DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.748#0085
JO ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE.
The fall of Croesus did but change the master by whom a
certain proportion of the produce of the land was levied, the
internal administration remaining almost unaltered. It is a
noteworthy fact that the collectors of the tithes were more
frequently Greeks than Persians. That the tribute was often
oppressive there can be no doubt; but this was apparently
rather owing to individual exactions of the agents than to
unreasonable demands on the part of the Persian monarch.
The entire tax required from the Hellespontians of the south-
ern coast, Phrygians, Asiatic Thracians, Paphlagonians, Ma-
riandynians, and Syrians (i. e. Cappadocians),1 — namely, three
hundred and sixty talents yearly, — does not appear excessive.
Assos must have been too long accustomed to dependence
upon foreign rulers to feel that exasperation at the supremacy
of the Persians which, in Greece, led to the later victories of
Salamis, Plataea, and Mycale.
After these signal defeats the Barbarians were driven
from the Asiatic coasts of the ^Egean. Herodotus concisely
states,2 that before the invasion of Xerxes there were Persian
governors in Thrace and on the Hellespont; and that these,
with the sole exception of Mascames, in Doriscus, were after-
wards driven out by the Greeks. The resistance of the
fortified Sestos was an exception deemed worthy of especial
remark.8
It is probable that the towns of the Troad were freed by
the fall of Byzantium (477 b. a), if, indeed, the Persians re-
mained in the land after their decisive defeat at Mycale
(479 b. a). To maintain communication open between the
JEgean and the Pontus, it must have been of primary im-
portance to assure the freedom and fidelity of the Troad.
The rapid growth of the Athenian state led to its alliance
1 Herodotus, iii. 90. 2 Herodotus, vii. 106.
8 Herodotus, ix. 114, 118.
The fall of Croesus did but change the master by whom a
certain proportion of the produce of the land was levied, the
internal administration remaining almost unaltered. It is a
noteworthy fact that the collectors of the tithes were more
frequently Greeks than Persians. That the tribute was often
oppressive there can be no doubt; but this was apparently
rather owing to individual exactions of the agents than to
unreasonable demands on the part of the Persian monarch.
The entire tax required from the Hellespontians of the south-
ern coast, Phrygians, Asiatic Thracians, Paphlagonians, Ma-
riandynians, and Syrians (i. e. Cappadocians),1 — namely, three
hundred and sixty talents yearly, — does not appear excessive.
Assos must have been too long accustomed to dependence
upon foreign rulers to feel that exasperation at the supremacy
of the Persians which, in Greece, led to the later victories of
Salamis, Plataea, and Mycale.
After these signal defeats the Barbarians were driven
from the Asiatic coasts of the ^Egean. Herodotus concisely
states,2 that before the invasion of Xerxes there were Persian
governors in Thrace and on the Hellespont; and that these,
with the sole exception of Mascames, in Doriscus, were after-
wards driven out by the Greeks. The resistance of the
fortified Sestos was an exception deemed worthy of especial
remark.8
It is probable that the towns of the Troad were freed by
the fall of Byzantium (477 b. a), if, indeed, the Persians re-
mained in the land after their decisive defeat at Mycale
(479 b. a). To maintain communication open between the
JEgean and the Pontus, it must have been of primary im-
portance to assure the freedom and fidelity of the Troad.
The rapid growth of the Athenian state led to its alliance
1 Herodotus, iii. 90. 2 Herodotus, vii. 106.
8 Herodotus, ix. 114, 118.