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

Home > Fantasy > Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf > Page 66
Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf Page 66

by Amanda


  ambitious though not yet fully defined plans for future conquests.

  Therefore the accounts in the sources can be generally regarded a plausible.

  On the other hand, this sudden flurry of diplomatic activity in the spring of

  323 shows a certain tendency in the sources, stemming from Cleitarchus,

  to stress the role of Alexander as a universal ruler. It is for this purpose

  that the sources mention the embassies of peoples too exotic and too

  remote to have any interest at the Macedonian king’s court. As such we

  should consider the Iberians, the Celts from Gaul, the Ethiopians or the

  Scythians – all of whom had a quasi-mythological status in Greek

  tradition.74 Alexander did grant audiences to the Greek embassies but he

  failed to give any of them significant concessions regarding the return of

  the exiles. Instead he expressed good will by receiving such envoys with

  kindness and sending them back with valuable items that had been looted

  by the Persian during the 5th-century wars. It was then that the decision

  was made to return to Athens the statues of the tyrannicides that had been

  robbed by Xerxes in 480 and would eventually be brought back to Athens

  in the diadochi period.75

  The subject of greatest controversy is the alleged embassy from Rome.

  Neither Ptolemy nor Aristobulus mention it for Arrian cites later authors

  (Ariston and Asclepiades) as his source and this fact has led some scholars

  to doubt the veracity of the reported event. Some modern historians

  consider it to be an apocryphal tale invented by rhetorical schools at the

  time of the late Roman Republic and early Roman Empire to compare

  their state’s achievements with those of Alexander the Great. Such

  intellectual exercises among Romans are of course well known,

  particularly as far as the virtues of manliness, morality and happiness are

  concerned and in this context Alexander was considered a figure

  particularly favoured by fortune. The author of the most famous of such

  comparisons was Livy, who tried to prove with touching naivety and

  74 Diod., 17.112.1, 17.113.2-4; Arr., An. , 7.15.4-6; Clitarch., ap. Plin., Nat. , 3.57 (=

  FGrH, 137 F31); Memn., FGrH, 434 F1(18); Just., 12.13. Bosworth 1988, pp.

  165-167; Alessandri 1997, pp. 148-154; Alessandri 1997a.

  75 Arr., An. , 7.19.1-2.

  The Last Years

  367

  patriotic fervour that in a hypothetical confrontation between Alexander’s

  army and that of the Romans the latter would win thanks to the quality of

  the troops and greater talents of the long forgotten generals. Nevertheless,

  the presence of Alexander as a theme in the deliberations of rhetoricians

  and historians at the turn of the Christian era cannot be used as an

  argument to determine whether or not an embassy from Rome arrived at

  his court. In the 330s and 320s many conflicts in Italy raged between

  native tribes and Greek cities supported by mainland Greek powers. It was

  in such a war in 331 that Alexander the Great’s relative, Alexander of

  Epirus, was killed by the Lucanians. Another problem was Etruscan piracy

  in the Adriatic, which threatened Greek trade. At the start of his Persian

  campaign Alexander had portrayed himself as champion of Hellenism,

  now he may have wanted to play the same role with regard to Italy and

  Sicily. Strabo informs us that Alexander’s envoys did intervene

  diplomatically in Rome regarding the matter of Etruscan piracy. The

  Roman embassy at his court could have well been a response to this

  demarche. Perhaps the Romans did not wish to give Alexander the pretext

  for launching an attack. The historical veracity of such a diplomatic

  mission is confirmed in the account of the contemporary Cleitarchus,

  whereas Ptolemy and Aristobulus’ silence is hardly surprising. Although

  by then it was already the most powerful state in central Italy, Rome was

  still a third-rate power in the world politics; amid so many barbarian

  ambassadors converging on Babylon envoys from a provincial town on the

  Tiber could have easily been overlooked by other contemporaries not

  directly involved in royal diplomacy.76

  Another controversial issue is the role played by Alexander’s half

  brother Arrhidaeus at this time. In Bosworth’s reading of clay tablets of

  the Babylonian Chronicle, the first year of the reign of Arrhidaeus in our

  terms would be the year 324/323. Since the Babylonian year began in

  April (1 Nisan), Arrhidaeus must have been installed as king of Babylon

  before April 323, i.e. before Alexander’s death and naturally according to

  his will. The entry on the clay tablets is the first piece of information we

  have about Arrhidaeus ever since the Pixodarus affair. Arrhidaeus was

  mentally retarded and therefore considered unfit to rule. He had remained

  in Macedonia most probably under the care of Antipater but in 324, when

  relations between the king and his regent had become strained, Alexander

  decided to summon his half-brother to Babylon. Apart from Alexander,

  Arrhidaeus was the only other male member of the Argead dynasty and

  76 Arr., An. , 7.15 (after Aristos and Asclepiades); Clitarch., ap. Plin., Nat. , 3.57-58

  (= FGrh, 137 F31); Str., 5.3.5; Liv., 9.17-19. Hypercritical: Walbank 1986; contra: Bosworth 1988, p. 167; Flower 2000, pp. 132-135.

  368

  Chapter VII

  therefore his presence in Babylon naturally precluded the possibility of

  him being used as a pawn in any political game or open conflict between

  Alexander and Antipater. Having remained for such a long time in

  Macedonia, Arrhidaeus was quite unknown to Macedonian soldiers; that is

  why after Alexander’s death no one at first considered the possibility of

  him becoming the official successor. In the spring of 324 Arrhidaeus was

  possibly crowned king of Babylon, which was in keeping with a tradition

  already practiced in the time of the Neo-Assyrian and Persian empires

  when members of ruling dynasties frequently received this honorary title.

  It was merely a symbolic monarchy used to satisfy the aspirations of

  Babylonian elites. The king of Babylon only dealt with religious and

  ceremonial matters, tasks Arrhidaeus was capable of performing. This

  interpretation would elucidate a passage in Curtius showing Alexander and

  Arrhidaeus co-hosting religious ceremonies, perhaps of the Babylonian

  New Year in April 323.77

  After Alexander’s return to Babylon preparations for the conquest of

  Arabia were stepped up. The pretext to invade was the country’s failure to

  pay homage to Alexander when all the other nations had already done so.

  In the winter of 324/323 another reconnaissance expedition was launched

  commanded by three captains: Androsthenes of Thasos, Archias of Pella

  and Hieron of Soli. Again the mission failed to sail all the way around the

  Arabian Peninsula, whose size contemporaries compared with some

  exaggeration to the Indian Peninsula. The captains did, however, explore

  the Arabian coast. They discovered the islands of Icarus (today Failaka in

  Kuwait) and Tylos (today Bahrain) as well as the mainland city of Gerrha

  (opposite the island of Tylos), which was the most important settlem
ent

  and trading port the sailors encountered on this expedition. Preparations to

  build a fleet also continued apace. In Babylon a great river harbour was

  excavated reputedly capable of holding as many as a thousand ships. 47

  ships were built in Phoenician shipyards and next transported in parts over

  land and by river to Babylon, where they were reassembled. 500 talents

  were also spent on recruiting Phoenician crews.78 In March 323 major

  earthworks were begun to control the flow of the Euphrates. In three

  months 10,000 labourers constructed dams and floodgates between the

  Euphrates and the great Pallocotas (Pallukatu) Canal, so that the latter

  could level out the water during spring floods. Thanks to this engineering

  feat the lower reaches of the Euphrates could remain navigable and in

  77 Grayson 1975a, pp. 115-119; Curt., 10.7.2. Bosworth 1992; Pelagia 2000, p. 196;

  Carney 2001, pp. 73-79. Contra: Boiy 2007, pp. 114-115.

  78 Arr., An. , 7.19.3-20.10; Str., 16.3.2-4. Högemann 1985, pp. 80-94; Bosworth

  1988, pp. 168-170.

  The Last Years

  369

  addition Alexander, as any good king of Babylon, showed his interest in

  improving the irrigation system. Another element of the preparations to

  invade Arabia was the building of a city on the Persian Gulf coast to be

  inhabited by Greek mercenary veterans.79

  It was also at this time that land army reinforcements reached Babylon:

  Peucestas brought 20,000 troops from Iran; Philoxenus brought

  detachments (probably mercenary) from Caria, Menander brought soldiers

  from Lydia and Menidas some cavalry, whose origin we do not know. It

  was also then that Alexander introduced the greatest change to the infantry

  battle formation in his entire reign. Instead of the old uniform phalanx he

  now introduced a new formation that was 16 ranks deep: the first three

  ranks and the last rank comprised Macedonians traditionally armed with

  sarissai, whereas the 12 ranks in between included Persians archers and

  javelin throwers. Despite the now greater volume of men, this new

  formation would have certainly had a weaker force of impact than the old

  phalanx. Bearing in mind the language and culture differences between the

  soldiers, we may also assume that this formation was also much less

  cohesive. However, it was never put to the test in battle because the

  Arabian campaign failed to get underway before the fateful June of 323.80

  79 Arr., An. , 7.21; Str., 16.1.11; App., BC, 2.153. Högemann 1985, pp. 144-189; Fraser 1996, pp. 168-170; van der Spek 2000.

  80 Arr., An. , 7.23.1-5. Green 1974, p. 471; Hammond 1996, pp. 244-245; Sekunda

  2007, p. 333.

  CHAPTER VIII:

  DEATH, LAST PLANS, TOMB

  1. The King Died

  The death of a ruler as important as Alexander could not have been

  presented by the ancient authors as something that happened unexpectedly.

  According to them, already at Persepolis when Calanus was about to

  mount his pyre he told Alexander that he would soon meet and embrace

  him in Babylon. During the purges that followed Alexander’s return from

  India Apollodorus, the army commander in Babylon, fearing for his own

  life, consulted his brother, who was a soothsayer, and told him that

  Hephaestion and Alexander were the people who terrified him the most.

  The answer he eventually received was that Hephaestion would

  imminently die and that a great misfortune would also befall the king; this

  information reportedly came to him the day before Hephaestion’s death.1

  Such tales are a frequently used literary creation where portends are more

  often than not recalled only after the event they were supposed to have

  prophesied actually happened. During the diadochi period stories of such

  omens were used for political purposes. Plutarch lists colourful anecdotes

  of obvious signs that probably originate from those times: of ravens

  fighting in the sky as a result of which a dead bird falls at Alexander’s feet

  or of the favourite lion in the royal menagerie which is killed when an ass

  kicks it. Another tale has Alexander taking a boat trip in a lake near

  Babylon when a gust of wind suddenly blows away his diadem and carries

  it off into the rushes. The diadem is saved from sinking by a sailor who

  lifts it off the rushes, which happen to be growing on the tomb of an

  Assyrian king. The sailor places diadem on his head so that it does not get

  wet and wades back to the shore. This is not only an omen of Alexander’s

  death but also a foretelling that he would be succeeded by a stranger who

  was not his son. The legend even has the diadem being saved by Seleucus,

  1 Arr., An. , 7.18; Plu., Alex. , 69.6; Cic., Div. , 1.47; V. Max., 1.8, ext. 10. Baynham 2000, p. 254.

  372

  Chapter VIII

  the founder of the most important Hellenistic dynasty and for whom

  wearing Alexander’s crown was to predict a truly great future.2

  On the other hand, in the ancient world belief in signs, miracles,

  portends and the significance of dreams was universal. Therefore it was

  natural that all sorts of soothsayers, diviners, magi, theurgists and

  astrologers converged on the court of a pious and famously extravagant

  monarch. It has been historically well documented that Alexander

  surrounded himself which such specialists from both Greece and the

  Orient. One can well imagine that in this very competitive market of sorts

  everyone of them tried to achieve fame by accurately predicting good or

  bad events, for accurate predictions could ensure the author the position of

  power and wealth Aristander had enjoyed ever since the start of

  Alexander’s Asian campaign. Therefore the king would have for certain

  been constantly receiving prophesies and interpretations of signs. That is

  why the historical truth of prophesises concerning Alexander’s death

  should not be dismissed out of hand, particularly when classical authors

  report events they themselves did not understand while modern scholars

  have found them to be consistent with the beliefs and customs of ancient

  Babylon.

  Chaldaean astrologers, who were universally respected for their

  knowledge and antiquity of discipline they practiced, had warned

  Alexander long before his return to Babylon to avoid the city, or at least

  not enter it from the east, thus facing the west, i.e. the land of the dead.

  Arrian tries to rationalise the stance of the Babylonian priests by

  explaining that they wanted to dissuade Alexander from returning so that

  he would not discover their financial abuses and how little had been done

  in the rebuilding of the Etemenanki ziggurat. He also maintains that

  Alexander was already suspicious of them. This interpretation, however, is

  not corroborated by facts known from other Greek or Babylonian sources.

  During Alexander’s absence the reconstruction of the Etemenanki ziggurat

  was actually proceeding more or less according to plan. Moreover, the

  king did try to heed the Chaldaean warnings. At first he did not enter

  Babylon and headed for Borsippa instead. Next he tried very hard to find a

  way of not entering the capital from the east. Unfortunately marshes
r />   precluded the possibility of entering Babylon from any other side.3

  2 LDM and early Hellenistic sources of Ps.-Callisth., 3.30; Plu., Alex. , 73.2-7.

  Diadem: Arr., An. , 7.22; Diod., 17.116.5-7; App., Syr. , 288-291. Smelik 1978-1979, pp. 98-100; Heckel 1992, pp. 255-256; Bosworth 2000a; Baynham 2000.

  3 Arr., An. , 7.16.5-17.6; Diod., 17.116.4; Plu., Alex. , 73.1-2; Just., 12.13. Smelik 1978-1979, pp. 93-96.

  Death, Last Plans, Tomb

  373

  It is therefore almost certain that there were some natural phenomena

  interpreted as bad omens. It could be a deformed baby born at that time

  known from the Alexander Romance. Or whilst routinely observing the

  heavens the Babylonian priests noticed something they interpreted to be an

  omen of a particularly great danger to the king, which they duly reported

  to him. Alexander tried to heed their warning, but eventually he entered

  Babylon from the east. It was at this stage that the Greek sources report a

  strange and in their interpretation inexplicable episode: an ordinary man,

  according to some versions a convict who had just been freed from chains,

  ascended and sat on Alexander’s throne. None of the sources provide a

  convincing explanation of how that man had found himself on the throne.

  The eunuchs guarding the throne did not attempt to remove this

  sacrilegious commoner; instead they tore their garments and lamented

  loudly. The man was eventually arrested but even under torture he could

  not explain why he had behaved in such a way. Following the advice of

  soothsayers, Alexander next had the unfortunate put to death. If we reject

  Plutarch’s version in which the god Sarapis had personally freed the man

  from his chains and ordered him to ascend Alexander’s throne wearing

  royal robes and a diadem, then the only way the situation could have come

  about was with the help of other mortals, and those could have only been

  people normally close to the king. If we consider the fact that the

  Chaldaean priests had just failed to help the king avoid the possibility of a

  very bad omen sighted in the heavens being fulfilled, we may also

 

‹ Prev