Текст книги "Alexander the Great"
Автор книги: Robin Fox
Жанр:
Военная история
сообщить о нарушении
Текущая страница: 42 (всего у книги 43 страниц)
To the tribes and villages of Iran, these skills must have appeared in the light of rifles and telescopes to their first Indian observers. The Greeks had more fundamental weapons, their art and their language, the two skills which still impress the classical past on an industrial world. To carve and to think in Greek was to work in a finer and more sensitive idiom, for it was well said by a Roman in the age of disputed theologies that if he started to discuss the Trinity in Latin, he could not avoid any one of three grave heresies. These new tools opened up a new world; there is no written history of the hellenization of the upper satrapies, but there are their arts and a few inscriptions and these are perhaps more revealing than mere events.
In Iran, Alexander had left Greek as the one written language. No Iranian dialect was literate and so the Persians' lame Aramaic was continued for native administration. With the annoying persistence of a pidgin jargon its script flourished far and long as a result, passing into Khwarezm beyond the Oxus where it served as the first native alphabet five hundred years after Alexander, and then as far as China where it was inscribed centuries later on the Heavenly Temple in Peking. It was no competitor for serious thought. Although the long tradition of the Iranian minstrel continued to flower in the professional gosans who sang at the Parthians' court, In Iran Greek was the only language for written poems and for the education of soldiers in each Alexandria; so the Greek classics appealed to the East with an impact which has only since been equalled by popular songs of the modern West. At the palace of Nisa, court of the Parthian kings on the lower Oxus, Greek plays were performed before an audience of former nomads, while among the palace documents directions have been found for the making of a mask for a tragic actor. In neighbouring Armenia, verses of Euripides were inscribed, perhaps as a school text, at a time when the province was ruled by an independent Iranian king; in Roman times, the tale of Castor and Pollux was known in the Swat highlands above the Indus; in the Punjab, five hundred years after Alexander, Indian Buddhists still carved the tale of the Trojan Horse alongside the life of their Buddha, a theme which is now known to have passed to them directly from Alexander's heirs in the neighbouring Greek kingdom of Bactria. Homer was always said to have been translated into an Indian language, and the extraordinary find of inscriptions in Ceylon which appear to discuss him together with Plato, Aristotle and Alexander in their Indian names more than five hundred years after Greek rule in Iran had ended should remove any doubts that the fate of Greek poetry in the East was brief or insignificant. When the Greek kingdoms fell, the Persian Gulf traders could still carry their legacy east by ship. The Persian kings had first settled Ionian Greeks as sailors in the ports near Susa, and their persistent Greek culture is the background to the Greek after-glow in western India.
The same is true of art. The coins and the silver trappings of the Greeks in Bactria are of the highest craftsmanship, and at the Parthians' palace of Nisa, their profound effect on Iranian neighbours can now be appreciated. Iranian drinking-cups were carved with the legend of Dionysus; Aphrodite, Heracles and Hera were sculpted in marble; the palace included a gymnasium and columns with acanthus leaves, a style which left its trace in the Punjab's art for another four hundred years. These kings were the sons of Iranian nomads, and yet they took to Greek art like Czarist Russians playing with French civilities; their taste had an astonishingly long history both among the nobles and the alternative culture of the nomads. Greek influence can be traced in the pattern of the oriental carpets found in central Asia of the same broad date as Nisa, again in the sculpture and architecture of an Iranian palace and temple at Surkh Kotal in Afghanistan a century after nomads had seized Greek Bactria, in the coins placed for Charon in the mouths of the dead beyond Alexander's north-east frontier and in the clay figures made in Samarkand some seven hundred years after the last Greek Bactrian king. Through Alexander's planned sea route from Egyptian Alexandria along the Persian Gulf to the river Indus the Greek art of Alexandria reached to the Punjab and outer Iran for at least five hundred yean; its designs may have helped the long life of Greek art in the area, and they certainly influenced the first carved Buddhist reliefs of north-west India. They had also come by the route which Alexander had determined to reopen.
And yet the hellenization of Iran was not deep or wide enough for permanent results. It was competing with an alternative, the Iranian nobility to whom a town was more the sum of its great families than a self-governing citizenry in an expanse of royal land. To these Iranians the family was life's one continuity, marked out by genealogies and rigid rule of precedence; a culture which spread through cities and administrators could not work down through their looser forms of rural government. Already at Nisa, the Parthians' documents were written in Aramaic, not Greek, and the courtiers' names were all Iranian, while the old words of rural Iranian government continued unchanged, the food-levy for the king's table, the land tax and the village commissioner, the satrapies and the baronial castles. 'Whosoever shall compel you to go with him a mile, go with him twain'; the word which Christ used for this requisitioning in hellenized Judaea was the Persians' old word for forced service on the stations of their Royal Road. In the country, Alexander had not come to change. His empire of vast spaces and wooded mountains could not be travelled swiftly or cheaply by centralized officials, so he chose to balance the old Persian forms. The new Greek cities were his chosen points of loyalty among tribesmen and desert-chieftains and once those cities fell to nomads or to the stronger pull of family allegiance, Iran had only the memories of Persian rule on which to feed; it was not by chance that the design of the throne of Achaemenid Persia lived on under Greek rule in the royal art of upper Iran. Persia, moreover, was still prepared to step back into her past, for Alexander's Successors had left the Persians' mountainous home province to Persian client-kings, and naturally, they had made no parade of hellenism. Five hundred years after Alexander, it was from this 'deep south' of Iranian feeling that the great Persian revival began, with a new line of kings, who at once brought back the titles of Darius's Empire. But this new Persia's triumphs were also inscribed on rock in an official Greek translation. Trapped between nomads and tribal barons, the heirs to Alexander's Greek cities had at last given way to a Persian court of country squires, but the embers of hellenism were still seen to glow in the brighter fire of Sassanid Persia.
During the centuries of their slow decline, the Greeks' own education by the East is a far more delicate subject. Although to western geographers, Alexander's conquests seemed to have opened a wider and more accurate knowledge of a far East where men spoke Greek, their own views of the East were not noticeably more correct. The one advancement may have been spiritual rather than scientific. Like western intellectuals who idealized Stalinist Russia, distant academics fathered Utopian ideals on far eastern peoples whom they had not seen; this attitude was possible because they felt that the philosophy of the East had a claim to their respect. Though debates between Oriental wise men and Greek philosophers had already featured in Greek literature, under Greek rule the theme persisted that the East possessed the older and more venerable wisdom. So far from suppressing Oriental gods the Greeks identified them with their own and a certain attitude of deference shows through the art of the gods they combined. In portraits of Greco-Oriental deities, especially the many Eastern mother-goddesses, the oriental element tends to be dominant; it is easy to imagine how the diverse religion of the Olympians gave ground before the moral and spiritual faiths of Zoroaster and Buddha and the tenderer goddesses that characterized the obedient societies of the East, not the self-willed cities of free Greece. There are hints of this, even in the very limited evidence; there were Macedonians, probably in the colonics of Asia Minor, who followed the Magi and took to the Iranians' fire-worship, while in the Greek cities of western Asia, the influence of the Iranian families who held the city's priesthoods of the goddess Artemis, their own Anahita, cannot have been insignificant. When the kings of Greek Bactria put pagan Indian gods on their coinage, they may have intended more than a tactful appeal to the Indians in their kingdoms, while among the Greeks abandoned to Chandragupta and his Indian successors, a conversion to Buddhism is very likely, not least through their native marriages. An official in the restored Greek kingdoms of north-west India made a dedication to Buddha in Greek, while another, perhaps a Macedonian, did likewise two hundred years after the ending of Greek rule; these wisps of evidence suggest Greek Buddhists were not uncommon. To those who see the wide appeal of eastern religion among the youth of the industrially dominant West there is nothing surprising about the Greeks' conversion.
If the Greeks were aware of a certain wisdom in the Orient, they still interpreted it in their own western terms. Unlike the British, who encouraged the study of native Indian culture, the Greeks took little interest in eastern tradition except where they could bend it to concepts of their own; they saw the East through eyes trained by Plato and Herodotus and their own culture determined the points which they chose to notice. Each eastern tribe and community was fitted into the Greeks' prehistory of myth and heroes without respect for their independent origins; Buddha became a descendant of a fellow-soldier of Dionysus's Indian invasion, just as Thessalians in Alexander's army had already explained the Armenians as sons of their hero Jason, because they wore clothes of Thessalian style. No Greek writer is known to have spoken an Iranian dialect, and Orientals who wrote Greek books on their kingdoms' history tailored their narrative to concepts common to a Greek; a hellenized author could not distance himself from the Greek attitudes he chose to share. For Greeks, Zoroaster the prophet was described more as a magician than a religious reformer; it is only a worthless legend that Alexander arranged a Greek translation of the many Zoroastrian scriptures which he found at Persepolis.
When the history of the hellenized Orient is known more fully, it will still seem a story of missed opportunities, of new frontiers thrown away by the quarrels of Alexander's Successors. Alexander's own intentions will never be certain, but as he passed through the villages and tribal wastes beyond Hamadan, it must have been easy (except to our post-colonial fashion) to feel that a Greek upbringing and Greek aspirations were a power from a superior world. The wide and absolute break with the past that came over the East after Alexander's conquest had so far seemed more obvious to historians of eastern art than to students of the written and scattered evidence. But art is a measure of society and the more that is known of it, the more Alexander deserves to be seen as decisive.
Most historians have had their own Alexander, and a view of him which is one-sided is bound to have missed the truth. There are features which cannot be disputed; the extraordinary toughness of a man who sustained nine wounds, breaking an ankle bone and receiving an arrow through his chest and the bolt of a catapult through his shoulder. He was twice struck on the head and neck by stones and once lost his sight from such a blow. The bravery which bordered on folly never failed him in the
front line of battle, a position which few generals since have considered proper; he set out to show himself a hero, and from the Granicus to Multan he left a trail of heroics which has never been surpassed and is perhaps too easily assumed among all his achievements. There are two ways to lead men, either to delegate all authority and limit the leader's burden or to share every hardship and decision and be seen to take the toughest labour, prolonging it until every other man has finished. Alexander's method was the second, and only those who have suffered the first can appreciate why his men adored him; they will also remember how lightly men talk of a leader's example, but how much it costs both the will and the body to sustain it.
Alexander was not merely a man of toughness, resolution and no fear. A murderous fighter, he had wide interests outside war, his hunting, reading, his patronage of music and drama and his lifelong friendship with Greek artists, actors and architects; he minded about his food and took a daily interest in his meals, appreciating quails from Egypt or apples from western orchards; from the naphtha wells of Kirkuk to the Indian 'people of Dionysus' he showed the curiosity of a born explorer. He had an intelligent concern for agriculture and irrigation which he had learnt from his father; from Philip, too, came his constant favour for new cities and their law and formal design. He was famously generous and he loved to reward the same show of spirit which he asked of himself; he enjoyed the friendship of Iranian nobles and he had a courteous way, if he chose, with women. Just as the eastern experience of later crusaders first brought the idea of courtly love to the women's quarters of Europe, so Alexander's view of the East may have brought this courtesy home to him. It is extraordinary how Persian courtiers learnt to admire him, but the double sympathy with the lives of Greece and Persia was perhaps Alexander's most unusual characteristic. Equally he was impatient and often conceited; the same officers who worshipped him must often have found him impossible, and the murder of Cleitus was an atrocious reminder of how petulance could become blind rage. Though he drank as he lived, sparing nothing, his mind was not slurred by excessive indulgence; he was not a man to be crossed or to be told what he could not do, and he always had firm views on exactly what he wanted.
With a brusque manner went discipline, speed and shrewd political sense. He seldom gave a second chance, for they usually let him down; he had a bold grasp of affairs, whether in his insistence that his expedition was the Greeks' reverse of Persian sacrilege, though most Greeks opposed it, or in his brilliant realization that the ruling class of the Empire should draw on Iranians and Macedonians together, while the court and army should stand open to any subject who could serve it. He was generous, and he timed his generosity to suit his purpose; he knew better than to wait and be certain that conspirators were guilty. As a grand strategist, he took risks because he had to, but he always attempted to cover himself, whether by 'defeating' the Persian fleet on dry land or terrorizing the Swat highlands above his main road to the Indus: his delay till Darius could do pitched battle at Gaugamela was splendidly aggressive and his plan to open the sea route from India to the Red Sea was proof of what wider insight into economic realities to which his Alexandria in Egypt still bears witness. The same boldness encouraged the fatal march through Makran; he had tactical sense, whether on the Hydaspes or in the politics of Babylon and Egypt, but self-confidence could override it and luck would not always sec self-confidence through. Here, it is very relevant that rational profit was no more the cause of his constant search for conquest than of most other wars in history. Through Zeus Ammon, Alexander believed he was specially favoured by heaven; through Homer, he had chosen the ideal of a hero, and for Homer's heroes there could be no turning back from the demands of honour. Each ideal, the divine and the heroic, pitched his life too high to last; each was the ideal of a romantic.
A romantic must not be romanticized, for he is seldom compassionate, always distant, but in Alexander it is tempting to see the romantic's complex nature for the first time in Greek history. There are the small details, his sudden response to a show of nobility, his respect for women, his appreciation of eastern customs, his extreme fondness for his dog and especially his horse; deliberately his court artists created a romantic style for his portrait and it was perhaps characteristic that from the sack of Thebes the one painting which he took for himself was of a captive woman, painted in the intensely emotional style which only a romantic would have appreciated. He had the romantic's sharpness and cruel indifference to life; he was also a man of passionate ambitions, who saw the intense adventure of the unknown. He did not believe in impossibility; man could do anything, and he nearly proved it. Born in a half-world between Greece and Europe, he lived above all for the ideal of a distant past, striving to realize an age which he had been too late to share;
'My friend, if by deserting from the war before us
You and I would be destined to live for ever, knowing no old age,
"We would do it; I would not fight among the first,
I would not send you to the battle which brings glory to men.
But now as things are, when the ministers of death stand by us
In their thousands, which no man born to die can escape or even evade,
Let us go.'
No man ever went as far as Alexander on those terms again. The rivalry of Homer's hero Achilles was revived by his successor, King Pyrrhus, but he lacked the talent for outright victories against Rome and in Sicily and he died in failure, struck down by a woman. The rivalry then faded only to the tombstones of late Roman gladiators, who called themselves by names from Homer, last heroic champions in an age when a hero's prospect had narrowed from the world to the arena and the circus.
Within five years of Alexander's death his Asian Successors gathered near Persia as if to discuss their differences; they could not be brought so much as to sit together, until the suggestion was made of Alexander's royal tent, where they could talk as equals before Alexander's sceptre, his royal robes and his empty throne. These men had been his officers, but they would not take common counsel without his unseen presence. A mood had gone out of the court with his death, and they knew it. Only a lover of Homer can sense what that mood must have been.
NOTES
general note on sources
For convenience throughout the book, ‘I cite many quotations or opinions in the name of Alexander's original historians, Callischenes, Ptolemy, Aristobulus, Nearchus and Onesicritus. I cannot stress too strongly that all these quotations and opinions are only known at second or third hand, as rephrased by other classical writers often four hundred years later, some of whom might be writing on banqueting, geography or grammar. No word or phrase can be assumed to have been retained from the original, especially as the Macedonian authors were known as poor stylists, but sometimes the secondary sources name their original authorities, and at others the original names can be restored, almost certainly, by comparison and cross-argument. In these rare cases, instead of writing 'said Aristobulus, as quoted by Strabo the Augustan geographer', I have just written 'said Aristobulus'. I only do so in cases where I regard the original's identity to be certain and I only imply that the general sense, not the wording, is authentic.
A brief introduction to the names behind the quotations: Callisthenes was born in Olynthus in north-east Greece, a town wrecked by Philip, and was a kinsman, probably a cousin, of Alexander's tutor Aristotle. He was employed as an already proven historian to write up Alexander's exploits in Asia, if not before. Ptolemy the Macedonian was Alexander's friend from boyhood and served as his officer. He wrote a history after Alexander's death, whose date of publication is unknown. He ruled Egypt after Alexander's death and founded the dynasty of the Ptolemies. Nearchus was a Cretan by birth who resided in the Greek town of Amphipolis which Philip had conquered and added to Macedonia; he too was a friend from boyhood and ended as Alexander's admiral, publishing a memoir of his service, again after Alexander's death. Onesicritus, from Astypalaea on the island of Cos, had studied under the philosopher Diogenes and ended by serving as a high officer in Alexander's fleet; his fanciful work was probably the first to appear after Alexander's death. Aristobulus is of unknown origin, though the name is known at Olynthus, home town of Callisthenes and close to his eventual residence in Cassandreia; he served Alexander, his only known task being to repair Cyrus's tomb at Pasargadac. Perhaps he was an architect and in view of the apologetic tone of his history, it is tempting to call him the Albert Speer of the Alexanderreich. He began writing at the age of eighty-four, at least twenty-three years after Alexander's death. One other historian matters: the little-known Cleitarchus, whose father had written a colourful history on Persia and who began life, probably, in the Ionian town of Colophon, a place with a long tradition of poets. He wrote in a lofty rhetorical style and was considered untrustworthy, though skilful. He is not known to have followed Alexander or witnessed his career, but he wrote by 310 b.c., within thirteen years of Alexander's death, and he read the published
work of Callisthenes, Onesicritus and Nearchus. He is said to have settled in Egypt's Alexandria where he may have talked to Maccedonian officers and veterans, for his work ran into more than ten books and had access to accurate detail. The main secondary authors are Arrian, a Greek from Bithynia (north-west Turkey) who rose to be a Roman consul under the emperor Hadrian and wrote his Expedition of Alexander,probably in later middle age, c.a.d. 150. He had read widely, but composed mainly from Ptolemy, Aristobulus and, for the last three books, Nearchus. Diodorus of Sicily lived perhaps c. 20b.c. and produced a universal history by abbreviating original histories as casually as possible, confusing their datings and choosing incidents as much for their moral content and their proof of fortune's vicissitudes as for their historical value; in his Book 17, he dealt with Alexander simply by cutting down the work of Cleitarchus and adding a few of his own comments. Justin lived perhaps c.a.d. 150 and is a third-hand source, abbreviating the work of Trogus, an educated Gaul probably from the Augustan age (c. 10 b.c.) whose book has not survived ; his sources often show traces of Cleitarchus, also of Aristobulus and Callisthenes, but as cut down by Justin, his narrative is very wild and cannot be usefully dissected. Perhaps Trogus used one of the many later composers who wrote between his own date and the original histories. The Roman Quintus Curtius wrote a history of Alexander whose Books 3-10 survive; like Diodorus, he makes full use of Cleitarchus, heavily rephrasing him in his own Roman manner, and he intertwines another source, close to one of Arrian's, perhaps Aristobulus more often or rather, than Ptolemy. I believe he read and translated their originals from Greek. His date is unknown but there is a senator mentioned in Tacitus who would fit him neatly; if so, I guess he wrote c.a.d. 45 with a lively memory of the late emperor Caligula, whose favour for Alexander and alleged taste for oriental customs were much to the dislike of senatorial contemporaries and were sometimes recorded in words which match Curtius's own on Alexander. Other clues in his book support this; moreover, his account of the succession debates after Alexander's death can be interestingly compared with the crisis in a.d. 41 when Caligula died and Claudius (said to be feeble-minded, like Philip's bastard son Arrhidacus) compelled the nobles to accept him.
Lastly there is Plutarch, the Greek from Chaeronea, whose Life of Alexanderreflects his wide reading and memory of a full range of the original histories, rephrased in his own terms of the early 2nd century a.d. and sometimes marred by slips of detail. His biography was one of a series arranged in parallel pairs; Alexander paralleled Caesar. He also wrote rhetorical works defending Alexander against the charge that he was more lucky than talented.
It is always easy to blame the inadequacies of Alexander's contemporary historians, but we should remember that no Greek had previously recorded the exploits of a living king in a mood of accuracy, without moralizing or writing panegyric, and that there was never a king before or since with exploits as vast as Alexander's.
INDEX
Abdalonymus, King, 180 Abu Dhahir. 228
Achilles. 44, 59-62, 64-7, 112-15, 122,
155. 168, 193, 215, 216, 313 Achilles the Athenian, 223 Ada, Queen of Caria, 135, 136, 139,
176, 405 Admetus, 190 Adriatic Sea, 17, 84, 90 Aegean Sea, 26, 102, 134, 178, 189, 198 Aeolia, 129, 130 Acropus, 37
Acschines, ambassador, 46
Aeschylus, 48, 94
Action, painter, 317
Afghanistan, 50, 63, 101, 200, 267, 279,
292, 314, 482 Africa, 75
Agamemnon, King, 60, 63, 64, 65 Agathocles, 480 Agathon, dramatist, 48 Aghurmi, 207
Agis. King of Sparta, 185, 199, 223-4,
226, 252, 454 Ahriman, 152
Ahura Mazda, 99, 152, 213, 229, 257, 273
Aigai. 19, 20, 26, 30, 31, 36, 39, 68
Aisopus, R., 119
Ajax, 112, 114
Albania, 34
Alectas, 431
Alcibiades, 322
Alexander the Great: early life, 18, 20, 22-8, 31-66; and army, 68-73, 75. 77. 79-80; in Thrace, 81-90; background to Persian campaign, 91-6, 98-104; Troy, 109, m-15; battle at Granicus, 116-24; frees Asian cities, 126-36; siege of Halicarnassus, 137-42; at Phaselis and Gordium, 143-51; moves against Darius, 152-6, 158, 160-7; battle at Issus, 168-77;
Tyre and Gaza, 178, 180-93; to Egypt, 194-218; seeks out Darius, 219-32; battle at Gaugamela, 233-42; at Babylon and Susa, 244-56; Persepolis, 258-64; heir to Darius's empire, 267-78; conspiracy with Parmenion and Philotas, 279-91; at Balkh, 292-307; and Clcitus, 308-314; marriage to Roxane, 315-19; and Callisthenes, 320-30; invades India, 331-49; battle against Porus, 351-62; retreat, 363-72; siege of Multan, 375-380; plans new expedition, 381-6; Makran and Kirman, 387-402; Susa, 403-20; Hamadan, 421-35; deification, 436-60; death, 461-72; aftermath, 473-98
Alexander IV, s. of Alexander, 474 Alexander, King of Epirus, 20, 90, 164, 278
Alexander, Prince of Lynccstis, 36, 37, 40, 86, 145, 146, 164, 285, 288, 463
Alexandretta, 177
Alexandria, 66, 182, 198, 199, 200, 204, 205, 212, 213, 221
Alexandropolis, 42
Alcxarchus, 446
Alinda, 136
Amasis, Pharaoh, 202
Ambhi, rajah, 339, 347, 351, 360, 404
Ammon, god, 200-8, 210, 211, 214, 216, 217, 219, 222, 224, 376, 385, 401, 443– 444. 446. 451-2, 456, 458, 476
Amphotcrus, 153 Amritsar, 371, 372 Amun, god, 197, 201-4, 208-9, 212, 213, 221
Amyntas III, 38, 165, 166, 175, 194, 195, 284
Amyntas III, King of Macedonia, 53, 440
Amyntas IV, formerly king, 35,
37-9.287 Amyntor, 56
Anahita, goddess, 104, 131, 141 Anakyndaraxes, 163 Anarxarchus, 324, 430, 475 Anchialus, 163 Ancyra, 154 Androsthenes, 51 Antalcidas, 157 Antigone, 287
Antigonus, S2, 149, 187, 403 Antioch, 361 Antiochus I, 481
Antipater, 134, 147, 185, 199, 223, 282,
329, 468, 471, 475-7; genera lin
Macedonia, 31, 36-40, 52, 56, 60; in
Thrace, 81, 86-7, 89-91; rebellion,
152-3; Spartan uprising, 252-3, 414;
and Olympias, 452, 453, 463
Aornos, 343
Apellcs, painter, 40, 49, 50, 130, 131,
443. 449 Apis, Egyptian god, 196 Apollo, 21, 23, 126, 211, 213, 215, 219 Arabia, 454, 460, 461, 476, 481, 485 Arachosia, 292 Arad, 178, 185 Arbela, 124, 228, 241, 244 Arcadia, 49, 463 Archclaus, King, 30, 31, 48, 57 Archidamus, King of Sparta, 183 Ariamazes, 318
Aristander, 143, 149, 150, 182, 199, 231,
232, 236, 308, 431 Aristobulus, 121, 146, 148, 150, 163,
177. 194. 285, 309, 325, 326, 327,
330, 445. 450, 4541 quoted, 328, 365,
399, 408, 464. 470
Aristomencs, 217 Aristonicus, musician, 50, 314 Aristotle, 21-3, 41, 45, 53-6, 58-9, 63, 65-7. 70, 90, 94-5, ioi, 103, 144, 152, 197, 204, 248, 275, 296, 336, 350, 475 '
Armenia, 99, 100, 156, 227-8, 233, 250,
405. 487. 492 Arrhidaeus, s. of Philip, 35, 36, 39, 473,
475
Arrian, 200, 201, 204 Artabazus, Persian satrap, 50, 177, 276, 280, 298-9, 315, 317-18, 322, 410
Artacoana, 280 Artaxerxes II, King, 157 Artaxerxes III, King, 98, 100, 105, 196, 418, 449
Artemis, goddess, 43, 104, 126, 130,
131, 140, 141 Asander, 290, 306 Ashdod,191
Asia, 19, 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 89-91, 95,
279, 280, 293 Asoka, s. of Chandragupta, 482, 484 Aspendos, 143, 148 Assurnbanipal, King of Assyria, 163 Assyria, 165, 170, 182, 183, 246, 270 Athena, goddess, 72, 92, 112, 113, 123,
140, 177
Athens, 30, 39, 42, 45, 46, 48 el passimAthos, Mount, 52 Atropates, 410
Attalus, uncle of Eurydice, 21-4, 35,
38-40, 85, 287, 468 Aturi, 379 Aturia, 229 Augustine, 43 Augustus, Emperor, 217 Autophradates, 453 Azcmilk, King of Tyre, 191
Baal, Haman, 202
Babylon, 96, 97, 100, 128, 156, 157, 162 el passim
Babylonia, 52, 158, 160, 245, 246, 249,
271, 272, 383. 485 Bacchylides, poet, 48 Bactria, 125, 227, 279, 294-5, 297, 299,
306, 308, 311, 318, 334-5, 353, 404,
407. 479. 483. 485. 492. 493-4 Badakshan, 101, 298 Bagoas, 274-6, 377, 402, 409, 431,
475
Bahrein, 454, 459
Balkh, 267, 280, 297-300, 302, 306-8, 314, 316, 318-19, 321, 331, 361, 404, 422, 479
Bardylis, 84
Barsine, d. of Artabazus, 50, 177, 276,
298, 318, 418, 473 Batis, governor of Gaza, 191, 193 Bazcira, 308 Begram, 294, 295, 336 Behbehan, 255 Bel-Marduk, god, 248, 249
