|
|
|
|
|
|
|
easily conquered in their entirety; the attackers could only chip away at the borders, since each side's main centers remained far from the battle, and transport and logistical constraints made deep penetration of hostile territory very difficult. Nevertheless, the advantage lay with the aggressor: defenders risked their armies and their polities (entirely, if they were city-states; partially, if they were larger), while the attackers risked only their armies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alliances could be formed en route to the battle to offset the strength in depth of larger polities, but the effectiveness of this strategy depended on the degree of internal disaffection in the defender's system. Generally, this strategy was most feasible for alliances, less so for an empire, and least for a multicity state. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The presence of moderately disaffected elements was not too significant as long as the defenders kept the attackers at a distance so that they could not challenge the polity's internal control. But once the defender's area of dominance was penetrated, its internal control was demonstrably challenged, and the dissidents could ally with the invader. These considerations of internal control further prompted larger polities to meet the enemy at the borders, not for territorial purposes but for hegemonic ones; the defending polity needed to ensure that its internal support remained intact and, inter alia, this was achieved by marching to the borders. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The defense-in-depth strategy was an effective one, and the more area a state dominated, the safer it was from external conquest, all other things being equal. This safety, together with the vulnerability of individual city-states, led to their general absorption into one of the complex polities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cities between more powerful polities were in a difficult position. As polities expanded, nearby city-states could not remain neutral; only alliances offered any security. Conquest left no choice of allies, so many precariously situated towns selected allies on the basis of military considerations, frequently favoring whichever polity could and would project force into the area. A city-state located where several polities exercised influence, might consider factors such as ethnic ties, trade, and access to markets. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever the choice, city-states situated between power blocs allied with one or the other and thereby formed the imperial perimeter. This realignment of perimeter cities altered the relationship of the competing power blocs, since the successful empire gained additional military and logistical capacity from these city-states. Simi- |
|
|
|
|
|