and the absorption of a maritime population.  We shall find that the process loses none of its importance in recent years.  ‘The ancient empires,’ says the historian of Greece, Ernst Curtius, ’as long as no foreign elements had intruded into them, had an invincible horror of the water.’  When the condition, which Curtius notices in parenthesis, arose, the ‘horror’ disappeared.  There is something highly significant in the uniformity of the efforts of Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, and Persia to get possession of the maritime resources of Phoenicia.  Our own immediate posterity will, perhaps, have to reckon with the results of similar efforts in our own day.  It is this which gives a living interest to even the very ancient history of sea-power, and makes the study of it of great practical importance to us now.  We shall see, as we go on, how the phenomena connected with it reappear with striking regularity in successive periods.  Looked at in this light, the great conflicts of former ages are full of useful, indeed necessary, instruction.

[Footnote 14:  Mommsen, Hist.Rome_, English trans., i. p. 153.]

In the first and greatest of the contests waged by the nations of the East against Europe—­the Persian wars—­sea-power was the governing factor.  Until Persia had expanded to the shores of the Levant the European Greeks had little to fear from the ambition of the great king.  The conquest of Egypt by Cambyses had shown how formidable that ambition could be when supported by an efficient navy.  With the aid of the naval forces of the Phoenician cities the Persian invasion of Greece was rendered comparatively easy.  It was the naval contingents from Phoenicia which crushed the Ionian revolt.  The expedition of Mardonius, and still more that of Datis and Artaphernes, had indicated the danger threatening Greece when the master of a great army was likewise the master of a great navy.  Their defeat at Marathon was not likely to, and as a matter of fact did not, discourage the Persians from further attempts at aggression.  As the advance of Cambyses into Egypt had been flanked by a fleet, so also was that of Xerxes into Greece.  By the good fortune sometimes vouch-safed to a people which, owing to its obstinate opposition to, or neglect of, a wise policy, scarcely deserves it, there appeared at Athens an influential citizen who understood all that was meant by the term sea-power.  Themistocles saw more clearly than any of his contemporaries that, to enable Athens to play a leading part in the Hellenic world, she needed above all things a strong navy.  ‘He had already in his eye the battle-field of the future.’  He felt sure that the Persians would come back, and come with such forces that resistance in the open field would be out of the question.  One scene of action remained—­the sea.  Persuaded by him the Athenians increased their navy, so that of the 271 vessels comprising the Greek fleet at Artemisium, 147 had been provided by Athens, which