University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2017 The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Eyal Meyer University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons Recommended Citation Meyer, Eyal, "The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks" (2017). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2473. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Abstract This dissertation explores the extent to which Persian policies in the western satrapies originated from the provincial capitals in the Anatolian periphery rather than from the royal centers in the Persian heartland in the fifth ec ntury BC. I begin by establishing that the Persian administrative apparatus was a product of a grand reform initiated by Darius I, which was aimed at producing a more uniform and centralized administrative infrastructure. In the following chapter I show that the provincial administration was embedded with chancellors, scribes, secretaries and military personnel of royal status and that the satrapies were periodically inspected by the Persian King or his loyal agents, which allowed to central authorities to monitory the provinces. In chapter three I delineate the extent of satrapal authority, responsibility and resources, and conclude that the satraps were supplied with considerable resources which enabled to fulfill the duties of their office. After the power dynamic between the Great Persian King and his provincial governors and the nature of the office of satrap has been analyzed, I begin a diachronic scrutiny of Greco-Persian interactions in the fifth century BC. Chapter four centers on a particular challenge the Persians faced in western Anatolia. On the one hand, the Persian conquest of Ionia in the middle of the sixth century BC triggered a gradual increase in the willingness of mainland Greeks to intervene in the affairs of Asia Minor, while on the other, Xerxes’ failure to subjugate European Greece resulted in a dramatic shift from a policy of westward expansion to a policy of entrenchment. The focus of chapter five is the limited interest of Artaxerxes I (r. 465-423 BC) in respect to the western satrapies. The asl t chapter deals with the machinations of the satraps Tissaphernes, Pharnabazus and Cyrus the Younger. I show that the alliance between Persia and Sparta was the outcome of satrapal action rather than royal initiative or intent. Accordingly, the satraps sought to exploit the power struggle between Athens and Sparta for their own favor while King Darius played a relatively secondary role in this conflict. Degree Type Dissertation Degree Name Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Graduate Group Classical Studies First Advisor Jeremy J. McInerney Keywords Achemenid Studies, Ancient Greece, Classical Greece, Greco-Persian Relations, The eP rsian Empire Subject Categories Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity This dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 THE SATRAPS OF WESTERN ANATOLIA AND THE GREEKS Eyal Meyer A DISSERTATION in Ancient History Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2017 Supervisor of Dissertation _______________________ Jeremy McInerney Davison Kennedy Professor, Department of Classical Studies Graduate Group Chairperson _______________________ Jeremy McInerney, Davison Kennedy Professor, Department of Classical Studies Dissertation Committee Julia Wilker, Assistant Professor, Department of Classical Studies Lauren Ristvet, Robert Dyson Professor, Department of Anthropology Matt Waters, Professor of Ancient History, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire . THE SATRAPS OF WESTERN ANATOLIA AND THE GREEKS COPYRIGHT © 2017 Eyal Meyer iii To my parents iv ABSTRACT THE SATRAPS OF WESTERN ANATOLIA AND THE GREEKS Eyal Meyer Jeremy McInerney This dissertation explores the extent to which Persian policies in the western satrapies originated from the provincial capitals in the Anatolian periphery rather than from the royal centers in the Persian heartland in the fifth century BC. I begin by establishing that the Persian administrative apparatus was a product of a grand reform initiated by Darius I, which was aimed at producing a more uniform and centralized administrative infrastructure. In the following chapter I show that the provincial administration was embedded with chancellors, scribes, secretaries and military personnel of royal status and that the satrapies were periodically inspected by the Persian King or his loyal agents, which allowed to central authorities to monitory the provinces. In chapter three I delineate the extent of satrapal authority, responsibility and resources, and conclude that the satraps were supplied with considerable resources which enabled to fulfill the duties of their office. After the power dynamic between the Great Persian King and his provincial governors and the nature of the office of satrap has been analyzed, I begin a diachronic scrutiny of Greco- Persian interactions in the fifth century BC. Chapter four centers on a particular challenge the Persians faced in western Anatolia. On the one hand, the Persian conquest of Ionia in the middle of the sixth century BC triggered a gradual increase in the willingness of mainland Greeks to intervene in the affairs of Asia Minor, while on the other, Xerxes’ failure to subjugate European Greece resulted in a dramatic shift from a policy of westward expansion to a policy of entrenchment. The focus of chapter five is the limited interest of Artaxerxes I (r. 465-423 BC) in respect to the western satrapies. The last chapter deals with the machinations of the satraps Tissaphernes, Pharnabazus and Cyrus the Younger. I show that the alliance between Persia and Sparta was the outcome of satrapal action rather than royal initiative or intent. Accordingly, the satraps sought to exploit the power struggle between Athens and Sparta for their own favor while King Darius played a relatively secondary role in this conflict. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1. THE REFORMS OF DARIUS I ..................................................................................... 8 1.1 The Main Sources...................................................................................................... 8 1.2 The Reformation of the Tributary System .............................................................. 10 1.3 Centralization of Power ........................................................................................... 16 1.4 The Dangers to the Stability of the Empire I: Separatist Factions .......................... 17 1.5 The Dangers to the Stability of the Empire II: Powerful Satraps............................ 20 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 32 2. ACHAEMENID ROYAL SUPERVISION .................................................................. 34 2.1 Royal Personnel in the Satrapies ............................................................................. 34 2.2 Yearly Royal Review .............................................................................................. 44 2.3 The Achaemenid Surveillance Service ................................................................... 47 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 55 3. SATRAPAL DUTIES AND RESOURCES ................................................................. 56 3.1 Satrapal Duties ........................................................................................................ 56 3.2 Satrapal Financial Resources .................................................................................. 63 3.3 The Achaemenid Conscription System ................................................................... 71 3.4 Satrapal Military Capacity ...................................................................................... 78 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 89 4. IONIA BETWEEN EAST AND WEST....................................................................... 90 4.1 Ionians and Greeks .................................................................................................. 90 4.2 Ionian Appeals for Help .......................................................................................... 93 4.3 The Greek Counter-Offensive in the 470s .............................................................. 99 4.4 Pausanias, Xerxes and Artabazus .........................................................................