The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India. Getzel M. Cohen

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ

      1 Alexandreia on the Latmos

      2 Samareia

      3 Alexandreia in Assyria

      4 Alexandreia in Parthia

      5 Alexandreia in Aria

      6 Alexandreia in Arachosia

      7 Alexandreia in Sakastane

      8 Prophthasia

      9 Another city in the Caucasus (Kadrusi)

      10 Alexandreia in Bactria

      11 Alexandreia on the Oxus

      12 Alexandreia Soriana

      13 Alexandreia in Carmania

      “NICHT ZU ENDE GEFüHRTE GRüNDUNGEN”

      1 Ilion

      2 Taxila

      3 The capital city of the Musikanoi

      4 Patala

      Tarn claimed that thirteen settlements could be definitely attributed to Alexander.¹¹¹

      TARN

      1 Alexandreia near Egypt

      2 Alexander in Aria

      3 Alexandreia in Arachosia

      4 Alexandreia in Margiana

      5 Alexandreia on the Oxus

      6 Alexandreia Eschate

      7 Alexandreia in Susiana

      8 Alexandreia Prophthasia

      9 Alexandreia-Bactra

      10 Alexandreia of the Caucasus

      11 Alexandreia Boukephala

      12 Alexandreia Iomousa

      13 Alexandreia in Makrene

      P. M. Fraser believed eight settlements could definitely be attributed to Alexander. (At the end of his Cities of Alexander the Great Fraser concluded that he could attribute only six foundations to Alexander. Elsewhere, however, he indicated that he believed two other cities—Alexandreia in Arachosia and Alexandreia in Parapamisadai—could be considered authentic.)¹¹²

      FRASER

      1 Alexandreia near Egypt

      2 Alexandreia in Aria

      3 Alexandreia Eschate

      4 Alexandreia in Susiana

      5 Alexandreia Boukephala

      6 Alexandreia among the Oreitai (Rhambakia)

      7 Alexandreia in Arachosia

      8 Alexandreia in Parapamisadai

      

      In an article evaluating (and reacting to) the works of Tarn and Fraser, N. G. L. Hammond suggested that one should not dismiss Plutarch’s number out of hand and speculated that the total of Alexander’s foundations might, in fact, have been around seventy.¹¹³ Hammond, however, did not provide a list of the settlements that he believed were founded by the king.

      A further problem is the difficulty of identifying the various Alexandreias. In antiquity (and later) some of these Alexandreias were referred to by different identifying tag lines or epithets. It is quite possible that different authors, undoubtedly reflecting different local traditions, might have been referring to the same Alexandreia by different epithets. The resulting confusion presents significant challenges for the scholar. To give one example: it has been suggested that ALEXANDREIA OXEIANA should be identified with ALEXANDREIA NEAR BAKTRA (Fraser), ALEXANDREIA IN SOGDIANA (Tarn), or the settlement at AÏ KHANOUM or Termez (Bernard).¹¹⁴

      Finally, it is sobering to note that we do not definitely know the exact location of any Alexandreia or any other alleged Hellenistic settlement in Bactria. In fact, the only settlement in Bactria that can be definitely located is the one at Aï Khanoum; but in that case we do not know its ancient name!¹¹⁵

      The Seleucids in the East

      The history of the Seleucid empire is the story of the continuing loss over time of lands at a distance—both west and east—from northern Syria. In the east, these territories were all on the periphery of the empire, stretching in a broad arc from Armenia and Media Atropatene (modern Azerbaijan) to northwest of the Iranian plateau to Bactria (roughly, modern Uzbekistan and northern Afghanistan) and India (southern Afghanistan and Pakistan) in the southeast. Just as the British in the nineteenth century, the Russians in the twentieth century, and the Americans and their allies in the early twenty-first century, so the Seleucids in antiquity had difficulty controlling this region.

      Despite the fact that the founder of the dynasty, Seleukos I Nikator, had married a Bactrian woman, Apama, the daughter of Spitamenes (Arr. 7.4.6), the Seleucids found it difficult to hold on to their possessions in central Asia. Already at the end of the fourth century B.C. the Seleucids were losing territory in the east that they had inherited from Alexander. As a result of his war (305–303 B.C.) and subsequent treaty with Chandragupta, Seleukos ceded territory to the Indian king on terms of intermarriage and the receipt of five hundred elephants.¹¹⁶ The precise extent of the territory ceded by Seleukos is not clear. A “maximalist” view claims that Seleukos yielded a large part of the territory west and north of the Indus, including Arachosia, Gedrosia, Parapamisadai, and possibly even Aria as far as Herat. Among other things, the discovery at Kandahar—which was located in the center of Arachosia—of two inscriptions recording a Greek translation of the edicts of the Mauryan emperor Asoka provides support for the maximalist view.¹¹⁷ A “minimalist” view argues that the territory ceded to Chandragupta was essentially limited to the Indus valley and neighboring regions; in other words, it did not include Arachosia.¹¹⁸ In any event, it would appear that once the treaty with Chandragupta was formalized, Seleucid rule over the eastern territories still under their control (temporarily) stabilized; the Seleucids then maintained control of these areas until the middle of the third century B.C.¹¹⁹

      The situation drastically changed in the course of the third quarter of the century (i.e., from c. 250 to c. 220 B.C.) . This was a period of disintegration and collapse all along the eastern (and western) frontier regions of the empire. Of course, it is during this very period that the Seleucids faced serious challenges elsewhere, both inside and beyond the borders of their empire: dynastic disputes on the one hand and chronic warfare with the Ptolemies on the other. It will not be surprising, therefore, to see various centrifugal pressures exploding at this time. In some cases circumstances in these regions reflected the pressures and aspirations of native dynasts and people; in other cases they were the result of adventurous and opportunistic Graeco-Macedonian governors establishing their own independent fiefdoms. But whatever the circumstances, the net result for the Seleucid monarchs was the same: these territories slipped away from Seleucid control. I have already mentioned the rise of the Parthian dynasty and the loss of Parthia and Hyrcania in the period after the mid-third century B.C., which took place in the northeastern part of the Iranian plateau. About the same time, in the eastern region, Diodotos, the Seleucid “governor СКАЧАТЬ