APPENDIX FIVE

THE DATE OF THE PERSIAN INVASION OF L YCIA

The conquest of Lycia is generally thought to have fallen some time be• tween the fall of Sardis and that of Babylon; 1 this belief derives from Hero• dotus' statement that Cyrus had subdued all the mainland (of Asia) before attacking Babylon (1.178). This seems likely to be true, though the warn• ing should be given that it is clear from Herodotus' introduction to his ac• count of Cyrus' conquest of Babylon (1.177) that the campaigns ofHarpag• os in western Asia were at least partially concurrent with those of Cyrus in the eastern and central parts of the continent; it is possible that the chrono• logical relationship between the falls of Lycia and of Babylon is not as cer• tain as sometimes suggested. To get closer to an actual date a careful ex• amination of Herodotus' account of the events following the fall of Sardis is necessary; from this it seems likely that a date of c. 542-539 is correct (seep. 224 below). The first thing to be done is to reconstruct a relative chronology of Per• sia's conquest of western Asia Minor. According to Herodotus, Cyrus headed back to Ekbatana after capturing Sardis (1.153.4); he had, however, remained in Lydia long enough to receive envoys sent by Sparta in re• sponse to an appeal by the Ionian Greeks (Hdt. 1.152.2-153.1). To allow time for Kroisos to bring his army to Cappadocia, fight Cyrus, return to Lydia and disband his force, the siege of Sardis must have taken place late in the campaigning season; this is confirmed by Herodotus' report (1.177.3-4) that just before Cyrus arrived, Kroisos requested his allies to send help in the early spring, which was then five months away. 2 Cyrus cannot then have left Sardis earlier than the very end of the year, and doubts about his making the journey in winter, coupled with doubts about the Spartan legation crossing the Aegean in winter, point to a departure in the spring of the following year. The revolt of Paktyes, the Lydian left by Cyrus in charge of local fi• nances (Hdt. 1.153.3), then followed, according to Herodotus as soon as Cyrus had left Sardis (1.154.1); but the fact that the Persian King himself did not immediately turn about to deal with the problem might possibly

1 Metzger 1963: 18n. 11, 80; Childs 1981: 55 n. I. The fall ofBabylrn is dated to 539, ac• cording to the Nabonidus Chronicle (ABC Chronicle 7.iii.16; see Graysrn 1975'. 110). 2 Mallowan 1972: 7n. 34, sugge&s November as a date for the siege. THE PERSIAN INvASION OF LYCIA 223

suggest that he was rather further away. This revolt, then, should be some• time in mid-year, and this year probably also saw the revolt's suppression by Mazares (Hdt. 1.156.2-161). Mazares then died before south-west Asia Minor was fully pacified, and his place was taken by Harpagos (Hdt. 1.161- 62.1 ). It is difficult to see how Harpagos could have commenced his first cam• paign, against Ionia (Hdt. 1.162.2), before the following year. This was a hard-fought campaign, as Herodotus makes clear (1.169.1), so Harpagos' next campaign, against Caria, Kaunos and Lycia (Hdt. 1.171.2), is unlikely to have been launched before the year after that, particularly as Ionians were incorporated into his forces for this campaign; depending on how fierce Ionian resistance actually was, it may have taken two years to con• quer the area (any longer seems unlikely, though). It is possible that the whole of this Carian and Lycian campaign fell within a single year, as on the whole Carian resistance seems to have been negligible (Hdt. 1.174.1); Pedasos, however, the one place which did put up a show of opposition, provided a great deal of trouble for Harpagos (Hdt. 1.17 5). The best conclusion that can be reached is that Harpagos entered Lycia at the earliest three years after the fall of Sardis, but possibly four, or even as many as five. If one assumes gaps in between the various campaigns, then an even larger difference in the relative chronology of the two events could be arrived at, but there is no evidence in Herodotus to support such an assumption, and it tends to run somewhat against the usual trend of Persian campaigning in the sixth century (Herodotus certainly implies that Cyrus was campaigning constantly in the eastern sections of the empire at this time). If the siege of Sardis can be dated absolutely, then the attack on Xan• thos can be dated to within a few years. To this end one must first deal with the evidence of the Nabonidus Chronicle, which notes that in the ninth year of the rule of Nabonidos of Babylon (547) an expedition of Cyrus was made across the Tigris and the king of a foreign land was de• feated (Babylonian Chronicle 7.ii.15-17). The territory against which this campaign was fought has often been restored as Lydia. 3 This restoration has been queried by Mallowan, and Cargill has convincingly demonstrated that it is highly conjectural, and cannot be supported if it clashes with other evidence. 4 As is shown below, this is in fact the case. An alternative resto• ration of Lycia itself in the Chronicle5 should be rejected, since it is clear from Herodotus' account that Cyrus did not lead the Persian conquest of Lycia; in any case the invasion of Lycia cannot possibly have been as early

3 Smith 1924: 120; 1944: 36, 135 nn.; Graysm 1975: 21,107,282. 4 Mallowan 1972: 12; Cargill 1977. 5 Suggested by Mallowan 1972: 12; 1985: 414.