What happens when two great conquerors of the ancient world and their mighty forces go head to head? A successful but unpredictable Ottoman Sultan was matched against a charismatic Mongol leader of an empire – leading to the Battle of Ankara, fought on 20 July 1402. The Ottomans were led by Bayezid I, who brought his troops against the Turkic Mongols (Timurids), led by Timur, also known as Tamerlane. Two great empires, two powerful leaders, with only one outcome…
After Timur had rampaged throughout Russia and the Caucasus, he struck deeply into Anatolia by sacking and destroying the city of Sivas before pushing further south. One would think that Bayezid would have countered this loss for Sivas but he did nothing. Bayezid could have attempted to placate Timur, but given his nature, would he accept it? Bayezid could have taken his large army and counter-attacked Timur’s forces as they headed south. However, none of the above happened. Instead, Bayezid waited for Timur to enter his domain before reacting.
In the summer of 1402, Timur moved his armies west to Sivas. This caused Bayezid to stir. Bayezid called off the siege against Constantinople and headed southeast to the fortress of Angora, in central Anatolia.
Timur is said to have prayed all night. When morning arrived, he ordered the drums to sound. The sound of the drums in the early morning would have had a psychological effect on the Ottomans nearby. No matter how battle hardened a soldier becomes, new unknowns bring about unease.
The army Timur had with him is said to have numbered between 140,000 and 200,000 troops. His army consisted primarily of cavalry but he had 32 war elephants at his disposal.
The troop size of Bayezid’s army consisted of 85,000 men. Bayezid’s forces were mostly infantry, including the elite Janissaries, with archers and cavalry (including Serbian knights). However, a quarter of his men were Tatars who were recently conquered, and thus their loyalty was in question.
Tatar soldiers at the vanguard of a battle (1620) (Public Domain)
Matters only got worse for Bayezid as discontent spread throughout the Ottoman ranks. For starters, they were tired after the long march and their pay was overdue. Compounding that, Bayezid’s scouts reported back to Bayezid that Timur had circled in behind the Ottomans and was now approaching from the rear. Yet more problems arose when Bayezid’s men needed access to water. Timur had built a reservoir and, on the day of the battle, diverted the principal water source for the area, Cubuk Creek, denying its use to the Ottoman army, which was now advancing from the east.
The Day of Battle
The terrain of the battlefield consisted of a large plain cornered by mountains on two sides. This is perfect for cavalry attacks. Moreover, it allows both armies to maneuver with fluidity.
The Prince Shah Rukh and Khalil Sultan led Timur’s left wing. Miran Shah led the right wing, with Amir Sheikh Nur ad-Din as his lieutenant general. The main body consisted of the greatest lords of Asia and Timur’s son, Prince Muhammad Sultan led them. Timur led the reserves that consisted of forty companies. In front of Timur’s army was the war elephants armed with towers on their backs with archers and throwers of flame.
Manuscript showing war elephants with archers and soldiers on their backs. The Battle of Avarayr, Sharaknots, 1482 (Public Domain)
Sultan Bayezid arranged his troops in battle order with Pesir, a European Serbian, leading the right wing. The left wing was under the command of Suleiman Chelebi, son of Bayezid. Bayezid led the main body. Muhammad Chelebi commanded the Ottoman reserves.
After Timur had met with his military counsel, he mounted his horse and gave the order to attack. Around 10 a.m. on the morning of 28 July 1402, Miran, commander of the right wing, began the battle by discharging a volley of arrows on the Ottoman left wing.
The Surprising Turns of Battle
It was during the initial stages of the battle that Bayezid made his first error. He placed his newly conquered Tatar cavalry on the front line to take the brunt of the initial attack. Once the battle commenced, they deserted to Timur, and cavalry from the recently subjugated emirates followed suit. This changing of sides reduced the Ottoman army by a quarter and, for all practical purposes, decided the battle.
Bayezid ordered his left wing to attack, covering it by an attack of his Anatolian cavalry. However, it was all for nothing; even though the cavalry fought bravely, they encountered hailstorms of arrows as well as Greek fire (a form of naphtha) and were driven back in confusion, losing some 15,000 men.
Timur then pressed on the attack by pushing at the Ottoman left wing and defeating the cavalry. While the Ottoman cavalry were in disarray, the Serbian kings on the right wing fought heroically.
Timur’s attack was well executed— just as Bayezid’s defenses were well planned. The only difference is that Bayezid lost a substantial amount of his forces due to placing newly conquered men on the front line to take the brunt of the attack. This was a big mistake. The Tartar’s fleeing from the Ottomans to join Timur did not help the psyche of the Ottoman troops. Because of this, the morale of Timur’s troops greatly increased, and so did their numbers. According to what the primary sources suggest, Timur commenced the attack by sending in one wing before sending in the next wing, and in doing so he was able to perform a “pincer movement or double envelopment.”
While Timur’s left and right wings placed tremendous pressure on the Ottoman wings, this opened up the center. The Ottoman center would be at times required to provide aid to the wings in trouble. In doing so, the center deteriorated substantially. Seeing this, Timur committed the remainder of his forces to attacking the center. By placing pressure on the center, it took pressure off his left and right cavalry wings. Moreover, it allowed his central forces to split once they had pushed aside the Ottoman forces, allowing them to converge on the rear of the left and right wings. In doing so, not only did they perform a well-executed pincer movement in the initial stages, they were able to perform with perfection two more to neutralize the Ottoman wings to achieve total victory.
Map by SAİT71 (CC BY-SA 4.0) giving a glimpse into the positions and commanders at the Battle of Ankara (Battle of Angora). Timur performed a pincer movement, flanking the enemy and finally overwhelming them.
Seeing his Serbian cavalry fighting with great fervor yet beginning to succumb to the overwhelming numbers, he sent the remaining Janissaries to support them. The Ottoman forces eventually fled to a small hilltop and continued the fight. The battle raged well into the evening as they beat back several Mongol attacks until nightfall, with Bayezid in the thick of the fight. Late into the night, Bayezid looked to the remainder of his forces and together they attempted to break free, but he was overtaken, unhorsed, and captured.
Once the dust cleared and most of the moans from men and beasts subsided, the Ottomans were seen to have lost between 40,000 and 50,000 troops while the Turko-Mongols had lost 40,000. Besides the great cost of life and supplies lost on the field of battle, came more issues. The Ottoman defeat at Ankara pushed the Ottoman state into a crisis from which the Empire fractured and nearly collapsed when Bayezid’s sons fought for the throne. This Ottoman civil war lasted for 11 years (1402 – 1413). Furthermore, the capture of Bayezid was a first in Ottoman history.
So, what happened to Bayezid?
Some say he was captured and placed in a birdcage. This is false. Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II, r. 1458-64), Asiae Europaeque elegantissima descriptio, written between 1450-1460 and published in Paris in 1509. According to Marcus Milwright and Evanthia Baboula, they state:
“This piece (Asiae Europaeque elegantissima description) brought together the key elements that were to remain fundamental to the European narrative for some two centuries: first, the sultan (often known in European writings as Bajazet) was placed in an iron cage; second, he was forced, like a dog, to eat scraps from under the table of Temur; and, third, Bayezid was employed as the ‘Scythian’ ruler’s mounting block when the latter got onto his horse.”
“Timur the Great’s imprisonment of the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid”: The Sultan tied by his waist with a golden rope to Timur’s table, top, and the Sultan bound and on all fours, being used as a mounting-block by Timur, and similarly bound in his gilded cage, bottom. (Public Domain)
The truth of the matter is that Timur treated Bayezid with great respect according to Timur’s court historians. Timur is even said to have mourned the death of Bayezid that occurred on 8 March 1403; He was either 48 or 49.
As for Timur, news of his victory spread far throughout Europe. When the Genoese heard of the victory, they raised flags of Timur at Pera over the city. Interestingly enough, there were plans for a European fleet to help in the fight against the Ottomans. Furthermore, the battle and victory brought relief to the city of Constantinople. However, 51 years later the city would fall to the same besiegers.
Strange Bedfellows
Three days after Bayezid had been captured; Timur’s son Miran Shah sent many letters to the monarchs of Europe, offering trade and friendship.
Surprisingly (and yet not so surprisingly), Charles VI of France and Henry IV of England responded with great joy to Timur. Another interesting aspect is that British playwright Christopher Marlowe wrote Tamburlaine in 1587, which portrays Timur humiliating Bayezid and burning the Quran. Timur was made into what a model king should be throughout Europe However, all this would end by the eighteenth century when the anti-Timur literature and works began to change his image.
Timur (Tamerlane, Tamburlaine). (Wellcome Image/CC BY 4.0)
As for the man himself, Timur would not live much longer. As he was leading his massive army to conquer Ming China, he grew ill and died on 19 February 1405 (aged 68) at Otrar, Farab, near Shymkent, Syr Darya (now in Kazakhstan). With Timur’s death, his empire did not last much longer as it fractured and finally collapsed by 1507. However, his future seed would carry on his legacy with the establishment of the Mughal Empire founded by Babur. The Timurid Empire did not last, and the Ottoman Empire nearly fell apart. However, once the Ottoman civil war was over, Bayezid’s conquests in Anatolia that had been lost to Timur were brought back under the Ottoman fold.
As for the campaign leading up to battle itself, it displayed how strong and unrelenting Timur’s forces were as he marched from one end of his empire to another to defend and go on the offensive to reclaim rebellious lands, or push far north into the lands of the Golden Horde. His ability to defend and expand his lands was tremendous. The battle itself pitted two great leaders but Timur was the smarter of the two. He was able to take advantage of the Ottoman forces by diverting a river and making good use of the defecting Tartar army that came to his side at the initial stages of the battle.
Overall, the Battle of Ankara in 1402 brought an empire to its knees, temporarily freed an ancient empire now reduced to the size of a city after many centuries of defeat, and Europe praised a man who in many ways was no different from the Ottoman Turks they faced. However, the Ottomans would recover and pick up right where they left off in conquering portions of southeast Europe, and the Timurid Empire would fade away only to reestablish themselves further to the east in India.
Top Image: Sultan Bayezid is defeated by Timur at Ankara (Public Domain)
ByCam Rea
References
Alexander Mikaberidze, Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1
Caroline Finkel, Osman’s Dream: The History of the Ottoman Empire
Dennis M. Rose, The Campaigns of Tamerlane
Hamad Subani, The Secret History of Iran
J.B. Bury; edited by H.M. Gwatkin, The Cambridge Medieval History, Vol IV
What happens when two great conquerors of the ancient world and their mighty forces go head to head? A successful but unpredictable Ottoman Sultan was matched against a charismatic Mongol leader of an empire – leading to the Battle of Ankara, fought on 20 July 1402. The Ottomans were led by Bayezid I, who brought his troops against the Turkic Mongols (Timurids), led by Timur, also known as Tamerlane. Two great empires, two powerful leaders, with only one outcome…
Thunder and Lightning
On 15 June 1389, the Ottoman Sultan Murad I was assassinated on the battlefield at Kosovo. His son, Bayezid, also known by his nickname Yıldırım “The Thunderbolt,” was crowned the new Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. It is true that he could impulsively and unpredictable as a statesman. What often gets overlooked is that he was a capable military commander. Bayezid was a natural born leader. However, his leadership was best on the field of battle. This is how he got the nickname “Thunderbolt”; due to his swift maneuvering and attacking in battle.
Bayezid’s lightning-strike military campaigns began with the conquests of the beyliks (beylik was territory under the jurisdiction of a Bey; Bey is Turkish for chieftain) Aydin, Saruhan, Menteşe, and Sivas. The new Sultan continued his rampage throughout Anatolia (modern Turkey) during the fall and winter of 1390, as he confiscated Hamid, Teke, and Germiyan—as well as taking the cities of Akşehir and Niğde, and their capital Konya from the Karaman.
In 1391, the Karaman sued for peace and Bayezid accepted. Soon after, Bayezid moved north against Kastamonu and conquered both that city as well as Sinop.
Riding and Conquering, the Unstoppable Force
With much of Anatolia under Ottoman control, Bayezid turned his attention towards Southeast Europe. First on the list was Bulgaria. Having conquered them, he turned his forces on northern Greece and gobbled up their territory as well. It seemed as though nothing could stop him.
In 1394, Bayezid crossed the Danube River to attack Wallachia. However, the Wallachians proved troublesome against the much larger Ottoman army and were able to defeat them superior in number, but on 17 May 1395, they were defeated at the battle of Rovine, which prevented Bayezid’s army from advancing beyond the Danube.
While Bayezid was confiscating the lands in Southeast Europe, he laid siege to Constantinople in 1394, capitalizing on the city’s political instability. As Bayezid laid siege, the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus sent messengers, as well did King Sigismund of Hungary, to Venice and Paris to lobby for a new crusade that would dislodge the Ottoman Turks from Southeast Europe. The new Crusade was agreed to and many western European nations responded by sending troops. The king of Hungary (future Holy Roman Emperor) led this large crusading army. Both armies met and fought in what is known as the Battle of Nicopolis, 25 September 1396. The result was a decisive Ottoman victory.
The Battle of Nicopolis, as depicted by Turkish miniaturist in 1588. (Public Domain)
While Constantinople remained under siege, Bayezid decided to push east and conquer new lands. From 1397-1398, Bayezid confiscated new territory throughout Anatolia, including the Djanik emirate and Kadi Burhan al-Din. This would prove to be a big mistake, for taking these lands violated a treaty he had with Timur (Tamerlane). The reason why Bayezid would violate such a treaty was due to his belief that the Ottomans were the heirs of the former Seljuk state in Anatolia. Understand that the violation was more than just territorial interest—Kadi Burhan al-Din represented the Ilkhanid inheritors of the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan.
Timur, Powerful Conqueror and Ruler of an Empire
Timur facial reconstruction from skull by M.Gerasimov. 1941 (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Timur, historically known as Tamerlane (1336 – 1405), was a Turco-Mongol conqueror and the founder of the Timurid Empire in Persia and Central Asia. Timur was born in Transoxania and was a member of Barlas tribe. He rose to power among the Ulus Chaghatay—a nomadic tribal confederation that formed the central region of Mongolian Chaghadaid khanate.
Timur’s story is similar to Genghis Khan’s. How true those stories are is up for debate. Timur rose through the ranks by gaining the respect of local chieftains due to his personal valor in combat and his brigandage. His actions, whether raiding or in combat, caused many to flock to him. It was also during a battle that arrows struck his right arm and leg that left him partially paralyzed. Because of this, Europeans referred to him as “Tamerlane.”
Timur, not being related to Genghis Khan, could not bear the title Khan. Since he could not use the title, he decided to use politics to his advantage. While in the city of Balkh, (now northern Afghanistan), Timur quickly gained allies from among the merchants, peoples, and clergy due to sharing his loot with the locals, while the ruler, Husayn, who also happened to be Timur’s brother-in-law, was not viewed in with such praise. It may be that Husayn was a fine ruler; it is just that Timur had the capital to profit from his ambition.
Timur challenged and defeated Husayn in 1370 and took his other wife, Saray Mulk Khanum, who was a direct descendent of Genghis Khan. This allowed him to become the indirect imperial ruler of the Chaghatay tribe. However, Timur used the title of amir meaning general, instead. In order to legitimize his claim, Timur married the Genghisid princesses Saray Mulk Khanum and took the title Kuregen (Mongolian; “son-in-law”). Afterwards, he appointed a puppet of Genghisid line by the name of Suyurghatmish, as the ruler of Balkh while he pretended to act as a “protector of the member of a Chinggisid line, that of Genghis Khan’s eldest son, Jochi.”
To strengthen his position further, he collected a number of princes from the various branches of the Genghisid branches.
Timur also used Islam to legitimize his position by praising and patronizing the Sufi sheikhs and ulama. He built religious monuments to both please the religious faith and at the same time show that he was favored by the supernatural due to his connection to Genghis Khan. Timur understood the power of charisma as well as using the fear of the divine to solidify his position.
Timur feasts in the gardens of Samarkand. (Public Domain)
Timur on the Move
By 1381, Timur ruled over much of eastern Persia. However, he wanted more and campaigned against Kartid dynasty and when the capital of Herat refused to surrender he massacred the citizens and leveled the city. It was during this campaign that Timur sent his general to capture the rebellious Kandahar. 1385–1386 from Russia led by Khan Toktamish who was once his friend and ally. By 1389, much of Persia was under his control. He decided to head westward and conquered Persian Kurdistan. While this was going on, Timur invaded Russia in 1390 and crushed Toktamish but a revolt broke out in Persia that he crushed in 1392.
Timur besieges the historic city of Urganj. (Public Domain)
Land Grabs and Retaliations
Timur then went on to reconquer Armenia, (where it is said he took thousands of Christians from Sivas and buried them alive in moats), Azerbaijan, Fars, and he took Georgia in 1395. Toktamish in 1395 decided to invade once again but was defeated. In retaliation, Timur invaded and ravaged most of southern Russia and Ukraine, reaching Moscow in 1396.
Tode Mongke Khan and the Golden Horde (Public Domain)
As the war with the Golden Horde was ending, Timur prepared for another military campaign to the east. The aim of this campaign was to bring northern India under the Timurid fold, which he did with the sack and massacre of Delhi in 1398. With northern India now under his control, Timur turned westward to deal with his new enemy, the Ottomans. Before Timur entered Ottoman lands, he made stops at Aleppo and Damascus and sacked them both. After sacking and massacring 20,000 citizens of Baghdad, Timur let his troops rest for the winter before marching into Anatolia in 1401.
After the Usual Compliments…PERISH IN THE SEA OF PUNISHMENT
A missive from Timur “To the Emperor of Rum, Bayezid the Thunder”:
“After the usual compliments, we let you know, that by the infinite grace of God, the greatest part of Asia is in subjection to our officers, which we conquered by our strength, and the terror of our arms.
Know likewise that the most powerful sultans of the earth are obedient to our commands; that we govern our dominions by ourselves, and have even constrained fortune to take care of our empire; that our armies are extended from one sea to the other, and our guard consists of sovereign kings, who form a hedge before our gate.
Where is the monarch who dares resist us? Where is the potentate who does not glory in being of the number of our courtiers? But for thee, whose true origin terminates in a Turkoman sailor, as everyone knows, it would be well, since the ship of thy unfathomable ambition has suffered shipwreck in the abyss of self-love, if thou wouldst lower the sails of thy rashness, and cast the anchor of repentance in the port of sincerity, which is the port of safety; lest by the tempest of our vengeance you should perish in the sea of the punishment which you merit.
But as we have learned, that in obedience to the precept of the Koran, which orders us to wage war with the enemies of the Mussulman laws, you have undertaken a vigorous war with the Europeans; this consideration hath hindered us from making any insults in the lands which are subject to you: and the reflection that your country is the bulwark of the Mussulmans, hath obliged us to leave it in a flourishing condition; for fear the passage of our armies into it should raise a division among the inhabitants, and cause the Mussulmans to be disquieted, and the infidels rejoice.
Then take care of yourself, and endeavor by your good conduct to preserve the dominions of your ancestors, not suffering for the future your ambitions foot to wander out of the limits of your power, which is but small…. You may remember the precept of Muhammad, to let the Turks remain in peace, while they are quiet: don’t seek to wage war with us; which no one ever dared to do, and prospered….
Though you have been in some considerable battles in the woods of Anatolia, and have gained advantages upon the Europeans; it was only through the prayers of the prophet and the blessings of the Muhammadan religion of which you make professions: don’t be proud at these advantages, nor attribute them to your own valor. Believe me, you are but a pismire: don’t seek to fight against the elephants; for they’ll crush you under their feet…. If you don’t follow our counsels, you will repent it.
These are the advices we have to give you: do behave yourself as you think fit.”
Bayezid’s Reply to Timur:
“It is a long time,… since we have been desirous of carrying on a war with you. God be thanked, our desire has had its effects, and we have taken up a resolution to march against you at the head of a formidable army. If you don’t advance against us, we will come to seek you; and pursue you as far as Tauris and Sultaniah.”
Top Image: Battle of Ankara (Mughal painting) public domain
ByCam Rea
References
Alexander Mikaberidze, Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1
Caroline Finkel, Osman’s Dream: The History of the Ottoman Empire
Dennis M. Rose, The Campaigns of Tamerlane
Hamad Subani, The Secret History of Iran
J.B. Bury; edited by H.M. Gwatkin, The Cambridge Medieval History, Vol IV
The Greco-Persian wars lasted for more than half a century in some respects. Some date the war as being from 499-448 BCE while others date the conflict from 492-448 BCE. Either way, the war itself was a disaster for both sides.
During the war with Persia, the Greeks even fought amongst themselves in the First Peloponnesian War from 460-445 and then again in the Second Peloponnesian War from 432-404 BCE. For their part, the Persians lost territory during this conflict with the various Greek states and, in doing so, lost a sense of supremacy in the region. On a darker note, Persia’s losses also fueled Greek supremacy, eventually leading to the rise of Alexander the Great of Macedonia. As we know, Alexander would invade Persia and conquer it without hesitation. Nevertheless, it is not the focus of this piece to delve into the various Greek wars or Alexander’s invasion of Persia, but rather look into how and why the Greco-Persian wars started in the first place!
Who and what caused the war that we read about today or see glamorized in Hollywood films? Was the whole thing manufactured by one side?
The Warnings of the Oracle
When Cyrus the Great of Persia defeated Astyages, the last king of the Median Empire, in 559 BCE, he inherited a new problem. That problem was the western frontier in what is today Turkey. Beforehand, in 585 BCE, the Medes and Lydian empires agreed that the Halys River would be the boundary between the two powers. The king of Lydia at the time was Croesus.
Croesus was famous for his wealth and power throughout Greece and the Near East. With his brother-in-law Astyages now defeated, he needed to avenge his defeat. In reality, he saw this as an opportunity to extend his borders. Nevertheless, before Croesus mobilized his forces, he sent embassies with many gifts, and they asked the oracle of Delphi questions concerning the Persians. The oracle turned to the men and said, “If Croesus attacked the Persians, he would destroy a great empire.” The oracle also suggested to Croesus that he should seek powerful allies to assist him in his war against Persia.
Relief of Persian and Median warriors (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Croesus became overjoyed and overconfident about the news. One would think that Croesus would have understood the part about finding some allies to assist him in this war with Persia, as the advice given suggests that Persia’s might was far greater. Nevertheless, Croesus visited the oracle again and asked how long the Lydian empire would last. The oracle said to Croesus, “Wait till the time shall come when a mule is monarch of Media: Then, thou delicate Lydian, away to the pebbles of Hermus: Haste, oh! Haste thee away, nor blush to behave like a coward.”
The mule, a hybrid animal of a donkey and a horse that is mentioned symbolized none other than Cyrus, for Cyrus was part royalty due to his mother being an Umman-manda princess. At the same time, his father Cambyses was a petty vassal king or quite possibly a mere tribal chief in the eyes of Astyages. One can easily base these judgments on ethnicity, but the people we are dealing with were of semi-nomadic stock, and it seems that some had more privileges than others due to royal status rather than ethnic diversity.
A Critical Error
In 547/46 BCE, Croesus moved his forces beyond the Halys River and entered the province of Cappadocia. Once there, he sent envoys to Croesus’ camp, ordering Croesus to hand over Lydia to him. If Croesus agreed, Cyrus would allow him to stay in Lydia but would have to remove his crown as king, and he’d need to accept the title Satrap of Lydia. Croesus turned down the invitation, and the two armies battled at Pteria in Cappadocia. The battle took place in November, and Croesus was defeated. He retreated across the Halys River and back into Lydian territory.
Croesus then made a terrible mistake: he decided to disperse his army for the winter, thinking Cyrus would not attack until spring. Then, without warning, Cyrus did the unexpected: Cyrus and his forces fell upon the Lydian camps in the demobilization process. They were surprised, routed, and defeated. This was a risky move for Cyrus and his forces due to the stories of Lydia’s army being superior, even though they did beat them at Pteria. Cyrus may have known that they would be easier to defeat once the Lydian forces were demobilized. In addition, Cyrus, it would be riskier to challenge them on their home turf in spring. However, Cyrus put the theory that Lydia was far superior to the test—and found them wanting.
Once the routing of the Lydian forces was complete and they were no longer a substantial threat, Croesus fled to Sardis, where he took refuge. Many of his supposed allies sent no troops; instead, many of the provinces in Lydia seem to have defected over to Cyrus.
The Bath-Gymnasium complex at Sardis, 2nd-3rd century AD, Sardis, Turkey. (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Cyrus knew there was no time to waste and pursued Croesus to Sardis, where he besieged the city, and on the fourteenth day, the city fell. During this time, Sparta sent forces to help Croesus, but once word reached the Spartan forces in Transnet concerning Sardis, they most likely turned back. The word that Sardis fell sent a shock wave throughout the Near East and is said to have been as great a shock as when the news of Nineveh fell in 612 BCE.
Map showing the Greek world during the Greco-Persian Wars (ca. 500–479 BC) (CC BY-SA 3.0)
In addition, the Chronicle of Nabonidus also mentions the fall of Lydia, as it states, “In the month of Nisan, King Cyrus of Persia mustered his army and crossed the Tigris downstream from Arbela and, in the month of Iyyar, [march]ed on Ly[dia]. He put its king to death, seized its possessions, [and] set up his own garrison [there]. After that, the king and his garrison resided there.”
Crushing Rebellion
The conquest of Lydia as a whole was far from over, for there were still many Greek city-states, such as the Ionians and Aeolians, who were mad about the situation and wanted the same terms that Cyrus gave to Croesus before the battle of Pteria. Cyrus said no, and the revolts began as he left for Ecbatana, for he had other issues. To suppress the revolts in Asia Minor, Cyrus sent a man named Mazares back with some troops to squash uprisings and enslave those partaking in the rebellion. Mazares did just that for some time until he died of unknown causes.
The next person to take his place and keep the rebellions down was Harpagus. Harpagus put the final stamp on the rebellious situation and placed Persian garrisons in the areas affected to secure peace. However, it was not easy, for it took four years before the establishment of Persian rule among the populace.
Therefore, what can be learned from this situation involving the Persians and the Greek Lydians is that Croesus was the main instigator of the conflict. Had Croesus not taken up arms over the death of Astyages, war with Persia may not have happened, but as previously mentioned, the death of Astyages was an opportunity for Croesus to extend his borders on the gamble that Persia was far weaker than Media.
It Started with Aristagoras
In 499 BCE, exiled citizens from Naxos approached Aristagoras, the deputy governor of Miletus (an ancient Greek city on the western coast of Anatolia, near the mouth of the Maeander River in ancient Caria).
Map of Miletus and other cities within the Lydian Empire (CC BY-SA 3.0)
They came to Aristagoras seeking help. They wanted to know if he would supply them with troops to regain their homeland. Aristagoras liked this proposal. He liked that if he could take Naxos, he could become the ruler. Seeing that he did not have the troop strength, he approached the Artaphernes, Lydia’s satrap and brother of Darius’s. Artaphernes had many troops and a navy at his disposal.
The only thing missing was the money to fund the military expedition. Aristagoras turned to the exiled men and asked for financial support. The troops and ships were provided once all had been agreed to, and the expedition to take Naxos commenced.
However, an issue arose. As Aristagoras approached the island, Megabates, the naval commander of some 200 ships, argued intensely with Aristagoras. Some speculate that Megabates warned the people of Naxos to prepare for their arrival. However, this is not certain, as it could have been someone else. The city was ready once the Persian forces arrived, and the Persians were bogged down for four months. They ultimately had to turn back due to a lack of money.
Reconstructed model of a trireme, the type of ship used by the Greek and Persian forces. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
After Aristagoras returned home, he had to repay Artaphernes the costs of the military expedition. But he did not have the money, and because of this, he alienated himself from the royal Persian court. Aristagoras knew it would be long before Artaphernes stripped him of his position. Therefore, Aristagoras became desperate and declared war on Persia by inciting his subjects to revolt. After defeating the Ionians and their allies, the Persians made it clear after the land had been brought back under Persian control that they intended not to harm the economy (as in pillage and ask for war reparations) but to help it re-grow, expand, and to re-establish a relationship with the citizens. After the terms with the citizens and its leaders had been agreed to, King Darius wanted to punish those who aided the Ionians, which were Athens and Eretria.
Terracotta female bust, Ionian workshop, found in a tomb, Macri Langoni T 75. 525-500 BC. (Public Domain)
War for the Ages
The significance of the Ionian Revolt was that not only did Aristagoras start a provincial rebellion, he went out of his way and understandably sought outside help in this endeavor. No one was interested in giving aid to Aristagoras at first, except for Athens and Eretria. This would fuel the fire further once the Ionian Revolt ended in 493 BCE. More important was that the Greco-Persian Wars had now officially begun. The Greco-Persian War was a war for the ages, which came and went in stages. However, its impact continued long after the last one ended in 449 BCE.
Greek hoplite and Persian warriors are depicted fighting. 5th century BC (Public Domain)
Men like Alexander the Great would rise to challenge the mighty Achaemenid Empire. He conquered with such fluidity that its sheer size overcame him due to exhaustion and sickness. One could argue that the Greco-Persian War started with Aristagoras in 499 BCE and ended with Alexander the Great in 330 BCE.
“As Persepolis had exceeded all other cities in prosperity, so in the same measure it now exceeded all others in misery.”
Miseries along with poverty, for the people were raped of their land and their self. However, with such great turmoil came lasting hope that those affected would be redeemed. If Alexander felt that unity was close, the inhabitants of the Iranian plateau would not forget the sacking of Persepolis, among other distasteful actions before and after.
Famous Alexander Mosaic, showing Battle of Issus. Alexander is depicted mounted, on the left (Public Domain)
However, many accounts of Alexander’s sacking and destruction of Persepolis may be exaggerated. Still, then again, much of it could very well be true, as this was a war of revenge to some extent due to the Persians supposedly burning down Greek temples during the Greco-Persian War.
Sacrifices to the Gods and Cultural Unity
I only say ‘supposedly’ because the Persians respected other cultures’ religions. Xerxes himself, during the Greco-Persian War, was accompanied not only by the Magi but also by Greek diviners and specialists. Xerxes even sacrificed a thousand bulls at Ilion to the goddess Athena, and speaking of Athena, he ordered the Greek exiles to make a sacrifice to Athena at the Acropolis. However, this could have been due to Xerxes making alms to his gods and theirs as a sign of respect and sorrow for the burning of the Acropolis—but this still does not answer whether the burning did or did not happen.
A map showing the Greek world at the time of the invasion (CC BY-SA 3.0)
This is just a small showing of Xerxes’ respect towards other cultural beliefs. But it should not go unnoticed, for it provides a glimpse into Greece’s events during the war. The Persian invasion did leave death, destruction, and looting, which is obvious in all nations in war. Still, one has to be careful in suggesting that Xerxes intended to take direct aim at holy temples with the few sources provided without considering the nature of the Persian respect toward other gods, as demonstrated by Xerxes. On the other hand, we have Alexander, who invaded under the pretense of a just cause or just war to avenge the Greeks for Persian wrongs. However, if you intend to invade and conquer, to bring about social harmony through cultural unity, burning down the Persian house is not a great start towards promoting peace.
Persepolis. Limestone. Reign of Xerxes, 486-465 BC (CC BY-SA 2.0)
This harmony never materialized, not even during the Seleucid Empire, which controlled most of the former lands of the Persian Empire. Even with many Greek colonists settling in the former lands of the once mighty Achaemenid Empire, they never truly penetrated or influenced the indigenous peoples of the Iranian plateau with their Hellenistic culture. In time, the Greek settlements looked like mere islands spread out too far from one another to make a true cultural impact in the regions they settled. Many of the tribal societies in Iran and further to the east held on to their traditional ways and looked at the Greeks settling in their areas as unwanted guests or, in the modern sense, illegal aliens.
This demonstrates that Alexander the Great’s grand strategy of united racial harmony through Hellenism was not even in the best interest of his successor to his eastern lands, Seleucus, or with the Greeks settling within the eastern lands. Because of this alienation imposed upon the indigenous people on the Iranian plateau, rebellion would soon rise out of this and attack the very masters who preached harmony.
Alexander the Not-So-Great?
The notion of Alexander being Μέγας “Great” is indeed a mistake written by those who romanticized the idea later on, which in turn created an argument based on Western ethnocentrism that continues. If there is anything great that can be said about Alexander, it surely was not his foreign or domestic policy but rather his ability to innovate on the battlefield, which was a marvel. However, a question remains: why did you invade Persia?
Herma of Alexander (Roman copy of a 330 BC statue by Lysippus). According to Diodorus, the Alexander sculptures by Lysippus were the most faithful to his true appearance. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
A Lucrative Adventure
So why did Alexander invade the Persian Empire? You are right if you said it was revenge against the Persians. But there is another reason— and that was money. Alexander invaded Persia not only to get some payback but also because he needed the money. Persia had vast wealth that could whet his appetite and pay for the armies and debts.
The looting began once he was on the move. At Babylon, the amount Alexander confiscated is unknown. But given that it was Babylon, one can assume the amount plundered was great. When he took Susa, he acquired 50,000 talents; Persepolis 120,000; Pasargadae 6,000; Ecbatana 26,000. 202,000 talents (excluding Babylonia) of gold and silver from these cities alone were now in his hands. From the amount of money taken, Alexander handed out bonuses to his men totaling 12,000 talents, with another 2,000 going to Thessalain soldiers. Moreover, many of Alexander’s men, including Alexander himself, likely came across gold and silver coins that the Persians had looted from the Greek treasuries during the Greco-Persian Wars. Understand that the amount of money mentioned only pertains to the area of western Iran and a portion of Mesopotamia. Moreover, considering the wealth his soldiers looted during the campaign, many lost coins would have been everywhere. When considering the reminder of his conquests, Alexander may have looted 400,000 talents before he died.
Estimates:
250,000 Talents – looted from Persia
400,000 Talents – total loot during Alexander’s career
A rough valuation of the Talents plundered in dollars:
Persia – $7,000,000,000,000, or $7 trillion
Grand total, including Persia – $11 trillion
When considering the amount taken by his men, the number only increases.
Head of helmeted Athena right. Obverse of a gold stater minted in Babylon during the reign of Philip III or Philip IV of Macedon. (CC BY 2.5)
The Truth Comes Out
The Roman historian Arrian tells us that Alexander set out to conquer Persia as revenge for past wrongs. Alexander addresses this in his letter to Darius: “Your ancestors came into Macedonia and the rest of Greece and treated us ill, without any previous injury from us. I, having been appointed commander and chief of the Greek, and wishing to take revenge on the Persians, crossed over into Asia, hostilities being begun by you.” But was it all about revenge, or was there something more to it— is it possible that Alexander needed money?
Most books discussing Alexander’s invasion of Persia tell of revenge as the motivator due to the Greco-Persian Wars of the past. But it is rather odd that Alexander suddenly decides to mount his horse and lead his army into the lands of Persia, even though the war has been over for more than one hundred years.
However, Arrian provides another passage. Alexander gave a speech at Opis 324 BCE when his men mutinied for a second time, the first being at Hyphasis River a few years back. Arrian explains why Alexander declared war on Persia: “I inherited from my father a few gold and silver cups, and less than 60 talents in the treasury; Philip had debts amounting to 500 talents, and I raised a loan of a further 800.”
[Top] Gold vessels, Achaemenid; 5th century BC (CC BY 2.0) [Bottom] and with twelve-petaled rosettes – Achaemenid gold, Persepolis, 550-330 BC (Public Domain)
Alexander’s father, Philip, had already set his eyes on Persia and was preparing an invasion force but was assassinated before he could accomplish his objective. With his death, Alexander was left with a semi-professional army. They were a paid fighting force paid directly by the king himself.
For Alexander to pay for this army if he wished to keep it, he had to disband a portion to save money, which was unacceptable, or go on the march to save his kingdom. It seemed he had little choice but to save his kingdom and pay the bills by conquering and confiscating Persia besides other lands.
Death of a Man, Death of an Era
It seems reasonable to assume that Alexander used Persia to pay for the troops his father left behind. One might think this would be ludicrous, but why would it? Alexander was given a well-trained and organized fighting force. His youth may have also played a part, as history has often been written by young people willing to take on a challenge or great risk since the life expectancy during this period was short. Because of this, Alexander felt that Persia was a grand prize if he could take it. Once he took the Persian Empire, the cold, hard reality soon set in, and the new problem was dealing with two cultures.
Alexander the Great and physician Philip of Acarnania. (Public Domain)
How unified were the two cultures after the fall of Persia? In a sense, it makes relatively no sense to say “two cultures.” However, for clarity, we shall keep it as two cultures. It was one culture (Hellenism) versus a smorgasbord of various Oriental cultures.
Those living on the Iranian Plateau did seem to be, for the most part, followers of the Zoroastrian religion, but religion does not indicate ethnic or tribal affiliations and allegiances. Instead, the various tribes that dotted the landscape had many different customs and practices that came with diverse languages. This division of cultures was, in and of itself, a huge obstacle for the Greco-Macedonians. Hellenism would take root and thrive much more in Western Asia, whereas, in the East, it had little effect. It was present but not always noticeable. This does not mean that Hellenism in Iran was not present, nor hadn’t an effect on the local population, but rather that it was established, yet minuscule, like the military force assigned to protect the vital trade arteries of the eastern empire.
The unity quickly ended with Alexander’s death. It looked hypocritical of Alexander to promote unity in life when, on death, his men asked, “To whom do you leave the kingdom?” and he replied: “To the strongest.” This would not be the case, however. Seleucus and those who ruled after could never establish a loyal political base of influential proportions, nor were they capable of centralizing the entire empire effectively, at least not in the east. Furthermore, they never truly penetrated or influenced the indigenous peoples on the Iranian plateau with their Hellenistic culture.
Dr. Richard Frye says, “The Seleucids controlled the main trade routes in Iran but little else.” This may indicate that Alexander controlled not much more after proclaiming the land as his and moving on.
Alexander’s dream became a reality that ultimately overtook him in death. Before Alexander died, he was approached concerning who the successor would be. Alexander replied, “To the best man; for I foresee that a great combat of my friends will be my funeral games.” His statement that his empire went to the “best man” suggests that even if he had no confidence in his men, why not? Alexander saw himself as a god; What mortal among them could be his equal? He knew that none of his men could do what he did, so he foresaw conflict.
The empire Alexander left was too complex to be governed by one man. Had he lived to be very old, his empire may have stayed intact, but this is conjecture. He took on the customs of those he conquered to show love and appreciation for all things Eastern, but in reality, it was just a political maneuver. Once Alexander died, his Macedonian men divorced their Iranian wives; Cassander, the son of Antipater the general, who supported both Philip and Alexander, murdered Alexander’s widow Roxanna and son Alexander around 310 BCE; and all of the Iranian satraps were removed from power. The Macedonians wanted only revenge and nothing to do with Eastern, for it was barbaric. However, this did not help, for even the Macedonians fought amongst themselves over the glory and riches Alexander provided as they did at Persepolis in 330 BCE.
Top Image: Detail of the Alexander Sarcophagus located in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum. (CC BY-SA 2.5) Gold coins (Public Domain), Deriv.
By Cam Rea
References
Arrian. Anabasis. Translated by Aubrey De Seliucount. England: Penguin Classics, 1958.
Bourne, Randolph. War and the Intellectuals: Collected Essays, 1915-1919. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.
Curtis, John, Nigel Tallis, and Béatrice André-Salvini. Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Diodorus.
Farrokh, Kaveh. Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2007.
Larson, Jennifer. Ancient Greek Cults: A Guide. New York: 2007, Routledge.
Plutarch. Moralia. Translated by Frank Cole Babbitt. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1962.
—. The Parallel Lives: The Life of Alexander. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Loeb Classical Library edition, 1919.
Stoneman, Richard. Alexander the Great. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2004.
Tarn, William. Alexander the Great. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951.
Yarshater, Ehsan. “Iranian National History.” In The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3 (1): The Selecuid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, by Ehsan Yarshater, 359-477. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Alexander the Great has gained immortality in his strong presence in our minds and history books. Known for his great military genius and diplomatic skills, he conquered most of the world of his time and brought on a new era of the Hellenistic World. But who was Alexander, the man?
The intention of this article is not to go into the history of Alexander’s invasion and conquest of the Near East but rather to look at the man himself. In doing so, we will understand why Alexander invaded and dispel some of the myths about Alexander’s intentions, helping us understand why the Greco-Macedonian Empire broke apart a little over a hundred years after his death. Nearly all traces of his once glorious empire had been tossed into the ash heap of history.
The army that King Philip II of Macedon left to his son Alexander was semi-professional and a paid fighting force. For Alexander to pay for this army, either he had to disband a portion of it to save money, risking much in doing so, or he had to go on the march to save his kingdom. Alexander chooses to save his kingdom at another empire’s expense. Alexander needed to pay the bills and would do so by looting Persia.
He proved what Randolph Bourne once stated; “War is the health of the state.” Alexander was the state, and war was his business. Therefore, revenge was the excuse to avoid personal monetary debt. Besides Alexander’s dilemma of possibly going into debt within a matter of weeks, he also had a rather large personal ego to contend with.
Upbringing and Education
Alexander’s ego is said to have been rather massive. His mother had huge expectations for him, leading him to believe he would conquer Persia. If you think about it, the only huge deed at the time to prove one’s destiny was to conquer Persia, for it was the biggest challenge in the known world, at least in the Greco-Macedonian sense. Besides being hounded about his destiny, he also was a competitor from birth, as he would try to outdo his father in combat, being more aggressive in battle and showing absolute courage in the face of danger just to win Papa’s approval. Alexander worried that nothing would be left to achieve beyond the successes of his father, Philip.
Bust of Philip II of Macedon, a 1st-century Roman-era copy of a Greek original. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Besides his home life, Alexander was enthralled by the epic poems of Homer and his detailed journeys into war and individual heroism. These themes fueled the young Alexander’s imagination as he grew, along with the help of his tutor, Aristotle. The works of Homer instilled the romantic rebels of the Greek legends, such as Achilles or even Hercules—who Alexander modeled himself and who he claimed to be descended from—while Aristotle provided the reasoning in Alexander’s curriculum. Alexander’s father, Philip, taught him war.
However, once Philip was dead, Alexander set off on his journey, and the rest is history. What set Alexander East was debt, but had his ego not been so bold and his character not so bold for risk-taking, history would have been very different. Like Achilles, Alexander died before accomplishing his dream or destiny, but the outcome was necessary. Achilles died at Troy before he could see it fall, but his name lived on, while Alexander died before he could conquer the entire world, but his name is forever etched into mankind’s memory.
Triumphant Achilles dragging Hector’s lifeless body in front of the Gates of Troy. (Public Domain)
Alexander has indeed left a memorable account that has survived through the ages. However, many do not consider his actions and the consequences that would afflict the Near Eastern region after his death. Therefore, it is important to examine his views about those he conquered.
Upheaval in the Orient
This battle for supremacy over the Orient started when a young Alexander first stepped foot on Persian soil. The readings Aristotle assigned him as a youth were now real, and the adventure ahead was unknown. Alexander could only rely on the readings and the philosophers who would later travel with him. As Alexander moved forward with his ambitions, his achievements rocked those in the Orient and those back home, let alone his own men and officer staff, particularly the future Diadochi or “successors.”
Alexander’s dream was to unite East and West. Still, even this notion of a united East and West is in dispute due to his prayer that insisted on harmony “between Macedonians and Persians.” In reality, this prayer was nothing more than a shadow in that it favored the Macedonians and Greeks over the Persians. Alexander must have understood that when you burn down the house you conquered, there will be little room for unity and trust.
The Persian palace he set on fire, though General Parmenion urged him to save it, arguing, among other things, that it was not seemly to destroy what was now his property and that the Asians would not thus be induced to join him if he seemed determined not to hold fast the sovereignty of Asia, but merely to pass through it in triumph. Alexander, on the contrary, replied that he proposed to punish the Persians in recompense for what they had done in their invasion of Greece, for their wrecking of Athens, their burning of the temples, and for all the other cruel things they had done to the Greeks; for these, he said, he took vengeance.
Ruins of the Palace of Artaxerxes I, Persepolis. (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Interestingly, some felt that Alexander did not do as Aristotle taught him (even though the burning of Persian property would seem to fit what Aristotle would want against the barbarians). It seems that this action may have been a little too much, for Plutarch states:
Alexander did not follow Aristotle’s advice to treat the Greeks as if he were their leader and other peoples as if he were their master, to regard the Greeks as friends and kindred, but to conduct himself toward other peoples as though they were plants or animals.
The Great Double Staircase at Persepolis. (CC BY 2.0)
Alexander did treat others as Aristotle advised; he just kept it concealed by promising the illusion of unity between east and west— like when the Macedonians were said to have taken Persian wives, but one will see that there is not a trace mentioned of Persian nobles being offered the women of Macedonia for marriage.
When one takes another look at Alexander’s empire after his death, his name is scattered all about the Iranian landscape, as is the Hellenistic culture he brought with him. All things Persian remained in the countryside, unseen and out of mind, while Hellenism took root in the urban centers of civilization. The historian Ehsan Yarshater makes the distinction between the genuine Iranian aspects, which are later mixed in with the romantic, when he states:
“According to genuine Iranian tradition, Alexander destroyed the integrity of the Iranian empire by undermining the authority of its kings and dividing the land among feudatory lords. Further, he ruined fire temples, killed Zoroastrian priests and destroyed their manuscripts, transferring Persian science and philosophy to Rum (Greece). On the other hand, the legendary tale of Alexander, written by pseudo-Callisthenes sometime before the 4th century, was translated into Middle Persian during the 6th century, and its content, with some modifications, was later adopted by the body of Iranian historical traditions. In the Iranian form of the romance, Alexander becomes a son of Dara I and a half brother of his adversary, Dara II.”
Alexander the Accursed and the Sacking of Persepolis
Alexander’s conquest of Persia and the sources that speak against him have labeled him, according to Zoroastrian sources, as gojastak or “the accursed.” These mention Alexander as “the great destroyer” due to the murdering of Magi priests. It’s written that he “killed the magi … many teachers, lawyers, Herbats, Mobads.” In addition, much of the literature in Persia was burnt during the conquest, including the sacred Avesta text. Alexander’s men burned copies of the original Avesta texts kept at Dez-Nepesi, the ‘Castle of Inscriptions’ or ‘Fortress of Archives’. From then on, Zoroastrian priests would memorize the text and pass on the information through oral tradition until the Parthian king Vologases I had them written down again.
If destroying literature was not enough, Alexander also looted the treasury. Thousands of pack animals were utilized to remove 2500 tons of gold at Persepolis! A staggering amount. Alexander would take part of the treasury to fund the war while depositing the rest in Susa. Adding insult to injury, Diodorus Siculus mentions that Alexander also allowed his:
“Soldiers to plunder, all but the palaces. It was the richest city under the sun and the private houses had been furnished with every sort of wealth over the years. The Macedonians raced into it slaughtering all the men whom they met and plundering the residences; many of the houses belonged to the common people and were abundantly supplied with furniture and wearing apparel of every kind. Here much silver was carried off and no little gold, and many rich dresses gay with sea purple or with gold embroidery became the prize of the victors. The enormous palaces, famed throughout the whole civilized world, fell victim to insult and utter destruction.”
Alexander’s men were getting rich quickly at the expense of the locals. Still, even that was not enough, for many of Alexander’s men turned on one another and began to kill each other in the name of profit due to one fellow soldier having more than the other. Moreover, the Persian males whom the soldiers encountered were murdered, and the women were taken to be made slaves.
The sacking of Persepolis went beyond greed and momentarily resembled a landscape of unbridled nihilism. Alexander had effectively taken Persepolis, a city that he “described it to the Macedonians as the most hateful of the cities of Asia,” and rendered it useless after all was looted of its former glory. This was not the official end of Persepolis, but as a city of importance, its light quickly dimmed. However, Alexander gave the city one last “hoorah,” when he held a great funeral party at the people’s expense. “As Persepolis had exceeded all other cities in prosperity, so in the same measure it now exceeded all others in misery;” Miseries along with poverty, for the people were raped of their land and their self. However, with such great turmoil comes lasting hope that those affected will be redeemed. If Alexander felt that unity was close, the inhabitants of the Iranian plateau would not forget the sacking of Persepolis, among other distasteful actions before and after.
Top Image: Detail of the Alexander Sarcophagus located in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum. Here Alexander fights the Persians at the Battle of Issus. (CC BY-SA 2.5)
ByCam Rea
References
Arrian. Anabasis. Translated by Aubrey De Seliucount. England: Penguin Classics, 1958.
Bourne, Randolph. War and the Intellectuals: Collected Essays, 1915-1919. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.
Curtis, John, Nigel Tallis, and Béatrice André-Salvini. Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Diodorus.
Yarshater, Ehsan. “Iranian National History.” In The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3 (1): The Selecuid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, by Ehsan Yarshater, 359-477. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
In 660 BCE, mighty Assyria was about to be shaken. A Scythian named Dugdammi united many nomadic tribes into a confederation. This nomadic confederation pushed at the borders of Assyria which so frightened King Ashurbanipal that they felt Assyria had finally met its equal.
The Assyrians were already facing problems other than the Scythians and Cimmerians to the northeast of Assyria and to the west in Anatolia. This specific issue was regional and internal. Ashurbanipal had many problems even after conquering or putting down rebellions in Babylonia, Elam, and Egypt. Assyria was not in a position to take on more problems after a failed policy of economic aid to those affected by their own hand, which led in turn to brutish subjugation of the rebels, such as when Assyria sacked Elam sometime around the mid-640’s BCE.
Besides the events transpiring in and around Assyria of a non-nomadic nature, the Cimmerians were on the move again but seemed to be in greater numbers than in the past. Assyria’s new threat was slowly materializing on their northwestern and northeastern border. As mentioned before, these groups were typically unorganized and insufficient to pose a real threat other than hit-and-run guerilla tactics, and on some rare occasions, as you read earlier, joining in a battle. It is possible that this new Cimmerian-Scythian threat was loosely united, but by and large they did not mix, only getting involved in the affairs of the region they jointly controlled or roamed. Assyria at the time had no real control over Anatolia or Media. These two regions could be considered Assyria’s blind spot. In this blind spot, a certain chieftain would rise up to become not only a king of the Cimmerians but also the “king of the world.” His name was Dugdammi.
The origin of Dugdammi is rather vague according to most historians, but we will try to discover the facts. His name in classical Greek was Lygdamis, in Assyrian it was either Dugdammi or Tugdammi. He was either a Cimmerian or Scythian since the names are interchangeable and are practically the same. His story begins around 660 BCE. It seems that the first known attacks from Dugdammi were against Greek coastal cities such as Sardis of Lydia. Afterward, he pushed at the Assyrian empire around 652 BCE. Because of this external pressure, Assyria would be drawn into another war against Urartu and Dugdammi’s forces. Ashurbanipal mentioned Dugdammi in his annuals as “King of the Sakai and Qutu.” The term Sakai (Scythians) was used primarily by Western Iranians to indicate those who spoke in the Iranian vernacular.
Before discussing Dugdammi and his effect on Assyria, we should focus on the various names mentioned such, as Sakai and Qutu.
The term Qutu, also rendered as Quti, Qutians, or even Gutium, is a loosely used generic and archaic expression during this period of Assyrian history that has no real value for identifying a particular people. The term Gutium when used by Ashurbanipal, refers to those who were hostile to Assyria, particularly those who lived along the Zagros Mountains. However, the term was also applied to Manneans or Medes during this period. In other words, the term Gutium indicates anyone who is hostile and lives from east of the Tigris River into lands of Western Iran. Therefore, it seems evident that when Ashurbanipal speaks of Dugdammi, he is telling us that Dugdammi is from the region of Gutium, which could mean that he came from Media or maybe from the province of Mannea. What is certain is that Dugdammi is King of the Sakai, while his base of operations is evidently in the lands of Gutium.
There are two interesting letters given to Ashurbanipal by his astrologer Akkullanu that discuss revelations about the origins of the Cimmerians, Scythians, and Umman-manda:
To the king, my Lord, your slave Akkullanu. Peace be with the king, my Lord, may Nabu and Marduk bless the king, my Lord. March was visible on the path of the (stars) of Enlil, close to the feet of Persee; he/it was drab and pallid. I saw (it) the 26th day of the month of Aiaru, when it had risen strongly. I sent its interpretation later to the king, my Lord.”[If] March approaches from Persee, there will be revolt in the Amurru country, the brother will kill his brother. The sovereign’s palace will be robbed, the treasures of the country will be carried away to another country. The sign of the country is unfavorable. The king of the world will be delivered by his gods to his enemy.” It is a bad omen for the Amurru country. Your Assur gods (and), your god, will surely remove the power acquired by the Cimmerians, so great that it is, and will give it to the king, my Lord.” [“If] the starry Sanuma approaches of the Enmesarra god, the heart of the country will be happy, [the people will increase.”] Sanuma is March. [It is] a good omen for the king, my Lord. “So March rises while changing its color and if its radiance is yellow, the king of Elam will die this year.” “So Nergal is small and pallid at the time of its apparition and that he changes his color strongly like a celestial star, he will be understanding for Akkad. The forces of my army will resist and undo the enemy. The enemy’s army won’t resist against my army. The livestock of Akkad will lie down quietly on grazing. The sesame and the dates will be abundant. The gods will be understanding for Akkad.” “So March is visible in the month of Aiaru, some hostile actions will take place, (there will be) the defeat of Umman-manda.” Umman-manda are the Cimmerians.
What is interesting about this letter is that Akkullanu is referring to the Amurru as Umman-manda, but he goes on to reveal that the Umman-manda is the Cimmerians. But what does this mean? It means that the term Amurru in this inscription tells us that the Umman-manda and the Cimmerians are the same and that they are Amurru. If this is true, then the Cimmerians and Scythians are originally from the lands west of Mesopotamia.
The term Amurru in Akkadian means, “the west lands” or the land west of Mesopotamia which includes the Mediterranean coast. The Assyrians are notorious for using archaic terms when referring to peoples who inhabit certain regions, such as the region of Syria, which would be a province within the lands of the Amurru and over which, as discussed earlier, the Scythians had hegemony. On the other hand, Dugdammi’s title, “King of the Sakai and Qutu” may refer to tribal identity and location of the residence, as previously mentioned. If this is the case, then one should consider that the Cimmerians and Scythians came from the lands west of Assyria originally.
As for the term Umman-manda, the Assyrians and Babylonians have equated the Umman-manda with the Medes as described in the Fall of Nineveh Chronicle. Moreover, the meaning of Umman-manda could be “Manda-host” or “host of the Manda.” It has also been suggested that Umman-manda could mean “Who Knows,” “Barbarous people,” or “Nomads.” Nevertheless, one could say that the term means nothing more than a mixed multitude of uncivilized people from the north.
The meaning of the term Umman-manda has evolved among the regional people that mentioned them. Take for instance the name Tidcal or Tudkhul. Tidcal/Tudkhul is said to be the king of the Hittites, but he is also called king of the Umman-manda or “Nations of the North.” Consider also a much older event in which Naram-Sin, king of the Akkadian empire, defeated the Umman-manda and he states, “the powers of the Umman-manda are struck down.”
So what does this mean? This means from the time the Umman-manda first were mentioned by Naram-Sin up to the time of Ashurbanipal, over a thousand years had elapsed between events. This suggests that the term Umman-manda is generic and does not identify one particular people, but rather a horde of many tribes with various names, and Ashurbanipal’s Umman-manda are the Cimmerians. Therefore, the term Umman-manda was just a Mesopotamian stereotype used when referring to people not native to the civilized powers in the region. The Umman-manda of Naram-Sin and the Umman-manda of Ashurbanipal were indeed two different peoples.
The next interesting aspect of this letter indicates that Dugdammi is not only king but also king of the world, for the letter states, “The King of the world will be delivered by his gods to his enemy.” The Assyrians saw King Dugdammi worthy to hold the title “Sar kissati,” which means “King of the universe” or “King of the world” which is translated as “King of Kish.” This does not mean Dugdammi used the title or even considered the title, let alone even knew about the title, but rather that the Assyrians found him worthy of the title. The meaning of the title “Sar kissati” suggests that Dugdammi controlled regions rather than smaller provinces. In ancient times, this title went to those who controlled vast regions within or outside the boundaries of Mesopotamia. Akkullanu tells Ashurbanipal that he will gain back the power and title once King Dugdammi is defeated. It seems that if Ashurbanipal defeats Dugdammi, he will gain back the respect of his people, as well as his enemy, and in doing so, he will control the four corners of the known world.
Since there could only be one king of the world, Ashurbanipal of Assyria desired such a title. Ashurbanipal was most likely envious that Dugdammi, a man of non-Assyrian birth, held such a prestigious and sacred title. Ashurbanipal desired the title for it meant the defeat of his regional rival and would secure Assyria’s borders. The title Dugdammi holds brings up another question. The title “Sar Kassati,” as discussed earlier, suggests that his domain would have been vast, extending from Anatolia to Western Iran if not further to the east. This would mean that Dugdammi was the first Cimmerian-Scythian king to rule, unlike his predecessors, who were mere chieftains. However, this is only speculation. For how extensive his nomadic empire may have been is a matter of debate, but to the Assyrians it was rather threatening.
Another interesting name comes from the next letter provided by Akkullanu to Ashurbanipal concerning a people known as the Ahlamu:
[“So to him] month of Simanu [the moon] appears (for the first time) on 30th day (of Aiaru), the Ahlamu will eat the wealth of the Amurru country”. [These] omens are bad for Amurru. [Assour, Be] Nabu, your gods, [if hostility,] to the king’s hands, my Lord […] [… the defeat] of your ene[mies[…] […]
Once again, we notice the name Amurru being used that was shown previously to apply to the Cimmerians. Now we have the name Ahlamu added to the list as eating the riches of the Amurru. What is fascinating about this inscription is the Ahlamu are now side by side with Amurru. The Ahlamu were a tribe of Arameans who were semi-nomadic and occupied northern Syria, many times giving Assyria trouble during the reign of Tiglath-pileser I around the 12th-11th centuries BCE. The Ahlamu gave the Amurru people trouble during Biblical times, as well, for the people living within the lands of southern Syria and Canaan or any inhabitant who lived west of the Euphrates River, were considered Amurru by the Assyrians. An example of this trouble is illustrated in I Chronicles 18:1-17, in which King David slew many Arameans. In other words, we have what the Assyrians would consider Amurru, that is Israel, and this is not due to ethnicity, but that Israel lives in the region designated by the Assyrians as Amurru country at the time. But what does this say about the Cimmerians and the Ahlamu? The answer to that question is difficult but within reach. The Cimmerians under Dugdammi seem to have origins in Amurru country, but further investigation is needed due to the wording of the inscriptions.
Now, the letter or inscription you read says, “the Ahlamu will eat the wealth of the Amurru country.” This seems to indicate that the Ahlamu are living within the confines of Dugdammi’s empire and may be hostile to the Cimmerians, as indicated by eating the wealth of the Amurru. The Assyrians would know this due to their vast spy network and hoped the Ahlamu would cause a revolt significant enough to allow the Assyrians to take advantage of the situation. However, only two letters mention the Ahlamu as having a possible effect on the Cimmerians, but nothing more is mentioned other than possible hope. Ashurbanipal’s inscriptions for some time would continue referring to Dugdammi as “the king of Amurru” without mentioning his name:
The king of Amurru will die, his country will be reduced (in size) or again it will be devastated. The experts will probably have something to say about Amurru to the king my lord.
On the 15th day of Tebet, during the middle watch, a lunar eclipse took place: it began in the East and passed toward the West: a sinister omen, whose evil (import) is confined to Amurru and its territory. (Indeed) it portends evil to the king of Amurru and to his country. Since the chief enemy of the king my lord is in Amurru, the king my lord may do as he wishes: the arms of the king my lord shall conquer, the king shall accomplish his defeat. The text of their decision is reliable: Shamash and Marduk are giving into the hands of the king my lord a passage through the land, which you have seized by force of arms, from the upper to the lower sea. From the shore of the sea I lift up my hands toward the king my lord, for you are benign. May Marduk and Sarpanitum intercede for me before the king my lord.
Ashurbanipal must have been happy with his spy’s reports that the soothsayers used to fill the king’s ears with prophetic victory fast approaching. This also suggests the Assyrians may have become strong enough to make a challenge, thus giving Ashurbanipal the confidence to approach his enemy. Whatever reason allowed Ashurbanipal to feel more secure about his position seems to have backfired, for Dugdammi goes on to threaten the Assyrian border along with Mugallu’s son, “ussi.”
The name of Mugallu’s son remains unknown, all that is left of his name on the inscription is “-ussi:” This ussi along with Dugdammi would attack Assyria, but the outcome of the battle remains undecided:
[x x] ussi, his son sent every year, without interruption his heavy tribute and implored [my] lordship. I made him swear by the great gods, my Lords, he (but) despised the oath by their (sic) great gods. He has conferred with Dugdammi, king of the barbarian destroyer? destructive. Assour, great mountain, whose signs / borders don’t change, has it terrace [of] far and burned his body by the flaming fire. Without bow, nor horses, nor [mules], (nor?) his brothers, (nor?) his parent, seed of his father’s house, his great army, the aid of his hands, sent emergency following his own decision of the horses and mules without number in Assyria. Dugdammi, king highlander (?), Gutium, insolent that didn’t know the terror of Assour, has trusted in his own strength and has gathered his army to wage fight and battle. He established his camp on the border of Assyria. Assour, Ellilitu, Beautiful, Nabu, Ishtar living in Arbela […] Blood flowed out of his mouth and its sick tomb. Following it [the fire of the sky has fallen on them (the Cimmerians), and himself, his army and his camp, he burned them. Dugdammi was terrified, he is in a deplorable situation and removed his army and his camp; he came back… in his country. The terror of Assour, of Ellilitu, of Beautiful, of Nabu, of Ishtar of Arbela, gods who help me in striking him and he sent his captains (to establish) friendship and peace. I received [his heavy tribute]. Gold, multicolored clothes […] with great horses […horses of horsemanship of his lordship, military equipment, his heavy tribute, he sent it to me and he has kissed my feet. I made him swear to Assour and Ellilitu not to sin against the borders of the Assyria, and I have reinforced (it) while concluding with him a treaty under oath. He hasn’t respected the bill under oath by the great gods. He has entered in the borders of Assyria with the intention to make pain […]. He sinned against the borders of Assyria on the place of libation; for the establishment […The weapon] of Assour, my Lord has stricken him; he became a madman, and in (his) madness he bit his fingers.
From this inscription, we gather that Mugallu’s son ussi was loyal for some time to Assyria but did go on to join Dugdammi and his forces. Some have suggested that ussi was pressured by Dugdammi’s power. This is plausible, for ussi would feel pressured to make a decision based on the interest of his kingdom, since Dugdammi was a much closer threat than Ashurbanipal. In addition, consider also that ussi, like many others, grew tired of Assyrian dominance that imposed heavy tribute. Assyria would impose heavy tribute as a form of punishment to those that rebelled. It would perpetuate bad feelings, leading to further uprisings as in the case of ussi. Because of this, one could look at Dugdammi as a way out of Assyrian dominance. Dugdammi was not a threat, after all, but a blessing.
The next part of this inscription indicates a cease-fire. Ashurbanipal would impose heavy tribute on Dugdammi. Notice that in the inscription it says divine intervention defeated Dugdammi and his forces. This defeat could have come from another force but it is unclear. It may have been that Dugdammi’s attacker could not beat him and so they had settled for a draw. Had Ashurbanipal really defeated Dugdammi, the title “Sar Kassati” would be his; however, Ashurbanipal did not trounce Dugdammi and the Assyrian soothsayers never mention the title, while the Assyrian spies report only hostility.
These next inscriptions are somewhat similar to the previous one, particularly the next one you are about to read.
Dugdammi, demon gallu, barbarian-destructor […] that doesn’t bring [the yearly tribute,] [has trusted in] his own strength, [covered] the country like an invasion of locusts. He has gathered [his army and] established [his] camp [on the border of Assyria…] […]… the coming down (?) Assour, sin, [Shamash, Ishtar of] Nineveh, Ishtar of Arbela […] Blood flowed out [of his mouth;] he is [sick tomb.] […] size, established place (?)] [… the fire of the sky is tomb and himself, [his army and his camp,] it burned [them]. [Dugdammi] [was terrified and] he is put in [a deplorable situation; [he removed his army and his camp,] in Harsale […]… […] (of) his countries rebelled against him and […] he has expired. He was in a bad place and […] [..] he plotted against my gods in the inside of his army. […] theirs. The terror of Assour, of Sin, of Shamash of Ishtar of Nineveh, of Ishtar of Arbela, [gods, my Lords,] that helped me, striking him; his captains (to establish) friendship and peace […] with [great (?)] horses […]horses of horsemanship of his lordship, […]…military equipment, his heavy [tribute,] he sent it to me and he has kissed my feet. I made him swear by the great gods, [my Lords not to sin] against the borders of Assyria and I have reinforced (it) [while concluding with him the treaty under oath. He rejected the treaties under oath by the great gods and [didn’t respect it.] He has entered in the borders of Assyria with the intention (to make) pain. He sinned against the borders of Assyria [on the place] of libation; for the establishment (?) […The weapon of Assour, my Lord struck him; [he became a madman,] and in (his) madness he bit his fingers. […] he has changed and has inflicted upon him a stern punishment. [The moist of sound (body) has been reached of paralysis,] a sharp pain has pierced his heart; […] of him didn’t have, his army […] his penis was claw and was tomb. […His life ended…]
The inscription starts with Dugdammi being described as a “demon gallu” we will address this description later. As for the rest of the inscription, notices that it is a rehash of the previous inscription until you reach the last few portions. These last few lines suggest Dugdammi died in battle, using the imagery of a “pierced his heart” or his “penis was claw and was tomb.” Overall, the message is simple, Dugdammi is dead and shall no longer pose a threat to Assyria, but there is more:
[I have] killed, I have changed [Dugdammi, the king of Ummanmanda, destructive-barbarian…]
And Dugdammi, king of Umman-manda, creation of Tiamat, a species of gallu demon, despised the oath [by the gods] not to make crime, not to sin against the borders of my country; he didn’t fear your great name that the Igigis [venerate.] To magnify your lordship and the power of your divinity […] Following the message of your divinity that you sent: “I will disperse [his] army […] will I hurl down (?)] Sandakkurru / Sandaksatru, son (his), his offshoot that one designated like his heir.” I heard (it) and I have glorified the powerful Marduk.
Dugdammi is clearly dead according to the inscriptions, but another interesting aspect is the insults used to describe Dugdammi by Ashurbanipal. The term “demon gallu” and “Tiamat” as you read are descriptions of Dugdammi’s character according to Ashurbanipal. The term “demon gallu” is in reference to seven demons who love to eat flesh. You could take this meaning at face value, for some Scythian groups such as the Androphagoi and Massagetae, did consume human flesh and it is possible that Dugdammi partook of such a practice. On the other hand, Dugdammi may not have consumed any human flesh, but rather his sword consumed the flesh of the many thousands he and his forces had slain. However, it could be a stereotype, for certain Scythians and Cimmerians may have partaken in the consumption of human flesh, while Dugdammi took no part in, but due to his relation to them, one would think otherwise. Nevertheless, whatever the circumstance is one can agree that the term shows the distaste Ashurbanipal had for Dugdammi and his nomadic forces.
The next term mentioned in the last inscription is “Tiamat.” Tiamat represents the goddess of chaos. According to Babylonian mythology, Marduk slew Tiamat to create order and peace. Ashurbanipal obviously saw himself as being in the same position as Marduk and that something had to be done in order to bring about social order. In other words, this war with Dugdammi was a clash of civilizations in Ashurbanipal’s mind. You have the civilized Assyrians, keeping the peace and stability throughout the known world; while on the other hand, you have the uncivilized Dugdammi and his nomadic forces that represent palpable darkness.
The Assyrian inscriptions do not mention where Dugdammi died or how he died, but the statement is rather clear, Dugdammi is dead for, “a sharp pain has pierced his heart.” According to the historian Strabo, Dugdammi died at the Cilicia gates, but refers to him as Lygdamis and says, “Lygdamis, however, at the head of his own soldiers, marched as far as Lydia and Ionia and captured Sardes, but lost his life in Cilicia.” Unlike Strabo’s account, Ashurbanipal’s letters do not mention where the battle took place but only mention Dugdammi’s death. The inscriptions remain silent concerning a battle or a series of battles that most likely took place. However, the inscriptions do suggest a possible ceasefire at one time before the renewal of hostilities between the two.
The Ashurbanipal inscriptions mention two types of death; one is physical and the other spiritual. For the physical, Ashurbanipal says, “I have glorified the powerful Marduk.” Ashurbanipal claims the kill for himself, while in another inscription provided earlier speaks of the supernatural being responsible for slaying Dugdammi and says, “The weapon of Assour, my Lord struck him.” Regardless of the inscriptions, Ashurbanipal is responsible for Dugdammi’s death. However, it is interesting that Ashurbanipal speaks of himself as the taker of life, while in other he speaks of a god having taken Dugdammi’s life. It seems both are true, but with a twist.
To summarize, it is safe to say that Dugdammi was no friend of Assyria and he held in his grasp a huge nomadic empire that threatened the civilization of Assyria. Before the hostilities began, it seems that a “soft alliance” existed between them, perhaps because Dugdammi had been bought off by Ashurbanipal in preparation for dismembering the kingdom of Lydia. If true, it would have been a great move by Ashurbanipal at the time, but the Cimmerians still proved too wild to control directly or indirectly, and they quickly turned their attention back toward Assyria. This turning could be due to the desperate plea for help of Ardys, son of Gyges, to Ashurbanipal, and his willingness to patch up their differences over past issues.
Ashurbanipal may have accepted the terms, which is a cause for concern. At this point, we could say that Dugdammi was still on comfortable terms with Assyria, but felt threatened and undermined by a possible new alliance between Ashurbanipal and Ardys. The reason Ashurbanipal might have rekindled his trust in Lydia rather than with the Cimmerians could relate to economics and trade.
Lydia had an abundance of natural resources at its disposal, such as gold and silver. Trade routes also crossed through Lydia, making it and a commercial powerhouse for business and trade. The fact is that Assyria needed resources such as iron ore. However, the Cimmerians that lived and roamed in the Anatolian region were also in control of the iron ore. The Cimmerians were bad for business and they had to go. It seems that by making a pact with Lydia there was a chance to squeeze and expel the Cimmerians, as well as to establish trade relations with Lydia.
Earlier we discussed the death of Dugdammi and touched on the inconsistency of the battles, which suggest both Ashurbanipal and Dugdammi could have claimed victory. Both sides suffered heavy losses. However, it does seem that Ashurbanipal suffered most of the casualties in this conflict. Before the events that culminated in the death of Dugdammi, it appears that he took a short break before going on to violate the border agreement. This in turn would have caused upheaval along the borders and within Assyrian territory. In the inscriptions, one could glean from them that Ashurbanipal was quietly saying he was defeated. By invoking the god’s name as the sole benefactor in defeating Dugdammi, it does suggest that an outside element was possibly responsible. This outside element may have been Madys, according to Strabo:
Lygdamis, (King of the Cimmerians) however, at the head of his own soldiers, marched as far as Lydia and Ionia and captured Sardes, but lost his life in Cilicia. Oftentimes both Cimmerians and Trerans made such invasions as these; but they say that the Trerans and Cobus were finally driven out by Madys, the king of the Scythians. Let these illustrations be given here, inasmuch as they involve matters of fact which have a bearing upon the entire
compass of the world in general.
As Strabo suggests, it is quite possible that Madys did defeat and kill Dugdammi (Lygdamis) in Cilicia around 640 BCE if not 639 BCE. Ashurbanipal might have sent envoys to invite Madys to invade the lands of Dugdammi and kill him. The reason could be due to the wars in which Ashurbanipal was already engaged. Ashurbanipal was still intermittently fighting the Scythians and Cimmerians and at the same time having to suppress rebellions in Elam and Babylonia. Because of this, not only was he depleting his forces, he was also overextending his lines of supply and support. This massive onslaught on Assyria meant Ashurbanipal had to find someone to aid him, or hope for something or someone to intervene. He needed something as mighty as Dugdammi’s forces in the north, whether it was by force or influence. Madys was the choice. Strabo also says that Madys drove the Cimmerians out of Anatolia. This could be true, but unlikely. Madys may have defeated the forces led by Dugdammi, but more likely, that the dwindling remainder of Dugdammi’s force simply joined Madys. This region was under Cimmerian control and they probably did not mind being ruled by one of their own kin.
Dugdammi did have a son by the name of Sandaksatru who would succeed Dugdammi after his death. However, nothing is really known about him or where he went. It is possible that Sandaksatru was with his father at Cilicia during the battle, and fled into Europe along with the remainder of the forces when his father was defeated and killed. Nevertheless, the inscriptions definitely make no mention of Sandaksatru’s presence at this particular battle.
While the ram attempted to smash and loosen the rocky walls, Assyrian assault teams with scaling ladders would try to breach walls. The ram, while effective, was also vulnerable to enemy defenders dropping chains to pull the battering pole aside. Because of this issue, the Assyrians deployed men who counter this by hooking the chains with iron grapples. The prophet Joel gives a description of the Assyrian wall scaling:
“They rush upon the city;
they run along the wall.
They climb into the houses;
like thieves they enter through the windows.”
Joel’s description is quite accurate. Besides reliance on battering rams to bring down the walls, they also looked to sappers.
Undermining Fortifications
Assyrian sappers (soldiers for building, demolitions, general construction) would approach the walls possibly under the cover of shield bears, the same type that protected the archers one could suspect. If they had no such protection, the Assyrian king made sure his specialized troop had the armor needed to get the job done. The sapper, particularly during the rule of Ashurnasirpal (883-859 BCE), were heavily armored and wore long padded mailed coverings along with a conical helmet with mail protecting the face and neck. Once at the walls, they would aid in helping the battering rams dislodge blocks from the wall with special flat-topped crowbars, pick axes, hoes, and drills. If the sappers could not get near the walls, they tunneled under them and prop it up with wooden supports until the hole was rather large and deep, after which they would set fire to the structure causing the foundation to weaken and collapse.
While the battering ram was effective, the Assyrians had a backup plan usually underway during the siege to aid the army if the rams failed to dislodge the walls, and that was siege towers. As these siege towers are pushed forward, archers would accompany them with the duty to pick off any enemy foe threatening to toss an incendiary weapon at the tower. Furthermore, the Assyrians placed hoses on the tower from which water poured over the leather sheets covering the wooden structure to prevent the tower from catching fire. If the water hoses failed and fire did catch, a man holding a large ladle with would extinguish the flames the best he could.
Siege Tower on the Lachish, Relief in the British Museum. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
If the battering rams breached the walls, the Assyrian infantry behind the rams would pour through the hole under the cover of their archers and slingers. The Assyrian infantry were heavy spearmen armed with long, double-bladed spears, straight swords for close combat and they carried a small shield. The armor worn by the infantryman was a conical helmet, a knee-length coat of iron mail which was lined with wool to absorb the blows from weapons and allowed heat to dissipate. To protect his legs, he wore knee-high leather boots that had iron plates attached to the shins.
Heavy-armed archers in action. Assyrian, about 700-692 BC. From Nineveh, South-West Palace. These archers, the front one of whom is beardless, possibly an enuch, are each accompanied by a soldier whose duty it is to hold the tall shield in position and guard against any enemies who come too close. (Mike Peel www.mikepeel.net/CC BY-SA 4.0)
Plunder and Refugees
Inside the city, the Assyrian infantry would slash and plunder their way through. Once the slaughter and pillaging were over, those still alive (as at Samaria, which was sacked in 721 BCE), would feed the deported refugees during the journey back into Assyria, while also being treated by physicians to keep hygiene up and disease out. Furthermore, the Assyrians provided footwear if needed, along with carts for the longer journeys for women and children. Families were not separated for the most part. The Assyrians wanted to keep the families and communities together, as well as their national identity. Assyria was not a melting pot of nations. The Assyrians wanted to preserve the identity of the deportees for social and military strength and to lessen the possible acts of rebellion.
Judean people being deported into exile after the capture of Lachish. his relief depicts a man, 2 women, and 2 (male and female) children being deported with their household belongings. (CC BY-SA 4.0)
After the people had been gathered and exported, the Assyrians, like a swarm of army ants, took the captured fortified cities, or even a villages, and would destroy and take everything. Trees that were in or around the city or village were usually cut down and the timber taken back as spoils of war. Trees such as date palms were stripped naked and then cut down, leaving only the stump behind so they could not grow again. Other trees would be uprooted and replanted back in Assyria. Farmlands also did not escape Assyrian plunder, for they too were likely stripped bare leaving the farmland as it was before planting. When Tiglath-pileser conquered most of Syria and Lebanon, he took many of the trees for his palace and as tribute:
With the keen understanding and grasp of intellect with which the Master of the gods, the prince Nudimmut (Ea) endowed me, a palace of cedar… and a portico (bit hilanni) patterned after a Hittite (Syrian) palace, for my enjoyment, I built in Kalal (Kahi).”
A palace of cedar “Their (the palaces) doorways, of ivory, maple box-wood, mulberry, cedar… juniper, tribute of the Hittitte kings of the princes of the Aramaeans and of Chaldea, which I brought in submission to my feet through my valorous heroism. I made and I richly adorned them with tall cedar beams, whose fragrance is as good as that of the cypress tree, products of Amanus, Lebanon, and Ammanana (Anti – Lebanon) … The doorleaves of cedar and cypress, which give unbounded joy to the one entering them (and) whose odor penetrates to the heart, I bound with a sheathing of shining zahalu and (sariru) and hung (them) in the door-(ways).
People’s valuables were taken as well, apart from the things the captives needed in their day-to-day life. Even the temples’ valuables such as gold or silver were stripped. Idols in these temples were transported back to Assyria and paraded as weak gods of the conquered host; they could not compete with the gods that favored Assyria.
Once the refugees made it into the Assyrian homeland, they were sent to deportee camps before being sent to the region assigned to them. This was almost like a debriefing center. To give an example, one could look to Sargon II and the place of Dur-Sharrukin:
Peoples of the four quarters, of strange tongues and different speech, dwelling in mountains and plains…. I took as spoil at the word of Ashur my lord. I made of them one purpose, I made them take up abode therein [i.e., inside Dur-Sharrukin]. I sent natives of Assyria, competent in everything, as overseers and supervisors, to instruct them in custom and to serve the gods and the king.
After the Assyrians settled the captives in their assigned regions, the Assyrian monarch would make them feel welcome and comfortable. This was to keep any attempt of rebellion down. As the Assyrian monarch took the role as spokesman for the gods, it was his duty to accept all nations and to keep the peace within the Assyrian empire. Bustenay Oded writes well when referring to the role of the deported once they had been settled:
“..the exiled communities played a role very similar to that of the Assyrian garrisons stationed in all parts of the Assyrian empire, or to that of Assyrian citizens who were settled in conquered countries either as city dwellers, farmers, or officials. This explains the favorable treatment the deportees generally enjoyed, and the great concern shown by the Assyrian rulers for their welfare.”
After a long siege, the city of Lachish surrendered and the Assyrian army entered the city. King Sennacherib sits on his royal chair, surrounded by attendants and greets a high-ranking official. The king reviews Judean prisoners. (CC BY-SA 4.0)
In conclusion, the Assyrians were indeed the first iron army but more important than that, was the fact that they were in many ways the first professionalized fighting force that integrated and effectively used command and control along with the combined arms (conventional and specialized) apparatus to their advantage long before anyone else. While this new professional army had its way with its neighbors, they too would succumb to those seeking to make a name in the wild near east. However, unlike those who would come after, only a few could match the Assyrian fighting force in name and merit when it came to war machine known as Assyria.
Top Image: Assyrian relief of a horseman from Nimrud, now in the British Museum (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Archer, Christon I. World History of Warfare. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002.
Campbell, Duncan B. Besieged: Siege Warfare in the Ancient World. Oxford: Osprey, 2006.
Carey, Brian Todd, Joshua B. Allfree, and John Cairns. Warfare in the Ancient World. Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Military, 2005.
David, Richard, Barnett and Margarete Falkner. The sculptures of Aššur-nasir-apli II, 883-859 B.C., Tiglath-pileser III, 745-727 B.C. [and] Esarhaddon, 681-669 B.C., from the central and south-west palaces at Nimrud. (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1962.
Eadie, John W., “The Development of Roman Mailed Cavalry” The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 57, No. 1/2 (1967), 161-173.
Fagan, Garrett G., and Matthew Trundle. New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Gabriel, Richard A. Great Captains of Antiquity. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2001.
Gabriel, Richard A. The Culture of War: Invention and Early Development. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990.
Gabriel, Richard A. The Military History of Ancient Israel. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2003.
Soldiers’ Lives through History – The Ancient World. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2006.
Healy, Mark, and Angus McBride. The Ancient Assyrians. London: Osprey, 1991.
Kern, Paul Bentley. Ancient Siege Warfare. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999.
Nosov, K., and V. Golubev. Ancient and Medieval Siege Weapons: A Fully Illustrated Guide to Siege Weapons and Tactics. Guilford, Conn: Lyons Press, 2005.
Oded, Bustenay. Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979.
Rawlinson, George, Ancient Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World Vol I, (New York: Lovell, Coryell & CO, 1881.
Roberts, Janet “Centering the World”: Trees as Tribute in the Ancient Near East.” Transoxiana Journal Libre de Estudios Orientales.http://www.transoxiana.com.ar/11/roberts-near_east_trees.html (accessed August 11, 2016, 2011).
Saggs, H. W. F. The Might That Was Assyria. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1984.
Vuksic, V. & Z. Grbasic, Cavalry: The History of a Fighting Elite, (London: Cassell, 1993
Before the famed Persian Empire, whose borders spanned from India to Thrace, there was another empire—the Assyrians. The Assyrian Empire, while much smaller than the future Persian Empire to come, made up for its lack of territorial mass with a well-greased, organized fighting machine.
In the book of Nahum 3:1, the prophet Nahum made it clear that Assyria was a “city of blood, full of lies, full of plunder, never without victims! The crack of whips, the clatter of wheels, galloping horses and jolting chariots! Charging cavalry, flashing swords and glittering spears!”
What made the Assyrian Empire one of the most terrifying militaries in the ancient world was that they were organized, well led, well fed, well supplied, and had the tools to crack into just about any city they so desired. When it comes to warfare, sieges dominate the vast array of Assyrian reliefs. The siege we will focus on is that of Lachish in 701 BCE.
In order to understand how the Neo-Assyrian military organization functioned one must first focus on the head of the army, the king. From there, we can gather the role of the nobility in military affairs and finally those who formed the bulk of the army.
King: Despotic Commander in Chief
Sargon II and dignitary. Palace of Sargon II at Dur Sharrukin in Assyria (now Khorsabad in Iraq), c. 716–713 BC. (Public Domain)
The Assyrian king wasn’t just directly involved with state affairs on all levels; he was the state. Every aspect of state affairs, whether international, political, military, and religious, was directly linked to him. The king was absolute, but even he had limitations. The Assyrian king, unlike the pharaoh of Egypt, was not divine but despotic. He was a mediator between the gods and his subjects through his ritual purification by both divine and human attendants. Besides the day-to-day domestic and foreign affairs dealt with by the king, he was commander and chief of the Assyrian army. Middle Assyrian inscriptions attest to this, as the Assyrian king on his coronation would swear an oath that they would lead their armies, in person, on annual campaigns of conquest to extend their borders. Even though he was the head of his army, he was a figurehead to a certain degree, for his military duties were diffused and delegated to lesser officials.
Turtānu: Leader of Armies
This lesser official, who would lead armies, was the turtanu. The turtanu was second in military command right under the king. While the king was in fact the commander in chief of the army, the real responsibility executing his majesty’s orders lay in the hands of the turtanu. Assyrian kings did participate in campaigns but when unable, the turtanu was firmly in charge. Eventually either Tiglath-Pileser III or Sargon II reorganized the office of the turtanu. In the past, one man held the position. However, this changed. Instead of having one man take charge of the military forces there was be two. One man was in charge “of the left” and the other “of the right.” While not definitive in all cases, the post of the turtanu were assigned to eunuchs. The reason for this was to limit power by ensuring that the man in charge could not pass his office down to his son through inheritance, which in turn limited the power of the office and avoided the possibility of a coup.
Army Organization and Officers
Information on the military organization of the Assyrian army is fragmented and murky. But a word of caution before proceeding: what is about to be presented is based on what is known and what can be considered from what information survives.
The Assyrians do provide some history concerning the framework of their military apparatus. During the eighth century BCE the Assyrian king could mobilize a force of between 150,000-200,000 men and in extreme cases, 1,000,000. This seems a bit farfetched but was not impossible. In times of war, the Assyrians could field between 20,000-50,000 troops, which would be the equivalent of two or five modern American divisions. Each division consisted of 120 officers. Therefore, two divisions would consist of 240 officers while five divisions consisted roughly of 416 officers. When further broken down, a squad of ten men was under the control of a noncommissioned officer. Five or twenty squads were formed into a “company” (kirsu) under the command of a “captain” (rab kisri or rab hanle). The amount of men in an Assyrian company probably was made up of five squads totaling 250 men and would take at least four of them to form a battalion. A regiment possibly consisted of and three battalions totaling 3,000 men, which seems possible based on the Urartian system, similar to that of Assyria, and it was under the command of a prefect, or what would be today the equivalent of a modern colonel. As for the size of an Assyrian division, it would seem possible that one division consisted of three if not more regiments.
By the time of Sargon, they had become a truly iron army. Sargon reorganized and integrated the fighting force, starting with the conventional units such as infantry, chariots, cavalry, and siege machinery. Next were specialized units to aid support to the conventional, such as scouts, engineers, intelligence officers, and sappers (soldiers for building, demolitions, general construction). To support and supply such an army with the amount of iron needed, Sargon constructed a single weapons room called Dur-Sharrukin (Fort Sargon) which contained 200 tons of weapons and body armor.
Plan of Dur-Sharrukin, 1867. Victor Place excavated Khorsabad (Iraq) from 1852 to 1855. The Palace of Sargon is represented at North East. (Public Domain)
Reconstructed model of Palace of Sargon at Khorsabad, 1905. (Public Domain)
Soldiers and Engines of War
The Assyrian military consisted of four main units: cavalry, charioteers, infantry, and archers.
When it came to mobility, the Assyrians relied on charioteers like most Near Eastern nations. However, during the reign of Ashurbanipal II in the ninth century BCE, reliefs depict the Assyrians as already having cavalry but in small numbers; they were light by standard and their only function was to ward off other horse archer units during an engagement. What the Assyrians did to combat this was to take regular foot archers and place them on horseback. The Assyrians now had their own version of a horse archer, but the problem was they wore little or no armor. This made the Assyrian horse archer vulnerable to attacks from other horse archers better armored and trained in the rudiments of archery from horseback.
Ashurbanipal II meets a high official after a successful battle. (Public Domain)
Tiglath-pileser III took note of what is already in use pertaining to his own force and admired what could be adopted and improved upon into his own cavalry units. Tiglath-pileser invested in developing better cavalry units whereas their enemies later on (such as the Cimmerians and Scythians) continued to evolve into much better fighting forces that adapted to the natural conditions and to the conduct of their enemies— in other words, to improvise, adapt, overcome.
After conquering a portion of western Media, Tiglath-pileser incorporated Median cavalry into his own army and from then on, effectively changed the nature of the Assyrian cavalry from charioteer teams to mounted warriors armed with bow and spear. The days of the chariot as master of the battlefield were nearing an end but were not yet over. Over time, the Assyrian army had three types of cavalry. The first type was light cavalry, which consisted of Medes and other nomads who were quick and who primarily used the bow and javelin. Next were the Assyrian heavy archers. This unit consisted of men in heavy scale body armor. Finally, the heavy cavalrymen were fully armored and designed for fighting heavy infantry. However, the Assyrian use of heavy cavalry for shock is uncertain. Cavalry under Tiglath-pileser III on through to Sargon II seem to be primarily skirmishers. There is, however, cavalry depicted during the time of Sargon II on reliefs which are shown to be carrying spears and charging into battle, which may suggest the evolution of the Assyrian shock cavalry was well underway. Tiglath-pileser III and his successors loved the new cavalry so much that they replaced most of the chariot units with elite cavalry units over time. To put this into perspective, the king, his nobles, and the warrior elite were the only ones permitted to use the chariot.
Assyrian artwork from ninth century BC at British Museum. (CC BY 2.0)
Assyrian infantry can be divided into three types: spearmen, archers, and slingers. Spearmen were well armored and are the foundation of the Assyrian army. Their primary function was to provide defense and offense. When on the defensive it was the spearmen’s job to support the skirmishing and cavalry units, to maneuver around them and find targets that could be softened up, which would take pressure off the lines and allow the infantry to go on the offensive. These Spearmen were armed with a shield, spear, and a dagger or short sword.
Assyrian Soldier with Standing Shield, Soldier with Small Shield, Archer. (Public Domain)
Archers were also well armored and used a recurve bow. In some reliefs, Assyrian archers are accompanied by a shield bearer who provided protection as the archer discharged his arrow. Archers in battle were usually placed in front of the heavy infantry ranks to shower arrows down upon the enemy before retreating behind the spearmen once the enemy was too close for comfort. Assyrian archers in the reliefs also appear to be wearing short swords as well.
Another skirmishing unit utilized to harass the enemy was slingers. Slingers, as their name applies, slung well-rounded rocks at the enemy. While the distance was not as great as an archer, the power generated upon release caused tremendous damage as it was meant to crush, unlike the arrow, which was used to pierce. Slingers, like archers, would be out in front of the spearmen harassing the enemy infantry or, engaging the enemy skirmishing detachments.
Sling Stones, Tel Lachish, 701 BCE. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
However, Assyrian horse archers and those carrying javelins could and did act as skirmishing detachments who could, with the right covering fire from the archers, could quickly ride up on the enemy lines, whether infantry or skirmishers, and discharge their projectiles before riding off.
The Siege of Lachish will be our Example
Once they set up camp outside their intended target, the Assyrian military force, when arrayed, occupied roughly an area of 2,500 yards across and 100 yards deep. The supplies for such a force would have been massive. The number of calories and amount of water a single Assyrian soldier would need to function comes to 3,402 calories a day and nine quarts of water. This does not include the amount of food needed to feed the pack animals haul the equipment. Once the Assyrian army was finally in place before the walls of an enemy city, the consuming and waste began and the need to finish the job quickly set in.
So how did the Assyrians deploy for a siege? An Assyrian siege begins with a messenger. According to 2 Kings 18:17-37 they would send a messenger to deliver the ultimatum, which was ‘surrender or die’. However, it seems most cities chose to fight than give in to the attacker.
Once the Assyrian army had isolated the city, they would begin to construct siege works on the spot. At the siege of Lachish in 701 BCE, Sennacherib’s siege crew deployed prefabricated battering rams, which required assembly on the spot. While the construction of siege engines was underway, the Assyrian infantry would begin to build earthen ramps leading to the weakest point in the city walls. The men building the ramps were likely under the protection of Assyrian archers and slingers.
Assyrian archers during a siege would push forward, wearing a long coat of mail and carrying a man-sized reed shield with a bent back to protect him from enemy fire. The Archer would carry an Assyrian composite bow, which required two to string. These heavy bowmen could easily get into position and pelt the enemy on the walls, thus negating interference with the men below who were constructing the siege ramps.
The same goes for the Assyrian slingers, who also were good at harassing the enemy with projectiles as the ramp drew closer to the city walls as they could hit high-angled targets who hid behind the parapets.
Assyrian attack on a town with archers and a wheeled battering ram, 865–860 BC. (Public Domain)
Chariots were deployed as light mobile artillery that could aid in hitting targets on the walls. In one sense, they were a great addition to keeping the defenders from firing back too often, for each volley the archers and slingers could fire, the charioteer archers could deliver another volley and quickly get out of harm’s way.
After the earthen ramps were finished, teams of infantry, aided with the protection of archers to cover their approach, began to push the heavy siege machines forward into position. One such siege engine that was very effective against enemy fortification was the Assyrian battering ram. During the siege of Lachish, King Sennacherib (704-681 BCE) deployed several battering rams simultaneously towards the weakest points of the walls. One of the big differences when comparing these rams with those of the past is that Sennacherib had the battering pole extended. This allowed a greater degree of reach and leverage. When looking at the reliefs depicting the siege of Lachish, one will notice archers atop the device as it moves forward. There are two likely reasons for this. First, as the battering ram is moved forward, enemy along the wall could possibly throw an incendiary device, which could cause the ram to catch fire. Placing archers atop the vehicle allows them to pick off those wishing to set the ram a blaze. The second reason is to protect the infantry moving behind the ram.
Assyrian troops attacking a besieged city using a battering ram on a siege ramp. Enemy archers are returning fire. Headless corpses lie at the foot of the city walls. (Public Domain)
While the ram attempted to smash and loosen the rocky walls, Assyrian assault teams with scaling ladders would try to breach walls. The ram, while effective, was also vulnerable to enemy defenders dropping chains to pull the battering pole aside. Because of this issue, the Assyrians deployed men who counter this by hooking the chains with iron grapples. The prophet Joel gives a description of the Assyrian wall scaling:
They charge like warriors;
they scale walls like soldiers.
They all march in line,
not swerving from their course.
They do not jostle each other;
each marches straight ahead.
They plunge through defenses
without breaking ranks.
They rush upon the city;
they run along the wall.
They climb into the houses;
like thieves they enter through the windows. – Joel 2:7-9.
Top Image: Assyrian relief of horsemen with spears. Bodies fly in their wake. From Nimrud, now in the British Museum (CC BY-SA 3.0)
By Cam Rea
References
Archer, Christon I. World History of Warfare. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002.
Campbell, Duncan B. Besieged: Siege Warfare in the Ancient World. Oxford: Osprey, 2006.
Carey, Brian Todd, Joshua B. Allfree, and John Cairns. Warfare in the Ancient World. Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Military, 2005.
David, Richard, Barnett and Margarete Falkner. The sculptures of Aššur-nasir-apli II, 883-859 B.C., Tiglath-pileser III, 745-727 B.C. [and] Esarhaddon, 681-669 B.C., from the central and south-west palaces at Nimrud. (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1962.
Eadie, John W., “The Development of Roman Mailed Cavalry” The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 57, No. 1/2 (1967), 161-173.
Fagan, Garrett G., and Matthew Trundle. New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Gabriel, Richard A. Great Captains of Antiquity. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2001.
Gabriel, Richard A. The Culture of War: Invention and Early Development. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990.
Gabriel, Richard A. The Military History of Ancient Israel. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2003.
Soldiers’ Lives through History – The Ancient World. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2006.
Healy, Mark, and Angus McBride. The Ancient Assyrians. London: Osprey, 1991.
Kern, Paul Bentley. Ancient Siege Warfare. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999.
Nosov, K., and V. Golubev. Ancient and Medieval Siege Weapons: A Fully Illustrated Guide to Siege Weapons and Tactics. Guilford, Conn: Lyons Press, 2005.
Oded, Bustenay. Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979.
Rawlinson, George, Ancient Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World Vol I, (New York: Lovell, Coryell & CO, 1881.
Roberts, Janet “Centering the World”: Trees as Tribute in the Ancient Near East.” Transoxiana Journal Libre de Estudios Orientales.http://www.transoxiana.com.ar/11/roberts-near_east_trees.html (accessed August 11, 2016, 2011).
Saggs, H. W. F. The Might That Was Assyria. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1984.
Vuksic, V. & Z. Grbasic, Cavalry: The History of a Fighting Elite, (London: Cassell, 1993
Arsaces’ historic invasion of Parthia was a process.
Before Arsaces I, King and founder of the Arsacid dynasty, and his brother, Tiridates captured Parthia, they appeared to be residing in the province previous to the appointment of Andragoras as satrap, or governor. Andragoras gained this position due to Arsaces and Tiridates killing the last two previous satraps by the names of Pherekles and Agathokles.
Information concerning the death of Pherekles by Arsaces is scant. Greek historian Arrian of Nicomedia states it was “to avenge an insult offered to one of them.” This insult provoked a rebellion, which led to the death of the satrap. While nothing more is provided, this small amount of info says much.
Roman, Seleucid, and Parthian Empires in 200 BC. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
During this period, Arsaces probably controlled the Kopet Dagh mountain range running east-west across the northern edge of the Iranian plateau that bordered the Seleucid province of Parthia. Being in such close proximity, it would not be unreasonable to think that Arsaces’ sphere of influence extended somewhat into the province of Parthia. If so, Arsaces possibly held a considerable amount of influence among the locals, who may have provided him with tribute for his protection services.
Furthermore, in both attacks on the province of Parthia, it would not be unreasonable to assume that Arsaces confiscated some territory within the Parthian satrapy.
View on the Kopetdag mountains from the Ahal plain, Turkmenistan. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
As mentioned, an insult caused Arsaces to strike, but the type of insult is unknown, leaving one to speculate.
Afterwards, Arsaces and his military wing fled back to the Kopet Dagh mountain range. While Arsaces traversed his holdings, the Seleucid king, Antiochus II Theos, appointed a new satrap to the province by the name of Agathokles.
Seeing that the situation on the ground in Parthia was still unstable, Arsaces decided to invade again and violently remove the satrap from power. One could suggest that this attack on Parthia was nothing more than a raid. However, there is no mention of a raid. Instead, Arsaces went straight for the satrap.
With the sudden death of Agathokles, Antiochus II appointed a new satrap by the name of Andragoras.
Coin of Andragoras, a Seleucid satrap of Parthia and later independent ruler of the region. (Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. http://www.cngcoins.com /CC BY-SA 3.0)
Andragoras is said to possibly be Persian, his original old Persian name being Narisanka. Information regarding Andragoras before his arrival to govern Parthia is limited. What is possible and speculative is that he served as a functionary during the reign of Antiochus I. If so, he would have possibly continued in this role for a period under Antiochus II. Shortly after his appointment, Andragoras found himself defending his seat of power against the same unwanted guests.
WHO WAS ARSACES?
The origins of King Arsaces, the man who would give birth to the ancient Arsacid Dynasty, remain elusive. Information is scant. The oldest known source is Strabo. Strabo, a Greek historian, states, “that Arsaces derives his origin from the Scythians, whereas others say that he was a Bactrian.” Justin, a Latin historian, states that Arsaces was “a man of uncertain origin.” It is evident that Strabo and Justin are unsure of Arsaces origins. While Justin makes no mention of Arsaces ethnicity, Strabo does to a point. In order to uncover precisely who Arsaces was and his possible origins, one must first examine the name Arsaces and the tribe from which he came.
The name Arsaces may or may not have been his real name or, possibly, a throne name, taken by all the descendants who held the same status. Chronicler Syncellus, who relied on the fragments of historian Arrian’s Parthika, mentions that Arsaces was a descendent of the Persian king Artaxerxes II. Syncellus’ information concerning the relationship comes from the fifth century BCE Greek physician and historian Ctesias.
Ctesias was the physician of King Artaxerxes II of Persia, and he compiled a history of Assyria and Persia called Persica during his stay. Ctesias mentions that Artaxerxes’ name before his ascent to the throne was Arsaces, “the king’s son, who afterward changed his name to Artaxerxes.” Moreover, Artaxerxes’ grandfather was king Artaxerxes I, whose name was rendered as Arshak/Arsaces, Babylonian Arshu.
Besides Arrian’s claim that the Arsacids were descendants of the Achaemenid Dynasty, there is a possibility that the two dynasties were medically related due to the presence of a rare disease known as neurofibromatosis. This physical deformity might have been seen as a sign that they were part of a ‘chosen’ few.
The Greek historian Plutarch, speaks of a deformity that King Artaxerxes I “was surnamed Longimanus, because his right hand was longer than his left.” Artaxerxes suffered from a disease called unilateral upper limb gigantism, which is associated with, but not strictly to, neurofibromatosis. Neurofibromatosis is rare and, according to researcher Hutan Ashrafian, “causes include congenital diseases, such as Proteus syndrome, Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber syndrome, neurofibromatosis, and macrodystrophia lipomatosa. They can also be acquired in cancers and lymphoedema.” Ashrafian makes the case that Neurofibromatosis may have been the cause of Artaxerxes’ deformity.
When it comes to the Parthian kings, Don Todman notes, “The nodule is first seen in the coins of Mithridates II (123–88BC) beneath the left eye and in the image of Orodes II (57–38BC) and in succeeding kings, including Phraates IV (38–2BC), the son of Orodes II. They appear on the faces of many but not all of the subsequent kings up to Vologases I (51BC–AD78) and Vardases II (55–AD58).”
Todman rules out the many other possibilities and further adds, “Neurofibromatosis, however, has a high degree of penetrance and autosomal dominant inheritance.” Todman concludes, “The lesions in the Parthian Kings is speculative” and that the “appearance of the nodule is consistent with Neurofibromatosis and the occurrence over multiple generations also accords with this hypothesis.” Therefore, the Arsacid dynasty may have used their genetic defect to strengthen their claim as the rightful heirs of the Persian Empire.
The name Arsaces is a Greek rendering of his Old Persian name Arshak, also rendered as Arsak, Asaac, or Asaak. The name Arsaces/Arshak suggests that he was of Saka/Scythian origin. This is due to the “Sac” or “Shak” found in his name. The Ar in Arshak quite possibly could mean Aryan in the Scythian language. In the Pahlavi dialect, the language of the Parthians, the word “Aryan” rendered as “Eran.” The “Er” in Pahlavi is said to mean “noble” or “warrior” and the suffix “an” attached to “Er” represents the relation. Thus, the name Eran can mean, “The noble race” or “the warrior race” along those lines.
MONEY TALKS
Another interesting aspect is one coin in particular that bears Arsaces’ image, but on the reverse of the coin, it has the Aramaic inscription of krny, translated as “Karen” or “Quren”. This is where the debate comes in. Either krny means “Commander-in-Chief,” or it is in reference to one of the powerful Parthian clans known as the House of Karen. The coin also bears his name ΑΡΣΑΚΟΥ, translating as “Arsaces”. It seems to be the only coin of his minted like this.
Coin of Arsaces I of Parthia. The reverse shows a seated archer carrying a bow. A Greek inscription on the right reads ΑΡΣΑΚ[ΟΥ] (from the outside). The inscription below the bow is in Aramaic. (Public Domain)
One could read this coin to mean that Arsaces is from the House of Karen. However, other coins of Arsaces do not mention this but mention his name and title in Greek, not Aramaic.
The readings of these other coins say ΑΡΣΑΚΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΟΣ, translating as “Arsaces the Autocrat”. Both are plausible. If one considers Karen or Quren to mean “Commander-in-Chief,” it would be understandable for some coins bear the Greek inscription “Autocrat.” It would be true that an autocrat would be a commander-in-chief, for an autocrat is a ruler who holds unlimited power and is answerable to no other person, even though the possibility of the coin that says Karen and Arsaces may indicate a connection to the House of Karen.
Therefore, it seems plausible that ‘Karen’ found on the reverse of the coin is meant for the Aramaic speaking population at the time, in Parthia proper, indicating his authority rather than the house from which he came.
Other coins minted at the same time or later bear no Aramaic, but Greek instead. This is understandable, since Greek was the business and administrative language of the populace.
WHO WERE THE APARNI?
The name Aparni/Parni is Latin, while the Greeks referred to them as Aparnoi/Parnoi. However, there is a bit of dispute among historians over the names. Some historians believe the names are incorrect due to the Greek and Latin translations. The correct renderings could be Sparnoi, Apartanes, Eparns and Asparians. Since the names and translations are in dispute, we shall call them Aparni for now to avoid confusion.
The Aparni were a branch of the Dahae confederacy (central Asia, modern Turkmenistan), possibly a family clan of the tribe, and were said to have lived along the river Ochus, southeast of the Caspian Sea. What one can gather from the scant information provided is that the name Aparni may be incorrect, but the fact that they lived along the river Ochus and were a part of the Dahae confederacy remains undisputed.
Strabo is the only one who provides both tribe and ethnicity. Strabo states that Arsaces, “with some of the Däae (I mean the Aparnians, as they were called, nomads who lived along the Ochus), invaded Parthia and conquered it.” The Däae Strabo mentions are the Dahae. The first mention of the Dahae is found in Xerxes’ daiva inscription and they are described as a people he subdued during his reign. Nothing more follows. Herodotus was the next to mention the Dahae (Daans) and placed them among the tribes of the Persian nation:
“Now the Persian nation is made up of many tribes. Those which Cyrus assembled and persuaded to revolt from the Medes were the principal ones on which all the others are dependent. […]The rest of the Persian tribes are the following: the Panthialaeans, the Derusiaeans, the Germanians, who are engaged in husbandry; the Daans, the Mardians, the Dropicans, and the Sagartians, who are nomads.”
Relief of Cyrus II of Persia. (Siamax/CC BY-SA 3.0)
What else one can gather from this passage by Herodotus is that Cyrus was well aware of them before Xerxes. Herodotus account of the Dahae among the tribes of the Persian nation may have been “meant in a political, rather than an ethnic or linguistic sense, their Scythian identity poses no problem” as D. T. Potts mentions. While Herodotus provides little concerning their location, Strabo does.
Strabo provides three geographical accounts:
Those nomads (Dahae, however, who live along the coast on the left as one sails into the Caspian Sea are by the writers of today called Däae, I mean, those who are surnamed Aparni; then, in front of them, intervenes a desert country; and next comes Hyrcania, where the Caspian resembles an open sea to the point where it borders on the Median and Armenian mountains.
The Däae, some of them are called Aparni, some Xanthii, and some Pissuri. Now of these the Aparni are situated closest to Hyrcania and the part of the sea that borders on it, but the remainder extend even as far as the country that stretches parallel to Aria.
The Aparnian Däae were emigrants from the Däae above Lake Maeotis, who are called Xandii or Parii. But the view is not altogether accepted that the Däae are a part of the Scythians who live about Maeotis (Sea of Azov).
Ptolemy places the Dahae between “the regions of Margiana adjoining the River Oxus.” What Strabo and Ptolemy are indicating is that the Dahae traverse a rather large region that expands from the Black Sea to the Aral Sea and from Central Asia to Northern Iran.
Therefore, from the sources examined, it seems evident, that Arsaces was indeed of Saka/Scythian origin and was associated with the Dahae tribe. Whether Arsaces was a decedent of the ancient kings of Persia seeking to reclaim and restore the once mighty Persian Empire will remain unknown. While the possibility is considerable, the connection remains uncertain.
ARSACES’ INVASION OF BACTRIA AND PARTHIA
It would be naive to suggest that the fundamental cause of the Aparni invasion is clouded in mystery, impossible to answer, or cannot be determined. As mentioned earlier, Arrian states the invasion was “to avenge an insult offered to one of them.” While Arrian is probably correct, Strabo may have the answer. Therefore, in order to understand why Arsaces raided and eventually conquered Parthia, we must first look to Bactria.
Historians tend to agree that the passages of Strabo indicate that the invasion of Parthia was due to Diodotus’ victory over Arsaces, which in turn, caused Arsaces to flee into neighboring Parthia. However, Strabo’s passage is rather silent concerning an actual battle that took place. Some look to Strabo as an indicator of this victory over Arsaces, in which Arsaces was “in flight from the enlarged power of Diodotus.” This passage also does not directly say that Diodotus defeated Arsaces, but it hints at the possibility that there was conflict. But what kind of conflict needs to be answered.
What seems overlooked is what Arsaces did best, raiding. The first clue comes from Justin. Justin speaks of Arsaces as being, “accustomed to live by plunder and depredations.” Strabo also mentions this and states:
“These people agreed to pay a tribute on condition of having permission to overrun the country at stated times, and to carry away the plunder. But when these incursions became more frequent than the agreement allowed, war ensued, afterwards peace was made, and then again war was renewed. Such is the kind of life which the other Nomads also lead, continually attacking their neighbors, and then making peace with them.”
It is no question that Arsaces made his living by pillaging. But, according to Strabo, the pillaging taking place was against those who did not pay tribute.
In order to understand why Arsaces I, King and founder of the Arsacid dynasty raided and eventually conquered Parthia, we must first look to Bactria.
It is no question that Arsaces made his living by pillaging. But, according to Strabo, the pillaging taking place was against those who did not pay tribute.
As mentioned, it seems evident that Arsaces’ “flight from the enlarged power of Diodotus” could indicate two possibilities.
The first proposal is that Arsaces continued pillaging Bactrian villages and caravans along the trade routes. Because of this, Diodotus, who held a considerable amount of power, confronted Arsaces and drove him out.
The second proposal could be that Diodotus either met Arsaces or sent an envoy to make a quasi-peace treaty to receive temporary peace by providing tribute. Remember, Strabo mentions, “Such is the kind of life which the other Nomads also lead, continually attacking their neighbors, and then making peace with them.”
Either Arsaces’ periodic raiding ended with force or tribute, or perhaps a combination of both. But given the passages of historians Strabo and Justin, it would seem that Arsaces was confronted, did not engage militarily, but realized that the military forces of Bactria were a far stronger. Arsaces turned his forces around and headed back into his lands. While at Kopet Dagh, Arsaces received news that Andragoras, satrap (governor) of Parthia, had broken away.
Leaving the Empire
It would be hard to believe that Andragoras was unaware of the vulnerability he placed himself in by separating from the empire. Andragoras declared independence after receiving news of the unexpected death of Antiochus II, Greek king of the Hellenistic Seleucid Empire, in Ephesus. The satrap knew that the death of his king would lead to succession uncertainty and a potential war for the throne. Therefore, Andragoras detached himself from the empire until he felt comfortable enough to rejoin the fold.
Coin of Andragoras, the last Seleucid satrap of Parthia. He proclaimed independence around 250 BC. (Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. http://www.cngcoins.com /CC BY-SA 3.0)
However, Andragoras may have felt secure enough to declare independence knowing that Diodotus had driven out the Aparni. While Andragoras was unaware of what was taking place north of Parthia, Arsaces was well aware after presumably gaining intelligence on the situation from his spies and possibly from merchants. The news Arsaces received was favorable; the military forces under the command of Andragoras was weak and the Seleucid Empire was busy fighting other rivals.
Arsaces mustered his forces and “invaded Parthia with a band of marauders, overthrew Andragoras, the governor, and, after putting him to death, took upon himself the government of the country. Not long after, too, he made himself master of Hyrcania, and thus, invested with authority over two nations.”
After establishing his capital at Nisa or Asaak, Arsaces was fully aware that if he wanted to hold his newly conquered, lucrative provinces, he must build up his military strength and so “raised a large army, through fear of Seleucus and Diodotus, king of the Bactrians.”
Diodotus I Soter, leader of the Bactrians. (PHGCOM /CC BY-SA 3.0)
Arsaces knew that when the king of the Seleucids, Seleucus II, finished fighting in the west, he would make the trip east to recover former lands. Arsaces also feared his eastern neighbor Bactria, for even though Diodotus drove him from his territory, there was a chance Diodotus would invade.
Ancient site at Nisa, Turkmenistan. (Ljuba brank /CC BY-SA 3.0)
Unbeknownst to Arsaces was that Diodotus could do little outside his own satrapy. The reason for this was that if he were to enter the Parthian satrapy, he would be potentially incurring the suspicion of Seleucus II, which could lead to armed conflict. Because of this, Diodotus stayed put. Of course, this would imply that Diodotus was still loyal to the Seleucid crown. Perhaps he still was, at least to point. There is no doubt that Diodotus was slowly separating himself from the Seleucid fold during the reign of Antiochus II. But once Antiochus II died, Diodotus followed the lead of Andragoras of Parthia and declared independence shortly during the reign of Seleucus II.
SHIFTING POLITICS AND MILITARY MANEUVERS
It is possible that Diodotus not only bought off Arsaces, but also used him against Andragoras. However, this is unlikely. The probable reason as to why Diodotus did not left a finger was that not only did he fear the full force of the Seleucid Empire, but also he had not the military forces nor resources to invade, unhinge, confiscate, and hold onto Parthia and Hyrcania. However, one can also presume that Arsaces was just as ignorant of the military strength of Bactria, even after he increased his forces. But it was necessary for Arsaces to increase his military strength as he prepared for the possibility of a two-front war.
Therefore, Diodotus may have viewed Andragoras as a threat rather than an ally, because once Andragoras reunited with the Seleucid Empire, Diodotus feared that Seleucus II would mount a new campaign to recover the province of Bactria. One can assume that Diodotus welcomed the Aparni conquest of Parthia and Hyrcania. In this sense, Arsaces’ conquest of Parthia acted as a buffer between Bactria and the Seleucids, thus creating a potential ally for Diodotus since both kingdoms now had a common enemy.
A Parthian stucco relief of an infantryman, from the walls of Zahhak Castle, East Azarbaijan Province, Iran. (CC BY-SA 2.5)
Even though not written, Diodotus may have wanted to establish a peace treaty with Arsaces. However, Diodotus died before the establishment of such a treaty in 238 BCE. With Diodotus dead, his son, Diodotus II, quickly accepted a peace treaty with Arsaces. Justin mentions this and states, “Soon after, relieved by the death of Diodotus, Arsaces made peace and concluded an alliance with his son, also by the name of Diodotus.”
Arsaces reaching out to Diodotus II to agree to a peace treaty was paramount in allowing Arsaces to concentrate the bulk of his military forces in preparation for the Seleucid invasion. Moreover, even though the agreement between the two was a peace treaty, one can presume that the treaty was also an alliance, which would be crucial in assisting in the defense of their territories from King Seleucus II, who would eventually be on his way.
SELEUCUS’ ATTEMPT TO RETAKE FORMER LANDS
Before Seleucus II set out to retake the provinces of Parthia-Hyrcania and Bactria, he had to deal with another situation at home, which involved his brother, Antiochus Hierax. Antiochus Hierax had rebelled against his brother Seleucus in Asia-minor. This war between the two lasted from 239-236 BCE. Hierax’s decisive victory over Seleucus at Ancyra (modern Ankara, Turkey) sometime between 240-237 BCE sealed the deal, but it would not be until 236 BCE when Seleucus surrendered all of Asia-minor north of the Taurus Mountains to Hierax.
Coin of Seleucus II. Reverse shows Apollo leaning on a tripod. (Public Domain)
Seleucus’ loss of Asia-minor to his brother and the costly loss of territory to Ptolemy III during the Third Syrian War (246-241 BCE) undermined the unity of the empire. One can see why the eastern provinces broke away and declared independence. The continuous conflict, whether within the royal court or on the field of battle, kept the empire in constant uncertainty to the point that one either broke away and survived, or crashed and was left to an uncertain fate.
Seleucus knew that even though he might have been weak he could not afford more territorial losses. Further losses would destabilize the empire and encourage more breakaways, which in turn would entice his neighbors, like Ptolemaic Egypt, to gobble up more territory abundant with resources and the trade routes that passed through them.
With heavy losses in men, resources and territory, Seleucus took a gamble and decided to mobilize his forces for an eastern anabasis in hopes of retaking control of the crucial provinces of Parthia-Hyrcania.
Hyrcania and Parthia, and the section of the Royal Road noted by Herodotus. (CC BY-SA 2.5)
The reason for this is that when Arsaces conquered the provinces in question, he also captured the city of Hekatompylos, which lay astride the Royal Road linking Babylon and Seleucia on the Tigris to Bactria, and finally to India. Arsaces’ control over a portion of the Royal Road not only gave Arsaces control over the commercial traffic but also allowed the Parthians to intercept messages go to or coming from between the Seleucid and Bactrian kings.
Seleucus’ undertaking such an endeavor was both reckless and understandable. The reckless aspect of was that he quickly assembled his forces after suffering early defeats by Ptolemy III and Antiochus Hierax. Seleucus’ hasty military operation to recover former lands was a recipe for disaster. Either Seleucus was overconfident, desperate, or a combination of both.
The understandable aspect was his ambition to recover former lands, to exploit vital resources, and retake the trade routes that linked east with west back under the Seleucid umbrella, since most of the valuables enjoyed by the Greeks were coming through the eastern portions of the empire. If those provinces no longer belonged to the empire, the flow of wealth diminished.
The date of Seleucus’ anabasis is uncertain but possibly occurred between 236 and 229 BCE. But understand, there was not one invasion of Parthia but two.
WAR AND PEACE
Arsaces lay in his capital of Nisa, enjoying his newly conquered territory — but he was no fool. He understood that one day the Seleucid king would march east to recover former lands.
When word arrived that Seleucus was on his way, Arsaces quickly assembled his men and fled into the desert, taking up refuge with another nomadic tribe known as the Apasiacae, who were an offshoot of the Massagetae Scythians.
When Seleucus entered Parthia, he met with little resistance, one can presume, and reconquered his former provinces. As for how long he stayed in Parthia, this is unknown but it must not have been long, for shortly after entering Parthia, Seleucus was “recalled into Asia Minor by new disturbances.”
After some years had passed, Seleucus assembled another army and invaded Parthia a second time and was met with force. The outcome was an Arsacid victory. However, no detail of the battle exists. Moreover, it is possible that Diodotus II aided Arsaces in his victory over Seleucus. However, as mentioned already, details of the battle are silent, but there is an interesting passage written by Athenaeus in his Deipnosophists that speaks of Seleucus and “how he came against Media, and warred against Arsaces, and was taken prisoner by the barbarian, and how be remained a long time in captivity to Arsaces, being treated like a king.”
Frontispiece to the 1657 edition of the Deipnosophists, edited by Isaac Casaubon, in Greek and Latin. (Public Domain)
Athenaeus’ reference came from Posidonius (135-51 BCE). A further backing of Seleucus’ imprisonment is due to coins. Earlier coins that portray Seleucus before the invasion of Parthia depict a clean-shaven and well-kept Seleucus, while the later coins depict him with a beard like that of the Parthians. According to Polybius, “Seleucus surnamed Callinicus (glorious victory) or Pogon (bearded).” The coins depicting Seleucus and Polybius passage inform that Seleucus adopted the two epithets before and after capture. How long Seleucus remained in Parthia is unknown, but it is evident that he was freed and died sometime around 226/5 BCE.
How long Seleucus II was imprisoned will continue to be disputed, but what is known is that the Parthians, possibly aided by the Bactrians under Diodotus II, defeated Seleucus. He had no other choice but to lick his wounds and sign a treaty that recognized the authority of Arsaces as the rightful ruler of an independent Parthia not subject to Seleucid rule. The historian Justin says, “The Parthians observe the day on which it was gained with great solemnity, as the date of the commencement of their liberty.” How the Parthians observed their independence day is unknown, as well are the remaining years of Arsaces’ reign.
LONG LOST BROTHER
There is one issue, not yet addressed: Arsaces’ brother, Tiridates. Photius and Syncellus provide the only two sources that mention Tiridates.
A depiction of what is believed to be Tiridates I (Public Domain)
However, their accounts of Arsaces and Tiridates are amalgamated with older stories. One being that of King Darius I of Persia, while the other is similar to the founding of Rome. Photius says, “These two brothers, with five accomplices, slew Pherecles.” Seven men partook in the assassination of Pherecles (Andragoras) when you include Arsaces and Tiridates involvement. This is similar to the account of Darius who seized the Persian throne with the help from six others when they slew the imposter named Gaumata.
Syncellus says, “After two years Arsaces was killed, and his brother Teridates succeeded him as king, for 37 years.” Syncellus’ account is similar to the story and Romulus’ murder of Remus. Moreover, even Justin mentions the memory of Romulus as in a memorable comparison to Arsaces’ foundation of the Arsacid Dynasty:
“Thus Arsaces, having at once acquired and established a kingdom, and having become no less memorable among the Parthians than Cyrus among the Persians, Alexander among the Macedonians, or Romulus among the Romans, died at a mature old age”
Unlike Syncellus, Justin is a much older source that does not mention Arsaces dying at an early age. Moreover, Justin does not mention that Arsaces had a brother. What Justin does indicate is that Arsaces lived to be a ripe old age. If one were to take Syncellus’ account as true, what memory would the Parthian people have of a man who reigned for two years?
The sources that mention Tiridates are not in error, rather Syncellus is more likely in error suggesting that Arsaces reigned for two years and was murdered by his own brother. There is no doubt that Arsaces did have a brother by the name of Tiridates, but proof of that brother remind elusive until 1955, when an interesting Ostracon (pottery or stone piece with script), no. 2638 was found at the former Parthian capital of Nisa. However, the photos taken remained unknown to the world until 1986, when archaeologist S.D. Loginov (Institute of History, Turkmenistan Academy of Sciences) found them among the South-Turkmenistan archive.
Ostrakon of Cimon, an Athenian statesman, showing his name (as “Kimon [son] of Miltiades”) Representational image only. (CC BY-SA 2.5)
Once the inscriptions were translated, they gave a completely different picture of the Arsacid genealogy: ‘rsk MLK’ BRY BR[Y ZY pryp]tk BRY ‘HY BR[Y ZY] ‘rsk. When translated into English it reads, “Year 157, Arsak king, grandson Friyapatak’a. son of the nephew of Arsak’a.” The year 157 does not mean 157 BCE; rather it means 157 of the Arsacid era, which would be our 91 BCE.
Notice that three names or three kings are mentioned; the first being Arsaces, the next being his son Arsaces II, and the third, Friyapatak’a, who renamed himself Arsaces III once he ascended the throne. Notice as well that there is no mentioning of a Tiridates. This does not mean that Tiridates never existed, but what it does indicate is that Tiridates was never a king. Moreover, Friyapatak’a may in fact be Tiridates’ grandson, which would make him the great-nephew of Arsaces I.
After the imprisonment and release of Seleucus II, Arsaces’ rule over Parthia remained peaceful up until his death in 211 BCE. Afterwards, his son Arsaces II inherited the throne and a new threat as well.
Seleucus II died before Arsaces. He is said to have fallen from his horse around 226/5 BCE. Seleucus III inherited his father’s throne, only to be murdered after a short reign of three years, in 223 BCE. The person next up for the job was Antiochus III, the younger brother of Seleucus III. The future was in his hands.
Top Image: A rock-carved relief of Mithridates I of Parthia (r. c. 171–138 BC), seen riding on horseback. The Parthian rulers used the ancient Iranian art of Rock relief to mark the foundation of their new empire. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Bottom Image: The silver drachma of Arsaces I of Parthia (r. c. 247–211 BC) (Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. http://www.cngcoins.com / CC BY-SA 3.0) and the Parthian fortress of Nisa (Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0)
By Cam Rea
References
Arrian. Parthica, original Greek and English translation in F.A. Lepper, Trajan’s Parthian War. London: Oxford University Press, 1948.
Ashrafian, Hutan. “Limb gigantism, neurofibromatosis and royal heredity in the Ancient World 2500 years ago: Achaemenids and Parthians.” Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery Volume 64, Issue 4 , 2011: 557.
Athenaeus of Naucratis, translated by Charles Duke Yonge. The Deipnosophists, or, Banquet of the learned of Athenaeus, Volume 1. Oxford: Henry G. Bohn, 1854.
Bivar, A. D. H. The Personalities of Mithra in Archaeology and Literature. New York: Bibliotheca Persica Press, 1998.
Charax, Isidore of. Parthian Stations.
Ctesias, and Jan P. Stronk. Ctesias’ Persian history. Düsseldorf: Wellem, 2010.
Curtis, Vesta Sarkhosh and Sarah Stewart. The Age of the Parthians The Idea of Iran Volume II. London: I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd, 2007.
Frye, Richard. The Heritage of Persia. New York: New York: New American Library; New English Library, 1966.
Gankovskiĭ, IUriĭ Vladimirovich. The Peoples of Pakistan: An Ethnic History. Lahore: People’s Pub. House, 1971.
Grainger, John D. The Rise of the Seleukid Empire (323-223 BC): Seleukos I to Seleukos III. Barnsley: Pen & Sword , 2014.
Green, Peter. Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age. University of California Press, 1993.
Herodotus. The Histories.
Holt, Frank Lee. Thundering Zeus: The Making of Hellenistic Bactria . Berkeley Calif: Univ. of California Press, 1999.
Justinus, Marcus Janianus. Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, Trans. John Selby Watson. London: Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Convent Garden, 1853.
Lerner, Jeffery D. The Impact of Seleucid Decline on the Eastern Plateau. Stuttgart: Steiner , 1999.
Polybius. Evelyn S. Shuckburgh. translator. London, New York. Macmillan. 1889. Reprint Bloomington 1962. Histories. London, New York. : Macmillan. Reprint Bloomington, 1889. 1962.
Potts, D.T. Nomadism in Iran: From Antiquity to the Modern Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Ptolemy. Geography.
Sachs, A. “Achaemenid Royal Names in Babylonian Astronomical Texts.” American Journal of Ancient History 4, 1979: 131.
Sidky, H. The Greek Kingdom of Bactria: From Alexander to Eucratides the Great. Lanham, Md: University Press of America, 2000.
Syncellus. In Roos, A. G. (ed.), Flavii Arriani quae exstant omnia. v.2. Scripta minora et fragmenta. Adiectae sunt tres tabulae geographicae et fragmentum Papyri 1284 Societatis Italianae. Leipzig: Teubner, 1967.
Todman, Don. “Warts and the Kings of Parthia: An Ancient Representation of Hereditary Neurofibromatosis Depicted in Coins.” Journal Of The History Of The Neurosciences 17, no. 2, April 2008: 141-146.
Wilson, N. G. Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece . New York: Routledge, 2006.
The storm was on the horizon and it was time to pay financially, for King Menahem gave a thousand talents of silver (about 37 tons, or 34 metric tons, of silver) toTiglath-pileser by extracting 50 shekels from each wealthy man. An enormous 60,000 citizens of wealth gave up their money to the Assyrian coffers. This makes one wonder how many poor people in turn had to repay those wealthy citizens for their lost monies.
After receiving his tribute, Tiglath-pileser left the outskirts of Israel, leaving the kingdom intact and still in the hands of Menahem. One can only speculate if this was a one-time tribute deal, or it was performed multiple times, year after year. In either case, Menahem had just made his kingdom look impotent before the king of Assyria.
Menahem was a king of the northern Israelite Kingdom of Israel. (Public Domain)
King Menahem remained on the throne six more years before he died. His son Pekahiah took the throne and reigned for only two years before he was murdered inside the palace by Pekah and 50 Gileadites in Samaria (II Kings 15:23-26). It seems Pekah murdered Pekahiah because he had continued to let Assyria dominate Israel. This made the people of Israel mad, and the result was a murdered king by a man of the military. The prophet Hosea mentions many reasons as to why Israel acted the way it and these four verses sum up the situation well.
They have set up kings, but not by me:
they have made princes, and I knew it not:
of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.
I know Ephraim, and Israel is not hid from me: for now, O Ephraim, thou committest whoredom, and Israel is defiled.
I have seen an horrible thing in the house of Israel: there is the whoredom of Ephraim, Israel is defiled.
Rejoice not, O Israel, for joy, as other people: for thou hast gone a whoring from thy God, thou hast loved a reward upon every cornfloor.
Israel was in a state of revolt both politically and spiritually and there is no way out for them, except the way of the sword:
They are all hot as an oven, and have devoured their judges; all their kings are fallen: there is none among them that calleth unto me.– Hosea 7:7
King Pekah quickly made an alliance with King Rezin of Damascus. This move indicated that Pekah was cutting the Assyrian yoke from Israel’s neck. Pekah also went to the Edomites and the Philistines for their support of a joint coalition to stop Tiglath-pileser from further expansion into their respective territories. In a way, this alliance was really an attempt to counter-balance the Assyrian power to the east. Pekah may have sent emissaries to King Jotham at the time, asking him to join the alliance against Assyria, but we have no word of it, and one can only speculate.
It seems that Jotham would have known of this alliance but decided not to join it, and probably for good reason. Jotham may have questioned why fight two enemies when I can easily just face one? There was no telling what Israel and Syria had in store, for Judah was not popular with either Israel or Syria. This might be the reason for the attack on Judah by King Pekah and King Rezin.
When King Jotham died, his son Ahaz took the throne but, unlike his father, it’s written Yahweh considered King Ahaz an evil king for worshipping ‘other’ gods (he even passed his own children through the fire to Baal). Israel and Syria then invaded Judah, most likely to set up a puppet King. The man whom they wanted in power was the son of Tabeal; he was possibly also a Syrian (Isaiah 7:6). If the placing of this ‘king’ were accomplished it would give the family of Tabeal reason to join them, and to unify in the war against Assyria. This invasion into Judah by the combined forces of Israel and Syria is discussed in the books of II King 16:5-6 & II Chronicles 28:5-9.
King Rezin of Syria attacked Judah first. As King Rezin was moving his forces south, he began pillaging the local villages on his way and most likely destroyed or occupied the garrisons on the eastern borders of Judah. He also took captives until he reached Elath on the Gulf of Aqaba, an area connected to the Red Sea. The King’s Highway ran through Elath.
King’s Highway (red), and other ancient Levantine trade routes, c. 1300 BCE (CC BY-SA 3.0)
The King’s Highway, in ancient times, started from Heliopolis, Egypt. The road continued through Elath and progressed forward, hugging the borders of eastern Judah and Israel. It then climbed its way up to Damascus and from there went on to Resafa, located on the upper Euphrates. This was a tactical military highway mentioned in the book of Numbers 20:17 & 21:22, and King Rezin now controlled it. This meant that the king of Syria could now deploy his forces up and down the eastern borders of Israel and Judah and allowed King Rezin the upper hand over Judah, in tactical terms.
While King Rezin battled, King Ahaz of Judah most likely assembled his forces and sent them against the Syrian attacker to retake the city of Elath. Nevertheless, the forces of King Ahaz came under attack from the forces of King Pekah of Israel who possibly also had the use of Syrian forces. In that engagement, the forces of King Pekah killed 120,000 men of Judah (men of King Ahaz) in one day and captured 200,000. The capture of 200,000 people was most likely over time, and not in one day as some may speculate and even suggest (II Chronicles 28:6).
After the battle, King Ahaz returned to Jerusalem to seal up the gates and prepare for a siege. But before this happened, it was most likely that he immediately sent messengers with treasure from the house of the Lord, as a gift to the king of Assyria. By doing this, he had just made the kingdom of Judah a vassal of the Assyrian Empire (II Kings 16:7-8). King Ahaz had ignored the prophet Isaiah and ignored the warnings about trusting Assyria for help. Ahaz had just created a bigger burden than that which was outside Jerusalem’s gate besieging the city. The forces of Israel and Syria besieged the city of Jerusalem. It is unknown as to how long the siege of Jerusalem lasted, but we know that it could not have taken long, for II Chronicles 28:20 mentions that the Tiglath-pileser was on his way.
Assyrian troops attacking a besieged city using a battering ram on a siege ramp. Enemy archers are returning fire. Headless corpses lie at the foot of the city walls. (Public Domain)
Shortly after the siege lifted, two more enemies of the Syrian-Israelite alliance came forth for their share. In II Chronicles 28:17-19, the Edomites came to pillage and take captives in the surrounding countryside of Judah while the invading Philistines took many cities and villages. The event stripped Judah naked and left it to rot in the sun.
In II Chronicles 28:5 & 28:9, mentions the captives which Syria and Israel took back to their kingdoms. What is interesting is that II Chronicles 28:5 & 28:9 describe a brief scenario regarding the siege of Jerusalem, which was lifted in haste due to the Assyrian war machine approaching fast to the kingdoms of Israel and Syria. Kings Pekah and Rezin meanwhile had returned quickly to their capitals with their spoils and captives to prepare their defenses.
Damascus
Around 734 BCE, Tiglath-pileser III was at the head of his army when they entered Syria on their way to besiege Damascus (II Kings 16:9). King Rezin of Syria and his army would meet the Assyrian forces head on.
Assyrian attack on a town with archers and a wheeled battering ram, 865–860 BC. (Public Domain)
Details about the battle are unknown, but what is known is that King Rezin almost lost his life in the battle and quickly fled back to Damascus with remnants of his army. Once the gates were shut, the siege was on. This event mentioned by Tiglath-pileser on his inscriptions state:
That one (Rezin of Damascus) fled alone to save his life— and like a mouse he entered the gate of his city. His nobles I captured alive with my own hands, and hanged them on stakes and let his land gaze on them. 45 soldiers of my camp— I selected, and like a bird in a cage I shut him up. His gardens and— plantations without number I cut down, not one escaped—.
Tiglath-pileser boasts that he destroyed 591 cities in Syria and took many captive back into Assyria, with the possibility of the inclusion of Jews that were previously taken captive by King Rezin when he invaded Judah and besieged Jerusalem along with King Pekah of Israel. Tiglath-pileser says:
Hadaru the house of the father of Rezin of Syria where he was born, I besieged, I captured… captives I carried off. 16 districts of Syria I destroyed like mounds left by a flood.
The siege took two years to complete, and it is most likely that during the siege Tiglath-pileser assembled and sent his forces to the regions conspiring against Assyria. It is uncertain if he stayed with his army at the siege of Damascus, spearheaded the invasion into Israel, or attacked along the coastline of Palestine. We do know that two Assyrian armies were sent to subdue and incorporate the regions hostile to Assyria. From Damascus, the Assyrian army forked out like a snake’s tongue.
Assyrian chariot with charioteer and archer protected from enemy attack by shield bearers. Assyrian relief from Nineveh. Alabaster relief, made about 650 BC. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
To the Coast!
While part of the Assyrian army was busy fighting in Syria, Tiglath-pileser sent another army to spearhead an attack and subdue the every-so-often rebellious Phoenician cities, along with the Philistines on the coastline of the Levant. The Assyrians captured the cities of Sumer, Arka, Byblos, and Sidon. Next was Tyre, forcing them to pay tribute, and give part of their population over as captives. The Assyrian army continued to march south, sacking Accho and burning it to ashes. Next was Dor, a port city of the tribe of Manasseh (Joshua 17:11), then Aphek a city belonging to the tribe of Asher (Joshua 19:30-31). The Assyrian army also destroyed the Philistine cities of Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Gaza, and continued until it reached the river El Arish that borders Egypt. Tiglath-pileser mentions “Hanno of Gaza fled before my weapons.”
Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia c. 1450 BC (Public Domain)
It seems that by taking the coastline, the Assyrians were cutting Israel off from their Phoenician allies, preventing them from fleeing by across water. This coastal takeover by Assyria almost certainly had an economic impact. Many Phoenician cities along with the Israelite cities on the coast were destroyed or occupied by the invading force. Because of Assyrian depredations, many of the surrounding nations (whether free or vassal to Assyria) now depended on Assyria for their economic prosperity as well as military security.After Tiglath-pileser campaign through the Levant was finished, he headed home. In 727 BCE, Tiglath-pileser died at his grand palace in Nineveh. His son Ulylaya would succeed him and his throne name would be Shalmaneser V. Tiglath-pileser came from obscure origins but his impact upon the reconstruction of Assyria was paramount on both domestic and foreign affairs and his ability to lead men into battle demonstrated his charisma and leadership both on and off the battlefield. Overall, Tiglath-pileser was a capable general and king who is sometimes forgotten in the annals of military history.
Illustration of an Assyrian High Priest and an Assyrian King. (Public Domain)
Top Image: Deriv; Head of winged bull, 9th c. BC, Assyrian (Public Domain) and bronze relief decorated the gate at the palace of the Assyrian ruler Shalmanesar III (Public Domain)
By Cam Rea
References
Caiger, Stephen L., Bible and Spade: An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology.
Gordon, Cyrus H., The Ancient Near East.
Mackenzie, Donald A., Myths of Babylonia and Assyria.
Redford, Donald B., Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times.
Roaf, Michael, Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East.
Rogers, Robert William, A History of Babylonia and Assyria: Volume Two.
Roux, Georges, Ancient Iraq.
Sayce, Assyria: its Princes, Priests, and People.
Stern, Ephraim, Archeology of the land of the Bible: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian periods, 732-332 BCE Vol II.
Sykes, Percy, A History of Persia.
Yalichev, Serge, Mercenaries of the Ancient World.
![[Top] Gold vessels, Achaemenid; 5th century BC (CC BY 2.0) [Bottom] and with twelve-petaled rosettes - Achaemenid gold, Persepolis, 550-330 BC](https://i0.wp.com/members.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/gold-vessels.jpg?w=525&ssl=1)
![Coin of Arsaces I of Parthia. The reverse shows a seated archer carrying a bow. A Greek inscription on the right reads ΑΡΣΑΚ[ΟΥ] (from the outside). The inscription below the bow is in Aramaic.](https://i0.wp.com/members.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/Arsaces-I-of-Parthia.jpg?w=525&ssl=1)
![Ostrakon of Cimon, an Athenian statesman, showing his name (as "Kimon [son] of Miltiades") Representational image only.](https://i0.wp.com/members.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/Ostrakon-of-Cimon.jpg?w=525&ssl=1)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
