The great Persian War and its preliminaries

by G. B. Grundy

Footnotes.

[1] See [note] at the end of the Preface.

[2] It would be misleading to claim any exact accuracy for the chronology of this period. All that can be said is that the dates given are nearly correct. It is, therefore, undesirable to use the preposition “in” when the preposition “about” represents in reality the extent of our knowledge.

[3] Herodotus, speaking probably of the earlier part of the reign, mentions twenty. The Behistun inscription enumerates twenty-three; the inscription of Naksh-i-Rustem twenty-eight.

[4] Any date after 511 is highly improbable, because in that year Hippias was driven out of Athens and retired to Sigeum. Had the expedition taken place after his arrival there, it is almost certain that he would have accompanied Darius. Other considerations tend in the same direction.

[5] Herodotus says seven hundred thousand men and six hundred ships. This would imply that somewhat more than the ordinary general levy of the Empire was called out for the expedition. The numbers are almost certainly exaggerated.

The number of ships, viz. six hundred, as stated by Herodotus, is somewhat suspicious. The Persian fleet at Ladé is stated to have been six hundred (H. vi. 9). At Marathon it is the same (vi. 95). These may be mere vague calculations without any real foundation; it may be that six hundred was the ordinary official number of vessels that belonged to the Persian war fleet, and that Herodotus has assumed that on each of these occasions the whole fleet was employed. In the present instance, he does not mention any save the Greek contingents. It is extremely unlikely that the Greeks could furnish six hundred vessels. They could only raise three-fifths of that number at the time of the battle of Ladé. Still, Herodotus knows so little about the present expedition, that his omission to mention other contingents, if not a mere oversight, may be due to the want of information.

[6] As it is important to note the exact nature of the traceable evidence on which Herodotus bases the various details he gives of the campaign, it may be pointed out in the present case that he states that Darius set up pillars with bilingual inscriptions at the point of crossing, and that the Byzantians removed them to their city, and used them for the altar of the temple of Artemis Orthosia. One stone, covered with Assyrian letters, was left in the temple of Dionysus.

This is apparently the statement of one who has seen them there; and the sentence which follows, in which Herodotus gives his own view as to the position of the bridge, tends to confirm this impression.

Those who have seen the terrific current off Seraglio Point at Constantinople will understand that the bridge could hardly have been constructed opposite Kalchedon.

Herodotus’ residence at Samos would enable him to obtain some sort of information with regard to the work of a Samian architect. He must have seen, too, the picture of the bridge, with the accompanying inscription, dedicated by Mandrocles, the engineer, in the temple of Hera.

[7] Probably further up, since there are great marshes on the north side of the river near the mouths of the Sereth and Pruth. It is more probable that it was between Tchernavoda and the great bend to the Delta.

[8] An examination of the map will show that this point, though its exact identification has not yet been satisfactorily ascertained, must have been on or close to the direct route from Byzantion northwards.

[9] It may seem strange to suppose for one moment that the words could apply to those cities whose subjection to Persia is certainly implied in the earlier part of the account of the Scythian expedition. It must be remembered, however, that Herodotus never mentions the circumstances or even the fact of their previous reduction.

[10] I take it that the Lake Prasias of Herodotus is to be identified with the lower of the two lakes of the Strymon, and not with the Upper, as in Kiepert’s recent Atlas.

[11] Οὐκ ... ἀρχὴν Translation very uncertain, vide Liddell & Scott’s Lexicon. May mean “not originally,” or even “not at all.”

[12] I would refer those who wish to examine it in detail to the excellent notes on the subject in Macan’s “Herodotus,” vol. i p. 162, ff.

[13] Macan, ad loc. cit.

[14] Manuscript text ἄνεως or ἄνεος gives no sense. Restorations proposed ἄνεσις or ἀνανέωσις. Vide Macan, note, vol. i. p. 170.

[15] In attempting to write the history of the revolt, I have been immensely aided and considerably influenced by the acute analysis of that section of Herodotus’ history which is contained in Mr. Macan’s edition of H. iv., v., vi. I have not in all cases, as will be seen, adopted his conclusions in detail. The very excellence of Mr. Macan’s work renders it all but impossible to avoid plagiarism in matter if not in actual words. But if I am guilty, I am guilty of the sincerest form of flattery.

[16] Cf. H. v. 96, ad fin. and 97, where Herodotus clearly implies that the demand had been made no long time before Aristagoras arrived at Athens, which was, of course, after the events at Naxos, and after the die of revolt had been cast.

[17] As Macan points out, the story was in all probability a celebrated story of the period; and “the man with the tattooed head” played the same part in Greek legend as “the man with the iron mask” in that of later days.

[18] Vide Macan, “Herod.”

[19] Cf. H. v. 49. Ὡς Λακεδαιμόνιοι λέγουσι.

[20] The detail of the “guides” is improbable. The road the expedition followed was the high road from Ephesus to Sardes.

[21] The ἐβοήθεον τοῖσι Λυδοῖσι in H. v. 102 is a somewhat remarkable expression. It might have been thought that it was Artaphernes, cooped up in the citadel of Sardes, who would be first in the thoughts of the Persian commanders. Did the Lydians still remember against the Greek the betrayal of Crœsus? Or had Persia been favouring the Lydian against the Greek trade, and so forwarded the conspiracy of revolt? It appears as if we have a faint trace of one of those numerous lost motives of the history of the fifth century.

[22] The προπυνθανόμενοι indicates that they had early information of the attack. It cannot, however, have reached them prior to the landing near Ephesus, for Artaphernes was caught unprepared, and it cannot be supposed that he received later intelligence than the commanders farther inland.

[23] Another possible cause may have been a change in the preponderance of political parties at Athens during this year.

[24] Cf. opening words of v. 103.

[25] Mr. Macan attributes the spread of the revolt from Cyprus to Byzantion to the autumn of 498 (vol. ii. p. 69). I do not understand his reasons for so doing. Herodotus (v. 103) seems to cite the expedition to Byzantion as an example of the energy which the Ionians threw into the revolt in spite of the refusal of the Athenians to give further aid, a refusal which must be attributed to the winter of 498–97.

[26] I am fully aware of the significance of the words ὡς καὶ τοὺς Ἴωνας ἐπύθετο ἀπεστάναι. But I would suggest that, reading them with their context, they point to the beginning of a plot of revolt, rather than to its actual outbreak.

[27] Mr. Macan proposes an Athenian origin for this tale of the events at Susa. Yet the Athenians were not likely to suggest to the world that they had brought on Greece all the trouble of the period of the great war. Herodotus may have simply reproduced, with additions by himself, a pan-Hellenic version of a famous tale.

[28] Herodotus applies the name to a promontory, but Strabo, 682, says that the Keys are two islands off the east coast of Cyprus.

[29] To show the utter confusion of Herodotus’ narrative in this respect, it is only necessary to point out that he implies that Daurises immediately (v. 116) after the battle near Ephesus proceeded to reduce part of the Hellespontine district, which, if his previous account of the course affairs is to be credited (v. 103) did not revolt until months after the battle. Moreover, Daurises (v. 117) wins rapid successes in this region, and then is recalled by the revolt in Caria, which cannot have been brought about (v. 103), at the most moderate calculation, within six months of the battle near Ephesus.

[30] My view, stated briefly, is that the events recounted in H. v. 116, ff., cannot be earlier than 496.

[31] Ταύτας μὲν ἐπ᾽ ἡμέρῃ ἑκάστῃ αἵρεε.

[32] Not the celebrated stream of the Marsyas legend.

[33] Herodotus mentions Pixodaros of Kindys, a son of Mausolos, as proposer of the first of those alternative plans. The connection of the name Mausolos with Halikarnassos a century later, 377–353 (vide Macan), suggests the possibility that this man had also a connection with Herodotus’ native town, and that the story, like those tales of Artemisia in the narrative of the campaign of 480, is a part of the historian’s work which can be definitely assigned to a Halikarnassian source.

[34] H. v. 120, Μιλήσιοι τε καὶ οἱ τούτων σύμμαχοι cannot mean a Pan-Ionian force. The nearness of Labraunda seems to have encouraged the Milesians and their nearest neighbours to venture on an attempt to save Caria. The other Ionians, in all probability, had their attention occupied by a Persian army sufficiently large to make it necessary for them to stay and guard their homes.

[35] On the manifest improbability of Hecatæus having proposed anything of the kind, vide Macan, vol. i., note on p. 267.

[36] Ἐπιστάμενος seems to be used emphatically.

[37] I think it best to postpone the discussion of the evidence on this point until, taken in its chronological order, it is complete.

[38] The taking of Miletus is evidently assumed by Herodotus to have occurred in the same campaigning season as the battle of Ladé. There is no trace of a winter intervening between the battle and its capture. Cf. H. vi. 18.

[39] Ἀγνωμοσύνῃ τε διεχρέωντο.

[40] Chapter 17.

[41] The existence of such a tale in Herodotus suggests the possibility that his anti-Ionian bias was founded on something more than Halikarnassian or Dorian prejudice; that it was, indeed, largely based upon the colouring given to the story of the revolt by those sections of the populations of the Ionian towns who were dissatisfied with the way in which the operations were carried on, or whose conduct had been such as to excite the criticism of those insurgents who had shown a more persistent courage.

[42] Cf. Οὐκ ἔχω ἀτρεκέως συγγράψαι; ἀλλήλους γὰρ καταιτιῶνται.

[43] “In column,” probably a detail in accordance with Herodotus’ previous statement as to the “manœuvre of cutting the line;” in fact, a conjecture of the historian’s own. The Chians are described as “διεκπλέοντες” in the course of the battle. Had Dionysios of Phokæa, then, so convinced them of the value of this manœuvre that they practised it, in spite of the fact that they had forty marines on board each vessel, i.e. were prepared for a wholly different form of tactics?

[44] As Macan and others point out, this dedication was probably made after Mykale.

[45] H. vi. 23, 24.

[46] The emphatic mention of these Lesbians in this passage has suggested the idea that this attack on Chios was an act of spite on the part of the Æolian Lesbians against the Ionian Chians.

Those who maintain this view seem to leave out of account two difficult questions which it must raise:⁠—

(1) What conceivable object can the Lesbians have had⁠—

• (a) In making such an attack for such a motive;
• (b) In running the great risk it involved at a time when the victorious Phœnician fleet was within a few hours’ sail of Chios?

(2) Taking Herodotus’ tale as it stands, who are the Ionians (Chap, xxviii., ad init.) who accompany Histiæus and the Æolians in their attack on Thasos, if they are not from Chios?

[47] Vide Kiepert’s most recent map of Asia Minor.

[48] Artaphernes there, and therefore campaigning season probably over.

[49] Like many other geographical names of ancient and modern times, this was used in both a wider and a narrower sense. It is applied by Herodotus in some passages to the whole region from the Pontus to the Hellespont; in others to the immediate neighbourhood of the Hellespont. It is used here in the wider sense.

[50] The practical difficulties of the history are rendered all the greater by the uncertainty of the interpretation of the text in the opening of H. vi. 40.

[51] The all but complete absence of any details of Miltiades’ life between the time of the Scythian expedition and the end of the Ionian Revolt seems to me to support the view that there is very little documentary evidence underlying Herodotus’ history, save that of inscriptions and of other official documents, demonstrable instances of whose use are rare. Had the historian made large use of private memoirs, supposing such existed, it is unlikely that he would have omitted to have recourse to the records of the Philaid family.

[52] The significance of this last assertion is very striking. The reference is to the Ionian towns especially, which, on the indication of purely general evidence, might be supposed to have been tributary to Athens at the time to which Herodotus refers.

The question raised belongs obviously to a period much later than 479 B.C., and must be left for discussion in a work dealing with the period between the Persian and Peloponnesian wars.

Meanwhile I would refer English students of Greek history to the long note on the subject in Macan, “Herod.” iv., v., vi., vol. i. p. 302.

[53] E.g.. Strattis of Chios., H. viii. 132.

[54] Cf. H. vi. 43.

[55] The employment of Mardonios on this political business, in a case in which Artaphernes might have been expected to be the agent for the carrying out of this particular act of policy, suggests that Darius had in his mind considerations similar to those which are described by Tacitus as having influenced the Roman Government in the settlement of Britain after the revolt of the Iceni: “Missus igitur Petronius Turpilianus tanquam exorabilior et delictis hostium novus, eoque pœnitentiæ mitior” (Tac. Agric. xvi.).

[56] It has sometimes been assumed that this was, on the part of Athens, a direct recognition of Sparta, not merely as the chief power in Greece, but as exercising some sort of control over Athens itself. The assumption is possible, but not necessary.

[57] The second part of the objection seems inconsistent with Herodotus’ own statement, v. 75, that a law had been made some years before in Sparta to the effect that the two kings might not both accompany a military expedition. It is, however, possible that this law applied merely to the command of the army in time of war (cf. the circumstances under which it was made), and that when other important Government business abroad was on hand, the custom of the Spartan constitution provided that both kings should take part in it, that each might act as a check upon the other. It is evident in this instance that Kleomenes was not in a position to enforce his demands, and even on the second occasion there is no suggestion of armed interference.

[58] It is not a part of the design of this chapter to discuss in detail either (a) the various palpably unhistorical references to incidents of the campaign made by the orators of the fourth century, as well as by later classical authors;

or (b) the numerous and varied reconstructions of the history of the time which have been attempted by modern writers.

The policy thus adopted with regard to the latter is not due to want of respect, but to want of space. Any full discussion of these theories would make a book in itself.

They are very fully explained and discussed in⁠—

• (1) Busolt’s “Griechische Geschichte;”
• (2) Macan, Herod. iv.–vi, vol. 2, Appendix 10,
• (3) Hauvette’s “Hérodote;”

and to these I would refer any student who wishes to survey the whole field of possible and impossible theory.

I owe much to these able summaries of critical discussion, as well as to other papers which I have read at different times in various German periodicals.

A very valuable article on the constructive side of the history of the campaign is that by Mr. J. A. R. Munro, in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. xix., Part II., 1899.

With respect to the ancient authorities, the majority of modern critics seem to be in agreement that the amount of reliable evidence outside Herodotus is very small.

The topographical details observable at the present day which have a bearing on the history of the actual fight are few, though important.

[59] It must at the same time be pointed out that the statement is not above suspicion in certain respects. Herodotus says, for instance, that “many of the continentals” and “all the islanders” gave earth and water. Cf. H. vi. 96. Did Naxos give “earth and water”? It is a very remarkable exception. Who were these “continentals”? Of all the states only one is mentioned by name—Ægina. Did Ægina really Medize at this time, or was it merely that Athens feared she might do so, or might, at any rate, take the opportunity afforded by a Persian attack to pay off old scores?

[60] The same number as on the Scythian expedition, and at Ladé; and therefore not on this account very reliable.

[61] Cf. H. vi. 94: Ἐσβαλόμενοι δὲ τοὺς ἵππους ἐς ταύτας [τὰς ἱππαγωγοὺς νέας] Καὶ τὸν πεζὸν στρατὸν ἐσβιβάσαντες ἐς τὰς νέας, ἔπλεον ἑξακοσίῃσι τριήρεσι ἐς τὴν Ἰωνίην.

[62] Various exaggerated estimates of these numbers are given in later historians. Modern authorities have formed estimates varying from 30,000 to 50,000.

6400 Persians fell at Marathon, when the Persian centre must have been almost wiped out, but when not more than half the Persian army was engaged in the battle. This would suggest 20,000 as the number of Persians at Marathon, and about 40,000 as the number of the whole expedition.

[63] Thuc. ii. 8 is, of course, irreconcilable with this statement. I do not propose to discuss a question which really does not admit of any certain solution. There is, of course, a mistake somewhere, but we cannot pretend at the present day to say where it lies. For discussion, vide Macan, vol. i. p. 353.

[64] The tale, or, at any rate, certain elements of it, manifestly originate in a source at Chalkis.

[65] I adopt Stein’s suggestion that κατέργοντες is used intransitively, as being the most probable of the suggestions which have been made with regard to the translation or amendment of this doubtful passage.

[66] Vide “Zur Topographie von Marathon” in the Mittheilungen des Deutschen Archæologischen Instituts, i. pp. 67–94 (1876).

[67] H. vi. 124: ἀνεδέχθη μὲν γὰρ ἀσπίς· καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστι ἄλλως εἰπεῖν, ἐγένετο γάρ· ὃς μέντοι ἦν ὁ ἀναδέξας, οὐκ ἔχω προσωτέρω εἰπεῖν τούτων.

[68] Sparta, doubtless, would not act with the Alkmæonidæ.

[69] As represented in some histories of Greece.

[70] As the object of this chapter is not to refute the theories of others, but to examine and explain the evidence bearing on the campaign, I do not propose to point out defects in theories which differ from my own. I am most nearly in agreement with Mr. J. A. R. Munro. I had formed my opinions on the main questions of the campaign before I read his article, but it has supplied me with arguments of an important character which certainly had not occurred to me before I read it.

[71] In the accepted text of Herodotus the name is Pheidippides, which is almost certainly a textual error.

[72] These chronological details are important, as they enable us to construct a diary of events, which is not without its significance in the narrative of the truce.

[73] It is impossible to say how far this excuse for delay was genuine.

[74] The Persian dead are still unburied when the Spartans visit the field. H. vi. 120. They leave Sparta on the 15th, and arrive at Athens on the 17th. A period of several days intervened between the arrival of the Athenians at Marathon and the battle.

Plutarch (De Herod. Malign. 26) asserts that the battle took place on the 6th of Boedromion. He accuses Herodotus of suppressing the fact that the Athenians held a festal procession in honour of the battle on the 6th of this month.

It is true that the festival did take place on this date; but the day was chosen, not because it was the date of the battle, but because it was the festival of Artemis Agrotera, to whom a vow had been made in case of success, probably before the army started from Athens.

[75] Cf. (Arist.) Athen. Polit. 22.

[76] The original passage in which this is mentioned is the scholion on Aristophanes, Knights, 778: ἐν Μαραθῶνι: τόπος τῆς Ἀττικῆς εἰς ὃν ἐνώρμησαν Δᾶτις καὶ Ἀρτάβαζος Μηδικοὶ σατράπαι, etc.

Suidas, a very late author in the 10th and 11th centuries of our era, reproduces the information, drawing it evidently from the above-mentioned source.

[77] The fact that the Persians were in battle array seems to invalidate the theory which has been put forward, that the Persians, when the Greeks rushed upon them, were marching towards the lower road, with intent to reach Athens that way. If that had been so, it is not possible to imagine that the battle could have been the set battle which it appears to have been according to Herodotus’ description. His description of the main incidents of the fight seems the most absolutely reliable part of his narrative.

[78] In the late author Suidas there is a note which gives a positive support to this negative fact of Herodotus’ silence. He says that the expression χωρίς ἱππεῖς had become a proverbial expression, originating from the fact that when Datis invaded Attica, the Ionians who were with him informed the Athenians that the cavalry were away, and so Miltiades attacked and won the victory.

[79] The total loss of the Persians is given by Herodotus at 6400. This is not likely to be an understatement in that 6400 must have been included the greater part of the Persian centre, which seems to have been all but annihilated, if the circumstances of the battle be taken into consideration. It is thus against probability that more than 20,000 Persian troops took part in the engagement.

The comparative smallness of the Persian numbers is further indicated by the words which tradition attributed to Miltiades. He is said in the course of his appeal to Kallimachos (ch. 109) to have spoken confidently of success in case the Greeks took the offensive. There is no reason to insist on such words having been actually used by Miltiades. The important historical point is that in the tradition of the battle which Herodotus followed such language was attributed to him, language which could not conceivably have been used had the Persians very greatly outnumbered the Greeks.

[80] Numbers varying from 100,000 to 500,000 are given by various later authors.

[81] Cornelius Nepos, Justin, Suidas, give estimates of from 9000 to 10,000 Athenians, and 1000 Platæans. Herodotus (ix. 28, 29) gives the Athenian numbers at Platæa as 8000 hoplites and 8000 light-armed, and this at a time when many citizens were serving on the fleet at Mykale. The number 10,000 at Marathon is probably an understatement, though not one of a gross character.

[82] The Persian position is indicated by three circumstances:⁠—

(1) The position of the “Soros,” which would presumably be situated where the majority of the Athenians must have fallen, i.e. in the centre of the line; and where, too, the decisive blow of the battle was struck.

(2) The fact, expressly mentioned by Herodotus, that the Greek centre was (Chap. 113) driven inland (ἐς τὴν μεσόγαιαν).

(3) The fact that (Chap. 115) the barbarians who escaped seem to have reached their ships without difficulty.

Hauvette, in assuming the Persians to have been in a position close to the Charadra, parallel to it, and south of it, ignores these three points, and places the Persians in about the most disadvantageous position they could have chosen in the whole plain.

[83] This seems the most probable translation of the word δρόμῳ. Apart from the physical impossibility of a heavy-armed infantryman advancing a space of nearly one mile “at a run,” or “at the double,” the word δρόμῳ seems to be used in a technical sense, taken, as it were, from the Greek infantry “drill-book” of Herodotus’ own time, implying a pace faster than that denominated by the technical word βάδην. (For βάδην, vide Xen. Hell. v. 4. 53, etc.) There cannot be any certainty on this point, because we know so little of Greek infantry drill at this period.

Another possible explanation of the passage may be that Herodotus has ascribed to the whole length of the advance a form of movement which was only adopted when the Greeks came within range of missiles.

[84] Cf. Paus. i 15. 3, where he is describing the picture: Τὸ δὲ ἔσω τῆς μάχης φεύγοντές εἰσιν οἱ βάρβαροι καὶ ἐς τὸ ἕλος ὠθοῦντες ἀλλήλους. Those who met this fate must presumably have belonged to the Persian centre, who would be cut off from the ships by the closing in of the Greek flanks.

[85] Cf. Paus. i. 32. 3: Καὶ ἕτερος [τάφος] Πλαταιεῦσι Βοιωτῶν καὶ δούλοις. ἐμαχέσαντο γὰρ καὶ δοῦλοι τότε πρῶτον.

[86] Ephoros [Fragm. 107, Fragm. Histor. Græc.] attributes the raising of the siege to the fact that the Athenian fleet imagined that a signal implied that the Persian fleet was still at the neighbouring island of Mykonos.

He thus seems to assume that the Parian expedition followed immediately upon Marathon.

It cannot be said that the vague direct evidence on the question determines this point. It is, however, in the highest degree unlikely that the expedition was undertaken in the same year as Marathon; and the detail with regard to the Persian ships seems to have been inserted in the story either by Ephoros or his original authority,

• either (a) in order to rationalize a story in which the motive was inadequate,
• or (b) because the version followed was one favourable to Miltiades.

Despite his chronological vagueness, Herodotus (vi. 132) clearly implies an interval between Marathon and the Parian expedition, in which Miltiades’ reputation stood very high.

[87] In some histories of Greece, discredit is cast upon Herodotus’ assertion that the preparation for the great invasion was begun in the last years of Darius. In the absence of evidence, this denial of the stated fact must rest on the basis of general probability.

In reference to this point I would urge that the most noticeable feature of Darius’ policy towards the west is its extreme tenacity of purpose. His plans had met with the severest checks in the course of their operation, yet he and his brother Artaphernes had persisted in their designs of conquest and acquisition in Europe, whenever circumstances rendered military and political interference possible.

[88] This is attributed in some Greek histories to the discovery of the treason of the Alkmæonidæ. So far from being caused by that, it took place in spite of it.

[89] Cf. Clinton, “Fasti Hellenici,” 11³, 26.

The archon’s name recorded for Ol. 71, 4, is Themistocles. His identity with the great Themistocles is highly probable, though not certain.

Dionysius of Halikarnassos says that Themistocles was archon in the official year, 493–492.

[90] This point will be more fully discussed in dealing with the charges of corruption brought against Themistocles in Herodotus’ history of the war.

[91] Cf. Plut. Them. 4. ἔπραξε δὲ ταῦτα Μιλτιάδου κρατήσας ἀντιλέγοντος. ὡς ἱστορεῖ Στμσίμβροτος. Stesimbrotos is a fifth century writer.

[92] E.g. Delbrück attributes to Xerxes an army of from 65,000 to 75,000 combatants.

[93] Herodotus (vii. 60) reckons the land army at 1,700,000, and the total effective at 2,641,610 (vii. 185). He (vii. 186) says that this number must be doubled in order to arrive at the full total of the expedition.

[94] Herodotus probably arrived at these numbers from information picked up from various towns all round the Ægean, furnished by persons who had witnessed the passage of the army, or had heard of it from others who had been eye-witnesses. The enormous exaggerations of estimate made by eye-witnesses in estimating the numbers of a crowd of quite moderate dimensions, may easily account for the impossible numbers stated to and by Herodotus.

[95] Those who state a much smaller number than this do not take into account the Oriental reliance on numbers, an Eastern characteristic which the Persian, unless he is much traduced, fully shared.

I hesitate to express any conjecture as to the possible maximum of the land force on this occasion. No evidence on this point can be said to exist.

[96] The description of the route adopted renders it improbable that this body of troops included much more than the local levies of Western Asia. Sardes was the real place of rendezvous, though it is possible that some of the contingents did not join the main force until it arrived at Abydos.

[97] Calculations show that the only eclipses about this time visible at Sardes occurred on October 2, 480 (mentioned H. ix. 10), and February 16, 478.

[98] Herodotus says on the left. It is obvious that he has confused his point of view, and is speaking from that of a traveller voyaging in a ship up the coast.

[99] The physical difficulties of the interior of the Balkan peninsula, together with the practical question of commissariat, render it probable that Herodotus is mistaken as to the nature of this inland march, and of the troops which undertook it. The main body of the army must almost certainly have pursued the coast road, which was easy, supplied with depôts of stores, and in touch with the fleet. The divisions which went inland were probably large detachments sent to inspire awe in the breasts of the inland tribes, so as to discourage them from any attempt to cut the line of communications.

[100] Vide also p. 207.

[101] The expedition to Thessaly must have been in the spring of 480. The Thessalian deputies came to the Isthmus “as soon as they were informed that the Persian was about to cross over into Europe” (H. vii. 172). Xerxes spent the winter of 481–480 at Sardes, and started thence “at the beginning of the spring” (H. vii. 37).

[102] The Expedition to Tempe in Diodorus.—The account of the Tempe expedition as given by Diodorus differs in certain most important particulars from the brief narrative in Herodotus. It is possible that the manifest absurdity of the chronology in the historian’s work has created an undue prejudice against him as a source of evidence, a tendency increased by the second-hand nature of his information. It seems to me, however, that this latter characteristic constitutes a very strong reason for treating his information with respect. There is no reason why a bad historian should be a bad copyist; and whatever the man himself may have been, the writers from whose work he plagiarized so freely may in some cases have been most reliable witnesses. The passage on Tempe is in Bk. XI. ch. ii. 13, and it may be well to note the points in which he agrees with, and in which he differs from, the account in Herodotus.

Diodorus.	Herodotus.
1. The Greeks sent ten thousand hoplites to Thessaly to seize the passes to Tempe.	Gives the same number—ten thousand.
2. On hearing of the size of the Persian force.	Mentions this as the reported cause of withdrawal from Tempe.
3. Synetos was leader of the Lacedæmonians.	Evænetos.
4. Themistocles leader of the Athenians.	Same.
5. Ambassadors sent by the Lacedæmonians to the other States, asking them to send forces to join in the defence of the passes.	No mention.
6. They were eager to include the whole of the Greek States in the defending forces, and to get them to take part in the war against the Persians.	No mention.
7. They left Tempe because the majority of the Thessalians and the other Greeks in that neighbourhood gave earth and water to Xerxes’ envoys.	Believes the real reason for departure to have been the discovery that there were other passes by which Tempe could be turned.
8. Ænianians, Dolopians, Malians, Perrhæbians, Magnetes, medize while army still at Tempe.	Makes no distinction between the time at which these two sets of States medized.
9. Achæans (Phthiotis), Locri, (Opuntian), Thessalians, Bœotians, after the departure of Greek force from Tempe.

It is quite plain that the account of Diodorus is not borrowed from Herodotus, nor does it show traces of having had, either in whole or even in part, a common source. In certain respects it is the more probable tale of the two. For example, the comparative smallness of the numbers sent is explained by the fact that the Lacedæmonians and Athenians hoped that the other Greeks would send contingents. Again, the size of the Persian force is given as a reason for going to Tempe, while Herodotus gives it as a reason for leaving the same, though he is inclined to reject the tale. It is inconceivable that the Greeks should at this time have been totally ignorant of the magnitude of the Persian force. Diodorus’ tale admits of the common-sense explanation that, having made up their minds to defend the North, they thought it best to choose a place where the Persian superiority in numbers would be of as little advantage as possible, though it was mainly for political purposes that so advanced a position was taken up.

In speaking of the medization of the States or clans, he evidently uses Θέτταλοι in Chapter II. in a general sense of the population of the region of Thessaly, whereas in Chapter III. he uses it of the Thessalians, properly so-called. There is nothing in Herodotus which contradicts Diodorus’ account of the medization. Both accounts may be true, though that of Diodorus is the fuller one. There is one point in it which is peculiarly supported by what Herodotus says. The Aleuadæ medized; but the mass of their subjects disapproved of this policy, and called in the Southern Greeks. The great Thessalian lords were lords of the plain rather than of the mountain. It was consequently the population of the plain which was opposed to their policy. It is therefore a remarkable fact that the tribes of the Thessalian region, which Diodorus mentions as having medized in the first instance, are those of the bordering mountain region; whereas those of the great plain remained true to the Greek cause until the withdrawal of the army from Tempe left them exposed to the overwhelming flood of the invasion.

[103] Diodorus gives his name as Synetos.

[104] The Thessalian appeal to the Congress at the Isthmus to send a force to Tempe is made to the προβόυλοι τῆς Ἑλλάδος, but the expression used by Herodotus in vii. 145 and 172, οἱ περὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα Ἕλλήνες τὰ ἀμείνω φρονέοντες, has almost an official ring about it.

[105] Cf. language used by the Greek embassy to Gelo at Syracuse (H. vii. 157).

[106] It has been asserted that this passage from Diodorus is drawn from the passage of Ephorus, of which the fragment is a survival. It would seem to me that the essential difference between the two points to a difference of origin, and that they are two pieces of evidence on the question, and not one.

Note on the Sequence of Events in Relation to the Negotiations with Gelo.

It would, perhaps, be a mistake to lay too much stress on the indications of date in Herodotus with reference to the somewhat crowded incidents of this time. The actual dates cannot be settled, though it is possible to arrive at some idea of Herodotus’ views as to the sequence of events.

(a.) The Greek spies were sent to Asia at the time when Xerxes’ army was collected at Sardes (vii. 146).

(b.) The embassies to Gelo, Argos, etc., were sent after the despatch of the spies (vii. 146, ad init., 148, ad init.).

(c.) Gelo, after the departure of the joint embassy (vii. 163), and when he heard that Xerxes had crossed the Hellespont (ibid.), sent the treasure-ships to Delphi.

(d.) Before he sent these vessels he knew that he had to expect a Carthaginian attack (vii. 165, ad fin.).

The evidence is inconclusive. We lack the means of deciding the sequence of the departure of the embassy and of the acquisition of the information with regard to the coming of the Carthaginian expedition.

[107] Bergk, “Pœtæ Lyrici Græci,” Ed. 4, v. iii. p. 485: Πολλὴν δὲ παρασχεῖν σύμμαχον Ἕλλησιν χεῖρ᾿ ἐς ἐλευθερίην.

[108] Vide Note at end of chapter.

[109] Livy, xxxvi. 15—“Hoc jugum (Œta) ab Leucate et man ad occidentem verso per Ætoliam ad alterum mare orienti objectum tendens ea aspreta rupesque interjectas habet, ut non modo exercitus sed ne expediti quidem facile ullas ad transitum calles inveniant;” and again (Livy, xxxvi. 17), Acilius Glabrio, speaking of Thermopylæ, “Quippe portæ sunt hæ, et unus inter duo maria clausis omnibus velut naturalis transitus est.”

[110] There is considerable mule traffic through it at the present day.

[111] It would, I reckon, be possible for a traveller to go from one plain to the other by this route without attaining a height much over a thousand feet.

[112] It may be well to adduce one or two striking instances of this, apart from the one at present under consideration:⁠—

1. Circ. 350 B.C., Thermopylæ was the great obstacle to Philip’s advance south. His energies were centred in getting hold of the pass. He never attempted an assault upon it, but finally got hold of it by bribing Phalæcus, the Phocian condottiere. He then left a garrison at Nicæa near Thermopylæ (Dem. ad Ep. Phil. 4). There must have been some supreme objection from a military point of view to the Asopos pass, since Philip, who can hardly be suspected of military incapacity, never tried to turn Thermopylæ by using it. He was not pressed for time. He patiently allowed years to elapse before he got hold of Thermopylæ. Thermopylæ was all-valuable to him, and, what is more striking, absolutely necessary, in his opinion, for an advance southwards. (Vide Hogarth, “Philip and Alexander”).
2. In 279 B.C. (Pausanias, x. 20) Brennus, with more than 150,000 Gauls, invaded Greece. The object of the expedition was plunder and nothing else. If he could have got past Thermopylæ that object would have been attained. With such numbers he could have done what he liked, especially if, after getting through the Asopos defile, he had, before going south, turned Thermopylæ by way of Hyampolis and forced the Greeks to evacuate that pass. Pausanias, who seems to have ample information as to the details of this Celtic raid, gives the following list of the defending force:⁠—
3. Bœotians, 10,000 infantry, 500 cavalry; Phocians, 3000 infantry, 500 cavalry; Megareans, 4000 infantry; Ætolians, 7000 infantry, with numerous light armed, and cavalry; Athenians, 1000 infantry, 500 cavalry, with numerous triremes; Mercenaries from Macedonia and Asia, 1000 infantry.
4. The total cannot have been far short of 25,000 men.
5. The force was so large that the commanders were enabled not merely to provide for the defence of the pass itself, but were also able to send out cavalry and light armed to dispute the passage of the Spercheios, a move which Brennus, who was, as Pausanias remarks, “not altogether wanting in understanding, nor, for a barbarian, without a certain amount of experience in devising stratagems,” frustrated by sending a number of his men across the bar at the river mouth. On this the Greek advanced guard retreated to the pass. Brennus then had bridges thrown across the river, and attacked Heraklea. The Heraklea of that date was probably situated on the mountain immediately west of the mouth of the Asopos ravine, on a site now known as Sideroporto. He did not take the place; and Pausanias adds in reference to this, that Heraklea was to him “a matter of lesser moment: he considered the main point to be to drive out of the pass those who were in occupation of it, and to make good his passage into Greece south of Thermopylæ.”
6. It is of course manifest that such a passage as the Asopos ravine would be easily defensible, and the Herakleots may have blocked it. There is no question that, had it been passable, Brennus might have used it. The striking fact is that he did not use it, but spent his strength on a terrific failure at Thermopylæ.
7. In 224 (vide Polyb. xi. 52) Antigonus, wishing to get to the Isthmus, marched with his army by way of Eubœa. “He took this route,” says Polybius, “because the Ætolians, after trying other expedients for preventing Antigonus bringing this aid, now forbade his marching south of Thermopylæ with an army, threatening that, if he did, they would offer armed opposition to his passage.”
8. It is to be noted that, as at the time of Brennus’ assault, the defenders of the pass were also in possession of Heraklea.
9. In B.C. 208 (vide Polyb. x. 41) the Ætolians, seeking to prevent the passage of Philip of Macedon southwards to aid his allies, “secure the pass of Thermopylæ with trenches and stockades and a formidable garrison, satisfied that they would then shut out Philip, and entirely prevent him from coming to the assistance of his allies south of the pass.”
10. In this case also (vide chap. 42) the Ætolians were in possession of Heraklea.
11. In a passage already quoted, Livy (xxxvi. 15) is most emphatic in his statement that the only practicable military route by Œta is that through Thermopylæ. He is describing the attack of the Romans under Acilius Glabrio upon the troops of Antiochus who were defending the pass, and it is again reported that the allies of the defenders were in possession of Heraklea.

We are now in possession of practically all the data which can be obtained from the ancient historians with regard to the exact significance of the Asopos ravine, and the route through it. It must of course be borne in mind that the information of the historian Livy with regard to the topography of the Thermopylæ region was second-hand; but yet, in spite of that, there is a certain consistency about the evidence which enables us to form highly probable conclusions with regard to the exact value of this factor in the strategical geography of the region.

It seems to me to have been a recognized principle in later times that an effective defence of Œta included the occupation of Heraklea as well as of Thermopylæ, and the only conceivable reason for the existence of such a view is that Heraklea commanded the passage of the Asopos ravine.

The site of the Heraklea of this period is to be sought, I venture to think, at the place called Sideroporto, where there are large remains of a strongly fortified town. It is high on the slope of Œta, in an exceedingly inaccessible position, in the angle, as it were, between the Asopos ravine and the line of the Trachinian cliffs.

A local tradition, probably of recent date, and due, like so many traditions of modern Greece, to the visit of some inquirer whom the natives regarded as an authority, attaches the name of Heraklea to certain ruins which stand on the summit of a remarkable flat-topped mountain in the valley at the head of the Asopos ravine, to which reference has been already made, between the plains of Malis and Doris. It is infinitely more probable, however, that this was the stronghold of those Œteans whom Thucydides mentions.

The site is more than two hours distant from the nearest point of the Malian plain, at the outlet of the Asopos ravine.

[113] Cp. H. vii. 175, ad fin.

[114] It has been criticized in modern times on strategical principles (e.g. by Delbrück), for which a universality of truth has been claimed. It is said that, given two adversaries of equal strength, that one places himself at a disadvantage who attempts to defend the passage of a range of mountains. It is manifest that the assailant can concentrate his efforts on the forcing of one passage, whereas the defender has to distribute his defence among all the practicable passages of the chain. In the particular case of Mount Œta it is urged that there was, besides Thermopylæ, at least one practicable passage, and this is stated to have followed the modern road from Malis into Doris; which passes over the low part of the chain immediately east of the Asopos ravine.

Could it be proved that such a road ever existed the general criticism would be sound. As a fact, all but demonstrable proof exists that no such road, practicable from a military point of view, ever did exist in ancient times. Leave out of the calculation the Greek of 480 and the Gaul of 279—although in the case of the latter, if Pausanias’ evidence be worth anything, the Malians showed a very pardonable desire to expedite his departure from the region, and would have been most anxious to show Brennus such a road, had it existed—and merely take into consideration the Greek, the Macedonian, and the Roman of later times. For years and years these peoples were fighting in every part of North-East Greece. They knew its topography by heart. The land became the veriest strategic chessboard that ever existed in ancient warfare, on which every move could be calculated to a nicety. And yet Thermopylæ remained the same—that square on the board where king and consul could alike be checked. Could it have been so had such a path existed?

It has already been seen that the holding of Heraklea was regarded as a necessary factor in the defence of Thermopylæ. That Heraklea was almost certainly situated at Sideroporto, commanding the Asopos ravine indeed, but cut off by that very ravine—a mere crack several miles long and nine hundred feet deep—from the line taken by this imaginary road; that is to say, Heraklea would have been absolutely useless for its defence. If it existed, why then did neither Greek, Macedonian, nor Roman use it? Why did Philip of Macedon, the father of Alexander, shirk the attack on a pass which he could so easily have avoided?

It has already been said that the Greeks have made a new road along that line. It is an excellent piece of work, but so great is the climb to the summit of the pass that a two-horse carriage takes three hours to accomplish it. The gradient of the hill-side can best be imagined when it is stated that after climbing for an hour and a quarter along this road, the traveller finds himself within less than half a mile of the point from which the climb began, and the greater part of that half-mile is vertical.

In criticizing ancient warfare a tendency is but too frequently displayed to ignore the main factor of all warfare—the human element. In criticizing Greek warfare in particular, it is, moreover, too often the case that the critic is either unaware of, or has never realized, the nature of the country with which he is dealing. An ordinary Greek hill-side, though it appears easy of passage when viewed from even a short distance, presents difficulties which can hardly be paralleled in any other country in Europe. Thick, low, strong bush, much of it thorny, covers it just to a sufficient depth to hide the thickly sown, razor-edged rocks beneath. Human nature as represented by the Greek hoplite in his heavy armour could not face it, and progress over it even for a light-armed man is very slow and very exhausting. The strategy and tactics of war are bounded by the difficult rather than by the impossible. There can be no question that the passage over this part of the range of Œta can never have been practicable to anything more than the merest skeleton of a flying column, and could not possibly have been negotiated by any force sufficiently large to affect the defence of Thermopylæ by any turning movement, or sufficiently well provided with provisions to accomplish the long circuit which such a turning movement would have demanded.

There is one more striking proof that such a road did not exist in 480. Had it existed it must have crossed that path of the Anopæa by which Hydarnes and his men turned the pass. If so, why did he make the long circuit by the Asopos ravine, when a shorter way was practicable?

[115] Cf. the mistake made as to the defensive nature of the position at Tempe; also, the ignorance of the existence of the path of the Anopæa at Thermopylæ.

[116] The expedition to Thessaly was made while Xerxes was at Abydos, certainly not later than April, 480. The departure of Leonidas for Thermopylæ took place a little before the Carnean festival, about the beginning of the month of August.

[117] Diodorus’ account of the circumstances preceding the battle is manifestly an imaginary tale of indeterminate origin concocted after the event.

[118] This seems to indicate that the Persian camp was altogether outside the west gate, and not any part of it in the plain of Anthele.

[119] This shows clearly that the wall was not, as some have supposed, on the low ground at the pass of the middle gate, but on the neck of the first mound (vide note on [Topography of Thermopylæ]). Had it been on the low ground, the scout would, from the comb of the mass of stream débris of the great ravine, have been able to see over it.

[120] These last words are, I believe, the true translation of the expression in Herodotus. There would be little point in repeating the fact of the river flowing through the ravine as a sort of mark of the identity of a stream whose course the historian had recently described with considerable detail. There is much point in the indication of what investigation at the present day shows to have been the fact, that this path did start from the Asopos ravine.

My own impression is that it sprang into use originally as a means of communication between that upper valley which I have mentioned as existing in the range of Œta, and probably also the Dorian plain, and Thermopylæ, when a flood of the Asopos rendered the ravine impassable. It would also form a direct means of communication between the Œteans and Locrians without passing through Trachinia.

[121] It is of course impossible to deduct the number of killed in the previous fighting, simply because we have no information as to what that number was.

[122] Epialtes’ calculation that the circuit of the path would be completed about the middle of the morning must, judging from the details given of the actual march, have been singularly correct.

[123] Leake says that the descent was not much less than the ascent in actual distance; but that as the ground was better, and the march performed by daylight, the time spent was shorter. Leake is certainly in error. The place were the Phocians were surprised is recognizable with certainty, I think, at the present day. It corresponds with what Herodotus tells us of the incident, and it is absolutely the only place along the whole path where the events narrated could have taken place. When the Persians reached that point, which is probably the highest altitude attained by the path, they would have traversed two-thirds of the whole distance. I must say that Leake’s attempt to reconcile his views with those of Herodotus by saying that the rest of the path is easier than that previously traversed is quite contrary to my own actual experience. From the summit to Drakospilia its character is that of a track winding amid rocks through a thick fir forest. Not until you get close to Drakospilia does the country really open up.

[124] They advanced, that is to say, to a position somewhere near the modern baths.

[125] They had fought, that is, on the low ground at the foot of Kallidromos immediately to the west of the mound.

[126] The statement that they already knew that they must be taken in the rear is in accord with Herodotus’ idea of what took place. It is, however, probable that they heard early from Alpenoi, to which some of their sick had been sent, of the fact that the other division of their army had not succeeded in stopping, or, possibly, had not attempted to stop Hydarnes.

[127] The pillar at Sparta, with their names inscribed upon it, remained standing in Pausanias’ time (iii. 14, 1).

[128] The position was well designed for a last desperate stand. The rear was protected by the small but deep valley between the first and second mound. It is noticeable that they did not attempt to defend the wall. It may seem strange that they should not have done this. The position of the wall, however, running along the neck of land joining the hillock and the slope at Kallidromos, would expose its defenders to an attack from the rear. The Greeks evidently retreated from their position near the modern baths; through the narrows between that and the hillock; and up to the west slope of the latter, passing the wall at the summit of the slope on to the mound itself.

[129] The parallel diary of events as it appears in Herodotus is as follows:⁠—

Day.	Thermopylæ.	Artemisium.
1	Persian army leaves Therma.
12		Persian fleet leaves Therma and reaches Magnesian coast.
13		Storm begins in morning.
14	Army reaches Malis.	Storm continues.
15		Storm continues.
16		Storm ceases. Fleet moves to Aphetæ. Despatch of 200 vessels round Eubœa. First sea fight.
17		Second sea fight after the arrival of 53 Athenian ships.
18	First attack on Thermopylæ.	Third sea fight. News of disaster at Thermopylæ in the evening.
19	Second attack on Thermopylæ.
20	Disaster at Thermopylæ.

[130] Herodotus does not give any indication as to the time at which the Greeks received news of the disaster. It is necessary therefore to make certain calculations as to the earliest possible moment at which the news can have reached them. As far as can be seen from the narrative, the ten Persian scouting vessels started from Therma on the same day as the main body of the fleet, but probably at an earlier hour. It must have been well on in the morning before they came upon the Greek vessels off the mouth of the Peneius, which is fifty miles from Therma. The only conceivable means by which news of the engagement could have reached Skiathos, some seventy miles south of this point, is by the appearance of those ten vessels with the captured Greek ships in their company. That being the case, the Greek fleet at Artemisium cannot have received the news before the evening of the day.

[131] The ancient Mekistos.

[132] It is more probable that it was under the shelter of the great cliffs of Mount Kandili, in the neighbourhood of the modern Limni. There is a sandy shore for many miles at the foot of those cliffs, upon which vessels might be conveniently drawn up.

[133] A nine-knot steamer takes about seven hours from Chalkis to Stylida, which is about the same distance as from Chalkis to Artemisium. There is no question that a trireme could maintain a high rate of speed for hours together. Nor is there reason to doubt Herodotus’ statement that the voyage of the Persian fleet from Therma to the Sepiad strand took but one day, a distance, that is to say, of one hundred and twenty miles in fourteen hours of daylight, over eight miles an hour—even supposing that such a large number of vessels could put out and put in in the dark. The probability is, however, that the fleet never went to Chalkis at all; or, if it did, that it moved up the Euripus after receiving the news of the disaster to the Persian fleet, so as to be ready to go to Artemisium without delay so soon as the storm ceased.

[134] The strong bias which Herodotus displays in his references to Themistocles is of itself sufficient to render the tale of bribery open to suspicion. Furthermore, the sum mentioned, thirty talents, is an extraordinarily large sum for the people of North Eubœa to raise at short notice.

[135] Diod. xi. 12, mentions this, but gives the number of the squadron as three hundred.

[136] Diodorus gives no exact indication of the time of despatch, though he mentions it immediately after describing the arrival at Aphetæ.

[137] Same day as first engagement (vide note over page).

[138] If any calculation can be made from this very defective chapter of Herodotus’ history, this day must have been the eighteenth day. H. viii 14, 15.The three combats at Artemisium are represented as having taken place on successive days. The last took place on the day of the disaster at Thermopylæ, i.e. the twentieth day. Therefore the first took place on the eighteenth, H. viii. 9. and it is represented as having taken place on the evening of the day on which the council of war was held.

[139] This view is supported by Herodotus’ account of what took place next day. The storm in which the Persian flying squadron is wrecked takes place on the evening of the eighteenth day. When the storm ceased we do not know. But it is certain that the fifty-three Attic vessels must have ridden it out at Chalkis, and that they, after it was over, made the long voyage from Chalkis to Artemisium, where they found the Greek fleet. The storm must have been a brief one; and if, as Herodotus says, there had been a definite resolution on the part of the Greek commanders to move south in the early hours of the morning of the nineteenth day, no reason is apparent why it should not have been carried out. The real design of the Greeks was probably to make an attempt to beat the divided Persian fleet in detail.

[140] Though Herodotus is aware of a connection between the positions at Thermopylæ and Artemisium, there is nothing whatever in his account which suggests that he understood how necessary the connection was for the maintenance of the pass. Had he appreciated this, he would hardly have treated as serious history such parts of the Artemisium tradition of his time as asserted that the responsible Greek commanders ever entertained the idea of such action as must have inevitably sacrificed the lives of the defenders of the pass. He has given the irresponsible gossip and criticism of the Peloponnesian section of the fleet the appearance of responsible and authoritative design, and has served up the whole with copious Attic sauce. There is, however, no reason for supposing that the historian was in any way guilty of historical dishonesty. He simply did not possess that knowledge of military affairs which would have enabled him to see the flaws in the evidence which came to his hand; and this negative defect was further complicated by what was, from the point of view of strict history, the positive one of accepting anything in the tradition of the war which would bring into relief the patriotic services of Athens. If we tone down the intensely Attic colouring in Herodotus’ account of Artemisium, that is to say, such passages as are designed to bring into relief the difficulty of keeping the fleet at its station, we have, in all probability, a good historical account, in so far as it goes, of this part of the campaign of 480.

[141] The manœuvre of the διέκπλους seems one of the most simple things in the world when it has been discovered. Yet in modern times it took the English sailors more than a century of hard fighting to find out its effectiveness. Thucydides, who knows what he is talking about in naval matters, certainly conveys the impression that it was an invention of his own time, or, at any rate, that it had, as a manœuvre, been gradually evolved within the period of the Pentekontaëtia. And yet, here we have it at Artemisium! Nay, more than that, fourteen years earlier, according to Herodotus, Dionysios of Phokæa was trying to teach it to those unappreciative Ionians at Ladé. It is probable that both in this passage and in the one relating to Ladé, Herodotus is guilty of an anachronism in attributing that manœuvre to the naval warfare of the first quarter of the fifth century. The term was probably much in men’s mouths at the time which he wrote, and, in his ignorance of naval matters, he assumed that the ruling idea in the sea tactics of his own day might be safely attributed to the previous generation. Compare also H. viii. 11 with Thuc. ii. 83, ad fin.

[142] There is an undesigned consistency between the two accounts of the effects of the storm in North and South Eubœa respectively. A glance at the map will show that, (1) in the North, the driving of the wreckage towards the shores of Aphetæ; (2) in the South, the driving of the 200 vessels upon the Hollows of Eubœa, both indicate a storm from the South or S.S.W.

[143] It seems to have taken some thirty hours to round Skiathos, and voyage down the east coast of Eubœa.

[144] The identity of these bays with Τά Κοίλα has been called in question in modern times. If this passage in Herodotus were the only evidence we possessed, the question of their position would manifestly be a very open one. All that Herodotus’ language seems to indicate is that they were a well-known feature in the geography of South Eubœa. Had they not been so, we should have expected so painstaking a topographer to have given some indications of their actual position. His silence, and the inference to be drawn from it, is not without significance. The Hollows would hardly have been a well-known feature had they been east of the South Cape, away from the line of sea traffic; whereas on the west shore they would be in full view of all vessels using the frequented passage of the Euripus. I think, too, that any one who has seen that coast of Eubœa, either from Attica, or when passing up the channel, cannot but have been struck with the depth of the colour which the retiring coast-line of these bays gives to the Eubœan landscape thus viewed. Their recesses give that appearance of “hollowness” from which the ancient name must have been derived. We are not, however, dependent on Herodotus alone for indications as to their locality. Vide Liv. 31, 47; Strabo, 445; Valer Max. 1, 8, 10.

[145] It is exceedingly unlikely that the Persian squadron would have been able to force the narrows at Chalkis, if, as was almost certainly the case, the fifty-three Attic vessels were ready to defend it. But had they put in at Eretria and blocked the channel south, the position of the main Greek fleet, in case of anything resembling a reverse at Artemisium, would have been very precarious.

[146] The fact that they were able to single out a special contingent for attack confirms, by implication, Diodorus’ statement as to the scattered nature of the anchorage at Aphetæ.

[147] The effect of the engagement on the minds of the Greeks is mentioned in language which is almost, word for word, a repetition of that which he has used on a previous occasion. He says, Δρησμὸν δὴ ἐβούλευον ἔσω ἐς τὴν Ἑλλάδα.—H. viii. 18. Cf. the expression in viii. 4.

[148] In speaking of Doris, Herodotus says: Ή δὲ χώρη αὕτη ἐστὶ μητρόπολις Δωριέων τῶν ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ. That the land had a Dorian population in the fifth century B.C. is undoubtedly the case; but its claim to be metropolis of the Dorians of the south was in all probability set up by the Spartan authorities, as affording a convenient pretext for interference in Greek affairs north of Isthmus. It is probable that this corner of Greece, of which the Malian plain was the centre, contained patches of various peoples which had in different ages traversed the peninsula, or which had been driven into its mountain fastnesses by the passage of invaders:⁠—Dorians, Œtæans, Trachinians, etc., were probably such remains of larger tribes.

[149] Herodotus seems from his language to assume (viii. 31) that the whole army had come south by the Dorian route. That is, either a mistake; or, more probably, the impression his language gives is due to a mere omission. Few details are given of any part of the route of the army.

[150] The position at Delphi, from a military point of view, is by no means weak, provided Amphissa be occupied, and the great pass from the north be thus closed. Under those circumstances, unless the assailant is in a position to land troops at the head of the Krissæan gulf, the only line of attack is along this easily defensible path from the west. It is imaginable that Xerxes, knowing it to be an open town, under-estimated the difficulty of its capture.

[151] Pogon is an almost land-locked harbour between the island of Kalauria and the mainland.

[152]

A Comparison of the Lists of Vessels at Artemisium and Salamis respectively.

T. = trireme; P. = pentekonters.

	Artemisium.	Salamis.
Athenians (some Platæans in crews at Artemisium)	{127 T. 53 T. later} 180 T.	180 T.
Corinthians	40 T.	40 T.
Megareans	20 T.	20 T.
Chalkidians in Athenian ships	20 T.	20 T.
Æginetans	18 T.	30 T.
Sikyonians	12 T.	15 T.
Lacedæmonians	10 T.	16 T.
Epidaurians	8 T.	10 T.
Eretrians	7 T.	7 T.
Trœzenians	5 T.	5 T.
Styreans	2 T.	2 T.
Keians	2 T.; 2 P.	2 T.; 2 P.
Opuntian Locrians	7 P.	—
Hermionians	—	3 T.
Ambrakiots	—	7 T.
Leukadians	—	3 T.
Naxians	—	4 T.
Kythnians	—	1 T.; 1 P.
Krotonians	—	1 T.
Malians	—	2 P.
Siphnians	—	1 P.
Seriphians	—	1 P.
	324 T.; 9 P.	366 T.; 7 P.

Æschylus gives 310 as the number of the Greek fleet. Valuable as is the testimony of the poet with regard to those incidents in the battle which he observed as an eye-witness, his evidence on the dry question of numbers is not likely to be exact.

[153] She did, indeed, send sixty vessels, to observe, so said the patriot Greeks, how the war went, but not with any intention of taking part therein. The Corcyræans’ own excuse for their non-participation was that their fleet had been unable to round Malea.

[154] The mistake may be that of a manuscript copyist; but such mistakes are so common in the text of Herodotus, that they afford strong ground for supposing that the historian was, like the men of his time, inaccurate in numerical calculations. The mistake may be in the detailed list. Paus. ii. 29. 5. Pausanias implies that the Æginetan contingent was superior in numbers to that of the Corinthian, that is to say, more than forty. If the number were forty-two, the total given by Herodotus would be correct; and it is noticeable in this reference that he himself, in speaking of the number of ships which Ægina supplied, H. viii. 46. says: “Of the islanders the Æginetans supplied thirty; they had indeed other ships manned; but with these they were guarding their own country; but with the thirty best sailers they fought at Salamis.”

[155] By Professor J. W. Bury.

[156] Macan, Herod, iv., v., vi., “Athens and Ægina.”

[157] Note on the Reference to Siris in Themistocles’ Speech.—The reference to Siris inevitably suggests that this reported passage in Themistocles’ speech is an invention of later date arising from the colonization of Thurii in or about 443. The rapid growth of Athenian trade in the earlier part of the fifth century, and its peculiar development along the western route, render it possible, however, that an idea of settlement on or near the deserted city of Sybaris may have been long anterior to the actual settlement, and may have been mooted even before 480. If Plutarch is to be believed, Themistocles had direct relations with Corcyra, and gave the name of Sybaris to one, and the name of Italia to the other of his daughters (Plut. Them. 32).

[158] H. viii. 74. τέλος δὲ ἐξερράγη ἐς τὸ μέσον. Cf. also Diod. xi. 16, ad fin.

[159] This Council of War must have been held on the morning of the day preceding the battle. It lasted, in all probability, several hours, and, if so, this would indicate the afternoon as the time at which Xerxes received the message of Themistocles. On this point, then, the indications in the narrative of Æschylus and Herodotus are in agreement.

[160] Plut. Them. also mentions the same name; but the testimony is probably dependent on that of Herodotus.

[161] There is a curious triangular concord at this point in the history.

Diodorus says that the Egyptian contingent was sent to block the strait towards the Megarid (xi. 17).

Plutarch says 200 vessels were sent to close the passage round Salamis (Them. 12).

Herodotus mentions that the Egyptian contingent numbered 200 (vii. 89).

[162] This would account for the fact implied by Æsch. Pers. 400: the two fleets when they started their movement were not in sight of one another, though, very shortly after the movement began, the Persian fleet was visible to the Greeks. The latter would first catch sight of it after it rounded the Kynosura promontory and the island.

[163] Cf. Arist. 8, where the revocation is said to have taken place τρίτῳ ἔτει after the sentence.

[164] Cf. Stein’s brief note on the translation of the words στὰς ἐπὶ τὸ συνέδριον in H. viii. 79.

[165] In so far as I know, this last very important point was first raised by Prof. J. B. Bury in an article in the Classical Review on “Aristides at Salamis.”

[166] This is Professor Bury’s suggestion. It is open to the objection that Herodotus expressly mentions the arrival of this vessel (H. viii. 83) immediately before the battle began. But this objection is not by any means insuperable. It is much more probable, under the circumstances, that Herodotus made a mistake as to the time of its arrival, than that it managed at the time he mentions to force its way through the blockading fleets at either end of the strait.

[167] It would seem as if it were a description of this movement, taken from his notes on, or sources of information for, the details of the battle, which Herodotus has used by mistake in describing the movement of the Persian fleet during the night. He has, of course, intensely confused the original description by reading into it what he knew to be the object of that night-movement—the surrounding of the Greek fleet by blocking the issues both to east and west of it; but, eliminating this motive from his description, it is possible to see that in its original form it must have resembled very closely the description of the advance of the Persian fleet which has been drawn from the details which Æschylus and Diodorus give.

H. viii. 76. “The west wing put out and made a circling movement towards Salamis.” It has been already pointed out that by “west wing” Herodotus evidently means, not the west wing in the original formation, but the west wing when the fleet had completed the movement, and had taken up the position which he imagined it to have assumed when the movement was complete. This “west wing” would be the east wing in the original position. That it cannot have been the original west wing has been pointed out in a previous note.

If this correction be made, Herodotus’ language in describing this movement is peculiarly applicable to the movement of that part of the Persian fleet which entered the strait by the channel east of Psyttaleia—ἀνῆγον κυκλούμενοι πρὸς τὴν Σαλαμῖνα; and the applicability becomes still more striking in view of the evidence, which will be given later, that this wing of the Persian fleet got in advance of the other.

The left wing, which would use the channel west of Psyttaleia, is equally referred to in the words: “Those about Keos and Kynosura put out in order,” to which he adds, in accordance with his knowledge that part of the object of the night-movement was the blocking of the straits, “And they occupied the whole strait as far as Munychia with their ships.”

[168] This phenomenon of the morning wind is very common in the Greek seas. It will be remembered that Phormio based his tactics in his first battle with the Corinthian fleet just outside the Corinthian gulf on its occurrence. I have experienced it there; and on the three occasions on which I have been through the Strait of Salamis, once in the summer of 1895, and twice in the summer of 1899, I have experienced it on each occasion. It began in all three cases quite suddenly, a little before seven in the morning, blowing from the west, right down that part of the strait south of Ægaleos. It was extremely violent while it lasted, though it did not raise a dangerous sea. To the inexperienced it gave the impression that it meant the beginning of a very windy day. On two occasions it ceased about 8.30, on the other, shortly after nine, and the dead calm by which it had been preceded ensued once more.

[169] As is shown by the presence of an Attic vessel opposite the Persian left, where her ships must almost certainly have been.

[170] Cf. Æsch. Pers. 724,—Ναυτικὸς στρατὸς κακωθεὶς πεζὸν ὤλεσε στρατόν. Thuc. i. 73, 5.—Νικωθεις γὰρ ταῖς ναυσίν ὡς οὐκέτι αὐτῷ ὁμοίας οὔσης της δυνάμεως κατὰ τάχος τῷ πλέονι τοῦ στρατοῦ ἀπεχώρησεν.

[171] Modern historians have taken this account of the intended or attempted construction of the mole too seriously. It has been pointed out, for instance, that the only point in the strait east of the bay of Eleusis at which it could possibly be carried out, is at the narrows where the island of St. George contracts the width of the channel, and that it is impossible that, under the circumstances as they stood, Xerxes should have been able to bring vessels to that part of the strait. But Herodotus never attempts to give the impression that the operation was ever undertaken seriously; he makes it plain, indeed, that it was not. If that were so, and it was merely designed to give the Greeks a wrong impression, it did not in the least matter whether it was made at a possible or impossible point. Ktesias, Pers. 26, and Strabo, 395, say that the mole was begun before the battle. This would imply that a serious attempt was made to construct it. The notorious unreliability of Ktesias, and the lateness of Strabo’s evidence, render this account of the matter unworthy of consideration.

[172] H. viii. 103. Λέγουσα γὰρ ἐπετύγχανε τὰ πὲρ᾿ αὐτὸς ἐνόεε.

[173] Οὐδεμία συμφορὴ μεγάλη ἔσται σεό τε περιεόντος καὶ ἐκείνων τῶν πρηγμάτων περὶ οἶκον τὸν σόν.

[174] It has been suggested that the real intention was to induce the Ionians to revolt. The behaviour of this contingent in the recent battle was not calculated to encourage such a plan, conceived within a few days of the actual fight.

[175] Ἐπείτε οὐκ ἐπαύετο λέγων ταῦτα ὁ Τιμόδημος, etc.

[176] May it not be suggested that some archæologist acquainted with the extant remains of Phœnician Carthage might confer a distinct service on history by examining the structures at Agrigentum which date from this period? The workman as well as the designer must have set his mark there.

[177] It has already been remarked that his description of Thermopylæ is that of a traveller coming from the north—“from Achaia”—as he himself says.

[178] Herodotus himself (ix. 8) takes this view of the matter. He implies that the Spartans did not care whether the Athenians medized or not after the wall was completed. It is quite out of the question, however, to suppose that the Spartans could have regarded with equanimity the possible transference of the Athenian fleet to the Persian side. They had the experience of Artemisium and Salamis to guide them.

[179] It is sometimes assumed from H. vii. 229, that the usual quota was one helot to each hoplite; but a more probable interpretation of that passage is that the reference is to the personal armed servant who accompanied each hoplite to war, and that it cannot be deduced therefrom that the body of these formed the whole number of the helots present on an ordinary occasion.

Modern criticism of the impossibility of despatching so large a force unknown to the Athenian embassy is not convincing. We do not know the place at which it gathered. It is extremely likely that a large number of helots were drawn from Messenia, and joined the army at Orestheion, where the great route from Messenia meets the route from Sparta by way of the valley of the Eurotas.

[180] His departure from the Isthmus is ascribed by Herodotus to the fact that when he was sacrificing ἐπὶ τῷ Πέρσῃ an eclipse of the sun took place. This eclipse has been calculated to have occurred on the 2nd of October, 480. If so, it would be about the time of the Persian retreat from Attica after Salamis, and Stein’s conjecture that the sacrifice had something to do with a plan to harass the Persian retreat, has a certain amount of probability in its favour.

[181] If Sparta had been careless as to whether Athens medized or not, she might, probably would, have despatched troops to the Isthmus at an earlier date. But if she was waiting until pressure of circumstances forced Athens to adopt Peloponnesian views as to the line of defence, then the delay is accounted for. Had her army been at the Isthmus when Mardonius advanced into Bœotia, the Athenians would certainly have called upon it to carry out the agreement, and march to the northward of Kithæron. In that case the Spartan government would have been obliged either to comply, or, by a refusal, to show in the most unmistakeable manner possible the war policy which it intended to adopt.

[182] I was, I confess, surprised to find in August, 1899, that, in spite of the excellent road to Megara from Bœotia by the way of Eleusis, the track on the old line of the Platæa-Megara road is still largely used.

[183] A road has been constructed through it in recent years, running from Kriekouki on the Bœotian side to Villa on the south of the range.

[184] I am inclined to think that the site of Skolos is that which Leake, and others following him, have identified with Erythræ. Paus. ix. 4, 3, says that if before crossing the Asopos river on the road from Platæa to Thebes, you turned off down the stream, and went about forty stades, i.e. four and three-quarter miles, you came to the ruins of Skolos. This would place it not far east of the road from Thebes to Dryoskephalæ. He speaks of Skolos in another passage as a village of Parasopia beneath Kithæron, a rugged place, and δυσοικητός. That seems to preclude the idea of its being near the river, which traverses alluvial lands at this part of its course. The ruins identified by Leake as Erythræ cannot belong to that town if the testimony of Herodotus and Pausanias is accurately worded. This point will be discussed in a later note. In actual fact, however, the exact site of Skolos is very difficult to determine. My main reason for suggesting that it stood where Leake places Erythræ is that those ruins are the only ruins in the neighbourhood indicated by Pausanias, and are certainly not the ruins of Erythræ.

[185] It is necessary to pursue so obvious a line of argument, because, for some incomprehensible reason, modern historians have thought it right to judge of the plans of these able Persian commanders as though they were dictated by no higher considerations than such as might occur to an untutored savage.

[186] The weakness of this line in case of attack from the north was conclusively shown twenty years later in the manœuvres which led to the battle of Tanagra.

[187] It is almost certain that an ancient road from Eleusis followed the eminently natural line taken by the modern road from Eleusis to Eleutheræ. There was also, in all probability, a route from Athens to Eleutheræ which did not enter Eleusis at all, but, branching from the Sacred Way near the Rheitoi after traversing the low pass through Mount Ægaleos, went up the Thriasian plain and joined the road from Eleusis among the low hills of Western Attica.

[188] These ridges will be found numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, in the accompanying map.

[189] Marked A 6 in the map.

[190] Called in the map, for purposes of distinction, the Asopos ridge, the Long ridge, and the Plateau.

[191] Those of the streams marked A 4 and A 5 on the map.

[192] During my stay at Kriekouki, in December ’92–January ’93, the rainfall was at times extraordinarily heavy. Nevertheless, I had not on any occasion the slightest difficulty in crossing any of the streams, and it was not even necessary to get wet in so doing. On one occasion also I happened to be following the line of one of the watercourses leading to the Œroë amid a downpour of rain such as we rarely see in England, which had been going on with more or less continuity for the previous fourteen hours; and yet, as I descended the brook towards the plain the water became less and less until, on the plain, there was no water running in the stream bed.

[193] Pausanias knew the roads through these two passes.

(1) Platæa-Athens road.

He says (xi. 1, 6) that Neokles, the Bœotarch, in his surprise of Platæa in the year 374, led the Thebans οὐ τὴν εὐθεῖαν ἀπὸ τῶν Θηβῶν τὴν πεδιάδα, τὴν δὲ ἐπὶ Ὑσιὰς ἦγε πρὸς Ἐλευθερῶν τε καὶ τῆς Ἀττικῆς.

There will be occasion to show that Hysiæ was in all probability a small place, on a site just outside the southernmost end of the village of Kriekouki. It was therefore at the eastern side of the opening of the valley through which the road from Platæa to Athens passed. The remains of that ancient road are, however, at the other side of the valley opening; and, therefore, Hysiæ was not upon it. Probably, however, down the valley came a track which is still used, and which, after passing through the village of Kriekouki, goes due north to Thebes in a line parallel to the main road from Dryoskephalæ. This would be the road which Pausanias here mention. It would, in entering the valley to the pass, go close to this site of Hysiæ. Of the identity of this site it will be necessary to speak in a later note.

In 379, after the revolution in Thebes (X. H. v. 4, 14), the Spartans despatched Kleombrotos with a force to Bœotia. As Chabrias, with Athenian peltasts, was guarding “the road through Eleutheræ,” he went, κατὰ τὴν εἰς Πλαταιὰς φέρουσαν.

This is almost certainly the Platæa-Athens pass. Kleombrotos probably did not discover that the Dryoskephalæ pass was guarded until he got to Eleutheræ. After doing so he turned to the left and made his way through the Platæa-Athens pass, exterminating a small body of troops which attempted to defend it.

(2) The Platæa-Megara road.

Pausanias (ix. 2, 3) says, Τοῖς δὲ ἐκ Μεγάρων ἰοῦσι πηγή τέ ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ καὶ προελθοῦσιν ὀλίγον πέτρα· καλοῦσι δὲ τὴν μὲν Ἀκταίωνος κοίτην.

In the previous sentence he has expressly spoken of the road from Eleutheræ to Platæa. The Megara road is therefore a different road. The κοὶτη Ἀκταίωνος can, I think, be determined with sufficient certainty at the present day. It is on the top of a low cliff, probably the πέτρα mentioned, overhanging the sources of the stream O 3. Near the foot of the cliff is an ancient well, known in Leake’s time as the Vergutiani Spring.

[194] Ἐπὶ τῆς ὑπωρέης τοῦ Κιθαιρῶνος.

[195] The site of Erythræ.

Colonel Leake identified it with certain ruins which are found at the foot of the mountain slope several miles east of the road from Dryoskephalæ to Thebes. The available evidence seems to me to be strongly against this view.

(1) The traditional site is where I have placed it, though I am afraid that but little stress can be laid on traditions in modern Greece.

(2) Its comparatively frequent mention by Greek writers seems to indicate that, though a small place, its position was of some importance. If Leake’s view be correct this cannot have been the case. If it were where I believe it to have been, it would be at the northern exit of one of the most important passes in Greece. There is an ancient φρουρίον on the bastion of Kithæron to the east of the site. Its remains are so scanty, however, that they do not afford any clue as to its date.

(3) There are remains of ancient buildings on the site. There are also remains of an ancient well, besides which is a heap of stones, from which two stones were obtained a few years ago with inscriptions showing them to have belonged to a temple of Eleusinian Demeter. Pausanias mentions so many temples in the neighbourhood dedicated to that deity, that the discovery contributes but little to the identification of the site. I was informed at Kriekouki last year (August, 1899) that those particular stones were known to have been originally discovered on another site. As neither my informant nor any one else could tell me whence, why, or by whom they were removed, I did not place much credence in the report.

(4) Pausanias says (ix. 2, 1), Γῆς δὲ τῆς Πλαταιίδος ἐν τῶ Κιθαιρῶνι ὀλίγον τῆς εὐθείας ἐκτραπεῖσιν ἐς δεξιὰν Ὑσιῶν καὶ Ἐρυθρῶν ἐρείπιά ἐστι; and further on (ix. 2, 2), he says, referring to the road of which he is speaking: αὕτη μὲν (i.e. ὅδος) ἀπ’ Ἐλευθερῶν ἐς Πλάταιαν ἄγει. The road referred to is of course the Athens-Platæa road, on which he is travelling towards Platæa. Can any one suppose that Pausanias would have used the expression quoted, especially the word ὀλίγον, had the ruins of Erythræ, as Leake conjectured, lain some three and a half miles away from the nearest point of this road, and hidden from it, moreover, by the great projecting bastion of Kithæron, which is shown at the south-east corner of the accompanying map?

Leake quotes Thucydides (iii. 24), who says that the two hundred and twelve fugitives from Platæa first took the Thebes road in order to put their pursuers off the scent, and then turning, ᾔεσαν τὴν πρὸς τὸ ὄρος φέρουσαν ὁδόν ἐς Ἐρύθρας καὶ Ὑσιάς, καὶ λαβόμενοι τῶν ὀρῶν διαφεύγουσιν ἐς τὰς Ἀθήνας. Meanwhile the pursuers were searching the road along the ὐπωρέη. This last road would lead the pursuers near the site where I conjecture Hysiæ to have stood, and the objection may be raised that it is unlikely that the fugitives would have gone to a place close to the road along which they could see the pursuers were searching for them. It is, however, to be remarked that Thucydides does not say that they went to either Erythræ or Hysiæ. Had he intended to imply this he would have mentioned those places in their proper order, Hysiæ first and Erythræ second. Whenever he refers to the actual course taken by a body of men, or by a fleet, he invariably mentions the places touched at or arrived at in their geographical order. Vide Th. ii. 48, 1; ii. 56, 5; ii. 69, 1; iv. 5, 2; vii. 2, 2; vii. 31, 2.

The passage seems perfectly comprehensible and in accord with the hypothesis which I put forward with respect to the positions of Hysiæ and Erythræ. These fugitives, turning from the Platæa-Thebes road, took the track which in modern times leads from Pyrgos to Kriekouki, and which in ancient times would be the road from Thespiæ to Hysiæ, Erythræ, and the passes. They did not go to but towards those places, making in reality for those high rugged bastions to the north-east of the pass of Dryoskephalæ.

But, after all, Pausanias’ words in the passage quoted dispose effectively of Colonel Leake’s site. He would not have described a place twenty-five stades away from the road as a short distance to the right of it.

(5) Herodotus (ix. 15) speaks of the Persian camp as ἀρξάμενον ἀπὸ Ἐρυθρέων παρὰ Ὑσιάς, κατέτεινε δὲ ἐς τὴν Πλαταίιδα γῆν. These words merely show that Erythræ was east of Hysiæ.

(6) Perhaps one of the strongest pieces of evidence is Herodotus’ statement that the first Greek position was “at Erythræ.” Is it conceivable that the Greek force, especially in its then state of feeling with regard to the Persians, would be likely, after issuing from the pass of Dryoskephalæ, to turn east along Kithæron, leave the pass open, and take up a position with their backs to a part of the range through which there was no passage of retreat?

(7) We are told later that their reason for moving to their second position was the question of water-supply. This accords with the present state of the locality about the traditional Erythræ. The streams in that neighbourhood have but little water in them in the dry season.

(8) The ground in this neighbourhood accords peculiarly with the description given by Herodotus of the first engagement.

[196] Marked ridges 1, 2, 3, 4, in the map.

[197] These positions will be found marked upon the accompanying map. It is necessary, however, to explain the evidence on which they are determined.

[198] The details of the contingents given by Herodotus are:⁠—

Lacedæmonians—
Spartans	5000
Periœki	5000
Helots	35,000
Tegeans	1500
Corinthians	5000
Potidæans	300
Orchomenians (Arcadia)	600
Sikyonians	3000
Epidaurians	800
Trœzenians	1000
Lepreans	200
Mykenæans and Tirynthians	400
Phliasians	1000
Hermionians	300
Eretrians and Styreans	600
Chalkidians	400
Ambrakiots	500
Leukadians and Anaktorians	800
Paleans from Kephallenia	200
Æginetans	500
Megareans	3000
Platæans	600
Athenians	8000
Miscellaneous light-armed troops	34,500
Total	108,200

[199] I.e. A 1. In the days before scientific survey there was frequently the utmost confusion with regard to the application of names to the head streams of main rivers. This generally took the form of applying the name of the main stream to several of its feeders. The tendency of the local population was to apply the well-known name to that upper tributary which was in their immediate neighbourhood, and was therefore best known to them. Examples of this are frequent in England; the upper waters of the Thames are a case in point. In early sketch maps it will be found that the name Thames is applied with the utmost diversity to the head streams of the river, and even a tributary so far down as the Evenlode is sometimes given the name of the main river. This is, I fancy, what has taken place with regard to the Asopos. The Platæans, with whom Herodotus must have come in contact in the course of his visit to the region, called this stream, A 1, by the name of the main river, and consequently “Asopos” in Herodotus is to be understood to mean this stream up to its junction with the stream which comes from the west, rising not far from Leuktra, and, after that, to refer to what is really the main river. From Platæa itself the course of this stream is plainly traceable in the plain, running along the western base of the Asopos ridge. The stream coming from Leuktra is not visible, and it is quite conceivable that Herodotus never had any definite knowledge of its existence. In Leake’s time (vide his sketch map) the inhabitants of Kriekouki seem to have called the stream, A 6, Asopos. It is not so called at the present day. My own impression is, however, that Herodotus, although he heard the Platæans speak of A 1 as the Asopos, may in one passage refer to the stream from Leuktra with a special attribute: τὸν Ἀσωπὸν τὸν ταύτῃ ῥέοντα (H. ix. 31). A sentence previously, at the end of Chapter 30, he has a reference to the Asopos without any qualification, οὗτοι μὲν νὺν ταχθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ Ἀσωπῷ ἐστρατοπεδἐυοντο, and this reference is undoubtedly to A 1, which is to him, as other references in his narrative show, the upper Asopos “ordinarily so called.”

[200] H. ix. 31, ad init., πυθόμενοι τοὺς Ἕλληνας εἶναι ἐν Πλαταιῇσι.

[201] Cf. especially the mention of the Asopos and its context in Chapter 40.

[202] It will be remarked that Artabazos’ statement on this point is in direct conflict with that reported by Herodotus to have been made at the same time by Alexander of Macedon to the Greeks.

[203] It appears later (Chap. 46, ad init.) that it was to the Athenian generals alone that Alexander’s story was in the first instance imparted. That tends to confirm, what the lie of the ground would suggest, that the Greek left was nearer the Asopos than the right wing.

[204] This is one of the most important passages in Herodotus’ description of the battle. It indicates more clearly than has been hitherto indicated, the position of the Greeks in their second position.

In the first place, if we remember that the Lacedæmonians were on the Greek right, it will be seen that it forms a very strong argument in favour of the identification of Gargaphia which has been adopted. Had it been at Apotripi it would certainly have been near the Greek centre. It also shows the obliquity of the Greek line with respect to the course of the Asopos; in other words, that it was, as might be expected, extended along the Asopos ridge.

[205] This is shown still more clearly in the account of the withdrawal from this position.

[206] The three developments of the Greek second position may be summed up as follows:⁠—

1. The Greek right was near the spring of Gargaphia, not on the Asopos ridge, while the left was near the Heroön of Androkrates.

2. After a forward movement of the whole line, the right took up position on the Asopos ridge, while the line extended along the course of that ridge, until the left was actually on the Asopos.

3. The left, when its position on the plain became untenable, took to the higher ground of the north extension of the Asopos ridge.

[207] It would seem as if this determination were not come to at the morning council. Their idea at that time appears to have been to move during the night, in case the enemy did not renew their attack. As the attack was renewed, the movement was deferred until the following night.

[208] The members of the American school at Athens who excavated parts of the site of Platæa some years ago were inclined to believe that at the time of the battle the town stood on the higher or southern end of the bastion which is now strewn with the traces of the successive towns which have occupied the site; and that it did not extend northward to the point where the bastion sinks more or less abruptly into the plain. They also believed that they discovered the foundations of the temple of Hera on this north extension of the bastion. I am disposed to think that their conjecture as to the position of the contemporary town is correct, though the question is not of sufficient importance with respect to this particular passage in Greek history to render it desirable or necessary to quote the mass of evidence on which the opinion is founded. The position of the temple of Hera as determined by them agrees with the brief mention of it in this passage of Herodotus.

[209] Herodotus, in words already quoted, says that it was the intention of the Greeks, on moving to the “Island,” to detach a part of the army to relieve the attendants who were blocked in the pass. This is certainly the Dryoskephalæ or the Platæa-Athens pass, probably the latter, which they were attempting to use as an alternative way, after the fearful disaster which had befallen the former provision train in the exit of the Dryoskephalæ pass. Herodotus shows, too, that this relief was urgently required, since the Greek army was running short of provisions; for, although the Platæa-Megara pass must have been open, it is of such a character as to render it impossible that the commissariat for a force of 100,000 men could be adequately maintained through its channel. It is therefore in the very highest degree probable that an attempt, at any rate, was made to carry out this part of the arrangement between the generals. Now, the Spartan force on the right of the Greek line would be, in so far as position was concerned, that portion of the Greek army on which this duty would naturally devolve. The mission of this force for the relief of the pass was one of extreme danger and difficulty, and it would be natural that the service should devolve on that part of the army which enjoyed the highest military reputation. It was, I venture to think, while carrying out this movement that the Spartans became involved in that series of events which led to the last catastrophe in the great tragedy.

[210] Thucydides (i. 20) denies that such a division or regiment existed in the Spartan army.

[211] Even in the Spartan army indiscipline was apt to make its appearance without the existence of such a substantial motive as in the present instance. Cf. the insubordination of the Spartan officers at the battle of Mantinea in 418 B.C. (Thuc. v. 72).

[212] That they never reached the rocky ὑπωρέη is plain from the incidents of the battle that followed.

[213] Of A 4 and A 5.

[214] The ὑπωρέη of Herodotus.

[215] Cf. the tale H. ix. 58.

[216] Δρόμῳ διαβάντας τὸν Ἀσωπὸν (H. ix. 59).

[217] It will be seen, when the details of the Athenian retreat come to be examined, how noticeably this detail accords with the account which Herodotus gives of that retreat.

[218] Some modern commentators have regarded this detail mentioned by Herodotus as a convincing proof of the Athenian bias in his narrative. To me it seems eminently natural, after the experience of the previous days, that Pausanias or any other commander should have summoned help under the circumstances. I shall, moreover, have occasion to show that the Athenians did undoubtedly diverge from their march to the Island in the direction in which the Spartan battle with the Persians took place.

[219] It is clear from Herodotus’ subsequent account of the proceedings of the Greek centre that this battle took place out of sight of that part of the army which had retired to Platæa.

[220] H. ix. 62: Ἤδη ἐγίνετο ἡ μάχη ἰσχυρὴ παρ’ αὐτὸ τὸ Δημήτριον.

[221] This incidental detail mentioned by Herodotus peculiarly supports the view that the temple must have stood on the site of the church of St. Demetrion.

[222] This is clearly shown in Herodotus’ narrative. He distinctly speaks of the Athenians as having at the beginning of the movement “turned down towards the plain” (H. ix. 56, κάτω τραφθέντες ἐς τὸ πεδίον); and in a still more remarkable passage he says that, when Mardonius led his Persians across the Asopos in pursuit of the Greeks, “he did not see the Athenians, who had turned down towards the plain, by reason of the (intervening) hills” (H. ix. 59). The hills mentioned are evidently the northern extension of the Asopos ridge.

[223] A 1 in the map.

[224] Ridge 5.

[225] Thus far διὰ τῆς ὑπωρέης (H. ix. 69).

[226] I.e. ridges 3 and 2; cf. H. ix. 69, διὰ ... τῶν κολωνῶν.

[227] Ridge 5.

[228] I confess I cannot understand the argument of those who regard Herodotus’ account of Platæa as being tainted throughout with a lying Athenian tradition. In so far as the narrative provides evidence of its source or sources, there is at least as much matter in it which may be attributed to Spartan as to Athenian origin.

[229] The Asopos ridge, the Long ridge, and the Plateau.

[230] The treatment meted out to the Æginetans in the narrative of Platæa, as contrasted with the account which Herodotus gives of their conduct at Salamis, points to the very various character of the sources from which he drew his history. This part of the Platæan narrative is undoubtedly drawn from a tradition highly coloured by the relations which existed between Athens and Ægina twenty years after Platæa was fought.

[231] Xen. Anab. iii. 2, 27. The striking words are μὴ τὰ ζεύγη ἡμῶν στρατηγῇ.

[232] I have had occasion to speak of the Thermopylæ narrative under various aspects in relation to the sources from which it is derived.

To prevent any misconception, I should like to sum up briefly my conclusions.

(1) The whole “motivation” of the story is derived from a version of official origin at Sparta.

(2) The incidents of the actual fighting may be derived partly from a Spartan source, probably of an unofficial character. The description of some of them, however, rests on information picked up by Herodotus at Thermopylæ itself from natives of the region.

[233] For these two points cf. H. vii. 152.