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

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