Tag: Gold

Posted on

Alexander the Great and The Business of War – Part 2

“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

Famous Alexander Mosaic, showing Battle of Issus. Alexander is depicted mounted, on the left (Public Domain)

[Read Part I]

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

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

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.

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.

Entry of Alexander into Babylon

Entry of Alexander into Babylon (Public Domain)

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.

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

[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.

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.

Ulvog, Jim. “Guess on the Value of All Loot Taken by Alexander the Great.” July 15, 2016. Accessed January 3, 2017. https://attestationupdate.com/2016/07/15/guess-on-the-value-of-all-loot-taken-by-alexander-the-great/.

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.

Posted on

Alexander the Great and The Business of War – Part 1

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.

A bust of Alexander the Great

A bust of Alexander the Great (CC BY-ND 2.0)

The War Business

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.

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.

Aristotle tutoring Alexander.

Aristotle tutoring Alexander. (Public Domain)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ruins of the Tachara, Persepolis.

Ruins of the Tachara, Persepolis. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

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.

Bull capital at Persepolis.

Bull capital at Persepolis. (CC BY 2.0)

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.

Gate of All Nations, Persepolis.

Gate of All Nations, Persepolis. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

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)

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.

Diodorus Siculus 70. 1-3.

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.

Ulvog, Jim. “Guess on the Value of All Loot Taken by Alexander the Great.” July 15, 2016. Accessed January 3, 2017. https://attestationupdate.com/2016/07/15/guess-on-the-value-of-all-loot-taken-by-alexander-the-great/.

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.

Posted on

Madyes: Master of Asia, Historical Enigma

Top Image: Deriv; Man With Cap, Probably Scythian, Bamiyan 3-4th Century (PHGCOM/CC BY-SA 3.0) and Gold Scythian neckpiece (FreeArtLicence)

Madyes, the mysterious Scythian stepped onto the world stage. There is not a great deal of information about him, nor has his name turned up in any of the Assyrian tablets. Herodotus and Strabo are the only two writers who mention him other than Arrian, who refers to him as “Idanthyrsus.”

Herodotus provides the most information about Madyes. Most historians have read and used Herodotus’ work for their research in dealing with this matter. But what if Herodotus was wrong? This would not be a new statement by any means nor is it to meant to demean Herodotus’ work. So let us look at Herodotus’ chronology from the Scythian invasion to the massacre of the Scythians by Cyaxares.
According to Herodotus, Madyes was the son of Bartatua (Protothyes) but there is no concrete evidence for this even though some suggest he is the son of Bartatua and the Assyrian Princess. Unfortunately, no evidence says Esarhaddon handed over his daughter in marriage. That is not to say it is not possible, but it has a high likelihood of being improbable.

Herodotus tells us that Madyes “burst into Asia in pursuit of the Cimmerians whom they had driven out of Europe, and entered the Median territory.” This seems to be true to a certain extent, except for the fact that Madyes drove the Cimmerians from the battle into Europe rather than from Europe into Asia and not in the migratory sense. The sources provided by Herodotus and Strabo, along with Ashurbanipal’s inscriptions, do attest that Dugdammi’s defeat was by an outside element close to his borders and of the same ethnic stock, as both Herodotus and Strabo provide. Therefore, either Ashurbanipal paid for Madyes’ services or it is true that Bartatua married an Assyrian princess to strengthen Assyrian-Scythian relations through Bartatua’s son, Madyes. Madyes would become king of the Scythians and most likely was the nephew of Esarhaddon and cousin to Ashurbanipal, if this is true.

Now, Madyes was not king of all the Scythians, Umman-manda, or Cimmerians. However, it does seem that Madyes had a large army and possibly many provinces. His influence proved effective enough to sway Assyrian politics, as Bartatua had done to a certain degree. After Madyes took his father’s throne, Ashurbanipal may have asked him to deal with Dugdammi. Thus, according to Herodotus, Madyes defeated and chased the remaining forces of Dugdammi out of Asia and into Europe.
Herodotus goes on to say, “The Scythians, having thus invaded Media, were opposed by the Medes, who gave them battle, but, being defeated, lost their empire. The Scythians became masters of Asia.” After Madyes effectively defeated Dugdammi in 639 BCE, he thus sets off to conquer the eastern half of Dugdammi’s empire. The eastern half of Dugdammi’s empire would be the regions of Media and Mannea. Thus, the Scythians under Madyes took full control of Dugdammi’s empire. Therefore, to say, “The Scythians became masters of Asia” is incorrect and correct. It is incorrect to say the Scythians are the masters when they already had been, under Dugdammi, but it is correct to say the Scythians and other nomads have a new master by the name of Madyes.

The Scythians continued to push on conquering, for Herodotus states:

After this they marched forward with the design of invading Egypt. When they had reached Palestine, however, Psammetichus the Egyptian king met them with gifts and prayers, and prevailed on them to advance no further.

When Psammetichus became king of Egypt in 664 BCE, Assyria still held a tight grip over the country, which he was able to shake off over time, allowing him to reunite Egypt. Ashurbanipal could do little about the events transpiring in Egypt, since his borders were already buckling under pressure from systematic warfare with neighboring states. Thus, Ashurbanipal effectively pulled out of Egyptian affairs. Whether he removed Assyrian troops out of Egypt is a matter of debate, for the Assyrian inscriptions are silent on this matter, other than some reliefs that depict the issues going on in Egypt.

Assyrian troops would pull out of Philistia and the northern portions of what used to be the Northern Kingdom of Israel around 640 BCE. With Assyrian troops effectively gone from the region, Psammetichus moved into Philistia around 640 BCE, while King Josiah of Judah pushed north to retrieve the remnants of Israel shortly after 630 BCE. As for the Scythian invasion of Palestine, the year remains uncertain, but some suggest 626 BCE or shortly after.

The reason for the Scythian invasion of Palestine seems to be due in part to the destabilization of the Assyrian Empire shortly after Ashurbanipal’s death in 631 BCE. This led to the rise of his son Ashur-etil-ilani. Ashur-etil-ilani’s reign would be very short and much undocumented. Ashur-etil-ilani would be deposed of in 627 BCE by a usurper named Sin-shumu-lishir, who reigned on the throne for a year or less. With this transfer of power through what looks to be a coup d’état, the Assyrian Empire was fractured and open to foreign conquest.

Egypt at that time had been spreading its sphere of influence throughout Palestine, but how much land they controlled the further they pushed north remains unknown. It seems possible that when Sinsharishkun recaptured the throne in 626 BCE, he sent messengers to the Scythians and Cimmerians to check the Egyptian advancement. But once the Scythians arrived on the scene they were paid off by the Pharaoh, as Herodotus mentions. Another alternative as to why the Scythians may have pressed on into Palestine is that they felt the pressure of the Egyptian advancement northward. Remember, the Scythians had hegemony over the lands to the north of Palestine and felt the need to attack or at least check out their new neighbor. If so, then the Egyptians must have made an impression, for they paid off the Scythians with either a handsome gift or tribute.

Herodotus’ description shows that the Egyptians were weak in terms of military power but were rich in treasure, and therefore were able to bribe the Scythians from pillaging or conquest. In doing this, the Egyptians had exposed themselves, admitting their vulnerability, but at the same time showed their value. Treasure defeated the potential threat and allowed Egypt to carry on unopposed from the nomadic north to fight another day. The amount of money given to the Scythians must have been great, but some decided to pillage “the temple of Celestial Aphrodite” at Ascalon, where “female sickness” overcame some few of the greedy. Those suffering from the curse would be deemed, “Enarees.”

Many do not accept the Scythian invasion of Palestine, finding the “female sickness” too similar to the story found in the book of I Samuel of how the Philistines got hemorrhoids in the same area that the Scythians would pass through later on. Tales can be intermingled over time. Another argument is that the Scythians were Assyrian mercenary troops assigned to certain posts to guard Assyria’s interests and borders. This I agree with somewhat, as indicated earlier, for Assyria had pulled out of the region before the invasion took place, while others just outright reject the whole invasion. However, I do think the Scythians really did invade Palestine, for “female sickness” is our clue.

Female sickness, according to Herodotus created Enarees. The Enarees were women-like men who were soothsayers or prophets who received training from the goddess Aphrodite. These Enarees were not homosexual or transvestite, but rather transsexual, as implied by the Roman poet Ovid. Ovid tells us that these Enarees were young boys who had been castrated and says, “Ah me, that you, neither man nor woman, serve the lady; you who can’t know the mutual delights of Venus! Whoever first cut off a boy’s genitals, that one, who made the wound, should suffer it himself.” Ovid, in book 1 section 8 of the Amores, explains further concerning the process of male to female transsexual gender change. “She’s a witch, mutters magical cantrips, can make rivers run uphill, knows the best aphrodisiacs – When to use herbal brews, or the whirring bullroarer, How to extract that stuff from a mare in heat.” The women are really men, and the urine that mares in heat produced allowed them to look more feminine, as Ovid explains. He tells the men to avoid this, and states, “Put no faith in herbals and potions, abjure the deadly stuff distilled by a mare in heat.” This deadly stuff is mare’s urine. The urine from a pregnant mare is high in estrogen levels and helps males develop female sexual characteristics.
Herodotus is partially right in his statement that the Scythians pillage the temple of Aphrodite at Ascalon. Nevertheless, the temple of Aphrodite Herodotus mentions most likely was the temple of the goddess Atargatis, where emasculation was practiced among the cult followers.
The followers of Atargatis, particularly men, would dance to the music and work themselves into a frenzy of wild behavior. During the music and orgies, from among the onlookers of the frenzy, a young man taken up in the emotions of the frenzy would strip off his clothes, pick up a sword, and make a loud shout in the midst of the crowd, then castrate himself before the onlookers. Then he would run through the streets carrying his testicles in hand and from whatever house he threw his testicles in, he would receive women’s garb to wear in order to join the temple priesthood of Atargatis.
Notice that the priesthood of Atargatis is similar to the soothsayers and prophets of the Scythians. Both are castrated, both dress as women and have woman-like features. Thus, the few Scythians that pillaged the city or temple of Ascalon may not have pillaged the temple at all, but might have been caught up in the Atargatis cult. A few, if not all who were there, castrated themselves and brought the practice home, and Herodotus and many others would describe this later on. Therefore, the Scythian invasion of Palestine is proved by these two descriptions of the adoption of a local religious practice.

Besides the Scythian invasion of Palestine, Herodotus continues to explain that the Scythians went on to become masters of Media for the next twenty-eight years. That rule would end when Cyaxares invited the leaders to a banquet, rendered them defenseless by getting them drunk with wine and massacred them. Afterward, the Medes regained their empire.
Herodotus says that King Madyes reigned for those twenty-eight years, but I doubt it. If Madyes reigned for twenty–eight years, he would have to start at the death of Dugdammi, which was around 640/39 BCE, and when you subtract twenty-eight years we come to either 612/11 BCE as the year of Madyes death. But if we take The Fall of Nineveh Chronicle into account, then Madyes would have to have died much earlier, because the first time we read of Cyaxares is in The Fall of Nineveh Chronicle, and according to its chronology, Cyaxares arrived on the scene in 614 BCE. Thus, Madyes was dead and his reign over Asia after defeating Dugdammi did not last twenty-eight years as Herodotus says. Therefore, Cyaxares was free to go about his business in Asia unopposed as no Scythian threat seems near or far, and it could be argued that the Scythians, who did not oppose Cyaxares, joined his forces.

Whether or not the Scythians controlled the whole of Asia for twenty-eight years is true to some extent if you consider Dugdammi and add the reign of Madyes; then you have twenty-eight years and more. Now, this is not to say Herodotus is wrong, but if one considers that from the time Nineveh fell in 612 BCE to the Battle of the Eclipse or Halys, then you would get twenty-eight years. The notion of the Medes led by Cyaxares conquering a portion of Anatolia while bringing on the downfall of Urartu may in fact have been an invention of Herodotus.

Robert Rollinger’s paper, The Median “Empire”, the End of Urartu and Cyrus’ the Great Campaign in 547 B.C. (Nabonidus Chronicle II 16), makes a great argument that it was not the Medes who made their presence felt in Anatolia, but rather the Babylonians. This is shown in the inscription provided from The Fall of Nineveh Chronicle during the seventeenth year (609 BCE) of Nabopolassar’s reign:

The king of Akkad went to help his army and … [ … ] he went up [to] Izalla and / the numerous cities in the mountains … [ … ] he set fire to their [ … ] / At that time the army of [ … ] / [ma]rched / as far as the district of Urartu. / In the land … [ … ] they plundered their [ … ].

The Babylonians in 608-607 BCE continued to attack Urartu and the surrounding area including eastern Anatolia, and according to the inscriptions, acted alone, without the help from the Medes, during the eighteenth year of Nabopolassar’s reign. Overall, The Fall of Nineveh Chronicle supports a Babylonian domination of the north, including portions of eastern Anatolia. This does not mean that the Babylonians occupied or controlled the lands mentioned;, rather they are the only ones named as having conducted military activities in the areas and having some influence over the regions for a time. At least until the arrival of Cyrus the Great in which the Nabonidus Chronicle mentions that in 547 BCE Cyrus attacked and conquered the Kingdom of Urartu, leaving behind a garrison to watch over his newly acquired territory.
Therefore, I agree with Rollinger’s conclusion concerning Herodotus and the Halys River in which he states, “Herodotus’ image of the Median “Empire” has been modeled to a high degree on the Achaemenid Empire and the Halys border seems to be a much later invention.”

Beside the twenty-eight year domination by the Scythians, Herodotus goes on further to say:

The dominion of the Scythians over Asia lasted eight-and-twenty years, during which time their insolence and oppression spread ruin on every side. For besides the regular tribute, they exacted from the several nations additional imposts, which they fixed at pleasure; and further, they scoured the country and plundered every one of whatever they could.

This description is usual applied to Madyes. However, Herodotus may be attributing to Maydes acts described in the passage carried out by someone else, such as Dugdammi. Assyrian sources remain silent about Madyes and the troubles that came with him.

If Madyes did do the things that Herodotus suggests, whom did it affect? The civilizations of Mesopotamia and Palestine, particularly Judah, seem to have escaped this ransacking. Egypt did pay a fee to the Scythians during what would have been the rule of Madyes. However, if we consider Dugdammi, mentioned in Assyrian sources, then we may have a case, for the Assyrians feared Dugdammi and it seems if anyone could get Assyria to pay tribute, Dugdammi would have been the person to do so. But even the Assyrians mention Dugdammi paying tribute to them. Therefore, I would suggest that the statement made by Herodotus is in fact much broader than he realized. In other words, if you consider the Scythians and Cimmerians from Esarhaddon to Ashurbanipal, you will find these nomadic peoples raiding and pillaging whoever they can whether it is Assyria, Lydia, or others in their vicinity. This is not to say Herodotus is wrong, but rather he is right in one sense and that is the Scythians and Cimmerians did in fact, regardless of the leader mentioned or not, before Madyes, pillage and raid. Madyes is not the pillager who is forcing tribute with ease as Herodotus tells.

As for the Scythian dominion that Herodotus speaks of, I do question whether the Scythians ruled as a single entity. It seems more plausible that they controlled Asia, not as a centralized united empire, but rather as a loose tribal community that goes about their own business, unless an outside element threatens their pastures and way of life. Consider the Assyrian inscriptions earlier in the book: the Assyrians name names, but none of chieftains seem to hold a firm grip on their own people, other than those tribes who are sympathetic to rebellion against Assyria. Once again, the only true Scythian king, according to Assyrian sources, was Dugdammi, but I am skeptical about Madyes kingship over the nomadic peoples.

During the Scythian-Cimmerian presence in Asia, most of the conquered or neighboring peoples would adopt the manners and customs of the Scythians and Cimmerians. The Assyrians, Babylonians, and others may have sent selected trainees to go to the Scythians to learn certain military skills, such as with bows and arrows, much desired by the regional powers, particularly Assyria, and then Babylonia. Thus, Scythianization became the trend from Asia Minor to the Indus valley and from the Caucasus to the Persian Gulf for twenty-eight or more years. Once King Madyes died, Cyaxares hosted a banquet and invited the many Scythian chieftains, possibly in order to debate who should be king. However, the question remains, why did Cyaxares go on to massacre them?

Cyaxares invited Scythians of noble status and possibly many others, including those of non-Scythian birth. Every nomadic nation within the confines of the loosely held Scythian confederation was invited to dine and debate. As for the massacre, not everyone at the banquet was murdered.
I would suggest that the only people targeted were those that supported a continuation of an alliance with Assyria, or would protect Assyria in a time of crisis. This would be due to treaties and loyalty oaths that may have been undertaken when Madyes was alive and Assyria needed extra help in dealing with Dugdammi. The massacre that took place does not mean that Cyaxares hated the Scythian lords, but rather their continued policy of supporting the Assyrians. Remember, Cyaxares had no blood ties with the country, nor treaties or oaths to tie him to the Assyrians. Cyaxares most likely understood that a continued alliance with Assyria was dangerous due to its history of instability with neighboring countries.

There is an alternative to consider concerning the massacre: fratricide. This may be farfetched speculation, but Cyaxares actually may have been killing his brothers or cousins to acquire the throne of Madyes. Therefore, it is possible that the father of Cyaxares was Madyes.

With a weakened Assyria stumbling around due to all the previous conflicts conducted by Ashurbanipal, the time was right for war. Once the personages of power who supported Assyria were removed, Cyaxares drove out the remainder who escaped execution. The forces of Cyaxares must have been in hot pursuit of those who did not yield to his rule. Cyaxares was in charge with no real threat to challenge him since both Madyes and Ashurbanipal were now dead. Cyaxares most likely thanked the gods that these “two birds” had been killed with one stone.

By Cam Rea

References

Arrian. Anabasis Alexandri (Books V-VII) Indica (Book VIII). Translated by E. Iliff Robson. Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard University Press, 1966.

Cernenko, Dr. E.V. The Scythians 700-300 BCE

Glassner, Jean-Jacques and Benjamin R. Foster. Mesopotamian Chronicles. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004.

Herodotus. The Histories.

Ivantchik, Askold I. Les Cimmeriens au Proche-Orient

Kristensen, Anne. Who were the Cimmerians, and where did they come from? Copenhagen: Det kongelige Danske videnskabernes selskab, 1988.

Morkot, Robert. Historical Dictionary of Ancient Egyptian Warfare. Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press, 2003.

Na’aman, Nadav. “Chronology and History in the Late Assyrian Empire 631-619 BC.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, 1991: 81:243-267.

Rea, Cam March of the Scythians: From Sargon II to the Fall of Nineveh

Robert Drews, Early Riders: The Beginnings of Mounted Warfare in Asia and Europe

Saggs, H.W.F. The Might that was Assyria

Stern, Ephraim. Archaeology of the land of the Bible: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian periods, 732-332 BCE Vil II. New York: Doubleday, 2001.

Tsestkhladze, Gocha R. Ancient Greeks West and East: edited by Gocha R. Tsetskhladze. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Posted on

Soldier of Fortune: Glory Days for Sir John Hawkwood, King of Mercenaries

 

 

Sir John Hawkwood was born into a life on the English countryside that was business and rebellion. From an early age, he sought power and influence outside of England’s borders. He showed off his battle skills in the Hundred Years War and won a knighthood from England’s king.

Hawkwood the man was indeed an interesting character: a brilliant tactician, and an equally brilliant politician, but in his life, he would terrorize Italy with armies and bands of mercenaries, amass a great fortune, and cement his place in history as the most famous Anglo-Italian mercenary.

Engraving representing John Hawkwood.

Engraving representing John Hawkwood. (Public Domain)

Beginnings of Business

Hawkwood was born around 1320, in the parish of Hinckford, Essex, which is located in the north-central region of the county. Essex County was known for its farming and sheep; it had a thriving business sector that produced cloth and exported raw wool. Essex also produced anti-authoritarianism. In 1381, the people revolted against the crown in a large social uprising. The county of Essex in the 14th century was indeed a business class society that did not take well to authority. This attitude harbored by the locals may have influenced the young Hawkwood early on in his life.

John was the youngest child of Gilbert de Hawkwood, but he shared the same name as his older brother. John’s social situation is contrary to what past historians claimed, said to have come from a low ranking family, and was himself a poor soldier later on in his life. This, however, is not true, for John grew up in a wealthy business family. His father was supposedly a tanner who owned land, and even had a maidservant to take care of the day-to-day chores around the house.

In 1340, John’s father died. The will Gilbert left behind divided the share each child of his received. The elder John got the largest of the share and stayed at home to run the business, while the younger John left home with his share.

Hawkwood The Military Man

The younger John Hawkwood took his share and moved to London. Once Hawkwood made it to London, he worked as a tailor or a tailor in training, an apprentice. However true this story is about Hawkwood working and training to be a tailor remains in dispute. It is also said that tailors during this period were looked down upon in terms of serving in the military. However, it did not stop Hawkwood, for when Edward III began to recruit men for his army (which he planned on taking to France in order to claim the French throne), Hawkwood tossed the needle for the sword and joined the army along with his neighbors back home – one of whom happened to be John de Vere, his lord back in Essex, and wealthy families such as the Listons, Coggeshales and Bourchiers.

John de Vere assembled an army of 40 men-at-arms, 10 knights, 29 esquires and 30 mounted archers to serve Edward III.  Wool was provided to the men as pay; a total 56 sacks of wool was to be brought with them. As for Hawkwood’s role in John de Vere’s army, this remains uncertain. However, it is said that he may have started in 1342 as an archer.

Hawkwood and the Hundred Years War

He may have had humble beginnings in the army, but Hawkwood’s ambitious goal was to one day retire to these lands and that goal would start with the battle of Crecy in 1346.

Battle of Crécy between the English and French in the Hundred Years' War. 15th century.

Battle of Crécy between the English and French in the Hundred Years’ War. 15th century. (Public Domain)

Hawkwood’s archery skills are said to have started when Edward banned games such as football, cricket, hockey, cockfighting and so on. King Edward wanted his men to focus on archery, particularly using the English longbow. Hawkwood must have been a good pupil when it came to master the bow, for at the battle of Crecy in 1346, he held the rank of captain on the battlefield and commanded a company of 250 archers led by de Vere. After the battle of Crecy in 1346, Hawkwood seems to have disappeared.

Village sign at Crécy-en-Ponthieu, Picardy commemorating the Battle of Crécy, 26 August 1346.

Village sign at Crécy-en-Ponthieu, Picardy commemorating the Battle of Crécy, 26 August 1346. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Between Crecy and the battle of Poitiers, Hawkwood appears to be only mentioned twice, but in a negative light, so it seems. The first known record tells us he and another beat a man almost to death in a place called Finchingfield in 1350, and then he committed theft a year later. Hawkwood’s life outside the military seemed to be like that on the battlefield. In other words, Hawkwood was broke and in need of booty.

These two unflattering events are all that is known about Hawkwood outside the military, for he again disappears in the historical record and it is speculated that he returned to France and rejoined de Vere’s forces and maybe even married one of de Vere’s daughters. Nevertheless, Hawkwood’s case will always have speculation, but one can gather that he did return to France, was married, did have a daughter, and is recorded to have been at the battle of Poitiers in 1356.

In 1356, at the Battle of Poitiers, Hawkwood is said to have distinguished himself in the field of battle by winning his spurs. In other words, John Hawkwood was not just John Hawkwood anymore; he was Sir John Hawkwood, for the spurs he won made him a knight. The recommendation of knighthood that be awarded to Hawkwood was by the Earl of Oxford. After Poitiers, Hawkwood was involved in the raids on Gascony province, particularly raiding the city of Pau. Nevertheless, all well ends well or so we think, for in 1360, the treaty of Brétigny was signed between England and France, thus ending the Hundred Years War in theory.

A few historians mention Hawkwood’s status by the end of the war. The historian Philip Morant from Essex says that Hawkwood was “the poorest of knight,” while Froissart calls him “a poor knight.” Overall, Hawkwood was rich in title, but lacked the wealth to be noble. This is where his life as a mercenary was about to begin.

Hawkwood the Mercenary

John Hawkwood had only two options in his life; return home as a commoner, or stay in France and become a mercenary. This second option was preferred, as he could make money that would help him climb the ladder of nobility and service.

In 1360, Hawkwood joined up as a freebooter or mercenary group that was called “Les Tart-Venus”, which means ‘Late-Comers’. Men in positions like John Hawkwood were allowed to stay in France and conduct war. The reason is that once Edward III signed the Brétigny Treaty, he gave the order for his men to pull out of France and return to English soil. However, Edward III allowed raids to take place in France unofficially. The reason Edward allowed this was to see if he could gain a much greater deal from the French king. So how did the English soldiers stay? According to medieval author Jean Froissart, King Edward had high-ranking men encourage those seeking to return home to stay in France and continue on their destructive path—and why not? If the English soldiers returned home, they returned to nothing, for they were at the moment unemployed. However, if they turned to face the French countryside, they would soon notice that money was abundant and opportunity for warfare never-ending. All these men had to do was claim no country, as was the case of Hawkwood.

The Great Company and Heaven over Money

In December 1360, Hawkwood and his men arrived at, and captured the French town of Pont-Saint-Esprit, along with the help of other mercenaries, and together they became known as “The Great Company.”

Hawkwood had a much bigger prize in mind, however: the town of Avignon. Avignon was the capital where the Pope, himself lived.  Hawkwood saw Avignon as prime pickings, for if the Pope lived there then money was there, for the money that flowed to and from the Papacy was linked with all the major kingdoms of Christendom. Hawkwood and many others saw a great investment in harassing Pope Innocent.

The city of Avignon was surrounded and cut off by the various bands of mercenaries, including Hawkwood’s men. The city had no way of getting food, and the population was slowly beginning to starve, not to mention that the plague was back in France again. The Pope was all but powerless. He ordered the mercenaries to disperse and go home, but the mercenaries said no, so the Pope excommunicated them, but the mercenaries could care less. This left Pope Innocent with one last option. He announced a crusade to come and defeat the mercenaries that surround Avignon.

The Pope was able to summon seven thousand men to go and besiege Pont-Saint-Esprit in early February 1361. However, it failed, and Froissart mentions that the reason why the crusaders lifted the siege on Pont-Saint-Esprit was due to not being paid. The Pope had promised Heaven over money.

Despite the ‘heavenly’ offer, many of the crusaders packed up and returned home while others went over to the “Free or Great Company Side.” Because of this, the Pope and the cardinals debated as to what to do with the mercenaries. In the end, they summoned for a man by the name of Marquis of Monferrato. Monferrato was the Imperial Vicar of Piedmont as well as Lord of Turin. It was his job to hire the mercenaries and to take them back to Northern Italy to fight against Milan. Thus, the Pope paid Monferrato a huge sum of money to decontaminate the land around Avignon of plague, but also to fight Milan. Hawkwood signed up.

It is recorded that Hawkwood was sending money back home to his older brother John to make the investments for him, which in turn made the family wealthy, even during the plague years, which seemingly did not hinder their economic growth.  This could be true, for the Pope is said to have paid one hundred thousand florins to the companies: thirty thousand went to the men, while Monferrato paid the men sixty thousand more florins to hire them. This would have given each man 15 florins apiece, maybe more, for the men in charge of the bands, like Hawkwood, may have been paid more due to rank, but it is not known for certain.

White Company

Hawkwood returned to France in 1361 to fight the French as a part of the Great Company. Hawkwood finally returned and stayed permanently in Italy with a group of Anglo-German mercenaries called ‘condottieri’, effectively ‘contractors’.

Bartolomeo d'Alviano, a Condottieri.

Bartolomeo d’Alviano, a Condottieri. (Public Domain)

A man named Albert Sterz led the condottieri until December 1363.  Hawkwood took over the condottieri band of Pisa and reorganize them into the famous English mercenaries, called “White Company.” From then on Hawkwood’s fame grew ever-increasingly due to his men’s military professionalism as seasoned veterans.

In 1365, a man named Egidio Albornoz approached Hawkwood with a war chest of 200,000 florins provided by the Pope. The payment was intended for Hawkwood to attack the Visconti who had been molesting church lands in central Italy for some time. He took the battlefield and did well until he began to lose to Visconti, and Hawkwood made the decision to retreat to the castle of San Mariano.

Modern photograph of San Mariano, Perugia, Umbria, Italy.

Modern photograph of San Mariano, Perugia, Umbria, Italy. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Hawkwood and his men held out for some time, but due to thirst, they begged for peace. The besiegers led by Albert Sterz (who was once Hawkwood’s friend), knew that it was better to keep these men alive than to kill them, for they were worth money—not as prisoners, but rather as mercenaries. In the end, 2024 men surrendered and all their belongings they had with them was given over as booty to Albert Sterz.

Sterz had won the day and was showered with glory from the people of Perugia. However, Sterz was about to betray everything he had achieved with the Perugian’s. Hawkwood and his men were now in prison, but that was not going to last long. Hawkwood managed to escape along with many of his knights. How Hawkwood did it remains unknown, but when Sterz had found out, he pursued Hawkwood.  Hawkwood and his men were on the run looking for money to pay for the men locked up in Perugian prisons. Sterz chased Hawkwood relentlessly until he had to give up. The only problem was that Hawkwood not only escaped Sterz’s grasp, he was now in the arms of the city of Genoa, which happened to seat the most powerful rulers in Italy.

Wealth and Prestige: Glory Days!

Sir John Hawkwood arrived in Milan with open arms to a man named Bernabo. He was the leader of Milan, or co-leader with his brother Galeazzo. Bernabo was a military man who led his men with the sword. So why did Bernabo want Hawkwood to lead his army? He needed an insurance policy.

Bernabò Visconti, lord of Milan.

Bernabò Visconti, lord of Milan. (Public Domain)

Bernabo was eyeing some lands to the south and he needed Hawkwood to lead an army as its general, unofficially, and at the same time mentor a person by the name of Telemachus. Both men rode out of Milan with the newly-created “Army of Saint George” numbering ten thousand in October of 1365.

Battle between condottieri.

Battle between condottieri. (Public Domain)

Their destination was the lands of Siena, where they burned and looted for over twenty miles. They also torched Santa Colomba, Marmoraia, Buonconvento, Roccastrada, Berardenga, and the abbey of San Galgano. In addition, Hawkwood defeated a militia raised by Siena, captured its leader, and ransomed him for 10,000 florins. Later Hawkwood changed his mind and brought the ransom down to 500 florins. Hawkwood left the company of Saint George in 1366.

Bernabò and his wife, Beatrice

Bernabò and his wife, Beatrice (Public Domain)

Hawkwood served the duke of Milan again from 1368 to 1372 and then for the Pope from 1372-1377. Hawkwood’s service to the Pope was one of wealth and prestige, for the mercenary extorted a large sum of money from the raids he conducted on Tuscany, which resulted in about 130,000 florins in 1375.

An Ambassador by the name of Peruzzi wanted the people of Florence to rise up against this marauder, but they would not listen and instead gave Hawkwood an annual pension of 1,200 a year with no taxes attached. One can safely say that Hawkwood bled the bank nearly dry in Florence, sparking one of the most famous wars in Italian history, the “War of the Eight Saints.”

Hawkwood not only made more money and gained some lands in Romagna, but he was also unfortunately involved in the atrocity of killing civilian populations of Faenza and Cesena. Overall, the war allowed Hawkwood to take advantage of the Pope’s money. Florence had paid him an enormous amount of money and now the Pope had to pay up to show his support.

After the war, Hawkwood served the Republic of Florence in 1377, but not exclusively. His contract was to command an army of 800 lances and 500 archers for one year. Hawkwood and his men received a double payment each month, making Hawkwood’s share 3,200 florins every month, while each lance got 42 florins, and his archers received anywhere between 16 and 28 florins. Besides his annual pay, Hawkwood sold the entire city of Faenza for 50,000 or 60,000 florins. The mercenary from Essex was making money hand over fist.

Fresco of Italian soldiers from 1467.

Fresco of Italian soldiers from 1467. (Public Domain)

With all the wealth and prestige gained by his mixed bag of adventures, Hawkwood was presented another prize— Donnina Visconti, the illegitimate daughter of Bernabo, Duke of Milan. Bernabo gave Hawkwood even more in estates and money as well as gifts of jewelry. The wedding was just more than the union of two peoples in holy matrimony; it was a political union, in which Bernabo now had the most powerful man in Italy in his hip pocket through marital ties. Hawkwood was beyond rich for he owned lands throughout Italy, received a huge pension, along with the money he made by raiding and extorting the various provinces in Italy, including the Vatican.

Hawkwood continued his bold ways throughout Italy, for after the wedding he extorted money out of the Bolognese. He then attacked Faenze, the city that he had sold two months earlier!

In 1381, Hawkwood got a request to be King Richard II of England’s ambassador to the Roman court. However, one of his biggest victories came at the battle of Castagnaro in 1387, in which he showed why the use of longbow and dismounted knights in English fighting tactics won the day, but more than that, it was a series of battles that made Sir John Hawkwood a name to be remembered. Nevertheless, all good things must end, and for Hawkwood, so did life. At the height of his power and wealth, he died of a stroke in 1394.

Sir John Hawkwood, however you take him, was a king among mercenaries.

Featured image: Detail of Funerary Monument to Sir John Hawkwood by Paolo Uccello (1436). (CC BY-SA 3.0)

By Cam Rea

References

Bradbury, Jim. The Routledge companion to medieval warfare. New York: Routledge, 2007.

Caferro, William. John Hawkwood: an English mercenary in fourteenth-century Italy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.

Froissart, Jean. The Chronicles. London: MacMillian and Co, 1895.

Leader, Temple John. Sir John Hawkwood: Story of a Condottiere. London: Urwin, 1880.

Saunders, Frances Stonor. The Devil’s Broker: Seeking Gold, God, and Glory in Fourteenth-Century Italy. New York: Harper Perennial, 2006.

Villalon, L. J. Andrew, and Donald J Kagay. The Hundred Years War: (Part II) Different Vistas (History of Warfare). Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2008.

Wagner, John A. Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War. New York: Greenwood Press, 2006.

Posted on

Legendary Riches: Commercial Gains, Trade and Tragedy During the Reign of King Solomon

 

During the reign of King Solomon, it is said Israel for the first time was at peace with most of its neighbors, according to the Bible. Moreover, peace allowed the United Kingdom of Israel to flourish in commercial activity as well as exploration. This was attributed to Solomon’s nature. Unlike his father King David, who was a man of war, Solomon was believed to be the exact opposite; Solomon was a man of rest or peace, at least when it came to foreign policy. (I Chr 22:7-9)

He was all about building and enterprise, as well as building trustworthy relationships with those around him, such as with his father’s friend King Hiram of Tyre. (I Kings 5.1) King Hiram of Tyre was a Phoenician; the name ‘Phoenician’ was a term the Greeks would use to indicate the people dwelling in what is today the country of Lebanon. During the reigns of David and Solomon, the Phoenicians were known for their trade and the establishment of colonies throughout the Mediterranean Sea and possibly beyond.

Phoenician ship Carved on the face of a sarcophagus. 2nd century AD.

Phoenician ship Carved on the face of a sarcophagus. 2nd century AD. (Elie plus/CC BY SA 3.0)

The United Kingdom of Israel and the city-states of Phoenicia were not only allies but also joint allies in the realm of economics, from here on out and in greater magnitude than before.

Wealthy Lands Unknown

This relationship between the two peoples began after David captured Jerusalem, Hiram “sent envoys to David, along with cedar logs and carpenters and stonemasons, and they built a palace for David.”(2 Sam 5:11) This indicates that before David captured Jerusalem, he was already in a political and economic alliance with Hiram. From this moment, Israel and Phoenicia invested into each other.

Painting illustrating David, King of Israel.

Painting illustrating David, King of Israel. (Public Domain)

The Israelites, along with the Phoenicians had already established trade routes in the Mediterranean Sea; Solomon wanted to expand the routes by building a naval port on the Red Sea at a place called Ezion-geber in the land of Edom. It was here at Ezion-geber that Hiram sent his shipbuilders to construct a merchant fleet for King Solomon, which would be manned by Phoenician sailors and most likely Hebrew ones as well.

The Via Maris (purple), King's Highway (red), and other ancient Levantine trade routes, c. 1300 BCE.

The Via Maris (purple), King’s Highway (red), and other ancient Levantine trade routes, c. 1300 BCE. (CC BY SA 3.0)

Once established, they set off from Ezion-geber towards faraway lands looking to establish new trade routes and to procure new items of commercial interest from the locals. Among such faraway lands mentioned is a place called Ophir (the true location of which has never been determined). Once the ships returned from Ophir, items like gold, valuable almug trees, and precious stones were unloaded off the ships. (I Kings 9:26-28; 10:11) Another land mentioned in the Bible is a place called Tarshish.

Tarshish is of great interest, for it is said to have taken three years to go to and to come back from in total. The ships that went to Tarshish, were made at Ezion-geber, and most likely were launched from there, and made their way back to Ezion-geber or even to one of the cities along the coast of Israel or Phoenicia.

Once they came from Tarshish, such stock and items as gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks were delivered. As to where Tarshish is truly located, it is unknown, but the name is of interest, for the name, ‘Tarshish’ is also the name of a patriarch in the tribe of Benjamin. It could be possible that Tarshish is named after that clan, and it could be possible that portions of the clan were in charge of Tarshish hence the name. (I Kings 10:22; I Ch 7:10)

Rich Arabia

Trade with Arabia was said to be another moneymaker for Solomon. This trade route focused primarily to the south of Israel, and become more significant after the arrival of Queen Sheba.

The Bible makes it clear in the book of I Kings that Sheba wanted to meet this wise man named Solomon. So she sweetened the deal and arrived with a camel trade full of spices, gold, precious stones, and all that was in her heart. Because of this connection, many stories about the two have been speculated upon for generations, but have ultimately remained a mystery. But the meeting, according to the Bible, indicates another economical connection for Solomon’s kingdom.

Not only did Sheba bring in a new trade route to Solomon’s coffers, the word of the event most likely went out beyond the borders of Israel, for then the merchants of Arabia brought spices and even the kings of Arabia all beckoned for trade and wisdom. (I Kings 10:1-10, 13, 15) Moreover, it may well be possible that a connection with the Indian subcontinent was established.

The Copper King

The copper mines were another commodity that were used for building and trade as well. During the time of Solomon, copper was in great abundance, but no evidence of copper mines in use during the 10th century BCE have ever been found through archeological research. However, there may be an answer to this question as to why Solomon is sometimes referred to as the “copper king.”

Solomon was possessed of wealth and wisdom, according to the Bible.

Solomon was possessed of wealth and wisdom, according to the Bible. (Public Domain)

Solomon’s father, King David was said by biblical records to have hoarded vast amounts of copper through his conquest and possible trade with the Phoenicians. (I Ch 18:8; 22: 3, 14) The Phoenicians during the time of the reigns of David and Solomon mined vast amounts of various metals from their colonies during this period, particularly from the British Isles. So, to say Solomon had no mines is true to a certain extent, but the Bible and historical chronicles suggest that Solomon got his copper from the vast amount collected by David and from the trade with the Phoenicians and their various colonies throughout. Thus, it is partially correct in referring to Solomon as a “copper king”, but must be understood from what you have just read that such a title was due to the vast amounts that were used, especially and presumably for the building of a temple in Jerusalem among other things.

Horses and Chariots

Solomon is also said to have had a fancy for buying horses and chariots with all the wealth he had gained. Solomon bought an abundance of horses from a place called Cilicia as well as chariots from Egypt. (I King 10:28-29) The description from the verse suggests that Israel was not in the manufacturing business of chariots, and thus depended on others to build them for them at a hefty price.

In addition, the reason why Solomon spent money on horses from Cilicia is that they are considered the finest of the region. The same goes for Egypt when it came to the chariot. Why not have the best of both worlds, when you have the money to afford it—especially Solomon who had a vast amount of money, due to trade and commerce.

With such a massive amount of wealth built up, Solomon needed a fighting force that was well equipped, with only the best money could afford in order to protect all that he had gained, whether it was threatened by a foreign or domestic threat.

Because of the lucrative deals and military practicality of the chariot, Solomon continued to buy, and in doing so fortified Israel, for “He built up Lower Beth Horon, Baalath, and Tadmor in the desert, within his land, as well as all his store cities and the towns for his chariots and for his horses—whatever he desired to build in Jerusalem, in Lebanon and throughout all the territory he ruled.” (1 Kings 9:17-19).

Egyptian horses and chariots: Ramses II fighting in a chariot at the Battle of Kadesh with two archers, one with the reins tied around his waist to free both hands. Relief from Abu Simbel.

Egyptian horses and chariots: Ramses II fighting in a chariot at the Battle of Kadesh with two archers, one with the reins tied around his waist to free both hands. Relief from Abu Simbel. (Public Domain)

Solomon, who established Israel’s first charioteer corps, according to I Kings 9:22, greatly expanded it to include 1,400 chariots along with 12,000 horses, which were housed in 4,000 stalls stationed in chariot cities. (1 Kings 10:26).

While the Bible provides historians and scholars with information about how many chariots were under Solomon, it says little of the manufacturer. Many point to I Kings 10:29, which mentions Egypt as the manufacturer of Solomon’s war chariots. While this is true, it might also be considered somewhat false. Yes, Solomon did purchase chariots from Egypt for 600 shekels of silver, but they were not war chariots.

When reading the verse, the Hebrew term used for chariot is merkaba. The merkaba was a luxury display chariot equipped with costly steeds, built for kings, princes, and nobility. The Bible also mentions Absalom and Adonijah as possessing this fine vehicle. (2 Sam 8:11; 1 Kings 1:5). So why was Solomon buying these luxury chariots? The answer is he was making money. What Solomon was probably doing was buying fabulous chariots from Egypt and selling them to the Hittite and Aramean elites.

Legendary Riches

With wealth acquired from foreign trade and good relations with their neighbors, so was created a standing fighting force that could protect the peace of Israel and its majesty. Not only was it believed that Solomon prospered, but also so did the people of Israel.

According to biblical accounts, Solomon had set up a large system of administration in order to execute his plan of action for the nation of Israel. Many heads were selected to look over trade and commerce as well as the spiritual side of things. One would need a large business body to make sure every shekel was accounted for, and to be given to those who labor, and a fraction taken from those who trade. (I Kings 4: 1-19)

In addition, many military men were selected to look over the military operations in order to secure the borders of Israel, and with the advancement in prosperity, the army only got bigger. (I Kings 9:22-23) It is said even the common person felt good about the situation, and once again, in the book of I Kings, we notice that the Israelites as a whole were eating and drinking and being merry as one, with no problems or concerns. (I Kings 4:20, 25)

As time goes on, one notices later on the book of I Kings that Israel seemed to become even richer, with a greater magnitude on material goods and feasting. (I Kings 10:21, 27). Along with this prosperity, to the people of Israel came a population boom as well. Some suggest that maybe Israel doubled in size to about 800,000 people from the time of Saul due to the economic wealth showered unto them. With such wealth came more births due to increased income. Even foreigners may have contributed to the overall population boom of Israel during the time of Solomon. With so much money in hand and with a growing population one would think that security was needed during these times of economic expansion throughout the Holy Land.

Solomon’s Temple

Due to the expansion and trade with foreign relations that Solomon and his father beforehand had set up, the money that was accrued is believed to have led to the creation of the first Temple in Jerusalem. According to biblical accounts, this is the greatest creation Solomon had built during his reign.

The Hebrew Bible says that the First Temple was built in 957 BCE by King Solomon, but destroyed by Babylonians in 586 BCE. The above is Herod's Temple (or the second temple said to be built atop the first) as imagined in the Holyland Model of Jerusalem.

The Hebrew Bible says that the First Temple was built in 957 BCE by King Solomon, but destroyed by Babylonians in 586 BCE. The above is Herod’s Temple (or the second temple said to be built atop the first) as imagined in the Holyland Model of Jerusalem. (Public Domain)

In an artistic representation, King Solomon dedicates the Temple at Jerusalem (painting by James Tissot or follower, c. 1896–1902)

In an artistic representation, King Solomon dedicates the Temple at Jerusalem (painting by James Tissot or follower, c. 1896–1902) (Public Domain)

However, there was other public works created as well. The cities of Hazor, Jerusalem, Megiddo, and Gezer, were said to be all revised and updated. In addition, there were a number of new cities built throughout Israel, which functioned as military posts for both horse and chariot. Overall, Solomon had bought and built Israel up into an economic powerhouse.

Heavy Taxes, Slavery and the fall of Solomon and Israel

However, even Solomon with all his wealth and power was reputed to be burdened by money problems. The income gained could not keep up with the cost, and Solomon had to do something; that something was called heavy taxation.

Twelve districts were set up for taxation by oversight including the Canaanite city-states. (I Kings 4:7-19) Nevertheless, things got even worse, for now forced labor was upon the people—but not the Israelites, it was focused on non-Israelites (Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites), and these became corvée workers, conscripts and slaves.

Now due to amount of money owed to others by Solomon, he had to do something that would cut the costs, and forced labor was a sure way to get your men to work for only food. (I Kings 9:2-22) The next biggest blow to Solomon was the need for money so badly that he was forced to sell some of his own territory to make ends meet. Solomon sold a number of towns along the coast to the King of Tyre. It must have been the lowest point for Solomon.

Old and meditative king Solomon.

Old and meditative king Solomon. (Public Domain)

In conclusion, it is believed that Solomon was born in a debt free family and society that his father created beforehand. Moreover, if there was any debt it seemingly did not burden the people. Solomon’s reputed wisdom brought traffic of great wealth and great adventure for his nation and those around him. His vast networks of trade, whether by sea-lanes that crisscross the Mediterranean or along the Via Maris and King’s Highway trade routes leading to Mesopotamia, allowed many building projects to commence and expansion of the military due to the influx of wealth.

However, due to the massive building projects and unpopular policies he is said to have undertaken came the burdening of debt and despair. Solomon, with all his wisdom, was not wise enough to stop his own self, once he started.

Solomon’s early reign may have been as described in 1 Kings 4:20-21:

The people of Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand on the seashore; they ate, they drank and they were happy. And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. These countries brought tribute and were Solomon’s subjects all his life.

Once centralization began to kick in so did the needs of the state, such as taxes in monetary form or in the form of corvée labor or slavery to pay for the military and public works. This burden is indicated in 1 Kings 12:11 by Solomon’s son King Rehoboam when he stated, “My father laid on you a heavy yoke; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.”

These continued unpopular policies caused Israel to go from prosperity to debt. If the civilian population suffered greatly and was placed in debt, it is without a doubt that corruption and abuse from the bureaucratic officials also added to the fire and weakness of the Solomonic state, which naturally would filter down to the military ranks.

Because of this, internal conflicts led to the fracturing of Israel’s sphere of influence and Israel itself, for when Solomon died, tribes revolted and the Kingdom of Israel split into two, with the Kingdom of Israel to the north and the Kingdom of Judah to the south. While this split seems beneficial in curtailing the powers that be, it did not. Instead, both Israelite kingdoms would continue the same old sins that caused the once united kingdom to fracture.

While it would be easy to blame the rise and fall of Israel wealth and power on Solomon, it would not be completely fair. If anyone might be also responsible for the fall of Israel, it was the Israelite chieftains seeking an authority to prosper from as Samuel had warned against, and as mentioned in 1 Samuel 8:10-18.

Featured image: The Visit of the Queen of Sheba to King Solomon (Public Domain)

By Cam Rea

References

Albright, William. The Biblical period from Abraham to Ezra. New York: Harper & Row , 1963.

Beitzel, Barry J. Biblica: The Bible Atlas – A Social and Historical Journey Through the Lands of the Bible. London: New Holland Publishers Ltd , 2007.

Collins, Steven M. Israel’s Lost Empires. Royal Oaks, MI: Bible Blessings, 2002.

—. The Origins and Empire of Ancient Israel. Royal Oaks, MI: Bible Blessings, 2002.

Keller, Werner. The Bible As History. New York: Bantam Books, 1982.

Version, King James. Holy Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997.

Posted on

Giant Gold-Digging Ants!

https://images.deepai.org/art-image/fa35f5023add45498f3dc9b224e6785c/giant-gold-digging-ants-wearing-pointy-hats-i_CcIrsTN.jpg

Pure gold precipitate produced by the aqua regia refining process Public Domain

 

I came across a quote by Herodotus awhile back on Classical Wisdom Weekly’s facebook page. The main theme was “giant gold-digging ants.” Sounds fanciful, right? Well, behind every myth is a general truth. I think we all can agree on that. Herodotus states in The Histories book 3.102:

Besides these, there are Indians of another tribe, who border on the city of Caspatyrus, and the country of Pactyica; these people dwell northward of all the rest of the Indians, and follow nearly the same mode of life as the Bactrians. They are more warlike than any of the other tribes, and from them the men are sent forth who go to procure the gold. For it is in this part of India that the sandy desert lies. Here, in this desert, there live amid the sand great ants, in size somewhat less than dogs, but bigger than foxes. The Persian king has a number of them, which have been caught by the hunters in the land whereof we are speaking. Those ants make their dwellings under ground, and like the Hellene ants, which they very much resemble in shape, throw up sand-heaps as they burrow. Now the sand which they throw up is full of gold.1

Understand that Herodotus had never been to India or anywhere nearby. One would think that even Herodotus would have been skeptical of the supposed giant gold-digging ants. However, I could be wrong.

There may be truth to this story, not the giant ants, but men who may have looked like ants. They were not ants but Saka (Scythians) Tigraxauda.

The name Saka Tigraxauda, also Tigra-Khaud, is said to mean “Saka that wore pointed caps.” Tigra-Khaud is a corrupt form of the Sanskrit rendering of “Tigra-kakud.” When translated, Tigra-kakud means “pointed projection,” a metaphor for horns. In the northern Indian province of Kashmir, it was said that unnatural-sized ants, “Tigra-kakud,” dug for gold. This proved to be Saka wearing a horned headdress as they dug for gold and attacked anyone intruding on them like army ants. However, this description of the Saka wearing pointed hats is generic, for most Saka wore pointed hats to some degree.2 The location of the Saka Tigraxauda was east of the Caspian Sea and found between the provinces of Hyrcania and Chorasmia.3 The Saka Tigraxauda are also suggested to have been none other than the Massagetae, even though not everyone agrees that they were.4

Scythian warriors, drawn after figures on an electrum cup from the Kul-Oba kurgan burial near Kerch, Crimea. The warrior on the right strings his bow, bracing it behind his knee; note the typical pointed hood, long jacket with fur or fleece trimming at the edges, decorated trousers, and short boots tied at the ankle. Scythians apparently wore their hair long and loose, and all adult men apparently bearded. The gorytos appears clearly on the left hip of the bare-headed spearman. The shield of the central figure may be made of plain leather over a wooden or wicker base. (Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg) Public Domain

 

However, another explanation comes from Herodotus once again. In book 3 passage 102-105, Herodotus mentions that the ants in question were slightly smaller than a dog but bigger than a fox. French ethnologist Michael Peissel suggests that the creature Herodotus called an ant was probably a Himalayan marmot that can be found on the Deosai Plateau in Gilgit-Baltistan province in modern-day Pakistan. This claim is because Peissel interviewed the Minaro tribe, which lived on the Deosai Plateau. Like their ancestors, the Minaro informed him that they had been collecting gold dust from the marmots that bring it to the surface when burrowing.5

Himalayan marmot in central Asia. CC BY-SA 3.0

 

In conclusion, the gold-digging ants were either Saka or marmots. While both are possible, the Himalayan marmot may very well be the fabled ant known for gold-digging.

If you wish to read a fictional about giant ants, please check out H.G. Wells’s book, “Empire of the Ants.” Check out the 1977 film if you wish. Not bad.

By Cam Rea

Notes

1. Herodotus, The Histories, 3. 102.
2. Swami Parmeshwaranand, Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Vedic Terms Vol. 2 Vol. 2. (New Delhi: Sarup & Sons, 2000), 455.
3. Guive Mirfendereski. “The Saka Nomenclature: A Persian appraisal” http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/Scythian/saka_nomenclature.htm
4. David Christian, A History of Russia, Central Asia, and Mongolia (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1998), 130-131.
5. http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/25/world/himalayas-offer-clue-to-legend-of-gold-digging-ants.html ; See also Michel Peissel, “The Ants’ Gold: The Discovery of the Greek El Dorado in the Himalayas”. Collins, 1984.