Who is Alexander? Part II

[Continued from Part 1 - Who is Alexander?]

Alexander heads for Asia at twenty-two, leaving Macedonia in the hands of his father’s trusted general Antipater as Regent. He sets out with an army of about 40,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. The gods are with him all the way. The first opposition happens in a tiny corner of Asia Minor, on the banks of the Granicus River. Darius III, King of Persia, King of Kings, believes that his presence is not required and merely delegates the confrontation to a mercenary in his service, a Greek on top of that, called Memnon. Well, Memnon, although a highly skilled general and Alexander’s most formidable opponent, is defeated. Nothing can stop Alexander now from taking one city after another, one port after another, all along the west coast of today’s Turkey. 

A year later, Alexander will face King Darius in person at the Pinarus River near Issus. The Persian army was huge compared to the Macedonian, but it was outmaneuvered during the first minutes of the battle. King Darius panics and flees into the backcountry. By leaving the battlefield, Alexander automatically emerges victorious. 

Both kings meet again, two years onwards, in a decisive confrontation on Persian soil near Arbela, a place better known as Gaugamela. It is a fight worthy of David and Goliath, where Alexander, with his 50,000 men, stands up against Darius’ troops, which may be 250,000 and has been exaggerated to 500,000. Whatever the numbers, his opponent counted many times more soldiers than his own force! From the tactical point of view, the battle proves to be such prowess that it is still taught at the Military Academy of West Point today. Alexander attacked an empire that was ten times bigger than his! 

Alexander’s accomplishments reached far beyond winning battles. He took on the organization of the entire enterprise, working out the logistics, relentlessly inspiring his army, and caring for all involved. Everyone looked up at him for guidance. 

Alexander’s empire extended from Greece to India and from Uzbekistan to Egypt at the height of his power. His army and baggage train in Asia must have counted at least one hundred thousand men. This mass of people inevitably included merchants, peddlers, blacksmiths, tailors, stone cutters, shipbuilders, entertainers, carpenters, cooks, architects, masons, road builders, and whores. Alexander managed to take his dismantled ships and catapult towers with him on the road so he could assemble them whenever needed. The word prefab was invented only eons later. 

The king moved all these people through the scorching deserts of the Karakum and the Gedrosian. He took them over the snow-capped mountains of the Zagros and the Hindu Kush. Also across swift-running rivers such as the Euphrates and Tigris, Oxus and Jaxartes, Indus, and entire Punjab. Just try to picture that crowd of soldiers, horses, followers, and equipment trudging through uncharted territories. It is dazzling! 

Alexander organized a government adapted to each and every land and tribe he conquered. He founded cities at strategic trade-road crossings, many of which still exist today. His task was absolutely colossal, and Alexander always was the driving force. Alexander also was a visionary, one we would love to have around today. He welded the world into one country.

Neither his Macedonians nor the Greeks were ready to comprehend the grandeur of his conquests, their vastness or scale. He made excellent use of the accumulated treasuries kept in the Royal Persian vaults, minting vast amounts of gold, silver, and bronze coins. The coins had Alexander’s image stamped on them, which was a somewhat new concept for until then, only gods were worthy of such a favor. The Alexander coins were known and accepted all over the empire. It was the euro of antiquity! 

Finally, there is Alexander’s legacy, i.e., the impact of Greek fashion, culture, and art on the occupied territories – a phenomenon that went down into history as Hellenism. From Athens to the Indus, the official language was Greek and remained so for nearly one thousand years until Islam took over with the use of Arabic. We owe it to Hellenism that the first statues of Buddha were made, that the first Library of Alexandria in Egypt was created, and that the Romans rose to power. Christianity spread so smoothly thanks to the usage of Greek, and the Renaissance is nothing less than a renewed connection with Hellenism. 

All of Alexander’s cities were built according to the Hippodamian plan with right-angled streets, including familiar buildings like temples, gymnasiums, agoras, theaters, and stadiums. Alexander’s love for games, sports competitions, and theatre contests with playwriters and actors traveling thousands of miles is another tradition that was continued for centuries deep into Central Asia and India. 

Our world would not be what it is today had it not been for Alexander. No other man in history impacted the world as much as Alexander the Great. Nobody conquered and ruled at the level of Alexander’s high standards, and nobody ever will.

Please consult my book for the full story of his conquests and achievements: "Alexander the Greatwas here, and so was I.”

Rewriting the events leading to the Battle of Gaugamela

Our history of Alexander the Great is mainly based on what the Greek reporters tell us, picked up by later authors like Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, and Plutarch. We have ignored what Persian sources could say because of the difficulty deciphering the often fragmentary texts written on clay tablets from the Babylonia Library or on papyrus from the Oxyrhynchus site in Egypt.

Watching a documentary from 2009 of Michael Wood searching for the plain of Gaugamela in war-ridden northern Iraq revived the battle scenario of Alexander against Darius as seen from the Persian point of view, i.e., contemporary of Alexander. Michael Wood had an in-depth conversation with Prof. Irving Finkle of the British Museum handling several cuneiform tablets.  

These cuneiform clay tablets belong to the Astronomical Diaries kept in the temple of the Babylonian god Marduk. The diaries contain daily observations of the sky and all kinds of information about the current political events, the water level of the Euphrates and Tigris, the food prices and other various topics, and the meteorological records. Over the past two centuries, millions of these tablets have surfaced from all over Mesopotamia. The majority has not yet been deciphered, leaving us with wide lacunas. Therefore the work of Prof. Irving Finkle is very commendable. 

With Michael Wood, he concentrated on three lines on these tablets that require careful consideration in the case of Gaugamela. 

That month, the eleventh [corresponds to 18 September 331 BC], panic occurred in the camp before the king. The Macedonians encamped in front of the king [must be Darius at Arbela].

This inscription suggests that the Persian soldiers were demoralized or were reluctant to fight. 

The twenty-fourth [corresponds to 1 October 331 BC], in the morning, the king of the world [meaning Alexander as King of Asia] erected his standard [lacuna]. Opposite each other they fought and a heavy defeat of the troops. The king, his troops deserted him and to their cities [they went] They fled to the land of the Guti [meaning the road to Ecbatana]

These lines shed a very different light on the battle as opposed to what Greek historians wrote about Darius turning his chariot around and leaving his soldiers behind (see: "The troops of the king deserted him"). If the Persian troops left their king, that would be a totally different situation.

Prof. Irving understands that “the king’s men deserted him” means, the Persians refused to fight. This may very well involve Mazaeus at Gaugamela, as he was holding the right flank facing Parmenion’s contingent. Was the confrontation on that end of the long Persian front really as fierce as our Greek narratives want us to believe with Parmenion’s flank crumbling down? Or was it mainly a show to save face vis-à-vis King Darius?

If the soldiers on that flank (the Persian right) were not ready to engage in a fight, Alexander could more easily concentrate on his own right flank. Thus executing his whirling move and ride towards Darius through the formed gap. Darius fled from the battlefield, but it transpired that many of his troops had turned back before their king did. 

We may wonder whether, instead of an act of bravery or military genius on Alexander’s part, the battle was won thanks to the bribes of some of Darius’ generals, including Mazaeus (see: Two key afterthoughts on Gaugamela). 

On the eleventh [corresponds to 18 October 331 BC], in Sippar [this is just north of Babylon] an order of Alexander to the Babylonians was sent as follows: 'Into your houses I shall not enter.'

Here, the tablets are quoting Alexander verbatim as he confirms that he would not enter the houses of Babylon. In other words, he officially declares that his troops will not plunder the city. This was clearly a pre-arranged gesture. 

The above calls for some further explanation. 

Let’s consider the nearly obvious bribe of Mazaeus. We have to go back to the banks of the Euphrates where Hephaistion was building two bridges over the Euphrates at its narrowest point near Thapsacus (see: Crossing the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers). The Persian general had arrived on the other side and watched Hephaistion’s construction progress for several days. Hephaistion stopped his operation short of the opposite river bank as he did not want to see the end of his bridges destroyed by Mazaeus. Work was at a stalemate till Alexander appeared with the bulk of his army, and Mazaeus turned around to scorch more earth in front of the enemy’s advance as ordered by Darius. 

Mazaeus had 2,000 Greek mercenaries at his services. They must have been happy to talk to the Macedonians on the opposite bank to exchange the latest news during the stalemate. Robin Lane Fox implies that Mazaeus (who, having been satrap of Cilicia, did speak Greek) at that time could have forged some agreement with Hephaistion in view of the upcoming battle. At first sight, this seems outlandish, but this is very plausible on second thought. Hephaistion was often sent on diplomatic missions by Alexander, and the events on the bank of the Euphrates may well have been one such occasion. While he was waiting, Hephaistion had ample time to consult Alexander, still marching towards him. Such a private agreement would inevitably shed totally new light on the upcoming fight at Gaugamela (see: Two key afterthoughts on Gaugamela). 

As soon as Darius left the battlefield, Mazaeus followed suit and rode to Babylon. When Alexander approached the city some three weeks later, he was met by Mazaeus, who surrendered himself and the city. This has been recorded by Curtius and certainly fits into the prearranged agreement! 

Babylon was a well-defended stronghold with a 68 km-long wall that would have been a tough nut to crack had Mazaeus not surrendered it to the new King of Asia (see: Babylon and Alexander’s reorganization of the army). 

In his search for the battlefield location, Michael Wood also talked to Lt General Sir Robert Fry, head of British Forces in Iraq, who was in charge of his security. The general is a historian and fervent admirer of Alexander the Great with his own views on the military aspect. He says that, in figures, the Battle of Gaugamela was perhaps the biggest in history until Napoleon! It decided the fate of Asia. 

He further adds that - like all great leaders in history - Alexander left no weapon unused – even the gods. Alexander did not make his last sacrifice to Phoebus because he was afraid, but he wished fear and terror on the Persians! True to his generalship, Robert Fry marvels at the logistics of bringing an army of 50,000 to Iraq, 80,000 to Persia, and even more to India. Imagine the long supply line! 

The general also looks at the upcoming battle from Darius’ side and confirms that he has taken all necessary precautions. He had a superior cavalry with heavier horses, had the strength of numbers, and the battle itself was well prepared. The plan of the Persian king was to breach the phalanx in order to break the cohesion of the Macedonian army at its center and then envelop the outnumbered Macedonians. Darius had not expected Alexander to stretch the army to his right and create an opening to ride straight at him. The battle was not about their numbers, the general continued, but it came down to the decisions of two individuals. 

These are fascinating statements and ideas. General Fry ends with words along the line of “Alexander’s idea of defeating the Persians may be his idea of linking the eastern and western empires by trade routes and by an army integrated in ethnic terms. These are extraordinary imaginative ideas! Alexander was a globalist. He would thoroughly understand the world today.” How true that is!

[Pictures 2 and 3 are from Oliver Stones' movie Alexander] 

An exceptional Alexander Frieze

Honestly, I am not too keen on statues, paintings or other depictions of Alexander other than those from the Greek and Hellenistic era. I obviously have to include the Roman copies because more often than not, the Greek originals no longer exist.

Over the centuries, Alexander enjoyed many admirers. Scores of sculptors and painters have tried their best to produce a portrait of Alexander befitting the great king, placing him in their own historical context. It is precisely that kind of setting that I often find awkward.

Paintings by Charles le Brun (Entry into Babylon, Alexander and Porus, the Battle of Arbela, etc.), Peter-Paul Rubens (Roxane), Paolo Veronese (The family of Darius before Alexander), Jacques-Louis David and Tieopolo (Alexander and Campaspe in the studio of Apelles) are all beautiful representations. Still, for me, those pictures don’t take me back to the very days of Alexander. The same happens with most of the stone and marble renditions of the conqueror by great artists like Verrocchio or Andrea della Robbia, as well as the portraits on cameos and medallions.

Today, I am, however, making an exception for this Alexander frieze displayed on the walls of the cafeteria at the Harris Museum and Art Gallery in Preston, UK. It is a plaster copy of a work by the Danish artist Bertel Thorvaldsen. 

The name Thorvaldsen probably doesn’t ring a bell with most of us, but in the 19th century, he was one of the highly successful artists. After his studies at the Copenhagen Academy, he went to Rome, where his enthusiasm for classical sculpture fired his imagination. 

Just like the copy we find in Preston, the original Alexander Frieze was also made of plaster. It was actually commissioned in 1812 to celebrate Napoleon’s entry into Rome. It took Thorvaldsen three months to accomplish this masterpiece. Yet, Napoleon never showed up in Rome, and the frieze remained at the Palazzo Quirinale. 

However, the scene was so inspiring that two other versions were created in marble. One for Count Sommariva, who lived near Lake Como in Italy, and one for the Palace of Christianborg in Copenhagen. Several plaster casts were made during Thorvaldsen’s lifetime and also afterwards. The Preston copy arrived in England in 1862 to celebrate Danish art at the International Exhibition in London. The Victoria and Albert Museum offered this piece of art to the Harris Museum and Art Gallery in Preston in 1987.

The scene of the frieze loosely interprets the triumphant entry of Alexander the Great into Babylon in 331 BC. Basically, the frieze starts from two sides. One is showing the army led by Alexander in a chariot, and the other the citizens of Babylon led by the goddess of peace holding an olive branch. 

The frieze is a magnificent piece of art, and I feel it deserves a better setting than a cafeteria, even if it fits the neo-classical style of the building! Thorvaldsen truly understood the essence of Greek art, or rather Hellenistic art, at its apotheosis. It is not surprising to learn that the piece has been copied so many times. Napoleon clearly did not realize what he missed...

The frieze closely reflects the frieze of the Parthenon with its successive figures on horseback and their cloaks bulging in the wind. I love the lively details the artist managed to incorporate. There is this cute looking elephant carrying the trophies of war taken from the Persians. Or the Babylonian flower girls and musicians, and the chained lions. I am staring in awe at the knelt figure dragging an altar because it reminds me of a similar artifact I encountered at the Museum of Morgantina in Sicily. That specific altar from the 3rd century BC was made of silver and was found at the House of the wealthy Eupolemos, as part of an extraordinary hoard of silverware (see: Haggling over the silver hoard of Morgantina). 

I secretly wonder whether Alexander carried a similar altar with him on his campaigns. We may never know for sure, but it certainly is not impossible.

[Pictures are reproduced with the courtesy of Jim Cleary]

Tel-Gomel - in other words, Gaugamela

It is all in the name but it needs to be proved. Linguistically, Gaugamela has already been associated by scholars and archaeologists with Tel Gomel or Gammagara or Gir-e Gomel or Gogomel located some fifty kilometers northwest of Arbil or Erbil, the capital of modern Kurdistan, Iraq. Excavations at Erbil have been carried out since 2015 (see: Arbela, near the Battlefield of Gaugamela) and now it is the turn of Tel Gomel.

[View of Tel Gomel, perhaps the site of the battle of Gaugamela [Credit Terra di Ninive]

The Kurdish and Italian archaeologists are very eager to substantiate this name- link through new analysis on the spot now that more peaceful times in Iraq seem to allow them to work on the terrain. So far, they were able to confirm that the site was continuously inhabited from the Neolithic Period onward.

From what has transpired so far, Tel Gomel was a necropolis used by the people of Gaugamela that yielded vessels containing offerings for the dead. The cemetery was already used by the Assyrians but at a lower level monumental graves from 1700-1550 BC have been unearthed. Among these a brick grave with a vaulted burial chamber is of particular interest. Digging deeper, archaeologists uncovered an even older cemetery dating from 2600-2300 BC.

Beyond this, they also scrutinized the layers belonging to the period running from 2000 BC to the Parthian occupation in 300 AD, but no mention has been made of Alexander’s time.

At this stage, it is not clear in how far this research is centered on Tel Gomel itself or on the surrounding plain which is assumed to be the battlefield where Alexander defeated the Persian King Darius in 331 BC. What’s more, it is most improbable to find any Macedonian grave in the city’s cemeteries for they would have buried their dead according to their own practices and rites. 

Excavations will resume in 2019. Wait and see.

"The troops of the king deserted him"

These are the words that appear on a clay tablet written by a contemporary eyewitness in Babylon after the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC.

[Picture from Livius site]

This cuneiform clay tablet belongs to the Astronomical Diary that was kept in the temple of the Babylonian god Marduk. These diaries contain not only daily observations of the sky but also all kinds of information about the current political events, the level of the Euphrates and Tigris, the food prices, and other various news, as well as the meteorological records. Over the past two centuries, millions of these tablets have surfaced from all over Mesopotamia, and the majority have not yet been deciphered, leaving us with wide lacunas.

Yet, with bits and pieces, we are able to extract useful information from these tables, like, for instance, the exact date of Alexander’s death on 11 June 323 BC.

In the frame of the Battle of Gaugamela, these inscriptions suggest that the Persian soldiers were demoralized and that “the troops of the king deserted him”. These lines shed a very different light on the battle as recorded by Greek historians who wrote that Darius left his soldiers. It makes us wonder whether, instead of an act of bravery or military genius on Alexander’s part, the battle was won thanks to the bribes of some of Darius’ generals, including Mazaeus (see: Two key afterthoughts on Gaugamela).

Due to the complexity of the battle, the vastness of the plain, and the heavy dust that whirled around, nobody could actually have a consistent view of the maneuvers and clashes. Yet at the end of the day, the Macedonians were masters of the field. Callisthenes, a nephew of Aristotle who had been appointed by Alexander to keep his official diary, could hardly have actually seen any part of the battle. He, too, had to rely on the accounts given by the Macedonians at that time. Although later historians like Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, and even Plutarch had access to his records, we have no way to verify what and how he originally told the events since his books are lost to us.

The cuneiform tablet, which started this post, is in the hands of the British Museum and has been closely studied by specialists. For me, there are three lines that are important in the frame of the decisive battle of Gaugamela, which I reproduce hereafter in my own simplified version:

That month, the eleventh [corresponding to 18 September 331 BC], panic occurred in the camp before the king. The Macedonians encamped in front of the king [must be Darius at Arbela].

The twenty-fourth [corresponding to 1 October 331 BC], in the morning, the king of the world [meaning Alexander as King of Asia] erected his standard [lacuna]. Opposite each other they fought and a heavy defeat of the troops. The king, his troops deserted him and to their cities [they went] They fled to the land of the Guti.[meaning the road to Ecbatana]

On the eleventh [corresponding to 18 October 331 BC], in Sippar [this is just north of Babylon] an order of Alexander to the Babylonians was sent as follows: 'Into your houses I shall not enter.'

For the complete text and pertaining comments, please refer to the site of Livius at this link and/or this link.

Based on the above, the least we can say is that we know only part of history and certainly only a tiny portion of what really happened that day of the battle on the dusty plain of Gaugamela.

Two key afterthoughts on Gaugamela

The Battle of Gaugamela is generally seen as an overall victory for Alexander and that is what has been recorded in history. Yet, there are two factors or rather personages that call for some serious afterthoughts.

The first is about King Darius III who turned his chariot around and left the scene before the battle was over. In the thick swirling cloud of dust and heavy fighting, it makes me wonder how soon Alexander noticed Darius’ retreat. There may have been a sudden opening in the Persian lines when the Ten Thousand Immortals and Darius’ personal retinue pulled out to escort their king in their sworn duty to protect him. In any case, Darius was the whole reason for the battle to take place and Alexander was not going to give up at this stage. He cannot have been aware of the overall situation on the battlefield as every soldier simply fought the enemy that appeared in front of him in the obscuring dust, but the Macedonians were well drilled and extremely disciplined. They knew what Alexander expected of them and performed to excellence as against all odds, they were able to keep their overall frontline intact – amazing when you consider they were outnumbered six to one.

As soon as he knew that Darius had left the battlefield, Alexander dashed in his pursuit with about 2,000 cavalry. Some claim that he abandoned his army for the sole scope of capturing Darius, but his generals had their instructions and would further fulfill their duty without hesitation. Alexander knew that he could rely on them as he also knew that he needed to capture Darius if he ever wanted to be King of Asia.

Alexander’s pursuit was not without danger or obstacles. Let’s not forget that he was not alone heading in the general direction of Babylon. In fact, he had to thrust through the cloud of dust created by the masses of Persian cavalry on the run who, still faithful to their king tried to stop Alexander and his men. The ensuing fighting was particularly savage and it is known that at least sixty of Alexander’s companions were wounded, including Hephaistion. By the time Alexander shook off the enemy cavalry, Darius had gained a decent head start and had crossed the Great Zab River where he exchanged his chariot for a horse. He soon reached the Royal Road near Arbela, one of the main intersections in the Persian road system. By the time Alexander passed the Great Zab River darkness started to fall and it was obvious that he couldn’t catch up with Darius that day. He decided to get some rest and allow the horses a well-deserved breather.

By midnight he was in the saddle again and reached Arbela in the early morning hours. Here he learned that Darius had taken a sizeable head start, taking a shortcut through the hills. His trail led through the Kurdish mountains with 3,000 meter-high passes where Alexander would be in unchartered terrain and prey to a hostile enemy. He was realistic enough to know that he had to give up his chase. It is clear that he was very disappointed but at the same time, he realized that his first priority now was to take possession of Babylon. The capture of Darius had to wait.

The second case is about Mazaeus, the commander of Darius’ cavalry who fought on his right wing opposite Parmenion.

Records of the Battle of Gaugamela are obviously concentrating on Alexander and only scattered information transpires about what happened on his left wing, except the tale that Parmenion sent a message to Alexander for extra support. This message is a very questionable one and even in antiquity authors do not agree on the details. What is fact and what is fiction? Besides, it seems near impossible to anyone to find Alexander in the commotion and heavy dust bowl on the battlefield. But that is another subject of discussion.

Yet, we do have a contemporary version of the facts recorded in the so-called Babylonian astronomical diaries. One of those cuneiform tablets has been deciphered at the British Museum in London and although it is damaged the text contains the omens and foretells the outcome of the battle. (The full text of these clay tablets has been reproduced in detail on Livius’ site together with a more scholarly report also on this Livius’ site.) Through the fragments, it transpires that some high-ranking officers, including Mazaeus, deserted Darius with a number of men from Battle of Gaugamela. The text says that “the troops of the king deserted him” which could mean that these Persians either joined Alexander and fought on his side, or that they simply refused to fight. This theory of troops deserting King Darius raises speculations that Alexander possibly bribed his Persian enemy – a process that was not at all uncommon in antiquity. Maybe the scheme had been planned on the banks of the Euphrates three months earlier?

When Hephaistion was building his two bridges over the Euphrates, Mazaeus observed the works from the opposite side of the river. Both men faced each other for several days as Hephaistion did not risk finishing his bridges fearing that Mazaeus would immediately destroy them. This game of cat and mouse ended when Alexander in person appeared with the bulk of his troops. At this point, Mazaeus and his 2,000 Greek mercenaries turned around and proceeded to scorch more earth in front of the enemy’s advance as ordered by Darius. It is pure speculation but not impossible that Hephaistion and Mazaeus exchanged messages (Mazaeus having been satrap of Cilicia did speak Greek) while troops on both sides (all Greeks) shouted back and forth over the water.

The fact remains that as soon as Mazaeus saw Darius riding away from the battlefield at Gaugamela, he hurried to Babylon. When Alexander arrived there some three weeks later, he was welcomed in appropriate style by Mazaeus and other Persian noblemen.

In the end, I guess we’ll never know the entire story, neither about Darius’ reason to flee nor about the role played by Mazaeus who, let’s not forget, was Alexander’s first Persian to be appointed as governor in one of his conquered cities.

Interestingly, among the clay tablets, there is another fragment that seems to be a part of Alexander’s address to the people of Babylon, in which he reassures them that he will not “go into their houses”. This corresponds to known Greek sources mentioning that the Macedonians were not allowed to loot Babylon when they entered the city after their victory at Gaugamela.

[Pictures from Oliver Stone's movie Alexander]

Arbela, near the Battlefield of Gaugamela

Erbil or Arbil is the capital of modern Kurdistan, an independent province in northern Iraq. In antiquity the city was named Arbela, situated north of the Mesopotamian plain where the Battle of Gaugamela took place in 331 BC between the armies of Alexander the Great and Great King Darius III of Persia. Erbil claims to be the world’s oldest continuously occupied settlement (older than Damascus, I wonder?) going back at least 6,000 years.

To the naked eye, Erbil has very little to offer to the curious archaeologist as many houses from the 19th and 20th century are cramped inside the old city walls, right on top of previous constructions. Most everything that is known about this city comes from ancient texts and sporadic artifacts found at other sites in Mesopotamia.

Since last year, the first traces of the ancient city have been revealed thanks to ground-penetrating radar. Two large structures in the center of the citadel may be the remains of the well-known temple dedicated to the goddess of love and war, Ishtar, who was consulted by the Assyrian kings for divine guidance. The Temple of Ishtar is mentioned as early as the 13th century BC, although it may rest on a much older sanctuary. It is said that her temple was made to “shine like the day”, a possible indication that it was coated with electrum (a mixture of silver and gold) that reflected the Mesopotamian sun.

Slowly these new finds give us an insight into the history of Arbela and of its growth since the rise of the mighty Assyrian Empire. This old city was located on a fertile plain and was the local breadbasket for thousands of years. It occupied a key position on the road connecting the Persian Gulf to the Anatolian inland. It is obvious that this prime location was coveted by many of its neighbors, of which the Sumerians may have been the first invaders around 2,000 BC. It is here that Alexander the Great became King of Asia in 331 BC after defeating the Persian King Darius in nearby Gaugamela. Later invaders were the Romans, Genghis Khan in the 13th century, the Afghan warlords in the 18th century and the very recent occupation by Saddam Hussein. Yet, Arbela survived, unlike other great Mesopotamian cities like Babylon or Nineveh.

Unfortunately during the twentieth century much of ancient Arbela fell in disrepair as refugees from the region’s conflicts replaced the town’s people who moved to more spacious housing outside the citadel. Now that these refugees also move to more comfortable accommodation, efforts are starting to renovate the largely mud-brick dwellings. Conservation work enables archaeologists to dig deeper into the mound, meanwhile listed as a World Heritage Site. With the help of aerial photos taken by the British Royal Air Force in the 1950’s, American spy satellite images from the 1960’s, and Cold War satellite imagery, combined with the ancient cuneiform tablets help to pinpoint the best locations for future digging.

It is still difficult to have a good comprehensive overview of such a long history. As far as we know now, Arbela was first mentioned on clay tablets unearthed at Ebla (in modern Syria) dating to circa 2300 BC. A few hundred years later, rulers of Ur in southern Mesopotamia claim to have destroyed the city during repeated and bloody campaigns. By 1200 BC, it is known that it prospered as an important Assyrian trading post where copper, cattle, pomegranates, pistachios, grain and grapes were common goods. At the height of its power in the 7th century BC, Assyria was ruled by kings like Sennacherib, Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. A court poem found in Nineveh praised the city as “heaven without equal, Arbela!”, and its power is supported by a stone relief from the 7th century BC found at Nineveh showing the formidable city walls and arched gate.

By 612 BC the Assyrian Empire was destroyed and the Medes (maybe the ancestors of today’s Kurds), spared and occupied Arbela, which was still intact when the Persian King Darius I came to power about a century later. Soon the Achaemenid Empire stretched all the way from Egypt to India till Alexander the Great defeated King Darius III in the fall in of 331 BC on the plains of Gaugamela. The Persian king fled across the Greater Zab River to Arbela’s citadel to seek refuge in the Zagros Mountains where he was eventually killed by his own men.

Arbela’s oldest fortification had a 20 meters thick wall with a defensive slope, not unlike the one found at Nineveh, for instance. While most fortifications were rectangular, the wall around Arbela was a round one, enclosing both the citadel and the lower town – something we do find more to the south, in cities like Ur or Uruk. As houses in modern Erbil are being abandoned, the archaeologists have a good opportunity to start their investigations. It is very rewarding to discover a tomb with vaulted chamber of baked bricks that can be dated to the 7th century BC and definitely is Assyrian.

Using modern technology, some 77 square miles have been mapped containing some 214 archaeological sites going back as far as 8,000 years! It is not easy to account for a city’s history over such a long period of time, especially when that city is still being inhabited. After the Assyrians were gone came the Persians followed by the Greeks, and eventually Arbela became an essential outpost on the Roman frontier and the capital of the Province of Assyria. With the spreading of Christianity new communities flourished and the Sassanids ruled till the arrival of Islam in the 7th century AD.

Even today, Erbil makes the headlines with the conflicts in northern Iraq. Inevitably a great deal of the city’s heritage is doomed to disappear in modern warfare, but let’s hope for the best. Maybe, just maybe one day we may discover the treasures still buried underneath the old citadel and maybe even a small proof that Alexander and his army were here some 2,400 years ago.

[Pictures from Archaeology]