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

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