3 1822024687444 presented to the UNIVERSITY LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO by the Estate of Mrs. Anne Fisher Social Sciences & Humanities Library University of California, San Diego Please Note: This item is subject to recall. Date Due MAY 3 1 200C Cl 39 (S&7) UCSD Lib. 3 1822 02468 7444 THE WORLDS^ GREAT CLASSICS * IM " " , PAGE PORTRAITS OF GREAT- AVTHOR5 CLARENCE COOK ART EDITOR. es THE-COLONIAL-PRE55- -NEW-YORK ^MDCCCXQX- UL ORGE RAWLMSON, M.A., F.R.GS. non of Canterbury and Camden Professor of Ancient History df the l'ni:-trsity cf Oxford.} 'ig from 3 rttttit I ANCIENT HISTORY FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE FALL OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE COMPRISING THE HISTORY OF CHALD^A, ASSYRIA, MEDIA, BABYLONIA, LYDIA, PHOENICIA, SYRIA, JUD>A, EGYPT, CARTHAGE, PERSIA. GREECE, MACEDONIA, PARTH1A, AND ROME BY GEORGE (PA WLINSQN, MA F.R.G.S. CAMDKN PROFESSOR OP ANCIE.VT HISTORY AT UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD REVISED EDITION WITH A SPECIAL INTRODUCTION BY WILLIAM F. MCDOWELL, S.T.D., PH.D. CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DENVER COPYRIGHT, 1899, BY THE COLONIAL PRESS. THE WORLD'S GREAT CLASSICS INTRODUCTION TO THE SERIES. IN annotating the Biblical text, concerning the " making of many books," a fourteenth century commentator declared most positively that the only books which might be read without harmful results are " the bokis of hooli scripture " and " other bokis that ben needful to the understanding of hooli scripture." Solomon and our mediaeval sage would scarcely have cause to reverse their opinion if they had to pass judgment on the bulk of modern publications. To-day superficiality and sensation reign supreme, and the classics of literature are barely circu- lated. The classics are largely relegated to the shelves of public libraries, which are obviously only accessible to a small proportion of readers. There has been an effort, of late, to supply the reading public with various encyclopaedias of literature, which, so far as the literary selections are concerned, bring to mind the grumbler's comment on his dinner, " It's all very well as far as it goes, and there's a good deal of it, too, such as it is." These encyclo- paedias are in the nature of anthologies, and, while they may be very useful as literary scrap-books, they fail to satisfy those who wish to possess the classics in their entirety. The projectors of the present series of books have made it possible for readers to possess a carefully selected library of the world's great classics. The publishers of this series have no desire to pose as educational philanthropists. They claim, however, that the publication of these classics will certainly tend to increase the reading of the best books of all time. Carlyle said that a collection of books is a real university. In that sense the present collection ought to prove invaluable to those lv THE WORLD'S GREAT CLASSICS who wish to enjoy the perusal of books referred to by Lowell as the supreme books in literature. The art of printing has revolutionized the world. The print- ing-press has proved far more potent than any other civilizing influence. Learning is no longer confined to the few. The literature of civilization is free to all. " He that runs may read." The danger lies in reading everything we run across. Indiscriminate reading is seldom beneficial. While the printing-press has proved a potent power for good, it has also been used for ignominious purposes. In many quarters the first consideration in accepting an author's manu- script to-day is not whether it be a book that is worthy of pub- lication, but whether it be a book that is sufficiently sensational to make it sell. There exists, however, a large and growing class of readers who are not satisfied with these superficial books of the hour. They crave for something more substan- tial than the sensational reading-matter offered them in " up-to- date " novels, decadent newspapers, and catch-penny maga- zines. The times are ripe for a revival of the fittest. On the intellectual horizon of the twentieth century breaks the dawn of a literary renaissance. The workers of the world long for "more light." They desire to have the gates of knowledge thrown wide open, recognizing instinctively that " knowledge is power," and that those who toil will ever be governed by those who think. In the early days of printing, the books to which the people had access were few and far between. To-day the world is flooded with books, good, bad, and indifferent. The question is no longer how can I obtain a printed book, but how am I to know what printed book to read? This is a most important question for those whose leisure for reading is limited. " The world," says Frederick Harrison, in his scholarly essay on the choice of books, " has long ago closed the great assize of letters and judged the first places everywhere. In such a matter the judgment of the world, guided and informed by a long succes- sion of accomplished critics, is almost unerring. There may be doubts about the third and the fourth rank, but the first and second are hardly open to discussion." INTRODUCTION TO THE SERIES v The books of the present library all come under the head of classics books conforming to the best authority in literature books of acknowledged excellence. Read them ! There is nothing except human love from which you can derive greater happiness than the love of reading. Books prove companions in sorrow and solitude. They assuage the pangs of physical pain. They enable you to commune with all the master minds of by-gone ages. The light of intellect flashes across the printed page. The recorded thoughts of literature live on for- ever. Books are the " legacies of genius." We are all heirs to the magic realm of fancy, the republic of letters, the glorious domain of immortal thought. The pyramids of Nubia and Egypt, the palaces and sculptured slabs of Nineveh, the cy- clopean walls of Italy and Greece, the temples of India none have escaped the ravages of Time. The beautiful statues of an- tiquity the Venus of Melos, the sculptures of the Parthenon will sooner or later vanish from the face of earth. But the poetry of Homer, Dante, and Shakespeare, the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, the wisdom of Solomon and Socrates, the eloquence of Demosthenes and Cicero will last as long as Earth itself. The material creations of art crumble to dust. Soul- stirring thoughts, the creations of intellect, alone survive. " To be without books," exclaims Ruskin, " is the abyss of penury; don't endure it." Books that we own after awhile become actual companions. " He that loveth a book," says Isaac Barrow, " will never want a faithful friend, a wholesome counsellor, a cheerful companion or effectual comforter. By study, by reading, by thinking, one may innocently divert and pleasantly entertain himself as in all weathers, so in all fortune." The books of the present series cover a wide field. The first ten volumes contain " histories " that have been crowned as classics by the consensus of critical opinion. The authors of these historical volumes are Rawlinson, Hallam, Michelet, Green, Guizot, Carlyle, and Creasy. The subjects treated in the succeeding ten volumes are Philosophy, Political Economy, Science, Government, and Law. The third section is devoted mainly to Classic Essays and Classic Orations, while the last ten volumes comprise English Literature, Oriental Literature, vi THE WORLD'S GREAT CLASSICS Classic Drama, Poetry, and Ethics. The authors selected in- clude only the master minds of ancient and modern times. The art features comprise photogravures from famous paint- ings and classic sculpture, portraits of authors, fac-simile illu- minations of mediaeval books and manuscripts, choice examples of early printing and engraving, and various other illustrations. On the Library Committee are such competent judges of good books as Dr. Timothy Dwight, ex-President of Yale Uni- versity ; Richard Henry Stoddard, poet and literary critic ; Dr. Paul van Dyke, of Princeton, and Prof. Arthur Richmond Marsh, of Harvard. Each of the classics selected has a special introduction by a writer fully qualified to give a critical analysis of the work in question. Every available device in the art of book-making has been brought into service to make these vol- umes attractive, and the type, paper, and binding are of excel- lent quality. The present library is in the nature of a " University Exten- sion," for it aims to provide a fuller and broader intellectual life rather than any technical perfection. The trend of the times is toward mental culture. In the " World's Great Classics " the intellectual pleasures and luxuries of life are made accessible to every home where the love of reading prevails. The pub- lishers have provided a feast with the " Immortals." The flow of soul comes from the authors of all ages. Let the toast be what Alfonso, King of Aragon, was wont to say were the four best things of life : " Old wood to burn ! Old wine to drink ! Old friends to converse with ! Old books to read ! " Sic itur ad astro. Managing Editor. TIMOTHY invidirr. A A. /,/../>. >lf ('irfr.o. >m a photograph by Pacb. SPECIAL INTRODUCTION THE author of this volume is one of the many notable ex- amples of scholarship in the English clergy. He is best known as Canon Rawlinson. One of his most widely read papers was his " Present Day Tract " on the " Early Prevalence of Monotheistic Belief." He supplied the com- ments on numerous books of the Old Testament to " The Speaker's Commentary " and the excellence of his work made him a favorite with many students. George Rawlinson was born in 1815 in Oxfordshire, Eng- land, being five years younger than his brother, Sir Henry Cres- wicke Rawlinson, D.C.L., the Orientalist and diplomat. Both were educated at Ealing School, the former graduating from Oxford with classical honors in 1838. He became a fellow of Exeter College in 1840, Bampton Lecturer in 1859, Camden Professor of Ancient History at Oxford in 1861, holding that office until 1889, when he resigned. In 1872 he was appointed Canon of Canterbury Cathedral. The mere titles of his books indicate what a prodigious worker he has been. His industry is amazing and his achievements surprising even for a life un- usually long. In addition to his manual of " Ancient History," he has written the following historical works : " The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World," " The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, or the Geography, History, and Antiquities of Parthia," " The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, or the Geography, History and Antiquities of the Sassanian or New Persian Empire," " History of Ancient Egypt," " Religions of the Ancient World," " Egypt and Babylon," a history of " Phoenicia," and in connection with his brother and Sir Gard- ner Wilkinson, a translation of Herodotus with extensive notes and illustrations. His Bampton lectures in 1859 were upon viii RAWLINSON "The Historical Evidence of the Truth of the Scripture Records." In addition to all this Canon Rawlinson has written much in the shape of special articles for such works as Smith's " Bible Dictionary " and the magazines. He wrote the article on Herodotus in the ninth edition of the " Encyclopaedia Britan- nica," and in 1893 he wrote the volume on " Parthia " in " The Story of the Nations " series. He held the office of Classical Examiner under the Council of Military Education from 1859 1870, and has been Proctor in Convocation for the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury since 1873. His manual of " Ancient History " is professedly intended to take the place of Heeren's " Handbuch." Readers of Herodotus are charmed by that garrulous and entertaining old story-teller, "the father of history." But Herodotus did not err on the critical side. He was interested in everything he heard. He was not a scientific annalist coldly sifting evidence, though he was not blindly credulous. Nevertheless he admitted many things, wisely so, on rather slender evidence. Harrison says that the reader of Herodotus needs such a manual as Heeren's, and Rawlinson's manual, on the same plan, now takes its place It covers the same ground and in much the same fashion. Raw- linson writing later, has, of course, corrected many statements, revised many judgments, and has carefully embodied the dis- coveries and researches of the present century. This adds the labor of at least three most active and fruitful generations to Heeren's great work. Rawlinson's manual is not intended to be a popular treatise for light reading. Its preparation was not the idle pastime of an idle day. Its author was a student, patiently investigating details, and bringing a perfect mass of them before the reader. This manual is most valuable for the general reader and the right kind of students. Its bibliography alone would make it a great work. There is probably no better list of authorities on the period and nations covered. And one can forgive the text for lacking the rhetorical embellishments which characterize certain histories in view of Canon Rawlinson's painstaking facts presented in such abundance. At a time when history is tend- SPECIAL INTRODUCTION. ix ing to become scientific in the larger sense, our debt to the fact- gatherer is immense. Philosophy, Literature, and Art are all dependent upon him. And at a time when men's interest in ancient history is experiencing a revival like the quickened de- votion to child study, the republication of this manual appears most timely. Ancient History is a vital part of Modern History. " The past is only the present in a less developed form." Divi- sions between Ancient and Modern History are purely arbitrary. Ancient History occurred in a part of the world far distant from us. For long ages it continued distant, but the modern Western nations have a keen and vital interest in the far Eastern world to-day. Asia and Africa, subjects of Book I. in this manual, never were so close to England and America as at pres- ent. The distant in space has been brought near. The ancient is made recent by such studies as this. Dr. Charles Kendall Adams, President of the University of Wisconsin, and a noted historical critic, says in his manual of " Historical Literature " that " as a guide to a student in the thorough study of Ancient History, Rawlinson's manual has no equal in our language." WILLIAM F. MCDOWELL. RAWLINSON'S PREFACE THE work here given to the public has been contem- plated by the author for several years. The " Hand- bu'ch " of Professor Heeren, originally published in 1799, and corrected by its writer up to the year 1828, is, so far as he knows, the only modern work of reputa- tion treating in a compendious form the subject of An- cient History generally. Partial works, i.e., works embracing portions of the field, have been put forth more recently, as, particularly, the important " Manuel " of M. Lenormant (Manuel d'histoire ancienne de I'Orient jusqu'aux guerrcs Me- diqitcs. Paris, 1868 69 ; 3 vols. I2mo.) But no work with the scope and on the scale of Professor Heeren's has, so far as the present writer is aware, made its appearance since 1828. That work itself, in its English dress, is, he believes, out of print; and it is one, so great a portion of which has become antiquated by the progress of historical criticism and discovery, that it can not now be recommended to the student, unless with large re- serves and numerous cautions. Under these circumstances, it seemed to the present writer desirable to replace the " Hand- buch " of Heeren by a manual conceived on the same scale, ex- tending over the same period, and treating (in the main) of the same nations. Heeren's Hand-book always appeared to him admirable in design, and, considering the period at which it was written, ex- cellent in execution. He has been content to adopt, generally, its scheme and divisions; merely seeking in every case to bring the history up to the level of our present advanced knowledge, and to embody in his work all the really ascertained results of modern research and discovery. He has not suffered himself to be tempted by the example of M. Lenormant to include in the d xii RAWLINSON manual an account of the Arabians or the Indians ; since he has not been able to convince himself that either the native tradi- tions of the former, as reported by Abulfeda, Ibn-Khaldoun, and others, or the epic poems of the latter (the Maha Bharata and Ramayana), are trustworthy sources of history. With more hesitation he has decided on not including in his present work the history of the Sassanidae, which is sufficiently authen- tic, and which in part runs parallel with a period that the manual embraces. But, on the whole, it appeared to him that the Sas- sanidae belonged as much to Modern as to Ancient History to the Byzantine as to the Roman period. And, in a doubtful case, the demands of brevity, which he felt to be imperative in such a work as a manual, seemed entitled to turn the scale. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. 1 History. History Proper, its divisions. Ancient History, how best distinguished from Modern. Sources of History: I. Antiquities; 2. Written Records, including (a) Inscriptions, (b) Books. Im- portance of Inscriptions. Coins. Books, ancient and modern. Cognate sciences to History: i. Chronology; 2. Geography. Chief eras. Chronological Monuments. Works on Chronology. Works on Geography. Modes of dividing Ancient History. Scheme of the Work . . BOOK I. History of the Ancient Asiatic and African States and Kingdoms from the Earliest Times to the Foundation of the Persian Monar- chy by Cyrus the Great 15 PART I. ASIATIC NATIONS. Preliminary Remarks on the Geography of Asia 15 Preliminary Observations on the General Character of the Early Asiatic Kingdoms 25 History of the Ancient Asiatic Kingdoms previous to Cyrus 28 I. Chald.ran Monarchy 28 II. Assyrian Monarchy 30 III. Median Monarchy 32 IV. Babylonian Monarchy 34 V. Kingdoms in Asia Minor: i. Phrygia; 2. Cilicia; 3. Lydia. 35 VI. Phoenicia 37 VII. Syria 41 VIII. Judxa 41 a. From the Exodus to the Establishment of the Mon- archy 42 b. From the Establishment of the Monarchy to the Separa- tion into two Kingdoms 43 f. From the Separation of the Kingdoms to the Captivity under Nebuchadnezzar 46 xiii xiv RAWLINSON PART II. AFRICAN NATIONS. PAGE Preliminary Remarks on the Geography of Ancient Africa 49 Historical Sketch of the Ancient African States 51 I. Egypt 54 II. Carthage 65 a. From the Foundation of the City to the Commencement of the Wars with Syracuse 65 b. From the Commencement of the Wars with Syracuse to the Breaking-out of the First War with Rome 71 BOOK II. History of Persia from the Accession of Cyrus to the Destruction of the Empire by Alexander the Great 77 BOOK III. History of the Grecian States from the Earliest Times to the Acces- sion of Alexander the Great 97 Geographical Outline of Greece 97 FIRST PERIOD. The Ancient Traditional History, from the Earliest Times to the Dorian Occupation of the Peloponnese 109 SECOND PERIOD. History of Greece from the Dorian Conquest of the Peloponnese to the Commencement of the Wars with Persia 114 PART I. History of the principal Hellenic States in Greece Proper. . 114 I. Sparta 117 II. Athens 120 PART II. History of the other Grecian States 123 I. In the Peloponnese: a. Achaea 123 b. Arcadia 124 c. Corinth 125 d. Elis 126 e. Sicyon 126 II. In Central Greece: a. Megaris 127 b. Boeotia 128 c. Phocis 129 d. Locris 130 e. ^tolia 130 f. Acarnania 13 CONTENTS xv III. In Northern Greece: PAC , a. Thessaly 13! b. Epirus 132 IV. In the Islands: a. Corcyra 133 b. Cephallenia 133 c. Zacynthus 133 d. yEgina !33 e. Euboea 134 f. The Cyclades 134 g. Lemnos 134 h. Thasos 135 ' Crete 136 ;'. Cyprus 137 V. Greek Colonies 138 THIRD PERIOD. History of Greece from the Commencement of the Wars with Persia to the Battle of Chaeroneia 140 BOOK IV. History of the Macedonian Monarchy 163 Geographical Outline of Macedonia 163 Historical Sketch of the Monarchy: FIRST PERIOD. From the Commencement of the Monarchy to the Death of Alexan- der the Great 164 SECOND PERIOD. From the Death of Alexander the Great to the Battle of Ipsus 176 THIRD PERIOD. History of the States into which the Macedonian Monarchy was broken up after the Battle of Ipsus 183 PART I. History of the Syrian Kingdom of the Seleucidae 183 PART II. History of the Egyptian Kingdom of the Ptolemies 194 PART III. History of Macedonia, and of Greece, from the Death of Alexander to the Roman Conquest 210 PART IV. History of the Smaller States and Kingdoms formed out of the Fragments of Alexander's Monarchy 229 I. Kingdom of Pergamus 230 II. Kingdom of Bithynia 234 III. Kingdom of Paphlagonia 238 IV. Kingdom of Pontus 239 V. Kingdom of Cappadocia 245 xvi RAWLINSON PAGE VI. Kingdom of Greater Armenia ....... 249 VII. Kingdom of Armenia Minor 251 VIII. Kingdom of Bactria 252 IX. Kingdom of Parthia 254 X. Kingdom of Judaea 255 a. From the Captivity to the Fall of the Persian Em- pire 255 b. From the Fall of the Persian Empire to the Re- establishment of an Independent Kingdom 258 c. From the Re-establishment of an Independent King- dom to the Full Establishment of the Power of Rome 260 d. From the Full Establishment of Roman Power to the Destruction of Jerusalem by Titus 261 BOOK V. PART I. HISTORY OF ROME. Preliminary Remarks on the Geography of Ancient Italy 267 Sketch of the History of Rome:- FIRST PERIOD. The Ancient Traditional History from the Earliest Times to the Commencement of the Republic 281 SECOND PERIOD. From the Foundation of the Republic to the Commencement of the Samnite Wars 296 THIRD PERIOD. From the Breaking out of the First Samnite War to the Commence- ment of the Wars with Carthage 317 FOURTH PERIOD. From the Commencement of the First War with Carthage to the Rise of the Civil Broils under the Gracchi 327 FIFTH PERIOD. From the Commencement of Internal Troubles under the Gracchi to the Establishment of the Empire under Augustus 351 SIXTH PERIOD. From the Establishment of the Empire under Augustus to the Destruction of the Roman Power in the West by Odoacer 384 Preliminary Remarks on the Geographical Extent and Principal Divisions of the Roman Empire 384 CONTENTS xvii Historical Sketch of the Roman Empire: PAGB FIRST SECTION. From the Battle of Actium to the Death of Corn- modus 397 SECOND SECTION. From the Death of Commodus to the Acces- sion of Diocletian 427 THIRD SECTION. From the Accession of Diocletian to the Final Division of the Empire 442 FOURTH SECTION. History of the Western Empire from the Ac- cession of Honorius, A.D. 395, to the Deposition of Romulus Au- gustus, A.D. 476 462 PART II. HISTORY OF PARTHIA. Geographical Outline of the Parthian Empire 472 Sketch of the History of Parthia: FIRST PERIOD. From the Foundation of the Kingdom by Arsaces to the Estab- lishment of the Empire by Mithridates 1 476 SECOND PERIOD. From the Establishment of the Empire by Mithridates I. to the Commencement of the Wars with Rome 479 THIRD PERIOD. From the Commencement of the Wars with Rome to the De- struction of the Empire by Artaxerxes 484 us CHOICE EXAMPLES OF BOOK ILLUMINATION. Fac-similes from Illuminated Manuscripts and Illustrated Books of Early Date. MINIATURE OF THE ANNUNCIATION. From tbe Coitdt Livr e d'H 'tares, written in Franc e about 1490. This plate is an excellent specimen of French work. The chief miniature is an Annunciation, which seems to be taking place in a private oratory, while the borders look like sections of a Gothic church, with niches and fretwork, and the columns which yield compartments for smaller miniatures. ILLUSTRATIONS GEORGE RAWLINSON, CANON OF CANTERBURY Photogravure from a photograph TIMOTHY DWIGHT, D.D., LL.D. (Portrait) . Photogravure from a photograph MINIATURE OF THE ANNUNCIATION Fac-simile Illumination from the Conde Livre d'Heures HELEN OF TROY Photogravure from a painting MENTAL EDUCATION OF A GREEK YOUTH . Photogravure from a painting TULLIA DRIVING OVER HER FATHER'S CORPSE Photogravure from a painting FACING PAGB Frontispiece Vll XV111 9 6 2IO 266 ANCIENT HISTORY INTRODUCTION The word " History," which etymologically means " in- quiry " or " research," and which has many slightly differing uses, is attached in modern parlance pre-eminently and espe- cially to accounts of the rise, progress, and affairs of Nations. The consideration of man, prior to the formation of political communities and apart from them, belongs to Natural History and especially to that branch of it which is called Anthro- pology but not to History Proper. History Proper is the his- tory of States or Nations, both in respect to their internal af- fairs and in regard to their dealings one with another. Under the former head, one of the most important branches is Consti- tutional History, or the history of Governments; under the latter are included not only accounts of the wars, but likewise of the friendly relations of the different States, and of their com- mercial or other intercourse. Anthropology, though not History Proper, is akin to it, and is a science of which the historical student should not be ignorant. It treats of man prior to the time when history takes him up, and thus forms, in some sort, the basis on which history rests. The original condition of man, his primary habitat or place of abode, the mode and time of his dispersion; the questions of the formation of races, of their differ- ences, and of their affinities: these, and similar subjects, which belong properly to anthropology, are of interest to the historian, and underlie his proper field. The most important works bearing on these matters are: " The Book of Genesis " the only extant work which claims to give an authoritative account of the creation and dispersion of mankind, and which is universally admitted to contain most interesting notices of the primitive condition of the human race, and of important facts belonging I 2 RAWLINSON to very remote times. Kalisch's " Historical and Critical Commen- tary," London, Longman, 1855, contains a mass of valuable, though not always quite sober, illustration from the best modern sources. " The Physical History of Mankind," by Dr. Prichard, London, 3d edition, 1836 a work of great grasp and power, elaborately illustrated, and in many respects of enduring value; but in some points behind the existing state of our knowledge. Not, however, at present super- seded by any general work. " Prehistoric Man," by Sir John Lubbock. London, 1866. This book is based mainly on recent researches into the earliest vestiges of man upon the earth, as those believed to have been found under- neath the floors of caves, in ancient gravel deposits, in the soil at the bottom of lakes, in the so-called " kitchen-middings," and the like. It is well illustrated. History Proper is usually divided either into two or into three portions. If the triple division is adopted, the portions are called, respectively, " Ancient History," the " History of the Middle Ages," and " Modern History." If the twofold division is preferred, the middle portion is suppressed, and His- tory is regarded as falling under the two heads of " Ancient " and " Modern." " Ancient " History is improperly separated from " Modern " by the arbitrary assumption of a particular date. A truer, better, and more convenient division may be made by regard- ing as ancient all that belongs to a state of things which has completely passed away, and as modern all that connects itself inseparably with the present. In Western Europe the irrup- tion of the Northern Barbarians, in Eastern Europe, in Asia, and in Africa, the Mohammedan conquests form the line of demarcation between the two portions of the historic field ; since these events brought to a close the old condition of things and introduced the condition which continues to the present day. The Sources of History fall under the two heads of written records, and antiquities, or the actual extant remains of ancient times, whether buildings, excavations, sculptures, pictures, vases, or other productions of art. These antiquities exist either in the countries anciently inhabited by the several nations, where they may be seen in situ; or in museums, to which they have been removed by the moderns, partly for their better preservation, partly for the purposes of general study and com- ANCIENT HISTORY 3 parison; or, finally, in private collections, where they are for the most part inaccessible, and subserve the vanity of the collectors. No general attempt has ever been made to collect into one work a description or representation of all these various remains; and, in- deed, their multiplicity is so great that such a collection is barely con- ceivable. Works, however, on limited portions of the great field of "Antiquities" are numerous; and frequent mention will have to be made of them in speaking of the sources for the history of different states and periods. Here those only will be noticed which have some- thing of a general character. Oberlin, " Orbis antiqui monumentis suis illustrati primx lineae." Argentorati, 1790. Extremely defective, but remarkable, considering the time at which it was written. Caylus, " Recueil d'Antiquites Egyptiennes, Etrusques, Grecques et Romaines." Paris, 1752-67. Full of interest, but with engravings of a very rude and primitive character. Montfaucon, " L'Antiquite expliquee et representee en figures." Paris, 1719-24; 15 vols., folio. Smith, Dr. W., " Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities." London, 2d edition, 1853. Fergusson, James, " History of Architecture in all Countries, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day." London, 1865-67. Birch, Samuel, " Ancient Pottery." London, 1858. The second source of Ancient History, written records, is at once more copious and more important than the other. It consists of two main classes of documents (i) Inscriptions on public monuments, generally contemporary with the events re- corded in them; and (2) Books, the works of ancient or modern writers on the subject. Whether Inscriptions were, or were not, the most ancient kind of written memorial is a point that can never be deter- mined. What is certain is, that the nations of antiquity made use to a very large extent of this mode of commemorating events. In Egypt, in Assyria, in Babylonia, in Armenia, in Persia, in Phoenicia, in Lycia, in Greece, in Italy, historical events of importance were from time to time recorded in this way sometimes on the natural rock, which was commonly smoothed for the purpose; sometimes on obelisks or pillars; frequently upon the walls of temples, palaces, and tombs; oc- casionally upon metal plates, or upon tablets and cylinders of fine clay hard and durable materials all of them, capable of 4 RAWLINSON lasting hundreds or even thousands of years, and in many cases continuing to the present day. The practice prevailed, as it seems, most widely in Assyria and in Egypt; it was also in considerable favor in Persia and among the Greeks and Ro- mans. The other nations used it more sparingly. It was said about half a century ago that " of the great mass of inscriptions still extant, but few comparatively are of any importance as regards history." But this statement, if true when it was made, which may be doubted, at any rate requires modification now. The histories of Egypt and Assyria have been in a great meas- ure reconstructed from the inscriptions of the two countries. The great inscription of Behistun has thrown much light upon the early history of Persia. That on the Delphic tripod has illustrated the most glorious period of Greece. It is now gen- erally felt that inscriptions are among the most important of ancient records, and that their intrinsic value makes up to a great extent for their comparative scantiness. General collections of ancient inscriptions do not as yet exist. But the following, which have more or less of a general character, may be here mentioned: Muratori, Lud. Ant., " Novus Thesaurus Veterum Inscriptionum." Mediolani, 1739, etc. Together with Donati, " Supplementa." Luccae, 1764. Gruter, " Inscriptiones antiquge totius orbis Romani," cura J. G. Graevii. Amstel. 1707; 4 vols., folio. Pococke, R., " Inscriptionum antiquarum Graecarum et Latinarum liber." Londini, 1752; folio. Chandler, R., " Inscriptiones antiquae pleraeque nondum editae." Ox- onii, 1774; folio. Osann, Fr., " Sylloge Inscriptionum antiquarum Graecarum et Lat- inarum." Lipsiae, 1834; folio. A large number of cuneiform inscriptions, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian, will be found in the " Expedition Scientifique en Meso- potamie " of M. Jules Oppert. Paris, 1858. The Persian, Babylonian, and Scythian or Turanian transcripts of the great Behistun Inscription are contained in the " Journal of the Asiatic Society," vols. x., xiv., and xv., to which they were contributed by Sir H. Rawlinson and Mr. Norris. A small but valuable collection of inscriptions, chiefly cunei- form, is appended to Mr. Rich's " Narrative of a Journey from Bussora to Persepolis." London, 1839. Under the head of Inscribed Monuments must be included Coins, which have in most instances a legend, or legends, and ANCIENT HISTORY 5 which often throw considerable light upon obscure points of history. The importance of coins is no doubt the greatest in those portions of ancient history where the information de- rivable from authors especially from contemporary authors is the scantiest; their use, however, is not limited to such por- tions, but extends over as much of the historical field as admits of numismatic illustration. Collections of ancient coins exist in most museums and in many libraries. The collection of the British Museum is among the best in the world. The Bodleian Library has a good collection; and there is one in the library of Christ Church, Oxford, possessing many points of interest. In default of access to a good collection, or in further prosecution of numismatic study, the learner may consult the following comprehensive works: Spanheim, " Dissertatio de usu et praestantia Numismatum." Lon- don and Amsterdam, 1706-17; 2 vols., folio. Eckhel, " De Doctrina Nummorum Veterum." Vindebonae, 1792-98; 8 vols., 410. Mionnet, " Description des Medailles." Paris, 1806-37; *6 vols., 8vo, copiously illustrated. Humphreys, " Ancient Coins and Medals." London, 1850. In this work, by means of embossed plates, fac-similes of the obverse and re- verse of many coins are produced. Leake, " Numismata Hellenica." London, 1854. Works upon coins, embracing comparatively narrow fields, are nu- merous, and often specially valuable. Many such works will be no- ticed among the sources for the history of particular times and nations. The " Books " from which ancient history may be learned are of two kinds Ancient and Modern. Ancient works which treat the subject in a general way are neither numerous nor (with one exception) very valuable. The chief of those now extant are: Diodorus Siculus, " Bibliotheca Historica," in forty books, of which only books i.-v. inch and xi.-xx. incl. have come down to us entire. The best editions are those of Wcsseling (Bipont. 1793-1800; 10 vols., 8vo) and Dindorf (Parisiis, 1843-44; 2 vols., 8vo). This work was a universal history from the earliest times down to B.C. 60. Polybius, " Historiae," likewise in forty books, of which the first five only are complete. Originally, a universal history of the period com- mencing B.C. 220 and terminating B.C. 146. Bad in style, but excellent in criticism and accuracy. The best edition is Schweighaeuser's (Lips. 6 RAWLINSON 1789 et seqq. ; 8 vols., 8vo. Reprinted at Oxford, 1823, together with the same scholar's " Lexicon Polybianum," in 5 vols., 8vo). A good edition of the mere text has been published by Didot, Paris, 1859. Justinus, " Historiae Philippicae," in forty-four books, extracted, or rather abbreviated, from Trogus Pompeius, a writer of the Augustan age. This is a. universal history from the earliest times to Augustus Caesar. It is a short work, and consequently very slight and sketchy. Of recent editions, the best is that of Duebner (Lips. 1831). The best of the old editions is that of Strasburg, 1802, 8vo. Zonaras, " Chronicon sive Annales," in twelve books. A universal history, extending from the Creation to the death of the Emperor Maximin, A.D. 238. Greatly wanting in criticism. The best edition is that in the " Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae." Bonnae, 1841-44. Besides these, there remain fragments from the universal history of Nicolaus Damascenus (" Fragm. Hist. Grsec.," Vol. III., ed. C. Miiller, Parisiis, 1849), which are of very considerable value. Modern works embracing the whole range of ancient his- tory are numerous and important. They may be divided into two classes: Works on Universal History, of which Ancient History forms only a part; Works exclusively devoted to An- cient History. To the first class belong: " The Universal History, Ancient and Modern," with maps and ad- ditions. London, 1736-44; 7 vols., folio. Reprinted in 8vo and 64 vols., London, 1747-66; again, in 60 vols., with omissions and additions. Raleigh, Sir W., " History of the World," in his " Works." Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1829; 8 vols., 8vo. Bossuet, " Discours sur 1'Histoire Universelle." Paris, 1681; 4to. (Translated into English by Rich. Spencer. London, 1730; 8vo.) Millot, " Elemens de 1'Histoire Generale." Paris, 1772 et seqq. Re- printed at Edinburgh, 1823; 6 vols., 8vo. (Translated into English, 1778; 2 vols., 8vo.) Eichhorn, " Weltgeschichte." Leipsic, 1799-1820; 5 vols., 8vo. Keightley, Th., " Outlines of History," 8vo, being vol. ix. of Lard- ner's " Cabinet Cyclopaedia." London, 1835 et seqq. A convenient abridgment. Tytler and Nares, " Elements of General History." London, 1825. " Owes its reputation and success to the want of a better work on the subject." Under the second head may be mentioned: Niebuhr, B. G., " Vortrage iiber alte Geschichte." Berlin, 1847; 3 vols., 8vo. Edited after his death by his son, Marcus Niebuhr. (Trans- lated into English by Dr. Leonard Schmitz, with additions and cor- ANCIENT HISTORY 7 rections. London, 1852; 3 vols., 8vo.) A work of the highest value, embodying all the results of modern discovery up to about the year 1830. Schlosser, " Universal-historische Uebersicht der Geschichte der alten Welt" Frankfort, 1826; 3 vols., 8vo. Bredow, " Handbuch der alte Geschichte." Altona, 1799; 8vo. (Translated into English. London, 1827; 8vo.) Smith, Philip, " An Ancient History from the Earliest Records to the Fall of the Western Empire." London, 1865; 3 vols., 8vo. Em- bodies the latest results of modern discovery. Heeren, " Ideen Gber die Politik, den Verkehr, und den Handel der vornehmsten Volker der alten Welt " ; 4th edition. Gottingen, 1824. (Translated into English. Oxford, 1833 et seqq. ; 5 vols., 8vo.) A work which, so far as the commerce of the ancients is concerned, has not been superseded. A few modern works of a less comprehensive character than those hitherto described, but still belonging rather to general than to particular history, seem also to deserve mention here. Such are : Rollin, " Histoire Ancienne des Egyptiens, des Carthaginiens, des Assyriens, des Medes et des Perses, des Macedoniens, et des Grecs." Paris, 1824; 12 vols., 8vo, revue par Letronne. "The last and best edition." (Translated into English. London, 1768; 7 vols., 8vo.) The earlier portion of this work is now antiquated, and must be replaced by writers who have had the advantage of recent discoveries. Rawlinson, G., " The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World, or the History, Geography, and Antiquities of Chaldaea, As- syria, Babylonia, Media, and Persia." London, 1862-67; 4 vols., 8vo. With numerous illustrations. The fact that all historical events must occur at a certain time and in a certain place attaches to History two branches of knowledge as indispensable auxiliaries; viz., Chronology and Geography. By the universal historian these sciences should be known completely: and a fair knowledge of them ought to be acquired by every historical student. A fixed mode of computing time, and an exact or approximate reckon- ing of the period occupied by the events narrated, is essential to every methodized history; nor can any history be regarded as complete without a more or less elaborate description of the countries which were the theatres of the events recorded in it. Exact Chronology is difficult, and a synchronistic view of 8 RAWLINSON history generally is impossible without the adoption of an era. Nations accordingly, as the desire of exactness or the wish to synchronize arose, invented eras for themselves, which gen- erally remained in use for many hundreds of years. The earliest known instance of the formal assumption of a fixed point in time from which to date events belongs to the history of Baby- lon, where the era of Nabonassar, B.C. 747, appears to have been practically in use from that year. The era of the founda- tion of Rome, B.C. 752 (according to the best authorities), was certainly not adopted by the Romans till after the expulsion of the kings; nor did that of the Olympiads, B.C. 776, become current in Greece until the time of Timaeus (about B.C. 300). The Asiatic Greeks, soon after the death of Alexander, adopted the era of the Seleucidae, B.C. 312. The era of Antioch, B.C. 49, was also commonly used in the East from that date till A.D. 600. The Armenian era, A.D. 553, and the Mohammedan, A.D. 622 (the Hegira), are likewise worthy of notice. The most important chronological monuments are the fol- lowing: The Assyrian Canon (discovered by Sir Henry Rawlinson among the antiquities in the British Museum, and published by him in the Athe- ncewn, Nos. 1812 and 2064), an account of Assyrian chronology from about B.C. 909 to B.C. 680, impressed on a number of clay tablets in the reign of Sardanapalus, the son of Esarhaddon, all now more or less broken, but supplying each other's deficiencies, and yielding by careful comparison a complete chronological scheme, covering a space of 230 years. The chronology of the whole period is verified by a recorded solar eclipse, which is evidently that of June 15, B.C. 763. The Apis Stela? (discovered by M. Mariette, close to the Pyramid of Abooseer, near Cairo), published in the " Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes " for 1864, and also by M. de Rouge in his " Recherches sur les monuments qu'on peut attribuer aux six premieres Dynasties de Manethon." Paris, 1866. Most important for Egyptian chronology. The Parian Marble (brought to England from Smyrna in the year 1627 by an agent of the Earl of Arundel, and presented to the University of Oxford by his son; preserved among the "Arundel Marbles" in the " Schola Philosophise Moralis," but in a very decayed condition), a chronological arrangement of important events in Greek history from the accession of Cecrops to the archonship of Callistratus, B.C. 355. Best editions: " Marmora Arundeliana," ed. J. Selden. Londini, 1628. " Marmora Oxoniensia," ed. R. Chandler. Oxoniis, 1763; folio. " Marmor Parium," ed. C. Miiller, in Vol. I. of the " Fragmenta His- ANCIENT HISTORY 9 toricum Graecorum." Parisiis, 1846. The inscription is also given in Boeckh's Corfnts Inscriptionum Grcccarum, Vol. II., No. 2374. The Fasti Capitolini (discovered at Rome on the site of the ancient Forum, partly in the year 1547, partly in 1817 and 1818, and still pre- served in the Museum of the Capitol), a list of the Roman magistrates and triumphs from the commencement of the Republic to the end of the reign of Augustus. Best edition of the fragments discovered in 1547, the second of Sigonius, Venct. 1556. Best edition of the frag- ments of 1817-18, that of Borghesi, Milan, 1818. These Fasti are re- produced in appendices to the first and second volumes of Dr. Arnold's " History of Rome," down to the close of the first Punic War. An excellent reprint and arrangement of the fragments will be found in Mommsen's " Inscriptiones Latinae Antiquissimae." Berlin, 1863. Ancient works on Chronology were numerous ; but not many have come down to our times. The subject first began to be treated as a science by the Alexandrians in the third century before Christ. Eratosthenes, Apollodorus, Sosicrates, and others undertook the task of arranging the events of past his- tory according to exact chronological schemes, which were no doubt sufficiently arbitrary. These writers were succeeded by Castor (about B.C. 100-50), Cephalion, Julius Africanus (A.D. 200), and Hippolytus, of whom the last two were Chris- tians. The earliest work of a purely chronological character which has come down to us is the following: Eusebius Pamphili, " Chronicorum Canonum libri duo." The Greek text is lost; but the latter book has been preserved to us in the Latin translation of Jerome; and the greater part of both books exists in an Armenian version, which has been rendered into Latin by the Armenian monk, Zohrab, assisted by Cardinal Mai. (Mediolani, 1818; folio.) Other chronological works of importance are: Georgius Syncellus, " Chronographia," in the " Corpus Hist By- zant," ed. Dindorf. Bonnae, 1829; 2 vols., 8vo. Johannes Malalas, " Chronographia," in the same collection, ed. Dindorf. Bonnae, 1831; 8vo. " Chronicon Paschale," in the same collection. Bonnae, 1832; 2 vols., 8vo. Scaliger, Jos., " De Emendatione Temporum." Genevae, 1629. Ideler, " Handbuch der Chronologic." Berlin, 1825-26; 2 vols., 8vo. " I /Art de Verifier les Dates." Paris. 1819-44; 36 vols., 8vo. Hales, W., " New Analysis of Chronology, explaining the History and Antiquities of the Primitive Nations of the World." London, I0 RAWLINSON 1809-12; 3 vols., 4to. New edition, corrected and improved, 1830; 4 vols., 8vo. Clinton, H. R, " Fasti Hellenici; or, The Civil and Literary Chronol- ogy of Greece from the Fifty-fifth Olympiad to the Death of Augustus." Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1827-30; 3 vols., 410. A valuable work, not confined to the chronology of Greece, but embracing that of all the Asiatic kingdoms and empires from the earliest times to Alexander's conquest of Persia. Geography, the other ancillary science to History, was recognized from a very early date as closely connected with it. The History of Herodotus is almost as much geographical as historical: and the geographical element occupies a consider- able space in the histories of many other ancient writers, as notably Polybius and Diodorus. At the same time the sepa- rability of geography, and its claims to be regarded as a distinct branch of knowledge, were perceived almost from the first; and works upon it, whereof only fragments remain, were written by Hecataeus of Miletus, Scylax of Caryanda, Charon of Lamp- sacus, Damastes, Eratosthenes, Agatharchides, Scymnus of Chios, and others. The most important of the extant classical works on the subject are: The " Periplus Maris Mediterranei," ascribed to Scylax of Caryanda, but really the work of an unknown writer belonging to the time of Philip of Macedon. Ed. D. Hoeschel, August. Vind., 1608. Printed also in Hudson's " Geographi Minores," Oxoniis, 1703; and in C. Miiller's " Geographi Graeci Minores." Paris, 1855. Strabo, " Geographica," in seventeen books, the most important an- cient work on the subject. Best editions: that of Is. Casaubon, Parisiis, 1620, folio; that of Th. Falconer, Oxoniis, 1807, 2 vols., folio; that of Siebenkees, Lipsiae, 1796-1811, 6 vols., 8vo; and that of Kramer, Bero- lini, 1847-52, 3 vols., 8vo. Dionysius, " Periegesis," written in hexameter verse. Published, with the commentary of Eustathius, by H. Stephanus. Parisiis, 1577. It will be found also in the " Geographi Graeci Minores " of Bernhardy (Leipsic, 1828) and of C. Mtiller. Plinius, " Historia Naturalis," in thirty-seven books. Best edition, that of Sillig. Gothas; 8 vols., 8vo. Ptolemseus, " Geographia," in eight books. Ed. Bertius, Amstel., 1618; folio. Pomponius Mela, " Cosmographia, sive De Situ Orbis," in three books. Edited by H. Stephanus, together with the " Periegesis " of Dionysius. Parisiis, 1577. Best edition, that of Tzschucke. Lipsae, 1807; 7 vols., 8vo. ANCIENT HISTORY n And for the geography of Greece: Pausanias, " Periegesis Helladis," in ten books. Best editions: that of Siebelis, Lipsiae, 1822-28. 5 vols., 8vo; and that of Bekker, Berlin, 1826-27, 2 vols., 8vo. Modern works on the subject of Ancient Geography are numerous, but only a few are of a general character. Among these may be noticed: Cellarius, " Notitia Orbis Antiqui." Lipsiae, 1701-06; 2 vols., 4to. " Cum observationibtis," J. C. Schwartzii. Lipsiae, 1771 and 1773. Mannert, " Geographic der Griechen und Romer." Nurnberg, 1801- 31; 10 vols., 8vo. Gosselin, " Recherches sur la Geographic systematique et positive des Anciens." Paris, 1798-1813; 4 vols., 4to. Rennell, J., " Geography of Herodotus." London, 1800; 4to. And the same writer's " Treatise on the Comparative Geography of Asia Minor," with an Atlas. London, 1831; 2 vols., 8vo. Ritter, " Erdkunde." Berlin, 1832 et seqq. A most copious and learned work, embracing all the results of modern discovery up to the date of the publication of each volume. Smith, Dr. W., " Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography." Lon- don, 1854; 2 vols., 8vo. Among useful compendiums are Laurent, P. E., " Introduction to Ancient Geography." Oxford, 1813; 8vo. Arrowsmith, A., " Compendium of Ancient and Modern Geography, for the use of Eton School." London, 1830; 8vo. The best Atlases illustrative of Ancient Geography are the following: Kiepert, " Atlas von Hellas," with supplementary maps. Berlin, 1846-51. Also the same geographer's " Atlas Antiquus." Berlin, 1861. M tiller, C., Maps accompanying the " Geographi Graeci Minores." Paris, 1855. Johnston, A. Keith, " Atlas of Gassical Geography." Edinburgh, 1866; 4to. Smith, Dr. W., " Biblical and Gassical Atlas." London, 1868; small folio. The field of Ancient History may be mapped out either syn- chronistically, according to certain periods and epochs, or I2 RAWLINSON ethnographically, according to states and nations. Neither of these two methods is absolutely superior to the other, each having merits in which the other is deficient. It would be embarrassing to have to choose between them ; but, fortunately, this difficulty is obviated by the possibility of combining the two into one system. This combined method, which has been already preferred as most convenient by other writers of Manuals, will be adopted in the ensuing pages, where the general division of the subject will be as follows: Book I. History of the Ancient Asiatic and African States and Kingdoms from the Earliest Times to the Foundation of the Persian Monarchy by Cyrus the Great, B.C. 558. Book II. History of the Persian Monarchy from the Acces- sion of Cyrus to the Death of Darius Codomannus, B.C. 558-330. Book III. History of the Grecian States, both in Greece Proper and elsewhere, from the Earliest Times to the Acces- sion of Alexander, B.C. 336. Book IV. History of the Macedonian Monarchy, and the Kingdoms into which it broke up, until their absorption into the Roman Empire. Book V. History of Rome from the Earliest Times to the Fall of the Western Empire, A.D. 476, and Parallel History of Parthia. BOOK I HISTORY OF ASIATIC AND AFRICAN NATIONS BOOK I HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT ASIATIC AND AFRICAN STATES AND KINGDOMS FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE FOUNDATION OF THE PERSIAN MONARCHY BY CYRUS THE GREAT. PART I. ASIATIC NATIONS. PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON THE GEOGRAPHY OF ASIA. Asia is the largest of the three great divisions of the Eastern Hemisphere. Regarding it as separated from Africa by the Red Sea and Isthmus of Suez, and from Europe by the Ural Mountains, the Ural River, the Caspian Sea, and the main chain of the Caucasus, its superficial contents will amount to 17,500,000 square miles, whereas those of Africa are less than 12,000,000, and those of Europe do not exceed 3,800,000. In climate it unites greater varieties than either of the two other divisions, extending as it does from the 78th degree of north latitude to within a hundred miles of the equator. It thus lies mainly within the northern temperate zone, but projects north- ward a distance of eleven degrees beyond the Arctic circle, while southward it throws into the region of the Tropics three long and broad peninsulas. Asia consists mainly of a great central table-land, running east and west from the neighborhood of the ^Egean to the north-western frontier of China, with low plains surrounding it, which are for the most part fertile and well watered. The high table-land is generally bounded by mountain-chains, which mostly run parallel to it in latitudinal lines. In places these primary latitudinal chains give way to others, which run in an opposite or longitudinal direction. 15 16 RAWLINSON The Rivers of Asia may be divided into two classes those of the central tract, and those of the circumjacent regions. The rivers of the central tract are continental or mediterranean; i.e., they begin and end without reaching the sea. Either they form after a while salt lakes in which their waters are evap- orated, or they gradually waste away and lose themselves in the sands of deserts. The rivers of the circumjacent plains are, on the contrary, oceanic ; i.e., they mingle themselves with the waters of the great deep. Asia may conveniently be divided into Northern, Central, and Southern, the Southern region being again subdivided into a Western and an Eastern portion. It is with South-western Asia that Ancient History is almost exclusively concerned. Northern Asia, or the tract lying north of the Caspian Sea, the Jaxartes, and the Altai mountain-chain, is for the most part a great grassy plain, of low elevation, destitute of trees, and unproductive, the layer of vegetable soil being thin. To- wards the north this plain merges into vast frozen wilds capable of nourishing only a few hunters. In the west the Ural and Altai, in the east the Jablonnoi, and their offshoot the Tukulan, are the only mountains. The rivers are numerous, and abound in fish. The Ural and Altai chains are rich in valuable min- erals, as gold, silver, platina, copper, and iron. This region was almost unknown to the ancients, who included it under the vague name of Scythia. Some scanty notices of it occur, however, in Herodotus. Central Asia, or the region bounded on the north by the Altai, on the west by the Caspian, on the south by the Elburz, the Hindu Kush, and the Himalaya, on the east by the Yun- ling and other Chinese ranges, consists, excepting in its more western portion, of an elevated plateau or table-land, which towards the south is not less than 10,000 feet, and towards the north is from 4,000 to 2,600 feet above the level of the sea. This plateau is intersected by the two great chains of the Thian- chan and the Kuen-lun, and otherwise diversified by impor- tant ridges. Towards the north the soil admits of pasturage, and in the west and south are some rich plains and valleys; but the greater part of the region consists of sandy deserts. Outside the western boundary of the plateau, which is formed ANCIENT HISTORY 17 by the Bolor and other " longitudinal " chains, a low plain succeeds, a continuation of the Siberian steppe, which consists also, in the main, of sandy desert, excepting along the courses of the streams. A small portion only of Central Asia lying towards the west and the south-west was known to the ancients. In the low region between the Elburz range and the Siberian steppe, upon the courses of the two great streams which flow down from the plateau, were three countries of some importance. These were Chorasmia, to the extreme west, between the Caspian and the lower Oxus a desolate region, excepting close along the river-bank, known still as Kharesm, and forming part of the Khanat of Khiva. Sogdiana, between the lower Oxus and the lower Jaxartes, resembling Chorasmia in its western portion, but towards the east traversed by spurs of the Bolor and the Thian-chan, and watered by numerous streams descending from them. The chief of these was the Polytimetus of the Greeks, on which was Maracanda (Samarkand), the capital. Bactria, on the upper Oxus, between Sogdiana and the Paropamisus (Hindu Kush). Mountainous, fertile, and well watered towards the east, but towards the west descending into the desert. Chief cities, Bactra (Balkh), the capital, a little south of the Oxus, and Margus (Merv), on a stream of its own, in the western desert. Southern Asia, according to the division of the continent which has been here preferred, comprises all the countries lying north of the Black Sea, the Caucasus, the Caspian, and the Elburz, Hindu Kush, and Himalaya ranges, together with those lying east of the Yun-ling, the Ala-chan, and the Khingan, which form the eastern boundary of the central table-land. A line drawn along the ninety-second meridian (E. from Green- wich) will separate this tract, at the point where it is narrowest, into an Eastern and Western region, the former containing Manchuria, China, and the Siamo-Burmese peninsula, the lat- ter Hindustan, Affghanistan, Beluchistan, Persia, the Russian Transcaucasian provinces, Turkey in Asia, and Arabia. With the Eastern region Ancient History has no concern at all, since 3 1 8 RAWLINSON it was unknown to the great nations of antiquity, and whatever history it has belongs to the Modern rather than to the Ancient period. With the Western region Ancient History is, on the contrary, concerned vitally and essentially, since this region formed in -the early times, if not the sole, yet at any rate the chief, stage on which the historical drama was exhibited. South-western Asia is naturally divisible into four main regions viz., Asia Minor, or the peninsula of Anatolia; the adjoining table-land, or the tract which lies between Asia Minor and the Valley of the Indus; the lowland south of this table- land, which stretches from the base of the mountains to the shores of the Indian Ocean; and the Indian Peninsula. Asia Minor consists of a central table-land, of moderate elevation, lying between the two parallel chains of Taurus and Olympus, together with three coast-tracts, situated respectively north, west, and south of the plateau. Its chief rivers are the Iris (Yechil Irmak), the Halys (Kizil Irmak), and the Sangarius ''Sakkariyeh), which all fall into the Euxine. Its loftiest moun- tain is Argaeus, near Caesarsea (Kaisariyeh), which attains an altitude of 13,000 feet. On the highest part of the plateau, which is towards the south, adjoining Taurus, are a number of salt lakes, into which the rivers of this region empty them- selves. The largest is the Palus Tattaeus (Touz Ghieul), which extends about forty-five miles in its greatest length. Asia Minor contained in the times anterior to Cyrus the following countries: On the plateau, two: Phrygia and Cappadocia; boundary between them, the Halys. In the northern coast- tract, two: Paphlagonia and Bithynia; boundary, the Billaeus (Filiyas). In the western coast-tract, three: Mysia, Lydia, and Caria, with the ^olian, Ionian, and Dorian Greeks occupy- ing most of the sea-board. In the southern coast-tract, three : Lycia, Pamphylia, and Cilicia. The chief cities were Sardis, the capital of Lydia; Dascyleium, of Bithynia; Gordium, of Phrygia; Xanthus, of Lycia; Tarsus, of Cilicia; and Mazaca (afterwards Caesaraea), of Cappadocia ; together with the Gre- cian settlements of Miletus, Phocaea, Ephesus, Smyrna, Hali- carnassus, and Cnidus on the west, and Cyzicus, Heraclea, Sinope, Amisus, Cerasus, and Trapezus upon the north. Islands. The littoral islands belonging to Asia Minor were ANCIENT HISTORY 19 important and numerous. The principal were Proconnesus in the Propontis; Tenedos, Lesbos (capital Mytilene), Chios, Samos, and Rhodes, in the yEgean; and Cyprus in the Levant or Eastern Mediterranean. The chief towns of Cyprus were Salamis, Citium, and Paphos, on the coast; and, in the interior, Idalium. The great highland extending from Asia Minor in the west to the mountains which border the Indus Valley in the east, comprised seventeen countries viz., Armenia, Iberia or Sape- iria, Colchis, Matiene, Media, Persia, Mycia, Sagartia, Cadusia, Hyrcania, Parthia, Aria, Arachosia, Sattagydia, Gandaria, Sarangia, and Gedrosia or the Eastern Ethiopia. As these countries were mostly of considerable size and importance, a short description will be given of each. Armenia lay east of Cappadocia. It was a lofty region, consisting almost entirely of mountains, and has been well called " the Switzerland of Western Asia." The mountain system culminates in Ararat, which has an elevation of 17,000 feet. Hence all the great rivers of this part of Asia take their rise, viz., the Tigris, the Euphrates, the Halys, the Araxes, and the Cyrus. In the highest part of the region occur two elevated lake-basins, those of Urumiyeh and Van, each having a distinct and separate water-system of its own. The only town an- ciently of much importance was one which occupied the posi- tion of the modern Van, on the east coast of the lake of the same name. Iberia, or Sapeiria, adjoined Armenia to the north-east. It comprised the whole of the modern Georgia, together with some parts of Russian and Turkish Armenia, as especially the on about Kars, Ispir, and Akhaltsik. Its rivers were the Cyrus (Kur) and Araxes (Aras), which flow together into the Caspian. It had one lake, Lake Goutcha or Sivan, in the mountain region north-east of Ararat. Colchis, or the valley of the Phasis, between the Caucasus and Western Iberia, corresponded to the modern districts of Imeritia, Mingrelia, and Guriel. Its chief importance lay in its commanding one of the main routes of early commerce, which passed by way of the Oxus, Caspian, Aras, and Phasis to the Euxine. (Connect with this the Argonautic expedition.) 20 RAWLINSON Chief town, Phasis, at the mouth of the Rion River, a Greek settlement. Natives of Colchis, black: believed to be Egyp- tians. Matiene was a strip of mountain land, running southward from Sapeiria, and separating between Assyria and Media Magna. It early lost its name, and was reckoned to one or other of the adjoining countries. Media, one of the largest and most important of the regions belonging to this group, extended from the Araxes on the north to the desert beyond Isfahan on the south. Eastward it reached to the Caspian Gates; westward it was bounded by Matiene, or (when Matiene disappeared) by Armenia and Assyria. Its chief rivers were the Araxes (Aras) and the Mardus (Kizil Uzen or Sefid-rud). It consisted of two re- gions, Northern Media, or Media Atropatene (Azerbijan), and Southern Media, or Media Magna. The whole territory was mountainous, except towards the south-east, where it abutted on the Sagartian desert. The soil was mostly sterile, but some tracts were fairly, and a few richly, productive. The chief cities were Ecbatana and Rhages. Persia lay south and south-east of Media, extending from the Median frontier across the Zagros mountain-chain, to the shores of the gulf whereto it gave name. It was barren and unfruitful towards the north and east, where it ran into the Sagartian desert ; mountainous and fairly fertile in the central region ; and a tract of arid sand along the coast. Its rivers were few and of small size. Two, the Oroatis (Tab) and Granis (Khisht river), flowed southward into the Persian Gulf; one, the Araxes (Bendamir), with its tributary the Cyrus (Pulwar), ran eastward, and terminated in a salt lake (Neyriz or Bakh- tigan). The principal cities were Persepolis, Pasargadae, and Carmana, which last was the capital of a district of Persia, called Carmania. Mycia was a small tract south-east of Persia, on the shores of the Persian Gulf, opposite the island of Kishm and the pro- montory of Ras Mussendum. It was ultimately absorbed into Persia Proper. Sagartia was at once the largest and the most thinly peopled of the plateau countries. It comprised the whole of the great ANCIENT HISTORY 21 desert of Iran, which reaches from Kashan and Koum on the west to Sarawan and Quettah towards the east, a distance of above 900 miles. It was bounded on the north by Media, Parthia, and Aria; on the east by Sarangia and Sattagydia; on the south by Mycia and the Eastern Ethiopia ; on the west by Media and Persia. It contained in ancient times no city of importance, the inhabitants being nomads, whose flocks found a scanty pasturage on the less barren portions of the great upland. Cadusia, or the country of the Cadusians, was a thin strip of territory along the south-eastern and southern shores of the Caspian, corresponding to the modern Ghilan and Mazande- ran. Strictly speaking, it scarcely belonged to the plateau, since it lay outside the Elburz range, on the northern slopes of the chain, and between them and the Caspian Sea. It con- tained no city of importance, but was fertile, well wooded, and well watered ; and sustained a numerous population. Hyrcania lay east of Cadusia, at the south-eastern corner of the Caspian, where the name still exists in the modern river Gurgan. The chain of the Elburz here broadens out to a width of 200 miles, and a fertile region is formed containing many rich valleys and high mountain pastures, together with some considerable plains. The chief city of Hyrcania was Zadracarta. Parthia lay south and south-east of Hyrcania, including the sunny flank of the Elburz chain, and the flat country at its base as far as the northern edge of the desert, where it bordered on Sagartia. It was a narrow but fertile territory, watered by the numerous streams which here descend from the mountains. Aria, the modern territory of Herat, adjoined Parthia on the east. It was a small but fertile tract on the river Arius (the Heri- rud), with a capital city, called Aria or Artacoana (Herat). Arachosia, east of Aria, comprised most of Western and Central Affghanistan. Its rivers were the Etymandrus (Hel- mend) and the Arachotus (Arghand-ab). The capital was Arachotus (Kandahar?). It was an extensive country, moun- tainous and generally barren, but containing a good deal of fair pasturage, and a few fertile vales. 22 RAWLINSON Sattagydia adjoined Arachosia on the east, corresponding to South-eastern Affghanistan, or the tract between Kandahar and the Indus valley. In character it closely resembled Ara- chosia, but was on the whole wilder and more rugged. Gandaria lay above Sattagydia, comprising the modern Kabul and Kaferistan. It consisted of a mass of tangled moun- tain-chains, with fertile valleys between them, often, however, narrowing to gorges difficult to penetrate. Its principal stream was the Cophen (or river of Kabul), a tributary of the Indus, and its chief town Caspatyrus (Kabul?). Sarangia, or Zarangia, was the tract lying about the salt lake (Hamoon) into which the Etymandrus (Helmend) emp- ties itself. This tract is flat, and generally desert, except along the courses of the many streams which flow into the Hamoon from the north and east. Gedrosia corresponded to the modern Beluchistan. It lay south of Sarangia, Arachosia, and Sattagydia, and east of Sagartia and Mycia. On the east its boundary was the Indus valley ; on the south it was washed by the Indian Ocean. It was a region of alternate rock and sand, very scantily watered, and almost entirely destitute of wood. The chief town was Pura (perhaps Bunpoor). The lowland to the south, or rather the south-west, of the great West- Asian plateau, comprised five countries only : viz., Syria, Arabia, Assyria, Susis or Susiana, and Babylonia. Each of these requires a short notice. Syria, bounded by Cilicia on the north, the Euphrates on the north-east, the Arabian desert on the south-east and south, and by the Levant upon the west, comprised the following regions : ist. Syria Proper, or the tract reaching from Amanus to Her- mon and Palmyra. Chief cities in the ante-Cyrus period: Carchemish, Hamath, Damascus, Baalbek, and Tadmor or Palmyra. Chief river, the Orontes. Mountains : Casius, Bar- gylus, Libanus, and anti-Libanus. 2d. Phoenicia, the coast- tract from the thirty-fifth to the thirty-third parallel, separated from Syria Proper by the ridge of Libanus. Chief towns: Tyre, Sidon, Berytus, Byblus, Tripolis, Aradus. 3d. Pales- tine, comprising Galilee, Samaria, Judaea, and Philistia, or Palestine Proper. Chief cities: Jerusalem, Samaria, Azotus ANCIENT HISTORY 23 or Ashdod, Ascalon, and Gaza or Cadytis. Mountains : Her- mon, Carmel. River, Jordan. Northern and Western Syria are mountainous, and generally fertile. Eastern Syria is an arid desert, broken only by a few oases, of which the Palmy- rene is the principal. Arabia lay south and south-east of Syria. It was a country of enormous size, being estimated to contain a million of square miles, or more than one-fourth the area of Europe. Consisting, however, as it does, mainly of sandy or rocky deserts, its population must always have been scanty, and its productions few. In the ancient world it was never of much account, the inhabitants being mainly nomads, and only the outlying tribes coming into contact with the neighboring na- tions. The only important towns were, in the east, Gerrha, a great trading settlement ; in the west, Petra and Elath. Assyria intervened between Syria and Media. It was bounded on the north by the snowy chain of Niphates, which separated it from Armenia, and on the east by the outer ranges of Zagros. Westward its limit was the Euphrates, while south- ward it adjoined on Babylonia and Susiana. Towards the north and east it included some mountain tracts; but in the main it was a great rolling plain, at a low level, scantily watered towards the west, where the Euphrates has few affluents, but well supplied towards the east, where Mount Zagros sends down many large streams to join the Tigris. Its chief cities were Ninus, or Nineveh, Calah, and Asshur upon the Tigris ; Arbela in the region between the Tigris and Mount Zagros; Nisibis, Amida, Harran or Carrhae, and Circesium in the dis- trict between the great rivers. Its streams, besides the Tigris and Euphrates, were the Bilichus (Belik) and the Chaboras (Western Khabour), affluents of the Euphrates ; the Centrites (Bitlis Chai), the Eastern Khabour, the Zabatus (or Zab Ala), the Caprus (or Zab Asfal), and the Gyndes or Physcus (Diya- leh), tributaries of the Tigris. It contained on the north the mountain range of Masius (Jebel Tur and Karajah Dagh). Its chief districts were Aturia, or Assyria Proper, the tract about Nineveh ; Adiabene, the country between the Upper Zab and the Lower ; Chalonitis, the region south of the Lower Zab ; and Gozan (or Mygdonia) on the Western Khabour at 24 RAWLINSON the foot of the Mons Masius. The Greeks called the whole tract between the two great rivers Mesopotamia. Susis, Susiana or Cissia, lay south-east of Assyria, and con- sisted chiefly of the low plain between the Zagros range and the Tigris, but comprised also a portion of the mountain re- gion. Its rivers were the Choaspes (Kerkheh), the Pasitigris (Kuran), the Eulseus (a branch stream formerly running from the Choaspes into the Pasitigris), and the Hedypnus (Jerrahi). Capital city, Susa, between the Choaspes and Eulaeus rivers. Babylonia lay due south of Assyria, in which it was some- times included. The line of demarkation between them was the limit of the alluvium. On the east Babylonia was bounded by Susiana, on the west by Arabia, and on the south by the Persian Gulf. It was a single alluvial plain of vast extent and extraordinary fertility. The chief cities, besides Babylon on the Euphrates, were Ur (now Mugheir), Erech (Warka), Cal- neh (Niffer), Cutha (Ibrahim), Sippara or Sepharvaim (Mo- saib), and Borsippa (Birs-Nimrud). The more southern part of Babylonia, bordering on Arabia and the Persian Gulf, was known as Chaldaea. The Peninsula of Hindustan, the last of the four great divis- ions of South-western Asia, contains nearly a million and a quarter of square miles. Nature has divided it into three very distinct tracts, one towards the north-west, consisting of the basin drained by the Indus ; one towards the east, or the basin drained by the Ganges; and one towards the south, or the peninsula proper. Of these the north-western only was con- nected with the history of the ancient world. This tract, called India from the river on which it lay, was separated off from the rest of Hindustan by a broad belt of desert. It comprised two regions ist, that known in mod- ern times as the Punjab, abutting immediately on the Him- alaya chain, and containing about 50,000 square miles ; a vast triangular plain, intersected by the courses of five great rivers (whence Punj-ab = Five Rivers) the Indus, the Hydaspes (Jelum), the Acesines (Chenab), the Hydraotes (Ravee), and the Hyphasis (Sutlej), fertile along their course, but other- wise barren. 2dly, the region known as Scinde, or the Indus valley below the Punjab, a tract of about the same size, ANCIENT HISTORY 25 including the rich plain of Cutchi Gandava on the west bank of the river, and the broad delta of the Indus towards the south. Chief town of the upper region, Taxila (Attok) ; of the south- ern, Pattala (Tatta?). PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS ON THE GEN- ERAL CHARACTER OF THE EARLY ASIATIC KINGDOMS. The physical conformation of Western Asia is favorable to the growth of large empires. In the vast plain which ex- tends from the foot of Niphates and Zagros to the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and the Mediterranean, there are no natural fastnesses; and the race which is numerically or physically superior to the other races inhabiting it readily acquires do- minion over the entire region. Similarly, only not quite to the same extent, in the upland region which succeeds to this plain upon the east, there is a deficiency of natural barriers, and the nation which once begins to excel its neighbors, rapidly ex- tends its influence over a wide stretch of territory. The upland and lowland powers are generally pretty evenly balanced, and maintain a struggle in which neither side gives way ; but occa- sionally the equality becomes deranged. Circumstances give to the one or to the other additional strength ; and the result is that its rival is overpowered. Then an empire of still greater extent is formed, both upland and lowland falling under the sway of the same people. Still more remarkable than this uniformity of size is the uniformity of governmental type observable throughout all these empires. The form of government is in every case a monarchy ; the monarchy is always hereditary ; and the hered- itary monarch is a despot. A few feeble checks are in some instances devised for the purpose of restraining within certain limits the caprice or the cruelty of the holder of power; but these barriers, where they exist, are easily overleaped; and in most cases there is not even any such semblance of inter- ference with the will of the ruler, who is the absolute master of the lives, liberties, and property of his subjects. Despotism 26 RAWLINSON is the simplest, coarsest, and rudest of all the forms of civil government. It was thus naturally the first which men, pressed by a sudden need, extemporized. And in Asia the wish has never arisen to improve upon this primitive and imperfect essay. Some variety is observable in the internal organization of the empires. In the remoter times it was regarded as sufficient to receive the personal submission of the monarch whose land was conquered, to assess his tribute at a certain amount, and then to leave him in the unmolested enjoyment of his former dignity. The head of an empire was thus a " king of kings," and the empire itself was an aggregation of kingdoms. After a while an improvement was made on the simplicity of this early system. Satraps, or provincial governors, court officials belonging to the conquering nation, and holding their office only during the good pleasure of the Great King, were sub- stituted for the native monarchs ; and arrangements more or less complicated were devised for checking and controlling them in the exercise of their authority. The power of the head of the empire was thus considerably increased ; and the empire acquired a stability unknown under the previous system. Uni- formity of administration was to a certain extent secured. At the same time, a very great diversity underlay this external uniformity, since the conquered nations were generally suf- fered to retain their own language, religion, and usages. No effort was made even to interfere with their laws ; and thus the provinces continued, after the lapse of centuries, as separate and distinct in tone, feeling, ideas, and aspirations, as at the time when they were conquered. The sense of separateness was never lost ; the desire of recovering national independence, at best, slumbered; nothing was wanted but opportunity to stir up the dormant feeling, and to shatter the seeming unity of the empire into a thousand fragments. A characteristic of the Oriental monarchies, which very markedly distinguishes them from the kingdoms of the West, is the prevalence of polygamy. The polygamy of the monarch swells to excessive numbers the hangers-on of the court, neces- sitates the building of a vast palace, encourages effeminacy and luxury, causes the annual outlay of enormous sums on ANCIENT HISTORY 27 the maintenance of the royal household, introduces a degraded and unnatural class of human beings into positions of trust and dignity ; in a word, at once saps the vital force of the empire in its central citadel, and imposes heavy burdens on the mass of the population, which tend to produce exhaustion and paral- ysis of the whole body politic. The practice of polygamy among the upper classes, destroying the domestic affections by diluting them, degrades and injures the moral character of those who give its tone to the nation, lowers their physical energy, and renders them self-indulgent and indolent. Nor do the lower classes, though their poverty saves them from participating directly in the evil, escape unscathed. Yielding, as they commonly do, to the temptation of taking money for their daughters from the proprietors of harems, they lose by degrees all feeling of self-respect ; the family bond, corrupted in its holiest element, ceases to have an elevating influence; and the traffickers in their own flesh and blood become the ready tools of tyrants, the ready applauders of crime, and the submissive victims of every kind of injustice and oppression. The Asiatic Empires were always founded upon conquest; and conquest implies the possession of military qualities in the victors superior at any rate to those of the vanquished nations. Usually the conquering people were at first simple in their habits, brave, hardy, and, comparatively speaking, poor. The immediate consequence of their victory was the exchange of poverty for riches; and riches usually brought in their train the evils of luxurious living and idleness. The conquerors rapidly deteriorated under such influences ; and, if it had not been for the common practice of confining the use of arms, either wholly or mainly, to their own class, they might, in a very few generations, have had to change places with their subjects. Even in spite of this practice they continually de- creased in courage and warlike spirit. The monarchs usually became faineants, and confined themselves to the precincts of the palace. The nobles left off altogether the habit of athletic exercise. Military expeditions grew to be infrequent. When they became a necessity in consequence of revolt or of border ravages, the deficiencies of the native troops had to be supplied by the employment of foreign mercenaries, who cared nothing 2 8 RAWLINSON for the cause in which their swords were drawn. Meanwhile, the conquerors were apt to quarrel among themselves. Great satraps would revolt and change their governments into inde- pendent sovereignties. Pretenders to the crown would start up among the monarch's nearest relatives, and the strength and resources of the state would be wasted in civil conflicts. The extortion of provincial governors exhausted the prov- inces, while the corruption of the court weakened the empire at its centre. Still, the tottering edifice would stand for years, or even for centuries, if there was no attack from abroad, by a mere vis inertia; but, sooner or later, such an attack was sure to come, and then the unsubstantial fabric gave way at once and crumbled to dust under a few blows vigorously dealt by a more warlike nation. HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT ASIATIC KING- DOMS PREVIOUS TO CYRUS. CHALDyEAN MONARCHY. The earliest of the Asiatic monarchies sprang up in the alluvial plain at the head of the Persian Gulf. Here Moses places the first " kingdom " (Gen. x. 10) ; and here Berosus regarded a Chaldaean monarchy as established probably as early as B.C. 2000. The Hebrew records give Nimrod as the founder of this kingdom, and exhibit Chedorlaomer as lord- paramount in the region not very long afterwards. The names of the kings in the lists of Berosus are lost ; but we are told that he mentioned by name forty-nine Chaldaean monarchs, whose reigns covered a space of 458 years from about B.C. 2000 to about B.C. 1543. The primeval monuments of the country have yielded memorials of fifteen or sixteen kings, who probably belonged to this early period. They were at any rate the builders of the most ancient edifices now existing in the country; and their date is long anterior to the time of Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar. The phonetic reading of these monumental names is too uncertain to justify their in- sertion here. It will be sufficient to give, from Berosus, an ANCIENT HISTORY 29 outline of the dynasties which ruled in Chaldaea, from about B.C. 2000 to 747, the era of Nabonassar : Chalda-an dynasty, ruling for 458 years (Kings: Nimrod, Chcdorlaomer) about B.C. 2001 to 1543 Arabian dynasty, ruling for 245 years about B.C. 1543 to 1298 Dynasty of forty-five kings, ruling for 526 years about B.C. 1298 to 772 Reign of Pul (say 25 years) about B.C. 772 to 747 Berosus, it will be observed, marks during this period two, if not three, changes of dynasty. After the Chaldaeans have borne sway for 458 years, they are succeeded by Arabs, who hold the dominion for 245 years, when they too are super- seded by a race not named, but probably Assyrian. This race bears rule for 526 years, and then Pul ascends the throne, and reigns for a term of years not stated. (Pul is called " king of Assyria " in Scripture ; but this may be an inexactness. He is not to be found among the Assyrian monumental kings.) These changes of dynasty mark changes of condition. Under the first or Chaldaean dynasty, and under the last monarch, Pul, the country was flourishing and free. The second dynasty was probably, and the third certainly, established by conquest. Chaldaea, during the 526 years of the third dynasty, was of secondary importance to Assyria, and though from time to time engaged in wars with the dominant power of Western Asia, was in the main submissive and even subject. The names of six kings belonging to this dynasty have been recovered from the Assyrian monuments. Among them is a Nebuchad- nezzar, while the majority commence with the name of the god Merodach. The Chaldaean monarchy had from the first an architectural character. Babylon, Erech or Orchoe, Accad, and Calneh, were founded by Nimrod. Ur was from an early date a city of importance. The attempt to build a tower " which should reach to heaven," made here (Gen. xi. 4), was in accordance with the general spirit of the Chaldaean people. Out of such simple and rude materials as brick and bitumen vast edifices were constructed, pyramidical in design, but built in steps or stages of considerable altitude. Other arts also flourished. Letters were in use; and the baked bricks employed by the 3 o RAWLINSON royal builders had commonly a legend in their centre. Gems were cut, polished, and engraved with representations of hu- man forms, portrayed with spirit. Metals of many kinds were worked, and fashioned into arms, ornaments, and implements. Textile fabrics of a delicate tissue were manufactured. Com- merce was carried on with the neighboring nations both by land and sea : the " ships of Ur " visiting the shores of the Persian Gulf, and perhaps those of the ocean beyond it. The study of Astronomy commenced, and observations of the heav- enly bodies were made, and carefully recorded. ASSYRIAN MONARCHY. The traces which we possess of the First Period are chiefly monumental. The Assyrian inscriptions furnish two lists one of three, and the other of four consecutive kings which belong probably to this early time. The seat of empire is at first Asshur (now Kileh Sherghat), on the right bank of the Tigris, about sixty miles below Nineveh. Some of the kings are connected by intermarriage with the Chaldaean monarchs of the period, and take part in the struggles of pretenders to the Chaldaean crown. One of them, Shalmaneser L, wars in the mountain-chain of Niphates, and plants cities in that region (about B.C. 1270). This monarch also builds Calah (Nimrud), forty miles north of Asshur, on the left or east bank of the river. The Second Period is evidently that of which Herodotus spoke as lasting for 520 years, from about B.C. 1260 to 740. It commenced with the conquest of Babylon by Tiglathi-nin (probably the original of the Greek " Ninus "), and it termi- nated with the new dynasty established by Tiglath-pileser II. The monuments furnish for the earlier portion of this period some nine or ten discontinuous royal names, while for the later portion they supply a complete consecutive list, and an exact chronology. The exact chronology begins with the year B.C. 909. The great king of the earlier portion of the Second Period is a certain Tiglath-pileser, who has left a long historical in- scription, which shows that he carried his arms deep into Mount Zagros on the one hand, and as far as Northern Syria ANCIENT HISTORY 31 on the other. He likewise made an expedition into Babylonia. Date, about B.C. 1130. His son was also a warlike prince ; but from about B.C. 1100 to 900 Assyrian history is still almost a blank; and it is probable that we have here a period of depression. For the later portion of the Second Period from B.C. 909 to 745 the chronology is exact, and the materials for history are abundant. In this period Calah became the capital, and several of the palaces and temples were erected which have been disinterred at Nimrud. The Assyrian monarchs carried their arms beyond Zagros, and came into contact with Medes and Persians ; they deeply penetrated Armenia ; and they pressed from Northern into Southern Syria, and imposed their yoke upon the Phoenicians, the kingdom of Damascus, and the kingdom of Israel. The names of Ben-hadad, Hazael, Aliab, and Jehu are common to the Assyrian and Hebrew records. Towards the close of the period, the kings became slothful and unwarlike, military expeditions ceased, or were conducted only to short distances and against insignificant enemies. The Assyrian art of the Second shows a great advance upon that of the First Period. Magnificent palaces were built, richly embellished with bas-reliefs. Sculpture was rigid, but bold and grand. Literature was more cultivated. The history of each reign was written by contemporary annalists, and cut on stone, or impressed on cylinders of baked clay. Engraved stela: were erected in all the countries under Assyrian rule. Considerable communication took place with foreign coun- tries ; and Bactrian camels, baboons, curious antelopes, ele- phants, and rhinoceroses were imported into Assyria from the East. In the Third Period the Assyrian Empire reached the height of its greatness under the dynasty of the Sargonidae, after which it fell suddenly, owing to blows received from two pow- erful foes. The period commenced with a revival of the mili- tary spirit and vigor of the nation under Tiglath-pileser II., the king of that name mentioned in Scripture. Distant expe- ditions were resumed, and the arms of Assyria carried into new regions. Egypt was attacked and reduced ; Susiana was 32 RAWLINSON subjugated; and in Asia Minor Taurus was crossed, Cappa- docia invaded, and relations established with the Lydian mon- arch, Gyges. Naval expeditions were undertaken both in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. Cyprus submitted, and the Assyrian monarchs numbered Greeks among their sub- jects. Almost all the kings of the period came into contact with the Jews, and the names of most of them appear in the Hebrew records. Towards the close of the. period the empire sustained a severe shock from the sudden invasion of vast hordes of Scythians from the North. Before it could recover from the prostration caused by this attack, its old enemy, Media, fell upon it, and, assisted by Babylon, effected its de- struction. Assyrian art attained to its greatest perfection during this last period. Palaces were built by Tiglath-pileser II. at Calah, by Sargon at Dur Sargina (Khorsabad), by Sennacherib at Nineveh, by Esarhaddon at Calah and Nineveh, by Sardanap- alus II. at Nineveh, and by Saracus at Calah. Glyptic art ad- vanced, especially under Sardanapalus, when the animal forms were executed with a naturalness and a spirit worthy of the Greeks. At the same time carving in ivory, metallurgy, model- ling, and other similar arts made much progress. An active commerce united Assyria with Phoenicia, Egypt, and Greece. Learning of various kinds astronomic, geographic, linguis- tic, historical was pursued; and stores were accumulated which will long exercise the ingenuity of the moderns. MEDIAN MONARCHY. The primitive history of the Medes is enveloped in great obscurity. The mention of them as Madai in Genesis (x. 2), and the statement of Berosus that they furnished an early dy- nasty to Babylon, imply their importance in very ancient times. But scarcely any thing is known of them till the ninth century B.C., when they were attacked in their own proper country, Media Magna, by the Assyrians (about B.C. 830). At this time they were under the government of numerous petty chief- tains, and offered but a weak resistance to the arms of the ANCIENT HISTORY 33 Assyrian monarchs. No part of their country, however, was reduced to subjection until the time of Sargon, who conquered some Median territory about B.C. 710, and planted it with cities in which he placed his Israelite captives. The subse- quent Assyrian monarchs made further conquests; and it is evident from their records that no great Median monarchy had arisen down to the middle of the seventh century B.C. The earliest date which, with our present knowledge, we can assign for the commencement of a great Median monarchy is B.C. 650. The monarchs assigned by Herodotus and Ctesias to a time anterior to this may conceivably have been chiefs of petty Median tribes, but were certainly not the heads of the whole nation. The probability is that they are fictitious per- sonages. Suspicion attaches especially to the list of Ctesias, which appears to have been formed by an intentional duplica- tion of the regnal and other periods mentioned by Herodotus. There is reason to believe that about B.C. 650, or a little later, the Medes of Media Magna were largely reinforced by fresh immigrants from the East, and that shortly afterwards they were enabled to take an aggressive attitude towards As- syria, such as had previously been quite beyond their power. In B.C. 633 according to Herodotus they attacked Nineveh, but were completely defeated, their leader, whom he calls Phraortes, being slain in the battle. Soon after this occurred the Scythian inroad, which threw the Medes upon the defen- sive, and hindered them from resuming their schemes of con- quest for several years. But, when this danger had passed, they once more invaded the Assyrian Empire in force. Nine- veh was invested and fell. Media upon this became the leading power of Western Asia, but was not the sole power, since the spoils of Assyria were divided between her and Babylon. Less is known of Median art and civilization than of As- syrian, Babylonian, or Persian. Their architecture appears to have possessed a barbaric magnificence, but not much of either grandeur or beauty. The great palace at Ecbatana was of wood, plated with gold and silver. After the conquest of Nineveh, luxurious habits were adopted from the Assyrians, and the court of Astyages was probably as splendid as that of Esarhaddon and Sardanapalus. The chief known peculiar- 3 34 RAWLINSON ity of the Median kingdom was the ascendency exercised in it by the Magi a priestly caste claiming supernatural powers, which had, apparently, been adopted into the nation. BABYLONIAN MONARCHY. After the conquest of Babylonia by the Assyrians, about B.C. 1250, an Assyrian dynasty was established at Babylon, and the country was, in general, content to hold a secondary position in Western Asia, acknowledging the suzerainty of the Ninevite kings. From time to time efforts were made to shake off the yoke, but without much success till the accession of Nabonassar, B.C. 747. Under Nabonassar and several of his successors Babylonia appears to have been independent; and this condition of independence continued, with intervals of subjection, down to the accession of Esarhaddon, B.C. 680, when Assyrian supremacy was once more established. Baby- lon then continued in a subject position, till the time when Nabopolassar made alliance with Cyaxares, joined in the last siege of Nineveh, and, when Nineveh fell, became independent, B.C. 625. During the Second Period, Babylonia was not only an inde- pendent kingdom, but was at the head of an empire. Nabo- polassar and Cyaxares divided the Assyrian dominions be- tween them, the former obtaining for his share Susiana, the Euphrates valley, Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine. A brilliant period followed. At first indeed the new empire was threat- ened by Egypt; and for a few years the western provinces were actually held in subjection by Pharaoh-nechoh ; but Babylon now aroused herself, defeated Nechoh, recovered her territory, and carrying her arms through Palestine into Egypt, chastised the aggressor on his own soil. From this time till the invasion of Cyrus the empire continued to flourish, but became gradually less and less warlike, and offered a poor resistance to the Persians. The architectural works of the Babylonians, more especially under Nebuchadnezzar, were of surpassing grandeur. The " hanging gardens " of that prince, and the walls with which he surrounded Babylon, were reckoned among the Seven ANCIENT HISTORY 35 Wonders of the World. The materials used were the same as in the early Chaldsean times, sunburnt and baked brick; but the baked now preponderated. The ornamentation of buildings was by bricks of different hues, or sometimes by a plating of precious metal, or by enamelling. By means of the last-named process, war-scenes and hunting-scenes were represented on the walls of palaces, which are said to have been life-like and spirited. Temple-towers were still built in stages, which now sometimes reached the number of seven. Useful works of great magnitude were also constructed by some of the kings, especially by Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonadius; such as canals, reservoirs, embankments, sluices, and piers on the shores of the Persian Gulf. Commerce flourished, and Babylon was reckoned emphatically a " city of merchants." The study of astronomy was also pursued with zeal and in- dustry. Observations were made and carefully recorded. The sky was mapped out into constellations, and the fixed stars were catalogued. Occultations of the planets by the sun and moon were noted. Time was accurately measured by means of sun-dials, and other astronomical instruments were prob- ably invented. At the same time it must be confessed that the astronomical science of the Babylonians was not pure, but was largely mixed with astrology, more especially in the later times. KINGDOMS IN ASIA MINOR. The geographical formation of Asia Minor, which separates it into a number of distinct and isolated regions, was probably the main reason why it did not in early times become the seat of a great empire. The near equality of strength that existed among several of the races by which it was inhabited as the Phrygians, the Lydians, the Carians, the Cilicians, the Paph- lagonians, and the Cappadocians would tend naturally in the same direction, and lead to the formation of several parallel kingdoms instead of a single and all-embracing one. Never- theless, ultimately, such a great kingdom did grow up; but it had only just been formed when it was subverted by one more powerful. 36 RAWLINSON The most powerful state in the early times seems to have been Phrygia. It had an extensive and fertile territory, espe- cially suited for pasturage, and was also rich in the possession of salt lakes, which largely furnished that necessary of life. The people were brave, but somewhat brutal. They had a lively and martial music. It is probable that they were at no time all united into a single community ; but there is no reason to doubt that a considerable monarchy grew up in the north- western portion of the country, about B.C. 750 or earlier. The capital of the kingdom was Gordiseum on the Sangarius. The monarchs bore alternately the two names of Gordias and Midas. As many as four of each name have been distinguished by some critics; but the dates of the reigns are uncertain. A Midas appears to have been contemporary with Alyattes (about B.C. 600 to 570), and a Gordias with Crcesus (B.C. 570 to 560). Phrygia was conquered and became a province of Lydia about B.C. 560. Cilicia was likewise the seat of a monarchy in times anterior to Cyrus. About B.C. 711 Sargon gave the country to Am- bris, king of Tubal, as a dowry with his daughter. Senna- cherib, about B.C. 701, and Esarhaddon, about B.C. 677, in- vaded and ravaged the region. Tarsus was founded by Senna- cherib, about B.C. 685. In B.C. 666 Sardanapalus took to wife a Cilician princess. Fifty years afterwards we find a Syen- nesis seated on the throne, and from this time all the kings appear to have borne that name or title. Cilicia maintained her independence against Crcesus, and (probably) against Cy- rus, but submitted to Persia soon afterwards, probably in the reign of Cambyses. Ultimately the most important of all the kingdoms of Asia Minor was Lydia. According to the accounts which Herodo- tus followed, a Lydian kingdom had existed from very ancient times, monarchs to whom he gives the name of Manes, Atys, Lydus, and Meles, having borne sway in Lydia prior to B.C. 1229. This dynasty, which has been called Atyadae, was fol- lowed by one of Heraclidae, which continued in power for 505 years from B.C. 1229 to 724. (The last six kings of this dynasty are known from Nicholas of Damascus who follows Xanthus, the native writer. They were Adyattes I., Ardys, ANCIENT HISTORY 37 Adyattes II., Meles, Myrsus, and Sadyattes or Candaules.) On the murder of Candaules, B.C. 724, a third dynasty that of the Mermnadae bore rule. This continued till B.C. 554, when the last Lydian monarch, Croesus, was conquered by Cyrus. This monarch had previously succeeded in changing his kingdom into an empire, having extended his dominion over all Asia Minor, excepting Lycia, Cilicia, and Cappadocia. PHOENICIA. Phoenicia, notwithstanding the small extent of its territory, which consisted of a mere strip of land between the crest of Lebanon and the sea, was one of the most important countries of the ancient world. In her the commercial spirit first showed itself as the dominant spirit of a nation. She was the carrier between the East and the West the link that bound them together in times anterior to the first appearance of the Greeks as navigators. No complete history of Phoenicia has come down to us, nor can a continuous history be constructed ; but some important fragments remain, and the general con- dition of the country, alternating between subjection and in- dependence, is ascertained sufficiently. At no time did Phoenicia form either a single centralized state, or even an organized confederacy. Under ordinary cir- cumstances the states were separate and independent: only in times of danger did they occasionally unite under the leader- ship of the most powerful. The chief cities were Tyre, Sidon, Berytus, Byblus, Tripolis, and Aradus. Of these Sidon seems to have been the most ancient ; and there is reason to believe that, prior to about B.C. 1050, she was the most flourishing of all the Phoenician communities. The priority and precedency enjoyed by Sidon in the remoter times devolved upon Tyre (her colony, according to some) about B.C. 1050. The defeat of Sidon by the Philistines of Ascalon is said to have caused the transfer of power. Tyre, and indeed every Phoenician city, was under the rule of kings ; but the priestly order had considerable influence; and an aristocracy of birth, or wealth, likewise restrained any tyran- 38 RAWLINSON nical inclinations on the part of the monarch. The list of the Tyrian kings from about B.C. 1050 to 830 is known to us from the fragments of Menander. The commercial spirit of Phoenicia was largely displayed during this period, which, till towards its close, was one of absolute independence. The great monarchies of Egypt and Assyria were now, comparatively speaking, weak ; and the states between the Euphrates and the African border, being free from external control, were able to pursue their natural bent without interference. Her commercial leanings early in- duced Phoenicia to begin the practice of establishing colonies ; and the advantages which the system was found to secure caused it to acquire speedily a vast development. The coasts and islands of the Mediterranean were rapidly covered with settlements; the Pillars of Hercules were passed, and cities built on the shores of the ocean. At the same time factories were established in the Persian Gulf; and, conjointly with the Jews, on the Red Sea. Phoenicia had at this time no serious commercial rival, and the trade of the world was in her hands. The geographical position of the Phoenician colonies marks the chief lines of their trade, but is far from indicating its full extent ; since the most distant of these settlements served as starting-points whence voyages were made to remoter regions. Phoenician merchantmen proceeding from Gades and Tartes- sus explored the western coast of Africa, and obtained tin from Cornwall and the Scilly Islands. The traders of Tylus and Aradus extended their voyages beyond the Persian Gulf to India and Taprobane, or Ceylon. Phoenician navigators, start- ing from Elath in the Red Sea, procured gold from Ophir, on the south-eastern coast of Arabia. Thasos and the neighbor- ing islands furnished convenient stations from which the Euxine could be visited and commercial relations established with Thrace, Scythia, and Colchis. Some have supposed that the North Sea was crossed and the Baltic entered in quest of amber; but the balance of evidence is, on the whole, against this extreme hypothesis. The sea-trade of the Phoenicians was probably supplemented from a very remote date by a land traffic; but this portion of their commerce scarcely obtained its full development till ANCIENT HISTORY 39 the time of Nebuchadnezzar. A line of communication must indeed have been established early with the Persian Gulf set- tlements; and in the time of Solomon there was no doubt a route open to Phoenician traders from Tyre or Joppa, through Jerusalem, to Elath. But the generally disturbed state of Western Asia during the Assyrian period would have rendered land traffic then so insecure, that, excepting where it was a necessity, it would have been avoided. Towards the close of the period, whereof the history has been sketched above, the military expeditions of the Assyr- ians began to reach Southern Syria, and Phoenician inde- pendence seems to have been lost. We can not be sure that the submission was continuous; but from the middle of the ninth till past the middle of the eighth century there occur in the contemporary monuments of Assyria plain indications of Phoenician subjection, while there is no evidence of resist- ance or revolt. Native sovereigns tributary to Assyria reign in the Phoenician towns and are reckoned by the Assyrian monarchs among their dependents. The country ceases to have a history of its own ; and, with one exception, the very names of its rulers have perished. About B.C. 743 the passive submission of Phoenicia to the Assyrian yoke began to be exchanged for an impatience of it, and frequent efforts were made, from this date till Nineveh fell, to re-establish Phoenician independence. These efforts for the most part failed; but it is not improbable that finally, amid the troubles under which the Assyrian empire succumbed, suc- cess crowned the nation's patriotic exertions, and autonomy was recovered. Scarcely, however, had Assyria fallen, when a new enemy appeared upon the scene. Nechoh of Egypt, about B.C. 608, conquered the whole tract between his own borders and the Euphrates. Phoenicia submitted or was reduced, and remained for three years an Egyptian dependency. Nebuchadnezzar, in B.C. 605, after his defeat of Nechoh at Carchemish, added Phoenicia to Babylon ; and, though Tyre revolted from him eight years later, B.C. 598, and resisted for thirteen years all his attempts to reduce her, yet at length she was compelled to submit, and the Babylonian yoke was firmly 40 RAWLINSON fixed on the entire Phoenician people. It is not quite certain that they did not shake it off upon the death of the great Baby- lonian king ; but, on the whole, probability is in favor of their having remained subject till the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, B.C. 538. As usual, the internal government of the depend- ency was left to the conquered people, who were ruled at this time either by native kings, or, occasionally, by judges. As Greece rose to power, and as Carthage increased in im- portance, the sea-trade of Phoenicia was to a certain extent checked. The commerce of the Euxine and the ^Egean passed almost wholly into the hands of the alien Hellenes ; that of the Western Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean had to be shared with the daughter state. Meanwhile, however, in consequence of the more settled condition of Western Asia, first under the later Assyrian, and then under the Babylonian monarchs, the land trade received a considerable development. A line of traffic was established with Armenia and Cappa- docia, and Phoenician manufactures were exchanged for the horses, mules, slaves, and brazen or copper utensils of those regions. Another line passed by Tadmor, or Palmyra, to Thapsacus, whence it branched on the one hand through Up- per Mesopotamia to Assyria, on the other down the Euphrates valley to Babylon and the Persian Gulf. Whether a third line traversed the Arabian peninsula from end to end for the sake of the Yemen spices may be doubted ; but, at any rate, communication must have been kept up by land with the friendly Jerusalem, and with the Red Sea, which was certainly frequented by Phoenician fleets. The Phoenician commerce was chiefly a carrying trade ; but there were also a few productions of their own in which their traffic was considerable. The most famous of these was the purple dye, which they obtained from two shell-fish, the buc- cinum and the murex, and by the use of which they gave a high value to their textile fabrics. Another was glass, whereof they claimed the discovery, and which they manufactured into various articles of use and ornament. They were also skilful in metallurgy ; and their bronzes, their gold and silver vessels, and other works in metal, had a high repute. Altogether, they have a claim to be considered one of the most ingenious of the ANCIENT HISTORY 41 nations of antiquity, though we must not ascribe to them the invention of letters or the possession of any remarkable artistic talent. SYRIA. Syria, prior to its formation into a Persian satrapy, had at no time any political unity. During the Assyrian period it was divided into at least five principal states, some of which were mere loose confederacies. The five states were i. The north- ern Hittites. Chief city, Carchemish (probably identical with the later Mabog, now Bambuch). 2. The Patena, on the lower Orontes. Chief city, Kinalua. 3. The people of Hamath, in the Coele- Syrian valley, on the upper Orontes. Chief city, Hamath (now Hamah). 4. The southern Hittites, in the tract south of Hamath. 5. The Syrians of Damascus, in the Anti- Libanus, and the fertile country between that range and the desert. Chief city, Damascus, on the Abana (Barada). Of these states the one which was, if not the most powerful, yet at any rate the most generally known, was Syria of Damas- cus. The city itself was as old as the time of Abraham. The state, which was powerful enough, about B.C. 1000, to escape absorption into the empire of Solomon, continued to enjoy independence down to the time of Tiglath-pileser II., and was a formidable neighbor to the Jewish and Israelite monarchs. After the capture by Tiglath-pileser, about B.C. 732, a time of great weakness and depression ensued. One or two feeble attempts at revolt were easily crushed ; after which, for a while, Damascus wholly disappears from history. JUD^A. The history of the Jews and Israelites is known to us in cotn- pleter sequence and in greater detail than that of any other people of equal antiquity, from the circumstance that there has been preserved to our day so large a portion of their literature. The Jews became familiar with writing during their sojourn in Egypt, if not even earlier; and kept records of the chief events in their national life from that time almost uninterrupt- edly. From the sacred character which attached to many of 4 2 RAWLINSON their historical books, peculiar care was taken of them ; and the result is that they have come down to us nearly in their original form. Besides this, a large body of their ancient poesy is still extant, and thus it becomes possible to describe at length not merely the events of their civil history, but their manners, customs, and modes of thought. The history of the Jewish state commences with the Exodus, which is variously dated, at B.C. 1652 (Poole), B.C. 1491 (Ussher), or B.C. 1320 (Bunsen, Lepsius). The long chronol- ogy is, on the whole, to be preferred. We may conveniently divide the history into three periods. Periods. B.C. I. From the Exodus to the establishment of the monarchy 1650-1095 II. From the establishment of the monarchy to the sep- aration into two kingdoms i95-975 III. From the separation of the kingdoms to the captivity under Nebuchadnezzar 975-586 During the First Period the Jews regarded themselves as under a theocracy ; or, in other words, the policy of the nation was directed in all difficult crises by a reference to the Divine will, which there was a recognized mode of consulting. The earthly ruler, or rather leader, of the nation did not aspire to the name or position of king, but was content to lead the nation in war and judge it in peace from a position but a little elevated above that of the mass of the people. He obtained his office neither by hereditary descent nor by election, but was super- naturally designated to it by revelation to himself or to an- other, and exercised it with the general consent, having no means of compelling obedience. When once his authority was acknowledged, he retained it during the remainder of his life ; but it did not always extend over the whole nation. When he died, he was not always succeeded immediately by another similar ruler: on the contrary, there was often a considerable interval during which the nation had either no head, or ac- knowledged subjection to a foreign conqueror. When there was no head, the hereditary chiefs of tribes and families seem to have exercised jurisdiction and authority over the different districts. ANCIENT HISTORY 43 The chronology of this period is exceedingly uncertain, as is evident from the different dates assigned above to the Exodus. The Jews had different traditions upon the sub- ject ; and the chronological notices in their sacred books were neither complete, nor, apparently, intended for exact state- ments. The numbers, therefore, in the subjoined sketch must be regarded as merely approximate. The Second Period of the Jewish state comprises three reigns only those of Saul, David, and Solomon. Each of these was regarded as having lasted exactly forty years ; and thus the entire duration of the single monarchy was reckoned at 120 years. The progress of the nation during this brief space is most remarkable. When Saul ascends the throne the condi- tion of the people is but little advanced beyond the point which was reached when the tribes under Joshua took possession of the Promised Land. Pastoral and agricultural occupations still engross the attention of the Israelites ; simple habits pre- vail ; there is no wealthy class ; the monarch, like the Judges, has no court, no palace, no extraordinary retinue ; he is still little more than leader in war, and chief judge in time of peace. Again, externally, the nation is as weak as ever. The Ammo- nites on the one side, and the Philistines on the other, ravage its territory at their pleasure ; and the latter people have en- croached largely upon the Israelite borders, and reduced the Israelites to such a point of depression that they have no arms, offensive or defensive, nor even any workers in iron. Under Solomon, on the contrary, within a century of this time of weakness, the Israelites have become the paramount race in Syria. An empire has been formed which reaches from the Euphrates at Thapsacus to the Red Sea and the borders of Egypt. Numerous monarchs are tributary to the Great King who reigns at Jerusalem ; vast sums in gold and silver flow into the treasury ; magnificent edifices are constructed ; trade is established both with the East and with the West ; the court of Jerusalem vies in splendor with those of Nineveh and Mem- phis ; luxury has invaded the country ; a seraglio on the largest scale has been formed ; and the power and greatness of the prince has become oppressive to the bulk of the people. Such a rapid growth was necessarily exhaustive of the nation's 44 RAWLINSON strength; and the decline of the Israelites as a people dates from the division of the kingdom. Saul, divinely pointed out to Samuel, is anointed by him, and afterwards accepted by the people upon the casting of lots. He is remarkable for his comeliness and lofty stature. In his first year he defeats the Ammonites, who had overrun the land of Gilead. He then makes war on the Philistines, and gains the great victory of Michmash; from which time till near the close of his reign the Philistines remain upon the defensive. He also attacks the Amalekites, the Moabites, the Edomites, and the Syrians of Zobah. In the Amalekite war he offends God by disobedience, and thereby forfeits his right to the king- dom. Samuel, by divine command, anoints David, who is thenceforth an object of jealousy and hatred to the reigning monarch, but is protected by Jonathan, his son. Towards the close of Saul's reign the Philistines once more assume the of- fensive, under Achish, king of Gath, and at Mount Gilboa defeat the Israelites under Saul. Saul, and all his sons but one (Ishbosheth), fall in the battle. A temporary division of the kingdom follows the death of Saul. Ishbosheth, conveyed across the Jordan by Abner, is acknowledged as ruler in Gilead, and after five years, during which his authority is extended over all the tribes except Judah, is formally crowned as King of Israel at Mahanaim. He reigns there two years, when he is murdered. Meanwhile David is made king by his own tribe, Judah, and reigns at Hebron. On the death of Ishbosheth, David became king of the whole nation. His first act was the capture of Jerusalem, which up to this time had remained in the possession of the Jebusites. Having taken it, he made it the seat of government, built him- self a palace there, and, by removing to it the Ark of the Cove- nant, constituted it the national sanctuary. At the same time a court was formed at the new capital, a moderate seraglio set up, and a royal state affected unknown hitherto in Israel. A vast aggrandizement of the state by means of foreign con- quests followed. The Philistines were chastised, Gath taken, and the Israelite dominions in this quarter pushed as far as Gaza. Moab was invaded, two-thirds of the inhabitants ex- ANCIENT HISTORY 45 terminated, and the remainder forced to pay an annual tribute to the conqueror. War followed with Ammon, and with the various Syrian states interposed between the Holy Land and the Euphrates. At least three great battles were fought, with the result that the entire tract between the Jordan and the Eu- phrates was added to the Israelite territory. A campaign re- duced Edom, and extended the kingdom to the Red Sea. An empire was thus formed, which proved indeed short-lived, but was as real while it lasted as those of Assyria or Babylon. The glories of David's reign were tarnished by two re- bellions. The fatal taint of polygamy, introduced by David into the nation, gave occasion to these calamities, which arose from the mutual jealousies of his sons. First Absalom, and then Adonijah, assume the royal title in their father's lifetime ; and pay for treason, the one immediately, the other ultimately, with their lives. After the second rebellion, David secures the succession to Solomon by associating him upon the throne. The reign of Solomon is the culminating point of Jewish history. Resistance on the part of the conquered states has, with scarcely an exception, now ceased, and the new king can afford to be " a man of peace." The position of his kingdom among the nations of the earth is acknowledged by the neigh- boring powers, and the reigning Pharaoh does not scruple to give him his daughter in marriage. A great commercial move- ment follows. By alliance with Hiram of Tyre, Solomon is admitted to a share in the profits of Phoenician traffic, and the vast influx of the precious metals into Palestine which results from this arrangement enables the Jewish monarch to indulge freely his taste for ostentation and display. The court is recon- structed on an increased scale. A new palace of enlarged di- mensions and far greater architectural magnificence super- sedes the palace of David. The seraglio is augmented, and reaches a point which has no known parallel. A throne of extraordinary grandeur proclaims in language intelligible to all the wealth and greatness of the empire. Above all, a sanct- uary for the national worship is constructed on the rock of Moriah, on which all the mechanical and artistic resources of the time are lavished; and the Ark of the Covenant, whose wanderings have hitherto marked the unsettled and insecure 46 RAWLINSON condition of the nation, obtains at length a fixed and perma- nent resting-place. But close upon the heels of success and glory follows decline. The trade of Solomon a State monopoly enriched himself but not his subjects. The taxes which he imposed on the prov- inces for the sustentation of his enormous court exhausted and impoverished them. His employment of vast masses of the people in forced labors of an unproductive character was a wrongful and uneconomical interference with industry, which crippled agriculture and aroused a strong feeling of discontent. Local jealousies were provoked by the excessive exaltation of the tribe of Judah. The enervating influence of luxury began to be felt. Finally, a subtle corruption was allowed to spread itself through all ranks by the encouragement given to false religions, religions whose licentious and cruel rites were sub- versive of the first principles of morality, and even of decency. The seeds of the disintegration which showed itself imme- diately upon the death of Solomon were sown during his life- time ; and it is only surprising that they did not come to light earlier and interfere more seriously with the prosperity of his long reign. On the death of Solomon, the disintegrating forces, already threatening the unity of the empire, received, through the folly of his successor, a sudden accession of strength, which pre- cipitated the catastrophe. Rehoboam, entreated to lighten the burdens of the Israelites, declared his intention of increasing their weight, and thus drove the bulk of his native subjects into rebellion. The disunion of the conquering people gave the conquered tribes an opportunity of throwing off the yoke, whereof with few exceptions they availed themselves. In lieu of the puissant State, which under David and Solomon took rank among the foremost powers of the earth, we have hence- forth to deal with two petty kingdoms of small account, the interest of whose history is religious rather than political. The kingdom of Israel, established by the revolt of Jero- boam, comprises ten out of the twelve tribes, and reaches from the borders of Damascus and Hamath to within ten miles of Jerusalem. It includes the whole of the trans-Jordanic terri- tory, and exercises lordship over the adjoining country of ANCIENT HISTORY 47 Moab. The proportion of its population to that of Judah in the early times may be estimated as two to one. But the advantage of superior size, fertility, and population is counter- balanced by the inferiority of every Israelite capital to Jerusa- lem, and by the fundamental weakness of a government which, deserting purity of religion, adopts for expediency's sake an unauthorized and semi-idolatrous worship. In vain a succes- sion of Prophets, some of them endowed with extraordinary miraculous power, struggled against this fatal taint. Idolatry, intertwined with the nation's life, could not be rooted out. One form of the evil led on to other and worse forms. The national strength was sapped; and it scarcely required an attack from without to bring the State to dissolution. The actual fall, however, is produced B.C. 721, by the growing power of Assyria, which has even at an earlier date forced some of the monarchs to pay tribute. The separate kingdom of Judah, commencing at the same date with that of Israel, outlasted it by considerably more than a century. Composed of two entire tribes only, with refugees from the remainder, and confined to the lower and less fertile portion of the Holy Land, it compensated for these disadvan- tages by its compactness, its unity, the strong position of its capital, and the indomitable spirit of its inhabitants, who felt themselves the real " people of God," the true inheritors of the marvellous past, and the only rightful claimants of the greater marvels promised in the future. Surrounded as it was by petty enemies, Philistines, Arabians, Ammonites, Israelites, Syrians, and placed in the pathway between two mighty pow- ers, Assyria and Egypt, its existence was continually threat- ened ; but the valor of its people and the protection of Divine Providence preserved it intact during a space of nearly four centuries. In striking contrast with the sister kingdom of the North, it preserved during this long space, almost without a break, the hereditary succession of its kings, who followed one another in the direct line of descent, as long as there was no foreign intervention. Its elasticity in recovering from defeat is most remarkable. Though forced repeatedly to make ig- nominious terms of peace, though condemned to see on three occasions its capital in the occupation of an enemy, it rises 48 RAWLINSON from disaster with its strength seemingly unimpaired, defies Assyria in one reign, confronts Egypt in another, and is only crushed at last by the employment against it of the full force of the Babylonian empire. PART II.-AFRICAN NATIONS. PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON THE GEOGRAPHY OF ANCIENT AFRICA. The continent of Africa offers a remarkable contrast to that of Asia in every important physical characteristic. Asia ex- tends itself through all three zones, the torrid, the frigid, and the temperate, and lies mainly in the last, or most favored of them. Africa belongs almost entirely to the torrid zone, ex- tending only a little way north and south into those portions of the two temperate zones which lie nearest to the tropics. Asia has a coast deeply indented with numerous bays and gulfs ; Africa has but one considerable indentation the Gulf of Guinea on its western side. Asia, again, is traversed by fre- quent and lofty mountain chains, the sources from which flow numerous rivers of first-rate magnitude. Africa has but two great rivers, the Nile and the Niger, and is deficient in moun- tains of high elevation. Finally, Asia possesses numerous lit- toral islands of a large size ; Africa has but one such island, Madagascar; and even the islets which lie off its coast are, comparatively speaking, few. Its equatorial position, its low elevation, and its want of im- portant rivers, render Africa the hottest, the dryest, and the most infertile of the four continents. In the north a sea of sand, known as the Sahara, stretches from east to west across the entire continent from the Atlantic to the Red Sea, and occupies fully one-fifth of its surface. Smaller tracts of an almost equally arid character occur towards the south. Much of the interior consists of swampy jungle, impervious, and fatal to human life. The physical characteristics of the continent render it generally unapt for civilization or for the growth of great states: it is only in a few regions that Nature wears a more benignant aspect, and offers conditions favorable to human progress. These regions are chiefly in the north and 4 49 50 RAWLINSON the north-east, in the near vicinity of the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. It was only the more northern part of Africa that was known to the ancients, or that had any direct bearing on the history of the ancient world. Here the geographical features were very marked and striking. First, there lay close along the sea-shore a narrow strip of generally fertile territory, watered by streams which emptied themselves into the Mediterranean. South of this was a tract of rocky mountain, less fitted for human habitation, though in places producing abundance of dates. Thirdly, came the Great Desert, interspersed with oases islands in the sea of sand containing springs of water and a flourishing vegetation. Below the Sahara, and com- pletely separated by it from any political contact with the coun- tries of the north, but crossed occasionally by caravans for purposes of commerce, was a second fertile region a land of large rivers and lakes, where there were cities and a numer- ous population. The western portion of North Africa stood, in some respects, in marked contrast with the eastern. Towards the east the fertile coast-tract is in general exceedingly narrow, and spar- ingly watered by a small number of insignificant streams. The range of bare rocky hills from which they flow the continua- tion of Atlas is of low elevation ; and the Great Desert often approaches within a very short distance of the coast. Towards the west the lofty range of Atlas, running at a considerable distance (200 miles) from the shore, allows a broad tract of fertile ground to intervene between its crest and the sea. The range itself is well wooded, and gives birth to many rivers of a fair size. Here states of importance may grow up, for the resources of the tract are great ; the soil is good ; the climate not insalubrious; but towards the east Nature has been a niggard; and, from long. 10 E. nearly to long. 30, there is not a single position where even a second-rate state could long maintain itself. The description of North Africa, which has been here given, holds good as far as long. 30 ; but east of this line there com- mences another and very different region. From the high- lands of Abyssinia and the great reservoirs on the line of the ANCIENT HISTORY 51 equator, the Nile rolls down its vast body of waters with a course whose general direction is from south to north, and, meeting the Desert, flows across it in a mighty stream, which renders this corner of the continent the richest and most valu- able of all the tracts contained in it. The Nile valley is 3000 miles long, and, in its upper portion, of unknown width. When it enters the Desert, about lat. 16, its width contracts; and from the sixth cataract down to Cairo, the average breadth of the cultivable soil does not exceed fifteen miles. This soil, however, is of the best possible quality; and the possession of the strip on either side of the river, and of the broader tract known as the Delta, about its mouth, naturally constitutes the power which holds it a great and important state. The proximity of this part of Africa to Western Asia and to Europe, its healthiness and comparatively temperate climate, likewise favored the development in this region of an early civilization and the formation of a monarchy which played an important part in the history of the ancient world. Above the point at which the Nile enters the Desert, on the right or east bank of the stream, occurs another tract, physi- cally very remarkable, and capable of becoming politically of high consideration. Here there is interposed between the main stream of the Nile and the Red Sea an elevated table-land, 8000 feet above the ocean-level, surrounded and intersected by mountains, which rise in places to the height of 15,000 feet. These lofty masses attract and condense the vapors that float in from the neighboring sea ; and the country is thus subject to violent rains, which during the summer months fill the river- courses, and, flowing down them to the Nile, are the cause of that stream's periodical overflow, and so of the rich fertility of Egypt. The abundance of moisture renders the plateau generally productive ; and the region, which may be regarded as containing from 200,000 to 250,000 square miles, is thus one well capable of nourishing and sustaining a power of the first magnitude. The nations inhabiting Northern Africa in the times an- terior to Cyrus were, according to the belief of the Greeks, five. These were the Egyptians, the Ethiopians, the Greeks, the Phoenicians, and the Libyans. RAWLINSON EGYPT. To the Egyptians belonged the Nile valley from lat. 24 to the coast, together with the barren region between that valley and the Red Sea, and the fertile tract of the Faioom about Mceris, on the opposite side of the stream. Its most important portion was the Delta, which contained about 8000 square miles, and was studded with cities of note. The chief towns were, however, in the narrow valley. These were Memphis, not much above the apex of the Delta, and Thebes, about lat. 26. Besides these, the places of importance were, in Upper Egypt, Elephantine and Chemmis, or Panopolis ; in the lower country, Heliopolis, Sai's, Sebennytus, Mendes, Tanis, Bubas- tis, and Pelusium. The Nile was the only Egyptian river ; but at the distance of about ninety miles from the sea, the great stream divided itself into three distinct channels, known as the Canobic, the Sebennytic, and the Pelusiac branches, while, lower down, these channels further subdivided themselves, so that in the time of Herodotus the Nile waters reached the Mediterranean by seven distinct mouths. Egypt had one large and several smaller lakes. The large lake, known by the name of Mceris, lay on the west side of the Nile, in lat. 29 50'. It was believed to be artificial, but was really a natural de- pression. ETHIOPIA. The Ethiopians held the valley of the Nile above Egypt, and the whole of the plateau from which descend the great Nile affluents, the modern country of Abyssinia. Their chief city was Meroe. Little was known of the tract by the ancients; but it was believed to be excessively rich in gold. A tribe called Troglodyte Ethiopians i. e., Ethiopians who burrowed underground is mentioned as inhabiting the Sahara where it adjoins upon Fezzan. ANCIENT HISTORY 53 GREEK SETTLEMENTS. The Greeks had colonized the portion of North Africa which approached most nearly to the Peloponnese, having settled at Cyrene about B. C. 630, and at Barca about seventy years after- wards. They had also a colony at Naucratis in Egypt, and perhaps a settlement at the greater Oasis. LIBYANS. The Libyans possessed the greater part of Northern Africa, extending, as they did, from the borders of Egypt to the At- lantic Ocean, and from the Mediterranean to the Great Desert. They were divided into a number of tribes, among which the following were the most remarkable: the Adyrmachidae, who bordered on Egypt, the Nasamonians on the greater Syrtis, the Garamantes in the modern Fezzan, and the Atlantes in the range of Atlas. Most of these races were nomadic ; but some of the more western cultivated the soil, and, consequently, had fixed abodes. Politically, all these tribes were excessively weak. CARTHAGE. The Carthaginians, or Liby-Phoenicians immigrants into Africa, like the Greeks had fixed themselves in the fertile region north of the Atlas chain, at the point where it approaches nearest to Sicily. Here in a cluster lay the important towns of Carthage, Utica, Hippo Zaritus, Tunis, and Zama Regia, while a little removed were Adrumetum, Leptis, and Hippo Regius. The entire tract was fertile and well watered, inter- sected by numerous ranges, spurs from the main chain of Atlas. Its principal river was the Bagrada (now Majerdah), which emptied itself into the sea a little to the north-west of Carthage. The entire coast was indented by numerous bays ; and excellent land-locked harbors were formed by salt lakes connected with the sea by narrow channels. Such was the Ilipponites Palus (L. Benzart) near Hippo Zaritus, and the great harbor of Carthage, now that of Tunis. Next to the S4 RAWLINSON Nile valley, this was the portion of Northern Africa most fa- vored by Nature, and best suited for the habitation of a great power. The early establishment of monarchical government in Egypt is indicated in Scripture by the mention of a Pharaoh as contemporary with Abraham. The full account which is given of the general character of the kingdom administered by Joseph suggests as the era of its foundation a date consid- erably more ancient than that of Abraham's visit. The priests themselves claimed for the monarchy, in the time of Herodo- tus, an antiquity of above 11,000 years. Manetho, writing after the reduction of his country by the Macedonians, was more moderate, assigning to the thirty dynasties which, ac- cording to him, preceded the Macedonian conquest, a number of years amounting in the aggregate to rather more than 5000. The several items which produce this amount may be correct, or nearly so; but, if their sum is assumed as measuring the duration of the monarchy, the calculation will be largely in excess; for the Egyptian monuments show that Manetho's dynasties were often reigning at the same time in different parts of the country. The difficulty of determining the true chronology of early Egypt arises from an uncertainty as to the extent to which Manetho's dynasties were contemporary. The monuments prove a certain amount -of contemporaneity. But it is unreasonable to suppose that they exhaust the subject, or do more than indicate a practice the extent of which must be determined, partly by examination of our documents, partly by reasonable conjecture. A careful examination of the names and numbers in Mane- tho's lists, and a laborious investigation of the monuments, have led the best English Egyptologers to construct, or adopt, the subjoined scheme, as that which best expresses the real position in which Manetho's first seventeen dynasties stood to one another. It will be seen that, according to this scheme, there were in Egypt during the early period, at one time two, at another three, at another five or even six, parallel or contemporaneous kingdoms, established in different parts of the country. For example, while the first and second dynasties of Manetho were ANCIENT HISTORY 55 About B.C. TOO itt I vr. *>%-. Thinite. ^ 3<1 I >yi;.i-ty. Memphite. ad a*oo 1 '> MMy, 1 .'iiji.ic. 4 th S^SSL Mi::.; :...... 5th I <\ .-..i-ry. 1 '.; :..i:i tine. 6tb I iy: ..-iv. Mi-ii.; :..: och as o polite. nth DVMMtf, Thebans. 3000 i2th I i\ : ,-.-:\ Tnebans. I4th 1 '. :..t~\y, \ ,!e^ 15th I ". ty. Shepherds. i6th I \ :..,-rv. Shepherds. 1900 , 3 th 1 '\ :..i-!v, Tx , * ' hcbans. 7th and 8th Dynasties, Memphite. 1700 ioth 1 'i : ..i-'\ , Heracle- opolite. 1600 17th Dynasty, Shepherds. ruling at This, his third, fourth, and sixth bore sway at Mem- phis ; and, during a portion of this time, his fifth dynasty was ruling at Elephantine, his ninth at Heracleopolis, and his elev- enth at Thebes or Diospolis. And the same general condition of things prevailed till near the close of the sixteenth century B.C., when Egypt was, probably for the first time, united into a single kingdom, ruled from the one centre, Thebes. It is doubtful how far the names and numbers in Mane- tho's first and third dynasties are historical. The correspond- ence of the name, Menes (M'na), with that of other traditional founders of nations, or first men with the Manes of Lydia, the Phrygian Manis, the Cretan Minos, the Indian Menu, the German Mannus, and the like raises a suspicion that here too we are dealing with a fictitious personage, an ideal and not RAWLINSON a real founder. The improbably long reign assigned to M'na (sixty or sixty-two years), and his strange death he is said to have been killed by a hippopotamus increase the doubt which the name causes. M'na's son and successor, Athothis (Thoth), the Egyptian ^sculapius, seems to be equally myth- ical. The other names are such as may have been borne by real kings, and it is possible that in Manetho's time they existed on monuments ; but the chronology, which, in the case of the first dynasty, gives an average of thirty-two or thirty-three years to a reign, is evidently in excess, and can not be trusted. FIRST DYNASTY (THINITK). THIRD DYNASTY (MEMPHITE). Kings. Years. Kings. Years. Euseb. Afric. Euseb. Afric. I. Menes 60 27 39 42 20 26 18 26 62 57 3i 23 20 26 18 26 I. Necherophes .... 28 29 7 17 16 19 42 30 26 2. Athothis (his son). . . 3. Kenkenes (his son). . 4. Uenephes (his son) . 5. Usaphsedus (his son) 6. Miebidus (his son) . . 7. Semempses (his son). 8. Bieneches (his son) . . 2. Tosorthrus.. . 4. Mesochris 5. Suphis 6. Tosertasis 7- Aches 8. Sephuris. 9. Kerpheres 258 263 298 214 With Manetho's second and fourth dynasties we reach the time of contemporary monuments, and feel ourselves on sure historical ground. The tomb of Koeechus (Ke-ke-ou), the second king of the second dynasty, has been found near the pyramids of Gizeh; and Soris (Shure), Suphis I. (Shufu), Suphis II. (Nou-shufu), and Mencheres (Men-ka-re), the first four kings of the fourth, are known to us from several inscrip- tions. There is distinct monumental evidence that the second, fourth, and fifth dynasties were contemporary. The fourth was the principal one of the three, and bore sway at Memphis over Lower Egypt, while the second ruled Middle Egypt from This, and the fifth Upper Egypt from Elephantine. Probably the kings of the second and fifth dynasties were connected by blood with those of the fourth, and held their respective crowns by permission of the Memphite sovereigns. The tombs of ANCIENT HISTORY 57 monarchs belonging to all three dynasties exist in the neigh- borhood of Memphis ; and there is even some doubt whether a king of the fifth, Shafre, was not the true founder of the " Second Pyramid " near that city. The date of the establishment at Memphis of the fourth dynasty is given variously as B.C. 3209 (Bunsen), B.C. 2450 (Wilkinson), and B.C. 2440 (Poole). And the time during which it occupied the throne is estimated variously at 240, 210, and 155 years. The Egyptian practice of association is a fertile source of chronological confusion; and all estimates of the duration of a dynasty, so long as the practice continued, are mainly conjectural. Still the comparatively low dates of the English Egyptologers are on every ground preferable to the higher dates of the Germans; and the safest conclusion that can be drawn from a comparison of Manetho with the monu- ments seems to be, that a powerful monarchy was established at Memphis as early as the middle of the twenty-fifth century B.C., which was in some sort paramount over the whole country. It is evident from the monuments that the civilization of Egypt at this early date was in many respects of an advanced order. A high degree of mechanical science and skill is im- plied in the quarrying, transporting, and raising into place of the huge blocks whereof the pyramids are composed, and con- siderable mathematical knowledge in the emplacement of each pyramid so as exactly to face the cardinal points. Writing appears in no rudimentary form, but in such a shape as to imply long use. Besides the hieroglyphics, which are well and accurately cut, a cursive character is seen on some of the blocks, the precursor of the later hieratic. The reed-pen and inkstand are among the hieroglyphics employed ; and the scribe appears, pen in hand, in the paintings on the tombs, making notes on linen or papyrus. The drawing of human and animal figures is fully equal, if not superior, to that of later times; and the trades represented are nearly the same as are found under the Ramesside kings. Altogether it is apparent that the Egyptians of the Pyramid period were not just emerging out of barbarism, but were a people who had made very considerable progress in the arts of life. RAWLINSON The governmental system was not of the simple character which is found in kingdoms recently formed out of village or tribe communities, but had a complicated organization of the sort which usually grows up with time. Egypt was divided into nomes, each of which had its governor. The military and civil services were separate, and each possessed various grades and kinds of functionaries. The priest caste was as distinct as in later times, and performed much the same duties. Aggressive war had begun to be waged. The mineral treas- ures of the Sinaitic peninsula excited the cupidity of the Mem- phitic kings, and Soris, the first king of the dynasty, seems to have conquered and occupied it. The copper mines of Wady Maghara and Sarabit-el-Kadim were worked by the great Pyr- amid monarchs, whose operations there were evidently exten- sive. Whether there is any ground for regarding the kinds in question as especially tyrannical, may perhaps be doubted. One of them was said to have written a sacred book, and an- other (according to Herodotus) had the character of a mild and good monarch. The pyramids may have been built by the labor of captives taken in war, in which case the native popu- lation would not have suffered by their erection. CONTEMPORARY DYNASTIES FROM ABOUT B.C. 2440 TO 2220. BRANCH DYNASTY. II. THINITE. CHIEF OR STEM DYNASTY. IV. MEMPHITE. BRANCH DYNASTY. V. ELE- PHANTINE. I. Boethus or Bochus Yrs. ?8 Yrs. I. Soris 29 Yrs. I. Usercheres (Osir- 2. Kceechus (Ke-ke- 2. Suphis I ) kef) 28 ou) 39 3. Suphis II. (broth- V66 2. Sephres (Shafre") . . 13 47 er).. . ) 3. Nephercheres 4. Tlas 17 4. Mencheres (son of (Nofr-ir-ke-re) . . 20 5. Sethenes 41 Suphis I.) 63 4. Sisires (Osir-n-r<) 7 6. Chaeres 17 5. Ratoises 25 5. Cheres 20 7. Nephercheres 2C. 6. Bicheris 22 fi, Ratriiires. . . . 44 8. Sesochris 4 i \ t c c : i k. i i i ^ > under the [a. Phios . 53 (Muntopt I. last three Series of kiti^s 4. Phiops(Pepi) 100 5. Menthesuphis i 6. Nitocris(Neitakret) it 43 Enentefs. Muntopt II.). 17. Ammenemes (Amun-m-W). The weakness of Egypt, thus parcelled out into five king- doms, tempted foreign attack ; and, about B.C. 2080, or a little later, a powerful enemy entered Lower Egypt from the north- east, and succeeded in destroying the Memphite kingdom, and obtaining possession of almost the whole country below lat. 29 30'. These were the so-called Hyk-sos, or Shepherd Kings, nomades from either Syria or Arabia, who exercised with ex- treme severity all the rights of conquerors, burning the cities, razing the temples to the ground, exterminating the male Egyptian population, and making slaves of the women and children. There is reason to believe that at least two Shepherd dynasties (Manetho's fifteenth and sixteenth) were established simultaneously in the conquered territory, the fifteenth reign- ing at Memphis, and the sixteenth either in the Delta, or at Avaris (Pelusium?). Native Egyptian dynasties continued, however, to hold much of the country. The ninth (Heracleop- olite) held the Faioom and the Nile valley southward as far as Hermopolis ; the twelfth bore sway at Thebes ; the fifth continued undisturbed at Elephantine. In the heart, more- over, of the Shepherd conquests, a new native kingdom sprang up; and the fourteenth (Xoite) dynasty maintained itself throughout the whole period of Hyk-sos ascendency in the most central portion of the Delta. 6o RAWLINSON CONTEMPORARY DYNASTIES FROM ABOUT B.C. 2080 TO 1900. V. ELE- PHANTINE. IX. HERA- CLEOPOLITE. XII. THEBAN. XIV. XOITE. XV. SHEPHERDS. XVI. SHEPHERDS. (Continuing till about B.C. 1850.) (Continu- ing.) Yrs. i. Sesonchosis, son of Aramenemes (Se- Seventy- six kings Yrs. i. Salads. . . 19 Thirty kings in 518 years. 2. Ammenemes II. (Amun-m-he II.).. 38 3. Sesostris (Sesorta- sen II.) 48 years. 2. Bnon 44 3. Apachnas 36 4. [La]mares (Am-un- m-h^ III.). 8 4. Apophis . 61 6. Ammenemes III. (Amun-m-he IV.). 8 7. Skemiophris (his sis- ter) 4 5. Jannas... 50 6. Asses 49 160 XIII. THEBAN. 259 Simultaneously with the irruption of the Shepherds occurred an increase of the power of Thebes, which, under the monarchs of the twelfth dynasty, the Sesortasens and Amun-m-hes ac- quired a paramount authority over all Egypt from the borders of Ethiopia to the neighborhood of Memphis. The Elephan- tine and Heracleopolite dynasties, though continuing, became subordinate. Even Heliopolis, below Memphis, owned the authority of these powerful monarchs, who held the Sinaitic peninsula, and carried their arms into Arabia and Ethiopia. Amun-m-he III., who seems to be the Maris (or Lamaris) of Manetho and the Moeris of Herodotus, constructed the remarkable work in the Faioom known as the Labyrinth. Se- sortasen I. built numerous temples, and erected an obelisk. Architecture and the arts generally flourished ; irrigation was extended ; and the oppression of Lower Egypt under the rude Shepherd kings seemed for a considerable time to have aug- mented, rather than diminished, the prosperity of the Upper country. But darker days arrived. The Theban monarchs of the thir- teenth dynasty, less warlike or less fortunate than their prede- cessors, found themselves unable to resist the terrible Shep- herds, and, quitting their capital, fled into Ethiopia, while the invaders wreaked their vengeance on the memorials of the Sesortasens. Probably, after a while, the refugees returned ANCIENT HISTORY 61 and took up the position of tributaries, a position which must also have been occupied by all the other native monarchs who still maintained themselves, excepting possibly the Xoites, who may have found the marshes of the Delta an effectual protection. The complete establishment of the authority of the Shepherds may be dated about B.C. 1900. Their do- minion lasted till about B.C. 1525. The seventh and eighth (Memphitic) dynasties, the tenth (Heracleopolite), and the seventeenth (Shepherd) belong to this interval. This is the darkest period of Egyptian history. The Shepherds left no monuments ; and during nearly 300 years the very names of the kings are unknown to us. A new day breaks upon us with the accession to power of Manetho's eighteenth dynasty, about B.C. 1525. A great na- tional movement, headed by Amosis (Ames or Aahmes), king of the Thebaid, drove the foreign invaders, after a stout con- flict, from the soil of Egypt, and, releasing the country from the incubus which had so long lain upon it, allowed the genius of the people free play. The most flourishing period of Egyptian history followed. The Theban king, who had led the move- ment, received as his reward the supreme authority over the whole country, a right which was inherited by his successors. Egypt was henceforth, until the time of the Ethiopic conquest, a single centralized monarchy. Contemporary dynasties ceased. Egyptian art attained its highest perfection. The great temple-palaces of Thebes were built. Numerous obelisks were erected. Internal prosperity led to aggressive wars. Ethiopia, Arabia, and Syria were invaded. The Euphrates was crossed; and a portion of Mesopotamia added to the empire. The decline of Egypt under the twentieth dynasty is very marked. We can ascribe it to nothing but internal decay a decay proceeding mainly from those natural causes which are always at work, compelling nations and races, like indi- viduals, after they have reached maturity, to sink in vital force, to become debilitated, and finally to perish. Under the nine- teenth dynasty Egypt reached her highest pitch of greatness, internal and external; under the twentieth she rapidly sank, alike in military power, in artistic genius, and in taste. For 62 RAWLINSON a space of almost two centuries, from about B.C. 1170 to 990, she scarcely undertook a single important enterprise; her architectural efforts during the whole of this time were mean, and her art without spirit or life. Subsequently, in the space between B.C. 990 and the Persian conquest, B.C. 525, she experienced one or two " revivals ; " but the reaction on these occasions, being spasmodic and forced, exhausted rather than recruited her strength ; nor did the efforts made, great as they were, suffice to do more than check for a while the decadence which they could not avert. Among the special causes which produced this unusually rapid decline, the foremost place must be assigned to the spirit of caste, and particularly to the undue predominance of the sacerdotal order. It is true that castes, in the strict sense of the word, did not exist in Egypt, since a son was not abso- lutely compelled to follow his father's profession. But the separation of classes was so sharply and clearly defined, the hereditary descent of professions was so much the rule, that the system closely approximated to that which has been so long established in India, and which prevails there at the present day. It had, in fact, all the evils of caste. It discouraged prog- ress, advance, improvement; it repressed personal ambition; it produced deadness, flatness, dull and tame uniformity. The priestly influence, which pervaded all ranks from the highest to the lowest, was used to maintain a conventional standard, alike in thought, in art, and in manners. Any tendency to deviate from the set forms of the old religion, that at any time showed itself, was sternly checked. The inclination of art to become naturalistic was curbed and subdued. All intercourse with foreigners, which might have introduced changes of man- ners, was forbidden. The aim was to maintain things at a certain set level, which was fixed and unalterable. But, as " non progredi est regredi," the result of repressing all advance and improvement was to bring about a rapid and general de- terioration. The growing influence of the priests, which seems to have reduced the later monarchs of the twentieth dynasty to faineants, was shown still more markedly in the accession to power, about B.C. 1085, of the priestly dynasty of " Tanites," ANCIENT HISTORY 63 who occupy the twenty-first place in Manetho's list. These kings, who style themselves " High-priests of Amun," and who wear the priestly costume, seem to have held their court at Tanis (Zoan), in the Delta, but were acknowledged for kings equally in Upper Egypt. It must have been to one of them that Hadad fled when Joab slaughtered the Edomites, and in their ranks also must be sought the Pharaoh who gave his daughter in marriage to Solomon. According to Manetho, the dynasty held the throne for rather more than a hundred years ; but the computation is thought to be in excess. With Sheshonk, the first king of the twenty-second dynasty, a revival of Egyptian power to a certain extent occurred. Though Sheshonk himself takes the title of " High-priest of Amun," having married the daughter of Pisham II., the last king of the sacerdotal (twenty-first) dynasty, yet beyond this no priestly character attaches to the monarchs of his house. Sheshonk resumes the practice of military expeditions, and his example is followed by one of the Osorkons. Monuments of some pretensions are erected by the kings of the line, at Thebes and at Bubastis in the Delta, which latter is the royal city of the time. The revival, however, is partial and short- lived, the later monarchs of the dynasty being as undistin- guished as any that had preceded them on the throne. The decline of the monarchy advanced now with rapid strides. On the death of Takelot II., a disintegration of the kingdom seems to have taken place. While the Bubastite line was carried on in a third Pisham (or Pishai) and a fourth Sheshonk, a rival line, Manetho's twenty-third dynasty, sprang up at Tanis, and obtained the chief power. The kings of this line, who are four in number, are wholly undistinguished. A transfer of the seat of empire to Sai's, another city of the Delta, now took place. A king whom Manetho and Diodorus called Bocchoris (perhaps Pehor) ascended the throne. This monarch, after he had reigned forty-four years either as an independent prince or as a tributary to Ethiopia was put to death by Sabaco, an Ethiopian, who conquered Egypt and founded the twenty-fifth dynasty. Thus it appears that between B.C. 730 and 665 Egypt was conquered twice first by the Ethiopians, and then, within 64 RAWLINSON about sixty years, by the Assyrians. The native Egyptian army had grown to be weak and contemptible, from a prac- tice, which sprang up under the Sheshonks, of employing mainly foreign troops in military expeditions. There was also (as has been observed already) a general decline of the national spirit, which made submission to a foreign yoke less galling than it would have been at an earlier date. It is difficult to say at what exact time the yoke of Assyria was thrown off. Psammetichus (Psamatik I.), who seems to have succeeded his father, Nechoh, or to have been associated by him, almost immediately after his (Nechoh's) establishment as viceroy by Asshur-bani-pal, counted his reign from the abdication of Tirhakah, as if he had from that time been inde- pendent and sole king. But there can be little doubt that in reality for several years he was merely one of many rulers, all equally subject to the great monarch of Assyria. The revolt which he headed may have happened in the reign of Asshur- bani-pal; but, more probably, it fell in that of his successor. Perhaps its true cause was the shattering of Assyrian power by the invasion of the Scyths, about B.C. 632. Psammetichus, by the aid of Greek mercenaries, and (apparently) after some opposition from his brother viceroys, made himself indepen- dent, and established his dominion over the whole of Egypt. Native rule was thus restored after nearly a century of foreign domination. The revolts of Egypt from Persia will necessarily come under consideration in the section on the Achsemenian Monarchy. Egypt was the most disaffected of all the Persian provinces, and was always striving after independence. Her antagonism to Persia seems to have been less political than polemical. It was no doubt fermented by the priests. On two occasions independence was so far achieved that native rulers were set up ; and Manetho counts three native dynasties as interrupting the regular succession of the Persians. These form the twenty- eighth, the twenty-ninth, and the thirtieth of his series. The first of these consists of one king only, Amyrtseus, who revolted in conjunction with Inarus, and reigned from B.C. 460 to 455. The other two dynasties are consecutive, and cover the space from the revolt in the reign of Darius Nothus (B.C. 405) to the re-conquest under Ochus (B.C. 346). ANCIENT HISTORY 65 CARTHAGE. The history of Carthage may be conveniently divided into three periods the first extending from the foundation of the city to the commencement of the wars with Syracuse, B.C. 850 to 480 ; the next from the first attack on Syracuse to the breaking out of war with Rome, B.C. 480 to 264; and the third from the commencement of the Roman wars to their termination by the destruction of Carthage, B.C. 264 to 146. In the present place, only the first and second of these periods will be considered. FIRST PERIOD. From the Foundation of Carthage to the Commencement of the Wars with Syracuse, from about B.C. 850 to 480. The foundation of Carthage, which was mentioned in the Tyrian histories, belonged to the time of Pygmalion, the son of Matgen, who seems to have reigned from about B.C. 871 to 824. The colony appears to have taken its rise, not from the mere commercial spirit in which other Tyrian settlements on the same coast had originated, but from political differ- ences. Still, its relations with the mother city were, from first to last, friendly; though the bonds of union were under the Phoenician system of colonization even weaker and looser than under the Greek. The site chosen for the settlement was a peninsula, projecting eastward into the Gulf of Tunis, and connected with the mainland towards the west by an isthmus about three miles across. Here were some excellent land- locked harbors, a position easily defensible, and a soil which was fairly fertile. The settlement was made with the good- will of the natives, who understood the benefits of commerce, and gladly let to the new-comers a portion of their soil at a fixed rent. For many years the place must have been one of small importance, little (if at all) superior to Utica or Hadru- metum ; but by degrees an advance was made, and within a century or two from the date of her foundation, Carthage had 5 66 RAWLINSON become a considerable power, had shot ahead of all the other Phoenician settlements in these parts, and had acquired a large and valuable dominion. The steps of the advance are somewhat difficult to trace. It would seem, however, that, unlike the other Phoenician col- onies, and unlike the Phoenician cities of the Asiatic mainland themselves, Carthage aimed from the first at uniting a land with a sea dominion. The native tribes in the neighborhood of the city, originally nomades, were early won to agricultural occupations; Carthaginian colonies were thickly planted among them; intermarriages between the colonists and the native races were encouraged; and a mixed people grew up in the fertile territory south and south-west of Carthage, known as Liby-Phcenices, who adopted the language and habits of the immigrants, and readily took up the position of faithful and attached subjects. Beyond the range of territory thus occu- pied, Carthaginian influence was further extended over a large number of pure African tribes, of whom some applied them- selves to agriculture, while the majority preserved their old nomadic mode of life. These tribes, like the Arabs in the modern Algeria, were held in a loose and almost nominal sub- jection ; but still were reckoned as, in a certain sense, Cartha- ginian subjects, and no doubt contributed to the resources of the empire. The proper territory of Carthage was regarded as extending southward as far as the Lake Triton, and west- ward to the river Tusca, which divided Zeugitana from Nu- midia, thus nearly coinciding with the modern Beylik of Tunis. But these limits were far from contenting the ambition of the Carthaginians. From the compact and valuable territory above described, they proceeded to bring within the scope of their influence the tracts which lay beyond it eastward and westward. The authority of Carthage came gradually to be acknowledged by all the coast-tribes between the Tusca and the Pillars of Hercules, as well as by the various nomad races between Lake Triton and the territory of Cyrene. In the former tract numerous settlements were made, and a right of marching troops along the shore was claimed and exercised. From the latter only commercial advantages were derived; but these were probably of considerable importance. ANCIENT HISTORY 67 In considering the position of the Carthaginians in Africa, it must not be forgotten that the Phoenicians had founded nu- merous settlements on the African mainland, and that Car- thage was only the most powerful of these colonies. Utica, Hadrumetum, Leptis Magna, and other places, were at the first independent communities over which Carthage had no more right to exercise authority than they had over her. The dominion of Carthage seems to have been by degrees extended over these places ; but to the last some of them, more especially Utica, retained a certain degree of independence ; and, so far as these settlements are concerned, we must view Carthage rather as the head of a confederacy than as a single centralized power. Her confederates were too weak to resist her or to exercise much check upon her policy; but she had the dis- advantage of being less than absolute mistress of many places lying within her territory. But the want of complete unity at home did not prevent her from aspiring after an extensive foreign dominion. Her influence was established in Western Sicily at an early date, and superseded in that region the still more ancient influence of Phoenicia. Sardinia was conquered, after long and bloody wars, towards the close of the sixth century B.C. The Balearic islands, Majorca, Minorca, and Ivica, seem to have been occu- pied even earlier. At a later time, settlements were made in Corsica and Spain ; while the smaller islands, both of the Medi- terranean and the Atlantic, Madeira, the Canaries, Malta, Gau- los (Gozo), and Cercina, were easily subjugated. By the close of the sixth century, Carthaginian power extended from the greater Syrtis to the Fortunate Islands, and from Corsica to the flanks of Atlas. To effect her conquests, the great trading city had, almost of necessity, recourse to mercenaries. Mercenaries had been employed by the Egyptian monarchs as early as the time of Psammetichus (B.C. 664), and were known to Homer about two centuries previously. Besides the nucleus of a disciplined force which Carthage obtained from her own native citizens and from the mixed race of Liby-Phcenices, and besides the irregulars which she drew from her other subjects, it was her practice to maintain large bodies of hired troops (/it 68 RAWLINSON derived partly from the independent African nations, such as the Numidians and the Mauritanians, partly from the warlike European races with which her foreign trade brought her into contact the Iberians of Spain, the Celts of Gaul, and the Li- gurians of Northern Italy. The first evidence that we have of the existence of this practice belongs to the year B.C. 480; but there is sufficient reason to believe that it commenced con- siderably earlier. The naval power of Carthage must have dated from the foundation of the city ; for, as the sea in ancient times swarmed with pirates, an extensive commerce required and implies the possession of a powerful navy. For several centuries the great Phoenician settlement must have been almost undisputed mis- tress of the Western and Central Mediterranean, the only approach to a rival being Tyrrhenia, which was, however, de- cidedly inferior. The officers and sailors in the fleets were mostly native Carthaginians, while the rowers were mainly slaves, whom the State bred or bought for the purpose. Towards the middle of the sixth century B.C., the jealousy of the Carthaginians was aroused by the intrusion, into waters which they regarded as their own, of Greek commerce. The enterprising Phocaeans opened a trade with Tartessus, founded Massilia near the mouth of the Rhone, and sought to establish themselves in Corsica in force. Hereupon Carthage, assisted by Tyrrhenia, destroyed the Phocaean fleet, about B.C. 550. Soon afterwards quarrels arose in Sicily between the Cartha- ginians and the Greek settlements there, provoked apparently by the latter. About the same time Rome, under the second Tarquin, became a flourishing kingdom, and a naval power of some consequence ; and Carthage, accustomed to maintain friendly relations with the Italians, concluded a treaty with the rising State, about B.C. 508. The constitution of Carthage, like that of most other great trading communities, was undoubtedly aristocratic. The na- tive element, located at Carthage, or in the immediate neigh- borhood, was the sole depositary of political power, and gov- erned at its will all the rest of the empire. Within this native element itself the chief distinction, which divided class from class, was that of wealth. The two Suffetes indeed, who stood ANCIENT HISTORY 69 in a certain sense at the head of the State, seem to have been chosen only from certain families; but otherwise all native Carthaginians were eligible to all offices. Practically what threw power into the hands of the rich was the fact that no office was salaried, and that thus the poor man could not afford to hold office. Public opinion was also strongly in favor of the rich. Candidates for power were expected to expend large sums of money, if not in actual bribery, yet at any rate in treat- ing on the most extensive scale. Thus office, and with it power, became the heritage of a certain knot of peculiarly wealthy families. At the head of the State were two Suffetes, or Judges, who in the early times were Captains-general as well as chief civil magistrates, but whose office gradually came to be regarded as civil only and not military. These were elected by the citi- zens from certain families, probably for life. The next power in the State was the Council (ovy/cXipro?), a body consisting of several hundreds, from which were appointed, directly or in- directly, almost all the officers of the government as the Sen- ate of One Hundred (yepova-fa), a Select Committee of the Council which directed all its proceedings; and the Pentar- chies, Commissions of Five Members each, which managed the various departments of State, and filled up vacancies in the Senate. The Council of One Hundred (or, with the two Suf- fetes and the two High-priests, 104) Judges, a High Court of Judicature elected by the people, was the most popular element in the Constitution ; but even its members were practically chosen from the upper classes, and their power was used rather to check the excessive ambition of individual members of the aristocracy than to augment the civil rights or improve the social condition of the people. The people, however, were contented. They elected the Suffetes under certain restric- tions, and the generals freely ; they probably filled up vacancies in the Great Council ; and in cases where the Suffetes and the Council differed, they discussed and determined political meas- ures. Questions of peace and war, treaties, and the like, were frequently, though not necessarily, brought before them ; and the aristocratical character of the Constitution was maintained by the weight of popular opinion, which was in favor of power 70 RAWLINSON resting with the rich. Through the openings which trade gave to enterprise any one might become rich ; and extreme poverty was almost unknown, since no sooner did it appear than it was relieved by the planting of colonies and the allotment of waste lands to all who applied for them. As the power of Carthage depended mainly on her mainte- nance of huge armies of mercenaries, it was a necessity of her position that she should have a large and secure revenue. This she drew, in part from State property, particularly mines, in Spain and elsewhere; in part from tribute, which was paid alike by the federate cities (Utica, Hadrumetum, etc.), by the Liby-Phoenices, by the dependent African nomades, and by the provinces (Sardinia, Sicily, etc.); and in part from customs, which were exacted rigorously through all her dominions. The most elastic of these sources of revenue was the tribute, which was augmented or diminished as her needs required; and which is said to have amounted sometimes to as much as fifty per cent, on the income of those subject to it. The extent of Carthaginian commerce is uncertain; but there can be little doubt that it reached, at any rate, to the fol- lowing places : in the north, Cornwall and the Scilly Islands ; in the east, Phoenicia ; towards the west, Madeira, the Canaries, and the coast of Guinea; towards the south, Fezzan. It was chiefly a trade by which Carthage obtained the commodities that she needed wine, oil, dates, salt fish, silphium, gold, tin, lead, salt, ivory, precious stones, and slaves; exchanging against them their own manufactures textile fabrics, hard- ware, pottery, ornaments for the person, harness for horses, tools, etc. But it was also to a considerable extent a carrying trade, whereby Carthage enabled the nations of Western Europe, Western Asia, and the interior of Africa to obtain respectively each other's products. It was in part a land, in part a sea traffic. While the Carthaginian merchants scoured the seas in all directions in their trading vessels, caravans di- rected by Carthaginian enterprise penetrated the Great Desert, and brought to Carthage from the south and the south-east the products of those far-off regions. Upper Egypt, Cyrene, the oases of the Sahara, Fezzan, perhaps Ethiopia and Bornou, carried on in this way a traffic with the great commercial em- ANCIENT HISTORY 71 porium. By sea her commerce was especially with Tyre, with her own colonies, with the nations of the Western Mediterra- nean, with the tribes of the African coast from the Pillars of Hercules to the Bight of Benin, and with the remote barbarians of South-western Albion. SECOND PERIOD. From the Commencement of the Wars with Syracuse to the breaking out of the first War with Rome, B.C. 480 to 264. The desire of the Carthaginians to obtain complete posses- sion of Sicily is in no way strange or surprising. Their pres- tige rested mainly on their maritime supremacy; and this supremacy was open to question, so long as the large island which lay closest to them and most directly opposite to their shores was mainly, or even to any great extent, under the in- fluence of aliens. The settlement of the Greeks in Sicily, about B.C. 750 to 700, preceded the rise of the Carthaginians to greatness ; and it must have been among the earliest objects of ambition of the last-named people, after they became power- ful, to drive the Hellenes from the island. It would seem, how- ever, that no great expedition had been made prior to B.C. 480. Till then Carthage had been content to hold the western corner of the island only, and to repulse intruders into that region, like Dorieus. But in B.C. 480, when the expedition of Xerxes gave full occupation to the bulk of the Greek nation, Carthage conceived that the time was come at which she might expect to attack the Greeks of Sicily with success, and to con- quer them before they could receive succors from the mother country. Accordingly, a vast army was collected, and under Hamilcar, son of Mago, a great attack was made. But the victory of Gelo at Himera completely frustrated the expedition. Hamilcar fell or slew himself. The invading army was with- drawn, and Carthage consented to conclude an ignominious oe. The check thus received induced the Carthaginians to sus- pend for a while their designs against the coveted island. At- tention was turned to the consolidation of their African power ; 7 2 RAWLINSON and under Hannibal, Hasdrubal, and Sappho, grandsons of Mago and nephews of Hamilcar, the native Libyan tribes were reduced to more complete dependence, and Carthage was re- leased from a tribute which she had hitherto paid as an ac- knowledgment that the site on which she stood was Libyan ground. A contest was also carried on with the Greek settle- ment of Cyrene, which terminated to the advantage of Car- thage. Anticipated danger from the excessive influence of the family of Mago was guarded against by the creation of the Great Council of Judges, before whom every general had to appear on his return from an expedition. It was seventy years after their first ignominious failure when the Carthaginians once more invaded Sicily in force. Invited by Egesta to assist her against Selinus, they crossed over with a vast fleet and army, under the command of Hannibal, the grandson of Hamilcar, B.C. 409, destroyed Selinus and Hi- mera, defeated the Greeks in several battles, and returned home in triumph. This first success was followed by wars (i) with Dionysius I., tyrant of Syracuse; (2) with Dionysius II. and Timoleon ; and (3) with Agathocles. The result of these wars was not, on the whole, encouraging. At the cost of several hundreds of thousands of men, of large fleets, and of an immense treasure, Carthage had succeeded in maintaining possession of about one-third of Sicily, but had not advanced her boundary by a single mile. Her armies had generally been defeated, if they engaged their enemy upon any thing like even terms. She had found her generals de- cidedly inferior to those of the Greeks. Above all, she had learnt that she was vulnerable at home that descents might be made on her own shores, and that her African subjects were not to be depended on. Still, she did not relinquish her object. After the death of Agathocles in B.C. 289, the Hel- lenic power in Sicily rapidly declined. The Mamertines seized Messana; and Carthage, resuming an aggressive attitude, seemed on the point of obtaining all her desires. Agrigentum was once more taken, all the southern part of the island oc- cupied, and Syracuse itself threatened. But the landing of Pyrrhus at the invitation of Syracuse saved the city, and turned the fortune of war against Carthage, B.C. 279. His ANCIENT HISTORY 73 flight, two years later, did not restore matters to their former condition. Carthage had contracted obligations towards Syra- cuse in the war against Pyrrhus; and, moreover, a new contest was evidently impending. The great aggressive power of the West, Rome, was about to appear upon the scene; and, to resist her, Carthage required the friendly co-operation of the Greeks. A treaty was consequently made with Hiero; and Carthage paused, biding her time, and still hoping at no dis- tant period to extend her domination over the entire island. BOOK II HISTORY OF PERSIA BOOK II HISTORY OF PERSIA FROM THE ACCESSION OF CYRUS TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE EMPIRE BY ALEX- ANDER, FROM B.C. 558 TO 330. The Persians appear to have formed a part of a great Arian migration from the countries about the Oxus, which began at a very remote time, but was not completed till about B.C. 650. The line of migration was first westward, along the Elburz range into Armenia and Azerbijan, then south along Zagros, and finally south-east into Persia Proper. The chief who first set up an Arian monarchy in this last-named region seems to have been a certain Achaemenes (Hakhamanish), who probably ascended the throne about a century before Cyrus. The nation was composed of two classes of persons the settled population, which lived in towns or villages, for the most part cultivating the soil, and the pastoral tribes, whose habits were nomadic. The latter consisted of four distinct tribes the Dai, the Mardi, the Dropici or Derbices, and the Sagartii ; while the former comprised the six divisions of the Pasargadae, the Maraphii, the Maspii, the Panthialaei, the Derusiaei, and the Germanii or Carmanians. Of these, the first three were superior; and a very marked precedency or pre- eminency attached to the Pasargadae. They formed a species of nobility, holding almost all the high offices both in the army and at the court. The royal family of the Achaemenidae, or descendants of Achaemenes, belonged to this leading tribe. A line of native Persian kings held the throne from Achae- menes to Cyrus; but the sovereignty which they possessed was not, at any rate in the times immediately preceding Cyrus, an independent dominion. Relations of a feudal character bound Persia to Media; and the Achaemenian princes, either from the first, or certainly from some time before Cyrus re- 77 78 RAWLINSON belled, acknowledged the Median monarch for their suzerain. Cyrus lived as a sort of hostage at the court of Astyages, and could not leave it without permission. Cambyses, his father, had the royal title, and, practically, governed Persia; but he was subject to Astyages, and probably paid him an annual tribute. The revolt of the Persians was not the consequence of their suffering any grievous oppression; nor did it even arise from any wide-spread discontent or dissatisfaction with their condi- tion. Its main cause was the ambition of Cyrus. That prince had seen, as he grew up at Ecbatana, that the strength of the Medes was undermined by luxury, that their old warlike habits were laid aside, and that, in all the qualities which make the soldier, they were no match for his own countrymen. He had learnt to despise the faineant monarch who occupied the Median throne. It occurred to him that it would be easy to make Persia an independent power; and this was probably all that he at first contemplated. But the fatal persistence of the Median monarch in attempts to reduce the rebels, and his capture in the second battle of Pasargadse, opened the way to greater changes; and the Persian prince, rising to a level with the occasion, pushed his own country into the imperial position from which the success of his revolt had dislodged the Medes. The warlike prince who thus conquered the Persian empire did little to organize it. Professing, probably, a purer form of Zoroastrianism than that which prevailed in Media, where a mongrel religion had grown up from the mixture of the old Arian creed with Scythic element-worship, he retained his own form of belief as the religion of the empire. Universal tolera- tion was, however, established. The Jews, regarded with spe- cial favor as monotheists, were replaced in their proper coun- try. Ecbatana was kept as the capital, while Pasargadae be- came a sacred city, used for coronations and interments. The civilization of the Medes, their art, architecture, ceremonial, dress, manners, and to some extent their luxury, were adopted by the conquering people. The employment of letters in in- scriptions on public monuments began. No general system of administration was established. Some countries remained ANCIENT HISTORY 79 under tributary native kings; others were placed under gov- ernors; in some the governmental functions were divided, and native officers shared the administration with Persians. The rate of tribute was not fixed. Cyrus left the work of consolida- tion and organization to his successors, content to have given them an empire on which to exercise their powers. The close of the reign of Cyrus is shrouded in some ob- scurity. We do not know why he did not carry out his designs against Egypt, nor what occupied him in the interval between B.C. 538 and 529. We can not even say with any certainty against what enemy he was engaged when he lost his life. Herodotus and Ctesias are here irreconcilably at variance, and though the authority of the former is greater, the narrative of the latter is in this instance the more credible. Both writers, however, are agreed that the Persian king was engaged in chastising an enemy on his north-eastern frontier, when he received the wound from which he died. Probably he was endeavoring to strike terror into the nomadic hordes who here bordered the empire, and so to secure his territories from their dreaded aggressions. If this was his aim, his enterprise was successful ; for we hear of no invasion of Persia from the Tur- coman country until after the time of Alexander. Cyrus left behind him two sons, Cambyses and Bardius, or (as the Greeks called him) Smerdis. To the former he left the regal title and the greater portion of his dominions; to the latter he secured the inheritance of some large and important provinces. This imprudent arrangement cost Smerdis his life, by rousing the jealousy of his brother, who very early in his reign caused him to be put to death secretly. The genius of Cambyses was warlike, like that of his father; but he did not possess the same ability. Nevertheless he added important provinces to the empire. First of all he pro- cured the submission of Phoenicia and Cyprus, the great naval powers of Western Asia, which had not been subject to Cyrus. He then invaded Africa, B.C. 525, defeated Psammenitus in a pitched battle, took Memphis, conquered Egypt, received the submission of the neighboring Libyan tribes, and of the Greek towns of the Cyrenaica, and proceeded to form designs of re- markable grandeur. But these projects all miscarried. The 8o RAWLINSON expedition against Carthage was stopped by the refusal of the Phoenicians to attack their own colony; that against the oasis of Ammon ended in a frightful disaster. His own march against Ethiopia was arrested by the failure of provisions and water in the Nubian desert; and the losses which he incurred by persisting too long in his attempt brought Egypt to the brink of rebellion. The severe measures taken to repress this revolt were directed especially against the powerful caste of the priests, and had the effect of thoroughly alienating the province, which thenceforth never ceased to detest and plot against its conquerors. The stay of Cambyses in Egypt, imprudently prolonged, brought about a revolution at the Medo-Persian capital. A Magus, named Gomates, supported by his order, which was powerful in many parts of the empire, ventured to personate the dead Smerdis, and seized the throne in his name. His claim was tacitly acknowledged. Cambyses, when the news reached him in Syria on his march homeward, despairing of being able to make head against the impostor, committed suicide B.C. 522 after having reigned eight years. To conciliate his subjects, the pseudo-Smerdis began his reign by a three years' remission of tribute, and an exemption of the conquered nations from military service for the like space. At the same time, he adopted an extreme system of seclusion, in the hope that his imposture might escape detec- tion, never quitting the palace, and allowing no communication between his wives and their relations. But the truth gradually oozed out. His religious reforms were startling in an Achae- menian prince. His seclusion was excessive and suspicious. Doubts began to be entertained, and secret messages between the great Persian nobles and some of the palace inmates con- verted these doubts into certainty. Darius, the son of Hystas- pes, and probably heir-presumptive to the crown, headed an insurrection, and the impostor was slain after he had reigned eight months. Darius L, who ascended the throne in January, B.C. 521, and held it for nearly thirty-six years, was the greatest of the Persian monarch s. He was at once a conqueror and an ad- ministrator. During the earlier part of his reign he was en- ANCIENT HISTORY 81 gaged in a series of struggles against rebellions, which broke out in almost all parts of the empire. Susiana, Babylonia, Persia Proper, Media, Assyria, Armenia, Hyrcania, Parthia, Margiana, Sagartia, and Sacia successively revolted. The sa- traps in Egypt and Asia Minor acted as though independent of his authority. The empire was shaken to its centre, and threatened to fall to pieces. But the military talent and pru- dence of the legitimate monarch prevailed. Within the space of six years the rebellions were all put down, the pretenders executed, and tranquillity generally restored throughout the disturbed provinces. The evils of disorganization, which had thus manifested themselves so conspicuously, may have led Darius to turn his thoughts towards a remedy. At any rate, to him belongs the credit of having given to the Persian empire that peculiar or- ganization and arrangement which maintained it in a fairly flourishing condition for nearly two centuries. He divided the whole empire into twenty (?) governments, called "sa- trapies," and established everywhere a uniform and somewhat complicated governmental system. Native tributary kings were swept away; and, in lieu of them, a single Persian official held in each province the supreme civil authority. A standing army of Medo-Persians, dispersed throughout the empire, supported the civil power, maintained tranquillity, and was ready to resist the attacks of foreigners. A fixed rate of tribute took the place of arbitrary exactions. " Royal roads " were established, and a system of posts arranged, whereby the court received rapid intelligence of all that occurred in the provinces, and promptly communicated its own commands to the remot- est corners of the Persian territory. The military system, established or inherited by Darius, had for its object to combine the maximum of efficiency against a foreign enemy with the minimum of danger from internal dis- affection. The regular profession of arms was confined to the dominant race or to that race and a few others of closely kindred origin and a standing army, thus composed and amounting to several hundreds of thousands, maintained order throughout the Great King's dominions, and conducted the smaller and less important expeditions. But when danger . 6 82 RAWLINSON threatened, or a great expedition was to be undertaken, the whole empire was laid under contribution; each one of the subject nations was required to send its quota; and in this way armies were collected which sometimes exceeded a million of men. In the later times, mercenaries were largely employed, not only in expeditions, but as a portion of the standing army. The navy of the Persians was drawn entirely from the con- quered nations. Phoenicia, Egypt, Cyprus, Cilicia, Asiatic Greece, and other of the maritime countries subject to Persia, furnished contingents of ships and crews according to their relative strength; and fleets were thus collected of above a thousand vessels. The ship of war ordinarily employed was the trireme; but lesser vessels were also used occasionally. The armed force on board the ships (eTriftdrai or " marines ") was Medo-Persian, either wholly or predominantly; and the fleets were usually placed under a Persian or Median com- mander. The great king to whom Persia owed her civil, and (prob- ably in part) her military organization, was not disposed to allow the warlike qualities of his subjects to rust for want of exercise. Shortly after the revolts had been put down, Darius L, by himself or by his generals, commenced and carried out a series of military expeditions of first-rate importance. The earliest of these was directed against Western India, or the regions now known as the Punjab and Scinde. After explor- ing the country by means of boats, which navigated the Indus from Attock to the sea, he led or sent a body of troops into the region, and rapidly reduced it to subjection. A valuable gold-tract was thus added to the empire, and the revenue was augmented by about one-third. Commerce also received an impulse from the opening of the Indian market to Persian traders, who thenceforth kept up a regular communication with the tribes bordering the Indus by coasting vessels which started from the Persian Gulf. The next great expedition was in the most directly opposite direction. It was undertaken against the numerous and war- like Scythian nation which possessed the vast plains of South- ern Russia, extending between the Don and the Danube, the region now generally known as the Ukraine. The object of ANCIENT HISTORY 83 this expedition was not conquest, but the exhibition of the Persian military strength, the sight of which was calculated to strike terror into the Scythic hordes, and to prevent them from venturing to invade the territory of so powerful a neigh- bor. The great Persian kings, like the great Roman emperors, caused their own frontiers to be respected by overstepping them, and ravaging with fire and sword the countries of the fierce Northern barbarians. The sequel of the Scythian expedition was the firm estab- lishment of the Persian power on the European side of the straits, and the rapid extension of it over the parts of Thrace bordering on the /Egean, over the adjoining country of Pae- onia, and even over the still more remote Macedonia. The Persian dominion now reached from the Indian desert to the borders of Thessaly, and from the Caucasus to Ethiopia. Simultaneously with the Scythic expedition, Aryandes, the satrap of Egypt, marched against the Greek town of Barca, in Africa, to avenge the murder of a king who was a Persian tributary. Barca was taken, and its inhabitants transplanted to Asia; but the hostility of the semi-independent nomades was aroused, and the army on its return suffered no incon- siderable losses. Not long afterwards the ambitious designs of Darius were violently interrupted by a revolt second in importance to scarcely any of those which had occupied his early years. The Greeks of Asia, provoked by the support which Darius lent to their tyrants, and perhaps rendered sensible of their power by the circumstances of the Scythic campaign, broke out into general rebellion at the instigation of Aristagoras of Miletus, murdered or expelled their tyrants, and defied the power of Persia. Two states of European Greece, Athens and Eretria, joined the rebels. Bold counsels prevailed, and an attack was made on the satrapial capital, Sardis. Unfortunately, the capture of the city was followed by its accidental conflagration; and the small knot of invaders, forced to retreat, were over- taken and defeated in the battle of Ephesus, whereupon the two European allies deserted the falling cause. On the other hand, numerous states, both European and Asiatic, excited by the news of the fall of Sardis, asserted independence; and 84 RAWLINSON the flames of rebellion were lighted along the entire Asiatic coast from the Sea of Marmora to the Gulf of Issus. The Ionian, yolic, and Hellespontine Greeks, the Carians and Caunians of the south-western corner of the peninsula, and the Cyprians, both Greek and native, made common cause; several battles were fought with varying success; but at last the power of Persia prevailed. The confederate fleet suffered defeat in the battle of Lade, and soon afterwards Miletus was taken. The rebellious states were punished with great severity, and the authority of Darius was once more firmly established in all the revolted countries. The honor of the Great King required that immediate ven- geance should be taken on the bold foreigners who had inter- meddled between him and his subjects. But, even apart from this, an expedition against Greece was certain, and could only be a question of time. The exploring voyage of Democedes, about B.C. 510, shows that even before the Scythian campaign an attack on this quarter was intended. An expedition was therefore fitted out, in B.C. 493, under Mardonius, which took the coast-line through Thrace and Macedonia. A storm at Athos, however, shattered the fleet; and the land-army was crippled by a night attack of the Brygi. Mardonius returned home without effecting his purpose; but his expedition was not wholly fruitless. His fleet reduced Thasos; and his army forced the Macedonians to exchange their positions of semi- independence for complete subjection to Persia. The failure of Mardonius was followed within two years by the second great expedition against Greece the first which reached it that conducted by Datis. Datis proceeded by sea, crossing through the Cyclades, and falling first upon Eretria, which was besieged, and taken by treachery. A landing was then made at Marathon; but the defeat of the Persian host by Miltiades, and his rapid march to Athens immediately after the victory, frustrated the expedition, disappointing alike the commander and the Athenian ex-tyrant, Hippias, who had accompanied it. Undismayed by his two failures, Darius commenced prepa- rations for a third attack, and would probably have proceeded in person against Athens, had not the revolt of Egypt first ANCIENT HISTORY 85 (B.C. 487), and then his own death (B.C. 486), intervened. Darius died after nominating as his successor, not his eldest son, Artobazanes, but the eldest of his sons by Atossa, daugh- ter of Cyrus a prince who had thus the advantage of having in his veins the blood of the great founder of the empire. Darius probably died at Susa; but he was buried in the vicinity of Persepolis, where he had prepared himself an elabo- rate rock tomb, adorned with sculptures and bearing a long inscription all which remain to the present day. The great palace of Persepolis, in all its extent and grandeur, was his conception, if not altogether his work; as was also the equally magnificent structure at Susa, which was the ordinary royal residence from his time. He likewise set up the great rock inscription at Behistun (Bagistan), the most valuable of all the Persian monumental remains. Other memorials of his reign have been found, or are known to have existed, at Ecba- tana, at Byzantium, in Thrace, and in Egypt. In the last- named country he reopened the great canal between the Nile and the Red Sea, which the Ramessides had originally cut, and the Psamatiks had vainly endeavored to re-establish. Xerxes I., who succeeded Darius, B.C. 486, commenced his reign by the reduction of Egypt, B.C. 485, which he intrusted to his brother, Achaemenes. He then provoked and chastised a rebellion of the Babylonians, enriching himself with the plunder of their temples. After this he turned his attention to the invasion of Greece. Too much weight has probably been assigned to the cabals and intrigues of the Persian nobles, and the Greek refugees at Xerxes's court. Until failure checked the military aspira- tions of the nation, a Persian prince was almost under the necessity of undertaking some great conquest; and there was at this time no direction in which an expedition could so read- ily be undertaken as towards the west. Elsewhere high moun- tains, broad seas, or barren deserts skirted the empire here only did Persian territory adjoin on a fruitful, well-watered, and pleasant region. The attempt to reduce Greece was the natural sequel to the conquests of Egypt, India, Thrace, and Macedon. It was now the turn of the Greeks to retaliate on their 86 RAWLINSON prostrate foe. First under the lead of Sparta and then under that of Athens they freed the islands of the ^Egean from the Persian yoke, expelled the Persian garrisons from Europe, and even ravaged the Asiatic coast and made descents on it at their pleasure. For twelve years no Persian fleet ventured to dispute with them the sovereignty of the seas; and when at last, in B.C. 466, a naval force was collected to protect Cilicia and Cyprus, it was defeated and destroyed by Cimon at the Eurymedon. Soon after this Xerxes's reign came to an end. This weak prince, after the failure of his grand expedition, desisted from all military enterprise. No doubt his empire was greatly in- jured and exhausted by its losses in the Grecian war, and a period of repose was absolutely necessary; but it would seem to have been natural temperament, as much as prudence, that caused the unwarlike monarch to rest content under his dis- comfiture, and to make no effort to wipe out its disgrace. Xerxes, on his return to Asia, found consolation for his mili- tary failure in the delights of the seraglio, and ceased to trouble himself much about affairs of State. He was satisfied to check the further progress of the Greeks by corrupting their cleverest statesmen; and, submitting himself to the gov- ernment of women and eunuchs, lost all manliness of char- acter. His own indulgence in illicit amours caused violence and bloodshed in his family, and his example encouraged a similar profligacy in others. The bloody and licentious deeds which stain the whole of the later Persian history commence with Xerxes, who suffered the natural penalty of his follies and his crimes when, after reigning twenty years, he was mur- dered by the captain of his guard, Artabanus, and Aspamitres, his chamberlain. Artabanus placed on the throne the youngest son of Xerxes, Artaxerxes I., called by the Greeks Macrocheir, or " the Long- handed." The eldest son, Darius, accused by Artabanus of his father's assassination, was executed ; the second, Hystaspes, who was satrap of Bactria, claimed the crown; and, attempt- ing to enforce his claim, was defeated and slain in battle. About the same time the crimes of Artabanus were discovered, and he was put to death. ANCIENT HISTORY 87 Artaxerxes then reigned quietly for nearly forty years. He was a mild prince, possessed of several good qualities; but the weakness of his character caused a rapid declension of the empire under his sway. The revolt of Egypt was indeed sup- pressed after a while through the vigorous measures of the satrap of Syria, Megabyzus; and the Athenians, who had fo- mented it, were punished by the complete destruction of their fleet, and the loss of almost all their men. But the cruelty and perfidy shown in the execution of the captured Inarus must have increased Egyptian disaffection, while at the same time it disgusted Megabyzus and the better class of Persians, and became the cause of fresh misfortunes. Bent on recovering her prestige, Athens, in B.C. 449, dis- patched a fleet to the Levant, under Cimon, which sailed to Cyprus and laid siege to Citium. There Cimon died; but the fleet which had been under his orders attacked and completely defeated a large Persian armament off Salamis, besides de- taching a squadron to assist Amyrtaeus, who still held out in the Delta. Persia, dreading the loss of Cyprus and Egypt, consented to an inglorious peace. The independence of the Asiatic Greeks was recognized. Persia undertook not to visit with fleet or army the coasts of Western Asia Minor, and Athens agreed to abstain from attacks on Cyprus and Egypt. The Greek cities ceded by this treaty the " peace of Callias " to the Athenian confederacy included all those from the mouth of the Hellespont to Phaselis in Lycia, but did not in- clude the cities on the shores of the Black Sea. Scarcely less damaging to Persia was the revolt of Mega- byzus, which followed. This powerful noble, disgusted at the treatment of Inarus, which was contrary to his pledged word, excited a rebellion in Syria, and so alarmed Artaxerxes that he was allowed to dictate the terms on which he would con- sent to be reconciled to his sovereign. An example was thus set of successful rebellion on the part of a satrap, which could not but have disastrous consequences. The prestige of the central government was weakened; and provincial governors were tempted to throw off their allegiance on any fair occa- sion that offered itself; since, if successful, they had nothing to fear, and in any case they might look for pardon. 88 RAWLINSON The disorders of the court continued, and, indeed, increased, under Artaxerxes I., who allowed his mother Amestris, and his sister Amytis, who was married to Megabyzus, to indulge freely the cruelty and licentiousness of their dispositions. Artaxerxes died B.C. 425, and left his crown to his only le- gitimate son, Xerxes II. Revolutions in the government now succeeded each other with great rapidity. Xerxes II., after reigning forty-five days, was assassinated by his half-brother, Secydianus or Sogdianus, an illegitimate son of Artaxerxes, who seized the throne, but was murdered in his turn, after a reign of six months and a half, by another brother, Ochus. Ochus, on ascending the throne, took the name of Darius, and is known in history as Darius Nothus. He was married to Parysatis, his aunt, a daughter of Xerxes I., and reigned nineteen years, B.C. 424 to 404, under her tutelage. His reign, though checkered with some gleams of sunshine, was on the whole disastrous. Revolt succeeded to revolt; and, though most of the insurrections were quelled, it was at the cost of what remained of Persian honor and self-respect. Corrup- tion was used instead of force against the rebellious armies; and the pledges freely given to the leaders in order to pro- cure their submission were systematically disregarded. Arsites, the king's brother, his fellow-conspirator, a brother of Mega- byzus, and Pissuthnes, the satrap of Lydia, were successively entrapped in this way, and suffered instant execution. So low had the feeling of honor sunk, that Pissuthnes's captor, Tissaphernes, instead of showing indignation, like Megabyzus, accepted the satrapy of his victim, and thus made himself a participant in his sovereign's perfidy. Still more dangerous to the State, if less disgraceful, were the practices which now arose of uniting commonly the offices of satrap and commander of the forces, and of committing to a single governor two, or even three, satrapies. The authority of the Crown was relaxed; satraps became practically uncon- trolled; their lawless acts were winked at or condoned; and their governments tended more and more to become hereditary fiefs the first step, in empires like the Persian, to disintegra- tion. ANCIENT HISTORY 89 The revolts of satraps were followed by national outbreaks, which, though sometimes quelled, were in other instances suc- cessful. In B.C. 408, the Medes, who had patiently acquiesced in Persian rule for more than a century, made an effort to shake off the yoke, but were defeated and reduced to subjec- tion. Three years later, B.C. 405, Egypt once more rebelled, under Nepherites, and succeeded in establishing its indepen- dence. (See Book I., Part II.) The Persians were expelled from Africa, and a native prince seated himself on the throne of the Pharaohs. It was some compensation for this loss, and perhaps for others towards the north and north-east of the empire, that in Asia Minor the authority of the Great King was once more established over the Greek cities. It was the Peloponnesian War, rather than the peace of Callias, which had prevented any collision between the great powers of Europe and Asia for thirty-seven years. Both Athens and Sparta had their hands full; and though it might have been expected that Persia would have at once taken advantage of the quarrel to reclaim at least her lost continental dominion, yet she seems to have refrained, through moderation or fear, until the Athe- nian disasters in Sicily encouraged her to make an effort. She then invited the Spartans to Asia, and by the treaties which she concluded with them, and the aid which she gave them, re-acquired without a struggle all the Greek cities of the coast. It was her policy, however, not to depress Athens too much a policy which was steadily pursued, till the personal ambition of the younger Cyrus caused a departure from the line dictated by prudence. The progress of corruption at court kept pace with the gen- eral decline which may be traced in all parts of the empire. The power of the eunuchs increased, and they began to aspire, not only to govern the monarch, but actually to seat themselves upon the throne. Female influence more and more directed the general course of affairs ; and the vices of conscious weak- ness, perfidy and barbarity came to be looked upon as the mainstays of government. Darius Nothus died B.C. 405, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Arsaces, who on his accession took the name of 9 o RAWLINSON Artaxerxes. Artaxerxes II., called by the Greeks Mnemon on account of the excellence of his memory, had from the very first a rival in his brother Cyrus. Parysatis had endeavored to gain the kingdom for her younger son, while the succession was still open; and when her efforts failed, and Artaxerxes was named to succeed his father, she encouraged Cyrus to vindicate his claim by arms. It would undoubtedly have been advantageous to Persia that the stronger-minded of the two brothers should have been the victor in the struggle ; but the fortune of war decided otherwise. Cyrus fell at Cunaxa, a victim to his own impetuosity; and Artaxerxes II. obtained undisputed possession of the throne, which he held for above forty years. The expedition of Cyrus produced a complete change in the relations between Persia and Sparta. Sparta had given Cyrus important assistance, and thereby irremediably offended the Persian monarch. The result of the expedition encouraged her to precipitate the rupture which she had provoked. Hav- ing secured the services of the Ten Thousand, she attacked the Persians in Asia Minor ; and her troops, under Thimbron, Dercyllidas, and Agesilaiis, made the Persians tremble for their Asiatic dominion. Wisely resolving to find her enemy em- ployment at home, Persia brought about a league between the chief of the secondary powers of Greece Argos, Thebes, Athens, and Corinth supplying them with the sinews of war, and contributing a contingent of ships, which at once turned the scale, and by the battle of Cnidus, B.C. 394, gave the mas- tery of the sea to the confederates. Agesilaiis was recalled to Europe, and Sparta found herself so pressed that she was glad to agree to the peace known as that of Antalcidas, whereby the Greeks of Europe generally relinquished to Persia their Asiatic brethren, and allowed the Great King to assume the part of authoritative arbiter in the Grecian quarrels, B.C. 387. Glorious as the peace of Antalcidas was for Persia, and satis- factory as it must have been to her to see her most formidable enemies engaged in internecine conflict one with another, yet the internal condition of the empire showed no signs of im- provement. The revolt of Evagoras, Greek tyrant of Salamis in Cyprus, was with difficulty put down, after a long and doubt- ANCIENT HISTORY 91 ful struggle, B.C. 391 to 379, in which disaffection was exhib- ited by the Phoenicians, the Cilicians, the Carians, and the Idumaean Arabs. The terms made with Evagoras were a con- fession of weakness, since he retained his sovereignty, and merely consented to pay the Persian king an annual tribute. The revolt of the Cadusians on the shores of the Caspian about this same period, B.C. 384, gave Artaxerxes II. an op- portunity of trying his own qualifications for military com- mand. The trial was unfavorable; for he was only saved from disaster by the skill of Tiribazus, one of his officers, who procured with consummate art the submission of the rebels. Artaxerxes, however, proud of the success which might be said, on the whole, to have attended his arms, was not content with the mere recovery of newly-revolted provinces, but as- pired to restore to the empire its ancient limits. His generals commenced the reduction of the Greek islands by the occupa- tion of Samos ; and in B.C. 375, having secured the services of the Athenian commander, Iphicrates, he sent a great expe- dition against Egypt, which was intended to reconquer that country. Iphicrates, however, and Pharnabazus, the Persian commander, quarrelled. The expedition wholly failed; and the knowledge of the failure provoked a general spirit of dis- affection in the western satrapies, which brought the empire to the verge of destruction. But corruption and treachery, now the usual Persian weapons, were successful once more. Orontes and Rheomithras took bribes to desert their confed- erates; Datames was entrapped and executed. An attempt of Egypt, favored by Sparta, and promoted by Agesilaiis in person, B.C. 361, to annex Phoenicia and Syria, was frustrated by internal commotions, and the reign of Artaxerxes closed without any further contraction of the Persian territory. The court continued during the reign of Artaxerxes II. a scene of horrors and atrocities of the same kind that had pre- vailed since the time of Xerxes I. Parysatis, the queen- mother, was its presiding spirit ; and the long catalogue of her cruel and bloody deeds is almost without a parallel even in the history of Oriental despotisms. The members of the royal household became now the special objects of jealousy to one 92 RAWLINSON another; family affection had disappeared; and executions, assassinations, and suicides decimated the royal stock. Ochus, the youngest legitimate son of Artaxerxes II., who had obtained the throne by the execution of his eldest and the suicide of his second brother, assumed on his accession (B.C. 359) the name of his father, and is known as Artaxerxes III. He was a prince of more vigor and spirit than any monarch since Darius Hystaspis ; and the power, reputation, and gen- eral prosperity of the empire were greatly advanced under his administration. The court, however, was incurably corrupt ; and Ochus can not be said to have at all improved its condition. Rather, it was a just Nemesis by which, after a reign of twenty- one years, B.C. 359 to 338, he fell a victim to a conspiracy of the seraglio. The first step taken by the new king was the complete de- struction of the royal family, or, at any rate, of all but its more remote branches. Having thus secured himself against rivals, he proceeded to arrange and execute some important enter- prises. The revolt of Artabazus in Asia Minor, fomented at first by Athens, and afterwards by Thebes, was important both as delaying the grand enterprise of Ochus, and as leading to the first betrayal of a spirit inimical to Persia, on the part of Philip of Macedon. Philip received Artabazus as a refugee at his court, and thus provoked those hostile measures to which Ochus had recourse later in his reign measures which fur- nished a ground of complaint to Alexander. About B.C. 351, Ochus marched a large army into Egypt, bent on recovering that province to the empire. Nectanebo, however, the Egyptian king, met him in the field, defeated him, and completely repulsed his expedition. Ochus returned to Persia to collect fresh forces, and immediately the whole of the West was in a flame. Phoenicia reclaimed her independence, and placed herself under the government of Tennes, king of Sidon. Cyprus revolted, and set up nine native sovereigns. In Asia Minor a dozen petty chieftains assumed the airs of actual monarchs. Ochus, however, nothing daunted, em- ployed his satraps to quell or check the revolts, while he him- self collected a second armament, obtained the services of ANCIENT HISTORY 93 Greek generals, and hired Greek mercenaries to the number of 10,000. He then proceeded in person against Phoenicia and Egypt, B.C. 346. Partly by force, but mainly by treachery, Sidon was taken and Phoenicia reduced to subjection; Mentor, with 4,000 Greeks, deserting and joining the Persians. Egypt was then a second time invaded; Nectanebo was defeated and driven from the country ; and the Egyptian satrapy was recovered. The glory which Ochus thus acquired was great ; but the value of his success, as an indication of reviving Persian vigor, was diminished by the fact that it was mainly owing to the conduct of Greek generals and the courage of Greek mercenaries. Still, to Bagoas, the eunuch, and to Ochus himself, some of the credit must be allowed ; and the vigorous administration which fol- lowed on the Egyptian campaign gave promise of a real recov- ery of pristine force and strength. But this prospect was soon clouded by a fresh revolution in the palace, which removed the most capable of the later Achaemenian monarchs. A savage cruelty was one of the most prominent features in the character of Ochus; and his fierceness and violence had rendered him unpopular with his subjects, when the eunuch Bagoas, his chief minister, ventured on his assassination, B.C. 338. Bagoas placed Arses, the king's youngest son, upon the throne, and destroyed the rest of the seed royal. It was his object to reign as minister of a prince who was little more than a boy ; but after two years he grew alarmed at some threats that Arses had uttered, and secured himself by a fresh murder. Not venturing to assume the vacant crown himself, he con- ferred it on a friend, named Codomannus perhaps descended from Darius II. who mounted the throne under the title of Darius III., and immediately put to death the wretch to whom he owed his elevation, B.C. 336. Superior morally to the greater number of his predecessors, Darius III. did not possess sufficient intellectual ability to en- able him to grapple with the difficulties of the circumstances in which he was placed. The Macedonian invasion of Asia, which had commenced before he mounted the throne, failed to alarm him as it ought to have done. He probably despised Alexander's youth and inexperience ; at any rate, it is certain 94 RAWLINSON that he took no sufficient measures to guard his country against the attack with which it was threatened. Had Per- sia joined the European enemies of Alexander in the first year of his reign, the Macedonian conquest of Asia might never have taken place. Still, Darius was not wholly want- ing to the occasion. An important native and mercenary force was collected in Mysia to oppose the invader, if he should land ; and a large fleet was sent to the coast, which ought to have made the passage of the Hellespont a matter of difficulty. But the remissness and over-confidence of the Persian leaders rendered these measures ineffectual. Alexander's landing was unopposed, and the battle of the Granicus (B.C. 334), which might have been avoided, caused the immediate loss of all Asia Minor. Soon afterwards, the death of Memnon deprived Darius of his last chance of success by disconcerting all his plans for the invasion of Europe. Compelled to act wholly on the defensive, he levied two great armies, and fought two great battles against his foe. In the first of these, at Issus (B.C. 333), he no doubt threw away all chance of victory by engaging his adversary in a defile ; but in the second all the advantages that nature had placed on the side of the Persians were given full play. The battle of Arbela (Oct. i, B.C. 331), fought in the broad plains of Adiabene, on ground carefully selected and prepared by the Persians, fairly tested the relative strength of the two powers ; and when it was lost, the empire of Persia came naturally to an end. The result of the contest might have been predicted from the time of the battle of Mara- thon. The inveterate tendency of Greece to disunion, and the liberal employment of Persian gold, had deferred a result that could not be prevented, for nearly two centuries.* * For the details of the Greek wars with Persia, see Book III., Third Period ; and for those of the war between Darius and Alexander, see Book IV., First Period. BOOK III HISTORY OF GREECE HELEN OF TROY. From the original fainting br Sir Frederick Leigbton. BOOK III HISTORY OF THE GRECIAN STATES FROM THE EARLI- EST TIMES TO THE ACCESSION OF ALEXANDER. GEOGRAPHICAL OUTLINE. Hellas, or Greece Proper, is a peninsula of moderate size, bounded on the north by Olympus, the Cambunian moun- tains, and an artificial line prolonged westward to the Acroce- raunian promontory; on the west by the Adriatic or Ionian Gulf; on the south by the Mediterranean; and on the east by the j^Egean Sea. Its greatest length from north to south, between the Cambunian mountains and Cape Taenarus, is about 250 English miles ; its greatest width, between the Acro- ceraunian promontory and the mouth of the Peneus, or again between the coast of Acarnania and Marathon in Attica, is about 1 80 miles. Its superficial extent has been estimated at 35,000 square miles, which is somewhat less than the size of Portugal. The geographical features which most distinctly characterize the Hellenic Peninsula are the number of its mountains and the extent of its sea-board. Numerous deep bays strongly in- dent the coast, while long and narrow promontories run out far into the sea on all sides, causing the proportion of coast to area to be very much greater than is found in any other country of Southern Europe. Excellent harbors abound ; the tidcless sea has few dangers ; off the coast lie numerous littoral islands of great beauty and fertility. Nature has done her utmost to tempt the population to maritime pursuits, and to make them cultivate the art of navigation. Communication between most parts of the country is shorter and easier by sea than by land; for the mountain-chains which intersect the VOL. I. 7 97 98 RAWLINSON region in all directions are for the most part lofty and rugged, traversable only by a few passes, often blocked by snow in the winter-time. The Mountain-system of Greece may best be regarded as an offshoot from the great European chain of the Alps. At a point a little to the west of the 2ist degree of longitude (E. from Greenwich), the Albanian Alps throw out a spur, which, under the names of Scardus, Pindus, Corax, Taphiassus, Pana- chaicus, Lampea, Pholoe, Parrhasius, and Taygetus, runs in a direction a little east of south from the 42d parallel to the promontory of Taenarum. From this great longitudinal chain are thrown out, at brief intervals on either side, a series of lateral branches, having a general latitudinal direction ; from which again there start off other cross ranges, which follow the course of the main chain, or backbone of the region, point- ing nearly south-east. The latitudinal chains are especially marked and important in the eastern division of the country, between Pindus and the ^gean. Here are thrown off, suc- cessively, the Cambunian and Olympic range, which formed the northern boundary of Greece Proper ; the range of Othrys, which separated Thessaly from Malis and ^Eniania; that of CEta, which divided between Malis and Doris; and that of Parnassus, Helicon, Cithaeron, and Parnes, which, starting from near Delphi, terminated in the Rhamnusian promontory, opposite Euboea, forming in its eastern portion a strong bar- rier between Bceotia and Attica. Of a similar character on the opposite side were Mount Lingus in Northern Epirus, which struck westward from Pindus at a point nearly opposite the Cambunians ; together with Mount Tymphrestus in Northern, and Mount Bomius in Central ./Etolia. In the Peloponnese, the main chain, which stretched from Rhium to Taenarum, threw off, on the west, Mount Scollis, which divided Achaea from Elis, and Mount Elaeon, which separated Elis from Mes- senia ; while, towards the east, the lateral branches were, first, one which, under the names of Erymanthus, Aroania, and Cyl- lene, divided Achaea from Arcadia, and which was then pro- longed eastward to the Scyllaean promontory in Argolis ; and, secondly, Mount Parthenium, which intervened between Ar- golis and Laconia. Of secondary longitudinal chains the only ANCIENT HISTORY 99 ones which need special mention are the range of Pelion and Ossa, which shut in Thessaly on the east ; that of Pentelicus, Hymettus, and Anhydrus, in Attica; and that of Parnon in the Peloponnese, which stretched from near Tegea to Malea. The Mountain-chains of Greece occupy so large a portion of the area that but little is left for level ground or plains. Still, a certain number of such spaces existed, and were the more valued for their rarity. The greater portion of Thessaly was a vast plain, surrounded by mountains, and drained by a single river, the Peneus. In Boeotia there were two large plains, one the marshy plain of the Cephissus, much of which was occu- pied by Lake Copais ; and the other, the plain of Asopus, on the verge of which stood Thebes, Thespiae, and Plataea. Attica boasted of three principal plains, that of Eleusis, adjoining the city of the name, that of Athens itself, and that of Marathon. In \Yestern and Southern Peloponnese were the lowlands of Cava Elis on either side of the Peneus river, of Macaria, about the mouth of the Pamisus, and of Helos, at the embouchure of the Eurotas ; in the central region were the high upland plains, or basins, of Tegea, Mantinea, Pheneus, and Orchome- nus : while Eastern Peloponnese boasted the fertile alluvium of Argos, watered by the Chimarrhus, Erasinus, Phrixus, Charadrus, and Inachus. The Rivers of Greece were numerous, but of small volume, the majority being little more than winter torrents, and carry- ing little or no water in the summer-time. The only streams of any real magnitude were the Acheloiis, which rose in Epirus, and divided JEtoYia. from Acarnania; the northern Peneus, which drained the great Thessalian plain; and the Alpheus, the stream on whose banks stood Olympia. Among secondary rivers may be noticed the Thyamis, Oropus, and Arachthus, in Epirus; the Evenus and Daphnus, in /Etolia; the Sper- cheius, in Malis ; the Cephissus and Asopus, in Boeotia ; the Peneus, Pamisus, Eurotas, and Inachus, in the Peloponnese. It is a characteristic of the Grecian rivers to disappear in Catabothra or subterraneous passages. The limestone rocks are full of caves and fissures, while the plains consist often of land-locked basins which present to the eye no manifest outlet. Here the streams commonly form lakes, the waters of which ioo RAWLINSON flow off through an underground channel, sometimes visible, sometimes only conjectured to exist, to the sea. Instances of such visible outlets are those by which the Cephissus finds an egress from Lake Copais, in Bceotia (where art, however, has assisted nature), and those by which the superfluous waters are carried off from most of the lakes in the Peloponnese. Invisible channels are believed to give a means of escape to the waters of Lakes Hylice and Trephia, in Boeotia. The Lakes of Greece are numerous, but not very remark- able. The largest is Lake Copais, in Boeotia, the area of which has been estimated at forty-one square miles. Next in size to this is, probably, Boebeis, in Thessaly, formed mainly by the overflowings of the Peneus. To these may be added Lake Pambotis, in Epirus, on the southern shores of which was the oracular shrine of Dodona ; Lakes Trichonis and Conope, in JEtolia., between the Evenus and Acheloiis ; Lake Nessonis, near Lake Boebeis, in Thessaly ; Lake Xynias, in Achaea Phthiotis; the smaller Boeotian lakes, Hylice and Trephia; and the Arcadian lakes of Pheneus, Stymphalus, Orchomenus, Mantinea, and Tegea. It has been observed that the littoral islands of Greece were both numerous and important. The principal one was Euboea, which lay as a great breakwater along the whole east coast of Attica, Boeotia, and Locris, extending in length rather more than ioo miles, with an average breadth of about fifteen miles. Very inferior to this in size, but nearly equal in importance, was Corcyra, on the opposite or western side of the peninsula, which had a length of forty, and a breadth varying from fifteen to five miles. Besides these, there lay off the west coast Paxos, Leucas or Leucadia, Ithaca, Cephallenia, and Zacynthus (now Zante) ; off the south, the CEnussae and Cythera ; off the east, Tiparenus, Hydria, Calauria, JEgina, Salamis, Cythnus, Ceos, Helene, Andros, Scyros, Peparethus, Halonnesus, and Scia- thus. From the south-eastern shores of Euboea and Attica, the Cyclades and Sporades extended in a continuous series, like a set of stepping-stones, across the ^Egean Sea to Asia. On the other side, from Corcyra and the Acroceraunian prom- ontory, the eye could see, on a clear day, the opposite coast of Italy. ANCIENT HISTORY 101 The natural division of Greece is into Northern, Central, and Southern. Northern Greece extends from the north boun- dary-line to the point where the eastern and western shores are respectively indented by the Gulfs of Malis and Ambracia or Actium. Central Greece reaches from this point to the Isth- mus of Corinth. Southern Greece is identical with the Pelo- ponnese. Northern Greece contained in ancient times two principal countries, Thessaly and Epirus, which were separated from each other by the high chain of Pindus. Besides these, there were, on the eastern side of the mountain barrier, Magnesia and Achaea Phthiotis ; and in the mountain region itself, half- way between the two gulfs, Dolopia, or the country of the Dolopes. Thessaly, the largest and most fertile country of Greece Proper, was almost identical with the basin of the Peneus. It was a region nearly circular in shape, with a diameter of about seventy miles. Mountains surrounded it on every side, from which descended numerous streams, all of them converg- ing, and flowing ultimately into the Peneus. The united waters passed to the sea through a single narrow gorge, the celebrated vale of Tempe, which was said to have been caused by an earthquake. Thessaly was divided into four provinces: (a) Perrhaebia on the north, along the skirts of Olympus and the Cambunians; (b) Histiaeotis, towards the west, on the flanks of Pindus, and along the upper course of the Peneus; (c) Thessaliotis, towards the south, bordering on Achaea Phthi- otis and Dolopia; and (d) Pelasgiotis, towards the east, be- tween the Enipeus and Magnesia. Its chief cities were, in Perrhaebia, Gonni and Phalanna; in Histiaeotis, Gomphi and Tricca ; in Thessaliotis, Cierium and Pharsalus ; in Pelasgio- tis, Larissa and Pherae. Epirus, the next largest country to Thessaly, was in shape an oblong square, seventy miles long from north to south, and about fifty-five miles across. It consisted of a series of lofty mountains, twisted spurs from Pindus, with narrow valleys between, along the courses of the numerous streams. The main divisions were on the east, Molossis ; chief cities. Do- dona, Ambracia : to the north-west, Chaonia ; cities, Phcenice", 102 RAWLINSON Buthrotum, Cestria: to the south-west, Thesprotia; cities, Pandosia, Cassope, and in later times, Nicopolis. Epirus, dur- ing the real historical period, was Illyrian rather than Greek. Magnesia and Achsea Phthiotis are sometimes reckoned as parts of Thessaly; but, in the early times, at any rate, they were distinct countries. Magnesia was the coast-tract between the mouth of the Peneus and the Pagasaean Gulf, comprising the two connected ranges of Ossa and Pelion, with the country immediately at their base. It measured in length about sixty- five, and in width from ten to fifteen miles. Its chief cities were Myrse, Melibcea, and Casthanaea upon the eastern coast; lolcus, in the Gulf of Pagasae ; and Bcebe, near Lake Bcebeis, in the interior. Achaea Phthiotis was the tract immediately south of Thessaly, extending from the Pagasaean Gulf on the east to the part of Pindus inhabited by the Dolopes. It was a region nearly square in shape, each side of the square meas- uring about thirty miles. It consisted of Mount Othrys, with the country at its base. The chief cities were Halos, Thebae Phthiotides, Itonus, Melitaea, Lamia, and Xyniae, on Lake Xynias. Dolopia, or the country of the Dolopes, comprised a portion of the range of Pindus, together with the more western part of Othrys, and the upper valleys of several streams which ran into the Acheloiis. It was a small tract, not more than forty miles long by fifteen broad, and was very rugged and moun- tainous. Central Greece, or the tract intervening between Northern Greece and the Peloponnese, contained eleven countries ; viz., Acarnania, yEtolia, Western Locris, ^Eniania, Doris, Malis, Eastern Locris, Phocis, Bceotia, Attica, and Megaris. Acarnania, the most western of the countries, was a trian- gular tract, bounded on the north by the Ambracian Gulf, on the east by the Achelous, and on the south-west by the Adri- atic. Its sides measured respectively fifty, thirty-five, and thirty miles. Its chief cities were, in the interior, Stratus; on the coast, Anactorium, Solium, Astacus, and GEniadae. JEtolia. adjoined Acarnania on the east, and extended in that direction as far as ^Eniania and Doris. On the north it was bounded by Dolopia ; on the south by the Corinthian Gulf. ANCIENT HISTORY 103 In size it was about double Acarnania, and its area considerably exceeded that of any other country in this part of Hellas. It was generally mountainous, but contained a flat and marshy tract between the mouths of the Evenus and Acheloiis ; and somewhat farther to the north, a large plain, in which were two great lakes, the Conope and the Trichonis. Its chief cities were Pleuron, Calydon, and Thermon. Western Locris, or the country of the Locri Ozolae, lay on the coast of the Corinthian Gulf, immediately to the east of ./Etolia. Its length along the coast was about thirty-seven miles, and its depth inland from about two miles to twenty- three. Its chief cities were Naupactus on the coast, and Am- phissa in the interior. JEniania., or JEtxa, as it was sometimes called, lay also east of ^tolia, but towards the north, whereas Locris adjoined it towards the south. ^Eniania was separated from /Etolia by the continuation of Pindus southward, and was bounded on the north by Othrys and on the south by CEta. It lay thus on the course of the upper Spercheius River. It was an oval- shaped country, about twenty-seven miles long by eighteen broad. The chief town was Hypata. Doris intervened between /Eniania and Western Locris. This was a small and rugged country, inclosed between Mounts Parnassus and Callidromus, on the upper course of the Pindus River, a tributary of the Boeotian Cephissus. Its greatest length was about seventeen and its greatest width about ten miles. It contained the four cities of Pindus, Erineus, Boeum, and Cytinium, whence it was known as the Dorian Tetrapolis. Mails lay north of Doris, south of Achaea Phthiotis, and east of ^Eniania. It was even smaller than Doris, which it resembled in shape. The greatest length was about fifteen and the greatest width about eight miles. The chief cities were Anticyra and Trachis; and, in later times, Heraclea. At the extreme eastern edge of Malis, between the mountains and the sea, was the pass of Thermopylae. Eastern Locris lay next to Malis, along the shore of the Euripus or Eubcean channel. It was politically divided into two parts. Epicnemidia and Opuntia ; which, in later times, \\rrt- plivMcally separated by a small strip of ground, reckoned 104 RAWLINSON as belonging to Phocis. Epicnemidia extended about seven- teen miles, from near Thermopylae to near Daphnus, averaging about eight miles in width. Its chief town was Cnemides. Opuntia reached from Alope to beyond the mouth of the Ce- phissus, a distance of twenty-six miles. Its width was about equal to that of Epicnemidia. It derived its name from its chief city, Opus. Phocis reached from Eastern Locris on the north to the Corinthian Gulf on the south. It was bounded on the west by Doris and Western Locris, on the east by Bceotia. It was squarish in shape, with an average length of twenty-five and an average breadth of twenty miles. The central and southern parts were extremely mountainous; but along the course of the Cephissus and its tributaries there were some fertile plains. The chief cities were Delphi, on the southern flank of Mount Parnassus, Elataea, Parapotamii, Panopeus, Abae, famous for its temple, and Hyampolis. Boeotia was above twice the size of Phocis, having a length of fifty and an average breadth of twenty-three miles. It was generally flat and marshy, but contained the mountain range of Helicon on the south, and the lofty hills known as Ptoiis, Messapius, Hypatus, and Teumessus, towards the more eastern portion of the country. The lake Copais covered an area of forty-one square miles, or above one-thirtieth of the surface. There were also two smaller lakes between Copais and the Eubcean Sea, called respectively Hylice and Trephia. The chief rivers of Boeotia were (besides the Cephissus, which en- tered it from Phocis) the Asopus, the Termessus, the Thes- pius, and the Oeroe. Bceotia was noted for the number and greatness of its cities. The chief of these was Thebes; but the following were also of importance : Orchomenus, Thespiae, Tanagra, Coronaea, Lebadeia, Haliartus, Chaeroneia, Leuctra, and Copae. Attica was the foreland or peninsula which projected from Boeotia to the south-east. Its length, from Cithaeron to Su- nium, was seventy miles; its greatest width, from Munychia to Rhamnus, was thirty miles. Its area has been estimated at 720 square miles, or about one-fourth less than Boeotia. The general character of the tract was mountainous and infertile. ANCIENT HISTORY 105 On the north, Cithaeron, Fames, and Phelleus formed a con- tinuous line running nearly east and west ; from this descend- ed three spurs : one, which divided Attica from the Megarid, known as Kerala; another, which separated the Eleusinian from the Athenian plain, called yEgaleos ; and the third, which ran out from Parnes by Decelea and Marathon to Cape Zoster, named in the north Pentelicus, in the centre Hymettus, and near the south coast Anhydrus. The towns of Attica, except Athens, were unimportant. Its rivers, the two Cephissuses, the Ilissus, the Erasinus, and the Charadrus, were little more than torrent-courses. Megaris, which adjoined on Attica to the west, occupied the northern portion of the Isthmus uniting Central Greece with the Peloponnese. It was the smallest of all the central Greek countries, excepting Doris and Malis, being about four- teen miles long by eleven broad, and containing less than 150 square miles. It had one city only, viz., Megara, with the ports Xisaea and Pegae. Southern Greece, or the Peloponnese, contained eleven countries viz., Corinth, Sicyon, Achaea, Elis, Arcadia, Mes- senia, Laconia, Argolis, Epidauria, Trcezenia, and Hermionis. The territory of Corinth adjoined Megaris, and included the larger portion of the Isthmus, together with a tract of some- what greater magnitude in the Peloponnese. Its greatest length was twenty-five and its greatest width about twenty- three miles. Its shape, however, was extremely irregular ; and its area can not be reckoned at more than 230 square miles. The only city of importance was Corinth, the capital, which had a port on either sea on the Corinthian Gulf, Lechaeum, and on the Saronic Gulf, Cenchreae. Sicyon, or Sicyonia, adjoined Corinth on the west. It lay along the shore of the Corinthian Gulf for a distance of about fifteen miles, and extended inland about twelve or thirteen miles. It contained but one city, viz., Sicyon. Achaea came next to Sicyonia, and extended along the coast a distance of about sixty-five miles. Its average width was about ten miles ; and its area may be reckoned at 650 square miles. It contained twelve cities, of which Dyme, Patrae (now Patras), and Pellene were the most important. 106 RAWLINSON Elis lay on the west coast of the Peloponnese, extending from the mouth of the Larisus to that of the Neda, a distance of fifty-seven miles, and reaching inland to the foot of Ery- manthus, about twenty-five miles. It was a more level country than was common in Greece, containing broad tracts of plain along the coast, and some tolerably wide valleys along the courses of the Peneus, Alpheus, and Neda rivers. Its chief cities were Elis, on the Peneus, the port Cyllene, on the gulf of the same name, Olympia and Pisa, on the Alpheus, and Lepreum, in Southern Elis or Triphylia. Arcadia was the central mountain country the Switzerland of the Peloponnese. It reached from the mountain-chain of Erymanthus, Aroania, and Cyllene in the north, to the sources of the Alpheus towards the south, a distance of about sixty miles. The average width was about forty miles. The area is reckoned at 1700 square miles. The country is for the most part a mountainous table-land, the rivers of which, excepting towards the west and the south-west, are absorbed in cata- bothra, and have no visible outlet to the sea. High plains and small lakes are numerous; but by far the greater part of the area is occupied by mountains and narrow but fertile valleys. Important cities were numerous. Among them may be named Mantinea, Tegea, Orchomenus, Pheneus, Hersea, Psophis, and, in the later times, Megalopolis. Messenia lay south of Elis and Western Arcadia, occupying the most westerly of the three forelands in which the Pelo- ponnese terminates, and circling round the gulf between this foreland and the central one as far as the mouth of the Choerius. Its length, from the Neda to the promontory of Acritas, was forty-five miles; its greatest width between Laconia and the western coast was thirty-seven miles. The area is estimated at 1160 square miles. Much of the country was mountainous; but along the course of the main river, the Pamisus, were some broad plains, and the entire territory was fertile. The origi- nal capital was Stenyclerus ; but afterwards Messene, on the south-western flank of Mount Ithome, became the chief town. Other important places were Eira on the upper Neda, Pylus (now Navarino), and Methone, south of Pylus (now Modon). Laconia embraced the two other Peloponnesian forelands, ANCIENT HISTORY 107 together with a considerable tract to the north of them. Its greatest length, between Argolis and the promontory of Malea, was nearly eighty miles, while its greatest width was not much short of fifty miles. The area approached nearly to 1900 square miles. The country consisted mainly of a single nar- rowish valley that of the Eurotas inclosed between two lofty mountain-ranges those of Parnon and Taygetus. Hence the expression, " Hollow Lacedaemon." Sparta, the capital, lay on the Eurotas, at the distance of about twenty miles from the sea. The other towns were unimportant; the chief were Gythium and Thyrea on the coast, and Sellasia in the valley of the ^Enus. Argolis is a term sometimes applied to the whole tract pro- jecting eastward from Achaea and Arcadia, with the exception of the small territory of Corinth: but the word will be here used in a narrower sense. Argolis Proper was bounded by Sicyonia and Corinthia on the north, by Epidaurus on the east, by Cynuria a portion of Laconia on the south, and by Ar- cadia on the west. Its greatest extent from north to south was about thirty, and from east to west about thirty-one miles. Its entire area did not exceed 700 square miles. Like the rest of the Peloponnese, it was mountainous, but contained a large and rich plain at the head of the Argolic Gulf. Its capital was, in early times, Mycenae; afterwards Argos. Other cities of importance were, Phlius, Cleonae, and Tiryns. The port of Argos was Nauplia. Epidauria lay east of Argolis, east and south of Corinthia. Its length from north to south was about twenty-three miles, and its breadth in the opposite direction about eight miles. It contained but one city of any note, viz., Epidaurus, the capital. Troezenia adjoined Epidauria on the south-east. It com- prised the north-eastern half of the Argolic foreland, together with the rocky peninsula of Methana. Its greatest length was sixteen miles, and its greatest width, excluding Methana, nine miles. It contained two cities of note, Troezen and Methana. Hermionis adjoined Epidauria on the north and Troezenia on the east. It formed the western termination of the Argolic foreland. In size it was about equal to Troezenia. It contained but one town of any consequence, viz., Hermione. io8 RAWLINSON Besides the littoral islands of Greece, which have been al- ready enumerated, there were several others, studding the JEgean Sea, which deserve notice ; as particularly the follow- ing: (a) In the Northern ^gean, Lemnos, Imbrus, Thasos, and Samothrace. (b) In the Central JEgean, besides Andros, Ceos, and Cythnus, which may be called littoral, Tenos, Syros, Gyarus, Delos, Myconus, Naxos, Paros, Siphnus, Melos, Thera, Amorgus, etc. (c) In the Southern yEgean, Crete. This last-named island was of considerable size. It extended from west to east a distance of 150 miles, and had an average width of about fifteen miles. The area considerably exceeded 2000 square miles. The chief cities were Cydonia and Gnos- sus on the north coast, and Gortyna in the interior. The whole island was mountainous but fertile. On the character of the Greek Islands, see the work of Ross, L., " Reisen auf den Griechischen Inseln." Stuttgart, 1840-52; 3 vols., 8vo. On the general geography of Greece, the following may be consulted with advantage: Kruse, F. G. H., " Hellas." Leipsic, 1825-27; 3 vols., 8vo. A gen- eral description of the geography of Greece from the best sources exist- ing at the time. Still of value to the student. Cramer, J. A., " Geographical and Historical Description of Ancient Greece." Oxford, 1828; 3 vols., 8vo. Leake, Col., "Travels in Northern Greece." London, 1835; 4 vols., 8vo. Leake, Col., " Travels in the Morea." London, 1830; 3 vols., 8vo. Leake, Col., " Peloponnesiaca," supplemental to the " Travels in the Morea." London, 1846; 8vo. Curtius, E., " Peloponnesus." Gotha, 1851-52; 2 vols., 8vo. Clark, W. G., " Peloponnesus, Notes of Study and Travel." Lon- don, 1858; 8vo. Niebuhr, B. G., " Lectures on the Ethnography and Geography of Ancient Greece," edited by L. Schmitz. London, 1853; 2 vols., 8vo; from the German edition of Dr. Isler. ANCIENT HISTORY 109 SKETCH OF THE HISTORY. FIRST PERIOD. The Ancient Traditional History, from the Earliest Times to the Dorian Occupation of the Peloponnese, about B.C. 1 100 to looo.* The Greeks of the historical times seem to have had no tra- ditions of a migration from Asia. Their ancestors, they held, had always been in the country, though they had not always been called Hellenes. Greece had been inhabited from a re- mote age by races more or less homogeneous, and more or less closely allied with their own Pelasgi, Leleges, Curetes, Cau- cones, Aones, Dolopes, Dryopes, and the like. Of these, the IVlasgi had been the most important. The Hellenes proper had originally been but one tribe out of many cognate ones. They had dwelt in Achaea Phthiotis, or, according to others, near Dodona, and had originally been insignificant in numbers * Sources. Native only. Homer. The two poems which pass under this venerable name, whatever their actual origin, must always con- tinue to be, on account of their great antiquity, the prime authority for the early condition of things in Greece. Modern criticism agrees with ancient in viewing them as the earliest remains of Greek literature that have come down to us; and, if their actual date is about B.C. 850, as now generally believed, they must be regarded as standing apart on a vantage-ground of their own; for we have nothing else continuous or complete in Greek literature for nearly four centuries. Herodotus. This writer, though the immediate subject of his history is the great Persian War, yet carries us back in the episodical portions of his work to very remote times, and is entitled to consideration as a careful in- quirer into the antiquities of many nations, his own among the number. Thucydides. The sketch with which the history of Thucydides opens, a masterly production, gives the judgment of a shrewd and well-read Athenian of the fourth century B.C. on the antiquities of Greece. Diodorus Siculus collected from previous writers, particularly Ephorus and Timaeus, the early traditional history of Greece, and related it in his fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh books; of these the fourth and fifth remain, while the other two are lost, excepting a few fragments. Much interesting information on the early history of Greece is contained in the geographers, as particularly in Strabo, Pausanias, and Scymnus Chius. Of Plutarch's Lives one only, that of Theseus, belongs to the early period. no RAWLINSON and of small account. In process of time, however, they ac- quired a reputation above that of the other tribes; recourse was had to them for advice and aid in circumstances of diffi- culty; other tribes came over to them, adopted their name, their form of speech, and the general character of their civiliza- tion. The growth and spread of the Hellenes was thus not by conquest but by influence; they did not overpower or expel the Pelasgi, Leleges, etc., but gradually assimilated them. The original Hellenic tribes seem to have been two only, the Dorians and the Achaeans, of whom the latter preponder- ated in the more ancient times. Settled in Achsea Phthiotis from a remote antiquity, they were also, before the Dorian occupation, the leading race of the Peloponnese. Here they are said to have had three kingdoms those of Argos, My- cenae, and Sparta which attained to a considerable degree of prosperity and civilization. The Dorians were reported to have dwelt originally with the Achaeans in Phthiotis; but their earliest ascertained locality was the tract on the Upper Pindus which retained the name of Doris down to Roman times. In this " small and sad region " they grew to greatness, increasing in numbers, acquiring martial habits, and perhaps developing a peculiar discipline. The most important of the Pelasgic tribes was that of the lonians, which occupied in the earliest times the whole north coast of the Peloponnese, the Megarid, Attica, and Euboea. Another (so-called) tribe (which is, however, perhaps, only a convenient designation under which to include such inhabi- tants of the country as were not Achaean, Dorian, or Ionian) was that of the ^olians, to which the Thessalians, Boeotians, yEolians, Locrians, Phocians, Eleans, Pylians, etc., were re- garded as belonging. These races having been gradually Hel- lenized, the entire four tribes came to be regarded as Hellenic, and a mythic genealogy was framed to express at once the ethnic unity and the tribal diversity of the four great divisions of the Hellenic people. Hellen. I I i Dorus. Xuthus. ALolus. i I I Achzeus. Ion. ANCIENT HISTORY m According to the traditions of the Greeks, some important foreign elements were received into the nation during the period of which we are treating. Egyptians settled in Attica and Argolis; Phoenicians in Boeotia; and Mysians, or Phryg- ians, at Argos. The civilization of the settlers was higher than that of the people among whom they settled, and some con- siderable benefits were obtained from these foreign sources. Among them may be especially mentioned letters, which were derived from the Phoenicians, probably anterior to B.C. noo. Although writing, for some centuries after its introduction, was not much used, yet its occasional employment, especially for public purposes, was an important check upon the erratic tendencies of oral tradition. Inscriptions on the offerings in temples, and registers of the succession of kings and sacerdotal persons, were among the earliest of the Greek historical doc- uments ; and though there is no actual proof that they reached back as far as this " First Period," yet there is certainly no proof of the contrary, and many of the best critics believe in the public employment of writing in Greece thus early. But, whatever benefits were derived by the Greeks from the foreigners who settled among them, it is evident that neither the purity of their race, nor the general character and course of their civilization, was much affected by extraneous influences. The incomers were comparatively few in number, and were absorbed into the Hellenic nation without leaving any thing more than a faint trace of themselves upon the lan- guage, customs, or religion of the people which received them into its bosom. Greek civilization was in the main of home growth. Even the ideas adopted from without acquired in the process of reception so new a stamp as to become almost orig- inal ; and the Greek people must be held to have, on the whole, elaborated for themselves that form of civilization, and those ideas on the subjects of art, politics, morals, and religion, which have given them their peculiar reputation. History proper can scarcely be regarded as commencing until the very close of the period now under consideration, when we first meet with names which have some claim to be regarded as those of actual personages. But the general con- dition of the people at the period, and some of the movements H2 RAWLINSON of the races, and even their causes, may be laid down with an approach to certainty. The Homeric poems represent to us the general state of Greek society in the earliest times. The most noticeable features are : The predominance of the tribe or nation over the city, which exists indeed, but has nowhere the monopoly of political life. The universality of kingly government, which is heredi- tary and based upon the notion of " divine right." The exist- ence of an hereditary nobility of a rank not much below that of the king, who form his council (ftov\rj) both in peace and war, but exercise no effectual control over his actions. The existence of an assembly (wyopa) which is convened by the king, or, in his absence, by one of the chiefs, to receive com- munications, and witness trials, but not either to advise or judge. The absence of polygamy and the high regard in which women are held. Slavery everywhere established, and consid- ered to be right. Perpetual wars, not only between the Greeks and neighboring barbarians, but between the various Greek tribes and nations ; preference of the military virtues over all others; excessive regard for stature and physical strength. Wide prevalence of nautical habits combined with a disinclina- tion to venture into unknown seas ; dependence of the Greeks on foreigners for necessary imports. Piracy common; cities built at a distance from the sea from fear of pirates. Strong religious feeling; belief in polytheism, in fate, in the divine Nemesis, and the punishment of heinous crimes by the Furies. Respect for the priestly character, for heralds, guests, and sup- pliants. Peculiar sanctity of temples and festival seasons. The religious sentiment, always strong in the Greek mind, formed in the early times one of the most important of the bonds of union which held men, and even tribes, together. Community of belief led to community of worship ; and tem- ples came to be frequented by all the tribes dwelling around them, who were thus induced to contract engagements with one another, and to form leagues of a peculiar character. These leagues, known as Amphictyonies, were not political alliances, much less confederations ; they were, in their original concep- tion, limited altogether to religious purposes; the tribes, or states, contracting them, bound themselves to protect certain ANCIENT HISTORY n 3 sacred buildings, rites, and persons, but undertook no other engagements towards one another. The most noted of these leagues was that whereof the oracular shrine of Delphi was the centre ; which acquired its peculiar dignity and importance, not so much from the wealth and influence of the Delphic temple, as from the fact that among its twelve constituent members were included the two leading races of Greece. Important movements of some of the principal races seem to have take place towards the close of the early period. It may be suspected that these had their origin in the pressure upon North-western Greece of the Illyrian people, the parent (probably) of the modern Albanians. The tribes to the west of Pindus were always regarded as less Hellenic than those to the east ; and the ground of distinction seems to have been the greater Illyrian element in that quarter. The Trojan War, if a real event, may have resulted from the Illyrian pressure, being an endeavor to obtain a vent for a population, cramped for room, in the most accessible part of Asia. To the same cause may be assigned the great movement which, commenc- ing in Epirus (about B.C. 1200), produced a general shift of the populations of Northern and Central Hellas. Quitting Thesprotia in Epirus, the Thessalians crossed the Pindus mountain-chain, and descending on the fertile valley of the Peneus, drove out the Boeotians, and occupied it. The Boeo- tians proceeded southward over Othrys and (Eta into the plain of the Cephissus, and driving out the Cadmeians and Minyans, acquired the territory to which they thenceforth gave name. The Cadmeians and Minyae dispersed, and are found in Attica, in Lacedaemon, and elsewhere. The Dorians at the same time moved from their old home and occupied Dryopis, which thenceforward was known as Doris, expelling the Dryopians, who fled by sea and found a refuge in Eubcea, in Cythnus, and in the Peloponnese. Not many years later a further, but apparently distinct, movement took place. The Dorians, cramped for room in their narrow valleys between CEta and Parnassus, having allied themselves with their neighbors, the ^Etolians, crossed the Corinthian Gulf at its narrowest point, between Rhium and Antirrhium, and effected a lodgment in the Peloponnese. Elis, VOL. I. 8 i! 4 RAWLINSON Messenia, Laconia, and Argolis were successively invaded, and at least partially conquered. Elis being assigned to the ^Eto- lians, Dorian kingdoms were established in the three other countries. The previous Achaean inhabitants in part submit- ted, in part fled northward, and occupied the north coast of the Peloponnese, dispossessing the lonians, who found a tempo- rary refuge in Attica. A further result followed from the migrations and conquests here spoken of. The population of Greece, finding the conti- nent too narrow for it, was forced to flow out into the islands of the Mediterranean and the shores to which those islands conducted. The Boeotian occupation of the plain of the Ce- phissus led to the first Greek settlements in Asia, those known as ^Eolian, in Lesbos and on the adjacent coast. The Achaean conquest of Ionia caused the lonians, after a brief sojourn in Attica, to pass on through the Cyclades, to Chios, Samos, and the parts of Asia directly opposite. Finally, the success of the Dorians against the Achaeans caused these last to emigrate, in part to Asia under Doric leaders, in part to Italy. For the history of these settlements, see the following para- graph. SECOND PERIOD. From the Dorian Conquest of the Peloponnese (about B.C. noo-iooo) to the Commencement of the Wars with Per* sia, B.C. 500. PART I. History of the principal Hellenic States in Greece Proper. The history of the Hellenes subsequently to the Dorian oc- cupation of the Peloponnese resolves itself into that of the several states. Still, a few general remarks may be made before proceeding to the special history of the more important cities and countries. The progress of civilization was, for a time and to a certain extent, checked by the migrations and the troubles which they brought in their train. Stronger and more energetic but ruder races took the place of weaker but more polished ones. Physical qualities asserted a superiority over grace, refinement, and ingenuity. What the rough Do- ANCIENT HISTORY 115 rians were in comparison with the refined Achaeans of the Pelo- ponnese, such were generally the conquering as compared with the conquered peoples. But against this loss must be set the greater political vigor of the new era. War and movement, bringing out the personal qualities of each individual man, favored the growth of self-respect and self-assertion. Amid toils and dangers which were shared alike by all, the idea of political equality took its rise. A novel and unsettled state of things stimulated political inventiveness ; and, various ex- pedients being tried, the stock of political ideas increased rap- idly. The simple hereditary monarchy of the heroic times was succeeded everywhere, except in Epirus, by some more com- plicated system of government some system far more favor- able to freedom and to the political education of the individual. Another natural consequence of the new condition of things was the change by which the City acquired its special dignity and importance. The conquerors naturally settled themselves in some stronghold, and kept together for their greater secur- ity. Each such stronghold became a separate state, holding in subjection a certain tract of circumjacent country. At the same time, the unconquered countries also, seeing the strength that resulted from unity, were induced in many cases to abolish their old system of village life and to centralize themselves by establishing capitals, and transferring the bulk of their popu- lation to them (ta /ierpa) believed to have been identical with the Babylonian. After the death of Pheidon, Argos declined in power; the ties uniting the confederacy became relaxed ; the government returned to its previous form ; and the history of the state is almost a blank. No doubt the development of Spartan power was the main cause of this decline; but it may be attributed also, in part, to the lack of eminent men, and in part to the injudicious severity with which Argos treated her perioecic cities and her confederates. Among the other states of Greece, the two whose history is most ample and most interesting, even during this early period, are undoubtedly Sparta and Athens. Every " History of Greece " must vainly concern itself with the affairs of these two states, which are alone capable of being treated with any thing like completeness. History of Sparta. The Dorians, who in the eleventh century effected a lodg- ment in the upper valley of the Eurotas, occupied at first a narrow space between Taygetus and Parnon, extending north- ward no farther than the various head-streams of the Eurotas and ^nus rivers, and southward only to a little beyond Sparta. This was a tract about twenty-five miles long by twenty broad, the area of which might be 400 square miles. In the lower valley, from a little below Sparta to the sea, the Achaeans still maintained themselves, having their capital at Amyclae, on the Eurotas, within two miles of the chief city of their enemies. Perpetual war went on between the two powers ; but Sparta for the space of three centuries made little or no advance southward, Amyclae commanding the valley, and the fortifi- cations of Amyclae defying her incessant attacks. Baffled in this quarter, she made attempts to reduce Arcadia, which failed, and even picRed quarrels with her kindred states, Messenia and Argos, which led to petty wars of no consequence. The government of Sparta during this period underwent changes akin to those which took place in Argos. The mon- archs were at first absolute; but discontent soon manifested itself : concessions were made which were again revoked ; and u8 RAWLINSON the whole period was one of internal struggle and disturbance. Nor were the differences between the kings and their Dorian subjects the only troubles of the time. The submitted Achae- ans, of whom there were many, were displeased at their treat- ment, murmured and even sometimes revolted, and being re- duced by force of arms were degraded to a lower position. The double monarchy, which, according to the tradition, had existed from the time of the conquest, and which was peculiar to Sparta among all the Greek states, dated really, it is prob- able, from the time of struggle, being a device of those who sought to limit and curtail the royal authority. The two kings, like the two consuls at Rome, acted as checks upon each other ; and the regal power, thus divided against itself, naturally be- came weaker and weaker. It had sunk, evidently, into a shadow of its former self, when Lycurgus, a member of the royal family, but not in the direct line of succession, gave to Sparta that constitution which raised her in a little while to a proud and wonderful eminence. The adoption of the Lycurgean system had the almost imme- diate effect of raising Sparta to the first place in Greece. Amy- clae fell in the next generation to Lycurgus ; Pharis and Ge- ronthrae submitted soon after. A generation later Helos was taken, and the whole valley of the Eurotas occupied. The Achaeans submitted, or retired to Italy. Wars followed with Arcadia and Argos, the latter of whom lost all her territory south of Cynuria. Quarrels began with Messenia, which led on to a great struggle. The conquest of Messenia by Sparta, which made her at once the dominant power of the Peloponnese, was the result of two great wars, each lasting about twenty years, and sepa- rated from each other by the space of about forty years. The wars seem to have been purely aggressive on the part of Sparta, and to have been prompted, in part, by the mere lust of con- quest, in part by dislike of the liberal policy which the Dorians of Messenia had adopted towards their Achaean subjects. De- spite the heroism of the Messenians and the assistance lent them by Arcadia and Argos, Sparta gained her object, in con- sequence of her superior military organization and training, joined to the advantage of her central position, which enabled ANCIENT HISTORY 119 her to strike suddenly with her full force any one of her three foes. Closely connected with the Messenian wars were certain changes in the government and internal condition of Sparta, the general tendency of which was towards popularizing the constitution. The constant absence of the two kings from Sparta during the Messenian struggle increased the power of the Ephors, who, when no king was present, assumed that to them belonged the exercise of the royal functions. The loss of citizens in the wars led to the admission of new blood into the state, and probably caused the distinction into two classes of citizens (6/totol and vTropeioves ), which is found to exist at a later date. The Ephors, elected annually by the entire body of the citizens, became the popular element in the government ; and the gradual augmentation of their power was, in a certain sense, the triumph of the popular cause. At the same time it must be allowed that the constitutional changes made did not content the aspirations of the democratic party ; and that the colony sent out to Tarentum at once indi- cated, and relieved, the dissatisfaction of the lower grade of citizens. The conquest of Messenia was followed by some wars of less importance, which tended, however, to increase the power of Sparta, and to render her still more decidedly the leading state of Greece. Pisatis and Triphylia were reduced directly after the close of the second Messenian war, and were handed over to the Eleans. Arcadia was then attacked, but made a vigorous resistance ; and the sole fruit of a war which lasted three gen- erations was the submission of Tegea. Argos about the same time lost the Thyreatis (about B.C. 554) ; and Spartan influ- ence was thus extended over, perhaps, two-thirds of the Pelo- ponnese. Hitherto the efforts and even the views of Sparta had been confined to the narrow peninsula within which her own terri- tory lay ; but the course of events now led her to a fuller recog- nition of her own greatness, and, as a natural consequence, to active exertions in a more extended sphere. The embassy of Croesus in B.C. 555 was the first public acknowledgment which she received of her importance ; and the readiness with which 120 RAWLINSON she embraced the offer of alliance, and prepared an expedition to assist the Lydian monarch, indicates the satisfaction which she felt in the new prospects which were opening out on her. Thirty years later (B.C. 525), she actually sent an expedition, conjointly with Corinth, to the coast of Asia, which failed, however, to effect its object, the deposition of Poly crates of Samos. Soon afterwards (B.C. 510), she assumed the right of interference in the internal affairs of the Greek states beyond the Peloponnese, and by her repeated invasions of Attica, and her efforts in favor of the Athenian oligarchs, sowed the seeds of that fear and dislike with which she was for nearly a century and a half regarded by the great democratic republic. History of Athens. The traditional history of Athens commences with a Kingly Period. Monarchs of the old heroic type are said to have gov- erned the country from a time considerably anterior to the Trojan War down to the death of Codrus, B.C. 1300 to 1050. The most celebrated of these kings was Theseus, to whom is ascribed the oiwot/aoyio?, whereby Athens became the capital of a centralized monarchy, instead of one out of many nearly equal country towns. Another king, Menestheus, was said to have fought at Troy. Codrus, the last of the monarchs, fell, according to the tradition, in resisting a Dorian invasion, made from the recently conquered Peloponnese. The Kingly Period was followed at Athens by the gradual development of an aristocracy. The Eupatrids had acquired power enough under the kings to abolish monarchy at the death of Codrus, and to substitute for it the life-archonship, which, though confined to the descendants of Codrus, was not a royal dignity, but a mere chief magistracy. The Eupatrids elected from among the qualified persons ; and the archon was, at least in theory, responsible. Thirteen such archons held office before any further change was made, their united reigns covering a space of about three centuries, B.C. 1050 to 752. On the death of Alcmaeon, the last archon for life, the Eu- patrids made a further change. Archons were to be elected for ten years only, so that responsibility could be enforced, ANCIENT HISTORY 121 ex-archons being liable to prosecution and punishment. The descendants of Codrus were at first preserved in their old dignity ; but the fourth decennial archon, Hippomanes, being deposed for his cruelty, the right of the Medontidae was de- clared to be forfeited (B.C. 714), and the office was thrown open to all Eupatrids. Finally, after seven decennial archons had held office, the supreme power was put in commission (B.C. 684). In lieu of a single chief magistrate, a board of nine archons, annually elected, was set up, the original kingly functions being divided among them. The aristocracy was now fully installed in power, office being confined to Eupatrids, and every office being open to all such persons, Eupatrids alone having the suffrage, and the Agora itself, or general assembly of the people, having ceased to meet, or become purely formal and passive. The full triumph of the oligarchy did not very long precede the first stir of democratic life. Within sixty years of the time of complete aristocratical ascendency, popular discontent be- gan to manifest itself, and a demand for written laws arose, often the earliest cry of an oppressed people. Alarmed, but not intimidated, the nobles endeavored to crush the rising demo- cratic spirit by an unsparing severity ; their answer to the de- mands made on them was the legislation of Draco (B.C. 624), which, by making death the penalty for almost all crimes, placed the very lives of the citizens at the disposal of the ruling order. The increased dissatisfaction which this legislation caused probably encouraged Cylon to make his rash attempt (B.C. 612), which was easily put down by the oligarchs; who, however, contrived to lose ground by their victory, incurring, as they did in the course of it, the guilt of sacrilege, and at the same time exasperating the people, who had hoped much from Cylon 's effort. Under these circumstances, after a vain attempt had been made to quiet matters by the purification of Epimenides (B.C. 595), and after the political discontent had taken the new and dangerous shape involved in the formation of local factions (Pediaei, Parali, and Diacrii), Solon, an Eupat- rid, but of so poor a family that he had himself been engaged in trade, was by common consent intrusted with the task of framing a new constitution, B.C. 594. 122 RAWLINSON The legislation of Solon, wise as it seems to moderns, was far from satisfying his contemporaries. Like most moderate politicians, he was accused by one party of having gone too far, by another of not having done enough. His personal in- fluence sufficed for a time to restrain the discontented; but when this influence was withdrawn (about B.C. 570), violent contentions broke out. The local factions revived. A strug- gle commenced between a reactionary party under Lycurgus, a conservative party under the Alcmaeonid Megacles, and a party of progress under Pisistratus, which terminated in the triumph of the last-named leader, who artfully turned his suc- cess to his own personal advantage by assuming the position of Dictator, or (as the Greeks called it) Tyrant, B.C. 560. The expulsion of the tyrant was followed by fresh troubles. A contest for power arose between Isagoras, the friend of Cle- omenes, and Clisthenes, the head of the Alcmseonid family, which terminated in favor of the latter, despite the armed inter- ference of Sparta. Clisthenes, however, had to purchase his victory by an alliance with the democratical party; and the natural result of his success was a further change in the con- stitution, which was modified in a democratic sense. The establishment of democracy gave an impulse to the spirit of patriotism, which resulted almost immediately in some splendid military successes. Athens had for some time been growing in warlike power. Under Solon she had taken Sala- mis from Megara, and played an important part in the first Sacred War (B.C. 600 to 591). About B.C. 518, or a little earlier, she had accepted the protectorate of the Plataeans. Now (B.C. 507) being attacked at one and the same time by Sparta, by Bceotia, and by the Chalcideans of Eubcea, she com- pletely triumphed over the coalition. The Spartan kings quar- relled, and the force under their command withdrew without risking a battle. The Boeotians and Chalcideans were signally defeated. Chalcis itself was conquered and occupied. A naval struggle with ^gina, the ally of Boeotia, followed, during the continuance of which the first hostilities took place between Athens and Persia. Proud of her recent victories, and con- fident in her strength, Athens complied with the request of Aristagoras, and sent twenty ships to support the revolt which ANCIENT HISTORY 123 threatened to deprive the Great King of the whole sea-board of Asia Minor. Though the burning of Sardis was followed by the defeat of Ephesus, yet the Persian monarch deemed his honor involved in the further chastisement on her own soil of the audacious power which had presumed to invade his do- minions. An attempt to conquer Greece would, no doubt, have been made even without provocation ; but the part taken by Athens in the Ionic revolt precipitated the struggle. It was well that the contest came when it did. Had it been delayed until Athens had grown into a rival to Sparta, the result might have been different. Greece might then have succumbed ; and European freedom and civilization, trampled under foot by the hordes of Asia, might have been unable to recover itself. PART II. History of the other Grecian States. The history of the smaller states will be most conveniently given under the five heads of the Peloponnesian States; the States of Central Greece; those of Northern Greece; those situated in the islands ; and those which either were, or were regarded as, colonies. Smaller Peloponnesian States. Achaea. The traditions said that when the Dorians con- quered Sparta, the Spartan king Tisamenus, son of Orestes, led the Achaeans northward, and, expelling the lonians from the tract which lay along the Corinthian Gulf, set up an Achaean kingdom in those parts, which lasted for several generations. Ogygus, however, the latest of these monarchs, having left be- hind him sons of a tyrannical temper, the Achaeans destroyed the monarchy, and set up a federal republic. Twelve cities composed the league, which were originally Pellene, ^geira (or Hyparesia), ^Egae, Bura, Helice, ^Igium, Rhypes, Patrae, Pharae, Olenus, Dyme, and Tritaea, all situated on or near the coast except the last two, which were in the interior. The common place of meeting for the league was Helice, where an I2 4 RAWLINSON annual festival was held, and common sacrifices were offered to Heliconian Neptune. The constitution of the several cities is said to have been democratic. The league was, no doubt, political as well as religious; but no details are known of it. According to Polybius it was admired for its fairness and equal- ity, and was taken as a model by the cities of Magna Graecia in the early part of the fifth century. We may gather from Thucyd- ides that it was of the loose type so common in Greece. The Achaeans seem to have manifested in the early times a dispo- sition to stay at home and to keep aloof from the quarrels of their neighbors. Hence the history of the country scarcely begins till the time of Antigonus, from which period the league formed a nucleus round which independent Greece rallied itself. Arcadia. The Arcadians were regarded as aboriginal in- habitants of their country. They called themselves Trpoo-eXrjvoi. The Dorian conquests in the Peloponnese left them untouched ; and they retained to a late date, in their remote valleys and cold high mountain pastures, very primitive habits. The tradition makes the entire country form, in the old times, a single mon- archy, which continues till B.C. 668; but it may be doubted whether there had really ever existed in Arcadia any thing more than an Amphictyonic union prior to Epaminondas. The whole country is physically broken up into separate val- leys and basins, whose inhabitants would naturally form sep- arate and distinct communities, while retaining a certain sense of ethnic relationship. The most important of these communi- ties were Mantinea and Tegea, neighboring towns, between which there were frequent wars. Next to these may be placed Orchomenus, Pheneus, and Stymphalus towards the north- east ; Cleitor and Heraea towards the west ; and Phigaleia, on the north-western border, near Messenia. The Arcadians, however, loved villages rather than towns ; and the numerous population was chiefly located in small hamlets scattered about the mountains. Arcadia was subject to constant aggressions at the hands of Sparta, which she sought to revenge upon fit- ting occasions. These aggressions began in the times previous to Lycurgus (see p. 117), and continued afterwards almost con- stantly. In retaliation, the Arcadians assisted Messenia throughout both the Messenian wars. Tegea, as the nearest ANCIENT HISTORY 125 state to Sparta, suffered most at her hands ; and after a long struggle, it would seem that Arcadia generally (about B.C. 560) acknowledged the Lacedaemonian hegemony, placing her full military strength at the disposal of Sparta in her wars, but retaining her internal independence. Mantinea even, upon oc- casions, thwarted the policy of Sparta. Corinth. Corinth, a rich and famous city even in the times anterior to the Doric conquests, was occupied by Dorian set- tlers from Argos soon after the reduction of that state. A mon- archy was established under kings who claimed descent from Hercules, twelve such rulers holding the throne during the space of 327 years. At the end of this time monarchy was ex- changed for oligarchy, power remaining (as at Athens) in the hands of a branch of the royal family, the Bacchiadae, who in- termarried only among themselves, and elected each year from their own body a Prytanis, or chief magistrate. This state of things continued for ninety years, when a revolution was ef- fected by Cypselus, who, having ingratiated himself with the people, rose up against the oligarchs, expelled them, and made himself tyrant. Cypselus reigned from B.C. 657 to 627, when he was succeeded by his son, Periander, who reigned from B.C. 627 to 587. A third monarch of the dynasty, Psammetichus, the nephew or grandson of Periander, mounted the throne, but was expelled, after a reign of three years, by the people, per- haps assisted by Sparta, B.C. 584. The time of the Cypselids was one of great material wealth and prosperity; literature and the arts flourished ; commerce was encouraged ; colonies were sent out ; and the hegemony of the mother country over her colonies successfully asserted. (The chief Corinthian settlements were Corcyra, Ambracia, Leucas, Anactorium, Epidamnus, Apollonia, Syracuse, and Potidaea. Of these, Am- bracia, Leucas, Anactorium, Epidamnus, Apollonia, and Poti- daea were content to be subject. Corcyra generally asserted independence, but was forced to submit to the Cypselids. Syr- acuse must have been from the first practically independent.) After the downfall of the tyrants, who are said to have ruled harshly, a republic was established on a tolerably wide basis. Power was placed in the hands of the wealthy class ; and even commerce and trade were no bars to the holding of office. i 2 6 RAWLINSON Corinth became one of the richest of the Greek states ; but, as she increased in wealth, she sank in political importance. Re- gard for her material interests induced her to accept the pro- tection of Sparta, and from about B.C. 550 she became merely the second power in the Spartan league, a position which she occupied with slight interruptions till B.C. 394. Elis. The settlement of the ^Etolo-Dorians under Oxylus (see p. 113) had been made in the more northern portion of the country, between the Larisus and the Ladon or Selleis. The region south of this as far as the Neda remained in the posses- sion of the old inhabitants, and was divided into two districts, Pisatis, or the tract between the Ladon and the Alpheus, of which Pisa was the capital, and Triphylia, the tract between the Alpheus and the Neda, of which the chief city was Lepreum. The Eleans, however, claimed a hegemony over the whole country; and this claim gave rise to frequent wars, in which the Eleans had the advantage, though they never succeeded in completely absorbing even Pisatis. The chief importance of Elis was derived from the celebration within her territory of the Olympic Games, a festival originally Pisan, of which the direction was assumed by the Eleans, but constantly disputed by the Pisatans. Sparta in the early times supported the Elean claims ; but in and after the Peloponnesian struggle it became her policy to uphold the independence of Lepreum. The Eleans dwelt chiefly in villages till after the close of the great Persian War, when the city of Elis was first founded, B.C. 477. Sicyon. Sicyon was believed to have been one of the oldest cities in Greece, and to have had kings of its own at a very remote period. Homer, however, represents it as forming, at the time of the Trojan War, part of the dominions of Agamem- non. Nothing can be said to be really known of Sicyon until the time of the Doric immigration into the Peloponnese, when it was occupied by a body of Dorians from Argos, at whose head was Phalces, son of Temenus. A Heracleid monarchy was established in the line of this prince's descendants, which was superseded after some centuries by an oligarchy. Power during this period was wholly confined to the Dorians ; the native non-Doric element in the population, which was numer- ous, being destitute of political privilege. But towards the ANCIENT HISTORY 127 beginning of the seventh century B.C. a change occurred. Orthagoras, a non-Dorian, said to have been by profession a cook, subverted the oligarchy, established himself upon the throne, and quietly transferred the predominance in the state from the Dorian to the non-Dorian population. He left his throne to his posterity, who ruled for above a hundred years. Clisthcnes, the last monarch of the line, adding insult to injury, changed the names of the Dorian tribes in Sicyon from Hyllaei, Dymanes, and Pamphyli, to Hyatae, Oneatae, and Chaereatae, or " Pig-folk," " Ass-folk," and " Swine-folk." He reigned from about B.C. 595 to 560. About sixty years after his death, the Dorians in Sicyon seem to have recovered their preponderance, and the state became one of the most submissive members of the Lacedaemonian confederacy. Smaller States of Central Greece. Megaris. Megaris was occupied by Dorians from Corinth, shortly after the great immigration into the Peloponnese. At first the colony seems to have been subject to the mother coun- try ; but this subjection was soon thrown off, and we find Cor- inth fomenting quarrels among the various Megarian towns Megara, Heraea, Peiraea, Tripodiscus, and Cynosura in the hope of recovering her influence. About B.C. 726 the Corin- thians seem to have made an attempt at conquest, which was repulsed by Orsippus, the Olympian runner. Nearly at the same time commenced the series of Megarian colonies, which form so remarkable a feature in the history of this state. The first of these was Megara Hyblaea, near Syracuse, founded (according to Thucydides) in B.C. 728, from which was sent out a sub-colony to Selinus ; then followed Chalcedon, in B.C. 674 ; Byzantium, in B.C. 657 ; Selymbria, in B.C. 662 ; Herac- lea Pontica, in B.C. 559; and Chersonesus, near the modern Sebastopol, not long afterwards. The naval power of Megara must have been considerable ; and it is not surprising to find that about this time (B.C. 600) she disputed with Athens the possession of Salamis. Her despot, Theagenes, was an enter- prising and energetic monarch. Rising to power as the repre- sentative of the popular cause (about B.C. 630), he supported 128 RAWLINSON his son-in-law, Cylon, in his attempt to occupy a similar position at Athens. He adorned Megara with splendid build- ings. He probably seized Salamis, and gained the victories which induced the Athenians for a time to put up with their loss. On his deposition by the oligarchs (about B.C. 600), the war was renewed Nissea was taken by Pisistratus, and Salamis recovered by Cylon. The oligarchs ruled without bloodshed, but still oppressively; so that shortly afterwards there was a second democratic revolution. Debts were now abolished, and even the return of the interest paid on them exacted (Trakwroicia). The rich were forced to entertain the poor in their houses. Temples and pilgrims are said to have been plundered. Vast numbers of the nobles were banished. At length the exiles were so numerous that they formed an army, invaded the country, and, reinstating themselves by force, established a somewhat narrow oligarchy, which ruled at least till B.C. 460. Bceotia. When the Boeotians, expelled from Arne by the Thessalians, settled in the country to which they henceforth gave name, expelling from it in their turn the Cadmaeans, Minyae, etc., they seem to have divided themselves into as many states as there were cities. What the form of govern- ment in the several states was at first is uncertain ; we can only say that there is no trace of monarchy, and that as soon as we obtain a glimpse of the internal affairs of any of them, they are oligarchical republics. The number of the states seems to have been originally fourteen, but by the time of the Peloponnesian War it had dwindled to ten, partly by a process of absorption, partly by separation. Oropus, Eleutherae, and Plataea had been lost to Athens; Chaeroneia had been incorporated with Or- chomenus ; the remaining ten states were Thebes, Orchomenus, Thespiae, Lebadeia, Coroneia, Copse, Haliartus, Tanagra, An- thedon, and perhaps Chalia. Between these states there had existed, probably from the first, an Amphictyony, or religious union, which had the temple of Itonian Athene near Coroneia for its centre ; and there took place once a year the celebration of the Pambceotia, or general festival of the Boeotians. By degrees, out of this religious association there grew up a fed- eral union; the states recognized themselves as constituting ANCIENT HISTORY 129 a single political unit, and arranged among themselves a real federal government. The supreme authority was placed in the hands of a council (ySovXi?), which had a curious fourfold divi- sion; while the executive functions were exercised by eleven Boeotarchs (two from Thebes, one from each of the other cities), who were at once the generals of the league and its presiding magistrates. Though the place of meeting for the council seems to have been Coroneia, yet Thebes by her superior size and power obtained an undue predominance in the confedera- tion, and used it in such a way as to excite the jealousy and disaffection of almost all the other cities. As early as B.C. 510, Plataea was driven to detach herself from the confederation, and to put herself under the protection of Athens. In later times Thespiae made more than one attempt to follow the Pla- tzean example, B.C. 423 and 414. The readiness of Athens to receive and protect revolted members of the league was among the causes of that hostility which Boeotia was always ready to display towards her ; and the general tendency of members of the league to revolt was among the chief causes of that po- litical weakness which Boeotia exhibits, as compared with Athens and Sparta. Phocis. There can be no doubt that Phocis was, like Bceo- tia, a confederation ; but from the comparative insignificance of the state no details of the constitution have come down to us. The place of meeting for the deputies seems to have been an isolated building (TO Qtoicucov) on the route from Daulis to Delphi. No Phocian city had any such preponderance as be- longed to Thebes among the cities of Bceotia, and hence the league appears to have been free from those perpetual jeal- ousies and heartburnings which we remark in the neighboring country. Still certain secessions from the confederacy appear to have taken place, as that of Delphi, and, again, that of Cirrha, which was a separate state about B.C. 600. A constant enmity existed between Phocis and Thessaly, consequent upon the attempts made by the Thessalians from time to time to conquer the country. These attempts were successfully re- sisted ; but they were so far injurious to the independence of Phocis, that they produced a tendency to lean on Bceotia and to look to her for aid. Still, the military history of Phocis 9 I 3 o RAWLINSON down to the close of the Persian War is creditable to the nation, which frequently repulsed the invasions of the Thessalians, and which offered a brave resistance to the enormous host of Xerxes. Locris. There were three countries of this name; and though a certain ethnic connection between them may be as- sumed from the common appellation, yet politically the three countries appear to have been entirely separate and distinct. The Locri Ozolae (the " stinking Locri ") possessed the largest and most important tract, that lying between Parnassus and the Corinthian Gulf, bounded on the west by JEtolia. They probably formed a confederacy under the presidency of Am- phissa. The Locri Epicnemidii, or Locrians of Mount Cnemis, and the Locri Opuntii, or those of Opus, were separated from their western brethren by the whole breadth of the territory of Phocis. They were also separated from each other, but only a narrow strip or tongue of Phocian territory, which ran down to the Euripus at the town of Daphnus. Of the internal or- ganization of the Epicnemidii we know nothing. The Opun- tians were probably a confederacy under the hegemony of Opus. JEtolia.. ^Etolia, the country of Diomed, though famous in the early times, fell back during the migratory period almost into a savage condition, probably through the influx into it of an Illyrian population which became only partially Hellenized. The nation was divided into numerous tribes, among which the most important were the Apodoti, the Ophioneis, the Eu- rytanes, and the Agraeans. There were scarcely any cities, village life being preferred- universally. No traces appear of a confederation of the tribes until the time of Alexander, though in times of danger they could unite for purposes of defense against the common enemy. The Agrseans, so late as the Pelo- ponnesian War, were under the government of a king: the political condition of the other tribes is unknown. It was not till the wars which arose among Alexander's successors that the ^tolians formed a real political union, and became an im- portant power in Greece. Acarnania. The Acarnanians were among the more back- ward of the Greek nations in the historical times, but they ANCIENT HISTORY 131 were considerably more advanced than the ^Etolians. They possessed a number of cities, among which the most important were Stratus, Amphilochian Argos, and CEniadae. From a very remote date they had formed themselves into a federation, which not only held the usual assemblies for federal purposes (probably at Stratus), but had also a common Court of Justice (Bitccurrijpiov) for the decision of causes, at Olpae. There was great jealousy between the native Acarnanians and the colonies planted by the Corinthians on or near their coasts, Ambracia, Leucas, Anactorium, Sollium, and Astacus, which in the early times certainly did not belong to the league. The league itself was of the lax character usual in Greece, and allowed of the several cities forming their own alliances, and even taking op- posite sides in a war. States of Northern Greece. Thessaly. The Thesprotian conquerors of Thessaly estab- lished a condition of things in that country not very unlike that which the Dorians introduced into Laconia. The conquerors themselves formed a noble class which claimed the ownership of most of the territory and confined to itself the possession of political power. The conquered were reduced to two very different positions : some retained their personal freedom and the right to their lands, but were made subject to tribute; others (the Penestae) were reduced to the condition of serfs, cultivating the lands of their masters, but were protected in their holdings, could not be sold out of the country, and both might and did often acquire considerable property. The chief differences between the two countries were (i) that in Thessaly the intermediate class, Achaeans, Magnetes, Perrhaebi, etc., instead of being scattered over the country and intermixed with the nobles and serfs, were the sole occupants of certain dis- tricts, retained their old ethnic name, their Amphictyonic vote, and their governmental organization ; and (2) that the con- querors, instead of concentrating themselves in one city, took possession of several, establishing in each a distinct and sep- arate government. The governments seem to have been orig- 132 RAWLINSON inally monarchies, which merged in aristocracies, wherein one family held a quasi-royal position. The Aleuadae at Larissa and Pharsalus (?) and the Scopadae at Cranon correspond closely to the Medontidae at Athens. A federal tie of the weakest character united the several states of Thessaly in ordinary times; but upon occasions this extreme laxity was replaced by a most stringent centralization. A Tagus (Com- mander-in-Chief) of all Thessaly was appointed, who exer- cised powers little short of despotic over the whole country. Such, apparently, was the power wielded (about B.C. 510) by Cineas, and such beyond all question was the dominion of Ja- son of Pherae, and his three brothers, Polydorus, Polyphron, and Alexander, B.C. 380 to 356. In the remoter times Thess- aly was aggressive and menaced the independence of the states of Central Greece ; but from the dawn of exact history to the time of Jason her general policy was peaceful, and, except as an occasional ally of Athens, she is not found to have taken any part in the internal quarrels of the Greeks. Her aristocracies were selfish, luxurious, and devoid of patriotic feeling: con- tent with their position at home, they did not desire the glory of foreign conquest. Thus Thessaly plays a part in the history of Greece very disproportioned to her power and resources, not rising into any importance till very shortly before the Mace- donian period. Epirus. Anterior to the Persian wars, and indeed until the time of Philip of Macedon, Epirus was a mere geographical expression, designating no ethnic nor political unity. The tract so called was parcelled out among a number of states, some of which were Greek, others barbarian. Of these the chief were : (i) the semi-barbarous kingdom of the Molossians, ruled over a family which claimed descent from Achilles a constitutional monarchy, where the king and people alike swore to observe the laws; (2) the kingdom of the Orestae, barbarian; (3) the kingdom of the Parausei, likewise barba- rian ; (4) the republic of the Chaonians, barbarian, administered by two annual magistrates chosen out of a singk ruling family ; (5) the republic of the Thesprotians, barbarian ; and (6) the Ambracian republic, Greek, a colony and dependency of Cor- inth. By alliance with Philip of Macedon, the Molossian kings ANCIENT HISTORY 133 were enabled to bring the Epirotic states under their dominion, about B.C. 350. After their fall, B.C. 239, Epirus became a federal republic. Greek Insular States. Corcyra Corcyra, the most western of the Greek islands, was colonized from Corinth about B.C. 730. From the fer- tility of the island, and the advantages of its situation, the set- tlement soon became important : a jealousy sprang up between it and the mother country, which led to hostilities as early as B.C. 670. During the rule of the Cypselid princes at Corinth, Corcyra was forced to submit to them; but soon after their fall independence was recovered. From this time till the com- mencement of the Peloponnesian War, the commerce and naval power of Corcyra went on increasing; so early as the time of the invasion of Xerxes (B.C. 480) their navy was the second in Greece, and just before the Peloponnesian War it amounted to 120 triremes. The government was a republic, which fluctuated between aristocracy and democracy; party spirit ran high; and both sides were guilty of grievous ex- cesses. Cephallenia. This island, though considerably larger than Corcyra, and exceedingly fertile, was politically insignificant. It contained four cities, each of which was a distinct state, Pale, Cranii, Same, and Pronus or Pronesus. Probably the four were united in a sort of loose confederation. Pale seems to have been the most important of the cities. Zacynthus, which was originally peopled by Achaeans from the Peloponnese, formed an independent state till the time of the Athenian confederacy. It had a single city, of the same name with the island itself, and is chiefly noted in the early ages as furnishing an asylum to fugitives from Sparta. ./Egina is said to have been occupied by Dorian colonists from Epidaurus shortly after the invasion of the Peloponnese. It was at first completely dependent on the mother country; but, growing in naval power, it in a little time shook off the yoke, and became one of the most flourishing of the Grecian communities. The ^ginetans early provoked the jealousy of 134 RAWLINSON Samos, and a war followed between the two powers, which had no very important consequences. About B.C. 500, ^Egina found a more dangerous rival in her near neighbor, Athens, whose growing greatness she endeavored to check, in combi- nation with Bceotia. A naval war, which lasted about twenty years, was terminated, B.C. 481, by the common danger which threatened all Greece from the armament collected by Xerxes. ^Egina played an important part in the Persian struggle ; but still it was one of the effects of the war to exalt her rival, Athens, to a very decided pre-eminence above all the other naval powers of Greece. Not content, however, with mere pre- ponderance. Athens, on breaking with Sparta, B.C. 461, pro- ceeded to crush ^Egina, which resisted for four years, but in B.C. 457 became an Athenian dependency. Euboea. This large island contained a number of separate and independent states, whereof the two most important were Eretria and Chalcis. These cities rose to eminence at an early period, and contended together in a great war, wherein most of the Greeks of Europe, and even some from Asia, took part. The balance of advantage seems to have rested with Chalcis, which in the later times always appears as the chief city of the island. Chalcis sent out numerous and important colonies, as Cuma and Rhegium in Italy ; Naxos, Leontini, Catana, and Zancle in Sicily ; Olynthus, Torone, and many other places on the coast of Thrace. Its constitution was oligarchical, the chief power being lodged in the hands of the " Horse-keepers " (/TTTTOjSoTat), or Knights. About B.C. 500, Chalcis was in- duced to join the Spartans and Boeotians in an attempt to crush Athens, which failed, and cost Chalcis its independence. The lands of the Hippobotse were confiscated, and an Athenian col- ony established in the place. Chalcis, together with the rest of Euboea, revolted from Athens in B.C. 445, but was again reduced by Pericles. In the Peloponnesian War, B.C. 411, better success attended a second effort. The Cyclades. These islands are said to have been origi- nally peopled by Carians from Asia Minor ; but about the time of the great migrations (B.C. 1200 to 1000) they were occupied by the Greeks, the more northern by Ionian, the more southern by Dorian adventurers. After a while an Ionian Amphictyony ANCIENT HISTORY 135 grew up in the northern group, having the islet of Delos for its centre, and the Temple of Apollo there for its place of meet- ing ; whence the position occupied by Delos on the formation of the Athenian confederacy. The largest, and, politically speaking, most important of the Cyclades were Andros and N.OS ; the former of which founded the colonies of Acanthus, Sane, Argilus, and Stageirus in Thrace, while the latter re- pulsed a Persian attack in B.C. 501, and contended against the whole force of Athens in B.C. 466. Paros, famous for its marble, may be placed next to Andros and Naxos. It was the mother city of Thasos, and of Pharos in Illyria. Little is known of the constitutional history of any of the Cyclades. Xaxos, however, seems to have gone through the usual course of Greek revolutionary change, being governed by an oligarchy until the time of Lygdamis (B.C. 540 to 530), who, professing to espouse the popular cause, made himself king. His tyranny did not last long, and an oligarchy was once more established, which in its turn gave way to a democracy before B.C. 501. Lemnos. This island, which had a Thracian population in the earliest times and then a Pelasgic one, was first Hellenized after its conquest, about B.C. 500, by the great Miltiades. It was from this time regarded as an Athenian possession, and seems to have received a strong body of colonists from Athens. Lemnos contained two towns, Hephaestia and Myrina, which formed separate states at the time of the Athenian conquest. Hephaestia was at that time under a king. Thasos, which was peculiarly rich in minerals, was early colonized by the Phoenicians, who worked the mines very suc- cessfully, lonians from Paros Hellenized it about B.C. 720 to 700, and soon raised it into a powerful state. Settlements were made by the Thasians upon the main-land opposite their north- ern shores, whereof the most important were Scapte-Hyle and Datum. The gold-mines in this quarter were largely worked, and in B.C. 492 the Thasians had an annual revenue of from 200 to 300 talents (48,000 to 72,000). In B.C. 494, Histiaeus of Miletus attempted to reduce the island, but failed; it was, however, in the following year forced to submit to the Persians. On the defeat of Xerxes, Thasos became a member of the Athenian confederacy, but revolting, B.C. 465, was attacked 136 RAWLINSON and forced to submit, B.C. 463. In the Peloponnesian War an- other revolt (B.C. 411) was again followed by submission, B.C. 408, and Thasos thenceforth continued, except for short inter- vals, subject to Athens. Crete. The population of Crete in the early times was of a very mixed character. Homer enumerates among its in- habitants Achaeans, Eteocretes, Cydonians, Dorians, and Pelasgi. Of these the Eteocretes and Cydonians were even farther removed than the Pelasgi from the Hellenic type. In the early days the Cretans were famous pirates, whence prob- ably the traditions of Minos and his naval power. Whether the Dorian population was really settled in the island from a remote antiquity, or reached Crete from the Peloponnese after the Dorian conquest of the Achaean kingdoms, is a disputed point ; but the latter view is, on the whole, the more probable. In the historical times the Dorian element had a decided pre- ponderance over all the rest, and institutions prevailed in all the chief cities which had a strong resemblance to those of Sparta. The Spartan division of the freemen into citizens and periocci existed only in Crete; and, though the latter country had no Helots, their place was supplied by slaves, public and private, who cultivated the lands for their masters. Among these last a system of syssitia, closely resembling the Spartan, was established ; and a military training similar in character, though less severe. The island was parcelled out among a number of separate states, often at war with one another, but wise enough to unite generally against a common enemy. Of these states the most powerful were Gnossus and Gortyna, each of which aspired to exercise a hegemony over the whole island. Next in importance was Cydonia, and in later times Lyctus, or Lyttus. Originally the cities were ruled by hereditary kings ; but ere long their places were taken by elected Cosmi, ten in each community, who held office for a certain period, probably a year, and were chosen from certain families. Side by side with this executive board, there existed in each com- munity a senate (ypovr) -jrapavofjUDv) had a decided tendency to check the over-rapid progress of change. The practice of re-electing year after year a favorite strategus gave to the republic something of the stability of monarchy, and rendered fluctuations in policy less frequent than they would otherwise have been, and less extreme. Meanwhile, the convenient institution of ostracism diminished the violence of party struggles, and preserved the state from all attempts upon its liberties. The sixty years which followed Salamis form, on the whole, the most brilliant period of Athe- nian history, and exhibit to us the exceptional spectacle of a full-blown democracy, which has nevertheless all the steadi- ness, the firmness, and the prudent self-control of a limited monarchy or other mixed government. Athens also during this period became the most splendid of Greek cities, and was the general resort of all who excelled in literature or in the arts. The Parthenon, the Theseium, the temple of Victory, the Propylaea were built, and adorned with the paintings of Polygnotus and the exquisite sculptures of Phidias and his school. Cimon and Pericles vied with each other in the beautifying of the city of their birth ; and the en- couragement which the latter especially gave to talent of every kind, collected to Athens a galaxy of intellectual lights such as is almost without parallel in the history of mankind. At the same time, works of utility were not neglected, but advanced at an equal pace with those whose character was ornamental. The defenses of Athens were rebuilt immediately after the de- parture of the Persians, and not long afterwards the fortifica- tions were extended to the sea on either side by the " Long Walls " to the two ports of Piraeus and Phalerum. The triple harbor of Piraeus was artificially enlarged and strengthened. 10 I4 6 RAWLINSON New docks were made, and a town was laid out on a grand plan for the maritime population. A magnificent force of tri- remes was kept up, maintained always at the highest point of efficiency. Colonies were moreover sent out to distant shores, and new towns arose, at Amphipolis, Thurii, and elsewhere, which reproduced in remote and barbarous regions the splen- dor and taste of the mother city on a reduced scale. Although Aristides was the chief under whom Athens ob- tained her leadership, and Themistocles the statesman to whom she owed it that she was thought of for such a position, yet the guidance of the state on her new career was intrusted to neither the one nor the other, but to Cimon. Aristides ap- pears to have been regarded as deficient in military talent ; and the dishonest conduct of Themistocles had rendered him justly open to suspicion. It was thus to the son of the victor at Marathon that the further humiliation of Persia was now com- mitted. The revolt of the Spartan Helots simultaneously with the siege of Thasos, B.C. 464, was an event the importance of which can scarcely be over-estimated. It led to the first actual rupture of friendly relations between Athens and Sparta ; and it occupied the attention of Sparta so completely for ten years that she could do nothing during that time to check the rapid advance which Athens made, so soon as she found herself free to take whatever part she pleased in Grecian politics. It like- wise caused the banishment of Cimon (B.C. 461) and the ele- vation of Pericles to the chief direction of affairs a change of no small moment, being the substitution of a consummate statesmen as chief of the state for a mere moderately skilful general. The ambition of Pericles aimed at securing to Athens the first position in Greece both by land and sea. He understood that Sparta would not tolerate such pretensions, and was pre- pared to contest with that power the supremacy on shore. But he believed that ultimately, in such a country as Greece, the command of the sea would carry with it a predominant power over the land also. He did not design to withdraw Athens from her position of leader against Persia ; but, treating the Persian War as a secondary and subordinate affair, he ANCIENT HISTORY ,47 wished to direct the main energies of his country towards the acquisition of such authority and influence in central and northern Greece as would place her on a par with Sparta as a land power. At the same time, he sought to strengthen him- self by alliances with such states of the Peloponnese as were jealous of Sparta ; and he was willing, when danger threatened, to relinquish the contest with Persia altogether, and to devote all his efforts to the establishment of the supremacy of Athens over Greece. The culminating period of Athenian greatness was the in- terval between CEnophyta and Coroneia, B.C. 456 to 447. Pericles, who at the outset appeared likely to succeed in all that he had planned, learned gradually by the course of events that he had overrated his country's powers, and wisely acqui- esced in the inevitable. From about B.C. 454 his aim was to consolidate and conserve, not to enlarge, the dominion of Athens. But the policy of moderation came too late. Boeo- tia, Phocis, and Locris burned to be free, and determined to try the chance of arms, so soon as a convenient occasion offered. Coroneia came, and Athens was struck down upon her knees. Two years later, on the expiration of the five years' peace (B.C. 445), Sparta arranged a combination which threatened her rival with actual destruction. Megara on the one side and Euboea on the other were stirred to revolt, while a Pelopon- nesian force under Pleistoanax and Cleanridas invaded Attica at Eleusis. But the crisis was met by Pericles with firmness and wisdom. The Spartan leaders were accessible to bribes, and the expenditure of a few talents relieved Athens from her greatest danger. Euboea, the possession of which was of vital consequence to the unproductive Attica, received a severe pun- ishment for her disaffection at the hands of Pericles himself. Megara, and a few outlying remnants of the land empire en- joyed from B.C. 456 to 447, were made the price of peace. By the cession of what it would have been impossible to retain, Athens purchased for herself a long term of rest, during which she might hope to recruit her strength and prepare herself to make another struggle for the supremacy. The struggle which now commenced is known by the name of the " Peloponnesian War." It lasted twenty-seven years, 148 RAWLINSON from B.C. 431 to 404, and extended itself over almost the whole of the Grecian world, involving almost every state from Selinus at the extreme west of Sicily to Cnidus and Rhodes in the ^Egean. Though in the main a war for supremacy between the two great powers of Greece, Athens and Sparta, it was also to a certain extent " a struggle of principles," and likewise, though to a lesser extent, " a war of races." Speaking gen- erally, the Ionian Greeks were banded together on the one side, and made common cause with the Athenians ; while the Dorian Greeks, with a few remarkable exceptions, gave their aid to the Spartans. But political sympathy determined, to a greater degree than race, the side to which each state should attach itself. Athens and Sparta were respectively in the eyes of the Greeks the representatives of the two principles of de- mocracy and oligarchy ; and it was felt that, according as the one or the other preponderated, the cause of oligarchical or democratical government was in the ascendant. The prin- ciple of non-intervention was unknown. ' Both powers alike were propagandist; and revolutionized, as occasion offered, the constitutions of their dependencies. Even without inter- vention, party spirit was constantly at work, and the triumph of a faction over its rival in this or that petty state might at any time disturb the balance of power between the two chief bel- ligerents. These two belligerents offered a remarkable contrast to each other in many respects. Athens was predominantly a mari- time, Sparta a land power. Athens had influence chiefly on the eastern side of Greece and in Asia ; Sparta, on the western side of Greece, and in Italy and Sicily. Again, the position of Sparta with respect to her allies was very different from that of Athens. Sparta was at the head of a purely voluntary confederacy, the members of which regarded their interests as bound up in hers, and accepted her, on account of her superior military strength, as their natural leader. Athens was mis- tress of an empire which she had acquired, to a considerable extent, by force ; and was disliked by most of her subject-al- lies, who accepted her leadership, not from choice, but from compulsion. Thus Sparta was able to present herself before ANCIENT HISTORY 149 men's minds in the character of " liberator of Greece ;" though, had she obtained a complete ascendancy over the rest of Greece, her yoke would probably have been found at least as galling as the Athenian. Among the principal advantages which Athens possessed over Sparta at the commencement of the war was the better arrangement of her finance. Sparta can scarcely be said to have had a revenue at all. Her military expenses were met by extraordinary contributions, which she and her allies levied upon themselves, as occasion seemed to require. Athens, on the contrary, had an organized system, which secured her an annual revenue greatly exceeding her needs in time of peace, and sufficient to support the whole expense of a moderate war. When extraordinary efforts were required, she could fall back on her accumulations, which were large ; or she could augment her income by requiring from her citizens an increased rate of property-tax. The Peloponnesian War may be divided into three periods : ist. From the commencement until the conclusion of the Peace of Nicias ten years B.C. 431 to 421. 2d. From the Peace of Nicias to its formal rupture by Sparta eight years, B.C. 421 to 413. 3d. From the rupture of the Peace of Nicias to the capture of Athens rather more than nine years B.C. 41310404. First Period. The struggle was conducted for two years and a half by Pericles ; then by Nicias, but under the check of a strong opposition led by Cleon. Athens was continually more and more successful up to B.C. 424, when the fortune of war changed. The rash expedition into Bceotia in that year lost Athens the flower of her troops at Delium; while the genius of the young Spartan, Brasidas, first saved Megara, and then, transferring the war into Thrace, threatened to deprive the Athenians of the entire mass of their allies in this quarter. The effort made to recover Amphipolis (B.C. 422) having failed, and Athens fearing greatly the further spread of dis- affection among her subject-cities, peace was made on terms disadvantageous but not dishonorable to Athens the general principle of the peace being the statu quo ante bellum, but cer- tain exceptions being made with regard to Plataea and the 150 RAWLINSON . Thracian towns, which placed Athens in a worse position than that which she held when the war began. Second Period. The continuance of hostilities during this period, while there was peace, and even for some time alliance, between the two chief belligerents, was attributable, at first, to the hatred which Corinth bore to Athens, and to the en- ergy which she showed in forming coalitions against her de- tested rival. Afterwards it was owing also in part to the am- bition and influence of Alcibiades, who desired a renewal of the war, hoping thereby to obtain a sphere suitable to his talents. Argos, during this period, rose for a time into consideration, her alliance being sought on all hands ; but the battle of Man- tinea, by destroying the flower of her troops, once more broke her power, and her final gravitation to the Athenian side was of no consequence. Far more important than his Peloponnesian schemes was the project, which Alcibiades now brought forward, of con- quering Sicily. The success of this attempt would have com- pletely destroyed the balance of power in Greece, and have made Athens irresistible. The project, though perhaps some- what over-bold, would probably have succeeded, had the task of carrying it through to the end been intrusted to the genius which conceived it. Unfortunately for Athens, she was forced to choose between endangering her liberties by maintaining Alcibiades in power and risking the failure of an expedition to which she was too far committed for her to be able to re- cede. The recall of Alcibiades was injurious to Athens in various ways. It deprived her of her best general, and of the only statesman she possessed who was competent to deal with all the peculiar difficulties of the expedition. It made Sparta fully acquainted with the Athenian schemes for the manage- ment of Sicilian affairs, and so enabled her to counteract them. Finally, it transferred to the enemy the most keen and subtle intellect of the time, an intellect almost certain to secure suc- cess to the side which it espoused. Still, if the choice lay (as probably it did) between accepting Alcibiades as tyrant and driving him into exile, we must hold Athens justified in the course which she took. There might easily be a rapid recov- ANCIENT HISTORY 151 cry from the effects of a disastrous expedition. Who could predict the time at which the state would recover from the loss of those liberties on which her prosperity had recently de- pended ? Third Period. The maintenance of the " Peace of Nicias " had long been rather nominal than real. Athens and Sparta had indeed abstained hitherto from direct attacks upon each other's territories ; but they had been continually employed in plots against each other's interests, and they had met in con- flict both in the Peloponnese and in Sicily. Now at length, after eight years, the worn-out fiction of a pretended amity was discarded ; and the Spartans, by the advice of Alcibiades, not only once more invaded Attica, but made a permanent settle- ment at Deceleia within sight of Athens. The main theatre of the struggle continued, however, to be Sicily; where the Athenians clung with desperation to a scheme which prudence required them to relinquish, and lavishly sent fleet after fleet and army after army to maintain a conflict which was hopeless. Still the expedition might have re-embarked, without suffering any irreparable disaster, had it not been for an improvement in ship-building, devised by the Corinthians and eagerly adopt- ed by the Syracusans, which deprived Athens of her command of the sea, and forced her armies to surrender at discretion. Thus the fatal blow, from which Athens never recovered, was struck by the hatred of Corinth, which, in the course of a few weeks, more than avenged the injuries of half a century. The immediate result of the disasters in Sicily was the trans- ference of the war to Asia Minor. Her great losses in ships and sailors had so crippled the naval power of Athens, that her command of the sea was gone ; the more so, as her adversaries were strengthened by the accession to their fleet of a powerful Sicilian contingent. The knowledge of this entire change in the relative position of the two belligerents at sea, encouraged the subject-allies generally to shake off the Athenian yoke. Sparta saw the importance of encouraging this defection ; and crossing the JEgean Sea in force, made the theatre of war Asia Minor, the islands, and the Hellespont. Here, for the first time, she was able to make the Persian alliance, which she had so long sought, of use to her. Persian gold enabled her to 15* RAWLINSON maintain a fleet equal or superior to that of Athens, and ulti- mately gave her the victory in the long doubtful contest. What most surprises us, in the third and last period of the war, is the vigor of the Athenian defense; the elasticity of spirit, the energy, and the fertility of resource which seemed for a time to have completely surmounted the Sicilian calamity, and made the final issue once more appear to be doubtful. This wonderful recovery of strength and power was, no doubt, in a great measure due to the genius of one man Alcibiades. But something must be attributed to the temper and character of the people. Athens, like Rome, is the greatest and most admirable in misfortune; it is then that her courage, her pa- tience, and her patriotism deserve and command our sympa- thies. The arrival of the younger Cyrus in Asia Minor was of great advantage to Sparta, and must be regarded as mainly effective in bringing the war rapidly to a successful issue. Hitherto the satraps had pursued the policy which the interests of Persia required, had trimmed the balance, and contrived that neither side should obtain a decided preponderance over the other. But Cyrus had personal views, which such a course would not have subserved. He required the assistance of Greek troops and ships in the great enterprise that he was meditating ; and, to obtain such aid, it was necessary for him to make a real friend of one belligerent or the other. He chose Sparta, as best suited to furnish him the aid he required; and, having made his choice, he threw himself into the cause with all the energy of his nature. It was his prompt and lavish generosity which prevented the victory of Arginusae from being of any real service to Athens, and enabled Lysander to undo its ef- fects and regain the mastery of the sea, within the space of thirteen months, by the crowning victory of ^Egos-potami. That victory may also have been in another way the result of Lysander's command of Persian gold ; for it is a reasonable suspicion that some of the Athenian commanders were bribed, and that the negligence which lost the battle had been paid for out of the stores of Cyrus. The internal history of Athens during the third period of the Peloponnesian War is full of interest. The disastrous termi- ANCIENT HISTORY 153 nation of the Sicilian expedition threw discredit upon demo- cratical institutions; and immediately after the news of it reached Athens, the constitution was modified in an aristo- cratic direction, B.C. 412. The change, however, then made was not regarded as sufficient ; and in B.C. 41 1 a more com- plete revolution was effected. Cowed by a terrorism which the political clubs knew well how to exercise, the Athenian democracy submitted to see itself abolished in a perfectly legal manner. A nominated Council of 400 succeeded to the elect- ive ftovXr) ; and a pretended committee of 5000 took the place of the time-honored Ktc\v)r-that of Eulaeus the eunuch and Lenaeus, ministers at once corrupt and incapable. These weak men, mistaking audacity for vigor, rashly claimed from Antiochus Epiphanes the surrender of Coele-Syria and Palestine, the nominal dowry of the late queen- mother, and, when their demand was contemptuously rejected, flew to arms. Their invasion of Syria quickly brought upon them the vengeance of Antiochus, who defeated their forces at Pelusium, B.C. 170, and would certainly have conquered all Egypt, had it not been for the interposition of the Romans, who made him retire, and even deprived him of all his con- quests. By the timely aid thus given, Rome was brought into a new position with respect to Egypt. Hitherto she had merely been a friendly ally, receiving more favors than she conferred. Henceforth she was viewed as exercising a sort of protectorate ; and her right was recognized to interfere in the internal troubles of the kingdom, and to act as arbiter between rival princes. The claims of such persons were discussed before the Roman Senate, and the princes themselves went to Rome in person to plead their cause. The decision of the Senate was not, in- deed, always implicitly obeyed; but still Rome exercised a most important influence from this time, not only over the external policy but over the dynastic squabbles of the Egyptians. The joint reign of the two kings, Philometor and Physcon, which commenced in B.C. 169, continued till B.C. 165, when the brothers quarrelled and Philometor was driven into exile. Having gone to Rome and implored assistance from the Sen- ate, he was re-instated in his kingdom by Roman deputies, who arranged a partition of the territory between the brothers, which might have closed the dispute, could Physcon have remained contented with his allotted portion. But his ambi- tion and intrigues caused fresh troubles, which were, however, quelled after a time by the final establishment of Physcon as king of Cyrene only. 206 RAWLINSON During the continuance of the war between the two brothers, Demetrius I., who had become king of Syria, B.C. 162, had made an attempt to obtain possession of Cyprus by bribing the governor, and had thereby provoked the hostility of Philo- metor. No sooner, therefore, was Philometor free from do- mestic troubles than, resolving to revenge himself, he induced Alexander Balas to come forward as a pretender to the Syrian crown, and lent him the full weight of his support, even giving him his daughter, Cleopatra, in marriage, B.C. 150. But the ingratitude of Balas, after he had obtained the throne by Ptol- emy's aid, alienated his patron. The Egyptian king, having with some difficulty escaped a treacherous attempt upon his life, passed over to the side of the younger Demetrius, gave Cleopatra in marriage to him, and succeeded in seating him upon the throne. In the last battle, however, which was fought near Antioch, he was thrown from his horse, and lost his life, B.C. 146. Ptolemy Philometor left behind him three children, the issue of his marriage with his full sister, Cleopatra, viz., a son, Ptol- emy, who was proclaimed king, under the name of Eupator (or Philopator, according to Lepsius), and two daughters, both called Cleopatra, the elder married first to Alexander Balas and then to Demetrius II., the younger still a virgin. Eupator, after reigning a few days, was deposed and then murdered by his uncle, Physcon, the king of Cyrene, who claimed and ob- tained the throne. Ptolemy Physcon, called also Euergetes II., acquired the throne in consequence of an arrangement mediated by the Romans, who stipulated that he should marry his sister Cleo- patra, the widow of his brother, Philometor. Having become king in this way, his first act was the murder of his nephew. He then proceeded to treat with the utmost severity all those who had taken part against him in the recent contest, killing some and banishing others. By these measures he created such' alarm, that Alexandria became half emptied of its inhabitants, and he was forced to invite new colonists to repeople it. Mean- while he gave himself up to gluttony and other vices, and be- came bloated to an extraordinary degree, and so corpulent that he could scarcely walk. He further repudiated Cleopatra, his ANCIENT HISTORY 207 sister, though she had borne him a son, Memphitis, and took to wife her daughter, called also Cleopatra, the child of his brother, Philometor. After a while his cruelties and excesses disgusted the Alexandrians, who broke out into frequent re- volts. Several of these were put down ; but at last Physcon was compelled to fly to Cyprus, and his sister Cleopatra was made queen, B.C. 130. On the re-establishment of Physcon in his kingdom, he resolved to revenge himself on Demetrius for the support which he had given to Cleopatra. He therefore brought for- ward the pretender Alexander Zabinas, and lent him such sup- port that he shortly became king of Syria, B.C. 126. But Za- binas, like his reputed father, Balas, proved ungrateful; and the offended Physcon proceeded to pull down the throne which he had erected, joining Antiochus Grypus against Zabinas, and giving him his daughter Tryphaena, in marriage. The result was the ruin of Zabinas, and the peaceful establishment of Grypus, with whom Physcon lived on friendly terms during the remainder of his life. Physcon died in B.C. 117, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Ptolemy IX., commonly distinguished by the epithet of Lathyrus. Egypt now lost the Cyrenai'ca, which was be- queathed by Physcon to his natural son, Apion, who at his death made it over to the Romans. The ties which bound Cyprus to Egypt also became relaxed, for Lathyrus, and his brother, Alexander, alternately ^held it, almost as a separate kingdom. The reign of Lathyrus, which commenced B.C. 117, did not terminate till B.C. 81, thus covering a space of thirty-six years; but during one-half of this time he was a fugitive from Egypt, ruling only over Cyprus, while his brother took his place at Alexandria. We must divide his reign into three periods the first lasting from B.C. 117 to 107, a space of ten years, during which he was nominal king of Egypt under the tutelage of his mother ; the second, from B.C. 107 to 89, eighteen years, which he spent in Cyprus ; and the third, from B.C. 89 to 81, eight years, during which he ruled Egypt as actual and sole monarch. Lathyrus left behind him one legitimate child only, Berenice, his daughter by Selene, who succeeded him upon the throne, 208 RAWLINSON and remained for six months sole monarch. She was then married to her first cousin, Ptolemy Alexander II., the son of Ptolemy Alexander L, who claimed the crown of Egypt under the patronage of the great Sulla. It was agreed that they should reign conjointly; but within three weeks of his mar- riage, Alexander put his wife to death. This act so enraged the Alexandrians that they rose in revolt against the murderer and slew him in the public gymnasium, B.C. 80. A time of trouble followed. The succession was disputed between two illegitimate sons of Lathyrus, two legitimate sons of Selene, the sister of Lathyrus, by Antiochus Eusebes, king of Syria, her third husband, and probably other claimants. Roman influence was wanted to decide the contest, and Rome for some reason or other hung back. A further disintegration of the empire was the consequence. The younger of the two sons of Ptolemy Lathyrus seized Cyprus, and made it a sep- arate kingdom. The elder seems to have possessed himself of a part of Egypt. Other parts of Egypt appear to have fallen into the power of a certain Alexander, called by some writers Ptolemy Alexander III., who was driven out after some years, and, flying to Tyre, died there and bequeathed Egypt to the Romans. Ultimately the whole of Egypt passed under the sway of the elder of the two illegitimate sons of Lathyrus, who took the titles of Neos Dionysos (" the New Bacchus "), Philopator, and Philadelphus, but was most commonly known as Auletes, the " Flute-player." The years of his reign were counted from B.C. 80, though he can scarcely have become king of all Egypt till fifteen years later, B.C. 65. It was his great object during the earlier portion of his reign to get himself acknowledged by the Romans ; but this he was not able to effect till B.C. 59, the year of Caesar's consulship, when his bribes were effectual. But his orgies and his " fluting " had by this time disgusted the Alexandrians; so that, when he increased the weight of taxation in order to replenish his treasury, exhausted by the vast sums he had spent in bribery, they rose against him, and after a short struggle, drove him from his kingdom. Auletes fled to Rome ; and the Alexandrians placed upon the throne his two daughters, Tryphaena and Berenice, of whom the for- ANCIENT HISTORY 209 mcr lived only a year, while the latter retained the crown till the restoration of her father, B.C. 55. He returned under the protection of Pompey, who sent Gabinius at the head of a strong Roman force to reinstate him. The Alexandrians were compelled to submit ; and Auletes immediately executed Be- renice, who had endeavored to retain the crown and had resist- ed his return in arms. Auletes then reigned about three years and a half in tolerable peace, under the protection of a Roman garrison. He died B.C. 51, having done as much as in him lay to degrade and ruin his country. Ptolemy Auletes left behind him four children Cleopatra, aged seventeen ; a boy, Ptolemy, aged thirteen ; another boy, called also Ptolemy ; and a girl, called Arsinoe. The last two were of very tender age. He left the crown, under approval of the Romans, to Cleopatra and the elder Ptolemy, who were to rule conjointly, and to be married when Ptolemy was of full age. These directions were carried out; but the imperious spirit of Cleopatra ill brooked any control, and it was not long ere she quarrelled with her boy-husband, and endeavored to deprive him of the kingdom. War followed ; and Cleopatra, driven to take refuge in Syria, was fortunate enough to secure the protection of Julius Caesar, whom she fascinated by her charms, B.C. 48. With his aid she obtained the victory over her brother, who perished in the struggle. Cleopatra was now established sole queen, B.C. 47, but on condition that she married in due time her other brother, the younger son of Auletes. Observing the letter of this agreement, Cleopatra violated its spirit by having her second husband, shortly after the wedding, removed by poison, B.C. 44. The remainder of 'Cleopatra's reign was, almost to its close, prosperous. Pro- tected by Julius Caesar during his lifetime, she succeeded soon after his decease in fascinating Antony, B.C. 41, and making him her slave for the rest of his lifetime. The details of this period belong to Roman rather than to Egyptian history ; and will be treated in the last book of this Manual. It will be suffi- cient to note here that the latest descendant of the Ptolemies retained the royal title to the end, and showed something of the spirit of a queen in preferring death to captivity, and perishing upon the capture of her capital, B.C. 30. 14 210 RAWLINSON PART III. History of Macedonia, and of Greece, from the Death of Alexander to the Roman Conquest, B. C. 323 to 146. * Grecian history had been suspended during the time of Alex- ander's career of conquest. A slight disturbance of the general tranquillity had indeed occurred, when Alexander plunged into the unknown countries beyond the Zagros range, by the move- ment against Antipater, which the Spartan king, Agis, orig- inated in B.C. 330. But the disturbance was soon quelled. Agis was defeated and slain ; and from this time the whole of Greece remained perfectly tranquil until the news came of Al- exander's premature demise during the summer of B.C. 323. Then, indeed, hope rose high ; and a great effort was made to burst the chains which bound Greece to the footstool of the Macedonian kings, Athens, under Demosthenes and Hyper- ides, taking, as was natural, the lead in the struggle for free- dom. A large confederacy was formed ; and the Lamian War was entered upon in the confident expectation that the effect would be the liberation of Greece from the yoke of her op- pressor. But the result disappointed these hopes. After a bright gleam of success, the confederate Greeks were com- pletely defeated at Crannon, B.C. 322, and the yoke of Mace- donia was riveted upon them more firmly than ever. The position of Antipater, as supreme ruler of Macedonia, was far from being safe and assured. The female members of the Macedonian royal family Olympias, the widow of Philip ; Cleopatra, her daughter; Cynane, daughter of Philip by an Illyrian mother; and Eurydice, daughter of Cynane by her * Sources. The sources for this history are nearly the same as those which have been cited for the contemporary history of Syria and Egypt. The chief ancient authorities are Diodorus Siculus (books xix.-xxxii., the first two of which only are complete), Polybius, Justin, Plutarch (" Vitae Demetrii, Pyrrhi, yEmilii Paulli, Agidis, Cleomenis, Arati, Phil- opcemonis et Flaminini"), and Livy (books xxvi.-xlv., and Epitomes of books xlvi.-lii.). To these may be added, for the Macedonian chronol- ogy, Eusebius (" Chronicorum Canonum liber prior," cxxxviii.), and for occasional facts in the history, Pausanias. MENTAL EDUCATION OF A GREEK YOCTII. Photogravure from a section of the original painting fy> Otto Kin'lle. In this section of Knille's painting Socrates and Plato are shown surrounded hv their friends and disciples. ANCIENT HISTORY 211 husband Amyntas (himself a first cousin of Alexander) were, one and all, persons of ability and ambition, who saw with extreme dissatisfaction the aggrandizement of the generals of Alexander and the low condition into which the royal power had fallen, shared between an infant and an imbecile. Dissatis- fied, moreover, with their own positions and prospects, they commenced intrigues for the purpose of improving them. Olympias first offered the hand of Cleopatra to Leonnatus, who was to have turned against Antipater, if he had been suc- cessful in his Grecian expedition. When the death of Leon- natus frustrated this scheme, Olympias cast her eyes farther abroad, and fixed on Perdiccas as the chief to whom she would betroth her daughter. Meanwhile, Cynane boldly crossed over to Asia with Eurydice, and offered her in marriage to Philip Arrhidaeus, the nominal king. To gratify Olympias, who hated these members of the royal house, Perdiccas put Cynane to death ; and he would probably have likewise removed Eu- rydice, had not the soldiers, exasperated at the mother's mur- der, compelled him to allow the marriage of the daughter with Philip. Meanwhile, he consented to Olympias's schemes, pre- pared to repudiate his wife, Nicaea, the daughter of Antipater, and hoped with the aid of his friend, Eumenes, to make himself master of the whole of Alexander's empire. (See Second Period.) The designs of Perdiccas, and his intrigues with Olympias, having been discovered by Antigonus, and the life of that chief being in danger from Perdiccas in consequence, he fled to Europe in the course of B.C. 322, and informed Antipater and Craterus of their peril. Fully appreciating the importance of the intelligence, those leaders at once concluded a league with Ptolemy, and in the spring of B.C. 321 invaded Asia for the purpose of attacking their rival. Here they found Eumenes prepared to resist them ; and so great was the ability of that general, that, though Perdiccas had led the greater portion of his forces against Egypt, he maintained the war successfully, defeating and killing Craterus, and holding Antipater in check. But the murder of Perdiccas by his troops, and their fraterni- zation with their opponents, changed the whole face of affairs. Antipater found himself, without an effort, master of the situa- 2 i 2 RAWLINSON tion. Proclaimed sole regent by the soldiers, he took the cus- tody of the royal persons, re-distributed the satrapies (see Second Period), and, returning into Macedonia, held for about two years the first position in the empire. He was now, how- ever, an old man, and his late campaigns had probably shaken him ; at any rate, soon after his return to Europe, he died, B.C. 318, leaving the regency to his brother officer, the aged Polys- perchon. The disappointment of Cassander, the elder of the two sur- viving sons of Antipater, produced the second great war be- tween the generals of Alexander. Cassander, having begun to intrigue against Polysperchon, was driven from Macedonia by the regent, and, flying to Antigonus, induced him to em- brace his cause. The league followed between Antigonus, Ptolemy, and Cassander on the one hand, and Polysperchon and Eumenes on the other (see Second Period), Antigonus undertaking to contend with Eumenes in Asia, while Cassan- der afforded employment to Polysperchon in Europe. In the war which ensued between Cassander and Polys- perchon, the former proved eventually superior. Polysper- chon had on his side the influence of Olympias, which was great; and his proclamation of freedom to the Greeks was a judicious step, from which he derived considerable advan- tage. But neither as a soldier nor as a statesman was he Cas- sander's equal. He lost Athens by an imprudent delay, and failed against Megalopolis through want of military ability. His policy in allowing Olympias to gratify her hatreds with- out let or hindrance was ruinous to his cause, by thoroughly alienating the Macedonians. Cassander's triumph in B.C. 316 reduced him to a secondary position, transferring the supreme authority in Macedonia to his rival. The reign of Cassander over Macedonia, which now com- menced, lasted from B.C. 316 to 296, a period of twenty years. The talents of this prince are unquestionable, but his moral conduct fell below that of even the majority of his contempo- raries, which was sufficiently reprehensible. His bad faith towards Olympias was followed, within a few years, by the murders of Roxana and the infant Alexander, by complicity in the murder of Hercules, the illegitimate son of Alexander the ANCIENT HISTORY 213 Great, and by treachery towards Polysperchon, who was first seduced into crime and then defrauded of his reward. Cas- sander, however, was a clever statesman, a good general, and a brave soldier. His first step on obtaining possession of Mace- donia was to marry Thessalonice, the sister of Alexander the Great, and thus to connect himself with the family of the con- queror. Next, fearing the ambition of Antigonus, who, af- ter his victory over Eumenes, aspired to rule the whole em- pire (see Second Period), he entered into the league of the satraps against that powerful commander, and bore his part in the great war, which, commencing B.C. 315, on the return of Antigonus from the East, terminated B.C. 301, at the battle of Ipsus. In this war Cassander, though he displayed unceasing activity, and much ability for intrigue, was on the whole unsuc- cessful; and he would probably have lost Greece and Mace- donia to his powerful adversary, had not the advance of Seleu- cus from Babylon and the defeat of Antigonus at Ipsus saved him. Cassander did not live long to enjoy the tranquillity which the defeat and death of Antigonus at Ipsus brought him. He died B.C. 298, three years after Ipsus, leaving the crown to the eldest of his three sons by Thessalonice, Philip. This prince was carried off by sickness before he had reigned a year ; and the Macedonian dominions at his death fell to Thessalonice, his mother, who made a division of them between her two sur- viving sons, Antipater and Alexander, assigning to the latter Western, and to the former Eastern Macedonia. Antipater, who regarded himself as wronged in the partition, having wreaked his vengeance on his mother by causing her to be assassinated, applied for aid to his wife's father, Lysima- chus ; while Alexander, fearing his brother's designs, called in the help of Pyrrhus the Epirote and of Demetrius, B.C. 297. Demetrius, after the defeat of Ipsus, had still contrived to main- tain the position of a sovereign. Rejected at first by Athens, he had besieged and taken that city, had recovered possession of Attica, the Megarid, and great portions of the Peloponnese, and had thus possessed himself of a considerable power. Ap- pealed to by Alexander, he professed to embrace his cause ; but ere long he took advantage of his position to murder the young 214 RAWLINSON prince, and possess himself of his kingdom. Antipater was about the same time put to death by Lysimachus, B.C. 294. The kingdom of Demetrius comprised, not only Macedonia, but Thessaly, Attica, Megaris, and the greater part of the Pelo- ponnese. Had he been content with these territories, he might have remained quietly in the possession of them, for the fam- ilies of Alexander the Great and of Antipater were extinct, and the connection of Demetrius with Seleucus, who had mar- ried his daughter (see Third Period, Part I.), would have rendered his neighbors cautious of meddling with him. But the ambition of Demetrius was insatiate, and his self-confidence unbounded. After establishing his authority in Central Greece and twice taking Thebes, he made an unprovoked at- tack upon Pyrrhus, B.C. 290, from whom he desired to wrest some provinces ceded to him by the late king, Alexander. In this attempt he completely failed, whereupon he formed a new project. Collecting a vast army, he let it be understood that he claimed the entire dominion of his father, Antigonus, and was about to proceed to its recovery, B.C. 288. Seleucus and Lysimachus, whom this project threatened, were induced, in consequence, to encourage Pyrrhus to carry his arms into Macedonia on the one side, while Lysimachus himself invaded it on the other. Placed thus between two fires, and finding at the same time that his soldiers were not to be depended upon, Demetrius, in B.C. 287, relinquished the Macedonian throne, and escaped secretly to Demetrias, the city which he had built on the Pagasean Gulf and had made a sort of capital. From hence he proceeded on the expedition, which cost him his lib- erty, against Asia. (See Third Period, Part I.) On the flight of Demetrius, Pyrrhus of Epirus became king of the greater part of Macedonia ; but a share of the spoil was at once claimed by Lysimachus, who received the tract adjoin- ing his own territories. A mere share, however, did not long satisfy the Macedonian chieftain. Finding that the rule of an Epirotic prince was distasteful to the Macedonians, he con- trived after a little while to pick a quarrel with his recent ally, and having invaded his Macedonian territories, forced him to relinquish them and retire to his own country, after a reign which lasted less than a year. ANCIENT HISTORY 215 By the success of Lysimachus, Macedonia became a mere appendage to a large kingdom, which reached from the Halys to the Pindus range, its centre being Thrace, and its capital Lysimacheia in the Chersonese. These circumstances might not by themselves have alienated the Macedonians, though they could scarcely have failed after a time to arouse discon- tent ; but when Lysimachus, after suffering jealousy and dis- sension to carry ruin into his own family, proceeded to acts of tyranny and violence towards his nobles and other subjects, these last called on Seleucus Nicator to interfere for their pres- ervation ; and that monarch, having invaded the territories of his neighbor, defeated him in the battle of Corupedion, where Lysimachus, fighting with his usual gallantry, was not only beaten but slain. By the victory of Compedion, Seleucus Nicator became master of the entire kingdom of Lysimachus, and, with the ex- ception of Egypt, appeared to have reunited almost the whole of the dominions of Alexander. But this union was short- lived. Within a few weeks of his victory, Seleucus was mur- dered by Ptolemy Ceraunus, the Egyptian refugee whom he had protected ; and the Macedonians, indifferent by whom they were ruled, accepted the Egyptian prince without a murmur. The short reign of Ptolemy Ceraunus (B.C. 281 to 279) was stained by crimes and marked by many imprudences. Re- garding the two sons of Lysimachus by Arsinoe, his half-sister, as possible rivals, he persuaded her into a marriage, in order to get her children into his power ; and, having prevailed with the credulous princess, first murdered her sons before her eyes, and then banished her to Samothrace. Escaping to Egypt, she became the wife of her brother, Philadelphus, and would prob- ably have induced him to avenge her wrongs, had not the crime of Ceraunus received its just punishment in another way. A great invasion of the Gauls one of those vast waves of mi- gration which from time to time sweep over the world oc- curring just as Ceraunus felt himself in secure possession of his kingdom, disturbed his ease, and called for wise and vigor- ous measures of resistance. Ceraunus met the crisis with suf- ficient courage, but with a complete absence of prudent coun- sel. Instead of organizing a united resistance to a common 2 i6 RAWLINSON enemy, or conciliating a foe whom he was too weak to oppose singly, he both exasperated the Gauls by a contemptuous mes- sage and refused the proffers of assistance which he received from his neighbors. Opposing the unaided force of Macedon to their furious onset, he was completely defeated in a great battle, B.C. 279, and, falling into the hands of his enemies, was barbarously put to death. The Gauls then ravaged Mace- donia far and wide ; nor was it till B.C. 277 that Macedonia once more obtained a settled government. On the retirement of the Gauls, Antipater, the nephew of Cassander, came forward for the second time, and was accepted as king by a portion, at any rate, of the Macedonians. But a new pretender soon appeared upon the scene. Antigonus Gonatas, the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, who had main- tained himself since that monarch's captivity as an independent prince in Central or Southern Hellas, claimed the throne once filled by his father, and, having taken into his service a body of Gallic mercenaries, defeated Antipater and made himself mas- ter of Macedonia. His pretensions being disputed by Anti- ochus Soter, the son of Seleucus, who had succeeded to the throne of Syria, he engaged in war with that prince, crossing into Asia and uniting his forces with those of Nicomedes, the Bithynian king, whom Antiochus was endeavoring to conquer. To this combination Antiochus was forced to yield ; reliquish- ing his claims, he gave his sister, Phila, in marriage to Antigo- nus, and recognized him as king of Macedonia. Antigonus upon this fully established his power, repulsing a fresh attack of the Gauls, and recovering Cassandreia from the cruel tyrant, Apollodorus. But he was not long left in repose. In B.C. 274, Pyrrhus finally quitted Italy, having failed in all his schemes, but having made himself a great reputation. Landing in Epirus with a scanty force, he found the condition of Macedonia and of Greece favorable to his ambition. Antigonus had no hold on the affections of his subjects, whose recollections of his father, Demetrius, were unpleasing. The Greek cities were, some of them, under tyrants, others occupied against their will by Macedonian garrisons. Above all, Greece and Macedonia were full of military adventurers, ready to flock to any stand- ANCIENT HISTORY 217 ard which offered them a fair prospect of plunder. Pyrrhus, therefore, having taken a body of Celts into his pay, declared war against Antigonus, B.C. 273, and suddenly invaded Mace- donia. Antigonus gave him battle, but was worsted owing to the disaffection of his soldiers, and, being twice defeated, be- came a fugitive and a wanderer. The victories of Pyrrhus, and his son Ptolemy, placed the Macedonian crown upon the brow of the former, who might not improbably have become the founder of a great power, if he could have turned his attention to consolidation, instead of looking out for fresh conquests. But the arts and employ- ments of peace had no charm for the Epirotic knight-errant. Hardly was he settled in his seat, when, upon the invitation of Cleonymus of Sparta, he led an expedition into the Pelopon- nese, and attempted the conquest of that rough and difficult region. Repulsed from Sparta, which he had hoped to sur- prise, he sought to cover his disappointment by the capture of Argos ; but here he was still more unsuccessful. Antigonus, now once more at the head of an army, watched the city, pre- pared to dispute its occupation, while the lately threatened Spartans hung upon the invader's rear. In a desperate at- tempt to seize the place by night, the adventurous Epirote was first wounded by a soldier and then slain by the blow of a tile, thrown from a house-top by an Argive woman, B.C. 271. On the death of Pyrrhus the Macedonian throne was recov- ered by Antigonus, who commenced his second reign by es- tablishing his influence over most of the Peloponnese, after which he was engaged in a long war with the Athenians (B.C. 268 to 263), who were supported by Sparta and by Egypt. These allies rendered, however, but little help; and Athens must have soon succumbed, had not Antigonus been called away to Macedonia by the invasion of Alexander, son of Pyr- rhus. This enterprising prince carried, at first, all before him, and was even acknowledged as Macedonian king; but ere long, Demetrius, the son of Antigonus, having defeated Alex- ander near Derdia, re-established his father's dominion over Macedon, and, invading Epirus, succeeded in driving the Epi- rotic monarch out of his paternal kingdom. The Epirots soon restored him ; but from this time he remained at peace with 218 RAWLINSON Antigonus, who was able once more to devote his undivided attention to the subjugation of the Greeks. In B.C. 263, he took Athens, and rendered himself complete master of Attica ; and, in B.C. 244, nineteen years afterwards, he contrived by a treacherous stratagem to obtain possession of Corinth. But at this point his successes ceased. A power had been quietly growing up in a corner of the Peloponnese which was to be- come a counterpoise to Macedonia, and to give to the closing scenes of Grecian history an interest little inferior to that which had belonged to its earlier pages. The Achaean League, re- suscitated from its ashes about the time of the invasion of the Gauls, B.C. 280, had acquired in the space of thirty-seven years sufficient strength and consistency to venture on defying the puissant king of Macedon and braving his extreme displeas- ure. In B.C. 243, Aratus, the general of the League and in a certain sense its founder, by a sudden and well-planned attack surprised and took Corinth; which immediately joined the League, whereto it owed its freedom. This success was fol- lowed by others. Megara, Trcezen, and Epidaurus threw off their allegiance to Antigonus and attached themselves to the League in the course of the same year. Athens and Argos were threatened ; and the League assumed an attitude of un- mistakable antagonism to the power and pretensions of Mace- don. Antigonus, grown timorous in his old age, met the bold aggressions of the League with no overt acts of hostility. Con- tenting himself with inciting the u3?tolians to attack the new power, he remained wholly on the defensive, neither attempt- ing to recover the lost towns, nor to retaliate by any invasion of Achaea. Antigonus Gonatas died B.C. 239, at the age of eighty, hav- ing reigned in all thirty-seven years. He left his crown to his son, Demetrius II., who inherited his ambition without his talents. The first acts of Demetrius were to form a close alliance with Epirus, now under the rule of Olympias, Alexan- der's widow ; to accept the hand of her daughter Phthia, where- by he offended his queen, Stratonice, and through her Seleu- cus, the Syrian king ; and to break with the ^Etolians, who were seeking at this time to deprive Olympias of a portion of her dominions. The JEtolians, alarmed, sought the alliance of the ANCIENT HISTORY 219 Achaean League; and in the war which followed, Demetrius was opposed by both these important powers. He contrived, however, to defeat Aratus in Thessaly, to reduce Boeotia, and to re-establish Macedonian ascendancy as far as the Isthmus. But this was all that he could effect. No impression was made by his arms on either of the great Leagues. No aid was given to Epirus, where the royal family was shortly afterwards ex- terminated. Demetrius was perhaps recalled to Macedonia by the aggressive attitude of the Dardanians, who certainly at- tacked him in his later years, and gave him a severe defeat. It is thought by some that he perished in the battle. But this is uncertain. The most important fact of this period was the interference, now for the first time, of the Romans in the affairs of Greece. The embassy to the ^tolians, warning them against interfer- ence with Acarnania, belongs probably to the year B.C. 238; that to the ^tolians and Achaeans announcing the success of the Roman arms against the Illyrians, belongs certainly to B.C. 228. In the same year, or the year preceding, Corcyra, Apol- lonia, and Epidamnus became Roman dependencies. Demetrius left an only son, Philip, who was but eight years old at his decease. He was at once acknowledged king ; but owing to his tender age, his guardianship was undertaken by his kinsman, Antigonus, the son of his father's first cousin, De- metrius, " the Handsome." It was, consequently, this prince who directed the policy of Macedonia during the period which immediately followed on the death of Demetrius II. who, in fact, ruled Macedonia for nine years, from B.C. 229 to 220. The events of this period are of first-rate interest, including, as they do, the last display of patriotism and vigor at Sparta, and the remarkable turn of affairs whereby Macedonia, from being the deadly foe of the Achaean League, became its friend, ally, and protector. The other wars of Antigonus Doson were comparatively unimportant. He repulsed an attack of the Dardanians, who had defeated his predecessor, suppressed an insurrection in Thessaly, and made an expedition by sea against South-west- ern Asia Minor, which is said to have resulted in the conquest of Caria. It was impossible, however, that he should long hold 2 2o RAWLINSON this distant dependency, which shortly reverted to Egypt, the chief maritime power of this period. Soon after his return from Greece, Antigonus died of disease, having held the sover- eignty for the space of nine years. He was succeeded by the rightful heir to the throne, Philip, the son of Demetrius II., in whose name he had carried on the government. Philip, who was still no more than seventeen years old, was left by his kinsman to the care of tutors and guardians. He seemed to ascend the throne at a favorable moment, when Macedonia, at very little expenditure of either men or money, had recovered Greece, had repulsed her Illyrian adversaries, and was released, by the death of Ptolemy Euergetes, from her most formidable enemy among the successors of Alexan- der. But all these advantages were neutralized by the rash conduct of the king himself, who first allied himself with Han- nibal against Rome, and then with Antiochus against Egypt. No doubt Philip saw, more clearly than most of his contempo- raries, the dangerously aggressive character of the Roman power; nor can we blame him for seeking to form coalitions against the conquering republic. But, before venturing to make Rome his enemy, he should have consolidated his power at home; and, when he made the venture, he should have been content with no half measures, but should have thrown himself, heart and soul, into the quarrel. The first war in which the young prince engaged was one that had broken out between the Achaeans and ^Etolians. The JEtolians, who now for the first time show themselves a really first-rate Greek power, had been gradually growing in impor- tance, from the time when they provoked the special anger of Antipater in the Lamian War, and were threatened with trans- plantation into Asia. Somewhat earlier than this they had organized themselves into a Federal Republic, and had thus set the example which the Achseans followed half a century after- wards. Some account of their institutions, and of the extent of their power, is requisite for the proper understanding both of their strength and of their weakness. The war of the yEtolians and Achaeans was provoked by the former, who thought they saw in the accession of so young a prince as Philip to the throne of Macedon a favorable oppor- ANCIENT HISTORY 22I tunity for advancing their interests after their own peculiar method. It commenced with the invasion of Messenia, and would probably have been ruinous to Achaea, had Philip al- lowed himself to be detained in Macedonia by apprehensions of danger from his Illyrian neighbors, or had he shown less vigor and ability in his proceedings after he entered Greece. Though thwarted by the treachery of his minister and guard- ian, Apelles, who was jealous of the influence of Aratus, and but little aided by any of his Greek allies, he gained a series of brilliant successes, overrunning most of ^Etolia, capturing Thermon, the capital, detaching from the League Phigaleia in Arcadia and the Phthian Thebes, and showing himself in all respects a worthy successor of the old Macedonian conquerors. But after four years of this successful warfare, he allowed him- self to be diverted from what should have been his first object, the complete reduction of Greece, by the prospect which opened upon him after Hannibal's victory at Lake Thrasimene. At the instance of Demetrius of Pharos he concluded a peace with the ^tolians on the principle of uti posscdctis, and, retiring into Macedonia, entered upon those negotiations which in- volved him shortly afterwards in a war with Rome. The negotiations opened by Philip with Hannibal, B.C. 216, interrupted by the capture of his ambassadors, were brought to a successful issue in B.C. 215 ; and in the ensuing year Philip began his first war with Rome by the siege of Apollonia, the chief Roman port in Illyricum. By securing this place, he ex- pected to facilitate the invasion of Italy on which he was bent, and to prepare the way for that complete expulsion of the Romans from the eastern coast of the gulf, which was one of the objects he had most at heart. But he soon learned that the Romans were an enemy with whom, under any circumstances whatever, it was dangerous to contend. Defeated by M. Vale- rius, who surprised his camp at night, he was obliged to burn his ships and make a hasty retreat. His schemes of invasion were rudely overthrown; and, three years later, B.C. 211, the Romans, by concluding a treaty with ^Etolia and her allies (Elis, Sparta, the Illyrian chief, Scerdilaidas, and Attalus, king of Pergamus), gave the war a new character, transferring it into Philip's own dominions, and so occupying him there that 222 RAWLINSON he was forced to implore aid from Carthage instead of bringing succor to Hannibal. After many changes of fortune, the Mace- donian monarch, having by the hands of his ally, Philopcemen, defeated the Spartans at Mantineia, induced the ^tolians to conclude a separate peace; after which the Romans, anxious to concentrate all their energies on the war with Carthage, consented to a treaty on terms not dishonorable to either party. Philip had now a breathing-space, and might have employed it to consolidate his power in Macedonia and Greece, before the storm broke upon him which was manifestly impending. But his ambition was too great, and his views were too grand, to allow of his engaging in a work so humble and unexciting as consolidation. The Macedonian monarch had by this time disappointed all his earlier promise of virtue and moderation. He had grown profligate in morals, criminal in his acts, both public and private, and strangely reckless in his policy. Grasp- ing after a vast empire, he neglected to secure what he already possessed, and, while enlarging the bounds, he diminished the real strength of his kingdom. It became now his object to extend his dominion on the side of Asia, and with this view he first (about B.C. 205) concluded a treaty with Antiochus the Great for the partition of the territories of Egypt, and then (B.C. 203) plunged into a war with Attalus and the Rhodians. His own share of the Egyptian spoils was to comprise Lysi- macheia and the adjoining parts of Thrace, Samos, Ephesus, Caria, and perhaps other portions of Asia Minor. He began at once to take possession of these places. A war with Attalus and Rhodes was almost the necessary result of such proceed- ings, since their existence depended on the maintenance of a balance of power in these parts, and the instinct of self-preser- vation naturally threw them on the Egyptian side. Philip, moreover, took no steps to disarm their hostility : on the con- trary, before war was declared, he burnt the arsenal of the Rhodians by the hands of an emissary ; and in the war itself, one of his opening acts was to strengthen Prusias, the enemy of Attalus, by making over to him the ^tolian dependency, Cius. The main event of the war was the great defeat of his fleet by the combined squadrons of the two powers off Chios, ANCIENT HISTORY 223 B.C. 201, a defeat ill compensated by the subsequent victory of Lade. Still Philip was, on the whole, successful, and accom- plished the main objects which he had in view, making himself master of Thasos, Samos, Chios, of Caria, and of many places in Ionia. Unassisted by Egypt, the allies were too weak to protect her territory, and Philip obtained the extension of do- minion which he had desired, but at the cost of provoking the intense hostility of two powerful naval states, and the ill-will of JEtolia, which he had injured by his conquest of Cius. These proceedings of Philip in the ^Egean had, moreover, been well calculated to bring about a rupture of the peace with Rome. Friendly relations had existed between the Romans and Egypt from the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and even from an earlier date Rhodes and Rome had been on terms of intimacy. Attalus was an actual ally of Rome, and had been included in the late treaty. It is therefore not surprising that in B.C. 200 Rome remonstrated, and, when Philip rejected every demand, declared the peace at an end and renewed the war. The Second War of Philip with Rome is the turning-point in the history of Ancient Europe, deciding, as it did, the ques- tion whether Macedon and Rome should continue two parallel forces, dividing between them the general direction of Euro- pean affairs, or whether the power of the former should be completely swept away, and the dominion of the latter over the civilized West finally and firmly established. It is perhaps doubtful what the result would have been, if Philip had guided his conduct by the commonest rules of prudence; if, aware of the nature of the conflict into which he was about to be plunged, he had conciliated instead of alienating his natural supports, and had so been able to meet Rome at the head of a general confederacy of the Hellenes. As it was, Greece was at first divided, the Rhodians, Athenians, and Athamanians siding with Rome ; ^tolia, Epirus, Achaea, and Sparta being neutral ; and Thessaly, Boeotia, Acarnania, Megalopolis, and Argos supporting Philip ; while in the latter part of the war, after Flamininus had proclaimed himself the champion of Gre- cian freedom, almost the entire force of Hellas was thrown on the side of the Romans. Rome had also the alliance of the 224 RAWLINSON Illyrian tribes, always hostile to their Macedonian neighbors, and of Attalus, king of Pergamus. Philip was left at last with- out a friend or ally, excepting Acarnania, which exhibited the unusual spectacle of a grateful nation firmly adhering to its benefactor in his adversity. The terms of peace agreed to by Philip after the battle of Cynocephalae were the following : He was to evacuate all the Greek cities which he held, whether in Europe or Asia, some immediately, the others within a given time. He was to sur- render his state-galley and all his navy except five light ships. He was to restore all the Roman prisoners and deserters ; and he was to pay to the Romans 1000 talents, 500 at once, the rest in ten annual installments. He was also to abstain from all aggressive war, and to surrender any claim to his revolted province, Orestis. These terms, though hard, were as favor- able as he had any right to expect. Had the ^Etolians been allowed to have their way, he would have been far more se- verely treated. The policy of Rome in proclaiming freedom to the Greeks, and even withdrawing her garrisons from the great fortresses of Demetrias, Chalcis, and Corinth the " fetters of Greece " was undoubtedly sound. Greek freedom could not be main- tained excepting under her protection ; and, by undertaking the protectorate, she attached the bulk of the Greek people to her cause. At the same time, the establishment of universal freedom prevented any state from having much power; and in the quarrels that were sure to ensue Rome would find her advantage. War broke out in Greece in the very year of Flamininus's departure, B.C. 194, by the intrigues of the ^Etolians, who en- couraged Nabis to attack the Achaeans, then murdered Nabis, and finally invited Antiochus over from Asia. The defeat of Antiochus at Thermopylae, B.C. 191, left the .ZEtolians to bear the brunt of the war which they had provoked, and after the battle of Magnesia, B.C. 190, there was nothing left for them but complete submission. Rome curtailed their territory, and made them subject-allies, but forbore to crush them utterly, since they might still be useful against Macedonia. The degradation of ^Etolia was favorable to the growth and ANCIENT HISTORY 225 advancement of the Achrean League, which at one and the same time was patronized by Rome, and seemed to patriotic Greeks the only remaining rallying-point for a national party. The League at this time was under the guidance of the able and honest Philopoemen, whose efforts for its extension were crowned with remarkable success. After the murder of Nabis by the ^tolians, Sparta was induced to join the League, B.C. 192; and, a year later, the last of the Peloponnesian states which had remained separate, Messene and Elis, came in. The League now reached its widest territorial extent, comprising all the Peloponnese, together with Megara and other places beyond its limits. After the conclusion of his peace with Rome, Philip for some years remained quiet. But having assisted the Romans in their struggle with Antiochus and the yEtolians, he was allowed to extend his dominions by wars not only with Thrace, but also with the Dolopians, Athamanians, and even the Thessalians and Magnesians. When, however, his assistance was no longer needed, Rome required him to give up all his con- quests and retire within the limit of Macedonia. Prolonged negotiations followed, until at last (B.C. 183) the Senate was induced to relax in their demands by the mediation of De- metrius, Philip's second son, long a hostage at Rome, for whom they professed to have a warm regard. The favor openly shown towards this prince by the Roman government was not perhaps intended to injure him ; but it naturally had that result. It aroused the suspicion of his father and the jeal- ousy of his elder brother, Perseus, and led to the series of ac- cusations against the innocent youth, which at length induced his father to consent to his death, B.C. 181. It may have been remorse for his hasty act which brought Philip himself to the grave within two years of his son's decease, at the age of fifty- eight. It is said that Philip had intended, on discovering the inno- cence of Demetrius, and the guilt of his false accuser, Perseus, to debar the latter from the succession. He brought forward into public life a certain Antigonus, a nephew of Antigonus Doson, and would, it is believed, have made him his heir, had he not died both prematurely and suddenly. Antigonus be- '5 226 RAWLINSON ing absent from the court, Perseus mounted the throne without opposition ; but he took care to secure himself in its possession by soon afterwards murdering his rival. It had been the aim of Philip, ever since the battle of Cyno- cephalse, and it continued to be the aim of Perseus, to maintain the peace with Rome as long as might be feasible, but at the same time to invigorate and strengthen Macedonia in every possible way, and so to prepare her for a second struggle, which it was hoped might terminate differently from the first. Philip repopulated his exhausted provinces by transplantations of Thracians and others, recruited his finances by careful work- ing of the mineral treasures in which Macedonia abounded, raised and disciplined a large military force, and entered into alliances with several of the Northern nations, Illyrian, Celtic, and perhaps even German, whom he hoped to launch against Rome, when the proper time should arrive. Perseus, inherit- ing this policy, pursued it diligently for eight years, allying himself by inlermarriages with Prusias of Bithynia and Seleu- cus of Syria, winning to his cause Cotys the Odrysian, Gentius the Illyrian, the Scordisci, the Bastarnse, and others. Even in Greece he had a considerable party, who thought his yoke would be more tolerable than that of Rome. Boeotia actually entered into his alliance ; and the other states mostly wavered and might have been won, had proper measures been taken. But as the danger of a rupture drew near, Perseus's good genius seemed to forsake him. He continued to pursue the policy of procrastination long after the time had arrived for vigorous and prompt action. He allowed Rome to crush his friends in Greece without reaching out a hand to their assist- ance. Above all, by a foolish and ill-timed niggardliness, he lost the advantage of almost all the alliances which he had con- tracted, disgusting and alienating his allies, one after another, by the refusal of his subsidies which they required before set- ting their troops in motion. He thus derived no benefit from his well-filled treasury, which simply went to swell the Roman gains at the end of the war. The Romans landed in Epirus in the spring of B.C. 171, and employed themselves for some months in detaching from Per- seus his allies, and in putting down his party in the Greek ANCIENT HISTORY 227 states. They dissolved the Boeotian League, secured the elec- tion of their partisans in various places, and obtained promises of aid from Achaea and Thessaly. Perseus allowed himself to be entrapped into making a truce during these months, and the Romans were thus able to complete their preparations at their leisure. At length, towards autumn, both armies took the field Perseus with 39,000 foot and 4000 horse, the Romans with an equal number of horse, but with foot not much ex- ceeding 30,000. In the first battle, which was fought in Thes- saly, Perseus was victorious ; but he made no use of his victory, except to sue for peace, which was denied him. The war then languished for two years ; but in B.C. 168, the command being taken by L. ^Emilius Paullus, Perseus was forced to an engage- ment near Pydna (June 22), which decided the fate of the mon- archy. The defeated prince fled to Samothrace, carrying with him 6000 talents a sum the judicious expenditure of which might have turned the scale against the Romans. Here he was shortly afterwards captured by the praetor Octavius, and, being carried to Rome by the victorious consul, was led in triumph, and within a few years killed by ill usage, about B.C. 166. The conquered kingdom of Macedonia was not at once re- duced into the form of a Roman province, but was divided up into four distinct states, each of them, it would seem, a kind of federal republic, which were expressly forbidden to have any dealings one with another. Amphipolis, Thessalonica, Pella, and Pelagonia were made the capitals of the four states. To prevent any outburst of discontent at the loss of political status, the burdens hitherto laid upon the people were lightened. Rome was content to receive in tribute from the Macedonians one-half the amount which they had been in the habit of pay- ing to their kings. In Greece, the immediate effect of the last Macedonian \V;>.r was the disappearance of four out of the five Federal Unions, which had recently divided almost the whole of the Hellenic soil among them. The allegiance of ^tolia had wavered dur- ing the struggle ; and at its close the Romans either formally dissolved the League, or made it simply municipal. Acar- nania, which went over to Rome in the course of the war, was 228 RAWLINSON nominally allowed to continue a confederacy, but practically vanishes from Grecian history from this moment. Bceotia having submitted, B.C. 171, was formally broken up into dis- tinct cities. Epirus was punished for deserting the Roman side by desolation and depopulation, the remnant of her people being handed over to the rule of a tyrant. The only power remaining in Greece which possessed at once some strength and a remnant of independence, was Achaea, whose fidelity to Rome during the whole course of the war made it impossible even for the Roman Senate to proceed at once to treat her as an enemy. Achaea, nevertheless, was doomed from the moment that Macedonia fell. The policy of Rome was at this time not guided by a sense of honor, but wholly by a regard for her own interests. Having crushed Macedonia and mastered all Greece except Achaea, she required for the completion of her work in this quarter that Achaea should either become wholly submissive to her will, or be conquered. It was at once to test the submissiveness of the Achaean people, and to obtain host- ages for their continued good behavior, that Rome, in B.C. 167, required by her ambassadors the trial of above a thousand of the chief Achaeans on the charge of having secretly aided Perseus ; and, when the Achaean Assembly did not dare to re- fuse, carried off to Italy the whole of the accused persons. All the more moderate and independent of the Achaeans were thus deported, and the strong partisans of Rome, Callicrates and his friends, were left in sole possession of the government. For seventeen years the accused persons were kept in prison in Etruscan towns without a hearing. Then, when their number had dwindled to three hundred, and their unjust detention had so exasperated them that a rash and reckless policy might be expected from their return to power, Rome suddenly released the remnant and sent them back to their country. The natural consequences followed. Power fell into the hands of Diaeus, Critolaus, and Damocritus, three of the exiles who were most bitterly enraged against Rome ; and these per- sons played into the hands of their hated enemies by exciting troubles intended to annoy the Romans, but which really gave them the pretext which was exactly what they wanted for ANCIENT HISTORY 229 an armed interference. The rebellion of Andriscus, a pretended son of Perseus, in Macedonia (B.C. 149 to 148), caused a brief delay ; but in B.C. 146, four years after the return of the exiles, war was actually declared. Metellus first, and then Mummius, defeated the forces of the League ; Critolaus fell in battle ; Diaeus slew himself ; Corinth, where the remnant of the Achae- an army had taken refuge, was taken and sacked, and the last faint spark of Grecian independence was extinguished. Achaea was not, indeed, at once reduced into a province ; and, though the League was formally dissolved, yet, after an interval, its nominal revival was permitted ; but the substance of liberty had vanished at the battle of Leucopetra, and the image of it which Polybius was allowed to restore was a mere shadow, known by both parties to be illusory. Before many years were past, Achaea received, like the other provinces, her proconsul, and became an integral part of the great empire against which she had found it vain to attempt to struggle. PART IV. History of the Smaller States and Kingdoms formed out of the Fragments of Alexander* 's Monarchy.* Besides the three main kingdoms of Syria, Egypt, and Mace- donia, which were formed out of the great empire of Alexander, there arose in the East at this time, partly out of Alexander's dominions, partly out of unconquered portions of the Persian territory, a number of independent lesser states, mostly mon- archies, which played an important part in Oriental history * Sources. Besides most of the ancient writers mentioned above as authorities for the history of the Syrian, Egyptian, and Macedonian kingdoms, the following are of value: The fragments of Memnon of Heracleia Pontica, published in the " Fragmenta Historicorum Grac- corum " of C. Miiller. Paris. 1849; vol. iii. The " Parthica " of Arrian, contained in the " Bibliotheca " of Photius (ed. Bekker. Berolini, 1824; 2 vols. 4to). The great work of the Jewish historian Fl. Josephus, entitled " Antiquitatum Judaicarum libri xx." (ed. K. E. Richter. Lip- siae, 1825-7; 4 vols. 8vo). Ammianus Marcellinus. " Historia Ro- mana" (ed. Wagner et Erfurdt. Lipsiz. 1808; 3 vols. 8vo). And, especially for the Jewish history, the "Books of Maccabees." 230 RAWLINSON during the decline of the Macedonian and the rise of the Ro- man power, and of which therefore some account must be given in a work like the present. The principal of these were, first, in Asia Minor, Pergamus, Bithynia, Paphlagonia, Pontus and Cappadocia ; secondly, in the region adjoining, Greater and Lesser Armenia ; thirdly, in the remoter East, Bactria and Parthia ; and, fourthly, in the tract between Syria and Egypt, Judaea. Our information on the subject of these kingdoms is very scanty. No ancient writer gives us any continuous or sep- arate history of any of them. It is only so far as they become implicated in the affairs of the greater kingdoms that they at- tract the ancient writers' attention. Their history is thus very incomplete, and sometimes quite fragmentary. Much, how- ever, has been done towards making out a continuous nar- rative, in some cases, by a skilful combination of scattered notices, and a judicious use of the knowledge derived from coins. Kingdom of Pergamus. In Western Asia the most important of the lesser kingdoms was that of Pergamus, which arose in the course of the war waged between Seleucus Nicator and Lysimachus. Small and insignificant at its origin, this kingdom gradually grew into power and importance by the combined military genius and prudence of its princes, who had the skill to side always with the stronger party. By assisting Syria against the revolted satrap Achaeus, and Rome against Macedon and Syria, the kings of Pergamus gradually enlarged their dominion, until they were at length masters of fully half Asia Minor. At the same time, they had the good taste to encourage art and literature, and to render the capital of their kingdom a sort of rival to Alexandria. They adorned Pergamus with noble buildings, the remains of which may be seen at the present day. They warmly fostered the kindred arts of painting and sculpt- ure. To advance literature, they established an extensive public library, and attracted to their capital a considerable number of learned men. A grammatical and critical school grew up at Pergamus only second to the Alexandrian ; and the ANCIENT HISTORY 231 Egyptian papyrus was outdone, as a literary material, by the charta Pergamcna (parchment). The founder of the kingdom was a certain Philetaerus, a eunuch, whom Lysimachus had made governor of the place and guardian of his treasures. On the death of Lysimachus at the battle of Corupedion, Philetaerus maintained possession of the fortress on his own account, and, by a judicious employ- ment of the wealth whereof he had become possessed, in the hire of mercenaries and otherwise, he succeeded in establishing his independence, and even in transmitting his principality and treasure to his nephew, Eumenes, the son of Eumenes, his brother. Eumenes I., the successor of Philetaerus, was attacked, very shortly after his succession, by Antiochus I., the son and suc- cessor of Seleucus, but defeated him in a pitched battle near Sardis, and obtained an increase of territory by his victory. He reigned twenty-two years, and died from the effects of over- drinking, B.C. 241, bequeathing Pergamus to his first cousin, Attalus the son of his father's brother, Attalus, by Antiochis, the daughter of Achaeus. Attalus I. distinguished himself early in his reign (about B.C. 239) by a great victory over the Gauls, who had been now for above thirty years settled in Northern Phrygia (Galatia), whence they made continual plundering raids upon their neigh- bors. On obtaining this success, he for the first time assumed the title of " king," having previously, like his two predeces- sors, borne only that of " dynast." From this time we hear nothing of him for the space of about ten years, when we find him engaged in a war with Antiochus Hierax, the brother of Seleucus Callinicus, who was endeavoring to make himself king of Asia Minor. Having defeated this ambitious prince, and driven him out of Asia, Attalus succeeded in vastly en- larging his own dominions, which, about B.C. 226, included most of the countries west of the Halys and north of Taurus. But the Syrian monarchs were not inclined to submit to this loss of territory. First Seleucus Ceraunus (B.C. 226), and then Antiochus the Great, by his general Achaeus (B.C. 223), made war upon Attalus, and by the year B.C. 221 his con- quests were all lost, and his dominions once more reduced to 232 RAWLINSON the mere Pergamene principality. But in B.C. 218 the tide again turned. By the help of Gallic mercenaries Attalus re- covered ^olis ; and two years later he made a treaty with An- tiochus the Great against Achaeus, who had been driven into revolt, which led to his receiving back from Antiochus, after Achseus's defeat and death, B.C. 214, most of the territory whereof he had been deprived seven years previously. Three years after this, B.C. 211, by joining the yEtolians and Romans against Philip, he laid the foundation of the latter prosperity of his kingdom, which depended on its enjoying the favor and patronage of Rome. In vain Philip, after peace had been made, B.C. 204, turned upon Attalus, invading and ravaging his territory, and endeavoring to sweep his fleet from the sea. Attalus, in alliance with Rhodes, proved more than a match for this antagonist; and the battle of Chios, B.C. 201, avenged the desolation of Pergamus. In the second war between Rome and Philip, B.C. 199, the Pergamene monarch, though he was seventy years of age, took again an active part, sup- porting the Romans with his fleet, and giving them very valu- able aid. But the exertion proved too much for his physical strength : he was seized with illness as he pleaded the cause of Rome in an assembly of the Boeotians, B.C. 197, and, having been conveyed to Pergamus, died there in the course of the same year. He left behind him four sons by his wife Apol- lonias, viz., Eumenes, Attalus, Philetserus, and Athenaeus. Eumenes II., the eldest of the sons of Attalus, succeeded him. He was a prudent and warlike prince, the inheritor at once of his father's talents and his policy. In the wars which Rome waged with Philip, with Antiochus, and with Perseus, he threw his weight on the Roman side, only on one occasion showing some slight symptoms of wavering, when in B.C. 169 he held some separate correspondence with Perseus. In return for the aid which he furnished against Antiochus, Rome, after the bat- tle of Magnesia, made over to him the greater part of the ter- ritory whereof she had deprived the Syrian king. Not only were Mysia, Lydia, Phrygia, Lycaonia, Pamphylia, and por- tions of Caria and Lycia, acknowledged now by the authority of Rome to be integral parts of the kingdom of Pergamus, but even the Chersonese, with its capital Lysimacheia, and the ad- ANCIENT HISTORY 233 jacent parts of Thrace, were attached to it. The Pergamene monarchy became in this way one of the greatest kingdoms of the East ; and in the war which followed with Prusias of Bi- thynia, B.C. 183, it was still further enlarged by the addition of the Hellespontine Phrygia. In those waged with Phar- naces of Pontus, B.C. 183 to 179, and with the Gauls, about B.C. 1 68, it was, however, the object of Eumenes to maintain, rather than to enlarge, his boundaries. Towards the close of his long reign he seems to have become suspicious of the in- creasing power of the Romans, and to have been inclined to counteract their influence, so far as he dared. Hence the Ro- mans distrusted him, and were disposed to support against him his brother Attains, who was more thoroughly attached to their interests. It was perhaps fortunate for Eumenes that he died when he did : otherwise, he might have had to contend for the possession of his kingdom with his own brother, supported by all the power of Rome. Though Eumenes left behind him a son, called Attalus, yet, as this Attalus was a mere boy, the crown was assumed by his uncle, Attalus, who took the surname of Philadelphus. Phila- delphus reigned twenty-one years, from B.C. 159 to 138. In the earlier part of his reign he was actively engaged in various wars, restoring Ariarathes to his kingdom, about B.C. 157, helping Alexander Bala against Demetrius, B.C. 152, assisting the Romans to crush Andriscus, the pseudo-Philip, B.C. 149 to 148, and, above all, engaging in a prolonged contest with Prusias II., who would undoubtedly have conquered him and annexed Pergamus to Bithynia, if Attalus had not called in the aid of Ariarathes of Cappadocia and Mithridates of Pontus, and also that of the Romans. The threats of Rome forced Prusias to abstain, and even to compensate Attalus for his losses. Attalus, nevertheless, was glad when, B.C. 149, an op- portunity offered itself of exchanging Prusias for a more peace- ful and friendly neighbor. With this view he supported Nico- medes in his rebellion against his father, and helped to establish him in his kingdom. A quiet time followed, which Attalus de- voted to the strengthening of his power by the building of new cities, and to the encouragement of literature and art. Be- coming infirm as he approached his eightieth year, he devolved 234 RAWLINSON the cares of the government on his minister, Philopoemen, who became the real ruler of the country. Finally, at the age of eighty-two, Philadelphus died, leaving the crown to his nephew and ward, Attalus, the son of Eumenes II., who must have been now about thirty years old. Attalus III., the son of Eumenes II., on ascending the throne took the name of Philometor, in honor of his mother, Strato- nice, the daughter of Ariarathes, king of Cappadocia. He reigned five years only, from B.C. 138 to 133; yet into this short space he crowded more crimes and odious actions than are ascribed to all the other kings of his house put together. He condemned to death without trial all the old counsellors and friends of his father and uncle, and at the same time de- stroyed their families. He then caused to be assassinated al- most all those who held any office of trust in the kingdom. Finally, he turned against his own relations, and even put to death his mother, for whom he had professed a warm affection. At length remorse seized him, and he abandoned the cares of state, devoting himself to painting, sculpture, and gardening, on which last subject he wrote a work. He died of a fever, brought on, it is said, by a sun-stroke ; and, by a will as strange as his conduct, left the Roman People his heir. Rome readily accepted the legacy; but Aristonicus, a bas- tard son of Eumenes II., boldly disputed the prize with them, claiming the kingdom as his natural inheritance. He com- pelled the cities to acknowledge him, which had at first refused through fear of the Romans ; and when Licinius Crassus was sent to take forcible possession of the country, Aristonicus de- feated him, and took him prisoner, B.C. 131. In the year fol- lowing, however, Aristonicus was himself defeated and made prisoner by Peperna; and the kingdom of Pergamus became shortly afterwards a Roman province. Kingdom of Bithynia. Though Bithynia was conquered by Croesus, and submitted readily to Cyrus, when he absorbed the Lydian empire into his own dominions, yet we find, somewhat early in the Persian period, that the country is governed by native kings, who are ANCIENT HISTORY 235 not unfrequently at war with the satraps of Asia Minor. The first of these semi-independent monarchs is Dydalsus, who must have been contemporary with the earlier part of the Peloponnesian War. He was succeeded by Boteiras, probably the opponent of Pharnabazus (about B.C. 400), who left the crown to his son, Bas, B.C. 376. This king, the last under the Persians, held the throne for the long term of fifty years, and thus saw the commencement of the new state of things under the Macedonians. With the dissolution of the Persian empire, which Alexan- der's conquests brought about, Bithynia acquired complete independence. Bas successfully resisted the attempts which Alexander made by his general Carantus (Caranus?) to re- duce him, and at his death, in B.C. 326, he left to his son, Zipcetes, a flourishing and wholly autonomous kingdom. Zipoetes, the son and successor of Bas, successfully main- tained the independence, which he had inherited, against the attacks of Lysimachus and Antiochus Soter, while he threat- ened the Greek cities in his neighborhood, Heracleia Pontica, Astacus, and Chalcedon. He reigned forty-eight years, from B.C. 326 to B.C. 278, and left behind him four sons, Nico- medes, Zipoetes, and two others. It would seem that, at the death of Zipoetes, a dispute con- cerning the succession arose between two of his sons. The eldest of them, Nicomedes, finding himself in danger of losing the kingdom to Zipcetes, his younger brother, invited the Gauls to cross over from Europe to his assistance, and by their aid defeated his brother and fully established his authority. He repelled by the same aid an attack on his independence made by Antiochus I. Nothing more is known of Nicomedes, except that he founded Nicomedeia on the Gulf of Astacus, and that he married two wives, Ditizele and Etazeta, by the former of whom he had a single son, Zeilas, while by the latter he had three children, Prusias, Tiboetes, and Lysandra, to whom, for their mother's sake, he desired to leave his kingdom. Zeilas, who was living as an exile in Armenia, having ob- tained the services of a band of Gauls, entered Bithynia, and established his authority by a war in which he frequently de- feated the partisans of his half-brothers. Very little is known 236 RAWLINSON of his history; but we may gather from some passages that he carried on successful wars with Paphlagonia and Cappa- docia, in both of which countries he founded cities. He reigned about twenty years, and finally perished in an attempt which he made to destroy by treachery a number of Gallic chiefs at a banquet. He was succeeded by his son, Prusias. Prusias I., known as " Prusias the Lame," ascended the throne probably about B.C. 228, and held it at least forty-five years. The earlier years of his reign were uneventful; but, from about B.C. 220 nearly to his death, he was engaged in a series of important wars, and brought into contact with some of the chief powers of Asia and Europe. By his unceasing en- ergy he extended his dominions in several directions, and would have raised Bithynia into one of the most important of the Asiatic kingdoms, had he not unfortunately given offence to the Romans, first, by attacking their ally, Eumenes of Per- gamus, and, secondly, by sheltering Hannibal. Not content with extorting the consent of Prusias to the surrender of the Carthaginian refugee, who was thereby driven to put an end to his own life, Rome, under the threat of war, compelled the Bithynian monarch to cede to Eumenes the whole of the Hel- lespontine Phrygia. He compensated himself to some extent by attacking Heracleia Pontica; but here he received the wound from which he derived his surname of " the Lame," and shortly after this he died, leaving the crown to a son called, like himself, Prusias. Prusias II., the son and successor of Prusias I., was the most wicked and contemptible of the Bithynian monarchs. Though he had married, at his own request, the sister of the Macedo- nian king, Perseus, yet, when that monarch was attacked by the Romans, he lent him no aid, only venturing once, B.C. 169, to intercede for his brother-in-law by an embassy. When vic- tory declared itself on the Roman side, he made the most abject submission, and thus obtained the assent of Rome to his reten- tion of his kingdom. Like his father, he lived on bad terms with Eumenes ; and, when that king died and was succeeded by Attalus II., he ventured to begin a war, B.C. 156, which would certainly have been successful, had the Romans ab- stained from interference. They, however, by threats induced ANCIENT HISTORY 237 Prusias to consent to a peace, by which he relinquished the fruits of his victories, and even engaged to pay to Attalus the sum of 500 talents. Meanwhile, he had alienated the affections of his subjects by his cruellies and impieties, while Nicomedes, his son, had conciliated their regard. Viewing, therefore, his son as a rival, Prusias first sent him to Rome, and then gave orders that he should be assassinated. But his emissary be- trayed him ; and Nicomedes, learning his danger, with the con- nivance of the Senate, quitted Rome and returned as a pre- tender to his own country. There, being openly supported by Attalus, and known to have the good wishes of the Romans, he was received with general favor ; and, having besieged his father in Nicomedeia, obtained possession of his person and put him to death, B.C. 149. Nicomedes II., who now mounted the throne, followed the example of the Syrian and Egyptian kings in assuming the title of " Epiphanes," or " Illustrious." He reigned fifty-eight years, from B.C. 149 to 91, and took an active part in the wars which at this time desolated Asia Minor. It was his object to stand well with the Romans, and hence he willingly sent a con- tingent to their aid when they warred with Aristonicus of Per- gamus, B.C. 133 to 130, and, professedly at any rate, rendered obedience to the various commands which they addressed to him. Still he made several attempts, all of them more or less displeasing to Rome, at increasing the power and extent of his kingdom. In B.C. 102 he attacked Paphlagonia in combi- nation with Mithridates the Great, and took possession of a portion of it. Required by Rome to restore his conquest to the legitimate heir, he handed it over to one of his own sons, whom he pretended to be a Paphlagonian prince, and made him take the name of Pylaemenes. Shortly afterwards, B.C. 96, when Mithridates endeavored to annex Cappadocia, and Laodice, the widow of the late king, fled to him, he mar- ried her, and, warmly espousing her cause, established her as queen in Cappadocia; whence, however, she was shortly ex- pelled by Mithridates. Finally, in B.C. 93, after the deaths of the two sons of Laodice, he brought forward an impostor, who claimed to be also her son, and endeavored to obtain for him the crown of Cappadocia. Here, however, he overreached 238 RAWLINSON himself. The imposture was detected; and Rome not only refused to admit the title of his protege to the Cappadocian crown, but required him likewise to abandon possession of Paphlagonia, which was to be restored to independence. Soon after this, the long reign of Nicomedes II. came to an end. His age at his decease cannot have been much less than eighty. Nicomedes II. left behind him two sons, Nicomedes and Socrates, who was surnamed " the Good " (Xprja-ro^. Nico- medes, who was the elder of the two, succeeded, and is known as Nicomedes III. He took the titles of " Epiphanes " and " Phil- opator." Scarcely was he seated on the throne when, at the instigation of Mithridates, his brother Socrates, accusing him of illegitimacy, claimed the kingdom, and, with the aid of an army which Mithridates furnished, drove Nicomedes out, and assumed the crown. Rome, however, in the next year, B.C. 90, by a simple decree reinstated Nicomedes, who proceeded, in B.C. 89, to retaliate upon Mithridates by plundering incursions into his territories. Thus provoked, Mithridates, in B.C. 88, collected a vast army, defeated Nicomedes on the Amneius, and drove him with his Roman allies out of Asia. The first Mithridatic War followed ; and at its close, in B.C. 84, Nico- medes was restored to his kingdom for the second time, and had a tranquil reign after this for the space of ten years. Dying without issue, in B.C. 74, he left by will his kingdom to the Romans a legacy which brought about the third and greatest " Mithridatic War." Kingdom of Paphlagonia. Like Bithynia, Paphlagonia became semi-independent under the Achaemenian monarchs. As early as B.C. 400, the rulers of the country are said to have paid very little regard to the Great King's orders; and in B.C. 394 we find the monarch, Cotys, allying himself with Agesilaiis against Persia. Thirty or forty years later another king is mentioned as reduced by the Persian satrap, Datames. On the dissolution of the Persian empire, Paphlagonia was attached to his dominions by Mithri- dates of Pontus, and it continued for a considerable time to be a portion of the Pontic kingdom. ANCIENT HISTORY 239 The circumstances under which, and the time when, Paphla- gonia regained its independence, are unknown to us ; but, soon after B.C. 200, we find the throne once more occupied by native monarchs, who are entangled in the wars of the period. These princes have a difficulty in maintaining themselves against the monarchs of Pontus on the one hand, and those of Bithynia on the other ; but they nevertheless hold the throne till B.C. 102, when, the last native king, Pytemenes I., dying without issue, Mithridates the Great and Nicomedes II. conjointly seize the country, and the latter establishes on the throne one of his own sons, who rules for about eight years, when Mithridates expels him and takes possession of the whole territory. Kingdom of Pontus. The satrapy of Cappadocia appears to have been conferred by Darius Hystaspis as an hereditary fief on Otanes, one of the seven conspirators, who was descended from the ancient Arian kings of Cappadocia. It continued to form a single prov- ince of the empire, and to be governed by satraps descended from Otanes, till the year B.C. 363, when Ariobarzanes, the son of the Mithridates who was satrap in the time of Xeno- phon, rebelled, and made himself king of the portion of Cappa- docia which lay along the coast, and which was thence called " Pontus " by the Greeks. Inland Cappadocia continued to be a province of Persia. Ariobarzanes reigned twenty-six years, from B.C. 363 to 337, when he was succeeded by his son, Mithridates I. (commonly called Mithridates II.), who held the kingdom at the time of the Macedonian invasion. Mithridates I., who ascended the throne B.C. 337, seems to have remained neutral during the contest between Darius Codomannus and Alexander. On the reduction of Cappadocia by Perdiccas, B.C. 322, he was, however, compelled to submit to the Macedonians, after which he enjoyed for a time the favor of Antigonus and helped him in his wars. But Antigonus, growing jealous of him, basely plotted his death ; whereupon he returned to Pontus and resumed a separate sovereignty, about B.C. 318. In B.C. 317 he supported Eumenes against Antigonus ; and in B.C. 302 he was about to join the league 24 o RAWLINSON of the satraps against the same monarch, when Antigonus, suspecting his intention, caused him to be assassinated. Mithridates II., the son of Mithridates I., succeeded. He added considerably to his hereditary dominions by the acquisi- tion of parts of Cappadocia and Paphlagonia, and even vent- ured to conclude an alliance with the Greeks of Heracleia Pontica, B.C. 281, whom he undertook to defend against Seleucus. According to Diodorus, he reigned thirty-six years, from B.C. 302 to 266. He left the crown to his son, Ario- barzanes. Ariobarzanes II., who appears to have reigned about twenty- one years, from B.C. 266 to 245, did little to distinguish him- self. He repulsed an attack of Ptolemy (Euergetes?) by the assistance of the Gauls, but afterwards quarrelled with that fickle people, whose close neighborhood was very injurious to his kingdom. He also obtained possession of the town of Amastris upon the Euxine, which was surrendered to him by Eumenes, its dynast. On his death he was succeeded by his son, Mithridates, who was a minor. Mithridates III., the most distinguished of the earlier Pontic monarchs, made it his object to strengthen and augment his kingdom by alliances with the other monarchs and princes of Asia, rather than by warfare. As soon as he had attained to manhood, he married a sister of Seleucus Callinicus, with whom he received the province of Phrygia as a dowry. In B.C. 222, he gave his daughter, Laodice, in marriage to Antiochus the Great, the son of Callinicus, and at the same time married an- other daughter, called also Laodice, to Achaeus, the cousin of Antiochus. He did not allow these connections, however, to fetter his political action. In the war between Seleucus Cal- linicus and Antiochus Hierax, he sided with the latter, and on one occasion he inflicted a most severe defeat upon his brother- in-law, who lost 20,000 men. In B.C. 220, he turned his arms against the Greeks of Sinope, but this town, which was assisted by the Rhodians, appears to have maintained itself against his efforts. It is uncertain how long Mithridates III. reigned, but the conjecture is reasonable that he died about B.C. 190. He was succeeded on the throne by his son, Pharnaces, who conquered Sinope, and made it the royal residence, about B.C. ANCIENT HISTORY 241 183. This king soon afterwards involved himself in a war with Eumenes of Pergamus, of whose greatly augmented power he had naturally become jealous. Rome endeavored to hinder hostilities from breaking out, but in B.C. 181 Pharnaces took the field, overran Paphlagonia, expelling the king, Morzes or Morzias, and poured his troops into Cappadocia and Galatia. At first, he met with considerable success; but after a while the tide turned, and in B.C. 179 he was glad to make peace on condition of giving up all his conquests except the town of Sinope. After this we hear nothing more of him ; but he seems to have lived some considerable time longer, probably till about B.C. 1 60. Pharnaces I. was succeeded by his son, Mithridates, who took the name of " Euergetes," and reigned about forty years, from near B.C. 160 to 120. He entered into alliance with At- talus II., king of Pergamus, and lent him important assistance in his wars with Prusias II. of Bithynia, B.C. 154. A few years later he made alliance with Rome, and sent a contingent to bear a part in the Third Punic War, B.C. 150 to 146. He like- wise assisted Rome in the war against Aristonicus, B.C. 131, and at its close received the Greater Phrygia as the reward of his services. His end was tragical. About B.C. 120, his own immediate attendants conspired against him, and assassinated him at Sinope, where he held his court. Mithridates, the elder of his two sons, succeeded, and took the title of " Eupator," for which, however, modern historians have generally substituted the more high-sounding epithet of " the Great." He was undoubtedly the most able of all the Pontic kings, and will bear comparison with any of the Asiatic monarchs since Darius Hystaspis. Ascending the throne while he was still a minor, and intrusted to guardians whom he suspected, it was not till about B.C. 112 that he could under- take any important enterprise. But the interval of about eight years was well employed in the training of his own mind and body the former by the study of languages, whereof he is said to have spoken twenty-five ; the latter by perpetual hunt- ing expeditions in the roughest and most remote regions. On reaching the age of twenty, and assuming the conduct of af- fairs, he seems to have realized at once the danger of his posi- 16 2 4 2 RAWLINSON tion as ruler of a petty kingdom, which must, by its position upon her borders, be almost immediately attacked by Rome, and could not be expected to make any effectual resistance. Already, during his minority, the grasping republic had seized his province of Phrygia ; and this was felt to be merely a fore- taste of the indignities and injuries with which, so long as he was weak, he would have to put up. Mithridates therefore determined, not unwisely, to seek to strengthen his kingdom, and to raise it into a condition in which it might be a match for Rome. With this object, in B.C. 112, he boldly started forth on a career of Eastern conquest. Here Rome could not inter- fere with him ; and in the space of about seven years he had added to his dominions the Lesser Armenia, Colchis, the entire eastern coast of the Black Sea, the Chersonesus Taurica, or kingdom of the Bosporus (the modern Crimea), and even the whole tract westward from that point to the Tyras, or Dniester. Having thus enlarged his dominions, and having further strengthened himself by alliances with the wild tribes on the Danube, Getse, Sarmatse, and others, whom he hoped one day to launch upon Italy, he returned to Asia Minor, and com- menced a series of intrigues and intermarriages, calculated to give him greater power in this quarter. Although it must have been evident, both to the Romans and to Mithridates, that peace between them could not be main- tained much longer, yet neither party was as yet prepared for an actual rupture. The hands of Rome were tied by the con- dition of Italy, where the " Social War " impended ; and Mith- ridates regarded it as prudent to temporize a little longer. He therefore submitted, in B.C. 92, to the decree of the Roman Senate, which assigned Cappadocia to a native monarch, Ario- barzanes, and in B.C. 90 to another decree which reinstated Nicomedes on the throne of Bithynia. When, however, in the following year, Nicomedes, encouraged by the Romans, pro- ceeded to invade the Pontic kingdom, and the demand which Mithridates made for redress produced no result, it seemed to him that the time was come when he must change his policy, and, laying aside all pretence of friendliness, commence the actual struggle. The disasters suffered by Mithridates in the Roman War ANCIENT HISTORY 243 encouraged the nations which he had subjected in the East to revolt. The kingdom of the Bosporus threw off its alle- giance, the Colchians rebelled, and other nations in the same quarter showed symptoms of disaffection. Mithridates pro- ceeded to collect a large fleet and army for the reduction of the rebels, when his enterprise had to be relinquished on ac- count of a second and wholly unprovoked Roman War. Mu- rena, the Roman commander in Asia, suddenly attacked him, almost without a pretext, B.C. 83 ; and it was not till the close of the following year that peace was re-established. The conclusion of the Second Roman War allowed Mithri- dates to complete the reduction of his revolted subjects, which he accomplished without much difficulty between the years B.C. 81 and 74. He suffered, however, during this interval, some heavy losses in an attempt which he made to subdue the Achaeans of the Caucasus. But it was not so much in wars as in preparations for war that the Pontic monarch employed the breathing-space allowed him by the Romans after the fail- ure of the attack of Murena. Vast efforts were made by him to collect and discipline a formidable army ; troops were gath- ered from all quarters, even from the banks of the Danube ; the Roman arms and training were adopted ; fresh alliances were concluded or attempted ; the fleet was raised to the number of 400 triremes; nothing was left undone that care or energy could accomplish towards the construction of a power which might fairly hope to hold its own when the time for a final trial of strength with Rome should arrive. The armed truce might have continued some years longer, for Mithridates still hoped to increase his power, and Ronu- u ;i occupied by the war in Spain against the rebel Sertorius, had not the death of Nicomedes III., king of Bithynia, in B.C. 74, brought about a crisis. That monarch, having no issue, fol- lowed the example of Attalus, king of Pergamus, in leaving his dominions by will to the Roman people. Had Mithridates allowed Rome to take possession, the Pontic kingdom would have been laid open to attack along the whole of its western border; Rome would have been brought within five days' march of Sinope ; and thus the position of Pontus, when war broke out, would have been greatly weakened. Mithridates 244 RAWLINSON therefore resolved to seize Bithynia before Rome could occupy it. But this act was equivalent to a declaration of war, since the honor of the great republic could not allow of her tamely submitting to the seizure of what she regarded as her own property. The Third War of Mithridates with Rome, which broke out in B.C. 74, was protracted to B.C. 65, and thus lasted nearly nine years. The scene of the war was Asia. Its result was scarcely doubtful from the first, for the Asiatic levies of Mith- ridates, though armed after the Roman fashion and disciplined to a certain extent, were no match for the trained veterans of the Roman legions. The protraction of the war was owing, in the first place, to the genius and energy of the Pontic mon- arch, who created army after army, and who gradually learnt the wisdom of avoiding pitched battles, and wasting the power of the enemy by cutting off his supplies, falling on his detach- ments, entangling him in difficult ground, and otherwise har- assing and annoying him. It was further owing to the par- ticipation in it of a new foe, Tigranes, who brought to the aid of his neighbor and connection a force exceeding his own, and very considerable resources. Rome was barely capable of contending at one and the same time with two such king- doms as those of Pontus and Armenia ; and up to the close of B.C. 67, though her generals had gained many signal victories, she had made no great impression on either of her two adver- saries. The war, if conducted without any change of plan, might still have continued for another decade of years, before the power of resistance possessed by the two kings would have been exhausted. But the genius of Pompey devised a scheme by which an immediate and decisive result was made attain- able. His treaty with Phraates, king of Parthia, brought a new power into the field a power fully capable of turning the bal- ance in favor of the side whereto it attached itself. The atti- tude of Phraates at the opening of the campaign of B.C. 66 paralyzed Tigranes ; and the Pontic monarch, deprived of the succors on which he had hitherto greatly depended, though he still resisted, and even fought a battle against his new antago- nist, was completely and manifestly overmatched. Defeated near the Armenian border by the Romans under Pompey, and ANCIENT HISTORY 245 forbidden to seek a refuge in Armenia by his timid and sus- picious brother-in-law, he had no choice but to yield his home dominions to the victor, and to retire to those remote terri- tories of which he had become possessed by conquest. Even Pompey shrank from following his beaten foe into these inhos- pitable regions, and with the passage of Mithridates across the river Phasis, his third war with Rome came to an end. Mithridates, in B.C. 65, retreated from Dioscurias to Pan- ticapaeum, and established himself in the old kingdom of the Bosporus. Such a principality was, however, too narrow for his ambition. Having vainly attempted to come to terms with Pompey, he formed the wild design of renewing the struggle with Rome by attacking her in a new quarter. It was his in- tention to proceed westward round the European side of the Black Sea, and to throw himself upon the Roman frontier, per- haps even to march upon Italy. But neither his soldiers nor his near relatives were willing to embark in so wild a project. Its announcement caused general disaffection, which at last ended in conspiracy. His own son, Pharnaces, headed the malcon- tents ; and the aged monarch, finding no support in any quar- ter, caused himself to be despatched by one of his guards, B.C. 63. The bulk of Pontus became a Roman province, though a portion continued till the time of Nero to be ruled by princes belonging to the old royal stock. Kingdom of Cappadocia. After the division of the Cappadocian satrapy into two prov- inces, a northern and a southern, the latter continued subject to Persia, the government being, however, hereditary in a branch of the same family which had made itself independent in the northern province. The Datames and Ariamnes of Diodorus held this position, and are not to be regarded as independent kings. It was only when the successes of Alex- ander loosed the bands which held the Persian empire together (B.C. 331) that the satrap, Ariarath.es, the son of Ariamnes, assumed the airs of independence, and, resisting the attack of Perdiccas, was by him defeated, made a prisoner, and crucified, B.C. 322. 24 6 RAWLINSON Perdiccas, having subjected Cappadocia, made over his con- quest to Eumenes, who continued, nominally at any rate, its ruler until his death in B.C. 316. Cappadocia then revolted under Ariarathes II., the nephew of Ariarathes I., who de- feated and slew the Macedonian general, Amyntas, expelled the foreign garrisons, and re-established the independence of his country. No attempt seems to have been made to dis- possess him either by Antigonus or Seleucus ; and Ariarathes left his crown to the eldest of his sons, Ariamnes, probably about B.C. 280. The next two kings, Ariamnes, and his son, Ariarathes III., are little heard of in history: they appear to have reigned quietly but ingloriously. A friendly connection between the royal houses of Cappadocia and Syria was established in the reign of the former, who obtained as a wife for his much- loved son, Stratonice, the daughter of Antiochus Theus. The two reigns of Ariamnes and Ariarathes III. appear to have covered a space of about sixty years, from B.C. 280 to 220. Ariarathes III. left the crown to a son, bearing the same name, who was at the time of his father's death an infant. The reign of Ariarathes IV. is remarkable as being that which ended the comparative isolation of Cappadocia, and brought the kingdom into close relation with the other mon- archies of Asia Minor, and not only with them, but also with the great republic of the West. The history of Cappadocia is henceforth inextricably intermixed with that of the other king- doms of Western Asia, and has been to a great extent antici- pated in what has been said of them. Ariarathes IV., who was the first cousin of Antiochus the Great, married in B.C. 192 his daughter Antiochis, and, being thus doubly connected with the Seleucid family, entered into close alliance with the Syrian king, assisted him in his war against Rome, and bore his part in the great battle of Magnesia by which the power of the Syr- ian empire was broken, B.C. 190. Having thus incurred the hostility of the Romans, and at the same time become sensible of the greatness of their power, Ariarathes proceeded, in B.C. 1 88, to deprecate their wrath, and by an alliance with the Roman protege, Eumenes, which was cemented by a marriage, succeeded in appeasing the offended republic and obtained ANCIENT HISTORY 247 favorable terms. Ariarathes then assisted Eumenes in his war with Pharnaces of Pontus, B.C. 183 to 179, after which he was engaged in a prolonged quarrel with the Gauls of Galatia, who wished to annex a portion of his territory. He continued on the most friendly terms with Rome from the conclusion of peace in B.C. 188 till his death in the winter of B.C. 163-2. His reign lasted fifty-eight years. Ariarathes V., surnamed " Philopator " from the affection which he bore his father, maintained the alliance between Cap- padocia and Rome with great fidelity. Solicited by Demetrius Soter to enter into alliance with him and to connect his fam- ily with that of the Seleucidae once more by a marriage, he de- clined out of regard for Rome. Angered by his refusal, Deme- trius set up against him the pretender, Orophernes, B.C. 158, and for a time deprived him of his kingdom. The Romans, however, with the help of Attalus II., restored him in the year following. After this Ariarathes lent Attalus important aid in his war with Prusias of Bithynia, B.C. 156 to 154, and when Aristonicus attempted to resist the Roman occupation of that province, B.C. 133, he joined the Romans in person, and lost his life in their cause, B.C. 131. Ariarathes V. seems to have left behind him as many as six sons, none of whom, however, had reached maturity. Lao- dice, therefore, the queen-mother, became regent ; and, being an ambitious and unscrupulous woman, she contrived to poison five out of her six sons before they were of age to reign, and so kept the government in her own hands. One, the youngest, was preserved, like the Jewish king, Joash, by his near rela- tives ; and, after the death of Laodice, who fell a victim to the popular indignation, he ascended the throne under the name of Ariarathes VI. Little is known of this king, except that he made alliance with Mithridates the Great, and married a sister of that monarch, named also Laodice, about B.C. 115. By her he had two sons, both named Ariarathes. He was mur- dered by an emissary of Mithridates, B.C. 96, when his sons were just growing into men. On the removal of Ariarathes VI. his dominions were seized by his brother-in-law, Mithridates, who designed to assume the rule of them himself ; but Laodice, the widow of the late 248 RAWLINSON king, having called in the aid of Nicomedes II., king of Bithy- nia, whom she married, Mithridates, in order to retain his hold on Cappadocia, found it necessary to allow the country its own monarch, and accordingly set up as king, B.C. 96 or 95, Ari- arathes VII., elder son of Ariarathes VI., and consequently the legitimate monarch. This prince, however, showing himself too independent, Mithridates, in B.C. 94, invited him to a con- ference and slew him; after which he placed on the throne a son of his own, aged eight years, whose name he changed to Ariarathes. But the Cappadocians rose in rebellion against this attempt, and raised to the throne another Ariarathes, the son of Ariarathes VI., and the younger brother of Ariarathes VII., who endeavored to establish himself, but was driven out by Mithridates and died shortly afterwards. By the death of this prince the old royal family of Cappadocia became extinct ; and though pretenders to the throne, claiming a royal descent, were put forward both by Mithridates and Nicomedes, yet, as the nullity of these claims was patent, Rome permitted the Cappadocians to choose themselves a new sovereign, which they did in B.C. 93, when Ariobarzanes was proclaimed king. Ariobarzanes had scarcely ascended the throne when he was expelled by Tigranes, king of Armenia, and forced to fly to Rome for protection. The Romans reinstated him in the next year, B.C. 92; and he reigned in peace for four years, B.C. 92 to 88, when he was again ejected, this time by Mith- ridates, who seized his territories, and retained possession of them during the whole of his first war with the Romans. At the peace, made in B.C. 84, Ariobarzanes was once more re- stored. He now continued undisturbed till B.C. 67, when Mithridates and Tigranes in combination drove him from his kingdom for the third time, after which, in B.C. 66, he received his third restoration at the hands of Pompey. About two years later he abdicated in favor of his son, Ariobarzanes. Ariobarzanes II., the friend of Cicero, began to reign prob- ably in B.C. 64. He took the titles of " Eusebes " (the Pious) and " Philorhomgeus " (lover of the Romans), and appears to have aimed steadily at deserving the latter appellation. It was difficult, however, to please all parties in the civil wars. Ario- barzanes sided with Pompey against Caesar, and owed it to the ANCIENT HISTORY 249 magnanimity of the latter that he was not deprived of his king- dom after Pharsalia, but forgiven and allowed an increase of territory. In the next civil war he was less fortunate. Having ventured to oppose the " Liberators," he was seized and put to death by Cassius, B.C. 42, after he had reigned between twenty-one and twenty-two years. After Philippi, Antony conferred the crown of Cappadocia on Ariarathes IX., the son (apparently) of the last king. It was not long, however, before this prince lost his favor, and, in B.C. 36, he was put to death by Antony's orders, who wanted his throne for Archelaiis, one of his creatures. Archelaiis, the grandson of Mithridates's general of the same name, ruled Cappadocia from B.C. 36 to A.D. 15, when he was summoned to Rome by Tiberius, who had been offended by the circum- stance that Archelaiis paid him no attention when he was in voluntary exile at Rhodes. Archelaiis in vain endeavored to excuse himself: he was retained at Rome by the tyrant, and died there, either of a disease, or possibly by his own hand, about A.D. 17. His kingdom was then reduced into the form of a Roman province. Kingdom of the Greater Armenia. Armenia, which, from the date of the battle of Ipsus, B.C. 301, formed a portion of the empire of the Seleucidae, revolted on the defeat of Antiochus the Great by the Romans, B.C. 190, and became split up into two kingdoms, Armenia Major and Armenia Minor, the latter lying on the west bank of the Eu- phrates. The first king of Armenia Major was Artaxias, who had been a general of Antiochus. He built Artaxata, the cap- ital, and reigned probably about twenty-five years, when he was attacked, defeated, and made prisoner by Antiochus Epiphanes, about B.C. 165, who recovered Armenia to the Syrian empire. How long the subjection continued is uncer- tain ; but about B.C. 100 we find an Armenian king mentioned, who seems to be independent, and who carries on war with the Parthian monarch, Mithridates. This king, who is called by Justin Ortoadistes, appears to have been succeeded, B.C. 96, by the greatest of the Armenian monarchs, Tigranes I., who 250 RAWLINSON took the part already described in the great war between Mith- ridates of Pontus and the Romans. Tigranes I., who was a descendant of Artaxias, raised Ar- menia from the condition of a petty kingdom to a powerful and extensive empire. Compelled in his early years to pur- chase a peace of the Parthians by a cession of territory, he soon afterwards, about B.C. 90 to 87, not only recovered his prov- inces, but added to his dominions the important countries of Atropatene, and Gordyene (or Upper Mesopotamia), chastis- ing the Parthian monarch on his own soil, and gaining for him- self a great reputation. He then determined to attack the Syrian kingdom, which was verging to its fall under Philip, son of Grypus. Having crossed the Euphrates, he easily made himself master of the entire Syrian territory, including the province of Cilicia; and for fourteen years, B.C. 83 to 69, his dominions reached across the whole of Western Asia, from the borders of Pamphylia to the shores of the Caspian. It was during these years that he founded his great capital of Tigrano- certa, and gave grievous offense to Rome by his conduct towards her protege, Ariobarzanes of Cappadocia, whose terri- tory he ravaged, B.C. 75, carrying off more than 300,000 people. Soon afterwards he added to the offense by receiving and supporting Mithridates, and thus he drew the Roman arms upon himself and his kingdom. The result of the war with Rome was the loss by Tigranes of all his conquests. He retained merely his original kingdom of the Greater Armenia. The fidelity, however, which he showed towards Pompey led to the enlargement of his domin- ions, B.C. 65, by the addition of Gordyene; and the Roman alliance was otherwise serviceable to him in the war which he continued to wage with Parthia. He appears to have died about B.C. 55, eleven years after the conclusion of his peace with Rome, and one year before the expedition of Crassus. Tigranes was succeeded by his son, Artavasdes I., who be- gan his reign by following out the later policy of his father, and endeavoring to keep on good terms with the Romans. He bore a part in the great expedition of Crassus against the Parthians, B.C. 54 ; and it was only when Orodes, the Parthian king, advanced against him, and he was unable to obtain any ANCIENT HISTORY 251 assistance from Rome, that he consented to a Parthian alliance, and gave his daughter in marriage to Orodes's son, Pacorus. This led him, when Pacorus invaded Syria, B.C. 51, to take up an attitude of hostility to the Romans. But, at a later date, when Antony threatened the Parthians, B.C. 36, he again es- poused the Roman side, and took part in that general's ex- pedition into Media Atropatene, which turned out unfortu- nately. Antony attributed his repulse to Artavasdes deserting him in his difficulties, and therefore invaded his country, in B.C. 34, obtained possession of his person, and carried him into captivity. Cleopatra afterwards, B.C. 30, put Artavasdes to death. On the captivity of Artavasdes, the Armenians conferred the royal dignity on Artaxias II., his son. At first the Romans, in conjunction with Artavasdes of Atropatene, drove him out ; but during the struggle between Octavius and Antony he re- turned, defeated the Atropatenian monarch, and took him pris- oner. At the same time, he gave command for a massacre of all the Romans in Armenia, which accordingly took place. He reigned from B.C. 34 to 19, when he was murdered by his re- lations. The Romans now brought forward a candidate for the throne in the person of Tigranes, the brother of Artaxias II., who was installed in his kingdom by Tiberius at the command of Au- gustus, and ruled the country as Tigranes II. From this time Armenian independence was really at an end. The titular monarchs were mere puppets, maintained in their position by the Roman emperors or the Parthian kings, who alternately exercised a prepondering influence over the country. At length Armenia was made into a Roman province by Trajan, B.C. 114. Kingdom of Armenia Minor. The kingdom of Armenia Minor was founded by Zariadras, a general of Antiochus the Great, about the same time that Artaxias founded the kingdom of Armenia Major, i.e., about B.C. 190. It continued a separate state, governed by the de- scendants of the founder, till the time of Mithridates of Pontus, when it was annexed to his dominions by that ambitious prince. 252 RAWLINSON Subsequently it fell almost wholly under the power of the Ro- mans, and was generally attached to one or other of the neigh- boring kingdoms, until the reign of Vespasian, when it was converted into a Roman province. The names of the early kings after Zariadras are unknown. Among the later were a Cotys, contemporary with Caligula, A.D. 47, and an Aristobu- lus, contemporary with Nero, A.D. 54. The latter prince be- longed to the family of the Herods. Kingdom of Bactria. The Bactrian satrapy was for some time after the death of Alexander only nominally subject to any of the so-called " Suc- cessors." But, about B.C. 305, Seleucus Nicator in his Orien- tal expedition received the submission of the governor; and from that date till the reign of his grandson, Antiochus Theus, Bactria continued to be a province of the Syrian empire. Then, however, the personal character of Antiochus Theus, and his entanglement in a war with Ptolemy Philadelphus, which taxed his powers to the utmost, encouraged the remoter provinces to revolt; and about B.C. 255 Diodotus, satrap of Bactria, de- clared himself independent, and became the founder of the Bactrian kingdom. Little is known of Diodotus I. beyond the date of his acces- sion, and the fact of the continuance of his reign from about B.C. 255 to 237. It is possible that about B.C. 244 he (nom- inally at any rate) submitted to Ptolemy Euergetes ; and prob- able that when Seleucus Callinicus made his first attack on Parthia, Diodotus lent him assistance, and obtained in return an acknowledgment of his independence. He appears to have died during the expedition of Callinicus, which is assigned probably to the year B.C. 237. At his death he left the crown to a son of the same name. Diodotus II., who succeeded Diodotus I. about B.C. 237, pursued a policy quite different from that of his father. In- stead of lending aid to Callinicus, he concluded a treaty with Arsaces II. (Tiridates), the Parthian king, and probably assist- ed him in the great battle by which Parthian independence was regarded as finally established. Nothing more is known of ANCIENT HISTORY 253 this king; nor can it even be determined whether it was he or his son who was removed by Euthydemus, when that prince seized the crown, about B.C. 222. Euthydemus, the third known Bactrian king, was a Greek of Magnesia, in Asia Minor. The circumstances under which he seized the crown are unknown to us ; but it appears that he had been king for some considerable time when Antiochus the Great, having made peace with Arsaces, the third Parthian monarch, turned his arms against Bactria with the view of re- ducing it to subjection. In a battle fought on the Arius (Heri- Rud), Euthydemus was defeated ; but Antiochus, who received a wound in the engagement, shortly after granted him terms, promised to give one of his daughters in marriage to Demetri- us, Euthydemus's son, and left him in quiet possession of his dominions, B.C. 206. The Indian conquests of Demetrius seem to have commenced soon afterwards, while his father was still living. They were on the south side of the Paropamisus, in the modern Candahar and Cabul. Demetrius, who is proved by his coins to have been king of Bactria, no doubt succeeded his father. He engaged in an im- portant series of conquests partly as crown prince, partly as king on the southern side of the Paropamisus, which extend- ed probably over the greater portion of Afghanistan, and may even have embraced some districts of the Punjab region. The city of Demetrias in Arachosia, and that of Euthydemeia on the Hydaspes, are with reason regarded as traces of these con- quests. While Demetrius was thus employed, a rebel named Eucratides seems to have supplanted him at home; and the reigns of these monarchs were for some time parallel, De- metrius ruling on the south and Eucratides on the north side of the mountain.* After the death of Demetrius, Eucratides appears to have reigned over both kingdoms. He was a monarch of consid- erable vigor and activity, and pushed his conquests deep into the Punjab region. He lost, however, a portion of his home territory to the Parthian princes. On his return from an * The dates for the accession and death of Demetrius are exceed- ingly doubtful. The best authorities assign him, conjccturally, the space from about B.C. 200 to 180. 254 RAWLINSON Indian expedition he was waylaid and slain by his own son, whom he had previously associated in the kingdom. His reign must have lasted from about B.C. 180 to 160. The son of Eucratides, who after his murder became sole monarch of Bactria, appears to have been a certain Heliocles, who took the title of AIKCIIOS, " the Just," and reigned over Bactria probably from about B.C. 160 to 150. Nothing is known in detail of the circumstances of his reign ; but there is reason to believe that Bactria now rapidly declined in power, being pressed upon by the Scythian nomades towards the north, and by the Parthians on the west and south, and con- tinually losing one province after another to the invaders. It was in vain that these unhappy Greeks implored in their isola- tion the aid of their Syrian brethren against the constant en- croachments of the barbarians. The expedition of Demetrius Nicator, undertaken for their relief, B.C. 142, terminated in his defeat and capture. Hellenic culture and civilization proved in this quarter no match for barbaric force, and had of neces- sity to give way and retreat. After the reign of Heliocles, we have no further indication of Greek rulers to the north of the Paropamisus. On the southern side of the mountain-chain somewhat more of tenacity was shown. In Cabul and Canda- har Greek kingdoms, offshoots of the Bactrian, continued to exist down to about B.C. 80, when the last remnant of Hellenic power in this quarter was swept away by the Yue-chi and other Scythic, or Tartar races. Kingdom of Parthia. The Parthian kingdom is said to have been founded nearly at the same time with the Bactrian, during the reign of An- tiochus Theus in Syria, about B.C. 255 or 256. It originated, however, not in the revolt of a satrap, but in the uprising of a nation. Reinforced by a kindred body of Turanians from be- yond the Jaxartes, the Parthi of the region lying south-east of the Caspian, rose in revolt against their Grecian masters, and succeeded in establishing their independence. From a small beginning they gradually spread their power over the greater part of Western Asia, being for a considerable period lords of ANCIENT HISTORY 255 all the countries between the Euphrates and the Sutlej. As the Parthian kingdom, though a fragment of the empire of Alexander, was never absorbed into that of the Romans, but continued to exist side by side with the Roman empire during the most flourishing period of the latter, it is proposed to re- serve the details of the history for the next Book, and to give only this brief notice of the general character of the monarchy in the present place. Kingdom of Judaa. Though the Jewish kingdom, which came into being mid- way in the Syrian period, originating in the intolerable cruel- ties and oppressions of the Syrian kings, was geographically of such small extent as scarcely to claim distinct treatment in a work which must needs omit to notice many of the lesser states and kingdoms, yet the undying interest which attaches to the Jewish people, and the vast influence which the nation has ex- ercised over the progress of civilization, will justify, it is thought, in the present place, not only on account of the king- dom, but a sketch of the general history of the nation from the time when, as related in the first Book, it was carried into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar to the period of the re-establish- ment of independence. This history naturally divides itself into two periods: I. From the Captivity to the fall of the Persian empire, B.C. 586 to 323 ; and, 2. From the fall of the Persian empire to the re-establishment of an independent king- dom, B.C. 323 to 168. The history of the kingdom may also be most conveniently treated in two portions: i. The Mac- cabee period, from B.C. 168 to 37 ; and, 2. The period of the Herods, B.C. 37 to A.D. 44, when Judaea became finally a Ro- man province. Thus the entire history will fall under four heads. First Period. About fifty years after the completion of the Captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, and nearly seventy years after its commencement, a great change was effected in the condi- tion of the Jewish people by Cyrus. That monarch, having captured Babylon in the year B.C. 538, found among his new subjects an oppressed race, in whose religion he recognized a 256 RAWLINSON considerable resemblance to his own, and in whose fortunes he therefore took a special interest. Learning that they had been violently removed from their own country two generations previously, and finding that numbers of them had a strong de- sire to return, he gave permission that such as wished might go back and re-establish themselves in their country. Accord- ingly, a colony, numbering 42,360 persons, besides their ser- vants, set out from Babylonia, and made their way to Jerusa- lem; in or near which the greater number of them settled. This colony, at the head of which was Zerubbabel, a descend- ant of the old line of kings, was afterwards strengthened by two others, one led by Ezra, in B.C. 458, and the other by Nehe- miah, in B.C. 445. Besides these known accessions, there was probably also for many years a continual influx of individuals, or families, who were attracted to their own land, not only by the love of country, which has always been so especially strong in the Jews, but also by motives of religion. Still great num- bers of Jews, probably half the nation, remained where they had so long resided, in Babylonia and the adjoining countries. The exiles who returned under Zerubbabel belonged pre- dominantly, if not exclusively, to three tribes, Judah, Levi, and Benjamin. It was their first object to rebuild their famous Temple on its former site, and to re-establish the old Temple- service. But in this work they were greatly hindered by their neighbors. A mixed race, partly Israelite, partly foreign including Babylonians, Persians, Elamites, Arabs, and others had repeopled the old kingdom of Samaria, and established there a mongrel worship, in part Jehovistic, in part idolatrous. On the first arrival of the Jewish colony, this mixed race pro- posed to join the new-comers in the erection of their Temple, and to make it a common sanctuary open both to themselves and the Jews. But such a course would have been dangerous to the purity of religion; and Zerubbabel very properly de- clined the offer. His refusal stirred up a spirit of hostility among the " Samaritans ; " which showed itself in prolonged efforts to prevent the rebuilding of the Temple and the city efforts which were for a while successful, considerably delay- ing, though they could not finally defeat, the work. The favor of Darius Hystaspis allowed the Jews to complete ANCIENT HISTORY 257 their Temple, and to establish themselves firmly in the country of their ancestors, despite the ill-will of the surrounding na- tions and tribes. But in the reign of his successor, Xerxes, a terrible danger was incurred. That weak prince allowed his minister, Haman (Omanes?), to persuade him that it would be for the advantage of his empire, if the Jews, who were to be found in various parts of his dominions, always a distinct race, not amalgamating with those among whom they lived, could be quietly got rid of. Having obtained the monarch's consent, he planned and prepared a general massacre, by which on one day the whole race was to be swept from the earth. Fortu- nately for the doomed nation, the inclination of the fickle king had shifted before the day of execution came, the interposition of the wife in favor at the time, who was a Jewess, having availed for the preservation of her people. Instead of being taken unawares by their enemies, and massacred unresistingly, the Jews were everywhere warned of their danger and allowed to stand on their defense. The weight of the government was thrown on their side ; and the result was that, wherever they were attacked, they triumphed, and improved their future po- sition by the destruction of all their most bitter adversaries. Though the Jews had thus escaped this great danger, and had strengthened their position by the destruction of so many of their enemies, yet their continued existence as a separate nation was still far from secure. Two causes imperilled it. In spite of the refusal to allow foreigners, even though partially allied in race, to take part in the rebuilding of the Temple, a tendency showed itself, as time went on, towards a fusion with the surrounding peoples. The practice of intermarriage with these peoples commenced, and had gained a great head when Ezra brought his colony from Babylon in the seventh year of Longimanus, B.C. 458. By the earnest efforts, first of Ezra, and then of Nehemiah, about B.C. 434, this evil was checked. The other peril was of a different kind. Jerusalem, though rebuilt on the old site by the colony of Zerubbabel, was without walls or other defenses, and thus lay open to attack on the part of any hostile neighbor. The authority of Persia was weak in the more remote provinces, which not unfrequently 17 258 RAWLINSON revolted, and remained for years in a state bordering on an- archy. It was an important gain to the Jews when, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah came down from the court with authority to refortify the city, and effected his pur- pose despite the opposition which he encountered, B.C. 445. It was a feature of the Persian system to allow the nations under their rule a good deal of self-government and internal independence. Judaea was a portion of the Syrian satrapy, and had no doubt to submit to such requisitions as the Syrian satrap made upon it for men and money. But, so long as these requi- sitions were complied with, there was not much further inter- ference with the people, or with their mode of managing their own affairs. Occasionally a local governor (Tirshatha), with a rank and title below those of a satrap, was appointed by the Crown to superintend Judaea, or Jerusalem ; but these officers do not appear to have succeeded each other with regularity, and, when they were appointed, it would seem that they were always natives. In default of a regular succession of such governors, the High-priests came to be regarded as not merely the religious but also the political heads of the nation, and the general direction of affairs fell into their hands. Second Period. In the partitions which were made of Alex- ander's dominions at Babylon and at Triparadisus, the Syrian satrapy, which included Palestine, was constituted a separate government. But a very little time elapsed before Ptolemy Lagi annexed the satrapy, the southern division of which con- tinued thenceforward, except during short intervals, a portion of the kingdom of Egypt, until the reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes. It is uncertain whether Alexander assigned the Jews any spe- cial privileges in the great city which he founded in Egypt ; but there can be no doubt that the early Ptolemies highly favored this class of their subjects, attracting them in vast numbers to their capital, encouraging their literature, and granting them many privileges. The subjection of Judaea to Egypt lasted from B.C. 320 to B.C. 203 ; and though the country was during this space ravaged more than once by the forces of contending armies, yet on the whole the time must be regarded as one of general peace and prosperity. The High-priests continued to be at the head of the state, and ruled Judsea without much oppressive interference from the Egyptians. ANCIENT HISTORY 259 Towards the close of the Ptolemaic period, the Jews began to have serious cause of complaint against their Egyptian rul- ers. The fourth Ptolemy (Philopator), a weak and debauched prince, attempted to violate the sanctity of the Jewish Temple by entering it, and, when his attempt was frustrated, sought to revenge himself by punishing the Alexandrian Jews, who had done him no injury at all. It was the natural result of these violent proceedings that the Jews, in disgust and alarm, should seek a protector elsewhere. Accordingly, when Antiochus the Great, in the infancy of Ptolemy Epiphanes, determined to attack Egypt, and to annex, if possible, to his own dominions the valuable maritime tract extending from his province of Upper Syria to the Sinaitic Desert, the Jews voluntarily joined him ; and though Ptolemy's general, Scopas, recovered most of what had been lost, yet Antiochus, by the victory of Paneas, B.C. 198, was left in final possession of the whole region, which thenceforth, though often deputed by Egypt, became a pos- session of the Syrian kings. Under Antiochus the Great, and for a time under his elder son, Seleucus Philopator, the Jews had no reason to repent the exchange they had made. Both Antiochus, and Seleucus for a while, respected the privileges of the nation, and abstained from any proceedings that could give umbrage to their new subjects. But towards the close of the reign of Seleucus, an important change of policy took place. The wealth of the Jewish Temple being reported to the Syrian monarch, and his own needs being great, he made an attempt to appropri- ate the sacred treasure, which was however frustrated, either by miracle, or by the contrivance of the High-priest Onias. This unwarrantable attempt of Seleucus was followed by worse outrages in the reign of his brother and successor, An- tiochus Epiphanes. Not only did that monarch sell the office of High-priest, first to Jason and then to Menelaiis, but he endeavored to effect by systematic proceedings the complete Hellenization of the Jews, whereto a party in the nation was already sufficiently inclined. Further, having, by his own iniquitous proceedings in the matter of the high-priesthood, given occasion to a civil war between the rival claimants, he chose to regard the war as rebellion against his authority, and 260 RAWLINSON on his return from his second Egyptian campaign, B.C. 170, took possession of Jerusalem, and gave it up to massacre and pillage. At the same time he plundered the Temple of its sacred vessels and treasures. Nor was this all. Two years afterwards, B.C. 168, he caused Jerusalem to be occupied a second time by an armed force, set up an idol altar in the Temple, and caused sacrifice to be offered there to Jupiter Olympius. The Jews were forbidden any longer to observe the Law, and were to be Hellenized by main force. Hence the rising under the Maccabees, and the gradual re-establish- ment of independence. Third Period. At first the patriots who rose up against the attempt to annihilate the national religion and life were a scanty band, maintaining themselves with difficulty in the mountains against the forces of the Syrian kings. Jerusalem, which was won by Judas Maccabaeus, was lost again at his death; and it was not till about B.C. 153, fourteen years after the first revolt, that the struggle entered on a new phase in consequence of the contentions which then began between different pretenders to the Syrian throne. When war arose be- tween Demetrius and Alexander Balas, the support of the Jews was felt to be of importance by both parties. Both, con- sequently, made overtures to Jonathan, the third Maccabee prince, who was shortly recognized not only as prince, but also as High-priest of the nation. From this time, as there were almost constant disputes between rival claimants of the crown in Syria, the Jews were able to maintain themselves with comparative ease. Once or twice, during a pause in the Syrian contest, they were attacked and were forced to make a temporary submission. But the general result was that they maintained, and indeed continually enlarged, their indepen- dence. For some time they did not object to acknowledge the Syrian monarch as their suzerain, and to pay him an annual tribute; but after the death of Antiochus VII. (Sidetes) all such payments seem to have ceased, and the complete inde- pendence of the country was established. Coins were struck bearing the name of the Maccabee prince, and the title of " King." Judaea was indeed from this time as powerful a monarchy as Syria. John Hyrcanus conquered Samaria and ANCIENT HISTORY 261 Idumaea, and thus largely extended the Jewish boundaries, exactly at the time when those of Syria were undergoing rapid contraction. The deliverance of the state from any further fear of sub- jection by Syria was followed almost immediately by internal quarrels and dissensions, which led naturally to the acceptance of a position of subordination under another power. The Pharisees and Sadducees, hitherto mere religious sects, be- came transformed into political factions. Civil wars broke out. The members of the royal family quarrelled with each other, and the different pretenders to the crown appealed for assist- ance to foreign nations. About B.C. 63 the Romans entered upon the scene ; and for the last twenty-six years of the Mac- cabee period B.C. 63 to 37 while feeble princes of the once mighty Asmonaean family still nominally held the throne, the Great Republic was really supreme in Palestine, took tribute, and appointed governors, or sanctioned the rule of kings, at her pleasure. It is the change of dynasty, and not any change in the internal condition of the country, that causes the year B.C. 37 to be taken as that at which to draw the line between the close of one period and the commencement of another. Fourth Period. During the fourth period Roman influence was, not only practically, as during much of the third period, but professedly predominant over the country. The Herods, who owed their establishment in authority wholly to the Ro- mans, had no other means of maintaining themselves than by preserving the favor of their patrons. Obnoxious, except to a small fraction of the nation, from their Idumaean descent, they were hated still more as the minions of a foreign power, a standing proof to the nation of its own weakness and de- graded condition. On the other hand, there were no doubt some who viewed the rule of the Herods as, in a certain sense, a protection against Rome, a something interposed between the nation and its purely heathen oppressors, saving the na- tional life from extinction, and offering the best compromise which circumstances permitted between an impossible entire independence and a too probable absorption into the empire. Such persons were willing to see in Herod the Great, and again in Herod Agrippa, the Messiah the king foredoomed to save 262 RAWLINSON them from the yoke of the foreigner, and to obtain for them the respect, if not even the obedience, of the surrounding peoples. But these feelings, and the attachment to the dynasty which grew out of them, must have become weaker as time went on. The kingdom of the Herods gradually lost instead of gaining in power. Rome continually encroached more and more. As early as A.D. 8, a portion of Palestine, and the most important portion in the eyes of the Jews, was formally incorporated into the Roman empire; and though the caprice of an emperor afterwards revoked this proceeding, and restored another Herod to the throne of his grandfather, yet from the moment when the first Procurator levied taxes in a Jewish province all but the willfully blind must have seen what was impending. The civil authority of the last native prince over Judaea came to an end in A.D. 44 ; and the whole of Palestine, except a small district held as a kingdom by Agrippa II., was from that time absorbed into the empire, being appended to the Roman prov- ince of Syria and ruled wholly by Roman Procurators. The national life was consequently at the last gasp. As far as political forms went, it was extinct ; but there remained enough of vital energy in the seeming corpse for the nation once more to reassert itself, and to show by the great " War of Indepen- dence " that it was not to be finally crushed without a fearful struggle, the issue of which at one time appeared almost doubtful. The proximate cause of the great Jewish revolt and of the " War of Independence " was the oppression of the Procura- tors, and especially of Gessius Florus. But, even had the Ro- man governors ruled mildly, it is probable that a rebellion would sooner or later have broken out. The Roman system was unlike those of the foreign powers to which Judaea had in former times submitted. It was intolerant of differences, and aimed everywhere, not only at absorbing, but at assimi- lating the populations. The Jews could under no circum- stances have allowed their nationality to be crushed other- wise than by violence. As it was, the tyranny of Gessius Florus precipitated a struggle which must have come in any case, and made the contest fiercer, bloodier, and more pro- ANCIENT HISTORY 263 tracted than it might have been otherwise. From the first revolt against his authority to the capture of the city by Titus was a period of nearly five years, A.D. 66 to 70. The fall of the city was followed by its destruction, partly as a punishment for the desperation of the resistance, but more as a precaution to deprive the Jews, now felt to be really formidable, of their natural rallying-point in any future rebellion. BOOK V HISTORY OF ROME AND HISTORY OF PARTHIA TULLIA DRIVING OVER HER FATHERS CORPSE. Photogravure from the original painting fy> Ernst Hildebrand. Tullia was a daughter of Servius Tullius, and the wife of Aruns, brother of Tarquin. She murdered her husband ; and Tarquin, having killed his wife, mar- ried her, slew Servius Tullius, and proclaimed himself King. According to the Roman legend Tullia rode to the Senate house to greet her husband as King, and on her return drove over the dead body of her father, which lay in the way. The street through which she drove thereafter bore the name of Vicus Sceleratus Abominable Street. BOOK V HISTORY OF ROME FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE FALL OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE, A.D. 476, AND PARALLEL HISTORY OF PARTHIA. PART 1. HISTORY OF ROME. PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON THE GEOGRAPHY OF ANCIENT ITALY. The Italian Peninsula is the smallest of the three tracts which project themselves from the European continent southward into the Mediterranean. Its greatest length between the Alps and Cape Spartivento is 720 miles, and its greatest width be- tween the Little St. Bernard and the hills north of Trieste is 330 miles. The ordinary width, however, is only TOO miles; and the area is thus, even including the littoral islands, not much more than 110,000 square miles. The peninsula was bounded on the north and north-west by the Alps, on the east by the Adriatic, on the south by the Mediterranean, and on the west of the Tyrrhenian Sea (Mare Tyrrhenum). The littoral extent of Italy is, in proportion to its area, very considerable, chiefly owing to the length and narrowness of the peninsula ; for the main coasts are but very slightly indented. Towards the west a moderate number of shallow gulfs, or rather bays, give a certain variety to the coast-line ; while on the east there is but one important headland, that of Gargano ; and but one bay of any size, that of Manfredonia. Southward, however, the shore has two considerable indentations in what would otherwise be but a short line, viz., the deep Gulf of Taranto and the shallower one of Squillace. A character gen- erally similar attaches to the coasts of the Italian islands, Sar- 267 268 RAWLINSON dinia, Sicily, and Corsica; and hence, though a nautical ten- dency belongs naturally to the Italian people, the tendency is not so distinct and pronounced as in the neighboring country of Greece. The Mountains of Italy consist of the two famous chains of the Alps and the Apennines. The Alps, which bound Italy along the whole of its northern and a part of its western side, form a lofty barrier naturally isolating the region from the rest of Europe. Nowhere less along the entire boundary-line than 4000 feet in height, and varying from that minimum to a maximum of 15,000 feet, they are penetrable by no more than ten or twelve difficult passes, even at the present day. Their general direction is from east to west, or speaking more strict- ly, from N.E. by E. to S.W. by W. ; but, at a certain point in their course, the point in which they culminate, this direc- tion ceases, and they suddenly change their course and run nearly due north and south. Mont Blanc stands at the corner thus formed, like a gigantic buttress at the angle of a mighty building. The length of the chain from Mont Blanc south- ward to the coast is about 150 miles ; the length eastward, so far as the Alps are Italian, is about 330 miles. Thus this huge barrier guards Italy for a distance of 480 miles with a rampart which in ancient time could scarcely be scaled. From the point where the Alps, striking southward from Mont Blanc, reach most nearly to the sea, a secondary chain is thrown off, which runs at first from west to east, almost parallel with the shore, to about the longitude of Cremona (10 east from Green- wich, nearly), after which it begins to trend south of east, and passing in this direction across about three-fourths of the peninsula, it again turns still more to the south, and proceeds in a course which is, as nearly as possible, due south-east, par- allel to the two coasts of the peninsula, along its entire length. This chain is properly the Apennines. In modern geography its more western portion bears the name of " The Maritime Alps ; " but as the chain is really continuous from a point a little north-east of Nice to the neighborhood of Reggio (Rhe- gium), a single name should be given to it throughout ; and, for distinction's sake, that name should certainly not be " Alps " but " Apennines." The Apennines in Northern Italy consist ANCIENT HISTORY 269 of but a single chain, which throws off twisted spurs to the right hand and to the left ; but, when Central Italy is reached, the character of the range becomes more complicated. Below Lake Fucinus the chain bifurcates. While one range, the stronger of the two, pursues the old south-easterly direction, another of minor elevation branches off to the south, and ap- proaching the south coast very closely in the vicinity of Saler- num, curves round and rejoins the main chain near Compsa. The range then proceeds in a single line nearly to Venusia, when it splits once more ; and while one branch runs on nearly due east to the extreme promontory of lapygia, the other proceeds almost due south to Rhegium. The most marked feature of Italian geography is the strong contrast in which Northern stands to Southern Italy. North- ern Italy is almost all plain; Southern almost all mountain. The conformation of the mountain ranges in the north leaves between the parallel chains of the Swiss Alps and the Upper Apennines a vast tract from 100 to 150 miles in width, which (speaking broadly) may be called a single plain " the Plain of the Po," or " the Plain of Lombardo-Venetia." In Southern Italy, or the Peninsula proper, plains of more than a few miles in extent are rare. The Apennines, with their many-twisted spurs, spread broadly over the land, and form a continuous mountain region which occupies at least one half of the sur- face. But this is not all. Where the chain is sufficiently nar- row to allow of the interposition, between its base and the shore, of any tolerably wide tract as in Etruria, in Latium, and in Campania separate systems of hills and mountains, volcanic in character, exist, and prevent the occurrence of any really extensive levels. The only exception to this general rule is in Apulia, where an extensive tract of plain is found about the Candelaro, Cervaro, and Ofanto rivers. The Rivers of Italy are exceedingly numerous; but only one or two are of any considerable size. The great river is the Po (Padus), which, rising at the foot of Monte Viso, in lat. 44 40', long. 7, nearly, drains almost the whole of the great north- ern plain, receiving above a hundred tributaries, and having a course which, counting only main windings, probably exceeds 400 miles. The chief of its tributaries are the Duria (Dora 270 RAWLINSON Baltea), the Ticinus (Ticino), the Addua (Adda), the Ollius (Oglio), and the Mincius (Mincio), from the north; from the south, the Tanarus (Tanaro), the Trebia (Trebbia), the Tarus (Taro), the Secia (Secchia), the Scultenna (Panaro), and the Rhenus (Reno). The next most important of the Italian rivers is the Athesis, or Adige, which, rising in the Tyrolean Alps, flows southward nearly to Verona ; after which, curving round, it runs parallel with the Po into the Adriatic. Both these rivers are beyond the limits of the Peninsula proper. Within those limits the chief streams are the Arnus, Tiber, Liris, Vulturnus, and Silarus on the western side of the Apennines; the JEsis, Aternus, Tifernus, Frento, Cerbalus, and Aufidus to the east of those mountains. Italy possesses a fair number of lakes. Most of these lie towards the north, on the skirts of the Alps, at the point where the mountains sink down into the plain. The chief are the Benacus (Lago di Garda), between Lombardy and Venetia, the Sevinus (Lago d' Iseo), the Larius (Lago di Como), the Ceresius (Lago di Lugano), the Verbanus (Lago Maggiore), and the Lago d' Orta, which is unnoticed by the ancients. There is one important lake, the Lacus Fucinus, in the Central Apennine region. In Etruria are the Trasimenus (Lago di Perugia), the Volsiniensis (Lago di Bolsena), and the Sabatinus (Lago di Bracciano). Besides these, there are nu- merous lagoons on the sea-coast, especially in the neighbor- hood of Venice, and several mountain tarns of small size, but of great beauty. The Italian Islands are, from their size, their fertility, and their mineral treasures, peculiarly important. They constitute nearly one-fourth of the whole area of the country. Sicily is exceedingly productive both in corn and in wine of an excellent quality. Sardinia and Corsica are rich in minerals. Even the little island of Elba (Ilva) is valuable for its iron. Sicily and the Lipari isles yield abundance of sulphur. The only Natural Division of Italy is into Northern and Southern the former comprising the plain of the Po and the mountains inclosing it, so far as they are Italian; the latter coextensive with the Peninsula proper. It is usual, however, to divide the peninsula itself artificially into two portions by ANCIENT HISTORY 271 a line drawn across it from the mouth of the Silarus to that of the Tifernus. In this way a triple division of Italy is produced : and the three parts are then called Northern, Central, and Southern. It will be convenient to enumerate the countries into which Italy was anciently parcelled out under the three heads furnished by this latter division. Northern Italy contained, in the most ancient times to which history goes back, the three countries of Liguria, Upper Etruria, and Venetia. After a while, part of Liguria and al- most the whole of Upper Etruria were occupied by Gallic immigrants; and, the boundary-lines being to some extent changed, there still remained in this large and important tract three countries only, viz., Liguria, Venetia, and Gallia Cisal- pina; the last-named having, as it were, taken the place of Upper Etruria. Liguria was the tract at the extreme west of Northern Italy. Before the Gallic invasion it probably reached to the Pennine and Graian Alps ; but in later times it was regarded as bounded on the north by the Po, on the west by the Alps from Monte Viso (Vesulus) southward, on the south by the Mediterranean, and on the east by the river Macra. It was a country almost entirely mountainous; for spurs from the Alps and Apen- nines occupy the whole tract between the mountain-ranges and the river Po, as far down as long. 9. Liguria derived its name from its inhabitants, the Ligures or Ligyes, a race who once occupied the entire coast from below the mouth of the Arno to Massilia. Its chief towns were Genua (Genoa), Nicae (Nice), and Asta (Asti). Venetia was at the opposite side, or extreme east, of North Italy. It is difficult to say what were its original or natural limits. From the earliest times of which we have any knowl- edge, the Veneti were always encroached upon, first by the Etruscans and then by the Gauls, until a mere corner of North Italy still remained in their possession. This corner lay be- tween Histria on the one side, and the Lesser Medaucus upon the other; southward it extended to the Adriatic Sea, north- ward to the flanks of the Alps. It was a tract of country for the most part exceedingly flat, well watered by streams flowing from the Alps, and fertile. The chief city in ancient times was 272 RAWLINSON Patavium, on the Lesser Meduacus ; but this place was after- wards eclipsed by Aquileia. The Etruscan state, which the Gauls conquered, was a con- federacy of twelve cities, whose territory reached from the Ticinus on the west to the Adriatic and the mouths of the Po upon the east. Among its cities were Melpum, Mediolanum (Milan), Mantua, Verona, Hatria, and Felsina or Bononia. Northward it was bounded by the Alps, southward by the Apennines and the course of the Utis, or perhaps by that of the Rubicon. When the Gauls made their conquests they overstepped these boundaries, taking from the Ligurians all their territory north of the Padus, and perhaps some to the south, about Placentia and Parma, encroaching on the Veneti towards the east, and southward advancing into Umbria. Thus Gallia Cisalpina had larger limits than had belonged to North Etruria. It was bounded on the north and west by the Alps ; on the south by Liguria, the main chain of the Apennines, and the yEsis river ; on the east by the Adriatic and Venetia. The whole tract, except in some swampy districts, was richly fertile. While it remained Gallic, it was almost without cities. The Gauls lived, themselves, in open unwalled villages, and suf- fered most of the Etruscan towns to fall to decay. Some, as Melpum, disappeared. A few maintained themselves as Etrus- can, in a state of semi-independence ; e. g., Mantua and Verona. In Roman times, however, the country was occupied by a number of most important cities, chiefly Roman colonies. Among these were, in the region south of the Po, Placentia, Parma, Mutina (now Modena), Bononia (now Bologna), Ra- venna, and Ariminium (now Rimini) ; and across the river to the north of it, Augusta Taurinorum (Turin), Ticinum (Pavia), Mediolanum (Milan), Brixia (Brescia), Cremona, Mantua, Verona, and Vincentia (now Vicenza). Central Italy, or the upper portion of the Peninsula proper, comprised six countries Etruria, Latium, and Campania towards the west ; Umbria, Picenum, and the Sabine territory (which had no general name) towards the east. These coun- tries included the three most important in Italy, viz., Latium, Etruria, and the territory of the Sabines. Etruria, or Tyrrhenia (as it was called by the Greeks), was ANCIENT HISTORY 273 the tract immediately south and west of the northern Apen- nines, interposed between that chain and the Mediterranean. It was bounded on the north by Liguria and Gallia Cisalpina ; on the east by Umbria and the old Sabine country ; on the west by the Mediterranean Sea ; and on the south by Latium. The line of separation between it and the rest of the continent was very marked, being first the strong chain of the Apennines, and then, almost from its source, the river Tiber. Etruria was watered by two main streams, the Arnus (Arno), and the Clanis (Chiana), a tributary of the Tiber. It was for the most part mountainous, consisting in its northern and eastern portions of strong spurs thrown off from the Apennines, and in its south- ern and western, of a separate system of rocky hills, ramifying irregularly, and reaching from the valleys of the Arnus and Clanis very nearly to the coast. The little level land which it contained was along the courses of the rivers and near the sea-shore. The soil was generally rich, but in places marshy. The country contained three important lakes. The original Etrurian state consisted of a confederacy of twelve cities, among which were certainly Volsinii, Tarquinii, Vetulonium, Perusia, and Clusium; and probably Volaterrae, Arretium, Rusellae, Veii, and Agylla or Caere. Other important towns were Pisse (Pisa), and Faesulae (Fiesole), north of the Arnus ; Populonia and Cosa, on the coast between the Arnus and the Tiber ; Cor- tona in the Clanis valley; and Falerii near the Tiber, about eighteen miles north of Veii. Latium lay below Etruria, on the left bank of the Tiber. It was bounded on the north by the Tiber, the Anio, and the Upper Liris rivers; on the west and south by the Mediter- ranean; on the east by the Lower Liris and a spur of the- Apennines. These, however, were not its original limits, but those whereto it ultimately attained. Anciently many non- Latin tribes inhabited portions of the territory. The Volsci held the isolated range of hills reaching from near Prasneste to the coast at Tarracina or Anxur. The JEqui were in pos- session of the Mons Algidus, and of the mountain-range be- tween Prasneste and the Anio. The Hernici were located in the valley of the Trerus, a tributary of the Liris. On the Lower Liris were established the Ausones. The nation of the Latins 18 274 RAWLINSON formed, we are told, a confederacy of thirty cities, Alba having originally the pre-eminency. Among the thirty the most im- portant were the following: Tibur, Gabii, Praeneste, Tuscu- lum, Velitrse, Aricia, Lanuvium, Laurentum, Lavinium, Ardea, Antium, Circeii, Anxur or Tarracina, Setia, Norba, and Satri- cum. Latium was chiefly a low plain, but diversified towards the north by spurs from the Apennines, in the centre and towards the south by two important ranges of hills. One of these, known as " the Volscian range," extends in a continuous line from near Praeneste to Tarracina ; the other, which is quite separate and detached, rises out of the plain between the Vols- cian range and the Tiber, and is known as " the Alban range," or the " Mons Algidus." Both are in the western part of the country. The eastern is comparatively a flat region. Here were Anagnia, the old capital of the Hernici, Arpinum, Fregel- lae, Aquinum, Interamna ad Lirim ; and, on the coast, Lantulae, Fundi, Formiae, Minturnae, and Vescia. Campania iri its general character very much resembled Latium, but the isolated volcanic hills which here diversified the plain were loftier and placed nearer the coast. To the extreme south of the country a strong spur ran out from the Apennines terminating in the promontory of Minerva, the southern protection of the Bay of Naples. Campania extended along the coast from the Liris to the Silarus, and reached in- land to the more southern of the two Apennine ranges, which, separating a little below Lake Fucinus, reunite at Compsa. The plain country was all rich, especially that about Capua. Among the principal Campanian towns were Capua, the cap- ital, Nola and Teanum in the interior, and upon the coast Sin- uessa, Cumas, Puteoli, Parthenope, or Neapolis, Herculaneum, Pompeii, Surrentum, Salernum, and Picentia. Umbria lay east of Etruria, from which it was separated, first by the range of the Apennines, and then by the river Tiber. It was bounded on the north by Gallia Cisalpina ; on the east and south-east by Picenum and the Sabine country; on the south-west and west by Etruria. Before the invasion of the Gauls it reached as far north as the Rubicon, and included all the Adriatic coast between that stream and the JEsis ; but after the coming of the Senones this tract was lost, and Umbria ANCIENT HISTORY 275 was shut out from the sea. The Umbrian territory was almost wholly mountainous, consisting, as it did, chiefly of the main chain of the Apennines, together with the spurs on either side of the chain, from the source of the Tiber to the junction with the Tiber of the Nar. Some rich plains, however, occurred in the Tiber and Lower Nar valleys. The chief towns of Umbria were Iguvium, famous for its inscriptions ; Sentinum, the scene of the great battle with the Gauls and Samnites; Spoletium (now Spoleto) ; Interamna (now Terni) ; and Nar- nia (Narni), which, though on the left bank of the Nar, was still reckoned to Umbria. Picenum extended along the coast of the Adriatic from the fiLsis to the Matrinus (Piomba) river. It was composed mainly of spurs from the Apennines, but contained along the coast some flat and fertile country. The chief towns were Ancona, on the coast, Firnum (Ferno), Asculum Picenum (Ascoli), and Hadria (Atri), in the interior. The territory of the Sabine races, in which Picenum ought perhaps to be included, was at once the most extensive and the most advantageously situated of all the countries of Central Italy. In length, from the Mons Fiscellus (Monte Rotondo) to the Mons Vultur (Monte Vulture), it exceeded 200 miles; while in breadth it reached very nearly from sea to sea, bor- dering the Adriatic from the Matrinus to the Tifernus rivers, and closely approaching the Mediterranean in the vicinity of Salernum. In the north it comprised all the valleys of the Upper Nar and its tributaries, together with a portion of the valley of the Tiber, the plain country south and east of Lake Fucinus, and the valleys of the Suinus and Aternus rivers. Its central mass was made up of the valleys of the Sagrus, Trinius, and Tifernus, together with the mountain-ranges be- tween them ; while southward it comprised the whole of the great Samnite upland drained by the Vulturnus, and its tribu- taries. The territory had many distinct political divisions. The north-western tract, about the Nar and Tiber, reaching from the main chain of the Apennines to the Anio, was the country of the old Sabines (Sabini), the only race to which that name is applied by the ancient writers. East and south- east of this region, the tract about Lake Fucinus, and the val- 276 RAWLINSON leys of the Suinus and Aternus rivers, were in the possession of the League of the Four Cantons, the Marsi, Marrucini, Peligni, and Vestini, who probably were Sabine races. Still farther to the east, the valleys of the Sagrus and Trinius, and the coast tract from Ortona to the Tifernus, formed the coun- try of the Frentani. South and south-east of this was Sam- nium, comprising the high upland, the main chain of the Apennines, and the eastern flank of that chain for a certain distance. The chief of the Sabine towns were Reate on the Velinus, a tributary of the Nar; Teate and Aternum on the Aternus; Marrubium on Lake Fucinus; and Beneventum and Bovianum in Samnium. Southern Italy, or the tract below the Tifernus and Silarus rivers, contained four countries on the west, Lucania and Bruttium; on the east, Apulia and Messapia, or, as it was sometimes called, lapygia. The entire number of distinct coun- tries in ancient Italy was thus thirteen. Lucania extended along the west coast of Italy from the Silarus to the Laiis river. Its boundary on the north was formed by the Silarus, the chain of the Apennines from Compsa to the Mons Vultur, and the course of the Bradanus (Bran- dano). Eastward, its border was the shore of the Tarentine Gulf; southward, where it adjoined Bruttium, the line of de- marcation ran from the Lower Laiis across the mountains to the Crathis, or river of Thurii. The country was both pict- uresque and fertile, diversified by numerous spurs from the Apennine range, and watered by a multitude of rivers. It had few native cities of any importance ; but the coasts were thickly occupied by Grecian settlements of great celebrity. Among these were, on the west coast, Posidonia or Paestum, Elea or Velia, Pyxus or Buxentum, and Laiis ; on the east, Metapon- tum, Heracleia, Pandosia, Siris, Sybaris, and Thurii. Bruttium adjoined Lucania on the south, and was a country very similar in character. Its chief native city was Consentia, in the interior, near the sources of the Crathis river. On the western coast were the Greek towns of Temesa, Terina, Hip- ponium, and Rhegium ; on the eastern those of Croton, Cau- lonia, and Locri. Apulia lay entirely on the eastern coast, adjoining Samnium ANCIENT HISTORY 277 upon the west, and separated from the country of the Frentani by the Tifernus river. The range of the Apennines, extending from the Mons Vultur eastward as far as long. 17 40', divided it from lapygia. Apulia differed from all the other countries of the Peninsula proper in being almost wholly a plain. Ex- cept in the north-west corner of the province, no spurs of any importance here quit the Apennines, but from their base ex- tends a vast and rich level tract, from twenty to forty miles wide, intersected by numerous streams, and diversified towards its more eastern portion by a number of lakes. The tract is espe- cially adapted for the grazing of cattle. Among its rivers are the Aufidus, on the banks of which Cannae was fought, the Cer- balus, and the river of Arpi. The only mountainous part of Apulia is the north and north-west, where the Apennines send down to the coast two strongly-marked spurs, one between the Tifernus and the Frento rivers, the other, east of the Frento, a still stronger and more important range, which running towards the north-east reaches the coast, and forms the well- known rocky promontory of Garganum. The chief cities of Apulia were Larinum, near the Tifernus ; Luceria, Sipontum, and Arpi, north of the Cerbalus; Salapia, between the Cer- balus and Aufidus ; and Canusium, Cannae, and Venusia, south of that river. It was usual to divide Apulia into two regions, of which the north-western was called Daunia, the south-east- ern Peucetia. Messapia, or lapygia, lay south and east of Apulia, compris- ing the entire long promontory which has been called the " heel " of Italy, and a triangular tract between the east Apen- nine range and the river Bradanus. Towards the east it was low and flat, full of numerous small lakes, and without impor- tant rivers; westward it was diversified by numerous ranges of hills, spurs from the Apulian Apennines, which sheltered it upon the north and rendered it one of the softest and most luxurious of the Italian countries. The most important of the lapygian cities was Taras, or Tarentum, the famous Lacedae- monian colony. Other Greek settlements were Callipolis (now Gallipoli), and Hydrus or Hydruntum (now Otranto). The chief native town was Brundusium. The geography of Italy is incomplete without a description 278 RAWLINSON of the principal islands. These were three in number, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. There were also numerous islets along the western and a few off the eastern coast, which will require a very brief notice. Sicily, which is estimated to contain about ten thousand square miles, is an irregular triangle, the sides of which face respectively the north, the east, and the south-west. None of the coasts is much indented; but of the three, the northern has the most noticeable bays and headlands. Here are the gulfs of Castel-a-Mare, Palermo, Patti, and Milazzo ; the head- lands of Trapani (Drepanum), Capo St. Vito, Capo di Gallo, Capo Zaffarana, Capo Orlando, Capo Calava, and Capo Bianco. The south-western, and most of the eastern, shores run in smooth lines ; but towards the extreme south-east of the island there is a fair amount of indentation. Good harbors are nu- merous. The most remarkable are those of Messana and Syra- cuse, the former protected by a curious curved strip of land, resembling a sickle, whence the old name of Zancle ; the latter rendered secure in all winds by the headland of Plemmyrium and the natural breakwater of Ortygia. There are also excel- lent ports at Lilybaeum and Panormus (Palermo). The moun- tain system of Sicily consists of a main chain, the continuation of the Bruttian Apennines (Aspromonte), which traverses the island from east to west, beginning near Messina (Messana) and terminating at Cape Drepanum. This main chain, known in its different parts by various names, throws off, about mid- way in its course, a strong spur, which strikes south-east and terminates in Cape Pachynus (Passaro). Thus the island is divided by its mountain system into three tracts of comparative lowland a narrow tract facing northward between the main chain and the north coast ; a long and broad tract facing the southwest, bounded on the north by the western half of the main chain, and on the east by the spur ; and a broad but com- paratively short tract facing the east, bounded on the west by the spur, and on the north by the eastern half of the main chain. In none of these lowlands, however, is there really much flat country. Towards the north and towards the south-west, both the main chain and the spur throw off numerous branches, which occupy almost the whole country between the rivers; ANCIENT HISTORY 279 while towards the east, where alone are there any extensive plains, volcanic action has thrown up the separate and inde- pendent mountain of Etna, which occupies with its wide- spreading roots almost one-third of what should naturally have been lowland. Thus Sicily, excepting in the tract between Etna and Syracuse, where the famous " Piano di Catania " ex- tends itself, is almost entirely made up of mountain and valley, and, in a military point of view, is an exceedingly strong and difficult country. Its chief rivers are the Simaethus on the east, which drains nearly the whole of the great plain ; the Himera and Halycus on the south ; and the Hypsa, near the extreme south-west corner. The only important native town was Enna, nearly in the centre of the island; all the other cities of any note were settlements of foreigners; Eryx and Egesta, or Segesta, of the Trojans (?); Lilybaeum, Motya, Panormus, and Soloeis, or Soluntum, of the Carthaginians ; Himera, Mes- sana, Tauromenium, Naxos, Catana, Megara Hyblsea, Syra- cuse, Camarina, Gela, Agrigentum, and Selinus, of the Greeks. Sardinia, which modern surveys show to be larger than Sicily, has an area of probably about 11,000 square miles. It is an oblong parallelogram, the sides of which may be viewed roughly as facing the four cardinal points, though in reality the south side has a slight inclination towards the east, and the north side a stronger one towards the west. Though less mountainous than either Sicily or Corsica, Sardinia is traversed by an important chain which runs parallel with the eastern and western shores, but nearer the former, from Cape Lungo-Sar- do on the north to Cape Carbonara at the extreme south of the island. This chain throws out numerous short branch ranges on either side, which cover nearly the whole of the east- ern half of the island. The western half has three separate mountain-clusters of its own. One, the smallest, is at the ex- treme north-west corner of the island, between the Gulfs of Asinara and Alghero ; another, three or four times larger, fills the south-western corner, reaching from Cape Spartivento to the Gulf of Oristano. Both these are, like the main range, of primary (granitic) formation. The third cluster, which is in- terposed between the two others, occupying the whole tract extending northward from the Gulf of Oristano and the river 2 8o RAWLINSON Tirso to the coast between the Turrilano and Coguinas rivers, is much the largest of the three, and is of comparatively recent volcanic formation. These mountain-clusters, together with the main range, occupy by far the greater portion of the island. They still, however, leave room for some important plains, as especially that of Campidano on the south, which stretches across from the Gulf of Cagliari to that of Oristano; that of Ozieri on the north, on the upper course of the Coguinas ; and that of Sassari in the north-west, which reaches across the isthmus from Alghero to Porto Torres. Sardinia is fairly fertile, but has always been noted for its malaria. Its chief river was the Thyrsus (Tirso). The principal cities were Caralis (Cagliari), on the south coast, in the bay of the same name ; Sulci, at the extreme south-west of the island, opposite the Insula Plumbaria; Neapolis, in the Gulf of Asinara; and Olbia, towards the north-eastern end of the island. There was no city of any importance in the interior. Corsica, situated directly to the north of Sardinia, was more mountainous and rugged than either of the other two great islands. A strong mountain-chain ran through the island from north to south, culminating towards the centre in the Mons Antaeus (Monte Rotondo). Numerous branch ranges inter- sected the country on either side of the main chain, rendering the entire region one of constant mountain and valley. Streams were numerous ; but the limits of the island were too narrow for them to attain any considerable size. The chief town was Alalia (afterwards Aleria), a colony of the Phocseans. Besides this, the only places of any importance were Mariana, on the east coast, above Alalia, Centurimum (now Centuri), on the west side of the northern promontory, Urcinium on the west coast (now Ajaccio), and Talcinum (now Corte) in the interior. The lesser islands adjacent to Italy were Ilva (Elba), be- tween northern Corsica and the main-land; Igilium (Giglio) and Dianium (Giannuti), opposite the Mons Argentarius in Etruria ; Palmaria, Pontia, Sinonia, and Pandataria, off Anxur ; Pithecussa (Ischia), Prochyta (Procida), and Capreae (Capri), in the Bay of Naples ; Strongyle (Stromboli), Euonymus (Pan- aria), Lipara (Lipari), Vulcania (Volcano), Didyme (Salina), Phoenicussa (Felicudi), Ericussa (Alicudi), and Ustica, off the ANCIENT HISTORY 281 north coast of Sicily ; the Agates Insulae, off the western point of the same island ; the Chcerades Insulae, off Tarentum ; and Trimetus (Tremiti) in the Adriatic, north of the Mons Gar- ganus. On the geography of Italy, the most important works are Cluverius, " Italia Antiqua." Lugd. Bat, 1624; 2 vols. folio. Romanelli, " Antica Topografia istorica del Regno di Napoli." Napoli, 1815; 3 vols. 4to. Mannert, K., " Geographic der Griechen und Romer aus ihren Schrif- ten dargestellt." Leipzig, 1801-29; 10 vols. 8vo. Swinburne, H., " Travels in the Two Sicilies in the Years 1777-80." London, 1783-85; 2 vols. 4to. Dennis, G., " Cities and Cemeteries of the Etruscans." London, 1848; 2 vols. 8vo. Abeken, " Mittel-Italien vor den Zeiten Romischer Herrschaft." Stuttgart, 1843; 8vo. Cramer, " Geographical and Historical Description of Ancient Italy." Oxford, 1826; 2 vols. 8vo. SKETCH OF THE HISTORY. FIRST PERIOD. The Ancient Traditional History from the Earliest Times to the Commencement of the Republic, B.C. 508.* Italy was inhabited, at the earliest times to which our knowl- edge carries us back, by five principal races. These were the Ligurians, the Venetians, the Etruscans, the Italians proper, and the lapygians. The Ligurians and Venetians may have been branches of one stock, the Illyrian ; but there is no suffi- * Sources. Native. A few fragments of the " Fasti Triumphales " be- long to this early period; but such knowledge of it as we possess is derived mainly from the works of historians. Among these the first place must be assigned to the fragments of the early Annalists, espe- cially of Q. Fabius Pictor, many of which are preserved in Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The most copious native writer on the period is Livy, who delivers an account of it in his First Book. Other native authori- ties are Cicero, who has sketched the constitutional history of the period in his treatise " De Republica " (book ii.), and Florus, who has briefly epitomized it. The portion of Velleius Paterculus which treated of the time is almost entirely lost. No lives of Nepos touch on it. Many 282 RAWLINSON cient evidence to prove this connection. They were weak and unimportant races, confined to narrow regions in the north, and without any influence on the general history of Italy. Set- ting them aside, therefore, for the present, we may confine our attention to the three other races. The lapygians were probably among the earliest settlers. The heel of Italy, which stretches out towards Greece, invites colonization from that quarter; and it would seem that at a very remote date a stream of settlers passed across the narrow sea from the Hellenic to the Italic peninsula, and landing on the lapygian promontory spread themselves northward and westward over the greater portion of the foot of Italy. The language of the race in question remains in numerous inscrip- tions which have been discovered in the Terra di Otranto, and shows them to have been nearly connected with the Greeks. Their worship of Greek gods, and the readiness with which, at a later date, they became actually Hellenized, point in the same direction. We have reason to conclude that a race kindred with the Greeks held in the early times the greater part of Southern Italy, which was thus prepared for the later more positively Hellenic settlements. To this stock appear to have belonged the Messapians, Peucetians, CEnotrians, the Chaones or Chones, and perhaps the Daunii. The Italians proper, who in the historical times occupy with their numerous tribes almost the whole of Central Italy, appear to have been later in-comers than the lapygians, to have proceeded from the north, and to have pressed with great weight on the semi-Greek population of the southern regions. They comprised, apparently, four principal subordinate races ; viz., the Umbrians, the Sabines, the Oscans, and the Latins. allusions to it are contained, however, in the works of the poets and grammarians, as Ovid (" Fasti "), Virgil (" JEneid," book vi.), Servius ("ad. uEneid."), Festus, and others. Foreign. The Greek writers are fuller on the early history than the Roman. The most important of them is Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in whose work (" Archasologia Ro- mana;" ed. Reiske. Lipsiae, 1774-77; 6 vols. 8vo) the ante-regal and regal periods occupy the first four books. Next to Dionysius may be placed Plutarch, whose Lives of Romulus, Numa, and Poplicola bear upon this portion of the history. The part of Diodorus Siculus which treated of the time (books vii.-x.) is lost, with the exception of a few brief fragments. ANCIENT HISTORY 283 Of these the Umbrians and Oscans were very closely con- nected. The Latins were quite distinct. The Sabines are sus- pected to have been nearly allied to the Osco-Umbrians. The Tuscans or Etruscans, the most powerful nation of the north, differed in race completely from all the other inhabi- tants of Italy. It appears to be, on the whole, most probable that they were Turanians, of a type similar to that which is found in various parts of Europe Lapps and Finns in the extreme north, Esthonians on the Baltic, Basques in Spain remnants of a primitive population that once, we may suppose, overspread the whole of Europe. The original seat of the race, so far as it is traceable, seems to have been Rhaetia, or the country about the head-streams of the Rhine, the Inn, and the Adige. Their native name was Ras ; and this name, changed by the Italians into Rhaesi or Rhaeti, was long attached to the mountain region from which their hordes had issued. These hordes at a very remote time spread themselves over the plain of the Po from the Ticinus to beyond the Adige, and formed there, as we are told, a confederacy of twelve cities. After hav- ing flourished in this tract for an indefinite period, they over- flowed the mountain barrier to the south, and occupying the region between the northern Apennines and the Tiber, formed there a second, quite separate, confederacy, consisting, like the northern one, of twelve distinct states. Subsequently, but probably later than the period now under consideration, they passed the Tiber and established temporarily a dominion in Campania, where Capua and Nola were cities founded by them. There can be no doubt that the Romans belonged, at any rate predominantly, to the second of the three races who seem in the early times to have divided the peninsula among them the race which has been here termed, tear e^o^v, " Italic." They had, indeed, a tradition which connected them with a body of immigrants who were thought to have come by sea into Italy from the distant city of Troy, at a date which pre- ceded by nearly 500 years the building of the city. And this tradition was brought out into great prominence by writers of the Imperial times. But, whatever amount of truth we may suppose to be contained in the " story of ^neas," it is evident that the crews of a few vessels landing on a thickly-peopled 284 RAWLINSON coast, and belonging to a race not much more civilized than that to which they came, could make but a very slight impres- sion on the previous population, in which they would be sure to be very soon swallowed up and absorbed. The Trojan col- ony to Latium is therefore, whether true or false, a matter of small consequence it had no part in determining the ethnic character of the Roman people. Nor is there much difficulty in deciding to which of the branch races included here under the general name of " Italic," the Romans belonged. Language is the most certain indica- tion of race, and the language which the Romans spoke was Latin. Their own traditions connected the early city in a spe- cial way with Lavinium and Alba Longa; and these cities were universally allowed to have been two of the thirty Latin towns. To whatever extent the Romans were a mixed people and that they were so to some extent is admitted by all it is impossible to doubt that they were predominantly and es- sentially not Oscans, not Sabines, much less Umbrians but Latins. It is, however, far from easy to determine in what exact position the original Rome stood to the Latin stock. It is clear that she was not a mere Latin town, not one of the thirty. She stands in the early times of the monarchy quite outside the confederacy ; and a peculiar character belongs to her which is not simply and wholly Latin. The tradition which makes her foundation the spontaneous act of a band of adventurous young men, whose affection for the locality leads them to set up a new town, which is also a new state, on the spot where they have been wont to pasture their flocks, is at variance with the condition of Italy at the time, which was not a wilderness, with abundant waste land, whereon the first comer might set- tle, but a thickly-peopled country, where every inch of ground had an owner, or was disputed between neighboring tribes. If there be any truth at all in the account which has come down to us of the original settlement, that account must be a poeti- cised version of a very ordinary occurrence. The Latin towns were in the habit of extending or defending their territories by the establishment of colonies. Nothing is more easily con- ceivable than that the original Rome should have been a col- ANCIENT HISTORY 285 ony from Alba Longa, planted in a strong though unhealthy position at the extreme verge of the territory, where it was threatened by the Tuscans upon the west and still more by the advancing Sabines towards the north. Rome herself was after- wards accustomed to plant her colonies in exactly such posi- tions. Among the various conjectures which critics have formed on the subject of the origin of Rome, that which re- gards her as a colony from Alba appears to be the most worthy of acceptance. But if Rome was originally a mere Alban dependency, it is certain that she did not long continue such. The first clearly marked fact in her history is her entrance into voluntary union with the natives of an adjacent Sabine settlement, an act which implies independence and the assertion of sovereignty. The colony must either previously have shaken off the yoke of the mother-city, or else must, in the very act of uniting herself with an alien people, have asserted autonomy. From the date of the