Greece from the Coming of the Hellenes to AD. 14/III
III
THE ORIGIN OF THE PERSIAN INVASIONS
The first interruption to the independent development of Hellenic life occurred in Asia Minor, and as it led to the chief political service of the European Greeks—the rolling back of the invasions from the East—and greatly changed the mutual relations of the Hellenic states themselves, it is necessary to get a clear view of this event.
We have seen in the seventh century B.C. that it was in the Greek cities of Asia—the Æolian colonies of the north-west and the Ionian colonies of the south-west—that Hellenic life seemed most active and vigorous. This was shown by the extraordinary activity in sending out fresh colonies, in the outburst of literature, and in the frequency of political movement and change. It was in these cities, it seemed at one time, that the Greeks were to work out their destiny. But this development was checked, in the first instance, by the rise of the Lydian kingdom, with a capital at Sardis. The inhabitants of Lydia once called Paeonians, had in some way, probably by conquest, been so far absorbed by another race as to adopt their name. Whether the conquerors were called Lydians, or were led by a Lydus, we do not know. All we can tell is that at some period subsequent to the Homeric poems the change of name took place. The Lydians first became important under a dynasty founded by Gyges about B.C. 727. He and his successors made repeated efforts to get possession of the Ionian and other Greek towns on the coast, and this was finally effected by Croesus, who reigned from B.C. 560 to B.C. 546.
The Ionian cities thus conquered consisted of twelve states—three in Caria, seven in Lydia, and two islands.[1] Of these the most populous and powerful were Ephesus and Miletus, and the latter had made such a strenuous resistance to Croesus and his predecessors that it obtained specially favourable terms upon its submission. Though never politically powerful, the Ionians of Asia had been an adventurous, busy, and thriving mercantile people. Their colonists had fringed the coasts of the Propontis and Euxine; their seamen had made their way to Italy and Spain; and to them and the Æolians, as we have seen, belong most of the great names in literature before B.C. 550, and among them had been the earliest political movements in the direction of democracy which were felt afterwards in most other parts of Greece.
Their submission to a foreign power, therefore, was a great blow to Greek independence and Greek civilisation. The catastrophe was partly brought about by the passion for local autonomy, which is the chief characteristic of Greek politics. The mutual jealousy of these small states prevented them from combining even in the face of a common enemy. Again and again Miletus was abandoned by the others, and left to fight alone for a freedom which was thus steadily suppressed. The last of the Lydian monarchs—Croesus—asserted his power over all the Greek cities in Asia, and forced them to pay him tribute. He began to reign in B.C. 560, and became renowned for his wealth and power. His treasure-houses were bursting with gold, all Asia west of the Halys, except Lycia and Cilicia, acknowledged his supremacy; and having obtained command of the coast, he wished to add the islands of the Ægean to his dominions. He was a man of some generosity of nature, and was interested, if he did not share, in Greek culture. Herodotus has preserved romantic tales of his career, and especially of the visit of Solon, the Athenian lawgiver to his court, which, whether true or, as chronologists will have it, impossible, yet gives a striking view of the Greek feeling as to great success and wealth. We are told that Solon was received by him with great distinction, and shown over his treasury with its vast accumulation of gold, and then asked by Croesus, whom he regarded as the happiest of mankind. To his surprise Solon first mentioned a private Athenian named Tellus, who had enjoyed a prosperous life, with fair sons and grandsons, and had died fighting for his country in the very moment of victory; and secondly, two Argives, called Cleobis and Biton, who at the feast of Hera dragged the waggon carrying their mother to the temple, because the oxen were late in coming, and for whom their mother then prayed the goddess to give them in reward the greatest blessing possible for man. The two youths after the banquet fell asleep in the temple, and never woke again. On Croesus showing wonder and mortification, Solon addressed to him the famous warning that no one could be called happy till his death. The legend went on to tell how this warning was justified soon afterwards by the accidental death of his son at the hands of Adrastus, whom Croesus had received and purified from the pollution of a former involuntary homicide. But Croesus had soon after this last calamity reason to fear for his own life and kingdom.
The danger now threatening him was from the encroaching policy of Cyrus, founder of the Medo-Persian Empire. The great Assyrian Empire had broken up into two kingdoms, that of the Medes with Ecbatana for its capital, and that of the Babylonians. About B.C. 559, Cyrus led clown a mountain tribe of Persae, seized Ecbatana and dethroned the last Median king, Astyages, and thus became lord of a large part of Upper Asia. His only rival was the King of Babylon, whom he also conquered in B.C. 538. But in the meantime his energy was directed to securing the seaboard of Asia Minor. When he had been reigning about ten years he had pushed on his conquest to the west as far as Cappadocia, and there only remained between him and the shore of the Mediterranean, the kingdom of Lydia. Croesus, conscious of his danger, doubted for some time whether it would be best to await the attack at home or to cross the Halys into Cappadocia and, securing that district against the encroaching Cyrus, meet and defeat him there. He tried to strengthen himself with alliances with Labynetus of Babylon and Amasis, King of Egypt, whose interest it was that Cyrus should be weakened. He also turned his eyes to European Greece, and showed his knowledge of Greek feeling by beginning at Delphi. Having, it is said, convinced himself by a strange test that the oracle of Delphi was the one most to be depended upon, he sent presents of extraordinary magnificence to the temple. Other seats of Greek oracles were propitiated by his gifts, but those sent to Delphi surpassed all others in splendour. His envoys consulted the Pythia, and received in answer to their question, the enigmatic response that if Croesus attacked the Persians he would destroy a great empire. She added the advice that he should seek an alliance with the most powerful state in Greece. There was at this time no doubt of Sparta occupying that position as a military power, though it seems probable that for the king's purposes the absence of naval strength made their alliance of little value. But the Pythia had reasons for supporting the prestige of Sparta, and the king's choice of that state may very likely have been suggested at Delphi. At any rate the offer was made and gladly accepted by the Spartan magistrates. Thus encouraged, Croesus resolved upon the invasion of Cappadocia. At first he carried all before him, but before long he was met by an army hastily raised by Cyrus. A fierce battle gave no decided result, but Croesus did not renew the struggle. He marched back to Sardis, intending to strengthen himself by means of the alliances he had made, and to renew the war in the spring with enlarged forces. On reaching Sardis he dispersed his army into winter quarters, intending to devote the season to his preparations for the next year's campaign. But Cyrus did not wait his convenience. Croesus had scarcely completed these arrangements when news came that the Persians were advancing on Sardis. He had only time to arm some of the Sardians and secure himself in the citadel, which was believed to be impregnable. But when the open town had been occupied for a short time by the enemy, the citadel was not long in sharing the same fate, and Croesus fell into the hands of the conqueror (who treated him with humanity), and the whole kingdom of Lydia was added to the dominions of the Persian king (B.C. 546).
The subjection of the Greek cities in Asia, and of the islands close to the coast, followed, in spite of a fitful resistance offered to the two Persian commanders left or sent by Cyrus to subdue them—Pactyas and Harpagus. The conquest was gradually extended to Caria and the Dorian Hexapolis, and before B.C. 540 all the Greek states in Asia, Æolian, Ionian, and Dorian alike—were tributary to the great king, and their citizens liable to serve in his armies. The change to these cities was not great; they had been tributary to Croesus, they were now tributary to the King of Persia. Under Croesus they had enjoyed an internal independence and the administration of their own laws, under Cyrus they had the same privileges. But the Persian satraps at Sardis insisted as often as they could on the establishment of single rulers or tyrants in the several cities, who being chiefly dependent on Persian support for the maintenance of their authority, would be subservient to the Persian court. In other respects the substitution of Persian for Lydian supremacy does not appear to have been inimical to the prosperity of the cities. Miletus was still strong and more independent than the others, and Ephesus was rendered prosperous, and on the whole content, by being the starting-place of the great road which the Persians constructed to Ecbatana. The islands felt the yoke less than the towns on the mainland, and one of them at least rose to considerable power. This was Samos under Polycrates (535–522), who for a brief time maintained a powerful fleet and made foreign alliances, as with Amasis of Egypt. But his fate is an example of Persian policy. In B.C. 525, Cyrus had been dead three years (having ten years before added the Babylonian kingdom to his empire), and his son Cambyses (B.C. 528–521) had secured Phoenicia with its naval resources and was invading Egypt. Polycrates duly sent his contingent to aid Cambyses in Egypt; but showed his insecurity at home by sending to Egypt those who were discontented at his rule. These men returned and endeavoured vainly to dethrone him, and he seemed safer than ever. But by this time the Persian satrap at Sardis, Oroetes, had made up his mind that Polycrates must be got rid of. He was accordingly lured over to Asia by a pretended offer of Oroetes to join him in revolting from the king and seizing the treasures at Sardis; and was arrested on his way and put to death. His brother, who was willing to be subservient to Persia, was put in his place. In this way the Persian power over the Greek states was steadily strengthened, and was now becoming continually more formidable. The conquest of Phoenicia had put in the king's hand a numerous and enterprising navy. The possession of Egypt and Cyprus seemed to give him another starting-place against Southern Greece. The inevitable attack, however, was delayed for many years, partly by domestic troubles and partly by the difficulty of securing Egypt.
Cambyses's death in B.C. 522 was followed by the usurpation of the Pseudo-Smerdis, and by a counter revolution which put Darius, son of Hystaspes on the throne. For the first eight or nine years of his reign, he seems to have devoted himself, with two interruptions caused by revolts in Babylon, to the organisation of his empire, which he divided into twenty satrapies, of which the first embraced the Greek cities in Asia Minor, the seat of government being Sardis. But he had married Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, and he was expected to follow in the steps of his father-in-law, by undertaking some great military enterprise. The conquest of Greece was suggested to him, and he appointed a commission to make inquiries and report to him on the state of the country. But meanwhile his attention was distracted in another direction. For some hundred years, beginning about B.C. 650, Asia had suffered from invasions of northern races, Cimmerians and Scythians. The former ravaged the country from north to south, and even when defeated—as they were by the Cilicians—maintained themselves in mountain fastnesses from which they continued their devastations. The last invasion of Scythians, who were said to be pursuing the Cimmerians, had lasted twenty-eight years—from about B.C. 585 to 557—and it was uncertain when the danger might recur, Darius therefore determined to take the offensive and invade the country to the north of the Black Sea. This is one motive assigned to the "Scythian expedition," and it is not certainly disproved by showing that the invaders of Asia were not those whom he attacked. The Persians would have no certain knowledge of the difference between Scythian tribes. Their object would be to show their power in these northern regions from which they were reported to have come. But another object, no doubt, was—as shown in the sequel—to prevent help coming from European Greeks across the Hellespont to his Greek subjects in northern Asia Minor.
The story of this expedition (between B.C. 515–509) is given by Herodotus, probably from accounts which he found current in the northern Greek colonies. He may have learnt something also from the speech of Miltiades, when defending himself on the charge of "tyranny" after his retirement to Athens. We cannot be sure of these things, and it is not necessary here to discuss how much he knew of the geography of the lands beyond the Danube. It is what happened on the left bank of that river that affected the Greeks. Darius crossed the Thracian Bosporus and marched north to the Danube, on which a bridge of ships had been prepared. In his army were contingents from many Greek states under their respective tyrants. He seems to have been fully aware of the difficulties in the way of his design, which, according to Herodotus, was to march round the head of the Euxine and re-enter Asia through Colchis along its eastern shore. In the absence of all certain knowledge of the country, the rivers, the wild tribes to be encountered, he wisely resolved to keep a retreat open by maintaining the bridge of ships across the Danube. It shows some confidence in the Greek character, or in the hold he had upon the men themselves, that he entrusted the maintenance and defence of this bridge to the tyrants of the Greek towns with some of their own troops. Herodotus says that this was suggested by Goes, the commander of the contingent from Mitylene, in Lesbos. It is such an obvious precaution that he must be held likely to have thought of it himself. The selection of the Greek tyrants for the service may have been due to Coes. His direction to them was to wait sixty days, to be reckoned by the daily untying of a knot in a leathern thong, and if he had not returned by that time, to break up the bridge and sail home. The sixty days passed, and, instead of the reappearance of the king, a strong body of Scythian horsemen rode up to the bank of the Danube, where the Greek ships formed the end of the bridge. They affirmed that Darius was so completely surrounded that he must perish; and they exhorted the Greeks to unfasten their vessels and sail away. The Greek rulers thereupon held council, and Miltiades, the tyrant of the Thracian Chersonese,[2] who was destined hereafter to be the victor at Marathon, advised that they should do as the Scythians suggested, and thus restore Ionia and the other Greek cities to freedom. But another of the tyrants, Histiaeus of Miletus, argued against this counsel on the ground that they depended for their authority in their several states upon Persian support. This argument prevailed, and thus when Darius returned the ships, which had been loosened from their moorings, were ready to complete the bridge once more, and he crossed in safety.
The king himself hastened to the Thracian Chersonese and crossed to Asia from Lesbos and took up his abode for some time at Sardis. Perhaps the march beyond the Danube had only been meant as a kind of military demonstration. At any rate nothing had been accomplished. Still the expedition was not sterile south of the river. He left Megabazus and a strong force with orders to subdue the Greek towns on the coast of Thrace and the kingdom of Macedonia. The Thracian cities were forced to submit; the flourishing and industrious Paeonians were transferred bodily to Asia; and Otanes, the successor of Megabazus, extended these conquests to Antandros, Lemnos, Imbros, Calchedon, and Byzantium. Tokens of submission were then demanded from the King of Macedonia, and, though the Persian envoys behaved with such insolence that they were assassinated by order of the king's son, these tokens were given.
The operations thus briefly noticed seem to have occupied several years, during most of which Darius was far away at Susa, while his half-brother Artaphernes was the Satrap at Sardis in charge of all that concerned the Greek towns. The supremacy of Persia does not seem to have been exercised with harshness, and accordingly there was a brief period of comparative repose.
Nevertheless the position of the Persians in the North, and especially their command of the Hellespont and Bosporus, must have seemed a menace to Greek freedom, and was especially annoying to Athens, which depended greatly for its supply of corn upon the trade from the coasts of the Propontis and Black Sea. Accordingly we find that the Athenians, after trying to make terms with Artaphernes, made up their minds to adopt a steadily hostile attitude to Persia. Their first attempts at negotiation were met by the rigid demand for "earth and water," as a necessary condition of any alliance. Though the recent expulsion of Hippias (B.C. 510) had involved them in conflicts with Sparta, the Athenians would not purchase the Satrap's assistance at this price. Later on (B.C. 505) they were further angered by a direct order from Artaphernes to readmit Hippias (who had retired to Sigeium and thence visited Sardis) "if they wished to be safe." This determined the Athenians to hold no terms with him, but openly to oppose the Persians everywhere. They soon had an opportunity of giving a practical exhibition of this policy.
For about five years (B.C. 507–502) after the Persian power had been asserted in the Greek cities of Thrace, and in the northern islands, the period of unfamiliar calm remained unbroken by alarms of war or revolution. But that there was smouldering discontent was shown by the rapidity with which the flame of rebellion spread when once the spark was put to the material. The jealousy of the Persian government was easily aroused. Histiaeus of Miletus had been rewarded for his services in keeping up the bridge over the Danube by a grant of land at Myrkinos, near what was afterwards Amphipolis. There he settled, leaving the government of Miletus to his son-in-law Aristogaras. But before long his activity in his new home woke the distrust of the Persian commander Otanes, and in consequence of his report Histiaeus was summoned to join the king on the honourable pretext of the need of his counsel, and was taken off by him in his train to Susa. Meanwhile affairs seemed going smoothly in Ionia without any sign of an outbreak.
But this peaceful state of things came to an end in B.C. 502 with a revolution in the island of Naxos, the largest of the Cyclades. The Persians as yet had no hold on the Cyclades, though Artaphernes was always on the lookout to obtain one. The island of Naxos, which had been colonised by Ionians from Athens, had gone through many political changes. Finally it had been conquered by the Athenian Pisistratus, who set up or restored Lygdamis as its tyrant. About B.C. 525 his government had been replaced by an oligarchy. Hut the democratic party was able, in B.C. 503, to expel a number of the oligarchs and establish a free constitution. The banished men retired to Miletus and appealed for help to Aristagoras, with whom they had ties of friendship (ξενία). Aristagoras listened to the appeal and undertook to apply to Artaphernes, the Satrap at Sardis, for the necessary naval support. Artaphernes readily caught at a chance of establishing Persian influence in the Cyclades. There was some delay from the necessity of sending to Susa for the king's permission, and for collecting and manning two hundred ships. But the royal consent was duly obtained, and the fleet was ready in the spring of B.C. 501, under the joint command of Aristagoras and the king's cousin Megabates. The secret had been kept from the Naxians, who were made to believe that the fleet was destined for the Hellespont. But a violent quarrel arose between Megabates and Aristagoras as to the punishment of a Carian captain, and Megabates in revenge sent secret information to Naxos of the real object of the expedition. When the fleet arrived, therefore, the town of Naxos was found in a state of defence and prepared to stand a long siege. There was neither money nor adequate provision for such an operation, and after spending large sums of his own property Aristagoras found it impossible to take Naxos, and was, therefore, unable to fulfil his promise to Artaphernes that the expedition should bring in enough to pay its cost. He felt certain that this ill-success would involve the loss of his governorship of Miletus and, perhaps, of his life. His only chance seemed to be to cover his failure by instigating some general movement in Ionia sufficient to distract the attention of Artaphernes.
In the midst of his perplexity he received a message from Histiaeus, who, wearied of his detention at Susa, hoped that a movement in Ionia would secure his being sent down to deal with it. According to the well-known story the message was conveyed by two words tattooed on a slave's head—"raise Ionia" (Ἰωνίαν ἀναστῆσον). This chimed in well with his own views, and steps were at once taken. An agreement was come to whereby the tyrants of the several Greek towns were persuaded or forced to abdicate, and the Paeonians were advised to quit the district in which they had been placed by Darius and return to their own lands. Aristagoras then set sail for European Greece in the hope of getting support from Sparta or Athens. His proposal was rejected by the Spartan king, Cleomenes, who, besides the national objection to distant expeditions, was intent about this time upon crushing Argos. At Athens he found a readier welcome. The Athenians were just entering on their upward career; they had got rid of their tyrants, and were ready to act as champions of freedom everywhere. They were specially irritated with Artaphernes, as we have seen by his support of the banished tyrant Hippias. They were glad of an opportunity to show him that their enmity was formidable. A fleet of twenty ships was prepared, and accompanied by five triremes from Eretria in Euboea started for Ephesus in the spring of B.C. 500.
The preparations for a general rising had made considerable progress. The co-operation of the other Ionian and Æolian states was secured by deposing the tyrants, Aristagoras himself ostensibly laying down his power, though he kept it under another name. The fleet that had been collected for the attack on Naxos was next secured and increased by ships from various states. These measures Aristagoras had taken before he went on his mission to Greece. On his return, encouraged by his success at Athens-, he took the first open step in the revolt from Persia by securing the removal of the Paeonians. Soon after this the Athenian and Eretrian force arrived at Ephesus. The men landed there, and being joined by some Ionians, marched upon Sardis. The town was easily taken, and apparently by an accident set on fire. But they could not take the citadel, and they soon heard that a large army, hastily summoned by the order of Artaphernes, was advancing on Sardis. They hastily retreated, but were overtaken and severely defeated near Ephesus. The leader of the Eretrians was killed, but the Athenians seem to have got on board their ships and sailed home.
The revolt was now in full swing, and though the attack on Sardis had failed, the Ionian fleet was as yet untouched. Some time was required by the Persians to bring ships from Phoenicia capable of contending with the rebel fleet, which accordingly coasted along as far as Byzantium, successfully persuading the towns to join the revolt, and then returned southwards as far as Caria and Cyprus.
The revolt thus begun lasted till B.C. 494. But after two years (500–498) it became chiefly a question of naval supremacy. The Persians having in the past two years recovered Cyprus and Caria, in spite of several disasters, left the fleet of the Ionians and their allies alone for a time and proceeded steadily to reduce the various towns, keeping up all the time a somewhat loose siege of Miletus. Aristagoras lost heart and fled to Myrcinus in Thrace, where he perished in combat with the natives. When Histiaeus came down to the coast, having persuaded Darius to send him to quiet the outbreak, he found that his part in promoting it was well known to Artaphernes, and that it was already almost hopeless of success. Finally, being refused admission to his own Miletus, he escaped to the Hellespont, where he maintained himself for some years and did not perish till the end of the revolt had come. That end was now inevitable. The Ionians in the allied fleet were ill-disciplined and averse to hardships, and though for a time they combined and submitted to the orders of an elected general, Dionysius of Phocaea, they soon resented his strictness and broke up into squadrons which went where they pleased. The Persians had now collected a fleet of 600 vessels, and though no state but the Samians consented to surrender, in the battle of Lade (B.C. 495) the allies were utterly defeated and scattered. This destruction of their sea power was followed by the fall of Miletus (B.C. 494), and then all hope of resistance was at an end. Histiaeus, who had taken refuge at Byzantium, endeavoured to escape, but was captured and put to death.
The Persians followed up their success in B.C. 493 by re-occupying Byzantium, the Thracian Chersonese, and the islands and states which had joined in, or sympathised with, the revolt. Artaphernes seems to have made an attempt at a more permanent settlement of Ionia, establishing courts of arbitration to prevent the continual bickering and fighting between the states, and making such divisions of the towns that the burden of taxation might be more equally distributed and less felt. But the Persian court had now resolved on a still more important movement, the results of which will be described in the next chapter.