Xenophon und die spartanische Nauarchie

L. Thommen
{"title":"Xenophon und die spartanische Nauarchie","authors":"L. Thommen","doi":"10.13135/2039-4985/1922","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Xenophon generally considered Sparta to have been a well organized, ideal city-state, which fact he attributed to the presumed lawgiver Lycurgus. By contrast, he saw the Sparta of his own time as having gone awry in several ways, especially due to the undertakings of leading Spartans towards other Greek cities, which lead to the corrupting influx of gold as a symbol of prestige ( Lac . 14). These misguided Sparta big-power policies were associated with the harmosts, who served as magistrates in foreign areas and were not provided for in the Lycurgan system. Not mentioned in this context are the nauarchs, who served in overseas areas as ship’s captains, and could also, like the harmosts, be involved in political operations and thus win power not only for Sparta but also for themselves. In my opinion, the reasons for this silence regarding the nauarchia become evident from an analysis of the concrete actions of nauarchs in Xenophon’s Hellenika . There, as we shall see, the nauarchs are on official missions as elected magistrates, responsible to the polis, who generally worked for the strength of Sparta. Although the same persons are often involved, the nauarchs, unlike the harmosts, assumed no permanent foreign positions of rulership, which, according to Xenophon, was what was the cause of Sparta’s undoing. The nauarchs – by contrast with the harmosts – occupied individual positions, which caused fewer problems and which were not suited to maintain any permanent rulership. Therefore, Xenophon had no immediate reason to include the nauarchs in his critique of the contemporary Lakedaimonion politeia . The main thrust of his argument was rather that the role of a long-term hegemonic power in the Aegean was one that overtaxed the powers of Sparta, for the often ruthless behavior of the magistrates sent abroad was what sparked the resistance against Spartan rule. By contrast to Athens, Sparta could conduct no successful imperial policy, and only brought itself into danger. Thereby Xenophon does not take into consideration the fact that Sparta, as a land power, was dependent on a certain maritime strength and presence as well, and hence needed the right kind of commanders. Therefore, he ultimately prefers not to mention the nauarchs in connection with the ideal Spartan constitution, and to connect the city’s imperial misbehavior only with the harmosts.","PeriodicalId":30377,"journal":{"name":"Historika Studi di Storia Greca e Romana","volume":"12 1","pages":"313-320"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historika Studi di Storia Greca e Romana","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13135/2039-4985/1922","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Xenophon generally considered Sparta to have been a well organized, ideal city-state, which fact he attributed to the presumed lawgiver Lycurgus. By contrast, he saw the Sparta of his own time as having gone awry in several ways, especially due to the undertakings of leading Spartans towards other Greek cities, which lead to the corrupting influx of gold as a symbol of prestige ( Lac . 14). These misguided Sparta big-power policies were associated with the harmosts, who served as magistrates in foreign areas and were not provided for in the Lycurgan system. Not mentioned in this context are the nauarchs, who served in overseas areas as ship’s captains, and could also, like the harmosts, be involved in political operations and thus win power not only for Sparta but also for themselves. In my opinion, the reasons for this silence regarding the nauarchia become evident from an analysis of the concrete actions of nauarchs in Xenophon’s Hellenika . There, as we shall see, the nauarchs are on official missions as elected magistrates, responsible to the polis, who generally worked for the strength of Sparta. Although the same persons are often involved, the nauarchs, unlike the harmosts, assumed no permanent foreign positions of rulership, which, according to Xenophon, was what was the cause of Sparta’s undoing. The nauarchs – by contrast with the harmosts – occupied individual positions, which caused fewer problems and which were not suited to maintain any permanent rulership. Therefore, Xenophon had no immediate reason to include the nauarchs in his critique of the contemporary Lakedaimonion politeia . The main thrust of his argument was rather that the role of a long-term hegemonic power in the Aegean was one that overtaxed the powers of Sparta, for the often ruthless behavior of the magistrates sent abroad was what sparked the resistance against Spartan rule. By contrast to Athens, Sparta could conduct no successful imperial policy, and only brought itself into danger. Thereby Xenophon does not take into consideration the fact that Sparta, as a land power, was dependent on a certain maritime strength and presence as well, and hence needed the right kind of commanders. Therefore, he ultimately prefers not to mention the nauarchs in connection with the ideal Spartan constitution, and to connect the city’s imperial misbehavior only with the harmosts.
离开林和斯巴达瑙鲁
色诺芬通常认为斯巴达是一个组织良好的理想城邦,他把这一事实归功于假定的立法者利库尔古斯。相比之下,他认为他那个时代的斯巴达人在几个方面都走错了路,特别是由于斯巴达人向其他希腊城市进发,这导致了作为威望象征的黄金的腐败涌入(拉克。14)。这些误入歧途的斯巴达大国政策与宪兵有关,他们在外国地区担任地方长官,而利库尔根制度不提供这些政策。在这篇文章中没有提到的是在海外地区担任船长的海员,他们也可以像水手一样参与政治活动,从而不仅为斯巴达赢得权力,也为他们自己赢得权力。在我看来,对色诺芬的《海列尼卡》中航船的具体行为进行分析,可以明显地看出对航船沉默的原因。在那里,我们将看到,海军执政官作为选举产生的执政官执行官方任务,对城邦负责,他们通常为斯巴达的力量而工作。虽然经常有相同的人参与其中,但与融洽者不同的是,航海者没有担任永久性的外国统治职位,根据色诺芬的说法,这就是斯巴达灭亡的原因。与总督不同的是,海军大臣占据个人职位,这导致的问题较少,也不适合维持任何永久的统治。因此,色诺芬没有直接的理由在他对当代湖区政治的批判中包括船主。他的主要论点是,一个长期的霸权国家在爱琴海的作用是使斯巴达的权力负担过重,因为被派往国外的地方官员的无情行为引发了对斯巴达统治的反抗。与雅典相比,斯巴达没有成功的帝国政策,只会把自己置于危险之中。因此色诺芬没有考虑到斯巴达,作为一个陆地强国,也依赖于一定的海上力量和存在,因此需要合适的指挥官。因此,他最终宁愿不提及与理想的斯巴达宪法有关的君主,而只将城市的帝国行为与危害联系起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信