Chapter XCIII (4)

After some delay at Susa—and after confirming the Persian Abulites, who had surrendered the city, in his satrapy, yet not without two Grecian officers as guarantees, one commanding the military force, the other governor of the citadel—Alexander crossed the river Eulæus or Pasitigris, and directed his march to the south-east towards Persis proper, the ancient hearth or primitive seat from whence the original Persian conquerors had issued.[411] Between Susa and Persis lay a mountainous region occupied by the Uxii—rude but warlike shepherds, to whom the Great King himself had always been obliged to pay a tribute whenever he went from Susa to Persepolis, being unable with his inefficient military organization to overcome the difficulties of such a pass held by an enemy. The Uxii now demanded the like tribute from Alexander, who replied by inviting them to meet him at their pass and receive it. Meanwhile a new and little frequented mountain track had been made known to him, over which he conducted in person a detachment of troops so rapidly and secretly as to surprise the mountaineers in their own villages. He thus not only opened the usual mountain pass for the transit of his main army, but so cut to pieces and humiliated the Uxii, that they were forced to sue for pardon. Alexander was at first disposed to extirpate or expel them; but at length, at the request of the captive Sisygambis, permitted them to remain as subjects of the satrap of Susa, imposing a tribute of sheep, horses, and cattle, the only payment which their poverty allowed.[412]

[411] Arrian, iii. 17, 1. Ἄρας δὲ ἐκ Σούσων, καὶ διαβὰς τὸν
Πασιτίγρην ποταμὸν, ἐμβάλλει εἰς τὴν Οὐξίων γῆν.

The Persian Susa was situated between two rivers; the Choaspes
(now Kherkha) on the west; the Eulæus or Pasitigris, now Karun,
on the east; both rivers distinguished for excellent water. The
Eulæus appears to have been called Pasitigris in the lower part
of its course—Pliny, H. N. xxxi. 21. “Parthorum reges ex Choaspe
et Eulæo tantum bibunt.”

Ritter has given an elaborate exposition respecting these two
rivers and the site of the Persian Susa (Erdkunde, part ix. book
iii. West-Asien, p. 291-320).

[412] Arrian, iii. 17; Curtius. v. 3, 5-12; Diodor. xvii.
67; Strabo, xv. p. 729. It would seem that the road taken by
Alexander in this march, was that described by Kinneir, through
Bebahan and Kala-Sefid to Schiraz (Geographical Memoir of the
Persian Empire, p. 72). Nothing can exceed the difficulties of
the territory for military operation.

No certainty is attainable, however, respecting the ancient
geography of these regions. Mr. Long’s Map of Ancient Persia
shows how little can be made out.

But bad as the Uxian pass had been, there remained another still worse—called the Susian or Persian gates,[413] in the mountains which surrounded the plain of Persepolis, the centre of Persis proper. Ariobarzanes, satrap of the province, held this pass; a narrow defile walled across, with mountain positions on both sides, from whence the defenders, while out of reach themselves, could shower down missiles upon an approaching enemy. After four days of march, Alexander reached on the fifth day the Susian Gates; which, inexpugnable as they seemed, he attacked on the ensuing morning. In spite of all the courage of his soldiers, however, he sustained loss without damaging his enemy, and was obliged to return to his camp. He was informed that there was no other track by which this difficult pass could be turned; but there was a long circuitous march of many days whereby it might be evaded, and another entrance found into the plain of Persepolis. To recede from any enterprise as impracticable, was a humiliation which Alexander had never yet endured. On farther inquiry, a Lykian captive, who had been for many years tending sheep as a slave on the mountains, acquainted him with the existence of a track known only to himself, whereby he might come on the flank of Ariobarzanes. Leaving Kraterus in command of the camp, with orders to attack the pass in front, when he should hear the trumpet give signal—Alexander marched forth at night at the head of a light detachment, under the guidance of the Lykian. He had to surmount incredible hardship and difficulty—the more so as it was mid-winter, and the mountain was covered with snow; yet such were the efforts of his soldiers and the rapidity of his movements, that he surprised all the Persian outposts, and came upon Ariobarzanes altogether unprepared. Attacked as they were at the same time by Kraterus also, the troops of the satrap were forced to abandon the Gates, and were for the most part cut to pieces. Many perished in their flight among the rocks and precipices; the satrap himself being one of a few that escaped.[414]

[413] See the instructive notes of Mützel—on Quintus Curtius, v.
10, 3; and v. 12, 17, discussing the topography of this region,
in so far as it is known from modern travellers. He supposes the
Susian Gates to have been near Kala-Sefid, west of the plain
of Merdasht or Persepolis. Herein he dissents from Ritter,
apparently on good grounds, as far as an opinion can be formed.

[414] Arrian, iii. 18, 1-14; Curtius, v. 4, 10-20; Diodor. xvii.
68.

Though the citadel of Persepolis is described as one of the strongest of fortresses,[415] yet after this unexpected conquest of a pass hitherto deemed inexpugnable, few had courage to think of holding it against Alexander. Nevertheless Ariobarzanes, hastening thither from the conquered pass, still strove to organize a defence, and at least to carry off the regal treasure, which some in the town were already preparing to pillage. But Tiridates, commander of the garrison, fearing the wrath of the conqueror, resisted this, and despatched a message entreating Alexander to hasten his march. Accordingly Alexander, at the head of his cavalry, set forth with the utmost speed, and arrived in time to detain and appropriate the whole. Ariobarzanes, in a vain attempt to resist, was slain with all his companions. Persepolis and Pasargadæ—the two peculiar capitals of the Persian race, the latter memorable as containing the sepulchre of Cyrus the Great—both fell into the hands of the conqueror.[416]

[415] Diodor. xvii. 71.

[416] Arrian, iii. 18, 16; Curtius, v. 4, 5; Diodor. xvii. 69.

On approaching Persepolis, the compassion of the army was powerfully moved by the sight of about 800 Grecian captives, all of them mutilated in some frightful and distressing way, by loss of legs, arms, eyes, ears, or some other bodily members. Mutilation was a punishment commonly inflicted in that age by Oriental governors, even by such as were not accounted cruel. Thus Xenophon, in eulogizing the rigid justice of Cyrus the younger, remarks that in the public roads of his satrapy, men were often seen who had been deprived of their arms or legs, or otherwise mutilated, by penal authority.[417] Many of these maimed captives at Persepolis were old, and had lived for years in their unfortunate condition. They had been brought up from various Greek cities by order of some of the preceding Persian kings; but on what pretences they had been thus cruelly dealt with, we are not informed. Alexander, moved to tears at such a spectacle, offered to restore them to their respective homes, with a comfortable provision for the future. But most of them felt so ashamed of returning to their homes, that they entreated to be allowed to remain all together in Persis, with lands assigned to them, and with dependent cultivators to raise produce for them. Alexander granted their request in the fullest measure, conferring besides upon each an ample donation of money, clothing, and cattle.[418]

[417] Xenoph. Anabas. i. 9, 13. Similar habits have always
prevailed among Orientals. “The most atrocious part of the
Mohammedan system of punishment, is, that which regards theft and
robbery. Mutilation, by cutting off the hand or the foot, is the
prescribed remedy for all higher degrees of the offence” (Mill,
History of British India, book iii. ch. 5. p. 447).

“Tippoo Saib used to cut off the right hands and noses of the
British camp-followers that fell into his hands” (Elphinstone,
Hist. of India, vol. i. p. 380. ch. xi.).

A recent traveller notices the many mutilated persons, female as
well as male, who are to be seen in the northern part of Scinde
(Burton, Scenes in Scinde, vol. ii. p. 281).

[418] Diodor. xvii. 69; Curtius, v. 5; Justin, xi. 14. Arrian
does not mention these mutilated captives; but I see no reason
to mistrust the deposition of the three authors by whom it is
certified. Curtius talks of 4000 captives; the other two mention
800. Diodorus calls them —Ἕλληνες ὑπὸ τῶν πρότερον βασιλέων
ἀνάστατοι γεγονότες, ὀκτακόσιοι μὲν σχεδὸν τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὄντες,
ταῖς δ᾽ ἡλικίαις οἱ πλεῖστοι μὲν γεγηρακότες, ἠκρωτηριασμένοι δὲ
πάντες, etc. Some ἀνάρπαστοι πρὸς βασιλέα διὰ σοφίαν are noticed
in Xenoph. Mem. iv. 2, 33; compare Herodot. iii. 93; iv. 204. I
have already mentioned the mutilation of the Macedonian invalids,
taken at Issus by Darius.

Probably these Greek captives were mingled with a number of
other captives, Asiatics and others, who had been treated in the
same manner. None but the Greek captives would be likely to show
themselves to Alexander and his army, because none but they would
calculate on obtaining sympathy from an army of Macedonians and
Greeks. It would have been interesting to know who these captives
were, or how they came to be thus cruelly used. The two persons
among them, named by Curtius as spokesmen in the interview with
Alexander, are—Euktemon, a Kymæan—and Theætêtus, an Athenian.

The sight of these mutilated Greeks was well calculated to excite not merely sympathy for them, but rage against the Persians, in the bosoms of all spectators. Alexander seized this opportunity, as well for satiating the anger and cupidity of his soldiers, as for manifesting himself in his self-assumed character of avenger of Greece against the Persians, to punish the wrongs done by Xerxes a century and a half before. He was now amidst the native tribes and seats of the Persians, the descendants of those rude warriors who, under the first Cyrus, had overspread Western Asia from the Indus to the Ægean. In this their home the Persian kings had accumulated their national edifices, their regal sepulchres, the inscriptions commemorative of their religious or legendary sentiment, with many trophies and acquisitions arising out of their conquests. For the purposes of the Great King’s empire, Babylon, or Susa, or Ekbatana, were more central and convenient residences; but Persepolis was still regarded as the heart of Persian nationality. It was the chief magazine, though not the only one, of those annual accumulations from the imperial revenue, which each king successively increased, and which none seems to have ever diminished. Moreover, the Persian grandees and officers, who held the lucrative satrapies and posts of the empire, were continually sending wealth home to Persis, for themselves or their relatives. We may therefore reasonably believe what we find asserted, that Persepolis possessed at this time more wealth, public and private, than any place within the range of Grecian or Macedonian knowledge.[419]

[419] Diodor. xvii. 70. πλουσιωτάτης οὔσης τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον,
etc. Curtius, v. 6, 2, 3.

Convening his principal officers, Alexander denounced Persepolis as the most hostile of all Asiatic cities,—the home of those impious invaders of Greece, whom he had come to attack. He proclaimed his intention of abandoning it to be plundered, as well as of burning the citadel. In this resolution he persisted, notwithstanding the remonstrance of Parmenio, who reminded him that the act would be a mere injury to himself by ruining his own property, and that the Asiatics would construe it as evidence of an intention to retire speedily, without founding any permanent dominion in the country.[420] After appropriating the regal treasure—to the alleged amount of 120,000 talents in gold and silver = £27,600,000 sterling[421]—Alexander set fire to the citadel. A host of mules, with 5000 camels, were sent for from Mesopotamia and elsewhere, to carry off this prodigious treasure; the whole of which was conveyed out of Persis proper, partly to be taken along with Alexander himself in his ulterior marches, partly to be lodged in Susa and Ekbatana. Six thousand talents more, found in Pasargadæ, were added to the spoil.[422] The persons and property of the inhabitants were abandoned to the license of the soldiers, who obtained an immense booty, not merely in gold and silver, but also in rich clothing, furniture, and ostentatious ornaments of every kind. The male inhabitants were slain,[423] the females dragged into servitude; except such as obtained safety by flight, or burned themselves with their property in their own houses. Among the soldiers themselves, much angry scrambling took place for the possession of precious articles, not without occasional bloodshed.[424] As soon as their ferocity and cupidity had been satiated, Alexander arrested the massacre. His encouragement and sanction of it was not a burst of transient fury, provoked by unexpected length of resistance, such as the hanging of the 2000 Tyrians and the dragging of Batis at Gaza—but a deliberate proceeding, intended partly as a recompense and gratification to the soldiery, but still more as an imposing manifestation of retributive vengeance against the descendants of the ancient Persian invaders. In his own letters seen by Plutarch, Alexander described the massacre of the native Persians as having been ordered by him on grounds of state policy.[425]

[420] Arrian, iii. 18, 18; Diodor. xvii. 70; Curtius, v. 6, 1;
Strabo, xv. p. 731.

[421] This amount is given both by Diodorus (xvii. 71) and by
Curtius (v. 6, 9). We see however from Strabo that there were
different statements as to the amount. Such overwhelming figures
deserve no confidence upon any evidence short of an official
return. At the same time, we ought to expect a very great sum,
considering the long series of years that had been spent in
amassing it. Alexander’s own letters (Plutarch, Alex. 37) stated
that enough was carried away to load 10,000 mule carts and 5000
camels.

To explain the fact, of a large accumulated treasure in the
Persian capitals, it must be remarked, that what we are
accustomed to consider as expenses of government, were not
defrayed out of the regal treasure. The military force, speaking
generally, was not paid by the Great King, but summoned
by requisition from the provinces, upon which the cost of
maintaining the soldiers fell, over and above the ordinary
tribute. The king’s numerous servants and attendants received no
pay in money, but in kind; provisions for maintaining the court
with its retinue were furnished by the provinces, over and above
the tribute. See Herodot. i. 192; and iii. 91—and a good passage
of Heeren, setting forth the small public disbursement out of
the regal treasure, in his account of the internal constitution
of the ancient Persian Empire (Ideen über die Politik and den
Verkehr der Völker der alten Welt, part i. Abth. 1. p. 511-519).

Respecting modern Persia, Jaubert remarks (Voyage en Arménie
et en Perse, Paris, 1821, p. 272, ch. 30)—“Si les sommes que
l’on verse dans le trésor du Shah ne sont pas exorbitantes,
comparativement à l’étendue et à la population de la Perse, elles
n’en sortent pas non plus que pour des dépenses indispensables
qui n’en absorbent pas la moitié. Le reste est converti en
lingots, en pierreries, et en divers objets d’une grande valeur
et d’un transport facile en cas d’évènement: ce qui doit suffire
pour empêcher qu’on ne trouve exagérés les rapports que tous les
voyageurs ont faits de la magnificence de la cour de Perse. Les
Perses sont assez clairvoyans pour pénétrer les motifs réels qui
portent Futteh Ali Shah à thésauriser.”

When Nadir-Shah conquered the Mogul Emperor Mohammed, and
entered Delhi in 1739,—the imperial treasure and effects which
fell into his hands is said to have amounted to £32,000,000
sterling, besides heavy contributions levied on the inhabitants
(Mill, History of British India, vol. ii, B. iii, ch. 4, p.
403).—Runjeet Sing left at his death (1839) a treasure of
£8,000,000 sterling: with jewels and other effects to several
millions more. [The Punjaub, by Col. Steinbach, p. 16. London,
1845].

Mr. Mill remarks in another place, that “in Hindostan, gold,
silver, and gems are most commonly hoarded, and not devoted to
production” (vol. i, p. 254, B. ii. ch. 5).

Herodotus (iii. 96) tells us that the gold and silver brought
to the Persian regal treasure was poured in a melted state
into earthern vessels; when it cooled, the earthern vessel was
withdrawn, and the solid metallic mass left standing; a portion
of it was cut off when occasion required for disbursements. This
practice warrants the supposition that a large portion of it was
habitually accumulated, and not expended.

[422] Arrian, iii. 18, 17. He does not give the amount which I
transcribe from Curtius, v. 6, 10.

[423] Diodor. xvii. 70. Οἱ Μακεδόνες ἐπῄεσαν, τοὺς μὲν ἄνδρας
πάντας φονεύοντες, τὰς δὲ κτήσεις διαρπάζοντες, etc. Curtius, v.
6, 6.

[424] Diodor. xvii. 70, 71; Curtius, v. 6, 3-7. These two authors
concur in the main features of the massacre and plunder in
Persepolis, permitted to the soldiers of Alexander. Arrian does
not mention it; he mentions only the deliberate resolution of
Alexander to burn the palace or citadel, out of revenge on the
Persian name. And such feeling, assuming it to exist, would also
naturally dictate the general license to plunder and massacre.
Himself entertaining such vindictive feeling, and regarding it
as legitimate, Alexander would either presume it to exist, or
love to kindle it, in his soldiers; by whom indeed the license
to plunder would be sufficiently welcomed, with or without any
antecedent sentiment of vengeance.

The story (told by Diodorus, Curtius, and Plutarch, Alex. 38)
that Alexander, in the drunkenness of a banquet, was first
instigated by the courtesan Thais to set fire to the palace of
Persepolis, and accompanied her to begin the conflagration with
his own hand—may perhaps be so far true, that he really showed
himself in the scene and helped in the burning. But that his
resolution to burn was deliberately taken, and even maintained
against the opposition of esteemed officers, is established on
the authority of Arrian.

[425] Plutarch, Alexand. 37. Φόνον μὲν οὖν ἐνταῦθα πολὺν τῶν
ἁλισκομένων γενέσθαι συνέπεσε· ~γράφει γὰρ αὐτὸς, ὡς νομίζων
αὐτῷ τοῦτο λυσιτελεῖν ἐκέλευεν ἀποσφάττεσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους~·
νομίσματος δὲ εὑρεῖν πλῆθος ὅσον ἐν Σούσοις, τὴν δὲ ἄλλην
κατασκευὴν καὶ τὸν πλοῦτον ἐκκομισθῆναί φησι μυρίοις ὀρικοῖς
ζεύγεσι, καὶ πεντακισχιλίαις καμήλοις. That ἐνταῦθα means
Persepolis, is shown by the immediately following comparison with
the treasure found at Susa.

As it was now winter or very early spring, he suffered his main army to enjoy a month or more of repose at or near Persepolis. But he himself, at the head of a rapidly moving division, traversed the interior of Persia proper; conquering or receiving into submission the various towns and villages.[426] The greatest resistance which he experienced was offered by the rude and warlike tribe called the Mardi; but worse than any enemy was the severity of the season and the rugged destitution of a frozen country. Neither physical difficulties, however, nor human enemies, could arrest the march of Alexander. He returned from his expedition, complete master of Persis; and in the spring, quitted that province with his whole army, to follow Darius into Media. He left only a garrison of 3000 Macedonians at Persepolis, preserving to Tiridates, who had surrendered to him the place, the title of satrap.[427]

[426] Diod. xvii. 73; Curtius, v. 6, 12-20.

[427] Curtius, v. 6, 11.

Darius was now a fugitive, with the mere title of king, and with a simple body-guard rather than an army. On leaving Arbêla after the defeat, he had struck in an easterly direction across the mountains into Media; having only a few attendants round him, and thinking himself too happy to preserve his own life from an indefatigable pursuer.[428] He calculated that, once across these mountains, Alexander would leave him for a time unmolested, in haste to march southward for the purpose of appropriating the great and real prizes of the campaign—Babylon, Susa, and Persepolis. The last struggles of this ill-starred prince will be recounted in another chapter.

[428] Arrian, iii. 16, 1-4.