The consequences of Alexander's conqust of the Achaemenid Empire were similar to the recent impact of the West on the rest of the world. For the Near East and Central Asia, however, the Arab conquests and Islam made a still more lasting and penetrating revolution in culture and society. Nonetheless, Hellenism was a powerful force that brought a change in thinking, especially in the realms of culture and, of course, religion, for the peoples of Central Asia. The history of the area was dominated for over a century by the Greco-Bactrian kingdoms and Hellenistic culture, which profoundly changed the face of Central Asia. Let us begin with the conquests of Alexander.
More books have been written about Alexander than any other person in ancient history. The Classical sources have been combed for every detail about his military accomplishments, his purported vision of uniting Greeks and Orientals in one world, and countless other facets of his conquest of the Achaemenid Empire. Here we can be concerned only with his activities in Central Asia and their aftermath. What do we know about his movements in Central Asia?
He crossed the Hindukush Mountains from the south in the spring of 329 B.C.E. in pursuit of Bessus, murderer of Darius Commodanus and satrap of combined Bactria and Sogdiana, who had declared himself the successor of Darius, adopting the throne name Artaxerxes IV. Bessus must have thought that he had a chance of restoring the Iranian part of the Achaemenid Empire, or at least its eastern lands. Although Bessus seems to have been in origin a Persian, he believed that the people of Central Asia would rally to him. The Bactrians, as practical traders and farmers, however, were loath to fight against a powerful newcomer from a distant land, and on the whole they submitted to Alexander, especially after witnessing his military prowess and speed in marches. After some fighting Bessus was caputred and later executed, but resistance did not cease as a result.
To the north of Bactria the Sogdians and Sakas were not as ready to submit as were the Bactrians, and they offered strong resistance to the invaders. Alexander, however, was able to take Samarkand, where he established a garrison, after which he reached the limits of the Achaemenid Empire in the east, and reportedly founded a city near or on the site of modern Khojent.
Another leader had appeared in place of Bessus, a Sogdian lord called Spitamenes in the Classical sources, and he secured support from the Sakas. While Alexander was busy in the Khojent area Spitamenes attacked and defeated Alexander's garrison near Samarkand. Alexander, in a swift march from the east, drove his opponent into the steppes before retiring to Bactra (also called Zariaspa) for the winter of 329-28 B.C.E. In the early spring Alexander moved north and Spitamenes was forced to flee again. This time his Saka allies apparently decided to make peace and killed Spitamenes, sending his head to Alexander. In the face of such a display of force by Alexander resistance began to crumble, and the last campaign of the Macedonian king was against a Bactrian lord called Oxyartes, who had taken refuge in a strong mountain redoubt, thinking himself safe there. His fortress was taken, but Alexander pardoned the Bactrian and married his daughter, the beautiful Roxane. About the same time Apama, daughter of Spitamenes, became the wife of Seleucus I Nikator and the mother of Antiochus I.
Alexander realized that he could not control the vast empire he had conquered with Greek and Macedonian troops alone, so the process of amalgamation of the local population with his garrison troops began. In the beginning, since the Persians were the majority of the high officials of the Achaemenid Empire, he had to rely on them to assist him, especially in the Iranian part of the mpire. But in Central Asia he found that real power was in the hands of local ords, and he had to enlist their support. While he wintered in Bactra/Balkh, the ruler of Choresmia, called Pharasmanes, had come to him to make peace, and had been reinstated in his domain by Alexander. This apparently happened in a number of cases.
A certain Artabazos had been named satrap of Bactria and Sogdiana after the capture of Bessus, but because of his age he asked to resign and was replaced in 328 B.C.E. by Amyntas, a Macedonian. Because of continued unrest among the local population, it was clear that strong forces of Greeks and Macedonians had to be assigned to Amyntas when Alexander left Central Asia for India in the spring of 327 B.C.E.
The situation in Central Asia fter the departure of Alexander can best be characterized as a double rule of the Iranian bureaucracy (including local lords) and the foreigners, who retained control of the army and collection of taxes. A parallel with the later Arab conquests in Central Asia is striking. Many Greeks in the garrisons must have longed for their homelands beside the sea, but several attempts to revolt and return to their distant homelands on the whole were unsuccessful.
Much has been written about Alexander's policy of fusion of his followers with the local populations, but in my opinion, attempts to portray Alexander as ahead of his time, in proclaiming a philosophy of universal equality in his "one world" empire, are overblown. As a matter of necessity he had to incorporate local troops into his army, and he hd to rely on former Achaemenid officials to govern, but the touchstone ws hardly an enlightened view of the world, but rather loyaltyto his person, whether Macedonian or Iranian. From the accounts of historians on his campaigns, it is apparent that Alexander only trusted those who were devoted and beholden to him for their positions.
Before his death, however, Greek and Macedonian officers began to replace Iranians in high positions. Whether this ostensible change in policy was the result of pressure by his own officers, or his later disinclination to trust iranians in positions of power and authority, is not easy to determine. Under the successors of Alexander, however, power remained only in the hands of the Greco-Macedonian aristocracy, who comprised the leaders of the cores of the armies which were formed by the Diadochi, as the rulers were called.
It was quite clear by the time of Alexander, if not previously, that local, popular armies were no match for a well-organized and disciplined professional force. For a lont time Greek mercenaries had been the most effective fighting force in the ancient world, and the Macedonians not only united the Greeks under their banner but improved battle tactics. Young Iranians were organized by Alexander into a special bodyguard on the Macedonian model, and many local levies were incorporated into his army, but garrisons, mostly composed of Greeks, were left in various centers of the east. These constituted pockets of power under local Greek or Macedonian officers, but whether the forces under them were solely Greco-Macedonian, or also comprised local soldiers, is uncertain. Alexander seems to have feared that local, mercenary armies might contest central authority, for in 324 B.C.E. he ordered all such forces to be disbanded, but before this could happen he died in Babylon in 323 B.C.E.
The legacy left by Alexander was far-reaching. Stories and reomances about him existed in many languages of the east, and he assumed superhuman dimensions in most of them.
[note: Alexander romances exist in languages ranging from those of Europe to Mongolian. Cf. M. Southgate, Iskandarnamah, a Persian medieval Alexander-romance (New York, Columbia University Press, 1978) and A. Wolohojian, The Romance of Alexander the Great, Armenian version (New York: Columbia University Press, 1964).]
In the Iranian world Alexander was either co-opted or anathematized. In the first case, Alexander was declared really to have been the son of an Achaemenid prince who had taken refuge in Macedonia and married the mother of Alexander, while in the latter case the Middle Persian book Arda Viraf Namak gives the view of the later Zoroastrian religious establishment when it describes him as "that wicked, miserable, heretic, sinful, hateful Alexander the Roman, resident of Egypt." Both views of Alexander were current also in Central Asia, and it is impossible to disentangle them, except to say that later Christian missionaries, among others, propagated a favorable impression of Alexander wherever they went in the east. This was the prevailing view of Alexander in Islamic times as well.
More important were the consequences of the establishment of garrisons, and the building of Greek towns in the east, most of which, however, were the result of Seleucid policy rather than Alexander's own achievement. What was the situation in Central Asia at the death of Alexander?
In Parthia and Hyrcania an Iranian, Phrataphernes, remained as satrap until his death in 321 B.C.E., when he was followed by Philip, presumably a Macedonian. Arsaces, or Arsames, satrap of Areia (Herat), was replaced by Stasanor after the death of Alexander. Oxyartes, Alexander's father-in-law, had been named satrap of the Hindukush region, but apparently resigned after a short tenure. We do not hear of his replacement by a Greek or Macedonian, and may presume that local chiefs maintained their authority in the mountains. Bactria and Sogdiana apparently wee under Philip until Antipater became the next regent of Alexander's domains after the assassination of Perdikkas, Alexander's successor, in 321 B.C.E. Stasanor was then sent to Bactria by Antipater, and a Cypriote called Stasander became satrap of Herat and Sistan.
It almost seems that a game of musical chairs was played by Alexander's officers in the eastern part of his former empire. At first the eastern satraps were appointed by the central authority, but they soon showed such independence that various generals seeking Alexander's position, especially Antigonos, the most successful, had to conciliate the satraps to secure their cooperation. Stasanor held his place in Bactria, but Stasander was replaced by Evitus followed by Evagoras. This uncertainty of tenure changed with the conquests of Seleucus in the east.
We know nothing about the success of Seleucus in the east, except his treaty with Chandragupta Maurya, who secured rule over lands to the south and east of the Hindukush range in exchange for 500 elephants, which helped Seleucus in his victory over Antigonos in 301 B.C.E. After Seleucus secured the eastern part of his future empire, we no longer find in the sources the name of any of his satraps in the east.
Seleucus and his son Antiochus, by the daughter of Spitamenes, promoted the migraton of Greeks and Macedonians to the east, and established Greek towns. Not only Greeks and Macedonians, but also Anatolians, Thracians, and surely others, went to the east. It is clear that the Seleucids intended to colonize the east and not simply establish garrisons. Unfortunately we have little information about Central Asia under the early Seleucids, and can only guess at events from brief notices in Classical courses. A certain Demodamas was sent to Central Asia and went as far as the Jaxartes River, after which he wrote a treatise about Central Asia that has not been preserved. Whether he was leading a military expedition or simply exploring is uncertain, but possible threats of nomads from across the river may have been a reason for his journey.
Antiochus was made viceroy of the east by his father Seleucus ca. 294-93 B.C.E., and probably resided for a time in Bactra as his headquarters. He is said to have built a long wall around the oasis of Merv, where he established a town called Antiochia after his own name. Probably under his reign the Greek town today called Ay Khanum, on the Oxus and Kokcha rivers in morthern Afghanistan, was settled, although im may have been established first by Alexander. Excavations at this site have revealed a pure Greek polis with gymnasium, theater and other regular features of a Greek city. From inscriptions we learn that an uncontaminated Greek language was in use in the town, and all the accouterments of Greek culture were present.
The division of authority between the Greek polis, with its civic institutions, and the central government of the Seluecids eludes us, but probably a compromise was reached by which the Greeks of Bactria had more freedom and power than their counterparts in Mesopotamia and Syria, with the two capitals of Seleucia on the Tigris and Antioch on the Orontes.
The discoveries at Ay Khanum and other minor sites in Central Asia have opened new vistas on the extent of Hellenization in the east. For centuries the Greek presence in Bactria ws known only by the superb coins of the later Greek kingdom and scattered works of art. Now we know tht the Greeks in the east may be compared with the colonizers of Sicily and the northern coasts of the Black Sea, and we may designate the Greek kingdom in the east as one of the successor kingdoms to Alexander, such as those of the Seleucids and Ptolemies. Even when Alexander was alive some garrisons in the east wanted to return home, but under the Seleucids colonists came to Bactria. Were they sent by order of the king, or were they rewarded with land and other inducements to settle far from their homes? Probably both reasons applied, but we hear of no revolts among them against the Seleucids, so one may suppose they mostly came willingly for rewards. In the sources the Seleucid colonists were called katakoi, and received land grants (kleroi), for which they had to serve in the army on demand.
[note: The most complete study of the eastern provinces may be found in S. Sherwin-Williams and E. Kuhrt, From Samarkand to Sardis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993).]
Most of the towns established in the east apparently did not have the full-fledged status of a Greek polis, but were a stage below, and the term used for these settlements in the sources is politeuma, or we also find katoikia, with the inhabitants called by that name as well. Presumably the settlements in the east had a royal epistates, or mayor, appointed by the government, at least in the early years of the seleucid state, whereas later local authority prevailed. We do not know the powers or authority vested in the office, or relations to other officials, but the bureaucracy obviously was more developed and expanded in the Seleucid settlements compared to the pre-Alexander days.
The Greeks used their language as a basis of their administration, and the minting of coins indicates economic prosperity, not only in Bactria but all of the lands under Greek rule in the east. Even in the lands south of the Hindukush, ceded by Seleucus to the Indians, Greek was one of the languages inscribed by Asoka, successor to Chandragupta, on his rock edicts located there. It is fascinating to read the inscriptions, with both Aramaic and Greek translations of the Buddhist edicts.
Presumably relations between the colonists and the local populatoin were much closer than, for example, between the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt and their subjects. In Bactria, however, Greek replaced the Aramaic of the Achaemenid chancellery as the new bureaucratic language of rule. In passing, it may be mentioned that the Seleucids sent regular embassies to the Indian court, and one of the ambassadors Megasthenes, wrote a book about his trip there which has survived only in fragments in later authors. In short, under the early Seleucids Hellenic civilization came into contact with local cultures and spread in the east, more in Central Asia than in Iran. Again strikingly, this was similar to the situation later under the Arabs.
When Seleucus died in 281 B.C.E., he was succeeded by Antiochus who inherited many problems in the western part of the empire. For twenty years, until his death in 261 B.C.E., Antiochus was occupied by struggles with the Ptolemies and others; Central Asia went its own way. Yet it still remained loyal to the Seleucid dynasty until it was clear that ties between Bactria and the Mediterranean could not be maintained, especially because of nomad invasions, in particular by the Parni who took over the satrapy of Parthia and Hyrcania from the Seleucid satrap Andragoras. This may have happened in 247 B.C.E., which is the beginning of the Parthian era of time dating, or the dating may represent the crowning of Arsaces, the first Parthian ruler.
It is apparent that the trade route from Mesopotamia to Bactria was the vital link which had to be maintained by the Greeks, since other parts of the Iranian plateau, such as Fars and Azerbaijan, did not receive garrisons or colonists as did Bactria. They were off the road, so to speak, and held to their own dynasts and culture. Central Asia, however, became an outpost of Hellenism, which in the century after the end of effective Seleucid rule in the east had profound influence not only in India but all over Central Asia. The expanded use of coinage indicates a great expansion of economic activity, and surely the prosperity of Central Asia under Seleucid rule casued the population, both native and foreign, to support Seleucid rule. But the Seleucid kings were interested in the west, and all of the east was neglected, which led the Greeks in Central Asia to strike out on their own.