This page needs to be proofread.
ATHENS BEFORE THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR.
29

mus and Antikles, besides thirty from Chios and Lesbos, — making altogether near two hundred sail. Against this overwhelming force, Melissus and the Samians made an unavailing attempt at resistance, but were presently quite blocked up, and remained so for nearly nine months, until they could hold out no longer. They then capitulated, being compelled to raze their fortifications, to surrender all their ships of war, to give hostages for future good conduct, and to make good by stated instalments the whole expense of the enterprise, said to have reached one thousand talents. The Byzantines, too, made their submission at the same time.[1]

Two or three circumstances deserve notice respecting this revolt, as illustrating the existing condition of the Athenian empire. First, that the whole force of Athens, together with the contingents from Chios and Lesbos, was necessary in order to crush it, so that even Byzantium, which joined in the revolt, seems to have been left unassailed. Now, it is remarkable that none of the dependent allies near Byzantium, or anywhere else, availed themselves of so favorable an opportunity to revolt also: a fact which seems plainly to imply that there was little positive discontent then prevalent among them. Had the revolt spread to other cities, probably Pissuthnes might have realized his promise of bringing in the Phenician fleet, which would have been a serious calamity for the Ægean Greeks, and was only kept off by the unbroken maintenance of the Athenian empire.

Next, the revolted Samians applied for aid, not only to Pissuthnes, but also to Sparta and her allies; among whom, at a


    Vespoe, 946: nor can we confirm the statement which the Scholiast cites from Idomeneus, to the effect that Thucydides was banished and fled to Artaxerxes: see Bergk. Reliq. Com. Att. p. 61.

  1. Thucyd. i, 117; Diodor. xii, 27, 28; Isokrates, De Permutat. Or. xv, sect. 118; Cornel. Nepos, Vit. Timoth. c. I. The assertion of Ephoras (see Diodorus, xii, 28, and Ephori Fragm. 117 ed. Marx, with the note of Marx) that Perikles employed battering machines against the town, under the management of the Klazomenian Artemon, was called in question by Herakleides Ponticus, on the ground that Artemon was a contemporary of Anakreon, near a century before: and Thucydides represents Perikles to have captured the town altogether by blockade.