Skip to main content

Full text of "The ancient East;"

See other formats



No. 92 

Editors : 


LL.D., F.B.A. 

A complete classified list of the volumes of The 
Home University Library already published 
will be found at the back of this book. 


D. G. HOGARTH, M.A., F.B.A., F.S.A 









I THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 



VI EPILOGUE . . . . 

INDEX .... 








HETEP III ..... 33 


EARLY 13th CENTURY B.C. . . 37 


BANIPAL ...... 113 






The title of this book needs a word of 
explanation, since each of its terms can 
legitimately be used to denote more than 
one conception both of time and place. 
*' The East " is understood widely and vaguely 
nowadays to include all the continent and 
islands of Asia, some part of Africa — the 
northern part where society and conditions 
of life are most like the Asiatic — and some 
regions also of South-Eastern and Eastern 
Europe. Therefore it may appear arbitrary 
to restrict it in the present book to Western 
Asia. But the qualifying term in my title 
must be invoked in justification. It is the 
East not of to-day but of antiquity with 
which I have to deal, and, therefore, I 
plead that it is not unreasonable to under- 
stand by " The East " what in antiquity 
European historians understood by that term. 


To Herodotus and his contemporary Greeks 
Egypt, Arabia and India were the South; 
Thrace and Scythia were the North; and 
Hither Asia was the East : for they conceived 
nothing beyond except the fabled stream of 
Ocean. It can be pleaded also that my 
restriction, while not in itself arbitrary, 
does, in fact, obviate an otherwise inevitable 
obligation to fix arbitrary bounds to the 
East. For the term, as used in modern 
times, implies a geographical area character- 
ized by society of a certain general type, and 
according to his opinion of this type, each 
person, who thinks or writes of the East, 
expands or contracts its geographical area. 

It is more difficult to justify the restric- 
tion which will be imposed in the following 
chapters on the word Ancient. This term 
is used even more vaguely and variously 
than the other. If generally it connotes the 
converse of " Modern," in some connections 
and particularly in the study of history 
the Modern is not usually understood to begin 
where the Ancient ended but to stand only for 
the comparatively Recent. For example, in 
History, the ill-defined period called the Middle 
and Dark Ages makes a considerable hiatus 


before, in the process of retrospection, we get 
back to a civilization which (in Europe at 
least) we ordinarily regard as Ancient. Again, 
in History, we distinguish commonly two 
provinces within the undoubted area of 'the 
Ancient, the Prehistoric and the Historic, the 
first comprising all the time to which human 
memory, as communicated by surviving litera- 
ture, ran not, or, at least, not consciously, con- 
sistently and credibly. At the same time it is 
not implied that we can have no knowledge at 
all of the Prehistoric province. It may even be 
better known to us than parts of the Historic, 
through sure deduction from archaeological 
evidence. But what we learn from archaeo- 
logical records is annalistic not historic, since 
such records have not passed through the 
transforming crucible of a human intelligence 
which reasons on events as effects of causes. 
The boundary between Prehistoric and 
Historic, however, depends too much on the 
subjectivity of individual historians and is 
too apt to vary with the progress of research 
to be a fixed moment. Nor can it be the 
same for all civilizations. As regards Egypt, 
for example, we have a body of literary 
tradition which can reasonably be called 


Historic, relating to a time much earlier than 
is reached by respectable literary tradition of 
Elam and Babylonia, though their civilizations 
were probably older than the Egyptian. 

For the Ancient East as here understood, 
we possess two bodies of historic literary 
tradition and two only, the Greek and the 
Hebrew; and as it happens, both (though 
each is independent of the other) lose 
consistency and credibility when they deal 
with history before 1000 B.C. Moreover, 
Prof. Myres has covered the prehistoric 
period in the East in his brilliant Dawn of 
History, Therefore, on all accounts, in treat- 
ing of the historic period, I am absolved from 
looking back more than a thousand years 
before our era. 

It is not so obvious where I may stop. 
The overthrow of Persia by Alexander, con- 
sunmiating a long stage in a secular contest, 
which it is my main business to describe, 
marks an epoch more sharply than any other 
single event in the history of the Ancient 
East. But there are grave objections to 
breaking off abruptly at that date. The 
reader can hardly close a book which ends 
then, with any other impression than that 


since the Greek has put the East under his 
feet, the history of the centuries, which have 
still to elapse before Rome shall take over 
Asia, will simply be Greek history writ large — 
the history of a Greater Greece which has ex- 
panded over the ancient East and caused it 
to lose its distinction from the ancient West. 
Yet this impression does not by any means 
coincide with historical truth. The Mace- 
donian conquest of Hither Asia was a victory 
won by men of Greek civilization, but only 
to a very partial extent a victory of that 
civilization. The West did not assimilate 
the East except in very small measure then, 
and has not assimilated it in any very large 
measure to this day. For certain reasons, 
among which some geographical facts — the 
large proportion of steppe-desert and of the 
human type which such country breeds — 
are perhaps the most powerful, the East is 
obstinately unreceptive of western influences, 
and more than once it has taken its captors 
captive. Therefore, while, for the sake of con- 
venience and to avoid entanglement in the very 
ill-known maze of what is called " Hellenistic" 
history, I shall not attempt to follow the 
consecutive course of events after 330 B.C., I 


propose to add an epilogue which may prepare 
readers for what was destined to come out of 
Western Asia after the Christian era, and 
enable them to understand in particular the 
religious conquest of the West by the East. 
This has been a more momentous fact in 
the history of the world than any political 
conquest of the East by the West. 

In the further hope of enabling readers to 
retain a clear idea of the evolution of the 
history, I have adopted the plan of looking 
out over the area which is here called the 
East, at certain intervals, rather than the 
alternative and more usual plan of consider- 
ing events consecutively in each several part 
of that area. Thus, without repetition and 
overlapping, one may expect to convey a 
sense of the history of the whole East as 
the sum of the histories of particular parts. 
The occasions on which the surveys will 
be taken are purely arbitrary chronological 
points two centuries apart. The years 1000, 
800, 600, 400 B.C. are not, any of them, 
distinguished by known events of the kind 
that is called epoch-making; nor have round 
numbers been chosen for any peculiar historic 


significance. They might just as well have 
been 1001, 801 and so forth, or any other 
dates divided by equal intervals. Least of 
all is any mysterious virtue to be attached 
to the millenary date with which I begin. 
But it is a convenient starting-point, not 
only for the reason already stated, that 
Greek literary memory — ^the only literary 
memory of antiquity worth anything for 
early history — goes back to about that 
date; but also because the year 1000 B.C. 
falls within a period of disturbance during 
which certain racial elements and groups, 
destined to exert predominant influence on 
subsequent history, were settling down into 
their historic homes. 

A westward and southward movement of 
peoples, caused by some obscure pressure 
from the north-west and north-east, which 
had been disturbing eastern and central Asia 
Minor for more than a century and apparently 
had brought to an end the supremacy of the 
Cappadocian Hatti, was quieting down, leav- 
ing the western peninsula broken up into 
small principalities. Indirectly the same 
movement had brought about a like result in 
northern Syria. A still more important move- 


ment of Iranian peoples from the farther 
East had ended in the coalescence of two 
considerable social groups, each containing 
the germs of higher development, on the 
north-eastern and eastern fringes of the old 
Mesopotamian sphere of influence. These 
were the Medic and the Persian. A little 
earlier, a period of unrest in the Sj^rian 
and Arabian deserts, marked by intermit- 
tent intrusions of nomads into the western 
fringe -lands, had ended in the formation of 
new Semitic states in all parts of Syria 
from Shamal in the extreme north-west 
(perhaps even from Cilicia beyond Amanus) 
to Hamath, Damascus and Palestine. Finally 
there is this justification for not trying to 
push the history of the Asiatic East much 
behind 1000 B.C. — that nothing like a sure 
chronological basis of it exists before that 
date. Precision in the dating of events in 
West Asia begins near the end of the tenth 
century with the Assyrian Eponym lists, that 
is, lists of annual chief officials; while for 
Babylonia there is no certain chronology till 
nearly two hundred years later. In Hebrew 
history sure chronological ground is not 
reached till the Assyrian records themselves 


begin to touch upon it during the reign of 
Ahab over Israel. For all the other social 
groups and states of Western Asia we have to 
depend on more or less loose and inferential 
synchronisms with Assyrian, Babylonian or 
Hebrew chronology, except for some rare 
events whose dates may be inferred from the 
alien histories of Egypt and Greece. 

The area, whose social state we shall survey 
in 1000 B.C. and re-survey at intervals, con- 
tains Western Asia bounded eastwards by an 
imaginary line drawn from the head of the 
Persian Gulf to the Caspian Sea. This line, 
however, is not to be drawn rigidly straight, 
but rather should describe a shallow outward 
curve, so as to include in the Ancient East 
all Asia situated on this side of the salt 
deserts of central Persia. This area is marked 
off by seas on three sides and by desert on 
the fourth side. Internally it is distinguished 
into some six divisions either by unusually 
strong geographical boundaries or by large 
differences of geographical character. These 
divisions are as follows — 

(1) A western peninsular projection, 
bounded by seas on three sides and divided 


from the rest of the continent by high and 
very broad mountain masses, which has been 
named, not inappropriately, Asia Minor, 
since it displays, in many respects, an epitome 
of the general characteristics of the continent. 
(2) A tangled mountainous region filling 
almost all the rest of the northern part of 
the area and sharply distinct in character not 
only from the plateau land of Asia Minor to 
the west but also from the great plain lands 
of steppe character lying to the south, north 
and east. This has perhaps never had a 
single name, though the bulk of it has been 
included in " Urartu " (Ararat), " Armenia " 
or " Kurdistan " at various epochs ; but for 
convenience we shall call it Armenia. (3) A 
narrow belt running south from both the 
former divisions and distinguished from them 
by much lower general elevation. Bounded 
on the west by the sea and on the south and 
east by broad tracts of desert, it has, since 
Greek times at least, been generally known as 
Syria. (4) A great southern peninsula largely 
desert, lying high and fringed by sands on the 
land side, which has been called, ever since 
antiquity, Arabia. (5) A broad tract stretch- 
ing into the continent between Armenia and 



Arabia and containing the middle and lower 
basins of the twin rivers, Euphrates and 
Tigris, which, rising in Armenia, drain the 
greater part of the whole area. It is of diversi- 
fied sm-face, ranging from sheer desert in the 
west and centre, to great fertility in its eastern 
parts; but, until it begins to rise northward 
towards the frontier of " Armenia " and east- 
ward towards that of the sixth division, about 
to be described, it maintains a generally low 
elevation. No common name has ever in- 
cluded all its parts, both the inter flu vial 
region and the districts beyond Tigris; but 
since the term Mesopotamia, though obviously 
incorrect, is generally understood nowadays 
to designate it, this name may be used "for 
want of a better. (6) A high plateau, walled 
off from Mesopotamia and Armenia by high 
mountain chains, and extending back to the 
desert limits of the Ancient East. To this 
region, although it comprises only the western 
part of what should be understood by /ran, 
this name may be appropriated " without 


THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 

In 1000 B.C. West Asia was a mosaic of 
small states and contained, so far as we^^^ 
know, no imperial power holding wide 
dominion over aliens. Seldom in its history 
could it so be described. Since it became 
predominantly Semitic, over a thousand years 
before our survey, it had fallen under simul- 
taneous or successive dominations, exercised 
from at least three regions within itself and 
from one without. 

§ 1. Babylonian Empire 

The earliest of these centres of power to 

develop foreign empire was also that destined, 

after many vicissitudes, to hold it latest, 

because it was the best endowed by nature to 

repair the waste which empire entails. This 

was the region which would be known later as 


Babylonia from the name of the city which in 
historic times dominated it, but,, as we now 
know, was neither an early seat of power nor 
the parent of its distinctive local civilization. 
This honour, if due to any one city, should be 
credited to Ur, whose also was the first and 
the only truly " Babylonian " empire. The 
primacy of Babylonia had not been the work 
of its aboriginal Sumerian population, the 
authors of what was highest in the local 
culture, but of Semitic intruders from a 
comparatively barbarous region; nor again, 
had it been the work of the earliest of these 
intruders (if we follow those who now deny 
that the dominion of Sargon of Akkad and 
his son Naram-sin ever extended beyond the 
lower basins of the Twin Rivers), but of 
peoples who entered with a second series of 
Semitic waves. These surged out of Arabia, 
eternal motherland of vigorous migrants, in 
the middle centuries of the third millennium 
B.C. While this migration swamped South 
Syria with " Canaanites," it ultimately gave 
to Egypt the Hyksos or " Shepherd Kings," 
to Assyria its permanent Semitic population, 
and to Sumer and Akkad what later chroni- 
clers called the First Babylonian Dynasty. 

THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 23 

Since, however, those Semitic interlopers 
had no civiHzation of their own comparable 
with either the contemporary Egyptian or 
the Sumerian (long ago adopted by earlier 
Semitic immigrants), they inevitably and 
quickly assimilated both these civilizations as 
they settled down. 

At the same time they did not lose, at least 
not in Mesopotamia, which was already half 
Semitized, certain Bedawi ideas and instincts, 
which would profoundly affect their later his- 
tory. Of these the most important historically 
was a religious idea which, for want of a 
better term, may be called Super-Monotheism. 
Often found rooted in wandering peoples and 
apt long to survive their nomadic phase, it 
consists in a belief that, however many tribal 
and local gods there may be, one paramount 
deity exists who is not only singular and 
indivisible but dwells in one spot, alone on 
earth. His dwelling may be changed by a 
movement of his people en masse, but by 
nothing less; and he can have no real rival 
in supreme power. The fact that the para- 
mount Father-God of the Semites came 
through that migration en masse to take up 
his residence in Babylon and in no other city 


of the wide lands newly occupied, caused 
this city to retain for many centuries, despite 
social and political changes, a predominant 
position not unlike that to be held by 
Holy Rome from the Dark Ages to modern 

Secondly the Arabs brought with them 
their immemorial instinct of restlessness. 
This habit also is apt to persist in a settled 
society, finding satisfaction in annual re- 
course to tent or hut life and in annual pre- 
datory excursions. The custom of the razzia 
or summer raid, which is still obligatory in 
Arabia on all men of vigour and spirit, was 
held in equal honour by the ancient Semitic 
world. Undertaken as a matter of course, 
whether on provocation or not, it was the 
yorigin and constant spring of those annual 
marches to the frontiers, of which royal 
Assyrian monuments vaingloriously tell us, 
to the exclusion of almost all other informa- 
tion. Chederlaomer, Amraphel and the other 
three kings were fulfilling their annual 
obligation in the Jordan valley when 
Hebrew tradition believed that they met with 
Abraham ; and if, as seems agreed, Amraphel 
was Hammurabi himself, that tradition proves 

THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 25 

the custom of the razzia well established 
under the First Babylonian Dynasty. 

Moreover, the fact that these annual 
campaigns of Babylonian and Assyrian kings 
were simply Bedawi razzias highly organized 
and on a great scale should be borne in mind 
when we speak of Semitic " empires," lest 
we think too territorially. No permanent^ 
organization of territorial dominion in foreign 
parts was established by Semitic rulers till 
late in^ Assyrian history. The earlier Semitic 
overlords, that is, all who preceded Ashurnat- 
sirpal of Assyria, went a-raiding to plunder, 
assault, destroy, or receive submissive pay- 
ments, and their ends achieved, returned, 
without imposing permanent garrisons of their 
own followers, permanent viceroys, or even 
a permanent tributary burden, to hinder the 
stricken foe from returning to his own way till 
his turn should come to be raided again. The 
imperial blackmailer had possibly left a record 
of his presence and prowess on alien rocks, to 
be defaced at peril when his back was turned ; 
but for the rest only a sinister memory. 
Early Babylonian and Early Assyrian " em- 
pire," therefore, meant, territorially, no more 
than a geographical area throughout which 


an emperor could, and did, raid without 
encountering effective opposition. 

Nevertheless, such constant raiding on a 
great scale was bound to produce some of the 
fruits of empire, and by its fruits, not its 
records, we know most surely how far Baby- 
lonian Empire had made itself felt. The best 
witnesses to its far-reaching influence are first, 
the Babylonian element in the Hittite art of 
distant Asia Minor, which shows from the 
very first (so far as we know it, i. e, from at 
least 1500 B.C.) that native artists were 
hardly able to realize any native ideas 
without help from Semitic models; and 
secondly, the use of Babylonian writing and 
language and even Babylonian books by the 
ruling classes in Asia Minor and Syria at a 
Uttle later time. That governors of Syrian 
cities should have written their official com- 
munications to Pharaohs of the Eighteenth 
Dynasty in Babylonian cuneiform (as the 
archives found at Amarna in Upper Egypt 
twenty years ago show us they did) had 
already afforded such conclusive proof of early 
and long maintained Babylonian influence, 
that the more recent discovery that Hittite 
lords of Cappadocia used the same script and 

THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 27 

language for diplomatic purposes has hardly 
surprised us. 

It has been said already that Babylonia was 
a region so rich and otherwise fortunate that 
empire both came to it earlier and stayed 
later than in the other West Asian lands which 
ever enjoyed it at all. When we come to 
take our survey of Western Asia in 400 b.c. 
we shall see an emperor still ruling it from 
a throne set in the lower Tigris basin, though 
not actually in Babylon. But for certain 
reasons Babylonian empire never endured for 
any long period continuously. The aboriginal 
Akkadian and Sumerian inhabitants were 
settled, cultivated and home keeping folk, 
while the establishment of Babylonian empire 
had been the work of more vigorous intruders. 
These, however, had to fear not only the 
imperfect sympathy of their own aboriginal 
subjects, who again and again gathered their 
sullen forces in the " Sea Land " at the head 
of the Persian Gulf and attacked the dominant 
Semites in the rear, but also incursions of 
fresh strangers; for Babylonia is singularly 
open on all sides. Accordingly, revolts of 
the " Sea Land " folk, inrushing hordes from 
Arabia, descents of mountain warriors from 


the border hills of Elam on the south-eastern 
edge of the twin river basin, pressure from 
the peoples of more invigorating lands on 
the higher Euphrates and Tigris — one, or 
more than one such danger ever waited on 
imperial Babylon and brought her low again 
and again. A great descent of Hatti raiders 
from the north about 1800 B.C. seems to have 
ended the imperial dominion of the First 
Dynasty. On their retirement Babylonia, 
falling into weak native hands, was a prey to 
a succession of inroads from the Kassite 
mountains beyond Elam, from Elam itself, 
from the growing Semitic power of Asshur, 
Babylon's former vassal, from the Hittite 
Empire founded in Cappadocia about 1500 
B.C., from the fresh wave of Arabian over- 
flow which is distinguished as the Aramaean, 
and from yet another following it, which is 
usually called Chaldsean; and it was not till 
almost the close of the twelfth century that 
one of these intruding elements attained 
sufficient independence and security of tenure 
to begin to exalt Babylonia again into a 
mistress of foreign empire. At that date the 
first Nebuchadnezzar, a part of whose own 
annals has been recovered, seems to have 

THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 29 

established overlordship in some part of 
Mediterranean Asia-— JJ[ar^^^^^ Land; '^ 

but this empire perished again with its author. 
By 1000 B.C. Babylon was once more a small 
state divided against itself and threatened by 
rivals in the east and the north. 

§ 2. Asiatic Empire of Egypt 

During the long interval since the fall of 
the First Babylonian Dynasty, however, 
Western Asia had not been left masterless. 
Three other imperial powers had waxed and 
waned in her borders, of which one was 
destined to a second expansion later on. 
The earliest of these to appear on the scene 
established an imperial dominion of a kind 
which we shall not observe again till Asia 
falls to the Greeks; for it was established in 
Asia by a non-Asiatic power. In the earlier 
years of the fifteenth century a Pharaoh of 
the strong Eighteenth Dynasty, Thothmes III, 
having overrun almost all Syria up to Car- 
chemish on the Euphrates, established in the 
southern part of that country an imperial 
organization which converted his conquests 
for a time into provincial dependencies of 


Egypt. Of the fact we have full evidence 
in the archives of Thothmes' dynastic suc- 
cessors, found by Flinders Petrie at Amarna; 
for they include many reports from officials 
and client princes in Palestine and Phoenicia. 
If, however, the word empire is to be 
applied (as in fact we have applied it in 
respect of early Babylonia) to a sphere of " 
habitual raiding, where the exclusive right of 
one power to plunder is acknowledged im- 
plicitly or explicitly by the raided and by 
surrounding peoples, this " Empire " of Egypt 
must both be set back nearly a hundred years 
before Thothmes III and also be credited with 
wider limits than those of south Syria. In- 
vasions of Semitic Syria right up to the 
Euphrates were first conducted by Pharaohs 
in the early part of the sixteenth century as 
a sequel to the collapse of the power of the 
Semitic " Hyksos " in Egypt. They were 
wars partly of revenge, partly of natural 
Egyptian expansion into a neighbouring 
fertile territory, which at last lay open, and 
was claimed by no other imperial power, 
while the weak Kassites ruled Babylon, and 
the independence of Assyria was in embryo. 
But the earlier Egyptian armies seem to have 

THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 31 

gone forth to Syria simply to ravage and 
levy blackmail. They avoided all fenced 
places, and returned to the Nile leaving 
no one to hold the ravaged territory. No 
Pharaoh before the successor of Queen Hat- 
shepsut made Palestine and Phoenicia his 
own. It was Thothmes III who first reduced 
such strongholds as Megiddo, and occupied the 
Syrian towns up to Arvad on the shore and 
almost to Kadesh inland — he who by means 
of a few forts, garrisoned perhaps by Egyptian 
or Nubian troops and certainly in some 
instances by mercenaries drawn from Mediter- 
ranean islands and coasts, so kept the fear 
of himself in the minds of native chiefs that 
they paid regular tribute to his collectors 
and enforced the peace of Egypt on all and 
sundry Hebrews and Amorites who might 
try to raid from east or north. 

In upper Syria, however, he and his succes- 
sors appear to have attempted little more than 
Thothmes I had done, that is to say, they 
made periodical armed progresses through the 
fertile parts, here and there taking a town, but 
for the most part taking only blackmail. Som e. 
strong places, such as Kadesh, it is probable 
they never entered at all. Their raids, how- 


ever, were frequent and effective enough for all 
Syria to come to be regarded by surrounding 
kings and kinglets as an Egyptian sphere of 
influence within which it was best to acknow- 
ledge Pharaoh's rights and to placate him by 
timely presents. So thought and acted the 
kings of Mitanni across Euphrates, the kings 
of Hatti beyond Taurus, and the distant 
Iranians of the Kassite dynasty in Babylonia. 
Until the latter years of Thothmes' third 
successor, Amenhetep III, who ruled in the 
end of the fifteenth century and the first 
quarter of the fourteenth, the Egyptian peace 
was observed and Pharaoh's claim to Syria 
was respected. Moreover, an interesting ex- 
periment appears to have been made to 
tighten Egypt's hold on her foreign province. 
Young Syrian princes were brought for 
education to the Nile, in the hope that when 
sent back to their homes they would be loyal 
viceroys of Pharaoh: but the experiment 
seems to have produced no better ultimate 
effect than similar experiments tried subse- 
quently by imperial nations from the Romans 
to ourselves. 

. Beyond this conception of imperial organiza- 
tion the Egyptians never advanced. Neither 

Plata 2 


effective military occupation nor effective 
administration of Syria by an Egyptian 
military or civil staff was so much as thought 
of. Traces of the cultural influence of Egypt 
on the Syrian civilization of the time (so far 
as excavation has revealed its remains) are 
few and far between; and we must con- 
clude that the number of genuine Egyptians 
who resided in, or even passed through, the 
Asiatic province was very small. Unad- 
venturous by nature, and disinclined to 
embark on foreign trade, the Nilots were 
content to leave Syria in vicarious hands, so 
they derived some profit from it. It needed, 
therefore, only the appearance of some 
vigorous and numerous tribe in the province 
itself, or of some covetous power on its 
borders, to end such an empire. Both 
had appeared before Amenhetep's death^ — 
the Amorites in mid Syria, and a newly 
consolidated Hatti power on the confines of 
the north. The inevitable crisis was met 
with no new measures by his son, the famous 
Akhenaten, and before the middle of the 
fourteenth century the foreign empire of 
Egypt had crumbled to nothing but a sphere 
of influence in southernmost Palestine, having 

THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 35 

lasted, for better or worse, something less 
than two hundred years. It was revived, 
indeed, by the kings of the Dynasty suc- 
ceeding, but had even less chance of 
duration than of old. Rameses II, in divid- 
ing it to his own great disadvantage with 
the Hatti king by a Treaty whose pro- 
visions are known to us from surviving 
documents of both parties, confessed Egyptian 
impotence to niake good any contested claim ; 
and by the end of the thirteenth century the 
hand of Pharaoh was withdrawn from Asia, 
even from that ancient appanage of Egypt, 
the peninsula of Sinai. Some subsequent 
Egyptian kings would make raids into Syria, 
but none was able, or very desirous, to 
establish there a permanent Empire. 

§ 3. Empire of the Hatti 

The empire which pressed back the Egyp- 
tians is the last but one which we have 
to consider before 1000 B.C. It has long 
been known that the Hittites, variously called 
Kheta by Egyptians and Heth or Hatti by 
Semites and by themselves, developed into 
a power in westernmost Asia at least as 


early as the fifteenth century; but it was 
not until their cuneiform archives were dis- 
covered in 1907 at Boghazkeui in northern 
Cappadocia that the imperial nature of their 
power, the centre from which it was exerted, 
and the succession of the rulers who wielded 
it became clear. It will be remembered that 
a great Hatti raid broke the imperial sway of 
the First Babylonian Dynasty about 1800 
B.C. Whence those raiders came we have 
still to learn. But, since a Hatti people, 
well enough organized to invade, conquer 
and impose its garrisons, and (much more 
significant) its own peculiar civilization, on 
distant territories, was seated at Boghazkeui 
(it is best to use this modern name till better 
assured of an ancient one) in the fifteenth 
century, we may reasonably believe Eastern 
Asia Minor to have been the homeland of the 
Hatti three centuries before. As an imperial 
power they enter history with a king whom 
his own archives name Subbiluliuma (but 
Egyptian records, Sapararu), and they vanish 
something less than two centuries later. The 
northern half of Syria, northern Mesopotamia, 
and probably almost all Asia Minor were 
conquered by the Hatti before 1350 B.C. and 

Plate 3 



rendered tributary; Egypt was forced out 
of Asia ; the Semitic settlements on the twin 
rivers and the tribes in the desert were con- 
strained to deference or defence. A century 
and a half later the Hatti had returned into a 
darkness even deeper than that from which 
they emerged. The last king of Boghazkeui, 
of whose archives any part has come to light, 
is one Arnaunta, reigning in the end of the 
thirteenth century. He may well have had 
successors whose documents may yet be 
found ; but on the other hand, we know from 
Assyrian annals, dated only a little later, 
that a people, possibly kin to the Hatti and 
certainly civilized by them, but called by 
another name, Mushkaya or Mushki (we shall 
say more of them presently), overran most, 
if not all, the Hatti realm by the middle 
of the twelfth century. And since, more- 
over, the excavated ruins at both Boghazkeui, 
the capital of the Hatti, and Carchemish, 
their chief southern dependency, show un- 
mistakable signs of destruction and of a 
subsequent general reconstruction, which on 
archaeological grounds must be dated not 
much later than Arnaunta's time, it seems 
probable that the history of Hatti empire 

THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 39 

closed with that king. What happened sub- 
sequently to surviving detachments of this 
once imperial people and to other communities 
so near akin by blood or civilization, that the 
Assyrians, when speaking generally of western 
foes or subjects, long continued to call them 
Hatti, we shall consider presently. 

§ 4. Early Assyrian Empire 

Remains Assyria, which before 1000 B.C. 
had twice conquered an empire of the same 
kind as that credited to the First Babylonian 
Dynasty and twice recoiled. The early 
Assyrian expansions are, historically, the most 
noteworthy of the early West Asian Empires 
because, unlike the rest, they were preludes 
to an ultimate territorial overlordship which 
would come nearer to anticipating Macedonian 
and Roman imperial systems than any others 
precedent. Assyria, rather than Babylon or 
Egypt, heads the list of aspirants to the 
Mastership of the World. 

There will be so much to say of the third 
and subsequent expansion of Assyria, that 
her earlier empires may be passed over briefly. 
The middle Tigris basin seems to have received 


a large influx of Semites of the Canaanitic 
wave at least as early as Babylonia, and 
thanks to various causes — to the absence of 
a prior local civilization as advanced as the 
Sumerian, to greater distance from such enter- 
prising fomenters of disturbance as Elam and 
Arabia, and to a more invigorating climate — 
these Semites settled down more quickly and 
thoroughly into an agricultural society than 
the Babylonians and developed it in greater 
purity. Their earliest social centre was Asshur 
in the southern part of their territory. There, 
in proximity to Babylonia, they fell inevitably 
under the domination of the latter ; but after 
the fall of the First Dynasty of Babylon 
and the subsequent decline of southern 
Semitic vigour, a tendency manifested itself 
among the northern Semites to develop their 
nationality about more central points. Calah, 
higher up the river, replaced Asshur in the 
thirteenth century B.C., only to be replaced 
in turn by Nineveh, a little further still 
upstream; and ultimately Assyria, though it 
had taken its name from the southern city, 
came to be consolidated round a north 
Mesopotamian capital into a power able to 
impose vassalage on Babylon and to send 

THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 41 

imperial raiders to the Mediterranean, and 
to the Great Lakes of Armenia. The first 
of her kings to attain this sort of imperial 
position was Shalmaneser I, who early in 
the thirteenth century b.c. appears to have 
crushed the last strength of the north Meso- 
potamian powers of Mitanni and Khani and 
laid the way open to the west lands. The 
Hatti power, however, tried hard to close the 
passages and it was not until its catastrophe 
and the retirement of those who brought it 
about — the Mushki and their allies — that 
about 1100 Tiglath Pileser I could lead his 
Assyrian raiders into Syria, and even, per- 
haps, a short distance across Taurus. Why 
his empire died with him we do not know pre- 
cisely. A new invasion of Arabian Semites, 
the Aramaeans, whom he attacked at Mt. 
Bishri (Tell Basher), may have been the 
cause. But, in any case, the fact is certain. 
The sons of the great king, who had reached 
Phoenician Aradus and there embarked vain- 
gloriously on shipboard to claim mastery of 
the Western Sea, were reduced to little better 
than vassals of their father's former vassal, 
Babylon ; and up to the close of the eleventh 
century Assyria had not revived. 


§ 5. New Forces in 1000 b.c. 

Thus in 1000 B.C., we look round the East, 
and, so far as our vision can penetrate the 
clouds, see no one dominant power. Terri- 
tories which formerly were overridden by the 
greater states. Babylonia, Egypt, Cappadocia 
and Assyria, seem to be not only self-governing 
but free from interference, although the van- 
ished empires and a recent great movement 
of peoples have left them with altered political 
boundaries and sometimes with new dynas- 
ties. None of the political units has a much 
larger area than another, and it would not 
have been easy at the moment to prophesy 
which, or if any one, would grow at the 
expense of the rest. 

. ; The great movement of peoples, to which 
allusion has just been made, had been dis- 
turbing West Asia for two centuries. On the 
east, where the well organized and well armed 
societies of Babylonia and Assyria offered a 
serious obstacle to nomadic immigrants, the 
inflow had been pent back beyond frontier 
mountains. But in the west the tide seems 
to have flowed too strongly to be resisted by 

THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 43 

such force as the Hatti empire of Cappadocia 
could oppose, and to have swept through Asia 
Minor even to Syria and Mesopotamia. 
Records of Rameses III tell how a great host 
of federated peoples appeared on the Asian 
frontier of Egypt very early in the twelfth 
century. Among them marched men of the 
" Kheta " or Hatti, but not as leaders. 
These strong foes and allies of Seti I and 
Rameses II, not a century before, had now 
fallen from their imperial estate to follow 
in the wake of newcomers, who had lately 
humbled them in their Cappadocian home. 
The geographical order in which the scribes 
of Rameses enumerated their conquests shows 
clearly the direction from which the federals 
had come and the path they followed. In 
succession they had devastated Hatti (i. e, 
Cappadocia), Kedi (^. e. Cilicia), Carchemish 
and central Syria. Their victorious progress 
began, therefore, in northern Asia Minor, and 
followed the great roads through the Cilician 
passes to end at last on the very frontiers of 
Egypt. The list of these newcomers has long 
interested historians; for outlandish as their 
names were to Egyptians, they seem to 
our eyes not unfamiliar, and are possibly 


travesties of some which are writ large on 
pages of later history. Such are the Pulesti 
or Philistines, and a group hailing apparently 
from Asia Minor and the Isles, Tjakaray. 
Shakalsha, Danaau and Washasha, successors 
of Pisidian and other Anatolian allies of the 
Hittites in the time of Rameses II, and of 
the Lycian, Achaean and Sardinian pirates 
whom Egypt used sometimes to beat from her 
borders, sometimes to enlist in her service. 
Some of these peoples, from whatever quarters 
they had come, settled presently into new 
homes as the tide receded. The Pulesti, if 
they were indeed the historic Philistines, 
stranded and stayed on the confines of Egypt, 
retaining certain memories of an earlier 
state, which had been theirs in some Minoan 
land. Since the Tjakaray and the Washasha 
seem to have sprung from lands now reckoned 
in Europe, we may count this occasion the 
first in history on which the west broke in 
force into the east. 

Turn to the annals of Assyria and you will 
learn, from records of Tiglath Pileser I, that 
this northern wave was followed up in the 
same century by a second, which' bore on its 
crest another bold horde from Asia Minor. 

THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 45 

Its name, Mushki, we now hear for the 
first time, but shall hear again in time to 
come. A remnant of this race would survive 
far into historic times as the Moschi of Greek 
geographers, an obscure people on the borders 
of Cappadocia and Armenia. But who pre- 
cisely the first Mushki were, whence they had 
originally come, and whither they went when 
pushed back out of Mesopotamia, are ques- 
tions still debated. Two significant facts are 
known about their subsequent history; first, 
that two centuries later than our date they, or 
some part of them, were settled in Cappadocia, 
apparently rather in the centre and north of 
that country than in the south : second, that 
at that same epoch and later they had kings 
of the name Mita, which is thought to be 
identical with the name Midas, known to 
early Greek historians as borne by kings of 

Because of this last fact, the Mushki have 
been put down as proto-Phrygians, risen 
to power after the fall of the Cappadocian 
Hatti. This contention will be considered 
hereafter, when we reach the date of the 
first known contact between Assyria and any 
people settled in western Asia Minor. But 


meanwhile, let it be borne in mind that their 
royal name Mita does not necessarily imply a 
connection between the Mushki and Phrygia ; 
for since the ethnic " Mitanni " of north 
Mesopotamia means " Mita's men," that 
name must have long been domiciled much 
farther east. 

On the whole, whatever their later story, 
the truth about the Mushki, who came down 
into Syria early in the twelfth century and 
retired to Cappadocia some fifty years later 
after crossing swords with Assyria, is prob- 
ably this — ^that they were originally a moun- 
tain people from northern Armenia or the 
Caucasus, distinct from the Hatti, and that, 
having descended from the north-east in a 
primitive nomadic state into the seat of an 
old culture possessed by an enfeebled race, 
they adopted the latter's civilization as they 
conquered it and settled down. But probably 
they did not fix themselves definitely in 
Cappadocia till the blow struck by Tiglath 
Pileser had checked their lust of movement 
and weakened their confidence of victory. In 
any case, the northern storms had subsided 
by 1000 B.C., leaving Asia Minor, Armenia 
and Syria parcelled among many princes. 

THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 47 

§ 6. Asia Minor 

Had one taken ship with Achseans or lonians 
for the western coast of Anatolia in the year 
1000, one would have expected to disembark 
at or near some infant settlement of men, 
not natives by extraction, but newly come 
from the sea and speaking Greek or another 
^gean tongue. These men had ventured so 
far to seize the rich lands at the mouths of 
the long Anatolian valleys, from which their 
roving forefathers had been almost entirely 
debarred by the provincial forces of some 
inland power, presumably the Hatti Empire 
of Cappadocia. In earlier days the Cretans, 
IV their kin of Mycenaean Greece in the latest 
^geaii age, had been able to plant no more 
Ihaij a few inconsiderable colonies of traders 
on Anatolian shores. Now, however, their 
descendants were being steadily reinforced 
from the west by members of a younger 
Aryan race, who mixed with the natives of 
the coast, and gradually mastered or drove 
them inland. Inconsiderable as this European 
soakage into the fringe of the neighbouring 
continent must have seemed at that moment. 


we know that it was inaugurating a process 
which ultimately would affect profoundly all 
the history of Hither Asia. That Greek Ionian 
colonization first attracts notice round about 
1000 B.C. marks the period as a cardinal point 
in history. We cannot say for certain, with 
our present knowledge, that any one of the 
famous Greek cities had already begun to 
grow on the Anatolian coast. There is better 
evidence for the so early existence of Miletus, 
where the German excavators have found 
much pottery of the latest ^Egean age, than 
of any other. But, at least, it is probable 
that Greeks were already settled on the sites 
of Cnidus, Teos, Smyrna, Colophon, Phocea, 
Cyme and many more; while the greater 
islands Rhodes, Samos, Chios and Mitylene 
had apparently received western settlers 
several generations ago, perhaps before even 
the first Achaean raids into Asia. 

The western visitor, if he pushed inland, 
would have avoided the south-western districts 
of the peninsula, where a mountainous country, 
known later as Caria, Lycia, and Pisidia, was 
held by primitive hill-men settled in de- 
tached tribal fashion like modern Albanians. 
They had never yet been subdued, and as 

THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 49 

soon as the rising Greek ports on their 
coasts should open a way for them to the 
outer world, they would become' known as 
admirable mercenary soldiery, following a 
congenial trade which, if the Pedasu, who 
appear in records of Egyptian campaigns of 
the Eighteenth Dynasty, were really Pisidians, 
was not new to them. North of their hills, 
however, lay broader valleys leading up to 
the central plateau; and, if Herodotus is to 
be believed, an organized monarchical society, 
ruled by the " Heraclids " of Sardes, was 
already developed there. We know practi- 
cally nothing about it; but since some three 
centuries later the Lydian people was rich 
and luxurious in the Hermus valley, which 
had once been a fief of the Hatti, we must 
conclude that it had been enjoying security 
as far back as 1000 B.C. Who those Heraclid 
princes were exactly is obscure. The dynastic 
name given to them by Herodotus probably 
implies that they traced their origin (i. e. owed 
especial allegiance) to a God of the Double 
War- Axe, whom the Greeks likened to Heracles, 
but we liken to Sandan, god of Tarsus and of 
the lands of the south-east. We shall say 
more of him and his worshippers presently. 


Leaving aside the northern fringe- lands as 
ill known and of small account (as we too 
shall leave them), our traveller would pass 
up from the Lydian vales to find the Cappa- 
docian Hatti no longer the masters of the 
plateau as of old. No one of equal power 
seems to have taken their place ; but there is 
reason to think that the Mushki, who had 
brought them low, now filled some of their 
room in Asia Minor. But these Mushki had 
so far adopted Hatti civilization either before 
or since their great raiding expedition which 
Tiglath Pileser I of Assyria repelled, that 
their domination can scarcely have made 
much difference to the social condition of 
Asia Minor. Their capital was probably where 
the Hatti capital had been — at Boghazkeui; 
but how far their lordship radiated from that 
centre is not known. 

In the south-east of Asia Minor we read of 
several principalities, both in the Hatti docu- 
ments of earlier centuries and in Assyrian 
annals of later date ; and since some of their 
names appear in both these sets of records, 
we may safely assign them to the same locali- 
ties during the intermediate period. Such are 
Kas in later Lycaonia, Tabal or Tubal in south- 

THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 51 

eastern Cappadocia, Khilakku, which left its 
name to historical Cilicia, and Kue in the rich 
eastern Cilician plain and the north-eastern 
hills. In north Syria again we find both in 
early and in late times Kummukh, which left 
to its district the historic name, Commagene. 
All these principalities, as their earlier monu- 
ments prove, shared the same Hatti civiliza- 
tion as the Mushki and seem to have had the 
same chief deities, the axe-bearing Sandan, or 
Teshup, or Hadad, whose sway we have noted 
far west in Lydia, and also a Great Mother, the 
patron of peaceful increase, as he was of war- 
like conquest. But whether this uniformity 
of civilization implies any general overlord, 
such as the Mushki king, is very questionable. 
The past supremacy of the Hatti is enough to 
account for large community of social features 
in 1000 B.C. over all Asia Minor and north 

§ 7. Syria 

It is time for our traveller to move on south- 
ward into "Hatti-land," as the Assyrians would 
long continue to call the southern area of the 
old Hatti civilization. He would have found 


Syria in a state of greater or less disintegration 
from end to end. Since the withdrawal of 
the strong hands of the Hatti from the 
north and the Egyptians from the south, 
the disorganized half-vacant land had been 
attracting to itself successive hordes of half- 
nomadic Semites from the eastern and 
southern steppes. By 1000 B.C. these had 
settled down as a number of Aramaean 
societies each under its princeling. All were 
great traders. One such society established 
itself in the north-west, in Shamal, where, 
influenced by the old Hatti culture, an art 
came into being which was only saved ultim- 
ately by Semitic Assyria from being purely 
Hittite. Its capital, which lay at modern 
Sinjerli, one of the few Syrian sites scientific- 
ally explored, we shall notice later on. South 
lay Patin and Bit Agusi ; south of these again, 
Hamath and below it Damascus — all new 
Aramaean states, which were waiting for quiet 
times to develop according to the measure of 
their respective territories and their command 
of trade routes. Most blessed in both natural 
fertility and convenience of position was 
Damascus (Ubi or Hobah), which had been 
receiving an Aramaean influx for at least 

THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 53 

three hundred years. It was destined to out- 
strip the rest of those new Semitic states; 
but for the moment it was Httle stronger than 
they. As for the Phoenician cities on the 
Lebanon coast, which we know from the 
Amarna archives and other Egyptian records 
to have long been settled with Canaanitic 
Semites, they were to appear henceforward in 
a light quite other than that in which the 
reports of their Egyptian governors and 
visitors had hitherto shown them. Not only 
did they very rapidly become maritime traders 
instead of mere local territorial centres, but 
(if we may infer it from the lack of known 
monuments of their higher art or of their 
writing before 1000 B.C.) they were making 
or just about to make a sudden advance in 
social development. It should be remarked 
that our evidence, that other Syrian Semites 
had taken to writing in scripts of their own, 
begins not much later at various points — ^in 
Shamal, in Moab and in Samaria. 

This rather sudden expansion of the Phoeni- 
cians into a maritime power about 1000 b.c. 
calls for explanation. Herodotus thought 
that the Phoenicians were driven to take to 
the sea simply by the growing inadequacy 


of their narrow territory to support the natural 
increase of its inhabitants, and probably he 
was partly right, the crisis of their fate being 
hastened by Aramaean pressure from inland. 
But the advance in their culture, which is 
marked by the development of their art and 
their writing, was too rapid and too great to 
have resulted only from new commerce with the 
sea ; nor can it have been due to any influence 
of the Aramaean elements which were com- 
paratively fresh from the Steppes. To account 
for the facts in Syria we seem to require, not 
long previous to this time, a fresh accession 
of population from some area of higher 
culture. When we observe, therefore, among 
the earlier Phoenician and south Syrian 
antiquities much that was imported, and 
more that derived its character, from Cyprus 
and even remoter centres of the .Egean 
culture of the latest Minoan Age, we cannot 
regard as fantastic the belief of the Cretan 
discoverer, Arthur Evans, that the historic 
Phoenician civilization, and especially the 
Phoenician script, owed their being in great 
measure to an immigration from those nearest 
oversea lands which had long possessed a 
fully developed art and a system of writing. 

THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 55 

After the fall of the Cnossian Dynasty we 
know that a great dispersal of Cretans began, 
which w&s continued and increased later by 
the descent of the Achseans into Greece. It 
has been said already that the Pulesti or Philis- 
tines, who had followed the first northern 
horde to the frontiers of Egypt early in the 
twelfth century, are credibly supposed to 
have come from some area affected by 
Minoan civilization, while the Tjakaray and 
Washasha, who accompanied them, were prob- 
ably actual Cretans. The Pulesti stayed, as 
we know, in Philistia : the Tjakaray settled at 
Dor on the South Phoenician coast, where 
Unamon, an envoy of Rameses XI, found 
them. These settlers are quite sufficient to 
account for the subsequent development of a 
higher culture in mid and south Syria, and there 
may well have been some further immigration 
from Cyprus and other ^gean lands which, as 
time went on, impelled the cities of Phoenicia, 
so well endowed by nature, to develop a new 
culture apace about 1000 B.C. 


§ 8. Palestine 

If the Phoenicians were feehng the thrust 
of Steppe peoples, their southern neighbours, 
the PhiHstines, who had hved and grown rich 
on the tolls and trade of the great north 
road from Egypt for at least a century and 
a half, were feeling it too. During some 
centuries past there had come raiding from 
the south-east deserts certain sturdy and well- 
knit tribes, which long ago had displaced 
or assimilated the Canaanites along the high- 
lands west of Jordan, and were now tend- 
ing to settle down into a national unity, 
cemented by a common worship. They had 
had long intermittent struggles, traditions 
of which fill the Hebrew Book of Judges — 
struggles not only with the Canaanites, but 
also with the Amorites of the upper Orontes 
valley, and later with the Aramaeans of the 
north and east, and with fresh incursions of 
Arabs from the south ; and most lately of all 
they had had to give way for about half a 
century before an expansive movement of 
the Philistines, which carried the latter up 
to Galilee and secured to them the profits of 

THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 57 

all the Palestinian stretch of the great North 
Road. But about a generation before our 
date the northernmost of those bold " Habiri," 
under an elective sheikh Saul, had pushed the 
Philistines out of Bethshan and other points 
of vantage in mid -Palestine, and had become 
once more free of the hills which they had held 
in the days of Pharaoh Menephthah. Though, 
at the death of Saul, the enemy regained 
most of what he had lost, he was not to hold 
it long. A greater chief, David, who had risen 
to power by Philistine help and now had the 
support of the southern tribes, was welding 
both southern and northern Hebrews into a 
single monarchical society and, having driven 
his old masters out of the north once more, 
threatened the southern stretch of the great 
North Road from a new capital, Jerusalem. 
Moreover, by harrying repeatedly the lands 
east of Jordan up to the desert edge, 
David had stopped further incursions from 
Arabia; and, though the Aramaean state 
of Damascus was growing into a formidable 
danger, he had checked for the present its 
tendency to spread southwards, and had 
strengthened himself by agreements with 
another Aramaean prince, him of Hamath, 


who lay on the north flank of Damascus, and 
with the chief of the nearest Phoenician city, 
Tyre. The latter was not yet the rich place 
which it would grow to be in the next century, 
but it was strong enough to control the coast 
road north of the Galilean lowlands. Israel 
not only was never safer, but would never 
again hold a position of such relative im- 
portance in Syria, as was hers in a day of 
many small and infant states about 1000 B.C. : 
and in later times, under the shadow of 
Assyria and the menace of Egypt, the Jews 
would look back to the reigns of David and 
his successor with some reason as their golden 

The traveller would not have ventured into 
Arabia; nor shall we. It was then an un- 
known land lying wholly outside history. 
We have no record (if that mysterious em- 
bassy of the " Queen of Sheba," who came 
to hear the wisdom of Solomon, be ruled out) 
of any relations between a state of the civilized 
East and an Arabian prince before the middle 
of the ninth century. It may be that, as 
Glaser reckoned, Sabaean society in the south- 
west of the peninsula had already reached the 

THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 59 

preliminary stage of tribal settlement through 
which Israel passed under its Judges, and was 
now moving towards monarchy; and that of 
this our traveller might have learned something 
in Syria from the last arrived Aramaeans. But 
we, who can learn nothing, have no choice 
but to go north with him again, leaving to our 
right the Syrian desert roamed by Bedawis 
in much the same social state as the Anazeh 
to-day, owing allegiance to no one. We can 
cross Euphrates at Carchemish or at Til 
Barsip opposite the Sajur mouth, or where 
Thapsacus looked across to the outfall of 
the Khabur. 

§ 9. Mesopotamia 

No annals of Assyria have survived for 
nearly a century before 1000 B.C., and very 
few for the century after that date. Nor do 
Babylonian records make good our deficiency. 
Though we cannot be certain, we are prob- 
ably safe in saying that during these two 
centuries Assyrian and Babylonian princes 
had few or no achievements to record of the 


kind which they held, almost alone, worthy 
to be immortalized on stone or clay — ^that is to 
say, raids, conquests, sacking of cities, black- 
mailing of princes. Since Tiglath Pileser's 
time no " Kings of the World " (by which 
title was signified an overlord of Mesopotamia 
merely) had been seated on either of the 
twin rivers. What exactly had happened in 
the broad tract between the rivers and to the 
south of Taurus since the departure of the 
Mushki hordes (if, indeed, they did all depart), 
we do not know. The Mitanni, who may have 
been congeners of the latter, seem still to have 
been holding the north-west ; probably all the 
north-east was Assyrian territory. No doubt 
the Kurds and Armenians of Urartu were 
raiding the plains impartially from autumn 
to spring, as they always did when Assyria 
was weak. We shall learn a good deal 
more about Mesopotamia proper when the 
results of the German excavations at Tell 
Halaf, near Ras el-Ain, are complete and 
published. The most primitive monuments 
found there are perhaps relics of that power 
of Khani (Harran), which w^as stretched 
even to include Nineveh before the Semitic 

THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 61 

patesis of Asshur grew to royal estate and 
moved northward to make imperial Assyria. 
But there are later strata of remains as well 
which should contain evidence of the course 
of events in mid-Mesopotamia during subse- 
quent periods both of Assyrian domination 
and of local independence. 

Assyria, as has been said, was without doubt 
weak at this date, that is, she was confined to 
the proper territory of her own agricultural 
Semites. This state of things, whenever ex- 
istent throughout her history, seems to have 
implied priestly predominance, in which 
Babylonian influence went for much. The 
Semitic tendency to super-Monotheism, which 
has already been noticed, constantly showed 
itself among the eastern Semites (when com- 
paratively free from military tyranny) in a 
reversion of their spiritual allegiance to one 
supreme god enthroned at Babylon, the 
original seat of east Semitic theocracy. And 
even when this city had little military strength 
the priests of Marduk appear often to have 
succeeded in keeping a controlling hand on the 
affairs of stronger Assyria. We shall see later 
how much prestige great Ninevite war-lords 


could gain even among their own countrymen 
by Marduk's formal acknowledgment of their 
sovereignty, and how much they lost by dis- 
regarding him and doing injury to his local 
habitation. At their very strongest the 
Assyrian kings were never credited with the 
natural right to rule Semitic Asia which be- 
longed to kings of Babylon. If they desired 
the favour of Marduk they must needs claim 
it at the sword's point, and when that point 
was lowered, his favour was always withdrawn. 
From first to last they had perforce to remain 
military tyrants, who relied on no acknow- 
ledged legitimacy but on the spears of conscript 
peasants, and at the last of mercenaries. No 
dynasty lasted long in Assyria, where popular 
generals, even while serving on distant cam- 
paigns, were often elevated to the throne — 
in anticipation of the imperial history of 

It appears then that our traveller would 
have found Babylonia, rather than Assyria, 
the leading East Semitic power in 1000 b.c. ; 
but at the same time not a strong power, for 
she had no imperial dominion outside lower 
Mesopotamia. Since a dynasty, whose history 

THE EAST IN 1000 B.C. 68 

is obscure— the so-called Pashe kings in whose 
time there was one strong man, Nabu-Kudur- 
usur (Nebuchadnezzar) I — came to an in- 
glorious end just about 1000 B.C., one may 
infer that Babylonia was passing at this epoch 
through one of those recurrent political crises 
which usually occurred when Sumerian cities 
of the southern " Sea-Land " conspired with 
some foreign invader against the Semitic 
capital. The contumacious survivors of the 
elder element in the population, however, 
even when successful, seem not to have 
tried to set up new capitals or to re- 
establish the pre-Semitic state of things. 
Babylon had so far distanced all the older 
cities now that no other, consummation of 
revolt was desired or believed possible than 
the substitution of one dynasty for another 
on the throne beloved of Marduk. Sumerian 
forces, however, had not been the only ones 
which had contributed to overthrow the last 
king of the Pash6 dynasty. Nomads of the 
Suti tribes had long been raiding from the 
western deserts into Akkad; and the first 
king set up by the victorious peoples of the 
Sea-Land had to expel them and to repair 


their ravages before he could seat himself on a 
throne which was menaced by Elam on the 
east and Assyria on the north, and must fall 
so soon as either of these found a strong 



Two centuries have passed over the East, 
and at first sight it looks as if no radical 
change has taken place in its political or 
social condition. No new power has entered 
it from without; only one new state of im- 
portance, the Phrygian, has arisen within. 
The peoples, which were of most account in 
1000, are still of the most account in 800 — 
the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Mushki 
of Cappadocia, the tribesmen of Urartu, the 
Aramaeans of Damascus, the trading Phoeni- 
cians on the Syrian coast and the trading 
Greeks on the Anatolian. Egypt has re- 
mained behind her frontier except for one 
raid into Palestine about 925 B.C., from which 
Sheshenk, the Libyan, brought back treasures 
of Solomon's temple to enhance the splendour 
of Amen. Arabia has not begun to matter. 
There has been, of course, development, but 

£ 65 


on old lines. The comparative values of 
the states have altered : some have become 
more decisively the superiors of others than 
they were two hundred years ago, but they 
are those whose growth was foreseen. Wherein, 
then, lies the great difference? For great 
difference there is. It scarcely needs a 
second glance to detect the change, and any 
one who looks narrowly will see not only 
certain consequent changes, but in more than 
one quarter signs and warnings of a coming 
order of things not dreamt of in 1000 B.C. 

§ 1. Middle Kingdom of Assyria 

The obvious novelty is the presence of a 
predominant power. The mosaic of small 
states is still there, but one holds lordship 
over most of them, and that one is Assyria. 
Moreover, the foreign dominion which the 
latter has now been enjoying for three-parts of 
a century is the first of its kind established by 
an Asiatic power. Twice, as we have seen, had 
Assyria conquered in earlier times an empire 
of the nomad Semitic type, that is, a licence 
to raid unchecked over a wide tract of lands ; 
but, so far as we know, neither Shalmaneser 

THE EAST IN 800 B.C. 67 

I nor Tiglath Pileser I had so much as con- 
ceived the idea of holding the raided provinces 
by a permanent official organization. But in 
the ninth century, when Ashurnatsirpal and 
his successor Shalmaneser, second of the 
name, marched out year by year, they passed 
across wide territories held for them by 
governors and garrisons, before they reached 
others upon which they hoped to impose like 
fetters. We find Shalmaneser II, for ex- 
ample, in the third year of his reign, fortifying, 
renaming, garrisoning and endowing with a 
royal palace the town of Til Barsip on the 
Euphrates bank, the better to secure for 
himself free passage at will across the river. 
He has finally deprived Ahuni its local 
Aramaean chief, and holds the place as an 
Assyrian fortress. Thus far had the Assyrian 
advanced his territorial empire but not farther. 
Beyond Euphrates he would, indeed, push 
year by year, even to Phoenicia and Damascus 
and Cilicia, but merely to raid, levy black- 
mail and destroy, like the old emperors of 
Babylonia or his own imperial predecessors 
of Assyria. 

There was then much of the old destructive 
instinct in Shalmaneser's conception of empire ; 


but a constructive principle also was at work 
modifying that conception. If the Great King 
was still something of a Bedawi Emir, bound 
to go a-raiding summer by summer, he had 
conceived, like Mohammed ibn Rashid, the 
Arabian prince of Jebel Shammar in our own 
days, the idea of extending his territorial 
dominion, so that he might safely and easily 
reach fresh fields for wider raids. If we may 
use modern formulas about an ancient and 
imperfectly realized imperial system, we should 
describe the dominion of Shalmaneser II as 
made up (over and above its Assyrian core) 
of a wide circle of foreign territorial possessions 
which included Babylonia on the south, all 
Mesopotamia on the west and north, and every- 
thing up to Zagros on the east; of a " sphere 
of exclusive influence " extending to Lake Van 
on the north, while on the west it reached 
beyond the Euphrates into mid-Syria; and, 
lastly, of a licence to raid as far as the frontiers 
of Egypt. Shalmaneser's later expeditions all 
passed the frontiers of that sphere of influence. 
Having already crossed the Amanus moun- 
tains seven times, he was in Tarsus in his 
twenty-sixth summer; Damascus was at- 
tacked again and again in the middle of his 

THE EAST IN 800 B.C. 69 

reign; and even Jehu of Samaria paid his 
blackmail in the year 842. . 

Assyria in the ninth century must have 
seemed by far the strongest as well as the most 
oppressive power that the East had known. 
The reigning house was passing on its authority 
from father to son in an unbroken dynastic 
succession, which had not always been, and 
would seldom thereafter be, the rule. Its 
court was fixed securely in midmost Assyria, 
away from priest-ridden Asshur, which seems 
to have been always anti-imperial and pro- 
Babylonian; for Ashurnatsirpal had restored 
Calah to the capital rank which it had held 
under Shalmaneser I but lost under Tiglath 
Pileser, and there the kings of the Middle 
Empire kept their throne. The Assyrian 
armies were as yet neither composed of 
soldiers of fortune, nor, it appears, swelled 
by such heterogeneous provincial levies as 
would follow the Great Kings of Asia in later 
days; but they were still recruited from 
the sturdy peasantry of Assyria itself. The 
monarch was an absolute autocrat directing 
a supreme military despotism. Surely such 
a power could not but endure. Endure, 
indeed, it would for more than two centuries. 


But it was not so strong as it appeared. 
Before the century of Ashurnatsirpal and 
Shalmaneser II was at an end, certain inherent 
germs of corporate decay had developed apace 
ia its system. 

Natural law appears to decree that a 
family stock, whose individual members have 
every opportunity and licence for sensual 
indulgence, shall deteriorate both physically 
and mentally at an ever-increasing rate. 
Therefore, pari passu, an Empire which is 
so absolutely autocratic that the monarch 
is its one mainspring of government, grows 
weaker as it descends from father to son. 
Its one chance of conserving some of its 
pristine strength is to develop a bureaucracy 
which, if inspired by the ideas and methods 
of earlier members of the dynasty, may 
continue to realize them in a crystallized 
system of administration. This chance the 
Middle Assyrian Kingdom never was at any 
pains to take. There is evidence for delega- 
tion of military power by its Great Kings 
to a headquarter staff, and for organiza- 
tion of military control in the provinces, 
but none for such delegation of the civil 

THE EAST IN 800 B.C. 71 

power as might have fostered a bureaucracy. 
Therefore that concentration of power in 
single hands, which at first had been an 
element of strength, came to breed increas- 
ing weakness as one member of the dynasty 
succeeded another. 

Again, the irresistible Assyrian armies, 
which had been led abroad summer by 
summer, were manned for some generations 
by sturdy peasants drawn from the fields of 
the Middle Tigris basin, chiefly those on the 
left bank. The annual razzia, however, is a 
Bedawi institution, proper to a semi-nomadic 
society which cultivates little and that 
lightly, and can leave such agricultural, and 
also such pastoral, work as must needs be 
done in summer to its old men, its young 
folk and its women, without serious loss. 
But a settled labouring population which has 
deep lands to till, a summer crop to raise and 
an irrigation system to maintain is in very 
different case. The Assyrian kings, by calling 
on their agricultural peasantry, spring after 
spring, to resume the life of militant nomads, 
not only exhausted the sources of their own 
wealth and stability, but bred deep discontent. 


As the next two centuries pass more and more 
will be heard of depletion and misery in the 
Assyrian lands. Already before 800 we have 
the spectacle of the agricultural district of 
Arbela rebelling against Shalmaneser's sons, 
and after being appeased with difficulty, 
rising again against Adadnirari III in a revolt 
which is still active when the century closes. 
Lastly, this militant monarchy, whose life 
was war, was bound to make implacable 
enemies both within and without. Among 
those within were evidently the priests, whose 
influence was paramount at Asshur. Re- 
membering who it was that had given the 
first independent king to Assyria they 
resented that their city, the chosen seat of 
the earlier dynasties, which had been restored 
to primacy by the great Tiglath Pileser, 
should fall permanently to the second rank. 
So we find Asshur joining the men of 
Arbela in both the rebellions mentioned 
above, and it appears always to have been 
ready to welcome attempts by the Babylonian 
Semites to regain their old predominance over 
Southern Assyria. 

THE EAST IN 800 B.C. 73 

§2. Urartu 

As we should expect from geographical 
circumstances, Assyria's most perilous and 
persistent foreign enemies were the fierce 
hillmen of the north. In the east, storms 
were brewing behind the mountains, but they 
were not yet ready to burst. South and west 
lay either settled districts of old civilization 
not disposed to fight, or ranging grounds 
of nomads too widely scattered and too ill 
organized to threaten serious danger. But 
the north was in different case. The wild 
valleys, through which descend the left bank 
affluents of the Upper Tigris, have always 
sheltered fierce fighting clans, covetous of 
the winter pasturage and softer climate of 
the northern Mesopotamian downs, and it 
has been the anxious care of one Mesopo- 
tamian power after another, even to our own 
day, to devise measures for penning them 
back. Since the chief weakness of these 
tribes lies in a lack of unity which the sub- 
divided nature of their country encourages, 
it must have caused no small concern to the 
Assyrians that, early in the ninth century. 


a Kingdom of Urartu or, as its own people 
called it, Khaldia, should begin to gain power 
over the communities about Lake Van and 
the heads of the valleys which run down to 
Assyrian territory. Both Ashurnatsirpal and 
Shalmaneser led raid after raid into the 
northern mountains in the hope of weakening 
the tribes from whose adhesion that Vannic 
Kingdom might derive strength. Both kings 
marched more than once up to the neighbour- 
hood of the Urmia Lake, and Shalmaneser 
struck at the heart of Urartu itself three or 
four times; but with inconclusive success. 
The Vannic state continued to flourish and 
its kings — whose names are more European 
in sound than Asiatic — Lutipris, Sarduris, 
Menuas, Argistis, Rusas — built themselves 
strong fortresses which stand to this day 
about Lake Van, and borrowed a script from 
their southern foes to engrave rocks with 
records of successful wars. One of these in- 
scriptions occurs as far west as the left bank of 
Euphrates over against Malatia. By 800 b.c, 
in spite of efforts made by Shalmaneser's sons 
to continue their father's policy of pushing the 
war into the enemy's country, the Vannic king 
had succeeded in replacing Assyrian influence 

THE EAST IN 800 B.C. 75 

by the law of Khaldia in the uppermost basin 
of the Tigris and in higher Mesopotamia — ^the 
" Nairi " lands of Assyrian scribes ; and his 
successors would raid farther and farther 
into the plains during the coming age. 

§ 3. The Medes 

Menacing as this power of Urartu appeared 
at the end of the ninth century to an en- 
feebled Assyrian dynasty, there were two 
other racial groups, lately arrived on its 
horizon, which in the event would prove 
more really dangerous. One of these lay 
along the no-rth-eastern frontier on the farther 
slopes of the Zagros mountains and on the 
plateau beyond. It was apparently a com- 
posite people which had been going through 
a slow process of formation and growth. 
One element in it seems to have been of the 
same blood as a strong pastoral population 
which was then ranging the steppes of southern 
Russia and west central Asia, and would come 
to be known vaguely to the earliest Greeks 
as Cimmerians, and scarcely less precisely 
to their descendants, as Scyths. Its name 
would be a household word in the East 


before long. A trans-Caucasian offshoot of 
this had settled in modern Azerbaijan, where 
for a long time past it had been receiving 
gradual reinforcements of eastern migrants, 
belonging to what is called the Iranian group 
of Aryans. Filtering through the passage 
between the Caspian range and the salt 
desert, which Teheran now guards, these 
Iranians spread out over north-west Persia 
and southwards into the well -watered country 
on the western edge of the plateau, over- 
looking the lowlands of the Tigris basin. 
Some part of them, under the name Parsua, 
seems to have settled down as far north as 
the western shores of Lake Urmia, on the 
edge of the Ararat kingdom; another part 
as far south as the borders of Elam. Be- 
tween these extreme points the immigrants 
appear to have amalgamated with the settled 
Scyths, and in virtue of racial superiority to 
have become predominant partners in the 
combination. At some uncertain period — 
probably before 800 B.C. — there had arisen 
from the Iranian element an individual, 
Zoroaster, who converted his people from 
element-worship to a spiritual belief in 
personal divinity ; and by this reform of cult 

THE EAST IN 800 B.C. 77 

both raised its social status and gave it 
political cohesion. The East began to know 
and fear the combination under the name 
Manda, and from Shalmaneser II onwards 
the Assyrian kings had to devote ever more 
attention to the Manda country, raiding it, 
sacking it, exacting tribute from it, but all 
the while betraying their grooving consciousness 
that a grave peril lurked behind Zagros, the 
peril of the Medes.^ 

§ 4. The Chaldeans 

The other danger, the more imminent of 
the two, threatened Assyria from the south. 
Once again a Semitic immigration, which we 
distinguish as Chaldaean from earlier Semitic 
waves, Canaanite and Aramaean, had breathed 
fresh vitality into the Babylonian people. 
It came, like earlier waves, out of Arabia, 

^ I venture to adhere throughout to the old identifica- 
tion of the Manda power, which ultimately overthrew 
Assyria, with the Medes, in spite of high authorities who 
nowadays assume that the latter played no part in that 
overthrow, but have been introduced into this chapter of 
history by an erroneous identification made by Greeks. 
I cannot believe that both Greek and Hebrew authorities 
of very little later date both fell into such an error. 


which, for certain reasons, has been in all ages 
a prime source of ethnic disturbance in West 
Asia. The great southern peninsula is for the 
most part a highland steppe endowed with 
a singularly pure air and an uncontaminated 
soil. It breeds, consequently, a healthy 
population whose natality, compared to its 
death-rate, is unusually high; but since the 
peculiar conditions of its surface and climate 
preclude the development of its internal food- 
supply beyond a point long ago reached, the 
surplus population which rapidly accumulates 
within it is forced from time to time to seek 
its sustenance elsewhere. The difficulties of 
the roads to the outer world being what they 
are (not to speak of the certainty of opposition 
at the other end), the intending emigrants 
rarely set out in small bodies, but move rest- 
lessly within their own borders until they are 
grown to a horde, which famine and hostility 
at home compel at last to leave Arabia. As 
hard to arrest as their own blown sands, the 
moving Arabs fall on the nearest fertile regions, 
there to plunder, fight, and eventually settle 
down. So in comparatively modern times 
have the Shammar tribesmen moved into Syria 
and Mesopotamia, and so in antiquity moved 

THE EAST IN 800 B.C. 79 

the Canaanites, the Aramaeans, and the 
Chaldaeans. We find the latter already well 
established by 900 B.C. not only in the " Sea 
Land" at the head of the Persian Gulf, but also 
between the Rivers. The Kings of Babylon, 
who opposed Ashurnatsirpal and Shalmaneser 
II, seem to have been of Chaldaean extraction ; 
and although their successors, down to 800 
B.C., acknowledged the suzerainty of Assyria, 
they ever strove to repudiate it, looking for 
help to Elam or the western desert tribes. 
The times, however, were not quite ripe. 
The century closed with the reassertion of 
Assyrian power in Babylon itself by Adad- 

§ 5. Syrian Expansion of Assyria 

Such were the dangers which, as we now 
know, lurked on the horizon of the Northern 
Semites in 800 B.C. But they had not yet 
become patent to the world, in whose eyes 
Assyria seemed still an irresistible power 
pushing ever farther and farther afield. The 
west offered the most attractive field for her 
expansion. There lay the fragments of the 
Hatti Empire, enjoying the fruits of Hatti 


civilization ; there were the wealthy Aramaean 
states, and still richer Phoenician ports. There 
urban life was well developed, each city 
standing for itself, sufficient in its territory, 
and living more or less on the caravan trade 
which perforce passed under or near its 
walls between Egypt on the one hand and 
Mesopotamia and Asia Minor on the other. 
Never was a fairer field for hostile enterprise, 
or one more easily harried without fear of 
reprisal, and well knowing this, Assyria set 
herself from Ashm^natsirpaPs time forward 
systematically to bully and fleece Syria. It 
was almost the yearly practice of Shalmaneser 
II to march down to the Middle Euphrates, 
ferry his army across, and levy blackmail on 
Carchemish and the other north Syrian cities 
as far as Cilicia on the one hand and Damascus 
on the other. That done, he would send 
forward envoys to demand ransom of the 
Phoenician towns, who grudgingly paid it or 
rashly withheld it according to the measure 
of his compulsion. Since last we looked at 
the Aramaean states, Damascus has definitely 
asserted the supremacy which her natural 
advantages must always secure to her when- 
ever Syria is not under foreign domination. 

THE EAST IN 800 B.C. 81 

Her fighting dynasty of Benhadads which had 
been founded, it seems, more than a century 
before Shalmaneser's time, had now spread her 
influence right across Syria from east to west 
and into the territories of Hamath on the north 
and of the Hebrews on the south. Ashurnat- 
sirpal had never ventured to do more than 
summon at long range the lord of this large and 
wealthy state to contribute to his coffers ; but 
this tributary obligation, if ever admitted, was 
continually disregarded, and Shalmaneser II 
found he must take bolder measures or be 
content to see his raiding-parties restricted 
to the already harried north. He chose the 
bold course, and struck at Hamath, the 
northernmost Damascene dependency, in his 
seventh summer. A notable victory, won at 
Karkar on the Middle Orontes over an army 
which included contingents from most of the 
south Semitic states — one came, for example, 
from Israel, where Ahab was now king, — 
opened a way towards the Aramaean capital ; 
but it was not till twelve years later that 
the Great King actually attacked Damascus. 
But he failed to crown his successes with its 
capture, and reinvigorated by the accession 
of a new dynasty, which Hazael, a leader 


in war, founded in 842, Damascus continued 
to bar the Assyrians from full enjoyment of 
the southern lands for another century. 

Nevertheless, though Shalmaneser and his 
djniastic successors down to Adadnirari III 
were unable to enter Palestine, the shadow 
of Assyrian Empire was beginning to creep 
over Israel. The internal dissensions of the 
latter, and its fear and jealousy of Damascus 
had already done much to make ultimate dis- 
aster certain. In the second generation after 
David the radical incompatibility between the 
northern and southern Hebrew tribes, which 
under his strong hand and that of his son had 
seemed one nation, reasserted its disinte- 
grating influence. While it is not certain if 
the twelve tribes were ever all of one race, it 
is quite certain that the northern ones had 
come to be contaminated very largely with 
Aramaean blood and infected by mid-Syrian 
influences, which the relations established and 
maintained by David and Solomon with Ha- 
math and Phoenicia no doubt had accentuated, 
especially in the territories of Asher and Dan. 
These tribes and some other northerners had 
never seen eye to eye with the southern tribes 
in a matter most vital to Semitic societies, 

THE EAST IN 800 B.C. 83 

religious ideal and practice. The anthro- 
pomorphic monotheism, which the southern 
tribes brought up from Arabia, had to contend 
in Galilee with theriomorphic polytheism, that 
is, the tendency to embody the qualities of 
divinity in animal forms. For such beliefs as 
these there is ample evidence in the Judaean 
tradition, even during the pre -Palestinian 
wanderings . Both reptile and bovine incarna - 
tions manifest themselves in the story of the 
Exodus, and despite the fervent missionary 
efforts of a series of Prophets, and the adhesion 
of many, even among the northern tribes- 
men, to the more spiritual creed, these cults 
gathered force in the congenial neighbour- 
hood of Aramaeans and Phoenicians, till they 
led to political separation of the north from 
the south as soon as the long reign of 
Solomon was ended. Thereafter, until the 
catastrophe of the northern tribes, there would 
never more be a united Hebrew nation. The 
northern kingdom, harried by Damascus and 
forced to take unwilling part in her quarrels, 
looked about for foreign help. The dynasty 
of Onari, who, in order to secure control of the 
great North Road, had built himself a capital 
and a palace (lately discovered) on the hill of 


Samaria, relied chiefly on Tyre. The succeed- 
ing dynasty, that of Jehu, who had rebelled 
against Omri's son and his Phoenician queen, 
courted Assyria, and encouraged her to press 
ever harder on Damascus. It was a suicidal 
policy ; for in the continued existence of 
a strong Aramaean state on her north lay 
Israel's one hope of long life. Jeroboam II 
and his Prophet Jonah ought to have seen 
that the day of reckoning would come quickly 
for Samaria when once Assyria had settled 
accounts with Damascus. 

To some extent, but unfortunately not in 
all detail, we can trace in the royal records 
the advance of Assyrian territorial dominion 
in the west. The first clear indication of its 
expansion is afforded by a notice of the 
permanent occupation of a position on the 
eastern bank of the Euphrates, as a base 
for the passage of the river. This position 
was Til Barsip, situated opposite the mouth 
of the lowest Syrian affluent, the Sajur, and 
formerly capital of an Aramaean principate. 
That its occupation by Shalmaneser II in 
the third year of his reign was intended to 
be lasting is proved by its receiving a new 
name and becoming a royal Assyrian residence. 

THE EAST IN 800 B.C. 85 

Two basaltic lions, which the Great King then 
set up on each side of its Mesopotamian gate 
and inscribed with commemorative texts, have 
recently been found near Tell Ahmar, the 
modern hamlet which has succeeded the royal 
city. This measure marked Assyria's definite 
annexation of the lands in Mesopotamia, which 
had been under Aramaean government for 
at least a century and a half. When this 
government had been established there we 
do not certainly know; but the collapse 
of Tiglath Pileser's power about 1100 b.c. 
so nearly follows the main Aramaean invasion 
from the south that it seems probable this 
invasion had been in great measure the cause 
of that collapse, and that an inunediate 
consequence was the formation of Aramaean 
states east of Euphrates. The strongest of 
them and the last to succumb to Assyria 
was Bit-Adini, the district west of Harran, 
of which Til Barsip had been the leading 

The next stage of Assyrian expansion is 
marked by a similar occupation of a position 
on the Syrian side of the Euphrates, to cover 
the landing and be a gathering-place of tribute. 
Here stood Pitru, formerly a Hatti town and, 


perhaps, the Biblical Pethor, situated beside 
the Sajur on some site not yet identified, 
but probably near the outfall of the stream. 
It received an Assyrian name in Shalmaneser's 
sixth year, and was used afterwards as a base 
for all his operations in Syria. It served 
also to mask and overawe the larger and more 
wealthy city of Carchemish, a few miles north, 
which would remain for a long time to come 
free of permanent Assyrian occupation, though 
subjected to blackmail on the occasion of 
every western raid by the Great King. 

With this last westward advance of his 
permanent territorial holding, Shalmaneser 
appears to have rested content. He was sure 
of the Euphrates passage and had made his 
footing good on the Syrian bank. But we 
cannot be certain ; for, though his known 
records mention the renaming of no other 
Syrian cities, many may have been renamed 
without happening to be mentioned in the 
records, and others may have been occupied 
by standing Assyrian garrisons without re- 
ceiving new names. Be that as it may, we 
can trace, year by year, the steady pushing 
forward of Assyrian raiding columns into inner 
Syria. In 854 Shalmaneser's most distant 

THE EAST IN 800 B.C. 87 

base of operations was fixed at Khalman 
(Aleppo), whence he marched to the Orontes 
to fight, near the site of later Apamea, the 
battle of Karkar. Five years later, swooping 
down from a Cilician raid, he entered Hamath. 
Six more years passed before he made more 
ground to the south, though he invaded 
Syria again in force at least once during the 
interval. In 842, however, having taken a 
new road along the coast, he turned inland 
from Beirut, crossed Lebanon and Anti- 
Lebanon, and succeeded in reaching the oasis 
of Damascus and even in raiding some 
distance towards the Hauran; but he did 
not take (perhaps, like the Bedawi Emir he 
was, he did not try to take) the fenced city 
itself. He seems to have repeated his visit 
three years later, but never to have gone 
farther. Certainly he never secured to himself 
Phoenicia, Coele-Syria or Damascus, and still 
less Palestine, by any permanent organization. 
Indeed, as has been said, we have no warrant 
for asserting that in his day Assyria definitely 
incorporated in her territorial empire any 
part of Syria except that one outpost of 
observation established at Pitru on the Sajur. 
Nor can more be credited to Shalmaneser's 


immediate successors ; but it must be under- 
stood that by the end of the century Adad- 
nirari had extended Assyria's sphere of 
influence (as distinct from her territorial 
holding) somewhat farther south to include 
not only Phoenicia but also northern Philistia 
and Palestine with the arable districts east 
of Jordan. 

§ 6. CiLICIA 

When an Assyrian emperor crossed 
Euphrates and took up quarters in Pitru 
to receive the submission of the western 
chiefs and collect his forces for raiding the 
lands of any who might be slow to comply, 
he was much nearer the frontiers of Asia 
Minor than those of Phoenicia or the Kingdom 
of Damascus. Yet on three occasions out 
of four, the lords of the Middle Assyrian 
Kingdom were content to harry once again 
the oft-phmdered lands of mid-Sjrria, and on 
the fourth, if they turned northward at all, 
they advanced no farther than eastern Cilicia, 
that is, little beyond the horizon which they 
might actually see on a clear day from any 
high ground near Pitru. Yet on the other 

THE EAST IN 800 B.C. 89 

side of the snow-streaked wall which bounded 
the northward view lay desirable kingdoms, 
Khanigalbat with its capital, Milid, comprising 
the fertile district which later would be part 
of Cataonia; Tabal to west of it, extending 
over the rest of Cataonia and southern 
Cappadocia ; and Kas, possessing the Tyanitis 
and the deep Lycaonian plain. Why, then, 
did those imperial robbers in the ninth 
century so long hold their hands from such 
tempting prey? No doubt, because they 
and their armies, which were not yet re- 
cruited from other populations than the 
Semites of Assyria proper, so far as we know, 
were by origin Arabs, men of the south, to 
whom the high-lying plateau country beyond 
Taurus was just as deterrent as it has been 
to all Semites since. Tides of Arab invasion, 
surging again and again to the foot of the 
Taurus, have broken sometimes through the 
passes and flowed in single streams far on into 
Asia Minor, but they have always ebbed again 
as quickly. The repugnance felt by the 
Assyrians for Asia Minor may be contrasted 
with the promptitude which their Iranian 
successors showed in invading the peninsula, 
and may be illustrated by all subsequent 


history. No permanent footing was ever 
established in Asia Minor by the Saracens, 
its definite conquest being left to the north- 
country Turks. The short-lived Arab power 
of Mehemet Ali, which rebelled against the 
Turks some eighty years ago, advanced on 
to the plateau only to recede at once and 
remain behind the Taurus. The present 
dividing line of peoples which speak re- 
spectively Arabic and Turkish marks the 
Semite's immemorial limit. So soon as the 
land-level of northern Syria attains a mean 
altitude of 2500 feet, the Arab tongue is 
chilled to silence. 

We shall never find Assyrian armies, there- 
fore, going far or staying long beyond Taurus. 
But we shall find them going constantly, and 
as a matter of course, into Cilicia, notwith- 
standing the high mountain wall of Amanus 
which divides it from Syria. Cilicia — all that 
part of it at least which the Assyrians used 
to raid — lies low, faces south and is shielded 
by high mountains from northerly and easterly 
chills. It enjoys, indeed, a warmer and more 
equable climate than any part of Syria, except 
the coastal belt, and socially it has always 
been related more nearly to the south lands 

THE EAST IN 800 B.C. 91 

than to its own geographical whole, Asia 
Minor. A Semitic element was predominant 
in the population of the plain, and especially 
in its chief town, Tarsus, throughout antiquity. 
So closely was Cilicia linked with Syria 
that the Prince of Kue (its eastern part) 
j.oined the Princes of Hamath and of 
Damascus and their south Syrian allies 
in that combination for common defence 
against Assyrian aggression, which Shal- 
maneser broke at Karkar in 854 : and it was 
in order to neutralize an important factor 
in the defensive power of Syria that the latter 
proceeded across Patin in 849 and fell on 
Kue. But some uprising at Hamath recalled 
him then, and it was not till the latter part of 
his reign that eastern Cilicia was systematically 

Shalmaneser devoted a surprising amount 
of attention to this small and rather obscure 
corner of Asia Minor. He records in his 
twenty-fifth year that already he had crossed 
Amanus seven times ; and in the year succeed- 
ing we find him again entering Cilicia and 
marching to Tarsus to unseat its prince and 
put another more pliable in his room. Since, 
apparently, he never used Cilicia as a base 


for further operations in force beyond Taurus, 
being content with a formal acknowledg- 
ment of his majesty by the Prince of Tabal, 
one is forced to conclude that he invaded 
the land for its own sake. Nearly three 
centuries hence, out of the mist in which 
Cilicia is veiled more persistently than 
almost any other part of the ancient East, 
this small country will loom up suddenly 
as one of the four chief powers of Asia, 
ruled by a king who, hand in hand with 
Nebuchadnezzar II, negotiates a peace be- 
tween the Lydians and the Medes, each at 
the height of their power. Then the mist will 
close over it once more,^and we shall hear next 
to nothing of a long line of kings who, bearing 
a royal title which was graecized under the 
form Syennesis, reigned at Tarsus, having 
little in common with other Anatolian princes. 
But we may reasonably infer from the cir- 
cumstances of the pacific intervention just 
mentioned that Cilician power had been 
growing for a long time previous; and also 
from the frequency with which Shalmaneser 
raided the land, that already in the ninth 
century it was rich and civilized. We know 

THE EAST IN 800 B.C. 93 

it to have been a great centre of Sandan 
worship, and may guess that its kings were 
kin of the Mushki race and, if not the chief 
survivors of the original stock which invaded 
Assyria in Tiglath Pileser's time, ranked at 
least among the chief inheritors of the old 
Hatti civilization. Some even date its civiliza- 
tion earlier still, believing the Keftiu, who 
brought rich gifts to the Pharaohs of the 
eighteenth and succeeding dynasties, to have 
been Cilicians. 

Unfortunately, no scientific excavation of 
early sites in Cilicia has yet been undertaken ; 
but for many years past buyers of antiquities 
have been receiving, from Tarsus and its 
port, engraved stones and seals of singularly 
fine workmanship, which belong to Hittite 
art but seem of later date than most of its 
products. They display in their decoration 
certain peculiar designs, which have been 
remarked also in Cyprus, and present some 
peculiarities of form, which occur also in the 
earliest Ionian art. Till other evidence comes 
to hand these little objects must be our 
witnesses to the existence of a highly 
developed sub -Hittite culture in Cilicia which, 


as early as the ninth century, had already 
been refined by the influence of the Greek 
settlements on the Anatolian coasts and 
perhaps, even earlier, by the Cretan art of the 
JEgesin area. Cilician civilization offers a link 
between east and west which is worth more 
consideration and study than- have been given 
to it by historians. 

§ 7. Asia Minor 

Into Asia Minor beyond Taurus we have 
no reason to suppose that an Assyrian monarch 
of the ninth century ever marched in person, 
though several raiding columns visited Khani- 
galbat and Tabal, and tributary acknowledg- 
ment of Assyrian dominance was made 
intermittently by the princes of both those 
countries in the latter half of Shalmaneser's 
reign. The farther and larger part of the 
western peninsula lay outside the Great 
King's reach, and we know as little of it in 
the year 800 as, perhaps, the Assyrians 
themselves knew. We do know, however, 
that it contained a strong principality centrally 
situated in the southern part of the basin 

THE EAST IN 800 B.C. 95 

of the Sangarius, which the Asiatic Greeks 
had begun to know as Phrygian. This inland 
power loomed very large in their world — so 
large, indeed, that it masked Assyria at 
this time, and passed in their eyes for the 
richest on earth. On the sole ground of 
its importance in early Greek legend, we are 
quite safe in dating not only its rise but 
its attainment of a dominant position to a 
period well before 800 B.C. But, in fact, there 
are other good grounds for believing that be- 
fore the ninth century closed this principality 
dominated a much wider area than the later 
Phrygia, and that its western borders had been 
pushed outwards very nearly to the Ionian 
coast. In the Iliad, for example, the Phrygians 
are spoken of as immediate neighbours of the 
Trojans ; and a considerable body of primitive 
Hellenic legend is based on the early presence 
of Phrygians not only in the Troad itself, but 
on the central west coast about the Bay of 
Smyrna and in the Caystrian plain, from 
which points of vantage they held direct 
relations with the immigrant Greeks them- 
selves. It seems, therefore, certain that at 
some time before 800 B.C. nearly all the western 


half of the peninsula owed allegiance more 
or less complete to the power on the Sangarius, 
and that even the Heraclid kings of Lydia 
were not independent of it. 

If Phrygia was powerful enough in the 
ninth century to hold the west Anatolian 
lands in fee, did it also dominate enough of 
the eastern peninsula to be ranked the imperial 
heir of the Cappadocian Hatti ? The answer 
to this question (if any at all can be returned 
on very slight evidence) will depend on the 
view taken about the possible identity of the 
Phrygian power with that obscure but real 
power of the Mushki, of which we have already 
heard. The identity in question is so gener- 
ally accepted nowadays that it has become 
a commonplace of historians to speak of 
the " Mushki-Phrygians." Very possibly they 
are right. But, by way of caution, it must 
be remarked that the identification de- 
pends ultimately on another, namely, that 
of Mita, King of the Mushki, against whom 
Ashurbanipal would fight more than a century 
later, with Midas, last King of Phrygia, who 
is mentioned by Herodotus and celebrated in 
Greek myth. To assume this identity is very 

THE EAST IN 800 B.C. 97 

attractive. Mita of Mushki and Midas of 
Phrygia coincide well enough in date; both 
ruled in Asia Minor; both were apparently 
leading powers there ; both fought with the 
Gimirrai or Cimmerians. But there are also 
certain difficulties of which too little account 
has perhaps been taken. While Mita seems to 
have been a common name in Asia as far inland 
as Mesopotamia at a much earlier period than 
this, the name Midas, on the other hand, 
came much later into Phrygia from the west, 
if there is anything in the Greek tradition 
that the Phryges or Briges had immigrated 
from south-east Europe. And supported as 
this tradition is not only by the occurrence 
of similar names and similar folk-tales in 
Macedonia and in Phrygia, but also by the 
western appearance of the later Phrygian 
art and script, we can hardly refuse it credit. 
Accordingly, if we find the origin of the 
Phrygians in the Macedonian Briges, we must 
allow that Midas, as a Phrygian name, came 
from Europe very much later than the first ap- 
pearance of kings called Mita in Asia, and we 
are compelled to doubt whether the latter 
name is necessarily the same as Midas. When 


allusions to the Mushki in Assyrian records give 
any indication of their local habitat, it lies 
in the east, not the west, of the central 
Anatolian plain — nearly, in fact, where the 
Moschi lived in later historical times. The 
following points, therefore, must be left open 
at present : (1) whether the Mushki ever 
settled in Phrygia at all ; (2) whether, if they 
did, the Phrygian kings who bore the names 
Gordius and Midas can ever have been Mush- 
kite or have commanded Mushkite allegiance ; 
(3) whether the kings called Mita in records 
of Sargon and Ashurbanipal were not lords 
rather of the eastern Mushki than of Phrygia. 
It cannot be assumed, on present evidence at 
any rate (though it is not improbable), that 
Phrygian kings ruled the Mushki of Cappa- 
docia, and in virtue of that rule had an 
empire almost commensurate with the lost 
sway of the Hatti. 

Nevertheless theirs was a strong power, 
the strongest in Anatolia, and the fame of 
its wealth and its walled towns dazzled 
and awed the Greek communities, which were 
thickly planted by now on the western and 
south-western coasts. Some of these had 

THE EAST IN 800 B.C. 99 

passed through the trials of infancy and were 
grown to civic estate^ having estabhshed 
wide trade relations both by land and sea. 
In the coming century Cyme of ^olis would 
give a wife to a Phrygian king. Ephesus 
seems to have become already an important 
social as well as religious centre. The 
objects of art found in 1905 on the floor of the 
earliest temple of Artemis in the plain (there 
was an earlier one in the hills) must be dated 
— some of them — not later than 700, and their 
design and workmanship bear witness to 
flourishing arts and crafts long established in 
the locality. Miletus, too, was certainly an 
adult centre of Hellenism and about to become 
a mother of new cities, if she had not already 
become so. But, so early as this year 800, 
we know little about the Asiatic Greek cities 
beyond the fact of their existence; and it 
will be wiser to let them grow for another 
two centuries and to speak of them more 
at length when they have become a potent 
factor in West Asian society. When we ring 
up the curtain again after two hundred years, 
it will be found that the light shed on the 
eastern scene has brightened; for not only 


will contemporary records have increased in 
volume and clarity, but we shall be able to 
use the lamp of literary history fed by tradi- 
tions, which had not had to survive the lapse 
of more than a few generations. 



When we look at the East again in 600 b.c. 

after two centuries of war and tumultuous 

movements we perceive that almost all its 

lands have found fresh masters. The political 

changes are tremendous. Cataclysm has 

followed hard on cataclysm. The Phrygian 

dynasty has gone down in massacre and rapine, 

and from another seat of power its former client 

rules Asia Minor in its stead. The strongholds 

of the lesser Semitic peoples have almost all 

succumbed, and Syria is a well-picked bone 

snatched by one foreign dog from another. 

The Assyrian colossus which bestrid the 

west Asiatic world has failed and collapsed, 

and the Medes and the Chaldaeans — ^these two 

clouds no bigger than a man's hand which 

had lain on Assyria's horizon — fill her seat 

and her room. As we look back on it now, 

the political revolution is complete; but had 


we lived in the year 600 at Asshur or Damascus 
or Tyre or Tarsus, it might have impressed us 
less. A new master in the East did not and 
does not always mean either a new earth or 
a new heaven. 

Let us see to how much the change really 
amounted. The Assyrian Empire was no 
more. This is a momentous fact, not to be 
esteemed lightly. The final catastrophe has 
happened only six years before our date; 
but the power of Assyria had been going 
downhill for nearly half a century, and it 
is clear, from the freedom with which other 
powers were able to move about the area of 
her empire some time before the end, that 
the East had been free of her interference for 
years. Indeed, so near and vital a centre of 
Assyrian nationality as Calah, the old capital 
of the Middle Empire, had been taken and 
sacked, ere he who was to be the last " Great 
King " of the northern Semites ascended his 

§ 1. The New Assyrian Kingdom 

For the last hundred and fifty years 
Assyrian history — sl record of black oppres- 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 103 

sion abroad and blacker intrigue at home — 
has recalled the rapid gathering and slower 
passing away of some great storm. A lull 
marks the first half of the ninth century. 
Then almost without warning the full fury 
of the cloud bursts and rages for nearly a 
hundred years. Then the gloom brightens till 
all is over. The dynasty of Ashurnatsirpal 
and Shalmaneser II slowly declined to its 
inevitable end. The capital itself rose in 
revolt in the year 747, and having done with 
the lawful heirs, chose a successful soldier, 
who may have been, for aught we know, of 
royal blood, but certainly was not in the 
direct line. Tiglath Pileser — for he took a 
name from earlier monarchs, possibly in 
vindication of legitimacy — saw (or some wise 
counsellor told him) that the militant empire 
which he had usurped must rely no longer on 
annual levies of peasants from the Assyrian 
villages, which were fast becoming exhausted ; 
nor could it continue to live on uncertain 
blackmail collected at uncertain intervals now 
beyond Euphrates, now in Armenia, now 
again from eastern and southern neighbours. 
Such Bedawi ideas and methods were out- 
worn. The new Great King tried new methods 


to express new ideas. A soldier by profession, 
indebted to the sword for his throne, he 
would have a standing and paid force always 
at his hand, not one which had to be called 
from the plough spring by spring. The lands, 
which used to render blackmail to forces sent 
expressly all the way from the Tigris, must 
henceforward be incorporated in the territorial 
empire and pay their contributions to resident 
governors and garrisons . Moreover, why should 
these same lands not bear a part for the 
empire in both defence and attack by sup- 
plying levies of their own to the imperial 
armies ? Finally the capital, Calah, with its 
traditions of the dead dynasty, the old regime 
and the recent rebellion, must be replaced by 
a new capital, even as once on a time Asshur, 
with its Babylonian and priestly spirit, had 
been replaced. Accordingly sites, a little 
higher up the Tigris and more centrally 
situated in relation to both the homeland 
and the main roads from west and east, 
must be promoted to be capitals. But in 
the event it was not till after the reign of 
Sargon closed that Nineveh was made the 
definitive seat of the last Assyrian kings. 
Organized and strengthened during Tiglath 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 105 

Pileser's reign of eighteen years, this new 
imperial machine, with its standing profes- 
sional army, its myriad levies drawn from all 
fighting races within its territory, its large 
and secure revenues and its bureaucracy 
keeping the provinces in constant relation to 
the centre, became the most tremendous 
power of offence which the world had seen. 
So soon as Assyria was made conscious of 
her new vigour by the ease with which the 
Urartu raiders, who had long been encroaching 
on Mesopotamia, and even on Syria, were 
driven back across the Nairi lands and penned 
into their central fastnesses of Van; by the 
ease, too, with which Babylonia was humbled 
and occupied again, and the Phoenician ports 
and the city of Damascus, impregnable there- 
tofore, were taken and held to tribute — she 
began to dream of world empire, the first 
society in history to conceive this unattain- 
able ideal. Certain influences and events, how- 
ever, would defer awhile any attempt to realize 
the dream. Changes of dynasty took place, 
thanks partly to reactionary forces at home 
and more to the praetorian basis on which 
the kingdom now reposed, and only one of 
his house succeeded Tiglath Pileser. But the 


set-back was of brief duration. In the year 
722 another victorious general thrust himself 
on to the throne and, under the famous name 
of Sargon, set forth to extend the bounds of 
the empire towards Media on the east, and 
over Cilicia into Tabal on the west, until he 
came into collision with King Mita of the 
Mushki and held him to tribute. 

§ 2. The Empire of Sargon 

Though at least one large province had 
still to be added to the Assyrian Empire, 
Sargon's reign may be considered the period 
of its greatest strength. He handed on to 
Sennacherib no conquests which could not 
have been made good, and the widest extent 
of territory which the central power was 
adequate to hold. We may pause, then, just 
before Sargon's death in 705, to see what the 
area of that territory actually was. 

Its boundaries cannot be stated, of course, 
with any approach to the precision of a 
modern political geographer. Occupied terri- 
tories faded imperceptibly into spheres of 
influence and these again into lands habitually, 
or even only occasionally, raided. In some 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 107 

quarters, especially from north-east round to 
north-west, our present understanding of the 
terms of ancient geography, used by Semitic 
scribes, is very imperfect, and, when an 
Assyrian king has told us carefully what 
lands, towns, mountains and rivers his army 
visited, it does not follow that we can identify 
them with any exactness. Nor should the 
royal records be taken quite at their face 
value. Some discount has to be allowed 
(but how much it is next to impossible to 
say) on reports, which often ascribe all the 
actions of a campaign not shared in by the 
King in person (as in certain instances can 
be proved) to his sole prowess, and grandilo- 
quently enumerate twoscore princedoms and 
kingdoms which were traversed and subdued in 
the course of one summer campaign in very 
difficult country. The illusion of immense 
achievement, which it was intended thus to 
create, has often imposed itself on modern 
critics, and Tiglath Pileser and Sargon are 
credited with having marched to the neigh- 
bourhood of the Caspian, conquering or 
holding to ransom great provinces, when their 
forces were probably doing no more than 
climbing from valley to valley about the 


headwaters of the Tigris affluents, and raiding 
chiefs of no greater territorial affluence than 
the Kurdish beys of Hakkiari. 

East of Assyria proper, the territorial em- 
pire of Sargon does not seem to have extended 
quite up to the Zagros watershed; but his 
sphere of influence included not only the heads 
of the Zab valleys, but also a region on the 
other side of the mountains, reaching as far 
as Hamadan and south-west Azerbaijan, al- 
though certainly not the eastern or northern 
districts of the latter province, or Kaswan, 
or any part of the Caspian littoral. On the 
north, the frontier of Assyrian territorial empire 
could be passed in a very few days' march 
from Nineveh. The shores of neither the 
Urmia nor the Van Lake were ever regularly 
occupied by Assyria, and, though Sargon 
certainly brought into his sphere of influence 
the kingdom of Urartu, which surrounded 
the latter lake and controlled the tribes as 
far as the western shore of the former, it is 
not proved that his armies ever went round 
the east and north of the Urmia Lake, and 
it is fairly clear that they left the north- 
western region of mountains between Bitlis and 
the middle Euphrates to its own tribesmen. 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 109 

Westwards and southwards, however, Sar- 
gon's arm swept a wider circuit. He held as 
his own all Mesopotamia up to Diarbekr, and 
beyond Syria not only eastern and central 
Cilicia, but also some districts north of Taurus, 
namely, the low plain of Milid or Malatia, and 
the southern part of Tabal; but probably his 
hand reached no farther over the plateau 
than to a line prolonged from the head of 
the Tokhma Su to the neighbourhood of 
Tyana, and returning thence to the Cilician 
Gates. Beyond that line began a sphere of 
influence which we cannot hope to define, 
but may guess to have extended over Cappa- 
docia, Lycaonia and the southern part of 
Phrygia. Southward, all Syria was Sargon's, 
most of it by direct occupation, and the rest 
in virtue of acknowledged overlordship and 
payment of tribute. Even the seven princes 
of Cyprus made such submission. One or two 
strong Syrian towns. Tyre and Jerusalem, for 
example, withheld payment if no Assyrian 
army was at hand ; but their show of indepen- 
dence was maintained only on sufferance. The 
Philistine cities, after Sargon's victory over 
their forces and Egyptian allies at Raphia, 
in 720, no longer defended their walls, and the 


Great King's sphere of influence stretched east- 
ward right across the Hamad and southward 
over north Arabia. Finally, Babylonia was 
all his own even to the Persian Gulf, the rich 
merchants supporting him firmly in the 
interests of their caravan trade, however the 
priests and the peasantry might murmur. But 
Elam, whose king and people had carried 
serious trouble into Assyria itself early in 
the reign, is hardly to be reckoned to Sargon 
even as a sphere of influence. The marshes 
of its south-west, the tropical plains of the 
centre and the mountains on the east, made 
it a difficult land for the northern Semites to 
conquer and hold. Sargon had been wise 
enough to let it be. Neither so prudent 
nor so fortunate would be his son and 

§ 3. The Conquest of Egypt 

Such was the empire inherited by Sargon's 
son, Sennacherib. Not content, he would 
go farther afield to make a conquest which 
has never remained long in the hands of an 
Asiatic power. It was not only lust of loot, 
however, which now urged Assyria towards 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. Ill 

Egypt. The Great Kings had long found 
their influence counteracted in southern Syria 
by that of the Pharaohs. Princes of both 
Hebrew states, of the Phoenician and the 
PhiHstine cities and even of Damascus, had 
all relied at one time or another on Egypt, 
and behind their combinations for defence 
and their individual revolts Assyria had felt 
the power on the Nile. The latter generally 
did no more in the event to save its friends 
than it had done for Israel when Shalmaneser 
IV beleaguered, and Sargon took and garri- 
soned, Samaria ; but even ignorant hopes and 
empty promises of help cause constant unrest. 
Therefore Sennacherib, after drastic chastise- 
ment of the southern states in 701 (both Tyre 
and Jerusalem, however, kept him outside 
their walls), and a long tussle with Chaldsean 
Babylon, was impelled to set out in the last 
year, or last but one, of his reign for Egypt. 
In southern Palestine he was as successful as 
before, but, thereafter, some signal disaster 
befell him. Probably an epidemic pestilence 
overtook liis army when not far across the 
frontier, and he returned to Assyria only to 
be murdered. 

He bequeathed the venture to the son who, 


after defeating his parricide brothers, secured 
his throne and reigned eleven years under a 
name which it has been agreed to write 
Esarhaddon. So soon as movements in 
Urartu and south-western Asia Minor had been 
suppressed, and, more important, Babylon, 
which his father had dishonoured, was ap- 
peased, Esarhaddon took up the incomplete 
conquest. Egypt, then in the hands of an 
alien dynasty from the Upper Nile and divided 
against itself, gave him little trouble at first. 
In his second expedition (670) he reached 
Memphis itself, carried it by assault, and 
drove the Cushite Tirhakah past Thebes 
to the Cataracts. The Assyrian proclaimed 
Egypt his territory and spread the net of 
Ninevite bureaucracy over it as far south 
as the Thebaid; but neither he nor his suc- 
cessors cared to assume the style and titles 
of the Pharaohs, as Persians and Greeks, 
wiser in their generations, would do later 
on. Presently trouble at home, excited by 
a son rebelling after the immemorial practice 
of the east, recalled Esarhaddon to Assyria; 
Tirhakah moved up again from the south ; 
the Great King returned to meet him and 
died on the march. 

Plate 4 



But Memphis was reoccupied by Esarhad- 
don's successor, and since the latter took 
and ruined Thebes also, and, after Tirhakah's 
death, drove the Cushites right out of Egypt, 
the doubtful credit of spreading the territorial 
empire of Assyria to the widest limits it ever 
reached falls to Ashurbanipal. Even Tyre 
succumbed at last, and he stretched his 
sphere of 'influence over Asia Minor to Lydia. 
First of Assyrian kings he could claim Elam 
with its capital Susa as his own (after 647), 
and in the east he professed overlordship 
over all Media. Mesopotamian arts and 
letters now reached the highest point at 
which they had stood since Hammurabi's 
days, and the fame of the wealth and luxury 
of " Sardanapal " went out even into the 
Greek lands. About 660 B.C. Assyria seemed 
in a fair way to be mistress of the desirable 

§ 4. Decline and Fall of Assyria 

Strong as it seemed in the 7th century, the 
Assyrian Empire was, however, rotten at the 
core. In ridding itself of some weaknesses it 
had created others. The later Great Kings 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 115 

of Nineveh, raised to power and maintained 
by the spears of paid praetorians, found less 
support even than the old dynasty of Calah 
had found, in popular religious sentiment, 
which (as usual in the East) was the ultimate 
basis of Assyrian nationality ; nor, under the 
circumstances, could they derive much strength 
from tribal feeling, which sometimes survives 
the religious basis. Throughout the history of 
the New Kingdom we can detect the influence 
of a strong opposition centred at Asshur. 
There the last monarch of the Middle Kingdom 
had fixed his dwelling under the wing of the 
priests ; there the new dynasty had dethroned 
him as the consummation of an anti-sacerdotal 
rising of nobles and of peasant soldiery. 
Sargon seems to have owed his elevation 
two generations later to revenge taken for 
this victory by the city folk; but Sargon's 
son, Sennacherib, in his turn, found priestly 
domination intolerable, and, in an effort to 
crush it for ever, wrecked Babylon and 
terrorized the central home of Semitic cult, 
the great sacerdotal establishment of Bel- 
Marduk. After his father's murder, Esar- 
haddon veered back to the priests, and did 
§10 much to court religious support, that the 


military party incited Ashurbanipal to rebellion 
and compelled his father to associate the son 
in the royal power before leaving Assyria for 
the last time to die (or be killed) on the way 
to Egypt. Thus the whole record of dynastic 
succession in the New Kingdom has been 
typically Oriental, anticipating, at every 
change of monarch, the history of Islamic 
Empires. There is no trace of unanimous 
national sentiment for the Great King. One 
occupant of the throne after another gains 
power by grace of a party and holds it by 
mercenary swords. 

Another imperial weakness was even more 
fatal. So far as can be learned from Assyria's 
own records and those of others, she lived on 
her territorial empire without recognizing the 
least obligation to render anything to her 
provinces for what they gave — not even to 
render what Rome gave at her worst, namely, 
peace. She regarded them as existing simply 
to^ndow her with money and men. When 
she desired to garrison or to reduce to im- 
potence any conquered district, the population 
of some other conquered district would be 
deported thither, while the new subjects 
took the vacant place. What happened 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 117 

when Sargon captured Samaria happened 
often elsewhere (Ashurbanipal, for example, 
made Thebes and Elam exchange inhabitants), 
for this was the only method of assimilating 
alien populations ever conceived by Assyria. 
When she attempted to use natives to govern 
natives the result was such disaster as followed 
Ashurbanipal's appointment of Psammetichus, 
son of Necho, to govern Memphis and the 
Western Delta. 

Rotten within, hated and coveted by 
vigorous and warlike races on the east, the 
north and the south, Assyria was moving 
steadily towards her catastrophe amid all the 
glory of " Sardanapal." The pace quickened 
when he was gone. A danger, which had 
lain long below the eastern horizon, was now 
come up into the Assyrian field of vision. 
Since Sargon' s triumphant raids, the Great 
King's writ had run gradually less and less 
far into Media; and by his retaliatory in- 
vasions of Elam, which Sennacherib had 
provoked, Ashurbanipal not only exhausted 
his military resources, but weakened a power 
which had served to check more dangerous 

We have seen that the " Mede ' was 


probably a blend of Scythian and Iranian, 
the latter element supplying the ruling and 
priestly classes. The Scythian element, it 
seems, had been receiving considerable rein- 
forcement. Some obscure cause, disturbing the 
northern steppes, forced its warlike shepherds 
to move southward in the mass. A large 
body, under the name Gimirrai or Cim- 
merians, descended on Asia Minor in the 
seventh century and swept it to the western 
edge of the plateau and beyond; others 
pressed into central and eastern Armetiia, 
and, by weakening the Vannic king, enabled 
Ashurbanipal to announce the humiliation 
of Urartu ; others again ranged behind Zagros 
and began to break through to the Assyrian 
valleys. Even while Ashurbanipal was still on 
the throne some of these last had ventured 
very far into his realm; for in the year of 
his death a band of Scythians appeared in 
Syria and raided southwards even to the 
frontier of Egypt. It was this raid which 
virtually ended the Assyrian control of Syria 
and enabled Josiah of Jerusalem and others 
to reassert independence. 

The death of Ashurbanipal coincided also 
with the end of direct Assyrian rule over 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 119 

Babylon. After the death of a rebelHous brother 
and viceroy in 648, the Great King himself 
assumed the Babylonian crown and ruled the 
sacred city under a Babylonian name. But 
there had long been Chaldaean principalities in 
existence, very imperfectly incorporated in the 
Assyrian Empire, and these, inspiring revolts 
from time to time, had already succeeded in 
placing more than one dynast on the throne 
of Babylon. As soon as " Sardanapal " was 
no more and the Scythians began to overrun 
Assyria, one of these principalities (it is not 
known which) came to the front and secured 
the southern crown for its prince Nabu-aplu- 
utsur, or, as the Greeks wrote the name, 
Nabopolassar. This Chaldaean hastened to 
strengthen himself by marrying his son, 
Nebuchadnezzar, to a Median princess, and 
threw off the last pretence of submission to 
Assyrian suzerainty. He had made himself 
master of southern Mesopotamia and the 
Euphrates Valley trade-route by the year 609. 
At the opening of the last decade of the cen- 
tury, therefore, we have this state of things. 
Scythians and Medes are holding most of 
eastern and central Assyria ; Chaldaeans hold 
south Mesopotamia ; while Syria, isolated from 


the old centre of empire, is anyone's to take 
and keep. A claimant appears immediately 
in the person of the Egyptian Necho, sprung 
from the loins of that Psammetichus who 
had won the Nile country back from Assyria. 
Pharaoh entered Syria probably in 609, broke 
easily through the barrier which Josiah of 
Jerusalem, greatly daring in this day of 
Assyrian weakness, threw across his path at 
Megiddo, went on to the north and proceeded 
to deal as he willed with the west of the 
Assjo'ian empire for four or five years. The 
destiny of Nineveh was all but fulfilled. With 
almost everything lost outside her walls, she 
held out against the Scythian assaults till 
606, and then fell to the Mede Uvakhshatra, 
known to the Greeks as Kyaxares. The fallen 
capital of West Asia was devastated by the 
conquerors to such effect that it never re- 
covered, and its life passed away for ever 
across the Tigris, to the site on which Mosul 
stands at the present day. 

§ 5. The Babylonians and the Medes 

Six years later, — in 600 B.C. — ^this was 
the position of that part of the East which 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 121 

had been the Assyrian Empire. Nebu- 
chadnezzar, the Chaldaean king of Babylon, 
who had succeeded his father about 605, 
held the greater share of it to obedience and 
tribute, but not, apparently, by means of any 
such centralized bureaucratic organization as 
the Assyrians had established. Just before 
his father's death he had beaten the Egyptians 
in a pitched battle under the walls of Car- 
chemish, and subsequently had pursued them 
south through Syria, and perhaps across the 
frontier, before being recalled to take up his 
succession. He had now, therefore, no rival 
or active competitor in Syria, and this part 
of the lost empire of Assyria seems to have 
enjoyed a rare interval of peace under 
native client princes who ruled more or less 
on Assyrian lines. The only fenced places 
which made any show of defiance were Tyre 
and Jerusalem, which both relied on Egypt. 
The first would outlast an intermittent siege 
of thirteen years; but the other, with far 
less resources, was soon to pay full price for 
having leaned too long on the " staff of a 
broken reed." 

About the east and north a different story 
would certainly have to be told, if we could tell 


it in full. But though Greek traditions conu 
to our aid, they have much less to sa} 
about these remote regions than the inscribed 
annals of that empire, which had just comr 
to its end, have had hitherto : and unfortu 
nately the Median inheritors of Assyria have 
left no epigraphic records of their own — at 
least none have been found. If, as seems 
probable, the main element of Kyaxares' war 
strength was Scythian, we can hardly expect 
to find records either of his conquest or the 
subsequent career of the Medes, even though 
Ecbatana should be laid bare below the site 
of modern Hamadan ; for the predatory Scyth, 
like the mediaeval Mongol, halted too short 
a time to desire to carve stones, and probably 
lacked skill to inscribe them. To complete 
our discomfiture, the only other possible 
source of light, the Babylonian annals, sheds 
none henceforward on the north country and 
very little on any country. Nebuchadnezzar 
— ^so far as his records have been found and 
read — did not adopt the Assyrian custom of 
enumerating first and foremost his expeditions 
and his battles; and were it not for the 
Hebrew Scriptures, we should hardly know 
that his armies ever left Babylonia, the 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 123 

rebuilding and redecoration of whose cities 
and shrines appear to have constituted his 
chief concern. True, that in such silence 
about warlike operations, he follows the 
precedent of previous Babylonian kings; 
but probably that precedent arose from the 
fact that for a long time past Babylon had 
been more or less continuously a client 

We must, therefore, proceed by inference. 
There are two or three recorded events earlier 
and later than our date, which are of ser- 
vice. First, we learn from Babylonian annals 
that Kyaxares, besides overrunning all Assyria 
and the northern part of Babylonia after the 
fall of Nineveh, took and pillaged Harran 
and its temple in north-west Mesopotamia. 
Now, from other records of Nabonidus, fourth 
in succession to Nebuchadnezzar, we shall 
learn further that this temple did not come 
into Babylonian hands till the middle of the 
following century. The reasonable inference 
is that it had remained since 606 B.C. in 
the power of the Medes, and that northern 
Mesopotamia, as well as' Assyria, formed part 
of a loose-knit Median " Empire " for a full 
half century before 552 B.C. 


Secondly, Herodotus bears witness to a 
certain event which occurred about the year 
585, in a region near enough to his own 
country for the fact to be sufficiently well 
known to him. He states that, after an 
expedition into Cappadocia and a war with 
Lydia, the Medes obtained, under a treaty 
with the latter which the king of Babylon 
and the prince of Cilicia promoted, the Halys 
river as a " scientific frontier " on the north- 
west. This statement leaves us in no doubt 
that previously the power of Ecbatana had 
been spread through Armenia into the old 
Hatti country of Cappadocia, as well as over 
all the north of Mesopotamia, in the widest 
sense of this vague term. 

Something more, perhaps, may be inferred 
legitimately from this same passage of Hero- 
dotus. The mediation of the two kings, so 
unexpectedly coupled, must surely mean that 
each stood to one of the two belligerents as 
friend and ally. If so (since a Babylonian 
king can hardly have held such a relation to 
distant Lydia, while the other prince might 
well have been its friend), Cilicia was probably 
outside the Median " sphere of influence," 
while Babylon fell within it; and Nebuchad- 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 125 

nezzar — for he it must have been, when the 
date is considered, though Herodotus calls 
him by a name, Labynetus, otherwise un- 
known — was. not a wholly independent ruler, 
though ruler doubtless of the first and greatest 
of the client states of Media. Perhaps that 
is why he has told us so little of expeditions 
and battles, and confined his records so 
narrowly to domestic events. If his armies 
marched only to do the bidding of an alien 
kinsman-in-law, he can have felt but a tepid 
pride in their achievements. 

In 600 B.C., then, we must picture a Median 
" Empire," probably of the raiding type, 
centred in the west of modern Persia and 
stretching westward over all Armenia (where 
the Vannic kingdom had ceased to be), and 
southward to an ill -defined point in Meso- 
potamia. Beyond this point south and west 
extended a Median sphere of influence which 
included Babylonia and all that obeyed 
Nebuchadnezzar even to the border of Elam 
on the one hand and the border of Egypt on 
the other. Since the heart of this " Empire " 
lay in the north, its main activities took place 
there too, and probably the discretion of the 
Babylonian king was seldom interfered with 


by his Median suzerain. In expanding their 
power westward to Asia Minor, the Medes 
followed routes north of Taurus, not the 
old AssjTian war -road through Cilicia. Of so 
much we can be fairly sure. Much else that 
we are told of Media by Herodotus — his 
marvellous account of Ecbatana and scarcely 
less wonderful account of the reigning house 
— ^must be passed by till some confirmation of 
it comes to light; and that, perhaps, will 
never be. 

§ 6. Asia Minor 

A good part of the East, however, remains 
which owed allegiance neither to Media nor 
to Babylon. It is, indeed, a considerably larger 
area than was independent of the Farther 
East at the date of our last survey. Asia 
Minor was in all likelihood independent from 
end to end, from the ^gean to the Euphrates 
— for in 600 B.C. Kyaxares had probably not 
yet come through Urartu — and from the 
Black Sea to the Gulf of Issus. About 
much of this area we have far more trust- 
worthy information now than when we looked 
at it last, because it had happened to fall 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 127 

under the eyes of the Greeks of the western 
coastal cities, and to form relations with them 
of trade and war. But about the residue, 
which lay too far eastward to concern the 
Greeks much, we have less information than 
we had in 800 B.C., owing to the failure of the 
Assyrian imperial annals. 

The dominant fact in Asia Minor in 600 B.C. 
is the existence of a new imperial power, that 
of Lydia. Domiciled in the central west of 
the peninsula, its writ ran eastwards over 
the plateau about as far as the former limits 
of the Phrygian power, on whose ruins it had 
arisen. As has been stated already, there is 
reason to believe that its " sphere of in- 
fluence," at any rate, included Cilicia, and 
the battle to be fought on the Halys, fifteen 
years after our present survey, will argue 
that some control of Cappadocia also had 
been attempted. Before we speak of the 
Lydian kingdom, however, and of its rise 
to its present position, it will be best to 
dispose of that outlying state on the south- 
east, probably an ally or even client of 
Lydia, which, we are told, was at this time 
one of the " four powers of Asia." These 
powers included Babylon also, and accord- 


ingly, if our surmise that the Mede was then 
the overlord of Nebuchadnezzar be correct, 
this statement of Eusebius, for what it is 
worth, does not imply that Cilicia had at- 
tained an imperial position. Doubtless of 
the four "powers," she ranked lowest. 

§ 7. Cilicia 

It will be remembered how much attention 
a great raiding Emperor of the Middle 
Assyrian period, Shalmaneser II, had devoted 
to this little country. The conquering kings 
of later dynasties had devoted hardly less. 
From Sargon to Ashurbanipal they or their 
armies had been there often, and their 
governors continuously. Sennacherib is said 
to have rebuilt Tarsus " in the likeness of 
Babylon," and Ashurbanipal, who had to con- 
cern himself with the affairs of Asia Minor more 
than any of his predecessors, was so intimately 
connected with Tarsus that a popular tradition 
of later days placed there the scene of his death 
and the erection of his great tomb. And, in 
fact, he may have died there for all that we 
know to the contrary ; for no Assyrian record 
tells us that he did not. Unlike the rest of 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 129 

Asia Minor, Cilicia was saved by the Assyrians 
from the ravages of the Cimmerians. Their 
leader, Dugdamme, whom the Greeks called 
Lygdamis, is said to have met his death 
on the frontier hills of Taurus, which, 
no doubt, he failed to pass. Thus, when 
Ashurbanipal's death and the shrinking of 
Ninevite power permitted distant vassals to 
resume independence, the unimpaired wealth 
of Cilicia soon gained for her considerable 
importance. The kings of Tarsus now ex- 
tended their power into adjoining lands, such 
as Kue on the east and Tabal on the north, 
and probably over even the holding of the 
Kummukh; for Herodotus, writing a century 
and a half after our date, makes the Euphrates 
a boundary of Cilicia. He evidently under- 
stood that the northernmost part of Syria, 
called by later geographers (but never by 
him) Commagene, was then and had long 
been Cilician territory. His geographical 
ideas, in fact, went back to the greater Cilicia 
of pre -Persian time, which had been one of 
the " four great powers of Asia." 

The most interesting feature of Cilician 
history, as it is revealed very rarely and very 
dimly in the annals of the New Assyrian 


Kingdom, consists in its relation to the earliest 
eastward veaturing of the Greeks. The first 
Assyrian king with whom these western men 
seem to have collided was Sargon, who late 
in the eighth century, finding their ships in 
what he considered his own waters, i, e. on 
the coasts of Cyprus and Cilicia, boasts that 
he " caught them like fish." Since this 
actioai of his, he adds, " gave rest to Kue and 
Tyre," we may reasonably infer that the 
" Ionian pirates " did not then appear on 
the shores of Phoenicia and Cilicia for the 
first time; but, on the contrary, that they 
were already a notorious danger in the eastern- 
most Levant. In the year 720 we find a 
nameless Greek of Cyprus (or Ionia) actually 
ruling Ashdod. Sargon's successor, Senna- 
cherib, had serious trouble with the lonians 
only a few years later, as has been learned 
from the comparison of a royal record of his, 
only recently recovered and read, with some 
statements made probably in the first place 
by the Babylonian historian, Berossus, but 
preserved to us in a chronicle of much later 
date, not hitherto much heeded. Piecing 
these scraps of information together, the 
Assyrian scholar, King, has inferred that, in 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 131 

the important campaign which a revolt of 
Tarsus, aided by the peoples of the Taurus 
on the west and north, compelled the generals 
of Sennacherib to wage in Cilicia in the year 
698, lonians took a prominent part by land, 
and probably also by sea. Sennacherib is said 
(by a late Greek historian) to have erected 
an " Athenian " temple in Tarsus after the 
victory, which was hardly won; and if this 
means, as it may well do, an " Ionic " temple, 
it states a by no means incredible fact, see- 
ing that there had been much local contact 
between the Cilicians and the men of the 
west. Striking similarities of form and artistic 
execution between the early glyptic and toreu- 
tic work of Ionia and Cilicia respectively have 
been mentioned in the last chapter; and it 
need only be added here, in conclusion, that if 
Cilicia had relations with Ionia as early as 
the opening of the seventh century — relations 
sufficient to lead to alliance in war and to 
modification of native arts — it is natural 
enough that she should be found allied a 
few years later with Lydia rather than with 


§ 8. Phrygia 

When we last surveyed Asia Minor as a 
whole it was in large part under the dominance 
of a central power in Phrygia. This power 
is now no more, and its place has been taken 
by another, which rests on a point nearer 
to the western coast. It is worth notice, in 
passing, how Anatolian dominion has moved 
stage by stage from east to west — from 
the Halys basin in northern Cappadocia, 
where its holders had been, broadly speak- 
ing, in the same cultural group as the 
Mesopotamian East, to the middle basin of 
the Sangarius, where western influences greatly 
modified the native culture (if we may judge 
by remains of art and script). Now at last it 
has come to the Hermus valley, up which 
blows the breath of the ^gean Sea. What- 
ever the East might recover in the future, 
the Anatolian peninsula was leaning more and 
more on the West, and the dominion of it 
was coming to depend on contact with the 
vital influence of Hellenism, rather than on 
connection with the heart of west Asia. 
A king Mita of the Mushki first appears in 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 133 

the annals of the New Assyrian Kingdom as 
opposing Sargon, when the latter, early in his 
reign, tried to push his sphere of influence, 
if not his territorial empire, beyond the 
Taurus to include the principalities of Kue 
and Tabal ; and the same Mita appears to 
have been allied with Carchemish in the 
revolt which ended with its siege and fuial 
capture in 717 B.C. As has been said in the 
last chapter, it is usual to identify this king 
with one of those " Phrygians " known to 
the Greeks as Midas — preferably with the 
son of the first Gordius, whose wealth and 
power have been immortalized in mythology. 
If this identification is correct, we have to 
picture Phrygia at the close of the eighth 
century as dominating almost all Asia Minor, 
whether by direct or by indirect rule; as 
prepared to measure her forces (though 
without ultimate success) against the strong- 
est power in Asia ; and as claiming interests 
even outside the peninsula. Pisiris, king 
of Carchemish, appealed to Mita as his 
ally, either because the Mushki of Asia Minor 
sat in the seat of his own forbears, the 
Hatti of Cappadocia, or because he was 
himself of Mushki kin. There can be no 


doubt that the king thus invoked was king 
of Cappadocia. Whether he was king also of 
Phrygia, i. e. really the same as Midas son 
of Gordius, is, as has been said already, less 
certain. Mita's relations with Kue, Tabal 
and Carchemish do not, in themselves, argue 
that his seat of power was anywhere else 
than in the east of Asia Minor, where Moschi 
did actually survive till much later times : 
but, on the other hand, the occurrence of 
inscriptions in the distinctive script of 
Phrygia at Eyuk, east of the Halys, and at 
Tyana, south-east of the central Anatolian 
desert, argue that at some time the filaments 
of Phrygian power did stretch into Cappa- 
docia and towards the land of the later 

It must also be admitted that the splendour 
of the surviving rock monuments near the 
Phrygian capital is consistent with its having 
been the centre of a very considerable empire, 
and hardly consistent with its having been 
anything less. The greatest of these, the tomb 
of a king Midas (son not of Gordius but of 
Atys), has for fa9ade a cliff about a hundred 
feet high, cut back to a smooth face on which 
an elaborate geometric pattern has been left 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 135 

in relief. At the foot is a false door, while 
above the immense stone curtain the rock 
has been carved into a triangular pediment 
worthy of a Greek temple and engraved with 
a long inscription in a variety of the earliest 
Greek alphabet. There are many other rock- 
tombs of smaller size but similar plan and 
decoration in the district round the central 
site, and others which show reliefs of human 
figures and of lions, the latter of immense 
proportions on two famous fa9ades. When 
these were carved, the Assyrian art of the 
New Kingdom was evidently known in 
Phrygia (probably in the early seventh 
century), and it is difficult to believe that 
those who made such great things under 
Assyrian influence can have passed wholly 
unmentioned by contemporary Assyrian 
records. Therefore, after all, we shall, perhaps, 
have to admit that they were those same 
Mushki who followed leaders of the name Mita 
to do battle with the Great Kings of Nineveh 
from Sargon to Ashurbanipal. 

There is no doubt how the Phrygian king- 
dom came by its end. Assyrian records 
attest that the Gimirrai or Cimmerians, an 
Indo-European Scythian folk, which has 


left its name to Crim Tartary, and the present 
Crimea, swept southward and westward about 
the middle of the seventh century, and Greek 
records tell how they took and sacked the 
capital of Phrygia and put to death or forced 
to suicide the last King Midas. 

§ 9. Lydia 

It must have been in the hour of that 
disaster, or but little before, that a Mermnad 
prince of Sardes, called Guggu by Assyrians 
and Gyges by Greeks, threw off any allegiance 
he may have owed to Phrygia and began to 
exalt his house and land of Lydia. He was the 
founder of a new dynasty, having been by 
origin, apparently, a noble of the court who 
came to be elevated to the throne by events 
differently related but involving in all the 
accounts some intrigue with his predecessor's 
queen. One historian, who says that he pre- 
vailed by the aid of Carians, probably states a 
fact; for it was this same Gyges who a few 
years later seems to have introduced Carian 
mercenaries to the notice of Psammetichus of 
Egypt. Having met and repulsed the Cimmer- 
ian horde without the aid of Ashurbanipal of 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 137 

Assyria, to whom he had applied in vain, 
Gyges allied himself with the Egyptian rebel 
who had just founded the Saite dynasty, and 
proceeded to enlarge his boundaries by at- 
tacking the prosperous Greeks on his western 
hand. But he was successful only against 
Colophon and Magnesia on the Maeander, 
inland places, and failed before Smyrna and 
Miletus, which could be provisioned by their 
fleets and probably had at their call a larger 
proportion of those warlike " Ionian pirates " 
who had long been harrying the Levant. In 
the course of a long reign, which Herodotus 
(an inexact chronologist) puts at thirty-eight 
years, Gyges had time to establish his power 
and to secure for his Lydians the control of the 
overland trade ; and though a fresh Cimmerian 
horde, driven on, says Herodotus, by Scythians 
(perhaps these were not unconnected with 
the Medes then moving westward, as we 
know), came down from the north, defeated 
and killed him, sacked the unfortified part 
of his capital and swept on to plunder what 
it could of the land as far as the sea without 
pausing to take fenced places, his son Ardys, 
who had held out in the citadel of Sardes, and 
made his submission to Ashurbanipal, was 


soon able to resume the offensive against the 
Greeks. After an Assyrian attack on the 
Cimmerian flank or rear had brought about 
the death of the chief barbarian leader in the 
Cilician hills, and the dispersal of the storm, 
the Lydian marched down the Maeander again. 
He captured Priene, but like his predecessor 
and his successor, he failed to snatch the 
most coveted prize of the Greek coast, the 
wealthy city Miletus at the Maeander mouth. 
Up to the date of our present survey, how- 
ever, and for half a century yet to come, these 
conquests of the Lydian kings in Ionia and 
Caria amounted to little more than forays 
for plunder and the levy of blackmail, like 
the earlier Mesopotamian razzias. They might 
result in the taking and sacking of a town 
here and there, but not in the holding of it. 
The Carian Greek Herodotus, born not much 
more than a century later, tells us expressly 
that up to the time of Croesus, that is, to 
his own father's time, all the Greeks kept 
their freedom : and even if he means by this 
statement, as possibly he does, that pre- 
viously no Greeks had been subjected to 
regular slavery, it still supports our point : 
for, if we may judge by Assyrian practice, 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 139 

the enslaving of vanquished peoples began 
only when their land was incorporated in a 
territorial empire. We hear nothing of Lydian 
governors in the Greek coastal cities and find 
no trace of a " Lydian period " in the strata 
of such Ionian and Carian sites as have been 
excavated. So it would appear that the 
Lydians and the Greeks lived up to and after 
600 B.C. in unquiet contact, each people 
holding its own on the whole and learning 
about the other in the only international 
school known to primitive men, the school 
of war. 

Herodotus represents that the Greek cities 
of Asia, according to the popular belief of 
his time, were deeply indebted to Lydia for 
their civilization. The larger part of this debt 
(if real) was incurred probably after 600 B.C. ; 
but some constituent items of the account 
must have been of older date — the coining 
of money, for example. There is, however, 
much to be set on the other side of the ledger, 
more than Herodotus knew, and more than 
we can yet estimate. Too few monuments 
of the arts of the earlier Lydians and too few 
objects of their daily use have been found in 
their ill- explored land for us to say whether 


they owed most to the West or to the East. 
From the American excavation of Sardes, 
however, we have already learned for certain 
that their script was of a Western type, nearer 
akin to the Ionian than even the Phrygian 
was; and since their language contained a 
great number of Indo-European words, the 
Lydians should not, on the whole, be reckoned 
an Eastern people. Though the names given 
by Herodotus to their earliest kings are 
Mesopotamian and may be reminiscent of 
some political connection with the Far East 
at a remote epoch — perhaps that of the 
foreign relations of Ur, which seem to have 
extended to Cappadocia — all the later royal 
and other Lydian names recorded are dis- 
tinctly Anatolian. At any rate all connection 
with Mesopotamia must have long been for- 
gotten before Ashurbanipal's scribes could 
mention the prayer of " Guggu King of 
Luddi " as coming from a people and a land 
of which their master and his forbears had 
not so much as heard. As the excavation of 
Sardes and of other sites in Lj^dia proceeds, 
we shall perhaps find that the higher civiliza- 
tion of the country was a comparatively late 
growth, dating mainly from the rise of the 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 141 

Mermnads, and that its products will show 
an influence of the Hellenic cities which 
began not much earlier than 600 b.c, and 
was most potent in the century succeeding 
that date. 

We know nothing of the extent of Lydian 
power towards the east, unless the suggestions 
already based on the passage of Herodotus 
concerning the meeting of Alyattes of Lydia 
with Kyaxares the Mede on the Halys, some 
years later than the date of our present 
survey, are well founded. If they are, then 
Lydia's sphere of influence may be assumed 
to have included Cilicia on the south-east, 
and its interests must have been involved 
in Cappadocia on the north-east. It is not 
unlikely that the Mermnad dynasty inherited 
most of what the Phrygian kings had held 
before the Cimmerian attack; and perhaps 
it was due to an oppressive Lydian occu- 
pation of the plateau as far east as the 
Halys and the foot of Anti-Taurus, that 
the Mushki came to be represented in later 
times only by Moschi in western Armenia, 
and the men of Tabal by the equally remote 
and insignificant Tibareni. 


§ 10. The Greek Cities 

Of the Greek cities on the Anatolian coast 
something has been said already. The great 
period of the elder ones as free and independent 
communities falls between the opening of 
the eighth century and the close of the 
sixth. Thus they were in their full bloom 
about the year 600. By the foundation of 
secondary colonies (Miletus alone is said to 
have founded sixty !) and the establishment 
of trading posts, they had pushed Hellenic 
culture eastwards round the shores of the 
peninsula, to Pontus on the north and to 
Cilicia on the south. In the eyes of Herodotus 
this was the happy age when " all Hellenes 
were free " as compared with his own ex- 
perience of Persian overlordship. Miletus, 
he tells us, was then the greatest of the 
cities, mistress of the sea; and certainly 
some of the most famous among her citizens, 
Anaximander, Anaximenes, Hecataeus and 
Thales, belong approximately to this epoch, 
as do equally famous names from other 
Asiatic Greek communities, such as Alcaeus 
and Sappho of Lesbos, Mimnermus of Smyrna 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 143 

or Colophon, Anacreon of Teos, and many 
more. The fact is significant, because studies 
and Hterary activities hke theirs could hardly 
have been pursued except in highly civilized, 
free and leisured societies where life and 
wealth were secure. 

If, however, the brilliant culture of the 
Asiatic Greeks about the opening of the 
sixth century admits no shadow of doubt, 
singularly few material things, which their 
arts produced, have been recovered for us 
to see to-day. Miletus has been excavated 
by Germans to a very considerable extent, 
without yielding anything really worthy of 
its great period, or, indeed, much that can 
be referred to that period at all, except 
sherds of a fine painted ware. It looks as if 
the city at the mouth of the greatest and 
largest valley, which penetrates Asia Minor 
from the west coast, was too important in 
subsequent ages and suffered chastisements 
too drastic and reconstructions too thorough 
for remains of its earlier greatness to survive 
except in holes and corners. Ephesus has 
given us more archaic treasures, from the 
deposits bedded down under the later re- 
constructions of its great shrine of Artemis; 


but here again the site of the city itself, though 
long explored by Austrians, has not added to 
the store. The ruins of the great Roman 
buildings which overlie its earlier strata have 
proved, perhaps, too serious an impediment to 
the excavators and too seductive a prize. 
Branchidae, with its temple of Apollo and 
Sacred Way, has preserved for us a little 
archaic statuary, as have also Samos and Chios. 
We have archaic gold work and painted vases 
from Rhodes, painted sarcophagi from Clazo- 
menae, and painted pottery made there and at 
other places in Asia Minor, although found 
mostly abroad. But all this amounts to a 
very poor representation of the Asiatic Greek 
civilization of 600 B.C. Fortunately the soil 
still holds far more than has been got out of 
it. With those two exceptions, Miletus and 
Ephesus, the sites of the elder Hellenic cities 
on or near the Anatolian coast still await 
excavators who will go to the bottom of all 
things and dig systematically over a large 
area; while some sites await any excavation 
whatsoever, except such as is practised by 
plundering peasants. 

In their free youth the Asiatic Greeks 
carried into fullest practice the Hellenic con- 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 145 

ception of the city-state, self-governing, self- 
contained, exclusive. Their several societies 
had in consequence the intensely vivid and 
interested communal existence which de- 
velops civilization as a hot-house develops 
plants; but they were not democratic, and 
they had little sense of nationality — defects 
for which they were to pay dearly in the 
near future. In spite of their associations 
for the celebration of common festivals, such 
as the League of the twelve Ionian cities, 
and that of the Dorian Hexapolis in the 
south-west, which led to discussion of common 
political interests, a separatist instinct, re- 
inforced by the strong geographical boundaries 
which divided most of the civic territories, 
continually reasserted itself. The same instinct 
was ruling the history of European Greece 
as well. But while the disaster, which in the 
end it would entail, was long avoided there 
through the insular situation of the main 
Greek area as a whole and the absence of any 
strong alien power on its continental frontier, 
disaster impended over Asiatic Greece from 
the moment that an imperial state should 
become domiciled on the western fringe of 
the inland plateau. Such a state had now 


appeared and established itself; and if the 
Greeks of Asia had had eyes to read, the 
writing was on their walls in 600 B.C. 

Meanwhile Asiatic traders thronged into 
eastern Hellas, and the Hellenes and their 
influence penetrated far up into Asia. The 
hands which carved some of the ivories found 
in the earliest Artemisium at Ephesus worked 
on artistic traditions derived ultimately from 
the Tigris. So, too, worked the smiths who 
made the Rhodian jewellery, and so, the 
artists who painted the Milesian ware and 
the Clazomenae sarcophagi. On the other side 
of the ledger (though three parts of its page 
is still hidden from us) we must put to Greek 
credit the script of Lydia, the rock pediments 
of Phrygia, and the forms and decorative 
schemes of many vessels and small articles 
in clay and bronze found in the Gordian 
tumuli and at other points on the western 
plateau from Mysia to Pamphylia. The men 
of " Javan," who had held the Syrian sea for 
a century past, were known to Ezekiel as great 
workers in metal; and in Cyprus they had 
long met and mingled their culture with that 
of men from the East. 

THE EAST IN 600 B.C. 147 

It was implied in the opening of this chapter 
that in 600 B.C. social changes in the East would 
be found disproportionate to political changes ; 
and on the whole they seem so to have been. 
The Assyrian Empire was too lately fallen 
for any great modification of life to have 
taken place in its area, and, in fact, the larger 
part of that area was being administered 
still by a Chaldsean monarchy on the estab- 
lished lines of Semitic imperialism. Whether 
the centre of such a government lay at Nineveli 
or at Babylon can have affected the subject 
populations very little. No new religious 
force had come into the ancient East, unless 
the Mede is to be reckoned one in virtue 
of his Zoroastrianism. Probably he did not 
affect religion much in his early phase of 
raiding and conquest. The great experience, 
which was to convert the Jews from insig- 
nificant and barbarous highlanders into a 
cultured, commercial and cosmopolitan people 
of tremendous possibilities had indeed begun, 
but only for a part of the race, and so far 
without obvious result. The first incursion of 
Iranians in force, and that slow soakage of 
Indo-European tribes from Russia, which was 


to develop the Armenian people of history, are 
the most momentous signs of coming change 
to be noted between 800 and 600 B.C. with 
one exception, the full import of which will 
be plain at our next survey. This was the 
eastward movement of the Greeks. 



As the fifth century draws to its close the 
East lies revealed at last in the light of his- 
tory written by Greeks. Among the peoples 
whose literary works are known to us, these 
were the first who showed curiosity about the 
world in which they lived and sufficient con- 
sciousness of the curiosity of others to record 
the results of inquiry. Before our present 
date the Greeks had inquired a good deal 
about the East, and not of Orientals alone. 
Their own public men, military and civil, 
their men of science, their men of letters, 
their merchants in unknown number, even 
soldiers of theirs in thousands, had gone 
up into Inner Asia and returned. Leading 
Athenians, Solon, Hippias and Themistocles, 
had been received at Eastern courts or had ac- 
companied Eastern sovereigns to war, and one 

more famous even than these, Alcibiades, had 


lately lived with a Persian satrap. Greek 
physicians, Democedes of Croton, Apollonides 
of Cos, Ctesias of Cnidus, had ministered to 
kings and queens of Persia in their palaces 
Herodotus of Halicarnassus had seen Babylon, 
perhaps, and certainly good part of Syria; 
Ctesias had dwelt at Susa and collected notes 
for a history of the Persian Empire ; Xenophon 
of Attica had tramped from the Mediterranean 
to the Tigris and from the Tigris to the Black 
Sea, and with him had marched more than 
ten thousand Greeks. Not only have works 
by these three men of letters survived, 
wholly or in part, to our time, but also many 
notes on the East as it was before 400 b.c. 
have been preserved in excerpts, paraphrases 
and epitomes by later authors. And we still 
have some archaeological documents to fall 
back upon. If the cuneiform records of the 
Persian Empire are less abundant than those of 
the later Assyrian Kingdom, they nevertheless 
include such priceless historical inscriptions as 
that graven by Darius, son of Hystaspes, on 
the rock of Behistun. There are also hiero- 
glyphic, hieratic and demotic texts of Persian 
Egypt; inscriptions of Semitic Syria and a 
few of archaic Greece; and much other mis- 

THE EAST IN 400 B.C. 151 

cellaneous archaeological material from various 
parts of the East, which, even if uninscribed, 
can inform us of local society and life. 

§ 1. Eastward Movement of the 

The Greek had been pushing eastward for 
a long time. More than three hundred years 
ago, as has been shown in the last chapter, 
he had become a terror in the farthest Levant. 
Before another century had passed he found 
his way into Egypt also. Originally hired as 
mercenaries to support a native revolt against 
Assyria, the Greeks remained in the Nile 
valley not only to fight but to trade. The 
first introduction of them to the Saite Pharaoh, 
Psammetichus, was promoted by Gyges the 
Lydian to further his own ends, but the first 
development of their social influence in Egypt 
was due to the enterprise of Miletus in estab- 
lishing a factory on the lowest course of the 
Canopic Nile. This post and two standing 
camps of Greek mercenaries, one at Tahpanhes 
watching the approach from Asia, the other 
at Memphis overawing the capital and keeping 
the road to Upper Egypt, served to introduce 


Ionian civilization to the Delta in the seventh 
century. Indeed, to this day our knowledge of 
the earliest fine painted pottery of Ionia and 
Caria depends largely on the fragments of their 
vases imported into Egypt which have been 
found at Tahpanhes, Memphis and another 
Greek colony, Naukratis, founded a little later 
(as will be told presently) to supersede 
the original Milesian factory. Though those 
foreign vases themselves, with their decoration 
of nude figure subjects which revolted vulgar 
Egyptian sentiment, did not go much beyond 
the Greek settlements (like the Greek courte- 
sans of Naukratis, who perhaps appealed only 
to the more cosmopolitan Saites), their art 
certainly influenced all the finer art of the 
Saitic age, initiating a renascence whose 
characteristics of excessive refinement and 
meticulous delicacy survived to be reinforced 
in the Ptolemaic period by a new infusion of 
Hellenic culture. 

So useful or so dangerous — at any rate so 
numerous — did the Greeks become in Lower 
Egypt by the opening of the sixth century 
that a reservation was assigned to them beside 
the Egyptian town of Piemro, and to this alone, 
according to Herodotus, newcomers from the 

THE EAST IN 400 B.C. 153 

sea were allowed to make their way. This 
foreign suburb of Piemro was named Nau- 
kratis, and nine cities of the Asiatic Greeks 
founded a common sanctuary there. Other 
maritime communities of the same race 
(probably the more powerful, since Miletus is 
named among them) had their particular 
sanctuaries also and their proper places. The 
Greeks had come to Egypt to stay. We 
have learned from the remains of Naukratis 
that throughout the Persian domination, 
which superseded the Saitic before the close 
of the sixth century, a constant importa- 
tion of products of Ionia, Attica, Sparta, 
Cyprus and other Hellenic centres was main- 
tained. The place was in full life when 
Herodotus visited Egypt, and it continued 
to prosper until the Greek race, becoming 
rulers of all the land, enthroned Hellenism at 
Alexandria on the sea itself. 

§ 2. Phcenician Carriers 

Nor was it only through Greek sea-rovers 
and settlers in Cilicia, and through Greek 
mercenaries, merchants and courtesans in the 
Nile-Delta, that the East and the West had 


been making mutual acquaintance. Other 
agencies of communication had been active in 
bringing Mesopotamian models to the artists 
of the Ionian and Dorian cities in Asia Minor, 
and Ionian models to Mesopotamia and Syria. 
The results are plain to see, on the one hand 
in the fabric and design of early ivories, 
jewellery and other objects found in the 
archaic Artemisium at Ephesus, and in the 
decoration of painted pottery produced at 
Miletus; on the other hand, in the carved 
ivories of the ninth century found at Calah on 
the Tigris. But the processes which produced 
these results are not so clear. If the agents 
or carriers of those mutual influences were 
certainly the Phoenicians and the Lydians, we 
cannot yet apportion with confidence to each 
of these peoples the responsibility for the 
results, or be sure that they were the only 
agents, or independent of other middlemen 
more directly in contact with one party or 
the other. 

The Phoenicians have pushed far afield since 
we looked at them last. By founding Carthage 
more than half-way towards the Pillars of 
Hercules the city of Tyre completed her 
occupation of sufficient African harbours, 

THE EAST IN 400 B.C. 155 

l^eyond the reach of Egypt, and out of the 
Greek sphere, to appropriate to herself by 
the end of the ninth century the trade of the 
western Mediterranean basin. By means of 
secondary settlements in west Sicily, Sardinia 
and Spain, she proceeded to convert this 
sea for a while into something like a Phoeni- 
cian lake. No serious rival had forestalled 
her there or was to arise to dispute her 
monopoly till she herself, long after our date, 
would provoke Rome. The Greek colonies in 
Sicily and Italy, which looked westward, failed 
to make head against her at the first, and 
soon dropped out of the running; nor did the 
one or two isolated centres of Hellenism on 
other shores do better. On the other hand, in 
the eastern basin of the Mediterranean, al- 
though it was her own home-sea. Tyre never 
succeeded in establishing commercial supre- 
macy, and indeed, so far as we know, she never 
seriously tried to establish it. It was the sphere 
of the ^gean mariners and had been so as far 
back as Phoenician memory ran. The Late 
Minoan Cretans and men of Argolis,the Achaean 
rovers, the Ionian pirates, the Milesian armed 
merchantmen had successively turned away 
from it all but isolated and peaceful ships of 


Sidon and Tyre, and even so near a coast as 
Cyprus remained foreign to the Phoenicians for 
centuries after Tyre had grown to full estate. 
In the Homeric stories ships of the Sidonians, 
though not unknown, make rare appearances, 
and other early legends of the Greeks, which 
make mention of Phoenician visits to Hellenic 
coasts, imply that they were unusual pheno- 
mena, which aroused much local curiosity and 
were long remembered. The strangeness of 
the Phoenician mariners, the unfamiliar charm 
of their cargoes — such were the impressions 
left on Greek story by the early visits of 
Phoenician ships. 

That they did pay such visits, however, 
from time to time is certain. The little 
Egyptian trinkets, which occur frequently in 
Hellenic strata of the eighth to the sixth 
centuries, are sufficient witness of the fact. 
They are most numerous in Rhodes, in Caria 
and Ionia, and in the Peloponnese. But the 
main stream of Tyrian commerce hugged the 
south rather than the north coasts of the 
Eastern Mediterranean. Phoenician sailors 
were essentially southerners — men who, if they 
would brave now and again the cold winds 
of the iEgean and Adriatic, refused to do so 

THE EAST IN 400 B.C. 157 

oftener than was necessary — men to whom 
African shores and a climate softened by the 
breath of the Ocean were more congenial. 

If, however, the Phoenicians were un- 
doubtedly agents who introduced the Egyptian 
culture to the early Hellenes of both Asia and 
Europe, did they also introduce the Mesopo- 
tamian? Not to anything like the same 
extent, if we may judge by the products of 
excavations. Indeed, wherever Mesopota- 
mian influence has left unmistakable traces 
upon Greek soil, as in Cyprus and Ionia or at 
Corinth and Sparta, it is often either certain 
or probable that the carrying agency was not 
Phoenician. We find the nearest affinities to 
archaic Cypriote art (where this was indebted 
to Asiatic art at all) in Cilician and in Hittite 
Syrian art. Early Ionian and Carian strata 
contain very little that is of Egyptian 
character, but much whose inspiration can 
be traced ultimately to Mesopotamia; and 
research in inner Asia Minor, imperfect though 
its results are yet, has brought to light on 
the plateau so much parallelism to Ionian 
Orientalizing art, and so many examples 
of prior stages in its development, that we 
must assume Mesopotamian influence to have 


reached westernmost Asia chiefly by overland 
ways. As for the European sites, since their 
Orientalism appears to have been drawn from 
Ionia, it also had come through Asia overland. 

Therefore on the whole, though Herodotus 
asserts that the Phoenician mariners carried 
Assyrian cargoes, there is remarkably little 
evidence that those cargoes reached the West, 
and equally little that Phoenicians had any 
considerable direct trade with Mesopotamia. 
They may have been responsible for the small 
Egyptian and Egyptianizing objects which 
have been found by the excavators of Car- 
chemish and Sakjegeuzi in strata of the ninth 
and eighth centuries; but the carrying of 
similar objects eastward across the Euphrates 
was more probably in Hittite hands than 
theirs. The strongest Nilotic influence which 
affected Mesopotamian art is to be noticed 
during the latter half of the New Assyrian 
Kingdom, when there was no need for alien 
intermediaries to keep Nineveh in communi- 
cation with its own province of Egypt. 

Apparently, therefore, it was not through 
the Phoenicians that the Greeks had learned 
most of what they knew about the East in 400 
B.C. Other agents had played a greater part 

THE EAST IN 400 B.C. 159 

and almost all the intercommunication had 
been effected by way, not of the Levant Sea, 
but of the land bridge through Asia Minor. 
In the earlier part of our story, during the latter 
rule of Assyria in the farther East and the 
subsequent rule of the Medes and the Baby- 
lonians in her room, intercourse had been 
carried on almost entirely by intermediaries, 
among whom (if something must be allowed 
to the Cilicians) the Lydians were undoubtedly 
the most active. In the later part of the 
story it will be seen that the intermediaries 
have vanished; the barriers are down; the 
East has itself come to the West and inter- 
course is immediate and direct. How this 
happened — what agency brought Greeks and 
Orientals into an intimate contact which was 
to have the most momentous consequences 
to both — remains to be told. 

§ 3. The Coming of the Persians 

We have seen already how a power, whidi 
had grown behind the frontier mountains of tLe 
Tigris basin, forced its way at last through ti r 
defiles and issued in the riverine plains wiiu 
fatal results to the north Semitic kmgs. B) 


the opening of the sixth century Assyria had 
passed into Median hands, and these were 
reaching out through Armenia to central Asia 
Minor. Even the south Semites of Babylonia 
had had to acknowledge the superior power 
of the newcomers and, probably, to accept 
a kind of vassalage. Thus, since all lower 
Mesopotamia with most part of Syria obeyed 
the Babylonian, a power, partly Iranian, 
was already overshadowing two-thirds of the 
East before Cyrus and his Persians issued 
upon the scene. It is important to bear 
this fact in mind when one comes to note 
the ease with which a hitherto obscure 
king of Anshan in Elam would prove able to 
possess himself of the whole Semitic Empire, 
and the rapidity with which his arms would 
appear in the farthest west of Asia Minor on 
the confines of the Greeks themselves. Nebu- 
chadnezzar allied with and obedient to the 
Median king, helping him on the Halys in 
585 B.C. to arrange with Lydia a division of 
the peninsula of Asia Minor on the terms 
uti possidetis — ^that is the significant situation 
which will prepare us to find Cyrus not quite 
half a century later lord of Babylon, Jerusalem 
and Sardes. 

THE EAST IN 400 B.C. 161 

What events, passing in the far East among 
the divers groups of the Iranians themselves 
and their Scythian alHes, led to this king of a 
district in Elam, whose own claim to have 
belonged by blood to any of those groups 
is doubtful, consolidating all the Iranians 
whether of the south or north under his 
single rule into a mighty power of offence, we 
do not know. Stories current among the 
Greeks and reported by Herodotus and Ctesias 
represented Cyrus as in any case a Persian, but 
as either grandson of a Median king (though 
not his natural heir) or merely one of his 
court officials. What the Greeks had to 
account for (and so have we) is the subsequent 
disappearance of the north Iranian kings of 
the Medes and the fusion of their subjects 
with the Persian Iranians under a southern 
dynasty. And what the Greeks did not 
know, but we do, from cuneiform inscriptions 
either contemporary with, or very little subse- 
quent to, Cyrus' time, only complicates the 
problem ; since these bear witness that Cyrus 
was known at first (as has been indicated 
already) for a king of Elam, and not till later 
for a king of Persia. Ctesias, who lived at 
Susa itself while it was the Persian capital, 


agrees with Herodotus that Cyrus wrested 
the lordship of the Medes from the native 
dynasty by force; but Herodotus adds that 
many Medes were consenting parties. 

These problems cannot be discussed here. 
The probability is, summarily, this. Some part 
of the southern or Persian group of Iranians 
which, unlike the northern, was not con- 
taminated with Scyths, had advanced into 
Elam while the Medes were overrunning and 
weakening the Semitic Empire ; and in Anshan 
it consolidated itself into a territorial power 
with Susa for capital. Presently some disaffec- 
tion arose among the northern Iranians owing, 
perhaps, to favour shown by the Median kings 
to their warlike Scythian subjects, and the 
malcontents called in the king of Anshan. 
The issue was fought out in central West 
Persia, which had been dominated by the 
Medes since the time of Kyaxares' father, 
Phraortes, and when it was decided by the 
secession of good part of the army of King 
Astyages, Cyrus of Anshan took possession of 
the Median Empire with the goodwill of much 
of the Median population. This empire in- 
cluded then, beside the original Median land, 
not only territories conquered from Assyria but 

THE EAST IN 400 B.C. 163 

also all that part of Persia which lay east of 
Elam. Some time, doubtless, elapsed before 
the sovereignty of Cyrus was acknowledged by 
all Persia ; but, once his lordship over this land 
was an accomplished fact, he naturally became 
known as king primarily of the Persians, and 
only secondarily of the Medes, while his seat 
remained at Susa in his own original Elamite 
realm. The Scythian element in and about 
his Median province remained unreconciled, 
and one day he would meet his death in a 
campaign against it ; but the Iranian element 
remained faithful to him and his son, and only 
after the death of the latter gave expression 
by a general revolt to its discontent with the 
bargain it had made. 

§ 4. Fall of Lydia 

Cyrus must have met with little or no 
opposition in the western Median provinces, 
for we find him, within a year or two of his 
recognition by both Persians and Medes,*' not 
only on his extreme frontier, the Halys river, 
but able to raid across it and affront the power 
of Lydia. To this action he was provoked by 
Lydia itself. The fall of the Median dynasty, 


with which the royal house of Lydia had 
been in close alliance since the Halys pact, 
was a disaster which Croesus, now king of 
Sardes in the room of Alyattes, was rash 
enough to attempt to repair. He had con- 
tinued with success his father's policy of 
extending Lydian dominion to the ^gean 
at the expense of the Ionian Greeks; and, 
master of Ephesus, Colophon and Smyrna, 
as well as predominant partner in the Milesian 
sphere, he secured to Lydia the control and 
fruition of Anatolian trade, perhaps the 
most various and profitable in the world 
at that time. A byword for wealth and 
luxury, the Lydians and their king had 
nowadays become soft, slow-moving folk, as 
unfit to cope with the mountaineers of the wild 
border highlands of Persia as, if Herodotus' 
story is well founded, they were ignorant of 
their quality. Croesus took his time, sending 
envoys to consult oracles near and far. Hero- 
dotus tells us that he applied to Delphi not less 
than thrice and even to the oracle of Ammon 
in the Eastern Sahara. At least a year must 
have been spent in these inquiries alone, not 
to speak of an embassy to Sparta and 
perhaps others to Egypt and Babylon. These 

THE EAST IN 400 B.C. 165 

preliminaries at length completed, the Lydian 
gathered the levies of western Asia Minor and 
set out for the East. He found the Halys in 
flood— it must have been in late spring — and 
having made much ado of crossing it, spent the 
summer in ravaging with his cavalry the old 
homeland of the Hatti. Thus he gave Cyrus 
time to send envoys to the Ionian cities to beg 
them attack Lydia in the rear, and time to 
come down himself in force to his far western 
province. Croesus was brought to battle in 
the first days of the autumn. The engage- 
ment was indecisive, but the Lydians, having 
no mind to stay out the winter on the 
bleak Cappadocian highlands and little suspi- 
cion that the enemy would think of further 
warfare before spring, went back at their 
leisure to the Hermus valley, only to hear 
at Sardes itself that the Persian was hot 
in pursuit. A final battle was fought under 
the very walls of the Lydian capital and 
lost by Croesus; the lower town was taken 
and sacked ; and the king, who had shut him- 
self with his guards into the citadel and 
summoned his allies to his rescue come five 
months, was a prisoner of Cyrus within two 
weeks. It was the end of Lydia and of all 


buffers between the Orient and . Greece. 
East and West were in direct contact and the 
omens boded ill to the West. Cyrus refused 
terms to the Greeks, except the powerful 
Milesians, and departing for the East again, 
left Lydia to be pacified and all the cities of 
the western coasts, Ionian, Carian, Lycian 
and what not, excepting only Miletus, to be 
reduced by his viceroys. 

§ 5. Persian Empire 

Cyrus himself had still to deal with a part 
of the East which, not having been occupied 
by the Medes, though in a measure allied and 
subservient to them, saw no reason now to 
acknowledge the new dynasty. This is the 
part which had been included in the New 
Babylonian Empire. The Persian armies in- 
vaded Babylonia. Nabonidus was defeated 
finally at Opis in June 538; Sippara fell, 
and Cyrus' general appearing before Babylon 
itself received it without a struggle at the 
hands of the disaffected priests of Bel-Marduk. 
The famous Herodotean tale of Cyrus' secret 
penetration down the dried bed of Euphrates 
seems to be a mistaken memory of a later re- 

THE EAST IN 400 B.C. 167 

capture of the city after a revolt from Darius, 
of which more hereafter. Thus once more it 
was given to Cyrus to close a long chapter 
of Eastern history — the history of imperial 
Babylon. Neither did he make it his capital, 
nor would any other lord of the East so favour 
it. If Alexander perhaps intended to revive 
its imperial position, his successor, Seleucus, 
so soon as he was assured of his inheritance, 
abandoned the Euphratean city for the banks 
of the Tigris and Orontes, leaving it to 
crumble to the heap which it is to-day. 

The Syrian fiefs of the Babylonian kings 
passed de jure to the conqueror ; but probably 
Cyrus himself never had leisure or opportunity 
to secure them de facto. The last decade of 
his life seems to have been spent in Persia 
and the north-east, largely in attempts to 
reduce the Scythian element, which threatened 
the peace of Media ; and at the last, having 
brought the enemy to bay beyond the Araxes, 
he met there defeat and death. But Cambyses 
not only completed his father's work in Syria, 
but fulfilled what is said to have been his 
further project by capturing Egypt and 
establishing there a foreign domination which 
was to last, with some intervals^ nearly two 


hundred years. By the end of the sixth 
century one territorial empire was spread over 
the whole East for the first time in history; 
and it was with a colossus, bestriding the lands 
from the Araxes to the Upper Nile and from 
the Oxus to the iEgean Sea, that the Greeks 
stood face to face in the gate of the West. 

Before, however, we become absorbed in 
contemplation of a struggle which will take us 
into a wider history, let us pause a moment to 
consider the nature of the new power come out 
of the East, and the condition of such of its 
subject peoples as have mattered most in the 
later story of mankind. It should be remarked 
that the new universal power is not only 
non-Semitic for the first time in well-certified 
history, but controlled by a very pure Aryan 
stock, much nearer kin to the peoples of the 
West than any Oriental folk with which they 
have had intimate relations hitherto. The 
Persians appeared from the Back of Beyond, 
uncontaminated by Alarodian savagery and 
unhampered by the theocratic prepossessions 
and nomadic traditions of Semites. They 
were highlanders of unimpaired vigour, frugal 
habit, settled agricultural life, long-established 
social cohesion and spiritual religious concep- 

THE EAST IN 400 B.C. 169 

tions. Possibly, too, before they issued from 
the vast Iranian plateau, they were not wholly 
unversed in the administration of wide terri- 
tories. In any case, their quick intelligence 
enabled them to profit by models of imperial 
organization which persisted in the lands they 
now acquired ; for relics of the Assyrian system 
had survived under the New Babylonian rule, 
and perhaps also under the Median. There- 
after the experience gained by Cambyses 
in Egypt must have gone for something in 
the imperial education of his successor Darius, 
to whom historians ascribe the final organ- 
ization of Persian territorial rule. From 
the latter's reign onward we find a regular 
provincial system linked to the centre as well 
as might be by a postal service passing over 
state roads. The royal power is delegated to 
several officials, not always of the ruling race, 
but independent of each other and directly 
responsible to Susa : these live upon their 
provinces but must see to it first and foremost 
that the centre receives a fixed quota of money 
and a fixed quota of fighting men when 
required. The Great King maintains royal 
residences in various cities of the empire, and 
not infrequently visits them; but in general 


his viceroys are left singularly free to keep the 

peace of their own governorates and even to 

deal with foreign neighbours at their proper 


If we compare the Persian theory of Empire 
with the Assyrian, we note still a capital 
fault. The Great King of Susa recognized 
no more obligation than his predecessors of 
Nineveh to consider the interests of those he 
ruled and to make return to them for what he 
took. But while, on the one hand, no better 
imperial theory was conceivable in the sixth 
century B.C., and certainly none was held or 
acted upon in the East down to the nineteenth 
century a.d., on the other, the Persian imperial 
practice mitigated its bad effects far more than 
the Assyrian had done. Free from the Semitic 
tradition of annual raiding, the Persians re- 
duced the obligation of military service to a 
bearable burden and avoided continual provo- 
cation of frontier neighbours. Free likewise 
from Semitic supermonotheistic ideas, they 
did not seek to impose their creed. Seeing 
that the Persian Empire was extensive, 
decentralized and provided with imperfect 
means of communication, it could subsist 
only by practising provincial tolerance. Its 

THE EAST IN 400 B.C. 171 

provincial tolerance seems to have been 
systematic. We know a good deal of the 
Greeks and the Jews under its sway, and in 
the history of both we miss such signs of 
religious and social oppression as marked 
Assyrian rule. In western Asia Minor the 
satraps showed themselves on the whole singu- 
larly conciliatory towards local religious feeling 
and even personally comformable to it; and 
in Judaea the hope of the Hebrews that the 
Persian would prove a deliverer and a restorer 
of their estate was not falsified. Hardly an 
echo of outrage on the subjects of Persia in 
time of peace has reached our ears. If the 
sovereign of the Asiatic Greek cities ran counter 
to Hellenic feeling by insisting on " tyrant " 
rule, he did no more than continue a system 
under which most of those cities had grown 
rich. It is clear that they had little else to 
complain of than absence of a democratic 
freedom which, as a matter of fact, some of 
them had not enjoyed in the day of their 
independence. The satraps seem to have 
been supplied with few, or even no, Persian 
troops, and with few Persian aides on their 
administrative staff. The Persian element in 
the provinces must, in fact, have been extra- 


ordinarily small — so small that an Empire, 
which for more than two centuries compre- 
hended nearly all western Asia, has left 
hardly a single provincial monument of itself, 
graven on rock or carved on stone. 

§ 6. Jews 

If we look particularly at the Jews — ^those 
subjects of Persia who necessarily share most 
of our interest with the Greeks — we find that 
Persian imperial rule was no sooner established 
securely over the former Babylonian fief in 
Palestine than it began to undo the destructive 
work of its predecessors. Vainly expecting 
help from the restored Egyptian power, Jeru- 
salem had held out against Nebuchadnezzar 
till 587. On its capture the dispersion of the 
southern Jews, which had already begun with 
local emigrations to Egypt, was largely in- 
creased by the deportation of a numerous body 
to Babylonia. As early, however, as 538, the 
year of Cyrus' entry into Babylon (doubtless 
as one result of that event), began a return of 
exiles to Judaea and perhaps also to Samaria. 
By 520 the Jewish population in South Pales- 
tine was sufficiently strong again to make 

THE EAST IN 400 B.C. 173 

itself troublesome to Darius, and in 516 the 
Temple was in process of restoration. Before 
the middle of the next century Jerusalem was 
once more a fortified city and its population 
had been further reinforced by many returned 
exiles who had imbibed the economic civiliza- 
tion, and also the religiosity of Babylonia. 
Thenceforward the development of the Jews 
into a commercial people proceeds without 
apparent interruption from Persian governors, 
who (as, for example, Nehemiah) could them- 
selves be of the subject race. Even if large 
accretions of other Semites, notably Aramseans, 
be allowed for — accretions easily accepted by 
a people which had become rather a church 
than a nation — it remains a striking testimony 
to Persian toleration that after only some six 
or seven generations the once insignificant 
Jews should have grown numerous enough to 
contribute an important element to the popula- 
tions of several foreign cities. It is worth 
remark also that even when, presumably, free 
to return to the home of their race, many Jews 
preferred to remain in distant parts of the 
Persian realm. Names mentioned on contract 
tablets of Nippur show that Jews found it 
profitable to still sit by the waters of Babylon 


till late in the fifth century ; while in another 
distant province of the Persian Empire (as the 
papyri of Syene have disclosed) a flourishing 
particularjst settlement of the same race 
persisted right down to and after 500 b.c. 

§ 7. Asia under Persia 

On the whole evidence the Persians might 
justifiably claim that their imperial organ- 
ization in its best days, destitute though it 
was of either the centralized strength or the 
theoretic justification of modern civilized rule, 
achieved a very considerable advance, and 
that it is not unworthy to be compared even 
to the Roman in respect of the freedom and 
peace which in effect it secured to its subjects. 

Not much more need — or can — be said about 
the other conquered peoples before we revert 
to the Greeks. Though Cyrus did not live to 
receive in person the submission of all the west 
Asian peoples, his son Cambyses had received 
it before his short reign of eight years came 
to an end. Included in the empire now were, 
not only all the mainland territories once 
dominated by the Medes and the Babylonians, 
but also much wider lands east, west and 




south, and even Mediterranean islands which 
lay near the Asiatic shores. Among these 
last was Cyprus, now more closely linked to 
Phoenicia than of old, and combining with 
the latter to provide navies for the Great 
King's needs. On the East, the Iranian 
plateau, watched from two royal residences, 
Pasargadae in the south and Ecbatana in the 
north, swelled this realm to greater dimen- 
sions than any previous eastern empire had 
boasted. On the south, Cambyses added 
Cyrene and, less surely. Nubia to Egypt 
proper, which Assyria had possessed for a short 
time, as we have seen. On the west, Cyrus 
and his generals had already secured all Asia 
which lay outside the Median limit, including 
Cilicia, where (as also in other realms, e, g, 
Phoenicia, Cyprus, Caria) the native dynasty 
accepted a client position. 

This, however, is not to be taken to mean 
that all the East settled down at once into 
contented subservience. Cambyses, by putting 
his brother to death, had cut off the direct line 
of succession. A pretender appeared in the far 
East; Cambyses died on the march to meet 
him, and at once all the oriental provinces, 
except the homeland of Persia, were up in 

THE EAST IN 400 B.C. 177 

revolt. But a young cognate of the royal 
house, Darius, son of Hystaspes, a strong 
man, slew the pretender, and once secure on 
the throne, brought Media, Armenia, Elam 
and at last Babylonia, back to obedience. 
The old imperial city on the Euphrates would 
make one more bid for freedom six years later 
and then relapse into the estate of a pro- 
vincial town. Darius spent some twenty 
years in organizing his empire on the satrap 
system, well known to us from Greek sources, 
and in strengthening his frontiers . To promote 
the latter end he passed over into Europe, 
even crossing the Danube in 511 to check 
Scythian raids ; and he secured the command 
of the two straits and the safety of his north- 
west Asiatic possessions by annexing the 
south-east of the Balkan peninsula with the 
flourishing Greek cities on its coasts. 

§ 8. Persia and the Greeks 

The sixth century closed and the fifth 
century ran three years of its course in 
apparently unbroken peace between East and 
West. But trouble was near at hand. Persia 
had imposed herself on cities which possessed 


a civilization superior, not only potentially 
but actually, to her own; on cities where 
individual and communal passion for freedom 
constituted the one religion incompatible with 
her tolerant sway; on cities conscious of 
national identity with a powerful group out- 
side the Persian Empire, and certain sooner 
or later to engage that group in warfare on 
their behalf. 

Large causes, therefore, lay behind the 
friction and intrigue which, after a generation 
of subjection, caused the Ionian cities, led, as 
of old, by Miletus, to ring up the first act of 
a dramatic struggle destined to make history 
for a very long time to come. We cannot 
examine here in detail the particular events 
which induced the Ionian Revolt. Sufficient 
to say they all had their spring in the great 
city of Miletus, whose merchant princes and 
merchant people were determined to regain 
the power and primacy which they had 
enjoyed till lately. A preliminary failure to 
aggrandize themselves with the goodwill of 
Persia actually brought on their revolt, but 
it only precipitated a struggle inevitable 
ultimately on one side of the iEgean or the 

THE EAST IN 400 B.C. 179 

After setting the whole AnatoHan coast 
from the Bosporus to PamphyUa and even 
Cyprus in a blaze for two years, the Ionian 
Revolt failed, owing as much to the particu- 
larist jealousies of the Greek cities them- 
selves as to vigorous measures taken against 
them by Darius on land and his obedient 
Phoenicians at sea. A naval defeat sealed 
the fate of Miletus, whose citizens found, to 
the horror of all Greece, that, on occasion, 
the Persian would treat rebels like a loyal suc- 
cessor of Shalmaneser and Nebuchadnezzar. 
But even though it failed, the Revolt brought 
on a second act in the drama. For, on the 
one hand, it had involved in Persian politics 
certain cities of the Greek motherlands, 
notably Athens, whose contingent, greatly 
daring, affronted the Great King by help- 
ing to burn the lower town of Sardes ; and 
on the other, it had prompted a despot on 
the European shore of the Dardanelles, one 
Miltiades, an Athenian destined to immortal 
fame, to incense Darius yet more by seizing 
his islands of Lemnos and Imbros. 

Evidently neither could Asiatic Greeks be 
trusted, even though their claws were cut by 
disarmament and their motives for rebellion 


had been lessened by the removal of their 
despots, nor could the Balkan province be held 
securely, while the western Greeks remained 
defiant and Athens, in particular, aiming at 
the control of ^gean trade, supported the 
Ionian colonies. Therefore Darius determined 
to strike at this city whose exiled despot, 
Hippias, promised a treacherous co-operation ; 
and he summoned other Greek states to make 
formal submission and keep the peace. A 
first armada sent to coast round the northern 
shore in 492 added Macedonia to the Persian 
Empire; but it was crippled and stayed by 
storms. A second, sent two years later direct 
across the ^gean, reduced the Cyclad isles, 
revenged itself on Eretria, one of the minor 
culprits in the Sardian affair, and finally 
brought up by the Attic shore at Marathon. 
The world-famous defeat which its landing 
parties suffered there should be related by a 
historian rather of Greece than of the East; 
and so too should the issue of a third and 
last invasion which, ten years later, after old 
Darius' death, Xerxes led in person to defeat 
at Salamis, and left to meet final rout under 
his generalissimo at Platsea. For our purpose 
it will be enough to note the effects which 

THE EAST IN 400 B.C. 181 

this momentous series of events had on the 
East itself. 

§ 9. Results of the Persian Attacks 
ON Greece 

Obviously the European failure of Persia 
affected the defeated less than the victorious 
party. Except upon the westernmost fringe 
of the Persian Empire we have no warrant for 
saying that it had any serious political result 
at all. A revolt of Egypt which broke out 
in the last year of Darius, and was easily 
suppressed by his successor, seems not to have 
been connected with the Persian disaster at 
Marathon; and even when two more signal 
defeats had been suffered in Greece, and a 
fourth off the shore of Asia itself — the battle 
of Mycale — upon which followed closely the 
loss of Sestus, the European key of the Helles- 
pont, and more remotely the loss not only of 
all Persian holdings in the Balkans and the 
islands, but also of the Ionian Greek cities 
and most of the ^olian, and at last (after the 
final naval defeat off the Eurymedon) of the 
whole littoral of Anatolia from Pamphylia 
right round to the Propontis — not even after 


all these defeats and losses did the Persian 
power suffer diminution in inner Asia or loss 
of prestige in inland Asia Minor. Some years, 
indeed, had still to elapse before the ever- 
restless Egyptian province used the oppor- 
tunity of Xerxes' death to league itself with 
the new power and make a fresh attempt to 
shake off the Persian yoke ; but once more it 
tried in vain. 

When Persia abandoned direct sovereignty 
over the Anatolian littoral she suffered little 
commercial loss and became more secure. It 
is clear that her satraps continued to manage 
the western trade and equally clear that the 
wealth of her empire increased in greater 
ratio than that of the Greek cities. There 
is little evidence for Hellenic commercial 
expansion consequent on the Persian wars, 
but much for continued and even increas- 
ing Hellenic poverty. In the event Persia 
found herself in a position almost to re- 
gain by gold what she had lost by battle, 
and to exercise a financial influence on 
Greece greater and longer lasting than she 
ever established by arms. Moreover, her 
empire was less likely to be attacked when 
it was limited by the western edge of the 

THE EAST IN 400 B.C. 183 

Anatolian plateau, and no longer tried to 
hold any European territory. There is a 
geographical diversity between the Anatolian 
littoral and the plateau. In all ages the latter 
alone has been an integral part of inner Asia, 
and the society and politics of the one have 
remained distinct from those of the other. 
The strong frontier of Asia at its western 
peninsular extremity lies not on, but behind 
the coast. 

At the same time, although their immediate 
results to the Persian Empire were not very 
hurtful, those abortive expeditions to Europe 
had sown the seeds of ultimate catastrophe. 
As a direct consequence of them the Greeks 
acquired consciousness of their own fighting 
value on both land and sea as compared with 
the peoples of inner Asia and the Phoenicians. 
Their former fear of numerical superiorities 
was allayed, and much of the mystery, which 
had hitherto magnified and shielded Oriental 
power, was dissipated. No less obviously 
those expeditions served to suggest to the 
Greeks for the first time that there existed 
both a common enemy of all their race and 
an external field for their own common en- 
croachment and plundering. So far as an 


idea of nationality was destined ever to be 
operative on Greek minds it would draw its 
inspiration thenceforward from a sense of com- 
mon superiority and common hostility to the 
Oriental. Persia, in a word, had laid the 
foundations and promoted the development of 
a Greek nationality in a common ambition 
directed against herself. It was her fate also, 
by forcing Athens into the front of the 
Greek states, to give the nascent nation the 
most inspiriting and enterprising of leaders — 
the one most fertile in imperial ideas and most 
apt to proceed to their realization : and in 
her retreat before that nation she drew her 
pursuer into a world which, had she herself 
never advanced into Europe, would probably 
not have seen him for centuries to come. 

Moreover, by a subsequent change of atti- 
tude towards her victorious foe — though that 
change was not wholly to her discredit- 
Persia bred in the Greeks a still better conceit 
of themselves and a better understanding of 
her weakness. The Persians, with the in- 
telligence and versatility for which their race 
has always been remarkable, passed very 
rapidly from overweening contempt to ex- 
cessive admiration of the Greeks. They set 

THE EAST IN 400 B.C. 185 

to work almost at once to attract Hellenic 
statesmen and men of science to their 
own society, and to make use of Hellenic 
soldiers and sailors. We soon find western 
satraps cultivating cordial relations with the 
Ionian cities, hospitably entertaining Greeks 
of distinction and conciliating Greek political 
and religious prepossessions. They must have 
attained considerable success, while thus un- 
wittingly preparing disaster. When, a little 
more than a century later, western Europe 
would come eastward in force, to make an end 
of Persian dominion, some of the greater Ionian 
and Carian cities would offer a prolonged re- 
sistance to it which is not to be accounted for 
only by the influence of Persian gold or of a Per- 
sian element in their administration. Miletus 
and Halicarnassus shut their gates and de- 
fended their walls desperately against Alex- 
ander because they conceived their own best 
interests to be involved in the continuance of 
the Persian Empire. Nor were the Persians 
less successful with Greeks actually taken into 
their service. The Greek mercenaries re- 
mained to a man loyal to the Great King when 
the Greek attack came, and gave Alexander 
his hardest fighting in the three great battles 


which decided the fate of the East. None the 
less, such an attitude towards Greeks was 
suicidal. It exalted the spirit of Europe while 
it depraved the courage and sapped the self- 
reliance of Asia. 

§ 10. The First Counter-Attacks 

This, however, is to anticipate the sequel. 
Let us finally fix our eyes on the Eastern world 
in 400 B.C. and review it as it must then have 
appeared to eyes from which the future was 
all concealed. The coasts of Asia Minor, 
generally speaking, were in Greek hands, the 
cities being autonomous trading communities, 
as Greeks understood autonomy ; but most of 
them until four years previously had acknow- 
ledged the suzerainty or rather federal leader- 
ship of Athens and now were acknowledging 
less willingly a Spartan supremacy established 
at first with Persian co-operation. Many of 
these cities, which had long maintained very 
close relations with the Persian governors of 
the nearer hinterland, not only shaped their 
policy to please the latter, but even acknow- 
ledged Persian suzerainty; and since, as it 
happens, at this particular moment Sparta 

THE EAST IN 400 B.C. 187 

had fallen out with Persia, and a Spartan army, 
under Dercyllidas, was occupying the J^olian 
district of the north, the " medizing " cities 
of Ionia and Caria were in some doubt of 
their future. On the whole they inclined still 
to the satraps. Persian influence and even 
control had, in fact, greatly increased on the 
western coast since the supersession of Athens 
by a power unaccustomed to imperial politics 
and notoriously inapt in naval matters; and 
the fleets of Phcenicia and Cyprus, whose Greek 
princes had fallen under Phoenician domina- 
tion, had regained supremacy at sea. 

Yet, only a year before, " Ten Thousand " 
heavy-armed Greeks (and near half as many 
again of all arms), mostly Spartan, had marched 
right through western Asia. They went as 
mercenary allies of a larger native force led by 
Cyrus, Persian prince-governpr of west central 
Anatolia, who coveted the diadem of his newly 
enthroned brother. Having traversed the old 
Lydian and Phrygian kingdoms they moved 
down into Cilicia and up again over north Syria 
to the Euphrates, bound (though they only 
learned it at last by the waters of the Great 
River itself) for Babylon. But they never 
reached that city. Cyrus met death and his 


oriental soldiers accepted defeat at Cunaxa, 
some four days' march short of the goal. But 
the undefeated Greeks, refusing to surrender, 
and, few though they were, so greatly dreaded 
by the Persians that they were not directly 
molested, had to get back to their own land as 
best they might. How, robbed of their original 
leaders they yet reached the Black Sea and 
safety by way of the Tigris valley and the 
wild passes of Kurdish Armenia all readers of 
Xenophon, the Athenian who succeeded to 
the command, know well. Now in 400 B.C. 
they were reappearing in the cities of west 
Asia and Europe to tell how open was the 
inner continent to bold plunderers and how 
little ten Orientals availed in attack or defence 
against one Greek. Such stories then and 
there incited Sparta to a forward policy, and 
one day would encourage a stronger Western 
power than hers to march to the conquest of 
the East. 

We are fortunate in having Xenophon's 
detailed narrative of the adventures of these 
Greeks, if only because it throws light 
by the way on inner Asia almost at the 
very moment of our survey. We see Sardes 
under Persia what it had been under Lydia, 

THE EAST IN 400 B.C. 189 

the capital city of Anatolia; we see the great 
valley plains of Lydia and Phrygia, north 
and south, well peopled, well supplied, and 
well in hand, while the rough foothills and 
rougher heights of Taurus are held by con- 
tumacious mountaineers who are kept out of 
the plains only by such periodic chastisement 
as Cyrus allowed his army to inflict in Pisidia 
and Lycaonia. Cilicia is being administered 
and defended by its own prince, who bears the 
same name or title as his predecessor in the 
days of Sennacherib, but is feudally account- 
able to the Great King. His land is so far his 
private property that Cyrus, though would- 
be lord of all the empire, encourages the 
pillage of the rich provincial capital. The 
fleet of Cyrus lands men and stores unmolested 
in north Syria, while the inner country up to 
the Euphrates and down its valley as far as 
Babylonia is at peace. The Great King is 
able to assemble above half a million men 
from the east and south to meet his foe, 
besides the levy of Media, a province which 
now seems to include most of the ancient 
Assyria. These hundreds of thousands con- 
stitute a host untrained, undisciplined, un- 
stable, unused to service, little like the ordered 


battalions of an essentially military power 
such as the Assyrian had been. 

From the story of the Retreat certain 
further inferences may be drawn. First, 
Babylonia was a part of the empire not very 
well affected to the Great King; or else the 
Greeks would have been neither allowed by 
the local militia to enter it so easily nor 
encouraged by the Persians to leave it. 
Second, the ancient Assyria was a peaceful 
province not coerced by a standing Persian 
force or garrisons of any strength. Third, 
southern Kurdistan was not held by or for 
the Great King and it paid tribute only to 
occasional pressure. Fourth, the rest of 
Kurdistan and Armenia as far north as the 
upper arm of the Euphrates was held, pre- 
cariously, by the Persians; and lastly, north 
of the Euphrates valley up to the Black Sea 
all was practical independence. We do not 
know anything precise about the far eastern 
provinces or the south Syrian in this year, 
400. Artaxerxes, the Great King, came from 
Susa to meet his rebellious brother, but to 
Babylon he returned to put to death the 
betrayed leaders of the Greeks. At this 
moment Ctesias, the Cnidian Greek, was his 

THE EAST IN 400 B.C. 191 

court physician and no friend either to 
Cyrus or to Spartans; he was even then in 
corresponder ce with the Athenian Conon who 
would presently be made a Persian admiral 
and smash the Spartan fleet. Of his history 
of Persia some few fragments and some 
epitomized extracts relating to this time have 
survived. These have a value, which the mass 
of his book seems not to have had; for they 
relate what a contemporary, singularly well 
placed to learn court news, heard and saw. One 
gathers that king and court had fallen away 
from the ideas and practice of the first Cyrus. 
Artaxerxes was unwarlike, lax in religion 
(though he had been duly consecrated at 
Pasargadae) and addicted to non-Zoroastrian 
practices. Many Persians great and small were 
disaffected towards him and numbers rallied 
to his brother; but he had some Western 
adventurers in his army. Royal ladies wielded 
almost more power at the court than the 
Great King, and quarrelled bitterly with one 

Plutarch, who drew material for his life of 
Artaxerxes not only from Ctesias, but also from 
authorities now lost to us, leaves us with much 
the same impression of the lords of the East 


at the close of the fifth century B.C. Corrupt 
and treacherous central rule, largely directed 
by harem intrigue; an unenthusiastic body 
of subjects, abandoned to the schemes of 
satraps; inefficient and casually collected 
armies in which foreign mercenaries were 
almost the only genuine soldiers — such was 
Persia now. It was something very unlike 
the vigorous rule of Cyrus and the imperial 
system of the first Darius — something very 
like the Ottoman Empire in the eighteenth 
century a.d. — something which would collapse 
before the first Western leader of men who 
could command money of his own making and 
a professional army of his own people. 



The climax was reached in about seventy 
years more. When these had passed into 
history, so had also the Persian Empire, and 
the East, as the Greeks had conceived it thus 
far and we have understood it, was subject 
to the European race which a century and a 
half before it had tried to subdue in Europe 
itself. To this race (and to the historian 
also) " the East," as a geographical term, 
standing equally for a spatial area and for a 
social idea, has ceased to mean what it once 
meant : and the change would be lasting. It is 
true that the East did not ce-ase to be distin- 
guished as such ; for it would gradually shake 
itself free again, not only from control by the 
West, but from the influence of the latter' s 
social ideas. Nevertheless, since the Western 
men, when they went back to their own land, 

N 193 


had brought the East into the world known 
to them — into a circle of lands accepted as 
the dwelling of civilized man — the date of 
Alexander's overthrow of the Persian Empire 
makes an epoch which divides universal 
history as hardly any other divides it. 

Dramatic as the final catastrophe would be, 
it will not surprise us when it comes, nor did 
it, as a matter of fact, surprise the generation 
which witnessed it. The romantic conception 
of Alexander, as a little David who dared a huge 
Goliath, ignores the facts of previous history, 
and would have occurred to no contemporary 
who had read the signs of the times. The 
Eastern colossus had been dwindling so fast 
for nearly a century that a Macedonian king, 
who had already subdued the Balkan penin- 
sula, loomed at least as large in the world's 
eye, when he crossed the Hellespont, as the 
titular Emperor of contumacious satraps and 
ever-rebelling provinces of western Asia. To 
accept this view we have only to look back 
over seventy years shice that march of Ten 
Thousand Greeks, with which our last survey 


§ 1. Persia and its Provinces 

Before the expedition of Cyrus there may 
have been, and evidently were, enough seeds 
of corruption in the state of Persia ; but they 
had not become known by their fruits. No 
satrap for a century past had tried to detach 
himself and his province from the Empire; 
hardly a subject people had attempted to 
re-assert its independence. There were, in- 
deed, two exceptions, both of them peoples 
which had never identified themselves at any 
time with the fortunes of their alien masters. 
One of these was, of course, the Asiatic Greek, 
the other was the Egyptian people ; but the 
contumacy of the first threatened a danger 
not yet realized by Asia; the rebellious 
spirit of the last concerned, as yet, itself 

It was Egypt, however, which really gave 
the first warning of Persian dissolution. The 
weakest spot in the Assyrian Empire proved 
weakest in the Persian. The natural barriers 
of desert, swamp and sea, set between Egypt 
and the neighbouring continent, are so strong 
that no Asiatic Power, which has been 


tempted to conquer the rich Nile valley, has 
ever been able to keep it long. Under its 
own leaders or some rebellious officer of its new 
masters it has reasserted independence sooner 
or later, and all history is witness that no one, 
whether in Asia or in Europe, holds Egypt 
as a foreign province unless he holds also the 
sea. During the century which had elapsed 
since Cambyses' conquest the Egyptians had 
rebelled more than once (most persistently 
about 460), calling in the sea-lords to their 
help on each occasion. Finally, just before 
the death of Darius Nothus, and some five 
years before Cyrus left Sardes, they rose 
again under an Egyptian, and thereafter, for 
about sixty years, not the kings of Susa, but 
three native dynasties in succession, were to 
rule Egypt. The harm done to the Persian 
Empire by this defection was not measured 
by the mere loss of the revenues of a province. 
The new kings of Egypt, who owed much to 
Greek support, repaid this by helping every 
enemy of the Great King and every rebel 
against his authority. It was they who gave 
asylum to the admiral and fleet of Cyrus after 
Cunaxa, and sent corn to Agesilaus when he 
invaded Asia Minor; they supplied money 


and ships to the Spartan fleet in 394, and 
helped Evagoras of Cyprus in a long resist- 
ance to his suzerain. When Tyre and the 
cities of the Cilician coast revolted in 380, 
Egypt was privy to their designs, and she 
made common cause with the satraps and 
governors of Western Asia, Syria and Phoenicia 
when, in combination, they planned rebellion 
in 373 to the grave peril of the Empire. 
Twelve years later we find an Egyptian king 
marching in person to raise Phoenicia. 

The Persian made more than one effort to 
recover his province . After conspicuous failure 
with his own generals Artaxerxes adopted 
tardily the course which Clearchus, captain 
of the Ten Thousand, is said to have advised 
after the battle of Cunaxa, and tried his 
fortune once more with Greek condottieri, only 
to find Greek generals and Greek mercenaries 
arrayed against them. It had come to this, 
that the Persian king and his revolted province 
equally depended on mercenary swords, 
neither daring to meet Greek except with 
Greek. Well had the lesson of the march of 
the Ten Thousand been read, marked and 
digested in the East ! 


§ 2. Persia and the West 

It had been marked in the West as well, and 
its fruits were patent within five years. The 
dominant Greek state of the hour, avowing 
an ambition which no Greek had betrayed 
before, sent its king, Agesilaus, across to Asia 
Minor to follow up the establishment of 
Spartan hegemony on the coasts by an in- 
vasion of inland Persia. He never penetrated 
farther than about half-way up the Maeander 
Valley, and did Persia no harm worth speaking 
of ; for he was not the leader, nor had he the 
resources in men and in money, to carry 
through so distant and doubtful an adventure. 
But Agesilaus' campaigning in Asia Minor 
between 397 and 394 has this historical 
significance : it demonstrates that Greeks had 
come to regard a march on Susa as feasible 
and desirable. 

It was not, however, in fact feasible even 
then. Apart from the lack of a military force 
in any one state of Greece large enough, 
sufficiently trained, and led by a leader of the 
necessary magnetism and genius for organiza- 
tion, to undertake, unaided by allies on the 


way, a successful march to a point many 
months distant from its base — apart from 
this deficiency, the Empire to be conquered 
had not yet been really shaken. The Ten 
Thousand Greeks would in all likelihood never 
have got under Clearchus to Cunaxa or any- 
where within hundreds of miles of it, but for 
the fact that Cyrus was with them and the 
adherents of his rising star were supplying 
their wants and had cleared a road for them 
through Asia Minor and Syria. In their 
Retreat they were desperate men, of whom 
the Great King was glad to be quit. The 
successful accomplishment of that retreat 
must not blind us to the almost certain failure 
which would have befallen the advance had 
it been attempted under like conditions. 

§ 3. The Satraps 

What, ultimately, was to reduce the Persian 
Empire to such weakness that a Western 
power would be able to strike at its heart 
with little more than forty thousand men, 
was the disease of disloyalty which spread 
among the great officers during the first half 
of the fourth century. Before Cyrus' expedi- 


tion we have not heard of either satraps or 
client provinces raising the standard of revolt 
(except in Egypt), since the Empire had been 
well established; and if there was evident 
collusion with that expedition on the part of 
provincial officers in Asia Minor and Syria, 
the fact has little political significance, seeing 
that Cyrus was a scion of the royal house, 
and the favourite of the Queen-Mother. But 
the fourth century is hardly well begun before 
we find satraps and princes aiding the king's 
enemies and fighting for their own hand 
against him or a rival officer. Agesilaus was 
helped in Asia Minor both by the prince of 
Paphlagonia and by a Persian noble. Twenty 
years later Ariobarzanes of Pontus rises in 
revolt ; and hard on his defection follows a 
great rebellion planned by the satraps of 
Caria, Ionia, Lydia, Phrj^gia and Cappadocia 
— nearly all Asia Minor in fact — in concert 
with coastal cities of Syria and Phoenicia. 
Another ten years pass and new governors of 
Mysia and Lydia rise against their king with 
the help of the Egyptians and Mausolus, 
client prince of Halicarnassus. Treachery or 
lack of resources and stability brought these 
rebels one after another to disaster; but an 


Empire whose great officers so often dare 
such adventures is drawing apace to its 

The causes of this growing disaffection 
among the satraps are not far to seek. At 
the close of the last chapter we remarked the 
deterioration of the harem-ridden court in 
the early days of Artaxerxes; and as time 
passed, the spectacle of a Great King govern- 
ing by treachery, buying his enemies, and 
impotent to recover Egypt even with their 
mercenary help had its effect. Belief gained 
ground that the ship of Empire was sinking, 
and even in Susa the fear grew that a wind 
from the West was to finish her. The Great 
King's court officers watched Greek politics 
during the first seventy years of the fourth 
century with ever closer attention. Not 
content with enrolling as many Greeks as 
possible in the royal service, they used the 
royal gold to such effect to buy or support 
Greek politicians whose influence could be 
directed to hindering a union of Greek 
states and checking the rising power of any 
unit, that a Greek orator said in a famous 
passage that the archers stamped on the 
Great King's coins were already a greater 


danger to Greece than his real archers had 
ever been. 

By such lavish corruption, by buying the 
soldiers and the politicians of the enemy, a 
better face was put for a while on the fortunes 
of the dynasty and the Empire. Before the 
death of the aged Artaxerxes Mnemon in 
358, the revolt of the Western satraps had 
collapsed. His successor, Ochus, who, to 
reach the throne, murdered his kin like any 
eighteenth-century sultan of Stambul, over- 
came Egyptian obstinacy about 346, after 
two abortive attempts, by means of hireling 
Greek troops, and by similar vicarious help he 
recovered Sidon and the Isle of Cyprus. But 
it was little more than the dying flicker of a 
flame fanned for the moment by that same 
Western wind which was already blowing up 
to the gale that would extinguish it. The 
heart of the Empire was not less rotten 
because its shell was patched, and in the 
event, when the storm broke a few years later, 
nothing in West Asia was able to make any 
stand except two or three maritime cities, 
which fought, not for Persia, but for their 
own commercial monopolies. 


§ 4. Macedonia 

The storm had been gathering on the 
Western horizon for some time past. Twenty- 
years earher there had come to the throne 
of Macedonia a man of singular constructive 
abiUty and most definite ambition. His heri- 
tage — or rather his prize, for he was not next 
of kin to his predecessor — was the central 
southern part of the Balkan peninsula, a 
region of broad fat plains fringed and crossed 
by rough hills. It was inhabited by sturdy 
gentry and peasantry and by agile highlanders, 
all composed of the same racial elements as 
the Greeks, with perhaps a preponderant 
infusion of northern blood which had come 
south long ago with emigrants from the 
Danubian lands. The social development 
of the Macedonians — ^to give various peoples 
one generic name — had, for certain reasons, 
not been nearly so rapid as that of their 
southern cousins. They had never come in 
contact with the higher .Egean civilization, 
nor had they mixed their blood with that of 
cultivated predecessors; their land was con- 
tinental, poor in harbours, remote from the 


luxurious centres of life, and of comparatively 
rigorous climate ; its configuration had offered 
them no inducement to form city-states and 
enter on intense political life. But, in com- 
pensation, they entered the fourth century 
unexhausted, without tribal or political im- 
pediments to unity, and with a broad territory 
of greater natural resources than any southern 
Greek state. Macedonia could supply itself 
with the best cereal foods and to spare, and 
had unexploited veins of gold ore. But the 
most important thing to remark is this — ^that, 
compared with Greece, Macedonia was a region 
of Central Europe. In the latter' s progress 
to imperial power we shall watch for the 
first time in recorded history a continental 
European folk bearing down peninsular 
populations of the Mediterranean. 

Philip of Macedon, who had been trained 
in the arts of both war and peace in a 
Greek city, saw the weakness of the divided 
Hellenes, and the possible strength of his 
own people, and he set to work from the first 
with abounding energy, dogged persistence 
and immense talent for organization to make 
a single armed nation, which should be 
more than a match for the many communi- 


ties of Hellas. How he accomplished his 
purpose in about twenty years : how he 
began by opening mines of precious metal on 
his south-eastern coast, and with the proceeds 
hired mercenaries : how he had Macedonian 
peasants drilled to fight in a phalanx forma- 
tion more mobile than the Theban and with 
a longer spear, while the gentry were trained 
as heavy cavalry : how he made experiments 
with his new soldiers on the inland tribes, 
and so enlarged his effective dominions that 
he was able to marshal henceforward far 
more than his own Emathian clansmen : how 
for six years he perfected this national army 
till it was as professional a fighting machine 
as any condottiere's band of that day, while 
at the same time larger and of much better 
temper : how, when it was ready in the spring 
of the year 353, he began a fifteen years' war 
of encroachment on the holdings of the Greek 
states and particularly of Athens, attacking 
some of her maritime colonies in Macedonia 
and Thrace : how, after a campaign in 
inland Thrace and on the Chersonese, he 
appeared in Greece, where he pushed at last 
through Thermopylae : how, again, he with- 
drew for several seasons into the Balkan 


Peninsula, raided it from the Adriatic to the 
Black Sea, and ended with an attack on the 
last and greatest of its free Greek coastal 
cities, Perinthus and Byzantium : how, 
finally, in 338, coming south in full force, he 
crushed in the single battle of Chseronea the 
two considerable powers of Greece, Athens 
and Thebes, and secured at last from every 
Greek state except Sparta (which he could 
afford to neglect) recognition of his suzerainty 
— ^these stages in Philip's making of a Euro- 
pean nation and a European empire must 
not be described more fully here. What con- 
cerns us is the end of it all ; for the end was 
the arraying of that new nation and that new 
empire for a descent on Asia. A year after 
Chseronea Philip was named by the Congress of 
Corinth Captain- General of all Greeks to wreak 
the secular vengeance of Hellas on Persia. 

How long he had consciously destined his 
fighting machine to an ultimate invasion of 
Asia we do not know. The Athenians had 
explicitly stated to the Great King in 341 
that such was the Macedonian's ambition, 
and four years earlier public suggestion of it 
had been made by the famous orator, Iso- 
crates, in an open letter written to Philip 


himself. Since the last named was a man of 
long sight and sustained purpose, it is not 
impossible that he had conceived such an 
ambition in youth and had been cherishing it 
all along. While Philip was in Thebes as a 
young man, old Agesilaus, who first of Greeks 
had conceived the idea of invading the inland 
East, was still seeking a way to realize his 
oft-frustrated project; and in the end he 
went off to Egypt to make a last effort 
after Philip was already on the throne. The 
idea had certainly been long in the air that 
any military power which might dominate 
Hellas would be bound primarily by self- 
interest and secondarily by racial duty to 
turn its arms against Asia. The Great King 
himself knew this as well as any one. After 
the Athenian warning in 341, his satraps in 
the north-west of Asia Minor were bidden 
assist Philip's enemies in every possible way ; 
and it was thanks in no small measure to 
their help, that the Byzantines repulsed the 
Macedonians from their walls in 339. 

Philip had already made friends of the 
princely house of Caria, and was now at pains 
to secure a footing in north-west Asia Minor. 
He threw, therefore, an advance column across 


the Dardanelles under his chief lieutenant, 
Parmenio, and proposed to follow it in the 
autumn of the year 336 with a Grand Army 
which he had been recruiting, training and 
equipping for a twelvemonth. The day of 
festival which should inaugurate his great 
venture arrived; but the venture was not 
to be his. As he issued from his tent to 
attend the games he fell by the hand of a 
private enemy ; and his young son, Alexander, 
had at first enough to do to re-establish a 
throne which proved to have more foes than 

§ 5. Alexander's Conquest of the East 

A year and a half later Alexander's friends 
and foes knew that a greater soldier and 
empire-maker than Philip ruled in his stead, 
and that the father's plan of Asiatic conquest 
would suffer nothing at the hands of the son. 
The neighbours of Macedonia as far as the 
Danube and all the states of the Greek 
peninsula had been cowed to submission 
again in one swift and decisive campaign. 
The States-General of Greece, re-convoked at 
Corinth, confirmed Philip's son in the Captain- 
Generalship of Hellas, and Parmenio, once 


more despatched to Asia, secured the farther 
shore of the Hellespont. With about forty 
thousand seasoned horse and foot, and with 
auxiliary services unusually efficient for the 
age, Alexander crossed to Persian soil in the 
spring of 334. 

There was no other army in Asia Minor to 
offer him battle in form than a force about 
equal in numbers to his own, which had been 
collected locally by the western satraps. Ex- 
cept for its contingent of Greek mercenaries, 
this was much inferior to the Macedonian force 
in fighting value. Fended by Parmenio from 
the Hellespontine shore, it did the best it 
could by waiting on the farther bank of the 
Granicus, the nearest considerable stream 
which enters the Marmora, in order either 
to draw Alexander's attack, or to cut his 
communications, should he move on into the 
continent. It did not wait long. The heavy 
Macedonian cavalry dashed through the stream 
late on an afternoon, made short work of the 
Asiatic constituents, and having cleared a way 
for the phalanx helped it to cut up the Greek 
contingent almost to a man before night fell. 
Alexander was left with nothing but city de- 
fences and hill tribes to deal with till a fuller 


levy could be collected from other provinces 
of the Persian Empire and brought down to 
the west, a process which would take many 
months, and in fact did take a full year. But 
some of the Western cities offered no small 
impediment to his progress. If ^Eolia, Lydia 
and Ionia made no resistance worth mention- 
ing, the two chief cities of Caria, Miletus and 
Halicarnassus, which had been enjoying in 
virtual freedom a lion's share of ^gean trade 
for the past century, were not disposed to 
become appanages of a military empire. The 
pretension of Alexander to lead a crusade 
against the ancient oppressor of the Hellenic 
race weighed neither with them, nor, for that 
matter, with any of the Greeks in Asia or 
Europe, except a few enthusiasts. During the 
past seventy years, ever since celebrations of 
the deliverance of Hellas from the Persian had 
been replaced by aspirations towards counter 
invasion, the desire to wreak holy vengeance 
had gone for little or nothing, but desire to 
plunder Persia had gone for a great deal. 
Therefore, any definite venture into Asia 
aroused envy, not enthusiasm, among those 
who would be forestalled by its success. 
Neither with ships nor men had any leading 


Greek state come forward to help Alexander, 
and by the time he had taken Miletus he 
realized that he must play his game alone, 
with his own people for his own ends. Thence- 
forward, neglecting the Greeks, he postponed 
his march into the heart of the Persian Empire 
till he had secured every avenue leading 
thither from the sea, whether through Asia 
Minor or Syria or Egypt. 

After reducing Halicarnassus and Caria, 
Alexander did no more in Asia Minor than 
parade the western part of it, the better to 
secure the footing he had gained in the 
continent. Here and there he had a brush 
with hill-men, who had long been unused to 
effective control, while with one or two of 
their towns he had to make terms; but on 
the approach of winter, Anatolia was at his 
feet, and he seated himself at Gordion, in 
the Sakaria valley, where he could at once 
guard his communications with the Helles- 
pont and prepare for advance into farther Asia 
by an easy road. Eastern Asia Minor, that 
is Cappadocia, Pontus and Armenia, he left 
alone, and its contingents would still be 
arrayed on the Persian side in both the great 
battles to come. Certain northern districts 


also, which had long been practically in- 
dependent of Persia, e. g, BithjTiia and 
Paphlagonia, had not been touched yet. It 
was not worth his while at that moment to 
spend time in fighting for lands which would 
fall in any case if the Empire fell, and could 
easily be held in check from western Asia Minor 
in the meantime. His goal was far inland, 
his danger he well knew, on the sea — danger 
of possible co-operation between Greek fleets 
and the greater coastal cities of the ^Egean 
and the Levant. Therefore, with the first 
of the spring he moved down into Cilicia to 
make the ports of Syria and Egypt his, before 
striking at the heart of the Empire. 

The Great King, last and weakest of the 
Darius name, had realized the greatness of 
his peril and come down with the levy of all 
the Empire to try to crush the invader in the 
gate of the south lands. Letting his foe pass 
round the angle of the Levant coast, Darius, 
who had been waiting behind the screen of 
Amanus, slipped through the hills and cut 
off the Macedonian's retreat in the defile of 
Issus between mountain and sea. Against 
another general and less seasoned troops a 
compact and disciplined Oriental force would 


probably have ended the invasion there and 
then ; but that of Darius was neither compact 
nor disciplined. The narrowness of the field 
compressed it into a mob; and Alexander 
and his men, facing about, saw the Persians 
delivered into their hand. The fight lasted 
little longer than at Granicus and the result 
was as decisive a butchery. Camp, baggage- 
train, the royal harem, letters from Greek 
states, and the persons of Greek envoys sent 
to devise the destruction of the Captain - 
General — all fell to Alexander. 

Assured against meeting another levy of the 
Empire for at least a twelvemonth, he moved 
on into Syria. In this narrow land his chief 
business, as we have seen, was with the coast 
towns. He must have all the ports in his 
hand before going up into Asia. The lesser 
dared not gainsay the victorious phalanx ; but 
the queen of them all. Tyre, mistress of the 
eastern trade, shut the gates of her island 
citadel and set the western intruder the hardest 
military task of his life. But the capture of 
the chief base of the hostile fleets which still 
ranged the ^gean was all essential to Alex- 
ander, and he bridged the sea to effect it. 
One other city, Gaza, commanding the road 


to Egypt, showed the same spirit with less 
resources, and the year was far spent before 
the Macedonians appeared on the Nile to 
receive the ready submission of a people 
which had never willingly served the Persian. 
Here again, Alexander's chief solicitude was 
for the coasts. Independent Cyrene, lying 
farthest west, was one remaining danger and 
the openness of the Nile mouths another. The 
first danger dissolved with the submission, 
which Cyrene sent to meet him as he moved 
into Marmarica to the attack; the second 
was conjured by the creation of the port of 
Alexandria, perhaps the most signal act of 
Alexander's life, seeing to what stature the 
city would grow, what part play in the 
development of Greek and Jew, and what 
vigour retain to this day. For the moment, 
however, the new foundation served primarily 
to rivet its founder's hold on the shores of 
the Greek and Persian waters. Within a few 
months the hostile fleets disappeared from the 
Levant and Alexander obtained at last that 
command of the sea without which invasion 
of inner Asia would have been more than 
perilous, and permanent retention of Egypt 


Thus secure of his base, he could strike 
inland. He went up slowly in the early part 
of 331 by the traditional North Road through 
Philistia and Palestine and round the head 
of the Syrian Hamad to Thapsacus on Eu- 
phrates, paying, on the way, a visit of pre- 
caution to Tyre, which had cost him so much 
toil and time a year before. None opposed 
his crossing of the Great River ; none stayed 
him in Mesopotamia; none disputed his 
passage of the Tigris, though the ferrying of 
his force took five days. The Great King 
himself, however, was lying a few marches 
south of the mounds of Nineveh, in the plain 
of Gaugamela, to which roads converging 
from south, east and north had brought the 
levies of all the empire which remained to 
him. To hordes drawn from fighting tribes 
living as far distant as frontiers of India, 
banks of the Oxus, and foothills of the 
Caucasus, was added a phalanx of hireling 
Greeks more than three times as numerous as 
that which had been cut up on the Granicus. 
Thus awaited by ten soldiers to each one of 
his own on open ground chosen by his enemy, 
Alexander went still more slowly forward and 
halted four and twenty hours to breathe 


his army in sight of the Persian outposrs. 
Refusing to risk an attack on that immense 
host in the dark, he slept soundly within his 
entrenchments till sunrise of the first day of 
October, and then in the full light led out 
his men to decide the fate of Persia. It 
was decided by sundown, and half a million 
broken men were flying south and east into 
the gathering night. But the Battle of Arbela, 
as it is commonly called — the greatest contest 
of armies before the rise of Rome — had not 
been lightly won. The active resistance of the 
Greek mercenaries, and the passive resistance 
of the enormous mass of the Asiatic hordes, 
which stayed attack by mere weight of flesh 
and closed again behind every penetrating 
column, made the issue doubtful, till Darius 
himself, terrified at the oncoming of the heavy- 
Macedonian cavalry, turned his chariot and 
lost the day. Alexander's men had to thank 
the steadiness which Philip's system had 
given them, but also, in the last resort, the 
cowardice of the opposing chief. 

The Persian King survived to be hunted a 
year later, and caught, a dying man, on the 
road to Central Asia ; but long before that and 
without another pitched battle the Persian 


throne had passed to Alexander. Within six 
months he had marched to and entered in tmn, 
without other let or hindrance than resistance 
of mountain tribesmen in the passes, the capi- 
tals of the Empire — Babylon, Susa, Persepolis, 
Ecbatana; and since these cities all held by 
him during his subsequent absence of six 
years in farther Asia, the victory of the West 
over the Ancient East may be regarded as 
achieved on the day of Arbela. 



Less than ten years later, Alexander lay 

dead in Babylon. He had gone forward to 

the east to acquire more territories than 

we have surveyed in any chapter of this 

book or his fathers had so much as known 

to exist. The broad lands .which are now 

Afghanistan, Russian Turkestan, the Punjab, 

Scinde, and Beluchistan had been subdued by 

him in person and were being held by his 

governors and garrisons. This Macedonian 

Greek who had become an emperor of the 

East greater than the greatest theretofore, 

had already determined that his Seat of 

Empire should be fixed in inner Asia ; and he 

proposed that under his single sway East and 

West be distinct no longer, but one indivisible 

world, inhabited by united peoples. Then, 

suddenly, he was called to his account, leaving 

no legitimate heir of his body except a babe 


in its mother's womb. What would happen ? 
What, in fact, did happen ? 

It is often said that the empire which 
Alexander created died with him. This is 
true if we think of empire as the realm of a 
single emperor. As sole ruler of the vast area 
between the Danube and the Sutlej Alexander 
was to have no successor. But if we think 
of an empire as the realm of a race or nation, 
Greater Macedonia, though destined gradually 
to be diminished, would outlive its founder by 
nearly three hundred years ; and moreover, in 
succession to it, another Western empire, made 
possible by his victory and carried on in some 
respects under his forms, was to persist in the 
East for several centuries more. As a political 
conquest, Alexander's had results as long 
lasting as can be credited to almost any 
conquest in history. As the victory of one 
civilization over another it was never to be 
brought quite to nothing, and it had certain 
permanent effects. These this chapter is 
designed to show: but first, since the de- 
velopment of the victorious civilization on 
alien soil depended primarily on the continued 
political supremacy of the men in whom it was 
congenital, 'it is necessary to see how long 


and to what extent political dominion was 
actually held in the East by men who were 
Greeks, either by birth or by training. 

Out of the turmoil and stress of the thirty 
years which followed Alexander's death, two 
Macedonians emerged to divide the Eastern 
Empire between them. The rest — transient 
embarrassed phantoms of the Royal House, 
regents of the Empire hardly less transient, 
upstart satraps, and even one-eyed Antigonus, 
who for a brief moment claimed jurisdiction 
over all the East — ^never mattered long to the 
world at large and matter not at all here and 
now. The end of the fourth century sees 
Seleucus of Babylonia lording it over the most 
part of West Asia which was best worth having, 
except the southern half of Syria and the 
coasts of Asia Minor and certain isles in sight 
of them, which, if not subject to Ptolemy of 
Egypt, were free of both kings or dominated 
by a third, resident in Europe and soon to 
disappear. In the event those two, Seleucus 
and Ptolemy, alone of all the Macedonian 
successors, would found dynasties destined 
to endure long enough in kingdoms great 
enough to affect the general history of 
civilization in the Ancient East. 


Seleucus has no surviving chronicler of the 
first or the second rank, and consequently 
remains one of the most shadowy of the 
greater men of action in antiquity. We can 
say little of him personally, except that he was 
quick and fearless in action, prepared to take 
chances, a born leader in war, and a man of 
long sight and persistent purpose. Alexander 
had esteemed and distinguished him highly, 
and, marrying him to Apama, a noble Iranian 
lady, convinced him of his own opinion that 
the point from which to rule an Asiatic 
empire was Babylonia. Seleucus let the first 
partition of the dead man's lands go by, 
and not till the first turmoil was over 
and his friend Ptolemy was securely seated 
in Egypt, did he ask for a province. The 
province was Babylonia. Ejected by the 
malevolence of Antigonus, he regained it by 
grace of Ptolemy in 312, established ascend- 
ency over all satraps to east of him during the 
next half-dozen years, letting only India go, 
and then came west in 305 to conquer and 
slay Antigonus at Ipsus in central Asia Minor. 
The third king, Lysimachus of Thrace, was 
disposed of in 281, and Seleucus, dying a few 
months later, left to his dynastic successors 


an Asiatic empire of seventy-two provinces, 
very nearly equal to Alexander's, with im- 
portant exceptions in Asia Minor. 

In Asia Minor neither Seleucus nor the 
Seleucids ever held anything effectively except 
the main lines of communication from East to 
West and the district in which these come down 
to the ^gean Sea. The south coast, as has 
been said, remained in Egyptian hands almost 
all through the Seleucid period. The south- 
west obeyed the island republic of Rhodes. 
Most of the Greek maritime cities of the north- 
west and north kept their freedom more or 
less inviolate ; while inland a purely Greek 
monarchy, that of Pergamum, gradually 
extended its sway up to the central desert. 
In the north a formidable barrier to Seleucid 
expansion arose within five years of Seleucus' 
death, namely, a settlement of Gauls who 
had been invited across the straits by a 
king of Bithynia. After charging and raid- 
ing in all directions these intractable allies 
were penned by the repeated efforts of both 
the Seleucid and the Pergamene kings into 
the upper Sakaria basin (henceforth to be 
known as Galatia) and there they formed a 
screen behind which Bithynia and Paphlagonia 


maintained sturdy independence. The north- 
east also was the seat of independent mon- 
archies. Cappadocia, Pontus and Armenia, 
ruled by princes of Iranian origin, were 
never integral parts of the Seleucid Empire, 
though consistently friendly to its rulers. 
Finally, in the hill -regions of the centre, as 
of the coasts, the Seleucid writ did not run. 

Looked at as a whole, however, and not 
only from a Seleucid point of view, the Ancient 
East, during the century following Seleucus' 
death (forty-three years after Alexander's), 
was dominated politically by Hellenes over 
fully nine-tenths of its area. About those 
parts of it held by cities actually Greek, or 
by Pergamum, no more need be said. As for 
Seleucus and his successors, though the latter, 
from Antiochus Soter onward, had a strain of 
Iranian blood, they held and proved them- 
selves essentially Hellenic. Their portraits 
from first to last show European features, 
often fine. Ptolemy Lagus and all the Lagidae 
remained Macedonian Greeks to a man and a 
woman and to the bitter end, with the greatest 
Hellenic city in the world for their seat. 
As for the remaining tenth part of the East, 
almost the whole of it was ruled by princes 


who claimed the title " philhellene," and 
justified it not only by political friendliness 
to the Seleucidae and the Western Greeks, 
but also by encouraging Greek settlers and 
Greek manners. So far as patronage and 
promotion by the highest powers could further 
it, Hellenism had a fair chance in West Asia 
from the conquest of Alexander down to 
the appearance of Rome in the East. What 
did it make of this chance ? How far in 
the event did those Greek and Macedonian 
rulers, philhellenic Iranian princes and others, 
hellenize West Asia ? If they did succeed in 
a measure, but not so completely that the 
East ceased to be distinct from the West, what 
measure was set to their several influences, 
and why ? 

Let us see, f^st, what precisely Hellenism 
implied as it was brought to Asia by Alexander 
and practised by his successors. Politically 
it implied recognition by the individual that 
the society of which he was a member had an 
indefeasible and virtually exclusive claim on 
his good will and his good offices. The society 
so recognized was not a family or a tribe, but 
a city and its proper district, distinguished 
from all other cities and their districts. The 



geographical configuration and the history of 
Greece, a country made up in part of small 
plains ringed in by hills and sea, in part of 
islands, had brought about this limitation of 
political communities, and had made patriot- 
ism mean to the Greek devotion to his city- 
state. To a wider circle he was not capable of 
feeling anything like the same sense of obliga- 
tion or, indeed, any compelling obligation at all. 
If he recognized the claim of a group of city- 
states, which remotely claimed common origin 
with his own, it was an academic feeling : 
if he was conscious of his community with all 
Hellenes as a nation it was only at moments 
of particular danger at the hands of a common 
non-Hellenic foe. In short, while not in- 
sensible to the principle of nationality he 
was rarely capable of applying it practically 
except in regard to a small society with whose 
members he could be acquainted personally 
and among whom he could make his own 
individuality felt. He had no feudal tradi- 
tion, and no instinctive belief that the in- 
dividualities composing a community must 
be subordinate to any one individual in virtue 
of the latter's patriarchal or representative 
relation to them. 


Let us deal with this poHtical implication 
of Hellenism before we pass on to its other 
qualities. In its purity political Hellenism 
was obviously not compatible with the 
monarchical Macedonian state, which was 
based on feudal recognition of the paternal or 
representative relation of a single individual 
to many peoples composing a nation. The 
Macedonians themselves, therefore, could not 
carry to Asia, together with their own national 
patriotism (somewhat intensified, perhaps, by 
intercourse during past generations with 
Greek city-states) any more than an outside 
knowledge of the civic patriotism of the Greeks. 
Since, however, they brought in their train 
a great number of actual Greeks and had to 
look to settlement of these in Asia for in- 
dispensable support of their own rule, com- 
merce and civilization, they were bound to 
create conditions under which civic patriotism, 
of which they knew the value as well as the 
danger, might continue to exist in some 
measure. Their obvious policy was to found 
cities wherever they wished to settle Greeks, 
and to found them along main lines of com- 
munication, where they might promote trade 
and serve as guardians of the roads; while 


at the same time, owing to their continual 
intercourse with each other, their exposure to 
native sojourners and immigrants and their 
necessary dependence on the centre of govern- 
ment, they could hardly repeat in Asia the 
self-centred exclusiveness characteristic of 
cities in either European Greece or the strait 
and sharply divided valleys of the west 
Anatolian coast. In fact, by design or 
not, most Seleucid foundations were planted 
in comparatively open country. Seleucus 
alone is said to have been responsible for 
seventy-five cities, of which the majority 
clustered in that great meeting-place of 
through routes. North Syria, and along the 
main highway through northern Asia Minor 
to Ephesus. In this city, Seleucus himself 
spent most of his last years. We know of few 
Greek colonies, or none, founded by him or 
his dynasty beyond the earlier limits of the 
Ancient East, where, in Afghanistan, Turkestan 
and India, Alexander had planted nearly all 
his new cities. Possibly his successor held 
these to be sufficient ; probably he saw neither 
prospect of advantage nor hope of success in 
creating Greek cities in a region so vast and 
so alien ; certainly neither he nor his dynasty 


was ever in such a position to support or 
maintain them, if founded east of Media, as 
Alexander was and proposed to be, had longer 
life been his. But in western Asia from 
Seleucia on Tigris, an immense city of over 
half a million souls, to Laodicea on Lycus and 
the confines of the old Ionian littoral, Seleucus 
and his successors created urban life, casting 
it in a Hellenic mould whose form, destined 
to persist for many centuries to come, would 
exercise momentous influence on the early 
history of the Christian religion. 

By founding so many urban communities 
of Greek type the Macedonian kings of West 
Asia undeniably introduced Hellenism as an 
agent of political civilization into much of the 
Ancient East, which needed it badly and 
profited by it. But the influence of their 
Hellenism was potent and durable only in those 
newly founded, or newly organized, urban 
communities and their immediate neighbour- 
hood. Where these clustered thickly, as along 
the Lower Orontes and on the S5rrian coast-line, 
or where Greek farmers had settled in the inter- 
spaces, as in Cyrrhestica (^. e, roughly, central 
North Syria), Hellenism went far to make whole 
districts acquire a civic spirit, which, though 


implying much less sense of personal freedom 
and responsibility than in Attica or Laconia, 
would have been recognized by an Athenian 
or a Spartan as kin to his own patriotism. 
But where the cities were strung on single 
lines of communication at considerable inter- 
vals, as in ceiitral Asia Minor and in Meso- 
potamia, they exerted little political influence 
outside their own walls. For Hellenism was 
and remained essentially a property of com- 
munities small enough for each individual to 
exert his own personal influence on political 
and social practice. So soon as a community 
became, in numbers or distribution, such 
as to call for centralized, or even repre- 
sentative, administration, patriotism of the 
Hellenic type languished and died. It was 
quite incapable of permeating whole peoples 
or of making a nation, whether in the East 
or anywhere else. Yet in the East peoples 
have always mattered more than cities, by 
whomsoever founded and maintained. 

Hellenism, however, had, by this time, not 
only a political implication but also moral 
and intellectual implications which were partly 
effects, partly causes, of its political energy. 
As has been well said by a modern historian 


of the Seleucid house, Hellenism meant, 
besides a politico -social creed, also a certain 
attitude of mind. The characteristic feature 
of this attitude was what has been called 
Humanism, this word being used in a special 
sense to signify intellectual interest confined 
to human affairs, but free within the range of 
these. All Greeks were not, of course, equally 
humanistic in this sense. Among them, as 
in all societies, there were found temperaments 
to which transcendental speculation appealed, 
and these increasing in number, as with the 
loss of their freedom the city-states ceased 
to stand for the realization of the highest 
possible good in this world, made Orphism 
and other mystic cults prevail ever more and 
more in Hellas. But when Alexander carried 
Hellenism to Asia it was still broadly true that 
the mass of civilized Hellenes regarded any- 
thing that could not be apprehended by the 
intellect through the senses as not only outside 
their range of interest but non-existent. 
Further, while nothing was held so sacred 
that it might not be probed or discussed with 
the full vigour of an inquirer's intelligence, 
no consideration except the logic of appre- 
hended facts should determine his conclusion. 


An argument was to be followed wherever 
it might lead, and its consequences must be 
faced in full without withdrawal behind any 
non -intellectual screen. Perfect freedom of 
thought and perfect freedom of discussion 
over the whole range of human matters; 
perfect freedom of consequent action, so the 
community remained uninjured — this was the 
typical Hellene's ideal. An instinctive effort 
to realize it was his habitual attitude towards 
life. His motto anticipated the Roman poet's 
" I am human : nothing human do I hold 
no business of mine ! " 

By the time the Western conquest of Asia 
was complete, this attitude, which had grown 
more and more prevalent in the centres of 
Greek life throughout the fifth and fourth 
centuries, had come to exclude anything like 
religiosity from the typical Hellenic character. 
A religion the Greek had of course, but he 
held it lightly, neither possessed by it nor 
even looking to it for guidance in the affairs 
of his life. If he believed in a world beyond 
the grave, he thought little about it or not 
at all, framing his actions with a view solely 
to happiness in the flesh. A possible fate in 
the hereafter seemed to him to have no 


bearing on his conduct here. That dis- 
embodied he might spend eternity with the 
divine, or, absorbed into the divine essence, 
become himself divine — such ideas, though 
not unknown or without attraction to rarer 
spirits, were wholly impotent to combat the 
vivid interest in life and the lust of strenuous 
endeavour which were bred in the small 
worlds of the city-states. 

The Greeks, then, who passed to Asia in 
Alexander's wake had no religious message for 
the East, and still less had the Macedonian 
captains who succeeded him. Born and bred 
to semibar baric superstitions, they had long 
discarded these, some for the freethinking 
attitude of the Greek, and all for the cult 
of the sword. The only thing which, in 
their Emperor's lifetime, stood to them for 
religion was a feudal devotion to himself and 
his house. For a while this feeling survived 
in the ranks of the army, as Eumenes, wily 
Greek that he was, proved by the manner and 
success of his appeals to dynastic loyalty in 
the first years of the struggle for the succes- 
sion; and perhaps, we may trace it longer 
still in the leaders, as an element, blended 
with something of homesickness and some- 


thing of national tradition, in that fatahty 
which impelled each Macedonian lord of Asia, 
first Antigonus, then Seleucus, finally Antio- 
chus the Great, to hanker after the possession 
of Macedonia and be prepared to risk the 
East to win back the West. Indeed, it is 
a contributory cause of the comparative 
failure of the Seleucids to keep their hold on 
their Asiatic Empire that their hearts were 
never wholly in it. 

For the rest, they and all the Macedonian 
captains alike were conspicuously irreligious 
men, whose gods were themselves. They were 
what the age had made them, and what all 
similar ages make men of action. Theirs was 
a time of wide conquests recently achieved by 
right of might alone, and left to whomsoever 
should be mightiest. It was a time when 
the individual had suddenly found that no 
accidental defects — lack of birth, or property, 
or allies — ^need prevent him from exploiting 
for himself a vast field of unmeasured possi- 
bilities, so he had a sound brain, a stout heart 
and a strong arm. As it would be again in 
the age of the Crusades, in that of the Grand 
Companies, and in that of the Napoleonic 
conquests, every soldier knew that it rested 


only with himself and with opportunity, 
whether or no he should die a prince. It was 
a time for reaping harvests which others had 
sown, for getting anything for nothing, for 
frank and unashamed lust of loot, for selling 
body and soul to the highest bidder, for being 
a law to oneself. In such ages the voice of 
the priest goes for as little as the voice of 
conscience, and the higher a man climbs, the 
less is his faith in a power above him. 

Having won the East, however, these 
irreligious Macedonians found they had under 
their hand a medley of peoples, diverse in 
many characteristics, but almost all alike in 
one, and that was their religiosity. Deities 
gathered and swarmed in Asia. Men showed 
them fierce fanatic devotion or spent lives in 
contemplation of the idea of them, careless of 
everything which Macedonians held worth 
living for, and even of life itself. Alexander 
had been quick to perceive the religiosity of 
the new world into which he had come. If 
his power in the East was to rest on a popular 
basis he knew that basis must be religious. 
Beginning with Egypt he set an example (not 
lost on the man who would be his successor 
there) of not only conciliating priests but 


identifying himself with the chief god in the 
traditional manner of native kings since 
immemorial time ; and there is no doubt that 
the cult of himself, which he appears to have 
enjoined increasingly on his followers, his 
subjects and his allies, as time went on, was 
consciously devised to ineet and captivate 
the religiosity of the East. In Egypt he 
must be Ammon, in Syria he would be Baal, 
in Babylon Bel. He left the faith of his 
fathers behind him when he went up to the 
East, knowing as well as his French historian 
knew in the nineteenth century, that in Asia 
the " dreams of Olympus were less worth than 
the dreams of the Magi and the mysteries 
of India, pregnant with the divine." With 
these last, indeed, he showed himself deeply 
impressed, and his recorded attitude towards 
the Brahmans of the Punjab implies the 
earliest acknowledgment made publicly by a 
Greek, that in religion the West must learn 
from the East. 

Alexander, who has never been forgotten 
by the traditions and myths of the East, might 
possibly, with longer life, have satisfied 
Asiatic religiosity with an apotheosis of 
himself. His successors failed either to keep 


his divinity alive or to secure any general 
acceptance of their own godhead. That they 
tried to meet the demand of the East with a 
new universal cult of imperial utility and that 
some, like Antiochus IV, the tyrant of early 
Maccabsean history, tried very hard, is clear. 
That they failed and that Rome failed after 
them is writ large in the history of the ex- 
pansion of half-a-dozen Eastern cults before 
the Christian era, and of Christianity itself. 

Only in the African province did Mace- 
donian rule secure a religious basis. What 
an Alexander could hardly have achieved in 
Asia, a Ptolemy did easily in Egypt. There 
the de facto ruler, of whatever race, had 
been installed a god since time out of mind, 
and an omnipotent priesthood, dominating a 
docile people, stood about the throne. The 
Assyrian conquerors had stiffened their backs 
in Egypt to save affronting the gods of their 
fatherland; but the Ptolemies, like the Per- 
sians, made no such mistake, and had three 
centuries of secure rule for their reward. The 
knowledge that what the East demanded 
could be provided easily and safely even by 
Macedonians in the Nile valley alone was 
doubtless present to the sagacious mind of 


Ptolemy when, letting all wider lands pass to 
others, he selected Egypt in the first partition 
of the provinces. 

The Greek, in a word, had only his philo- 
sophies to offer to the religiosity of the East. 
But a philosophy of religion is a complement 
to, a modifying influence on, religion, not a 
substitute sufficient to satisfy the instinctive 
and profound craving of mankind for God. 
While this craving always possessed the 
Asiatic mind, the Greek himself, never 
naturally insensible to it, became more and 
more conscious of his own void as he lived 
in Asia. What had long stood to him for 
religion, namely passionate devotion to the 
community, was finding less and less to feed 
on under the restricted political freedom 
which was now his lot everywhere. Superior 
though he felt his culture to be in most 
respects, it lacked one thing needful, which 
inferior cultures around him possessed in 
full. As time went on he became curious, 
then receptive, of the religious systems among 
whose adherents he found himself, being 
coerced insensibly by nature's abhorrence 
of a vacuum. Not that he swallowed any 
Eastern religion whole, or failed, while assimi- 


lating what he took, to transform it with his 
own essence. Nor again should it be thought 
that he gave nothing at all in return. He 
gave a philosophy which, acting almost as 
powerfully on the higher intelligences of the 
East as their religions acted on his intelli- 
gence, created the "Hellenistic " type, properly 
so called, that is the oriental who combined 
the religious instinct of Asia with the philo- 
sophic spirit of Greece — such an oriental as 
(to take two very great names), the Stoic 
apostle Zeno, a Phoenician of Cyprus, or the 
Christian apostle, Saul the Jew of Tarsus. 
By the creation of this type. East and West 
were brought at last very near together, 
divided only by the distinction of religious 
philosophy in Athens from philosophic 
religion in Syria. 

The history of the Near East during the 
last three centuries before the Christian era 
is the history of the gradual passing of Asiatic 
religions westward to occupy the Hellenic 
vacuum, and of Hellenic philosophical ideas 
eastward to supplement and purify the 
religious systems of West Asia. How far the 
latter eventually penetrated into the great 
Eastern continent, whether even to India or 


China, this is no place to discuss : how i ar the 
former would push westward is written in the 
modern history of Europe and the New World. 
The expansion of Mithraism and of half-a- 
dozen other Asiatic and Egyptian cults, which 
were drawn from the East to Greece and 
beyond before the first century of the Hellen- 
istic Age closed, testifies to the early existence 
of that spiritual void in the West which a 
greater and purer religion, about to be born 
in Galilee and nurtured in Antioch, was at 
last to filL The instrumentality of Alexander 
and his successors in bringing about or intensi- 
fying that contact and intercourse between 
Semite and Greek, which begot the philosophic 
morality of Christianity and rendered its west- 
ward expansion inevitable, stands to their 
credit as a historic fact of such tremendous 
import that it may be allowed to atone for 
more than all their sins. 

This, then, the Seleucids did — they so brought 
West and East together that each learned from 
the other. But more than that cannot be 
claimed for them. They did not abolish the 
individuality of either ; they did not Hellenize 
even so much of West Asia as they succeeded 
in holding to the end. In this they failed not 


only for the reasons just considered — ^laek of 
vital religion in their Macedonians and their 
Greeks, and deterioration of the Hellenism 
of Hellenes when they ceased to be citizens of 
free city-states — but also through individual 
faults of their own, which appear again and 
again as the dynasty runs its course; and 
perhaps even more for some deeper reason, 
not understood by us yet, but lying behind the 
empirical law that East is East and West is 

As for the Seleucid kings themselves they 
leave on us, ill-known as their characters 
and actions are, a clear impression of 
approximation to the traditional type of the 
Greek of the Roman age and since. As a 
dynasty they seem to have been quickly 
spoilt by power, to have been ambitious but 
easily contented with the show and surface 
of success, to have been incapable and con- 
temptuous of thorough organization, and to 
have had little in the way of policy, and less 
perseverance in the pursuit of it. It is true 
that our piecemeal information comes largely 
from writers who somewhat despised them; 
but the known history of the Seleucid Empire, 
closed by an extraordinarily facile and 


ignominious collapse before Rome, supports 
the judgment that, taken one with another, 
its kings were shallow men and haphazard 
rulers who owed it more to chance than to 
prudence that their dynasty endured so 

Their strongest hold was on Syria, and in 
the end their only hold. We associate them in 
our minds particularly with the great city of 
Antioch, which the first Seleucus founded on 
the Lower Orontes to gather up trade from 
Egypt, Mesopotamia and Asia Minor in the 
North Syrian country. But, as a matter of 
fact, that city owes its fame mainly to sub- 
sequent Roman masters. For it did not 
become the capital of Seleucid preference till 
the second century B.C. — ^till, by the year 180, 
the dynasty, which had lost both the Western 
and the Eastern provinces, had to content 
itself with Syria and Mesopotamia alone. 
Not only had the Parthians then come down 
from Turkestan to the south of the Caspian 
(their kings assumed Iranian names but were 
they not, like the present rulers of Persia, 
really Turks?), but Media too had asserted 
independence and Persia was fallen away to 


the rule of native princes in Ears. Seleucia 
on Tigris had become virtually a frontier city 
facing an Iranian and Parthian peril which the 
imperial incapacity of the Seleucids allowed to 
develop, and even Rome would never dispel. 
On the other flank of the empire a century 
of Seleucid efforts to plant headquarters in 
Western Asia Minor, whether at Ephesus or 
Sardes, and thence to prosecute ulterior 
designs on Macedonia and Greece, had been 
settled in favour of Pergamum by the arms 
and mandate of the coming arbiter of the East, 
the Republic of Rome. Bidden retire south 
of Taurus after the battle of Magnesia in 
190, summarily ordered out of Egypt twenty 
years later, when Antiochus Epiphanes was 
hoping to compensate the loss of west and 
east with gain of the south, the Seleucids had 
no choice of a capital. It must thenceforth 
be Antioch or nothing. 

That, however, a Macedonian dynasty was 
forced to concentrate in north Syria whatever 
Hellenism it had (though after Antiochus 
Epiphanes its Hellenism steadily grew less) 
during the last two centuries before the 
Christian era was to have a momentous 


effect on the history of the world. For it 
was one of the two determining causes of an 
increase in the influence of Hellenism upon the 
Western Semites, which issued ultimately in 
the Christian religion. From Cilicia on the 
north to Phoenicia and Palestine in the south, 
such higher culture, such philosophical study 
as there were came more and more under the 
influence of Greek ideas, particularly those of 
the Stoic School, whose founder and chief 
teacher (it should never be forgotten) had 
been a Semite, born some three hundred 
years before Jesus of Nazareth. The Hel- 
lenized University of Tarsus, which educated 
Saul, and the Hellenistic party in Palestine, 
whose desire to make Jerusalem a southern 
Antioch brought on the Maccabaean struggle, 
both owed in a measure their being 
and their continued vitality to the exist- 
ence and larger growth of Antioch on the 

But Phoenicia and Palestine owed as much 
of their Hellenism (perhaps more) to another 
Hellenized city and another Macedonian 
dynasty — ^to Alexandria and to the Ptolemies. 
Because the short Maccabaean period of 


Palestinian history, during which a Seleucid 
did happen to be holding all Syria, is very well 
and widely known, it is apt to be forgotten 
that, throughout almost all other periods of 
the Hellenistic Age, southern Syria, that is 
Palestine and Phoenicia as well as Cyprus and 
the Levant coast right round to Pamphylia, 
was under the political domination of Egypt. 
The first Ptolemy added to his province some 
of these Asiatic districts and cities, and in 
particular Palestine and Coele-Syria, very soon 
after he had assumed command of Egypt, and 
making no secret of his intention to retain 
them, built a fleet to secure his end. He 
knew very well that if Egypt is to hold in 
permanency any territory outside Africa, 
she must be mistress of the sea. After a 
brief set-back at the hands of Antigonus' son, 
Ptolemy made good his hold when the father 
was dead; and Cyprus also became definitely 
his in 294. His successor, in whose favour 
he abdicated nine years later, completed the 
conquest of the mainland coasts right round 
the Levant at the expense of Seleucus' heir. 
In the event, the Ptolemies kept almost all 
that the first two kings of the dynasty had 


thus won until they were supplanted by Rome, 
except for an interval of a little more than 
fifty years from 199 to about 145 ; and even 
during the latter part of this period south 
Syria was under Egyptian influence once 
more, though nominally part of the tottering 
Seleucid realm. 

The object pursued by the Macedonian 
kings of Egypt in conquering and holding a 
thin coastal fringe of mainland outside Africa 
and certain island posts from Cyprus to the 
Cyclades was plainly commercial, to get control 
of the general Levant trade and of certain 
particular supplies (notably ship-timber) for 
their royal port of Alexandria. The first 
Ptolemy had well understood why his master 
had founded this city after ruining Tyre, and 
why he had taken so great pains both earlier 
and later to secure his Mediterranean coasts. 
Their object the Ptolemies obtained suffi- 
ciently, although they never eliminated the 
competition of the Rhodian republic and 
had to resign to it the command of the 
JEgean after the battle of Cos in 246. But 
Alexandria had already become a great 
Semitic as well as Grecian city, and continued 


to be so for centuries to come. The first 
Ptolemy is said to have transplanted to 
Egypt many thousands of Jews who quickly 
reconciled themselves to their exile, if indeed 
it had ever been involuntary; and how 
large its Jewish population was by the reign 
of the second Ptolemy and how open to 
Hellenic influence, may be illustrated suffi- 
ciently by the fact that at Alexandria, during 
that reign, the Hebrew scriptures were trans- 
lated into Greek by the body of Semitic 
scholars which has been known since as 
the Septuagint. Although it was consistent 
Ptolemaic policy not to countenance Hellenic 
proselytism, the inevitable influence of Alex- 
andria on south Syria was stronger than that 
consciously exerted by Antiochus Epiphanes 
or any other Seleucid ; and if Phoenician cities 
liad become homes of Hellenic science and 
philosophy by the middle of the third century, 
and if Yeshua or Jason, High Priest of Jehovah, 
when he applied to his suzerain a hundred 
years later for leave to make Jerusalem a 
Greek city, had at his back a strong party 
anxious to wear hats in the street and nothing 
at all in the gymnasium, Alexandria rather 


than Antioch should have the chief credit — or 
chief blame ! 

Before, however, all this blending of Semitic 
religiosity with Hellenic philosophical ideas, 
and with something of the old Hellenic man- 
suetude, which had survived even under 
Macedonian masters to modify Asiatic minds, 
could issue in Christianity, half the East, with 
its dispersed heirs of Alexander, had passed 
under the common and stronger yoke of Rome. 
Ptolemaic Alexandria and Seleucid Antioch 
had prepared Semitic ground for seed of a 
new religion, but it was the wide and sure 
peace of the Roman Empire that brought it 
to birth and gave it room to grow. It was 
to grow, as all the world knows, westward not 
eastward, making patent by its first successes 
and by its first failures how much Hellenism 
had gone to the making of it. The Asian map 
of Christianity at the end, say, of the fourth 
century of the latter's existence, will show it 
very exactly bounded by the limits to which 
the Seleucid Empire had carried Greeks in any 
considerable body, and the further limits to 
which the Romans, who ruled effectively a 
good deal left aside by their Macedonian 


predecessors — much of central and eastern 
Asia Minor for example, and all Armenia — 
had advanced their Grseco-Roman subjects. 

Beyond these bounds neither Hellenism nor 
Christianity was fated in that age to strike deep 
roots or bear lasting fruit. The Farther East 
— ^the East, that is to say, beyond Euphrates 
— remained unreceptive and intolerant of 
both influences. We have seen how almost all 
of it had fallen away from the Seleucids many 
generations before the birth of Christ, when a 
ring of principalities, Median, Parthian, Per- 
sian, Nabathaean, had emancipated the heart 
of the Orient from its short servitude to the 
West; and though Rome, and Byzantium 
after her, would push the frontier of effective 
European influence somewhat eastward again, 
their Hellenism could never capture again that 
heart which the Seleucids had failed to hold. 
This is not to say that nothing of Hellenism 
passed eastward of Mesopotamia and made an 
abiding mark. Parthian and Sassanian art, 
the earlier Buddhist art of north-western 
India and Chinese Turkestan, some features 
even of early Mohammedan art, and some, too, 
of early Mohammedan doctrine and imperial 


policy, disprove any sweeping assertion that 
nothing Greek took root beyond the bounds of 
the Roman Empire. But it was very httle of 
Hellenism and not at all its essence. We must 
not be deceived by mere borrowings of exotic 
things or momentary appreciations of foreign 
luxuries. That the Parthians were witnessing 
a performance of the Bacchse of Euripides, 
when the head of hapless Crassus was brought 
to Ctesiphon, no more argues that they had the 
Western spirit than our taste for Chinese 
curios or Japanese plays proves us informed 
with the spirit of the East. 

The East, in fine, remained the East. It was 
so little affected after all by the West that in 
due time its religiosity would be pregnant with 
yet another religion, antithetical to Hellenism, 
and it was so little weakened that it would win 
back again all it had lost and more, and keep 
Hither Asia in political and cultural inde- 
pendence of the West until our own day. If 
modern Europe has taken some parts of the 
gorgeous East in fee which were never held 
by Macedonian or Roman, let us remember 
in our pride of race that almost all that the 
Macedonians and the Romans did hold in 
Asia has been lost to the West ever since. 


Europe may and probably will prevail there 
again; but since it must be by virtue of a 
civilization in whose making a religion born 
of Asia has been the paramount indispensable 
factor, will the West even then be more 
creditor than debtor of the East ? 


The authorities cited at the end of Prof. J. L. Myres' Dawn 
of History (itself an authority), in the Home University 
Library, are to a great extent suitable for those who wish to 
read more widely round the theme of the present volume, 
since those {e. g. the geographical works given in Dawn of 
History, p. 253, paragraph 2) which are not more or less 
essential preliminaries to a study of the Ancient East at any 
period, mostly deal with the historic as well as the pre- 
historic age. To spare readers reference to another volume, 
however, I will repeat here the most useful books in Prof. 
Myres' list, adding at the same time certain others, some 
of which have appeared since the issue of his volume. 

For the history of the whole region in the period covered 
by my volume, E. Meyer's Geschichte Alterthums, of a new 
edition of which a French translation is in progress and has 
already been partly issued, is the most authoritative. Sir G. 
Maspero's Histoire ancienne des peuphs de VOrient classique 
(English translation in 3 vols, under the titles The Dawn of 
Civilization (Egypt and Ghaldeea) ; The Struggle of the Nations 
(Egypt, Syria, and Assyria); The Passing of the Empires) 
is still valuable, but rather out of date. There has appeared 
recently a more modern and handy book than either, Mr- 
H. R. Hall's The Ancient History of the Near East (1913), which 
gathers up, not only what was in the books by Mr. Hall and 
Mr. King cited by Prof. Myres, but also the contents of Meyer's 
and Maspero's books, and others, and the results of more 
recent research, in some of which the author has taken part. 
This book includes in its scope both Egypt and the iEgean 
area> besides Western Asia. 



For the special history of Babylonia and Assyria and their 
Empires, R. W. Rogers' History of Babylonia and Assyria, 
2 vols., has been kept up to date and is the most convenient 
summary for an English reader. H. Winckler's History of 
Babylonia and Assyria (translated from the German by 
J. A. Craig, 1907) is more brilliant and suggestive, but needs 
to be used with more caution. A. T. Olmsiead's Western 
Asia in the Days of 8argon of Assyria (1908) is an instructive 
study of the Assyrian Empire at its height. 

For the Hittite Empire and civilization J. Garstang's The 
Land of the Hittites (1910) is the best recent book which aims 
at being comprehensive. But it must be borne in mind that 
this subject is in the melting-pot at present, that excavations 
now in progress have added greatly to the available evidence, 
and that very few of the Boghazkeui archives were published 
when Garstang's book was issued. D. G. Hogarth's articles 
on the Hittites, in Enc. Brit, and Enc. Brit. Year-book, sum- 
marize some more recent research; but there is no com- 
pendium of Hittite research which is really up to date. 

For Semitic Syrian history, Rogers and Winckler, as cited 
above, will probably be found sufficient; and also for the 
Urartu peoples. For Western Asia Minor and the Greeks, 
besides T>. G. Hogarth's Ionia and the East, the new edition 
of Beloch's Griechische Geschichte gives all, and more than all, 
that the general reader will require. If German is a difficulty 
to him, ho must turn to J. B. Bury's History of Greece and 
to the later part of Hall's Ancient History of the Near East, cited 
above. For Alexander's conquest he can go to J. Karst, 
Geschichte des hdlenistischen Zeitalters, Vol. I (1901), B. Niese, 
Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten (1899), 
or D. G. Hogarth, Philip and Alexander of Macedron (1897); 
but the great work of J. G. Droysen, Das Hellenismus (French 
translation), lies behind all these. 

Finally, the fourth English volume of A. Holm's History 
of Greece (1898) and E. R. Be van's House of Seleucus (1902) 
will supply most that is known of the Hellenistic Age in 


This index only includes selected names. The principal subjects 
must be sought by means of the sectional headings. 

Adadnihari III, 72, 79, 82, 88 
Agesilaus, 196, 198, 200, 207 
Ahab, 17, 81 
Alexander (the Great), 12, 167, 

194, 208 ff., 218 flf., 235 flf. 
Alexandria (Egyi>t), 158, 214, 

242 flf. 
Alyattes, 141, 164 
Amanus Mts., 16, 68, 90 ff., 

Amarna, 26, 30, 53 
Amenhetep in, 32, 34 
Aaienhetep IV (Akhenaten), 34 
Amorites 56 
Anshan, 160 f. 
Antigonus, 220 f., 234, 245 
Antioch (on Orontes), 242 ff., 

Antiochus I (Soter), 223 
Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), 237, 

243, 247 
AraiHieans, 41, 52, 54, 56 f., 65, 

67, 77, 79, 80 flf., 173 
Araxes, R., 167, 168 
Arbela, 72, 216 f. 
Ardys, 137 
Artaxerxes, Mnemon, 187, 190 ff ., 

197, 201 f. 
Artaxerxes, Ochus, 202 
Arvad (Aradus), 31, 41 
Ashurbanipal, 96, 98, 114, 128, 

136 f., 140 
Ashurnatsirpal, 25, 67, 69, 74, 

79 ff., 102 
Asshur, 40, 61, 72, 102, 104, 115 
Astyages, 162 
Athens, 149 179 f., 184, 205, 


Balkans, 177, 180, 194, 203, 

Benhadad, 81 
Bithynia, 212, 222 
Boghazkeui, 36, 38, 50 

Calah, 40, 69, 104, 115, 154 
Cambyses, 167, 169, 174, 176, 

Canaanites, 22, 40, 56, 77, 79 
Cappadocia, 15, 26, 42, 45, 89, 

132, 140, 165, 200, 211, 223 
Carcheniish, 38, 43, 59, 80, 86, 

121, 133, 158 
Caria, 48, 136, 139, 156, 166, 176. 

185, 187, 200, 207, 210 
Cartilage, 154 

Chald^^cans, 77, 79, 101, 119, 147 
Christianity, 240, 244, 248 
Cimmerians - (Gimirrai), 75, 97, 

118, 129, 135, 137 f., 141 
Clearchus, 197, 199 
Colophon, 48, 136, 143, 16^ 
Cos, 150, 246 
Cru'sus, 138, 164 ff. 
Ctesias, 150, 161, 190 f. 
Cunaxa, 188, 197, 199 
Cyclades, 180, 246 
Cyme, 48, 99 
Cyprus, 93, 107, 130, 146, 153, 

157, 176, 187, 197, 202, 239, 

245 f. 
Cyrene, 176, 214 
Cyrus, 160 fl., 166 ff., 172, 174, 

Cyrus (the younger), 187 fl., 195, 

196, 199 f. 

Damascus, 16, 52, 57, 67, 68, 80, 

84, 87, 102, 105, 111 
Darius (Codomannus), 212 ff. 
Darius (Hystaspis), 150, 167, 169, 

173, 177 ff., 192 
Darius (Nothus), 196 
David, 57, 82 
Dugdamme (Lygdamis), 129 

Ecbatana, 122 ff., 176, 217 
Elam, 28, 40, 64, 76, 79, 110, 
114, 117, 125, 160 fl., 177 



Spheaus, 99, 143 ff., 146, 154. 

164, 228,v243 
EsarhaddoD, 112 
Euphrates, R., 20, 59, 67, 80, 84, 

113, 119, 126, 129, 166, 177, 

187, 190, 225, 249 

Galatia, 222 
Gordion, 211 
(iygea (Guggu), 136 f ., 140, 151 

Halicarnassus, 185, 200, 210, 211 
Halys, R., 124, 127, 133, 160, 

163, 165 
Hamath, 16, 52, 57, 81, 82, 91 
Hammurabi, 24, 114 
Harrau, 60, 85, 123 
llatt) (Hittites), 15, 26, 28, 32, 

34 ft-., 41, 43, 45, 47, 50 f., 

79, 96, 133, 157, 165 
Hazael, 81 
Heraclida, 49, 96 
Hermus, R., 132, 165 
Herodotus, 10, 49, 124, 129, 

137 fl., 142, 150 &., 158, 163 f„ 

Hittites. See Hatti 
Hyksos, 22, 30 

India, 215, 228, 239 

Ionia, 47, 137 f., 145, 152 f., 

164 ff., 178 fif., 181, 185, 187, 

200, 229 
Issus, 126, 212 

Jehu, 69, 84 

Jerusalem, 57, 109, 111, 121, 

160, 172, 244, 247 
Jews (Hebrews, Habiri), 56 f., 

147, 171 ff., 214, 247 
Jordan, R., 24, 56 f, 
Josiah, 120 

Kadesh, 31 

Karkar, 81, 87, 91 

Kas, 50, 89 

Kassites, 28, 30, 32 

Khalflia, 74, 75 (and see Urartu) 

Khalman (Aleppo), 87 

Khani, 41, 60 

Khanigalbat, 89, 94 

Kue, 51, 91, 129, 130, 133 

Kummukh (Commagene), 51, 129 

Kurdistan, 18, 60, 190 

Kyaxares, 120 flf., 126, 141, 162 

Maccabees, 237, 244 
Macedonia, 13, 180, 194, 203 ff„ 
218 ff., 234 ff. 

Malatia (Milid, Melitene), 74, 89. 

Megiddo, 31, 120 
Memphis, 112, 117, 151 f. 
Mermnads, 116, 141 
Miletus, 48, 99, 137, 144 f ., 151 f., 

164, 166, 178 f., 185, 210 f. 
Minoans (iEgean Civilization), 

44, 47, 54, 94, 155, 203 
Mita> (Midas ?), 45, 96, 132 ff. 
Mitanni, 32, 41, 46, 60 
Mxishlci (Moschi), 38, 41, 45 ff., 

50 f., 60, 65, 93, 96 ff., 132 f., 

Mysia, 146, 200 

Nabonidus, 123, 166 
Nabopolassar, 119 
Nairi, 75, 105 
Naukratis, 151 f. 
Nebuchadnezzar I, 28, 63 
Nebuchadnezzar II, 91, 119, 

121 ff., 128, 160, 172, 179 
Necho, 120 
Nineveh, 40, 60, 104, 108, 147, 

158, 170 

Omri, 83 

Orontes, R., 81, 87, 167, 229, 

Oxus, R., 168, 215 

Pamphylia, 146, 179, 181, 245 

Paphlagonia, 200, 212, 222 

Parmenio, 208, 209 

Partliians, 242, 243, 249, 250 

Pasargadse, 176, 191 

Pergamum, 222, 243 

Phihp, 204 ff., 216 

Philistines (Pulesti), 44, 55, 109 

Phraortes, 162 

Pisidia, 44, 48, 189 

Pitru, 85, 88 

Pontus, 142, 200, 211, 223 

Psammetichus, 117, 120, 136, 151 

Ptolemy I (Lagus), 220 ff., 

237 ff., 245, 247 
Ptolemy II (Philadelphus). 247 

Rameses II, 35, 43 

Rameses III, 43 

Rhodes, 48, 144, 156, 222, 246 

Sajur, R., 59, 84, 86 
Samaria, 53, 69, 84, 117, 172 
Sandan, 49, 51, 92 
Sangarius, R. (Sakaria), 95, 132, 


Sardes, 49, 136 ff., 140, 160, 165, 

179, 188, 196, 243 
Sargon (of Akkad), 22 
Sargon III, 98, 106 fif., 117, 128, 

130, 133 
Saul (King), 57 
Saul of Tarsus, 239, 244 
Scyths, 75, 118 tf ., 135, 137, 162 f., 

167, 177 
Sea Land, 27, 63, 79 
Seleucia(on Tigris), 229, 243 
Seleucus, 167, 220 ff., 234 
Sennacherib, 110 fi., 115, 128, 

130, 189 
Shalmaneser I, 41, 66, 69 
Shalmaneser n, 67 ff., 77, 79 fl., 

103, 128, 179 
Shalmaneser IV, 111 
Shamal, 16, 52, 53 
Sheshenk, 65 
Sidon, 156, 202 
Sinai, 34 

Smyrna, 48, 95, 137, 142, 164 
Solomon, 65, 82 
Sparta, 153, 157, 164, 186, 191, 

198, 206, 230 
Subbiluliuma, 36 
Sumerians, 22, 2£, 40, 63 
Susa, 161, 169 fl., 190, 196, 198, 

201, 217 
Syennesis, 92, 189 

Tabal, 50, 89, 91 fl., 94, 109, 129, 

133, 141 
Tahpanhes (Defenneh), 151 ff. 

Tarsus, 49, 68, 91 fl., 102, 128 ff., 

189, 239 
Tchakaray, 44, 55 
Teos, 46, 143 
Thebes (Egypt), 112, 117 
Thebes (Greece), 206, 207 
Thothmes I, 31 
Thothmes III, 29 fl. 
Tiglath Pileser I, 41, 44, 46, 50, 

60, 66, 69, 85, 93 
Tiglath Pileser III, 103 fl., 

Tigris, R., 20, 27, 71, 73, 104, 

120, 159, 167 
Til-Barsip, 59, 67, 84 
Tirhakah, 112 
Tyana, 109 
Tyre, 58, 102, 109, 111, 114, 121, 

130, 154 ff., 197, 213, 246 

Ur, 22, 140 

Urartu, 18, 60, 65, 73 ff., 105, 

108, 118, 126 
Urmia, L., 76, 108 

Van, 68, 74, 105, 108. 118 

Washasha, 44, 55 

Xenophon, 150, 188 ff. 
Xerxes, 180, 182 

Zagros Mts., 68, 75, 108, 118 

Zeno, 239 

Zoroastrians, 76, 147, 191 


LIBRARY 0/ Modern Knowledge 

Is made up of absolutely new books by leading authorities. 

The editors are Professors Gilbert Murray, H. A, L, 
Fisher, W, T, Brewster, and J, Arthur Thomson, 

Cloth bound, j<^ood paper, dear type, 256 pages, per vol- 
ume, bibliographies, indices, also maps or illustrations 
where needed. Each complete ^f\ ^^*^f^ 
and sold separately. Per volume. 0\/ i^UIlto* 




73. EURIPIDES AND HIS AGE. By Gilbert Marray, Regius Pro- 
fessor of Greek, Oxford. 

101. DANTE. Ey Jefferson B. Fletcher, Columbia University. An 
inicrpretation of Danle and his leaching from his writings. 

2. SHAKESPEARE. By John Masefield. "One of the very fev/ in- 
dispensable adjuncts to a Shakespearean Library." — Boston 

81. CHAUCER AND HIS TIMES. By Grace E. Hadow, Lecturer Lady 
Margaret Hall, Oxford; Late Reader, Bryn Mawr. 

97. MILTON. By John Bailey. 

59. DR. JOHNSON AND HIS CIRCLE. By John Bailey. Johnson s life, 
character, v*^orks, and friendships are surveyed; and there is a 
notable vindication of the "Genius of Boswell." 

Clutton Brock, author of "Shelley: The Man and the Poet." 
William Morris believed that the artist should toL' for love of his 
work rather than the gain of his employer, and so he turned from 
making works of art to remaking society. 


The influence of the French Revolution on England. 

70. ANCIENT ART AND RITUAL. By Jane £. Harrison, LL. D., 
D. Litt. "One of the 100 most imporlani books of 1913."— 
Nenf Yor^ Times Revieiv. 

of English Literature, University College, London. "One of the 
soundest scholars. His style is effective, simple, yel never dry." — 
The Athenaeum. 

87. THE RENAISSANCE. By Edith Sichel, author of "Catherine de 
Medici," "Men and Women of the French Renaissance." 

89. ELIZABETHAN LITERATURE. By J. M. Robertson, M: P., 

author of "Montaigne jmd Shakespeare," "Modern Humeinists." 

and Surrey to Synge and Yeats. "One of the best of this great 
series." — Chicago Evening Post. 


40. THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. By L P. Smith. A concise history 
of its origin and development. 

66. WRITING ENGLISH PROSE. By William T. Brewster, Professor 
of English, Columbia University. "Should be put into the hands 
of every man who is beginning to write and of every teacher of 
English that has brains enough to understand sense." — NeHf York 

58. THE NEWSPAPER. By G. Binney Dibble. The first full account 
from the inside of newspaper organization as it exists to-day. 

48. GREAT WRITERS OF AMERICA. By W. P. Trent and John 
Erskine, Columbia University. 


author of "The Russian People," etc. Tolstoi, Tourgenieff, 
Dostoieffsky, Pushkin (the father of Russian Literature), Salty- 
kov (the satirist,) Leskov, and many other authors. 


Scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge. "It is difficult to imagine 
how a better account of French Literature could be given in 250 
pages." — London Times. 


62. PAINTERS AND PAINTING. By Sir Frederick Wedmore. With 
16 half-tone illustrations. 

38. ARCHITECTURE. By Prof. W. R. Lethaby. An introduction to 
the history and theory of the art of building. 


68^ DISEASE AND ITS CAUSES. By W. T. Conncilman, M. D., 
LL. D., Professor of Pathology, Harvard University. 

85. SEX. By J. Arthur Thompson and Patrick Geddes, joint author! 
of "The Evolution of Sex." 

71. PLANT LIFE. By J. B. Farmer, D. Sc, F. R. S., Professor of Bot- 
any in the Imperial College of Science, London. This very fully 
illustrated volume contains an account of the salient features of 
plant form and function. 

63. THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF LIFE. By Benjamin M. Moore, 
Professor of Bio-Chemistry, Liverpool. 

90. CHEMISTRY. By Raphael Meldola, F. R. S., Professor of Chem- 
istry, Finsbury Technical College. Presents the way in which 
the science has developed and the stage it has reached. 

53. ELECTRICITY. By Gisbert Kapp, Professor of Electrical En- 
gineering. University of Birmingham. 

54. THE MAKING OF THE EARTH. By J. W. Gregory, Professor of 
Geology, Glasgow University. 38 maps and figures. Describes 
the origin of the earth, the formation and changes of its surface 
and structure, its geological history, the first appearance of life, 
and its influence upon the globe. 

Hunterian Professor, Royal College of Surgeons, London. Shows 
how the human body developed. 

74. NERVES. By David Fraser Harris, M. D., Professor of Physi- 
ology, Dalhousie University, Halifax. Explains in non-technical 
language the place and powers of the nervous system. 

2L AN INTRODUCTION TO SCIENCE. By Prof. J. Arthur Thomson, 
Science Editor of the Home University Library. For those un- 
acquainted with the scientific volumes in the series, this would 
prove an excellent introduction. 

14. EVOLUTION. By Prof. J. Arthur Thomson and Prof. Patrick 
Geddes. Explains to the layman what the title means to the 
scientific world. 

23. ASTRONOMY. By A. R. Hinks, Chief Assistant at the Cam- 
bridge Observatory. "Decidedly original in substance, and the 
most readable and informative little book on modern astronomy 
we have seen for a long time." — Nature. 

24. PSYCHICAL RESEARCH. By Prof. W. F. Barrett, formerly Pres- 
ident of the Society for Psychical Research. 

9. THE EVOLUTION OF PLANTS. By Dr. D. H. Scott, President 
of the Linnean Society of London. The story of the develop- 
ment of flowering plants, from the earliest zoological times, un- 
locked from technical language. 

43. MATTER AND ENERGY. By F. Soddy, Lecturer in Physical 
Chemisiry and Radioactivity, University of Glasgow. "Brilliant. 
Can hardly be surpassed. Sure to attract attention." — Nen> 
York Sun. 


Doagall, of Oxford. A well digested summary of the essen- 
tials of the science put in excellent literary form by a leading 


A compact statement by the Emeritus Professor at Glasgow, for 
uninstructed readers. 

37. ANTHROPOLOGY. By R. R. Marett, Reader in Social An- 
thropology, Oxford. Seeks to plot out and sum up the general 
series of changes, bodily and mental, undergone by man in the 
course of history. "Excellent. So enthusiastic, so clear and witty, 
and so well adapted to the general reader." — American Library 
Association BooJ^list. 

17. CRIME AND INSANITY. By Dr. C. Mercler, author of "Test 
Book of Insanity," etc. 

12. THE ANIMAL WORLD. By Prof. F. W. Gamble. 


author of "Universal Algebra." 



M. A., LL. D., Regius Professor of Modern History in Cam- 
bridge University. Summarizes the history of the long struggle 
between authority and reason and of the emergence of the prin- 
ciple that coercion of opinion is a mistake. 

96. A HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. By Clement C. J. Webb, 

35. THE PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY. By Bertrand Russell, 

Lecturer and Late Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge. 

60. COMPARATIVE RELIGION. By Prof. J. Estlin Carpenter. 

"One of the few authorities on this subject compares all the re- 
ligions to see what they have to offer on the great themes of re- 
ligion." — Christian Wor\ and Evangelist. 

44. BUDDHISM. By Mrs. Rhys Davids, Lecturer on Indian Philoso- 
phy, Manchester. 

Selbie, Principal of Manchester College, Oxford. 


dell Creighton, author of "History of Englard." The author 
seeks to prove that missions have done more to civilize the world 
than any other human agency. 

52. ETHICS. By G. E. Moore, Lecturer in Moral Science, Cam- 
bridge. Discusses what is right and what is wrong, and the whys 
and wherefores. 

Moore, Professor of the History of Religion, Harvard Uni- 
versity. "A popular work of the highest order. Will be profit- 
able to anybody who cares enough about Bible study to read a 
serious book on the subject." — American Journal of Theology, 


MENTS. By R. H. Charles, Canon of Westminster. Shows how 
religious and ethical thought between 180 B. C. and 100 A. D. 
grew naturally into that of the New Testament. 


Professor of New Testament Criticism, Yale. An authoritative 
summary of the results of modern critical research with regard to 
the origins of the New Testament. 


91. THE NEGRO. By W. E. Burghardt DuBois, author of "Souls of 
Black Folks," etc. A history of the black man^ in Africa, 
America or wherever else his presence has been or is important. 

liams, Chairman, Executive Committee, International Co-opera- 
tive Alliance, etc. Explains the various types of co-partnership 
or profit-sharing, or both, and gives details of the arrangements 
now in force in many of the great industries. 

HAM TO J. S. MILL. By William L. P. Davidson. 

PRESENT DAY. By Ernest Barker, M. A. 

79. UNEMPLOYMENT. By A. C. Pigou, M. A., Professor of Political 
Economy at Cambridge. The meaning, measurement, distribution, 
and effects of unemployment, its relation to wages, trade fluctua- 
tions, and disputes, and some proposal of rpjnedy or reli«f. 

80. COMMON-SENSE IN LAW. By Prof. Paul Vinograaoff. D. C. L., 
LL. D. Social and Legal Rules — Legal Rights and Duties — 
Facts and Acts in Law — Legislation — Custom — ^Judicial Prece- 
dents — Equity — The Law of Nature. 


Professor of Political Economy and Dean of Faculty of Com- 
merce and Administration, University of Manchester. 

11. THE SCIENCE OF WEALTH. By J. A. Holison,authorof "Prob- 
lems of Poverty." A study of the structure and working of the 
modern business world. 

TICE. By Sir Courlenay P. Ilbert, Clerk of the House of Com- 

16. LIBERALISM. By Prof. L. T. Hobhouse, author of "Democracy 
and Reaction." A masterly philosophical and historical review of 
the subject. 

5. THE STOCK EXCHANGE. By F. W. Hirst, Editor of the London 
Economist. Reveals to the non-financial mind the facts about 
investment, speculation, and the other terms which the title sug- 

10. THE SOCIALIST MOVEMENT. By J. Ramsay Macdonald, 

Chairman of ihe British Labor Party. 


Professor of Political Economy, University of Leeds. An out- 
line of the recent changes that have given us the present conditions 
of the working classes and the prmciples involved. 

29. ELEMENTS OF ENGLISH LAW. By W. M. Geldart, Vinerian 

Professor of English Law, Oxford. A simple statement of the 
basic principles of the English legal system on which that of the 
United States is based. 

CATION. By J. J. Findlay, Professor of Education, Manches- 
ter. Presents the history, the psychological basis, and the theory 
of the school with a rare power of summary and suggestion. 

6. IRISH NATIONALITY. By Mrs. J. R. Green. A brilliant account 
of the genius and mission of the Irish people. "An entrancing 
work, and I would advise every one with a drop of Irish blood 
in his veins or a vein of Irish sympathy in his heart to read it.**-— 
iVea> York Times' RevieVf. 


33. THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND. By A. F. Pollard, Professor of 
English History, University of London. 

95. BELGIUM. By R. C. K. Ensor, Sometime Scholar of BalHol 
College. The geographical, linguistic, historical, artistic and lit- 
erary associations. 

100. POLAND. By W. Alison Phillips, University of Dublin. The 
history of Poland with special emphasis upon the Polish questioo 
of the present day. 

34. CANADA. By A. G. Bradley. 

72. GERMANY OF TO-DAY. By Charles Tower. 

78. LATIN AMERICA. By William R. Shepherd, Prof essor of Hi«. 
tory, Columbia. With maps. The historical, artistic, and com- 
mercial development of the Central South American republics. 

18. THE OPENING-UP OF AFRICA. By Sir H. H. Johnston. 
The first living authority on the subject tells how and why the 
"native races" went to the various parts of Africa and summarizes 
its exploration and colonization. 

19. THE CIVILIZATION OF CHINA. By H. A. Giles, Professor of 
Chinese, Cambridge. 

36. PEOPLES AND PROBLEMS OF INDIA. By Sir T. W. Holderness. 
"The best small treatise dealing with th* range of subjects fairly 
Indicated by the title." — The Dial. 

26. THE DAWN OF HISTORY. By J. L. Myers, Prof essor of Ancient 

History, Oxford. 
92. THE ANCIENT EAST. By D. G. Hogarth, M. A., F. B. A., 

F. S. A. Connects with Prof. Myers's "Dawn of History" (No. 

26) at about 1000 B. C. and reviews the history of Assyria, 

Babylon, Cillcia, Persia and Macedon. 
30. ROME. By W. Warde Fowler, author of "Social Life at Rome," 

etc. "A masterly sketch of Roman character and what It did 

for the world." — London Spectator. 
13. MEDIEVAL EUROPE. By H. W. C. Davis, Fellow at Ball lol Col- 

lege, Oxford, author of "Charlemagne," etc. 
3. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. By Hillaire Belloc. 
57. NAPOLEON. By H. A. L. Fisher, Vlce-Chanc«llor of Sheffield 

University. Author of "The Republican Tradition in Europe." 

20. HISTORY OF OUR TIME (1885-1911). By C. P. Gooch, 
A "moving picture" of the world since 1885. 

22. THE PAPACY AND MODERN TIMES. By Rev. William Barry, 
D. D., author of "The Papal Monarchy." etc. The story of the 
rise and fall of the Temporal Power. 


author of "Russia in Revolution," etc. 

S4. THE NAVY AND SEA POWER. By David Hannay, author of 
"Short History of the Royal Navy," etc. A brief history o the 
navies, sea power, and ship growth of all nations, includinj. 
rise and decline of America on the sea, and explai. 
present British supremacy thereon. 
8. POLAR EXPLORATION. By Dr. W. S. Bruce, Leader of the 
"Scotia" expedition. Emphasizes the resuUs of the expeditions. 

51. MASTER MARINERS. By John R. Spears, author of "The His- 
tory of Our Navy," etc. A history of sea craft adventure from 
th« earliest times. 

86. EXPLORATION OF THE ALPS. By Arnold Lunn, M. A. 
7. MODERN GEOGRAPHY. By Dr. Marion Newbigin, Shows the re- 
lation of physical features to living things and to some of the 
chief institutions of civilization. 

THE SEA. By Sir John Murray, K. C. B., Naturalist H. M. S. 
"Challenger," 1872-1876, joint author of "The Depths of the 
Ocean," etc. 

84. THE GROWTH OF EUROPE. By Granville Cole, Professor of 
Geology, Royal College of Science, Ireland. A study of the 
geology and physical geography in connection with the political 


47. THE COLONIAL PERIOD (1607-1766). By Charles McLean An- 
drews, Professor of American History, Yale. 

By Theodore C. Smith, Professor of American History, Wil- 
liams College. A history of the period, with especial emphasis 
on The Revolution and The War of 1812. 

67. FROM JEFFERSON TO LINCOLN (1815-1860). By William 
MacDonald, Professor of History, Brown University. The 
author makes the history of this period circulate about constitu- 
tional ideas and slavery sentiment. 

25. THE CIVIL WAR (1854-1865.) By Frederic L. Paxson. 
Professor of American History, University of Wisconsin. 

39. RECONSTRUCTION AND UNION (1865-1912). By Paul Leiand 
Haworth. A History of the United States in cur own times. 


34 West 33d Street New York 


This book is due on the date indicated below, or at the 
expiration of a definite period after the date of borrowing, 
as provided by the rules of the Library or by special ar- 
rangement with the Librarian in charge. 





- ''.I^ 

C2e(1 140) Ml 00 




I 9^0