The advantages of a maritime situation are now argued in greater detail, perhaps partly in answer to Plato, who constantly expressed disapproval of sea-ports and navies, foreign trade and travel (see e.g. Laws IV init., and 949 ff.). Aristotle in this chapter gives first some positive advantages, then some ways in which drawbacks can be met; for he agreed with Plato in holding it to have been a disastrous policy for Athens to extend citizenship to the lower social groups, in deference to their position as rowers in the navy, on which the Athenians relied for their political hegemony in Greece and for their food-supply. Aristotle, like Plato, regards such people, however important to a state, as not ‘part’ of it, i.e. as not deserving citizenship; cf. VII viii.
1327a11 There is a good deal of argument about communication with the sea and whether it is a help or a hindrance to states governed by good laws. Some say that to open one’s state to foreigners, brought up in a different legal code, is detrimental to government by good laws, and so is the large population, which, they say, results from the using of the sea to dispatch and receive large numbers of traders, and is inimical to running a good constitution. If these evil consequences can be avoided, it is obviously better both for ensuring an abundance of necessities and for defensive reasons that the state and its territory should have access to the sea. To facilitate resistance to an enemy and ensure survival, the population needs to be in a position to be readily defended both by sea and by land, and even if they cannot strike a blow against invaders on both elements, it will be easier to strike on one, if they have access to both. So too people must import the things which they do not themselves produce, and export those of which they have a surplus. For a state’s trading must be in its own interest and not in others’. Some throw their state open as a market for all comers for the sake of the revenue they bring; but a state in which such aggrandisement is illegitimate ought not to possess that kind of trading-centre at all. We see in modern times also many states and territories in possession of anchorages and harbours conveniently situated for the city, not so near as to encroach and become part of the same town, but close enough to be controlled by walls and other such defence-works. It is therefore clear that if communication with those places is productive of good, then that good will accrue to the state; but if of evil, it is easy to guard against that by laying down laws to prescribe who are and who are not to be allowed to come into contact with each other.
1327a40 Then there is this matter of naval forces. Clearly it is excellent that there should be a certain quantity of these available, for it is important that by sea as well as by land a state should be formidable and able to render aid, not only internally but to certain of its neighbours. The number and size of the naval force will have to be decided in the light of the way of living of the state concerned. If it is to play an active role as a leading state,1 it will need naval as well as land forces large enough for such activities. The large population associated with a mob of seamen need not swell the membership of the state, of which they should form no part. The troops that are carried on board are free men belonging to the infantry; they are in sovereign authority and have control over the crews. A plentiful supply of sailors is sure to exist wherever the outlying dwellers2 and agricultural labourers are numerous. We can see examples of this even today: at Heraclea, though their city is of comparatively modest size, they find crews for many triremes. So much then for territory, harbours, cities, sea and naval forces; we pass now to the citizen population.