Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 18.djvu/614

586 PERSIA 312-280. the same thing, by the higher and lower nobility respect ively." The former fought for the unity of the realm of Alexander, the latter for the national traditions of Macedon. In the first years the mass of the army made its wishes very distinctly felt, e.g., in the rising against Perdiccas ; even the esprit de corps of a single body like the argyraspids had often a decisive influence on general politics. The fall of Perdiccas was really the end of the Perso-Macedonian empire founded by Alexander, as was made manifest by the fact that Babylon ceased to be the capital, and Antipater with the kings passed into Europe. On the ruin of Alexander s political structure the ruin of his house directly followed ; all the political and military talent of Eumenes, its one sincere defender, could not avert the catastrophe, for Eumenes, who as a Greek was always looked on with suspicion, soon fell a victim to Macedonian jealousy. With him the kingship really came to an end, though the empty name of it lasted a little longer. The later conflicts have a different character ; a certain number of leaders had risen gradually above the mass of the officers, attaching to their parties the less prominent men, and it was the con flicting interests of these leaders which were now repre sented in politics and war. Last of all, the particular interests of the subject provinces came to find expression in the conflicts of their chiefs, and the signal was given for the formation of distinct kingdoms. In the wild struggles for sxipremacy the last remains of Macedonian loyalty disappeared ; when we are told that the strategi and satraps of the upper provinces were still faithful to the royal house, and that Antigonus, as late as 315, counted on it in making war against Cassander, the loyalty can hardly be regarded as a genuine sentiment, but was merely a cover for the pride of chieftains who were willing to acknowledge a distant and merely nominal sovereign, but not to obey men who had lately been their equals. And in truth the sentiments of the upper satrapies were of little consequence. The power to give them effectual expression was lacking, and these lands, till much later, received all their political impulses from the west. To make up for this, Iran was little touched by the civil wars ; only Media and Parthia were seats of war, and that for a short time. Among the satraps Peucestas of Persia, Tlepolemus of Carmania, and Stasanor of Bactria are re presented as good rulers, beloved by the natives ; when Antigonus deposed Peucestas, a Persian notable told him to his face that the Persians would obey no one else, and lost his life for his frankness. Antigonus s realm was less than Alexander s by Egypt, Syria, Thrace, and Mace donia, and the tribute from it was 11,000 talents (two and a half millions sterling). The ordinary taxes, therefore, had not been raised ; but Antigonus raised special war- taxes also, 5000 talents at one time in Susiana and as much in Media. Satra- The list of satrapies at this period is known from the records of pies. the partitions of Babylon (323), Triparadisus (321), and Persepolis (315). There were twelve upper satrapies, Persis, Carmania, Great Media, Lesser Media, Parthia with Hyrcania, Bactria with Sogdiana, Aria with Drangiana, Arachosia with Gedrosia, the ParopanisadfB, India front the Paropanisadse to the Indus, India between the Indus and Hydaspes, India on the lower Indus with Pattala. Of Alexander s satrapies we miss Paraetacene, included in Persis, and Tapuria, which Alexander himself seems to have joined to Parthia. The only new satrapy is Lesser Media. It was thought proper to place Media, the most important Iranian province, in the surer hands of the Macedonian Pitho, son of Crateuas, but the north-west part of the province was left to the old satrap Atropates, whom Alexander had sent to Media in 328. He was father-in-law of Perdiccas, and so claimed consideration, but probably he could not have been displaced if it had been tried. 1 At the new division on 1 On Atropates see Arrian, iv. 18, 3, and Pseudo-Cal. in C. Muller, p. 149, where after Ileu/c^crT?; read ATpaTrdrrjv O^vSdTTjv yueracrTTjcrcu &irb TTJS M?;5/as. His connexions in north-east Media are illustrated by the fact that he had with him at Gauganiela Cadu.sians, Albanians, and Sacesina. the death of Perdiccas (321) Pitho was confirmed in Media as far as the Caspian Gates, but nothing is said of Lesser Media, which was really no longer part of the empire. Thus Atropates was the founder of a small separate kingdom, which thenceforth continued to bear his name, in Greek Atropatene, in Arabic and Persian Adhar- Atroi baijan, and in Armenian (more nearly conformed to the original) tene. Atrpatakan. It was never a very important state, but is worth notice as the first new native realm within the empire of Alexander and the first symptom of the Iranian reaction against Hellenism. J Except in the case of Media the partition of Babylon made no change in the holders of the upper satrapies. So we are expressly told (Curt., x. 10, 4, and Just., xiii. 4, 19, where for ultcriorc read ultcriusquc], and the apparent exceptions to the principle are per haps merely due to our ignorance of previous changes. The most remarkable of these is that Pitho, son of Agenor, who under Alex ander shared with a Persian the satrapy of the lower Indus, is now found in India Citerior in room of Nicanor, while his old satrapy has fallen to no other than King Porus. 3 AVe may be sure that the Macedonians sanctioned this extension of the power of the Indian king only because they could not help it, and it is probable that Porus had usurped the province in the troubles that broke out in India as soon as Alexander left it in 326 (Arr. , vi. 27, 2). Thus one more province was now only nominally attached to the empire. Porus, indeed, was assassinated through Macedonian intrigue be tween 321 and 315, but the country never again came permanently under their power. The partition of 321 was less conservative. Nicanor was removed from Aria to Bactria, and Philip from Bactria to Parthia, super seding Phrataphernes. These changes had probably some con nexion with the rising of the Greeks in Bactria and Sogdiana after Alexander s death. No Persian satraps now remained except Atropates and Oxyartes, who had connexions by marriage with the conquerors. Antigonus, to please the natives, changed this policy, and even put the Mede Orontobates in the great province of Media, but he returned at the same time to Alexander s policy of limiting the satraps power. We hear nothing of strategi in the satrapies from 321 to 315, so it is probable that Perdiccas and his immediate successors had allowed the satraps to hold also the military com mand in their provinces. Antigonus again appointed strategi, who were always Macedonians. In a time of civil war it is not surprising that the old disorders of the Achaemenian period reappeared. During the wars of Eumenes and Antigonus the Uxians and Cossieans again appear as independent, and as plundering travellers. But a much more serious outbreak was that of the Greek settlers in the north-east against the Macedonians. On the news of Alexander s death in 323 the military colonies rose under Philo, the ./Enian, and with 20,000 foot and 3000 horse attempted to fight their way home. They were met by Pitho, governor of Media, and defeated by an inferior force through the treachery of one of their chiefs. Pitho granted them terms if they would lay down their arms and return home, but the Macedonians refused to respect the convention ; they knew Perdiccas had or dered the extermination of the rebels, and, falling on the disarmed foe, they massacred them and divided their spoil. Such a catastrophe could not fail to embitter the rela tions between eastern and western Iran, between Greeks and Macedonians. It is hardly accidental that the only notice we have as to how Seleucus Nicator (reigned 312- 280) came into possession of the upper satrapies is that he subdued Bactria by force of arms. To his Asiatic subjects Seleucus appeared as a king from the first ; officially, and among the Greeks, he received this title only in 300. His first care was directed to India, where, probably during the wars of Eumenes and Antigonus, the Macedonian officials had been slain and obedience transferred to Chan- clragupta, founder of the Maurya kingdom. Seleucus crossed the Indus, but Chandragupta obtained peace on favourable terms, giving Seleucus five hundred war- elephants, but increasing his dominions by the parts of the Paropanisadse, Arachosia, and Gedrosia that lay towards 2 The hypothesis that Atropatene was an important place as a refuge for the fire-worshippers has no other basis than a false etymology, Adharbaijan= Fireland. It became important politically only in the later Middle Ages, when it was the gateway of the Turkish migration westward and received a Turkish population. 3 This is certain from Arrian, ap. Phot., cod. 92, p. 71, b. xl. (Bekker), where Pattala is said to have obeyed Porus.