The History of Antiquity Volume V Part 17

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 a.s.syria indulge in describing their acts and successes, and the grandiloquence which we have already noticed more than once in the statements of a.s.syrian 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 a.s.surbanipal 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 a.s.syria over Media, this conclusion proves too much. The same repet.i.tion of warlike enterprises on the part of the kings of a.s.shur takes place, as we saw, in every direction. We shall have as much right to conclude that there was no such thing as an a.s.syrian empire, either before the year 736 or after it, over the Medes or any other nation. As I have shown (III. 185), the a.s.syrian kingdom never acquired a firm dominion over the subjugated nations, still less an organisation of the empire, like the subsequent kingdom of the Achaemenids. 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, a.s.syrian fortresses were planted here and there; and no doubt a.s.syrian 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 a.s.syria, no such sovereignty existed before Tiglath Pilesar. If, to meet this objection, the existence of an a.s.syrian 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 a.s.syrians are always directed against a greater or less number of princes and cities; sometimes they fall on this chieftain and sometimes on that.[477] 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 const.i.tutes 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 a.s.shur, and three chiefs from the same district bring their tribute to Nineveh; he places his viceroys over them, and they unite this district with a.s.syria. After the year 660 B.C. a.s.surbanipal 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.[478] 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 a.s.syrians from the Medes, the tribute imposed upon them, consists chiefly in oxen, a.s.ses, 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 a.s.syria, especially the knowledge of the a.s.syrian cuneiform writing, which underwent a change in the hands of the Magians, and a.s.sumed the form known to us from the Achaemenid inscriptions of the first cla.s.s. 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 a.s.syrian 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 a.s.shur 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 a.s.syrians in the year 713 B.C. There must have existed at this time a princ.i.p.ality of Deioces among other princ.i.p.alities, 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 a.s.syrians; 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 Achaemenids had acquired a prominent position,[479] in order to maintain their independence against a.s.syria.

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 a.s.syria would not have marched against Syria and Cilicia, or undertaken the conquest of Egypt.

a.s.surbanipal 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 a.s.syrian 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 a.s.surbanipal, and consequent strengthening of the a.s.syrian 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 a.s.sume that Phraortes, in the first instance, thought rather of defence than of any attack on a.s.syria, 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 ma.s.sive 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 a.s.surbanipal, 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.[480]

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 a.s.syria 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 a.s.syrians, against whom he did in fact contend.

FOOTNOTES:

[444] "Vend." 1, 42; Behist. 2, 92.

[445] Plin. "H. N." 6, 18, (48).

[446] Alexander came from Hyrcania and Parthia to the land of the Tapurians. According to Arrian's statements, the Hyrcanians, Parthians and Tapurians were all under one leader in the army of Darius III.

"Anab." 3, 8, 4; 3, 11, 4; Strabo, p. 507, 508, 514, 524; Justin, 12, 3; 41, 5.

[447] Herod. 1, 110.

[448] Polyb. 5, 44; 10, 27. Cf. Curt. 3, 2 ff.

[449] Strabo, p. 523-525.

[450] In the most recent times it has been maintained that the Medes were of Turkish-Tatar (Altaic) family, but this view rests simply on the a.s.sumption that the inscriptions of the second cla.s.s in the inscriptions of the Achaemenids must have been written in the language of the Medes.

This hypothesis contradicts everything that has come down to us of Median names and works, and the close relationship between the Medes and Persians. Whether the Arians, on immigrating into Media, found there Turkish-Tatar tribes, overpowered, expelled or subjugated them, is another question. If this were the case, the fragments of the population could hardly have exercised any influence worth mentioning on the Arian Medes.

[451] Paraetacene is derived no doubt from _parvata_, mountain, or _parvataka_, mountainous. Strabo remarks that when the Persians had conquered the Medes, they took some land from them. The distance between Persepolis and Ecbatana was twenty marches; Alexander reached the borders of Media on the twelfth day after leaving Persepolis. Arrian, "Anab." 3, 19.

[452] Strabo, p. 73; 509.

[453] Under the Sa.s.sanids Media (Mah) consisted of four regions: Aderbeijan, Rai (Rhagiana), Hamadan (Ecbatana), Isfahan.

[454] Herodotus allows the Matieni a considerable extent, for he includes under the name the Armenians and the inhabitants of Atropatene.

Later authors confine the Matieni to the region round the lake of Urumiah; in this sense, Polybius, quoted above in the text, limits Media in the North by the Cadusians and Matieni.

[455] Herod. 3, 106; 7, 40.

[456] Strabo, p. 525; Diod. 17, 110; Arrian, "Anab." 7, 13.

[457] Behist. 1, 13. Strabo's [Greek: Nesaia] (p. 509, 511), the Nisiaea of Pliny (6, 29), the Parthaunisa of Isidore of Charax, must be sought in the neighbourhood of Nishapur, which was built by Shapur II. The Avesta puts Nica between Merv and Balkh.

[458] Diod. 19, 44. Alexander in eleven forced marches advanced from Ecbatana to Ragha.

[459] Isid. Ch. "M. P." c. 5.

[460] Mordtmann, "B. d. Bair. Akademie," 1876, s. 364.

[461] Diod. 2, 13; 17, 110. The city of Baptana, which Isidore (c. 5) mentions "as situated on a mountain in Cambadene," is in any case Bagistana (Behistun).

[462] Herodotus, 1, 95-101.

[463] Herod. 1, 102.

[464] Vol. III. 257 ff. According to the reigns which Herodotus allows to Deioces and his successors, 150 years before the overthrow of Astyages, which took place 558 B.C., _i.e._ 708, but, according to the total given by Herodotus--156 years, 714 B.C.

[465] Volney, "Recherches," 1, 144 ff.

[466] In order to remove this objection, the dates of Deioces and Phraortes must be transposed, and the 22 years of Phraortes given to the former, the 53 years of Deioces to the latter. Phraortes would then have marched out against the a.s.syrians in extreme old age, and fallen in the battle.

[467] Herod. 1, 96.

[468] Vol. III. Bk. 4; Chaps. 1, 4, 5-8.

[469] According to Von Gutschmid. Cf. _supr._ p. 278.

[470] 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 a.s.syriolog." and "Z. Aegypt.

Spr." 1870, s. 48 ff.

[471] Vol. III. 3-5.

[472] Vol. III. 85.

[473] Vol. III. 101.

[474] Vol. III. 113.

[475] Vol. III. 150.

[476] Vol. III. 167.

[477] That is the reason why I cannot regard the parallels which Von Gutshchmid suggests ("Neue Beitrage," s. 90 ff.) of the struggle between the Arsacids and Seleucids, and the relations between the Great Mogul and the Mahrattas, as pertinent.

[478] The Patusarra of Esarhaddon might be the Patisuvari of Darius; the Pateisch.o.r.eans, 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 Pateisch.o.r.eans are called _Pidishuris_.

[479] Von Gutschmid, _loc. cit._ s. 88; below, c. 3.

[480] Vol. III. 280. The a.s.syrian inscriptions are silent from 644 B.C.