Читаем The Historians' History of the World 04 полностью

Sparta had not become the head of this league by agreement, and still less by usurpation; but by tacit acknowledgment she was the leader, not only of this, but of the whole of Greece; and she acted as such in all foreign relations from about the year 580 B.C. Her alliance was courted by Crœsus: and the Ionians, when pressed by Cyrus, had recourse to the Spartans, who, with an amusing ignorance of the state of affairs beyond the sea, thought to terrify the king of Persia by the threat of hostilities. It is a remarkable fact, that there were at that time Scythian envoys in Sparta, with whom a great plan of operations against Persia is said to have been concerted. In the year 520 B.C. the Platæans put themselves under the protection of Cleomenes, who referred them to Athens; a herald from Sparta drove the Alcmæonidæ from their city: afterwards Aristagoras sought from the protector of Greece aid against the national enemy: and when the Æginetans gave the Persians earth and water, the Athenians accused them of treachery before the Spartans: and lastly, during the Persian War, Greece found in the high character of that state the only means of effecting the union so necessary for her safety and success.

In this war a new confederacy was formed, which was extended beyond the Peloponnese; the community of danger and of victory having, besides a momentary combination, also produced a union destined for some duration. It was the assembly of this league—a fixed congress at Corinth during, and at Sparta after, the war—that settled the internal differences of Greece, that invited Argos, Corcyra, and Gelo to join the league, and afterwards called upon Themistocles to answer for his proceedings. So much it did for the present emergency. But at the same time Pausanias, the regent of Sparta, after the great victory of Platæa, prevailed upon the allies to conclude a further treaty. Under the auspices of the gods of the confederacy, particularly of the Eleutherian (or Grecian) Jupiter, they pledged themselves mutually to maintain the independence of all states, and to many other conditions, of which the memory has been lost. To the Platæans in particular security from danger was promised. The Ionians also, after the battle of Mycale, were received into this confederacy.


The splendid victories over the Persians had for some time taken Sparta, which was fitted for a quiet and passive existence, out of her natural sphere; and her king, Pausanias, had wished to betray his country for the glitter of an Asiatic prince. But this state soon perceived her true interest, and sent no more commanders to Asia, “that her generals might not be made worse”: she likewise wished to avoid any further war with the Persians, thinking that Athens was better fitted to carry it on than herself. If the speech were now extant in which Hetoëmaridas the Heraclid proved to the councillors that it was not expedient for Sparta to aim at the mastery of the sea, we should doubtless possess a profound view, on the Spartan side, of those things which we are now accustomed to look on with Athenian eyes. Nor is it true that the supremacy over the Greeks was in fact transferred at all from Sparta to Athens, if we consider the matter as Sparta considered it, however great the influence of this change may have been on the power of Athens. But Sparta continued to hold its pre-eminence in the Peloponnese, and most of the nations of the mother-country joined themselves to her: while none but the Greeks of Asia Minor and the islands, who had previously been subjects of Persia, and were then only partially liberated, perhaps too much despised by Sparta, put themselves under the command of Athens. But the complete liberation of Asia Minor from the Persian yoke, which has been considered one of the chief exploits of Athens, was in fact never effected. The Athenian empire did not prevent the vassals and subjects of the king of Persia from ruling over the Greeks of Asia Minor, even down to the very coast. We need not go any further to prove the entire falsehood of the account commonly given by the panegyrical rhetoricians of Athens.

Greek Shovels

(In the British Museum)

[479-465 B.C.]

The Peloponnese took the less concern in these proceedings, as internal differences had arisen from some unknown cause, which led to an open war between Sparta and Arcadia. We only know that, between the battle of Platæa (in which Tegea, as also later still, showed great fidelity towards Sparta) and the war with the Helots (i.e. between 479 and 465 B.C.), the Lacedæmonians fought two great battles, the one against the Tegeatæ and Argives at Tegea, the other against all the Arcadians, with the exception of the Mantineans, at Dipæa (ἐν Διπαιεῦοιν), in the Mænalian territory. Tisamenus, an Elean, of the family of the Iamidæ, was in both battles in the Spartan army; and in both Sparta was victorious.

[465-451 B.C.]

Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

100 великих интриг
100 великих интриг

Нередко политические интриги становятся главными двигателями истории. Заговоры, покушения, провокации, аресты, казни, бунты и военные перевороты – все эти события могут составлять только часть одной, хитро спланированной, интриги, начинавшейся с короткой записки, вовремя произнесенной фразы или многозначительного молчания во время важной беседы царствующих особ и закончившейся грандиозным сломом целой эпохи.Суд над Сократом, заговор Катилины, Цезарь и Клеопатра, интриги Мессалины, мрачная слава Старца Горы, заговор Пацци, Варфоломеевская ночь, убийство Валленштейна, таинственная смерть Людвига Баварского, загадки Нюрнбергского процесса… Об этом и многом другом рассказывает очередная книга серии.

Виктор Николаевич Еремин

Биографии и Мемуары / История / Энциклопедии / Образование и наука / Словари и Энциклопедии
1221. Великий князь Георгий Всеволодович и основание Нижнего Новгорода
1221. Великий князь Георгий Всеволодович и основание Нижнего Новгорода

Правда о самом противоречивом князе Древней Руси.Книга рассказывает о Георгии Всеволодовиче, великом князе Владимирском, правнуке Владимира Мономаха, значительной и весьма противоречивой фигуре отечественной истории. Его политика и геополитика, основание Нижнего Новгорода, княжеские междоусобицы, битва на Липице, столкновение с монгольской агрессией – вся деятельность и судьба князя подвергаются пристрастному анализу. Полемику о Георгии Всеволодовиче можно обнаружить уже в летописях. Для церкви Георгий – святой князь и герой, который «пал за веру и отечество». Однако существует устойчивая критическая традиция, жестко обличающая его деяния. Автор, известный историк и политик Вячеслав Никонов, «без гнева и пристрастия» исследует фигуру Георгия Всеволодовича как крупного самобытного политика в контексте того, чем была Древняя Русь к началу XIII века, какое место занимало в ней Владимиро-Суздальское княжество, и какую роль играл его лидер в общерусских делах.Это увлекательный рассказ об одном из самых неоднозначных правителей Руси. Редко какой персонаж российской истории, за исключением разве что Ивана Грозного, Петра I или Владимира Ленина, удостаивался столь противоречивых оценок.Кем был великий князь Георгий Всеволодович, погибший в 1238 году?– Неудачником, которого обвиняли в поражении русских от монголов?– Святым мучеником за православную веру и за легендарный Китеж-град?– Князем-провидцем, основавшим Нижний Новгород, восточный щит России, город, спасший независимость страны в Смуте 1612 года?На эти и другие вопросы отвечает в своей книге Вячеслав Никонов, известный российский историк и политик. Вячеслав Алексеевич Никонов – первый заместитель председателя комитета Государственной Думы по международным делам, декан факультета государственного управления МГУ, председатель правления фонда "Русский мир", доктор исторических наук.В формате PDF A4 сохранен издательский макет.

Вячеслав Алексеевич Никонов

История / Учебная и научная литература / Образование и наука