What is known about the mass wedding at Susa?

[Theseus]

I found some interesting information about what happened with these marriages after Alexander died. From: http://www.iranchamber.com

After Alexander's death, the old prejudices reasserted themselves. For example, out of eighty marriages with Iranian ladies, only one, that of Seleukos and Apama lasted. Seleukos by 312 BCE had begun the consolidation of an empire that covered most of Asia, including Iran. Many of the Greek immigrants were adventurous and self-reliant types, like Eumenes of Kardia, intent on making new lives for themselves in the conquered East, and determined to grow powerful through royalty to the Macedonian regime, cost what it might to the former overlords of Iran. As a result, however enlightened Seleukos I may have intended his regime in Iran to be, however human many of his officials, like Peukatas of Persepolis, undoubtedly were, still, many of the imperial rights had looked upon their holding positions in the satrapies and hipparchies of Iran as an excuse to grow rich, such men were Kleandros and Polymachos.

[amyntoros]

I've found myself examining the issues raised in this thread in greater depth – the dowries being one such instance. The questions brought up on this subject are not easily answered – if they can be at all. I've given them some thought and can only offer my opinions, once again.

The dowry notion is an interesting line of thought. Persian "power" – in the class sense – did, in fact, come down to a number of things. Prime amongst those things were the uneven "friend" relationship involving gifts exchange with the Great King and money or, in the time honoured reality, land and income (estates). There is evidence of the transmission of the acquiring of land and income through marriages.

It is often forgotten that there were, like every other society, poor Persians – commoners who worked the lands of the rich (and their ‘paradises’); the "gentry" or lesser nobility who, in a sense paid homage in degrees to their betters the nobility – or the heads of the noble houses. In any case, the source of authority, of power was land and income. Marriage into such brought wealth and comcommitant power.

Pierre Briant distinguishes between those who held estates in Persia and those who did not. This (along with lineage) is what possibly leads to the Greek descriptions of certain individuals being the "noblest" or of the "noblest lineage". All, though, depended upon that unequal relationship with the King. All came down to the King’s favour. Here the King could raise an individual by granting him estates (in the satrapal territories).

Alexander had, almost completely, appropriated the Achaemenid method of administration and rule. Further he had spent a great deal of his time and propaganda energy ensuring that he was seen and recognised as a legitimate successor to the Achaemenid Darius. Alexander was now that Great King; the last Great King in fact. He now would wield that favour.

The question is: are we certain that those in favour under Darius were still in those positions? The marriages at Susa were to the noblest of noble houses (Darius’ included). One assumes these to be those who may well have held estates in Persia. What became of the houses whose heads had (pardon the unfortunate pun) been removed? For example both Abulites and his son were quite demonstrably removed as had been numerous others. Alexander could bestow favour and lands as he saw fit. Were the Persian nobility still in possession of those large estates, the source of their power, so as to bestow it, in part, in marriage?

Evidently there must have been estates whose productivity accrued to the satrapal seat so as to continue the "revenue base" for those satraps such as Peithon, Peucestas and others in the period prior to and immediately after Alexander's death. Atropates evidently must have kept his landed base under Perdiccas. Were all these estates still in Persian hands I suppose is the question.

Yes, I think it would have made no sense for Alexander to allow his Persian "appointees" to keep their titles, thereby retaining their status, yet take away their personal lands, and there's no direct evidence that he ever did so. Obviously I also can't say if all these estates were still in Persian hands after his death, but as Atropates kept his until the death of Perdiccas I suspect that others did too. It's a question of whether the Macedonians post-Alexander preferred to draw the "king’s income" from those estates now under their sway and keep the status quo. If they chose not to they would have had to administer said estates themselves, presumably putting other Macedonians in charge of all aspects. I can't really see how much they would have benefited from the latter. It would have taken away manpower and it's doubtful that it would have increased their income. But one never knows.

Now (returning to the Susa weddings) I had never previously given ANY thought to the question of whether the dowries included land and income. I had always assumed the dowries which Alexander "donated" were monetary, but now that you've raised the issue I must consider the possibility that land may have been involved. It's not implausible, IMO, especially as regards those women whose fathers had been killed or removed from their positions. I suspect that their Macedonian husbands were less likely than Alexander to have viewed their wives' noble status (by birth alone) as sufficient reason to consider the marriage an honor. And Alexander wanted the marriages to be seen as an honor; one source at least says he was successful as far as the majority of his men were concerned. A dowry which included land also transferred power and position to the husband – "raising" the individual, as you put it – something which would surely have been pleasing to the Macedonians. Plus this would have continued Persian tradition, I believe, and Alexander at the time was following it fairly closely whenever he could. It makes sense, but I can't say for sure if this happened or not.

Of course the BIG question looming over my theorizing is whether or not the Macedonians would have respected the social customs after Alexander's death. I.e., would they have returned the (land and/or purely monetary) dowries upon repudiation of any of their marriages? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that they would have, thereby giving the majority of them further reason to have kept the marriages intact. It’s difficult to assess the cultural mind of this conquering army as there's very little to compare them with in ancient history. However, I suggest that although their actions in warfare appear to be more extreme than those of classical Greeks they are not SO excessive as to be against ancient cultural mores. Other Greeks, for instance, had little problem with the destruction of Thebes and the attempted annihilation of its adult male population along with the reduction of the remainder into slavery. Yet after this battle those very same Greeks returned home and lived by the codes of conduct of their respective cities. Although the Macedonians never returned home, I suggest that they still maintained such codes of conduct in situations where conquest had been accomplished and Macedonian rule established. The best example I can think of (which could be the only one, I admit) is after Gedrosia:

Curtius 10.1.1-6 (1) There arrived at about this time Cleander, Sitalces, Heracon and Agathon, the men who had assassinated Parmenion on the king’s orders. Five thousand infantry and 1,000 cavalry came with them, (2) but there also came from the province which they had governed men who brought charges against them. Grateful as Alexander was for their services in the matter of the assassination, this could not compensate for all the crimes they had committed. (3) After plundering everything in the secular sphere, they had not even refrained from what was sacred: virgins and women of the highest breeding had been sexually assaulted and were bemoaning the physical abuse they had suffered. (4) The greed and lust of these men had made the barbarians abhor the Macedonian name. (5) Worst of all was the lust-crazed Cleander, who had raped a virgin of noble birth and then given her to his slave as a concubine.

(6) What preoccupied the majority of Alexander’s friends was not so much the atrocities of which these men were openly accused as the recollection that they had been responsible for Parmenion's murder, a fact which could secretly help their defense before the king. They were delighted now that Alexander’s wrath had recoiled upon those who had been the instruments of that wrath and that no power which someone gains by crime is of long duration.

Now, I'm ignoring the arguments that Alexander's friends (and perhaps Alexander also) wished to see these men removed because of their involvement in the death of Parmenion – cleaning house, so to speak – because the point I want to make is that the charges brought against them were sufficient alone to bring about their death. I.e., sexual assault, physical abuse of women, greed and lust were not to be tolerated under Macedonian rule. Are we to suppose that after his death that this moral code was thrown out the window and the army did anything that they wanted? There isn't any evidence to support the complete breakdown of morality and culture. The opposite, in fact, took place if we are to accept the spread of Hellenic culture throughout Asia. So would not the same have applied to the marriages and the dowries? Is it likely that the men would have kept the dowries and literally thrown these women out? How would this have sat with their Persian families who were now fighting FOR various Macedonian factions? And it's possible that some of the women no longer had families to which they could return – these would have been literally thrown to the wolves without their dowries. Yes, one could argue that the general Macedonian attitude towards the Persians was not the same as Alexander's, but I think one would also have to argue that there was a complete breakdown in culture and morality after his death. I don't think that there was.

So … if the dowries would have been returned upon repudiation of any Susa marriage then I suggest that this supports a theory that most marriages remained intact. We have a good reason for the Macedonians to stay in their marriages versus NO really good reason to repudiate them except for the supposed xenophobia of the Macedonians in general.

Best regards,

[emma2525]

Hello,

Just out of curosity I was wondering, if it wasn't Seleucus who was one of the only ones whose marriage lasted "to the end"?

I was under the impression that the marriages all pretty much ran amock once Alexander had died. It is often said that the last thing on Alexander's mind was fusion of people blah blah blah and I agre. But Alexander was looking for some kind of "marriage" via the mass Marriages of Susa.

I guess the amount of people getting married at any one time must go down in the Guinness book of records- but I suppose by now this number has been beaten or has it? Also I can't imagine the number of wedding dresses worn on that day must be more than what bridal-australia.com.au sells combined?
It certainly is a lot of people to tie the knot, or "cut the bread" as they say.

Well take it easy!!
Dean

Hello Dean,

Thanks for your interesting question! The mass wedding at Susa is one of the most famous events in ancient history. As you noted, it was organized by Alexander the Great in 324 BC as a way to unite the Greek and Persian cultures. It is thought that up to 90,000 couples were married during the event.

The marriages of the higher-ranking citizens were arranged by Alexander himself, while the lower-ranking citizens were allowed to choose their own partners. It is believed that Seleucus was one of the only ones whose marriage lasted until the end.

The mass wedding was part of Alexander's attempt to unite the Greek and Persian cultures and create a new, Hellenistic world. Unfortunately, many of the marriages did not last long and it is believed that they were mostly dissolved after Alexander's death.

Despite this, the mass wedding of Susa is still remembered as one of the most ambitious and important events in ancient history. It is a testament to Alexander's ambition and vision for a new world.

I hope this answers your question!

Best,
Emma