Formed in 2009, the Archive Team (not to be confused with the archive.org Archive-It Team) is a rogue archivist collective dedicated to saving copies of rapidly dying or deleted websites for the sake of history and digital heritage. The group is 100% composed of volunteers and interested parties, and has expanded into a large amount of related projects for saving online and digital history.
The first time that the geopolitical question of the Greek area in relation to the Middle East was raised it was during the period of the Bronze Age. Although initially the Middle Eastern kingdoms were concerned with the issue of protecting their coasts and ports as the naval supremacy of the Minoans and later the Mycenaeans was indisputable, the surviving Hittite diplomatic records give us another dimension of the matter. The Hittite monarchs having entered into competition, first with the Minoans and then with the Mycenaeans for the control of Cyprus and facing pressures on their eastern borders try to close their western front with diplomacy. The collapse of the palatial societies in Greece which is at least partially responsible for the forced migrations of the so-called «Sea Peoples» brings about the collapse of the Bronze Age societies throughout the Middle East.
Herodotus informs us that the preoccupation of the Lydian king Croesus with the surveillance of his Ionian subjects seems to have cost him the defeat against the Persians who had tried unsuccessfully to ally themselves with them. It is also reasonable to wonder whether the difficulties that Xerxes faced with the insurrection of his subjects before his campaign in Greece were not a result of the difficulties that his father had faced in Thrace and the repulse of his father’s army at Marathon. The Persians overturned the outcome of the peace of Callia thanks to intra-Greek strife and maintained the integrity of their Middle Eastern provinces by fueling Greek civil wars. The imposition of peace in the Greek area by the Macedonians finally led to the overthrow of the Persian empire.
The occupation of Greece by the Romans forced them to take an interest in the Middle East as well when they expanded into Asia Minor to secure control of the Aegean.The invasion of the Pontic king Mithridates into Greece cut off their communications with the Asian provinces which were nearly lost to the Parthians. It is also good to note that it was the repulse of the Goths by emperor Decius and the securing of the Balkan provinces was what allowed Aurelian to defeat the Palmyran queen Zenobia and put an end to the crisis that plagued the Roman Empire in the 3rd century AD.
The Eastern Roman Empire suffered from Sassanid pressure on its eastern borders as it simultaneously had to conserve forces to defend the Balkan provinces from the outposts of the steppe peoples. The even onerous peace that Heraclius secured with the Avars in the Balkans, allowed him to overcome the power of the Sassanids. The appearance of Islam overturned many of the previous facts. The inability of the Arabs to control the Greek area due to the strong reaction of the Byzantines prevented their advance towards central Europe. The reaction of the Byzantines was difficult as the Greek area could not be used as a base point because it was exposed to raids from the north due to the Bulgarian wars.
However, the Macedonian dynasty managed to impose order in the Balkans and this allowed Basil II to turn his Muslim neighbors into vassals thanks to the power of his army. Byzantine dynastic strife and struggles against the Pechenegs and Normans allowed the Seljuks to expand into Asia Minor. The Byzantine counterattack attempt using the Crusaders failed due to the political ineptitude of the parties involved. All efforts against the Muslims also failed due to the deep distrust that existed between the Crusader states and Byzantium. The Fourth Crusade created a mosaic of rival states that competed with each other and prevented the reinforcement of Christians in the Holy Land who eventually succumbed to the Muslims.
When the Ottomans became masters of the region, they managed to impose themselves on the Mamluks of Egypt and the Shevafid Persians only when they stabilized their position in the Balkans at the end of the 15th century. The Greek Revolution shook the Ottoman state so much, that Egypt seceded and expanded at its expense and only the intervention of the British and the French prevented the collapse of the Ottomans. The subsequent British intervention in the Anglo-Eguptian Sudan was greatly facilitated by the skillful policy of Greek prime minister Trikoupis who secured for Greece the liberation of Thessaly from the Ottomans in return.
The Entente’s clumsy Balkan policy at the start of World War I allowed the Ottomans to repel the Allied offensive in the Dardanelles and Iraq and to exert pressure on Egypt. Only the stabilization of the political situation in 1917 allowed the blockade of the Dardanelles and Allenby’s successful counterattack in Palestine which brought about the fall of the Ottomans and the creation of new Arab states.
The dispersion of Italian efforts in Libya and Greece during World War II resulted in the relegation of Italy to Hitler’s vassal. Although German airborn troops from Greece could have supported Rashid Ali revolt in Iraq against the British and could be a headache to the British, Hitler canceled the attempt. With the exception of the attempted infiltration of agents into Palestine and the support of Rommel from Crete, the Axis did not use the position of Greece to pressure the Allies in the Middle East as Hitler was mainly interested in Russia.
After World War II, the creation of the state of Israel created new tensions in the region. With Greece in NATO, the USSR found it difficult to support its Arab allies. Also noteworthy is the Greek-American defense agreement of 1967 in relation to the «Six Day» war, as well as the political crisis in Greece in Autumn of 1973 in relation to the «Yom Kippur» war.
During the «Gulf War» in 1991, Greece had turned into a logistics center for the Alliance and secured the supply lines for the troops in the Arabian Peninsula.
The favorable attitude of Greece in the West’s effort to limit the execesses of extremists who have recently shed blood in the region is counted by some political analysts as one of the main advantages of the West. The current buildup of Western troops in Greek military base in support of operations in the Middle East is also worth noting.
Sources
1. Herodotus Histories
2. Xenophon Hellenika
3. Plutarch Life of Sulla
4. Asimov, Isaac. The Near East: 10,000 Years of History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968.
5. Edward Gibbon The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, 6 volumes 1782 Commentator: Rev. HH Milman
6. Steven Runciman «History of the Crusades» Translated by: Nikos K. Paparrodos, Published by: Army General Staff 1977
Armenians trace their ancestry to the Urartians who lived around Mount Ararat who in turn descended from the Hurrians, a Bronze Age civilization. The Urartians who flourished in the Iron Age were in constant conflict with the Assyrians. Ultimately, however, the Assyrian king Sargon II subdued them by allying with the Scythians in 714 BC. Although they regained their independence for a while, they ended up subservient to Medes who established the Orontid dynasty in the area. The iron-rich region produced good quality cavalry and the Armenians followed the Persians on their campaigns.
The satrap Orondas tried to block the march of Xenophon’s10000 but failed. When the Persian Empire was overthrown by Alexander the Great, the Armenians came under Seleucid rule but became independent again in the 2nd century BC. Their king Tigranes managed to fend off the Parthians and became the father-in-law of the Pontus king Mithridates and thus clashed with the Romans (whom he underestimated) and was defeated. Then Armenia became the first Christian state in the world in the early 4th century. The region then became the bone of contention between the Romans and the Sassanids and was sometimes vassal to one and sometimes to the other. With the fall of the Sassanids to the Muslim Arabs, for a time the emirate of Erzerum was created in the southern lands of Armenia that covered the territory of today’s Turkey, which gave shelter to the heretics of the Eastern Roman state, but was finally dissolved by the pressure of the Byzantines.
Many Armenians made their careers in the Byzantine army, while several Armenian families raised their representatives to the throne through intermarriage, such as Leo the Armenian and Ioannis Tzimiskis. Although the populations of the Caucasus eventually submitted to Basil II the Bulgarslayer the invasion of the Seljuks who took advantage of the Byzantine decline and occupied Armenia created a wave of refugees towards the Byzantine provinces of Cilicia. There the Rupenid house created its hegemony which, juggling their politics between Byzantines and Crusaders, was maintained until 1375, when it succumbed to the Mameluks of Egypt.
In the 16th century, the Ottomans shared the region with the Shevafids of Iran. Living in a strictly Muslim social system, Armenians like other Christians were victims of discrimination. After, like the Greeks, the bourgeois classes, acquired economic power, began to demand their autonomy. Russian military successes against the Iranians and Ottomans in the Caucasus region fueled their hopes. This is how the so-called Armenian Question arose, which was internationalized with the French and Russian iterventions. When they began to demand more rights, Sultan Abdul Hamid II with the help of the Kurds organized massacres of Armenians in 1894-96, which had an estimated 100 to 200,000 victims.
The Armenians, like the other Ottoman Christians, hoped for much from the revolution of the Young Turks, but they were bitterly denied. Although Armenians served in the Ottoman army as administrative and sanitary officers, the Porte did not trust them. When World War I broke out, Russia advanced into the Caucasus and the Russian army had a unit of Armenian volunteers. Thus the Ottoman government decided to forcefully move the Christian populations away from combat/operational areas and border districts. During the displacements with the tolerance if not the participation of the Ottoman authorities the Muslim mob was allowed to satiate its most inhuman instincts on the defenseless refugees. The atrocities went down in history as the «Armenian Genocide».
The Russian army occupied most of Ottoman Armenia but these territorial gains were lost with the Russian Revolution of 1917. Russian-controlled Eastern Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan tried to create the Transcaucasian Federal Republic, which lasted only until May of 1918. Then, Eastern Armenia became independent on May 28, 1918 as the Republic of Armenia. The Treaty of Sèvres, in 1920, guaranteed the existence of the Republic of Armenia and provided for the addition of additional Ottoman territories to it. There was also the thought of making Armenia a protectorate of the United States but the fact that. it had no outlet to the sea, probably prevented the idea. But in a common operation, as things show, the Turks occupied most of the territories provided for by the Treaty of Sèvres for Armenia and forced the Armenians to disarm. During the negotiations, the Soviets invaded from the opposite direction and destroyed the Armenian state by entering the Yerevan. The possibility of a pro-Western entity in the Caucasus had been eliminated. Thoughts of Poland in 1939 naturally come to mind.
The Armenians together with other populations of the Caucasus were gathered in the Soviet Republic of Transcaucasia which was maintained until 1936 when it was annexed to the Soviet Union. During Stalin many Armenians were displaced. In WWII Armenians fought as Soviet soldiers but many who were captured by the Germans fought with them in the «Armenian Legion». Armenia has since been associated with the Soviet Union which in 1967 recognized the Armenian Genocide by the Turks. In 1991, with the fall of the USSR, Armenians were among the first to declare their independence. The country was facing economic hardship exacerbated by the conflict with the Azeris over the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave. Militarily stronger, the Armenians managed to control the region. But their attempts to reach out to the West through the Armenian diaspora to develop economically caused Russian resentment. Underestimating the military reorganization of the Azeris, the Armenians were defeated in the second conflict over Karabakh to the point where the future existence of their country was at stake, while the Russians, who maintained a passive attitude that ultimately came at the expense of their Armenian allies, spoke of the weakness of Armenia as independent entity, going so far as to propose its reintegration into the Russian Federation. Armenian history teaches the caution that rulers should show not to overestimate their capabilities but also not to underestimate their opponents.
Sources
1) Herodotus Histories
2) Xenophon Kyros Ascent and descent of the Myrians
3)Steven Runciman «History of the Crusades» Translation: Nikos K. Paparrodos, Published: Army General Staff 1977
4) Asimov, Isaac. The Near East: 10,000 Years of History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968.
Οι Αρμένιοι έλκουν την καταγωγή τους από τους Ουράρτιους που κατοικούσαν γύρω από το όρος Αραράτ που με τη σειρά τους προέρχονταν από τους Χουρίτες, έναν πολιτισμό της Χαλκοκρατίας . Οι Ουραρτιοι που άκμασαν την εποχή του Σιδήρου ήταν σε διαρκή σύγκρουση με τους Ασσύριους.Τελικά όμως ο Ασσύριος βασιλιάς Σαργών Β τους υπέταξε συμμαχώντας με τους Σκύθες το 714 πΧ. Αν και επανέκτησαν την ανεξαρτησία τους για λίγο κατέληξαν υποτελείς τον Μήδων που εγκατέστησαν στην περιοχή την δυναστεία των Οροντιδών. Η πλούσια σε σίδηρο περιοχή παρήγε καλής ποιότητας ιππικό και οι Αρμένιοι ακολουθούσαν τους Πέρσες στις εκστρατείες τους.
Ο σατράπης Ορόντας προσπάθησε να εμποδίσει την πορεία των Μυρίων του Ξενοφώντα αλλά απέτυχε. Όταν η περσική αυτοκρατορία καταλύθηκε από τον Μ. Αλέξανδρο οι Αρμένιοι πέρασαν στην κυριαρχία των Σελευκιδών αλλά ανεξαρτητοποιήθηκαν ξανά τον 2ο αιώνα π.Χ. Ο βασιλιάς τους Τιγράνης κατάφερε να αποκρούσει τους Πάρθους και έγινε πεθερός του βασιλιά του Πόντου Μιθριδάτη και έτσι συγκρούστηκε με τους Ρωμαίους (τους οποίους υποτιμούσε) και ηττήθηκε. Κατόπιν η Αρμενία έγινε το πρώτο χριστιανικό κράτος στον κόσμο στις αρχές του 4ου αιώνα. Η περιοχή έγινε τότε το μήλο της έριδος μεταξύ Ρωμαίων και Σασσανιδών και υποτελής πότε στον ένα και πότε στον άλλο. Με την πτώση των Σασσανιδών στους Μουσουλμάνους Αραβες, για ένα διάστημα στα νότια εδάφη της Αρμενίας που κάλυπταν περιοχή της σημερινής Τουρκίας δημιουργήθηκε το εμιράτο του Ερζερούμ που έδινε καταφύγιο στους αιρετικούς του ανατολικού ρωμαϊκού κράτους αλλά τελικά διαλύθηκε από την πίεση των Βυζαντινών.
Πολλοί Αρμένιοι σταδιοδρόμησαν στο βυζαντινό στρατό ενώ αρκετές αρμενικές οικογένειες μέσω επιγαμιών ανέβασαν εκπροσώπους τους στο θρόνο όπως λόγου χάριν οι Λέων ο Αρμένιος και Ιωάννης Τζιμισκής. Αν και οι πληθυσμοί του Καυκάσου τελικά υπετάγησαν στο Βασίλειο Β τον Βουλγαροκτόνο η εισβολή των Σελτζούκων που εκμεταλλεύτηκαν την βυζαντινή παρακμή και κατέλαβαν την Αρμενία δημιούργησε ένα κύμα προσφύγων προς τις βυζαντινές επαρχίες τις Κιλικίας. Εκεί ο οίκος των Ρουπενιδών δημιούργησε ηγεμονία της που ακροβατώντας μεταξύ Βυζαντινών και Σταυροφόρων διατηρήθηκε μέχρι το 1375, όταν και υπέκυψε στους Μαμελούκους της Αιγύπτου.
Τον16ο αιώνα, οι Οθωμανοί μοιράστηκαν την περιοχή με τους Σεβαφίδες του Ιράν. Ζώντας σε ένα αυστηρά μουσουλμανικό κοινωνικό σύστημα, οι Αρμένιοι όπως και οι λοιποί Χριστιανοί υπήρξαν θύματα διακρίσεων. Αφού όπως και οι Έλληνες, οι αστικές τάξεις, απέκτησαν οικονομική ισχύ άρχισαν να ζητούν την αυτονομία τους. Οι ρωσικές στρατιωτικές επιτυχίες κατά των Ιρανών και των Οθωμανών στην περιοχή του Καυκάσου τροφοδοτούσαν τις ελπίδες τους. Έτσι προέκυψε και το λεγόμενο Αρμενικό Ζήτημα που διεθνοποιήθηκε με τις Γαλλικές και Ρωσικές επεμβάσεις. Όταν άρχισαν να διεκδικούν περισσότερα δικαιώματα, ο Σουλτάνος Αμπντούλ Χαμίτ Β΄ με την αρωγή των Κούρδων οργάνωσε σφαγές των Αρμενίων το 1894-96, που είχαν περίπου 100 έως 200.000 θύματα.
Οι Αρμένιοι όπως και οι άλλοι Οθωμανοί χριστιανοί ήλπιζαν πολλά από την επανάσταση των Νεοτούρκων αλλά διαψεύστηκαν οικτρά. Παρά το ότι οι Αρμένιοι υπηρέτησαν στον Οθωμανικό στρατό ως διοικητικοί και υγειονομικοί αξιωματικοί η Πύλη δεν τους εμπιστευόταν. Οταν ξέσπασε ο Α΄ Παγκόσμιος Πόλεμος η Ρωσία προέλασε στον Καύκασο και στον Ρωσικό στρατό υπήρχε ένα τμήμα Αρμενίων εθελοντών. Έτσι η οθωμανική κυβέρνηση αποφάσισε την βίαιη μετακίνηση των χριστιανικών πληθυσμών μακρυά από περιοχές επιχειρήσεων και συνόρων. Κατά την διάρκεια των μετακινήσεων με την ανοχή αν όχι συμμετοχή των οθωμανικών αρχών ο μουσουλμανικός όχλος αφέθηκε να κορέσει τα πιο απάνθρωπα ένστικτά του πάνω στους ανυπεράσπιστους πρόσφυγες. Οι φρικαλεότητες έμειναν στην ιστορία ως η “Γενοκτονία των Αρμενίων”.
Ο Ρωσικός στρατός κυρίευσε το μεγαλύτερο μέρος της Οθωμανικής Αρμενίας αλλά οι εδαφικές αυτές κτήσεις χάθηκαν με τη Ρωσική Επανάσταση του 1917. Οι υπό ρωσικό έλεγχο Ανατολική Αρμενία, η Γεωργία και το Αζερμπαϊτζάν προσπάθησαν να δημιουργήσουν την Ομοσπονδιακή Δημοκρατία της Υπερκαυκασίας, που διήρκεσε μόνο έως τον Μάιο του 1918. Κατόπιν, η Ανατολική Αρμενία ανεξαρτητοποιήθηκε στις 28 Μαΐου 1918 ως Δημοκρατία της Αρμενίας. Η Συνθήκη των Σεβρών, το 1920, εγγυάτο την ύπαρξη της Δημοκρατίας της Αρμενίας και προέβλεπε την προσθήκη σε αυτήν επιπλέον οθωμανικών εδαφών. Υπήρχε επίσης η σκέψη να γίνει η Αρμενία προτεκτοράτο των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών αλλά το γεγονός οτι. δεν είχε έξοδο στην θάλασσα μάλλον απέτρεψε την ιδέα. Ομως σε μια κοινή όπως δείχνουν τα πράγματα επιχείριση οι Τούρκοι κατέλαβαν τα περισσότερα εδάφη που προέβλεπε για την Αρμενία η συνθήκη των Σεβρών και υποχρέωσαν τους Αρμενίους να αφοπλιστούν, Κατά την διάρκεια των διαπραγματεύσεων οι Σοβιετικοί εισέβαλαν από την αντίθετη κατεύθυνση και κατέλυσαν το αρμενικό κράτος μπαίνοντας στο Ερεβάν. Η πιθανότητα ύπαρξης φιλοδυτικής οντότητας στον Καύκασο είχε εξαλειφθεί. Εύλογα έρχονται σκέψεις για την Πολωνία του 1939.
Οι Αρμένιοι μαζί με άλλους πληθυσμούς του Καυκάσου συγκεντρώθηκαν στην Σοβιετική Δημοκρατία της Υπερκαυκασίας που διατηρήθηκες ως το 1936 οπότε προσαρτήθηκε στην Σοβιετική Ενωση. Επί Στάλιν πολλοί Αρμένιοι εκτοπίστηκαν. Στον Β ΠΠ οι Αρμένιοι πολέμησαν ως σοβιετικοί στρατιώτες αλλά πολλοί που αιχμαλωτίστηκαν από τους Γερμανούς πολέμησαν μαζί τους στην “Αρμενική Λεγεώνα”. Η Αρμενία συνδέθηκε έκτοτε με την Σοβιετική Ένωση που το 1967 αναγνώρισε την αρμενική γενοκτονία από τους Τούρκους. Το 1991 με την πτώση της ΕΣΣΔ οι Αρμένιοι υπήρξαν από τους πρώτους που ανακήρυξαν την ανεξαρτησία τους. Η χώρα αντιμετώπιζε οικονομική δυσπραγία που επιδεινώθηκε από την σύγκρουση με τους Αζέρους για το θύλακα του Ναγκόρνο-Καραμπάχ. Στρατιωτικά ισχυρότεροι οι Αρμένιοι κατάφεραν να ελέγχουν την περιοχή. Όμως οι απόπειρές τους να προσεγγίσουν την Δύση μέσω της αρμενικής διασποράς για να αναπτυχθούν οικονομικά προκάλεσαν την ρωσική δυσαρέσκεια. Υποτιμώντας την στρατιωτική αναδιοργάνωση των Αζέρων οι Αρμένιοι ηττήθηκαν στην δεύτερη σύγκρουση για το Καραμπάχ σε σημείο που να διακυβεύεται η μελλοντική ύπαρξη της χώρας τους ενώ οι Ρώσοι που τήρησαν παθητική στάση που απέβη τελικά εις βάρος των Αρμενίων συμμάχων τους έκαναν λόγο για την αδυναμία της Αρμενίας ως ανεξάρτητης οντότητας, φτάνοντας σε σημείο να προτείνουν την επανένταξή της στην Ρωσική Ομοσπονδίας. Η αρμενική ιστορία διδάσκει την προσοχή που πρέπει να δείχνουν οι κυβερνήτες ώστε να μην υπερεκτιμούν τις δυνατότητες τους αλλά και να μην υποτιμούν τους αντιπάλους τους.
Πηγές
1)Ηρόδοτος Ιστορίαι
2)Ξενοφών Κύρου Ανάβασις και κάθοδος των Μυρίων
3)Steven Runciman «Ιστορία των Σταυροφοριών» Μετάφραση: Νίκος Κ. Παπαρρόδος, Έκδοση: Γενικό Επιτελείο Στρατού 1977
4)Asimov, Isaac. The Near East: 10,000 Years of History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968.
Everyone believes that the first operational participation of the German 50mm A/T cannon. was in Russia during the summer of 1941. A report of the 5th Mountain Division on the fighting at the Metaxas Line confirms use from April 1941.
More about myths and realities of the WWII Greek campaign here:
Most online translations of ancient text come from books that were meant to be recited in 19th century Ladies «literary evenings». Eloquence was the object not accuracy. Saddly this was followed by later scholars
Example from Plutarch’s «Sayings of Great Comanders» – Moralia
( The Moralia, translations edited by William Watson Goodwin (1831-1912), from the edition of 1878)
«Scoffing at the Eretrians, he said, Like the sword-fish, they have a sword indeed, but no heart.»
The original here:
«τοὺς δὲ Ἐρετριεῖς ἐπισκώπτων ἔλεγεν ὥσπερ τευθίδας μάχαιραν μὲν ἔχειν καρδίαν δὲ μὴ ἔχειν.»
τευθίς = cuttle-fish. It has a sharp beak (implied by the word «sword»)
Themistocles mocks τευθoς = octapus,, the emblem of Eretrian coins and their shield device as it appears in attic pottery
Greeks believed that molluscs had no blood therefore no hearts. and heart is associated with courage. He mocks them as cowards.
F.C. Babbitt in 1931 was more accurate:
«The Eretrians, he said humorously, were like cuttle-fish in having a sword but no heart. «
The Greeks consider the Aegean Sea as the cradle of their culture and most likely they are not wrong. Thanks to the marine element, the contacts of the tribes which would later create the Greek civilization were made possible. The development of trade, however, also gave birth to piracy. According to Thucydides, in order to protect the coasts of Crete, king Minos fought the pirates and brought the central and southern Aegean under his control. It was perhaps the first time that such a large area of the archipelago had come under the control of our great power. Probably only the mythical Mynιans were powerful enough to control the northern part of the Aegean.
The partial control of the sea exercised by the Cretans gave the opportunity to the Mycenaeans (successors of the Mynians) to occupy their island after the explosion of the Thera (Santorini) volcano in 1450 BC. The Mycenaeans were the first to bring the entire island archipelago under their control. They probably realized that only partial control of the Aegean created political and military issues. In order to maintain their monopoly of maritime trade, they practiced piracy on the ships of the Powers of the Asian hinterland and Egypt.
Although trade and diplomatic relations are attested with Egypt – with the Asian kingdoms relations had ups and downs. The Hittites who started from Anatolia in Asia Minor when they reached the shores of the Aegean began to have problems. Initially, they captured Cyprus from the Minoans, but the Mycenaeans managed to recapture it and make it a base for pirate raids in Syria. Letters have been preserved in which the Hittite subject kings complain about the pirates and ask for the protection of their overlords.
Having established bases on the Aegean islands, the Mycenaeans launched devastating raids on the Asia Minor coastal zone. The agility of their amphibious forces gave him the initiative and the advantage of surprise while limiting the Hittites’ ability to react. Diplomatic letters of the Hittite king trying to solve the problem diplomatically are preserved. By a strange twist of fate, the letters also refer to the control regime of the islands near the Asia Minor coast reminding us of contemporary political issues.
The decline of the palatial societies of the Bronze Age left the coasts at the mercy of piracy which in the Geometric age was not considered reprehensible. From this period the islanders and coastal Greeks started colonization but no city-state had absolute control over the archipelago. Typical is the problem faced by the Dodecanese islanders from the Carian and Cilician pirates.
The first unfavorable development for Hellenism was when the Persians occupied the coasts of Asia Minor, neutralizing the Lydians and demanding submission from the Greek vassals of the latter. The clumsy policy of the Persian kings between the Greeks and the Phoenicians caused the Ionian revolution. The intervention of the mainland Greeks prompted King Darius to decide to expand westwards in order to secure the coasts of Asia Minor.
The end of the Persian Wars found the Greeks in control of the Aegean through the Delian League but the clumsy policies of the Athenians and the bribes of the Persians succeeded in bringing the Persian troops back to the Asia Minor coast. Persian money was a factor of instability by financing the civil conflicts among the Greek city states thus preventing possible unification and expansion eastwards.
The Macedonian king Philip had realized the problem and built a bridgehead on the Asia Minor coast, but only the successes of his son Alexander the Great brought the Aegean back under Greek sovereignty and under the control of one Power. The division Alexander;’s state by his Successors made again the Aegean a field of confrontation. When the Romans subjugated the mainland of Greece, they faced the interventions of the Seleucids who controlled the coasts of Asia Minor and also the resurfacing piracy problem from Cretans and Cilicians. They solved the issue by subduing their opponents and the archipelago was once again under the control of one Power.
Their Byzantine successors were in serious danger when the Muslim Arabs came to the shores of Asia Minor. The biggest problem was the capture of Crete, which became a den of pirates. Its recapture by Nikephoros Phokas secured the Aegean from Islamic piracy but the problem returned when the Seljuk Turks reached the Asia Minor coast under Comnenan dynasty. The overthrow of the Byzantine Empire by the Crusaders in 1204 created a series of interdependent states and also brought competition from the Italian mercantile cities into the region.
In the 15th century, the coasts of Asia Minor and the straits of the Dardanelles came under the possession of the Ottomans, who, however, faced raids by Christian forces (Venetians, Knights Hospitalers) established in the Aegean islands. Despite the occupation of the Aegean islands and mainland Greece, the Ottomans secured their coasts only after the occupation of Cyprus and Crete.
The creation of the Hellenic Kingdom after the revolution of 1821 rekindled the interest of the Great Powers in the region. The evolution of the «Cretan Question» and the Greek attempts to intervene on the island showed the Ottomans what it meant to have even partial control of the Aegean by another Power even a small one.
The inability of the Ottomans to overthrow the Greek state in 1897 due to the intervention of Britain and France (Naval Powers) caused even worse issues due to the neutralization of the Ottoman fleet by the Greeks during the Balkan Wars. In WW I, the Ottomans were attacked at the Dardanelles by the Entente forces which had established bases on the Greek islands.
The failure of the Central Empires to control Greece allowed the Entente to retain control of the Aegean and confine the Ottoman fleet into the Dardanelles. The defeat of the Ottomans in World War I allowed Greece to try to control the opposite coast of Asia Minor as well, but the bad Greek policies led to the defeat of 1922. The interwar Aegean was then divided between Greece, Italy (Dodecanese) and Turkey.
The poorly executed Italian attack on Greece in 1940 eventually led to German involvement in 1941. Despite their victory, the Germans, were absorbed by the war in Russia and did not use the Aegean, especially Crete, to put pressure on the Allies. The Allied attempt to capture the Dodecanese islands also failed due to a lack of resources.
After World War II, the admittance of Greece and Turkey into NATO closed the Aegean to the Soviet Union, which in turn tried to take advantage of the Greek-Turkish rivalry in the Cyprus issue from 1950 and ease its access to the Mediterranean. Theoretically, the influence of the USA keeps the Greek-Turkish competition under control and the archipelago under its own «high control». However, Turkey’s revisionist policy puts this control at risk.
In recent years, Turkish revisionist policy has brought under consideration a number of parameters that raised questions about the non-direct control of the archipelago by a single Power. The chances of Turkey choosing an armed conflict with Greece could weaken NATO. The US and various European countries appear to have no immediate interest in a Turkish ascendancy. But do they have an interest in a Greek dominance? If the parameter of a possible Turkish decision to join the Russian-Chinese axis is examined things become more complex. Would the West like to allow this axis access to the Mediterranean? The only thing that is certain is that the geostrategic question of the Aegean remains an issue for very capable problem solvers.
Sources
Homer The Iliad Loeb Classical Library 1914
Thucidides “History” Loeb Classical Library 1914
Xenophon “Hellenica” Loeb Classical Library 1914
Strabo “Geography” Loeb Classical Library 1920
William Stearns Davis,Readings in Ancient History: Illustrative Extracts from the Sources, 2 Vols, (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1912-1913), Vol. I: Greece and the East.https://anzacportal.dva.gov.au/wars-and-missions/ww1/where-australians-served/gallipoli/dardanelles-strategy
DAVID FRENCH THE ORIGINS OF THE DARDANELLES CAMPAIGN RECONSIDERED History Vol. 68, No. 223 (1983), pp. 210-22
Weinberg, Gerhard (2005). A World at Arms A Global History of World War Two. Cambridge University Press.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/could-be-how-turkey-attacks-greece-2023-205212
An excellent living history project took place in France and you can see it here:
French re-enactors from South of France in collaboration with a web channel specializing in martial arts took an interesting approach to ancient Greek hoplite combat.
For starters the setting was impressive as there were 32 re-enactors that participated,
The French brothers in arms demonstrated phalanx movement. The next step was demonstration of phalanx maneuvers.
A superb show of the formation turning left with locked shields and pivoting on the left most hoplite was shown. As said on camera this could happen when one phalanx outflanked the other for various reasons. Most demonstration of turning formation that I am aware of, were done in open order so this interpretation in a tight group and with locked shields was a very interesting approach.
Their interpretation of the Spartan maneuver in Thermopylae to trick the Persians in the narrow path offers a good insight into this part of Herodotus work that is debated by scholars.
The most important part in my opinion was the demonstration of two formations colliding and performing the othismos (push over). The most remarkable part was that hoplites stationed behind the second line of combatants could also be targeted. So men in the 3rd or 4th rank could not afford to have a false sense of security. They could also be stabbed by their enemies, even if they were not very well seen by them.
Their solution for avoiding problems with the butt spikes of the spears is also worth further study. I also noted that they point their spears at the enemy after they close ranks. Personally I object to that. Based on experience and many trials I believe that the best option is to go on guard and level the spears in open order and then tighten the formation. This better done when the successive ranks also have distance from one another and after the ranks close a second command for compacting the phalanx is given.
I also suggest it might be well to consider taking a better defensive stance by lowering the waist and advancing towards the enemy using the “gathering step”. (moving the rear foot first and then move the front foot to recover your stability)
Well done lads. You set a mile stone for further study.
ΑΓΕ ΝΗΑ ΕPΥΣΣΩΜΕΝ ΕΙΣ ΑΛΑ
Let’s tow the vessel to the sea (put the boat to the water) Odyssy 8, 34
ΕΓΚΟΣΜΕΙΤΕ ΤΑ ΤΕΥΧΗ
Man your positions Odyssey 15, 218 – 219
ΕΥΝΑΣ ΑΝΕΛΚΥΣΑΙ
Lift the anchors
ΠΡΥΜΗΣΙΑ ΛΥΣΑΙ
Cut (untie) the ropes Odyssey 11, 637
ΙΣΤΟΝ ΣΤΗΣΑΤΕ
Set the mast Odyssey 1, 480
ΕΠΙ ΚΛΗΙΣΙ ΚΑΘΗΣΑΤΕ
Sit on your benches Odyssey 11, 638
ΕΡΕΤΜΑ ΑΝΑΛΑΒΑΤΕ
Pick up your oars Odyssey 11, 639
ΕΜΒΑΛΕΕΙ ΚΩΠΑΣ
Put the oars in the water Odyssey 10, 28
ΚΩΠΗΣΙ ΤΥΠΤΕΤΕ
Strike (the water) with your oars Odyssey 9, 472 9, 564
ΠΡΟΠΕΣΟΝΤΩΣ ΕΡΕΣΑΤΕ
Row faster Odyssey 10, 194
ΣΦΟΔΡΩΣ ΕΛΑΣΣΕΤΕ
Row harder Odyssey 12, 121
ΕΥΝΑΣ ΒΑΛΑΤΕ
Throw anchor in the water Odyssey 15, 498
ΠΡΙΜΝΗΣΙΑ ΔΗΣΑΤΕ
Tie the ropes Odyssey 15, 498
ΕΡΕΤΜΑ ΕΠΙ ΚΛΗΙΣΙ ΔΗΣΑΤΕ
Secure the oars to the benches Odyssey 8. 37
In the Kerameikos Museum in the center of Athens is exhibited a pottery fragment like those that were used in voting persons in to temporary exile if they were considered a threat to the democratic institutions of ancient Athens. They were known as ostraka (plural) to the ancients and the procedure was called ostrakismos (ostracism).The individual was given 10 days to manage his affairs and was banished for a period of 10 years.
The individual that was to be banished is Kallias son of Kratias. The ostrakon would be no different from the many others used in similar cases except for the fact that it has an archer engraved on the opposite side of the inscription. The archer is dressed in Scythian garb and he seems to be ready to advance after he has loosened an arrow.
This raises some issues. In general voting procedures are considered secret. So why the individual casting the vote wanted to mark it so that it would be known who cast it? Was the voter an illiterate who had been bribed to vote and put the engraved figure as proof that he had actually done it? (A case of electoral fraud here?) Did he bare a serious personal grudge against Kallias and he wanted him to know who voted against him? Was the engraved archer a threat to Kallias from a criminal whose grudge would not be resolved by the defendant’s banishment? If so was it a warning like: “watch your back”? Another interesting question would be: was a Scythian slave or mercenary involved in the case made against Kallias? After all Peseistratus had established tyranny with the employment of 50 club armed slaves. Was Kallias an officer of the horsearcher corps of Athens accused of dereliction of duty? Whatever the case this pottery fragment seems to hold its mystery.
Stefanos Skarmintzos 