16. In naval tactics, the Greeks seemed to have improved very slowly1. The battles of Artemi'sium and Salamis were won more by the advantageous position of the Grecian fleet, than by any skilful evolutions; in the other seafights, the Persians were beaten so easily, that no opportunity was afforded for exhibiting the prudence or adroitness of the commanders. The victory obtained at 2 Arginu'sæ by the Athenians, in the second Peloponnesian war, was, however, entirely owing to the skill of the admirals; they had their vessels drawn up in double lines, and were thus enabled to break through the long single line of the Spartans. The bravery of Callicrat'idas for a time kept the fortune of the day in doubt, but skill eventually triumphed over valour. 17. It was not until the wars between the Romans and Carthaginians, that the naval tactics of the ancients assumed a regular form; but in judging of them, we must bear in mind two important particulars, in which they differ from those of modern times. First, as the triremes and long vessels were principally impelled by oars, less depended on the wind than in recent sea-fights; and secondly, as the weapons of the combatants were only fit for close action, the vessels soon ran alongside each other without affording any opportunity for complicated manœuvres. But though the naval tactics of the moderns are more difficult and intricate, we must not suppose, that the ancient sea-fights were trivial or insignificant. They decided the event of a war, frequently by one engagement, and if the loss of life be taken into account, we shall find that in ancient times, a battle by sea was three times more destructive than any that has taken place since the invention of gunpowder. 18. The trierarchy or system of equipping fleets at Athens has been already slightly mentioned (p. 54.); it will 1 See History, chap. V. ? See History, chap. X. be necessary, however, to add something more on a subject of such importance. The Athenian trierarch generally received his ship from the state, and at times ready equipped; there were indeed some instances in which the profits of the silver mines were distributed among a number of rich men to build and equip vessels for the state; but the more ordinary course was to provide the ship before the trierarch was appointed. The trierarch supplied pay and provision to the crew, but he received a sum of money from. the public treasury for the purpose. If that sum was sufficient to cover his expenses, there would have been no hardship in being forced to execute the office; but this was rarely the case, and the trierarchy was justly regarded as the severest public duty that could be imposed in Athens. 19. It may well excite our surprise, that under such circumstances, the trierarch was as rigidly compelled to give an account of his proceedings as any other magistrate; but we must remember that the ship belonged to the state, and that the trierarchy was an imposition in the nature both of a tax and a public duty; the popular government therefore claimed the right of ascertaining whether the tax had been paid in full, and the required duty effectively performed. While in office the trierarch was exempted from all ordinary taxes. 20. From what has been said, it is evident that the trierarchy, though very expensive, was not necessarily oppressive, if all the regulations connected with it were fairly arranged; though on the other hand no tax was more intolerable, if the burdens were unequally imposed and unfairly distributed. It not unfrequently happened that trierarchs, either from ambition or patriotism, impoverished themselves and corrupted the people by lavish expenditure. 21. In a later age some efforts were made to remedy these evils by the institution of syntrierarchies, that is, imposing the expense of the trierarchy, on two or more individuals, in L such instances the joint trierarchs took the command of the ship in turn, but they were collectively responsible to the people for the safety of the vessel, and the performance of the duty required. Questions. 1. What was the usual composition of a Grecian army? 2. How long did liability to military service continue? 3. Why was the ancient form of armies a hindrance to the improvement of military science? 4. Did the Persian war make any change? 5. Why were no improvements introduced in the two Peloponnesian wars? 6. Did the republican constitution offer any impediment ? 7. In what species of force were the Greeks deficient? 8. When is a militia formidable? 9. Where does a militia first disappear? 10. What evil arose in Greece from the use of mercenary troops ? 11. Did Epaminondas introduce any improvement in tactics? 12. Where was the efficacy of this change proved? 13. Why did the Greeks make but little improvement in the art of navigation? 14. How was the Grecian navy manned? 15. What description of vessels did the Greeks use? 16. Were any victories won by the superior tactics of the Greeks? 17. How did ancient naval battles differ from those of modern times? 18. What was the trierarchy ? 19. Why were the trierarchs responsible? 20. What rendered the trierarchy oppressive? 21. What was the syntrierarchy? HISTORY OF GREECE. CHAPTER I. From the fabulous and heroic ages to the abolition of royalty in the several States. Land of the brave and free, whose fame sublime ANON. 1. THE early traditions of Greece agree with the sacred Scriptures in representing the south-eastern extremity of Europe as peopled at an earlier period than the other portions of the western world. Like the continent of America when first discovered by the Europeans, we find that in its early ages, Greece was inhabited by numerous tribes of hunters and shepherds, among whom the most remarkable were the Pelas'gi and Helle'nes. Both were probably of Asiatic origin, but the difference of their languages, institutions, and manners, show them to have been different tribes. 2. The Pelas'gi were the more ancient and barbarous people; yet they were not totally destitute of civilization, since they founded Argos and Sicyon, the most ancient states of Greece, about eighteen centuries before the Christian era. They are also supposed to have erected those ancient buildings whose remnants are still found in Greece and the Islands, and which from their rude and massive style of architecture, are named cyclopic. 3. I'nachus, who was nearly cotemporary with Abraham, is the first great Pelasgic leader mentioned in history, but it is not easy to discover whether he was a native of Greece or a foreigner; his having formed a settlement on the seacoast, and given his name to a river, renders the latter the more probable conjecture. 4. During two centuries the Pelas'gi maintained their pre-eminence in southern Greece, and extended their dominions northwards as far as Thes'saly, where they first came into collision with their Hellenic rivals. 5. The Helle'nes, as they were subsequently called, from Hellen, the son of Deucalion, first made their appearance in Pho'cis near the foot of mount ParnasBeing driven from thence by a flood, whose history has been mixed up with the traditions of the universal Deluge, they migrated into Thessaly, from whence they expelled the Pelas'gi. In the middle of the sixteenth century before Christ, they descended southwards, and driving the former inhabitants everywhere before them, eventually became masters of the greater part of Greece. 6. The more ancient race retained possession only of Arca'dia, and that part of Epi'rus near Dodo'na; the remaining Pelas'gi either united themselves to the victorious tribes, or removed to Italy, Crete, and some of the islands. For several centuries after this migration the remnant of the Pelasgic race sus. |