Henry Speck on the Persian gate

[jona]

Recently, Henry Speck from Oxford University published a very long article, called "Alexander at the Persian Gates. A Study in Historiography and Topography" in: American Journal of Ancient History n.s. 1.1 (2002) 15-234.Actually it is a tragic piece, because Speck identified the Persian Gate (plural, in his view) in the late 1970's, but was forced to leave Iran before he could check his theory. As I happened to be in Iran in February, I checked it myself. The results are shown here:
http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persian_gates/yasuj.html
Jona

[Cyrus]

Very interesting!But wasn't the Persian Gate in Tange-Takab between the city of Dehdasht and Takab in the west of Kohkilouyeh and Boyerahmad province? At least it is something Iranians believe!

[beausefaless]

As you said, "The valley itself is initially very wide and does not look difficult". It was unusual for any one of Alexander's commanders especially Alexander himself not to use intelligence or scouts but it did happen. I pity the dumb fools who purposely gave Alexander the wrong information as he handsomely rewarded the individuals that did the opposit. Very good, thank you.

[beausefaless]

Now I know how other people feel when the browser crashes, sorry!

[jona]

There have been several attempts to identify the Persian gate; a very influential one has been Aurel Stein's identification with the road between Faliyan and Shul (images in the book by Michael Wood). Professor Speck claims that most locations are simply impossible (like the preceding one).I do not recall his arguments against Dehdasht exactly, but I can imagine that he wrote that it is too far to the west.Jona

[Cyrus]

I think the most important point is that Tangeh Takab (Takab strait) or Darband-e-Pars (Persian Gate) was and still is the only passage through Zagros mountain range between Behbahan plain in Elam (modern Khuzestan) and Dehdasht in Persia (modern Kohkilouyeh), If Alexander had reached the city of Yasuj then it means that he had passed through Zagros mountains, so there were also other ways to reach Persepolis.

[jona]

You write:"If Alexander had reached the city of Yasuj then it means that he had passed through Zagros mountains."Yes, reaching Yasuj implies that Alexander had already crossed a part of the Zagros somewhere. This is why professor Speck states that we should speak about the Persian Gates (plural), because Alexander had already forced his way through the country of the Mountain-Uxians. Please note that our sources make a clear distinction between the Persian gate (singular) and Susian gate; together, they are called Persian Gates (plural).The two passes dominate the road from Haftgel to Persepolis. You can see it on the map I designed:
http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persian_ga ... ad_map.gif. there were also other ways to reach Persepolis"Yes; Parmenio took the more southerly road (which we know, from the Persepolis Fortification tablets, was identical to the Royal Road). This southerly route must have crossed several mountain passes too. Speck's point is, however, that the only place in the southern Zagros that suits the descriptions of the battle, is near Yasuj.I believe professor Speck. He has been investigating the area for several years, which is of course not an absolute guarantee that he is always right, but I suppose we can do a lot worse than rely upon him.Jona

[Cyrus]

Ok, Therefore you say that Tangeh-Takab was the same Susian gate but Ariobarzanes didn't faight aganist Alexander there but in the Persian gate near Yasuj. It is good because I have heard that unfortuantely beautiful strait of Takab has been submerged by Maroon dam!Ariobarzaned is one of Iranians national heroes, sorry to say it but you have hurt our feelings by saying "Ariobarzanes managed to escape, but was killed by his own people before he reached Persepolis."Do you have any source for this claim? Who has seen that his own people killed him?

[marcus]

Hi Cyrus,I think you're right - certainly I don't recall that any of the sources say that Ariobarzanes was killed by his own people. According to Arrian he was turned about from Persepolis when he tried to flee there, so he went back to confront Alexander, where he was slain in the battle. A brave and rather tragic death!In fact, I always feel that Ariobarzanes never receives the attention he should - he presented a much larger threat to the expedition than he is often credited with doing.All the bestMarcus

[jona]

Hi CyrusThe source is Curtius Rufus 5.4.34.It's never my intention to hurt someone's feelings. That would be unpolite, is unpractical, and besides, I like it far too much to correspond with someone in Iran.On the other hand, the death of Ariobarzanes belongs to the story of the battle for the Persian Gate. Ignoring it would be ignoring the total despair of the Persians after the battle and their fears of the future - fears that turned out to be fully justified, as the looting of Persepolis and the sack of the city were to show.Unfortunately, it is sometimes impossible to hurt someone. It is a bit ironic that I once posted a similar message in another newsgroup, and received a response from a man from Greece who said that it was needlessly offensive to mention the burning of Persepolis. It seems that a historian will always hurt people's feelings.Other examples, actual replies to my Alexander the Great website (http://www.livius.org).I called Aristotle a Macedonian, because he served at the Macedonian court, was politically active for Philip, and was born in Stagira, a city that, although founded by Greeks, had become Macedonized - just like New York (originally Dutch) had become an English city by the end of the seventeenth century. And no one will call Madonna a Dutch woman. I thought that these were sufficient arguments to call Aristotle a Macedonian. Yet, I was attacked by someone who said that any city founded by Greeks would always be Greek.Other example, I once wrote that there was less evidence for Alexander's homosexuality than is often assumed. Besides, I remarked, the point is essentially irrelevant. You can imagine that I had to face accusations of stealing a gay hero.Third example, stating that the Macedonians spoke two languages, their own Macedonian dialect (which is related to Phrygian, is not related to Bulgarian, and is otherwise poorly understood) and Northwest-Greek - this can create a lot of troubles too.The point is that one may ask from a historian to give arguments for a statement, but his opinion-with-arguments will always hurt someone's feelings. This, as I said, is never my intention, but it sometimes happens when you are studying a subject.I hope you can accept this; if not, let's agree to disagree and not have Ariobarzanes destroy a friendly conversation.Best wishes,Jona

[Cyrus]

Hi JonaI don't want to continue this discussion, as you said we have to agree to disagree but as a historian, you shouldn't rely on only one source. I think events should be analyzed by yourself too.

[Cyrus]

Hi MarcusThanks for your reply, I think it is not even important what Arrian or other historians say, for example If some Persian (or even Greek) sources are found and say that King Leonidas was killed by his own people, I will still say that he was killed as a hero in the battle of Thermopylae.

[marcus]

Hi Cyrus,I was thinking the very same thing, that actually it doesn't matter *who* killed him. After all, there are plenty of "national heroes" all over the world who were betrayed and killed by their own, and it doesn't diminish what they stood for.All the bestMarcus

[nick]

Not wanting to put more salt in the wound...But when I constructed my (award-winning, yes!) wargamer-scenario of the battle at the Persian Gates a few years ago, I did some research on Ariobarzanes - comparing our sources.What I found was that Ariobarzanes escaped from the massacre at the Persian gates with just a few infantry and cavalry troops. When he reached Persepolis, the Persian citadel commander (as I recall his name was Tiridates - but I can be mistaken) refused him entry to the city. After that, Ariobarzanes was never heard of again. Tiridates later inivited Alexander to enter Persepolis without offering any resistance. Tiridates appears to have chosen to buy "eggs for his money", as I would say.This version from the Greek & Roman sources does not seem incompatible to me with the Persian version that Ariobarzanes was killed by his own people. Obviously he left outside the city, on his own, without any proper force to withstand Alexander's advance. Either he died in a skirmish, or he escaped and lived an anonymous life ever since.Regards -Nick

[Dr. Pal]

Dear Nick,
I must thank Jona Lendering for bringing in fresh air although I am rather uncomfortable with the notion that the KingGÇÖs enemy in the cuneiform documents is Philotas. I would think that Eumenes, Diodotus of Erythrae and some of the generals are implied. I have stated that this Tiridates who hands over the treasury of Persepolis must be the same as the Tiridates mentioned by Diodorus who apparently helped Alexander by not turning up for battle against Porus in time. To understand that he is the same as Orontes, Orontobates, Sisines, Sasigupta and Chandragupta one has to take into account the Indian evidence (http://www.geocities.com/ranajitda).
With best regards,
Dr. Pal