Teaser: Themistocles Pt 1 (Patreon)

This is a teaser of the bonus episode, "Themistocles Pt 1" found over on Patreon.

Athens doesn’t wake up one day as the master of the Aegean. It gets argued into that future, one hard political fight at a time, and Themistocles is the kind of figure who can win those fights. We follow his rise from an obscure early life to the point where he becomes the driving force behind a maritime strategy that will redefine Athenian power during the Persian Wars. 

We dig into what our ancient sources actually give us, especially Herodotus and Plutarch, and where later storytelling may be shaping the legend. From the political upheavals of Athens after the age of tyrants to the opportunities opened by democracy, Themistocles learns to build support where it counts. That support isn’t just about charisma. It connects directly to policy: ports, walls, and the idea that triremes and rowers can become the backbone of national security and influence. 

The turning point comes with the Laurion silver windfall and the showdown with Aristides. Do you distribute wealth to citizens right now, or invest in a fleet that could decide the next war? We walk through the arguments, the stakes, and the ostracism vote that removes Themistocles’ main opposition and signals a new identity for Athens as a naval power. 

Transcript

Bonus Episode And Patreon Plans

Why Themistocles Matters Now

What Our Sources Say

Early Life And Ambition

Democracy Opens A Door

Archon Year And The Piraeus

Marathon And A Rising Reputation

Aristides Rivalry Takes Shape

Silver Mines And The Trireme Plan

Ostracism Picks Athens’ Future

Part Two Tease And Thanks

SPEAKER_00 0:16

Hello everyone and welcome back to our bonus episode for March 2026. For this episode, I've taken on the suggestion of a Patreon supporter who asked if there could be episodes devoted to important figures, with Themistocles being named as one. I thought this would be a great idea and a good figure to start with, especially since we've just come out of the period in which Themistocles was so influential. In addition to this, I am always wanting to provide supporters with the episodes they want to hear. So if you have a question or would like to see something in particular covered, please reach out. I've also proposed the idea on Patreon that instead of continuing to follow the chronological path as we have been, perhaps these bonus episodes might be better suited to exploring interesting ideas, themes, or events, no matter the period in which they occurred. However, I think this approach will work even better with suggestions coming from the community about what you will want to see explored more deeply. I have set up a poll to vote on this idea on Patreon, so please get over there and have your say. Anyway, let's get on with the episode and explore the life of Themistocles. We have seen Themistocles come up in our main series on a number of occasions, as we have travelled through the Greek and Persian wars. However, this was only a small snippets, as he was relevant to the unfolding events. This time around, we're going to make him the focal point of this entire episode, with the events surrounding him playing more of a background role. Themistocles was one of the most influential figures of the period leading up to and during the Second Persian invasion, though he would also become a figure surrounded by controversy. As we have seen in the series, Athens emerged from the Persian Wars as a great naval power, and it would be Themistocles who was given much of the credit for setting Athens on this path. He was also seen as the Athenian general who had one of the greatest influences over the victories in the Greek naval engagements against the Persians. However, while celebrated as a hero, he would ultimately fall victim to the Athenian political machine, and would even be accused of assisting and later residing with those who he had once celebrated for defeating. Most of the information we receive about Themistocles comes from Herodotus, with the later writer Diodorus also providing material on him. Both do so while describing the events of the Greek and Persian wars, with Herodotus writing only a generation after the conflict, and Diodorus writing hundreds of years later. We also receive colourful depictions of Themistocles through one of Plutarch's biographies devoted to his life, as well as some snippets through Aristides' life, with his account containing many entertaining anecdotes. For Themistocles' early life, we need to rely on Plutarch for the most part, since Herodotus is more concerned with him as he becomes relevant in the history of Athens, and his role in the Persian Wars. Themistocles was born in Attica around 424 BC, with his parents not being cited as influential or noble. His father was Neocles, and it is not entirely clear what his mother's name was. Plutarch even comments that the early childhood of Themistocles was too obscure, citing a number of sources that are unable to agree on the details surrounding his early life. However, most sources seem to agree that from his childhood he displayed an impulsive, forceful, and passionate nature. It is unclear if there is any direct information about his childhood or if these qualities are simply being assigned to him after his time in public life, assuming he must have been the same as a child. Plutarch writes that he was unlike the other boys when it came time for holidays or breaks in study. Instead of playing or remaining idle, he would be preoccupied with preparing himself for public life. This would then lead to his teacher making the comment You, my boy, will be nothing small, but great one way or another, for good or for bad. Plutarch continues, noting that Themistocles would hardly take advice when it came to improving his manners and behavior, but any advice he received in relation to matters that could translate into the political realm, he would pay close attention to. Themistocles grew up in Athens at a time of great political change. Athens had been ruled by aristocratic families, where the general population was increasingly repressed. Eventually, civil strife broke out on a number of occasions, with the people gaining small concessions. However, these would only last for so long before further political trouble would arise. Eventually, Athens found some stability under the tyrant Pysistratus, who had come to power due to his popularity with the people. Pisistratus would die just before Themistocles was born, and he would instead grow up in Athens under the control of his sons, Hipparchus and Hippias. Around the time Themistocles was ten years old, Hipparchus was murdered, and the tyranny under Hippias became repressive, taking on the negative aspects we associate with tyranny today. Through his teenage years, he would then witness the rise of the political idea of democracy, as Clysisthenes challenged Hippius' hold over Athens. After outside intervention and resistance from rivals, Athens would finally see stability return with the establishment of democracy. With this new system in place, opportunity had been opened up to many like Themistocles, who under the old system would never have had a chance at political life. Now coming of age, he found himself in a position where he could potentially have a say in influencing the direction of Athens. As we have seen, the sources point to a Themistocles who, from an early age, had a keen interest in political life and displayed the qualities one might need to succeed in this new system. With this reported direction, I also want to relate an antidote that Plutarch recounts when Themistocles was walking along the beach with his father. The passage is supposed to provide a warning about the future direction he would take. The story goes that his father was against his desire to become involved in political affairs. In an attempt to persuade him away from this path, he took him down to the shoreline, where the old galleys of the city lay rotting. He likened these hulks to the political leaders of Athens, once the people no longer had any use for them. The implication being, no matter the service you provide the masses and the good that you do, this will be your ultimate fate when they decide you are no longer of use to the city, forgetting all your past deeds. Whether this story is true is not known, but it provides a convenient foreshadowing of his future. Themistocles remained committed to pursuing a life that would see him take a leading role in the democracy. He recognised to gain influence in the system and credibility, he needed the support of the people. He took up residence in the area of Athens known as the Ceramicus, a low socioeconomic part of the city, to embed himself as a man of the people. With this type of political system still being a fairly new development, these lower class citizens were not used to political figures listening to them or courting their support. Themistocles would then find himself building a strong base around him from these elements of the Athenian population. However, he also ensured that he did not lose his connection to the nobility of Athens. He became educated in law and became involved in practicing it and arbitrating disputes. This kept him embedded in the world of the influential, while also allowing him to gain even more favour with the people, as he used his skills to represent them as well. Around 494 BC, during the same period the Ionian Revolt had been taking place, Themistocles turned thirty and was now eligible to take on a position as Archon. With the support he had built behind him, he decided to run for office, and in four hundred ninety three BC he was elected to the position of eponymous Archon, the most senior of all Archons. In this role it appears Themistocles began to have an impact on the direction Athens would take. The policies he developed were in favour of strengthening Athens through maritime expansion. It is not entirely clear how he developed this policy or when he began influencing measures, though it has been suggested that it grew out of the composition of his support base. Essentially, if the Athenian navy was to expand, it would require more rowers, drawn from these lower classes. This in turn would grant them greater political power, and this was the very base of support upon which Themistocles had built his influence. However, if Athens were to become a major maritime power, it would require a better port than the one that currently served the city at Pharylon. Themistocles recognized this and identified a new port that should be constructed at the Piraeus. Although it was somewhat further away, it provided three natural harbours, and the site was much easier to fortify. It appears that within the same year that Themistocles became Archon, work began on converting the site of the Piraeus into Athens' new port. It also becomes clear that he recognized the need for Athens to be physically connected to the Piraeus, in order to protect this new lifeline. Plans were therefore made for the walls to be constructed from Athens down to the port, linking the two as one. The next major event in Athens' history that we are aware of Thysocles being a part of was the Battle of Marathon, where Athens fought against the Persians. After the Ionian Revolt, the Persian Empire decided to launch a campaign west and punish those Greek cities and islands that had assisted the Ionian Greeks in their revolt against the Empire. The Persians sailed westwards, subjecting and punishing islands along the way, before eventually reaching mainland Greece. Landing at Marathon Bay, the Athenians marched out to confront them there. We have gone over to the Battle of Marathon a number of times in the series, so here we'll just focus specifically on Themistocles' role. It appears he may have been one of the Stratagoi, leading the Leontid tribe, though we cannot be certain. However, given that he had already held high office and was popular with the people, it is possible that he led them at Marathon. The Leontid tribe, along with the Antigon tribe, who would become Themistocles' great rival, formed the two phalanxes posted in the centre of the Athenian line. As we have seen, these two phalanxes were deliberately thinned out so that the Athenian line could be extended to match the Persian front. Both would suffer the majority of Athens' casualties that day, and were pushed back in the face of the best trained Persian troops. However, this had the effect of drawing the Persian centre forward, while the Athenian wings defeated the rest of the Persian line. The Persian centre was then cut off and defeated after its initial success. As we have seen, this was not the end of the action for the Athenians. The Persians managed to get most of their ships back to sea with the survivors and then set a course for Athens along the coastline, while the rest of the Athenian army made for the city, some forty kilometers away on foot. However, it was the tribe of Themistocles and Aristides that remained at Marathon, as they had suffered the worst of the fighting. They were left to carry out mopping up duties, rounding up prisoners, and tending to the wounded. In the historical accounts, Themistocles and Aristides remained largely out of the spotlight, as it was Miltiades, who was seen as the hero of Marathon. However, as he rose to such prominence, many became jealous of him, and he began to accumulate political enemies. In the following year he would lead a failed expedition against Paros, where he was injured. This was when his enemies seized their opportunity and put him on trial for deceiving the Athenian people. Many had become convinced that Miltiades was becoming too powerful and was seeking to take control of the city. In the end, he was fined a large sum of money, but shortly after his trial he would die from his wounds. With Miltiades, who had been the most influential figure of the time, now out of the picture, Themistocles was able to further consolidate his support and fill that role after Marathon. However, opposition would also emerge to counter his growing influence in politics. Aristides, who he had fought alongside only a couple of years earlier, also rose in prominence. If Themistocles was seen as rash, impulsive, and willing to do whatever it took to achieve his goals, whether through deception, manipulation, or underhanded dealings, Aristotles would present himself as his opposite. He was regarded as virtuous, honest, and incorruptible. It is unclear whether the rivalry between the two had deeper seated roots, or if it simply arose from their opposing political outlooks. Class differences do not appear to have been a major factor, given that Aristides' family does not seem to have come from a particularly noble background either. However, it would be the nobles who would come to lend their support to Aristides as he grew more influential in public life. That said, Plutarch does recount a story regarding the origins of their rivalry, though, as always, we should treat such anecdotes with caution, as his accounts often favoured colourful storytelling with varying degrees of historical accuracy. He writes that the two men competed for the affection of a boy from Chios, with their passions extending beyond moderation. So we can see here Plutarch lays their origins at simple jealousy. With both men now at the top of the political ladder in Athens, they threw their support behind opposing policies. The most significant issue that would ultimately secure Themistocles' dominance and shape the future direction of Athens was how best to prepare the city's military for the future. As we have seen, Themistocles advocated for increasing the size and capability of Athens' navy. It has been argued that he recognised the continuing threat posed by Persia and sought to ensure Athens was well prepared to meet it. However, as we have also seen, expanding the fleet would directly benefit his political base, increasing both their employment and their influence. In contrast, Aristides had the backing of the nobles, and hoplite class, whose political influence would be diminished if naval power became more central to Athens' military strength. These competing policies came to a head when a new silver seam was discovered in the mines of Lorium in four hundred eighty three BC. Themistocles argued that the windfall should be used to fund the construction of a fleet of two hundred triremes. Aware that the Athenians were more likely to support measures addressing immediate concerns, he chose not to emphasize the Persian threat, believing it too distant to motivate the assembly. Instead, he focused on the island of Aegina, located southwest of Salamis. Athens was currently at war with Agina, which possessed a strong navy. He argued that by building such a fleet, Athens would be able to overwhelm its rival, bring the war to an end, and protect Athens' trade interests in the region. Aristides, on the other hand, argued that the surplus from the mines should be distributed among the citizens, allowing them to share directly in the city's good fortune. In the end, Themistocles' argument carried the day, though it appears to have been implemented at a reduced scale, perhaps as a compromise. Only one hundred triums were constructed, and political tensions between the two men continued to escalate. The rivalry would be ultimately resolved in what is often considered one of the earliest forms of referendum, when the ostracism of four hundred eighty two BC was held. Although ostracisms were open to all political figures, this contest effectively became a direct choice between Themistocles and Aristides, and by extension a decision on whether Athens would remain primarily a land power or shift towards becoming a naval one. From the moment the decision was made to hold the ostracism until votes were cast, there would have no doubt have been numerous meetings behind closed doors. Both sides would have sought to secure as much support as possible from the various factions within the city. When the day finally arrived for citizens to cast their votes, it must have been a tense occasion for both men. The individual who received the most votes would be exiled for ten years, effectively removing them from political life. This mechanism had originally been designed as a safeguard against the rise of tyranny. However, as we can see in this case, it was being used as a means of resolving political rivalry by eliminating one opponent and allowing the other to pursue his policies without obstruction. It had become a powerful tool for removing political adversaries. Once the votes were cast and counted, it was Aristides who received the majority. Plutarch provides one of his well known anecdotes about the ostracism. He recounts that an illiterate man, who did not recognise Aristides, approached him as the votes were being cast, and asked him to inscribe a name on his shard of pottery. Aristides asked whom he wished to vote against, and the man replied Aristides. Surprised, Aristides asked if he had done any wrong. The man responded, No, I do not even know him, but I am tired of hearing him being called the just. According to the story, Aristides then wrote down his own name on the shard and handed it back. This antidote is clearly intended to reinforce Aristides' reputation as a just man, demonstrating both how widely the title was known and how he lived up to it in his own actions. However, it also highlights something more subtle. Plutarch appears to be offering a critique of the ostracism process itself, suggesting that the political future of the city could hinge on such trivial sentiments, rather than careful consideration of policy. This reflects a broader tendency among ancient historians, many of whom come from aristocratic backgrounds, to criticize democratic systems and their mechanisms. The vote against Aristides ultimately signaled that Athens had chosen to pursue a maritime future. At the time, few could have fully appreciated the profound consequences of this decision. This single vote set Athens on the path to becoming the most powerful naval force in its era, and eventually to the creation of its own empire. For Themistocles, it marked the moment that positioned him to become the most influential figure in Athens during the second Persian invasion, at a point when he could just as easily have been cast into political obscurity. That's where we're going to leave this bonus episode. When first beginning to write the episode, I thought we would be able to wrap it all up in one instalment, but obviously there is quite a bit to cover when looking at the life of Themistocles. Next episode, we will return to a point where his main opposition had been removed, and he would find himself helping drive Athens' policy in the face of Xerxes' invasion in Greece. Thank you all for your continued support, I greatly appreciate it. Remember, if you have any ideas of topics you would like to see covered, even if it comes from a question you have, please send me a message on Patreon or on social media. I want to shape these episodes around what you want to hear. And remember, head over to Patreon to have your say in the poll that we have running. Thanks again, and I'll see you next month with part two on Themistocles.