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