What does the Ionian revolt tell us of the nature of Persian imperial rule - Essay Example

? What does the Ionian revolt tell us of the nature of Persian imperial rule? Ionian revolt is a rebellion of Greek cities in Ionia (Asia Minor) against Persian Empire, that was the beginning of Greek-Persian wars. The rebellion was caused by the dissatisfaction of the eastern shore of the Aegean Sea and Cyprus inhabitants with the Persian rule. The tyrants of Miletus, Histiaeus and Aristagoras, were the initiators of the revolt. The main events of the revolt fixed by Herodotus provide us with important information about Persian rule and the real reasons of Ionian revolt. At first sight, Ionian revolt was caused by the reasons, which can’t be called occasional. Ionian cities were first of all trade centers. The capture of Hellespont and Bosporus by Persians was fatal for the trade and the competition from the side of Phoenician merchants was becoming more and more threatening. Besides the economic damage, Ionian cities suffered from political pressure: in all the cities, ruled by Persians there were tyrants appointed. The failure of The Scythian Campaign of Darius disrupted the prestigious of his army. At last, the fewness of Persian troops located in the western part of Asia Minor made Greeks confident of the fast victory. The history of V century BC deserves special attention. It was an excellent example of how the mistakes in the organization can spoil the results. By the end of VI century Persia was the most important player on the arena of the Middle East. This country gained much power and influence during the government of Achaemenid dynasty. It conquered such powerful east-Mediterranean states as Midia, Lidia, Babylonia and Egypt. After the last Lidia’s ruler Kreza was defeated, Persians had conquered the Greek colonies that were located at the west coast of Asia Minor. Now it is the territory of the modern Turkey. Most of the colonies had been established by Ionians. Till this time people who lived there considered themselves to be Greek and were engaged in trade. They had to pay contribution to Lidia who controlled their land. In return Lidia provided Greek with autonomy and right to act without obstacles. Ionians has good relations with their strong neighbor. They were dependent, but had peaceful and satisfied life. However, everything changed when the Persian Empire took control over the lands. The situation changed for Greeks completely. They appeared under control of a very strong and strict conqueror, who dictated his own, unbeneficial rules. Thus, it seems rather understandable that Greeks refused to keep their previous status under new rule and this resulted in rebellion in the 499 BC that played a very important role in Greek history. It is not very easy to judge what happened in reality and what the main reasons for such rebellion were, because the only source of information is work of Herodotus “The History”. He was known as the father of history and at the same time as the father of stories, some of which are considered to be the product of his own imagination. So, the credibility of information found inhis work is pretty disputable. Herodotus was Greek, he was born in Halicarnassus. He was exiled from his native town and had to leave for Athens. There he worked on the description of the conflict between Greeks and Persians. Historian annals were not created during that period of time, thus Herodotus is deservingly considered to be the pioneer in this field and genre. The trouble is that in the most cases he did not care much about the credibility of facts and preferred to present his own opinion than the real facts. Moreover, he depicted history from the position of Greeks and also had prejudices towards Ionians. So his depiction of Ionian rebellion should be considered from a critical point of view. The rebellion failed. And in this case the actions of Herodotus were predictable. He tried to find a scapegoat. He did not reveal the real reasons of defeat and the easiest way that he found was to accuse Aristagoras, the leader of Miletus, in failure. So it is very difficult to determine the real motives of Ionian rebellion. In the work of Herodotus one can find the details about financial difficulties that were connected with new rules imposed by a new conqueror. There is also much information about the new rulers appointed by Persians, which were real despots as they prevented Ionian towns from communication with the distant lands. However, Herodotus provides us with very interesting facts concerning Persian Empire and the relations between tyrants. He insists that the revolt was not started by Histiaeus and Aristagoras, because they wanted to help Ionia get rid of Persians. Actually, they were tyrants, which were satisfied with their positions. Herodotus reminds us about the failed attack of Naxos. Aristagoras hoped to be the head of campaign, but he had to accompany Megabates, who was appointed by Persians, and report to him. He did not like such position, thus the relations between Aristagoras and Megabates were tight. This conflict had bad consequences: someone warned Naxos about the future attack and they got ready for it. As a result Persians could not even approach the land. They had to return, but the money given by Darius was spent. Aristagoras knew the temper of Darius and was afraid to be accused of the failure of campaign. Thus, he decided to make a revolt. His further behavior, when he refused from the position of tyrant, was also explained by Herodotus as the attempts to make people believe him. “Now, it was Aristagoras' turn to fall victim to the same malignancy, to be put into a similar plight and to seek a similar way of escape. As an explanation for the Ionian Revolt, this, of course, can only be partial and will no doubt be repugnant to those who think of history as a collection of sociological abstractions.3" But, if we accept (as, indeed, we must) that conditions in Ionia were ripe for revolt,"3 then we should surely ask ourselves what it was that led (drove, is, perhaps, a better word) Histiaeus and Aristagoras to exploit them. The answer is the hatred of the Persian nobility, so dramatically illustrated by Megabates, which thwarted their ambitions and made of these once loyal subjects enemies to the king” 1. This explanation of the reasons of the revolts has a right to exist as the disadvantageous position of Ionians under tyrants placed by Persia was not proved. If the reason of war were the bad financial situation due to the lacks of opportunity to trade, there would not be so much evidence of Ionia’s thriving and prosperity under the noble rule of Persia: “size of the navies at the battle of Lade is the most significant indication of the prosperity and naval power of Ionia in this period: Chios had provided 100 triremes, Miletus 80, Samos 60; in contrast the two great naval powers of mainland Greece in the archaic age, Corinth and Aegina, could provide only 40 and 30 triremes respectively at the battle of Salamis.”2 Thus, it is possible to assume that Persian rule was rather beneficial for Ionians and they were even thriving under it. This fact can also explain the negative attitude of Herodotus, a witness, towards Ionian revolt. It is not a secret that he considered it to be a very stupid step and maybe not only due to his own reasons. Georges in his paper insists that Ionia was thriving under Persian rule and criticizes the opinion of Murray who states the opposite: “first, whereas he maintains that the lonians revolted because the Persians were making them poorer, I try to show that the lonians must have been prospering under Persia at the time of the revolt. Second, I try to show that Herodotus' account is consis-tent with what we know about Persian Ionia, with the politics of the Persian empire under Darius, and with the motives of the leading actors, even in its apparently tendentious, folkloric or confused elements, such as the alleged betrayal of the Naxian expedition by the Persian commander Megabates , the tale of the Tattooed Slave , and Histiaeus' intrigues at Sardis against Artaphrenes 3 When the revolt began, the head of rebellion asked the continent for help. Aristagoras organized a tri,p the purpose of which was to get necessary and urgent help from nationals. However, the leading state Sparta refused to support the revolt. According to Herodotus, this happened due to the geographical location of Persia. Sparta did not want to hold a war with such distant opponent. Moreover, that time Sparta had more important tasks. It had to preserve its leading position in the Peloponnesus alliance and it could not trust the allies as could organize the rebellion. Nevertheless, Ionians got some support from Athens and Eritrea. They sent twenty five ships to the shores of Asia Minor. There is no credible information about the real reasons of providing Ionians with support. Maybe, they just wanted to be grateful for the help that was previously given by Miletus. Athens also may have helped Ionians as it was the legal protector of Ionians towns, because Miletus was founded due to Athens. Also there was another interest of Athens to help the Ionians. Despite the fact that Athens was the biggest and powerful state on the continent, it could not satisfied all the needs in food, because it depended on the corn that was distributed from the Black Sea towns. So it was pretty understandable, why it was so interested in access to the Sea of Marmora towns. While Persia commanded the sea, the Athens’ provision was strongly dependent on Persians. At that period of time ships navigated very close to the shores in order to have an opportunity to shelter in harbor in case of a strong need. So, Athens was interested in having ports on the Asia Minor shore. Here Herodotus also applied his own motives when depicted the relations between Inions and Athens. He represented Ionians as weak, too selfish with the lack of unity, emphasizing the nobility of Persians and strength of Athens: “rather than lump together, as Herodotus does, the hapless lonians as ineffectual (1.143.2; 5.105.1 [Darius]), cowardly ne'er-do-wells (6.11.2"-, 13.2, but v. infra), and short-sighted and selfish failures (5.28, 97.3), and then hasten on to the bold, united, and successful Greeks of the mainland, we shall most briefly consider the situation and past policy of the four leading members of the Ionian coalition”4 Speaking about he failure of the rebellion, it is essential to mention the conclusion made by Herodotus, who again returns to the disunity of Ionians and the deceit of Histiaeus, here he again reminds about the nobility of Persians: “"not even the Great King himself may slay anyone for a single offense, nor may any other Persian inflict an irremediable punishment upon any of his servants; only if he should find upon calculation that the man' s crimes are more and greater than the sum of his services may he then satisfy his wrath" (1.137.1)” 5. The failure of the revolt was the fall of Ionia. Its cities, which represented important centers of Greek trade fell into decay and gave the pass to the cities of Hellas, first of all Athens. However, Ionian revolt that had so tragic consequences, played a very important role in the general struggle of Greeks against Persian Monarchy: the forces of Persians were focused on the Asia Minor for six years, two fleets and one army were destroyed by the rebels. Unsuccessful, but hard struggle of Ionians prepared Greeks for the future victories. It is not a secret that the rebellion had serious consequences for continental Greek. The tragic destiny of Miletus dwellers, who has personal and business relations with Athens, aroused the feeling of sorrow. In summer of 493BC the Phrynichus tragedy was presented during the Dionysus solemnity. This tragedy depicted the tragic events of the revolt. Unfortunately, it was forbidden. Ionian rebellion was an excellent lesson for Darius who changed his oppression system to the democratic one, notwithstanding that it is not clear what Herodotus understood under the word “democratic”. In the Herodotus narrator the history of Darius sounds like an antic tragedy. Certainly, we can’t and should not look at the events of the ancient times through the prism of our modern measures. At least we know that Persians made important conclusion. They realized that until the continental Greek served as an example of independence, the Asia Minor colonies would remain a problem for Persians. References Herodotus 1987, The History, translated by David Grene. University of Chicago Press Georges, P. B 2000, Persian Ionia under Darius: The Revolt Reconsidered. Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte, Bd. 49, H. 1 Lateiner D,1982, The Failure of the Ionian Revolt. Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte, Bd. 31, H. 2 (2nd Qtr., 1982) Keaveney, A 1998, The Attack on Naxos: A 'Forgotten Cause' of the Ionian Revolt. The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 38, No. 1 Read More