balcer, jack martin_the liberation of ionia. 478 b.c._historia, 46, 3_1997_374-377

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

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436477?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436477?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv



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







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,







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.







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





balcer, jack martin_the liberation of ionia. 478 b.c._historia, 46, 3_1997_374-377

Documents