When considering giving a little more of focus towards the Eastern empires, their royal characters and the history they left behind, we are found wondering about whom should we bring to be discussed about. There is the merely difficulty about choosing the one to be brought here with all the considerations of their background, but to comprehend that, regardless of the high status attributed to the society they were part of, those royal characters represented in themselves the socialization process in which they were shaped according to the society's values, thoughts and beliefs of the time.
With Cyrus II of Anshan this was not different. During the process of conquest from his kingdom to others, thus beginning to create an empire that would only spread in the following generations, we learn, mainly through his kingship, aspects of a military, but paradoxically peaceful culture that we also perceive in Roman Empire, that is to say in another words: by conquering another realm, you are respecting their own culture and laws at the same time the conqueror's are being slowly imposed. This process is, at first sight, complex to understand but it cannot be separated from the empire's story. It is not different when studying Cyrus's reign.
Though he might be familiar to some, to others he might not and that purpose instigated us into giving a further look to his character. Not much is known regarding his early life and education, but what comes to us is that Cyrus's name "is a latinized form derived from the Greek Kyros, itself from the Old Persian Kurus". He was also the son of Cambyses I, being named after his grandfather, Cyrus I. Of his mother, we have not found records about her name. The year of his birth is still subject of speculations, with some pointing to the year of 600.
That his dynasty, coming from tribes of the west of what today we know as Iran, is Achaemenes (Old Persian: Haxamanis), is discussed by D.T Potts with further details regarding the Elam elements in her article "Cyrus the Great and the kingdom of Anshan". She also tells us that:
"Prášek assumed that the original kingdom of the Achaemenids was limited to the tribal territory of the Pasargadai and that the title “king of Anshan” reflected the extension of Achaemenid rule to other areas, though he disputed that the Anshan attested in the 3rd-millennium sources was the same as that of the Achaemenid period. (Potts, 2005, p 7)"
The main point to be analyzed is, however, Cyrus kingship and how his conquests brought his dynasty to the great empire that would exist for at least 200 years. And that is when we are brought to Cyrus marriage to Cassandane. It appears they had a loving relationship that gave Cyrus at least 5 children: Cambyses II, Bardiya, Atossa, Artystone, Roxane. Where the practice of marriage, regarding the culture present in Cyrus' context those days, is concerned, author Matt Waters states that:
"The practice of polygamy among subsequent Persian kings is well-attested, and it would be no surprise to learn that Cyrus engaged in it as well.8 The traditions wherein Cyrus is linked to the Median royal house by marriage may reflect Cyrus’ own propaganda to link himself to the Median dynasty; thus Cyrus would have portrayed himself as a legitimate Median king" (Waters, 2003, p 92)
Furthemore, he also uses Herodotus' source to describe the nature of the marriage between Cyrus and Cassandane, who allegedly reported to have been unhappier in leaving Cyrus than her own life.
"Herodotus noted that Cyrus greatly lamented Cassandane’s death and that he insisted on public mourning for her (II.1): “When Cyrus was dead, Cambyses inherited the kingdom. He was the son of Cyrus and Cassandane, the daughter of Pharnaspes, and Cassandane had died before Cyrus himself; Cyrus had mourned greatly for her and instructed all his subjects to do likewise. Cambyses, then, was a son of this woman and Cyrus.” An entry in the Nabonidus Chronicle provides an exact parallel, which lends credence to (and may have indirectly served as the source of) Herodotus’ account. The Chronicle related that Cyrus’ wife (whose name is not given) died within a few months after his conquest of Babylon and that there was an official mourning period: “In the month [x] the wife of the king died. From the twenty-seventh of the month Adar to the third of the month Nisan [there was] (an official) mourning in Akkad. All the people bared their heads. (Waters, 2003, p 92)"
And why is it important to look at the marriage between Cyrus and his wife to comprehend the construction over his kingship? Because this was alliance whose purpose
"afforded Cyrus support from a powerful group of Persian nobles (i.e., the Achaemenids) would have gone far in Cyrus’ unification of Iran and the discrete, though culturally similar, tribes therein. (Waters, 2003, p 92)"
It also appears that it was after the death of Cyrus' death that we have entrances regarding the ascension of his empire for the early periods of his reign are obscured and most scholars seem to agree that it was in such period that he was married and had the already mentioned children. As we know, "Cyrus was preceded as king by his father, Cambyses I. [...] [and] like his predecessors, Cyrus had to recognize Median overlordship." In addition, Waters tells us that:
"The first few years (at least five) are almost a complete blank in the historical record. It seems reasonable to place Cyrus’ marriage to Cassandane and the birth of Cambyses in this period (i.e., the 550s), if not before. Cyrus certainly spent these early years consolidating his power, presumably with an eye toward expansion. By 539, Cyrus had conquered Media (c. 550–549), Lydia (c. 540s), and Babylon (539). Of these three, only the conquest of Babylon may be dated with any precision: Cyrus entered the city on October 29, 539. The chronology of Cyrus’ activity in the east is uncertain. No Near Eastern source provides any explicit information on the incorporation of eastern Iran into the empire. The extent of Median power and influence is also unknown, and this convolutes the issue. Xenophon (Cyro. I.1.4) implied that the Hyrcanians accepted Cyrus’ rule after he overthrew Astyages, while Ktesias claimed that they had joined Cyrus beforehand (Persika §9). After the conquest of Lydia, Herodotus (I.177) noted that Harpagus devastated “lower Asia” (kátwtñß ’Asíhv) while Cyrus himself destroyed “upper” (a¢nw) Asia, subduing all people (pân e¢qnov)." (Waters, 2005, p 93)
On that aspect, Amélie Kuh adds in her article "Cyrus the Great of Persia: images and realities" that:
"Although a Persian, Cyrus had close links to the Median king Astyages. Median power, based on Ecbatana (modern Hamadan in north-west Iran), included Fars, parts of Central Asia to the east and reached westwards as far as the Halys river in Anatolia. Cyrus led a successful Persian revolt against his Median overlord in 550, took over the larger part of his dominions, and extended them by conquering adjoining areas: the Lydian kingdom, including the Greek cities of the Aegean seaboard, in the 540s, and the Neo-Babylonian empire, which embraced the entire Fertile Crescent (from the Persian Gulf to the Egyptian frontier), in 539." (Kuhrt, 2006, p 6)
The spread of Cyrus' military forces is quite impressive as we have been told above. As his conquest go further, we inevitably wonder about the use of "King of Anshan" title, to which the explanation for it is found in the paragraph below:
"Even if the title “king of Anshan” was, originally and simply, a designation of the geographic place that Cyrus the Great and his predecessors ruled, its continued use by Cyrus himself, as the conqueror of Media, Lydia, and then Babylonia, is significant. From a historiographic perspective the title underscores the impact of the Elamite tradition on Cyrus, especially in contrast with Darius’ shift to a Persian and Iranian ideology. (...) The use of the title “king of Anshan” supplied legitimacy to a Persian dynasty that had been victorious over indigenous Elamites. (...) The use of the title “king of Anshan” by a Persian goes beyond that of a simple geographical marker; Persian domination of an Elamite area represented, by use of this title, an arrogation of an Elamite tradition. With the decline of Elam by the late 650s and 640s, the legitimately-claimed title “king of Anshan”, an Elamite centre of great antiquity, may have carried great weight in a milieu of mixed Elamite and Persian populations, wherein Persians were the relative newcomers. Only with the Cyrus Cylinder may we trace the progression from “king of Anshan” to an expanded titulary of the newly-victorious ruler of Babylonia and most of the ancient Near East. (Waters, 95)"
As we have formerly mentioned, through the deeds of Cyrus we can perceives traits of the socialization process in which he went through. The ideal of a warrior king was, as we can observe from the previous paragraphs, present in the forming kingship, likely a seed to the next generations (as we will see when discussing the life and reign of Darius I, who was responsible for subduing Egypt) responsible for spreading the Persian empire and an important basis for the establishment, if not legitimizing, the emperors without necessarily looking upon marriages alliances for that specific goal.
Kuhrt also presents us the follwoing view regarding Cyrus' policies:
"Cyrus' progress was marked throughout by the generosity with which he treated his defeated opponents, the respect he showed to local cultures and his support for local cults. These policies laid the foundations for the empire's remarkable success. The Persians celebrated his achievements in song and story and his tomb was the object of a centrally funded cult down to the last days of the empire." (Kuhrt, 2005, p 7).
But we ought to remember that, however praising his deeds might have been, certainly colaborating for making Cyrus a great statesman as much as he was an excellent warrior, his flaws were still present there if yet we can use such word to qualify what he thought wise in his own days to presever his dynasty. The same author continues in saying:
"His defeat of Astyages involves the torture of the latter's children and grandchildren, followed by the execution of his son-in-law, and ultimately Astyages' death (FGrH 688 F9 (1-3; 6)). In the course of the Lydian war, Cyrus executed Croesus' son, resulting in the suicide of Croesus' wife. Only after repeated attempts to chain Croesus up were divinely frustrated,xix did Cyrus relent and treat him with honour (FGrH 688 F 9 (4; 5)). The stories show a man of great ability in the field, a brilliant tactician, ready to deploy whatever measures necessary to achieve his ends. (Kuhrt, 2006, p 7)"
The conquest of Babylon, however, is, notwithstanding the several wars he waged, impressive and must not be excluded of the presenting discussion for, as we have already mentioned in the opening of this post, he showed respect for other culture and maintained it, in spite of the apparent differences. Although it does not configurate as an imutable perception applicable to others from former or after generations of Cyrus, nor to his regions, we assume that the respect he showed before Babylon conquest and, through Babylon the indirect conquest upon Assyrian kings who answered to Babylon's authority, culture, religions were likely the reflection of how Ashan's monarchy probably dealt with this difference between themselves and others.
In that order, Cyrus placed his son, Cambyses II, on the Babylon throne, dethroning thus the former dynasty in power until then, becoming "pretenders" to the throne that were now under the command of a foreigner power. In the following paragraphs, Kuhrt shows us this process of "changing kings", where, in theory, Cyrus 'usurped' the other's crown on behalf of his own dynasty.
"[...] the new aspirant also accepted the duties that went with being a Babylonian sovereign: to respect and uphold the privileges of the urban elite, and care for divine and civic dwellings. Such work on sanctuaries and urban buildings was not something that could be undertaken at will – it required consultation with the gods (through divination) to see whether the proposed work was in line with divine plans. Approval of the plan to build - broadcast through the proclamation of positive omens - in turn demonstrated that the gods favoured the new ruler. And that favour was reconfirmed by the new king, who traditionally formed and brought the first building brick, finding the inscription of a pious earlier ruler, who had performed work similarly blessed." (Kuhrt, 2006, p 9)
In cultural aspects, we are presented to this interpretation, already discussed:
"All references to the ‘restoration’ of shrines and their staffs are part of a familiar rhetoric deployed by conquerors and would-be kings, ready to accept the duties incumbent on them in their new position as rulers in Babylon. In fact, it reflects rather more of the pressure Babylonian citizens were able to bring to bear on the new royal claimant than casting any light on the character of the potential king-to-be." (Kuhrt, 2006, p 9)
Finally, though, she gives us a light on the king's proccession according to a Babylon's chronicle, a source she used since it was, in counterpoint to Xenophon and other Greek philosopher's accounts, more contemporary to Cyrus' days. It so says that:
"the chronicle’s account of Cyrus’ confrontation with Nabonidus. It is possible that tension between the two powers had been growing for some time – certainly there is a reference to Persia in a very broken context in the chronicle’s entry for 540. This may explain Nabonidus’ action in collecting the divine statues of several cities in Babylon for (one assumes) safety in the face of the expected Persian attack (Beaulieu 1993). In late September 539, the Babylonian army led by its king faced the Persian troops on the Tigris, near Opis. The battle was won by Cyrus, who followed up his victory by plundering the city and massacring its inhabitants. Shortly after this, Sippar, which was next in line of attack, surrendered, perhaps in order to avoid sharing the fate of Opis. From what follows, it is clear that Cyrus halted there, but sent his general (Gubaru/Gobryas) with an army ahead to invest Babylon and take the defeated Babylonian king prisoner. Only after Babylon had been secured – three weeks later – did Cyrus enter the city himself, which was now prepared to receive him as its new ruler (see Pongratz-Leisten 1993, ch.5; Kessler 2002), almost certainly as a result of negotiation with representatives of the Babylonian citizenry. Cyrus made the appropriate royal gestures i.e. initiating the ‘restoration’ of order following the disruptions of war. After making arrangements for the administration of the country, which – as we know from Babylonian documents continued to rely heavily on the existing Babylonian framework and personnel - he installed his son, Cambyses, as king of Babylon (Kuhrt, 2006, p 13)
The festival had taken on a particular importance during Babylonia’s disturbed history in the immediately preceding centuriesxxxii and its correct celebration by Assyrian kings had been carefully noted by Babylonian chroniclers. An important phase in the festival was the point where the king led the image of the god Nabu from the 'Sceptre House' in procession into the main temple courtyard. As Cambyses had already been formally installed as king of Babylon in Nabu's cella (confirmed by the local dated documents), he would have been expected to enact this phase of the ceremony. But a recent restudy of the last lines of the chronicle (George 1996: 379-381) suggests, strongly, that it was Cyrus who took the lead in this, but robed, as the chronicle observes, in Persian ('Elamite') dress. The political message of this action, in the context of such a very traditional Babylonian ceremony, must be that there was a clear limit to how far Cyrus was prepared to fall in with Babylonian custom. Instead, the Babylonians were made to recognise, unmistakably, that they were now subjects of a foreign ruler (Kuhrt, 2006, p 13)"
The conquest of the great Cyrus II, however, provides us not only an interchange, a trade of cultures, of different peoples in touch, but an assimilitation from both parts. This did not mean necessarily that Cyrus' rule was well accepted by all. Had he been certain of it, he would not have died in campaign as Matt Waters tells us:
"That Cyrus died campaigning in the extreme north-east suggests that the regions beyond the Oxus River were not secure, or were attractive targets, even at the end of his reign" (Waters, 93)"Unfortunately we are not told of his character, but from what we have seen this far, it is safe to assume he was charismatic and respectful. The use of blood out of the waged wars on benefit for his dynasty was used in emergencys. Naturally we must critically question ourselves: was Cyrus the great politic, statesman as he'd been portrayed? Whether we like or not, we ought to acknowledge that his kingship, shaped in military and cultural forms, certainly contributed if not left for his heirs a growing empire that, as already mentioned, was extended from Darius I and farther even by Xerxes I, this latter becoming the most infamous character of this dynasty.
What makes the ascension of the Persian Empire is that:
"Until perhaps the early seventh century, the region of Fars in south-west Iran and its main city, Anshan, formed a significant part of the old kingdom of Elam.xxxiii It is now generally accepted that, by at least the late second millennium, Iranian pastoralists (i.e. Persians) had moved into this territory and mingled with the local population.xxxiv From the late eighth century onwards, Elam experienced political problems as a result of conflict with Assyria. In the course of this, its kings had lost control of the Fars region, certainly by the middle of the seventh century, if not earlier. One outcome was the emergence of a new, small kingdom there, ruled by a Persian dynasty, whose members took the ancient and sonorous Elamite title ‘kings of Anshan’. Cyrus, whose name may itself be Elamite (Henkelman 2006: 32), proudly traces their genealogy in the Cyrus Cylinder: ‘Son of Cambyses, great king, king of Anshan, grandson of Cyrus, great king, king of Anshan, great-grandson of Teispes, great king, king of Anshan’ (Appendix, no. 1 (iv)). The historical reality of this claim is confirmed by the Elamite legend on an heirloom seal impressed on five of the published Persepolis Fortification tablets, which reads: ‘Cyrus, the Anshanite, son of Teispes’, i.e. Cyrus’ grandfather." (Kuhrt, 2006, p 14)"Furthemore, we can tell that Cyrus' legacy is not only perceptible in the political and cultural aspects in Eastern history but as well within the region of Anshan and those by him conquered:
"It is only with him that the landscape of Fars was transformed by the creation of the great royal residence at Pasargadae – the name taken from Cyrus’ tribe (Hdt. 1.125). It contained a series of substantial stone buildings, using novel architectural forms and lay-outs. (Kuhrt, 2006, p 14)"To close this article, we understand that:
"In order to establish and consolidate control as firmly as possible, he needed to woo the support of local elites, something best done through accommodating himself to local norms whenever possible. But this was preceded by victory in battle and a definitive show of force, followed by no uncertain reminders to new subjects of their subservient position. (...) Cyrus was a quite remarkable soldier and politically pragmatic. The explosion in size of the tiny Persian kingdom in his reign remains astonishing.xliv His rapid conquests of vastly dispersed territories, not previously united under one political umbrella, are easily comparable, possibly greater, in their breath-taking scope and scale with Alexander of Macedon's epic achievements. This, together with the widely diffused messages of his piety and statesmanship derived from Ezra, Isaiah and Xenophon, combined with heroic stories of his rise to power, help to explain the continued persistence of his reputation as a uniquely able and merciful ruler." (Kuhrt, 2006, p 17)
Bibliography:
WATERS, Matt. "Cyrus and the Achaemenids." University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. 2003.
KUHRT, Amélie. "Cyrus the Great of Persia: images and realities." History Department, UCL. 2006.
POTTS, D.T. "Cyrus the Great and the Kingdom of Anshan". University of Sidney. 2005.
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great
-https://www.britannica.com/biography/Cyrus-the-Great
-http://www.cyrusthegreat.net
-http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus/cyrus.php
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário