The Miracle of Freedom

by Ted Stewart

  Noted historian Victor Davis Hanson has commented on how unusual the Greek experimentation truly was by pointing out what was at stake when Persia invaded Greece in 480 BC:

  First, we should remember that the decade-long Persian Wars . . . offered the East the last real chance to check Western culture in its embryonic state, before the Greeks’ radically dynamic menu of constitutional government, private property, broad-based militias, civilian control of military forces, free scientific inquiry, rationalism, and separation between political and religious authority would spread to Italy, and thus via the Roman Empire to most of northern Europe and the western Mediterranean. Indeed, the words freedom and citizen did not exist in the vocabulary of any other Mediterranean culture, which were either tribal monarchies, or theocracies.7

  With its culture that valued freedom, individual liberty, and self-government, the Greek city-state was critical to the future development of the Western world. And although it is impossible to know how the history of Europe would have unfolded, this much is surely true: had the Greeks been defeated at Salamis—had their people been conquered by a power for whom the concepts of freedom and citizen did not even exist—history would have unfolded much differently.

  Who Were the Persians?

  Much of the early history of the Persian Empire remains obscured by the fog of time. Still, from a murky genesis sprang one of the most powerful empires the world has ever known. Encompassing almost three million square miles, the Persian Empire stretched across three continents: Asia, Africa, and Europe. It included an extremely diverse group of peoples: Persians, Medes, Egyptians, Greeks, Scythians, Babylonians, Bactrians, and Indians, among others. At its zenith, the Persian Empire controlled territories that spanned from northern India across Central Asia and Asia Minor, stretching as far north as what is now known as Uzbekistan and the Black Sea coastal areas to the Mediterranean Sea in the west and as far south as Egypt and Libya in northern Africa. And all of these people paid tribute to the Persian king, making the empire enormously wealthy.

  Cyrus founded the empire by conquering the Median kingdom, bringing together the Medes and the Persians, then building twin capital cities at Pasargadae and Persepolis. (As conquerors of the Medes, the Persians are sometimes referred to by historians as the Medes. We will refer to them as Persians here.) Cyrus continued conquering new territory throughout his reign, the most important conquest being the defeat of Babylon, a victory that brought all of the former Babylonian Empire under his control, pushing his western border to the Mediterranean Sea.

  After the death of Cyrus in 530 BC, his son Cambyses made significant gains in Egypt. His reign was short-lived, however, and only eight years after the death of Cyrus, Darius (whom many consider the greatest of the Persian kings, although his claim on the royal line was tenuous) fought his way to power.

  Darius started a series of brilliant military, engineering, and governmental campaigns. He initiated the construction of a canal between the Nile River and the Red Sea (the forerunner of the Suez Canal), and construction of the Royal Road, a great highway stretching for more than a thousand miles between Mesopotamia and the Aegean Sea. Among his other achievements, he made acceptable the use of coinage, spread the Old Persian language, and greatly increased government and military efficiency.

  His immediate successor, Xerxes, ruled from 486 to 465 BC. Cunning and incredibly ambitious, Xerxes was intent on expanding his empire west, determined to bring all of Europe under his domain. He dreamed of an empire that stretched from the hills and swamps of India to the rocky Atlantic shores. Looking across the Aegean Sea, he saw the magnificence of the Greek culture, knowing he would have to conquer the territories of Greece before he could venture any farther west.8

  The First Invasion of Greece

  Xerxes was not the first of the Persian rulers to lust after Greece. His predecessor on the throne, Darius, had also looked longingly at the city-states of Greece. Convinced that they were weak and ready to be plundered because of their continual inter-city conflict and unwillingness to agree upon mutual defense, Darius considered them easy targets for invasion.

  The Persian Empire was predatory and seemed to set no limit to its growth, and there was now no reason why it should not spread across the Aegean to the Balkan peninsula. Booty, tribute, and the hope of excelling his predecessor in the glory of triumphant war no doubt attracted Darius. . . . What should Darius’ policy be toward those Greeks not within his empire? Absorption was a likely answer.9

  The Greeks were not unaware of Darius’s intentions. Quite the opposite—they knew that he had already made one conquest in Europe when Thrace, a sometime ally to the north of Greece, fell under the Persian hand. As the Greeks watched Darius reach into the Western world, they realized that he would surely come for them.

  Among all the city-states of Greece, the people of Athens were particularly perceptive of Darius’s intentions. In 492 BC, they elected a man named Themistocles to become their leader. This was a decision that would prove to be one of the most significant in the long history of Athens.

  In preparing for the coming battle, Themistocles came to a critical conclusion: Hellespont was the key.

  Located in modern-day Turkey, Hellespont, or what is now called the Dardanelles, is the narrow strait of water that connects the Aegean and the Black Seas. Long recognized as the boundary line between Asia and Europe, it is, at its most narrow point, less than one mile wide.10 The Persians would have to move their massive army across Hellespont before they could begin to track west and then south toward the rugged mountains that made up most of Greece.

  Themistocles realized that once the Persians had crossed at Hellespont, their army could be resupplied only by sea. Understanding this, he made a strategic—but very risky—decision, convincing his fellow Athenians to shift their resources to building a navy to counter the Persian fleet.

  When Darius had positioned his army and was ready to attack, he sent his emissaries to the Greek city-states, demanding “earth and water”—the Persian term for unconditional surrender. Many of the Greek city-states in the Aegean Islands surrendered. The situation looked bleak. The Greeks’ tradition of independence, which had proven to be one of their great strengths, now appeared to be their potential undoing. Standing alone as independent city-states, the Greeks could not hope to withstand the might of the Persian army.

  Many of the city-states in Greece were ready to capitulate. Most were unsure of the best course of action. But the Athenians, under the inspired leadership of Themistocles, ramped up their preparations for war.

  The first confrontation of what would become known as the Greco-Persian Wars occurred in 490 BC at Marathon. A Persian army under the command of Darius’s nephew sailed across the Aegean with the intent of subduing two city-states, Athens and Eretria. Eretria fell quickly and was sacked, its people taken captive.

  Within Athens, the debate raged on: surrender or fight against impossible odds? Their warrior neighbors were called on for help, but in a great irony of history, the devout Spartans were unable to come to the assistance of the Athenians due to the Carneia Festival. During this sacred holiday, for fear of offending their gods, all Spartan male citizens had to be purified. More important, the Spartan army was forbidden to leave the territory or fight in any kind of military campaign.

  Amid the chaos, and without the help of the Spartans, Athens was barely able to muster ten thousand men. The Persians had an army at least three times that number.

  On the plain of Marathon, the Athenians faced their mortal enemy. Terribly outnumbered, inexperienced in combat, and uncertain even of the sanity of their decision, they didn’t wait for the mighty Persian army to march forward. Instead, the brave Athenians initiated the attack. Running in fury toward their enemy over a distance of almost one mile, they engaged the Persians. Relying on such courage, as well as a variety of brilliant military tactics, the Athen
ians routed the Persians. Much of the invading army was destroyed and the survivors sent scurrying across the Aegean in utter shame.

  Just as the battle was winding down, with their religious rites finally complete, the Spartans eagerly marched onto the scene, arriving just in time to inspect the dead Persians scattered across the plains of Marathon.

  Although only the first skirmish in what was to prove to be a brutal and protracted war, the battle of Marathon was significant for two reasons. First, it proved to the Athenians that they were better warriors than any had believed, giving them a jolt of confidence. It also proved that the Persians could be defeated. They were not indomitable. Soon, the story of the Athenian victory in the battle at Marathon was whispered throughout the Persian Empire. The shocking revelation that the Persians were not invincible led to revolts in Babylon and Egypt, the people rising up against their Persian masters.

  From the Persian perspective, the defeat at Marathon led to a hardening of their resolve, altering the dynamic within the royal court. No longer was the conquest of Greece seen as just a military option. To the rulers of Persia, it had become vital to maintaining a firm grip upon their expansive empire.

  Prelude to Invasion

  Although the victory at Marathon had been a land battle, the Athenians continued to concentrate on building their navy, for two facts had become even more apparent: first, the Persians would attack them again, and this time nothing would be held back; and second, in order to defeat the Persians, the outnumbered Greeks had to defeat the Persian navy so as to sever their army’s source of supply.

  On the other side of the Aegean Sea, Darius spent several years amassing men, equipment, sailors, and ships for a second and decisive attack upon the Greeks. But he died in 486 before he could fulfill his great ambition.

  His oldest son, Xerxes, set out to finish the task. After crushing the various rebellions within his kingdom, he turned his attention back to the upcoming invasion of Greece. His plan was to defeat the tiresome Greeks and then continue marching west until he had conquered all of Europe. It was a monumental task, and he knew it. He spent years in preparation, amassing an incomparable army to guarantee that the invasion would be unstoppable.

  The Hellespont was conquered by the construction of a bridge consisting of 674 boats.

  Once he had crossed onto the European continent, Xerxes commanded the digging of a massive canal across the entire peninsula at the base of Mount Athos.

  It took an untold number of men, standing on ladders while lifting bucket after bucket of rock and dirt, to build this canal. Part military necessity, part a statement of pride and power, Xerxes spent nearly three years in this effort. It would have been a massive undertaking in any age, but for the era of the Persians and Greeks, it was a wonder—especially considering that its only purpose was to avoid a dangerous and stormy area of the Aegean Sea where his father’s navy had suffered severe losses ten years before.

  This mighty effort spoke clearly of the simple truth that Xerxes knew that his invasion would succeed or fail based upon the ability of his navy to supply his immense army.

  Vast stores of supplies were then laid up along the route that Xerxes’ army was to follow. His army was immense. The Greek historian Herodotus claimed that it had five million soldiers and more than 1,200 ships. This was certainly an exaggeration. Modern historians estimate the army to have been between 150,000 and 500,000 soldiers—some say as high as 800,000—with a navy of 700 to 1,200 warships.

  Regardless of the actual number, this is clear: It was the largest combined invasion force Europe was to witness until the D-Day invasion of World War II.11

  The Armies and Navies Compared

  Greece is a mountainous region, its land extremely unconducive to warring (as was rediscovered during World War II). Not only are the mountains steep and rugged, with sharp and pointed rocks, but the undergrowth is very thorny. In many locations, the hills and mountains are covered with high, thick bushes. It is almost impossible to traverse them except over established trails, making it infeasible to fight anywhere in Greece except for on its plains, which make up only about one-fifth of the country. This physical characteristic dictated the makeup of the army.

  The core of the Greek army consisted of the hoplites—heavily armored citizen-soldiers. They wore bronze helmets, the rest of their upper bodies covered with bronze and leather. They carried round shields, about three feet across, made of wood with a bronze covering, called hoplons, from which the hoplites received their name. Their primary weapon was the spear, about six feet long, with a wood shaft and iron tip. A short sword completed their personal arsenal. Bows and arrows were rarely used.

  Neither the Spartans nor the Athenians were ever able to muster armies of more than a few thousand soldiers—in the case of Sparta, never more than eight thousand. Being greatly outnumbered, the Greeks were forced to rely on disciplined mass to overcome their enemies. They fought shoulder to shoulder, with shields touching, spears held out in front to rip the Persians apart. Once their spears were hacked to pieces, the soldiers would fight to the death with their swords. Standing brother to brother, the entire unit depended upon the courage and resolve of each and every soldier. As one historian has noted, the hoplites would be expected to be “‘standing foot to foot, shield pressed on shield, crest to crest and helmet to helmet, chest to chest engage your man.’”12

  For the Persians, bows and arrows were weapons of first choice. For close-in combat, they used daggers and short javelins that could be thrown, unlike the Greek spears that would be wielded. Only the personal bodyguards of Xerxes, the “Immortals,” wore armor approaching the quality of that worn by the Greeks. The rest of the Persians were lightly armored, their shields made of wicker, not bronze.

  But what the Persians lacked in armaments, they more than made up for in the vast number of soldiers that they could throw into the battle.13

  Both the Persian and Greek naval vessels were called triremes. Captained by a master, each trireme was fairly large, the Greek versions being about 130 feet long and 30 feet wide with the oars extended. They had three levels, or banks, of oarsmen. The top level had 31 oars on each side. The two lower levels each had 27. With one oarsman per oar, there were a total of 170 men pulling on each boat. In addition to the oarsmen, there were fifteen deckhands and a contingent of marines, some of whom were archers.

  Each trireme had one small mast and sail that could propel the ship, but only under perfect conditions. Generally the trireme was dependent upon the toil of the oarsmen to drive it forward. In battle, the oarsmen were the only means of propulsion. Manning an oar was harsh and backbreaking work, the opportunity to rest very rare.

  Once in the open water, the combat tactics used by both sides were simple: either ram an enemy ship with the ram positioned below the waterline to sink it, or run alongside of the enemy ship to break off the oars and kill the oarsmen, and then either capture or sink the boat at your leisure. Both maneuvers required speed and mobility, a fact that was to prove fateful to the Greeks.14

  The Only Hope for a Greek Defense

  Before the command to invade Greece was given, Xerxes sent heralds to the various city-states, demanding they surrender. Then, in a show of supreme confidence, he allowed Greek spies to observe the mustering and maneuvers of his military forces, knowing fear would play a significant role in the Greek decision as to whether it was worth the cost to stand and fight.

  There was precious little unity among the Greeks. Seeing the massive invasion force, some of the city-states surrendered “earth and water.” Others, out of lingering anger for past defeats and injuries, refused to align with certain neighbors within the emerging defense league. Still, the impeding threat was so obvious, the fear of utter destruction so great, that it spurred a greater unity and sense of “being Greek” than had ever existed among the city-states before.

  Sparta ha
d historically been the strongest of the Greek city-states and was again looked to for leadership. In a meeting held in 481 BC, the city-states that had decided to fight agreed to Sparta’s overall command and to the adoption of a comprehensive strategy.

  As Themistocles had so persuasively argued, the navy was the key. Athens and its allies now had a fleet of almost three hundred ships. If it could defeat or at least inflict major damage on the navy of Xerxes, his army would be left without the means of adequate resupply. Without the ability to supply his massive army, Xerxes would be forced to withdraw.

  But before the Greeks could engage the Persian navy, the Persian army had to be slowed on its long march south. The Greeks hoped not only to give the citizens of Athens time to evacuate their city but also to limit the inevitable death and destruction that would shadow the approach of Xerxes’ masses.

  But where to engage the massive Persian army that was approaching from the north?

  The defenders had to find a strategic spot where whatever small army they could muster could have some hope of blocking Xerxes’ immense horde.

  Battlegrounds to the far north were out of the question. Too many of the city-states in Macedonia, Thrace, and Thessaly had already surrendered.

  Another consideration was the fact that the farther south Xerxes marched, the more stretched his supply lines would become, making him more dependent upon his navy for resupply.

  The critical decision as to where the tiny nation of Greece could engage the mighty Persians was not an insignificant one, for not only was the freedom of the Greeks at risk, but the future of the entire Western world hung in the balance.

  • • •

  Xerxes’ plan depended on close coordination between his army and his navy. As the army marched south, the navy sailed with it, hugging the coast, slipping through the canal at Athos, always keeping abreast of the main thrust of Persian forces.

  The Greek leaders, watching and studying the advancing enemy, realized that their initial assumptions regarding the critical interdependence between the Persian army and the navy were holding true. After days of debate, it was finally decided to confront both of them simultaneously. Themistocles always believed this first sea battle would be a holding action. He chose to meet the Persian navy at the narrow strait at Artemisium, hoping to inflict enough damage to weaken it and also to gain intelligence about Persia’s naval capabilities before the main sea battle would be fought farther to the south, at Salamis.