The idea of the Common Peace (Κοινὴ Εἰρήνη, Koinē Eirēnē) was one of the most influential concepts of 4th century BC Greek political thought, along with the idea of Panhellenism. The term described both the concept of a desirable, permanent peace between the Greek city-states (poleis) and a sort of peace treaty which fulfilled the three fundamental criteria of this concept: it had to include all the Greek city-states, it had to recognise the autonomy and equality of all city states without regard for their military power, and it had to be intended to remain in force permanently.
The advocates of the Common Peace saw it as a way to end the endemic warfare which engulfed the Greek poleis after the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War in 431 BC. From the King's Peace of 387/6 BC down to the foundation of the League of Corinth in 338 BC, the idea of the Common Peace influenced all peace treaties between Greek poleis. In the end, however, it turned out that only a strong hegemonic power could maintain a comprehensive peace for long. The concept has been revived in modern times, and in the 20th century it was a foundation stone of international organisations like the League of Nations and the United Nations.
The idea of the Common Peace The idea of the Common Peace developed out of older ideas which had gradually taken form in the political interactions of the 5th century BC in Greece. Its temporary enforcement however owes less to the realisation of the need for a permanent peace, than to the fact that it seemed to serve the interests of several successive hegemonic powers. The history of the Common Peace is therefore part not only of the history of ideas, but also of the diplomatic history of Greece in the decades between the Peloponnesian War and the rise of Philip II of Macedon.
Development of the term
The Greek word , which originally only signified a "state of peace", developed the related meaning of "peace agreement" at the beginning of the 4th century BC.Diekhoff, Friedensreden, p. 379–391 This was a consequence of a change in attitudes to war and peace more generally. Already in the 5th century BC, wars between Greek were ended with treaties, which were known as (), () or (). All these terms ultimately only indicated a truce or temporary break from war.Ryder, Koine Eirene, p. 15 But as a result of the unending warfare from the middle of that century, the idea gradually developed that a state of peace rather than war should be the normal state of international affairs. This is reflected in the increased prominence of the term and in its use as a term for peace treaties.e.g. Diodorus, XV.5.1 and XV.38.1–2
The term "Common Peace" was first used in 391 BC, in reference to the failed negotiations between Athens and Sparta to end the Corinthian War. The Athenian politician Andocides advised his fellow citizens in a speech to accept a settlement which he called .Andokides, Orations III.17 The term may had already come into general parlance before, but this speech is the first attestation. The first treaty in which the terms and were actually used was the King's Peace imposed by the Spartans and Persians in 387/6 BC. The phrase only appears in an official document for the first time in the peace treaty made after the Battle of Mantinea in 362 BC.
Generally, the term is only sparsely attested in contemporary sources. Authors like Isocrates, Demosthenes and Xenophon do not use it at all. But they do refer to its essential characteristics for each of the peace treaties which the first century BC historian Diodorus consistently refers to as a . The fact that Diodorus based his account of the period from 386 to 361 BC on the contemporary author Ephorus makes it very likely that the term was in general use at the time.Ryder, Koine Eirene, S. 11–13 It also appears in mid-4th century BC inscription from Argos, known as the Reply to the Satraps, whose exact date and circumstances are unclear.IG IV 556
Characteristics In the speech of Andocides and the provisions of the King's PeaceXenophon, Hellenica V.1.31 two characteristics are revealed which were new for peace treaties at this time. One of these was that all Greek poleis (with a few exceptions) were to be autonomous. The other was that each of these draft treaties were sent to all poleis. Peace is therefore no longer presented as a bilateral agreement between two formerly hostile poleis or leagues, but as a multilateral treaty, which would also encompass all the parties that were not involved in the conflict, as far as possible.Jehne, Koine Eirene, pp. 39 ff.
A third characteristic is not explicitly mentioned but can be inferred from the absence of a set time limit. In the 5th century, it was the norm for peace treaties to have a specified period of validity. The Thirty Years' Peace of 446/5 BC between Athens and Sparta was named for the period of time it was expected to last. The Peace of Nicias of 421 BC was meant to last for fifty years, while treaties with a set period of one hundred years were practically intended to last forever. This derives from the idea that peace was not being made between the states as such, but rather between their populations, and thus the longest possible period of time that a treaty could last was the lifetime of a single generation – which could only make agreements for itself, not its descendants. By contrast, a koine eirene was in principle designed to endure forever.Jehne, Koine Eirene, p. 179 Although this was not actually explicitly stated in the treaties, it is clear from the internal logic of the autonomy clauses, since an independence with chronological limits would not be independence.
Multilaterality
The bilateral peace treaties of the 5th century BC between Athens and Sparta largely ignored the interests of other parties – including their own allies, who were not even consulted. Even the treaty of 404 BC, which ended the Peloponnesian War and was in practice a diktat from the Spartan side, was formally a treaty between Sparta and Athens.Baltrusch: Symmachie, pp. 23 f. It did not contain any terms regarding the allies of Athens in the Delian League and was actually concluded despite the opposition of the Spartans' allies. The treaty therefore entirely reflects the conditions and ideas of the 5th century BC, in which there were only two major hegemonic powers in Greece, to which all other poleis were subordinated.
The idea of a multilateral pan-Hellenic agreement was not actually new, however. After the defeat of Xerxes' invasion, a general peace had been concluded in 481 BC, although it was temporary. In 450 BC, Pericles is reported to have desired to convene a general peace conference in Athens. It is reported that the refusal of the Spartans to participate on account of their fear of Athenian hegemony meant that it never actually took place. Apart from some multilateral treaties between individual poleis in Sicily and Ionia, the religious association of the Amphictyonic League was the only multilateral agreement of ancient Greece which was enduring and significant. The Amphictyonic oath forswore the destruction of member states in war or the removal of their water. Poleis that broke this oath would themselves be threatened with destruction. This might be a forerunner of the koine eirene.Ryder, Koine eirene, pp. 3–6 & Ehrenberg, Staat, p. 132.
That it became ever more common to make peace treaties on the basis of a koine eirene after 387 BC had a practical aspect. The successive hegemonic powers were not individual poleis, but several opposing poleis or leagues of roughly equal strength. With them, peace was only possible if all agreed together. For the general acceptance of such a multilateral agreement, the autonomy clause was the first requirement.
Autonomy clause The Greek term autonomia signified the right and ability of the citizens of a polis to use their own legal system or nomos (νόμος) and to be free from all submission to other poleis.Ehrenberg, Staat, p. 114. Since the polis had become the characteristic form of the state in Greece, there was an unwritten law in their relationships with one another that each of them – even the most insignificant ones – should be autonomous. The only exceptions to this were the small cities of Attica and Laconia, which had long been completely integrated into the Athenian and Spartan poleis, respectively. It was a source of substantial tension in the 4th century, when the Thebans attempted to incorporate the cities of Boeotia into a single polis in the same way.Ryder, Koine eirene, p. 6.
Following the Persian Wars, however, the willingness to form leagues (called koina or symmachiai) under the leadership of a hegemonic power increased. These were entered into voluntarily, so that the principle of autonomy was theoretically not infringed. But as the Persian threat declined in significance, it seemed that the Athenians wished to convert the Delian League which they controlled into a naval empire which they ruled. Thus the Athenians violated the foundations of autonomia: the freedom of poleis to live under their own political systems, to be free of garrisons, cleruchies, external legal jurisdiction, and tribute. The introduction of phoros (φόρος, i.e. contributions for military purposes), the relocation of league's treasury from Delos to Athens and the forced introduction of democratic constitutions based on the Athenian model in some members of the league all seemed to violate the principle of autonomia.
The Spartans, whose Peloponnesian League was loosely organised in comparison, began to use the demand for autonomia as a diplomatic means to weaken the Delian League from the middle of the 5th century BC. They took up the complaints of the Athenians' allies as their own: during and after the Peloponnesian War, the Spartans presented themselves as the protectors of the freedom of all Greek states. Thus, the autonomy clause was a key component of every Common Peace not only because smaller poleis saw it as a way to ensure their independence,Pistorius, Hegemoniestreben, p. 157. but also and more importantly because larger powers could use it to advance their own interests.
Development of the Common Peace Whether a peace agreement was a Common Peace or not is uncertain for some treaties. In the following, a wide definition is used in order to make the development of the idea of the Common Peace clear. Criteria for inclusion are the autonomy clause and the permission for all Greek poleis to join, regardless of whether that option was actually taken up.
Failed peace of 391 BC In 392/1 BC, in the course of the Corinthian War, Sparta submitted an initial peace offer to the Persian satrap of Lydia, Tiribazus. The Spartans were under pressure to extract themselves from their hopeless war in Asia Minor and simultaneously reassert their military supremacy in mainland Greece. For this it was necessary, firstly, to concede Persian control of the Greek cities of Ionia, and secondly, to end the Persians' alliances with the Greek opponents of Sparta, especially Athens. Simultaneously, the Great King needed to be convinced that no new Greek power would form in the Aegean which might challenge Persian control of the Ionian cities.
The agreement that would solve all these problems was that Sparta and Persia would guarantee the autonomy of all Greek states (except those in Asia Minor). The Spartans would then have been able to point to the protection of a generally recognised principle as the outcome of the war. At the same time, this would allow the Spartans to split the Greek world into a number of weak individual states, ensuring Spartan hegemony and satisfying the Persian desire for security. The Greek city-states naturally rejected the treaty out of hand. The Persian king Artaxerxes II was also inclined to reject it. He recalled Tiribazus and replaced him with a new satrap, Struthas, who strengthened the Persian alliance with Athens.