History of Iran
(part of Iranologie.com)
Part IV: Achaemenid Empire
Chapter VI: Darius III and Alexander's Campaign
Accession of Darius III Codomannus
After poisoning Arses, the successor of Artaxerxes III, the kingmaker-eunuch Bagoas, proceeded to put Darius III Codomannus, a great-grand child of Darius II, on the throne (336 BC). Shortly after, Bagoas tried to poison Darius as well and claim the throne for himself, and act that would have been unprecedented if successful, since only members of the Achaemenid family could become emperors. We shall not know the possible outcome of this attempt at changing the system, since apparently in this case Darius was more cunning and managed to force Bagoas himself to drink the poison, and thus removed him from the power struggle of the time.
Our first mention of Darius III comes from the accounts of Artaxerxes III’s campaign against the Cadusians, were Darius, a distantly related prince, gained decisive victories against the rebellious Cadusians. The fact that Darius III was even chosen to become a king shows the extent of Artaxerxes III’s slaughter of the members of his family, leaving Darius, son of Ostanes, son of Arsames, son of Darius II as the only possible contender to the throne.
Darius initial act as the emperor was to put down a rebellion in Egypt. During his time, Phoenicia, formerly the greatest naval power in the Mediterranean started to lose its power in face of the growing power of its daughter state, Carthage. This managed to drive Phoenicia ever closer to the Persian Empire, as it needed the support of the Persian power if wanted to retain its power in that area. Consequently, Phoenicia became the only loyal subject of the Persian Empire in face of almost unanimous independence movements in Asia Minor and the rest of West Asia.
Not much is known about the reign of Darius III outside the context of Alexander’s campaign. Darius himself has left no inscriptions for us, and Alexander’s burning of the Persepolis treasury later means that know records from the Iranian side has survived to give us a glimpse of Darius’ court. However, from its outcomes, it is not hard to imagine that much of his short reign was spent in courtly intrigues and the loss of central authority, making it only too easy for Alexander to proceed with his conquests. But before Darius and Alexander, there was Philip II.
Philip of Macedon and the Greek Union
Philip II inherited the Macedonian throne in 360 BC. His country, a vast and rich in the north of the Balkan Peninsula, provided much opportunity for the creation of a powerful military state, an objective of Philip’s predecessors, aggressively pursued by Philip himself. Under Philip’s instruction, Macedonian soldiers soon became the most skilled of their times, incorporating various combat techniques, from Greek Phalanx to Persian Cavalry, and armed with the best weapons of the time. In order to further strengthen his army, Philip provided large sums for the development of better swords, lances, bows, siege engines, and other personal and mass weapons.
Philip’s political ambition was to establish his control over the whole Balkan Peninsula and Greece and to proceed to wage war against the aging the aging Persian Empire. His initial campaigns, to subdue the states around Macedonia, were successful, although at times, like his conquest of Thrace, it put him at odds with the Persian Empire. But the empire seemed too busy dealing with internal struggles to bother with Philip and his ‘minor threat’.
Still, Philip’s most difficult challenge was to establish his dominance over the independent and always fighting Greek city-states. The Hellenised Macedonians, headed by Philip, pretended that they are the sole saviours of Greek culture and values, and that their policy of ‘uniting’ the Greeks under the leadership of Macedonia, was indeed the only way for the Greeks to survive in face of the Persian power. In fact, Persia had not been a threat to the Greeks for quite some times, and the Greek city-states had easily managed to keep their independence during the 200 years of Persian power.
Nonetheless, Philip’s ideas seemed to have some followers in Greece, most noticeably Isocrates the leader of the ‘Unionist Party’ in Athens who encouraged the union of Greek city-states in order to attack the “Barbarians” of the east. On the other, majority of the Greeks and their leaders such as Demosthenes, tended to regard the Persians as less of a threat for the Greeks than Philip’s Macedonian soldiers. Instead, they championed an alliance with Persians against Macedonia to limit its expansion southwards. The unionists instead accused Demosthenes of receiving bribe from the Persians, an obvious slander campaign recognised even in the ancient times.
Finally, following the attack of an Argos-Messina allied army against Athens and its allies, Philip entered the internal fights of Greek. His move against Athens resulted in the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC that effectively ended the Greek independence. Under the auspices of Philip, a pan-Hellenic congress was formed in 337 BC in Corinth, attended by representatives of all Greek city-states with the exception of Sparta which still resisted the Macedonian dominance. A ‘Peace’ was established in Greece and Philip became ‘strategos-autokrat’ and the supreme commander of the united Greek forces. Macedonian camps were settled near major Greek towns, and the ‘Union of Greece’, which Macedonia did not formally join, was established.
Soon afterwards, General Parmenion and 10,000 Macedonian soldiers entered Asia Minor under the context of liberating the Greek states of Ionia. Many of these cities welcomes the Macedonian forces, and Pixodarus of Caria even promised his daughter as the bride of Philip’s younger son. This raised the suspicion of Philip’s elder son, Alexander, and in 336 BC, Philip II of Macedon was murdered by conspirators who themselves were immediately killed by royal guards, thus burying the secret of their conspiracy.
Alexander thus became the king of Macedonia, and he recognised that the Macedonian army is not ready for a campaign against Persia and recalled the soldiers from Asia Minor. This gave the Persian court two years to prepare for the onslaught of Alexander, a period ignored and wasted by the Persian court on internal power struggles and intrigues.
Campaign of Alexander
The details of Alexander’s attack on the Persian Empire are beyond the bounds of this chapter and they have been discussed by various military historians. Most of these details have reached us via the accounts of Greek and later Roman historians such as Arrian, Diodorus, and Curtius Rufus. Modern historians have also analysed the details of these accounts and have given us some enlightening insights into these accounts. These include intelligent and realistic interpretations of the number of the soldiers reported, based on consideration such as the amount of supplies required and even the size of the battlefields. Consequently, we can imagine that when a total force of 200,000 soldiers are reported, the real number was probably much closer to 15 to 20 thousand or less.
One aspect of Alexander’s campaign that is of interest to modern observers is his careful planning of the formation of the army besides the fighting forces. Historians and writers accompanied the army in order to write their version of the battles, hence the almost monotonous report of victories and the curious absence of defeats. Geographers and naturalists also were present to map the conquered areas and evaluate them for the settlement of the Greek settlers. Indeed, one socio-economical reason for the sudden outpour of Greeks behind Alexander was the over-population of the Greek peninsula and the need for its poorer classes to move and settle in other areas. Consequently, we see the almost immediate creation of Greek and Macedonian settlements in the areas conquered by Alexander.
In the spring of 334 BC, Alexander and his Macedonian forces entered Asia Minor with the declared goal of taking revenge for Xerxes’ campaign against the Greeks 150 years before. Alxander’s army was the largest that had ever come of out of Greece and it enjoyed supremacy in both fighting skills and weapons over their projected Persian rivals. The only week part of the Macedonian-Greek military force was its naval power which was far inferior to the joined Persian-Phonician fleet. As a result, Alexander stayed away from naval battles and continued on land towards Asia Minor. It is reported that the general of the Greek mercenaries in the Persian army, Memnon, suggested that the Persians avoid facing Alexander in open fields and to take the battle over to the Balkans. However, his suggestion was denied by Persian satraps who felt their forces were superior to Alexander’s. Consequently, the first battle, beside the river Granichus in May 334 BC, was commenced with initial Persian success, but was finally won by the Macedonians.
Memnon and Persian satraps took refuge in various fortresses and towns, with Memnon abandoning Miletus for an attack on Lesbos and Chios, then dying suddenly of mysterious circumstances. Eventually, Alexander captured Ionia and was welcomed in Sardis, and managed to conquer Cappadocia and Phrygia as well. As reported by Greeks, the Persian navy curiously refrained from capturing mainland Greece and cutting Alexander’s contact with home.
The first major clash with the Persian army took place in Issus on November of 333 BC, after Alexander’s conquest of Cilicia. The Persian army, commanded by a boastful and over confident Darius III, was badly managed and lacked morale, and thus suffered a serious defeat. Much of Darius’ household, including daughters of Artaxerxes III, were captured by Alexander after the Darius fled the scene. Shortly after, Damascus opened its gates to Alexander and the treasury was given to him. Conquest of much of Phoenicia came quickly, with the exception of the brave resistance put on by Tyre. After an eight months siege, Tyre was conquered (July 332 BC) and razed to the ground, its inhabitants were executed, and many of them were sold into slavery, putting an effective end to one of Near East’s most ancient commercial and cultural centres.
From Phoenicia, Alexander turned towards Egypt which was conquered quickly 331 BC. Before the Egyptian campaign, Darius III offered to recognise Alexander’s supremacy in the lands west of Euphrates and to offer 10,000 Talents of silver for the release of his family. Alexander rejected, requesting that Darius himself appear in Alexander’s court, recognising him as the ‘King of Asia’, a condition naturally refused by Darius.
After Egypt, Alexander turned towards Mesopotamia, conquering the rest of Syria and savagely punishing the people of Samaria who refused to submit to him. Further on, the Macedonians faced Darius’ new army (reported to include over ‘One Million’ soldiers by the Greek historians of the time) in Gaugamela on October 1, 331 BC. The Persian army was again commanded by Darius himself, and it was badly rooted by the Macedonian cavalry, resulting in a disastrous defeat by the Persian army. Darius again fled the battlefield, taking refuge inside Iran and moving towards the east to gather a new force. Meanwhile, Alexander marched down the Euphrates to Babylon, where he was received with royal welcomes and crowned as the ‘King of Babylon’ and made sacrifices to Marduk.
After Babylon, Alexander moved towards Elam and invaded Susa, where he captured the Persian ‘emergency’ treasury, containing an enormous amount of gold and silver. Subsequently he proceeded towards Persia itself and captured the magnificent Persepolis palaces, taking the treasury as booty. It is during this time that Alexander is reported to have burned the palaces in a bout of intoxication (May 330 BC). The motives for this act have perplexed a lot of historians since that time, mostly suggesting that he made the act as a revenge for Xerxes’ burning of Athens’ Acropolis. This would sound unusual since the equivalent of Acropolis would have not been Persepolis, rather the palace complex of Susa or the Temples of Ecbatana. It can be suggested that since Alexander’s attention towards leaving his own account of history is well-known, the burning of the Persepolis Palaces (particularly the treasury, which contained invaluable records of Achaemenid administration and history, as witnessed by Ktesias) can be part of a systematic campaign to destroy all records of history that might conflict with Alexander’s version.
At this time, Darius III who was taking refuge with Bessus, satrap of Bactria, was murdered by his courtiers. Bessus declared himself emperor under the name of Artaxerxes IV. In 329 BC, Alexander conquered Bactria and savagely executed Bessus. From there, he moved against Central Asia were he faced the resistance of local ruler such as Spithamates. It took Alexander until 327 to establish his rule over Central Asia, during which time he committed many inhumane acts of massacre, destruction of cities, and enslavement of populations. His acts are considered savage and senseless even by many Greek and Roman accounts of the wars and they seem to have been solely taken up to depopulate the conquered areas and prepare them for the settlement of Greek mercenaries.
Alexander’s final campaign in Iran was conquest of Drangiana in 326 before proceeding to a campaign in Norther India (present day Northern Pakistan). After his return to Babylon in 324 BCE, Alexander died of mysterious causes and left his generals to fight over the conquered lands. His failure to establish a proper civil system to rule his empire resulted in its immediate disintegration and partition to several smaller empires and petty kingdoms.
Alexander’s Image in Iran
Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire ended the reign of the first successful power to unite almost all of West Asia under one political system. The Achaemenid Empire managed to create a sense of unity in the core of its lands, mainly what is historically known as Iran: the land between Tigris and Oxus. On the other hand, out of all of Alexander’s claims about his aim in spreading the Greek culture, he managed to introduce the Greek ‘Polis’ system to the former Achaemenid lands, a system that became prominent during the next 500 years.
The mixed results of Alexander’s conquest produced two images of him inside Iran. One version, apparently taken up by the religious establishment, made Alexander an agent of Ahreman (the Evil Spirit) and called him “Gojastak Aleskandar”: Alexander the Damned. Another version, which survived in popular tales and immortalized in “Eskandar Nameh” and Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh, relates that Alexander was the son of “Dara”, the Persian Emperor, when he impregnated Olympia, mother of Alexander, before giving her as a gift to Philip. This story, curiously reflected in Egyptian accounts where Alexander is son of Pharaoh Nekht-har-hebi, legitimates Alexander’s conquest as him reclaiming his heritage from Darius III -the distantly related usurper. Furthermore, in the Islamic times, Alexander is matched with “Dhul-gharnin”, the legendary king who accompanied prophet Khedr in his journey to the Darkness, and thus provides a religious character for Alexander as well.
In the modern times and with the renewed interest in the ancient Iranian history and with the nationalistic and patriotic feelings that were attached to it, many popular ‘studies’ proceeded to reject the whole story of Alexander. These works tried to prove that Alexander did not ever exist or that the extent of his campaigns was fictional. While Alexander’s existence can be proven via his coins and the extent of his conquests via archaeological means, there is something to be considered from these attempts.
Alexander for long has been held as the hero of the Western World. His campaigns are seen as the spread of Civilisation among the Barbarians, even by those who admit to the naivety of calling the Persians Empire, with its roots in Elam, Babylon, and Zoroastrianism, “Barbarian”. Nonetheless, his campaign is held high as the victory of west against the east, and he is called the greatest general of all times. On the other hand, Alexander’s complete lack of knowledge about the countries he was conquering (he kept on insisting that the Balck, Caspian, and Aral seas where all the same), his cruelty and massacres, and his destruction of the centres of culture like Tyre, makes him more a predecessor of Tamerlane and Ghenghis Khan than Nelson Mandela! Also the almost unbelievable speed of his actions (conquest of Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, Elam, Persia and Ecbatana all in the period of one and half year?!), makes it likely that his successes have been largely exaggerated. It might be wiser to imagine that the conquest of Eastern Iran and Central Asia or the campaigns of Egypt and Syria should be credited to his generals and they might have even taken place after his death.
In any case, whatever the character of Alexander or the nature and tactics of his conquests might have been, it is obvious that the Achaemenid Empire, the first empire to unite all of West Asia, was defeated and removed. This success was not to repeat other than small periods, until the Saljuqid era, almost 1,000 years later. Alexander’s campaign also marked the first appearance of a large army from Europe in Asia.
Part IV Index History Page Iranologie Main Page
General Bibliography and Reading Suggestions
Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Eisenbrauns, 2002
Childs, W.A.P. "Lycian relations with Persians and Greeks in the fifth and fourth centuries re-examined", AnSt 31, 1981
Dandamaev, M.A. A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire. Translated by W.J. Vogelsang. E.j> Brill, Leiden, 1989
Engels, Donald W. Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army, 1978
Starr, C.G. "Greeks and Persians in the Fourth Century B.C." Iranica Antiqua Vol 11 (1975) and Volume 12 (1977)
Online Resources
http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/Alexanderama.html
http://www.1stmuse.com/frames/