PHOENICIA. by the Egyptian monarchs, and an extensive com- merce appears to have been carried on with the port of Naucratis. The next wars in which we find the Phoenicians engaged were with the Babylonians ; though the account of Berosus, that Nabopalassar, who reigned towards the end of the seventh century B. c, held Phoenicia in subjection, and that his son Nebuchadnezzar reduced it when in a state of revolt, must be regarded as doubtful. At all events, how- ever, it appears to have been in alliance with the Chaldeans at this period ; since we find it related that Apries, king of Egypt, when at war with that nation, conquered Cyprus and Phoenicia. (Herod. ii. 161 ; Diod. i. 68.) When Nebuchadnezzar as- cended the throne, we find that, after quelling a revolt of the Jews and reducing Jerusalem (b. c. 587), he marched into Phoenicia, took Sidon appa- rently by assault, with dreadful carnage, and pro- ceeded to invest Tyre. (^Ezekiel, xxvi.) For an account of this siege, one of the most memorable in ancient history, we are again indebted to Josephus (x. 11), who extracted it from Tyrian annals. It is said to have lasted thirteen years. Another Ithob.ial was at this time king of Tyre. The de- scription of the siege by Ezekiel would seem to apply to Palae-Tyrus, though it is probable that insular Tyre was also attempted. (Grote, Hist, of Greece, iii. p. 355, note.) The result of the siege is by no means clear. Berosus, indeed, affirms (op. Joseph, c. Apion. i. 20) that Nebuchadnezzar sub- dued all Syria and Phoenicia ; but there is no evi- dence of an assault upon Tyre, and the words of Ezekiel (xxix. 17) seem to imply that the siege was unsuccessful. The same dynasty continued to reign. Ithobaal was succeeded by Baal ; and the subsequent changes in the government indicate in- ternal revolution, but not subjection to a foreign power. The kings were superseded by judges or sutFetes, and after a few years the royal line ap- pears to have been restored ; but whether by the spontaneous act of the Tyrians, or by compulsion of the Babylonians, is a disputed point. Ezekiel's description of Tyre at the breaking out of the Babylonian war exhibits it as the head of the Phoenician states. Sidon and Aradus are repre- sented as furnishing soldiers and mariners, and the artisans of Byblus as working in its dockyards. (^Ezek. xxvii. 8, 9, II.) But that war was a severe blow to the power of the Tyrians, which now began to decline. Cyprus was wrested from them by Aniasis, king of Egypt, though a branch of the regal family of Tyre appears to have retained the sovereignty of Salamis for some generations. (Herod, v. 104; Isocr. Evag. p. 79. 1, 2, 28.) Merbalus was suc- ceeded by his brother Eiramus, or Hiram, during whose reign Cyrus conquered Babylon (538 b. c). When the latter monarch permitted the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem, we find Tyre and Sidon again assisting in the work {Ezra, iii. 7), a proof that their commerce was still in a flourishing state. Xenophon (Cyropaec?. i. 1. § 8) represents Cyrus as ruling over Phoenicia as well as Cyprus and Egypt; and though this is not confirmed by any collateral proof, they must at all events have very soon sub- mitted to his son Cambyses. (Herod, iii. 19.) The relations with Persia seem, however, to have been those of a voluntary alliance rather than of a forced subjection ; since, though the Phoenicians assisted Cambyses against the Egyptians, they re- fused to serve against their colonists the Cartha- ginians. Their fleet was of great assistance to the PHOENICIA. 61] Persians, and enabled Darius to make himself master of the islands off the coast of Asia Minor. (Thucyd. i. 16 ; Plat. Menex. c. 9.) Phoenicia, with Palestine and Cyprus, formed the fifth of the twenty nomes into which the empire of Darius was divided. (Ht-rod. iii. 91.) These nomes were, in fact, satrapies ; but it does not appear that they interfered with the con- stitutions of the several countries in which they were established ; at all events native princes con- tinued to reign in Phoenicia. Although Sidon be- came a royal Persian residence, it still had its native king, and so also had Tyre. (Herod, viii. 67.) When Darius was meditating his expedition against Greece, Sidon supplied two triremes and a storeship to enable Democedes to explore the coasts. (lb. iii. 136.) Subsequently the Phoenicians provided the Persians with a fleet wherewith to reduce not only the revolted Ionian cities, but even their own former colony of Cyprus. In the last of these en- terprises they were defeated by the Ionian fleet (lb. V. 108, 1 12); but they were the chief means of reducing the island of Miletus (lb. vi. 6), by the defeat which they inflicted on the lonians off Lade, (lb. c. 14.) After the subjugation of the Asiatic islands, the Phoenician fleet proceeded to the Thra- eian Chersonese, where they captured Metiochus, the son of Miltiades (lb. c. 41), and subsequently appeal- to have scoured the Aegean and to have ravaged the coasts of Boeotia. (lb. c. 118.) They assisted Xerxes in his expedition against Greece, and along with the Egyptians constructed the bridge of boats across the Hellespont. (lb. vii. 34.) They helped to make the canal over the isthmus of Mount Athos, in which, as well as in other engineering works, they displayed a skill much superior to that of the other nations employed. (lb. c. 23.) In the naval review of Xerxes in the Hellespont they carried off the prize from all competitors by the excellence of their ships and the skill of their mari- ners ; whilst among the Phoenicians themselves the Sidonians were far the most distinguished (lb. cc. 44, 96), and it was in a vessel belonging to the latter people that Xerxes embarked to conduct the review. (lb. c. 100.) The Phoenician ships com- posed nearly half of the fleet which Xerxes had col- lected ; yet at the battle of Artemisium they do not appear to have played so distinguished a jiart as the Egyptians. (lb. viii. 17.) When routed by the Athenians at Salamis they complained to Xerxes, who sat overlooking the battle on his silver-footed throne, that their ships had been treacherously sunk by the lonians. Just at this instant, however, extraordinary skill and valour were displayed by a Samothracian vessel, and the Great King, charging the Phoenicians with having falsely accused the lonians in order to screen their own cowardice and ill-conduct, caused many of them to be beheaded, (lb. c. 90.) At the battle of the Eurymedon (b. c. 466), the Phoenician fleet was totally defe.ited by the Athenians under Cimon, on which occasion 100 of their vessels were captured (Diod. xi. 62), or according to Thucydides (i. 100) 200, who, how- ever, is probably alluding to the whole number of their fleet. Subsequently the Athenians obtained such naval superiority that we tind them carrying on maritime operations on the coast of Phoenicia itself; though in their unfortunate expedition to Egypt fifty of their triremes were almost entirely destroyed by the Phoenicians. (Thucyd. i. 109.) This disgrace was wiped out by the Athenians under Anaxicrates in a great victory gained over K 11 2
