In one of the most renowned passages of Polybius’ Histories, which celebrates the expansion of the Achaean league throughout the Peloponnese, the historian from Megalopolis praises the Achaean federal model as an example of political union aimed at achieving concord and the common good. He compares the opposing fates of Macedonia and Achaia, explaining the unexpected success of the Achaean confederation in their ability to unify the Peloponnese (from 191 to 183 BC with the Messinian revolt) and to maintain concord among the members of the koinon. Polybius’ admiration springs not so much from the workings of the confederation or the federal model itself, but rather from the successful endeavour to transform the Peloponnese into a cohesive political entity. The Achaeans succeeded where others had previously failed, by overcoming the particularisms of the cities and creating a new reality characterised by political cohesion and homogeneity. The reasons for this success lie in the koinon‘s ability to guarantee freedom and sovereignty to the individual entities in the league, setting aside ambitions for personal dominance and hegemonic aspirations. The political uniformity Polybius speaks of is made possible by sharing foreign policy and the alliance system as well as establishing the commonality of laws and institutions and the adoption of a common currency. Interestingly, to translate the idea of the new political uniformity of the Peloponnesus Polybius resorts to the image of the mia polis (cf. Plut. Phil. 8.3: ἓν σῶμα καὶ μίαν δύναμιν κατασκευάσαι διενοοῦντο τὴν Πελοπόννησον), showing that the polis was the yardstick for evaluating the success of other political experiences still in the midst of the Hellenistic age. The Peloponnese is one polis, says Polybius, even if it is not enclosed by the same walls (perhaps reminiscent of Arst. Pol. 3.3.1276a 22-26), as the institutions (democratic, cf. Polyb. 2.38.6: δημοκρατίας ἀληθινῆς σύστημα καὶ προαίρεσιν) are the same at local and federal level.
The picture Polybius gives of the Achaean federal model evidently suffers from a certain idealisation. The historian offers a simplified, sometimes mystifying representation of the political principles operating within the koinon, emphasising the values of freedom, equality and collective harmony. There are numerous inaccuracies in this account. A few examples. If we look at the geographical unity of the Peloponnese, it was in fact not fully achieved, as shown by the fact that Metana in Argolis never joined the Achaean league. The commonality of laws that Polybius speaks about certainly concerns federal laws, but the historian omits to point out that locally each polis used its own laws. Finally, while it is true that the koinon possessed a common coinage – federal coins bear on the obverse the image of the federal Zeus and on the reverse the monogram of the league and the garland symbol – it is equally true that the surviving coins were minted by the individual cities.
The reason for praising the Achaean league, in which all cities, whether among the founding members of the koinon or only recently joining it, receive equal treatment and are placed on an equal footing (Polyb. 2.38.6; 62.4), is to be found in the fact that Polybius recognises in the experience of the Achaean league the all-Greek virtue of subordinating individual desires to the common welfare and placing the collective interest at the centre.
περὶ δὲ τοῦ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν ἔθνους καὶ περὶ τῆς Μακεδόνων οἰκίας ἁρμόσει διὰ βραχέων ἀναδραμεῖν τοῖς χρόνοις, ἐπειδὴ περὶ μὲν ταύτην ὁλοσχερὴς ἐπαναίρεσις, περὶ δὲ τοὺς Ἀχαιούς, καθάπερ ἐπάνω προεῖπον, παράδοξος αὔξησις καὶ συμφρόνησις ἐν τοῖς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς καιροῖς γέγονε. πολλῶν γὰρ ἐπιβαλομένων ἐν τοῖς παρεληλυθόσι χρόνοις ἐπὶ ταὐτὸ συμφέρον ἀγαγεῖν Πελοποννησίους, οὐδενὸς δὲ καθικέσθαι δυνηθέντος διὰ τὸ μὴ τῆς κοινῆς ἐλευθερίας ἕνεκεν ἀλλὰ τῆς σφετέρας δυναστείας χάριν ἑκάστους ποιεῖσθαι τὴν σπουδήν, τοιαύτην καὶ τηλικαύτην ἐν τοῖς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς καιροῖς ἔσχε προκοπὴν καὶ συντέλειαν τοῦτο τὸ μέρος ὥστε μὴ μόνον συμμαχικὴν καὶ φιλικὴν κοινωνίαν γεγονέναι πραγμάτων περὶ αὐτούς, ἀλλὰ καὶ νόμοις χρῆσθαι τοῖς αὐτοῖς καὶ σταθμοῖς καὶ μέτροις καὶ νομίσμασι, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἄρχουσι, βουλευταῖς, δικασταῖς, τοῖς αὐτοῖς, καθόλου δὲ τούτῳ μόνῳ διαλλάττειν τοῦ μὴ μιᾶς πόλεως διάθεσιν ἔχειν σχεδὸν τὴν σύμπασαν Πελοπόννησον, τῷ μὴ τὸν αὐτὸν περίβολον ὑπάρχειν τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν αὐτήν, τἄλλα δ᾽ εἶναι καὶ κοινῇ καὶ κατὰ πόλεις ἑκάστοις ταὐτὰ καὶ παραπλήσια.
But it is perfectly appropriate for me to give a résumé of the past history of the Achaeans and the royal house of Macedon, because within my own lifetime the Macedonian royal house has become extinct, while the growth of Achaean power and their progress towards unity have been remarkable, as I mentioned before. There had been many attempts in the past to unify the Peloponnesians, but none of them succeeded because each state was interested only in its own supremacy, not in freedom for all alike. In my time, however, this cause has made considerable progress. It has been so successful, in fact, that not only have they formed the states into a community of allies and friends, but they have also adopted the same laws, weights and measures, and coinage, and they share statesmen, council, and law courts. In short, the only way in which almost the entire Peloponnese fails to be a single state is that its inhabitants are not enclosed within a single wall; in all other respects, the public aspects of their lives are more or less identical from city to city (translated by R. Waterfield).
- C. Bearzot, Ancient Theoretical Reflections on Federalism, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge 2015, 503-511
- H. Beck, Polis und Koinon: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Struktur der griechischen Bundesstaaten im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Stuttgart 1997
- C.B. Champion, Cultural Politics in Polybius’s Histories, Berkeley, Los Angeles 2004.
- J.A.O. Larsen, Greek Federal States: Their Institutions and History, Oxford 1968
- G.A. Lehmann, Die Rezeption der achaiischen Bundesverfassung in der Verfassung der USA, in W. Schuller (ed.), Xenia, Heft 15 (Antike in der Moderne. Konstanzer Symposion zur Antike Rezeption in der Neuzeit), Konstanz 1985, 171-182
- A. Rizakis, The Achaian League, in H. Beck, P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge 2015, 118-131.
- F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. I, Oxford 1957