The remarkable rise and fall of Cimon in ancient Athens

Cimon was born into a prominent Athenian family. His father, Miltiades, who was renowned for his decisive leadership at the Battle of Marathon in 490 BCE, became a symbol of Athenian resistance against the Persian Empire.

This familial connection to one of Athens’ most celebrated victories provided Cimon with an early reputation that carried significant expectations. 

After Miltiades’ death, Cimon inherited a substantial debt incurred by his father’s political downfall.

Such a financial burden placed the family in a precarious position, which Cimon later resolved through his marriage to Isodice, a member of the wealthy Alcmaeonid family.

This strategic alliance tied him to one of Athens’ most influential aristocratic factions.

Based on these connections, he gained access to the political and social networks that would support his later rise to prominence. 

While his youth is less documented than his later achievements, Cimon’s upbringing likely involved exposure to the martial culture that defined Athenian society during the Persian Wars.

His connection to Miltiades ensured that his name was synonymous with Athens’ early resistance to Persian expansion.

This association, along with his eventual military successes, allowed him to position himself as a natural heir to his father’s legacy. 

In the years following the Persian Wars, Cimon aligned himself with Aristides and the conservative faction.

After the Greek victory at Salamis in 480 BCE, Athens entered a period of political reorganization and strategic expansion.

During this time, Cimon began to establish himself as a leader within the city. His association with Aristides, who was respected for his fairness and commitment to unity among Greek states, strengthened Cimon’s position among those who prioritized stability and collaboration over radical democratic reforms. 

Through his early involvement in the Delian League, which was formed in 478 BCE to continue the fight against Persia, Cimon gained both political influence and military authority.

He played a central role in advocating for an alliance of equals among the league’s member states, though the alliance ultimately became dominated by Athenian interests.

His commitment to conservative ideals resonated with many Athenians who valued traditional structures of power and opposed the growing influence of figures like Themistocles, whose policies favored democratic expansion and aggressive naval power. 

Under Cimon’s command, the league achieved significant victories that expanded its influence and secured critical resources.

In 476 BCE, he led a campaign to free the Thracian city of Eion from Persian control.

By expelling the garrison and seizing control of the region, he ensured Athens had access to timber and other valuable resources essential for naval construction.

Shortly after, he directed operations against the pirate stronghold of Scyros in the Aegean Sea.

This mission not only secured safer trade routes for league members but also allowed Athens to settle the island with its citizens. 

Cimon’s ability to unite allied forces and lead them to decisive victories against Persia helped secure tribute payments from member states.

These payments, while originally intended to fund collective defense, were increasingly funneled into Athenian coffers.

By building and maintaining a formidable fleet, Cimon ensured that Athens could project power effectively while safeguarding the league’s interests.

His campaigns along the Aegean coast and into Asia Minor further demonstrated the league’s ability to strike deep into Persian territory. 

In 469 BCE, Cimon achieved one of his most decisive military victories at the Battle of the Eurymedon River in Asia Minor.

This strategic confrontation took place in Pamphylia, where Persian forces had regrouped to challenge the growing power of the Delian League.

Commanding both naval and land forces, Cimon first destroyed the Persian fleet in the Eurymedon’s waters, which forced the enemy to retreat.

Immediately afterward, he led a determined assault on the Persian troops stationed nearby, resulting in a comprehensive defeat.

Through subsequent campaigns in Asia Minor, Cimon continued to undermine Persian influence and secure vital territories for the league.

In Caria and Lycia, his forces expelled Persian garrisons and established control over coastal regions that were crucial for maintaining Athenian naval supremacy. 

During a period of growing tension between Athens and Sparta, Cimon advocated for cooperation between the two leading Greek city-states.

His belief in a unified Greek effort against external threats, particularly Persia, shaped his policies and alliances.

Cimon admired Sparta’s disciplined military traditions and sought to align Athens’ naval strength with Spartan land power.

This perspective reflected a strategic understanding of their complementary capabilities.

In contrast to the more radical democratic leaders in Athens, who viewed Sparta as a rival, Cimon worked to maintain peaceful relations through diplomacy and mutual respect. 

In 462 BCE, Cimon supported an alliance with Sparta during a critical period of conflict within the Peloponnesian League.

He argued that Athens should assist Sparta during the Helot revolt, a rebellion that threatened Spartan stability.

Leading a contingent of Athenian hoplites, he marched to Messenia to provide aid.

However, the mission ended in political controversy when the Spartans, mistrusting Athenian intentions, dismissed the Athenian forces.

This public rejection embarrassed Athens and damaged Cimon’s reputation. 

The fallout from this incident highlighted the growing divide between Athens’ conservative and democratic factions.

Critics of Cimon, such as Ephialtes and Pericles, used the failed alliance to undermine his influence.

They argued that Athens should focus on expanding its own power rather than assisting a rival state.

This controversy ultimately led to Cimon’s ostracism, as his policy of cooperation with Sparta clashed with the rising sentiment for Athenian independence and dominance. 

Following his advocacy for cooperation with Sparta, Cimon’s political position became increasingly tenuous as new leaders rose to prominence in Athens.

His conservative policies and alignment with aristocratic factions put him in direct conflict with Ephialtes, a reformer who sought to weaken the influence of the Areopagus council, a traditional bastion of aristocratic power.

Ephialtes gained support by championing democratic reforms that appealed to the broader citizenry.

Motivated by a vision of expanding political participation, Ephialtes introduced measures that transferred key judicial and administrative functions from the Areopagus to the popular assembly and the courts.

This shift diminished the authority of Cimon’s allies. 

As the reform movement gained momentum, Pericles, an ambitious and charismatic figure, joined the effort to challenge Cimon’s influence.

Pericles was aligned with the democratic faction, and he used his eloquence and strategic acumen to consolidate support among the growing urban population.

Together with Ephialtes, he framed Cimon’s policies as outdated and misaligned with Athens’ aspirations for autonomy and expansion.

The failed Athenian intervention during the Helot revolt provided a pivotal opportunity for his opponents to attack his credibility.

They argued that his pro-Spartan stance had humiliated Athens and exposed the city to unnecessary risks. 

As a result of these escalating tensions, Cimon was ostracized in 461 BCE. The process, which involved a public vote, reflected the deep divisions within Athenian society.

His exile removed a prominent conservative voice from the political landscape and allowed the democratic faction to implement reforms without opposition.

Following his ostracism, Ephialtes continued to push for further changes, though his assassination shortly thereafter left Pericles as the dominant leader in Athens.

Under Pericles’ guidance, Athens pursued a more aggressive foreign policy and consolidated its position as the leader of the Delian League. 

Cimon’s recall from exile, which occurred around 451 BCE, was motivated by practical concerns rather than a full restoration of his political standing.

Tensions between Athens and Sparta had continued to escalate, creating an urgent need for experienced leadership.

His previous advocacy for cooperation with Sparta, coupled with his military expertise, made him an ideal candidate for brokering a temporary truce.

This effort culminated in the Five Years’ Peace, an agreement negotiated between Athens and Sparta, which was aimed at halting hostilities and redirecting resources toward other pressing conflicts.

Cimon’s diplomatic efforts demonstrated his enduring value to Athens despite the political opposition he had faced earlier. 

Shortly after securing peace with Sparta, Cimon directed his attention to ongoing conflicts with Persia.

Athens had committed itself to maintaining pressure on the Persian Empire, particularly in regions where control of trade routes and strategic cities was at stake.

In 451 BCE, Cimon led a significant expedition to Cyprus, an island of critical importance due to its position in the eastern Mediterranean.

His campaign focused on liberating Cypriot cities from Persian influence and ensuring Athens maintained dominance over key maritime regions.

During this campaign, Cimon achieved initial successes, including the capture of Salamis, a Cypriot city that held strategic and symbolic importance.

By securing this stronghold, he bolstered Athens’ presence in the region and disrupted Persian operations.  

While leading the siege of Citium, Cimon fell ill and died, an event which occurred around 449 BCE.

Following his death, the Peace of Callias was negotiated, which brought an end to hostilities between Greece and Persia.

Though this agreement is sometimes debated in historical records, it is used as the culmination of the efforts initiated during Cimon’s leadership.

His later career demonstrated his unwavering commitment to Athens’ military and diplomatic endeavors.