The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India. Getzel M. CohenЧитать онлайн книгу.
The sum total of these various sources indicates the existence of an extensive network of land and riverine (in particular, the Euphrates) routes throughout Mesopotamia both before and after and presumably, therefore, during the Hellenistic period.
In the fifth and fourth centuries the major crossing of the Euphrates for routes originating on the Mediterranean coast was apparently at Thapsakos (the precise location of which is still a matter of discussion).22 From there caravan routes proceeded eastward across Mesopotamia to the Tigris or southward on (or along) the Euphrates to Babylon. Herodotus (1.185, 194), for example, mentions the transport of jars of Phoenician wine—among other products—down the Euphrates (though he does not specifically mention Thapsakos).23
In 437/6 B.C. the Athenian Diotimos sailed to Cilicia on his way to Susa. From Cilicia he apparently traveled overland to the Euphrates, sailed downstream on the Euphrates, and then proceeded on to Susa.24 Thapsakos is where Cyrus the Younger and the 10,000 Greek mercenaries crossed the Euphrates in 401 B.C. on their way to Babylon.25 In 396, when Conon wanted to have an audience with the Persian king, he traveled overland from Cilicia to Thapsakos and then proceeded by boat down the Euphrates to Babylon (Diod. 14.81.4). When Alexander was pursuing Darius he crossed the Euphrates at Thapsakos and then continued eastward to Arbela (Arr. 3.7.1). And in 324 B.C., when the Macedonian king wanted boats brought from Phoenicia to Babylon, he had them broken up and transported overland to Thapsakos. They were then reassembled and sailed downstream on the Euphrates to Babylon (Arr. 7.19.3). In the Hellenistic period, SELEUKEIA on the Euphrates/Zeugma emerged as an important city and apparently supplanted Thapsakos as the primary crossing.26 A useful source in this regard is Polybius, who records Antiochos III’s pursuit of Molon in 221 B.C. The king crossed the Euphrates—apparently at Seleukeia—and then marched eastward to ANTIOCH in Mygdonia (Polyb. 5.43, 51). Coming down to the first century B.C., we also know that in his pursuit of the Parthians, Crassus crossed the Euphrates at Zeugma (Plutarch Crassus 19).
If there is little direct literary evidence for Hellenistic roads, we can deduce the existence of certain routes by plotting out the locations of the various settlements. For example, a glance at a map confirms the existence of a string of settlements—EDESSA/ANTIOCH on the Kallirhoe, KARRHAI, NIKEPHORION, and ANTIOCH in Mygdonia—running eastward toward the Tigris from SELEUKEIA on the Euphrates/Zeugma. On both banks of the Euphrates (that is, in both Syria and Mesopotamia) we find a series of settlements beginning with SAMOSATA in the north and ending with SELEUKEIA on the Tigris. And various settlements east and south of Seleukeia connected it with the overland routes eastward to Susiana and beyond or southward, to the Persian Gulf.
While we distinguish between Syria and Mesopotamia, it is useful to bear in mind that in antiquity “Syria” could be used in a larger sense to designate an area that included regions east of the Euphrates. Strabo (16.1.1–2), for example, mentioned that historically the name “Syria” included Babylonia. And Stephanos (s.v.) said that EDESSA and ANTHEMOUSIAS—which were, of course, located in Mesopotamia—were located in Syria.27
Seleucid policy in (northern) Mesopotamia was quite similar to that encountered in Syria—namely, fill the region with Graeco-Macedonian settlers and settlements. As Rostovtzeff observed, “Syria and Mesopotamia were to be made a second Macedonia, but a Macedonia of cities and fortresses, not of tribes and villages.”28 And like Syria, Mesopotamia was filled by Seleukos I with settlements that in most cases took their names from Greece and Macedonia (App. Syr. 57).
We may briefly review the history of Mesopotamia after the death of Alexander. Here it is useful to bear in mind that Mesopotamia, “the land between the rivers,” was really two extensive regions: the northern part, ancient Assyria; and the southern, Babylonia.29
After the conference at Triparadeisos in Syria in 321 B.C., Amphimachos received Mesopotamia; and Seleukos, Babylonia.30 The former was an ally of Eumenes of Cardia.31 The death of Eumenes after his defeat at the battle of Gabiene at the hands of Antigonos Monophthalmos in 316/5 B.C. significantly changed the geopolitical situation in Mesopotamia.32 After the battle, Antigonos seized Babylonia from Seleukos; he then appointed Peithon son of Agenor satrap of Babylonia and possibly Mesopotamia as well.33 Northern Mesopotamia remained under the hegemony of Antigonos, but Babylonia returned to Seleukos after he recaptured it in a daring raid in 312 B.C.34 Antigonos continued to fight in Babylonia until c. 308, when, defeated by Seleukos, he retired from the region and left it under the control of the latter.35 From this point until the battle of Ipsos the region was apparently divided: although the boundary between the two cannot be precisely determined, it would appear that Antigonos controlled northern Mesopotamia, and Seleukos, the southern part.36
It is worth noting that despite the fact that Antigonos controlled northern Mesopotamia beginning in 316 B.C., he maintained his primary residence at Kelainai in Phrygia for many years, and that when he did found a major new settlement—ANTIGONEIA—he chose to locate it in northern Syria.37 Furthermore, there is no unequivocal evidence he founded any settlements in Mesopotamia. The only possible claimant—KARRHAI—is disputed. Some scholars attribute it to Antigonos; others, to Alexander. All the other settlements founded by Antigonos—with the possible exception of EUROPOS Rhagai in Media (also a doubtful attribution)—were located either in northern Syria or in Asia Minor.38 The contrast with Seleukos could not be stronger.
Before the battle of Ipsos in 301 B.C., Seleukos’s empire was centered in Babylonia. Up to this time, Babylonia, in fact, was the westernmost point of his kingdom. After Ipsos, Seleukos came into control of, among other areas, northern Mesopotamia and northern Syria. Now, for the first time, he had access to the Mediterranean. As is well known, he immediately embarked on a major settlement founding program in northern Syria.39 But, as I have mentioned, he also focused a great deal of attention on northern Mesopotamia as well as other regions farther east, a point emphasized by Appian (Syr. 57). At the same time that he was filling northern Syria with settlements, he was doing the same in northern Mesopotamia. Whereas northern Syria was sparsely populated and little developed in the years before Alexander, Babylonia was home to an ancient and highly developed urban civilization. It will not be surprising, therefore, that the major Hellenistic settlement of the region—SELEUKEIA on the Tigris—was founded at the expense of a nearby city, BABYLON . The importance of Babylonia in the Hellenistic period becomes clear if we consider the role its chief city played under Alexander the Great and, later, under the Seleucids.40 It was at Babylon that Alexander spent his last year(s), organizing his realm and planning future enterprises.41 Of course, it is also not insignificant that he died there. The centrality of Babylonia for control of the Near East continued under Seleukos I. He, of course, began his political career as the governor of Babylonia in 321 B.C., lost control of it to Antigonos in 315, and then regained control in 312.42 Babylon and Babylonia, which had remained loyal to Seleukos during his struggles with Antigonos, would now serve as the core of his expanding empire.43
Babylon was a key historical and commercial focal point of the ancient Near East. It was located at the place where the Tigris and Euphrates are closest together and where one of the routes connecting Mesopotamia with the Iranian plateau opens up.44 It will not be surprising, therefore, that over time a number of cities—for example, BABYLON, SELEUKEIA on the Tigris, KTESIPHON, Vologesias, Veh-Ardashir, and finally, Baghdad—were established in this general area. Seleukos made SELEUKEIA on the Tigris—ultimately the successor city of Babylon—the eastern capital of his kingdom. Cuneiform documents of the Seleucid period describe Seleukeia as the “city of kingship,” a clear indication of its importance. Seleukeia on the Tigris was the great terminus for trade with central Asia, India, and Arabia. Its importance as a commercial center is also to be seen in the very active mint that was established there. The Indian trade brought goods to Seleukeia via both the Persian Gulf and a land route through the Iranian plateau. Of course, these roads also provided the means for military communication between parts of the empire. The importance of Babylonia as a vital trade link between east and west can be seen, for example, in the cuneiform Astronomical Diaries (1:345, no. 273B Rev. 31), which records how the Babylonian satrap served as an intermediary for elephants sent from Bactria to the king fighting in Syria