After having reconquered Ionia, the Persians began to plan their next moves of extinguishing the threat to their empire from Greece; and punishing Athens and Eretria.
The Persian Wars Between and bc Persia was for the policy-making classes in the largest Greek states a constant preoccupation. It is not known, however, how far down the social scale this preoccupation extended in reality.
Persia was never less than a subject for artistic and oratorical reference, and sometimes it actually determined foreign policy decisions. The situation for the far more numerous smaller states of mainland Greece was different inasmuch as a distinctive policy of their own toward Persia or anybody else was hardly an option for most of the time.
But, even at this exalted moment, choice of sides, Greek or Persian, could be seen, as it was by Herodotusas having been determined either by preference for local masters or by a desire to spite an equal and rival state next door.
Nor is it obvious that for small Greek places the change to control by distant Persia would have made much day-to-day difference, judging from the experience of their kinsmen and counterparts in Anatolia or of the Jews the other articulate Persian subject nation.
Modern Western notions of religious tolerance do not apply, however. It remains true that Persia had no policy of dismantling the social structures of its subject communities or of driving their religions underground though it has been held that the Persian king Xerxes tried to impose orthodoxy in a way that compelled some Magi to emigrate.
Persia certainly had no motive for destroying the economies of the peoples in its empire. Naturally, it expected the ruling groups or individuals to guarantee payment of tribute and generally deferential behaviour, but then the Athenian and Spartan empires expected the same of their dependents.
The Athenians, at least, were strikingly realistic and undogmatic about not demanding regimes that resembled their own democracy in more than the name. The Ionian revolt But the experience of the Asiatic Greek cities was different again, because it was precisely here that the great confrontation between Greeks and Persians began, about bc.
The puzzle is to explain why the revolt happened when it did, after nearly half a century of rule by the Achaemenid Persian kings that is, since when Cyrus the Great conquered them; his main successors were Cambyses [—], Darius I [—], Xerxes I [—], Artaxerxes I [—], and Darius II [—].
Too little is known about the details of Persian rule in Anatolia during the period — to say definitely that it was not oppressive, but, as stated above, Miletus, the centre of the revolt, was flourishing in The causes of the Ionian revolt are especially hard to determine because the revolt was a short-term failure.
Concessions were made after it, however, and its longer-term consequence, the Persian Wars proper, resulted in the establishment of a strong Athenian influence in western Anatolia alongside the Persian. Defeats lead, especially in oral traditions, to recriminations: This is odd, because it is inconsistent with the whole thrust of his narrative, which regards the clash as an inevitability from a much earlier date; it is part of his general view that military monarchies like the Persian expand necessarily hence his earlier inclusion of material about, for instance, BabyloniaEgypt, and Scythia, places previously attacked by Persia.
There were always Greeks who were attracted to a Persian life-style. Causes of the Persian Wars It should now be clear that Herodotus saw the revolt in terms of the ambitions of individuals he singles out the Milesians Aristagoras and Histiaeusand this must be part of the truth.
But this must be supplemented by deeper explanations, because the rising was a very general affair. Economic factors A simple economic explanation, such as used to be fashionable, is no longer acceptable.
Perhaps one should look instead for military causes: Ionians disliked the military service to which they were then compelled they did not even care much for the naval training they had to undergo, in a better cause, before Lade.
Persia not only expected personal military service but punished attempts to evade it, even at high social levels. Its method of organizing defense and of raising occasional large armies there was no large Persian standing army was analogous to the method of later feudalism: Here perhaps is a clue, which permits the resurrection of the economic explanation in another more sophisticated form.
Grants of fiefs in Anatolia are well attested in the 5th and 4th centuries; in the pages of the Greek historian Xenophon — one finds the descendants of Medizing Greek families still installed on estates granted to their ancestors after and inscriptions show the same families were still there well into the Hellenistic period.
Grants by Persia of good western Anatolian land to politically amenable Greeks, or to Iranians, made good political and military sense. Such gifts, however, were necessarily made at the expense of the poleis in whose territory the land so gifted had lain.
In this, surely, were the makings of a serious economic grievance. Political factors Politically, the Greeks did not like satrapal control. This seems clear from the proclamations of isonomia something more or less democratic is implied by this word made at the beginning of the revolt; these were perhaps influenced by very recent democratic developments back in Athens see below.
Political dislike of satrapal control is also implied by the concessions made after the revolt ended in Although there certainly were still tyrants in some Persian-held eastern Greek states insome improvement on arbitrary one-man government is surely implied.
Perhaps the answer is to be found in the formula recorded by a later literary source, the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus f1. How different all this was from the situation before is beyond retrieval, but the continuity of civic structures and cults in eastern Greek states from the Archaic period to Classical times implies that in many respects the Persian takeover of was not cataclysmic.
So the improvements introduced after consisted in the increase, not in the outright introduction, of local self-determination within the satrapal framework. In any case, one is left with the problem of why political unrest boiled over, if boil over it did, in precisely A large part of the answer is to be found in the changes recently made at the Ionian mother city Athens by Cleisthenes.
Local arrangements that may have seemed tolerable before the end of the century seemed less so in face of the new political order at Athens, an order that had moreover shown its military effectiveness. Athenian support of Ionia Communication between Athens and Ionia in this period is, however, first firmly attested in the other direction, not to Ionia but from it.
In the Milesian tyrant Aristagoras arrived in Athens and Sparta and perhaps at other places too, such as Argos asking for help.Significant Details about the Trojan War The war lasted for over 10 consecutive years until such time that the Greeks were able to send the wooden horse loaded with soldiers who were aimed to bring destruction to the city of Troy.
Aug 21, · Trojan War.
The story of the Trojan War—the Bronze Age conflict between the kingdoms of Troy and Mycenaean Greece–straddles the history and mythology of ancient Greece and inspired the. Whether the Trojan War actually took place, and whether the site in northwest Turkey is the same Troy, is a matter of debate.
The modern-day Turkish name for the site is Hisarlik. War broke out again when Armenia and Iberia revolted against Sassanid rule in AD, following clashes involving Roman and Persian proxies in Yemen and the Syrian desert, and after Roman negotiations for an alliance with the Turks against Persia.
The Persian Wars refers to the conflict between Greece and Persia in the 5th century BCE which involved two invasions by the latter in and BCE. Several of the most famous and significant battles in history were fought during the Wars, these were at Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis, and Plataea, all of which would become legendary.
The Athenians put the Persian emissaries on trial in a court of law, whereas the Spartans threw the Persian emissaries down a well. Eminent threat of the Persian invasion threw the Greek states into alliance though many were technically at war with each other.