This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
τὸ ... ἀπολιπόντες τοὺς Ἴωνας. Grote's suggestion (iv. 217) that the withdrawal of the Athenians was due to ‘some glaring desertion on the part of their Asiatic allies’ is a mere conjecture. It is far more probable that the withdrawal of Athens, like the abstention of Sparta from all part in the war (Appendix XVII, § 3), was caused by more pressing needs nearer home. Twenty ships could not be kept permanently across the Aegean while Aegina with a superior navy (vi. 89) controlled the Saronic gulf. It may be, too, that the patriotic party had lost power at Athens. In 496-495 Hipparchus, son of Charmus, the leader of the Pisistratids, was elected first archon (Dion. Hal. v. 77; vi. 1; cf. Ar. Ath. Pol. 22), and the Alcmaeonids seem to have been willing both earlier and later (ch. 73 n.; Appendix XVIII, § 6) to make terms with Persia. Miltiades had not yet returned from the Chersonese to lead the patriots, though there must have been many at Athens reluctant to leave Miletus to its fate (cf. vi. 21 n.).
Βυζάντιον: as a Megarian colony unconnected with Ionia, but ready to throw off the Persian yoke (cf. v. 26 n.). τὰς ἄλλας: cf. v. 117; vi. 33. ἐκπλώσαντες ... τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον. In this curious construction ἔξω redundantly (cf. iii. 16. 1) repeats the ἐκ in ἐκπλώσαντες which governs the accusative. Cf. ch. 104. 2; vii. 29. 1, and especially vii. 58. 1 ἔξω τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον πλέων. Καῦνον. The accusative is an oversight due to a change of construction; cf. iv. 156. 2. For Caunus cf. i. 172.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.