In the winter of 429 BC, the Athenians sent Phormion with 20 triremes to Nafpaktos where they had settled Messenian exiles and intended to close the Corinthian gulf to the Corinthians and destroy their trade so that they would abandon their war efforts. The Spartans, on the contrary, sought first to neutralize the allies of the Athenians so that, after securing Western Greece, they could bring the war to the Aegean. For this they gathered in Patras a fleet from the Corinthian Lefkadian and their Elian allies (47 ships) under the Spartan leader Agatharcidas. Several of the ships were troopcarriers.
Agatharchidas, who probably had no naval experience and was worried about the troopships instead of taking advantage of his numerical superiority, tried to copy the defensive circle that the Greeks had implemented against the Persians at Artemisium. Phormion, who had become familiar with the currents and winds of the region, entangled the circle of the Peloponnesians, who reacted by shrinking it. Eventually their oars became entangled and the boats collided with each other. The currents and winds of the area aggravated the shipping difficulties in the circle. The Athenians then suddenly attacked and sank 12 enemy ships
After their defeat, the Lacedaemonians gathered 77 ships and send Brasidas, Cnemus, Timocrates and Lycophron to reverse the situation. Fragmentation of command and lack of naval experience would prove tragic. But the new commanders managed to embolden their crews. Despite all this, the Athenians did not succeed in luring them out into the open sea so as to take advantage of their superior naval skills. The Peloponnesians made the stratagem to threaten Nafpaktos and the Athenians sailed alongside them. The Peloponnesians then made a surprise attack and cut the Athenian line in two, thus isolating 9 ships and forcing them to run ashore and evacuate but the Messenians, allies of the Athenians, prevented the Peloponnesian marines from capturing them.
Phormion with the remaining 11 ships was waiting for the enemy in front of the port of Nafpaktos. The Lefkadian ship that Timocrates was on board, sailed way ahead of the rest, leading the others in a careless pursuit. Phormion who had spotted an anchored cargo ship (olkas) sailed around it and found himself at the stern of Timocrates ship. Without delay he rammed him. The Athenian trireme shook the Lefkadian vessel. Some rowers were impaled by the broken oars and others were crippled. Some marines were thrown into the water and some fell into the gap between the decks to be crippled as well. By the time the rest of the crew recovered, the Athenian hoplites rushed upon them.
Timocrates instead as a commander to organize resistance and try to reverse the situation by counter-attack and kill Phormion killed himself thereby spreading his panic to his entire fleet, which retreated disorderly. Phormionas, maintaining his composure despite adversity and taking advantage of the superior naval training that Cimon had imposed on the Athenian navy, wrested victory from the jaws of defeat
Sources:
Thucidides, “History of the Pelopoenessian War” trn. John Dreyden, Macmillan, London, 1889.
Παυσανίας, “Description of Greece”| trn John Dreyden, Macmillan, London, 1889.
Homer “the Iliad”: 12, 243
In Rhapsody 12 Homer tell us that the Trojans have forced the Greeks into their fortified camp and are ready to attack the palisade. When they are making their preparations an eagle, holding a snake in his talons, is flying over the Trojan army. Suddenly the snake turns and bites him and the eagle lets go of his pray. The sheer Polydamas interprets this as a bad omen and warns Hector not to press the attack for there might always be the risk of a trap or a sudden Greek counter attack. Hector rebukes him by saying that there is only one good omen: defending one’s fatherland. Yet the omen holds true and the Trojans suffer badly and in the end they are ejected by Patroclus counter attack. Hector kills him but provokes the fury of Achilles that leads to his own death and the Trojan position worsens.
This Homeric verse is a very popular theme in Greek art. Modern research has shown that it was drawn on the Temple of Aphaia in the island of Evoia
A cylix of the Foundry Painter in Berlin Museum
A cylix by Eyphronius Fall of Troy. Attic cylix 500-490 BC Cerite National Archaeological Museum in Cerveteri (detail)
A coin of Elis (one of many examples)
The popularity probably is because of the exhortation to defend the Fatherland no matter what.
Part of the verse (Defending Fatherland) exists today as a motto for various Greek military units
When Ancient Sparta is mentioned, King Leonidas and his sacrifice along with his 300 hoplites at Thermopylae automatically comes to mind. The general perception is that Ancient Sparta was a well governed state, where everyone adhered to strict principles, obeyed the laws and was ashamed to be seen otherwise. Of course, the behavior of its inhabitants is mentioned as a good model for our time. In principle the Spartans themselves do not seem to have left anything written about themselves but all our sources consist of what others wrote about them. So let’s analyze our sources trying to get the real picture of ancient Sparta in the light of science
Plutarch writes during the times of Roman occupation. The Sparta of his time was a tourist attraction for wealthy Romans who went to see its inhabitants reviving Spartan education and the regime of Lycurgus’ laws. (or at least attempting too) The «Great Rhetra» attributed to the legendary king Lycurgus and apparently carved in the sanctuary of the Sylanian deities (Zeus and Athena) was rather used as a manual of historical revival, because we know from Plutarch and Polybius that the Lycurgian constitution had been abolished during the Hellenistic period and the victorious Romans imposed government changes. So Plutarch in the «life of Lycurgus» and the «Laconic Provebs» of his Moralia probably conveys to us an idealized image of Ancient Sparta and not what really happened in the Geometric and Archaic period in Sparta.
Xenophon, who was a close friend of the Spartan king Agesilaus and had been exiled from Athens for being a Spartan sympathiser (laconophilia), ican be questioned for his objectivity. Confined as a foreigner, to Lepreo, according to the fixed Spartan custom of not leting foreigners moving freely in their territory, he describes to us what was told by the authorities of a Sparta, that had been defeated at Leuctra and Mantineia and had lost its Messenian territories. As a result of this it could not maintain the army it once had and hat to live in a state of siege. This meant probably enacting extraordinary legislation that might not have existed in the Archaic or Geometric era.
According to the sources, there were three classes in Sparta. The «homioi», (free citizens with political and military obligations and the right to vote and be elected to public office) the perioikoi (free citizens with military obligations but without political rights) and the helots (enslaved former residents of the area). Based on the above authors we know about the life of the «homioi» and the helots. The women of the «homioi» are considered to have had freedoms that the women of other Greek regions did not have, but the only evidence we have is mainly for the women of Athens and perhaps only for the aristocratic families. The men of Sparta if they passed the elders’ inspections that they were healthy had 53 years of military service ahead of them (from their 7th to their 60th year). Children who were not considered healthy were not killed but abandoned and perhaps some survived in childless families of periokoi or even helots. The «homioi» of course exercised civil rights and governmental authority but were forbidden to engage in anything other than military training and military service. The kings also had the right to veto laws that thought they could eventually harm the interests of the state.
The helots did allthe farm work and heavy labour. They were taxed at 50% of the produce to support the «homioi». They were considered state property but the behavior of their masters was extremely harsh and they were ready to revolt in every opportunity. Let’s not forget that they weren’t slaves imported by being baught and sold, like e.g. in Athens but formerly free people. But Herodotus tells us that at Plataea each Spartan hoplite was followed by 7 helots who were equipped to fight also as light infantry. In other words, the “”homioi tolerated those who would rebel to be…. armed! This contradicts the accounts of Plutarch and Xenophon. Thucydides also says that the Spartans promised freedom to those helots who agreed to enlist and then massacred the 2000 volunteers they accepted in their army. A little difficult to accept this as he tells us at another point that 20,000 slaves of the Athenians defected to the Spartans. It is hard to believe that they would flee to those who would exterminate them without mercy.
We know almost nothing about the periokoi who are thought to be people submitting to invading Doreans without a fight. Herodotus and Thucydides mention them in the composition of the Spartan army. The opinion that only the «homioi» enlisted for military service does not correspond to reality. The production and wide dissemination of Laconian artefacts outside of Sparta in the 6th pre-Christian century, testifies to the existence of artisans and traders and also casts doubt on the strict limitations of Laconian monetary policy. It is a little difficult to accept that the copper imported into Sparta for the manufacture of weapons was paid for with iron coins, the metal of which had been rendered useless by soaking them in vinegar.
Source: Britannica Kids
Another issue is the education of young people (Agoge). Successful completion of this «training material» was a prerequisite to being named a citizen of Sparta. The criteria for entry into the system other than the child’s health and fitness are unclear. Mothakes (born from a mother who did not belong to a «homioi» family) are proof that free people could introduce the children they had with slaves (or even concubines) to Education System, and help them to rise socially. We are not aware of any restrictions for children of the perioikoi. Could this have been an indirect way for the perioikoi to exert political influence in the assembly: (Appella) All boys entering the Agoge until they joined the military at age 18 had 11 years of living away from their families under the supervision of the paedonomoi and older teenagers in a style of everyday life that reminded the «devil weeks» of the modern special forces. We can’t even imagine the psychological pressure they faced. Sparta’s full-time hoplites were superior in survival and non-phalanx combat skills even to the elite hoplites of other Greek cities. Their main occupation, however, was policing the helots. It was therefore more of an elite militarized gendarmerie than a typical army, hence the reluctance of the Spartan authorities for distant campaigns.
And the view that the Spartans went to war out of contempt for life is wrong. Plutarch writes that when someone wanted to sell a rooster for cockfighting (a popular spectacle in Sparta) saying that it was so aggressive that he would be killed in battle, the Spartan replied: «better to kill the opponent!». The governors also punished a young man who rushed naked into battle against rebel Helots because, if he were killed he would deprive Sparta of a valuable soldier.
Even for the battle of Thermopylae, which is considered the epitome of Spartan military virtue, if we combine the information of Herodotus and Diodorus we will see that it was a raid against Xerxes that failed and not a heroic rear guard battle. After all, Herodotus also writes that he was informed about the facts by the ephors of Sparta, perhaps in the light of political expediency.
In conclusion, ancient Sparta was an admirable society that can teach us much more through rational scientific approach than through idealization.
Sources
Plutarch «Lykourgus» Loeb Classical Library ed.1920
Plutarch «Moralis» Loeb Classical Library ed.1920
Herodotus «Histories» Loeb Classical Library ed.1914
Xenophon «Hellenica» Classical Library ed.1914
Xenophon «Spartan constitution» Classical Library ed.1914
Xenophon «Αγησίλαος» Classical Library ed.1914
Diodorus Siculcuc «Histories» Loeb Classical Library ed.1914
Thucidides «Histories» Loeb Classical Library ed.1914
https://www.spartareconsidered.com/
hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com
Η θρησκεία αποτελεί συνεκτικό παράγοντα για τις κοινωνίες αλλά και ηθική πυξίδα για την θέσπιση κανόνων διαβίωσης και συνύπαρξης των μελών τους (νομικό σύστημα). Χρησιμεύει ακόμα σαν στοιχείο εμψύχωσης στις θεομηνίες και τον πόλεμο. Η σημασία της θρησκείας ως συνεκτικού παράγοντα σε πολυπολιτισμικές κοινωνίες φάνηκε στην Ιστορία με την προσπάθεια των Ρωμαίων αυτοκρατόρων να ξεπεράσουν την κρίση που μάστιζε το ρωμαϊκό κράτος τον 3ο μεταχριστιανικό αιώνα με την απόπειρα εισαγωγής της θρησκείας του “Ανίκητου Ηλίου”. Η προσπάθεια δεν ήταν επιτυχής και τελικά ο Μέγας Κωνσταντίνος καθιέρωσε τον Χριστιανισμό. Το πρώτο πρόβλημα που που παρουσιάστηκε ήταν οι αιρέσεις που το κράτος τις έβλεπε ως απειλή για την ενότητά του καθώς διαιρούσαν το ποίμνιο και προκαλούσαν αμφισβήτηση στην κοσμική εξουσία κάτι που ήταν αντίθετο στα “πιστεύω” μεγάλων ομάδων του πληθυσμού. Όλο τον 5ο και 6ο μεταχριστιανικό αιώνα το κράτος σπαρασσόταν από εμφύλιες έριδες λόγω των θρησκευτικών διαφορών και οι επικρατούντες ορθόδοξοι θεωρούσαν τους αιρετικούς ως πιθανούς συμμάχους των εχθρών του κράτους και τους καταδίωκαν αμείλικτα. Το πρόβλημα περιορίστηκε όταν λόγω της ανόδου του Ισλάμ το ανατολικό ρωμαϊκό κράτος έχασε τα εδάφη που κατοικούνταν από πληθυσμούς που οι απόψεις τους για τον Χριστιανισμό δεν ήταν συμβατές με την Ορθοδοξία. Αυτό έδωσε σύμπνοια και συνοχή στο κράτος αλλά δεν εξάλειψε το πρόβλημα.
Το επόμενο ζήτημα ήταν η αίρεση των Παυλικιανών που υπό την προστασία των Μουσουλμάνων προκάλεσε πολλά προβλήματα στους Βυζαντινούς. Το πρόβλημα περιορίστηκε με την καταστροφή των οχυρών της αίρεσης στην Τεφρική και την μετοίκιση κάποιων από αυτούς στην Θράκη. Οι μέτοικοι αυτοί ήταν όμως απ’ ότι φαίνεται η ρίζα απ’ όπου ξεπήδησε η αίρεση των Βογόμιλων. Αν και διέπονταν από αυστηρή ηθική ήταν εχθρικοί στην ύλη και έβλεπαν την κοσμική εξουσία ως εκπρόσωπο της διαφθοράς και αρνούνταν την φορολογία και την στράτευση. Στα τέλη του 11ου αιώνα αναφέρεται ότι είχαν συμπράξει με τους επιδρομείς Πετσενέγους. Η αίρεση δεν προκάλεσε προβλήματα μόνο στο Βυζάντιο αλλά και στο βουλγαρικό και το σερβικό βασίλειο και θεωρούνται υπαίτιοι για την αδυναμία αντίστασης των Βαλκάνιων κατά των Οθωμανών τον 14ο αιώνα αλλά και τον μαζικό εξισλαμισμό της Βοσνίας.
Την ίδια περίπου περίοδο το Βυζάντιο σπαράσονταν από την “Ησυχαστική Έριδα”. Πέρα από τα θεολογικά προβλήματα, οι οπαδοί του δόγματος αποσύρονταν σε ερημιές ίσως όχι τόσο για πνευματική ανάταση όσο για να αποφύγουν την φορολογία και την στράτευση. Οι οπαδοί του έγιναν παράγοντας στους βυζαντινούς εμφυλίους πολέμους αδυνατίζοντας την άμυνα του κράτους. Η “αιμορραγία” νέων ανδρών στο μοναχισμό δεν ήταν μόνο πρόβλημα οικονομικών και άμυνας αλλά και ευρύτερα κοινωνικό σαν παράγοντας δημογραφικής κάμψης. Ενα άλλο ζήτημα ήταν η άκαμπτη στάση του βυζαντινού κλήρου που θεωρούσε φόνο τις εχθρικές απώλειες στην μάχη ακόμα και αν ήταν αλλόθρησκοι επιδρομείς. Αυτό οδηγούσε πολλούς βετεράνους στο μοναχισμό αντί στην προσαρμογή στην πολιτική ζωή και την δημιουργία οικογένειας.
Το ζήτημα της θρησκείας ως τροχοπέδης σε θέματα πολιτικής δεν περιορίζεται μόνο στην Χριστιανική Θρησκεία αλλά εμφανίζεται στο Ισλάμ και τον Ιουδαϊσμό. Αν και το Ισλάμ θεωρείται πολεμική θρησκεία το σχίσμα που δημιουργήθηκε μεταξύ των Σουνιτών (οπαδών της παράδοσης και παραδοσιακά συντηρητικών) και τον Σιιτών (οπαδών της θεϊκότητας των πνευματικών ηγετών και προσαρμογών στην παράδοση – αιρετικοί κατά τους άλλους) η διάσπασή τους έδωσε ανάσα στο κλυδωνιζόμενο Βυζάντιο. Να σημειωθεί ότι οι Οθωμανοί που το κατέλυσαν αργότερα δεν είχαν ζητήματα ενδοθρησκευτικής έριδας όπως οι Άραβες Μέχρι και σήμερα οι Μουσουλμάνοι αλληλοκατηγορούνται ότι η διάσπασή τους διευκολύνει τους αντιπάλους τους και τα μουσουλμανικά κράτη που εμπεριέχουν μειονότητα άλλου ισλαμικού δόγματος εκτιμώνται ως πολιτικά ασταθή καθώς το Ισλάμ δεν είναι απλά θρησκεία αλλά πολιτικό, νομικό και δικαστικό σύστημα με ότι αυτό συνεπάγεται.
Η άλωση της Ιερουσαλήμ το 70 μΧ και η υποχρεωτική από τις ρωμαϊκές αρχές διασπορά των Εβραίων του απομάκρυνε από τον κεντρικό (ασφυκτικό θα έλεγε κανείς) έλεγχο της ιερατικής τους κάστας και έγινε αιτία διάδοσης της φυλετικής τους θρησκείας σε άλλους πληθυσμούς όπως π.χ. οι Χάζαροι που εγκλωβισμένοι μεταξύ Χριστιανών και Μουσουλμάνων προτίμησαν ασπαστούν τον Ιουδαϊσμό. Με την πτώση του Χαζαρικού Χανάτου πολλές εβραϊκές κοινότητες βρέθηκαν διασκορπισμένες στην Ευρώπη. Δεν ήταν δημοφιλείς και γίνονταν αντικείμενο διακρίσεων και διωγμών. Εκτός αυτού είχαν παρατηρηθεί αντιθέσεις που έφταναν πολλές φορές στην σύγκρουση μεταξύ των διαφορετικών κοινοτήτων. Μετά όμως τα τραγικά γεγονότα του Β΄ Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου οι Εβραίοι ίδρυσαν το κράτος του Ισραήλ το 1948. Ενώ το Ισραήλ υπήρξε νικηφόρο στις πολεμικές του αναμετρήσεις, είναι σημαντικό να αναφερθεί ότι τα τελευταία χρόνια παρατηρούνται διασπάσεις στην εβραϊκή κοινωνία τόσο με το θέμα της ύπαρξης “δύο κρατών” όσο και με την μη στράτευση των υπερορθόδοξων (ultra – orthodox) Εβραίων.
Συμπέρασμα
Από την παραπάνω σύντομη διήγηση συνάγεται η σημασία της θρησκείας στις κοινωνίες. Πρόκειται για ένα στοιχείο που ενώνει ή διχάζει κοινωνίες, ενδυναμώνοντας ή αποδυναμώνοντας αντίστοιχα τα κράτη. Τούτου δοθέντος είναι σημαντικό τα θρησκευτικά φαινόμενα και η εξέλιξή τους να μελετώνται όχι μόνο από ειδικούς επιστήμονες αλλά και από στελέχη επιτελείων που έχουν ως στόχο την επίτευξη της εθνικής ασφάλειας του εκάστοτε κράτους. Όλβιος όστις ιστορίης έσχε μάθησιν.
Πηγές
Asimov, Isaac. The Near East: 10,000 Years of History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968.
Edward Gibbon The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, 6 volumes 1782 Commentator: Rev. HH Milman
Steven Runciman «History of the Crusades» Translated by: Nikos K. Paparrodos, Published by: Army General Staff 1977
Oxford History Byzantium Cyril Mango
Journal of Modern Greek Studies: The Stereotyped “Greek Jew” from Auschwitz-Birkenau to Israeli Pop Culture
Bowman, S.. (1986). Jews in Wartime Greece. Jewish Social Studies, 48(1), 45–62.
The rulers of the Iranian highlands created one of the largest empires of the pre-Christian period but the nomadic tribes f the nor thindered their advance. The second limitation of their expansion happened in the West when, after their failed invasion of Scythia, their Ionians subjects revolted. The Ionians’ western relatives, from metropolitan Greece, were involved in the conflict thus forcing the Achaemenids to attempt another expansion which ended ingloriously by the end of the Persian Wars and cost them Cyprus and half of their Asia Minor province. They managed to recover their loses with their involvement in favor of the Lacedaemonians during the Peloponnesian War.
The next difficulty the Achaemenids faced was the effort of the Spartan king Agesilaus to solve the problem of the unemployed mercenaries of the Peloponnese war with the second attempt of the Greeks to invade Asia Minor. The solution was given by the Achaemenids, who thanks to their gold caused revolutions against her of Spartan hegemony, thus obstructing the communications of Agesilaus and forcing him to abandon his campaign. This solution was considered effective and that is why there would be an attempt to repeat it during the second Greek invasion from the West under Alexander the Great.
The Achaemenids considered the defeat at Granic only an accident but their next defeat at Issus showed them how serious the western threat was this time. The discovery of anti-Macedonian factions ambassadors in the occupied camp of Darius at Issus silenced most treasonous voices in Alexander;s rear but not all. But the Persian king had sent the satraps Pharnavazos and Autophradates with a fleet to either occupy the Aegean islands or even install pro-Persian governments with rich bribes. The purpose was to trap Alexander in Asia and to cause desertions in his army. This made Alexander to advance towards Phoenicia in order to cause similar concerns among the Phoenician crews of the Persian fleet. Arados, Byblos and Sidon surrendered but Tyre and Gaza they resisted. despite their fleets being absent in the Aegean. They relied on their strong defensive locations but they were captured and destroyed.
The Persian satraps in the Aegean may have had issues with their crews’ loyalty but they gave money to the Spartan king Agis III as well as the surviving from the battle of Issus, Greek mercenaries of Darius, about 8000 strong. Alexander which had conquered the homes of the Phoenician sailors and also Egypt (granary of the then known world), turned towards the interior of Asia considering that he actually had trapped the satraps who could no longer communicate with Darius or resupply. But they had managed to create enough problems and only the destruction of the Persian fleet by the Macedonian admiral Hegisilochus forced the satraps to submit to Alexander.
It wasn’t the end though. With the money and the former mercenaries of Darius o king Agis defeated the Macedonian garrison of Corinth and raised an anti-Macedonian revolution in the Peloponnese. The other Greeks, however, remained neutral and the Messenians did not want to become helots of Sparta again. The regent of Macedonia Antipater crushed the rebels at Megalopolis and Alexander unhindered overthrew the Persian empire. Although Alexander officially considered the episode with Agis III is unimportant, as the current situation shows that the successors of the Achaemenids have studied history very well.
Sources:
Xenophon «Hellenika» mtf. E. Shepherd (1793)
Xenophon «Agesilaos» mtf. E. Shepherd (1793)
Plutarch «Alexander» Loeb Classic Library edition 1920
Diodorus Siculus «Histories» Loeb Classic Library 1914 edition
Arrian «Alexandrou Anavasis», Loeb Classic Library edition 1914
The first time that the geopolitical question of the Greek area in relation to the Middle East was raised it was during the period of the Bronze Age. Although initially the Middle Eastern kingdoms were concerned with the issue of protecting their coasts and ports as the naval supremacy of the Minoans and later the Mycenaeans was indisputable, the surviving Hittite diplomatic records give us another dimension of the matter. The Hittite monarchs having entered into competition, first with the Minoans and then with the Mycenaeans for the control of Cyprus and facing pressures on their eastern borders try to close their western front with diplomacy. The collapse of the palatial societies in Greece which is at least partially responsible for the forced migrations of the so-called «Sea Peoples» brings about the collapse of the Bronze Age societies throughout the Middle East.
Herodotus informs us that the preoccupation of the Lydian king Croesus with the surveillance of his Ionian subjects seems to have cost him the defeat against the Persians who had tried unsuccessfully to ally themselves with them. It is also reasonable to wonder whether the difficulties that Xerxes faced with the insurrection of his subjects before his campaign in Greece were not a result of the difficulties that his father had faced in Thrace and the repulse of his father’s army at Marathon. The Persians overturned the outcome of the peace of Callia thanks to intra-Greek strife and maintained the integrity of their Middle Eastern provinces by fueling Greek civil wars. The imposition of peace in the Greek area by the Macedonians finally led to the overthrow of the Persian empire.
The occupation of Greece by the Romans forced them to take an interest in the Middle East as well when they expanded into Asia Minor to secure control of the Aegean.The invasion of the Pontic king Mithridates into Greece cut off their communications with the Asian provinces which were nearly lost to the Parthians. It is also good to note that it was the repulse of the Goths by emperor Decius and the securing of the Balkan provinces was what allowed Aurelian to defeat the Palmyran queen Zenobia and put an end to the crisis that plagued the Roman Empire in the 3rd century AD.
The Eastern Roman Empire suffered from Sassanid pressure on its eastern borders as it simultaneously had to conserve forces to defend the Balkan provinces from the outposts of the steppe peoples. The even onerous peace that Heraclius secured with the Avars in the Balkans, allowed him to overcome the power of the Sassanids. The appearance of Islam overturned many of the previous facts. The inability of the Arabs to control the Greek area due to the strong reaction of the Byzantines prevented their advance towards central Europe. The reaction of the Byzantines was difficult as the Greek area could not be used as a base point because it was exposed to raids from the north due to the Bulgarian wars.
However, the Macedonian dynasty managed to impose order in the Balkans and this allowed Basil II to turn his Muslim neighbors into vassals thanks to the power of his army. Byzantine dynastic strife and struggles against the Pechenegs and Normans allowed the Seljuks to expand into Asia Minor. The Byzantine counterattack attempt using the Crusaders failed due to the political ineptitude of the parties involved. All efforts against the Muslims also failed due to the deep distrust that existed between the Crusader states and Byzantium. The Fourth Crusade created a mosaic of rival states that competed with each other and prevented the reinforcement of Christians in the Holy Land who eventually succumbed to the Muslims.
When the Ottomans became masters of the region, they managed to impose themselves on the Mamluks of Egypt and the Shevafid Persians only when they stabilized their position in the Balkans at the end of the 15th century. The Greek Revolution shook the Ottoman state so much, that Egypt seceded and expanded at its expense and only the intervention of the British and the French prevented the collapse of the Ottomans. The subsequent British intervention in the Anglo-Eguptian Sudan was greatly facilitated by the skillful policy of Greek prime minister Trikoupis who secured for Greece the liberation of Thessaly from the Ottomans in return.
The Entente’s clumsy Balkan policy at the start of World War I allowed the Ottomans to repel the Allied offensive in the Dardanelles and Iraq and to exert pressure on Egypt. Only the stabilization of the political situation in 1917 allowed the blockade of the Dardanelles and Allenby’s successful counterattack in Palestine which brought about the fall of the Ottomans and the creation of new Arab states.
The dispersion of Italian efforts in Libya and Greece during World War II resulted in the relegation of Italy to Hitler’s vassal. Although German airborn troops from Greece could have supported Rashid Ali revolt in Iraq against the British and could be a headache to the British, Hitler canceled the attempt. With the exception of the attempted infiltration of agents into Palestine and the support of Rommel from Crete, the Axis did not use the position of Greece to pressure the Allies in the Middle East as Hitler was mainly interested in Russia.
After World War II, the creation of the state of Israel created new tensions in the region. With Greece in NATO, the USSR found it difficult to support its Arab allies. Also noteworthy is the Greek-American defense agreement of 1967 in relation to the «Six Day» war, as well as the political crisis in Greece in Autumn of 1973 in relation to the «Yom Kippur» war.
During the «Gulf War» in 1991, Greece had turned into a logistics center for the Alliance and secured the supply lines for the troops in the Arabian Peninsula.
The favorable attitude of Greece in the West’s effort to limit the execesses of extremists who have recently shed blood in the region is counted by some political analysts as one of the main advantages of the West. The current buildup of Western troops in Greek military base in support of operations in the Middle East is also worth noting.
Sources
1. Herodotus Histories
2. Xenophon Hellenika
3. Plutarch Life of Sulla
4. Asimov, Isaac. The Near East: 10,000 Years of History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968.
5. Edward Gibbon The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, 6 volumes 1782 Commentator: Rev. HH Milman
6. Steven Runciman «History of the Crusades» Translated by: Nikos K. Paparrodos, Published by: Army General Staff 1977
Armenians trace their ancestry to the Urartians who lived around Mount Ararat who in turn descended from the Hurrians, a Bronze Age civilization. The Urartians who flourished in the Iron Age were in constant conflict with the Assyrians. Ultimately, however, the Assyrian king Sargon II subdued them by allying with the Scythians in 714 BC. Although they regained their independence for a while, they ended up subservient to Medes who established the Orontid dynasty in the area. The iron-rich region produced good quality cavalry and the Armenians followed the Persians on their campaigns.
The satrap Orondas tried to block the march of Xenophon’s10000 but failed. When the Persian Empire was overthrown by Alexander the Great, the Armenians came under Seleucid rule but became independent again in the 2nd century BC. Their king Tigranes managed to fend off the Parthians and became the father-in-law of the Pontus king Mithridates and thus clashed with the Romans (whom he underestimated) and was defeated. Then Armenia became the first Christian state in the world in the early 4th century. The region then became the bone of contention between the Romans and the Sassanids and was sometimes vassal to one and sometimes to the other. With the fall of the Sassanids to the Muslim Arabs, for a time the emirate of Erzerum was created in the southern lands of Armenia that covered the territory of today’s Turkey, which gave shelter to the heretics of the Eastern Roman state, but was finally dissolved by the pressure of the Byzantines.
Many Armenians made their careers in the Byzantine army, while several Armenian families raised their representatives to the throne through intermarriage, such as Leo the Armenian and Ioannis Tzimiskis. Although the populations of the Caucasus eventually submitted to Basil II the Bulgarslayer the invasion of the Seljuks who took advantage of the Byzantine decline and occupied Armenia created a wave of refugees towards the Byzantine provinces of Cilicia. There the Rupenid house created its hegemony which, juggling their politics between Byzantines and Crusaders, was maintained until 1375, when it succumbed to the Mameluks of Egypt.
In the 16th century, the Ottomans shared the region with the Shevafids of Iran. Living in a strictly Muslim social system, Armenians like other Christians were victims of discrimination. After, like the Greeks, the bourgeois classes, acquired economic power, began to demand their autonomy. Russian military successes against the Iranians and Ottomans in the Caucasus region fueled their hopes. This is how the so-called Armenian Question arose, which was internationalized with the French and Russian iterventions. When they began to demand more rights, Sultan Abdul Hamid II with the help of the Kurds organized massacres of Armenians in 1894-96, which had an estimated 100 to 200,000 victims.
The Armenians, like the other Ottoman Christians, hoped for much from the revolution of the Young Turks, but they were bitterly denied. Although Armenians served in the Ottoman army as administrative and sanitary officers, the Porte did not trust them. When World War I broke out, Russia advanced into the Caucasus and the Russian army had a unit of Armenian volunteers. Thus the Ottoman government decided to forcefully move the Christian populations away from combat/operational areas and border districts. During the displacements with the tolerance if not the participation of the Ottoman authorities the Muslim mob was allowed to satiate its most inhuman instincts on the defenseless refugees. The atrocities went down in history as the «Armenian Genocide».
The Russian army occupied most of Ottoman Armenia but these territorial gains were lost with the Russian Revolution of 1917. Russian-controlled Eastern Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan tried to create the Transcaucasian Federal Republic, which lasted only until May of 1918. Then, Eastern Armenia became independent on May 28, 1918 as the Republic of Armenia. The Treaty of Sèvres, in 1920, guaranteed the existence of the Republic of Armenia and provided for the addition of additional Ottoman territories to it. There was also the thought of making Armenia a protectorate of the United States but the fact that. it had no outlet to the sea, probably prevented the idea. But in a common operation, as things show, the Turks occupied most of the territories provided for by the Treaty of Sèvres for Armenia and forced the Armenians to disarm. During the negotiations, the Soviets invaded from the opposite direction and destroyed the Armenian state by entering the Yerevan. The possibility of a pro-Western entity in the Caucasus had been eliminated. Thoughts of Poland in 1939 naturally come to mind.
The Armenians together with other populations of the Caucasus were gathered in the Soviet Republic of Transcaucasia which was maintained until 1936 when it was annexed to the Soviet Union. During Stalin many Armenians were displaced. In WWII Armenians fought as Soviet soldiers but many who were captured by the Germans fought with them in the «Armenian Legion». Armenia has since been associated with the Soviet Union which in 1967 recognized the Armenian Genocide by the Turks. In 1991, with the fall of the USSR, Armenians were among the first to declare their independence. The country was facing economic hardship exacerbated by the conflict with the Azeris over the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave. Militarily stronger, the Armenians managed to control the region. But their attempts to reach out to the West through the Armenian diaspora to develop economically caused Russian resentment. Underestimating the military reorganization of the Azeris, the Armenians were defeated in the second conflict over Karabakh to the point where the future existence of their country was at stake, while the Russians, who maintained a passive attitude that ultimately came at the expense of their Armenian allies, spoke of the weakness of Armenia as independent entity, going so far as to propose its reintegration into the Russian Federation. Armenian history teaches the caution that rulers should show not to overestimate their capabilities but also not to underestimate their opponents.
Sources
1) Herodotus Histories
2) Xenophon Kyros Ascent and descent of the Myrians
3)Steven Runciman «History of the Crusades» Translation: Nikos K. Paparrodos, Published: Army General Staff 1977
4) Asimov, Isaac. The Near East: 10,000 Years of History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968.
Οι Αρμένιοι έλκουν την καταγωγή τους από τους Ουράρτιους που κατοικούσαν γύρω από το όρος Αραράτ που με τη σειρά τους προέρχονταν από τους Χουρίτες, έναν πολιτισμό της Χαλκοκρατίας . Οι Ουραρτιοι που άκμασαν την εποχή του Σιδήρου ήταν σε διαρκή σύγκρουση με τους Ασσύριους.Τελικά όμως ο Ασσύριος βασιλιάς Σαργών Β τους υπέταξε συμμαχώντας με τους Σκύθες το 714 πΧ. Αν και επανέκτησαν την ανεξαρτησία τους για λίγο κατέληξαν υποτελείς τον Μήδων που εγκατέστησαν στην περιοχή την δυναστεία των Οροντιδών. Η πλούσια σε σίδηρο περιοχή παρήγε καλής ποιότητας ιππικό και οι Αρμένιοι ακολουθούσαν τους Πέρσες στις εκστρατείες τους.
Ο σατράπης Ορόντας προσπάθησε να εμποδίσει την πορεία των Μυρίων του Ξενοφώντα αλλά απέτυχε. Όταν η περσική αυτοκρατορία καταλύθηκε από τον Μ. Αλέξανδρο οι Αρμένιοι πέρασαν στην κυριαρχία των Σελευκιδών αλλά ανεξαρτητοποιήθηκαν ξανά τον 2ο αιώνα π.Χ. Ο βασιλιάς τους Τιγράνης κατάφερε να αποκρούσει τους Πάρθους και έγινε πεθερός του βασιλιά του Πόντου Μιθριδάτη και έτσι συγκρούστηκε με τους Ρωμαίους (τους οποίους υποτιμούσε) και ηττήθηκε. Κατόπιν η Αρμενία έγινε το πρώτο χριστιανικό κράτος στον κόσμο στις αρχές του 4ου αιώνα. Η περιοχή έγινε τότε το μήλο της έριδος μεταξύ Ρωμαίων και Σασσανιδών και υποτελής πότε στον ένα και πότε στον άλλο. Με την πτώση των Σασσανιδών στους Μουσουλμάνους Αραβες, για ένα διάστημα στα νότια εδάφη της Αρμενίας που κάλυπταν περιοχή της σημερινής Τουρκίας δημιουργήθηκε το εμιράτο του Ερζερούμ που έδινε καταφύγιο στους αιρετικούς του ανατολικού ρωμαϊκού κράτους αλλά τελικά διαλύθηκε από την πίεση των Βυζαντινών.
Πολλοί Αρμένιοι σταδιοδρόμησαν στο βυζαντινό στρατό ενώ αρκετές αρμενικές οικογένειες μέσω επιγαμιών ανέβασαν εκπροσώπους τους στο θρόνο όπως λόγου χάριν οι Λέων ο Αρμένιος και Ιωάννης Τζιμισκής. Αν και οι πληθυσμοί του Καυκάσου τελικά υπετάγησαν στο Βασίλειο Β τον Βουλγαροκτόνο η εισβολή των Σελτζούκων που εκμεταλλεύτηκαν την βυζαντινή παρακμή και κατέλαβαν την Αρμενία δημιούργησε ένα κύμα προσφύγων προς τις βυζαντινές επαρχίες τις Κιλικίας. Εκεί ο οίκος των Ρουπενιδών δημιούργησε ηγεμονία της που ακροβατώντας μεταξύ Βυζαντινών και Σταυροφόρων διατηρήθηκε μέχρι το 1375, όταν και υπέκυψε στους Μαμελούκους της Αιγύπτου.
Τον16ο αιώνα, οι Οθωμανοί μοιράστηκαν την περιοχή με τους Σεβαφίδες του Ιράν. Ζώντας σε ένα αυστηρά μουσουλμανικό κοινωνικό σύστημα, οι Αρμένιοι όπως και οι λοιποί Χριστιανοί υπήρξαν θύματα διακρίσεων. Αφού όπως και οι Έλληνες, οι αστικές τάξεις, απέκτησαν οικονομική ισχύ άρχισαν να ζητούν την αυτονομία τους. Οι ρωσικές στρατιωτικές επιτυχίες κατά των Ιρανών και των Οθωμανών στην περιοχή του Καυκάσου τροφοδοτούσαν τις ελπίδες τους. Έτσι προέκυψε και το λεγόμενο Αρμενικό Ζήτημα που διεθνοποιήθηκε με τις Γαλλικές και Ρωσικές επεμβάσεις. Όταν άρχισαν να διεκδικούν περισσότερα δικαιώματα, ο Σουλτάνος Αμπντούλ Χαμίτ Β΄ με την αρωγή των Κούρδων οργάνωσε σφαγές των Αρμενίων το 1894-96, που είχαν περίπου 100 έως 200.000 θύματα.
Οι Αρμένιοι όπως και οι άλλοι Οθωμανοί χριστιανοί ήλπιζαν πολλά από την επανάσταση των Νεοτούρκων αλλά διαψεύστηκαν οικτρά. Παρά το ότι οι Αρμένιοι υπηρέτησαν στον Οθωμανικό στρατό ως διοικητικοί και υγειονομικοί αξιωματικοί η Πύλη δεν τους εμπιστευόταν. Οταν ξέσπασε ο Α΄ Παγκόσμιος Πόλεμος η Ρωσία προέλασε στον Καύκασο και στον Ρωσικό στρατό υπήρχε ένα τμήμα Αρμενίων εθελοντών. Έτσι η οθωμανική κυβέρνηση αποφάσισε την βίαιη μετακίνηση των χριστιανικών πληθυσμών μακρυά από περιοχές επιχειρήσεων και συνόρων. Κατά την διάρκεια των μετακινήσεων με την ανοχή αν όχι συμμετοχή των οθωμανικών αρχών ο μουσουλμανικός όχλος αφέθηκε να κορέσει τα πιο απάνθρωπα ένστικτά του πάνω στους ανυπεράσπιστους πρόσφυγες. Οι φρικαλεότητες έμειναν στην ιστορία ως η “Γενοκτονία των Αρμενίων”.
Ο Ρωσικός στρατός κυρίευσε το μεγαλύτερο μέρος της Οθωμανικής Αρμενίας αλλά οι εδαφικές αυτές κτήσεις χάθηκαν με τη Ρωσική Επανάσταση του 1917. Οι υπό ρωσικό έλεγχο Ανατολική Αρμενία, η Γεωργία και το Αζερμπαϊτζάν προσπάθησαν να δημιουργήσουν την Ομοσπονδιακή Δημοκρατία της Υπερκαυκασίας, που διήρκεσε μόνο έως τον Μάιο του 1918. Κατόπιν, η Ανατολική Αρμενία ανεξαρτητοποιήθηκε στις 28 Μαΐου 1918 ως Δημοκρατία της Αρμενίας. Η Συνθήκη των Σεβρών, το 1920, εγγυάτο την ύπαρξη της Δημοκρατίας της Αρμενίας και προέβλεπε την προσθήκη σε αυτήν επιπλέον οθωμανικών εδαφών. Υπήρχε επίσης η σκέψη να γίνει η Αρμενία προτεκτοράτο των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών αλλά το γεγονός οτι. δεν είχε έξοδο στην θάλασσα μάλλον απέτρεψε την ιδέα. Ομως σε μια κοινή όπως δείχνουν τα πράγματα επιχείριση οι Τούρκοι κατέλαβαν τα περισσότερα εδάφη που προέβλεπε για την Αρμενία η συνθήκη των Σεβρών και υποχρέωσαν τους Αρμενίους να αφοπλιστούν, Κατά την διάρκεια των διαπραγματεύσεων οι Σοβιετικοί εισέβαλαν από την αντίθετη κατεύθυνση και κατέλυσαν το αρμενικό κράτος μπαίνοντας στο Ερεβάν. Η πιθανότητα ύπαρξης φιλοδυτικής οντότητας στον Καύκασο είχε εξαλειφθεί. Εύλογα έρχονται σκέψεις για την Πολωνία του 1939.
Οι Αρμένιοι μαζί με άλλους πληθυσμούς του Καυκάσου συγκεντρώθηκαν στην Σοβιετική Δημοκρατία της Υπερκαυκασίας που διατηρήθηκες ως το 1936 οπότε προσαρτήθηκε στην Σοβιετική Ενωση. Επί Στάλιν πολλοί Αρμένιοι εκτοπίστηκαν. Στον Β ΠΠ οι Αρμένιοι πολέμησαν ως σοβιετικοί στρατιώτες αλλά πολλοί που αιχμαλωτίστηκαν από τους Γερμανούς πολέμησαν μαζί τους στην “Αρμενική Λεγεώνα”. Η Αρμενία συνδέθηκε έκτοτε με την Σοβιετική Ένωση που το 1967 αναγνώρισε την αρμενική γενοκτονία από τους Τούρκους. Το 1991 με την πτώση της ΕΣΣΔ οι Αρμένιοι υπήρξαν από τους πρώτους που ανακήρυξαν την ανεξαρτησία τους. Η χώρα αντιμετώπιζε οικονομική δυσπραγία που επιδεινώθηκε από την σύγκρουση με τους Αζέρους για το θύλακα του Ναγκόρνο-Καραμπάχ. Στρατιωτικά ισχυρότεροι οι Αρμένιοι κατάφεραν να ελέγχουν την περιοχή. Όμως οι απόπειρές τους να προσεγγίσουν την Δύση μέσω της αρμενικής διασποράς για να αναπτυχθούν οικονομικά προκάλεσαν την ρωσική δυσαρέσκεια. Υποτιμώντας την στρατιωτική αναδιοργάνωση των Αζέρων οι Αρμένιοι ηττήθηκαν στην δεύτερη σύγκρουση για το Καραμπάχ σε σημείο που να διακυβεύεται η μελλοντική ύπαρξη της χώρας τους ενώ οι Ρώσοι που τήρησαν παθητική στάση που απέβη τελικά εις βάρος των Αρμενίων συμμάχων τους έκαναν λόγο για την αδυναμία της Αρμενίας ως ανεξάρτητης οντότητας, φτάνοντας σε σημείο να προτείνουν την επανένταξή της στην Ρωσική Ομοσπονδίας. Η αρμενική ιστορία διδάσκει την προσοχή που πρέπει να δείχνουν οι κυβερνήτες ώστε να μην υπερεκτιμούν τις δυνατότητες τους αλλά και να μην υποτιμούν τους αντιπάλους τους.
Πηγές
1)Ηρόδοτος Ιστορίαι
2)Ξενοφών Κύρου Ανάβασις και κάθοδος των Μυρίων
3)Steven Runciman «Ιστορία των Σταυροφοριών» Μετάφραση: Νίκος Κ. Παπαρρόδος, Έκδοση: Γενικό Επιτελείο Στρατού 1977
4)Asimov, Isaac. The Near East: 10,000 Years of History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968.
Everyone believes that the first operational participation of the German 50mm A/T cannon. was in Russia during the summer of 1941. A report of the 5th Mountain Division on the fighting at the Metaxas Line confirms use from April 1941.
More about myths and realities of the WWII Greek campaign here:
Most online translations of ancient text come from books that were meant to be recited in 19th century Ladies «literary evenings». Eloquence was the object not accuracy. Saddly this was followed by later scholars
Example from Plutarch’s «Sayings of Great Comanders» – Moralia
( The Moralia, translations edited by William Watson Goodwin (1831-1912), from the edition of 1878)
«Scoffing at the Eretrians, he said, Like the sword-fish, they have a sword indeed, but no heart.»
The original here:
«τοὺς δὲ Ἐρετριεῖς ἐπισκώπτων ἔλεγεν ὥσπερ τευθίδας μάχαιραν μὲν ἔχειν καρδίαν δὲ μὴ ἔχειν.»
τευθίς = cuttle-fish. It has a sharp beak (implied by the word «sword»)
Themistocles mocks τευθoς = octapus,, the emblem of Eretrian coins and their shield device as it appears in attic pottery
Greeks believed that molluscs had no blood therefore no hearts. and heart is associated with courage. He mocks them as cowards.
F.C. Babbitt in 1931 was more accurate:
«The Eretrians, he said humorously, were like cuttle-fish in having a sword but no heart. «
Stefanos Skarmintzos 