The Greco-Persian Wars often occupy the minds of those who study the ancient world. Although this series of battles had a significant impact on ancient Greece, including its politics, literature, and identity, there is more to the relationship between ancient Greece and the Persian Empire than 50 years of war. Furthermore, we only have the Greek perspective on this relationship, as Persian opinions on the conflict have not survived. This article examines the relationship between the Greek city-states and the Persian Empire before, during, and after the wars.

Greco-Persian Relations Before the 5th Century BCE

Despite the long shadow of the Greco-Persian Wars, the relationship between the Greek city-states and the Persian Empire was not entirely antagonistic, especially before the 5th century BCE. They had a strong trade relationship, leading to the spread of goods, clothing styles (see above image), and art through mainland Greece. Before the wars, it was a sign of power for upper-class Greeks, particularly Athenians, to emulate Persian dress and customs.

In addition to trade, the Greek city-states and the Persian Empire also had a political relationship. Greek envoys were often received in one of the capitals of the Persian Empire, even after the wars. In the 4th century BCE, the Spartan Antalcidas served as an envoy to Persia. Persian kings often invited Greek artists and orators to their courts, with the Athenian tragedian Euripides being a famous example.

The Ionian Question

A factor that complicated the relationship between Greece and Persia was the status of the Greek city-states in Ionia. Ionia was a region on the Turkish coast that had several Greek colonies. The Lydians initially conquered the colonies around 560 BCE. However, Cyrus the Great eventually took down the Lydians and brought the area under Persian control. From then on, the Greek cities in Ionia became restless Persian subjects, leading to the Ionian Revolt in the early 5th century BCE.

The Ionian Revolt (499-493 BCE) is seen as the unofficial beginning of the Greco-Persian Wars by many scholars. It involved the military rebellions of multiple Greek areas of Ionia against the Persian Empire. The areas that rebelled included Aeolis, Cyprus, Caria, Miletus, Naxos, and more. The revolt lasted around six years, ending in 493 with a Persian victory. Although the Greek city-states of Athens and Eretria offered their support, they were unable to substantially help. Their intervention placed them on Darius I’s (Darius the Great) radar.

Darius’ Invasion of Greece

In 492, only one year after the end of the Ionian Revolt, Darius I began an invasion of Greece, starting with territories in the Aegean. Before making it to mainland Greece, the Persian military conquered Macedon and some islands off the coast of Greece. By the time the fleet landed and began marching toward Athens, it was 490. This led to the only major battle in mainland Greece during this invasion: the Battle of Marathon.

Athenian hoplites cut off the Persian military’s path to Athens and fended them off. Most of the information for Marathon (and the second invasion, as well) comes from Herodotus, a Greek historian. Herodotus gives a “David versus Goliath” account, describing a much smaller Athenian army (in addition to some forces from Plataea) taking on the large Persian military to prevent them from capturing Athens.

The Persian fleet still attempted to sail to the undefended city, but the Athenian military hurried back and intercepted them, forcing them to sail back to Persia.

This battle saw the origin of the marathon race. Before the battle, an Athenian named Pheidippides was tasked with running to Sparta to seek aid. Sparta could not make it in time due to a religious festival, so Pheidippides had to run back to Marathon. After the battle, he was tasked with running another 42.195 km (the exact distance of the Marathon race) back to Athens to inform the city of the victory. He announced that “we won” and died.

The victory at Marathon ended the first invasion of Greece, which was more a campaign in the Aegean and the northern countries above Greece, with only one battle occurring on the mainland. Although this invasion has often been seen as a failure for the Persian Empire, they conquered many territories and re-subjugated Thrace before their loss at Marathon.

Xerxes’ Invasion of Greece

Ten years after the Battle of Marathon, Darius’s son, Xerxes I, began the second invasion of Greece in 480. According to Herodotus, he wished to finish his father’s campaign, but that is only the historian’s guess at the Persian king’s motives. Herodotus also seems to exaggerate aspects of the invasion.

Unlike the first invasion, when Athens was the only city-state that faced off against the Persian Empire, the second invasion brought more of Greece into the conflict. Although the Athenian role is still emphasized in Herodotus’ works, multiple cities allied to fight the Persian military. The invasion lasted just one year, but multiple battles were fought on the Greek mainland.

After the Persian fleet crossed the Hellespont and landed on mainland Greece, they first encountered Greek forces at Thermopylae, a pass that was defended by Sparta and its allies until the Greek forces were defeated. After Thermopylae, the Persian army marched to Athens and ransacked the city, burning the Acropolis and destroying religious sanctuaries. This act was one of the most significant events in the 5th century for Athens, and it would greatly impact the relationship between the Persian Empire and the city-state.

After the sack of Athens, the city-state met the Persian forces in a naval battle at Salamis, giving the Athenians a victory and contributing to their naval pride. The final major battle happened nearly a year later at Plataea, with a large alliance of Greek forces from Sparta, Athens, Corinth, Megara, and other city-states. At this point, Xerxes had returned to Persia, leaving his general Mardonius in charge of the remaining campaign.

After Mardonius’ loss at Plataea, the Greco-Persian Wars are seen as over by some. However, the conflict would continue in the Aegean and beyond for around three more decades, ending around 449 with the Peace of Callias (the date of which is debated). An alliance of Greek city-states, known as the Delian League, was formed under Athenian leadership to continue the conflict.

Ancient Representations

While the relationship between the Persian Empire and the Greek city-states was not always hostile, during the 5th century, there was a notable shift in how Persia was represented in Greek art and discussed in literature, influenced by the Greco-Persian Wars.

Herodotus is our principal source for the Persian Empire at the time, and he was born in Persian-controlled Ionia in the 5th century BCE. It is perhaps then, unsurprising, that he contributes to the trend of representing the Persian Empire as the one true enemy of Greece. His account helped shape modern perspectives on the Greco-Persian Wars as a divide between “East” and “West.”

Herodotus begins his account by recounting the history of the Persian Empire and its kings. His characterization of Xerxes, the king responsible for the second invasion of Greece, portrays him as effeminate, hubristic, and careless. For example, there is the famous scene of Xerxes whipping the Hellespont after his forces were unable to cross. This likely invented scene first appears in Herodotus and was copied by later authors, and now forms a major part of how Xerxes is remembered.

In addition to a shift in how the Persian Empire is represented in literature, we also see new artistic representations. Following the destruction of Athens, Pericles, an Athenian politician, began a reconstruction campaign on the Acropolis. As part of this reconstruction, he funded the Parthenon, which replaced the former temple of Athena that had been destroyed by the Persians.

The frieze running along the Parthenon’s top depicted Athenian mythological heroes in scenes like the Amazonomachy (battle between the Greeks and Amazons) and the Centauromachy (battle between the Greeks and centaurs). These are often interpreted as representing the battle between Greeks and barbarians, with the strong implication that the Persians were barbarians. Furthermore, the frieze was likely influenced by Persian reliefs such as the ones from Persepolis.

Greece & Persia: A Shifting Relationship 

We have little evidence of the Greco-Persian Wars from the Persian perspective. Therefore, it is difficult to say if they had the same impact on Persia as they evidently did in Greece, especially in Athens. It is important to remember that the Persian Empire was enormous. While the failure to conquer mainland Greece may have angered the king, it hardly undermined the power and territory of Xerxes in the 5th century BCE.

The Greeks perceived their wins in the war as major blows to Persian imperial power, and there is some evidence to support this. Presumably capitalizing on a perceived weakness, there were rebellions in Egypt. Egypt had previously revolted in the 480s unsuccessfully and did so again with the help of the Athenian navy in the 460s. The conflict was probably fanned by the Athenians, who were looking to undermine Persian power. The Persians delivered a crushing victory in 454 BCE, which so worried the Athenians that they decided to relocate the treasury of the Delian League.

Greece would soon become embroiled in the Peloponnesian Wars, with the Persians now fanning the flames to keep the Greeks occupied. The Persians also openly allied themselves with Sparta against Athens in 411 BCE, but then allied with Athens when fighting with the Ionians in 396/5 BCE. This state of cold war and shifting alliances would continue until Alexander the Great conquered Persia in the 330s BCE.

The Greco-Persian Wars certainly changed the relationship between the two nations. They went from one of trade and cultural exchange to one of antagonism, with the Persians being described as barbaric, their king as effeminate, and their empire as an existential threat to Greece.

Ancient Greek drama began in Athens during the 6th century BC. It originated in the context of performances set during the religious festivals dedicated to Dionysus. After, it gained a life of its own, evolving into three distinct genres (tragedy, comedy, and satyr plays), and covering a multitude of themes (mythology, morality, politics, and social commentary). Furthermore, through innovative stagecraft, it created an engaging experience for both spectators and actors.

1. Greek Drama Frequently Champions the Common “Everyman”

In ancient Greek drama, the distinction between the upper and lower classes does not stop at wealth, but it becomes a moral distinction as well. Specifically, in tragedies, authors wrote the upper class as deeply corrupt (given to debauchery, madness, and murder), and the common folk (nurses, craftspeople, farmers, etc.) are shown as stable and grounded. For example, in Aeschylus’s Agamemnon, the herald, though a servant of the king, sides with the commoners by expressing democratic sentiments, criticizing the hierarchical world he lives in, and by choosing a future life of piety and humility, strongly contrasting it with the luxury, ambition, and intrigue that define the royal court.

Similarly, the nurse in Euripides’s Medea surpasses her role as a caregiver by assuming a quasi-omniscient narrative position despite her status. Her warnings, actions, and attempts to shield the children set in motion Medea’s downfall. As Professor Ronald Blankenborg points out, she functions as Aphrodite in Hippolytus or Dionysus in Bacchae, prophesying the tragic course of the play from the outset.

Alternatively, in ancient Greek comedies, the common folk function as protagonists and take the shape of stock characters (ex., the orphan, the lover, the master of the house, etc.), similar to tragedies. In Aristophanes’ Archanians, Dikaiopolis is an ordinary farmer who, frustrated by the Peloponnesian War, negotiates his own private peace treaty with Sparta. Forced into Athens early in the play, he is strongly displeased when he must purchase basics that were otherwise free in his old rural town. Hence, his choice for peace is not a sign of sympathy for Sparta, but a protest against Athenian economic corruption and its thieving officials.

Notably, in another play, The Clouds, Aristophanes uses Strepsiades, a middle-aged, debt-ridden farmer, to critique intellectual fads. As pointed out by scholar Leonard Woodbury, Strepsiades functions as a lens through which the audience becomes an observer of the clash between the mindset of the “plain man” confronted with the rising intellectual culture of the 5th century.

2. Masks Carried Emotion—and Sound

Masks were not just visual or ritual devices, but also acoustic instruments that shaped the actors’ voices and the spectators’ experience. The masks enclosed the entire head of the actor, forming an extra hollow space between the performer’s face and the mask. This cavity created an acoustic effect called consonance, a phenomenon that occurred when reflected sound returns so fast that it enhances the performer’s voice directly, making words distinct and clear.

Early masks were carved with small eye and mouth slits, reducing the field of vision to a narrow tunnel, and helping actors hear each other better. As a result, the performers’ sensory attentions shift towards the body, specifically its axes, spine, and pelvis, which influenced the power and quality of the voice.

Due to this specific design, the sound of the actor’s voice was considerably enhanced. Specifically, the mask cavity boosted the sound of consonants through reflective surfaces near the mouth and nose, making them stronger and more vibrant. As consonants are important for understanding, the mask’s ability to strengthen these sounds precisely makes it a deliberate acoustic tool.

Researchers from the universities of Zurich, Patras, and Sweden studied this occurrence by using a KEMAR mannequin equipped with a mask and ear microphones. They found that the mask increased the sound pressure level at ear level by an average of 18 dB for high frequencies. This means that sound is perceived at this level four times louder. The consequence of such development would be a high risk of auditory overstimulation, and the actor wearing such a mask might have been forced to use earplugs to avoid ear damage.

3. There Were Female Roles, but No Female Actors

Women in ancient Greek drama represented two compelling paradoxes regarding their importance and presence within plays. Researcher Marlyn Katz compares Greek tragedy with the Athenian Epitaphios Logos (civil funeral oration) and argues that the former represents the inverse of the latter. The text of an Epitaphios erases individual particularities (such as gender differences) and describes the polis as a male community where women are reduced to silence. On the other hand, Greek tragedies bring women to the forefront as a means to explore the tensions, ruptures, and conflicts ignored in the Epitaphios. In comedies, women are part of a larger social commentary about the gender ownership of the theater. For example, Aristophanes represents tragic plays in his comedy as something that requires literacy and civic identity specific to male citizens, and women are unable to comprehend the artistic and mythological dimensions of these works. Therefore, he says in satirical terms that the ideal audience for tragedies is male.

Nonetheless, Female characters were portrayed by male actors. They created a gender identity through masks, costumes, and performance. Hence, because women were not allowed to perform, male actors crafted, through gender ventriloquism, artificial female characters shaped by male interpretation and conventions. The mask made gender visibly artificial, reminding the audience that femininity was something performed rather than naturally present on stage. Overall, this stylization meant that performers did not present an authentic representation of women but dramatic embodiments of Athenian cultural ideas about women.

4. Despite the Brutal Stories, Violence Was Almost Never Shown on Stage

Violence represents another paradox: it was an integral part of ancient Greek drama, but was rarely shown on stage. As a result, we can speak of onstage violence and offstage violence, where the first is less brutal than the second. Offscreen violence takes the shape of murder that happens in a palace, through the form of screaming, and another character (usually a messenger) describing the moment in vivid detail.

Ancient writers, such as Aristotle and Horace, express different views on the matter. Aristotle implies indirectly in his Poetics that onstage death is possible and not censored because it creates a strong emotional reaction from the audience. However, the Roman writer Horace was against it, arguing that such events cannot be faithfully reproduced on stage. Additionally, all roles were played by three actors, and removing one would affect the production. Furthermore, for religious reasons, death could not be shown in the presence of Dionysus, who presided over the play during his festival.

Researcher Maarit Kaimio focuses on the emotional impact of the convention, and the importance of offstage violence is important because it amplifies the emotional weight of the story through anticipation and revelation, basically the mystery created through what is not seen. The audience was psychologically engaged far more than it would have been through a direct depiction. Moreover, as Professor Simon Perris points out, the effect is stronger because the act is mediated through narrative, language, and aftermath. Specifically, the speech of the messenger, the chorus’s reaction, and the reveal of the corpse stimulate the audience’s imagination and provoke them to ponder the deeper moral and psychological consequences of the act. A direct exposure would likely be devoid of any kind of meaningful reflection.

5. Deus Ex Machina Was a Beloved Part of Greek Stagecraft

A famous trope that is present in almost every form of media today is the “Deus ex Machina.” Originating in ancient Greece, the term means “God from the machine,” and it started as a form of stagecraft where an actor playing a god was physically lowered onto the stage using lifting equipment. The original contemporary term was mechane (named after the crane device), from which the Latin term “machina” derives.

The first recorded use of this technique was in a play by Aeschylus. After, in tragic plays, it was used by Sophocles in Philoctetes, and by Euripides, who included it in almost all of his famous plays (Medea, Orestes, Ion, Heracles). Moreover, in comedies, Aristophanes even made jokes about his ability to cause instability or dizziness. However, it also gained some degree of criticism, as noted by Aristotle, who does not recommend using this technique. He argues against using this technique to sort out the intricacies of a plot and is in favor of having gods conduct their commentaries outside the action.

Besides the technical aspects, this technique gained literary and even religious significance. It functioned like a religious performance because an actor portrayed a god, as part of a larger practice linked to priesthood and ritual impersonation.

As emphasized by Felix Budelmann, at the core of this trope, there is a process of make-believe and belief. It works because spectators are aware simultaneously that the character is both an actor and a god, linking pretend play, engagement with fiction, and religious experience. It allows spectators to both make believe and reminds them of the artificiality of the moment. Therefore, spectators must process feelings of trust and doubt, acceptance and skepticism, and involvement and awareness, leading to a state of tension specific to stagecraft.

The 2000 hit movie Gladiator depicts the journey of the Roman general Maximus Decimus Meridius around 180 AD and the Roman Empire at the time. While an amazing movie, it did have issues with historical objects or circumstances that did not belong in the time frame the movie depicts. However, they can help us learn about what actually happened at that time.

The General Who Wanted to go Home: Was He Real?

Sort of. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus was a Roman military leader and statesman in the 400s BC during the Roman Republic. Cincinnatus was a member of one of Rome’s most important and wealthiest families, the Quinctia. He was possibly a consul whose son was killed by the lower-class plebians, and left the city to pursue farming. He was called back into service around 458 BC as dictator to defend Rome against an invading tribe known as the Aequi, and would resign and return to farming shortly afterward.

The Name of the Colosseum

The actual name of the Colosseum may have been just originally just “amphithereum” or “Amphitheatrum Caesareum.” At some point it may have been called the Flavian Amphitheater, as its construction was from 72 AD to 80 AD, under the Flavian dynasty of emperors: Vespasian, Titus, and Dometian. The name Colosseum would not be used until the 1600s. The term evolved over the centuries from the name of the nearby statue of the Roman emperor Nero, based on the legendary ancient wonder, the colossus of Rhodes.  In the 100s AD, and during the time of the Roman Empire, the name Colosseum would not have been used.

Did Gladiator Actually Get Gladiators Right?

What is interesting is that the movie may have oversimplified some of the interesting parts of life for the gladiators. Many were not prisoners pressed into combat to the death for the entertainment of the crowd. While most gladiators were slaves, prisoners of war, or criminals, they would gain popularity with the crowd according to their success – not unlike modern professional wrestling or other combat sports. Some even had product sponsorships! Fight organizers might even pay a penalty to the owner for a gladiator who was killed, as the owner would have lost substantial revenue from the death of a successful gladiator.

Also, while the emperor may have given a signal that allowed a gladiator to live or condemned to death, it is not known for certain that it was a thumbs up or down signal. This signal was given in bouts known as ad digitum, where the fight was until one submitted “to the finger” – by raising his finger and waiting on the judgment of the emperor. Fights sine missione, or “no reprieve to the death” were often for condemned criminals due for execution anyway.

Did Gladiator Get the Weapons Right?

As is typical with any movie depicting ancient warfare, weapons, armor, and tactics in Gladiator were not completely accurate to the time period depicted. The opening scene against the Germanic army had the Romans using catapults and ballistae, which were more commonly used in siege warfare, not in the open field. The armor was also from a hundred years earlier, as a form of scale armor was in use by the Roman armies by the mid-100s AD. The Germanic armies were also depicted as being a near stone-age “horde,” but many used equipment and tactics similar to the Romans (and many may have even served in a Roman army at some point in their military careers). Soldiers gear also may have varied soldier to soldier, depending on what each was provided or could personally afford.

The Iliad and the Odyssey are two of the most popular and influential poems in Western history. Composed during the Archaic period, they were already famous as renowned works of literature in Classical Greece; even Alexander the Great carried a copy of the Iliad with him. The Greeks glorified Homer, a supposedly blind poet, as the author of these two poems. However, is there actually good evidence that Homer was the composer of the Iliad and the Odyssey? Some scholars believe that a different poet can be identified as the author of these Trojan epics.

Homer as the Composer of the Iliad & Odyssey

As far back as we can find in the records, the Iliad and the Odyssey have been attributed to Homer. For example, Herodotus was a Greek historian active in the middle of the 5th century BC. He extensively discussed certain parts of the Iliad, freely connecting the work to Homer without hesitation. It is clear that in Herodotus’ time, the attribution of this poem to Homer was widely accepted. The same can be said regarding the Odyssey, which Herodotus also attributes to Homer.

We can trace this attribution further back. At some point around the middle of the 6th century BC, a custom was established in Athens that involved the recital of Homer’s poems. The poets who recited them were known as the Homeridae, or “Sons of Homer.” Furthermore, the late-6th-century BC Homeric Hymn to Apollo refers to a blind poet from Chios who composed songs that would be supreme over all others; a clear reference to Homer and his two epic poems.

Why Some Scholars Reject Homeric Authorship

With the aforementioned evidence in mind, we can see that the Iliad and the Odyssey were attributed to Homer from an early date. Why, then, do some modern scholars reject Homer’s authorship of these poems? To be clear, most scholars today accept that the Iliad was essentially the work of a single mind. The unity in the poem makes that clear. Whether the Odyssey was composed by the same poet is more controversial. However, that poem also seems to have been composed by a single individual (or, at most, a small guild working closely together). Therefore, it would seem as if the firm tradition from antiquity that they were composed by Homer could well be true.

However, scholars have pointed out some chronological issues with this traditional viewpoint. There is strong evidence that the Iliad and the Odyssey were products of the mid-7th century BC. This is clear from an analysis of the descriptions of the weapons, armor, warfare, customs, geography, and geopolitical features of the world in both poems. This is also evident from when scenes from the poems first appear on artwork on Greek pottery.

This is an issue because Homer is frequently thought to have lived before the 7th century BC. Herodotus, for example, placed Homer 400 years before his time, in the middle of the 9th century BC. Other ancient references place him not too long after the Trojan War. One notable example is Eratosthenes, who placed Homer just 100 years after the events he allegedly described in his poems.

Homeric scholar Hans van Wees summarized the argument with the following:

“The chief reason why scholars have been prepared to overlook such, surely obvious, objections [to an 8th century BC date for the Trojan epics] is… that these arguments support the earliest possible date, and only the earliest possible date can rescue the ancient belief that the epics had been created by Homer.”

In other words, accepting Homer as the author of these poems depends on their having been composed in the 8th century BC or earlier. Given the clear evidence that the Iliad and the Odyssey were created in the 7th century BC, this contradicts the belief that Homer created them.

Some scholars, such as Hans van Wees himself, suggest that the true author of the Iliad and the Odyssey was a poet called Terpander. He lived in the 7th century BC and is generally accepted as a historical figure. Like Homer, Terpander was renowned in antiquity for his contributions to poetic tradition in ancient Greece. He was also said to have devoted himself primarily to the recital of the Homeric poems, that is, the Iliad and the Odyssey. Some ancient sources also mention that he imitated the musical style of Homer.

We also find evidence for this theory from the aforementioned Homeric Hymn to Apollo. This was the creation of a 6th-century BCE rhapsode, one of the “Sons of Homer.” It appears to have been composed by a certain Cynaethus, yet the poem itself claims that it is the work of the “blind poet” (Homer) mentioned within the text. In other words, the poem claims that it is the work of Homer, despite actually being the work of one of the “Sons of Homer” in the 6th century BC. The same can be said for the other Homeric Hymns, which date primarily from that same century. This demonstrates that poems that were not actually written by Homer were frequently attributed to him.

Regarding Terpander, it is notable that at least one ancient source in the Hellenistic period claimed that he was the composer of this Homeric Hymn to Apollo. Conceivably, this could reflect an otherwise forgotten tradition that he was equated with Homer.

An Alternative Viewpoint

As we have seen, this argument is fundamentally rooted in the chronology of Homer compared to the date of the composition of the Iliad and the Odyssey. The idea is that Homer lived too early to be the real composer of these poems. However, does this argument really stand up to scrutiny? As Hans van Wees himself acknowledged, Theopompos, in the 4th century BC, only a century after Herodotus and a century before Eratosthenes, placed Homer in the 7th century BC. Euphorion, a poet and grammarian who also predates Eratosthenes, likewise placed Homer in the 7th century BC.

Even Herodotus cannot really be used as evidence for placing Homer in the 9th century BC. What Herodotus actually said is that he supposed that Homer lived no more than 400 years before his own time. In other words, this was Herodotus’ attempt at an upper limit for Homer’s lifetime. We do not know how Herodotus arrived at this upper limit. However, if he based this estimate on an unusually long average generation length, then a more realistic average would bring Homer much further forward in time.

Demetrius of Magnesia in the 1st century BC made Homer a contemporary of Thaletas, a 7th-century BC individual. We should also not ignore the tradition that Homer was a contemporary of the grandfather of Pythagoras’ teacher. Given that Pythagoras was born in 570 BC, this clearly places Homer in the 7th century BC.

It is true that the evidence from the Homeric Hymns shows that poems could be attributed to Homer without having actually been written by him. Yet, the reason why we know this is, in part, precisely because ancient sources directly tell us so, as the evidence regarding Cynaethus and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo shows. In contrast, no ancient source ever attributes the Iliad and the Odyssey to anyone else.

Did Homer Compose the Iliad & Odyssey?

The entire existence of the “Sons of Homer” and the desire to attribute their poems to their old master would be nonsensical if Homer had not been the composer of renowned poems. The idea that a rhapsode composed the Iliad and the Odyssey and simply attributed them to Homer would negate the entire reason why Homer was famous and considered worthy of such attributions in the first place.

Additionally, regarding a suggestion that Cynaethus may have been the true composer, with a certain Onomacritus as his scribe, Hans van Wees wrote:

“…given that our sources seem to know quite a bit about both these figures, it is odd that there is never any mention of their role in publishing “Homer,” which would surely have been their greatest claim to fame.”

Crucially, this exact same logic would equally apply to Terpander. He is frequently mentioned in ancient sources, yet not a single one makes him the composer of the Iliad and the Odyssey. It seems perverse to accept Hans van Wees’ argument against Cynaethus composing these poems but yet accept the idea that Terpander may have been their true composer.

Given the reasonable evidence that Homer was actually a figure of the 7th century BC, the easiest explanation is simply that he really was the composer of the Iliad and the Odyssey, as tradition asserts.

In the 5th century BC, Pericles was a central figure of Athens’ Golden Age. He guided the development of democracy and shaped the ancient city’s art and culture in ways that still resonate today.

We sat down with Dr. Paul Cartledge, one of the world’s foremost scholars of ancient Greece, to get to know the real Pericles behind the public persona—and to discuss his new book, Pericles: Statesman, Demagogue, Eccentric.

“What I try to do with this biography is a bit of a balancing act. On the one hand, Pericles was rational and reasonable – not a crowd-pleaser or a rabble-rouser. But in order to persuade the masses to vote for him, he had to be eloquent and persuasive, and therefore he needed to use rhetorical tricks. So he was both a statesman and a demagogue.”

Who Was Pericles, and Why Does He Still Matter?

As the cultural and intellectual center of the Greek world, Athens was home to figures such as Socrates, Sophocles, and Phidias during its golden age—an era known as the Age of Pericles.

Pericles was Athens’ most famed political figure, strengthening democracy, expanding its naval empire, and overseeing monumental projects like the Acropolis of Athens. He shaped policy, culture, and power in ways few individuals ever have within a democratic system.

Pericles still matters because the world he helped build endures. The democratic ideals refined in his time, the art and architecture he sponsored, and the cultural legacy of Athens still shape how we think about politics, citizenship, and civilization.

Pericles: Statesman, Demagogue, Eccentric

Pericles: Statesman, Demagogue, Eccentric is a “nuanced portrait” of Athens’s most famous leader. It paints a fascinating, threefold picture of him as a brilliant politician, visionary patron of the arts, and a man with an idiosyncratic personal life.

Dr. Paul Cartledge is Emeritus A. G. Leventis Professor of Greek Culture at the University of Cambridge. He holds the Gold Cross of the Order of Honor of Ancient Greece and is an Honorary Citizen of Sparta. His latest book, Pericles: Statesman, Demagogue, Eccentric, is now available for pre-order via the University of Chicago Press.

Messenia sits in the southwest corner of the Peloponnese in southern Greece. Ancient Messenia endured three distinct wars over the course of around 200 years, which became known as the Messenian Wars. Despite being infamous conflicts, there is significant controversy surrounding the exact dates of these wars and what actually happened. What does the surviving evidence reveal about the chronology of the Messenian Wars?

The First Messenian War

The First Messenian War is referred to by a near-contemporary source, a poet named Tyrtaeus. He was a state poet for Sparta, motivating the Spartans to fight for their city. He apparently participated in the Second Messenian War and referred, in his poetry, to the previous one.

Regarding the First Messenian War, Tyrtaeus provides some useful facts. He explains that it lasted 19 full years and ended in the 20th year. The Eurypontid King of Sparta was Theopompus, while the Agiad King of Sparta was Polydorus (Sparta was ruled by two concurrent dynasties). It was the former king who led the Spartans to victory in this war. Tyrtaeus explains that it was during this war that the Spartans captured the territory of Messenia. Unfortunately, he does not provide a detailed explanation of the course of the entire war. We only learn a few scattered pieces of information that can form a basic outline.

Sources from centuries later also explain what happened in this conflict. After many battles, the Messenians finally took their final stand at Mount Ithome, which was heavily fortified. During the Spartans’ attack on Ithome, the Messenians were victorious under the leadership of their king, Aristodemus. However, the Spartans returned and thoroughly defeated the Messenians, leading to their complete enslavement. They became the helots, a slave class in Spartan society.

The Second Messenian War

The Second Messenian War is the one in which Tyrtaeus himself participated. He suggests that they were separated by about two generations, or half a century. This is inferred from the fact that he refers to the participants of the First Messenian War as their fathers’ fathers.

According to some sources, the Second Messenian War lasted eleven years. Since Messenia had been conquered by Sparta at the end of the first conflict, this second war started with a revolt of the Messenians. At first, Argos and Arcadia fought alongside the Messenians against Sparta. Over the course of the war, these two allies abandoned Messenia. The Spartans, for their part, were supported by Cretans.

After the Argives had left the Messenians, the Messenians and the Arcadians participated in the Battle of the Great Foss, or the Great Trench. The Spartans had bribed the Arcadian king, Aristocrates, to withdraw his troops during the battle. He did so, and this led to a crushing defeat of the Messenians. The Agiad King of the Spartans at this time is reported to have been Anaxander, the grandson of Polydorus, from the time of the First Messenian War. This corresponds to Tyrtaeus’ statement placing two generations between the two wars, both of which were Spartan Victories.

Chronological Confusion

While the evidence is clear that about 50 years passed between the first two Messenian Wars, pinning down their actual dates is more challenging. Traditionally, the First Messenian War has been placed in 743-724 BC. The start of the Second Messenian War is placed by Pausanias (c. 110-180 AD) during the archonship of Tlesias of Athens, which supposedly occurred in 680 BC. Yet, despite these clear statements from ancient Greek historians, there is good evidence that these dates are too early. For example, we find reference in Aelian’s Varia Historia, written in c. 200 AD, of a Greek general named Epaminondas in the 4th century BC declaring, in c. 369 BC, that he would free Messenia after 230 years of servitude to Sparta. This suggests that the Second Messenian War ended around 600 BC.

A later date is also supported by Pausanias’ report that Anaxilas, a tyrant of Rhegium, was third in descent from Alcidamidas. Anaxilas was born in the latter half of the 6th century BC, perhaps around 530 BC. Alcidamidas is said to have left Messenia for Rhegium after the First Messenian War. Even if we assume that Alcidamidas was fairly young when he emigrated, and that each of the three generations leading to Anaxilas was lengthy, the implication is clear. The First Messenian War must have occurred in the 7th century BC.

A late date for these two wars is further supported by evidence regarding Tyrtaeus, who participated in the Second Messenian War. The Byzantine Suda places Tyrtaeus in the 35th Olympiad, which was in 640-637 BC. An earlier source, Jerome, in the 4th century AD, placed Tyrtaeus in c. 633 BC. This is compatible with him being involved in a war that started in c. 610 BC, which continued until the end of that century. This would then match Epaminondas’ reference to 230 years of enslavement. In contrast, it is incompatible with the idea that the Second Messenian War occurred as early as 680 BC.

Therefore, by examining these various references and piecing them together, we can see that the dates of the First and Second Messenian Wars should be much later than commonly given. The First Messenian War probably took place between c. 670-650 BC, while the Second Messenian War probably happened in c. 610-599 BC.

The Third Messenian War

The Second Messenian War was not the final confrontation between the Messenians and the Spartans. There was also the so-called Third Messenian War, which occurred as a result of an earthquake. In reality, there is evidence that there was another war between the Second and “Third” Messenian Wars. This appears to have occurred around 500 BC or just after, in the reign of King Cleomenes I of Sparta. It is mentioned by Herodotus in the middle of the 5th century BC, just a few decades after it occurred. The result of this war was a Messenian migration to Sicily, where they founded the city of Messenia in c. 488 BC.

Just over two decades later, in 464 BC, Greece suffered a major earthquake. This seriously affected Sparta, and the enslaved Messenians took the opportunity to rebel. In fact, they viewed this disaster as divine punishment against the Spartans for an event that had occurred not long before the earthquake. A number of helots worshiping at a temple of Zeus had been dragged outside and killed.

Filled with indignation and presented with a weakened Sparta, the Messenians revolted once again in a war that would run from 464 to 455 BC. The Messenians eventually surrendered on the condition that they be allowed to leave the region.

This revolt had massive consequences for all of Greece. This revolt compelled the Spartans to request help from Athens. The Athenians responded, but the Spartans began to worry that they would end up siding with the Messenian helots. Thus, they dismissed the Athenian troops. This was a massive insult to Athens, and it directly resulted in them positioning themselves as enemies of Sparta from then on, ultimately resulting in the two Peloponnesian Wars in that century.

Those who remained behind would only gain their freedom after the Peloponnesian Wars, when Thebes defeated Sparta in the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC. Their general Epaminondas collected the Messenian exiles and founded the town of Messené, at the foot of Mount Ithomé, which formed the acropolis of the city. Messenia maintained its independence until the Romans conquered Greece in 146 BC.

Two Hundred Years of Messenian Wars in the Peloponnese

So what is the most likely chronology for the Messenian Wars? The First Messenian War was a 20-year conflict that resulted in the conquest of Messenia by the Spartans. It resulted in the creation of the helot class in Spartan society, which would go on to play a defining role in the identity of that city-state. While traditionally dated to 743-724 BC, an analysis of the evidence suggests that it actually occurred much later, in the second quarter of the 7th century BC (c. 670-650 BC). The Second Messenian War occurred two generations later, probably in c. 610-599 BC. Tyrtaeus, a contemporary Greek poet, says that it started due to a Messenian uprising, but resulted in a Spartan victory.

A case could be made that the Third Messenian War should actually be called the Fourth. This is because there is evidence that there was another war between Sparta and Messenia before the traditional “Third” war. In any case, the final war was an opportunistic rebellion that occurred after a terrible earthquake devastated Sparta in 464 BC. Although the Spartans were ultimately victorious in that conflict, their behaviour during it contributed to many decades of warfare against Athens in the Peloponnesian Wars (431-404 BC). Messenia would eventually gain freedom after Thebes defeated Sparta at the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC.

“Draco’s laws were not written in ink, but in blood.” This is what 4th-century BCE orator Demades reportedly said of Draco, a 7th-century BCE Athenian lawmaker. Draco is the man credited with providing Athens with its first written law code. Not much of the code has survived, but what does remain is the homicide code, which was considered excessively severe, even by ancient standards. So much so that the term “draconian” has found its way into the modern vocabulary as a byword for archaic severity. But have Draco and his laws been misjudged?

Who Was Draco?

Unfortunately, not much of Draco’s life is known, only that he established his legal code around 621 BCE, during the Archonship of Aristaechmus. Before Draco, the law was the domain of the aristocracy. They were passed down orally and left to the leading oligarchy to interpret and manipulate.

Some scholars link Draco’s rise to the Cylonian coup of c. 630 BCE, which led to the Alcmaeonid tribe’s exile from Athens. Though it was unlikely that he was ever Archon, it seems that Draco was given extraordinary powers similar to Solon, who was considered one of the Seven Sages of Greece.

Draco was the first to write down the law code of Athens, enabling literate citizens to read and understand the laws without the need for aristocratic interpretation. From that time onwards, people were empowered to bring their own lawsuits to court. We have a general outline of the constitution after Draco from Aristotle. However, it is unclear whether Draco created these laws or just codified them, since in his Politics, Aristotle said that Draco worked from an existing constitution. The only known laws that are certainly attributed to Draco are those concerning homicide.

What the Sources Say

Whenever Draco was spoken of in the surviving sources, it was usually in context with the harshness of his law code. The earliest source to mention Draco’s severity is Aristotle, writing in the 4th century BCE. In his Politics, Aristotle wrote that there was nothing remarkable about his laws except for their severity.

Plutarch, writing in the early 2nd century CE, wrote that Draco applied the death penalty for nearly all crimes, and that someone who stole fruit received the same punishment as a murderer. He even offered an anecdote that Draco himself was said to have been asked why he gave the death penalty for most offenses. His reply was that the lesser crimes deserved it, and for the greater ones, he couldn’t think of a harsher punishment. Aulus Gellius, a Roman author of the late 2nd century CE, also wrote that Draco punished theft with death.

The Law Before Draco

According to Aristotle, before Draco’s reforms, the Athenian constitution was based on wealth and ancestry. The three top political offices were those of the King, Warlord, and Archon. The King was the oldest office and was hereditary, passed down from father to son. Athens was originally a monarchy, but over time, the king’s powers were divided among several magistracies. By the time of Draco, the King performed sacred rites and had a judicial role, presiding over murder cases and trials against impiety.

The next highest office was the Warlord, or Polemarchos. They were the city’s general and led the army in battle. Aristotle wrote that the office was created because some kings proved cowardly or weak generals.

The newest of the high offices was Archon. The office was created as the power of kingship declined, taking on many roles traditionally belonging to the monarch. As the duties entrusted to the Archon increased, it became the highest office in the city. All of these roles were initially held for life, then reduced to ten-year terms, and finally elected annually from the aristocratic class.

The Cylonian Affair

The Cylonian Affair refers to the attempted coup of Athens by Cylon and his supporters in 632 BCE. Cylon was also given men by the tyrant of Megara, his father-in-law, Theagenes. According to Thucydides, Cylon sought advice from the Oracle at Delphi, which told him that he should seize the Acropolis at Athens during the grand festival of Zeus. Cylon believed that this meant the Olympic Games, since he was an Olympic victor himself. But the greatest festival of Zeus in Athens was the Diasia, held just outside the city. Cylon seized the Acropolis during the Olympic Games, but when the Athenians learned what he had done, they came storming into the city from the countryside and laid siege to the Acropolis.

The siege lasted days, long enough that Cylon’s forces started to die of starvation. Cylon and some friends managed to escape, but the rest of his force took refuge at an altar of Athena and surrendered to the Athenians under the assertion that they would not be harmed. They were led away from the altar and killed.

This impious act was blamed on the Alcmaeonid family, one of whom, Megacles, was an Archon at the time, and was said to have laid a curse on the city. To rid themselves of the curse, the Alcmaeonids were exiled from Athens. This curse would be referenced several times in the following centuries as a pretense for other political exiles. It’s been suggested that this caused the constitutional crisis that preceded Draco’s appointment, but there were other sources of political strife in 7th-century-BCE Athens.

Athens’ 7th Century Political Strife

Draco was appointed in 621 BCE to record the laws because the “constitution was in disorder.” At this time, there was a massive wealth and power disparity between the aristocratic class and the rest of the population, not just in Athens but across the mainland. People were increasingly in debt, and it was a common occurrence that they’d be forced to sell themselves or family members into slavery. The city was governed by a constantly rotating group of aristocratic families, who overthrew and exiled each other, only to return with an army and do the same to their rivals.

In this context, the Cylonian Affair is just another in a long list of aristocratic coups and exiles. Draco was given unprecedented power to restructure the constitution, implementing laws that would also apply to the aristocratic class. Some serious political strife beyond the status quo infighting must have led to this decision, possibly originating from the lower classes.

Like Solon after him, Draco was appointed to resolve the strife between the aristocracy and the people. Yet his laws were clearly unsuccessful, as Solon was elected Archon only a few years later, in 594 BCE, to resolve the same grievances.

Draco’s Homicide Law

Draco’s homicide law is remembered mostly because it was one of the earliest recorded in Greek history. However, as far as scholars can tell, Draco based it on traditional penalties for murder. In the archaic period, murder was a matter to be settled between the families of the killer and the victim. Draco’s innovation was an elaborate procedure outlining the rights of both parties before, during, and after the court trial.

It can be assumed that Draco set out other laws since Aristotle wrote that most of them fell into disuse, while Plutarch wrote that Solon repealed them all save one. The only one he kept was the law on homicide.

The law determined the punishment for murder as well as how the accused and the family of the victim could be reconciled. The law also differentiated between premeditated and unintentional or accidental murder. While death was certainly a penalty for murder, there were other options. The family of the victim could settle for monetary compensation, or they could pardon the killer altogether. The victim, before death, could also pardon the killer. The accused could even go into exile without being pursued. Draco was also said to have detailed the situation where a murder was justified. The homicide law remained in use throughout the Classical Period, as it was reaffirmed in 409 BCE.

Was Draco Really “Draconian”?

While the common consensus among ancient and modern scholars is that Draco’s laws were severe, were they as severe as Plutarch made them out to be? Part of Draco’s legacy of severity may stem from his name. Astute readers of Greek history and mythology would have noticed the connection between the name Draco and the Greek word “drakon,” meaning snake. Aristotle noted the pun in his Rhetoric when he said that Draco’s laws were not those of a man but of a snake.

Later authors wrote that Draco imposed the death penalty for even the most mundane of crimes, yet this is clearly false. The 2nd-century-CE author Julius Pollux recorded that a provision in Draco’s law set a penalty of twenty oxen. Even the surviving fragment of the homicide law provides for reconciliation and never specifies death as the only punishment.

Draco was also widely considered a good and just man. The 4th-century BCE statesman Aeschines, in a speech, said that Draco, like Solon, paid close attention to morality in his laws. Demosthenes, another 4th-century BCE statesman, said that Draco exhibited the principles of justice in his laws. While Aristotle was likely right in asserting that the only law of Draco in force in his time was the one concerning homicide, that does not necessarily mean that all of them were repealed by Solon, as Plutarch later claimed. The more likely answer is that the laws either ceased to be enforced or were revised to reflect new conditions. The laws were inscribed on public monuments, so changing them required taking down the monument and rewriting it. The Athenians wanted to attribute all their laws to Solon, and, given that he was in charge of reforming the government after Draco had provided Athens with its first written laws, he would necessarily have had to revise existing laws.

So, was Draco as severe as sources claimed? Probably not. Later authors often exaggerated his severity for rhetorical flourish, but that does not mean that he was not severe. There’s too much consensus to assume otherwise, but his “draconian” reputation is probably exaggerated, and Athenians clearly venerated him as a just lawmaker in the same vein as Solon.

Select Bibliography

• Carey, C. (2013). “In Search of Drakon.” The Cambridge Classical Journal, 59, 29–51.
• Gagarin, M. (1989). Early Greek Law. University of California Press.
• Gagarin, M., & Cohen, D. (2005). The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law. Cambridge University Press.
• Phillips, D. D. (2008). Avengers of Blood: Homicide in Athenian Law and Custom from Draco to Demosthenes.
• Rhodes, P. J. (Ed.). (2020). A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Revised edition). Oxford University Press.

Ancient Greece is known for its architecture, philosophy, and cultural achievements. But the many independent Greek city-states were almost constantly at war with one another or facing external threats such as Persia and Macedon. This constant warfare meant that they needed competent commanders, who often led their men to victory against overwhelming odds. But who were ancient Greece’s most famous and effective generals? Meet five Greek generals who made their mark before the rise of the great Macedonian generals Philip II and Alexander the Great.

1. Miltiades: Athenian Commander at Marathon (490 BCE)

When Persia invaded Greece for the first time in vengeance for Greek support of the Ionian Revolt, the massive Persian army landed near Marathon (490 BCE). The Athenians sent an army of 10,000 men, joined by about 1,000 Plataeans, facing about 15,000 Persians. The Athenians, always democratic, were commanded by ten generals who rotated command daily. They were evenly split between wanting to attack or wait, with Miltiades favoring a more aggressive policy. Four of the generals then ceded their authority to Miltiades, giving him effective command over the army.

He knew the Persian cavalry would cause havoc among the Greeks, and waited for the horsemen to be occupied elsewhere. Once they were not a factor, Miltiades arranged the Greek hoplites into formation for an assault on the Persian camp. He strengthened the army’s wings, spreading the center thin; a calculated risk. Ordering his men to attack, the general led the Greek army across the roughly mile-wide field to the Persian camp. Tradition states that the Greeks ran the distance at a full sprint to minimize the time under threat by Persian archers. Modern scholarship holds that this is a misinterpretation of the sources and that they ran only the last few hundred yards, since running in full hoplite gear for a mile would have left the Greeks exhausted before the lines collided.

Either way, the Persians pushed into the Greek center, which faltered, but the reinforced wings drove back the Persian infantry. The Greeks, more heavily armored and with longer spears, were able to hold their ground while the wings pushed inwards, causing the Persian flanks to collapse. The Persians turned and ran to their ships. The Greeks pursued, killing over 6,000 and capturing seven ships. Thanks to Miltiades’ bold and innovative strategy, Greece was safe from Persian domination, for the time being.

2. Leonidas: Spartan Hero of Thermopylae (480 BCE)

Undeterred by this setback, the Persian king Darius swore revenge and vowed to crush the Greeks. Unfortunately, he would die before he could set his plan into motion, and the task fell to his son Xerxes. He organized a titanic invasion force that, according to ancient sources, was over a million men. Though modern sources suggest the army was more like 100,000, it still dwarfed anything the Greeks could muster. With the Persian army descending from the north, a ragtag coalition of Greek city-states tried to stem the enemy’s advance. It was agreed that a blocking force would be sent to Thermopylae (the Hot Gates) whose task was to stall the Persians as long as possible.

Leading this expedition was the Spartan king Leonidas, who led 300 fellow Spartans and a force of around 7,000 Greeks. Leonidas knew that the Persian numbers could simply overwhelm the Greek army, so he used the terrain of Greece to his advantage. The Persian army would be channeled into the Hot Gates, where their numbers would count for nothing. There, the heavier armor and longer weapons of the Greek hoplites could hold the much larger Persian army at bay.

Rebuilding a Phocian wall, the Greeks dug in their heels and prepared to make their stand. For three days, the vastly outnumbered Greek forces stopped the Persian advance. Then Ephialtes, a Greek traitor, told the Persians about a secret pathway around the defenders. Knowing they were being surrounded, Leonidas ordered the bulk of the Greeks to withdraw. Leonidas, the remaining 300 Spartans, as well as around 700 Thespians, 400 Thebans, and possibly a number of Helot slaves, made a final stand, acting as a rear guard while the rest of the army retreated.

Leonidas was killed early in the fighting on the third day, and the Spartans fought fiercely for his body. Surrounded, the survivors made their way to a small hill where they were eventually overwhelmed by Persian arrows. All 300 Spartans and 700 Thespians fought to the death, though many of the Thebans surrendered. Though a defeat, Leonidas and the men he led have gone down in history as one of the most famous last stands in military history.

3. Themistocles: Athenian Naval Commander at Salamis (480 BCE)

While Leonidas and his men were fighting tooth and nail at Thermopylae, the Persian navy was engaged with the Athenian fleet at the Strait of Artemisium. This naval battle was indecisive, but it was a precursor to another battle, led by another giant of ancient Greek military history. The fleet was led by Athenian statesman Themistocles, who, in the years prior to the Persian invasion, convinced the Athenians to invest in a large navy. Now that the Persians were bearing down on their homeland, his foresight would save Greece and Western civilization. After withdrawing from Artemisium, the fleet redeployed to Salamis. At the same time, Athens was abandoned and eventually burned by the victorious Persians. It was here that Themistocles’ genius revealed itself.

While the other Greeks argued about what to do, Themistocles sent a slave to Xerxes with a message. He had seen the futility of resistance and wanted to join the Persian cause. To sweeten the offer, he gave the Persians information about the Greek dispositions at Salamis, stating that they were preparing to flee. Taking the bait, Xerxes ordered his fleet to surround the Greeks by bottling them up in the narrow passageway of Salamis. He had expected the Greeks to be in disorder, preparing to flee, and surprised by the Persian advance. What they found was something different.

As the Persian fleet sailed into the channel, they were met by the Greek navy, fully prepared and in battle array. Unfamiliar with the treacherous waters, the Persians became disorganized. Seizing the opportunity, the Greeks struck, ramming their prows into the vulnerable Persian vessels. Many of their ships tried to backpedal, but the Persians’ massive numbers became a liability as ships collided, adding to the confusion. The first rank smashed into the second, which slammed into the third, and soon, the entire operation had turned into a fiasco.

Xerxes, watching from a nearby mountain, became enraged, but there was little the King of Kings could do as his navy was crippled. Thanks to Themistocles’ foresight and leadership, the Persians were forced to withdraw, lest they become trapped in Europe. The remaining force was defeated the following year at Plataea. Through his actions, Themistocles delivered the decisive blow that halted Persian westward expansion.

4. Gylippus: The Spartan Savior at Syracuse (414-413 BCE)

The Peloponnesian War raged for three decades, with the Athenian and Spartan power blocs vying for supremacy of the Greek world. In 415 BCE, the Athenians sent a massive fleet and army to Sicily, hoping to capture Syracuse, a nominal Spartan ally but still incredibly wealthy. The Athenians landed and, after an unsuccessful attempt to capture the city, settled in for a siege, building a wall to surround Syracuse. The Syracusans tried to stop the besiegers, but their attempt failed, and every day the surrounding wall grew closer to completion. The defenders tried to build their own wall to cut off the Athenians but this also failed.

In response, the Spartans sent a relief force under the command of the general Gylippus, a Spartan rumored to be half-helot; an odd choice for such an important mission. Once he arrived on the scene, he took charge of the defenses and, after an initial defeat, managed to drive back the Athenians. This allowed the Syracusians to complete their counter-wall, making the Athenian siege efforts worthless. He then coordinated a simultaneous land and sea assault. Though the Spartan and allied navy failed to dislodge the Athenian fleet, Gylippus was more successful on land and captured Athenian forts. Athenian reinforcements arrived later, and the next several months saw them battle relentlessly against the outnumbered Syracusian defenders in a series of indecisive clashes.

Finally, the Athenians were trapped in Syracuse harbor, and they were smashed. With hope rapidly fading, the Athenians tried to withdraw. This was a disaster, and the Athenians were relentlessly pursued by the Syracusians, Spartans, and other allies. Over 7,000 Athenians, including Nicias, the commander, were forced to surrender. Many were sold into slavery, while others were left in a stone quarry to starve to death. Nicias was executed against Gylippus’ orders. The Athenian invasion of Sicily, which had a promising start, ended in a strategic disaster from which they could not recover. This was all thanks to the timely arrival of Gylippus, who organized the defenders and took the fight to the besiegers, marking a major turning point in the course of the Peloponnesian War.

5. Epaminondas: Theban Visionary at Leuctra (371 BCE)

After the Peloponnesian War, Sparta reigned supreme as the hegemon of Greece, able to exert its will over the other Greek city-states. Sparta was nothing if not ruthless in its foreign policy, and the Greeks became dissatisfied with their overlords. In response, a coalition led by Thebes launched a campaign against Spartan domination. The head of the Theban military was a visionary general named Epaminondas.

One factor in Epaminondas’ favor was Sparta’s conservative nature. Despite their military prowess, they refused to change, seeing progress as a form of corruption. In each battle, they fought the same way: a densely packed phalanx of hoplites eight ranks deep. The Spartans would also always position themselves on the right of the battle line, their allies to the left. Enemies knew this and would position their best troops on their right to avoid confronting the superior Spartans. This was the case in battle after battle.

In response, Epaminondas upended this system. He would place his own Thebans directly across the battlefield from the elite Spartans, which came as a popular relief to his allies, who didn’t have to face the best troops in the Greek world. More importantly, he reorganized the phalanx. Instead of eight to ten ranks deep, the standard, he built a massive 50-rank deep phalanx designed to simply overpower the Spartans. To do this, he had to thin out the rest of his line, making them vulnerable. To compensate, he arranged his line in echelon, which meant the battle line was not straight, but diagonal. This meant that the super-phalanx would smash into the enemy lines, overpower it, and then roll up the enemy flank while keeping the rest of his line out of harm’s way. He also placed a greater emphasis on skirmishers, light troops armed with slings, bows, and javelins, who advanced ahead of the main line to harass and break up the lines.

These tactics were put to the test at Leuctra in 371 BCE. During the battle, the massive weighted phalanx of the Thebans made short work of Sparta’s best troops and were able to roll up their flank, sending Sparta and her allies fleeing before the remainder of the Theban allies even had a chance to engage.

With this victory, Thebes was able to liberate large portions of Messinia, the source of the helots; the agricultural slaves that underpinned Spartan society. Sparta fell from the hegemon of Greece to a third-rate power almost overnight, never to return to prominence. The use of combined arms, as well as the weighted flank, called oblique order, was later copied by Philip of Macedon, who was a hostage in Thebes. He used this strategy to conquer Greece. His son, Alexander the Great, would use the same tactics during his meteoric career. These tactics Epaminondas created have been used throughout history, even into the modern age.

When King Xerxes of Persia brought the might of his empire to subjugate the troublesome Greeks, they seemed unstoppable. As city after city fell to the invaders, the situation was becoming desperate. Just as hope was failing, the Athenian leader Themistocles developed a brilliant but risky strategy to defeat the invading Persians. It was years in the making. The Persian and Greek forces clashed at Salamis in a battle that decided the fate of civilizations.

The Greeks Revolt

The seed of the Persian Wars was sown decades earlier. The Persian Empire had expanded rapidly and pushed westward from its homeland in modern Iran. Eventually, all of Anatolia was conquered. The coast of western Anatolia was home to many Ionian Greek colonies, which soon fell under Persian rule. They were understandably not entirely welcoming. In 499 BCE, they rebelled against their Persian overlords. The revolt was crushed, and the Persian King Darius I soon discovered a critical detail. The rebellious Greeks were supported by the mainland Greek city-states, especially Athens, which sent ships, money, and other aid to support their bid for independence. With this “casus belli,” the Persians soon launched punitive invasions of Greece.

The first of these expeditions was lost in a storm. Another was gathered, and after a brief island-hopping campaign across the Aegean, landed at Marathon in 490 BCE. Though outnumbered, the Greek city-states of Athens and Plataea did the only sensible thing: attack. The Persians had recently disembarked and were in a vulnerable state. The Greeks reportedly ran across the nearly mile-long space to get past the Persian archers and launch their attack. The Greek aggressiveness caught the Persians off guard, and the invaders were driven off.

Though defeated, Darius was ready for another attempt at subjugating the stubborn Greeks. But he died, and the burden of vengeance was taken up by his son, Xerxes. A decade after the disaster at Marathon, Xerxes led a titanic force to end Greek defiance once and for all.

According to Herodotus, the force assembled was over a million strong. Modern estimates place the actual number at 100,000-300,000, so still the largest military force the ancient world had ever seen, drawn from all corners of the Persian Empire. They marched overland, across the Hellespont, and descended on Greece from the north. They hugged the coast, supported and supplied by a massive fleet of hundreds of ships. In 480 BCE, this monumental army was about to drop the hammer of vengeance on the disorganized Greeks.

Themistocles’ Foresight

When the Athenians were fighting the Persians at Marathon, among them was a singular individual whose foresight would change the course of history. Themistocles was born a commoner. His father was, according to the biographer Plutarch, “no very conspicuous man,” and his mother unknown. Little is known of his early years, but in the burgeoning democracy of Athens, his intelligence and abilities helped him rise to prominence. He enjoyed the support of the lower classes and, at Marathon, may have been one of the ten strategoi, or generals, of the Athenians, though this is difficult to confirm. After the Persians were driven off, most considered the enemy defeated permanently. Themistocles knew better.

He knew that the Persians were not so easily deterred, but he had to convince the rest of his fellow Athenians that they were still a threat. Most of his countrymen believed the Persians had been defeated and would lose interest in Greece. An opportunity to break this misconception presented itself in 483 BCE, when a large silver deposit was discovered near Athens. The debate raged among the citizens of Athens’ democracy, with many believing that the best use would be to distribute the money to the people.

Themistocles wanted to build a fleet of warships, but knew any mention of Persia would be ignored. So, undeterred, he engaged in some gamesmanship. Rather than point out the Persian threat, he played up Athens’ rivalry with Aegina, an island city-state. Themistocles had hoped that 200 Triremes would be built, but the issue remained contentious, and only 100 were approved for construction. Still, with this misdirection, the Athenian bulwark against the Persians was formed.

Triremes were oar-powered warships with a sail. It was named after the three decks of oars, with one rower per oar. They could carry a crew of up to 200, including 170 rowers, 30 deckhands, and a detachment of marines. They had an average speed of around six to seven knots, or about seven to nine miles per hour, while under power by oars, though they often cruised at about half this speed.

Contrary to popular conception, the rowers were not slaves, but well-paid freemen, who were trained and highly competent. In battle, the standard tactic was to ram an enemy vessel with a bronze-tipped prow. The small number of soldiers—four or five archers and ten hoplites—made most boarding actions unfeasible. They were there to defend the rowers, who could also defend themselves with a stockpile of stones.

Greece Under Attack

As the Persians descended on Greece, there was continual debate on how to respond. The city-states were often at war with one another, and self-interest left them ill-equipped to unite against a common enemy. The Persians conquered Thessaly and Macedonia and continued to creep southward. In response, a force was sent to a narrow mountain path called Thermopylae. The Greek army was led by Spartan king Leonidas with 300 Spartans, plus 7,000 hoplites from Thebes, Thespia, Phocas, and other city-states. The following battle and the doomed last stand of the 300 Spartans (and 700 Thespians) have gone down in legend as one of the most famous battles in history. At the same time, the Persian navy was engaged by the Greek fleet at the nearby strait of Artemisium, which ended in an indecisive clash.

After three days, the Persians finally overcame the defenders of Thermopylae and were able to surge southward again. The Greek fleet at Artemisium disengaged and withdrew, leaving the remaining Greeks in chaos. There were many differing opinions on how to proceed next. Many abandoned the plan to defend the Boeotia region and fell back to defend the Isthmus of Corinth. With the Persians controlling the seas, this was a pointless attempt. The Persians could simply land their army wherever they wanted. It was clear, then, that the Persian fleet must be eliminated for the Greeks to have any chance of survival.

Athens was directly in the crosshairs of the Persians, and the city was in a panic. It was at this point that Themistocles’ leadership came to the fore. He reminded his fellow citizens of the Oracle of Delphi‘s prophecy, which said the Greeks should look to a wooden wall for salvation. Many thought this was a wooden palisade around the Acropolis, or the growing defenses at the Isthmus of Corinth. Themistocles gave them a different interpretation. The wooden walls were the ships of Athens’ navy. They should put their trust in the fleet. He suggested a plan that would see Athens abandoned, except for a token force, and the population evacuated to Salamis or other nearby islands.

Baiting the Trap

When the Persians finally arrived in Athens, they captured the city and burned it. While the city burned, the various Greek city-states continued to argue about the best course of action. While they bickered, Themistocles took matters into his own hands. He would force the fractious Greeks to unite under a single strategy: his own.

The Athenian statesman secretly sent a slave to the Persians with a message. To paraphrase the letter, Themistocles saw the light and realized that the Greek cause was hopeless. He wanted to submit to the Persians, but could not do so openly. Open betrayal would be noticed by the other Greeks. Still, the Persian king had a golden opportunity to crush the defenders once and for all. The Greek navy was in turmoil as factions vied for control. Xerxes could take advantage of this by trapping the Greek fleet at the Strait of Salamis, a narrow passage between the island of Salamis and the Greek mainland. The narrow passage would prevent the Greeks from escaping, and once trapped, the overwhelming might of the Persian navy could crush them once and for all. But the Great King would have to move fast, or the opportunity would slip away.

Xerxes read the letter and swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. He dispatched 200 ships from his Egyptian squadron to block one end of the strait, while the rest of his navy descended on the other end. As this was happening, the alarm was raised. The Greeks saw the Persians bearing down on them. With no other choice, they had to fight. The Persian fleet consisted of between 400 and 1,200 ships. The Greeks had between 350 and 400 ships, though the exact figures are still hotly debated by scholars. It is clear, however, that the Greeks were vastly outnumbered and apparently trapped.

The Trap is Sprung

As the Persians converged on the Greeks, they expected to see a disordered force trying to flee. Instead, they found a navy ready for battle and expecting a fight. Still, they pressed on, hoping to destroy the outnumbered Greeks. The Greeks began to back up, trying to buy time and to draw the Persians into the narrow waterway. The Persians did exactly as hoped and soon became disorganized in the strait. Their three line battle formation began to fall apart. Exactly what happened next is unclear, but it is believed that a single Greek ship, either Athenian or Aeginetan, surged forward towards the nearest Persian ship. Soon the rest of the Greeks followed suit.

The main tactic used by ships during this era was to ram an enemy, then backwater, leaving a gaping hole in the enemy vessel. Ideally, the bronze prow of the attacking ship would ram the weaker broadside of the enemy vessel or sideswipe the target, shearing off the oars, effectively immobilizing it. Boarding actions were rare, but did occur, and the Greeks had a distinct advantage. Their marines were hoplites who wore heavy armor and carried a large shield, making them much more durable than their lightly armored Persian counterparts.

As the battle progressed, the experienced Greeks, who were familiar with the waters, nimbly maneuvered around the floundering Persian ships and were able to engage the enemy seemingly at will. The front rank of the Persians fell back in confusion, causing a cascade effect. The retreating ships slammed into the second and third ranks behind them in their attempt to escape. This deadly stack of dominoes led to total confusion among the Persian forces. Xerxes, watching the battle from a nearby mountainside, flew into a rage as his grand fleet was smashed.

The Aftermath

No one is certain of the casualties inflicted during the Battle of Salamis. What is known is that the Persians suffered a crushing defeat. The Greeks were able to operate in the Aegean with impunity, and Xerxes feared that they could attack the pontoon bridge across the Hellespont, cutting his army off from escape to Asia. With seemingly no other choice, the Persian king ordered his massive army to withdraw, leaving behind a force of about 40,000 under the command of general Mardonius. With this withdrawal, the Peleponese was saved from Persian incursions, marking a turning point in the Greco-Persian Wars. With momentum in their favor, the next year the Greeks fought a major land battle at Plataea, led by Spartan general Pausanias, who finally defeated and drove the Persians from Europe.

And what happened to the architect of this? Themistocles rose to prominence as the savior of not only Athens, but all of Greece. He became one of the leading men in Athenian politics. He used his newfound influence to help rebuild the city, but many became jealous of his popularity. In 472 or 471 BCE, he was exiled, and after traveling around Greece, he ironically ended up in the Persian court, where he was surprisingly warmly received. He would become a local governor, living out his days as a vassal of the very empire he is most famous for fighting against.

Far from being a united entity, the ancient Greek world was made up of hundreds, if not thousands of independent, city-states. Most were small, with limited impact on history beyond their immediate region, before disappearing. Others, however, endured, creating a lasting impact on history that is felt even to this day. Here are ten of the most important and influential Greek city-states, their significance, what made them unique, and why they are remembered thousands of years later.

1. Athens

When most people think of ancient Greece, they are probably thinking of Athens. One of, if not the largest and most powerful of the Greek city-states. Athens was always at the forefront of Greek politics, culture, and influence. Though they didn’t invent it, probably their greatest and longest lasting achievement was popularizing the concept of democracy. Rather than rule by a king, priest, or tyrant, Athens pioneered the idea of citizens (in their case, only free, adult men) being able to participate in the government through a direct democracy. This concept has spread and is the cornerstone of modern political theory.

Athens was also home to some of the greatest thinkers to ever live, with the likes of Socrates and Plato laying the basis for empirical thought that did not rely on the supernatural. They established ideas that underpin modern science, philosophy, and theology. More than any other city-state,  Athens placed an emphasis on the arts and theater, being a center for statue and sculpture making, music, and plays. The works of Athenian playwrights like Euripides, Aristophanes, and Sophocles still have a place in the Western literary canon, influencing poets and authors thousands of years later.

Athens was also an economic powerhouse, with the wealth from trade funding a proto-empire throughout the Greek world. This economic influence led to the creation of a powerful navy, which was used as a bulwark against the encroaching Persian threat. Their ships were the decisive factor that kept Western civilization free from Persian control. After the Persian Wars, Athens was the wealthiest and most powerful city-state, and they used their influence, becoming the archetype of Greek culture centuries later.

2. Sparta

If one city-state was a counterpoint to Athens, it would be Sparta. Near constant rivals, Sparta is unique among the Greeks. They did not create philosophers or pioneer new forms of government. Their monumental architecture was non-existent and their art limited. Instead of great wonders, they produced warriors. Devoting themselves entirely to militarism, the Spartans did away with ostentatious wealth and aesthetics, instead forging their society into austere, terse, and disciplined soldiers.

While all Greek states had slaves, Sparta took the idea to new heights, enslaving an entire population of fellow Greeks, the Messenians, who were called helots. With such a large pool of manpower providing all their needs, Spartan males were able to devote themselves entirely to military pursuits, training for which started at the age of seven. Taught to endure any struggle, they perfected the phalanx, the dense block of spearmen that would soon spread to other Greeks as the primary form of warfare. Since they were professionals and not part time militia, their military power was unrivaled in the Greek world, on land at least.

When the Persians invaded, the first major resistance was Spartan king Leonidas and three hundred Spartans leading a Greek army, fighting to the bitter end at Thermopylae. After the Persian navy was smashed at Salamis by the Athenian led navy, the remaining Persians were finally defeated the following year at Plataea. The core of the Greek army was made up of Spartans. After a grueling three decade long war against Athens, the Peloponnesian War, the Spartans defeated their rivals, setting themselves up as the hegemon, or strongest power in the Greek world. Though they would eventually fall, Sparta remains a byword for militarism, discipline, and toughness. The word Spartan has come to mean austere, blunt, and to the point, a legacy that rivals any monumental architecture by their peers.

3. Corinth

Lesser known, but still significant, is the city-state of Corinth. Part of its role in Greek history is due to its location at the Isthmus of Corinth, a narrow passage that connects the Peloponnese to the rest of mainland Greece. This strategic location places it at the center of the Greek world, both physically and metaphorically, being the divider between Athenian and Spartan spheres of influence.

This strategic location made it a center for trade, with economic networks that stretched across the Mediterranean. This was facilitated by the creation of the diolokos, a paved track that cut across the isthmus, allowing Greek ships to cut across land rather than sailing around the Peloponnese. This bolstered the Corinthian economy, making them rivals of Athens. They used their strategic and economic clout to great effect, supporting the Spartans during the Peloponnesian War, giving monetary backing to the economically stagnant Spartans.

They were also patrons of the arts, especially pottery, with Corinthian pottery known for its fine details and exquisite craftsmanship. In addition, one style of columns, a hallmark of Greek architecture, is named after the Corinthians. It is the most elaborate and ornamented of the three major styles. Corinth also gives its name to the Corinthian helmet, the enclosed piece of headgear that is synonymous with Greek warriors. Whether it was actually developed in Corinth is hotly debated by scholars. In short, Corinth was an economic and cultural power to rival Athens that still fell under Sparta’s sphere of influence.

4. Syracuse

Greek influence was not confined to Greece. Eager to expand, the Greek city-states sent colonists around the Mediterranean and even to the Black sea, stretching their influence from the Iberian peninsula to the Crimea. Arguably the most important was Syracuse, founded by Corinthian settlers in the 8th century BCE. Located in Sicily, the city came to dominate the local region, being the most important city on the island.

A major trade center, Syracuse became a byword for wealth, with the phrase “the tithe of Syracuse would not be sufficient for them” becoming part of the Greek lexicon for wealth and greed. It was also a cultural and intellectual center, featuring many prominent temples and theaters. Centuries after its heyday, the Roman statesman Cicero stated it was the most beautiful of Greek cities. It was also the home of Archimedes, one of the foremost intellectuals of history.

Syracuse was also a major military power. The dominant city in Sicily, their wealth became the target for many invaders. During the Peloponnesian War, they were invaded by Athens. This was a disaster for the Athenians, and marked a turning point in the conflict. They would also be targeted by Rome. But even under Roman domination, Syracuse would still be the center of political, cultural, and economic influence in Sicily.

5. Thebes

After the Peloponnesian War, the Spartans were the hegemon of Greece. This would not last, and they would soon be undone by another rising force. Thebes, located in Boeotia, west of Athens, was an economic and military power that was the leading member of the Boeotian League, a coalition of city states in central Greece. When Leonidas and the three hundred Spartans made their last stand at Thermopylae, four hundred Thebans stayed as well, while the rest of the Greeks withdrew. The Thebes eventually surrendered to the Persians, and sided with the invaders at the battle of Plataea the following year. This cost them control over the Boeotian league and the enmity of the other Greeks. Angered by their treatment by the haughty Athenians, they would be firm supporters of Sparta during the Peloponnesian War.

When the fighting was over, the equally arrogant Spartans alienated their Theban allies. Once again, the Thebans spearheaded a coalition of city-states, now with the primary task of defeating the Spartans. Under the leadership of Epaminondos, Thebes innovated new battlefield tactics, such as the oblique order, placing the bulk of their forces on one side of the battle line. This smashed the Spartans at the battle of Leuctra in 371 BCE.

With Sparta defeated, Thebes enjoyed their hegemony over the rest of Greece, though this was short lived and were soon conquered by Philip of Macedon. The tactics they employed greatly influenced the Macedonians, and when Philip’s son Alexander the Great launched his conquest of Asia, these methods were the cornerstone of the legendary general’s playbook.

6. Knossos

Before the Greeks were Greeks, another civilization dominated the Mediterranean Sea. The mysterious Minoan civilization was the dominant naval and trade power in the waterways of the Late Bronze Age. The Minoans were centered around the city of Knossos on the island of Crete. The first inhabitants of Knossos arrived around 7000 BCE, making it the oldest settlement on Crete and one of the oldest in Europe.

During the Bronze Age, the settlement expanded and included a massive palace complex that was over three acres in size. Named by archaeologists after the legendary king Minos, the Minoans developed an expansive trade network. Their ships crisscrossed the seas bringing copper, tin, wine, textile, and other valuables to other Bronze Age nations. Additionally, they developed an early form of writing, Linear A, which led to the creation of Linear B, used by the Mycenaeans, and was a prototype of the Greek alphabet. They also developed a unique style of pottery and pioneered monumental architecture.

Though primarily a seaborne empire, they influenced mainland Greece, helping give rise to the Mycenaean civilization. This would be the Minoan’s undoing, as the Mycenaean civilization would conquer Knossos, ending the Minoan civilization. Though much of their society and history is still shrouded in mystery, Minoan art, architecture, writing, and language were the prototype for Greek civilization.

7. Delphi

Delphi was not a military, artistic, or economic power, but still had tremendous influence on Greek civilization. Despite their famous philosophers, the ancient Greeks were highly superstitious and placed a tremendous amount of importance on oracles. There were many oracles around the Greek world that supposedly predicted the future. By far, the most famous was the Oracle at Delphi. Home to a temple of Apollo, founded by Minoan colonists, the Oracle was believed to speak directly to the god himself and give insight into the future.

The Delphic Oracles ranged from personal matters to decisions of international significance. When Persia invaded, the Oracle was consulted, and her predictions led to the battles of Thermopylae and Salamis. The words of the Oracle could see the rise and fall of empires and were taken very seriously. Even after conquest by the Romans, predictions were still made, though with much less influence. The Delphi Orance continued well into the Christian era, only ending in the late 4th century by order of emperor Theodosius.

The Oracle was a middle aged woman who would receive visions from Apollo. Unfortunately, these were often gibberish, and her statements were “translated” by a priest, whose honesty was ambiguous at best. Though the Greeks believed it was a god speaking through the Oracle, modern archaeology has discovered the Temple of Apollo was built on a fault line where gasses such as methane and ethylene leeched to the surface. These gasses can cause hallucinations and trance-like behavior. Whether the predictions were divine, mundane, or something else is irrelevant. What does matter is the Greeks believed that Apollo was speaking and acted accordingly. The fates of nations hung on the words the Oracle uttered.

8. Argos

Argos is one of the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world and the oldest in Europe. This longevity has given the city a tremendous amount of significance in Greek culture. Politically, it was neutral, mostly due to isolation after staying out of the Persian Wars. It was technically an Athenian ally during the Peloponnesian War, but its contribution was minimal. All of this was despite rivalry with Sparta for dominance over the Peloponnese. While its political impact was limited, it had a much more significant cultural footprint.

As the oldest Greek city, many mythological events have been traced to Argos, including being the homeland of the hero Perseus. It was also a major artistic center, with the famous sculptor Polykleitos making his home here. Argos was also one of the earliest adopters of democracy. Many also believe that the phalanx formation used by Greek soldiers was developed in Argos, though this is difficult to confirm. While not as famous as its neighbors, its political neutrality, long existence, and artistic contributions are worthy of mention.

9. Elis

All Greek city-states had temples devoted to the worship of their gods, but some were more significant than others. Elis, located in the northwest Peloponnese, was located near and controlled Olympia, one of the most significant places in Greek religious beliefs. It was this proximity that gave Elis tremendous cultural importance.

In honor of the king of the gods, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World was built. The Temple of Zeus at Olympia is one of the largest temples built in the Doric style, which emphasizes strength and simplicity. The temple was centered around a massive statue of the god seated on a giant throne. There were many other temples and sacred spaces in the city and surrounding region. Elis was also the home of the Olympic Games, the most important athletic event of the Greek world. This combination of religious, cultural, and athletic significance makes it a vital part of the ancient Greek world.

10. Miletus

Located in Asia Minor, Miletus was a major trade hub and established colonies throughout the Mediterranean as well as on the Black sea. Its location also made it a place of cultural exchange, being  located in Asia, linking Greece to the Near East and Egypt more than the mainland city-states. This was not always a peaceful existence. Miletus was at the center of the Ionian Revolt, a rebellion against Persian domination that would eventually lead to the Persian Wars.

While Athens is given credit for its intellectual influence, the birth of philosophy begins much earlier in Miletus. Long before the rise of the Athenian schools, pre-Socratic philosophers such as Thales of Miletus, Anaximander, and Anaximenes were the first to ponder ideas such as the origins of the universe and the real cause of natural phenomena. This makes Miletus the birthplace of philosophy, science, and scholarship.