The Historical Geography of Europe, Vol. I, Text

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTION.

The work which we have now before us is to trace out the extent of territory which the different states and nations of Europe and the neighbouring lands have held at different times in the world’s history, to mark the different boundaries which the same country has had, and the different meanings in which the same name has been used. It is of great importance carefully to make these distinctions, because great mistakes as to the facts of history are often caused through men thinking and speaking as if the names of different countries, say for instance England, France, Burgundy, Austria, have always meant exactly the same extent of territory. Historical geography, in this sense, differs from physical geography which regards the natural features of the earth’s surface. It differs also from studies like ethnology and comparative philology, which have to do directly with the differences between one nation and another, with their movements from one part of the world to another, and with the relations to be found among the languages spoken by them. But, though it is distinct from these studies, it makes much use of them. For the physical geography of a country always has a great effect upon its political history, and the dispersions and movements of different nations are exactly those parts of history which have most to do with fixing the names and the boundaries of different countries at different times. England, for instance, is, in strictness, the land of the English wherever they may settle, whether in their old home on the European continent, or in the isle of Britain, or in New England beyond the Ocean. But the extent of territory which was in this way to become England was largely determined by the physical circumstances of the countries in which the English settled. And the history of the English nation has been influenced, above all things, by the fact that the great English settlement which has made the English name famous was made in an island. But, when England had become the name of a distinct political dominion, its meaning was liable to change as that dominion advanced or went back. Thus the borders of England and Scotland have greatly changed at different times, and forgetfulness of this has led to many misunderstandings in reading the history of the two countries. And so with all other cases of the kind; the physical nature of the country, and the settlements of the different nations which have occupied it, have always been the determining causes of its political divisions. But it is with the political divisions that historical geography has to deal in the first place. With the nature of the land, and with the people who occupy it, it has to deal only so far as they have influenced the political divisions. Our present business in short is, first to draw the map of the countries with which we are concerned as it appeared after each of the different changes which they have gone through, and then to point out the historical causes which have led to the changes on the map. In this way we shall always see what was the meaning of any geographical name at any particular time, and we shall thus avoid mistakes, some of which have often led to really important practical consequences.

From this it follows that, in looking at the geography of Europe for our present purpose, we must look first at the land itself, and then at the nations which occupy it. And, in so doing, it may be well first of all to distinguish between two kinds of names which we shall have to use. Some names of countries are strictly geographical; they really mean a certain part of the earth’s surface marked out by boundaries which cannot well be changed. Others simply mean the extent of country which is occupied at any time by a particular nation, and whose boundaries may easily be changed. Thus Britain is a strictly geographical name, meaning an island whose shape and boundaries must always be nearly the same. England, Scotland, Wales, are names of parts of that island, called after different nations which have settled in it, and the boundaries of all of which have differed greatly at different times. Spain again is the geographical name of a peninsula which is almost as well marked out by nature as the island of Britain. Castile, Aragon, Portugal, are political names of parts of the peninsula of Spain. They are the names of states whose boundaries have greatly varied, and which have sometimes formed separate governments and sometimes have been joined together.[1] Gaul again is the geographical name of a country which is not so clearly marked out all round by nature as the island of Britain and the peninsula of Spain, but which is well marked on three sides, to the north, south, and west. Within the limits of Gaul, names like France, Flanders, Britanny, Burgundy, and Aquitaine, are political names of parts of the country, whose limits have varied as much at different times as those of the different parts of Britain and Spain. This is the difference between strictly geographical names which do not alter and political names which do alter. No doubt Gaul and Britain were in the beginning political names, names given to the land from those who occupied it, just as much as the names France and England. But the settlements from which those lands took the names of Gaul and Britain took place long before the beginning of trustworthy history, while the settlements from which parts of those lands took the names of France and England happened in times long after trustworthy history began, and for which we are therefore ready with dates and names. Thus Gaul and Britain are the oldest received names of those lands; they are the names which those lands bore when we first hear of them. It is therefore convenient to keep them in use as strictly geographical names, as always meaning that part of the earth’s surface which they meant when we first hear of them. In this book therefore, Gaul, Britain, Spain, and other names of the same kind, will always be used to mean a certain space on the map, whoever may be its inhabitants, or whatever may be its government, at any particular time. But names like France, England, Castile, will be used to mean the territory to which they were politically applied at the time of which we may be speaking, a territory which has been greater and less at different times. Thus, the cities of Carlisle and Edinburgh have always been in Britain since they were built. They have sometimes been in England and sometimes not. The cities of Marseilles, Geneva, Strassburg, and Arras have always been in Gaul ever since they were built. They have sometimes been in France and sometimes not, according to political changes.

§ 1. Geographical Aspect of Europe.

Our present business is with the Historical Geography of Europe, and with that of other parts of the world only so far as they concern the geography of Europe. But we shall have to speak of all the three divisions of the Old World, Europe, Asia, and Africa, in those parts of the three which come nearest to one another, and in which the real history of the world begins. ♦The Mediterranean Lands.♦ These are those parts of all three which lie round the Mediterranean sea, the lands which gradually came to form the Empire of Rome. In these lands the boundaries between the three great divisions are very easily marked. Modern maps do not all place the boundary between Europe and Asia at the same point; some make the river Don the boundary and some the Volga. But this question is of little importance for history. In the earliest historical times, when we have to do only with the countries round the Mediterranean sea, there can be no doubt how much is Europe and how much is Asia and Africa. Europe is the land to the north of the Mediterranean sea and of the great gulfs which run out of it. If an exact boundary is needed in the barbarous lands north of the Euxine, the Tanais or Don is clearly the boundary which should be taken. In all these lands the Mediterranean and its gulfs divide Europe from Asia. But the northern parts of the two continents really form one geographical whole, the boundary between them being one merely of convenience. A vast central mass of land, stretching right across the inland parts of the two continents, sends forth a system of peninsulas and islands, to the north and south. And it is in the peninsular lands of Europe that European history begins.

Alike in Europe and in Asia, the southern or peninsular part of the continent is cut off from the central mass by a mountain chain, which in Europe is nearly unbroken. ♦The peninsulas of Europe and Asia.♦ Thus the southern part of Europe consists of the three great peninsulas of Spain, Italy, and what we may, in a wide sense, call Greece. These answer in some sort to the three great Oceanic peninsulas of Asia, those of Arabia, India, and India beyond the Ganges. But the part of Asia which has historically had most to do with Europe is its Mediterranean peninsula, the land known as Asia Minor. In the northern part of each continent we find another system of great gulfs or inland seas; but those in Asia have been hindered by the cold from ever being of any importance, while in Europe the Baltic sea and the gulfs which run out of it may be looked on as forming a kind of secondary Mediterranean. We may thus say that Europe consists of two insular and peninsular regions, north and south, with a great unbroken mass of land between them. But there are some parts of Europe which seem as it were connecting links between the three main divisions of the continent. Thus we said that the three great peninsulas are cut off from the central mass by a nearly unbroken mountain chain. But the connexion of the central peninsula, that of Italy, with the eastern one or Greece, is far closer than its connexion with the western one, or Spain. Italy and Spain are much further apart than Italy and Greece, and between the Alps and the Pyrenees the mountain chain is nearly lost. We might almost say that a piece of central Europe breaks through at this point and comes down to the Mediterranean. This is the south-eastern part of Gaul; and Gaul may in this way be looked on as a land which joins together the central and the southern parts of Europe. But this is not all; in the north-western corner of Europe lies that great group of islands, two large ones and many small, of which our own Britain is the greatest. The British islands are closely connected in their geography and history with Gaul on one side, and with the islands and peninsulas of the North on the other. In this way we may say that all the three divisions of Europe are brought closely together on the western side of the continent, and that the lands of Gaul and Britain are the connecting links which bind them together.

§ 2. Effect of Geography on History.

Now this geographical aspect of the chief lands of Europe has had its direct effect on their history. We might almost take for granted that the history of Europe should begin in the two more eastern among the three great southern peninsulas. Of these two, Italy and Greece, each has its own character. Greece, though it is the part of Europe which lies nearest to Asia, is in a certain sense the most European of European lands. The characteristic of Europe is to be more full of peninsulas and islands and inland seas than the rest of the Old World. ♦Characteristics of Greece;♦ And Greece, the peninsula itself and the neighbouring lands, are fuller of islands and promontories and inland seas than any other part of Europe. On the other hand, Italy is the central land of all southern Europe, and indeed of all the land round the Mediterranean. It was therefore only natural that Greece should be the part of Europe in which all that is most distinctively European first grew up and influenced other lands. ♦of Italy.♦ And so, if any one land or city among the Mediterranean lands was to rule over all the rest, it is in Italy, as the central land, that we should naturally look for the place of dominion. The destinies of the two peninsulas and their relations to the rest of the world were thus impressed on them by their geographical position.

If we turn to recorded history, we find that it is only a working out of the consequences of these physical facts. Greece was the first part of Europe to become civilized and to play a part in history; but it was Italy, and in Italy it was its most central city, Rome, which came to have the dominion over the civilized world of early times—that is, over the lands around the Mediterranean. These two peninsulas have, each in its own way, ruled and influenced the rest of Europe as no other parts have done. All the other parts have been, in one way or another, their subjects or disciples. ♦Advance of the Roman dominion.♦ The effect of the geographical position of these countries is also marked in the stages by which Rome advanced to the general dominion of the Mediterranean lands. She first subdued Italy; then she had to strive for the mastery with her great rival Carthage, a city which held nearly the same central position on the southern coast of the Mediterranean which she herself did on the northern. Then she subdued, step by step, the peninsulas on each side of her and the other coast lands of the Mediterranean—European, Asiatic, and African. Into the central division of Europe she did not press far, never having any firm or lasting dominion beyond the Rhine and the Danube. Into Northern Europe, properly so called, her power never reached at all. But she subdued the lands which we have seen act as a kind of connecting link between the different parts of Europe, namely Gaul and the greater part of Britain. Thus the Roman Empire, at its greatest extent, consisted of the lands round the Mediterranean, together with Gaul and Britain. For the possession of the Mediterranean land would have been imperfect without the possession of Gaul, and the possession of Gaul naturally led to the possession of Britain.

In this way the early history of Greece and Italy, and the formation of the Roman Empire, were affected by the geographical character of the countries themselves. The same was the case with the other European lands when they came to share in that importance which once belonged to Greece and Italy only. ♦Germany,♦ Thus Germany, as being the most central part of Europe, came at one time to fill something like the same position which Italy had once held. It came to be the country which had to do with all parts of Europe, east, west, north, and south, and even to be a ruler over some of them. ♦France,♦ So, as France became the chief state of Gaul, it took upon it something like the old position of Gaul as a means of communication between the different parts of Western Europe. ♦Spain and Scandinavia.♦ Meanwhile, as the Scandinavian and Spanish peninsulas are both cut off in such a marked way from the mainland of Europe, each of them has often formed a kind of world of its own, having much less to do with other countries than Germany, France, and Italy had. The same was for a long time the case with our own island. Britain was looked on as lying outside the world.

Thus the geographical position of the European lands influenced their history while their history was still purely European. And when Europe began to send forth colonies to other continents, the working of geographical causes came out no less strongly. Thus the position of Spain on the Ocean led Castile and Portugal to be foremost among the colonizing nations of Europe. For the same reason, our own country was one of the chief in following their example, and so was France also for a long time. ♦The colonizing powers.♦ Holland too, when it rose into importance, became a great colonizing power, and so did Denmark and Sweden to some extent. But an Italian colony beyond the Ocean was never heard of, nor has there ever been a German colony in the same sense in which there have been Spanish and English colonies. Meanwhile, the north-eastern part of Europe, which in early times was not known at all, has always lagged behind the rest, and has become of importance only in later times. This is mainly because its geographical position has almost wholly cut it off both from the Mediterranean and from the Ocean.

Thus we see how, in all these ways, both in earlier and in later times, the history of every country has been influenced by its geography. ♦Influence of national character.♦ No doubt the history of each country has also been largely influenced by the disposition of the people who have settled in it, by what is called the national character. But then the geographical position itself has often had something to do with forming the national character, and in all cases it has had an influence upon it, by giving it a better or a worse field for working and showing itself. Thus it has been well said that neither the Greeks in any other country nor any other people in Greece could have been what the Greeks in Greece really were. The nature of the country and the nature of the people helped one another, and caused Greece to become all that it was in the early times of Europe. It is always useful to mark the points both of likeness and unlikeness of the different nations whose history we study. And of this likeness and unlikeness we shall always find that the geographical character, though only one cause out of several, is always one of the chief causes.

§ 3. Geographical Distribution of Races.

Our present business then is with geography as influenced by history, and with history as influenced by geography. With ethnology, with the relations of nations and races to one another, we have to deal only so far as they form one of the agents in history. And it will be well to avoid, as far as may be, all obscure or controverted points of this kind. But the great results of comparative philology may now be taken for granted, and a general view of the geographical disposition of the great European races is needful as an introduction to the changes which historical causes have wrought in the geography of the several parts of Europe.

In European ethnology one main feature is that the population of Europe is, and from the very beginnings of history has been, more nearly homogeneous, at least more palpably homogeneous, than that of any other great division of the world. ♦Europe an Aryan continent.♦ Whether we look at Europe now, or whether we look at it at the earliest times of which we have any glimmerings, it is pre-eminently an Aryan continent. Everything non-Aryan is at once marked as exceptional. We cannot say this of Asia, where, among several great ethnical elements, none is so clearly predominant as the Aryan element is in Europe. ♦Non-Aryan remnants.♦ There are in Europe non-Aryan elements, both earlier and later than the Aryan settlement; but they have, as a rule, been assimilated to the prevailing Aryan mass. The earlier non-Aryan element consists of the remnants which still remain of the races which the Aryan settlers found in Europe, and which they either exterminated or assimilated to themselves. The later elements consist of non-Aryan races which have made their way into Europe within historical times, in whose case the work of assimilation has been much less complete. It follows almost naturally from the position of Europe that the primæval non-Aryan element has survived in the west and in the north, while the later or intrusive non-Aryan element has made its way into the east and the south. In the mountains of the western peninsula, in the border lands of Spain and Gaul, the non-Aryan tongue of the Basque still survives. In the extreme north of Europe the non-Aryan tongue of the Fins and Laps still survives. The possible relations of these tongues either to one another or to other non-Aryan tongues beyond the bounds of Europe is a question of purely philological concern, and does not touch historical geography. But historical geography is touched by the probability, rising almost to moral certainty, that the isolated populations by whom these primitive tongues are still spoken are mere remnants of the primitive races which formed the population of Europe at the time when the Aryans first made their way into that continent. Everything tends to show that the Basques are but the remnant of a great people whom we may set down with certainty as the præ-Aryan inhabitants of Spain and a large part of Gaul, and whose range we may, with great probability, extend over Sicily, over part at least of Italy, and perhaps as far north as our own island. Their possible connexion with the early inhabitants of northern Africa hardly concerns us. The probability that they were themselves preceded by an earlier and far lower race concerns us not at all. The earliest historical inhabitants of south-western Europe are those of whom the Basques are the surviving remnant, those who, under the names of Iberians and Ligurians, fill a not unimportant place in European history.

When we come to the Aryan settlements, we cannot positively determine which among the Aryan races of Europe were the earliest settlers in point of time. ♦Greeks and Italians.♦ The great race which, in its many sub-divisions, contains the Greeks, the Italians, and the nations more immediately akin to them, are the first among the European Aryans to show themselves in the light of history; but it does not necessarily follow that they were actually the first in point of settlement. ♦Celts.♦ It may be that, while they were pressing through the Mediterranean peninsulas and islands, the Celts were pressing their way through the solid central land of Europe. The Celts were clearly the vanguard of the Aryan migration within their own range, the first swarm which made its way to the shores of the Ocean. Partially in Spain, more completely in Gaul and the British Islands, they displaced or assimilated the earlier inhabitants, who, under their pressure and that of later conquerors, have been gradually shut up in the small mountainous region which they still keep. Of the Celtic migration we have no historical accounts, but all probability would lead us to think that the Celts whom in historic times we find on the Danube and south of the Alps were not emigrants who had followed a backward course from the great settlement in Transalpine Gaul, but rather detachments which had been left behind on the westward journey. Without attempting to settle questions as to the traces of Celtic occupancy to be found in other lands, it is enough for our purpose that, at the beginnings of their history, we find the Celts the chief inhabitants of a region stretching from the Rubico to the furthest known points of Britain. Gaul, Cisalpine and Transalpine, is their great central land, though even here they are not exclusive possessors; they share the land with a non-Aryan remnant to the south-west, and with the next wave of Aryan new-comers to the north-east.

The settlements of these two great Aryan races come before authentic history. After them came the Teutonic races, who pressed on the Celts from the east; and in their wake, to judge from their place on the map, must have come the vast family of the Slavonic nations. ♦Teutons and Slaves.♦ But the migrations of the Teutons and Slaves come, for the most part, within the range of recorded history. Our first glimpse of the Teutons shows them in their central German land, already occupying both sides of the Rhine, though seemingly not very old settlers on its left bank. The long wanderings of the various Teutonic and Slavonic tribes over all parts of central Europe, their settlements in the southern and western lands, are all matters of history. So is the great Teutonic settlement in the British islands, which partly exterminated, partly assimilated, their Celtic inhabitants, so as to leave them as mere a remnant, though a greater remnant, as they themselves had made the Basques. And, as the process which made the north-western islands of Europe Teutonic is a matter of history, so also are the later stages of the process which made the northern peninsulas Teutonic. But it is only the later stages which are historical; we know that in the strictly Scandinavian peninsula the Teutonic invaders displaced non-Aryan Fins; we have only to guess that in the Cimbric Chersonêsos they displaced Aryan Celts. ♦Lithuanians.♦ But beyond the Teutons and Slaves lies yet another Aryan settlement, one which, in a purely philological view, is the most interesting of all, the small and fast vanishing group which still survives in Lithuania and the neighbouring lands. Of these there is historically really nothing to be said. On the eastern shores of the Baltic we find people whose tongue comes nearer than any other European tongue to the common Aryan model; but we can only guess alike at the date when they came thither and at the road by which they came.

These races then, Aryan and non-Aryan, make up the immemorial population of Europe. The remnants of the older non-Aryan races, and the successive waves of Aryan settlement, are all immemorial facts which we must accept as the groundwork of our history and our geography. ♦Movements among the Aryan races.♦ They must be distinguished from other movements which are strictly matters of written history, both movements among the Aryan nations themselves and later intrusions of non-Aryan nations. Thus the Greek colonies and the conquests of the Hellenized Macedonians Hellenized large districts of Europe, Asia, and Africa, partly by displacement, partly by assimilation. The conquests of Rome, and the Teutonic settlements within the Roman Empire, brought about but little in the way of displacement, but a great deal in the way of assimilation. The process indeed was opposite in the two cases. The Roman conqueror assimilated the conquered to himself; the Teutonic conqueror was himself assimilated by those whom he conquered. Britain and the Rhenish and Danubian lands stand out as marked exceptions. The Slavonic settlements in the East wrought far more of displacement than the Teutonic settlements in the West. Vast regions, once Illyrian or Thracian—that is, most likely, more or less nearly akin to the Greeks—are now wholly Slavonic. ♦Later intrusion of Non-Aryan races.♦ Lastly come the incursions on European lands made by non-Aryan settlers in historic times. Their results have been widely different in different cases. ♦Semitic.♦ The Semitic Saracens settled in Spain and Sicily, bringing with them and after them their African converts, men possibly of originally kindred race with the first inhabitants both of the peninsula and of the island. These non-Aryan settlers have vanished. The displacement of large bodies of them is a fact of comparatively recent history, but it can hardly fail that some degree of assimilation must also have taken place. Then come the settlements, chiefly in eastern Europe, of those whom for our purpose it is enough to group together as the Turanian nations. The Huns of Attila have left only a name. The more lasting settlement of the Avars has vanished, how far by displacement, how far by assimilation, it might be hard to say. Chozars, Patzinaks, a crowd of other barbarian races, have left no sign of their presence. ♦Turanian.♦ The Bulgarians, originally Turanian conquerors, have been assimilated by their Slavonic subjects. The Finnish Magyars have received a political and religious assimilation; their kingdom became a member of the commonwealth of Christian Europe, though they still keep their old Turanian language. The latest intruders of all, the Ottoman Turks, still remain as they were when they first came, aliens on Aryan and Christian ground. But here again is a case of assimilation the other way; the Ottoman Turks are an artificial nation which has been kept up by the constant incorporation of European renegades who have thrown aside the speech, the creed, and the civilization of Europe.

CHAPTER II.

GREECE AND THE GREEK COLONIES.

§ 1. The Eastern or Greek Peninsula.

The Historical Geography of Europe, if looked at in chronological order, must begin with the most eastern of the three peninsulas of Southern Europe. Here the history of Europe, and the truest history of the world, began. It was in the insular and peninsular lands between the Ionian and Ægæan seas that the first steps towards European civilization were taken; it is there that we see the first beginnings of art, science, and political life. But Greece or Hellas, in the strict sense of the name, forms only a part of the lands which must be looked on as the great Eastern peninsula. It is however its leading and characteristic portion. As the whole peninsular land gradually tapers southwards from the great mass of central Europe, it becomes at each stage more and more peninsular, and it also becomes at each stage more and more Greek. Greece indeed and the neighbouring lands form, as was long ago remarked by Strabo,[2] a series of peninsulas within peninsulas. It is not easy to find a name for the whole region, as it stretches far beyond any limits which can be given to Greece in any age of the world or according to any use of the name. But the whole land seems to have been occupied by nations more or less akin to the Greeks. The history of those nations chiefly consists of their relations to the Greeks, and all of them were brought more or less within the range of Greek influences. We may therefore not improperly call the whole land, as opposed to Italy and Spain, the Greek peninsula. It has also been called the Byzantine peninsula, as nearly answering to the European part of the Eastern division of the Roman Empire, when its seat of government was at Byzantion, Constantinople, or New Rome.

Taking the great range of mountains which divides southern from central Europe as the northern boundary of the eastern or Greek peninsula, it may be said to take in the lands which are cut off from the central mass by the Dalmatian Alps and the range of Haimos or Balkan. It is washed to the east, west, or south, by various parts of the Mediterranean and its great gulf the Euxine. But the northern part of this region, all that lies north of the Ægæan Sea, taking in therefore the whole of the Euxine coast, still keeps much of the character of the great central mass of Europe, and forms a land intermediate between that and the more strictly peninsular lands to the south. Still the boundary is a real one, for all the lands south of this range have come more or less within Greek influences, and have played their part in Grecian history. But when we get beyond the mountains, into the valley of the Danube, we find ourselves in lands which, excepting a few colonies on the coast, have hardly at all come under Greek influences till quite modern times. This region between Haimos and the more strictly Greek lands takes in Thrace, Paionia, and Illyria. Of these, Thrace and Illyria, having a sea coast, received many Greek colonies, especially on the northern coast of the Ægæan and on the Propontis or Sea of Marmora. The Thracian part of this region, as bordering on these more distinctly Grecian seas, became more truly a part of the Grecian world than the other lands to the west of it. ♦Thrace and Illyria.♦ Yet geographically Thrace is more widely cut off from Greece than Illyria is. For there is no such great break on the western shore of the great peninsula as that which, on the eastern side, marks the point where we must draw the line between Greece and its immediate neighbours and the lands to the north of them. This is at the point where a peninsula within a peninsula breaks off to the south, comprising Greece, Macedonia, and Epeiros. There is here no very special break on the Illyrian coast, but the Ægæan coast of Thrace is fenced in as it were at its two ends, to the east by the long narrow peninsula known specially as the Chersonêsos, and to the west by the group of peninsulas called Chalkidikê. These have nothing answering to them on the Illyrian side beyond the mere bend in the coast above Epidamnos. This last point however marks the extent of the earlier Greek colonization in those regions, and which has become a still more important boundary in later times.

Beyond Chalkidikê to the west, the specially Greek peninsula projects to the south, being itself again composed of peninsulas within peninsulas. ♦Greece proper and its peninsulas.♦ The Ambrakian Gulf on the west and the Pagasaian on the east again fence off a peninsula to the south, by which the more purely Greek lands are fenced off from Macedonia, Epeiros, and Thessaly. Within this peninsula again another may be marked off by a line drawn from Thermopylai to the Corinthian gulf near Delphoi. This again shuts out to the east Akarnania, Aitolia, and some other of the more backward divisions of the Greek name. ♦Peloponnêsos.♦ Thus Phôkis, Boiôtia, and Attica form a great promontory, from which Attica projects as a further promontory to the south-east, while the great peninsula of Peloponnêsos—itself made up on its eastern and southern sides of smaller peninsulas—is joined on by the narrow isthmus of Corinth. In this way, from Haimos to Tainaros, the land is ever becoming more and more broken up by greater or smaller inlets of the sea. And in proportion as the land becomes more strictly peninsular, it also becomes more strictly Greek, till in Peloponnêsos we reach the natural citadel of the Greek nation.

§ 2. Insular and Asiatic Greece.

Greece Proper then, what the ancient geographers called Continuous Hellas as distinguished from the Greek colonies planted on barbarian shores, is, so far as it is part of the mainland, made up of a system of peninsulas stretching south from the general mass of eastern Europe. But the neighbouring islands equally form a part of continuous Greece; and the other coasts of the Ægæan, Asiatic as well as Thracian, were so thickly strewed with Greek colonies as to form, if not part of continuous Greece, yet part of the immediate Greek world. The western coast, as it is less peninsular, is also less insular, and the islands on the western side of Greece did not reach the same importance as those on the eastern side. Still they too, the Ionian islands of modern geography, form in every sense a part of Greece. ♦The Islands.♦ To the north of Korkyra or Corfu there are only detached Greek colonies, whether on the mainland or in the islands; but all the islands of the Ægæan are, during historical times, as much part of Greece as the mainland; and one island on each side, Leukas on the west and the greater island of Euboia on the east, might almost be counted as parts of the mainland, as peninsulas rather than islands. To the south the long narrow island of Crete forms a sort of barrier between Greek and barbarian seas. It is the most southern of the purely Greek lands. Sicily to the east and Cyprus to the west received many Greek colonies, but they never became purely Greek in the same way as Crete and the islands to the north of it.

But, besides the European peninsulas and the islands, part of Asia must be looked on as forming part of the immediate Greek world, though not strictly of continuous Greece. The peninsula known as Asia Minor cannot be separated from Europe either in its geography or in its history. With its central mass we have little or nothing to do; but its coasts form a part of the Greek world, and its Ægæan coast was only less thoroughly Greek than Greece itself and the Greek islands. It would seem that the whole western coast of Asia Minor was inhabited by nations which, like the European neighbours of Greece, were more or less nearly akin to the Greeks. And the Ægæan coast of Asia is almost as full of inlets of the sea, of peninsulas and promontories and islands near to the shore, as European Greece itself. All these shores therefore received Greek colonies. The islands and the most tempting spots on the mainland were occupied by Greek settlers, and became the sites of Greek cities. But Greek influence never spread very far inland, and even the coast itself did not become so purely Greek as the islands. When we pass from the Ægæan coast of Asia to the other two sides of the peninsula, to its northern coast washed by the Euxine and its southern coast washed by the Mediterranean, we have passed out of the immediate Greek world. Greek colonies are found on favourable spots here and there; but the land, even the coast as a whole, is barbarian.

§ 3. Ethnology of the Eastern Peninsula.

The immediate Greek world then as opposed to the outlying Greek colonies, consists of the shores of the Ægæan sea and of the peninsulas lying between it and the Ionian sea. Of this region a great part was exclusively inhabited by the Greek nation, while Greek influences were more or less dominant throughout the whole. But it would further seem that the whole, or nearly the whole, of these lands were inhabited by races more or less akin to the Greeks. They seem to have been races which had a good deal in common with the Greeks, and of whom the Greeks were simply the foremost and most fortunate, their higher developement being doubtless greatly favoured by the geographical nature of the country which they occupied. But a distinction must be drawn between the nearer and the more remote neighbours of Greece. It is hardly necessary for our present purpose to determine whether the Greeks had or had not any connexion with Thracians, European or Asiatic, with Phrygians and Lydians, and other neighbouring nations. ♦Nations more remote, but probably kindred.♦ All these were in Greek eyes simply Barbarians, but modern scholarship has seen in them signs of a kindred with the Greek nation nearer than the share of both in the common Aryan stock. We need not settle here whether all the inhabitants of the geographical district which we have marked out were, or were not, kinsmen in this sense; but with some among them the question assumes a deeper interest and a nearer approach to certainty. ♦Illyrians.♦ The great Illyrian race, of whom the Albanians or Skipetars are the modern representatives, a race which has been so largely displaced by Slaves at one end and assimilated by Greeks at the other, can hardly fail to have had a nearer kindred with the Greeks than that which they both share with Celts and Teutons. When we come to the lands which are yet more closely connected with Greece, both in geographical position and in their history, the case becomes clearer still. ♦Epeiros, Macedonia, Sicily and Italy.♦ We can hardly doubt of the close connexion between the Greeks and the nations which bordered on Greece immediately to the north in Epeiros and Macedonia, as well as with some at least of those which they found occupying the opposite coasts of the Ægæan, as well as in Sicily and Italy. The Greeks and Italians, with the nations immediately connected with them, clearly belong to one, and that a well marked, division of the Aryan family. Their kindred is shown alike by the evidence of language and by the remarkable ease with which in all ages they received Greek civilization. Into more minute inquiries as to these matters it is hardly our province to go here. ♦Pelasgians.♦ It is perhaps enough to say that the Pelasgian name, which has given rise to so much speculation, seems to have been used by the Greeks themselves in a very vague way, much as the word Saxon is among ourselves. It is therefore dangerous to form any theories about the matter. Sometimes the Pelasgians seem to be spoken of simply as Old-Hellênes, sometimes as a people distinct from the Hellênes. ♦The Greek nation.♦ Whether the Hellênes, on their entering into Greece, found the land held by earlier inhabitants, whether Aryan or non-Aryan, is a curious and interesting speculation, but one which does not concern us. It is enough for our purpose that, as far back as history or even legend can carry us, we find the land in the occupation of a branch of the Aryan family, consisting, like all other nations, of various kindred tribes. It is a nation which is as well defined as any other nation, and yet it shades off, as it were, into the other nations of the kindred stock. Clearly marked as Greek and Barbarian are from the beginning, there still are frontier tribes in Epeiros and Macedonia which must be looked on as forming an intermediate stage between the two classes, and which are accordingly placed by different Greek writers sometimes in one class and sometimes in the other.

§ 4. The Earliest Geography of Greece and the Neighbouring Lands.

Our first picture of Greek geography comes from the Homeric catalogue. Whatever may be the historic value of the Homeric poems in general, it is clear that the catalogue in the second book of the Iliad must represent a real state of things. It gives us a map of Greece so different from the map of Greece at any later time that it is inconceivable that it can have been invented at any later time. We have in fact a map of Greece at a time earlier than any time to which we can assign certain names and dates. Within the range of Greece itself the various Greek races often changed their settlements, displacing or conquering earlier Greek settlers; and the different states which they formed often changed their boundaries by bringing other states into subjection or depriving them of parts of their territory. The Homeric catalogue gives us a wholly different arrangement of the various branches of the nation from any that we find in the Greece of historic times. The Dorian and Ionian names, which were afterwards so famous, are hardly known; the name of Hellênes itself belongs only to a small district. ♦Tribal divisions of Homeric Greece.♦ The names for the whole people are Achaians, Argeians (Argos seeming to mean all Peloponnêsos), and Danaoi, the last a name which goes quite out of use in historic times. The boundary of Greece to the west is narrower than it was in later times. The land called Akarnania has not yet got that name, if indeed it was Greek at all. It is spoken of vaguely as Epeiros or the mainland,[3] and it appears as part of the possessions of the king of the neighbouring islands, Kephallênia and Ithakê. The islands to the north, Leukas and Korkyra, were not yet Greek. The Thesprotians in Epeiros are spoken of as a neighbouring and friendly people, but they form no part of the Greek nation. The Aitolians appear as a Greek people, and so do most of the other divisions of the Greek nation, only their position and relative importance is often different from what it was afterwards. Thus, to mention a few examples out of many, the Lokrians, who, in historic times, appear both on the sea of Euboia and on the Corinthian gulf, appear in the catalogue in their northern seats only.

When we turn from tribes to cities, the difference is still greater. ♦Groupings of cities.♦ The cities which held the first place in historic times are not always those which are greatest in the earlier time, and their grouping in federations or principalities is wholly unlike anything in later history. Thus in the historic Boiotia we find Orchomenos as the second city of a confederation of which Thebes is the first. In the catalogue Orchomenos and the neighbouring city Aspledôn form a separate division, distinct from Boiôtia. Euboia forms a whole; and, what is specially to be noticed, Attica, as a land, is not mentioned, but only the single city of Athens, with Salamis as a kind of dependency. Peloponnêsos again is divided in a manner quite different from anything in later times. The ruling city is Mykênê, whose king holds also a general superiority over all Hellas, while his immediate dominion takes in Corinth, Kleônai, Sikyôn, and the whole south coast of the Corinthian Gulf, the Achaia of later times. The rest of the cities of the Argolic peninsula are grouped round Argos. Northern Greece again is divided into groups of cities which answer to nothing in later times. And its relative importance in the Greek world is clearly far greater than it was in the historic period.

The catalogue also helps us to our earliest picture of the northern and eastern coasts of the Ægæan and of the Ægæan islands. ♦Extent of Greek colonization.♦ We see the extent which Greek colonization had already made. It had as yet taken in only the southern islands of the Ægæan. Crete was already Greek; so were Rhodes, Kôs, and the neighbouring islands; but these last are distinctly marked as new settlements. The coast of Asia and the northern islands are still untouched, except through the events of the Trojan war itself, in which the Greek conquest of Lesbos is distinctly marked. ♦The Asiatic Catalogue.♦ In Asia, besides Trojans and Dardanians, we find Pelasgians as a distinct people, as also Paphlagonians, Mysians, Phrygians, Maionians, Karians, and Lykians. We find in short the nations which fringe the whole Ægæan coast of Asia and the south-western coast of the Euxine. In Europe again we have Thracians and Paionians, names familiar in historic times, and whose bearers seemingly occupied nearly the same lands which they do in later times. The presence of Thracians in Asia is implied rather than asserted. The Macedonian name is not found. The northern islands of the Ægæan are mentioned only incidentally. Everything leaves us to believe that the whole region, European and Asiatic, to which we are now concerned, was, at this earliest time of which we have any glimpses, occupied by various races more or less closely allied to each other. ♦Phœnician and Greek settlements in the islands.♦ The islands were largely Karian, but the Phœnicians, a Semitic people from the eastern coast, seem to have planted colonies in several of the Mediterranean islands. But Karians and Phœnicians had now begun to give way to Greek settlements. The same rivalry in short between Greeks and Phœnicians must have gone on in the earliest times in the islands of the Ægæan which went on in historical times in the greater islands of Cyprus and Sicily.

§ 5. Change from Homeric to Historic Greece.

The state of things which is set before us in the catalogue was altogether broken up by later changes, but changes which still come before the beginnings of contemporary history, and which we understand chiefly by comparing the geography of the catalogue with the geography of later times. ♦Changes in Peloponnêsos.♦ According to received tradition, a number of Dorian colonies from Northern Greece were gradually planted in the chief cities of Peloponnêsos, and drove out or reduced to subjection their older Achaian inhabitants. Mykênê from this time loses its importance; Argos, Sparta, Corinth, and Sikyôn become Dorian cities; and Sparta gradually wins the dominion over all the towns, whether Dorian or Achaian, within her immediate dominion of Lakonia. To the west of Lakonia arises the Dorian state of Messênê, which is the name only of a district, as there was as yet no city so called. As part of the same movement, an Aitolian colony is said to have occupied Êlis on the west coast of Peloponnêsos. Elis again was at this time the name of a district only; the cities both of Messênê and Êlis are of much later date. First Argos, and then Sparta, rises to a supremacy over their fellow-Dorians and over the whole of Peloponnêsos. Historical Peloponnêsos thus consists (i) of the cities, chiefly Dorian, of the Argolic Aktê or peninsula, together with Corinth on the Isthmus and Megara, a Dorian outpost beyond the Isthmus; (ii) of Lakonikê, the district immediately subject to Sparta, with a boundary towards Argos which changed as Sparta advanced and Argos went back; (iii) of Messênê, which was conquered by Sparta before the age of contemporary history, and was again separated in the fourth century B.C.; (iv) of Elis, with the border-districts between it and Messênê; (v) of the Achaian cities on the coast of the Corinthian Gulf; (vi) of the inland country of Arkadia. The relations among these districts and the several cities within them often fluctuated, but the general aspect of the map of Peloponnêsos did not greatly change from the beginning of the fifth century to the later days of the third.

According to the received traditions, migrations of the same kind took place in Northern Greece also between the time of the catalogue and the beginning of contemporary history. Thus Thessaly, whose different divisions form a most important part of the catalogue, is said to have suffered an invasion at the hands of the half Hellenic Thesprotians. They are said to have become the ruling people in Thessaly itself, and to have held a supremacy over the neighbouring lands, including the peninsula of Magnêsia and the Phthiôtic Achaia. It is certain that in the historical period Thessaly lags in the back ground, and that the true Hellenic spirit is much less developed there than in other parts of Greece. There is less reason to accept the legend of a migration out of Thessaly into Boiôtia; but in historic times Orchomenos no longer appears as a separate state, but is the second city of the Boiotian confederacy, yielding the first place to Thebes with great unwillingness. The Lokrians also now appear on the Corinthian gulf as well as on the sea of Euboia. And the land to the west of Aitôlia, so vaguely spoken of in the catalogue, has become the seat of a Greek people under the name of Akarnania. The Corinthian colonies along this coast, the city of Ambrakia, the island or peninsula of Leukas, the foundation of which is placed in the eighth century B.C., come almost within the time of trustworthy history. They are not Greek in the catalogue; they are Greek when we first hear of them in history. Ambrakia forms the last outpost of continuous Hellas towards the north-west; beyond that are only outlying settlements on the Illyrian coasts and islands.

These changes in the geography of continental Greece, both within and without Peloponnêsos, make the main differences between the Greece of the Homeric catalogue and the Greece of the Persian and Peloponnesian wars. ♦Changes in later times.♦ During the sixth, fifth, and fourth centuries before Christ there were constant changes in political relations of the Greek states to one another; but there were not many changes which greatly affected the geography. Cities were constantly brought in subjection to one another, and were again relieved from the yoke. ♦B.C. 370-369.♦ In the course of the fourth century two new Peloponnesian cities, Messênê and Megalopolis, were founded. In Boiotia again, Plataia and Orchomenos were destroyed by the Thebans, and Thebes itself was destroyed by Alexander, but these were afterwards rebuilt. ♦B.C. 468.♦ In Peloponnêsos Mykênê was destroyed by the Argeians, and never rebuilt. But most of these changes do not affect geography, as they did not involve any change in the seats of the great divisions of the Greek name. The only exception is that of the foundation of Messênê, which was accompanied by the separation of the old Messenian territory from Sparta, and the consequent establishment of a new or restored division of the Greek nation.

§ 6. The Greek Colonies.

It must have been in the time between the days represented by the catalogue and the beginnings of contemporary history, that most of the islands of the Ægæan became Greek, and that the Greek colonies were planted on the Ægæan coast of Asia. We have seen that the southern islands were already Greek at the time of the catalogue, while some of the northern ones, Thasos, Lêmnos, and others, did not become Greek till times to which we can give approximate dates, from the eighth to the fifth centuries. ♦Colonies in Asia.♦ During this period, at some time before the eighth century, the whole Ægæan coast of Asia had become fringed with Greek cities, Dorian to the south, Aiolian to the north, Ionian between the two. The story of the Trojan war itself in the land is most likely a legendary account of the beginning of these settlements, which may make us think that the Greek colonization of this coast began in the north, in the lands bordering on the Hellespont. At all events, by the eighth century these settlements had made the Asiatic coast and the islands adjoining it a part, and a most important part, not only of the Greek world, but we may almost say of Greece itself. ♦Their early greatness.♦ The Ionian cities, above all, Smyrna, Ephesos, Milêtos, and the islands of Chios and Samos, were among the greatest of Greek cities, more flourishing certainly than any in European Greece. Milêtos, above all, was famous for the number of colonies which it sent forth in its own turn. But, if their day of greatness came before that of the European Greeks, they were also the first to come under the power of the Barbarians. ♦Lydian and Persian conquests.♦ In the course of the fifth century the Greek cities on the continent of Asia came under the power, first of the Lydian kings and then of their Persian conquerors, who subdued several of the islands also. It was this subjection of the Asiatic Greeks to the Barbarians which led to the Persian war, with which the most brilliant time in the history of European Greece begins. We thus know the Asiatic cities only in the days of their decline. ♦Colonies in Thrace.♦ The coasts of Thrace and Macedonia were also sprinkled with Greek cities, but they did not lie so thick together as those on the Asiatic coast, except only in the three-fingered peninsula of Chalkidikê, which became a thoroughly Greek land. Some of these colonies in Thrace, as Olynthos and Potidaia, play an important part in Greek history, and two among them fill a place in the history of the world. Thermê, under its later name of Thessalonikê, has kept on its importance under all changes down to our own time. And Byzantion, on the Thracian Bosporos, rose higher still, becoming, under the form of Constantinople, the transplanted seat of the Empire of Rome.

The settlements which have been thus far spoken of may be all counted as coming within the immediate Greek world. They were planted in lands so near to the mother-country, and they lay so near to one another, that the whole country round the Ægæan may be looked on as more or less thoroughly Greek. Some parts were wholly Greek, and everywhere Greek influences were predominant. ♦More distant colonies.♦ But, during this same period of distant enterprise, between the time of the Homeric catalogue and the time of the Persian War, many Greek settlements were made in countries much further off from continuous Greece. All of course came within the range of the Mediterranean world; no Greek ever passed through the Straits of Hêraklês to found settlements on the Ocean. But a large part of the coast both of the Mediterranean itself and of the Euxine was gradually dotted with Greek colonies. These outposts of Greece, unless they were actually conquered by barbarians, almost always remained Greek; they kept their Greek language and manners, and they often spread them to some extent among their barbarian neighbours. But it was not often that any large tract of country in these more distant lands became so thoroughly Greek as the Ægæan coast of Asia became. We may say however that such was the case with the coast of Sicily and Southern Italy, where many Greek colonies were planted, which will be spoken of more fully in another chapter. All Sicily indeed did in the end really become a Greek country, though not till after its conquest by the Romans. But in Northern and Central Italy, the Latins, Etruscans, and other Italian nations were too strong for any Greek colonies to be made in those parts. ♦Colonies in the Hadriatic.♦ On the other side of the Hadriatic, Greek colonies had spread before the Peloponnesian war as far north as Epidamnos. The more northern colonies on the coast and among the islands of Dalmatia, the Illyrian Epidauros, Pharos, Black Korkyra, and others, were among the latest efforts of Greek colonization in the strict sense.

In other parts of the Mediterranean coasts the Greek settlements lay further apart from each other. But we may say that they were spread here and there over the whole coast, except where there was some special hindrance to keep the Greeks from settling. ♦Phœnician colonies.♦ Thus, in a great part of the Mediterranean the Phœnicians had got the start of the Greeks, both in their own country on the coast of Syria, and in the colonies sent forth by their great cities of Tyre and Sidon. The Phœnician colonists occupied a large part of the western half of the southern coast of the Mediterranean, where lay the great Phœnician cities of Carthage, Utica, and others. They had also settlements in Southern Spain, and one at least outside the straits on the Ocean. This is Gades or Cadiz, which has kept its name and its unbroken position as a great city from an earlier time than any other city in Europe. The Greeks therefore could not colonize in these parts. In the great islands of Sicily and Cyprus there were both Phœnician and Greek colonies, and there was a long struggle between the settlers of the two nations. In Egypt again, though there were some Greek settlers, yet there were no Greek colonies in the strict sense. That is, there were no independent Greek commonwealths. Thus the only part of the southern coast of the Mediterranean which was open to Greek colonization was the land between Egypt and the dominions of Carthage. ♦Greek colonies in Africa, Gaul, and Spain.♦ In that land accordingly several Greek cities were planted, of which the chief was the famous Kyrênê. On the southern coast of Gaul arose the great Ionian city of Massalia or Marseilles, which also, like the Phœnician Gades, has kept its name and its prosperity down to our own time. Massalia became the centre of a group of Greek cities on the south coast of Gaul and the east coast of Spain, which were the means of spreading a certain amount of Greek civilization in those parts.

Besides these settlements in the Mediterranean itself, there were also a good many Greek colonies on the western, northern, and southern coasts of the Euxine, of which those best worth remembering are the city of Chersonêsos in the peninsula called the Tauric Chersonêsos, now Crimea, and Trapezous on the southern coast. These two deserve notice as being two most abiding seats of Greek influence. Chersonêsos, under the name of Cherson, remained an independent Greek commonwealth longer than any other, and Trapezous or Trebizond became the seat of Greek-speaking Emperors, who outlived those of Constantinople. Speaking generally then, we may say that, in the most famous times of European Greece, in the time of the Persian and Peloponnesian wars, the whole coast of the Ægæan was part of the immediate Greek world, while in Sicily and Cyprus Greek colonies were contending with the Phœnicians, and in Italy with the native Italians. Massalia was the centre of a group of Greek states in the north-west, and Kyrênê in the south, while the greater part of the coast of the Euxine was also dotted with Greek cities here and there. In most of these colonies the Greeks mixed to some extent with the natives, and the natives to some extent learned the Greek language and manners. ♦Beginning of the artificial Greek nation.♦ We thus get the beginning of what we call an artificial Greek nation, a nation Greek in speech and manners, but not purely Greek in blood, which has gone on ever since.

§ 7. Growth of Macedonia and Epeiros.

But while the spread of the Greek language and civilization, and therewith the growth of the artificial Greek nation, was brought about in a great degree by the planting of independent Greek colonies, it was brought about still more fully by events which went far to destroy the political independence of Greece itself. This came of the growth of the kindred nations to the north of Greece, in Macedonia and Epeiros. The Macedonians were for a long time hemmed in by the barbarians to the north and west of them and by the Greek cities on the coast, and they were also weakened by divisions among themselves. ♦Reign of Philip, B.C.  360-336.♦ But when the whole nation was united under its great King Philip, Macedonia soon became the chief power in Greece and the neighbouring lands. Philip greatly increased his dominions at the expense of both Greeks and barbarians, especially by adding the peninsulas of Chalkidikê to his kingdom. But in Greece itself, though he took to himself the chief power, he did not actually annex any of the Greek states to Macedonia, so that his victories there do not affect the map. ♦Conquests of Alexander, 336-323.♦ His yet more famous son Alexander, and the Macedonian kings after him, in like manner held garrisons in particular Greek cities, and brought some parts of Greece, as Thessaly and Euboia, under a degree of Macedonian influence which hardly differed from dominion; but they did not formally annex them. The conquests of Alexander in Asia brought most of the Greek cities and islands under Macedonian dominion, but some, as Crete, Rhodes, Byzantion, and Hêrakleia on the Euxine, kept their independence. ♦Epeiros under Pyrrhos, B.C.  295-272.♦ Meanwhile Epeiros became united under the Greek kings of Molossis, and under Pyrrhos, who made Ambrakia his capital, it became a powerful state. And a little kingdom called Athamania, thrust in between Epeiros, Macedonia, and Thessaly, now begins to be heard of.

The conquests of Alexander in Asia concern us only so far as they called into being a class of states in Western Asia, all of which received a greater or less share of Hellenic culture, and some of which may claim a place in the actual Greek world. By the division of the empire of Alexander after the battle of Ipsos, Egypt became the kingdom of Ptolemy, with whose descendants it remained down to the Roman conquest. ♦B.C. 301.♦ The civilization of the Egyptian court was Greek, and Alexandria became one of the greatest of Greek cities. ♦Egypt under the Ptolemies.♦ Moreover the earlier kings of the Ptolemaic dynasty held various islands in the Ægæan, and points on the coast of Asia and even of Thrace, which made them almost entitled to rank as a power in Greece itself. ♦The Seleukid dynasty.♦ The great Asiatic power of Alexander passed to Seleukos and his descendants. The early kings of his house ruled from the Ægæan to the Hyphasis, though this great dominion was at all times fringed and broken in upon by the dominions of native princes, by independent Greek cities, and by the dominions of other Macedonian kings. ♦Circa B.C.  256.♦ But in the third century their dominion was altogether cut short in the East by the revolt of the Parthians in northern Persia, by whom the eastern provinces of the Seleukid kingdom were lopped away. ♦B.C. 191-181.♦ And when Antiochos the Great provoked a war with Rome, his dominion was cut short to the West also. The Seleukid power now shrank up into a local kingdom of Syria, with Tauros for its north-western frontier.

By the cutting short of the Seleukid kingdom, room was given for the growth of the independent states which had already sprung up in Asia Minor. ♦Pergamos.♦ The kingdom of Pergamos had already begun, and the dominions of its kings were largely increased by the Romans at the expense of Antiochos. Pergamos might count as a Hellenic state, alongside of Macedonia and Epeiros. But the other kingdoms of Asia Minor, Bithynia, Kappadokia, Paphlagonia, and Pontos, the kingdom of the famous Mithridates, must be counted as Asiatic. ♦Spread of Hellenic culture.♦ The Hellenic influence indeed spread itself far to the East. Even the Parthian kings affected a certain amount of Greek culture, and in all the more western kingdoms there was a greater or less Greek element, and in several of them the kings fixed their capitals in Greek cities. Still in all of them the Asiatic element prevailed in a way in which it did not prevail at Pergamos. Meanwhile other states, either originally Greek or largely Hellenized, still remained East of the Ægæan. Thus, at the south-western corner of Asia Minor, Lykia, though seemingly less thoroughly Hellenized than some of its neighbours, became a federal state after the Greek model. ♦Seleukeia.♦ Far to the East, Seleukeia on the Tigris, whether under Syrian or Parthian overlordship, kept its character as a Greek colony, and its position as what may be called a free imperial city. Further to the West other more purely Greek states survived. ♦Hêrakleia.
B.C. 188.♦ The Pontic Hêrakleia long remained an independent Greek city, sometimes a commonwealth, sometimes under tyrants; and Sinôpê remained a Greek city till it became the capital of the kings of Pontos. On the north of the Euxine, Bosporos still remained a Greek kingdom.

§ 8. The later Geography of Independent Greece.

The political divisions of independent Greece, in the days when it gradually came under the power of Rome, differ almost as much from those to which we are used during the Persian and Peloponnesian wars, as these last differ from the earlier divisions in the Homeric catalogue. The chief feature of these times was the power which was held, as we have before seen, by the Macedonian kings, and the alliances made by the different Greek states in order to escape or to throw off their yoke. The result was that the greater part of Greece was gradually mapped out among large confederations, much larger at least than Greece had ever seen before. ♦The Achaian League, B.C. 280.♦ The most famous of these, the League of Achaia, began among the old Achaian cities on the south of the Corinthian Gulf. ♦B.C. 191.♦ It gradually spread, till it took in the whole of Peloponnêsos, together with Megara and one or two outlying cities. Thus Corinth, Argos, Elis, and even Sparta, instead of being distinct states as of old, with a greater or less dominion over other cities, were now simply members of one federal body. ♦The Aitolian League.♦ In Northern Greece the League of Aitolia now became very powerful, and extended itself far beyond its old borders. Akarnania, Phôkis, Lokris, and Boiôtia formed Federal states of less power, and so did Epeiros, where the kings had been got rid of, and which was now reckoned as a thoroughly Greek state. The Macedonian kings held different points at different times: Corinth itself for a good while, and Thessaly and Euboia for longer periods, might be almost counted as parts of their kingdom.

This was the state of things in Greece at the time when the Romans began to meddle in Greek and Macedonian affairs, and gradually to bring all these countries, like the rest of the Mediterranean world, under their power. But it should be remarked that this was done, as the conquests of the Romans always were done, very gradually. ♦B.C. 229.♦ First the island of Korkyra and the cities of Epidamnos and Apollônia on the Illyrian coast became Roman allies, which was always a step to becoming Roman subjects. ♦B.C. 205.♦ The Romans first appeared in Greece itself, as allies of the Aitolians, but by the Peace of Epeiros Rome obtained no dominion in Greece, and merely some increase of her Illyrian territory. ♦B.C. 200-197.
Progress of Roman conquests.
B.C. 196.♦ The second Macedonian War made Macedonia dependent on Rome, and all those parts of Greece which had been under the Macedonian power were declared free at its close. ♦B.C. 189.♦ As the Aitolians had joined Antiochos of Syria against Rome, they were made a Roman dependency. From that time Rome was always meddling in the affairs of the Greek states, and they may be counted as really, though not formally, dependent on Rome. ♦B.C. 169.
B.C. 149.♦ After the third Macedonian war, Macedonia was cut up into four separate commonwealths; and at last, after the fourth, it became a Roman province. ♦B.C. 146.
Remaining free states incorporated by Vespasian.♦ About the same time the Leagues of Epeiros and Boiôtia were dissolved; the Achaian League also became formally dependent on Rome, and was dissolved for a time also. It is not certain when Achaia became formally a Roman province; but, from this time, all Greece was practically subject to Rome. Athens remained nominally independent, as did Rhodes, Byzantion, and several other islands and outlying cities, some of which were not formally incorporated with the Roman dominion till the time of the Emperor Vespasian.

As we go on with the geography of other countries which came under the Roman dominion, we shall learn more of the way in which Rome thus enlarged her territories bit by bit. But it seemed right to begin with the geography of Greece, and this could not be carried down to the time when Greece became a Roman dominion without saying something of the Roman conquest. From B.C. 146 we must look upon Greece and the neighbouring lands as being, some of them formally and all of them practically, part of the Roman dominion. And we shall not have to speak of them again as separate states or countries till many ages later, when the Roman dominion began to fall in pieces. Having thus traced the geography of the most eastern of the three great European peninsulas down to the time when it became part of the dominion which took in all the lands around the Mediterranean, we will now go on to speak of the middle peninsula, which became the centre of that dominion, namely that of Italy. ♦Special character of Greek history.♦ Greece and the neighbouring lands are the only parts of Europe which can be said to have a history quite independent of Rome, and beginning earlier than the Roman history. Of the other countries therefore which became part of the Roman Empire it will be best to speak in their relation to Italy, and, as nearly as possible, in the order in which they came under the Roman power.