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

Home > Fantasy > Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf > Page 53
Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf Page 53

by Amanda


  modified version proved unacceptable to the strong convictions of

  Callisthenes. He did not react ostentatiously but instead he simply

  endeavoured to exchange kisses with his king without performing the

  obsequious bow. When one of the courtiers commented on this out loud,

  Alexander refused to accept the kiss. Not put off, the philosopher simply

  walked away, commenting that he was merely poorer by one kiss.146

  Such passive resistance did not deter Alexander and his closest circle

  from continuing the experiment of propagating among Europeans,

  especially as in this semi-private party almost all those present did comply

  with the king’s wishes. The next step was to repeat this experiment at a

  larger event with also the participation of Asians, who naturally bowed to

  Alexander in the prescribed way. This time, however, resistance was much

  more visible. Perhaps whilst taking part in a debate with other Greek

  intellectuals, Callisthenes spoke out openly in defence of traditional

  religious beliefs that forbade the boundary between man and god to be

  crossed. The philosopher even claimed that by introducing proskynesis

  Alexander was breaking a unwritten law or custom ( nomos) of the

  Macedonian monarchy which was, according to his idealised theory now

  being approved by many of those listening, to never make such decisions

  without previously obtaining the assent of his subjects. Knowing that

  Callisthenes’s arguments were expressing the views of the silent majority

  among the Macedonians, who in this unpopular philosopher had found an

  unexpected champion, Alexander desisted from further efforts regarding

  the introduction of proskynesis and would never return to this issue. To

  make matters worse, one of the hetairoi had laughed out loud at the sight

  of an Asian performing the obeisance with exaggerated zeal. Alexander

  was angered at the man who had laughed but, seeing the attitude of the

  majority of those present, he did not force his European subjects to

  perform proskynesis.147 The epilogue to this whole affair came after the

  great Macedonian’s death. Then for many the deification of Alexander

  seemed no less controversial than the divine status of Heracles, who after

  all had also once been a mortal. It was then that some of the officers

  recognised their deceased ruler as a god and performed proskynesis facing

  his vacant throne.148

  146 Plu., Alex. , 54.3-6 (after Chares); Arr., An. , 4.12.3-5. Bosworth 1988, p. 285; Bosworth 1995, pp. 87-88.

  147 Arr., An. , 4.10.5-12.2; Curt., 8.5.9-24; Just., 12.7. Bosworth 1996a, pp. 110-112;

  Briant 2002, pp. 105-106.

  148 Diod., 18.61.1; Polyaen., 4.8.2. Bosworth 1996a, p. 112.

  King of Asia

  291

  It was during that same stay in Bactra that a plot against the king was

  discovered. The danger lay in the fact that it was hatched by people who

  had constant access to the king, even at times when he was at his most

  vulnerable, that is, at night. For the conspirators were ‘royal boys’,

  alternatively called by modern historians ‘pages’. These were boys from

  good Macedonian homes who performed services around the king

  normally carried out by servants. Moreover, they guarded his bedroom

  door at night. The pages guaranteed the loyalty of their families to the king

  while at the same time they familiarised themselves with the functioning

  of the court and state in preparation for important careers in adult life. The

  leader of the conspirators was a page called Hermolaus, who, as so

  frequently happens in such cases, was driven to plotting for personal

  reasons. During a hunt Hermolaus killed a boar that had been marked out

  for the king to slay. This angered Alexander greatly. He ordered the boy to

  be flogged and had his horse confiscated. 149 The significance of this

  seemingly minor incident became more important in the context of

  Alexander’s adoption of Achaemenid customs. Hunting played an

  important role in Persian royal ideology, which in turn owed a great deal

  to the neo-Assyrian tradition. Of course the beast the monarch most

  willingly hunted was the lion. The Great King frequently hunted in special

  reserves. One of these was Bazeira, and that was where Alexander took

  part in a great hunt. It was a Greek and Macedonian custom to hunt on foot

  but in Asia Alexander followed the Persian example and hunted on

  horseback. The killing of an animal designated for the king was considered

  a very serious offence, punishable even by death. It was only permissible

  (and moreover obligatory) when such an animal posed an immediate

  danger to the monarch. It was in such a situation that Craterus once killed

  a lion, a scene immortalised in a relief and inscription at Delphi by his son.

  On the other hand, legend has it that for killing the king’s beast

  Alexander’s bodyguard Lysimachus was cast into a lion’s den.150

  In such a context the whipping of Hermolaus was not an exceptionally

  harsh punishment. Nevertheless the page evidently did feel that his system

  of values had been dishonoured to an extent that required revenge. Much

  more interesting, however, is the fact that in his plot Hermolaus was not

  only helped by his homosexual lover but also by several other pages who

  would have been quite unaffected by the wrong committed against the

  149 Arr., An. , 4.13.1-2; Curt., 8.6.2-7. Heckel 1992, pp. 237-244; Bosworth 1995,

  pp. 90-94.

  150 Curt., 8.1.14-18; Sen., Dial. , 5.17.2; Plin., Nat. , 8.54; Paus., 9.1.5; Just., 15.3; V.

  Max., 9.3 ext. 1. Heckel 1992, pp. 268-271; Briant 1993a; Pelagia 2000, pp. 177-

  184.

  292

  Chapter V

  ringleader. The sources do not provide us with a straightforward answer as

  to why this was so. When asked why he had started a conspiracy,

  Hermolaus gave a whole set of arguments that had already been

  expounded by Cleitus and Callisthenes, that is, including a protest against

  orientalization, growing absolutism and the murder of distinguished

  Macedonian officers. The words in this supposed speech actually belong

  to Curtius Rufus and to his version of events but the arguments too closely

  reflect the genuine feelings of Macedonians known from other incidents

  for them to be dismissed as meaningless rhetoric. A page’s career was

  short, for it ended once he reached the age of maturity and entered military

  service – presumably more often than not in the Companion cavalry. The

  conspirators of 327 would have had been pages for just two or three years

  and therefore were in all probability part of the group of 50 boys from

  good Macedonian homes who had joined Alexander’s army at the end of

  331 (Chapter V.4). At a young age people are frequently idealistic. For

  some of the boys Alexander’s absolutism, which had been developing over

  the years, as well as the willing adoption of Persian customs, would have

  been shocking enough to drive them into secret opposition. It is also

  possible that some of the boys may have disliked Alexander for not

  appointing their fathers to high positions, though that alone would not

  have been a sufficient reason to join a conspiracy.151
/>   The conspirators’ plan was to murder Alexander in his sleep. What

  saved the king was his fondness for alcohol. That fateful night Alexander

  attended a banquet that lasted till morning. It is said he did initially intend

  to retire early but was urged by a Syrian female soothsayer to stay. Thus

  the plan was foiled and the conspirators had to wait another seven days

  before it was their turn again to guard the king’s chamber at night. But

  before that happened one of the conspirators lost his nerve and together

  with his brother reported the entire conspiracy to Alexander. For this

  information the conspirator was pardoned and his brother was rewarded

  with 50 talents, which in those times was equivalent to 1,000 years of

  average pay. The remaining conspirators were immediately arrested and

  under torture they all confessed. For such a serious offence they were

  stoned to death.152

  The uncovering of this plot also led to the arrest of Callisthenes. He

  owed his position as court historian at Alexander’s side thanks to the

  recommendation of his relative, Aristotle. Already at the start of the

  151 Curt., 8.7; Arr., An. , 4.14.2. Schachermeyr 1973, p. 388; Lane Fox 1973, pp.

  327-328; Hamilton 1974, p. 107; Bosworth 1996a, pp. 112-113; Badian 2000, p.

  70; Heckel 2009a, p. 79.

  152 Arr., An. , 4.13.5-14.3; Curt., 8.6.10-8.20.

  King of Asia

  293

  expedition Callisthenes was a well-known historian, the author of a book

  on the Sacred War.153 A gifted writer, he glorified his king with great skill

  and in that respect for some time he fulfilled Alexander’s expectations.

  Among other things he had formulated daring concepts of the sea bowing

  before Alexander at Pamphylia and the king’s divine father. Successive

  books from Callisthenes’s history were first read by the king himself and

  then sent on to Greece, thus helping to create Alexander’s legend in his

  lifetime. It is for these reasons that the king tolerated this philosopher for

  so long, even though with his very serious and stern manner as well as

  strongly independent views he did not have the makings of a courtier.154

  The line Callisthenes refused to cross was to treat a living mortal, even one

  as exceptional as Alexander, as a god. In this philosopher’s strict

  interpretation of principles such a boundary would be crossed by

  performing proskynesis. It was during Alexander’s painfully unsuccessful

  attempt to introduce this custom at court that Callisthenes’s opposition

  became open. Henceforth the philosopher’s days were numbered. The king

  now only waited for an appropriate opportunity to rid himself of this

  intellectual with too many principles for a royal court.155

  Alexander had the foresight and patience to plan and prepare his

  revenge long in advance of dealing the decisive blow. In the Callisthenes’s

  case the first step was to deprive him of support among the Macedonian

  military elite, whose champion he had become after effectively protesting

  against proskynesis. During a banquet Alexander asked Callisthenes to

  deliver a eulogy of Macedonians. The philosopher’s speech was rewarded

  by those attending with applause and a garland of flowers. But then

  Alexander quoted a verse from Euripides’s The Bacchantes: ‘When a wise

  man has a good cause to argue, eloquence is easy’ and asked the

  philosopher if he could speak equally convincingly about Macedonian

  vices. Being, like most intellectuals, vain, Callisthenes could not but take

  up the challenge. He delivered a second speech displaying no less

  oratorical skill than in the first. The delivering of such palinodes was a

  typical rhetorical exercise but there was no reason why Macedonian

  officers should have known that. Therefore they easily believed the

  malicious rumours spread by Alexander about Callisthenes really

  despising the Macedonians. Besides, for the simple minded soldier such

  153 D.L., 5.5; Just., 12.6.17; Suda, s.v. Kallisq◊nhj. Brown 1966, pp. 225-227;

  Rubinsohn 1993, pp. 1312-1314.

  154 Brown 1949, pp. 227-236; Rubinsohn 1993, pp. 1315, 1319.

  155 Plu., Alex. , 54.3; Arr., An. , 4.14.1.

  294

  Chapter V

  accusations were all the more plausible on account of the philosopher’s

  aloof behaviour.156

  Even under torture none of the pages implicated Callisthenes as a

  fellow conspirator. Moreover, Alexander himself was fully aware of the

  philosopher’s innocence as is clear from what Plutarch states to be his

  letters written to Attalus, Craterus and Alcetas. Nonetheless, the general

  hysteria after uncovering of a conspiracy to kill the king was so strong that

  it was very easy to include Callisthenes on the list of suspects. He was

  accused of indirectly inspiring Hermolaus, if only by teaching that fame

  was most easily obtained by killing the greatest of men. It was also

  remembered that the philosopher had once delivered a speech before

  Philotas praising the tyrannicides. Thus Callisthenes was arrested soon

  after the execution of the pages, subjected to torture and nailed to a

  cross.157 A contributing factor to his downfall was the scheming of another

  philosopher, Anaxarchus of Abdera, who was competing against him for

  Alexander’s favour.158

  The imprisonment and execution of Callisthenes unfortunately also had

  a negative effect felt by modern historians. He had been an invaluable

  eyewitness to Alexander’s expedition. His no longer existing work was the

  primary historical source regarding Alexander used by the majority of later

  ancient authors. The loss of this observer of Alexander’s expedition could

  not be replaced by other participants such as Ptolemy and Aristobulus,

  whose accounts were limited to recording only the court’s official version

  of events written decades after they had occurred. Callisthenes’ account

  was written immediately as events unfolded when neither the lapsing of

  time nor political considerations (as in Ptolemy’s case) could distort the

  picture. 159 Just as Callisthenes’s writing had promoted the image of

  Alexander the great leader who spread Greek civilization to the East, so

  too Callisthenes’s death to a large extent contributed to the birth of

  Alexander’s darker legend, the one of Alexander the tyrant, drunkard and

  violent hothead.160

  156 Plu., Alex. , 53; Philostr., VA, 7.2; E., Ba. , 267, after Kovacs (Loeb). Brown 1949, p. 245; Balsdon 1950, p. 372; Schachermeyr 1973, pp. 390-392; Green 1974,

  pp. 377-378; Hamilton 1999, pp. 147-148.

  157 Plu., Alex. , 55.3-9; Arr., An. , 4.14.3; Curt., 8.8.21; D.L., 5.5. Bosworth 1995, p.

  100; Hamilton 1999, p. 156; Badian 2000, pp. 71-72.

  158 Borza 1981.

  159 Brunt 1995, pp. 16-18; Bosworth 1996, pp. 62-77.

  160 Tarn 1948, ii, pp. 297-298; Brown 1949, pp. 225-226, 245-247; Wardman 1955,

  p. 96; Schachermeyr 1973, p. 609.

  CHAPTER VI:

  EXPEDITION TO INDIA

  1. From Sogdiana to the Indus

  Alexander’s initial plans for an expedition to India have been dated no

  later than in summer of 328. To the 4th-century Western (Greek) world

  India was not only a
country about which very little was know but even

  one whose inhabitants were frequently idealised as ‘noble barbarians’ on a

  par with the Scythians and Ethiopians. Persian perceptions, however, were

  different. The Indus Valley had for a time, probably during Darius I’s

  reign, been part of the Achaemenid Empire. According to Herodotus it

  was its 20th tax district. The name Hinduš appears in the monumental

  Achaemenid inscriptions listed among other countries ( bumi) of the

  empire and its inhabitants are presented on reliefs as subjects of the Great

  King. These facts, however, say more about persistence of themes in

  Persian monumental art than about how long India was part of the

  Achaemenid Empire. Persian conquests in India did not turn out to be

  permanent and by the 4th century the Persian administrative system of

  satrapies had ceased to function there if indeed it had ever been installed.

  On the other hand, the presence of Indian troops at the Battle of

  Gaugamela indicates that ties between Indian rulers and the Great King

  persisted right up to the end of the Achaemenid Empire. A more durable

  Persian presence in India – or in the territory of today’s Pakistan to be

  more precise – was its cultural influence on the local population from the

  development of the Kharoshti script, which originated from the

  Achaemenid Empire’s official Aramaic alphabet, to the Persian monetary

  standard as well as to the political customs that the Macedonian

  conquerors would encounter.1 In the 4th century northern India was divided

  up into a large number of kingdoms, principalities, oligarchic republics

  1 Hdt., 3.94, 4.44; Arr., An. , 3.8.4, 3.8.6; Curt., 4.9.2; Plin., Nat. , 6.98. Tarn 1948, I, pp. 85-86; Schachermeyr 1973, pp. 413-416; Dani 1986, pp. 43-44; Vogelsang

  1992, p. 227; Briant 1996, pp. 152-153, 185-188, 774-778; Karttunen 1997, pp. 19,

  26-30, 37-38; Badian 1998, p. 221; Hahn 2000, pp. 11-13.

  296

  Chapter VI

  and tribal territories. The largest of these states, the Kingdom of Magadha,

 

‹ Prev