hegemonic powers to violate and crush autonomia . Neutrality was still a viable policy after
Melos and became just as common as any other option, but the Athenian’s
disproportionate reaction only exemplified how the neutrality of these states was not
respected in the same way as the “unconditional inviolability accorded to sanctuaries”,
which was also broken by larger states on occasion anyway. 4 Although neutrality could be
seen as a feasible way for small Greek states to retain some form of autonomia, it was
certainly dependent on the hegemonic powers of the time benefitting from it. Once that
stopped, states faced joining their side or destruction.
Overall, it is undeniable that small Greek states did have to give up autonomia in order
to survive. This essay argues, however, that small poleis likely did not have autonomia to
begin with as the concept operated, much like autarkeia , as an aspirational target, not an
essential characteristic of the polis . By the mid 4th century, autonomia had become a
political tool rather than an achievable right for smaller Greek poleis . Moreover, at the end
of the Second Athenian Confederacy, it can be suggested that the states left behind by
those able to defect to Thebes had lost a claim to autarkeia , yet alone autonomia .
Neutrality can be explored as a theoretical way for smaller states to regain some
independence, but the fate of Melos exemplifies that to not give in to a hegemonic power
easily ended in destruction.
4 Bauslaugh, p. 81.
23
Made with FlippingBook HTML5