Medium Size Agricultural Land - Less than Easy Access to Sea

A combination of only mediocre qualities in both access to the sea (usually employed for fishing or regional trade) and the size of cultivable soil is quite frequent in the ‘Third Greece’. When speaking about such communities, some authors may tend to exaggerate: Isokrates, for example, contrasts the Thessalians with ‘the Megarians, who had small and insignificant resources to begin with and who possess neither land nor harbours nor mines but are compelled to farm mere rocks’ (8.116); and Strabon (9.1.8) says about Megara: ‘The country of the Megarians... has rather poor soil, and the greater part of it is occupied by the Oneian Mountains.’ During the Classical Age, Megara (cf. Legon 1981) indeed only possessed lands of limited usefulness (in the seventh century it had unsuccessfully fought Korinth for possession of the relatively fertile land between the two communities) and the harbour of Nisaia, which was too small (and too close to its more powerful neighbours Athens and Korinth) to attract sizeable trade. One way out of the dilemma was large-scale emigration, in Megara’s case to colonies in the North-east (Chalkedon, Selymbria, Byzantion) and the West (Sicilian Megara Hyblaia). The Megarians who stayed specialized in non-agricultural activities like fishery and sea-salt production, animal husbandry (goats and sheep) and exporting salted or dried fish, raw wool or textiles, while importing grain from the Black Sea region or Egypt, mainly via the Piraeus at Athens, which smaller vessels could reach from Nisaia. In the Classical Age, Megara, while traditionally mainly on Sparta’s side (though equally traditionally an enemy of Sparta’s ally Korinth), had to rely on Athens economically, and was faced with increasing pressure from there (the ‘Megarian decree’, banning trade, was one of the major causes that led to the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War), eventually settling for a ‘low profile’ in foreign politics, while trying to make good in the shadow of mightier neighbours, ‘continually in a state of peace’ (Isokrates 8.117).

Similarly, Sikyon, the western neighbour of Korinth on the northern shore of the Peloponnese in the Korinthian Gulf, had fertile land only along the coast; this, however, is at most 5 km wide (plains further inland belonged to different communities), and, as at Megara, there is no harbour suitable for larger seagoing vessels (again, the success of Korinth could have prevented development). In what went beyond subsistence farming (and fishing) Sikyon generated income with metal work (including bronze sculpture), items for everyday use, and shoes which were sold elsewhere, as were certain types of fish. Sikyon’s aristocratic oligarchy stayed on Sparta’s side even after the latter’s defeat at Leuktra in 371, but soon afterwards a tyrant, Euphron, took power and changed allegiances to Thebes; internal strife followed. After the Classical Age the city was relocated from the plain to a securer position further inland; it noticeably gained importance only after the Roman destruction of Korinth in 146 (cf. Griffin 1982).

Sikyon’s western neighbours, the communities of Achaia (Aigeira, Aigion, Patrai, Dyme, etc.) on the south shore of the Korinthian Gulf, faced similar problems in transcending the level of mere subsistence. Some income was generated by ferry services along the shore and across to Delphi. Like the Megarians, the Achaians attempted to solve further problems by sending away colonists (to, e. g., Kroton and Sybaris); later, they were known to be selling their manpower as mercenaries. To counteract their individual lack of influence outside the region, the communities formed a federation, which first Athens, then after 417 Sparta, and after 367 Thebes tried to win over to their side; the federation was dissolved after 324 (it was later refounded and was to become an important regional power only in the third century; cf. Larsen 1968).

Communities with less than easy access to the sea and mediocre agricultural lands are known not only along the coastlines but also on islands. Karystos (cf. Wallace 1972) on Euboia, for example, which is separated from the remainder of the island by a difficult mountainous region and thus forms a kind of island of its own, had only limited agricultural land and a small harbour which mainly supported fishery: tuna and pickled fish from Karystos were sold as far away as Athens. It was the strategic position of Karystos, however, as a jumping-off point, as it were, for boats serving the western Aegean, which brought Karystos under Persian sway in 490. After the Persian Wars it fell under the direct control of Athens, first in the Delian League and then in the Second Athenian League, interrupted only by an interval of supporting Thebes. It was only later that the city was relocated closer to the shore and that its green marble began being exploited after construction of an artificial harbour, suitably called Marmarion (cf. Corpus Tnscriptionum Latinarum (CIL) 14 14301) and in use well into imperial times (CIL 6 8486). Karystos thus survived on the model described in Section 3 above.

In sum, less than easy access to the sea and agricultural lands of mediocre quantity and quality made life rather difficult for the communities, especially when larger powers threatened to take advantage of their weakness (which in turn was frequently exacerbated by internal strife). Large-scale emigration as colonists or men’s serving as mercenaries was one way out; forming larger units in federations was another option; but otherwise a ‘low profile’ in international conflicts allowed agricultural activities to secure subsistence and some specialized exports.