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