Agamemnon and the Trojan Expedition
Thucydides' perspective on Agamemnon and Troy is similar to that of the preceding analyses. Beginning in chapter 9, he transmits the essentials of the Trojan legend, but he revises the reasons for Agamemnon's preeminence, presenting a novel interpretation of the Trojan War, and especially its protracted length. As in the case of Minos, hearsay or tradition is as important, in a sense, as verifiable fact, since what matters is what people believe.[21] Because the Trojan expedition was considered
[19] Pabel, CJ 80 (1984):9, n. 8, brings out this point.
[20] "Collaboration"; see above, p. 8-9.
one of the greatest events of the Greek past, Thucydides had to demonstrate its weakness to support his own argument. He did so through his own opinion (
It is characteristic of Thucydides not only to focus on power, but also to inquire into its origins. In tracing the origin of Agamemnon's dunamis to Pelops' plethos chrematon , Thucydides completely overrides a fundamental traditional belief in the authority of oaths in favor of an argument that makes the decisive factor strength through wealth.[22] The explicit statement in 1.9.3-4 that Agamemnon added to his inherited power by acquiring a fleet and ruling over many islands further confirms for the reader Thucydides' argument that wealth and ships must be linked in order to produce arche and achieve dunamis . Indeed, Thucydides' treatment of Agamemnon is reminiscent of that of Minos: both possessed the necessary ingredients of dunamis , namely, chremata and nautikon .
Thucydides' analysis of the Trojan War forms part of his argument about Agamemnon's power; here the historian's perspective on chremata is especially striking. At the end of chapter 10, he concludes that the Greek force assembled at Troy was modest in number (
For due to insufficient supplies they brought a smaller army, thinking that they could acquire what they needed from the land while they were at war; but when, having arrived, they prevailed in battle (as they must have, for otherwise they would not have been able to construct fortifications around their camp), they appear not even from that point to have used all their strength; rather, they turned to farming the Chersonese and to plundering due to their insufficient supplies.... Whereas if they had come with plentiful supplies and, having drawn together their entire force, had waged
[22] On the link between the rejection of the importance of oaths here and the absence of mention of oaths in Thucydides' treatment of the origins of the Delian League, see below, p. 58.
war continuously, without resorting to pillaging and farming, they would easily have prevailed in battle and been victorious; this is certainly evident from the fact that even when they were not all together in a body but had only part of their force available, they were able to resist the Trojans. Thus, if they had settled down to a siege, they would have taken Troy in less time and with less trouble. (1.11.1-2)
The argument of this chapter, presented in rather elegant chiastic form, may be reduced thus: the problem at Troy was achrematia , for the Greeks lacked supplies (aporia trophes ). If they had come with an abundance of supplies (periousia trophe ), they would easily have won early on. But what does achrematia mean here? Is it equivalent to trophe —that is to say, is it being used with reference to goods and supplies, or in a financial sense?[23]
First, if chremata in 1.11 is synonymous with trophe , the resulting redundancy is difficult to accept in an analysis clearly sensitive to style and presentation of argument. But there is also a more substantive objection. Thucydides uses the same term, achrematia , again at the end of chapter 11 to sum up the difficulties encountered not only in the Trojan expedition but in all other early ventures as well. Although he is not explicit, the instances of chremata are most intelligible as conveying the idea of financial resources in that chremata is accumulated and connected with naval power. In 1.2.2, a reserve, periousia chrematon, is dearly something distinct from trophe , and its absence helps to explain the instability of early settlements. Further on, in 1.7, periousiai chrematon belonging to those on or near the sea are linked with the building of walls; this context again suggests financial resources, not supplies. Similarly, in 1.825-4, Thucydides connects the acquisition (ktesis ) and accumulation (periousia ) of chremata with the building of defensive walls and suggests a causal link between chremata and naval power. Finally, Thucydides argues that the source of Pelops' power was his plethos chrematon ; this context confirms that the historian is referring to wealth, though not necessarily financial in nature.
The problem is one of translation, not, I think, of Thucydides' meaning. I have shown that, in 1.11, chremata differs in nature from trophe , in other words, that chremata is not equivalent to "supplies." To get from there, however, to determining whether in the Archaeology, chremata
means "money" or other forms of wealth is a difficult step to take, but one which becomes easier as the Archaeology proceeds.[24] In general, the instances of chremata thus far suggest a concern above all with usable wealth: in particular in 1.11, as in 1.8.3, Thucydides' discussion necessitates the idea of expenditure, whether put in positive or negative terms. In the case of the Trojan expedition, the Greeks did not have the chremata to acquire trophe ; he calls this condition achrematia . It is significant that, once again, as in the analyses of Minos and Agamemnon, Thucydides probes back to the origins, in this case, tracing the cause of failure or weakness not simply to aporia trophe , but ultimately to a state of achrematia , which explains why the Greeks could not procure the necessary supplies (trophe ). Therefore, Thucydides found the Trojan expedition deficient in complete paraskeue .