Compare the ideology of kingship in the Assyrian, Achaemenid and Seleucid empires

The great kings ‘credentials’ do not end at divine selection and extraordinary abilities . The genealogical legitimacy of the king is a point often is repeated. Darius I, whose ascent to the throne was shrouded in controversial circumstances reiterates his Achaemenid lineage in an inscription at Behistun.  Written in Aramaic, Elamite , akkadian and old Persian Darius proclaims;

 “King Darius says: My father is ; the father of Hystaspes was ; the father of Arsames was ; the father of Ariaramnes was Teispes; the father of Teispes was Achaemenes.

King Darius says: That is why we are called ; from antiquity we have been noble; from antiquity has our dynasty been royal.

 King Darius says: Eight of my dynasty were kings before me; I am the ninth. Nine in succession we have been kings.

 King Darius says: By the grace of  am I king; Ahuramazda has granted me the kingdom”.

The Persian king reiterates this at the place where he was buried at Naqs-I Rustam;

“I (am) Darius the great king, king of kings king of countries containing all kinds of men, king on this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenid, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan linege”

In both Assyrian and Achaemnid ideologies the king is closely aligned with god. In both, the king’s legitimacy lies first in his selection by god but also by his descent and his extraordinary ability. Therefore when Alexander the Macedonian set about not only conquering the Persian empire but also trying to establish himself as legitimate heir to the Persian throne, he had an unenviable task on his hands.

Alexander and his Seleucid successors’ ‘relationship’ with divinity differed from that of the rulers we have thus far discussed. Whilst both Achaemenids and Assyrians had a religious ideology that they actively propagated, Seleucids, attempted to slot themselves neatly into the role of previous rulers. Traditionally, the King’s role as political leader went hand in hand with   religious leader and so it was a good move politically to adopt the latter in order to succeed in the former. Seleucid kings actively participated in religious ceremonies in Babylonia, fully embracing their role as religious leaders and establishing a continuity with Babylonian kings. This topic however is one which I must skip for now and discuss fully in the second part of the essay.

Whilst Alexander and Seleucid kings strove to fill the shoes of their predecessors ideologically, it was written that unlike Assyrians and Achaemenids for whom genealogical legitimacy was of prime importance, Alexander and his successors ruled on basis of their ability to rule as opposed to kinship.

“Monarchy: it is neither ‘nature’ nor ‘justice’, which gives monarchies to men, but the ability to command an army and to handle affairs competently. Such was the case with Phillip and the successors of Alexander. For Alexander’s natural son was in no way helped by his kinship with him, because of his weakness of spirit. While those who had no connection with Alexander became kings of almost the whole inhabited world”

However, the image of the Seleucid king as described in the following passage paints a picture not very different to that of the Persian king; as divinely blessed with extraordinary strength.

“ as he (Seleucus) was very successful in war he acquired the epithet of Nikator. … He was of such a large and Powerful frame that once, when a wild bull was brought for sacrifice to Alexander and broke loose from his ropes, Seleucus held him alone, with nothing but his hands, for which reason his statues are decorated with horns”

Similarly, the Antiochus Cylinder from Borshippa found in 1880 and written in akkadian cuneiform and using literary style of neo Babylonian inscriptions  declares;

“Antiochus, the great king, the mighty/legitimate king, king of the world, king of Babylon, king of lands, caretaker of Esgalia and Ezida, first son of Seleucus, the king, the Macedonian, king of Babylon, am I.”

It is possible that this document was no more then an attempt to mimic traditional Babylonian foundation documents, and as such should not be taken as a reflection on actual Seleucid practice. However, it might also suggests that Seleucid ideology of kingship propagated legitimate lineage in the same way as its predecessors.

The deification of Seleucid kings manifested itself in the emergence of Ruler cults. These cults can be separated into two categories: Central cults that were organized by the king and civic cults, that were well documented in Asia minor and saw the king and queen worshipped as gods. This emanated spontaneously from the city in return for benefactions. The following extract from the Babylonian chronicle shows worship of Seleucid king being integrated into religious ceremony.

“that month (nisan), on the 8th, king Antiochus and the […] went out from the palace to the gate … of esaglia … […] of esaglia he made. Offerings (?) […] Marduk-etir… […] of their descendants (?) were set, entered the akitu- temple […] made [sacrifices for] Ishtar of Babylon and the life of King Antiochus […]

King and subjects

In the previous section we saw repeated continuities in the religious belief systems of the Assyrian and Achaemenid Empires. In both, god was supreme leader especially selecting the king, who was militarily and judicially talented as well as genealogically legitimate, for his role. This section sees the Achaemenids align closely with the ideology of its successors, leaving the Assyrian empire alone amongst the three in their drive for ethnocentricity.

Assyrians believed they were the only legitimate world leaders and by the will of Ashur were exercised legitimate domination over their subjects.

“give our lord Ashurbanipal… leadership over (all other) kings”

The king fought wars as a religious duty, reliefs tell of the king going to war in response to an actual or imagined threat. Assyrians saw themselves as defendors rather then aggressors;

“Assur and the great gods, who magnify my sovereignty, who granted as my lot power and strength, commanded me to extend the borders of their lands. They placed in my hands their mighty weapons, deluge in battle. I gained control over lands, mountains, towns and princes, who were hostile to Assur and I subdued their districts”.

Liverani explains that Assyrian ideology sees the world in a series of polarized oppositions:

                                                Inner Vs. outer space

                                                Known Vs. unknown

                                                Light Vs. dark

                                                Productive Vs. sterile

He explains that Assyrians waged a ‘holy war’ assimilating the perishable chaos of unknown lands into their clear, straight and solid world. They saw themselves as  “bringing a periphery to a cosmic state” through unification and assimilation. (liverani). In return for the ‘favor’ of Assyrian ideology and structure, conquered lands had to give tribute. This centralized raw materials to the heart of the empire, generating Assyrian wealth.

Assyrian and Achaemenid ideologies are similar in as far as they both believe that it is their god given right to have domination over other lands. For the Persians, the god Ahura Mazda gave the Persian king the power to rule over subject people. It was by his will that the “spear of the Persian man has gone forth far”  and therefore  the kings subjects  owed him obedience and ‘tribute’.

“A great god is Ahuramazda, who creted this earth, who created yonder sky, who created man, who created happiness for man, who made Darius the king, one king over many, one lord over many”

Fig G (page x), the scene of variously attired tribute bearers at the steps of Persepolis exemplifies the multiculturalism of the Persian empire.  On his part he brings, by the will of Ahura Mazda peace and tranquility to the empire and in return his subjects show their appreciation by lavishing gifts on him.

      “by the will of Ahuramazda these are the countries that I seized outside Persia; I ruled over them; they bore me tribute; what was said to them by me, that they did; my law- that held them (firm)…”

On his tomb at Naqs- I rustam Darius declares that Ahuramazda gave him the kingship because “the earth was in commotion” and he “put it down” .

The successors of the Assyrian empire, too, saw themselves as distinct from their subject lands. Persians iconographically distinct from subjects Pages 16-18 images. Similarly, persian are distinguished from their subject peoples on the apadana stairs of persepolis The Persian officials lead the line of gift bearers into the kings presence. On another relief Persians are pictured turning around talking to each other and gesturing whilst waiting to see the king  this is very different to the relatively silent scene portrayed on the steps.

Herodotus writes:

“they honor most of ll those who live near amongst the, then those who are next furthest and so going ever on…”

Indeed in the lists of subjugated countries those closest to Persia appear first (check) and in the ‘lifting’ picture Persia appears central represented by the king and countries furthest away are on the outskirts while geographically nearer countries appear in more prominent positions

Whilst Achaemnid ideology saw Persians to be legitimate dominators of the Empire and within the empire held the position of a kind of ruling class*, since the conquests of Cyrus a policy of religious and cultural toleration was practiced. Image H: the rock façade of the tomb of Darius at Naqs- i –Rustam on exemplifies this policy.  All lands in the Persian Empire united under his rule (quite literally they are portrayed under the king), representatives of each country in local dress hold up the king’s throne.

Similarly the Cyrus Cylinder  (image I) declares

“22 eternal seed of royalty whose rule Bel and Nabu love, in whose administration they rejoice in

23 I took up my lordly residence in the royal palace with joy and rejoicing; Marduk, the great lord, moved the noble heart of the residents of Babylon to me, while I gave daily attention to his worship.”

Using an entirely different approach to their predecessors, Achaemenids propagated themselves as rescuing the Babylonians from an unloving and impious king and restoring harmony with local gods.

Like the Achaemenids before him, Alexander and his successors not only accepted but also actively participated in local religious affairs. In Babylonia, they built temples, worshipped the gods and sought to establish a continuity with neo Babylonian kings. Seleucid kings, utilized Babylonian willingness to accept new rulers; developed over years of submission to Achaemenid and Assyrian rule. x  argues that:

“one important model they (Seleucids?) followed in the formulation of their royal ideology was that of the Achaemenid emperors… but Babylonian evidence shows us how they linked themselves to even older ideals of kingship”

Seleucid  plan on ‘slotting’ themselves into  a millennia old Babylonian Royal tradition was one that has proven successful in the past and thus was the obvious approach. It is not clear exactly how each Seleucid king embraced his duties, However, we do know that over a span of 140 years Seleucid kings “threw themselves into heading the Babylonians religiously as well as politically.”

Alexander performed in ceremonies before Bel Marduk and order to rebuild the temple (embellish, repair and perhaps extend the building) . Alexander’s Seleucid successors maintained his active interest in local religion. The Antiochus I cylinder from Borshippa, points to royally funded policy of temple building. The cylinder recounts Antiochus visiting Borhippa in the course of a festival and making sacrifices in Ezida.

“When I decided to rebuild Esgalia and Ezida, the bricks for Esgalia and Ezida I molded with my pure hands (using) fine quality oil in the land of Hatti and for the laying of the foundation of Esgalia and Ezida I brought (them).”

The Cylinder reproduces in style exactly the traditional Babylonian building inscriptions- royal titiliture. It then gives an account of the ruler’s pious decision to build and how he went about doing the work. It conclude with the kings payer for beneficence from the god of the temple under construction. The Evidence of the Antiochus Cylinder is supported by 274/3 entry in the  Astronomical diaries. The diaries note the arrival of Seleucid deputy general appointed by the king  who supplied the butchers of Esaglia with a bull and  sheep for regular Seleucus III to the chief administrator (satammu) of Esaglia  to draw on royal resources to pay for the offerings that were  to be made to the Babyonian gods as par of the new year celebrations where offerings were to be made on behalf of Seleucus the king and his sons . The entry for year 187 is particularly Interesting, not only does it document involvement with Babylonian ceremony but also the Babylonians paying homage by presenting the king with the garment of King NebukenezzerII

[…] to Babylon […]… […]the house of … which … […] their… sacrificed] cattle and sheep for his (i.e. Aniochus III’s) life and for the life of his wife and sons […] which were in his hands … this … this… three times with the … merry – making and […] entered. The 4th, at Kasikila, the great gate of Esangil … cattle and sheep for Bel, Bel[tiya … and for the life] of his wife and his sons he sacrificed (and) prostrated himself. The satammu of Esangil and the Babylonians, the assembly of Esangil […] under it, a crown of 1,000 shekels of gold they presented to king Antiochus. That day, the governor of Babylon […go]ld they presented to king Antiochus. That day he went up to Esangil and prostrated himself. That day, he entered the akitu temple; cattle and sheep […T]intir, a golden crown… a golden box of Beltiya, and the purple garment of King Nebukenezzer, which in the treasure house […] his […] came out from the treasure house. That day, he entered his palace.

The presentation of this garment, shows an acceptance on both the Seleucid and Babylonian sides that the former represent a continuity with neo- Babylonian kings and thus rule legitimately.

Examining the ideology of kingship in the Assyrian, Achaemenid and Seleucid empires  brought to light parallels and continuities between the three. Assyrian and Achaemenid ideologies held similar notions of the position of the king; existing above all other men but below the gods. In both the king was especially selected by the gods to perform his role and was given extraordinary powers to ensure his success. Whilst being very similar in the respect Assyrians and Achaemenids were very different elsewhere. The former  sought to establish religious homogeneity throughout the empire. Assyrians believed themselves to be the bringers of order and culture and did not allow for religious diversity in the empire. Achaemenids on the other hand whilst also believing themselves to be the legitimate rulers of the empire and like the Assyrians before them collected tribute from their subject countries, celebrated the cultural diversity that existed in the empire and did not attempt to stamp it out.

The defeat of the Persian army at the battle of Isis (333 B.C) brought with it a change of ruler but not a change in Ideology. Alexander sought to establish ideological continuity with his Persian predecessors. The early Seleucids, like Alexander supported local cults, participated in religious ceremonies and actively encouraged the worship of local gods. In Babylonia the bestowal of Nebukenzzers garment on Antiochus shows that Seleucid kings were accepted as legitimate successors of previous Babylonian kings. Seleucid participation in local religious festivals saw them given the status of religious figures. Whether intentionally or not, Seleucid kings became close partners of god and legends of their extraordinary physical prowess elevated them to an almost superhuman status of the kind that Achaemenid and Assyrian kings enjoyed.

Though change is inevitable between the three chronological empires, it is interesting that many continuities exist as well. Each succeeding empire attempts to be better then its predecessors, to bring order or better culture to a failing regime. But each also recognized the benefits of learning from the past, adapting and improving.

         

 Figures:

Fig A

round-topped vertical stela  found at Kurkh, Turkey, 1861.

Shows the Assyrian King Shalmaneser III facing the symbols of four gods.

 

Fig B

Steal depicting Ashurbanipal facing the symbols of the four gods

Note on symbols:

The five symbols depicted here are as follows:

 Ishtar

The second symbol resembles that the staff of Adad:  it represents lightning and thunder.

 Sin the moon god

 Assur

Fig C

   

Jeho Panel From the Black obelisk of Shalmenser III, Calah, 1946.

The Israelite King Jeho bows down to Shalmenser III whilst bringing tribute to him. The symbols of two gods are visible above the king.

In the British museum

Fig D

     

The Seal of Darius, 500 BC

Fig E

          Orinst P 58722 Naqs- I- Rustam, Iran. Tomb Of Xerxes. Whowing ahura mazda as a figure inside a winged disk

Fig F

Ashur represendted as a figure inside a winged disk

Fig G

Fig H

Fig I

 Bibliography

F. M. Fales and J. N. Postgate , illustrations edited by Julian Reade, Imperial administrative records,  Helsinki University Press  (1992)

Kuhrt, Amélie, The ancient Near East : c.3000-330 BC , London : Routledge, (1995)

Briant, Pierre.:  From Cyrus to Alexander : a history of the Persian Empire; translated by Peter T. Daniels..
 Winona Lake, Ind. : Eisenbrauns (2002)

Abraham J. Sachs and Hermann Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, Volume I: Diaries from 652 - 262 BC, Osterreichischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften, Wien

M.M Austin The Hellenistic world from Alexander to the Roman conquest : a selection of ancient sources in translation /  M.M. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press  (198)

                                                 

---