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 circumstances seemed favourable for the establishment of a base
which would immediately threaten the European shore.
Aristagoras had asked for one hundred ships; and, for some reason which
is not satisfactorily accounted for in the story, had offered to defray
the expenses of the expedition.
So thoroughly did Artaphernes approve of the plan that, in order
to ensure its success, he offered to furnish double the number of
ships for which Aristagoras had asked, provided Darius assented to
the proposed expedition. It is evident that the custom, if not the
constitution, of the empire under Darius did not permit even a great
satrap like Artaphernes, who was the king’s own brother, to call out a
force of considerable magnitude without leave from the king himself.
◆H. v. 31.◆ Artaphernes further promised that the ships should be ready
in the coming spring, which shows that Aristagoras’ visit to Sardes
must have been made in the first year of the fifth century, probably in
the winter of 500 B.C.
Aristagoras returned to Miletus elated at his diplomatic success.
A few months must have elapsed ere Artaphernes received a despatch from
Susa approving of his proposal. The assent of Darius is important, as
showing that the king was quite willing to resume his designs on Greece
when fair opportunity offered.
The true tale of what followed is one of the many unsolved riddles of
this period. As told by Herodotus, it runs as follows:—
#FAILURE AT NAXOS.#
Artaphernes prepared a fleet of two hundred triremes, together with
a considerable force of Persians and other allies, and appointed
Megabates, a member of the Achæmenid family, and cousin of Darius,
to the command. This armament he despatched to Miletus to pick up
Aristagoras together with the Ionian contingent and the Naxian exiles.
Thence the expedition sailed to Kaukasa in Chios, with the pretended
object of operating in the Hellespontine district,—a pretence which
would not have been very effective had the operations of Otanes left it
in a wholly satisfactory state of subjection. It was at Kaukasa that
the design of the expedition was fated to be wrecked. Megabates, going
his rounds, found a Myndian vessel without any guards set, and punished
the Greek captain by causing him to be tied with his head through
one of the oar-holes. On this being reported to Aristagoras, he made
protest to Megabates; but as this had no effect, he himself released
the man. A quarrel ensued between the two commanders, the result of
which was that Megabates sent a ship and gave warning to the Naxians
of the coming expedition. The latter prepared in all haste to meet the
danger, and successfully resisted a four months’ siege. The attempt
turned out a complete failure, and Aristagoras found himself in the
position of guarantor of the expenses, without the means of meeting the
guarantee. Such is the tale in Herodotus.
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