Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf
Page 43
encountered the heaviest fighting against detachments trying to escape
from the battlefield and head for their native lands of Parthia, Persis and
India. In this clash the Macedonians lost 60 men and many were wounded,
including at least three high-ranking officers: Hephaestion, Coenus and
Menidas. Once most of the Persian army was in retreat, the Macedonian
soldiers on the left flank managed to independently repulse the enemy
from their section before effective help from Alexander arrived, if indeed
any was sent. In this section the Thessalian cavalry once again played an
outstanding role. Meanwhile Alexander continued his pursuit of Darius but
the late time of day, the considerable distance that now separated him from
the Great King and the other Persian detachments fleeing from the battle
precluded any chance of success. The Macedonians pitched camp for the
night by the river Lycus (Greater Zab), some 32 km from Gaugamela.37
Darius escaped to Arbela and thence he hurriedly headed for safety in
Media to the east of the Zagros Mountains. The Persian capital there,
Ecbatana, became the Great King’s residence for the next half year. Darius
assumed, correctly as it turned out, that Alexander would not follow him
but go for the prizes resulting from the victory at Gaugamela, i.e. the
Achaemenid capitals to the west of the Zagros Mountains – Babylon and
Susa. The Great King was accompanied by the remainder of the Greek
mercenaries, now only 2,000, as well as the Bactrian cavalry, which was
led virtually unscathed out Gaugamela by the satrap Bessus. At Ecbatana
Darius gathered soldiers who had escaped from Gaugamela and prepared
for another battle, hoping to get reinforcements from eastern Iran. The day
37 Arr., An. , 3.15.1-5; Diod., 17.60.4-61.3; Curt., 4.16.1-6; Plu., Alex. , 33.9-11; It.
Alex. , 63; Sachs-Hunger 1988, no. 330, verso 16-18. Lane Fox 1973, pp. 240-241; Devine 1975, p. 382; Bosworth 1980, pp. 309-312.
234
Chapter V
after the battle Alexander’s army advanced post-haste to Arbela, losing
many Macedonian horses in this murderous march. When they got there,
Darius was already gone but some of his treasures remained, 4,000 talents
and the royal insignia. Again there is no credible data regarding the losses
suffered by both sides at Gaugamela. The ancient authors – especially the
greatest purveyor of Macedonian propaganda Arrian – clearly exaggerate
in minimising the number Macedonian losses: from just 100 (according to
Arrian) to less than 300 (Curtius) or 500 (Diodorus). By contrast the
figures they give for the Persians killed or captured seem ridiculously high:
from 40,000 (Curtius) or 90,000 (Diodorus) to 300,000 (Arrian). Arrian
actually states that over 300,000 Persians were captured.38
However, an exact figure for how many were really killed or captured
is not of the greatest historical significance. One of the consequences of
this decisive battle of far greater historical importance was the access
Alexander now had to the central and richest provinces of the Achaemenid
Empire. Moreover, although Darius had not yet given up the fight, for the
rest of his stay in Iran Alexander would not have to fight any more major
battles that could have changed the course of events. The Macedonian
army did not spend much time on the Gaugamela battlefield, probably
only as long as it took to bury their dead. Before they set off an event
occurred that Plutarch mentions in one sentence and the other sources
simply ignore. Plutarch states that after the battle, and presumably before
the march, Alexander was proclaimed ‘king of Asia’. Although Plutarch
does not cite his source, there is no reason to doubt that this really
happened. Literary and epigraphic sources from Alexander’s lifetime and
the end of the 4th century confirm that he used the title of king or ruler of
Asia. In Greek sources the word ‘Asia’ had both political and purely
geographical meaning, in the later sense it signified the Asian continent. In
the political sense the word ‘Asia’ meant the ‘Kingdom of Persia’. The
sources are unequivocal about this. One, On the Universe, attributed to
Aristotle, gives the following definition: ‘All the Empire of Asia, bounded
on the west by the Hellespont and on the east by the Indus, was
apportioned according to races among under generals and satraps and
kings, slaves of the Great King; and there were the couriers and watchmen
and messengers and superintendents of signal fires.’ Therefore the Greeks
of Alexander’s day would have understood the ruler of Asia to be someone
modern historians call the king of Persia. This understanding of the word
Asia, quite different to ours, is also confirmed in Egyptian hieroglyphic
sources of the 4th century. In clearly reflected the extent of geographic
38 Arr., An. , 3.15.5-16.3; Diod., 17.60.4, 17.61, 17.64.1-2; Curt., 4.16.8-5.1.10; It.
Alex. , 64-65. Bosworth 1980, pp. 312-313; Seibert 1985, pp.95-96.
King of Asia
235
knowledge in ancient times, where real Asia fitted within the bounds of
the Achaemenid Empire, whereas beyond lay only semi-mythical
territories such as India or the land of the Amazons. Among the Persian
king’s titles there was xšāyaθiya Pārsaiy, which means ‘king in Persia’
rather than ‘king of Persia’ and it was used above all to stress the
legitimacy of their rule over Parsa, meaning Persis or Fars, the homeland
of the Achaemenids. However the title most frequently used in
contemporary Greek and Persian sources was ‘Great King’. Alexander, on
the other hand, never used this title, at least not in Greek, perhaps because
of the bad associations it had to Greeks. Instead he chose the less popular
by no less unequivocal title of ‘king of Asia’.39
We have no details of how Alexander was proclaimed ‘king of Asia’.
Perhaps his army proclaimed him as such, which would have had
exclusively political significance, but it would not have been legally valid.
It is equally probable that Alexander had a herald proclaim him to be king
of Asia in front of his army. In both cases the proclamation would have
been in keeping with the universally practiced doctrine of the victor taking
over sovereignty, and Alexander was most certainly the victor at
Gaugamela. He had already made his claim to the entire Achaemenid
Empire in diplomatic correspondence with Darius. Therefore the
proclamation at Gaugamela was not unexpected but the victory had raised
it from the status of mere propaganda to a statement of fact. Perhaps this
was still a bit premature, considering that Darius still held power in Iran,
but it was very convincing in the light of what had happened in the most
recent days.40
After his victory Alexander made sacrifices to the gods befitting the
grandeur of the occasion. Those who had distinguished themselves in the
battle were now awarded gifts. The treasures captured from the Persians
allowed the king to be very generous to the Greeks and thus stress the
Panhellenic character of this anti-Persian war. That was why booty taken
f
rom Darius was given to the Plataeans in compensation for the
destruction previously inflicted by Xerxes. Croton was awarded by
Alexander on account of the fact that in 480 its citizen Phayllus had sailed
in his own ship to aid the Greeks fighting the Persians at Salamis. A gift to
39 Plu., Alex. , 34.1; Timachides, Chronicum Lindium, FGrH, 532 F1.38; FD
3.4.2.137; Arist., Mu. , 398a (translation by J. Barnes). For the discussion of the
issue of Kingdom of Asia (with reference to all relevant sources) see Nawotka
2004.
40 Ritter 1965, p. 52; Wilcken 1967, pp. 137-138; Schachermeyr 1973, pp. 277-279;
Goukowsky 1978, p. 175; Bosworth 1988, p. 85; Wirth 1993, pp. 193-196;
Hamilton 1999, p. 9.
236
Chapter V
the Temple of Athena in the city of Lindus served to nurture good
relations with the island of Rhodes. Marking this occasion there is also a
letter in which Alexander declares freedom to the Greeks and the abolition
of tyrannies. Unfortunately we do not know the exact addressee though
letter could only be referring to the situation in continental Greece, where
Antipater maintained control by continuing Philip II’s policy of supporting
pro-Macedonian oligarchies and tyrannies. The sources provide no
evidence that this policy changed after Alexander’s letter. Therefore it
must have simply been a declaration of goodwill from a monarch who was
ever more distant from Greek affairs and also one who had ever less
understanding of the subtleties of politics in Macedonia and Greece.41
4. Babylon, Susa and Persepolis
Alexander limited the time spent on the battlefield at Gaugamela to the
bare minimum for fear of an epidemic breaking out in a place strewn with
thousands of Persian corpses. Like after Issus, he chose not to continue his
pursuit of the defeated Persian ruler because he did not wish to risk
leaving behind unoccupied Achaemenid provinces. Alexander ended the
chase at Arbela. There is no evidence that after that he returned to
Gaugamela. It is more likely that from Arbela the Macedonian army next
marched south towards Babylon, the capital of the richest Persian satrapy
called Babiruš and one of the capitals of the entire empire. But Persian
troops who had escaped from Gaugamela had arrived there first. Their
commander was Mazaeus, previously the satrap of Cilicia and Ebirnari.
The Babiruš satrapy had been governed by Bupares, whom Arrian names
as the commander of the Babylonian contingent at Gaugamela. The
sources make no mention of him after that event, which may mean that he
was killed in the battle and that Darius appointed Mazaeus, whom he
trusted, the new satrap of this province. Mazaeus certainly had good
relations with the local elites as his wife was Babylonian. But this fact
would have also made him vulnerable to pressure on important issues such
as whether or not to defend the city and whether to surrender or risk
destruction.42
Thanks to the ancient authors and the Babylonian Astronomical Diary
the chronology of events that occurred during the march to Babylon can be
41 Plu., Alex. , 34.2-4; Timachides, Chronicum Lindium, FGrH, 532 F1.38.
Hamilton 1999, pp. 91-92; Blackwell 1999, pp. 109-110; Flower 2000, pp. 112-
113.
42 Arr., An. , 3.8.5; Diod., 17.64.3. Berve 1926, no. 221; Frye 1984, p. 139; Jacobs
1994, p. 162; Briant 1996, p. 868; Heckel 1997, p. 204.
King of Asia
237
quite accurately traced. Already on 8th October 331, that is, barely a week
after the battle, someone from Gaugamela reached Babylon. The diary is
damaged in this place, so we do not know for sure who it was. It could
have been Mazaeus himself or a messenger with news of Darius III’s
defeat. The distance of 580 km from Gaugamela to Babylon could be
swiftly covered thanks to the Persian system of stage posts which allowed
horses to be changed. Alternatively it could have been a messenger from
Alexander with the first offer to negotiate. Meanwhile the Macedonian
army marched, most probably down the Royal Road in the direction of
Susa but after a few dozens of kilometres turning towards the Tigris. After
four days they reached the town of Mennis, where the soldiers were
amazed to see for the first time in their lives perpetual flames emanating
from a grotto (burning natural gas) and a stream of petroleum oil spilling
out onto the surface. There are two places on the route between Arbela and
Babylon known in ancient times to have had oil flowing out onto the
surface and burning natural gas. One is Baba Gurgur near Kirkuk and
some 80 km from Arbela, but it is the more distant Tuz Khurmatu some
125 km from Arbela that seems more likely to have been the place where
the Macedonians saw this phenomenon. In four days Alexander’s rapidly
moving army would have advanced at least 125 km. Having never seen
such a substance emerging from the ground before, the Macedonians
experimented with it. One of their experiments was to pour the oil over a
young volunteer called Stephanus and setting it alight. The fire then
proved very difficult to put out and the unfortunate volunteer suffered
serious burns. Not far from this place the Macedonians crossed over to the
western side of the Tigris. By 18th October they were in Sippar, 50 km to
the north of Babylon. From the above information we can estimate that the
army marched on average some 35 km a day. At Sippar they stayed for
two days. There can be no doubt that Alexander had started negotiations
with Mazaeus and the Babylonian elite already before the army reached
Sippar. In these negotiations he promised that his soldiers would not enter
the houses in Babylon – by that he may have meant the houses of gods, in
other words temples. An entry for 20th October in the Astronomical Diary
states that the Macedonians were at the Gate of Esagila, and the following
day they sacrificed a bull, no doubt to Marduk. After that Alexander
entered Babylon and, using the official Babylonian nomenclature, took
over Darius’s position as ruler of the world.43
43 Curt., 5.1.11-16; Plu., Alex. , 35; Str., 16.4.1, 15; Sachs-Hunger 1988, no. 330,
retro. Lane Fox 1973, pp. 244-245; Seibert 1985, p. 96; Bernard 1990, pp. 525-528;
Atkinson 1994, p. 33; Hamilton 1999, pp. 93-94; van der Spek 2003, pp. 298-299.
238
Chapter V
The ancient authors have preserved colourful descriptions of
Alexander’s entry into Babylon. First Mazaeus with his children and the
royal treasurer ( ganzabara) Bagophanes came out to greet him, surrender
the city and ask for mercy. They were accompanied by priests, magi
chanting religious songs, Chaldaean soothsayers as well as Babylonian
notables and cavalry in full, extravagant ceremonial dress, while crowds of
inhabitants looked on from the city’s walls. The king was offered cattle,
horses as well as lions and panthers in cages. Mazaeus had flowers
specially strewn on the road into Babylon and incense was burned on
silver alters along the way. Alexander entered the city in a chariot
surrounded by his soldiers marching in battle fo
rmation. The first place he
headed for was the royal palace and then, having been instructed by the
priests, he laid an offering to Marduk. This festive entry, despite the
cheerfulness expressed by the Babylonians, was by no means a
spontaneous affair. The Astronomical Diary tells us that there were
negotiations before Alexander entered the city. Indeed, such triumphal
entries of monarchs who had defeated in war erstwhile rulers of Babylon
had a long tradition in Mesopotamia. Such a parade was made in honour of
the Assyrian king Sargon II after he had defeated the Babylonian ruler
Marduk-appal-iddin II in 710, and in 539 Cyrus the Great entered the city
in such a fashion after his victory over the Chaldaean Nabonidus. Not
every conqueror received such a welcome but only those – like Sargon II,
Cyrus the Great and Alexander – who managed to gain acceptance from
Babylon’s priestly elite. The public’s expressions of joy at greeting the
new ruler were part of a ceremony rehearsed only for rightful monarchs.
And that was how the Babylonian elite perceived Alexander in October
331.44
The traditional picture of Alexander in Babylon presented in modern
historiography is based on a literal interpretation of classical sources.
Basically Alexander is perceived as the liberator of this great Middle
Eastern metropolis from a mindless and cruel Persian regime. The
Babylonians were supposed to hate the Persians for the quelling of their
rebellion by Xerxes in 479 and the destruction of their temples, including
the Temple of Esagila and the famous Etemenanki ziggurat (the Biblical
Tower of Babel), as well as the melting down of the gold statue of Marduk
into ingots. And that was why Alexander, who had defeated the Persians
44 Curt., 5.1.17-23; Arr., An. , 3.16.3; Diod., 17.64.4. Kuhrt 1990, pp. 121-126;
Kuhrt, Sherwin-White 1993, pp. 139-140; Atkinson 1994, pp. 34-36; Briant 1996,
p. 881; Heckel 1997, p. 206.
King of Asia
239
and promised to rebuild the temple, was so enthusiastically greeted by the