Читаем The Historians' History of the World 04 полностью

On his march towards the territories of Pharnabazus, Agesilaus received a flattering testimony of the approbation with which his proceedings were viewed at Sparta, and of the disposition which prevailed there to support him in the prosecution of the war. By a despatch which reached him as he lay near Cyme, he learned that he had been invested with the administration of naval affairs, that he was empowered to appoint whom he would to the office of admiral, and still to regulate the operations of the fleet at his discretion. Thus to unite the supreme command of the army and of the navy in one person, was an unexampled mark of confidence, and a striking indication of the new energy which ambition had infused into the Spartan counsels. Agesilaus immediately took measures for raising a fleet; and by a judicious distribution of the burden among the maritime allies, and his influence with wealthy individuals, collected 120 new galleys. But he was less prudent and fortunate in the choice of an admiral, and instead of seeking the highest qualifications, consulted his private affection in the appointment of his wife’s brother Pisander. When this business was despatched, he continued his march to the satrapy of Pharnabazus.

PERSIAN GOLD

These preparations, combined perhaps with other tokens, convinced Tithraustes that Agesilaus had no intention of withdrawing from Asia, but was inclined rather to extend than contract his views, and cherished strong hopes of effecting the conquest of the empire. He perceived that he had only purchased a temporary relief, and bethought himself how he might employ the gold, which was his last remaining stay, to greater advantage. The history of the contest between Greece and Persia afforded several instructive lessons, which were now peculiarly applicable. At the time when the first Artaxerxes was embarrassed by the success of the Athenians in Egypt, he sent an agent, as we have seen, with bribes to Sparta, to procure a diversion in his favour. Tithraustes now resorted to a similar expedient. He sent a Rhodian named Timocrates to Greece, with a sum of fifty talents, which he was charged to distribute, with proper precautions, among the leading persons in the states which might be most easily induced to interrupt the progress of Agesilaus by kindling a war against Sparta at home. Not only was this mission itself a notorious and unquestionable fact; but Xenophon professes an equal degree of certainty as to the names of the persons who received the money. We may at least venture to believe that, though it may have roused them to greater activity, it produced no change in their political sentiments: and we even doubt whether it gave rise to any events which would not have occurred nearly as soon without it. It was indeed natural enough for Agesilaus and his friends to attribute the disappointment of his hopes to the venality of their adversaries. But Xenophon himself observes that the Athenians, though they did not receive any share of the gold, were eager for war in the hope of recovering their independence. And it is clear from his own narrative that similar feelings of jealousy or resentment towards Sparta already prevailed at Thebes, Corinth, and Argos, and were only waiting for an opportunity of displaying themselves in open hostility, but needed no corrupt influence to excite them.

The anti-Laconian party at Thebes—the same no doubt which had sheltered the Athenian exiles, and had contrived the affront offered to Agesilaus at Aulis, and which had therefore reason to dread his resentment if he should ever return to Europe as the conqueror of Asia—set the first springs of hostility in motion. The disposition to war they found already existing; a pretext only was wanting, and this they easily devised. Means were found to induce the Locrians of Opus to make an inroad upon a tract of land which had been long the subject of contention between them and their neighbours the Phocians. The Phocians retaliated by the invasion of the Opuntian Locris, and the Thebans were soon persuaded to take part with the Locrians, and invade Phocis. The Phocians, as was foreseen, applied for succour to Sparta, where, as Xenophon admits, there was the utmost readiness to lay hold on any pretence for a war with Thebes; and the present season of prosperity seemed to the Spartan government the most favourable for humbling a power which had given so many proofs of ill-will towards it.

WAR RISES IN GREECE

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