We Greeks consider – and rightly so – that the Naval Battle of Salamis is a milestone in Greek history. This victory of the Greeks - those who resisted the Persians - did stop the advance of Xerxes and forced him to abandon his plans to occupy the entire Greek peninsula. However, apart from its importance in the historical development of the Greeks, it is also one of the most important battles in world history and especially in naval history. It is the first time that a naval conflict with ships – a naval battle in other words – has had such an effect on historical development. Until then – and for many years afterwards – we had major and decisive conflicts but only on land. With Salamis, however, the factor "ship" becomes decisive.
OF ELIAS DALOUMI
Of course there were other naval battles that played a big role during the Greco-Persian conflicts of the classical era. Highly indicative is the case of the double battle – on land and sea – in Mykali, with which many things changed for the Greek cities on the coasts of Asia Minor and the relations between the Greeks and the Persians entered a different context. But few battles or naval battles have the decisive importance that the Battle of Salamis had. Of course, for us Greeks, the phenomenon of our destiny being determined by a naval battle has been repeated. Greece gained statehood thanks to the Naval Battle of Navarino. Something that probably "escapes" many of us...
So based on the above, a text that deals with the naval battle of Salamis cannot be considered strange. The really strange thing is that it has not been clarified what exactly happened in September 480 BC in the straits of Salamis. Yes, we all know that the Greeks won and that we stopped the Persian advance! But how many of us know how this was achieved with any accuracy? Probably very few. At least, if we want to be honest... This is how we see opinions "circulating" about the manner of conducting - and not only - the Naval Battle, which have little to do with reality. Of course, there have also been "voices" that describe the events absolutely correctly. But - unfortunately - they are not the "prevailing opinion". Even if they are fully founded.
We want to hope that the present text will also help clarify some things about the Battle of Salamis and begin - finally - to tell its story correctly.
The sources
The most serious issue that has to be faced by those who want to deal with the Naval Battle of Salamis is clearly that of the sources. That is, where will he find the relevant information. And we are of course talking about the ancient sources. So they have written about the Battle of Salamis in chronological order:Aeschylus, Herodotus, Ctesias Cnidius, Diodorus Siculus, Cornelius Nepos and Plutarch. Unfortunately, Thucydides in his "Xygraphane" only devotes a few lines to the Battle of Salamis. So we should trace the facts to all those we mentioned above. And here the difficulties begin. Let's see them in detail for each one.
Aeschylus certainly did not write history. He was a tragic poet - the first great one - and what interested him was the emotions of the viewers of his works. He was not a historian to have as his primary aim the historical accuracy of his descriptions. Of course, Aeschylus has the unique qualification of having fought in the Battle of Salamis and therefore seeing the events with his own eyes. So what he mentions in his work "Persai" is not just what he heard or what was told to him. They are his experiences. And the most important; Aeschylus presented his work for the first time - in Athens, of course - in 472 BC, that is, just eight years after the Naval Battle. Part of a tetralogy of which – it is worth noting – Pericles was the sponsor!
"Persia" is his oldest surviving work and the only one with a historical rather than a mythological background. The description of the Battle of the Seas is extremely clear - we said we are dealing with a play - without this of course meaning that it lacks accuracy. He couldn't! He was addressing people who had taken part in the Naval Battle and knew the events as well as he did. It was therefore not possible for him to use descriptions that altered the texture of events. At the end of the day, he sought to highlight the actions of the Athenians - and of course himself - and not to create myths. Conclusion; Aeschylus is certainly reliable in his description of the Battle of Salamis. His "disadvantage" is his poetic expressions. But in no way can it be considered untrue.
The great burden certainly falls on Herodotus, who can be considered the father of History, but certainly does not reach the level of Thucydides. His work - which in the Hellenistic period was called "Historiai" and was divided into nine books, each with the name of a Muse - was written and became known at the time when Herodotus lived in Athens, i.e. around 445 BC. He is said to have read publicly some passages of his work, which delighted the Athenians, who presented him with ten talents. Although the amount is extremely high, it nevertheless shows that Herodotus may have written well to the Athenians, but it was certainly not possible for him to tell significant inaccuracies and much more lies. Let's not forget that at that time there were still Salaminomachians living and something like this would not have passed "unfortunately" in democratic Athens. The fact that he clearly does not seem to have had good knowledge of military tactics, that he is often inaccurate in terms of chronological data or that he is vague in his descriptions, are certainly negative elements. But the eighth book of the "Histories", "Urania", is the most important source we have for the Battle of Salamis.
Ctesias the Cnidius (late 5th-early 4th century BC) lived most of his life at the Persian Court. In his work "Persia" he refers to the Persian wars and of course the Battle of Salamis. They are mainly based on Persian sources and could be the "rival awe" of Herodotus' "Histories". This is exactly how some ancient writers used them. The bad thing is that few "excerpts" and some "summaries" of Ktesias's work, by other authors, survive. The worst thing is that those that are clearly preserved contradict archaeological findings. Ultimately Ktesias cannot be considered as an accurate source.
Diodorus the Sicilian (ca. 90 BC–ca. 20 BC) is a very interesting case. Unfortunately, we only have "epitomes" and excerpts of his work. It was definitely voluminous and was based – at least in the case we are interested in – on works of more ancients such as Herodotus and Thucydides. Unfortunately, this last one does not reach anything like this and references to Diodorus can only be limited.
Cornelius Nepos or Cornelius Nepos according to the Hellenists of all things was also a contemporary of Diodorus. This Roman historian - and above all biographer - did not aim so much at historical accuracy as at the pleasant and comfortable reading of his works. He refers to the Battle of Salamis in the lives of Themistocles and Aristides. Certainly, however, it cannot be included in the reliable sources.
And we come to Plutarch (AD 45–120). His main references to the Battle of Salamis are in the life of Themistocles. The disadvantage of Plutarch is that, having lived almost 550 to 600 years after the events, he uses some ancient sources, which we are completely ignorant of. Clearly, however, one of the bases of his narrative is Herodotus. In general, Plutarch – for the case of the Battle of Salamis – is classified among the relatively reliable sources.
Time
One of the rather important elements of the story of the Battle of Salamis is the date it took place. The cause is none other than that the Persians entered the Straits of Salamis at night. Herodotus (Urania VIII 65) mentions that the Athenian Dikaios of Theokides and the Lacedaemonian Dimaratos, who were with Xerxes, saw - on the eve of the Naval Battle - in the Thriasium, i.e. on the plain of Eleusis, "a dusty cloud =a cloud of dust moving " and "the voices appear to be the secret yakhon =they heard a voice and how it seemed to them that it was a hymn to the mysteries of Iachus". Such processions were held in ancient Athens by the initiates of the Eleusinian mysteries, who went to Eleusis carrying a xoano of Iachus, shouting various hymns. This took place on the 19th of Voidoromion. Therefore the Battle of Salamis took place on the 20th of that month.
It is calculated and completely verified that the 20th day of Boedromion corresponds to the 22nd of our own September. Herodotus certainly does not tell us where Dicaeus and Demaratus were from where they saw and heard the news about Iachos. But why should he refer to an entirely imaginary event, whose only effect on the narrative of the events is solely to do with the determination of the date of the Naval Battle? Therefore we have no reason not to accept what Herodotus claims. He probably put it in to show that the "divine will" was with the Greeks.
Another safe date we have from a solar eclipse that took place in those days and is mentioned by Herodotus (Calliope IX 10) "the sun darkened in the sky =the sun darkened in the sky". On this day the Spartan king Cleombrotos was sacrificing on the Isthmus of Corinth, who panicked, decided that the gods were not helping him, and took his forces and marched to Sparta, instead of going to Attica to clash with the Persians. The same phenomenon had a corresponding effect on Xerxes, who on the exact same day began to leave Attica. It is absolutely ascertained and precisely calculated – the specific astronomical calculations are beyond dispute – that the eclipse in question took place on the date which is determined by the current calendar to be October 2nd, 480 BC.
Therefore, according to all calculations, the Battle of Salamis took place between September 22 and October 2, 480 BC. Several historians consider the date of the Naval Battle to be September 27 or 28. So, on the one hand, they "delete" Herodotus, and on the other hand, they consider that this entire Persian army - huge in size even by today's standards - could be prepared for the long return journey in just three or four days. This argument is immediately dismissed even by those with little knowledge of management. They do not calculate how many councils would have to be held with Xerxes and among his staff, in order to decide:
1. That the defeat at the Battle of Salamis was decisive in the outcome of the campaign. Let's not forget that the land forces of the Persian king were unscathed.
2. Certainly three to four days are not enough to gather, pack the barracks etc. of such a number of soldiers. On the contrary, ten days – from September 22 – is sufficient time for all this.
The space
Another – equally important – factor that is overlooked is that of the area where the Naval Battle of Salamis took place. Many - clearly most - take it for granted that the configuration of the Strait of Salamis is the same as it is today. Or – more commonly – they don't take him into account at all. Here we should note that we mean the natural formation of the coast and not as it has been formed in the last 50 years with the expansion projects of the port facilities, which have been carried out mainly on the side of Keratsini and Perama. But a little searching is enough to see how wrong this view is.
Fokion Negris (31.03.1846–15.01.1928) long before a road was built in Kypseli, Athens, was an important mineralogist, geologist and politician, while he was also the first president of the Academy of Athens. In the period 1903–1912 he demonstrated that the sea level during the Median Wars was 3.40 meters lower than today. Some may dispute Negri's point. But his confirmation can be seen by anyone who wants to visit the port of Zea - Pasalimani for Piraeus - today. There you will see the surviving remains of the neosoiki that were carved into the rock and today are in the sea. Which shows that when they were built the sea level was at a lower level than today.
What does all this mean? But the fact that the Strait of Salamis was narrower than today's. Or if we want to be more precise, narrower than what existed before the works that have been done in the last 50 years. This is also verified by Strabo, who mentions that the width of the strait between the island of Agios Georgios, which since 1982 was joined by embankments to Salamis, and the opposite coast of Perama - the "military Perama" as it is called - was 2 stadia, i.e. 370 meters (Strabo IX, I,13:...the two-stage ferry at Salamis).
Another point that has created confusion regarding the geographical points of the Naval Battle of Salamis is the mention of Herodotus (Urania VIII 76) "...and both Keon te and Kynosouran were terrified, =those who were lined up around Keo and Kynosura). A lot of ink has been spilled about who this "Keos" is, or was. We don't need to start hypothesizing and create or follow various theories. The simplest – and now logically founded – is the one that wants Keo to be an islet, near the southern side of the Keratsini Bay, which in modern times – due to the rise of the sea level – has been nothing more than a skopelos for years it does not exist as it has been incorporated into the port works that have been carried out in the port of Keratsini. For Kynosoura, there is certainly not the slightest doubt that it is the homonymous – and today – small rocky peninsula of Salamis.
An important point of our entire history is where the throne of Xerxes was located. Of course, what we cannot even take into account is the top of Mount Aegaleus, which is called the "Throne of Xerxes" even today, but it is impossible that the Persian king watched the naval battle from there. The distance is such that even today it is very difficult for anyone to see what is happening in the maritime area that interests us. Especially at that time when there were no binoculars... And we leave aside the fact that the shape of the mountain does not allow visibility near the coast of Keratsini.
Aeschylus (Persai 466-467) mentions:"Edran gar had all the nobles of the army, a high bank anghi pelagian alos. =because he had taken up a position on a high hill near the perigiali, having a clear view of all his army." And we have absolutely no reason to question the words of Aeschylus and consider them as "poetic expressions", which contradict reality. After all, Herodotus (Urania VIII 90) writes:"of the Phoenicians, the young women were corrupt, coming instead of the king to disturb the Ionians, =some of the Phoenicians, whose ships had been destroyed, appeared before the king and slandered the Ionians" . But if Xerxes' throne was at the top of Aegaleo, the Phoenicians would need many hours of climbing to get there. The naval battle would have ended and their argument would have been moot.
Ctesias and Plutarch want the throne of Xerxes to be in a location called Heraklion. First of all, let us say that the name of the site in question should be younger than the time of Aeschylus and Herodotus. And the reason is rather simple. Even if we accept that she "did not come out metrically" to Aeschylus, Herodotus had no reason not to mention her by name. Be that as it may, a safe conclusion we can reach is that the throne of Xerxes was probably located where the church of Agios Georgios in Keratsini is today. In the various works that have been done there, remains of ancient buildings have been found, which of course do not verify that they come from Heraklion. But the location of the church is at such a point that it fits perfectly with what both Aeschylus and Herodotus say. And it is close to the coast and has an unobstructed view of the sea. Now, of course, this "unobstructed" was valid until about 50 years ago, because with apartment buildings...
The forces of the adversaries
Η Ναυμαχία της Σαλαμίνας ήταν μια σύγκρουση ανάμεσα στους Έλληνες και τους Πέρσες. Αυτό είναι η γενική αρχή. Πέρα όμως από το ερώτημα για το πόσοι ήσαν από την κάθε πλευρά, υπάρχει κι ένα άλλο – εξίσου σημαντικό, αν όχι σημαντικότερο – ποιοι ήσαν οι Έλληνες που πήραν μέρος σ’ αυτήν την σύγκρουση με την πλευρά των Ελλήνων και από ποιους απαρτίζονταν ο στόλος των Περσών;
Ας ξεκινήσουμε με τους Έλληνες. Ο Θουκυδίδης – στον οποίο βεβαίως και δεν μπορούμε να μην ανατρέχουμε, έστω και στις ελάχιστες αναφορές του – στο 1, 74 γράφει:«ναυς μεν γε ες τας τετρακοσίας…=γιατί από τα τετρακόσια πλοία…» . Ο Αισχύλος (Πέρσαι 338-339) μας λέει:«και γαρ Έλλησιν μεν ην ο πας αριθμός ες τριακάδας ναών, =γιατί τριακόσια δέκα ήσαν όλα κι όλα τα ελληνικά πλοία,». Και φτάνουμε στον Ηρόδοτο (Ουρανία Η΄ 82) που αναφέρει:«εξεπληρούτο το ναυτικόν τοίσι Έλλησι ες τας ογδώκοντα και τριηκοσίας νέας =συμπλήρωνε το ναυτικό των Ελλήνων τα τριακόσια ογδόντα πλοία». Ο Κτισίας πάλι κάνει λόγο για 700 πλοία ενώ ο Cornelius Nepos για 200. Και ο μεν αριθμός του πρώτου απορρίπτεται ως υπερβολικός. Ήταν αδύνατον οι Έλληνες να διαθέτουν τόσα πολλά πλοία. Ο δε αριθμός που αναφέρει ο δεύτερος, είναι πάρα πολύ μικρός και σίγουρα δεν θα μπορούσε να αντιμετωπίσει τον αριθμό των περσικών πλοίων.
Εκτός βέβαια κι αν μπερδεύτηκε και αναφέρεται στον αριθμό μόνον των αθηναϊκών πλοίων. Αλλά αυτό είναι μια υπόθεση που δε μπορεί να στηριχτεί πουθενά. Τελικά ο αριθμός που γίνεται αποδεκτός από τους περισσότερους, είναι τα 380 πλοία που θέλει ο Ηρόδοτος. Όμως και αυτός ο αριθμός έχει τα προβλήματά του… Γιατί καλά όσα αναφέραμε πιο πάνω. Ο ίδιος όμως (Ουρανία Η΄ 42-48) όταν γράφει αναλυτικά για την κατανομή αυτών των πλοίων σύμφωνα με την πόλη από την οποία προέρχονταν, τα βγάζει λιγότερα! Για την ακρίβεια κάνει λόγο για 366 τριήρεις και 5 πεντηκόντορους ήτοι συνολικά 371 πλοία. Βέβαια η διαφορά των 9 πλοίων είναι πολύ μικρή και σαφώς δεν αλλοιώνει το μέγεθος του στόλου των Ελλήνων, σίγουρα όμως υφίσταται και θα πρέπει να επισημανθεί; Αλλά καλύτερα να δούμε τη συνεισφορά κάθε πόλης αναλυτικά. Έχουμε λοιπόν και λέμε:
Τριήρεις ανά πόλη
Αθήνα 180
Κόρινθος 40
Αίγινα 30
Μέγαρα 20
Χαλκίδα 20
Σπάρτη 16
Σικυώνα 15
Επίδαυρος 10
Αμβρακία 7
Ερέτρια 7
Τροιζήνα 5
Νάξος 4
Ερμιόνη 3
Λευκάδα 3
Κέα 2
Στύρα 2
Κύθνος 1
Κρότωνας 1
ΣΥΝΟΛΟ 366
Πεντηκόντοροι ανά πόλη
Μήλος 2
Κύθνος 1
Σέριφος 1
Σίφνος 1
ΓΕΝΙΚΟ ΣΥΝΟΛΟ ΠΛΟΙΩΝ 371
Στα παραπάνω πλοία θα πρέπει να προστεθεί ένα ακόμη, που μάλλον «χρήζει ειδικής μνείας». Πρόκειται για την τριήρη του Παναίτιου από την Τήνο, που δραπέτευσε από την περσική παράταξη και ενώθηκε με τον στόλο των Ελλήνων. Προφανέστατα το πλήρωμά της είχε σκοτώσει ή πετάξει στην θάλασσα τους Πέρσες «επιβάτες», που εκτός των άλλων είχαν ως αποστολή να επιτηρούν τα πληρώματα των ελληνικής προέλευσης πλοίων του περσικού στόλου.
Αυτό που επίσης αξίζει να επισημανθεί είναι ότι στον ελληνικό στόλο συμμετείχε και μία τριήρης από το Κρότωνα. Με άλλα λόγια οι Έλληνες της Μεγάλης Ελλάδας ή αν προτιμάτε, οι Έλληνες άποικοι της Νότιας Ιταλίας και της Σικελίας, είχαν αντιληφθεί την τεράστια σημασία που είχε η ελληνική αντίσταση στην περσική εισβολή. Βέβαια το ένα πλοίο ουσιαστικά έχει συμβολική και μόνον σημασία. Δε θα πρέπει όμως να ξεχνάμε ότι την ίδια περίοδο οι ελληνικές πόλεις της Μεγάλης Ελλάδας δέχονταν επίθεση από τους Καρχηδόνιους. Σύμφωνα δε με τον Ηρόδοτο και τον Αριστοτέλη, η αποφασιστική μάχη της Ιμέρας – ανάμεσα στους Έλληνες των Συρακουσών και του Ακράγαντα, υπό την ηγεσία του Γέλωνα, και τους Καρχηδόνιους – δόθηκε την ίδια μέρα με τη Ναυμαχία της Σαλαμίνας.
Επομένως δεν ήταν δυνατόν – και φυσικά εντελώς παράλογο – να αφήσουν τις πόλεις τους που κινδύνευαν και να έλθουν να πολεμήσουν στην Σαλαμίνα και στην Ελλάδα γενικότερα. Όσο για τις διάφορες θεωρίες ως προς το γιατί δεν ήλθαν κι άλλες δυνάμεις από την Μεγάλη Ελλάδα ή την «συμμαχία» μεταξύ Περσών και Καρχηδονίων, το μόνο που έχουμε να πούμε είναι ότι ανάγονται στην σφαίρα της συνωμοσιολογίας.
Και περνάμε στον περσικό στόλο, ο οποίος μόνο περσικά πλοία δεν είχε! Πράγμα απολύτως φυσικό αφού οι Πέρσες δεν είχαν σχέση με την θάλασσα. Αλλά αν για τους Έλληνες έχουμε κάποιες διαφορές ως προς τον αριθμό των πλοίων, για τον στόλο των Περσών έχουμε «μαύρα μεσάνυχτα». Ο Ηρόδοτος (Πολύμνια Ζ΄ 184) αναφέρει:«τον μεν εκ των νεών των εκ της Ασίης, εουσέων επτά και διηκοσιέων και χιλιέων =τα πλοία που ήλθαν από την Ασία, ήσαν χίλια διακόσια εφτά». Ο Αισχύλος (Πέρσαι 341-343) μας λέει:«Ξέρξη δε, και γαρ οίσθα, χιλίας μεν ην ων ήγε πλήθος, αι δ’ υπέρκοποι τάχει εκατόν δις ήσαν επτά =ο Ξέρξης, όπως βέβαια ξέρεις, χίλια πλοία οδηγούσε, κι άλλα διακόσια επτά ταχύπλοα». Να επισημάνουμε ότι τα 1207 πλοία του Ηρόδοτου είναι πριν τις Θερμοπύλες και την Σηπιάδα. Ο ίδιος πάντως (Ουρανία Η΄66) μιλά για αναπλήρωση των περσικών απωλειών, με πλοία από την Κάρυστο, την Άνδρο και την Τήνο. Οι περισσότεροι πάντως που έχουν ασχοληθεί με την εξιστόρηση της Ναυμαχίας της Σαλαμίνας συγκλίνουν προς αυτόν τον αριθμό. Ως προς την προέλευση των πλοίων του περσικού στόλου οι περισσότεροι συγγραφείς αποδέχονται την εξής:
Φοίνικες 300
Αιγύπτιοι 200
Κίλικες 100
Λύκιοι 50
Ίωνες 100
Κάρες 70
Νησιώτες 237
ΣΥΝΟΛΟ 1057
Βεβαίως υπολείπονται κατά 150 των όσων αναφέραμε στην προηγούμενη παράγραφο. Όμως – όπως επίσης προείπαμε – δεν υπάρχει καμία ασφαλής πηγή. Άλλωστε σύμφωνα με αξιόπιστους υπολογισμούς, στη Ναυμαχία της Σαλαμίνας μπορούσαν να μετέχουν από την πλευρά των Περσών – με διάφορους τρόπους – το πολύ 1000 πλοία.
(Τέλος Α΄ μέρους. Συνεχίζεται)