Ancient West & East 3 (2004) [published 2005], 223-251
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047405870_002…
29 pages
AI
The paper critically examines the conventional understanding of a Median empire, particularly focusing on its alleged westward extension and the role of the River Halys as a frontier. It challenges existing narratives by arguing that there is insufficient direct or indirect evidence for the existence of such an empire, drawing on the works of Sancisi-Weerdenburg. The discussion emphasizes the need to scrutinize Herodotus' accounts and evaluates the implications of a possible 'loose' imperial structure of the Medes.
AI
The focus of this paper is, first, the reading of the toponym in Nabonidus Chronicle II 16 of which only the first character is preserved, and, second, an historical reassessment according to which the territory loosely controlled by a Median 'confederation' cannot be called an 'empire'. Contrary to the generally held view the first character cannot be read as 'LU' which would require us to restore the text as lu-[ud-di], i.e. Lydia. Collation shows beyond doubt the character represents 'Ú' and the only plausible restoration is ú-[ras- †u], i.e. Urartu. Urartu was therefore not destroyed by the Medes at the end of the 7th century BC but continued to exist as an independent political entity until the mid-6th century BC.
Iranica Antiqua, 1998
In late 523, or early 522 B.C., Cambyses, the Persian Achaemenid king and son of Cyrus the Great, was returning to his homeland Persis after a prolonged stay in Egypt. While on his way home, or even before that, news reached the imperial army that a revolt had broken out on the Iranian Plateau, in the Achaemenid stronghold of Persis. The uprising was led by a man called Gaumata, who claimed to be Cambyses' brother Bardiya (Herodotus calls him Smerdis). He was however, according to Darius, not Cambyses' brother, but a magus, belonging to the class of Iranian priests that Herodotus elsewhere describes as a subdivision of the Medes (Hist. I 101). According to Darius and Herodotus, the real Bardiya had been killed months, if not years before by Cambyses (DB I 26-33) 3 . According to the Behistun text, Gaumata's rebellion started on March 11, 522 B.C. 4 , at the Persian site of Paishiyauvada, near a mountain called Arakadrish 5 . On July 1, Bardiya/Gaumata was officially proclaimed king. Soon afterwards 6 Cambyses died, by accident or natural causes, before he could reach Persis (cf. Walser 1983). The new King's rule however, was only of short duration, and on September 29 of the same year he was murdered by Darius and six other Persian conspirators of high rank at the site of Sikayauvatish, in the district of Nisaya, Media 7 . According to Darius, he was the first to dare speak out against the usurper, denouncing him as an impostor. Herodotus accordingly tells us that no one in the Empire realized the true nature of the King until Darius and his conspirators came to the fore. 196 W. VOGELSANG
Electrum, 2022
This paper reviews the different models commonly used in understanding Herodotus' evidence on the Achaemenid Persian empire. It suggests that these approaches-for example, the assessment of Herodotus' accuracy, of the level of his knowledge, or of his sympathy for the Persians-systematically underestimate the complexity of his (and of the Greeks') perspective on the Persian empire: the conflicted perspective of a participant rather than just a detached observer.
OSF, 2025
This paper identifies several kings of the New Kingdom Hittites as the same men from the archaeologically missing Median Empire. Mursilis II, Muwatallis II, and Hattusilis III are identifiable in the classical histories as Tugdamme the Cimmerian, Madyes the Scythian, and Cyaxares the Mede. We conclude the Median Empire would have been more accurately called the Cimmerian Empire, and that it was a coalition of Cimmerians, Scythians, and Medes who occupied and rebuilt Hattusa as their Western capital from about 705 to 547 BC, and adopted its language and script.
Contextualizing the Achaemenid-Persian Empire 291 2. Preliminary Remarks, or Some General Observations on Empire in the 1 st Millennium BCE The somehow canonized modern view on the history of Ancient Near Eastern empires of the first millennium BCE as a succession of different and welldefined empires has its advantages and merits. According to this approach, the four different empires (Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, Achaemenid-Persian Empires; Empire of Alexander the Great) are dealt with as specific states, which created their own bureaucracies and ideologies. They were ruled from different core areas and were reigned by distinctive social elites who were the decisive pillars of the state by giving it structure and meaning. 6 Indeed, the Neo-Assyrian Empire had a well-defined core area formed by the River Tigris and its two major tributaries, the Upper and the Lower Zab, where all major centers of the empire are located, i.e. from north to south, Dūr Šarrukīn, Ninua (Nineveh), Arba'ilu, and Aššur (Libbi-āli). The empire was conceptualized as "land Aššur" (māt Aššur) including the provinces and ruled by a king who acted in accordance with and in charge of the god Aššur. 7 The Neo-Babylonian Empire's core region was Babylonia, i.e. the alluvial plains to the south of modern Baghdād including the lower Diyala river. There was only one royal seat, i.e. Babylon, and the core area was defined as the "land of Sumer and Akkad." The king who, in contrast to his Assyrian counterpart, did not also act as a priest, ruled in charge of Marduk and Nabû. 8 Another shift was caused by the Persian kings. For the first time, the imperial core was in fact outside Mesopotamia although there was a royal palace in Babylon and the city still leveled high in prestige. The king's and the leading elites' identities, however, were no longer tied to Babylonia but were bound to western and southwestern Iran. Anšan/Pārsa (modern Fārs), Elam, and Media (central western Iran) were defined as the new core areas where the kings used to reside in newly constructed palace complexes at Ekbatana (Hamadān), Susa, Pasargadae, and Pārsa (Persepolis). 9 At least beginning with the reigns of Darius I and Xerxes, the god Ahura Mazda started to play a major role and the identity of the leading imperial elites became to be distinctive Iranian forming a transregional and cosmopolitan "ethno-classe dominante" 10 all over the empire. 11 In these
Tom 11 (2022): HISTORIA I ŚWIAT (ISSN 2299-2464) , 2022
The article discusses the military confrontation between Neo-Assyrian kingdom and the Median polities in the 7th century BCE. At the beginning the outline of the history of wars between the Medes and Assyria from the 9th century onwards is presented which is followed by the brief description of the Assyrian forces of the era and detailed examination of the events until the fall of the Neo-Assyrian empire. In conclusions an attempt to reconstruct possible principles of the Median warfare was made.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
AI
The paper reveals that Deioces established autocracy by initially acting as an impartial justice dispenser, a role that undermined typical Greek stereotypes of tyrants as law-givers. His subsequent consolidation of power involved establishing a fortified palace surrounded by a walled city, indicating a highly structured society.
The study finds that Herodotus compares Median governance to Persian rule, suggesting that both systems diminished in direct control with distance. This highlights a distinctive form of imperial authority where the Medes exercised influence over various regions through indirect means.
The research indicates that Scythians temporarily disrupted Median authority before being assimilated back into recognition of Median rule, without necessarily destabilizing the idea of a Median empire. This reflects a complex interplay between nomadic and settled societies in ancient Near Eastern political dynamics.
Findings suggest that archaeological remains at Kerkenes Dag, dating to the first half of the 6th century BC, indicate a significant Median presence with structures reminiscent of imperial architecture. This implies that Medes maintained both physical and political influence in the region during their historical interlude.
The evidence indicates that by around 595 BC, external texts like Jeremiah's canonically recognized 'kings of the Medes,' suggesting at least a notable political presence. This underscores the significance of the Medes as a regional power alongside contemporaneous entities like Babylon.
Published in A Common Cultural Heritage: Studies on Mesopotamia and the Biblical World in Honor of Barry L. Eichler, ed. G Frame et al. (CDL Press, 2011), pp. 243-253
KING OF THE SEVEN CLIMES: A History of the Ancient Iranian World (3000 BCE - 651 CE), 2017
Ancient History Bulletin, 2019
Mithridates VI Eupator is often regarded as a thoroughly Hellenized ruler, especially during his wars with Rome, when he made every effort to gain Greek supporters. While some scholars have discussed Persian aspects of the king’s ideology, there has been little attempt to understand the relationship between Mithridates’ Hellenism and his Persianism. This paper argues that Mithridates aimed to refashion Hellenistic kingship, which had thus far failed at curbing Rome’s eastward expansion, by openly incorporating elements of Persian kingship alongside more traditional Hellenistic methods of rule. Through this, he hoped to fashion himself as a new kind of dynast who would serve as the protector of all residents of the east – Greek and non-Greek – against the threat of Rome.
The kingdom which Mithridates VI Eupator Dionysos inherited in c. 121/120 BC -and greatly increased before the First Mithridatic War -was a complex country, located on the eastern half of the southern shores of the Black Sea, at the threshold of the Near East. Thus, from the very beginning of his kingship, and during the troubled phases of the long-lasting war with Rome, Mithridates had to deal with many Greek poleis, inside and outside his kingdom, and with strong Iranian elements. He had also to maintain good relationships with Rome -his father Mithridates Evergetes was an ally of Rome during the Third Punic War -and with pro-roman Greek cities, and at the same time he could strengthen ties with the waning Seleucid power, and the newrising Arsacid kingdom. In such a complex scenario, it is of great interest to analyse the paths of self-representation Mithridates elaborated: to convey effective messages, and to support his charismatic figure, he drew a complex self-portrait, in which the great figure of Alexander the Great played a major role. However, his 'Greek' face was not the only one he showed: Iranian and Seleucid elements were equally strong, but often interconnected with the 'Greek' ones, in a composite portrait which perfectly fits with a King -and a kingdom -between East and West.
Joan, Eahr Amelia. Re-Genesis Encyclopedia: Synthesis of the Spiritual Dark– Motherline, Integral Research, Labyrinth Learning, and Eco–Thealogy. Part I. Revised Edition II, 2018. CIIS Library Database. (RGS.)
Up until c. 1200 BCE, Troy was considered the stronghold of the Bosporus, but when Troy fell so did the Hittite Empire. The Thracian conquerors from the Balkans were ancestors of the Phrygians. (CAA: 19.) The ancient Phrygians settled in central and western Anatolia and Midas was one of their illustrious sovereigns. King Midas advanced a major civilization, which was strongly influenced by Neo-Hittites and Urartians (Vannics/Chaldeans). (ACRT: 14.) The Capital was Gordion and the National Goddess was Phrygian Matar Cybele plus her son – lover Attis. (CAA: 18-20; MG: 398-400.)
Christopher Tuplin