Historically Has a huge established Empire been Defeated?

[iskander_32]

Looking at Alexanders achievements I ask?Before or after Alexander has it ever been done that a small army ever tried to challenge a huge and established Empire been turned over?Throughout the whole of history it can be said that empires slowly eroded and were dfeated over eons of time,,, Is there any paralel with Alexander challenging an empire in its entity and defeating it,,, I cand think of an instance thgat was the same so there fore isnt that an achievement in itself?Kenny

[jona]

On the one hand... the obvious parallel, too often made, is Cortez and the Aztecs. Bosworth has written a lot about this parallel, for example in his *Alexander and the East*, and an article in *Fact and Fiction*. Personally, I think he makes a bit too much of it (expanding the parallel to the way witnesses describe events, etc.) but the military parallel is there.A parallel Bosworth does not make, is that the conquerors met a divided empire. Some native Indians wanted to cooperate; and the Persian army was recovering from the civil war between Artaxerxes IV and his enemies (Nidin-Bel, Chababash, and the Artashata who became Darius III). So, the parallel is more or less exact: a small army, a charismatic leader, a divided enemy.On the other hand... Cortez had guns and horses, which made up for his lack of numbers. This makes this often-mentioned parallel less convincing. Of course, it is undeniable that Alexander's forces were also better equiped than those of most of his enemies, but the size of Cortez' technological superiority was bigger.Finally, another remark: if Alexander's army was between 40,000 and 50,000 (as most ancient sources and modern authors agree), it was not really a small army. On the contrary. With the possible exception of Pausanias's army at Plataea (479), no European ruler had ever gathered an army of this size. Caesar had 10,000 legionaries less when he conquered Gaul.Jona

[marcus]

Hi Kenny,I reckon you are looking for the relatively small size of Alexander's army to be taken into account, too. Certainly the overthrow of the Assyrian empire by the Medes, and that of the Medes by the Persians, are comparable as defeats of established empire, although numerically I doubt the conquerors were much different from the conquered in these cases. In all cases, as in the Persian empire when Alexander came along, the soon-to-be-conquered empire was certainly much weaker than it had been in its heyday (surely part of the reason why the conquerors deemed it a good time to attack).All the bestMarcus

[jona]

"Certainly the overthrow of the Assyrian empire by the Medes, and that of the Medes by the Persians, are comparable as defeats of established empire."I am afraid this is too Herodotean. The Median empire is more or less lost. Never did archaeologists find traces of a palace administration. Except for the account of Herodotus, the only thing that remains is a group of tribes east of Assyria, later organized in one satrapy.The most important article is Sancisi's "Was there ever a Median Empire" in Achaemenid History 3 (1988). In my view, the article should not have been published in this volume, which has a different theme; but it is a good piece. More recently, the idea has been elaborated in a rather unnecessary article by Rollinger, who seems to delight in stating the obvious. On the other hand, his article is more accessible, by simpliy clicking here: http://www.achemenet.com/ressources/sou ... wolski.pdf .Jona

[marcus]

Hi Jona,Slight problem with reading the article, but never mind.I don't mind accepting your comment - my Near Eastern studies finished before the fall of the Assyrian Empire, so I don't consider myself qualified to say.However, I think I need some more info before I let go : what about things like the palace of Nebuchadnezzar at Babylon? Is it called Nebuchadnezzar's simply because it sounds good and because it fits Biblical evidence, or is there not more in the way of stele, tablets, etc. to support this? At the end of the day, if it wasn't the Medes who overthrew the Assyrians, who was it? And how do we account for the period between the Assyrians and Cyrus?The other question must surely be "why should Herodotus be considered wrong?" We know that he travelled extensively, including into Persia; and yes, we know that he got some things wrong; but why should his account of the history of the period necessarily be considered 'wrong'? There was, after all, enough congress between Greece and Asia in the 5th century for it to be possible to get accurate information. All the bestMarcus

[jona]

"what about things like the palace of Nebuchadnezzar at Babylon? Is it called Nebuchadnezzar's simply because it sounds good and because it fits Biblical evidence, or is there not more in the way of stele, tablets, etc. to support this?"Many Mesopotamian buildings have so-called foundation inscription, which mention the builder. They have been found on several places. (For one reason or another, dear Marcus, I imagine you're British - several of these inscriptions are in the British Museum.) The names of kings were also inscribed on bricks (cf. fifth picture at http://www.livius.org/a/iran/chogha_zanbil/cz.html ). Usually, identifying the builder of a building is easy.Jona

[jona]

"At the end of the day, if it wasn't the Medes who overthrew the Assyrians, who was it? And how do we account for the period between the Assyrians and Cyrus?"The Medes did exist, and they played a role in the sack of Nineveh (see http://www.livius.org/ne-nn/nineveh/nineveh02.html for a near-contemporary source). That's not the issue; the issue is whether they were an empire in the true sense of the word, or merely a loose coalition of tribes.Herodotus presents it as a hierarchically-organized empire, but we should have expected more finds, and especially: we need letters and inscriptions. More or less by definition, a kingdom or an empire has some sort of administration. Otherwise, archaeologists, anthropologists, and historians prefer to call things a tribe or a chiefdom. The Medes have not given any clue for political organization whatsoever, and we do find (that means: everything lower than Achaemenid) indicates small settlements.If anything, the Medians were nomads that were beginning to settle. It is possible that the loot from Nineveh gave an impetus to this proces; and I expect that the new excavations of Hamadan will show that there was something before the Achaemenids took over, but it can not have been much. It was Cyrus who started to organize the Iranian tribes and is the first king who is archaeologically visible. (Cf. http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus.html )Jona

[jona]

"why should Herodotus be considered wrong? We know that he travelled extensively, including into Persia; and yes, we know that he got some things wrong; but why should his account of the history of the period necessarily be considered 'wrong'?"As I understand the debate (and as it is summarized in the Brill Companion to Herodotus, 2003), it is now agreed that Herodotus did not visit the east; on the other hand, this does not mean that his account of the period is all wrong. It simply means that he doesn't know enough of Babylonia and Persia.Essentially, this is shown by indicating big mistakes. Trivial details are irrelevant, it is the really big mistakes. If you mention 100 correct things about London and add that there's a big mountain, you've simply never been there. Similarly, you have not been in Persia if you believe that Susa is the only capital of the Persian empire. By the age of Artaxerxes and Herodotus, Persepolis was the city that mattered - and Herodotus does not know.His description of Babylon is even worse. The royal palace is on the wrong bank; city walls are believed to be 100 meters high; et cetera. He doesn't know the correct name of the rulers, and is unaware of the difference between Assyria and Babylon. (Of course the latter is not really important; my country Holland is considered to be a town in Brussels by 60% of the Americans.)Don't let Herodotus fool you. One of his lines is translated as "people who have not been in Babylon will find it hard to believe that..." and "this was still the case in my age". He NOWHERE claims that he has been in Babylon, although he loves it when you believe him.There's a lot more to be said. The relevant article in the Brill Compagnion is okay. Am+¬lie Kuhrt's *The Ancient Near East* (2 vols.; you need the second one; 1995) is a master piece.I'll ask my friend Bert, who knows everything about Babylon, to post an addition to this message.Jona

[Bert van der Spek]

Jona Lendering told already the main points about Herodotus' stay in Babylon.
It is difficult to say whether Herodotus was in Babylon. If he has been in Babylon he must have had a bad memory and/or he must have written stories which his Greek audience liked to hear. As an example: the Greeks thought that the Orient was effeminate; hence, Herodotus tells us that the most important kings in Babylon were queens: Semiramis and Nitocris. Both are legendary. Semiramis' name MAY be derived from the unimportant Assyrian queen Shammuramat (9th century BC); the stories about her are sheer nonsense. Nitocris was in fact an Egyptian queen! Nonsense again. Herodotus did not know Nebuchadnezzar, while Antiochus III in 187 BC was shown the robe of this great king, as we learn from the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries.
Herodotus' description of Babylon is partly right: it was a rectangular city through which the Euphrates streamed from north to south, it was built with mud bricks, the main god was Bel (Zeus Belos); but ...
Babylon did not have 100 gates, the temple was not in the middle of the one part of the city and the palace in the middle of the other part: both were located on the east bank of the Euphrates.
So it is very probable that Herodotus was never in Babylon; and if he was, he was a liar or stupid.It is not necessary to know correct things about cities you have never visited. He may have heard from hearsay a few things that were right and a few that were wrong.A good book about the issue is:
Robert Rollinger, Herodots Babylonischer Logos. Eine kritische Untersuchung der Glaubwuerdigkeitsdiskussion. Innsbruck 1993. ISBN 3-85124-165-7.I wrote a review of the book in Orientalia 64 (1995) 474-477. In this review I added arguments that the old theory that shortly before Herodotus the course of the river had changed, so that it by then flowed between the palace and the temple, and went back to its own bed in the Parthian period, is wrong (and very improbable). In Alexander's time the river had the same bed as in the days of Nebuchadnezzar.

[marcus]

Hi Jona,All fair enough - I never said that Herodotus went to Babylon, I said he went to Persia! But I'm happy to stand corrected - it's easy to make bold statements, particularly when one doesn't have the books to check these things with one ...On the Medes question, yes, I'll accept your point. I misunderstood you - I thought you were denying the Medes' conquest of Assyria. But I don't mind conceding the question mark over whether the Medes were an 'empire' or not (I like the way that Weishofer puts all words like 'king', and 'empire' in inverted commas, at least in recent English editions).After all that ... OK, I'll amend my earlier post - "the conquest of the Assyrian Empire by the Medes". Satisfied? :-)All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

Hi Jona,All fair enough - I never said that Herodotus went to Babylon, I said he went to Persia! But I'm happy to stand corrected - it's easy to make bold statements, particularly when one doesn't have the books to check these things with one ...On the Medes question, yes, I'll accept your point. I misunderstood you - I thought you were denying the Medes' conquest of Assyria. But I don't mind conceding the question mark over whether the Medes were an 'empire' or not (I like the way that Weishofer puts all words like 'king', and 'empire' in inverted commas, at least in recent English editions).After all that ... OK, I'll amend my earlier post - "the conquest of the Assyrian Empire by the Medes". Satisfied? :-)All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

You failed to catch my sarcasm, Jona, but never mind. The sarcasm only worked based on my misunderstanding that you were denying the Medes' conquest of the old Assyrian empire. Marcus