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