About Darius family

[b]

HiI was taking a look at the 'Battles' section of this site, and I read : 'The Macedonian victory at Issus was so fast that it enabled Alexander to capture the entire Persian Royal household: Queen Mother Sisygambis, Queen Stateira (Darius' wife) and Princess Stateira (his daughter) and Darius' other children."Did Alexander really took hold of them? Or were the ladies left there by their own son, husband and father to be swapped? So that Alexander would leave him and part of his lands alone?bye!

[marcus]

Hi Barbara,Yes, Alexander did indeed capture Darius' family. Darius fled from the battlefield, and there was no chance of the Persians re-grouping at their camp, where the royal family was. (Darius didn't expect to lose, so there was no perceived danger in having his family so close.) Alexander captured the Persian camp, which therefore included the Royal Family.Darius had also left a considerable amount of treasure in Damascus, and a rapid dash by Parmenion secured that for Alexander, too. Darius was way in the hills by that time...All the bestMarcus

[nick]

Persian Kings would never abandon their Royal family to satisfy Alexander's lust for conquest. Unthinkable. The Queen (Stateira) and Queen-Mother (Sisigambis) in the Persian court circles, almost equaled the 'power' of the King in many aspects. (The Queen in general is believed to have been the head or co-ordinator of palace affairs, what is, considering the size of the Persian court, a very important position. We have evident Persian examples of Queens arranging successions.)Darius' son Ochus might have been the next king; if not, one of his daughters would have been the wive of the new king. Leaving the Royal family behind at Issus was a national disaster, probably even more disrupting than losing the battle itself. It was a terrible loss of face for Darius. So, no intentions here.On gaugamela.com I have argued that, considering the political roles of females at the Persian court, the presence of the women and children at Issus can not have been Darius' decisions alone. The women were there (at least partially) at their own choice. It was their war as well as the men's.Regards -Nick

[marcus]

Hi Nick,Totally agree with you. I'm sure that part of the decision (whether Darius' alone, or Sisygambis') to accompany the army right to Issus, was as much to display to the 'world' their certainty of winning. Therefore, as you say, the loss of the battle and possibly even more so the capture of the royal family, was a catastrophe.All the bestMarcus

[jan]

Nickw, I am clearly reading this post askewed. I think it unthinkable that King Darius thought so little of his family that he ran to save his own skin, leaving them to the mercy of his adversary. Thank Heaven that Alexander loved women as well as he had.

[xxx]

He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day. Simple logic. It would be equally unthinkable to try and save his family and get killed or captured in the process. What would be the point of that? Then for certain the kingdom was doomed. Darius was not ready to admit that to himself at the time.His family had no business on the field of battle. He should have listened more attently to his Greek advisors

[marcus]

:-)I can well imagine, also, that in his haste to get away from the battlefield, even his mother and wife were the last things on his mind! The 'women and children first' mentality of the Titanic hadn't gained much ground by the 4th century BC.Having said that, to echo Tre, they shouldn't have been there in the first place :-)Marcus

[dean]

Hello,With regard to Darius' family one thing immediately sticks in my mind with regards Sisygambis- the fact that after Alexander's death she starved herself to death.I think that this fact can only leave one speechless about the effect that Alexander must have had on her.Was it regular tradition in Persian culture for the family of a king to die along with the king?On the other hand it can't have been because she didn't starve herself when her own son died- Darius.Just shows you the impact that he must have had- I mean he didn't even speak her language!!!Best regards,
Dean.

[B+írbara]

Hi!Darius might have left the women behind because he intended to bargain with Alex, giving the daughter away to him, and whomelse would interest him, or his peers.That would acount for the "they [women and children] shouldn't be there" someone here wrote.Of course they shouldn't! That's a battle, for God's sake!! No place for children or an aged woman!!But they had to be there, for Darius intent.So I simply think that Sysigambis' great consideration for Alex comes from the fact that he didn't attack the women's honour, nor took Stateira as a prize ---which was Darius intention. And from the fact that she loathed her son's attitude. She probably weighted both Alexander and Darius in the balance of cheapness..... And Darius' pan went loooow :)Well, Alexander ended up marrying Stateira anyway --- when he wished to, anyway! Not by stealth. I thihk Darius didn't know his enemy --- damn, Alexander had some honour left! :)I believe this story of running away and live yr mom, and wife and daughter behind because there's no time to rescue them is not enough.
But, as it is with ancient facts all the time, it's difficult for anyone to tell.So I keep mine!hee hee!

[susan]

I may have a suspicious mind, but I think that there's something rather fishy about these deaths. Firstly Darius died well out of sight of anyone except a newly-arrived Macedonian soldier; Alexander arrived too late but immediately went after Bessus as a regicide. This death immediately gave him the mantle of some legitimacy. If, however, he'd come across Darius alive, what would he have done - put him out to grass as an ex-Great King ? I don't think so. No, I don't think there was any way that Alexander could have portrayed himself to the Persians as Darius' legitimate heir if Darius was alive.Similarly with Sisygambis - who knows how she died ? Perdiccas wouldn't have had any interest in keeping her alive - and nothing more is heard of the Persian royal family, apart from Amastris who was safely away with Crateros. I think the fact that there are nice stories shouldn't blind people to the fact that the Persian royals didn't survive very long once their usefulness was over.Susan

[nick]

That the Royal family shouldn't have been there, that is true only in the view through our modern eyes and in our modern concept of war. For the Persians war was a totally different thing. Within their framework of mind, the women belonged there as well as the men. Is my point clear? Am I explaining myself correctly?Regards -Nick

[nick]

Good point! Come to think of that: what the heck were women doing at the last Olympic Games in Greece this year?They for sure can't run faster than men. Women can't swim faster than men. They would be defeated by men in almost all branches of sports, be it football, hockey, atletics, tennis, rowing... you name it. Oh, perhaps they would survive in gymnastics or dancing, but --- hehehe --- that aren't real competitive sports, are they? I mean: they don't really test strength, power or endurance.So, why are women alllowed at the Olympic Games anyway? They have no business there. To test which nation is the best, male-only competitors should do the trick.Of course you know I am not serious. But hey, if my point isn't clear if I present it one way around, I'll try it another way around.I mean: is it so difficult to accept that in the eyes of the Persians war wasn't a male-only business?Regards -Nick

[marcus]

Perfectly clear, Nick - don't worry, we were being facetious. :-)All the bestMarcus

[S]

Greetings All,First, Nick, I agree that you are joking, since blanket statements are pointless in the light of the diversity among men and women in capabilities, and there are certainly some women that would evenly compete, and some men who would fail.. and I seem to recall the news stories of a woman being able to bear colder waters than almost anyone on earth, so there will always be exceptions to every "rule" we make.Second, Nick is correct in reminding everyone that one cannot look at the ancient world and "judge" it according to modern standards,with a focus on western standards, I might add. To say "women do not belong in battle", as I believe Babi did, is to deny that women have fought alongside men in various cultures and at various times in the past, and to ignore the simple reality that, whenever there is war, women are in the midst of it- there is no non-combatant zone. Women may not carry arms as often (though these days *anyone* has the strength to push a button, manuever a tank, etc)due to romantic notions that women should not be in war, but the fact remains that they are combatants and casualties as much as men, depending on the type of war being waged, the social constructs of the nations at war and the overall strategies. Operating on a belief that women do not "belong" in war denies the reality of war and human history. Regards,
Sikander

[nick]

Thank you, Sikander. You have a way with words.Regards ---Nick