The So-called "Great Satrap's Revolt," 366-360 B.C.: Concerning Local Instability in the Achaemenid Far West.

• Author: Graf, David F.

According to Diodorus Siculus (XV.90-93), the satraps Ariobarzanes of Hellespontine Phrygia and Orontes of Armenia rose up in rebellion against the Great King in 362-361 B.C.E., supported by Mausolus of Caria, Athens and Sparta, the Greek cities of Asia, Tachos of Egypt, and finally by a reluctant Autophrates of Lydia. In addition, the southern coastal peoples of Asia Minor from the Lycians to the Cilicians, as well as the Syrians and Phoenicians, purportedly joined the rebellion. The eventual withdrawal of Egypt from the revolt, accompanied by distrust and treachery among the satraps, reportedly brought the affair to an end by 360. In support of Diodorus, Walter Judeich marshalled the related fragmentary literary documents to amplify the primary description of the revolt, dubbing it in the process "Die Satrapenaufstande" (Kleinasiatische Studien: Untersuchungen zur griechischpersischen Geschichte des IV. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. [Marburg, 1892], 190-220). Thereafter, the "[Great] Satraps' Revolt" became the standard phrase for describing the rebellion. In contrast to this now generally accepted interpretation, Weiskopf disputes the unity of the affair and challenges the organized nature of the conflict. In his opinion, what Diodorus represents as a revolt against the central imperial authority is actually only local dissension among the satraps on the western frontier. Rather than a merger of governing officials in opposition to the crown, Weiskopf presents a series of personal and private clashes involving the contentious status-seeking Persian governors of the region that were of purely local significance.

Based on recent portrayals of the Achaemenid realm as a decentralized empire administered locally by "miniature dynasties," the author argues that strife and rivalry among these governing officers were endemic (pp. 9-22). From this perspective, Diodorus' account is then critically scrutinized and the "revolt" reinterpreted as a series of four "minor" struggles among the local satraps that destabilized western Asia. These episodes began in 367, when the satraps Autophrates of Lydia and Ariobarzanes of Dascylium became embroiled in warfare over the adjacent territory of the Troad, which Diodorus misrepresented as rebellion against the king (pp. 26-44). By 364, internal conflict arose among members of the satrapal family of Dascylium, resulting in the dismemberment of their territory by local freebooters, rebels, and bandits; according to...