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

Home > Fantasy > Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf > Page 67
Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf Page 67

by Amanda


  consider them to have been the most likely authors of the incident in the

  throne room. For centuries a ritual had been known in Babylonia as

  elsewhere in the Middle East in which a ‘substitute king’ was installed

  whenever omens revealed that grave danger threatened the real king. In

  such situations an ordinary, humble man was dressed in royal robes, he

  was given a virgin as a wife and then the bad omen concerning the real

  ruler was read out to him, so that the bad luck would also pass on to him.

  If a ‘substitute king’ was sitting on Alexander’s throne, that would explain

  why the eunuchs did not remove him and only lamented. This would have

  been done on the instructions of the Chaldaean priests, who next advised

  Alexander to have the hapless ‘substitute king’ executed. This episode

  happened in May 323 and was the last desperate attempt to save a

  monarch who did not heed the warnings of Chaldaean priests with

  sufficient scrupulousness. Neither Alexander nor the later Greek authors

  fully understood the significance of these Babylonian rituals.4

  4 Arr., An. , 7.24.1-3; Diod., 17.116.2-4; Plu., Alex. , 73.7-74.1; Ps.-Callisth., 3.30.

  Smelik 1978-1979, pp. 100-109; Briant 1996a, pp. 746-747; Ambos 2005.

  374

  Chapter VIII

  Preparations for the start of the Arabian campaign were now drawing

  to a close. Shortly before the army was due to set off, an envoy returned

  from Siwah with news that the oracle of Ammon had permitted for the

  founding of a heroic cult for Hephaestion. This joyous news naturally had

  to be celebrated with a lavish and, in keeping with Macedonian custom,

  very alcoholic banquet. After the revelry Alexander had a bath and was

  intending to retire to his quarters. However, on his way there he was

  stopped by one the hetairoi called Medius of Larissa, who invited him to

  another drinking party. Regardless of how much wine he had drunk earlier,

  Alexander now toasted all twenty four present and consumed in one go the

  entire contents of ‘the cup of Heracles’ – a chalice capable of holding two

  choes (5.5-6 litres) of wine. It is said that he also took part in yet another

  drinking session reputedly at the house of the eunuch Bagoas.5

  We know the subsequent course of events with, by ancient standards,

  exceptional accuracy thanks to the Royal Journal ( Ephemerides), in which

  the royal secretary Eumenes recorded what happened next on a day-by-day

  basis or as a single entry shortly after the king’s death. This information

  has been passed on to us by the authors of our main ancient sources:

  Arrian and Plutarch. On the 18th day of the Macedonian month of Daisios

  Alexander developed a fever and spent the night in the bathhouse, where it

  was cooler. In the days that followed his condition very gradually

  deteriorated but he was still able to perform the daily routine of offering

  sacrifices and spend time with his friends, Nearchus and Medius. On 21st

  Daisios his fever become more troublesome and the following day it

  deteriorated further still. Alexander continued to spend the nights in the

  relatively cool bathhouse but in the daytime he did not desist from his

  duties as monarch and commander-in-chief; we know he consulted his

  advisors on the matter of filling vacant posts. On 24th Daisios he was no

  longer able to walk and had to be carried to the place where he offered

  sacrifices. It was then that he instructed his officers to gather near his

  chamber. The following day he was carried back to Nebuchadnezzar’s

  palace on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. On 25th and 26th Daisios

  Alexander lost the ability to speak though he was still able to recognise the

  officers at his bedside. Now rumours that he was already dead spread

  throughout the army and soldiers thronged around the royal palace. Extra

  doors to Alexander’s chamber were added to let these men pass by the bed

  of their dying king, who could now only signal with his eyes that he

  recognised them and was saying goodbye. In their fear for the king’s life,

  Alexander’s officers asked a god – the sources say it was Sarapis, though

  5 Arr., An. , 7.25.1; Diod., 17.117.1; Plu., Alex. , 75; Nicobule, ap. Ath., 10.44; Ephippus, ap. Ath., 10.44; Just., 12.13; Ael., VH, 3.23.

  Death, Last Plans, Tomb

  375

  it may have actually been that god’s predecessor Osorapis – if they could

  carry the king to his temple so that this deity could cure him, but through

  the priests the god told them to leave the king where he was. When

  Alexander was asked who should inherit the throne, he replied that it

  would be the one who was the strongest and gave his ring to Perdiccas,

  one of his seven bodyguards as well as the commander of the Companion

  cavalry. In his last words he expressed the conviction that there should be

  great games after his death.6 Plutarch, citing the Ephemeredes, states that

  Alexander died in the afternoon on 28th Daisios. For the Babylonians this

  was the last (29th) day of the month of Aiaru; the entry in the Babylonian

  Astronomical Diary for that day reads: ‘The king died, clouds.’ Unlike in

  our culture, the Babylonian calendar day lasted from sunset to sunset;

  therefore 29th Aiaru lasted from the sunset of 10th June to the sunset of 11th

  June. However, the correlation of meteorological information, a

  Babylonian date and the king’s death with information from other sources

  allows us to pinpoint the event with total accuracy in our calendar as well.

  If we interpret Plutarch’s words πρός δείλην as referring to the time in the

  afternoon rather than after sunset (and this seems the most likely

  translation), then according to eyewitnesses Alexander died on 11th June

  323.7

  In antiquity rumours had it that Alexander had actually been poisoned,

  for at less than 33 of age he was, after all, still a young man. He was to

  experience severe convulsions after draining the ‘cup of Heracles’,

  naturally on account of the poison that was added to the wine. The direct

  perpetrator of this assassination allegedly was Iolaus, Alexander’s

  cupbearer. Legend has it that Hypereides argued for the Athenian

  assembly to honour Iolaus for this deed. Among those who genuinely

  believed in Iolaus’ guilt was Olympias, who took her revenge in 317 by

  desecrating his grave. Of course the poisoning was inspired by Iolaus’

  father, Antipater, and the toxic substance was supposedly prepared by

  Aristotle. It was claimed that he used water from the Styx, the river of the

  Underworld, to make the poison and had it transported to Babylon in the

  bored out hoof of a donkey as that was the only vessel in which it would

  6 Principal sources: Arr., An. , 7.25-26; Plu., Alex. , 76. Other sources: Diod., 17.117.2-4; Curt., 10.5.1-6; Plu., Eum. , 2.1; Just., 12.15; Epitome Heidelbergensis ( FGrH, 155) F1(2). Hammond 1988; Bosworth 1988, pp. 172-173; Bosworth

  1988a, p. 158; Heckel 1992, pp. 142-144; Anson 1996; Baynham 2003a, pp. 5-6.

  7 Plu., Alex. , 76.9; Sachs, Hunger 1988, no. 322. Hauben 1992, p. 146; Depuydt

  1997; Briant 2002, p. 23.

  376

  Chapter VIII

  not lose its potency.8 Although (excluding these most fan
tastic elements)

  some modern scholars also support the theory that Alexander had been

  poisoned, such a stance requires a monumental revision of how we treat

  our major sources. The claim was known to and rejected by ancient

  authors who were as well-informed as Arrian and even more so, Plutarch.

  The latter actually states that the rumours first appeared as late as five

  years after the king’s death. This naturally makes such a story much less

  plausible for it is difficult to assume that in Babylon in May and June 323

  no one noticed anything untoward happening. Accepting the version with

  the poisoning also means a priori rejection of the evidence found in

  contemporary sources, particularly the Royal Journal, which record quite

  different symptoms of Alexander’s illness in the last 11 days of his life.

  Therefore if we weigh the more reliable sources against the less reliable

  ones, we should reject the theory that Alexander was poisoned.9

  It is almost certain that Alexander died of natural causes. Modern

  historians have considered the following possible culprits: malaria,

  complications associated with the wound he had received during the siege

  of the city of the Malli, alcohol poisoning and West Nile virus encephalitis.

  In each case one can stress factors that would have contributed to the

  development of the illness and diminished the body’s natural immunity to

  a given disease: numerous injuries and wounds suffered over very many

  years of war as well as the damage to general health caused by constant

  alcoholic abuse.10 A breakthrough in research was declared by physicians

  and ancient history scholars at the University of Maryland Clinical

  Pathologic Conference in 1996. This team of experts in both ancient

  history and modern medicine was able to produce the best analysis of the

  mysterious disease to date and their verdict was typhoid fever. One of the

  consequences of the final stages of this particular disease can be ascending

  paralysis with considerably slowed down breathing and heartbeat, which

  can create the impression of death long before it actually occurs. This

  allows us to explain a strange phenomenon recorded in the ancient sources

  and normally dismissed as hagiography by modern historians. The ancient

  authors report that for a few days after his death (though the gossip

  Aelian’s claim that for 30 days can be rejected out of hand) Alexander’s

  8 LDM, 88-89, 96; Arr., An. , 7.27; Curt., 10.10.14-19; Diod., 17.117.2; Plu., Alex. , 77.2-4; Plu., mor. , 849f; Plin., Nat. , 30.149; Just., 12,13-14; Ps.-Callisth., 3.31.

  9 Plu., Alex. , 77.1-4; Arr., An. , 7.27.3. Lane Fox 1973, pp. 470-471; Heckel 1988, p.

  2; Bosworth 1988, pp. 172-173; O’Brien 1992, pp. 224-225; Hamilton 1999, pp.

  213-215; Borza, Reames-Zimmerman 2000, p. 25.

  10 Schachermeyr 1973, pp. 561-563; O’Brien 1992, pp. 225-228; Marr, Calisher

  2003. Alcohol: Ael., VH, 12.26.

  Death, Last Plans, Tomb

  377

  body showed no signs of decay despite the great heat and humidity in

  Babylon at that time of year. It is therefore possible that if Alexander was

  suffering from typhoid fever, he actually died a few days after the official

  date of 11th June 323.11

  2. Alexander’s legacy

  ‘Then, immediately after Alexander's decease, Leosthenes said that his

  forces, as they wandered here and there and fell foul of their own efforts,

  were like the Cyclops after his blinding, groping about everywhere with

  his hands, which were directed at no certain goal; even thus did that vast

  throng roam about with no safe footing, blundering through want of a

  leader. Or rather, in the manner of dead bodies, after the soul departs,

  when they are no longer held together by natural forces, but undergo

  dispersion and dissolution, and finally are dissipated and disappear

  altogether; even so Alexander's forces, having lost him, maintained a

  gasping, agitated, and fevered existence through men like Perdiccas,

  Meleager, Seleucus, and Antigonus, who, as it were, provided the still a

  warm breath of life and blood that still pulsed and circulated. But at length

  the host wasted away and perished, generating about itself maggots, as it

  were, of ignoble born kings and rulers in their last pant death-struggle.’12

  This rhetorical image form Plutarch’s On the Fortune or the Virtue of

  Alexander best sums up the colossal blow that shook the Western world in

  the summer of 323. Alexander’s death, symbolically marking the end of an

  era, evoked an eruption of sorrow among Macedonians and Persians alike.

  In their grief the latter cut their hair and extinguished the royal fires. It

  must have been clear to all those then present in Babylon that no one

  would be able to fill the vacuum left behind by a man who had towered so

  high above all his contemporaries and who through sheer will power was

  able to steer the course of history. As a consequence of his premature and

  quite unexpected death Macedonia found itself for the first time in its

  recorded history in a situation not only without a successor to the throne

  but also without a universally accepted centre where decisions could be

  made. When there was no king, the choice of his successor was left to the

  leading Macedonian nobles. Out of necessity the burden of making this

  decision now rested with the generals (and soldiers) in Babylon. However,

  notably absent were most of the army, staying at the time in Macedonia or

  11 Plu., Alex. , 77.5; Curt., 10.10.9-12; Ael., VH, 12.64. Oldach, Borza, Benitez 1998; Borza, Reames-Zimmerman 2000.

  12 Plu., mor. , 336e-337a.

  378

  Chapter VIII

  Cilicia, as well as the two most senior, powerful and universally respected

  commanders, Antipater and Craterus. Perdiccas, to whom Alexander had

  granted his ring, was a man of sufficient calibre to win the struggle for

  power among middle-ranking Macedonian leaders gathered in Babylon in

  June 323 but then again he was far too weak to maintain control over

  Alexander’s vast empire.13

  The monarchy was an institution that defined Macedonian society.

  That is why the first and, indeed, most important matter to be settled was

  finding a successor to the throne, one who was a descendant of the late

  king. Nearchus argued that Alexander did actually have a son with Barsine,

  Heracles. However, the other commanders rejected this nomination as

  Barsine was an Iranian and had not even been the king’s wife but only a

  concubine. Instead, the generals decided to wait for the birth of the child

  of Alexander and Rhoxane, which was expected to happen in three

  months’ time. If the child turned out to be a boy, he would be recognised

  as king. Rhoxane herself made sure that there would be no rival infant

  pretenders by murdering all of Alexander’s remaining widows. However,

  the soldiers also felt they had their say. They were bound to tradition, to

  the Argead dynasty, to Macedonian nationalism and to the memory of

  Philip II, but under Alexander they had also gotten used to on special

  occasions expressing their will. And that is why they gave their support to

  the nominee of a middle-ranking infantry commander, Me
leager. He had

  managed to convince the troops that the son of a barbarian woman was

  unworthy of becoming a king of the Macedonians, and instead Meleager

  nominated Alexander’s mentally retarded brother, Arrhidaeus, whose

  greatest advantage was the fact that he was Philip II’s son. Under pressure

  from the army, the other commanders accepted this nomination, but with

  considerable reluctance for apart from Argead blood the Macedonian elites

  also valued kingly virtues which they could hardly expect from Arrhidaeus.

  For these high-ranking officers the situation was all the more worrying as

  ordinary soldiers had now considered themselves entitled to participate in

  the decision of who was to be the next king; so far only members of the

  Argead dynasty and Macedonian nobles had had this right. Therefore

  Meleager was briskly isolated from his troops and, on Perdiccas’ orders,

  removed from the world of the living along 300 of his supporters. For a

  short while Arrhidaeus, now called Philip III, was the only Macedonian

  king. When Rhoxane gave birth to a son, he was named Alexander IV and

  became co-ruler with Philip III. Representing the Macedonian elites,

  Perdiccas was the appointed guardian of the kings and as such he held or

  13 Errington 1990, pp. 114-117; Heckel 1992, pp. 134-163; Bosworth 2002, pp. 29-

  37.

  Death, Last Plans, Tomb

  379

  at least tried to hold real power. But by 321 Perdiccas was dead and so was

  Craterus, whereas Antipater was to die in 319. Attachment to the Argead

  dynasty and respect to its members ensured that the infant and the retard

  officially remained kings, but now they were pawns in a struggle between

  the diadochi for control of Alexander’s empire and they themselves were

  quite unable to hold this empire together. Their demise as well as that of

  Heracles marked the end of the Argead dynasty, but by then it was a mere

  episode in the period of diadochi struggles.14

  Apart from the distribution of state offices and satrapies among

 

‹ Prev