The Athenian Navy and Allied Naval Contributions in the Pentecontaetia Blackman,
David Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Fall 1969; 10, 3; ProQuest pg. 179

The Athenian Navy and Allied Naval 
Contributions in the Pentecontaetia 

David Blackman 

I N THE HISTORY of Greece in the Pentecontaetia the Athenian navy 
played a vital role. We know something about its most important 
operations, but little about its organization, maintenance or size, 

or about its contribution and that of Athens' allies to the League fleet. 
The evidence is scrappy, often vague and sometimes inconsistent, but 
we may extract more from it than has been done.1 

I 

Naval Contributions of the Allies 

Initial contingents 
Of the allied states which initially contributed ships to the League 

fleet, no list survives; we can only be certain that they included Les­
bos, Chios and Samos, and very probably Thasos. Thucydides' argu­
ment in Book 1 as a whole indicates that the initial number was quite 
large and that the states commuted to tribute payment gradually 
over a period.2 We cannot now draw up a full list, but we may make 

1 All dates given are B.C. I use the following abbreviated titles: KOLBE 1899: W. Kolbe, 
"De Atheniensium re navali quaestiones selectae," Philologus N.F. 12 (1899) 503-52 (also pub­
lished separately). KOLBE 1901: idem, "Zur athenischen Marineverwaltung," AthMitt 26 
(1901) 377-418. KEIL: B. Keil, Der Anonymus Argentinensis (Strasbourg 1902). How AND 

WELLS: W. W. How and J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus (Oxford 1912). WEST: A. B. 
West, "The Tribute Lists and the Non-tributary Members of the Delian League," AHR 35 
(1929/30) 267-75. GOMME: A. W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides I-III (Ox­
ford 1945-56). ATL: B. D. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery and M. F. McGregor, The Athenian Trib­
ute Lists I-IV (1939-53). MORRISON AND WILLIAMS: J. S. Morrison and R. T. Williams, Greek 
Oared Ships: 900-322 B.C. (Cambridge 1968). EDDY: S. K. Eddy, "Four hundred sixty talents 
once more," CP 63 (1968) 184-95. I am most grateful to Mr Alan Hall and Professor A. E. 
Raubitschek for reading and commenting on a draft of this article, and to Mr A. G. Wood­
head for a discussion of various points. 

2 E.g., esp. 1.99.3: ot 17Adove; aVTwv, iva p.~ a17' OiKOV WelL, xp~p.aTa ETcXgavro avrt TWV V£WV TO 
lKVOVP.£VOV avcXAwp.a rPEPHV, ••. ; 1.19: 'A87]vatot /)€ vave; T£ TWV 7T()A€WV Tip Xp6vcp 17apMa{36vr£e; 

179 



180 THE ATHENIAN NAVY AND ALLIED CONTRIBUTIONS 

some reasonable conjectures. A number of the states which joined the 
League at its foundation possessed warships, having fought on one 
side or the other in 480-479, and many will have wished, at least ini­
tially, to make their contribution in ships rather than money. 

Founder-members of the League who fought at sea on the Greek 
side in 480 were Chalkis, Eretria, Keos and Styra (Artemision and 
Salamis); Kythnos, Seriphos and Siphnos (Salamis only).3 Probably 
most, if not all, initially contributed ships to the League. 

Herodotus lists the Greek contingents in Xerxes' fleet at Doriskos 
(7.93-95): the Dorians of Asia provided 30 triremes, the Karians 70, the 
Ionians 100, the islanders 17 (probably all from the Kyklades), the 
Aiolians 60, the Hellespontines 100. When the fleet moved west to 
Chalkidike it picked up more ships (7.122-23); Herodotus estimates a 
total of 120 (7.185.1). Even if we allow for exaggeration by Herodotus 
the figures are large.4 There is no reason to assume that the Ionian and 

'1TA~V Xlwv Kat AEClf3lwv, .•• (this presumably refers both to ships confiscated by Athens and 
to ships voluntarily surrendered by her allies). For Lesbos, Chios and Samos, cf Arist. 
Ath.Pol. 24.2. For an early attempt to reconstruct the list see E. Agricola, De Aristidis censu 
(Diss. Berlin 1900) 16-26. 

3 Chalkis (or perhaps rather the Athenian cleruchs: cf ATL 1lI.99 n.21) manned 20 tri­
remes provided by Athens; Eretria manned 7 triremes; Keos 2 triremes and 2 pentecon­
ters; Styra 2 triremes; Kythnos 1 trireme and 1 penteconter; Seriphos and Siphnos 1 
penteconter each (Hdt. 8.1.2,46.2-4,48; cf 66.2). All except Seriphos were listed on the 'Ser­
pent Column' (M. N. Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions P [Oxford 1946] no. 19). Cf West 
272-73; ATL m.197-S. Their losses in 480 will not, I think, have made a significant differ­
ence. Aigina possibly a founder-member: D. M. MacDowell,JHS 80 (1%0) 118-21. 

Herodotus' figures for the Greek forces (best interpreted as 'campaign figures') are per­
fectly plausible and are generally accepted. Various views: How and Wells 11.186, 248, 363-
64; K. J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte IP.2 (Berlin 1931) 61-67; J. Labarbe, "Chiffres et 
modes de repartition de la Hotte grecque a l'Artemision et a Sal amine," BCH 76 (1952) 3S4-
441; A. R. Bum, Persia and the Greeks (London 1%2) 381-85,441-43; C. Hignett, Xerxes' In­
vasion afGreece (Oxford 1963) 155-57, 209-10; N. G. L. Hammond, History afGreece! (Ox­
ford 1967) 241; Eddy IS9ff. 

Peparethos also operated at sea at some stage and captured two Karian ships, the spoils 
from which were dedicated at Delphi: IG 12 523 note. 

, DORISKos: Diodorus gives slightly different figures (11.3.7-8): Dorians 40 (including Kos 
and Rhodes), Karians SO (not classed as Greek), Ionians 100 (including Chios and Samos), 
islanders 50, Aiolians 40 (including Lesbos and Tenedos), Hellespontines 80; the ships had 
been built over three years on Xerxes' orders in the coastal territories, including Lykia, 

Karia, Mysia, the Troad, the Hellespontine cities, Bithynia and Pon£us (11.2.1)-did £he 

other Greek states subject to Persia already have enough ships for their quota? Diodorus 
also says that the Greeks provided the men and Xerxes "supplied" (i.e., paid for?) the ships 
(11.3.7; infra n.15); however this may be, the Greeks must have kept any ships which they 
manned and which survived the war. CHALKIDIKE: two groups of cities provided troops and 



DAVID BLACKMAN 181 

Lesbian fleets had not been rebuilt since Lade. Ionians and Aiolians, 
and perhaps Hellespontine Greeks, must have provided ships in 490, 

and losses then were small. 5 In 480 Greek ships will have suffered with 
the rest of the Persian fleet in the storms; their losses in battle may 
have been fewer, but we are guessing here. At least half their ships 
probably survived the campaign.6 There were still Greek contingents 
in Xerxes' fleet in 479, probably not in poor condition like the rest. At 
Mykale many Ionians deserted-the 'second Ionian revolt' according 
to Herodotus (9.105.1). It is reasonable to assume that Greek ships 
were not burnt with the rest of the Persian fleet. After the battle the 

ships: Torone, Galepsos, Sermyle, Mekyberna and Olynthos; Potidaia, Aphytis, Neapolis, 
Aige, Therambos, Skione, Mende and Sane. The 120 ships were provided by "Greeks 
from Thrake and the offshore islands" (i.e., Thasos and Samothrake; cf Hdt. 8.90.2). 

Herodotus' figures (cf. supra n.3): W. W. Tarn, "The Fleet of Xerxes," ]HS 28 (1908) 202-
233; How and Wells II.162, 211-12, 363-66; Beloch, op.cit. (supra n.3) 67-70; Burn, op.cit. 
(supra n.3) 330-32, 440; Hignett, op.cit. (supra n.3) 172, 209, 345-50; Hammond, op.cit. 
(supra n.3) 229; Morrison and Williams 136--37, 140, 151-52, 160. Estimates of the actual 
numbers of triremes vary between Hdt:s figure 1207 (13271) and 600. Six hundred seems 
too low, unless one rejects the high losses in the storms; and would not Herodotus' figures 
for Greek contingents have been based on more reliable information than the rest? I do not 
think we are justified in lowering these figures by as much as half. 

S Gomme was clearly wrong, for once, to argue that not many Ionian cities had any ships 
to contribute after 479 (II.272, 279; sic also G. Busolt, Griechische Geschichte III [Gotha 1897] 78 
and n.l); cf ATL IIU9l n.24; Eddy 186. The most powerful Greek states at sea in the sixth 
century had been the Ionians, and Thuc. 1.14 does seem to underestimate the naval forces 
of East Greece in the years before Salamis: C. Roebuck, CP 48 (1953) 10--11, 15 n.7. Ionians, 
Aiolians and Hellespontine Greeks had provided the core, if not all of Darius' fleet for his 
Skythian campaign (Hdt. 4.83, 89). Artaphernes raised a fleet of 200 ships from the Ionians 
and Aiolians in 499 (Hdt. 5.32). There were probably Greek ships in the Persian fleet in 492, 
and some must have been lost off Athos (Hdt. 6.43-4). In 491 Darius ordered his 'maritime 
tributary cities' to build warships and horse-transports (Hdt. 6.48.2); this presumably in­
cluded Greek states subject to Persia, now including many islands, e.g., Samos (6.25), Chios, 
Lesbos, Tenedos (6.31) and Thasos (6.48.1). Greek contingents may have had to join the 
fleet in Cilicia, but more probably at Samos (6.95, 98.1); some may have been picked up 
later (e.g., the Parians: cf 6.133.1). On stereotyped fleet figures, see Hignett, op.cit. (supra 
n.3) 347-48; one should not push this argument too far, e.g., in dismissing all figures of600 
or 200. 

6 STORMS: Hdt. gives the losses as 400 and 200 triremes (7.188-91, cf 236; 8.7,13). Opinions 
vary on the reliability of his information: e.g., Hignett rejects the latter story, but accepts 
that nearly 200 out of a total fleet of 600 triremes were lost off Magnesia, op.cit. (supra n.3) 
172-75,386--92; others accept the latter story and higher total losses, e.g., Labarbe, op.cit. 
(supra n.3) 395ff; Burn, op.cit. (supra n.3) 331, 395-99; Morrison and Williams 136. The 
Greeks will have known Aegean weather. LOSSES IN BATTLE: we have no reliable figures for 
the whole Persian fleet, let alone individual contingents. At Artemision Greek losses on the 
Persian side may have occurred only on the third day, but losses that day were heavy 
(8.16.3); Salamis: cf n.47 infra. 



182 THE ATHENIAN NAVY AND ALLIED CONTRIBUTIONS 

Samians, Chians, Lesbians and the 'other islanders' joined the Hellen­
ic League.' 

Ionian and Hellespontine allies helped the Athenians in the siege of 
Sestos (winter 479/8). They clearly had their own ships, for each sailed 
home separately. By 478/7, when the new league was founded, they 
could have built more ships since 479. It is clear that the Ionians were 
most eager for the new league to be formed and for Athens to become 
its ~Y€fUlJV.8 We must not forget this enthusiasm; many states with 
even small numbers of ships may have wished, at least for a time, to 
contribute actively by providing ships and taking part in campaigns. 
The Athenians were left to decide which states should provide ships 
and which money and, briefed by Aristides, will have taken these feel­
ings into account. 

With this in mind we may attempt a conjectural list of the initial 
contributors of ships who had once fought on the Persian side. Certain 
are Lesbos, Chios and Samos; almost certain, Thasos. From the islands 
we m.ay add Naxos, som.e of whose ships deserted to the Greek side at 

Salamis, probably Tenos and Lemnos and perhaps Andros and 
Paros;9 of the Ionians from the mainland of Asia Minor Erythrai, Mile-

? Ionian ships in Persian fleet at Samos: Hdt. 8.130.2; Samians report that the barbarians' 
ships are in poor condition: 9.90.3; Greek desertions at Mykale: 9.103.2, 104; acceptance into 
Hellenic League: 9.106.4. The "islanders" must have included many of the Kyklades, e.g., 
Mykonos, Paros and possibly Andros, also perhaps the Dorian islands and some in the 
northern Aegean, e.g., Thasos, Samothrake, Lemnos and Tenedos (Gomme 1.257; ATL III. 
188-90). The Dorians, Ionians and Aiolians of the mainland joined the Athenian League at 
its foundation or very soon afterwards. Even in the latter case they could surely have opted 
to contribute ships, and may therefore be included in our consideration; cf Hignett, op.cit. 
(supra n.3) 261-62. 

8 Sestos: Thuc. 1.89.2; Diod. 11.37.4: "the Ionians and the islanders." Allied ships took 
part in naval operations in 478. Thucydides' words imply they were from the Aegean 
(1.94.1: contrasted with 20 from the Peloponnese; cf Plut. Arist. 23.4; but cf Diod. 11.44.2). 
Allies urging Athens: Thuc. 1.95.1, "especially the Ionians and the other Greeks recently 
freed from Persian rule"; Pluto Arist. 23.4, "especially the Chians, Samians and Lesbians." 
Enthusiasm: I see no reason to doubt it; cf Gomme 1.294; McGregor (infra n.14) 20; contra 
R. Sealey in Ancient Society and Institutions, Studies presented to V. Ehrenberg (Oxford 1966) 
242-48; M. H. Chambers is doubtful, CW 62 (1968/69) 247-48 (a good brief discussion of 
recent work on the foundation of the League). 

9 NAXOS: four ships deserted, Hdt. 8.46.3; six, Hellanicus; five, Ephorus (Plut. Mor. 
869A-C); see Hignecc, op.cit. (supra n.3) 14. Naxos earlier a major naval power (ATL III.98-99) 

but suffered badly in 490 (Hdt. 6.96). TENOS: reinforcements to Xerxes at Phaleron, nature 
uncertain (Hdt. 8.66.2-67.1); one ship deserted before Salamis (Hdt. 8.82.1). Listed on 'Ser­
pent Column', like Naxos. ANDROS: reinforcements to Xerxes at Phaleron; later neutral, 
probably until after Mykale (Hdt. 8.108.1; 111-12). PAROS: neutral in 480; contingent left 
behind by Persians at Kythnos. already suspect (Hdt. 8.67.1); joined Greek side soon after 



DAVID BLACKMAN 183 

tos, Myous, Phokaia, Priene, Teos and perhaps Klazomenai.10 About 
the Dorians from Asia Minor we can be less certain, but the cities of 
Rhodes are likely; perhaps also Halikarnassos, Iasos, Knidos and Kos.u 
From the Hellespont, Bosporos and Propontis we may reasonably add 
Abydos, Byzantion, Kalchedon and Kyzikos,l2 and from the north­
western Aegean some of the cities of Chalkidike: probably Akanthos 
and Potidaia and perhaps Mende, Skione and Torone,13 

The original arrangements 
We may assume, then, that originally a fairly large number of states 

provided ships, in some cases only small contingents. Very probably 
a monetary value was placed on ship contributions at the very start. 
This seems the only satisfactory explanation of Thucydides' statement 
(1.96.2) that Aristides' first assessment of the 4>opo~ of the League 
amounted to 460 talents, in view of the much lower actual figures for 
tribute known from the later quota lists, when the League had ex­
panded and many states which had originally contributed ships had 
already commuted to payment of tribute. Aristides clearly assessed 
each state in monetary terms first, and then on his recommendation 
the Athenians decided which states should contribute ships and which 
money. Only if contribution of ships was given a monetary equivalent 
could it be properly equated with payment of tribute and the assess­
ments accepted as fair by the allies, as they clearly were. Also, when 
allies did later change to payment of tribute there clearly was an ac-

Salamis (Hdt. 8.112.2); a prosperous island because of its marble quarries. LEMNos: one ship 
deserted after first battle at Artemision (Hdt. 8.11.3; cf. 82.2). See ATL 111.189-90, 197-99,242. 
Another possible: SAMOTHRAKE (cf Hdt. 7.185.1; 8.90.2). 

10 All these provided ships at Lade, except Klazomenai (already occupied by the Persians: 
Hdt. 5.123), contributing 8,80,3,3,12 and 17 triremes respectively: Hdt. 6.7-8, whose fig­
ures seem plausible (Burn, op.cit. [supra n.3] 209-10; Eddy 189ft) See also ATL III.l99-203; 
Roebuck, loc.cit. (supra n.5). I follow ATL in assuming a large initial membership; contra, 
most recently, Sealey, loc.cit. (supra n.8); see also N. G. L. Hammond,jHS 87 (1967) 41-61. 

11 See ATL III.208-13, 242; Hdt.'s figure for Artemisia's contingent (5 ships: 7.99.2) is re­
markably low. 

12 See ATL III.204-07, 242; one may ignore the brief loss of Byzantion in 477. Other pos­
sibles are Lampsakos, Perinthos and Selymbria. 

13 Cf n.4 supra. The revolt of Pallene, led by Potidaia, after Salamis: Hdt. 8.126-29, cf 
9.28.3. There seems no reason to doubt that Potidaia had ships; Akanthos had a good har­
bour used by the Persians as a base in 492 and 480 (Hdt. 6.44.2; 7.115.2-116); cf ATL III.222-
23 and generally 214-23. Skyllias the diver was surely serving on a Skionian ship (Hdt. 8.8). 
Other possibles are Argilos and Mekyberna. 



184 THE ATHENIAN NAVY AND ALLIED CONTRIBUTIONS 

cepted monetary equivalent for their earlier contribution of ships 
(Thuc. 1.99.3).14 

Aristides may have based his assessments of individual cities, at 
least the Ionian, on the survey of Persian territory carried out by Arta­
phernes after the Ionian Revolt. This was in cash terms; all subjects of 
Persia had to pay tribute and also perform military service when 
called upon. This for maritime states would usually mean naval ser­
vice, and the obligation seems to have included provision of ships; but 
we cannot be sure that in the Persian system there was a fixed equa­
tion between money and ships.I5 

What was the equation established by Aristides ? Eddy has plausibly 
argued that the monetary equivalent of one ship provided was one 
talent of tribute. At that time one talent was roughly the cost of 
building and probably also equipping a trireme. Later in the century 
the cost had probably risen considerably. We cannot be sure that the 
equation remained the same; if it did, then the financial obligations 
of ship-contributing allies were probably increasing conSiderably in 
comparison with those of tributary allies, which did not markedly in­
crease during the Pentecontaetia. This would be a good reason for 
ship-contributing allies to change to payment of tribute.I6 

a ATL 111.235-37; M. F. McGregor, "Athenian Policy at Home and Abroad," Semple Lec­
tures (Cincinnati, Nov. 1967) 15-32; Hammond, op.cit. (supra n.10) 54; Eddy 184-89. Contra 
M. H. Chambers, "460 Talents," CP 53 (1958) 26-32: .p6pos refers to money only, and the 
figure 460 is a mistake by Thucydides . .p6pos in Thuc. 1.96.2 and 2.13.3 does seem to include 
a valuation of the ships contributed, though it is true that elsewhere Thuc. uses .p6pos to 
mean money only (as Eddy admits, 187) and even money as distinct from ships (e.g., 7.57.4, 
57.5). Chambers (29) points out that no assessment list or quota list mentions ships or a 
money equivalent of ships; but there would be no question of giving one sixtieth of (the 
value of?) a trireme to the goddess, even if this were a meaningful operation to the officials 
concerned, since the allies did not hand over their ships each year as the tributary allies 
handed over their money, but kept them for later use. There must have been some form 
of naval records in the League archives, perhaps only in perishable form; nothing has sur­
vived on stone. 

16 Artaphernes' assessments: Hdt. 6.42; cf How and Wells 11.78-79; contra O. Murray, 
'''0 apxa"ios 8aupAls," Historia 15 (1966) 142-56, restating the case that Hdt. refers to a con­
tinuing claim of tribute by the Persian King. Tribute: Hdt. 3.90; ships and military service: 
supra nn.4-5. Note however Diodorus' remark (11.3.7) that Xerxes "proVided the ships" 
or perhaps rather "covered the cost of the ships": T<X 8~ uKat/>1] TOV fJau,}.Ews XOp1JYoWros. 
Was it therefore beyond the subjects' obligations to pay for the ships, though they might 
be called upon to build them? Earlier example of Aristides' military assessments: the 
Covenant of Plataea, if authentic, Pluto Arist. 21.1. 

16 The equation: Eddy 189-95. Gomme (11.33 n.1) refers to a suggestion that the equation 
was 1 trireme = 3 talents, because a large proportion of tributes from the larger cities of the 
League was 3 talents or a multiple or fraction of 3, rather than 5 or 10. The latter point has 



DAVID BLACKMAN 185 

The allies would not have expected shipbuilding costs, however, to 
be their main annual expense; they kept the ships from year to year 
and may have regarded them as a fairly permanent asset. They would 
lose some in storm or battle and would have to replace them, but 
money spent on this would go to their own citizens, and shipbuilding 
and provision of equipment would be a useful source of employment. 
The maritime cities had mostly built warships before; they must have 
had the facilities and skilled workmen, and it made good sense to use 
them. 

Andocides (3.38) says that Athens provided ships for some allied 
states which did not possess them, perhaps for smaller states without 
shipbuilding facilities. Athens above all now had the facilities and 
skilled workmen. It was to her advantage for as much shipbuilding as 
possible to be carried out at Piraeus, for it would be financially re­
warding for Athenians (the allies must have had to pay for these ships) 
and helpful in securing high and uniform standards of ship construc­
tion and performance. It would have been more convenient adminis­
tratively for Athens if the states concerned changed to tribute 
payment, and no doubt Athens in time encouraged this. The refer­
ence in Andocides is not precisely dated; one would naturally date it 
to the early years of the LeagueP 

What was the total initial assessment of the ship-contributing 
states? One can only conjecture; a maximum figure of 200 ships seems 
reasonable. Athens too will have had an assessment, perhaps as high 
as 150 ships.Is 

some force, though one may adduce against it some tribute figures of states which prob­
ably Originally contributed ships: Milews 10 talents, Chalkis 5, Kos 5, Akanthos probably 5 
at first appearance, Mende 8, not to mention anlOunts of 1 or 2 talents. But surely the reason 
for this phenomenon is the nature of the currency system used. Cost of trireme: Arist. Ath. 
Pol. 22.7; Polyaenus, Strat. 1.30.6; A. M. Andreades, History of Greek Public Finance I (Cam­
bridge [Mass.] 1933) 322 n.6; J. I. Armstrong, The Trierarchy and the Tribal Organization of the 
Athenian Navy (Diss. Princeton 1949) 23 n.ll; J. Labarbe, La Loi navale de Themistocle (Paris 
1957) 44 n.l. Laharhe argues that in 480 one talent would have covered the cost of equip­
ment also. lowe the last suggestion to Mr Alan Hall. 

17 It is possible but not likely that this is a confused reminiscence of the provision of 20 
ships by Athens to Chalkis in 480 (the 'Chalkidians' of Hdt. 8.1.2 may have been Athenian 
cleruchs, cf n.3 supra). One should not lightly disITliss or ignore inforITlation in the speech 
of Andocides, as is often done. The chronology may he confused or vague (here the chrono­
lOgical context is the 85 years of the Athenian Empire) but the factual information is not 
necessarily wrong; cf pp.208ff infra; HaITlmond, op.cit. (supra n.lO) 54-55. The naval refer­
ences in Andoc. 3.37-38 are ignored in the recent edition by U. Albini (1964); cf p.194 infra. 

18 Hammond, op.cit. (supra n.10) 54, 58, argues that the total assessment of ships was 300 



186 THE ATHENIAN NAVY AND ALLIED CONTRIBUTIONS 

The obligations of the ship-contributing states 
These states had to provide ships for the League fleet annually, or 

at least when called upon by the ~YEfLclJV, Athens (infra, pp.193f). Their 
assessed contributions were the maximum, not the normal, require­
ment. They had to man the ships with their own citizens, perhaps 
supplemented by hired rowers and slaves; there were slaves in Chi an 
ships in 412 (Thuc. 8.15.2), but'Chios may not have been typical, and 
the situation may have been unusual even for Chios. The conscripted 
foreign rowers in the fleet at Syracuse (Thuc. 7.13.2) were most prob­
ably rowers conscripted by the allied states which provided ships for 
that expedition, to row in their ships, not in Athenian ships. Whether 
allied states had earlier used conscription to man their ships we do not 
know, but it is likely. 

Payment of crews during periods of service would be the main ex­
pense facing allied states contributing ships. The periods would vary 
in length, and the resulting expense in money, let alone in ships and 
men's lives, might be high; but the pay was mainly if not entirely 
going to their own citizens. A long season probably meant active cam­
paigning rather than routine patrols, and this gave greater hope of 
booty to offset expenditure. Athens clearly did give a share of the 
booty to her allies, almost certainly only to those who had shared in 
the campaign. These may well have expected to cover their costs as a 
result; this was probably the case in the early years, at least until after 
Eurymedon and perhaps until the early 450'S.19 

Expenditure of League funds 
Were any League funds spent on the League fleet in the early years? 

This is a difficult problem to which no certain answer can be given, 
since all depends on two highly controversial questions: what amounts 
of money were paid as tribute in the years 477-454/3 or 477-450/49, 

and that Athens contributed one half; but this does not necessarily follow from Thuc. 
1.99.2 and 3.10.4 (&?TO 'TOU tuov). 

19 Chios: possessed more slaves than any other Greek state except Sparta in 412 (Thuc. 
8.40.2); had suffered heavy losses of ships and tnen in Sicily, and the ships tnay have been 

easier to replace than the crews (cf 0.46 infra). Foreign rowers at Syracuse: (Nicias' letter) 
0; t€VO' 0; f'EV avayKaU'TOL €u{3d.V'T£S as opposed to 0; 8E thrO f'ey&.>.ov p.tu(}ov 'TO ?TPW'TOV €?Tap­

(NV7'£s ••• ; the latter clearly rowed in Athenian ships, and perhaps allied ships also, if. 
Dover ad lac.; but there is no evidence that Athens could demand crews for her ships from 
allied cities (Gomme 1.372). BOOty: Pluto Cimon 9.2-3; cf 13.5-7. ATL lll.237-38. 



DAVID BLACKMAN 187 

and what was the accumulated reserve in 454/3 or 450/49? ATL argued 
that almost all the tribute went into the reserve and "little, if any, 
was used for current expenses" (p.238); but elsewhere A TL suggested 
that as the amount of tribute increased, because ship-contributing 
states changed to tribute payment, some or all of the extra money 
was paid to Athens, to build extra ships to maintain the size of the 
League fleet and to pay the crews to man them; thus gradually the 
Athenian fleet was more and more supported by League funds­
later, by the 440's, probably completely so. It is possible that some 
money was given to allied states, especially those with considerable 
fleets, to provide ships in addition to their assessed number.20 

Besides this some money must have been spent on campaigns-the 
main activity of the League and the main purpose of its foundation 
(Thuc. 1.96.1). It would have been reasonable, for example, to cover 
from League funds the cost of replacing Athenian and allied ships lost 
during campaigns (such losses could not be budgeted for, and could be 
considered a League responsibility), as opposed to those which be­
came unserviceable after a full 'natural life'. 

Changes to tribute payment 

When and why did most of the ship-contributing states change to 

tribute payment? Thucydides refers to the changes (1.99) after his 
brief mention of the revolt ofNaxos and before describing the Eurym­
edon campaign. But we cannot draw precise chronological conclu­
sions from this, for the preceding sentence (1.98.4) passes from the 
revolt of Naxos to the other revolts which followed, probably over a 
period of several decades, and it is these revolts which Thucydides sets 
out to explain in 1.99.21 Some states may have changed to tribute pay­
ment very early, probably distant states making small contributions 
which were more trouble than they were worth, but the more im­
portant changes probably came after Eurymedon. 

Thucydides 1.99 has been well discussed by ATL (III. 244-52). He 
clearly refers to actual reluctance to go on actual campaigns, which 

20 F. B. Marsh, Modern Problems in the Ancient World (Austin 1943) 36-37; ATL III.89, 229, 
237-38, 248-52, but their figures are far from certain. More study is needed of this aspect of 
the subject. Athenian crews paid from tribute: Pluto Cimon 11.2; Athenian ships: Thuc. 
1.99.3. Tribute used for pay: Just. Bpit. 3.6.4. 

21 Cf West 270: «466-440." On the graduality of the change see Thuc. 1.19 (supra n.2). 



188 THE ATHENIAN NAVY AND ALLIED CONTRIBUTIONS 

led the majority of the ship-contributing states "to accept an assess­
ment by which they were to pay, instead of the ships (which they had 
previously contributed), a corresponding sum of money." He is look­
ing back after a series of actual experiences.22 

There is a curious paradox in the chapter: Thucydides does not 
seem to give the reasons for the revolts (as he announced), but the 
reasons for the changes to tribute payment and for the failure of the 
revolts. He does not make clear why, after changing to what they 
must have thought a less burdensome form of contribution, the states 
nevertheless revolted. For our purposes, though, he is clear enough: 
the allies gave up contributing ships because the exacting demands of 
Athens and the service away from home became an increasing bur­
den. They may well have been in financial difficulties and hoped that 
tribute would prove an easier burden. One may suppose that this 
hope proved false in some cases, resulting in cpopwv EK(}£tCl£ and 
eventually revolt. 

Plutarch also gives an account of the changes (Cimon 11): the allies 
did not meet their obligations in providing men and ships (a clear 
reference to land warfare also), though there was no defaulting over 
tribute payment-on this Plutarch differs from Thucydides. They 
wanted to live at peace now that the Persian threat was gone (this im­
plies a context after Eurymedon). The other Athenian generals tried 
to make the allies meet their obligations, punished those who did not 
and thus made the Athenian Empire unpopular; but Cimon when 
general applied no compulsion and accepted money instead of active 
service, and <empty ships', that is, ships without crews, thus letting the 
allies become soft and unwarlike and no match for the Athenians, 
whom he trained in a vigorous naval training programme.23 

Plutarch gives no explicit indication of date, but he makes Cimon a 

II 1.99.3. ATL is surely right (Ill.246-47) to refer ETa[CWTo to later changes to tribute pay­
ment (which is clearly how Plutarch understood Thucydides), rather than to decisions 
made in 477, as Busolt, op.at. (supra n.5) Ill.78 and Gomme 1.283. Gomme unjustifiably be­
littles the allies' contribution to the League fleet in the early years (e.g., 1.279 n.2); Thucyd­
ides' words in 1.99.2 imply an earlier period when Athens was popular and there was 
genuine co-operation and enthusiasm over campaigns (cf. 3.10.4). 

13 On this chapter see West 271-72; Gomme 1.284-86; ATL Ill.244-52; R. Meiggs, "The 
Crisis of Athenian Imperialism," HSCP 67 (1%3) 7. The question of Plutarch's sources is a 
vexed one. He certainly used good historical sources other than Thucydides, e.g., Hellanicus. 
One can see here traces of a conventional picture, deriving perhaps from a later period, but 
there is no reason to doubt his information about what actually happened, as opposed to 
his references to personalities. Jrij~s lC€Val: if. esp. Thuc. 2.90.6; 4.14.1; 8.19.3. 



DAVID BLACKMAN 189 

key figure in persuading the allies to change to tribute payment. If this 
is correct, we may assume a date for Cimon's proposal before his loss 
of prestige over Thasos, that is, the mid 460' s, or after his return from 
exile and before his departure for Cyprus and his death, that is 451-50 
(or possibly 457-45O-cf infra, p.209 and n.SS; in this case the chrono­
logical limits are very wide). The attribution of the key role to Cimon, 
however, is not certain. Suspicion is raised by several points: first, 
Cimon's mildness is contrasted with the harshness of the other gener­
als and combined awkwardly with his underlying cunning.24 Earlier 
in the life Plutarch had contrasted Cimon's mildness with Pausanias' 
arrogance (a rhetorical element here), and made it play an important 
part in winning over the allies in the first place. In his life of Aristides 
Plutarch ascribes the leading role on this occasion to Aristides.25 Sec­
ondly, Plutarch in his life of Pericles ascribed the naval training 
programme to Pericles.26 One may suspect that Plutarch inflated the 
role of his present subject of study for what may charitably be called 
artistic purposes. 

Personalities apart, however, Plutarch adds, besides rhetorical col­
our, some useful information, notably the references to 'empty ships' 
and naval training, which is clearly not derived merely from an intel­
ligent reading of Thucydides (as, for example, the reference to the 
removal of the Persian threat may be). 

From our sources, then, we may conclude that Athens' allies were 
increasingly reluctant to continue active campaigning abroad, once 
the threat from Persia had gone and the prospects of recouping costs 
from booty had diminished. The expedition to Cyprus in 460 may 
well have been popular and perhaps also, at least initially, the involve­
ment in Egypt. But this involvement was a long one and the allies lost 

24 For Cimon's cunning. however, cf. Cimon 9.2-4. a story which Plutarch ascribes to Ion 
of Chi os. 

25 Pluto Cimon 6.2-3 emphasizes Cimon's role as colleague of Aristides much more than 
Arist. 23.1-3; in the account of the foundation of the League (Arist. 23.4-24) Cimon is not 
mentioned at all. cf. Arist. Ath.Pol. 23.4-5. It may be doubted whether Cimon could have 
been general as early as 478: Burn. op.cit. (supra n.3) 559 n.44. For an example of what may 
be a reverse anachronism see Pluto Arist. 25.3: Plutarch ascribes to Aristides a comment on 
the proposal made by the Samians, doubtless in the League Synod, to transfer the League 
treasury to Athens; but Aristides was long since dead in 454. It is possible, however. that 
such a proposal had been made earlier. during Aristides' lifetime, and not adopted; see 
ATLill.262, P. Salmon, La politique egyptienne d'Athenes (Brussels 1965) 185-86. 

26 Pluto Per. 11.4; see S. K. Eddy, "Athens' Peacetime Navy in the Age of Pericles." GRBS 
9 (1968) 141-56. I hope to discuss the training programme in a subsequent article. 



190 THE ATHENIAN NAVY AND ALLIED CONTRIBUTIONS 

ships and men.27 Involvement in the war in Greece must also have 
been unpopular; it meant fighting other Greeks for the benefit of 
Athens only and probably offered little prospect of booty.28 Three 
years of peace after 454 may have given them a taste for inactivity. A 
call to arms in 451/0, even if made by Cimon and directed against Per­
sia, may well not have evoked an enthusiastic response. 

One contributing factor has, I feel, been overlooked. The majority 
of the ships used by Athens' allies in the 470's and 460's had probably 
been built just before 480, as had Athens', some perhaps as early as 
491.29 These would have served as the core of the allied naval contin­
gents for some years, but they were not a permanent asset. The 
<natural life' of a trireme was probably over 20 years, if it escaped des­
truction or major damage in storm or battle (a big <if') and if it was 
properly looked after.30 The need for regular maintenance was 
known, and there is no reason to doubt that warships received it.31 

Nevertheless, probably by the 460's and certainly by the 450's the 
fleets built around 480 would be suffering considerable natural wast­
age; suddenly over a short period of time a large proportion of the 
allies' ships may have become unserviceable, and replacement would 
involve considerable capital outlay. Some of the larger allied states, 
with maritime interests and good harbours and shipbuilding facilities, 
were no doubt prepared to make up the wastage-indeed they may 
well have had a regular shipbuilding programme throughout, like 
Athens; but for many states this prospect of major capital outlay may 
well have been a vital factor in their decision to change to a clear and 
predictable money payment. 

27 Allied ships in the expedition to Cyprus: Thuc. 1.104.2; allies in the force which stayed 
in Egypt: 1.109.1; allied ships in the relief squadron: 1.110.4; Samian losses in Egypt: W. 
Peek,Klio 32(1939) 289-306 (the monument to Hegesagoras). The losses in Egypt were prob­
ably not overwhelming: infra p.198. 

28 There is an indication of these feelings in Pluto Cimon 18.1; cf West 271-72. There were 
allied ships in the sea battles against Aigina (Thuc. 1.105.2), but perhaps not at Halieis or 
Kekryphaleia; cf R. Meiggs,jHS 63 (1943) 22. 

29 Supra pp.180-81 and nn.3-5. 
30 See appendix; the average life of a trireme, allowing for premature losses, was prob­

ably under 20 years. 
31 For example, the importance of drying out ships regularly by drawing them up a 

beach, or preferably a slipway, was already known: Hdt. 7.59.3, the Persian fleet beached 
at Doriskos for drying out-this was perhaps the reason why the Persian ships sailed better 
than the Greek in 480. Covered slipways or 'shipsheds' were known in Greece already in 
Polycrates' time: Hdt. 3.45.4; cf. Morrison and Williams 134-35, 181-86. By the 470's most 
maritime states in the Aegean probably had some for their warships. 



DAVID BLACKMAN 191 

The C absentees' 

A. B. West first noted the absence of a number of allied states from 
the quota lists of the first period (454-50). He argued that this must be 
due not to the accident of preservation but to the fact that they were 
still contributing ships; also that they all appear in the quota lists of 
the second period because they had all been persuaded by Cimon in 
450 to pay money instead. West accepted Plutarch's attribution of the 
key role to Cimon and argued that the only plausible historical con­
text is after Cimon's return from exile (which he dates to 451), that is, 
during Cimon's preparations for his campaign to Cyprus.32 ATL 
adopted and developed the argument, suggesting a longer list of 14 
states still providing ships in the late 450' s (besides Lesbos, Chios and 
Samos, which never commuted): Akanthos, Andros, Chalkis, Eretria, 
Hestiaia, lasos, Keos, Kythnos, Paros, Potidaia, Seriphos, Siphnos, 
Styra and Tenos. Following a suggestion made earlier by Wade-Gery 
they emphasized that most of the states were islands, situated, 
within a certain radius from Piraeus and convenient for collecting a 
fleet.33 

Some of this group, however, seem too unimportant to have con­
tinued so long to provide ships. The contributions of Kythnos, Seri­
phos, Siphnos and Styra at Salamis were small; they may well have 
contributed ships to the League fleet initially, but if we may judge 
from the amounts of tribute which they paid later, the number of 
ships contributed would have been small. It seems unlikely that they 
had not commuted before the late 450's, but this is inevitably a sub­
jective judgement.34 The same may be said of the three states distant 
from Athens: Akanthos, lasos and Potidaia. Their contributions, es­
pecially that of lasos, would not have been large; certainly, I think, 
not large enough to compensate for the inconvenience of distance.35 

32 Supra n.l. His list was Chalkis, Eretria, Keos, Kythnos, Naxos, Potidaia, Seriphos, Siph­
nos, Styra, Tenos and (tentatively) Andros and Hestiaia. His arguments against a context in 
the 46O's have. however, been refuted, e.g., by Meiggs, loc.cit. (supra n.23). 

33 ATL lli.249-50, 267-68; Wade-Gery, Hesperia 14 (1945) 219-20. 
34 Contributions at Salamis: supra n.3. Tribute amounts: Kythnos 3 talents (List 5JV.27); 

Seriphos 2 talents in 451/0 (List 4.1.20), 1 talent in 448/7 (List. 7.N.2) and later; Siphnos 3 
talents (List 5.IV.20); Styra 1 talent (List 5.IV.28). I doubt whether Hestiaia ever contributed 
ships to the League; if she did, the argument applies to her a fortiori, for her tribute in the 
second period was only 1,000 drachmai (List 8.11.36). 

This is Gomme's second objection to West's theory (1.286); Chalkis, however, may have 
built ships after 480, if she did not keep the 20 ships provided by Athens then (but cf. n.3). 

35 Akanthos paid 5 talents in 450/49 (List 5.lli.34, figure restored), 3 talents in 446/5 (List 
2-G.R.B.S. 



192 THE ATHENIAN NAVY AND ALLIED CONTRIBUTIONS 

Must we assume a single explanation for all the absences? On 
West's criteria Naxos should be included in the list. Perhaps it should; 
if not, the point is demonstrated.36 Disaffection may have been the 
cause of some of the absences, but not, I think, of al1.37 

One of West's basic points, however, remains likely, that the im­
pulse for the last major change to tribute payment was provided by 
the preparations (451/0) for Cimon's expedition to Cyprus. Plutarch's 
attribution of a key role to Cimon may still be correct, and it is not 
true that there was no time for Cimon to have acted thus in 451/0 and 
still produced a fleet for the campaign of 450.38 Allies who still contrib­
uted ships (at least nominally, for they may not have been called on 
to do so for several years) could have been approached in 451 concern­
ing the proposed campaign and required to promise a naval contin­
gent or pay money instead; if they wished, they could hand over ships 
that were still seaworthy (Plutarch's 'empty ships') for which they 
would receive money or perhaps rather credit against tribute. There 
is no need to assume that many ships belonging to allied states were 
left in home waters in 450, and it would not have been beyond Athens' 
capabilities to build enough ships to make up any shortage and to or­
ganize crews to man them.39 Athens probably carried out a major 
shipbuilding programme at this time (infra, p.2IO), and though some 
allied states were not willing to participate in the campaign, many of 
their citizens with experience as rowers may have been willing and 
eager to serve in Athenian ships as hired rowers. 

9.II.29) and later; Potidaia 6 talents-she does not appear in the lists until 446/5 or 445/4 
(List 9.III.7, restored; 10.11.4); lasos 1 talent (List 5.V.21). 

36 Gomme's first objection (1.286); cf pp.l99fin!ra. 
37 This argument has been put most forcefully by Meiggs, op.cit. (supra n.23) 6-9; H. 

Nesselhauf, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der delisch-attischen Symmachie (Klio Beiheft 30, 
1933) 12-13. One can only explain Thuc. 1.99 on this assumption, that there were revolts 
and disaffection in this period. Gomme's suggestion (1.278), that the absentees were paying 
tribute direct to Athenian officers of squadrons stationed in the area, should be rejected; 
we should expect the quotas to be paid to Athena nevertheless, and the amounts recorded 
(cf ATL III.265ff). 

38 Sic ATL rightly (III.250), against Gomme (1.286, objection 3) and Meiggs,jHS 63 (1943) 
31. 

39 Pluto Cimon 11.2: XP7/p.aTa 8~ Aap.{Javwv napa TWV ou {JovAOP.tvwv crrpaTf!Uf!u(Jat l(a1 vav, 

l(f!JJa" ••• Credits may be the reason why some of the absentees do not appear in the 
quota lists until 450/49 or later. For it is unlikely that allies could only change to tribute 
payment at the time of a reassessment. Alternatively, perhaps, money paid in lieu of ser­
vice in 451/0 may not have been counted as tribute. ATL III.246 n.9 seems to argue that 
Plutarch says that the allies regularly provided 'empty ships', but this was surely a once-



DAVID BLACKMAN 193 

The later years 

After 450 we may assume that only Lesbos, Chios and Samos con­
tinued to provide ships regularly for the League Fleet; after 440/39 
only Lesbos and Chios, and after 427 only Methymna and Chios. We 
should not, however, assume that all other allied states gave up all 
their warships if they voluntarily changed to tribute payment. We 
know only that this happened if they revolted (infra, p.l99). Some of 
the larger maritime states may well have kept a few warships, and we 
must not exclude the possibility that occasionally they may have sent 
them on a campaign with the Athenians. This is specifically attested 
for 415, when Rhodes sent two penteconters as well as 700 slingers on 
the Sicilian expedition. Thucydides speaks of 34 ships provided by 
"Chios and the other allies." Who were the "other allies"? Just Me­
thymna and Kerkyra ? Or should one allow for one or two other trib­
utary or non-tributary allies? We cannot be sure. 

Tributary allies had an obligation of military service under Athens' 
command. This usually meant service on land, but in certain circum­
stances naval service may have been allowed as an alternative or par­
tial alternative.40 

Mustering and organizing the League fleet 
We have very little information about the way in which the League 

fleet was mustered and organized. Clearly Athens as ~'Y€fLWV was 

only operation. Fast shipbuilding was perfectly feasible in winter 451/0: cf J. Taillardat in 
Problemes de la guerre en Grece ancienne, ed. J.-P. Vernant (Paris 1968) 184-85. 

40 Rhodian penteconters: Thuc. 6.43 (but the earlier assessments of ship-contributing 
states had probably been in terms of triremes only). Thuc. 2.9.5 says that of Athens' allies 
only Chios, Lesbos and Kerkyra contributed ships at the beginning of the Pe1oponnesian 
War, but this must refer to regular contributions. Other non-tributary allies of Athens be­
sides Kerkyra may occasionally have provided ships, especially for expeditions to the west, 
e.g., Zakynthos, Kephallenia and the Messenians of Naupaktos (cf Thuc. 2.25.1; 4.9.1). Eddy 
(193) only allows for contributions by Chios and Methymna in 415, and therefore probably 
overrates their contributions; cf n.46 infra. 

IG 12 22, lines 10-16 appear to refer to a Milesian obligation to provide soldiers, also pos­
Sibly to make a naval contribution (line 10), but the inscription is very fragmentary; cf p.20l 
and n.66. Inscription normally dated to 450/49: ATL II, 011; III.256; cf J. H. Oliver, TAPA 
66 (1935) 177-98. But Mattingly, referring to Thuc. 4.42.1, suggests 426/5 (Historia 10 [1961J 
176); see, however, Meiggs, op.cit. (supra n.23) 25. D. M. Lewis, BSA 49 (1954) 24 n.19, denies 
any reference to Milesian military assistance to Athens. 

At Arginusae there were 10 Samian and some other allied ships: Xen. Hell. 1.6.29. Allies 
supplying troops: Gomme I.315; ATL III.249 n.17; contra Mattingly,loc.cit. 



194 THE ATHENIAN NAVY AND ALLIED CONTRIBUTIONS 

principally responsible for this. In a passage in his speech On the Peace 
which has received little attention, Andocides describes briefly how, 
having secured walls and ships, the Athenians won their empire by 
persuasion, stealth, bribery and force; "by persuasion we arranged 
that the Hellenotamiai should be appointed at Athens to control the 
common funds, that the fleet should gather at Piraeus and that such 
states as possessed no ships should be supplied with them by us. "41 

The chronology of the passage as a whole is vague: the first clause 
quoted could refer to 454 rather than 477; the second may well refer 
to the same period, but this cannot be proved. Clearly at some stage 
the Athenians secured the mustering of the allied contingents at 
Piraeus. Previously it may normally have been at Delos, but Delos did 
not have such good harbour facilities at this period nor such protected 
anchorages. Athens thus also had a specious case for the move to 

Piraeus, especially when she was providing a larger and larger share of 
the total League fleet. 42 But a date early in the League's existence is 
not excluded, in which case there may have been no regular muster­
ing point before Piraeus. 

Most of the states which continued to provide ships were island 
states or cities of the Ionian seaboard, and Wade-Gery has plausibly 
suggested (supra n.33) that Athens was happy for those states to con­
tinue contributing ships who could send their ships quickly to Piraeus, 
as earlier perhaps to Delos, and could be reached quickly if the need 
arose. In an emergency situation near Athens the Athenian fleet was 
large enough to cope on its own. 

Descriptions of actual campaigns during the Pentecontaetia provide 
further evidence, though one cannot be sure that years of major naval 
expeditions were necessarily typical. Plutarch speaks of Cimon setting 
sail from Knidos for the Eurymedon campaign with 200 ships; his 
force included allied contingents, which had probably been ordered 
to muster at Knidos. It would have been senseless to make the allied 
ships come to Piraeus and then set out for the eastern Mediterranean; 
Knidos had good harbour facilities and was a very suitable mustering­
point.43 

u 3.38: 1TEluaY'TES f.L€V ovv • AB~V'l/u, 1To,~uau8a, "TWV KO'VWV XfY'7p.tX."TWV 'EMTJvo"Taf.Llas, Kal "Tdv 

uvMo')lov "TWV VEWV 1Tap' ~f.L"iv ')IEV/uBa" ~ua, 8€ "TWV 1T6'\EWV "TP'~PE'S f.L~ K/K"TT/V"Ta" "TaO-ra,s ~f.Liis 
1Tap/XEw· Cf supra p.185 and n.17; infra pp.208ff and n.86; Hammond, op.dt. (supra n.10) 
54; contra A. G. Woodhead,iRS 79 (1959) 152. 

U Cf supra p.1S7 and n.20. 
II Plutarch's account of the campaign is good and detailed (Cimon 12-13). Only he men-



DAVID BLACKMAN 195 

A similar arrangement may be assumed for the expeditions to Cy­
prus in 460 and 450; on both occasions allies sent ships (Thuc. 1.104.2, 
112.2). When Samos revolted in 440 Athens had to send ships specially 
to Chios and Lesbos to summon help (Thuc. 1.116.1). Does this indi­
cate that there was not yet, or no longer, any requirement of allied 
states to provide ships regularly each year? We cannot be sure, for the 
summons was sent probably in about April 440, and one could reason­
ably argue that the date for them to send their annual squadrons to 

Athens had not yet arrived.44 It seems likely that there had been and 
continued to be such an obligation. The Athenians will have wished to 
ensure that allied crews were well trained and that the combined 
fleet could operate as a unit. We should not assume that each state had 
to send each year the full number of ships for which it was assessed; 
that was the maximum requirement. 

Our only other evidence dates from the Peloponnesian War. For 
example, when Mytilene revolted, probably in late June 428, ten 
Mytilenaean triremes were in Piraeus as {307]fJOL "in accordance with 
the terms of the alliance" ;45 this shows that at least in the war years 
Lesbos had an obligation to provide ships regularly. Ten was probably 
Mytilene's normal obligation-a small squadron for routine service; 
more could of course be called for if necessary for a particular cam­
paign.46 

tions the attack on Phaselis and the intervention of the Chians, and the changes in ship con­
struction. He mentions no subsequent reinforcements. Diodorus' account differs greatly 
(11.60ff): Cimon left Piraeus with 200 ships, summoned 100 more from "the Ionians and all 
the others" and then took more from the newly-won allies (Karian, one presumes). But 
caution is necessary in using Diodorus' account, for he has just said that Cimon called in 
briefly at Piraeus between the Eion campaign (476?) and this one (467 ?), and later he con­
fuses this campaign and that of 450 (infra n,48). 

U Also they were probably called on to supply more ships than usual: 25 (Thuc. 1.116.2) 
plus 30 (1.117.2). Pace Gomme (1.351) the 25 ships may represent the normal annual contrib­
ution of Chios and Lesbos together. If the 25 ships were expected to go to sea soon in any 
case they could be quickly dispatched; the further 30 took more time to prepare. Perhaps 
the 55 ships were the total assessed contributions of the two islands together; Eddy (194) 
assumes a somewhat higher assessment: 35 ships for Chios and 30 for Lesbos, roughly half 
their total numbers of ships. The date: Gomme 1.356, 390. 

46 Thuc. 3.3.4: the ships ;TVXOV fJoTJ8o~ TTapa u.pas (sc. the Athenians) KaTa T6 ~vl-'l-'aX£K6v 

TTapoVUat. The date: Gomme II.252. He also refers (II.254) to Thuc. 8.15.2, an unusual case 
and not exactly parallel: the Athenians called on the Chians to send a squadron as a pledge 
of loyalty (8.9.2) and they sent 7 ships. 

46 Cf n.44. In 430 Chios and Lesbos sent 50 ships to join 100 Athenian (Thuc. 2.56.2). In 
425 four Chian ships went to Zakynthos (4.13.2); in 423 Chios sent 10 ships with the Athen­
ian expedition against Mende and Skione (4.129.2), in 416 six ships against Melos (5.84.1); 



196 THE ATHENIAN NAVY AND ALLIED CONTRIBUTIONS 

II 

Sources of Supply of Ships 

Athens had four main sources during the Pentecontaetia: (1) Cap­
ture of ships in battle; against this one must offset losses of ships in 
battle and storm. (2) Compulsory surrender of ships by allies who had 
revolted and been conquered by Athens. (3) Voluntary surrender of 
ships by allies who were changing from ship-contribution to payment 
of tribute. (4) Shipbuilding at Piraeus; this was obviously the main 
source, but it will be convenient to consider it last. 

Capture of ships and loss of ships by Athens 
I take as a starting point the battle of Salamis, where we know that 

at least ca. 150 and perhaps 180 (+ 20) Athenian triremes took part. 
The Greeks captured "many" Persian ships and destroyed "many 
more" (Hdt.8.96); according to Diodorus (11.19.3) they lost 40 ships, a 
plausible figure. Greek losses will have been more than offset by the 
ships captured and the Athenians must have shared in both.47 At My­
kale there was no naval engagement and the Persian ships were burnt 
on land. 

Until 454 we hear of no major losses of ships by Athens, but several 

but in 415 Chios probably sent some 20 ships to Sicily (6.43). These and a further five (7.20.2) 
were lost, and yet in 412 Chios had 60 ships when she revolted. 

47 200 triremes is the traditional figure for the Athenian fleet in 480; now found in the 
'Themistocles Decree', line 14. It may be the total for the whole campaign rather than the 
total at Salamis. Hdt. 8.18 says that half the Athenian ships at Artemision were damaged. 
Labarbe argues that 70 ships were lost by the Athenians (but that they had 70 more to 
make up a total of 200 again at Salamis). But it seems unlikely that as many as that were a 
total loss at Artemision; in the emergency the Athenians will have kept as many ships 
going as possible, and they may well have manned some of the captured Persian ships with 
Athenians who had survived the loss of their own ships. Labarbe denies that they could 
have done so without adapting them, for which there was no time; certainly under normal 
circumstances captured ships may have been adapted before use, but this was a crisis, and I 
doubt if the differences between triremes from different shipyards were insuperably great. 
See Bum, Hignett, Labarbe (supra n.3) and M. Amit, Athens and the Sea (Coil. Latomus 74, 
Brussels 1965) 20 n.8. Persian ship losses: Hdt. 8.96; Ctesias (FGrHist 688 F 13.30) says 500 lost 
-an exaggeration; Diodorus 11.19.3 says over 200 destroyed besides those captured-more 
plausible. Amit 18-26 and Morrison and Williams 223ff have brief surveys of Athenian 
naval history in the Pentecontaetia. 



DAVID BLACKMAN 197 

major acquisitions by capture. At Eurymedon Athens and her allies 
captured or destroyed 200 Phoenician ships (Thucydides) and des­
troyed the reinforcing squadron of 80 ships; the number captured 
may have been over 100, an important acquisition by Athens, even if 
she gave to her allies some of the ships along with their share of other 
booty.48 We cannot be sure about the quality of the ships captured. 
Soon after Eurymedon Cimon dealt with some small groups of Per­
sians in the Thracian Chersonese and captured 13 ships.49 When 
Thasos revolted (465), he defeated the Thasian fleet and captured 33 
ships (Plut. Cimon 14.2); the rest were later confiscated (infra p.200). In 
460 an Athenian and allied fleet went to Cyprus and Egypt, but we 
have no certain evidence of significant gains or losses before 454.50 
During the war in Greece there were several sea battles. For Kekry­
phaleia we have no information about gains or losses; later Athens 
and her allies fought Aigina and her allies and captured 70 of their 
ships;51 the rest of Aigina's ships were subsequently confiscated (infra 
pp.200-01). 

48 This seems the best interpretation of confused and conflicting evidence: Thuc. 1.100.1, 
€lAov -rPL77p€'S r;PO'V{KWV Ka~ Sd</>(Jnpav T,xS "TraCTas is S,aKoc:r{as, 200 being clearly the total of 
those captured plus those destroyed (cf de Romilly's translation: "ils prirent ou detruisi­
rent ... "); Pluto Cimon 12.8, probably following Callisthenes, says many ships escaped, 
many were destroyed and 200 were captured-the total lost has become the total captured 
(cf Jacoby's note on Phanodemus, FGrHist 325 F 22); Diodorus 11.60-61 cannot be trusted, 
since he has clearly confused this battle with that of 450, to which probably belongs the cap­
ture of 100 ships with crews-based on the last four lines of the 'Eurymedon epigram' (see 
esp. Wade-Gery,JHS 53 [1933] 82-95; W. Peek, HSCP Suppl. 1 [1940] 97-116 and Griechische 
Vers-Inschriften I [Berlin 1955] no.16); the papyrus fragment, probably of Ephorus, is also 
based on the epigram (POxy. 1610; cf Jacoby, FGrHist. 70 F 191, lines 62-77); Lycurg. Leoc. 72 
may follow Ephorus. The 80 Phoenician ships: Pluto Cimon 13.3. See in general Gomme 
1.286-89; J. Barns interpreted very differently the evidence on the Eurymedon campaign, 
the Egyptian expedition and the later expedition to Cyprus, and refers the capture of 100 
ships to an expedition to Cyprus under Cimon's command in 462 (Historia 2 [1953/54] 163-
76). Sharing the captured ships: cf n.50. 

49 Plut. Cimon 14.1; Persian stragglers (Gomme 1.293) or commando groups raiding from 
Doriskos (A TL III.205-06). 

50 Fighting in Cyprus: only evidence is the Erechtheid Casualty List (IG 12 929+ ; Gomme 
1.310-11,412 n.2), 460 or 459. Ctesias (688 F 13.36) says the Athenians defeated in Egypt the 
first Persian squadron of 80 ships, sinking 30 and capturing 20 with their crews; it is not easy 
to evaluate this information. If it is accepted, can we be sure the ships were ever sent away 
from Egypt? The Hegesagoras monument (supra n.27) refers to the Samians capturing 
15(?) Phoenician ships in a sea battle; would the Samians have kept all their prizes, or 
shared them with their allies? We cannot give a certain answer, but it sounds as if they kept 
them; perhaps it was accepted that in operations of the League fleet the captors each kept 
their own prizes (as opposed to the fair sharing of booty from land battles). 

51 Kekryphaleia: Thuc. 1.105.1; Diod. 11.78.2. Aigina: Thuc. (1.105.2) EV[KWV 'A(J7jva'iot Ka~ 



198 THE ATHENIAN NAVY AND ALLIED CONTRIBUTIONS 

In 454 whatever force Athens and her allies had left in Egypt was 
destroyed, with most of the men, and the majority of the relief squad­
ron of 50 ships. I assume that 200 ships went to Egypt in 460, but that 
the majority did not stay, though Thucydides never says that they 
left. For such a large naval force to have stayed seems unnecessary and 
unlikely, and Athens was very active in Greece in the early 450's, at 
sea and on land. At least 50 ships must have stayed in Egypt, perhaps 
more.52 The minimum total loss was therefore 80-90 ships, and that 
was bad enough. 

During the campaign in Cyprus in 450 there was a sea battle. Dio­
dorus says Cimon sank many ships and captured 100 with their crews, 
here as at Eurymedon; this time he may be right. Isocrates gives the 
Athenian losses as 150 ships, but they had only 140 ships in the battle 
and won it; however, the victory may have been Pyrrhic.53 During the 
Samian War we do not hear of the Athenians capturing any Samian 
ships, but only of the destruction and capture of Athenian ships by the 
Samians, who must have handed over those captured, together with 
their own surviving ships, when they finally surrendered.54 

This is not a complete list, inevitably, since our sources are incom-

valis €{380,.l:J]KoVTa Aa{36VTES a.n-wv ls rqv yqv a:,d{3TJuav Ka~ l7TOA,6pKOVV, •.. (he implies that all 
the ships captured were Aiginetan, but this is unlikely); Diod. 11.78.4 refers to the 70 ships 
captured and does not mention allies at all, on either side-a difficulty here. Cf Lys. Z.48. 

52 Thuc. 1.104.Z, 109-10; Diod. 11.77.3: the Athenians themselves burnt their ships to pre­
vent capture. Isoc. 8.86 gives the loss as zoo ships and crews, but this is probably just based 
on his reading of Thucydides and has no independent value; also he has a hostile case to 
argue, for he is trying to show the folly of the demagogues by quoting examples of dis­
asters which occurred during their rule. Fifty is a reasonable estimate for the force left in 
Egypt (ef the relief squadron of 50 ships and the force of 60 ships sent to Egypt in 450: 
Thuc. 1.112.3). Ctesias' figure of 40 ships for the Athenian force sent to Egypt (688 F 13.36) 
has been eagerly seized on; it may be right, but when most of his figures are inacceptable 
we should not make too much of one which is convenient. On Ctesias as a historical source 
see most recently J. Bigwood, Ctesias of Cnidus (Diss. Harvard 1964) 143-88, esp. 166--76. 
For general discussion and bibliography see Gomme 1.322; Meiggs, loe.cit. (supra n.Z8); 
Salmon, op.cit. (supra n.Z5) 134-9Z. The ratio of Athenian to allied ships is unknown. 

63 Thuc. 1.11Z.2-4 and Pluto Cimon 18-19 give no figures for gains or losses; Diod. 12.3.3 
clearly follows the last four lines of the 'Eurymedon epigram' (supra n.48), here probably 
correctly. Isoc. 8.86, followed by Ael. VH 5.10: 150 ships lost 7TEpi KJ.rrpov; it seems a wild 
exaggeration and he has a case to argue (supra n.52), but there may be something behind 
what he says; ef M. W. L. Laistner, [socrates: De Pace and Philippus (Cornell StCP 2Z, 1927) ad 
oe.; G. Hill, History of Cyprus I (Cambridge 1940) 124 n.2. Many of the Persian ships may 

have been quite new, built for the Egyptian campaign (Diod. 11.75.2,77.1). Eddy, op.cit. 
(supra n.26) 152, says "they may have captured a good many off Cyprus in 450/49 and others 
in the fighting in 447-445:' Important acquisitions in 447-45 seem unlikely. 

5' Infra p.201 and n.65. 



DAVID BLACKMAN 199 

plete; but we may assume that it contains most of the highlights. It is 
impossible to draw up a balance sheet of gains and losses of ships by 
Athens. Isocrates speaks of many Athenian losses of ships in fives and 
tens ;55 such evidence is difficult to control. Clearly gains exceeded 
losses, notably at Eurymedon and in the wars against Thasos, Aigina 
and Samos (infra pp.200-() 1), less certainly in 450 in Cyprus. The major 
gains at Eurymedon, Thasos and Aigina may well have deferred, for 
Athens at least, the crisis over fleet maintenance until after the losses 
in Egypt. We cannot be sure, however, of the age of the ships cap­
tured, especially at Eurymedon. 

We have no information about losses of Athenian ships in storms 
in this period; some losses must have occurred.56 

Compulsory surrender of ships by allies 
Allies who had revolted and been conquered by Athens were 

usually, if not always, compelled to surrender all their warships. In 
most cases some of their ships had already been captured in the fight­
ing, as we have seen above. 

Naxos had probably contributed ships to the League fleet before her 
revolt (supra p.182 and n.9; p.192). Thucydides in his brief mention of 
the revolt and its subjugation (1.98.4) does not say that the Naxians 
were afterwards compelled to surrender their ships, but it has gener­
ally been assumed that they were.57 This may be right (it was certain­
ly later an inevitable part of SOvAWUtS), but doubt must remain. The 
analysis of the causes of allies' revolts which follows in Thucydides' 
account does not necessarily cover the case of Naxos any more than 
that of Thasos. Naxos is absent from the quota lists of the first period, 
and this may mean she was then still contributing ships. It was per­
haps only after the revolt of a second allied state, with a larger fleet, 

is 8.87. Sheer rhetorical exaggeration? Cf nn.52-53. 
56 The fourth-century naval lists show that this was a frequent occurrence: e.g., IG II2 

1613.202ff; 1629.746-82; 1631.116--67,343-50. Cf A. Bockh, Urkunden uber das Seewesen des 
attisehen Staates (=Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener1 III [Berlin 1840], ef infra n.68) 214-18; 
G. Busolt/H. Swoboda, Griechisehe Staatskunde3 II (Miinchen 1926) 1204-05. These lists also 
refer to various captured ships now incorporated into the fleet: e.g., IG II2 1606-07 passim 
(cf 1613.268ff: captured gear). The same must have happened in the fifth century. In the 
fourth century at least some form of record was kept of the number of ships captured and 
where and by whom they were captured; Oem. 20.77-80 could draw on it. 

57 E.g., by Gomme 1.Z86; butef M. F. McGregor, AJP67 (1946) 271. 



200 THE ATHENIAN NAVY AND ALLIED CONTRIBUTIONS 

that the Athenians decided to confiscate ships in future.58 However, 
Naxos' absence from the quota lists of the first period may alternative­
ly be due to disaffection. 59 

How many ships did Naxos possess? No certain answer is possible. 
Four to six Naxian ships had deserted to the Greek side before Salamis 
-probably, but not certainly, the whole contingent. She may have 
been assessed by Athens at 9 ships, and probably had no more than 15, 
mainly built around 480.60 

Thasos revolted in 465, not because of disputes over her obligations 
as an ally or failure to supply ships, but because of Athenian encroach­
ment on the emporia and mines in her Peraia. Thucydides' account of 
this revolt is more substantial (1.100.2, 101.3): after a long siege the 
Thasians came to terms, demolished their city wall, surrendered their 
ships and agreed to pay at once the reparations demanded, and tribute 
in future. Thirty-three ships had already been captured in the sea 
battle (supra p.197); how many more had the Thasians to surrender? 
Their assessed strength was probably 30;61 their actual strength may 
have been 50-60. 

This revolt had posed a more serious naval threat than that of 
Naxos. The Thasians had, on the mainland opposite, access to plenti­
ful supplies of shipbuilding timber and a rich source of revenue in the 
mines. They had anticipated Athens by at least ten years in building a 
fleet from public revenues. They had had to surrender it to Darius in 
491 but had the resources to build again a considerable fleet.62 They 
had probably maintained their ships and built replacements where 
necessary; if so, their ships were a very valuable acquisition for Ath­
ens, in quantity and quality. 

Aigina, though not a member of the League before 457, may for 
convenience be classed here, since she was granted the same surrender 
terms as allies who had revolted: demolition of walls and surrender 
of ships and payment of tribute in future (Thuc. 1.108.4). Seventy 
ships had already been captured in the sea battle (supra p.197), per­
haps not all Aiginetan. How many more ships did the Aiginetans 
have? Probably not very many, especially if the 70 captured were all 

58 ATL III.250, 259; cf supra p.192. 
59 Sic Meiggs, op.cit. (supra n.23) 8-9; he dates the sending of the Athenian cleruchy to 

Naxos to 450 rather than 447. 
60 Supra n.9; Eddy 191. 
61 ATL III.259; Eddy 191-92. 
62 Hdt. 6.46; H. Bengtson, Historia 2 (1953/54) 485-86; cf Pliny, HN 7.56.209. 



DAVID BLACKMAN 201 

theirs. Aigina's financial resources were probably rated as comparable 
to those of Thasos ;63 she had put 70 ships to sea against Athens in the 
480's and had probably about 40-42 ships in commission in 480.64 A 
reasonable maximum estimate for 457 would be 80 ships-a total 
effort by a state fighting for survival. 

Aigina, like Thasos, was not an ally who had revolted after failure 
to fulfil naval obligations. She had probably kept up her fleet and, 
according to Diodorus (11.78.4), built ships just before the battle. A 
good number of her ships, at least, will have been in good condition 
when acquired by Athens. 

Samos revolted in 440 and had 75 ships at sea (20 of them transports) 
when the first part of the Athenian force arrived. This must have been 
a large proportion of their fleet; the Athenian force was much larger, 
but this was doubtless due to the Athenians' fear of Persian interven­
tion. On finally surrendering, the Samians handed over their ships 
which had survived the three battles, plus the Athenian ships which 
they had captured in the second battle.65 We may assume that their 
fleet was in good condition when they revolted; many of their ships 
probably survived the battles without serious damage and would be 
worth having. 

Some allies must have revolted after failing to supply the required 
contingents of ships; only thus can we explain Thucydides' account in 
1.99. Two likely examples (though there must have been more) are 
Erythrai and Miletos. They may well have contributed ships before 
they revolted in the 450's, and when they submitted (probably 452), 
any ships which they still had must have been confiscated by Athens. 
The number would not have been large in either case; their assess­
ments are likely to have been about 8-10 ships.66 Both were probably 
in financial difficulties, especially Miletos, and may well have failed to 

63 Aigina paid 30 talents (ATL 1.218); Thasos: cf n.61. Aigina had not such ready sources of 
timber. A different view on Aigina: MacDowell, loc.cit. (supra n.3). 

64 Hdt. 6.92.1; 8.46.1. How and Wells II. 100-01 , 249; Labarbe, op.cit. (supra n.16) 172-74; 
idem, op.cit. (supra n.3) 388-89; Eddy 189-90. 

65 Eddy does not take sufficient account of this, op.cit. (supra n.26) 146. First battle: Thuc. 
1.116.1, 3; Diod. 12.27.4; Plut. Per. 25.3, cf 26.3. Second battle: Thuc. 1.117.1 (Athenian 
ships destroyed); Diad. 12.28.1 (no reference to Athenian ships destroyed or captured); 
Pluto Per. 26.2 (Athenian ships destroyed and others captured). Third battle and Samian sur­
render: Thuc. 1.117.3; Diod. 12.28.3 (no reference to sea battle); Pluto Per. 27.1; 28.1. 

66 Erythrai manned 8 ships at Lade and, with her dependencies, paid a tribute of9 talents 
from at least 450/49; Miletos had not recovered fully from defeat in the Ionian Revolt and 
paid a tribute of 10 talents (450/49) and later only 5 (443/2): Eddy 190-91 and references 



202 THE ATHENIAN NAVY AND ALLIED CONTRIBUTIONS 

maintain their ships; hence their revolt. The ships which they surren­
dered would not have been of much value; the same would be the 
case with any other states which revolted for the same reasons. 

Voluntary surrender of ships by allies 
It is highly likely that Athens was prepared to take over any sea­

worthy ships that allies had and did not wish to keep, when they 
voluntarily decided to stop contributing ships to the League. As we 
have seen, Plutarch clearly indicates that this happened. We must not, 
however, assume that all allies who changed voluntarily surrendered 
all their ships.67 

Athens must have acquired some ships in this way in the 460' sand 
450's, but if my suggestion is correct (supra p.190), that many of these 
allies had given up contributing ships at least partly because many of 
their ships needed replacement, one should not overestimate the 
quantity and quality of ships handed over. 

Shipbuilding at Piraeus 
This was obviously the main and most reliable source of supply; un­

fortunately fifth-century evidence on the subject is scanty. The state 
clearly was responsible for shipbuilding and bore the costs of both the 
ships and very probably the gear.68 A trierarch could contribute the 
cost of building a ship if he wished.69 He probably did have to cover 
much of the cost of maintaining and repairing his ships during and at 
the end of his period of service ;70 in the fourth century he could be 
compelled to pay the cost of replacing a lost ship if he were held res­
ponsible for its loss, and the same may well have been the case in the 

there, but cf supra n.4O. The fighting between Miletos and Samos (441/0) was apparently 
all on land (Thuc. 1.115.2). 

67 Supra p.188; pp.192-93 and nn.39-40. 
68 Bockh, op.cit. (supra n.56) 194ff; idem, Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener3 I (Berlin 1886) 

639ff; K. F. Hermann/V. Thumser, Griechische Staatsaltertiimer6 (Freiburg LB. 1892) 699-700; 
Kolbe (1899) 534-39; Busolt/Swoboda, op.cit. (supra n.56) 1.573, 11.1204; Armstrong, op.cit. 
(supra n.16) 7 and n.17; Amit, op.cit. (supra n.47) 103ff, esp. 112-13. 

69 Fifth century examples: Cleinias (Hdt. 8.17)-he at least may have regarded the ship 
as his own property; Pericles (Plut. Per. 35); Alcibiades (Thuc. 6.61.6). We know of many 
instances in the fourth century, where our evidence is fuller: e.g., Oem. 21.160ff, cf pluto 
Mor. 850F; IG II! 1623.309ff, 1627.421ff, 1628.436ff. See A. Kuenzi, 'ErrlSoclLS (Diss. Bern 1923). 

70 Thuc. 7.38.2; [Xen.] Ath.Pol. 3.4. 



DAVID BLACKMAN 203 

fifth century.71 We do not know for certain where the ships were 
built. Many of the materials had to be imported, notably timber; 
Athens had access to timber supplies, especially in Thrace and Mace­
donia, insured by the settlement at Amphipolis in 437/6.72 

Most important for our purposes is the evidence, unfortunately 
scanty, on the scale and rate of shipbuilding at Piraeus: 

(a) Literary evidence 
(i) Diodorus (11.43.3) provides a valuable piece of information: in 

describing the work of building the harbour at Piraeus (under 477/6) 
he adds that Themistodes persuaded the people to build and add to 
the fleet 20 triremes a year, also to encourage foreign craftsmen to 
settle at Athens; both policies he thought very useful in building up 
Athens' naval forces. The information sounds highly plausible, but 
has often been dismissed as an Ephoran doublet of the description of 
the shipbuilding programme before Salamis. This is most unlikely; 
the measure may perhaps have been passed before 480, as a supple­
ment to the main shipbuilding decree, but Diodorus' dating is per­
fectly plausible and should not be automatically rejected.73 A ship­
building rate of 20 ships a year would be more than adequate to 
maintain the Athenian fleet at 200 ships or more, granted a 'natural 
life' of over 20 years for the triremes and no major catastrophes at sea 
in battle or storm. For a time at least it would have caused an increase 
in the fleet size, and this, if we accept Diodorus' comment, Themisto­
des may well have intended. The only problem is that we do not 
know how long this annual rate remained standard; it may have been 
changed soon after the immediate threat from Persia had gone, or at 

71 The fourth century evidence: trierarchic aKMJf:~S-KaTa ](Hp.wva (supra n.56) or KaT(~ 
'7T6A£P.OV (cf, e.g., IG 112 1627.241-65). See Bockh, loc.cit. (supra n.56); HermannJThumser, op. 
cit. (supra n.68) 701-02; BusoltJSwoboda, op.cit. (supra n.56) 11.1130, 1204-05. For the fifth 
century: [Xen.] Ath.Pol. 3.4, the resulting 8ta8tKaalat. 

72 The ships were not built in the 'shipsheds', but quite possibly on Eetioneia and also 
perhaps on the shore west of Piraeus. All that was necessary was wooden slips and stocks on 
the beach, which would have left no surviving trace; see K. Lehmann-Hartleben, "A,f'']v,'' 
RE 13 (1926) 565. References to the vav1T7/YtoV at Athens are few: IG 12 122+, line 10, in singu­
lar (cf infra n.82); restored in plural, IG JI2 1611, line 133 (357/6); cf Ar. Aves 1157, Thesm. 
52-54. Amphipolis: Thuc. 4.108.1. Late in the Peloponnesian War the Athenians were build­
ing ships in Macedonia (infra n.82), but perhaps not much earlier. 

73 Pre-480: Bockh, Staatshaushaltung (supra n.68) 1.316; Keil 16. Pre-480, but continuing 
after 480: Kolbe (1899) 509-10, (1901) 408, referring to Hdt. 7.144.2. Post 480: Busolt, op.cit. 
(supra n.5) IlI.53; H. T. Wade-Gery and B. D. Meritt, "Athenian Resources in 449 and 431 
B.C.," Hesperia 26 (1957) 187, accepting Diodorus' information as accurate. 



204 THE ATHENIAN NAVY AND ALLIED CONTRIBUTIONS 

least after Eurymedon. Kolbe (1901, pAOS) assumed that regular 
annual shipbuilding was soon discontinued. This seems unlikely, for 
the Athenians now had the facilities and the skills required, and an 
annual programme would maintain them, quite apart from main­
taining or increasing the fleet. However, the rate may well have been 
lowered after a time. 

(ii) Aristotle (Ath.Pol. 46.1) says that the Boule was responsible for 
the construction of new triremes or quadriremes, whichever the 
Demos voted, and the provision of gear for them and 'shipsheds'. No 
numeral can be safely restored in the text for the number of ships to 
be built annually; there may well have been none in the original text. 
The reference is to a much later period, ca. 330 or soon after." 

(iii) Demosthenes (22.S-20) gives us evidence of somewhat earlier 
date: the Boule of 356/5 failed to carry out its obligation to build ships. 
His words imply that there was a fixed number of ships, but he does 
not give it.75 

(iv) Andoddes 3.3-9-see infra pp.20Sff. 

(b) The 'Papyrus Decree' 
Earlier but also uncertain is the evidence of the fragmentary 

PStrasbourg 84 (verso) lines 9-11. Keil restored the lines to refer to the 
building' of an additional 100 triremes and (with less certainty) the 
distribution of the ships after construction, 10 per tribe; of his alterna­
tive restorations of the last clause, one would refer to an annual ship­
building rate of 10 ships for the future. Assuming that Andoddes (3.5) 
referred to the same events, he dated the shipbuilding decree to 449/S, 
but on the basis of false premises.76 Kolbe accepted that Andoddes re-

74 F.1Ttp.e>'f(iTat 3€ Kat TWV 1T£1TOt1J~VWV TPt~PWV Kal TWV CTK£VWV Kal TWV v£wCTolKWV Kal1TOtELTat 

Katv/x~ [8e] Tp£71PEL~ 1j TETp.JPEL~ ';1TOT£pa~ Ii" ,; 8fjp.o~ XELPOT0v.]U"fl. Ka~ UKE&r] TaVraLS Ka~ VEWCTOl~ 
KOVS: sic most editors, e.g., Kenyon, Sandys, Kaibel, Haussoullier, Oppermann. Keil 209fI 
suggested that the numeral was a (4), but he greatly overestimated the length of life of tri­
remes (cf Appendix infra); Kolbe (1901) 398-99, 406--07 argued for 8E(Ka>, as also Wilcken 
(infra n.78) 399 and Busolt/Swoboda, op.cit. (supra n.56) lI.lOn n.2-more plausible histori­
cally but quite uncertain. The passage does imply that the number of ships to be built was 
fixed, for the Demos decides ';1ToT£pa~, but not, apparently, ';1T6ua~. The date of the refer­
ence: quadriremes are mentioned, quinqueremes not; quadriremes are first attested in the 
Athenian fleet in 330/29 (18 in IG 112 1627.275-78), quinqueremes in 325/4 (7 in IG IIs 1629. 
811). 

75 See, e.g., § 8: ... p.~ 1TOL'f)l1ap.£V!J -rfi {3ovAii T~~ "'PL.JPEL~ • ••• D. M. Lewis rejects the tradi­
tional date of the speech and suggests 358/7: op.cit. (supra n.40) 43-44. 

7S KeillO-17, 41-43, 135-140; his final text of lines 8-11 (pp. 74--75) was: 

8 [ U£T"aKOl.u'~]tW El~ rqv 1T6>.w fLET' F.KEi[v]o[JI] JI[o-



DAVID BLACKMAN 205 

ferred to the same events, but argued that it was a programme not 
merely of replacement, as Andocides says, but of fleet expansion­
Kawas E7TtVav7T7JY€LV JKaT6[v]; perhaps an over-fine distinction.77 

Wilcken first identified the papyrus as a fragment of a commentary, 
preserved in excerpts, on Demosthenes' speech Against Androtion (22). 
He argued that lines 9-11 are part of the section beginning in line 5 and 
dated to the archonship of [Eu ]thydemus. Three archons of this name 
are known to the literary tradition, holding office in 450/49,431/0 and 
426/5 respectively. Inscriptional evidence shows that in the first and 
third case the correct name was Euthynus. Wilcken therefore con­
cluded that the reference was to the archon of 431/0 (not 450/49, as 
Keil) , and connected the references to 5,000 talents (line 7) and to a 
naval measure with the Athenian decisions of 431/0, to release for use 
5,000 talents and put 1,000 talents into reserve along with 100 tri­
remes (Thuc. 2.24). He argued that the present tense of the infinitive 
E7TtVav7T1JY€LV indicates a recurring programme of shipbuilding, 
which would fit well with his reading of the end of line 10: EKaal[TOT€] 
rather than JKaT6[v]l. He therefore assumed that in 431/0 the Athen­
ians established an annual shipbuilding rate of 10 ships, and he argued 
that Thucydides could have omitted a routine administrative meas­
ure like this, but not a major shipbuilding effort (not, I feel, a con­
clusive argument). He then restored line 10 to refer to the reserve 
ships; but the ships mentioned in the papyrus are certainly 'old' (line 
9), and Thucydides says the best ships were put into reserve.78 

9 [p. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]t rqv f3ovA~v TWV 1TaAatwv TPt~-
10 [pwv TWV €Tt 1TAwlp.wv emp.€A]€[t]a8at, Katvus 3' emvaV1TTJY€tv EKaTo[v, 
11 [emKA"Ipwaat o~ Til "'vAil O].tKCC. 

His alternative restorations of line 11: [TO 3~ Aomov KaT' eVtCCVTOV 3].tKcc-this seems very 
plausible, and Keil only rejected it because of his mistaken belief that an annual rate of 4 
ships would have sufficed; [KaT' €VtCCVTOV 1TOWVP..tV1JV o].tKa-rejected by Keil, reasonably, as 
too slow a rate for a special programme. Keil's false premises: (pp. 125-26) that the previous 
clause referred to the transfer of the League treasury to Athens, that the transfer occurred 
in 450/49 and that the references in the papyrus are in chronological order. Andoc. 3.5: 
infra p.211. 

77 Kolbe (1901) 409, 411-13 (article in fact written in 1902, after Keil's book was published). 
Kolbe had less faith in Andocides' reliability; of Keil's restorations of line 11 he preferred 
[TO o~ Aomov KaT' eVtCCVTOV O].tKCC, but suggested another: [EAOP..tV1JV (sc. rqv f3ov>'~v) €g avrijs 
avopccs O].tKCC, referring to the TPt"lP01Towl, cf Arist. Ath.Pol. 46.1. On the officials involved in 
shipbuilding at Athens see Keil 213-18; Kolbe (1899) 524-26, (1901) 410-17; BusoltjSwo­
boda, op.cit. (supra n.56) 11.977 n.4, 1032; Amit, op.cit. (supra n.47) 16-18. 

78 U. Wilcken, "Oer Anonymus Argentinensis," Hermes 42 (1907) 374-418, esp. 387-403. 



206 THE ATHENIAN NAVY AND ALLIED CONTRIBUTIONS 

Wade-Gery and Meritt argued that lines 3-11 are all one section, 
commenting on Demosthenes 22.13, and referring to a Periclean 
decree dated thirty years after Salamis but before work started on the 
Parthenon. They maintained that Euthydemus can be the archon of 
450/49, for the papyrus belongs to the literary tradition, and that he 
must be, on historical grounds. They explained the 5,000 talents (line 
7) as a sum voted to Athena out of existing resources in the S1Jf.L0ULOV 
and, on the basis of the Decrees of Callias, restored line 8 to mention 
3,000 talents as the total voted for subsequent payments to Athena 
(they suggested 15 annual payments of200 talents).79 The naval meas­
ure they connected not only with this but also with the decision to 
start work on the Propylaia and Parthenon, which must date to 450/ 
449. The Boule was to look after the old triremes and hand them on 
in good condition, and build 10 new ships each year. They referred to 
Themistocles' motion in 477/6, mentioned by Diodorus, and con­
cluded (p.187): "If it is true for the years between 477 and 450 B.C., or 
even for a considerable part of that time, that the Athenians had built 
each year twenty new triremes, then the new decree of Perikles in 
450/49 marked a lessening of the tension, and a slacking off of building 

His text of lines 8-11 was: 

••• avaAlO'K]nv €lS' -n}v 1TO.\W, p.€T' lKEt!!O r~~ 
9 [p.E'vov ;'TE'pOV 8O-yp.aToS'( ?) ;'KetITTWt ~ ?]rft -n}v f3ov)..~v TWV 1TaAatWV TptTJ-

10 [pwv ;'KaTov lsatpE'TovS' 1Tapa8h§o~at, lCatv«zS' 8' lmvaV7T7JY€iv ;'KetO'-
l! [TOT€ ( ?) . . . . .. 8]E'lCa. 

At that time no other plausible context for the 5,000 talents had been suggested. Wilcken 
suggested TP'TJpnS' 8]E'lCa in line 11, but admitted that other possibilities exist, e.g., 1T€VT€­
Kal8]€Ka (though 10 seems more likely) or a reference to officials (as Kolbe). He emphasized 
the author's independence of the surviving scholia on Demosthenes; that he was scholarly 
and well informed and that his source for lines 5-11 must ultimately be Craterus. 

79 Op.cit. (supra n.73) 163-97. Their text of lines 8-11 (p.I64) assumed a longer line with 
30-32 letters lost on the left: 

Kat aMa Tptux"'ta ava#p]nv €lS' -n}v 1TO.\W P.€T' lK€'i~O r~~o-
9 [p.E'vwv TWV ~P'Ywv' 8aAetO'O'T/S' 8' 07rWS' av KpaT ]4JO't, -n}v f3ov.\~v TWV 1TaAmWV TptTJ-

10 [pwv lmp.e)..eia8at wO'Te VytetS' 1Tapa8t J80vat ,1C(uV«ZS' 8' l1TtVaV7T7JYeiv ;'lCetO'-
11 [TOV lVtaVToV 1TPOS' TatS' wapxot$O'atS' 8]E'lCa. 

This superseded the text given in ATL I T 9 ,II D 13, which was closer to Wilcken's, and 
which separated lines 8-11 and made them refer to the shipbuilding provisions which De­
mosthenes first describes in 22.8. W.-G. and M. admitted the speciousness of Wilcken's 
dating to 431/0, but rejected it because it involves a difficult division between lines 3-4 and 
5-11. They restored line 10 from Arist. Ath.Pol. 46.1 (undoubtedly correct) and line 11 from 
[Xen.] Ath.Pol. 3.4 and Diod. 11.43.3 (less certain). Decrees of Calli as: ATL II D 1, lines 3-4, 
5-6 D 2, lines 22-23. Cf ATL m.89. 



DAVID BLACKMAN 207 

from 20 to 10. This would be a consequence, presumably, of the Peace 
of Kallias. Our papyrus thus suggests that the fleet was being main­
tained, but on a peace-time, rather than a war-time, basis." 

However, a building rate of 10 triremes a year would not have suf­
ficed to maintain a fleet of 250, let alone 300 ships, without supple­
mentary building. The reading €Kaa[, instead of EKaTo[, in line 10 has 
not been proved (it is certainly not clear from any published photo­
graph), and the restoration ofline 11 is still uncertain. Finally, the dat­
ing of the whole group of measures to 450/49, though possible, is not 
certain and depends on restorations. The possibility of the later dating 
of the second and third measures, to 431/0, cannot be excluded.80 

(c) Epigraphic evidence 
Epigraphic references to shipbuilding in mid fifth-century Athens 

are fragmentary and often difficult to evaluate. A decree probably 
dating from the 430's refers to the refit and building of ships, but the 
inscription is too fragmentary to help US. 81 The fifth-century <naval 
lists' tell us nothing on this subject, and the other fifth-century in­
scriptions referring to naval matters all date from the last years of the 
Peloponnesian War.82 

80 Dating to 431/0 accepted by, e.g., W. Bannier, RhM 75 (1926) 197-98; S. Accame, RivFC 
80 (1952) 229-32; Gomme, Historia 2 (1953/54) 11; R. Sealey, Hermes 86 (1958) 440-46 and 
ProcAfrCA 1 (1958) 61ff (=Essays in Greek Politics [New York 1967] 75ff); Morrison and 
Williams 228, referring to Wilcken only. 

81lG 12 74; see improved text ofW. Bannier, RhM 77 (1928) 278-80, but context and details 
are still obscure; cf. H. B. Mattingly in Ancient Sooety and Institutions (supra n.8) 217 n.35. 
IG IS 73 (somewhat later) contains a decree whose surviving fragments refer to [-rptJEpo1Towi, 
to launching and docking of ships and care of ships, but not to shipbuilding. 

82 Fifth century 'naval lists': IG II' 1604*; 1604*a (Addenda, p.8ll), republished by L. 
Robert, CoIl. Froehner I (paris 1936) 1-2; SEG X 355 (= D. M. Robinson, AJA 41 [1937J 292-99). 
They have not been more precisely dated than the second half of the fifth century; the 
latter two have the 4-bar sigma, the first has no sigma surviving. 

IG 12 122+SEG X 131, a decree honouring two men who helped in obtaining oar timbers 
(on which cf IG 12 71, line 22; ca. 436 or 423/2): the Tpt€P01TOWL had received the timbers and 
depOSited them in the vav1T~ytOV (lines 7-10); probable date: ca. 409/8, but Mattingly argues 
for ca. 420, op.cit. (supra n.81) 198-200. 

IG J2 105 refers to Athenians building ships in Macedonia, assisted by King Archelaus; 
probable date: 407/6. See esp. B. D. Meritt in Capps Studies (Princeton 1936) 246-50. 

IG J2 97 gives details of the preparation of an expedition, but has nothing about ship­
building Cef SEG XII 26, XV 7, XIX 13). Nor does the fragment of a naval law inscribed in ca. 
406: SEG X 142=]. H. Oliver, Hesperia 4 (1935) 5-<5,13-19; cf S. Dow, BCH 92 (1968) 173. 
Date of law uncertain; surviving fragment deals with trierarchic obligations and the regu­
lation of trierarchic disputes, plus a brief and obscure allusion to €xaayoy-.& concerning the 
vaV1TEyol (line 9). 

3-G·R.B.S. 



208 THE ATHENIAN NAVY AND ALLIED CONTRIBUTIONS 

More valuable information for our purposes is provided by a few 
scattered references in Athenian financial documents: 

(i) The Parthenon building accounts for 444/3 list among receipts 
the sum of 90,000 drachmai (15 talents) handed over by the 'TP''YJpo-
7To,ol.83 It may reasonably be argued that this was the surplus from a 
sum allotted to them not for building the normal annual quota of 
ships but for an extraordinary and large shipbuilding programme, 
with the proviso that any surplus be handed on for the work on the 
Parthenon; for a surplus of 15 talents after completion of a normal 
quota is highly unlikely and one would have expected the 'TP''YJpo-
7Towl to retain the surplus for use next year. This would indicate a 
major shipbuilding effort, completed in 444/3. However, it could be 
that they had built up this surplus from the regular annual shipbuild­
ing over several years; they were holding an unnecessary amount of 
ready cash and were ordered to pass on part or all of it. 

(ii) The accounts of the Treasurers of Athena, probably for 431/0, 
but possibly for 428/7, include two payments to the 'TP'7Jpo7Towl, 
one certainly and one probably of 50 talents. Such large sums show 
clearly that a major shipbuilding programme was being carried out.84 

How many triremes would be built with 100 talents at this date is un­
certain; but if we allow for the possibility of €7TtOOULS or possibly en­
forced contributions by trierarchs in a wartime situation, then we may 
accept that the number of ships built may well have reached 100. I 
return below (p.2l1) to the significance of this information. 

(iii) Another of the accounts of the Treasurers of Athena records 
payments to 'TP''YJpo7Towl, but the figures are lost and the inscrip­
tion is now firmly dated to 409/8.85 

(a) Literary evidence (supra pp.204-05) 
(iv) Finally, there is the information in Andocides' speech On the 

Peace, delivered in support of the treaty with Sparta which he had 
83 IG I2 342,lines 40-41. See W. B. Dinsmoor, AJA 17 (1913) 78; cf AlA 25 (1921) 243; ATL 

Ill.341 n.63; but cf Comme 1.312 n.3. The restoration 7Tapa 'Tp[L£p07TOLOV] is very plaUSible. 
84IG 12 294+299+308,lines 11-15 in the reconstructed text; see H. T. Wade-Cery, "An 

Attic Inscription of the Archidamian War," lHS 50 (1930) 288-93, cf lHS 53 (1933) 136; 
B. D. Meritt, Athenian Financial Documents (Ann Arbor 1932) 84-85. The year not certain: 
SEG X 226 and Comme 11.144-45. The date of the payments within the year is not certain, 
for the references to date are lost and the position at the end of the inscription tells us 
nothing, for (as in IG 12 296, of 432/1) the payments are arranged not chronologically 
throughout the year but in groups according to destination. 

86IG 12 301,lines 1 and 17 have]V 'TP'[. See W. S. Ferguson, The Treasurers of Athena (Har­
vard 1932) 16-37; SEG X 233. 



DAVID BLACKMAN 209 

helped to negotiate (probably 392). He emphasizes the benefits of 
peace with Sparta and refers back to previous periods of peace: 

§§ 3-5. In the period of peace arranged by Miltiades, son of Cimon, 
after the war in Euboia the Athenians fortified Piraeus, built the 
northern Long Wall and replaced their existing triremes, which had 
been used in the victory over Persia and were now old and unsea­
worthy, by building 100 new triremes; they enrolled 300 cavalry for 
the first time and purchased 300 Scythian archers. 

§§ 6-7. During the Thirty Years' Peace after the war because of 
Aigina, the Athenians first of all deposited 1,000 talents on the Acrop­
olis and passed a law to set them aside as an iron reserve; they built 
100 triremes and decreed that they should be set aside likewise as a 
reserve; they built shipsheds, enrolled 1,200 cavalry and 1,200 archers 
and built the southern Long Wall. 

§§ 8-9. During the Peace of Nicias the Athenians were able to de­
posit 7,000 talents of coined silver on the Acropolis and acquire over 
400 ships, and an annual cfo6po~ of over 1,200 talents was coming in 
(here the word must mean all revenues from the allies). 

This account, which was paraphrased by Aeschines (2.172-76) has 
usually been dismissed without serious study because it seems thor­
oughly muddled.86 But the certain mistakes are few: for example, 
'Miltiades' instead of Cimon, a bad mistake which must be early, for 
Aeschines copied it. A simple transposition of the misplaced chrono­
logical references in §§ 3-5 and §§ 6-7-"the war in Euboia" (in fact 
446) and "the war because of Aigina" (in fact the First Peloponnesian 
War)-produces good sense:87 

Sections 3-5 refer to the peace arranged by Cimon. Andocides says 
it was made for five years and kept for thirteen; he is clearly follow­
ing an ancient tradition which dated Cimon's return, followed by the 
peace with Sparta, to 458/7.88 If one accepts that Andocides' source 

86 R. C. Jebb, The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeos I (London 1876) 128-33; Ed. Meyer, 
Forschungen zur alten Geschichte II (Halle/S. 1899) 132-34; P. Cloche, "Les eonflits politiques 
et sociaux d'Athenes," REA 21 (1919) 177ff; K. J. Maidment, Minor Attic Orators I (LCL 
1941) 495, 500-05; G. Dalmeyda, Andocide, Discours (ed. Bud€, Paris 1930) 88-90, 139; 
U. Albini, Andocide: De Pace (Firenze 1964) 17-18,55-69. See also Keil, Kolbe and Wilcken 
(supra nn.76-78). 

87 See W. E. Thompson, "Andocides and Hellanicus," TAPA 98 (1967) 483-90, a valuable 
contribution, with much of which I am in agreement. My argument holds even if Hellani­
eus was not used by Andocides as a source. 

88 Gomme 1.325-27; A. E. Raubitsehek, Historia 3 (1954/55) 379-80; W. R. Connor, Theo­
pompus and Fifth-Century Athens (Washington 1966) 24-30, 103-06, suggests that Theopompus 



210 THE ATHENIAN NAVY AND ALLIED CONTRIBUTIONS 

used this dating, whether correct or not, then one can see that the 
events described are in plausible historical sequence: fortification of 
Piraeus (further work in the 450' s 7); northern Long Wall built 
(458/7);89 100 triremes built to replace those used in the Persian Wars 
which had become unseaworthy; finally, the information about 
cavalry and archers, which may be accepted if one assumes that these 
were the first regular corps at Athens. 

The information about shipbuilding has usually been rejected as un­
reliable. Maidment (p.502) calls it «An obvious inaccuracy. The Ath­
enian fleet had been growing steadily since the Persian Wars and the 
institution of the Delian League." But there is no good reason to 
doubt it. Thompson has argued plausibly that Andocides has drawn 
these details from his source, which according to Thompson is not an 
oligarchic pamphlet or oral tradition, but an historian, Hellanicus, 
whose testimony cannot lightly be dismissed; the most one can say is 
that the facts are correct, but Andocides may not have them in proper 
historical perspective. 

Though it is possible that Andocides' source knew of an annual 
building rate of 20 ships and multiplied by 5 (years) to produce the 
figure 100 ships, it seems more likely that the reference is to an extra­
ordinary 'crash programme' of shipbuilding, on a large scale and over 
a short period, voted by a special decree of which Andocides' source 
could have known. Such a programme is not unlikely in the late 450' s, 
for Athens had suffered at the least fairly severe losses of ships in 
Egypt; since then there had been dissident allies to deal with; in 451 
came peace, and preparation was begun for a campaign to Cyprus; as 
we have seen (supra p.192), the Athenians may have had to make up 
in advance for anticipated deficiencies in allied ship-contributions 
(using the extra money provided instead) and also perhaps for an un­
usually high wastage of their own ships through obsolescence. Ando­
cides' statement that the 100 new ships replaced those which fought at 
Salamis may, as Thompson argues, represent an oversimplified view 
of the development of the Athenian navy since 480, a deduction ex 
silentio that Athens had built no ships in the intervening years; but as 
we have seen, there may be an element of truth in what he says. 

may have used Andocides 3. TrWr€, the reading of the Andocides Mss, should be preferred 
to Aeschines' 'II'~KOVTa. 

8' Thuc. 1.107.1, 108.3; W. Judeich, Topographie von Athen2 (Munchen 1931) 75-76, 155. 



DAVID BLACKMAN 211 

An alternative but less likely date within this period of peace would 
be just after 450. Athens may have suffered fairly heavy losses off 
Cyprus in 450 (supra p.19S); if one accepts the dating of the 'Papyrus 
Decree' to 450/49 and the original reading of line 10, referring to 100 
ships, then this date for the shipbuilding programme becomes much 
more likely (supra pp.204-07). 

To the Thirty Years' Peace Andocides in §§ 6-7 attributes the crea­
tion of the reserves of 1,000 talents and 100 ships; also the construction 
of , ship sheds' and the southern Long Wall, and the establishment of a 
larger force of cavalry and archers. All of the latter are plausible in 
this period,90 but we cannot accept his dating of the creation of the 
reserves to the period of peace. He has clearly read a description of 
this, but perhaps one which did not give a clear context, so that he 
assumed that the reserves were created before the war started. He has 
clearly not read Thucydides closely, for Thucydides gives a precise 
date in summer 431, after the start of the war, and says nothing about 
the building of 100 ships (2.24). 

Whence did Andocides derive the information about the building 
of 100 ships? It may have been his own conclusion that the 100 ships 
put into reserve were newly built91 (Thucydides says they were 'the 
best'; so may Andocides' source have done). Alternatively he may 
have found in his source a reference to the building of a further 100 
ships, which he or his source connected with the creation of the reserve 
of ships. And we have epigraphic evidence for a major shipbuilding 
effort, probably at some point in 431/0 (supra p.20S). The date within 
the year of the payments to the -rPL7}p01TOWL is not certain, but it 
could have been early. Thucydides dates the creation of the reserves 

90 Shipsheds were probably built in this period. Andocides says "shipsheds" not "the 
shipsheds": these are not the shipsheds of Themistocles but some additional ones, necessary 
for the expanded fleet; see Thompson, /oc.cit. (supra n.87); Morrison and Williams 181-83, 
187-88,225-26. Expenditure on TO v£i5ptOv was provided for in 434/3 (Callias' Decree, ATL 
II 01, line 31) but the word is here general in its meaning-'the dockyard'. The southern 
Long Wall, or 'Middle Wall', was built early in the Peace (445: Judeich, op.cit. [supra n.89] 
86 n.1, 155; ca. 444-42: Gomme 1.312). Cavalry and archers: cf Busolt/Swoboda, op.cit. 
(supra n.56) II.8Z4 n.1, 978-79. On the financial information in §§ 8-9 see ATL III.346-58. 
This was a period within Andocides' own memory. 

91 Sic Kolbe (1901) 399-401. The ship reserve was not like the money reserve. The ships 
cannot have been stored away for years on end and never used. The composition of the 
reserve must have changed at regular intervals, to ensure that the ships were always sea­
worthy; the ships of the reserve must have been fit to go to sea, even if not immediately 
ready to do so. 



212 THE ATHENIAN NAVY AND ALLIED CONTRmUTIONS 

after the withdrawal of the Peloponnesian invading force (late June 
431 at the earliest), so the new measures almost certainly date from 
the archon year 431/0.92 If one is prepared to accept, as I think one 
must, that Thucydides would not necessarily have mentioned this 
shipbuilding programme, then his information and dating fit well 
with the evidence of Andocides and the accounts, and also with the 
'Papyrus Decree', if one accepts the reading €KaT6[v] and the dating of 
the decree to 431/0. Andocides' dating of the shipbuilding to the period 
of peace is not a stumbling-block. His factual information may be 
right and his dating not. 

The Si{e of the Fleet in the A rchidamian War 

The assumption that Athens had a fleet of 400 triremes by the cam­
paigning season of 430 does not conflict with the other literary evi­
dence: Thucydides says Athens had 300 seaworthy triremes at the 
start of the war (2.13.8); Aristophanes speaks of the possible launching 
of 300 triremes (Ach. 545); Xenophon refers to the number of triremes 
Athens possessed at the start of the war and the Mss vary between 
«300" and «400" (An. 7.1.27); Andocides himself (3.9) says Athens pos­
sessed over 400 ships during the Peace of Nicias-the Mss agree on 
TETpaKouta~ and we are not justified in correcting it to TpLaKouta~ 
on the basis of Aeschines' Tp,aKouta~ (2.175); [Xen.] Ath.Pol. 3.4 speaks 
of 400 trierarchs being appointed annually, which seems excessive if 
the fleet only numbered 300 ships (however, one must remember the 
uncertainty over the date of this work; I myself incline to a date early 
in the war, certainly before 424, but one must allow the possibility 
that it is earlier still).93 

Certainly, the assumption that Athens had 400 ships in the Archida­
mian War makes it easier to understand passages such as Thucydides 

92 Thuc. 2.19.1. Gomme II.70-71, 79. 
98 Aristophanes says the Athenians would launch 300 triremes, given even a trivial casus 

belli; he has just spoken of the strong Spartan reaction to the Megarian Decree, and is 
thinking of the period just before the war, rather than the present (425); in any case Athens 
could never launch (and man) 400 ships at one time: infra p.213. Xen. An. 7.1.27: 7pLaKo­

alwv meliores; 7€7paKou[wv FM (see P. Masqueray, ed. Bude II [Paris 1961] 127). Andoc. 3.9: 
Markland's correction to 7pLaKoatas has generally been accepted, but is it not more likely 
that 7pLaKoalas in Aeschines is not Original, but a later miscorrection ? [Xen.] Ath.Pol.: on the 
date see most recently G. W. Bowersock, "Pseudo-Xenophon," HSCP 71 (1967) 33-38. E. 
Kalinka explained the passage by assuming that the fleet grew to 400 ships by 430: Die 
Pseudoxenophontische 'A8"1valwv 7rOALTda (Leipzig 1913) 280-81. Diod. 12.40.4, like Thuc.. 



DAVID BLACKMAN 213 

3.17, where the Athenians are said to have 250 ships at sea in 428 (pos­
sibly 430) and the use of the reserve of ships is not mentioned.94 

Even if the collocation of evidence suggested above is not accepted 
in its entirety, the epigraphic evidence is clear: there was a big increase 
in the size of the fleet early in the Archidamian War, probably to ca. 
400 ships. This does not mean that the Athenians could man them all 
and put them all to sea at once (especially after the manpower losses 
in the Plague-still unforeseen in 431/0) any more than they could do 
so in the fourth century. Then their fleet grew again to 350 and even­
tually 400 ships,95 yet in the final struggle with Macedon (322) they 
could only put far fewer ships to sea, even on the most generous inter­
pretation of the literary evidence (maximum, 240; minimum, 170).96 
A state needed more ships than the number of crews available. 

I conclude, in brief, that there was a regular annual shipbuilding 
programme at Athens: 20 ships per annum for some years after 477/6; 
then 10 ships per annum, probably for the rest of the Pentecontaetia 
and into the Peloponnesian War, with occasional supplementation; 

reports Pericles' speech at the start of the war: "300 triremes present." Strabo 9.1.15 p.395 
refers to 400 ships at Athens, but gives no date. 

For various explanations of the figures see, e.g., G. Gilbert, Constitutional Antiquities (New 
York 1895) 363 and n.3; Busolt, op.dt. (supra n.5) 480 and n.5; Kolbe (1899) 511-14; Busolt/ 
Swoboda, op.dt. (supra n.56) 11.1197-98; H. Frisch, The Constitution of the Athenians (Copen­
hagen 1942) 311-12. 

91 Thuc. 3.17: see F. E. Adcock, CambHistJ 1 (1923/25) 319-22; Gomme II.272-77. The con­
text of the chapter is summer 428, but Adcock has argued that it refers to 430 (ef Thuc. 
2.56) and has been misplaced; a reference to 431 is certainly wrong. Could the total of 250 
include Chian and Lesbian contingents? Possibly, though the implication is certainly that 
the ships are all Athenian. In 430 the Chians and Lesbians did contribute 50 ships (Thuc. 
2.56.2), but in 428 a contribution of 50 ships from Chios and Methymna seems unlikely. As 
Adcock pOinted out, Thuc. seems to say (2.56.2) that in 430 for the first time the Athenians 
reconstructed old triremes as horse-transports; this implies there had just been some new 
building. An annual shipbuilding programme must have continued during the war, sup­
plemented by a few ships captured (Thuc. 2.84.4,92.2; 4.14.1) or confiscated (3.3.4) and in 
425 by a large number of Spartan ships kept, after a truce, on a specious pretext (60: Thuc. 
4.14.2-3,23.1). Use of the reserve ships: Gomme is inconsistent (II.82 and 241); perhaps not 
till 412, like the 1,000 talents (Thuc. 8.15.1). 

95 349 ships in 353/2 (IG II2 1613.302); 410 in 330/29 (1627.266-78); 417 in 325/4 (1629.783-
812); ef Busolt/Swoboda, op.dt. (supra n.56) II.I199. 

96 Diod. 18.10.2, 15.8-9: ef C. J. Fischer (BT, Leipzig 1906) and R. M. Geer (LCL 1947) ad 
loe.; Justin 13.5.8. See discussion by A. Schafer, Demosthenes und seine Zeit lIP (Leipzig 1887) 
381-82; T. Walek, "Les operations navales pendant la guerre Lamiaque," RevPhil48 (1924) 

23-30; M. Cary, History of the Greek World from 323 to 146 B.C.2 (London 1951) 381-83. 



214 THE ATHENIAN NAVY AND ALLIED CONTRIBUTIONS 

for example, 100 ships were built in 451/0 or possibly 450/49, up to 100 
ships were built in 431/0, and there may have been other instances, 
probably on a smaller scale. Such supplementation was required when 
Athenian losses of ships on campaigns or through obsolescence had 
not been offset by major acquisitions, by capture in war or confisca­
tion, and when the fleet had to be brought up to strength for import­
ant campaigns or at the start of a war. 

ApPENDIX 

The Length of Life of a Trireme 

The life of many triremes was cut short by destruction in battle or storm. 
But others could be repaired, and the majority probably escaped severe dam­
age and lasted a full <natural life'. How long was the average <natural life', 
granted normal care and maintenance? The evidence is mostly from Athens, 
from the fourth-century naval lists. It was studied by Keil and Kolbe; Kolbe's 
more negative results are more reliable (Keil201-11; criticized by Kolbe [1901] 
386-407. Cf H. Fraenkel, AthMitt 48 [1923] 23; K. Schmidt, Die Namen der 
attischen Kriegsschiffe [Diss. Leipzig 1931] 2-4, 10, 19, 29, 36; F. Miltner, 
HSeewesen," RE Supp!. 5 [1931] 923; Labarbe, op.cit. [supra n.16] 127 and n.4; 
Eddy, op.cit. [supra n.26] 146 n.19). 

Their principal method was to try to follow the careers of individual tri­
remes from list to list and thus establish a minimum length of life; they were 
helped in identifying ships by epithets such as Kawr} and 1TaAaax in the 370's, in 
the 350's by the ship's category, and by the appending of the shipwright's 
name after ca. 372. Keil claimed to have found examples of lives of 25, 25, 33 
and 37 years, and therefore concluded that an annual replacement pro­
gramme of 4 ships would suffice, with frequent supplementary quotas (this 
was his interpretation of l.galpt:To, vfit:s, rightly contested by Kolbe). Kolbe 
showed that most of the long lives adduced by Keil are very uncertain (only 
one is beyond doubt: a maximum of 26 years for • AUKA1]1TtaS; Schmidt 19, no. 
75). Few ships can be shown to be over 20 years old and still in service. A num­
ber of very short lives can be established, but because of the nature of our 
evidence these are much easier to establish than the (uneventful) longer ones. 

Several other factors lessen the value of the evidence: the lists do not pro­
vide a wide and even chronological spread; many references do not date the 
ship's destruction or period of service, but the time when a resulting trier­
archic debt was listed or paid, which could be long after the debt originated; 



DAVID BLACKMAN 215 

the shipwright's name may help in dating, but here there is a danger of circu­
lar argument (however, the fact that the shipwright's name was not given 
with ships built before 372 is useful: Fraenkel 23). Last, and most important, 
there are many examples of two ships of the same name in service at the same 
time, possibly even three in a few cases: e.g., in IG IJ2 1611 alone (with the new 
fragment: Hesperia 8 [1939] 17-25) 'Ap€rrl. 'Epwp-€VYJ, EVXCXPLS. 'lKcxvr}, MCXK­
cxp{cx. nCXYKpa'TLOV, ncxvB-r]pcx, E<p€vSoVYJ. <P-r]P-"l, perhaps <PvX\{s; possibly 3: 

Eupc!)1T"l, NtK"l' This makes doubtful some of the identifications suggested. 
Nevertheless Kolbe makes a reasonable case for an average life of 20 years; 

though some of his examples oflong lives are doubtful (e.g., Avpcx; cf Schmidt 
29, no.146), some more may be added (e.g., EuStcx, Acxp-7Tpa( 1). NCXVKPCX'TLS. 
IIoAvaptu'T"l; here IG 112 1609 and the new fragment of 1611 provide further in­
formation, not known to Kolbe; cf Schmidt 23-26). I suspect that the average 
'natural life' of a trireme at Athens was rather more than 20 years, and the 
average actual life (allowing for losses in storm and battle) was rather less 
than 20. If this is true, an annual shipbuilding rate of 15 triremes would scarce­
ly suffice to maintain a fleet of 300, and a rate of 10 triremes would certainly 
not suffice without supplementary building. Too long a period in the water 
was harmful; at Athens the ships would be taken out of the water when pos­
sible and dried out, but this was less easy on campaigns (Thuc. 7.12.3). Too 
long a period out of the water was also harmful (Thuc. 2.94.3, but the Megar­
ians may not have maintained their ships properly). Even if the hulls were 
coated with pitch (Ar. Ach. 189-90; cf t)1TCXAOt<P-r], IG 112 1627, line 313), this was 
not completely effective protection against the teredo-worm and rotting (Ar. 
Eq. 1308); cf Morrison and Williams 279-80. 

During Nabis' siege of Gytheion, Philopoemen launched an old quadrireme, 
which disintegrated at the first impact in battle. Plutarch (Phil. 14.3) and Livy 
(35.26.5-9) describe the same event; cf Paus. 8.50.7, R. M. Errington, Philo­
poemen (Oxford 1969) 102-03. Plutarch says the ship was launched again after 40 
years of disuse: St' J'TWv'TWUCXpaKOV'TCX KCX'TCXU7TaUCXS; Livy says it had been cap­
tured 80 years before and was putrem iam admodum et vetustate dilabentem. This 
was a famous ship, and in a later period. 

The same may be said of the Macedonian royal Csixteener', which the Ro­
mans allowed Philip to keep in the peace treaty of 197/6 (Livy 33.30.5). This does 
seem to be the same ship in which Aemilius Paullus sailed up the Tiber to 
Rome in triumph in 167 (Livy 45.35.3). This ship lasted well over 30 years; but 
a royal ship would receive special care, and by this period better protection of 
the hull may have been possible (e.g., we now have evidence oflead sheathing 
of the hull of a merchantman wrecked off Cyprus in the late fourth century: 
M. L. Katzev, AJA 73 [1969] 238). Could this 'sixteener' be the one built by 
Demetrius Poliorcetes in 289 (Plut. Dem. 43; cf 20) ? This seems most unlikely, 
though not impossible (see W. W. Tarn, Hellenistic Military and Naval Develop-



216 THE A THENIAN NAVY AND ALLIED CONTRIBUTIONS 

ments [Cambridge 1930] 133 and nS-but it is not certain that Lysimachus 
took over Demetrius' <sixteener'; F. W. Walbank, Commentary on Polybius II 
[Oxford 1967] 611-12). 

BRISTOL UNIVERSITY and 
CENTER FOR HELLENIC STUDffiS, WASHINGTON 

May, 1969