WAR IN THE HELLENISTIC WORLD

ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF HELLENISTIC WARFARE
SEG XLVII 891). Analogous complaints abound in the Hellenistic period.
The honorary decree for Menas of Sestos (late second century) presents a
very similar picture to that in Miletos and Kios a century earlier:
when he was invited a second time to act as supervisor of the gymnasium, he
accepted this duty in difficult circumstances; for we had been worn out for
many years because of the incursions of the Thracians and the wars which
were engulfing the city, in the course of which everything in the fields had
been carried off, most of the land was not sown, and the dearth of crops
which recurred continuously reduced the people publicly and every individual
citizen privately to penury, and Menas was one of the many to be afflicted;
but he put aside all this, as he could observe that the people was grateful and
knew how to honor good men, and he surpassed himself in the expenses he
incurred and in his zeal; for when he entered office on new year he celebrated
sacrifices for Hermes and Herakles, the gods consecrated in the gymnasium . . .
(OGIS 339, lines 54–64; trans. Austin 1981: no. 215)
References to a decline of the productivity of land because of wars are found
in literary and documentary sources throughout the Hellenistic period and
in every region. The following selection of incidents and sources will give an
idea of the variety and complexity of the problems.
An invading army destroyed the corn, burned the fields and the farms,
and stole the gathered surplus, which was needed as fodder for the horses
and the draft animals (see SEG XXIX 1516). To mention but a few examples,
the territory of Argos was devastated by Kleomenes III in 223 BC
(Polyb. 2.64), that of Alabanda by the army of Philip V in 201–200 BC (Polyb.
16.24.8), and in the same year the Athenian countryside faced raids by
the Akarnanians and the Macedonians (Polyb. 16.27.1; Livy 31.14.9–10).
During a dispute between Magnesia and Priene in the early second century,
claims were made that buildings (stegna, farms or silos) were burned down
and livestock stolen (I.Magnesia 93 III).
Prohibitions presuppose the practices they intend to limit. We therefore
have to assume that the advice given by tacticians to generals not to allow
their soldiers to devastate the fields of the enemy only confirms that this was
often the case. Philon of Byzantion (see chapter 5, section 7) gave generals
the advice to prevent their soldiers from burning the fields or taking the
fodder of a besieged city, in order to encourage the population to capitulate
while their fields were still intact. He also advised that the generals should
ensure that agricultural produce was distributed in an orderly manner to
the units of the invading army (D 6–7, ed. Garlan 1974: 316, 394). Similar
prohibitions (taking fodder, burning corn, destroying vineyards on enemy
territory) are also included in a military regulation of a Macedonian king
in Amphipolis (Hatzopoulos 2001: 161–4, no. 3 B II 15–18). Only if a
siege proved to be unsuccessful did Philon recommend that the fields be
destroyed (D 87 and 90–1, ed. Garlan 1974: 325).
123