The History of Antiquity, Vol. 5 (of 6)

Apart from the motives which influenced him in describing the elevation of Deioces, Herodotus wishes to show how the nations of Asia obtained their freedom, and subsequently lost it. He begins with the statement, that the Medes revolted from Assyria, and all the nations of Asia followed their example. According to his dates, which have been already mentioned, the Medes must have revolted precisely at the time when Tiglath Pilesar II. and Sargon reigned over Assyria, i. e. in the period between 745 and 705 B.C. The liberation of the remaining nations must therefore have taken place under Sargon or his successors, Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, i. e. between the year 705 and 668 B.C. That this general liberation from the sovereignty of the Assyrians did not take place at this period is abundantly clear from the inscriptions of the kings and the Hebrew Scriptures. We have seen above to what an extent Tiglath Pilesar caused the whole of Syria to feel the weight of the Assyrian arms; he reduced Babylonia to dependence as far as the Persian Gulf; Sargon was sovereign of Babylonia, maintained Syria, and received the homage of the island of Cyprus, and the islands of the Persian Gulf. His successor, Sennacherib, though unable to protect Syria against Egypt, yet retained Babylonia and the eastern half of Asia Minor under his dominion. Esarhaddon united the crowns of Asshur and Babel, restored the supremacy of Assyria over Syria, subjugated a part of Arabia and the whole of Egypt.[467 - Vol. III. Bk. 4; Chaps. 1, 4, 5-8.] Hence it is clear, that precisely at the time when, according to Herodotus, the rest of the nations following the example of the Medes threw off the Assyrian yoke, that kingdom reached a wider extent than at any previous time. If, nevertheless, we wish to maintain the statement that the rest of the nations followed the example which the Medes are supposed to have set about the year 736 B.C.,[468 - According to Von Gutschmid. Cf. supr. p. 278.] we must place these events in the last decade of the reign of Assurbanipal, i. e. in the period between 636 and 626 B.C. We must therefore bring them down a full century, and this was a very late result of the action of the Medes.

Let us attempt, by a comparison of the statements of the Assyrian inscriptions on the events which took place on the table-land of Iran and the narrative of Herodotus, to ascertain the real facts of the liberation of the Medes. We saw above (p. 19) that Shalmanesar II. of Asshur (859-823 B.C.) carried his campaigns as far as the East of Iran. In the year 835 B.C. he imposed tribute on twenty-seven princes of the land of Parsua, and "turned against the plains of the land of Amadai;" in 830 B.C. his general-in-chief, Dayan Asshur, went down into the land of Parsua, and laid tribute on the land of Parsua, "which did not worship Asshur," obtained possession of the cities, and sent their people and treasures into the land of Assyria.[469 - Vol. II. p. 319. I cannot accept the theory which Lenormant has attempted to establish on the geographical differences in the inscriptions of Shalmanesar II. and Tiglath Pilesar II. – that the Medes and Persians obtained possession of Western Iran shortly before the middle of the eighth century. "Lettres Assyriolog." and "Z. Aegypt. Spr." 1870, s. 48 ff.] Tiglath Pilesar II. (745-727 B.C.), in the campaign which carried him to Arachosia, subjugated "the land of Nisaa" and "the cities of the land of Media (Madai)." In the following year he occupied "the land of Parsua;" "Zikruti in rugged Media, I added to the land of Assyria; I received the tribute of Media;" and on his ninth campaign he again marched into "the land of Media." In an inscription which sums up all his achievements, he declares that he has imposed tribute "on the land of Parsua," the city of Zikruti, "which depends on the land of the Medes," and on the chieftains of "the land of Media."[470 - Vol. III. 3-5.] The books of the Hebrews tell us that after the fall of Samaria in 721 B.C. "the king of Assyria carried Israel away, and gave them habitations in Chalah, and in the cities of the Medes." It was Sargon (722-705 B.C.) to whom Samaria yielded.[471 - Vol. III. 85.] His inscriptions also tell us that he carried away the inhabitants of Samaria, and they make mention of the cities of the Medes. According to them, he received heavy tribute from twenty-five chiefs of the Medes in the year 716 B.C., and set up his royal image in the midst of their cities. In the next year he carried away captive "Dayauku with his people and his family, and caused him to dwell in the land of Amat," built fortresses in order to control Media, received tribute from twenty-two chiefs of the Medes, conquered thirty-four cities in Media, and united them with Assyria. In the year 713 B.C. he marched against Bit Dayauku, reduced the chief districts of Media, which had cast off the yoke of Assyria, and received tribute from forty-five Median chiefs; 4609 horses, asses, and sheep in great abundance. Sargon repeatedly boasts that "he has reduced the distant land of Media, all the places of distant Media, as far as the borders of the land of Bikni; that he brought them under the dominion of Asshur; and that his power extended as far as the city of Simaspati, which belonged to distant Media in the East."[472 - Vol. III. 101.] The inscriptions of his successor Sennacherib (705-681 B.C.) tell us that on his return from his second campaign (against the land of Ellip), he received the heavy tribute of the distant land of Media, and subjugated the land to his dominion.[473 - Vol. III. 113.] Esarhaddon (681-668 B.C.), the successor of Sennacherib, according to the Hebrew Scriptures, deported people from Persia to Samaria. He tells us himself: "The land of Patusarra, a district in the region of – , in the midst of distant Media, on the border of the land of Bikni, the copper mountains. None of the kings my forefathers had subjugated this land. Sitirparna and Iparna, the chiefs of the fortified places, had not bowed before me. I carried them away with their subjects, horses, chariots, oxen, sheep, asses, as rich booty to Assyria." "The chiefs of the cities of Partakka, Partukka, and Uraka-zabarna, in the land of Media, who lay far off, and in the days of the kings my forefathers had not trodden the soil of Assyria – them the fear of Asshur, my lord, threw to the ground; they brought for me, to my city Nineveh, their great animals, copper, the product of their mines, bowed themselves with folded hands before me, and besought my favour. I put my viceroys over them, who united the inhabitants of these regions with my kingdom; I imposed services upon them, and a fixed tribute."[474 - Vol. III. 150.] The period at which this tribute was imposed on the most distant part of Media can only be so far fixed that it must lie between 681 and 673 B.C. Assurbanipal, who succeeded Esarhaddon (668-626 B.C.), tells us: "I captured Birizchadri, the warden of the city of Madai (?); Sariti and Pariza, the sons of Gagi, the warden of the cities of the land of Sakhi, and 75 citadels had cast off the yoke of my dominion; I took the cities; the chiefs fell alive into my hands; I sent them to Nineveh my metropolis." These events belong to the period between the years 660 and 650 B.C.[475 - Vol. III. 167.]

To weaken the contradiction between this series of statements and the narrative of Herodotus, we may call to mind the gross exaggerations in which the kings of Assyria indulge in describing their acts and successes, and the grandiloquence which we have already noticed more than once in the statements of Assyrian history (III. 139, 200). But however great or however small may have been the success of the campaigns of Tiglath Pilesar II., Sargon, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal against the chiefs of the Medes, it cannot be denied that these campaigns took place. And if from the very frequency of such campaigns, after the reign of Tiglath Pilesar, we are inclined to draw the conclusion that they are a proof of the lax and nominal character of the dominion of Assyria over Media, this conclusion proves too much. The same repetition of warlike enterprises on the part of the kings of Asshur takes place, as we saw, in every direction. We shall have as much right to conclude that there was no such thing as an Assyrian empire, either before the year 736 or after it, over the Medes or any other nation. As I have shown (III. 185), the Assyrian kingdom never acquired a firm dominion over the subjugated nations, still less an organisation of the empire, like the subsequent kingdom of the Achæmenids. Their sovereignty consisted almost exclusively in the collection of tribute by force of arms, in the subjugation or removal of the princes who refused it, and setting up of others, who in turn soon withheld it. At the most, Assyrian fortresses were planted here and there; and no doubt Assyrian viceroys were placed over smaller regions. The same procedure is seen in the inscriptions as in use towards the Medes; and if this is not regarded as the sovereignty of Assyria, no such sovereignty existed before Tiglath Pilesar. If, to meet this objection, the existence of an Assyrian dominion is allowed, in the very lax form which is everywhere characteristic of it, we may, from the same frequency of the campaigns against Media, draw the opposite conclusion, that the Medes had struggled very vigorously for freedom, that in the first place the most remote tribes acquired it, and for them the liberation gradually spread, and the tradition of the Medes has accepted the beginning of the movement as the completion of it.

Setting aside any conclusions of this kind, even tradition can only have regarded the beginning of the struggle for freedom as the beginning of liberation, if it covered the nucleus of a firm resistance, either in some definite district, or in a dynasty which took the lead in the struggle and carried it on. Herodotus is not acquainted with any leader in the struggle and does not mention any, while the campaigns of the Assyrians are always directed against a greater or less number of princes and cities; sometimes they fall on this chieftain and sometimes on that.[476 - That is the reason why I cannot regard the parallels which Von Gutshchmid suggests ("Neue Beiträge," s. 90 ff.) of the struggle between the Arsacids and Seleucids, and the relations between the Great Mogul and the Mahrattas, as pertinent.] If, moreover, the fact that Sargon receives tribute from twenty-five, then from twenty-two, and then from forty-five chieftains, is brought forward to confirm the narratives of Herodotus about the anarchy which prevailed among the Medes, it is not the separation of the Medes under different chiefs which constitutes the anarchy as described by Herodotus, but actual lawlessness. His description gives us no chieftains in Media, ruling their lands as captains in war and judges in peace. The Medes dwell in villages, and the inhabitants choose the village judge, though it is in their power to go for decision to another village. Chieftains, even if they had not forbidden their tribes to seek for justice out of the tribe, would in any case have left the decision of Deioces unnoticed.

However this may be, one harsh contradiction between the narrative of Herodotus and the inscriptions cannot be removed by any exposition or any deductions. According to Herodotus Deioces reigned from the year 708 to 655 B.C., Phraortes from 655 to 633 B.C., over the whole of Media. The inscriptions of Sennacherib mention the great payment of tribute by the distant land of Media, and its subjugation under Sennacherib (p. 282); Esarhaddon removes two chieftains with their flocks and subjects out of Media from the border of the land of Bikni to Asshur, and three chiefs from the same district bring their tribute to Nineveh; he places his viceroys over them, and they unite this district with Assyria. After the year 660 B.C. Assurbanipal is said to have taken a chieftain of Media captive; and in the inscriptions there is nowhere any mention of Deioces, Phraortes, and the Median kingdom.

The inscriptions extend the land of the Medes to the East as far as the copper mountains, or borders of the land of Bikni.[477 - The Patusarra of Esarhaddon might be the Patisuvari of Darius; the Pateischoreans, whom Strabo quotes among the tribes of the Persians; Von Gutschmid, loc. cit. s. 93, but in the Babylonian version of the inscription of Behistun the Pateischoreans are called Pidishuris.] The people lived separately under a considerable number of chieftains. The five tribes of the Median nation, enumerated by Herodotus, if they also possessed separate territory, were not isolated groups, but on the contrary broken up into yet smaller divisions. The booty taken by the Assyrians from the Medes, the tribute imposed upon them, consists chiefly in oxen, asses, sheep, and horses. The number of horses given by the chieftains to Sargon allows on an average a hundred for each, and we also hear of other property, treasures, and the product of copper mines. We have repeated mention of the cities of Media and their governors; Sargon conquers thirty-four cities. Though we ought to regard these mainly as citadels, yet civic life cannot have been so unknown to the Medes as the narrative of Herodotus would compel us to suppose. Other elements of civilisation also are known to the Medes at this time, i. e. in the second half of the eighth and first half of the seventh century B.C. It has been proved above that at the beginning of this period the doctrine of Zoroaster must have reached them, and the names could be given of the men in Media who published it; and the priests of the new religion became formed during this century into an order which perpetuated in their families the knowledge of the good sayings and the customs of sacrifice. To this order we may also attribute what the Medes acquired of the superior civilisation and skill of Assyria, especially the knowledge of the Assyrian cuneiform writing, which underwent a change in the hands of the Magians, and assumed the form known to us from the Achæmenid inscriptions of the first class. When Herodotus ascribes the introduction of written process at law to Deioces, the tradition presupposes an established and extensive use of writing.

The dominion of the princes under which the Medes stood is followed by the dominion of the monarchy, which must have arisen out of it. One of the families of these princes must have succeeded in obtaining influence and power over the others. The position of Deioces and Phraortes must have arisen and developed itself in this manner. Whether the Dayauku, whom Sargon carried off in the year 715 B.C. with his followers to Amat, is one and the same person with the prince of Bit Dayauku, against whom the Assyrian king marched in the year 713 B.C. (p. 282), would be difficult to decide; and even if the matter could be determined with certainty, it would not be of great importance. We often find the kings of Asshur replacing conquered and captive princes in their dominions. On the other hand, it is of importance that there was a region of Media, which could be called Bit Dayauku, i. e. the land of Dayauku, by the Assyrians in the year 713 B.C. There must have existed at this time a principality of Deioces among other principalities, and the beginning of this must be put earlier than the date allowed by Herodotus for the election, i. e. at the latest at 720 B.C. In course of time the land of Deioces may have increased in extent, and the importance of the ruler may have grown – though he may not, after the conflict of 713 B.C., have taken any leading part in the resistance to the payment of tribute, the conflicts and successes of other chieftains against the Assyrians; at any rate, there is no subsequent mention of the land in the inscriptions. Neither Deioces nor his land is mentioned when Sennacherib speaks of the tribute of the whole of Media, and the subjugation of the country under his dominion; nor even when Esarhaddon speaks of the conquest of the most distant princes. Hence we can only grant to the narrative of Herodotus that, in the times of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, Deioces, the son of Phraortes, had a considerable territory among the chiefs of the Medes, and greater importance than others, and we have no reason to look for his dominion elsewhere than at Ecbatana. His son Phraortes (Fravartis), who according to Herodotus came to the throne in the year 655 B.C., must have succeeded in uniting the chiefs of the Medes under his sway, and combining with the tribes of the Persians, among whom at that time the race of the Achæmenids had acquired a prominent position,[478 - Von Gutschmid, loc. cit. s. 88; below, c. 3.] in order to maintain their independence against Assyria.

From this point downwards we can date the union and independence of Media. Had the country been free and united at the time of Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon, the rulers of Assyria would not have marched against Syria and Cilicia, or undertaken the conquest of Egypt. Assurbanipal could not have employed the forces of the kingdom to maintain Egypt, or reduce Babylon, or annihilate Edom, or make campaigns to the distant parts of Arabia, if the united power of Media had existed behind the Zagrus, close on the borders of his native land, the very centre of the Assyrian power. Still less could he have looked on in inaction, while Phraortes, as Herodotus tells us, conquered the Persians, and attacked one nation after another till he had subjugated Asia. On the other hand, the annihilation of Elam by Assurbanipal, and consequent strengthening of the Assyrian power on the borders of Persia, may well have determined the Persians to unite with the Medes, and accept a position under Phraortes.

In considering the situation and importance of the powers, we may assume that Phraortes, in the first instance, thought rather of defence than of any attack on Assyria, and for this object undertook the fortification of Ecbatana on a large scale. What could have induced him to abandon the protecting line of the Zagrus, in order to attack under the massive walls of its metropolis the power which had just dealt such heavy and destructive blows on ancient states like Babylonia and Elam, unless we attribute to him the most reckless audacity? Nor, on the other hand, can we suppose that an ancient ruler like Assurbanipal, who had held his own successfully against the searching attack of his brother, and finally gained important conquests, would have allowed the formation of the Median power in the closest proximity, and its combination with the Persians, without the least attempt to prevent it. It was in repulsing this attack that Phraortes fell.[479 - Vol. III. 280. The Assyrian inscriptions are silent from 644 B.C. downwards. Von Gutschmid, "Neue Beitr." s. 89. From this silence I have concluded, and still conclude, that the liberation of the Medes took place towards 640 B.C., and moreover that the victory of the Assyrians over Phraortes, and his death in battle did not bring about a decisive change in favour of the Assyrians.]

If this inquiry leads us to attribute to Phraortes the foundation of a consolidated government, the establishment of monarchy in Media, the union of the Persians and Medes, and the subordination of the former to Phraortes, we can yet understand that the traditions of the Medes, anxious to increase the glory of the country, threw the monarchy further back, ascribed to Deioces, the father of Phraortes, the consolidation of Media, and represented the liberation from the sway of Assyria as prior to the foundation of the monarchy. What Median poems can do for the glorification of their country, even in the teeth of the established facts of history, will soon become even more clear. How this tradition explained the elevation of Deioces we cannot now discover; it is clear that Herodotus gives a Greek turn to this part of the story (p. 280). And if tradition ascribes to Deioces the extensive and strong fortifications of Ecbatana, which more correctly belong to Phraortes and his successors, it is Herodotus who credits him with the discovery of the mode of life usual among Oriental monarchs. The Medo-Persian Epos shows us the successors of Semiramis in the seclusion of the palace. On the other hand, the Median tradition must have ascribed the reduction of Asia to Phraortes. We have already remarked (III. 280), that towards the close of the sixth century B.C. Cyaxares and not Phraortes was regarded by the nation as the founder of the power and greatness of Media. Herodotus himself tells us "that Cyaxares was far more powerful than his predecessors." Hence the later legend, which Herodotus reproduces, ascribed the foundation to Phraortes, and the extension of the Median power to Cyaxares. But if Phraortes was to be the conqueror of Asia, he must "when he had attacked and conquered the other nations one after the other," have finally marched against the Assyrians, against whom he did in fact contend.

CHAPTER II.

THE EMPIRE OF THE MEDES

"When Phraortes had fallen, he was succeeded by his son Cyaxares. This prince collected all his subjects and marched against Nineveh, in order to avenge the death of his father and destroy the city. He defeated the Assyrians, and while encamped before Nineveh, there came upon him the vast army of the Scythians, led by their king Madyas, the son of Protothyas, who invaded Asia in pursuit of the Cimmerians, and as they did not come through the land of the Saspeires, but kept the Caucasus to the right, they reached the Median country. Here they attacked the Medes, and the latter being conquered in the battle lost their empire; the Scythians became masters of the whole of Asia, and ruled over it for 28 years. With reckless cruelty they laid everything waste; they not only imposed tribute on all the nations, but went round and took from every one all that he possessed. But Cyaxares and the Medes massacred the greater part of them after making them intoxicated at a banquet, and in this way the Medes recovered their empire, and again governed those who had previously been subject to them. Then a horde of Scythians, which had separated from the rest and put themselves under the protection of Cyaxares, were guilty of a crime against a Median boy who had been entrusted to them, and fled for refuge to Alyattes, king of Lydia, who refused to give them up. This led to a war between Media and Lydia which continued for five years, and was brought to an end by a treaty in which Alyattes gave his daughter Aryanis to wife to the son of Cyaxares. Cyaxares was master of all Asia beyond the Halys, took Nineveh, and subjugated the Assyrians, with the exception of the Babylonian portion." Such is the history, given by Herodotus, of Cyaxares, who, on his reckoning, ascended the throne of Media in the year 633 B.C.

If Phraortes had fallen in battle against the Assyrians with the greater part of his army, Cyaxares (Uvakshathra) could hardly have at once undertaken an attack on Nineveh, with a view of avenging his father's death by the destruction of that city; his first care, on the contrary, would have been to prevent the Assyrians from making use of their great victory, to guard against further advances on their part, and to maintain the freedom of Media. This struggle Cyaxares passed through with success; that his good fortune carried him as far as the walls of Nineveh, is indeed possible, but not probable; according to Herodotus the collision of the Scythians and Medes did not take place in the land of Asshur, but further to the East, in Media.

The facts about the pursuit of the Cimmerians and the invasion of the Scythians have been already examined, and it has been shown that Herodotus has connected the immigration of the Cimmerians into Asia Minor, which took place in the eighth century B.C., with the incursion of Sacian tribes from the Oxus into Media, about the year 630 B.C. He was deceived by the circumstance that the Cimmerians from their abode on the lower Halys penetrated to Sardis and the cities of the Western coast, about the time when the Sacæ invaded Media and inundated Hither Asia (III. 276). The truth is that the hordes of the Sacæ not only overthrew Media, but passed through Mesopotamia into Syria as far as the borders of Egypt. Their attack shattered and destroyed the cohesion of the Assyrian empire.

About the year 62 °Cyaxares succeeded in overpowering the section of the Scythians which remained in Media (these hordes were no doubt widely dispersed), and again became master in his own dominions. He made use of his advantageous position as the first who could again direct the forces of his people. He showed himself to the Armenians and Cappadocians as a champion to defend them from the plundering Scythians, and at the same time aided in liberating them from the dominion of the Assyrians. The incursion of the Scythians had prepared the way for him; in a few years he was able to extend his power to the West as far as the Halys.[480 - Herod. 1, 72. In Xenophon, who represents Astyages as reigning before Cyaxares, Astyages had subjugated the king of Armenia; the rebellion of this king was afterwards repressed by Cyaxares. "Cyri instit." 3, 1, 6 ff.] Nabopolassar, the viceroy of Assyria in Babylon, who had determined to turn to account the severe blow which the incursion of the Scyths had given to the Assyrian kingdom, had already offered him his hand in alliance. Amyite, the daughter of Cyaxares, had become the wife of Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Nabopolassar. But in Asia Minor, far to the West, the princes of the Lydians had taken advantage of the disturbance and confusion which the advance of the Cimmerians had carried to the Western coast, to extend their power over Phrygia as far as the Halys (III. 435). Here the two rapidly-developing powers met. Though inferior in numbers the Lydians showed themselves a match for the Medes. After a war of five years, peace was established between them by Nabopolassar of Babylon and Syennesis of Cilicia, in order to set the power of Media free to act against Nineveh. The Halys became the boundary of the two kingdoms, and the peace was confirmed by an alliance. Alyattes of Lydia gave his daughter Aryanis to wife to Astyages the son of Cyaxares (610 B.C.[481 - Vol. III. 287, 438. Even after the discussions of Gelzer ("Rheinisches Museum," 1875, s. 264 ff.) on the date of the eclipse, I believe that Oltmann and Bailly's calculation may hold good for it, until it is proved astronomically that in the year 610 B.C. an eclipse of the sun would not have been visible in Asia Minor. If this were proved, Herodotus' dates for Cyaxares, who not only in his work but on the evidence of the inscription of Behistun, was the founder of the Median empire, would have to be thrown back more than half a century, which the date of Cyrus does not allow. To assume a confusion of Cyaxares with Astyages in Herodotus, is impossible, for Cyaxares is twice expressly mentioned (1, 74, and 103), and moreover Astyages is spoken of as the son of Cyaxares to whom Aryanis was married. Nor can I regard it as finally proved that the double capture of Sardis rests simply on Callisthenes, and a deduction from Strabo. Gelzer agrees that the incursions of the Cimmerians into Asia Minor and their establishment in Cappadocia must be placed at the least before the year 705 B.C. ("Z. Aegypt. Sprache," 1875, s. 18); the devastation of Phrygia by the Cimmerians he puts in the year 696 or 676 B.C. According to the dates of Eusebius Midas (the husband of Damodike) began to reign in Olymp. 10, 3 = 738, and took his own life in Ol. 21, 2 = 695 (Euseb. ed. Schöne, 2, 82, 85); his reign extended therefore from 738 to 695 B.C. Hence the devastation of Phrygia by the Cimmerians must have taken place in the year 695. If they were masters of Phrygia at this date, it is not easy to see why these successes did not carry them on into Lydia. As a fact, this is far from improbable; and if the image at Nymsi is their work, they would not have had any time for it in 630 B.C., for that incursion was merely a "plundering raid," and the change in the dynasty of Lydia, the accession of Gyges in the year 689 B.C. (Vol. III. 416), seems to me to point to some previous violent change. Besides, Strabo's words, p. 61, and p. 647, are plain and conclusive enough, so that I see no reason to attach much weight to the interpretation of the passage, p. 627. Cf. Cæsar, "Ind. lect. Marb. Sem. aestivum," 1876.]). Media and Babylonia now thought themselves strong enough to undertake the contest against the remains of the Assyrian kingdom. Cyaxares led out the Medes, Nabopolassar the Babylonians against king Assur-idil-ili. The latter offered a long and stubborn defence, and when at length the walls of Nineveh were broken through, he burnt himself in the citadel. The Assyrian country as far as the Tigris fell to the share of Media; Mesopotamia was united with the new kingdom of Babylon (607 B.C.[482 - Vol. III. 284 ff., 291.]). Thus Media and Babylonia took the place of Assyria; and Babylon, as Herodotus says, was now the chief city of the Assyrians.

When the kingdom had fallen which for three centuries had ruled in the East and West, Cyaxares might indulge the thought of making his empire more complete on the table-land of Iran. According to the story which Ctesias has preserved for us from the Medo-Persian Epos of the fall of Assyria (III. 249), the Bactrians had been prevailed upon to join the Medes and Babylonians in the course of the war against Assyria, and the Persian songs which describe the contest of Cyrus and Astyages, represent the Hyrcanians, Parthians, Bactrians, and other nations of the East, as ruled by viceroys of the Median king.[483 - Diod. 2, 34; Nicol. Damasc. fragm. 66.] We may regard it as certain that Cyaxares succeeded in subjugating the table-land of Iran to a considerable extent. No slight proof is afforded of the increase and greatness of the Median kingdom in his reign by the unusual care and extraordinary efforts of the successor of Nabopolassar to protect Babylonia and Babylon by fortifications against the event of a struggle between the two powers, whose united exertions had destroyed Assyria (III. 366).

The position which the Medo-Persian poems assign to the chief of the Babylonians beside the chief of the Medes, during and after the common struggle, has been already explained. The Babylonian is the astrologer, the adviser, the helper; the Mede is the man of action. In the event of success against Assyria he promises the Babylonian the viceroyalty of Babylon, and has already given it to him, free of tribute, when the fraud is discovered by which the cunning Babylonian has acquired the most valuable part of the spoil of Nineveh. For this offence the chief is condemned to death; but the Mede pardons him, and in consideration of his former services and the promise made, leaves him the viceroyalty. So eager were the Median minstrels to conceal the independence of Babylonia beside Media, and represent a power as great as Babylon was under Nebuchadnezzar as a satrapy of their kings. This fiction is maintained in other episodes of the Medo-Persian Epos which have come down to us. We are told of the stubborn resistance which the Cadusians made to the Medes; and an explanation is given how this unimportant nation on the shore of the Caspian (p. 268) could withstand the mighty kingdom of the Medes. This episode has come to us in the Persian form. It is the fault of the Median king that the Cadusians have become stubborn and successful enemies. He failed to help to his rights a brave warrior in his service; this warrior betook himself to the Cadusians, and became their chief, led them well, and bequeathed his thirst for vengeance to his descendants. From such a point of view even a Median minstrel could lament the perversity of the Median king, and the power of Babylonian gold, the abundance of which is strongly marked in the narrative, could praise the ancient simplicity of the Medes: "who took no heed of silver, and did not regard gold," as we are told in the Hebrew Scriptures, and reprobate the victory of gold over strict justice. But it is a Persian to whom the wrong is done, who summons the Cadusians to freedom; and the resistance of the Cadusians to the Median kingdom, thus brought about by a Persian, subsequently furnishes Cyrus with a pretext for arming the Persians, and also provides him with allies in the Cadusians. It was the merit of a brave Persian to have provided this assistance for his people long before. The king of the Medes who was guilty of this mistake is called in Ctesias Artaeus; we have seen (p. 277) that Artaeus and Astibaras, who reigned 40 years each, are but one and the same person; and as the reign of Cyaxares occupies 40 years in Herodotus, we may conjecture that he is the king hidden behind the Artaeus-Astibaras of Ctesias. The king of Babylon, the satrap of the episode, is brought in as a descendant of Belesys (Nabopolassar), and described as an effeminate man. His name, in the form given by Ctesias, is Annarus. Evilmerodach or Neriglissar of Babylon must be meant; but, without doubt, we are dealing with mere fiction.

The episode is as follows: There was a Persian of the name of Parsondes, in the service of the king of the Medes, an eager huntsman, and active warrior on foot and in the chariot, distinguished in council and in the field, and of influence with the king. Parsondes often urged the king to make him satrap of Babylon in the place of Annarus, who wore women's clothes and ornaments, but the king always put the petition aside, for it could not be granted without breaking the promise which his ancestor had made to Belesys (p. 297). Annarus discovered the intentions of Parsondes, and sought to secure himself against him, and to take vengeance. He promised great rewards to the cooks who were in the train of the king, if they succeeded in seizing Parsondes and giving him up. One day Parsondes in the heat of the chase strayed far from the king. He had already killed many boars and deer, when the pursuit of a wild ass (the Sassanids also hunt this animal) carried him to a great distance. At last he came upon the cooks, who were occupied in preparations for the king's table. Being thirsty, Parsondes asked for wine; they gave it, took care of his horse, and invited him to take food – an invitation agreeable to Parsondes, who had been hunting the whole day. He bade them send the ass which he had captured to the king, and tell his own servants where he was. Then he ate of the various kinds of food set before him, and drank abundantly of the excellent wine, and at last asked for his horse in order to return to the king. But they brought beautiful women to him, and urged him to remain for the night. He agreed, and as soon as, overcome by hunting, wine, and love he had fallen into a deep sleep, the cooks bound him, and brought him to Annarus. Annarus reproached him with calling him an effeminate man, and seeking to obtain his satrapy; he had the king to thank that the satrapy granted to his ancestors had not been taken from him. Parsondes replied that he considered himself more worthy of the office, because he was more manly and more useful to the king. But Annarus swore by Bel and Mylitta that Parsondes should be softer and whiter than a woman, called for the eunuch who was over the female players, and bade him shave the body of Parsondes and bathe and anoint him every day, put women's clothes on him, plait his hair after the manner of women, paint his face, and place him among the women, who played the guitar and sang, and to teach him their arts. This was done, and soon Parsondes played and sang better at the table of Annarus than any of the women. Meanwhile the king of the Medes had caused search to be made everywhere for Parsondes, and since he could nowhere be found, and nothing could be heard of him, he believed that a lion or some other wild animal had torn him when out hunting, and lamented for his loss. Parsondes had lived for seven years as a woman in Babylon, when Annarus caused an eunuch to be scourged and grievously maltreated. This eunuch Parsondes induced by large presents to retire to Media and tell the king the misfortune which had come upon him. Then the king sent a message commanding Annarus to give up Parsondes. Annarus declared that he had never seen him. But the king sent a second messenger charging him to bring Annarus to be put to death if he did not surrender Parsondes. Annarus entertained the messenger of the king, and when the meal was brought, 150 women entered, of whom some played the guitar while others blew the flute. At the end of the meal Annarus asked the king's envoy which of all the women was the most beautiful and had played best. The envoy pointed to Parsondes. Annarus laughed long and said, "That is the person whom you seek," and released Parsondes, who on the next day returned home with the envoy to the king in a chariot. The king was astonished at the sight of him, and asked why he had not avoided such disgrace by death? Parsondes answered: "In order that I might see you again, and by you execute vengeance on Annarus, which could never have been mine had I taken my life." The king promised him that his hope should not be deceived, as soon as he came to Babylon. But when he came there, Annarus defended himself on the ground that Parsondes, though in no way injured by him, had maligned him, and sought to obtain the satrapy over Babylonia. The king pointed out that he had made himself judge in his own cause, and had imposed a punishment of a degrading character; in ten days he would pronounce sentence upon him for his conduct. In terror Annarus hastened to Mitraphernes, the eunuch of greatest influence with the king, and promised him the most liberal rewards (10 talents of gold and 100 talents of silver, 10 golden and 200 silver bowls) if he could induce the king to spare his life and retain him in the satrapy of Babylonia. He was prepared to give the king 100 talents of gold, 1000 talents of silver, 100 golden and 300 silver bowls, and costly robes with other gifts; Parsondes also should receive 100 talents of silver and costly robes. After many entreaties Mitraphernes persuaded the king not to command the execution of Annarus, as he had not killed Parsondes, but to condemn him in the penalty which he was prepared to pay Parsondes and the king. Annarus in gratitude threw himself at the feet of the king, but Parsondes said: "Cursed be the man who first brought gold among men; for the sake of gold I have been made a mockery to the Babylonians." The eunuch advised him to lay aside his anger, and be reconciled with Annarus, for that was what the king desired; but Parsondes determined to take vengeance for the sentence of the king, and waited for a favourable opportunity in order to fly with a thousand horse and three thousand infantry to the Cadusians, whose most distinguished chief had married his sister. Then he persuaded the Cadusians to revolt from the Medes, and was elected to be their general. When the king of the Medes armed against them, Parsondes armed in return, and occupied the passes into the country with 200,000 warriors. Though the Median king brought up 800,000 men, Parsondes nevertheless put him to flight, and slew 50,000 Medes. In admiration of such noble deeds, the Cadusians made Parsondes king, and they often invaded Media and laid it waste. At the end of his days, Parsondes commanded his successor to remain an enemy of the Medes, and pronounced a curse: "If ever peace should be concluded between the Medes and the Cadusians, might his race and the whole nation of the Cadusians perish." This is the reason why the Cadusians remained the enemies of the Medes, and were never subject to them.[484 - Nicol. Damasc. fragm. 9, 10, ed. Müller; Diod. 2, 33; Ctes. Fragm. 52, ed. Müller.]

Another episode tells us of the contests which the Medes had to sustain under the dominion of Astibaras-Artaeus, i. e. of Cyaxares, against the Parthians and the Sacæ. The Parthians, whose chief was Marmares, revolted from the Medes, but handed over their land and city to the king of the Sacæ, Cydraeus, that he might protect them against the Medes; and the sister of Cydraeus, Zarinaea (Zaranya, i. e. the golden), who was distinguished for her beauty and wisdom, her boldness and bravery (for the women of the Sacæ took the field with the men), became the wife of Marmares. As the Medians intended to reduce the Parthians again to subjection, a war broke out between them and the Parthians and Sacæ, which lasted for several years, and led to battles in which many fell on one side and the other. In one of these battles Zarinaea was wounded. Stryangaeus, the Mede, to whom Cyaxares had given his daughter Rhoetæa to wife, pursued, overtook, and threw her from her horse. But the sight of her beauty and youth, and her entreaties, moved him; he allowed her to escape. Not long afterwards Stryangaeus with other Medes was taken captive by the Parthians. Marmares wished to put him to death, and though Zarinaea entreated for his life, insisted on his execution. Then Zarinaea loosed the bonds of the captive Medes, caused Marmares to be put to death by them, and allowed Stryangaeus to escape. When, after the death of her brother Cydraeus, she ascended the throne of the Sacæ, she sent messengers to the king of the Medes to conclude peace and friendship. The Parthians were to return under the sovereignty of the Medes, the Sacæ and Medes were to keep what previously belonged to them, and to be friends and allies for ever. This was done. Stryangaeus, the real author of this treaty, ever since the battle in which he had first seen Zarinaea, had been possessed with violent love for her, and went to Roxanace (i. e. the brilliant),[485 - Roxane and Roxanace are both formed from the old Bactrian raokshna. Müllenhoff, "Monatsberichte Berl. Akadem." 1866, s. 562.] where was the royal citadel of the Sacæ, in order to see the beloved princess once more. Zarinaea, who returned his affection, came to see him full of joy, received him and his attendants in the most splendid manner, kissed him in the sight of all, and ascended his chariot, and thus, while conversing with each other they arrived in the palace. Here Stryangaeus sighed in the chambers assigned to him, and could not resist the violence of his passion. At length he took counsel with the most faithful of his eunuchs, who encouraged him to discover his passion to Zarinaea. Easily persuaded, Stryangaeus hastened to the queen, and after much delay and many sighs, sometimes blushing and again turning pale, he ventured to declare that he was consumed with love for her. Zarinaea answered quietly and gently that it would be shameful and fatal for her to surrender herself to him, and far more shameful and dangerous for Stryangaeus, as his wife was the daughter of the king of the Medes, and, as she heard, more beautiful than herself and many other women. He must be brave, not only against his enemies, but against himself, and not bring about a long calamity for the sake of a brief enjoyment. No other wish of his but this should remain unsatisfied. Stryangaeus was silent for a long time, then embraced and kissed the queen, and departed. He was far more dejected than before, and determined to take his life. "Thou hast been saved by me," he wrote to Zarinaea, "but through thee I am destroyed. If in this thou hast done justly, then may all good things be thine, and mayest thou be happy; if thou hast done evil, may a passion like mine overtake thee." When he had bound the eunuch by an oath to give this letter to Zarinaea immediately after his death, he lay back on his cushions and demanded his sword. As the eunuch refused to give it, he ended his days by starvation. Zarinaea ruled over the Sacæ with wisdom and power. She conquered the neighbouring nations who sought to subjugate her people, caused a great part of the land to be cultivated, and built a considerable number of cities, and brought the Sacæ into greater prosperity. In gratitude for the benefits received from her, and in remembrance of her virtues, the Sacæ erected on her grave a three-sided pyramid, three stades in length on each side, and ending in a point a stadum in height, on which was placed a colossal golden statue of the queen. Worship was also offered to her as to a hero, so that she received greater honours than any of her predecessors.[486 - Ctes. Fragm. 25-28, ed. Müller; Nic. Damasc. fragm. 12 ed. Müller.]

We have already acquainted ourselves with the land of the Parthians (p. 10). The Sacæ were neighbours of the Hyrcanians, the Parthians, and the Bactrians in the steppes of the Oxus. Herodotus tells us that the Sacæ were a nation of the tribe of the Scyths, and that their proper name was Amyrgians; the Persians called all the Scythians Sacæ. The inscriptions of Darius speak of Çaka Humavarka; in the second version the name is Omuvargap, and in the Babylonian-Assyrian version Umurga. According to the account of Herodotus the Sacæ wore trousers, and upright, pointed caps, and carried bows of a peculiar character, battle-axes and daggers. They fought as mounted bowmen. On the monument of Darius at Behistun Çakuka,[487 - Oppert gives the form of the second version as Çakuka Iskunka.] the leader of the Sacæ, wears a tall pointed cap. In the army of Xerxes the Sacæ were ranged with the Bactrians. What our episode tells us of the royal citadel and the cities built by Zarinæa does not harmonise with the nature of the steppe-country of the Sacæ, and the statement of the Greeks, that the Sacæ lived in variegated tents, and that their wealth consisted in flocks of sheep, but it does agree with the fact that the women went to battle on horseback with the men. The companions of Alexander describe the Sacæ as strong, warlike, well-grown men, with flowing hair; the Macedonians only came up to their shoulders. Later accounts speak of heavy-armed horse among them; both horse and rider were covered with armour, and the weapons of attack were long lances.[488 - Choerilus in Strabo, p. 303; Herod. 3, 93; 7, 64; 9, 71; Ptolem. 6, 13; Curtius, 7, 4, 6; Arrian, "Anab." 3, 13; Cf. Plut. "Crassus," 24.] From the narratives given in the episodes we may retain the fact that although the Persians followed the lead of the Medes from the time of Phraortes, Cyaxares, even after the fall of Nineveh, did not succeed in subjugating the remaining nations of Iran without severe struggles. There is no reason to doubt that the Cadusians made an obstinate resistance, and maintained their independence: The Parthians were able to combine with the Sacæ in order to preserve their freedom, and did not become subject to Cyaxares without severe contests. That the Sagartians on the edge of the great desert (p. 6) were subject to Cyaxares, is clear from the inscription of Darius at Behistun. If the Medes had to fight with the Sacæ, who were settled on the Oxus, Bactria must have been reduced to form a part of their kingdom. Beside the Hyrcanians, Parthians, and "other nations," the Bactrians and Sacæ are specially mentioned as subjects of the Median kings,[489 - Nicol. Damasc. fragm. 66, ed. Müller.] and Arrian assures us that the Açvakas, whom we found north of the Cabul on the right bank of the Indus (IV. 393), were subjects of the Medes.[490 - "Ind." 1, 1.]

Herodotus tells us that Cyaxares was the first to separate the lance-bearers, archers, and horsemen, and combine them into divisions; that is, he introduced a better and more manageable arrangement of the army. To the same prince, no doubt, is due the completion of the fortifications of Ecbatana, which we found had been strengthened by his predecessor Phraortes. When the fortifications were first begun, the place was merely intended as a point of defence against Assyria; but as soon as it became destined to aid in the maintenance of independence, it was necessary that it should be capable of offering refuge and support to the Median army, if hard pressed. The mountains of the Zagrus form the boundary wall, and at the same time the line of division between the Medes and Assyrians. As Polybius told us (p. 268), it was an ascent of twelve miles —i. e. four leagues – to the top of the pass. If the Medes failed to hold these passes, and were then defeated in their own table-land, the mountains of the Orontes formed a new point of protection to their retreat. The Orontes (Old Persian, Urvanda; now Elvend) is a steep range of mountains, traversing Media from north-west to south-east; the heights of the passes are given by travellers at 7000 or 10,000 feet; Ctesias puts the ascent at twenty-five stades;[491 - Diod. 2, 13; 17, 110; Strabo, p. 127.] recent explorers fix the time at four hours. On the eastern spur of this mountain wall, in a fertile plain, six leagues long and four leagues broad, lay Ecbatana, Old Persian Hangmatana, i. e. place of assembly, the Achmeta of the Hebrews. If the Orontes could not be held, the fortifications of Ecbatana formed a last point of protection for the Median army. From the Assyrians there was nothing more to be feared after the fall of Nineveh, but Cyaxares had no doubt felt, in the inundation of Media by the nomadic tribes of the Sacæ, and then in the final battles against Asshur, what a support was given by a strong metropolis; what good service the walls of Nineveh had rendered to the enemy, even in his decline. He saw what measures were being taken by Nebuchadnezzar, his step-son, to make his metropolis secure, and determined that the kingdom, which he had so rapidly and brilliantly erected and developed, should not be without the nucleus of an impregnable fortress and royal citadel. The booty in silver and gold, which the Medes gained in Nineveh, and of which we hear not in the Median poems only, but also from the Hebrew prophets who lived at the time of the fall of the city, provided no doubt ample means both for the erection of the strongest works, and for the adornment of these as well as the citadel.

Ctesias tells us that Semiramis built a splendid palace at Ecbatana, a city lying in a plain, and as there were no springs near, she cut through the roots of the range of mountains, twelve stades distant from the city (the Orontes), on the farther side of which was a lake flowing into a river, in order to convey the water of the river into the city. For this object a tunnel was cut through the mountain, fifteen feet in breadth and forty feet in depth, and through it the river was carried into Ecbatana.[492 - Diod. 2, 13.] If Ctesias ascribes the palace of Ecbatana and the tunnel, like other monuments of Media, to Semiramis, we have already seen that the queen is no more than a poetical fiction; nor could any of the sovereigns who ruled over Assyria entertain the project of building citadels and conduits for the Median kings. These could only be the work of Median princes, who resided in Ecbatana; and as Phraortes could hardly have had the means and the time for such important structures, we must ascribe both the completion and adornment of the royal citadel, as well as the tunnel, to Cyaxares, unless we are to reject the latter as a pure invention, for which there seems to me no sufficient proof.

"When the palace had been built at Ecbatana, it was surrounded with large and strong walls," Herodotus tells us, "of which one encircled another, in such a manner that the inner overtopped the outer by the height of the turret. The situation, which was on a hill, contributed to this result, and the natural elevation was artificially increased. In all there were seven circles; the innermost contained the king's dwelling and treasure-house; the outermost wall was of about the extent of the wall of Athens. The towers of the first circle were white, of the second black, of the third red-purple, of the fourth blue-purple, of the fifth red; the towers of the sixth are covered with silver; and those of the seventh, which surrounds the buildings of the palace, with gold. The city was built round the outermost wall."[493 - Herod. 1, 98, 99.] Polybius describes the situation of Ecbatana and the palace as they were under the Achæmenids, who were wont to pass some of the hot summer months in the cool and fresh air of Ecbatana. "Ecbatana lies in the northern regions of Media, and commands the parts of Asia which look towards the Maeotis and the Euxine. The city was in old days the royal abode of the Median kings, and it appears to have far surpassed all other cities in wealth and in the splendour of its buildings. It is built under the spurs of the Orontes. Though without walls, it possesses a citadel built by the hand of man, of surprising strength. Below the citadel is the palace, which it is as difficult to speak of in detail as to pass over in silence. Ecbatana is an excellent theme for those who love to tell of marvellous things with adornment and exaggeration; but those who enter with caution on anything which goes beyond the ordinary intelligence find themselves in difficulties. The circuit of the palace is about seven stades, and the rich ornamentation of the various parts proves how flourishing was the condition of those who founded it. Though the entire wood-work consists of cedar and cypress, this is never allowed to appear; on the contrary, the beams of the roof and the panelling, the pillars in the chambers and halls, are covered with gold or silver plates, and the roof consists wholly of silver tiles. Most of these were carried off at the time of the expedition of Alexander, and the remainder in the reign of Antigonus and Seleucus-Nicanor. Nevertheless the temple of Aine (i. e. of Anahita) at the time when Antiochus Theos (261-245 B.C.) came to Ecbatana, had gilded pillars round it; and some of the gold plates in the side-walls were still remaining, and the greater part of the silver plates, while the silver tiles of the roof were still there in considerable quantities."[494 - Polyb. 10, 27.] At the time of Alexander, Diodorus allows the city of Ecbatana a circuit of 250 stades, i. e. of more than 30 miles.[495 - 17, 110.] Isidore of Charax mentions the treasure-house at Ecbatana, the metropolis of Media and the shrine of Anaitis, in which sacrifice was constantly offered.[496 - "Mans. Parth." c. 6.]

It is not clear from these descriptions whether the fortifications at that time included the whole city or not. Herodotus only speaks of the fortifications of the citadel, and represents the city as built at the foot of its walls. Yet we may assume that Phraortes and Cyaxares followed the pattern of the chief cities of Assyria and Babylonia in placing a strong wall round their city. A late and very uncertain authority, the book of Judith, states that the walls of Ecbatana consisted of splendid masonry, and reached a height of seventy cubits (about 110 feet); the towers of these walls were a hundred cubits in height, and there were gates in them.[497 - Judith, i. 2-4. On the date of the composition of this book, cf. Volkmar. "Rheinisches Museum," 12, 481. In any case it dates from the end of the first or the second century of our reckoning.] When the Medes lost their empire and became subject to the Achæmenids, it was to their interest that the metropolis of the Medes should not be fortified, but that the citadel should be in the hands of a Persian garrison. Cyrus himself, therefore, after the conquest of Astyages, or Darius, after suppressing the rebellion of the Medes, may have thrown down the walls which surrounded Ecbatana. The silence of Herodotus respecting them would then be explained by the fact that they were no longer in existence in his time. The circuit of the external wall Herodotus compares with the circuit of the city of Athens, which, exclusive of the harbour cities but including the space between the Phaleric and the long walls, reached 60 stades, or 7-1/2 miles.[498 - Thuc. 2, 13, and the Scholia.] If we chose to assume that Herodotus included the Phaleric and long walls in the circuit, the total extent would be 22-1/2 miles, an incredible length for the wall of a citadel. Of the outer walls of the royal citadels at Babylon, Diodorus puts those on the one bank of the Euphrates at 30 stades, and those on the other at 60, and of the two inner walls of the latter the first was 40 stades in length and the second 20.[499 - Diod. 2, 8.] The circuit of 22-1/2 miles may, therefore, refer only to the whole extent of the citadel and city of Ecbatana, and it would then come near the statement of Diodorus, who puts the circuit of Ecbatana at 250 stades.

The royal citadel of the Achæmenids at Persepolis was surrounded, according to Diodorus, with a triple wall; the first wall was 16, the second 32, the third 60 cubits in height. These walls were decorated with great expense, and adorned with towers. The citadel of Ecbatana is said to have had seven walls, and, however strange this may appear, religious no less than military motives might have led to that number. We know the importance ascribed in the Avesta to the number seven – the seven supreme deities, and the seven girdles of the earth. On the other hand, if we leave out of sight the hill on which the citadel was built, the elevated plateau of Ecbatana did not present the natural difficulties such as rivers and heights, which strengthened the fortification of the Assyrian metropolis and the walls of Babylon; hence it was more important to meet this deficiency by the number of towers and walls. The successive walls would have been of little service had not each inner one been higher than the outer, and they would have been the reverse of serviceable, had not the distance between them been so great that the arrows and missiles of the enemy, when they had gained the outer walls, failed to reach from it to the next, so that the assault of the next wall had to be begun afresh after the capture of the adjacent outer wall, without any cover. If we might assume that the words of Polybius: "The palaces, of which the extent reaches to about seven stades, lie below the citadel," are to be interpreted as meaning that these buildings lay under the protection of the walls of the citadel, i. e. behind them – and it is scarcely conceivable that the Achæmenids should have chosen an unprotected palace in Media for a constant residence, and deposited there large treasures, and the archives of the kingdom – the circuit of the buildings of the palace and that of the external wall of 60 stadia would give a space between the walls of each of about 2000 feet; a distance not much in excess of that absolutely required. Hence the circuit of 60 stadia from the outer wall does not appear too large.

More astonishing still is the account given by Herodotus of the ornamentation of the turrets of these walls – the colours of the turrets of the first five, the silver and gold of the two last. The attempt has been made to explain these statements as a legendary echo of the fame of the splendour of Ecbatana in the time of Cyaxares and his successor Astyages. But Polybius tells us very distinctly that the roof of the palace and that of the temple of Anahita consisted of silver tiles at the time of the Achæmenids, that the beams and panels of the roofs as well as the pillars were entirely covered with gold and silver plates, and that these decorations remained in the temple of Anahita at the time of Antiochus Theos. This ornamentation might be extended to the turrets of the inner walls. Considering the amount of the spoil of Nineveh, it cannot be regarded as an impossibility that the ramparts of the interior walls, the length of which, according to the statement of Polybius, did not reach more than 4200 feet, were covered with plates of gold, and of the next with plates of silver, when the roof of the palace could consist of silver tiles. That the overthrow of the Assyrian kingdom and the spoil of the cities brought considerable possessions to the Median nation may be concluded from the remark of Herodotus that the Persians had adopted better clothing and more luxurious habits from the Medes. The kings would without doubt receive the richest part of the spoil. The decoration of the turrets was possibly rude, but it exhibited in a striking manner the splendour and exaltation of the kingdom, which was thus encased in gold and silver, while the sovereign dwelt in gold and silver chambers. Such a parade of royal magnificence is not out of harmony with the character of the ancient East. To those who were not allowed to enter the wide and high gates of the palace, these turrets showed far and wide, through city and country, the splendour of the citadel. The colours of the five outer walls would be given by glazed tiles, such as those found in the ruins of Nineveh and Chalah, of Babylon and Mugheir. We may assume with certainty that Cyaxares desired to give to his palace and citadel a splendour no less than that displayed by the palaces of Nineveh, or the royal citadel of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, or the golden citadel in Sardis. Religious conceptions may also have determined the colours of the decoration as well as the number of the walls. As Auramazda sat in pure light, on a golden throne on the golden Hukairya, so was the ruler on earth to dwell in his palace of Ecbatana in golden chambers surrounded by golden walls. The Avesta exhibits Mithra with a golden helmet and silver coat of mail, the wheels of his chariots are of gold, his horses are greys,[500 - Diod. 17, 71.] shod on the fore hoofs with gold, and on the hinder hoofs with silver; in like manner the upper turrets of the citadel must shine with silver and the highest with gold. We have seen that the metals, owing to the brilliance inherent in them, belonged in the ideas of the Iranians to the good spirits. And as the splendour of gold and silver belonged to the highest gods, so must the colours of the other turrets have been assigned to the good spirits, to whose protection each separate wall was entrusted.[501 - Hence I see no reason for connecting the colours of the turrets with the Babylonian star-worship. The only fact in favour of this is the black of the second wall; but as the highest turrets exhibited the two most precious metals, the others may have received the colours of the remaining five, over all of which Kshathra vairya presided, and in the order of the Avesta in which silver and copper follow gold, while iron and steel end the list. It can hardly be proved that Babylonian star-worship had a decisive influence among the Medes at the time of Cyaxares. Isaiah xiii. 17 might be quoted against the wealth of Ecbatana, but this passage only gives the idea of the writer that the Medes would not be bought off by Babylonian money, and abandons the destruction of Babylon for the sake of gold. Setting this aside, the episodes quoted above show that at the time of Astyages men could regret the loss of ancient simplicity in Media, and extol it against the gold which had come from Nineveh to Ecbatana, and against the gold of Babylon (p. 301). The nation may also have remained in simple habits of life however brilliant the royal citadel may have been. Yet it has already been observed in the text that at the time of Cyaxares and Astyages the upper classes lived in wealth and comfort.]

The account which Polybius gives of the structure of the palace, the cedar and cypress wood of which the door-posts, pillars, roofs, and panels in the walls were made, shows that wood was employed in building in Media, which agrees with the habits of mountaineers. In Teheran and Ispahan buildings of wood of this kind are still in use, and no doubt the mountain forests of northern Media provided better materials in ancient times than now. The noblest trunks and best kinds of wood were sought out for the royal house. The kings of Asshur, and Nebuchadnezzar tell us in their inscriptions that they have caused trees to be cut down on this or that mountain for their buildings. The wooden palace, which Deioces, and perhaps Phraortes, first erected, must have been extended by Cyaxares, and may have been furnished by him or his successor with the brilliant ornamentation. The inner walls of the palace of the Achæmenids at Persepolis, if we may draw this conclusion from the metal supports which are found in the remains of the stone walls, were decorated in a similar manner. When the palace of the Median kings at Ecbatana had become the summer residence and treasure-house of the Persian monarchs, it would, no doubt, be enriched and adorned yet more. The temple of Anahita, connected with the palace, which Polybius has described above, is the work of Artaxerxes II. Alexander caused the spoil he had taken in Babylon, Susa, Persepolis, and Pasargadæ, to be brought to Ecbatana, where he is said to have collected 180,000 talents in gold and silver.[502 - Diod. 17, 66, 71; 19, 48; Strabo, p. 731; Plut. "Alex." 72.] At a later time, the Arsacids are said to have resided at Ecbatana during the summer like the Achæmenids.[503 - Strabo, p. 523.] At the present day, Hamadan, which is built high up on a slope of Elvend, marks the site of the ancient Ecbatana. It contains about 40,000 inhabitants; the ruins of the ancient city have not yet been satisfactorily explored. The slender pillars with lotus-like capitals, discovered here, are like the pillars of Persepolis, and therefore might be the work of the Achæmenids; what has been discovered in engraved stones and coins comes from the time of the Arsacids and Sassanids. Some cylinders covered with cuneiform inscriptions have not yet been examined.

Cyaxares had rescued Media from the most extreme peril. The consequences of the defeat, in which his father, with the greatest part of his army, fell before the Assyrians, had been averted. Though subsequently overpowered by the Scythians, he yet became once more sovereign in his own country. This rise of Media, and the weakening of the Assyrian kingdom by the inundation of the Scythians, he used in order to subjugate Armenia and Cappadocia. And though he was not able to achieve anything decisive against the Lydians, he attained a greater success; in combination with Babylonia he avenged on the Assyrians the supremacy they had exercised over Media; he overthrew the remnant of that kingdom, whose tough vigour showed itself even at the final hour in an obstinate resistance. It was a great achievement and at the same time an important extension of the Median dominions, not merely by the whole extent of the Assyrian country on the left bank of the Tigris, which fell to Media, but also by the closer connection which Cyaxares thus obtained with Armenia and Cappadocia, the subject lands to the west. Then followed the spread of the Median power over the kindred nations in the north and east of Iran. The Persians were already subjected to Phraortes, and Cyaxares brought under his sovereignty the Sagartians, Hyrcanians, Parthians, and Bactrians; he made the Sacæ dependant on him, and in the east perhaps extended his power as far as the Indus. From his proud citadel at Ecbatana he ruled from the Halys to the Oxus. It was a powerful empire. Herodotus depicts the reign of Cyaxares when he says: "He was far more powerful than his predecessors." With the Medes he passes as the founder of their sovereignty; and his reign must have been held in grateful remembrance, not by the Medes only, but also by the subject nations. Those who afterwards attempted to bring the Medes and Sagartians under arms against the dominion of the Persians, called themselves the descendants of Cyaxares – and one even laid aside his own name, Phraortes, to do so.

After the fall of Assyria the leading portion passed to Media, Babylonia, and Lydia. As the two first had united for the overthrow of Assyria, and had come to terms with Lydia for this object, so in other respects they displayed a friendly feeling towards each other. The daughter of Cyaxares became the consort of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, and the daughter of Alyattes, king of Lydia, was married to his son Astyages. Afterwards, Babylon prevented the attempt of Egypt to unite Syria with the land of the Nile; it was eagerly occupied with subjugating Mesopotamia and Syria, while Lydia established its power over the tribes and cities of Asia Minor as far as the Halys. Neither Media nor Lydia thought of putting any hindrances in the way of the extension of the Babylonian dominion over Syria and Phœnicia. Of these three kingdoms, thus connected by mutual alliances, Media was the strongest. Babylonia and Lydia were not equal either in extent of country or amount of population; Lydia was perhaps inferior in the vigour of the ruling tribe, and Babylonia certainly inferior in the military strength of the population. Even when united they did not reach the size or strength of the Median power, whose army Cyaxares had arranged, and for which he had provided at Ecbatana a strongly fortified centre, equidistant from the Halys and the Oxus. When Astyages ascended the throne, on the death of his father in 593 B.C., he entered upon the inheritance of a secure dominion in peaceful and friendly relations to all the neighbouring powers. While his father-in-law, Alyattes of Lydia, and his son Croesus were occupied in subjugating the Carians and the Greek cities on the west coast of Anatolia (III. 439), and Nebuchadnezzar carried on one campaign after another in order to incorporate in his kingdom the great trading marts of the Syrian coasts, Astyages could enjoy, for more than thirty years, the fruits of the efforts by which his father had founded and established the Median empire.

CHAPTER III.

THE TRIBES OF THE PERSIANS

The oldest subjects in the Median kingdom were the Persians. Their country lay in the south-west corner of the table-land of Iran. The heights of the Zagrus, which run down to the sea in a south-easterly direction, divide it from the ancient kingdom of Elam, and the land of the Tigris, just as in the north they divide the land of the Medes from the valley of the two rivers. The Eastern border of the Persian territory was formed, almost down to the coast, by the great desert, which fills the centre of Iran; the northern boundary towards the land of the Medes is marked by the range which the Greeks call Parachoatras; the name would be Kuruhvathra, i. e. very brilliant, in Old Persian. The southern boundary of Persia was the sea. Nearchus, who sailed along the coast of Persia, gives it an extent of 4400 stades, i. e. 550 miles; their land began at the mouth of the Oroatis (Old Persian, Aurvaiti, i. e. the swift),[504 - Burnouf, "Commentaire sur le Yaçna," p. 251.] the Tsab, which falls into the Persian Gulf below the modern Hindian, and reached to the east almost as far as the entrance into this gulf, where it ended opposite the island of Coloë (Kishm).[505 - Arrian, "Ind." 38-40; Strabo, p. 727, 728, 738; Plin. "H. N." 6, 26; cf. Ptol. 6, 4, 1.] Euripides contrasts the sun-lit mountain flats of Persia with the wintry land of Media and the citadels of Bactria.[506 - "Bacch." 14-16.] According to Strabo the coast of Persia was hot and sandy, and, with the exception of some palms, produced no fruit. But beyond the coast was a land of very great fertility, abounding in lakes and rivers, and providing the most excellent pasture. Further to the north, the Persian land became cold and mountainous, and supported nothing but droves of camels and their keepers. Arrian tells us that to the north of the coast of Persia the air was temperate, and the land traversed by the clearest streams, in addition to which there were also lakes; the meadows were grassy and well watered, and provided excellent pastures for horses and other beasts of draught. The soil produced all kinds of fruits and even wine, but not olives. The forests were extensive and rich in game, and all kinds of water-fowl were to be found there. But further to the north the land of the Persians was wintry and full of snow.[507 - Arrian, "Ind." 40.] What the Greeks relate of the desolation of the Persian coast is still applicable; it consists of naked sand-flats, broken only by scanty groves of palms. Above this coast the soil rises in terraces, which are separated from each other by yet higher ranges. Further to the north the slopes of the mountains provide excellent pastures, till the ground becomes more bare as we approach Media, while on the east it gradually passes into the great desert of the centre. On the mountain terraces and in the depressions between them are some favoured lands and valleys. The warmth of the southern situation is tempered by the elevation of the soil and the winds blowing from the sea. This happy climate allows a perpetual spring to reign, and increases the fertility which the abundant mountain springs produce in such a degree that groves of orchard trees, cypresses, and myrtles alternate with vineyards and carpets of flowers. The beauty of Persia and the fertility of the vegetation is concentrated in the valleys of Kazerun, Shiras, and Merdasht, which lie in stages one above the other, between mountain walls which rise to a height of 8000 feet. The most extensive and at the same time the highest valley is that of Merdasht. It is traversed by the Murghab, which brings an abundant supply of water from the snow-covered heights in the north-west. The upper course is surrounded by steep cones, and jagged walls of rock; in the lower part it takes another name, and is called the Pulwar. Further down, it unites with the Kum-i-Firuz (the Araxes of the Greeks), and from this confluence down to the mouth in the great lake of Bakhtegan it is known as the Bendemir. The Greeks called the Pulwar the Medus, and the Bendemir, which is also known as the Kur in modern times, they named the Cyrus.[508 - Spiegel, "Eran," 2, 260.]

According to Herodotus the Persians regarded their land as of moderate extent, poorly equipped, and filled with rocks. In the Books of the Laws which are ascribed to Plato, we are told that the Persian land is naturally adapted to produce strong shepherds, and as they had to watch their flocks night and day, they were thus in a position to do good service in war. As a fact Persia is a mountainous country; the slopes are admirably fitted for cattle breeding, but there is little room or encouragement for agriculture. According to Xenophon's description, the Persians in ancient times were much occupied in the chase, and in riding; they only ate once in the day, and at their banquets goblets might indeed be seen, but no pitchers of wine. Strabo remarks, with reference to a later period, that the Persian youth remained long in the open air with their flocks, and were eager hunters; when thus engaged, their only drink was water, their food bread, flesh, and salt. The Greeks with one consent describe the Persians of ancient times as simple, hardy, self-controlled men, of great endurance and martial vigour, with few requirements. They were also called "Eaters of Terebinths," in order to mark the scantiness of their food: their drink was water; and their clothing, coats as well as trousers, were of leather.[509 - Herod. 9, 122, 1, 171; Nicol. Damasc. fragm. 66, ed. Müller; Xenophon, "Cyri instit." 6, 2, 22; 8, 8, 5-12; Plato, "Legg." p. 695; Strabo, p. 734.]

The nation of the Persians consisted of various tribes. Herodotus gives a special prominence to three, on which the rest were dependent. These were the Pasargadae, the Maraphians, and the Maspians. "Other tribes are the Panthialaei, the Derrusiaei, the Germanii, all of which are agricultural; while the remainder, the Dai, Mardi, Dropici, and Sagartii are Nomads."[510 - Herod. 1, 125.] According to this statement six of the Persian tribes carried on agriculture, and four were pastoral. But the Germanians and Sagartians were distinguished from the tribes of the Persians in the narrower sense. The Sagartians (Açagarta) are spoken of in the inscriptions of Darius, and by Herodotus himself in other passages, as a separate nation; we have already found their country on the western edge of the great desert, and observed its character (p. 6). The Germanians of Herodotus are the Carmanians of the later Greeks, who also passed with them as a separate nation, though closely allied to the Persians and Medes.[511 - Strabo, p. 727.] They wandered to and fro to the east of Persia in the district now called Kirman. The number of the tribes mentioned by Herodotus would therefore have to be reduced to the Pasargadae, Maraphians, Maspians, Panthialaeans, Derusiaeans, Dai, Mardi, and Dropici, if we did not hear of two others in the inscriptions of Darius, the Yutiyas and the Patisuvaris, whose names were known to the later Greeks in the form Utei and Pateischorei. These later authorities tell us also of other Persian tribes: Kyrtians, Rhapaesans, Stobaeans, Suzaeans, etc. They also reckon the Paraetaci, or Paraetaceni, among the Persians.[512 - Above, p. 270. Strabo, p. 728, 730; Ptol. 6, 4.] The Mardians of Herodotus are also called Amardians by later writers, who place them in the West, among the mountains which divide Persia from Elam.[513 - Arrian, "Ind." 40; Strabo, p. 727.] With regard to the position of the rest of the tribes, we can only ascertain that the Pasargadae occupied the best part of the Persian land – the valley of the Pulwar; that the Maraphians[514 - Aeschylus speaks of a Maraphis among the kings of the Persians, "Pers." 778.] and the Maspians were their neighbours, and the land of the Pateischorei followed next after that of the Pasargadae on the eastern side, towards Carmania. Besides these three chief tribes, the Pasargadae, Maraphians, and Maspians, the Persian nation, according to these statements, was made up of a considerable number of more or less powerful tribes, of whom each one, like the chief tribes themselves, must have had a separate territory, or, at any rate, a pasture for its flocks.

If the name Parsua could signify Persians, the inscriptions of the kings of Asshur would confirm the division of the Persians into several tribes. Shalmanesar II. tells us, that in the year 833 B.C. he received tribute from the heads of the Parsuas, as the inscription says: from twenty-seven princes of the Parsuas. Afterwards Tiglath Pilesar II. traversed the land of the Parsuas and imposed tribute upon them (744 B.C.).[515 - Above, p. 282.] The books of the Hebrews confirm Esarhaddon's dominion over Persia, inasmuch as they tell us that he settled Persians and Dai (Dahas) in Samaria (III. 154).

It must have been in the period of the supremacy of Assyria, at the latest in the first half of the seventh century B.C., that the worship of the gods, which the Persians shared from all antiquity with their fellow-tribesmen on the table-land of Iran, the worship of Mithra, Vayu, Anahita, and fire, underwent the change which bears the name of Zarathrustra. As we saw good reason to assume, the new doctrine first came to the Medes from the North-East; from the Medes it passed, without doubt, to the Persians. If Herodotus places the Magians, or special priestly order, among the tribes of the Medes and not among those of the Persians, among whom Strabo is the first to mention them, the conclusion is, as has been sufficiently proved, not that the Persians were without priests before and after the reform, but rather that even after the reform the priestly families remained in their natural unions, and did not form themselves into a special tribe (p. 192).

The supremacy of Assyria over the West of Iran came to an end when Phraortes united the tribes of the Medes under his leadership, and, towards the year 640 B.C., undertook to maintain the independence of Media against Assurbanipal, the successor of Esarhaddon. In this struggle the Persians joined the Medes and ranged themselves under them. Herodotus, who obviously follows the tradition of the Medes, represents Phraortes as marching against the Persians, conquering and subjugating them; according to the Persian account, which is preserved in Ctesias, the chief of the Medes induced the Persians to revolt against the Assyrians, and to join him, by the promise that they should remain free under his leadership (III. 250). The situation of affairs agrees better with the second version than with the first. Considering the enormous power which Assyria under Assurbanipal possessed down to the middle of the seventh century, it is hardly probable that Phraortes would have inaugurated the recent independence of Media by an attack on the Persians, which might, and indeed must, drive them into the arms of the Assyrians. It is far more probable that the two nations formed a league against Assyria. As already observed, the annihilation of the kingdom of Elam, which Assurbanipal accomplished in the year 645 B.C., would supply the Persians with a strong incentive to unite themselves with the kindred and more powerful nation of the Medes.

Of the three tribes of the Pasargadae, Maraphians, and Maspians, the most prominent – so Herodotus tells us – are the Pasargadae.[516 - The place has the same name as the tribe; Pasargadae cannot in any case mean "Persian camp," as Anaximenes maintains in Stephanus. Oppert believes that he has discovered in the Pisiyauvada of the inscription of Behistun the original form of the name Pasargadae, which is the Greek form of the Persian word. Pisiyauvada (paisi gauvuda) means "valley of springs;" "Peuple des Medes," p. 110.] To them belongs the race of the Achæmenids, from which sprang the Persian kings. In the inscription of Behistun, King Darius says: "From old time we were kings; eight of my family have been kings (Kshayathiya), I am the ninth; from very ancient times we have been kings."[517 - So Rawlinson and Spiegel. E. Schrader translates III. of the Babylonian version: "From old from the fathers we were kings." Abutav appears as a fact to leave no doubt about this sense. Oppert now translates duvitataranam (IV. of the Persian text) by twice, i. e. in two epochs we were kings: "Rec. of the Past," 7, 88; but his previous translation, "in two tribes" (i. e. in the older and younger line), we were kings, exactly corresponds to the facts.] He enumerates his ancestors: "My father was Vistaçpa, the father of Vistaçpa was Arsama, the father of Arsama was Ariyaramna, the father of Ariyaramna was Khaispis, the father of Khaispis was Hakhamanis; hence we are called Hakhamanisiya (Achæmenids)." In these words Darius gives the tree of his own family up to Khaispis; this was the younger branch of the Achæmenids. Teispes, the son of Achæmenes, had two sons; the elder was Cambyses (Kambujiya), the younger Ariamnes; the son of Cambyses was Cyrus (Kurus), the son of Cyrus was Cambyses II.[518 - The list of the Achæmenids, which we obtain from a comparison of Herodotus (6, 11), and the inscription of Behistun 1, 3-8, is as follows:] Hence Darius could indeed maintain, that eight princes of his family had preceded him; but it was not correct to maintain that they had been kings before him, and that he was the ninth king.[519 - If Darius calls himself the ninth Achæmenid, Xerxes also in Herodotus enumerates nine Achæmenids as his predecessors, in which enumeration, it is true, Cambyses occurs but once, while Teispes is twice mentioned, once as the ancestor of the older line, and then as the ancestor of the younger. On a broken cylinder which has just been brought from Babylon by Rassam, the genealogy of Cyrus is said to be given thus: Achæmenes, Teispes, Cyrus, Cambyses, Cyrus, – so the journals tell us. In this the older line has one member more as against the younger. Till the cylinder is published we must keep to the inscription of Behistun and Herodotus.]

In this series of the ancestors of Darius we find names belonging not only to the East of Iran, but also to the Arians of India. The name Cambyses (Kambujiya) points to the Cambojas, a nation which we found in the north-west of India (IV. 249); the name Cyrus (Kurus) to the ancestors of the ancient princely race who founded the first great empire in the land of the Ganges on the upper course of the river, whose contest with and overthrow by the Pandus is celebrated by the Indian epic, while the name Vistaçpa repeats the name of the King of Bactria, whom the prayers of the Avesta extol as the protector of Zarathrustra (p. 132). Of Achæmenes we are told that an eagle nourished him;[520 - Aelian, "Hist. Anim." 12, 21.] a prophet of the Hebrews calls Cyrus "the eagle;" we know the importance which the Avesta ascribes to the two eagles of the sky, and the modern Persian epic to Simurgh; and we have seen that the standard of the Achæmenids was an eagle (p. 173). Hence from this notice we may with certainty conclude that the tradition of the Persians ascribed to this ancestor of their kings a youth distinguished by the favour of heaven.

As Cambyses the father of Cyrus is a contemporary of Astyages of Media, Teispes the father of Cambyses must be reckoned a contemporary of Cyaxares, and Achæmenes, the father of Teispes, as a contemporary of Phraortes.[521 - Cyrus is said to have been forty years old in 558 B.C., so that he must have been born in 598 B.C., from which it follows that his father Cambyses was born in 620 at the latest. Astyages was married in 610, and must therefore have been born about 630 B.C.] We must therefore assume either that Achæmenes was at the head of the Persians, at the time when they joined Media, or that he was established by Phraortes as the chief of Persia and his vassal-king, and that his throne passed with the duties of vassalage to his descendants Teispes and Cambyses. It is not very probable that the traditions of the Persians should have accorded signs of divine favour to the youth of a man, who had been placed over them after their subjugation as viceroy of Media. Moreover, we find among the Persians, according to this tradition, a form of constitution, such as a Median viceroy would hardly have established, even for the object of overthrowing the Median power. The race of the Achæmenids belonged to the tribe of the Pasargadae; we may therefore assume that Achæmenes was the first to become chief of this tribe.

Aeschylus enumerates the seven men who stand at the side of the king of the Persians.[522 - "Persae," 956-960.] Josephus says that the "seven houses" of the Persians had named Darius as king. As a fact we see that when Darius, after the extinction of the older line of the descendants of Achæmenes, sets himself to ascend the throne, six men stand at his side, whom Herodotus distinguishes as the "first of the Persians." The Laws ascribed to Plato say that the empire was then divided into seven parts between Darius and the Six, and that a relic of this division was still in existence.[523 - Joseph. "Antiq." 11, 2; Herod. 3, 77; Plat. "Legg." p. 695.] In regard to the privileges of the Six and their descendants we find that they consisted in the right of free access to the king, and that the king could choose his chief wife only from their families;[524 - Herod. 3, 84.] the descendants of the Six had also the right to wear the head-dress of the king, the upright kidaris, which was the symbol of royal dignity. In the kingdom of the Sassanids, we find seven hereditary princes under the king; these princes, like the king, wear crowns, but their crowns are lower than that of the king; the "sons of the houses," i. e. the members of these seven families, form the highest rank of the nobility. Hence in these six chieftains of the Persians standing at the side of and beneath the seventh, who is the prince of the Pasargadae, we may suppose that we have the princes of the remaining tribes.[525 - This highest rank of nobility is called waspur in Pehlevi, and bar bithan is Aramaic. The book of Esther mentions the seven princes of the Persians and Medes, "who may behold the countenance of the king and have the first place in the kingdom," i. 14. The names of the six who aided Darius in slaying Gaumata, as given in Herodotus, agree with the inscription of Behistun, with the exception of one name. Herodotus gives Aspathines for the Ardumanis of Darius. The list of Ctesias is wholly different. If we examine them more closely we find that Ctesias has given the names of the sons of the comrades of Darius for the comrades themselves. Instead of Gobryas he puts Mardonius the son of Gobryas, instead of Otanes Anaphes (so we must read the name Onophes); Anaphes, according to Herod. 7, 62, is the son of Otanes. The name Hydarnes agrees with the inscription and with Herodotus, but the son of Hydarnes had the same name as his father (Herod. 7, 83, 211). The Barisses of Ctesias must be the eldest son of Intaphernes whom Darius allowed to live; he was called after his grandfather, Vayaçpara, as was often the case with the Persians. The Ariarathes, who afterwards governed Cappadocia, claimed to have sprung from Anaphes, whom Darius made satrap or king of Cappadocia. Anaphes was succeeded by a son of the same name; after him came Datames, Ariamnes, Ariarathes I., who governed Cappadocia at the time of Artaxerxes Ochus; his son Ariathes II. crucified Perdiccas in the year 322 B.C. when he had conquered him, though an old man of 82 years; Droysen, "Hellenismus," 22, 95. The Norondobates in Ctesias I cannot explain, unless we ought to read Rhodobates. Mithridates, who in Xenophon's time had been governor of Lycaonia from about 420 B.C., is called a son of Rhodobates (Diog. Laert. 3, 25), and his father and grandfather are said to have been viceroys of Pontus. The ancestor would be one of the seven, to whom the kingdom of Pontus was given for his services; Polyb. 5, 43. Mithridates Eupator calls himself the sixteenth after Darius; Appian, "Bell. Mith." c. 112; cf. Justin, 38, 7. These quotations will be sufficient to show that the rank of the six tribal princes of the Persians, like that of the chief princes, was originally hereditary, as the governorships left to their descendants outside Persia must have remained in their families.] And in respect of the privileges of the six co-chieftains in the kingdom of the Achæmenids we may assume that they originally occupied a position close to the king, and formed the council and court of the chief tribal prince. These privileges the Greeks ascribe to the services which the Six rendered at the time when Darius ascended the throne. But as the seven houses existed before, and the Six had previously been "the first of the Persians," their privileged position must have been of an older date; it must have been introduced by Cyrus or be of even more remote origin. It is not probable that such a mighty warrior prince as Cyrus would, after the reduction of the Medes, impose limitations on his power by sharing the symbols of royalty and hereditary privileges. According to the narrative of Herodotus, Cyrus does not simply command the Persians to take up arms against the Medes, but he assembles the tribes, and ascertains their feeling. In considering the peculiar position of these six families we may certainly assume, that under the ancestors of Cyrus there were chiefs among the Persians with whom the Achæmenids had to deal. If the Achæmenids were the heads of the tribe of the Pasargadae, the other tribes would have chiefs also. Yet we only hear of "six princes" besides the Achæmenids, though we have seen that the number of the Persian tribes was considerably more than seven.

Following the indications thus given, we may sketch the course of events as follows. When Achæmenes had acquired the headship of the tribe of the Pasargadae, he must have combined the two neighbouring tribes, the Maraphians and Maspians, whom Herodotus classes with the Pasargadae as the most important among the Persians, into closer union, perhaps by some understanding with the chiefs. Supported by these three tribes, who possessed the favoured regions of Kazerun, Shiras, and Merdasht, Achæmenes must then have subjugated the remainder to his power. Herodotus told us above that the remaining tribes depended on the three mentioned. They must, therefore, have been combined into larger groups, and in fact into four communities. To the chiefs who became the heads of these new combinations, a position must have been accorded similar to that enjoyed by the Maraphians and Maspians beside Achæmenes – above all, the right to bequeath the chieftainship to their descendants. When the chiefs of the Persians, now seven in number, mutually guaranteed to each other their position, the foundation was laid of a community of interests, and thus of a community of the Persian nation. That the princes of the four new combinations of tribes belonged to those tribes, and not to the three first, is proved by the inscription of Darius at Naksh-i-Rustem, where one of the princes of the date of Darius is called a Pateischorean. In some such way as this Achæmenes may have brought about the union of the Persian tribes, and at the same time have obtained the leadership of them. His position thus rested essentially on the relation of the prince of the Pasargadae to the other six tribal princes, a relation of which we find no trace in the Medes. That the number seven was normal for the combinations of the tribes we may ascribe to the influence of the recently-introduced doctrine of Zarathrustra, of which we found echoes in the legend of Achæmenes.

Achæmenes and his race after him must have had their dwelling in the canton of the tribe to which they belonged, at the place of assembly of the Pasargadae, the chief town, which bore the name of the tribe. Supported by this tribe, Achæmenes succeeded in uniting the people; on it and the neighbouring Marapheans and Maspians depended the importance of the Achæmenids. Strabo calls Pasargadae the ancient seat, and with Persepolis the patriarchal abode of the Persian kings,[526 - p. 728, 729.] and here, on ascending the throne, they were consecrated. Here Cyrus deposited his treasures; here he found his last resting-place. We must look for this place in "Hollow Persia," as the Greeks call it, in the plain of Merdasht, to the east of the later Istakhr, the city of the Sassanids, below the confluence of the Medus and Cyrus (i. e. the Pulwar and Kum-i-Firuz) in the land of the Bendemir.[527 - Strabo, p. 729, puts Pasargadae on the Cyrus. Stephanus (Πασσαργάδαι) following Anaximenes of Lampsacus, represents Pasargadae as first built by Cyrus; so Curt. 5, 11: Cyrus Pasargadum urbem condiderat. It cannot be doubted that Cyrus built there, and Alexander, according to Arrian (3, 18), found there the treasures of Cyrus. Strabo also tells us that Cyrus built the city and citadel, p. 730. From the accounts of the march of Alexander from Persepolis to Pasargadae, and from his return from the Indus to Pasargadae and Persepolis, it is clear that Pasargadae lay to the east or south-east of Persepolis. If Pasargadae is placed at Murghab, the only reason is the statement that the grave of Cyrus was at Pasargadae, and this grave has been identified with the pyramid of Murghab, in the immediate proximity of which a relief exhibits the picture of Cyrus. But the portrait of Cyrus there is very different from the portrait of Darius and his successors on the tombs at Rachmed, and Naksh-i-Rustem; and the building at Murghab may have served another purpose. According to Pliny ("H. N." 6, 26, 29) we ought to look for Pasargadae to the south of Lake Bakhtegan, near Fasa, or Darabgerd; flumen Sitioganus, quo Pasargadas septimo die navigatur. Sitioganus is the modern Sitaragan. Ptolemy puts Pasargadae in the neighbourhood of Caramania, and Oppert therefore identifies it with the ruins of Tell-i-Zohak near Fasa, and looks for the mountain Paraga of the inscriptions in the modern Forg: "Journal Asiat." 1872, p. 549.]

When Achæmenes had united the tribes of the Persians by means of the new hereditary chieftainships, and got into his hands the supreme power with the co-operation of the six princes in council and jurisdiction, he joined the king of the Medes, who had also united the tribes of his people, soon after the year 645 B.C., as we were compelled to assume, for common defence against Assyria. Being weaker than the Median king, he ranged himself under his leadership and power, agreed to follow him in war, and accepted the position of his general and vassal. The relation must have been similar to that which Firdusi represents as existing between his kings and the princes of Sejestan (p. 252). In this combination the Persians shared the dangers of the war against king Assurbanipal, and the defeat of Phraortes, no less than the defeat of Cyaxares by the Scythians; on the other hand, they were the comrades of Cyaxares in his struggles against the Lydians, and in his victory over Assyria, while they took an active part in the annihilation of Nineveh. At the same time we may assume that this dependent position became more strongly marked as the power of Media increased, and we may believe Herodotus that their soldiers joined in subjugating the other tribes of the table-land of Iran, and marched with the armies of the Medes to the wars which Cyaxares carried on in the East. The episode of Parsondes exhibits a Persian at the court, in the council, and in the army of the Median king; and the position of the Persians under the successors of Achæmenes, Teispes, and Cambyses, must have closely resembled the position of the other nations subject to the Median power. Cyaxares and his successor Astyages would have regarded Teispes and Cambyses merely as their viceroys over Persia, though they did not disturb the succession in the tribe of Achæmenes. If Darius still calls all his ancestors kings, and extends this title to his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, who were not viceroys, that is merely the custom and view of the East; even under the great king, the King of kings, a vassal is still a king. The hereditary viceroys of Persia under the Arsacids, one and all, put the title "king" on their coins. When Papek, and Ardeshir after him, had taken their place, they call themselves kings; Ardeshir, the founder of the dominion of the Sassanids, designates himself as "king," "king of the divine stock," even before he has overthrown his own king, Artabanus, the Arsacid. As the youth of Achæmenes is ennobled in the older tradition, so later legends surrounded the life of the progenitor of the Sassanids with premonitory indications.

CHAPTER IV.

THE FALL OF THE MEDIAN KINGDOM

"Cyaxares was succeeded by his son Astyages on the throne of the Medes" – such is the narrative of Herodotus – "and the latter had a daughter named Mandane. Once he saw his daughter in a dream, and water came from her in such quantities that all Asia was inundated. This vision Astyages laid before the interpreters of dreams, among the Magians, and their interpretation alarmed him. To guard against the event portended, he gave his daughter, who was already of marriageable age, to none of the Medes of suitable rank, but to a Persian of the name of Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, who was of a good family, but quiet in disposition; he regarded him as of less account than a Mede of the middle class. Mandane had not been married a year when Astyages had a second vision; from his daughter's womb there grew up a vine-tree which overshadowed all Asia. This dream also he laid before the interpreters, and caused his daughter, who was with child, to be brought from the land of the Persians and be kept under watch; his intention was to kill the child, which, as the Magians said, was destined to reign in his place. When Mandane bore a son, Astyages sent for Harpagus, a man akin to the royal household,[528 - Herod. 1, 98, 99.] the most faithful of his servants, in whose care he trusted on all occasions, and bade him take Mandane's child to his house and there kill it, and bury it, in whatever way he chose. When the boy was given to him, dressed as if for a funeral, Harpagus went in tears to his house, told his wife the orders of Astyages, and declared that he would not be the perpetrator of this murder even though Astyages should lose his reason more utterly than at present, and fall into worse madness: 'the child is akin to me; Astyages is old and without male heirs, if the throne passes to the daughter, whose child he is now putting to death by my hands, I shall find myself in the greatest danger. Inasmuch as my present safety demands it the child must die. But the murder must be done by one of the people of Astyages, not by any one of mine.' Without delay he sent a messenger to one of the cowherds of the king, Mithradates by name, whose pastures lay on mountains to the north of Ecbatana, where wild beasts are numerous. When the herdman came he found the whole house of Harpagus filled with lamentation, and saw a struggling and screaming child adorned with gold and variegated robes, and Harpagus said to him: 'Astyages commands you to expose this child on the most desolate mountains, in order that it may die as quickly as possible.' The herdman believed that the child belonged to one of the household of Harpagus, and took it, but from the servant who accompanied him out of the city he ascertained that it was the child of Mandane and Cambyses. Returning to his hut, he found that his wife Spako (the Medes call a dog Spako) had just brought forth a dead child, and when she saw the well-grown and beautiful child which her husband showed her, she clasped his knees in tears, and entreated him not to expose it, but to take away her dead child in its place, and bring it up as her own son:[529 - Herod. 1, 112, πιστοτάτους τῶν δορυφόρων, while in the recapitulation, 1, 117, we have πιστοτάτους τῶν εὐνούχων.] Thus doing you will not be guilty of wrong towards your master; the dead child will receive a splendid funeral, and the other will not lose his life. The herdman took his wife's advice, and did as she bade him. He placed his own dead child in the basket, put on him all the ornaments of the other, and placed him on the wildest mountain. Three days after he told Harpagus that he was ready to show him the corpse of the child. Harpagus sent the most trustworthy of his bodyguard, and buried the herdman's child. But the herdman's wife brought up the other child, and gave him some other name than Cyrus, by which he was afterwards called. When he was ten years old an incident happened which caused him to be known. He was playing with his comrades, in the village in which the herdman lived, in the street, and his playfellows had chosen him whom they considered the herdman's son to be king. He assigned to every one his work, and bade one build houses, and another to be a lance-bearer; one he made 'the king's eye,' and another 'the bearer of his messages.' Among the boys who were playing with him was the son of Artembares, a man of high rank in Media. This boy failed to do what Cyrus ordered; and Cyrus bade the others take him, and whipped him severely. The boy hastened to the city and complained to his father of the treatment he had received from the son of the cowherd. His father took him to the king and showed his son's shoulders, and said: 'This insult we have received from thy servant, the son of the cowherd.' Astyages summoned Mithradates and his son. When Astyages asked the latter how he dared so to insult the son of a man in such high favour with the king as Artembares, the lad maintained that he was right in acting as he did, but if he was to blame he was ready to bear the penalty. Astyages was surprised by the likeness of the boy to his own family, and the freedom of his reply. After applying the torture to Mithradates, he soon discovered the truth. He was more enraged at Harpagus than at Mithradates, but concealed his resentment. When Harpagus at his request had acknowledged what he had done, Astyages said: 'The boy was alive, and all that had been done was well. Let Harpagus send his own son to join the new-comer, and also come himself to the banquet.' As soon as the son of Harpagus, a boy of thirteen years, was in the palace, Astyages caused him to be slain, and the dismembered limbs were boiled and roasted, while the head, hands, and feet, were put in a covered basket. At the banquet Harpagus was served with the flesh of his own son, while the other guests ate the flesh of sheep. When Harpagus had eaten, Astyages inquired whether he had enjoyed the meal, and when he replied that he had enjoyed it greatly, the servants of the king brought him the basket, bade him uncover it and take what he would. Harpagus controlled himself, and said that whatever the king did was best. Then Astyages took counsel with the Magians who had interpreted the dreams: they were to consider everything, and give him the advice best for himself and his house. The Magians declared that they had it much at heart that the dominion of Astyages should continue; for if the throne passed to the boy who was a Persian, the Medes would be governed by others, 'but if thou remainest king we are rulers in our degree, and have great honour from thee.' But as the boy had already been king in the game, the dream was fulfilled; the king might send him back to Persia to his parents. Astyages did so. When Cyrus came to the house of Cambyses, his parents received him with great joy, when they found who he was, since they believed that he was already dead, and desired to know how he had been preserved. He told them that he had been supposed to be the son of the cowherd, but on the way he had ascertained everything from the convoy which Astyages had sent with him. He related how the wife of the herdman had brought him up, and praised her much, and Spako (the dog) was always on his lips. His parents seized on the name in order that the preservation of the boy might appear to be the work of the gods, and laid the foundation for the legend that a dog had suckled Cyrus when exposed."

"When Cyrus came to manhood and was the bravest and best-beloved of his comrades, Harpagus sought to win him by presents with a view to vengeance on Astyages, for he regarded the injury done to Cyrus as no less than that done to himself. He had already prepared his revenge. As Astyages was severe towards the Medes, he had secretly persuaded the chief men among them, one by one, that an end must be put to the rule of Astyages, and that Cyrus must be raised to the throne. When this was done and all was ready, he wished to discover his views to Cyrus, who was then in Persia. As the roads were guarded, he invented the following stratagem: he prepared a hare by cutting open the belly without further injury to the skin, inserted a letter, and then again closed the opening. This hare he gave with some nets to the most faithful of his slaves, and sent him, as though he were a hunter, to Persia, with a command to take the hare to Cyrus, and at the same time to tell him that he must open it himself and let no one be present at the time. Cyrus opened the hare, and found written: 'Son of Cambyses, the gods regard thee with favour, or thou hadst not attained to such good fortune. Avenge thy death on Astyages, for dead thou art in his intention; it is through the gods and me that thou livest. Long ago thou hast learnt all that befell thee, and what I have suffered at the hands of the king because I did not slay thee, but gave thee to the cowherd. If thou wilt follow my counsel, thou shalt rule over all the land over which Astyages was ruler. Persuade the Persians to revolt, and march against Media, and if I or any other chief man among the Medes is appointed by Astyages to lead the army against thee, all will be as thou wilt. They will revolt from the king, and by passing over to thee attempt to dethrone him. All is ready here; act therefore, and act quickly.'

"Cyrus considered in what way he could best persuade the Persians to revolt, and when he discovered what he believed to be the best plan, he wrote down his intentions in a letter and summoned an assembly of the Persians. In their presence he opened the letter, and read out, that Astyages had appointed him general of the Persians; then he added: 'I command that every one of you appear with a sickle.' And when they were all assembled, furnished with sickles, Cyrus bade them clear a bushy tract of land about twenty stades in length and breadth, and make it fit for cultivation in a single day. When they had done this, he bade them assemble on the next day; every one was to come bathed. Then he caused all the goats, sheep, and oxen of his father to be got together, slaughtered and dressed, and prepared in addition wine and other excellent food, and entertained the whole of the Persians in a meadow; after the meal he asked them which they preferred, the entertainment of that day, or the work of the day before? They replied that the difference was great: yesterday they had nothing that was good, to-day nothing that was bad. Cyrus took up this reply, and discovered his aims, saying: 'O Persians, thus it is with you. If ye will follow me, ye shall have these blessings and many others, without any service; if ye will not, ye will have troubles without number like those of yesterday. Follow me, and ye will be free. I believe that I was born by the favour of heaven to take this work in hand, and I do not count you as less than the Medes, in war or any other service. Since this is so, revolt at once from Astyages.' The Persians were quite ready to liberate themselves; they only required a leader, and had long borne the yoke of the Medes with dissatisfaction."