permitted them occasionally to capture detached herds, and appeared as if to give battle and then retreated with the design of having the enemy follow them, hoping thus to detain Darius until the plan for the destruction of the bridge had been accomplished. The plot, however, failed, owing to the influence of Histiæus, who undoubtedly was instrumental in saving the Persian army and the life of his sovereign. Darius succeeded in reaching the Danube, crossed it, and continued his march south through Thrace, and at Sestus crossed the Hellespont into Asia.

How far the army of Darius succeeded in penetrating into Scythia no historian has been able to state with any degree of accuracy. It seems incredible that he could have advanced as far as the Tanais (the Don), the Hypanis (the Bug) or even across the Tyras (the Dniester). This is obvious because neither of these rivers are fordable near their mouths, and Darius could not cross them with an army of 700,000 without the aid of a bridge such as was constructed across the Danube. There is no pretense by anybody that he had under his control in Scythia boats, or material necessary to bridge these great rivers of southern Russia. Ctesias, who derived his information from Persian sources, declares that Darius marched for fifteen days into the Scythian country and there met the King of Scythia and exchanged bows with him. Strabo indicates that the wanderings of the Great King were confined to the territory between the Danube and the Tyras (the Dniester), which includes Moldavia and Bessarabia. If he remained absent from the Danube more than sixty days his march may have been north along the west bank of the Dniester. If he crossed that river and penetrated as far as the Bug, it must have been at a point where it was possible to ford it. But the fact that we have no certain information as to how far Darius penetrated Scythia, is no reason why

EXPEDITION AN HISTORICAL FACT

183

we should discredit the narrative of Herodotus, and claim that the Scythian expedition never took place. No one who has sought to challenge the narrative in this regard has been able to assign any plausible argument for the assumption that the account of the expedition is a mere fiction. Mr. Grote entertains no doubt that Darius marched into Scythia, and declares that "the adventures which took place at the passage of the Danube, both on the out march, and the home march, wherein the Ionians are concerned, are far more within the limits of history." Canon Rawlinson, after a thorough and exhaustive examination of all the authorities, declares that the fact that Darius led such. an expedition, crossed the Bosphorus at Constantinople, ascended the Danube and crossed it into Scythia, and that Miltiades was present at the passage of the Bosphorus, and later at the Danube, must be taken to be facts" as assured as the battle of Marathon itself," and that Darius penetrated some distance into what is now Wallachia and Moldavia and returned without attaining any success, or without any overwhelming loss, is also certain.

If the object of Darius, in leading his expedition to the Danube, was to conquer Scythia, it was an absolute failure. But the design of the Great King embraced the idea of subduing Thrace, making the Danube the northern frontier of his dominions in Europe, to be supplemented ultimately by the reduction of Hellas, and the extension of his empire to the extreme western borders of the continent. In order to attain this end he detached Magabazus with an army of 80,000, directing him to remain in Europe to complete the conquest of Thrace. That energetic commander, subdued Perinthus on the Propontis (sea of Marmora), extended his dominions westward beyond the Hebrus to the Strymmon and finally secured the allegiance of the Macedonians, who became tribute allies of Darius. He es

tablished forts and store-houses on the Hebrus, the Strymon and other parts of Thrace, which were utilized by Xerxes, on his memorable march through that country to invade Greece. The existence of these forts and bases of supplies, years before the time of Xerxes, is regarded as one of the strongest proofs that the Scythian expedition took place, substanially as narrated by Herodotus.

CHAPTER XII

IONIAN WARS- BURNING OF SARDIS

MILITARY

OPERATIONS ON COASTS OF ASIA MINOR-
BATTLE OF LADE

T

HE strip of sea-coast which forms the eastern boundary of Asia Minor was colonized very early by Greeks, attracted by the grateful climate and commercial advantages of these trans-gean regions. Hellenic colonies inhabited the states of Eolis, Ionia and Doris, which form the fringe of coast-line immediately adjoining the kingdoms of Lydia and Caria. What are known as the Ionian Wars derived the name from Ionia, above referred to, in which was situated the important cities of Miletus, which is built on the mainland adjacent to the island of Lade, Priene, Magnesia, Ephesus, Smyrna and Phocea. The islands of Chios and Samos belong to Ionia; Lesbos to Eolis; and Rhodes to Doris.

Before Cyrus conquered the Medes and absorbed their empire, Croesus, King of Lydia, had extended his jurisdiction over the Ionians. He did not attempt to wholly subjugate the Greeks, but established an alliance with them, whereby they agreed to contribute to the revenues of the Lydian monarch, and to acknowledge him as their nominal sovereign, in return for which Croesus permitted them to enjoy their political autonomy and lent them military aid and support in their wars. In other words, the Greek cities of Asia Minor for a long time were merely tribute allies of Croesus.

After Cyrus destroyed the empire of the Medes, Croesus became alarmed. He consulted the oracle at

Delphi and led an army across the Halys into the dominions of Cyrus. He was defeated by the Persian monarch and retreated to Sardis, his ancient capital. Cyrus defeated the Lydian cavalry under its walls and afterwards took the city and made Cræsus prisoner. The Greek cities of Æolis and Ionia then sent ambassadors to Cyrus, and offered to submit to his rule upon the same terms and conditions which Croesus had granted them. Except as to Miletus, the proffer was refused, and the Asiatic Greeks prepared to resist the tyranny threatened by the arms of Persia. Cyrus left the subjugation of the Æolians and Ionians to his generals, while he began his campaigns against Assyria and Babylonia and upper Asia. After his death, the Greek cities in his dominions having been subjugated, Cambyses prosecuted his campaigns in Egypt. When Darius ascened the throne of Persia, he divided his empire into twenty-three satrapies and apportioned the tribute each was required to pay into the royal treasury. The Greek cities on the sea-coast were embraced in the satrapy of Sardis over which he appointed his brother Artaphernes. Thus the Eolians and Ionians late in the sixth century B. C. became subject to the Persian yoke.

The cause of the Ionian wars was the desire of these cities to free themselves from the power of Darius and to re-establish their independence. It took the Persian monarch six years to subdue their formidable revolt in Eolis and Ionia. The war commenced by the attack upon Sardis which was burned by the insurgents aided by a contingent from Athens and Eretria, after which the conspicuous events were the battle of Lade, the siege and fall of Miletus, and the reduction of the islands Chios, Lesbos and Tenedos. A brief review of the character and progress attained by the Ionians at this period will be interesting.

Long before Cyrus had conquered Lydia and reduced