Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf
Page 36
the Book of Zachariah, which was written at the end of the 4th century.
Alexander, portrayed as the ‘he-goat’ defeating the ‘ram’ representing the
Persian king, is also featured in another prophesy (likewise written post
eventum) in the Book of Daniel originating from the mid 2nd century.
Meanwhile, the day after the city’s capture Alexander paid his long
awaited visit to the Temple of Melqart. The offering of sacrifices was
accompanied with a military parade in full armour, a convoy of ships and a
sports contest held near the temple. The votive offerings laid before
Heracles/Melqart included a siege engine that had crushed the city’s walls
and a Tyrian ship that had already once been offered to this god.
Alexander nominated a Macedonian called Philotas (not to be confused
with a son of Parmenion) as military commander of Tyre and the
surrounding areas. Tyre was not completely destroyed and under
Macedonian supervision the Phoenicians were allowed to gradually settle
there again, but the city never regained its earlier status. It is probably that
King Azemilcus continued to rule over the kingdom, but now as
Alexander’s appointee. The Tyre mint continued to issue King
Azemilcus’s coins, and by 331 it also started issuing Alexander’s coins.
The fact that he had captured the most impregnable Persian fortress in the
Mediterranean and thus underpinned the likelihood of his claim to the
Achaemenid Empire may have inspired Alexander to start issuing in
332/331 staters – gold coins, which according to Persian custom signified
royal sovereignty. Finally, before he moved on, Alexander received a
delegation from the League of Corinth with somewhat belated
congratulations for his victory at Issus in the autumn of the previous
year.128
127 Arr., An. , 2.23-24; Curt., 4.4.10-18; Plu., Alex. , 25.1-3; Diod., 17.46;
Fragmentum Sabbaiticum, FGrH, 151 F1.7; It. Alex. , 43. Wilcken 1967, pp. 110-111; Bosworth 1980, pp. 251-256; Heckel 1992, pp. 58-64; Hammond 1989, pp.
132-134.
128 Za. , 9.2-4; Da. , 8; Diod., 17.46.6, 17.48.5; Curt., 4.5.9-12; Arr., An. , 2.24.6; Just., 18.3, 19.4.1. Schachermeyr 1973, p. 218; Atkinson 1980, p. 325; Seibert
1985, p. 82; Ashley 1998, pp. 247-249; Le Rider 2003, pp. 170-188; Heckel 2006,
s.v. ’Philotas’ [8].
194
Chapter IV
During the siege of Tyre, at a time unspecified by the sources,
Alexander received another letter from Darius III, who had not been
dissuaded by the arrogant tone of his enemy’s response at Marathus to his
first peace proposal. Here too the various accounts given by the ancient
authors are as incongruous as their accounts of the first diplomatic offer.
Plutarch even states that Darius’s messengers reached Alexander during
his second stay at Tyre in the spring of 331. However, most of the authors
of the two major historical source traditions state that the messengers
arrived during the siege and therefore this version is more plausible. The
Great King’s demands were the same as before. However, he now made
changes to what he was proposing in return: the hand of his daughter
Stateira in marriage and a ransom of 10,000 talents (though the latter may
have also been a repetition of his earlier offer). On top of that he was now
agreeing to cede territory, up to the river Halys (according to Curtius,
Diodorus and Valerius Maximus) or up to the river Euphrates (according
to Arrian, Plutarch and Itinerarium Alexandri). The offer of ceding
territory up to the river Euphrates seems less likely as it would have
included regions that were still under Persian control. Moreover, this offer
is all the more improbable as it was made at the time when Alexander was
preoccupied with the siege of Tyre and therefore not really poised to
conquer more territories to the east. The river Halys, on the other hand,
marked a traditional boundary between East and West, and it had already
been presented as such in Panhellenistic literature in Philip II’s lifetime.
The area between the Hellespont and the Halys was the only part of the
Achaemenid Empire that had been intensively colonised by Greeks and
whose native elites had therefore also been to a large extent Hellenised.
This territory the Greeks knew well enough to effectively administer and
further colonise. If only for these reasons the acceptance of Darius’s
second offer would have been a realisation of Macedonia’s war aims from
the end of Philip II’s reign. That is how Parmenion saw it and said he
would accept the offer if he were Alexander. Alexander’s response – on
this occasion or after Darius’s third offer – was to say that he also would
also accept the offer if he were Parmenion. This was yet another incident
demonstrating Alexander’s maximalist attitude, as Arrian states: ‘he
needed no money from Darius, nor a part of the country instead of the
whole; for the money and country all belonged to him.’ Allegedly, it was
only after receiving this second response that Darius began preparing for
the continuation of war.129
129 Arr., An. , 2.25.1-3; Diod., 17.39.1-2, 17.54.1; Curt., 4.5.1-8; Plu., Alex. , 29.7-8; Just., 11.12; It. Alex. , 43-44; V. Max., 6.4, ext. 3. Andreotti 1957, pp. 125-126;
From Abydus to Alexandria
195
The Tyrian resistance and the sea damage to their mole had not been
the only problems to beset the besiegers. D.W. Engels has calculated that
in the seven months that the siege lasted the Macedonian army (excluding
the allied fleet, which comprised over 40,000 people) consumed over
28,000 tons of grain, which was the soldier’s basic diet. The traditional
means of feeding an army was to commandeer food from the land it
occupied, but that would not have been possible in the area around Tyre as
it could have only accounted for 7 % of the above-mentioned amount. It
was indeed primarily logistical concerns that drew Alexander’s attention
to Palestine, which in Antiquity produced a surplus of grain. In the Persian
era the inland part of Palestine comprised three small, native entities,
Idumea and two autonomous statelets Samaria and Judah, living on hostile
terms with one another but being at the same time provinces of the
Ebirnari satrapy. The Persian governors in the more northern province of
Samaria came from a native dynasty, represented in Alexander’s time by
Sanballat III. The more southern state of Judah was a theocracy centred on
the Temple in Jerusalem and its High Priest. This state did not have a local
ruling dynasty but the Great King still always nominated a governor from
among the native Jews. We do not know how authority was divided
between the governor and the High Priest, especially as both of them
issued a similar type of coin. In Alexander’s day the Persian governor in
Judah was Yehizqiyyah and the High Priest – according to Flavius
Josephus – was probably Jaddua II, though it may in fact have been
Johannan. During the siege of Tyre Alexander requested these two
Palestinian states to supply him with soldiers and provisions. According to
Flavius Josephus, Sanballat III fulfilled these requests
and sent 8,000
Samaritan troops to Tyre. For this the governor was rewarded with
permission to build a temple on Mount Gerizim that could compete with
the Temple in Jerusalem. The High Priest Jaddua, however, allegedly
remained loyal to Darius III, which angered Alexander and portended his
revenge after the capture of Tyre.130
There is a romantic version of the contacts between the Macedonian
ruler and the inhabitants of Judea originating from the Jewish oral tradition,
recorded in two independent works – that of Flavius Josephus, general
considered better, and the Talmud, generally considered too belletristic –
as well as from some versions of the Alexander Romance. The essential
Wilcken 1967, pp. 111-112; Goukowsky 1975, p. 264; Bosworth 1980, pp. 227-
229, 256-257; Hamilton 1999, pp. 76-77.
130 J., AJ, 11.8.2-4. Kazis 1962, pp. 4-11; Engels 1978, pp. 55-56; Eph’al 1988, pp.
147-152; Tadmor 1994, p. 289; Briant 1996, pp. 734-735; Dandamaev 1999;
Briant 2009, pp. 152-155.
196
Chapter IV
element of this romantic version is victorious Alexander’s visit to
Jerusalem with the intention of punishing the Judah for not helping him
during the siege of Tyre. But then events unfolded in a quite unplanned
way. When he met the High Priest, the king is said to have prostrated
himself to honour the God Yahweh. The presence of this imagined
element inclines some historians to doubt the credibility of the whole tale.
But this is exaggerated scepticism: Alexander was known to have been
curious of the world in general and of religion in particular, so a visit to a
unique monotheistic temple would be very much in keeping with his
personality. It is also important to stress that in the Jewish tradition
Alexander is a decidedly positive figure, a ruler who showed respect to the
Judaic religion and allowed the Jews to live in accordance with their faith
and culture. Flavius Josephus writes that Alexander visited Jerusalem after
the capture of Gaza. This, however, seems unlikely for by then Alexander
would have been preparing to enter Egypt and organising such a major
logistical operation would not have allowed him to take time off for any
detours. Besides, Arrian mentions that on the eve of the siege of Gaza
Palestine was already subjugated to the Macedonian king. This allows us
to speculate that Alexander would have had more time to visit Jerusalem
during the seven-month siege of Tyre as he had also had time for military
and hunting expeditions in Mount Lebanon. It was during one of these
hunts that Alexander found himself in grave danger; a lion would have
attacked him if Craterus had not killed the beast in the nick of time.
Observing this foolhardiness in which the king quite unnecessarily risked
his life and thus also the fate of the entire expedition as well as his
monarchy, a Spartan ambassador being held captive in the Macedonian
camp is supposed to have ironically praised him, saying: ‘Excellent,
Alexander, you have been fighting a lion for the realm.’131
In Palestine, despite the initial support provided to Alexander during
the siege of Tyre, it eventually turned out that Samaria would cause more
trouble than Judah. Towards the end of his stay in Egypt, i.e. in the late
summer of 331, the Samaritans rebelled. In unknown circumstances
Andromachus, the Macedonian military commander of southern Syria and
Palestine, was immolated by the Samaritans. Alexander naturally ordered
the perpetrators of this deed to be punished, the city of Samaria was
destroyed and a Macedonian colony established in its place. From then on
131 J., AJ, 11.8.4-5; Megillat Ta’anit, 9; Ps.-Callisth., (rec. g), 2.23-24; Arr., An. , 2.25.4. Kazis 1962, pp. 4-11; Seibert 1972, pp. 103-107; Świderkówna 1996, pp.
86-89, 121; Stoneman 1997, pp. 36-37; Hammond 1989, p. 208; Meleze-
Modrzejewski 1995, pp. 50-55. The lion episode: Plu., Alex. , 40.4-5; FD 3.4.2.137; see Hamilton 1999, p. 107; Stewart 1993, pp. 270-277.
From Abydus to Alexandria
197
Samaria was a Hellenistic city with a predominantly pagan population,
whereas the native Samaritan population lived mainly in Shechem and on
Mount Gerizim.132
The Macedonian army marched from Tyre towards Egypt along the
Mediterranean coast. They occupied coastal Palestinian cities on the way,
some of which belonged to Tyre or Sidon. There was most probably no
resistance. The feeding of the army during this 260-km march from Tyre
to Gaza would not have posed a major problem as it took place in August,
after the harvest, which in Palestine occurred in June. The fertile soils of
Galilee, the Plain of Esdraelon (Jezreel Valley) and the costal lowlands
could easily support the Macedonian army in the c. 11 days it took to
reach Gaza. In some places, however, there was a shortage of drinking
water, especially in summer when many of the streams and brooks dried
up. One can assume that supplying the army with drinking water was one
of the main tasks of the fleet commanded by Hephaestion, which
Alexander had instructed to sail alongside the Macedonian land forces.
Gaza, a former Philistine city on the border between Palestine and Sinai,
was an important fortress which armies moving into Egypt could not avoid.
It was also one of the destinations of caravan routes from Happy Arabia
(Yemen) used to transport incense and other valuable items for trade in the
Mediterranean area. Therefore control of this city gave access to lucrative
revenues; whoever held the city could bargain with the nomadic Arab
tribes that needed to be able to export the goods they had transported
across the desert.133
If Alexander had been hoping Gaza would capitulate without a fight,
he was disappointed. Guarding this mighty fortress, built on raised ground
overlooking a plain, was a detachment of Arab soldiers. They had
abundant supplies of food and fresh water from natural sources. Those
besieging the fortress, on the other hand, had to have food and drinking
water transported to them over considerable distances. The fortress was
commanded by Batis, whom Arrian calls a eunuch, though, as explained
earlier, this could simply mean he was a high-ranking Persian official. In
the extant fragments of the work of the Hellenistic historian, Hegesias,
Batis is called a king; he is also called a king in Semitic inscription ( melek)
on a coin reputedly issued at Gaza. It is therefore probable that he was a
local Arab ruler whom the Great King had appointed to a high Persian
132 Curt., 4.8.9; Chron. Euseb., 2.223. Cross 1963; Seibert 1985, p. 90; Bosworth
1988, pp. 232-233.
133 Za. , 9.5-8; Curt., 4.5.10. Delcor 1951, pp. 117, 120; Lane Fox 1973, p. 191;
Engels 1978, pp. 57-58; Högemann 1985, pp. 47-49; Briant 1996, p. 736.
198
Chapter IV
office and entrusted with the defence of Gaza. 134 An attempt to
immediately capture Gaza failed, so Alexander had to prepare a siege and
have his war engines shipped over from Phoenicia. He spent two months
outside Gaza, probably in September and October 332, overseeing very
o
nerous engineering works. In order to be able to use their siege engines
the Macedonians needed to heap the hard sandy soil to build ramps leading
up to the knoll on which the fortress stood; at the same time they also
excavated the soil beneath the fortress’s walls. The defenders did not look
on passively and instead organised raids on the besiegers. Alexander was
himself wounded twice during this siege – once he was injured with an
arrow in his shoulder and on another occasion his leg was hit with a stone.
Once the ramp was ready the siege engines were brought up and the
storming began. The undermined sections of the wall collapsed but,
despite this, the defenders repelled three Macedonian assaults. Finally an
attack conducted simultaneously from various sides broke the city’s
defences. The first to scale the wall was Neoptolemus of the royal Aeacid
dynasty from Epirus, and therefore a relative of Alexander’s. The
Macedonians slaughtered the brave defenders; Hegesias mentions 4,000
and Curtius 10,000 killed. In keeping with the customs of that age, the
women and children were sold into slavery. Alexander had the captured
Batis tied to his chariot and dragged around the city. With this barbaric
deed Alexander was, in his own words, following the example of Achilles,
who in this way defiled the corpse of Hector at Troy. Gaza was now
settled with a new population, but it remained an important military base.
Before his departure for Egypt, Alexander sent Amyntas back to
Macedonia to raise yet more reinforcements, which would indicate that
during the 332 campaign the Macedonians incurred greater losses than the
ancient sources record.135
6. The son of Ammon
Egypt was that part of the Persian Empire where the rule of the
Achaemenids was the least stabilised. Although it had already been
conquered by Cambyses in 525, this country experienced many rebellions
and on more than one occasion broke itself free from the Great King’s
134 Arr., An. , 2.25.4; Curt., 4.6.7; Hegesias, FGrH, 142 F5; J., AJ, 11.8; D.H., Comp. , 18; It. Alex. , 45. Delcor 1951, p. 119; Engels 1978, pp. 58-59; Bosworth 1980, pp. 257-258; Atkinson 1980, pp. 334-336; Briant 1996, pp. 287, 945.