by Amanda
another son to him. The purpose of Cassander’s mission was therefore
probably to explain a misunderstanding between Alexander and Antipater
and to negotiate maintaining the regency in Pella on slightly different
conditions. If the anecdotes recorded by Plutarch are to be believed,
Cassander, who had been raised in a traditionalistic Macedonian
environment, turned out to be a bad diplomat. He is said to have laughed at
the eastern courtiers greeting their ruler with the traditional proskynesis.
For this Alexander immediately punished him by catching him by the hair
47 Plu., Phoc. , 17-18; Ael., VH, 1.25. Nawotka 2005.
The Last Years
355
and beating his head against the wall. After such an introduction it is
hardly surprising that the subsequent negotiations failed. When Cassander
tried to disprove allegations made against his father by certain emissaries,
Alexander accused him of applying Aristotelian sophisms rather than
genuine arguments.48
5. Greece in 324: the exiles and a new god
Still in March 324, Alexander dispatched an emissary to Greece by the
name of Nicanor with a letter to be read out by a herald during the pan-
Hellenic Olympic Games, which that year culminated on 4th August. The
content of this letter, recorded by Diodorus, had probably been passed
down by a contemporary of these events, the historian Hieronymus of
Cardia. It reads as follows: ‘King Alexander to the exiles from the Greek
cities. We have not been the cause of your exile, but, save for those of you
who are under a curse, we shall be the cause of your return to your own
native cities. We have written to Antipater about this to the end that if any
cities are not willing to restore you, he may constrain them.’49 Among the
crowds assembled at Olympia there were allegedly 20,000 exiles on
account of rumours regarding this letter circulating throughout Greece
since at least the early summer. Exile was a punishment frequently applied
by Greek states for particularly serious crimes (but Alexander was not
interested in the fate of those exiles) and imposed on political opponents,
especially if they posed a threat to the system of government. In a
predominantly agricultural economy and a legal system that limited
landownership rights to the citizens of a given polis, apart from the
emotional hardship of being away from home, exile more often than not
also meant economic marginalisation. Therefore for most exiles the
prospect of being able to return was the thing they most desired in their
lives. For the poleis, on the other hand, the return of exiles posed serious
economic, legal and political problems. Among those who could now
return there were many ‘restless souls’ who for years had served in
mercenary armies and later, after Alexander had ordered the satraps to
disband such armies, many became unemployed and desperate.50
48 Plu., Alex. , 74; Plu., mor. , 180f; Just., 12.14; Ps.-Callisth., 3.31. Griffith 1965; Baynham 1994, pp. 343-344; Hamilton 1999, pp. 205-207; Blackwell 1999, pp.
156-158.
49 Diod., 18.8.4. Sealey 1960; Bosworth 1988, pp. 202-221; Blackwell 1999, pp.
14, 145.
50 Diod., 17.109.1; Curt., 10.4-8; Just., 13.5. Bosworth 1988, p. 224. Exile in
Greece: Seibert 1979.
356
Chapter VII
The Charter of the League of Corinth, which Alexander had sworn to,
explicitly forbade the return of exiles and the redistribution of land for that
purpose. Some scholars try to justify his decision by the fact that it
excluded murderers or those who were under a curse, which was supposed
to satisfy the Greek sense of justice. Attempts are also made to prove that
Alexander did not actually break the League of Corinth Charter
regulations because his proclamation was not an order directed to member
states as such but a mere invitation to negotiations.51 This is not, however,
how the sources show the situation. The above cited extract from the letter
contains an open threat to use force against those Greek states which
refused to accept exiles and that can hardly be seen as an invitation to
negotiate. In this sense it was a breach of the Charter of the League of
Corinth, which had clearly ceased to have any meaning for its hegemon.
After conquering the Persian Empire and ascending the Achaemenid
throne, Alexander no longer cared for the polis particularism which was so
cherished by the Greeks and which he himself had used so effectively in
the first years of his reign. Alexander’s letter arbitrarily interfered in the
internal affairs of the poleis and showed that he was seeking to apply a
universal solution for all the Greek states, treating their citizens as his de
facto if not de jure subjects.52
The problem with the exiles did not affect all the poleis in equal
measure; there can be little doubt that most of them complied obediently.
Thanks to an inscription found at Delphi, we know the detailed regulations
concerning the return of the exiles to Tegea in the Peloponnesus. The
repatriates were guaranteed the return of landed property in kind, whereas
those who had in the meantime inhabited their houses were refunded by
the state. There were separate regulations concerning financial
commitments towards the repatriates themselves as well as the property
rights of their wives and daughters who had accompanied them in
banishment or had remained in Tegea. Paradoxically, the exiles now
benefiting from Alexander’s decree also included those who in 331 had
brought Tegea over to Agis III’s side in his war against Macedonia and
who had been exiled after that king’s defeat at the Battle of Megalopolis.53
The prospect of exiles returning home was most painful to the citizens
of Aetolia and Athens. In 330 the Aetolians had destroyed the city of
Oiniadai in Acarnania and expelled its inhabitants, who now, thanks to the
decree, were to return. The situation for the Athenians was even worse for
51 Hammond 1996, pp. 256-257; O’Neil 2000, pp. 425, 430.
52 Wilcken 1967, pp. 214-215; Goukowsky 1975, p. 303; Bosworth 1988, pp. 220-
221; Errington 1990, pp. 95-96; Carlier 1995, p. 163; Blackwell 1999, pp. 146-147.
53 Syll. 3 306. Heisserer 1980, pp. 205-229.
The Last Years
357
in 365 the Athenian general Timotheos had repelled the Persian garrison
from Samos and claimed the island for Athens. We do not know if all but
certainly very many of the Samians were expelled, especially the known
enemies of Athens as well as those who were simply very rich. And on the
land of the exiles the Athenians next founded a cleruchy. A recently
discovered inscription has revealed a list of this cleruchy’s council
members which allows us to estimate that in 324 there were approximately
12,000 Athenian citizens living in Samos, whereas only 21,000 more lived
in Attica. Therefore maintaining the status quo in Samos was a matter of
prime importance for the Athenian polis.54
Alexander was not only aware of these circumstances but it could even
be said that his decision to demand the return of the exiles was to a la
rge
extent made on account of the Samians. Some of them had served in his
mercenary armies. All of them, but especially those who had settled on his
land in Asia Minor, had a very powerful protector in Gorgus of Iasus, the
supervisor of the king’s armoury. A couple of years after these events
Gorgus was honoured with a honorific inscription in Samos. Working in
the Samians’ interest, Gorgus incited Alexander against Athens. He
offered Alexander a gold crown, calling him on that occasion the son of
Ammon, and promised to provide 10,000 complete sets of hoplite armour
for his eventual siege of Athens. The decision to order the return of the
exiles was probably announced in the Macedonian camp already in March
324 before Nicanor’s departure for Greece and soon it was followed by
another Alexander’s expressly order granting exiled Samians right to
return to their island. 55 It was by this time at the latest that the
indefatigable Gorgus obtained for Iasus rights to the ‘little sea’ – as stated
in the inscription and no doubt referring to a gulf that abounded with
fishes and fruits of the sea. This acquisition was commemorated at Iasus in
the years 324-323 with the issuing of coins depicting sea creatures.56
News of the decision regarding the exiles reached Greece at the end of
the Athenian year, i.e. before July 324. Samian exiles, assisted by various
Greek poleis and private citizens resentful of injustice once done to them
by Athens, started returning home of their own accord and fighting over
land with the Athenian settlers. The situation was becoming so dangerous
54 Oiniadai: Plu., Alex. , 49.14-15; Diod., 18.8.6-7. Blackwell 1999, pp. 114-115.
Samos: Shipley 1987, pp. 12-15, 141; Hallof, Habicht 1995 (= SEG 45.1162 = IG
12.6.1.262); Habicht 1996; Debord 1999, pp. 292-294.
55 Syll.3 312 = IG 12.6.1.17; Ephippus, ap. Ath., 12.53; Just., 13.5. Wilcken 1967, p.
214; Heisserer 1980, pp. 182-193; Shipley 1987, pp. 165-166; Bosworth 1988, p.
221.
56 Syll.3 307. Heisserer 1980, pp. 171-179; Delrieux 1999.
358
Chapter VII
that a special mission headed by Demosthenes was sent to Olympia in
hope of getting Samos excluded from the exile decree. However, all
Demosthenes managed to achieve was a postponement of the official
announcement until an Athenian diplomatic mission appeared before
Alexander. In the meantime the Athenians prepared to defend their most
pressing interests. The efficient management of revenues by Lycurgus,
who had been put in charge of the city-state’s finances after Chaeronea,
meant that the coffers in Athens’s treasury were now full. With the
fortifications now extended, a formidable fleet and the reformed ephebia
now turning out 1,000 militarily well trained young men a year, Athens
was once again a great power, though, unfortunately, only on the polis
level. As general the Athenians selected the talented Leosthenes, who
began secret negotiations with the Aetolians regarding an alliance against
Macedonia. The city also gave him 50 talents to unofficially start raising
mercenaries at the international recruiting centre on the Tainaron
promontory in the Peloponnesus. The Athenians knew that the diplomatic
mission to Alexander’s court could at most delay the outbreak of war if the
Macedonian king turned out to be unyielding.57
The stances of Athens and the Aetolian League show how easily
Alexander’s exile decree could lead to war and the destruction of the
Macedonian order that had been imposed on the Balkans by his father
Philip II. Despite this Alexander resolved to take that risk and Gorgus’
lobbying efforts were not the only reason for it. Some modern scholars
assume that Alexander wished to be known as a great benefactor by
helping the exiles and thus righting Greece’s huge social wrong. At the
same time he would solve the problem of unemployed mercenaries, who
out of poverty frequently resorted to robbery.58 However, apart from the
desire for fame, which is obvious here as in many of his other
undertakings, there is no clear evidence that the welfare of the exiles was a
clearly defined objective. Diodorus states that with grateful repatriates
Alexander wished to gain allies in every Greek polis. That is, indeed, what
actually happened, but at the cost of also losing many erstwhile allies who
had to share power with the repatriates and cover the cost of returning to
them their property, as was most apparent in the case of Tegea. Alexander
was also imposing his will on Antipater, on whom all the odium would fall
57 Din., 1.81-82; Hyp., Dem. , 19; Diod., 17.111.1-3, 17.113.3, 18.9.1-3; IG
12.6.1.42. Habicht 1957, pp. 156-169 (nos 1-2); Heisserer 1980, pp. 189-190;
Shipley 1987, pp. 166-168; Bosworth 1988, pp. 224-227; Habicht 1999, pp. 31-35;
Faraguna 2003, pp. 126-130.
58 Wilcken 1967, p. 214; Hammond 1996, pp. 256-257; Worthington 2004, pp.
177-178.
The Last Years
359
for any eventual failures concerning the return of exiles, and that was
bound to happen in face of Athenian and Aetolian determination. It is
possible that weakening the position of the Macedonian regent was in fact
one of the Alexander’s objectives. In 324 Antipater was the only important
Macedonian official who did not owe his position to Alexander’s
patronage. Alexander did not live long enough to see how the situation
concerning the exiles developed, while among the Macedonian elite there
were not many men who strongly believed in realising their king’s
decision in this matter. That would be why after his death the generals
gathered in Babylon sent a letter to the Greek states that promised a return
to the situation that had been imposed by Philip II. Unfortunately, it was
by then too late to prevent the outbreak of war in Greece, which was
largely a consequence of the destabilisation caused by the exiles
decree.59
Parallel to the exiles issue was the debate of extending divine cult to
Alexander in Greece. This time none of the major sources provides us with
a full account concerning the question of Alexander’s divinity, known
only from disjointed remarks in the speeches of Athenian orators and
anecdotes related by later authors. However, there can be no doubt that
Alexander’s divinity was discussed by both Athenian and Spartan
assemblies and the Athenians did eventually decide to acknowledge
Alexander as a god. Such a motion was put forward by Demades, who for
a long time had been closely associated with the Macedonian establishment.
During a debate he was supposed to have uttered the significant words: ‘be
careful not to lose the earth while guarding the heavens’. This is though to
be a cynical argument to buy Alexander’s favour regarding the island of
Samos in return for concessions in heavenly matters. And that is indeed
how the Athenians saw it, for in this instance they agreed with Demades
despite the opinions of politicians who treated such imponderables more
seriously. Among them was Lycurgus, who asked: ‘what kind of god if on
leaving his t
emple one would have to be cleansed?’ With these words
Lycurgus was obviously implying that a cult to Alexander would be
sacrilegious. Aelian provides us with an anecdote according to which
Demades even proposed that Alexander should become the thirteenth
Olympian god.60 The Spartans also established a divine cult to Alexander.
At Megalopolis there was a temple to Alexander and in Athens a statue of
59 Diod., 18.8.2. Bosworth 1988, pp. 227-228; Blackwell 1999, pp. 148-151.
60 Din., 1.94; Hyp., Dem. , 31; Plb., 12.12b.3; Plu., mor. , 187e, 804b, 842d; DL, 6.63; Ael., VH, 5.12; V. Max., 7.2 ext. 13. Goukowsky 1978, pp. 60-61; Cawkwell
1994, pp. 301-302; Parker 1996, pp. 257-258; Blackwell 1999, pp. 151-154; Brun
2000, pp. 97-107; Troisi 2005; Dreyer 2009, pp. 229-234.
360
Chapter VII
Alexander called aniketos theos (invincible god). Other poleis must have
followed suit as the delegations arriving at Babylon in 323 bore names
reserved for embassies dispatched to temples and oracles.61 Probable in
this time a well-recorded wave of cults to Alexander began in the cities of
Asia Minor, including: Apollonia Mordiaion, Troy, Ephesus, Priene,
Erythrai, Theos, Bargylia, Magnesia on the Maeander, in the Ionian
League as well as on the islands of Rhodes and Thasos. After the king’s
death and during the Lamian War in continental Greece statutes officially
acknowledging Alexander’s divinity were either revoked or simply forgotten.
Antipater, the victor of that war, personally considered the adoration of a
mortal as a god sacrilegious and was the only diadochus not to worship
Alexander in this way. The Greeks in Asia Minor and the Aegean islands,
on the other hand, would continue to worship Alexander as a god for
centuries in memory of how he had liberated them from Persian rule.62
A subject of controversy that persists to this day concerns how this
seemingly unprecedented decision in Greek history of deifying a mortal
came about. One hypothesis holds that Alexander himself demanded
divine honours. It is based on anecdotes found in the works of Aelian and