The battle of Artemisium highlights Themistocles role in achieving victory for the Greeks. At Artemisium, it was Themistocles duty to send a naval fleet to attack the Persian navy, who were suspected to be sailing to Athens. this poved to be effective in the long term course of the war because it delayed the Persian fleet which meant that, “The Persians would not be able to divide their fleet and make raids against the Peloponnese for the purpose of creating divisions and seizing strategic points.”-Pamela Bradley. Furthermore if the Persians were able to launch raids in the Peloponnese this may have triggered Helot revolts as a possible alliance between them and Persia may have originated. If this were to have occurred then the Greeks alliance with the Spartans could have potentially been lost, as the Spartans may have withdrawn from the war.
The involvement of Athens and Eretria in the Ionian revolt according to Ehrenberg “put Athens into the center of the unfolding story of the Persian wars”. Herodotus agrees, stating that the dispatch of the ships from Athens and Eretria was “the beginning of the evil for both Greeks and barbarians.” The conflict brought about strong feelings from Athens toward Persia that were carried into future battles. Herodotus records that “the whole episode was probably most important for the later attitudes which it engendered.” The Greeks were motivated into defending their land from the Persians after seeing the fate of the Greeks in Ionia. They knew that if they were conquered according to Ehrenberg that “the freedom of the Greek states would be lost.” Public support in Athens against Persia was gained due to the fate of Miletus. Many Athenians felt that more help should have been provided to protect the cities destruction.
The Greek World 500-440 BC Account for the democratic reforms of Athens during this period. Athens was greatly affected by the Persian Wars and the aftermath of those wars. Significant changes were made to the internal government of Athens. The changes that took place between 500 and 440 BC were part of the democratisation process, but they must also be seen as responses to the Persian Wars and as consequences of the growing imperialism of Athens. It is also important to understand the interrelationship of the democratic changes with the events of the 5th century.
The plan of the prominent Athenians had however already been put into motion and as the emissaries were finding out that they were not going to get the Persian gold they had been promising, the political clubs in Athens were organising for a vote to abolish the democracy. Thucydides does mention some terror tactics being used such as the murder of political opponents but he does not put too much stress on the subject. With the prominent Athenians now aware that the original proposal to establish an oligarchy and pursue the war with Persian gold is not going to happen they change their plans and instead establish an oligarchy of the four hundred backed up by an assembly of the five thousand and promising to pursue the war with their own private fortunes. Using the power of the organised political clubs and most probably intimidation the motion was passed and Athens then became an oligarchy. In 404/3 the Athenians also voted to abandon the democracy but instead of the vote being influenced by political clubs and intimidation by various Athenians it was
Did Alexander the Great create history or was he just carried on by the tide of events, which were already occurring? I believe both helped Alexander attain his goals. He used the rising standard of the Greeks that was already in place, and continued its prosperity. Alexander had great leadership skills, which was able to help in continuation of the expanding Greek empire; the only thing in his way was death. Alexander assumed throne during the rising of Greece, and its expanding culture.
First they besieged the island of what is now Cyprus and then moved toward the mainland. They moved toward the epicenter of the rebellion, Lade. Once the leadership of the rebellions was apprehended, the leaderless rebellion was crippled. In a single day, the Persian army recaptured the rest of the rebellious cities and assimilated them back into the Persian Empire. But King Darius was not going to forgive the Athenian insult.
Greek political and economic control had spread widely along the eastern and northern coasts of the Mediterranean, and around the Black Sea. And temporary union among the Greeks had pushed back the Persian advance, where defeat would have opened quite a different chapter in Mediterranean history. Yet the Greek political structure was also fragile. With so many different government units, division could easily override common purpose. Diversity also produced animosity, with democrats and aristocrats glaring at each other both within and among poleis.
At the beginning of the period of interest, that is, the beginning of the 5th century Athens is one of the most powerful Greek city states attempting to gain support of other States. Through the Persian Wars they build up their reputation as a protector of the Greek states until near the end of the period where the Athenian empire is formed with allies becoming subjects to the more powerful Athens. Throughout this period Athens built alliances made enemies that led to Athens eventual downfall. The Ionian revolt in 499 BC can be seen as a first attempt by Athens to gain support from Greeks in Asia Minor as Athens provided assistance to the Ionian Greeks in liberating them from Persian occupation therefore allowing them to gain their autonomy back. At this time the Greek states were continually at war with one another and there was no unity between them.
He spent the year 335 subduing restive people to the north and west of Macedonia, and crushing an Athenian-endorsed uprising at Thebes. Now mistrusting the Athenians, Alexander the Great declined to employ their fleet against Persia. He crossed the Hellespont into Asia Minor with his substantial army of thirty-five thousand Macedonians and Greeks overwhelming the Persian army and gaining enough spoils to restore the meager Macedonian treasury. The key to Alexander’s success there was timing, and one of his great abilities was knowing when and where to strike defensively. Then, he would pursue the retreating enemy, who more often than not, could not regroup after Alexander’s strikes.