The Histories discussion: Book Eight: Artemesion

Thermopylae & Artemision campaign
Picture source

We know very little of Pindar's life. He was born in or about the year B.C. 522, at the village of Kynoskephalai near Thebes. He was thus a citizen of Thebes and seems to have always had his home there. But he travelled among other states, many of which have been glorified by his art. For his praise of Athens, 'bulwark of Hellas,' the city which at Artemision “laid the foundation of freedom,” the Thebans are said to have fined him; but the generous Athenians paid the fine, made him their Proxenos, and erected his statue at the public cost.

(Ernest Myers in the Introduction to The Extant Odes of Pindar. Note that Artemisium is an alternate spelling in other sources.)

For an excellent summary of events leading to the sea battle at Artemesium, as well as the battle itself visit this site. Instead of recapping the action, I will look at a couple of topics that stood out for me in this section (paragraphs 4 to 25).

Themistokles
Themistokles proves to be one of Herodotus’ most complex portraits in The Histories. There is much admiration for Themistokles’ contributions to the Hellenic victory, which included being one of the ten generals at Marathon (not mentioned by Herodotus), convincing the Athenians to build ships with a windfall from their silver mines, and interpreting the Delphic oracle for Athens to put their trust in their fleet. Starting with the battle of Artemesion some bias against Themistokles creeps into Herodotus’ narrative. In the years after the Persian wars Themistocles was hounded out of Greece and eventually ended up serving the Persian court (his later life is well covered by Thucydides and Plutarch). Herodotus’ claim of Themistokles’ accepting and giving bribes have to viewed with the later history in mind—how much did the later transgressions of Themistokles surface in Herodotus’ coverage? Or, as in other parts of The Histories, is he simply reporting what others said?

Herodotus accuses Themistokles of receiving 30 talents (of unspecified metal) from the Euboeans to engage the Persians near their land so they would have time to evacuate their households. In order to accomplish that, Themistokles supposedly bribed Eurybiades (the Spartan commander of the entire fleet) with five talents of gold and Adeimantos (the Corinthian commander) with three talents of silver for both to keep their fleets in the area.

A side note—Greeks that later served the Persian court receive mixed handling from Herodotus. I don’t recall anything bad said about the former Spartan king Demaratos, even when he provides Xerxes with an accurate analysis on how to defeat the Spartans (which Xerxes fails to heed). Themistokles’ coverage proves to be more complex and bears scrutiny for the remainder of The Histories.

Fate/Gods
From the way Herodotus lays out the action, at some point the Persians would have to feel fate was working against them. That point would not have been when the false dream encouraged Xerxes to invade Greece. It probably wasn’t when the storm destroyed the first Hellespont bridge. It might have started to creep in when 400 ships were destroyed in a storm off Magnesia. Even though the army was victorious at Thermopylae, the battle could not have been reassuring to the Persians given the amount of casualties inflicted by a small number of Greeks.

Herodotus reports the Persians deciding to send a large contingent of ships around Euboea, a trip of over 250 miles, in order to trap the Hellenic ships. All 200 ships were lost in storms, although it is possible Herodotus uses this story to reduce the number of Persian ships closer to a believable figure once battle was engaged. It’s also possible events happened as he said, which would have dealt another blow to Persian morale. His comment in paragraph 13 tantalizes the reader: “All this was the god’s doing, so that the Persian side would be equal to instead of much greater than the Greek side.” What really happened?

After the initial skirmish near Artemesion, which was undecided but slightly in the Greeks’ favor, the Persians had to suffer through a stormy night at Aphetai (across a strait from Artemesion) where dead bodies washed up on shore. The omens which the Persians had been wishfully interpreting in their favor (or simply ignoring) can no longer be disregarded and they reacted accordingly: “[T]hey began to panic, expecting that they would be utterly destroyed, so terrible were the adversities that they had by now encountered, for even before they could catch their breath from the shipwrecks and the storm raging off Pelion, they were confronted by a fierce sea battle and after that by torrential rains and might torrents that teemed into the sea with violent thunder.” (from paragraph 12, all quotes and spellings are from The Landmark Herodotus with translation by Andrea L. Purvis)

Despite the bad omens, the Persians were more fearful of what Xerxes might do to them (harkening back to Demaratos’ discussion with Xerxes about the rule of law versus the rule of man) and engaged in the final day of battle at Artemesion. The reader can almost detect a sigh of relief on the Persian side when the Greeks, learning of the defeat at Thermopylae, sailed away to establish a new defensive position.

Propaganda
Themistokles’ action during the retreat from Artemesion was brilliant. Leaving engraved messages on the rocks for the Ionians encouraging them to desert the Persians or stay out of battle as much as possible might possibly cause them to defect in addition to casting doubt on their reliability for Xerxes. Herodotus had previously mentioned the Ionians’ divided loyalty, some “kindly disposed to the Hellenes and were serving in the expedition against their will” while others enjoyed fighting the Greeks. Once again their rightful place in Herodotus’ geography comes into question and Artabanos’ warning to Xerxes to leave the Ionians behind during the invasion begins to look prophetic.

Xerxes tries his hand at propaganda also, inviting anyone who wished to tour the battlefield and view the Greek dead to do so. Before anyone was allowed to visit the site, though, nineteen of the twenty thousand Persian casualties had to be buried first. That way there would be 3,000 Greek corpses in comparison to the remaining thousand Persian bodies. Herodotus says Xerxes’ troops saw through the ruse. Successful or not, leaders on both sides would continue to engage in propaganda for the remainder of the war.

The Histories discussion: Book Eight: Who leads the fleet?

The Spartans provided the commander who had supreme authority over them all, Eurybiades son of Eurykleides. For the allies had refused to follow Athenian leaders and had asserted that unless a Laconian led them, they would call off the anticipated assembly of their armed forces. … [T]he Athenians yielded to them because they considered the survival of Hellas of paramount importance, and they knew that if they quarreled over the leadership, Hellas would be destroyed. They were indeed quite right in this, for compared to a united war effort, internal quarrels are as bad as war itself is when compared to peace. And so, because they were well aware of this, they yielded and did not resist, but they did so only for as long as they really needed the allies, as they later demonstrated.

- from paragraphs 2 and 3; all quotes and spellings are from The Landmark Herodotus with translation by Andrea L. Purvis

I know I’ve asked this question before but I’ll bring it front and center again: what does it say about Athens when the Hellenic league members did not want the leader of either the armies or the fleet to be from that city? Asking Sparta to lead the armies makes sense given their focus on military training, but how does demanding a landlocked city lead the fleets, especially when Athens is providing half of the ships? What kind of behavior from Athens over the years does it take to generate that level of ill will? Were the recent wars between the Athenians and the Aeginetans (mentioned in the last post) a factor?

It’s nice to see Athens could put survival ahead of pride except, of course, when they didn’t. What about the assistance offered by Argos and Syracuse (in Book Seven) that was rejected? Both cities may have demanded full or partial leadership as a bluff in order to deny support when supreme leadership wasn’t granted, but envoys from Sparta and Athens made it clear they were looking for troops and not a leader. I can understand the concern about the quality and quantity of troops from Syracuse they would be inviting to their homeland—assuming the Greeks defend themselves successfully against the Persians, will the allied forces leave peacefully? Or would those troops hang around in Athens or Sparta? That factor alone may have been enough to kill any deal with such strings attached.

A side-thought: It seems the Hellenic cities overestimated the importance or effectiveness of the supreme leader. While more than just a symbolic position, the role appears to have been limited to confirming overall strategy while each army or ship stayed under the direct command of their local leaders. Such a loose alliance proved risky, as demonstrated at the battle of Artemision (Artemesium), where many ships panicked and sailed away. In addition, Themistokles’ actions imperiled the entire fleet, not just his own Athenian ships.

In the quoted passage at the tops of the post, Herodotus once again provides a mild rebuke to Athens and their behavior after the Persians are defeated, but I think he glosses over the level of animosity other Greek cities held toward it before and during the Persian threat. That enmity surfaces into the open every now and then, such as in my post on Athens and Sparta in Book Seven. I need to revisit a statement in that post stating “That may be the reason he [Herodotus] believes his statement will cause offense--he is able to differentiate between the Athens of 480 BC and of the 430s BC, while others may not.” It may be the case that there might not have been as much difference between the two periods as I assumed.

The Histories discussion: Book Seven: Miscellaneous

Xerxes at the Hellespont, Jean Adrien Guignet

I exercised my kingship on condition that I led a hard, sober and industrious life, just like that of my people. I was king solely to defend my fatherland and to ensure the rule of law. My kingship gave me the power to do good without permitting me the license to do evil.

- François Fénelon in Dialogue XL, comparing the rule of Leonidas of Sparta with Xerxes

Book Seven begins with Darius’ anger at the loss of the Battle of Marathon, covers the buildup for Xerxes’ invasion of Greece, and ends with the Persians’ costly victory at Thermopylae. Herodotus’ pace slows down dramatically at this point as he seems to relish building up the tension in his narrative. See this detailed outline for the specific points included in Book Seven. There are a few additional topics (in addition to the Book Seven posts I’ve already made) I wanted to cover.

Literary devices
In the January 1939 Classical Philology, Richmond Lattimore discusses Herodotus’ use of the “wise adviser” motif (a topic posited earlier in that decade by Heinrich Bischoff). This is an important literary device Herodotus uses many times which should mean anyone assessing his history should do so with great care. “The warner, as such, is a motif, a mode of understanding history, in the mind of Herodotus; it is not that the stories and situations adhere to the great names, it is the names that adhere to them.” Lattimore provides two categories of wise adviser although he cautions that the distinction should not be pressed too rigidly: the tragic warner and the practical adviser. The tragic warner “is the sage elder who tries to halt headstrong action in a chief; he is in general pessimistic, negative, unheeded, and right.” The practical adviser usually provides “a method of coping with a given situation. Both types of advisers have been used previous to Book Seven but important examples work throughout this Book. Artabanos, Xerxes’ uncle who had previously advised his brother Darius not to invade Scythia, provides good advice several times to Xerxes regarding the invasion of Greece. Even though his initial advice persuaded Xerxes to temporarily postpone the invasion, additional factors work against the advice being followed. Artabanos also advises to leave the Ionians behind but Xerxes includes them in his army, which he will later regret.

In addition to wise advice, Xerxes also receives bad guidance. Mardonios argues that the Hellenes are weak and disorganized as well as waging war foolishly. Artabanos warns against attacking Greece, but he also frames his advice as simply presenting an additional side to the argument. He reminds Xerxes about what happened to his father when Darius ignored Artabanos’ advice not to invade Scythia, as well as the vulnerability of crossing into Europe via a bridge. Artabanos makes additional points that reflect the wisdom he has gained over the years, learning the lessons from the failure of others.

An interesting twist with Herodotus’ use of this device is that Croesus, who lost his kingdom by ruling foolishly by ignoring the good advice of others, becomes a wise adviser to others. As Lattimore puts it, “Fallen kings drop their delusions with their power.” This device allows Demaratos to become a sage after fleeing Sparta while allowing Herodotus to sidestep the issue of traitorous behavior on the exile’s part. An interesting interpretation might be to see Demaratos as a failed ethnographer (in comparison to Herodotus?), unable to educate Xerxes on Spartan and Greek behavior.

There are other literary devices Herodotus uses throughout The Histories. While some of these devices would be expected in providing a historical narrative, others stand out as effective storytelling. Herodotus’ statement that Themistokles came to prominence only when the oracles are being interpreted is contradicted not only by the fact that he had been a general at Marathon and an archon of Athens before that. It also clashes with Herodotus’ story of Themistokles’ swaying the Athenian government to build up its fleet years before the threat of the Persian invasion. Delaying the introduction of Themistokles until the interpretation of the Delphic oracles proves to be a great narrative touch.

Xerxes
Xerxes, the central character of Book Seven, exercises erratic behavior throughout this section, vacillating between wise and foolish behavior. Part of that may be because of his youth and inexperience. In addition, his actions are guided by pride and a sense of what he feels he must do as leader of a grand empire.

His impetuous behavior runs in all directions. He provides excessive praise and generosity to Pythios for his subject’s kindness but then demonstrates extreme cruelty when Pythios, spooked by an eclipse, asks that one of his five sons be spared from the army. Xerxes, angered at this request, has Pythios’ eldest son cut in two and places the remaining halves on each side of the road where the army must march. The essential message Xerxes sends with most of his directives, whether they are good or bad, boils down to “You are my slave.” This behavior carries over to mastering nature, as his treatment of the Hellespont when a storm destroys a bridge demonstrates: Xerxes has the waters lashed and symbolically imprisoned with shackles thrown into the sea.

Xerxes’ pride gets the better of his behavior many times, not just with subjects but in his projects as well. Herodotus does not hold back his opinion of Xerxes’ ordering the Mount Athos canal: "From what I can gather, Xerxes ordered the canal to be dug because of his arrogant pride. He wanted to display his power and leave behind a memorial to himself.” (from paragraph 24, all quotes from The Landmark Herodotus with translation by Andrea L. Purvis) Yet his benevolence at times makes perfect strategic or political sense, showing a maturity not present at other times. In reprieving Greek spies from death, he allows them to return home in order to report his massive army buildup. Their reporting provided the what many Greek cities needed to hear in order to join the Persian side.

Herodotus gives two different reasons for the Persian invasion of Greece: world domination as well as revenge for the Athenian asseisted sack of Sardis. In Xerxes’ speech to Persians as to why he wants to attack Greece, the fear of his being judged inferior to his predecessors surfaces, as well as his estimation of Greece as the only obstacle in subduing all of Europe. These competing reasons sometimes ring hollow, maybe apocryphal, but they consistently fit with Herodotus assigning historic events to individual desires and actions.

Xerxes’ interaction with Demaratos, the exiled king of Sparta, not only allows a chance for Xerxes to find out about the Greeks, the Spartans in particular, but provides Herodotus a springboard to tout the rule of law over the rule of man. Demaratos, in response to Xerxes’ question about the people he will be fighting, tells him

The Lacedaemonians are in fact no worse than any other men when they fight individually, but when they unite and fight together, they are the best warriors of all. For though they are free, they are not free in all respects, for they are actually ruled by a lord and master: law is their master, and it is the law that they inwardly fear—much more so than your men fear you. They do whatever it commands, which is always the same: it forbids them to flee from battle, and no matter how many men they are fighting, it orders them to remain in their rank and either prevail or perish.
(from paragraph 104)

Athens as initiator of war
Several times Xerxes points out that Athens was the aggressor since they assisted the Ionians during their revolt and helped sack Sardis. Xerxes says there is no middle ground since he believes the Greeks will want to conquer all of Persia. While this seems like projection on the part of the Persian king, Herodotus does nothing to mitigate the claim that Athens wronged Persia first. Herodotus may tacitly think such aggression was OK since the goal was to overthrow tyranny but he doesn’t sugarcoat the fact that the Greeks are constantly at war, mostly with each other. Is this intended as a criticism of the Greeks? It’s helpful to remember that Herodotus is writing at least part of The Histories during the Peloponnesian War, where the outcome is unknown and the winner between Athens and Sparta will likely annihilate the loser. Is pointing out that Athens was an aggressor in the Ionian revolt a rebuke to Athens for subsequent behavior as well? There are several such moments in The Histories which seem to point in that direction. More on these points later...

The establishment of a Hellenic league allows for Herodotus to make a few more potential digs at Athens’ expense, not only showing what can happen when the various cities work together but also from the fact that all of Greece was in danger because of Athens’ behavior. From paragraph 145:

And now those Hellenes who wanted what was best for Hellas gathered together, engaged in discussions, and exchanged pledges. As they deliberated, the first of the matters they decided was that all existing hostilities and wars between one another were to be brought to an end. For wars had been stirred up between some Hellenes and others—the most serious of them being that between the Athenians and the Aeginetans. … They did this [send envoys to Greek cities] in the hope that if they put their heads together and worked toward a common goal, Hellas could then somehow unite into a single state, since the invasion threatened all Hellenes alike.

Reversal of 'natural' phenomena
During Xerxes’ invasion, many natural phenomena become reversed. This upsetting of what Herodotus views as the natural order lends support to his theme against the crossing of natural boundaries. Four years before the invasion commenced, Xerxes ordered the construction of the Mount Athos canal, the point where his uncle's attempted invasion in 492BC foundered. This canal turned part of the mainland into an island and essentially turned land into water. (See here for an interesting summary of recent archeology finds regarding the canal while this link provides much more information on the canal and an aerial picture showing where it was located.)

Xerxes also turns water into land when he bridges the Hellespont with multiple bridges. After the weather destroyed the first bridging attempt, Xerxes had the supervisors decapitated. The next pontoon bridges proved to be more reliable. The bridge used for the animals was covered with dirt and leaves in order to fool the animals that they were still walking on dry land. Once again, the symbolic crossing of a natural boundary between continents upsets the order of things. In his ethnographies on Egypt and Scythia, Herodotus took pains to show how things were backwards or disordered from what he would view as the 'normal' Greek way. As we will see as the Persian invasion continues, things will become even more topsy-turvy for everyone involved.

While I don’t necessarily have a problem with this theme or device that Herodotus uses, I am confused on his view of the Ionian Greeks. By his definition, they are Europeans (or from European stock) living in Asia. Is it because their settlements were peaceful that they stand outside what would be considered disorientation or abnormal? I’ll hold that thought (but place it here as a reminder) because some of the upcoming problems directly reflect on this question.

Thermopylae

The most valiant are sometimes the most unfortunate. Thus there are triumphant defeats that rival victories. Nor did those four sister victories, the fairest that the sun ever set eyes on -- Salamis, Plataea, Mycale, and Sicily -- ever dare match all their combined glory against the glory of the annihilation of King Leonidas and his men at the pass of Thermopylae.

- Montaigne, On the Cannibals (1580)

In the interest of actually getting something written and posted, I’ll defer additional discussion on Thermopylae for now (reserving the right to post more on it later). Such an iconic event deserves more thought than I have time to devote to it at the moment. And with that, I’m on to Book Eight.

The Histories discussion: Book Seven: Thermopylae as Homeric epic

Jacques-Louis David, "Leonidas at Thermopylae" (1814)
Picture and poem shamelessly lifted from Stephen Pentz

Thermopylae

Honor to those who in the life they lead
define and guard a Thermopylae.
Never betraying what is right,
consistent and just in all they do
but showing pity also, and compassion;
generous when they are rich, and when they are poor,
still generous in small ways,
still helping as much as they can;
always speaking the truth,
yet without hating those who lie.

And even more honor is due to them
when they foresee (as many do foresee)
that in the end Ephialtis will make his appearance,
that the Medes will break through after all.

- C. P. Cavafy

I exaggerate in the title when I say Herodotus relays the Thermopylae battle as Homeric epic but not by much. In the previous post I looked at the way Herodotus heightened the tension in the narrative with the increasing sense of doom from the Delphic oracles as well as his explanation as to why Xerxes did not send heralds to Sparta or Athens. While not intending to be a comprehensive list, I want to look at content that echoes The Iliad in addition to identifying several smaller notes, most used in other places of The Histories but that here accumulate to recall Homer.

(An outline of Book Seven, including the battle of Thermopylae, can be found here.)

Echoes from The Iliad
Herodotus’ detail of Xerxes’ army, cavalry, and fleet echoes Homer’s catalogue of ships in Book Two of The Iliad. While the focus of Herodotus may be slightly different, descibing the armor the different troops wore as one example, this detail has the feel of Homer. So does the fight over the fallen body of Spartan king Leonidas, where it takes his comrades four tries to recover the corpse. That such a struggle could not have happened in hoplite warfare seems irrelevant since the image leaps from the page.

Some echoes may seem minor or coincidental, but their accumulation adds to the Homeric feel. Just as Helen sat on the wall at the Scaean Gates and identified warriors for Priam, Demaratos (the former king of Sparta) explains the actions of the Spartans to Xerxes. When Leonidas decides not to leave Thermopylae after finding out that they have been outflanked, Herodotus gives one of the reasons as “wanting to gain future glory for the Spartans alone”, sounding the theme of kleos with which Achilles had to wrestle. Up to this point Herodotus has mostly avoided the gory details of battle, which is one of The Iliad’s defining features. His prior avoidance of such detail makes his inclusion of men being trampled in battle or Spartans defending themselves with their teeth stand out that much more.

The most significant shift from previous Books centers on Herodotus’ role as omniscient narrator. This change stands out most in the battle section since there was no Greek survivor (a single Spartan was sent home early due to an eye injury or disease and all other Greek soldiers left or fled before the final battle). So where did Herodotus get the information? Xerxes’ response during the battle could have only come from the Persians, which is a possible source for the final battle. But there is a lot of description of what went on in the Greek camp without any hedging of facts or explanation of where Herodotus got his facts. I’m not saying he makes things up, but it seems clear he is playing the role of a bard at this point.

Other Homeric links
There are other items that, taken by themselves, don’t imply much but taken in aggregate cast Thermopylae as Homeric epic. Herodotus paints the coming conflict as the culmination of every East/West conflict to this point, including the Trojan War. Here is Herodotus’ take on the number of Xerxes’ troops:

In fact, of all the expeditions we know of, this was by far the largest. Darius’ expedition against the Scythians looks like nothing in comparison with that of Xerxes, and the same is true of the Scythian expedition when the Scythians chased the Cimmerians into Media and then subjugated and occupied almost the whole interior of Asia, which was the reason Darius later attempted to punish them. Nor can we compare the expedition of the sons of Atreus against Troy, according to the traditional account, nor that of the Mysians and Teukrians before the Trojan War, when the had crossed over to Europe at the Bosporus, subjugated all the Thracians, advanced down to the Ionian Sea, and marched as far south as the Peneios River. All these expeditions combined, even with others added to them, could not possibly equal the size of this expedition of Xerxes, for what nation of Asia did Xerxes not lead to Hellas?
- from paragraphs 20 and 21

By casting Xerxes’ march into Europe as a culmination of all previous conflicts between East and West, Herodotus adds to the apocalyptic tone of his narration. The tension mentioned in the previous post continues to get rise as we learn Xerxes force is so large that they drain dry entire rivers and lakes. Xerxes escalated the conflict beyond initial aims of subservience or revenge, turning it into a battle of survival just as the Trojan War moved well beyond seeking the return of Helen. The superhuman fighting of the Spartans and allies, killing somewhere between 3 and 10 Persians for every casualty of their own, calls to mind the heroic fighting scenes in The Iliad.

One area Herodotus cannot mimic Homer lies with the use of the gods. Homer shows us what happens on Mount Olympus and as well as describing the gods' interaction with humans. For the most part, the closest Herodotus comes to involving the gods comes from his use of omens, oracles and dreams. Xerxes’ has a dream where a corporeal entity talks to him, akin to god-inspired dreams in Homer. But Herodotus does something indirectly to invoke a tie-in with the gods—he details several relationships with Herakles in this Book. This isn’t the first time Herakles has been mentioned in conjunction with the Persian/Greek conflict. Before the victory at Marathon, the Athenians had camped at what was called “the precinct of Herakles”. Near Thermopylae is a temple to Herakles in addition to the spot where his death and apotheosis allegedly took place. While this may be viewed as a coincidence, Herodotus makes sure that the reader/listener understands the connection. Also, Herodotus traces Leonidas’ genealogy back 20+ generations to Herakles, mentioning that relationship several times. By keeping Herakles firmly in the reader’s mind, Herodotus is able to indirectly include the use of the gods in his narrative.

There are several other minor occurrences that recall either The Iliad in the buildup as well as during the battle of Thermopylae, but I don’t want to overstate the case. I have seen some debate focusing on Herodotus’ work as history, as literature, as both, or something altogether different. Since these terms would have been anachronistic to Herodotus, any conclusion restricting itself to these terms would seem to miss the mark. Maybe another way to look at what he accomplished should focus on what he does differently as opposed to when he relies on earlier conventions. The section leading up to the Persian invasion may reflect hints of Homer but the battle of Thermopylae owes a great debt to his epics. Does his reliance on the older style coincide with areas where there are gaps in facts or inquiries? Or has the tradition of the Thermopylae legend already overwhelmed the facts at the time Herodotus was writing and he felt he was limited on what he could say? There are several possibilities here for his change in style and maybe there are multiple reasons for the change. Whatever the reason(s), the change in style accompanying the battle of Thermopylae, with the many Homeric and epic references, proves to a highpoint of The Histories.

Update (10 May 2013): Dr. Jeremy McInerney presented a lecture on Thermopylae, the Battle for Europe? on May 1, 2013. I have a summary of the lecture and a few notes available. Also, here's the YouTube video:

The Histories discussion: Book Seven: Oracles for the Athenians

Priestess of Delphi, John Collier (1891)
Picture source

For the Athenians had prepared to consult the oracle by sending sacred delegates to Delphi, who, after performing the usual preliminaries at the sanctuary, entered the inner shrine and took their seats. The Pythia, whose name was Aristonike, gave them the following oracular response:

Why sit so idle, you poor wretched men? To the ends of the land you should flee.
Leave your homes, leave the heights of your circular fortress,
For neither the head nor the body remains in its place,
Nor the feet underneath, nor the hands nor the middle
Is left as it was, but now all is obscure. For casting it down
Is fire and Ares so sharp on the heels of a Syrian chariot
And he will destroy many cities with towers, and not yours alone;
And into the devouring fire he will give the temples of eternal gods,
Which now drip with sweat and shake in their fear
As blood gushes darkly from the tops of their roofs,
Forseeing the force of compelling disaster.
Now step out of this shrine, and shroud over your heart with the evils to come.

When the sacred delegates of the Athenians heard this, they felt that they had met with the greatest disaster; and as they were giving themselves up for lost over the evils predicted by the oracle, Timon son of Androboulos, a man of Delphi and a prominent citizen equal to their best, advised them to take olive branches and to consult the oracle a second time, this time as suppliants. Following his advice, the Athenians went again and said to the god, “Lord, deliver to us a better oracle concerning our fatherland out of respect for those branches which we carry, coming here as suppliants, or else we shall not leave your shrine but shall remain here until we die.” After they said this, the prophetess gave them a second oracle, as follows;

Unable is Pallas to appease Zeus Olympian
With copious prayers, with counsel quite cunning.
Now to you once again my word I shall speak, making it adamantine:
The rest will be taken, all lying within the boundary of Kekrops
And that of the hollow of sacred Cithaeron.
But a wall made of wood does farsighted Zeus to Tritogenes grant
Alone and unravaged, to help you and your children.
Do not await peacefully the horse and the foot,
The army gigantic that comes from the mainland;
Withdraw, turn your backs, through someday you still will meet face to face.
O Salamis Divine, the children of women you will yet destroy
While Demeter is scattered or while she is gathered.

- paragraphs 140 and 141, Book Seven, from The Landmark Herodotus with translation by Andrea L. Purvis

It didn’t dawn on me until this reading of The Histories that the temple at Delphi, in addition to being a religious shrine, could double as an intelligence market or clearinghouse as leaders from around the Mediterranean area sent delegates to find out about the advisability of plans and actions. The priests would not only receive information in advance of actions but through their oracles they could influence those actions. Herodotus never questions the infallibility of the gods but he makes it clear in several places that the priests are fallible and subject to human weakness.

The first oracle given to Athens paints about as bleak a picture as possible. I like the image that other translations use of the “ravening fire” awaiting their temples—how could you not think yourself lost after hearing such an oracle? Timon’s insistence on a second oracle gives them some hope, if only they can figure out what the “wall made of wood” is that will save them. Themistokles interprets the oracle correctly: the wooden walls are the Athenian fleet and predicts that any battle that occurs at Salamis will be favorable to the Greeks. Years earlier, Themistokles had proposed that the Athenians build 200 war ships when they found a new vein of silver at the Laureion mines, although Thucydides hints that the new fleet was built in expectation of a Persian attack. (We’ll come back to Themistokles in other posts since Herodotus’ portrayal of him reflects a complex and conflicted view.)

The section leading to the battle at Thermopylae is a wonderful read, full of effective narrative techniques that borrow from Homeric epic. I will delve more into the epic aspect of the Thermopylae account in a separate post, but I wanted to look at the use of these oracles. Herodotus uses these oracles to help heighten the tension of the impending danger that Athens and other Greek poleis face.

Before the previous invasion of Greece, Darius sent heralds to various cities that had submitted to him in order to test their loyalty. This leads to an inconsistency. Athenian representatives had offered submission in order to form an alliance with Persia about 16 years earlier than Darius' heralds' trips, although those representatives were reprimanded for exceeding their commission upon their return to Athens. But there is no word of Sparta ever submitting to Persia. Why would Darius have sent representatives to Sparta in 491 BC, since Sparta could not possibly confirm what had never been offered? I highlight this inconsistency because in paragraph 133 Herodotus raises the point that Xerxes did not send heralds to either Athens or Sparta in the run-up to the war in 480 BC because each city had killed the Persian heralds which Darius had sent in 491 BC. The Athenians cast the visiting heralds into a pit while the Spartans threw the visiting heralds into a well. In addition, Herodotus could have told this story back in Book Six where it would have been a chronological fit, but he waits until here to reveal it in order to further demonstrate the heightened tension. In not sending heralds to Athens or Sparta, Xerxes makes it clear that capitulation is not an option--there will be no mercy.

The Histories discussion: Book Seven: Athens and Sparta

I have now reached a point at which I am compelled to declare an opinion that will cause offense to many people, but which nevertheless appears to me to be true, so I shall not restrain myself. If the Athenians had evacuated their land in terror of the danger approaching them, or if they had not left their land but remained and surrendered themselves to Xerxes, no one at all would have tried to oppose the King at sea. And if no one had then opposed Xerxes at sea, this is what would have happened on land. The Peloponnesians, even if they had covered over their isthmus with walls, would have been abandoned by their allies, who, seeing their cities conquered one by one by the barbarian fleet, would have been forced to submit against their will. Finally those thus deserted, now all alone, would have performed great feats and died honorably. Of course that might not be their fate if they had earlier seen how the rest of the Hellenes were medizing and would have come to an agreement of their own with Xerxes. Thus, either way, Hellas would have been conquered by the Persians. For I cannot discern what advantage could have been derived from walls extended across the isthmus if the King had control of the sea. So anyone who said that the Athenians proved to be the saviors of Hellas would not have strayed from the truth. For whichever course they chose to follow was certain to tip the scales of war. They chose that Hellas should survive in freedom; and after rousing to that cause all the other Hellenes who had not medized, they repelled the King with the help of the gods. Indeed, not even the frightening oracles they received from Delphi threw them into a panic or persuaded then to abandon Hellas. Instead, they stood fast and had the courage to confront the invader of their land.

- Book Seven, paragraph 139, all quotes from The Landmark Herodotus with translation by Andrea L. Purvis (emphasis mine)

Why will this statement be offensive to some? Does it have to do with the flattering statements made on behalf of the Athenians? Or the nice things said about the Spartans? Both? While Book Eight contains strong hints showing not all was well in the Hellenes between the various poleis and Athens, those intimations surface in this Book as well. In lining up allies to fight, many of the Hellene poleis would rather submit to Persia than allow Athens to lead either the army or the fleet in war (even excluding Argos and Syracuse, whose demands to lead were only a ruse to avoid participation). In addition, Herodotus’ statement may reflect the attitude toward Athens or Sparta by many Greeks when Herodotus was writing this section (which was probably after the Peloponnesian War began in 431BC). Or is something else going on in Herodotus’ statement?

Even with all the praise for the Athenians there is also the recognition that they did not do it alone—they had help from Greek allies and the gods. Herodotus also has many good things to say about the Spartans despite the conjecture they would have heroically lost or ultimately capitulated to the Persians. The latter would occur, Herodotus speculates, if and only if Athens had lost the sea to the Persians and all other allies had medized.

Herodotus outlines two different reasons for the Persians’ invasion of Greece (which I’ll cover in a separate post), one of which centers around Xerxes' desire to conquer Europe. Several times he highlights the belief that if Greece fell, no one remaining in Europe would resist. At one point he even puts this belief into the mouth of Xerxes:

…Xerxes then summoned the most eminent of Persians and, when they had come into his presence, said to them, “I have assembled you, Persians, to make a request of you. I ask you to prove yourselves to be noble and courageous men and to not disgrace the earlier achievements of the Persians, which are great and very worthy indeed. … I command you, therefore, to persevere in this war with all your might, because I hear that we are marching against men who are noble and courageous, and that if we conquer them, no other army in the world will ever oppose us. And so, after praying to the gods who hold Persia in their charge, let us cross over to them.”

- from Book Seven, paragraph 53

Still, it is the second highlighted statement in the initial quote in this post that stands out to me. Is there a wistful note or possibly a mild rebuke in Herodotus’ voice, something that remembers a time when Athens stood for Hellenic freedom? While I don’t think Herodotus means The Histories to be a longing for “the good ol’ days”, I think he does include some rebuke of Athens and how far they strayed from the ideals they fought for against Persia. Whether Herodotus is thinking of subsequent Athenian exploitation of the Delian League or other aggressions leading to the Peloponnesian War cannot be certain but there does seem to be some reproach included with the praise. Maybe it is simply regret that I am hearing in this passage, a sadness that the two great cities that have saved Greece were at war with each other while he wrote The Histories. That may be the reason he believes his statement will cause offense--he is able to differentiate between the Athens of 480 BC and of the 430s BC, while others may not.

Herodotus' views on Athens and Sparta after the war with the Persians remain elusive. For example, does he mean for the recurring theme of changing fortune to apply to these poleis? Since there is a reference to an event in the Peloponnesian War in Book Seven, he may very well have had the expected destruction of one or both of the city/states in mind. Herodotus rarely links his themes with his post-Persian War views on Athens and Sparta, but adding his comment from Book Six, paragraph 98 lends support to seeing a rebuke in the opening quote.

For in three successive generations, during the reigns of Darius son of Hystaspes, Xerxes son of Darius, and Artaserxes son of Xerxes, more evils befell Hellas than in all the other generations prior to that of Darius. Some of these evils were caused by the Persians, but others by the leading states of Hellas waging war for political domination among themselves.

Visiting some sea-wet rocks

Internet access will be uncertain for the next week. Hopefully I'll find a nice sea-wet rock where I can comb (what's left of) my hair...hopefully with better terms than the Spartans (and others) had to deal with.


THE ORACLES
A. E. Housman

'Tis mute, the word they went to hear on high Dodona mountain
    When winds were in the oakenshaws and all the cauldrons tolled,
And mute's the midland navel-stone beside the singing fountain,
    And echoes list to silence now where gods told lies of old.

I took my question to the shrine that has not ceased from speaking,
    The heart within, that tells the truth and tells it twice as plain;
And from the cave of oracles I heard the priestess shrieking
    That she and I should surely die and never live again.

Oh priestess, what you cry is clear, and sound good sense I think it;
    But let the screaming echoes rest, and froth your mouth no more.
'Tis true there's better boose than brine, but he that drowns must drink it;
    And oh, my lass, the news is news that men have heard before.

The King with half the East at heel is marched from lands of morning;
    Their fighters drink the rivers up, their shafts benight the air,
And he that stands will die for nought, and home there's no returning.
    The Spartans on the sea-wet rock sat down and combed their hair.

My Lord, remember the Albanians

click for larger image

I saw Marathon: The Battle That Changed Western Civilization by Richard A. Billows was released last month and I wanted to find out more about it. I'm not sure if the typo in the attached screen-grab of the Amazon.com page came from the original review or not, but I wanted to share it.

In case my wife reads this, no, I didn't order it--I'll wait until the library stocks it.

Of arms and the man

But at this time [490 BC], Nikodromos led the common people in an attempted revolt, which was put down by the affluent Aeginetans [Aegina is an island southwest of Athens]. The victors led out the captive rebels in order to execute them, and because of what happened next, they came under a curse that they were unable to counter through sacrifice, since they were driven off the island before they could appease the goddess. They had taken 700 of the people alive, and while they were leading them out to be executed, one of the captives broke out of his bonds and fled to the porch of Demeter Thesmophoros. There he grasped the door handles and clung to them so tightly that, although they tried to drag him away, they were unable to loosen his grip on the doors, so they cut off his hands and took him like that, with his hands still clinging fast to the door handles.
(from paragraph 91)


They fought in the battle at Marathon for a long time. The barbarians prevailed in the center of the line, where the Persians themselves and the Sakai were deployed, and as the barbarians were winning here, they broke through the line of the Hellenes and chased them inland; but at the same time, the Athenians and Plataeans were prevailing on the wings. In their victory there, they allowed the barbarian troops that they had routed to flee and then, drawing both of their wings together, they fought those enemy troops who had broken through the center; in this encounter, too, the Athenians were victorious, and as the Persians fled, the Athenians pursued them and cut them down until they reached the sea, where they called for fire and started to seize the ships.

It was in this struggle that the polemarch Kallimachos perished, having proven himself a noble and courageous warrior; Stesilaos son of Thrasylaos, one of the generals, also died. In addition, Kynegeiros son of Euphorion fell, for while seizing the sternpost of a ship, his hand was chopped off by an axe. Many other famous Athenians died in this conflict as well.
(paragraphs 113 and 114)

Quotes are from Book Six of The Landmark Herodotus, translation by Andrea L. Purvis

The Histories discussion: Book Six

The burial mound (Soros) and grave stela at Marathon
Picture source: courtesy of www.traveladventures.org

The Athenians, as defenders of the Hellenes, in Marathon
destroyed the might of the golden-dressed Medes
- composed by Simonides

The Soros, the extraordinary burial mound built over the graves of the Athenian troops who died at Marathon. The bones of Athenian military dead were normally returned to Athens and, after proper ceremony, interred outside the city. Its original height is thought to have been more than 45 feet. Over time, erosion has reduced it to its current dimensions--roughly 100 feet in diameter and just over 30 feet high.
- from The Landmark Herodotus, page 477

Miltiades said to Kallimachos, “It is now up to you, Kallimachos, whether you will reduce Athens to slavery or ensure its freedom and thus leave to all posterity a memorial for yourself which will exceed even that of Harmodios and Aristogeiton. For from the time Athenians first came into existence up until the present, this is the greatest danger they have ever confronted. If they bow down before the Medes, it is clear from our past experience what they will suffer when handed over to Hippias; but if this city prevails, it can become the first among all Greek cities. I shall explain to you how matters really stand and how the authority to decide this matter has come to rest with you. We ten generals are evenly divided in our opinions, some urging that we join battle, other that we do not. If we fail to fight no, I expect that intense factional strife will fall upon the Athenians and shake their resolve so violently that they will medize [become like Persians]. But if we join battle before any rot can infect some of the Athenians, then, as long as the gods grant both sides equal treatment, we can prevail in this engagement. All this is now in your hands and depends on you. If you add your vote for my proposal, your ancestral land can be free and your city the first of Greek cities. But if you choose the side of those eager to prevent a battle, you will have the opposite of all the good things I have described.

- The Athenian general Miltiades to the polemarch (military official with religious and legal duties) Kallimachos before the battle at Marathon, 490 BC (from paragraph 109)

(All quotes and spelling in this post are from The Landmark Herodotus with translation by Andrea L. Purvis)

My approach in writing about the Books in The Histories has varied depending on everything from how the text strikes me to how much free time I have. I didn't plan on this being the summer of Herodotus, but so be it. This post will run through Book Six (but won’t be comprehensive) and look at a few themes or ideas covered by Herodotus.

Book Six covers the second half of the Ionian revolt (497/6 – 494 BC) through the battle at Marathon in 490 BC. Aristagoras, the replacement tyrant of Miletus, was killed during a siege of a Thracian city during his escape from Ionia (covered at the end of Book Five). Histiaios, the tyrant of Miletus that Darius had kept at the Persian court in Susa, has been released from the royal court and allowed to return to Ionia. Artaphrenes, the governor of Sardis, calls Histiaios out on who was responsible for the revolt: “You stitched up the shoe, and Aristagoras put it on.” After being found out and while fleeing, Histiaios answers the question of why he initiated the revolt with the tale that Darius had planned to uproot both the Ionians and Phoenicians and have then swap homelands. While this was a lie, Darius had moved entire populations previously at a whim so Histiaios’ excuse sounded plausible. When Histiaios attempted to reestablish his leadership at Miletus the Milesians, “who had tasted liberty, were so happy to be rid of Aristagoras that they had no desire whatsoever to accept another tyrant into their land.” Histiaios, upon being repulsed, sails to the area around Byzantium and turns to piracy. (A sidenote: there are many analyses investigating how fair a trial Aristagoras and Histiaios get from Herodotus.)

As the Persian army and navy gather to punish Miletus, the Ionians concentrate on defending the city by taking on the Persian fleet. In order to weaken their enemy’s size and resolve, Persian generals instruct former Ionian tyrants (who Aristagoros had turned out of office in order to shore up his anti-Persia support in those cities through democracy) to try and turn their former subjects back to Persian rule. If the former subjects accept, the former tyrants will be treated nicely. If the people refuse, “we shall lead them into captivity as slaves, and we shall turn their sons into eunuchs and drag their virgin daughters away to Baktria and give over their lands to others.” (from paragraph 9)

Every Ionian leader rejects the offer, each thinking they were the only one receiving the proposal. The Ionian fleet, unfortunately, did not show the same amount of character. After Dionysios of Phocaea drills the fleet for a week, the Ionians complain about the amount of work he requires and they refuse to obey his orders (an early version of the recent French World Cup team—with the same result). The Samians panic at the realization that the Ionians refuse to train so they cut a deal with Persia. Once the Battle of Lade starts, most of their ships sail back to Samos while other ships follow their lead. The Persians defeat most of the remaining Ionian fleet and capture Miletus while making good on many of their claims in the earlier offer. Soon after the battle the Athenian playwright Phrynikos composed and produced a play titled The Fall of Miletus, to which “the audience burst into tears, fined him 1,000 drachmas for reminding them of their own evils, and ordered that no one should ever perform this play again.” (from paragraph 21)

Meanwhile Histiaios, on hearing of the Persian victory, overruns the island of Chios. While foraging for food on the Ionian mainland Histiaios is captured by the Persians. Artaphrenes and his general Harpagos predict Histiaios will receive no punishment if returned to Darius so they kill him in order to prevent any future meddling. The Persians spend the next couple of years conquering the islands off of Ionia then move north and west to capture islands and cities around the Hellespont and in Thrace. Darius appoints his son-in-law Mardonios as his general in Asia. Mardonios deposes many of the tyrants in Ionia and establishes democracies in their place in order to maintain popular support. In the spring of 492 BC, Mardonios crosses the Hellespont on his way to attack Eretria and Athens for their role in the sack of Sardis during the Ionian rebellion. After most of his fleet sinks while trying to sail around Mount Athos (off the Macedonian coast) and the army suffers heavy losses from Thracians, Mardonios turns for home.

I will skip over the Spartan history Herodotus provides at this point, not because it isn’t interesting (I especially enjoyed the Spartan version of why they have two kings) but because it involves more detail than a quick summary can provide. Also, Herodotus does a very good job, especially the history of the expulsion of Spartan king Demaratos and how he made his way to Darius’ court. We will hear from him again.

Mardonios is replaced after the aborted invasion of Athens with the generals Datis and Artaphrenes (son-in-law of the earlier mentioned Artaphrenes). The new leaders are instructed to “enslave Athens and Eretria and to bring back the captive slaves into his [Darius’] presence.” In the earlier attempt under Mardonios, the Persian army and fleet went north through Ionia, crossed the Hellespont, and went through Thrace and Macedonia before retreating. This time everything, including cavalry, was loaded onto ships and sailed island by island from Samos to Eretria (located on an island just east of Athens). While this invasion from Persia is in the works, Athens and nearby Aegina carry on an intra-Greek war—a recurrent theme of “internal” squabbling while the Persian threat looms. Even on Eretria, after receiving assistance from Athens, bickering and betrayals keep the Eretrians from forming a coherent defense of their homeland. The leading men of Eretria advise the Athenians to leave because of the disarray, which they do. After the Persians defeat Eretria, Hippias (son of Athenian tyrant Peisistratos and a former tyrant) directs the Persians to land at Marathon where the nearby plain would be ideal for cavalry.

The Athenian generals, including Miltiades, send the long-distance runner Philippides with a message to Sparta asking for help. He arrived in Sparta (an 150 mile run) the day after he left Athens, encountering the god Pan along the way. The Spartans agree to assist but only after their religious holiday was over ends. Even though the Spartans also fail to act in a timely manner in support of their own troops at Thermopylae (later in The Histories), Herodotus makes it clear that the Spartans “considered the things of the gods more weighty than the things of men.” [Note: Plato says in Laws that the Spartans could not provide assistance at Marathon because they were fighting the Messenians at the time.] Forces from Plataea arrive but the ten Athenian generals are divided between attacking the Persian troops or remaining on the defensive. Miltiades’ argument to attack carries the day and, when the sacrifices look favorable, the Athenians charge at the run, beginning the Battle of Marathon. The struggle turns into a rout, the Athenians losing 192 soldiers while Herodotus estimates the Persian dead at 6,400. Marathon was chosen by the Persians specifically for their cavalry, but Herodotus makes no mention of them during the battle. Did the sudden rush after the standoff catch the Persians unready for battle? The Persians flee, sailing to Athens hoping to find the city unguarded. The Athenian soldiers march the 25 miles back to their city and arrive before the Persian fleet. After waiting a few days at anchor the Persian ships leave. Herodotus defends the Alkmeonids from collusion with the Persians and provides some of that family’s history. A sidenote: Herodotus only mentions Philippides and his run to (and implied return from) Sparta. Later writers would conflate the runner and the troops’ quick return to Athens, creating the myth of the marathon run.

Miltiades, with heroic status for his leadership at Marathon, requests ships, troops, and money without revealing what he plans to do with them other than return with lots of wealth. After being granted all he wished, he sails to Paros and attacks the city/island because of a personal grudge. After failing miserably and receiving injuries that will eventually cause his death, Miltiades returns to Athens where he is put on trial for deceiving the Athenians. He avoids the death penalty but is fined a massive amount, his son Kimon paying the penalty after Miltiades’ death. Herodotus, not content to end his account of Miltiades on a sour note (like a Johnny Unitas fan omitting the San Diego year), recalls how he had outfoxed the Pelasgians, allowing Athens to acquire the island of Lemnos.


In this Book, as in previous ones, Herodotus shows royal Persian behavior in a mixed light. Darius provides clemency to those that rebel against him while brutally seeking submission of other groups. Even though he relocates the surviving Eretrian population, he decides not to follow through on all of his gruesome threats. In addition, high-profile captives are treated well. Herodotus’ apparent even-handedness in portraying Persian leaders (when it suits him…Cambyses didn’t receive such balance) can be remarkable.

The same can be said for Herodotus’ treatment of traitors. While he doesn’t go into much detail on Hippias helping the Persians, the return of a former Athenian tyrant can only be considered in a negative light. Yet Herodotus seems kindly disposed to the Spartan king Demaratos who flees to the Persians to help their cause. Part of this mild treatment may stem from the Spartans unfairly unseating him from his kingship. But there seems to be more going on since his entire family is painted in a very sympathetic light. Demaratos will provide help to Xerxes during his invasion of Greece while also providing Herodotus a useful literary device.

I enjoyed this excerpt describing how Sparta used Plataea to endanger Athens, demonstrating that geopolitics has been around as long as man has existed:

They [the Plataeans] had earlier placed themselves under the protection of the Athenians, who had then exerted much effort on their behalf. This had happened in the following way. Once, when the Plataeans were being hard pressed by the Thebans, they had offered themselves to Kleomenes son of Anaxandridas and the Lacedaemonians [Spartans], since the Lacedaemonians happened to be present in their region at the time. But the Lacedaemonians refused to accept them, saying, “We live too far away, and any assistance we could offer you would be cold and remote. You could be enslaved many times over before we ever heard anything about it. So we advise you to give yourselves to the Athenians for protection instead; they not only are your close neighbors, but also are no sluggards when it comes to lending military assistance.” The Lacedaemonians gave this advice not so much out of goodwill toward the Plataeans as out of their wish to create trouble for the Athenians by provoking them into active hostilities against the Boeotians [the area where Thebes is located].
(from paragraph 108)

So how big was the Athenian (and Plataean) victory at Marathon? Persia clearly thought the invasion would be a routine exercise, something similar to their siege of Eretria which only lasted about a week. While I can understand the Athenians waiting on the Marathon plain to engage the Persians—not only did Miltiades wait until it was his ‘day’ to be in charge of the army but stalling would increase the chances for Spartan assistance—the lack of engagement by the Persians, who simply waited on the beach within sight of the Athenians, remains questionable. The easiest explanation would be to assume they were waiting for Greek defections in order to increase their odds in battle. In addition, as happened at other locations, traitors dreaming of personal wealth might be found to undermine the Greek armies. When these events didn’t happen, why wait and let the Athenians take the initiative? Since the Persians apparently did nothing, that points to how much of a surprise the Athenian charge must have been.

The disproportionate impact of Marathon to the Greeks and to the Persians is something I want to come back to at the end of The Histories. After Marathon the Greeks must have viewed their victory like the Jets over the Colts in Super Bowl III, something nobody could have predicted. But how did the Persians view their loss? They still had a huge empire as well as untold strength and reserves. Continuing the bad analogies, the Persians probably felt like the Dolphins after Garo Yepremian’s miscue in Super Bowl VII—disappointed they gave away an easy score but knowing they had what it takes for the overall victory. Darius’ setbacks, first in Scythia and now at Marathon, do not appear to have significantly damaged the Persian empire. Even though Persia escapes somewhat unscathed, the damage they wreak in their quests provides Herodotus with many examples of the changing fortunes that time (and force) can effect.

Final points to think about over the last third of the book—Although not ideal and counter to Herodotus’ wish for Greek unity (or at least harmony), the squabbles and skirmishes between Greek cities seem to have prepared the Athenians for their battle with the Persians. At least Athens maintained their independence and isn’t it fitting that Miltiades’ plan to attack was chosen in such a democratic fashion?

Picture source

Alkmeon

The Alkmeonids were illustrious among the Athenians from their very beginnings, but became even more so because of Alkmeon and later Megakles. For Alkmeon son of Megakles enthusiastically assisted and proved himself an avid supporter of those Lydians who used to come from Sardis, being sent by Croesus to the oracle at Delphi. When Croesus learned from the Lydians who regularly visited the oracle that Alkmeon was serving him well, he sent a message for him to come to Sardis; and when Alkmeon arrived there, Croesus offered him a gift of as much gold as he could carry away on his person at one time. So Alkmeon devised and carried out an effective way to deal with such a gift. He put on a large tunic, leaving a deep fold hanging down from it, and high boots, the widest he could find, then entered the treasury to which he was led. Diving into the heap of gold dust, he first packed as much gold along his shins as his boots could hold; next, he filled the entire fold forming a pocket with gold, sprinkled the hair on his head with gold dust, put some more into his mouth, and finally left the treasury, barely able to drag his boots along with him, resembling anything but a human being, with his mouth full and puffed out! When Croesus saw him, he was overcome with laughter and offered to give Alkmeon not only all that he had with him but an additional amount equal to that which he was now carrying. That is how the house of the Alkmeonids became extremely wealthy, and in this way Alkmeon became rich enough to keep a four-horse chariot and team, with which he won an Olympic victory.
- Book Six, paragraph 125

(Quote from The Landmark Herodotus, translation by Andrea L. Purvis)

Although the timeline doesn’t match (Alkmeon was supposed to have done this around 590 BC while Croesus’ reign was from 560 to 546 BC—see here for a family tree), it still remains a wonderful story. I can picture Harold Lloyd or Buster Keaton cast in a silent movie as Alkmeon.

Still, the story raises a few questions as I’m beginning to look at Herodotus’ agendas behind his inquiries. The Alkmeonids started at a disadvantage since they could not trace their family back to a god or hero, although they did claim to have descended from Nestor of Gerenia. Herodotus provides the Alkmeonids family history in order to argue against charges of attempting to betray Athens when the Persians were anchored off the Athenian port after the battle of Marathon. But in paragraph 123 Herodotus makes this statement: “The Alkmeonids, on the other hand, if they were truly the ones who bribed the Pythia to proclaim in her prophecies that the Lacedaemonians should free Athens (as I indicated earlier), were the real liberators of Athens.”

The reference to ‘earlier’ is Book Five paragraph 63, where Herodotus reports that Athenians say the members of the Alkmeonid family bribed the Pythia (priestess at Delphi) to “urge all Spartans who came to consult the oracle, whether on private or public missions, to liberate Athens.” This seems to be a rather shocking statement to make—corrupting religious practices is not only easy but acceptable in certain circumstances.

Herodotus’ views on religion can be difficult to pin down. While he rarely shows or tells of the gods directly in The Histories he does include the presence of immortals through dreams, oracles and omens. While not appearing agnostic, Herodotus seems to have a practical view of religion, noting elsewhere that the Pythia could be persuaded to provide desired answers.

Herodotus’ agenda when looking at Athens and other Greek cities is easier to understand. I have mentioned in earlier posts about an undercurrent wishing for a unified Greece, not under a common ruler but under a common cause. That wish and religious purity come behind Athenian freedom. Herodotus reports several characters saying (or having them say) that a free Athens will be second to no other Greek city. This is the purity he seeks since he sees tyranny or submission, no matter how benign the ruler, as a debased state. As shown in the Book Five post, Herodotus isn’t afraid to point out flaws in Athenian-style democracy, but even with the drawbacks he sees freedom to be preferred to everything else.

Even while pointing out good and bad in people, Herodotus strikes me as having a “glass half full” outlook. I look forward to comparing his attitude to Thucydides later this year.

Who is the father of history?

click to enlarge

From Hark! A Vagrant by Kate Beaton, a lighthearted look at the attribution and problems with the title "The Father of History". Click through to the archives for more comics, including quite a few on history and literature.

The Histories discussion: Book Five

Picture source
Map (at source) is interactive

Although Athens had been a great city before, it became even greater once rid of its tyrants.
- from Paragraph 66

So the Athenians had increased in strength, which demonstrates that an equal voice in government has beneficial impact not merely in one way, but in every way: the Athenians, while ruled by tyrants, were no better in war than any of the peoples living around them, but once they were rid of tyrants, they became by far the best of all. Thus it is clear that they were deliberately slack while repressed, since they were working for a master, but that after they were freed, they became ardently devoted to working hard so as to win achievements for themselves as individuals.
- Paragraph 78

There was nothing he [Aristagoras] failed to promise them [the Athenians], since he was now in dire need, and at last he managed to win them over. For it would seem to be easier to deceive and impose upon a whole throng of people than to do so to just one individual, since he had failed with Kleomenes of Lacedaemon [Sparta], who was alone, but then succeeded with 30,000 Athenians. After the Athenians had been won over, they voted to dispatch twenty ships to help the Ionians and appointed Melanthion, a man of the city who was distinguished in every respect, as commander over them. These ships turned out to be the beginning of evils for both Hellenes and barbarians.
- from Paragraph 97

(All quotes in this post are from The Landmark Herodotus with translation by Andrea L. Purvis)

In this Book, Herodotus narrates the first half of the Ionian revolt (approximately 499 – 497/6 BC). In addition he covers some Spartan and Athenian history, including Athens freedom from tyrants during a tumultuous last decade in the 6th century BC.

The strongest theme in this Book involves the cost of submission to tyrants or kings. Herodotus consistently praises those that fight for their freedom. Regarding Darius and Persian rule, we see entire cities/areas relocated on a whim in addition to administrators taking liberties with their subjects’ women. Recalling the previous Persian ruler, Herodotus highlights one of Cambyses cruel acts. After accusing a royal judge of accepting a bribe, Cambyses has the man flayed and his skin used as part of the official judicial chair. Following the recurring use of serving/exposing the dead bodies of fathers or sons to the other after a royally imposed murder (and the survivor expected not to mind), Cambyses appoints the victim’s son as the next judge.

Problems with submission can manifest indirectly. Appointed officials can make matters worse for their subjects even more than the king or tyrant might. Lykaretos, appointed governor by Darius over the recently defeated Lemnians, subjugated everyone as his personal slave. In addition, tyrants who start out nice can change and become cruel. Periandros of Corinth began as a relatively gentle ruler, but after consulting with Thrasyboulos (the tyrant of Miletus) he became more bloodthirsty than his cruel father. See the previous post for an extended quote on Periandros.

The fallout from Persian rule is not always as bad as Herodotus’ overall theme implies, which he acknowledges. Darius extends clemency to many Ioanian cities during the revolt. For some of the areas submitting to Persian rule, leaders was allowed to remain in power although a tribute would now be required. In Book Six we will see Darius creating democracies in some of the cities in order to solidify power. Even with occasional gentle rule, the threat in Greece from Persia is at a high level in 500 BC. Persia’s empire spans a large part of the known world and they have a foothold in Europe after the conquest of Thrace. Many of the Athenian tyrants at the end of the 6th century have been described by other historians as relatively benign. For Herodotus, gentle rule still means submission, which he views as odious. He clearly believes that the Athenian style of democracy as it stands at this point in time, that is an “equal voice in government”, was superior to other forms but he did not hesitate to point out its flaws (see the quote from paragraph 97 for one example). It will be an interesting comparison between Herodotus’ support of Athenian democracy, while acknowledging its flaws, and Aeschylus’ portrayal of it in The Persians (which I hope to discuss soon).

Herodotus champions liberty and points out the hypocrisy of free men wanting to subject others by using speeches of historical characters. Sokleas of Corinth, in answer to the Spartans’ wish to enlist allies to reestablish an Athenian tyranny, tells the Spartan leaders,

”If you really believe it to be a good policy to have cities ruled under tyrannies, then you should be the first to install a tyrant among yourselves before seeking to do so for everyone else. But as it is, you have no experience of tyrants, and in fact take the most dire precautions to prevent them from arising in Sparta, while you mistreat your allies. If you had experienced tyranny the way we have, you would be able to come up with better policies concerning it than you have now.”

During 507 BC, with threats of invasion from Sparta, an Athenian embassy was sent to Sardis in order to seek an alliance with Persia. The envoys, intent on achieving an alliance, offer earth and water in submission to Darius. Once the envoys return to Athens they were reprimanded for exceeding their commission. The question of how Athens was perceived by the Persians remains unanswered. Several years after this submission, Darius has to be told who the Athenians were. Several questions arise from the earlier submission. Was Athens seen as a subject city? Was the Persian empire so large that Darius weren’t aware of all of his subjects? When Athens assists in the destruction of Sardis eight years after this submission, was this seen as an act of internal revolt? Why did Darius send envoys prior to the invasion of 490 BC (in Book 6) to ask for submission if they already did so in 507 BC? (Update: now that I'm in Book Six I see where Darius did this to test for continued loyalty--which still raises the question of being ignorant, if he truly was, of Athens.) Was Persia aware of the rebuke of the envoys and consider Athens a non-subject city? Or, possibly the easiest way to reconcile these questions, did the first submission not happen?

The Histories arose out of the desire to record the conflict between the Greeks and Persia but it isn’t a good sign that squabbles (that escalate into skirmishes) between Greek cities happen often at this point. At the beginning of Book Five Herodotus makes the comment that Thrace could be invincible if its people united under a common ruler, but they can’t because of their constant squabbling. Left unsaid, but very much implied, is a similar outlook for the Greeks if they unite under a common cause. The Ionian revolt would be the trigger to place Persia and Athens in open conflict and temporarily curtail the intra-Greek skirmishes.

Athens and Persia are already on bad terms with each other when Aristagoros arrives with a request to free Miletus, a former Athenian colony now under Persian rule. Unfortunately the Athenians don’t know the history behind Aristagoros. This slippery character had used the pretense of helping Naxian exiles return to their land and, not coincidentally, augmenting his power. After enlisting the Persians for assistance the campaign stalls and Aristagoros, wishing to deflect blame for his failure, decides to stage a revolt against Persian rule in Ionian cities. The Athenians agree to help, sending men and ships to Sardis (the regional capital of Lydia) but their contingent leaves after Sardis is sacked and burned. Though the Athenians refuse to help Ionian cities after this point (although no explanation is given as to why), the damage between Athens and Persia is irrevocable. The desire to punish Athens grows as Darius, after finding out who the Athenians are, has an attendant “to repeat to him three times whenever his dinner was served: ‘My lord, remember the Athenians.’”

In addition to the theme of freedom versus submission, there are several other contrasts Herodotus provides. While he works a “good Greek/bad Persian” theme, the complexity in their differences becomes more complicated upon deeper evaluation. Herodotus holds the Persians in high regard for their achievements. One example: in this Book he goes into detail about their Royal Road and, among the benefits the road provides, is a mention on how safe it is to travel. This stood out for me since part of the Greek “guest-host” relationship is based on assuring safe travel. The freedom/submission conflict also highlights the difference between the rule of law and the rule of man. While Greek cities like Sparta and Athens have very different structures, their common respect for law will be highlighted as a theme once war starts with Persia.

One issue I have with this section lies in Herodotus’ assignment of the cause of Ionian revolt to the actions of Aristagoras and Histiaios. While the actions of and reasons behind Aristagoras and Histiaios may have occurred exactly as described, where and why did they get their support? There had to be something else driving people to engage in a revolt against such a formidable foe as Persia than simply restoring previous tyrants. The Landmark Herodotus in one of its 21 appendices looks in detail at some of the problematic areas of Herodotus' account of the Ionian revolt. I won't go into the same detail here, but it appears Herodotus had several biases influencing his inquiries.

Despite the muddled parts in this Book, The Histories continues to entertain. Stories included by Herodotus that make fun reading (although maybe not necessarily good history):

Histiaios, after giving up his rule in Miletus at the order of Darius, wanted to get a message from the royal court at Susa to Aristagoras at Miletus. Knowing the roads would be watched and all communication intercepted, he shaved the head of his most trustworthy slave, tattooed a message to revolt on his scalp, and waited for the slave’s hair to grow back. The slave was sent to Miletus with only one instruction: tell Aristagoras to shave your hair and look at your head. (paragraph 35)

Amyntas, king of Macedon, submits to the Persians. At the celebratory banquet, the Persian envoys request to see the Macedonian women. The drunken Persians molest the women and Amyntas meekly allows it to continue. His son, Alexandros, sends the king to bed and tells the Persians that they may have the women for the night but please permit them to bathe first. While the women are away, young men put on feminine garments and, seated beside the Persians, kill them and their entire retinue. In order to keep the envoys’ fate secret, Alexandros bribes the Persian general in charge of finding out what happened to the missing envoys, giving him money and his sister. Herodotus fails to mention what the sister thought of the arrangement. (paragraphs 18 – 21)

A note on a neat parallel in structure: at the very beginning of The Histories, Croesus of Lydia had inquired into the Athenians and Spartans and which would help him against the Persians. In Book Five, at the halfway point in the book and beginning the narrative on conflict between Persia and Greece, Aristagoras of Miletus seeks help from the same two cities in his revolt against Persia. The Book ends with the Aristagoras fleeing the conflagration he started in Ionia, Herodotus heaping scorn on his weak-spirited nature. Aristagoras heads to Thrace where he is killed trying to subject additional cities to his rule.

Picture source

Periandros (Periander)

Picture source

Since I’m behind on writing anything, I wanted to post an excerpt from Book Five of The Histories. This is from the speech of Sokleas of Corinth as he rebukes the Spartans for wanting to return tyrants to Athens. From Paragraph 92:

“After he [Kypselos] had ruled for thirty years and had woven out the final strands of his life, his son Periandros succeeded to the tyranny. In the beginning, Periandros was certainly a more gentle ruler than his father, but after communicating with Thrasyboulos tyrant of Miletus through messengers, he became far more bloodthirsty than Kypselos had ever been. What happened was that he sent a herald to Thrasyboulos to ask advice about how he could best administer the city so as to make his rule as secure as possible. Thrasyboulos led the man who had come from Periandros outside the town and into a field planted with grain. While they walked together through the grain crop, Thrasyboulos kept questioning the herald about why he had come from Corinth, the reason for his arrival from Corinth, and all the while, whenever he saw one of the stalks extending above the others, he would cut it off and throw it away, until the finest and tallest of the grain had been destroyed. Although they went through the entire field in this manner, he never offered a single word of advice, but sent the herald back. When the herald returned to Corinth, Periandros was eager to hear the advice he had requested, but the herald said that Thrasyboulos had given no advice at all, and that he was amazed that he had been sent to a man who was clearly not in his right mind and who destroyed his own possessions; and then reported everything that Thrasyboulos had done.

“Periandros understood the meaning of what Thrasyboulos had done and perceived that he was advising him to murder the prominent men of the city. It was then that he exhibited every kind of evil to the citizens. For Periandros completed all that Kypselos had left undone in his killing and banishing of the Corinthians. And on one day, he had all the Corinthian women stripped of their clothing, for the sake of his own wife, Melissa [whom Periandros had killed while she was pregnant]. He had sent messengers to the Thesprotians on the Acheron River to consult the oracle of the dead there concerning a deposit of treasure belonging to a guest-friend. When Melissa appeared, she refused to tell him about it and said that she would not disclose where it was buried because she was cold and naked and could make no use of the clothes that had been buried with her since they had not been consumed by the fire. She said that the evidence for the truth of her claim was that Periandros had placed his loaves in a cold oven. When her response was reported to Periandros, he found her token of its truth credible, for he had engaged in intercourse with Melissa’s corpse. As soon as he heard the message, he made a proclamation announcing that all Corinthian women were to go to the sanctuary of Hera; and so they went there dressed in their finest clothes as though to attend a festival. Periandros had posted his bodyguards in ambush, and now he had the women stripped, both the free women and the servants alike. Then he gathered their clothes together and, taking them to a pit in the ground, said a prayer to Melissa and burned all the clothes completely. After doing that, he sent to consult Melissa a second time, and her ghost now told him the place where his guest-friend had deposited the treasure. This, then, Lacedaemonians, is what tyranny is like, and that is the sort of deeds it produces.”

(From The Landmark Herodotus, translation by Andrea L. Purvis)

The Histories discussion: Book Four

Following the capture of Babylon, Darius led an army against Scythia. For Asia was flourishing; it had both numerous fighting men and ample revenues, and Darius had developed a desire to punish the Scythians for having earlier invaded Media and having conquered those who had tried to oppose them; for in doing this the Scythians had been the unjust aggressors. (from paragraph 1)

According to the Scythians, theirs is the youngest of all nations…(from paragraph 5)

The Scythians were more clever than any other people in making the most important discovery we know of concerning human affairs, though I do not admire them in other respects. They have discovered how to prevent any attacker from escaping them and how to make it impossible for anyone to overtake them against their will. For instead of establishing towns or walls, they are all mounted archers who carry their homes along with them and derive their sustenance not from cultivated fields but from their herds. Since they make their homes on carts, how could they not be invincible or impossible even to engage in battle? (from paragraph 46)

- All quotes in this post are from The Landmark Herodotus with translation by Andrea L. Purvis

On the second time through The Histories, I bogged down once again in Book Four and I’m not sure why. There are many interesting parts and it marks an important turning point in Herodotus’ overarching narrative since it contains a Persian invasion into part of Europe. Herodotus provides examples for several of his themes (see the discussion of Book One for some of the themes), although many of these examples have some contradiction built into them. I’ll try and specify these inconsistencies at the end of the post. This Book includes many digressions while delving into Scythian history and ethnography, which may be part of my problem in working through the Book.

Herodotus goes into great detail on the Scythians—land, weather, customs, habits, warmaking, origins, etc. Scythia, located just north of the Black Sea, called itself the youngest of all nations which makes it an interesting comparison to the ethnography of Egypt (the oldest). For Herodotus, the further you move from a Greek-centric culture, customs and lands become increasingly different and more exotic. Scythia’s difference from Egypt, besides age, is location—Herodotus considers Scythia part of Europe. When Darius crossed the Thracian Bosporus and the Danube (Ister) River, the stage is set for his defeat. Fortunately for Darius, he does not meet the fate of his predecessors Cyrus or Cambyses when crossing “a river too far.” [Note: In the Landmark edition, the notes point out that Darius’ purpose for invasion probably centered on conquering Thrace and the Getai to gain access to a gold-producing region in modern Transylvania. That storyline obviously doesn’t provide such a grand tale as what Herodotus provides.]

I found myself liking the Scythians despite Herodotus’ less than flattering descriptions. He did not hold back in describing their savagery, such as turning the skulls of their enemies into drinking cups. Herodotus makes it clear that there is very little to admire about the Scythians. Their lack of towns or cities would imply to the Greeks a lack of civilization. Herodotus’ admiration is mostly limited to their tactics against the Persians and their desire not to be enslaved. After their neighbors decide not to assist in helping fight the Persians (some rejected help outright, others preferred to wait on the sidelines until they were directly attacked), the Scythians came up with the following strategy:

When these replies were reported to the Scythians they decided, now that these kings had refused to join them as allies, not to directly resist by giving battle, but instead to withdraw, and as they retreated, to destroy whatever wells and springs they passed and obliterate the grass from the earth. … Their plan was to retreat directly toward the lands of those who had rejected the alliance and thus to provoke them to go to war. They thought that since these peoples were unwilling to take upon themselves a war against the Persians, they would have to be forced into it against their will. (from paragraph 120)

The Scythians scorched-earth policy and delaying tactics, always staying just out of reach of direct conflict, successfully frustrated the Persians. Idanthyros, king of the Scythians, responded defiantly to Darius' command to stop and fight:

I will tell you why I do not engage you now: it is because we have neither towns nor cultivated land to worry about being captured or razed, which might induce us to engage you in battle sooner. … Instead of gifts of earth and water, I shall send you the kind of tokens you really merit. And in response to your claim to be my master, I tell you, “Weep.” That is your answer from the Scythians. (from paragraph 127)

No handwringing or speculating what they did to cause this invasion, just determination and grit. The tokens to the Persians were a bird, a mouse, a frog, and five arrows. Darius tried to see these as gifts of earth and water (the symbol of submission and surrender to the Persians), reasoning that mice lived in the ground and frogs lived in water, but Gobryas (one of the seven conspirators that helped overthrow the Magi in Book Three) came to a different conclusion: “Persians, unless you turn into birds and fly up into the sky, or mice and descend underground, or frogs and hop into the lakes, you will be shot by these arrows and never return home.” (from paragraph 132) Darius comes to the same conclusion after seeing the Scythians, lined up against him in battle, break rank in order to chase a hare. Interpreting this display as a sign of their contempt, Darius plans a retreat, providing an anticlimactic ending to the Scythian campaign. The only remaining question is whether or not the Persians will cross the Ister (Danube) before the bridge is destroyed. (Some of the Ionians guarding the bridge will make later appearances during the Ionian revolt.)

The remainder of Book Four focuses on a revolt in Libya, the area west of Egypt. I found Herodotus’ section on Carthage interesting since I just finished Richard Miles’ book (discussed two posts down). Much of his focus is on their sailing experiences as Herodotus repeats their stories about trading with people on the west coast of Africa (“outside the Pillars of Herakles”). Herodotus’ descriptions of the people along the Mediterranean coast of Africa provides several interesting stories, like that of the Psylloi:

Adjacent to the Nasamones were the Psylloi, who perished in the following way. The south wind blew through their land and dried up their reservoirs of water, so that their whole country, which is situated within the Syrris, became devoid of moisture. They discussed the problem and together agreed to make war on the south wind (I am repeating what the Libyans say). And when they reached the desert sand, the south wind blew upon them and buried them. Now that they are gone, the Nasamones have their land. (paragraph 173).

Regarding the revolt in Libya, Herodotus provides another example of defiance against Persian rule. Aryandes, the governor of Egypt (answerable to the Persian king), sends a herald to the city of Barke in order to find out who had killed the ruler of nearby Cyrene. Instead of turning over those responsible, “the whole population of Barke assumed responsibility, for they said they had suffered much abuse at his hands.” (from paragraph 168)

The Persians capture the city of Barke by deception and the arbitrary cruel punishment which follows highlights a theme of Persian despotism which Herodotus has been building. An earlier example of this theme was provided when, about to leave Susa on his march to Scythia, Darius receives a request from Oiobazos “to leave behind one of his three sons who were serving in the army.” After saying all three sons could stay in Persia, Darius orders them executed. Later we will see even worse examples of this motif. Other themes mentioned in the Book One discussion come into play. The ‘inviolability of boundaries between the continents’ theme develops with Darius’ lack of success against Scythia, although the success in putting down the revolt in Libya could be said to contradict it. The theme involving man’s inability to escape his fate makes several appearances. Arkesilaos, the ruler of Cyrene murdered in Barke, consulted the Delphic oracle but after successfully fulfilling the first half of the prediction he acts in a manner to fulfill the prediction of his death by ignoring the second half. Herodotus points out “Thus Arkesilaos failed to understand the oracle, and whether intentionally or unwittingly, brought about the fulfillment of his own fate.” (from paragraph 164) Arkesilaos’ mother, Pheretime, brutally takes revenge on the inhabitants of Barke for the murder of her son, but in doing so exceeds what the gods will allow and, accordingly, dies a horrible death:

The final strands in the life of Pheretime were woven with misery, for as soon as she had achieved her revenge on the Barkaians, she left Libya and returned to Egypt, where she died a miserable death from worms which teemed within her body and crawled out from it while she still lived. Thus the gods manifest their resentment against humans who execute vengeance violently and excessively. (from paragraph 205)

There are many other topics that could be discussed and hopefully I can cover some of them in the remaining sections. One area that had several mentions in this Book is the adoption of foreign customs, particularly regarding religious ceremony. I mention it here as a reminder for later discussion since Herodotus’ outlook on this topic grated on Plutarch. But then almost all of The Histories upset Plutarch. I did want to touch on some incongruities, major and minor, in some of Herodotus’ themes. I mentioned that the Persian success in putting down the Libyan revolt seems to contradict the border inviolability theme, although the victory was underwhelming (not to mention achieved through guile and treachery) and their march back to Egypt was a trial. Herodotus’ approach to geography and its symmetry can appear muddied at times, too. He seems to assume there must be a balance of some sort. In paragraph 36, for example, he says if there are Hyperboreans (“beyond the north wind”) then there must be Hypernotians (“beyond the south wind”). At the same time he dismisses true symmetry, acknowledging that the three continents (Asia, Europe, Libya/Africa) are not of equal size and each has unique features. Herodotus’ moving back and forth between assumptions (such as symmetry), facts, and hearsay provide a glimpse into his struggle for a systematic way of thinking.

Some of Herodotus’ inconsistencies appear minor, but I wonder if there isn’t a greater struggle going on underneath the surface. His mention of Homer, to this point, has been dismissive, especially when disputing whether there is a river Ocean circling around the continents. Yet in paragraph 29 he quotes a line from the Odyssey to “prove” a point. “Prove” is in quotation marks since the verse doesn’t support his point at all. There seems to be a continual struggle between Herodotus and the debt he owes to prior poets. While dismissive of poets and their exaggerations at times, he can approvingly quote them when it suits him (he did so with Pindar in Book Three). In addition, there are several ancient references to Herodotus’ work as an oral performance. As such, he uses many of the techniques of a lyric poet even though his work is in prose. Ultimately, though, his attitude toward the older poets seems to boil down to one simple question—could he use them as a source in his inquiries? Since the poet’s goal is entertainment and not accuracy (while Herodotus strives for both), Herodotus dismisses much of their content. Even though Herodotus includes material he could not personally verify, he usually (but not always) provided caveats. His inclusion of Homer in this Book, and Pindar earlier, occurs when he thinks their quotes support his point. His refusal to use epic poems as a source follows his treatment of them at the start of the book, providing what Persians say happened on some fairly important early Greek myths, in addition to his belief that Helen resided in Egypt during the Trojan War. In short, poets are suspect except when they aren't.

Two additional points on this Book, both with ties to the Greeks:

Those guarding the Ister (Danube) bridge were Ionians (Greeks in modern-day Turkey). The Ionian leaders at the bridge were tyrants, remaining in power through their support of Persia. Herodotus and the Scythians show contempt for these leaders and their willingness to remain in power through subservience to the Persian king.

Herodotus relates three Scythian origin stories. The first story, an autochthonous scenario with a son of Zeus and the river Borysthenes’ daughter as the parents of the Scythian race, is what Herodotus says the Scythians believe although he dismisses it. Herodotus says he believes the third scenario, a story about nomads settling in Scythia. But it is the second story Herodotus tells, one he says that the Greeks in the Black Sea area told him, that is the most interesting. In this scenario, Herakles mated with a snake-woman, female from the buttocks up and comprised of snakes below the buttocks. Herodotus passes no judgment and provides no comments on this version, so why present it? Was it just to be thorough? Or is it to leave a feeling of Greek/Scythian commonality in their heritage? Since Herodotus views the Scythians as part of Europe, in addition to painting the Persian defeat as a prefigurement of Greek triumph, it might be he wants to present any possible positive tie between Greece and Scythia.

At this point it is probably a good idea to recap what has happened to this point in The Histories since the digressions can obscure where Herodotus is going with the story. Persia has achieved a rapid rise to power, achieving a massive empire starting with Cyrus, following with Cambyses and continuing with Darius (despite the setback in Scythia). The Scythian loss seems to be part of a larger pattern for Persia, taking one step back after every two steps forward. Part of maintaining their empire involves putting down the many rebellions they've experienced as rapidly as possible. The stage is set for the Ionian rebellion and the ripple events it will cause.

Persian empire around 513BC
Picture source