroic Age in both areas alike is an irresponsible type of kingship, resting not upon tribal or national law—which is of little account—but upon military prestige. Such kingdoms are often of recent origin and without roots in any national organisation. The assembly here, so far as it exists at all, is a gathering summoned at the king's pleasure, while the council consists of an indefinite number of his trusted followers, whose advice he may wish to have from time to time. Lastly, we may observe in both cases a very strong tendency to develop intercourse between one kingdom and another—partly by royal marriages and partly by the cultivation of personal relations between the kings, which generally take the form of a recognition of overlordship, though in varying degree. The general effect of this intercourse must have been to produce something in the nature of an international royal caste, and to break down tribal and local prejudices, at least in the highest ranks of society.
With the end of the Heroic Age the lines followed by Teutonic and Greek political history part company. In both cases, it is true, we find a revival of national feeling. Among the Teutonic peoples however the kingdoms constantly tend to decrease in number and increase in size—partly by the process sketched above (p. [375]) and partly by pressure from without. In Greece on the other hand this tendency was brought to an abrupt end[583] by the Thessalian and Dorian conquests, by which the richest parts of the country were brought into the power of populations in a lower stage of civilisation and governed largely by tribal principles and prejudices. The general effect of these movements was to isolate the various communities—not only in the conquered provinces but also in those districts, such as Attica, which remained entirely or comparatively untouched. This isolation in turn was probably favourable to the growth of internal dissensions. In the end at all events no king succeeded in maintaining a personal lordship over the rest of his class[584], even within the smallest communities. The title came to denote an official with constantly diminishing powers, often indeed of an exclusively religious character, while the allegiance formerly owed to an individual was now transferred to the state and its constitution[585]. At a later date, it is true, most of the Greek states again came for a time into the power of individual rulers. But it is not until the days of Philip II, king of the Macedonians, that we find any single man holding an authority over the Greek world such as the poems attribute to Agamemnon.