Persian voyages of discovery

[Stefan Haertel]

There is something very interesting about Alexander the Great and his campaign, but particularly about his interest in geography.

It is a very well-known fact, that Alexander appointed his general Nearchus to sail down the Indus river and along the shore of the Persian Gulf. The motives are lesser-known. It was aimed to make out a possible military and mercantile transport route from Persia to India. This failed.
Some other of Alexanders voyages of discovery are lesser well-known. For example, Nearchus was also appointed to encircle Arabia.
Alexander also sent out expeditions to find the spring of the Nile. This expedition stopped somewhere in deep Ethiopia.
Furthermore, Alexander sent out an expedition to make out the coastlines of the Caspian Sea, and see what's beyond it.
Alexander also believed, that the Indus was the same river as the Nile, because he saw crocodiles there.
This may sound a little harsh, but geographically seen, Alexander was a complete idiot, or at least like a very naive little boy. Why?
Had Alexander cared to just read Herodotus, who, as is well-known, lived more than a century before him, and whose "Histories" in Alexanders times were already a standart part of royal and scholar education, he would have found all the answers to his questions, and a lot more he never dared to ask.
Herodotus is the proof that the Achaemenid Persians ranked at least third in the importance of discovery in antiquity. Only the Phoenecians/Carthaginians and the Greeks could beat them.
Just some examples.
Herodotus mentions the fact, that the Indus is, aside from the Nile, the only river that is the home of crocodiles (which is, of course, not true, but how should he have known?). In the same passage, Herodotus explains that Darius sent out a Greek mariner named Scylax to do a great voyage: A circumnavigation of the Arabian penninsula, along the shore of the Persian Gulf, as well as a journey down the Indus to its mouth, which all succeeded. Had Alexander the Great just cared to read this, he would have saved himself a lot of trouble.->"Histories", book four.
Let's go on.
Herodotus gives a detailed description of the situation of the Caspian, and, to our very surprise, claims that it was fifteen daily journeys for a normal rowing boat alongside, and across, at its widest part, took eight days for a rowing boat to cross. ->"Histories", book one.
A Carian mariner, under Darius I, was sent out to explore the shorelines, and to prove that the Caspian wasn't just an inlet of the great Okeanos. He proved it, Herodotus wrote it down.
Now, the most interesting Persian voyage is more extensively written down in Herodotus' Histories, again in book four, after he described the Phoenecian circumnavigations of Africa (which he calls Libya. The term "Africa" originates in the Roman province of Africa, in today's Tunisia and Algeria). Herodotus gives a novel-like beginning, i.e. a Persian prince raped a virgin, Xerxes sent him out in punishment to round Africa from the pillars of Heracles (Gibraltar), if he succeeds, he is pardoned. He got bored agter a while and decided to return to Persia.
Let me quote here directly from Herodotus:
When he now came to King Xerxes to Persia, he told of his voyage and said, deep in Libya they met a tribe of little people. They were dressed with palm leaves, and, as soon as they (the Persians) disembarked from their ships, they (the little people) fled into the mountains and left behind their towns. So, they went in, but left everything intact and took only the cattle. Tey couldn't cross all of Libya, because they couldn't go further due to troubling water. But Xerxes didn't believe him and crucified him...

This is, as far as I know, the most detailed (and accurate) report of inner Africa in antiquity. Sataspes (the Persian) obviously reached Cameroon. Today still, Pygmees (the "little people", obviously) live near the coast, and in antiquity, they most propably lived directly at the coast (the shorelines were occupied, much later, propably by the Bantus, though I don't really know that here). The coast of Cameroon is mountainous. It is occupied by Mt. Cameroon (4070m), to the Carthaginians known as the "carriage of the Gods". The bad waters could be Cape Lopez in Gabon (or, perhaps, the Gabon bay itself).
I do not doubt that other mariners achieved more. But this one is the most detailed report.

Conclusion: The Persians weren't mariners themselves. Most of their voyages were carried out by Greeks, Carians or Phoenecians. But they were all carried out due to the will of the Great King. Columbus' voyage is also a Spanish one, though Columbus was an Italian (Genevan). The Great King was interested in geography, while the Greks and Phoenecians were more interested in settling grounds and trade goods (Tin Islands, Carthage, etc.)
There are also reports of Scylax surrounding India, and Persians going down to Italy, because Darius wanted to know the extense of the Greek civilization.
Everything is neatly written down in Herodotus' books, but, for some odd reason, despite the lesser accuracy of description, the other voyages of non-Persians are much more attended by scholars.
The Persians weren't a seafaring people, but they were interested in seafaring. Darius wanted to make Elam a naval province. And without interest, neither the canal between Athos (Xerxes-Canal) and Greece, nor the one between the Red Sea and the Nile would have been built. And these were engineeric acclomplishments never again to be reached until modern times with the Suez and Panama Canals.

Comments?

 

[Kublai-Khan]

Thanks, it was very interesting.

But, if i recall correctly the voyage of Nearchus succeeded, he left Patala in the mouth of the Indus and reached Susa safely without losing a single ship.
And something that surprices me is that Alexander first thought than the Indus was was the Nile, he didnt had an idea about where he was! .He was later corrected by the local population it think.
I didn´t know about those voyages in the caspian sea, that is
totally new to me.
Something that amazes me about the Persian empire is the fact of having a centralized government from the nile to the Indus, so many people from so distant places under the rule of just one guy. If it has lasted some more time trade would have been secure from China to the Mediterranean more than a thousand years before Marco Polo. (Well, that is my supposition )

The persian empire also had a very important role in the development of the people they ruled, the indians learn how to write from the persians (the sanskrit alphabet was developed from the aramean) and the indians also learned iron working from the persians.

The persians also kept the barbarian riders from the asiatic steppes in their place.

Well
i will continue later.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

But, if i recall correctly the voyage of Nearchus succeeded, he left Patala in the mouth of the Indus and reached
Susa safely without losing a single ship.

Yes, it did succeed, but the goals weren't accomplished. It was discovered that, in ancient times, the Persian Shoreline was unsuitable for any kind of traffic.

And something that surprices me is that Alexander first thought than the Indus was was the Nile, he didnt had an
idea about where he was!.He was later corrected by the local population it think.

If we look at it that way, Alexander is perhaps one of the most famous lost people in history.

Something that amazes me about the Persian empire is the fact of having a centralized government from the nile to
the Indus, so many people from so distant places under the rule of just one guy.

The most amazing thing here is, that it indeed worked. If we believed the Greeks, the Persians were uncivilized, rude, bloodthirsty Barbarians. But it is an undoubtable fact that in reality, they were a highly civilized people, who created an advanced social system of a style that got lost entirely during the Dark Ages to be redeveloped only in the last couple of centuries.

The persians also kept the barbarian riders from the asiatic steppes in their place.

Yes... and no. As a matter of fact, it could very well be that, if the Macedonians hadn't invaded first, the Persian Empire could have fallen victim to the barbarian riders (aka Sacans) shortly afterwards.
If you regard the fact that the Macedonian army was so very much suprerior to the Persian one, even the Macedonians were defeated several times by the Sacans, and could beat them only with greatest exertions. Thus, the Persians propably couldn't have resisted the new wave of Sacan invadors. Alexander's history is the proof that the Sacans had been very active during that time. The province of Khwarizmia even became independent from the Persians. If Alexander hadn't come, it could be quite likable that the Sacans had overrun the more civilized areas of Bactria and Gandhara. The Persians would propably have been cut off their richest provinces, and, if the Sacans wouldn't run over even the Persian territory, surely some other power could.
That is only a theory, but not unjustified.

 

[Nahuixtelotzin]

The confusion of Indus and Nile continued into European middle ages. Many thought that they both came from the Caspian Mountains , many held them for two of the 4 Paradise rivers...

 

[Sodak]

You seem to think Alexander didn't read Herodotus. From what you've written, it seems to me very clear that he did read the histories. Don't you find it a bit unusual that Alexander would be interested in proving exactly what H wrote about, had he not read the histories? Do you really think it is just a coincidence that he would have chosen so many of the exact same voyages? In other words, why would he have chosen precise duplication of the voyages and exploration in the histories, unless to verify what he had read?

I'd bet he was following Herodotus very closely, not blindly and unknowingly duplicating what was written in the histories - which he most likely did read, given his circumstance.

Anyway, interesting thread idea. I was not aware of the Persians doing any exploring of africa at all.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Very interesting thread.
About the Persian Empire:
It is true that the Persians were regarded as barbarians, but I think Aristotle was a big fan of Cyros.

I'm in the process of writing a paper on the possible economic causes of the "Persian Wars".

My sources are Herodotus, Aristotle, Persian inscriptions, Babylonian stone tablets and the Bible (deutero-Isaia).
Publications include Olmstead (1946) and Wiesehöfer (1996)
(suggestions?)

Olmstaed writes that the Persian empire had severe inflation, caused by the integration of Babylon. Apparently, the Babylonian banks were guilty because they issued huge amounts of credit. This in turn led to rising prices, evidenced by the administrative tablets on housing an land prices found in Babylon.

I have another theory though. The use of silver currency in the Persian Empire took hold as they conquered Ionia and Egypt, where there were Greek trading colonies.

Considering the fact that the Athenians were the only ones with acces to silvermines they could pretty much decide the silver volume. Hence they imported products from Syria and Egypt and paid for it in silver. The huge demand for silver in Babylonia (maybe caused by the banking credit) caused a push-pull effect which led to rising prices.

The ricing prices and following poverty were the root-causes of the massive uprisings which constantly plagued the Persian Empire.

Does this make sense?

I realize such an analysis perhaps suffers from being too 'modernist' , but I think that the 'primitive' nature of ancient economies was actually conducive to inflation in that the states at the time didn't have the means to fully control their economies, even though Darius did intervene in the economy by various means.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

It is true that the Persians were regarded as barbarians, but I think Aristotle was a big fan of Cyros.

Most Greeks had a very high opinion on Cyrus, even those who tried to make anti-Persian propaganda (like Aristotle). Cyrus was idolized in classic Greece. You can read this in Herodotus' histories, but most importantly, in the "Kyroupaideia" by Xenophon. While the latter one is a non-historical account of the "perfect" leader (like Machiavelli's or Frederick the Great's works, for example) it is indeed interesting that, of all possibilities, the Persian Cyrus was chosen for this piece of literature.

My sources are Herodotus, Aristotle, Persian inscriptions, Babylonian stone tablets and the Bible (deutero-Isaia).
Publications include Olmstead (1946) and Wiesehöfer (1996)
(suggestions?)

Your sources are first-rate. Wiesehöfer wrote a very good account on the economical situation of Persia, there is hardly anything I could add to that. However, you might want to look somewhere for Pierre Briant. And, for an interesting pro-Hellenic opinion on the Persian Wars, that, for once, doesen't entirely rely on Herodotus, you might want to take a look at the works of Hermann Bengtson (if anything has been translated).

Your theory is a very interesting one, and I do not doubt its truth, but I think it's only a part of the whole picture. There are so many possible causes for the Persian Wars, politcally, social, and economic.

Considering the fact that the Athenians were the only ones with acces to silvermines

That's not entirely true. Think about Thasos in the northern Aegean. And that one was rather a Persian subject at these times.

Does this make sense?

It would make sense if you could prove to me undeniably that the Persians were dependant to these silver stocks. But in every single source you will find that the wealth of the Persian Empire was indeed mythical.

My opinion of the poverty of the simple population in ancient Persia was that it was caused by the traditional feudal system of ancient Persia. We all know what can happen with such a strict feudal system; some examples are France and Afghanistan. I hope you know what I mean. Feudal landlords have always been a part of the Persian society, from the Persian rise to power until the modern day (the so-called "warlord" system in today's Afghanistan is one remnant of this). It has always been a yoke on the simple population, and lead to the fall of Persian power several times (for example the Arab conquest).