Thermopylae (5 page)

The Achaemenid Empire had been founded by the elder Cyrus in 5 50 B.C. and there is a strong case to be made out for the theory that the whole of ancient history (which determined the history of Europe) sprang from the conflict between Persian (Iranian) culture and that of the Greco-Roman world. Although there can be no doubt that Greek culture was infinitely superior in many respects to that of Persia, it is only from the Greek Herodotus that we gain any real idea about the Persian Empire, the Persians themselves leaving only the self-aggrandising monuments of monarchs. The Persian contribution in the political and administrative sphere can never be dismissed. The fact is that the Greeks, from whom we have our only over-all picture of the time, did not understand the nature of this contribution. Xerxes, as we have seen, was merely regarded as an overbearing autocrat - instead of a thoughtful and far-planning ruler intent on building an empire that would embrace Europe as well as the East. It was enough for the Greeks to refer to the Persians and ‘the Medes’ (a generic term used to encompass both strains of the Iranian race) as ‘barbarians’ - people who go ‘bar-bar-bar’ and do not speak Greek.

The Medes had appeared on the scene of world history in 612 B.C. when Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian Empire, had fallen before a combined attack of Medes and Chaldeans. For centuries the Assyrians had dominated the Near East with their formidable war-machine. Now, out of the powers which rushed in to fill the vacuum caused by the collapse of Assyria, it was the empire of the Medes that was to prove the most enduring. It reached its limit in Anatolia, where it came into conflict with the Kingdom of Lydia. A line was temporarily drawn, but the Iranians had advanced sufficiently far into Asia Minor for it to be only just a matter of time before they came into contact - and conflict - with the Greeks who were established in that area which was known from the language and race of its settlers as Ionia.

This was to occur in the sixth century B.C. when Cyrus, the son of a Persian vassal-king and a Median princess of the ruling house, raised the standard of revolt against the hegemony of the Medes. Cyrus, whom the Athenian Xenophon was to extol some years later as the model of what a ruler should be, was not content with the stagnation that had fallen over the Medes under its recent ruler, and determined to advance the existing Iranian empire even further. Following his Median predecessor into the Kingdom of Lydia, Cyrus defeated the Lydian King Croesus and took him prisoner in 547 B.C. The importance of this Lydian defeat was soon felt by the Greeks in Asia Minor and throughout the Aegean for, both as subjects and supporters of the Lydian king, they had long maintained friendly relationships with his empire. Their influence was paramount throughout Lydia and their cultural supremacy had long been recognised and appreciated. The relationship had not been all one-sided, for the Greeks had been swift to adopt the Lydian invention of coinage, and, as merchants and sea-farers, had been quick to see how this transformed the whole economy of the Mediterranean.

Cyrus for his part was well familiar with the Greeks and with their presence in Ionia and was also aware that the Greeks were formidable warriors, even if politically divided. His first diplomatic attempts to win Greek support without recourse to arms failed signally, with the exception of the powerful city of Miletus at the end of the Meander valley which came out in support of the Persian monarch. The other Greeks, dismayed at the situation in which they found themselves, decided to appeal to Sparta as the strongest military power on the Greek mainland. The Spartans were not to be drawn into supporting the Ionian Greeks but nevertheless sent envoys to visit Ionia, and also to pay an unexpected call on Cyrus at Sardis. Clearly they were interested to discover the strength and the intentions of this formidable new Persian ruler. In view of what was to happen in subsequent years in the conflict between Persian and Greek, the first reaction of the great Cyrus to the presence of these envoys in his court is not without an ironical twist:
‘
Who are the Spartans?’ he asked some other Greeks who were present.

At this moment in his career, Cyrus was more concerned with Babylon and other countries, including Egypt, which he intended to bring under Persian rule, and he left the affairs of Lydia and Ionia in the hands of a governor and tax-gatherers. It was only a short time before a revolt was raised against the Persians which ended with the imposition of a military occupation force, the colonisation of the area, and the swift realisation by the Greeks that, while they had managed happily enough under Lydian kings, the dominion of Persia was another thing altogether. The inhabitants of one Greek city, Phocaea, emigrated to Corsica rather than submit, but the majority adopted the classic strategy of retiring within the walls of their towns. Unfortunately for them the siege-engines and firepower of the Persian archers brought up against them by their commander Harpalus proved too formidable for the Ionians’ defences. One by one over a brief period the Greeks were forced to accept the rule of Persia. In all of this it cannot be said that the famous oracle at Delphi encouraged Greek resistance. Submission to the inevitable was the advice given. Persian gold may well have had some honeyed effect upon the oracle’s tongue.

The conquest of Lydia, which had confirmed the power of Persia was but the beginning. Within eight years Cyrus had carried all before him, even as far as the borders of India, and he was now ready for his major thrust - against Babylon. In October 539 the empire of Babylon and all its adjacent lands acknowledged Cyrus, king of the Medes and Persians, as ‘King of the world, great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four rims [of the world]’. His immediate policy of religious tolerance towards the former subjects of Babylonia meant that Syria and Phoenicia readily paid him homage, while his popularity with the Jews was assured for all time by his restoration of the Temple of Jerusalem.

The adherence of Phoenicia to the Persian throne also meant that from now on the foremost mariners of antiquity, with all their ships and trading posts throughout the Mediterranean, were available for the expansion of Persian power, far beyond the confines of the homeland. Eight years later Cyrus, one of the world’s rulers who assuredly deserves the term ‘Great’, met his end in battle against the Massagetae on the north-eastern frontier of his empire. Herodotus (and many other intelligent Greeks) always retained a great respect for Cyrus and the characteristically Persian qualities that he embodied. He concludes his account of his life with the story of how one day a rich and influential Persian came as spokesman for the people to the Great King and suggested that, since Persia was now the most powerful country in the world, it would be a good idea if they were to emigrate from their poor and mountainous country and occupy some rich and fertile lowland.

Cyrus did not think much of this suggestion; he replied that they might act upon it if they pleased, but added the warning that, if they did so, they must prepare themselves to rule no longer, but to be ruled by others. ‘Soft countries,’ he said, ‘breed soft men. It is not the property of any one soil to produce fine fruits and good soldiers too.’ The Persians had to admit that this was true and that Cyrus was wiser than they; so they left him, and chose to live in a rugged land and rule rather than to cultivate rich plains and be slaves.

His son Cambyses, having avenged his father’s death, then set about the conquest of Egypt, the last remaining independent and

imperial power in the ancient world. It is significant that the Greeks of Cyprus and of Samos - both considerable naval powers - went over to the side of the Persian king and were willing to ally themselves with their old rivals the Phoenicians in the expansion of empire. The victory over Egypt was assured and, with the death of the last native Pharaoh, Persia was triumphant. Only in Africa, whither the ambitions of Cambyses also extended, was he unsuccessful. He died while in Syria on his way to suppress a revolt by a pretender to the throne. The pretender Gaumata (who may even have been what he claimed, a true son of Cyrus) was himself a Magus, a member of the Median priesthood, and had their support in what amounted to an attempt to overthrow the military aristocracy and restore the dominance of the Magi. A counter-revolution by the heads of the great families was led by Darius, an Achaemenid of an older branch of the family to that of Cyrus, and himself young enough to have both father and grandfather still alive. Gaumata was killed by Darius and the conspirators established Darius as king. All the conspirators were Persians and began an immediate purge of the Magi. It was hardly surprising that trouble soon stirred throughout the Empire and a determined counterrevolt was organised by the Medes. It took Darius twelve months and nineteen battles to suppress the insurgents and it remains astonishing that the fabric of the empire survived. The fact was that Darius commanded the better troops and that he was a determined and perennially cool personality. The strength and ruthlessness which he brought to his years as monarch were in evidence from the very beginning.

Now, when ‘all the dwellers in Asia were subject to him, except the Arabs’, Darius determined to set about the reorganisation of the empire. His attention to detail, his concern with economic affairs, and his inauguration of the first Persian coinage laid the foundations for the long-enduring structure of the Persian Empire. Scoffers might say that ‘Cyrus was a father, Cambyses a master, and Darius a shopkeeper’, but it was the very practicality shown by Darius that transcended the achievements of the old-style warrior-kings. In his use of coinage Darius was quick to see the value of propaganda. As A. R. Burn points out:

… in Darius’s empire, his golden dories with the device of the running archer - a crowned archer, so it represents the Great King himself, armed and swift - circulated wherever trade was considerable, and did away with the need for use of the scales when the king paid his armies. Armed and swift: this was the image of the king to be borne in the memory of millions who never saw the king or his likeness otherwise … Also, and most important, the financier-king regulated the taxes of the empire and laid down clearly the amount that each province had to pay.

The vast empire was divided into ‘provinces’ or, as they came to be known, ‘satrapies’, since each was under the rule of a satrap or provincial governor who was responsible for paying the requisite tribute to the Great King. Babylonia, for instance, which was accounted the richest province, paid an annual tribute valued at one thousand silver talents which was composed of precious metals, cattle, and fine clothing. Egypt, which paid largely in the form of grain and cattle, was reckoned to produce a tribute worth seven hundred silver talents. The royal inscription at Behistun lists twenty-three satrapies in all, ranging from Persia itself to Ionia and Scythia on the Black Sea. At a later date Libya and Nubia were added to these provinces of empire and, after Darius’ expedition into Scythia, his first holding in Europe was added - Thrace in the far north of the Grecian mainland.

The establishment of this bridgehead into Europe followed upon Darius’ determination to establish a northern frontier-limit to his empire. This was in effect unnecessary, for the Scythians were no threat to Persia or its satrapies, but the fact is, most probably, that Darius like so many great conquerors could not stop. He had established the limits of his empire to the south-east, south-west, and north-east. Only to the north-west, where he wished to secure the shores of the Black Sea, were the boundaries of his powers undefined. In 513-512 Darius marched north on his Scythian campaign. Like that of his successor Xerxes, this was a well-prepared and carefully executed invasion in which the Ionian Greeks and the Greeks of the adjacent islands co-operated. The Bosporus was bridged under the orders of a Samian architect Mandrocles, thus linking Asia and Europe, and Darius had the satisfaction of watching his army march over on to a shore hitherto unknown to Persians. A rendezvous between the army and the fleet of the Ionian allies was arranged at the Danube, where the Greeks constructed with their ships a pontoon bridge for the army to cross. Behind them the tribes of Thrace were left subdued and acknowledging the suzerainty of the Persian monarch.

When it came to the Scythians inhabiting the steppes of Bessarabia, however, even Darius found himself at a loss. He was confronted by the immensity of southern Russia and its great rivers - as well as by the fact that its inhabitants pursued a scorched-earth policy, refused to give battle, and merely retreated into their endless rolling country. Finally, Herodotus tells us: ‘Darius returned through Thrace, and came to Sestos in the Chersonese, whence he crossed over in his ships to Asia….’ He left behind him, however, a large section of the army under one of his best generals, Megabazus, who proceeded to ensure that the coastline of Thrace was thoroughly subdued. Thus the Persians secured for themselves a permanent foothold in Europe. The limit of Megabazus’ campaign was the frontier of Macedonia where Amyntas, the king of the country, formally offered him those age-old tokens of submission: earth and water. The Greek states to the south regarded the Macedonians as hardly Greeks at all, barbarians almost; yet to the farsighted it should have been clear that, under ambitious leadership, the power of Persia would hardly stop next time at the edge of the Greek world.

Darius was not content with his preliminary venture into Europe and now, with the whole of the East united behind him and with the Phoenicians and Egyptians providing him with a large navy, he set about an elaborate investigation of Greece itself and the world that lay yet farther to the west. The master-mariners of Sidon, renowned among the Phoenicians themselves and recorded as such by Ezekiel in the Bible, were commissioned to take two warships together with a supply ship and make a thorough reconnaissance of the areas in which the Great King was interested. The fact that the expedition ended ignominiously with the storeship being seized in southern Italy, and the two warships wrecked in the stormy straits of Otranto, did not alter the fact that it indicated Darius’ desire to expand his empire westwards. Herodotus, who tells the story, was far from being in a position to know everything. He certainly knew of this one ‘spying’ venture that came to grief, but this in no way means that there were not others which were unobtrusively successful.