Classic: Ancient History - Essay Planning

A2 - GREECE & PERSIA

'RELATIONS BETWEEN GREEK CITY-STATES AND PERSIANS CHANGED COMPLETELY AS A RESULT OF THE BATTLE OF MARATHON.' TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE SOURCES SUPPORT THIS VIEW?

Step 1:

When I started planning this essay, I made a table showing relations between Greece and Persia before and after the Battle of Marathon.

The 'before' column included things like:
 - Darius' earlier expedition to Thrace (513 BC)
 - Ionian Revolt and the involvement of Greek allies, specifically Athens and Eritrea (499-493 BC)
 - Athens' refusal to take back Hippias, thus rebuking their 'earth and water' pledge to Persia
 - Mardonius' expedition (492 BC)
 - General attitudes that greek poleis and the Persian empire had towards each other before their first real battle interaction in 490 BC

Whereas, the 'after' column had examples such as:
 - Improved Greek unity vs better Persian tactical strategies, suggesting that the attitudes of the two nations had increased in severity since Marathon
 - Change in Persian kingship (486 BC)
 - Increased motivation for revenge (Persia)
 - Greek belief that relations between Greece and Persia would revert back to how they were before but, instead, a fully-fledged war broke out

Step 2:

I then looked at ways I could highlight the changes from before and after. I also looked at whether these changes had been a direct result of the Battle of Marathon or whether they were simply coincidences.

Partial Changes:

DARIUS' THIRST FOR REVENGE AGAINST ATHENS - DIRECT RESULT OF MARATHON
BEFORE:
 - (Herodotus, The Histories, 5.105) Upon hearing of the burning of Cybebe's temple at Sardis in 498 BC, Darius angrily shot an arrow into the sky and told his servant to repeat to him, 3 times at every meal, "remember the Athenians"
 - (Herodotus, The Histories, 6.94) When preparing to invade Greece in 490 BC, Darius brought up the Athenian's treachery of 'earth and water' ~ (Herodotus, The Histories, 5.96) pledge broken when they denied Hippias ~ and demanded that he must avenge Sardis by destroying Athens
AFTER:
 - (Herodotus, The Histories, 7.1) Darius became even more determined to invade Athens
 - (Diodorus Siculus, A Universal History, 11.2.2) 'he continued to bear a grudge against them [Athens] because of their victory [at Marathon]'
 - (Herodotus, The Histories, 7.5) Xerxes, Darius' successor, promised he would avenge the burning of Sardis by continuing Darius' plans for a second invasion of Greece (~ 480 BC ~)

PERSIAN VIEW ON EXPANSIONISM - RESULT OF CHANGES IN LEADERSHIP
BEFORE:
 - (The Nabonidus Cylinder, i.1-7) 'Nabonidus, the great king, the strong king, the king of the universe'
 - (The Cyrus Cylinder, Cyrus' Titles) 'I am Cyrus, king of the world'
 - (Behistun Inscription, Column 1.1)(~ 522/486 BC ~) 'I am Darius., the great king, king of kings'
 - (Behistun Inscription, Column 1.6)(" " " " " " " ") Darius lists a number of countries which are subject to him, including 'Scythia' and 'the Greeks'. It is known that his Scythian expedition in 513 BC failed and that the only Greeks he had under his rule were the Ionians, which Cyrus had annexed in circa. 545 BC after defeating Croesus - it is possible, therefore, that this inscription was made with the complete belief that the Persians would prevail over these two nations, adopting them into the empire
 - In 513 BC, Darius led an expedition into Thrace in order to subdue Scythia. Although the expedition ultimately failed, he did manage to gain control of the strategic route through Thrace to the Strymon River, with its Timber and Gold mines, and secured two satrapies in Europe
AFTER:
 - (Herodotus, The Histories, 7.5) Xerxes was reluctant to invade Greece until Mardonius stated that by doing so, he would "not only win [him]self a fine reputation... [he] will also warn off anyone in the future from launching an attack"
 - (Diodorus Siculus, A Universal History, 11.1.3/4) Mardonius persuaded 'Xerxes that he should enslave the Greeks, who had always been in a state of emnity with the Persians' - he was 'determined to uproot all the Greeks from their homeland'

Complete Changes:

GRECO-PERSIAN ATTITUDES TOWARDS EACH OTHER & THEMSELVES - INDIRECT RESULT OF MARATHON
BEFORE:
 - (Herodotus, The Histories, 6.12) When the Phocaean general Dionysius tried to train the Ionians in defence of another Persian attack, they refused to co-operate, providing a disunited front which resulted in the failure of the revolt
* C.f. (Herodotus, The Histories, 6.10) The Ionians refused to betray each other, further enraging the Persians
 - (Herodotus, The Histories, 5.103) The Athenians abandoned the Ionian cause after the battle of Ephesus in 498 BC
 - (Herodotus, The Histories, 5.97) 'terrible evils would stem from these [Athenian] ships - for both the Greeks and the Barbarians'
*C.f. (Plutarch, On the Malice of Herodotus, 24) 'beings so audacious as to call the ships which the Athenians sent to the assistance of the Ionians... the beginning of evils'
 - (Herodotus, The Histories, 5.49 | 5.97) Aristagoras told Cleomones and the Athenian assembly that the Persians' "notion of fighting is to use bows and arrows and short spears. They wear trousers when they go into battle, and funny caps on their heads. So you can see how easy they will be to beat!"
 - (Herodotus, The Histories, 6.102) Hippias directed the Persians to Marathon because it was strategically the best battle-field for cavalry which was the Persian strong point
AFTER:
 - (Herodotus, The Histories, 6.11) Callimachus listened to Miltiades' ~ an Athenian who had previously been a leader of an Ionian polis and therefore had knowledge of Persian tactics ~ advice when it came to Marathon which resulted in a strategic advantage for the Greeks
 - (Herodotus, The Histories, 6.106 | 6.120) Philippides delivered a plea for help from the Athenians and the Spartans replied that they couldn't provide this due to the Carnean festival | Arrived at Marathon and were dismayed they missed the battle: 'two thousand Lacedaemonians, whose eagerness to get there had been such that they had arrived in Attica on only the third day after leaving Sparta'; 'warmly congratulating the Athenians on their achievement'
*C.f. (Plutarch, On the Malice of Herodotus, 26) Sparta 'made a thousand other excursions and fights at the beginning of the month' and 'wanted so little of being present at this very battle [Marathon]'

SUBTLE CONFLICT TO FULL-SCALE WAR - MARATHON ACTS A CATALYST
BEFORE:
 - (Herodotus, The Histories, 5.97) Athens agreed to help Ionia due to their state greed: 'a crowd is more easily fooled than a single man' ~ perhaps a criticism on democracy?? ~ no conflict, just ambition of polis
 - (Diodorus Siculus, A Universal History, 11.1.2) The Greeks had always been in a state of emnity with Persia ~ according to Mardonius
* C.f. (Herodotus, The Histories, 7.5) Mardonius encouraged Xerxes to punish Athens specifically ~ he had a personal vendetta against Athens due to his failed expedition in 492 BC ~
AFTER:
 - (Plutarch, Themistocles, 3) 'while everyone else thought that the Persian defeat at Marathon was the end of the war, Themistocles saw it as the start of a greater contest'
 - (Herodotus, The Histories, 7.8) Xerxes uses the land & sea tactics of Mardonius' expedition, seeing that they would prove more effective. He announces to the Persian court that he will 'bridge the Hellespont, and then march an army through Europe and Greece'
 -(Herodotus, The Histories, 7.8)  Persia became obsessed with revenge of Athens - 'it was the Athenians, after all, who began this - who were the aggressors against my family and myself' ~ this is not accurate: (Herodotus, The Histories, 5.35) Aristagoras's rebellion against the Persian empire in 499 BC was the cause of the conflict & (Herodotus, The Histories, 5.97) his persuasion of Athenians assistance with the revolt led to this conflict

Step 3:

I then used the points in BOLD from step 2 to make the main structure of my argument.

INTRODUCTION
o Sources I have used: Herodotus, The Histories | The Nabonidus Cylinder | The Cyrus Cylinder | Behistun Inscription | Diodorus Siculus, A Universal History | Plutarch, Themistocles | Plutarch, On the Malice of Herodotus

~ OVERVIEW OF ARGUMENT ~

POINT AGAINST(1)
o Darius had already developed a vendetta against the Athenians (H - 5.96 | 5.105 | 6.94)
 - C.f. No mention of anger against the Athenians in Behistun inscription - only goes up to Darius's third year of rule (covers the years 522 - 520 BC)
o Marathon re-enforced Darius's urge to avenge the events at Sardis (H - 7.1 | DS - 11.2.2)
o Xerxes continued with Darius' revenge plan, although not for the exact same reasons (H - 7.5)

~ Relations between Greece and Persia did not change completely as a result of the Battle of Marathon, although the conflict did re-enforce some of the Persian's motives resulting in a larger scale conflict than before ~

POINT AGAINST(2)
o Lydian, Babylonian, and Persian kings all believed in the divine right of expansionism (NC - i.1-7 | CC - Cyrus's Titles | BI - Column 1.1)
o Persia had already made some attempts to subdue areas of Greece during Cyrus' annexing of Ionia in 545 BC and Darius' expedition to Thrace in 513 BC (hinted at in: BI - Column 1.6)
o Part of the reason Mardonius was able to persuade Xerxes to invade Greece in 480 BC was his emphasis on reputation and withholding the Persian unbeatable image (H - 7.5 | DS - 11.1.3/4)

~ The eastern kings traditionally had expansionist ambitions so it was inevitable that Greece would become a target of Persia (in some ways it already head). The Battle of Marathon simply brought more attention to it, although the Ionian Revolt played a huge role in this awareness as well, suggesting that, not only was the expansionism not a huge change, but it was also not a direct repercussion of the Marathon conflict ~

POINT FOR(1)
o Examples of disunity between Greek poleis, even whilst in conflict against a common enemy - there are some contradictions (H - 6.10) but most sources collaborate (H - 6.12 | 5.103 | 6.106 | 6.120 | P(MoH) - 26)
o Possible unreliability amongst sources (H - 5.97 | P(MoH) - 24)
o Misconceptions of each other's battle strategies due to biased informants (H - 5.49 | 5.47 | 6.11 | 6.102)

~ Due to the Battle of Marathon, Greek unity improved and, therefore, they were more open to taking advice which allowed them to develop knowledge on the Persians and be strong enough to band together to fight them (worth noting that not all Greek poleis actually fought against Persia ~

POINT FOR(2)
o Conflict not directly obvious before Marathon (H - 5.97 | 7.5 | DS - 11.1.2)
o Greeks were unaware of the change in attitude (P(T) - 3 | H - 7.8)
o Revenge on Athens main reason for war (H - 7.8 | 5.35 | 5.97)

~ Persia developed a war-like attitude against Greece, a lot quicker than it was retaliated. Marathon could be viewed as a catalyst to this conflict yet the inevitability of war began with the Athenian involvement in the Ionian revolt ~

CONCLUSION

~ There were some subtle changes and some major changes in Greek and Persian relation around the start of the 5th century BC however most were subtle and not all of the major changes were results from the Battle of Marathon, rather earlier military engagements, such as the Ionian revolt, or unrelated incidents like change in leadership ~