Emmanouil Marios L. Economou , Nicholas. C. Kyriazis and Theodore Metaxas

The Institutional and Economic foundations of Regional proto-federations

Economics Department, University of Thessaly, Korai 43, PC: 383 33, Volos Thessaly, Greece. e-mail: emmoikon@uth.gr

What we are examine:

The political and economic organization and institutions of the Aetolian federation (370-189 BC) and

compare it with today’s EU in order to find out if the ancient Greek proto-federations could offer some

lessons for current European integration issues.

Για να χαρακτηριστεί ως ομοσπονδία η οποιαδήποτε υπο-μελέτη περίπτωσης που μελετάται εδώ να καλύπτει μια σειρά από πολύ συγκεκριμένα υποσύνολα έρευνας που έχουν σχέση με τη θεσμική τους

οργάνωση, ήτοι:

• α) με το πόσες πόλεις-κράτη συμμετείχαν στις εκάστοτε προς εξέταση περιπτώσεις κοινοπολιτειών

• β) με την ύπαρξη θεσμικών οργάνων για την εξαγωγή πολιτικών αποφάσεων (πχ., κοινό/ομοσπονδιακό κοινοβούλιο)

• γ) με τα όργανα διοίκησης της κοινοπολιτείας (πχ., στρατηγοί, ηγεμόνες κλπ.)

• δ) με την κοινή εξωτερική πολιτική και άμυνα

• ε) με την ύπαρξη ή μη κοινού νομίσματος

• στ) και γενικά, με τη χρηματοδότηση του ομοσπονδιακού προϋπολογισμού πχ., για έκτακτα έξοδα κατά τις πολεμικές

• περιόδους, ή αναφορικά με τη συνεισφορά και τα χρηματικά βάρη που αναλάμβανε κάθε πόλη-κράτος-μέλος κλπ.

• ζ) με την ύπαρξη ή μη κοινών ομοσπονδιακών δικαστικών οργάνων

• η) με την προοπτική “ισοπολιτείας”

The Aetolian federation: General overview

It was established in 370 BC by the voluntary adhesion of city-states around Aetolia (region in central Greece), based on an older alliance that took shape during the 5th century.

The main reason for its establishment: Defense against the Macedonian kingdom mainly (Philip II - reigned 359-336 BC), Thebes and the Achaean federation. (Larsen, 1952; Grainger, 1999).

In around 340 BC it was considered as one of the major military powers of the ancient Greek world

(Thompson, 1939 ; Rzepka, 1999).

Between 301-298 BC it expanded its influence by incorporating the region where the famous Delphic oracle was located and later also in other regional territories in mainland Greece (such as Lokris, Malia, Dolopia, Fokis, Acarnania and a part of Thessaly) as well as, some Greek Aegean sea islands and a region in Crete.

(Larsen, 1975).

In 279 PC it repelled a strong force of Gaul invaders.

As an ally of the Romans at first, then the Aetolian federation coalesced with King Antiochos of Seleucid (from Asia Minor) and after his defeat, the federation declined and converted to a roman province (after

189 BC).

Political and economic organisation

The two main institutional bodies

1.) The federal pan-Aetolian Assembly, to which all citizens of all constituting city-states aged 30 and above could participate (Pol. Hist. 29. 23-35; 29. 24.6; Larsen, 1972).

Under normal conditions, the Assembly was called twice a year, to decide on specific important issues (such as war and alliances) once every fall at the capital of the federation, Thermos -in western Aetolia and

once every spring, in rotation in one of the other city-states, (see Larsen, 1952).

2.) the Synodos (eng. Synod) or Boule (meaning: the “Council”)

• a preparatory body which set-up the agenda for the Assembly's meeting

The members that were participating in the Synodos were elected representatives from the city-states. They were voted locally in their city-states (Larsen, 1972, p. 178-180).

•By the members of the Boule, the government executive board was formulated → anticipating thus the US members of Congress and the members of the European Parliament.

The main institutional bodies

INSTITUTIONAL VALUE ADDED

The gathering of the pan-Achaean Assembly to discuss the major annual issues, can be seen as an annual institutionalized process of referendums whose decisions had to be materialised by the federal

government.

For the first time in history, a mixed democratic system combining elements of both direct democracy (the Assembly), with elements of representative democracy (the Boule) was established.

A very important element of the federation, was the isopoliteia of the federation’s citizens, meaning that a citizen of one member city-state, (eg. Amfissa) had political rights as a citizen, if he moved into another

member city-state, say Naupaktos or Delphi.

The Federal Court(s) were also responsible for some criminal and property rights cases (possibly involving citizens of different member city-states, see Larsen, 1972, p. 82).

The main institutional bodies

•The Strategos, (the General): combining the offices of supreme military commander and of political head of the federation (reminding the de facto position of G. Washington, Napoleon during 1798-1814).

→ Receiving also foreign embassies, being thus also a quasi-foreign affairs minister, in analogy of the EU’s High representative of the Union for foreign affairs and Security Policy.

•A governing executive body under the General → both with the Strategos, it undertook the day to day government administration.

•Further, three military commanders, the ipostrategos (major-general), the hipparchos (head of the cavalry) and navarchos (admiral) served under the general, assisting him in his duties.

The main institutional bodies

Regional political and economic organisation

The federation was organized on regional basis in seven regions or provinces → an antecedent to the seven Dutch United Provinces of the 16th century AD.

Each region was governed by a voularhos, its political head.

Each province had also a tamias who was in charge of the economic management and organization in his region (Rzepka, 1999; Scholten, 2000).

The 7 tamiai, (including also a “chief tamias” with duties that more or less might resemble to those of a modern finance minister) elected annually and they were:

•the keepers of the federal treasury and served as monetary officials of striking the federal coinage. (De Laix, 1973, pp. 65-75) → monetary policy-makers of the federation.

•were in charge of the funds necessary to pay the permanent standing army of the federation called the epilektoi (1000 in each province- elite missionary troops).

Thus, there existed three bodies representing the seven provinces: The committee of the seven voularchoi,

the committee of the seven tamiai and the committee of the seven epilektarhoi

Aetolian federation coin types

A tetradrachm coin (circa 220-218 BC) presenting the Head of Heracles wearing lion skin on the observe. On the reserve is presented Aetolos holding spear and sword. The inscription “ΑΙΤΩΛΩΝ” (of the Aetolians) proves that the federal origin of the coin.

Aetolian federation coin types

A 1/4 Stater (used during 279-168 BC) presenting Aetolia on the observe. On the reserve is presented a Caledonian boar including the inscription “ΑΙΤΩΛΩΝ” (of the Aetolians) proves that the federal origin of the coin.

Economic Assumptions:

The existence of a monetary union and the circulation of parallel currencies are evidence of

free mobility of capital within the federation.

The existence of isopoliteia (free political rights) for citizens is very strong evidence for the

free circulation of labour.

Thus, two of the main pillars of today’s EU, free circulation of capital and labour existed

already in the Aetolian federation.

State Member states Capital Main institutional organs intended for taking political decision

and executive power

Regime of equal political

rights (“isopoli

teia”

Common Foreign

and Defence Policy

Local and federal coins

Federal justice

Aetolian Confederation

? Thermos

Local Assemblies (Ecclesiae) + Federal Assembly (Thermika and Panaetolika)

 Federal Council and Apoklitoi

 Strategos (General)

 [Hipparch , Public Secreraty, 7 Τamiai]

 7 Boularchs and 7Epilektarchs

▼ 

▼ 

LC+FC ▼

Achaean Confederation

> 40 Aigion

 Local Assemblies (Ecclesiae)+ Federal Assembly (Synkletos)

 Federal Council (Sinodos)

 Strategos (General) and a supreme council of the 10

dimiourgoi/(synarchontes) [Ipostrategos, Nauarchos (Admiral) hipparch, Public Secretary]

 

▼ ▼

  

LC+FC  

▼

USA 50 Washington

Local election in the US states  

House of Representatives + Senate 

Government of the US /Federal Council  

President of the US+ Council of Ministers

▼

▼

  

FC 

(FED)

  

 ▼ 

(Supreme Court)

   

 EU

    

27*

    

Brussels*

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe European Council + Council of the EU

European Commission*

  

▼

  *

 (LC+FC) 

(ECB)  

 ▼Court of Justice of

the EU

Explanations:

(LC + FC) : LC = local coin ; FC = federal coin

▼ : institution in force

* : institution in development

Conclusion: Possible proposals to be drawn and adapted to today’s EU by the functioning of the Aetolian federation:

•A balanced mixture of both direct and representative democracy, which is lacking at the EU level to face the “democratic deficit” noted by many such as Habermas (2012).

•Introduction of bottom up referendums at the EU level on crucial issues for the future of the EU (Swiss cantons, California-USA and Bavaria in Germany) not only of consultative character, such as todays practice in most of the EU member States.

•The Greek proto-federations introduced a “mandatory” institutionalized gathering of citizens to vote democratically for at least once or twice a year.

•It should be an increase of the EU budget to implement its policies (eg. assistance to poorer regions etc). •Based on the the Aetolian Strategos, the President and the “Foreign Minister” of the EU, known also as the High Representative may be elected by universal vote and not be appointed.

•The only elected EU body, the European Parliament, must have its competences being increased.

•Introduction of the “Aetolian and Achaean cumulative voting model”. If it was implemented by the EU, the Constitutional treaty would have been accepted in 2007.

•Introduction of isopoliteia to guarantee and secure political rights to all of its citizens throughout its sovereignty).

•EU lags far behind concerning what is known as the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The EU might use the knowledge of the military organization of the Aetolian to create a pan-European military organization under its auspice- we call it the “Federal European Union Armed Forces- FEUAF).”

Figure 1: The “Value added” from the functioning of the institutions of the Aetolian proto-federation

Selected References

Ancient authors

Diodorus Sicilus “Historical Library” (Diod. Sic.).

Livy “History of Rome”, (Liv. Hist.).

Polybius “Histories” (Pol. Hist.).

Modern authors

Bosworth, A. B. (1994), “Alexander the Great: Greece and the conquered territories”, in The Cambridge Ancient History, 6, (pp. 846-871). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Caspari, M.O.B. (1914), “The parliament of the Achaean League”, The English Historical Review, 29(114) (Apr., 1914), 209-220.

Cohen, E. (1997), Athenian Economy and Society: A Banking Perspective. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Crawford, M. (1985), Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

De Laix, R. A. (1973), “The silver coinage of the Aetolian League”, Californian Studies in Classical Antiquity, 6, 47-75.

Grainger, J.D. (1999), The league of the Aitolians. Leiden and Boston: Brill Academic Pub.

Habermas, J. (2012), The crisis of the European Union. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Holleaux, M. (1905), “Sur les assemblées ordinaires de la Ligue Aitolienne”, BCH, 29, 362-372.

Kyriazis, N. (2006), “Seapower and Socioeconomic Change”, Theory and Society, 35(1), 71-108.

Larsen, J.A.O. (1952), “The Assembly of the Aetolian League”, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 83, 1-33.

Larsen, J.A.O. (1972), “A recent interpretation of the Achaean Assemblies”, Classical Philology, 67(3), 178-185.

Larsen, J. A. O. (1975), “The Aetolian-Achaean Alliance of CA. 238-220 B.C.”, Classical Philology, 70(3), 159-172.

Loomis, W.T. (1988), Wages, welfare costs and inflation in Classical Athens. Michigan: Michigan University Press.

Mitsos, M. T. (1947), “Thermika and Panaitolika”, Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 16(4), 256-261.

Nohlen, D. and Stöver, P. (2010), Elections in Europe: A data handbook. Berlin: Nomos Publishers.

Musgrave, R. A. (1961), “Approaches to a fiscal theory of political federalism”, in Public Finances: Needs, sources and utilization, National Bureau of Economic Research. New York and Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 97-122.

Musgrave, R. (1998), “Approaches to a fiscal theory of political federalism”, in Oates W.E. (ed), The economics of fiscal federalism and local finance. Chelterham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp. 187-212.

Roy, S. (2000), “Problems of democracy in the Arcadian Confederacy”, ”, in R. Brock and S. Hodkinson (eds), Alternatives to Athens: Varieties of political organization and community in ancient Greece , pp. 308-326. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rzepka, J. (1999), “The Aetolian elite warriors and fifth century roots of the Hellenistic Confederacy”, AKME. Studia Historica, 4/2009, 5-34.

Salmon, P. (1978). Étude sur la confédération béotienne. Bruxelles: Palais des Académies.

Scholten, J.B. (2000), The Politics of Plunder: Aitolians and their Koinon in the Early Hellenistic Era, 279-217 B.C . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Thank you very much!!