I have given this long quotation because these words of his make us understand the Persian King better than any other account. As it happened, the advice of Artabanus turned out to be correct and the Persian army was defeated in Greece. Xerxes lost, but his words still ring true and contain a lesson for all of us. And today, when we are trying to achieve great things, let us remember that we must pass through great dangers before we can reach our goal.
Xerxes, the King of kings, took his great army across Asia Minor and crossed to Europe across the Dardanelles, or the Hellespont as it was called in those days. On his way, it is said, Xerxes paid a visit to the ruins of Troy town, where the Greek heroes of old had battled for Helen. A great bridge was put across the Hellespont for the army to cross; and as the Persian army went across, Xerxes surveyed it, seated on a marble throne on top of a hill near by.
“And,” Herodotus tells us, “seeing all the Hellespont covered over with the ships and all the shores and the plains of Abydos full of men, then Xerxes pronounced himself a happy man, and then he fell to weeping. Artabanus, his uncle, therefore perceiving him—the same who at first boldly declared his opinion advising Xerxes not to march against Hellas— this man, I say, having observed that Xerxes wept, asked as follows: ‘O King, how far different from one another are the things which thou hast done now and a short while before now! For having pronounced thyself a happy man, thou art now shedding tears.’ He said: ‘Yea, for after I had reckoned up, it came to my mind to feel pity at the thought how brief was the whole life of man, seeing that of these multitudes not one will be alive when a hundred years have gone by’.”
And so the great army advanced by land, and a multitude of ships accompanied it by sea. But the sea sided with the Greeks and destroyed most of the ships in a great storm. The Hellenes or Greeks were frightened at this great host, and forgetting all their quarrels, they united against the invader. They retreated before the Persians and tried to stop them at a place named Thermopylae. This was a very narrow path, with the mountain on one side and the sea on the other, so that even a few persons could defend it against a host. Here was placed Leonidas with 300 Spartans to defend the pass to death. Right well did these gallant men serve their country on that fateful day, just ten years after Marathon. They held the host of the Persians while the Greek army retreated. Man after man fell in that narrow pass, and man after man replaced them, and the Persian army could not advance. Leonidas and his 300 comrades lay dead at Thermopylae before the Persians could go ahead. In the year 480 BC this took place, 2410 years ago, and even today one’s heart thrills to think of this unconquerable courage; even today the traveller to Thermopylae may see with tear-dimmed eyes the message, engraved in stone, of Leonidas and his colleagues:
Go tell to Sparta, thou that passest by,
That here obedient to her words we lie.
Wonderful is the courage that conquers death! Leonidas and Thermopylae live for evermore, and even we in distant India feel a thrill when we think of them. What, then, shall we say or feel of our own people, our own forebears, men and women of Hindustan, who right through our long history have smiled and mocked at death, who have preferred death to dishonour or slavery, and who have preferred to break rather than bow down to tyranny? Think of Chittor and its peerless story, of the amazing heroism of its Rajput men and women! Think also of our present day, of our comrades, warm-blooded like us, who have not flinched at death for India’s freedom.
The Greeks and the Persians
Thermopylae stopped the Persian army for a while. But not for long. The Greeks retreated before them and some Greek cities even surrendered to them. The proud Athenians, however, preferred to leave their dear city to destruction rather than surrender; and the whole population went away, mostly on the ships. The Persians entered the deserted city and burnt it. The Athenian fleet had, however, not yet been defeated, and a great battle took place near Salamis. The Persian ships were destroyed, and Xerxes, thoroughly disheartened by this disaster, went back to Persia.
Persia remained a great empire for some time longer, but Marathon and Salamis pointed the way to its decline. Later we shall see how it fell. For those who lived in those days it must have been amazing to see this vast empire totter. Herodotus thought over it and drew a moral from it. He says that a nation’s history has three stages: success; then as a consequence of success, arrogance and injustice; and then, as a consequence of these, downfall.
16
The Glory That was Hellas
January 23, 1931
The victories of the Hellenes or Greeks over the Persians had two results. The Persian Empire gradually declined and grew weaker, and the Greeks entered into a brilliant period of their history. This brilliance was short-lived in the life of a nation. It lasted less than 200 years altogether. It was not a greatness of wide empire, like Persia or the other empires that had gone before. Later the great Alexander arose and for a brief while astonished the world by his conquests. But we are not now dealing with him. We are discussing the period between the Persian wars and the coming of Alexander—a period of about 150 years from Thermopylae and Salamis. The Persian danger had united the Greeks. When this danger was removed, they again fell apart and soon started quarrelling with each other. In particular the City-States of Athens and Sparta were bitter rivals. But we shall not trouble ourselves about their quarrels. They have no importance, and we only remember them because of the greatness of Greece in those days in other ways.
We have only a few books, a few statues, a few ruins of those days of Greece. Yet these few are such as to fill us with admiration and to make us wonder at the many-sided greatness of the men of Hellas. How rich their minds must have been and how deft their hands, to produce their beautiful statuary and their buildings! Phidias was a famous sculptor of those days, but there were many others of renown also. Their plays— tragedies and comedies—are still among the greatest of their kind. Sophocles and Æschylus and Euripides and Aristophanes and Pindar and Menander and Sappho and others can only be names for you now. But you will read their works when you grow up, I hope, and realize something of the glory that was Greece.
This period of Greek history is a warning to us as to how we should read the history of any country. If we paid attention merely to the petty wars and all the other pettiness that prevailed in the Greek States, what would we know of them? If we are to understand them we must enter into their thought and try to appreciate what they felt and did. It is the inner history that really counts, and it is this that has made modern Europe a child in many ways of the ancient Greek culture.
It is strange and fascinating how in the lives of nations such periods of brilliant life come and go. For a while they brighten up everything and enable the men and women of that period and country to create things of beauty. People seem to become inspired. Our country, too, has had such periods. The earliest of these that we know of was the period which gave birth to the Vedas and the Upanishads and other books. Unfortunately, we have no record of those ancient days, and many beautiful and great works may have perished or may still await discovery. But we have enough to show what giants of mind and thought were those Indians of old. In later Indian history we have also had such brilliant periods, and perhaps in our wanderings through the ages we may come across them too.
Athens especially became famous during this period. It had a great statesman for its leader. Pericles was his name, and for thirty years he held power in Athens. During this period Athens became a noble city, full of beautiful buildings and great artists and great thinkers. Even now it is spoken of as the Athens of Pericles and we talk of the Age of Pericles.
Our friend Herodotus, the historian, who lived about this time in Athens, thought about this growth of Athens and, as he was fond of moralizing, he drew a moral from it. He says in his history that:
The power of Athens grew; and here is evidence—and there is proof of it everywhere—that liberty is a good thing. While the Athenians were despotically governed, they
were not superior in war to any of their neighbours, but when they got rid of their despot, they far surpassed them. This shows that in subjection they did not exert themselves, but they were working for a master, but when they became free each individual keenly did his best on his own account.
I have mentioned the names of some of the great ones of those times. One of the greatest of that, or any time, I have not yet mentioned. His name was Socrates. He was a philosopher, always searching for truth. To him the only thing worth having was true knowledge, and he often discussed difficult questions with his friends and acquaintances, so that out of the discussions truth might emerge. He had many disciples or chelas, and the greatest of these was Plato. Plato wrote many books which have come down to us, and it is from these books that we know a great deal of his master, Socrates. Evidently governments do not like people who are always trying to find out things; they do not like the search for truth. The Athenian Government—this was just after the time of Pericles—did not like the methods of Socrates, and they held a trial and condemned him to death. They told him that if he promised to give up his discussions with people and changed his ways they would let him off. But he refused to do so and preferred the cup of poison, which brought him death, to giving up what he considered his duty. On the point of death almost he addressed his accusers and judges, the Athenians, and said:
If you propose to acquit me on condition that I abandon my search for truth, I will say: I thank you, O Athenians, but I will obey God, who as I believe set me this task, rather than you, and so long as I have breath and strength I will never cease from my occupation with philosophy. I will continue the practice of accosting whomever I meet and saying to him, “Are you not ashamed of setting your heart on wealth and honours while you have no care for wisdom and truth and making your soul better?” I know not what death is—it may be a good thing, and I am not afraid of it. But I do know that it is a bad thing to desert one’s post and I prefer what may be good to what I know to be bad.
In life Socrates served the cause of truth and knowledge well, but better still he served it in his death.
In these days you will often read or hear discussions and arguments on many problems—on Socialism and Capitalism and many other things. There is a great deal of suffering and injustice in the world, and many people are thoroughly dissatisfied with it, and they seek to change it. Plato also thought of problems of government, and he has written about them. Thus even in those days people were thinking of how to shape the government of a country and society so that there may be greater happiness all round.
When Plato was getting old, another Greek, who has become famous, was coming to the front. His name was Aristotle. He had been the private tutor of Alexander the Great, and Alexander helped him greatly with his work. Aristotle did not trouble himself with problems of philosophy, like Socrates and Plato. He was more interested in observing things in Nature and in understanding the ways of Nature. This is called Natural Philosophy or, more often now, Science. Thus Aristotle was one of the early scientists.
We must now go on to Aristotle’s pupil, the great Alexander, and follow his swift career. But that must be tomorrow. I have written enough for today.
Today is Vasanta Panchami, the coming of spring. The all-too-short winter is past and the air has lost its keenness. More and more birds come to us and fill the day with their songs. And today, just fifteen years ago, in Delhi city, your Mummie and I got married to each other!
17
A Famous Conqueror but a Conceited Young Man
January 24, 1931
In my last letter, and even before that, I have referred to Alexander the Great. I think I have called him a Greek. It is not quite correct to say so, for he was really a Macedonian—that is, he came from a country just north of Greece. The Macedonians were in many ways like the Greeks; you might call them their cousins. Philip, the father of Alexander, was King of Macedonia. He was an able king and he made his little kingdom strong, and built up a very efficient army. Alexander is called “the Great”, and he is very famous in history. But a great deal of what he did was made possible by the careful work of his father Philip before him. Whether Alexander was a really great man or not is a doubtful matter. He is certainly no hero of mine. But he succeeded in a short life in impressing his name on two continents, and in history he is supposed to be the first of the world-conquerors. Far away in the heart of Central Asia, he is still remembered as Sikandar and whatever he may have been in reality, history has succeeded in attaching a glamour to his name. Scores of cities have been named after him and many of these still exist. The greatest of these was Alexandria, in Egypt.
Alexander was only twenty when he became king. Full of ambition to achieve greatness, he was eager to march towards the old enemy, Persia, with the fine army which his father had made for him. The Greeks did not like either Philip or Alexander, but they were cowed down a little by their strength. And so they acknowledged each of them, one after the other, as the captain-general of all the Greek forces which were to invade Persia. Thus they bowed down to the new power that was rising. One Greek city, Thebes, rebelled against him, and he struck at it with great cruelty and violence. He destroyed this famous city and knocked down its buildings and massacred many of its people and sold many thousands into slavery. By this barbarous behaviour he terrified Greece. But this and other instances of barbarism in his life do not make him admirable for us and only repel and disgust us.
Egypt, which was then under the Persian King, was easily conquered by Alexander, who had already defeated the Persian King, Darius III, a successor of Xerxes. Later he went again towards Persia and defeated Darius a second time. The great palace of Darius, the “King of kings”, was destroyed by Alexander, in revenge, he said, for the burning of Athens by Xerxes. There is an old book in the Persian language, written nearly 1000 years ago, by a poet named Firdausi. The book is called the Shahnamah; it is a chronicle of the Kings of Persia. This book describes, very fancifully, the battles of Alexander and Darius. It tells us that on being defeated Darius sought help from India. “A camel with the pace of wind he sent” to Fur or Porus, who was a king in the north-west of India. But Porus could not help him at all. He himself had to face the onslaught of Alexander soon afterwards. In this book, the Shahnamah of Firdausi, it is interesting to find numerous references to Indian swords and daggers being used by the Persian King and nobles. This indicates that even in Alexander’s day India was making swords of fine steel, which were welcomed in foreign countries.
Alexander’s Empire
Alexander wandered on from Persia. Through the country where Herat and Kabul and Samarqand now stand he went and reached the upper valleys of the river Indus. Here he met the first Indian ruler who opposed him. Greek historians call him Porus, after the Greek fashion. His real name must have been similar to this, but we do not know it. It is said that Porus fought bravely and it was not easy for Alexander to overcome him. Very chivalrous and very tall, Porus is said to have been, and Alexander was so impressed by his courage and chivalry that, even after defeating him, he left him in charge of his kingdom. But from being King Porus he became a satrap, or governor, of the Greeks.
Alexander entered India through the Khyber Pass in the northwest, and via Taxila, which lies a little north of Rawalpindi. Even now you can see the ruins of this ancient city. After defeating Porus, Alexander appears to have considered marching south towards the Ganges. But he did not do so, and, following the Indus valley, he returned. It is interesting to think what might have happened if Alexander had marched towards the heart of Hindustan. Would he have continued to win? Or would the Indian armies have overcome him? A frontier king like Porus gave him sufficient trouble, and it is quite possible that the bigger kingdoms of Middle India might have been strong enough to check Alexander. But whatever Alexander may or may not have wished, his soldiers decided for him. They were tired and weary of many years’ wanderings. Perhaps they were impressed by the fighting qualities of the India
n soldiers and did not wish to take the risk of a defeat. Whatever the reason was, the army insisted on going back, and Alexander had to agree. The return journey was, however, a disastrous one, and the army suffered from lack of food and water. Soon afterwards, in 323 BC, Alexander died at Babylon. He never saw his home country Macedonia again after he set out for his Persian campaign.
So died Alexander at the age of thirty-three. What had this “great” person done during his brief career? He won some brilliant battles. He was undoubtedly a great general. But he was vain and conceited, and sometimes very cruel and violent. He thought of himself almost as a god. In fits of anger or whims of the moment he killed some of his best friends, and destroyed great cities together with their inhabitants. He left nothing solid behind him in his empire—not even proper roads— that he had built. Like a meteor in the sky he came and went, and left little of himself behind him except a memory. His family people killed each other off after his death, and his great empire fell to pieces. A world-conqueror he is called, and it is said that once he sat down and wept because there was nothing more left for him to conquer! But India, except for a little bit in the north-west, was still unconquered by him; and China even then was a great State, and Alexander went nowhere near China.
Glimpses of World History Page 8
