I. XERXES’ TRICK, ENQUIRY AND PERCEPTION

Xerxes is one of the flawed royal enquirers of the Histories whose mistakes are in part a result of his tyrannical failures. Book 8 also deliberately plays with visual criteria and the elements of Herodotean enquiry. Xerxes’ trick and the resultant failures of perception directly engage with both themes. The standard book division of the Histories is not of course Herodotus’, though it did originate from the Alexandrian scholarly milieu.Footnote ⁵ The narrative structure of the early portion of Book 8 is complex; it is a continuation of that of Book 7 and is characterized by alternating perceptions and actions.Footnote ⁶ Asheri and Corcella divide the book into three main logoi, the Artemisium logos (8.1–23), the Salamis logos (8.40–96), and the logos of the Persian retreat (8.97–135).Footnote ⁷ Xerxes’ deception (8.24–5) comes in between the narrative of the second Artemisium (8.15–22) and the digression on Phocian–Thessalian relations a few years before the Persian Wars (8.27–33). These early portions of the book constantly shift between the Persian and Greek perceptions, with the narrative being consistently interrupted and refocused, often displaying Greek and Persian responses to a situation or decision. After outlining the Greek reaction to Thermopylae (8.19–22), Herodotus describes Xerxes’ preparations; his aim is to minimize the size of his own casualties, whilst emphasizing those of the Greek force, burying the majority of his troops under hastily dug graves and heaping up the Greek corpses into a large pile (8.24.1–2). After the preparations are complete, Xerxes sends a herald over to Histiaea and invites the navy over to tour the battlefield (8.25.1–2):

Despite his many preparations, Xerxes is not successful in his intended deception but does cause an unintended one.Footnote ⁸ Whilst he fails to conceal the scale of his own losses, he is successful in exaggerating the size of the hoplite force, when the sailors fail to recognise light-armed helots amongst the hoplites from Sparta and Thespiae. It is uncertain how many helots are being referred to here.Footnote ⁹ The list of allies (7.202), listing only hoplites, gives us a figure of 4,200 men, the majority (3,100) of which were drawn from the Peloponnese with the remainder from Boeotia (1,100).Footnote ¹⁰ We know that of these allies only the 700 Thespians and 400 Thebans stayed to fight with the Spartiates (7.222), the Thebans later defecting to the Persians (7.233). The figure of 4,000 reported in the passage cited above is also repeated earlier in one of the Thermopylaean epigrams (7.228.1). Hunt has therefore suggested that we could assume that the ratio of Spartiates to helots at Plataea (1:7) should be applied to Thermopylae, meaning we should add 2,100 helots to the 300 Spartiates, 700 Thespians, and 1,000 additional Lacedaemonian perioikoi mentioned by Diodorus Siculus (11.4.4–5).Footnote ¹¹ As van Wees has noted, Isocrates appears to demonstrate that a tradition about there being 1,000 fighters at Thermopylae was already circulating in the early fourth century b.c. (Paneg. 90; Arch. 99–100) and perhaps represents a more expansive alternative tradition.Footnote ¹²

We should therefore be sceptical of the figures which appear in Herodotus. The language of the first epitaph, as a number of scholars have noted, does not necessarily mean that all those referred to died at Thermopylae (7.228.1), μυριάσιν ποτὲ τῇδε τριηκοσίαις ἐμάχοντο ἐκ Πελοποννάσου χιλιάδες τέτορες, ‘Here four thousand from the Peloponnese once fought against three million’.Footnote ¹³ How and Wells suggested that this could be read as applying to the 3,100 of the original allies who fought at Thermopylae before their dismissal by Leonidas.Footnote ¹⁴ It is this figure which the narrator is trying to rationalize when he repeats it once again at 8.25.2. We know from references to helots elsewhere in the Thermopylae logos that each Spartiate had at least one helot attendant (7.299.2, discussed further below). If we accept that we do not need to be bound by the figure of 4,000, then we might take 300 as the most conservative possible estimate of the number of helots at Thermopylae, which would give a minimum figure of 1,300 Greek dead. This evidently does not match the figure given at 8.25, but this may not matter. Numbers represent an important source of epistemological authority in the Histories,Footnote ¹⁵ and the 4,000-figure may be a product of Herodotus’ rationalization of the Thermopylaean epigrams.Footnote ¹⁶ Moreover, the 19,000-figure attributed to the Persian dead at Thermopylae has not received the same level of scrutiny, the assumption being that this figure has been exaggerated.Footnote ¹⁷ We can say for now that within Herodotus’ narrative the number of slaves on the battlefield was great enough for their lack of recognition to be significant.Footnote ¹⁸

This passage, as Christ argues, highlights aspects of Herodotean enquiry in characters within the Histories.Footnote ¹⁹ At the beginning of Book 8, Herodotus adds support to his own account of Thermopylae by presenting Xerxes as a flawed enquirer, in part as a result of his royal hubris. There is a mismatch between Xerxes’ intentions and the outcome of his scheme, a theme which is also present in Croesus’ oracular experiment (1.46–9) and Xerxes’ test concerning his vision about his motivation to invade Greece (7.12–18). In the present passage, however, Xerxes’ interest lies not in testing the veracity of information but rather in simply manipulating its reception. His identity as an enquirer is also significantly modified by his frequent recourse to laughter which prefigures his tyrannical failure.Footnote ²⁰ In his conversations with Demaratus, Xerxes’ response to the very idea that one Spartiate was worth ten of his own men is to laugh, such as at 7.103.1 ταῦτα ἀκούσας Ξέρξης γελάσας ἔφη, ‘Upon hearing these things Xerxes laughed, saying…’ and 7.105.1 ὁ μὲν δὴ ταῦτα ἀμείψατο, Ξέρξης δὲ ἐς γελωτά τε ἔτρεψε, ‘[Demaratus] answered in this way, and Xerxes turned away laughing’. Later in Book 7, crucially after the Greeks have resisted just as Demaratus said they would, Herodotus writes (7.209.1) ἀλλ’ αὐτῷ γελοῖα γὰρ ἐφαίνοντο ποιέειν, ‘But these things appeared ridiculous to him’. Xerxes rejects Demaratus’ information on Sparta despite the fact that these are things the deposed king had personally observed and that he himself says he is trying to be truthful about (7.209.2) ἐμοὶ γὰρ τὴν ἀληθείην ἀσκέειν ἀντία σεῦ, ὦ βασιλεῦ, ἀγὼν μέγιστός ἐστι, ‘For my greatest aim is to furnish you with the truth, my King’. It is a response to another Spartan, an anonymous herald, which prompts Xerxes’ last laugh; acting upon a Delphic oracle the Spartans send a herald to ask Xerxes for compensation for the killing of Leonidas (8.114.2):

Xerxes is dismissive of both the gods, in the form of a divine instruction from Delphi, and of the Spartans, whom he is confident will be defeated by Mardonius.Footnote ²¹ Therefore, laughter, as Lateiner argued, is not intended to be funny but ‘is a symptom (though not a cause) of impending catastrophe’.Footnote ²² Herodotus’ comment on the trick, καὶ γὰρ δὴ καὶ γελοῖον ἦν, ‘for it was really quite ridiculous’, serves both to bolster his own account of the Thermopylaean logos whilst also emphasizing that the attempted deception is a product of Xerxes’ tyrannical arrogance.

This trick must also be seen in the context of the sustained problematization of visual and oral information. Throughout the Histories, Herodotus includes several explicit statements of method (1.1.1; 2.99.1; 7.152.3) or expresses scepticism about stories included in his work (for example at 5.32). The methodological statement from the Egyptian logos has been taken as programmatic (2.99.1):

The implication of this passage is that observation, judgement and enquiry form the most epistemologically sound aspects of Herodotean method, whilst oral testimony is of a less reliable character (thus necessitating the qualification). Elsewhere either characters (1.8.2) or Herodotus himself comment on the unreliability of what one hears (2.123.1; 7.152.3).Footnote ²³ In addition to the flaws fundamental to the components of enquiry, the perceptival as opposed to cognitive criteria listed above are continuously problematized and manipulated. Book 8, as Donelli argues, is particularly characterised by a focus on the flaws of human perception and the implications for historical truth.Footnote ²⁴ Characters frequently misinterpret what they see (8.79–80), refuse to believe eyewitness testimony (8.79–82), are deceived by tricks or ruses (8.27–8) or engage in clandestine meetings which are deliberately concealed from other characters (8.4–5, 57–8, 75, 79–80, 110).Footnote ²⁵ The preoccupation with the visual is not a purely Herodotean one. Especially through the technique of enargeia, Greek historiography tended to problematize and emphasize the use of visual criteria through inserting spectators into their narratives.Footnote ²⁶

At 8.25, therefore, Herodotus deliberately emphasizes the language of perception. There is a contrast between both close looking (θεήσασθαι, ἐθηεῦντο) and more incidental seeing (ὁρέοντες), which is further contrasted with the perceptions of the sailors (ἠπιστέατο). Deliberate manipulation is also pointed towards when we learn that Xerxes ‘did not deceive’ (οὐ … ἐλάνθανε) his men, which we have seen is only half true. The use of θεάομαι and ὁρέω relate to the visual senses, whilst λανθάνω and ἐπίσταμαι relate to the judgement and interpretation of sensory information. In narratological terms, this is a mise en abyme, whereby the internal audience, here our naval spectators, form part of larger scene only perceived by the external audience.Footnote ²⁷ The theme and language of perception is thus pronounced throughout Book 8 and the use of language here is easily paralleled. The narratological structure of the mise en abyme is also replicated, both introducing viewers into the narrative whilst simultaneously problematizing sight through the construction of a wider scene (8.10.1, 27.3–4). Just before our main passage, Xerxes is plainly attempting to manipulate the perception of Thermopylae within his own army (8.24.1):

Xerxes’ intention is plainly stated with the use of the purpose clause and the dense verbiage relating to concealment emphasizing his method. In the passage just below this, when the Persian κήρυξ, ‘herald’, is sent over to Histiaea, he announces (8.24.2):

This is evidently an invitation which many of the navy take up; the fact that the dead are described as foolish (ἀνόητοι) obviously carries a certain irony, since this section of Book 8 is sandwiched between the battles of Artemisium and Salamis. The theme of sight and deception is also explored in the digression dealing with enmity between the Phocians and Thessalians (8.27–33).Footnote ²⁸ Some years before Xerxes’ invasion, we are told, when the Phocians were besieged on Mount Parnassus, they repulsed the Thessalian invasion through a trick devised by a seer named Tellias of Elis (8.27.3–4):

Here the successful manipulation of the visual is key to the trick's success. Each of the Phocian fighters is told to rely on their sight to distinguish between friend and foe, helped by their frightening disguise. When their attack begins, they successfully deceive the Thessalians who are tricked into thinking they are witnessing something supernatural (τέρας).Footnote ²⁹ This successful trick, accomplished to the disadvantage of a future Persian ally, mirrors Xerxes’ unsuccessful one. Tellias’ plan is well-executed and cunning, as indicated by the use of σοφίζομαι, ‘devise cleverly’.Footnote ³⁰ The Phocians, having adorned themselves in a distinctly un-Greek fashion, have to interpret a simple piece of visual information for the larger deception to work. Xerxes on the other hand is attempting a complicated deception with elaborate preparations. In spite of his superior resources, he is unable to manipulate the visual in the way he intended, with the besieged Phocians, who through nocturnal theatricality overcome their disadvantageous position.Footnote ³¹ In one final example, we can examine an instance of visual misinterpretation closely paralleled with that at 8.25.2, when the Persians assume that the small size of the Greek fleet will spell an easy victory for them (8.10.1):

The outcome of the encounter (8.15.1) shows that the Persians were clearly mistaken in their perception that the Greek fleet was entirely inferior.Footnote ³² Therefore, the manipulation or unreliability of the visual is pronounced in Book 8 both as a fundamental flaw in human perception and a facet of Herodotean method. Whilst we should not over-reify the book divisions, it is clear that this is consistent with a narrative section of the Histories dominated by the confusing and fast-paced naval engagements at Artemisium and Salamis. In this context, the reminder of the defeat at Thermopylae refers back to the previous logos and foreshadows further disasters for the Persians. This provides a fruitful context for the wider interpretation of this passage. We can interpret the sailors’ lack of recognition as yet another problematization of the visual. However, there are other potential frames through which we can interpret this error.

II. THE UNRECOGNIZABLE DEAD? BODIES, SLAVES AND HELOTS

Therefore, why is it that the sailors do not recognize the helots? Branscome, in his work on ‘rival enquirers’ in the Histories, provides a historical reading. He argues that the Persian navy cannot distinguish between Spartans, Thespians, and helots because the bodies would have had no distinguishing clothing or equipment, had been stripped naked, and were suffering from the effects of decomposition.Footnote ³³ He also claims that Herodotus divided the dead into Spartans and Thespians on the one hand and helots on the other to reflect a distinction between hoplites and ψιλοί, ‘light-armed troops’.Footnote ³⁴ Whilst there is nothing inherently wrong with applying a historical reading to the text here (leaving to one side the issue of whether the entire episode has any credibility), there are problems with this reading. There is no suggestion in the Thermopylae narrative that the Greek dead were stripped after the battle. At the end of Book 7, we are informed of Xerxes’ own battlefield tour (7.238.1):

After the king has reviewed the corpses, he orders the mutilation of Leonidas’ body. There is no indication of other orders Xerxes gave at this point.Footnote ³⁵ As shown above, the Greek corpses were (8.25.2) πάντες … ἁλέες συγκεκομισμένοι ἐς τὠυτὸ χωρίον ‘all heaped up in a mass gathered together in the same place’. Branscome infers on the basis of these passages that Xerxes, apparently complying with Greek norms, would have had the corpses stripped of their armour and clothing.Footnote ³⁶ While it is clear that the Persian and Greek dead are arranged differently, both the Greek and Persian corpses left in situ are described as κείμενοι.

Stripping corpses completely naked does not, however, seem to have been normal practice. There are examples of corpse-stripping (e.g. Thuc. 5.10.2). There are also Classical examples of Greek armies moving the enemy dead so as to deny them to the opposing force, as Konijnendijk has argued, so that the enemy would have to ask for a truce to collect them and admit defeat (Xen. Ages. 2.15, Hell. 7.1.19).Footnote ³⁷ While it was certainly possible to strip and loot the dead, it is not clear that this always took place. In her study of the retrieval of the dead, Vaughn points to their looting and stripping as a likely occurrence rather than an established element of Greek battlefield practice.Footnote ³⁸ Konijnendijk assumes that the looting and stripping of the bodies was an aspect of warfare that followed the rout of the enemy and preceded the setting-up of a trophy, though he does not suggest that it always or usually occurred.Footnote ³⁹ Turning back to Herodotus, σκυλεύειν, ‘to strip (an enemy)’, is uncommon in the Histories (1.82.5–6; 9.80.2), not necessarily forming a part of its battlefield narratives.Footnote ⁴⁰ The only context where what was taken is explicated is in the narrative after the Battle of Plataea (9.80.2, discussed further below), where the helots:

Earlier in the Histories, when Aristagoras is seeking to persuade Cleomenes to join in the Ionian revolt, he identifies ἐσθὴς ποικίλη, ‘elaborate clothing’, as one of the tempting signs of Asian wealth to be held in contrast to the customs of the Peloponnese.Footnote ⁴¹ It is therefore significant that only precious metals are taken from the dead at Plataea.Footnote ⁴² Instances in both Thucydides and Xenophon, which are relatively few in number, appear to suggest that in these authors too the use of σκυλεύω usually indicates stripping of arms and armour, not of clothing.Footnote ⁴³ There are surely cases where stripping of the dead (of either armour or clothing) did occur and was simply unrecorded. Nevertheless, considering our evidence for Greek practice, it is unlikely that a naked mass of corpses was the intended sight for the internal audience, nor a likely assumption on the part of the contemporary, external audience. To be clear, whether they were stripped in reality or not is not the issue. It is rather the case that there is no indication that Herodotus regularly included stripping the dead in his battlefield narratives and there is no indication of this in his otherwise detailed description of the logistics following Thermopylae. Therefore, a purely practical explanation for the unrecognized helots is not especially convincing when taken alongside the other significant, narratological complexities.

Another possible explanation is that the inclusion of the helots alongside the free Spartans and Thespians is a deliberate inversion of the expected position of slaves in Greek battlefields and culture more widely. The Herodotean helots are not presented as being particularly different from any other slaves in the Histories. As noted above, historical accounts and reconstructions of the Spartan economy suggest helots were mostly agricultural labourers. However, as Harvey points out, this does not feature prominently in Herodotus’ portrayal of helots or of slaves more generally.Footnote ⁴⁴ Helots are the object of several well-worn tropes concerning slaves in Greek literature. They are cowardly (6.75, 7.229), dishonest (9.80), and subservient to their masters (6.58, 6.80.1, 6.81.1). In a telling example from the Cleomenes logos in Book 6, Herodotus appears to make explicit the nature of their social position. When Cleomenes asks his helot guard for a dagger, we learn (6.75.2):

Hornblower and Pelling convincingly suggest that the γάρ here implies that helots were particularly susceptible to this sort of threat; indeed, they were expected to acquiesce to it.Footnote ⁴⁶ A little earlier on Herodotus recounts two other occasions when Cleomenes used the helots to do his dirty work, once when he (possibly accidentally) burnt the sacred grove of Argos (6.80.1) and when he whipped the priest of the Argive Heraion after he refused to grant him entry to the sanctuary (6.81.1). On both occasions, it is the helots themselves who perform the sacrilegious act on the instructions of Cleomenes.Footnote ⁴⁷ These examples are no doubt underpinned by the inherent violence of Spartiate–helot social relations, as suggested by a number of historical episodes (Thuc. 1.101, 128, 4.80).Footnote ⁴⁸ Elsewhere, helots are presented as fundamentally un-Spartiate in their actions. Leonidas sent two Spartiates, Eurytus and Aristodamus, away from Thermopylae since they were suffering from an unspecified eye infection. However, Eurytus decides to rejoin the fighting, having put on his armour (7.229.1):

Lateiner suggests that Eurytus’ helot performs a sort of dual focalization function in this passage; his cowardice is fundamentally un-Spartiate in comparison to that of his heroic (if foolish) master,Footnote ⁴⁹ yet there is also the implication that in not sacrificing himself Aristodamus is no better than a helot.Footnote ⁵⁰ As Hunt has demonstrated, the extensive involvement of slaves in warfare is a problem for a hegemonic ideology which appears in Greek historiography, where slaves are absent from, if not explicitly unsuited to, citizen-like activities.Footnote ⁵¹ In this sense, the appearance of helots amongst the dead in Book 8 acts as a revealing gesture, indicating that the helots did not desert en masse but remained at Thermopylae with the Spartiates and Thespians.Footnote ⁵² It is also telling that earlier on in Book 7, Herodotus allows the cowardly behaviour of Eurytus’ helot to stand for the activities of the whole.

While there are clearly therefore differences of both characteristics and temperament, there are some indications that a physical difference between free people and slaves is being referred to. The first point to note is a non-physiological one. The helots were, as has already been mentioned, most probably acting as light-armed troops at Thermopylae, and so we might imagine there to be some differences in their under-clothing or armour. We might even suggest that the Persian army did not bother to strip armour which would have been of comparatively low value. If we turn to the physiological, Herodotus was influenced by the intellectual concerns of the Hippocratic writers, as shown by his occasional focus on environmental determinism, even if he did not simply transpose Hippocratic doctrines into the Histories. Footnote ⁵³ Slavery (either actual or ideological) is often taken as the source of physical differences throughout the work. Harrison has recently shown that many of Herodotus’ comments on slavery are framed though an ethnographic lens.Footnote ⁵⁴ This consideration is not unidirectional, such as when the narrator attempts to reflect Scythian conceptions of Greeks in an ethnographic frame (4.142):

Whilst the passage deliberately inverts the normal focus of ethnographic enquiry, it is easy to see the mentality of the slave owner reflected in these words. Elsewhere, he notes (1.151.2) τὴν γὰρ ἕκτην ἐν τῇ Λέσβῳ οἰκεομένην Ἀρίσβαν ἠνδραπόδισαν Μηθυμναῖοι ἐόντας ὁμαίμους, ‘The Methymnans enslaved the sixth settlement on Lesbos, Arisba, despite being of the same blood’. The use of ὅμαιμος echoes the description of Greekness (Hellênikon) offered by the Athenian ambassador at the end of Book 8 (144.2) αὖθις δὲ τὸ Ἑλληνικόν, ἐὸν ὅμαιμόν τε καὶ ὁμόγλωσσον, καὶ θεῶν ἱδρύματά τε κοινὰ καὶ θυσίαι ἤθεά τε ὁμότροπα, ‘Therefore, Greekness is common blood and common language, in addition to sanctuaries to the gods, common religious rites, and a common way of life’. Herodotus’ statement in Book 1 prefigures Plato's much fuller prohibition against the ἀνδραποδισμός, ‘enslavement’, of Greek by Greek (Resp. 5.469bc).Footnote ⁵⁵ Thucydides writes that the Messenians, some of whom were former helots, who had earlier deserted the Peloponnese were ὁμοφώνους, ‘speaking the same language’, as the Spartans (4.4.3, 41.3).Footnote ⁵⁶ The existence of a single Laconian–Messenian dialect appears to be confirmed by the linguistic evidence.Footnote ⁵⁷ The economic and social divisions of Laconia and Messenia existed within a single speech community, which itself implies ‘major differences in structural organization and strategies of slave supply’.Footnote ⁵⁸ The situation in Sparta therefore inspired and informed fourth-century theories of slavery, as shown by discussions in Plato and Aristotle of possessing slaves who speak the same language.Footnote ⁵⁹ Spartan helots were both a proto-type and a warning for Greek theorists of slavery. Helotage facilitated the leisure for which Spartiates were widely revered (e.g. Xen. Lac. 5.8–9), but the complicated ethnic and social politics rendered it inherently unstable. In the Histories, where an ethnographic understanding of slavery persists, the uncertain position of the helots would make them a curious if peripheral subject in a discussion of Greek identity.

III. GREEK IDENTITY AND HELOT IDENTITY

The helots are therefore presented in reveal at the beginning of Book 8 because the early portions of this section of the Histories are acutely concerned with the question of what it means to be Greek, especially in the context of the Persian Wars. Their presence is revealed in a moment of acute narrative and perceptival complexity, as has already been argued, but also in the context of extremely charged, identity-focused discussions. We must therefore consider the identities of both the viewers and the viewed. Slave identity has been relatively underexplored with some recent studies proposing new theoretical frameworks.Footnote ⁶⁰ Helot identity most likely had a complex and uncertain relationship with wider Spartan identities, potentially reflected in the idea that they shared a dialect with the Spartiates and perioikoi. Book 8 always returns to the theme of Greekness, concluding with the famous debate at Athens between Alexander of Macedon, the Spartans and the Athenians (8.140–4).Footnote ⁶¹ The earlier portions of the book contain a less commented upon series of addresses, namely three direct addresses to groups of Greeks or groups which included Greeks. Themistocles inscribes an address to the Ionian sailors in the Persian navy (8.22.2–3),Footnote ⁶² the Persian herald addresses Xerxes’ allies, including Ionians (8.24.2), and the Thessalians, Persian allies, address the rebellious and troublesome Phocians (8.29.1–2). Each address begins with a vocative plural (8.22.1 ἄνδρες Ἴωνες; 8.24.2 ἄνδρες σύμμαχοι; 8.29.1 ὦ Φωκέες). The phase ἄνδρες σύμμαχοι is ambiguous.Footnote ⁶³ To suggest, as some indeed have, that this is referring only to the Greeks in the Persian navy would be a strained reading,Footnote ⁶⁴ and it is more likely the intended internal audience is the entire Persian navy.Footnote ⁶⁵ However, to the external audience, it is not improbable that Herodotus is drawing attention to the Greeks within the navy. The triad of addresses discuss a range of Greek perspectives on the Persian encounter. We have a Greek attempting to enlist the support of fellow Greeks (Themistocles to the Ionians), the Persian king boasting to his Greek and non-Greek allies (Xerxes to his allies, including Ionian Greeks), and Greeks urging fellow Greeks to support the Persians (the Thessalians to the Phocians). When this is all taken together it becomes clear that to an external audience attention would be drawn to the Greek members of the Persian navy. This is further emphasized in the subject matter of each address. Themistocles ‘inscribes’ to the Ionians a warning (8.22.1–2) ἄνδρες Ἴωνες, οὐ ποιέετε δίκαια ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας στρατευόμενοι, καὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα καταδουλούμενοι, ‘Men of Ionia, you are acting unjustly in marching against your forebears, and reducing Greece to slavery.’ The language here emphasizes descent, by referring to the ties of kinship between Athens and the Ionian Greeks,Footnote ⁶⁶ and referring to their alliance with the Persians as the enslavement of Greece.Footnote ⁶⁷ Perhaps at least in part in response to Themistocles’ message, the speech of the Persian herald quoted above does not name the dead at Thermopylae, referring to them simply as τοὺς ἀνοήτους, ‘foolish men’, οἳ ἤλπισαν τὴν βασιλέος δύναμιν ὑπερβαλέεσθαι, ‘who hoped to overthrow the power of the King’. The fact that Xerxes’ reported command makes no mention of the identity of his opponents serves to construct them simply as idiotic failures. The Thessalian address to the Phocians, also reported through a herald (8.29.1), betrays the perspective of an ally boastful of their closeness to Persia while also continuing to expound the themes of identity, freedom and enslavement. In a truly berating address, the herald declares (8.29.1–2):

The request of the Thessalians echoes the language of both Themistocles’ and Xerxes’ appeals, emphasizing that their influence, entirely dependent on Persian patronage, gives them power (δυνάμεθα) to enslave the plucky Phocians (ἠνδραποδίσθαι), referring back to Xerxes’ description of his own power (δύναμις) and Themistocles’ accusation, albeit with different verbiage, of characterizing medizing as the enslavement of Greece. There is an ironic note to the Thessalians’ statement of their own power in light of their earlier warning to the other Greek allies (7.172.3) οὐδαμὰ γὰρ ἀδυνασίης ἀνάγκη κρέσσων ἔφυ, ‘there is no compulsion which is stronger than powerlessness’.Footnote ⁶⁸ Further ironic usage can also be detected in the use of ὁμοῖος referring back as it does to the dead Spartiates at Thermopylae. Demaratus tells Xerxes that in Sparta there are 8,000 men (7.234.2) καὶ οὗτοι πάντες εἰσὶ ὁμοῖοι τοῖσι ἐνθάδε μαχεσαμένοισι, ‘who are all the equals of the men who fought here’ and that the perioikoi, the ‘other Spartans’, are οὐκ ὁμοῖοι, ἀγαθοὶ δέ, ‘not equal to them, but still fine’. Here the language of equality is not deployed to imply a hierarchy or class structure, but rather to suggest a sharp contrast between Phocian cowardice and Thessalian valour, both of which are further rendered ironic by the Thessalians’ medism and the eventual Phocian defeat. Therefore, with this triad of speeches, all relatively short, all spoken to their internal audience indirectly, two through heralds, one through inscription, we have a series of speeches which attempt to frame the politics of Graeco–Persian relations in microcosm. Xerxes’ trick, therefore, an attempt to manipulate information, appears in the narrative in this deeply charged and discursive context, when what it means to be Greek is at stake.

An explicit consideration of the role of helot identity therefore adds a further dimension to this meditation. The Ionians’ identity as Greeks is continually impeached throughout the Histories (8.22.2) and they are earlier judged by the Scythians and possibly the Persians as the κακίστους τε καὶ ἀνανδροτάτους, ‘worst and most slavish’ of the Greeks (4.142, see above). In failing to recognize the presence of the helots therefore they are being accused of a category error. The helots were present on the battlefield only as light-armed troops and so cannot be counted properly amongst the ranks of free citizen hoplites. Their incidental inclusion can be accounted for by the ambivalence or even embarrassment on the part of the external audience that slaves played such a role in a historically contingent moment.Footnote ⁶⁹ However, from the narrative perspective, the emergence of the helots amongst the dead serves as a reveal, coming in the context of a series of passages designed to question and problematize Greek participation in the Persian Wars. Viewed from this perspective, we are not dealing with a deliberate exclusion of slaves from the narrative; rather, their presence is withheld from the reader until its revelation could be most effective. Within this reveal is the irony that Greeks who fought against their kinsman fail to recognise important distinctions within Greek societies, especially the central distinction between freedom and slavery, and are embarrassed by the (albeit partially concealed) bravery of the helots who have a greater claim to being true Greeks than those who fight with the Persian king.