Nice move by Xerxes, expanding his infrastructure and loyal people into newly conquered lands, not only for better control of his empire, but also so he could get some pr points to his subjects.
King of Kings and King of the Universe: The World after Xerxes
- Thread starter RiseofBubblez
- Start date
So I've noticed this thread was nominated for the 2022 Turtledoves, but unfortunately isn't eligible as it wasn't begun until after the new year. However, @RiseofBubblez has another _incredible_ timeline called: A New Carthaginian Age: Trade, Politics, War and Treachery in the post-Roman World; which _is_ eligible. I've nominated it, and am hoping someone can second. I don't want to bump the thread itself because it has the necro warning 
Edit: @LordSamarkand has it covered, thanks!
Edit: @LordSamarkand has it covered, thanks!
Last edited:
Chapter 4: Heroism and History
It is worth taking a second to step back and deal with how we actually reconstruct the history of the Persian Empire. Part of the problem we have, at least for this period, is the sheer predominance of Greek sources for our history. The reality is that, at this point, the Persian Empire itself had little in the way of a 'historical tradition'. There had been a tradition of recording events in Babylonian, Egyptian and Assyrian history, but this doesn't seem to have taken off in Persia. We do have the Cyrus Cylinder, sent out by Cyrus the Great upon his conquest of Babylon, but this fit securely in the tradition of Babylonian kingship. We also have inscriptions such as the Darius inscription, carved into the mountain at Bisitun, and later inscriptions by his successors. However, these are poor sources of information after Darius. From the time of Xerxes onwards, these inscriptions become vaguer and vaguer, focussing on an idea of timelessness in royal ideology. What the Persians did have was an extensive administrative system with a lot of documentation contained within the Persepolis archives. Unfortunately, a lot of this has been lost over time, leaving us with little in the way of direct Persian sources, at least for the 5th Century.
So what do we have?
For the 5th Century, one of our main sources is the Greek historian Herodotus. Born in 484, Herodotus made it his mission to investigate the cause of the Persian domination of Greece, a mission that took into account a lot of other aspects of his contemporary world and the history of places he travelled. Living in the Persian Empire in the 5th Century, Herodotus was in a world that was well-connected, rich, and dominated by the Persian court. As part of his writing, Herodotus travelled throughout Greece, down to Egypt, and even to the courts at Susa and Persepolis. As he went, he recorded a lot of what he saw and experienced, interacting with different conceptions of history. The result is that we do have some understanding of what was going on in the Persian Empire at the time, both at the court itself and in Greece under Mardonius' rule.
We also have several later Greek sources, both from within Greece and from those who travelled to, and wrote in, the Persian court. What we see are two radically different views of the world. In Greece, the predominant focus is local; on conditions under Persian rule, on the interactions with Mardonius and his government, or on the interactions between different Greek states. With that in mind, several Greek sources do have a focus on interests beyond just the Greek world. We have accounts dealing with other parts of the Persian Empire originating from Greece in a way that we don't get with sources written from the Persian court.
In Susa and Persepolis, there seems to have been little interest, understanding, or even care as to what was happening in the provinces. Our sources deal with family and political intrigue, with personal stories of the elites of the empire that were being passed around the court. Indeed, it seems that this was the main form of history in Persia at the time; a form of oral history that focussed on lineage and family histories of elites at the centre of imperial rule. It certainly shows when Greek sources, including Herodotus, deal with some of the Persians close to their own understanding. Mardonius' family history became of interest to several Greek writers, for instance, in seeking to understand the man who ruled Greece after the Persian conquest. As such, when we read some of the stories of the Persian court, or of the central Persian government in Greece, it sounds very personalised and even fictional at times.
Mardonius:
Certainly, Mardonius is one of those figures who proves very dominant in early Greek history. In some sources, it is even a cause of confusion for many Greek writers, some of whom fail to see the distinction between Mardonius as a subject of a wider Persian empire and others who see him as an almost independent king ruling over Greece. His power, almost unprecedented in Greek history until this point, was of great interest to many writers. These accounts vary wildly. Some sources present Mardonius as close to a tyrant, oppressing Greeks left, right and centre while in others he is almost a prototypical 'good king', governing Greece with no small amount of wisdom and grace. By contrast, Xerxes ranges from being presented as an all-powerful king dominating Greece in every way, to being almost absent from some historical accounts. In some, Mardonius is nothing but an agent of Xerxes' will, in others, Xerxes is almost ignored as being some distant, almost powerless figure compared to Mardonius who absolutely dominates Greek politics.
Beyond Greek sources, we also have access to some of the chronicle accounts existing from Babylon and Egypt. These are most useful for our understanding of local history, most of them dealing with events taking place in local areas rather than those across the entire empire. That said, they are incredibly useful for these local accounts, especially for understanding the ways Persian kings interacted with the places they ruled. This certainly extends to our archaeological sources. Across the empire, the Persian kings built a lot. Persian rule also directly influenced a wide variety of different aspects of life, something which is reflected yet again in our archaeology.
It is worth taking a second to step back and deal with how we actually reconstruct the history of the Persian Empire. Part of the problem we have, at least for this period, is the sheer predominance of Greek sources for our history. The reality is that, at this point, the Persian Empire itself had little in the way of a 'historical tradition'. There had been a tradition of recording events in Babylonian, Egyptian and Assyrian history, but this doesn't seem to have taken off in Persia. We do have the Cyrus Cylinder, sent out by Cyrus the Great upon his conquest of Babylon, but this fit securely in the tradition of Babylonian kingship. We also have inscriptions such as the Darius inscription, carved into the mountain at Bisitun, and later inscriptions by his successors. However, these are poor sources of information after Darius. From the time of Xerxes onwards, these inscriptions become vaguer and vaguer, focussing on an idea of timelessness in royal ideology. What the Persians did have was an extensive administrative system with a lot of documentation contained within the Persepolis archives. Unfortunately, a lot of this has been lost over time, leaving us with little in the way of direct Persian sources, at least for the 5th Century.
So what do we have?
For the 5th Century, one of our main sources is the Greek historian Herodotus. Born in 484, Herodotus made it his mission to investigate the cause of the Persian domination of Greece, a mission that took into account a lot of other aspects of his contemporary world and the history of places he travelled. Living in the Persian Empire in the 5th Century, Herodotus was in a world that was well-connected, rich, and dominated by the Persian court. As part of his writing, Herodotus travelled throughout Greece, down to Egypt, and even to the courts at Susa and Persepolis. As he went, he recorded a lot of what he saw and experienced, interacting with different conceptions of history. The result is that we do have some understanding of what was going on in the Persian Empire at the time, both at the court itself and in Greece under Mardonius' rule.
We also have several later Greek sources, both from within Greece and from those who travelled to, and wrote in, the Persian court. What we see are two radically different views of the world. In Greece, the predominant focus is local; on conditions under Persian rule, on the interactions with Mardonius and his government, or on the interactions between different Greek states. With that in mind, several Greek sources do have a focus on interests beyond just the Greek world. We have accounts dealing with other parts of the Persian Empire originating from Greece in a way that we don't get with sources written from the Persian court.
In Susa and Persepolis, there seems to have been little interest, understanding, or even care as to what was happening in the provinces. Our sources deal with family and political intrigue, with personal stories of the elites of the empire that were being passed around the court. Indeed, it seems that this was the main form of history in Persia at the time; a form of oral history that focussed on lineage and family histories of elites at the centre of imperial rule. It certainly shows when Greek sources, including Herodotus, deal with some of the Persians close to their own understanding. Mardonius' family history became of interest to several Greek writers, for instance, in seeking to understand the man who ruled Greece after the Persian conquest. As such, when we read some of the stories of the Persian court, or of the central Persian government in Greece, it sounds very personalised and even fictional at times.
Mardonius:
Certainly, Mardonius is one of those figures who proves very dominant in early Greek history. In some sources, it is even a cause of confusion for many Greek writers, some of whom fail to see the distinction between Mardonius as a subject of a wider Persian empire and others who see him as an almost independent king ruling over Greece. His power, almost unprecedented in Greek history until this point, was of great interest to many writers. These accounts vary wildly. Some sources present Mardonius as close to a tyrant, oppressing Greeks left, right and centre while in others he is almost a prototypical 'good king', governing Greece with no small amount of wisdom and grace. By contrast, Xerxes ranges from being presented as an all-powerful king dominating Greece in every way, to being almost absent from some historical accounts. In some, Mardonius is nothing but an agent of Xerxes' will, in others, Xerxes is almost ignored as being some distant, almost powerless figure compared to Mardonius who absolutely dominates Greek politics.
Beyond Greek sources, we also have access to some of the chronicle accounts existing from Babylon and Egypt. These are most useful for our understanding of local history, most of them dealing with events taking place in local areas rather than those across the entire empire. That said, they are incredibly useful for these local accounts, especially for understanding the ways Persian kings interacted with the places they ruled. This certainly extends to our archaeological sources. Across the empire, the Persian kings built a lot. Persian rule also directly influenced a wide variety of different aspects of life, something which is reflected yet again in our archaeology.
Last edited:
Glad to see this story back, Persia is a favorite of mine and seeing what you do here with them
Chapter 5: Life on the Edge; Greece in the Satrapy of Mardonius
Mardonius I (478-461 BCE)
With much of the setup out of the way, we can finally begin to deal, it seems, with history. We begin, of course, with Mardonius. Typically, the satrapy of Mardonius is listed as taking place from 478 until 461, although some sources place him (oddly enough) as bein satrap from as early as 480 with Xerxes' invasion of Greece. Similarly, the exact date of his death is debated and has been placed as late as 459 or even 458. That said, it has been traditional to go with the reckoning given by Herodotus which places his death as taking place in the third year of the 79th Olympiad, aka. 461 BCE.
Typically, Mardonius' importance has ranged from being woefully underrepresented to massively overhyped. Simply put, it was Mardonius' job to turn Greece into a profitable outpost of the Persian Empire. The problem is that, as the first Persian satrap and the man who had really brought Greece to heel, the Greeks had very complex thoughts about Mardonius. His time as satrap was rarely easy or universally beloved in any way and his rule faced stringent opposition at every stage. The result is that it becomes difficult to actually assess how successful he really was at his job due to the endless complicating factors involved. That said, by the end of 478, Mardonius was broadly in charge of a portion of the Greek world. Directly, his satrapy ranged from Thessaly in the North to Athens in the South, ending at Megara where, we think, the Persian borders roughly ended.
The problem with this is that the Persians probably didn't see their borders as ending in such a strict way. For Xerxes, or anyone else living at the court in Persepolis or Susa, there was no reason to think of the Peloponnese, or even regions such as Aetolia as bein inherently 'outside' of their power. In fact, it is even hard for us to necessarily state that they were. We know that much of the Argolid paid tribute, albeit infrequently, and that Corinth was also firmly held within the Persian sphere of influence. Sure there were few Persian forts in the region, but they were hardly absent either; we know of some fortifications at Cape Maleas and Kythera as well as Persian agents active at the Isthmus to keep an eye on the movement of ships. Given the influence Mardonius held over politics in the Peloponnese, it hardly seems fair to mark the region as 'beyond Persian control'.
What it was was beyond the exact measurement of tribute contributions begun by Mardonius in imitation of what had taken place in Ionia. Probably beginning as early as 478, Mardonius began assessing the exact tribute to be drawn from each region of Greece as well as the best ways to receive it. That didn't mean that those outside of the satrapy weren't paying tribute. In 474, Herodotus gives an account of the first time that tribute was received at the Pythian Games, mentioning:
Tribute was being taken from all over the Greek world, not just from Thessaly, Boeotia, and Attica but from areas under Persian influence. It made sense; Mardonius had the power to influence the fates of these cities so paying tribute was one way to keep in his good books. Typically, tribute was to be rendered every year at either Delphi or Pagasaea (though typically the former was preferred) and, from 474, it was specifically collected at the beginning of the 4-yearly Pythian Games in August, a decision for which Mardonius was held to be particularly controversial.
That said, the involvement of Persian intervention in the Pythian Games (or any other Panhellenic games) was by no means new. The first case that we specifically know of took place in 477 when Mardonius was asked by Argos to send a delegate to the Nemean Games. year later, Mardonius also sent a delegate to the Olympic Games. The typical layout of the Panhellenic games worked on a four-year basis, centred around each Olympiad. In 476, for instance, was the beginning of the 76th Olympiad. The next year, in 475, both the Isthmian and Nemean games were held at the Isthmus and Nemea respectively (the second year of the Olympiad). In the third year, 474, the Pythian Games took place at Delphi before another year, in 473, of the Nemean and Isthmian Games and, finally, the beginning of the 77th Olympiad in 472 BCE.
This was an important calendar for Mardonius because it was an opportunity to connect with, and make displays to, a Panhellenic audience. In particular, the two biggest games at Olympia and Delphi drew very wide participation from across the Greek world, creating a chance for Mardonius to take part in politics, deal with disputes, and even just show his face. The addition of the issue of tribute to Pythia was another such opportunity for politics. In receiving tribute there, Mardonius could make a very public display of his power and control over the Greeks while also playing into the aspect of his own patronage of the event as being well in line with existing Greek prototypes. In 474, at the first Pythian Games tribute collection, he made a public display of giving over a portion of the tribute as a votive offering to Apollo and building the so-called 'Persian treasury' near the temple. Mardonius was far from the first non-Greek to give at Delphi and the construction of treasuries as a form of votive had long been popular in the Greek world, most famously that of the Siphnians built in 525. By building his own treasury at the site, Mardonius could make claim to be continuing in a long tradition of the Greek world, that of giving to the god at Delphi.
On the other hand, Greek cities could use these opportunities to connect with the Persian court as well. Disputes, requests, and even complaints were all brought by delegates, often at the time of tribute or at Panhellenic games. Similarly, the tradition of requesting a Persian delegate was a way to show support for, and allegiance to, the Persian government. It is no wonder, then, that both Corinth and Argos went out of their way to do so.
Corinth and Argos in Mardonius' World:
In the aftermath of the defeat of Sparta, Corinth quickly found common cause with Mardonius' government. Corinthian trade routes to the west had always been a concern of the city-state, bringing many of the raw materials needed to produce the goods that Corinth exported. Similarly, it was through the Gulf of Corinth that the city-state was able to keep its contact with their colonies in the western Mediterranean. At the same time, Mardonius needed control over the Gulf of Corinth to move tribute from Delphi and keep his position secure. Indeed, the Gulf of Corinth also provided a convenient place for Mardonius to extend his influence to the Northern Peloponnese, allowing him to keep a hand on the politics of the region.
To this end, their interests lined up nicely. Corinth and Persia could happily collaborate to protect both of their concerns in the Gulf, in return for which Mardonius expected continued Corinthian loyalty and the Corinthians expected continued Persian support for their own local aims. In 478, Mardonius had lessened the tribute levied on Corinth and installed the first Persian agents at the Isthmus with the job of keeping an eye on Persian shipping passing through. Over the next few years, Corinthian and Persian relations would grow deeper and stronger, both in politics and trade. It is important to remember that the Persian court in Greece was, in many ways, an economic entity in and of itself. Mardonius kept a certain amount of the tribute taken in by the Persian Empire, becoming exceptionally wealthy in the process.
Over the course of his rule, Mardonius invested heavily in the markets at Delphi, the port at Kirrha and the road infrastructure between the two. Along these routes, the Persian court traded extensively. Amongst the goods passing North were vases and textiles, metals, silver, grain, meat and a dozen other commodities desired in Mardonius' court. Corinth especially had long since had thriving pottery and textile industries, the latter often built on wool brought from Western Greece or even higher quality wool imported from Italian cities. Here too, textiles were not only produced but dyed in a variety of colours for sale, not just across Greece but in Mardonius' Persian court. Perhaps the most prestigious amongst these was the Hermoine purple, made from crushing murex off the coast of Hermoine and used as a sign of prestige and power in the Persian court. Most likely, Mardonius' court only bought already processed dyed goods but we do know that raw purple dyestuff was also taken as tribute back to Persepolis. The dyes used were likely mostly those that could be imported from across the Greek world, but they weren't the only ones. We are told of a wide variety of colours including even more exotic ones such as red from Sardis. In return, silver flowed back out of Mardonius' court and into the pockets of merchants across the Greek world.
Trade wasn't the only value these cities had. Corinth and Argos, especially, were also key players in maintaining the steady balance of power in the Peloponnese. It is uncertain to what degree Mardonius was actually worried about the possibility of the Peloponnese uniting against him, but he was likely aware of the risk that it would provoke rebellion in his satrapy. In many cities, most prominently Athens, but also in Thebes, and even at the centre of his power at Delphi and Amphikleia, there were serious reservations about the Persian government and a sense of hostility towards the yearly tribute collections. In particular, the presence of Mardonius' agents at Panhellenic games and sanctuaries seemed an especial insult. Usually, this wouldn't have been a problem. Non Greeks had been involved in these before, most famously in the case of Croesus in the 5th Century. The difference was that Mardonius came as a conqueror, one who had burnt several cities to the ground and now sat extorting money from Greece.
At this stage, though, these were only boiling under the surface. Local concerns prevailed for most Greek cities, rivalries that had long been extant continued and local issues remained the most important focus. But already, some were beginning to agitate against Mardonius' rule. The involvement of a unified league in the Peloponnese risked tipping this balance. To that end, Mardonius had to keep them divided. In this goal, his main agents were the cities of Corinth, Argos, and Messenia. Both Argos and Messenia relied, to some degree, on Persian support for their continued position in the Peloponnese. The Argives feared losing the Thyrean plain again, and it wasn't as if the Spartan threat had gone away exactly. Over the course of the 470s, therefore, Mardonius set about consolidating his position in these cities. Persian diplomats, Persian agents, even small Persian garrisons appeared.
Officially, these were delegations intended to represent Mardonius' interests. Unofficially, their real job was to keep Argos and Messenia in line with Persian goals for the Peloponnese going forward. It was a delicate balance but one that, for the most part, Mardonius kept going. Argos and Messenia were kept powerful, their walls rebuilt and their control over their surrounding regions kept secure. But they couldn't be kept too powerful, lest they think their position strong enough to rival Mardonius'. It was a delicate, and dangerous game and one that, if not carefully managed, could come back to bite Mardonius... and badly.
Mardonius I (478-461 BCE)
With much of the setup out of the way, we can finally begin to deal, it seems, with history. We begin, of course, with Mardonius. Typically, the satrapy of Mardonius is listed as taking place from 478 until 461, although some sources place him (oddly enough) as bein satrap from as early as 480 with Xerxes' invasion of Greece. Similarly, the exact date of his death is debated and has been placed as late as 459 or even 458. That said, it has been traditional to go with the reckoning given by Herodotus which places his death as taking place in the third year of the 79th Olympiad, aka. 461 BCE.
Typically, Mardonius' importance has ranged from being woefully underrepresented to massively overhyped. Simply put, it was Mardonius' job to turn Greece into a profitable outpost of the Persian Empire. The problem is that, as the first Persian satrap and the man who had really brought Greece to heel, the Greeks had very complex thoughts about Mardonius. His time as satrap was rarely easy or universally beloved in any way and his rule faced stringent opposition at every stage. The result is that it becomes difficult to actually assess how successful he really was at his job due to the endless complicating factors involved. That said, by the end of 478, Mardonius was broadly in charge of a portion of the Greek world. Directly, his satrapy ranged from Thessaly in the North to Athens in the South, ending at Megara where, we think, the Persian borders roughly ended.
The problem with this is that the Persians probably didn't see their borders as ending in such a strict way. For Xerxes, or anyone else living at the court in Persepolis or Susa, there was no reason to think of the Peloponnese, or even regions such as Aetolia as bein inherently 'outside' of their power. In fact, it is even hard for us to necessarily state that they were. We know that much of the Argolid paid tribute, albeit infrequently, and that Corinth was also firmly held within the Persian sphere of influence. Sure there were few Persian forts in the region, but they were hardly absent either; we know of some fortifications at Cape Maleas and Kythera as well as Persian agents active at the Isthmus to keep an eye on the movement of ships. Given the influence Mardonius held over politics in the Peloponnese, it hardly seems fair to mark the region as 'beyond Persian control'.
What it was was beyond the exact measurement of tribute contributions begun by Mardonius in imitation of what had taken place in Ionia. Probably beginning as early as 478, Mardonius began assessing the exact tribute to be drawn from each region of Greece as well as the best ways to receive it. That didn't mean that those outside of the satrapy weren't paying tribute. In 474, Herodotus gives an account of the first time that tribute was received at the Pythian Games, mentioning:
Tribute was being taken from all over the Greek world, not just from Thessaly, Boeotia, and Attica but from areas under Persian influence. It made sense; Mardonius had the power to influence the fates of these cities so paying tribute was one way to keep in his good books. Typically, tribute was to be rendered every year at either Delphi or Pagasaea (though typically the former was preferred) and, from 474, it was specifically collected at the beginning of the 4-yearly Pythian Games in August, a decision for which Mardonius was held to be particularly controversial.
That said, the involvement of Persian intervention in the Pythian Games (or any other Panhellenic games) was by no means new. The first case that we specifically know of took place in 477 when Mardonius was asked by Argos to send a delegate to the Nemean Games. year later, Mardonius also sent a delegate to the Olympic Games. The typical layout of the Panhellenic games worked on a four-year basis, centred around each Olympiad. In 476, for instance, was the beginning of the 76th Olympiad. The next year, in 475, both the Isthmian and Nemean games were held at the Isthmus and Nemea respectively (the second year of the Olympiad). In the third year, 474, the Pythian Games took place at Delphi before another year, in 473, of the Nemean and Isthmian Games and, finally, the beginning of the 77th Olympiad in 472 BCE.
This was an important calendar for Mardonius because it was an opportunity to connect with, and make displays to, a Panhellenic audience. In particular, the two biggest games at Olympia and Delphi drew very wide participation from across the Greek world, creating a chance for Mardonius to take part in politics, deal with disputes, and even just show his face. The addition of the issue of tribute to Pythia was another such opportunity for politics. In receiving tribute there, Mardonius could make a very public display of his power and control over the Greeks while also playing into the aspect of his own patronage of the event as being well in line with existing Greek prototypes. In 474, at the first Pythian Games tribute collection, he made a public display of giving over a portion of the tribute as a votive offering to Apollo and building the so-called 'Persian treasury' near the temple. Mardonius was far from the first non-Greek to give at Delphi and the construction of treasuries as a form of votive had long been popular in the Greek world, most famously that of the Siphnians built in 525. By building his own treasury at the site, Mardonius could make claim to be continuing in a long tradition of the Greek world, that of giving to the god at Delphi.
On the other hand, Greek cities could use these opportunities to connect with the Persian court as well. Disputes, requests, and even complaints were all brought by delegates, often at the time of tribute or at Panhellenic games. Similarly, the tradition of requesting a Persian delegate was a way to show support for, and allegiance to, the Persian government. It is no wonder, then, that both Corinth and Argos went out of their way to do so.
Corinth and Argos in Mardonius' World:
In the aftermath of the defeat of Sparta, Corinth quickly found common cause with Mardonius' government. Corinthian trade routes to the west had always been a concern of the city-state, bringing many of the raw materials needed to produce the goods that Corinth exported. Similarly, it was through the Gulf of Corinth that the city-state was able to keep its contact with their colonies in the western Mediterranean. At the same time, Mardonius needed control over the Gulf of Corinth to move tribute from Delphi and keep his position secure. Indeed, the Gulf of Corinth also provided a convenient place for Mardonius to extend his influence to the Northern Peloponnese, allowing him to keep a hand on the politics of the region.
To this end, their interests lined up nicely. Corinth and Persia could happily collaborate to protect both of their concerns in the Gulf, in return for which Mardonius expected continued Corinthian loyalty and the Corinthians expected continued Persian support for their own local aims. In 478, Mardonius had lessened the tribute levied on Corinth and installed the first Persian agents at the Isthmus with the job of keeping an eye on Persian shipping passing through. Over the next few years, Corinthian and Persian relations would grow deeper and stronger, both in politics and trade. It is important to remember that the Persian court in Greece was, in many ways, an economic entity in and of itself. Mardonius kept a certain amount of the tribute taken in by the Persian Empire, becoming exceptionally wealthy in the process.
Over the course of his rule, Mardonius invested heavily in the markets at Delphi, the port at Kirrha and the road infrastructure between the two. Along these routes, the Persian court traded extensively. Amongst the goods passing North were vases and textiles, metals, silver, grain, meat and a dozen other commodities desired in Mardonius' court. Corinth especially had long since had thriving pottery and textile industries, the latter often built on wool brought from Western Greece or even higher quality wool imported from Italian cities. Here too, textiles were not only produced but dyed in a variety of colours for sale, not just across Greece but in Mardonius' Persian court. Perhaps the most prestigious amongst these was the Hermoine purple, made from crushing murex off the coast of Hermoine and used as a sign of prestige and power in the Persian court. Most likely, Mardonius' court only bought already processed dyed goods but we do know that raw purple dyestuff was also taken as tribute back to Persepolis. The dyes used were likely mostly those that could be imported from across the Greek world, but they weren't the only ones. We are told of a wide variety of colours including even more exotic ones such as red from Sardis. In return, silver flowed back out of Mardonius' court and into the pockets of merchants across the Greek world.
Trade wasn't the only value these cities had. Corinth and Argos, especially, were also key players in maintaining the steady balance of power in the Peloponnese. It is uncertain to what degree Mardonius was actually worried about the possibility of the Peloponnese uniting against him, but he was likely aware of the risk that it would provoke rebellion in his satrapy. In many cities, most prominently Athens, but also in Thebes, and even at the centre of his power at Delphi and Amphikleia, there were serious reservations about the Persian government and a sense of hostility towards the yearly tribute collections. In particular, the presence of Mardonius' agents at Panhellenic games and sanctuaries seemed an especial insult. Usually, this wouldn't have been a problem. Non Greeks had been involved in these before, most famously in the case of Croesus in the 5th Century. The difference was that Mardonius came as a conqueror, one who had burnt several cities to the ground and now sat extorting money from Greece.
At this stage, though, these were only boiling under the surface. Local concerns prevailed for most Greek cities, rivalries that had long been extant continued and local issues remained the most important focus. But already, some were beginning to agitate against Mardonius' rule. The involvement of a unified league in the Peloponnese risked tipping this balance. To that end, Mardonius had to keep them divided. In this goal, his main agents were the cities of Corinth, Argos, and Messenia. Both Argos and Messenia relied, to some degree, on Persian support for their continued position in the Peloponnese. The Argives feared losing the Thyrean plain again, and it wasn't as if the Spartan threat had gone away exactly. Over the course of the 470s, therefore, Mardonius set about consolidating his position in these cities. Persian diplomats, Persian agents, even small Persian garrisons appeared.
Officially, these were delegations intended to represent Mardonius' interests. Unofficially, their real job was to keep Argos and Messenia in line with Persian goals for the Peloponnese going forward. It was a delicate balance but one that, for the most part, Mardonius kept going. Argos and Messenia were kept powerful, their walls rebuilt and their control over their surrounding regions kept secure. But they couldn't be kept too powerful, lest they think their position strong enough to rival Mardonius'. It was a delicate, and dangerous game and one that, if not carefully managed, could come back to bite Mardonius... and badly.
Interesting development, it seems Mardonius is gonna have to be real careful when dealing with the Greek cities, playing divide and conquer to it's best abilities and strengthening the ones who favor the Persians so they can be a counterweight to independence, all the while ensuring they won't get too powerful to try and break off, makes me wonder what could happen to upset this delicate status quo.
Is there a chance that rebellion breaks out when Mardonius dies?
Also what are the cultural effects on Greece and Macedon by Persian administration?
Chapter 6: Borderlands of Empire: Hegemony and Imperialism in the Persian World
The first thing to understand is that the Persian conception of their empire extended far beyond their actual territorial, or administrative, reach. In truth, Mardonius' political power was broadly centred on the region from Thessaly to Attica but was generally rather piecemeal even within that territory. Maintaining Persian domination was a case of constant political, economic, and cultural negotiation between the Persian imperial government and the Greek city-states. It was too far from the Persian heartland (and too large an area) to feasibly leave without any actual direct form of governance, but keeping that governance intact and maintained was difficult to do. Then, of course, there was the periphery of the empire. This was the Peloponnese, Aetolia, Acarnania and all the many rural regions of mainland Greece that were still hard to reach or impose central control over. Persian imperial ideology maintained that these regions, also, were part of their empire. They may not have paid tribute, but they certainly acted in the ways the Persians wanted them to when they wanted them to.
Also worth bearing in mind is that tribute, in terms of gold and wealth, was not the only thing the Persians wanted from their empire. Indeed, the empire was there to be exploited for whatever it could provide. Sometimes that was gold and silver, sometimes it was labour, sometimes it was just soldiers. On occasion, this tribute took part via a process of gift exchange in which the Persian government gave gifts of gold in return for services of various kinds. Understand these were not mercenaries in the way they have often been interpreted. The soldiers often hired through these gifts of gold were state actors. Instead, the Persians were simply finding ways to exploit these peoples without the need to actually march in and crush them.
This, for sure, was the case with groups such as the Aetolians and Acarnanians. It was from these groups that Mardonius recruited much of the light infantry for his armies and upon whom he often relied to help police the regions around Delphi and Pagasaea. Certainly, it was also the case with other groups on the periphery of his satrapy including both Messenians and Argives. These same groups were also available to render service when, in 472 BCE, Messenia and Argos were directed to enter Laconia and maintain the status quo he had established several years earlier.
On the other hand, existing on the periphery like this gave other opportunities to those same groups. In particular, the period of the 470s saw the increasing growth of both Argive and Corinthian power in the Peloponnese at the expense of other cities that were less closely aligned with Mardonius' interests. By 473 at the latest, Messenia and Argos were close allies and increasingly involved themselves directly in Laconian affairs with little in the way of Persian opposition. In Aetolia too, communities aligned with Persian interests such as Thermon grew extensively at the expense of their neighbours. In particular, the flow of Persian gold, silver, and other prestige goods led to the enrichment of those willing to provide soldiers, labour, and other services to the Persian court at Delphi and Pagasaea.
Alongside these came ever-increased access to other, more exotic, goods. Aromatics, ebony, ivory, and a dozen other goods were imported in huge quantities. These had already been available before the Persian conquest but their availability, and frequency of import increased. Mardonius' court was a big consumer but so were those trying to imitate it. By the mid-460s, ivory kline were popular amongst the richest of the elite in Argos, Corinth, Thermon and even further abroad in Kephallenia. By the 430s, we see similar imitations in Magna Graecia. At the same time, these were not outright copies of Persian trends and ideas, but show an active engagement and adjustment of styles being used in Persia. In turn, this was often a two-way process. Excavations of the later, post-Mardonian, Persian court at Pagasaea found Greco-Persian statues of Apollo and Athena rendered in chryselephantine and marble and often combining both Greek naturalism and Persian stylised patterning in their designs.
Then there were other, more base, goods such as grain which continued to be imported from the Black Sea in high quantities. Cities such as Athens or Aegina were, obviously, major players in the Black Sea grain trade, but so too was Mardonius' court which apparently had little love for the barley grown in high quantities across mainland Greece. Alongside this was the ever-present trade in people, largely from the Black Sea and Thrace but with an increasing number of people from Nabataea and Nubia throughout the early 5th Century. It is hard to underestimate the degree to which slavery dominated the Greek world as well as the sheer ubiquity of its usage amongst both Greeks and non-Greeks. Even Mardonius' armies included large quantities of slave labour.
In particular, the forces raised by Mardonius in 463 BCE included some 2000 Thessalian cavalry. Estimates have suggested that perhaps only a hundred of these were free men, largely from powerful aristocratic families and joined by hundreds of penestai (the Thessalian slave clans, often mobilised for warfare in huge quantities). Greek soldiers in the field were supported by slaves who acted in largely logistical roles. Given that Mardonius' armed forces included a significant number of Greek soldiers, we must presume that huge numbers of slaves were present at every military event in his time as satrap. On top of this were slaves in agriculture, production, workshops, ships and a dozen other areas of daily life that supported both the Greek city-states and the Persian regime within the country. Exact numbers are nearly impossible to gauge but the likelihood is that there was at least some increase in the numbers of slaves being brought into the Greek world in the early 5th Century.
On top of this was a variety of other forms of population movement. In particular, Persia required huge quantities of physical labour in a variety of areas, not least building projects. Greek craftsmen, labourers, quarriers, miners and architects moved back and forth the Greek world in large numbers as Mardonius set about building, and maintaining, the physical infrastructure of his satrapy. This was not just arsenals and palaces but included roads and way stations, post-offices and a whole administrative apparatus for maintaining and watching over the movement of goods, letters, and tributes. These were often joined by other workers from Asia Minor, Egypt, and even Phoenicia. Indeed, a description of the naval arsenal at Megara records over a thousand Phoenician sailors and craftsmen working on ships for a whole variety of purposes.
Then there is the movement in ideas and the imitation, back and forth, of different concepts of government, the army etc. By the 440s at the latest, Thessalian cavalry had begun to adopt shields and increasingly heavy cavalry in imitation of Persian cavalry (which, in turn, had taken inspiration from Central Asian cavalries such as that of the Saka). Obviously, it was a slow process of adoption and only a few Thessalian cavalrymen were ever fully armoured during this period. In the realms of infantry, the Persian sparabara system was quite enthusiastically adapted by some Greek cities, especially those on the borders of the empire. The sparabara system was an organisation of infantry involving a line of infantry equipped with a wicker spara (or large shield) and supported by a large archer-corps behind who could quickly switch from ranged fire to melee combat if needed. In effect, it was a mixed infantry-skirmisher formation that slotted nicely in with the Persian doctrine of combined-arms warfare.
By contrast, Greek warfare was decidedly amateurish. Without any sense of military training, no real concept of tactical doctrines and an inability to maintain a professional, or standardised, army, the Greek army was a very mixed bag. At the time of the Persian invasion, Greek armies were dominated by lightly armed infantry performing hit-and-run attacks with, at most, a few heavier armed spearmen in the mix. To be a hoplite, a Greek only needed to have a shield and spear and very few people actually ever had a full hoplite panoply. Alongside these was a mass of skirmishers fighting with whatever they could find and making up the majority of the army. In the field, the Persians had run circles around the Greeks who lacked any serious counter to the Persian cavalry and often suffered when it came to serious engagements with the heavier armed, and better trained, Persian infantry.
This didn't mean that the Greeks were totally incapable of defeating a Persian army, they had done so at Marathon after all, but it did mean that those victories were few and far between and usually took place on occasions where the Persians were unable to fully use the true flexibility and variety of their armed forces. At Marathon, for instance, it had been the inability of the Persians to use their cavalry, a surprise attack (which prevented the sparabara from being used to its full extent) and ultimately a very successful Athenian charge which had turned the tide into defeat.
Scattered attempts at imitating the sparabara began as early as the 470s but these were few and far between. For the most part, Greek warfare worked much the same and developed in its own ways. In particular, the general trend towards the formation of thicker blocks of heavy infantry (blocks excluding light skirmishers to either the wings or rear) continued unabated in many parts of Greece. By the 450s, most likely, the hoplite phalanx was being deployed in parts of the Greek world. On the other hand, however, this was also being met by a sparabara-dominated doctrine emerging in parts of the Peloponnese and, especially, Aetolia and Acarnania. Of course, like a phalanx, the sparabara was not about to just pop up overnight, but it has often been reckoned that the popularity of sparabara-inspired doctrines in Aetolia and Acarnania links back to their already existing heavy use of peltasts. In truth, a 'Greek sparabara' wouldn't occur in any meaningful sense until closer to the end of the 5th Century and didn't emerge as a feasible tactic to be employed on a larger scale until the 4th Century. Indeed, even when it did actually emerge in Greek warfare, what we see in Greece is not, in fact, a sparabara but a descendant form of warfare from the older Aetolian peltast-driven warfare of the 6th Century.
Particularly important in the innovations taking place beyond the areas of Persian domination were the towns of Thermos, a major religious centre for the Aetolians, and Naupactos which, as of the 460s, was under Corinthian domination. Naupactos was the main entry harbour to the Gulf of Corinth and a crucial naval station for anyone wanting to control trade going to the west from the gulf. For Mardonius, the whole thing was less important; his main focus was on transporting goods either over the Isthmus into the Saronic Gulf, or via Pagasaea and across the Aegean. However, for the Corinthians who had an extensive business in Italy and along the western coast of Greece, Naupactos was important for protecting their own trade.
There does seem to have been at least one Persian agent present at the port under Mardonius, likely to keep an eye on what exactly was being transported and to ensure that no pirates entered the Gulf of Corinth. Generally, however, Naupactos was of more importance to the Corinthians than it was to the Persians. On the other hand, the city was not far from Thermon and frequently became a point of contention between the people of Naupactos and the Aetolians of the region. The town sat on the coast at the base of the Naupactian mountains. Thermon, on the other hand, lay in the rugged interior of Aetolia near the banks of Lake Trichonida which sat within a well-watered basin. Here, it acted as something of a religious heartland for the Aetolians and a major shrine to Apollo. Indeed, it quickly became typical that Persian ambassadors meeting with Aetolians would choose Thermon as a base for diplomatic engagement.
This created one of the more tricky diplomatic situations for Mardonius beginning in the early 460s. Simply put, Corinthian domination of Naupactos was essential for Corinthian trade and access to their colonies in the Adriatic. However, Naupactos was also a target for Aetolian raiders and would-be conquerors. Aetolian piracy was a major issue and if Naupactos fell, then the Gulf lay wide open to potential plundering raids and attacks on Corinthian shipping. The problem was that Mardonius saw little gain in either Corinth or the Aetolians being particularly 'triumphant'. He didn't care about Aetolian raids beyond the Gulf, but allowing pirates to potentially interfere with the movement of goods to and from Delphi was unacceptable. Not to mention, he couldn't antagonise Corinth because of their naval power and their role as an intermediary along the Isthmus of Corinth.
However, keeping the Aetolians placid was also crucial for maintaining security in Western Phocis and preventing Mardonius from actually having to launch any campaigns into the region. On top of this, Persian imperial ideology held that the Aetolians were effectively already subject and if they turned against Mardonius, it would be tantamount to rebellion which would have to be crushed as a show of Persian power. The trick was keeping a balance there between the various Aetolian peoples, especially those around Thermon, and the Greeks of Naupactos and Corinth. Then there was the Peloponnese where relations between Corinth and Argos varied wildly over time, especially as the Argives strengthened their grip on Northern Laconia and struck up alliances in the fertile lands of Messenia. There, Corinth and Argos both formed important lynchpins of Mardonius' power and any break between the two threatened to spiral out of control.
Needless to say, it was in these regions that the most active back and forth influences were taking place. Mardonius was effectively forced to keep an active diplomatic presence in both regions in an attempt to keep the various groups balanced and make sure that they didn't interfere with Persian interests. Of course, on occasion this was simply impossible. In 467 BCE, Mardonius intervened to defend Naupactos on behalf of Corinth, leading a short campaign into the Naupactian mountains with little actual success beyond driving off an attack from Thermon. By 465, however, relations had been largely restored and we are told that Thermon sent 300 peltasts to an assembly of troops (these were supposedly called across the empire yearly, though seem to have been rather stop-start in Greece).
For now, at least, the situation remained stable. In the end, of course, it was not Aetolia that proved the tipping point for Mardonius. Since his arrival in Greece, Argos had been rapidly propelled from power to power and was now finding itself in a position to extend its sway further than ever before.
The first thing to understand is that the Persian conception of their empire extended far beyond their actual territorial, or administrative, reach. In truth, Mardonius' political power was broadly centred on the region from Thessaly to Attica but was generally rather piecemeal even within that territory. Maintaining Persian domination was a case of constant political, economic, and cultural negotiation between the Persian imperial government and the Greek city-states. It was too far from the Persian heartland (and too large an area) to feasibly leave without any actual direct form of governance, but keeping that governance intact and maintained was difficult to do. Then, of course, there was the periphery of the empire. This was the Peloponnese, Aetolia, Acarnania and all the many rural regions of mainland Greece that were still hard to reach or impose central control over. Persian imperial ideology maintained that these regions, also, were part of their empire. They may not have paid tribute, but they certainly acted in the ways the Persians wanted them to when they wanted them to.
Also worth bearing in mind is that tribute, in terms of gold and wealth, was not the only thing the Persians wanted from their empire. Indeed, the empire was there to be exploited for whatever it could provide. Sometimes that was gold and silver, sometimes it was labour, sometimes it was just soldiers. On occasion, this tribute took part via a process of gift exchange in which the Persian government gave gifts of gold in return for services of various kinds. Understand these were not mercenaries in the way they have often been interpreted. The soldiers often hired through these gifts of gold were state actors. Instead, the Persians were simply finding ways to exploit these peoples without the need to actually march in and crush them.
This, for sure, was the case with groups such as the Aetolians and Acarnanians. It was from these groups that Mardonius recruited much of the light infantry for his armies and upon whom he often relied to help police the regions around Delphi and Pagasaea. Certainly, it was also the case with other groups on the periphery of his satrapy including both Messenians and Argives. These same groups were also available to render service when, in 472 BCE, Messenia and Argos were directed to enter Laconia and maintain the status quo he had established several years earlier.
On the other hand, existing on the periphery like this gave other opportunities to those same groups. In particular, the period of the 470s saw the increasing growth of both Argive and Corinthian power in the Peloponnese at the expense of other cities that were less closely aligned with Mardonius' interests. By 473 at the latest, Messenia and Argos were close allies and increasingly involved themselves directly in Laconian affairs with little in the way of Persian opposition. In Aetolia too, communities aligned with Persian interests such as Thermon grew extensively at the expense of their neighbours. In particular, the flow of Persian gold, silver, and other prestige goods led to the enrichment of those willing to provide soldiers, labour, and other services to the Persian court at Delphi and Pagasaea.
Alongside these came ever-increased access to other, more exotic, goods. Aromatics, ebony, ivory, and a dozen other goods were imported in huge quantities. These had already been available before the Persian conquest but their availability, and frequency of import increased. Mardonius' court was a big consumer but so were those trying to imitate it. By the mid-460s, ivory kline were popular amongst the richest of the elite in Argos, Corinth, Thermon and even further abroad in Kephallenia. By the 430s, we see similar imitations in Magna Graecia. At the same time, these were not outright copies of Persian trends and ideas, but show an active engagement and adjustment of styles being used in Persia. In turn, this was often a two-way process. Excavations of the later, post-Mardonian, Persian court at Pagasaea found Greco-Persian statues of Apollo and Athena rendered in chryselephantine and marble and often combining both Greek naturalism and Persian stylised patterning in their designs.
Then there were other, more base, goods such as grain which continued to be imported from the Black Sea in high quantities. Cities such as Athens or Aegina were, obviously, major players in the Black Sea grain trade, but so too was Mardonius' court which apparently had little love for the barley grown in high quantities across mainland Greece. Alongside this was the ever-present trade in people, largely from the Black Sea and Thrace but with an increasing number of people from Nabataea and Nubia throughout the early 5th Century. It is hard to underestimate the degree to which slavery dominated the Greek world as well as the sheer ubiquity of its usage amongst both Greeks and non-Greeks. Even Mardonius' armies included large quantities of slave labour.
In particular, the forces raised by Mardonius in 463 BCE included some 2000 Thessalian cavalry. Estimates have suggested that perhaps only a hundred of these were free men, largely from powerful aristocratic families and joined by hundreds of penestai (the Thessalian slave clans, often mobilised for warfare in huge quantities). Greek soldiers in the field were supported by slaves who acted in largely logistical roles. Given that Mardonius' armed forces included a significant number of Greek soldiers, we must presume that huge numbers of slaves were present at every military event in his time as satrap. On top of this were slaves in agriculture, production, workshops, ships and a dozen other areas of daily life that supported both the Greek city-states and the Persian regime within the country. Exact numbers are nearly impossible to gauge but the likelihood is that there was at least some increase in the numbers of slaves being brought into the Greek world in the early 5th Century.
On top of this was a variety of other forms of population movement. In particular, Persia required huge quantities of physical labour in a variety of areas, not least building projects. Greek craftsmen, labourers, quarriers, miners and architects moved back and forth the Greek world in large numbers as Mardonius set about building, and maintaining, the physical infrastructure of his satrapy. This was not just arsenals and palaces but included roads and way stations, post-offices and a whole administrative apparatus for maintaining and watching over the movement of goods, letters, and tributes. These were often joined by other workers from Asia Minor, Egypt, and even Phoenicia. Indeed, a description of the naval arsenal at Megara records over a thousand Phoenician sailors and craftsmen working on ships for a whole variety of purposes.
Then there is the movement in ideas and the imitation, back and forth, of different concepts of government, the army etc. By the 440s at the latest, Thessalian cavalry had begun to adopt shields and increasingly heavy cavalry in imitation of Persian cavalry (which, in turn, had taken inspiration from Central Asian cavalries such as that of the Saka). Obviously, it was a slow process of adoption and only a few Thessalian cavalrymen were ever fully armoured during this period. In the realms of infantry, the Persian sparabara system was quite enthusiastically adapted by some Greek cities, especially those on the borders of the empire. The sparabara system was an organisation of infantry involving a line of infantry equipped with a wicker spara (or large shield) and supported by a large archer-corps behind who could quickly switch from ranged fire to melee combat if needed. In effect, it was a mixed infantry-skirmisher formation that slotted nicely in with the Persian doctrine of combined-arms warfare.
By contrast, Greek warfare was decidedly amateurish. Without any sense of military training, no real concept of tactical doctrines and an inability to maintain a professional, or standardised, army, the Greek army was a very mixed bag. At the time of the Persian invasion, Greek armies were dominated by lightly armed infantry performing hit-and-run attacks with, at most, a few heavier armed spearmen in the mix. To be a hoplite, a Greek only needed to have a shield and spear and very few people actually ever had a full hoplite panoply. Alongside these was a mass of skirmishers fighting with whatever they could find and making up the majority of the army. In the field, the Persians had run circles around the Greeks who lacked any serious counter to the Persian cavalry and often suffered when it came to serious engagements with the heavier armed, and better trained, Persian infantry.
This didn't mean that the Greeks were totally incapable of defeating a Persian army, they had done so at Marathon after all, but it did mean that those victories were few and far between and usually took place on occasions where the Persians were unable to fully use the true flexibility and variety of their armed forces. At Marathon, for instance, it had been the inability of the Persians to use their cavalry, a surprise attack (which prevented the sparabara from being used to its full extent) and ultimately a very successful Athenian charge which had turned the tide into defeat.
Scattered attempts at imitating the sparabara began as early as the 470s but these were few and far between. For the most part, Greek warfare worked much the same and developed in its own ways. In particular, the general trend towards the formation of thicker blocks of heavy infantry (blocks excluding light skirmishers to either the wings or rear) continued unabated in many parts of Greece. By the 450s, most likely, the hoplite phalanx was being deployed in parts of the Greek world. On the other hand, however, this was also being met by a sparabara-dominated doctrine emerging in parts of the Peloponnese and, especially, Aetolia and Acarnania. Of course, like a phalanx, the sparabara was not about to just pop up overnight, but it has often been reckoned that the popularity of sparabara-inspired doctrines in Aetolia and Acarnania links back to their already existing heavy use of peltasts. In truth, a 'Greek sparabara' wouldn't occur in any meaningful sense until closer to the end of the 5th Century and didn't emerge as a feasible tactic to be employed on a larger scale until the 4th Century. Indeed, even when it did actually emerge in Greek warfare, what we see in Greece is not, in fact, a sparabara but a descendant form of warfare from the older Aetolian peltast-driven warfare of the 6th Century.
Particularly important in the innovations taking place beyond the areas of Persian domination were the towns of Thermos, a major religious centre for the Aetolians, and Naupactos which, as of the 460s, was under Corinthian domination. Naupactos was the main entry harbour to the Gulf of Corinth and a crucial naval station for anyone wanting to control trade going to the west from the gulf. For Mardonius, the whole thing was less important; his main focus was on transporting goods either over the Isthmus into the Saronic Gulf, or via Pagasaea and across the Aegean. However, for the Corinthians who had an extensive business in Italy and along the western coast of Greece, Naupactos was important for protecting their own trade.
There does seem to have been at least one Persian agent present at the port under Mardonius, likely to keep an eye on what exactly was being transported and to ensure that no pirates entered the Gulf of Corinth. Generally, however, Naupactos was of more importance to the Corinthians than it was to the Persians. On the other hand, the city was not far from Thermon and frequently became a point of contention between the people of Naupactos and the Aetolians of the region. The town sat on the coast at the base of the Naupactian mountains. Thermon, on the other hand, lay in the rugged interior of Aetolia near the banks of Lake Trichonida which sat within a well-watered basin. Here, it acted as something of a religious heartland for the Aetolians and a major shrine to Apollo. Indeed, it quickly became typical that Persian ambassadors meeting with Aetolians would choose Thermon as a base for diplomatic engagement.
This created one of the more tricky diplomatic situations for Mardonius beginning in the early 460s. Simply put, Corinthian domination of Naupactos was essential for Corinthian trade and access to their colonies in the Adriatic. However, Naupactos was also a target for Aetolian raiders and would-be conquerors. Aetolian piracy was a major issue and if Naupactos fell, then the Gulf lay wide open to potential plundering raids and attacks on Corinthian shipping. The problem was that Mardonius saw little gain in either Corinth or the Aetolians being particularly 'triumphant'. He didn't care about Aetolian raids beyond the Gulf, but allowing pirates to potentially interfere with the movement of goods to and from Delphi was unacceptable. Not to mention, he couldn't antagonise Corinth because of their naval power and their role as an intermediary along the Isthmus of Corinth.
However, keeping the Aetolians placid was also crucial for maintaining security in Western Phocis and preventing Mardonius from actually having to launch any campaigns into the region. On top of this, Persian imperial ideology held that the Aetolians were effectively already subject and if they turned against Mardonius, it would be tantamount to rebellion which would have to be crushed as a show of Persian power. The trick was keeping a balance there between the various Aetolian peoples, especially those around Thermon, and the Greeks of Naupactos and Corinth. Then there was the Peloponnese where relations between Corinth and Argos varied wildly over time, especially as the Argives strengthened their grip on Northern Laconia and struck up alliances in the fertile lands of Messenia. There, Corinth and Argos both formed important lynchpins of Mardonius' power and any break between the two threatened to spiral out of control.
Needless to say, it was in these regions that the most active back and forth influences were taking place. Mardonius was effectively forced to keep an active diplomatic presence in both regions in an attempt to keep the various groups balanced and make sure that they didn't interfere with Persian interests. Of course, on occasion this was simply impossible. In 467 BCE, Mardonius intervened to defend Naupactos on behalf of Corinth, leading a short campaign into the Naupactian mountains with little actual success beyond driving off an attack from Thermon. By 465, however, relations had been largely restored and we are told that Thermon sent 300 peltasts to an assembly of troops (these were supposedly called across the empire yearly, though seem to have been rather stop-start in Greece).
For now, at least, the situation remained stable. In the end, of course, it was not Aetolia that proved the tipping point for Mardonius. Since his arrival in Greece, Argos had been rapidly propelled from power to power and was now finding itself in a position to extend its sway further than ever before.
Great chapter, as always.
And so Persian culture and tastes start to spread. I wonder how Persianized future ""nationalist"" Greek rebels will be?
And so Persian culture and tastes start to spread. I wonder how Persianized future ""nationalist"" Greek rebels will be?