#Artaxerxes III

[blogdemocratesjr]

Rock relief of Artaxerxes III in Persepolis (aka Ochus) + The Dressing by L. Fitton + The Anabasis of Alexander by Arrian

[shamsaddinmegalommatis]

History of Achaemenid Iran 1A, Course I - Achaemenid beginnings 1A

Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Tuesday, 27 December 2022

Outline

Introduction; Iranian Achaemenid historiography; Problems of historiography continuity; Iranian posterior historiography; foreign historiography; Western Orientalist historiography; early sources of Iranian History; Prehistory in the Iranian plateau and Mesopotamia

1- Introduction

Welcome to the 40-hour seminar on Achaemenid Iran!

It is my intention to deliver a rather unconventional academic presentation of the topic, mostly implementing a correct and impartial conceptual approach to the earliest stage of Iranian History. Every subject, in and by itself, offers to every researcher the correct means of the pertinent approach to it; due to this fact, the personal background, viewpoints and thoughts or eventually the misperceptions and the preconceived ideas of an explorer should not be allowed to affect his judgment.

If before 200 years, the early Iranologists had the possible excuse of studying a topic on the basis of external and posterior historical sources, this was simply due to the fact that the Old Achaemenid cuneiform writing had not yet been deciphered. Still, even those explorers failed to avoid a very serious mistake, namely that of taking the external and posterior historical sources at face value. We cannot afford to blindly accept a secondary historical source without first examining intentions, motives, scopes and aims of it.

As the seminar covers only the History of the Achaemenid dynasty, I don't intend to add an introductory course about the History of the Iranian Studies and the re-discovery of Iran by Western explorers of the colonial powers. However, I will provide a brief outline of the topic; this is essential because mainstream Orientalists have reached their limits and cannot provide us with a real insight, eliminating the numerous and enduring myths, fallacies, and deliberately naïve approaches to Achaemenid Iran.

In fact, most of the specialists of Ancient Iran never went beyond the limitations set by the delusional Ancient 'Greek' (in reality: Ionian and Attic) literature about the Medes and the Persians (i.e. the Iranians), because they never offered themselves the task to explain the reasons for the aberration that the Ancient Ionian and Attic authors created in their minds and wrote in their texts about Iran. This was utterly puerile and ludicrous.

And this brings us to the other major innovation that I intend to offer during this seminar, namely the proper, comprehensive contextualization of the research topic, i.e. the History of Achaemenid Iran. To give some examples in this regard, I would mention

a - the tremendous, multilayered and multifaceted impact of the Mesopotamian World, Civilization and Heritage on the formation of the Achaemenid Empire of Iran, and more specifically, the determinant role played by the Sargonid Empire of Assyria on the emergence of the first Empire on the Iranian plateau;

b - the ferocious opposition of the Mithraic Magi to the Zoroastrian Achaemenid court; 

c - the involvement of the Anatolian Magi in the misperception of Iran by the Ancient Greeks; and

d- the utilization of the Ancient Greek cities by the Anti-Iranian side of the Egyptian priesthoods, princes and administrators.  

To therefore introduce the proper contextualization, I will expand on the Neo-Assyrian Empire and the Sargonid times, not only to state the first mentions of the Medes and the Persians in History, but also to show the importance attributed by the Neo-Assyrian Emperors to the Zagros Mountains and the Iranian plateau, as well as the numerous peoples, settled or nomadic, who inhabited that region. 

There is an enormous lacuna in the Orientalist disciplines; there are no interdisciplinary studies in Assyriology and Iranology. This plays a key role in the misperception of the ancient oriental civilizations and in the mistaken evaluation (or rather under-estimation) of the momentous impact that they had on the formation of the World History. There are no isolated cultures and independent civilizations as dogmatic and ignorant Western archaeologists pretend.

Only if one studies and evaluates correctly the colossal impact of the Ancient Mesopotamian world on Iran, can one truly understand the Achaemenid Empire in its real dimensions.

2- Iranian Achaemenid historiography

A. Achaemenid imperial inscriptions produced on solemn occasions

Usually multilingual texts written by the imperial scribes of the emperors Cyrus the Great, Darius I the Great, Xerxes I, Artaxerxes I, Darius II, Artaxerxes II, and Artaxerxes III, as well as of the ancestral rulers Ariaramnes and Arsames.

Languages and writing systems:

- Old Achaemenid Iranian (cuneiform-alphabetic; the official imperial language)

- Babylonian (cuneiform-syllabic; to offer a testimony of historical continuity and legitimacy, following the Conquest of Babylon by Cyrus the Great, who presented himself as king of Babylon)

- Elamite (cuneiform-logo-syllabic; to portray the Persians in particular as the heirs of the ancient land of Anshan and Sushan that the Assyrians and the Babylonians named 'Elam' and the indigenous population called 'Haltamti' / The first Achaemenid to present himself as 'king of Anshan' is Cyrus the Great and the reference is found in his Cylinder unearthed in Babylon.)

and

- Egyptian Hieroglyphic (if the inscription or the monument was produced in Egypt, since the Achaemenids were also pharaohs of Egypt, starting with Kabujiya/Cambyses)

Imperial inscriptions are found in: Babylon (Cyrus Cylinder), Pasargad, Behistun, Hamadan, Ganj-e Nameh, Persepolis, Naqsh-e Rustam, Susa, Suez (Egypt), Gherla (Romania), Van (Turkey), and on various items

B. Persepolis Administrative Archives

This consists in an enormous documentation that has not yet been fully studied; it is not written in Old Achaemenid as one could expect but mainly in Elamite cuneiform. It consists of two groups, namely

- the Persepolis Fortification Archive, and

- the Persepolis Treasury Archive.

The Persepolis Fortification Archive was unearthed in the fortification area, i.e. the northeastern confines of the enormous platform of the Achaemenid capital Parsa (Persepolis), in the 1930s. It comprises of more than 30000 tablets (fragmentary or entire) that were written in the period 509-494 BCE (at the time of Darius I). The tablets were written in Susa and other parts of Fars and the territory of the ancient kingdom of Elam that vanished in the middle of the 7th c. (more than 130 years before these texts were written). Around 50 texts had Aramaic glosses. More than 2000 tablets have been published and translated. These texts are records of transactions, distribution of food, provisioning of workers, transportation of commodities, etc.;  few tablets were written in other languages, namely Old Iranian (1), Babylonian (1), Phrygian (1) and Greek (1).

The Persepolis Treasury Archive was found in the northeastern room of the Treasury of Xerxes. It contains more than 750 tablets and fragments (in Elamite) and more than 100 have been published. They all date back in period 492-458 BCE. These tablets are either letters or memoranda dispatched by imperial officials to the head of the Treasury; they concern the payment of workmen, the issue of silver, and other administrative procedures.  Only one tablet was written in Babylonian.

The entire documentation offers valuable information as regards the function of various imperial services, namely the couriers, the satraps, the imperial messengers, the imperial storehouse, etc. The archives shed light on the origin of the imperial administrators, as ca. 1900 personal names have been recorded: 10% were Elamites (who had apparently survived for long far from their country after the destruction of Susa by Assurbanipal (640 BCE), fewer were Babylonians, and the outright majority consisted of Iranians (Persians, Medes, Bactrians, Sakas, Arians, etc.).

C. Imperial Aramaic

The diffusion of the use of Aramaic started already in the Neo-Assyrian times and during the 7th c. BCE; the creation of the 'Royal Road', the systematization of the transportation, the improvement of communications, and the formation of the network of land-, sea- and desert routes that we now call 'Silk-, Spice- and Perfume- Road' during the Achaemenid times helped further expand the use of Aramaic. The linguistic assimilation of the Babylonians, the Jews and the Phoenicians with the Aramaeans only strengthened the diffusion of the Aramaic, which became the second international language ('lingua franca') in the History of the Mankind (after the Akkadian / Assyrian-Babylonian). Gradually, Aramaic became an official Achaemenid language after the Old Achaemenid Iranian.

Except the Aramaic texts attested in the Persepolis Administrative Archives, thousands of Aramaic texts of the Achaemenid times shed light onto the society, the economy, the administration, the military organization, the trade, the religions, the cults, the culture and the spirituality attested in various provinces of the Iranian Empire. At this point, only indicatively, I mention few significant groups of texts:

- the Elephantine papyri and ostraca (except Aramaic, they were written in Hieratic and Demotic Egyptian, Coptic, Alexandrian Koine, and Latin) – 5th and 4th c. BCE,

- the Hermopolis Aramaic papyri,                              

- the Padua Aramaic papyri, and

- the Khalili Collection of Aramaic Documents from Bactria (48 texts written on leather, papyrus, stone or clay, dating from the period 353-324 BCE, and mainly from the reign of Artaxerxes III whereas the most recent dates from the reign of Alexander the Great).

Here I have to add that the widespread use of Imperial Aramaic and its use as a second official language for Achaemenid Iran brought an end to the use of the Elamite (in the middle of the 5th c.) and, after the end of the Achaemenid dynasty and the split of the state of Alexander the Great, contributed to the formation of two writing systems, namely Parthian and Pahlavi which were in use during the Arsacid and the Sassanid times. Imperial Aramaic helped establish many other writing systems, but this goes beyond the limits of the present seminar.

3- Problems of historiography continuity

There are no historical references to the Achaemenid dynasty made at the time of the Arsacids (Ashkanian: 250 BCE-224 CE) and the Sassanids 224-651 CE); this situation is due to many factors:

- the prevalence of another Iranian nation of probably Turanian origin, namely the Parthians and the Arsacid dynasty,

- the rise of the anti-Achaemenid, anti-Zoroastrian Magi who tried to impose Mithraism throughout Iran during the Arsacid times,

- the formation of an oral epic tradition and the establishment of a legendary historiography about the pre-Arsacid past during the Sassanid times, and

- the scarcity of written sources and the terrible destructions that occurred in Iran during the Late Antiquity, the Islamic era, and the Modern times (early Islamic conquests, divisions of the Abbasid times, Mongol invasions, Safavid-Ottoman wars, Western colonial looting, etc.).

This situation raised Western academic questions of Iranian identity, continuity, and historicity. But this attempt is futile. Iranian historiography of Islamic times shows that these questions were fully misplaced.

4- Iranian posterior historiography (Iranian historiography of Islamic times)

With Tabari (839-923) and his voluminous History of Prophets and Kings we realize that there were, in spite of the destructions caused because of the Islamic conquests, historical documents on which he was based to expand about the Sassanid dynasty; actually one out of the 40 volumes of the most recent translation of Tabari to English (published by the State University of New York Press from 1985 through 2007) is dedicated to the History of Sassanid Iran (vol. 5). And the previous volume (vol. 4) covers the History of Achaemenid and Arsacid Iran, Alexander the Great, Nabonid Babylonia, Assyria and Ancient Israel and Judah.  

Other important Iranian historians of the Islamic times, like Abu'l-Fadl Bayhaqi (995-1077), Rashid al-Din Hamadani (1247-1318) who wrote the truly first World History, Alaeddin Aṭa Malik Juvaynī (1226-1283), and Sharaf ad-Din Ali Yazdi (ca. 1370-1454), did not expand much on pre-Islamic periods as the focus of their writing was on contemporaneous developments.

However, the aforementioned historians and all the authors, who are classified in this category, represent only one dimension of Iranian historiography of Islamic times. A totally different approach and literature have been illustrated by Ferdowsi's Shahnameh (Book of Kings). Abu 'l Qasem Ferdowsi (940-1025) was not the first to compose an epic in order to standardize in mythical terms and legendary concepts the pre-Islamic Iranian past; but he was the most successful and the most illustrious. That is why many other epic poets followed his example, notably the Azeri Nizami Ganjavi (1141-1209) and the Turkic Indian Amir Khusraw (1253-1325).

Within the context of this poetical historiography, historical emperors of pre-Islamic Iran appear as legendary figures only to be then viewed as materialization of divine patterns. The origin of this transcendental historiography seems to be retraced in the Sassanid times, but all the major themes are clearly of Zoroastrian identity and can therefore be attributed to the Achaemenid world perception and world conceptualization.

It is essential at this point to state that, until the imposition of modern Western colonial academic and educational standards in Iran, Ferdowsi's Shahnameh and the corpus of Iranian legendary historiography was the backbone of the Iranian cultural, intellectual and educational identity.

It is a matter of academic debate whether an original text named Khwaday-Namag, written during the Sassanid times, and now lost, is at the very origin of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh and of the Iranian legendary historiography. The 19th c. German Orientalist Theodor Nöldeke is credited with this theory that has not yet been proved.

All the same, the spiritual standards of this approach are detected in the Achaemenid times.

5- Foreign historiography

Ancient Greek (in reality, Ionian and Attic), Ancient Hebrew and Latin sources of Achaemenid History exist, but first they are external, second they appear to be posterior in their largest part, and third they often bear witness to astounding inaccuracies, fables, untrustworthy data, misplaced focus, excessive verbosity without real substance, and -above all- an enormous and irreconcilable misunderstanding of the Iranian Achaemenid reality, values, world view, mindset, and behavior.

The Ancient Hebrew sources shed light on issues that were apparently critical to the tiny and unimportant, Jewish minority of the Achaemenid Empire; however, these Biblical narratives concern facts that were absolutely insignificant to the imperial authorities of Parsa. One critical issue is concealed by modern scholars though; although all the nations of the Empire were regularly mentioned in the Achaemenid inscriptions and depicted on bas reliefs, the Jews were not. This undeniable fact irrevocably conditions the supposed 'importance' of Biblical texts like Ezra, Esther, Nehemiah, etc. All the same, these foreign historical sources are important for the Jews.

The Ionian and Attic accounts of events that were composed by the Carian renegade Herodotus, the Dorian Ctesias, and the Athenian Xenophon present an even more serious problem. They happened to be for many centuries (16th – 19th c.) the bulk of the historical documentation that Western European academics had access to as regards Achaemenid Iran. This situation produced grave biases among Western academics, because they took all these sources at face value since they had no access to original documentation. The grave trouble persisted even after the decipherment of the Old Achaemenid cuneiform writing and the archaeological excavations that brought to daylight original Iranian imperial documentation.

Only recently, at the end of the 20th c., leading Iranologists like Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg started criticizing the absolutely delusional History of Achaemenid Iran that modern Western scholars were producing without even understanding it by foolishly accepting Ancient Ionian myths, lies and propaganda against the Iranian Empire at face value. This grave problem had also two other parameters:

- first, there was an enormous gap of civilization and a tremendous cultural difference between the Iranian imperial world view, the spiritual valorization of the human being, and the Zoroastrian monotheism from one side and the chaotic, disorderly and profane elements of the western periphery of the Empire. The so-called Greek tribes in Western Anatolia and in the South Balkans were not only multi-divided and plunged in permanent conflict; they were also extremely verbose on common issues, they desecrated the divine world with their nonsensical myths and puerile narratives, and they defiled human spirituality with their love stories about their pseudo-gods. But, very arbitrarily and quite disastrously, the so-called Ancient Greek civilization had been erroneously taken as 'classics' by modern Europeans at a time they had no access to Ancient Oriental sources.

- second, the vertical differentiation between Imperial Iran as the blessed land of divine mission and the disunited and peripheral lands of conflict, discord and strife that were inhabited by the Greek tribes was reflected on the respective, impressively different types of historiography; to the Iranians, few words written by anonymous scribes were enough to describe the groundbreaking deeds of divinely appointed rulers. But for the Greeks, the useless rumors, the capricious hearsay, the intentional lie, the nefarious expression of their complex of inferiority, the vicious slander, and the deliberate ignominy 'had' to be recorded and written down.

The fact that Herodotus' and Xenophon's long narratives have long been taken as the basic source of information about Achaemenid Iran demonstrates how disoriented and misplaced modern Western scholarship is. But by preferring to rely mainly on the Ancient Greek lengthy and false narratives, and not on the succinct, true and chaste Old Achaemenid Iranian inscriptions, they totally misrepresent Ancient Iranian History, preposterously extrapolating later and corrupt standards to earlier and superior civilizations.

And whereas Ancient Roman authors, who wrote in Latin (Pliny the Elder, Seneca the Younger, etc.), and Jewish or Christian historians, who wrote in Alexandrine Koine, like Flavius Josephus and Eusebius of Caesarea Maritima, reproduced the style of lengthy narratives that turns History to mere gossip, the great Babylonian scholar Berossus was very reluctant to add personal comments to his original sources or to allow subjective considerations and thoughts to contaminate his text.

In any case, the vast issue of the multilayered damages caused by the untrustworthy Ancient Greek historiography to modern Western academics' perception and interpretation of Achaemenid Iran is a topic that deserves an entirely independent seminar.

--------------

To watch the video (with more than 110 pictures and maps), click the links below:

HISTORY OF ACHAEMENID IRAN - Achaemenid beginnings 1Α

By Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

------------------------   

To listen to the audio, clink the links below:

HISTORY OF ACHAEMENID IRAN - Achaemenid beginnings 1 (a+b)

------------------------------ 

Download the text in PDF:

[okumaodasi]

PERS KRAL MEZARLARI

III. Artaxerxes'in mezarı İran'ın Fars Eyaleti, Naqsh-e-Rostam arkeolojik alanı ve nekropolünde yer almaktadır.

III. Artaxerxes (Ochus), M.Ö. 358 ile 338 yılları arasında Ahameniş İmparatoruydu. II. Artaxerxes'in oğlu ve halefiydi ve annesi Stateira'ydı.

Artaxerxes'in Mezarı, Persepolis platformunun arkasında, babasının mezarının yanında dağa oyulmuş. Altı  tamamlanmış Ahameniş kraliyet mezarı vardır. Bunlardan dördü Naqš-e Rustam'da ve ikisi Persepolis'te keşfedildi.

Naqš-e Rustam'daki dört mezar Büyük Darius I, Xerxes, Artaxerxes I Makrocheir ve Darius II Nothus'a aittir. Daha genç görünen Persepolis Mezarları sonraki iki krala, Artaxerxes II Mnemon'a (M.Ö. 404-358) ve Artaxerxes III Ochus'a (M.Ö. 358-338) ait olmalıdır.

Mezar çoğu kez III. Artaxerxes'e atfedilir, ancak aslında kral II. Artaxerxes  Mnemon'a ait olabilir. Eğer lahit gerçekten üçüncü Artaxerxes'e aitse mezar odası aynı zamanda Artaxerxes IV Asses ve Darius III Codomannus'un son dinlenme yeri olarak da hizmet vermiş olabilir, çünkü onlara hiçbir zaman uygun bir cenaze töreni yapılmamıştır.

Adet olduğu üzere, mezarın üst kısmındaki rölyef, kralın ebedi, kutsal ateşe ve yüce tanrı Ahuramazda'ya kurban sunuşunu göstermektedir. Hükümdar, tabi ulusları temsil eden kişilerin taşıdığı bir platformun üzerinde duruyor. Bu, Nakş-ı Rüstem'deki Büyük Darius'un mezarının üst kademesinin bir kopyasıdır, ancak yazıtın da kopyalandığı Artaxerxes II Mnemon Mezarı'nı süsleyen kopyadan daha az doğrudur. Alt kısımda mezarın girişi bulunmaktadır, bir lahit ve Artaxerxes II Mnemon'un mezarındakilere benzeyen bazı küçük figürler vardır.

Bu mezarın pilasterlerinin başlıkları özellikle iyi korunmuştur, çatıyı taşıyan boğaları göstermektedir. Persepolis'in saraylarında ve kabul salonlarında da aynı tasarım uygulandı. İnsanların kralla birlikte platform taşıdığı üst katta "taşıma" motifinin tekrarlanması dikkat çekicidir.

Yörede Elamlılardan Ahameniş'e ve antik İran'ın Sasani hanedanlarına kadar uzanan kayaya oyulmuş kabartmaların yanı sıra Nakş-ı Rostam aynı zamanda İran'ın Ahameniş Krallarının yerden yüksekte yeterli sayıda evde kaya yüzeylerine oyulmuş dört mezarı da yer alıyor.

​

[aboutanancientenquiry]

Persepolis. Tomb of the Great King of Persia Artaxerxes III Ochus (359 or 358-338 BCE), an energetic but ruthless ruler who quelled many revolts of satraps and vassals, reconquered Egypt, and managed to restore temporarily the Achaemenid power. According to the ancient Greek sources he died poisoned by his vizier, the eunuch Bagoas.

[whencyclopedia]

Alexander the Great & the Burning of Persepolis

In the year 330 BCE Alexander the Great (l. 356-323 BCE) conquered the Achaemenid Persian Empire following his victory over the Persian Emperor Darius III (r. 336-330 BCE) at the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BCE. After Darius III's defeat, Alexander marched to the Persian capital city of Persepolis and, after looting its treasures, burned the great palace and surrounding city to the ground, destroying hundreds of years' worth of religious writings and art along with the magnificent palaces and audience halls which had made Persepolis the jewel of the empire.

The City

Persepolis was known to the Persians as Parsa ('The City of the Persians'), and the name 'Persepolis' meant the same in Greek. Construction on the palace and city was initiated between 518-515 BCE by Darius I the Great (r. 522-486 BCE) who made it the capital of the Persian Empire (replacing the old capital, Pasargadae) and began to house there the greatest treasures, literary works, and works of art from across the Achaemenid Empire. The palace was greatly enhanced (as was the rest of the city) by Xerxes I (r. 486-465 BCE, son of Darius, and would be expanded upon by Xerxes I's successors, especially his son Artaxerxes I (r. 465-424 BCE), although later Persian kings would add their own embellishments.

Darius I had purposefully chosen the location of his city in a remote area, far removed from the old capital, probably in an effort to dramatically differentiate his reign from the past monarchs. Persepolis was planned as a grand celebration of Darius I's rule and the buildings and palaces, from Darius' first palace and reception hall to the later, and grander, works of his successors, were architectural masterpieces of opulence designed to inspire awe and wonder.

In the area now known as the Marv Dasht Plain (northwest of modern-day Shiraz, Iran) Darius had a grand platform-terrace constructed which was 1,345,488 square feet (125,000 square meters) big and 66 feet (20 meters) tall and on which he built his council hall, palace, and reception hall, the Apadana, featuring a 200-foot-long (60 meters) hypostyle hall with 72 columns 62 feet (19 meters) high. The columns supported a cedar roof which was further supported by cedar beams. These columns were topped by sculptures of various animals symbolizing the king's authority and power. The Apadana was designed to humble any guest and impress upon visitors the power and majesty of the Persian Empire.

Darius I died before the city was completed and Xerxes I continued his vision, building his own opulent palace on the terrace as well as the Gate of All Nations, flanked by two monumental statues of lamassu (bull-men), which led into his grand reception hall stretching 82 feet (25 meters) long, with four large columns 60 feet high (18.5 meters) supporting a cedar roof with brightly decorated walls and reliefs on the doorways. The city is described by the ancient historian Diodorus Siculus (l. 1st century BCE) as the richest in the world and other historians describe it in the same terms.

Continue reading...

[jeannereames]

How many love interest did Alexander have in all of his life? I just recently found out he had an affair with a prostitute named Camaspe and apparently she was the one who was the first to have a physical relationship with him although not for long.

Love your work! 💕

Alexander’s Reported Lovers

Just an FYI … Kampaspe (Campaspe in Latin, also Pancaste) is a character in the second volume of Dancing with the Lion (Rise), as I wanted a second female voice and also a slave’s perspective. Even better that she was born to privilege, then lost it. She was reportedly a Thessalian hetaira from Larissa, which was handy as the Argeads had a long history of ties to the city of Larissa. I wrote about her before in a post from the blog tour the publisher had me do when the books first came out. You can read it HERE.

That said, she’s probably a Roman-era invention, mentioned only by late sources (Lucian, Aelian, and Pliny) all with one (repeated) story: Alexander as Super-patron. Reputedly, he gave her to his favored painter Apelles when, commissioned to do a nude,  Apelles fell in love with her. Alexander kept the painting, Apelles got the girl. You bet I’ll have some fun with that. Kampaspe will remain a major character throughout the series…but not as Alexander’s mistress.

When trying to figure out how many sexual partners Alexander had, we must ask which were invented—or denied. Remember: ancient history wasn’t like modern (academic) history. It was essentially creative non-fiction. It inserted speeches, dialogue, even people and events to liven things up and/or to make a moral point. Or it obscured people and events, if that worked better.

Modern readers of ancient sources must always ask WHO wrote this, WHEN was it written, and what POINT did the author intend? Also, especially with anecdotes, look at the wider context. People are especially prone to take anecdotes at face value and treat them as isolated little tales. Yet CONTEXT IS KING.

A lot of our information about Alexander’s love life comes from Plutarch, either in his Life of Alexander or his collection of essays now called the Moralia. Another source is Curtius’s History of Alexander. And finally, Athenaeus’s Diepnosophistai or The Supper Party (really, The Learned Banqueters). All wrote during the Roman empire and had tropes and messages to get across.

Of the WOMEN associated with Alexander, I’m going to divide them into the historical and the probably fictional, or at least their relationship with Alexander was fictional.

Of the certain, we can count one mistress, three wives, and one probable secret/erased liaison.

Barsine is his first attested mistress for whom we have ample references across multiple sources. Supposedly, she bore Alexander a son (Herakles). Herakles certainly existed, but whether he was Alexander’s is less clear to me. As the half-Persian, half-Greek daughter of a significant satrap, she had no little influence. Monica D’Agostini has a great article on Alexander’s women, btw, in a forthcoming collection I edited for Colloquia Antiqua, called Macedon and Its Influences, and spends some time on Barsine. So look for that, probably in 2025, as we JUST (Friday) submitted the last of the proof corrections and index. Whoo! Anyway, Monica examines all Alexander’s (historical) women in—you guessed it!—their proper context.

Alexander also married three times: Roxane, daughter of the warlord Oxyartes of Sogdiana, in early 327. He married again in mid-324 in Susa, both Statiera (the younger), daughter of Darius, and Parysatis, youngest daughter of the king before Darius, Artaxerxes III Ochus. Yes, both at once, making ties to the older and the newer Achaemenid royal lines.

Out of all these, he had only one living son, Alexander IV (by Roxane)—although he got his women pregnant four times. If we can trust a late source (Metz Epitome), and I think we can for this, Roxane had a miscarriage while in India. Also, Statiera the younger was reputedly pregnant when Roxane, with Perdikkas’s help, killed her just a few days (or hours!) after Alexander died.

That’s 3 …who had baby #4?

Statiera the Elder, Darius’s wife. Netflix’s proposal of a liaison between them was not spun out of thin air. Plutarch—the same guy who tells us ATG never even looked at her—also tells us she died in childbirth just a week or three before the battle of Gaugamela, Oct. 1, 331. Keep in mind, Alexander had captured her right after Issos, Nov. 5, 333. Um … that kid wasn’t Darius’s. And if you think ANYbody would have been allowed to have an affair with such a high-ranking captive as the Great-King’s chief wife, I have some swampland in Florida to sell you. More on it HERE.

Now, for the probably fictional….

Kampaspe, I explained above.

Kallixena was supposedly hired by Philip and Olympias (jointly!) to initiate Alexander into sex, because he didn’t seem interested in women. (Yes, this little titbit is also in Rise.) Athenaeus reports the story as a digression on Alexander’s drinking, and how too much wine led to his lack of sexual interest. But within the anecdote, the reported reason for his parents’ hiring Kallixena was because mommy and daddy feared Alexander was “womanish” (gunnis).

Thaïs was linked to him by Athenaeus, almost certainly based on her supposed participation in the burning of Persepolis…which didn’t happen (or not as related; archaeology tosses cold water on it). Thaïs was Ptolemy’s mistress, and the mother of some of his children.

Athenaeus also mentions a couple unnamed interests, but all illustrate the same point: Alexander is too noble to steal somebody else’s love. Two are back-to-back: the flute-girl of a certain Theodoros, Proteas’ brother, and the lyre player of Antipatrides. The last is a boy, the eromenos of a certain Kalchis, a story related apart from the women, but with the same point.

Even more clearly fictional are his supposed encounters with the Amazon Queen Thalestris and Queen Kleophis of the Massaga (in Pakistan). Reportedly, as Onisikritos was reading from his history of Alexander at the court of King Lysimachos (who’d been a close friend, remember), Lysimachos burst out laughing when Onisikritos got to the Amazon story, and asked, “Where was I when this happened?”

Now, when it comes to his MEN/BOYS, the ice is thinner as no names are definitively given except Bagoas (in a couple sources, chiefly Curtius and Athenaeus). We also have a few generic references to pretty boys, as with Kalchis’s boyfriend mentioned above, and some slave boys offered by a certain Philoxenos, who he turns down, a story told by both Plutarch and Athenaeus.

Curtius alone suggests two more, but at least one is meant to show Alexander’s descent into Oriental Corruption(tm), so it’s possible Curtius made them up. At the very least, he used them for his own narrative purposes. Sabine Müller has a great article on this, albeit in German. Still, if you can read German: “Alexander, Dareios und Hephaistion. Fallhöhen bei Curtius Rufus.” In H. Wulfram, ed., Der Römische Alexanderhistoriker Curtius Rufus: Erzähltechnik, Rhetorik, Figurenpsychologie und Rezeption. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2016, 13-48.

Romans had a certain dis-ease with “Greek Love,” especially when it involved two freeborn men. Fucking slaves was fine; they’re just slaves. Citizen men with citizen boys…that’s trickier.

Curtius labels two youths “favorites,” a phrasing that implies a sexual affair. One is mentioned early in the campaign (Egypt) when Alexander is still “good”; the other after Alexander begins his slide into Persian Debauchery. These are Hektor, Parmenion’s son (good), and Euxinippos, described as being as pretty as Hephaistion, but not as “manly” (bad). Curtius employs Bagoas similarly, even claims he influenced imperial policy for his own dastardly goals. Gasp!

Yes, of course I’m being sarcastic, but readers need to understand the motifs that Curtius is employing, and what they really mean. Not what 21st century people assume they mean, or romantically want them to mean. (See my "Did Bagoas Exist?" post.)

What about Hephaistion? I’ve discussed him elsewhere in an article, but I’ll just remind folks that it’s nowhere made explicit until late sources, in large part because, by the time we meet Alexander and Hephaistion in the histories, they were adults, and any affair between them would be assumed to have occurred in the past, when they were youths. (See my “It’s Complicated” and a reply to them maybe being “DudeBros.”)

This is why we hear about Alexander’s interest in youths, not adult men. It would be WEIRD to the ancient mind (= Very Very Bad) if he liked adult men. In fact, by comparing Hephaistion to Euxinippos, Curtius slyly insinuates that maybe he and Alexander were still…you know (wink, wink). That’s meant to be a slam against Alexander (and Hephaistion)! Therefore, we cannot take it, in itself, as proof of anything. Alexander’s emotional attachment to Hephaistion, however, is not doubted by any ancient source.

So, all those people are attached to Alexander in our sources, but over half may not be real, or at least, may not have had a sexual relationship with him. There may be (probably are) some that simply didn’t make it into the surviving sources.

Yet I’ve mentioned before that we just don’t find sexual misconduct as one of Alexander’s named faults. Even Curtius and Justin must dig for it/make up shit, such as claiming Alexander actually used Darius’s whole harem of concubines or held a drunken revel through Karia after escaping the Gedrosian Desert. (Blue Dionysos and drag queens on the Seine at the Paris Olympics got nothing on his Dionysian komos!)

Drink, anger, hubris…he sure as hell ticked all those boxes. But not sex. In fact, a number of sources imply he just wasn’t that randy, despite his “choleric” temperament. Some of the authors credit too much drink (bad), others, his supreme self-control (good). He’s more often an example of sexual continence—as in the stories from Athenaeus related above. He also didn’t rape his captives, etc., etc.

Make of that what you like, but I find it intriguing.

[honesty-my-policy]

As promised @bright-honey

Quick timeline for you.

6000 BCE: First fortified settlement at Ugarit 4000 BCE: Founding of the city of Sidon 4000 BCE - 3000 BCE: Trade contact between Babylos and Egypt 2900 BCE - 2300 BCE: First settlement of Baalbek 2750 BCE: The City of Tyre is founded 1458 BCE: Kadesh and Megiddo lead a Canaanite alliance against the Egyptian invasion by Thutmose III 1274 BCE: Battle of Kadesh between Pharaoh Ramesses II and King Muwatalli II of the Hittites 1250 BCE - 1200 BCE: Hebrew Tribes settle in Canaan 1200 BCE: Sea Peoples invade the Levant (they are important) 1115 BCE - 1076 BCE: Reign of Tiglath-Pileser I of Assyria who conquers Phoenicia and revitalizes the empire 1080 BCE: Rise of the Kingdom of Israel 1000 BCE: Height of Tyre's power 965 BCE - 931 BCE: Solomon is King of Israel 950 BCE: Solomon builds the first Temple of Jerusalem 722 BCE: Israel is conquered by Assyria 351 BCE: Artaxerxes III sacks Sidon 332 BCE: Alexander the Great sacks Baalbek and renames it to Heliopolis 332 BCE: Conquest of the Levant by Alexander the Great who destroys Tyre Jan 332 BCE - Jul 332 BCE: Alexander the Great besieges and conquers Tyre 64 BCE: Tyre becomes a Roman colony 37 BCE - 4 BCE: Reign of Herod the Great over Judea 30 BCE: Egypt becomes a province of the Roman Empire 30 BCE - 476 CE: Egypt remains a province of the Roman Empire 6 BCE - c. 30 CE: Life of Christ 637 CE: Muslim invasion of the Levant. The Byzantines are driven out. 115 CE- 117 CE: Rome occupies Mesopotamia 117 CE - 138 CE: Reign of Roman Emperor Hadrian

We can stop there because that is where the name Palestine comes from. I've omitted a LOT of history here. These are just some main points. Now for some visual aids.

Take these as you will. While archeology evidence has been found to support the Bible, I'm not aware of maps being found but people tend to forget it isn't a document of fiction, real people made it. That being said there is a LOT of evidence of Sea Peoples

The Sea Peoples are very interesting and I highly recommend reading up on them. It has been theorized and is probably true that it wasn't a singular people but different people coming from the sea as different words were used to describe each set that attacked, 8 different versions have been counted so far.

Of the 8, one that has been seen in recorded archeological history was dubbed Peleset or Pulasati. Historians generally identify them with the Philistines - note these are not the same people as Phoenicians according to historians and other experts.

In fact, the first appearance of the term Palestine but in the 5th century BCE and it was by a Greek historian referring to of a district of Syria called Palaistine between Phoenicia and Egypt. This term was used later by other Greek writers and later on by Roman writers. Though, the region was clearly 'Syria' not Palestine. In fact, let's look at a map or two.

So where did Palestine come from? Remember Roman Emperor Hadrian? Yeah, that asshole. Rome had conquered a large chunk of the known world.

The Jews didn't let themselves be conquered sitting down. The Bar Kochba Revolt was actually at the start going well for the Jews but sadly, the Romans took a scorched earth approach to them and it ended with the destruction of the second Temple, as well as renaming the area known as Judea to Palestina to effectively erase all Jewish connections to the land, going so far as naming it after the historical enemies of the Jews.

This is ALL PUBLIC HISTORY.

[garland-on-thy-brow]

Highlights of the week.

Left the house.

Exercised.

Did several medical quests.

Made sweets at home.

Exchanged gifts.

Looked through Araia's version of Berenice (the one that had Farinelli as Demetrio).

Finished reading Salieri's Catilina. Loved it.

Finished reading and listening to Arne's Artaxerxes. Love the style, love the localisation (turning the generic prison into the London Tower and making it all reminiscent of Richard III).

Translated Act 2 Scenes 8-9 of La morte di Cesare. The arias in verse, even.

Started watching Alessandro nell'Indie.

Duolingo added stories to the Italian to French course.

Started reading Marco Bruto, a tragedy by Antonio Conti. It is one of the sources of, or has a common source with, La morte di Cesare.

Read cool fanfiction.

Read some of the second Philippic.

[myriadne]

Letter from Akhvamazda to Bagavant - Bactria

3 Sivan, year 11 (or 12) of Artaxerxes III, corresponding to 21 June 348 (or 10 June 347) BC

ink on leather written in Official Aramaic

The Khalil Collection

[urlasage]

÷

               ·

𒀭𒀀𒉣𒈾 ANUNNAKI   ·    

                                ·

                  šakkanakki Bābili · King of Babylon ·

                                     ·

                       ·                         ·

                                Sumu-abum

Sumu-la-El                                 Sabium 

                               Apil-Sin

Sin-Muballit                             Hammurabi

                            Samsu-iluna

Abi-Eshuh                                    Ammi-Ditana

         Ammi-Saduqa            Samsu-Ditana

 Dynasty I   · Amorite ·   1894–1595 BC

                      .                               .

                                     .

Ilum-ma-ili                                        Itti-ili-nibi

                            Damqi-ilishu

Ishkibal                                            Shushushi

                              Gulkishar

DIŠ-U-EN                                     Peshgaldaramesh

                          Ayadaragalama

Akurduana                                    Melamkurkurra

                             Ea-gamil

Dynasty II · 1st Sealand · 1725–1475 BC

                                     ·                      

                   ·                                       ·

                   ·                                          ·

                                  Gandash

Agum I                                             Kashtiliash I

Abi-Rattash                                    Kashtiliash II

                            Urzigurumash

Agum II                                             Harba-Shipak

                               Shipta'ulzi

Burnaburiash I                                Ulamburiash

                                                         Kashtiliash III

Agum III

                            Kadashman-Sah

Karaindash                                    Kadashman-Harbe I

                                 Kurigalzu I

Kadashman-Enlil I                        Burnaburiash II

                              Kara-hardash

Nazi-Bugash                                   Kurigalzu II

                             Nazi-Maruttash

Kadashman-Turgu                        Kadashman-Enlil II

                                 Kudur-Enlil

Shagarakti-Shuriash                    Kashtiliash IV

                           Enlil-nadin-shumi

Kadashman-Harbe II                        Adad-shuma-iddina

                                  Adad-shuma-usur

Meli-Shipak

                              Marduk-apla-iddina I

                                                              Zababa-shuma-iddin

 Enlil-nadin-ahi

          Dynasty III ·  Kassite ·  1729–1155 BC

                               .                            .

                                              .

                                              ·

                      ·                                                ·

                           Marduk-kabit-ahheshu

Itti-Marduk-balatu                             Ninurta-nadin-shumi            

                                                       Nebuchadnezzar I

Enlil-nadin-apli                                      Marduk-nadin-ahhe

        Marduk-shapik-zeri                  Adad-apla-iddina

                Marduk-ahhe-eriba           Marduk-zer-X

                                Nabu-shum-libur

              Dynasty IV  ·  2nd Isin   ·     1153–1022 BC

                   ·                                                                ·

                                     ·                           ·

                                                  ·

                                     Simbar-shipak

Ea-mukin-zeri                                           Kashshu-nadin-ahi

                                                   .

          Dynasty V  ·  2nd Sealand  · 1021–1001 BC

                        ·                                                  ·

    ·                                                                                            ·

Eulmash-shakin-shumi                         Ninurta-kudurri-usur I     

                                  Shirikti-shuqamuna

                 Dynasty VI · Bazi · 1000–981 BC

                                                         ��                                               ·

                                         ·                       ·

                                                    ·

                                      Mar-biti-apla-usur

                 Dynasty VII · Elamite · 980–975 BC

                                                     ·

                        ·                                                       ·

                                                       ·

                  ��                                                                            ·

Nabu-mukin-apli                                                          Ninurta-kudurri-usur II

                Mar-biti-ahhe-iddina               Shamash-mudammiq

Nabu-shuma-ukin I                                                Nabu-apla-iddina

Marduk-zakir-shumi I                                   Marduk-balassu-iqbi

                                            Baba-aha-iddina

.

.

.

                                          at least 4 years

                                Babylonian interregnum

Ninurta-apla-X                                                        Marduk-bel-zeri

Marduk-apla-usur                                          Eriba-Marduk

Nabu-shuma-ishkun                                      Nabonassar

Nabu-nadin-zeri                                                      Nabu-shuma-ukin II

                         Dynasty VIII ·  E · 974–732 BC

                                       ·                                        ·

                                                             ·

                                                               ·

                                                                ·

Nabu-mukin-zeri                                              Tiglath-Pileser III

Shalmaneser V                                                Marduk-apla-iddina II

Sargon II                                                                        Sennacherib

Marduk-zakir-shumi II                                              Marduk-apla-iddina II

Bel-ibni                                                                        Aššur-nādin-šumi

Nergal-ushezib                                            Mushezib-Marduk

Sennacherib aka Sîn-ahhe-erība

Esarhaddon aka Aššur-aḫa-iddina

                                                                                   Ashurbanipal

Šamaš-šuma-ukin

Aššur-bāni-apli                                                      Sîn-šumu-līšir

                                                                           Sîn-šar-iškun

                   Dynasty IX · Assyrian · 732–626 BC

                                      .                        .

                                                           .

                                                                     .

                                              Nabopolassar

                                            Nabû-apla-uṣur

Nebuchadnezzar II Nabû-kudurri-uṣur

                                                                          Amēl-Marduk

Neriglissar

Nergal-šar-uṣur

                                          Lâbâši-Marduk

                                                                                      Nabonidus                                                                             

                                                                                     Nabû-naʾid

                 Dynasty X · Chaldean · 626–539 BC

                                      .                            ·

                                      .                           ·

                                      .                           ·

                                      .                           ·

                                      .                           ·

                                      .                           ·

Cyrus II the Great · Kuraš · 𐎤𐎢𐎽𐎢𐏁 Kūruš · 

Cambyses II ·  Kambuzīa ·

Bardiya · Barzia ·

Nebuchadnezzar III · Nabû-kudurri-uṣur ·

·

Darius I the Great · Dariamuš · 1st reign

·

Nebuchadnezzar IV · Nabû-kudurri-uṣur

Darius I the Great · Dariamuš · 2nd reign

·

Xerxes I the Great · Aḫšiaršu · 1st reign

·

Shamash-eriba · Šamaš-eriba

Bel-shimanni · Bêl-šimânni

·

Xerxes I the Great · Aḫšiaršu · 2nd reign

·

Artaxerxes I · Artakšatsu

Xerxes II

Sogdianus

Darius II

Artaxerxes II

Artaxerxes III

Artaxerxes IV

Nidin-Bel

Darius III

Babylon under foreign rule · 539 BC – AD 224

                   Dynasty XI · Achaemenid · 539–331 BC

                          ·.                           ·

                          ·.                           ·

                          ·.                           ·

                          ·.                           ·

                          ·.                                ·

                                                  ·.

Alexander III the Great     ·     Aliksandar

Philip III Arrhidaeus           ·       Pilipsu

Antigonus I Monophthalmus         ·       Antigunusu

Alexander IV                        ·            Aliksandar

Dynasty XII  · Argead ·  331–305 BC

                            ·.

                            ·.

                            ·.

                            ·.

                            ·.

Seleucus I Nicator     ·   Siluku

Antiochus I Soter   ·   Antiʾukusu

Seleucus · Siluku

Antiochus II Theos · Antiʾukusu

Seleucus II Callinicus · Siluku

Seleucus III Ceraunus · 

Antiochus III the Great · Antiʾukusu

Antiochus · 

Seleucus IV Philopator · Siluku

Antiochus IV Epiphanes · 

Antiochus

Antiochus V Eupator

Demetrius I Soter

Timarchus

Demetrius I Soter

Alexander Balas

Demetrius II Nicator

Dynasty XIII · Seleucid ·  305–141 BC

                          ·                           ·.

.                           ·                           ·

.                           ·                           ·

.                           ·                           ·

                          ·                           ·.

                          ·                           ·.

Mithridates I

                                          Phraates II

Rinnu

Antiochus VII Sidetes

                                           Phraates II

Ubulna

Hyspaosines

Artabanus I

Mithridates II

Gotarzes I

Asi'abatar

Orodes I

Ispubarza

Sinatruces

Phraates III

Piriustana

Teleuniqe

Orodes II

Phraates IV

Phraates V

Orodes III

Vonones I

Artabanus II

Vardanes I

Gotarzes II

Vonones II

Vologases I

Pacorus II

Artabanus III

Osroes I

Vologases III

Parthamaspates

Vologases IV

Vologases V

Vologases VI

Artabanus IV

Dynasty XIV · Arsacid ·  141 BC – AD 224

·   9 centuries of Persian Empires ·  until AD 650

Trajan  in AD 116

mid-7th-century    Muslim Empire

                          ·.

                          ·.

                          ·.

               1921 Iraqi State

                          ·.

                          ·.

1978 · 14th of February · Saddam Hussein

                          ·.

                          ·.

2009 · May · the provincial government of Babil

                          ·.

                          ·.

                          ·.

                          ·.

.                           ·

                          ·.

                          ·.

                          ·.

                          ·.

so many kings

and just one queen

                                       semiramis 

                                                              ··                        · 

              ·                        SEMIRAMIS                       ·

                                                    ··

                                     .

               .

     .

.

····  Βαβυλών ··· ΒΑΒΥΛΩΝ ····

Babylonia 

Gate of the Gods

بابل Babil 𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 · 𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 · 𐡁𐡁𐡋 ·  ܒܒܠ ·  בָּבֶל 

Iraq ·  55 miles south of Baghdad

near the lower Euphrates river

.

.

.

.

.

[ashitakaxsan]

They achieved the impossible!

TEHRAN – It took 45 years for a Sassanid-era (224–651) petroglyph to be deciphered, ILNA reported on Saturday.

Forty-five years after its discovery in Naqsh-e Rostam, a royal rock-hewn necropolis in southern Fars province, the Sassanid petroglyph has been translated, Iranian archaeologist Abolhassan Atabaki said.

Raising goats in pastures is the subject of the petroglyph, he mentioned.

The petroglyph also mentions a nearby hydro structure that the residents of the region used for drinking and cattle water, he noted.

This rock drawing is one of the most important and largest petroglyphs discovered by the archaeologists during their previous survey of the area, he explained.

The petroglyph has been homogenized by rainwater because it was exposed to the open air, causing a large number of limestone sediments to slowly form a layer of the upper surface, resulting in the destruction of stone inscriptions, and the loss of parts of the letters, he added.

One of the wonders of the ancient world, Naqsh-e Rostam, is home to spectacular massive rock-hewn tombs and bas-relief carvings. Moreover, it embraces four tombs where Persian Achaemenid kings are laid to rest, believed to be those of Darius II, Artaxerxes I, Darius I, and Xerxes I (from left to right facing the cliff), although some historians are still debating this.

The Achaemenid necropolis is situated near Persepolis, itself a bustling UNESCO World Heritage site near the southern city of Shiraz. Naqsh-e Rostam, meaning “Picture of Rostam” is named after a mythical Iranian hero who is most celebrated in Shahnameh and Persian mythology. Back in time, natives of the region had erroneously supposed that the carvings below the tombs represent depictions of the mythical hero.

There are stunning bas-relief carvings above the tomb chambers that are similar to those at Persepolis, with the kings standing on thrones supported by figures representing the subject nations below. There are also two similar graves situated on the premises of Persepolis probably belonging to Artaxerxes II and Artaxerxes III.

Beneath the funerary chambers are dotted with seven Sassanian eras (224–651) bas-reliefs cut into the cliff depict vivid scenes of imperial conquests and royal ceremonies; signboards below each relief give a detailed description in English.

At the foot of Naqsh-e Rostam, in the direction of the cliff face, stands a square building known as Ka’beh-ye Zardusht, meaning Kaaba of Zoroaster. The building, which is roughly 12 meters high and seven meters square, probably was constructed in the first half of the 6th century BC, although it bears a variety of inscriptions from later periods. Though the Ka’beh-ye Zardusht is of great linguistic interest, its original purpose is not clear. It may have been a tomb for Achaemenian royalty or some sort of altar, perhaps to the goddess Anahiti, also called Anahita believed to be associated with royalty, war, and fertility.

In many ways, Iran under Sassanian rule witnessed tremendous achievements in Persian civilization. Experts say that the art and architecture of the nation experienced a general renaissance during Sassanid rule. In that era, crafts such as metalwork and gem engraving grew highly sophisticated, as scholarship was encouraged by the state; many works from both the East and West were translated into Pahlavi, the official language of the Sassanians.

Of all the material remains of the era, only coins constitute a continuous chronological sequence throughout the whole period of the dynasty. Such Sassanian coins have the name of the king for whom they were struck inscribed in Pahlavi, which permits scholars to date them quite closely.

The legendary wealth of the Sassanian court is fully confirmed by the existence of more than one hundred examples of bowls or plates of precious metal known at present. One of the finest examples is the silver plate with partial gilding in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. The dynasty was destroyed by Arab invaders during a span from 637 to 651.

The ancient region, known as Pars (Fars), or Persis, was the heart of the Achaemenid Empire founded by Cyrus the Great and had its capital in Pasargadae. Darius I the Great moved the capital to nearby Persepolis in the late 6th or early 5th century BC. Alexander the Great defeated the Achaemenian army at Arbela in 331 and burned Persepolis apparently as revenge against the Persians because it seems the Persian King Xerxes had burnt the Greek City of Athens around 150 years earlier.

Persis became part of the Seleucid kingdom in 312 after Alexander’s death. The Parthian empire (247 BC– 224 CE) of the Arsacids (corresponding roughly to the modern Khorasan in Iran) replaced the Seleucids' rule in Persis during 170–138 BC. The Sasanid Empire (224 CE–651) had its capital at Istkhr. Not until the 18th century, under the Zand dynasty (1750–79) of southern Iran, did Fars again become the heart of an empire.

Source:https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/483667/Sassanid-petroglyph-deciphered-after-45-years

[blogdemocratesjr]

A Sculpture Gallery in Rome at the Time of Agrippa by Lawrence Alma-Tadema + Memnon of Rhodes by Dalton Thomas Rix + Coinage of Memnon of Rhodes, Mysia. Mid 4th century BC

Memnon's career in Persian service had a strange start. In fact, the Persians needed his brother Mentor to defend the Troad (the northwest of modern Turkey), and gave him land in that region. Not much later, Mentor was made Persian supreme commander in the West and married Barsine, the daughter of the satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia, Artabazus, who married a sister of the Rhodians.

Memnon joined his brother and shared in his adventures. For example, when Artabazus rebelled against king Artaxerxes III Ochus in 353 or 352, they assisted him. The revolt was not successful, and Artabazus and Memnon were forced to flee to Pella, the capital of Macedonia. Here, they met king Philip, the young crown prince and the philosopher Aristotle of Stagira. ... The Persians dug themselves in on the banks of the river Granicus, the modern Biga Çay. If Alexander moved to the south, where he wanted to liberate Greek towns like Ephesus and Miletus, they could attack his rear; if he moved to the east to drive them out, their position was strong enough to withstand the attack of a larger army. However, the Persians were defeated (June 334).

Darius, however, understood that Memnon had been right about his strategy. He ordered the Persian navy to move to the Aegean sea; it had to come from Egypt, Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and it arrived three days too late to prevent the capture of Miletus. However, Memnon, now appointed supreme commander, managed to keep the Persian naval base Halicarnassus (modern Bodrum) for a long time and was able to evacuate the town without unacceptable losses. In fact, Halicarnassus was the last Persian victory: after the siege, Alexander needed reinforcements, and it gave the Persians the opportunity to regroup.

—Memnon of Rhodes at Livius.org

Memnon, one of King Darius’s generals against Alexander, when a mercenary soldier excessively and impudently reviled Alexander, struck him with his spear, adding, I pay you to fight against Alexander, not to reproach him.

—Plutarch, Morals vol. 1

[adagaium]

something something ifrit is the name given to specific types of powerful demons in islamic myth

Traditionally, Arab philologists trace the derivation of the word to عفر (ʻafara, "to rub with dust" or "to roll into dust"). It is further used to describe sly, malicious, wicked and cunning characteristics. Some Western philologists suggest a foreign origin of the word and attribute it to Middle Persian afritan which corresponds to Modern Persian آفريدن (to create), but this is regarded as unlikely by others. ( gods this is from wikipedia but i promise some heavy duty studying to come )

uuUUUUAAA ok something something ifrit live in the realm of the dead ( from what i understand ) ,,,, ifrit are sly, wicked and cunning, something something ardyn as a daemon is all of those things his bond is with the deity ‘ifrit’ who happens to be bound to him as an ifrit can be bound to a sorcerer ( ??? ) also ifrit are not inherently evil, they may arrive to deliver the will of God, although it’s going to be brutal eg retribution , vengeance for unjust murders ,,, 

something something mithra, a zoroastrian divinity of light, covenant , oath , ( something something ardyn is coded heavily as the sun, ‘ardyn (arden) lucis caelum’ burning light [of the] sky=the sun lbrh its right in our faces ) 

Although the Behistun inscription of Darius I (r. 522 – 486 B.C.) invokes Ahuramazda and "the Other Gods who are", this inscription of Artaxerxes II is remarkable as no Achaemenid king before him had invoked any but Ahura Mazda alone by name. Boyce suggests that the reason for this was that Artaxerxes had chosen Anahita and Mithra as his patron/protector Divinities.

Mithra has invoked again in the single known inscription of Artaxerxes III, A3Pa, found at Persepolis. In that inscription, that emperor to appeals to "Ahuramazda and the God Mithra preserve me, my country, and what has been built by me." ( again this is sadly from wikipedia but honest to god i just need to get this out and i’ll elaborate eventually i promise )

uhh speaking of persepolis  here’s the ruins of the gate of xerxes

here’s costlemark, which is uhh the last? remaining ruins of solheim, or at the very least the only identifiable ones and guess where ardyn is from, solheim 

which was conveniently ruled over by ifrit, who ardyn is you know .... highkey associated with, which loops us right back to ardyn associated with light as ifrit is also called ‘pyreburner’ also the scourge originated in solheim which is uhhh kingdom of the sun, ardyn ( the sun ) meant to be the first king of light so on so forth, 

according to ep ardyn, insomnia was built by somnus, which means it is NOT the place where the initial coronation was mean to happen and all things considered the ruins of costlemark tower may be the tower where ardyn died for the first time, so insomnia’s basis on japan and the remaining lucis caelum line ( especially the modern ones ) being based on the yakuza is still perfectly valid, because ardyn’s coding is arguably ENTIRELY SEPARATE from that,

aNYWAY SOLHEIM IS PERSEPOLIS ARDYN IS THUS PERSIAN AND IS REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH THE GOD OF LIGHT, MITHRA, THE SAVIOR, CHRIST, THE AVENGING BUT NOT INHERENTLY EVIL IFRIT, THANKS FOR COMING TO MY TEDTALK 

[autodidactprofessor]

Artaxerxes III: The Ruthless Reclaimer of the Achaemenid Empire

Rise to Power The royal court of Persia was a labyrinth of intrigue, ambition, and lethal rivalries. Artaxerxes III was born as Ochus, the youngest son of Artaxerxes II and Queen Stateira. His father’s reign, spanning over four decades, was marred by internal strife, including rebellions led by his own sons. The multiplicity of heirs, each born to different wives and concubines, created an…

[whencyclopedia]

Achaemenid Kings List & Commentary

The Achaemenid Empire (c. 550-330 BCE) was the first great Persian political entity in Western and Central Asia which stretched, at its peak, from Asia Minor to the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia through Egypt. It was founded by Cyrus II (the Great, r. c. 550-530 BCE) whose vision of a vast, all-inclusive Persian Empire was, more or less, maintained by his successors.

The Persians arrived in the region of modern-day Iran as part of a migratory group of Aryans (meaning “noble” or “free” and referencing a class of people, not a race). The Aryans – made up of many tribes such as the Alans, Bactrians, Medes, Parthians, and Persians, as well as others – settled in the area which became known as Ariana (Iran) – “the land of the Aryans”. The tribe which eventually became known as the Persians settled at Persis (modern-day Fars) which gave them their name.

Artaxerxes V (r. 330-329 BCE) was the short-lived throne name of Bessus, satrap of Bactria, who assassinated Darius III and proclaimed himself king. Alexander the Great found the dead or dying Darius III (the original accounts vary on this) in a cart where Bessus had left him and gave him a proper burial with all honors. Afterwards, Alexander had Bessus executed and took for himself the honor of the title Shahanshah, the king of kings of the Achaemenid Empire.

Conclusion

Although the Achaemenid Empire was no longer what it had been under Darius I, it was still intact when Alexander conquered it. He attempted a synthesis of Greek and Persian cultures by marrying his soldiers to Persian women, elevating Persian officers to high rank in his army, and comporting himself as a Persian king. His efforts were not appreciated by the Greek/Macedonian army and, after his death in 323 BCE, his vision was abandoned. Since he had named no clear successor at the time of his death, his generals went to war with each other to claim supremacy.

These wars (known as the Wars of Diadochi, 322-275 BCE), resulted, in part, in the rise of the Seleucid Empire (312-63 BCE) under Alexander's general Seleucus I Nicator (r. 305-281 BCE). The Seleucid Empire occupied approximately the same regions as the Achaemenid and, though it rose to a position of strength, gradually lost territory, first to the Parthians and then later to Rome. The Seleucids were succeeded by the Parthian Empire (247 BCE- 224 CE) which fell to the Sassanian Empire (224-651 CE). The Sassanians revived the best aspects of the Achaemenid Empire and would become the greatest expression of Persian culture in the ancient world.

The Sassanian Empire preserved the culture of the Achaemenids and, even after its fall to the invading Muslim Arabs, this culture would endure and spread throughout the ancient world. Many aspects of life in the modern day, from the seemingly mundane of birthday parties, desserts, and teatime to the more sublime of monotheism, mathematics, and aspects of art and architecture, were developed by the Sassanians drawing on the model of the Achaemenid Empire.

Continue reading...

[jeannereames]

Politically, it always made sense that Alexander married the daughters of Darius III and Artaxerxes III. It even seems like a common move. But didn't the Greeks hold themselves to a higher standard than marrying a foreigner? Even if they didn't consider the Persians outright barbarians, they were foreigners and a conquered enemy. It seems also stranger that the marriage to Roxanna happened since she seems to be far from the ideal bride

What I am trying to ask is, didn't the Greeks expect Alexander to marry a Greek woman with a proper Greek wedding? I can grasp what Alexander had in mind with the Suda weddings, but it seems very strange that this “ethnic” “Greek” element is not present

ALEXANDER & MARRIAGE

(and what was Greek “ethnicity”)

First, let me link to 2 other posts that deal with Alexander and marriage, but don’t address the ethnic element except obliquely.

Argead Inheritance and Alexander’s (lack of) heirs

Why did it take so long for Alexander to father an heir?

A couple interpretive levels present here:

Greek ethnicity and marriage pre- and post-Persian wars

Macedonian expectations for (polygamous) royal marriage

Roman attitudes, especially Late Republic (Antony and Cleopatra in particular)

I want to note that Macedonians were regarded by Greeks—and regarded themselves—as a separate people. Today in Greece, The Macedonian Question is a hot-button issue that reflects MODERN politics and nationalism. We can now say (finally have enough epigraphical evidence) that the ancient Macedonians appear to have spoken a form of northern Doric Greek, distinct from Thessalian and Epirote forms, so by modern definitions, we’d consider them Greek.

But our ancient sources often speak of the Greeks and Macedonians as if they were different, if related, peoples. Certainly, while they shared many similarities, Macedonians were distinct, and didn’t especially want to BE Greeks. I tried to reflect that ancient attitude in Dancing with the Lion.

Furthermore, the tendency to glomp all of ancient Greece together reflects Early Modern ideas of nationhood. THERE WAS NO ANCIENT NATION CALLED GREECE. That’s one of the first things I teach in my “Intro to Greek History” class. 😊 “Greece” (Hellas)* was simply a landmass. In fact, the ancient Greeks don’t appear to have referred to themselves as “Greek”—an ethnicity—until the Persian invasion.** Ethnicities were “Athenian,” “Spartan,” “Corinthian,” “Theban,” etc. Independent city-states with their own laws, coinage, magistracies, etc. In addition, they recognized larger dialect groupings: Ionic-Attic, Doric, Aeolic, then subdivisions within that. These larger dialect groupings also shared social customs and dress, as well as distinct religious cult. So, for instance, you won’t find many/any temples to Hephaistus in Doric areas, and the peplos became associated with Doric women while Ionic-Attic wore the chiton. Even the later Roman province was called Achaia and didn’t include a lot of areas they’d have considered “Greek” (Hellene).

It took being invaded by a true “Other” (Persia) before they started to define themselves as Hellenes versus Barbaroi (not-Greeks)—yet they didn’t always agree on the “edges.” It’s not until late that we find Thessaly included at the Olympic games. Epiros was sorta-Greek, as they could claim Achilles, but both Epiros and Thessaly had semi-monarchic political systems not in line with accepted Greek norms (the polis). Macedon was even further afield, being a full-on monarchy. The Macedonian royal family claimed to be Greeks ruling over a non-Greek but cousin people; the (fictional) eponymous founder, Makedon, was a nephew of the equally fictional forefather of the Greeks: Hellen. The “Greekness” of the royal family was also a fiction, invented by Alexander I—in the wake of the Greco-Persians Wars, note.

Now, again, by modern criteria, we’d probably consider the Macedonians blended but largely Greek. Yet it’s important to recognize the difference between now and then—something I get frustrated over in modern arguments. (Which can be quite strident.)

Anyway, it’s during/after the Greco-Persian Wars that barbaros came to acquire a more negative connotation. In the Archaic Age, it was a neutral term. Barbaros simply meant “non-Greek speaker” or “the bar-bar people” (“those whose language sounds like bar-bar-bar-bar to us”). It’s not complimentary, but it’s also not as negative as it came to imply later.

Furthermore, in the Archaic Age, plenty of Greek men, including Athenians, married non-Greek women—often to cement business ties, especially in Asia Minor, Thrace, and Italy. In many city-states, these children were citizens if their father was. It’s only in a few city-states that both parents had to be citizens, such as Sparta and, later, Athens. These developments are either very late Archaic or Classical, in order to restrict citizen privileges.

IOW, even in Greece proper, marrying a Greek woman wasn’t important except in a few places, specifically to limit citizenship for economic reasons. Notions of ethnic purity as we understand it weren’t a thing. Yes, even in Sparta. Full Spartans excluded other Lakonians, who spoke the exact same language and kept the exact same religious cult. In short, all Spartiátēs were Lakedaimonians (the city-state) and Lakonians (ethnicity), but not all Lakonians and Lakedaimonians were Spartiátēs. E.g. Spartiátēs were the aristocratic class. (The alt-right really needs to figure that out … except, yeah, they don’t want to as it would mess with their biases.)

When Herodotos included “blood” in his famous definition of Greekness (to speak the Greek language, worship the Greek gods, keep Greek customs, have Greek blood—and to live in a polis), “blood” meant from DADDY. This relates a bit to ancient views that a mother was just a field to be plowed for male seed. Ergo, children inherited from their fathers. (This belief was not universal, especially later, but it informed early Greek thought, and thus, inheritance laws.)

NOW … Macedonia.

Macedonian kings practiced royal polygamy for political reasons. That means Alexander wasn’t the first to marry non-Macedonians. In fact, of Philip’s 7 wives, only Kleopatra (the last) is *distinguished* as a Macedonian. Even Phila is called Elimeian (Upper Macedonian) by Statyrus. Olympias was Epirote (Greek), Philina and Nikesepolis were Thessalian (Greek), Audata was Illyrian (non-Greek), and Meda was Getai Thracian (non-Greek).

Was there objection to Philip’s marrying the latter two? Our evidence doesn’t say. In the case of Audata, he may not have had a choice; marrying her was probably part of the peace deal with Bardyllis shortly after Philip came to the throne. Later, Meda was just “wife #6” so it’s unlikely anyone cared. Hooplah over Kleopatra as a “pure” Macedonian at their wedding was meant to diss Olympias, and thus, Alexander; it wasn’t a serious objection to Macedonian kings marrying non-Macedonian/Greek women. Especially as Epirote Olympias was Greek.

Things get even MORE complicated when we look at Alexander’s weddings. How much of the supposed objection to them is Macedonian, and how much from later Greek and Roman authors’ horror over “Orientals” generally? I’d submit Curtius’s bitching about Roxana is very ROMAN. Plutarch turns it all into a love affair, but has his own reasons for that. It’s really hard to know what to make of complaints. Was his taking of Persian brides itself offensive, or just as part of his overall adoption of Persian dress and customs? I’m sure there was no collective “Macedonian attitude” so much as various camps into which this or that solder fell—from strict Traditionalists like Kleitos through to Hephaistion, who is portrayed as supporting ATG’s Persianizing.

Last, I’ll also submit another reason we find anxiety about “foreign” wives in our Alexander histories: Octavian whipping up Roman nationalist fear of Cleopatra (VII) and Antony’s marriage to her. Cleopatra became a stand-in for the Wicked Wild Oriental East and corruption of Good Roman Virtues. She’s that “Egyptian woman” (yes, even though she was technically Greco-Macedonian). Caesar may have entertained an affair with her and nursed Alexander comparisons, but between Caesar and Octavian/Antony (in fact partly because of Caesar), Alexander imitatio had fallen out of favor and would stay so for a while in the early Republic.

Curtius would have been writing (we think; dating him is tricky) under the late Julio-Claudians. So yeah, them furrun’ wimmen gotta be watched out for! Marrying Roxane was part of Alexander’s seduction by the East after the death of Darius. That Roxane was not a princess (like Statiera) made it even worse. She was a TRUE barbarian.

Add to that, polygamy wasn’t understood by either Greek or Roman writers. Plutarch tries to explain Philip’s later marriage to Kleopatra as divorcing Olympias first (as does Justin) because Romans (and Greeks) used divorce. Polygamy was, to their minds, an eastern vice. So Alexander taking (unequivocably) three wives was oriental, proof of his corruption.

Hope this helps to contextualize what we’re looking at here, and the problems involved reading the sources.

If some Macedonians objected to Alexander marrying Roxane (and they probably did), it would have been because she wasn’t high-born enough for a (first) wife, and/or she was TOO foreign. But as that marriage got them out of Baktria/Sogdiana, it looked just like things Philip had done.

Later objections involved whether Roxane’s child should be accepted as heir over Arrhidaios. That’s a different kettle of fish. It’s clear that status of the mother was important in Macedonian inheritance squabbles even before Alexander. While some Macedonians preferred the mentally unfit Arrhidaios over the child of any “captive,” others did not. They wanted a son of Alexander.

So who he married mattered rather less than who was put forward to inherit the diadema.

---------------------------

* “Greek” is from the Latin Graecae, a specific Greek tribes, just like the Romans are a specific Latin tribe. The Romans just applied it to everybody on the peninsula. The Greeks called themselves “sons of Hellen”: Hellenes. The official name of the country even today is Hellas, not Greece. Hellen isn’t to be confused with the (feminine) Helen, btw. Hellen was a son of Deukalion, Helen the wife of Menelaus, and later mistress of Paris.

** For an excellent, if rather…er, thick discussion, with lots (and I mean LOTS) of ancient evidence, see Jonathan Hall’s Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, which addresses the question of when the ancient Greeks became “Greeks.”