580 PERSIA [MEDO-PERSIAN 358-344. and affability, but, even if they are true, they have little significance. The contempt for his brother which Cyrus exhibited was perfectly justified ; under the effeminate king the empire gradually fell to pieces. Arta- But his successor, Ochus, who took the title of Artaxerxes xerxes (TIL), was of a different stamp. True, it is not perfectly 1 certain that the great restoration of the empire is to be ascribed to his personal influence; it may be that the whole merit belongs to some of his officials, and that he only lent it his name, but it is much more probable that the initiative was his. He was, it appears, one of those great despots who can raise up again for a time a decayed Oriental empire, who shed blood without scruple and are not nice in the choice of means, but who in the actual position of affairs do usually contribute to the welfare of the state as a whole. At the very beginning of his reign he secured himself on the throne by a massacre of his nearest relatives, though no doubt the statement of Curtius (x. 5, 23) is exaggerated. 1 The judgment of the Greek writers on Artaxerxes III. was too much influenced by such deeds as found an historian in Dinon, as well as by the hatred of the Egyptians, whom he humbled and mortally offended; hence it was one-sided and unjustly unfavourable. Defec- But for a while the empire was in a state of absolute dis- tion of solution. Artabazus, satrap of the Hellespontine Phrygia, barn ver ^ P ro ^ a ^^y a son f Pharnabazus and immediate suc cessor of Ariobarzanes, had fought against Autophradates as early as 365 and been taken prisoner by him. At that time the Athenians had acted against him openly enough, at least towards the end. 2 But it is not clear how far Artabazus then rebelled against the king, who was father to his mother, Apama. But at the time of the so-called Social War (about 355) he fought against the king s sa traps and was powerfully supported by the Athenians. Chares won for him a great victory over Tithraustes. And, when, at the king s threats, Athens left him in the lurch, he was able, being well furnished with money, to procure the services of the Theban Pammenes, and main tained himself for a long time. The turn in his fortune seems to have come from the Thebans also entering into an understanding with the king. About 350 we find Arta bazus a fugitive at the court of Philip of Macedonia, and with him his brother-in-law, the Rhodian Memnon. How ever, after the subjugation of Egypt, Memnon s brother Mentor, who, like Memnon, was one of the most distin guished generals of his time, succeeded in procuring pardon for both, and thenceforward Artabazus remained loyal down to the overthrow of the empire. Revolt of The revolt of Orontes (or Orontas) fell somewhat later. Orontes. Probably he is the same whom we found above betraying his comrades. He may very well have received the rule over a wide coast district 3 as the price of his treachery (see Diod., xv. 92). He is mentioned in 354 by Demosthenes 1 More distant relatives were left alive, as lie who was afterwards Darius III. and his brother, Oxyathres. A son of the Darius who was executed appears in Arrian, i. 16, 3 (334 B.C.). Thus the king did not extirpate even the branch that was most dangerous to him. It is to be remembered that even Alexander the Great, after ascending the throne, put several near relatives out of the way. 2 Owing to the inconstant nature of the foreign policy of Athens at that time a policy too often influenced by the personal interests of the great captains of mercenaries as well as to the shifting atti tude of the satraps, it is impossible for us to form a clear conception of these events from the isolated statements of contemporaries (like Demosthenes and ^Eneas Tacticus) and later writers. It is to be observed that in these decades violent revolutions took place in some Greek cities under Persian supremacy, and that they even made war on each other. With the restless character of the Greeks such things were not to be averted unless each town was occupied by a Persian garrison, which was certainly not the case. 3 There are coins ascribed to Larnpsacus and to Clazoruenie bearing the name of an Orontes. (De symmoriin, 186) as an enemy of the king. In 349/348 the Athenians formed an alliance with him. From the fragmentary inscription in which this is recorded it does not follow with certainty that at that time he was still in rebellion. About his end we knoAV nothing, but perhaps he was removed after the restoration of Artabazus. That from the outset Artaxerxes III. was believed to be a person of greater activity than his father may perhaps be inferred from the rumour current in 354/353 that the king was preparing a great expedition against Athens and Greece. Many Greek states may certainly have had a guilty conscience towards the king on account of their wavering policy and the purely mercenary support which they had repeatedly lent to rebellious satraps. Demosthenes warned the Athenians against taking up a hostile attitude to the king on the ground of mere rumours. 4 The war in Egypt still went on. And now the cities of Phce- Phcenicia, previously so trustworthy, also revolted, and so nicia did the kings of Cyprus. Even in Judaea there must have su been an insurrectionary movement. The revolted Sidonians showed such exasperation that we can hardly avoid the supposition that Persian rulers had wounded their religious feelings, the sensitive side of Semitic peoples. The satraps Mazajus (Mazdai) of Cilicia and Belesys of Syria were driven back by Mentor, whom Nectanebus, king of Egypt, had sent to the help of Tennes, king of Sidon. But, when the great king himself took the field at the head of a powerful army, which included 10,000 Greek mercenaries, 5 Tennes and Mentor made terms. Sidon surrendered though probably only after a severe siege and was fear fully punished. More than 400,000 men are said to have burned themselves in Sidon on this occasion. The fate of the first-born of Canaan quickly brought the rest of the Phoenicians to their knees. At this time much blood was shed in Judaea also, though we have only scattered notices of the fact. 6 Mentor now went over to the king s side and fought against his former employers. It was to him and not to the Persian eunuch Bagoas that the king chiefly owed his success ; but undoubtedly the royal presence contributed much to the result by facilitating rapid deci- Egypt sions and preventing dangerous jars. Mentor succeeded cou " in everywhere sowing dissension between the Greek mer- fiuere cenaries of the Egyptian king and the Persians ; and even more by intimidation than by the sword Egypt was, after long independence, again made a Persian province (344). 7 Artaxerxes seems to have made the "va: victis" thoroughly clear to the Egyptians, and to have treated even their religion with little more respect than Cambyses before him : temples were desecrated and sacred animals slaugh tered. For a time the Egyptians had to satisfy their rage with nicknaming the king, after the unclean Typhonian beast, "ass." Cyprus, too, was again reduced. The en- Cyprus terprise was conducted by the prince of Caria, Idrieus. reduced The Greek mercenaries were led by the well-known 4 In the speech De symmoriis. Similarly in the speech De Rhodiorum libertate (191 sq. ) he advises the Athenians not to offend the king frivolously (351 B.C.). 5 Through Diodorus and some statements of others we possess by exception fairly good information about these struggles. 6 Josephus, Arch., xi. 7, 1 ; by Eusebius s canon 1657 from Abr., and his copiers ; Solinus, xxxv. 4. The king at that time settled a num ber of Jews in Hyrcania. Judaea was forcibly pacified, perhaps by Orophernes (or Olophernes), brother of the then satrap of Cappadocia. Orophernes distinguished himself in this war (Diod., xxxi. 28) ; the assumption that it was he who reduced Judosa would explain why in the book of Judith mere romance though it is an Olophernes appears as the wicked commander who fights against the Jews. 7 So Manetho, who makes Ochus reign six years in Egypt. In harmony with this we learn from Isocrates (Phil., 102) that in 347/346 Egypt was not yet subdued, while according to the letter of King Philip (l)emosth., p. 160) in 340 the reduction of Egypt and Phoenicia had long been effected.
