42: Thrace, Crossroads of Campaigns

Greek and Roman writers would highlight the Thracians as some of the best mercenaries fielded in foreign armies from the mid-5th century and beyond. They would excel at hit and run tactics, harassing heavier troops and being able to defend difficult ground. This reputation would appear to be born out of their tradition of Homeric style warfare practiced in their own lands. Though we get no detailed accounts of how they fought against one another in their home territories. 

Our knowledge of the Thracians in war during the 6th and early 5th centuries comes to us thanks to account revolving around the Greek and Persian wars found in the Histories written by Herodotus. This would see their history during this period told through the context of various Persian campaigns through their lands, therefore lacking the details of how they fought, though we can get an idea from their reputation as warriors in later histories.

Thracian lands would become a crossroads for Persian campaigns during the close of the 6th and opening of the 5th centuries BC. Initially Persia would attempt to expand north into Scythian lands, where a path through Thracian lands would need to be secured. Though the hold in Thrace during this period would only stay intact as long as a sizable occupying force was present. After the Scythian campaign continued attempts would be made to secure the regions close to the Persian Empires frontiers with mixed results.

The most successful period of Persian control would come during the lead up to and during the Greek and Persian Wars. A sizable Persian force would secure lands in Thrace and Macedonian paving a way forward to Greece. The Persians held enough control in Thracian coastal regions to construct their monumental engineering feats to prepare for Xerxes invasion. Though, with the ultimate Persian defeat in Greece, Thrace would once again become very inhospitable to Persians within their lands.   

Transcript

Episode 42

Thrace: Crossroads of Campaigns

“For the Thracians race, like all the most bloodthirsty barbarians, are always particularly bloodthirsty when everything is going their own way.”[1]

Thucydides

Hello, I’m Mark Selleck and welcome back to Casting Through Ancient Greece, Episode 42: Thrace, Crossroads of Campaigns.

Introduction:

Last episode in our look at the Greek periphery we turned our attention to the lands of the Thracians that would be seen as wild and untamed stretching from the modern-day nation of Hungary to the Ukraine, and then to the Black Sea and Aegean. The Greeks would view the people that inhabited these lands as barbarians, much the same way they did to other cultures that differed from theirs. Though these people that they would call the Thracians, seemed that much more uncivilised compared to the other barbarians they had encountered.

Although the Greeks would call them Thracian, a united people they were not. these people would be a lose collection of tribes with a shared common culture. Herodotus would say of the Thracians; “If they could all be united under one ruler and think the same way, they would, in my opinion, be the most invincible and strongest of all nations. But that is impossible; it will never happen, since their weakness is that they are incapable of uniting and agreeing.”

We looked at how the Thracians would be a result of earlier Neolithic cultures that had formed in the Balkans thousands of years earlier. With their Thracian identity that would come to describe their shared culture being a result of these indigenous Balkan cultures interacting with the numerous Indo-European migrations that would take place as the Bronze Age developed.

Finally, we ended with Thrace entering into the Greeks memory as far back as the Trojan War through Homers epic poem the Iliad. Though it wouldn’t be until the 7th and 6th centuries where Thrace would truly enter the Greek periphery. Greek colonies would begin to dot the Thracian coast lines, where trade of goods and ideas would take place in both times of peace and times of tension. 

In this episode we are going to pick up where we left off, but first we will try and develop a picture of how the Thracians fought, since this was one quality both the Greeks and Romans would focus on. We don’t get any detailed accounts their battles in the 6th and early 5th centuries but we can still draw out a generalised picture from the accounts that do survive. Once, looking at the Thracians at war we wll then turn back to what was happening in their lands at the close of the 6th century and the opening of the 5th. Here we will see Persian attempts at subjugation, as well as the Greco-Persian War which would see their lands becoming a cross roads for the Persian army.

Thracians at War:

So far, we have spoken about the Thracians involvement in wars and they would continue to do so heading into the 5th century. But first I thought we could try and get a general understanding of how they fought. We have got a general picture of the Greeks style of war from our survey of the Greco-Persian Wars, but the Thracians would fight somewhat differently. Most of our accounts of them at war are through them being used by larger powers such as the Persian Empire. This mostly due to the fact the Thracians appear in accounts that are looking at these larger powers as their main subject. They certainly fought between themselves, with rival tribes or clans making war on one another, but these conflicts are mostly lost to us, with only their reputations surviving. But I think it will be helpful to get a general understanding of their way of war to help give us a better visualisation of how they might have been used or acted when employed.

Thracian Armies:   

The first thing we need to understand when looking at the Thracians at war, is that there was no Thracian army so to speak. As we covered already their societies were arranged on a tribal system where the various tribes would have had their own armies. There would be occasion where different tribes would unit to take on rival tribes but these agreements would have been in pace to deal with specific threats and would have rarely outlasted the reason they were created. More longer lasting coalitions would be formed and these were generally in response to outside threats, where the various tribes shared cultural identity would hold them together. Here we can see a similar situation to warfare in Ancient Greece at this time, though the Greek alliances were usually longer lasting for more strategic purposes since the control of regions was somewhat a bit more stable. When looking at accounts of the Thracians at war, the first noticeable point regarding their armies, is that they appear to be predominantly cavalry and light infantry. Though we do also see that there was a warrior class within their societies, from the higher ranked men in the tribe. Though these men would have only been a fraction of the force on the field. But it must be noted there was a warrior mentality that extended to all fighting men, those at the top of society were the ones celebrated. This picture is very similar to what can be seen with many different armies in the Bronze Age, though, perhaps the Thracians with a larger force of cavalry. The Bronze Age had been dominated by a Warrior mentality in warfare, with the higher classes dressed in their splendid armour and equipped with their prized swords. The Warrior was a different type of fighter than that of the solider which would come to be the main focus of many armies later on. The warrior unlike the solider fought as an individual, seeking out and fighting for honour on the battlefield, where as the solider fought in a formation of a cooperative group. Now I have to point out that both of these types of troops fought during the Bronze Age, but the emphasis was placed of the noble class of warriors, this having a lot to do with the governing systems in place. The kings and nobles at the top of their societies gained and retained their positions of power through their reputation in war to a great extent. We see a similar idea take hold during the Middle Ages later in history. Though, for the most part the armies of the Bronze Age were the lower elements of societies being lightly armed skirmishers as well as missel type troops. Though the accounts always have these masses of troops playing second fiddle to the warriors. 

While the Greek world had gone through a revolution in warfare in the centuries after the Bronze Age collapse, it has been seen that the Thracians still had a very similar approach to warfare as the Bronze Age. This perhaps more prevalent when fighting on their own behalf, rather than as part of a foreign army. The warrior notion was still very much celebrated in the archaic period and beyond. Much like the elaborately adorned graves of the Mycenaean warriors, examples of similar types of burials can be found at a number of grave sites in Thracian land dating to much later times.

So, as we pointed out the Thracians fielded a larger proportion of their army as cavalry compared to other armies of the time. For the most part these were lightly armed troops, typically unarmoured, and armed with javelins. Though, we do know that there were examples of heavy cavalry as well, these were armed in a very similar way as their light counterparts but wore armour. This included cloaks, breast plates and helmets, thought to be very similar to examples of Greek and Scythian cavalry. It isn’t difficult to see how this came to influence Thracian cavalry since the Scythians were right up on the northern boarders of Thrace, while Thessaly, known for their cavalry, was the closet Greek territory to Thracian lands. But we need to not over emphasise Thracian heavy cavalry as it appears they were only used in small groups, making up a body guard rather than fighting on the field. Most of the reference to Thracian cavalry that come down in the source refer to the more numerous light horsemen. A lot of our imagery of how the Thracian cavalry fought comes to us on Athenian pottery and even on the frieze of the Parthenon, this also attesting to the reputation of the Thracian cavalry.

Infantry:       

The other and more numerous arms of most Thracian armies was that of the infantry, and for the most part they would be considered light infantry by Greek standards. These troops were armed with javelins, bows or slings, though javelin armed troops were the norm, with different tribes perhaps specialising in the use of different missel troops. It would take more training for men to become proficient in their use and we need to keep in mind these light troops would have been from the lowest parts of society, with many also being of slave status. So, when it came to fielding an army the majority of infantry would be carrying javelins, if they were fielding other missel troops they have only been a small percent of the deployed forces. 

There is also another class of infantry that, although considered light infantry also, were often described separate from the other javelin armed infantry. These were called Peltasts, named after the crescent shaped wicker shield that they carried called a Pelte. This type of infantry is often seen as originating in Thracian and surrounding lands, where this class of fighter would end up being adopted by the Greeks. Perhaps the distinction made between the light infantry and the Peltasts may come down to a class separation. It appears the Peltasts were the main force used for skirmishing, harassing heavier infantry or defending difficult ground, while also with an ability to defend or engage in close quarter fighting. The regular light infantry only appears to have been of use when the situation of the battlefield was favourable to their side, such as chasing down a fleeing enemy. The Peltasts also differed from other light infantry in the equipment that they carried. Although, they also used javelins, they usually had a dagger as a side arm along with their pelte, or shield. Though, there were also variations in what they carried with some also known to be equipped with clubs, swords and long spears. So, these were the main types of troops that the various Thracians tribes would have fielded when fighting, but lets now turn to trying to get a basic idea of how they fought.  

Thracian Way of War:

What we need to first keep in mind, is that the Thracians would have produced the troop types that were suited to the terrain that they were most likely to fight in. For the most part the Thracians would have been engaging neighbouring tribes or other similarly equipped forces in regions not to far away, even though we mostly hear about their actions when in the service of other armies. This mainly due to the subject matter of the surviving works. Though, as we saw with the Greeks development of the Hoplite and for the most part lack of cavalry, what they would field would be heavily influenced by the terrain they would be deployed in. The large area the Thracians were seen to occupied could differ quite wildly in geography and climate from one part to another. For this reason, it is hard to say what a Thracian army would look like since different tribes would field different troop types in different quantities depending on the region they occupied. 

Light troop types would be the preferred force type though, as many of the regions were dominated by thick wooded forest, broken uneven ground and hilly terrain, though there were also open plains and grasslands, liberally scattered around many of the regions, where the cavalry would have excelled. We find that over a hundred years later than the time we are looking at, Phillip II of Macedon when attacking Thracian lands was forced to use bloodhound to track the movements of his enemy as they made excellent use of the closed ground.[2]

So, to some degree we could ask the question, why didn’t the Thracians have hoplites or more heavily armoured infantry? Afterall Greece was a region of rugged terrain also. I think there are two points that go into perhaps explaining this; Firstly, There were very different political systems in effect, Greece and its city state system saw a central idea around the citizen of the polis, for the benefits of being a citizen one was expected to defend their city in times of war, not for booty but as their civic duty. This notation of a citizen saw the individual more invested in their polis. The Hoplite would seem to be born out of the style of warfare that the various Greek city states engaged in with one another. This usually seeing armies arrayed in open flat ground and meeting each other head on, usually in agricultural lands being defended, it was fairly rare early on for a city to be the focus of an initial attack, these were only the secondary focus after the opposing army had been defeated in the field.

The Thracians on the other hand, were set up in tribal societies that did not have this notion of the citizen. Granted they had a tribe as an identity along with settlements and regions, but these were not as politically defined as a Greek city state. At the core there would have been a loyal population, though their loyalty tended to lay with the chieftain, rather than any perceived identity to a city. The chieftain would still have to negotiate with other leaders of the tribe in other settlements to come together. This wasn’t a simple call to arms expecting one’s citizens to fulfill their civic duty, usually the majority of the army were more interested in the plunder than could be on offer. This would essensually see them acting as mercenaries, later on the Thracians would become famous as mercenaries in various armies around the Mediterranean, fighting for a paymaster. Though, even within their home regions, material value was the main motivator. Another factor to consider was that the Thracians didn’t engage in a similar style of warfare as the Greeks, with their more standardised formations and political systems. The Thracians being interested in booty and the chieftains knowing this to be the main motivator, were engaged in raids of enemy settlements much more regularly. This required hit and run tactics, often in difficult terrain, heavily armoured infantry would find a much harder time to deploy a formation and would be vulnerable to lighter troops who could harass and then retreat before being engaged. As we will see when we get to the Peloponnesian war and beyond, light troops would begin to become more popular in Greek armies for this reason, while the heavily armoured hoplites would start wearing less armour

Anyway, I think this goes some way into understanding why the Greeks and Thracians fought differently to each other even though they would encounter similar terrain in their respective regions. The Thracians were set up to be mobile, where they could quickly engage when the conditions were favourable, while then being able to quickly evaporate into the rough terrain, where an organised formation would not be able to peruse them with any sort of order. Though, we will see as the series moves forward where the Thracian would be used in foreign armies in stand-up fights, but they would generally make up the peltasts and other light troops, employed in a skirmishing and harassing role   

So, I hope this gives some idea of how the Thracians fought, though it much be noted that during the time we are focused on, we get very little detail of their battles. The majority of the information comes from later times when they served as mercenaries in other armies. But we can still get an idea of their way of war previously due to the roles they were used in, we just need to remember they would have most likely altered some of their practices based on the types of battles they were fighting as mercenaries. But at their heart they excelled at hit and run tactics, this being seen as their traditional way of war. Having looked at the Thracians from a military perspective lets now turn to events in Thrace during the close of the 6th century and opening of the 5th.

Persian Invasions of Thrace:

As you recall form last episode, we had left the Chersonese with the death of Miltiades the elder and the assassination of his nephew Stesagoras. This then saw Miltiades the younger in a position to take up a tyranny over a number of the Greek cities there. Miltiades coming to power wasn’t as simple as turning up to take up the position, there appears to have been opposition to his uncle’s tyranny and with the power vacuum a chance for control to change hands. Though, Miltiades would flush out the opposition leaders from the various cities and take control of the Chersonese with the support of 500 mercenaries.[3] And one wonders if these were Thracians.   

This period now lines up with the Persian Empires attempts on expanding into Thracian territory which would start to take place with a campaign against the Scythians in 513 BC.[4] Here we also see Miltiades assisting the Persians march against the Scythians to the north of Thracian lands. The crossing point that Darius, king of Persia would use was at the Bosporus, then the route north would see the Persian army having to march through Thracian territory. At this stage, a campaign at subjugating Thrace was not on the cards, Darius would have been just looking to secure a safe route linking Persia to his campaign north in Scythia. Granted this would have seen him take control of much important Thracian territory as well as Greek colonies, since the line of march would cross the Bosporus from the Near east into Europe and follow the Black Sea coast line north, while also securing a number of important rivers on the advance. It appears for the duration of the campaign Persia had some sort of control over Byzantium and Chalcedon at the Bosporus, the Chersonese where Miltiades was ruling as tyrant, and the coastal areas along the black sea heading north. It would be in this campaign that Herodotus speaks of the Ister bridge incident over the Danube we spoke of in the episode before the battle of Marathon. This was where Miltiades, who was now under vassalage of Darius was tasked with some Ionian Greeks to guard the bridge, and the Persians line of retreat. Miltiades had argued that they should dismantle the bridge thereby trapping the Persians in hostile lands. Though, the Greeks hedged their bets and only removed part of the bridge, this then still allowed the Persians to retreat back across when they were unsuccessful in their campaign.[5] The Greeks at the bridge had put themselves in a position where they could have appealed to which ever side managed to return to the bridge in force.

After the failed campaign we hear that Darius travelled through the Chersonese to the city of Sestos where he crossed back over into the empire. For Darius to be able to do this is another indication that the Chersonese was under Persian control, but it would seem only certain parts were. As for when Darius returned, the commander Megabazos was left in command of Persian forces still in Thrace. His task was to subjugate the rest of the cities along the Hellespont that had not yet medized.[6] This is also the campaign where Megabazos comments on Chalcedon being blind that Herodotus reports. Megabazos’ campaigning would continue with a messenger arriving to instruct him to turn his attentions west, where he would submit most of the Aegean coastline in Thracian territory and all the way up to the Strymon River which flowed through both Thracian and Macedonian territory.[7] The subjugation of territory further west would continue, though this would be into Macedonian lands and what we will look at next episode.

With this campaigning done it would appear the hold Persia had on the Thracian territories was far from tight. In the following year or so it would appear that many of these subjugated regions were now independent once again. This appears to line up with Megabazos departure from Thrace back into Persia with presumably a large portion of his army. Not only this, the Scythians, stirred up from Darius campaign had penetrated south to the Chersonese. This is also when Miltiades left the region back to Athens, though he would return apparently under invitation once the threat had passed. So, Thrace would be far from subjected at this stage, only a sizable occupying force would see the region bow to Persian demands. The various regions and cities were left to go about their business on their own terms. We even hear of Histiaios from Miletus who would be involved with the Ionian revolt, had started fortifying areas around the Strymon on his own terms after being granted land there by Darius for his role in the defence of the bridge over the Danube during the Scythian campaign.[8] Even the cities of Byzantium and Chalcedon, right on the boarder of the Persian empire seemed to have shaken the Persian yoke during this time.

Though, it wasn’t long before a renewed effort would be launch by Darius to reconquer some of the same areas. This time a general named Otanes would be in command and his mission was to bring the Bosporus back into Persian control, though he also had the mission of bringing back into the fold other cities on the Troad which also seemed to have slipped out of Darius control. So, as the 6th century was coming to a close Thrace seems to have shaken most of the burdens of subjugation expcept for around Byzantium. But another major event would take place seeing Persian control become weaker for a time in the west. Before then more renewed campaigning would take place.

The Ionian revolt would break out in 498 BC seeing much of Anatolia and other regions west become independent of Persian rule. The Thracian territories would receive some much-needed respite from the past 10 years of Persian campaigning in their lands. Though, it would only be temporary, as once the revolt was brought back under control the Persians would turn to re-subjugating previously submitted regions. We also hear about the fate of one of the main actors of the Ionian revolt in the Histories, Aristagoras meeting his end in Thracian lands, Herodotus says;

“…he enlisted every man willing to accompany him and sailed with them to Thrace, where he took possession of the site, he had set out to obtain. Using this as his base, he surrounded and laid siege to a Thracian city and, and although the Thracians were willing to leave the place under a truce, it was here in the fighting that occurred that Aristagoras and his army perished at the hands of the Thracians”.[9]

The region Aristagoras set out for was the same region his father-in-law, Histiaios had been granted by Darius. Perhaps with Persian influence in the area having disappeared before and during the Ionian revolt, the Thracians in the area were looking to challenge any outsiders looking to control their lands.

Much of the Hellespont and the Chersonese on the opposite shore would come back under Persian control.[10] This would only just be the beginning though, as Thracian lands would become the path for the Persian army on the march. This would be the beginning of what is known as the Greek and Persian Wars, but for the Thracians they would have seen it as a war against their own lands. 

Greek and Persian Wars   

The Greco-Persian War period between 492 and 479, would prove to be the most successful in terms of Persian control over Thracian lands. In 492 Mardonios would lead a Persian army and fleet over the Hellespont and that would follow the Aegean coastline in southern Thrace, re-establishing Persian influence in the area. Herodotus does tell us in his histories that Athens and Eretria, both having interfered in the Ionian revolt, were the real targets of the campaign.[11] But as we have discussed before, it seems likely Mardonios’ campaign had more limited goals. It seems the objective of the campaign was to re-establish Persian control back through Thracian territory and into Macedonia, perhaps preparing the way for future expansion into Greek lands. Mardonios’ campaign though would meet with disaster; his fleet being rendered combat ineffective after suffering through the storm off mount Athos. While the army would suffer a mauling during a night attack once heading into Macedonian territory and establishing a camp there. This battle that took place perhaps also highlights that the boards between Thracian and Macedonian lands were not a hard and fast boundary, as it would be a Thracian tribe known as the Byrgoi that inflict heavy losses on the Persians. Mardonios would also be wounded in the attack and would end up heading back into the empire.[12] Even with these setbacks it does appear a sizable force remained in Thracian lands, as the Persians would continue to exert some kind of influence through the area. As during the intervening years between the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC and Xerxes invasion in 480BC, the Persians were able to establish fortified cities along the coast and have bridges constructed. What’s more, during Xerxes planning phase in the years leading up to his invasion, his massive engineering works were being conducted in Thracian and Macedonian lands, as well as huge supply drops being set up along the Thracian coast. If these lands were not under some sort of Persian control at this time, conducting these activities over a number of years would have been impossible. Having said that though, not all of Thracian lands were controlled by Persia. The lands they did control were governed by the cities of Sestos, Eion and Doriskos, all coastal cities, indicating the interior of Thrace remained untouched from Persian rule.

This would be the period that probably saw the tightest control that Persia would have over these Thracian regions. When Xerxes launched his invasion, a great many would take part in the march against Greece. It is hard to know exactly how many were part of Xerxes army, as the numbers given seem very high, being more than what modern estimates for Xerxes entire force was. Though to say the Thracians were willing participants was far from reality. We find in Herodotus the burden Xerxes army put on various Thracian tribes as they passed through on the campaign. 

“As soon as the citizens of a town heard the announcement proclaimed by the heralds, they all divided up their grain and then for many months ground it into wheat flour and barley meal. Furthermore, they fattened the finest livestock that money could buy and raised birds, both land birds in pens and waterfowl in reservoirs, all for the entertainment of the troops.”[13]

This burden would have been tremendous and we can imagine it would have probably caused a food shortage amongst the local populations, Herodotus records a remark made by one of the cities leaders, being thankful that King Xerxes did not make it his custom to take food twice each day.[14]

But again, this was when the Persians were marching through Thrancian lands in force and as Herodotus puts it;

“And in this way, all the citizens were placed under intense pressure, but they nevertheless fulfilled the commands imposed on them.”[15]

Though we also do get accounts that point to some Thracian tribes not willing to be a part of Xerxes campaign. An example Herodotus tells us about not only shows a chieftains unwillingness to submit, but also puts on display the warrior mentality of the Thracian, as well as their barbarous nature from the Greeks perspective. 

“A Thracian chieftain, the king of Crestonian and the Bisaltae, did a particularly horrible deed; he refused to submit to Xerxes and fled inland to the hills of Mt Rhodope, and had also forbidden his sons to serve in the expedition against Greece. They however, all joined up in the Persian army - either because they cared little about father’s orders, or simply from a desire to see the war. All six of them came back safe, and their father, to punish their disobedience, gouged their eyes out.”[16] 

Persian Defeat

Once Xerxes campaign stalled and then Mardonios defeat at Platea weakened the Persian position, the Thracian regions would start to show signs of resistance. 

After the defeat of Xerxes fleet at the battle of Salamis in 480, Xerxes had decided to return back to the Persian Empire and leave command of the remaining Persian forces to Mardonios. The surviving elements of the Persian fleet were sent back to the Hellespont to protect the bridge for Xerxes return. We have spoken about in the past that this was due to the fact that he was concerned the Greeks would make for them. Though, another possibility could be the fact with the news of the defeat the Thracians in the Chersonese may be encouraged to break from the Persian Yoke, in effect creating another scenario seeing the path of retreat cut. When Xerxes did return back into the empire we hear of two versions, both indicating the Thracian lands were not as tolerant to Persian occupation as what they had been at the start of the campaigning season.

The first, has Xerxes and his army retracing their steps through Thrace back to Sestos and then finally over the Hellespont back into the empire. The march home though would be in complete contrast to the advance. Rather than the accounts of cities preparing their food stocks for the army that we just saw. Instead, the retreating army was now reduced to scavenging what they could, even being reduced to eating grass and bark. The conditions were that bad that plague even set in and we hear of only a small fraction of the army making it back to Sestos with Xerxes. We do hear that some of the cities were ordered to take care of the sick, but on the whole it appears Thrace had become much more inhospitable for the Persians.[17]

The second account has Xerxes not even willing to traverse back through Thracian lands. Upon reaching Eion on the Straymon River he instead boarded a Phoenician ship and made the return journey across the Aegean Sea. Sea travel in the Ancient world also came with its risks, but it seems these risks were worth taking rather than marching through Thracian lands. Perhaps a story Herodotus tells about Xerxes learning of the Thracians stealing his sacred chariot of Zeus up around the Strymon river, made Xerxes think twice about Thracian attitudes towards the Persians now.[18]  

In 479 Mardonios would be killed at the battle of Plataea seeing the effective end of the Persian invasion of Greece. The commander of the reserve force, Megabazos was able to retreat from the field with his force intact and retreated northward. Megabazos was extremely concerned of his reception when crossing back through Thessaly, Macendon and Thrace. We are told that when stopping off in Thessaly he was extended hospitality as news of the defeat had not yet arrive that far north. He assured the Thessalians that Mardonios and his forces were not far behind, with them on the march having to deal with another matter. It would appear though, that news would travel faster than Megabazos, as we in Herodotus account;

“By the time he arrived at Byzantium, he had left behind many of his troops, who had been cut down by the Thracians along the road or had been overcome by hunger and fatigue.”[19] 

It now appeared Thrace had turned to open hostility towards the Persians now that they had been defeated by the Greeks and no longer had a strong force to enforce their subjugation.

Greek Attack at Sestos:

With the Persian withdrawal out of Greece and tracing their steps back through the southern coast of Thracian territory, their control over these areas was evaporating as fast as the army was retreating. By the end of the campaign in 479 BC most of Thrace was free of the Persian yoke, except for one region, the Chersonese. This region was controlled from the city of Sestos, and was of vital importance to the Persians, as it held their link to the European side of the Hellespont. Though, as we closed out our account of the Greco-Persian Wars, this region would also be in the beginning stages of being liberated. 

After the battle of Mycale on the Anatolian coast, the Greeks had sailed to the Hellespont to attack Xerxes bridge across the Hellespont. The Greeks had arrived at Abydos and discovered that the bridges had already been broken down, but the Persians were still in control of the opposite coast. This is where we saw the Greeks, after the Spartans had sailed home, mount an attack on the city of Sestos on the other side of the Hellespont. After the garrison had fallen and the Persian leadership, with their remaining troops fled, it would be the Thracians who would take care of the Persians that had managed to evade the perusing Athenian force. The Apsinthians who had been at war with the tribes and Greeks on the Chersonese, had their territory just outside the Chersonese peninsular. Part of the Persian force was able to make it out of the Chersonese into these lands and it would be here they would meet their end, with the leaders being sacrificed to their local gods.[20] Meanwhile the Athenians were able to catch up to the other part of the Persian force and defeated them, where they then placed its leaders in chains. Artayktes and his son were executed by stoning out in the open, but it is hard to tell if this was done for the Thracians benefit who inhabited the area, as this region had a high concentration of Greek colonies.[21] 

Conclusions:

The liberation of Sestos marks a point in the narrative where we will leave our look of the region of Thrace. Like with Sicily, events would continue to take place in these lands that would-be part of the wider Greek world. As we will see when continuing our narrative of the series, continued campaigns would take place in this region. But I hope now having looked at the Thracians over the last two episodes we have built some deeper context than before of the Thracians. So, when moving forward and seeing the Thracians in our account we have a better understanding of who they are and where they came from. As you could see from the last two episode the early history of the Thracians is very hazy to say the least, they appear in later history much more as they would come to be incorporated into different armies and as empires would campaign through their lands. These early stages we are left with the archaeological evidence that stands on its own or that helps support inferences made from later writers. 

Just on a side note, I want to say how doing these periphery episodes has been a great benefit to myself. These areas, I have not been as familiar with from my past studies of Greek history. So, although it has been bit more of a challenge, it has also been very rewarding being able to get a better hold on elements in the wider Greek world.

Next episode we will continue with our look at the Greek periphery but this time we will be shifting our focus slightly westward into what would be Macedonian territory. Here I think we will find many similarities as what we found with early Thracian development, with tribal societies inhabiting these lands and multiple Neolithic cultures originating in the region before Indo-European migrations would make their way in. The territories of the Thracians and Macedonians would often overlap with boarders constantly shifting over time, not that these boarders were hard and fast political boundaries. Though, I think we will take a similar approach with out look at them, getting some idea of how the Macedonians, if we can lump them in as a collective identity, would develop. Then we will turn to their interaction within a Greek world and how they on the periphery of the events in central Greece would be involved in the wider picture.

[1] Thucydides, 7.29
[2] Polyaenus, Strat, 4.2.16
[3] Herodotus 6.39
[4] Herodotus 4.1
[5] Herodotus 4.137 - 141
[6] Herodotus 4.144
[7] Herodotus 4.13
[8] Herodotus 5.23
[9] Herodotus 5.126
[10] Herodotus 5.122
[11] Herodotus 6.44
[12] Herodotus 6.45
[13] Herodotus 7.119
[14] Herodotus 7.120
[15] Herodotus 7.121
[16] Herodotus 8.116
[17] Herodotus 8.115
[18] Herodotus 8.115
[19] Herodotus 9.89
[20] Herodotus 9.119
[21] Herodotus 9.120