Achaemenid conquest of the Indus Valley
Achaemenid conquest of the Indus Valley | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Map of ancient India, c. 500 BCE, with the Persian frontier delineated along the Indus River and the Jhelum River[1][2][3][4] | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Belligerents | |||||||||
Achaemenid Empire |
Gandhara Kambojas | ||||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||||
Cyrus the Great Darius the Great | Various | ||||||||
Strength | |||||||||
Unknown | Unknown | ||||||||
Casualties and losses | |||||||||
Unknown | Unknown |
Around 535 BCE, the Persian king Cyrus the Great initiated a protracted campaign to absorb parts of India into his nascent Achaemenid Empire.[1] In this initial incursion, the Persian army annexed a large region to the west of the Indus River, consolidating the early eastern borders of their new realm. With a brief pause after Cyrus' death around 530 BCE, the campaign continued under Darius the Great, who began to re-conquer former provinces and further expand the Achaemenid Empire's political boundaries. Around 518 BCE, the Persian army pushed further into India to initiate a second period of conquest by annexing regions up to the Jhelum River in what is today known as Punjab.[6] At peak, the Persians managed to take control of most of modern-day Pakistan and incorporate it into their territory.
The first secure epigraphic evidence through the Behistun Inscription gives a date before or around 518 BCE. Persian penetration into the Indian subcontinent occurred in multiple stages, beginning from the northern parts of the Indus River and moving southward.[7] As mentioned in several Achaemenid-era inscriptions, the Indus Valley was formally incorporated into the Persian realm through provincial divisions: Gandāra, Hindush, and Sattagydia.
Persian rule over the Indus Valley decreased over successive rulers and formally ended with the Greek conquest of Persia, led by Alexander the Great. This brief period gave rise to independent Indian kings, such as Abisares, Porus, and Ambhi, as well as numerous gaṇasaṅghas, which would later confront the Macedonian army as it massed into the region for Alexander's Indian campaign.[1] The Achaemenid Empire set a precedence of governance through the use of satrapies,[8] which was further implemented by Alexander's Macedonian Empire, the Indo-Scythians, and the Kushan Empire.
Background and invasion
For millennia, the northwestern part of India had maintained some level of
- Cyrus the Great
The conquest is often thought to have started circa 535 BCE, during the time of
- Darius I
A successor of Cyrus the Great,
The exact area of the Province of Hindush is uncertain. Some scholars have described it as the middle and lower
According to Herodotus, Darius I sent the Greek explorer
Also according to Herodotus, the territories of Gandhara, Sattagydia, Dadicae and Aparytae formed the 7th province of the Achaemenid Empire for tax-payment purposes, while Indus (called Ἰνδός, "Indos" in Greek sources) formed the 20th tax region.
- Achaemenid army
Throughout its existence, the Achaemenid were constantly engaging in wars. Either through conquering new territories or by quelling rebellions throughout the empire. To fulfil this need, the Achaemenid Empire had to maintain a professional standing army which levied and employed personnel from all of its satraps and territories.[26]
The Achaemenid army was not uniquely Persian. Rather it was composed of many different ethnicities that were part of the vast and diverse Achaemenid Empire. Herodotus gives a full list of the ethnicities of the Achaemenid army, in which are included
Inscriptions and accounts
on the
These events were recorded in the imperial inscriptions of the Achaemenids (the Behistun inscription and the Naqsh-i-Rustam inscription, as well as the accounts of Herodotus (483–431 BCE). The Greek Scylax of Caryanda, who had been appointed by Darius I to explore the Indian Ocean from the mouth of the Indus to Suez left an account, the Periplous, of which fragments from secondary sources have survived. Hecataeus of Miletus (circa 500 BCE) also wrote about the "Indus Satrapies" of the Achaemenids.
Behistun inscription
The 'DB' Behistun inscription
King
From the dating of the Behistun inscription, it is possible to infer that the Achaemenids first conquered the areas of Gandara and Sattagydia circa 518 BCE.
Statue of Darius inscriptions
Hinduš is also mentioned as one of 24 subject countries of the Achaemenid Empire, illustrated with the drawing of a kneeling subject and a
Apadana Palace foundation tablets
Four identical foundation tablets of gold and silver, found in two deposition boxes in the foundations of the
Darius the great king, king of kings, king of countries, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenid. King Darius says: This is the kingdom which I hold, from the
Indus valley") to Lydia (Old Persian: "Spardâ") - [this is] what Ahuramazda, the greatest of gods, bestowed upon me. May Ahuramazda protect me and my royal house!— DPh inscription of Darius I in the foundations of the Apadana Palace[37]
Naqsh-e Rustam inscription
The DSe inscription[39] and DSm inscription[40] of Darius in Susa gives Thataguš (Sattagydia), Gadāra (Gandara) and Hiduš (Sind) among the nations that he rules.[39][29]
Hidūš (𐏃𐎡𐎯𐎢𐏁 in Old Persian cuneiform) also appears later as a Satrapy in the Naqsh-i-Rustam inscription at the end of the reign of Darius, who died in 486 BCE.[29] The DNa inscription[19] on Darius' tomb at Naqsh-i-Rustam near Persepolis records Gadāra (Gandāra) along with Hiduš and Thataguš (Sattagydia) in the list of satrapies.[41]
King Darius says: By the favor of Ahuramazda these are the countries which I seized outside of Persia; I ruled over them; they bore tribute to me; they did what was said to them by me; they held my law firmly;
Strabo
The extent of Achaemenid territories is also affirmed by Strabo in his "Geography" (Book XV), describing the Persian holdings along the Indus:[44]
The geographical position of the tribes is as follows: along the Indus are the Paropamisadae, above whom lies the Paropamisus mountain: then, towards the south, the Arachoti: then next, towards the south, the Gedroseni, with the other tribes that occupy the seaboard; and the Indus lies, latitudinally, alongside all these places; and of these places, in part, some that lie along the Indus are held by Indians, although they formerly belonged to the Persians.
Achaemenid administration
The nature of the administration under the Achaemenids is uncertain. Even though the Indian provinces are called "satrapies" by convention, there is no evidence of there being any satraps in these provinces. When Alexander invaded the region, he did not encounter Achaemenid satraps in the Indian provinces, but local Indian rulers referred to as hyparchs ("Vice-Regents"), a term that connotes subordination to the Achaemenid rulers.[50] The local rulers may have reported to the satraps of Bactria and Arachosia.[50]
- Achaemenid lists of Provinces
Darius I listed three Indian provinces:
Gandhara included the entire Peshawar Valley which was bound by the Swat District in the north, Afghanistan in the West, the Indus River to the south east, and Kohat District in the south.[52] The capital of the Gandhara satrapy was Pushkalavati. Archeological excavations of Pushkalavati were conducted by Mortimer Wheeler in 1962 who discovered structures built during the Achaemenid period as well as artifacts.[52]
The Achaemenid Satrapy of Hindush incorporated the Greater Punjab region in the Indus Valley. It was bound by the
The three regions remained represented among Achaemenid Provinces on all the tombs of the Achaemenid rulers after
- List of Herodotus
Herodotus (III-91 and III-94), gives a list with a slightly different structure, as some province which are presented separately in the Achaemenid inscriptions are grouped together by Herodotus when he described the tribute paid by each territory.
The Hindūš province, remained loyal till Alexander's invasion.
By about 380 BC, the Persian hold on the region was weakening, but the area continued to be a part of the Achaemenid Empire until
-
Indian soldiers on the tomb ofDarius I(c.500 BCE)
-
Indian soldiers on the tomb of Xerxes I (c.480 BCE)
-
Indian soldiers on the tomb of Artaxerxes I (c.430 BCE)
-
Indian soldiers on the tomb of Darius II (c.410 BCE)
-
Indian soldiers on the tomb of Artaxerxes II (c.370 BCE)
-
Indian soldiers on the tomb of Artaxerxes III (c.340 BCE)
Indian tributes
Apadana Palace
The reliefs at the
According to the Naqsh-e Rustam inscription of
Tribute payments
The conquered area was the most fertile and populous region of the Achaemenid Empire. An amount of tribute was fixed according to the richness of each territory.[68][66] India was already fabled for its gold.
The Indians ( Ἰνδῶν) made up the twentieth province. These are more in number than any nation known to me, and they paid a greater tribute than any other province, namely three hundred and sixty talents of gold dust.
According to Herodotus, the "Indians" ('Ινδοι, Indoi)[70]), as separate from the Gandarei and the Sattagydians, formed the 20th taxation Province, and were required to supply gold dust in tribute to the Achaemenid central government for an amount of 360 Euboean talents (equivalent to about 8300 kg or 8.3 tons of gold annually, a volume of gold that would fit in a cube of side 75 cm).[68][66] The exchange rate between gold and silver at the time of Herodotus being 13 to 1, this was equal in value to the very large amount of 4680 Euboean talents of silver, equivalent to 3600 Babylonian talents of silver (equivalent in value to about 108 tons of silver annually).[68][66] The country of the "Indians" ('Ινδοι, Indoi) was the Achaemenid district paying the largest tribute, and alone represented 32% of the total tribute revenues of the whole Achaemenid Empire.[68][66][29] It also means that Indos was the richest Achaemenid region in the subcontinent, much richer than Gandara or Sattagydia.[29] However the amount of gold in question is quite enormous, so there is a possibility that Herodotus was mistaken and that his own sources actually only meant something like the gold equivalent of 360 Babylonian talents of silver.[22]
The territories of
The Sattagydae (Σατταγύδαι), Gandarii (Γανδάριοι), Dadicae, and Aparytae (Ἀπαρύται) paid together a hundred and seventy talents; this was the seventh province
The Indians also supplied Yaka wood (teak) for the construction of Achaemenid palaces,
Contribution to Achaemenid war efforts
- Second Persian invasion of Greece (480-479 BCE)
Indians were employed in the Achaemenid army of
Herodotus, in his description of the multi-ethnic Achaemenid army invading Greece, described the equipment of the Indians:[77]
The Indians wore garments of tree-wool, and carried bows of reed and iron-tipped arrows of the same. Such was their equipment; they were appointed to march under the command of Pharnazathres son of Artabates.
— Herodotus VII 65
Herodotus also explains that the Indian cavalry under the Achaemenids had an equipment similar that of their foot soldiers:
The Indians were armed in like manner as their foot; they rode swift horses and drove chariots drawn by horses and wild asses.
— Herodotus VII 86
The Gandharis had a different equipment, akin to that of the Bactrians:
The Bactrians in the army wore a headgear most like to the Median, carrying their native bows of reed, and short spears. (...) The Parthians, Chorasmians, Sogdians, Gandarians, and Dadicae in the army had the same equipment as the Bactrians. The Parthians and Chorasmians had for their commander Artabazus son of Pharnaces, the Sogdians Azanes son of Artaeus, the Gandarians and Dadicae Artyphius son of Artabanus.
— Herodotus VII 64-66
- Destruction of Athens and Battle of Plataea (479 BCE)
After the first part of the campaign directly under the orders Xerxes I, the Indian troops are reported to have stayed in Greece as one of the 5 main nations among the 300,000 elite troops of General
Mardonius there chose out first all the Persians called
Immortals, save only Hydarnes their general, who said that he would not quit the king's person; and next, the Persian cuirassiers, and the thousand horse, and the Medes and Sacae and Bactrians and Indians, alike their footmen and the rest of the horsemen. He chose these nations entire; of the rest of his allies he picked out a few from each people, the goodliest men and those that he knew to have done some good service... Thereby the whole number, with the horsemen, grew to three hundred thousand men.
At the final
- Depictions
Indian soldiers of the three territories of Gandara, Sattagydia (Tathagatus) and Hindush are shown, together with soldiers of all the other nations, supporting the throne of their Achaemenid ruler, at Naqsh-e Rostam on the tombs of Darius I,
The presence of the three ethnicities of Indian soldiers on all the tombs of the Achaemenid rulers after
- Indians at the Battle of Gaugamela (331 BCE)
According to Arrian, Indian troops were still deployed under Darius III at the Battle of Gaugamela (331 BCE). He explains that Darius III "obtained the help of those Indians who bordered on the Bactrians, together with the Bactrians and Sogdianians themselves, all under the command of Bessus, the Satrap of Bactria".[50] The Indians in questions were probably from the area of Gandara.[50] Indian "hill-men" are also said by Arrian to have joined the Arachotians under Satrap Barsentes, and are thought to have been either the Sattagydians or the Hindush.[50]
Fifteen Indian war elephants were also part of the army of Darius III at Gaugamela.[62] They had specifically been brought from India.[92] Still, it seems they did not participate to the final battle, probably because of fatigue.[62] This was a relief for the armies of Alexander, who had no previous experience of combat against war elephants.[93] The elephants were captured with the baggage train by the Greeks after the engagement.[94]
-
Gandaran soldier of the Achaemenid army, circa 480 BCE. Xerxes I tomb.
-
Gandaran soldier (enhanced detail).
-
Sattagydian soldier of the Achaemenid army, circa 480 BCE. Xerxes I tomb.
-
Sattagydian soldier (enhanced detail).
-
Hindush soldier of the Achaemenid army, circa 480 BCE. Xerxes I tomb.
-
Hindush soldier (enhanced detail).
Greek and Achaemenid coinage
Coins found in the
Kabul and Bhir Mound hoards
The Kabul hoard, also called the Chaman Hazouri, Chaman Hazouri or Tchamani-i Hazouri hoard,[100] is a coin hoard discovered in the vicinity of Kabul, Afghanistan. The hoard, discovered in 1933, contained numerous Achaemenid coins as well as many Greek coins from the 5th and 4th centuries BCE.[97] Approximately one thousand coins were in the hoard.[100][101] The hoard is dated to approximately 380 BCE as no coins in the hoard were later than that date.[103]
This numismatic discovery has been very important in studying and dating the history of coinage of India, since it is one of the very rare instances when punch-marked coins can actually be dated, due to their association with known and dated Greek and Achaemenid coins in the hoard.[104] The hoard supports the view that punch-marked coins existed in 360 BCE, as suggested by literary evidence.[104]
Daniel Schlumberger also considers that punch-marked bars, similar to the many punch-marked bars found in north-western India, initially originated in the Achaemenid Empire, rather than in the Indian heartland:
"The punch-marked bars were up to now considered to be Indian (...) However the weight standard is considered by some expert to be Persian, and now that we see them also being uncovered in the soil of Afghanistan, we must take into account the possibility that their country of origin should not be sought beyond the Indus, but rather in the oriental provinces of the Achaemenid Empire"
— Daniel Schlumberger, quoted from Trésors Monétaires, p.42.[102]
Modern numismatists now tend to consider the Achaemenid punch-marked coins as the precursors of the Indian punch-marked coins.[105][106]
Pushkalavati hoard
In 2007, a small coin hoard was discovered at the site of ancient
According to Joe Cribb, these early Greek coins were at the origin of Indian punch-marked coins, the earliest coins developed in India, which used minting technology derived from Greek coinage.[97]