Table Of ContentATHENS
AND
SAMOS, LESBOS AND CHIOS:
478-404 B.C.
T. J. QUINN
MANCHESTER
UNIVERSITY PRESS
@T. J. QUINN 1981
Published by
MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY PRESS
Oxford Road Manchester Ml3 9PL
BRITISH LIBRARY CATALOGUING IN PUBLICATION DATA
Quinn. T. J.
Athens and Samos. Lesbos and Chios 478-404 B.C. -
(Publications of the Faculty of Arts of the
University of Manchester; no. 27) ·
1. Greece - History
I. Title II. Series
938 DF214
ISBN 0-71~1297-X
Phototypeset in Linotron Times by
Western Printing Services Ltd, Bristol
Printed and bound in Great Britain
at The Pitman Press, Bath
CONTENTS
PREFACE pagevi
I The Beginnings 1
II Samos 10
III Lesbos 24
IV Chios 39
v
Conclusion 50
57
ABBREVIATIONS
59
NOTES
APPENDICES
A The meaning of xo1:vfl in Thuc. 3.28.1 94
B The detained crews of the ten Mytilenean triremes
(Thuc. 3.3.4) 95
C Samos, Lesbos and Chios and the terms unijxom and
97
QU~OVOµOL
102
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
104
INDEX
PREFACE
Relations between Athens and the three islands which, according to
Aristotle (Ath. 24.2), were regarded by her as the 'guards' of her
empire have been examined before by many scholars, but no one,
as far as I can determine, has investigated the development of these
relations as a single, separate study over the whole period from the
foundation of the Delian League to the end of the Peloponnesian
War. This book will attempt to fill the gap and, it is hoped, will
throw a little more light on Athenian imperialism and the attitudes
of the three islands towards it.
A necessary preliminary to our examination of relations between
Athens and the three islands during 478-404 is a survey of contacts
during the previous twenty years or so, when together with other
Greeks of the mother country and Ionia they fought against the
Persians. Among other things, the fact that relations on both sides
between 478 and 404 were governed primarily by considerations of
self-interest and only to a very limited extent by feelings of affection
and kinship, whether of Greek for Greek or Athenian for Ionian
and vice versa, becomes more intelligible when ~iewed against the
background of these earlier contacts.
I have been assisted by the writings and comments of various
scholars. R. Meiggs's The Athenian Empire has been a constant
companion, as the frequency of reference will show. The comments
of Dr D. Whitehead and Dr J. Briscoe on an earlier version of my
interpretation of the internal history of Sa mos in 440-439 led me to
reconsider the whole question. My greatest debt is to Professor
H. D. Westlake, whose scholarship has guided me not only during
the preparation of this book but from when I became an under
graduate. For what follows I alone, of course, am responsible.
My thanks are also due to Mrs Jean Sheridan who undertook the
typing of the manuscript in the midst of numerous duties as Depart
mental Secretary and Miss Anne Coldham who helped with the
reading of the proofs. '
University of Manchester
T.J.Q.
I THE BEGINNINGS
,..
(i) 499-479 B. C.
In 499 the Athenians, after hearing an appeal by Aristagoras of
Miletus, decided to send twenty ships to help the Ionians in their
revolt from Persia (Hdt. 5.97).1 These ships amounted to a substan
tial part of the Athenian fleet of the time, perhaps not much less
th~n a half.2 At the beginnmg of our enquiry it is appropriate to
consider why the Athenians decided to give such support to the
Ionian cause and in particular to what extent they were influenced
by the claims of kinship which Aristagoras urged upon them (97.2).
It is clear that in Herodotus' eyes the Athenians were in general
misled by Aristagoras. That this is what happened we can accept
despite indications of prejudice in Herodotus' presentation of Aris
tagoras as a man who was willing to say anything to persuade his
audience. In no sense is the portrayal of Aristagoras part of an
attempt to depict the Athenians in a good light; on the contrary, he
clearly feels that the Assembly allowed itself to be hoodwinked,
pointing out with reference to Aristagoras' earlier failure with
Cleomenes at Sparta that it seems to be easier to deceive a crowd
than an individual.3 As will be seen presently, once it is accepted
that the Athenians were taken in by Aristagoras' arguments, it
becomes easier to understand their subsequent withdrawal from
Ionia after a defeat at Ephesus. Whether Aristagoras actually said
that the Persians were poor fighters (97.1) and how the Athenians
would have reacted to such a statement, it is impossible to know.
Presumably the Athenians had heard tales of the Persians' feats of
arms as well as their failures in Scythia and against Naxos,' but they
had had no experience of them as opponents in battle. If Arista
goras did represent the Persians as easy to defeat, it is not incon
ceivable that he was believed. We may infer with some confidence,
however, that Aristagoras said a good deal about the extent of
enthusiasm and preparations in the Ionian states and that it was this
that the Athenians found persuasive. Emotional attachment on the
2 Athens and Samos. Lesbos and Chios
hasis of kin!thip with the Ionian~ may have hccn a factor that
intluenccd the decision to \end the ~hip\. hut prohably what
weighed most heavily with the A\\emhly wa!\ a de~ire to prevent the
restoration of Hippias a~ a puppet of Per!tia. an ohjective which
Herodotus dearly state~ was in Athenian mind~ at the time (96).
and a belief that the spread of rernlt in lonia offered the be~t
prospect of diverting Artaphrenc1.i from ~uch a project.•
Certainly afterwards emotional attachment seem1i to ha\'e
counted for little. to judge from the Athenians· heha\'iour following
the first defeat of the Ionian forces at Ephesu~.'· Their contingent
returned home and in spite of repeated appeals from Aristagoras
they refused to give any further help ( 103. l ). Why they did ~o.
Herodotus does not tell us directly. Of the explanations offered by
modern historians the most convincing is the suggestion that actual
experience of Ionian organisation and preparations led the Athen
ians to the conclusion that the revolt was doomed to failure and
that the most prudent course for them was an early and total
abandonment of the enterprise while their fleet was still intact:
Doubtless also first-hand experience of the fighting qualities of the
enemy did little to encourage them. This explanation accords well
with the account of Herodotus who is at some pains at the beginning
to show that the Athenians were deceived by Aristag.oras. Howe\'er
that may be. the Athenians did abandon the lonians and e\'idently
the most they did for them on the basis of affection during the
remaining years of the revolt was to weep when Phrynichus pro
duced his play The Capture of Miletus (6.21.2).R
Nothing is heard of any contact between Athens and the Ionians
until shortly after Artemisium when Themistocles. we are told
(8.19: 22: Plut. Them. 9.2). in his famous message inscribed on
rocks appealed to the Ionians in Xerxes' fleet to desert or at least
hold back in any coming engagement. It is noteworthy that he based
his appeal on ties of blood. Very little enthusiasm was stirred.
however. in the ensuing battle of Salamis. According. to Herodotus
(8.85.1) a few ships held back deliherately. but not the majority. Of
the three large islands we know that Samos did not hold back.~ On
the contrary. two of her trierarchs distinguished themselves by
capturing Greek ships. One. Theomestor. was later made tyrant of
Samos by the Persians. the other. Phylacus. was formally enrolled
as one of the 'King's Benefactors' and also presented with a large
amount of land (85.2-3). Doubtless a number of considerations
The Beginnings 3
accounted for the poor response to Themistocles' call. The new
settlement in the period following Lade by which Mardonius re
moved tyrants and established democracies in Ionia (6.43.3; cf.
Diod. 10.25.2) is likely to have done something to temper hostility
towards Persia;'0 possibly other individuals like Ariaramnes, whom
Herodotus mentions as a friend of the Ionians (8.90.4), attracted a
certain amount of goodwill.11 Fear of Persian power as well as the
memory of Sparta's refusal of aid and Athens' short-lived con
tribution in 499 are also likely to have had an effect. But probably
the most influential factor was a conviction that the Persians would
ultimately conquer Greece. Some hint of this is given by Herodotus
in his account of the first engagement at Artemisium (10.2). In the
same passage (§3) we are told that some lonians were not only
enthusiastic for the Persian.cause but were also positively hostile
towards Athens or at any rate were eager to please Xerxes by being
the first to capture a ship from the city which was most talked of
throughout the Persian fleet.12
The Greek victory at Salamis, however, and presumably what
was seen at first-hand of its effect on Persian morale13 did much to
encourage the Ionians. Soon move~ were afoot which led eventually
to what Herodotus calls the second Ionian Revolt (9.103-4).1-1 First,
in the spring following Salamis envoys came from Chios to the
Greek fleet at Aigina with a request that it might sail to lonia, but
they were able to persuade the naval command to advance only as
far as Delos (8.132). Then later Samian envoys arrived at Delos and
as a result of their appeal, which included reference to kinship, the
Greek fleet set sail for Ionia (9.9~96.1). Herodotus does not
provide much information about the strategic decisions of the
Greeks between Salamis and Mycale. In particular we need to know
why the fleet sailed for lonia when it did. It is extremely unlikely
that the Samians' appeal to kinship carried any particular weight•~
and indeed doubtful whether their appeal as a whole was a major
influence on the decision to sail to lonia. Shortly after Salamis there
had been discussion, possibly even a formal decision, about sailing
to Ionia and the Hellespont in the following spring (8.108-9).16 At
the time it was assumed that the whole of Xerxes' force would
return to Asia. The fact that a large part of that force under
Mardonius remained in Greece created a new situation and in
consequence the need for a change of strategy. What was decided
by the high command is not known but we may suppose that at the
4 Athens and Samos, Lesbos and Chios
time when the Chian t:nvoy!o. reacht:d Aigina the fleet had been
entrusted with a defensive role and essentially \\as litill maintaining
that role when it sailed to Delos, and that there v.a!, no agreement
17
between Athens and Sparta a!I to how helit to meet the thrt:at of
Mardonius.1" The Samians. however. happened to arrive when not
only wa!I there agreement as to how to deal with Mardoniu!, hut a
decision had been taken to mount a two-pronged attack on the
Persians, by land in Greece and by sea in Ionia.19
There is no evidence that concern for the welfare of the lonians
influenced the decision of the Greeks to sail to Samo!,. It is true that
Hegesistratus. the spokesman for the Samian envoys. asked for
deliverance from slavery (9.90.2) just as the Chian en\'oys had
sought the liberation of Ionia at Sparta before their voyage to
Aigina (8.132.1). The purpose of the Greeks· expedition to lonia.
however. was to destroy Xerxes· fleet. not to liberate the area.=·
This is clear from the fact that when it was disco\'ered on arri\'al at
Samas that the Persian fleet had given them the slip. the Greeks
considered whether to sail home again or make for the Hellespont
(9.98. l). The concept of Ionian freedom seems to ha\'e become
important to them only when they needed the support of the Ion
ians among Xerxes' troops at Mycale (98.2-3).
Now that discussion has reached the second occasion on which
Greeks from the mother country became invol\'ed in a ·re\'olt' by
the Ionians. it is appropriate to try to assess how the two parties
viewed their relationship with each other. The period which has
been considered so far affords a number of examples of appeals to a
bond of kinship. In 499 Aristagoras had first approached the
Spartans before going to Athens and had appealed to kinship and a
common religion (5.49.2-3). Likewise at Athens he reminded the
Assembly that the Milesians were colonists of Athens (97.2). The
mistocles in turn attempted to entice the Ionians awav from the
Persians shortly before Salamis by appealing to them not to make
war on their 'fathers· (8.22.1-2). The Samian envoys who
approached the Greek fleet at Delos. in language reminiscent of
that used by Aristagoras at Sparta in 499. called upon their ·com
mon gods' and urged that as Greeks they might be delivered from
slavery (9.90.2). These passages. taken by themselves. might leave
the impression of a deep and unswerving affection between the
Greeks of the mother country and those of Ionia. This would be
reinforced by consideration of the cultural ties that had long existed
The Beginnings 5
between them and of the fact that links were maintained in the field
of religion. Herodotus writes as if the lonians of his day still cele
brated the Apatouria (1.147.2).2' Cleisthenes, we know, retained
the four 'Ionic' tribes at least for religious purposes.~2
Other evidence, however, indicates a different aspect of the
relationship. Herodotus, writing of events at the time of the Persian
conquest of Lydia, tells us that the Athenians and other Greeks
except for the twelve cities gf lonia were ashamed of the name
Ionian and that this feeling persisted even in his own day ( 1.143.3).
In Thucydides the Syracusan Hermocrates attributes to con
temporary Athenians a cynical view of their kinship with the Ion
ians (4.61.2-4; 6.76.2-77.1).23 Statements put in the mouth of the
Athenian envoy Euphemus at Camarina in the winter of 415/14
confirm the existence amqng Athenians of a contempt for the
Ionians and islanders .• This according to him was due to their failure
in the Persian Wars to revolt from the Persians and sacrifice their
homes as the Athenians did and the reason why Athens 'enslaved'
these people was that they came against her, their mother city
(Thuc. 6.82.3-4). As for Dorian Greeks, there are numerous pas
sages in Thucydides which reveal ~long-standing racial antipathy to
Ionians.24
Herodotus doubtless because of his own bias and that of others of
his day is too ready on occasion to assume prejudice in people of an
earlier period.2~ Cleisthenes, for example, is implausibly credited
with the rejection of the number four for the tribes at Athens out of
contempt for the Ionians (5.69).26 Jn the case of Thucydides, the
contemptuous animosity towards the lonians which is revealed in
Euphemus' statements may have emerged later at Athens at a time
when the empire was an established fact and had occasion to be
defended.27 However that may be, the information which Herodo
tus provides about the activities of the lonians and the Greeks of the
mother country between 499 and 479 does not give ground for
confidence that the ties of kinship were regarded as close. There is
no evidence of contempt on the part of the Athenians or other
Greeks, but it is noticeable that at the time of the first Ionian Revolt
the Athenians in the event showed no more concern for the fate of
their 'kith and kin' than might have been expected from a state that
had no blood ties at all. On the Ionian side Aristagoras leaves a poor
impression of sincerity as regards his statements in the Athenian
Assembly. He is presented as a man who was prepared to say
6 Athens and Samos, Lesbos and Chios
anything to achieve his ohjccl (97 .2). It i~ true that Herodotus is
hostile towards Aristagoras. portraying him H!I a self-c.,eeking ad\'en
turer throughout.!" hut there i!I nothing in hic., account of the revolt
that would lead us to believe that either c.,ide paid more than
lip-service to the idea of kinship.
How relations stood between the crushing of the Ionian Re\'olt
and Salamis is not described hy Hcrodotuc.,. We may rea'\onably
suppose. however. that the lonians felt rcc.,entment towards the
Greeks of the mother country. in particular the Atheniano;. becauo;e
of the poor support given to their revolt. Similarly after Salamis it is
likely that the Greeks of the mother country in turn felt re<.entment
towards the Ionians because of the poor response to Themistocles'
exhortation to desert. Any such resentment that did exist among
the Greeks of the homeland would not ha\'e disappeared by the
time the Chian and Samian envoys reached the Greek fleet at
Aigina and Delos respectively. Except for the Samians who. per
haps eager to wipe out the memory of their island's contribution to
the Persian cause at Salamis. had been instrumental in the release of
Athenian prisoners (9.99.2). the Ionians appear to ha\'e done no
thing to endear themselves to the Greeks of the homeland between
Salamis and Mycale. Indeed in general Herodotus· account of
events between 499 and 479 does not leave the impression that the
freedom of the Greek homeland was a matter of great concern to
the Ionians!9 or that the cause of Ionian freedom was a subject that
touched the mother country deeply.
(ii) From the Council of Samos to the fo1111elatiorr of the Delian
League
After Mycale it is possible to identify more closely a relationship
between the Athenians and the Greeks of lonia. particularly the
islands of Samos. Leshos and Chios. It would be wrong. howe\·er.
to suppose that this relationship was hased on much more than the
fact that the interests of the two sides happened to coincide.
At the Council of Samos held soon after Mycale the Peloponne
sians, according to I lerodotus (9.106.2-3). proposed·111 that the Ion
ians should be transplanted to the Greek mainland and settled in
territory to be taken from states which had Medised,Jt on the
ground that it would be difficult to afford them constant protection
against the Persians in the future.J~ The Athenians for their part
