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.
The king’s position at this time must have been very critical.
Neither army nor fleet had forced a passage, nor had they been able
to resume touch with one another. They maintained a communication,
no doubt, by the coast road running along the north shore of the
Malian gulf; but the transport of supplies to the army, whether by
that route from the fleet, or from the Thessalian plain by the way of
Thaumaki, must have been a work of such difficulty and magnitude that
it is hardly possible to believe that it could have been adequately
maintained.
The failure to reinforce the garrison at Thermopylæ was the most
disastrous mistake which the Greeks made in the course of the war. Even
with the ridiculously small force which was sent, the defence came very
near being a success. Had an army only half the size of that which
fought at Platæa been there, neither pass nor path could ever have been
forced, and the fleet at Artemisium, or at least the Peloponnesian
section of it, would have fought with a very different spirit to that
which it actually displayed. Their stake at Thermopylæ was too small,
and their stake at the Isthmus too great to render them aught but
vacillating defenders of the channel. Had the stakes been reversed, had
the safety of their compatriots at the pass been largely involved, the
fleet would have been inspired with unanimous courage. And had it been
so, the advance of the Persians, in spite of their superior numbers,
might have been definitely checked. It is not probable, judging from
the results of the fighting which did actually take place, that either
side could have gained a decisive advantage over the other. Though
the Greek fleet suffered severely in the final combat, the Persians
were not successful in forcing the strait; and to them failure in both
strait and pass would have meant failure of the expedition.
◆Thuc. i. 69.◆
Men said in Greece in after time that the Persian was the rock on which
he himself made shipwreck. That expressed but half the truth. It was
true in the sense that the success in the war was not owing to good
management on the part of the Greeks. #THE PATH OF THE ANOPÆA.# It
was not true in the sense that the Persian’s mistakes were the main
factor in his failure. The main factor was conspicuously the
superiority of the Greek weapons in close fighting, a form of combat
which the Persian as the assailant could not avoid. It was a lesson
which the European Greek took long in learning. Aristagoras the Ionian
had pointed it out to Kleomenes when he visited him at Sparta in the
first year of the fifth century. And yet it was not until the early
years of the next century that the Greeks of Europe came to appreciate
to the full the effectiveness of their national panoply as compared
with that of the Persian. The incidents of the strange adventure of
the 10,000 which Xenophon recorded at last convinced them of the real
nature and magnitude of their strength when matched with the great
Empire of the East.
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