The great Persian War and its preliminaries : $b A study of the evidence, literary and topographicalGrundy, G. B. (George Beardoe)
History
The great Persian War and its preliminaries : $b A study of the evidence, literary and topographical
Grundy, G. B. (George Beardoe)
Greece -- History -- Persian Wars, 500-449 B.C.
He also mentions the important negative fact that he could not find
any tomb or mound marking the burial-place of the Medes.
The soros, in its present state, is an earthen mound with rather steep
sides, between twenty and thirty feet high. The fact of its being a
tomb has been proved by recent excavation.
Why the Persians landed at Marathon has always been a matter of
dispute. The reason given by Herodotus, namely its suitability for
cavalry, is not convincing, because the plain of Athens itself, not to
speak of the Thriasian plain, is more suitable for cavalry operations.
Moreover, the Persians made no use of this arm during the battle.
The plan of the Persian campaign, as far as Athens was concerned, was
based on calculations dependent on circumstances other than purely
military, to which it is necessary to turn, in order to account for the
adoption of a design for which no adequate reason of a purely strategic
nature can be suggested.
Very little is known of the history of the internal politics at Athens
during the decade between 500 and 490 B.C. In the previous decade there
had been a fierce struggle between the aristocratic and democratic
parties under Isagoras and Kleisthenes respectively, which, after
several turns of fortune, had apparently ended in the victory of the
democrats. But in spite of the absence of direct reference to this
special side of history in the records of the first ten years of the
fifth century, certain well-attested incidents show that the struggle
for supremacy between the parties had not been decided before the new
century began.
Greek cities were rarely free from intrigue; and it would seem to have
been unusually rife in the Athens of 490. It has already been pointed
out that in a version of the tale of Marathon current in Herodotus’
own time the Alkmæonidæ were accused of having been in league with
the Persian. Herodotus’ defence of them, by its manifest weakness, is
strong evidence against them. They were conspicuous for their hatred of
tyranny, he says. They had driven out Hippias. He might have added that
they had also driven out Peisistratos, but had been instrumental in
restoring him.
He ignores their relations with Peisistratos, not to say anything of
those with Kleisthenes of Sikyon. He forgets for the moment that they
had been in the pay of a Lydian king.
[Illustration: BATTLE OF MARATHON
London: John Murray, Albemarle St.
_Stanford’s Geog^l. Estab^t. London._
]
#POLITICAL PARTIES AT ATHENS.#
The charge made with regard to their conduct at this time was that
they signalled to the Persian fleet at Marathon by means of a shield,
that Athens, in the absence of the Athenian army, lay open, and that a
party within the city would admit the invaders.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account