Equality of women and men in ancient Persia

The thought alone causes most people to frown their eyebrows and stare at me in utter disbelief. Who says this? 

Well, obviously not our Greek and later Roman historians for whom the Persians were the enemy. Persian sources, however, describe their women as enterprising, independent, and resolute. This has been widely researched by Robbert Bosschart in his book All Alexander’s Women on which I commented repeatedly (see: Persia’s historical memory of Alexander). An updated version, his 5^th edition is now available on Amazon. 

His study, based on the in-depth research published by such experts as professors Amélie Kuhrt, Maria Brosius, Jozef Wiesehöfer, Wouter Henkelman, and others is concentrated on the clay tablets found at Persepolis (see: Fire over Persepolis) and saved by the fire as mentioned in his chapter Biographical/Geographical Notes: 

“An unintended consequence of these fires was the preservation of clay archive tablets, cooked and hardened. About a hundred Treasury Archive texts from Persepolis, recording royal payments in silver in 492-458 BC were made available between 1948 and 1965. Other texts, published in 1970, were written in Aramaic. This coincided with the biggest windfall: the discovery of over 8,000 texts, dated between 509 and 493 BC and found on tablets in the Persepolis Fortification Archive. They deal with the royal administration of food commodities. About 7,000 are written in the Elamite language of Susa, with some incrustations of Old Persian. Another thousand were written in Aramaic, but there is also one in Greek, one in Frygian, and a few in Neo-Babylonian.” 

He further underscores how and where women are mentioned performing tasks we would expect were those of men:

 … “the archive tablets routinely register travel rations of wine, beer and grain issued to royal women for extensive journeys throughout the empire on their own behalf. And … to commoner women ... For example, one tablet (… dated to 493 BC), registers a journey by a woman employee from Susa, Mizapirzaka, who has to carry a letter to Persepolis. The text adds that she carries a personal seal (…) that authorizes her to claim provisions at the waystations.” 

Until recently, the ruling opinion was that the Greeks doubted how women “could obtain and exercise power in the Achaemenid monarchy.  How could an empire be ‘well ruled’ if women were influential and even exercised power over the king himself?”…

.. “with the publication, around 1970, of numerous tablet texts from the Persepolis Fortification site … Dr Maria Brosius identifies a particular category of women officials who carry the title of Arashara.  … specifically mentions four Arasharas by name: Dakma, Harbakka, Matmaba and Sadukka. Meat rations are rare, so the issuing of 4 complete sheep to each of these women supervisors confirms their important payment level. …

At least ten more tablets refer to the salary of Arasharas, showing that these highly qualified women were better paid than male personnel of lower professional rank. …

[Achaemenid, maybe Arashara statuette

from Bosschart's book]

750 measures of wine among 65 employees; three Arasharas receive 30 measures each, whereas a male scribe at the same workplace gets only 20. On another tablet we even see an Arashara being issued 50 measures. The sliding scale of payment in order of professional qualification (and not by gender distinction) … distributes wine rations: two men who are called ‘manual workers’ get 10 measures each; two other men who are “doorkeepers” by profession, get 20 measures each; and the Arashara is allotted 30 measures. The highest payment (in grain) of all the tablets in the archive also goes to an Arashara: 75 quarts per month…

… an exceptionally high number of Arasharas worked at the service of queen-mother Irdabama. The circa 7,000 archive texts that have been translated so far mention some 150 places in the region of Persepolis (and in a few cases, beyond) where royal ladies had storehouses or workshops. Usually the personnel working there was overseen by Arasharas.”

...

"The tablets show women in a wide range of occupations in Persepolis: woodworkers and stoneworkers, artisans, winemakers, furniture makers, treasury clerks, storekeepers, carriers, grain handlers. A tablet dated to 502 BC refers to ‘Indukka, mother of Tuku’, stating that she is “the chief of the merchants”. It registers the amount of tax she has paid -in silver- on “the business deal that she has managed”.

 

… “Irdabama regularly orders greater amounts of foodstuffs to be delivered at the palace from her own … storehouses … Irdabama has more personnel working at her various factories. On top, she can direct the royal treasury to make payments in silver” …

As Alexander traveled in the company of Queen-mother Sisygambis from Issus to Susa the equality of royals and commoners must have become apparent. His close company with Barsine undoubtedly confirmed and enhanced the role of women. Dr. Maria Brosius further writes:

“Persian queens were much more than consorts, or than queen-mothers supposedly ruling a palace harem. They had a huge influence in decisions about whom to promote, whom to punish, whom to execute, or whose life to spare. Sisygambis, queen-mother of Darius III, also wielded such power, even after her son had been replaced on the throne by Alexander the Great. He pointedly upheld her status as the most prominent woman in the empire, and treated her as if she were his own mother.” 

There is little doubt about the real meaning behind the mass-wedding in Susa as arranged by Alexander in 324 BC (see: Susa with its unique glazed brick walls). Lacking time and knowledge, he could not personally choose the brides-to-be for his Companions and close friends but Sisygambis could and did. The brides, many of them princesses in their own right, were selected with care, and probably well-prepared by Sisygambis for their new role as wife of one of Alexander’s marshals. Their independence would inevitably trickle down to their children and children’s children. What an ambitious vision! 

Alexander always led by example. His wedding with Stateira, the eldest daughter of King Darius III, and Parysatis, the youngest daughter of King Artaxerxes III was celebrated at the same time as that of 90 court members. Each of the newlywed couples received a dowry from the king and on this happy occasion, Alexander granted a gratuity to his Macedonians who had taken Asian wives during his campaigns. He paid out of his own pocket for the proper education of their children. 

The Susa celebration was Alexander’s first step towards uniting West and East, not limited to Greece and Persia but encompassing the entire then-known world. He laid the basis for one single world in which everybody was equal, East or West, man or woman. What we call today an emancipated woman existed for 2,500 years, not as a dream but a reality! So much time has been lost on the subject! 

Alexander was a visionary, but none of his generals or friends understood his vision. The one exception was Hephaistion, but he died shortly after the wedding, poisoned no doubt. As a result, Alexander’s plans were muffled and erased from history. 

When the king died one year later, his world died with him. Had Alexander lived long enough, we would all speak Greek. What’s more, for 2,500 years our world would have been one where men and women lived on the same foot, with the same rights and the same status. 

“To the strongest”

“To the strongest” are the last words Alexander pronounced on his deathbed in Babylon when pressed to name his successor. 

His Companions and generals were obviously panicking at the thought of being left behind so many miles away from Macedonia without their king to guide them. They desperately needed him. 

Ever since he became king in 336 BC Alexander had shown his commanders the way and led his men by example. He certainly did not expect to die at the age of 33 and not in his bed. How could he have foreseen to be incapacitated and unable to be his own self? 

The only person who had always been at his side and enjoyed his full confidence had died the previous year. Hephaistion had been officially appointed as his Chiliarch, his second in command. The sudden death of his dearest friend left him in total disarray and maddened by grief. He was truly alone at a time when he had to make the hardest decision of his life and elect a successor. “Who, Alexander? Tell us who!” are the words Oliver Stone put in the mouth of Ptolemy. How appropriate! 

“To the strongest” has often been understood as a weak and evasive statement, although, in reality, Alexander’s last words are one final proof of his genius! Had he not been so much afflicted by his illness and impaired by the high fever, he would have found the strength to elaborate a solution to the Succession with his close Companions. He would likely have appointed Perdiccas. Even so, Alexander’s decision may have lost its power two years onward, and the commanders would have taken the matter into their own hands anyway.

Of course, everyone around the king’s deathbed still hoped to be appointed and hear his name called out. However, matters were not as straightforward as one might think. On the one hand, he had to name an heir since, as King, he needed a successor, and on the other hand, as commander in chief of his army, he had to appoint a capable military leader. 

At this point, his most experienced generals were Craterus and Perdiccas. Yet, Craterus was in Cilicia taking 10,000 veterans back to Macedonia with Alexander’s instructions to replace Antipater as Regent in Pella. Perdiccas was in Babylon and took the king’s succession into his hands. 

Roxane was pregnant, but the child had not been born yet, and there was no guarantee it would be a boy. Alexander had never recognized Heracles, his son by Barsine. In any case, Roxane’s son and Heracles were too young to rule, and the generals would have to choose a Regent pending their coming of age. The next best option was to push Arrhideus forward. He was Alexander’s simple-minded half-brother and not capable of becoming the de facto ruler. As a result, Perdiccas was elected Regent at the Partition of Babylon. 

This implied, however, that he would rule over Alexander’s Companions and generals. Perdiccas’ success was short-lived, though, and in 321 BC he was sidelined at Triparadeisus as the commanders decided to divide the kingdom among themselves. When Perdiccas escorted Alexander’s remains to be buried in Macedonia, Ptolemy hijacked the mummified body and took it to Egypt. In a desperate attempt to recover his king’s remains, Perdiccas failed totally to march his men across the Nile. His losses were so excessive that his soldiers revolted and killed him. 

These were uncertain times for all the parties involved in the Succession Wars. They all had the ambition to rule over Alexander’s Empire and felt equally qualified to do so, but none shared Alexander’s vision. Ultimately, they eliminated each other until the empire was divided between Ptolemy, Seleucos, Antigonus, and Cassander (see: Dividing the Spoils. The War for Alexander’s Empire by Robin Waterfield).

None of the great men who fought alongside Alexander for almost twelve years emerged as the strongest. They all had learned a lot, but none could come close to Alexander’s charisma and exceptional genius.

Another aspect of Alexander’s personality?

Life is full of surprises and Alexander’s life is no exception. Our best sources are extant books by Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, Plutarch, and Justin, but contemporary documents are far more difficult to find (see: Eyewitness accounts of Alexander's life). Alexander’s Royal Journals carefully kept by Callisthenes and Eumenes have not survived, except for some rare fragments whose origins cannot be verified with certainty.

Browsing through Robinson’s book, The History of Alexander the Great and the Ephemerides of Alexander’s Expedition, I was intrigued by the few lines that survived Ephippus’ writing. 

Ephippus of Olynthus was a historian and contemporary of Alexander. It is unclear whether this man is the same as Ephippus of Chalcis, mentioned by Arrian as one of the superintendents Alexander installed in Egypt. The reason to link both names is that the city of Olynthus is part of Chalcis. Otherwise, our Ephippus may well have lived at the king’s court or shortly after his death. 

He is known as the author of a lost pamphlet “On the death (or funeral) of Alexander and Hephaistion,” as mentioned by Athenaeus of Naucratis, who lived about the end of the 2^nd/beginning of the 3^rd century AD. The document held an account of the burial of Hephaistion and Alexander as well as of the king’s death. 

Robinson is quoting Athenaeus in several separate issues, shedding a different light on Alexander than what other, usually Greek, sources tell us. 

According to Ephippus, Alexander spent one hundred minas on a dinner with his friends, i.e., sixty or seventy of them. It seems the author is reacting to some critics about Alexander’s expenses compared to those of the Persian king, who spent four hundred talents for his 15,000 invites. Converting the currencies, however, both expenditures come to the same amount per capita.

Another observation made by Ephippus is that the Macedonians never understood how to drink in moderation, but drank a lot of wine at the beginning of a feast. The case of Proteas of Macedonia, who was a sturdy guy, is highlighted because he drank a great deal all his life. Alexander, Ephippus said, once ordered a six-quart cup of wine, and after a drink, toasted Proteas, thereby extending a challenge to him. Proteas took the cup, sang praises to his king, and drank the rest of the wine under the wide applause of those present. A little later, Proteas ordered another such cup, toasted the king, and took a drink. Alexander then (accepting the challenge) took it but could not hold it, falling back on his cushion and dropping the cup from his hands. The king fell ill and died. 

This scene inspired Oliver Stone in his Alexander movie during a scene played in India. However, this is not how the king died, and the text puts serious question marks behind the assumption that Ephippus lived at Alexander's court at the time of his death. The truth about Alexander’s death, for me, lies elsewhere as I discussed on previous occasions (see: A personal approach to the cause of death for Alexander).

Regarding the luxury of Alexander, Ephippus tells us that the king had a golden throne, and couches with silver feet “on which he used to sit and transact business with his companions”. These couches are known from the Susa wedding party, but the link is not made in this text. 

Ephippus continues by stating that Alexander also wore “sacred vestments”, such as the purple robe, cloven sandals, and horns of Ammon as if he were a god. At times, he would imitate Artemis, wearing her dress while driving his chariot. Alexander also had a Persian robe and displayed the bow and javelin of the goddess above his shoulder. Sometimes, he dressed as Hermes, and sitting with his friends, he wore the god’s sandals and the petasus, holding the caduceus in his hand. In everyday use, he would appear wearing a purple riding cloak and a purple tunic with white stripes, and the Macedonian causia holding the royal diadem. Referring to Heracles, Alexander would wear a lion’s skin and carry the god’s club. 

To my own astonishment, Ephippus also says that Alexander used to have the floor sprinkled with perfumes and fragrant wine, while incense and myrrh were burnt in his presence. If this is true, I presume it would happen only while the king resided in one of the Persian palaces? The bystanders are said to remain silent out of fear of his violence, “with no regard for human life.” 

Athenaeus further quotes Ephippus, saying that Alexander arranged a festival for Dionysus at Ecbatana. He does not tell us when this sacrifice occurred but I would assume it was in 324 BC, maybe around the death of Hephaistion. 

The local satrap Satrabates had invited all the troops (just try to picture the scene!) for his lavish feast, and many speeches of praise and flattery were made to impress Alexander. As in Samarkand, some of these praises turned into insolence. However, with the king’s complicity one of his armorers totally went overboard by having the herald announce that he, Gorgus, would shower the son of Ammon with 3,000 gold coins; and whenever Alexander would besiege Athens, he would add 10,000 full suits of armor and as many catapults and other missiles needed for the war. 

Such words clearly illustrate how preposterous and absurd these flatteries of Alexander were! Freedom of speech? 

Shifting through Ephippus' lines, it is difficult and even impossible to determine what is correct and what is not. As always, opinions are divided. Ephippus’ version of the facts is examined in detail by Antony Spawforth in his article The Pamphleteer Ephippus, King Alexander and the Persian Royal Hunt.

Preparations to sail down the Indus

The history of Alexander’s conquests in India usually relates the facts in a succession of events without paying much attention to the king’s thorough planning and preparation ahead. To sail down the Indus was an expedition by itself, which is generally ignored.

Alexander withdrew in style from the Hyphasis. After building twelve altars to thank the gods for having led him so far as conqueror and leaving an impressive memorial to his own accomplishments, he turned around to cross the Hyphasis, Hydraotes, and Acesines once again (see: Alexander erected twelve altars on the banks of the Hyphasis). 

Hence, the army marched to the Hydaspes, where Alexander had founded the cities of Alexandria Nicaea and Alexandria Bucephala (see: The edge of the world was not reached). According to his instructions, many ships had already been assembled, but he needed to build many more before sailing south. Within two months, the entire fleet was ready. It consisted of eighty thirty-oared galleys, troop carriers, flat-bottomed boats for horse transport, circular tubs, local river boats, and enormous grain-lighters for supplies. The latter is a forerunner of the modern LASH ship or Lighter Aboard Ship that loads and unloads barges, as still used on the Indus.  Known locally as zobruks, they have a shallow draught and huge sail, perfectly suitable in strong currents. Each vessel could hold more than two hundred tons of grain to feed the army on their voyage to the Ocean.

This was a massive operation that Alexander had planned meticulously. He selected the Phoenicians, Carians, Cyprians, and Egyptians who served in his army. From them, he chose men with nautical skills for crews and rowers. Other experts were selected from among the islanders (from the Aegean), Ionians from Asia Minor, and people from the Hellespont.

Imagine this armada of up to 2,000 vessels (half the flotilla that crossed the Channel on D-Day!), moving at the shouts of the coxswain (steersman) as his rhythmic call was echoed by the high riverbanks mingled with the noise of splashing oars. 

Another factor worth considering is the number of troops needed to be moved. Back on the Hydaspes, 35,000 fresh soldiers had swollen Alexander’s total manpower to a massive 120,000! His cavalry, at this point, has been estimated to be some 15,000. However, not all the men and horses boarded the ships; neither did the impressive baggage train.

Alexander organized the army in three divisions as he would personally lead the fleet from his Royal galley with the support of his shield-bearers guards, all the archers, and the Companion cavalry – totaling 8,000 men. Hephaistion would march along the east bank of the Hydaspes while Craterus would lead the west bank with part of the infantry and the cavalry. Hephaistion took with him the bulk of the fighting troops and 200 elephants. Their instructions were to march together in advance and wait for the fleet.

The king took command after having performed extensive sacrifices to his ancestral gods and the deities of the river and Ocean. With a golden goblet, he poured a libation into the river from the prow of his ship – entirely in style with the solemn occasion. 

As soon as the trumpets signaled the departure, the voyage started in regular order. It was a hazardous enterprise, but the king had instructed how many baggage vessels were to sail abreast and the place for the boats carrying the horses and the ships of war. All vessels were to keep their distance and stay in formation, adapting their speed accordingly. Given the different sizes of boats ranging from warships and baggage vessels to horse transports, they individually required accurate steering and high alertness of their pilots. The purpose was that the ships would not fall out of each other or sail down randomly. Nearchus of Crete was appointed admiral of the fleet, with Onesicritus of Cos as his second and helmsman of the Royal flagship. 

Even after the monsoon rains had stopped, the annual flow of the Hydaspes was two times faster than that of the Nile or three times that of the Euphrates and the Tigris combined. The current would increase notably as the river narrows, particularly at the confluence with the Acesines. The roaring of the water could be heard miles ahead as the surface roughened.  

At last, the fleet made it across the narrows where the two rivers met, and the banks receded. The stream slackened, and Alexander found a protected spot on the right bank to moor his ships safely. Here, the men could take a break and make the necessary repairs before moving onward. 

Alexander was about to enter the land of the warlike Malians, who had been preparing for the confrontation.

Who decided on the mummification of Alexander?

Alexander’s death in Babylon and the cause of his death have been discussed before (see: A personal approach to the cause of death for Alexander the Great). This time, I would like to concentrate on his embalmment. 

Arrian does not mention what happened after Alexander’s death since the accounts of both Ptolemy and Aristobulus stopped at this point. However, he adds a splendid eulogy to the greatness of Alexander. Diodorus follows the same idea, stating that “He accomplished greater deeds than any, not only of the kings who had lived before him but also of those who were to come later down to our time.” 

Only Curtius’ history continues describing the mourning in the streets of Babylon by friend and foe, the earliest rivalry between the generals, and all kinds of intrigues that followed the king’s death. He is the only one to mention that Alexander lay unattended for seven days before his friends reentered the room. So much for a “friend,” right? He reports how his body did not show any sign of decay despite the Babylonian heat. As a result, the Egyptians and Chaldeans, "who were ordered” to care for the body, hesitated to handle it. It is only after they prayed to their gods for approval that “they emptied his body of entrails.” He goes on by saying that the gold coffin was filled with perfumes, yet nothing about the honey that covered Alexander’s body as seen by those who paid their respects to him years later in Alexandria. 

Several questions arise after reading these accounts. Curtius, for instance, is the only one to tell us about the widespread quarrel among the generals and troops alike (not yet about the matter of succession) and about the decision to embalm Alexander’s body. Plutarch casually remarks that the body remained unattended for several days. 

What transpires is that nobody stayed at Alexander’s bedside after he was declared dead. It is baffling and truly unacceptable vis-à-vis the King of Macedonia, the King of Kings, to be left without a single soul at his side to mourn him? Macedonia must have had a set procedure for treating the deceased king. Persia undoubtedly had a very ancient court protocol for such occasions! Yet, Alexander was left alone and unattended. Incredible! 

About a week later, the king’s entourage seemed to remember that their king was dead and required burial of some kind. According to Curtius, who appears the only source on this matter, “Egyptians and Chaldeans were ordered to care for the body.” Nobody says who issued such an order. The priests certainly would not act on their own to handle the remains of the King of Kings, the most powerful man of the world! Was there any discussion about the procedure and the choice of a funeral? 

In Macedonia, a king would be cremated on a fancy pyre, as was done for King Philip and even applied for Hephaistion. What did the Persian tradition prescribe? I suppose a burial since the Tomb of Cyrus contained his bodily remains, although we don’t know if the corpse had been embalmed or not. In ancient Mesopotamia, everything indicates that they buried the bodies in the earth since, according to their creation myth, Ea (Enki) had created humans out of the earth's soil. So they naturally 'return' the body to the earth once the person has died. However, in Alexander’s case, the priests “emptied his body of entrails,” which indicates an Egyptian tradition. 

How, then, was it decided that Alexander should be mummified? His body was originally to return to Macedonia. The royal tradition was that their lineage would simply die if the king was not buried in his homeland. At this stage, there were no known plans to bring the king’s corpse to Egypt at all. So, maybe it was decided to keep his body in good condition until it reached Macedonia, which actually meant years later. The only people of authority present in Babylon were Alexander’s generals, who seem, however, to have been more occupied with their own importance in the wake of their king’s death than with the proper burial – or any burial at all for that matter. 

I cannot imagine Perdiccas suggesting mummification, or Nearchus, or any other commander present, except maybe Ptolemy. At a very early stage, he had decided to take Egypt as his share. Not only that, but there were rumors that Ptolemy may have been an illegitimate son of Philip, making him Alexander’s half-brother. This has never been established, but the relationship was a public secret. At this stage, Ptolemy may have carried more weight than the other generals to suggest mummification. He will, however, have been careful not to disclose his secret plan to take Alexander to Egypt. Who knows? 

Another possibility is that the commanders were still fighting each other and had not decided where to bury their king despite leaving him unattended for about a week. The obvious place was Macedonia, but Babylon as the new capital of Alexander’s Empire may have been another candidate. Pending a final decision, it was wise to embalm the body to preserve it the best they could. 

But who performed the embalming on so short a notice? It is highly improbable that priests could have been summoned so quickly from Egypt. Maybe Alexander had some Egyptian doctors or priests in his entourage? That is not as far-fetched as it appears because at the time of the moon eclipse, shortly before the Battle of Gaugamela, when the army was wildly panicking, we know some Egyptian priests were present. They had told Alexander and his Macedonians that this was only an astronomical phenomenon - and hence, nothing to be worried about. This shows that he had kept Egyptian priests with him already then. These priests most certainly were familiar with the religious embalming process and able to preserve Alexander’s body for the long journey home. 

Craftsmen from across the empire created an unsurpassed funerary golden catafalque. Alexander’s preserved body was placed inside a gold sarcophagus inlaid with precious stones. It was covered with a purple funerary pall embroidered with gold, on top of which lay his armor and Trojan shield. After two years of careful and intense work, the shrine was ready, and the funeral cortege left Babylon for Pella.

As we know, the cortege never reached Macedonia since Ptolemy seized the catafalque in Syria and took it to Egypt. As the city of Alexandria was not yet entirely built, Alexander’s sarcophagus was temporarily kept in Memphis. We owe it to Ptolemy’s son, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, to give Alexander his last resting place in his Alexandria. 

In the following centuries, the tomb was visited by many Roman emperors till it disappeared from history. That was between the mid-3rd century and the last quarter of the 4th century AD.

Alexander preparing for the siege of Tyre

After the Battle of Issus, Alexander was more determined than ever to take all the harbors of the eastern Mediterranean to outmaneuver the Persian maritime power. He marched to Marathus (modern Amrit) and from there onward to Byblos, which both surrendered. 

The next famous city on Alexander’s route was Sidon, whose inhabitants were only too happy to get rid of their Persian satrap, Straton. They welcomed the Macedonian king as their liberator. A new ruler had to be found, and Hephaistion was instructed to search for the appropriate candidate. King Abdalonymus was a respectable and honest man, and the people loved him. Out of gratitude for this appointment, Abdalonymus, at a later age, commissioned the famous Alexander sarcophagus that is now on display at the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul.  

As Alexander marched further south, he reached the powerful Phoenician Tyre. The city had prospered because of its trade in purple dye, which was highly valued throughout the ancient world. Already in the early 6^th century BC, this richness had attracted the attention of King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon. He laid siege to Tyre for 13 years without success. This simply illustrates the challenges Alexander was about to face.  

Tyre was of strategic importance, a massive fortress island surrounded by well-defended high walls separated from the mainland by a deep channel. It had two natural harbors, one on the north side facing Sidon and another on the south looking towards Egypt. The Tyrians felt pretty secure since they enjoyed the protection of a substantial Persian fleet in both ports. 

Before reaching the city, Alexander was met by its envoys, stating that they would abide by any of his instructions. The Macedonian king gracefully thanked the representatives and expressed his wish to enter Tyre to sacrifice to Heracles, who was, in fact, their god Melqarth or Baal. Basically, the Tyrians accepted Alexander’s arrival but refused to admit him or his Macedonians inside their fortress on the island. 

Alexander needed to take Tyre to safeguard his back on his march further south to Egypt. The only way was to lay siege to the city – a tremendous and complicated task because he had disbanded most of his own fleet, and the remaining ships were no match for the Persian forces. Clearly, the fortress could not be taken from the sea alone, and thus Alexander decided to build a causeway to connect the island to the mainland. It was a tedious and dangerous operation as the Tyrians had no intention of letting this happen. 

Construction went underway and progressed steadily in the shallow waters near the coastline. Stones from the old city of Tyre were used for the foundation of the mole, and piles were driven into the mud to keep the stones in place (see: Alexander's Isthmus, Tyre, Lebanon). But as the Macedonians reached deeper water, matters changed dramatically. Progress slowed down because many more stones were needed to fill the depth, while the Tyrian ships could now approach the causeway and attack the exposed workers. In response, Alexander built two towers mounted with artillery and faced them with hides to somehow protect his soldiers on the mole. The army could drive the enemy away from their precarious shelter with their own missiles. 

The Tyrians were not to be discouraged and decided to take a cattle-ship and stuff it with dry brushwood and straw. They added two masts to create a higher pile of inflammable material, including pitch and sulfur, to fan the fire. They also attached caldrons filled with liquids that could be poured onto the fire to increase its fury. To ensure these vessels would come as close as possible to the causeway, they added heavy ballast in the aft section to lift the bows to a maximum. Triremes pulled these burning vessels close to the Macedonia towers, and as they caught fire, the Tyrians withdrew immediately to save themselves. The fire was an absolute inferno. 

Although this attack meant a severe setback, it would not deter Alexander from executing his plan. Instead of repairing the substantial devastation, he started the work all over again. He built a broader mole at the shoreside with enough space for more towers and instructed his engineers to construct new engines.

  

Alexander, as always, saw the greater picture. He moved back to Sidon to gather as many ships as possible to annihilate the enemy navy, since that was imperative to conquer Tyre. At this stage, the king was joined by two Persian satraps, who, after learning that Aradus and Byblos were in Macedonian hands, decided to side with Alexander. Sidon contributed with its own warships, bringing the total Phoenician ships to about eighty. After his victory at Issus and having taken Phoenicia, Alexander’s fleet was spontaneously joined by Rhodes with ten ships, three ships from Soli and Mallus, and ten more from Lycia. The king of Cyprus also decided to join his forces to Alexander’s and sailed to Sidon with some 120 ships. With so many of these previously Persian allies now fighting on Alexander’s side, the situation of the Macedonians suddenly looked much better. 

This most certainly was the turning point in the entire siege! 

Continued in Alexander besieging Tyre.

[Pictures from World History, Dan Diffendale (Melquart) and United States Military Academy, Dept of History (map)]