Chapter XXXVIII (2)

[34] For a specimen of the destructive storms near the promontory
of Athos, see Ephorus, Fragment. 121, ed. Didot; Diodor. xiii, 41.

[35] Herodot. vii, 22, 23, 116; Diodor. xi. 2.

Three circumstances in the narrative of Herodotus, respecting this work, deserve special notice. First, the superior intelligence of the Phenicians, who, within sight of that lofty island of Thasos which had been occupied three centuries before by their free ancestors, were now laboring as instruments to the ambition of a foreign conqueror. Amidst all the people engaged, they alone took the precaution of beginning the excavation at a breadth far greater than the canal was finally destined to occupy, so as gradually to narrow it, and leave a convenient slope for the sides: the others dug straight down, so that the time as well as the toil of their work was doubled by the continual falling in of the sides,—a remarkable illustration of the degree of practical intelligence then prevalent, since the nations assembled were many and diverse. Secondly, Herodotus remarks that Xerxes must have performed this laborious work from motives of mere ostentation: “for it would have cost no trouble at all,” he observes,[36] “to drag all the ships in the fleet across the isthmus; so that the canal was nowise needed.” So familiar a process was it, in the mind of a Greek of the fifth century B. C., to transport ships by mechanical force across an isthmus; a special groove, or slip, being seemingly prepared for them: such was the case at the Diolkus across the isthmus of Corinth. Thirdly, it is to be noted, that the men who excavated the canal at Mount Athos worked under the lash; and these, be it borne in mind, were not bought slaves, but freemen, except in so far as they were tributaries of the Persian monarch; and that the father of Herodotus, a native of Halikarnassus, and a subject of the brave queen Artemisia, may perhaps have been among them. We shall find other examples as we proceed, of this indiscriminate use of the whip, and full conviction of its indispensable necessity, on the part of the Persians,[37]—even to drive the troops of their subject-contingents on to the charge in battle. To employ the scourge in this way towards freemen, and especially towards freemen engaged in military service, was altogether repugnant both to Hellenic practice and to Hellenic feeling: the Asiatic and insular Greeks were relieved from it, as from various other hardships, when they passed out of Persian dominion to become, first allies, afterwards subjects, of Athens: and we shall be called upon hereafter to take note of this fact, when we appreciate the complaints preferred against the hegemony of Athens.

[36] Herodot. vii, 24: ὡς μὲν ἐμὲ συμβαλλεόμενον εὑρίσκειν,
μεγαλοφροσύνης εἵνεκα αὐτὸ Ξέρξης ὀρύσσειν ἐκέλευε, ἐθέλων τε
δύναμιν ἀποδείκνυσθαι, καὶ μνημόσυνα λιπέσθαι· παρεὸν γὰρ,
~μηδένα πόνον λαβόντας~, τὸν ἰσθμὸν τὰς νέας διειρύσαι, ὀρύσσειν
ἐκέλευε διώρυχα τῇ θαλάσσῃ, εὖρος ὡς δύο τριήρεας πλέειν ὁμοῦ
ἐλαστρευμένας.

According to the manner in which Herodotus represents this
excavation to have been performed, the earth dug out was handed
up from man to man from the bottom of the canal to the top—the
whole performed by hand, without any aid of cranes or barrows.

The pretended work of turning the course of the river Halys,
which Grecian report ascribed to Crœsus on the advice of Thales,
was a far greater work than the cutting at Athos (Herodot. i, 75).

As this ship-canal across the isthmus of Athos has been treated
often as a fable both by ancients (Juvenal, Sat. x) and by
moderns (Cousinéry, Voyage en Macédoine), I transcribe the
observations of Colonel Leake. That excellent observer points
out evident traces of its past existence: but in my judgment,
even if no such traces now remained, the testimony of Herodotus
and Thucydides (iv, 109) would alone be sufficient to prove
that it _had_ existed really. The observations of Colonel Leake
illustrate at the same time the motives in which the canal
originated: “The canal (he says) seems to have been not more
than sixty feet wide. As history does not mention that it was
ever kept in repair after the time of Xerxes, the waters from
the heights around have naturally filled it in part with soil,
in the course of ages. It might, however, without much labor, be
renewed: and there can be no doubt that it would be useful to
the navigation of the Ægean: for such is the fear entertained by
the Greek boatmen, of the strength and uncertain direction of
the currents around Mount Athos, and of the gales and high seas
to which the vicinity of the mountain is subject during half the
year, and which are rendered more formidable by the deficiency
of harbors in the gulf of Orfaná, that I could not, as long as I
was on the peninsula, and though offering a high price, prevail
upon any boat to carry me from the eastern side of the peninsula
to the western. Xerxes, therefore, was perfectly justified in
cutting this canal, as well from the security which it afforded
to his fleet, as from the facility of the work and the advantages
of the ground, which seems made expressly to tempt such an
undertaking. The experience of the losses which the former
expedition under Mardonius had suffered suggested the idea. The
circumnavigation of the capes Ampelus and Canastræum was much
less dangerous, as the gulfs afford some good harbors, and it
was the object of Xerxes to collect forces from the Greek cities
in those gulfs as he passed. If there be any difficulty arising
from the narrative of Herodotus, it is in comprehending how the
operation should have required so long a time as three years,
when the king of Persia had such multitudes at his disposal, and
among them Egyptians and Babylonians, accustomed to the making of
canals.” (Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, vol. iii, ch. 24, p.
145.)

These remarks upon the enterprise are more judicious than those
of Major Rennell (Geogr. of Herodot. p. 116). I may remark that
Herodotus does not affirm that the actual cutting of the canal
occupied three years,—he assigns that time to the cutting with
all its preliminary arrangements included,—προετοιμάζετο ἐκ τρίων
ἐτέων κου μάλιστα τὰ ἐς τὸν Ἄθων (vii, 22).

[37] Herodot. vii, 22: ὤρυσσον ὑπὸ μαστίγων παντοδαποὶ τῆς
στρατιῆς· διάδοχοι δ’ ἐφοίτων.—vii, 56: Ξέρξης δὲ, ἐπεί
τε διέβη ἐς τὴν Εὐρώπην, ἐθηεῖτο τὸν στρατὸν ὑπὸ μαστίγων
διαβαίνοντα:—compare vii, 103, and Xenophon, Anabasis, iii, 4-25.

The essential necessity, and plentiful use, of the whip, towards
subject-tributaries, as conceived by the ancient Persians, finds
its parallel in the modern Turks. See the Mémoires du Baron de
Tott, vol. i, p. 256, _seqq._, and his dialogue on this subject
with his Turkish conductor Ali-Aga.

At the same time that the subject-contingents of Xerxes excavated this canal, which was fortified against the sea at its two extremities by compact earthen walls, or embankments, they also threw bridges of boats over the river Strymon: and these two works, together with the renovated double bridge across the Hellespont, were both announced to Xerxes as completed and ready for passage, on his arrival at Sardis at the beginning of winter, 481-480 B. C. Whether the whole of his vast army arrived at Sardis at the same time as himself, and wintered there, may reasonably be doubted; but the whole was united at Sardis and ready to march against Greece, at the beginning of spring, 480 B. C.

While wintering at Sardis, the Persian monarch despatched heralds to all the cities of Greece, except Sparta and Athens, to demand the received tokens of submission, earth and water: for news of his prodigious armament was well calculated to spread terror even among the most resolute of them. And he at the same time sent orders to the maritime cities in Thrace and Macedonia to prepare “dinner” for himself and his vast suite as he passed on his march. That march was commenced at the first beginning of spring, and continued in spite of several threatening portents during the course of it,—one of which Xerxes was blind enough not to comprehend, though, according to Herodotus, nothing could be more obvious than its signification,[38]—while another was misinterpreted into a favorable omen by the compliant answer of the Magian priests. On quitting Sardis, the vast host was divided into two nearly equal columns: a spacious interval being left between the two for the king himself, with his guards and select Persians. First of all[39] came the baggage, carried by beasts of burden, immediately followed by one half of the entire body of infantry, without any distinction of nations: next, the select troops, one thousand Persian cavalry, with one thousand Persian spearmen, the latter being distinguished by carrying their spears with the point downwards, as well as by the spear itself, which had a golden pomegranate at its other extremity, in place of the ordinary spike or point whereby the weapon was planted in the ground when the soldier was not on duty. Behind these troops walked ten sacred horses, of vast power and splendidly caparisoned, bred on the Nisæan plains in Media: next, the sacred chariot of Zeus, drawn by eight white horses,—wherein no man was ever allowed to mount, not even the charioteer, who walked on foot behind with the reins in his hand. Next after the sacred chariot came that of Xerxes himself, drawn by Nisæan horses; the charioteer, a noble Persian, named Patiramphês, being seated in it by the side of the monarch,—who was often accustomed to alight from the chariot and to enter a litter. Immediately about his person were a chosen body of one thousand horse-guards, the best troops and of the highest breed among the Persians, having golden apples at the reverse extremity of their spears, and followed by other detachments of one thousand horse, ten thousand foot, and ten thousand horse, all native Persians. Of these ten thousand Persian infantry, called the Immortals, because their number was always exactly maintained, nine thousand carried spears with pomegranates of silver at the reverse extremity, while the remaining one thousand distributed in front, rear, and on each side of this detachment, were marked by pomegranates of gold on their spears. With them ended what we may call the household troops: after whom, with an interval of two furlongs, the remaining host followed pell-mell.[40] Respecting its numbers and constituent portions I shall speak presently, on occasion of the great review at Doriskus.

[38] Herodot. vii, 57. Τέρας σφι ἐφάνη μέγα, τὸ Ξέρξης ἐν οὐδενὶ
λόγῳ ἐποιήσατο, καίπερ εὐσύμβλητον ἐόν· ἵππος γὰρ ἔτεκε λαγόν.
Εὐσύμβλητον ὦν τῇδε ἐγένετο, ὅτι ἔμελλε μὲν ἐλᾶν στρατιὴν ἐπὶ
τὴν Ἑλλάδα Ξέρξης ἀγαυρότατα καὶ μεγαλοπρεπέστατα, ὀπίσω δὲ περὶ
ἑωϋτοῦ τρέχων ἥξειν ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν χῶρον.

The prodigy was, that a mare brought forth a hare, which
signified that Xerxes would set forth on his expedition to Greece
with strength and splendor, but that he would come back in timid
and disgraceful flight.

The implicit faith of Herodotus, first in the reality of the
fact,—next, in the certainty of his interpretation,—deserves
notice, as illustrating his canon of belief, and that of his
age. The interpretation is doubtless here the generating cause
of the story interpreted: an ingenious man, after the expedition
has terminated, imagines an appropriate simile for its proud
commencement and inglorious termination (Parturiunt montes,
nascetur ridiculus mus), and the simile is recounted, either
by himself or by some hearer who is struck with it, as if it
had been a real antecedent fact. The aptness of this supposed
antecedent fact to foreshadow the great Persian invasion (τὸ
εὐσύμβλητον of Herodotus) serves as presumptive evidence to
bear out the witness asserting it; while departure from the
established analogies of nature affords no motive for disbelief
to a man who admits that the gods occasionally send special signs
and warnings.

[39] Compare the description of the processional march of Cyrus,
as given in the Cyropædia of Xenophon, viii, 2, 1-20.

[40] Herodot. vii, 41. Μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἵππον διελέλειπτο καὶ δύο
σταδίους, καὶ ἔπειτα ὁ λοιπὸς ὅμιλος ἤϊε ἀναμίξ.

On each side of the army, as it marched out of Sardis, was seen suspended one half of the body of a slaughtered man, placed there expressly for the purpose of impressing a lesson on the subjects of Persia. It was the body of the eldest son of the wealthy Pythius, a Phrygian old man resident at Kelænæ, who had entertained Xerxes in the course of his march from Kappadokia to Sardis, and who had previously recommended himself by rich gifts to the preceding king Darius. So abundant was his hospitality to Xerxes, and so pressing his offers of pecuniary contribution for the Grecian expedition, that the monarch asked him what was the amount of his wealth. “I possess (replied Pythius) besides lands and slaves, two thousand talents of silver, and three million nine hundred and ninety-three thousand of golden darics, wanting only seven thousand of being four million. All this gold and silver do I present to thee, retaining only my lands and slaves, which will be quite enough.” Xerxes replied by the strongest expressions of praise and gratitude for his liberality; at the same time refusing his offer, and even giving to Pythius out of his own treasure the sum of seven thousand darics, which was wanting to make up the exact sum of four million. The latter was so elated with this mark of favor, that when the army was about to depart from Sardis, he ventured, under the influence of terror from the various menacing portents, to prefer a prayer to the Persian monarch. His five sons were all about to serve in the invading army against Greece: his prayer to Xerxes was, that the eldest of them might be left behind, as a stay to his own declining years, and that the service of the remaining four with the army might be considered as sufficient. But the unhappy father knew not what he asked. “Wretch! (replied Xerxes) dost thou dare to talk to me about _thy_ son, when I am myself on the march against Greece, with my sons, brothers, relatives, and friends? thou who art my slave, and whose duty it is to follow me, with thy wife and thy entire family? Know that the sensitive soul of man dwells in his ears: on hearing good things, it fills the body with delight, but boils with wrath when it hears the contrary. As, when thou didst good deeds and madest good offers to me, thou canst not boast of having surpassed the king in generosity,—so now, when thou hast turned round and become impudent, the punishment inflicted on thee shall not be the full measure of thy deserts, but something less. For thyself and for thy four sons, the hospitality which I received from thee shall serve as protection; but for that one son whom thou especially wishest to keep in safety, the forfeit of his life shall be thy penalty.” He forthwith directed that the son of Pythius should be put to death, and his body severed in twain: of which one half was to be fixed on the right-hand, the other on the left-hand, of the road along which the army was to pass.[41]

[41] The incident respecting Pythius is in Herodot. vii, 27, 28,
38, 39. I place no confidence in the estimate of the wealth of
Pythius; but in other respects, the story seems well entitled to
credit.

A tale essentially similar, yet rather less revolting, has been already recounted respecting Darius, when undertaking his expedition against Scythia. Both tales illustrate the intense force of sentiment with which the Persian kings regarded the obligation of universal personal service, when they were themselves in the field. They seem to have measured their strength by the number of men whom they collected around them, with little or no reference to quality: and the very mention of exemption—the idea that a subject and a slave should seek to withdraw himself from a risk which the monarch was about to encounter—was an offence not to be pardoned. In this as in the other acts of Oriental kings, whether grateful, munificent, or ferocious, we trace nothing but the despotic force of personal will, translating itself into act without any thought of consequences, and treating subjects with less consideration than an ordinary Greek master would have shown towards his slaves.

From Sardis, the host of Xerxes directed its march to Abydos, first across Mysia and the river Kaïkus,—then through Atarneus, Karinê, and the plain of Thêbê: they passed Adramyttium and Antandrus, and crossed the range of Ida, most part of which was on their left hand, not without some loss from stormy weather and thunder.[42] From hence they reached Ilium and the river Skamander, the stream of which was drunk up, or probably in part trampled and rendered undrinkable, by the vast host of men and animals: in spite of the immortal interest which the Skamander derives from the Homeric poems, its magnitude is not such as to make this fact surprising. To the poems themselves, even Xerxes did not disdain to pay tribute: he ascended the holy hill of Ilium,—reviewed the Pergamus where Priam was said to have lived and reigned,—sacrificed one thousand oxen to the patron goddess Athênê,—and caused the Magian priests to make libations in honor of the heroes who had fallen on that venerated spot. He even condescended to inquire into the local details,[43] abundantly supplied to visitors by the inhabitants of Ilium, of that great real or mythical war to which Grecian chronologers had hardly yet learned to assign a precise date: and doubtless when he contemplated the narrow area of that Troy which all the Greeks confederated under Agamemnon had been unable for ten years to overcome, he could not but fancy that these same Greeks would fall an easy prey before his innumerable host. Another day’s march between Rhœteium, Ophryneium, and Dardanus on the left-hand, and the Teukrians of Gergis on the right-hand, brought him to Abydos, where his two newly-constructed bridges over the Hellespont awaited him.

[42] Herodot. vii, 42.

[43] Herodot. vii, 43. θεησάμενος δὲ, καὶ πυθόμενος κείνων
ἕκαστα, etc.

On this transit from Asia into Europe Herodotus dwells with peculiar emphasis,—and well he might do so, since when we consider the bridges, the invading number, the unmeasured hopes succeeded by no less unmeasured calamity,—it will appear not only to have been the most imposing event of his century, but to rank among the most imposing events of all history. He surrounds it with much dramatic circumstance, not only mentioning the marble throne erected for Xerxes on a hill near Abydos, from whence he surveyed both his masses of land-force covering the shore, and his ships sailing and racing in the strait (a race in which the Phenicians of Sidon surpassed the Greeks and all the other contingents), but also superadding to this real fact a dialogue with Artabanus, intended to set forth the internal mind of Xerxes. He farther quotes certain supposed exclamations of the Abydenes at the sight of his superhuman power. “Why (said one of these terror-stricken spectators[44]), why dost thou, O Zeus, under the shape of a Persian man and the name of Xerxes, thus bring together the whole human race for the ruin of Greece? It would have been easy for thee to accomplish _that_ without so much ado.” Such emphatic ejaculations exhibit the strong feeling which Herodotus or his informants throw into the scene, though we cannot venture to apply to them the scrutiny of historical criticism.

[44] Herodot. vii, 45, 53, 56. Ὦ Ζεῦ, τί δὴ ἀνδρὶ εἰδόμενος
Πέρσῃ, καὶ οὔνομα ἀντὶ Διὸς Ξέρξην θέμενος, ἀνάστατον τὴν Ἑλλάδα
ἐθέλεις ποιῆσαι, ἄγων πάντας ἀνθρώπους; καὶ γὰρ ἄνευ τουτέων ἐξῆν
τοι ποιέειν ταῦτα.

At the first moment of sunrise, so sacred in the mind of Orientals,[45] the passage was ordered to begin: the bridges being perfumed with frankincense and strewed with myrtle boughs, while Xerxes himself made libations into the sea with a golden censer, and offered up prayers to Helios, that he might effect without hindrance his design of conquering Europe even to its farthest extremity. Along with his libation he cast into the Hellespont the censer itself, with a golden bowl and a Persian scimitar;—“I do not exactly know[46] (adds the historian) whether he threw them in as a gift to Helios, or as a mark of repentance and atonement to the Hellespont for the stripes which he had inflicted upon it.” Of the two bridges, that nearest to the Euxine was devoted to the military force,—the other, to the attendants, the baggage, and the beasts of burden. The ten thousand Persians, called Immortals, all wearing garlands on their heads, were the first to pass over, and Xerxes himself, with the remaining army, followed next, though in an order somewhat different from that which had been observed in quitting Sardis: the monarch having reached the European shore, saw his troops crossing the bridges after him “under the lash.” But in spite of the use of this sharp stimulus to accelerate progress, so vast were the numbers of his host, that they occupied no less than seven days and seven nights, without a moment of intermission, in the business of crossing over,—a fact to be borne in mind presently, when we come to discuss the totals computed by Herodotus.[47]

[45] Tacitus, Histor. iii, 24. “Undique clamor, et orientem
solem, ita in Syriâ mos est, consalutavêre,”—in his striking
description of the night battle near Cremona, between the Roman
troops of Vitellius and Vespasian, and the rise of the sun while
the combat was yet unfinished: compare also Quintus Curtius (iii,
3, 8, p. 41, ed. Mützel).

[46] Herodot. vii, 54. ταῦτα οὐκ ἔχω ἀτρεκέως διακρῖναι, οὔτε εἰ
τῷ Ἡλίῳ ἀνατιθεὶς κατῆκε ἐς τὸ πέλαγος, οὔτε εἰ μετεμέλησέ οἱ τὸν
Ἑλλήσποντον μαστιγώσαντι, καὶ ἀντὶ τούτων τὴν θάλασσαν ἐδωρέετο.

[47] Herodot. vii, 55, 56. Διέβη δὲ ὁ στρατὸς αὐτοῦ ἐν ἑπτὰ
ἡμέρῃσι καὶ ἐν ἑπτὰ εὐφρόνῃσι, ἐλινύσας οὐδένα χρόνον.

Having thus cleared the strait, Xerxes directed his march along the Thracian Chersonese, to the isthmus whereby it is joined with Thrace, between the town of Kardia on his left hand and the tomb of Hellê on his right,—the eponymous heroine of the strait. After passing this isthmus, he turned westward along the coast of the gulf of Melas and the Ægean sea,—crossing the river from which that gulf derived its name, and even drinking its waters up—according to Herodotus—with the men and animals of his army. Having passed by the Æolic city of Ænus and the harbor called Stentoris, he reached the sea-coast and plain called Doriskus, covering the rich delta near the mouth of the Hebrus: a fort had been built there and garrisoned by Darius. The spacious plain called by this same name reached far along the shore to Cape Serreium, and comprised in it the towns of Salê and Zonê, possessions of the Samothracian Greeks planted on the territory once possessed by the Thracian Kikones on the mainland. Having been here joined by his fleet, which had doubled[48] the southernmost promontory of the Thracian Chersonese, he thought the situation convenient for a general review and enumeration both of his land and his naval force.

[48] Herodot. vii, 58-59; Pliny, H. N. iv, 11. See some valuable
remarks on the topography of Doriskus and the neighborhood of
the town still called Enos, in Grisebach, Reise durch Rumelien
und nach Brussa, ch. vi, vol. i, pp. 157-159 (Göttingen, 1841).
He shows reason for believing that the indentation of the coast,
marked on the map as the gulf of Ænos, did not exist in ancient
times, any more than it exists now.

Never probably in the history of mankind has there been brought together a body of men from regions so remote and so widely diverse, for one purpose and under one command, as those which were now assembled in Thrace near the mouth of the Hebrus. About the numerical total we cannot pretend to form any definite idea; about the variety of contingents there is no room for doubt. “What Asiatic nation was there (asks Herodotus,[49] whose conceptions of this expedition seem to outstrip his powers of language) that Xerxes did not bring against Greece?” Nor was it Asiatic nations alone, comprised within the Oxus, the Indus, the Persian gulf, the Red Sea, the Levant, the Ægean and the Euxine: we must add to these also the Egyptians, the Ethiopians on the Nile south of Egypt, and the Libyans from the desert near Kyrênê. Not all the expeditions, fabulous or historical, of which Herodotus had ever heard, appeared to him comparable to this of Xerxes, even for total number; much more in respect of variety of component elements. Forty-six different nations,[50] each with its distinct national costume, mode of arming, and local leaders, formed the vast land-force; eight other nations furnished the fleet, on board of which Persians, Medes, and Sakæ served as armed soldiers or marines; and the real leaders, both of the entire army and of all its various divisions, were native Persians of noble blood, who distributed the various native contingents into companies of thousands, hundreds, and tens. The forty-six nations composing the land-force were as follows: Persians, Medes, Kissians, Hyrkanians, Assyrians, Baktrians, Sakæ, Indians, Arians, Parthians, Chorasmians, Sogdians, Gandarians, Dadikæ, Kaspians, Sarangæ, Paktyes, Utii, Myki, Parikanii, Arabians, Ethiopians in Asia and Ethiopians south of Egypt, Libyans, Paphlagonians, Ligyes, Matieni, Mariandyni, Syrians, Phrygians, Armenians, Lydians, Mysians, Thracians, Kabêlians, Mares, Kolchians, Alarodians, Saspeires, Sagartii. The eight nations who furnished the fleet were: Phenicians, three hundred ships of war; Egyptians, two hundred; Cypriots, one hundred and fifty; Kilikians, one hundred; Pamphylians, thirty; Lykians, fifty; Karians, seventy; Ionic Greeks, one hundred; Doric Greeks, thirty; Æolic Greeks, sixty; Hellespontic Greeks, one hundred; Greeks from the islands in the Ægean, seventeen; in all one thousand two hundred and seven triremes, or ships of war, with three banks of oars. The descriptions of costume and arms which we find in Herodotus are curious and varied; but it is important to mention that no nation except the Lydians, Pamphylians, Cypriots and Karians (partially also the Egyptian marines on shipboard) bore arms analogous to those of the Greeks (_i. e._ arms fit for steady conflict and sustained charge,[51]—for hand combat in line as well as for defence of the person,—but inconveniently heavy either in pursuit or in flight); while the other nations were armed with missile weapons,—light shields of wicker or leather, or no shields at all,—turbans or leather caps instead of helmets,—swords, and scythes. They were not properly equipped either for fighting in regular order or for resisting the line of spears and shields which the Grecian hoplites brought to bear upon them; their persons too were much less protected against wounds than those of the latter; some of them indeed, as the Mysians and Libyans, did not even carry spears, but only staves with the end hardened in the fire.[52] A nomadic tribe of Persians, called Sagartii, to the number of eight thousand horsemen, came armed only with a dagger and with the rope known in South America as the lasso, which they cast in the fight to entangle an antagonist. The Æthiopians from the Upper Nile had their bodies painted half red and half white, wore the skins of lions and panthers, and carried, besides the javelin, a long bow with arrows of reed, tipped with a point of sharp stone.

[49] Herodot. vii, 20-21.

[50] See the enumeration in Herodotus, vii, 61-96. In chapter 76,
one name has dropped out of the text (see the note of Wesseling
and Schweighäuser), which, in addition to those specified under
the head of the land-force, makes up exactly forty-six. It is
from this source that Herodotus derives the boast which he puts
into the mouth of the Athenians (ix, 27) respecting the battle
of Marathon, in which they pretend to have vanquished forty-six
nations,—ἐνικήσαμεν ἔθνεα ἓξ καὶ τεσσαράκοντα: though there is no
reason for believing that so great a number of contingents were
engaged with Datis at Marathon.

Compare the boasts of Antiochus king of Syria. (B. C. 192) about
his immense Asiatic host brought across into Greece, as well as
the contemptuous comments of the Roman consul Quinctius (Livy,
xxxv, 48-49). “Varia enim genera armorum, et multa nomina gentium
inauditarum, Dahas, et Medos, et Cadusios, et Elymæos—Syros omnes
esse: haud paulo mancipiorum melius, propter servilia ingenia,
quam militum genus:” and the sharp remark of the Arcadian envoy
Antiochus (Xenophon, Hellen. vii, 1, 33). Quintus Curtius also
has some rhetorical turns about the number of nations, whose
names even were hardly known, tributary to the Persian empire
(iii, 4, 29; iv, 45, 9), “ignota etiam ipsi Dario gentium
nomina,” etc.

[51] Herodot. vii, 89-93.

[52] Herodot. vii, 61-81.

It was at Doriskus that the fighting men of the entire land-army were first numbered; for Herodotus expressly informs us that the various contingents had never been numbered separately, and avows his own ignorance of the amount of each. The means employed for numeration were remarkable. Ten thousand men were counted,[53] and packed together as closely as possible: a line was drawn, and a wall of inclosure built around the space which they had occupied, into which all the army was directed to enter successively, so that the aggregate number of divisions, comprising ten thousand each, was thus ascertained. One hundred and seventy of these divisions were affirmed by the informants of Herodotus to have been thus numbered, constituting a total of one million seven hundred thousand foot, besides eighty thousand horse, many war-chariots from Libya and camels from Arabia, with a presumed total of twenty thousand additional men.[54] Such was the vast land-force of the Persian monarch: his naval equipments were of corresponding magnitude, comprising not only the twelve hundred and seven triremes,[55] or war-ships, of three banks of oars, but also three thousand smaller vessels of war and transports. The crew of each trireme comprised two hundred rowers, and thirty fighting-men, Persians or Sakæ; that of each of the accompanying vessels included eighty men, according to an average which Herodotus supposes not far from the truth. If we sum up these items, the total numbers brought by Xerxes from Asia to the plain and to the coast of Doriskus would reach the astounding figure of two million three hundred and seventeen thousand men. Nor is this all. In the farther march from Doriskus to Thermopylæ, Xerxes pressed into his service men and ships from all the people whose territory he traversed: deriving from hence a reinforcement of one hundred and twenty triremes with aggregate crews of twenty-four thousand men, and of three hundred thousand new land troops, so that the aggregate of his force when he appeared at Thermopylæ was two million six hundred and forty thousand men. To this we are to add, according to the conjecture of Herodotus, a number not at all inferior, as attendants, slaves, sutlers, crews of the provision-craft and ships of burden, etc., so that the male persons accompanying the Persian king when he reached his first point of Grecian resistance amounted to five million two hundred and eighty-three thousand two hundred and twenty! So stands the prodigious estimate of this army, the whole strength of the Eastern world, in clear and express figures of Herodotus,[56] who himself evidently supposes the number to have been even greater; for he conceives the number of “camp followers” as not only equal to, but considerably larger than, that of fighting-men. We are to reckon, besides, the eunuchs, concubines, and female cooks, at whose number Herodotus does not pretend to guess: together with cattle, beasts of burden, and Indian dogs, in indefinite multitude, increasing the consumption of the regular army.

[53] The army which Darius had conducted against Scythia is said
to have been counted by divisions of ten thousand each, but the
process is not described in detail (Herodot. iv, 87).

[54] Herodot. vii, 60, 87, 184. This same rude mode of
enumeration was employed by Darius Codomannus a century and a
half afterwards, before he marched his army to the field of Issus
(Quintus Curtius, iii, 2, 3, p. 24, Mutzel).

[55] Herodot. vii, 89-97.

[56] Herodot. vii, 185-186. ἐπάγων πάντα τὸν ἠῷον στρατὸν ἐκ τῆς
Ἀσίης (vii, 157). “Vires Orientis et ultima secum Bactra ferens,”
to use the language of Virgil about Antony at Actium.

To admit this overwhelming total, or anything near to it, is obviously impossible: yet the disparaging remarks which it has drawn down upon Herodotus are noway merited.[57] He takes pains to distinguish that which informants told him, from that which he merely guessed. His description of the review at Doriskus is so detailed, that he had evidently conversed with persons who were present at it, and had learned the separate totals promulgated by the enumerators,—infantry, cavalry, and ships of war, great and small. As to the number of triremes, his statement seems beneath the truth, as we may judge from the contemporary authority of Æschylus, who in the “Persæ” gives the exact number of twelve hundred and seven Persian ships as having fought at Salamis: but between Doriskus and Salamis, Herodotus[58] has himself enumerated six hundred and forty-seven ships as lost or destroyed, and only one hundred and twenty as added. No exaggeration, therefore, can well be suspected in this statement, which would imply about two hundred and seventy-six thousand as the number of the crews, though there is here a confusion or omission in the narrative which we cannot clear up. But the aggregate of three thousand smaller ships, and still more, that of one million seven hundred thousand infantry, are far less trustworthy. There would be little or no motive for the enumerators to be exact, and every motive for them to exaggerate,—an immense nominal total would be no less pleasing to the army than to the monarch himself,—so that the military total of land-force and ships’ crews, which Herodotus gives as two million six hundred and forty-one thousand on the arrival at Thermopylæ, may be dismissed as unwarranted and incredible. And the computation whereby he determines the amount of non-military persons present, as equal or more than equal to the military, is founded upon suppositions noway admissible; for though in a Grecian well-appointed army it was customary to reckon one light-armed soldier, or attendant, for every hoplite, no such estimate can be applied to the Persian host. A few grandees and leaders might be richly provided with attendants of various kinds, but the great mass of the army would have none at all. Indeed, it appears that the only way in which we can render the military total, which must at all events have been very great, consistent with the conditions of possible subsistence, is by supposing a comparative absence of attendants, and by adverting to the fact of the small consumption, and habitual patience as to hardship of Orientals in all ages. An Asiatic soldier will at this day make his campaign upon scanty fare, and under privations which would be intolerable to an European.[59] And while we thus diminish the probable consumption, we have to consider that never in any case of ancient history had so much previous pains been taken to accumulate supplies on the line of march: in addition to which the cities in Thrace were required to furnish such an amount of provisions, when the army passed by, as almost brought them to ruin. Herodotus himself expresses his surprise how provisions could have been provided for so vast a multitude; and were we to admit his estimate literally, the difficulty would be magnified into an impossibility. Weighing the circumstances of the case well, and considering that this army was the result of a maximum of effort throughout the vast empire, that a great numerical total was the thing chiefly demanded, and that prayers for exemption were regarded by the Great King as a capital offence, and that provisions had been collected for three years before along the line of march,—we may well believe that the numbers of Xerxes were greater than were ever assembled in ancient times, or perhaps at any known epoch of history. But it would be rash to pretend to guess at any positive number, in the entire absence of ascertained data: and when we learn from Thucydides that he found it impossible to find out the exact numbers of the small armies of Greeks who fought at Mantineia,[60] we shall not be ashamed to avow our inability to count the Asiatic multitudes at Doriskus. We may remark, however, that, in spite of the reinforcements received afterwards in Thrace, Macedonia, and Thessaly, it may be doubted whether the aggregate total ever afterwards increased; for Herodotus takes no account of desertions, which yet must have been very numerous, in a host disorderly, heterogeneous, without any interest in the enterprise, and wherein the numbers of each separate contingent were unknown.

[57] Even Dahlmann, who has many good remarks in defence of
Herodotus, hardly does him justice (Herodot, Aus seinem Buche
sein Leben, ch. xxxiv, p. 176).

[58] Only one hundred and twenty ships of war are mentioned
by Herodotus (vii, 185) as having joined afterwards from the
seaports in Thrace. But four hundred were destroyed, if not more,
in the terrible storm on the coast of Magnesia (vii, 190); and
the squadron of two hundred sail, detached by the Persians round
Eubœa, were also all lost (viii, 7); besides forty-five taken or
destroyed in the various sea-fights near Artemisium (vii, 194;
viii, 11). Other losses are also indicated (viii, 14-16).

As the statement of Æschylus for the number of the Persian
triremes at Salamis appears well-entitled to credit, we must
suppose either that the number of Doriskus was greater than
Herodotus has mentioned, or that a number greater than that which
he has stated joined afterwards.

See a good note of Amersfoordt, ad Demosthen. Orat. de Symmoriis,
p. 88 (Leyden, 1821).

[59] See on this point Volney, Travels in Egypt and Syria, ch.
xxiv, vol. ii, pp. 70, 71; ch. xxxii, p. 367; and ch. xxxix, p.
435, (Engl. transl.).

Kinneir, Geographical Memoir of the Persian Empire, pp. 22-23.
Bernier, who followed the march of Aurungzebe from Delhi, in
1665, says that some estimated the number of persons in the camp
at three hundred thousand, others at different totals, but that
no one knew, nor had they ever been counted. He says: “You are,
no doubt, at a loss to conceive how so vast a number both of men
and animals can be maintained in the field. The best solution of
the difficulty will be found in the temperance and simple diet of
the Indians.” (Bernier, Travels in the Mogul Empire, translated
by Brock, vol. ii, App. p. 118).

So also Petit de la Croix says, about the enormous host of
Genghis-Khan: “Les hommes sont si sobres, qu’ils s’accommodent de
toutes sortes d’alimens.”

That author seems to estimate the largest army of Genghis at
seven hundred thousand men (Histoire de Genghis, liv. ii, ch. vi,
p. 193).

[60] Thucydid. v, 68. Xenophon calls the host of Xerxes
_innumerable_,—ἀναρίθμητον στρατιάν (Anabas. iii, 2, 13).

It seems not to be considered necessary for a Turkish minister
to know the numbers of an assembled Turkish army. In the war
between the Russians and Turks in 1770, when the Turkish army was
encamped at Babadag near the Balkan, Baron de Tott tells us: “Le
Visir me demanda un jour fort sérieusement si l’armée Ottomane
étoit nombreuse. C’est à vous que je m’adresserois, lui dis-je,
si j’étais curieux de le savoir. Je l’ignore, me repondit-il. Si
vous l’ignorez, comment pourrois-je en être instruit? _En lisant
la Gazette de Vienna_, me répliqua-t-il. Je restai confondu.”

The Duke of Ragusa (in his voyage en Hongrie, Turquie, etc.),
after mentioning the prodigiously exaggerated statements
current about the numbers slain in the suppressed insurrection
of the Janissaries at Constantinople in 1826, observes: “On
a dit et répété, que leur nombre s’étoit élévé a huit ou
dix mille, et cette opinion s’est accréditée (it was really
about five hundred). Mais les Orientaux en général, et les
Turcs en particulier, n’ont aucune idée des nombres: ils les
emploient sans exactitude, et ils sont par caractère portés à
l’exagération. D’un autre coté, le gouvernement a dû favoriser
cette opinion populaire, pour frapper l’imagination et inspirer
une plus grande terreur.” (Vol. ii, p. 37.)

Ktesias gives the total of the host at eight hundred thousand men, and one thousand triremes, independent of the war-chariots: if he counts the crews of the triremes apart from the eight hundred thousand men, as seems probable, the total will then be considerably above a million. Ælian assigns an aggregate of seven hundred thousand men: Diodorus[61] appears to follow partly Herodotus, partly other authorities. None of these witnesses enable us to correct Herodotus, in a case where we are obliged to disbelieve him. He is, in some sort, an original witness, having evidently conversed with persons actually present at the muster of Doriskus, giving us both their belief as to the numbers, together with the computation, true or false, circulated among them by authority. Moreover, the contemporary Æschylus, while agreeing with him exactly as to the number of triremes, gives no specific figure as to the land-force, but conveys to us, in his Persæ, a general sentiment of vast number, which may seem in keeping with the largest statement of Herodotus: the Persian empire is drained of men,—the women of Susa are left without husbands and brothers,—the Baktrian territory has not been allowed to retain even its old men.[62] The terror-striking effect of this crowd was probably quite as great as if its numbers had really corresponded to the ideas of Herodotus.

[61] Ktesias, Persica, c. 22, 23; Ælian, V. H. xiii, 3; Diodorus,
xi, 2-11.

Respecting the various numerical statements in this case, see the
note of Bos ad Cornel. Nepot. Themistocl. c. 2, pp. 75, 76.

The Samian poet Chœrilus, a few years younger than Herodotus,
and contemporary with Thucydides, composed an epic poem on the
expedition of Xerxes against Greece. Two or three short fragments
of it are all that is preserved: he enumerated all the separate
nations who furnished contingents to Xerxes, and we find not
only the Sakæ, but also the Solymi (apparently the Jews, and so
construed by Josephus) among them. See Fragments, iii and iv, in
Næke’s edition of Chœrilus, pp. 121-134. Josephus cont. Apion. p.
454, ed. Havercamp.

[62] Æschylus, Pers. 14-124, 722-737. Heeren (in his learned
work on the commerce of the ancient world, Über den Verkehr der
alten Welt, part 1, sect. 1, pp. 162, 558, 3d edition) thinks
that Herodotus had seen the actual muster-roll, made by Persian
authority, of the army at Doriskus. I cannot think this at all
probable: it is much more reasonable to believe that all his
information was derived from Greeks who had accompanied the
expedition. He must have seen and conversed with many such. The
Persian royal scribes, or secretaries, accompanied the king,
and took note of any particular fact or person who might happen
to strike his attention (Herodot. vii, 100; viii, 90), or to
exhibit remarkable courage. They seem to have been specially
attached to the person of the king as ministers to his curiosity
and amusement, rather than keepers of authentic and continuous
records.

Heeren is disposed to accept the numerical totals, given by
Herodotus as to the army of Xerxes, much too easily, in my
judgment: nor is he correct in supposing that the contingents
of the Persian army marched with their wives and families (pp.
557-559).

After the numeration had taken place, Xerxes passed in his chariot by each of the several contingents, observed their equipment, and put questions to which the royal scribes noted down the answers: he then embarked on board a Sidonian trireme, which had been already fitted up with a gilt tent, and sailed along the prows of his immense fleet, moored in line about four hundred feet from the shore, and every vessel completely manned for action. Such a spectacle was well calculated to rouse emotions of arrogant confidence, and it was in this spirit that he sent forthwith for Demaratus, the exiled king of Sparta, who was among his auxiliaries,—to ask whether resistance on the part of the Greeks to such a force was even conceivable. The conversation between them, dramatically given by Herodotus, is one of the most impressive manifestations of sentiment in the Greek language.[63] Demaratus assures him that the Spartans most certainly, and the Dorians of Peloponnesus probably, will resist him to the death, be the difference of numbers what it may. Xerxes receives the statement with derision, but exhibits no feeling of displeasure: an honorable contrast to the treatment of Charidemus a century and a half afterwards, by the last monarch of Persia.[64]

[63] When Herodotus specifies his informants—it is much to be
regretted that he does not specify them oftener—they seem to be
frequently Greeks, such as Dikæus the Athenian exile, Thersander
of Orchomenus in Bœotia, Archias of Sparta, etc. (iii, 55; viii,
65; ix, 16.) He mentions the Spartan king Demaratus often,
and usually under circumstances both of dignity and dramatic
interest: it is highly probable that he may have conversed with
that prince himself, or with his descendants, who remained
settled for a long time in Teuthrania, near the Æolic coast of
Asia Minor (Xenoph. Hellenica, iii, 1, 6), and he may thus have
heard of representations offered by the exiled Spartan king to
Xerxes. Nevertheless, the remarks made by Hoffmeister, on the
speeches ascribed to Demaratus by Herodotus, are well deserving
of attention (Sittlich-religiöse Lebensansicht des Herodotos, p.
118).

“Herodotus always brings into connection with insolent kings some
man or other through whom he gives utterance to his own lessons
of wisdom. To Crœsus, at the summit of his glory, comes the wise
Solon: Crœsus himself, reformed by his captivity, performs the
same part towards Cyrus and Kambyses: Darius, as a prudent and
honest man, does not require any such counsellor; but Xerxes
in his pride has the sententious Artabanus and the sagacious
Demaratus attached to him; while Amasis king of Egypt is employed
to transmit judicious counsel to Polykratês, the despot of
Samos. Since all these men speak one and the same language, it
appears certain that they are introduced by Herodotus merely as
spokesmen for his own criticisms on the behavior and character
of the various monarchs,—criticisms which are nothing more than
general maxims, moral and religious, brought out by Solon,
Crœsus, or Artabanus, on occasion of particular events. The
speeches interwoven by Herodotus have, in the main, not the same
purpose as those of Tacitus,—to make the reader more intimately
acquainted with the existing posture of affairs, or with the
character of the agents,—but a different purpose quite foreign
to history: they embody in the narrative his own personal
convictions respecting human life and the divine government.”

This last opinion of Hoffmeister is to a great degree true, but
is rather too absolutely delivered.

[64] Herodot. vii, 101-104. How inferior is the scene between
Darius and Charidemus, in Quintus Curtius! (iii, 2, 9-19, p. 20,
ed. Mutzel.)

Herodotus takes up substantially the same vein of sentiment and
the same antithesis as that which runs through the Persæ of
Æschylus; but he handles it like a social philosopher, with a
strong perception of the real causes of Grecian superiority.

It is not improbable that the skeleton of the conversation
between Xerxes and Demaratus was a reality, heard by Herodotus
from Demaratus himself or from his sons; for the extreme
specialty with which the Lacedæmonian exile confines his praise
to the Spartans and Dorians, not including the other Greeks,
hardly represents the feeling of Herodotus himself.

The minuteness of the narrative which Herodotus gives respecting
the deposition and family circumstances of Demaratus (vi, 63,
_seq._), and his view of the death of Kleomenês as an atonement
to that prince for injury done, may seem derived from family
information (vi, 84).

After the completion of the review, Xerxes with the army pursued his march westward, in three divisions and along three different lines of road, through the territories of seven distinct tribes of Thracians, interspersed with Grecian maritime colonies: all was still within his own empire, and he took reinforcements from each as he passed: the Thracian Satræ were preserved from this levy by their unassailable seats amidst the woods and snows of Rhodopê. The islands of Samothrace and Thasus, with their subject towns on the mainland, and the Grecian colonies Dikæa,[65] Maroneia, and Abdêra, were successively laid under contribution for contingents of ships or men; and, what was still more ruinous, they were further constrained to provide a day’s meal for the immense host as it passed: for the day of his passage the Great King was their guest. Orders had been transmitted for this purpose long beforehand, and for many months the citizens had been assiduously employed in collecting food for the army, as well as delicacies for the monarch,—grinding flour of wheat and barley, fattening cattle, keeping up birds and fowls; together with a decent display of gold and silver plate for the regal dinner. A superb tent was erected for Xerxes and his immediate companions, while the army received their rations in the open region around: on commencing the march next morning, the tent with all its rich contents was plundered, and nothing restored to those who had furnished it. Of course, so prodigious a host, which had occupied seven days and seven nights in crossing the double Hellespontine bridge, must also have been for many days on its march through the territory, and therefore at the charge, of each one among the cities, so that the cost brought them to the brink of ruin, and even in some cases drove them to abandon house and home. The cost incurred by the city of Thasus, on account of their possessions of the mainland, for this purpose, was no less than four hundred talents[66] (equal to ninety-two thousand eight hundred pounds): while at Abdêra, the witty Megakreon recommended to his countrymen to go in a body to the temples and thank the gods, because Xerxes was pleased to be satisfied with one meal in the day. Had the monarch required breakfast as well as dinner, the Abderites must have been reduced to the alternative either of exile or of utter destitution.[67] A stream called Lissus, which seems to have been of no great importance, is said to have been drunk up by the army, together with a lake of some magnitude near Pistyrus.[68]

[65] Herodot. vii, 109, 111, 118.

[66] This sum of four hundred talents was equivalent to the
entire annual tribute charged in the Persian king’s rent-roll,
upon the satrapy comprising the western and southern coast of
Asia Minor, wherein were included all the Ionic and Æolic Greeks,
besides Lykians, Pamphylians, etc. (Herodot. iii, 90.)

[67] Herodot. vii, 118-120. He gives (vii, 187) the computation
of the quantity of corn which would have been required for daily
consumption, assuming the immense numbers as he conjectures
them, and reckoning one chœnix of wheat for each man’s daily
consumption, equal to one eighth of a medimnus. It is unnecessary
to examine a computation founded on such inadmissible data.

[68] Herodot. vii, 108, 109.

Through the territory of the Edonian Thracians and the Pierians, between Pangæus and the sea, Xerxes and his army reached the river Strymon at the important station called Ennea Hodoi, or Nine-Roads, afterwards memorable by the foundation of Amphipolis. Bridges had been already thrown over the river, to which the Magian priests rendered solemn honors by sacrificing white horses and throwing them into the stream. Nor were his religious feelings satisfied without the more precious sacrifices often resorted to by the Persians: he here buried alive nine native youths and nine maidens, in compliment to Nine-Roads, the name of the Spot:[69] moreover, he also left, under the care of the Pæonians of Siris, the sacred chariot of Zeus, which had been brought from the seat of empire, but which doubtless was found inconvenient on the line of march. From the Strymon he marched forward along the Strymonic gulf, passing through the territory of the Bisaltæ, near the Greek colonies of Argilus and Stageirus, until he came to the Greek town of Akanthus, hard by the isthmus of Athos, which had been recently cut through. The fierce king of the Bisaltæ[70] refused submission to Xerxes, fled to Rhodopê for safety, and forbade his six sons to join the Persian host. Unhappily for themselves, they nevertheless did so, and when they came back he caused all of them to be blinded.

[69] Herodot. vii, 114. He pronounces this savage practice to
be specially Persian. The old and cruel Persian queen Amestris,
wife of Xerxes, sought to prolong her own life by burying alive
fourteen victims, children of illustrious men, as offerings to
the subterranean god.

[70] Herodot. viii, 116.