API tools faq
paste
jonstond2

Miltiades of Cimon (Classics)

jonstond2
Jun 12th, 2018
604
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 112.83 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1.  
  2. Introduction
  3. Miltiades, son of Cimon Coalemos, was a member of a side branch of the aristocratic Philaid clan. According to the account of Herodotus (who is the most important source we have left on this figure), after his older brother Stesagoras had been killed by the Lampsacenes, Miltiades took over power of the Thracian Chersonese, which had been conquered, in turn, by his uncle Miltiades the Elder, son of Cypselus and maternal stepbrother of Cimon Coalemos. Miltiades the Elder, who had possibly been forced to leave Athens under pressure from the tyrant Peisistratos, moved to the Thracian Chersonese and became tyrant there. Later on, since he was childless, he adopted his own nephew Stesagoras and brought him up. Finally, after the unexpected death of Stesagoras, leadership of the Chersonese, as mentioned, passed to his younger brother Miltiades. He moved there and probably stayed a long time, marrying the Thracian princess Hegesipyle, confronting the local populations and the Scythians, and managing to capture the islands of Lemnos and Imbros. He took part in the campaign in Scythia of Darius I, king of Persia, but on that occasion, according to Herodotus, he advised the other Ionian tyrants to destroy the bridge on the Danube and free Ionia, as the Scythians advised. On the eve of the first Persian invasion of Greece, he returned to his homeland, where he was put on trial for his tyrannical rule in the Chersonese. He escaped conviction and was appointed a general by the people, making a decisive contribution to the safety of Athens by encouraging his fellow citizens and the polemarch Callimachus to attack the enemy on the plain of Marathon, where the Athenians defeated the Persian troops. He achieved eternal glory and great credibility among his fellow citizens, who entrusted him the following year with a fleet of seventy ships to lead a mysterious mission in the Aegean Sea, in particular to the island of Paros, which was guilty of having sided with the Persians during the Battle of Marathon. Wounded in the leg during the siege operation at Paros, he returned to Athens without having achieved any result; therefore he was put on trial by Xanthippus, the father of Pericles, who accused him of deceiving the Athenians. He was condemned, possibly to death initially, but then to a fine of fifty talents, which was later paid by his son Cimon, since Miltiades died of gangrene.
  4.  
  5. General Overviews
  6. There are no early-21st-century monographs on the figure and exploits of Miltiades, son of Cimon, but individual facts or specific aspects of his life and career have been widely examined in a number of studies. Two general monographs should be mentioned, both rather dated: Berve 1937 and Kinzl 1968, the latter a dissertation. Wade Gery 1951 is still an important point of reference: although it is a brief article, it touches on the most-important points of the career of Miltiades and provides stimulating reflections and ideas for research that are still relevant in the early 21st century. Hammond 1956 offers a reconstruction of moments and aspects of the Philaid history, but the author’s reconstruction has not been totally followed up by researchers.
  7.  
  8. Berve, H. 1937. Miltiades: Studien zur Geschichte des Mannes und seiner Zeit. Hermes Einzelschriften 2. Berlin: Weidmann.
  9.  
  10. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  11.  
  12. This author, who examines the history of the Philaids from 560 to 489 BCE, describes Miltiades as a gentleman, with princely features, and a warlord whose interests lay in acting on a personal level, decidedly tyrannical and independent from the polis of Athens. The neohumanistic viewpoint of Berve does not meet with current general consensus.
  13.  
  14. Find this resource:
  15.  
  16. Funke, P. 1999. Miltiades. In Große Gestalten der griechischen Antike: 58 historische Portraits von Homer bis Kleopatra. Edited by K. Brodersen, 301–310. Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck.
  17.  
  18. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  19.  
  20. In the section titled Politik, devoted to the classical and postclassical age, a basic picture is given of the main ventures carried out by Miltiades, starting from his archonship down to his conviction in the aftermath of the expedition to Paros. The role played by his son, Cimon, in glorifying the heroism of his father is well highlighted.
  21.  
  22. Find this resource:
  23.  
  24. Hammond, N. G. L. 1956. The Philaids and the Chersonese I: The three bearers of the name “Miltiades.” Classical Quarterly 6.3–4: 113–129.
  25.  
  26. DOI: 10.1017/S0009838800020085Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  27.  
  28. The author offers a reconstruction of moments and aspects of the Philaid history and the hypothesis on the existence of three individuals named Miltiades, with close links between them (father, son, and nephew). Also, he analyzes the Life of Miltiades by Cornelius Nepos, making comparison with the tradition of Herodotus, which in his opinion is not a benchmark text. The hypothesis of the existence of three individuals named Miltiades has not been widely accepted by scholars.
  29.  
  30. Find this resource:
  31.  
  32. Kinzl, K. 1968. Miltiades-Forschungen. Dissertationen der Universität Wien. Vienna: Verlag Notring.
  33.  
  34. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  35.  
  36. This is a dissertation, debated at the University of Vienna, under the guidance of Fritz Schachermeyr. It is divided into two parts: the first is dedicated to historical research (the genealogy of the Philaids, the Scythian invasion, the conquest of Lemnos, Miltiades’ advice on the bridge of boats over the Danube), and the second is a criticism of the sources (especially the Nepos biography of Miltiades) and philological analysis (especially exam of Herodotus, Book 6, chapter 40).
  37.  
  38. Find this resource:
  39.  
  40. Obst, E. 1932. s.v. Miltiades (2). In Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. Vol. XV.2, Met–Molaris lapis. Edited by G. Wissowa, col. 1681–1705. Stuttgart: Metzler.
  41.  
  42. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  43.  
  44. Even though it is dated, the extensive item written on Miltiades (2) by Obst for Real-Encyclopädie continues to prove helpful, standing out because of its clear explanation and thoroughness of the topics dealt with, in chronological order.
  45.  
  46. Find this resource:
  47.  
  48. Stahl, M. 1987. Aristokraten und Tyrannen im archaischen Athen: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung, zur Sozialstruktur und zur Entstehung des Staates. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
  49.  
  50. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  51.  
  52. Paragraph 1 of chapter II of this volume is devoted to “The Miltiades Histories,” where especially the role that was assumed by the Philaid during his experience in the Chersonese comes under discussion, through the examination of some of the chapters of Book 6 of Herodotus.
  53.  
  54. Find this resource:
  55.  
  56. Wade Gery, H. T. 1951. Miltiades. Journal of Hellenic Studies 71:212–221.
  57.  
  58. DOI: 10.2307/628204Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  59.  
  60. A brief but intense study that deals with some of the main problems of the history of Miltiades: the Olympic victories and the death of his father, Cimon Coalemos; the Scythian campaign of Darius; Book 6, chapter 40 of Herodotus; Miltiades’ conquest of Lemnos; the relations between Hippias and Miltiades; the chronology of the life of Miltiades. The largest part of the hypotheses put forward by Wade Gery forms the basis of later studies.
  61.  
  62. Find this resource:
  63.  
  64. Sources
  65. Herodotus
  66. Herodotus is one of the richest sources of information about Miltiades and the Philaid family and at the same time the closest to the narrated facts. He devotes various chapters in the course of Book 6 to this important family, which is described starting from Hippocleides, the son of Teisander, who competed for the hand of Agariste, the daughter of Cleisthenes, tyrant of Sycion (Book 6, chapters 126–130). Then Herodotus dwells especially on Miltiades the Elder, the son of Cypselus (Book 6, chapters 34–38), on the arrival in the Chersonese of Miltiades the Younger (Book 6, chapters 39–41), and on the mysterious death of his father Cimon Coalemos (Book 6, chapter 103). Finally the historian relates the Battle of Marathon (Book 6, chapters 105–118), the capture of Lemnos by Miltiades the Younger (Book 6, chapters 137–140), and his luckless exploit of Paros (Book 6, chapters 132–136). In Book 4, devoted to Scythia (chapter 137), Herodotus describes the Scythian expedition of Darius and mentions the advice for opposing the Persians offered by Miltiades the Younger on that occasion. Modern scholars differ on the position taken up by Herodotus toward the Philaids and Miltiades the Younger, sometimes claiming he drew on a pro-Philaid source (see Scott 2005), and sometimes that he was expressing an anti-Philaid judgement (Lanzillotta 1977). Many writers, identifying both alternating pro- and anti-Philaid spirit in Herodotus, adhere to the theses of Wade Gery 1951 (cited under General Overviews) and Crahay 1956 that the ancient historian took inspiration especially from speeches given during the two trials held against Miltiades in 493 and 489 BCE. Now Samons 2017 suggests that Herodotus’ account leaks that the Philaid collaborated with the Peisistratid tyrants and the Persian in 6th century. For a reasoned reading of Herodotus’s Book 6, the reader should refer to the classic comments in Macan 1895 and How and Wells 1912; see also the more recent comments, text, and translation in Nenci 1998, and especially the quite specific Scott 2005. On Book 4, the comments in Asheri, et al. 2007 are very useful. For a complete overview of Herodotus’s Histories, see the separate Oxford Bibliographies in Classics article “Herodotus.”
  67.  
  68. Asheri, D., A. Lloyd, and A. Corcella. 2007. A commentary on Herodotus Books I–IV. Edited by O. Murray and A. Moreno. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
  69.  
  70. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  71.  
  72. This copious volume, which opens with a general introduction by David Asheri, follows with comments on the individual books. The accurate comment on Book IV is the work of Aldo Corcella.
  73.  
  74. Find this resource:
  75.  
  76. Crahay, R. 1956. La littérature oraculaire chez Hérodote. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège 138. Paris: Les Belles-Lettres.
  77.  
  78. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  79.  
  80. In this book, still indispensable, chapter VI analyzes the replies of the oracle, which, according to Herodotus, are given to Miltiades the Elder, Miltiades the Younger, and his son Cimon. The contradictory judgment deemed by Herodotus toward Miltiades the Younger would depend on the fact that the historian’s information comes from the defense and prosecution cases stated in the trials held in Athens against him. Crahay’s point of view has widely influenced subsequent critical debate.
  81.  
  82. Find this resource:
  83.  
  84. How, W. W., and J. Wells. 1912. A commentary on Herodotus. 2 vols. Oxford and New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
  85.  
  86. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  87.  
  88. This is a comment in two volumes on the Histories of Herodotus, including two appendixes. Even though the first edition was published more than one hundred years ago, it still remains an indispensable reference work, republished in 2002.
  89.  
  90. Find this resource:
  91.  
  92. Lanzillotta, E. 1977. Milziade nel Chersoneso e la conquista di Lemno. In Quinta miscellanea greca e romana. By F. Barbieri, G. Barbieri, U. Cozzoli, et al., 65–94. Studi Pubblicati dall’ Istituto Italiano per la Storia Antica 26. Rome: Istituto Italiano per la Storia Antica.
  93.  
  94. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  95.  
  96. This is an extensive study focusing on the affairs of Miltiades in the North Aegean, particularly in the period of the Scythian expedition of Darius, to the settlement in the Chersonese (Herodotus, Book 6, chapter 40) and to Lemnos, but it also examines other aspects of the Philaid tradition, claiming that the opinion expressed by Herodotus toward the family was hostile.
  97.  
  98. Find this resource:
  99.  
  100. Macan, R. W. 1895. Herodotus: The fourth, fifth, and sixth books. Vol. 1, Introduction, text with notes. London: Macmillan.
  101.  
  102. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  103.  
  104. This is an edition of Herodotus’s text published in the 19th century, including a comprehensive comment and making observations that are still very stimulating.
  105.  
  106. Find this resource:
  107.  
  108. Nenci, G., ed. 1998. Erodoto, Le storie. Vol. 6, Libro VI: La battaglia di Maratona. Scrittori Greci e Latini. Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore.
  109.  
  110. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  111.  
  112. This is a helpful volume of the Collezione di Classici Lorenzo Valla, with a text in Greek, a translation into Italian, and a comprehensive historical comment and extensive bibliographical collection.
  113.  
  114. Find this resource:
  115.  
  116. Samons, L. J., II. 2017. Herodotus on the Kimonids: Peisistratid allies in sixth century Athens. Historia 66:21–44.
  117.  
  118. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  119.  
  120. This article analyzes Herodotus’ account of events involving Kimonids and also Alcmeonids and Kerykes in 6th century BCE. The author aims to demonstrate that these families collaborated with the Peisistratid tyrants and the Rersians, even though Herodotus incorporated the families’ apologia in his narrative.
  121.  
  122. Find this resource:
  123.  
  124. Scott, L. 2005. Historical commentary on Herodotus, Book 6. Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca Classica Batava: Supplementum 268. Leiden, The Netherlands, and Boston: Brill.
  125.  
  126. DOI: 10.1163/9789047407980Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  127.  
  128. This volume offers an extensive comment on Book 6 of Herodotus, with a rich introduction giving a copious series of appendixes, twenty-three in all, some of which relate to issues of Miltiades: the Delphic oracles to the Dolonci; the problems of Book 6, chapter 40; Marathon; Miltiades’ expedition to Paros; Stemma for the Philaids/Cimonids. This also includes numerous maps and gives a vast bibliography.
  129.  
  130. Find this resource:
  131.  
  132. Cornelius Nepos
  133. The life of Miltiades comes first in Cornelius Nepos’s Liber de excellentibus ducibus exterarum gentium, making the Latin biographer the widest source we possess on the fate of the Philaids. The eight chapters making up the biography describe, in order, Miltiades’ conquest of the Chersonese and of Lemnos (chapters 1–2), the behavior of the Athenian during Darius’s campaign in Scythia (chapter 3), his role in the Battle of Marathon and the honors conferred on him (chapters 4–6), the strange attitude adopted in the exploit of Paros (chapter 7), and the conviction and the final trial held against him (chapter 8). There is no specific critical comment on Nepos’s Life of Miltiades. Various observations are recorded in some of the studies focusing on the Philaids. For example, Hammond 1956 (cited under General Overviews) is interested in the affairs of Miltiades in the Chersonese, at Lemnos, and in the second trial he underwent; Kinzl 1968 (cited under General Overviews) is especially interested in the conquest of Lemnos and in the ethnic origins of the island’s inhabitants. Casson 1915 makes a precise comparison between the texts of Herodotus and Nepos, before concluding that the latter’s account “must still have been more true to facts,” illustrating “the genius of Miltiades . . . and the early elaboration of a Cycladic policy . . . factors of very high importance in Greek History, of which, if we relied solely upon Herodotus, we should remain in complete ignorance” (p. 90). One of Nepos’s sources, according to Nepos himself, might have been Ephorus (a fact agreed on by subsequent scholars); Ephorus in turn depended on Dionysius of Miletus. How 1919 comments on certain points in Casson 1915, with divergent observations.
  134.  
  135. Casson, S. 1915. The vita Miltiadis of Cornelius Nepos. Klio 14:69–90.
  136.  
  137. DOI: 10.1524/klio.1915.14.14.69Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  138.  
  139. In this article, which is still useful even though dated, the version of Cornelius Nepos on the life of Miltiades is considered under certain aspects to be more reliable than that of Herodotus.
  140.  
  141. Find this resource:
  142.  
  143. How, W. W. 1919. Cornelius Nepos on Marathon and Paros. Journal of Hellenic Studies 39:48–61.
  144.  
  145. DOI: 10.2307/624869Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  146.  
  147. In this extensive article, the researcher examines the account of Cornelius Nepos on the Battle of Marathon and the expedition to Paros and compares it with that of Herodotus. In his opinion, the sources of Nepos were not biographies from the Hellenistic age, as supposed in the past, but historiographic sources, especially from Ephorus of Cumae. The analysis is carried out with a reexamination and occasional contradiction of the theories expressed in Casson 1915.
  148.  
  149. Find this resource:
  150.  
  151. Pherecydes
  152. Pherecydes (Fragmente der griechischen Historiker [FGrHist] 3 F 2), associated with Hellanicus of Lesbos (FGrHist 4 F 22), handed down through the testimony of Didymus, and reported by Marcellinus (Vita Thucydides 3), offers a family tree of the Philaids, starting with Philaios, son of Aiantos (who gave his name to the entire clan and who was the first to settle in Athens, possibly arriving from the island of Salamina, as testified by Plutarch in his Solon, chapter10, section 3), down to Miltiades the Elder, colonizer of the Chersonese. The text of Pherecydes in Marcellinus has been handed down in a fairly corrupted form, which has created a lot of problems of interpretation for researchers, who have highlighted and discussed the differences between the version of Herodotus and that of Pherecydes. A protracted discussion has also been held on the dating of Pherecydes, varying between the first quarter of the 5th century BCE and the era of Cimon (argued for in Wade Gery 1952, Davies 1971, Huxley 1973, Piccirilli 1985, Fowler 2000–2013, and Dolcetti 2004). According to Pherecydes, Miltiades the Elder was the son of Hippocleides, son of Teisander; according to the version of Herodotus, the father of Miltiades the Elder was Cypselus, who was in turn a descendant of the tyrant Cypselus of Corinth, while Hippocleides, son of Teisander, was his maternal cousin (Berve 1937, cited under General Overviews; Wade Gery 1952, Davies 1971). The discrepancy between the two traditions could have been generated by the need to cover up the links between the Philaid family and the house of the tyrants of Corinth, the Cypselids (see Duplouy 2006 on the basis of Viviers 1987, as well as Thomas 1989). These links might have given the impression that the members of the Philaid family (in particular Miltiades the Younger) nurtured tyrannical aspirations toward the Chersonese. However, some have tried to reconcile the two traditions, supposing that Hippocleides had adopted Miltiades the Elder (Kinzl 1968, cited under General Overviews; Piccirilli 1985, Bonanno 2009), to merge the two branches of the Philaids. There is also no lack of theories supposing that Hippocleides was a “paronym” of Cypselus, used to cover up the bad Cypselid reputation (Hammond 1956, cited under General Overviews). More recently, broad comparisons between the versions of Pherecydes and Herodotus are drawn in Thomas 1989 and Duplouy 2006. According to Thomas 1989 “the genealogy . . . presents a family line that had served Athens well—in acquisition of territory for Attica, overseas colonization and civic cult” (p. 169). For an edition of the Pherecydes fragments, see Fowler 2000–2013 and Dolcetti 2004.
  153.  
  154. Bonanno, D. 2009. Athènes et les “Philaïdes”: Formes de réciprocité entre les aristocrates et la polis. L’Antiquité Classique 78:63–86.
  155.  
  156. DOI: 10.3406/antiq.2009.3738Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  157.  
  158. A work in which the basic topic is that of gift in the aristocratic sphere, and the occasions are examined on which the Philaids donated new territories to the city, from Phyleus and Eurysaces, who consigned Salamina to Athens, down to Miltiades the Younger, who attempted the conquest of Lemnos and Paros.
  159.  
  160. Find this resource:
  161.  
  162. Davies, J. K. 1971. Athenian propertied families, 600–300 B.C. Oxford: Clarendon.
  163.  
  164. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  165.  
  166. This is still an essential instrument for reconstructing and researching the Athenian prosopography. Here, Miltiades the Younger and the rest of the Philaids are examined under the entry Kimon (II) Miltiadou (IV) Lakiades (number 8429).
  167.  
  168. Find this resource:
  169.  
  170. Dolcetti, P. 2004. Ferecide di Atene: Testimonianze e frammenti. Hellenica 14. Alessandria, Italy: Edizioni dell’Orso.
  171.  
  172. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  173.  
  174. This is an early-21st-century edition of the testimony and fragments of Pherecydes, which picks up that edited by Robert L. Fowler in 2000. The texts, preceded by an extensive introduction, are accompanied by an Italian translation opposite and a comments at the foot of the page. The bibliography, table of concurrences, glossary, and index of names follow.
  175.  
  176. Find this resource:
  177.  
  178. Duplouy, A. 2006. Le prestige des élites: Recherches sur les modes de reconnaissance sociale en Grèce entre les Xe et Ve siècles avant J.-C. Histoire 77. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
  179.  
  180. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  181.  
  182. This is a rich volume that attempts to define what the Greek aristocracy was or what it was like, and in what ways it set itself out. Chapter I B, devoted to the “énonciations généalogiques,” looks at the ancestors, both historical and mythical, of Miltiades the Elder, compares the testimonies of Pherecydes and of Herodotus. The former might have written at the time of Cimon as consolidation of his prestige.
  183.  
  184. Find this resource:
  185.  
  186. Fowler, R. L. 2000–2013. Early Greek mythography. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
  187.  
  188. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  189.  
  190. These are two weighty volumes published thirteen years apart, devoted to the text and comments on the Greek mythographs, including Pherecydes. The fragments of Pherecydes relating to the Philaid genealogy are marked with numbers 2 and 60. Fragment 2 is accompanied by a rich comment of the Philaid family tree.
  191.  
  192. Find this resource:
  193.  
  194. Huxley, G. L. 1973. The date of Pherekydes of Athens. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 14.2: 137–143.
  195.  
  196. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  197.  
  198. This study attempts to define the chronology of the activities of Pherecydes and his role as an intellectual in relation to the family of the Philaids.
  199.  
  200. Find this resource:
  201.  
  202. Piccirilli, L., ed. 1985. Storie dello storico Tucidide: Edizione critica, traduzione e commento delle Vite tucididee. Genoa, Italy: Il Melangolo Editore.
  203.  
  204. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  205.  
  206. This is a volume in which the most-important biographical traditions relating to the historian Thucydides are collected, above all the Life of Thucydides by Marcellinus. The affairs of Miltiades and of the Philaids are dealt with in paragraphs 2–17, probably derived from Didymus, who in turn would have derived them from the works of Pherecydes and of Hellanicus. The paragraphs are rather useful, especially for the reconstruction of the genealogy of the Philaids.
  207.  
  208. Find this resource:
  209.  
  210. Thomas, R. 1989. Oral tradition and written record in classical Athens. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
  211.  
  212. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511597404Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  213.  
  214. This is an important work in which the oral traditions and written sources are placed in relation to each other. In particular, the family traditions are investigated, which can provide useful clues on the passage from oral tradition to the written one.
  215.  
  216. Find this resource:
  217.  
  218. Viviers, D. 1987. Historiographie et propagande politique au Vème siècle avant notre ère: Les Philaïdes et la Chersonèse de Thrace. Rivista di Filologia e Istruzione Classica 115:288–313.
  219.  
  220. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  221.  
  222. This is an important work that sets out to review the affairs relating to the Athenian colonization of the Chersonese carried out by the Philaids, starting with a careful analysis of the documentary sources that have been passed down on the subject.
  223.  
  224. Find this resource:
  225.  
  226. Wade Gery, H. T. 1952. The poet of Iliad. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
  227.  
  228. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  229.  
  230. In appendix B of the volume, titled “A Selection of Pedigree,” eight family trees from the Greek world are recorded and that of the Philaids comes first, so there is a claim for two branches of the family, one going from Cypselus down to Miltiades the Elder; the other, from Teisander, leading to Hippocleides and his descendants.
  231.  
  232. Find this resource:
  233.  
  234. Diodorus
  235. Information about Miltiades is concentrated in Book 10 of Diodorus’s Bibliotheca Historica, handed down to us in fragmentary form, and it is reduced to just two places: the first (Book 10, chapter 9, section 6) regarding the conquest of Lemnos, and therefore an alternative version is provided to that found in Herodotus; according to Diodorus, control of the island was ceded voluntarily to Miltiades by its inhabitants and by their leader Hermon, who feared the Persian threat (see Bonanno 1999). The other passage (Book 10, chapter 27, section 3) deals with the Battle of Marathon and the response provided to the Persian general Datis by Miltiades, according to whom the Athenians were more qualified to take vengeance against Persia, since they were descendants of the Athenian Medon, who founded the Asian Empire after being banished from Athens.
  236.  
  237. Bonanno, D. 1999. Un periodo oscuro della storia di Lemno (514–480 a.C.). Hormos 1:7–37.
  238.  
  239. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  240.  
  241. Starting from an analysis of the account of the ancient historian, mostly Herodotus and Diodorus, the controversial information is examined concerning the occupation of the island of Lemnos by Miltiades and the Athenians. The legal nature of the occupation is also discussed.
  242.  
  243. Find this resource:
  244.  
  245. The Philaid Family
  246. As recounted by Herodotus (Book 6, chapter 35, section 1), the head of the Philaid family was Aeacus, son of Zeus and the nymph Aegina, while the first Athenian of the family was Phileus, son of Ajax; therefore the genealogy of Herodotus is strongly Aeginetic (see Duplouy 2006, cited under Pherecydes). In the version proposed by Pherecydes (FGrHist 3 F 60, included in Apollodorus’s bibliotheca 3, 158), links seem to emerge, however, not only between the Philaid family and the island of Salamina (since Ajax is identified as the descendant of the legendary king of Salamina, Kychreus), but with Attica as well, through the mythical Aktaios, ancestor of Phileus and son in law of Kychreus. According to Duplouy 2006 (cited under Pherecydes), the contradiction between the “Aeginetic” and “Attic” genealogies possibly reflects the conflict between the two areas at the beginning of the 5th century BCE over control of Salamina (see Diodorus, Book 4, chapter 72, sections 6–7; Pausanias, Book 1, chapter 35, section 2). As such, Herodotus could have synthesized the two traditions in slightly confused terms. For a comparison between the Pherecydes and Herodotus traditions, see Thomas 1989 (cited under Pherecydes), an excellent analysis, which characterizes the Pherecydes genealogical line as “artificial” in contrast to that of Herodotus, which is more interested in tracing the history of a dynasty of the Chersonese, founded by Miltiades the Elder. These complex traditions are more recently summarized in Scott 2005 (cited under Herodotus) and Duplouy 2006 (cited under Pherecydes); Davies 1971 (cited under Pherecydes) remains a fundamental point of reference. The Herodotean narrative (Book 6, chapter 34, section 1; Book 6, chapter 35, section 1) focuses mainly on Miltiades the Elder, son of Cypselus and maternal half brother of Cimon Coalemos (his mother’s first marriage was to Cypselus; after she was widowed—see Bradeen 1963—she married Stesagoras, father of Cimon Coalemos, who was, in turn, father of Miltiades the Younger, giving origin to the cadet branch of the family defined as the “Cimonids” in Wade Gery 1951, cited under General Overviews). Hammond 1956 (cited under General Overviews), on the basis of a passage in Aelianus (Varia Historia, Book 12, chapter 35), states that there were three Miltiades: the son of Cypselus and founder of the Chersonesos, his homonymous son, and the son of Cimon. The first and third Miltiades would correspond to those defined here as Miltiades the Elder and Miltiades the Younger; the second might be a son of Miltiades the Elder, of whom only a weak trace can be found in Marcellinus, Vita Thucydides, Books 8–10, according to Hammond 1956 (cited under General Overviews). It is possible that this second Miltiades was the stepbrother of Cimon Coalemos, and that he moved to the Chersonese like his father, founding the city of Cherroneso.
  247.  
  248. Bradeen, D. W. 1963. The fifth-century archon list. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 32.2: 187–208.
  249.  
  250. DOI: 10.2307/147176Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  251.  
  252. An important study devoted to an examination of the list of eponymous Athenian archons. In one fragment the name of Cypselus, father of Miltiades the Elder, and archon in 597–596 BCE, recurs. Bradeen excludes that he may be identified as Hippocleides, who was archon in 566/65 BCE, as suggested by some researchers. He proposes that the widow of Cypselus had married Stesagoras, the grandfather of Miltiades, thus enabling the Philaid line to enter the Cimonids.
  253.  
  254. Find this resource:
  255.  
  256. The Philaids in the Chersonese
  257. The affairs of the Philaids in the Chersonese, illustrated by Herodotus (mostly during Book 6), have aroused great interest since the 1930s: the works to point out, among many, are Berve 1937 (cited under General Overviews), Mazzarino 1938–1939, and Will 1954, all of which attempt to better understand the nature of the relations between colonies and mother cities in the 6th and 5th centuries. Herodotus also examines the relations between the Peisistratids and the Philaids; it is unclear whether they were collaborative or hostile. More recently, the author of Viviers 1987 (cited under Pherecydes) reacted to this critical tendency, proposing rereading Herodotus not only in light of Miltiades the Younger’s two trials, whose debates gave rise to much of the information quoted by Herodotus, as already suggested in Wade Gery 1951 (cited under General Overviews) and Crahay 1956 (cited under Herodotus), but also in the light of the subsequent political career of his son Cimon, true creator of the image of the Philaid family (see also Vanotti 1991).
  258.  
  259. Mazzarino, S. 1938–1939. La politica coloniale ateniese sotto i Pisistratidi. Rendiconti dell’Istituto Lombardo 72:285–318.
  260.  
  261. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  262.  
  263. This is quite a stimulating work, presenting useful observations on the colonial policies in the area of the Sigeion and the Chersonese and analyzing relations carried on between the Philaids and Peisistratids, as well as those between the two Athenian families and the Corinthian tyrants. There are also important considerations on the nature of the settlements, whose links to the mother city are adjudged as fluctuating.
  264.  
  265. Find this resource:
  266.  
  267. Vanotti, G. 1991. L’immagine di Milziade nell’elaborazione propagandistica del V e del IV secolo a. C. In L’immagine dell’uomo politico: Vita pubblica e morale nell’antichità. Edited by M. Sordi, 15–31. Contributi dell’Istituto di Storia Antica 17. Milan: Vita e Pensiero.
  268.  
  269. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  270.  
  271. This work tries to throw light on how the political image of Miltiades has retraced by his son Cimon, to redeem the father from ominous death after the failed expedition to Paros and to boost the family prestige.
  272.  
  273. Find this resource:
  274.  
  275. Will, E. 1954. Sur l’évolution de rapports entre colonies et métropoles en Grèce à partir du VIe siècle. La Nouvelle Clio 6:413–460.
  276.  
  277. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  278.  
  279. This is a comprehensive work that remains a fundamental reference point for those who are interested in Greek colonization issues between the 6th and 5th centuries. It discusses especially the legal statute introduced by the island of Lemnos after Athenian occupation.
  280.  
  281. Find this resource:
  282.  
  283. Miltiades the Elder in the Chersonese
  284. As recounted by Herodotus (Book 6, chapter 35, sections 1–3), Miltiades the Elder, son of Cypselus, enjoyed great influence and popularity. Therefore, possibly because of the envy of the tyrant Peisistratos, he was forced to leave Athens prior to 556/55 BCE, as Hammond 1956 (cited under General Overviews) states, since in that year Peisistratos was expelled from Athens, only to return ten years later in 546/45 BCE. In the same year the Lydian king Croesus, who previously stepped against the Lampsacenes in aid of Miltiades, would have been defeated at Sardis, as Herodotus testifies (Book 6, chapter 37, sections 1–2). However, Wade Gery 1951 (cited under General Overviews), Davies 1971 (cited under Pherecydes), Piccirilli 1985 (cited under Pherecydes), and Scott 2005 (cited under Herodotus) place the arrival of Miltiades the Elder in Chersonese after Peisistratos’s return from exile; that is, after 546/45 BCE. They all underline that the date of the fall of Sardis was 541/40 BCE, according to Marmor Parium (FGrHist 239 A 42); therefore the chronology of the relations between Croesus and Miltiades have not been ascertained. Friendship with King Croesus would constitute a sign of great prestige for the Philaid family and demonstrate their important international contacts, according to Duplouy 1999. This point of view contradicts the hypothesis previously put forward in Crahay 1956 (cited under Herodotus) that news of friendly relations between the two men had been used as anti-Philaid propaganda, to implicate the Athenian family with the tyranny of Croesus. Unlike Berve 1937 (cited under General Overviews), which considers the relations conducted between Peisistratos and Miltiades the Elder as very poor, arguing that Miltiades left Athens as a private individual, Will 1954 (cited under the Philaids in the Chersonese) contends that he left after signing a sort of agreement with Peisistratos, without losing Athenian citizenship, and continued to pursue the interests of the city apart from his own personal affairs. Mazzarino 1938–1939 (cited under the Philaids in the Chersonese) and Piccirilli 1985 (cited under Pherecydes) agree. Herodotus (Book 6, chapter 35 section 2–chapter 36 section1; see also Marcellinus, Vita Thucydides, Chapters 5–8) recounts that Miltiades the Elder became lord of the Chersonese by request of the Dolonci, who called on him to respond to the aggressions of the Apsinthii, following the indications of the oracle of Delphi. Viviers 1987 (cited under Pherecydes) hypothesizes that this tradition developed during the years of the first trial of Miltiades the Younger, in order to counter accusations of tyranny being made against him at the time of his return to Athens. This tradition would be created by the Philaid family to justify their occupation of the Chersonese with a divine mandate. The idea that Miltiades’ arrival in the region had also been requested by the local population is supported by more than one scholar (see Lombardo 1934 and Piccirilli 1985, the latter cited under Pherecydes).
  285.  
  286. Duplouy, A. 1999. L’utilisation de la figure de Crésus dans l’idéologie aristocratique athénienne: Solon, Alcméon, Miltiade et le dernier roi de Lydie. L’Antiquité Classique 68:1–22.
  287.  
  288. DOI: 10.3406/antiq.1999.1324Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  289.  
  290. This is a work looking at the figure of Croesus in relation to Solon, Alcmaeon, and Miltiades the Elder. The last of these is spoken about on pp. 17–22, emphasizing that good relations with King Croesus, the aristocrat par excellence, were typical of an aristocratic mentality, where relations with great figures contribute to family prestige.
  291.  
  292. Find this resource:
  293.  
  294. Lombardo, G. 1934. Cimone: Ricostruzione della biografia e discussioni storiografiche. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato.
  295.  
  296. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  297.  
  298. This is a monography devoted to Cimon, still relevant, in which the initial pages are reserved for reflections of the Philaids’ ancestors.
  299.  
  300. Find this resource:
  301.  
  302. The Philaids and the Peisistratids
  303. Davies 1971 (cited under Pherecydes) places the death of Miltiades the Elder in the 520s BCE, following that of his brother Cimon Coalemos. Herodotus states that Miltiades died without heirs, leaving the tyranny of the Chersonese to Stesagoras, the elder son of Cimon Coalemos. After the sudden death of Stesagoras, his younger brother, Miltiades the Younger, departed for the Chersonese with the agreement of the Peisistratids (Herodotus, Book 6, chapter 39, section 1). Previously (referred to in a different context by Herodotus, Book 6, chapter 103), the same Peisistratids had not hesitated to kill his father, Cimon Coalemos, in mysterious circumstances, because of jealousy toward him and dating back to the period of the tyranny of Peisistratus, among other things for his enormous prestige as an Olympic athlete, deriving from no less than three Olympic victories in four-horse chariot racing, with the same horses each time (as remembered by Herodotus, Book 6, chapter 103, sections 3–4). The three victories date to 536, 532, and 528 BCE according to Wade Gery 1951 and Hammond 1956 (both cited under General Overviews), while Lanzillotta 1977 (cited under Herodotus) places them in 532, 528, and 524 BCE. Cimon’s death likely occurred between 527 and 525 BCE; that is, between the death of Peisistratus and his son Miltiades the Younger’s accession to the archonship. In fact, this prestigious appointment may have been granted by the Peisistratids to Miltiades the Younger in order to pacify him, after the murder of his father, as attested by Herodotus (Book 6, chapter 39, section 1). Wade Gery 1951, Will 1954 (cited under the Philaids in the Chersonese), Mazzarino 1989, and Culasso Gastaldi 1996 all dwell on Miltiades’ controversial with the Peisistratids, underlining the Philaid’s stationing at Brauron, where both the Philaids and the Peisistratids are also residents. Scott 2005 and Samons 2017 (cited under Herodotus) make useful observations regarding attempts to cover up collaboration with tyrants over the course of the 5th century BCE.
  304.  
  305. Culasso Gastaldi, E. 1996. I Filaidi tra Milziade e Cimone: Per una lettura del decennio 490–480 a.C. Athenaeum 84:493–529.
  306.  
  307. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  308.  
  309. This is an extensive study that investigates the political dynamics arising in Athens in the post-Marathon decade, as well as through examination of some important ostraka, especially that relating to Teisander, son of Isagoras, archon in 508/7 BCE. Also, the relations of the Philaids with the Peisistratids, with Persia, and with the factions of mixing clans in Athens are investigated.
  310.  
  311. Find this resource:
  312.  
  313. Mazzarino, S. 1989. Fra Oriente e Occidente: Ricerche di storia greca arcaica. Milan: Rizzoli Editore.
  314.  
  315. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  316.  
  317. This is a reissue of the original 1947 volume (Florence: La Nuova Italia), some pages of which in chapter V, packed and stimulating as always, are devoted to the affairs of Miltiades in the Chersonese area and in Lemnos, as well as the relationships he had with the Peisistratids.
  318.  
  319. Find this resource:
  320.  
  321. Miltiades the Younger’s Archontate and Departure for the Chersonese
  322. Peisistratids allowed Miltiades the younger to become archon, in 524/23 BCE, as appears to be witnessed by the lists of archons (Meritt 1939; Supplementum Epigraficum Graecum X (1949): 352; A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988); Inscriptiones Graecae I3 1031) and as is confirmed by the testimony of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates Romanae Book 7, chapter 3, section 1. A considerable number of critics agree with the archontate of Miltiades the Younger, including Cadoux 1948, Hammond 1956 (cited under General Overviews), Kinzl 1968 (cited under General Overviews), Davies 1971 (cited under Pherecydes), Piccirilli 1985 (cited under Pherecydes), and Viviers 1993. However, there are many theories that the archon in that year was someone else, albeit with the same name (Berve 1937 (cited under General Overviews). Later, the Peisistratids placed a trireme at the disposal of Miltiades the Younger, which he used to make the move to the Thracian Chersonese, in a year that is substantially uncertain but must fall between the date of his archontate, 524/23 BCE, and 514 BCE, the year in which King Darius’s expedition to Scythia would have taken place. Wade Gery 1951 (cited under General Overviews) proposes the years 516–515 BCE, which has met with substantial agreement on the part of researchers. However, more recently, Viviers 1993 reopens the discussion by proposing the date of 519 BCE. This date was previously maintained by the author of Balcer 1972 but was later withdrawn (Balcer 1988). According to Nepos (Book 1, chapters 3–4), the departure and warlord role of Miltiades the Younger had been officially sanctioned by the Oracle of Delphi; this information, which is not found elsewhere, seems to refer to the exploits of Miltiades the Elder, which the Latin biographer possibly attributes erroneously to the nephew. Hammond 1956 maintains that the account of Nepos in this case is more accurate than that of Herodotus; this opinion is also shared by the author of Piccirilli 1985.
  323.  
  324. Balcer, J. M. 1972. The date of Herodotus IV.1: Darius’ Scythian expedition. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 76:99–132.
  325.  
  326. DOI: 10.2307/310979Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  327.  
  328. The researcher rejects the evidence of the Capitoline tablet, which places Darius’s Scythian expedition in the same year as the assassination of Hipparchus, and suggests advancing the Persian expedition to Scythia to the year 519 BCE, on the basis, among other things, of reading the Behistun inscription.
  329.  
  330. Find this resource:
  331.  
  332. Balcer, J. M. 1988. Persian occupied Thrace (Skudra). Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 37.1: 1–21.
  333.  
  334. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  335.  
  336. This is an interesting work, in which the author analyzes the text of Herodotus to follow the evolution of Persian domination in the area of Thrace and the Hellespont from the Scythian expedition of Darius (513 BCE) up to the battle of Sestos and of Byzantium (478 BCE).
  337.  
  338. Find this resource:
  339.  
  340. Cadoux, T. J. 1948. The Athenian archons from Kreon to Hypsichides. Journal of Hellenic Studies 68:70–123.
  341.  
  342. DOI: 10.2307/626301Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  343.  
  344. This study, which is still of importance and devoted to reconstruction of the archon lists on the basis of evidence from written documents and inscriptions, cites the name of Miltiades as archon for 524/23 BCE (64th Olympic games).
  345.  
  346. Find this resource:
  347.  
  348. Meritt, B. D. 1939. Greek inscriptions (14–27). Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 8.1: 48–82.
  349.  
  350. DOI: 10.2307/146453Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  351.  
  352. The author discusses the inscription from the American excavations in the Athenian agora. Among them there is a fragment of Pentelic marble, found in a modern wall (number 21). It contains a list of the Athenian eponymous archons from the 6th century BCE, one of whom is Miltiades.
  353.  
  354. Find this resource:
  355.  
  356. Viviers, D. 1993. La chronologie du règne de Miltiade le jeune en Chersonèse de Thrace: À propos d’Hérodote VI 40. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 136.3–4: 222–238.
  357.  
  358. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  359.  
  360. This is a work that undertakes a careful examination, including the philological side, of Herodotus, Book 6, chapter 40, in order to redefine the meaning of the evidence and therefore the chronology of Miltiades’ stay in the Chersonese. It includes a broad bibliographical discussion.
  361.  
  362. Find this resource:
  363.  
  364. Marriage to Hegesipyle
  365. Once settled in, Miltiades the Younger consolidated his own tyranny on the Chersonese with some difficulty, overcoming the resistance of the Chersonese people with the help of a mercenary militia and consolidating his own position by marrying the local princess Hegesipyle, daughter of the Thracian Olorus (Herodotus, Book 6, chapter 39, section 1; Marcellinus, Vita Thucydides, Book 11). The marriage, which took place between 516 and 514 BCE (as argued in Ferretto 1986, but Wade Gery 1951 (cited under General Overviews) and Davies 1971 (cited under Pherecydes) contend that it was slightly later), would have led to the divorce of Miltiades from his first wife (probably to a daughter of Hippias), around 524 BCE, to reestablish good relations between the houses of the Philaids and that of the tyrants after the death of Cimon Coalemos (see Wade Gery 1951 and Hammond 1956, both cited under General Overviews, Davies 1971, Piccirilli 1986, and Sears 2013). Wade Gery 1951 remarks that the subsequent divorce broke relations between Miltiades and the Peisistratids, not only because it brought the prestige of the latter family into debate, but also because it ended their control over the gold mines in the Pangaeum (if it is to be believed that Hegesipyle was the princess of the Thracians in the Pangaeum).
  366.  
  367. Ferretto, C. 1986. Milziade ed Egesipile: Un matrimonio d’interesse. Serta Historica Antiqua 15:77–83.
  368.  
  369. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  370.  
  371. The article discusses the political consequences caused in Athens and in the Chersonese by the second marriage of Miltiades with the princess of the Thracian Satri, Hegesipyle.
  372.  
  373. Find this resource:
  374.  
  375. Piccirilli, L. 1986. La prima moglie di Milziade. Serta Historica Antiqua 15:69–76.
  376.  
  377. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  378.  
  379. The article discusses the first marriage of Miltiades, made with an Athenian, possibly a daughter of Hippias, as already maintained in Wade Gery 1951 (cited under General Overviews); Davies 1971 (cited under Pherecydes) suggests she was an older sister of Archedice.
  380.  
  381. Find this resource:
  382.  
  383. Sears, M. A. 2013. Athens, Thrace, and the shaping of Athenian leadership. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
  384.  
  385. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139343817Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  386.  
  387. This volume relates to how the Athenian leadership consolidated itself in Thrace. In particular, in chapter 2, the intervention and presence of the Peisistratids and the Philaids are examined; in chapter 6 the influence that the extended stay in Thrace may have had on the military ability of Miltiades is discussed.
  388.  
  389. Find this resource:
  390.  
  391. Darius’s Scythian Expedition and the Pontoon Bridge
  392. According to Herodotus (Book 4, chapters 136–137), in the decade between 520–510 BCE Darius organized an expedition to Scythia. During the military operations, the Scythians called on the Ionians to destroy the bridge over the Istros and then flee rapidly, preventing a Persian withdrawal. The Ionian tyrants met in council, expressing differing opinions on what to do. Miltiades was supposed to be in favor of following the Scythian suggestion, while Histiaeus of Miletus maintained that their tyrannies survived thanks only to King Darius. Histiaeus’s opinion prevailed. The authenticity of Herodotus’s account has repeatedly been called into doubt: Arnaldo Momigliano (Momigliano 1933) and his pupil Giuseppina Lombardo (Lombardo 1934, cited under Miltiades the Elder in the Chersonese) adjudged the tradition as unfounded, as did the authors of Berve 1937, Wade Gery 1951, and Kinzl 1968 (all cited under General Overviews), along with Lanzillotta 1977 (cited under Herodotus). A more prudent stance was adopted in Nenci 1998 (cited under Herodotus). Miltiades is considered neither clearly pro-Persian nor openly pro-Scythian in Mazzarino 1989 (cited under the Philaids and the Peisistratids). Miltiades is considered constantly loyal to King Darius in Berve 1937, Kinzl 1968, and Shimron 1987. Viviers 1987 (cited under Pherecydes) contends that the Philaid’s opposition role toward the Persians was definitely exaggerated during the 490s BCE, possibly at the time of the trials, to underline that Miltiades’ anti-tyranny stance went back to the early years of his stay in the Chersonese. This theory is shared in How and Wells 1912 and Scott 2005 (both cited under Herodotus), as well as in Wade Gery 1951. The chronology of the event itself has also generated a lively debate; How and Wells 1912 suggests a date somewhere between 514 and 508 BCE, whereas Berve 1937 tends toward 513 BCE; likewise, Wade Gery 1951 and Lanzillotta 1977 propose 514/13 BCE. In any case, more recently Viviers 1993 suggests the date 519 BCE; Jack Martin Balcer (Balcer 1972, cited under Miltiades the Younger’s Archontate and Departure for the Chersonese) previously maintained the same date but later withdrew (Balcer 1988, cited under Miltiades the Younger’s Archontate and Departure for the Chersonese). According to Sealey 1976, Darius’s expedition was not intended to completely subjugate Scythia, but rather to create a Persian satrapy in Thrace; on this question, see How and Wells 1912, Kinzl 1968, and Balcer 1988. Overall, see Asheri, et al. 2007 (cited under Herodotus).
  393.  
  394. Momigliano, A. 1933. Dalla spedizione scitica di Filippo alla spedizione scitica di Dario. Athenaeum, n.s. 11:336–359.
  395.  
  396. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  397.  
  398. This is a work that is still stimulating and in which the scholar deems the theory completely unfounded that Miltiades could have conspired against the great king during Darius’s Scythian expedition. The defection must have taken shape only later, leading to the Ionian revolt.
  399.  
  400. Find this resource:
  401.  
  402. Sealey, R. 1976. The pit and the well: The Persian heralds of 491 B.C. Classical Journal 72.1: 13–20.
  403.  
  404. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  405.  
  406. The author analyzes a well-known passage of Herodotus (Book 7, chapter 133), in which reference is made to a Persian legation arriving in Athens and Sparta in 491 BCE to request water and land. The heralds were thrown into a well and a pit. According to Pausanias (Book 3, chapter 12, section 7), the person responsible for this outrageous deed was none other than Miltiades.
  407.  
  408. Find this resource:
  409.  
  410. Shimron, B. 1987. Miltiades an der Donaubrücke und in der Chersonesos. Wiener Studien 100:23–34.
  411.  
  412. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  413.  
  414. This work examines not only the passage of Herodotus, Book 4, chapter 137, relating to the Scythians’ request to destroy the pontoon bridge, but also the whole of the passage of Herodotus, Book 6, chapter 40, and, in general, all the activity of Miltiades in the Chersonese, paying special attention to the chronological problems.
  415.  
  416. Find this resource:
  417.  
  418. Miltiades’ Stay in the Chersonese
  419. In the short chapter 40 of Book 6, Herodotus gives a quite confused description of Miltiades’ time in the Chersonese, providing a relative dating that remains quite perplexing. Researchers have suggested various readings of the events, also supposing that the Herodotean text was corrupted in transmission; see Scott 2005 (cited under Herodotus). Wade Gery 1951 (cited under General Overviews) holds that Miltiades’ flight from the Scythians took place two years after his arrival in the Chersonese—in other words, in approximately 514 BCE, lasting only a few months before he regained possession of the region in the same year with the aid of the Dolonci. A similar opinion is held by the authors of Kinzl 1968 (cited under General Overviews), Mazzarino 1989 (cited under the Philaids and the Peisistratids), and Lanzillotta 1977 (cited under Herodotus). However, some scholars hold that Miltiades’ absence was decidedly longer. He was not led back to the Chersonese by the Dolonci until 496 BCE, according to Hammond 1956 (cited under General Overviews), and Evans 1963, Prontera 1972, Burn 1984, Salomon 1996, and Nenci 1998 (the last cited under Herodotus) agree. Viviers 1993 (cited under Miltiades the Younger’s Archontate and Departure for the Chersonese), on the other hand, contends that Miltiades’ flight and his return, thanks to the Dolonci, should be put in 495 BCE, two years before the events of 493 BCE, which Herodotus talks about in chapter 41. Scott 2005 is a more recent, detailed analysis. The author thinks the report of Miltiades’ flight from the Scythians had no basis in reality but was the result of elaboration in the trial documents of 493 BCE, in particular the version of the prosecution. In the view of Scott 2005, Miltiades left the Chersonese on the occasion of his marriage to Hegesypile, and his absence was then explained by his political opponents in Athens as a flight and an act of cowardice. How and Wells 1912 (cited under Herodotus) seems to maintain that during his absence, which ended only at the moment of the Ionian revolt, Miltiades fought alongside prince Olorus (see also Burn 1984 and Sears 2013, the latter cited under Marriage to Hegesipyle).
  420.  
  421. Burn, A. R. 1984. Persia and the Greeks: The defence of the West, c. 546–478 B.C. 2d ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
  422.  
  423. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  424.  
  425. In this volume, which compares two equally large but differing civilizations, chapter XII is devoted to the Battle of Marathon, including its strategy, monumental impact and propaganda. Other important issues of Miltiades’ life are discussed in previous chapters.
  426.  
  427. Find this resource:
  428.  
  429. Evans, J. A. S. 1963. Note on Miltiades’ capture of Lemnos. Classical Philology 58.3: 168–170.
  430.  
  431. DOI: 10.1086/364795Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  432.  
  433. The focus of this work is to establish the chronology of the capture of the island of Lemnos by Miltiades. This also implies a series of considerations regarding the chronology and the manner of the time the Philaids spent in the Chersonese.
  434.  
  435. Find this resource:
  436.  
  437. Meidani, K. 2010. Remarks on Miltiades’ activities before and after Marathon. Paper presented at an international symposium held 12–14 September 2008 in Marathon, Greece. In Marathon: The battles and the ancient deme. Edited by K. Buraselis and K. Meidani, 167–183. Athens, Greece: Institut du Livre A. Kardamitsa.
  438.  
  439. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  440.  
  441. Early-21st-century adjustments to the numerous problems in the biography of Miltiades, of which the most important moments are reviewed, suggest fixing the absence of Miltiades from the Chersonese in the years 497–495 BCE.
  442.  
  443. Find this resource:
  444.  
  445. Prontera, F. 1972. Per l’interpretazione di Erodoto VI 40. La Parola del Passato 28:111–123.
  446.  
  447. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  448.  
  449. This is a work devoted to the specific examination of Herodotus, Book 6, chapter 40, which is analyzed in its philological aspects and the various interpretations of it provided by modern researchers.
  450.  
  451. Find this resource:
  452.  
  453. Salomon, N. 1996. Milziade IV e il Chersoneso tra tirannide e democrazia. Atti dell’Accademia delle Scienze di Torino: Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche 130:155–178.
  454.  
  455. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  456.  
  457. In this contribution, the author examines the activity of Miltiades in the Chersonese, dwelling especially on Herodotus, Book 6, chapter 40, which speaks of his flight from the Scythians and his return, escorted by the Dolonci. She claims his absence from the region of Thrace lasted fifteen years, from 513 to approximately 496/95 BCE.
  458.  
  459. Find this resource:
  460.  
  461. Miltiades, Lemnos, and the Pelasgian Traditions
  462. Chapters 137–140 of Herodotus’s Book 6, which deal with the Miltiadean conquest of Lemnos, are a sequel to the account of his second trial in 489 BCE. Herodotus maintains that the account of the taking of the island, along with the Battle of Marathon, was one of the strong points of his defense. Herodotus’s account dwells not only on the conquest of the island, but also on the lengthy, complex relationship between the Athenians and the Pelasgians, since the Pelasgians, who had been settled in Attica, were chased out as a result of a series of misadventures and then had moved to Lemnos (on this subject, see Sourvinou-Inwood 2004 and Baragwanath 2008). Thus the Philaid’s conquest of the island, together with the expulsion of the Pelasgians, would constitute the final act of a series of mutual vendettas carried out between the two peoples. However, as Herodotus himself explains (Book 6, chapter 137, section 1), alongside this pro-Athenian tradition there were also other versions in circulation that were decidedly less favorable, especially the one going back to Hecataeus of Miletus, according to which the expulsion of the Pelasgians from Attica represented an Athenian injustice. In light of this, scholars have concluded that the whole pro-Athenian version recounted by Herodotus was largely influenced by Philaid propaganda designed to legitimize Miltiades’ conquest of the island and emphasize the heinous crimes previously committed by its inhabitants (Crahay 1956 and Scott 2005, both cited under Herodotus; Dorati 2005). Sourvinou-Inwood 2004, however, underlines how the accounts of the misadventures of the Pelasgians, which are in reality very ancient, have been enriched over time with new elements, the latest of which (relating to the oracle of Delphi) may have been added precisely in connection with Miltiades’ conquest of Lemnos. The same conclusions are drawn in Giuffrida 1999.
  463.  
  464. Baragwanath, E. 2008. Motivation and narrative in Herodotus. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford and New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
  465.  
  466. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199231294.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  467.  
  468. In the miscellaneous volume, point 3 of chapter V is devoted to discussion of the evidence of Herodotus (Book 6, chapter 137–139), which provides just or unjust reasons behind the expulsion of the Pelasgians by the Athenians.
  469.  
  470. Find this resource:
  471.  
  472. Dorati, M. 2005. Lemnion kakon. In Vicende di Ipsipile: Da Erodoto a Metastasio; Colloquio di Urbino, 5–6 maggio 2003. Edited by R. Raffaelli, R. M. Danese, M. R. Falivene, and L. Lomiento, 23–54. Letteratura e Antropologia 9. Urbino, Italy: Quattroventi Editore.
  473.  
  474. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  475.  
  476. The mythical/historical traditions on the island of Lemnos are examined in connection with the expedition led by Miltiades to the island, underlining the apologetic value that the accounts took on at the time of the two trials he underwent subsequently, as well as the proverb Lemnion kakon (Lemnian evil), which rapidly became well known.
  477.  
  478. Find this resource:
  479.  
  480. Giuffrida, M. 1999. Note su Lemno arcaica. Hormos 1:113–143.
  481.  
  482. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  483.  
  484. This work examines the mythical traditions as set down starting from the period of Homer and up to the 5th century BCE on the island of Lemnos, and its complex inhabitation.
  485.  
  486. Find this resource:
  487.  
  488. Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 2004. Reading a myth, reconstructing its constructions. In Myth and symbol II: Symbolic phenomena in ancient Greek culture; Papers from the second and third International Symposia on Symbolism at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, September 21–24, 2000 and September 19–22, 2002. Edited by S. des Bouvrie, 141–179. Papers from the Norwegian Institute at Athens 7. Bergen, Norway: Norwegian Institute at Athens.
  489.  
  490. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  491.  
  492. This is a long work in which all the aspects of the account of the expulsion of the Pelasgians from Attica and its subsequent developments are analyzed, reaching the conclusion that only the last segment of the history is a creation of Philaid propaganda.
  493.  
  494. Find this resource:
  495.  
  496. The Conquest of Lemnos
  497. Concerning the conquest of Lemnos, which took place when Miltiades was in the Chersonese, there remain a number of question marks. Researchers have expressed different points of view regarding the chronology laid out by Herodotus in Book 6, chapter 40. De Simone 1996, Will 1954 (cited under the Philaids in the Chersonese), Mazzarino 1989 (cited under the Philaids and the Peisistratids), Giuffrida 1999 (cited under Miltiades, Lemnos, and the Pelasgian Traditions), Berve 1937 and Hammond 1956 (both cited under General Overviews), and Lanzillotta 1977 and Scott 2005 (both cited under Herodotus) all propose a conquest between c. 516 and 510 BCE. A later date, in the epoch of the Ionian revolt, is suggested in Mustilli 1940, Graham 1964, Rausch 1999, Culasso Gastaldi 2011, Ficuciello 2013, Wade Gery 1951 (cited under General Overviews), and Evans 1963 and Burn 1984 (both cited under Miltiades’ Stay in the Chersonese). Last, a date at the end of the 6th century BCE is the theory in Salomon 1994, Tuci 2004, Salomon 1996 (cited under Miltiades’ Stay in the Chersonese), and Nenci 1998 (cited under Herodotus). Lanzillotta 1977 and Bonanno 1999 (the latter cited under Diodorus) contend that the Philaid handed over the island to Athens subsequent to the conquest and sometime before his return to Athens. There is just as much uncertainty as to the nature of the expedition. Was it an expedition of a “private” nature, intended to create a personal potentate, as Berve 1937 argues? Or was it an expedition forming part of a project of state expansion on a large scale, as Graham 1964 and Salomon 1997 propose? Figueira 2008 defines Miltiades’ conquests of Lemnos and in the Chersonese as forms of “patronal colonisation,” with substantial agreement from Ficuciello 2013, Bonanno 1999, and Mazzarino 1938–1939 (the last cited under the Philaids in the Chersonese).
  498.  
  499. Culasso Gastaldi, E. 2011. Cleruchie? Non cleruchie? Alcune riflessioni sugli insediamenti extraterritoriali di Atene. In In ricordo di Dino Ambaglio: Atti del convegno, Università di Pavia, 9–10 dicembre 2009. Edited by R. Scuderi and C. Zizza, 115–146. Pavia, Italy: Pavia Univ. Press.
  500.  
  501. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  502.  
  503. This is a comprehensive work that takes into consideration the Athenian occupation of Lemnos starting from Miltiades and during the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, especially on the basis of epigraphic data.
  504.  
  505. Find this resource:
  506.  
  507. De Simone, C. 1996. I tirreni a Lemnos: Evidenza linguistica e tradizioni storiche. Studi Etruschi 31. Florence: Leo S. Olschki Editore.
  508.  
  509. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  510.  
  511. This volume unites the strictly linguistic research with that which is historical. In particular, the second part of the text is devoted to the historical traditions, relating to the presence of the Pelasgians in Lemnos, with an examination of the chapters of Herodotus’s Book 6, which speaks about the conquest of the island by Miltiades.
  512.  
  513. Find this resource:
  514.  
  515. Ficuciello, L. 2013. Lemnos: Cultura, storia, archeologia, topografia di un’isola del Nord-Egeo. Monografie della Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 20.1.1. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider Editore.
  516.  
  517. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  518.  
  519. This is a comprehensive monograph published in the series of the Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene (SAIA), devoted to the island of Lemnos. In chapter V the conquest carried out by Miltiades is dealt with.
  520.  
  521. Find this resource:
  522.  
  523. Figueira, T. 2008. Colonisation in the classical period. In Greek colonisation: An account of Greek colonies and other settlements overseas. Vol. 2. Edited by G. R. Tsetskhladze, 427–523. Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca Classica Batava: Supplementum 193. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
  524.  
  525. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  526.  
  527. The initial part of this comprehensive article makes a number of mentions of the exploits carried out by Miltiades in the Chersonese, on Lemnos and on Paros, with reflections on the legal nature of the Athenian presence in these territories.
  528.  
  529. Find this resource:
  530.  
  531. Graham, A. J. 1964. Colony and mother city in ancient Greece. Manchester, UK: Manchester Univ. Press.
  532.  
  533. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  534.  
  535. Brief mentions of the methods and timings of the conquest of Lemnos and discussion of its controversial legal status during the 5th century BCE are related in chapter IX, which continues to be an important point of reference in the history of Greek colonization. Republished as recently as 1999.
  536.  
  537. Find this resource:
  538.  
  539. Mustilli, D. 1940. L’occupazione ateniese di Lemno e gli scavi di Hephaistia. In Studi di antichità classica offerti da colleghi e discepoli a Emanuele Ciaceri al termine de suo insegnamento universitario. By R. Andreotti, F. Arnaldi, D. Mustilli, et al., 149–158. Genoa: Società Editrice Dante Alighieri.
  540.  
  541. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  542.  
  543. This is an article that immediately achieved great resonance for its chronological reconstruction of the conquest of Lemnos, on the basis of archaeological and numismatic data.
  544.  
  545. Find this resource:
  546.  
  547. Rausch, M. 1999. Miltiades, Athen und “die Rhamnusier auf Lemnos” (IG I3 522bis). Klio 81.1: 7–17.
  548.  
  549. DOI: 10.1524/klio.1999.81.1.7Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  550.  
  551. In this work a number of epigraphic documents are examined, especially some dedications on helmets linked to the Athenian conquest and occupation on Lemnos. This allows for discussion on the methods and timings of the conquest of Lemnos.
  552.  
  553. Find this resource:
  554.  
  555. Salomon, N. 1994. Atene e la conquista di Lemno. In Istorie: Studi offerti dagli allievi a Giuseppe Nenci in occasione del suo settantesimo compleanno. Edited by S. Alessandrì, 399–409. Galatina, Italy: Congedo Editore.
  556.  
  557. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  558.  
  559. The author starts from a discussion of certain archaeological data to place Miltiades’ conquest of the island of Lemnos at the end of the 6th century BCE.
  560.  
  561. Find this resource:
  562.  
  563. Salomon, N. 1997. Le cleruchie di Atene. Studi e Testi di Storia Antica 6. Pisa, Italy: Edizioni ETS.
  564.  
  565. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  566.  
  567. In this volume, which is devoted to an examination of the Athenian institution of the cleruchy, an extensive section is reserved for problems relating to the history of the conquest of Lemnos by Miltiades.
  568.  
  569. Find this resource:
  570.  
  571. Tuci, P. A. 2004. Milziade e la manipolazione della volontà popolare: Il tema del silenzio. Rendiconti dell’Istituto Lombardo 138:233–271.
  572.  
  573. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  574.  
  575. This is a comprehensive study in which various aspects of the biography of Miltiades are reexamined (especially the expedition to Paros and the second trial in 489 BCE, but also the conquest of Lemnos). This article is helpful because of its thorough bibliographical discussion.
  576.  
  577. Find this resource:
  578.  
  579. Written Traditions of the Conquest of Lemnos
  580. The ancient written traditions on the conquest of Lemnos are inconsistent, which helps fuel the uncertainty reconstructing the facts and has generated a large collection of bibliographies discussed in Marchiandi 2008. According to Herodotus (Book 6, chapters 137–140), after conquering the Chersonese, Miltiades moved to Lemnos. He supposedly reached it in a single day’s navigation, driven by the wind of Boreas, fulfilling what the Pelasgians themselves had long maintained: that they would surrender their lands only to someone who reached Lemnos in a single day from the soil of Attica (Book 6, chapter 139, section 4). This idea came from the oracle of Delphi, after the people of Lemnos had been hit by famine and sterility after kidnapping and killing some Athenian women and their children (Dorati 2005, cited under Miltiades, Lemnos, and the Pelasgian Traditions). When Miltiades arrived, the city of Hephaestia accepted Athenian occupation, while Myrina opposed him and was besieged until it capitulated. Cornelius Nepos (Miltiades, Book 1, chapters 3–6) initially seemed to attribute the first demand for subjugation of the island to Miltiades the Elder, perhaps confusing the uncle and nephew of the same name (see How and Wells 1912, cited under Herodotus, and Kinzl 1968, cited under General Overviews). He then resumes the account of the conquest of Lemnos and dates it prior to Darius’s Scythian expedition (Miltiades, Book 2, chapters 4–5). According to a fragment of Diodorus (Book 10, chapter 19, section 6 = Const. exc. 4, pp. 297–298; similar tradition in Steph. Byz. s.v. Hephaeistia; Zen. 3, 85; Suidae Lexicon s.v. Hermoneios charis), on the other hand, the inhabitants of the island gave themselves up to the Athenians under pressure from their leader, Hermon, who feared the possible arrival of the Persians (concerning this, see Scott 2005, cited under Herodotus).
  581.  
  582. Marchiandi, D. 2008. Riflessioni in merito allo statuto giuridico di Lemno nel V secolo a.C.: La ragnatela bibliografica e l’evidenza archeologica; Un dialogo possibile? Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene 86, 3d ser. 8.1: 11–39.
  583.  
  584. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  585.  
  586. As may be deduced from its title, this work discusses the history of Lemnos and its legal status, which is very unclear, especially in the first half of the 5th century BCE, and examines the written traditions as well as epigraphic and archaeological data.
  587.  
  588. Find this resource:
  589.  
  590. Return to Athens and the First Trial
  591. According to Herodotus’s account (Book 6, chapter 41), when the Persians were sighted in the straits in 493 BCE, Miltiades decided to return to Athens with five triremes. During the crossing he was boarded near Imbros by Phoenicians, who captured the vessel captained by his eldest son, Metiochos, and took it to Persia. Miltiades managed to reach Athens, only to find himself in further trouble—he was accused of the exercise of tyranny in the Chersonese and therefore put on trial (Herodotus, Book 6, chapter 104, sections 1–2). Information regarding this first procedure is somewhat scarce: besides Herodotus, it is also spoken of by Marcellinus (Vita Thucydides, Book 13), though even more vaguely. The scholars are in substantial agreement that the accusers included the Alcmeonids and the father of Pericles, Xanthippus, as was to be the case in the Second Trial in 489 BCE. Among Miltiades’ supporters, Themistocles should be singled out as apparently the eponymous archon in the year of the trial, as inferred by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Book 6, chapter 34, section 1). This idea is already shared in Knight 1970, Kinzl 1977, Bauman 1990, Wade Gery 1951 (cited under General Overviews), Burn 1984 (cited under Miltiades’ Stay in the Chersonese), Culasso Gastaldi 1996 (cited under the Philaids and the Peisistratids), and Tuci 2004 (cited under the Conquest of Lemnos). Badian 1971, Karavites 1977, and Williams 1982 are less sure. There is an extensive analysis of the trial’s institutional nature and forum. According to Scott 2005 (cited under Herodotus), it was held before a court rather than before the Areopagus, as proposed in Carawan 1987 and Bauman 1990. Previously, the author of Hansen 1975 presumed that the trial started as an eisanghelia before the people and finished at the Areopagus. Bonner and Smith 1930–1938 holds that the trial was a popular debate. Scott 2005, in the wake of Crahay 1956 (both cited under Herodotus), and Viviers 1987 (cited under Pherecydes) put forward the theory that the speeches made by the prosecution and defense were the main source of information for Herodotus’s account of the Philaid family. The theory that the first trial had no historical basis but was a sort of copy of the second trial, going back to 489 BCE, is proposed in Berve 1937 (cited under General Overviews), but it was barely accepted.
  592.  
  593. Badian, E. 1971. Archons and strategoi. Antichthon 5:1–34.
  594.  
  595. DOI: 10.1017/S0066477400004081Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  596.  
  597. The author discusses the possible archonship fulfilled by Themistocles in 493 BCE and examines the role played by the latter in the affairs involving Miltiades in that year, particularly during his first trial.
  598.  
  599. Find this resource:
  600.  
  601. Bauman, R. A. 1990. Political trials in ancient Greece. London and New York: Routledge.
  602.  
  603. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  604.  
  605. Some pages of this volume are devoted to a helpful examination of the two trials Miltiades underwent, with a discussion of the procedure adopted in both cases: according to this, in 493 BCE the hearing was held before the Areopagus.
  606.  
  607. Find this resource:
  608.  
  609. Bonner, R. J., and G. Smith. 1930–1938. The administration of justice from Homer to Aristotle. 2 vols. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
  610.  
  611. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  612.  
  613. These two volumes were republished in 1968 by Greenwood and are still fundamental, examining the Athenian judicial system from the heroic age to the 4th century BCE. The first trial of Miltiades is examined in chapter VII of Volume 1, “The Judicial Reforms of Cleisthenes.”
  614.  
  615. Find this resource:
  616.  
  617. Carawan, E. M. 1987. Eisanghelia and Euthyna: The trials of Miltiades, Themistocles, and Cimon. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 28.2: 167–208.
  618.  
  619. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  620.  
  621. This is a comprehensive work devoted to examination of the procedures of eisanghelia and euthyna, in which the legal situations of Miltiades (first and second trials), Themistocles, and Cimon are analyzed.
  622.  
  623. Find this resource:
  624.  
  625. Hansen, M. H. 1975. Eisangelia: The sovereignty of the people’s court in Athens in the fourth century B.C. and the impeachment of generals and politicians. Odense University Classical Studies 6. Odense, Denmark: Odense Univ. Press.
  626.  
  627. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  628.  
  629. This is an important volume on the controversial institution of the eisanghelia, which has given rise to much discussion. The judicial trials of Miltiades are examined in chapter III, “Eisangelia to the Assembly and to the Council,” being singled out from among the eisangheliai to the Assembly.
  630.  
  631. Find this resource:
  632.  
  633. Karavites, P. 1977. Realities and appearances, 490–480 B.C. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 26.2: 129–147.
  634.  
  635. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  636.  
  637. This is an important work that examines events taking place in Athens between the first and second Persian Wars and the power relationships between the various factions in the city; the final stage of the political fate of Miltiades is briefly outlined.
  638.  
  639. Find this resource:
  640.  
  641. Kinzl, K. H. 1977. Athens: Between tyranny and democracy. In Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in ancient history and prehistory: Studies presented to Fritz Schachermeyr on the occasion of his eightieth birthday. Edited by K. H. Kinzl, 199–223. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.
  642.  
  643. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  644.  
  645. Carries out an analysis of Athenian politics in the years between 508 and 480 BCE, with a number of helpful indications.
  646.  
  647. Find this resource:
  648.  
  649. Knight, D. W. 1970. Some studies in Athenian politics in the fifth century B.C. Historia Einzelschriften 13. Wiesbaden, Germany: Franz Steiner Verlag.
  650.  
  651. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  652.  
  653. This is a work made up of several contributions, among which the two central ones prove to be of particular interest, devoted to Athenian politics from 510 to 479 BCE.
  654.  
  655. Find this resource:
  656.  
  657. Williams, G. M. E. 1982. Athenian politics 508/7–480 B.C.: A reappraisal. Athenaeum 60:521–544.
  658.  
  659. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  660.  
  661. This is an important study devoted to Athenian political dynamics, analyzing the years 508–500 and 500–489 BCE.
  662.  
  663. Find this resource:
  664.  
  665. The Battle of Marathon
  666. In the late summer of 490 BCE, a battle was fought on the plain of Marathon between the Athenian army, led by ten strategoi including Miltiades and the polemarch Callimach us, against the Persian army, headed by Datis. Against all odds, the Athenian troops, with inferior numbers and fighting solely with the aid of one thousand Plataeans, halted the enemy forces by charging them and forcing them back to their ships and sea. According to Herodotus (Book 6, chapter 117, section 1), 6,400 Persian soldiers fell, compared to only 192 Athenians. This unexpected success allowed the Athenians to later call themselves the saviors of Greece. The account of the battle given by Herodotus, the most important source, has been judged unsatisfactory, brief, and inaccurate by many researchers (Macan 1895 and How and Wells 1912, both cited under Herodotus). Gomme 1952 seems to sum up scholarly agreement: “Everyone knows that Herodotus’ narrative of Marathon will not do” (p. 77), even if that researcher then uses Herodotus’s account as a basis for attempting to trace a picture of the course of the battle. A less severe opinion is expressed in Hammond 1968, Evans 1993, and Doenges 1998. More recently, Raaflaub 2010 claims that the incomplete nature of the Herodotean account depends on the fact that the battle did not allow the kind of analysis and interpretation of history that Herodotus sought to provide, and it depends further on the fact that the victory qualified only as an Athenian success and not Panhellenic. Besides Herodotus’s account, there is also the important evidence of Cornelius Nepos (Miltiades, Books 4–6), which emphasizes Athenian heroics without adding any details worthy of note (Rhodes 2013, cited under Marathon in Modern Scholarship). In 2010 some new monographs on the fighting were published (e.g., Billows 2010 and Krentz 2010).
  667.  
  668. Billows, R. A. 2010. Marathon: How one battle changed Western civilization. New York and London: Duckworth.
  669.  
  670. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  671.  
  672. The author does not fail to call the reader’s attention to the ideological significance attributed, especially in the 19th century, to this battle; that is, that it was a turning point for Western history, as shown in the title.
  673.  
  674. Find this resource:
  675.  
  676. Doenges, N. A. 1998. The Campaign and Battle of Marathon. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 47.1: 1–17.
  677.  
  678. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  679.  
  680. This is a contribution in which the author, even though he expresses reservations as to the credibility of the Herodotean tradition, in that it is derived from imprecise sources, offers a reconstruction of the salient episodes of the battle.
  681.  
  682. Find this resource:
  683.  
  684. Evans, J. A. S. 1993. Herodotus and the Battle of Marathon. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 42.3: 279–307.
  685.  
  686. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  687.  
  688. This is an important article that deals not only with problems of a strategic or military nature at the Battle of Marathon, but also historiographical problems related to the evidence of Herodotus, as well as the ideological and political fallout from the battle. Many of these considerations have been taken up in the subsequent bibliographical debate.
  689.  
  690. Find this resource:
  691.  
  692. Gomme, A. W. 1952. Herodotos and Marathon. Phoenix 6.3: 77–83.
  693.  
  694. DOI: 10.2307/1086577Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  695.  
  696. Despite the trenchant opening claim that “Herodotos’ narrative of Marathon will not do,” the researcher then discusses some of the more important problems emerging from Herodotus’s text and tries to explain their meaning and offer a plausible reconstruction of the facts.
  697.  
  698. Find this resource:
  699.  
  700. Hammond, N. G. L. 1968. The Campaign and the Battle of Marathon. Journal of Hellenic Studies 88:13–57.
  701.  
  702. DOI: 10.2307/628670Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  703.  
  704. This is a very extensive contribution taking into consideration especially the topographical, tactical, and strategic aspects of the battle, starting from an analysis of the text of Herodotus. In the final part of this contribution, the lengthy paragraph 5 is devoted to the evaluation of literary evidence, where the various versions of evidence on the battle are examined and compared, starting from Herodotus down to the lexicon of the Suda.
  705.  
  706. Find this resource:
  707.  
  708. Krentz, P. 2010. The Battle of Marathon. Yale Library of Military History. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
  709.  
  710. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  711.  
  712. This is a volume in which the military and strategic aspects of the battle, especially, are examined, starting from the text of Herodotus (the limitations of which are noted), although its overall credibility is not refuted.
  713.  
  714. Find this resource:
  715.  
  716. Raaflaub, K. 2010. Herodotus, Marathon, and the historian’s choice. Paper presented at an international symposium held 12–14 September 2008 in Marathon, Greece. In Marathon: The battles and the ancient deme. Edited by K. Buraselis and K. Meidani, 221–235. Athens, Greece: Institut du Livre A. Kardamitsa.
  717.  
  718. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  719.  
  720. This contribution, published in the commemorative volume of the 2,500-year anniversary of the Battle of Marathon, is intended to identify the reasons why Herodotus would have presented “a truncated, even if dramatic narrative of Marathon,” other than reasons associated with lack of sufficient documentation on the facts.
  721.  
  722. Find this resource:
  723.  
  724. Marathon in Modern Scholarship
  725. Over the course of time, an extensive bibliography has accumulated on the Battle of Marathon, not only because the account comes from ancient sources (in particular Book 6 of Herodotus) in a fairly concise form. Ancient accounts are in some cases contradictory, which has generated a noticeable series of exegetical problems; furthermore the battle rapidly acquired the status of a mythical event over the 5th and into the 4th centuries BCE, a symbol of solitary Athenian resistance in the face of the Persian barbarians. Important evaluations of the ideological significance of the battle can be found in Loraux 1986 and more recently in Gehrke 2007, Jung 2013, Sfyroeras 2013, Zahrnt 2013, and Raaflaub 2010 (the last cited under the Battle of Marathon). These sources analyze how, in the course of the 19th century, the Battle of Marathon became known as the “battle of battles” (Rood 2007) in Anglo-Saxon circles. In 2010, the 2,500th anniversary of the battle, a new mass of studies were produced, including the proceedings of symposiums such as Buraselis and Meidani 2010, Buraselis and Koulakiotis 2013, and Carey and Edwards 2013. In this last-mentioned volume, a reasoned discussion of the many questions regarding the battle and its related bibliography is Rhodes 2013. Newer monographs on the battle also include Billows 2010 and Krentz 2010 (both cited under the Battle of Marathon). An early-21st-century useful working tool for the bibliography on the battle, starting from 1850, is Fink 2014. Many of the problems in the modern bibliography are not related to the figure and affairs of Miltiades and thus are not treated here.
  726.  
  727. Buraselis, K., and E. Koulakiotis, eds. 2013. Marathon the day after: Symposium proceedings, Delphi, 2–4 July 2010. Athens, Greece: European Cultural Centre of Delphi.
  728.  
  729. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  730.  
  731. These are the proceedings of a symposium held in Delphi in 2010, in memory of the 2,500 years that had passed since the Battle of Marathon, with a collection of sixteen highly valuable scientific contributions that discuss the military importance and especially the political significance assumed by the battle in classical Greece, the Roman period, and the modern epoch.
  732.  
  733. Find this resource:
  734.  
  735. Buraselis, K., and K. Meidani, eds. 2010. Marathon: The battles and the ancient deme. Papers presented at an international symposium held 12–14 September 2008 in Marathon, Greece. Athens, Greece: Institut du Livre A. Kardamitsa.
  736.  
  737. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  738.  
  739. This is a collection of proceedings of an international symposium held at Marathon in September 2008. The articles, nine in Greek and eight in English, deal with topics in the fields of archaeology, topography, history, and historiography.
  740.  
  741. Find this resource:
  742.  
  743. Carey, C., and M. Edwards, eds. 2013. Marathon—2500 years: Proceedings of the Marathon Conference 2010. Papers presented at a conference held 7–10 October 2010 in Kalamata, Greece. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplementum 124. London: Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, Univ. of London.
  744.  
  745. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  746.  
  747. This volume is a collection of the proceedings of a conference held in 2010 in Kalamata, hosted by the Faculty of Philology at the University of Peloponnese. It comprises twenty-one important contributions dealing with various topics relating to the Battle of Marathon.
  748.  
  749. Find this resource:
  750.  
  751. Fink, D. L. 2014. The Battle of Marathon in scholarship: Research, theories and controversies since 1850. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
  752.  
  753. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  754.  
  755. This volume is devoted to discussion of the modern bibliography (with the exception of that produced in the French, Italian, Spanish, and German languages) on Marathon and shows particular interest especially in the aspects of a military and strategic nature.
  756.  
  757. Find this resource:
  758.  
  759. Gehrke, H.-J. 2007. Marathon: A European charter myth? Palamedes: A Journal of Ancient History 2:93–108.
  760.  
  761. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  762.  
  763. This is a work examining the formation and transformation of the myth of Marathon over the course of time, as well as the cultural contexts.
  764.  
  765. Find this resource:
  766.  
  767. Jung, M. 2013. Marathon and the construction of the Persian Wars in Antiquity and modern times: Part I, Antiquity. Paper presented at a conference held 7–10 October 2010 in Kalamata, Greece. In Marathon—2500 years: Proceedings of the Marathon Conference 2010. Edited by C. Carey and M. Edwards, 255–266. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplementum 124. London: Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, Univ. of London.
  768.  
  769. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  770.  
  771. This is a very lucid article that takes up certain issues already dealt with in Jung’s volume titled Marathon und Plataiai: Zwei Perserschlachten als “lieux de mémoire” im Antiken Griechenland (Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006). The author holds that the myth of Marathon emphasized very early on in Athenian circles was, however, redimensioned in Panhellenic circles, where the victory of Plataea was especially extolled as a victory of all Greeks over the Persian invaders.
  772.  
  773. Find this resource:
  774.  
  775. Loraux, N. 1986. The invention of Athens: The funeral oration in the classical city. Translated by A. Sheridan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
  776.  
  777. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  778.  
  779. This is the translation of a well-known, successful volume published in Paris in 1981 under the title L’invention d’Athènes: Histoire de l’oraison funèbre dans la “cité classique.” While discussing Athenian funeral orations, the point of view of the ancient orators on the Battle of Marathon is examined, since it has become over the course of time a “paradigmatic” event in the history of Athens.
  780.  
  781. Find this resource:
  782.  
  783. Rhodes, P. J. 2013. The Battle of Marathon and modern scholarship. Paper presented at a conference held 7–10 October 2010 in Kalamata, Greece. In Marathon—2500 years: Proceedings of the Marathon Conference 2010. Edited by C. Carey and M. Edwards, 3–22. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplementum 124. London: Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, Univ. of London.
  784.  
  785. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  786.  
  787. A summary work introducing the proceedings of the conference held in 2010 in Kalamata, where discussion centered not only on the more significant bibliographical contributions, but especially on the reception of the story of Marathon over the course of the centuries. There is no shortage of evaluations on the more controversial aspects of the events, which have been subjected to debate.
  788.  
  789. Find this resource:
  790.  
  791. Rood, T. 2007. From Marathon to Waterloo: Byron, battle monuments, and the Persian Wars. In Cultural responses to the Persian Wars: Antiquity to the third millennium. Edited by E. Bridges, E. Hall, and P. J. Rhodes, 267–297. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
  792.  
  793. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199279678.003.0012Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  794.  
  795. As is clear from the title, this is a reflection on the perception of the Battle of Marathon of Anglo-Saxon intellectuals during the 1800s and 1900s, from Lord Byron to John Stuart Mill and E. S. Creasy to those in the “third millennium” (i.e., the 21st century onward).
  796.  
  797. Find this resource:
  798.  
  799. Sfyroeras, P. 2013. The Battle of Marathon: Poetry, ideology, politics. In Marathon the day after: Symposium proceedings, Delphi, 2–4 July 2010. Edited by K. Buraselis and E. Koulakiotis, 75–94. Athens, Greece: European Cultural Centre of Delphi.
  800.  
  801. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  802.  
  803. This article examines the evolution of the reception of the Battle of Marathon from the age of Pindar to the end of the 5th century BCE, from an ideological and political point of view.
  804.  
  805. Find this resource:
  806.  
  807. Zahrnt, M. 2013. Marathon, the century after. In Marathon the day after: Symposium proceedings, Delphi, 2–4 July 2010. Edited by K. Buraselis and E. Koulakiotis, 139–150. Athens, Greece: European Cultural Centre of Delphi.
  808.  
  809. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  810.  
  811. This article identifies two salient moments for the enshrinement of the Battle of Marathon as a founding moment in Athenian history: the years of the strategy of Cimon and the years of the war in the Peloponnese. In these two moments, various aspects of the Battle of Marathon were emphasized.
  812.  
  813. Find this resource:
  814.  
  815. Miltiades at Marathon
  816. After being acquitted in the trial of 493 BCE, Miltiades was elected as a strategos and in this guise faced the Persians, who landed at Marathon in the late summer of 490 BCE (see Herodotus [Book 6, chapter 104, section 2] and Cornelius Nepos [Miltiades, Books 4, chapter4]). Both these writers (Herodotus, Book 6, chapter 109, section 1; Nepos, Miltiades, Book 4, chapter 5) provide an analogous picture of Miltiades’ role in the operations of war: the decision to attack the enemy was attributed to him, sparing Athens from destruction and concentrating the fighting on the plains of Marathon. Aristotle (Rhetoric 1411 a 10) and Demosthenes (Book 19, chapter 303) have informed us of the existence of a decree issued by Miltiades, which established the necessity to go on the march. This decree is also reported by Aelius Aristides, Book 3, chapter 160; Plutarch, moralia 628; and Pausanias, Book 7, chapter 15, section 7, though not attributed to Miltiades. The authenticity of this decree, as well as its attribution to Miltiades, has long been discussed. Though refuted in Habicht 1961, its attribution to Miltiades is accepted in How 1919 (cited under Cornelius Nepos), Hammond 1968 (cited under the Battle of Marathon), Burn 1984 (cited under Miltiades’ Stay in the Chersonese), Doenges 1998 and Billows 2010 (both cited under the Battle of Marathon), and, with certain reservations, Scott 2005 (cited under Herodotus). Macan 1895 (cited under Herodotus) and, more recently, Hamel 1998, are skeptical. The timing of the announcement, whether before the departure of the army from Athens, or in the field of battle, has also been subject to discussion. According to Herodotus (Book 6, chapter 109, sections 3–6), the decision to give battle prevailed when Callimachus the polemarch was convinced by a long speech by Miltiades. This has been declared spurious by scholars such as Alessandra Coppola (Coppola 2003), who have also carried on a long discussion regarding the specific responsibilities of the polemarch and the strategoi, proposing various points of view (see Hammond 1968, Bicknell 1970, and, more recently, Lazenby 1993, Hamel 1998, and Scott 2005). According to Herodotus, Book 6, chapter 110, the Philaid launched the attack only when it was his turn as president of the board of strategoi, therefore sometime after arrival at Marathon. In subsequent chapters (Book 6, chapters 111–117) the historian briefly describes the battle, but the name of Miltiades does not appear. Nonetheless, as stated in Rhodes 2013 (cited under Marathon in Modern Scholarship) and previously in Evans 1993 and Krentz 2010 (both cited under the Battle of Marathon), Herodotus turned the story of Marathon into Miltiades’ story. Nepos also recalls that it was Miltiades who led the Athenian forces out of the city (Miltiades, Book 5, chapter 2; on the version of Nepos, see Koulakiotis 2013), without mentioning his name again except in chapter 6, where he recalls the prize awarded to him for the victory: the portrait showing him engaged in fighting in the front line, in the painting exhibited in the Stoa Poikile (Miltiades, Book 6, chapters 1–4).
  817.  
  818. Bicknell, P. J. 1970. The command structure and generals of the Marathon Campaign. L’Antiquité Classique 39.2: 427–442.
  819.  
  820. DOI: 10.3406/antiq.1970.1594Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  821.  
  822. The writer discusses the role of the polemarch and the strategoi during the Battle of Marathon, bringing under discussion the point of view expressed in Hammond 1968 (cited under the Battle of Marathon).
  823.  
  824. Find this resource:
  825.  
  826. Coppola, A. 2003. Milziade e i tirannicidi. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 52.3: 283–299.
  827.  
  828. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  829.  
  830. This researcher examines the speech given by Miltiades to the polemarch, Callimachus, dwelling especially on the significance of the mention of the Tyrannicides, Harmodius, and Aristogeiton.
  831.  
  832. Find this resource:
  833.  
  834. Habicht, C. 1961. Falsche Urkunden zur Geschichte Athens im Zeitalter der Perserkriege. Hermes 89.1: 1–35.
  835.  
  836. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  837.  
  838. An extensive article that has since led to lively critical debate. The writer denies the authenticity of many decrees dated to the 5th century BCE but which were probably fakes, resulting from political propaganda of the 4th century BCE.
  839.  
  840. Find this resource:
  841.  
  842. Hamel, D. 1998. Athenian generals: Military authority in the classical period. Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca Classica Batava: Supplements 182. Leiden, The Netherlands, and Boston: Brill.
  843.  
  844. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  845.  
  846. In this volume, which is devoted to study of the role assumed within the army by the strategoi, chapter 4, “Strategoi and the Polemarch,” analyzes the role of the polemarch Callimachus in relation to the strategoi. In appendix 2, “The Miltiades Decree,” the historical validity of this decree is discussed, as well as its attribution to Miltiades.
  847.  
  848. Find this resource:
  849.  
  850. Koulakiotis, E. 2013. The memory of Marathon and Miltiades in Late Republican Rome. In Marathon the day after: Symposium proceedings, Delphi, 2–4 July 2010. Edited by K. Buraselis and E. Koulakiotis, 151–161. Athens, Greece: European Cultural Centre of Delphi.
  851.  
  852. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  853.  
  854. This work examines the description provided by Cornelius Nepos of the Battle of Marathon, the figure of Miltiades, and the role he played.
  855.  
  856. Find this resource:
  857.  
  858. Lazenby, J. F. 1993. The defence of Greece, 490–479 B.C. Warminster, UK: Aris & Phillips.
  859.  
  860. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  861.  
  862. This is an overall work on the Persian Wars, in which the title of chapter 3 recaptures a famous verse of Lord Byron—“The Mountains Look on Marathon,” which speaks of the Battle of Marathon, with some mentions of the role played by Miltiades.
  863.  
  864. Find this resource:
  865.  
  866. Miltiades, Hero of Marathon in the Stoa Poikile
  867. A cult developed around the victory at Marathon and its masterminds, marked by the construction of important memorials to the battle. The most famous of these was certainly the great painting kept inside the Stoa Poikile, with Miltiades featured in the front line, inciting his men to fight, as recorded by Cornelius Nepos (Miltiades, Book 6, chapter 3) and confirmed by Pausanias, who mentions three figures in the foreground of the painted reproduction: Miltiades, the polemarch Callimachus, and the hero Echetleos (Pausanias, Book 1, chapter 15, section 3). The resonance of this painting was such (as acknowledged in Di Cesare 2015, but see also Massaro 1978 and Proietti 2015) that it affected Herodotus’s description itself of the battle. The work, which was probably commissioned by Cimon and his entourage in the 460s BCE and was carried out by the painter Panenus, was the expression of Cimon’s wish to glorify his father and, at the same time, strengthen his own leadership within Athens (Zaccarini 2017 is more cautious). In the years of the Cimonian strategy, other memorials to the battle were created, including a trophy on the site of the battle (Pausanias, Book 1, chapter 32, section 5), not far from the tomb of Miltiades and the other fallen soldiers, and in Delphi (Pausanias, Book 10, chapter 10, sections 1–2) a votive monument comprising a base bearing ten bronze statues, including a prominent one of Miltiades surrounded by a series of divinities, almost as if he himself had acquired divine status (see Jung 2006 and Di Cesare 2015).
  868.  
  869. Di Cesare, R. 2015. La città di Cecrope: Ricerche sulla politica edilizia cimoniana ad Atene. SATAA 11. Salerno, Italy, Greece: Pandemos.
  870.  
  871. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  872.  
  873. This is a copious volume in which the building policies in Athens in the age of Cimon are analyzed. A lot of attention is given to the political and ideological context in which the urban planning and commemorative monuments took place. The text is accompanied by a vast, up-to-date bibliographical collection, which is recommended; as regards the Stoa Poikile and other monuments celebrating Marathon, refer to chapter 6.2.
  874.  
  875. Find this resource:
  876.  
  877. Jung, M. 2006. Marathon und Plataiai: Zwei Perserschlachten als “lieux de mémoire” im antiken Griechenland. Hypomnemata 164. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
  878.  
  879. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  880.  
  881. This is another copious volume, in which the two battles that constituted the opening and closing of the Persian Wars—the one fought by the Athenians alone; the other, Panhellenic—are compared. Analysis is carried out through examination of festivals and celebrative cults, monuments and memorials, and epigraphic material. Chapter 3 examines the monument base bearing the bronze statues of Delphi and the Stoa Poikile.
  882.  
  883. Find this resource:
  884.  
  885. Massaro, V. 1978. Herodotos’ account of the Battle of Marathon and the picture in the Stoa Poikile. L’Antiquité Classique 47.2: 458–475.
  886.  
  887. DOI: 10.3406/antiq.1978.3625Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  888.  
  889. The writer argues that the Herodotean account of the Battle of Marathon was based substantially on the picture in the Stoa Poikile, commissioned in the era of Cimon and therefore biased in favor of the Miltiadids.
  890.  
  891. Find this resource:
  892.  
  893. Proietti, G. 2015. Storie su Maratona: Gli epigrammi ateniesi, la Stoa Poikile ed Erodoto. Incidenza dell’Antico 13:53–80.
  894.  
  895. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  896.  
  897. This is an extensive article that sets out to consider the evidence on the Battle of Marathon prior to that of Herodotus, thus enabling a reconstruction of the genesis of the tradition on which the historian built up his personal version.
  898.  
  899. Find this resource:
  900.  
  901. Zaccarini, M. 2017. The lame hegemony: Cimon of Athens and the failure of Panhellenism, ca. 478–450 BC. Bologna, Italy: Bononia Univ. Press.
  902.  
  903. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  904.  
  905. The work, focusing on Athens in the aftermath of the second Persian invasion, examines the figure of the Athenian politician and general Cimon in his historical context, with the aim to open new ways to interpret the Cimonian feats and, overall, classical Greek history.
  906.  
  907. Find this resource:
  908.  
  909. The Expedition to Paros in the Ancient Tradition
  910. Information on the expedition to Paros, likely going back to the spring of 489 BCE (proposed in How 1919, cited under Cornelius Nepos, Bicknell 1972, Develin 1977, Scott 2005, cited under Herodotus), comes particularly from Herodotus and Cornelius Nepos, who took his inspiration from the Histories of Ephorus, as indicated by numerous points of contact with Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrHist) 70 F 63 (going back to Stephanus of Byzantium). According to Kinzl 1976, the contents of the Ephorean account also emerged from some scholia to Aelius Aristides (Vol. 3, edited by Wilhelm Dindorf, pp. 531–532, 572, 677–678, and 691), more recently defined in Scott 2002 as “windows in what we may assume were fifth and fourth century written accounts” (p. 115). However, the texts cited describe the facts in a different way; for example, making reference to interventions in a number of islands in the Cyclades. These differences and the mysterious nature of the text of Herodotus, going back partly to a “Panhellenic,” or perhaps just Athenian, and partly to a Parian version, have generated lively debate among the scholars, not only regarding the reconstruction of the events, but also regarding the very credibility of the ancient evidence, whether they are trustworthy accounts, or versions generated since the 5th century BCE on the basis of oral or written traditions. This issue is discussed in Kinzl 1976 and more recently in Scott 2002, which points out, among other things, the extreme difficulty of producing the names of the writers who first recorded any given version.
  911.  
  912. Bicknell, P. J. 1972. The date of Miltiades’ Parian expedition. L’Antiquité Classique 41.1: 225–227.
  913.  
  914. DOI: 10.3406/antiq.1972.1661Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  915.  
  916. This is a brief contribution in which the author discusses the year of the expedition to Paros, which took place, in his opinion, immediately after the Battle of Marathon, demonstrated by the fact that owing to the Miltiadean setback, the archonship was awarded to Aristides, son of Lysimachus (or of Xenophilos) and Alcmeonid philoi, who had contributed to the public condemnation of the Philaid.
  917.  
  918. Find this resource:
  919.  
  920. Develin, R. 1977. Miltiades and the Parian expedition. L’Antiquité Classique 46.2:571–577.
  921.  
  922. DOI: 10.3406/antiq.1977.1871Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  923.  
  924. This author dates the expedition to 490/89 BCE and provides a reconstruction of the fundamental aspects, starting with analysis of the sources (especially Herodotus, considered as the basic source), but also Nepos and Ephorus, who were in some cases more credible.
  925.  
  926. Find this resource:
  927.  
  928. Kinzl, K. H. 1976. Miltiades’ Parosexpedition in der Geschichts-Schreibung. Hermes 104.3: 280–307.
  929.  
  930. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  931.  
  932. This is an extensive study that completes the monography of 1968 and deals only with the aspects of the policies implemented by Miltiades in the area of the Chersonese. This author is openly skeptical of the truth of events as recounted by Herodotus and Cornelius Nepos, even though he considers some aspects of their accounts accurate.
  933.  
  934. Find this resource:
  935.  
  936. Scott, L. 2002. Miltiades’ expedition to Paros and “other islands.” Ancient History Bulletin 16:111–126.
  937.  
  938. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  939.  
  940. This is a stimulating article examining the different traditions that have come down to us on the expedition to Paros, and it provides interesting methodological ideas on the back of Thomas 1989 (cited under Pherecydes).
  941.  
  942. Find this resource:
  943.  
  944. The Parian Expedition According to Herodotus and Cornelius Nepos
  945. According to the account of Herodotus (Book 6, chapters 133–136), which initially gives information common to all the Greeks, Miltiades—illustrious by then in the eyes of his fellow citizens—called for and was granted command of seventy ships, men, and money in exchange for his promise to bring large quantities of gold to his native land. The reasons for the expedition and its final destination are open to discussion: more than one researcher has speculated that, in reality, he intended to sail to Thasos and the wealthy Thracian coast (Perdrizet 1910, Lanzillotta 1987, Culasso Gastaldi 1996, the last cited under the Philaids and the Peisistratids). As for the reasons for the expedition, according to Herodotus the true intention of Miltiades was to avenge himself on the Parian Lysagoras, who had disparaged him before the Persians (relations between the Philaid clan and the aristocratic families of Paros are discussed in Ornaghi 2009). Scholars have questioned whether it was a matter of punishing the island, which had sided with the Persians in the Battle of Marathon (How 1919, cited under Cornelius Nepos), of creating a line of advanced resistance against the Persians in the Aegean (Casson 1915, cited under Cornelius Nepos), or simply of extorting money (Link 2000 and Scott 2005, the latter cited under Herodotus). The second part of the evidence of Herodotus, which claims to refer to Parian sources, introduces the mysterious Parian prisoner of war Timo, a priestess of the infernal gods, who advised Miltiades to go to the temple of Demeter Thesmophoros. To do so, he climbed over the city wall and injured his leg, which necessitated his to return to Athens. Burn 1984 (cited under Miltiades’ Stay in the Chersonese) and Ornaghi 2009 examine these aspects of the Parian expedition. In the version of Cornelius Nepos (Book 7, chapters 1–5), which takes inspiration from the Histories of Ephorus (inferred by the numerous points of coincidence with FGrHist 70 F 63), Miltiades abandoned the conquest of Paros because of a fire in a woods not far from the island, which possibly announced the arrival of the Persian fleet. Scholars are divided on which account is more reliable. Scott 2005 (cited under Herodotus) and Macan 1895 attempt to reappraise the two traditions, antithetical at first sight, and offer a rational reconstruction of the events, synthesizing elements of the Herodotean account and that of Ephorus/Nepos while cutting out their imaginative details.
  946.  
  947. Lanzillotta, E. 1987. Paro dall’età arcaica all’età ellenistica. Pubblicazioni della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia / Università degli Studi di Macerata. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider Editore.
  948.  
  949. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  950.  
  951. The volume includes two chapters (IV–V) devoted to the history of the island in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE, discusses the Miltiadean affairs, and examines the traditions recounted by Herodotus and by Ephorus and Cornelius Nepos regarding the expedition led by Miltiades against Paros.
  952.  
  953. Find this resource:
  954.  
  955. Link, S. 2000. Das Paros-Abenteuer des Miltiades (Hdt. 6,132–136). Klio 82.1: 40–53.
  956.  
  957. DOI: 10.1524/klio.2000.82.1.40Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  958.  
  959. The writer, who considers the version of Herodotus credible, suggests interpreting the adventure of Miltiades as a mission intended to gather a valuable bounty.
  960.  
  961. Find this resource:
  962.  
  963. Macan, R. W. 1895. Herodotus: The fourth, fifth, and sixth books. Vol. 1, Introduction, text with notes. London: Macmillan.
  964.  
  965. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  966.  
  967. Appendix XI (“The Parian Expedition”) is a study of the comment of the Herodotean Histories, in which there is an examination and comparison, with important observations, of the writings of Herodotus and of Ephorus/Nepos on Miltiades’ expedition to the island of Paros.
  968.  
  969. Find this resource:
  970.  
  971. Ornaghi, M. 2009. La lira, la vacca e le donne insolenti: Contesti di ricezione e promozione della figura e della poesia di Archiloco dall’arcaismo all’ellenismo. Alessandria, Italy: Edizioni dell’Orso.
  972.  
  973. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  974.  
  975. In this volume, special attention is paid to the Philaids, Miltiades, and Cimon, as well as a critical reappraisal of the expedition to Paros, in light of the various written evidence.
  976.  
  977. Find this resource:
  978.  
  979. Perdrizet, P. 1910. Scaptésylé. Klio 10:1–27.
  980.  
  981. DOI: 10.1524/klio.1910.10.10.1Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  982.  
  983. This work is devoted to the study of the region of the Pangaeos and its relations with the island of Thasos, and it also deals with Miltiades’ expedition to Paros and the possibility that it was also aimed at the colony of Thasos and the wealthy Pangaeic region.
  984.  
  985. Find this resource:
  986.  
  987. The Second Trial
  988. On returning to Athens, Miltiades was accused of capital crime by Xanthippus, the future father of Pericles, for having misled the Athenians. Information on these facts comes from Herodotus, Book 6, chapter 136, sections 1–3; Cornelius Nepos, Miltiades, Book 7, chapters 4–6; Ephoros in Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrHist) 70 F 64; Plato, Gorgias, 516d; and Iustinus 2, 15–19. Scholars have raised a large number of questions about this, especially about chronology (490/89 or 489/88 BCE?), the form (eisanghelia, heard before a court, an assembly, at the Heliaea, or at the Areopagus), the charges (misleading the people, treason, corruption), and the sentence. According to Herodotus it was a death sentence, later commuted by request of the people to a fine of fifty talents. On this point, see especially Harrison 1968–1971, Scott 2005 (cited under Herodotus), and Bonner and Smith 1930–1938, Hansen 1975, and Bauman 1990 (all cited under Return to Athens and the First Trial). Interest was generated by the Gorgias of Plato (516 d–e), which recalls that Miltiades was saved from the barathron (Scott 2005) by the intervention of the prytaneis, who commuted the initial death penalty into a fine of fifty talents. How and Wells 1912 (cited under Herodotus) is uncertain of the accuracy of this fact, while Hansen 1975, Carawan 1987, and Bauman 1990 (all cited under Return to Athens and the First Trial) show a propensity to accept it. This has also led to the idea that the trial was carried out on the basis of the psephisma of Kannonos, which laid down, precisely, that the accused would be cast into the barathron and would be stripped of his property (Bonner and Smith 1930–1938 and Bauman 1990; Lavelle 1988 is of the opposite opinion). There are also interesting notations in Harrison 1968–1971 and Allen 2000.
  989.  
  990. Allen, D. S. 2000. The world of Prometheus: The politics of punishing in democratic Athens. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
  991.  
  992. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  993.  
  994. This book depicts the intellectual climate in which punishment was debated and inflicted by Athenians. It examines the relations between punishment and democracy. Cannonus’s decree is analyzed in appendix D.
  995.  
  996. Find this resource:
  997.  
  998. Harrison, A. R. W. 1968–1971. The law of Athens. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon.
  999.  
  1000. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  1001.  
  1002. This work is in two volumes, devoted respectively to private law and to judicial procedure. Volume II, Part III, chapter I, section 4, “The Ekklesia and the Boule” (pp. 49–63), deals with the second trial against Miltiades.
  1003.  
  1004. Find this resource:
  1005.  
  1006. Lavelle, B. M. 1988. Adikia, the decree of Kannonos, and the trial of the generals. Classica et Mediaevalia 39:19–41.
  1007.  
  1008. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  1009.  
  1010. This article focuses on the second trial of Miltiades, on which it provides helpful ideas for consideration, excluding that the Philaid had been accused on the basis of the decree of Kannonos.
  1011.  
  1012. Find this resource:
  1013.  
  1014. The Defense and the Sentence
  1015. According to Herodotus (Book 6, chapter 136, section 2), Miltiades, who attended the trial, was not able to defend himself because of his weakness due to the injury to his leg (discussed in Daly 1980 and Scott 2005, the latter cited under Herodotus) from the expedition to Paros. He was represented by his philoi, who recalled the honors he had earned on the field of battle at Marathon and in the conquest of Lemnos. According to Nepos it was his brother *Sagoras who defended him. The name *Sagoras, which has certainly come down to us corrupted in the best manuscripts of Cornelius Nepos, has given rise to a lively debate. Hammond 1956 (cited under General Overviews), followed by Bicknell 1972 (cited under the Expedition to Paros in the Ancient Tradition), proposes to integrate this corrupted name into Isagoras (alternatively to Diagoras or Stesagoras), suggesting the existence of an Isagoras, son of Cimon Coalemos and brother of Miltiades. This proposal was taken up again in Culasso Gastaldi 1996 (cited under the Philaids and the Peisistratids). Prudence has been cautioned in Davies 1971 (cited under Pherecydes). According to Herodotus (Book 6, chapter 136, section 3), the fine of fifty talents could not be settled immediately, since the Philaid died very shortly of gangrene, possibly while in prison, as suggested by Cornelius Nepos, Miltiades, Book 7, chapter 6; Diodorus, Book 10, chapter 30, section 1; and Scholia Aelius Aristides, Vol. 3, edited by Wilhelm Dindorf, p. 691. The debt was paid later by his young son Cimon (Piccirilli 1987 and Zaccarini 2017, the latter cited under Miltiades, Hero of Marathon in the Stoa Poikile).
  1016.  
  1017. Daly, L. W. 1980. Miltiades: Aratus and compound fractures. American Journal of Philology 101:59–60.
  1018.  
  1019. DOI: 10.2307/294175Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  1020.  
  1021. This is a short work that attempts to define the medical nature of the injury Miltiades suffered during the occupation of Paros.
  1022.  
  1023. Find this resource:
  1024.  
  1025. Piccirilli, L. 1987. Temistocle, Aristide, Cimone, Tucidide di Melesia fra politica e propaganda. Genoa, Italy: Il Melangolo Editore.
  1026.  
  1027. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  1028.  
  1029. The section of the volume devoted to Cimon discusses the payment of the fine imposed on Miltiades at the end of his trial in 489 BCE, settled by his son after the death of his father, perhaps in prison.
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Public Pastes
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!