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.
Of the three main authorities for the incidents of this time, it is
Herodotus who gives the message of Themistocles in its fullest form.
His account is that, on finding the majority in the last Council of War
against him, Themistocles went quietly away and despatched a message to
Xerxes.[159] Sikinnos was the name of the messenger, so he says—a slave
of Themistocles, and tutor to his son.[160] Æschylus merely says that
he was a Greek, and Diodorus does not mention his name or quality.
It is interesting to note the terms of the message. It represents
the sender as being desirous for the success of the Persians. It
then proceeds to give two reasons why the king should attack
immediately: (1) because otherwise the Greek fleet would disperse;
(2) because, in case of the Persian attack, a section of the fleet
whose views coincided with those of the sender would attack the other.
◆Diod xi. 17.◆ Diodorus gives a brief account of the matter, and only
mentions the first of the two reasons.
The terms of the message must not be taken to indicate the motives
of the sender, other than his desire to induce the Persian to attack
without delay.
A very little consideration will show that the reasons urged in it
are not necessarily, either in whole or in part, identical with those
private motives which led to its being sent. Still, no Greek who knew
his countrymen at that time could have much doubt that the Persian
authorities would be kept fairly well informed of the main currents of
feeling in the Greek fleet. They must, for example, have been perfectly
well aware of the dissensions with regard to the place at which the
invasion should be resisted; and this knowledge alone would render
Xerxes and his advisers liable to credit the plausible but exaggerated
statement with reference to the length to which those dissensions had
gone. It is purely an accident that the first reason stated in the
message conveyed little more than the truth. Two dangers threatened
the strategy which had kept the fleet at Salamis: (1) the secession of
the Peloponnesian contingent; (2) the advance of the Persian fleet, or
even of a part of it, to the Isthmus, without risking an engagement
in the narrows. There is absolutely no reason why it should not have
gone there as a whole. The Greek fleet could not have remained at
Salamis had it done so, and would have been forced to fight at a
comparative disadvantage in the open. The ultimate result might not
have been different; but it would have been infinitely more uncertain.
Both strategical dangers were avoided, if only the Persians could be
persuaded to fight; and the long-headed Athenian had wit enough to
hold out to Xerxes the two inducements which would have most weight
with him,—the prospect of the capture of the Greek fleet, and the
desirability of striking while the dissension in it was at its height.
#PERSIAN MOVEMENT TO THE STRAIT.#
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