presumptuous folly of this ‘barbarous’ behaviour, and here for once the word has a
special charge (7, 35). There soon follows a story that needs no comment in which
the Lydian Pythius requests Xerxes to allow his eldest son to remain with him in
his old age. Xerxes angrily orders that the son be cut in half so that the army can
march between the two halves (7, 39). In conversation with the exiled Spartan king
Demaratus, Herodotus shows not only the understandable incomprehension of
Xerxes when told that the Spartans will fight him whatever the odds but also betrays
the king’s perceived inability to appreciate that strength and discipline might be
induced by anything other than the tyranny of the lash:
If they had a single leader in the Persian mould, fear of him might make them excel
themselves and, urged on by the whip, they might attack a numerically superior
force, but all this is out of the question if they are allowed their freedom.
(7, 103)Demaratus seeks to enlighten him:
The point is that although they’re free, they’re not entirely free: their master is the
law, and they’re far more afraid of this than your men are of you. At any rate, they
do whatever the law commands, and its command never changes: it is that they
should not turn tail in battle no matter how many men are ranged against them,
but should maintain their positions and either win or die.
(7, 104)Unlike Xerxes in this characterization, Herodotus appreciates the value of freedom.
Herodotean relativism has its limits: Greek political values are, in his view, superior
to those of their Persian opponents. Commenting on Athenian military success after
the expulsion of the tyrants at the end of the sixth century, he writes:
Now, the advantages of everyone having a voice in the political procedure are not
restricted just to single instances, but are plain to see wherever one looks. For
instance, while the Athenians were ruled by tyrants, they were no better at warfare
than any of their neighbours, but once they had got rid of the tyrants they became
vastly superior. This goes to show that while they were under an oppressive regime
they fought below their best because they were working for a master, whereas as
free men each individual wanted to achieve something for himself.
(5, 78)In the debate between leading Persians on the best form of constitution, whether
democracy, oligarchy or monarchy, the critique of monarchy and the ideal of democ-
racy stand out (though elsewhere he is not uncritical of democratic practice):
38 THE GREEKS