Ryszard Kulesza
Certainly, across the world from ancient times to the most recent, in all places, both larger and smaller empires have made capital out of deportations. The principle of divide et impera, “divide and rule,” is implemented through various means. Some remain, while others leave. The mixing together of essentially alien populations, is an end in itself. The only remaining reference point, of potential loyalty, for those strangers in that new environment, happens to be the perpetrator of their misfortune.
To a ruler attempting to build his new state, Niccolo Machiavelli prescribed the following:
“Any new ruler of a city or state, who has not yet consolidated his rule and wishes not to establish a free system in his territories in the form of a monarchy or republic, will retain his power most securely, by applying fundamental change to everything found therein. He would do well to institute new bureaucratic offices with fresh names, fill new positions with fresh faces (…). Allow him to erect new cities and proceed in such a fashion, that nothing in the conquered country remains as it was, and all offices, dignities, honors, and wealth emanate only from him. Let him follow the example of Philip of Macedon, the father of Alexander, who in this way evolved from being king of an insignificant state, to ruler of all Greece. We are instructed by historians that he drove people from one region to another, much as a shepherd moves his flocks.”
— N. MACHIAVELLI, DISCORSI I, 26, translated by Czesław Nanke
Machiavelli cites Philip II as an example, who saved Macedonia from collapse and forged a state that his son, Alexander the Great, used as a springboard to conquer the world. During his reign (359–336 BC), he instigated a genuine civilizational revolution in Macedonia. Most significantly, however, he built up a resolute army that allowed for the defeat of both his internal and external enemies. He employed a variety of other methods as well: murder, blackmail, bribery. By buying off politicians through the use of golden keys, he could unlock the gates to Greek cities. In the rich arsenal of means at his disposal, deportations played an important role.
[Philip II] reassembled nations and cities according to his discretion, depending on whether he wanted to populate a certain area or deprive it of people. In this way, he was akin to a shepherd driving his flock onwards to either winter or summer pastures. A pitiable sight presented itself, where everything resembled widespread catastrophe. It was neither fear of the enemy, nor the hustling and bustling of soldiers through a conquered city, nor the clanking of armour, nor the appropriation of property and people, but the quiet sadness and grief of inhabitants who feared their tears would be interpreted as a sign of opposition (…). Philip placed some tribes on the borders of the state, directly opposite enemies, others at its outermost edges, and to cities he assigned prisoners of war in order to replenish their populations. Thus was he able, in this way, from various peoples and tribes, to create a kingdom and one nation.
— Justinus, Historiarum Philippicarum Libri XLIV, Book VIII, 5-7 – 6, 2, translated by Ignacy Lewandowski
As the last sentence states – Ex multis gentibus nationibusque unum regnum populumque constituit. Although not with regard to all of them. For Philip II, the Greeks were a special breed of enemy. Divided into hundreds of smaller states, the Greek world proved relatively easy to manipulate. Philip II’s derived his strength from the Greeks’ weakness, especially since he boasted military superiority over each of the Greek states (On the other hand, the potential of their combined strength far exceeded Macedonia’s capabilities in every regard).
No one can forget the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC), through which the Greeks surrendered their independence. Certainly, fewer are likely to remember the earlier event that shook Greece. In 348 BC, Philip II literally wiped the great, burgeoning Greek city of Olynthos, off the map. Following its capture, he plundered the city, enslaving 10,000 of its inhabitants. The majority of them were resettled in Macedonia. The city itself was razed to the ground, along with nearby Stagira, the hometown of Aristotle (the Stagirite), who was later to become the teacher of Alexander, Philip’s son. In 345 BC, he resettled 10,000 Illyrian Sarnusii. A few years hence, a similar fate befell 20,000 Scythian women and children. In his Third Philippic, Demosthenes writes of Philip II’s hand in the destruction of 32 cities.
As much as Machiavelli secured eternal fame for Philip II through references to his deportations, they reveal a much deeper history, long being associated with war and the enslavement of vanquished populations.
*
The eminent scholar of ancient times, Iza Bieżuńska-Małowist, responded to the question of “What are the origins of slavery?” as follows: “The first slaves originated from the vanquished who were captured during battles with opposing tribes. Initially, those captives were most likely murdered, while the later practice of turning them into slaves might be considered as the beginning of a more humane form of treatment, were it not for the exponential growth of this practice throughout human history along with the unimaginable suffering that it initiated. The habit of taking slaves began when a use for their labor had been found, and it is patently clear that a sedentary lifestyle and the development of agriculture, rather than foraging, fostered the conditions for this to occur” (I. Bieżuńska-Małowist, M. Małowist, Niewolnictwo, Warsaw 1987, p. 29).
A Captive constitutes a special kind of slave. And their fate could certainly vary. Generally, that fate was a grim one, in those states built on the principles laid out by Machiavelli, employed both before and after him. By way of example, Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 BC), the creator of Assyrian power, invoked terror in its cruelest form as a key instrument of his policy. As can be read in the Assyrian ruler’s online biography: “He ruthlessly punished defeated enemies by organizing public, mass executions (impalement, live flaying), the deliberate destruction of cities, and the deportation of the population.”
In Assyrian iconography, groups of deportees are depicted traveling on foot; men often with their hands bound with rope or shackled either behind or in front of them, less commonly they are also shown with leg shackles. Leaders were usually restrained in this fashion, which carried a symbolic significance. Women carry small bundles (with food) and leather bags (for water). Small children ride on the shoulders of their mothers or fathers. In some reliefs, women and children are pictured riding donkeys, horses, or carts.
Under the reign of Ashurnasirpal, fear materialised in a form spectacular in its extreme cruelty. After a city was captured, baskets were displayed in public view, full of heads with the eyes gouged-out, ears severed off and tongues cut-out. The birth of a new world was announced to victors and vanquished alike, with piles of severed heads (in legend, and perhaps in reality, they were eventually transformed over time into pyramids of skulls). In the film “Apocalypto,” such occurrences were fictional, in human history however, both ancient and recent, they were a reality.
*
Various nations, according to their abilities, were utilized by The Persian Empire. Both people and objects.
Originating from the years 509–494 BC , in the “Fortification Tablets” from Persepolis, there are ethnically homogeneous groups of resettled people, ranging from several dozen to several hundred, who performed various tasks, receiving specific food rations from the royal treasury. From texts published thus far, it appears that these groups were placed in 108 settlements and cities in Persia and Elam. Of the 21,576 people listed in the “Fortification Tablets,” men accounted for 37.5%, women 39.8%, boys 12.7%, and 10% girls. Structure of the individual groups varied. There are also groups made up exclusively of women or of only men. In the main, however, there are adults representing both sexes along with children. The tablets furnish information regarding craftsmen of various specialties employed in the construction of the palace, as well as shepherds and farmers. We can find Egyptians, Babylonians, Libyans, Cappadocians, Bactrians, Sogdians, Carians, Ionians, and other nations. Only Persians are absent.
An inscription discovered in Susa by King Darius I (also known as Darius the Great – the ruler of Persia from 522–486 BCE) reveals information about the construction of a palace: “Cedar beams were brought down from the mountains called Lebanon. The people known as Assyrians (Syrians), transported them to Babylonia, and from Babylonia, the Carians and Ionians conveyed them onwards to Susa. The yaka tree was sourced from Gandhara as well as Carmania. Gold was delivered from Sardis and Bactria and was processed here. While the precious stones, lapis lazuli and carnelian, processed here, were brought in from Sogdiana. As for the precious turquoise gemstones, they were transported from Chorasmia and processed here. Silver and ebony were shipped in from Egypt. The decorative elements, used to adorn the terrace, were from Ionia. From Ethiopia, India, and Arachosia Ivory was imported. And stones for the columns which were hoisted up here, were brought in from a city called Abiradush in Elam. Ionian and Sardian craftsmen were responsible for the masonry work. Medes and Egyptians goldsmiths worked the gold. Sardian and Egyptian craftsmen carried out the woodwork. Babylonians were responsible for firing bricks, while Medes and Egyptians decorated the terrace.”
For many, Persian rule delivered some form of relief. Among other things, it signified an end to the deportation of Israelites to Babylon (in the 6th century B.C, the so-called Babylonian captivity). However, the Persians did not completely halt all deportations. One researcher coined the phrase ‘Gulag Archipelago’ for those islands in the Persian Gulf, where Persian kings relocated their exiles. From Greek sources several examples of Persian deportations have come to light. In 511/510 B.C, the Paeonians, according to Herodotus, were sent to Persia on Darius’s orders, due to the extraordinary economic talents of their women. This same ruler resettled Branchids from Miletus in Asia Minor to Sogdiana or Bactria, “Persian Siberia” as this land is sometimes referred to in the literature. Similarly, Eritreans from Euboea, captured before the Battle of Marathon (490 B.C), were relocated to Ardericca near Susa, several thousand kilometers from their homeland. This was an event made famous by Herodotus, which furthermore, shook Greece. The method by which the Eritreans were captured lingered long in the memory of the Greeks. In Eretria, in order to capture the entire population, the Persians employed the tactic known as sageneia, previously put to use on the islands. Plato twice makes reference to the round-up on Euboea in 490 B.C (Laws 698d4-a5; Menexenus 240b-c). Just as fishermen pull in their nets, the Persians allegedly “formed a dragnet” by holding hands and moving in a line—”from sea to sea, in order to ensnare everyone…”
A successful round-up could not have been conducted anywhere, in the fashion described by Plato. Even on the islands, the soldiers did not hold hands but marched forwards in a line, slowly combing the entire area. Moreover, the Persian stay in Eretria was all too brief, and Euboea too vast for such an endeavor to be contemplated. This provides some level of insight into how it was later perceived in Greece.
Until they learned how to defeat the Persians (at Marathon, Salamis, Plataea), the Greeks were terrified of them. The disparity between their respective power was immense.
*
We turn our attention here to a clash of worlds – the world of the subjects of the great Persian king and the citizens of the Greek city-states (poleis).
The essence of the Greek war is conveyed through the words of Aeschylus’s in The Persians that lead the Greeks into the naval Battle of Salamis (480 B.C):
“Forward, sons of the Hellenes! For the freedom of our
Homeland, of our wives, freedom for our children,
For the gods whom the fathers have worshipped, the holy houses,
For the graves of our ancestors. Today, will be a fight for everything.”
— AESCHYLOS, PERSIANS, 402–405 TRANSLATION BY STEPHEN SILVER
This is a call for the defence of all Hellas. Free citizens did indeed triumph over the subjects of the Great King, despite possessing fewer ships. For the sake of not only formal matters, but accuracy: out of a thousand Greek city-states, only 31 joined the anti-Persian coalition. A conscious and determined minority would decide the fate of the world.
*
To this point, we have touched mainly upon the world of those subjects who execute their ruler’s orders to the detriment of others. With regard to the world of citizens of free Greek cities, such matters cannot be viewed similarly. Certainly, the Greeks considered the “right to kill each other,” to borrow the words of the eminent ancient times expert Ewa Wipszycka-Bravo, as an indisputable one. I would add that throughout history this has been common to most peoples. By the same token, we must also remember that as a rule, those who found themselves on the battlefield or on opposite sides of city fortifications, hardly faced great moral dilemmas. A Greek was ready, as dictated at any rate, by the value system transmitted to him, to die for his small homeland in any fight against citizens of another Greek polis:
“It is truly a beautiful thing when, marching in the front line,
A brave man dies fighting to defend his homeland;
But when he abandons his city and the fertile land,
He soon becomes a beggar – the worst of all fates,
As he wanders with his kindly mother and his ageing father,
Little children and his wife.
He is greeted then with hostility by the people he chances upon.
Fleeing from want, tormented by wretched poverty,
He brings shame upon his family, and tarnishes his once noble appearance,
Total disgrace and evil shadows his every move.
Since, therefore, the errant exile arouses little sympathy,
He attracts no praise, and his family’s future lies in ruins,
Let us valiantly fight in defence of our land and children,
Even if we must die, let us not spare our lives.”
In the microcosm of the Greek world, all phenomena related to war, and even the forging of “mini” empires (‘mini’ in this instance, considering the scale), occurred.
The Argives expelled the inhabitants of Asine at the end of the 8th century B.C the Athenians expelled the Aeginetans in 431 B.C and the Spartans and Thebans were responsible for the roaming of the Plataeans from the outset of the Peloponnesian War. Significant phenomena in Sicily in the 5th-4th centuries B.C were resettlements that resulted from the actions of local tyrants.
Contrary to common expectation, in wartime there was little difference in how the Greeks meted out treatment to foreigners and their own people. The unwritten law (agraphos nomos) forbade cruelty towards envoys, heralds, people seeking asylum in temples, and the observance of the sacred truce during the Olympic Games… All these nomoi (nominal laws) were frequently broken.
Hatred proved itself to be the most powerful force. With the passage of time, by the 4th century B.C, in more enlightened minds thoughts began to emerge suggesting that Greeks should display a greater sense of humanity (Greek: philanthropia) towards their fellow brothers.
*
Thucydides, the great Greek historian (5th century B.C), the author of, as he proudly states, “a possession for all time” (ktema es aei), uncovers the fundamental mechanisms of history and the motives underlying human actions. In his telling, we can learn from history because people always act out of self-interest. To put it a different way — regardless of how the props change (the club is replaced by the sword, the sword by the rifle, the rifle by the laser gun, etc. etc.) and the scenery (the fur-clad man is superseded by the armored knight, and ultimately the man in uniform or even a suit)—fundamentally, essentially, he remains unchanged.
Thucydides, also described the Peloponnesian War (431–404 B.C) – The world war of ancient Greeks – for the benefit of posterity and to permit future generations to avoid the mistakes of their predecessors:
“Never before had so many cities been vanquished and made desolate, neither by barbarians or Greeks warring against each other; and some cities, upon being conquered, were colonized by completely new inhabitants. Never before had there been such a wave of displacement and bloodshed stemming from warfare and civil strife. Things which had previously been passed down by hearsay, but rarely confirmed by experience, ceased to maintain their unbelievability. Unusually powerful earthquakes extended over wide areas; solar eclipses were more commonplace than in previous memory; there were great droughts in some places and the subsequent famines they caused; and that most harmful of all things—the plague, wreaked terrible havoc, partially destroying Hellas .”
— THUCYDIDES, THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR, BOOK I, 23
For the Greeks the idea of War frenzy (Greek: mania) was not alien to them. To some extent, the madness of war is epitomized by the fate of Melos. Notably, one Anglo-Saxon scholar of the Melian tragedy compared it to the history of the Warsaw Uprising. Violence and justice. Brutal strength versus unarmed righteousness. The Athenians demand absolute surrender; the Melians ask only for a life of freedom. In Thucydides, a record can be found of a well-known dispute called the Melian Dialogue. Athenian envoys appeal to the Melians not to invoke the principle of justice: “Just as you, we know perfectly well that justice in human relations is that decisive moment when it can be guaranteed by equal forces on both sides; and when it comes to the scope of possibilities, the stronger achieve their goals and the weaker must give in.”
The Melians invoke various arguments, including pointing out the uncertainty of the future. In reply the Athenians, say: “Without doubt, hope offers some solace for people who find themselves in danger. It does not bring destruction to those with sufficient resources, even though it may harm them, but to those who throw their entire existence onto the scales – for hope by its nature is profligate – it reveals its nothingness only when they fall and when the realization comes that they are beyond all help. Those of you who are weak, whose fate hangs in the balance, should therefore seek to avoid this. Do not be like those people who, although they might save themselves through means still available to them, yet, finding themselves in a difficult situation and no longer possessing a shred of hope, resort to vague intuitions, prophecies, fortune telling, and other such pernicious delusions.”
The Athenians proclaim that the Melians would do well to not invest their faith in unreliable allies: “Concerning your hopes for the assistance you hope the Lacedaemonians will extend to you, out of some sense of honor, we greatly respect your candidness, whilst we do not however, envy such gullibility. In fact, in terms of their private life and national customs, the Lacedaemonians are unusually honest people, although when it comes to their attitude towards others, there is much which could still be said on this matter. To put it succinctly: the Lacedaemonians, out of all the countries known to us, most consistently follow this principle of considering pleasant things as beautiful and favorable things as just. Yet this view of theirs is utterly inconsistent with your baseless hope of salvation.” (Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, book V, 85–114, translated by Kazimierz Kumaniecki)
Some while after the Melians’ response, rejecting subjugation to the Athenians, the latter continued their siege of the city. “From that moment onwards,” says Thucydides, “the siege was resumed, and when treacherous incidents came to pass, the Melians surrendered, leaving their fate to the Athenians, who murdered every man who fell into their hands, sold the women and children into slavery, and colonized the city themselves, later sending five hundred settlers.” (Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, book V, 116, translated by Kazimierz Kumaniecki)
Fortunately, it is rare that even the most ruthless conqueror achieves total extermination of the vanquished. When Athens finally suffered defeat to the Spartans in 404 BC, the Athenian settlers were expelled, and those who had survived returned to Melos. It shall never be known exactly how many lived to see justice served. We can but only ruminate upon the state of mind of the Melians, Olynthians, Carthaginians, Varsovians, and countless others.
*
The longer the war dragged on, the more frequently people had to question its meaning, especially since the issue of rudimentary, true, and alleged guilt and punishment was compelled to give way to general fatigue, which in their minds distorted the proportions of what was just and desirable. This is what Aristophanes, the comic playwright, and Euripides, the tragedian, aimed to push the Athenians towards. Euripides had one of his characters direct the following words to his compatriots, but essentially it is for everyone, both then and now:
“O wretched people,
Why do you desire the spear and mutual slaughter?
Stop, abandon your struggles,
Guard your cities in peace with others.
Life is short, and must be lived
As simply as possible, free from unnecessary suffering.”
(EURIPIDES, THE SUPPLIANTS, 949–954, translated by JERZY ŁANOWSKI)
But in the history of empires especially, wars of conquest seem to be their raison d’être. An empire is akin to a vampire feasting on its victims, constantly craving a fresh supply.
Prof. Ryszard Kulesza – historian, researcher of ancient history, lecturer at the University of Warsaw, author of, among other works, ‘Polis apolis’: Displacement, resettlement and flight of people in the Greek world in the 5th and 6th centuries B.C., Warsaw 1998
*Thus, the Caledonian leader Calgacus characterizes Roman policy in the newly conquered Britain of the 1st century AD. In the translation of Seweryn Hammer: “Robbers of the world, having devastated the land to exhaustion, scour the sea; greedy, if the enemy is wealthy; aspiring to glory, if he is poor; neither the East nor the West has been able to satisfy them. And alone among all men they desire both riches and privations with equal passion. They give robbery, slaughter, plunder the false name of empire (imperium), and when they forge a wasteland, they call it peace (pacem appellant)” (Tacitus, Agricola, 30.4).
Illustration at the top of the page: The Siege of Lachish, 701 B.C. Fragment of a relief from Sennacherib’s palace in Nineveh. British Museum, London. Public domain. Photo by Shadsluiter. License CC BY-SA 4.0
Bibliography:
P. Ducrey, La traitement des prisonniers de guerre dans la Grece antique, Paris 1968;
B. Oded, Mass Deportation and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Wiesbaden 1979;
R. Kulesza, Persian Deportations – Greeks in Persia, “Eos” LXXXII, 1994, pp. 221–250;
The same, Studies in Greek History, “Akme. Studia historica” 16, Warsaw 2017, pp. 32–74;
The same, Polis apolis: Polis apolis: displacement, resettlement and flight of people in the Greek world in the 5th and 6th centuries B.C., Warsaw 1998;
J. Seibert, Die politischen Flüchtlinge und Verbannten in der griechischen Geschichte, vol. I–II, Darmstadt 1979.
Translated from Polish by Jan Dobrodumow