CROSSJNG the STRAITS: the PERSIANS in THRACE' Jan P. Stronk Tn Or Shortly Before 5131, King Darius Collected a Large Fleet From
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TALANTA XXX-XXXJ (1998-1999) CROSSJNG THE STRAITS: THE PERSIANS IN THRACE' Jan P. Stronk Tn or shortly before 5131, King Darius collected a large fleet from among the Greek cities in Asia Minor and sent it to the Pontic coast. A Greek engineer, Mandrocles, constructed a boat-bridge across the Bosporus. As Herodotus states (Hdt. IV.87), two marble memorial ste lae commemorated this feat in Greek and "Assyrian characters", by which he can have meant Old Persian, Elamite, or Akkadian. The Persian army crossed the bridge and entered Thrace, following the fleet. People from the West Pontic coast until the Ister, including Greek colonies and Thracian tribes, submitted to the Persians without resist ance. Without problems the army continued its march to the Ister. Meanwhile a pontoon bridge had been constructed across the river. Darius crossed the Danube and started a campaign against the Scythians of the South Russian steppes. As Bury puts it: "Cyrus had conquered the eastern coasts of the Mediterranean; Cambyses had completed and secured that conquest on the south side by the subjec tion of Egypt; it remained for Darius to complete and secure his empire on the north side by the reduction of Thrace" (Bury 1970, 238). A key function in this policy was preserved for "The Straits", the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. Control of the Straits was in more than one respect important for Persia. First because the Straits connected rather than divided the Thracians living on either sides of the Straits (cf. Stronk 1995, 59-60), second because mastery of the Straits facili tated the hegemony of the Ionian states in the Euxine region,2 third * In 1994, I submitted a paper with this title to the Thracia Pontica VI conference at Soz.opol (Bulgaria). Due to technical problems the text was printed somewhat muti lated, occasionally even stating the opposite of my intentions. I have, therefore, decid ed to l'esbape the paper and to present, though under the original title, a completely revised text. The dates mentioned in the text are B.C. cf. Bum 1984, 128; Dandamaev (1989) postulates an earlier date. about 516. l During the fifth century there were over twenl'y Ionian colonies in the Black Sea region, partly concentrated on the Crimea, but also scattered on the Eastern, Soulhem. 3 and Western shores; cf., e.g., Tsaac 1986, 50-51; Boardman 1980 ; Morkot 1996. 55 Fig. 1. The Dardanelles (after Admiralty Chart 2429) because any action directed at expansion either towards Greece or towards northern Thrace and beyond depended on Persian check of the Straits. According to Herodotus' account in his fourth book Darius' expedition was far from successful, in fact more or less a defeat. This may, per haps; be true for that part of the expedition beyond the Danube River, 56 directed against the Scythians. Darius succeeded to save himself and most of his army, largely thanks to the fact that the Ionian guardsmen who guarded the bridge across the Danube refused to destroy it in spite of the Scythlans bidding them to do so. Darius had, though, marched a considerable distance through the steppes in pursuit of his ever retreat ing adversaries. To some extent he may, therefore, have been political ly justified in adding the Saka pariidrayti (Scyth.ians across the sea) in the list of peoples subject to Persian rule though we may, apparently, safely assume that a real subjection never took place. As for Thrace, it appears that, at least in the region bordering the Black Sea, the Persians gained a finn hold. Among the tribes that were conquered were the Thracians of Salrnydessos, i.e. Thracians belonging to the Thynians, and Thracians living in the hinterland of Apollonia Pontica, modem Sozopol, and Mesembria (Hdt. IV.93; Lenk 1936, c. 419), present day Nessebur. Probably they were Odrysian tribes. The Getae resisted fiercely but were, nevertheless, enslaved. Only after the defeat of the Persian army in 479 and the death of Mardonius the picture altered considerably and Persian authority in the European part of Thrace dis appeared quickly. The attack on the Scythians appears to fit in the Achaemenid policy as regards the peoples that surrounded the Persian empire to the north and oortheast: Cyrus had at an advanced age still fought the Massagetae, while Darius had participated in at least two campaigns against other Scythian groups or entities, the Saka tigraxauda of Central Asia (cf. Dandamaev 1989, 138-139). Now this policy was extended, one might say as Cyrus had predicted (cf. Hdt. I.152-3), to the areas west and northwest of the Empire. As we have seen Darius' attempt failed as concerns the Scythians, though not for an important part of Thrace. Having crossed the l ster back into safety, Darius marched through Thrace to Sestus on the Chersonese and thence crossed over with his '\h1ps to Asia. He left, however, a general in Thrace, Megabazus (Hdt. CV.143), who subdued all the people of the HeUesponl who did not vol untarily take the side of the Persians (HdL IV.144).3 In this period we must place the massive deportation of Paeonians to Asia, because their tcnitory could not be garrisoned by the Persians (Burn 1984, 136). The "'tocy told by Herodotus on this deportation (Hdt. V.12-6) really is out of order. Though the Ionian revolt may have affected the Persian occupation of Thrace somewhat, Persian domination was, however, speedily after llriam (1996. 156) also suites that the result of Darius' expedition finally was far •mm unsuccessful: the Danube had become a firm border between the Persian Empire 11 : ul the Scythians living north of it and the King had gained a Lerritory that was rich in 'IT.itc-i(1 .. products. 57 d<jltll lom. dcfCh 20 m. iJ ~'i _.... .,.::·~----~·-· :· :. _.. --- ---- _.···:".,,..,, .·,..I , , .1·~' .. ··········-..::;.·,, (.. ,,' .· , -----.-.....!'Ov~z 111.iRNu ,. ~-~:: ~.:-.::.~. ~-= ........ _... ,•' ... " - ......... .. ::.:. ,.,,,. ..... -- ( ! .. MAAA BURxU '\, :,_... .. ·····-.. \ ... i I ··~ ECEABAT I I I ··. ', .. ' ' ··-.,'' . : I \\ ·---~, -.....', \\ : \ ... ' \ I \ I \I \I <. \ .. \ : : 'I '. I ... '\ \ '\ I ·, \ \ ' !. -~ ~ j ,: f I' , , , , , I ' Fig. 2. Part of the narrows of the Dardanelles (after Admiralty Chart 2429). 58 493 re-established by another Persian general, Mardonius4 (Hdt. VI.43 sqq.). Shipwreck of his fleet atAthos (492) and attacks by the Brygi, a 1bracian tribe, temporarily forced Mardonius to retire. During an attack by the Brygi Mardonius himself was wounded (Hdt. VI.45). Though Persian domination in 1brace continued, at least in the coastal regions, Mardonius himself was called back to Persia. In spite of the fact that the struggle between Persia and the Greeks con tinued with attacks on mainland Greece, Thrace was not directly involved in the so-called Persian Wars until about 481/480. The new Persian King Xerxes had ordered a massive invasion of Greece. To facilitate the crossing of the DardaneJLes by the army the construction of a bridge across the Hellespont was ordered. The Hellespont, or Dardanelles (cf. Figs. 1-3), is a geological syncline connecting the Sea of Marmora and the Aegean,s some 60 to 65 kms long and with a width varying between L2 kms and 6.5 kins. From the Sea of Marmora it runs more or less SWW, makes an almost 900 tum, to the S at Nara Bumu, and again between <_;anakkale (Asia) and Kilitbakir (Europe) and resumes its original course, turning W just at the point of the Turkish War Memorial (First World War, so-called Gallipoli landing) and opening into the Aegean. Its floor is wide and over 60 m deep, with irregular slope and intersected by potholes that are more than 100 m deep. Sedimentation in the Dardanelles is very prominent: only between Nagra Kalesi (Nara Burnu) and <_;anakkale the speed of the current at the seafloor is so strong that a deposit is pre vented. Since the banks of the Dardanelles decline rather steeply, it seems conceivable that the present situation does not significantly dif fer from that some 2500 years ago: factors that may have contributed to a slightly different situation are the rise of the sea level by some 1 to 2 m6 and the washing away of a part of the shoreline by the currents (cf. infra ad 8). The description of the construction of the bridge given by Herodotus (Hdt. VII.36) runs as follows: "That they might lighten the strain of the cables, they laid penteconters and triremes alongside of each other, three hundred and sixty to bear the bridge that was nearest to the Euxine sea, and three hundred and fourteen to bear the other; all lay • Mardonius was the nephew and son-in-law of King Darius, commander of Ionia since c. 492 and restored from there Persian authority in southern 11uace; he was left in command in Greece after the Porsian defeat at Salamis; be was killed in !he batUe at Plataea in 479. 'Most of the information on the Dardanelles is based upon Mertz 1928, 41 sqq. and 223. • Cf. Stanley/Blan.pied 1980; also Lambek 1996. 59 Fig. 3. Northern Aegean, Dardanelles, and Sea of Marmora seen from the space (Photo: NASA). obliquely to the line of the Pontus and parallel with the current of the Hellespont. Having so laid the ships alongside they let down very great anchors, both from the end of the ship nearest the Pontus to hold fast against the winds blowing from within that sea, and from the other end, towards the west and the Aegean, to hold against the west and south winds. Moreover they left for passage an opening in the line of pente conters and triremes, that so he that would might be able to voyage to the Pontus, or out of it.