Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf

Home > Fantasy > Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf > Page 18
Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf Page 18

by Amanda


  even note that the architectural form of the Macedonian tombs at Vergina,

  especially Tombs II and III, resemble the house-tomb of Cyrus the Great

  at Pasargadae, which Europeans saw for the first time only after 331. More

  importantly, the barrel-vaulted roofs appear in Europe for the first time in

  their fully developed form at Vergina and we may assume that this form

  was introduced to Greek architecture from Iran thanks to Alexander’s

  expedition. Moreover, the grieves of uneven length found in Tomb II do

  not match what would have been Philip’s physical proportions, as the

  longer one would have been worn on his right leg, the leg which in fact

  was shorter on account of the incurred wound. Such grieves were, on the

  other hand, used by Persian archers who had one grieve shorter for freer

  movement of the leg when firing arrows from a semi-kneeling position.

  On coins the Persian king is frequently portrayed as an archer and

  therefore such grieves could have been part of a captured royal Persian

  outfit. This would have included a spear that Persian archers used, and that

  too was found in the tomb, as was an oriental quiver ( gorytos). The very

  opulence of the artefacts found in Tomb II contradict Andronikos’s thesis

  insofar as sceptics query whether the treasury’s virtually empty coffers at

  the start of Alexander’s reign would have allowed for the purchase of such

  a quantity of high quality items crafted out of precious materials, including

  large amounts of gold. The most important counter arguments concern the

  ceramic items found in Tomb II: two Athenian salt cellars that have been

  dated as originating from some time between 325 and 295. The

  chronology of Athenian ceramics has been established to an estimated

  accuracy of ten years. As the salt cellars could not have been placed in the

  burial chamber before it was sealed, Tomb II could not have been created

  before 325. Alexander would have buried his father before the start of his

  Asian campaign in 334, a campaign from which he never returned. This

  argument is enforced by the examination of ceramic items found in a

  Macedonian grave at Derveni which are very similar to those from Tomb

  II at Vergina and have been dated as originating form the last quarter of

  92

  Chapter III

  the 4th century. Also some metal artefacts from Tomb II point to a

  markedly later date than 336. 13 A renewed examination of the bone

  fragments attributed to Philip did not confirm any evidence of damage

  caused by an arrow or indeed any other deformities claimed in earlier

  studies. Moreover, the changes and cracks in the man’s long bones are

  characteristic for a body that had been buried for some time before being

  cremated. We know that the body of Philip III Arrhidaeus was buried in

  the autumn of 317 only to be exhumed and cremated in the spring of 316.

  No sources, however, mention Philips body being burnt after an initial

  period of interment.14

  In other words, the less attractive theory that Philip III Arrhidaeus and

  his wife Adea-Eurydice were buried at Tomb II of the Great Tumulus at

  Vergina appears to be closer to the truth. Despite the marginalisation of

  this mentally retarded monarch, he was the king of Macedonia at a time

  when the great empire created by Alexander was still intact, at least in

  theory. The opulence of the tomb is therefore hardly surprising, especially

  as Cassander would make every effort to please those Macedonians loyal

  to the Argead dynasty by showing his respect to Olympias’s victim Philip

  III Arrhidaeus. By organising a lavish funeral for the son of Philip II,

  Cassander declared that he was the rightful successor to the Argead

  dynasty. This association he soon afterwards formalised by marrying

  Philip’s daughter Thessalonice. Apart from the crown, Philip III

  Arrhidaeus also inherited from his half-brother other treasures and regalia,

  some of which were presumably also deposited in his burial chamber. The

  sceptre, shield, armour and helmet had in all probability belonged to

  Alexander. The weapons and armour found with the remains of the young

  woman in the antechamber may be explained by the historically well

  documented military training Adea-Eurydice had received. In light of what

  has been said above, it seems most probable that the cist grave known as

  Tomb I of the Great Tumulus, which had already been robbed in ancient

  times, was the burial place of Philip II. The tomb may not have contained

  artefacts as precious as those found in Tombs II and III, but the

  archaeologically discovered bones of a middle aged man, young woman

  and infant would seem to have belonged to Philip II, his last wife

  Cleopatra and their child, which had been born just days before her

  father’s death. A full report regarding the archaeological findings in this

  13 Boyd 1978; Lehman 1980; Lehman 1982; Green 1982; Burstein 1982, pp. 144-

  146; Rotroff 1982; Rotroff 1984; Borza 1990, pp. 260-263, 272-274, 311; Faklaris

  1994, p. 616, n. 61; Themelis, Touratsoglou 1997, pp. 183-185, 220-222; Borza

  1999, pp. 69-70; Pelagia 2000, p. 191; Gill 2008.

  14 Bartsiokas 2000; Schuster 2000; Gill 2008.

  The New King

  93

  grave has not yet been published, but all the indications seem to show that

  the man’s body had been inhumed and not cremated. This undermines

  conventional views regarding ancient Macedonian burial customs.15

  Having taken over control of Macedonia, the young king Alexander

  had yet to secure for himself a position in Greece as had been enjoyed by

  his father before his death. Numerous delegations had arrived from Greece

  to attend the games that were to be held after Cleopatra’s wedding at

  Aegae. It was to them that Alexander now turned as the new king of

  Macedonia asking them to remain loyal. This appeal was to no avail for

  the death of the feared Philip to be replaced by a young and as yet

  inexperienced Alexander at a time of crisis was too much not to have

  awakened in many a Greek state the hope of breaking free of the existing

  political order. Indeed, it immediately became apparent that the many did

  not accept the new balance of power. As usual, we know most about how

  the situation developed in Athens. Phocion’s sober remark that with

  Philip’s death the Macedonian army had lost only one soldier had no affect

  of the populace. Instead Demosthenes’ anti-Macedonian rhetoric

  triumphed and the Athenians sent out delegations to other states to

  encourage them to break their ties with Macedonia and voted honours for

  Philip’s assassin. The Thebans voted to expel their Macedonian garrison.

  The Aetolians renewed their confederation, which had been disbanded by

  Philip, and contrary to the universal peace helped those whom the

  Macedonians had earlier banished return to Acarnania. The Macedonian

  garrison at Ambracia was expelled. Almost every state in the Peloponnese

  broke its ties with Macedonia: the Arcadians refused to recognise

  Alexander’s hegemony; there was a general uprising in Elis and Argos,

  whereas the Messenians expelled the leader of the local oligarchy that had

&n
bsp; been supported by Philip. With Philip’s death unrest also awakened among

  the barbarian tribes to the north of Macedonia.16

  In light of this situation some of Alexander’s advisors recommended

  caution. They felt Macedonia should pull out of Greece and concentrate on

  defending her northern borders as this had always been the most

  dangerous region. This seemed especially sensible when Alexander

  encountered opposition from perhaps the least expected quarter: the

  Thessalians blocked the Tempe pass linking their country with Macedonia

  15 Borza 1990, pp. 245-246; Borza 1999, pp. 70-71; Carney 1992; Pelagia 2000, p.

  191; Gill 2008.

  16 Aeschin., 3.77-78, 160; Theopomp., FGrH, 115 F235; [D.] 17.3.3, 4.7; Plb.,

  18.14.5-7; Diod., 17.3; Plu., Alex. , 11.1-3; Plu., Dem. , 22-23.2; Plu., Phoc., 16; Just., 11.2.4-5. Bosworth 1988, p. 188; Brun 2000, pp. 71-72. A putative Athenian

  honorific decree for Pausanias: SEG 19.63, as restored in Miller 2007.

  94

  Chapter III

  and declared full independence. The young king, however, rejected the

  cautious approach and set about resolving the first international crisis of

  his reign by actually dealing with Thessaly first and thus he immediately

  demonstrated a style of leadership that would be characteristic throughout

  his reign. Instead of trying to force the pass, Alexander led his army along

  the coast and instructed his soldiers to carve steps out of the side of Mount

  Ossa. The speed and unconventionality of this manoeuvre caught the

  Thessalians quite off guard, who gave up the moment they saw the

  Macedonian army appear behind them. At a council meeting of the

  Thessalian League Alexander delivered a speech in which he reminded

  those gathered of their common ancestor, Heracles, gave them appropriate

  pledges so that they could trust him. In return, like Philip before him,

  Alexander was elected archon.17

  This time it did not come to war in central and southern Greece. The

  Amphictyonic Council at Delphi immediately voted for Alexander’s

  continued leadership of Greece. He acquired the support of Ambracia by

  graciously recognising her independence. The Macedonian army next

  appeared post-haste in Boeotia, which was enough to cow the Thebans and

  incline them to return to an alliance with Macedonia. In response to news

  of these events, the Athenians resorted to their traditional strategy in times

  of danger of evacuating the rural population to behind the Long Walls. At

  the same time they tried to avert war by sending a delegation to Alexander.

  The young king accepted the delegation courteously, all the more so as the

  main leader of the war party Demosthenes, who was officially supposed to

  be part of this delegation, instead decided to return home. Now all

  Alexander had to do was summon the most important council in Greece,

  the synedrion of the League of Corinth. Having politely listened to

  Alexander’s speech and no doubt reflected on the swiftness of his army’s

  actions, the delegates elected the young king the supreme commander of

  Greek forces in the war against Persia. Moreover, they declared the

  participation of all the poleis in this war, which was to avenge all the

  wrongs previously committed by Persia against Greece. As Alexander’s

  hegemony in Greece now seemed secure, the Macedonian army marched

  north to quell disturbances on the northern border. Now it also seemed

  possible to resume preparations for the invasion of Asia Minor, which,

  although interrupted by Philip’s death, was due to start in 335.18 As before,

  a small Macedonian garrison was left behind in the Peloponnesus. The

  17 Diod., 17.4.1; Plu., Alex., 11.3-4; Polyaen., 4.3.23; Just., 11.3.2. Ellis 1981, p.

  108; Bosworth 1988, pp. 28, 189; Stoneman 1997, p. 20.

  18 Aeschin., 3.161; Arr., An. , 1.1.2; Diod., 17.4.2-9; Plu., Alex. , 11.4, 14.1; It. Alex. , 16.

  The New King

  95

  commander of this garrison, Corrhagus, became a key player in one of the

  most glaring breaches of the universal peace, which forbade forcing a

  change in the constitution of any member state of the League of Corinth.

  Thanks to his help a famous wrestler called Chairon overthrew a

  democracy at Pellene and set up a tyranny instead. No attempt was made

  at the synedrion of the League of Corinth to resolve the problem, even

  though this was very much its remit. Such violations of the League’s

  charter could not but have tarnished the appraisal of the king of Macedonia

  as hegemon of the League.19

  It is in association with his stay at Corinth that one of the best known

  anecdotes about Alexander originates. Flocked by Greek politicians and

  intellectuals Alexander was puzzled by the distinct absence of the Cynic

  philosopher Diogenes of Sinope and so decided to pay him a visit. The

  king found the philosopher on the outskirts of Corinth basking in the

  sunlight. Alexander approached Diogenes and asked him if there was

  anything he wanted. In response Diogenes asked Alexander not to stand

  between him and the sun. Alexander’s entourage burst out laughing and it

  was then that Alexander, astounded by the philosopher’s casual manner

  and complete unconcern for worldly affairs, is said to have uttered the

  famous words: ‘If I were not Alexander, I should be Diogenes.’ This story,

  mentioned in ancient literature as many as 22 times, is almost certainly

  apocryphal; probably invented by a pupil of Diogenes the Cynic

  Onesicritus, who served Alexander as a steersman. To Greek writers the

  scene is attractive as it shows the confrontation of two men from radically

  different parts of society – the monarch and the Cynic who rejected all

  forms of property and the conventions of the polis – both, in their own

  way, were free to philosophise.20 Another apocryphal tale is said to have

  taken place during Alexander’s return from Corinth to Macedonia. At

  Delphi the oracle refused to foretell Alexander’s future, so the king

  entered the temple and pulled out Pythia by force. It was then that the

  priestess explained that Alexander was invincible, which was indeed the

  prophecy he had been hoping for. The actual visit to Delphi most probably

  took place at the end of 336 or at the beginning of 335 and during that visit

  Alexander may well have donated the 150 gold coins ( philippeioi) to the

  temple which are featured in the Delphic register.21

  19 [D.], 17.10; Paus., 7.27.7; Ath., 11.119. Bosworth 1988, p. 194.

  20 E.g. Plu., Alex. , 14.2-5; Plu., mor. , 331f-332c, 605d-e, 728a-b. Berve 1926, ii, pp.

  417; Nawotka 2003, pp. 106-107; Heckel 2006, p. 113, s.v. ‘Diogenes’ [1].

  21 Plu., Alex. , 14.6-7; Syll.3 251. Stoneman 1997, pp. 21-22; Hamilton 1999, pp.

  34-35; Miller 2000, p. 271; Squilace 2005, p. 308; Poddighe 2009, pp. 101-102.

  96

  Chapter III

  2. War in the north

  In the spring of 335 Alexander set out from Amphipolis to Thrace with an

  army of no more than 15,000 soldiers. It included specially selected

  detachments of phalanx from Upper Macedonia, cavalry units also from

  Upper Macedonia as well as Bottia and Amphipolis, light infantry, archers

  and slingers
. The composition of this army and its size would indicate that

  the objective was to be a short preventive war to secure Macedonian rule

  in areas that Philip II had not managed to fully pacify. The borderland had

  to be secured before the great expedition to Asia. The entire war is know

  to us mostly from Arrian’s account, who used Ptolemy as a source, and it

  is hard not to get the impression that it is an exaggerated glorification of a

  war that was after all quite a minor one. The paucity of geographical

  information makes it difficult for us to trace the movements of

  Alexander’s army in the Balkan Peninsula. The Macedonian troops

  marched north via Philippopolis and other territories subjugated by Philip

  II until they reached the Haemus mountain range (Stara Planina), which

  was part of still free Thrace. It is impossible to establish which pass

  Alexander chose, Shipka or Trojan, but either way the army had to force

  its way through. Arrian writes about Thracians lying in wait on the

  mountain ridges above the given route hoping to break up the Macedonian

  phalanx as it passed by sending wagons hurtling down the steep slopes.

  Alexander’s response to this was to tell the soldiers to try and get out of

  the way, and if that was impossible, to lie flat on the ground and cover

  themselves with their shields. At the same time Alexander ordered his

  archers to fire at the Thracians, while he together with an elite unit of

  hypaspists and Agrianians prepared on the left flank to attack. Though on

  account of the technical difficulties of rolling wagons down mountain

  slopes as well as the very limited protection small Macedonian shields

  could possibly offer this fragment may have well been invented, there is

  no reason to doubt that Alexander won that battle. The more lightly armed

  Thracians were unable to withstand the Macedonian phalanx and having

  suffered heavy losses, allegedly as many as 1,500 were killed, fled from

  the mountain. Alexander had all the plundered booty, the most valuable of

  which was Thracian women and children, shipped for sale to Macedonia

 

‹ Prev