Upload
the-gathering
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/9/2019 Balcer, Jack Martin_The Liberation of Ionia. 478 B.C._historia, 46, 3_1997_374-377
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/balcer-jack-martinthe-liberation-of-ionia-478-bchistoria-46-31997374-377 1/5
The Liberation of Ionia: 478 B.C.
Author(s): Jack Martin BalcerSource: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 46, H. 3 (3rd Qtr., 1997), pp. 374-377Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436477 .
Accessed: 22/02/2015 23:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:
Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sun, 22 Feb 2015 23:42:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/9/2019 Balcer, Jack Martin_The Liberation of Ionia. 478 B.C._historia, 46, 3_1997_374-377
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/balcer-jack-martinthe-liberation-of-ionia-478-bchistoria-46-31997374-377 2/5
THELIBERATIONOFIONIA:478 B.C.
The Hellenic
League's
liberation
of Ionia
from Persian
mperialdomination,
after
the
League's
destruction
of the Persian
naval
fleet at Mykale
(late September-early
October
479
B.C.), has
remained
problematic
n
modern
cholarly
studies.Herodotus'
and
Thucydides'
all
too
brief
records
of the
events
in the
two years
following
the affair
at
Mykale
compounds
his
historical
problem,'
and
in that
brevity
rests our inability
to
control
the pertinent
hronology
and
the events thereof.
The crux
of
the issue
at hand
is what did the League's
fleet do
and
whereduring
he
year 478
B.C. The
date
proffered
by
B. D. Meritt,
H. T.
Wade-Gery,
nd
M.
McGregor,
he authors
of
TheAthenian
TributeLists,
volume 3, for the League's
entry
into
Byzantionas June478 B.C. remainssuspect.2Thatdate,offeredin 1950, necessitatedduring
the spring
of
478 B.C.
that the Hellenic
League's
fleet
raid
Cyprus,
avoid affairs
on
Rhodes
and
in
Karia,
bypass
Ionia,
and besiege Byzantion
hatJune,
events
that
precluded
no
military
activity
along
the
Ionian
coast
toward
the
liberation
of the
Persian
subjugated
East
Greek
poleis.
Our ancient
records
of the
Greek military
liberation
elsewhere,
in
Thrace,
in
the
Hellespontine
region,
and
in
southern
Karia,unfortunately,
o
not
give
similar
witness
to
the
League's
liberation
of
Ionia.3But
that may
be the
nature
of our extant
sources,
and
not
reflective
of historical
reality.
In
1968,
G.
Cawkwell
published
in the journal
Arepo
the
suggestion
that the
Persian
military
forces
directed
by
the Great
King
Xerxes abandoned
he Ionian
poleis and,
therefore,
left the Ionian
poleis
to Greek
liberation. 4
ut neither
he ATL
3 nor
Cawkwell's
argument
rests well with the scant ancientevidenceand our presentquestionsaboutthoserecordsand
the
events
in doubt.
The
problem
remains
a critical
issue in
the historical
record
of
Greek-
Persian
events
following
the battle
of
Mykale
and
prior
to the founding
of the
Delian
Confederacy
n the
summer
of 477
B.C.
Recent
study
by
M. Steinbrecher 1985)
has radically
revised
the chronological
rame-
work
offered
by the
authors
of
ATL
3,
and
suggests
the entry
of the League's
fleet
into
Byzantion's
harbor
ate
in the summer
or
early
in the autumn
of 478
B.C.5 This
suggestion
would
place
the
Ionian
rejection
of
the
Spartan
general
Pausanias'
eadership
of
that
fleet
sometime
n
the autumn
of 478
B.C.;
andperhaps
hearrival
of his
Spartan ounterpart
orkis
as
his
replacement
n the
spring
of 477 B.C.
Withthe Ionian
rejection
of both Spartans
and
their ships, the remainingmilitaryforces then turnedto the leadershipof the Athenian
Aristeides.
Rather
han consider only
the
liberated
astern
slands
as
the lonians
supporting
Aristeides,
we
must
accept
the three
ancient
Greekreferences
o
that
rejection
stemmed
rom
mainland
Ionians
as well.6
How
many,
unfortunately,
we cannot
tell. Therefore,perhaps
he
I
Hdt.
9.90.1,
97.1-106.4,
114.1-115;
Thuc.
1.89.1-2,
94.
2
B.
D.
Meritt,
H. T.
Wade-Gery,
M.
F.
McGregor,
The
Athenian
Tribute
Lists,
vol.
3
(Princeton
1950),
175,
191-3.
3
Hdt.
7.106-7;
Thuc.
1.98.2,
94.1,
98.1,
100
2-3,
131.1; Ephoros
FGrHist
70
F191.56-61;
Dem. 23.199;
Diod.
Sic.
11.60.1-2,
4;
Plut.
Cim.
7.1-8.2,
12.1,
12.3-4;
Nepos
Cim.
2.2;
Paus. 8.8.9; Polyaenus 1.34.2, 7.24.
4 G.
L.
Cawkwell,
The
Power
of
Persia,
Arepo
1
(1968),
1-5.
5
M.
Steinbrecher,
Der
delisch-attische
Seebund
und
die
athenisch-spartanischen
ezie-
hungen
in
der
kimonischen
Ara
(Stuttgart
1985),
49.
6
Hdt.
9.106.4;
Thuc. 1.89.2;
Diod.
Sic.
11.37.
1.
Historia,
Band
XLVI/3
(1997)
? Franz Steiner
Verlag
Wiesbaden GmbH,
Sitz
Stuttgart
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sun, 22 Feb 2015 23:42:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/9/2019 Balcer, Jack Martin_The Liberation of Ionia. 478 B.C._historia, 46, 3_1997_374-377
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/balcer-jack-martinthe-liberation-of-ionia-478-bchistoria-46-31997374-377 3/5
Miszellen
375
now
prolongedmilitary
campaignby
the Hellenic
Leagueduring
he summer
ampaignof
478
B.C. witnessed the forces
of
that
League
campaigning,possibly
even
vigorously,
in
Ionia to
liberatethose
East
Greekpoleis.
The argumentof the ATL
3 requires
he
improbable
irst
meeting
of
the allied
ambassa-
dors
of the
newly
founded Delian
Confederacy
o have convened
during
the
blustery
winter
months of
478/7 B.C.
on the
tiny mid-Aegean
sland
of
Delos,
with
personalfunctions and
ambassadorial
rocedures uestionable
during
he turbulent nd
rainy
winter
season. An initial
meeting
from
spring
477
B.C. on
through
hat
summer
becomes
more reasonable.
Therefore,
we can justifiably prolong Pausanias'478
B.C.
expedition
to have
included the mainland
Greek
military
liberation
of
Ionia,
and
also
plausibly suspect
Cawkwell's
suggestion
of
Persian
abandonment
f
the
lonians, for,
as
we
shall
see,
not
all of
the Ioniancoast
sustained
liberation.
For theGreeks o attackCyprus n478 B.C.wasa majordecision,absolutely undamental
to the goal of
gaining PersianheldByzantionand
the
Bosporos.
The
attack,however,was not
to
seize and control
Cyprus
but
to
destroy
the
remnants f the Persian
RoyalNavy stationed
there and to
prevent
the
return
of
other
Persiannaval
forces
into
the
Aegean. While
Cyprus
remained
irmly
under
Persian
control,
the attacksdid eliminatea
Persiannaval
counterforce
into
the
Aegean
for
more
than
a
decade.7 The
expedition was
decisive, after
which
the
League's fleet returned o the
Aegean
and
sailed
on to
Byzantion,
a
key Persian
garrisonport,
besieged
that
polis
and
took
it, perhaps
during
the autumn
or
winter of
478/7 B.C.8 Persian
control
of
Byzantion
had
never
been
secure,
and
the
Byzantines
may
have
facilitated
he
Greek
siege.
As Pausanias' leet
sailed
fromCyprus
o
Byzantion, here s verylittleancientevidence
to
suggest
Greek
attacks
upon
the Persians
stationed
n the
Ionian
poleis.
Scholars,therefore,
have
offered
a
variety
of
explanations:
no
League liberation,
Persian
abandonment,
and
Leagueliberation
ither
partial
or
total.
For the
authorsof ATL3 the
fleet's
passage provided
nothing
more
than
a
quick
nominal
and
token
gesture
o
the
Ionians
of
mainlandGreek
nterest
in that
area.
For
Cawkwell, he stark
ack
of evidence led
him
to
consider
he
thesis
thatXerxes
had
directedmost of his
Persian orces
to
withdraw.
t
would
be, therefore,
not a
question of
Greek liberation
of
the East
Greeks
but
of the
East Greeks
mmediately eeking
alliance with
the
militarily
offensive
League
for their
personalprotection.
Their
issue
was
not
freedom
but
the practicalquestion
of
rebuilding
nternal
tability
after
the
turmoilof
Persian
withdrawal,
thus
by
necessity
most
East
Greekswould
have
sought alliance
with
the
League.10
Unfortunately,we do not knowtheexactmembership f the DelianConfederacyduring
its early years.
Turning
o
later years,
however,
in the
incompleterecordsof
the Athenian
7
Diod Sic.
11.44.2, 11.60.5; Plut. Kim.
12.5;
T.
Petit, Pr6sence
et
influence perses
A
Chypre, AchaemenidHistoryVI
(Leiden 1991), 161-178.
8
Hdt.5.25-8, 6.33;
SimonidesF89;
Thuc.1.94.2;Diod Sic.
1
1.44.2-3; Nepos Paus. 2.1-2;
Paus.
3.4.9; Plut.
Kim.
6.3;
W. T.
Loomis,
Pausanias,Byzantion
and
the
Formation
of
the Delian
League.
A
Chronological
Note,
Historia
39 (1990), 487-92.
9
J. M.
Balcer, Byzantium,
n
E.
Yarshatar ed.), Encyclopaedia
ranica, vol.
4,
fasc. 6
(London
1990), 599-600.
10 Ioniais absent nThuc. 1.98-9andDiod Sic. 11.44.2-3;J.M.Balcer, Spardaby the Bitter
Sea
(Chico, Calif. 1984) 330-4; J.
M. Balcer, The East Greeks
underPersian
Rule: A
Reassessment, Achaemenid
History VI, 557-65; M. Corsaro,
Gli
loni
tra
Greci e
Persiani:
l
problema
dell'identitA onica nell
dibattitoculturalee
politico
del
V
secolo,
Achaemenid
History VI, 41-55.
11
ATL3.199-204
suggested wenty-five
poleis: Assos, Astyra,
Alaia,
Dios
Hieron,Ephesos,
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sun, 22 Feb 2015 23:42:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/9/2019 Balcer, Jack Martin_The Liberation of Ionia. 478 B.C._historia, 46, 3_1997_374-377
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/balcer-jack-martinthe-liberation-of-ionia-478-bchistoria-46-31997374-377 4/5
376
Miszellen
tribute ists
for 453 B.C. and thereafter,highly
suspect for their many lacunae,
we note the
absence of
Ionian
poleis
at the mouthsof the
majoreast-west
rivers n Anatolia,which flow
into the East
Greek
Ionian
region. This strongly
suggeststhat settlements
at those riverine
deltas were not liberated,
Greek ruled, or
membersof the Delian Confederacy,
but remained
underPersiancontrol.
The Hermosvalley and ts small village
of Smyrna ormed
an important
coastal zone
and
outlet
for
the overlandroute
from Sardisto Smyrnaand the
coast. This area
the Persians
diligently attempted o retain.
They similarly controlled the
rural regions
of
Myous, east of Miletos.
In
losing Ephesos,
however, the Persians no longer
controlled the
terminus
of the Royal Road
from Sardis o thatreligious center.
Yet to the north, he Persians
still claimed
the rural ections of Myrinaand
Gryneion.North
of Atarneus,n the coastal and
valley regionsof the Kaikos
River, the exiled SpartanBasileus
Damaratos
held the townsof
Pergamum,
Teuthrania,
nd
Halisarna
or his sovereign Xerxes
who
had
grantedhim those
urbancenters shortlybeforethe PersianexpeditionagainstAthensin 480 B.C.'2Nearby, the
Eretrian
Gongylos,
also
in
exile,
held
the
centers
of
Gambreion nd
Palaigambreion
s
well
as
ruralregions
of Myrina
and
Gryneion.I3
The
head
of
the
Gulf
of
Adramyttion
may also have
remainedsecure under
Persian control
and bound to
the
Persian satrapal
system
of
strong
vassalage holdings
similar
to those
of
Damaratos
nd Gongylos.
This
zone,
often
considered
partof Lesbos'
mainlanderritories,
emained
he
important
orthernittoral
or
the
satrapy
of
Sparda
centered
in Sardis.
In
the
Troad,
the rural
regions
of Perkote and
Lampsakos
also
continued
under Persian
control,
and the
regions
of the
Propontic
coast east
of
Kyzikos
remainedunder
he
satrapal
ontrolof
Daskyleion, ust
south of
Kyzikos.'4
The
Persians,
therefore,
had
not
entirely
abandoned
heir control of
Sparda'scoast,
but
retained garrisonsin several key regions that could be substantiallygoverned duringthis
turbulent
period.
The
areas where
the
governments
of Sardis
and
Daskyleion
maintained
military
and
political control,successfully
during
he second
quarter
f the fifth
century
B.C.,
were the
major east-west
river
valleys
and
their
coastal outlets into
the
Aegean
Sea:
the
Maeander
valley
from
Magnesia
and
the
rural
regions
of
Myous,
the Hermos
valley
and the
villages of
Nymphaion
and
Smyrna,
he Kaikos
valley
and
its
coastal
rural
regions
of
Myrina
and
Gryneion
from the
up
river
centers of
Pergamum,
Teuthrania,
nd
Halisarna,
and
the
terminus
of
the
inland
route
from
Sardis o
Adramyttion
t the head
of its
gulf.
The
geographical
structureof
the
strategically important
river
valleys
that
traversed
Sparda
rom
its core
westward o the
Aegean provided
natural
and
military
viable routes
for
continued
Persian
control
as did
the network
of inland routes
from
Sardis and
Daskyleion.
Daskyleion's attempt o retaincontrolof the ruralregionsof PerkoteandLampsakosacross
the
rugged
mountains
of
Mysia
and
the
Troad,
however,
did
present problems, yet
she
maintained hat
connection.
In the
mid-century,
Persian
presence
in
the
Troad
ust beyond
Sigeion persisted
as
a
major
problem
or that East Greek
polis.15
The
major
oss suffered
by
Erythrai
including
he foursubordinate
mainland
komai
nher
syntely),
Gargara,
Grynei-
on,
Hairai,
Isinda,
Klazomenai,
Kolophon,
Kyme, Lamponeia,
Lebedos,
Maiandros,
Marathesion,
Miletos,
Myous,
Notion, Phokaia,
Pitane,
Priene,
Pygela,
and
Teos.
12
Xen.
Anab.
2.1-3,
7.8.17,
Hell.
3.1.6;
Plut. Them.
29.7;
Paus.
3.7.7;
Athen.
Deip. 1.29;
J.
Hofstetter,
Die
Griechen
n Persien
(Berlin
1979),
45-6.
13
Thuc.
1.128.6;
Xen.
Hell.
3.1.6; Diod.
Sic.
11.44.3;
Nepos
Paus.
2.2; Hofstetter,
Die
Griechen
n Persien
(cit.
n.
12),
70-1.
14 Thuc.
1. 138.5;
Xen.
Hell.
2.16;
Plut.
Them.
29.1
1;
Athen.
Deip.
1.29;
Schol.
Ar.
Eq.
84;
ATL
3.196;
J.
M.
Balcer,
FifthCentury
B.C. Ionia:
A Frontier
Redefined,
Revue
des
ttudes
anciennes
87
(1985),
31-42.
15
IG
I3
17;SEG
X 13.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sun, 22 Feb 2015 23:42:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/9/2019 Balcer, Jack Martin_The Liberation of Ionia. 478 B.C._historia, 46, 3_1997_374-377
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/balcer-jack-martinthe-liberation-of-ionia-478-bchistoria-46-31997374-377 5/5
Miszellen
377
the
Persians due to the Greek liberationof the littoral
regions, however, was the Thracian
Chersonesealong
the
westernshoreof
the
Hellespont
andthe
key garrison
of
Byzantionon the
Bosporos.Perhaps nly
at
Alopekonnesos
on the
western
coast of the
Thracian
Chersonese
did
Persian
forces hold
out.16
This
implies,
within this
argument,
that the Persian
Empire
retained
control
of the
riverinedeltas into
the eastern
Aegean
region
and
that he Delian
ConfederatedGreeks
had not
liberated
he
entire
easterncoast
in the
470s or even
later.Persian
control
of
the urban
enters
(aste) of Ionian
Erythrai,'7
and
Miletos,
c.454
B.C.,18
demonstrably
llustrates
continued
Persian nterference
n
Ionianaffairs
well into
the mid-fifth
century
B.C.
The
Ohio State University,Columbus Jack
Martin
Balcer
16 ATL3.205-6.
17
IG
I3.
14; revised text by H. Englemann
nd R.
Merkelbach,
Die
Inschriften on Erythrai
und KlazomenaiI (Bonn 1972),
38-47; ATL 1.446-7, 484; R. Meiggs, The Athenian
Empire
Oxford 1972), 112-5, 421-2.
18 ATL
1.328, 346;
IG I3.
21;
[Xen.]
Ath.
Pol. 3.11; Meiggs, Athenian
Empire(cit. n. 17),
1
15-6;
B.D.
Meritt,
The
Tribute
Quota
List
of
454/3
B.C., Hesperia
41
(1972), 406-10;
H.-J.
Gehrke,
ZurGeschichteMilets
in
der
Mitte des
5.
Jahrhunderts
.
Chr., Historia
29
(1980), 17-31;
J. M.
Balcer, Miletos (IG
12. 22
[I3.
21])
and the
Structuresof
Alliances, in
W.
Schuller (ed.),
Studien zum
attischen
Seebund:Xenia, Konstanzer
althistorische
Vortrage
und
Forschungen Konstanz1984),
11-30.
C. ALFIUS
FLAVUS
Alfius' shows up
in
few ancient
sources,
but those few
have
not been
fully
or
properly
understood.
His unsuccessfulpraetorian
andidacyhas beenwronglydated;once we
unlearn
that untruth,
we can establish a lower terminus
or his date of birthand for his
quaestorship.
Early in 562
Cicero spoke
publicly aboutthe reactionof Caesar o
a recentelection:
C. Caesarem.-dixisse
C.
Alfium praeteritum
permoleste tulisse, quod
in
homine
summam
fidem probitatemque cognosset, graviterque etiam se ferre praetorem aliquem esse
factum qui a suis
rationibus dissensisset (Vat. 38).3
I
His cursus now reads: Tr.P1.59,
Quaesitor perhapsPr.) de maiestate,and de
sodaliciis,
54 (MRR
2.529).
2 The trialof
Sestius ended on 14
March:
Cic. Q.fr. 2.4.1.
3 The context of
this passagemakes
t clear
that t was
the
praetorship
or
which Alfius was
6passedver. Although it is not
necessary
to
cite
the Bobbio scholium (p. 124 Hilde-
brandt)
on this
passage
to
prove
the
point,
it is
perhaps
worth
drawingattention
o
this
more explicit testimonium, since
it
was
not cited
by Broughton
n
his collection of
candidates: et hic tr. pi. actiones C. Caesaris consulis contra M. Bibulum obnixe adiuve-
rat; qui repulsam meruit
in
praeturae
petitione. Broughton also
failed
to
cite Cic.
Sest.
114, and thoughAlfius is not
explicitly namedhere,
the context
ensures
that he and
his
repulsa are
under discussion: non tenuit eum locum in
quem, nisi popularis esse voluisset,
facillime pervenisset(cf.Schol. Bob.
p.
98
Hildebrandt).
Historia,BandXLVV3 1997)
C)FranzSteinerVerlagWiesbadenGmbH,Sitz Stuttgart
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sun, 22 Feb 2015 23:42:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions