Artabazus and Memnon in exile

[ScottOden]

In 358 BC, Artabazus, the satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia, rebelled against the Persian King Artaxerxes III Ochus. This revolt lasted approx. 4 years, during which time Artabazus employed to good effect a band of mercenaries led by the Athenian, Chares (who was in Asia Minor raising funds to continue waging the Social War: Athens versus her former allies Rhodes, Chios, Cos, and Byzantium). Artabazus and his mercenaries delivered a crushing defeat to the Persians in a battle called by Chares a "second Marathon". Afterwards, Ochus threatened Athen with reprisal unless they recalled Chares. With his backbone of Greek mercenaries gone, Artabazus' revolt floundered and the satrap was forced, along with his household (and Memnon, his kinsman and a soldier), to flee. They found refuge at the court of Philip II of Macedonia, where they remained for 10 years, until Artabazus was reconciled with Ochus through the auspices of his brother-in-law, Mentor of Rhodes (Memnon's brother).Forgive me if all that was pedantic, but it leads directly to the heart of my questions: How much latitude would the exiles have had at Philip's court? Would the Macedonian king have allowed Memnon to participate in his many campaigns? Would Memnon's participation have been expected, since he was Philip's guest-friend? Would Artabazus have been allowed to set up a sort of 'court-in-exile' for himself? And, would Memnon have had the freedom to travel through Greece?Any insight, opinion, or educated guess would be welcome

[nick]

Hi Scott -This is a most complex question.When I did 'research' for my gaugamela.com-website I discovered that within the Persian empire it was quite normal when once's allegiance changed easily and without remorse - according to the overall context of the situation. When your position changes, your sympathies change. Most notable example: approximately the day after the battle of Cunaxa (401 BC) one of Cyrus' foremost generals - Ariaeus - is enlisted within the army of his former enemy Artaxerxes. As simple as that.But that is Persia. Not Macedonia. Macedonia might be different.However - I am still one of the advocates of the interpretation that up to - or even during - the rise of Alexander Macedonia behaved more or less like a Persian vassal state; or at least a buffer in between the Persian and the Greek world. I don't see too many differences between Cyrus the Younger marching towards Cunaxa to claim his kingship - or Alexander marching towards Gaugamela. I must add: Alexander executed his campaign in a stunning, unbelievable, unprecedented way. But rivalry over the kingship was common & normal in the ancient world dominated by Persia.I know most forum-visitors will totally disagree with my viewpoint - but, alas, here we go.Yes, it would be totally unimaginable that Ronald Reagan would have ever become a communist when the situation would have required that move. Yes, I can't visualise Bush jr. as a supporter of those countries he now denounces as being 'crooks'. But that is our modern viewpoint - that says that our beliefs and our commitments are directly linked to our individual 'self'. Not so in the ancient Persian-dominated world.To answer your question: I would go for the interpretation that the exiles at Philip's court were perfectly able to switch their loyalties - and that that was just what was expected from them.I totally prepared to face fireball, lightning sentry, poison dagger & ice blast.Regards -
Nick

[ScottOden]

Hi Nick,Thanks for your reply. The decade of exile has been the hardest part of researching 'Memnon'. You'd think as often as Greek sources cite guest-friendships that we'd have no end of information concerning the protocols of this institution. So far, I've found only scraps.Let me make sure I understand your reply. Since Artabazus was a nobleman, albeit a Persian, he would be expected to behave no differently than a Macedonian noble? In the same vein, since Memnon served as either a mercenary captain or general, such service would be expected to continue under Philip? This actually makes sense...why would Philip offer asylum to them if he couldn't be expected to make use of their various skills? It also answers, in my mind, the question of *where* Memnon learned the skills required to lead cavalry in battle (as at Granicus). I would think Rhodes has a dearth of horses. Though he likely learned to ride in Asia Minor prior to the exile, learning to fight from horseback without stirrups probably took some time.That clears a few things up for me; thanks again, Nick!
Scott

[nick]

Hi Scott -Thanks for the nice answer.You said: "Let me make sure I understand your reply"My reply was that - as far as I'm able to visualize the world 2350 years ago - those key figures must have been able to switch their loyalities far more easily than we're used to do so today. And - yes - that that was the behavior that was expected from them.Best regards - I think "Memnon" is a great effort -
Nick

[Tre]

Hi Scott:Think of it this way - Philip would have seen both of them as an excellent source of information on the Persian King, his court and military, not to mention what nice ties they might have had to some of the Greeks. It was well worth giving them a berth. Conversely it is highly unlikely they would have been allowed to participate in the wars of the King. Trust only goes so far, and one must remember, they would not have been welcomed with open arms in the military scheme of things. Guest friendship did not come with a requirement to participate in battle. However, they certainly got to watch some things, but it is unlikely Philip ever took them into enough confidence to expound on his future plans. Note they didn't stay and in fact, chose to fight the Macedonians later on. This also explains why Alexander was so furious after the Granicus, consider he would have felt Memnon was obliged by the rules of guest friendship to either not fight him, or not participate. I am quite certain the Persian King wanted to pick their brains on what the Macedonians were up to at the same time - in fact, they may have been purely spies but that's how the game was played then. So they viewed each other with a jaundiced eye but a ready smile.

[susan]

Although I haven't checked the sources myself, I've read in a normally reliable book (Freya Stark) that Memnon was responsible for the death of Aristotle's host (the uncle of his wife). So I don't expect that Aristotle was too pleased to see him, if their periods near the court overlapped.I think, though, that expediency was Philip's over-riding interest - he was a master of it, and things only unravelled when emotions got involved. So the Persians would have been welcomed but kept away from the things that mattered.Susan

[marcus]

Good point, Susan, and I think you're right about Memnon being responsible for Hermias' (?) fall and death.I seem to remember reading somewhere that this was actually one of the reasons why Aristotle was probably installed at Mieza, rather than at Pella or Aigai.All the bestMarcus

[ScottOden]

Hi Marcus, Susan, and Tre,Yes, according to (I believe) Diodorus, Memnon engineered the arrest and execution of Hermieas, while another source has Mentor as the culprit. This occured in approx. 341 BC. I don't know how much interaction Memnon would have had with Aristotle, since the latter arrived in Pella/Mieza in the same year (343) as the exiles were recalled. Perhaps a few civil, or not so civil, words at a court function or two.Susan and Tre's post made me think...why would Philip *not* have trusted the exiles? From the point of view of the Macedonians at the time, there were no guarantees that the pair would ever be recalled to Persia. Artabazus and Memnon could not have known Mentor would be triumphant in Egypt (though I think they knew his plans), nor could they have known Ochus would be forgiving, since that was not a trait he seemed to possess. So, for all intensive purposes, when they arrived at Pella, they were arriving at what they expected to be their home for a long time to come. I do agree with Tre, though, that Philip likely would not have trusted Memnon or Artabazus with a command in his dynastic wars with Greece, but do you think he would have had qualms asking them to participate in the subjugation of his neighbors? Several times in his reign he had to curtail the Illyrians; this might have been something Philip expected them to help with, since it was tied to their own security, as well.If you can find it, there's a good article on Memnon at the Granicus in the American Journal of Philology, 1989 edition, written by W. McCoy called "Memnon of Rhodes at the Granicus". I recommend it.Thanks again for all your posts. I've found them thought-provoking.Regards,Scott

[susan]

I think it was not so much that he didn't trust them because they were Persians - it was more that they hadn't been boyhood companions of his. I think his circle was much like Alexander's inner circle, only more so - Philip, Parmenio & Antipater may well have campaigned together since they were boys and he knew that he could trust them implicitly. Not so with the newcomers.Anyway, there must have been a lot of ambitious Macedonians who wouldn't have accepted them too lightly - a foretaste of what Alexander encountered from 327 onwards.Susan