The Battles of 490 B.C.

Johan Henrik Schreiner

doi:10.1017/S0068673500003357

The Battles of 490 B.C.

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 November 2018

Johan Henrik Schreiner

Show author details

Johan Henrik Schreiner: Affiliation:
University College, Cambridge University of Oslo

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

I wish to argue that the year 490 saw two battles of Marathon. In the first instance, the Persians marched against the Greeks shortly after the latter had taken up a strong defensive position at the Marathonian Herakleion, but were counter-attacked by the Greeks, this fight being Delbrück's Defensiv-Offensiv-Schlacht. After this unsuccessful attempt to take Athens, the Persians resolved to set sail and try again from the opposite coast. After some days, when most of the forces had gone on board the ships, the Greeks launched a night attack upon the remaining troops; this was the battle of Curtius. The Persians were then prevented from landing at Phaleron by the Athenian fleet; this is a variant of the Maas–Raubitschek battle.

Type: Research Article
Information: Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 16 , 1970 , pp. 97 - 112

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068673500003357 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 97 note 1} This article was written during my year as a Visiting Fellow at University College, Cambridge. My warmest thanks are due to the Leverhulme Foundation for its generosity, and to the President, Mr J. S. Morrison, and the Fellows and the staff for their hospitality. I am greatly indebted to Mr G. T. Griffith who did much to make my time in Cambridge so happy and rewarding and who read an earlier draft of this paper; it has improved much from his amicable criticism. I was also privileged to have the epigraphical material discussed in the seminar of Mr A. G. Woodhead who saved me from some major errors; and Mr Axel Seeberg kindly guided me through the Stoa Poikile. All errors that remain are, of course, my own.

^{page 97 note 2} Delbrück, H., Die Perserkriege und die Burgunderkriege (1887), pp. 52 ff.Google Scholar Most recently Bengtson, H., Fischer Weltgesch. v (1965), 48Google Scholar.

^{page 97 note 3} Curtius, E., Gött. gel. Anz. (1859), pp. 2014 f.Google Scholar von Fritz, Lately K., Die Griechische Geschichts-schreibung, I (1967), 434 ff.Google Scholar, Ehrenberg, V., From Solon to Socrates (1968), pp. 130 ff.Google Scholar, Burn, A. R., J.H.S. LXXXIX (1969), 118 f.Google Scholar, Pritchett, W. K., Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, II (1969), 8 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 4} Maas, P., Hermes, LXX (1935), 236,Google Scholar Raubitschek, A. E., A.J.A. XLIV (1940), 56 ffGoogle Scholar. Raubitschek has later abandoned his theory, Gymnasium, LXXII (1965), 513.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 1} Hammond, N. G. L., J.H.S. LXXXVIII (1968), 40 Google Scholar.

^{page 98 note 2} Arist. 5. 3–4.

^{page 98 note 3} Mor. 861F, Camill. 19. 3.

^{page 98 note 4} Mor. 350E.

^{page 98 note 5} Mor. 628E. Leontis and Antiochis in the centre, Arist. 5. 3.

^{page 98 note 6} Mor. 861 E–F.

^{page 98 note 7} Cf. Helmbold, and O'Neill, , Plutarch's Quotations (1959),Google Scholar s.v. ‘Hellanicus’, ‘Androtion’, ‘Phanodemus’, ‘Demon’, ‘Philochorus’, ‘Ister’, ‘Ephorus’.

^{page 98 note 8} Aristoph, . Equ. 660 Google Scholar with schol., Xen., An. III. 2. 12 Google Scholar, Aelian, Var. Hist. II. 25 Google Scholar.

^{page 98 note 9} Hammond, , J.H.S. LXXXVIII (1968), 40 Google Scholar.

^{page 98 note 10} Pearson, L., Plutarch's Moralia, XI, Loeb, ed., 54 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 99 note 1} Isokr. IV. 87.

^{page 98 note 2} Lys. II. 25 f.

^{page 98 note 3} Vanderpool, E., Hesp. XXXV (1966), 96 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 100 note 1} A.J.A. XLIV (1940), 59 n. 4Google Scholar.

^{page 100 note 2} Class. Stud. E. Capps (1936), p. 75 Google Scholar.

^{page 100 note 3} J.H.S. LXXXVIII (1968), 50 fGoogle Scholar. Cf. also the commentaries on the Vespae by W. J. M. Starkie (1897) on vv. 1084–6, J. van Leeuwen (2nd ed. 1909)on v. 1084 and B. B. Rogers(1915)on v. 1079.

^{page 100 note 4} not with (with e.g. the Budé translation), but with , cf. Thesm. 395–6 , where goes with and with ; cf. also Hdt. VI. II. I . Thuc. II. 39. 1 is paralleled by Nub. 878–9 , and Plat, . Rep. 328c Google Scholar has parallels in Lys. 519 and Ran. 1029 The construction is common (1) when the participle is a verb of motion in aoris; (2) in expressions like , (3) when the finite verb is , etc. Cf. also Kühner–Gerth, Ausführl. Gramm. II2 2, 82 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 101 note 1} Schröder, B., Arch. Jahrb. XXVI (1911), 281–8Google Scholar, against Robert, Carl, Die Marathonschlacht in der Poikile, 18. Hallisches Winckelmannsprogramm (1895), pp. 29 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 2} Bielefeld, E., Amazonomachia (1951), p. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 3} Hesp. XXXV (1966), pll. 36–41.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 1} Wycherley, R. E., The Athenian Agora, III (1957), 31, 45 Google Scholar.

^{page 102 note 2} Marathonschlacht, p. 15; the same view is taken by Evelyn Harrison, B., Hesp. XXXV (1966), 126 Google Scholar.

^{page 102 note 3} The problem is apparently felt by Jeffery, L. H., B.S.A. LX (1965), 43,Google Scholar who records ‘some form of strip-technique”. But strips do not belong to the classical period.

^{page 102 note 4} Synesios, Epist. 135 (= Wycherley no. 94) informs us that the paintings were on boards and not on the wall.

^{page 103 note 1} Wycherley, op. cit. p. 31

^{page 103 note 2} IG I² . 609 = Meiggs, and Lewis, , Greek Historical Inscriptions (1969), no. 18Google Scholar.

^{page 104 note 1} Op. cit. p. 34.

^{page 104 note 2} Hdt. VI. 114.

^{page 104 note 3} Op. cit. p. 26.

^{page 104 note 1} Thuc. II. 34. 5, Paus. I. 29. 4, 32. 3. This is to say that Hdt. VI. 114, 117. I are related to the Marathonian casualty-list as is Thuc. 1. 63. 3 to the (lost) casualty-list belonging to the same monument as IG I². 945 = Tod I, no. 59.

^{page 105 note 1} For another hare changing the course of history, cf. Plut. Kim. 16. 5.

^{page 105 note 2} Hist. Ath. Const. (1952), p. 171,Google Scholar Xerxes' Inv. (1963), p. 63.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 3} Hist, of Gr. (1959), p.215 Google Scholar, J.H.S. LXXXVII (1968), 46 Google Scholar.

^{page 105 note 4} Cf. Carl Robert's reconstruction.

^{page 106 note 1} G.d.A. III, I (1901), 333 Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 2} Fischer Weltgesch. V, 48 Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 3} LSJ s.v. .

^{page 106 note 4} Hammond, , J.H.S. LXXXVIII (1968), 22 Google Scholar, and perhaps already Paus. I. 14. 5.

^{page 106 note 5} Hesychios s.v. for without trees cf. Pind, Schol.. Ol. III. 31 Google Scholar, and for as a holy grove Hom. Hymn. Aphr. 267.

^{page 106 note 6} That the Persian cavalry took part emerges from Hdt. VI. 112. 2, cf. Whatley's, N. ‘niblick’, J.H.S. LXXXIV (1964), 135 Google Scholar; Paus. I. 32. 4, neighing horses; Plin., Nat. Hist. XXXV. 57 Google Scholar, Artaphernes in the picture. Possibly Datis only engaged a part of his infantry, Nepos, , Milt. 4. 1, 5. 4 Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 7} Herodotos knew that the Athenians had won a great victory at Marathon, and this may go some way to explain why he suppressed the rather indecisive Herakleion battle (Mr Griffith's suggestion).

^{page 106 note 8} Strom. I. 162, the only source to give the crucial words and .

^{page 107 note 1} Robert, op. cit. 35 ff. has Pan in the picture.

^{page 107 note 2} Paus. I. 32. 7, cf. Nepos, Milt. 5. 5 perterruerint.

^{page 107 note 3} Hammond, , J.H.S. LXXXVIII (1968), 40 Google Scholar.

^{page 107 note 4} Mor. 862 A, reproaching Herodotos for dating the battle after the full moon.

^{page 107 note 5} Cf. my Aristotle and Perikles (1968), p. 59 Google Scholar.

^{page 107 note 6} An amazing number of the quotations of the Atthidographers occur in the Theseus. For Plutarch's use of Philochoros cf. most recently Meinhardt, E., Perikles bei Plutarch (1957), p. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 7} Herbert, , H.S.C.P. LXIII (1958), 510 ffGoogle Scholar. Ephoros is quoted not only for what he says but for what he omits, Per. 28. 2, Alkib. 32. 3.

^{page 108 note 1} Kleidemos in X. 15. 4–6, Androtion in VI. 7. 6–7, X. 8. 1.

^{page 108 note 2} Regenbogen, O., RE Suppl. VII (1956), 1070, cfGoogle Scholar. Bloch, H., Ath. Stud. W.S. Ferguson (1940), p. 350.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 3} Jacoby on 328 F 19.

^{page 108 note 4} Justinus II. 9. 10–13.

^{page 108 note 5} Nothing of value in Plut, . Mor. 862 C–EGoogle Scholar and Arist. 5.4.

^{page 108 note 6} Cf. How and Wells, ad locum.

^{page 108 note 7} Helbing, R., Die Präepositionen in Herodot und andern Historikern (1904), p. 149.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 1} Judeidh, W., Topographie (2nd ed. 1931), 422 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 2} FGrHist 107 F 2. The date 483/2 for the bill in Aristot. A.P. 22. 7 belongs to the odd chronology of Androtion who inter alia dated Ephialtes' reform of the Areiopagos to the 470s, cf. my Aristotle and Perikles, 56 ff.,63 ff.; cf. also my article on Themistokles' naval policy in Symb. Osl. XLIV (1969), 23 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 109 note 3} Thuc. 1. 93. 7 (sc. Themistokles in the 490s)… .

^{page 109 note 4} Jacoby's unhappy theory, J.H.S. LXIV (1944), 37–66 Google Scholar, that public burial was only established by a law of 464, is now well refuted, cf. most recently Bradeen, D. W., C.Q. XIX (1969), 154 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 110 note 1} Against Meritt, B. D., The Aegean and the Near East (1956), p. 279.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 2} Pointed out to me by Mr Woodhead.

^{page 111 note 1} I unfortunately fail to see that Herodotos was ‘nicht unfreundlich gesinnt” towards Themistokles (so Guratsch, C., Klio, XXXIX (1961), 55)Google Scholar. For the accepted view cf. most lately Gillis, D., G.R.B.S. X (1969), 142 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 111 note 2} 464/3 in Diod. XI. 70. 4, cf. XII. 68. 2, Thuc. I. 100. 3, IV. 102. 2. The year is 453/2 in Schol. Aischin. II. 31, cf. Plat, . Menex. 242B–CGoogle Scholar, implying that Tanagra–Oinophyta was prior to Drabeskos.

^{page 111 note 3} No monument without a geographical designation according to Bradeen, , C.Q. XIX (1969), 148 Google Scholar.

^{page 112 note 1} Meiggs and Lewis, p. 56.

^{page 112 note 2} FGrHist 688 F 13, 22.

Article contents

The Battles of 490 B.C.

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests