Themistocles: The Battle Of Salamis

Throughout history, many great figures possessing extraordinary qualities have reshaped the past and have manipulated historical events. Such an example is Themistocles. Themistocles, thriving from 524-459 BCE, was an Athenian politician who was renowned by many as a great leader who obtained intellect, courage and integrity. Also known as being the saviour of Greece, the profound individual believed that the entirety of the human political experience could be reduced to symmetry and order. In order to unleash his true potential, though, he was forced to relocate from the remoteness of eastern Africa into the city, marrying the daughter of Lysander of Alopeke. Thus, it can be stated that Themistocles was a profound politician who possessed

strong leadership skills and strategic motives that in effect effectively contributed to the Persian wars and hence their defeat, in which the future of Athens and Greece was positively manipulated because of his actions. Through the exploration of Themistocles’ naval policy and its features as well as his creatively devised scheme at the Battle of Salamis, it is almost inevitable to understand why historians, from both ancient and modern contexts, regard this man so highly.

Demonstrating his sophisticated leadership, Themistocles integrated a well developed naval policy, in which he incorporated advantageous features that resulted in many positive outcomes. Matthew Merighi, a current assistant director at the Fletcher Maritime Studies Program, details that Athens was not always renowned as a naval based military; in fact, prior to Themistocles, Greece was heavily focused on land combat. The marine specialist furthers this by stating that Athens was originally a deprived city-state with limited natural resources available. However, it was the discovery of silver in the Larium mines in 483 BCE that saw a great financial increase in Athenian society. Themistocles, though, saw this as an opportunity of growth for the Greek community, where he proposed to the people of Athens to construct a naval empire comprising of 200 ships. The entirety of the population was quite receptive to this and accepted Themistocles’ motion. Merighi extends on these points by explaining that Themistocles’ success in introducing this newly formed naval system reshaped Athens’ politico-military focus from land to sea. Derived from such an authoritative individual, this information suggests that Themistocles was an influential leader whose ideas were innovative and hence persuaded the Athenian population in such a positive manner. It is also implied by convincing the people of Athens to focus more strongly on naval combat than that of land combat, that this exemplifies that Themistocles was a unique man with values that were diverse to a generically minded Greek individual. Solidifying this perspective is that of James Chambers, an ancient history enthusiast who writes for World History. It is noted in his accounts that Themistocles belonged to a democratic constitution; and, every decade, the Athenians were permitted to exile one individual from this elite group. Themistocles most deceivingly yet strategically eliminated his rivals, and therefore gained increased support for his proposed naval law. As such, the program was devised for the overarching purpose of defeating the Persians in the upcoming battle of which Themistocles could foresee. He thoughtfully determined that introducing a naval army would underpin their weakness of being dependent on seaborne supplies. Chambers concludes that the naval empire of Greece had a positive impact on Athenian society, increasing job opportunities as well as leading to the construction of public buildings such as the Parthenon. It too enhanced the influence of the most poverty-stricken class of citizens, in which they were essential in maintaining control of the ships. As a result of this and the increased recognition of the lower classes, a statesmen known as Pericles introduced reforms that assisted in positively reshaping the democracy that surrounded the Athenian political system. Reinforcing the concepts discussed by Merighi, this source too supports that Themistocles’ actions were uniquely and intellectually driven, where he knew that his naval policy would contribute to a future of prosperity for Athens. More specifically, though, by judiciously removing unwanted oppositions from the democratic constitution, this purely demonstrates Themistocles’ strategic motives; and, even more so, it reveals that he would take logically calculated risks to fulfil his needs and hence the needs of society.

Furthermore, Rosemary Peck from the school of Archaeological Studies at the University of Leiceste defines the components of Themistocles’ naval force. The ships, also referred to as Trireme’s, consisted of a Trierarch; the captain of ship. Generally, these personnel were quite wealthy and highly qualified in their area of expertise. The naval ships also included large numbers of men from a range of diverse social classes, such as citizens, metics and mercenaries, but mainly comprised of slaves. The trimreme’s were constructed predominately from pitch and timber in addition to materials that were forbidden to export from Athens consisting of pitch, leather, fitting and sail-cloth. It is said that Themistocles exploited structurally efficient yet labour intensive methods, which added to the success of his naval concept. It can clearly be extracted from this factually based source that the Trireme’s were beaming with worthy features for that time period; and, taking into consideration that the sea craft was built from exclusively Athens-only materials, that a well-educated leader lead the ship and that the ship’s crew comprised of men from diverse class rankings connote that Themistocles had an extensive yet effectively simple approach for the Trireme based naval force and was hence quite distinguished in persuading the Athenian community to approve his concept. Solidified by James Chambers, it was Athens who originally had a small fleet of old-fashioned pente-knotors. However, it was not until the Trireme’s were introduced that the naval force of Athens was then renowned for its ramming tactics and extensive oar power; and, in effect, these elements of the naval ships assisted in defeating the Persians. Similar to the views of the previous source, it is revealed by Chambers that Themistocles was a passionate strategist and would stop at nothing to implement a fully functional naval system. Primarily, the 21st century views of Themistocles’ naval policy and its features collectively solidify the mainstream perspective that he was a man of pure integrity, in which his strategies helped conquer the Persians and later strengthened Greek society; and, despite not being directly related to politics, the solidification of the military too created a balance in the Athenian government.

Prior, during and after the Battle of Salamis, Themistocles displayed a raw sense of valance that contributed to the vanquish of the Persians, where this beneficially affected future outcomes for Greek society.

The image seen below is a Troezen Decree; an inscription proposed by Themistocles in preparation for the battle of Salamis. Within this primary artefact, he states that the Athenians should evacuate their homes and battle against the Persian invaders. Just as the previous sources and their implicit meanings, Themistocles was obviously a man who maintained influence over the Athenian people; he logically took the risk of forcing the entire community to leave Athens for the greater good of society. Though, it is the fact that the Athenians listened to Themistocles’ risk induced proposal that truly exemplifies his unconditional leadership. Reinforcing these ideals are that of Herodotus’ accounts of Themistocles during the Battle of Salamis. Acclaimed as a great historian of Greek history, Herodotus details that the Greeks were about to leave Salamis; however, by utilizing blackmail to enforce that the Athenians would be forced to sail to Italy, Themistocles convinced the entire population to remain at Salamis. Herodotus then explains that Themistocles sent a messenger to inform Xerxes that he should attack the bay of Salamis immediately; and, Xerxes fell for this devious plan, where the Persian fleet entered at nightfall. Because of the bay being too narrow, though, the Persians were under attack and were forced to retreat. Herodotus’ retellings of these events imply that Themistocles organized events so perfectly for a planned defeat. The manipulation of the Greeks to stay at Salamis through the means of blackmail reveals how intellectually intact Themistocles was and that he would stop at nothing to achieve his goal. Having the knowledge that Salamis and its narrow bay would be such a simple yet effective method of defeat, this solidifies that Themistocles

was a successful leader who possessed courage, determination and individuality. He most thoughtfully led the Greek warriors into this conflict with such integrity and confidence. While modern historians believe that Herodotus was perhaps prone to exaggeration, he was undoubtedly one of the most reliable historians, as his accounts were closest to the time period in which Themistocles was active; as such, he would have had the most access to the primary sources surrounding the Battle of Salamis. Additionally, Thucydides’ and Cornelius Nepos’ records reveal somewhat diverse accounts of Themistocles. Remembered by many as a distinguished historian during the ancient Greek era, Thucydides records Themistocles saying to Xerxes “After the battle had been fought near Salamis, I informed him by letter that the bridge was being surrounded and broken up by his enemies. Because of this message, he was freed from danger. Now, however, chased out by the whole of Greece, I have fled to you, seeking your friendship…that you grant me a year’s time and that you allow me to come to you once that year has passed.” Contrastingly, Roman biographer, Nepos, notes that Themistocles feared that Xerxes would continue to wage war after Salamis, so he persuaded him that the bridge at Hellespont was being invaded. Working in Themistocles’ favour, Xerxes believed him and remained in Europe, where he was essentially isolated from Asia. These two prominent figures in Greek and Roman literature have presented a similar situation but with a disparity surrounding Themistocles’ motives. It is in the opinion of Thucydides that Themistocles was attempting to find solace in his and Xerxes’ relationship, and this could in effect terminate the conflict present between the Athenians and Persians. Thucydides was thus picturing Themistocles as a man of gratitude who cared for all, even if he and Xerxes were enemies. Comparatively, Nepos details information about the same events, but rather explains it as Themistocles manipulating Xerxes only to stay out of Asia to minimise the chances of Asian domination. Both perspectives present some reliability; however, Thucydides was known to be somewhat biased, as he at times struggled to hide his personal judgement. It is hence assumed that Thucydides greatly admired Themistocles, so he did not want to in any way depict him as manipulative. Nepos, though, was a man who revealed the highest of truths in all of his accounts and is thus presents a wealth of authority. Even more so, Herodotus’ views are identifiable with that of Nepos, as they both view Themistocles as a great leader that manipulated people and events in order to achieve his goals. Therefore, despite both Nepos and Thucydides portraying Themistocles as an effective leader, it is the marginalised perspectives of Thucydides that is shrouded by the dominance of Nepos’ accounts, where he clearly communicates that Themistocles utilized trickery to force Xerxes to remain in Europe; otherwise, Europe may have been threatened by the domination of Asia. By implementing his strategic motives by creatively influencing his enemies, Themistocles successfully contributed to future Greek liberation. He knew that, by the means of logic and reason, this form of manipulation would be a definite factor in reshaping Athenian society as opposed to evoking more conflict between the Greeks and Persians. Ultimately, through the analysis of both literary and non-literary primary sources surrounding events prior, during and after the Battle of Salamis, it is the overarching perspective that Themistocles exhibited profound qualities and formulated justified decisions as a political leader that assisted in the defeat of the Persians in addition to contributing to the prosperity of future Athens.

Themistocles was inevitably a man of brilliance. Both primary and secondary sources, though, truly reveal Themistocles as a man who significantly shifted Athens and its position in society to one of power and superiority. Through forming a more than effective naval system as well as manipulating events in the Battle of Salamis, it can be solidified that Themistocles was a profound politician who possessed strong leadership skills and strategic motives that in effect effectively contributed to the Persian wars and hence their defeat, in which the future of Athens and Greece was positively manipulated because of his actions. Fundamentally, history has seen many figures remodel the human population and the way in which it functions; however, one cannot undermine Themistocles and his effectiveness in changing Greek democracy as well as his strengthening of class equality within Athenian society.