previous next


STRATE´GUS (στρατηγὸς) was the title applied to the chief military commanders in inmost of the constitutional governments of Greece; as a rule they had the direction of foreign affairs as well as the leadership in war: and, as the control of external relations was the most important part of administration in a Greek state, the στρατηγία was practically the chief magistracy in the communities in which it is found.

Strategi were set up in the Ionian states of Asia Minor after the despotisms had been overthrown in 504 B.C. (Hdt. 5.38); at Argos we find οἱ πέντε στρατηγοὶ who commanded the five Argive lochi (Thuc. 5.59, 72): similar magistrates are also met with at Syracuse (Thuc. 6.72), in later times in Boeotia (Keil, Inscrip. Boeot. p. 114), and in Amorgus (Gilbert, Staatsalt. ii. p. 209). They are also found frequently at the head of leagues; after the founding of Megalopolis we find a στρατηγὸς at the head of τὸ κοινὸν Ἀρκάδων (Xen. Hell. 7.3, 1), and in the third century στρατηγοὶ at the head of the κοινὸν τῶν Ἀκαρνάνων (Plb. 5.6; Liv. 36.11) and the κοινὸν τῶν Ἀπειρωτῶν (Dittenberger, n. 211). They were also the chief military officers of the Achaean and Aetolian leagues [ACHAICUM and AETOLICUM FOEDUS]; and after the reconstruction of the Thessalian alliance in 196 B.C., a strategus appointed yearly is found at the head of this confederacy [TAGUS]. In Egypt, under the Ptolemies and under Roman rule, the στρατηγοὶ were the governors of the nomes; over these were the ἐπιστράτηγοι, the governors of the three great districts of the Delta, Heptanomis, and Thebais: both these classes of officers being under the authority of the Praefectus Aegypti (Kuhn, Verfassung des römischen Reichs, pp. 481-493).

The στρατηγία at Athens, according to the unanimous verdict of ancient writers, was the highest political office in the state. Its importance was due to the great extent of the duties of administration which it involved, and to the special power of initiative in legislation with which its holder was invested; while the continuity in the office, due to the possibility of indefinite re-election, rendered possible a continuity of policy on the part of its holder. That this power of permanent administration was actually realised in the history of Athens, there can be no doubt; whether it was definitely contemplated in the theory of the constitution will depend on the view that is taken as to the mode in which the functions of this office were distributed; but in any case it may be asserted that in the στρατηγία we have the central point of Athenian administration, and any opinion as to the position of the strategus must inevitably affect our views as to the whole system of executive government at Athens. The strategi formed a college of ten, based on the ten tribes of the Cleisthenean constitution: and the number seems to have continued unaltered, as long as the collegiate principle was observed; it was not until a late period, falling between the years 52 and 42 B.C., that the college of generals was replaced, probably through an act of the dictator Caesar's, by a single magistrate bearing the title στρατηγός, στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τὰ ὅπλα or ἐπὶ τοὺς ὁπλίτας (C. I. A. ii. n. 481, iii. n. 248; Gilbert, Staatsalt. 1.156, n. 3).

Amongst the powers of the strategi, the most distinctive was that of summoning the assembly. The debate in the assemblies thus specially convened (σύγκλητοι) seems to have been limited strictly to the proposal put before them by the general; and such assemblies took precedence of all other meetings of the ἐκκλησία (C. I. A. 1.40, 50.57, ἄλλο δὲ προχρηματίσαι τούτων μηδέ, ἒαν μήτι οἱ στρατηγοὶ δέωνται); yet it seems that in convening them the generals could not omit the formality of consulting the πρυτάνεις, and that their motions, though standing first on the orders of the day, could only be introduced through the regular standing committee of the βουλή (Thuc. 4.118, ἐκκλησίαν δὲ ποιήσαντας τοὺς στρατηγοὺς καὶ τοὺς πρυτάνεις, κ.τ.λ.). An important power, which resulted from this right of convening the assembly on matters of foreign administration, would have been the setting forth of the estimates of the military budget for the year, together with proposals for raising the requisite supplies. Foreign administration and finance must necessarily have gone closely together during the greater part of the history of Athens, and have been united in the same person; but the power of the generals was not limited to initiating measures for such grants; they had the control of the details of expenditure: the moneys voted from the treasuries of Athens for military purposes were placed in their hands (C. I. A. n. 273), and there were other extraordinary sources of revenue, such as those from booty (Lys. c. Ergocl. § 5), from the payments made by merchant-ships convoyed in time of war (παρὰ τῶν ναυκλήρων καὶ ἐμπόρων, Id. de Bon. Aristoph. § 50) and from fines imposed at their own discretion, over which they would probably have had entire control. As minister of finance for foreign affairs, it was the strategus who nominated to the trierarchy, in the 4th and probably in the 5th century (Dem. adv. Boeot. p. 997.8), and who had the ἡγεμονία δικαστηρίου in suits arising from it (Suid. s. v. ἡγεμ. δικαστ.), as well as a similar presidency in the court constituted for the settlement of disputes arising from the εἰσφορά (Suid. l.c.). Amongst the special military duties that devolved on the strategi at home were the distribution and command of the home forces, including the περίπολοι, and the control of the home defences (φυλακαὶ κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλασσαν, Thuc. 2.24); duties which, after different functions were distributed amongst different members of the college, devolved on the general who bore the [p. 2.718]title στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τῆς χώρας (Plut. Phoc. 32). In the case of certain levies the generals exercised the right of personal selection (Philostr. Vit. Soph. 1.23, 1; Lys. c. Alcib. 1.6; Gilbert, Staatsalt. p. 303, n. 1). They also had jurisdiction in military matters; the appeals against the levy were made to them (Lys. de Mil. § 4), and they had the ἡγεμονία δικαστηρίου in the case of the military charges known as the γραφαὶ ἀστρατείας, λιποταξίου and δειλίας (Lys. c. Alcib. 1.21), which they either undertook in person or remitted to the ταξίαρχοι (Dem. adv. Boeot. p. 999.17). Besides this jurisdiction at home, the general seems to have had the power to punish with death the most serious offences, such as treasonable negotiations with the enemy, and to confer military honours for bravery in the field (Lys. c. Alcib. 1.22; Plut. Alc. 7); while the public funeral for citizens who had fallen in battle (δημόσιος τάφος) was proposed by him (Aristoph. Birds 395 sq.). The initiative in cases of treason seems also to have been amongst his duties ([Plut.] Vit. Antiph. 23); and one of his chief responsibilities was the corn-supply of Athens (τὴν παραπομπὴν τοῦ σίτου, Boeckh, Seeurk. xiii. p. 423; cf. C. I. A. ii. n. 331). The duties of the generals as regards foreign administration must have involved the introduction of most of such business to the assembly; questions arising from treaties or the details of foreign policy must have been usually brought forward by them; while we find that they were responsible for the execution of a treaty, saw that the oath was taken, and that the proper sacrifices were offered on the occasion (C. I. A. Suppl. vol. i. p. 10, ll. 67 and 19). The existence of the Athenian Empire also added to the sphere of the general's powers; they must have been the commanders-in-chief of the φρουραρχοὶ and the φρουραί, which we find in the subject states, as in Erythrae (C. I. A. 1.9). They saw to the exaction of the tribute when it was in arrears, by commanding the ἀργυρολόγοι νῆες (C. I. A. 3.19); and probably had the levying of contingents from the allies in ships and men (Droysen, Hermes, ix. p. 12).

It will be seen from this enumeration of their functions that the generals at Athens were at once leaders in war, ministers of war, foreign ministers, and to a great extent ministers of finance. It is difficult to see how such powers could have been exercised collectively by a college. Distributed they must have been, even in the 5th century B.C., where we as yet meet no trace of the subsequent differentiation of functions; but it is not easy to say how this distribution was effected, whether by agreement amongst the members of the college, or by lot, of the use of which some traces are found (Thuc. 6.42, 62; 8.30), or finally by the presidency of one of the members of the college who assigned the duties of the others. It is not until the close of the 4th century, about the year 325 B.C., that we find the practice arising of assigning different spheres of action to the generals on election. As late as the year 306-305 B.C. we find several generals elected for the performance of the same function (στρατηγοὶ οἱ ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ πολέμου παρασκευὴν κεχειροτονημένοι, C. I. A. ii. n. 2733); but as early as 349 B.C. a mention is traced of a general with a special competence, the supervision of the εἰσφορά (Dem. Olynth. ii. p. 26.29; Gilbert, Beiträge, pp. 35-37), and at a later period we find the functions assigned to the several generals distinctly expressed in the titles borne by each. Such titles are ( στρατηγὸς) ἐπὶ τὴν Μουνυχίαν καὶ τὰ νεώρια: ἐπὶ τὸν Πειραιᾶ: ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν: ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν τῆν παραλίαν: ἐπὶ Ἐλευσῖνος: ἐπὶ τὰς συμμορίας: ἐπὶ τὴν παρασκευήν: ἐπὶ τοὺς ξένους: ἐπὶ τὸ ναυτικόν: ἐπὶ τὰ ὅπλα or ἐπὶ τοὺς ὁπλίτας, this last title being borne by the general who stood at the head of the college and was elected to the first place by the people (χειροτονηθεὶς ἐπὶ τὰ ὅπλα πρῶτος ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου, C. I. A. 2.331; Gilbert, Staatsalt. i. pp. 221, 222).

The only known insignia of the general were the chlamys or military cloak (Ael. VH 14.10; Plut. Quaest. Conviv. 1.4, 2) and the στέφανος which was worn by all Athenian magistrates. They had specially reserved seats in the theatre (Theophr. Char. 21), and conducted the military processions at the; Panathenaea (Dem. Phil. i. p. 47.26). Their place of business was the στρατήγιον (Plut. Nic. 5, 15; Per. 37; Phoc. 8), where they dined at the public cost (Dem. de fals. Leg. p. 490.190). Special honours were sometimes conferred on successful generals, which took the form of statues ([ANDOC.] c. Alcib. § 31), of public dinners in the Prytaneum (Aristoph. Kn. 709), or of προεδρία (ib. 575, 702). There is some evidence that the generals received payment on foreign service, and it has been concluded from a passage in Aristophanes (Aristoph. Ach. 602) that the rate was three drachmae a day, which was perhaps given as a σιτηρέσιον rather than as a μισθός.

There are some difficulties connected with the date at which the generals were elected; but there is almost a consensus of opinion in favour of the view that during the greater part of the 5th century and onwards they were elected towards the close of Mlunychion, at the beginning of the ninth prytany, and entered office on the first of Hecatombaeon, the beginning of the Attic year (Gilbert, Beiträge, p. 7; Beloch, Attische Politik seit Pericles, pp. 271-273; Droysen, Hermes, ix. p. 16 ff.; K. F. Hermann, Griech. Staatsalt. § 148, 7). They would thus have been elected in April or May, and entered office in July, the interval between the two acts being employed no doubt for the purpose of the δοκιμασία. But in time of war a general's command might be prolonged beyond his term of office, even though he were not re-elected; thus Laches, who was στρατηγὸς during 427-426, was first replaced by Pythodorus, στρατηγὸς for 426-425 in the winter of that year (Thuc. 3.86, 115; Gilbert, l.c. p. 14). The generals gave in their names before the nine archons (Poll. 8.87), and the elections were conducted by them on the Pnyx (Hesych. sub voce Πνύξ): election seems to have been preceded by canvassing (Plut. Phoc. 8), and was, in the 4th century, not unfrequently tainted by bribery. The generals took an oath on coming into office, a special clause in which was τοὺς ἀστρατεύτους καταλέξειν (Lys. de Mil. § 15). Besides the ordinary qualifications required for Athenian magistrates, the special qualifications required for the generals were that they should be married and have children, and possess property within the [p. 2.719]bounds of Attica (Dinarch. in Demosth. § 71). There was apparently no qualification of age, but the (στρατηγία was not usually held before the age of forty (Gilbert, l.c. p. 25). Re-election to the office in successive years was frequent; Pericles was general for fifteen years and Phocion forty-five times (Plut. Per. 15; Phoc. 8). A general might be deposed from office in the 4th century at the ἐπιχειροτονία held at the beginning of each prytany, and at the close of his office was subject to the usual audit (εὔθυναι), which in his case was conducted before a heliastic jury under guidance of the thesmothetae (Poll. 8.88). This was mainly concerned with the account of the moneys which had passed through his hands; it was probably on a charge of malversation of funds that Pericles was convicted and fined (Thuc. 2.65; Plut. Per. 23 and 35), but a special γραφὴ κλοπῆς might be preferred against him, either at the εὐθυνὴ or after the ἀποχειροτονία, together with other charges, such as the γραφὴ προδοσίας or γραφὴ δώρων [see EUTHYNE; EPICHEIROTONIA].

The question as to what was the precise process of election to the στρατηγία is at once the most important of those connected with the office and the most difficult to answer. It is equally doubtful who the electors were, and from what body the elected were chosen; and according to our decision on these points must depend to a large extent our estimate of the position of the στρατηγὸς in the state. In the early period of Athenian history the ten generals bore a close relation to the ten tribes; at Marathon each general commanded a tribe (Plut. Arist. 5), and Plutarch's language in this passage and in another, where he describes the employment of Cimon and his nine colleagues as judges in the theatre, tends strongly to the view that the general belonged to the tribe which he commanded (Plut. Cim. 8, ἀπὸ φυλῆς μιᾶς ἕκαστον: but see Gilbert, Beiträge, p. 23, who points out that Miltiades, who belonged to the tribe Oeneis, probably commanded the Aeantis). This was, however, certainly not the case at a later period: Pollux tells us that the generals were chosen out of all the citizens (ἐξ ἁπάντων, Poll. 8.86); several instances are found of two generals in the same year belonging to the same tribe; and, as Gilbert says, “It would have violated all considerations of political expediency if the Athenians, through the condition that a general must be taken from each tribe, had robbed themselves of the possibility of employing two gifted and experienced men, because they happened to belong to the same tribe” (Beiträge, p. 24). Yet it is known at the close of the 5th century the generals offered themselves as representatives of special tribes (Xen. Mem. 3.4, 1); and, as they were chosen out of all Athenian citizens, two modes of election have been suggested: either that the generals were elected out of all the Athenian people by the special tribes and for the special tribes, or the view which is held by Droysen, that they were elected for each tribe from all the Athenians by the whole people (Hermes, ix. p. 8). The first, though in accordance with modern ideas of representation, is thought to be inconsistent with ancient ideas on the subject (Beloch, l.c. p. 279), while the second is contrary to all the analogies of tribal election in Athens (Pastoret, Histoire de la Législation, vi. p. 290). A modified view has been put forward by Beloch, which, while it gives a theory of election, contains a definite suggestion as to the distribution of powers within the college. He holds that the college consisted, not of ten equal members, but of a πρύτανις and συνάρχοντες, on the analogy of the treasurers of Athens and of the Hellenotamiae: the expression δεῖνα καὶ συνάρχοντες being found applied to the στρατηγία in an inscription (στρατηγοῖς Ἱπποκρατεῖ Χολαργεῖ καὶ συνάρχουσιν, C. I. A. n. 273). This president, he considers, was elected by all and out of all, but his nine colleagues each by his own tribe and from his own tribe, one of the ten tribes each year giving up its right to election. Consequently “in nine cases out of ten a general must have belonged to a phyle that was already represented, or conversely, when two generals are found to belong to the same phyle, one of them must be the prytanis” (Beloch, l.c. p. 287). This seems confirmed by the fact that between the years 441-0 and 356-5 there are nine certain instances of two generals, but no certain instance of more than two, belonging to the same tribe in the same year (Beloch, l.c. p. 276; Droysen, Hermes, ix. pp. 3 and 4): this occurs twice when Pericles, once when Laches is general, and one of the names is usually of sufficient eminence for us to consider its bearer a possible president of the college. The πρυτανεία of the college he also thinks to be signified by the expression στρατηγὸς τηγὸς δέκατος αὐτός, which is twice used in reference to Pericles (Thuc. 1.116; 2.13). Gilbert had thought that the additions πέμπτος, τέταρτος αὐτὸς to a general's name signified some superiority of power possessed by that general over his colleagues, and that this power is the same as that expressed in the words στρατηγὸς τηγὸς αὐτοκράτωρ: thus δεῖνα πέμπτος αὐτὸς would mean that the general possessed authority over his four colleagues who went on the expedition with him; δεῖνα δέκατος αὐτὸς would signify, not necessarily that the general's nine colleagues went with him on an expedition, but that he possessed the power of an αὐτοκράτωρ over the whole college (Gilbert, Beiträge, p. 42 sq.). It is certain that a general was appointed αὐτοκράτωρ, not at the elections, but with reference to a definite service, although it is possible that, in the face of a pressing danger, a general might be elected with autocratic powers at the archaeresia (Plut. Arist. 8, χειροτονηθεὶς αὐτοκράτωρ). Only the most general instructions were given to such a that commander: he was freed from the necessity of consulting the βουλὴ and the ἐκκλησία on the details of administration, could raise supplies at his own discretion (Thuc. vi, 26), and had perhaps authority over his other colleagues; three generals were so appointed for the Sicilian expedition (Thuc. l.c.: οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἐψηφίσαντο εὐθὺς αὐτοκράτορας εἶναι καὶ περὶ στρατιᾶς πλήθους καὶ περὶ τοῦ παντὸς πλοῦ τοὺς στρατηγοὺς πράσσειν ἂν αὐτοῖς δοκῂ ἄριστα εἶναι Ἀθηναίοις: cf. Plut. Arist. 8 and 11), and Alcibiades in 408 B.C. was ἁπάντων ἡγεμὼν αὐτοκράτωρ (Xen. Hell. 1.5, 20). Beloch's theory, on the other hand, is that the πρύτανις differed from the αὐτοκράτωρ in that a general was appointed πρύτανις at the ἀρχαιρεσίαι, [p. 2.720]αὐτοκράτωρ with reference to a definite service; that the one had a standing, the other only a temporary superiority over his colleagues; and that the two expressions would have coincided only when one στρατηγὸς αὐτοκράτωρ was appointed, in which case the president of the college would undoubtedly have been selected as the general on whom these special exemptions were conferred. If Beloch's theory is valid, this president of the college was the first minister of Athens; and it is no anachronism to speak of “party” government in the sense of “ministerial” government, when we are dealing with Athenian politics.

That this “ministerial” power was realised in later times is shown by an inscription of a στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τὰ ὅπλα, who records that περιστάντων τῇ πόλει καιρῶν δυσκόλων διεφύλαζεν τὴν εἰρήνην τῇ χώρᾳ ἀποφαινόμενος αἰεὶ τὰ κράτιστα--καὶ τὴν πόλιν ἐλευθέραν καὶ δημοκρατουμένην αὐτόνουον παρέδωκεν καὶ τὰς νομὴς κυρίους τοῖς μεθ᾽ ἑαυτόν (C. I. A. ii. n. 331). For the earlier period of Athenian history, it is difficult to establish a constitutional basis for this power: yet that it existed cannot be doubted. It is shown by the language in which Pericles' position is described (Thuc. 2.65, στρατηγὸν εἵλοντο καὶ πάντα τὰ πράγματα ἐπέτρεψαν: cf. Diod. 13.42): he was alone responsible for the conduct of affairs, and had the power to prevent the ἐκκλησία from assembling (Thuc. 2.23, 2). It is true that the expression δεῖνα καὶ συνάρχοντες may only denote a changing presidency; and the expressions τρίτος, τέταρτος, and even δέκατος αὐτὸς may be explained of specially conferred powers, yet something more seems to be demanded for a position such as that of Themistocles at Salamis (Plut. Arist. 8), of Pericles during the last fifteen years of his life, and of Nicias in 425 B.C. (Thuc. 4.28): in these cases a definite leadership of the college seems to be implied, however vague and conjectural may be the powers which we are enabled to attribute to such a presidency.

(Gilbert, Beiträge zur innern Geschichte Atticus im Zeitalter des Peloponnesischen Krieges, pp. 1-72; Handbuch der griechischen Staatsalterthümer, i. p. 220 ff.;--Beloch, Die Attische Politik seit Perikles, Anhang i. pp. 265-330; Droysen, Hermes, 9.1875 (Bemerkungen über die Attischen Strategen); K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der griechischen Antiquitäten, i. Die Staatsalterthümer (fünfte Auflage), § § 123, 2; 129, 9; 148; 152; 166. On minor points see Müller-Strubing, Aristophanes, pp. 484 ff.; Müller, de tempore quo bellum Pelop. initium ceperit, p. 44.) [A.H.G]

(Appendix). Ἀθ. πολ., 100.4, speaks of στρατηγοὶ in the time of Draco, mentioning the qualification that they must be married, and adding that they must have children over ten years of age. As the text stands we are told of a property qualification of 100 minae; but, since the qualification of an archon (at that time a more important office) was only ten minae. this is unlikely, and ἕκαστον ή (implying a qualification of eight minae) may be a truer reading than ἑκατόν.

The election of one strategus from each tribe in the time of Cleisthenes is mentioned in 100.57: we learn also that after the reforms of Cleisthenes they were still of lower rank than the archons and subordinate in military rule to the Polemarch (100.22, τῆς δ᾽ ἁπάσης στρατιᾶς ἡγεμὼν ἦν Πολέμαρχος). This bears out the account of Hdt. 6.109, 111, placing the growth of their importance later.

From 100.61 we learn that, instead of one being elected as in older times from each tribe, the ten were now chosen by χειροτονία from the whole body of citizens (ἐξ ἀπάντων), which obviously gave a greater freedom for choosing the best men. It is not, however, stated when this change was made.

The assignment of the five first strategi to special duties is mentioned as fixed and definite: 1. the commander of hoplites on service out of the country: 2. over the local defence and general-in-chief in case of invasion: 3. over Munychia: 4. over the shore (= the χώρα παραλία of C. L. C. 178, 179, as Mr. Kenyon remarks)--3 and 4 are reckoned together as ἐπὶ τὸν Πειραιέα: 5. ἐπι τὰς συμμορίας, the duties specified being to make out the register of the trierarchs, to carry out the ἀντιδόσεις and to preside at legal proceedings connected with the trierarchy (cf. p. 892 a). The other five strategi were employed as occasion demanded (τοὺς δ᾽ ἄλλους πρὸς τὰ πάροντα πράγματα ἐκπέμπουσιν). It is added that the strategus could imprison and fine (ἐπιβολὴν ἐπιβάλλειν) anyone guilty of breach of discipline on service, but that the fine was rarely resorted to. It will be seen from the above that the treatise gives a clearer view of the question of election (discussed on pp. 719, 720), and a definite apportionment of their functions in more regular order (cf. p. 718 a). In this point the supposed date of the treatise will bear out Gilbert's deduction from inscriptions (Gr. Staatsalt. i. p. 221), that the [p. 2.1072]special office of στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ συμμορίας began sometime between 334 and 324 B.C.; and agrees also with the fact, which he notices, that a further apportionment of offices, not here mentioned, such as ἐπὶ τὸ ναυτικόν, ἐπὶ τοὺς ξένους, &c. (presumably taking up the other five strategi), is traceable first in reference to an event (C. I. A. 2.331) shortly before 315 B.C. (i. e. later than the date assigned to Ἀθ. πολ.).1

1 Since the above was in print, a writer in the Quarterly Review has given reasons for believing that the date of the treatise is much later (Q. R. for April 1891, p. 345).

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: