8. It is not with a view of founding any calculation upon them, but merely of giving a general idea of the numerical force of a Greek tribe (which many would [pg 084] suppose to be a large nation), that I offer the following remarks. At the flourishing period of the Doric power, about the time of the Persian war, Sparta, which had then conquered Messenia, contained 8000 families, Argos above 6000; while in Sicyon, Corinth, Phlius, Epidaurus, and Ægina, the Dorians were not so numerous, the constitution being even more oligarchical in those states. Although in the colonies, where they were less confined by want of sufficient space, and by the severity of the laws, the inhabitants multiplied very rapidly, yet the number of original colonists, as many of them as were Dorians, was very small. Now since in the states of Peloponnesus, even after they had been firmly established, the number of inhabitants, particularly of Dorians, never, from several causes, much increased,[278] it seems probable that at the time of their first irruption the whole number of their males was not above 20,000.[279] Nor were the earlier settlements of Achæans and Ionians more considerable. For the Ionians, as is evident from their traditions, appear as a military race in Attica, and probably formed, though perhaps together with many families of a different origin, one, and certainly the least, of four tribes (the ὅπλητες[280]). The arrival of the Achæans is represented in ancient traditions in the following simple manner: “Archander and Architeles, the sons of Achæus, having been driven from Phthiotis, came to Argos and Lacedæmon.”[281] Their names signify “the ruler,” and “the chief governor.” [pg 085] Certainly the Achæans did not come to till the ground; as is also evident from the fact that, when dislodged by the Dorians, and driven to the northern coast, they took possession of Patræ, dwelt only in the town, and did not disperse themselves into the smaller villages.[282]
It seems pretty certain that the Dorians migrated together with their wives and children. The Spartans would not have bestowed so much attention as they did on women of a different race; and all the domestic institutions of the Dorians would have been formed in a manner very unlike that which really obtained. This circumstance alone completely distinguishes the migration of the Dorians from that of the Ionians, who having, according to Herodotus, sailed from Attica without any women, took native Carian women for wives, or rather for slaves, who, according to the same writer, did not even dare to address their husbands by their proper names. And this was probably the case with all the early settlements beyond the sea, since the form of the ancient Greek galley hardly admitted of the transport of women.
9. It would have been less difficult to explain by what superiority the Dorians conquered Peloponnesus, had they gained it in open battle. For, since it appears, that Homer describes the mode of combat in use among the ancient Achæans, the method of fighting with lines of heavy armed men, drawn up in close and regular order, must have been introduced into Peloponnesus by the Dorians; amongst whom Tyrtæus describes it as established. And it is evident that the chariots and darts of the Homeric heroes could never have prevailed against the charge of a deep and compact body armed with long lances. But it is more difficult still to comprehend [pg 086] how the Dorians could have entered those inaccessible fortifications, of which Peloponnesus was full; since their nation never was skilful in the art of besieging, and main force was here of no avail. How, I ask, did they storm the citadel of Acro-Corinthus, that Gibraltar of Peloponnesus?[283] how the Argive Larissa, and similar fortresses? On these points, however, some accounts have been preserved with regard to the conquest of Argos and Corinth, which, from their agreement with each other, and with the circumstances of the places, must pass as credible historical memorials. From these we learn that the Dorians always endeavoured to fortify some post at a short distance from the ancient stronghold; and from thence ravaged the country by constant incursions, and, kept up this system of vexation and petty attack, until the defenders either hazarded a battle, or surrendered their city. Thus at a late period the places were still shown from whence Temenus and Aletes had carried on contests of this nature with success.[284] And even in historical times this mode of waging war in an enemy's country (called ἐπιτειχισμὸς τῃ χώρᾳ) was not unfrequently employed against places, which could not be directly attacked.[285]
Chapter V.
§ 1. Reduction of Argos by the Dorians. § 2. Of Sicyon. § 3. Of Phlius and Cleonæ. § 4. Of the Actè, Epidaurus, Ægina, and Trœzen. § 5. Independence of Mycenæ and Tiryns. § 6. Ancient homage of the towns of the Actè to Argolis. § 7. Territory of the Dryopians in Argolis. § 8. Reduction of Corinth by the Dorians. § 9. Ancient inhabitants of Corinth. § 10. Reduction of Megara by the Dorians. § 11. Reduction of Laconia by the Dorians under Aristodemus. § 12. Resistance of Amyclæ. Position of Sparta. § 13. Resistance of other Laconian towns to the Dorians. § 14. Traditions respecting Eurysthenes and Procles. § 15. Reduction of Messenia by the Dorians. § 16. Political state of Messenia.
1. Before the time of the Dorians, Mycenæ, situated in the higher part of the plain at the extremity of the mountain-chain, had doubtless been the most important and distinguished place in Argolis; and Argos, although the seat of the earliest civilization was dependent upon and inferior to it. At Mycenæ were the Cyclopian hall of Eurystheus,[286] and the sumptuous palace of Agamemnon; and though, as Thucydides correctly says, the fortified town was of inconsiderable extent, yet it abounded with stupendous and richly-carved monuments, whose semi-barbarous but artificial splendour formed a striking contrast with the unornamented and simple style introduced after the Doric period.[287] The Doric conquerors, on the other hand, did not commence their operations upon fortresses secured alike by nature and art, but advanced [pg 088] into the interior from the coast. For near the sea between Lerna and Nauplia, on the mouth of the Phrixus,[288] there was a fortified place named Temenium, from which Temenus the son of Aristomachus, together with the Dorians, carried on a war with Tisamenus and the Achæans, and probably harassed them by repeated incursions, until they were obliged to hazard an open battle. From thence the Dorians, after severe struggles, made themselves masters of the town of Argos.[289] It is related in an isolated tradition, that Ergiæus, a descendant of Diomed, stole and gave to Temenus the Palladium brought by his ancestor from Troy to Argos, which immediately occasioned the surrender of the city.[290] Argos was therefore supposed to have been taken by Temenus himself.
2. The further extension of the Doric power is, however, attributed not to Temenus, but to his sons; for such the Doric tradition calls Ceisus, Cerynes, Phalces, and Agræus or Agæus.[291] Of these, Ceisus is represented to have governed at Argos, and Phalces to have gone to Sicyon. The ancient Meconè or Sicyon had in early times been in the power of the Ionians, and afterwards subject to the Achæans of Argos. The very copious mythology of this ancient [pg 089] city contains symbolical and historical elements of the most various nature: we will only touch upon a part of the story immediately preceding the Doric invasion. Phæstus, a son of Hercules, is stated to have been king of Argos before that event; and having gone to Crete, where he founded the town of his name,[292] to have been succeeded by his descendants Rhopalus, Hippolytus, and Lacestades, the last of whom lived on terms of friendship with Phalces. Between them, however, Zeuxippus, a son of Apollo and of the nymph Hyllis,[293] is placed. We here perceive the traces of a connexion between Phæstus in Crete, and the introduction of the worship of Apollo and Hercules; this tradition, however, cannot authorise us to draw any chronological inferences.
3. Whether Phlius (situated in a corner of Arcadia, in a beautiful valley, whence arise the four sources of the Asopus[294]) was founded from Sicyon or Argos, was a matter of contention between these two towns: the latter simply called Phlias the son of Ceisus.[295] This Phlias, however, is nothing else than the country personified; the name being derived from φλέω or φλιδάω, and signifying “damp,” or “abounding in springs,” which appellation was fully merited by the nature of the spot. Hence Phlias was with more reason called the son of Dionysus (Φλεὺς, Φλεὼν), who loved to dwell in such valleys. There is, therefore, greater probability in the account of the Sicyonians, that Phalces and Rhegnidas were the founders of the Doric [pg 090] dominion;[296] it being moreover easier to force a way to Phliasia from Sicyon along the Asopus, than from Argos. It is known, that Pythagoras the Samian derived his origin from a certain Hippasus, who had quitted Phlius on that occasion; and the Ionic town of Clazomenæ is said to have been partly founded by some inhabitants of Cleonæ and Phliasia, who had been expelled by the Dorians;[297] from which two facts we are justified in inferring the existence of a connexion between the early inhabitants of these places and the Ionians. Cleonæ, situated in a narrow valley, where the mountains open towards Corinth, and bordering upon Phlius, appears from this account to have been colonised at the same time with that town, but probably from Argos. For we find that the ruling power was there in the hands of the same Heraclide family, of which a branch went from Argos to Epidaurus.[298]
4. The Acte (as the northern coast of Argolis, over against Attica, was called)[299] was reduced, according to the account of Ephorus, by Deiphontes and Agæus.[300] The former of these, who was called a descendant [pg 091] of Ctesippus, and son-in-law of Temenus, and whose fortunes afforded materials for the tragic poets, made himself master of the town of Epidaurus, and dislodged the Ionians from thence: these latter, under the command of their king Pityreus, crossed over to Attica, whence the king's son Procles went subsequently, at the general Ionic migration, to Samos.[301] Of the Dorians of Epidaurus, however, a part under the conduct of Triacon withdrew to Ægina,[302] in which place Hellenes of Thessaly had formerly ruled, and united the island and mother-state into one commonwealth, with equal rights, and the same magistrates. Now since besides Epidaurus, Trœzen alone belonged to the Actè, and since both Agæus and Deiphontes are mentioned as the Dorian colonisers of this coast, it was probably this Agæus who brought Trœzen under the rule of the Dorians.[303] In this city, too, he must have encountered some Ionians; since both the mythical genealogies and religious rites of the ancient Trœzen attest a close connexion between its earlier inhabitants and the Athenians.[304] For Trœzen even shared with the Ionic cities in the peculiar worship of the Apaturian Athene, as the goddess of phratriæ and gentes;[305] as also in that of Poseidon and his son Theseus.