THE REBELLIONS IN THE PROVINCES.
One of the boldest deeds known to history had been accomplished, one of
the most marvellous complications had been severed by a remarkable
venture. At a distance from their home and people, six Persians, led by
a prince of the royal house, had attacked and cut down the pretended son
of Cyrus, in his fortified citadel, when surrounded by his adherents,
after he had reigned for more than ten months (Spring 521 B.C.[219]). An
Achaemenid again sat on the throne of Cyrus. Whether the removal of the
usurper and the sudden proclamation of Darius on the soil of Media had
really prevented the ruin of the kingdom, as it was intended to do, and
whether it would produce the results which the Achaemenids and the
princes of the Persians expected from it, was a question, which, in
spite of the success, still remained to be settled. It was true that the
resumption of the struggle with the Medes for the sovereignty was for
the moment avoided, but that the accession of Darius brought the whole
kingdom into obedience to his power had still to be shown. Undeniable
facts prove that even in the last years of Cambyses the bonds of
obedience were relaxed. The satraps of the provinces had been able to
rule over their provinces independently. This had been rapidly followed
by two violent changes in the succession, which seemed to promise
success to further usurpation. The various nations were quite satisfied
with the rule of Gaumata. Their favourite chief had been slain; they
were now called upon to obey his assassin, whose reign betokened the
return of the severer rule. Neither in Media nor in Babylon did men
forget the state of affairs before Cyrus; scarcely eighteen years had
elapsed since Babylon had been taken by Cyrus. The nations of the
kingdom were in agitation.[220]
Elated by the success of his venture, in the full vigour of his
life,--according to Herodotus Darius had scarcely reached the thirtieth
year, and according to Ctesias the thirty-sixth year of his
age,[221]--the new ruler seemed equal even to the heaviest tasks. The
boldness of his resolution, the daring nature of the advice which he had
given, were favourable indications that he possessed the power to keep
the kingdom of Cyrus together. While he could not but direct his gaze in
the most eager expectation to the nations of the empire, he found in his
immediate proximity, among the associates in the deed of Cikathauvatis,
an independent and rebellious spirit. A remarkable indication proved
that the princes of the Persian tribes, to whose devotion he owed the
throne, who had risked as much as himself, were for that very reason
inclined to regard themselves as more on an equality with the new king,
and to pay less respect to his authority. Soon after the assassination
of the Magian, Intaphernes, one of the six Persian princes, who had lost
an eye in the conflict with the Magians, came one day into the palace to
speak with the king. But the doorkeepers and servants would not admit
him because the king was with one of his wives. Intaphernes thought that
this statement was false, and that the new king intended to refuse to
the Persian princes the ancient right of free entry; he drew his sword,
cut off the ears and noses of each of the two servants, strung them on
the reins of his bridle and hung them round their necks. In this act of
violence Darius could only see extreme contempt for the royal dignity,
and the most severe outrage of it in the persons of his servants; he was
convinced that it was the announcement of a rebellion. He did not
venture to step in and punish at once; he could hardly assume that
Intaphernes would have done such an action without an understanding with
the other chieftains; they had intended, no doubt, to humble the king,
and now that they had helped him to the throne, they wished to take up a
different position towards the ruler whom they had raised from that
which they had occupied towards Cyrus and Cambyses. It was not till
Darius had questioned each of the princes separately, and ascertained
that Intaphernes had acted independently, that he caused him to be
thrown into prison with his sons and all his family. He desired, no
doubt, on this first opportunity to show the chiefs of the Persians
their master, and his intention was naturally carried out with oriental
cruelty. Regardless of the services of Intaphernes and the wound which
he had received, he was to be executed and all the males of his house
with him; the entire stock of this princely family was to be
annihilated. The entreaties of the wife of Intaphernes only prevailed so
far as to save from death her brother and her eldest son, so that the
race could at least be kept in existence.[222]
Still more dangerous, though at a greater distance, appeared to be the
attitude of a satrap who ruled over wide regions. Oroetes had been made
satrap of Lydia and Ionia by Cyrus. In the last year of Cambyses he had
enticed Polycrates of Samos to Magnesia into his power, and had caused
him to be executed there, in order to bring about the subjugation of
Samos. When called upon by Darius to declare against Gaumata he had paid
no heed to the command, but had availed himself of the confusion to
assassinate Mitrobates the satrap of Phrygia, who resided at Dascyleum,
and possess himself of that satrapy. He now ruled from Sardis to the
Halys. After the accession of Darius, so far from obeying his commands
to appear at the court, he cut down the messenger who brought them. It
was obviously his intention to establish an independent kingdom in Asia
Minor. It did not appear possible to crush him without an open struggle,
and the beginning of this would be a signal of revolt for many others.
Darius summoned the chief of the Persians, and asked if any one could
remove Oroetes out of the way. In the narrative of Herodotus not one
only but thirty offered themselves for the venture. They cast lots, and
the lot fell on Bagaeus the son of Artontes. Provided with the necessary
letters from the king, he went as an extraordinary commissioner to
Sardis. The garrison of the citadel at Sardis in which Oroetes resided
consisted of a thousand Persian lance-bearers. Bagaeus caused a
communication from Darius to be read to these troops in the presence of
Oroetes. They showed respect for the letter and the royal seal, and
expressed a willingness to obey the king's commands. As soon as Bagaeus
had convinced himself of their feeling, he read an order from Darius in
which the lance-bearers were forbidden to obey Oroetes any longer. They
at once placed their lances on the ground. Encouraged by this, Bagaeus
immediately read the last order, in which Darius bade the Persians at
Sardis to put Oroetes to death. This command also was executed on the
spot. It was a rapid success, and an extremely fortunate event for
Darius. Asia Minor from the Halys to the Aegean was brought under his
authority at a single blow.
Herodotus only remarks in passing, that the Medes revolted from Darius,
but were conquered in the battle and reduced again to submission.[223]
He relates the rebellion of the Babylonians at greater length. Since the
accession of the Magian the Babylonians had secretly prepared to throw
off the yoke of Persia. They put to death all the women in the city who
were not mothers, leaving only a childless wife and another woman in
each household, that their provisions might not fail, and when Darius
brought up his forces, and invested Babylon, they made merry over the
siege and danced behind their towers. A whole year and seven months
passed away, and Darius tried every art and invention in vain, including
the means by which Cyrus had taken the city and many others, but the
Babylonians were strongly on their guard, and it was impossible to take
the city. In the twentieth month, Zopyrus the son of Megabyzus, one of
the men who had taken part in the assassination of the Magian, appeared
before the throne of Darius with his nose and ears cut off, his hair
shaved, and his body covered with blows from a whip. Distressed to see
one of the most distinguished men in such a condition, the king sprang
up and asked who had done him such an irreparable injury. It was
intolerable, Zopyrus answered, that the Assyrians should mock the
Persians any longer; he had not acquainted the king with his design that
he might not prevent him from carrying it out. It was his intention in
this plight to seek admittance into the city and to tell the Babylonians
that the king of the Persians had treated him thus. He thought that they
would believe him, and entrust him with the command over a division. On
the tenth day after his reception into the city, Darius was to place a
thousand men of the troops which he valued least against the gate of
Semiramis; on the seventeenth two thousand against the gate of Ninus; on
the thirty-seventh four thousand against the gate of the Chaldaeans. If
he achieved great successes against these troops the Babylonians would
no doubt entrust everything to him, even the keys of their gates. Then
Darius was to attack the city on all sides, and place the Persians
against the gates of Belus and the gate of the Cissians. "Zopyrus set
forth, gave his name at the gate, pretended to be a deserter, and
demanded entrance. The guards led him before the council of the city. He
lamented the treatment which he had received from Darius because he had
advised him to lead away his army, inasmuch as there was no way of
taking the city. He could do them the greatest services, and Darius and
the Persians the greatest harm, for he knew their plans in every
direction. The Babylonians seeing the most distinguished Persian without
nose or ears, covered with stripes and blood, listened to his words, and
believed that he had come to aid them; and they were ready at his
request to allow him the command of a division." At the head of his
Babylonian soldiers Zopyrus cut down the three troops on the days agreed
upon. "Then Zopyrus was all in all to the Babylonians; they elected him
general and keeper of the walls of the city, and when Darius, as had
been agreed upon, stormed the city on every side, and the besieged
repulsed their opponents in every direction, Zopyrus opened the Cissian
gate and the gate of Belus to the Persians and brought them into the
city. The Babylonians who saw this fled into the shrine of Belus, but
the others fought on in their ranks till they perceived that they had
been betrayed. Thus Babylon was recovered, and Darius now did what Cyrus
had neglected to do at the time of his conquest; he destroyed the walls,
tore down the gates, impaled nearly three thousand of the leading men,
and gave the city to the remainder for a habitation. In order that they
might have wives and posterity, Darius commanded each of the
neighbouring nations to send a number of women to Babylon; in all there
were 50,000, and from these the present inhabitants of the city are
descended. In the judgment of Darius no one had ever done greater
service to the Persians than Zopyrus, with the exception of Cyrus, with
whom no Persian could be compared. It is also asserted that Darius was
wont to say that he would willingly lose twenty Babylons, if Zopyrus
might be restored from his mutilated condition. He held him in great
honour, gave him each year the presents which are most honourable among
the Persians, conferred on him for his life the government of Babylon
free of all tribute to the king, and a great deal besides."[224]
Megabyzus, the son of Daduhya, who aided Darius in putting the Magian to
death, and his descendants, were only too well known to the Greeks, and
more especially to the Athenians. Megabyzus conquered Perinthus, and
reduced Thracia and Macedonia beneath the Persian rule. The son of this
Megabyzus was Zopyrus, to whom Darius, according to the narrative of
Herodotus, owed the capture of Babylon; the son of Zopyrus was Megabyzus
the younger, who in the year 455 B.C. inflicted on the Athenians in
Egypt one of the heaviest defeats which they ever experienced; they lost
more than 200 triremes, and nearly the whole of the crews, for those who
escaped to Cyrene were few in number.[225] From the marriage of this
Megabyzus with the daughter of Xerxes and Amestris, the granddaughter of
Otanes, sprang the younger Zopyrus, who broke with Artaxerxes I. after
the death of his parents, retired to Athens after 440 B.C., and
afterwards, when attacking the city of Caunus in Caria with Attic
troops--the city belonged to the Attic league but had withdrawn from
it, and it was necessary to reduce it--was killed by a stone thrown from
the walls.[226] Hence the achievements of the princely family, who were
the forefathers of the deserter--of his father Megabyzus, his
grandfather, the elder Zopyrus, and his great-grandfather--were
peculiarly interesting to the Greeks. The minute account which Herodotus
gives of the greatest act of the older Zopyrus must be derived from
information which he obtained in Athens either from the younger Zopyrus
or from his retinue, and these would relate what the minstrels of the
Persians had sung of the sacrifice made by the elder Zopyrus for the
great king and the kingdom. We can trace a poetical source in the
mocking of the besiegers, and the saying connected with it. A Babylonian
cries to the Persians, "Why do you sit there? Why do you not retire? Ye
will take the city when mules bring forth." A mule belonging to Zopyrus
does bring forth; this sign, showing that Babylon can be taken,
determines Zopyrus to mutilate himself, when he had previously
ascertained from Darius that the king attached the greatest importance
to the capture of the city. The massacre of the women of the Babylonians
must also be poetical. Herodotus himself tells us that the Babylonians
had prepared their rebellion for a long time, ever since the Magian had
ascended the throne. Thus they had at least a year before the investment
of the city in which to furnish it with provisions, and the adjacent
country was most fruitful; moreover, the walls of Babylon enclosed a
very large extent of arable and pasture land (III. 382). We may conceive
of such wholesale massacre as an act of desperation in consequence of a
long siege; but in the account of Herodotus it took place before the
city was invested, and is one of the preparations of the Babylonians. It
is not until he has heard of the massacre of the women that Darius sets
out against Babylon. Not less remarkable are the definite numbers of the
troops, which Zopyrus with the Babylonians cuts down on the appointed
days. The names of the five gates mentioned in the narrative seem to
show exact local knowledge. But though a gate in Babylon might be named
after Belus, and another "the gate of Elam" (the Cissians); no gate in
that city could have been named after the Chaldaeans, or Ninus, or
Semiramis. So far as the inscriptions of Babylon have been deciphered,
the names of the gates were different.[227] As the forms of Ninus and
Semiramis and their history do not belong even in the remotest degree to
Babylonia and her history, but are rather shown to be inventions of the
Medo-Persian Epos, these two gates which are named after them point to
the Persian source from which the narrative of Herodotus was derived.
More incredible even than the massacre of the women at the beginning of
the rebellion is their replacement after the capture by the 50,000 women
whom Darius causes the neighbouring nations to send to Babylon. Darius
had no reasons for assisting a city which had maintained itself against
him for more than twenty months, the walls and gates of which he had
broken, and at the same time, as Herodotus himself tells us, had
executed the leading men, 3000 in number, by a cruel death. His
interests lay in precisely the opposite direction.
Darius himself informs us about the rising of the Babylonians and their
subjugation. "When I had slain Gaumata, there was a man Atrina, by
name, the son of Upadarma, who rebelled in Susiana. He said to the
people: 'I am king in Susiana.' Then the inhabitants in Susiana became
rebellious; they went over to Atrina; he was king in Susiana. Moreover
there was a man of Babylon, Naditabira by name (Nidintabel in the
Babylonian text), the son of Aniri; he rebelled in Babylon. He deceived
the people thus: 'I am Nabukadrachara (Nabukudurussur), the son of
Nabunita.' Then the people of Babylon went over entirely to Naditabira;
he seized the throne in Babylon. After this I sent (an army?) to
Susiana; Atrina was brought in fetters before me; I slew him. Then I
marched to Babylonia against Naditabira, who called himself
Nabukadrachara. The army of Naditabira maintained the Tigris, and
occupied the river with ships; his whole power protected the
Tigris.[228] Auramazda came to my aid; by the grace of Auramazda I
crossed the Tigris, and severely defeated the army of Naditabira. On the
26th of the month of Athriyadiya (on the 26th of the month Kislev), then
it was, that we gave battle. After this I marched against Babylon. When
I went against Babylon, there is a city, by name Zazana on the
Euphrates, there this Naditabira, who called himself Nabukadrachara, had
come with an army to give me battle. Then we joined battle. Auramazda
came to my aid; by the grace of Auramazda I severely defeated the army
of Naditabira. The enemy was driven into the water; the water carried
him away;[229] on the second day of the month of Anamaka, then we
joined battle. Then Naditabira went with a few horse to Babylon, and I
went to Babylon. By the grace of Auramazda I took Babylon and captured
Naditabira. Then I slew Naditabira at Babylon. While I was in Babylonia
these provinces revolted: Persia, Susiana, Media, Assyria, Parthia,
Margiana, the Sattagydae, the Sacae."[230]
The inscription shows that the inhabitants of Elam gave the signal for
revolt, that their leader Atrina attempted to raise once more that
ancient kingdom 125 years after its fall. Nabonetus (Nabunahed,
Nabunita), the last king of Babylon, had been sent by Cyrus to Carmania
and had died there (p. 89). A man, who gave himself out to be his
younger son, took the lead of the Babylonians, and once more called into
existence the revered name of Nebuchadnezzar. He had time to collect an
army, and considered himself strong enough to meet the Persians in the
open field. On the eastern border of the ancient kingdom, on the Tigris,
he awaited the attack of the Persians; he brings armed ships to the
place, that they may facilitate his defence of the right bank, and make
it difficult for the enemy to cross the river. The Elamites were
overpowered, their leader captured and slain. The heavier task of
reducing Babylon was undertaken by Darius himself. The army which he led
was obviously the same as that which conquered Susiana; it consisted of
Persians and Medes, as is shown by the sequel of the inscription. Darius
had to open the campaign against the new Nebuchadnezzar in the same
manner in which Cyrus nineteen years previously had begun his war
against Nabonetus. He had first to cross the Tigris. This was done, and
Nebuchadnezzar retired in a slanting direction across Babylonia to the
Euphrates, closely pursued by Darius. On the Euphrates he was again
defeated, and his people were driven in part into the river, but he was
not cut off from the city as Nabonetus had been by Cyrus; he was able to
reach the protection of the walls of Babylon. We know their powers of
resistance. The Persians had crossed the Tigris at a place where it is
not more than 100 miles distant from the Euphrates, _i.e._ not far below
the Median walls; for the battle on the Tigris was fought on the 26th
(or 27th) of Athriadiya, and six days after, on the 2nd of Anamaka, the
Babylonian army suffered its second defeat on the bank of the Euphrates
at Zazana. As Athriadiya coincides with the Kislev (November-December)
and Anamaka with the Tebet (December-January) of the Babylonians (p.
195), the rebellion of Babylonia must have taken place in the summer and
the investment of the city in the last weeks of the year 521 B.C. The
inscriptions tell us nothing of the length of the siege. On the other
hand we have five tablets from the reign of the rebel, Nebuchadnezzar
III., all dated from Babylon, and bearing the name of the same witness.
They date, in the time of this king, from Kislev 20, to the next Tisri
and Marchesvan, _i.e._ from November-December of the year of the battles
down to October-November of the next year.[231] The inscription of
Behistun allows that all the central lands of the kingdom, not excepting
Persia, rebelled against Darius during the siege. It follows therefore
that success at Babylon was long enough delayed to awake the hope that
Darius would be checked before Babylonia, and defeated there. The twenty
months of Herodotus would carry us from the end of the year 521 B.C. to
the autumn of the year 519 B.C.
The rebellion made head everywhere. In spite of the day of
Cikathauvatis, the kingdom was going to ruin. The position of Darius was
desperate. The longer the siege, the more fixed the belief that he could
not succeed, the greater was the progress of the revolt. If he raised
the siege to turn against the rebels, that was a proof that he could not
conquer Babylon; the confidence of the rebels in their fortunes would be
increased, and the army discouraged with which he had conquered on the
Tigris and the Euphrates, with which he stood in personal relations, and
which he had drawn into close connection with himself. On this army the
kingdom rested; it remained yet loyal in the camp at Babylon. The deed
in Nisaea had been best confirmed by the fact that Media recognized
Darius as king, that he had been able to summon the Median contingent to
the field, and by his successes to connect the Median army with himself.
"The Persian and Median army which was with me remained faithful; the
Median nations which remained at home, revolted"--so we learn from the
inscription.[232] Darius perceived that he must not weaken the only
support which he had in this difficult crisis, or remove it by his own
act. He judged the situation correctly, and remained before Babylon in
spite of bad news which was brought to him from all sides. But the
resistance was not less stubborn than the attack. It seemed as though
the new reign of Darius must come to an end before Babylon. Could it
continue beside the defection of the Medes, Parthians, Hyrcanians,
Margiani, Sagartians and Sattagydae, the Armenians, Assyrians, and
Susiani, the rebellion of the Persians themselves? Was it possible to
check the outbreak of the storm of ruin in the face of the indomitable
resistance of Babylon? Only in the distant east and west were there
glimpses of light. The satraps of Arachosia and Bactria, Vivana and
Dadarshis, remained loyal to Darius and kept their lands in obedience.
Asia Minor was quiet; if Darius had not succeeded in removing Oroetes at
the right moment, these regions also would have taken up arms against
Darius either under him or under some native ruler.
The account of Darius allows us to see that the recently-subdued Susiani
were the first to rebel when Darius was delayed at Babylon. After them
the Medes rebelled, in order to renew the struggle for the sovereignty
between Persia and Media; this was followed in the east by the rebellion
of the Sattagydae, the Parthians, the Hyrcanians, the Margiani, the Sacae;
in the west the Armenians and Syrians took up arms. Finally, even the
Persians held out a hand to the subject nations for the overthrow of the
kingdom and their own dominion. Vahyazdata, a Persian of the tribe of
the Utians (V. 323), declared himself to be the legitimate ruler; the
brother of Cambyses was alive; he was no other than Bardiya, the son of
Cyrus. The Persians believe him; this second pretender finds many
adherents.
The inscription is as follows: "There was a man, by name Martiya; he
dwelt in the city of Kuganaka in Persia; he revolted in Susiana; and
said to the people: 'I am Ymani, king in Susiana.' There was a man,
Fravartis (Phraortes) by name, a Mede. He revolted in Media, and said:
'I am Khsathrita of the family of Uvakhshathra' (Cyaxares). The Median
nation then became rebellious towards me; they went over to Fravartis;
and he was king in Media. Thereupon I sent an army. I made Vidarna, a
Persian, my servant, the general, and said to them: 'Go down and smite
the Median army which does not call itself mine.' Then Vidarna marched
out. When he came to Media, he fought a battle with the Medes at Marus,
a city in Media. By the grace of Auramazda the army of Vidarna conquered
that rebellious army on the (twenty-seventh) day of the month Anamaka
(of the month Tebet).[233] There was a district Campada (Cambadene) in
Media; there my army awaited me. The Parthians and Hyrcanians became
rebellious to me, and joined Fravartis. Vistacpa, my father, was in
Parthia; the people left him and revolted. Then Vistacpa took those who
adhered to him and marched against the rebels. On the 22nd day of the
month Viyakhna Vistacpa, by the grace of Auramazda, defeated the rebels
near the city of Vicpauvatis in Parthia. I sent my servant, Dadarshis by
name, an Armenian, to Armenia. When he came to Armenia, the rebels
gathered together and marched against Dadarshis to give battle. By the
grace of Auramazda my army defeated the revolted army near Zuza in
Armenia, on the 6th day of the month of Thuravahara. The rebels marched
against Dadarshis a second time. Near the fortress of Tigra in Armenia
on the 18th of Thuravahara my army defeated the rebellious army; they
slew 526 of them, and took 520 prisoners.[234] A third time the rebels
marched against Dadarshis. Near the fortress of Uhyama in Armenia my
army defeated the rebellious army on the 9th day of the month
Thaigarshis. There Dadarshis waited till I came to Media. A man, by name
Chitratakhma, revolted from me. 'I am king of Sagartia,' he said to the
people, 'of the race of Uvakhshathra' (Cyaxares). There is a province
Margiana (Margu) by name which revolted from me. They made a man of
Margiana, Frada by name, their leader. Against him I sent Dadarshis
(Dadarsu) a Persian, my servant, the satrap of Bactria. There was a man,
Vahyazdata by name, in the city of Tarava, in the district of Yutiya in
Persia; he said to the people: 'I am Bardiya, the son of Kurus.' The
Persian nation revolted from me. He was king in Persia. This Vahyazdata,
who called himself Bardiya, sent an army to Arachosia against the
Persian Vivana, my servant, the satrap of Arachosia."
The rebellion of Phraortes (which took place in the summer of 520 B.C.)
was the more dangerous because it was undertaken with the obvious
intention of restoring the independence of Media under a scion of the
old native royal house, and the name of Cyaxares could not but excite
and give new life to national memories among the Medes. Whatever troops
Darius could spare, and for this purpose he could only use Persians, he
sent under the command of the tribal prince Hydarnes, his associate in
the assassination of the Magi, against the Medes, at the same time
despatching Dadarshis an Armenian to Armenia, to check the advance of
the rebellion there, and mainly, no doubt, to prevent the alliance of
the Armenians and the Medes. A whole year after Darius had begun the
investment of Babylon, on the 27th day of Anamaka (December-January, 520
B.C.), Hydarnes encountered Phraortes at Marus. He did not obtain any
great success. He had to content himself with maintaining against
Phraortes the district of Cambadene in the south of Media. In the west
of Media, Dadarshis had no better success against his Armenian
compatriots. When he had fought two battles, of no great importance, if
we are to judge from the losses of the rebels in one, in one month (on
the eight and eighteenth), and a third in May (Thaigarshis) of the year
519 B.C., he was compelled to retire to a fortress named Uhyama. In
Parthia, to the east of Media, Hystaspes the father of Darius, who was
expected to keep these regions of the kingdom in obedience, was not in a
position, with the forces at his disposal, to prevent the defection of
the Parthians, Hyrcanians, Margiani, and Sacae. He contented himself with
the attempt to prevent the combination of the Parthians and Hyrcanians
with Phraortes, and to limit as far as possible the spread of the
rebellion. He only succeeded in retaining a part of the Parthians in
obedience. The battle at Vicpauvatis (in Viyakhna, _i.e._ in March,
519), made it possible for him to maintain himself in Parthia, but was
far from giving him the control of the land. The troops and generals
sent by Darius were not able to prevail against the rebels; in Media and
Armenia they were reduced to the defensive, and the same was the case
with Hystaspes the father of Darius in Bactria. This collapse of the
kingdom and general rebellion was used by a Persian of the tribe of the
Utians (Yutiya[235]) in order to win over the Persians once more with
the name of Bardiya, and to wrest them from the rule of Darius.
Vahyazdata must have found a considerable following in Persia, and his
successes must have been important, since he could attempt to extend
his dominion to the east over Carmania and Arachosia, and to send an
army to Arachosia in order to win this province also from Darius.
The position of Darius before Babylon was hopeless. The danger increased
every day, and there was still no prospect of winning the city. We may
certainly believe the narrative of Herodotus that Darius left no means
untried to reduce it, that he repeated the device of drawing off the
water of the Euphrates into the basin of Sepharvaim, by which Cyrus had
attained his object twenty years previously; the Babylonians had been
taught by that siege to be on their guard in this direction. The account
of Darius does not tell us how the city was finally taken; he does not
mention the name of Zopyrus. The pressure of the surrounding dangers was
so great, the hope of taking the city by force so small, that the son of
a tribal king might feel himself called upon to sacrifice himself for
the king and the kingdom, to adopt desperate measures. That Zopyrus did
take a prominent part in the capture of Babylon is clear from the fact,
which we do not learn from Herodotus only, that the satrapy of Babylon
was given to him, and remained in his hands during the whole reign of
Darius and afterwards. He is said to have lost his life in a rebellion
of the Babylonians in the reign of Xerxes.[236] We cannot doubt that
after the capture Darius proceeded with greater severity against Babylon
than Cyrus had done, that the gates were broken and large spaces of the
walls thrown down (p. 234). The inscription of Behistun merely mentions
the execution of the third Nebuchadnezzar.
After a siege of twenty months Babylon fell in the autumn of the year
519 B.C. Darius tells us further: "Thereupon I went up from Babylon, and
marched to Media. The Susiani were overcome with fear, they seized upon
Martiya (p. 242), who was their general, and put him to death. When I
had reached Media, there is a city, Kudurus (Kunduru) by name, in Media,
to which Fravartis marched against me with an army. Then they gave me
battle. Auramazda came to my aid. By the grace of Auramazda I severely
defeated the army of Fravartis on the 26th day of the month of Adukanis.
Then Fravartis with a few horsemen withdrew to the district of Raga in
Media. Then I sent an army against them; Fravartis was captured and
brought to me. I cut off his nose, ears, and tongue. He was kept in
chains at my gate; all the people saw him. Then I crucified him at
Hangmatana (Ecbatana), and the men who were his principal adherents I
imprisoned in the citadel of Hangmatana. Then I sent a Persian army from
Raga to Vistacpa, and when it had reached him, he marched out with it.
There is a city Patigrabana[237] in Parthia, there Vistacpa severely
defeated that rebellious army on the 1st day of the month of Garmapada;
he slew 6560 of them, and took 4182 captives. Then the land of Parthia
was mine. I sent Vaumica a Persian, my servant, to Armenia; when he came
there the rebels collected to give battle to Vaumica. At Achitu in
Assyria my army defeated the rebels on the 15th day of Anamaka, and slew
2024 of them. A second time they gathered together and marched against
Vaumica. There is a district Antiyara (Otiara) by name, in Armenia;
there they fought on the last day of the month of Thuravahara (Yiyar
30). By the grace of Auramazda my army defeated the rebels severely;
they slew 2045 and took 1559 prisoners. Against Chitratakhma (the leader
of the rising of the Sagartians), I sent a part of the Persian and
Median army.[238] I made Takhmacpada, a Mede, the general. Takhmacpada
fought with Chitratakhma and my army defeated the rebellious army,
seized Chitratakhma, and brought him to me. I cut off his nose and ears,
he lay in chains at my gate; all the people saw him. Then I crucified
him at Arbira (Arbela in Assyria). Dadarshis, a Persian, my servant, the
satrap of Bactria, fought a battle with the Margiani (Frada was the
leader of the rising here) on the 23rd day of the month of Atriyadiya.
By the grace of Auramazda my army defeated the hostile army very
severely. Dadarshis slew 4203 of them, and took 6562 prisoners.[239]
Then the land was mine. Vahyazdata, who called himself Bardiya, sent an
army to Arachosia against the Persian Vivana, my servant, the satrap of
Arachosia. 'Go up,' he said to them; 'defeat Vivana and the army, which
calls itself the army of king Darius.' There is a fortress, Kapisakani
by name; there they fought the battle. By the grace of Auramazda my army
defeated the rebellious army on the 13th of Anamaka. For a second time
the rebels marched against Vivana. In the district of Gandutava
(Ganduvada) on the 7th of the month Viyakhna, my army defeated the
rebellious army. Then the general of Vahyazdata withdrew with his
faithful warriors to a fortress, Arsada by name, in Arachosia. Vivana
followed him with an army. Then he seized him and slew him and the
captains who were with him. I sent out a part of the Persian and Median
army which was with me; I made Artavardiya, a Persian, my servant, the
general of it; Artavardiya marched to Persia; the rest of the army went
with me to Media. When Artavardiya was in Persia, there is a city Rakha
(Racha); to this Vahyazdata who called himself Bardiya marched to fight
against Artavardiya. Auramazda came to my aid; on the 12th of
Thuravahara my army defeated the army of Vahyazdata very severely. Then
Vahyazdata went to Pisicauvada. From thence he marched against
Artavardiya and gave him battle. There is a mountain Paraga (Parga) by
name; there they fought on the 6th day of Garmapada. By the grace of
Auramazda my army defeated that of Vahyazdata; and they seized
Vahyazdata and also his chief adherents. Uvadaidaya is a city in Persia;
there I crucified Vahyazdata and the captains who were with him."
The connection between these various battles is no doubt as follows.
When Babylon had fallen in the autumn of the year 519 B.C. and the new
Nebuchadnezzar had been executed, Darius set out in the spring of the
year 518 B.C. Hydarnes maintained himself against Phraortes on the
western border of Media, Dadarshis against the rebels in Armenia, and
Hystaspes in Parthia. The new pretender to the name of Smerdis ruled in
Persia, and his attempt to gain possession of the lands farther to the
east and of Arachosia was first checked by the defeat which he suffered
from the satrap of Arachosia in a battle fought in December of the year
519 B.C. In all these directions, in Armenia and Parthia, help was
needed, and the decision lay in Persia and Media. Darius did not direct
his march against Persia, but against Media. There, as he acutely saw,
lay the main strength of the rebellion. His approach terrified the
Susiani; they slay their chief, their king Martiya, and submit. Arrived
at the border of Media and Persia, Darius divides his army. To make use
of the mutual jealousy of the Persians and Medes, and to prevent any
contact of his Median troops with their rebellious kinsmen, he sends the
Persian Artavardiya with the Median troops to Persia against Vahyazdata,
and with the Persians he marches against Phraortes to Media. Hydarnes
waited for him at Campada; the first object was to unite the troops. The
road from Susiana to Ecbatana ran through the district of Cambadene.
When united with Hydarnes Darius overcomes Phraortes in the month of
Adukanis (perhaps in June) of the year 518 at Kudurus, pursues him to
Ragha, and takes him prisoner. Before he executed him in front of the
citadel of Deioces, Phraortes, and Cyaxares, he had cut off his nose,
ears, and tongue, and in this condition he had publicly exhibited him in
chains, in order to convince the Medes that they had nothing to hope
from the supposed scion of Cyaxares. The rebellion of the Medes is at an
end. Darius can divide his forces. From Ragha he sends aid to his father
Hystaspes in Parthia, and with this additional aid Hystaspes is able to
defeat the rebellion of the Parthians in Garmapada, _i.e._ in the summer
of 518 B.C. At the same time Dadarshis had received the support in
Armenia for which he was waiting, under the protection of the fortress
of Uhyama. The Persian Vaumica, who brought up the reinforcements for
Darius, defeats the Armenian rebels in Anamaka, _i.e._ in December of
the year 518 B.C.; a second victory of Vaumica, in Yiyar (May) of the
following year (517 B.C.), puts an end to the rebellion in Armenia. A
third army was sent by Darius after the fall of Phraortes against the
Sagartians; which overpowered them and took their chief Chitratakhma
prisoner. Meanwhile Artavardiya, whom Darius had sent from Susiana, when
on his march against Phraortes, to check the rebellion in the native
land, had fought with success against Vahyazdata. The latter had
weakened his forces by sending a detachment to Arachosia. Vivana, the
satrap of Arachosia, had repulsed their attack in December 519 at
Kapisakani, and in March (Viyakhna) of the year 518 B.C. he had entirely
destroyed them. This failure in the east was followed in the same spring
by the attack of Artavardiya from the west. First defeated in
Thuravahara (April) at Racha, Vahyazdata succumbed in the summer (in
Garmapada) at Mount Paraga, five days after Hystaspes had again become
master of the Parthians in the north-east of Iran. The forces of the
satrap of Bactria, the second Dadarshis, had sufficed to put an end to
the rebellion of the Margians.
That which the deed of Cikathauvatis, the assassination of Gaumata in
the spring of the year 521 B.C., was intended to prevent, had
nevertheless happened. The whole kingdom was disorganised. In ceaseless
conflicts, which extended over four years, from the autumn of 521 B.C.
to the spring of 517 B.C., Darius had reconquered it, step by step. He
had been compelled to reduce by force of arms even the very foundation
of it, the native land of Persia, and to carry on once more the conflict
between Persia and Media. It had been necessary to repeat the
achievements of Cyrus, if not to their full extent yet in part under far
more difficult conditions. The new king had passed with success through
the severest crisis, and had reorganised the kingdom. This was the
result of his indomitable persistence before Babylon. By this means he
had retained the Medes and Persians of his army in their fidelity, and
by the final success had filled them with self-confidence. The fear
which afterwards preceded his arms, certainly rendered more easy the
decisive victory of Kudurus and at Mount Paraga.
Darius had not yet reached the goal; the kingdom was not entirely
pacified. The reduction of Babylon and the execution of Nebuchadnezzar
III. had not eradicated the strong impulse which the Babylonians felt to
regain their independence. They were once more carried away by the charm
which the name of Nebuchadnezzar exercised upon them: "When I was in
Persia and Media," so Darius relates at the close of the third column of
the great inscription of Behistun, "the Babylonians became rebellious
for the second time. A man of the name of Arakha, an Armenian, rose up
in the city of Dubana (Dubala, Dibleh?) in Babylonia. 'I am
Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Nabonetus,' such was his falsehood: he made
himself master of the city of Babylon and was king. I sent Intaphernes,
my servant, a Mede, with an army against Babylon. Intaphernes took
Babylon, and slew much people. On the 22nd of the month Markazana,
Arakha with his chief adherents was captured;[240] then I ordered them
to be crucified in Babylon." No doubt Darius had left sufficient
garrisons in the two royal citadels of the city which he had conquered
with so much trouble, and, therefore, it is the more remarkable that
Arakha, who did not rebel in Babylon itself, was able to make himself
master of the city. We may assume that Darius did not give the
Babylonians time to fill up the breaches which he had made in the walls
of Babylon; this time the Median Intaphernes must have found the task
lighter. The second rising of the Babylonians seems to have seduced the
Susiani, and to have caused a third rebellion of this land. In a fifth
column, subsequently added to the inscription of Behistun, we have
information about this rebellion of the Susiani and the reduction of the
Sacae. But this part of the inscription is so greatly injured that only a
few words can be read with certainty. All that is clear is that
Gaubaruva (Gobryas), the father-in-law of Darius and one of the Seven,
was sent against the Susiani and conquered them, that Darius himself
marched against the Sacae, that he fought against the _Caka tigrakhauda_,
i.e. against the Sacae with pointed caps, and conquered them on the sea
(_i.e._ on the Caspian), that he captured and slew their chief Cakunka.
Polyaenus has preserved a few details of the war against the Sacae,
though they rest on little authority; they prove that it was carried on
in the neighbourhood of Bactria, and was a serious struggle.[241]
Darius recapitulates the narrative of the achievements of the first
years of his reign thus: "This is what I accomplished, what I
accomplished always with the grace of Auramazda; I have fought nineteen
battles, and taken captive nine kings."[242]
In remembrance of these deeds and achievements, Darius erected a
magnificent memorial in that flourishing district of Media which the
Medes called Bagistana, _i.e._ land of the gods. The Choaspes (Kerkha)
rises on the southern slope of the Elvend, on the northern slope of
which lay Ecbatana. Breaking through the mountain rim of Iran, it flows
down a long and narrow valley towards the south into the Lower Tigris.
In its upper course the Choaspes traverses an elevated depression, which
is now thickly strewn with villages, the chosen summer abode of the
shepherd tribes. To the north this depression is bounded by a steep
mountain-chain, twenty miles in length, which ends towards the east in a
precipitous wall of rock more than 1500 feet high. On this wall, which
looks towards the rising sun, over a clear fountain which springs at the
foot of the rock, Darius caused a part of the stone 300 feet above the
plain to be made smooth with the chisel, polished and cut in relief; the
relief is explained by two inscriptions, a shorter one above and a
longer one below, in cuneiform letters. At the foot of the rock there
was a park (paradisus) twelve stades in the circuit.[243] Being placed
in Media, this monument was no doubt intended to remind the Medes that
any rebellion against the power of the Persians even under the most
favourable circumstances would fail. The rock-picture represents Darius,
who in size towers over the other figures. He wears a robe which in
front falls down over the knee, and behind to the middle of the calf, a
crown, a simple fillet with spikes on his head; rings are on his arms,
the hair is long, the beard curled. Behind him stand a bow-bearer and a
lance-bearer, both with long robes and beards. The king places his right
foot on a man lying on the ground. Below this we can read: "This
Gaumata, the Magian, lied: he said, 'I am Bardiya, the son of Kurus; I
am king.'" Opposite to Darius, bound to each other by a rope round their
necks, and their hands tied behind them, stand nine kings with their
heads uncovered (the last only has a very tall pointed cap, which marks
him as the king of the _Caka tigrakhauda_), clothed in various garments.
Over the first form, which is clad in a long beautiful robe reaching to
the ancles, we read: "This Atrina lied; he said: 'I am king in
Susiana'"; and over the second, in a short robe: "This Naditabira lied;
he said thus: 'I am Nabukadrachara, the son of Nabunita, I am king of
Babylon.'" Near the third figure, also in a short garment, is written:
"This Fravartis lied; he said: 'I am Khsathrita, of the race of
Uvakhshathra, I am king in Media.'" The fourth wears Persian clothing:
"This Martiya lied; he said; 'I am Ymani, king in Susiana.'" Over the
fifth form we find: "This Chitratakhma lied; he said: 'I am king in
Sagartia, of the race of Uvakshathra.'" Over the sixth, who is clothed
as a Persian: "This Vahyazdata lied; he said: 'I am Bardiya, the son of
Kurus; I am king.'" Over the seventh prisoner, who is clothed like the
second, we read: "This Arakha lied; he said thus: 'I am Nabukadrachara,
the son of Nabunita; I am king in Babylon.'" Over the eighth, who wears
Persian garments: "This Frada lied; he said thus: 'I am king in
Margiana.'" The ninth stands a little further back; the inscription
tells us: "This is Cakunka, the Sacian." The picture does not mention
the conquest of the Parthians, Hyrcanians, Assyrians, Armenians, and
Sattagydae. In the midst, above the whole description, hovers Auramazda,
a solemn, aged countenance, with long hair and beard, visible only to
the knees, in a winged circle.
Under this picture, at the close of the fourth column, before the
account of the new rebellion of the Susiani and the subjugation of the
Sacae, the inscription tells us: "What I have done, I have done by the
grace of Auramazda. Auramazda came to my aid, and the other gods, who
did so because I was not hostile; because I was not a liar or violent.
Thou, who readest these inscriptions, may they tell thee what I have
done. Regard them not as lies. These lands which became rebellious to
me, the lie made them rebellious. Thou who wilt be king hereafter, guard
against the lie. Punish severely the man who is a liar; if thou keepest
this mind, my land will be powerful. Thou who seest this tablet
hereafter, destroy it not. If thou preservest it as long as thou canst,
Auramazda will be favourable to thee; thou wilt have descendants, and
live long, and may Auramazda cause that to succeed which thou dost
undertake. If thou destroyest this tablet, may Auramazda smite thee,
may he give thee no posterity, and what thou doest may he render
vain.[244]"
FOOTNOTES:
[219] Above, p. 195, _n._
[220] Herod. 3, 67, 126, 150.
[221] He was, according to Herodotus, twenty years old at the death of
Cyrus. Herod. 1, 209; 3, 139. Ctesias ("Pers." 19) gives Darius a reign
of thirty-one years and a life of seventy-two. That the reign of Darius
lasted thirty-six years is fixed both by the astronomical canon and
Egyptian inscriptions, which mention the thirty-sixth year of Darius;
and lastly by the Egibi-tablets of Babylon, which give dates out of
thirty-five years (with the single exception of the seventh year).
"Transact. Bibl. Arch." 6, 69 ff. According to Ctesias, Darius would be
thirty-six years old in the year 521 B.C.
[222] Herod. (3, 118, 119) puts this event; [Greek: autika meta ten
epanastasin].
[223] Herod. 1, 130.
[224] Justin repeats the narrative of Herodotus in a rhetorical form; he
incorrectly regards Zopyrus as one of the seven. Diodorus attempts to
unite the statements of Herodotus and Ctesias, by maintaining that
Zopyrus was also called Megabyzus; the "twenty Babylons" are reduced to
ten. (Exc. Vat. p. 34, 35 = 10, 19.) In Herod. (4, 143) Darius wishes
when he opens the finest pomegranate that he had as many Megabyzuses
(the father of Zopyrus is meant) as the fruit had seeds. Plutarch
transfers this to Zopyrus, and represents Darius as saying that he would
rather have Zopyrus uninjured than 100 Babylons; "Reg. Apophthegm." 3.
In Polyaenus (7, 12), Zopyrus imitates the device which Sirakes, a
Sacian, had previously employed against Darius, and opens the gates of
Babylon to the Persians by night.
[225] Thucyd. 1, 104, 109, 110; Diod. 11, 71, 74, 75, 77; 12, 3; Isocr.
"De Pace," 82.
[226] Ctes. "Pers." 44. The paidagogos of Alcibiades was no doubt named
after this Zopyrus. Plutarch, "Lycurg." c. 16; Alcib. c. 1; Kirchhoff,
"Enstehungszeit," s. 15.
[227] _E.g._ Menant, "Babylon," p. 204; Oppert. "Exped." 1, 187, 223.
[228] So according to the Babylonian text in Schrader,
"Keilinschriften," s. 345.
[229] Oppert after the Turanian text: "I slew much people from the army
of Nidintabel, and drove others to the river; they were drowned in the
river."
[230] The Turanian version mentions Egypt after Assyria. In the
inscription nothing is said of this country; no Egyptians are found in
the rows of the conquered rebels.
[231] The two Egibi-tablets quoted by Boscawen in "Trans. Bibl. Arch."
6, 68, on Nebuchadnezzar III. have been rightly ascribed by Oppert,
relying on the names of the witnesses, to the later rebellion of Arakha.
[232] Cf. Schrader, "Keilinschriften," s. 346.
[233] Schrader, _loc. cit._ s. 346. The day of the month belongs to the
corresponding Babylonian month Tebet.
[234] Mordtmann, _loc. cit._ s. 75; Schrader, _loc. cit._ s. 347.
[235] Above, Vol. V. 323. The district of Otene belongs no doubt to
Armenia. Steph. Byz. _sub voce_.
[236] What Herodotus relates of Zopyras, Ctesias relates of his son
Megabyzus II. in regard to this new rising, of which we have no more
accurate knowledge in any other source, but which must not be called in
question. Herodotus himself indicates a rebellion under Xerxes, in which
the golden image of Belus was taken away from the lower chamber in the
great temple (1, 183), and we have Strabo's statement of the destruction
of Belus by Xerxes, p. 738. If Darius, as Herodotus tells us, 3, 159,
"destroyed the gates of Babylon," it does not follow that he opened the
supposed tomb of Nitocris over the main gateway, because it made it
impassable, as Herodotus thinks (1, 187).
[237] Vol. V. p. 10, _n._
[238] Oppert, "Peuple des Medes," p. 133.
[239] Mordtmann, _loc. cit._ s. 76, 77; Spiegel, "Altpers.
Keilinschriften," Bag. 3, 3; Schrader, _loc. cit._ s. 351.
[240] Oppert, "Records of the Past," 7, 104. The date of this rebellion
cannot be accurately fixed. The passage in the inscription of Behistun
which bears upon it stands at the close of the connected narrative; we
should therefore have to assume that it took place in the year 517 B.C.,
for this passage begins with the words, "When I was in Persia and
Media," which in the connection can only have the meaning: When I was
occupied with the overthrow of Phraortes and Vahyazdata. On the other
hand the Egibi-tablets are wanting for the seventh year of Darius only,
so that according to this the year 515 B.C. would be the year of the
rebellion of Arakha. Above, p. 240, _n_.
[241] Polyaen. 7, 27.
[242] Oppert, "Peuple des Medes," p. 158, inserts at the beginning of
this fifth column of the inscription of Behistun before _thardam_:
_duvadacamam_, so that we get the meaning; "This is what I have done up
to the twelfth year." The eleventh year of Darius ends in spring 510.
But chronological dates are not to be obtained by merely emending the
text. According to the context and the first line of Col. v. Darius said
in reference to the four preceding columns: "This I have done up to this
or that year." Then follows the narrative of the new rebellion of the
Babylonians and the subjugation of the Sacae. If the rebellion of Arakha
took place in the seventh year of Darius, as Oppert himself assumes, we
should rather insert _astemam_ before _thardam_.
[243] Diodor. 2, 13; 17, 110. Suidas [Greek: Bagistanon oros]. Ritter,
"Erdkunde," 9, 350.
[244] Spiegel, "Keilinschriften," s. 31 ff. Oppert in the "Journal
Asiatique," S. 4, VOL XVII., 322 ff., and "Peuple des Medes," p. 151
ff., Col. iv. 19. Oppert after a Turanian version above the picture here
translates as follows: "Et Darius le roi dit: par la grace d'Ormuzd j'ai
fait une collection de textes ailleurs en langue arienne, qui autrefois
n'existait pas. Et j'ai fait un texte de la loi et un commentaire de la
loi et la benediction et les traductions. Et ce fut ecrit et je le
promulgai en entier, puis je retablis l'ancien livre dans tous les pays
et les peuples le reconnurent."