Xerxes As A Personality (1 Viewer)

[xanthanotus]

Why Did He Decide To Invade Greece?

It would appear that when Xerxes first came to throne he had no desire to invade Greece. According to Herodotus ‘Xerxes at first was not at all interested in invading Greece...But Mardonius – the son of Gobryas and Darius’ sister and thus cousin to the king – who was present in court and had more influence with Xerxes then anyone else in the country, used constantly to talk to him on the subject.... he would say, “the Athenians have done us great injury, and its only right that they should be punished for their crimes”.’ (Herodotus, The Histories, 7, 5).

It seemed that Xerxes prior to the departure of the expedition, ‘called a conference of the leading men in the country, to find out their attitude towards the war and explain to them his own wishes.’ (Herodotus, The Histories, 7, 8). It become visible the Xerxes had a desire to follow in the footsteps of his predecessors ‘and to add as much power and territory to his empire as possible was the main motivating factor’ (Ancient Greece- using evidence, Pamela Bradley, 131) for his invasion of Greece. It can be assumed revenge against Athens was not the major reason for the invasion, as Xerxes had sent out for submission to most of the Greek cities.

It would appear the most significant aspect in deciding to go to war against Greece, was a dream had be Xerxes. According to Herodotus god came to Xerxes in his dream and said ‘now let me tell you what the result will be, if you do not at once undertake this war: just as in a moment you rose to greatness and power, so in a moment will you be brought low again.’ (Herodotus, The Histories, 7, 14). After this dream is would appear the Xerxes had made his mind up, Persia was going to invade Greece, it was god wish for it to happen.

 

[xanthanotus]

What Preparations Did He Make Before He Invaded Greece?

Xerxes made extensive preparations before the invasion of Greece, including assembling a larger navy and army. Cutting the Athos Canal. Bridging the Strymon River. Creating supply deports, and the bridging of the Hellespont.

For the invasion of Greece to be feasible, Xerxes needed to increase the size of his navy and army. ‘There was not a nation in Asia that he did not take with him against Greece...Some nations provided, other formed infantry units, from some cavalry was requisitioned, from other horse transports and crews; from other, again, warships for floating bridges, or provisions and naval craft of various kinds.’ (Herodotus, The Histories, 7, 21). On the completion of this recruitment Herodotus ‘mentions that Xerxes’ forces were in the vicinity of 200,000, 10,000 were the elite Immortals.’ (Ancient Greece- using evidence, Pamela Bradley, 132).

The cutting of the Athos canal was undertaken ‘in view of the previous diaster to the fleet off Mt Athos’ (Ancient Greece- using evidence, Pamela Bradley, 132). The canal was dug wide enough for two triremes to be rowed abreast, yet there would have been not difficulty hauling the ships across isthmus on land. Herodotus describes the digging of the canal, and states ‘I cannot conclude that it was mere ostentation that made Xerxes have the canal dug – he wanter to show his power and to leave something to be remembered by’ (Herodotus, The Histories, 7, 23 – 24).

While the digging of the canal was underway the bridging of the Strymon River was also taking place. The bridge was constructed near the mouth of the river, and was ‘a task Xerxes entrusted to the Phoenicians and Egyptians’ (Herodotus, The Histories, 7, 25)

Carefully selected sites alone the coasts of both Thrace and Macedonia were used as supply deposits. ‘The greatest quantity was collected at a place called White Cape in Thrace; other dumps were at Tyrodiza in Perinthian territory, Doriscus, Eion on the Strymon and in Macedonia.’ (Herodotus, The Histories, 7, 25). The supply deposits are believed to have consisted of ‘enormous quantities of grain and salt meat’. (Ancient Greece- using evidence, Pamela Bradley, 132).

The bridging of the Hellespont is considered by many Xerxes greatest engineering feats. The floating bridge was seven furlongs in length, and ‘constructed across the Hellespont from Asia to Europe’ (Herodotus, The Histories, 7, 33).

After these five various tasks had been completed, Xerxes felt confident of the Persians defeat of the Greeks.

 

[xanthanotus]

Who Were Leonidas And Themistocles? Find Some Thing About Their Importance To The Greek Forces During The Persian Wars.

Leonidas was the king of Sparta, in ancient Greece, around the time of the second Persian wars. ‘ He succeeded his half brother, Cleomened I’ (The Columbia Encyclopiedia, Sixith Edition, 2001). ‘Leonidas with 300 Spartans and 5000 auxiliaries was given the pass as Thermopylae to hold’ (The Columbia Encyclopaedia, Sixth Edition, 2001). During this battle he ‘held back the Persian army in a narrow pass for three days, allowing the Greeks time to fully mobilize.’ (http://www.logh.net/history/leonidas.htm). According to Herodotus, ‘in the course of that fight [battle of Thermopylae] Leonidas fell, having fought most gallantly...’ (Herodotus, The Histories, 7, 224).

Themistocles on the other hand was an ‘Athenian statesman and navel commander. He was elected one of the three archons in 493 BC. In succeeding years many of his rivals were eliminated by ostracism and he became the chief figure of Athenian politics’. (The Columbia Encyclopaedia, Sixth Edition, 2001). During the battle of Thermopylae, the ‘Athenians were commanded by Themistocles, son of Neocles’. (Herodotus, The Histories, 7, 173). When ‘Xerxes invaded Greece in 480 BC, and military defences of Athens was impossible. Themistocles evacuated the city. Although the Greek fleet was entrusted to a Spartan, Themistocles determined its strategy, thus bringing about the decisive victory of Salamis [c. 480 BC] and the retreat of Xerxes to Persia’. (The Columbia Encyclopaedia, Sixth Edition, 2001). Around 471 BC ‘after his opponents came to power, he was exiled. Ultimately he liven in Persian, where King Artaxerxes made generous provisions for him’. (The Columbia Encyclopaedia, Sixth Edition, 2001)

 

[xanthanotus]

List The Results And The Significance Of The Second Persian Wars.

The persian wars played a significant role in the history of both persia and Greece. Persia’s over zealous nature, and belief in their power and might, possibly played a significant role in their some what embarrassing downfall during the persian wars, the consequence being they were no longer feared to the extent they had previously been.

Artemisium, Salamis, Platea and Mycale, were all important, in their own right, but Thermoplyae, was probably the most imperative to the Greeks. Although they lost the actual battle, ‘Thermopylae was always hailed as a triumph for Greek arms because the persian army was crucially delayed’ (www.history.boisestate.edu/westciv/persian/19.htm Boise State UniversityLast Revised 17 June 1995). This particular battle served as an example to both officers and soldiers of what can be accomplished through heroic self sacrifice.

The persian wars, were a heroic epoch for Greece – athens and sparta in particular. Asia minor was restored to independence, and athens and sparta were the undisputed leaders of Hellas. While ‘it is difficult to access all the consequences of the Greek victory over the persians’ (www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/PERSIAN.htm©1996 Richard Hines Updated 6-6-1999), it is recognised that the spartans were principlly responsible for the success, but the athenian fleet was proberly the most important component of that victory. The triumph left athans with the most powerful fleet in the Aegean, this power would make athens the cultural center of the greek world, but it would also spell their downfall as the spartans grew increasingly worried of the atheanien power and intentions.

 

[xanthanotus]

Find Evidence Of The Religious Practices Xerxes Engaged In. What Other Religions Were There In The Empire At This Time And How Did Xerxes Show His Tolerance Of Intolerance Of Them?

Religion of the Persian Empire during the time of Xerxes rule, is irresolute, and in some areas very vague, due to insufficient sources.

The Persian Empire was constructed of a very diverse range of countries, and thus they had very different religious beliefs and practices. It would appear Xerxes, like his predecessors, was tolerant of these other religious practices in the empire to a certain degree. A stone tablet found at Persepolis suggests that Xerxes destroyed the temples that were related to god he deemed false. ‘Among these countries there was [a place] where previously false gods where worshipped. Afterwards, by the favour of Ahura Mazda, I destroyed that sanctuary of the demons (daevas) and I made proclamation: the demons shall not be worshipped! Where previously the demons were worshipped, there I worshipped Ahura Mazda and Arta reverently’. (Kent, Old Persian, Grammar, Texts, Lexicon, 151).

It is acknowledged that Xerxes was probably a follower of the Zoroastrian religion, due to his numerous references to Ahura Mazda – the central god of the Zoroastrian religion, as well as his constant stressing of the truth, and good triumphing over evil – a highly valued teaching of the Zoroastrian religion. Though it can also be seen in some inscriptions by Xerxes, ‘there had been a return to pre Zoroastrianism polytheism’ (The Cambridge Ancient History, 102) in Xerxes mention of the deity Arta (inscription mentioned above), though the deity Arta is considered an ahura – good spirit of the universe in Zoroastrianism.

So it can be assumed that Xerxes tolerance of other religions only extended as fair as those he deemed fit, and mostly his views of what religions were right and wrong was determined by his religious teachings, in Zoroastrianism.

 

[xanthanotus]

Describe Xerxes Building Program At Persepolis. Include Briefly His Additions To Darius’ Buildings. Illustrate Your Answer With Pictures And Diagrams.

The building program of Persepolis was conceived by Darius during c.515bc, and was later carried on by his two immediate successors Xerxes and Artaxerxes. Persepolis was constructed around ‘forty three kilometres down stream’ (www.livius.org/pen-pg/persepolis/persepolis.htm) from Cyrus’s the Great’s capital Pasargadae and appears to be the centre where Achaemenid kings came to ‘celebrate the achievements of their ancestors in religious ceremonies, to receive foreign delegations, and to be buried’ (www.asrehoda.com/persepolis.htm). Persepolis was considered to be one of the most magnificent cities of the ancient world, until its destruction in c.330bc by Alexander the Great of Macedonia. The existing remains of the city consist of a collection of columns, stone door and window jambs, facades and staircases, many having splendid base reliefs and sculptures.

There are believed to have been around fifteen major buildings in Persepolis including, the Apadana, the Palace of Xerxes, the Gate House of Xerxes, the Harem and the Throne Hall (also known as the hall of one hundred columns).

The Apadana (or audience hall), which is at the heart of the terrace (refer to map 1.), is by far the largest and most magnificent building in Persepolis. The construction of the building was commenced by Darius and then, after his death continued by Xerxes. Evidence suggests there originally were seventy-two columns – now only thirteen stand, on an enormous platform, where access was gained by two monumental stairways. The staircases were adorned with beautifully executed reliefs showing scenes supposably ‘from the new year’s festival and processions of representatives of twenty three subject nations of the Achaemenid Empire’. (www.oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/PA/IRAN /PAAI/PAAI_Palace_Xerxes.html)

The Palace of Xerxes is situated in the south west (refer to map 1.), and is almost twice the size of his father, Darius’ Palace, it is believe to have been built c. 480 – 470bc. The decorative patterns featured on its stone doorframes and windows, are very similar to that of Darius’ Palace, except for the two large ‘Xerxes inscriptions on the eastern and western doorways’. (www.oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/PA/IRAN/PAAI/ PAAI_Palace_Xerxes.html). The reliefs of Xerxes Palace are unfortunately not as well preserved as those of Darius’ Palace.

The Gate of Xerxes, or as its some time know “the Gate of the Nations”, so called by Xerxes ‘for all visitors had to pass through this, the only entrance to the terrace (refer to map 1.), on their way to the Throne Hall to pay homage to the king’ (www.oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/PA/IRAN /PAAI/PAAI_Palace_Xerxes.html). The ‘Gate of Xerxes’ was believed to have been constructed c. 490 – 480. The exterior walls of the gate where made of thick mud brick, and appear to have been covered with numerous niches. All three walls of the east, west and south have a very large stone door way, the south having the widest door way, with a pair of colossal bulls guarding the western entrance, and two Assyrianized man bulls at the eastern door way. Above each of these four bulls is a trilingual inscription attesting to Xerxes having built and completed the gate. On the inner corners of all the doors there were pivoting devices, which suggest that they must have had two leaved doors, ‘which were probably made of wood and covered with sheets of ornamental metal’ (www.oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/PA/IRAN/ PAAI/PAAI_Palace_Xerxes.html).

The Harem of Xerxes (refer to map 1.) is believed to have been constructed some time between 480 – 470bc, is assumed to have been the residence of the royal ladies. It was constructed in an L shape form, with the main wing being orientated south, and the west wing extending westward from the southern portion of the main wing. The core of the main wing has a large centrally placed columned hall with a portico facing a spacious courtyard on the north. The hall its self had four doorways. Within the building there were numerous reliefs including; the jambs of the southern door ways showed Xerxes entering the hall, he was followed by two attendants, one carrying a fly wisk and the other is holding a parasol over the kings’ head. The eastern doorway jambs depict Xerxes fighting a lion headed monster; the reliefs of the western doorways show Xerxes in combat with a lion. This area was believed to have probably been reserved for the queen quarters and her retinue, though this is not known for certain. South of the columned hall, in the main wing, there was six apartments arranged in to two rows. Each apartment had a large pillared room and one or some times two smaller rooms. Sixteen apartments with similar layout were found in the west wing. Access to the Harem could be gained through the council hall, which went to the northern part of the main wing, or two stairways, which connected to the west wing of the Harem and Xerxes Palace. A third exit at the eastern end of the west wing may have lead to an open area or perhaps an enclosed area whose limits have been destroyed.

The Throne Hall, next to the Apadana (refer to map 1.) was constructed during c. 470 – 450bc, it was the second largest building in Persepolis and is often refer to as the Hundred Column Hall. Its construction was started by Xerxes, and later completed by his son Artaxerxes. It consisted of eight stone doorways, which are decorated on the north and south with reliefs of throne scenes and on the east and west with scenes of Xerxes in combat with monsters. Two colossal stone bulls flank the northern portico of the building. It is believed during the early reign of Xerxes the Throne Hall was used as a reception for the representatives of the subject nations, but later served as a storehouse, when it proved to small for receptions.

Although Darius shaped the idea of Persepolis, it was Xerxes who gave it, its grandness. Xerxes was believed to have spent a considerable amount of the empires wealth on its construction, and while the city its self did not stand the test of time, today its unmatched splendour is still evident, if only in the deteriorating rubble of one the greatest cities of the ancient world.

 

[xanthanotus]

What Relationships Did Xerxes Have With Other Members Of His Family And With His Courtiers?

There is not a great deal of information reguarding the relationships Xerxes formed with varius people during his lifetime. But it would appear, that Xerxes’ relationships were as diverse as the countries that formed the Persian Empire; some were good while others appeared tyrannical, whichever way the relationship went appeared to depend on how much the people involved pleased him.

It would appear that Xerxes valued people who benefited him or his empire in some way, and of those who did, he would reward greatly. Herodotus quotes him as saying ‘if then you wish to gain my favour, each one of you must present himself willingly and in good heart on the day which I shall name; whoever brings with him the best equipped body of troops I will reward with those marks of distinction held in greatest value by our countrymen. (Herodotus, The Histories, 7, 8d).

It would also be fair to say that he had a great respect for his wives and their opinions. When his second wife Esther came to him, he did not disregard what she was saying but rather listened and removed a decree which allowed Harman to kill and extirpate, all Jewish people which lived within the Persian walls (Esther 4:16).

Though in saying the above it would have to be acknowledged he did not have strong reguard for some of those around him. He allowed his third wife Amestris to burry, fourteen persian boys of distinguished families, alive (Herodotus, The Histories, 7, 144). Then at a later stage, left her unpunished after she sent soldiers of the royal bodyguard to mutilate, the mother of Artaynte, who Amestris believed Xerxes to be having an affair with. (herodotus, The Histories, 9, 108 – 144). Many believe stories such as these by herodotus, are only there to show Xerxes was a slave of his women, and there fore unfit to rule. (livius.org/am-ao/amestris/amestris.htm). But in saying that, it does leave the question, was xerxes relationships with different women leaving him with the image, of a slave to his women?

 

[xanthanotus]

How Did Xerxes Die? Where Is His Tomb? Give A Description Of It And Find A Picture Of It If You Can.

The death of Xerxes appears to be a very uncontroversial topic. Most sources agree that he was murdered / assassinated in c. 465 BC by Artabanus (www.zianet.com/maxey/Inter1.htm#Xerxes% 20I) who was the younger brother of king Darius, and was for some time the satrap of satrapy Bactria (www.livius.org/arlarz/artabanus/ artabanus.html), which probably means that he was considered the first in line of the succession, until Darius’ son Xerxes was old enough. Some sources believe that Spamitres, a Persian leader may have played a part in the killing of Xerxes in the bedchamber of his palace at Persepolis. (http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/prehistory/egypt /history/periods/persiani.html).

It is also suggested that Artabanus proceeded to kill Xerxes oldest son and heir to the throne Dareios (Darius), which left Artaxerxes as heir to the throne of Persia, though Artaxerxes was to young to fulfil his obligations, and so was set up by Artabanus as being the king, but Artabanus was really in control. This arrangement continued for approximately seven months until he became unhappy with Artaxerxes and proceeded to try and kill him, but during the scuffle Artaxerxes succeeded in killing Artabanus. (www. home.earthlink.net/~walterk12/Xian/Cal/ChristNativity.htm).

Xerxes tomb is located about 4.8 kilometres north west of Persepolis, at Naqsh-i-Rustam in the mountain range of Husain Kuh. Darius was the first Persian king to choose Naqsh-i-Rustam as his burial place, and was followed by his successors. Xerxes tomb is a near replica of his fathers Darius’ tomb.

The dramatic facade of the tomb is constructed like a cross; an entrance leads into the tomb chamber, which is cut deep into the rock. In the panel above the facade is a relief depicting the king standing on the three step pedestal, in front of an alter; he has his hand raised in a gesture of worship. Above him floats the winged disk of Ahura Mazda. This scene is supported by throne bearers representing the twenty-eight nations of the empire. On the side panels are the kings weapon bearers and the Persians guards. There have been some traces of pigment found on the facade of the royal tombs, suggesting that most, if not all of the stone reliefs had been painted. (www.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/PA/IRAN/PAAI/IMAGES/PER/RTOM/7E7_4.HTML).

It was not until 1936 that Erich F Schmidt started to clear and document the royal tombs. Whether the tomb that has been identified, as Xerxes is actually his is unknown. Darius’ tomb is the only one that can be at present identified beyond doubt, through inscriptions carved into it.

 

[xanthanotus]

Describe The Greek Army – Its Composition, Weapons, Armour And Hoplite Formation And Main Commanders.

The Greek army mostly depended on their phalanx during battles, they were the inventors of it and it had never failed during the Persian wars. The phalanx had proved its self to be such a superior tactic, that for a long time the Greek forces did not see it necessary to expand their army with lighter troops, archers, or cavalry. The Greek army can be separated in to two fragments, the Athenian army and the Spartan army.

The Athenian army was lead by ten generals who were commonly known as the strategos, who were each year apparently chosen by the people’s council. ‘The strategos were responsible for the security and the defences of the city and the surrounding plains’ (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html). Below them there was believed to be a large military hierarchy. ‘The infantry was commanded by ten taxiarchoi, who had several officers officers, or lochagoi, under them who led the companies of the army. The cavalry on its turn was commanded by two officers who were called the hipaschen, and they were assisted by ten fyarchen.’ (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html).

The Athenian hoplite was a heavily armed and armoured foot soldier, and probably the most important unit of the army. The suit of an Athenian hoplite consisted of a suit of good armour, the cost of this suit was extremely high, and this could explain why the hoplites only consisted of nobility at first. Later the cost of armour was reduced, making it more accessible to poorer people.
The Athenian hoplite was not as well trained as a Spartan hoplite, but he was superior to most other fighters at the time. At the age of eight teen boys from the richer classes of the hoplites received training, which took around two years, they learned how to handle weapons as well as several manoeuvres and fortification methods. They remained liable for military service until the age of sixty, however men younger the twenty and older then 50 could only be used for garrison duties in Attica.

The Spartan army was certainly not superior without any reason. Each boy of a Spartan family ‘was taken away at the age of seven and placed under the supervision of an adult Spartan till the age of eighteen. And extensive training till the age of thirty followed when the Spartan became a full citizen.’ (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html). The Spartan army used numerous different formations in battle, which are detailed by Thucydides, a Greek historian and soldier, and Xenophon, and officer.

The Spartan hoplites outfit was very similar to the Athenian hoplite. The most noticeable difference being the Spartan symbol on their hoplon, and the red cape, which was not worn into battle. Long hair was a common feature for Spartan men.

 

[xanthanotus]

Describe The Greek Naval Forces, Their Commanders, Style Of Vessels and Defences.

Like the Greek army the navy had also proved its self to be superior in many aspects. The ships used by the Greeks during battle were known as the trireme, they were an enhanced weapon, and the Greek navy practically only consisted of these fast vessels. Trireme comes from the Latin word triremis, which means “with three benches”.

The trireme was used by the Greeks as a battering ram, the keel was forty meters long and stuck out three meters at the front where it was armoured with bronze plates. For a maximum blow to be created the ship need to have maximum speed. This was achieved ‘because of its special streamline and revolutionary position of the oarsmen’ (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html). To get as many oarsmen on the ship as possible ‘the designers placed three benches above each other in a sloping way...the lowest level consisted of fifty four rows men known as thalamioi, above them fifty four zugioi, and the upper level was formed of fifty four thranitai.’ (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html). The thranitai were considered the most important of the oarsmen as only they could see where the oars touched the water. The rhythm and speed of the oars was decided by the ‘row master’ who received his orders from the captain and shouted them through the ship.

Having such large numbers of row men in such a small space could cause problems. When one man did not row in the correct rhythm, he would proceed to hit another row man and so on – dominoes effect. This could have a catastrophic effect, as one side of the ship would not be able to row for a while, thus reducing both speed and manoeuvrability by a huge extent, making it an easy target during battles.

The Athenian navy comprised of ‘approximately three hundred triremes...with a reserve fleet of 100’ (ancient Greece – using evidence, Pamela Bradley, 211). The crew of each ship consisted of oarsmen recruited from Thetes, Metics and allied subjects. Each oars man was paid is accordance to his placement on the ship, with the upper oarsmen or thranitai being paid the most.

The appearance of the boat was very unique. The copper battering ram was often shaped like the nose of a boar; while at both side of the front huge eyes were often painted. It is believed that the top of the sides were covered with huge pelts, and this together with the huge oars going up and down like wings, would have made for a funny but feared sight.

Modern calculations suggest that a trireme was capable of reaching its top speed (approximately 18kph) in around 30 seconds. This combined with its appearance must have made it an incredibly feared sight; some would even say it looked like a mythological bat.

 

[xanthanotus]

Who Were The Immortals?

The immortals, was the Greek names for an elite regiment of the Persian Empire. So called because ‘it was invariably kept up to strength; if a man was killed or fell sick, the vacancy he left was at once filled, so that its strength was never more nor less than 10,000’ (Herodotus, The Histories, 7, 82). They are probably most well known for their contribution to the battle of Thermopylae, where they ‘made a detour and were able to attack the Greeks in the rear’. (www.livius.org/ia-in/immortals/immortals.html ). ‘Entry to the ranks of the immortals was restricted to those with Persian, Mede or Elamite ancestry’ (http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ancientpersia/P_immortal.html). According to Herodotus ‘they were accompanied, moreover, by covered carriages containing their women and servants, all elaborately fitted out. Special food, separate from that of the rest of the army, was brought along for them on camels and mules’ (Herodotus, The Histories, 7, 83).

 

[xanthanotus]

Briefly Describe The Composition Of Xerxes Army. Include Things Such As Its Structure, Main Commanders, And Subject Peoples Who Fought In The Army, Its Size And Armour And Weapons.

Herodotus suggests the Persian army consisted of 1,700,000 men, though obviously this is an exaggeration, with historians suggesting there was any where between 200,000 to 300,000 men fighting. It is apparent the Persians were capable of producing so many soldiers, because of the enormous size of the empire. While the Persian army was immense, it was not as well trained as the Greek army, nor did it have the equipment, that the Greek armies had. Nevertheless the Persian army was incredibly powerful, especially the elite immortals and Persian cavalry.

The immortals was the Greek names for an elite regiment of the Persian Empire. So called because ‘it was invariably kept up to strength; if a man was killed or fell sick, the vacancy he left was at once filled, so that its strength was never more nor less than 10,000’ (Herodotus, The Histories, 7, 82). One of the main weapons of the immortals was a short bow, which was of little use against the heavy armoured Greek Hoplites. The other main weapon was a short spear with an iron point and a silver counterbalance, ‘the officers had a golden counterbalance’. (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html). A short sword or big dagger completed the weaponry of the immortals. Their clothing consisted of a corset with metal plates worn under their tunic to offer some protection. ‘In his left hand he held the gerron: a traditional shield made of wicker and leather’ (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html). It was this shield that gave the immortal protection against arrows, but certainly would have not protected him against a well-aimed thrust of a spear of a Greek hoplite. Often they would wear a soft cap of fabric, known as a tiara, which could be pulled down over their face when they were travelling through a desert. Their tunics were richly decorated with embroidery, and they were often painted in purple, blue, yellow, or white.

The Persian army was heavily dependant on their huge numbers of cavalry. The cavalry added a lot to the army, mostly because of its speed, and their ability to give ‘more room for tactical manoeuvres’ (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html). The Persian cavalry did not have much armour, though they did have more then the infantry, which was clothed in soft clothing. Armour in the Persian army was, in general rare. Masistus, the commander of the Persian cavalry was who was killed in the early stages of the battle at Plataea, ‘wore a tunic with golden plates under his purple cape. He continued to defend himself after an arrow killed his horse, and blows did not seem to hurt him. Then the Greeks finally discovered his little secret and aimed for his head’ (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html). This incident proving how rare amour was among the Persians.
There were, at the time of the Persian wars, many commanders. And in general command of the infantry were according to Herodotus ‘Mardonius, the son of Gobryas, Tritantaechmes, the son of Artabaus, Smerdomenes the son of Otanes, Masistes the son of Darius, Gergis the son of Ariazus, and Megabyzus the son of Zopyrus. These six commanded all the infantry except the ten thousand...[who were] under the leadership of Hydarnes the son of Hydarnes’ (Herodotus, The Histories, 7, 399)

Of course there were many more types of infantry in the Persian army. Subject people from the many conquered states of Persia were forced to fight, and this explains the diversity of the Persian army. The Persians had inferior equipment and did not form the unity of the Greeks, nor did they fight in groups like a phalanx. Later on the phalanx of the Greek mercenaries became an important part of the army too, especially when the armies became more versatile.

 

[xanthanotus]

Describe The Size Of The Persian Navy. Again Discuss The Subject States If Was Composed Of; The Main Commanders And The Types Of Boats, Armour And Weapons Of Those On Board The Vessels.

The Persian navy consisted of approximately ‘1200 triremes’ (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html). Though ‘galleys of thirty and fifty oars, horse transports and boats made the total number of the fleet up to three thousand’ (Herodotus the histories, 7,402) it can be acknowledged that the Persians themselves did not have their own navy, but relied heavily on the subject nations to provide both the ships, and some skilled crew members.

According to Herodotus the Phoenicians contributed three hundred ships. They were dressed in similar helmets to the Greeks, and lined corslets; they were armed with rimless shields and javelins. The Egyptians also contributed a large number of ships, approximately two hundred, they are believed to have been dressed in reticulated helmets and were armed with concaved, broad rimmed shields, boarding spears and heavy axes. The Cyprians contributed one hundred and fifty ships, their princes wore turbans while the rest of the sailors wore peaked hats, and the rest of their clothing was similar in style to the Greeks. The Cilians contributed one hundred ships; the crews wore native helmets and woollen corslets and carried light rawhide shields, each man was armed with two javelins and a sword, which closely resembled the Egyptian long knife. The Pamphylians contributed thirty ships; these people were descended from the Greeks and consequently wore armour similar to the Greeks. The Lycians contributed fifty ships, and wore greaves and corslets, they had goatskin slung around their shoulders and huts stuck round with feather. They carried bows and cornet wood, cane arrows without feathers and javelins; they also carried daggers and riphooks. The Asiatic Dorians contributed thirty ships as well; the armour was similar to the Greeks. The Carians contributed seventy ships; their armour was also similar to the Greeks though they also carried riphooks and daggers. The Ionians contributed one hundred ships. Again there armour was similar to that of the Greeks. The islanders, who also wore Greek style armour, contributed seventeen ships. The Aeolians contributed sixty ships; again they wore Greek stylised armour, and equipment. The towns of Hellespont and Bosphorus contributed one hundred ships, all furnished with Greek armour and equipment. (Herodotus the histories, 7, 400-402).

All the ships appeared to carry Persians Medes or Sacae as marines. ‘The men who served with the fleet like those who served with the army had their own native officers. (Herodotus the histories, 7, 402). There were also numerous navel commanders in charge and these included; Ariabignes was in command of the Ionian and Carian contingent. Achaemenes was in command of the Egyptian contingent, and Prexaspes and Megabazus, were in charge of the remaining fleet. (Herodotus, The Histories, 7, 402).
Probably the most surprising feature of the Persian navy, was Artemisia. On the death of her husband the tyranny had past to her, and consequently she took part in the campaign against Greece. (Herodotus, the histories, 7, 402).

 

[xanthanotus]

Explain What Happened In The Naval Encounter At Artemisium. Who Was Involved, What Strategies Were Adopted And Who Won The Battle?

The Battle of Artemisium took place during 480BC. The Greek fleet was constructed of ‘271 triremes, more then half of them were Athenian’ (Ancient Greece – Using evidence, pamela Bradley, 141). Eurybiades, and Themistocles were in charge of the Greek fleet and chose Artemisium as their anchorage. The location was ideal as it covered the entrance to the channel between Euboea and the mainland. It allowed the Greeks a sheltered line of retreat and communications; it would also restrict the Persians navy as well as allowing the Greeks to stop the Persians making contact with their army. For the Persians to cut the Greeks off they would be forced to circumnavigate Euboea, which meant losing contact with their army. The Persian army was a primarily land army, and thus relied on the subjected Phoenicians and other Asiatics for their fleet. ‘They [Phoenicians and Asiatics] also formed the core of the Persian fleet during this expedition’ (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html). Xerxes was their commander.

A storm had already destroyed many of the Persian ships on their way down and Eurybiades and Themistocles; felt that they could stop the already exhausted Persian fleet. How ever the Persian fleet was determined to break through and continue to sail up along the coast with their army. Xerxes decided to risk a frontal attack on the Greek triremes, ‘even though he knew that the narrow strait diminished his numeric advantage’ (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html). The serious navel engagements were indecisive and the Persians were forced to retreat to open sea, which appeared encouraging for the Greeks. Xerxes with no other option sent two hundred triremes to encircle the island of Euboea and attack the Greeks from the rear. However many were ‘destroyed on the rugged south coast’ (Ancient Greece – Using evidence, Pamela Bradley, 141), as Herodotus wrote ‘God thus doing his best to equalise the opposing forces). The Athenians after hearing the news made two raids on the enemy, consequently inflicting heavy losses. The Persian navy received a message from Xerxes to break through as their food supply was dwindling, accordingly the Persian navy took up battle position in the straight, and the two fleets meet face to face. The subsequent battle was indecisive and the Greeks severely suffered. When news reached them concerning the happenings at Thermopylae, the decision was taken for the Greeks to withdraw under the cover of darkness.

Though the Persians had, in essence won the Battle of Artemisium, the Greek naval forces now knew they where adequate to deal with the Persian fleets.

 

[xanthanotus]

What Happened At The Battle Of Mycale?

The battle of Mycale happened during c.479BC. King Leotychides II lead a small Greek army, numbering about 50,000 man and 250 ships (www.geocities.com/caesarkevin/battles/Greekbattles2.html) in to battle with the Persian forces made up of approximately 100,000 men. During the onslaught 45,000 Persians were killed and their ships were burnt. The Battle of Mycale marked the end of the mainland defence, and ‘gave the Greeks supremacy in the Aegean’ (Ancient Greece Using Evidence, Pamela Bradley). It also symbolised the end of the Persian wars.

 

[xanthanotus]

Explain What Happened At The Battle Of Plataea. Who Lead The Forces, The Strategies Employed And Who Was Victorious?

The battle of Plataea occurred during 479 BC. The Persians, though having been stopped at Salamis, still controlled northern Hellas. Xerxes had retuned to Persia, and had left a huge army under the control of Mardonius. Mardonius was the son in law of Xerxes father Darius, and was in command of the fleet that had been destroyed at the peninsula of Athos. The early departure of Xerxes had been beneficial for the Persians as Mardonius was a far better commander then Xerxes. Pausanias was in change of the Greeks combined forces. He was the cousin of Leonidas, and was a capable leader who had an extensive knowledge of battle tactics.

The positions chosen by each parties were very well suited to their abilities. Mardonius chose the battlefield at Plataea, south of Thebes, probably because the plains at the south and west of his camp were highly suitable for his cavalry. The Persia, like always, had a large number of horsemen, approximately 10,000, while the Greeks did not have any. Mardonius’s strategy was formed around the cavalry. Pausanias realised this, and how dangerous the fast moving Persian cavalry were, so place his army in the foothills south of the Persians where their cavalry could not do as much damage.

The beginning of the assault was dragged over a period time, as neither of the parties wanted to leave their chosen position to attack the enemy. The massive Persian army was bound to have problems with their provisions at some stage, since their fleet had retreated. The Greeks had the same problem, though they had it right from the start of the battle. Pausanias however kept his cool and remained with his army in the foothills of the mountain Cithaeron, forcing Mardonius to make the first move.

The Persian cavalry left their fortified encampment, travelling through the plains, and across the river Aspos, proceeding to attack the Greeks in the foothills. Mardonius, knowing this was a risky move ‘hoped to lure [the Greeks] down into the plains where the remainder of his army could finish the job’. (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html). The Greeks however were prepared and the Persian cavalry was unable to break their formations. Mardonius was wise enough not to use his main forces during the cavalry attack, and proceeded to end his attack. Mardonius back at the Persian camp realised he could not use the cavalry to attack the Greeks at the bottom of the foothill, though he could still use them to cut the Greeks provisions off.

As the Greeks water reserves decreased with every day, Pausanias was forced to change his position. ‘He moved his army into the plains, and marched around Plataea where he was much closer to the Asopos ridge where there was plenty of water’ (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html). This new position now makes the Greek forces much more vulnerable from the attack of the Persians.

The next three days saw several encounters take place between the Greeks and the Persian cavalry, none of these small confrontations were won by either side, but the Persians managed to poison the water supplies of the Greeks. After a further ten days Pausanias wanted to retire to a position that was closer to his older position in the foothills.

Pausanias during the night began a manoeuvre, which was made to look as if the Greeks were fleeing. He sent the inexperienced troops ‘towards the new position, while the more experienced fighters stayed behind to prevent a possible Persian attack on retreating forces’ (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html). The inexperienced troops proceeded to get lost and most of them formed a camp in front of the city walls of Plataea. At dawn the rest of the Greek forces retreated towards Plataea to reunite with the ‘lost’ fighters. On seeing this Mardonius believed the Greek army were retreating because of political problems. However the Greek disorganisation had a tactical nature, and when the Persians attacked, were surprised by the Greeks resistance.

The Athenians were still on the plains at the moment of attack, and were pushed back by the Persian cavalry. The inexperienced troops noticed this and moved forward to help the Athenians. Mardonius on his turn attacked the Athenians and the fresh troops with a Boeotian Phalanx, who had collaborated with the Persians. The Spartan phalanx was attacked by Mardonius himself, as well as the cavalry and Persian foot soldiers, the Spartans managed to stop the attack as they could focus on the foot soldiers as they were already in the foothills. The Corinthian hoplites, and their Peloponessian allies, left the protection of the city walls and stormed towards the Spartans. Mardonius ‘commanded his troops to shoot all their arrows at the enemy’, (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html) forcing the Greeks to take shelter behind their shields.

Pausanias had been waiting for this moment. The Thegians, followed by the Spartans charged forward and pushed their way out of the battle, and towards complete victory. The Persians split up after the Spartans had killed Mardonius, and the Persian battle array consequently fell apart. The Persian army now under the control of Artabazos, retreats and crosses the Asopos ridge all while being pursued by the Spartans. At the same time the Athenians managed to defeat the Boeotians with the help of their reinforcements.
The Spartans did not have the equipment to attack a fortress, but were so convinced by their invincibility that they attack the Persian fortress nevertheless. The fortress was destroyed and only a few Persians managed to escape.

 

[xanthanotus]

Explain The Battle Of Salamis Again Discussing The Strategies Employed. Who Won The Battle And How Did They Win?

The Battle of Salamis, again happened during 480BC. The Persians were still under the command of Xerxes. And the Greek fleet was again under the control of Themistocles, who had successfully lead the Greek navy during the battle of Artemisium.

It is acknowledged that the Persians did not have a standing fleet themselves, but instead used the subjected Phoenicians who had excellent sailors and had knowledge of how to build vast ships who could oppose the Greek Triremes. The Persian fleet almost wholly consisted of Phoenician ships, but also included some Asiatic Greek ships and sailors. The Persian Triremes numbered some where between four hundred and fifty and four hundred and eighty five. The Greek fleet consisted of three hundred and ten triremes. Athens, the strongest naval force in Hellas was specialised in using the battering ram, while the Peloponessian fleet relied more heavily on their infantry on the ships. Overall the Greek ships were far more manoeuvrable then the Persian ones, as they did not have the high sternpost like the Phoenician ships did. Though ‘the benefit of the hight stern post was that the arches could attack the oarsmen before the ships hit each other, but it also made the ships slower, and less stable and more difficult to manoeuvre’. (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html).

The battle of Artemisium had taught Themistocles a valuable lesson: ‘the Persian numbers would not count in a narrow strait, but they would count against them’ (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html). Consequently Themistocles went on to persuade his allies that this was what they had to do, fight in the narrow strait of Salamis, the problem being the Spartans wanted to retreat to their Isthmus and let the navy fight on the open sea beside Isthmus. The problem was easily solved when Themistocles threatened that the Athens would sail off with its navy and find a new city in the west, if Sparta still demanded to fight on the Isthmus.

Convincing the Persians to enter the strait of salamis was slightly more difficult, Themistocles sent his best slave to Xerxes to tell him that the Greek navy was retreating to the Isthmus of Corinth to form a combined force with the army. This message sounded so reasonable to Xerxes that he ‘ordered the Egyptian squadron of his fleet (seventy five to ninety ships) to block the strait of Magara. The remaining Persian ships stopped as the island of Psyttaleia and blocked the entrance to the strait of salamis’. (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html). Subsequently the Greek fleet could not escape.

To give Xerxes the impression that the Greeks were actually retreating to Corinth, Themistocles sent the Corinthian squadron of his fleet to the north, at dawn. ‘The Corinthian vessels raised their sails, which was normally only done when fleeing, to convince the Persians that victory was near’. (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html). Unknown to Xerxes, Themistocles had kept part of his fleet hidden in the bay of Ambelaki, while the main force was hidden behind the island Farmakoussai a little further to the north.

Xerxes commanded his ships to enter the strait of salamis to hunt down the fleeing Greek vessels, however when the Persians entered the strait, the Aeginetans and Megarians (formed part of the Greek navy) rushed out of the bay of Ambelaki and attacked the Ionian ships which formed the rear of the Persian fleet. ‘The battle began when the stern of a Phoenician ship was ripped from the rest of the ship’ (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html), the Greek main force suddenly appeared on the battlefield and the confusion among the Persians only increased.

The heavier Persian ships were no match for the fast and trained Greek triremes, and on top of that the weather had changed, and consequently the Persian ships lost even more speed and manoeuvrability in the rough water. The Phoenician battle array disintegrated when their admiral was killed, and the Persian fleet fled to the south, chased by the Greek main forces. The Persians were no party for the Greeks and many of their ships were destroyed. The survivors struggled out of the narrows, while the Greeks hunted them down until they reached Psyttaleai. The Persian garrison on the island was defeated by soldiers of the Greek navy, while the Corinthian ships managed to stop the Egyptian squadron encircling Salamis.

The Persians had lost two hundred ships, the Greeks only forty. The battle of Salamis had not been the decisive final blow that Xerxes had hoped it to have been. The Persians could afford their losses much easier then the Greeks; yet disillusioned Xerxes went back to Persia, leaving his huge army under the control of Mardonius, giving him the orders to conquer the rest of Hellas.

 

[xanthanotus]

Briefly Explain What Happened At Thermopylae. Who Lead The Battles, The Strategies Adopted In The Battle And Who Won It?

The battle of Thermopylae, took place during 480 BC. The Persian Empire was now in the hands of Xerxes, and like his father and the majority of the kings of Persia, Xerxes was an excellent organiser, but not a good general. Xerxes often had moments in which his bad temper made him make the wrong decisions, the fact that when his first attempt to construct a bridge over the Hellespont was destroyed, Xerxes made his man ‘whip the waves to show his men that even the Gods of the waters were subject to them’ (//monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html) thus showing an interesting side to Xerxes nature. The Greeks were lead by one of the two Spartan kings, Leonidas. His actions during the battle are still deemed by many as one of the biggest acts of heroism in the history of mankind. Leonidas knew that he would most likely get killed at Thermopylae, and thus only accepted Spartans in his forces who had a son who could take over the leadership of their family.

In preparation for the battle of Thermopylae Xerxes had his men dig a canal through Athos, this took approximately three years to complete, and at the same time he built a bridge over the Hellespont, the navy, made up primarily from Phoenicia and other subject Greek states of Asia minor accompanied a Persian army along the cost of Thrace (now part of the Persian Empire) and looked for a river that they would not drink dry. Herodotus suggests the army consisted of 1750000 men, but this number is probably over exaggerated and would be more likely to be around 200000 men.

It is suggested that the Greeks were well aware that the Persians were constructing a massive army, and were not surprised when many of the Greek city-states allied with the Persians to help prevent their own destruction, especially those that were close to the Persian Empire such as Thessaly. During this time in Athens a new Vein of silver was discovered, and consequently ‘Thermistocles convinced the assembly to invest the money in building up the [Greek] navy’ (http://www.greyhawkes.com/blacksword/Spartan Combat Arts 2001/1-Pages/History/Thermopylae.htm) due to this newfound fortune they were able to build and man two hundred additional triremes. Later representatives from all Greek Cities that had not allied with Persia met at Corinth to determine a battle strategy. There was much disagreement as the ‘city states from Peloponnesia, including Sparta wanted to form a defensive line at the isthmus near Corinth. The city-states east and north of this line wanted a defensive line further north. (http://www.greyhawkes.com/blacksword/Spartan Combat Arts 2001/1-Pages/History/Thermopylae.htm) Thermistocles argued that an army at Thermopylae would bottle up the Persian and eliminate the effectiveness,

During 490BC the narrow passage at Thermopylae was the only way to southern Hellas, Leonidas placed seven thousand hoplits in this small pass, and a further one thousand to guard the most vulnerable branch roads. The Greek navy had not only managed split the Persian navy from the Persian army, but also prevented it from landing behind Thermopylae, and attacking the Greek army from behind.

Xerxes ordered his 10,000 immortals to attack the Greek stronghold, Leonidas and the Greek army held out for two days against the Persian army, and many sources believed the Greek army could have held out for several more days had a traitor not shown the Persians an ill guarded mountain track. Leonidas 1000 men were attacked and forced to retreat higher up the mountains. The immortals now had a clear rout round the back of the Greek army, and when Leonidas heard this he sent everyone except his famed three hundred Spartans and the men from Thespian home. The Thebans also stayed, but not because they wanted to, they formed an insurance that Thebes would not collaborate with the Persians.

The Greeks had lost the battle, yet Thermopylae was and has always been hailed a triumph for the Greek armies, as they managed to crucially delay the Persians. The battle served as an example to all officers and soldiers, what a little courage and self sacrifice can achieve and The Oracle from Delphi had proven true the city of Sparta remained in tack, Yet the Spartans mourned the loss of one of their great kings, Leonidas.

 

[xanthanotus]

Consider the contributions, influences and achievements of Xerxes. What impact did he have on the worlds of the Greeks and Persians? Refer to modern and ancient historians in your response.

During Xerxes reign of twenty-one years (486 – 465 BC). He made some significant contributions to the Persian Empire, and inturn had some major achievements. Through such things as Religious persecution and the Persian wars, it would appear Xerxes, as an individual, had a reasonable impact on both the lives of the Persian and Greeks.

Possibly the most significant contribution made by Xerxes was his building program at Persepolis. While Persepolis was conceived by Darius, it was Xerxes that completed the greater part of the city (Artaxerxes also completed parts, after the death of his father Xerxes). Persepolis was considered to have been one of the most beautiful cities in the Ancient world, and it is believed that Xerxes was the one who gave it, its spectacular grandness. Although now only the skeletons of the once spectacular buildings remain, the buildings program at Persepolis can be considered one of Xerxes biggest contributions to the Persian Empire, as well as one of his greatest achievements.

Other major achievements of Xerxes include; his decisive crushing of the Egyptian revolt in 486 (Herodotus, The Histories, 7, 7), and his ending of the two revolts in Babylon during 482 BC (www.hsc.csu.edu.au/ancient_history/personalities/near_east/xerxes/xerxes.html, last up date unknown).

Like his predecessors, Xerxes also achieved an expansion to the Persian Empire, through adding the countries of, Thrace, Macedonia and territory in the most distant eastern providences.

During Xerxes reign he also had a huge impact on his subject people. The majority of the time this impact was positive, but not surprisingly there were times when it would appear to be destructive. According to a stone tablet found at Persepolis, Xerxes banned certain religion and the worshipping of particular gods, and destroyed the places that these particular religions and gods were being worshipped, he apparently made the proclamation ‘the demons shall not be worshipped, there I worshipped Ahura Mazda...’ (R.J. Kent, Old Persian, Grammar, Texts, Lexicon, 151).

It would also appear that Xerxes had a sufficient impact on the lives of the Greeks, primarily through the Persian wars. The most obvious impact being that he, and his army and navy, inflicted causalities and killed many of the soldiers of the Greek army and naval forces. His actions also aided King Leonidas in becoming one of the most highly regarded, and valued figure in Greek history. Xerxes warfare also lead to many realising what a little courage and self-sacrifice can achieve.

Xerxes reigned for twenty one years, and ‘took control of a highly developed, complex and sophisticated imperial organisation’ (Cambridge Ancient History, Persia, Greece and the western Mediterranean, 79), it would appear that he made only a handful of contributions to the Persian empire, and while the Persian wars were significant in their own right, it would seem Xerxes, as a person, only had a minute impact on the lives of the Persians and Greeks. Thus its not surprising that Xerxes reign began the downward spiral of the Persian Empire, he appeared to lack the ‘vigorous direction from the throne which would have kept the empire vital and expansive’. (Cambridge Ancient History, Persia, Greece and the western Mediterranean, 78).

 

[xanthanotus]

http://plato-dialogues.org/tools/greece.htm
First published January 4, 1998 - Last updated November 26, 2000
© 1998 Bernard SUZANNE

http://www.greyhawkes.com/blacksword/Spartan Combat Arts 2001/1-Pages/History/Thermopylae.htm
updated 05/02/2002


http://monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html
Last Modified: Saturday, 26-Feb-2000 13:57:13 CET
© Copyright 1997 by Martijn Moerbeek, a member of the Monolith Community


(www.geocities.com/caesarkevin/battles/Greekbattles2.html)
This page was completed on June 1, 2001
Copyright © 2000-2001 Kevin Wheeler


www.livius.org/ia-in/immortals/immortals.html ).
The last update was made on Sunday 1 June 2003.
Latest addition: Plutarch of Chaeronea.
(Almost) all articles by Jona Lendering © 1996-2003.


(http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ancientpersia/P_immortal.html).
by Mark Drury



(www.zianet.com/maxey/Inter1.htm#Xerxes% 20I)
updated: March 2003
Al Maxey


(http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/prehistory/egypt/history/periods/persiani.html).
minnesota state university.


(www. home.earthlink.net/~walterk12/Xian/Cal/ChristNativity.htm).
© 2002 EarthLink, Inc. All rights reserved.


(www.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/PA/IRAN/PAAI/IMAGES/PER/RTOM/7E7_4.HTML).
©1999 The University of Chicago


(www.asrehoda.com/persepolis.htm).
??? travel company

The Columbia Encyclopiedia, Sixith Edition, 2001).

(http://www.logh.net/history/leonidas.htm).
Researchers: Graeme Lennon
leonidas.htm /


(http://hsc.csu.edu.au/ancient_history/persoanalities/neareast/xerxes/xerxes.html).
Charles sturt uni


(www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther)
This page was last modified 01:39 9 Jun 2003. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.


(www,american-pictures.com/genealogy/persons/per00534.htm)
02 Jan 2003


(www.look.no/anita/slekt/webcards/ps34_362.htm),
©1999-2003 LOOK - webmaster - sist oppdatert 24.05.03



(Behistan Inscription translation http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Persia/Behistun_txt.html)
Copyright (c) 1998 by Bruce J. Butterfield


www.rootsweb.com/~mdeastgw/.
Last updated on August 28, 2002
© 1997-2002. The Middle EasternGenWeb Project.