In the Trojan War of Greek mythology, many nations were allied with Troy to fight against the Greeks. This included many of the nations of ancient Anatolia. Perhaps the most surprising participant in the Trojan War, however, was a prince from ancient Iran. He was Memnon, best known as the Ethiopian ruler who died at the hands of Achilles in the final year of the war.

Memnon, king of the eastern Ethiopians

Since Memnon is usually remembered as being a king of the Ethiopians, how can he have been from ancient Iran? The reason is that there was more than just one group of people known to the Greeks as Ethiopians.

For example, notice the words of Greek historian Herodotus of the fifth century BCE in his description of the large army of Xerxes the Great:

“Ethiopians above Egypt and the Arabians had Arsames for commander, and the Ethiopians of the east​ (for there were two kinds of them in the army) served with the Indians.”

This shows that the Greeks recognized the existence of Ethiopians outside of Africa. Specifically, these other Ethiopians lived in the east, evidently not too far from India. Since Memnon was the king of the Ethiopians, he could potentially have been the king of either the eastern Ethiopians or the African ones.

It is worth mentioning that in ancient Greek, the word Αἰθίοψ (Ethiops) was used not only to describe a specific group of people, but also more generally to refer to individuals with darker skin. The term is a compound of αἴθω (to burn) and ὤψ (face or appearance), literally meaning “burnt-face.” It appears frequently in early Greek literature, such as Homer’s epics, where Ethiopians are depicted as distant, noble figures living at the edges of the known world, rather than as members of a clearly defined nation.

The Ethiopians of Iran

Herodotus himself states that the city of Susa, the ancient capital of Elam (a prominent region in what is now Iran), was known as the city of Memnon. This suggests that Memnon was the king of the eastern Ethiopians, evidently a people in the region of Iran.

This is confirmed by Ctesias, just a few decades after Herodotus. According to this Greek historian, Memnon’s father, Tithonus, was the ruler of Persia. He was either subject to or allied with the king of the Assyrian Empire.

The territory of Persia in the time of the Assyrian Empire corresponded to a large part of what is now Iran. According to Ctesias, Memnon built a palace for himself at Susa. He goes on to claim that Memnon’s army, which he led to Troy, was composed of many Ethiopians and Susians, or inhabitants of Susa.

Hence, it is clear that Memnon in the legends of the Trojan War was originally supposed to have been from ancient Iran.

As for why the Greeks called the inhabitants of that region ‘Ethiopians’, we cannot be sure. However, it may be related to the use of the word ‘Cissians‘ (‘Kíssioi’ in Greek) for the inhabitants of the region of Elam. The Greeks might have confused this for ‘Kush’, the name for the kingdom of the Ethiopians south of Egypt.

How ancient Iran participated in the Trojan War

Ctesias provides the most detailed early account of this army from ancient Iran that fought in the Trojan War. According to Ctesias, King Priam of Troy was subordinate to the king of Assyria, named Teutamos. Due to the difficulties he was facing in the Trojan War, he sent word to Teutamos to ask for help.

As a result, Teutamos sent a large army of 10,000 Ethiopians and 10,000 Susians under the command of Memnon. This army from ancient Iran marched from the furthest corner of the Assyrian Empire over to Troy. Ctesias wrote:

“Memnon assisted the Trojans with 20,000 infantry and 200 chariots and… he was admired for his courage and for killing many Greeks in battle.”

Despite his prowess in battle, Ctesias goes on to explain that the Thessalians killed him. This refers to his death at the hands of Achilles, as per other sources. Achilles was from the kingdom of Phthia in ancient Thessaly.

Did an army from ancient Iran fight in the Trojan War?

Could Memnon have been a historical king or prince of Elam in ancient Iran? Some scholars have speculated that he might be identical to Humban-Numena I, the king of Elam in the Bronze Age. Furthermore, the latter half of his name is admittedly similar to ‘Memnon’.

However, he likely reigned in the first half of the 14th century BCE. Therefore, this king from ancient Iran lived too early to have fought in the Trojan War.

Two other possibilities are Humban-Numena II, possibly in the 11th century BCE, and Humban-Numena III, who lived at the end of the eighth century BCE. The latter’s name is often written in modern sources as “Humban-menanu.” The similarity to “Memnon,” while not exact, is there.

This latter candidate, although living much later than the traditional date of the Trojan War, is particularly noteworthy given Ctesias’ chronological information. He places Memnon’s activities at the height of the Assyrian Empire.

Another candidate from approximately the same time is a prominent Elamite known only as Menanu, referenced in a letter from Ashurbanipal, the king of Assyria. The letter makes it clear that Menanu is a supporter of Assyria. This fits what Ctesias tells us about Memnon.

However, this does not necessarily mean that an army marched from ancient Iran to fight in the Trojan War. In part, this depends on when the Trojan War occurred, a continued historical debate.

Nevertheless, the legend itself is clear. Memnon led an army from ancient Iran to Troy, where they fought in the Trojan War against the Greeks.

For some time, Ancient Egypt was ruled by a dynasty of Ethiopian kings. According to legend, one of them was so powerful that he conquered Anatolia, across the Mediterranean from Egypt. Could such a conquest have really occurred, and if not, then what led to this legend of an Ethiopian king of Egypt who was said to have conquered Anatolia?

Strabo’s legend of the Ethiopian king of Egypt who conquered Anatolia

The source for this legend comes from one particular document. This is Strabo’s Geography, written in the first century BC. Strabo mentions a particularly notable Ethiopian king twice. In the first instance, he mentions him alongside other notable conquerors of the ancient world, writing:

“Nor yet for the most part are the expeditions of their chiefs, for instance, Madys the Scythian, Tearko the Ethiopian, Cobus of Trerus, Sesostris and Psammeticus the Egyptians.”

Without going into details, the context of this reference makes it clear that Tearko the Ethiopian was supposed to have set out on a major expedition or conquest. He is grouped together with other famous conquerors of antiquity, such as Sesostris.

The next mention of Tearko provides additional information. Here, Strabo calls him “Tearco.” Referring to the claims of an earlier historian called Megasthenes, he wrote:

“Sesostris, the Aegyptian, he adds, and Tearco the Aethiopian advanced as far as Europe; and Nabocodrosor, who enjoyed greater repute among the Chaldaeans than Heracles, led an army even as far as the Pillars. Thus far, he says, also Tearco went; and Sesostris also led his army from Iberia to Thrace and the Pontus.”

According to this legend, Tearco the Ethiopian conquered as far as the Pillars, meaning the Pillars of Hercules. However, how is this associated with Anatolia, and why have we called this Ethiopian ruler a king of Egypt?

Who was Tearco the Ethiopian?

To understand the answer to these questions, we first need to understand who Tearco actually was. It is necessary to take a look at the context in which Strabo places him. In the first reference to him, Strabo grouped him together with figures such as Madys the Scythian, known to modern historians as Madyes, his contemporary king Cobus, and Psammeticus of Egypt. These were figures of the seventh century BC.

In the second reference to Tearco, Strabo groups him together with Nabocodrosor of the Chaldaeans, known to historians as Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, and Sesostris of Egypt, probably the historical Shebitku. These were also figures of that same era. Furthermore, immediately after the quoted passage, Strabo mentions Idanthyrsus, a Scythian king of the sixth century BC.

Therefore, based on the context in which Tearco is mentioned, it is obvious that we should be looking for an Ethiopian king who ruled at some point within that same era. For this reason, the mainstream conclusion among scholars is that Strabo’s Tearco is the historical Taharqa.

Taharqa was a member of the Ethiopian dynasty that ruled Egypt for much of the eighth and seventh centuries BC. Chronologically, he fits in perfectly with the other figures mentioned by Strabo, and his name is a linguistic match as well. We know, historically, that Taharqa became the ruler of Egypt, despite Strabo making no mention of this fact.

Understanding the legend

Now that it’s clear who Strabo was referencing, let us see if we can actually understand Strabo’s claim. It is easy to be confused by the reference to Tearco conquering as far as the Pillars. It might seem like Tearco was said to have conquered as far as Spain. After all, the Strait of Gibraltar is the standard location of the Pillars of Hercules.

For a king of Egypt, this might appear to make sense in the context of an exaggerated tale. It would mean that Tearco warred across the coast of North Africa until finally reaching the Strait of Gibraltar. However, this is illogical in the context of Strabo’s passage. As the quoted passage shows, Strabo states that both Nebuchadnezzar and Tearco reached the Pillars.

Given the reference to Nebuchadnezzar, Strabo may be referring to pillars that, according to Isocrates, were situated near the entrance of the Black Sea, at Troy, rather than the actual Pillars of Hercules at Gibraltar. While Nebuchadnezzar never historically got as far as Troy, he did conquer parts of Anatolia.

Furthermore, Strabo associates the event with Sesostris’ campaigns as far as Thrace and the Pontus (the Black Sea). This reinforces the point that Strabo was referring to pillars by the entrance to the Black Sea rather than the Pillars at the Strait of Gibraltar. Incidentally, the reference to Iberia in association with Sesostris must point to the Caucasian Iberia, as it is often called by modern historians, on the eastern end of the Black Sea region.

Conclusively, Tearco the Ethiopian, the historical Taharqa king of Egypt, was said to have conquered all across the Levant and right through Anatolia.

Is the legend of the Ethiopian king who conquered Anatolia actually true?

If an Ethiopian king of Egypt really did conquer Anatolia, we would definitely know about it. There would have been clear references to such an event in archaeological records. Nevertheless, that does not mean that this legend has no identifiable historical basis.

It is clear that the legend is not simply based on exaggerated accounts of Taharqa’s historical conquests. The reason is that Taharqa was, in reality, not a notable conqueror. Plenty of kings of Egypt engaged in far more impressive conquests than he ever did, yet no legends ever centered around them. Therefore, the true explanation must be something unique in his case.

The Bible provides the answer. In its account of Sennacherib of Assyria waging war against Jerusalem, the Bible mentions Taharqa. Using the spelling “Tirhakah,” it describes how this Ethiopian king went out to fight against Sennacherib. Historically, Taharqa was unable to secure a victory.

Nevertheless, we know that the Egyptians remembered it as a victory. Herodotus, in the fifth century BC, recorded an Egyptian legend about a king of Egypt named Sethos who successfully defeated the Assyrians. Scholars generally understand Sethos to be Shebitku. It appears that Shebitku was the senior king at the time of Sennacherib’s attack, with Taharqa as the junior king. Shebitku was the king of Egypt, while his relative Taharqa was the king of Ethiopia and the one who actually led the army against the Assyrians.

Hence, what appears to have occurred is that the Egyptians remembered the attack as a victory, regardless of the historical outcome. It was then exaggerated into tales of Tearco actually conquering the Assyrians. Since their territory extended far into Anatolia, this naturally led to the legend of Tearco, an Ethiopian king of Egypt, conquering as far away as Anatolia.

The Eridanos River of Greek mythology is a mysterious river whose location has long been debated. Numerous real-world rivers around Europe have been suggested, but some scholars believe it is completely mythical and corresponds to no real-world location. Nevertheless, some may wonder where this river might actually be situated.

The Eridanos River of Greek mythology

To try to understand which real-world river it might correspond to, we first need to look at what ancient sources say about it. The Eridanos River is most famous for its connection with Phaethon and amber. In the relevant legend, it’s the river into which Phaethon crashes after he steals the chariot of the sun god.

Phaethon’s sisters, the Heliades, grieved the loss of their brother, and the gods transformed them into poplar trees. These trees, in turn, supposedly produced amber for which the river was well known. Numerous scholars have attempted to use this information to identify this body of water.

Furthermore, we know that the Eridanos River cannot have been an obscure, minor river. Hesiod mentions it in his list of the offspring of Oceanus. Eridanos appears first in the list, and Hesiod even calls it “deep-swirling,” which is an expression normally reserved for the great Oceanus itself.

Where was the Eridanos River?

With these facts in mind, what have scholars argued about the location of this river? Well, one popular candidate is the Vistula River, since this flows through Poland and leads to the Baltic Sea. This was a major source of amber in the ancient world, and this fits the criterion of the Eridanos River being a source of amber.

Furthermore, Herodotus associates the Eridanos River with a certain “northern sea.” Since the Baltic Sea is to the north of Greece, it could fit Herodotus’ description. However, another popular candidate is the Po River, which flows through northern Italy and enters the Adriatic Sea. In fact, several ancient sources explicitly identify the Eridanos with this real river. At first, that might seem to settle the matter. However, it’s more complicated than that.

A closer look at Herodotus’ description

Herodotus, in the fifth century BC, was not the first person to mention the Eridanos River. As we saw earlier, that was Hesiod. However, he does seem to provide the earliest useful description of it. His description reads:

“As to the extremities of Europe towards the West, I am not able to speak with certainty: for neither do I accept the tale that there is a river called in Barbarian tongue Eridanos, flowing into the sea which lies towards the North Wind, whence it is said that amber comes; nor do I know of the real existence of the Cassiterides from which tin comes to us… However that may be, tin and amber certainly come to us from the extremity of Europe.”

As we can see from this description, the Eridanos River was explicitly said to flow into the sea which lies towards the North Wind, and Herodotus refers to this region as the “extremity of Europe”. This definitively rules out the Po River, which flows into the Adriatic Sea near Greece itself.

Does this mean that the Vistula River is the most likely candidate? At first, that might seem to match Herodotus’ reference to the “extremity of Europe” and the fact that the river flowed into the sea towards the North Wind. However, that does not work either. Herodotus prefaces this passage by referring to the “extremities of Europe towards the West”.

Since the Vistula and the Baltic Sea are essentially directly north of Greece, this does not match this aspect of Herodotus’ description.

Jason and the Argonauts

The Argonautica, by Apollonius Rhodius of the third century BC, reveals the answer to this conundrum. Although it contains some fictional geography, it is clear about where the Eridanos River was supposedly situated, and this aligns perfectly with Herodotus’ description.

According to Apollonius, Jason and the Argonauts sail from the Black Sea through the Danube and then reached the Adriatic Sea via a fictional channel between the two. They then sail up into the Eridanos River, actually signifying the Po River in this context. Eventually, they make it to the Rhodanus River, or the Rhone as it is known today, a body of water which flows through France relatively close to the Po River source and then spills into the the Mediterranean Sea on the country’s southern coast.

This is significant because it demonstrates that the Greeks believed the Po and the Rhone were connected. In fact, other ancient texts attest to this same belief. Consequently, this means Apollonius is presenting the Rhone as part of the Eridanus River.

How the Argonautica reveals the true location of the Eridanos River

At this point in the Argonautica, the true nature of the Eridanos River is made clear. Apollonius writes:

“Thence they entered the deep stream of Rhodanus which flows into Eridanus; and where they meet there is a roar of mingling waters. Now that river, rising from the ends of the earth, where are the portals and mansions of Night, on one side bursts forth upon the beach of Ocean, at another pours into the Ionian Sea, and on the third through seven mouths sends its stream to the Sardinian sea and its limitless bay.”

Apollonius refers to the Eridanos River as having three mouths. One arm of the river flows into the Ionian Sea, which is an ancient reference to the Adriatic Sea. That is the arm of the river that Jason and the Argonauts have just been described as sailing up. Another one of the arms of the river is said to flow into the Sardinian Sea. That would be the Rhone, in accordance with Apollonius who explicitly presents the Rhodanus (the Rhone) as part of the Eridanos.

The third arm is the final piece of the puzzle. According to Apollonius, it flows into the “beach of Ocean.” Incidentally, this matches Herodotus’s description of the Eridanos flowing into the sea on the other side of Europe, which doesn’t match the Rhone nor the Po. The notable point is that this shows that the Ancient Greeks believed the Po, the Rhone, and a third river were all part of one enormous waterway in Europe, which they referred to as the Eridanos.

What was the third arm of the Eridanos River?

A few lines later, Apollonius refers to the mouth of the river in the southern part of France as the middle of the three mouths of the Eridanos. With the Po River having the mouth closest to Greece, and the Rhone having the intermediate one, the third mouth must have been even further west. This, again, is in harmony with Herodotus’ description, which associated the Eridanos with the western extremity of Europe.

Based on this, the only plausible candidate for the third arm of the Eridanos River is the Loire. This is a river whose mouth is further west than the mouth of the Rhone. It flows out into the Atlantic Ocean on the western side of France and is located towards the north—another detail of Herodotus to keep in mind. Furthermore, it flows quite close to the Rhone near its source, making sense of the belief that they were connected.

In summary, it appears that the Greeks imagined the Loire, the Rhone, and the Po Rivers to all be connected. The Greeks received their amber via the Po River, since it was the final part of the Amber Road which originated in the Baltic Sea. However, they believed that the Po was connected to the Loire.

This perfectly matches up with Herodotus’ description of the Eridanos River in its entirety. As we saw, he claimed it flowed into the sea on the other side of Europe and associated it particularly with the north and the west, which points to the Loire.