In History Hit documentary The Jordan: A River Through Time, historian Dan Snow visits a site which has long been associated with early Christianity and the making of mosaics.

It is still possible to find artists carefully crafting in stone here, continuing a tradition stretching back millennia and exemplified by one incredible Byzantine-era mosaic in particular.

This is the so-called Madaba Map, the oldest known map of the Biblical Middle East.

The Jordan: A River Through Time

Image Credit: History Hit

“130 years ago workmen were clearing away the ground here to rebuild Saint George’s Church when they uncovered something extraordinary under the floor,” says Dan.

“Pieces of small coloured tile began to emerge. Bit by bit, they revealed a large mosaic. But it wasn’t a pattern or a picture. They discovered a map, complete with towns, seas and rivers, showing this whole region dating back nearly 1,500 years.”

The astonishing map is much more than just an atlas. “It doesn’t just show where places are in the physical space in relation to each other, but the importance of the spiritual dimension as well.”

“This is how early Christians saw their world, how they understood their place within it, and the centrality of their faith.”

“You can see the Dead Sea looming very large with the ships riding its waves,” explains Dan. “And there, just to the west of it we have the ancient city, the holy city itself, Jerusalem, depicted disproportionately large compared to other places on the map.”

It is possible to pick out individual buildings on the map. “You can see the ancient walled city’s Damascus Gate. Next to Damascus Gate stands the dark column that once supported the statue of Emperor Hadrian. Moving further into the city, there’s a long colonnaded main street, or cardo. Prominent on the map are Jerusalem’s principal churches, including the large new Church of Saint Mary. Tucked against the city walls in the northeast is the Church of the Sheep Pool.”

“This is my idea of heaven”

“Right next to the main street stands the most important of them all. In Byzantine times it was called the Church of the Resurrection, but it’s now known as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, where it’s believed Jesus’s body was laid to rest after crucifixion. Still a place of devotion, 1,500 years after this map was made.”

The map teems with details about the places that mattered to the Christians who lived in Madaba in Byzantine times. To the south Bethlehem can be seen, and elsewhere the names of Biblical places and tribes.

The Nile flows in the west and on the Mediterranean coast the port of Gaza is visible. On the River Jordan itself lies the point where Jesus Christ was baptised.

“As someone who is obsessed with both maps and history, this is my idea of heaven,” says Dan in the film. “It is as instructive as it is beautiful. It tells us about the world of the early Christians, literally where everything was, but also where they saw their place within it.”

Watch The Jordan: A River Through Time and more original films by signing up to History Hit.

Sign up to watch

It is the subject of History Hit film The Jordan: A River Through Time (released 26 September) presented by historian Dan Snow, who begins his exploration of the early centuries of Christianity at Mount Nebo in modern Jordan.

From Mount Nebo, a prominent hill 700 metres above sea level, a vast panorama of the surrounding landscape is revealed – including its cherished, ancient features.

“People talk about the Holy Land,” says Dan Snow in the film. “Well, this is it. I’m looking down at the geography of this region, but we’re also looking at history just over there in those clouds.”

The Jordan: A River Through Time

Image Credit: History Hit

On a clear day, Jerusalem is visible 30 miles away. Meanwhile to the south is Bethlehem, and before them is the Dead Sea and the green fields of the Jordan River valley. Should you follow the valley north, you would arrive at the Sea of Galilee, also known as Lake Tiberias.

Provided the conditions are right, Jericho, one of the oldest cities in the world with evidence of human settlement dating back 12,000 years, can be seen from Mount Nebo.

“What a place to get a sense of the geography, the history and the interlocking religions of this region.”

The Jordan: A River Through Time

Image Credit: History Hit

Mount Nebo is a site closely connected with the Old Testament and the story of Moses, Dan explains.

“And this really is the perfect standpoint. This is where Moses was brought and shown the promised land on the far bank of the Jordan for the first time shortly before his death.”

“Mount Nebo’s connection with Moses drew pilgrims here, particularly as the Roman Empire adopted Christianity in the 4th century and morphed into what we call the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire, with its capital in Constantinople.”

An astonishing window into rural life

The church on top of Mount Nebo contains extraordinary pictorial evidence of what this region was like when Byzantine Christianity flourished there 1,500 years ago. Inside the church is a remarkably preserved mosaic which depicts rural life in this region in the 6th century AD.

The Jordan: A River Through Time

Image Credit: History Hit

“It was commissioned by a couple of imperial administrators for this important religious site, this place of pilgrimage,” Dan explains. “It shows beautiful fruit trees, a range of animals and hunting. You get a man on horseback attacking a wild boar with a dog. A couple of figures are fighting lions. One person is just resting, pondering beneath the fruit tree.”

“And at the bottom you have these figures that are dressed and shown to be from elsewhere: a dark skinned African taking an ostrich on a leash, and perhaps someone from Phrygia, someone from Anatolia, with a spotty camel and a zebra.”

“This is an astonishing window into what rural life was like in this holy land 1,500 years ago.”

Watch The Jordan: A River Through Time and more original films by signing up to History Hit.

Sign up to watch

Ascending the throne in 223 BC, Antiochus inherited a Seleucid empire that had fallen into a downward spiral. Bactria, Parthia and large swathes of Syria had been lost by his predecessors. Antiochus aimed to stop the rot and restore uncontested Seleucid supremacy in Asia.  It would be no easy task. To achieve this goal he would have to re-unite lands stretching from the borders of India in the East to Macedonia in the West under his rule. Yet Antiochus remained undeterred.

By 210 BC, Antiochus had had mixed success. Although he initially faced great challenges – both against the pretender Molon and then against Ptolemy IV at Raphia in 217 BC – the young Seleucid had quickly recovered, recapturing large amounts of Asia Minor.

Looking east

Antiochus turned his gaze away from the eastern Mediterranean and towards the east. Antiochus sought to reassert Seleucid supremacy as far as the borders of India. Antiochus gathered a great Seleucid army for this expedition. The ancient source Justin claims it was 100,000 men strong, though this is almost certainly an exaggeration.

Among its ranks was a formidable cavalry body of at least 6,000 men, as well as at least 15,000 heavy infantrymen. They were the nucleus of Antiochus’ army, trained to form the Macedonian phalanx. Among these footmen was Antiochus’ crack unit, the Silver Shields. They were a 10,000 strong division named after Alexander’s own famous infantrymen. 10,000 peltasts, 2,000 Cretan archers and many mercenaries also filled the ranks.

In early 210 BC, Antiochus set off east. Within a year of reaching Parthia’s lands in 209 BC, resistance there had crumbled. Hyrkania was re-captured, as were the cities of Tambrax and Syrinx in southern Parthia. The new Parthian king, Arsaces II, submitted to Antiochus. Parthia belonged to Antiochus. Bactria was next.

Euthydemus acts

The Bactrian monarch Euthydemus, however, gathered a grand army and marched west to confront the Seleucid King. The Bactrian army was undoubtedly powerful. Not only did his infantry nucleus likely consist of Greek colonists trained in the Macedonian manner, but it would have been supported by expert Bactrian light infantry – men skilled at fighting in rough terrain.

That was not all. Among his force Euthydemus had many exotic beasts: terrifying war elephants from India as well as a substantial number of Bactrian camels in his supply train. Alongside all this, Euthydemus had another force more precious than the rest: his 10,000 Bactrian cavalry. Ever since the days of the Persian Empire, Bactria had been famed for its horsemen.

Some undoubtedly fought as light cavalry equipped with bows and javelins. Yet Euthydemus’ most powerful cavalry were his Bactrian cataphracts – heavily armoured horsemen who’s sheer weight could crush almost any opponent. Elite units of Hellenic companion cavalry likely also served alongside. Altogether it was among the most powerful cavalry forces in the known world.

Defending the Arius

Upon hearing that Antiochus’ force was closing in on the Arius River, Euthydemus sent his 10,000 expert cavalry ahead. Their orders were simple: prevent Antiochus’ force from crossing long enough for Euthydemus and his main army to arrive. For Euthydemus, the Arius would be where he would make his stand.

Yet Antiochus would not play Euthydemus’ game. When he was three days march away from the river, reports reached him that Euthydemus’ cavalry were guarding the Arius’ far bank. Without delay, he marched his army towards the river. For three days the Seleucid army marched at a steady pace, slowly approaching the Arius and the enemy. Yet when his army was within a day’s march of the river, Antiochus initiated a brilliant plan.

Intelligence

Antiochus’ reports had revealed much about the Bactrian cavalry awaiting him and they had revealed a flaw in the defence. His scouts had discovered that the Bactrian cavalry were not constantly stationed on the Arius river. The Greek-Roman historian Polybius reports that “he was informed that the cavalry of the enemy kept guard by day on the bank of the river, but at night retired to a city more than twenty stades off.”

That night, as the Bactrian cavalry returned to their cosy night-quarters, Antiochus therefore made his move. Ordering the rest of his army to continue the march the next morning, the Seleucid king gathered his cavalry and light infantry – some 15,000 men – and commenced a rapid march towards the river. The move was almost-perfectly executed. As the sun emerged the next morning, Antiochus’ select force had not only reached the Arius, but most of his force had also crossed completely unopposed. The rest of Antiochus’ army was still some way behind, however, and the Bactrians would soon be upon them.

The Bactrians return

They came sooner than expected. As the last part of Antiochus’ force was still crossing, Seleucid hearts fell. Rushing towards them were 10,000 Bactrian cavalry, alarmed by scouts of Antiochus’ manoeuvre. They were determined to send their foe back across the river. What was more, they had a gleaming opportunity to either kill or capture the Seleucid king.

Seeing the Bactrians advancing, Antiochus could not refuse the fight. Though most of his force were still not formed for battle, he gathered his 2,000 strong bodyguard andsounded the charge. If his small, elite force could hold the Bactrians for long enough for the rest of his army to form up, then Antiochus knew victory would be within sight. The strategy had huge risks.

The Battle of the Arius, 208 BC

Antiochus’ guard and the Bactrians quickly clashed. The fighting was fierce and Antiochus’ bodyguard struggled desperately to defend their king. The Bactrians were eager to drive their foe into the river and regain control of the crossing. A breakthrough was made when Antiochus’ guard routed a Bactrian squadron. The Seleucids started to get the upper hand. Yet fresh Bactrian support then charged in to the Seleucid royal guard.

River Arius (Hari River) with the Minaret of Jam, a UNESCO World Heritage Site in Afghanistan.

Image Credit: Public Domain

Very soon the Seleucid guard began to suffer terribly. Most of their horses were killed from under them and many, including Antiochus, were forced to fight on foot. But Antiochus continued to resist, inspiring his troops with his bravery:

…the king had a horse killed under him and lost some of his teeth by a blow on the mouth: and his whole bearing obtained him a reputation for bravery of the highest description.

Polybius 10.49

The heroics Antiochus showed at the Arius would prove one of his finest moments. Yet even with the king’s brave antics, Antiochus’ guard soon began to waver. As the Bactrian noose closed in around the Seleucid necks all looked lost for Antiochus.

Relief

Just as the situation was looking most severe the battle was turned on its head. While Antiochus and his guard desperately fended off their Bactrian foes, his remaining cavalry formed up. Their charge was devastating and shattered the Bactrian cavalry. In disarray those that remained retreated to re-join Euthydemus’ army.

Upon seeing his shattered horsemen re-join his army, Euthydemus was aghast: his foe had shattered his elite corps and had already crossed the Arius. He ordered his remaining forces to retreat while Antiochus advanced into Bactria in pursuit. Though Antiochus may have won this battle, the war was far from over.

‘Paradise of the Earth’

Euthydemus retreated to his capital at Bactra. The majority of his army was still intact, and he now planned to withstand Antiochus long enough for the Seleucid king to sue for terms. No place better suited this than Bactra. Described as ‘the Mother of Cities’ and ‘Paradise of the Earth’, Bactra was a powerful city. Its strategic placement both on the banks of the navigable Oxus and along the lucrative silk road meant that trade flourished in this metropolis.

Alongside Ai-Khanoum, it was one of the richest cities in Bactria. Militarily too, we can presume the city of Bactra was formidable. For two years Antiochus attempted to breach the city to no avail. It proved one of the longest sieges in the whole of the 3rd century BC, second only perhaps to the siege of Syracuse. Finally, as both sides grew weary, talks to find a peaceful solution were initiated.

Depiction of Alexander’s siege of Tyre in 332 BC.

Image Credit: Public Domain

Negotiations

Antiochus was happy to engage in talks. His glorious eastern campaign was taking much longer than he had expected and he was  desperate to complete it. He sent an envoy called Teleas to Euthydemus to negotiate terms. Arriving at Euthydemus’ court, Teleas put forward Antiochus’ demands. We do not know what they were, but it seems probable from Euthydemus’ response that Antiochus deemed Euthydemus a usurper and demanded Bactria return to its rightful place as part of the Seleucid Empire.

But Euthydemus claimed he was no usurper. After all, it was he who had overthrown the Diodotids, the family who had revolted from the Seleucids in the first place. During the talks, Euthydemus also raised another point, which arguably had greater strength than the first.

The nomad threat

Living on the far-edge of the known world also had its downsides. To the north of Bactra, and especially beyond the Jaxartes, lay the land of hordes and steppe: the home of the ‘Scythians’ or ‘Sacae.’ Just as Macedonia and Epirus were the shields of Hellenism from barbarism on the Greek mainland, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom had a similar job in eastern Asia.

Bactria had frequently faced incursions from nomadic tribes in the past. The Persians, Alexander, the Seleucids and now the Greco-Bactrians – they had all built forts on the southern bank of the Jaxartes river to fend off this threat. With Euthydemus holed up in Bactra, that threat was rising. Aware that these nomads, attracted by the turmoil, gathered on his northern border, Euthydemus pleaded to Teleas that:

if Antiochus did not retract this demand [Euthydemus giving up his kingship], neither of them would be secure. The great hordes of Nomads were close at hand and were a great danger to both. If they failed to stop them getting into the country, it would certainly be utterly barbarised.

Polybius 11. 34

Euthydemus’ argument was that if Antiochus removed him from power, then Bactria could fall, quickly followed by the all Hellenism in Asia. Whether this was simply meant as a statement of fact or a more sinister, underlying threat by Euthydemus, it proved effective.

A compromise is reached

The two kings reached an agreement. Euthydemus would remain as king of Bactria, but with certain conditions: not only did Antiochus force him to hand over his mighty elephant division, but it is also likely Euthydemus paid some sort of homage to the Seleucid dynast. Euthydemus sent his son to Antiochus’ camp to confirm. This prince achieved more than simply ratifying this peace.

Upon meeting Euthydemus’ son, Antiochus was greatly impressed by the young man’s character. In Antiochus’ eyes, he was a Hellenistic king in the making. He thus offered his daughter in marriage to the Greco-Bactrian prince as well as confirming Euthydemus as king of Bactria. The young prince’s name was Demetrius, a man who would go on to wage one of the most fascinating campaigns of antiquity.

Antiochus ‘Megas’

Departing Bactria, Antiochus would linger in the far east a while longer. Reaching the Hindu Kush, he renewed Seleucid friendship with the local king Sophagasenus before returning west. Overall, his eastern campaign had been a great success. Hyrkania, Parthia, Aria and Bactria – Antiochus had gained success in all. Yet of them all, his success and personal valour at the Arius River stood out above the rest.

Such was Antiochus’ success in Seleucid eyes that he soon acquired a new moniker. No longer was he Antiochus III; now, he was deemed Antiochus Megas, meaning, ‘the Great.’ For the next 15 years Antiochus continued to expand Seleucid territory in the Mediterranean, attempting to reconquer the final parts of Seleucus’ great empire. His successes would not ultimately last. In 192 BC, Antiochus launched a campaign against a  rising foe in the west that ultimately proved his downfall: Rome.

The rise of the Greco-Bactrians

As for Euthydemus and the Greco-Bactrians, following Antiochus’ departure, the kingdom underwent significant expansion. Under both Euthydemus and his son Demetrius, the Greco-Bactrian Empire began to form. Their subjects honoured the Euthydemid dynasty in return:

Heliodotos dedicated this fragrant altar for Hestia, venerable goddess, illustrious amongst all, in the grove of Zeus, with beautiful trees; he made libations and sacrifices so that the greatest of all kings Euthydemus, as well as his son, the glorious, victorious and remarkable Demetrius, be preserved of all pains…

A dedication to Hestia in honour of Euthydemus and Demetrius, discovered in modern-day Tajikistan

From making contact with the Chinese (whom they called the Seres) in the East, to Arachosia and India in the South, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom would become the dominant force in the far-east – with their descendants even managing to campaign as far as the Ganges river.

Incorporating breakaway provinces of Roman Syria, Arabia and Egypt, her own empire was the product of her exceptional ambition and capability. Though she faced a war on two fronts, Zenobia was determined that her son Vaballathus would inherit his birth right. This is the story of Zenobia’s meteoric rise and fall.

The Split

Ten years before, the unthinkable had happened. A Roman army had been completely wiped out by the Sassanians and the emperor Valerian taken captive. Beset by invasion and plague, the Roman empire already hung by a thread. With the capture of Valerian, all hope of central imperial authority vanished. Roman governors realised that authority in Rome was not longer required to become emperor. With an army behind them, all might be for the taking. Enter Postumus, governor of Germania.

By the end of 260 AD, Postumus had seized control of Gaul, Raetia, Batavia and Britannia. He had set up his capital at Trier and even established his own senate and praetorian guard. Preoccupied with the Frankish invasion of Italy, Gallienus – Valerian’s son and co-emperor –was powerless to react to Postumus until it was too late. At least the news from the east was slightly less bleak. 

Palmyra Appoints a King

The city of Palmyra lies at the heart of the Syrian desert. For two thousand years it has been subject to the volatility of the Middle East. In antiquity, it was prosperous trading hub which swore allegiance to Rome. In return, Rome granted Palmyra a degree of autonomy, allowing the city to keep its own assembly. But Rome’s instability and repeated Sassanid invasions had forced Palmyra’s assembly to take drastic action to protect its trade network. They proclaimed the city’s leader, Odaenathas, king. 

Odenaethus

In less than a year Odaenathas succeeded in pushing the Sassanids back across the Euphrates. Next, he turned on the brothers Quietus and Macrianus who had tried to usurp control in the eastern half of the Roman Empire. Having done so, Odaenathas aligned himself with emperor Gallienus. In doing so Odaenathas was bestowed the title corrector totius orientis, which referred to his de facto control over Syria, Judaea, Arabia and parts of Asia Minor.

Odaenathas assassinated

But Odaenathas didn’t last long. In the winter of 267 AD he was assassinated and the ten-year old Vaballathus was proclaimed King of Kings under the regency of his mother.  Odaenathas’ assassination remains a mystery. The unknown author of the Augustan History believes Zenobia devised overthrow, desperate to prevent her stepson Herodianus from assuming the throne.

However, this work is notoriously unreliable. Indeed this theory draws some suspicion for fitting a little too cleanly with the stereotype of a power-hungry wife scheming against her husband to install her son as ruler – much as Olympias or Livia are said to have done to promote Alexander and Tiberius, respectively. Scholars have alternately suggested that Odaenathas was assassinated by Palmyrene plotters who sought to restore the city’s assembly. 

Who was Zenobia?

Zenobia had nevertheless positioned herself perfectly. A likely noble of uncertain heritage, she had been married since around age 14 to Odaenathus as he elevated Palmyra to supreme power in the Near East.  Thanks to contradictory sources, it is hard to get a sense of the real person. The most detailed description we have portrays Zenobia more like a caricature than a woman: 

Her face was dark and of a swarthy hue, her eyes were black and powerful beyond the usual wont, her spirit divinely great, and her beauty incredible. So white were her teeth that many though that she had pearls in place of teeth.  Her voice was clear and like that of a man.  Her sternness, when necessity demanded, was that of a tyrant, her clemency […] that of a good emperor. Generous with prudence, she conserved her treasures beyond the wont of women.

Augustan History, The Thirty Pretenders, 30.16-17

Following Odaenathas’ death, Zenobia emerged as regent and de facto ruler of the empire. But the question remained: was her son’s kingship assured?

The Romans expected Vaballathus to defer to the emperor in Rome, and on a whim the emperor could strip Zenobia and Vaballathus’ royal prerogative. In the past 50 years, there had been no fewer than 19 emperors. The next one might not take kindly to Zenobia or her son. Meanwhile, to the Palmyrenes the monarchy was now hereditary and any affront to its legitimacy was an insult to the city itself. The question was which city held the greater authority: Rome or Palmyra?

Both Zenobia and Roman officials in the eastern provinces ask this of themselves. The answer had two possible outcomes: peace or war. Though Palmyra had only appointed its first king seven years before, there was no open resistance to Vaballathus’ succession amongst the Roman provincial governors. But their support for Zenobia’s regency was tenuous, borne from the necessity to maintain stability in the Near East.

Zenobia’s conquest

Zenobia exploited chaos in Rome to establish her authority. Back in Europe, Gallienus had been assassinated and the resulting power vacuum had caused trust in Rome’s central authority to collapse. This allowed Zenobia to justify a military campaign throughout the Levant, designed to shore up the weaknesses the Sassanids might exploit with a second invasion. In other words, she subjugated anyone who refused to accept Palmyrene dominance.

Zenobia’s army subjugated Judaea, crushed economic rivals – the Tanûkids of Bostra – and killed Trassus, the Roman governor of Arabia (probably to force the other Roman governors to comply). In short time, Zenobia secured Petra and all the territory up to the Egypt. But Zenobia was playing a dangerous game.

Palmyra at its zenith in 271.

Image Credit: User Attar-Aram syria on Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 4.0

In the summer of 270 AD, she seized control of Antioch’s mint. It stopped producing coins with the name of the current emperor, Claudius Gothicus, and instead made coins declaring her son imperator. This was not, however, tantamount to a declaration of war against Rome: the term imperator referred to Vaballathus’ command over the troops, while Zenobia could still claim that she was acting as Rome’s representative. But the emperor, who had become emperor through force of arms, knew the game Zenobia was playing.

In August 270 AD, news of Claudius Gothicus’ death reached Zenobia. In Europe, Claudius’ brother Quintillus competed for power with Aurelian, a soldier of modest origins. With the backing of the Danubian legions, Aurelian brushed aside Quintillus’ challenge and installed himself as the new emperor. Probus, the prefect of Egypt, had meanwhile left Alexandria to eliminate Gothic pirates threatening trade in the eastern Mediterranean. The timing was perfect. A pro-Palmyrene faction emerged within Alexandria to encourage Zenobia to invade. 

Why did Zenobia invade Egypt?

A Palmyrene invasion would cripple Rome, which relied on Egypt’s grain supply, and would inevitably provoke war between Zenobia and Aurelian. In September 270 AD, Zenobia decided it was worth the risk. With 70,000 soldiers, the Palmyrene soldiers under general Zabdas caught the Roman garrisons off-guard; by the winter Probus was dead and Egypt was under Palmyrene control.   

The following year, Zenobia’s general invaded Galatia and annexed the city of Ankara. According to the 5th-century Byzantine historian Zosimus, the Palmyrenes attempted an unsuccessful annexation of all of Asia Minor up to Chalcedon on the Bosporus. In the summer of 271 AD, the Palmyrene Empire stood at its height. 

Zenobia had so far avoided provoking Aurelian. This was because Aurelian was preoccupied with Germanic tribes. To safeguard Rome from the Alemanni, Aurelian built massive fortifications around the city. Aurelian was also forced to abandon the province of Dacia to defend against a Gothic invasion. On the southern bank of the Danube, he regrouped the legions and won a decisive victory by killing the Goths’ leader Cannabaudes. Aurelian was powerless to respond to Zenobia.  

To consolidate her territory, Zenobia resumed minting coins with Aurelian’s visage and the title imperator on the obverse and Vaballathus’ face and the title of rex on the reverse. The symbolic gesture was designed to portray her loyalty to Rome despite her aggressive use of force against Roman provinces. The numismatic evidence and papyri documents are all that remain of Aurelian’s response to Zenobia’s invasion of Egypt.

It seems certain that Aurelian would not have formally accepted Palmyrene authority over Egypt, but in the short-term he would have been forced to cooperate with Zenobia to retain access to Egypt’s grain. Zenobia’s decision to keep these supply lines at all, however, was a crucial miscalculation.

Rome or Palmyra?

The literary sources covering Zenobia’s regency can sometimes be contradictory. Did Zenobia always intend to establish the Palmyrene Empire as independent of Rome? Or did she conduct an invasion of Egypt to protect Palmyra’s trade network? It’s hard to believe Zenobia would have risked turning Rome against her if she was happy for Palmyra to remain subordinate to Rome. It’s perhaps more plausible that early in her regency Zenobia envisioned a separate Palmyrene empire and collapsing Roman authority presented an ideal opportunity. 

In the spring 272 AD, Zenobia officially signalled her attempt to break away from Rome. She minted coins which omitted Aurelian’s visage entirely and recognised Vaballathus as Augustus and herself as Augusta. Aurelian had long anticipated this move. After defeating the Goths, he proceeded to Byzantium. During the winter of 271-2 AD, he prepared an invasion. There was nothing Zenobia could do but wait. The incursion into western Asia Minor described by Zosimus would have proved her armies could not wage an offensive war against Rome. Zenobia ordered her forces there to retreat to Palmyra. 

Aurelian advances

Most cities in Asia Minor acquiesced to Aurelian without resistance, save for Tyana of Cappadocia. Up until that point, Aurelian had brutally sacked every city which had resisted. But at Tyana he had a change of heart. He is said to have dreamt of the 1st-century AD philosopher Apollonius of Tyana, who beseeched Aurelian not to sack his city. Heeding Apollonius’ words, Aurelian spared the city. Thereafter more cities submitted without a fight. 

Aurelian simultaneously opened a second front against Zenobia in Egypt. By summer, Alexandria’s garrison had fallen. This two-pronged assault was too much: less than three months after Zenobia had declared her opposition to Aurelian, her forces were in full retreat. Arabia and Judaea were abandoned in defence of the homeland. 

The battle for Syria

At Immae, 20 miles north of Antioch, Aurelian’s and Zenobia’s armies met. Despite Aurelian’s rapid advance to Syria, he was still wary. The Roman infantry was superior, but the Palmyrene cavalry was still a force to be reckoned with. Aware that Zabdas would seek to exploit his cataphracts, Aurelian devised a solution to draw the Palmyrene horses away from his infantry.

Aurelian and Zabdas drew up their forces the next day, with their infantry in the centre flanked by their cavalry. After some skirmishes, Zabdas ordered his cavalry to engage the Roman horses. With lighter armour, the Roman horses could not hope to win out so they retreated, drawing the Palmyrene cataphracts from the battlefield. After a protracted chase, the Palmyrene cavalry began to tire. But their determination meant they did not see the trap closing. 

The Roman cavalry turned to face the exhausted Palmyrene cataphracts at last. Completely spent, the Palmyrene cavalry was decimated in hand to hand combat. When news reached Zabdas that only a handful of his cavalry had returned, he immediately withdrew his infantry to spare them from the same fate at the hands of the legionaries. 

Zenobia retreats

That night, exhausted and demoralised, Zenobia’s armies began a 250-mile retreat south to Palmyra. Antioch expected brutal retribution. Instead, when Aurelian entered the city, he pardoned all. The news of Zenobia’s decisive defeat and Aurelian’s mercy spread as cities swore allegiance to Rome once more. But Zenobia’s downfall was not yet sealed. She commanded great influence over the region and a decisive victory over Aurelian could force him to come to terms. At Emesa, 150 miles south of Antioch, Zenobia mustered her remaining troops to force one final, bloody showdown. 

Who defeated Queen Zenobia?

Aurelian called on detachments from the legionary garrisons which guarded the border with Sassanid Persia to join him, along with auxiliaries from Cappadocia and Palestine. It was the height of summer and the flat plain Zabdas chose was the perfect battleground for an honest fight. As at Immae, the strength of the Palmyrene cataphracts proved a strategic weakness. Once again, they routed the Roman cavalry and gave chase, leaving their infantry exposed. Both the Palmyrene infantry and cavalry were encircled and massacred. 

All that was left for Zenobia and her son was the city of Palmyra. A year earlier it had been the centre of a vast empire. Now it was blockaded on all sides by the Third Legion. In an attempt to bring a swift conclusion to the campaign , Aurelian proposed terms. He promising to spare Zenobia’s life and the independence of Palmyra. Zenobia retorted that she would sooner appeal for help from her Sassanid enemies than surrender to him. But the game was up. Sooner or later Palmyra would fall.

How did Queen Zenobia die?

By August 272 AD, Zenobia had accepted the futility of a bloody siege. Too proud to surrender, she and her son fled Palmyra for Persia. Before they could cross the Euphrates into Persia, Aurelian caught up with Zenobia. In later Roman accounts of Zenobia’s trial, authors would try to portray her as a coward who betrayed her loyal advisors. In the fervour of Zenobia’s capture, Palmyra was spared.

Zenobia’s fate is the subject of contradictory and far-fetched narratives. In the Augustan History and the chronicle of the 8th-century Byzantine scholar Syncellus, Zenobia goes on to marry a Roman senator and live in a villa outside Rome, bought for her by Aurelian. Zosimus, the 6th-century Byzantine historian describes a more heroic end for Zenobia, starving herself to death before reaching Rome. On the other hand, Zosimus’ contemporary John Malas claims Zenobia and her son were paraded through the streets of Rome in 274 AD and then beheaded. 

Why is Queen Zenobia important?

Queen Zenobia had ruled as regent for five years by the time of her defeat in 272 AD, and just a few months since she styled herself ‘Augusta’ in the spring of that year.

Amidst the controversy it is easy to forget how impressive Zenobia’s achievements were. Married at 14, a mother at 18, and a regent at 27, ruler of the Middle East and one of the most powerful women in the world. Palmyra’s ruins preserve the legacy of one the most extraordinary women of the ancient world. If Zenobia had prevailed, the world might look very different today. 

Antiochus would go on to challenge various enemies over his likely 35-year reign, from Bactrians in Afghanistan to the Romans at Thermopylae. But early in his rule, Antiochus had to deal with a threat much closer to home: a revolt led by a Seleucid governor called Molon.

Antiochus III and the revolt of Molon

In 223 BC, the 18-year-old Antiochus III ascended to the Seleucid throne. Despite his youth, Antiochus soon proved his shrewdness as ruler. But at times he misplaced his trust, no more so than with Molon. Almost immediately upon taking the royal diadem, Antiochus appointed three governors to the largest and most important regions in the Seleucid empire. He appointed his cousin Achaeus as the commander of Asia Minor, Molon to the satrap of Medea and Molon’s brother Alexander to the satrap of Persia.

He did not choose wisely. According to Polybius:

These two brothers (Molon and Alexander) despising the king for his youth, and hoping that Achaeus would join in their treason, but most of all because they dreaded the cruel character and malign influence of Hermeias, who was at that time the chief minister of the entire kingdom, formed the design of revolting themselves and causing the upper Satrapies to revolt also.

Polybius 5. 40

Hermeias and Epigenes

Hermeias, as Polybius notes, was a spiteful and vicious politician. His arch rival in court was a former general called Epigenes, a man well-loved by the army and known for his charisma and oratory. Epigenes encouraged the king to act swiftly against Molon, who could prove dangerous if left to gain support.

Digitised image from The Student’s Rome (London: John Murray, 1882)

Image Credit: British Library / Public Domain

Hermeias, however, overruled the rest of the court and insisted that the best course of action was a direct attack on Antiochus’ southern neighbour, King Ptolemy IV of Egypt. He highlighted Ptolemy’s growing reputation as a drunk and a fool, claiming that there had never been a better time for a war with Egypt. Hermeias moved that the king should first attack Ptolemaic-controlled Syria (a province called Coele-Syria), to pave the way for a further invasion of Egypt. As for Molon, Antiochus should send two generals, Xenon and Theodotus Hemiolus, to deal with him.

Despite being despised by colleagues and even disliked by the king, the young Antiochus followed his every word. Hermeias had a more covert reason for his keenness in attacking Ptolemy. Polybius reports: “thinking that it was only by involving the young king in war on every side that he could escape punishment for his past misdeeds and avoid being deprived of his position of authority; for the king would have need of his services when he found himself surrounded by struggles and dangers.”

Success for Molon

But Hermeias’ hope that Molon could be easily defeated was misplaced. Molon’s forces overwhelmed Xenon and Theodotus’ armies and his power grew. Antiochus quickly sent another general east. His name was Xenoetas. Although initially successful, Xenoetas soon suffered a similar fate to his predecessors: near Seleukeia, Molon landed a decisive victory.

The result had devastating consequences. Not only had Xenoetas perished in the fighting, but with this victory Molon gained control of Seleukeia, the empire’s old capital. Moreover, Molon now accepted the title of king, minting coins in his own name. It was a ‘crossing the Rubicon‘ moment for Molon. Now, there would be no chance of compromise with Antiochus.

A change of plans

In 221 BC Antiochus was already prepared to launch into Coele-Syria. But upon hearing of the defeat of Xenoetes, he changed his plans. He was determined to decisively end this rebellion. Antiochus rewarded Epigenes, who had been proved right, by making him a close advisor. This was not what Hermeias wanted to hear.

Overcome with rage, Hermeias had Epigenes assassinated and attempted to frame him as a traitor and informer of Ptolemy. No one was convinced, but the court remained terrified of Hermeias and Antiochus ultimately decided that he must bring down Molon before dealing with his minister.

Marching east with speed, Anitochus caught Molon off-guard near the town of Apollonia. Antiochus deployed his formation on the higher ground of a plain while Molon’s men were still encamped, exhausted from days of forced marching.

Battle of Apollonia, 220 BC

At the Battle of Apollonia in 220 BC Antiochus proved himself to be a capable commander. He employed a sound strategy and showed an aptitude for leadership, as well as an awareness of his troops and their capabilities. On the right wing he placed his heavy lancers. To their left stood Antiochus’ Gallic mercenaries from Thrace (modern day Bulgaria) and Cretan infantry. Next to these men were Antiochus’ Greek mercenaries.

Alongside his centre, which was composed of the traditional Macedonian phalanx, the famed companion cavalry made up the left wing. In front of his centre Antiochus placed his elephants, the tanks of ancient warfare. Antiochus held combined reserves of infantry and cavalry on each wing, positioned to encircle the enemy as soon as battle commenced. The king himself assumed position on the right flank while Hermeias and the commander Zeuxis were on the left.

Polybius does not give the exact number of men for this engagement, but due to the variety of units on the field one can estimate the troop count would have been in the high thousands. Molon had to scramble his position together quickly. He divided his cavalry between his two wings and filled the gap between them with an assortment of heavy infantry; Scutati, Galatians and Greeks all rushed together.

Bronze statuette of Hercules from Seleucia located in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad.

Meanwhile, Molon deployed his skilled Iranian light infantry – equipped with bows, javelins and slings – alongside his cavalry on either flank. Finally, the self-proclaimed king placed scythed chariots in front of his centre and stationed himself on the right wing.

Winning the battle

The battle did not last long. As soon as the two sides had clashed, Molon’s left flank surrendered, for reasons unclear. Molon’s centre was severely disheartened; still they fought on while Antiochus encouraged his Seleucid soldiers to press the assault. Yet when the reserves of Antiochus encircled the rest of the enemy, Molon knew defeat was upon him. He took his own life, rather than be executed as a traitor. His army immediately surrendered.

Antiochus had Molon’s body strung up at the highest point possible in Medea, the pass of Mount Zagras. This was a clear warning to future satraps. Antiochus proceeded to treat the governors who had joined Molon with clemency, though exacting a fine of 150 golden talents upon those who had assisted Molon.

The death of Hermeias

With Molon’s death, Antiochus was now free to exact justice on the hated Hermeias. His physician Apollophanes appealed that now was the time that Hermeias must die. Antiochus agreed. The king invited Hermeias to ride in the countryside alongside him and some trusted bodyguards. Upon reaching a viewpoint of the surrounding land, the king requested they give him some time alone. The guards departed from view with Hermeias. Out of sight of the king, they stabbed Hermeias to death.

Without the hated statesman, the king achieved greater popularity. But this was just the beginning. Though he had been one of the most hated men in the empire, Hermeias had been right about one thing: under Ptolemy IV’s kingship, Egypt was seriously weak. Now was Antiochus’ opportunity to invade Egypt. It would not be easy. Many had tried to overthrow the Ptolemies – all had failed.

Aftermath of Gabene

Having defeated Eumenes, Antigonus set about deciding the fate of Eumenes’ army. He incorporated much of it into his own force, although there were some exceptions. He executed Eudamos, who had come to aid Eumenes from India, as well as Antigenes, the captain of the Silver Shields – an elite infantry unit that had supported Eumenes in the previous war. The Silver Shields themselves were sent to the harsh, mountainous region of Arachosia, where they were subtly disposed of fighting against hostile mountain tribes.

Antigonus proceeded to stamp his mark on the Asian provinces. Peithon, Antigonus’ ally and a former bodyguard of Alexander the Great, was the first casualty. Having discovered he intended to revolt, Antigonus had Peithon executed in Media. More upsets followed as Peucestas, who had deserted Eumenes at Gabene, was removed as the satrap of Persia.

Although a Macedonian and one of Alexander the Great’s best fighters, Peucestas had been widely-liked by the Persians, having embraced their culture in many aspects. Nevertheless, Antigonus quickly confirmed Peucestas’ removal and continued west, taking the ‘Persianised’ Macedonian with him.

In the Autumn of 316 BC, Antigonus reached Babylon. At that time, Babylon was controlled by a Macedonian governor named Seleucus. Another of Alexander’s former commanders, Seleucus had been a leading instigator in the murder of Perdiccas and had aided Antigonus greatly in his war with Eumenes. Yet this friendship soon turned sour. A dispute erupted and Seleucus, fearing a similar fate to Peithon, fled. Leaving almost everything behind except his horse, he headed to Egypt. Uniting with Ptolemy, the Macedonian governor of Egypt, Ptolemy informed him of Antigonus’ increasingly despotic behaviour.

Alarmed at Antigonus’ increasing power, Ptolemy reached out to his fellow governors in the west – men such as Lysimachus in Thrace and Asander in Caria. They sent an envoy to Antigonus as he reached Syria. They claimed they had been invaluable allies in the war against Eumenes and now demanded large swathes of Antigonus’ territory for themselves. They also demanded he reinstate Seleucus and Peucestas. Antigonus bluntly refused and prepared for war.

The Third War of the Successors

Antigonus found himself opposed on multiple fronts. He then discovered that Cassander, the victor of a bloody civil war in Macedonia, had also joined the ranks of the opposing coalition. Determined to strike first, he lead his armies south, taking over Phoenicia and many of the petty kingdoms of Cyprus from Ptolemy.

Antigonus knew his greatest weakness was his lack of ships; Ptolemy’s undisputed naval control of the Eastern Mediterranean would prove deadly if his forces could not contain it. Using his vast finances, Antigonus charged his newly-acquired Phoenician cities with the building of a great armada. At the same time, Antigonus dispatched several generals to fight enemies on key battlegrounds. He sent his nephew Ptolemaus to fight against Asander in Asia Minor; and Aristodemus to Greece, to aid Polyperchon’s remaining forces against Cassander.

Taking the offensive

As for Antigonus himself, he pressed south through the Levant, capturing the cities of Gaza and Joppa from Ptolemy. Fresh from this success, Antigonus fortified the two captured cities and returned to Tyre in Phoenicia, which had been resisting defiantly with the aid of Ptolemy’s navy. By then, however, a large portion of Antigonus’ new fleet was ready. Under the command of Dioscurides, Antigonus dispatched his ships to the Aegean, intending to gain mastery by sea.

The Battle of Gaza, 312 BC.

Image Credit: Public Domain

Antigonus remained at Tyre until its eventual fall in the summer of 314 BC and news then reached him of events in Asia Minor: his nephew Ptolemaeus, had fought a very successful campaign in Caria against the forces of both Asander and Prepelaus, a general of Cassander. Further good news followed. He learnt that his navy now dominated the Aegean. Antigonus sensed a great opportunity; this was the time to crush Cassander, Asander and the rest of his western rivals for good.

In the meantime, to keep control of his holdings in the Levant, Antigonus placed his son in control of a substantial force. His name was Demetrius.

Demetrius

Demetrius had been by his father’s side ever since the death of Alexander back in 323 BC. He had lead the companion cavalry at both Paraetacenae and Gabene and had also wanted his father to spare Eumenes’ life. In the summer of 314 BC, his father Antigonus departed Phoenicia, styling himself as the rightful regent of Macedonia and leading the main army north across the Taurus mountains to fulfil this goal.

The young Demetrius was now in charge of protecting his family’s  lands in the Levant from an increasingly active Ptolemy. Antigonus did not leave him completely unaided. He left some of his greatest military advisers to aid his son: Nearchus, the revered admiral of Alexander and Peithon, the son of Agenor, who had been Alexander’s last Macedonian official in India. With a force of 18,000 men and 43 elephants, Demetrius remained in Coele Syria, awaiting news of any attack by Ptolemy.

Ptolemy strikes

In 313 BC, Ptolemy made his move. Crossing from Cyprus, he raided the coastline of Cilicia with a small force. Demetrius, expecting an attack from Egypt, was caught unawares. He quickly marched his lighter forces north to Cilicia. Yet before he could arrive, Ptolemy had already left for Egypt. This was just the start.

Ptolemy was encouraged by Seleucus to reconquer Coele Syria. With Antigonus far away in Asia Minor, Ptolemy was easily persuaded, and he gathered a large army of Macedonians, Egyptians and mercenaries. In the early spring of 312 BC, Ptolemy led his army out of Egypt towards Gaza.

Demetrius was waiting for him, ignoring the advice of his counsellors to avoid open battle against two of the greatest generals of the time. On a large plain somewhere between the city of Gaza and the Besor river, the forces clashed.

Roman copy of a bronze statue of Seleucus found in Herculaneum (now located at the Naples National Archaeological Museum)

Image Credit: Allan Gluck on Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 4.0)

Deployment

Demetrius’ army was smaller than that of Ptolemy’s, his 18,000 men compared with Ptolemy’s 22,000. Demetrius deployed his forces for battle. On his left-wing, Demetrius deployed almost 3,000 of his strongest cavalry along with himself and his advisors. Among these horsemen were 800 of the elite Companion cavalry and 100 specialised Tarentines, lightly-armed with javelins and swift mounts.

In front of his left wing, Demetrius deployed 30 elephants with 1,500 light infantry, armed with javelins and bows, spaced between the beasts. In his centre, Demetrius deployed his phalanx, 11,000 men strong. 2,000 of them were Macedonians with the rest mainly mercenaries. He placed his remaining elephants in front. The rest of his army, some 1,500 cavalry, Demetrius placed on his right wing.

Meanwhile Ptolemy and Seleucus initially placed their strongest cavalry on their left wing, but quickly reorganised after seeing Demetrius’ deployment. They placing themselves and 3,000 of their strongest cavalry on their right, directly opposing Demetrius. In front of them, Ptolemy placed his engineers, armed with large, metal spikes, designed specially to counter any elephant charge. These they placed at regular intervals, upright in the ground in front of Ptolemy’s left wing. Light-armed javelin men and archers were also stationed behind these traps. In the centre, he deployed his 18,000 infantry, consisting of Macedonians, mercenaries and Egyptians, with his remaining 1,000 cavalry on his left.

The Battle of Gaza 312 BC

The battle commenced with a cavalry charge on the extreme left of Demetrius’ wing. At first Demetrius’ cavalry managed to get the better of their opponents and caused Ptolemy’s horsemen to retreat. Yet Ptolemy and Seleucus then led the rest of the cavalry on their right wing into battle, riding around Demetrius’ left flank and charging in with their lances.

In the first charge, the fighting was with spears, most of which were shattered, and many  were wounded; then, rallying again, the men rushed into battle at sword’s point, and, as they were locked in close combat, many were slain on each side.

The very commanders, endangering themselves in front of all, encouraged those under their command to withstand the danger stoutly; and the horsemen upon the wings, all of whom had been selected for bravery, vied with each other since as witnesses of their valour they had their generals, who were sharing the struggle with them.

Diodorus Siculus, 19. 83

Finally, Demetrius ordered his elephants forward, hoping to panic Ptolemy’s infantry and win the battle. It was not to be. As they advanced towards Ptolemy’s right, they came under a hail of javelins and arrows from Ptolemy’s light infantry. Under fire, many of their handlers now desperately charged their beasts forwards, right into the spikes Ptolemy’s engineers had deployed. Carnage ensued. The handlers were shot down and almost all the elephants were captured or killed.

Retreat

Demetrius’ army panicked. Horsemen peeled off and fled towards Gaza. Reluctantly, Demetrius was forced to order his army to retreat. His infantry phalanx, however, which had never even engaged the enemy, had different ideas. Many threw down their arms, deserting their formations. In one move, Ptolemy’s army captured over 8,000 of Demetrius’ infantry.

The Antigonid army had suffered a crushing defeat. Gaza fell to Ptolemy’s forces soon after the battle; Demetrius had been humiliated. With the remnants of his army he withdrew into Phoenicia, while Ptolemy would march further into the Levant, as far as Tyre. Thanks to Gaza, the fortune of the Antigonids appeared to have turned.

Theoretically, Seleucus’ empire now stretched from the borders of India to the Dardanelles. Driven by a desire to live out the rest of his years in Macedonia – the land of his birth – Seleucus continued marching west, leaving his son Antiochus in charge of his Asian empire.

The death of Seleucus

It is said that before reaching the Hellespont, Seleucus had been advised against crossing into Europe by the Oracle at Didyma. But determined to return to Macedonia, Seleucus ignored the advice. Yet just as Seleucus was reaching the borders of his ancestral homeland, the oracle’s warning came to fruition. As he neared the borders of Macedonia in 280 BC, Seleucus was murdered by an ambitious rival. The last of the Successors was dead.

His murderer was no hired killer. His name was Ptolemy Ceraunus, the first born son of Ptolemy I. Ceraunus had been forced into exile from Egypt, after his father overlooked him as his successor. But his desire for power remained.

Though he had served in Lysimachus’ army, Ptolemy Ceraunus had quickly joined Seleucus’ entourage following the latter’s march west. Ceraunus was treated with great respect by Seleucus due to his noble Ptolemaic heritage. This was a mistake. Ceraunus used his position to swiftly murder the ageing king.

Later relief of Macedonian army, Thessaloniki, Greece.

Image Credit: Shutterstock

Ceraunus then wasted no time. He headed east towards Lysimacheia and, having gained the support of the army, had himself crowned King of Macedonia. This new proclamation would not go unchallenged.

Opposition

The repercussions of Seleucus’ murder were serious and far-reaching. Very quickly, Ceraunus faced overwhelming opposition. To the east the young Antiochus, determined to avenge his father’s murder, ordered a large army to march against Ceraunus. Yet Antiochus was not the only concern.

News also reached Ceraunus that to the west, Pyrrhus, King of Molossia and the leader of an Epirote empire, was preparing to invade. To the south, a further threat loomed.

Antigonus Gonatas

His name was Antigonus, the son of the famed Demetrius ‘Poliorcetes.’ At that time, Antigonus was residing in Greece, having taken hold of many key city-states such as Corinth, Thebes and Athens.

However, upon hearing of Seleucus’ death and Ceraunus’ accession, Antigonus saw an opportunity. Assembling his forces, Antigonus headed to Macedonia. Yet he would not catch Ceraunus unawares. Ceraunus gathered a large fleet and set sail to confront Demetrius’ son at sea. The result was a clear victory for Ceraunus and Antigonus was forced to retreat to Greece. Ceraunus had seen off one challenge; two opponents remained.

Mosaic of a stag hunt from Pella, which likely depicts Alexander the Great and Peritas

Image Credit: Gnosis, whose signature is found on the work, or simply an anonymous ancient Macedonian artist, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Luckily for Ceraunus however, fortune reared its ugly head. Distracted by opportunities elsewhere – Antiochus in Asia and Pyrrhus in Italy – Ceraunus was able to take full advantage of the situation. Peace treaties were agreed with both neighbouring powers.

The treaty with Pyrrhus

Yet Ceraunus would not escape completely unscathed from his warmongering neighbours; Pyrrhus pushed for more than just peace that benefited his rival. He wanted more. To encourage his departure, Ceraunus therefore offered one great incentive. Ceraunus offered Pyrrhus formidable military aid for his campaign. Not only did he provide 5,000 of his veteran Macedonian phalangites (pikemen) and 4,000 cavalry, but he also loaned 50 of his war elephants to the Molossian for a two year period – such was the length he was willing to go to be rid of him.

Pyrrhus agreed, taking the force with him across to Southern Italy. The price Ceraunus had paid for peace seemed a high one – his army was now greatly depleted.

The failings of Ptolemy ‘Ceraunus’

Free from external threats for the time being, Ceraunus turned his mind to matters closer to home. His impulsiveness and criminality had not diminished however; he now desired to remove any other remaining threat to his rule. No-one was exempt, not even his own family.

At that time, Ceraunus’ half-sister and the widow of Lysimachus, Arsinoe, was residing in Cassandrea with two of her youngest children and a small army. Seeing her as a threat, Ceraunus had no intention of letting that remain.

Having tricked Arsinoe into believing she was to be his Queen and her sons his successors, Ceraunus arrived at Cassandrea with his army. One of Arsinoe’s sons, Lysimachus, had warned his mother not to believe Ceraunus’ promises. Yet his mother, although suspicious at first, was successfully fooled and ordered them to open the gates to her half-brother.

As Ceraunus entered the city and was met by Arsinoe’s children, the unstable Macedonian King committed the treachery. In an instant, the heartless king gave the fateful order; seizing the city, he ordered the two bemused children to be slain. The boys, fleeing for their lives, ran to their mother – the assassins being in close pursuit.

No mercy

Running to Arsinoe, the children begged for mercy; yet the assassins had only one thought on their mind. In one moment, they were slain in the arms of their mother.

Horrified by Ceraunus’ treachery, Arsinoe begged the assassins to take her life. Instead, Ceraunus had her dragged out of the city, not even allowing her the bodies of her dead children. Ceraunus sent his sister into exile to live the rest of her life in misery. Little did he know that his own judgement was fast approaching. A new threat was at that very moment descending from the north: a Celtic invasion.

History of the Tomb of Cyrus the Great

Cyrus the Great, also known as Cyrus II, founded the Achaemenid Dynasty in the 6th century BC and with it the capital, Pasargadae. The Achaemenid Dynasty was vitally important, being the first ruling dynasty of the Persian Empire.

The Tomb of Cyrus the Great is one of the main historic sites of modern Pasargadae. A stepped limestone structure crowned with a rectangular chamber, the Tomb of Cyrus the Great dates back to approximately 540-530 BC.

What was inside the tomb of Cyrus? Legend has it that when Alexander the Great conquered Pasargadae in 330 BC, Alexander visited the tomb and had it renovated in honour of Cyrus the Great. However, it has never been conclusively proved that this is indeed the tomb of the great Persian king. In fact, it was thought at one point to have been the tomb of the mother of the prophet Sulayman, accounting for various additions such as its carved mihrab, added in the 1970s.

Tomb of Cyrus the Great today

Restoration works started in 2003 and continued to October 2008. The tomb chamber itself, built from white limestone, is two meters wide, two meters high, and three meters deep. It once contained a gold sarcophagus, Cyrus’ arms, his jewellery, and a cloak.

Cyrus the Great Day, also known as Cyrus Day, is an unofficial holiday in Iran that takes place annually in the Tomb of Cyrus on October 29th, 7th of Aban on Iranian calendar, to commemorate Cyrus the Great. During Nowruz, the Persian New Year, celebrations are held annually around the tomb by Iranians which gather from all around the country. Iranians respect Cyrus the Great as the founder of Iran and the Persian Empire.

Getting to the Tomb of Cyrus the Great

The Tomb of Cyrus the Great is located in Pasargadae, now a World Heritage Site, in Iran. The nearest major city is Shiraz. From here simply drive along route 65 until you reach Pasargad (1 hour 45 min).

At the same time, another campaign was being waged further to the east. This time, in the old heartlands of the Achaemenid Empire: Babylonia. This is the story of the fight for Babylon.

The greatest heist in history

In the autumn of 321 BC, Ptolemy, the governor of Egypt, and several accomplices initiated a famous abduction. They captured Alexander the Great’s body as his funeral carriage made its way westward towards the regent Perdiccas in Asia Minor.

Its successful outcome helped ignite the First War of the Successors. It was one of the driving forces behind Perdiccas’ invasion of Egypt. The regent was determined to retrieve the symbolically-powerful body of the deceased Alexander.

Three of the four main ‘plotters’ that had helped orchestrate the heist were already in Egypt: Ptolemy, Arrhidaeus (the suborned officer who had diverted the funeral carriage to Egypt) and Laomedon (the governor of Syria who almost certainly was in on the heist). Perdiccas presumably aimed to deal with all three during his campaign in Ptolemy’s home province.

The empire of Alexander the Great.

Image Credit: Shutterstock

The fourth conspirator

There was, however, a fourth conspirator. A seasoned Macedonian statesman who at that time resided far away from Egypt, but who still needed to be punished for his participation in the heist. That man was Archon, the governor of Babylonia.

While Alexander the Great’s funeral cart was still in Babylon, it was Archon who almost certainly had (at the very least) turned a blind eye to Ptolemy’s collusions with Arrhidaeus. Directly or indirectly the governor had been complicit in the planned heist of the body.

Rightly suspecting the governor of involvement in the great heist, Perdiccas could not let Archon remain unpunished. As the regent and the royal army set forth for Egypt, he dispatched a small but powerful expeditionary force eastwards to remove Archon from power.

Docimus, a relatively unknown Macedonian officer, commanded this expedition. He had the orders to assume the role of governor by all means necessary. He also had the means to see this through by the spear if need be.

Resistance

When Archon heard that Docimus was approaching, in approximately April of 320 BC, the Macedonian governor chose defiance. He was himself a former prestigious commander who had served with Alexander the Great in India. Archon was damned if he was going to let Docimus take control of this wealthy province without a fight.

He gathered his generals in Babylonia. There he informed them of Perdiccas’ decision to demote him. In Archon’s eyes this relegation was in complete breach of the Settlement the generals of Alexander the Great had struck at Babylon two years earlier, where the governorships had been decided and agreed upon.

He was right to think that. Perdiccas had been provoked into tearing up the Babylon Settlement, but even so he wanted an ally in charge of Babylonia. This was the wealthy gateway to the eastern provinces. Docimus, who owed his rise to the regent, was a man Perdiccas could trust. Archon, who had betrayed the regent, was not.

19th century impression of “The Walls of Babylon and the Temple of Bel (Or Babel)” by William Simpson.

Image Credit: Public Domain

The fight for Babylonia

It would take Docimus roughly two months to reach Babylonia. Archon used this time to prepare a resistance. The governor lacked enough high quality soldiers to face Docimus in a pitched battle, so he decided upon a guerrilla campaign. Skirmishes and fortified bases would be his key to victory.

Babylonians, mercenaries and perhaps even a few Macedonians filled the mainstay of Archon’s force. Meanwhile, Docimus had a small core of Macedonians, reinforced by a substantial number of mercenaries.

When Docimus duly arrived in Babylonia, he was greeted by a province dominated by pockets of resistance. But the Macedonian general remained undeterred. He made a beeline for Babylon and quickly took control of the regional capital. From there, he pressed on to confront Archon’s guerrilla army. He hoped to cut the head off the resistance.

What followed was remarkable success. Docimus proved more than capable against his veteran opponent. Stronghold after stronghold succumbed to the Perdiccan army; slowly Archon’s resistance withered.

Hammer blow

Yet Archon continued to fight, launching fleeting attacks against portions of Docimus’ army. But then his enemy landed the hammer blow.

In one skirmish, presumably a cavalry clash, Archon’s luck ran out. During the fighting, the commander was overwhelmed and suffered several severe wounds. He succumbed to his injuries soon after the battle.

He experienced a similar fate to both Leonnatus and Craterus: he was veteran commander of Alexander the Great who fell while fighting alongside his men in a relatively small-scale confrontation. Yet its outcome decided the course of the campaign.

Seleucus led the Royal Hypaspistai during Alexander’s Persian campaign.

Image Credit: Public Domain

Short-lived success

Resistance to Docimus disintegrated with Archon’s death. When the victorious Macedonian general returned to Babylon, the native population welcomed their new governor. This wealthy province was now in the hands of a loyal Perdiccan.

Docimus’ success in Babylonia would be one of the only great successes for Perdiccas during the First War of the Successors. Like Eumenes in Asia Minor, however, ultimately this victory would count for little.

Perdiccas’ subsequent death in Egypt resulted in Docimus being condemned to death in absentia by the victors. The newly-instated governor was stripped of his posting and forced to flee from Babylon barely months after taking control.

In his stead the victors of the First War of the Successors instated a new governor. He was another former Perdiccan who had opportunely decided to switch sides near the end of the conflict. His name? Seleucus. Arriving in Babylon within months of Docimus’ flight, this general would go on to experience one of the most remarkable careers of the Successor Wars. 

David conquered Jerusalem in the late-11th century BCE to became the first Jewish monarch to rule the kingdom of Judah. A direct descendant of David called Hezekiah became the Judean king in 715 BCE, and the very survival of Jerusalem depended upon how he coped with the overwhelming external threat to the city.

During the 8th century BCE, the era of far flung international empires began as Assyria expanded in all directions, including south-westwards to the Mediterranean coastline. Gaza became an Assyrian port and denoted the newly agreed Egyptian/Assyrian boundary.

Damascus was overrun in 732 BCE and ten years later the northern Jewish kingdom of Israel ceased to exist, as much of Syria and Palestine became Assyrian provinces. Judah maintained its national identity, but was effectively one of a number of regional satellite states paying tribute to Assyria.

As Judah’s prince regent and then king, Hezekiah had witnessed Assyrian campaigns to suppress rebellions in Syria and Palestine during 720, 716 and 713-711 BCE. The last of these culminated in the appointment of Assyrian governors to various Philistine cities with their inhabitants being declared Assyrian citizens. Judah was now almost completely encircled by Assyrian forces of one kind or another.

Hezekiah’s Preparation for War

King Hezekiah, depicted in a 17th century painting. Image Credit: Public Domain.

Many of the seemingly innocent administrative changes and natural reforms instigated by Hezekiah point towards careful preparations for eventual war against Assyria.

Hezekiah had witnessed sufficient spontaneous neighbouring uprisings fail at great cost to the insurgents. He knew that he had to lay careful groundwork to ensure that he had any chance of success against the might of Assyria and would certainly have wished to avoid the fate of the ruler of Hamath, who had been flayed alive as a warning to others contemplating rebellion.

A new tax system ensured food reserves and supplies with the merchandise stored in jars and sent to one of four of Judah’s district centres for storage and redistribution. On the military front, Hezekiah made sure that weapons were in good supply and that the army had a proper chain of command. Numerous towns and cities in the surrounding countryside were fortified and Jerusalem’s defences were strengthened with the introduction of elite special forces.

Jerusalem’s only enduring water supply was the Gihon Spring, situated at the foot of the eastern slope of the city. Hezekiah’s strategy for dealing with the commodity that neither aggressors nor defenders could survive without was to divert the water from the Gihon Spring.

His artisans carved an “S” shaped tunnel through one third of a mile of bedrock from the Gihon Spring to a huge ancient rock-cut pool known as the Pool of Siloam, on the southern slopes of Jerusalem’s old City of David. Hezekiah strengthened the eastern wall of Jerusalem utilizing stones from nearby houses and he built an additional wall to enclose and protect the Pool of Siloam.

Remnants of the wall built by Hezekiah prior to the Siege of Jerusalem in 701 BCE. Image Credit: Public Domain

Refugees, seeking safety from the various conflicts with the Assyrians had been flooding into Jerusalem for many years. Although there was some settlement to the north, steep valleys precluded any major developments to the east and the south of Jerusalem. There was, however, substantial migration to the west, and new suburbs emerged on Jerusalem’s sparsely populated Western Hill.

Hezekiah encompassed the Western Hill within new city walls that extended westwards from the Temple Mount, which housed Solomon’s Great Temple. To the south Hezekiah’s new defensive wall enclosed Mount Zion, before eventually inclining eastwards to the City of David. Jerusalem’s defences were now complete.

In c.703 BCE, Hezekiah had met with a delegation from Babylon, prior to an anti-Assyrian insurrection by the Babylonians. Perhaps co-incidental, but whilst the Assyrians were preoccupied with hostile uprisings in its northern territories, Hezekiah began his rebellion, supported by other Syrian and Palestinian leaders and with the promise of Egyptian assistance.

The Assyrians put down the Babylonian insurgency and in 701 BCE moved to reassert their authority in Palestine. The Assyrian army travelled along the Mediterranean coast, receiving tribute from the kings who knew better than to resist, and vanquishing those that did not readily acquiesce.

The cities of Sidon and Ashkelon were amongst those forced to capitulate and have their kings replaced by new vassal monarchs. Egyptian bowmen and chariots, supported by Ethiopian cavalry, arrived to engage the Assyrians, but failed to have any meaningful impact.

The Assyrian War Machine enters Judah

The Assyrians entered Judah and laid waste to several cities and walled forts and countless villages before sending envoys to negotiate the surrender of Jerusalem. Hezekiah responded by making a futile attempt to buy off the Assyrians with the treasure held in the Temple and his palace. The Assyrian records relate how they besieged Jerusalem making Hezekiah a prisoner like a bird in a cage.

Despite the cajoling of the Assyrians, Hezekiah, with moral support from the prophet Isaiah, refused to surrender, although he offered to accept any terms imposed by the Assyrians if they withdrew, which indeed they did.

Huge numbers of Judah’s population were deported or at least displaced and the Assyrians imposed excessive tribute liabilities upon Hezekiah. Additionally, a more even local balance of power was brought about by a redistribution of much of Judah’s territory to neighbouring city-states.

The Old Testament attributes Jerusalem’s salvation to divine intervention and whilst it is possible that a plague infected the Assyrian army and acted as a catalyst for their departure, this is probably no more than a retelling of a folk story by the compilers of the Old Testament.

Egypt would always be a greater threat to Assyria than the Palestinian kingdoms and therefore it served Assyrian interests to have buffer territories in place and Assyrian security was enhanced by allowing a subservient Judean state to continue to exist.

Furthermore, although the Assyrians possessed the manpower and the weaponry to conquer Jerusalem, to do so would be a lengthy process and entail prohibitive expenditure in terms of fatalities, injuries and loss of equipment. With their objectives achieved, it was therefore entirely logical for the Assyrians to depart, leaving a seriously ill Hezekiah to recover and continue as king of Judah for a further fifteen years.

The History of Jerusalem: It’s Origins to the Middle Ages by Alan J. Potter is now available for preorder at Pen and Sword Books.