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.
On the other hand, there existed a party in the Council, composed,
it may well be imagined, almost wholly, if not exclusively, of the
representatives of Athens on that body, who insisted on the necessity
of adopting some stronger line, and one sufficiently far north to
save the Northern States from compulsory medism. The advocates of
this Northern policy made up for the smallness of their numbers
by their vigour and intelligence; but the decisive factor in the
situation was the Athenian fleet. The selfish Corinthian trader and
the ignorant Peloponnesian farmer were, from sheer inexperience and
want of knowledge, utterly impervious to any argument founded on even
the most elementary strategic considerations, and do not even appear
to have fully recognized what the withdrawal of Athens and her fleet
from the defence would have meant to the patriot Greeks. Nothing
within their own meagre military experience could have taught them
the full significance of the dual nature of the Persian attack. #THE
PELOPONNESIAN POLICY.# Warfare as they understood it meant putting
on as much armour as a careful citizen could carry, and meeting a
similarly equipped foe on some piece of level ground, where he was
either ravaging or being ravaged. It was fortunate for the
Greek cause and for the advocates of the Northern policy that the
preponderant state in the Peloponnese consisted of a body of soldiers.
Stupid and dull of comprehension as the Spartan was when compared
with the quick-witted Athenian, yet even he must, from the very
circumstances of his life, since he lived for the profession of arms,
have acquired an elementary knowledge of the art of war, sufficient
to render him a capable judge of strategic questions, where the issue
was sufficiently plain. The Spartans were forced at this time into
an unwilling recognition of the fact that without the Athenian fleet
the defence must collapse; and the Athenians for their part made it
perfectly clear that, unless some effort was put forth on behalf of
Greece north of the Isthmus, Athenians and Athenian fleet alike would
vanish from Greece.
The outcome of this contention of interests was the determination to
defend Thermopylæ and Artemisium.
Drawing his history largely from Athenian sources, Herodotus brings
the selfishness of the Peloponnesian policy into special prominence.
Selfish, indeed, it must have seemed to the Greeks north of the
Isthmus, who probably recognized the strikingly defensible character
of the line formed by Œta, notwithstanding that their acquaintance
with the region north of the Bœotian plain seems to have been of an
imperfect character.[115]
But is it so strange that the Peloponnesian Greeks should have
preferred a defensive line which they did know, and in which they
believed, to one of which they had but imperfect knowledge? Some of
them had just been involved in what they must have regarded as a
fiasco,—that expedition to Thessaly.
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