by Amanda
team of rabdouchoi (rod-bearers); the Macedonians, who were used to
having direct contact with the king, found this procedure particularly
objectionable. In these matters Alexander was always walking on thin ice
as the two court tradition differed in a fundamental way: the Macedonian
adhering to the principle of accessibility of the king, the Iranian built on
restriction of access, rituals, hierarchy. A certain Ptolemaios, probably not
the later king of Egypt, was appointed the royal food taster ( edeatros). The
king’s closest friend, Hephaestion, received the highest court distinction
by being appointed hazarapatiš (court chiliarch), but he was also
appointed chiliarch of Companion cavalry. The combination of these two
posts gave him a higher position than was normally held by a Persian
hazarapatiš. It was also then that Alexander formed a Persian guard of
melophori and an aristocratic mounted guard. Other adopted Achaemenid
institutions included court eunuchs and 365 concubines – the most
beautiful women in Asia. The first recorded use of the Achaemenids’
transportable palace was also in Hyrcania. This was a massive tent
supported by 50 gilded columns where Alexander granted audiences and
262
Chapter V
presided over court hearings. The entrance to this tent was guarded by 500
melophori, 500 Persian archers and 500 Macedonian guardsmen bearing
silver shields ( argyraspides), and beyond them was a group of war
elephants. This orientalization of the court and its rituals displeased the
Macedonians and to most of the ancient authors (probably following on
after Agatharchides) this is simply an exemplum of Alexander’s moral
downfall. Plutarch is an exception to this rule in that he sees this as an
element of Alexander’s broader political outlook in which he was trying
win over Asian nations by adopting the external aspects of their cherished
native cultures.85
The Macedonian army’s next objective was Bactria – the satrapy of
Bessus, who was now a pretender to the Achaemenid throne. Setting off
from Hyrcania, the Macedonian crossed Parthia and on its eastern border
entered Areia. It was in the border town of Susia (today Tus, to the north
of Meshed in the Iranian province of Khorasan) that the satrap of Areia,
Satibarzanes, immediately surrendered. Despite his involvement in
Darius’s murder, Satibarzanes was forgiven and re-nominated satrap of
Areia. Alexander was eager to defeat Bessus before the latter managed to
raise a large army and secure his position as Great King. That is why he
had a booty laden baggage train that was holding back his army burnt.
However, at this stage the elimination of Bessus was not Alexander’s sole
military objective. The long list of contingents at Gaugamela from Bactria,
Sogdiana, Areia, Drangiana and Arachosia as well as clay tablets
discovered by archaeologists at Persepolis and recently published Aramaic
documents from Bactria both indicate that in the 5th and 4th centuries these
were prosperous and densely populated satrapies – important centres of
power in the Achaemenid state. Therefore their occupation was an
important goal for any claimant to the Persian throne. But as the next three
years would show consolidating power there was not an easy task. Before
Alexander’s army, now freed from the baggage train, reached the Bactrian
capital, news arrived that Satibarzanes had revolted and the surprisingly
tiny contingent of Macedonian 40 horsemen in Areia had been slaughtered.
Alexander immediately turned back with the cavalry and two taxeis of
85 Phylarch., ap. Ath., 12.55 (= FGrH, 81 F41); Chares, ap. Ath., (= FGrH, 125 F1); Arr., An. , FGrH, 156 F1.3; Diod., 17.77.4-7, 18.48.5; Liv., 9.19.1-5; Curt., 6.6, 7.5.40; Plu., Alex. , 51.1-2; Plu., mor. , 329f-330e; Polyaen, 4.3.24; Ael., VH, 9.3; ME, 1-2. Goukowsky 1975, pp. 276-277; Goukowsky 1978, pp. 30-34; Badian
1985, p. 450; Bosworth 1988, pp. 98-100; O’Brien 1992, pp. 111-113; Heckel
1992, p. 226, n. 54; Atkinson 1994, pp. 200-204; Briant 1994, pp. 297-298; Briant
2002, p. 101; Carlier 1995, p. 155; Hammond 1996, pp. 180-181; Collins 2001;
Spawforth 2007, pp. 87, 93-97, 101-102; Weber 2009.
King of Asia
263
phalanx, leaving the rest of his army under Craterus’ command. His
detachment reached the Areian capital Artacoana (near today’s Herat in
Afghanistan) within two days – covering, according to Arian, an amazing
distance of 600 stades (110 km). A terrified Satibarzanes with 2,000
cavalry escaped to join Bessus. When the rest of his army caught up,
Alexander instructed Craterus to besiege Artacoana, while he and a part of
the army set out against Areians, who had sought shelter in a natural
mountain fortress. Modern historians believe this fortress to have been
located most probably at Qal’eh-ye Dukhtar, c. 20 km to the north of Herat,
rather than Qalat-i Nadiri, c. 70 km to the north of Tus. Here an
inadvertently started fire helped the Macedonians win. Meanwhile at
Artacoana the mere sight of siege towers persuaded the defenders to
surrender, and thus also be pardoned. Now Alexander simply nominated a
new satrap, a Persian called Arsaces. It was after the capitulation of
Artacoana that Alexander’s army was joined by 6,500 soldiers recruited
from Illyria, Greece and Lydia. Satibarzanes’s revolt forced Alexander to
change his up until now lenient policy of pardoning all Persian aristocrats
who surrender even including those who had overthrown Darius III. That
is why after quelling the revolt of Areia he started a campaign in
Drangiana and Arachosia. The region’s satrap and Darius’s murderer
Barsaentes fled all the way to India, but he was eventually handed over to
Alexander and killed.86
6. Philotas affair and the fall of Parmenion
It was while the Macedonian army was at the capital of Drangiana,
Phrada (today Farah in western Afghanistan) after the end of the 330
autumn campaign that the most serious scandal concerning Alexander’s
closest circle occurred, known as the Philotas affair. Philotas, the son of
Parmenion, had already been among Alexander’s closest companions in
the days when he was still an heir to the throne, but he was never a close
friend of his. Thanks to his father’s position and to his own courage and
talent he quickly rose through the ranks to become commander of the key
formation of the Macedonian army – the Companion cavalry. As a talented
and effective commander Philotas was respected by Macedonian soldiers
but not necessarily liked. People disapproved of his fondness for luxury,
86 Diod., 17.78; Curt., 6.613-36; Str., 15.2.10; Arr., An. , 3.25; It. Alex. , 72-74.
Engels 1978, pp. 86-89; Bosworth 1980, p. 354-359; Bosworth 1988, p. 100;
Seibert 1985, pp. 118-120; Vogelsang 1992, p. 221; Atkinson 1994, pp. 206-212;
Hammond 1996, pp. 182-183; Heckel 2006, p. 53, s.v. ‘Arsaces’ [1]; Briant 2009,
pp. 148-151.
264
Chapter V
aloofness and exaggerated Hellenisation – he was reluctant to speak
Macedonian. He was particularly despised by officers closest to Alexander,
who envied
his position. In 332 Craterus persuaded Philotas’s mistress,
Antigone, to report what her lover told her. Thus Alexander was informed
of Philotas’s boastful claims that the king owed all his achievements to
Parmenion and his son and of how Philotas had laughed at Alexander’s
supposed affiliation with Ammon of Siwah.87
This was not enough to accuse Philotas of treason but it was certainly
valuable information regarding the opinions of the third most important
person in the army after the king and Parmenion. It was Parmenion along
with his sons and other relatives who formed the core of the ‘old guard’
that Alexander had inherited from his father and who advised the young
king in nominations to offices of state. Alexander gradually freed himself
from their influence by gaining the support of those who owed their
privileged positions of power and prestige primarily to him and not solely
to their aristocratic connections. Another source of conflict was the
growing dissatisfaction among the soldiers with a campaign’s new
objectives and the resented policy of ‘orientalization’. Both Philotas and
Parmenion, who was the most important representative of Philip II’s
generation, were known to have sceptical views on these subjects and
therefore they could be the potential leaders of any internal opposition
group. If Alexander intended to rid himself of this latent threat, the autumn
of 330 provided him with the best possible opportunity. Philotas’s position
was weakened by the recent death of his last brother, Nicanor, who had
commanded the hypaspists, while his father Parmenion was away in
Ecbatana guarding the Persian treasure and therefore unable to influence
events in Phrada.88
In Phrada a genuine or merely invented conspiracy against Alexander
was uncovered. It allegedly involved one of the king’s bodyguards called
Demetrius and other Macedonian soldiers not previously mentioned in the
sources. Among these other soldiers was a certain Dimnus who also tried
to recruit his lover, Nicomachus. Nicomachus was supposed to pass this
secret on to his brother, Cebalinus, who in turn reported it to Philotas. Two
days went by and Philotas did nothing, so Cebalinus resolved to inform
Alexander, which immediately resulted in an inquiry. Philotas could be
accused of inactivity in face of information about the conspiracy but there
was no evidence he himself was a traitor too. Before he could be arrested,
87 Curt., 6.8.2-4, 6.11.1-5; Plu., Alex. , 40.1, 48; Plu., mor. , 339d-f. Lane Fox 1980, pp. 274-275; Heckel 1992, pp. 23-33; Hamilton 1999, pp. 132-133.
88 Badian 1960, pp. 326-329; Badian 1964, pp. 194-196; Green 1974, pp. 348-349;
Goukowsky 1978, p. 38; Bosworth 1988, pp. 99-100; Heckel 2009, pp. 44-45.
King of Asia
265
Dimnus conveniently committed suicide or was killed by soldiers.
Questioned by the king, Philotas admitted that he had heard of the plot but
did not take any action, presuming it to be merely a false aspersion caste
as the result of a spat between two homosexual lovers. Alexander initially
promised Parmenion’s son that no harm would come to him but that same
evening he called together a council of friends (Hephaestion, Craterus,
Coenus, Erigyios, Ptolemy and Leonnatus), during which Craterus
denounced Philotas and the rest agreed with this motion. W. Heckel has
even formulated a theory according to which the whole affair was actually
a plot hatched against Philotas by a group of childhood friends of
Alexander, now officers who hated Philotas. Even if they had not initiated
the attack on Philotas, this group strongly supported any actions taken by
Alexander against Parmenion and his son, for these two were detested by
Macedonians for their arrogance and overbearing influence on the army.
All the exits from Phrada were now closed so that no news could
prematurely reach Parmenion, whose fate was by then probably sealed.
That same night a unit of 300 soldiers commanded by the trusted officer
Atarrhias arrested Philotas.89
The following day he was brought before an assembly of Greek and
Macedonian soldiers and personally accused of treason by the king.
Alexander accused both Philotas and his father Parmenion of conspiring
against him and charges were also made by Craterus. The king ordered
Philotas to answer these accusations in Macedonian, knowing that his first
language was Greek and that speaking with difficulty he would not be able
to gain the sympathy of the assembled soldiers. It was for this purpose that
Philotas was also exposed to vehement attacks by a certain Bolon, who
accused him of adopting non-Macedonian customs. The trial was
continued in keeping with the customs of the time, that is, with the
application of torture. This was supervised by the king’s friends, among
whom Philotas’s personal enemy Craterus showed the greatest zeal.
Philotas broke, like almost anyone else would have done in such
circumstances, and agreed to confess to everything; with bitter irony he
asked Craterus to only tell him which secrets he was to reveal. Such
confessions exacted through torture were accepted in Antiquity as valid
court evidence and thus sentences could be passed on Philotas and others
89 Curt., 6.7.1-8.22; Diod., 17.79; Str., 15.2.10; Plu., Alex. , 49.1-10; Just., 12.4-5.
Badian 1960; Green 1974, p. 348; Heckel 1977; Heckel 1986, p. 299; Bosworth
1988, pp. 101-102; Atkinson 1994, pp. 212-214, 218-219, 224-225; Hamilton 1999,
pp. 154-156; Heckel 2006, p. 60.
266
Chapter V
accused of being party to this conspiracy. They were all executed either by
stoning (Curtius) or with spears (Arrian).90
The skilfully evoked atmosphere of hysteria and fear provided the ideal
conditions for carrying out a purge in the army’s ranks which began
immediately after Philotas’s execution. The next trial was a mere formality:
Alexander of Lyncestis, who had been held in prison for three years, was
now sentenced to death. Three brothers and friends of Philotas – Amyntas,
Simmias and Polemon – were also implicated in the conspiracy, but
Amyntas ably disproved the absurd charges pressed against them and so
the king spared them their lives. Ordinary soldiers suspected of political
incorrectness by sympathising with the accused were isolated from the rest
of the army and put in a penal company.91
While these investigations or perhaps just formalised executions were
being carried out in the Macedonian camp at Phrada, Alexander issued
instructions regarding Parmenion. The old general enjoyed great prestige
among the Macedonians. Moreover, he had at his disposal considerable
forces in Ecbatana employed to guard the vast Persian treasures. With his
last son sentenced to death after a mock trial, this dangerously powerful
man could not be allowed to live. The officer entrusted with the mission of
murdering Parmenion was called Polydamas; his loyalty was further
guaranteed by the taking of his younger brothers into armed custody.
Polydamas and two accompanying nomads (Arabs according to Curtius)
crossed the Dash
t-e Lut Desert on camels in eleven days and reached
Ecbatana before news of the purges in Phrada had arrived. There
Polydamas met up with Cleander, the commander of the mercenaries, and
the two officers next went to Parmenion to deliver him letters from
Alexander and Philotas. As Parmenion started to read the forged letter
from his son, Cleander ran him through with his sword. After the murder,
the two officers presented to the soldiers the letter form their king, in
which Alexander described the old general’s alleged crimes. To ease
tensions in the camp the Cleander allowed the soldiers bury Parmenion’s
body but first he severed his head, which was sent to Alexander as
evidence that his order had been carried out.92
The sources do not question the existence of a conspiracy in the army
against the king. Yet, apart from what had been extracted through torture,
90 Arr., An. , 3.26.1-3; Curt., 6.8.23-11.40; Diod., 17.80.1; Plu., Alex. , 49.9-12.
91 Curt., 7.1.1-2.10, 7.2.35-38; Arr., An. , 3.27.1-2; Diod., 17.80.2-4; Just., 12.5.
Heckel 2006, pp. 24-25, s.v. ‘Amyntas’ [4].
92 Curt., 7.2.11-34; Diod., 17.80.3; Str., 15.2.10; Arr., An. , 3.26.3; Plu., Alex. , 49.13; Just., 12.5. Atkinson 1994, pp. 257-259; Heckel 2006, pp. 85-86, 225-226.
Arabs in the meaning of nomads: Briant 1996, p. 373.
King of Asia
267
Alexander himself had difficulties in producing any evidence which
seriously implicated Philotas let alone his father, Parmenion. Conversely,
the executions of Parmenion and Philotas were the consequence of a
conspiracy directed against them not so much with Alexander’s reluctant
approval as on his express orders. The removal of these two generals as
well as the potential pretender to the Macedonian throne, Alexander of
Lyncestis, freed Alexander from opponents to his increasingly autocratic
rule and also the highest-ranking challengers of his policy of garnering the
support of Iranian aristocrats and adopting the traditions of the
Achaemenid monarchy. On top of that there may have also been a