Alexander the Great in Sogdiana

Baumann 1 Ben Baumann H399 Dr. Smith 5/8/2017 Alexander the Great in Sogdiana Introduction: Alexander the Great’s military campaign in Sogdiana was one of the toughest campaigns he ever conducted. He confronted an elusive and determined adversary in what from the Greek point of view was the edge of the known world. Despite its challenges, this campaign would have a lasting impact in Central Asia. In fact, it still resonates in the historical memory of Uzbekistan today. To fully appreciate the importance of these events, we must first place Sogdiana geographically. The region of Sogdiana encompassed most of what today is known as modern Uzbekistan and part of Tajikistan. In ancient times Sogdiana bordered the region known as Bactria to the south, which included much of modern Afghanistan, and border areas of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Only an army exceptionally well-led and possessing a highly developed logistical capability could have waged an effective campaign in such a remote and forbidding location. When we examine Alexander the Great’s campaign in Sogdiana in its historical context, this is what is known. The reason for Alexander’s military campaign in Sogdiana was that he wanted to cement his position as the ruler of Asia. To do so he needed to defeat Darius, the Persian king. Before he could complete this task, though, a Persian commander by the name of Baumann 2 Bessus launched a coup resulting in the killing of Darius.1 Bessus then proclaimed himself the rightful heir to the Persian throne.2 Undeterred by these events, Alexander pursued Bessus into distant Bactria and then Sogdiana. There Alexander faced a resistance by the natives based on guerilla warfare tactics. With a show of ruthless force, Alexander defeated them and in the process conquered Sogdiana.3 Bessus would eventually be betrayed by his own men, led by Spitamenes and Dataphernes, and given up as a prisoner to Alexander the Great for execution.4 Later, a major revolt against Alexander occurred in seven cities across the region, along with Marakanada (today known as Samarkand) the “royal” city of Sogdiana, and two towns guarded by rock fortresses.5 Alexander would eventually crush the revolt and enforce his authority. However, the effort was costly and is considered by many historians to be the toughest challenge Alexander ever faced. For example, Kristin Romey states, “Nowhere else on Alexander the Great’s 22,000 mile, thirteen year march from Greece to Punjab did he encounter more difficulties than in what was known in ancient times as Sogdiana.”6 Or, as Frank L. Holt says, “There began here two years of savage warfare waged all across Sogdiana on a scale unequaled anywhere else in Alexander’s anabasis.”7 Therefore, the questions I will focus on are the following: Was Alexander the Great’s conquest successful, if so how and why? Lastly, what was the legacy of Alexander the Great after 1 Arrian. The Campaigns of Alexander. J.R. Hamilton ed. Aubrey De Selincourt trans. (New York) : Penguin Books, 1971), 184. 2 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 189. 3 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 188-195. 4 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 197. 5 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 201-237. 6 Kristin M. Romey. “The Forgotten Realm,” Archaeology Magazine, Vol. 57, No. 6. (2004). http://archive.archaeology.org/0411/abstracts/alexander.html. 7 Frank L. Holt, Alexander the Great and Bactria. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993), 53. Baumann 3 the campaign from his death to the present? To provide an answer to all these questions in turn requires careful sifting of the evidence offered in primary and secondary sources. When examining Alexander the Great’s conquest of the region of Sogdiana (encompassing most of modern day Uzbekistan) it is clear Alexander managed to successfully conquer and control Sogdiana due to his extraordinary mix of attributes and an intuitive sense of how and when to employ them. The successes achieved during the campaign were due to Alexander’s imaginative policy towards the Sogdians, which could be at times brutal or accommodating, his sharp sense of cultural and situational awareness, and his building campaign in Sogdiana that would create a makeover of that civilization. In turn, these feats left a lasting influence from his death to the present. Alexander’s legacy is evidenced through coinage, the history of the colonies he planted in the region, and the remembrance and cultural references within Uzbek society today. I. Secondary Literature Based on the modern scholarship, it is obvious that relatively little research has been done on Alexander’s Sogdian campaign. Most scholarship on Alexander the Great only briefly mentions the Sogdian campaign and offers little substantive detail. To the extent that historians mention the campaign there, it is usually in conjunction with related events in Bactria. Discussion of events in Sogdiana tend to rely on broad generalizations and assumptions, while the significance of Alexander’s efforts and reasons for the campaign are ignored. In general, scholarly opinions are divided as to the success of the campaign. Even today, comparatively few foreign scholars travel to this region, while most native scholars in Uzbekistan have focused on more recent events associated with the emergence of Uzbek identity and culture. On top of that, we must remember we are dealing with ancient history. Perhaps it is inevitable that the study of Alexander and his campaigns remains in itself a fascinating example of the Baumann 4 challenges inherent in communicating the boundaries between facts, supposition, and myth. Now that being said, there has been some meaningful work focused on the subject, which has articulated a fundamental question on which scholars remain divided: What was the impact of Alexander the Great in Sogdiana. Scholars who have worked on Sogdiana specifically, the foremost of whom is Edward Rtveladze, focus mainly on reconstructing the course of Alexander’s campaigns there, but do not address the question of his subsequent impact in the region. This also is due to the fact that a great deal about the man and his legacy is unknown, leaving scholars to attempt reconstruction of his world based on highly fragmentary evidence. Others, however, have gone farther, trying to articulate the character of the accomplishment. For example, scholar Frank L. Holt takes a critical view of Alexander the Great, arguing that he was not a successful conqueror of Sogdiana and did not have a legacy there. In contrast, other scholars like military historian David J. Lonsdale, praise the conqueror’s success in Sogdiana. Edward Rtveladze wrote by far the most detailed and comprehensive examination of Alexander's campaigns in Central Asia in his work Alexander of Macedon in Bactria and Sogdiana: Historical-Geographical Observations.8 Rtveladze spent several decades meticulously tracing the routes of Alexander's movements across modern Uzbekistan and the northern fringe of Afghanistan. His seven-step methodology places emphasis on collating findings from seven types of evidence: 1) review of all documents; 2) studying the conclusions of past researchers; 3) reviewing the travel notes of 19th-century travelers; 4) comparing old maps and place names; 5) geological and botanical analysis; 6) archaeological excavation; and 7) large-scale 8 Edward Rtveladze, Alexander of Macedon in Bactria and Sogdiana: HistoricalGeographical Observations. Translated from Russian by R. Baumann, (Tashkent: Academy of Fine Arts of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 2002), 16. Baumann 5 reconnaissance of the region and its archaeology. He offers the critical general conclusion that “The archaeological research not only confirms information from written sources about the fairly high development of this region during the Achaemenid period, but also adds many previously unknown details”9 Rtveladze does not attempt a full-scale reinterpretation of the campaigns, but rather considers the most likely routes taken by Alexander and the reason for their selection. He spent years exploring the ground where Alexander and his armies trod, and made use of many kinds of sources. For example, he consulted old maps, conferred with local natives, checked the geology and carefully scrutinized original sources to pinpoint sites of crucial river crossings of the Amu and Syr Rivers. This was a matter of no small importance in shaping Alexander's strategy. By raising many questions about the physical landscape at the time, the book also gives some indication of all that we do not yet know about Alexander's exploits in this relatively rich, but little-explored archaeological region. In contrast to the works of Frank L. Holt, a leading scholar on Alexander the Great in Sogdiana, this book does not say anything in regard to the legacy of Alexander the Great in Sogdiana. Frank L. Holt, in turn, writes about both Bactria and Sogdiana in Lost World of the Golden King: In Search of Ancient Afghanistan, which adopts a broad approach, focusing on the history of scholarship and archaeology of the region of Bactria. His next work Into the Land of Bones addresses the history of attempted conquests in Afghanistan from Alexander the Great to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and then focuses specifically on Alexander the Great’s conquest of the region formerly known as Bactria. Holt boldly asserts that all invasions of Afghanistan throughout history 9 Edward Rtveladze, Alexander of Macedon in Bactria and Sogdiana: HistoricalGeographical Observations, Baumann 6 could not find a solution for Afghanistan’s “recipe for ruin.”10 Holt describes Alexander’s ‘exit strategy’ from Afghanistan as leaving an army permanently settled in the region.11 This would allow Alexander to pursue conquests elsewhere. Holt also details why Alexander’s conquest in Bactria was so difficult, noting in an implied comparison to recent events that it was hard to tell what Bactrians were allies and which were enemies. This resulted in Alexander the Great’s army adopting a shape-shifting strategy when dealing with Bactrians; as Holt explains, “One minute they were asked to kill with ruthless and indiscriminate intensity, the next they were expected to show deference to survivors.”12 In Alexander the Great and Bactria, Holt carefully details the Bactrian and Sogdian campaign. Holt attempts to reveal what these regions were like before, during, and after Alexander’s occupation of the area. Holt’s goal is to address what Alexander did in the region without bias and by making the most of the limited information available. Holt in fact challenges Alexander’s legacy and success in the region. For example, Holt argues that Alexander did not transform the Sogdians’ way of life, asserting that important changes only came after Alexander left, claiming that these changes were implemented by the men appointed by Alexander to govern the settlements he established.13 Holt also argues that Alexander never fully conquered Sogdiana: “Alexander’s conquest of Sogdiana was never really completed, so that local concessions (and a Sogdian bride) were used to extricate Alexander for campaigns elsewhere. The king marched on, but the fighting 10 Frank L. Holt, Into the Land of Bones: Alexander the Great in Afghanistan. (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2006), 18. 11 Holt, Into the Land of Bones: Alexander the Great in Afghanistan, 19. 12 Holt, Into the Land of Bones: Alexander the Great in Afghanistan, 20. 13 Holt, Alexander the Great and Bactria, 69-70. Baumann 7 continued until the first of the settlers’ revolts. Under such circumstances, it is unlikely that Alexander’s artificial ‘march state’ survived on the Sogdian frontier.”14 If true, this would put into question whether Alexander’s campaign was a success. “The Failure of Alexander’s Conquest and Administration of Bactria-Sogdiana” by Michele Smith, like Holt, heavily criticizes Alexander’s Sogdian campaign as a failure. Smith believes based on ancient evidence that Alexander failed to successfully conquer, control, and manage Sogdiana.15 Smith also delves into the debate as to why Alexander interfered with the relations between the Scythians and Sogdians, describing how Alexander created unnecessary tension as a result.16 Smith states that after Alexander the Great left for India, Sogdiana remained unsubdued and due to this Alexander left 13,500 troops in the region.17 Also, there was an attempted coup by some of Alexander’s soldiers to leave Sogdiana and return home.18 More evidence of Alexander’s failure in Sogdiana, according to Smith, comes from what happened after Alexander’s death. After his death, more rebellions by former soldiers of Alexander the Great occurred.19 Consequently, Smith sees a campaign filled with mistakes that ultimately resulted in failure. 14 Holt, Alexander the Great and Bactria, 101. Michele, Smith “The Failure of Alexander’s Conquest and Administration of BactriaSogdiana.”Hirundo, the McGill Journal of Classical Studies 8. Montreal: McGill University, (2009): 64, https://www.mcgill.ca/classics/files/classics/2009-10-06.pdf. 16 Smith, “The Failure of Alexander’s Conquest and Administration of BactriaSogdiana.”, 66. 17 Smith, “The Failure of Alexander’s Conquest and Administration of BactriaSogdiana.”, 69-70. 18 Smith, “The Failure of Alexander’s Conquest and Administration of BactriaSogdiana.”, 69-70. 19 Smith, “The Failure of Alexander’s Conquest and Administration of BactriaSogdiana.”, 69-70. 15 Baumann 8 Borja Antela-Bernandez, in “World is not enough (Alexander the Great in Sogdiana: A study in historiography),” describes the history of how scholars interpret the Sogdian campaign of Alexander the Great throughout history and how scholars often attempt to understand this campaign by comparing it to more contemporary military campaigns.20 Antela-Benandez believes this practice to be ineffective and feels that scholars trying to make these connections between the Sogdian campaign and contemporary campaigns like the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, are oversimplifying the Sogdian campaign.21 For example, Frank L. Holt attempts to make this exact connection between the Sogdian campaign and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.22 Antela-Bernandez further explains “This is not, of course, a reprehensible practice at all, but the historian must make himself conscious of what he is explaining and of the reasons for doing so, in order to explain without mysteries his explicative intentions to the reader.”23 This source creates an intriguing argument and exposes the flaws of many scholarly interpretations of Alexander’s Sogdian campaign. By superimposing the lens of contemporary events over the limited record of the ancient past, a researcher might find crucial insight, but could also be misled to discover false parallels. This is not to say that such an approach may not draw Borja, Antela-Bernandez, “World is not enough (Alexander the Great in Sogdiana: A study in historiography).” In Central Asian in Antiquity: Interdisciplinary Approaches, BAR International Series 2665 edited by Borja Antela-Bernandez and Jordi Vidal. Oxford: Archaeopress, (2014): 77, https://www.academia.edu/2437963/World_is_not_enough_Alexander_the_Greats_campaigns_a gainst_the_guerrillas_in_Sogdiana. 21 Antela-Bernandez, “World is not enough (Alexander the Great in Sogdiana: A study in historiography).”, 83. 22 Antela-Bernandez, “World is not enough (Alexander the Great in Sogdiana: A study in historiography).”, 83. 23 Antela-Bernandez, “World is not enough (Alexander the Great in Sogdiana: A study in historiography).”, 83. 20 Baumann 9 interesting and helpful comparisons, but it often risks skewing the understanding of primary sources based on the presumption of patterns or analogies between past and present. Attempts to study ancient campaigns from a military perspective often make use of a contemporary analytical lens. Military historian David J. Lonsdale’s book Alexander the Great: Lessons in strategy, focuses on Alexander the Great’s military career, but analyzes in depth the campaign in Sogdiana. Lonsdale describes Alexander’s campaign in Sogdiana as counterinsurgency, a term widely employed in modern military studies to describe efforts to defeat guerilla resistance. Lonsdale asserts that Alexander had a clear political objective to create a stable and unified country. Therefore, his concept for governance dealt with social, economic, security, and administrative problems, as well as a strategic plan to secure his base areas.24 Lonsdale also spends much time analyzing Alexander’s success in Sogdiana, and takes a position opposing the thesis of Holt and others who would diminish Alexander’s significance. Lonsdale contends, “Alexander had to complement his military conquests with astute pre- and post-conflict policies to cement his rule. This is not to detract from the significance of Alexander’s military achievements, upon which the conquests were based. Indeed, the nonmilitary elements of Alexander’s grand strategy would have been extremely vulnerable without the security and authority delivered by force.”25 Lonsdale’s argument makes us wonder whether Holt misunderstands the military strategy of Alexander the Great. Military strategy never operates in a vacuum. Why does the act of making concessions with the Sogdians, as Holt claims, undermine the assertion that Alexander the Great conquered Sogdiana? 24 David J. Lonsdale, Alexander the Great: Lessons in Strategy (New York: Routledge, 2009), 95. 25 Lonsdale, Alexander the Great: Lessons in Strategy, 46. Baumann 10 As the works of Holt and Lonsdale demonstrate, a key point of debate remains the ultimate success and impact of his efforts in Sogdiana. It is useful to examine more closely the points of divergence between the two camps. In the first are those with the view that Alexander’s campaign was unnecessary and ineffective. Take Holt, for example, who argues that Alexander’s colonial successors were the ones who really changed Sogdiana.26 Holt also argues Alexander never fully conquered Sogdiana, because revolts continued after he left.27 Smith takes a very similar view as Holt. In the opposing camp, the prevailing view is that Alexander was for the most part successful based on a flexible and imaginative approach. Moreover, as we have seen, Antela-Bernandez cautions against reading the present into the past. And then there is Lonsdale, who brings a unique military background to his analysis and takes a position in favor of Alexander, supporting the idea of a successful campaign, without addressing the question of lasting impact. In conclusion, it is evident that the competing models analyzing Alexander’s Sogdian campaign reflect the need for a reassessment of this campaign. To be persuasive, this reassessment must include a multidimensional analysis of the evidence based on all aspects of the campaign. II. Primary Sources When we examine the very incomplete primary source evidence for Alexander the Great, it is often tricky to decipher what explanation of events is most likely to be true. Because many of the writings concerning Alexander the Great did not survive, modern authors have little 26 27 Holt, Alexander the Great and Bactria, 69-70. Holt, Alexander the Great and Bactria, 101. Baumann 11 recourse but to provide hypothetical narratives that seem to fit available information, or to fill in important gaps with informed conjecture. That, combined with potential for bias on the part of the authors, increases the complexity. It is striking that historians have taken very different positions; some have used distinctive perspectives or emphasized certain types of detail to shape their accounts. Collectively, these accounts offer much to help construct the story of Alexander the Great. This paper relies above all on the most trusted primary source The Campaigns of Alexander by Arrian. As historian A.B. Bosworth states, “His [Arrian’s] work is the most complete and the most sober account of Alexander’s reign and at the same time it provides explicit information about the sources used.”28 In addition, I have referenced another highly regarded work on Alexander called The Age of Alexander by Plutarch. Next, I used the Complete Works of Diodorus Siculus , which is well regarded and features primary source material on Alexander. Lastly, I used the slightly more controversial account by Quintus Curtius Rufus The History of Alexander, which if read carefully can provide useful information regarding Alexander’s campaign in Sogdiana. Rufus may have taken some literary license, but generally adhered to well-known facts of the campaigns. Bosworth details the dangers of this source in the following manner: “There is also the problem of embellishment and exaggeration in the immediate source. That is the particular danger with Rufus whose work is deeply infused with rhetoric.”29 The advantage of these sources is that they are using sources from many people who witnessed or lived during or closer to the times of Alexander. Therefore, they give us the best possible literary evidence regarding Alexander. 28 Ian Worthington, ed., Alexander the Great: A Reader. (London and New York: Routledge, 2012), 14. 29 Worthington, Alexander the Great: A Reader, 13. Baumann 12 Arrian was a Greek historian born in the 2nd century A.D. in the Roman Empire.30 Arrian wrote The Campaigns of Alexander, the only source known that goes into significant detail regarding Alexander’s military actions from the beginning of his career to the end. The sources on which Arrian relied to write his book include the writings of Ptolemy and Aristobulus.31 Ptolemy was a general under Alexander the Great.32 Aristobulus also served under with Alexander in an important capacity.33 Arrian details Alexander the Great’s campaign in Sogdiana, providing a nice summary of all the events from Alexander’s struggles with rebellions, relating how Alexander conquered the region and what he left behind. Therefore, this is the foundational source all scholars employ when studying Alexander the Great’s campaign in Sogdiana. Plutarch was a Greek Philosopher born about 45 A.D.34 He wrote a biography of Alexander the Great called The Age of Alexander. This source takes us from the beginning of Alexander’s reign as king at the age of twenty to his death and its aftermath. Besides being a biography of Alexander, Plutarch’s work has another goal: to reveal as much as possible about Alexander’s character and personality.35 30 Worthington, Alexander the Great: A Reader, 18. Simon Hornblower and Antony Spaworth, eds. The Oxford Classical Dictionary (3 rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. http://www.oxfordreference.com.ezproxy.csbsju.edu/view/10.1093/acref/9780198606413 .001.0001/acref-9780198606413-e-279?rskey=EKTQEg&result=280. 32 Worthington, Alexander the Great: A Reader, 1. 33 A. B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 297. 34 Plutarch. The Age of Alexander (London: Penguin Classics, 2012), 3. 35 Holt, Into the Land of Bones: Alexander the Great in Afghanistan, 167. 31 Baumann 13 Diodorus Siculus was a Greek historian born in the 1st century B.C.36 His work is about the history of the world from the Trojan War to about 59 B.C.37 The goal of his book was to convert stories of myth to factual histories.38 In his book he has a section on Alexander, which details his military campaigns until his death. Then it talks about the successors of Alexander. Meanwhile, Quintus Curtius Rufus was a Roman born in the 1st century A.D. in the Roman Empire.39 In his account, he used sources such as Cleitarchus, to write The History of Alexander, which focuses broadly on the reign of Alexander the Great. Cleitarchus is important because he had access to the first hand reports of Alexander.40 This work offers many observations concerning the character and life of Alexander, rather than the specifics of his military campaigns. Therefore, it is very engaging in terms of assessing the mind and ambitions of Alexander. As for the other types of evidence used in this study, I have drawn from the field of archaeology for information relating to Alexander the Great and his presence in the region of Bactria and Sogdiana. Although excavations of this part of the world have been far less extensive than in lands to the west, notable findings have occurred that shed additional light on the subject. Reports of excavations by archaeologists have done much to corroborate other kinds of information. In addition, while in Uzbekistan, I have had the opportunity to visit some sites of interest, as well as to examine archaeological evidence contained in museums throughout 36 Diodorus Siculus, The Complete Works of Diodorus Siculus (Hastings: Delphi Classics, 2014), 7. 37 Siculus, The Complete Works of Diodorus Siculus, 7. Siculus, The Complete Works of Diodorus Siculus, 7. 39 Worthington, Alexander the Great: A Reader, 2-18. 40 Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great, 297. 38 Baumann 14 Uzbekistan. Some of these featured artifacts from the region of Sogdiana. What is so useful about this type of evidence is that it provides persuasive proof in regard to Alexander the Great’s occupation of the region and his legacy beyond. Lastly, I have incorporated modern evidence that reflects the current state of legacy of Alexander the Great as well. This evidence lends support to the contention that the memory Alexander the Great still to this very day resonates with the people living in the region formerly known as Sogdiana. Moreover, many inhabitants of Uzbekistan connect Alexander the Great with their own historical identity. The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia by Rachel Mairs focuses primarily on the archaeology of the ancient site at Ai Khanoum, which was founded by Alexander the Great. She uses this site to illustrate the legacy of Alexander the Great in the region. She also describes briefly the campaign in Sogdiana and the resistance Alexander faced. In Mairs’ other work, “The Founder’s Shrine and the Foundation of Ai Khanoum,” she addresses the origins of Ai Khanoum and the extreme difficulty of establishing evidence of “influence.” Mairs states that despite the fact there is no literary evidence for the existence of Ai Khanoum and its foundation, and that it lacks sure evidence of Greco-Macedonian influence, it might nonetheless have been a settlement of Alexander the Great.41 Many settlements were thought to only be temporary. Eventually, though, some of these sites would become cities. Therefore, we can suggest based on the post-Alexander archaeology that this site was in fact founded by GrecoMacedonians.42 41 Rachel Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2014), 5. 42 Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia, 5. Baumann 15 Scholar Leonid Sverchkov focuses specifically on the archaeology of the Kurganzol Fortress. This is described in his work “The Kurganzol Fortress.” This article goes into detail regarding the remnants of the Kurganzol Fortress and focuses on the history of the fortress from its founding by Alexander the Great to its last occupation. Next, we have the Bactrian archaeology of the site Kampyr-Tepe. The article by Kristin M. Romey, “The Forgotten Realm of Alexander,” focuses on the Kampyr-Tepe Citadel, as an example of Alexander’s legacy, and mentions that many archaeological sites connected to Alexander the Great in Uzbekistan remain unexcavated, due to archaeologists’ focus on other regions. She also briefly summarizes his campaign in Sogdiana and stresses that Alexander built more fortresses in Sogdiana than anywhere else he campaigned. This claim certainly figures into an analysis of Alexander’s strategy in the region. With regard to fragmentary physical evidence, “Tableware in the Hellenistic Tradition from the City of Kampyr Tepe in Ancient Bactria (Uzbekistan)” by V. Martinez Ferreras, J.M. Gurt Esparraguera, S. Pidaev, Edward Rtveladze, and S. B. Bolelov pays attention primarily to the various Hellenistic tableware found at the site as mentioned in the title. However, the authors also devote effort to documenting the fortress’ location and apparent purpose. Kampyr-Tepe is alsodiscussed by Valerii P. Nikonorov’s in “A Unique Comb from Kampyr-Tepe (Northern Bactria,” which describes in specific detail the various archaeological findings at Kampyr-Tepe, as well as offering a brief review of the history of the site. Finally, Cohen’s book, The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India, gives quick summaries concerning various settlements in the Eastern world. One of these summaries is specifically on the site of Kampyr-Tepe, and reviews the history of the site and the variety of artifacts found there. Baumann 16 As for the archaeological evidence from Sogdiana. I did research on the coinage of Greco-Bactrian kings, which included seven gold coins coming from the State Museum of History of Uzbekistan in Tashkent and six silver coins from the Afrasiab Museum in Samarkand. In the State Museum of History of Uzbekistan in Tashkent I also saw Hellenistic figurines. These artifacts were found in Samarkand at the former site of Marakanda. At the Afrasiab Museum, besides the coins, I saw a Hellenistic flask, and a Hellenistic column base all found at the site of Marakanda. Lastly, I also traveled to the small city of Nurata and saw the Nur Fortress, which is widely claimed by local inhabitants to have been founded (or substantially improved) by Alexander the Great. The geographical location and topography of Nurata certainly would have made it a suitable place to establish a fortress; however, archaeologists have not reported on excavations from this site and no specific reference to the place can be found in the ancient sources. Of course, the fortified locations established by Alexander were probably so numerous as to make mention of every last one in the sources improbable. Finally, the modern evidence I have collected to support the legacy and influence of Alexander the Great includes the layout of museums and the exhibits regarding Alexander the Great. In addition, I paid close attention to what local Uzbeks said about Alexander the Great and how he is remembered in Uzbekistan. Whether tour guides from museums and cities, or just ordinary residents, almost everyone had opinions about Alexander the Great. These opinions were unsolicited by me. I would not mention to people, unless asked, that I was in Uzbekistan for my research on Alexander the Great, because I wanted to know people’s genuine thoughts on the matter. I believe this allowed me to learn about the popular remembrance of Alexander the Great in the country. It is also important to note that this is not a country with a vast tourist industry; therefore, there is little probability that fabricated stories of Alexander the Great are Baumann 17 being used to appeal to tourists. Tourism in general highlights the ancient Silk Road and civilization centered at Samarkand long after Alexander passed through. Other evidence I gathered comes from things or places named after Alexander the Great, or at least named after something connected to Alexander. Also, there are modern memorials and novels connected to Alexander. All this information was gathered by traveling throughout the country and visiting sites connected to Alexander. In turn, it became clear to me Alexander had significant influence in this region of the world. He is a person Uzbeks actively remember, not just someone you only hear about in museums. Overall, I addressed my research from as many different angles as possible in consideration of the highly fragmentary nature of the evidence unearthed to date on this ancient period. No single category of evidence is sufficient to provide a detailed picture of Alexander’s activities and influence. Even though literary information is very important, it is still prone to bias and unnecessary conjecture. Physical evidence requires context, but offers vital confirmation of accounts in primary sources. The point of history is to identify what is most likely to be true; that means you use all evidence at your disposal. III. The Success of Alexander the Great One of the fundamental questions addressed in this thesis is whether or not Alexander’s campaign in Sogdiana can be considered a success. The answer depends in large part on what Alexander himself wanted to achieve. Analysis of this question inevitably leads to consideration of a second question: the attributes and means that enabled Alexander to pursue this purpose. Available commentary from ancient writers indicates that Alexander was incredibly driven to achieve great deeds. Plutarch describes the mentality of Alexander the Great in the Baumann 18 following “He cared nothing for pleasure or wealth but only for deeds of valour and glory, and this was why he believed that the more he received from his father, the less would left for him to conquer…his choice was a life of struggle, of wars, and of unrelenting ambition.”43 When Alexander the Great left Sogdiana after conquering the region, he was quickly surprised that a rebellion started immediately after he left. What Alexander did not realize was how complex the situation in Sogdiana was. Certainly, the conquest of Sogdiana had not originally been a high priority. The Sogdians as a people were broken up into tribes governed by warlords.44 This tribal framework did not dissolve after his initial conquest, and when he left, seven towns rebelled, as well as the royal city of Sogdiana called Marakanda (today known as Samarkand) and two towns protected by rock fortresses.45 The specific reasons for this rebellion are hard to identify. Arrian mentions that fear may have been a driving force.46 Frank L. Holt, on the other hand, believes it was due to the planned establishment of Alexandria-Eschate on the Sogdian-Scythian border. Since the Sogdians on the border had good relations with the Scythians, Alexander the Great sought to eliminate the prospect of outside interference by the latter.47 Holt blames Alexander, implying Alexander the Great’s effort was not worth the trouble and had he not meddled in the internal affairs of the natives, he could have avoided the rebellion altogether and not needed to conquer Sogdiana.48 The scholar Michele Smith agrees with Holt and criticizes Alexander in regard to Alexandria-Eschate stating “This was a strong imposition on local institutions and necessitated the annexation of land from locals, 43 Plutarch, The Age of Alexander, 257. Holt, Into the Land of Bones: Alexander the Great in Afghanistan, 51. 45 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 201-237. 46 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 201. 47 Holt, Alexander the Great and Bactria, 54-70. 48 Holt, Alexander the Great and Bactria, 69. 44 Baumann 19 which was sure to ignite opposition…. Thus, the management of this satrapy reflected Alexander’s lack of understanding of the importance of maintaining previous Persian administration methods.”49 The problem with these interpretations, though, is that they do not do justice to Alexander’s purpose and they make assumptions. Alexander the Great was not trying to make peace or avoid trouble, nor maintain the same agenda as the Persians. Had this been his modus operandi, he probably would never have come to Sogdiana in the first place. Holt and Smith are not thinking like a commander, or better yet a conqueror. More probably, they are thinking like a diplomat. It is also important to point out that Holt’s analysis of Alexander’s failures largely views them through a twentieth-century lens. In Into the Land of Bones, one of Holt’s points is to compare Alexander’s conquest of Sogdiana and Bactria to the modern invasions of Afghanistan. Of course, nineteenth- and twentieth-century campaigns in Afghanistan generally did not turn out well for the invading power. According to Holt, this helps us understand the Sogdian campaign. Outsiders, in this view, cannot fathom the complex internal politics of Afghanistan or effectively defeat the Afghan tribes in the incredibly difficult terrain that characterizes the country. This gives us useful insight into the potential flaws of Holt’s argument. The problem with the argument is that Alexander created settlements in Sogdiana as well as the blueprint for their governance. As a result, without Alexander the Great, the settlements would never have existed and the Sogdians’ way of life would not have changed. Therefore, arguments like Holt’s are largely self-refuting. This argument turns on definitions of success. Continued resistance did not necessarily mean that Alexander the Great did not control Smith, “The Failure of Alexander’s Conquest and Administration of BactriaSogdiana.”, 66. 49 Baumann 20 Sogdiana. His network of fortresses and garrisons left him in a strong position, as the extension of Greek control after his death would affirm. Moreover, it is important to remember that warfare was commonplace in ancient times in this region. As Antela-Bernandez, describes, when it comes to understanding the Sogdian campaign many scholars attempt to explain the decisions of Alexander’s quest on the basis of suspect analogy. These conclusions by scholars are not connected to primary sources, however, but rather historiographical themes.50 For centuries scholars of Alexander the Great have been comparing his campaign to other campaigns around the world from more recent eras. These wars may well have common elements, but they are hardly identical. Though some similarities can be drawn in terms of situations or tactics, there are still numerous differences in the historical context of the events, which then hinder the applicability of this type of analysis. Alexander’s purpose was conquest, and his instrument was his army. War was his area of expertise. He knew that a conqueror must establish firm, defensible boundaries at each stage of building his empire. Therefore, displacing locals or disrupting traditional living patterns is a given. Once enforced, boundaries provided the point of departure for possible further expansion. This is why he created Alexandria-Eschate, because he was claiming his turf and wanted a defensible frontier. It is hard to control a region if the locals under your authority are constantly mixing with a potential enemy, such as the Scythians. Also, to insist peace would have come about without the establishment of Alexandria-Eschate is a subjective conclusion. In this part of the world, any display of weakness was an invitation to rebellion. Who would have been there to Antela-Bernandez, “World is not enough (Alexander the Great in Sogdiana: A study in historiography).”, 77. 50 Baumann 21 prevent a Scythian invasion of Alexander’s new territory? Certainly not the Sogdians who already had good relations with them as Holt described. As Arrian stated regarding AlexandriaEschate, “The site would serve both as a base for a possible future invasion of Scythia and as a defensive position against raiding tribes from across the river.”51 Leaving aside the causes of the rebellion, how did Alexander deal with it? In the 18 months that it took Alexander to defeat the Sogdian rebellion52, he experienced a great deal of success through the use of a highly effective pattern of military tactics and strategy mingled with diplomacy. First, Alexander habitually showed the rebels a mixture of brutality and accommodation, the proverbial “carrot and stick” approach. For instance, when the rebellion started, in the first five towns Alexander the Great’s army reconquered, the army slaughtered the men, and Alexander had the women and children sold into slavery.53 The reason behind such brutality, not at all unusual in that era, was that Alexander the Great wanted to send a message to prevent future rebellions. In fact this was not the first time Alexander had relied on this practice. When Alexander the Great’s army conquered the Greek city of Thebes, he slaughtered the army of Thebes and sold remaining people into slavery.54 Plutarch describes the intent of this incident in the following quote: “Alexander's principal object in permitting the sack of Thebes was to frighten the rest of the Greeks into submission by this terrible example.”55 Though severe, Alexander’s method in Sogdiana aligned with the needs of the campaign. Now the Sogdian rebellion was not a small one. It stretched all across the region and 51 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 201. Lonsdale, Alexander the Great: Lessons in Strategy, 46. 53 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 203. 52 54 55 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 61. Plutarch. The Age of Alexander (London: Penguin Classics, 2012), 11. Baumann 22 Alexander the Great needed to be quick and decisive about how he dealt with it. David J. Lonsdale reiterates this stating, “Faced with an array of enemies across a wide area of operations, Alexander had to move quickly to prevent his forces being overwhelmed in the face of coordinated action by his foes.”56 Lonsdale also rightfully points out that killing off the men diminished the manpower for future uprisings.57 As Alexander came to the sixth town at Cyropolis, it was defeated and the inhabitants surrendered, and no source mentions the same brutality carried out there as occurred in the first five towns that he had retaken. As for the seventh town, it was taken back by Alexander the Great’s army, but it is unclear what happened afterwards.58 Next, Marakanda was under siege by rebels and the force Alexander sent to relieve the city was repelled. Rising to this dangerous challenge to his authority, Alexander marched back across Sogdiana with his army and shattered the besieging forces. The leader of the rebellion at Marakanda, Spitamenes, was chased into the desert by Alexander and his army.59 He would eventually be tracked down and betrayed by his men, who sent his head to Alexander the Great as a peace offering.60 Here we can see the effectiveness of Alexander’s methods at work. This action as well suggests that many Sogdians believed they could not defeat Alexander and sought the best deal they could get in defeat. Alexander’s reputation as a formidable commander led many to seek terms of surrender rather than fight. Alexander then marched from Marakanda to Southern Sogdiana to defeat the rebel towns guarded by rock fortresses. The first one was at Sogdian Rock lead by Oxyartes, who was so 56 Lonsdale, Alexander the Great: Lessons in Strategy, 91. Lonsdale, Alexander the Great: Lessons in Strategy, 91. 58 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 204. 59 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 210. 60 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 231. 57 Baumann 23 surprised that Alexander’s army breached his fortress, which lay upon a steep rock formation that he surrendered.61 The last remaining town in rebellion, led by a man named Chorienes, would also surrender.62 Chorienes asked Alexander the Great via messenger if he could speak with Oxyartes for advice. Alexander granted this request and in turn Oxyartes convinced Chorienes to surrender. Alexander the Great was very gracious towards Chorienes in return for his surrender. As Arrian describes Alexander’s generosity, “Chorienes he treated with the utmost consideration, actually putting the control of the rock into his hands and letting him continue to administer the same territory as before.”63 In review, when the Sogdians rebelled against Alexander the Great’s occupation of the region, he had to find a solution to effectively destroy all resistance, while at the same time preserving a path to become the legitimate and unquestioned ruler. Alexander was successful at this by slaughtering those who rebelled and rewarding those who honorably surrendered. Those who served him faithfully could rely on his support. Alexander the Great also mastered the art of maintaining situational and cultural awareness during his campaign in Sogdiana. After Alexander quelled the Sogdian uprising, he could have started a brutal reign of terror, but he didn’t. Instead, he took steps towards winning over the people of Sogdiana and further establishing himself as the legitimate ruler of Asia. The first major step towards this pursuit was actually during the rebellion in Sogdiana after Alexander had chased Spitamenes into the desert from Marakanda. Alexander would later use Marakanda as a rallying point for his army, which had been spread all over Sogdiana to fight 61 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 234. Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 237. 63 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 237. 62 Baumann 24 the rebellion.64 What is important to note about this is that Marakanda was the royal city of Sogdiana. For Alexander the Great to use this “royal” city as a rallying point appears to signify his authority in Sogdiana, as well as to affirm his strategic dominance. There is evidence to support this argument based on how much Alexander the Great cared about Marakanda. When Spitamenes laid siege to Marakanda and defeated the first Macedonian attempt to relieve the siege, Alexander took matters into his own hands. This is how Arrian describes Alexander’s reaction: “News of the debacle caused Alexander great distress, and he determined to march with all speed against Spitamenes and the tribesmen with him….In three days he covered about 185 miles, and at dawn on the fourth was close to the town”65. Therefore, it is evident that Marakanda was very important to Alexander the Great and crucial to his authority in the region. This case illustrates Alexander’s keen sense of politics and the symbolism of imperial authority. After the rebellion, Alexander the Great made a shrewd political move by marrying the daughter of “Oxyartes”, who was a Sogdian rebel leader. The daughter was named “Roxane.”66 This marriage to a high status woman helped solidify Alexander’s claim as ruler of the region, because now he was officially connected to the local people. The potential foundation of a new dynasty could base its claim to legitimacy on the basis of native as well as Greek heritage. Marriage alliances were not uncommon to Alexander; earlier on his campaigns in the Persian Empire he had Macedonian soldiers marry Persian women.67 64 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 229. Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 210-211. 66 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 236. 67 Quintus Curtius Rufus, The History of Alexander, 186. 65 Baumann 25 Alexander the Great would invest even more effort by eventually adding Sogdians into his military ranks, including three sons of Oxyartes.68 In fact two of these sons would personally join Alexander on campaign.69 This in theory would make it so Sogdians were invested in Alexander’s reign and his future conquests, from which they stood to benefit. In turn, if Alexander the Great’s army failed, Sogdian blood would be shed as well. This type of cultural mixing can be seen in other places too, as a part of Alexander’s foreign policy. According to Anatolii Sagdullaev, “Many of the Greeks with Alexander studied the Persian language….Alexander used Persians for administration and the government language was Aramaic.… his army was multiethnic…. some areas actually did achieve a synthesis of different cultures.…but everything depended on Alexander’s absolute system of militaryadministrative rule”70 However, Sadullaev stops short of deeming this practice of mixing peoples as part of a plan to create a worldwide kingdom by calling it a mirage.71 This is not the point, because in Sogdiana this practice was used and brought success to Alexander’s campaign. Lastly, let’s not forget that those who did not interfere with Alexander the Great were rewarded, such as Chorienes who was allowed to maintain his administrative position.72 Alexander the Great welcomed local administrators into his governance model, as long as they were submissive to his authority. David J. Lonsdale reaffirms this ideology stating, “Overall, Alexander’s approach to the political administration of the empire was motivated by 68 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 356. Quintus Curtius Rufus, The History of Alexander, 186. 70 Sagdullaev, The Campaign of Alexander the Great in Sogdiana, 181. 71 Sagdullaev, The Campaign of Alexander the Great in Sogdiana, 181. 72 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 237. 69 Baumann 26 a need for stability, which manifested itself in a pragmatic approach. For the most part, this meant retaining existing structures where possible.”73 The final method Alexander the Great used to ensure success in Sogdiana was his building campaign. When Alexander rallied his troops at Marakanda, he sent one of his commanders, Hephaestion, to begin the colonization of Sogdiana. As Arrian states, “Alexander sent Hephaestion to plant settlements in various towns.”74 This building campaign would allow Alexander the Great to maintain control of Sogdiana and resulted in the production of many forts all over the region. Archaeologist Kristin M. Romey reinforces this perspective in the following quote: “Romey details how difficult the Sogdiana campaign was and that in Bactria and Sogdiana combined Alexander established more fortresses than anywhere else he campaigned.”75 Although specifics relating to where and what was built are not addressed by Arrian in the literary record, we know from archaeological evidence near or in the region that many forts were established across widely distributed strategic junctions throughout the region. This included various fortified or fortifiable structures, as well as new towns. For example, as I have mentioned before, Marakanda (Samarkand) had a military garrison and served as a rallying point for Alexander the Great’s army, meaning it was one of his main bases in Sogdiana. Also, the primary source by Quintus Curtius Rufus describes how Alexander maintained his winter quarters there and apparently held a famous banquet.76 This would only reinforce the importance of Marakanda as an important site for Alexander the Great. Now one could still speculate about whether this is a reliable citation, 73 Lonsdale, Alexander the Great: Lessons in Strategy, 51. Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 229. 75 Romey, “The Forgotten Realm,” 1. http://archive.archaeology.org/0411/abstracts/alexander.html. 76 Quintus Curtius Rufus, The History of Alexander (New York: Penguin Books, 1984), 177-180. 74 Baumann 27 but from what I have seen historians tend to agree with this claim. Rufus as source tends to exaggerate, but we should also recognize this is a rather bland detail and there would be no reason to invent this piece of information. This is confirmed by my email correspondence with Holt, who considers it a reliable citation. We also know from archaeological evidence that Alexander the Great founded the following fortresses and cities in Bactria on the border with Sogdiana. In Bactria he founded the Kurganzol Fortress, the city of Ai Khanoum, and Kampyr-Tepe citadel. When it comes to the Bactrian sites we need to remember that the reason why these archaeological sites are relevant, is because of their close proximity with Sogdiana. Therefore, they would very likely resemble Sogdian constructions. As Mairs states, “Although some ancient and modern historians treat the river Oxus (modern Amu-darya) as the boundary between Bactria and Sogdiana, Bactria is bound together by the Oxus, not divided by it. This can be seen most clearly in terms of material culture.”77 Next, I should mention that all of these archaeological sites are located in Uzbekistan, except Ai Khanoum, which is in Afghanistan. Now examination of the military fortifications of these sites offers indication of the goals of Alexander the Great’s building campaign. First, consider the Bactrian fortifications. Ai Khanoum was founded by Alexander and his army during the invasion of Bactria, which is indicated by the Greek architectural style of the site.78 The location of the site was strategic. According to Mairs, “Ai Khanoum was perfectly and deliberately placed to manage the resources of the surrounding plain and the mountains to the south…The city of Ai Khanoum was also 77 Rachel Mairs, “The Founder Shrine and the ‘Foundation’ of Ai Khanoum,” In Foundation Myths in Dialogue: Discourses about Origins in Ancient Studies, (2014), 2. 78 Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia, 2. Baumann 28 designed to exploit the strategic potential of its site, at the confluence of the Kokcha and the Oxus (Amu-darya).”79 Military scholar David J. Lonsdale describes the military strategy behind controlling resources in this particular quote: “In this respect, military force can perform many functions. For example, it can be used to seize resources, force political change, or eradicate or ethnically cleanse an enemy population. In this respect, the military can be used to take ‘control’ of a situation.”80 Here indeed we see Alexander using his military to take control of resources in order to militarily dominate the region. As one can understand, strategy was paramount in the foundation of these settlements. Mairs also goes on to state that the site also had a large acropolis, with a high citadel.81 The Kurganzol Fortress was another example of Alexander’s attempt to make foundations to militarily control the territory. The idea that it was originally a foundation of Alexander is likely, because its period of occupation was during Alexander’s campaign in the region.82 Also, excavations at the site examining the foundation layer of the Kurganzol Fortress, revealed extensive signs of Hellenistic influence. For example, excavations discovered Hellenistic architecture including columns at the entrance and lots of Hellenistic pottery as well.83 As for the strategic location of the site, the Kurganzol Fortress was built among other fortresses in the Surkhan-darya Valley to defend the northern routes connecting the city Bactra 79 Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia, 57-59. 80 Lonsdale, Alexander the Great: Lessons in Strategy, 18. 81 Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia, 59. 82 Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia, 163. 83 Leonid Sverchkov, “The Kurganzol Fortress: (on the History of Central Asia in the Hellenistic Era),” Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Serbia, 14. (2008), 131-134. http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/092907708x339607. Baumann 29 to Marakanda and the rest of Sogdiana.84 The fortifications of the Kurganzol Fortress represent a trend of fortresses north of the Oxus, which were built with hollow walls with internal chambers and loopholes, in order to defend against light cavalry or infantry attacks.85 The wide walls and strategic positioning seem congruent with the other Alexander-foundations that we know of in the region, adding more evidence of the site’s connection with Alexander. Overall, the positioning of the fort in its specific topographic context and the carefully and robustly built walls all suggest that military defense was Alexander’s priority in this foundation. Lastly, from Bactria we have the Kampyr-Tepe settlement. This settlement was another one of the fortresses that archaeologists believe was founded by Alexander the Great.86 It was situated on the right bank of the Amu Darya (the ancient Oxus River). As well as having military functions, it was a trading post on the route connecting Bactria and its capital Bactra (Balkh, northern Afghanistan) with Marakanda (Samarkand) in Sogdiana, a zone that stretched from India to the Caspian Sea.87 This fortress also had a citadel in the Hellenistic period.88 84 Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia, 163. 85 Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia, 163-164. 86 V. Martinez Ferreras, J.M. Gurt Esparraguera, S. Pidaev, Edward Rtveladze, and S. B. Bolelov.“Tableware in the Hellenistic Tradition from the City of Kampyr Tepe in Ancient Bactria (Uzbekistan),” Archaeomerty, Vol. 58, 5. (2016), 763. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/arcm.12199/abstract. 87 Ferreras, J.M. Gurt Esparraguera, S. Pidaev, Edward Rtveladze, and S. B. Bolelov.“Tableware in the Hellenistic Tradition from the City of Kampyr Tepe in Ancient Bactria (Uzbekistan),” 736. 88 Getzel M. Cohen. The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013), 277278. Baumann 30 As for the fortresses in the region formerly known as Sogdiana, we have evidence that fortresses do exist. For example, Alexandria Eschate located in Tajikistan is even referenced in the primary sources about Alexander the Great.89 There has been no archaeology going on there, however. Next, we have the mysterious Nur Fortress located in the city of Nurata, which according to numerous non-scholarly claims was founded by (or improved by) Alexander the Great. It is also said that the city Nurata used to be called “Nur.” Unfortunately, there is as of yet no confirmed archaeological or primary source evidence to support these claims, given the fact there has been no excavation reported at this site. If you were to google “Nur Fortress” every tourist site talks about it, but there is not one scholarly source I could locate about the fortress. I was able to visit the Nur Fortress and the locals told me all about how Alexander the Great was there. Accounts linked Alexander closely to some of the most notable features of the city, such as a famous spring. What I saw at the site were massive walls encompassing a large swath of land, located at a strategic point atop of a large hill, overlooking the modern day city of Nurata. Further, Nurata was positioned so as to be the foremost defensive point of Sogdiana looking to the northwest. Nurata was the last outpost before reaching the desert and was in a critical position, because this site is north of and between Bukhara and Marakanda two very important cities in Sogdiana. Therefore, if Nurata fell, it would leave both these valuable cities exposed. As a result, it makes great strategic sense for this to be a location Alexander would have used, if not one he founded. 89 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 201. Baumann 31 Shown below in figure 1 is a map I have added on to showing the important sites Alexander had conquered and founded, as well as possible site of Alexander’s control the Nur Fortress at Nurata. Figure 1. Map of Ancient Bactria and Sogdiana.90 In conclusion of this section, along with Alexander’s military strategy of destroying or forcing the submission of his enemies and his cultural and situational cognizance. These fortifications can be seen as part of Alexander’s military strategy to command and conquer the region. The control over resources and strategic locations in general is necessary for any conqueror and this building campaign nicely articulates this strategy. 90 Frank L. Holt, Into the Land of Bones: Alexander the Great in Afghanistan (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2006), 33. Baumann 32 IV. Alexander the Great’s Numismatic Legacy Earlier, we saw how Alexander the Great successfully conquered Sogdiana, but what influence did he bring to the region and what was his legacy? To have legacy and influence means to not only be remembered and commemorated for what you did, but also to have a substantial impact on the future. This is exactly what Alexander the Great did. The first proof of Alexander’s legacy and influence comes from coinage found in Uzbekistan. This coinage came from the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, of which the territory of Sogdiana and Bactria would have been a part. Alexander the Great died on June 11, 323 B.C.91 His empire would collapse, but his legacy and influence continued, especially in Sogdiana. After his death Sogdiana and Bactria would fall under the control of a newly formed Hellenistic state called the Seleucid Empire, which would continue the traditions of Alexander the Great.92 Between 250-225 B.C. though, a Greek governor of Bactria, by the name of Diodotus I and his son Diodotus II would rebel and create the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom.93 The Greco-Bactrian kings would carry on the legacy of Alexander the Great by mimicking his coinage, as a way of claiming that they were rightful heirs to the throne. They believed they were the successors of a dynasty founded by Alexander the Great. Amazingly, this would carry on with the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom’s successor the Kushan Empire. The Kushan Empire would mimic Alexander the Great’s coinage and use the 91 Holt, Into the Land of Bones: Alexander the Great in Afghanistan, 115. Holt, Into the Land of Bones: Alexander the Great in Afghanistan, 125. 93 Holt, Into the Land of Bones: Alexander the Great in Afghanistan, 125-126. 92 Baumann 33 Greek language, until it was purposely changed in the second century A.D. by the Kushan king, Kanishka the Great.94 To understand this coinage connection fully, we must first understand the coinage of Alexander the Great. His coinage often featured Greek gods like Zeus and Herakles, as well as his name in Greek on the coin.95 This can be seen below in Figure 2. Figure 2. Silver tetradrachma of Alexander the Great, 336 B.C. to 323 B.C., Obverse of “Herakles wearing a lion skin” and reverse of Zeus holding an eagle with his right hand and a scepter in his left hand, with “Alexander’s” inscribed in Greek vertically down the right side of the coin.96 This type of coinage was not new to the Macedonians, because Macedonian royals in fact claimed descent from Herakles.97 Therefore, other Macedonian kings have used Herakles, as well as Zeus on their coinage before Alexander did.98 Now the reason why Alexander had 94 Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia, 178. 95 Zoe Sophia Kontes, “The Dating of the Coinage of Alexander the Great,”. https://brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/publications/papers/alexander_coina ge/alexander.html. 96 Zoe Sophia Kontes, “The Dating of the Coinage of Alexander the Great,”. https://brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/publications/papers/alexander_coina ge/alexander.html. 97 Jerome Jordan Pollitt. Art in the Hellenistic Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 25. 98 Pollitt, Art in the Hellenistic Age, 25. Baumann 34 used these Greek gods was more than just copying his predecessors, it was about what they symbolized to him and about him. For example, as scholar Jerome Pollitt state, “The hero Herakles can be seen as a prototype for Alexander, a conquering hero and ancestor….who brought glory to Greek culture, of which the hero himself was kind of an embodiment.”99 Now the symbolism of Zeus was used for a similar effect, but in a slightly different way. As Pollitt describes “Zeus, as the father of Herakles, could be seen….not only as the ultimate ancestor of the Macedonian line but also as the arbiter and judge of heroic achievement.”100 As one can determine the symbolism of these Greek heroes was extremely powerful for Alexander and the placement of them on his coinage reflected Alexander’s wishes to be a part of this iconic legacy. In fact, Alexander wanted to be thought of as the Herakles and the son of Zeus.101 It is even said that Alexander not only depicted Herakles on his coinage, but might have depicted himself as Herakles on his coinage too.102 Therefore, the deep ties Alexander felt to Herakles and Zeus cannot be understated. Another important coin of Alexander shows him wearing an elephant headdress on some of the coinage of his general and future successor Ptolemy.103 The most prominent example though, is the “Mir Zakah” coin, which was minted by Alexander and featured himself wearing an elephant headdress, because of his own conquest of India.104 99 Pollitt, Art in the Hellenistic Age, 25. Pollitt, Art in the Hellenistic Age, 25. 101 Pollitt, Art in the Hellenistic Age, 26. 102 Pollitt, Art in the Hellenistic Age, 51. 103 Frank L. Holt, “Ptolemy’s Alexandrian Postscript,” Saudi Aramco World, Vol. 57, No. 6 (2006), 4-9. http://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/200606/ptolemy.s.alexandrian.postscript.htm. 104 Hamid Naweed. Art Through the Ages in Afghanistan (Bloomington: Authorhouse, 2013), 70. 100 Baumann 35 Figure 3. Gold Medallion of Alexander the Great, around 326 B.C., Obverse of Alexander the Great wearing an elephant headdress, with an aegis around his neck, ram horns coming from his temple and the reverse features an elephant with a couple Greek letters.105 Alexander’s legacy and influence would then be continued on the coinage of the Greco-Bactrian kings and even some Kushan kings from the Kushan Empire that would succeed the Greco-Bactria Kingdom. While visiting the State Museum of History of Uzbekistan in Tashkent and the Afrasiab Museum in Samarkand, I was able to take pictures of the coinage I saw from the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. In Tashkent I saw seven gold coins and in Samarkand I saw six silver coins. The kings represented on the coinage include Diodotus I (Died 235 B.C.)106, Euthydemus I (226-186 B.C.)107, two of Demetrius I (186-170 B.C.)108, Frank L. Holt, “Ptolemy’s Alexandrian Postscript,” Saudi Aramco World, Vol. 57, No. 6 (2006), 4-9. 106 Hornblower and Spaworth, The Oxford Classical Dictionary (3 rev. ed.). 107 Hornblower and Spaworth, The Oxford Classical Dictionary (3 rev. ed.). 108 Hornblower and Spaworth, The Oxford Classical Dictionary (3 rev. ed.). 105 Baumann 36 Antimachos I (185-170 B.C.)109, Agathokles (190-180 B.C.)110, two of Eucratides the Great (170-145 B.C.)111, and the Kushan king Vima Takto (80-110 A.D.)112. I then used the pictures to identify the coins with numismatic resources online, because they were not labeled in the museums. Two of the gold coins I saw in Tashkent I was not able to identify. Also, among the pictures I will go in depth about, some were not of the highest quality. Therefore, in a couple cases, I have used pictures from the internet of the same coins I saw in the museum. The first coin comes from the Greco-Bactrian king Diodotus I, the first Greco-Bactrian ruler.113 This is a gold coin of Diodotus I. Figure 4 features Diodotus I with a diadem on his head on his head. The most famous characteristic of Alexander the Great was the “diadem” which can be seen referenced on coinage.114 Alexander was well known for wearing a diadem. For example, Plutarch and Arrian both mention a man being put to death by Alexander for wearing his diadem.115 Besides the diadem other clear connections to Alexander the Great include the image of Zeus on the reverse of the coin, as well as the Greek text.116 Also, this coin was 109 Carlos A. Picon and Sean Hemingway, eds. Pergamon and the Hellenistic Kingdoms of the Ancient World (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2016), 154. 110 Jason Neelis. Early Buddhist Transmission and Trade Networks: Mobility and Exchange Within and Beyond the Northwestern Borderlands of South Asia (Dynamics in the History of Religions) (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 102. 111 Hornblower and Spaworth, The Oxford Classical Dictionary (3 rev. ed.). 112 Ladislav Stanco. Greek Gods in the East: Hellenistic Iconographic Schemes in Central Asia (Prague: Karolinum Press Charles University, 2013), 205. 113 Holt, Into the Land of Bones: Alexander the Great in Afghanistan, 125-126. 114 Andrew W. Collins, “The Royal Costume and Insignia of Alexander the Great,” American Journal of Philology, Vol. 133, No. 3. (2012), 377. https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:285127/UQ285127_OA.pdf. 115 Plutarch, The Age of Alexander, 330; Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 387. 116 Zoe Sophia Kontes, “The Dating of the Coinage of Alexander the Great,”. https://brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/publications/papers/alexander_coina ge/alexander.html. Baumann 37 created just before the formation of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. This is why on the coin it says “King Antiochos II” who was the leader of the Seleucid Empire at the time.117 Figure 4. Gold Stater of Diodotus I, 255 B.C. to 235 B.C., Obverse of “Diodotus” wearing diadem and reverse of Zeus walking nude with an aegis over left arm, while wielding a thunder bolt. Also “King Antiochos II” is inscribed in Greek.118119 The next coin is of the Greco-Bactrian king Demetrius I. Figure 5 shows the following connections to Alexander the Great. His name was inscribed on the coinage just like Alexander the Great did on his coinage. Secondly, he features the Greek god Herakles on the reverse of his coin, which as mentioned earlier was a god Alexander the Great dearly admired.120 Lastly, on the obverse of the coin he is wearing an elephant headdress. This represents his conquest of India.121 It is also a feature that represents Alexander the Great, whose famous campaign ended in India as seen earlier.122 117 Holt, Into the Land of Bones: Alexander the Great in Afghanistan, 125. Ben Baumann, “Gold Stater of Diodotus I.” State Museum of History of Uzbekistan, Figure 3. 119 “Diodotos I.” Wildwinds.com, April 16, 2017, http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/baktria/kings/diodotos_I/t.html. 120 Zoe Sophia Kontes, “The Dating of the Coinage of Alexander the Great,”. https://brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/publications/papers/alexander_coina ge/alexander.html. 121 William Woodthorpe Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 131. 122 A.B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 180. 118 Baumann 38 Figure 5. Gold Stater of Demetrius I, 200 B.C. to 180 B.C., Obverse of “Demetrius I” wearing an elephant headdress and reverse of Herakles, with “King Demetrius I” inscribed in Greek.123 Then we have the coin of Greco-Bactrian king Eucratides the Great. The coin in figure 6 shows the following connections to Alexander the Great. The coin shows Eucratides the Great wearing Alexander the Great’s signature diadem. The Greek gods known together as Dioskouroi also received sacrifices from Alexander on occasion.124 Most importantly though, Eucratides refers to himself as “the Great”, which is a direct reference to the Greco-tradition.125 Ben Baumann. “Gold Stater of Demetrius I.” State Museum of History of Uzbekistan, Figure 5; “Demetrios.” Wildwinds.com, April 16, 2017, http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/baktria/kings/demetrios/t.html. 124 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 213. 125 Holt, Into the Land of Bones: Alexander the Great in Afghanistan, 129. 123 Baumann 39 Figure 6. Silver tetradrachma of Eucratides the Great, 171 B.C. to 145 B.C., Obverse of “Eukratides” wearing a Boeotian helmet with a diadem and bull horns and reverse of Dioskouroi charging on horseback each holding a palm branch and spear, with “King Eucratides the Great” inscribed in Greek.126 The last coin I will reference was that of the Kushan king Vima Takto. Also, it is important to note that the coin I saw of Vima Takto was silver, while the one in figure 7 is bronze. Both coins however, have the same design on them. As seen in figure 7, this coin also has various connections with Alexander the Great. First, on the obverse of the coin he is wearing a diadem and secondly he takes the name “Soter Megas” on the back of his coin in Greek. This is a Greek title, which means “the great savior”127 Figure 7. Bronze tetradrachma of Vima Takto , 80 A.D. to 100 A.D., Obverse of “Vima Takto” with a diadem holding a scepter and the symbol of Vima Takto. The reverse shows Vima “Eucratides I.” Wildwinds.com, April 16, 2017, http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/baktria/kings/eukratides_I/i.html. 127 Cribb, Joe. “The Soter Megas coins of the first and second Kushan kings, Kuju Kadphises and Wima Takto,” Gandharan Studies, Vol. 8. (2015), 79-122. https://www.academia.edu/15209190/The_Soter_Megas_coins_of_the_first_and_second _Kushan_kings_Kujula_Kadphises_and_Wima_Takto. 126 Baumann 40 Takto riding a horse and holding a scepter, with “Ruling King the Great Savior” inscribed in Greek, and the symbol of Vima Takto.128 Figure 8. Coinage Summary129 Coins: Obverse Details: Reverse Details: Silver Tetradrachma of Alexander the Great *Image of Herakles wearing a lion skin *Zeus holding an eagle and scepter * Name Alexander inscribed Gold Medallion of Alexander the Great *Image of Alexander wearing an Elephant headdress *Image of Elephant *Greek letters Gold Stater of Diodotus I *Image of Diodotus I wearing a diadem Gold Stater of Demetrius I *Image of Demetrius I wearing elephant headdress *Image of Eukratides wearing a Boeotian helmet with a diadem and bull horns *Image of Zeus *King Antiochos II written in Greek *Image of Herakles *King Demetrius I written in Greek *Image of Dioskouroi *King Eucratides the Great written in Greek Silver tetradrachma of Eucratides the Great Bronze tetradrachma of Vima Takto *Image of Vima Takto with a diadem and holding a scepter *Symbol of Vima Takto *Image of Vima Takto riding a horse, holding a scepter. *Symbol of Vima Takto Connection to Alexander: *Diadem *Image of Zeus *Greek Inscription *Elephant Headdress *Image of Herakles *Greek inscription *Diadem *Image of Dioskouroi *Greek Inscription *Reference to Greek titulary tradition of “the Great” *Diadem *Greek inscription *Reference to Greek titulary tradition of “the Great Savior” Out of all the kings I could identify, which amounted to ten of the thirteen I viewed, all had references to Alexander the Great. Coins linked to the remaining Greco-Bactrian kings “Soter Megas.” Wildwinds.com, April 16, 2017, http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/indo_scythians/soter_megas/t.html. 129 Baumann, Ben. “Coinage Summary.” Figure 8. 128 Baumann 41 reflect connections to Alexander the Great as well. They include a silver tetradrachma coin associated with Euthydemus I, featuring the Greek god Herakles on the reverse, and the name Euthydemus I in Greek on the reverse. There is also a gold stater coin associated with Antimachos I, which shows the Greek god Poseidon on the reverse side, to whom Alexander the Great made sacrifices130 Also, he had his name in Greek on the reverse. Another gold stater coin is of Agathokles, depicting him wearing a diadem on the obverse side. The reverse includes Zeus and the name Agathokles in Greek. The next coin of Agathokles, this one being a silver tetradrachma, shows him wearing a diadem on the obverse. The reverse includes Zeus and the name Agathokles in Greek again. Lastly, we have another coin of Eucratides the Great, this one was a gold stater, featuring the Greek gods known as Dioskouroi wearing diadems on obverse of the coin. On the reverse it depicts Eucratides the Great and has his name in Greek. All of this coinage together strongly reflects the enormity of Alexander the Great’s legacy and influence in the region of Sogdiana and Bactria. It not only reflects the desire of the kings to place themselves in Alexander’s iconographic and numismatic tradition, but the expectations of the people living under these rulers. Therefore what is placed on the coinage also symbolizes what the local populous expects. Finally, this is more than just literary evidence; this is physical evidence, which is less up to interpretation. V. Other Evidence Earlier I mentioned the building campaign Alexander the Great conducted in Sogdiana and Bactria. This resulted in many fortresses and settlements, but these fortresses and settlements 130 Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 66. Baumann 42 had more than just a military impact. When Alexander the Great conquered the region, he also would create an influence that would last to the present day. Take the archaeological remains in Bactria for example. Based on the excavations of the Kurganzol Fortress, the site had a Greek foundation.131 Evidence of this comes from the fact that the Kurganzol Fortress’ original foundation included Hellenistic wooden columns at the entrance to the fortress, as mentioned earlier.132 Also found on the foundation level were a large variety of Hellenistic pottery.133 In total the site underwent four different periods of habitation all showing Hellenistic influence.134 During period one (4th century B.C., most likely 328 B.C.) a fortress was built probably by Alexander the Great.135 During period two, (first half of 3rd century B.C.) the internal structure was built by the Seleucids.136 During period three, (second half of 3rd century B.C.) the Kurganzol Fortress lost its fortifications.137 Lastly in period four, (first half of the 2nd century B.C.) infrequent periods of habitation occurred.138 Leonid Sverchkov. “The Kurganzol Fortress: (on the History of Central Asia in the Hellenistic Era),” Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Serbia, 14. (2008), 123. http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/092907708x339607. 132 Sverchkov, “The Kurganzol Fortress: (on the History of Central Asia in the Hellenistic Era),” 123. 133 Sverchkov, “The Kurganzol Fortress: (on the History of Central Asia in the Hellenistic Era),” 131. 134 Sverchkov, “The Kurganzol Fortress: (on the History of Central Asia in the Hellenistic Era),” 185-188. 135 Sverchkov, “The Kurganzol Fortress: (on the History of Central Asia in the Hellenistic Era),” 185. 136 Sverchkov, “The Kurganzol Fortress: (on the History of Central Asia in the Hellenistic Era),” 185. 137 Sverchkov, “The Kurganzol Fortress: (on the History of Central Asia in the Hellenistic Era),” 187. 138 Sverchkov, “The Kurganzol Fortress: (on the History of Central Asia in the Hellenistic Era),” 187. 131 Baumann 43 The next site at Ai Khanoum, based on all the archaeology done thus far also shows lots of Hellenistic influence.139 This includes a Greek architectural style featuring Corinthian columns.140 Also, there is a Greek gymnasium, which was used as a place for activities and socializing, and a shrine of the Greek “Kineas.”141 The gymnasiums are especially important, because they represent the lifestyle of the people and what they did whether that be athletics or intellectual pursuits. An even more amazing find at the site includes Greek texts with the names of Greeks like Heliodorous, as well as names of Bactrians.142 Also found at the site are works of Greek literature, which included philosophical and dramatic texts, and a Greek theatre.143 Another interesting note, is that when it came to funerals, Greek inscriptions were most commonly used.144 In fact, according to Rachel Mairs there is so much evidence of Greek culture at the site that Mairs believes Greek identity might have been common among the people living there, whether they were native Greek or Bactrian.145 Kampyr-Tepe is significant here, too. According to Getzel M. Cohen, the site definitely has Greek influence, the question is how much? The amount archaeological work done at the 139 Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia, 57. 140 Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia, 24. 141 Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia, 63. 142 Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia, 179-184; Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia, 10. 143 Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia, 91-92; Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia, 179-184. 144 Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia, 183. 145 Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia, 186. Baumann 44 site is limited, compared to Ai Khanoum. At the site though, they have found a Hellenistic citadel, Greek graffiti, and around 300 Greco-Bactrian coins.146 As a result, Edward Rtveladze sees it as a possible Hellenistic settlement once upon a time.147 As for Sogdiana, besides all the coinage that was found in the region of Sogdiana, many of which came from Marakanda, there are also artifacts and works of architecture as well. The things I saw at the Afrasiab Museum in Samarkand include Hellenistic pottery, a Hellenistic flask, Hellenistic figurines, and the remnants of Hellenistic columns. These objects were not labeled at the museum, but were identified by a Hellenistic archaeologist named Jona Lendering on the site livius.com. Together these artifacts and architecture represent a fair amount of Hellenistic influence at Marakanda. Figure 9. Hellenistic column base, 330 B.C.E. to 100 C.E.148 146 Getzel M Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013), 277278. 147 Getzel M Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013), 277278. 148 Jona Lendering. “Maracanda,” Livius. http://www.livius.org/articles/place/maracanda/. Baumann 45 Figure 10. Hellenistic figurine of a deity, 300 B.C.E to 300 C.E.149 Altogether, an impressive amount of influence can be seen through the architecture and artifacts uncovered at these fortresses and cities, which were colonized and founded by Alexander. Thus, making it clear Alexander had a significant legacy in Sogdiana and Bactria. VI. Modern Reception The last source of evidence for Alexander the Great’s influence and legacy in the region is reflected in the culture of the region. For example, A Russian scholar named N. P. Ostroumov traveled to Tashkent in the late 1800s and heard many fascinating stories about Alexander, which were believed by the locals. According to one story, Alexander found waters of eternal youth with the help of the angel Raphael and then proceeded to use this water to grow trees in Tashkent.150 It was said by the locals that these trees are sacred and still exist today. 151 Jona Lendering. “Maracanda,” Livius. http://www.livius.org/articles/place/maracanda/. 150 N.P. Ostroumov, Iskander Zul’-karnain. (Tashkent: Uzbekistan, 1896), 5-6. 151 Ostroumov, Iskander Zul’-karnain, 5-6. 149 Baumann 46 Now in terms of my personal observations, I was not sure what I would see of Alexander the Great in the major museums. I did not know the size of the exhibits nor their layout. Strikingly, in all the museums I visited, Alexander the Great was portrayed as an important part of the prehistory of Uzbekistan. The museum exhibits not only included various related artifacts, they also included maps detailing his campaign routes and pictures of Alexander, with descriptions of what he did in the region. When I traveled to the cities of Samarkand, Buhkara, and Nurata, all the guides stressed the influence of Alexander the Great in their cities. In Nurata I heard some especially interesting statements. The local tour guide told me that the local Nur Fortress was originally built by the Sogdians and then Alexander came and added on to the fortress and founded the city of Nur as well. My tour guide made many claims about the purpose of the site and how it was constructed. Of course when I did academic research on the site, I found no new information corroborating any of these claims. This is not to say it is all made up and untrue; there is just no scholarly evidence at this point in time. Archaeological excavation in Nurata has been minimal to date. They then went on to tell me that there is a tiny neighboring village called “Macedonia” in honor of Alexander the Great. In fact, in the village, they even have a memorial for him and his wife Roxane in the form of an honorific gravesite. There is also a local restaurant bearing the town’s original name given by Alexander called “Nur Restaurant.” Another restaurant connected to Alexander is in the Uzbek capital Tashkent, which is named “Iskander Shashlik” in honor of Alexander. I personally have been to a different restaurant in Tashkent that even had a meal named after Alexander called “The Alexander.” Thinking about all of this, it dawned on me that Baumann 47 regardless of whether Alexander the Great founded this city or fortress, what is really telling about Nurata is just how much pride these people take in believing that Alexander the Great founded their home. Figure 11. View of the left side of Nur Fortress, with back towards the city of Nurata, Uzbekistan.152 152 Ben Baumann. “Nur Fortress.” Figure 11. Baumann 48 Figure 12. Close up of Nur Fortress wall.153 Figure 13. View of Nur Fortress wall for perspective on its size.154 153 154 Ben Baumann. “Nur Fortress.” Figure 12. Ben Baumann. “Nur Fortress.” Figure 13. Baumann 49 Figure 14. View of the right side of Nur Fortress facing the city of Nurata, Uzbekistan.155 Figure 15. View of the left part of Nur Fortress in direction facing the city of Nurata, Uzbekistan.156 155 156 Ben Baumann. “Nur Fortress.” Figure 14. Ben Baumann. “Nur Fortress.” Figure 15. Baumann 50 Lastly, whenever I had conversations with Uzbeks about Alexander the Great, people knew about him and his campaigns in the region. Many also talked about the Greek influence he brought to the region. As noted above, this was without any prompting. These conversations would come up casually and I would just listen, without anyone knowing Alexander the Great was the reason I was in their country. In fact, Alexander the Great is so famous in Uzbekistan that one of the “classic” Uzbek twentieth-century novels is based on his Sogdian campaign. This novel is called Sogdiana by Yavgat Ilyasov. Ultimately, it is obvious through the vast amount of cultural symbolism referencing Alexander and how people perceive him across the country today that he still has a substantial legacy in the region. VII. Conclusion In the end, an assessment of the evidence leads one to conclude that when Alexander the Great led his army to Sogdiana, he not only successfully conquered the region, but he successfully planted Hellenistic influence, in turn enshrining his legacy in the region. What enabled Alexander the Great to be so successful was a ruthlessly efficient military strategy, supported by a blend of sheer cruelty and unexpected accommodation, as well as a rare degree of situational and cultural awareness to navigate unforeseen obstacles, and the construction of fortifications throughout Sogdiana. These factors allowed Alexander to become the unquestioned ruler of Sogdiana. Now, scholars Frank L. Holt and Michele Smith would object to this view, based on a different interpretation of events and evidence. However, in my view, it is better not to understand this campaign from a contemporary twentieth or even twenty-first century mindset. In order to do this campaign justice we must examine it based on the era in which it occurred and in light of Alexander’s own goal. Alexander sought conquest, and used diplomacy only to the extent that it advanced his main purpose. He was first and foremost a soldier and Baumann 51 conqueror. The army was the mechanism by which to accomplish his goal. Also, claims that Alexander had no real lasting influence in Sogdiana are false. The coinage and local views in Uzbekistan regarding Alexander are proof that his influence was felt and still is felt to the present day. By no means was the Sogdian campaign painless or flawless, but it was successful enough that after his death, Alexander the Great’s legacy would not fade. If you travel throughout the country of Uzbekistan today, one can see the numerous cultural references to Alexander the Great. Alexander, a Macedonian who died over 2,000 years ago, is still honored and remembered in the country of Uzbekistan in Central Asia. That is the definition of influence and legacy. Finally, the biggest flaw of scholarly research on Alexander’s Sogdian campaign is the fact that often scholars have not paid enough attention to it, and the research done on the campaign is often too focused one type of evidence, making the analysis of the campaign one dimensional. You cannot fully understand the history of an event and make accurate conclusions about it without using all resources available to make sense of it. This is why my research is based on an eclectic mix of resources, including archaeology, literature, and the modern perceptions of those currently inhabiting the land formerly known as Sogdiana. Together these different areas of research bring a much fuller picture of Alexander’s Sogdian campaign to light. Baumann 52 Bibliography Secondary Sources A.H. Dani and P. Bernard. “Alexander and His Successors in Central Asia,” History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. II: The Development of Sedentary and Nomadic Civilizations: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. Janos Harmatta ed. Paris: Unesco Publishing, 1994. Antela-Bernandez, Borja. “World is not enough (Alexander the Great in Sogdiana: A study in historiography),” In Central Asian in Antiquity: Interdisciplinary Approaches, BAR International Series 2665 edited by Borja Antela-Bernandez and Jordi Vidal. Oxford: Archaeopress, (2014), 77-84. https://www.academia.edu/2437963/World_is_not_enough_Alexander_the_Greats_ campaigns_against_the_guerrillas_in_Sogdiana. Bosworth, A.B. “Introduction: Some Basic Principles.” in Alexander the Great: A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington. London and New York: Routledge, 2012. Bosworth, A.B. Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Cohen, Getzel M. The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013. Holt, Frank L. Alexander the Great and Bactria. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993. Holt, Frank L. Into the Land of Bones: Alexander the Great in Afghanistan. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2006. Holt, Frank L. Lost World of the Golden King: In Search of Ancient Afghanistan. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2012. Holt, Frank L. “Ptolemy’s Alexandrian Postscript,” Saudi Aramco World, Vol. 57, No. 6 (2006), 4-9. http://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/200606/ptolemy.s.alexandrian.postscript.htm. Hornblower, Simon, and Antony Spaworth, eds. The Oxford Classical Dictionary (3 rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. http://www.oxfordreference.com.ezproxy.csbsju.edu/view/10.1093/acref/9780198606413 .001.0001/acref-9780198606413-e-279?rskey=EKTQEg&result=280. Lonsdale, David J. Alexander the Great: Lessons in Strategy. London and New York: Routledge, 2007. Neelis, Jason. Early Buddhist Transmission and Trade Networks: Mobility and Exchange Within and Beyond the Northwestern Borderlands of South Asia (Dynamics in the History of Religions). Leiden: Brill, 2010. Baumann 53 Picon, Carlos A. and Sean Hemingway, eds. Pergamon and the Hellenistic Kingdoms of the Ancient World. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2016. Rawlinson, H. G. Bactria: The History of the Forgotten Empire. London: Probsthain & CO., 1912. Romey, Kristin M. “The Forgotten Realm,” Archaeology Magazine, Vol. 57, No. 6. (2004). http://archive.archaeology.org/0411/abstracts/alexander.html. Rtveladze, Edward. Alexander of Macedon in Bactria and Sogdiana: Historical-Geographical Observations. Translated from Russian by R. Baumann. Tashkent: Academy of Fine Arts of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 2002. Sagdullaev, Anatolii, The Campaign of Alexander the Great in Sogdiana. Translated from Russian by R. Baumann. Tashkent: Uzbekistan, 2009. Smith, Michele. “The Failure of Alexander’s Conquest and Administration of BactriaSogdiana,” Hirundo, the McGill Journal of Classical Studies 8. Montreal: McGill University, (2009), 64-72. https://www.mcgill.ca/classics/files/classics/2009-1006.pdf. Stanco, Ladislav. Greek Gods in the East: Hellenistic Iconographic Schemes in Central Asia. Prague: Karolinum Press Charles University, 2013. Tarn, William Woodthorpe. The Greeks in Bactria and India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Worthington, Ian, ed., Alexander the Great: A Reader. London and New York: Routledge, 2012. Primary Sources “Ancient Coinage of Baktria, Kings, Agathokles.” Wildwinds.com, April 16, 2017, http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/baktria/kings/agathokles/i.html. “Antimachos I.” Wildwinds.com, April 16, 2017, http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/baktria/kings/antimachos_I/i.html. Arrian. The Campaigns of Alexander. J.R. Hamilton ed. Aubrey De Selincourt trans. New York: Penguin Books, 1971. Baumann, Ben. “Coinage Summary.” Figure 7. Baumann, Ben. “Gold Stater of Diodotus I.” State Museum of History of Uzbekistan, Figure 2. Baumann 54 Baumann, Ben. “Gold Stater of Demetrius I.” State Museum of History of Uzbekistan, Figure 4. Baumann, Ben. “Nur Fortress.” Figure 10-14. Collins, Andrew W. “The Royal Costume and Insignia of Alexander the Great,” American Journal of Philology, Vol. 133, No. 3. (2012), 371-402. https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:285127/UQ285127_OA.pdf. Cribb, Joe. “The Soter Megas coins of the first and second Kushan kings, Kuju Kadphises and Wima Takto,” Gandharan Studies, Vol. 8. (2015), 79-122. https://www.academia.edu/15209190/The_Soter_Megas_coins_of_the_first_and_second _Kushan_kings_Kujula_Kadphises_and_Wima_Takto. “Demetrios.” Wildwinds.com, April 16, 2017, http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/baktria/kings/demetrios/t.html. “Diodotos I.” Wildwinds.com, April 16, 2017, http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/baktria/kings/diodotos_I/t.html. “Eucratides I.” Wildwinds.com, April 16, 2017, http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/baktria/kings/eukratides_I/i.html. “Euthydemos I.” Wildwinds.com, April 16, 2017, http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/baktria/kings/euthydemos_I/i.html. Ferreras, V. Martinez, J.M. Gurt Esparraguera, S. Pidaev, Edward Rtveladze, and S. B. Bolelov. “Tableware in the Hellenistic Tradition from the City of Kampyr Tepe in Ancient Bactria (Uzbekistan),” Archaeomerty, Vol. 58, 5. (2016), 736-764. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/arcm.12199/abstract. Kontes, Zoe Sophia “The Dating of the Coinage of Alexander the Great.” https://brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/publications/papers/alexander_coina ge/alexander.html. Lendering, Jona. “Maracanda.” Livius April 16, 2017, http://www.livius.org/articles/place/maracanda/. Mairs, Rachel. The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2014. Mairs, Rachel. “The Founder Shrine and the ‘Foundation’ of Ai Khanoum,” In Foundation Myths in Dialogue: Discourses about Origins in Ancient Studies, Edited by Naoise Mac Sweeney. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014. Naweed, Hamid. Art Through the Ages in Afghanistan. Bloomington: Authorhouse, 2013. Baumann 55 Nikonorov, Valerii P. “A Unique Comb from Kampyr-Tepe (Northern Bactria),” Cimmerians Scythians Sarmartians, Edited by Jan Chochorowski. Krakow: Jagiellonian University Institute of Archaeology, 2004. Ostroumov, N.P. Iskander Zul’-karnain. Tashkent: Uzbekistan, 1896. Pollitt, Jerome Jordan. Art in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Plutarch. The Age of Alexander. Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff trans. London: Penguin Classics, 2012. Rufus, Quintus Curtius. The History of Alexander. John Yardley trans. New York: Penguin Books, 1984. Siculus, Diodorus. The Complete Works of Diodorus Siculus. C.H. Oldfather, C.L. Sherman, C. Bradford Welles, Russel M. Greer, F.R. Walton, and G. Booth trans. Hastings: Delphi Classics, 2014. “Soter Megas.” Wildwinds.com, April 16, 2017, http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/indo_scythians/soter_megas/t.html. Sverchkov, Leonid. “The Kurganzol Fortress: (on the History of Central Asia in the Hellenistic Era),” Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Serbia, 14. (2008), 123-191. http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/092907708x339607. Baumann 56