WAR IN THE HELLENISTIC WORLD

ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF HELLENISTIC WARFARE
When a city was actually taken (dorialotos) – and this occurred quite often
– the damage was more substantial. An inscription from Xanthos refers
to the burning of the houses in Kytenion, and this was the fate of many
Hellenistic cities. Some were rebuilt (e.g., Mantineia, Lyttos on Crete,
Aphrodisias in Karia, Xanthos in Lykia), but others vanished for ever.
In order to solve the budgetary problems caused by the preparation for
war (cf. IG II 2 505; Maier 1959: no. 13, lines 29–30: paraskeue tou polemou)
and by warfare itself, the Hellenistic cities could not rely on their regular
revenues and the liturgies. This is particularly evident in terms of fortifications
and fleets, for which a regular flow of resources was not guaranteed
(Gabrielsen 2001a). Sometimes we are informed about contributions for
military purposes (tele) only when someone is exempted from them (e.g.,
SEG XXVI 1334: ateles ...[phy]la[kes? s]trateias). For the funding of a
fleet, many cities introduced the liturgy of trierarchy (providing the funds
for a trireme; e.g., RC 3, section 9; Bagnall and Derow 2004: no. 7). In the
case of Rhodes, the trierarch was not obliged to command the ship he
funded, but was substituted by a captain (epiplous). The Rhodian state also
put private ships to its service in return for a fixed sum of money (Gabrielsen
2001a: 81–3).
Extraordinary taxes (eisphorai) were imposed from time to time, but
more often, citizens and foreigners, men and women, were invited to contribute
to voluntary subscriptions (epidoseis), which provided the funds for
all kinds of projects, from the organization of festivals, the purchase of
grain, the delivery of olive oil to a gymnasium, the celebration of a banquet,
to the creation of a library (Migeotte 1992; 2000b: 164–6). However,
defense expenses always had the lion’s share. Sometimes the aim is described
in general terms as the “protection of the city” (phylake tes poleos) or the
“salvation of the city” (soteria tes poleos), but in most cases a specific project is
explicitly stated: the protection of the agricultural produce of Attika during a
war (Migeotte 1992: no. 17); the fortification of the harbor of Zea (no. 18);
the construction or reconstruction of fortifications in Troizen (no. 21),
Megalopolis (nos. 23–4), Rhodes (no. 37), Naxos (no. 54), Ioulis in Keos
(no. 56), Chios (no. 60), Erythrai (no. 68), and Kolophon (no. 69); and
of course garrison duty (SEG XXVI 1817, lines 22–3: eis tan paraphylakan
tes polios during a war in Arsinoe/Tokra). The amounts varied from a few
drachmas, which represent the earnings of a worker in roughly ten days
(e.g., no. 56: mostly 5–20 drachmas), to extremely high amounts (e.g.,
more than 20,000 drachmas in no. 37; 1,000–7,000 drachmas in no. 50).
It does not come as a surprise to a modern reader that a frequent solution
to such budgetary problems was to take a loan (Migeotte 1984). Argos, for
example, received a loan of 100 talents (600,000 drachmas) from Rhodes
for repairs of fortifications and additional cavalry (Maier 1959: no. 33,
ca. 300–250 BC). The Rhodians did not demand interest, and this explains
why we are informed about this loan: the Rhodians were honored for this
120