by Amanda
with a greater accent put on ostentation rather than refinement. The ancient
authors present a colourful description of how the Macedonian elites in
Asia brazenly revelled in this newly acquired wealth. Their account is
derived from the early Hellenistic historian Phylarchus – whose source
was most probably the book of Alexander’s court chamberlain Chares –
9 Arr., Ind. , 21-36; Arr., An. , 6.28.5-6; Str., 15.1.5, 15.1.12-13; Diod., 17.106.4-7; Curt., 10.1.10-16; Plu., Alex. , 68.1, 68.6. Högemann 1985, p. 72; Bosworth 1988, p.
140; Hammond 1996, pp. 236-239; Ashley 1998, pp. 99-102; Hamilton 1999, p.
190.
338
Chapter VII
and Agatharchides of Cnidus. ‘Phylarchus in the twenty-third book of his
Histories and Agatharchides of Cnidus in the tenth book of his work On
Asia say that Alexander’s courtiers also indulged in extravagant luxury.
One of these was Agnon, who wore gold studs in his military boots.
Whenever Cleitus, who was called the White, had business to transact, he
walked about on purple cloths while conversing with those who had
audience with him. Likewise Perdiccas and Craterus, who were lovers of
gymnastic sports, always had in their train piles of goatskin that would fill
a stadium, under cover of which, after appropriating a place in the
encampments, they would carry on their exercise; they were also followed
by a long train of animals carrying sand to be used in the wrestling-school.
Again Leonnatus and Menelaus, who were fond of hunting, had in their
luggage curtains measuring a hundred stadia, with which they surrounded
the hunting-grounds and pursue the quarry.’ Similar anecdotes are also
told about other Macedonian officers.10 The greatest financial resources
were at the disposal of Alexander’s childhood friend, Harpalus, who was
in charge of the royal treasury. Either out of conviction that Alexander
would never return from India alive or simply because of his carefree
nature the extravagance of Harpalus’ lifestyle was quite outrageous. To his
table he had fish brought over at great expense all the way from the Red
Sea. He founded exotic gardens. At Tarsus he set up what resembled a
royal court and there made his life even more enjoyable in the successive
company of two exceptionally expensive Athenian courtesans Pythonice
and later Glycera. After Pythonice died, he honoured her memory with the
construction of a cenotaph at Athens and a temple. He had Glycera live in
a palace where people were to greet her like royalty, which also meant
performing the Persian ceremonial bow of proskynesis.11
There were also more worrying signals concerning the gross
incompetence or even rebellion of Alexander’s Macedonian and Asian
subjects. The king received the first news of disturbances in Arachosia and
Drangiana from his father-in-law, Oxyartes. Craterus quelled the rebellion
as his army marched through these countries. He had the rebel leaders –
called by our sources Ordanes, Ozines and Zariaspes – arrested and
delivered to Alexander, who had them executed.12 These, however, were
not Alexander’s first executions since his return from India. While the
Bacchic festivities were still underway in Carmania he had the region’s
10 Ath., 12.55; also: Plu., Alex. , 40.1; Ael., VH, 9.3. Hamilton 1999, pp. 105-106.
11 Ath., 13.50 (after Theopompus, FGrH, 115 F253); Python, TrGF, 1 F1; Diod.,
17.108.4-6; Curt., 10.1.45; Plu., Phoc. , 22; Paus., 1.37.5. Berve 1926, nos. 231 and
676; Parker 1996, p. 258.
12 Arr., An. , 6.27.3; Curt., 9.10.19, 10.1.9. Heckel 1992, pp. 124-125.
The Last Years
339
satrap, Astaspes, arrested and put to death. The first accusations
concerning this satrap’s betrayal had reached the king while he was still in
India but a swift investigation leading to the execution was carried out
only once it was too late for Astaspes to escape or start a revolt. 13
Alexander also summoned from Media to Carmania the Macedonian
commanders Cleander, Agathon, Heracon and Sitalces together with 6,000
troops. Asian subjects and Macedonian soldiers had accused these
commanders of robbing temples and graves, rapes, and other crimes.
Bearing in mind the considerable distance between Media and Carmania
one can assume that the officers were summoned to Carmania long before
Alexander’s return from India; therefore the accusations must have been
known to Alexander for some time. They too were put death, together with
600 of their soldiers. This severity was to serve as an example to deter
others.14 The repressions against high-ranking Macedonians and Iranians
that began then and were continued later have been interpreted by some
modern historians as part of a general political scheme. E. Badian even
goes so far as to write of a reign of terror and a ‘great purge’ in an obvious
allusion to the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. According to this
interpretation of events the series of dismissals and executions resulted
from a search for scapegoats for the (exaggerated) fiasco of the march
across the Makran range. 15 However, despite the vivid appeal of this
explanation, one cannot forget that it is merely a modern interpretation not
corroborated by any of the ancient sources. These instead state that the
king wished to restore order that had been disrupted by some of his
dignitaries through thoughtlessness or out of a sense of impunity caused
by his long absence.16
It was towards the end of his stay in Carmania, probably towards the
end of 325, that Alexander had all his satraps disband their mercenary
armies, supported by the vast financial resources of the conquered lands.
One of the reasons for this radical decision was the will to deprive the
satraps of forces that were solely answerable to them. However, we also
know from Pausanias that Alexander wished to settle the mercenaries in
Asia, which would also provide the central authorities with potential
recruits for important garrisons. This plan was never fully realised because
Greek soldiers were unwilling to serve in countries thousands of
13 Curt., 9.10.29.
14 Arr., An. , 6.27.3-4; Curt., 10.1.1-9. Bosworth 1988, pp. 147, 241.
15 Badian 1961; Badian 1964; O’Brien 1992, pp. 185-187; Hanson 1999, pp. 179,
196.
16 Higgins 1980, pp. 140-152; Heckel 2009, p. 51 and Heckel 2009a, pp. 76-77 on
futility of drawing analogy between Alexander and 20th c. dictators.
340
Chapter VII
kilometres from their homeland. The implementing of this plan lasted
form 324 to 323 and in that time Asia Minor and Greece were full of
unemployed soldiers. Paradoxically, after Alexander’s death this made it
easier for its enemies to wage a dangerous war against Macedonia known
as the Lamian War.17
But that was to happen later. In the meantime the atmosphere of
uncertainty and fear among those suspected of abusing power persisted. In
these circumstances Harpalus was once again unable to withstand the
tension. At the start of 324 he fled from Babylon taking with him 5,000
talents from the royal t
reasury; if this money was taken in gold rather than
silver, it would not have exceeded the weight of 14 tons. By March 324
Harpalus and his stolen fortune had reached the coast and in the summer
of that year he crossed the Mediterranean Sea with 6,000 mercenaries to
Attica in the expectation of being greeted with open arms by Athens as he
was himself an Athenian citizen. This started the greatest crisis to
Macedonian rule in mainland Greece since the rebellion of Agis III.18
At first the Harpalus was denied entry into Athens. He therefore left
his mercenaries on the Tainaron Peninsula in the Peloponnesus and
entered the port of Athens with three ships bearing 700 talents. Only then
was he welcomed into the city and his or rather Alexander’s money
deposited for safekeeping in the Acropolis. Soon envoys sent by the
governor of Ionia, Philoxenus, by Antipater and by Olympias appeared in
Athens demanding the handing over of Harpalus. This started a great
debate in Athens which involved not only political arguments but also
bribes handed out by Harpalus to whoever was willing to take them. In
Alexander’s absence the Athenians did not consider the Macedonian
officials, not even Olympias, a powerful enough threat to force them into
surrendering Harpalus, the self-portrayed refugee and Athenian citizen.
They did, however, feel it was necessary to proceed with caution so as not
to worsen relations with Alexander while negotiations concerning the
decree for the return of exiles were underway (see Chapter VII.5).
Eventually Harpalus was allowed to escape from the city. And it was only
then that a real scandal broke out in Athens, for it turned out that half of
the 700 talents had vanished. Investigations revealed that Demosthenes
was among those who had taken bribes and thus helped drain this fortune;
as a result he was forced to flee from the city.19
17 Diod., 17.106.3, 17.111.1-2; Paus., 1.25.5, 8.52.5. Lane Fox 1973, p. 407;
Bosworth 1999, pp. 148-149; Blackwell 1999, pp. 119-121, 124-129.
18 Diod., 17.108.6; Curt., 10.2.1; Ath., 13.50; Plu., mor. , 846a. Blackwell 1999, pp.
13-15.
19 Blackwell 1999, especially pp. 13-31, 133-144; Faraguna 2003, pp. 127-128.
The Last Years
341
Harpalus’ escape with royal treasure brought chaos to Alexander’s
state finances, for with the king’s arrival the treasury was now forced to
raise expenditure for his ongoing and pending projects. A new treasurer
was nominated, Antimenes of Rhodes, who is recorded to have held this
position up to the last months of Alexander’s life. As treasurer he created
new sources of state revenue by reintroducing the by then forgotten tithe
on goods imported into Babylonia and also imposing a tax on the assessed
value of slaves. The sources also inform us of a rationalisation in the
management of provisions magazines along the Royal Road. No doubt
most of the ongoing expenditure of the royal court and the army was
covered by tax revenues, whereas the Persian treasures were now reserved
for future military expeditions. Production of coins at the Babylonian mint
was also now greatly increased. In the last two years of Alexander’s life
several million silver tetradrachms were produced – among other things,
these coins were essential for pay of European soldiers.20
Before all these events occurred, in the winter of 325/324 the
Macedonian army proceeded in two columns from Carmania to Fars. Most
of the troops, the baggage train and the elephants were led by Hephaestion
along a longer but easier route through regions abounding in food and
fodder. Arrian states that this route ran close to the sea but today we are
not able to trace it exactly. Alexander, on the other hand, together with
some light infantry, archers and Companion cavalry took a direct route to
Fars, no doubt via Baft and Sirjan.21 In Fars it turned out that after the
death of Phrasaortes the position of satrap had been usurped by Orxines,
reportedly a member of the Achaemenid dynasty. Orxines greeted the king
with generous gifts; according the Curtius Rufus, 3,000 talents in the form
of coins. For the time being Alexander accepted Orxines as his vassal, but
he had from the outset quite different plans with regard to this extremely
important satrapy where there was no room for a usurper. Therefore the
discovery of the desecration of Cyrus’ tomb provided a convenient pretext
to have Orxines executed. The Persian satrapy was now put under the
charge of Peucestas, a trusted king’s bodyguard. Thanks to his command
of the Persian language, the donning of local attire and the respect he
showed towards local traditions, Peucestas was able to gain the trust of the
aristocracy in the homeland of the Achaemenids. This would pay off
during the Diadochi Wars when in his satrapy he was able to muster a
formidable army of 20,000 men, including excellent horsemen, archers
and slingers. Another usurper to be put to death was Baryaxes, who had
20 Arist., Oec. , 1352b-1353b. Le Rider 2003, pp. 299-319.
21 Arr., An. , 6.28.7-29.1. Goukowsky 1981, pp. 60-62; Seibert 1985, pp. 178-179.
342
Chapter VII
tried to seize royal power in Media. He was arrested by the satrap
Atropates and brought to Alexander, who had him executed.22
In Pasargadae Alexander discovered that someone had broken into
Cyrus the Great’s tomb, robbed it and in doing so removed the mummified
remains of the founder of the Persian Empire from his gold sarcophagus
and cast them on the floor. The robbery was not only shocking but also
mysterious for the tomb had been constantly guarded by magi who even
under torture – the ruthless cruelty of which in ancient times virtually no
one could withstand – said nothing about how the robbery had happened.
We cannot accept Plutarch’s claim that a certain Polymachus of Pella was
the culprit as Aristobulus, whom Alexander had put in charge of the
tomb’s restoration, unequivocally contradicts such an interpretation of
events. The desecration of Cyrus’ place of eternal rest greatly angered
Alexander, who ever since his return to Fars had wished to stress the
legitimacy of his claim to be the successor of the Achaemenids. In their
homeland he tried to respect Persian customs by nominating as satrap the
pro-Persian Peucestas and granting each woman a gold coin in accordance
with Achaemenid tradition. The robbery of Cyrus’ tomb during
Macedonian rule no less than compromised this policy in the eye’s of
Alexander’s Persian subjects. It is also possible – as E. Badian assumes –
that during his second stay in Fars Alexander had intended to have an
official Persian coronation; the ideal location would have been Pasargadae,
perhaps even at the tomb of the founder of the Achaemenid dynasty. Now
that Cyrus’ body had been cast onto the floor this holy site was desecrated
and no longer fit for such a ceremony. Alexander was therefore deprived
of an opportunity to symbolically become the new Great King as reward
for the many years of his orientalising policy.23
The last significant event
during Alexander’s second stay in Fars
occurred in Persepolis. Calanus, the Brahman ascetic who had
accompanied Alexander all the way from Taxila, for the first time in his
life fell ill and therefore resolved to part with his current incarnation. He
chose a form of death that was widely practiced and greatly respected in
India: self-immolation. This spectacular episode is described or mentioned
by numerous ancient authors for such a form of suicide was worthy of
interest if only because it was so exotic. The primary sources for all these
22 Arr., An. , 6.28.3, 6.29.2-3, 6.30; Curt., 10.1.22-39; Diod., 19.14.5, 19.48.5.
Bosworth 1988, pp. 153-155; Billows 1990, pp. 95, 103-106; Heckel 1992, pp.
263-267.
23 Arr., An. , 6.29.4-11; Str., 15.3.7 (quoting Aristobulus); Curt., 10.1.30-34; Plu.,
Alex. , 69.1-3. Bosworth 1988, p. 154; Badian 1996, pp. 22-24; Hamilton 1999, pp.
191-192.
The Last Years
343
authors were the accounts of Chares and Nearchus. The latter was not
present to see the self-immolation and relied on another source. Therefore
his account is not as trustworthy as that of the court chamberlain Chares,
who was an eyewitness. The king had tried to dissuade Calanus from
killing himself but when he saw that the Indian was adamant he ordered
his soldiers to construct a giant pyre. Next he and his entire army looked
on as the suicide procedure was performed. When the pyre burst into
flames, Calanus threw himself onto it and thus perished. But first he had
been ceremonially accompanied to the fire by other Indian sages from
Alexander’s court. The entire army honoured the moment of Calanus’
demise with a loud war cry and the elephants also gave out terrifying
cries.24 Chares relates that Alexander also had Calanus’ death celebrated in
the form of sports and music contests as well as a drinking contest to mark
the late Brahman’s fondness of wine. The winner of this last competition
was to receive a crown worth one talent (the equivalent of twenty years’