Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf

Home > Fantasy > Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf > Page 44
Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf Page 44

by Amanda


  inhabitants of Babylon.45

  Such an explanation, however, casts more shade than light on

  Alexander’s stay in Babylon. Both Persian and Babylonian sources present

  a far more complex picture of the Achaemenid rule. The region’s

  legendary affluence had for ages been derived from an agriculture utilising

  rich soil as well as sophisticated irrigation and drainage systems. The

  inhabitants of Babylonia were obliged to supply the royal court, which

  frequently resided in Babylon, and the Great King’s army with food. The

  cities, Babylon itself as well as Uruk, Sippar and Nippur, had efficient

  banking houses and international trading companies. We know most about

  how such institutions functioned from the cuneiform tablets of the

  Murashu family from Nippur. The Persian era gave the Babylonian

  merchants and bankers the benefit of a gradually developing monetary

  economy. On the other hand, it also had the detrimental effects of obvious

  incompetence, greed and corruption among the Achaemenid officials. The

  paucity of historical sources from reign of Xerxes to that Darius III may be

  the result of a slower than before rate of economic growth in Babylonia.

  However, the Achaemenid period cannot be perceived as a time of

  economic or cultural collapse. The Persians themselves regarded

  Babylonia with a mixture admiration for its wealth and civilizational

  achievements as well as contempt for its military weakness. That is why in

  extant Achaemenid records of lands belonging to the Great King

  Babylonia holds a prestigious third position of importance after Persis and

  Media but in Persepolis friezes the inhabitants of Babylonia are presented

  as the only ones not bearing arms.46

  Though there were several rebellions, everyday life in Persian

  occupied Babylonia was generally peaceful and the presence of many

  Iranian inhabitants in this country is well attested. There were many

  aristocratic Persian estates in Mesopotamia, whose owners frequently

  married women belonging to the Babylonian social elites. Both

  Babylonians and Iranians worked in the Achaemenid bureaucracy; the

  Iranians only predominated in the higher offices. The region also had

  military settlers. The Great King granted many allotments of land to his

  horsemen, archers and charioteers. By the 4th century, however, this

  system was no longer working properly for the descendants of military

  45 Tarn 1948, i, pp. 51-52; Wilcken 1967, pp. 139-141; Schachermeyr 1973, pp.

  280-283; Lane Fox 1973, pp. 247-249; Green 1974, pp. 302-304; Badian 1985, p.

  437; Bosworth 1988, pp. 86-87.

  46 Frye 1984, pp. 129-130; Oppenheim 1985, pp. 531, 577-586; Stolper 1994, pp.

  241-245; Kuhrt, Sherwin-White 1994, pp. 311-312; Briant 1996, pp. 742-743.

  240

  Chapter V

  settlers frequently sold off parts of their land so that larger allotments were

  divided up and reduced in size. That may be why military settlers in

  Mesopotamia did not make a significant contribution to the Persian war

  effort at the end of the Achaemenid era.47

  In Alexander’s day Babylon, covering an area of 975 ha and

  surrounded by 18 km of walls, regarded one of the Seven Wonders of the

  World, was possibly the largest city on earth. We can assume that it had

  approximately 200,000-300,000 inhabitants; the average population

  density in contemporary cities ranged from 100-400 inhabitants per

  hectare and the population of Antioch on the Orontes with area of 650 ha

  has been estimated to include between 160,000 and 250,000 inhabitants.

  How the Greeks imaged the sheer size of Babylon is expressed in

  Aristotle’s anecdote stating that it took three days for all the inhabitants to

  learn that their city had been captured by Alexander. The river Euphrates,

  which flowed through Babylon, was spanned by a bridge built on stone

  pillars and the two focal points within the metropolis were the royal palace

  and the temple complex. The heavily fortified palace of Nebuchadnezzar,

  still used in Persian times, was situated on a low hill today called Kasr,

  right next to the city’s wall. Because in the late Achaemenid period

  Babylon’s status was raised to become one of the Persian capitals, during

  Artaxerxes II’s reign an Apadana (throne hall) was added to the palace.

  However, it is not true that stone foundations excavated in one of the

  palace’s corners once supported the so-called hanging gardens of

  Semiramis (the hanging gardens of Babylon) for these were almost

  certainly located in Nineveh. There was a 7-20 m wide procession route

  running from the Ishtar Gate in the northern wall, alongside

  Nebuchadnezzar’s palace up to the famous Marduk temple complex in the

  city centre. There is controversy among historians as to the scale of

  destruction inflicted by the Persians to the Etemenanki ziggurat and

  Esagila temple or even whether such an event actually occurred. The

  traditional view has been challenged by historians who unfortunately base

  most of their arguments on the total lack of Babylonian records regarding

  the Persian destruction of these edifices. Moreover, these historians argue

  that the works carried out on Alexander’s instructions – which are indeed

  confirmed in Babylonian tablets – were merely symbolic as every good

  king of Babylon was obliged to at least beautify the Temple of Marduk.48

  47 Lane Fox 1973, p. 157-160; Frye 1984, p. 129; Oppenheim 1985, pp. 573-574;

  Stolper 1994, pp. 245-247, 253-257; Kuhrt, Sherwin-White 1994, p. 313; Briant

  1996, pp. 743-746.

  48 Arist., Pol. , 1276a. Oppenheim 1985, pp. 583-584; Kuhrt 1990, pp. 126-127;

  Dalley 1994; Kuhrt, Sherwin-White 1994, pp. 313, 317; Stolper 1994, p. 259;

  King of Asia

  241

  However, archaeological excavations carried out in 1962 have

  confirmed that the Etemenanki ziggurat had been considerably damaged.

  During the 479 siege of Babylon Xerxes had directed the flow of the

  Euphrates into the city and thus washed away many sun dried clay bricks

  out of which the ziggurat was built. As a result of this damage a section of

  the Etemenanki collapsed so that when Alexander arrived he found it in a

  state of partial ruin. Therefore, although damage around the temple had

  not been intentionally caused by the Persians, it was serious enough to

  require major rebuilding, especially as far as the ziggurat was concerned.

  The mere removal of rubble was said to have involved 10,000 labourers

  and lasted two months. Arrian mentions the rebuilding project in his

  account of Alexander’s entry into Babylon. However, other sources, both

  Greek and Babylonian, mention construction work being carried out in

  329 and 325. This would suggest that in October/November there was only

  a royal proclamation that the Etemenanki would be rebuilt, whereas the

  actual work started some years later and was continued up to Alexander’s

  death.49 Alexander’s other building projects were of a much smaller scale.

  The only attributed building of note – and here too we cannot be entirely

  certain – was the Greek theatre. No doubt many buildings would have

  been raised in that city had Alexa
nder lived longer for he did plan to make

  Babylon the permanent capital of his world empire.50

  The significance of Babylon in the Near East of those days did not

  only rest on the magnificence of its architecture and the economic might of

  its bankers. Babylon was above all a religious metropolis for the priests of

  Marduk had managed to secure for this once local god an exceptional

  position in the Mesopotamian pantheon. A concept was established in

  Babylon that Marduk was the driving force behind history and that he

  realised his will through native or foreign rulers. The temple council was

  in charge of the ‘earthly’ aspects of running Marduk’s shrine as well as

  representing the entire city in dealings with the state authorities. For

  centuries the Babylonian Temple of Marduk (Esagila) also served as a

  place for observing the movements of heavenly bodies. These motions

  were recorded with unprecedented meticulousness in so-called

  ‘astronomical diaries’, which also included entries regarding meteorological

  Wiesehöfer 1996, pp. 53-54; Kuhrt 1996, pp. 46-47; Briant 1996, pp. 561-562, 694;

  Margueron 2000; Will 2000, pp. 482-491; Aperghis 2001, pp. 76-77.

  49 Arr., An. , 3.16.4, 7.17.2; Diod., 17.112.3; Str., 16.1.5; Babylonian clay tablets:

  BM 36613 = Sachs 1977, pp. 144-147; Sachs-Hunger 1988, no. 324. Bosworth

  1980, p. 314; Oppenheim 1985, pp. 565-567; Kuhrt, Sherwin-White 1994, pp. 315-

  317; Schmidt 1995, pp. 92-94; Kuhrt 1996, p. 47; van der Spek 2003, pp. 300-301.

  50 Van der Spek 1987, pp. 64-65.

  242

  Chapter V

  phenomena, price fluctuations and political events. Because of their

  scrupulousness they are an exceptionally valuable though incomplete

  source regarding the political and economic history of Babylonia. The

  importance of these long series of astronomical observations was known to

  4th-century Greeks and their findings were passed on to Aristotle by his

  relative, Callisthenes, who accompanied Alexander on his expedition.

  During his first and second stay at Babylon Alexander saw to affairs

  concerning the rebuilding of temples and offered sacrifices in accordance

  with the instructions of Chaldaean priests. The work he commissioned in

  the temple area was not just a matter of building projects for according to

  Babylonian culture each such undertaking had to be preceded by the

  issuing of oracular responses, which were not granted to all rulers. The

  fact that Alexander received them sanctioned his position as the rightful

  ruler in the theological and political order of Babylonia. Like Cyrus the

  Great before him, Alexander in this way gained the respect of the

  Babylonian clerical establishment.51

  Alexander made several important administrative decisions in Babylon.

  Bagophanes was offered a place in the king’s entourage, whereas Mazaeus

  was appointed satrap of Babiruš and granted the right to issue coins

  bearing his name. The coins he issued were silver tetradrachms in the Attic

  standard, which was the most popular in world in that period, but with

  Aramaic letters and therefore intended for the local market. The success of

  these coins (issued 6-7 times in Mazaeus’ lifetime) is testified by the fact

  that after the satrap’s death in 328 they continued to be issued for another

  half century. Mazaeus was essentially responsible for civilian side of the

  administration, whereas the military matters were entrusted to the

  Macedonians Apollodorus and Agathon. Apollodorus was put in charge of

  the whole satrapy, whereas Agathon was given command of the garrison

  in Babylon, which included 700 Macedonian troops and 300 mercenaries.

  Another Macedonian, Asclepiodorus, was made responsible for the

  collection of taxes. Despite these limitations to his power, which were

  indeed as normal in the Achaemenid administrative tradition as in

  Alexander’s practice so far, the appointment of Mazaeus to such a high

  position did mark a significant policy change. Mazaeus was the first

  Persian official of such a calibre to defect to Alexander’s side and be

  appointed satrap, a position that was also due to him by right of birth and

  social status under the Achaemenid system. It is worth remembering that

  Mithrenes, who after Granicus surrendered Sardis, had to wait three years

  51 Porphyrius, ap. Simp., In cael. , 7 p. 506. Balcer 1978, pp. 124-125; Oppenhaim

  1985, pp. 546-547; van der Spek 1987, pp. 60-63; Kuhrt 1990, pp. 127-128; Kuhrt,

  Sherwin-White 1994, pp. 317-318.

  King of Asia

  243

  to receive such a nomination. Indeed it was during this first stay at

  Babylon that Alexander appointed him satrap of Armenia. Moreover,

  Armenia had first to be conquered before Mithrenes could take up this

  position; this conquest was most probably the purpose of the campaign

  commanded by Menon, which according to Strabo began at this time. By

  appointing satrap of Babiruš a man trusted by Darius III and a commander

  who had almost defeated the Macedonian left wing at Gaugamela

  Alexander let other high-ranking Iranian officials know that their was an

  interesting political alternative for them if they chose to defect to the new

  king of Asia. Indeed, of the twelve satraps nominated by Alexander in the

  years 331-327, i.e. in the time it took him to conquer and occupy Iran, only

  one was a Macedonian. The remaining eleven satraps were members of the

  Iranian aristocracy, whose loyalty the new king tried in this way to

  ensure.52

  Alexander did not stay long in Babylon. After 34 days, therefore on

  24th or 25th November 331 the army set off for Susa. With his penchant for

  moralising, Curtius Rufus suggests that Alexander feared a fall in

  discipline and military value among the soldiers if they stayed much

  longer in this city with a reputation for licentious excesses. His colourful

  description of feasts with denuded girls and married women is not,

  however, confirmed in any of the other sources. Moreover, it seems too

  close to the general stereotype of eastern decadence and debauchery to be

  entirely plausible.53 Whilst still in Babylon Alexander gave the soldiers

  their premiums from the captured Persian booty: 600 drachms to each

  hetairos, 500 drachms to each allied cavalryman, 200 to each Macedonian

  infantryman and an extra three months’ pay to each mercenary foot soldier,

  which was the equivalent of 60-90 drachms (the daily rate ranging from 4

  obol to 1 drachm). On the sixth day of their march to Susa the

  Macedonians reached the province of Sittacene, situated on the eastern

  side of the Tigris and to the south of the river Diyala. This time the army

  marched at a much more leisurely pace, taking as many as 20 days to

  cover the 365 km distance from Babylon to Susa. The slow march through

  a rich province frequently interrupted by stops was intended to allow the

  soldiers to rest before their planned winter campaign in Iran. It was also

  during this march that the reinforcements for which Amyntas had been

  sent even before the occupation of Egypt finally arrived. Among the

  52 Curt., 5.1.43-44; Arr., An. , 3.16.4-5; Diod., 17.64.5-6; Str., 11.14.9, 11.14.15.

/>   Bosworth 1980, pp. 314-316; Seibert 1985, p. 97; O’Brien 1992, pp. 97-98; Kuhrt,

  Sherwin-White 1993, pp. 191-192; Atkinson 1994, pp. 50-53; Briant 1996, pp. 86-

  87, 93-95, 862-869; Le Rider 2003, pp. 273-279.

  53 Curt., 5.1.36-39; Just., 11.14. Atkinson 1994, pp. 47-48.

  244

  Chapter V

  15,000 troops there were 500 cavalrymen and 6,000 infantrymen from

  Macedonia as well as 50 Macedonian youths from noble families. The last

  of these were to join the royal retinue of pages with the prospect of later

  being promoted to high positions in the army or administration, but in the

  meantime they also guaranteed the loyalty of their families to the king.

  The arrival of these reinforcements increased the size of Alexander’s army

  to at least the number of men he had at the start of this campaign. The

  allocation of new troops to the various detachments provided an

  opportunity to conduct a general reorganisation and promotions. As well

  as his heroic behaviour during battles Alexander also demonstrated a

  shrewd understanding of his soldiers’ mentality by making sure they

  received provisions, proper rest, rewards and praise. It was by these means

  that now, and on earlier occasions, Alexander built a strong bond with his

  army.54

  Fourth-century Greeks regarded Susa (today Shush in the Iranian

  province of Khuzestan) to be the main capital of the Achaemenid Empire

  for that was where the Great King usually received their numerous

  delegations – more often than not requesting him to resolve disputes

  between individual Greek states. Alexander made sure this city would be

  occupied immediately after the Battle of Gaugamela by dispatching there

  his officer Philoxenus, no doubt with a large detachment of cavalry. There

  are no records of fighting and it is much more likely that after some

  negotiations the satrap, Abulites, peacefully surrendered the city. The

  Macedonian army reached Susa in mid December 331. The sources record

  a ceremony similar to those performed with the surrender of Sardis,

  Memphis and Babylon. Alexander was first met by Abulites’s son, while

 

‹ Prev