These conditions not only controlled history more or less directly by making one course more possible than another, but also affected history more at second hand, though none the less effectively, by reacting on the minds of the Greeks. They looked on the sea with different eyes from the Phoenicians. To the Phoeni cians the sea was a means of setting up trade routes ; to the Greeks it was a means of preserving their in dependence. To the Phoenicians it was primarily a way; to the Greeks it was primarily a defence. For this reason mainly, one characteristic of Greek civilization is the intense feeling of independence felt by one state not only of men alien in race, but even of other Greek states. And this feeling is strengthened by the great differences which, owing to the physical features and consequent diversity of climate, exist between even adjacent parts of the mainland. Thus each state felt its own unity so strongly that no Greek empire was ever established.
This was no passing effect. About 1000 B.C. the form of civilization which had held the field in what is now modern Greece underwent a change. Tribes from the north invaded the land, and for a time there was an apparent set back. This was not permanent, for the infusion of new blood helped to quicken the distinctively Greek form of culture, and brought it to a finer fruition. With this we have at present little to do. What we have to notice is that, though there was some change in the distribution of states, the action of geographical controls was little changed, and such changes as did take place were due to the different effect the controls had on the minds of men who had uncon sciously learned more of the methods by which energy might be saved. The newer Greek civilization spread over the islands and peninsulas of the Aegean in the same way as did the earlier, but it spread faster because the sea was known better and was found to be something of a way. On the other hand, the lesson learned through long years that the sea was a protection, and the outlook on life implied in the lesson, are just as obvious in later as in earlier history.
The internal history of Hellas exemplifies the control of the geographical conditions. New states indeed arose. Instead of Argolis and Thebes we hear of Sparta and Athens, but the history is just such as might have been expected. Owing to the diverse interests of the small units we see continual kaleidoscopic change during the three or four centuries in which Greece is clearly before our eyes. There was little stability for each unit; indeed even the members of each unit were in a like case, and felt that individual claims ought to be con sidered. Through it all the fundamental importance of the zea stands out clearly; the internal history of these Grecian states—of Greece in the wider sense— consists in a struggle for supremacy between con federations of those city states based as much as possible on the land and confederations based as much as possible on the sea. Naturally, as we see it now, the
victory rested for the longest time with the confederacy based on the sea, though, owing to the usual tendency towards separation, this time was itself but short.
The external history is equally instructive. We have seen that to the Greeks the sea was a defence, while to the Phoenicians it was a way. To them, the Phoenicians, it was little of a protection, for their danger came not from the sea but from the land. In their new enthusiasm, with no rivals, or at most only individual pirate ships, to dispute their claims, they at first went far afield and were much scattered. Phoenicia, if the term be taken to include all the lands under the influence of the Phoenicians, was much less compact than was Greece, be cause there was as yet no sea-power or idea of it. It had not entered into the minds of the Phoenicians that com merce required to be protected, defended, just as much as agriculture ; that merchant ships moving on the sea required organized defence as much as cities and states fixed on the land. It was natural that, having no rivals, they should think so. Yet, though defence is necessary for commerce, there is no natural defence on the sea ; wherever the sea is, there is a way open to all and debarred to none. The only defence lies in the seamen themselves, and, other things being equal, the more seamen there are in one place, the better is the defence. Viewing the sea as a battlefield, the Greeks, on the other hand, were little disposed to allow others to share with them in the advan tages of the sea, and were the more able to enforce their will. Hence it is little wonder that when at last the Greeks did become traders, they should be somewhat more cautious in extending their operations to districts in which they would be at a disadvantage, and they were able by force to oust the Phoenicians from trade with many lands to which they had comparatively easy access. The Phoenicians never cared for fighting for its own sake, and when they felt the pressure of competition, knowing there was room for all, they just went somewhere else. Thus on becoming merchants, stimulated by the example of the Phoenicians or as a natural result of the geographical conditions, or more probably in consequence of both controls, the Greeks eventually drove their rivals from the eastern Mediter ranean and made it their own.