Aristagoras Champion of Freedom:
Assessing his Role in the Ionian Revolt.
Christopher Watts
Birkbeck University of London MA (Classical Civilisation)
2012
Archaic Walls and Baths of Faustina, Miletos
2
CONTENTS.
Acknowledgements page 3
1. What I shall be discussing. 4 2. Definitions and Sources. 5 3. Herodotus as a reliable narrator of the Ionian revolt. 7 4. Homeric poiesis in Herodotus. 13 5. Soft countries breed soft men. 16 6. Aristagoras as a cause of the Greco-‐Persian war. 19 7. The expedition to Naxos. 24 8. Aristagoras champion of freedom. 29 9. Aristagoras neither a deceiver nor a weak character. 39 10. Conclusion. 43
Bibliography 46 Christopher J Watts Student Number: 12508906 Word Count: 14,923
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thanks Dr. Christy Constantakopoulou for her advice, time and assistance in the preparation of this paper. I would also like to thank Dr. Naomi Malan for her
expert proof reading of the text.
4
“ Milesians are no fools, 'tis true But yet they act as fools would do’.1
‘Once upon a time the Milesians were brave.’2
1 What I shall be discussing.
Freedom is again in the forefront of our minds as we witness the struggles of citizens in the Middle East and elsewhere to break free from tyranny. What began as a populist movement led by Colonel Gadhafi in Libya for instance over time was transformed into a tyranny which only popular insurrection could shift. Another example is the current struggle of citizens in Syria against the oppression of a military dictatorship. Such revolts have a long history. In this paper I shall discuss such a struggle in Archaic Ionia an uprising against the tyranny imposed by increasingly autocratic Persian hegemony as it expanded its empire further west. In particular I shall focus upon the role of its early leader Aristagoras of Miletos in bringing this about. Our main source on Aristagoras and the Ionian revolt is from Herodotus’ Historie. The two quotations above give a flavor of the prevailing Greek attitude to the Ionians in Classical Greece and probably much earlier. The quotation from Aristotle has as its context a discussion of unrestrained and impulsive behavior which he compares with the Milesians. Aristophanes’ phrase had become a proverb by BC 388 meaning ‘Once upon a time’ i.e. it had been so long ago that the Milesians had displayed any courage.3 Modern scholarship increasingly is analysing how Herodotus went about reconstructing his account of events at the turn of the 6th Century BC. Drawing on this scholarship I shall argue that Herodotus allows his prejudice against the Ionians to cloud his judgment. He does not give the revolt and its early leader Aristagoras the important place it deserves in the struggle for Greek freedom. I shall explore how Herodotus constructs his account of Aristagoras, the nature of his bias and why this might be so. I shall show how this influenced unfavorably his interpretation of Aristagoras’ significance as the first Greek leader to resist Persia’s westward expansion. What happened in Ionia halted this expansion for five years and provided much needed breathing space for developing Greek resistance.
2 Definitions and Sources In this paper I shall use the term ‘Ionian’ to refer to those cities discussed in Herodotus’ Historie Book 5 that participated in the revolt against Persia in BC 499. These included the Ionian cities on mainland Anatolia of Miletos, Myos, Priene, Ephesos, Colophon, Lebedos, Teos, Klazomenai, Erythrae, Phocaea and the islands of Samos and Chios (1.142). But the revolt also drew in the Aeolian cities further north as well as the island of Mytilene, further south plus some Carian cities and most of Cyprus. Miletos was the lead city in the revolt, the home city of Aristagoras the revolt’s instigator. This city will be central to this study. The revolt finally came to an end in BC 494 with the destruction and enslavement of the people of Miletos. The earliest ancient source on Artistagoras and his role in the Ionian revolt is Herodotus’ account in his Historie.4 In this paper Herodotus’ text is referenced in brackets using the De Selincourt translation. The Landmark translation when used is referenced in footnotes. There were other Greek prose writers on ethnography, geography or local history who were active before or in Herodotus’ time who could potentially have provided written or oral information for him.5 Hecataeus of Miletus appears as a historical figure in the logos of the Ionian Revolt
1 Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, 7.8. 2 Aristophanes, Plutus, 1003. 3 Aristophanes footnote by translator p. 708. 4 Weisehofer (2009), 167 summarises the ancient poetic, pictorial, literary and historiographical reference material available. Hornblower (2002), 377 et seq. summarises Jacoby’s analytic approach to identifying Herodotus’ unspecified sources and other scholarly approaches to source attribution. 5 Fowler (2006), 39-‐41 in the Appendix lists writers where there is evidence of their work -‐ Hecataeus of Miletus’ Geneologies and Periodos; Scylax of Caryandra’s Periplous; Dionysius of Miletus’ Persica, Periegesis
5
(5.36, 5.125) but so far as we know did not write about the revolt in Herodotus’ day. Books although important did not have any privileged status over other sources of information such as oral accounts.6 There are other ancient writers on the revolt itself. A contemporaneous letter purportedly written by the Milesian philosopher Anaximenes to Pythagoras mentions the incipient war against the Persians as one: ‘…to secure their common freedom.’7 Plutarch also quotes from other writers on the revolt such as Lysanias of Mallas and Charon of Lampascus in his criticism of Herodotus’ account but these works have not survived intact.8 The Greeks are referred to in Royal Persian inscriptions, lists and reliefs but only as subject peoples.9 The Behistun inscription of Darius I confirms some of Herodotus’ account of the assassination of Smerdis/Gaumata by Darius and his accomplices and the civil unrest in the Persian empire that followed.10 However unlike Herodotus Darius calls the Scythian campaign a victory. The Ionian revolt is not mentioned and so may not have been perceived as a major event by the Persians. So far no epigraphic evidence has been found in Miletos, independent of Herodotus and other literary references, supporting the existence of Aristagoras or indeed of the Ionian revolt.11 Electrum coinage was in circulation in Miletos in the late 6th Century and later.12 These coins showed a lion’s head obverse and rosette incuse. They did not carry an image of the ruler at the time of minting and so cannot be used to identify Aristagoras. However Gorman points out that coinage changed at the time of the revolt.13 The Ionians minted homogeneous electrum staters which were issued on the Milesian (not the Persian) standard and bore the symbols of various cities on the obverse and a square incuse divided into four squares. She cites this as evidence that the Ionians proclaimed independence because they returned to the practice in place before the Persian invasion. This is slim evidence independent of Herodotus of the revolt. In this paper I
of the World, Events after Darius; Euagon of Samos’ local history; Charon of Lampasacus’ Persica and Hellenica; Hellanicus of Lesbos’ various works; Xanthus of Lydia’s Lydiaca; Ion of Chios’ Foundation of Chion. De Selincourt (xvii-‐xviii) mentions poetical works which may have influenced Herodotus: Phyrnychus’ Fall of Miletos, Mimnermus’ History of Smyrna, Xenophanes’ Foundation of Colophon and Semonides of Amorgos’ Early History of the Samians. Raaflaub (2009) 579-‐580 summarises Archaic Greek geography, ethnography and historiography and discusses Hecataeus’ influence on Herodotus approach to historiography. Pausanius (7.2.2) gives a history of the foundation of Miletus as does Apollodorus, (3.1) and Vitruvius (4.14-‐5). Strabo (7.3.3) covers Caria and the legales origins. Diodorus Siculus (10.25) briefly mentions Hecataeus role after the sack of Miletos. Polybius (16.12) briefly mentions Miletos. Plutarch, Alexander, 17 covers Miletos rebuilt and again under siege. Ctesias doesn’t mention the Ionian revolt (Stronk (2010) and Photius, 72. Aeschylus’ play Persians gives a Greek view of Persian grieving. Panyassis’ poem Ionika may be inspired by the revolt (Mathews (1974), 19-‐20). Simonides wrote about famous sea battles e.g. Salamis/Artemisium but did not write about the battle of Lade so far as I know. 6 Fowler (2006), 36. 7 Diogenes Laertius, 2.2. 8 Plutarch, De Herodoti, 24. 9 Wiesehofer (2009), 167. 10 Darius I, Behistun, especially 10-‐15 (assassination), 68 (his accomplices by name and patronymic). 11 Gorman’s (2001), 287-‐296 extensive Index Locorum covers what was found by 2000. No more recent in depth study of Miletos is available. Her account of Aristagoras (133-‐143) draws almost exclusively on Herodotus as does Dunham’s (1915) account. Miletos was a large city with extensive defensive walls, numerous temples with rich dedications confirming the city’s importance. There is also evidence of new building works in Miletos and its dependencies at the end of the 6th Century which point to a period of prosperity at about this time see Greaves (2002), 96. Bayhan (1997) gives an illustrated account. Rubenstein (2004) summarises evidence for the size of Miletos and also its decline during its period of stasis BC 600-‐590. This was during Histiaios and Aristagoras tyrannies and before the Ionian Revolt see Greaves (2002), 96. This confirms Herodotus’ statement that Miletos:‘…had reached the peak of her prosperity and was the glory of Ionia’(5.28). These building works were considerable both on Milesian temples, the sacred way and at Didyma, the oracle’s temple and the Temple of Artemis and some were expensive works e.g. ornate see Greaves (2002), 96; Bayhan (1987), 117-‐141. There is also evidence of destruction by fire everywhere in the ruins, notably the Temple of Athena which was partially destroyed see Gorman (2001), 144. This confirms Herodotus’ account of the sacking of the city at this time (6.19). Boardman discusses archaeological evidence for the origins of Miletos, the Ionian league, the Lydian assault on Miletos, the Persian conquest and Black Sea colonisation all which in the main support Herodotus’ account see Boardman (2000), 28, 32, 94-‐95, 102, 240. 12 Greaves (2002), 98. 13 Gorman (2001), 138; see also Gardiner (1911), 152.
6
have accepted from Herodotus that the Ionian revolt did occur and that Aristagoras was an historical figure at the time.
Behistun inscription of Darius I
3 Herodotus as a reliable narrator of the Ionian Revolt
Hayden White is an articulate critic of modern historical method.14 Even though twentieth century historians such as Murray recognized that in understanding events in the past: ‘…everyone comes with preconceptions and prejudices of his own environment, and seeks to explain the unknown in relation to it in terms of marvels, opposites or contrasts…’15 This was not good enough for White. His view is that historical enquiry should amend its approach away from being ‘scientific’ in the modern sense and refocus its effort on its relationship to art, poetry, rhetoric and ethical reflection.16 He says that in so doing far from diminishing a reference work we will enhance it allowing it to: ‘…bloom and cause it to display its richness and power as a symbolising process.’17 Ginzburg is another critic who tells us that historical narratives tell us less about the reality conveyed in the text than about whoever constructed them. By looking at how a narrative is constructed we free ourselves up to know much more about the past than ever before.18 Using this approach Forsdyke points out that our understanding of Herodotus’ literary techniques and how he uses these in his construction of history has advanced considerably.19 Marincola has a more conservative approach in his handling of Greek ideas of historical truth where he is content with Parmenides notion of dizesis (quest) or seeking to untangle the strands of the true, the false and the fictional as Ginzburg puts it.20 This new approach to historiography is behind the modern study of the logoi in Herodotus’ Historie. Interpreting Herodotus requires an understanding of the relationship he had with the society and mores of his day. This influenced his interpretation of history and can be used to help us gain a clearer understanding of events in the past. For Herodotus the past (aitie) has many different aspects even the remote past. Like the pre-‐Socratic Ionian natural philosophers he shared a desire to make sense of the world in a non-‐mythical, non-‐genealogical and rational way.21 Luraghi reminds us of the three ways Herodotus gathers the evidence for his Historie.22 Firstly he uses akoe, the information he gets from his oral sources. Next he uses opsis, his personal accounts of what he has seen for himself in his travels. Lastly he uses gnome or Herodotus’ own
14 See White (1980), (1990). 15 Murray (1972), 200. 16 White (2005), 335. 17 White (1990), 213. 18 Ginzburg (2012), 3. 19 Forsdyke (2006), 227; 20 Wilkinson (2009), 138: Note 172 discusses Parmenides notion of dizesis or quest. Marincola (2006), 20-‐24 and endnote 14 gives his outline of Herodotus’ idea of truth; Ginzburg (2012), 6. 21 Thomas (2006), 60. 22 Luraghi (2006), 76.
7
logical deductions about events. Here he analyses the possible and the probable. His process of Historie is the whole enquiry into the past itself with his overriding interpretation of events. Luraghi introduces the idea of ‘Genre’ as a set of historically and culturally specific expectations with which an audience approaches a text.23 Herodotus uses this in the way he explains what he finds to his audience often by comparing differences in the world of the past to their expectations based on the world they live in. We the modern readers must also draw upon our own understanding of these differences in our interpretation of Herodotus and the past he presents us with. Luraghi also points out that the social context of Herodotus’ Historie was that he was in competition with other accounts of the Persian wars. These were portrayed in tragedy such as Aeschylus’ Persians,24 elegiac and epic poetry and eulogies such as Simonides’ The War Gods.25 He had to move the expectations of his audience away from the use of myth in prose and poetry to his way of thinking.26 In Greek culture, the past was traditionally the province of poetry as exemplified by The Iliad. Poetry had its inspiration from the muses and so had divine authority. Marincola points out that the poets continued to rely on this authority even though it was recognized that poets could stretch the truth at times.27 Herodotus had to invent a new form of authority to convince listeners that he was conveying the truth. His method of enquiry does this. Herodotus’ truth is tinged with wonder – wonder at mistakes made by historical actors or the unpredictable courage of individuals. Marincola sums it up nicely: ‘The contingent events of history are not created by the historian (as the poets do) but the historian revels in them, and seeks to explain and contextualise them. Precisely because the historian seeks to record an external and already existent particularity, history presents a unique challenge for those seeking to understand events as more than simply an agglomeration of facts.’28 But Herodotus’ methods have their limitations. For instance he says of the sea battle off the island of Lade during the Ionian revolt that the truth cannot be known because all the combatants who were involved in that conflict blame one another and so one must live with uncertainty (6.14). Even when he has oral accounts of an event Herodotus knows it is still not always possible to know the truth because differing accounts may be given of the same events.29 In this case he uses his own judgment to assess which accounts to believe and portrays this as his kind of truth. To improve credibility Herodotus makes a particular point of talking to people who either participated in the events he is recording or have stories about those events. Few people would still be alive and would have participated directly in the Ionian revolt when Herodotus compiled his account. So he would be talking with contemporary (approximately BC 450) people and their memories of events.30 As Forsdyke points out Archaic Greek societies recorded their social memory orally in stories.31 What is remembered is determined by the needs of the society at that time. This includes their need to justify their social and political order and validate their social and political norms. So the aspects of the past that are remembered tell us as much about their present and its needs as about the past. As groups change over time their version of the past changes. Elements incompatible with the groups’ self image, values and norms are not emphasised or are even invented. Different groups within society may preserve different versions of the past and may use the past in different ways to promote their particular interests within society. For the Ionians the recall of events surrounding the revolt would be coloured by the memories of them as a defeated people.32
23 Luraghi (2006), 85. 24 Aeschylus, 3 -‐31. 25 Simonides, No. 161 (E. Diehl, Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, 3rd edition, 1949, transl. W. Barnstone, Greek Lyrical Poetry, (New York: Bantam Books, 1962). 26 Luraghi (2006), 86-‐87. 27 Marincola (2006), 21. 28 Marincola (2006), 23-‐24. 29 Marincola (2006), 24. 30 Marincola (1996), xii. 31 Forsdyke (2006), 226. 32 Munson (2007), 148.
8
Munson points out that there is good evidence in the Ionian logos in Herodotus’ account that it was derived from oral accounts.33 As mentioned previously accounts of the battle of Lade were said to be confused and everyone was blaming each other for the defeat. Such was the confusion of accounts that Herodotus was unable adequately to describe the battle and identify who were the heroes who needed remembering. Plutarch in his critique of Herodotus talks about his smooth tongue his digressions and his lies.34 The thrust of his critique is the claim that Herodotus is too willing to find fault with his historical figures especially those that are heroes in Plutarch’s eyes and who need to be praised. We would call this Herodotus’ objectivity. Plutarch however accepts that digression in historical narrative can allow for the introduction of fables and an exploration of antiquity as Herodotus does. Thomas points out that the folktales in Herodotus are a function of the traditions of the Greeks.35 The Greeks knew of their past from oral traditions and in part from poetic traditions. The poetic presentation or story of an event would more easily be remembered. This simplifying process was the way history was transmitted down through the generations. Herodotus is willing to go against popular opinion in his day when he says that Athens rather than Sparta did most to win the Persian Wars (7.39). In this passage we see what Herodotus is looking for in judging kleos and erga. The Athenians deserve praise because they did not abandon their country through fear but put up spirited and courageous resistance despite the Delphic oracle’s warnings. They were able to understand that it was in the sea and the fleet that their hope of success lay. They also showed leadership in mustering the other states to battle with a cry of freedom. As for the Ionians they tried appeasement rather than aggression in the beginning just as Athens itself had tried with Persia earlier on when they were at war with Sparta (5.73). The unfolding of events revealed that appeasement was not a solution and resistance was needed. As we shall see later on Ionian resistance had little impact on the inexorable march of events. War with Greece was inevitable and no action by the Ionians would have prevented it. Darius in Herodotus’ own reckoning had already planned an invasion (3.134).
Darius Vase, Apulian Krater, BC 340-‐320, Naples
Forsdyke is interested in the politics in Herodotus’ Historie, how he seeks to explain the expansion of Persian power and why the Greeks won their confrontation with it (1.0). Greeks of Herodotus’ day were interested in the nature of imperialism because of the growth of Athenian imperialism at that time.36 The Historie was written partly during the Peloponnesian wars when Athens had now become a tyrant state with its own empire. Forsdyke points out that for Herodotus the principles of imperialism are firstly that states must expand or be absorbed by another expanding power.37 He has Croesus contemplating this idea before his invasion of Cappadocia (1.46). Xerxes also expresses this idea prior to the march on Greece: 33 Munson (2007), 149 and Hdt. 6.14. Hornblower (2002), 377 discusses the pioneering work of Jacoby ‘s Qhellenforschung technique in understanding Herodotus’ sources. 34 Plutarch, De Herod., 3. 35 Thomas (2008), xxxiii. 36 Forsdyke (2006), 228. 37 Forsdyke (2006), 228.
9
‘If we do not inflict the wound, we shall surely receive it.’ (7.11) Herodotus is telling his Greek audience of the dangers of Athenian Imperialism.38 Just as the Persians had a historical justification for their expansion so also the Athenians use the Persian wars as justification for their expansion. The second principle is that Infertile lands with extreme climates give rise to tough and warlike people who are easily able to overcome ‘soft’ people who live in more hospitable lands. The Athenians are being warned that if they too become soft from growing luxury and wealth they too might succumb to a more powerful state which has retained its hardness. The Spartan general Pausanias after the battle of Plataea is looking at a Persian meal and compares it with a Spartan one and says: ‘Men of Greece, I ask you here in order to show you the folly of the Persians, who, living in this style, came to Greece to rob us of our poverty.’(9.82) He also compares the cruelty of several Athenian leaders after their victory over the Persians with that displayed by the Persians themselves.39 The Ionians are central to the growth of Athenian imperialism as it was in the defence of their interests that the Athenians took over leadership of the Greek alliance at the end of the Greco-‐Persian wars.40 In so doing the Ionians yet again became a subject people but this time to a Greek overlord to whom they paid tribute. Herodotus sees the Greco-‐Persian War as an epic worthy of Homer. I shall present arguments suggesting that the Ionian revolt was also a struggle worthy of praise which showed Greeks as a whole the importance of defending their freedom. 4 Homeric Poiesis in Herodotus
Some of Herodotus’ early life experiences may have influenced his attitudes and beliefs in his writings41. Panyassis of Halicarnassus was Herodotus’ uncle and wrote a poetic account of Ionian cities and their colonies.42 According to Mathews (1974) careful account of evidence on Panyassis, he and Herodotus were close.43 The aristocratic families of Panyassis and Herodotus were active opponents of the tyrant Lygdamis of Halikarnassos. Hetodotus and Panyassis shared exile together on Samos prior to Panyassis’ execution by Lygdamis44. A joint memorial stone has been found at Rhodes dated BC 150 acclaiming Herodotus and Panyassis as Greek heroes.45 Indeed Panyassis’ Ionika may have been inspired by the Ionian revolt.46 If the Suda is right Herodotus like Aristagoras was eventually driven out of Halikarnassos by its citizens.47 These first hand experiences may have influenced Herodotus’ views on tyranny and possibly of Aristagoras himself. This closeness with Panyassis may also have influenced his use of some of the poetical techniques of Homer in his writing. We find him using direct speech in his Historie as Homer does. He also uses Homeric techniques such as digressions, flashbacks, anticipations and story telling.48 Marincola points out that Herodotus differs from Homer in that there is constantly an overarching presence of Herodotus as the narrator. Herodotus, he says, like Homer usually presents himself in the first person to write up the events.49 However he does not appeal to the muses as his authority (as the poets do) but expresses his uncertainty, conjecture and ignorance. He reminds his audience of himself as the inquiring presence (Historie). He has a direct approach to causation. He moves from the past to the present in tracing a causal connection between the 38 Mathews (1974), 17 Herodotus spent several years in Athens in the mid 440’s before his move to Thourioi. 39 Forsdyke (2006), 235. 40 Munson (2007), 147. 41 Mathews (1974), 7-‐8. Details of Herodotus’ life are sketchy. The Suda entry on Herodotus (Bowie (2007), 28: trans. S. R. West) is brief and of doubtful authenticity. See De Selincourt (1998) ix-‐x. 42 For Panyassis fragments see Bernabe (1988). 43 Mathews (1974), 7-‐8 relies on the Suda entry on Panyassis. 44 Mathews (1974), 18-‐19 summarises the strength of evidence for this. 45 Mathews (1974), 19-‐20. 46 Mathews (1974), 30. 47 Mathews (1974), 17. 48 Marincola (2006), 14. 49 Marincola (2006), 15
10
two.50 He cuts out mythical time from the picture although he often draws on myth to explain origins. He is interested in the human past which he connects to the present. This is reflected in human desire, national character and the forward movement of power politics. In his account of the Ionian revolt he is in real time as he unfolds the events as they occur. He also uses the revolt as a backdrop for long digressions on what was taking place in Sparta (5.39-‐48), Athens and Corinth (5.5-‐96) both in the present and immediate past but not mythological time. This introduces us to the contrast between these mainland powers and the Ionians and influences us in our attitudes to them. He sets us up later on in his logos when he will be ascribing praise or blame. Herodotus in his ‘Homeric’ quest is also looking for those to whom he can ascribe glory (kleos) for outstanding deeds and works (erga). It is here that there is a large lacuna in his account of the Ionians. He provides a very full account of events and people in his digressions on Sparta, Corinth and Athens tucked into his account of the revolt. For the Ionians he introduces us to just three main protagonists-‐ Aristagoras (5.30), Histiaios (4.136) and Hecataeus (5.36) as the main actors in the revolt. Herodotus is a harsh critic of their lack of kleos as he perceives it. This undoubtedly began with the debacle following the sacking of Sardis (5.100). The ignominious retreat to the coast and scramble for the ships had no sense of glory to it. The refusal of the Athenians to continue to support the Ionian cause reflects this. Forsdyke supports this view and points out that Herodotus’ Ionian and especially Samian sources were seeking to defend themselves for their actions at the battle of Lade when they deserted to the Persians and in so doing contributed to the Ionian defeat.51 Thomas also points out that Herodotus’ own city of Halicarnassus did not participate in the revolt and his father and fellow citizens may have had to justify their abstention.52 Halicarnassus and other Dorian cities played no great part if any in this great fight for freedom.53 Given the final outcome of the whole war, as non-‐participants in the revolt they would likely be very critical of those who fought and failed.54 As Murray points out defeat is a time for forgetting, blaming and self-‐justification and a last resort for changing the values of society to make a virtue out of failure.55 The Greeks believed in agon where the loser loses not only the contest but also respect. This may have been in the mind of Herodotus and his oral sources.
Samos is another likely source of oral accounts of the revolt. Herodotus knew Samos well as he lived there for a short period. This might incline him towards a more favourable view of Samos’ actions and the reworking of their role in the war. Scholars suspect that his Samian sources may have vilified the revolt to justify their betrayal at the battle of Lade56. They may have shared Herodotus’ view that the revolt was a mistake especially as their rivals the Milesians instigated it. At the end of his Historie with the final sea battle with the Persians at Mycale Herodotus comes fill circle when he says: ‘This day saw the second Ionian revolt from Persian domination.’(9.104) He describes the Samians and other Ionians deserting the Persians in favour of the Greek cause. The difference for Herodotus here is that he feels he is able to ascribe kleos to Greek actions.
50 Marincola (2006), 16 51 Forsdyke (2002), 529. 52 Thomas (2006), 65. 53 Evans (1976), 31-‐32; also Latheiner (1982), 130-‐131 in the detailed note 12, 151. 54 Burn (1984), 197. 55 Murray (1980), 244. 56 See Forsdyke (2002), 529.
11
6th Century Kouros of Samos
One point of agreement that Herodotus seems to have gleaned from his sources was that self-‐interest was foremost amongst the motives of those that took part in the revolt. It was this which shaped his account of Aristagoras. Herodotus finds no kleos in self-‐interest but there is plenty of scope for disparagement. He needs to find heroes or scapegoats to help explain the march of events. But as we shall see later it was not only self-‐interest that drove Aristagoras to instigate the revolt. 5 Soft Countries Breed Soft Men
The modern study of the impact of the environment on historical development warns us against environmental determinism.57 Rather culture, perception and human behavior are more likely to determine the way in which societies interact with the environment. 58 But Herodotus appears to have a somewhat environmentally determined view of the Ionians. His prejudice against them is caught up in his belief that people who have an easy comfortable life are inclined to be subservient and do not live up to the standards Herodotus himself has set for those he wishes to praise. He calls them the weakest of the Greek races (1.143). This contempt is found in his portrayal of Cleisthenes’ attitude to the Ionians (5.69). The Athenians themselves also disavow of their Ionian heritage (1.143).59 Herodotus makes judgements on the Ionians throughout his account. He believes that the natural environment helps to shape human behavior and human history.60 An example of this attitude is found at the very end of his Historie, the last thing his audience would go away with when his work was performed. A temptation is offered to Cyrus the Persian King when Artembares suggests he seek out the easy life in a more hospitable climate now that he is master of the world. Cyrus’ barbed reply is that if you choose that course you will be rulers no longer but will become ruled: ‘Soft countries breed soft men…It is not the property of any one soil to produce fine fruits and good soldiers as well.’ (9.122) De Selincourt sees in this concluding comment of Herodotus a summary of many of the themes in his work: poverty and wealth, freedom and despotism and the importance of national character shaped as it is not only by the natural environment but also human institutions and
57 Horden and Purcell (2000), 44, 45. 58 Horden and Purcell (2000), 49 quotes Butzer (1982), 32. This is not to say that the Ionians did not influence their own demise in the way they cultivated the Maeander valley and influenced its alluviation (Horden and Purcell (2000), 320). 59 Gray (2007), 223-‐224. 60 Thomas (2006), 64-‐5.
12
customs.61 In harkening back to Cyrus we are reminded of the rough beginnings of the Persians which gave them the vigour needed to be successful (1.126).
This general view of soft climates is not unique to Herodotus but is found in other near contemporary writers such as the Hippocratic authors. In Airs, Waters, Places the writer says that the evenness of climate made Asians (including the Ionians) more cowardly and less spirited than Europeans.62 Ionians had a reputation for wealth, luxurious living and effeminacy comparable with Sybaris of Magna Graeca the trading partner of Miletos.63 ‘Sybarite’ was used as a synonym for luxury.64 Athenaeus dresses Sybarites in Milesian wool suggesting that they too were partners in luxury. He singles out Colophon65 and the Samians66 as examples of luxurious living. There is also evidence of Herodotus’ attitude in his logos of Polycrates of Samos when Amasis writes to Polycrates of his excessive prosperity (3.40). Herodotus says that the Ionians live in the most beautiful part of the world (3.40). They have neither extremes of heat, cold nor wet. He blames their failure to resist the Persians on their unwillingness for exertion. This is their great weakness (6.11-‐12). He cites the attempt by the Phocean commander Dionysius to train oarsmen prior to the battle of Lade. They were unaccustomed to hard work and began to grumble and eventually refused to cooperate. Thomas contrasts this with the strict discipline of most Greeks especially the Spartans who were used to poverty and were hardy brave soldiers.67 Herodotus also says this of the Persians themselves. Earlier on they were hardy when they first took control of the Median Empire and conquered Lydia (1.71). He says they wore leather, were poor did not eat to excess, drank no wine and had no possessions. Lydian softness then affected them and made them soft as well.68 Boardman (2000) thinks the reverse was the case in that it was the Greeks themselves who taught both the Lydians and the Persians the arts of civilised life, effeminacy’, and even pederasty which Herodotus also thinks (1.135). But for Herodotus the environment does not fully shape human society and is not enough to make an historical explanation. Otherwise he would be condemning himself and fellow Carians at the same time. His attitude to Carian efforts in the Ionian Revolt is generally more favourable even heroic. Onesilus is singled out as a courageous soldier for his sensible advice to the Cyprian king Artybius when fighting the Persians (5.111-‐112). Later on in his account of the final defeat of the Carians he can single out Heracleides of Mylasa for praise for planning an ambush on the Persians singling out a small success in an otherwise disastrous campaign (5.121). As he was a former citizen of Carian Halicarnassus there may be a touch of pro-‐Carian bias in these accounts. The other element in his environmental explanatory armamentarium is nomos the social mores which drives men to display courage and bravery and to perform great deeds. Contrast his attitude to the Ionians after the sacking of Sardis and before the battle of Lade with his ideal portrayal of Greeks in battle in particular the nomos of the Spartans. This is exemplified in Demaratus’ speech to Xerxes when he explains why the Spartans will never withdraw from a fight (7.104). He talks of their way of life, discipline and fear, a fear much greater than the enemy or death, their ultimate master, the law. ‘…poverty is Greece’s inheritance from old, but valour she won for herself by wisdom and the strength of law.’ (7.102)
61 Herodotus, The Histories, 602, n53. Herodotus’ ending of his History is a subject of much recent debate. For instance see Desmond (2004) on the theme of punishment; Moles (1998) on warnings to the Athenians; Flower and Marnicola (2002) 303 on the post-‐war world. 62 Hippocrates, 16 account follows remarkably closely Herodotus’ account of Ionian weaknesses. Thomas (2006), 65; Thomas (2000), 86-‐88. She dates the work in the late 5th Century 63 Gorman (2001), 53; Fleming (2002), 8 outlines the development of the new ‘utopia’ of Thurii in Graeca Magna where Herodotus lived later on in life. This was built close to Sybaris so Herodotus may have been aware of the connection with Miletos. Hippodamus of Miletos was the architect of the city and another possible source of intelligence. 64 Athenaeus 12.518-‐544 65 Athenaeus 12.526. 66 Athenaeus 12.540. 67 Thomas (2006), 65. 68 Boardman (2000), 102.
13
Herodotus’ contention is that this is also what is lacking with the Ionians. 6 Aristagoras as a cause of the Greco-‐Persian war.
Herodotus begins book six with these words: Thus died Aristagoras, the author of the Ionian rebellion.’ (6.1) This follows his brief report that Aristagoras was killed in Thrace while besieging a town near Myrcinus (5.126). We can see that Herodotus has very little time for Aristagoras. He puts the blame for the revolt onto Aristagoras. So far as he is concerned his death is the end of the matter. He can see nothing to praise in the manner of his passing. He has no story of a glorious end to tell. Nor is Aristagoras referred to again in his Historie. So has Herodotus been fair in the way he has handled the character of Aristagoras? Was he Herodotus’ scapegoat for the Greco-‐Persian wars? Does he deserve this somewhat preemptory treatment? Van Wees reminds us that Herodotus is generally relatively even-‐handed in his interpretation of where responsibility lies for the Greco Persian war whether it arose from Persian imperialism or from Greeks pursuing their own personal interests.69 Our focus however is on Aristagoras and his role in this.70 Most of the information we have on Aristagoras comes from the speeches Herodotus gives him. Some modern scholars on Herodotus’ methods have commented on what can be learned from the way he uses speech in his narrative.71 Studying these will help us with our interpretation of what contribution Aristagoras may have made to the Greek struggle for freedom from the Persians. It could be that Aristagoras’ name (excellent speaker) suggested to Herodotus that he should give significant weight to his abilities as an orator. This is not to say that Aristagoras is a character invented by Herodotus. I have accepted that he was an historical figure.72 That he was able to persuade 30,000 sceptical Athenians to support his cause suggests that he is likely to have had considerable abilities as a speaker (5.55).
Herodotus remembered modern Bodrum (Halicarnassus)
In trying to understand the Greek concept of logos Pelling points out that it has two separate meanings: reasoning and speech.73 English has two separate concepts for these ideas yet for the Greeks they were the same. Having an idea or thinking about one or reasoning out a problem is ‘reasonable’ if it can be presented and argued convincingly as a speech. A speech is not a fabrication as Plutarch contends but a literary style for presenting an argument.74 A speech is 69 Van Wees (2002), 345. 70 General or populist writers on the revolt tend to follow Herodotus’ line on Aristagoras: Laale (2007), 273-‐277; Boardman (2000), 107; Lateiner (2004), 373-‐4; Cartledge (2009), 46-‐60; Freely (2010), 30-‐32; Cartledge (2007), 63-‐5, 74; Holland (2005), 154-‐161; Cawkwell (2008), 762-‐768. 71 There was a strident criticism of Herodotus’ speeches in the 20th Century: see Solmsen (1943), 194; More modern scholars are more relaxed about his technique see Pelling (2006), 103. 72Pelling (2006), 180: n5, 182: n12 says Aristagoras was a common name at the time. 73 Pelling (2006), 103. 74 Plutarch, de Herod., 1 on Herodotus’ ‘lies and fiction’.
14
also a theatrical performance as on the stage or on the pynx. It uses all the rhetorical devices available to win an argument even to the point of exaggerating or deceiving. As Pelling says: ‘Speakers do not speak straight at all, but respond to the pressures of their circumstances with deflection, circumlocution, or simple deceit.’75 He goes on the say that the ancient reader or audience such as Cleomenes has the task of criticizing the speaker’s claims and arguments against their own understanding of events. We the modern reader also have to listen as a Greek audience would in order to interpret its contents.76 So when Herodotus gives us a plausible account in first person speech form it is a reasonable and rhetorically convincing account of an event argued convincingly and cogently. However in order to convey what might be going on in the speaker’s mind Herodotus the narrator points out to us in the third person what his true motives might have been. So when interpreting Aristagoras’ speeches we have to analyse first the content of the speech as an argument and assess its merits in these terms. Then we have to analyse separately Herodotus’ interpretation of Aristagoras motives. It is in the latter that there is most scope for any possible critical appraisal of Herodotus’ interpretation. A second point to note is that with Aristagoras’ speeches as many scholars have pointed out we cannot take for granted that Herodotus is recalling the exact speech he remembered hearing or that was conveyed to him. Clearly that is not possible given the time lag between when he was writing his Historie and the events he is relaying. The Ionian Revolt ended in BC 494 and Herodotus’ account was probably compiled between 450-‐420 about 50 years later.77 The average life expectancy at birth at that time was no more than 30 years78 with a few notable people living as long as 70 years or so.79 So Herodotus is unlikely to have interviewed actual participants in the revolt or even Hecataeus who survived the destruction of Miletos.80 We get an insight into how he gets his stories when he is recounting the bravery of the Samian Archias during the abortive attack by the Lacedaemonians on Samos in Polycrates’ day. He tells us he was only able to interview Archias’ grandson to get the story (3.55). The events recounted would have occurred some 80 years previously. Herodotus’ Historie will have been compiled from many such stories that have been passed down from generation to generation. Consequently they will be subject to those aspects of ancestral behaviour that descendants wish to remember. In Archias case an episode of bravery during an otherwise abortive campaign. Herodotus would have faced particular difficulty in his Aristagoras logos to find individuals who could give him an accurate account of what took place. The oral record on Aristagoras would have been broken with the complete destruction of Miletos at the end of the revolt. The male population was slaughtered and the women and children enslaved and transported to Ampe (5.19, 22). There may have been oral accounts of his speeches at Sparta and Athens transmitted down the generations or possibly as a written record. At best he is reporting a distant account of what Aristagoras may have said which he then puts into the speech he constructs. Difficulty in accessing stories may introduce an unavoidable bias just from the lack of material, so care is needed not to over interpret the apparent lack of detail on the Ionian revolt.
75 Pelling (2006), 116. 76 Moles (2002), 33 places Herodotus in Athens in the BC 440’s and possibly later. 77 Marincola (1996), xii. 78 Raaflaub (2009), 9. 79 Montague (1994), 25. 80 George (2000), 31.
15
Reconstruction of Hecataeus of Miletos’ Mappa Mundi81
Herodotus account is likely to be the first written record of these events. We have no evidence that the Milesian historian Hecataeus wrote about the revolt. Herodotus mentions him as the ‘wise’ and presumably mature voice of caution (5.36). These warning figures occur in his narrative just as Homer used them with, for example, Nestor in the Iliad.82 Herodotus’ use of Hecataeus is possibly in reality himself warning of the dangers involved in the revolt (5.36). But Herodotus is not only interested in Hecataeus as the possessor of the kind of wisdom he has as the recorder of events. He also needs to have the practical ability to implement what he is arguing for by making it happen and being successful. This is what counts in history for Herodotus: the interplay between what is a sensible course of action, chance occurrences, human emotions, motives and actions all of which can alter the course of events. Evans argues that Hecataeus’ view that the revolt was a mistake may have been well known and survived the sacking of Miletos.83 Diodorus writing much later and so less reliable as a source has Hecataeus who was once in the war councils of the Ionians now after their defeat on speaking terms with the Persians. He is an ambassador to Artaphernes and arguing for fair play for the survivors.84 It is likely that Hecataeus’ strong opposition to the war and warning of the vastness of Persian resources would fit him for this task of appeasement (5.36). In resurgent Miletos after the revolt this period would be remembered especially as: ‘…the beginning of evils for Greeks and barbarians.’ (5.97) because it abruptly ended their prosperity. Speeches in Herodotus happen when the narrative focuses on a significant event where he is offering an explanation as to why it happened. The content of the speech relates to the way the event eventually unfolds. An example is when Aristagoras is addressing the exiled Naxian ambassadors who are seeking help to regain power in Naxos (5.30). He tells them he will help them and says so in a way that is plausible and convincing. Herodotus presents this as a speech because Aristagoras’ purpose is to convince his audience that he can do it. The historical interest here is how he will collude with the Persians to achieve it. Miletos is not strong enough to take on Naxos alone but he will get help from his friend Artaphernes who has command over much greater forces. He is living up to his name ‘Aristagoras’ – excellent speaker. Later on when he puts his proposition to Artaphernes he provides a plausible reason why help should be given (5.31). Naxos is in a vulnerable position with stasis amongst its ruling elite. Persia has imperial ambitions which a move west to Naxos across the Aegean would satisfy. This would establish a bridgehead for conquest of the Cyclades and Euboea. Naxos has rich fertile land, treasure and slaves which would fall to the conqueror. The Naxian exiles have funds to pay for the expedition so the financial risks do not fall on the Persians. Artaphernes would gain favour with Darius if the expedition is successful. The undertaking is feasible and only 100 ships
81 http://www.livius.org/a/1/maps/hecataeus_map.gif 82 Homer, 788-‐90 advising a reluctant Achilles. 83 Evans (1976), 33 and 33 (n19). 84 Diodorus 10.25.4
16
needed (5.31). As Forsdyke points out in this speech Herodotus keeps the narrative focus on Aristagoras. This is consistent with oral techniques of narration as well as Herodotus desire to set up Aristagoras as a scapegoat.85 Herodotus’ reflection on Aristagoras’ motives is given as a commentary on what was really going on in Aristagoras’ mind at the time.86 He asks himself what Aristagoras could hope to gain from calling on the Persians for aid. He thinks his true motive is to gain control of Naxos for himself and ultimately the Cyclades. We do not necessarily have to take Herodotus’ word for this as there is little evidence elsewhere to confirm that such a motive existed on Aristagoras part. This idea will be explored further when we examine more closely Aristagoras’ position in Miletos. 7 The Expedition to Naxos
Aristagoras’ motives for the Naxian expedition are complex. But was this enterprise inconsistent with Milesian ambitions at the time? We are told that Miletos had emerged from a period of stasis which had been very disruptive.87 After the resolution of the stasis by Paros, Miletos entered a period of great prosperity (5.28).88 Irwin and Greenwood point out that this put Miletos in a position to be able to help resolve the stasis at Naxos.89 The stability of one city enables it to interfere in the instability of another city. So from Aristagoras point of view his honouring the xenos obligations due to the Naxians by his uncle was a proper course of action.90 Furthermore the exiles were fully in favour of Aristagoras’ action including his seeking Persian backing. There is no sense of betrayal here. They are even prepared to cover the costs of the expedition. They also seem confident that they will get support from within Naxos not only to reinstate them but also presumably for using Persian backing (5.30). Aristagoras as well must have had the approval of his supporters in Miletos for him to commit Milesian ships to the enterprise. So Aristagoras was not acting purely from self-‐interest in this expedition. It is now with hindsight and with Herodotus’ analysis of the historical consequences of this expedition that we can see this decision in a different light. Herodotus singles out this expedition as the start of Greek troubles. He says: ‘…during the three generations comprising the reigns of Darius son of Hystapses, and his son Xerxes and his grandson Artaxerxes, Greece suffered more evils than in the twenty generations before Darius was born, partly from the Persian wars, partly from her own internal struggles for supremacy.’ (6.98) Munson points out how Naxos will form the nexus for Persian invasion and conquest as it unfolds during the Greco-‐Persian war.91 But this was not necessarily Aristagoras’ doing. At best he unwittingly released the plug that unleashed the dam which became a torrent. What made the Naxian intervention different from the usual way stasis was resolved by an outsider was that the request for intervention came from a partisan group of Naxian oligarchs not the state itself. The intervention by Miletos was not by proper invitation and so it was therefore unable to resolve matters amicably. It then became more like a war (polemnos) when Persia became involved.92 We know from Aristagoras’ Artaphernes speech that this was a possibility but not a certainty. Unleashing the dogs of war brings with it inherent risks. Who can say at the time where it might lead?
85 Forsdyke (2002), 530. 86 Forsdyke (2002), 522-‐523. 87 Gorman (2001), 102-‐112 gives a detailed analysis of scholarship on the Milesian stasis and settles for Herodotus’ account (5.28-‐29). She dates its resolution to 25 years prior to the Naxian expedition. 88 Briant (2002), 150 suggests that the supposed wealth of Miletos at this time may mean only the restoration of agricultural productivity after the restoration of rule by the ‘good ‘ farmers. 89 Irwin and Greenwood (2007), 26. 90 Fisher (2002), 209-‐217 discusses the Greek guest-‐friend relationship as a fundamental plank of Greek justice. 91 Munson (2007), 156 92 Forsdyke (2002), 530 thinks that Darius was using the stasis as a pretext for expansion towards Greece.
17
Temple of Dionysius, Loin Harbour, Miletos
But why did Miletos need to ask for Persian support for the expedition in the first place? Was it not capable of intervening alone? Miletos had established many colonies around the Aegean and Euxine Sea and so had an extensive trading network which included Naucratis in Egypt.93 It was a large city but not on the scale of Athens. Estimates give a population of around 50-‐60,000 people (excluding slaves) with an entire citizen body of about 16,000 at the time .94 Most of these would have been needed to man the 80 or so Milesian ships (6.8).95 It is clear that Miletos alone would have difficulty in subduing Naxos because Herodotus tells us that they had a formidable army of 8,000 armed foot-‐soldiers (hoplitai) (5.30). So Aristagoras needed to ask for additional help and would naturally look to Persia as an ally for assistance. Aristagoras goes to Sardis to ask Artaphernes the Satrap for the resources he needs for the expedition (5.31). Artaphernes shows himself to be a better judge of the necessary resources by doubling what Artistagoras asks for from 100 to 200 ships. These ships were drawn entirely from Greek cities as we learn later when the ships beached at Myus are captured early in the revolt (5.37-‐38). Should the expedition have proved successful Herodotus implies that it is Aristagoras not the Naxians who would rule Naxos. So here we have Aristagoras presented as the Persian puppet tyrant seeking to extend his sphere of control. One feature of the Greek polis overruling many other considerations was self-‐interest and the desire to extend its sphere of control. Alliances be they Persian or Greek were made and broken based on the test of self-‐interest. Even the Athenians during their struggle with Spartan domination sought a Persian alliance when it suited them (5.73). Under Persian control Milesian colonial interest did not abate. We know that Histiaios as a gift from Darius had established a Milesian colony at Myrcinus on the river Strymon in Trace (5.11). This rich valley and silver mine was a source of great wealth to Miletos.96 It is reasonable to suppose that Miletos would benefit from the intervention in Naxos either as ruler or as a trading partner. Siphnos in the Cyclades also had wealth from its silver mines.97 There was also a mythical link between Miletos and Naxos through Neleus the mythical founder of Miletos.98 Neleus is said to have settled some of his followers on Naxos and then commanded his sons to conquer the Cyclades.99 Such mythical links were often used by states to further their own interests. Herodotus uses another of Aristagoras’ speeches to emphasize the cultural difference between Greeks and Persians in their exercise of free speech. When the Persian fleet is attacking Naxos Aristagoras speaks angrily to Megabates the Persian commander who has just humiliated a
93 Boardman (2000), 242-‐243. 94 Greaves (2002), 102-‐103; Rubenstein (2004), 1082 says there were 4000 houses in the Archaic city which controlled 2000 hectares of territory. 95 Burn (1984), 210. The number of Milesian ships in the battle of Lade were 80. 96 George s(2000), 14. 97 Georges (2000), 14. 98 Pausanius, 7.2.2. 99 Georges (2000), 14 (n 56); Aelian, 8.5.
18
Mynian (i.e. Greek) captain in front of his crew (5.33). The speech reveals the discord between the leaders and highlights differences in the balance of power between the two leaders. We have a Greek tyrant remonstrating with and countermanding the orders of the cousin of the Great King Darius. In the Greek view a fleet commander does not humiliate a captain before his crew even if he deserves it. As Keaveney points out even in remonstrating with Megabates Aristagoras initially is careful not to override Megabates’ authority but gives him the opportunity to correct his error as Aristagoras sees it before he steps in.100 As we see at the battle of Lade the Greek way of making decisions even for commanders was by agreement not by decree (6.12). This did not always necessarily work in favour of a successful outcome as Herodotus is only too willing to point out. But in context Herodotus is highlighting this as a feature of Greek society: that the right to express yourself in free speech must be preserved. At Lade they show they tolerate overlords poorly when they reject Dionysius’ attempts to force them to undertake naval exercises prior to the battle. Autocracy is not the Greek way and by implication autocratic tyranny as well. This speech then sets the scene for the revolt. Evans points out that this brave act of Aristagoras in defending the sailor must have had a significant effect on the sailors in the fleet.101 Aristagoras would have become popular with the men. This may explain why the seizure of the fleet and capture of the Ionian tyrants later on at Myus was apparently uneventful. There is idealism in Aristagoras’ character that could equally be a motive for his decision to break from Persia. As Evans says a man who could champion the Myndian captain Scylax against the cousin of the great king could champion Greece against Persia and have ideals as high as those of Thermistocles.102 But in exercising his own right of free speech he now fears that he will lose the tyranny of Miletus (5.35). To drive this home there is also the demand for money to pay for the fleet (5.34-‐35). Aristagoras contemplates his position. For him to have taken personal responsibility for command of the expedition and for it to have failed makes him not Megabates the one to blame.103 After a four months’ siege of Naxos all the stores brought by the Persians were now exhausted.104 Briant suggests that a fixed quantum of Persian money would have been allocated centrally to the expedition and that this also was used up.105 This seems to reveal a lack of planning for the expedition as there were no contingency plans for a prolonged siege. As he was the leader this also falls to Aristagoras although it may not be all his doing. The funds provided by the Naxian exiles were also exhausted and Aristagoras’ own private funds were also low and more was needed to continue the siege. The Persians decided to give up and withdraw. Given the vastness of the resources available to Persia which will be used later on to invade Greece the demands placed on the Milesians to continue funding suggests that the Persians saw themselves very much in support of a Milesian-‐led initiative. Aristagoras had assured Artaphernes that he had funds sufficient for the expedition (5.35). Artaphernes was now holding him to account. But more was revealed from the Naxian expedition which may also have influenced Aristagoras to revolt. This was the potential weakness of Persia. Darius had already been defeated in Scythia and except for Ionian loyalty had barely escaped with his life (4.136). The Persians relied on the Ionian fleet for overseas interventions. If this was withdrawn they may be considerably restricted in their ability to act on the islands and elsewhere especially in the Euxine sea where the Ionians had commercial interests. Next there was the resistance shown by the Naxians to a sustained and formidable invasion force. This may have made Aristagoras realise that the Greeks were a strong force. If they could withstand a four months’ siege by the Persian fleet then perhaps the Persians were not so invincible. Ionian and other Greek cities may be similarly able to resist Persian aggression. Earlier on Herodotus has Aristagoras’ uncle Histiaios say during Darius’ Scythian campaign that the Ionian tyrants all owe their position to Darius. If Darius were
100 Keaveney (1988), 80. 101 Evans (1963), 119. 102 Evans (1963), 121. 103 Keaveney (1988), 77-‐78 argues that the status of Megabates as an Alchaemenid ensured he would be blameless for the debacle. 104 Briant (2002), 153 estimates that a 200 ship fleet would have cost at least 60 talents per month or 240 talents after the four months’ siege. 105 Briant (2002), 153.
19
to fall, he would not be able to maintain his power in Miletus. Each city would be sure to turn against tyranny and choose democracy (4.136). Now Aristagoras is no longer be able to count on continued Persian support for his tyranny. What is worse he may also face the fate of another troublesome Ionian tyrant Polycrates and be crucified.106 So Aristagoras decides to revolt. 8 Aristagoras Champion of Freedom
Herodotus introduces Aristagoras in the context of continued Persian conquests on the borders of Greece in Thrace and Macedonia (5.10). There has also been a setback for Darius with his near disastrous campaign in Scythia (4.143). There are changes in Persian control nearer home with Artaphernes newly appointed as Satrap in Sardis (5.25). More significantly perhaps for the Ionians the Persian general Otanes uses naval power to conquer Byzantium, Chalcedon, Antandrus, Lamponium, Lemnos and Imbros using Lesbian ships (5.26). The Lesbians we are told were punished later with enslavement because they did not support the Scythian expedition and molested Darius’ army on his return. This is a sign of increasing despotism in Persian control. After Scythia we have the continued use of Greek ships to advance the Persian war machine now threatening the Milesian trade routes through the Bosphorus.107 Histiaos has also been removed from Myrcinus to Susa (5.23). After he revolts Aristagoras restores political equality to the people (isonomia). No details are given as to how the revolt is intended to proceed. Nor does Aristagoras give a speech laying out the pros and cons as might be expected from such a significant event. However it seems that the Milesians did not need much persuasion that this was the right course to take (5.36). Nor could he have removed the tyrants from other Ionian cities without the implicit support of citizens in those cities. The speech we have on this occasion is indirectly from Hecataeus of Miletos who alone opposes the plan and points out that success is unlikely given the vast resources Darius has at his command. It is not given as a verbatim speech and so is less important. However Hecataeus does say that they need to gain command of the sea. This is a parallel idea with Themistocles’ ‘wooden walls’ speech to the Athenians when Persian invasion of the mainland is imminent (7.143). Is Herodotus drawing on some of the failings of the Ionians to warn his contemporary listeners about how to conduct the Peloponnesian war?108 Hecataeus’ suggestion to use the Branchidae treasure from the Temple of Apollo at Didyma to fund the war also echoes the Athenians failure to remove the treasure from Delphi before it fell to Xerxes when he invaded Greece (8.36). Apart from the capture of the fleet at Myus the strategy for the revolt seems to revolve around seeking Greek mainland support. A key speech of Aristagoras is given after he has abdicated his tyranny and travels to Sparta seeking help (5.49). His address to Cleomenes sets out the reasons why the mainland Greeks should support the revolt. He reminds him of the bonds that exist between Ionia and the mainland, introduces the idea of a struggle for freedom, appeals to Spartan greed and emphasizes the ease with which the Persians can be defeated. For Herodotus history is complex and full of ironies so he tells us not to be surprised at changes of heart or intent as circumstances change. Cleomenes rejects Aristagoras’ proposal we are told because the prospect of a protracted three months’ march from the sea inland to Susa was unacceptable (5.50). This is against a background of the ongoing Spartan internecine wars with the Messenians, Argives and Arcadians (5.49). Aristagoras’ temptation for the rich spoils resulting from the sacking of Persian cities including Susa itself are not enough to pry the Spartan king away from his country and way of life or risk losing everything to his rivals from a prolonged absence from the Peloponnese. The handsome bribe offered by Aristagoras is summarily rejected (5.51).
106 Keaveny (1988), 78 supports this view that execution awaited Aristagoras. 107 Wheeler (2008), 748 (note E2d). 108 Thomas (2008), x.
20
Menelaion Sparta.
Then there is the issue of the Delphic oracle’s prediction about Miletos: ‘You then, Miletus, contriver of wicked deeds, Shalt be a feast for many, and a splendid prize; Your wives shall wash the feet of many a long-‐haired man, And others shall care for our shrine at Didyma. ’(6.19) Herodotus is a believer in the veracity of oracles. Did this oracle influence Cleomenes into not assisting Miletos because it was a lost cause? Was Cleomenes aware of it when he was laying siege to Argos and the Argives sought divine help? Pierat thinks not, that he was unaware of it at the time of Aristagoras’ visit.109He tells us that this prediction of the oracle was given probably after the battle of Lade so well after Aristagoras’ probable visit to Sparta. Even so there is some scholarly debate about this.110 But so strong is Herodotus’ own belief in oracles that it must have influenced his attitude to the futility of a revolt which the gods themselves condemned as sacrilegious because it resulted in the destruction of the temple of Apollo at Didyma.
Temple of Apollo, Didyma
After Cleomenes’ refusal to help Herodotus presents us with a different technique when Aristagoras meets the Athenians seeking their help. This is tied up in how he positions a digression in his text. We are told that Aristagoras arrived in Athens just at the point when Hippias had been seeking Spartan and Corinthian help to return to Athens as tyrant. He outlines the struggles in Athens for freedom after the thirty-‐six year despotic rule of the Pisistratidae (5.65). Once they are free from tyranny Herodotus records their growing military strength. He contrasts the power the Athenians gained after the introduction of democratic reforms with their lack of military success under the oppression of tyrants. Under the tyrant they shirk their duty and work like slaves for their masters. But as free citizens with equality before the law they are interested in working hard to better themselves (5.78). 109 Pierat (2003), 293. 110 Pierat (2003), 294 summarises the debate.
21
A reason Herodotus gives for the Athenians’ joining the revolt is to counter Spartan and Persian support for re-‐establishing Hippias as tyrant in Athens. Stadter points out that the Spartans feared the growing strength of the new democracy in Athens. They wanted to put Hippias in place as a tyrant favorable to Sparta (5.91).111 On learning that Hippias had been to Sardis to visit Artaphernes the Athenians sent a delegation to Sardis themselves asking the satrap not to support the idea (5.96). Artaphernes reply was in the form of a threat that they must take him back or else there will be trouble. The Persian is depicted here as an autocrat. Free men cannot openly express their views in debate but are subject to his seemingly arbitrary whim.112 But this may not have been a whim. Artaphernes as cousin of the king may have been privy to Darius’ real intentions to invade Greece. Herodotus tells us that Darius planned an invasion well before the Ionian revolt began (3.134). The end of Darius’ reign was one of increasing repression. Plato provides a good summary of this by comparing the successive reigns of Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius and Xerxes113 something Herodotus summarised tersely as: ‘Darius was a tradesman, Cambyses a tyrant, Cyrus a father.’ (1.89) Plato’s theme is that Cyrus was a wise leader114. He displayed benevolence to his people and those he conquered. His focus was choosing to do what was for the common good. He was interested in the welfare of people and adopted a policy to reinforce this. His was a benevolent dictatorship. His badly educated son Cambyses reared in the court in luxury and amongst eunuchs was a failure. However Darius was reared in the Persian tradition to respect society and its values and was a benevolent ruler at least in the beginning. But Persian rule became tainted with corruption. The rulers began to deprive their people of liberty and were too energetic in introducing authoritarian government. They destroyed all friendship and community spirit under their rule. Policies were set not for the benefit of the people but for the maintenance of their own authority. They wrecked friendly cities and ruined nations with fire and the sword. Their main thought in any situation was how it might offer them the prospect of profit. This corruption is seen in the way Polycrates was assassinated by Oroetes (3.122-‐124). Or the punitive expedition sent by Darius to Eretria and Attica where he was bent on revenge for the sacking of Sardis. As well as this Wiesehofer mentions Darius’ efficient new tax system which would not have been popular.115 We also need to remember Aristotle’s view of autocracy when he says that all political systems are capable of tyranny, be they monarchic, oligarchic or even democratic as Athens demonstrates later when they reduce Lesbos, Chios and Samos to submission.116 So what did Herodotus mean when he had Aristagoras declaring isonomia? This is not the first time that the Ionians had sought their freedom. After the conquest of Lydia by the Cyrus many Ionian cities except Miletos but including the islands joined the Lydian regent Pactyles in a revolt against Persian rule (1.54). It was swiftly put down and Ionia was subjugated for a second time (1.169). The debate at the council of Ionian cities (panionium) at this time was one of two choices. Either they should abandon Ionia altogether as the Phoceans had done (1.163) and settle elsewhere or adopt Thales of Miletos’ suggestion and come together as a united people and set up a council house with centralized government at Teos (1.170). Under this proposal the cities would lose autonomy and be treated as if they were subdivisions of the state or deme along the Athenian model.117 Persian control was seen as a form of slavery. If they stayed in Ionia there was little chance of them regaining their freedom. So it is clear that Herodotus thought freedom was an important element in Ionian thinking. Although Herodotus analyses the concept
111 Stadter (2006), 249. 112 Fowler (2006), 276. 113 Plato, Laws, 3.364-‐396; 397-‐398. 114 Rubenstein (2004), 1057 says there was no fixed tribute under Cyrus or Cambyses. But the tax district (nomoi) created by Darius imposed a 400 talent tax on eastern Anatolia, equivalent to the tax revenue of Athens at its peak of empire (1082). 115 Wiesehofer (2009), 172. 116 Aristotle, Politics, 1284a17. 117 This solution was proposed by Thales of Miletus. Krentz (2008), 725 discusses Cleisthenes’ reforms of Athenian tribes. The translator draws the comparison with the Athenian model.
22
no further it seems there were continuing debates about what they should do with their situation.
Bouleterion Teos
Another key to Herodotus’ thinking about freedom is found in the ‘democracy’ debate in Persia when Darius first claims the crown (3.80-‐83). The context is the young Darius who is not at that stage the autocrat Plato later describes him as. He is portrayed as an independent-‐minded person considering his age was only 20. He has taken on himself to get rid of the Magi usurper of the throne. He also urges no delay in doing this and advances good arguments in support of it backed up with a threat to denounce the whole plot if he is not followed. ‘Passionate urgency’ is what Otanes says of him as he in compelled to rush to assassinate the usurper. In the end it is Darius who slays the Magi so he is prepared to take on responsibility when necessary. In the important debate that follows the seven conspirators are discussing the kind of government Persia should now have. They look at the merits and demerits of three forms of government: popular government (isonomia), oligarchy and monarchy.118 Otanes says of isonomia: ‘The rule of the majority has the most beautiful and powerful name of all, equality (isonomia)…’ (3.80). Originally isonomia meant ‘equal distribution’ but by Herodotus’ time it conveyed the sense of equality. This developed to become equality before the law implying that no one was above the law and all had equal access to it and its protection irrespective of their economic or political status.119 Rhodes, referring to Aristagoras’ isonomia, agrees that it means equality before the law the context being the difference between tyranny and constitutional government.120 Elsewhere Herodotus uses isegoria (equality of speech), isokratia (equality of power) and even anachronistically demokratia which had not yet happened in Athens when he refers to Otanes speech (6.43). Herodotus’ and possibly Aristagoras’ view of freedom is giving back to the citizens control over their own affairs. It is the people not the Persians who will appoint their magistrates by lot. These magistrates will be subject to scrutiny and held to account by the people for what they do. It is the people as a whole who will constitute the state, not any one individual person or group of people.121 Later when the revolt is over Herodotus has Maradonius deposing the reinstated Persian-‐supported Ionian tyrants and granting democratic institutions to all the Ionian cities (6.43). This move is likely to have resulted from Persian recognition of how Greeks defined themselves. Consequently in order to rule them they needed to give them political freedom, a law they could respect and the principle of open debate in their decision-‐making process.122 In this way they could retain their loyalty.
118 Interestingly Aristotle, Ethics, Vx, 332-‐342 has a similar debate over kingship. 119 Herodotus, landmark, 246, footnote 3.80.6a. Purvis points out the Herodotus uses the complex word isonomia instead of demokratia. 120 Rhodes (2007), 52. 121 Rauflaub (1983), 521 compares this with emerging democracy in the fifth century BC. He draws out the distinctions between demokratia (people power), isokratia (equal power), isonomia (equality before the law and equality of participation) and isoegoria (equality of speech). He articulates the development of the concept of freedom to encompass more aspects of society in the polis. 122 Forsdyke (2006), 225.
23
This concept of freedom in Herodotus has echoes with the modern idea of liberty. Berlin says that true liberty is self-‐direction and self-‐government.123 The difference with the modern notion of liberty is that it is centered on the status of the individual rather than the community as a whole.124 Liddel points out in his review of ancient concepts of liberty that freedom centered around participation in the administration and policy-‐making functions of the polis.125 As Mill says liberty was about protection against tyrants. Citizens protect the weaker members of society by their ability to: ‘… set limits to the power which the ruler should be suffered to exercise over the community; and this limitation was what they meant by liberty.’126 In Archaic Greece, Rauflaub emphasises that the struggle for equality was the stronger motive as whole societies moved to free themselves from tyrannical oppression and foreign domination.127 Up to this point Archaic Greece had little exposure to whole city subjugation and destruction.128
Bema on the Pynx in Athens
The Greek concept of freedom developed over time. Rauflaub says the emerging democracy in the fifth century BC integrated into demokratia (people power), these other elements such as isokratia (equal power), isonomia (equality before the law and equality of participation) and isoegoria (equality of speech) and even more aspects of society.129 Moles argues convincingly that Herodotus’ portrayal of freedom is an Atheno-‐centric one based on the way he uses the word katekein to describe oppression of the people.130 The Athenians use the same word to describe the oppression of the people by tyrants as portrayed for instance in Aeschylus’ Persians.131 The context is a comparison between the weaknesses of tyrannies and the strength of societies with democratic systems. Here is not the place to go into detail about this complex area especially as Hall argues that modern notions of democracy are constantly being infused into studies of Archaic Greece.132 Suffice it to say that the Persian War is the defining event which led to a different concept of freedom. Up to this point the Greek elite and hence the literary record as written by them had no need for a concept of freedom which involved the subjugation of whole cities by foreign rule. It was only with the Lydian conquest of Ionia followed closely by the Persian subjugation which brought the loss of civil rights for all citizens clearly into focus. The Greco-‐Persian war introduced the loss or potential loss of freedom more widely into the whole of mainland Greece. The destruction of the great city of Miletos showed how far this subjugation could go.133 This led to the idea in fifth century Athens of elutheria as the freedom of the citizens of the Greek polis to
123 Berlin (1997), 93, 98. 124 Plato, Laws, 564a, was less sanguine about an excessive democratic focus on the individual and its effect in breeding tyranny. 125 Liddel (2007), 6. 126 Mill (1869), 1.2. 127 Rauflaub (1983), 527. 128 Raaflaub (2004), 74. 129 Raaflaub (2004); Rhodes/Raaflaub (2005), 95. 130 Moles (2002), 33 summarises the sections in the Historie showing Herodotus’ Atheno-‐centric point of view. 131 Aeschylus’ play Persians, 188-‐196. 132 Hall (2007), 181-‐2. 133 Raaflaub (2004), 85.
24
live as they liked in a community of people enjoying that freedom.134 The focus now was on a broader idea of collectivity and community, the emergence of the non-‐aristocratic middle and lower classes and a tendency to interweave political and social concerns.135 Liddel emphases this important change in Athenian thinking with its focus more on the liberties of the individual as typified in Pericles funeral speech.136 So the Ionian struggle against Darius is important as a starting point for the realising that there was more to freedom than just enslavement or loss of autonomy. Before the Greco-‐Persian War, the main distinction was between ‘citizen’ and ‘non-‐citizen’. But after these wars when all citizens faced the possibility of being enslaved or being subjected to a loss of the right to speak freely, especially the aristocrats, this idea of elutheria became more important.137 As for what Aristagoras hoped to achieve by granting the Ionians isonomia we can only speculate. Herodotus tells us of the Athenians that they became more powerful when they became free and: ‘… went from strength to strength, and proved, if proof were needed, how noble a thing equality before the law (isegoria) is…once the yoke (of tyranny) was flung off they proved the finest fighters in the world.’ (5.78) Perhaps Aristagoras believed that the Ionians too could become more powerful when they were freed from tyranny and that democratic reforms would make them stronger militarily as well and able to defeat the Persians. Certainly his championing of Ionian freedom would make his Athenian audience more inclined to listen to his plea for help in overthrowing the Persians given their own recent history; even though without Spartan help he may have had to reduce the revolt’s initial ambition to cut a way through the Persian Empire to Susa itself.138 It will take a Macedonian to do this 180 years later. Thomas supports this view and suggests that Herodotus is also saying to his audience at the time of the Athenian empire that democracies are better at war.139 Herodotus is somewhat dismissive of Aristagoras’ speech in Athens when he contrasts the power of rhetoric to sway the Athenian masses compared with greater difficulty in persuading a shrewd politician such as Cleomenes in Sparta (5.97). But there is more to Athenian support than just responding to an excellent speaker. There was a stronger mythical bond between Athens and Miletos than with Sparta with their common Ionian ancestry. Ancient writers on Miletos emphasise this mythological link.140 And we know that this argument will be used later on by the Athenians when the war is over to justify their virtual annexation of Ionia (9.106).141
Athenian Tribute List BC 425-‐424
134 Rhodes/Raaflaub (2005), 98. 135 Rhodes/Raaflaub (2005), 97. 136 Liddel (2007), 8 et seq. gives a full discussion of the scholarly debate about Athenian concept of liberty; See Pericles speech in Thucydides, 2.34-‐46. 137 Rhodes/Raaflaub (2005), 98. 138 Cawkwell (2005), 77. 139 Thomas (2000), 114. 140 Hymn to Apollo, 33-‐43; Apollodorus, 3.1; Pausanius, 7.2.2; Vitruvius, 4.1.4-‐5. 141 For example in Meiggs and Lewis (1988) 40, 8-‐16, is an inscription showing the Athenian imposed constitution on Erythrae.
25
9 Aristagoras neither a deceiver nor a weak character. It is not just in the way he emphasises his changes of heart or intent that Herodotus portrays Aristagoras. He is also presented as a deceiver. This is seen when he persuades the Naxians into thinking he is honouring Histiaos’ guest-‐friend duties by helping them when secretly he intends to take over Naxos himself as tyrant. This is not a balanced portrayal of his character. After the failure at Naxos we see him now as champion of the Ionian revolt. He wants to free the people not only of Miletos but also all of Ionia from Persian control. He is offering them a return to self-‐government. Furthermore as a demonstration of his goodwill he resigns his tyranny, an event which does not occur elsewhere in Herodotus. Some thirty years previously Maeandrios of Samos offered to resign his tyranny following the death of Polycrates but changed his mind when the Samians do not seem to want him to (3.142-‐43). Pelling points out that we are reminded of this (5.27) just before Herodotus introduces the Naxian expedition.142 Herodotus clearly sees parallels between Aristagoras’ and Maeandrios’ tyrannies. Generally tyrants do not resign but are forced out of office. But Herodotus is not convinced of Aristagoras’ motives when he says he ‘professes’143 to give up the tyranny so as to gain Milesian support (5.37). This implies yet again that he is deceiving them. But then Aristagoras goes on to remove the tyrants in all the other Ionian cities (5.37-‐38). This is surely the act of someone who really means what he says. At the same time he has given the Milesians the opportunity to deal with him as other cities have dealt with their tyrants at great personal risk to himself. The tyrant of Coes of Mytilene for example was stoned to death (5.38) although most were treated leniently. Overall we are led to believe by Herodotus that his main motive is to try to save his own skin. This chain of interpretation does not stand up to close scrutiny. Herodotus tells us that the decision to revolt had the backing of his father-‐in-‐law and cousin Histiaos. The story of Histiaios’ message written on a slave’s shaven head has the ring of local myth about it possibly as justification for the revolt (5.35-‐36) or as Manville suggests a story used by Aristagoras to win over Histiaios’ supporters in Miletos.144 Scholars mostly reject this incident as unlikely to be accurate.145 Cawkwell suggests that Histiaos’ message from the Persian court may have been about another assault on Naxos and imminent invasion of Greece.146 He asks why else would Megabates have kept the Ionian fleet together at Myus if not to prepare for another assault? Herodotus tells us that Aristagoras consulted with his supporters prior to taking his decision to revolt and they were almost unanimous in their support. So even though Aristagoras has his tyranny from the Persians he appears to have had a group of followers and friends in Miletos to support him. This is despite his emptying the treasury on the Naxian venture. It seems that his tyranny is not likely to have been an oppressive one. Miletos had a long history of tyrants and rule by oligarchy. Gorman’s careful study of the constitutional history of Miletos tells us that it was ruled essentially by an oligarchic elite with tyrants emerging in control from time to time and at least one long period of civil strife.147 The tyrannies of Thrasyboulos in Periander’s day and Histiaios and Aristagoras are well-‐attested tyrannies.148 When the long period of stasis was resolved an oligarchy consisting of successful landowners was set up to rule. This was followed by a period of rapid growth in prosperity of the city.149 So political factions were a feature of Milesian politics. The difference with Histiaios as tyrant was that he didn’t emerge from factional or popular backing but was probably put in place and maintained by the Persians. He was more loyal to the Persian king than to his city.
142 Pelling (2007), 188. 143 The Landmark translation uses ‘claimed’. 144 Manville (1977), 84. 145 Evans (1963), 121. 146 Cawkwell (2005), 765-‐6. 147 Gorman (2000), 101, 120. Rhodes (2007) 148 Gorman (2000), 132. 149 Gorman (2000), 120. Rubenstein (2004), 1084 dates this at BC 600-‐590.
26
Aristagoras’ position is less clear. He is ‘in charge’ in Miletos but at the same time Histiaios is the ‘official’ tyrant (5.30). He is portrayed as Histiaios ‘deputy’ in Miletos. 150 This view is challenged by Mandeville who thinks Histiaios may have been supplanted by Aristagoras in a coup.151 He points out that Histiaios had probably been away from Miletos since Darius’ Scythian campaign about fifteen years earlier until he was finally turned away from the walls of Miletos.152 If this is the case then Aristagoras had a long period of rule in Miletos. According to Evans when Aristagoras surrendered the tyranny he was also deposing Histiaios the official tyrant as well.153 At the beginning of the revolt Aristagoras is clearly in charge at Miletos although Wiesehofer thinks that the political situation in Miletos was possibly one of stasis and he needed to do more to secure his power.154 His trip to Sparta (5.49-‐54) and Athens (5.97) shows that he represented the Ionian cities as their ambassador.
Buyuk Mendes (Maeander) River and valley
With the opening salvo of the revolt and the assault on Sardis Aristagoras does not lead the Ionian contingent as a general. Instead he remains at Miletos possibly to defend it against Persian forces which were besieging it.155 So Aristagoras’ action in appointing two generals to lead the Ionian forces against Sardis (5.99) can be seen not as a demonstration of failed leadership but as a defensive strategy. Briant and Hart also see Aristagoras as being firmly in charge of operations at this stage through his influence over the strategoi appointed by Ionian cities. 156 Strategically the sack of the rich city of Sardis makes sense as it would help refill the treasuries and fund the revolt. Cawkwell argues that the attack on Sardis was only meant as a raid, as the definitive plan if Sparta had supported the revolt was to go all the way to Susa.157 Briant sees the sacking of such an important capital as Sardis as an unprecedented act in Persia and as such a propaganda success for Aristagoras. It sent a clear signal to the rest of Anatolia that military success against the Persians was possible.158 Furthermore after this the Ionian fleet was able to range freely along the Aegean coast. Thus we can see at this point that Aristagoras’ strategy was a success rather than the failure Herodotus portrays it as. In the event as the revolt unfolded reverses began to occur and Aristagoras’ position at Miletos changed. Control of the revolt shifted to the panionion the common council of Ionia (5.109). We then have a long silence in Herodotus concerning Aristagoras until the Persians have gained the upper hand and are again capturing Greek cities (5.123). Here we have the clearest indication of
150 Both de Selincourt and Purvis’ translations leave ambiguity in Aristagoras’ true status. 151 Manville (1977), 82-‐83. 152 Manville (1977), 82-‐83. 153 Evans (1963), 120-‐21. 154 Wiesehofer (2009), 173; Briant (2002) is of the same view. 155 Plutarch, 74 says the Persians were besieging Miletus at the time of the Sardis raid and quotes two other authors who agree with him. Burn (1984), 200 accepts Plutarch’s view. Arrian, 1.18 details the extensive defenses of the citadel at Sardis. 156 Briant (2002), 152; Hart (1982), 88. 157 Cawkwell (2005), 77. 158 Briant (2002), 154. The acropolis is not taken in the raid. Arrian (1.17) points out that the hill and triple wall of the fortress was in a very strong position needing siege equipment to conquer.
27
Herodotus’ attitude to Aristagoras when he calls him a poor-‐spirited creature for wanting to escape from Miletos (5.124). Hurt puts the blame for the reversals not on Aristagoras but on the Greeks’ infirmity of purpose, disunity and treachery.159 Briant is also more lenient on Aristagoras when he suggests that his motives in going to the Milesian colony of Myrcinus may have been to find resources such as wood and money to fund the war. 160 However Herodotus own account points to the growing antagonism in Miletos towards Aristagoras and his supporters when he says that they were seeking some place of refuge in case they were pushed out of Miletos. It is Milesians who are doing the pushing not necessarily Persians or fear of Persians. This is made clear later when Histiaios tries to return to Miletos to take charge of the city and is repelled by the citizens. Herodotus comments: ‘…the people there had had a taste of liberty and were too well pleased to have got rid of
Aristagoras to be willing to welcome another ruler of the same stamp.’ (6.3) Aristagoras had been the giver of liberty to the city but was clearly now very much out of favour. We have other examples in Herodotus of Greek leaders being exiled when circumstances change. Themistocles for instance, the hero of Salamis, was ejected from Athens and eventually ended up in Magnesia as adviser and supported of Persia his former enemy.161 10 Conclusion
In this paper I have argued that Herodotus is biased in his account of Aristagoras’ role in the Ionian revolt along several lines. Firstly Herodotus generally focuses on individuals in constructing his account of the causes of historical events where he looks for glorious deeds to recount. The corollary to this is that there is less emphasis on the hero who is important but not so glorious. Aristagoras is a grey hero not a champion but nonetheless a significant leader who moved the Greek struggle for freedom up a gear and paved the way for successful resistance to Persian invasion of mainland Greece. Secondly I argue that Herodotus’ prejudice against the Ionians was rooted in his belief that people who have an easy comfortable life are inclined to be subservient and do not live up to the standards Herodotus himself has set for those he wishes to praise or blame. This somewhat environmentally determinist attitude was reflective of the time he was writing his history and the prevailing attitudes towards the Ionians under the Athenian controlled Delian League. Thirdly Herodotus has an understandable distaste for the Greco-‐Persian war in his Histories. He sees where this has led with Greeks of his own time involved in a multistate war. He is seeking to understand how the behavior of individuals explains his chain of causation. He misguidedly blames Aristagoras and the Ionians for starting the war rather than looking more broadly at the patterns of resistance that were around at this time to growing and increasingly autocratic Persian imperial hegemony. Finally I have argued that his perception of the revolt was unfairly biased against the Ionians by the oral sources he used in understanding what happened. Those who could remember the events were the voices of a defeated people who were themselves seeking to find their own reasons to justify their ancestors’ actions at the time tempered by the position they were now in under Athenian control.
I am not alone in thinking of Aristagoras as a Greek hero. The Ionian revolt delayed the invasion of Greece by five years. It allowed the Greeks time strategically and psychologically to prepare for resistance.162 I can accept Herodotus’ view that the revolt itself was a disaster. Nevertheless Aristagoras’ role as the instigator of the revolt was important as De Santis says because it was the beginning of Hellenic nationalism and may have contributed to later Greek victories at Marathon, Salamis and even into the Hellenic period.163 It helped define the Greek notion of freedom which remains with us today. The struggles against tyranny in the Middle East are but modern manifestations of it. 159 Hurt (1982), 90. 160 Briant ( 2002), 155. 161 Thucydides, 1.138. 162 Cawkwell (2005), 80. 163 De Santis (1932), 90-‐91.
28
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Ancient Sources. 1. Aelian, Claudius Aelianus His various Histories, trans. T. Stanley, (London: Thomas Dring,
1665). 2. Aeschylus, ‘Persians’ in Persians and other plays, trans. C. Collard, (USA: Oxford
University Press Inc. 2008). 3. Apollodorus, The Library, trans. J. G. Frazer, (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press;
London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1921). 4. Aristotle, ‘Nicomachean Ethics,’ trans. H. Rackham in Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 19,
(London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1934). 5. Aristotle, The Politics, trans. T. A. Sinclair, (England: Penguin Books, 1992). 6. Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, trans. A. de Selincourt, (England: Penguin Books,
1971). 7. Aristophanes, ‘Plutus (Wealth),’ trans. P. Roche in Aristophanes: The Complete Plays
(USA: The New American Library, 2005). 8. Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists, trans. C. D. Yonge, (London: H. G. Baker, 1853-‐4).
http://www.attalus.org/old/athenaeus12a.html, accessed 6.1.12. 9. Ctesias, The Complete Fragments of Ctesias of Cnidus: Translation and Commentary with
an Introduction, trans. A. Nicholls, (PhD Dissertation, University of Florida, 2008), http://teaching.shc.ed.ac.uk/classics/persica/documents/nichols_aCTESIAS.pdf, Accessed 15.6.12.
10. Darius I, Behistun Inscription, (J. Lendering ,Livius: http://www.livius.org/be-‐bm/behistun/behistun01.html, accessed 13.6.2012).
11. Diodorus Siculus, ‘Library of History’, trans. C. H. Oldfather in Loeb Classical Library, Vol. IV, (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1946).
12. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, ed. R. D. Hicks, (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1972, first published 1925).
13. Homer, The Iliad, trans. R. Lattimore, (Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1961). 14. Homer, ‘Hymn 3: To Apollo,’ trans. M. Crudden, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). 15. Herodotus, The Histories, trans. A. de Selincourt, (England: Penguin Classics, 1996). 16. Herodotus: The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories, ed. R. B. Strassler, trans. A. L. Purvis,
(Great Britain: Quercus, 2008). 17. Hippocrates, On Airs, Waters and Places, trans. F. Adams, (Internet Classic Archive),
http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/airwatpl.mb.txt, Accessed 15.6.12. 18. Pausanius, Description of Greece, trans. W.H.S. Jones, H.A. Ormerod, (Cambridge MA:
Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1918). 19. Photius, ‘Ctesius’ Persica’, Bibliotheca, 72,
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_03bibliotheca.htm, Accessed 15.6.12. 20. Plato, The Laws, trans. T. J. Saunders, (Great Britain: Penguin Books, 1976). 21. Plutarch, ‘Alexander’ in Lives, trans. B. Perrin, (London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1919). 22. Plutarch, Moralia: De Herodoti Malignitate, trans. W. W. Goodwin, (Cambridge: Little,
Brown and Company, 1874). 23. Polybius, Histories, trans. E. S. Shuckburgh, ( London; New York: Macmillan, 1889,
Reprint Bloomington 1962). 24. Simonides, ‘The War-‐God,’ trans. W. Barnstone (1962) in, Greek Literature An Anthology:
Translations from Greek Prose and Poetry, ed. M. Grant, (Singapore: Penguin Books Ltd., 1982).
25. Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, trans. R. Warner, (England: Penguin Classics, 1972).
26. Strabo, The Geography of Strabo, ed. H. L. Jones, (London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1924).
27. Vitruvius, On Architecture, trans. R. Schofield, (England: Penguin Classics, 2009).
Secondary Sources 28. Balot, R. (2004), ‘Courage in the Democratic Polis’, The Classical Quarterly, New Series,
54 (2), 406-‐423. 29. Bayhan, S. (1987), Priene, Miletus, Didyma, (Matbaasi: Keskin Colour Kartpostalcilik Ltd.).
29
30. Berlin, I. (1997), The Proper Study of Mankind: An Anthology of Essays, eds. H. Hardy, R. Hausheer, (London: Chatto & Windus).
31. Bernabe, A. (1988), Poetae Epici Graeci, (Leipzig: Teubner). 32. Boardman, J. (2000), The Greeks Overseas, Fourth Edition, (Spain: Thames and Hudson). 33. Bowie, A. (2007), Herodotus Histories, Book VIII, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press). 34. Briant, P. (1996/2002), From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, trans. P.
T. Daniels, (USA: Winona Lake, Indiana, Eisenbrauns). 35. Burn, A. J. (1984), Persia and the Greeks: The Defence of the West, c.BC 546-‐478, 2nd edit.,
(London: Duckworth). 36. Butzer, K. W. (1982), Archaeology as Human Ecology: Method and Theory for a Contextual
Approach, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 37. Cartledge, P. (2007), Thermopylae: The Battle that Changed the World, (Great Britain: Pan
Books). 38. Cartledge, P. (2009), Ancient Greece: A History in Eleven Cities, (New York: Oxford
University Press). 39. Cawkwell, G. (2005), The Greek Wars: The Failure of Persia, (New York: Oxford University
Press). 40. Cawkwell, G. L. (2008), ‘The Ionian Revolt’ in The Landmark Herodotus, ed. R. B. Strassler,
(Great Britain: Quercus), 762-‐768. 41. Chapman, G. A. H. (1972), ‘Herodotus and Histiaeus’ Role in the Ionian Revolt’, Historia:
Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, 21 (4), 546-‐568. 42. Cooper, C. (2008), ed., Epigraphy and the Historian, (Canada: University of Toronto
Press). 43. De Sanctis, G. (1932), ‘Aristagoras di Mileto’ in Problemi di Storia Antica, (Bari: G. Laterza
& figli). 44. Desmond, W. (2004), ‘Punishments and the Conclusion of Herodotus’ Histories’, Greek,
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 44, 19-‐40. 45. Dewald, C. (2008), ‘Tyranny in Herodotus’ in The Landmark Herodotus, ed. R. B. Strassler,
(Great Britain: Quercus), 835-‐837. 46. Dunham, A. G. (1915), The History of Miletus down to the Anabasis of Alexander, (London:
University of London Press). 47. Evans, J. A. S. (1976), ‘Herodotus and the Ionian Revolt’, Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte
Geschichte, 25(1), 31-‐37. 48. Evans, J. A. S. (1963), ‘ Histiaeus and Aristagoras’, The American Journal of Philology, 84
(2), 113-‐128. 49. Fisher, N. (2002), ‘Popular Morality in Herodotus’ in Brill’s Companion to Herodotus, eds.
E. J. Bakker, I. J. F. de Jong, H. van Wees, (Leiden, Boston and Cologne), 199-‐224. 50. Fleming, D. (2002), ‘The Streets of Thurii: Discourse, Democracy, and Design in the
Classical Polis’, Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 32 (3), 5-‐32. 51. Flower, R., Marincola, J. (2002), Herodotus’ Histories Book IX, (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press). 52. Flower, R. (2006), ‘Herodotus and Persia’ in The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus, eds.
C. Dewald, J. Marincola, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 274-‐289. 53. Forsdyke, S. (2001), ‘Athenian Democratic Ideology and Herodotus' "Histories"’, The
American Journal of Philology, 122 (3), 329-‐358. 54. Forsdyke, S. (2002), ‘Greek History c 525-‐480 BC’ in Brill’s Companion to Herodotus, eds.
E. J. Bakker, I. J. F. de Jong, H. van Wees, (Leiden, Boston and Cologne), 521-‐549. 55. Forsdyke, S. (2006), ‘Herodotus, political history and political thought’ in The Cambridge
Companion to Herodotus, eds. C. Dewald, J. Marincola, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 224-‐241.
56. Fowler, R. (2006), ‘Herodotus and his prose predecessors’ in The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus, eds. C. Dewald, J. Marincola, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 29-‐45.
57. Freely, J. (2010), ‘Children of Achilles: The Greeks in Asia Minor Since the Days of Troy, (Great Britain: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd.).
58. Gardiner, P. (1911), ‘Coinage of the Ionian Revolt’, Journal of Hellenistic Studies, 31, 151-‐160.
30
59. George, P. B. (2000), ‘Persian Ionia under Darius: The Revolt Reconsidered’, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, 49 (1), 1-‐39.
60. Ginzburg, C. (2012), Threads and Traces: True False Fictive, trans. A. C. Tedeschi, J. Tedeschi, (USA: University of California Press, Ltd.).
61. Gorman, V. (2001), Miletos, the ornament of Ionia: A history of the city to 400 B. C. E., (Anne Arbor: University of Michigan Press).
62. Gray, V. (2007), ‘Structure and significance (5.55-‐69)’ in Reading Herodotus: A Study of the Logoi in Book 5 of Herodotus’ Histories, eds. E. Irwin, E., Greenwood, E., (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 202-‐225.
63. Greaves, A. M. (2002), Miletos: A History, (London: Routledge). 64. Hall, J. M. (2007), A History of the Archaic Greek World ca. 1200-‐479 BC, (Singapore:
Blackwell Publishing). 65. Hammer, D. (2005), ‘Plebiscitary Politics in Archaic Greece’, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte
Geschichte, 54 (2),107-‐131. 66. Hart, J. (1982), Herodotus and Greek History, (London: Croom Helm ltd.). 67. Holland, T. (2007), Persian Fire, (Great Britain: Abacus, 2005 reprinted). 68. Horden, P., Purcell, N. (2000), The Corrupting Sea, (Singapore: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.). 69. Hornblower, S. (2002), ‘Herodotus and his Sources of Information’ in Brill’s Companion
to Herodotus, eds. E. J. Bakker, E., I. J. F. de Jong, H. van Wees, (Leiden, Boston and Cologne), 372-‐386.
70. Irwin, E., Greenwood, E. (2007), ‘Introduction Reading Herodotus, reading Book 5’ in Reading Herodotus: A Study of the Logoi in Book 5 of Herodotus’ Histories, eds. E. Irwin, E., Greenwood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1-‐40.
71. Kallet, L. (2004), ‘Review: Athenian Greed: Greed and Injustice in Classical Athens by R. K. Balot’, The Classical Review, New Series, 54 (2), 461-‐465.
72. Keaveny, A. (1988), ‘The Attack on Naxos: A ‘Forgotten Cause’ of the Ionian War,’ The Classical Quarterly, New Series, 38 (1), 76-‐81.
73. Kralli, I. (2005), ‘Diplomatic Rhetoric: La retorica della diplomazia nella Grecia antica e a Bisanzio by L. R. Cresci; F. Gazzano; D. P. Orsi’, The Classical Review, New Series, 55 (1), 304-‐306.
74. Krentz (2008), ‘The Athenian Government in Herodotus’ in The Landmark Herodotus, ed. R. B. Strassler, (Great Britain: Quercus), 723-‐726.
75. Laale, H. W. (2007), Once They Were Brave, The Men of Miletus, (USA: Author House). 76. Lateiner, D. (1982), ‘Failure of the Ionian Revolt’, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte,
31 (2), 129-‐160. 77. Lateiner, D. (2004), ‘Ionian Revolt’ in The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilisation, eds.
S. Hornblower, A. Spawforth, (USA: Oxford University Press), 373-‐4. 78. Liddel, P. (2007), Civic Obligations and Individual Liberty in Ancient Athens, (Oxford:
Oxford University Press). 79. Luraghi, N. (2006), ‘Traders, Pirates, Warriors: The Proto-‐History of Greek Mercenary
soldiers in the Eastern Mediterranean’, Phoenix, 60 (1 /2), 21-‐47. 80. Luraghi, N. (2006), ‘Meta-‐Historie’ in The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus, eds. C.
Dewald, J. Marincola, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 76-‐91. 81. Marincola, J. (1996), ‘Introduction’ in Herodotus: The Histories, trans. A. de Selincourt,
(England: Penguin Classics), xi-‐xxviii. 82. Marincola, J. (2004), ‘Herodotus and His World. Essays from a Conference in Memory of
George Forrest by P. Derow; R. Parker’, The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 124, 193-‐194. 83. Marincola, J. (2006), ‘Herodotus and the poetry of the past’ in The Cambridge Companion
to Herodotus, eds. C. Dewald, J. Marincola, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 13-‐28.
84. Marincola, J. (2007), ‘The Greek Wars: The Failure of Persia by G., Cawkwell’, The Classical Journal, 103 (1), 99-‐101.
85. Manville, P. B. (1977), ‘Aristagoras and Histiaios: The Leadership Struggle in the Ionian Revolt’, The Classical Quarterly, New Series, 27 (1), 80-‐91.
86. Mathews, V. J. (1974), ‘Panyassis of Halikarnassos: Text and Commentary’, Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca Classical Batavia, Supp. 34, 1-‐158.
87. Meiggs, R., Lewis, D. M. (1988), A selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC, (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
31
88. Mill, J. S. (1869/1999), On Liberty, (London: Longman, Roberts and Green; New York: Bartleby.com).
89. Moles, J. (1996), ‘Herodotus Warns the Athenians,’ Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 9, 259–284.
90. Moles, J. (2002), ‘Herodotus and Athens’ in Brill’s Companion to Herodotus, eds. E. J. Bakker, I. J. F. de Jong, H. van Wees, (Leiden, Boston and Cologne), 33-‐52.
91. Montague, J. D. (1994), ‘Length of Life in the Ancient World: A Controlled study’, J. Royal Society Medicine, 47, 25-‐26.
92. Munson, R. V. (2007), ‘The Trouble with the Ionians: Herodotus and the beginning of the Ionian Revolt (5.28-‐38.1)’ in Reading Herodotus: A Study of the Logoi in Book 5 of Herodotus’ Histories, eds. E. Irwin, E., Greenwood, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 146-‐167.
93. Murray, O. (1972), ‘Herodotus and Hellenistic Culture’, The Classical Quarterly, New Series, 22 (2), 200-‐213.
94. Murray, O. (1980), Early Greece, (Glasgow: Fontana). 95. Pearson, L. (1943), ‘Lost Greek Historians’, Greece & Rome, 12 (35/36), 43-‐56. 96. Pelling, C. (2006), ‘Speech and Narrative’ in The Histories’ in The Cambridge Companion
to Herodotus, eds. C. Dewald, J. Marincola, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 103-‐121.
97. Pelling, C. (2007), ‘Aristagoras (5.49-‐55, 97)’ in Reading Herodotus: A Study of the Logoi in Book 5 of Herodotus’ Histories, eds. E. Irwin, E., Greenwood, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 179-‐201.
98. Pierat, M. (2003), ‘The Common Oracle of the Milesians and the Argives (Hdt. 6.19 and 77) in Derow, P., Parker, R., Herodotus and His World: Essays from a Conference in Memory of George Forrest, (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
99. Raaflaub, K. A. (1983), ‘Democracy, Oligarchy, and the Concept of the "Free Citizen" in Late Fifth-‐Century Athens’, Political Theory, 11(4), 517-‐544.
100. Raaflaub, K. A. (2004), The Discovery of Freedom in Ancient Greece, (Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press).
101. Raaflaub, K. (2009), ‘Intellectual Achievements’ in A Companion to Archaic Greece’, eds. K. A. Rauflaub, H. van Wees, (UK: Wiley-‐Blackwell), 564-‐584.
102. Rhodes, P. (2007), The Greek City States: A sourcebook, 2nd edn. (New York: Cambridge University Press).
103. Rhodes, P. J. (2005), ‘Freedom and Other Values in Greece: The Discovery of Freedom in Ancient Greece by Kurt Raaflaub: Review’ International Journal of the Classical Tradition, 12(1), 94-‐103.
104. Roebuck, C. (1955), ‘The Early Ionian League’, Classical Philology, 50 (1), 26-‐40. 105. Rubenstein, L. (2004), ‘Miletos’ in Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, eds. M.
H. Hansen, T. H., Nielsen, (Oxford, Oxford University Press), 1051-‐1107. 106. Serhidou, A. (2007), ‘Cyprus and Onesilus: an interlude of freedom (5.104, 108-‐
16)’ in Reading Herodotus: A Study of the Logoi in Book 5 of Herodotus’ Histories, eds. E. Irwin, E., Greenwood, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 269-‐288.
107. Solmsen, L. (1943), ‘Speeches in Herodotus’ Account of the Ionian Revolt’, The American Journal of Philology, 64 (2), 194-‐207.
108. Stadter, P. (2006), ‘Herodotus and the cities of mainland Greece,’ in The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus, eds. C. Dewald, J. Marincola, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 242-‐256.
109. Stronk, J. P. (2010), Ctesias’ Persian History: Part 1 Introduction, Text and Translation, (Dusseldorf: Wellen Verlag).
110. Thomas, R. (2000), Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science and the Art of Persuasion, (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press).
111. Thomas, R. (2006), ‘The intellectual milieu of Herodotus’ in The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus, eds. C. Dewald, J. Marincola, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 60-‐75.
112. Thomas, R. (2008), ‘Introduction’ in The Landmark Herodotus, ed. R. B. Strassler, (Great Britain: Quercus), ix-‐xxxvi.
113. Tuplin, C. (2008), ‘Herodotus on Persia and the Persian Empire’ in The Landmark Herodotus, ed. R. B. Strassler, (Great Britain: Quercus), 792-‐797.
32
114. Van Wees, H. (2002), ‘Herodotus and the Past’ in Brill’s Companion to Herodotus, in eds. E. J. Bakker, I. J. F. de Jong, H. van Wees, (Leiden, Boston and Cologne), 321-‐349.
115. Wiesehofer, J. (2009), ‘Greeks and Persians’ in A Companion to Archaic Greece, eds. K. A. Rauflaub, H. van Wees, (UK: Wiley-‐Blackwell), 162-‐185.
116. Wheeler, E., L. (2008) ‘Herodotus and the Black Sea Region’ in The Landmark Herodotus, ed. R. B. Strassler, (Great Britain: Quercus), 748-‐755.
117. White, H. (1980), ‘The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality’, Critical Enquiry: 7, (1); 5-‐27.
118. White, H. (1990), The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation, (USA: John’s Hopkins University Press).
119. White, H. (2005), ‘The Public Relevance of Historical Studies: A Reply to Dirk Moses’, History and Theory, 44, 333-‐338.
120. Wilkinson, L. A. (2009), Parmenides and To Eon: Reconsidering Muthos and Logos, (London-‐New York: Continuum International Publishing Group).
121. Woodhead, A. G. (1959/1967), The Study of Greek Inscriptions, (Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, reprinted).
Top Related