Cyrus the great

The first Persian Empire was founded by Cyrus the Great.

Cyrus the Great (ca. 600-530 BC), also known as Cyrus II, was the founder of the
Achaemenid Empire, often referred to as the first Persian Empire. He is also
remembered in the Cyrus legend—first recorded by Xenophon, Greek soldier and
author, in his Cyropaedia—as a tolerant and ideal monarch. In the Bible he is the
liberator of the Jews who were captive in Babylonia. At the time of his death he
had created the largest empire that the world had ever seen, stretching as it did
from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indus River. Yet Cyrus the Great is also
remembered for his influence in the realms of religion, human rights, philosophy,
and literature; as well as having created a stable political system through which
his vast empire was administered. As with any figure of such stature, there are
many myths and legends surrounding the life of Cyrus the Great. In some cases,
however, the truth is even stranger than the fiction. One of the main sources
which describes the life of Cyrus is the Cyropaedia (The Education of Cyrus),
which was written by Xenophon (ca. 430-354 BC), a Greek historian, general,
and student of Socrates. This work describes Cyrus as the ideal ruler and is
considered to be a blend of political romance and historical fiction. Another
important source is the Greek historian Herodotus (484-425 BC), who is often
called the father of history. His work, The Histories, has often been criticized for
seemingly fanciful accounts which many claim were made up for their
entertainment value. There are also a number of chronicles written by the
Babylonians, such as the Nabonidus Chronicle, but these are extremely
fragmented.

The end result is that it requires difficulty to reconstruct the history of Cyrus the
Great. Many of the details remain hazy and far too often we are forced to fall
back on the myths and legends, some of which are even labeled as such in the
very sources which record them. Yet even so, Cyrus the Great exerted an
enormous influence over the history of the Ancient World and remains an
admired figure to this day. The early life of Cyrus the Great is shrouded in myth
and mystery. He was born sometime around 600 BC and was the son of
Cambyses, king of the Persians, and grandson of Astyages, king of the Median
Empire. According to legend Astyages was warned in a series of prophetic
dreams that Cyrus would one day supplant and kill him. Astyages ordered his top
general Harpagus to kill the child, but instead Harpagus had Cyrus spirited away
to live as a shepherd.

At the age of 10, Cyrus came to the attention of Astyages after beating the son of
a nobleman who refused to obey his orders. After interviewing the boy and his
adoptive parents, Astyages discovered what had happened. Cyrus was sent back
to his parents, but the son of Harpagus was executed and served to his father at a
banquet as retribution. Other sources describe Cyrus living at the court of
Astyages as the son of a poor Median family before being returned to his parents.
Sometime after his return Cyrus married Cassandane, an Achaemenian and the
great love of his life. When Cyrus the Great ascended the throne in 559 BC, he
was one of many local rulers who owed allegiance to the mighty Median Empire.

2
The Median Empire was at this time still ruled by Cyrus’ grandfather Astyages,
but it is unclear as to exactly how and why hostilities broke out. When Astyages
sent his army to attack Cyrus it was under the command of Harpagus. If the
legends are to be believed, Harpagus had reason to hate Astyages, and
encouraged Cyrus to revolt. Harpagus then defected to Cyrus and brought half of
his army with him.

The war against the Medes lasted for three years (553-550 BC), and ended with
the Persians capturing the Median capital of Ecbatana. A brilliant military strategist,
Cyrus vanquished the king of the Medes, then integrated all the Iranian tribes, whose
skill at fighting on horseback gave his army great mobility. His triumph over Lydia, in
Asia Minor near the Aegean Sea, filled his treasury with that country’s tremendous
wealth. After conquering, Cyrus spared Astyages’ life and married Amytis, one of
his daughters which pacified the Bactrians, Parthians, and Saka, who were former
vassals of the Medes. With the conquest of Media Cyrus was able to unite the
Persian people, with himself as their king. He adopted habits of dress and
ornamentation from the Elamites. Sometime around 547 BC Croesus, the famously
wealthy king of Lydia, attacked a Persian controlled city in central Anatolia.
Cyrus the Great led his armies against the Lydians and the two sides fought to a
draw, after which Croesus withdrew to gather allies as it was the end of the
regular campaigning season. However, Cyrus pressed on and attacked the Lydian
capital at Sardis. When Croesus again marched out to do battle Harpagus advised
Cyrus to place his camels in front of his army as the unfamiliar sight, sounds, and
smell of the animals would cause the Lydian cavalry horses to shy away. Cyrus
followed Harpagus’ advice and in the ensuing battle captured Croesus and routed
his forces.

Rather than executing his erstwhile foe, Cyrus spared Croesus’ life and made him
an advisor. When Cyrus began his return march to Persia the Lydians seized
Croesus’ vast treasury hired an army of mercenaries and rose in revolt. Cyrus
dispatched two of his generals to deal with the situation. After crushing the revolt
they subdued the rest of Anatolia ( Asia Minor) , adding Ionia, Lycia, Cilicia, and
Phoenicia to the Persian Empire. In 540 BC Cyrus the Great captured the
kingdom of Elam in eastern Mesopotamia so that his kingdom now bordered the
Neo-Babylonian Empire. At this time the Neo-Babylonian Empire was ruled
by Nabonidus, who came to power in a coup and then had a falling out with the
3
powerful priesthood of Marduk one of Babylon’s chief gods. The result these and
other actions, meant that Nabonidus was very unpopular with the Babylonian
people who viewed Cyrus the Great as a potential liberator.

Cyrus invaded Babylonia in 539 BC and swiftly routed the Babylonian army in a
short battle on the banks of the Euphrates River. Nabonidus fled as Cyrus
approached the city of Babylon itself. Babylon was one of the largest cities of the
Ancient Near East, boasting both a sizable population and impressive defenses.
The Persians captured the city by diverting the Euphrates into a nearby canal
which allowed them to wade through the river bed and enter the city at night.
Babylon thus fell without a fight and Cyrus prevented his troops from sacking the
city. Nabonidus surrendered shortly thereafter, and Cyrus gained control of all of
Mesopotamia, Syria, and the Levant. His great empire was now the largest that
the world had ever seen. Cyrus seems to have had several capitals. One was the city
of Ecbatana, modern Hamadan, former capital of the Medes, and another was a new capital of
the empire, Pasargadae, in Persis, said to be on the site where Cyrus had won the battle against
Astyages. The ruins today, though few, arouse admiration in the visitor. Cyrus also kept Babylon
as a winter capital

The Cyrus Cylinder

4
Besides being a conqueror, Cyrus the Great is also remembered for his many
other achievements. He is considered an early proponent of human rights by
many. After the conquest of the Neo Babylonian Empire, he issued an edict
recorded on the so-called Cyrus Cylinder, which restored all of the temples and
religious practices as well as allowing many displaced peoples to return to their
homes. This policy is recorded in two books of the Bible and is equated with the
release of the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity. In the Bible (e.g., Ezra 1:1–4),
Cyrus is famous for freeing the Jewish captives in Babylonia and allowing them to return to their
homeland. Cyrus was also tolerant toward the Babylonians and others. He conciliated local
populations by supporting local customs and even sacrificing to local deities. The capture of
Babylon delivered not only Mesopotamia into the hands of Cyrus but also Syria and Palestine,
which had been conquered previously by the Babylonians. The ruler of Cilicia in Asia Minor had
become an ally of Cyrus when the latter marched against Croesus, and Cilicia retained a special
status in Cyrus’s empire. Thus it was by diplomacy as well as force of arms that he established
the largest empire known until his time. Throughout his empire, Cyrus instituted a
policy of religious tolerance. His wise policies have been admired and emulated
by rulers, statesmen, and philosophers down to the present day.

To rule the vast empire Cyrus established a number of satrapies, or administrative

regions ruled by satraps who were given broad powers. They were connected to
the central government through the development of an efficient postal and road
system. He was also an innovative builder who brought together techniques from
all over the empire. The most famous unit in the Achaemenid army, the 10,000
strong Immortals, was founded by Cyrus. Across time and space many have
rightfully revered the achievements of Cyrus the Great, who was also called the
Father of his People.

Sometime later Cyrus the Great came into conflict with the Massagetae, a
nomadic confederation in Central Asia. Cyrus first proposed a marriage to the
Massagetae queen, Tomyris, but was rejected. In response, Cyrus launched an
invasion of the Massagetae’s territory, and the two sides engaged in battle. The
exact details are unclear, but it appears that the Persian army was defeated and he
was killed. According to one account, after the battle the body of Cyrus was

5
brought before Tomyris, who had it beheaded. She then dipped the head in a
vessel of blood; a symbolic act of revenge as Cyrus was said to have killed her
son earlier through an act of deception.

Tomb of Cyrus the Great, Pasargadae

After Cyrus the Great died, sometime around 530-529 BC, his remains were
interred in his capital city of Pasargadae. Though the city is now in ruins, the
tomb itself has survived. Made of limestone, it consists of a quadrangular base,
followed by a pyramidal succession of smaller levels. The structure is curtailed
by an edifice, with an arched roof composed of a pyramidal shaped stone, and a
small opening or window on the side. Within the tomb Cyrus the Great was
buried in a golden coffin, resting on a table with golden supports. According to
the sources the tomb was filled with other luxurious items, and was surrounded
by a beautiful garden. Above the tomb was inscribed the words:

“O man, whoever you are and wherever you come from, for I know you will
come, I am Cyrus who won the Persians their empire. Do not therefore begrudge
me this bit of earth that covers my bones.”

The legacy of Cyrus

It is a testimony to the capability of the founder of the Achaemenian empire that it continued to expand after
his death and lasted for more than two centuries. But Cyrus was not only a great conqueror and
administrator; he held a place in the minds of the Persian people similar to that of Romulus and Remus in
Rome or Moses for the Israelites. His saga follows in many details the stories of hero and conquerors from

6
elsewhere in the ancient world. The manner in which the baby Cyrus was given to a shepherd to raise is
reminiscent of Moses in the bulrushes in Egypt, and the overthrow of his tyrannical grandfather has echoes
in other myths and legends. There is no doubt that the Cyrus saga arose early among the Persians and was
known to the Greeks. The sentiments of esteem or even awe in which Persians held him were transmitted
to the Greeks, and it was no accident that Xenophon chose Cyrus to be the model of a ruler for the lessons he
wished to impart to his fellow Greeks.

In short, the figure of Cyrus has survived throughout history as more than a great man who founded an
empire. He became the epitome of the great qualities expected of a ruler in antiquity, and he assumed heroic
features as a conqueror who was tolerant and magnanimous as well as brave and daring. His personality as
seen by the Greeks influenced them and Alexander the Great, and, as the tradition was transmitted by the
Romans, may be considered to influence our thinking even now. In the year 1971, Iran celebrated the 2,500th
anniversary of the founding of the monarchy by Cyrus.

Khufu
Khufu, full name Khnum Khufu , known to the ancient Greeks as Χέοψ, Khéops, and the ancient Romans
as Cheops, was an ancient Egyptian monarch who was the second pharaoh of the Fourth Dynasty, in the first
half of the Old Kingdom period (26th century BC). Khufu succeeded his father Sneferu as king. He is
generally accepted as having commissioned the Great Pyramid of Giza, one of the Seven Wonders of the
Ancient World, but many other aspects of his reign are poorly documented.

The only completely preserved portrait of the king is a three-inch high ivory figurine found in a temple ruin

of a later period at Abydos in 1903. All other reliefs and statues were found in fragments, and many

7
buildings of Khufu are lost. Everything known about Khufu comes from inscriptions in
his necropolis at Giza and later documents. For example, Khufu is the main character noted in the Westcar
Papyrus from the 13th dynasty.
Most documents that mention king Khufu were written by ancient Egyptian and Greek historians around
300 BC. Khufu's obituary is presented there in a conflicting way: while the king enjoyed a long-lasting
cultural heritage preservation during the period of the Old Kingdom and the New Kingdom, the ancient
historians Manetho, Diodorus and Herodotus hand down a very negative depiction of Khufu's character.
Thanks to these documents, an obscure and critical picture of Khufu's personality persists.
The royal family of Khufu was quite large. It is uncertain if Khufu was actually the biological son
of Sneferu. Mainstream Egyptologists believe Sneferu was Khufu's father, but only because it was handed
down by later historians that the eldest son or a selected descendant would inherit the throne. In 1925 the
tomb of queen Hetepheres I, G 7000x, was found east of Khufu's pyramid. It contained many precious grave
goods, and several inscriptions give her the title Mut-nesut (meaning "mother of a king"), together with the
name of king Sneferu. Therefore, it seemed clear at first that Hetepheres was the wife of Sneferu, and that
they were Khufu's parents. More recently, however, some have doubted this theory, because Hetepheres is
not known to have borne the title Hemet-nesut (meaning "king's wife"), a title indispensable to confirm a
queen's royal status. Instead of the spouse's title, Hetepheres bore only the title Sat-netjer-khetef (verbatim:
"daughter of his divine body"; symbolically: "king's bodily daughter"), a title mentioned for the first time. As
a result, researchers now think Khufu may not have been Sneferu's biological son, but that Sneferu
legitimised Khufu's rank and familial position by marriage. By apotheosizing his mother as the daughter of a
living god, Khufu's new rank was secured. This theory may be supported by the circumstance that Khufu's
mother was buried close to her son and not in the necropolis of her husband, as it was to be expected.

It is still unclear how long Khufu ruled over Egypt, because historically later documents contradict each
other and contemporary sources are scarce. The Royal Canon of Turin from the 19th Dynasty however, gives
23 years of rulership for Khufu. The ancient historian Herodotus gives 50 years and the ancient
historian Manetho even credits him 63 years of reign. These figures are now considered an exaggeration or
a misinterpretation of antiquated sources.
Sources contemporary to Khufu's time give three key pieces of information: One of them was found at
the Dakhla Oasis in the Libyan Desert. Khufu's serekh name is carved in a rock inscription reporting the
"Mefat-travelling in the year after the 13th cattle count under Hor-Medjedu". The second source can be
found in the relieving chambers inside Khufu's pyramid above the burial chamber. One of these inscriptions
according to Flinders Petrie mentions a workmen's crew named "friends of Khufu" alongside the note "in the
year of the 17th cattle count", but it is questioned if the number of years points to a biennial cattle count, or if
the number must be taken verbatim. Though Zahi Hawass has reported locating the inscription of the date
given by Petrie, there is also some debate whether Petrie may have mistakenly relied on other sources as the
inscription has otherwise yet to be found. Newer evidence from Wadi al-Jarf, however, gives a third clue
about the true length of reign: Several papyrus fragments contain handwritten reports from a royal harbour at
modern-day Wadi al-Jarf. The inscriptions describe the arrival of royal boats with precious ore
and turquoise in the "year after the 13th cattle count under Hor-Medjedw". Therefore, Khufu's highest known
and certain preserved date is the "Year after the 13th cattle count".
In an attempt to solve the riddle around Khufu's true length of rulership, modern Egyptologists point to
Sneferu's reign, when the cattle count was held every second year of a king's rulership. The cattle count as an
economic event served the tax collection in the whole of Egypt. Newer evaluation of contemporary
documents and the Palermo stone inscription strengthen the theory that the cattle count under Khufu was still
performed biennially, not annually, as thought earlier.

8
Egyptologists such as Thomas Schneider, Michael Haase, and Rainer Stadelmann wonder if the compiler of
the Turin Canon actually took into account that the cattle count was performed biennially during the first half
of the Old Kingdom period, whilst tax collection during the 19th Dynasty was held every year. In sum, all
these documents would prove that Khufu ruled for at least 26 or 27 years, and possibly for over 34 years, if
the inscription in the relieving chambers points to a biennial cattle count. Indeed, if the compiler of the Turin
Canon did not take into account a biennial cattle count, it could even mean that Khufu ruled for 46 years.

There are only a few hints about Khufu's political activities within and outside Egypt. Within Egypt, Khufu
is documented in several building inscriptions and statues. Khufu's name appears in inscriptions
at Elkab and Elephantine and in local quarries at Hatnub and Wadi Hammamat.
At Saqqara two terracotta figures of the goddess Bastet were found, on which, at their bases, the horus
name of Khufu is incised. They were deposited at Saqqara during the Middle Kingdom, but their creation can
be dated back to Khufu's reign.

At Wadi Maghareh in the Sinai a rock inscription depicts Khufu with the double crown. Khufu sent several
expeditions in an attempt to find turquoise and copper mines. Like other kings, such
as Sekhemkhet, Sneferu and Sahure, who are also depicted in impressive reliefs there, he was looking for
those two precious materials. Khufu also entertained contacts with Byblos. He sent several expeditions to
Byblos in an attempt to trade copper tools and weapons for precious Lebanon cedar wood. This kind of wood
was essential for building large and stable funerary boats and indeed the boats discovered at the Great
Pyramid were made of it.

New evidence regarding political activities under Khufu's reign has recently been found at the site of the
ancient port of Wadi al-Jarf on the Red Sea coast in the east of Egypt. The first traces of such a harbour were
excavated in 1823 by John Gardner Wilkinson and James Burton, but the site was quickly abandoned and
then forgotten over time. In 1954, French scholars François Bissey and René Chabot-Morisseau re-excavated
the harbour, but their works were brought to an end by the Suez Crisis in 1956. In June 2011, an
archaeological team led by French Egyptologists Pierre Tallet and Gregory Marouard, organized by
the French Institute of Oriental Archeology (IFAO), restarted work at the site. Among other material, a
collection of hundreds of papyrus fragments were found in 2013 dating back 4500 years. The papyrus is
currently exhibited at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. The Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass called this
ancient papyrus “the greatest discovery in Egypt in the 21st century.”

9
Ten of these papyri are very well preserved. The majority of these documents date to the 27th year of
Khufu's reign and describe how the central administration sent food and supplies to the sailors and wharf
workers. The dating of these important documents is secured by phrases typical for the Old Kingdom period,
as well as the fact that the letters are addressed to the king himself, using his Horus name. This was typical
when the king in question was still alive; when the ruler was dead he was addressed by his cartouche name
or birth name. One document is of special interest: the diary of Merer, an official involved in the building of
the Great Pyramid. Using the diary, researchers were able to reconstruct three months of his life, providing
new insight into the everyday lives of people of the Fourth Dynasty. These papyri are the earliest examples
of imprinted papyri ever found in Egypt. Another inscription, found on the limestone walls of the harbor,
mentions the head of the royal scribes controlling the exchange of goods: Idu.
Khufu's cartouche name is also inscribed on some of the heavy limestone blocks at the site. The harbor was
of strategic and economic importance to Khufu because ships brought precious materials, such as turquoise,
copper and ore from the southern tip of the Sinai peninsula. The papyri fragments show several storage lists
naming the delivered goods. The papyri also mention a certain harbour at the opposite coast of Wadi al-Jarf,
on the western shore of the Sinai Peninsula, where the ancient fortress Tell Ras Budran was excavated in
1960 by Gregory Mumford. The papyri and the fortress together reveal an explicit sailing route across the
Red Sea for the very first time in history. It is the oldest archaeologically detected sailing route of Ancient
Egypt. According to Tallet, the harbor could also have been one of the legendary high sea harbours of
Ancient Egypt, from where expeditions to the infamous gold land Punt had started.

Alexander I of Macedonia
Alexander I of Macedon , byname Alexander Philhellene, or Alexander The Wealthy, literally "fond/lover
of the Greeks", and in this context "Greek patriot”, was the 10th ruler of the ancient Kingdom
of Macedon from c. 498 BC until his death in 454 BC. He was succeeded by his eldest son, Alcetas II.
Alexander was the son of Amyntas I and Queen Eurydice .

10
Member of the Argead Dynasty which ruled in Macedonia from the 8th century BCE, Alexander was the son
of King Amyntas I. Little is known about his early life, but it is reasonable to think that he was educated as a
typical Macedonian prince, practicing hunting, and receiving military training. Herodotus tells us of an
important episode that must have occurred around 510 BCE, showing the personality of Alexander while he
was still a young prince. In that year, Megabazus, one of the most powerful generals under the Great King
of Persia Darius I (r. 522-486 BCE), sent an embassy to Amyntas, asking for “earth and water”, as a sign of
submission to the Persian rule. The king accepted, offering a banquet to seven Persian envoys, who quickly
started to get drunk and asked for female company. Some Macedonian women were therefore brought to the
feast, and soon after were molested by the Persian guests. Enraged by the behavior of the Persians,
Alexander devised a clever and treacherous plan to kill them. The young prince ordered his friends to
disguise themselves as women, introducing them at the party as a 'special gift' for his foreign guests. Soon
after, they slaughtered the Persians. The assassination of the envoys was kept secret, but soon the Persians
tried to find out what had happened to their missing men. The inquiry was managed by a general named
Bubares. Alexander once again demonstrated his cunning personality, bribing the Persian general with a
large sum of money and offering him his sister Gygea as a spouse. The marriage between Alexander's sister
and Bubare is considered plausible by scholars, but most historians believe that the assassination of the
Persian envoys is false. Herodotus does not provide relevant details, such as the names of the nobles
slaughtered by Alexander, and for some, it is unlikely that a young prince like him, without the consent of
his father, dared to commit such a violent act jeopardizing the newly established diplomatic relations with

11
the Persian Achaemenid Empire. In brief, it is believed that the story reported by Herodotus had been
invented by sources close to Alexander, to increase his fame and highlight his crafty intelligence.
Alexander I came to the throne during the era of the kingdom's vassalage to Achaemenid Persia, dating back
to the time of his father, Amyntas I, although Macedon retained a broad scope of autonomy. In 492 BC it
was made a fully subordinate part of the Persian Empire by Mardonius' campaign. Alexander acted as a
representative of the Persian governor Mardonius during peace negotiations after the Persian defeat at
the Battle of Salamis in 480 BC. In later events, Herodotus several times mentions Alexander as a man who
was on Xerxes' side and followed his orders.

It was probably Alexander who organized the mass of his people as a hoplite army
called pezhetairoi (“foot companions”), with rudimentary political rights, to act as a
counterweight to the nobility, the cavalry hetairoi (“companions”). His byname, the Philhellene,
indicates his efforts to win Greek sympathies; and he obtained admission to the Olympic games.
From Persian spoil he erected a golden statue at Delphi, and he entertained the poet Pindar at his
court.From the time of Mardonius' conquest of Macedon, Herodotus refers to Alexander I as hyparchos,
meaning viceroy. It was probably Alexander who organized the mass of his people as a hoplite
army called pezhetairoi (“foot companions”), with rudimentary political rights, to act as a
counterweight to the nobility, the cavalry hetairoi (“companions”)Despite his cooperation with
Persia, Alexander I frequently gave supplies and advice to the Greek city states, and warned them of
Mardonius' plans before the Battle of Plataea in 479 BC. For example, Alexander I warned the Greeks in
Tempe to leave before the arrival of Xerxes' troops, and notified them of an alternate route into Thessaly
through upper Macedonia. After their defeat in Plataea, the Persian army under the command
of Artabazus tried to retreat all the way back to Asia Minor. Most of the 43,000 survivors were attacked and
killed by the forces of Alexander at the estuary of the Strymon river. Alexander eventually regained
Macedonian independence after the end of the Persian Wars.
Alexander claimed descent from Argive Greeks and Heracles. After a court of Elean hellanodikai determined
his claim to be true, he was permitted to participate in the Olympic Games possibly in 504 BC, a right
reserved only for Greeks. He modelled his court after Athens and was a patron of the
poets Pindar and Bacchylides, both of whom dedicated poems to Alexander. The earliest reference to an
Athenian proxenos, who lived during the time of the Persian wars (c. 490 BC), is that of Alexander
I. Alexander I was given the title "philhellene" (Greek: "φιλέλλην", fond of the Greeks, lover of the Greeks),
a title used for Greek patriots.

Expansion & Reform

While he was in power as king of Macedon, Alexander was able to take advantage of the political
circumstances and turn them in his favor by annexing various territories. He took control of the eastern
region of Strymon Valley, rich in quarries, and also conquered the strategic port city of Pydna on the
Thermaic Gulf. Despite his title of proxenos, Alexander's territorial ambitions had often put him at odds with
Athens, contending the control of large areas of the Chalkidiki and Thrace.

From a geopolitical perspective, the strategic aim of Alexander was to liberate Macedon from the influence
of its cumbersome neighbors. Not only there were the Athenians, coming from the sea, but also the

12
Thracians, who possessed rich mines and put pressure on the Macedonian kingdom from the east, as well as
Illyrian and Paeonian tribes, known for their raids on the western and northern borders.

To achieve this goal, Alexander introduced an important military reform with the creation of the future
backbone of the Macedonian army: the hetairoi (Companions) and the pezhetairoi (Foot companions).

According to a famous fragment of the Greek historian Anaximenes of Lampsacus:

Scholars think that the cavalry unit of the hetairoi, which was formed by loyal noblemen, could be an
imitation of similar Persian units. As for the infantry of the pezhetairoi, this was composed of “spear
bearers”, but we know little about their equipment, later designed on the model of the hoplites of the Greek
city-states. Alexander I died in 454 BCE, leaving the throne to his elder son, Alcetas. We do not know the
exact circumstances of his death, even though the Roman historian Curtius Rufus seems to suggest that he
was assassinated. The nickname of “Philhellene”, by which he is still known, is mentioned for the first time
only in the 2nd century CE by the historian Dio Chrysostom.

The reign of Alexander lasted almost 50 years, during which the kingdom of Macedon grew in size and
achieved prosperity. Under his cunning leadership, Macedon became a unified state with a coherent identity.
This was a period of intense commerce, characterized by the development of trade through the Balkan area
and the coast of Thrace and Chalkidiki. Alexander is indeed mentioned by Herodotus as a rich ruler, who
"drew a daily revenue of a talent of silver" from the mines on Mount Dysoron (V, 17). This affluence, which
gained him also the nickname of 'The Wealthy', is validated by the minting of several series of silver coins.

Throughout the first half of the 5th century BCE, there was also an artistic resurgence in the area, as attested
by the golden objects and coins later found, and a change in the Macedonian way of life. From being
transhumant shepherds, many settled in cities while others became farmers. Overall, they slowly started to be
recognized as part of the Greek world. For Alexander himself, being recognized by the major sanctuaries of
Greece was a 'revolutionary' gesture, which laid the foundation for the future dominance of Philip II of
Macedon (r. 359-336 BCE).

King Nermar

13
Narmer (Ancient Egyptian: nꜥr-mr, meaning "painful catfish," "stinging catfish," "harsh catfish," or "fierce
catfish;"[1][2][3] r. c. 3273 – 2987 BC) was an ancient Egyptian pharaoh of the Early Dynastic Period.[4] He
was the successor to the Protodynastic king Ka. Many scholars consider him the unifier of Egypt and founder
of the First Dynasty, and in turn the first king of a unified Egypt. A majority of Egyptologists believe that
Narmer was the same person as Menes.

Narmer's identity is the subject of ongoing debates, although the dominant opinion among Egyptologists
identifies Narmer with the pharaoh Menes, who is renowned in the ancient Egyptian written records as the
first king, and the unifier of Ancient Egypt. Narmer's identification with Menes is based on the Narmer
Palette (which shows Narmer as the unifier of Egypt), and the two necropolis seals from the Umm el-
Qa'ab cemetery of Abydos that show him as the first king of the First Dynasty. The date commonly given for
the beginning of Narmer's reign is c. 3100 BC. Other mainstream estimates, using both the historical method
and radiocarbon dating, are in the range c. 3273–2987 BC.

14
Although highly interrelated, the questions of "who was Menes?" and "who unified Egypt?" are actually two
separate issues. Narmer is often credited with the unification of Egypt by means of the conquest of Lower
Egypt by Upper Egypt. While Menes is traditionally considered the first king of Ancient Egypt, Narmer has
been identified by the majority of Egyptologists as the same person as Menes. Although vigorously debated
(Hor-Aha, Narmer's successor, is the primary alternative identified as Menes by many authorities), the
predominant opinion is that Narmer was Menes.
The issue is confusing because "Narmer" is a Horus name while "Menes" is a Sedge and Bee name (personal
or birth name). All of the King Lists which began to appear in the New Kingdom era list the personal names
of the kings, and almost all begin with Menes, or begin with divine and/or semi-divine rulers, with Menes as
the first "human king". The difficulty is aligning the contemporary archaeological evidence which lists Horus
Names with the King Lists that list personal names.
Two documents have been put forward as proof either that Narmer was Menes or alternatively Hor-Aha was
Menes. The first is the "Naqada Label" found at the site of Naqada, in the tomb of Queen Neithhotep, often
assumed to have been the mother of Horus Aha. The label shows a serekh of Hor-Aha next to an enclosure
inside of which are symbols that have been interpreted by some scholars as the name "Menes". The second is
the seal impression from Abydos that alternates between a serekh of Narmer and the chessboard symbol,
"mn", which is interpreted as an abbreviation of Menes. Arguments have been made with regard to each of
these documents in favour of Narmer or Hor-Aha being Menes, but in neither case is the argument
conclusive.
The second document, the seal impression from Abydos, shows the serekh of Narmer alternating with the
gameboard sign (mn), together with its phonetic complement, the n sign, which is always shown when the
full name of Menes is written, again representing the name “Menes”. At first glance, this would seem to be
strong evidence that Narmer was Menes. However, based on an analysis of other early First Dynasty seal
impressions, which contain the name of one or more princes, the seal impression has been interpreted by
other scholars as showing the name of a prince of Narmer named Menes, hence Menes was Narmer's
successor, Hor-Aha, and thus Hor-Aha was Menes. This was refuted by Cervelló-Autuori 2005, pp. 42–45;
but opinions still vary, and the seal impression cannot be said to definitively support either theory.

Two necropolis sealings, found in 1985 and 1991 in Abydos, in or near the tombs of Den and Qa'a, show
Narmer as the first king on each list, followed by Hor-Aha. The Qa'a sealing lists all eight of the kings of
what scholars now call the First Dynasty in the correct order, starting with Narmer. These necropolis sealings
are strong evidence that Narmer was the first king of the First Dynasty – hence is the same person as Menes.

15
The famous Narmer Palette, discovered by James E. Quibell in the 1897–1898 season at shows Narmer
wearing the crown of Upper Egypt on one side of the palette, and the crown of Lower Egypt on the other
side, giving rise to the theory that Narmer unified the two lands
. Since its discovery, however, it has been debated whether the Narmer Palette represents an actual historic
event or is purely symbolic. Of course, the Narmer Palette could represent an actual historical event while at
the same time having a symbolic significance.
In 1993, Günter Dreyer discovered a "year label" of Narmer at Abydos, depicting the same event that is
depicted on the Narmer Palette. In the First Dynasty, years were identified by the name of the king and an
important event that occurred in that year. A "year label" was typically attached to a container of goods and
included the name of the king, a description or representation of the event that identified the year, and a
description of the attached goods. This year label shows that the Narmer Palette depicts an actual historical
event. Support for this conclusion (in addition to Dreyer) includes Wilkinson and Davies
& Friedman. Although this interpretation of the year label is the dominant opinion among Egyptologists,
there are exceptions including Baines and Wengrow.
Archaeological evidence suggests that Egypt was at least partially unified during the reigns of Ka and Iry-
Hor (Narmer's immediate predecessors), and perhaps as early as Scorpion I (several generations before Iry-
Hor). Tax collection is probably documented for Ka and Iry-Hor. The evidence for a role for Scorpion I in

Lower Egypt comes from his tomb Uj in Abydos (Upper Egypt), where labels were found identifying goods
from Lower Egypt. These are not tax documents, however, so they are probably indications of trade rather
than subjugation. There is a substantial difference in the quantity and distribution of inscriptions with the
names of those earlier kings in Lower Egypt and Canaan (which was reached through Lower Egypt),
compared to the inscriptions of Narmer. Ka's inscriptions have been found in three sites in Lower Egypt and
one in Canaan. Iry-Hor inscriptions have also been found in two sites in Lower Egypt and one in
Canaan. This must be compared to Narmer, whose serekhs have been found in ten sites in Lower Egypt and
nine sites in Canaan (see discussion in "Tomb and Artefacts" section). This demonstrates a qualitative
difference between Narmer's role in Lower Egypt compared to his two immediate predecessors. There is no
evidence in Lower Egypt of any Upper Egyptian king's presence before Iry-Hor. The archaeological
evidence suggest that the unification began before Narmer, but was completed by him through the conquest
of a polity in the North-West Delta as depicted on the Narmer Palette.
The importance that Narmer attached to his "unification" of Egypt is shown by the fact that it is
commemorated not only on the Narmer Palette, but on a cylinder seal, the Narmer Year Label, and the
Narmer Boxes; and the consequences of the event are commemorated on the Narmer Macehead. The
importance of the unification to ancient Egyptians is shown by the fact that Narmer is shown as the first king
on the two necropolis seals, and under the name Menes, the first king in the later King Lists. Although there
is archaeological evidence of a few kings before Narmer, none of them is mentioned in any of those sources.
It can be accurately said that from the point of view of Ancient Egyptians, history began with Narmer and
the unification of Egypt, and that everything before him was relegated to the realm of myth.

16
According to Manetho (quoted in Eusebius (Fr. 7(a))), "Menes made a foreign expedition and won renown."
If this is correct (and assuming it refers to Narmer), it was undoubtedly to the land of Canaan where
Narmer's serekh has been identified at nine different sites. An Egyptian presence in Canaan predates Narmer,
but after about 200 years of active presence in Canaan, Egyptian presence peaked during Narmer's reign and
quickly declined afterwards. The relationship between Egypt and Canaan "began around the end of the fifth
millennium and apparently came to an end sometime during the Second Dynasty when it ceased
altogether”. It peaked during the Dynasty 0 through the reign of Narmer. Dating to this period are 33
Egyptian serekhs found in Canaan, among which 20 have been attributed to Narmer. Prior to Narmer, only
one serekh of Ka and one inscription with Iry-Hor's name have been found in Canaan. The serekhs earlier
than Iry-Hor are either generic serekhs that do not refer to a specific king, or are for kings not attested in
Abydos. Indicative of the decline of Egyptian presence in the region after Narmer, only one serekh attributed
to his successor, Hor-Aha, has been found in Canaan. Even this one example is questionable, Wilkinson does
not believe there are any serekhs of Hor-Aha outside Egypt and very few serekhs of kings for the rest of the
first two dynasties have been found in Canaan.
The Egyptian presence in Canaan is best demonstrated by the presence of pottery made from Egyptian Nile
clay and found in Canaan, as well as pottery made from local clay, but in the Egyptian style. The latter
suggests the existence of Egyptian colonies rather than just trade.
The nature of Egypt's role in Canaan has been vigorously debated, between scholars who suggest a military
invasion and others proposing that only trade and colonization were involved. Although the latter has gained
predominance, the presence of fortifications at Tell es-Sakan dating to the Dynasty 0 through early Dynasty
1 period, and built almost entirely using an Egyptian style of construction, demonstrate that there must have
also been some kind of Egyptian military presence.
Regardless of the nature of Egypt's presence in Canaan, control of trade to (and through) Canaan was
important to Ancient Egypt. Narmer probably did not establish Egypt's initial influence in Canaan by a
military invasion, but a military campaign by Narmer to re-assert Egyptian authority, or to increase its sphere
of influence in the region, is certainly plausible. In addition to the quote by Manetho, and the large number
of Narmer serekhs found in Canaan, a recent reconstruction of a box of Narmer's by Dreyer may have
commemorated a military campaign in Canaan. It may also represent just the presentation of tribute to
Narmer by Canaanites.

Narmer and Hor-Aha's names were both found in what is believed to be Neithhotep's tomb, which led
Egyptologists to conclude that she was Narmer's queen and mother of Hor-Aha. Neithhotep's name means
"Neith is satisfied". This suggests that she was a princess of Lower Egypt (based on the fact that Neith is the
patron goddess of Sais in the Western Delta, exactly the area Narmer conquered to complete the unification
of Egypt), and that this was a marriage to consolidate the two regions of Egypt. The fact that her tomb is
in Naqada, in Upper Egypt, has led some to the conclusion that she was a descendant of the predynastic
rulers of Naqada who ruled prior to its incorporation into a united Upper Egypt. It has also been suggested
that the Narmer Macehead commemorates this wedding. However, the discovery in 2012 of rock inscriptions

17
in Sinai by Pierre Tallet raise questions about whether she was really Narmer's wife. Neithhotep is probably
the earliest, non-mythical, woman in history whose name is known to us today.

Tomb of Narmer

Narmer's tomb in Umm el-Qa'ab near Abydos in Upper Egypt consists of two joined chambers (B17 and
B18), lined in mud brick. Although both Émile Amélineau and Petrie excavated tombs B17 and B18, it was
only in 1964 that Kaiser identified them as being Narmer's. Narmer's tomb is located next to the tombs
of Ka, who likely ruled Upper Egypt just before Narmer, and Hor-Aha, who was his immediate successor.
As the tomb dates back more than 5,000 years, and has been pillaged, repeatedly, from antiquity to modern
times, it is amazing that anything useful could be discovered in it. Because of the repeated disturbances in
Umm el-Qa'ab, many articles of Narmer's were found in other graves, and objects of other kings, were
recovered in Narmer's grave. However, Flinders Petrie during the period 1899–1903, and, starting in the
1970s, the German Archaeological Institute (DAI) have made discoveries of the greatest importance to the
history of Early Egypt by their re-excavation of the tombs of Umm el-Qa'ab.
Despite the chaotic condition of the cemetery, inscriptions on both wood and bone, seal impressions, as well
as dozens of flint arrowheads were found. (Petrie says with dismay that "hundreds" of arrowheads were
discovered by "the French", presumably Amélineau. What happened to them is not clear, but none ended up
in the Cairo Museum. Flint knives and a fragment of an ebony chair leg were also discovered in Narmer's
tomb, all of which might be part of the original funerary assemblage. The flint knives and fragment of a chair
leg were not included in any of Petrie's publications, but are now at the Petrie Museum of Egyptian
Archaeology (University College London), registration numbers UC35679, UC52786, and UC35682.
According to Dreyer, these arrowheads are probably from the tomb of Djer, where similar arrowheads were
found.
It is likely that all of the kings of Ancient Egypt buried in Umm el-Qa'ab had funerary enclosures in Abydos'
northern cemetery, near the cultivation line. These were characterized by large mud brick walls that enclosed
space in which funerary ceremonies are believed to have taken place. Eight enclosures have been excavated,
two of which have not been definitely identified. While it has yet to be confirmed, one of these unidentified
funerary enclosures may have belonged to Narmer.
Narmer is well attested throughout Egypt, southern Canaan and Sinai: altogether 98 inscriptions at 26
sites. At Abydos and Hierakonpolis Narmer's name appears both within a serekh and without reference to
a serekh. At every other site except Coptos, Narmer's name appears in a serekh. In Egypt, his name has been
found at 17 sites: 4 in Upper Egypt (Hierakonpolis, Naqada, Abydos, and Coptos); ten in Lower Egypt
(Tarkhan, Helwan, Zawyet el'Aryan, Tell Ibrahim Awad, Ezbet el-Tell, Minshat Abu
Omar, Saqqara, Buto, Tell el-Farkha, and Kafr Hassan Dawood); one in the Eastern Desert (Wadi el-Qaash);
and two in the Western Desert (Kharga Oasis and Gebel Tjauti)
During Narmer's reign, Egypt had an active economic presence in southern Canaan. Pottery sherds have been
discovered at several sites, both from pots made in Egypt and imported to Canaan and others made in the
Egyptian style out of local materials. Twenty serekhs have been found in Canaan that may belong to Narmer,
but seven of those are uncertain or controversial. These serekhs came from eight different sites: En Besor
(Ein HaBesor), Tel es-Sakan, Nahal Tillah (Halif Terrace), Tel Erani (Tel Gat), Small Tel Malhata, Tel
Ma'ahaz, and Tel Lod.
Narmer's serekh, along with those of other Predynastic and Early Dynastic kings, has been found at the Wadi
'Ameyra in the southern Sinai, where inscriptions commemorate Egyptian mining expeditions to the area.

18
 First recorded at the end of the 19th century, an important series of rock carving at Nag el-Hamdulab
near Aswan was rediscovered in 2009, and its importance only realized then. Among the many inscriptions,
tableau 7a shows a man wearing a headdress similar to the White Crown of Upper Egypt and carrying a
scepter. He is followed by a man with a fan. He is then preceded by two men with standards, and
accompanied by a dog. Apart from the dog motif, this scene is similar to scenes on the Scorpion
Macehead and the recto of the Narmer Palette. The man, equipped with pharaonic regalia (the crown and
scepter), can clearly be identified as a king. Although no name appears in the tableau, Darnell attributes it to
Narmer, based on the iconography, and suggests that it might represent an actual visit to the region by
Narmer for a "Following of Horus" ritual. In an interview in 2012, Gatto also describes the king in the
inscription as Narmer. However, Hendricks (2016) places the scene slightly before Narmer, based, in part on
the uncharacteristic absence of Narmer's royal name in the inscription.

King Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh (Akkadian: , romanized: Gilgameš;originally Sumerian:, romanized: Bilgames) was a hero
in ancient Mesopotamian mythology and the protagonist of the Epic of Gilgamesh, an epic poem written
in Akkadian during the late 2nd millennium BC. He was possibly a historical king of the Sumerian city-
state of Uruk, who was posthumously deified. His rule probably would have taken place sometime in the

beginning of the Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia) (henceforth ED), c. 2900 – 2350 BC, though he
became a major figure in Sumerian legend during the Third Dynasty of Ur (c. 2112 – c. 2004 BC).

Tales of Gilgamesh's legendary exploits are narrated in five surviving Sumerian poems. The earliest of these
is likely "Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Netherworld", in which Gilgamesh comes to the aid of the
goddess Inanna and drives away the creatures infesting her huluppu tree. She gives him two unknown
objects, a mikku and a pikku, which he loses. After Enkidu's death, his shade tells Gilgamesh about the bleak
conditions in the Underworld. The poem Gilgamesh and Aga describes Gilgamesh's revolt against his
overlord Aga of Kish. Other Sumerian poems relate Gilgamesh's defeat of the giant Huwawa and the Bull of
Heaven, while a fifth, poorly preserved poem relates the account of his death and funeral.
In later Babylonian times, these stories were woven into a connected narrative. The standard Akkadian Epic
of Gilgamesh was composed by a scribe named Sîn-lēqi-unninni, probably during the Middle Babylonian

19
Period (c. 1600 – c. 1155 BC), based on much older source material. In the epic, Gilgamesh is a demigod of
superhuman strength who befriends the wild man Enkidu. Together, they embark on many journeys, most
famously defeating Humbaba (Sumerian: Huwawa) and the Bull of Heaven, who is sent to attack them
by Ishtar (Sumerian: Inanna) after Gilgamesh rejects her offer for him to become her consort. After Enkidu
dies of a disease sent as punishment from the gods, Gilgamesh becomes afraid of his death and visits the
sage Utnapishtim, the survivor of the Great Flood, hoping to find immortality. Gilgamesh repeatedly fails the
trials set before him and returns home to Uruk, realizing that immortality is beyond his reach.
Most classical historians agree the Epic of Gilgamesh exerted substantial influence on the Iliad and
the Odyssey, two epic poems written in ancient Greek during the 8th century BC. The story of Gilgamesh's
birth is described in an anecdote from On the Nature of Animals by the Greek writer Aelian (2nd century
AD). Aelian relates that Gilgamesh's grandfather kept his mother under guard to prevent her from becoming
pregnant, because an oracle had told him that his grandson would overthrow him. She became pregnant and
the guards threw the child off a tower, but an eagle rescued him mid-fall and delivered him safely to an
orchard, where the gardener raised him.
The Epic of Gilgamesh was rediscovered in the Library of Ashurbanipal in 1849. After being translated in
the early 1870s, it caused widespread controversy due to similarities between portions of it and the Hebrew
Bible. Gilgamesh remained mostly obscure until the mid-20th century, but, since the late 20th century, he
has become an increasingly prominent figure in modern culture.
Most historians generally agree Gilgamesh was a historical king of the Sumerian city-state of Uruk, who
probably ruled sometime during the early part of the Early Dynastic Period (c. 2900 – 2350 BC). Stephanie

Dalley, a scholar of the ancient Near East, states that "precise dates cannot be given for the lifetime of
Gilgamesh, but they are generally agreed to lie between 2800 and 2500 BC". An inscription, possibly
belonging to a contemporary official under Gilgamesh, was discovered in the archaic texts at Ur; his name
reads: "Gilgameš is the one whom Utu has selected". Aside from this the Tummal Inscription, a thirty-four-
line historiographic text written during the reign of Ishbi-Erra (c. 1953 – c. 1920 BC), also mentions
him. The inscription credits Gilgamesh with building the walls of Uruk. Lines eleven through fifteen of the
inscription read:
For a second time, the Tummal fell into ruin,
Gilgamesh built the Numunburra of the House of Enlil.
Ur-lugal, the son of Gilgamesh,
Made the Tummal pre-eminent,
Brought Ninlil to the Tummal.
Gilgamesh is also connected to King Enmebaragesi of Kish, a known historical figure who may have lived
near Gilgamesh's lifetime. Furthermore, he is listed as one of the kings of Uruk by the Sumerian King
List. Fragments of an epic text found in Mê-Turan (modern Tell Haddad) relate that at the end of his life
Gilgamesh was buried under the river bed. The people of Uruk diverted the flow of the Euphrates passing
Uruk for the purpose of burying the dead king within the river bed.

20
Deification and legendary exploits

Sumerian poems

Sculpted scene depicting Gilgamesh wrestling with animals. From the Shara temple at Tell Agrab, Diyala Region, Iraq. Early
Dynastic period, 2600–2370 BC. On display at the National Museum of Iraq in Baghdad.

It is certain that, during the later Early Dynastic Period, Gilgamesh was worshiped as a god at various
locations across Sumer. In 21st century BC, King Utu-hengal of Uruk adopted Gilgamesh as his patron deity.
The kings of the Third Dynasty of Ur (c. 2112 – c. 2004 BC) were especially fond of Gilgamesh, calling him
their "divine brother" and "friend." King Shulgi of Ur (2029–1982 BC) declared himself the son
of Lugalbanda and Ninsun and the brother of Gilgamesh. Over the centuries, there may have been a gradual
accretion of stories about Gilgamesh, some possibly derived from the real lives of other historical figures,
such as Gudea, the Second Dynasty ruler of Lagash (2144–2124 BC). Prayers inscribed in clay tablets
address Gilgamesh as a judge of the dead in the Underworld.

Gilgamesh, Endiku and the Netherworld

During this period, a large number of myths and legends developed surrounding Gilgamesh: 95  Five
independent Sumerian poems narrating various exploits of Gilgamesh have survived to the
present. Gilgamesh's first appearance in literature is probably in the Sumerian poem "Gilgamesh, Enkidu,
and the Netherworld". The narrative begins with a huluppu tree—perhaps, according to the
Sumerologist Samuel Noah Kramer, a willow, growing on the banks of the river Euphrates. The goddess
Inanna moves the tree to her garden in Uruk with the intention to carve it into a throne once it is fully
grown. The tree grows and matures, but the serpent "who knows no charm," the Anzû-bird, and Lilitu,
a Mesopotamian demon, all take up residence within the tree, causing Inanna to cry with sorrow.
Gilgamesh, who in this story is portrayed as Inanna's brother, comes along and slays the serpent, causing
the Anzû-bird and Lilitu to flee. Gilgamesh's companions chop down the tree and carve its wood into a bed
and a throne, which they give to Inanna. Inanna responds by fashioning a pikku and a mikku (probably a
drum and drumsticks respectively, although the exact identifications are uncertain), which she gives to
Gilgamesh as a reward for his heroism. Gilgamesh loses the pikku and mikku and asks who will retrieve
them. Enkidu descends to the Underworld to find them, but disobeys the strict laws of the Underworld and is
therefore required to remain there forever. The remaining portion of the poem is a dialogue in which
Gilgamesh asks the shade of Enkidu questions about the Underworld.
21
Subsequent Poems

"Gilgamesh and Agga" describes Gilgamesh's successful revolt against his overlord Agga, the king of the
city-state of Kish. "Gilgamesh and Huwawa" describes how Gilgamesh and his servant Enkidu, aided by the
help of fifty volunteers from Uruk, defeat the monster Huwawa, an ogre appointed by the god Enlil, the ruler
of the gods, as the guardian of the Cedar Forest. In "Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven", Gilgamesh and
Enkidu slay the Bull of Heaven, who has been sent to attack them by the goddess Inanna. The plot of this
poem differs substantially from the corresponding scene in the later Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh. In the
Sumerian poem, Inanna does not seem to ask Gilgamesh to become her consort as she does in the later
Akkadian epic. Furthermore, while she is coercing her father An to give her the Bull of Heaven, rather than
threatening to raise the dead to eat the living as she does in the later epic, she merely threatens to let out a
"cry" that will reach the earth. A poem known as the "Death of Gilgamesh" is poorly preserved, but appears
to describe a major state funeral followed by the arrival of the deceased in the Underworld. It is possible that
the modern scholars who gave the poem its title may have misinterpreted it,[16] and the poem may actually
be about the death of Enkidu.
Epic of Gilgamesh

By the Old Babylonian Period (c. 1830 – c. 1531 BC), stories of Gilgamesh's legendary exploits had been
woven into one or several long epics. The Epic of Gilgamesh, the most complete account of Gilgamesh's
adventures, was composed in Akkadian during the Middle Babylonian Period (c. 1600 – c. 1155 BC) by a
scribe named Sîn-lēqi-unninni. The most complete surviving version of the Epic of Gilgamesh is recorded on
a set of twelve clay tablets dating to the seventh century BC, found in the Library of Ashurbanipal in
the Assyrian capital of Nineveh. The epic survives only in a fragmentary form, with many pieces of it
missing or damaged. Some scholars and translators choose to supplement the missing parts of the epic with
material from the earlier Sumerian poems or from other versions of the Epic of Gilgamesh found at other
sites throughout the Near East.

Tablet V of the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Sulaymaniyah Museum, Iraq

In the epic, Gilgamesh is introduced as "two thirds divine and one third mortal." At the beginning of the
poem, Gilgamesh is described as a brutal, oppressive ruler. This is usually interpreted to mean either that he
compels all his subjects to engage in forced labor or that he sexually oppresses all his subjects. As

22
punishment for Gilgamesh's cruelty, the god Anu creates the wild man Enkidu. After being tamed by a
prostitute named Shamhat, Enkidu travels to Uruk to confront Gilgamesh. In the second tablet, the two men
wrestle and, although Gilgamesh wins the match in the end, he is so impressed by his opponent's strength
and tenacity that they become close friends. In the earlier Sumerian texts, Enkidu is Gilgamesh's servant, but,
in the Epic of Gilgamesh, they are companions of equal standing.
In tablets III through IV, Gilgamesh and Enkidu travel to the Cedar Forest, which is guarded by Humbaba
(the Akkadian name for Huwawa). The heroes cross the seven mountains to the Cedar Forest, where they
begin chopping down trees. Confronted by Humbaba, Gilgamesh panics and prays to Shamash (the East
Semitic name for Utu), who blows eight winds in Humbaba's eyes, blinding him. Humbaba begs for mercy,
but the heroes decapitate him regardless. Tablet VI begins with Gilgamesh returning to Uruk,
where Ishtar (the Akkadian name for Inanna) comes to him and demands him to become her consort.
Gilgamesh repudiates her, insisting that she has mistreated all her former lovers.
In revenge, Ishtar goes to her father Anu and demands that he give her the Bull of Heaven, which she sends
to attack Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh and Enkidu kill the Bull and offer its heart to Shamash. While Gilgamesh
and Enkidu are resting, Ishtar stands up on the walls of Uruk and curses Gilgamesh. Enkidu tears off the
Bull's right thigh and throws it in Ishtar's face, saying, "If I could lay my hands on you, it is this I should do
to you, and lash your entrails to your side." Ishtar calls together "the crimped courtesans, prostitutes and
harlots"and orders them to mourn for the Bull of Heaven. Meanwhile, Gilgamesh holds a celebration over
the Bull of Heaven's defeat.
Tablet VII begins with Enkidu recounting a dream in which he saw Anu, Ea, and Shamash declare either
Gilgamesh or Enkidu must die as punishment for having slain the Bull of Heaven. They choose Enkidu and
Enkidu soon grows sick. He has a dream of the Underworld, and then he dies. Tablet VIII describes
Gilgamesh's inconsolable grief over his friend's death and the details of Enkidu's funeral. Tablets IX through
XI relate how Gilgamesh, driven by grief and fear of his own mortality, travels a great distance and
overcomes many obstacles to find the home of Utnapishtim, the sole survivor of the Great Flood, who was
rewarded with immortality by the gods.

Early Middle Assyrian cylinder seal impression dating between 1400 and 1200 BC, showing a man with bird
wings and a scorpion tail firing an arrow at a griffin on a hillock. A scorpion man is among the creatures
Gilgamesh encounters on his journey to the homeland of Utnapishtim.

23
The journey to Utnapishtim involves a series of episodic challenges, which probably originated as major
independent adventures, but, in the epic, they are reduced to what Joseph Eddy Fontenrose calls "fairly
harmless incidents." First, Gilgamesh encounters and slays lions in the mountain pass. Upon reaching the
mountain of Mashu, Gilgamesh encounters a scorpion man and his wife; their bodies flash with terrifying
radiance, but, once Gilgamesh tells them his purpose, they allow him to pass. Gilgamesh wanders through
darkness for twelve days before he finally comes into the light. He finds a beautiful garden by the sea in
which he meets Siduri, the divine Alewife. At first, she tries to prevent Gilgamesh from entering the
garden, but later she instead attempts to persuade him to accept death as inevitable and not journey beyond
the waters. When Gilgamesh refuses to do this, she directs him to Urshanabi, the ferryman of the gods, who
ferries Gilgamesh across the sea to Utnapishtim's homeland. When Gilgamesh finally arrives at
Utnapishtim's home, Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh that, to become immortal, he must defy sleep. Gilgamesh
fails to do this and falls asleep for seven days without waking.
Next, Utnapishtim tells him that, even if he cannot obtain immortality, he can restore his youth using a plant
with the power of rejuvenation. Gilgamesh takes the plant, but leaves it on the shore while swimming and a
snake steals it, explaining why snakes are able to shed their skins. Despondent at this loss, Gilgamesh returns
to Uruk, and shows his city to the ferryman Urshanabi. It is at this point the epic stops being a coherent
narrative. Tablet XII is an appendix corresponding to the Sumerian poem of Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the
Netherworld describing the loss of the pikku and mikku.
Numerous elements within this narrative reveal lack of continuity with the earlier portions of the epic. At the
beginning of Tablet XII, Enkidu is still alive, despite having previously died in Tablet VII, and Gilgamesh is
kind to Ishtar, despite the violent rivalry between them displayed in Tablet VI. Also, while most of the parts
of the epic are free adaptations of their respective Sumerian predecessors, Tablet XII is a literal, word-for-
word translation of the last part of Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Netherworldl. For these reasons, scholars
conclude this narrative was probably relegated to the end of the epic because it did not fit the larger
narrative. In it, Gilgamesh sees a vision of Enkidu's ghost, who promises to recover the lost items and
describes to his friend the abysmal condition of the Underworld.

In Mesopotamian art
Although stories about Gilgamesh were wildly popular throughout ancient Mesopotamia, authentic
representations of him in ancient art are uncommon. Popular works often identify depictions of a hero with
long hair, containing four or six curls, as representations of Gilgamesh, but this identification is known to be
incorrect. A few genuine ancient Mesopotamian representations of Gilgamesh do exist, however. These
representations are mostly found on clay plaques and cylinder seals. Generally, it is only possible to identify
a figure shown in art as Gilgamesh if the artistic work in question clearly depicts a scene from the Epic of
Gilgamesh itself. One set of representations of Gilgamesh is found in scenes of two heroes fighting a
demonic giant, certainly Humbaba. Another set is found in scenes showing a similar pair of heroes
confronting a giant, winged bull, certainly the Bull of Heaven.

Later Influence

In antiquity

24
Indus valley civilization seal, with the Master of Animals motif of a man fighting two lions or tigers (2500–1500 BC),
similar to the Sumerian "Gilgamesh" motif, an indicator of Indus-Mesopotamia relations

The Epic of Gilgamesh exerted substantial influence on the Iliad and the Odyssey, two epic poems written
in ancient Greek during the eighth century BC. According to Barry B. Powell, an American classical scholar,
early Greeks were probably exposed to Mesopotamian oral traditions through their extensive connections to
the civilizations of the ancient Near East and this exposure resulted in the similarities that are seen between
the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Homeric epics. Walter Burkert, a German classicist, observes that the scene in
Tablet VI of the Epic of Gilgamesh in which Gilgamesh rejects Ishtar's advances and she complains before
her mother antu,, but is mildly rebuked by her father anu, is directly paralleled in Book V of the Iliad. In this
scene, Aphrodite, the later Greek adaptation of Ishtar, is wounded by the hero Diomedes and flees to Mount
Olympus, where she cries to her mother Dione and is mildly rebuked by her father Zeus.
Powell observes the opening lines of the Odyssey seem to echo the opening lines of the Epic of
Gilgamesh. The storyline of the Odyssey likewise bears many similarities to the Epic of Gilgamesh. Both
Gilgamesh and Odysseus encounter a woman who can turn men into animals: Ishtar (for Gilgamesh) and
circe (for Odysseus). In the Odyssey, Odysseus blinds a giant cyclops named Polyphemus, an incident which
bears similarities to Gilgamesh's slaying of Humbaba in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Both Gilgamesh and
Odysseus visit the Underworld and both find themselves unhappy whilst living in an otherworldly paradise
in the presence of an attractive woman: Siduri (for Gilgamesh) and Calypso (for Odysseus). Finally, both
heroes have an opportunity for immortality but miss it (Gilgamesh when he loses the plant, and Odysseus
when he leaves Calypso's island).
In the Qumran scroll known as Book of Giants (c. 100 BC) the names of Gilgamesh and Humbaba appear as
two of the antediluvian giants, rendered (in consonantal form) as glgmš and ḩwbbyš. This same text was later
used in the Middle East by the Manichaean sects, and the Arabic form Gilgamish/Jiljamish survives as the
name of a demon according to the Egyptian cleric Al-Suyuti (c. 1500).
The story of Gilgamesh's birth is not recorded in any extant Sumerian or Akkadian text, but a version of it is
described in De Natura Animalium (On the Nature of Animals) 12.21, a commonplace book which was
written in Greek sometime around 200 AD by the Hellenized Roman orator Aelian. According to Aelian's
story, an oracle told King Seuechoros (Σευεχορος) of the Babylonians that his grandson Gilgamos would
overthrow him, To prevent this, Seuechoros kept his only daughter under close guard at the Acropolis of the

25
city of Babylon, but she became pregnant nonetheless. Fearing the king's wrath, the guards hurled the infant
off the top of a tall tower. An eagle rescued the boy in mid-flight and carried him to an orchard, where it
carefully set him down. The caretaker of the orchard found the boy and raised him, naming
him Gilgamos (Γίλγαμος). Eventually, Gilgamos returned to Babylon and overthrew his grandfather,
proclaiming himself king. The birth narrative described by Aelian is in the same tradition as other Near
Eastern birth legends, such as those of Sargon, Moses, and Cyrus. Theodore Bar Konai (c. AD 600), writing
in Syriac, also mentions a king Gligmos, Gmigmos or Gamigos as last of a line of twelve kings who were
contemporaneous with the patriarchs from Peleg to Abraham; this occurrence is also considered a vestige of
Gilgamesh's former memory.

Modern rediscovery

26
 In 1880, the English Assyriologist George Smith (left) published a translation of Tablet XI of the Epic of
Gilgamesh (right), containing the Flood mythm, which attracted immediate scholarly attention and controversy
due to its similarity to the Genesis flood narrative.

The Akkadian text of the Epic of Gilgamesh was first discovered in 1849 AD by the English
archaeologist Austen Henry Layard in the Library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh.: 95  Layard was seeking
evidence to confirm the historicity of the events described in the Hebrew Bible, i.e. the Christian Old
Testament, which, at the time, was believed to contain the oldest texts in the world. Instead, his excavations
and those of others after him revealed the existence of much older Mesopotamian texts and showed that
many of the stories in the Old Testament may actually be derived from earlier myths told throughout the
ancient Near East. The first translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh was produced in the early 1870s by George
Smith, a scholar at the British Museum, who published the Flood story from Tablet XI in 1880 under the
title The Chaldean Account of Genesis. Gilgamesh's name was originally misread as Izdubar.
Early interest in the Epic of Gilgamesh was almost exclusively on account of the flood story from Tablet
XI. The flood story attracted enormous public attention and drew widespread scholarly controversy, while
the rest of the epic was largely ignored. Most attention towards the Epic of Gilgamesh in the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries came from German-speaking countries, where controversy raged over the
relationship between Babel und Bibel ("Babylon and Biblem”).
In January 1902, the German Assyriologist Friedrich Delitzsch gave a lecture at the Sing-Akademie zu
Berlin in front of the Kaiser and his wife, in which he argued that the Flood story in the Book of Genesis was
directly copied from the one in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Delitzsch's lecture was so controversial that, by
September 1903, he had managed to collect 1,350 short articles from newspapers and journals, over 300
longer ones, and twenty-eight pamphlets, all written in response to this lecture, as well as another lecture
about the relationship between the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses in the Torah. These articles
were overwhelmingly critical of Delitzsch. The Kaiser distanced himself from Delitzsch and his radical
views and, in the fall of 1904, Deglitch was forced to give his third lecture in Cologne and Frankfurt am
Main rather than in Berlin. The putative relationship between the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Hebrew Bible
later became a major part of Delitzsch's argument in his 1920–21 book Die große Täuschung (The Great
Deception) that the Hebrew Bible was irredeemably "contaminated" by Babylonian influence. and that only
by eliminating the human Old Testament entirely could Christians finally believe in the true, Aryan message
of the New Testament

Early Modern discovery

27
Illustration of Izdubar (Gilgamesh) in a scene from the book-length poem Ishtar and Izdubar (1884) by
Leonidas Le Cenci Hamilton, the first modern literary adaptation of the Epic of Gilgamesh

The first modern literary adaptation of the Epic of Gilgamesh was Ishtar and Izdubar (1884) by Leonidas Le
Cenci Hamilton, an American lawyer and businessman. Hamilton had rudimentary knowledge of Akkadian,
which he had learned from Archibald Sayce's 1872 Assyrian Grammar for Comparative Purposes.
Hamilton's book relied heavily on Smith's translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh, but also made major
changes. For instance, Hamilton omitted the famous flood story entirely and instead focused on the romantic
relationship between Ishtar and Gilgamesh. Ishtar and Izdubar expanded the original roughly 3,000 lines of
the Epic of Gilgamesh to roughly 6,000 lines of rhyming couplets grouped into forty-eight cantos. Hamilton
significantly altered most of the characters and introduced entirely new episodes not found in the original
epic. Significantly influenced by Edward FitzGerald's Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam and Edwin Arnold's The
Light of Asiam, Hamilton's characters dress more like nineteenth-century Turks than ancient
Babylonians. Hamilton also changed the tone of the epic from the "grim realism" and "ironic tragedy" of the
original to a "cheery optimism" filled with "the sweet strains of love and harmony".
In his 1904 book Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients, the German Assyriologist Alfred
Jeremias equated Gilgamesh with the king Nimrod from the Book of Genesis and argued Gilgamesh's
strength must come from his hair, like the hero in the Book of Judges, and that he must have
performed Twelve Labors like the hero Heracles in Greek mythology. In his 1906 book Das Gilgamesch-
Epos in der Weltliteratur, the Orientalist Peter Jensen declared that the Epic of Gilgamesh was the source
behind nearly all the stories in the Old Testament, arguing that Moses is "the Gilgamesh of Exodus who
saves the children of Israel from precisely the same situation faced by the inhabitants of Erech at the

28
beginning of the Babylonian epic." He then proceeded to argue that Abraham, Isaac, Samson, David, and
various other biblical figures are all nothing more than exact copies of Gilgamesh, Finally, he declared that
even Jesus is "nothing but an Israelite Gilgamesh. Nothing but an adjunct to Abraham, Moses, and countless
other figures in the saga." This ideology became known was almost immediately rejected by mainstream
scholars. The most stalwart critics of Panbabylonianism were those associated with the
emerging Religionsgeschichtliche Schule. Hermann Gunkel dismissed most of Jensen's purported parallels
between Gilgamesh and biblical figures as mere baseless sensationalism. He concluded that Jensen and other
Assyriologists like him had failed to understand the complexities of Old Testament scholarship and had
confused scholars with "conspicuous mistakes and remarkable aberrations".
In English-speaking countries, the prevailing scholarly interpretation during the early twentieth century was
one originally proposed by Sir Henry Rawlinson, 1st Baronet, which held that Gilgamesh is a "solar hero",
whose actions represent the movements of the sun, and that the twelve tablets of his epic represent the twelve
signs of the Babylonian zodiac. The Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, drawing on the theories
of James George Frazer and Paul Ehrenreich, interpreted Gilgamesh and Eabani (the earlier misreading
for Enkidu) as representing "man" and "crude sensuality" respectively. He compared them to to other
brother-figures in world mythology, remarking, "One is always weaker than the other and dies sooner. In
Gilgamesh this ages-old motif of the unequal pair of brothers served to represent the relationship between a
man and his libido." He also saw Enkidu as representing the placenta, the "weaker twin" who dies shortly
after birth Freud's friend and pupil Carl Jung frequently discusses Gilgamesh in his early work Symbole der
Wandlung (1911–1912). He, for instance, cites Ishtar's sexual attraction to Gilgamesh as an example of the
mother's incestuous desire for her son, Humbaba as an example of an oppressive father-figure whom
Gilgamesh must overcome, and Gilgamesh himself as an example of a man who forgets his dependence
on the unconscious and is punished by the "gods", who represent it.
Modern interpretations and cultural significance

Existential angst during the aftermath of World War II significantly contributed to Gilgamesh's rise in
popularity in the middle of the twentieth century.[81] For instance, the German novelist Hermann Kasack used

29
Enkidu's vision of the Underworld from the Epic of Gilgamesh as a metaphor for the bombed-out city of
Hamburg (pictured above) in his 1947 novel Die Stadt hinter dem Strom.[81]

In the years following World War II, Gilgamesh, formerly an obscure figure known only by a few scholars,
gradually became increasingly popular with modern audiences. The Epic of Gilgamesh's existential themes
made it particularly appealing to German authors in the years following the war. In his
1947 existentialist novel Die Stadt hinter dem Strom, the German novelist Hermann Kasack adapted
elements of the epic into a metaphor for the aftermath of the destruction of World War II in Germany,
portraying the bombed-out city of Hamburg as resembling the frightening Underworld seen by Enkidu in his
dream. In Hans Henny Jahnn's magnum opus River Without Shores (1949–1950), the middle section of the
trilogy centers around a composer whose twenty-year-long homoerotic relationship with a friend mirrors that
of Gilgamesh with Enkiduand whose masterpiece turns out to be a symphony about Gilgamesh.
The Quest of Gilgamesh, a 1953 radio play by Douglas Geoffrey Bridson, helped popularize the epic in
Britain. In the United States, Charles Olson praised the epic in his poems and essaysand Gregory
Corso believed that it contained ancient virtues capable of curing what he viewed as modern moral
degeneracy. The 1966 postfigurative novel Gilgamesch by Guido Bachmann became a classic of German
"queer literature" and set a decades-long international literary trend of portraying Gilgamesh and Enkidu as
homosexual lovers. This trend proved so popular that the Epic of Gilgamesh itself is included in The
Columbia Anthology of Gay Literature (1998) as a major early work of that genre. In the 1970s and
1980s, feminist literary critics analyzed the Epic of Gilgamesh as showing evidence for a transition from
the original matriarchy of all humanity to modern patriarchy. As the Green Movement expanded in Europe,
Gilgamesh's story began to be seen through an environmentalist lens, with Enkidu's death symbolizing man's
separation from nature.

30
A modern statue of Gilgamesh stands at the University of Sydney.

Theodore Ziolkowski, a scholar of modern literature, states, that "unlike most other figures from myth,
literature, and history, Gilgamesh has established himself as an autonomous entity or simply a name, often
independent of the epic context in which he originally became known. (As analogous examples one might
think, for instance, of the Minotaur or Frankenstein's monster”). The Epic of Gilgamesh has been translated
into many major world languages and has become a staple of American world literature classes. Many
contemporary authors and novelists have drawn inspiration from it, including an American avant-
garde theater collective called "The Gilgamesh Group" and Joan London in her novel Gilgamesh (2001).
The Great American Novel (1973) by Philip Roth features a character named "Gil Gamesh", who is the
star pitcher of a fictional 1930s baseball team called the "Patriot League".
Starting in the late twentieth century, the Epic of Gilgamesh began to be read again in Iraq. Saddam Hussein,
the former President of Iraq, had a lifelong fascination with Gilgamesh Hussein's first novel Zabibah and the
King (2000) is an allegory for the Gulf War set in ancient Assyria that blends elements of the Epic of
Gilgamesh and the One Thousand and One Nights Like Gilgamesh, the king at the beginning of the novel is
a brutal tyrant who misuses his power and oppresses his people, but, through the aid of a commoner woman
named Zabibah, he grows into a more just ruler. When the United States pressured Hussein to step down in
February 2003, Hussein gave a speech to a group of his generals posing the idea in a positive light by
comparing himself to the epic hero.
Scholars like Susan Ackerman and Wayne R. Dynes have noted that the language used to describe
Gilgamesh's relationship with Enkidu seems to have homoerotic implications. Ackerman notes that, when
Gilgamesh veils Enkidu's body, Enkidu is compared to a "bride”. Ackerman states, "that Gilgamesh,
according to both versions, will love Enkidu 'like a wife' may further imply sexual intercourse."
In 2000, a modern statue of Gilgamesh by the Assyrian sculptor Lewis Batros was unveiled at the University
of Sydney in Australia

Bruno the great

Bruno the Great (German: Brun(o) von Sachsen, "Bruno of Saxony"; Latin: Bruno Magnus; May 925 – 11
October 965 AD) was Archbishop of Cologne from 953 until his death and Duke of Lotharingia after 954.
He was the brother of Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor.

31
Bruno was the youngest son of Henry the Fowler and his second wife Matilda. While he was still a child, it
was decided that he should pursue a clerical career. In the early 940s he was educated in Trier by the leading
scholar, Israel the Grammarian. In 951, Otto appointed Bruno as his archchaplain.
Bruno soon received further advancement. In 953, the Archbishopric of Cologne fell vacant just
when Conrad the Red, Duke of Lotharingia and Otto's son-in-law, had joined a rebellion against Otto. By
appointing Bruno to the vacant position, Otto provided himself with a powerful ally against Conrad (much of
Lotharingia fell under the archdiocese of Cologne) just when he needed one most. By the next year, the
rebellion had collapsed. Otto deposed Conrad as Duke of Lotharingia and appointed Bruno in his place.
Bruno was to be almost the last duke of the whole of Lotharingia: in 959 two local nobles, and Frederick,
were appointed as margraves of Lower Lotharingia and Upper Lotharingia respectively. Both margraves
were recognised as dukes after Bruno's death. The two duchies were reunited between 1033 and 1044 under .
The combined positions of archbishop and duke — or archduke, as his biographer Ruotger called him —
made Bruno the most powerful man after Otto not just in Germany but also beyond its borders. After the
deaths of Louis IV of West Francia in 954 and Hugh the Great, his most powerful feudatory, in 956, Bruno,
as brother-in-law to both of them and maternal uncle to their heirs Lothair, the new king, and Hugh Capet,
acted as regent of west Francia.
From 962 onwards, Bruno was also appointed as Otto's regent in Germany while Otto was absent in Italy.
Bruno died in Reims in 965 and was buried in the monastery of St Pantaleon, which he had founded, just
outside Cologne.
Bruno's position in Cologne was little short of royal. Indeed, Otto delegated to Bruno and his successors as
archbishop a number of normally royal privileges — the right to build fortifications and set up markets, to
strike coins and collect (and keep) such taxes as the special ones on Jews in return for royal protection, those
on market trading and tolls from traffic along the Rhine. Even though Bruno's successors as archbishops

32
would not be dukes as well, they would be the secular as well as the ecclesiastical rulers of Cologne until
the battle of Worringen three centuries later.
Bruno's court in Cologne was the main intellectual and artistic centre of its period in Germany — far more so
than that of his brother Otto, which was far more peripatetic and militarily oriented. Among
others, Ratherius and Liutprand of Cremona spent time at the court. Many of the next generation of German
ecclesiastical leaders were educated at Bruno's court, like , Gerard bishop of Toul, Wikfrid, bishop of
Verdun, and Theoderic, bishop of Metz.
Bruno's effect on medieval Cologne was immense. Apart from building a palace, he extended
the cathedral to the point where it was regarded as rivalling St Peter's in Rome (this cathedral burned down
in 1248 and was replaced by the current one). He brought the area between the old Roman walls and the
Rhine within the city fortifications; and built new churches to Saint Martin of Tours within this area and
to Saint Andrew just outside the northern city wall and a Benedictine monastery dedicated to St Pantaleon to
the south-west of the city.
Bruno translated St. Patroclus' relics from Troyes and buried them in 964 at St Patrokli Dom in Soest, where
Patroclus is still today venerated.

Pericles
Pericles (/ˈpɛrɪkliːz/; Greek: Περικλῆς; c. 495 – 429 BC) was a Greek politician and general during
the Golden Age of Athens. He was prominent and influential in Athenian politics, particularly between
the Greco-Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War, and was acclaimed by Thucydides, a contemporary
historian, as "the first citizen of Athens".[1] Pericles turned the Delian League into an Athenian empire and
led his countrymen during the first two years of the Peloponnesian War. The period during which he led
Athens, roughly from 461 to 429 BC, is sometimes known as the "Age of Pericles", but the period thus
denoted can include times as early as the Persian Wars or as late as the following century.

33
Pericles promoted the arts and literature, and it is principally through his efforts that Athens acquired the
reputation of being the educational and cultural center of the ancient Greek world. He started an ambitious
project that generated most of the surviving structures on the Acropolis, including the Parthenon. This
project beautified and protected the city, exhibited its glory and gave work to its people. Pericles also
fostered Athenian democracy to such an extent that critics called him a populist. Pericles was descended,
through his mother, from the powerful and historically-influential Alcmaeonid family. He, along with several
members of his family, succumbed to the Plague of Athens in 429 BC, which weakened the city-state during
a protracted conflict with Sparta.

Early life
Pericles was born c. 495 BC, in Athens, Greece. [β] He was the son of the politician Xanthippus, who,
though ostracized in 485–484 BC, returned to Athens to command the Athenian contingent in the Greek
victory at Mycale just five years later. Pericles' mother, Agariste, was a member of the powerful and
controversial noble family of the Alcmaeonidae, and her familial connections played a crucial role in helping
start Xanthippus' political career. Agariste was the great-granddaughter of the tyrant of Sicyon, Cleisthenes,
and the niece of the Athenian reformer Cleisthenes.
According to Herodotus and Plutarch, Agariste dreamed, a few nights before Pericles' birth, that she had
borne a lion. Legends say that Philip II of Macedon had a similar dream before the birth of his
son, Alexander the Great. One interpretation of the dream treats the lion as a traditional symbol of greatness,
but the story may also allude to the unusually large size of Pericles' skull, which became a popular target of
contemporary comedians (who called him "Squill-head", after the squill or sea-onion). Although Plutarch
claims that this deformity was the reason that Pericles was always depicted wearing a helmet, this is not the
case; the helmet was actually the symbol of his official rank as strategos (general).

34
Pericles belonged to the tribe of Acamantis (Ἀκαμαντὶς φυλή). His early years were quiet; the introverted
young Pericles avoided public appearances, instead preferring to devote his time to his studies.
His family's nobility and wealth allowed him to fully pursue his inclination toward education. He learned
music from the masters of the time (Damon or Pythocleides could have been his teacher) and he is
considered to have been the first politician to attribute importance to philosophy.a He enjoyed the company
of the philosophers Protagoras, Zeno of Elea, and Anaxagoras. Anaxagoras, in particular, became a close
friend and influenced him greatly.
Pericles' manner of thought and rhetorical charisma may have possibly been in part products of Anaxagoras'
emphasis on emotional calm in the face of trouble, and skepticism about divine phenomena. His proverbial
calmness and self-control are also often regarded as products of Anaxagoras' influence.

Political Career

Entering Politics

In the spring of 472 BC, Pericles presented The Persians of Aeschylus at the Greater Dionysia as a liturgy,
demonstrating that he was one of the wealthier men of Athens. Simon Hornblower has argued that Pericles'
selection of this play, which presents a nostalgic picture of Themistocles' famous victory at Salamis, shows
that the young politician was supporting Themistocles against his political opponent Cimon, whose faction
succeeded in having Themistocles ostracized shortly afterward.
Plutarch says that Pericles stood first among the Athenians for forty years. If this was so, Pericles must have
taken up a position of leadership by the early 460s BC – in his early or mid-thirties. Throughout these years
he endeavored to protect his privacy and to present himself as a model for his fellow citizens. For example,
he would often avoid banquets, trying to be frugal.
In 463 BC, Pericles was the leading prosecutor of Cimon, the leader of the conservative faction who was
accused of neglecting Athens' vital interests in Macedon. Although Cimon was acquitted, this confrontation
proved that Pericles' major political opponent was vulnerable.

Ostracizing Cimon

Around 461 BC, the leadership of the democratic party decided it was time to take aim at the Areopagus, a
traditional council controlled by the Athenian aristocracy, which had once been the most powerful body in
the state. The leader of the party and mentor of Pericles, Ephialtes, proposed a reduction of the Areopagus'
powers. The Ecclesia (the Athenian Assembly) adopted Ephialtes' proposal without opposition. This reform
signaled the beginning of a new era of "radical democracy".
The democratic party gradually became dominant in Athenian politics, and Pericles seemed willing to follow
a populist policy to cajole the public. According to Aristotle, Pericles' stance can be explained by the fact
that his principal political opponent, Cimon, was both rich and generous, and was able to gain public favor
by lavishly handing out portions of his sizable personal fortune. The historian Loren J. Samons II argues,
however, that Pericles had enough resources to make a political mark by private means, had he so chosen.

35
In 461 BC, Pericles achieved the political elimination of this opponent using ostracism. The accusation was
that Cimon betrayed his city by aiding Sparta.
After Cimon's ostracism, Pericles continued to promote a populist social policy. He first proposed a decree
that permitted the poor to watch theatrical plays without paying, with the state covering the cost of their
admission. With other decrees he lowered the property requirement for the archonship in 458–457 BC and
bestowed generous wages on all citizens who served as jurymen in the Heliaia (the supreme court of Athens)
some time just after 454 BC. His most controversial measure, however, was a law of 451 BC limiting
Athenian citizenship to those of Athenian parentage on both sides.
Such measures impelled Pericles' critics to hold him responsible for the gradual degeneration of the Athenian
democracy. Constantine Paparrigopoulos, a major modern Greek historian, argues that Pericles sought for
the expansion and stabilization of all democratic institutions. Accordingly, he enacted legislation granting the
lower classes access to the political system and the public offices, from which they had previously been
barred
.
According to Samons, Pericles believed that it was necessary to raise the demos, in which he saw an
untapped source of Athenian power and the crucial element of Athenian military dominance. (The fleet,
backbone of Athenian power since the days of Themistocles, was manned almost entirely by members of the
lower classes.
Cimon, in contrast, apparently believed that no further free space for democratic evolution existed. He was
certain that democracy had reached its peak and Pericles' reforms were leading to the stalemate of populism.
According to Paparrigopoulos, history vindicated Cimon, because Athens, after Pericles' death, sank into the
abyss of political turmoil and demagogy. Paparrigopoulos maintains that an unprecedented regression
descended upon the city, whose glory perished as a result of Pericles' populist policies.
According to another historian, Justin Daniel King, radical democracy benefited people individually, but
harmed the state. In contrast, Donald Kagan asserts that the democratic measures Pericles put into effect
provided the basis for an unassailable political strength. After all, Cimon finally accepted the new democracy
and did not oppose the citizenship law, after he returned from exile in 451 BC.

Leading Athens

Ephialtes' murder in 461 BC paved the way for Pericles to consolidate his authority. Without opposition after
the expulsion of Cimon, the unchallengeable leader of the democratic party became the unchallengeable ruler
of Athens. He remained in power until his death in 429 BC.

36
Pericles made his first military excursions during the First Peloponnesian War, which was caused in part by
Athens' alliance with Megara and Argos and the subsequent reaction of Sparta. In 454 BC he
attacked Sicyon and Acarnania. He then unsuccessfully tried to conquer Oeniadea on the Corinthian gulf,
before returning to Athens. In 451 BC, Cimon returned from exile and negotiated a five years' truce with
Sparta after a proposal of Pericles, an event which indicates a shift in Pericles' political strategy. Pericles
may have realized the importance of Cimon's contribution during the ongoing conflicts against the
Peloponnesians and the Persians. Anthony J. Podlecki argues, however, that Pericles' alleged change of
position was invented by ancient writers to support "a tendentious view of Pericles' shiftiness".
Plutarch states that Cimon struck a power-sharing deal with his opponents, according to which Pericles
would carry through the interior affairs and Cimon would be the leader of the Athenian army, campaigning
abroad. If it were actually made, this bargain would constitute a concession on Pericles' part that he was not a
great strategist. Kagan's view is that Cimon adapted himself to the new conditions and promoted a political
marriage between Periclean liberals and Cimonian conservatives.
In the mid-450s the Athenians launched an unsuccessful attempt to aid an Egyptian revolt against Persia,
which led to a prolonged siege of a Persian fortress in the Nile Delta. The campaign culminated in disaster;
the besieging force was defeated and destroyed. In 451–450 BC the Athenians sent troops to Cyprus. Cimon
defeated the Persians in the Battle of Salamis-in-Cyprus, but died of disease in 449 BC. Pericles is said to
have initiated both expeditions in Egypt and Cyprus, although some researchers, such as Karl Julius Beloch,
argue that the dispatch of such a great fleet conforms with the spirit of Cimon's policy.
Complicating the account of this period is the issue of the Peace of Callias, which allegedly ended hostilities
between the Greeks and the Persians. The very existence of the treaty is hotly disputed, and its particulars
and negotiation are ambiguous. Ernst Badian believes that a peace between Athens and Persia was first
ratified in 463 BC (making the Athenian interventions in Egypt and Cyprus violations of the peace), and
renegotiated at the conclusion of the campaign in Cyprus, taking force again by 449–448 BC.
John Fine, in contrast, suggests that the first peace between Athens and Persia was concluded in 450–
449 BC, due to Pericles' calculation that ongoing conflict with Persia was undermining Athens' ability to
spread its influence in Greece and the Aegean. Kagan believes that Pericles used Callias, a brother-in-law of
Cimon, as a symbol of unity and employed him several times to negotiate important agreements.
In the spring of 449 BC, Pericles proposed the Congress Decree, which led to a meeting ("Congress") of all
Greek states to consider the question of rebuilding the temples destroyed by the Persians. The Congress
failed because of Sparta's stance, but Pericles' intentions remain unclear. Some historians think that he
wanted to prompt a confederation with the participation of all the Greek cities; others think he wanted to
assert Athenian pre-eminence. According to the historian Terry Buckley the objective of the Congress
Decree was a new mandate for the Delian League and for the collection of "phoros" (taxes).
During the Second Sacred War Pericles led the Athenian army against Delphi and reinstated Phocis in its
sovereign rights on the oracle In 447 BC Pericles engaged in his most admired excursion, the expulsion of
barbarians from the Thracian peninsula of Gallipoli, to establish Athenian colonists in the region. At this
time, however, Athens was seriously challenged by a number of revolts among its subjects. In 447 BC the
oligarchs of Thebes conspired against the democratic faction. The Athenians demanded their immediate
surrender, but after the Battle of Coronea, Pericles was forced to concede the loss of Boeotia to recover the
prisoners taken in that battle. With Boeotia in hostile hands, Phocis and Locris became untenable and quickly
fell under the control of hostile oligarchs.

37
In 446 BC, a more dangerous uprising erupted. Euboea and Megara revolted. Pericles crossed over to Euboea
with his troops, but was forced to return when the Spartan army invaded Attica. Through bribery and
negotiations, Pericles defused the imminent threat, and the Spartans returned home. When Pericles was later
audited for the handling of public money, an expenditure of 10 talents was not sufficiently justified, since the
official documents just referred that the money was spent for a "very serious purpose". Nonetheless, the
"serious purpose" (namely the bribery) was so obvious to the auditors that they approved the expenditure
without official meddling and without even investigating the mystery.
After the Spartan threat had been removed, Pericles crossed back to Euboea to crush the revolt there. He then
punished the landowners of Chalcis, who lost their properties. The residents of Histiaea, meanwhile, who had
butchered the crew of an Athenian trireme, were uprooted and replaced by 2,000 Athenian settlers. The crisis
was brought to an official end by the Thirty Years' Peace (winter of 446–445 BC), in which Athens
relinquished most of the possessions and interests on the Greek mainland which it had acquired since
460 BC, and both Athens and Sparta agreed not to attempt to win over the other state's allies.

First battle with the conservative

In 444 BC, the conservative and the democratic factions confronted each other in a fierce struggle. The
ambitious new leader of the conservatives, Thucydides (not to be confused with the historian of the same
name), accused Pericles of profligacy, criticizing the way he spent the money for the ongoing building plan.
Thucydides initially managed to incite the passions of the ecclesia regarding these charges in his favor.
However, when Pericles took the floor, his resolute arguments put Thucydides and the conservatives firmly
on the defensive. Finally, Pericles proposed to reimburse the city for all questionable expenses from his
private property, with the proviso that he would make the inscriptions of dedication in his own name. His
stance was greeted with applause, and Thucydides was soundly, if unexpectedly, defeated. In 442 BC, the
Athenian public voted to ostracize Thucydides from the city for 10 years and Pericles was once again the
unchallenged ruler of the Athenian political arena.

Athens rule over its alliance

Pericles wanted to stabilize Athens' dominance over its alliance and to enforce its pre-eminence in Greece.
The process by which the Delian League transformed into an Athenian empire is generally considered to
have begun well before Pericles' time, as various allies in the league chose to pay tribute to Athens instead of
manning ships for the league's fleet, but the transformation was speeded and brought to its conclusion by
Pericles.
The final steps in the shift to empire may have been triggered by Athens' defeat in Egypt, which challenged
the city's dominance in the Aegean and led to the revolt of several allies, such
as Miletus and Erythrae. Either because of a genuine fear for its safety after the defeat in Egypt and the
revolts of the allies, or as a pretext to gain control of the League's finances, Athens transferred the treasury of
the alliance from Delos to Athens in 454–453 BC.
By 450–449 BC the revolts in Miletus and Erythrae were quelled and Athens restored its rule over its
allies. Around 447 BC Clearchus proposed the Coinage Decree, which imposed Athenian silver coinage,
weights and measures on all of the allies. According to one of the decree's most stringent provisions, surplus
from a minting operation was to go into a special fund, and anyone proposing to use it otherwise was subject
to the death penalty.

38
It was from the alliance's treasury that Pericles drew the funds necessary to enable his ambitious building
plan, centered on the "Periclean Acropolis", which included the Propylaea, the Parthenon and the golden
statue of Athena, sculpted by Pericles' friend. In 449 BC Pericles proposed a decree allowing the use of
9,000 talents to finance the major rebuilding program of Athenian temples. Angelos Vlachos, a
Greek Academician, points out the use of the alliance's treasury, initiated and executed by Pericles, as one of
the largest embezzlements in human history; this misappropriation financed, however, some of the most
marvellous artistic creations of the ancient world.

Samian War

The Samian War was one of the last significant military events before the Peloponnesian War. After
Thucydides' ostracism, Pericles was re-elected yearly to the generalship, the only office he ever officially
occupied, although his influence was so great as to make him the de facto ruler of the state. In 440
BC Samos went to war against Miletus over control of Priene, an ancient city of Ionia on the foot-hills
of Mycale. Worsted in the war, the Milesians came to Athens to plead their case against the Samians.
When the Athenians ordered the two sides to stop fighting and submit the case to arbitration in Athens, the
Samians refused. In response, Pericles passed a decree dispatching an expedition to Samos, "alleging against
its people that, although they were ordered to break off their war against the Milesians, they were not
complying".
In a naval battle the Athenians led by Pericles and nine other generals defeated the forces of Samos and
imposed on the island an Athenian administration. When the Samians revolted against Athenian rule,
Pericles compelled the rebels to capitulate after a tough siege of eight months, which resulted in substantial
discontent among the Athenian sailors
. Pericles then quelled a revolt in Byzantium and, when he returned to Athens, gave a funeral oration to
honor the soldiers who died in the expedition.
Between 438 and 436 BC Pericles led Athens' fleet in Pontus and established friendly relations with the
Greek cities of the region. Pericles focused also on internal projects, such as the fortification of Athens (the
building of the "middle wall" about 440 BC), and on the creation of new cleruchies, such
as Andros, Naxos and Thurii (444 BC) as well as Amphipolis (437–436 BC).

Personal Attacks

Pericles and his friends were never immune from attack, as preeminence in democratic Athens was not
equivalent to absolute rule. Just before the eruption of the Peloponnesian War, Pericles and two of his closest
associates, Phidias and his companion, Aspasia, faced a series of personal and judicial attacks.
Phidias, who had been in charge of all building projects, was first accused of embezzling gold meant for the
statue of Athena and then of impiety, because, when he wrought the battle of the Amazons on the shield of

39
Athena, he carved out a figure that suggested himself as a bald old man, and also inserted a very fine likeness
of Pericles fighting with an Amazon.
Aspasia, who was noted for her ability as a conversationalist and adviser, was accused of corrupting the
women of Athens to satisfy Pericles' perversions. The accusations against her were probably nothing more
than unproven slanders, but the whole experience was very bitter for Pericles. Although Aspasia was
acquitted thanks to a rare emotional outburst of Pericles, his friend Phidias died in prison according to
Plutarch; however, he is also credited with the later statue of Zeus at Olympia, therefore this is debated, and
another friend of his, Anaxagoras, was attacked by the ecclesia for his religious beliefs.
Beyond these initial prosecutions, the ecclesia attacked Pericles himself by asking him to justify his
ostensible profligacy with, and maladministration of, public money. According to Plutarch, Pericles was so
afraid of the oncoming trial that he did not let the Athenians yield to the Lacedaemonians. Beloch also
believes that Pericles deliberately brought on the war to protect his political position at home. Thus, at the
start of the Peloponnesian War, Athens found itself in the awkward position of entrusting its future to a
leader whose pre-eminence had just been seriously shaken for the first time in over a decade.

Pericles marked a whole era and inspired conflicting judgments about his significant decisions. The fact that
he was at the same time a vigorous statesman, general and orator only tends to make an objective assessment
of his actions more difficult.

Political Leadership
Some contemporary scholars call Pericles a populist, a demagogue and a hawk, while other scholars admire
his charismatic leadership. According to Plutarch, after assuming the leadership of Athens, "he was no longer
the same man as before, nor alike submissive to the people and ready to yield and give in to the desires of the
multitude as a steersman to the breeze”. It is told that when his political opponent, Thucydides, was asked by
Sparta's king, Archidamus, whether he or Pericles was the better fighter, Thucydides answered without any
hesitation that Pericles was better, because even when he was defeated, he managed to convince the audience
that he had won. In matters of character, Pericles was above reproach in the eyes of the ancient historians,
since "he kept himself untainted by corruption, although he was not altogether indifferent to money-making".
Thucydides (the historian), an admirer of Pericles, maintains that Athens was "in name a democracy but, in
fact, governed by its first citizen”. Through this comment, the historian illustrates what he perceives as
Pericles' charisma to lead, convince and, sometimes, to manipulate. Although Thucydides mentions the
fining of Pericles, he does not mention the accusations against Pericles but instead focuses on Pericles'
integrity. On the other hand, in one of his dialogues, Plato rejects the glorification of Pericles and declares:
"as I know, Pericles made the Athenians slothful, garrulous and avaricious, by starting the system of public
fees". Plutarch mentions other criticism of Pericles' leadership: "many others say that the people were first
led on by him into allotments of public lands, festival-grants, and distributions of fees for public services,
thereby falling into bad habits, and becoming luxurious and wanton under the influence of his public
measures, instead of frugal and self-sufficing".
Thucydides argues that Pericles "was not carried away by the people, but he was the one guiding the
people".His judgement is not unquestioned; some 20th-century critics, such as Malcolm F. McGregor and
John S. Morrison, proposed that he may have been a charismatic public face acting as an advocate on the
proposals of advisors, or the people themselves. According to King, by increasing the power of the people,

40
the Athenians left themselves with no authoritative leader. During the Peloponnesian War, Pericles'
dependence on popular support to govern was obvious.

Military Achievements
For more than 20 years Pericles led many expeditions, mainly naval ones. Being always cautious, he never
undertook of his own accord a battle involving much uncertainty and peril and he did not accede to the "vain
impulses of the citizens". He based his military policy on Themistocles' principle that Athens' predominance
depends on its superior naval power and believed that the Peloponnesians were near-invincible on
land. Pericles also tried to minimize the advantages of Sparta by rebuilding the walls of Athens, which, it has
been suggested, radically altered the use of force in Greek international relations.
During the Peloponnesian War, Pericles initiated a defensive "grand strategy" whose aim was the exhaustion
of the enemy and the preservation of the status quo. According to Platias and Koliopoulos, Athens as the
strongest party did not have to beat Sparta in military terms and "chose to foil the Spartan plan for
victory". The two basic principles of the "Periclean Grand Strategy" were the rejection of appeasement (in
accordance with which he urged the Athenians not to revoke the Megarian Decree) and the avoidance of
overextension. According to Kagan, Pericles' vehement insistence that there should be no diversionary
expeditions may well have resulted from the bitter memory of the Egyptian campaign, which he had
allegedly supported. His strategy is said to have been "inherently unpopular", but Pericles managed to
persuade the Athenian public to follow it. It is for that reason that Hans Delbrück called him one of the
greatest statesmen and military leaders in history. Although his countrymen engaged in several aggressive
actions soon after his death, Platias and Koliopoulos argue that the Athenians remained true to the larger
Periclean strategy of seeking to preserve, not expand, the empire, and did not depart from it until the Sicilian
Expedition. For his part, Ben X. de Wet concludes his strategy would have succeeded had he lived longer.
Critics of Pericles' strategy, however, have been just as numerous as its supporters. A common criticism is
that Pericles was always a better politician and orator than strategist. Donald Kagan called the Periclean
strategy "a form of wishful thinking that failed", Barry S. Strauss and Josiah Ober have stated that "as
strategist he was a failure and deserves a share of the blame for Athens' great defeat", and Victor Davis
Hanson believes that Pericles had not worked out a clear strategy for an effective offensive action that could
possibly force Thebes or Sparta to stop the war. Kagan criticizes the Periclean strategy on four counts: first
that by rejecting minor concessions it brought about war; second, that it was unforeseen by the enemy and
hence lacked credibility; third, that it was too feeble to exploit any opportunities; and fourth, that it depended
on Pericles for its execution and thus was bound to be abandoned after his death. Kagan estimates Pericles'
expenditure on his military strategy in the Peloponnesian War to be about 2,000 talents annually, and based
on this figure concludes that he would have only enough money to keep the war going for three years. He
asserts that since Pericles must have known about these limitations he probably planned for a much shorter
war. Others, such as Donald W. Knight, conclude that the strategy was too defensive and would not succeed.
In contrast, Platias and Koliopoulos reject these criticisms and state that "the Athenians lost the war only
when they dramatically reversed the Periclean grand strategy that explicitly disdained further
conquests". Hanson stresses that the Periclean strategy was not innovative, but could lead to a stagnancy in
favor of Athens. It is a popular conclusion that those succeeding him lacked his abilities and character.

Oratorical Skill

41
A painting by Hector Leroux (1682–1740), which portrays Pericles and Aspasia, admiring the gigantic statue of Athena in Phidias'
studio

Modern commentators of Thucydides, with other modern historians and writers, take varying stances on the
issue of how much of the speeches of Pericles, as given by this historian, do actually represent Pericles' own
words and how much of them is free literary creation or paraphrase by Thucydides. Since Pericles never
wrote down or distributed his orations, no historians are able to answer this with certainty; Thucydides
recreated three of them from memory and, thereby, it cannot be ascertained that he did not add his own
notions and thoughts.
Although Pericles was a main source of his inspiration, some historians have noted that the passionate and
idealistic literary style of the speeches Thucydides attributes to Pericles is completely at odds with
Thucydides' own cold and analytical writing style. This might, however, be the result of the incorporation of
the genre of rhetoric into the genre of historiography. That is to say, Thucydides could simply have used two
different writing styles for two different purposes.
Ioannis Kakridis and Arnold Gomme were two scholars who debated the originality of Pericles' oratory and
last speech. Kakridis believes that Thucydides altered Pericles words. Some of his strongest arguments
included in the Introduction of the speech, (Thuc.11.35. Kakridis proposes that it is impossible to imagine
Pericles deviating away from the expected funeral orator addressing the mourning audience of 430 after the
Peloponnesian war. The two groups addressed were the ones who were prepared to believe him when he
praised the dead, and the ones who did not. Gomme rejects Kakridis's position, defending the fact that
"Nobody of men has ever been so conscious of envy and its workings as the Greeks, and that the Greeks and
Thucydides in particular had a passion for covering all ground in their generalizations, not always relevantly.
Kagan states that Pericles adopted "an elevated mode of speech, free from the vulgar and knavish tricks of
mob-orators" and, according to Diodorus Siculus, he "excelled all his fellow citizens in skill of
oratory". According to Plutarch, he avoided using gimmicks in his speeches, unlike the
passionate Demosthenes, and always spoke in a calm and tranquil manner. The biographer points out,
however, that the poet Ion reported that Pericles' speaking style was "a presumptuous and somewhat arrogant
manner of address, and that into his haughtiness there entered a good deal of disdain and contempt for
others".
Gorgias, in Plato's homonymous dialogue, uses Pericles as an example of powerful oratory. In Menexenus,
however, Socrates (through Plato) casts aspersions on Pericles' rhetorical fame, claiming ironically that,
since Pericles was educated by Aspasia, a trainer of many orators, he would be superior in rhetoric to
someone educated by Antiphon. He also attributes authorship of the Funeral Oration to Aspasia and attacks
his contemporaries' veneration of Pericles.

42
Sir Richard C. Jebb concludes that "unique as an Athenian statesman, Pericles must have been in two
respects unique also as an Athenian orator; first, because he occupied such a position of personal ascendancy
as no man before or after him attained; secondly, because his thoughts and his moral force won him such
renown for eloquence as no one else ever got from Athenians”.
Ancient Greek writers call Pericles "Olympian" and extol his talents; referring to him "thundering and
lightning and exciting Greece" and carrying the weapons of Zeus when orating. According to Quintilian,
Pericles would always prepare assiduously for his orations and, before going on the rostrum, he would
always pray to the gods, so as not to utter any improper word.

Pericles and the city gods

Nothing was more alien to the Greeks than the notion of a Separation between church and state. In Athens,
the community provided a tight framework for religious manifestations while, symmetrically, religion was
deeply embedded in civic life. Within this context, participation in the rituals was an action highly political
in the broadest sense of the term.
To analyze Pericles's relations with gods, one has to position oneself at the intersection of the general and the
particular, where what was personal and what was shared by the whole community came together. On the
one hand, the career of the strategos will illuminate the Athenians' collective relationship to all that was
divine. As a reelected strategos and a persuasive orator, Pericles was the spokesman of a civic religion that
was undergoing a mutation. He was implicated in a policy of making constant offerings and of launching
huge architectural religious works not only on the Acropolis but also throughout Attica; and, furthermore, he
was engaged in such activities at a time when city was introducing profound changes into its religious
account of its origins—that is, autochthony—within a context of strained diplomatic relations..
On the other hand, the ancient sources made it possible to glimpse the personal relations that Pericles had
developed with gods. These were relations of proximity in the first place: he was sometimes depicted as a
protégé of goddess Athena, but in Attic comedies he was also assimilated to god Zeus, in an analogy that was
in no way flattering. But then, there were also relations that emphasized distance: some philosophical
accounts presented him as a man close to the sophists or even as a freethinker. Finally, there were relations
involving irreverence: some later and less trustworthy sources made much of several trials for impiety in
which those close to him were involved, and this raises the question of religious tolerance in fifth-century
Athens and, in particular, how far individuals enjoyed freedom of thought when faced with the civic
community
.
Legacy

Pericles' most visible legacy can be found in the literary and artistic works of the Golden Age, much of
which survive to this day. The Acropolis, though in ruins, still stands and is a symbol of modern Athens.
Paparrigopoulos wrote that these masterpieces are "sufficient to render the name of Greece immortal in our
world”.In politics, Victor L. Ehrenberg argues that a basic element of Pericles' legacy is Athenian
imperialism, which denies true democracy and freedom to the people of all but the ruling state. The
promotion of such an arrogant imperialism is said to have ruined Athens. Pericles and his "expansionary"
policies have been at the center of arguments promoting democracy in oppressed countries.Other analysts
maintain an Athenian humanism illustrated in the Golden Age. The freedom of expression is regarded as the

43
lasting legacy deriving from this period. Pericles is lauded as "the ideal type of the perfect statesman in
ancient Greece" and his Funeral Oration is nowadays synonymous with the struggle for participatory
democracy and civic pride.
In 1932, botanist Albert Charles Smith published Periclesia, a monotypic genus of flowering
plants from Ecuador belonging to the family Ericaceae and named after Pericles.

The Acropolis at Athens (1846) by Leo von Klenze

Nebuchadnezzar II

Nebuchadnezzar II, also spelled Nebuchadrezzar II, was the second king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire,
ruling from the death of his father Nabopolassar in 605 BC to his own death in 562 BC. Historically known
as Nebuchadnezzar the Great, he is typically regarded as the empire's greatest king. Nebuchadnezzar
remains famous for his military campaigns in the Levant, for his construction projects in his
capital, Babylon, and for the important part he played in Jewish history. Ruling for 43 years,
Nebuchadnezzar was the longest-reigning king of the Chaldean dynasty. At the time of his death,
Nebuchadnezzar was among the most powerful rulers in the world.

44
Possibly named after his grandfather of the same name, or after Nebuchadnezzar I (r. c. 1125–1104 BC), one
of Babylon's greatest ancient warrior-kings, Nebuchadnezzar II already secured renown for himself during
his father's reign, leading armies in the Medo-Babylonian war against the Assyrian Empire. At the Battle of
Carchemish in 605 BC, Nebuchadnezzar inflicted a crushing defeat on an Egyptian army led by
Pharaoh Necho II, and ensured that the Neo-Babylonian Empire would succeed the Neo-Assyrian Empire as
the dominant power in the ancient Near East. Shortly after this victory, Nabopolassar died and
Nebuchadnezzar became king. Despite his successful military career during his father's reign, the first third
or so of Nebuchadnezzar's reign saw little to no major military achievements, and notably a disastrous failure
in an attempted invasion of Egypt. These years of lacklustre military performance saw some of Babylon's
vassals, particularly in the Levant, beginning to doubt Babylon's power, viewing the Neo-Babylonian Empire
as a "paper tiger" rather than a power truly on the level of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. The situation grew so
severe that people in Babylonia itself began disobeying the king, some going as far as to revolt against
Nebuchadnezzar's rule.
After this disappointing early period as king, Nebuchadnezzar's luck turned. In the 580s BC,
Nebuchadnezzar engaged in a successful string of military actions in the Levant against the vassal states in
rebellion there, likely with the ultimate intent of curbing Egyptian influence in the region. In 587 BC,
Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the Kingdom of Judah, and its capital, Jerusalem. The destruction of
Jerusalem led to the Babylonian captivity as the city's population, and people from the surrounding lands,
were deported to Babylonia. The Jews thereafter referred to Nebuchadnezzar, the greatest enemy they had
faced until that point, as a "destroyer of nations". The biblical Book of Jeremiah paints Nebuchadnezzar as a
cruel enemy, but also as God's appointed ruler of the world and a divine instrument to punish disobedience.
Through the destruction of Jerusalem, the capture of the rebellious Phoenician city of Tyre, and other

45
campaigns in the Levant, Nebuchadnezzar completed the Neo-Babylonian Empire's transformation into the
new great power of the ancient Near East.
In addition to his military campaigns, Nebuchadnezzar is remembered as a great builder-king. The prosperity
ensured by his wars allowed Nebuchadnezzar to conduct great building projects in Babylon, and elsewhere
in Mesopotamia. The modern image of Babylon is largely of the city as it was after Nebuchadnezzar's
projects, during which he, among other work, rebuilt many of the city's religious buildings, including
the Esagila and Etemenanki, repaired its current palace and constructed a brand new palace, and beautified
its ceremonial centre through renovations to the city's Processional Street and the Ishtar Gate. As most of
Nebuchadnezzar's inscriptions deal with his building projects, rather than military accomplishments, he was
for a time seen by historians mostly as a builder, rather than a warrior.

Ancestry and early life

Nebuchadnezzar was the eldest son of Nabopolassar (r. 626–605 BC), the founder of the Neo-Babylonian
Empire. This is confirmed by Nabopolassar's inscriptions, which explicitly name Nebuchadnezzar as his
"eldest son", as well as inscriptions from Nebuchadnezzar's reign, which refer to him as the "first" or "chief
son" of Nabopolassar, and as Nabopolassar's "true" or "legitimate heir".The Neo-Babylonian Empire was
founded through Nabopolassar's rebellion, and later war, against the Neo-Assyrian Empire, which
liberated Babylonia after nearly a century of Assyrian control. The war resulted in the complete destruction
of Assyria, and the Neo-Babylonian Empire, which rose in its place, was powerful, but hastily built and
politically unstable.
As Nabopolassar never clarified his ancestry in lineage in any of his inscriptions, his origin is not entirely
clear. Subsequent historians have variously identified Nabopolassar as a Chaldean, an Assyrian or
a Babylonian. Although no evidence conclusively confirms him as being of Chaldean origin, the term
"Chaldean dynasty" is frequently used by modern historians for the royal family he founded, and the term
"Chaldean Empire" remains in use as an alternate historiographical name for the Neo-Babylonian Empire.
Nabopolassar appears to, regardless of his ethnic origin, have been strongly connected to the city
of Uruk located south of Babylon. It is possible that he was a member of its ruling elite before becoming
king and there is a growing body of evidence that Nabopolassar's family originated in Uruk, for instance that
Nebuchadnezzar's daughters lived in the city. In 2007, Michael Jursa advanced the theory that Nabopolassar
was a member of a prominent political family in Uruk, whose members are attested since the reign
of Esarhaddon (r. 681–669 BC). To support his theory, Jursa pointed to how documents describe how the
grave and body of "Kudurru", a deceased governor of Uruk, was desecrated due to the anti-Assyrian
activities of Kudurru's two sons, Nabu-shumu-ukin and a son whose name is mostly missing. The
desecration went so far as to drag Kudurru's body through the streets of Uruk. Kudurru can be identified
with Nebuchadnezzar (Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, "Kudurru" simply being a common and shortened nickname), a
prominent official in Uruk who served as its governor under the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (r. 669–631
BC) in the 640s BC. In Assyrian tradition, the desecration of a dead body showed that the deceased
individual and their surviving family were traitors and enemies of the state, and that they had to be
completely eradicated, serving to punish them even after death. The name of the son whose name is
unpreserved in the letter ended with either ahi, nâsir or uṣur, and the remaining traces can fit with the
name Nabû-apla-uṣur, meaning that Nabopolassar could be the other son mentioned in the letter and thus a
son of Kudurru.
Strengthening this connection is that Nebuchadnezzar II is attested very early during his father's reign, from
626/625 to 617 BC, as high priest of the Eanna temple in Uruk, where he is often attested under the
nickname "Kudurru". Nebuchadnezzar must have been made high priest at a very young age, considering
that his year of death, 562 BC, is 64 years after 626 BC. The original Kudurru's second son, Nabu-shumu-

46
ukin, also appears to be attested as a prominent general under Nabopolassar, and the name was also used by
Nebuchadnezzar II for one of his sons, possibly honoring his dead uncle.

Nebuchadnezzar as crown prince

The Battle of Carchemish, as depicted in Hutchinson's Story of the Nations (1900)

Nebuchadnezzar's military career began in the reign of his father, though little information survives. Based
on a letter sent to the temple administration of the Eanna temple, it appears that Nebuchadnezzar participated
in his father's campaign to take the city of Harran in 610 BCl. Harran was the seat of Ashur-uballit II, who
had rallied what remained of the Assyrian army and ruled what was left of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. The
Babylonian victory in the Harran campaign, and the defeat of Ashur-uballit, in 609 BC marked the end of the
ancient Assyrian monarchy, which would never be restored. According to the Babylonian Chronicle,
Nebuchadnezzar also commanded an army in an unspecified mountainous region for several months in 607
BC.
In the war against the Babylonians and Medes, Assyria had allied with Pharaoh Psamtik I of Egypt, who had
been interested in ensuring Assyria's survival so that Assyria could remain as a buffer state between his own
kingdom and the Babylonian and Median kingdoms. After the fall of Harran, Psamtik's successor,
Pharaoh Necho II, personally led a large army into former Assyrian lands to turn the tide of the war and
restore the Neo-Assyrian Empire, even though it was more or less a lost cause as Assyria had already
collapsed. As Nabopolassar was occupied with fighting the Kingdom of Urartu in the north, the Egyptians
took control of the Levant largely unopposed, capturing territories as far north as the city of Carchemish in
Syria, where Necho established his base of operations.
Nebuchadnezzar's greatest victory from his time as crown prince came at the Battle of Carchemish in 605
BC, which put an end to Necho's campaign in the Levant by inflicting a crushing defeat on the
Egyptians. Nebuchadnezzar had been the sole commander of the Babylonian army at this battle as his father
had chosen to stay in Babylon, perhaps on account of illness. Necho's forces were completely annihilated by
Nebuchadnezzar's army, with Babylonian sources claiming that not a single Egyptian escaped alive. The
account of the battle in the Babylonian Chronicle reads as follows :

The king of Akkad stayed home (while) Nebuchadnezzar, his eldest son (and) crown prince
mustered [the army of Akkad]. He took his army's lead and marched to Carchemish, which is on the
bank of the Euphrates. He crossed the river at Carchemish. [...] They did battle together. The army
of Egypt retreated before him. He inflicted a [defeat] upon them (and) finished them off completely.

47
In the district of Hamath the army of Akkad overtook the remainder of the army of [Egypt which]
managed to escape [from] the defeat and which was not overcome. They inflicted a defeat upon
them (so that) a single (Egyptian) man [did not return] home. At that time Nebuchadnezzar
conquered all of Ha[ma]th.

The story of Nebuchadnezzar's victory at Carchemish reverberated through history, appearing in many later
ancient accounts, including in the Book of Jeremiah and the Books of Kings in the Bible. It is possible to
conclude, based on subsequent geopolitics, that the victory resulted in all of Syria and Palestine coming
under the control of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, a feat which the Assyrians under Tiglath-Pileser
III (r. 745–727 BC) only accomplished after five years of protracted military campaigns. The defeat of Egypt
at Carchemish ensured that the Neo-Babylonian Empire would grow to become the major power of the
ancient Near East, and the uncontested successor of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. .

Accession to the throne

Clay cylinder of Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar's father and predecessor, from Babylon

Nabopolassar died just a few weeks after Nebuchadnezzar's victory at Carchemish. At this point in time,
Nebuchadnezzar was still away on his campaign against the Egyptians, having chased the retreating Egyptian
forces to the region around the city of Hamath. The news of Nabopolassar's death reached Nebuchadnezzar's
camp on 8 Abu (late July), and Nebuchadnezzar quickly arranged affairs with the Egyptians and rushed back
to Babylon where he was proclaimed king on 1 Ulūlu (mid-August). The speed in which Nebuchadnezzar
returned to Babylon might be due to the threat that one of his brothers (two are known by name: Nabu-shum-
lishir and Nabu-zer-ushabshi) could claim the throne in his absence. Though Nebuchadnezzar had been
recognised as the eldest son and heir by Nabopolassar, Nabu-shum-lishir, Nabopolassar's second-born
son, had been recognised as "his equal brother", a dangerously vague title. Despite these possible fears, there
were no attempts made at usurping his throne at this time.
One of Nebuchadnezzar's first acts as king was to bury his father. Nabopolassar was laid in a huge coffin,
adorned with ornamented gold plates and fine dresses with golden beads, which was then placed within a
small palace he had constructed in Babylon. Shortly thereafter, before the end of the month in which he had
been crowned, Nebuchadnezzar returned to Syria to resume his campaign. The Babylonian Chronicle records
that "he marched about victoriously" (meaning that he faced little to no resistance), returning to Babylon
after several months of campaigning. The Syrian campaign, though it resulted in a certain amount of plunder,
was not a complete success in that it did not ensure Nebuchadnezzar's grasp on the region. He had seemingly
failed to inspire fear, given that none of the westernmost states in the Levant swore fealty to him and paid
tribute.

48
Early military campaigns

Map of the Neo-Babylonian Empire under Nebuchadnezzar

Though little information survives concerning them, the Babylonian Chronicle preserves brief accounts of
Nebuchadnezzar's military activities in his first eleven years as king. In 604 BC, Nebuchadnezzar
campaigned in the Levant once again, conquering the city of Ashkelon. According to the Babylonian
Chronicle, Ashkelon's king was captured and taken to Babylon, and the city was plundered and levelled to
the ground. Modern excavations at Ashkelon have confirmed that the city was more or less destroyed at this
point in time. The Ashkelon campaign was preceded by a campaign in Syria, which was more successful
than Nebuchadnezzar's first, resulting in oaths of fealty from the rulers of Phoenicia.
In 603 BC, Nebuchadnezzar campaigned in a land whose name is not preserved in the surviving copy of the
chronicle. The chronicle records that this campaign was extensive, given that the account mentions the
construction of large siege towers and a siege of a city, the name of which does not survive either. Anson
Rainey speculated in 1975 that the city taken was Gaza, whereas Nadav Na'aman thought in 1992 that it
was Kummuh in south-eastern Anatolia. In the second half of the 5th century BC, some documents
mentioned the towns Isqalanu (the name derived from Ashkelon) and Hazzatu (the name possibly derived
from Gaza) near the city of Nippur, indicating that deportees from both of these cities lived near Nippur, and
as such possibly that they had been captured at around the same time.
In both 602 BC and 601 BC, Nebuchadnezzar campaigned in the Levant, though little information survives
beyond that a "vast" amount of booty was brought from the Levant to Babylonia in 602 BC. On account of
the entry for 602 BC also referring to Nabu-shum-lishir, Nebuchadnezzar's younger brother, in a fragmentary
and unclear context, it is possible that Nabu-shum-lishir led a revolt against his brother in an attempt to usurp
the throne in that year, especially since he is no longer mentioned in any sources after 602 BC. The damage
to the text however makes this idea speculative and conjectural.

49
Statue probably depicting Pharaoh Necho II of Egypt, who was defeated at Carchemish by Nebuchadnezzar
in 605 BC, but fought off Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Egypt in 601 BC

In the 601 BC campaign, Nebuchadnezzar departed from the Levant and then marched into Egypt. Despite
the defeat at Carchemish in 605 BC, Egypt still had a great amount of influence in the Levant, even though
the region was ostensibly under Babylonian rule. Thus, a campaign against Egypt was logical in order to
assert Babylonian dominance, and also carried enormous economic and propagandistic benefits, but it was
also risky and ambitious. The path into Egypt was difficult, and the lack of secure control of either side of
the Sinai Desert could spell disaster. Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Egypt did fail–the Babylonian Chronicle
states that both the Egyptian and Babylonian armies suffered a huge number of casualties. Though Egypt was
not conquered, the campaign did result in momentarily
curbing Egyptian interest in the Levant, given that Necho II gave up his ambitions in the region. In 599 BC,
Nebuchadnezzar marched his army into the Levant and then attacked and raided the Arabs in the Syrian
desert. Though apparently successful, it is unclear what the achievements gained in this campaign were.
In 598 BC, Nebuchadnezzar campaigned against the Kingdom of Judah, succeeding in capturing the city
of Jerusalem. Judah represented a prime target of Babylonian attention given that it was at the epicenter of
competition between Babylon and Egypt. By 601 BC, Judah's king, Jehoiakim, had begun to openly
challenge Babylonian authority, counting on that Egypt would lend support to his cause. Nebuchadnezzar's
first, 598–597 BC, assault on Jerusalem is recorded in the Bible, but also in the Babylonian
Chroniclel, which describes it as follows:

The seventh year [of Nebuchadnezzar], in the month of Kislimu, the king of Akkad mustered his
troops, marched to the Levant, and set up quarters facing the city of Judah [Jerusalem]. In the month
of Addaru [early in 597 BC], the second day, he took the city and captured the king. He installed
there a king of his choice. He colle[cted] its massive tribute and went back to Babylon.

50
Jehoiakim had died during Nebuchadnezzar's siege and been replaced by his son, Jeconiah, who was
captured and taken to Babylon, with his uncle Zedekiah installed in his place as king of Judah. Jeconiah is
recorded as being alive in Babylonia thereafter, with records as late as 592 or 591 BC listing him among the
recipients of food at Nebuchadnezzar's palace and still referring to him as the 'king of the land of Judah'.
In 597 BC, the Babylonian army departed for the Levant again, but appears to not have engaged in any
military activities as they turned back immediately after reaching the Euphrates. The following year,
Nebuchadnezzar marched his army along the Tigris river to do battle with the Elamites, but no actual battle
happened as the Elamites retreated out of fear once Nebuchadnezzar was a day's march away. In 595 BC,
Nebuchadnezzar stayed at home in Babylon but soon had to face a rebellion against his rule there, though he
defeated the rebels, with the chronicle stating that the king "put his large army to the sword and conquered
his foe." Shortly thereafter, Nebuchadnezzar again campaigned in the Levant and secured large amounts of
tribute. In the last year recorded in the chronicle, 594 BC, Nebuchadnezzar campaigned in the Levant yet
again.
There were several years without any noteworthy military activity at all. Notably, Nebuchadnezzar spent all
of 600 BC in Babylon, when the chronicle excuses the king by stating that he stayed in Babylon to "refit his
numerous horses and chariotry". Some of the years when Nebuchadnezzar was victorious can also hardly be
considered real challenges. Raiding the Arabs in 599 BC was not a major military accomplishment and the
victory over Judah and the retreat of the Elamites were not secured on the battlefield. It thus appears that
Nebuchadnezzar achieved little military success after the failure of his invasion of Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar's
poor military record had dangerous geopolitical consequences. If the biblical record is to be believed, in
Zedekiah's fourth year as king of Judah (594 BC), the kings of Ammon, Edom, Moab, Sidon and Tyre met in
Jerusalem to deal with the possibility of throwing off Babylonian control. Evidence that Babylonian control
was beginning to unravel is also clear from contemporary Babylonian records, such as the aforementioned
rebellion in Babylonia itself, as well as records of a man being executed in 594 BC at Borspippa for
"breaking his oath
to the king". The oath-breaking was serious enough that the judge in the trial was Nebuchadnezzar himself. It
is also possible that Babylonian–Median relations were becoming strained, with records of a "Median
defector" being housed in Nebuchadnezzar's palace and some inscriptions indicating that the Medes were
beginning to be seen as "enemies". By 594 BC, the failure of the Egyptian invasion, and the lacklustre state
of Nebuchadnezzar's other campaigns, loomed high. According to the Assyriologist Israel Ephʿal, Babylon at
this time was seen by its contemporaries more like a "paper tiger" (i. e. an ineffectual threat) than a great
empire, like Assyria just a few decades prior.
Destruction of Jerusalem

19th or 20th century painting by James Tissot depicting the Babylonian forces destroying Jerusalem

51
From his appointment as king of Judah, Zedekiah waited for the opportune moment to throw off Babylonian
control. After Pharaoh Necho II's death in 595 BC, Egyptian intervention in affairs in the Levant increased
once again under his successors, Psamtik II (r. 595–589 BC) and Apries (r. 589–570 BC), who both worked
to encourage anti-Babylonian rebellions. It is possible that the Babylonian failure to invade Egypt in 601 BC
helped inspire revolts against the Babylonian Empire. The outcome of these efforts was Zedekiah's open
revolt against Nebuchadnezzar's authority. Unfortunately, no cuneiform sources are preserved from this time
and the only known account of the fall of Judah is the biblical account.

The destruction of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Babylonian captivity, as depicted in an early 20th-
century Bible illustration

In 589 BC, Zedekiah refused to pay tribute to Nebuchadnezzar, and he was closely followed in this
by Ithobaal III, the king of Tyre. In response to Zedekiah's uprising, Nebuchadnezzar conquered and
destroyed the Kingdom of Judah in 586 BC, one of the great achievements of his reign. The campaign, which
probably ended in the summer of 586 BC, resulted in the plunder and destruction of the city of Jerusalem, a
permanent end to Judah, and it led to the Babylonian captivity, as the Jews were captured and deported to
Babylonia. Archaeological excavations confirm that Jerusalem and the surrounding area was destroyed and
depopulated. It is possible that the intensity of the destruction carried out by Nebuchadnezzar at Jerusalem
and elsewhere in the Levant was due to the implementation of something akin to a scorched earth-policy,
aimed at stopping Egypt from gaining a foothold there.
Some Jewish administration was allowed to remain in the region under the governor Gedaliah, governing
from Mizpah under close Babylonian monitoring. According to the Bible, and the 1st-century AD Jewish
historian Flavius Josephus, Zedekiah attempted to flee after resisting the Babylonians, but was captured
at Jericho and suffered a terrible fate. According to the narrative, Nebuchadnezzar wanted to make an
example out of him given that Zedekiah was not an ordinary vassal, but a vassal directly appointed by
Nebuchadnezzar. As such, Zedekiah was supposedly taken to Riblah in northern Syria, where he had to
watch his sons being executed before having his eyes gouged out and sent to be imprisoned in Babylon.
Per the Books of Kings in the Bible, the campaign against Judah was longer than typical Mesopotamian
wars, with the siege of Jerusalem lasting 18–30 months (depending on the calculation), rather than the
typical length of less than a year. Whether the unusual length of the siege indicates that the Babylonian army
was weak, unable to break into the city for more than a year, or that Nebuchadnezzar by this time had

52
succeeded in stabilising his rule in Babylonia and could thus wage war patiently without being pressured by
time to escalate the siege, is not certain.
Later military campaigns

Tyre besieged by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon by Stanley Llewellyn Wood (1915)

It is possible that the Egyptians took advantage of the Babylonians being preoccupied with besieging
Jerusalem. Herodotus describes Pharaoh Apries as campaigning in the Levant, taking the city of Sidon and
fighting the Tyrians, which indicates a renewed Egyptian invasion of the Levant. Apries is unlikely to have
been as successful as Herodotus describes, given that it is unclear how the Egyptian navy would have
defeated the superior navies of the Phoenician cities, and even if some cities had been taken, they must have
shortly thereafter fallen into Babylonian hands again. Tyre had rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar at around
the same time as Judah, and Nebuchadnezzar moved to retake the city after his successful subduing of the
Jews.
The biblical Book of Ezekiel describes Tyre in 571 BC as if it had been recently captured by the Babylonian
army. The supposed length of the siege, 13 years. is only given by Flavius Josephus, and is subject to debate
among modern scholars. Josephus's account of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is obviously not entirely historic, as
he describes Nebuchadnezzar as, five years after the destruction of Jerusalem, invading Egypt, capturing the
Pharaoh and appointing another Pharaoh in his place. Josephus states that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre in
the seventh year of "his" reign, though it is unclear whether "his" in this context refers to Nebuchadnezzar or
to Ithobaal III of Tyre. If it refers to Nebuchadnezzar, a siege begun in 598 BC and lasting for thirteen years,
later simultaneously with the siege of Jerusalem, is unlikely to have gone unmentioned in Babylonian
records. If the seventh year of Ithobaal is intended, the beginning of the siege may conjecturally be placed
after Jerusalem's fall. If the siege lasting 13 years is taken at face value, the siege would then not have ended
before 573 or 572 BC. The supposed length of the siege can be ascribed to the difficulty in besieging the

53
city: Tyre was located on an island 800 metres from the coast, and could not be taken without naval support.
Though the city withstood numerous sieges, it would not be captured until Alexander the Great's siege in 332
BC.
In the end, the siege was resolved without a need of battle and did not result in the Tyre being conquered. . It
seems Tyre's king and Nebuchadnezzar came to an agreement for Tyre to continue to be ruled by vassal
kings, though probably under heavier Babylonian control than before. Documents from Tyre near the end of
Nebuchadnezzar's reign demonstrate that the city had become a centre for Babylonian military affairs in the
region. According to later Jewish tradition, it is possible that Ithobaal III was deposed and taken as a prisoner
to Babylon, with another king, Baal II, proclaimed by Nebuchadnezzar in his place.
It is possible that Nebuchadnezzar campaigned against Egypt in 568 BC, given that a fragmentary
Babylonian inscription, given the modern designation BM 33041, from that year records the word "Egypt" as
well as possibly traces of the name "Amasis" (the name of the then incumbent Pharaoh, Amasis II, r. 570–
526 BC). A stele of Amasis, also fragmentary, may also describe a combined naval and land attack by the
Babylonians. The evidence for this campaign is scant however, and the readings of the relevant inscriptions
are not certain. If Nebuchadnezzar did campaign against Egypt again, he was unsuccessful again, given that
Egypt did not come under Babylonian rule.
Nebuchadnezzar's campaigns in the Levant, most notably those directed towards Jerusalem and Tyre,
completed the Neo-Babylonian Empire's transformation from a rump state of the Neo-Assyrian Empire to the
new dominant power of the ancient Near East. Still, Nebuchadnezzar's military accomplishments can be
questioned, given that the borders of his empire, by the end of his reign, had not noticeably increased in size
and that he had not managed to conquer Egypt. Even after a reign of several decades, Nebuchadnezzar's
greatest victory

remained his victory over the Egyptians at Carchemish in 605 BC, before he even became king.
Building projects

Babylon's Ishtar Gate, restored and beautified in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar

The Babylonian king was traditionally a builder and restorer, and as such large-scale building projects were
important as a legitimizing factor for Babylonian rulers. Nebuchadnezzar extensively expanded and rebuilt
his capital city of Babylon and the most modern historical and archaeological interpretations of the city
reflect it as it appeared after Nebuchadnezzar's construction projects. The projects were made possible
through the prospering economy during Nebuchadnezzar's reign, sustained by his conquests. His building
inscriptions record work done to numerous temples, notably the restoration of the Esagila, the main temple

54
of Babylon's national deity Marduk, and the completion of the Etemenanki, a great ziggurat dedicated to
Marduk.

City plan of Babylon, showcasing the locations of major points of interest. The outer walls and the northern
Summer Palace are not shown.

Extensive work was also conducted on civil and military structures. Among the most impressive efforts was
the work done surrounding the city's northern ceremonial entrance, the Ishtar Gate. These projects included
restoration work on the South Palace, inside the city walls, the construction of a completely new North
Palace, on the other side of the walls facing the gate, as well as the restoration of Babylon's Processional
Street, which led through the gate, and of the gate itself. The ruins of Nebuchadnezzar's North Palace are
poorly preserved and as such its structure and appearance are not entirely understood. Nebuchadnezzar also
constructed a third palace, the Summer Palace, built some distance north of the inner city walls in the
northernmost corner of the outer walls.
The restored Ishtar Gate was decorated with blue and yellow glazed bricks and depictions of bulls (symbols
of the god Adad) and dragons (symbols of the god Marduk). Similar bricks were used for the walls
surrounding the Processional Street, which also featured depictions of lions (symbols of the goddess
Ishtar). Babylon's Processional Street, the only such street yet excavated in Mesopotamia, ran along the
eastern walls of the South Palace and exited the inner city walls at the Ishtar Gate, running past the North
Palace. To the south, this street went by the Etemenanki, turning to the west and going over a bridge
constructed either under the reign of Nabopolassar or Nebuchadnezzar. Some of the bricks of the
Processional Street bear the name of the Neo-Assyrian king Sennacherib (r. 705–681 BC) on their underside,
perhaps indicating that construction of the street had begun already during his reign, but the fact that the
upper side of the bricks all bear the
Kish, but left the walls of southern cities, such as Ur and Uruk, as they werel. Nebuchadnezzar also began
work on the Royal Canal, also known as Nebuchadnezzar's Canal, a great canal linking the Euphrates to the
Tigris which in time completely transformed the agriculture of the region, but the structure was not
completed until the reign of Nabonidus, who ruled as the last king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire from 556
to 539 BC.

Death and succession

Nebuchadnezzar died at Babylon in 562 BC. The last known tablet dated to Nebuchadnezzar's reign, from
Uruk, is dated to the same day, 7 October, as the first known tablet of his successor, Amel-Marduk, from

55
Sippar. Amel-Marduk's administrative duties probably began before he became king, during the last few
weeks or months of his father's reign when Nebuchadnezzar was ill and dying. Having ruled for 43 years,
Nebuchadnezzar's reign was the longest of his dynasty and he would be remembered favourably by the
Babylonians.
Amel-Marduk's accession does not appear to have gone smoothly. Amel-Marduk was not the eldest living
son of Nebuchadnezzar and the reason why he was picked as crown prince is not known. The choice is
especially strange given that some sources suggest that the relationship between Nebuchadnezzar and Amel-
Marduk was particularly poor, with one surviving text describing both as parties in some form of conspiracy
and accusing one of them (the text is too fragmentary to determine which one) of failing in the most
important duties of Babylonian kingship through exploiting Babylon's populace and desecrating its
temples. Amel-Marduk also at one point appears to have been imprisoned by his father, possibly on account
of the Babylonian aristocracy having proclaimed him as king while Nebuchadnezzar was away. It is possible
that Nebuchadnezzar intended to replace Amel-Marduk as heir with another son, but died before doing so.
In one of Nebuchadnezzar's late inscriptions, written more than forty years into his reign, he wrote that he
had been chosen for the kingship by the gods before he was even born. Mesopotamian rulers typically only
stressed divine legitimacy in this fashion when their actual legitimacy was questionable, a method often
employed by usurpers. Given that Nebuchadnezzar at this point had been king for several decades and was
the legitimate heir of his predecessor, the inscription is very strange, unless it was intended to help legitimize
Nebuchadnezzar's successor, Amel-Marduk, who as a younger son and a former conspirator could be seen as
politically problematic.

56