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

by Amanda

  themselves, another aspect of Alexander’s legacy that the commanders and

  soldiers in Babylon had to resolve were his so-called last plans. Citing

  information from Hieronymus of Cardia, who was a reliable contemporary

  historian of that period, Diodorus states that Perdiccas found a document

  ( hypomnemata) in Alexander’s chancellery containing a list of

  undertakings the king had been planning to realise over the subsequent

  few years. The tasks included: the erection of an expensive mausoleum for

  Hephaestion; the building of a thousand warships larger than triremes in

  the ports of Phoenicia, Cilicia, Syria and Cyprus; the conquest of

  territories in the West up to the Pillars of Heracles; the construction of a

  road with ports and shipyards along the Mediterranean coast of Africa for

  the purpose of this campaign; the erection of six temples in Delos, Delphi,

  Dodona, Dion, Amphipolis and Cyrnus each costing 1,500 talents; the

  construction of a tomb for Philip that would be greater than the pyramids

  of Egypt as well as the mutual relocation of Europeans to Asia and Asians

  to Europe. Perdiccas presented these instructions found in Alexander’s

  notes to the assembled Macedonian soldiers, who voted to reject them.

  The authenticity of these last plans has been debated by modern historians

  and there are opinions that Perdiccas had actually forged them to distract

  the army’s attention from the late king’s real orders, which were very

  awkward for his successor.15

  However, there is nothing in Alexander’s last plans as presented by

  Diodorus that seems implausible, especially if we put them in the context

  of the king’s conduct in the final year of his life. We can hardly call the

  sum total of 9,000 talents intended to be spent on the construction of six

  temples excessively high if Alexander had spent 10,000-12,000 talents on

  Hephaestion’s funeral pyre and no less on repaying the debts of

  spendthrifts in the Macedonian army. Alexander was barely 33 in 323 and

  14 Habicht 1972; Anson 1991, pp. 236-239; Heckel 1992, pp. 165-170; Carney

  2001, pp. 82-84; Bosworth 2002, pp. 37-63.

  15 Diod., 18.4; Plu., mor. , 343d. Authenticity rejected by Tarn 1948, ii, pp. 378-398;

  Pearson 1960, pp. 261-262.

  380

  Chapter VIII

  he could have expected many more years of rule, which so far had meant

  wars and conquests. Up until his death he had been preparing to invade

  Arabia, whereas certain steps that had been taken in 324 indicate an

  interest in the West as the next theatre of war. Embassies from nations

  living around the west Mediterranean basin were arriving at Alexander’s

  court, while his best general Craterus was in Cilicia supervising

  preparations for a major campaign. This was to be a war against major sea

  powers, Carthage as well as Athens, which had refused to accept its exiles,

  and therefore it required the building of a fleet. The logistic designs (the

  road and ports) can be easily explained if only by what the army had

  experienced in Makran. Therefore Diodorus’ précis of the document read

  out by Perdiccas does not provide enough evidence to question the

  authenticity of such plans.16

  Likewise, the rejection of Alexander’s last plans by the Macedonian

  soldiers at Babylon does not constitute convincing evidence that these

  plans were forged. From the Macedonian veterans’ point of view the most

  objectionable parts of the Alexander’s last plans were the military ones.

  They certainly would not have had much against the construction of

  temples (including three in their homeland) or the construction of the tomb

  of the very popular Philip II. However, the Macedonian soldiers had

  already questioned the continuation of war after Darius III’s death. New,

  difficult and distant campaigns could have only had a chance of being

  realised under the charismatic leadership of Alexander. With Alexander

  gone, Macedonian veterans’ questioning the sense of further campaigns

  was quite to be expected. It is fair to assume that presenting Alexander’s

  last plans to be accepted or rejected by the Macedonian army was a move

  that made Perdiccas popular not only with the soldiers in Babylon but also

  those commanded by Craterus in Cilicia for it was they who, against their

  will, would have had to make the greatest contribution to the war in the

  West. Moreover, although the decision of the assembled army in Babylon

  might not have had legal significance, it certainly resolved the problem of

  Alexander’s last plans in the political sense. It forced Craterus to lead his

  army back to Europe and thus leave Asia in the hands of Perdiccas and his

  allies.17

  Therefore Alexander’s last military plans were never implemented. On

  the other hand, his political plan to permanently include Asia elites,

  particularly the Iranians, in the government of a state that was to a large

  16 Wilcken 1937; Wilcken 1967, pp. 224-229; Schachermeyr 1954; Badian 1968;

  Bosworth 1988a, pp. 207-211; O’Brien 1992, pp. 217-218; Hammond 1996, pp.

  281-285.

  17 Shipley 2000, p. 39; Bosworth 2002, pp. 58-63.

  Death, Last Plans, Tomb

  381

  extent a continuation of the Achaemenid monarchy was more successful

  than modern historiography is generally inclined to concede. The most

  striking example of someone who shared Alexander’s views on this matter

  was Peucestas, the satrap of Persis. But Antigonus Monophtalmus

  overthrew Peucestas in 316 and it was actually Antigonus who made the

  final nominations of Iranians to highest offices. Greek sources claim that

  only 11% of the highest officials under Antigonus were Asians. Moreover,

  the same ancient authors also claim that of high-ranking state officials and

  army commanders of the Seleucid monarchy barely 2.5% were Asians.

  Yet such sources are overvalued as evidence of the extent to which this

  was a ‘Greco-Macedonian’ state. The fact that they concentrate mainly on

  matters concerning the royal court, the western satrapies and exclusively

  Greek affairs shows that they do not give the full picture and cannot be

  considered as reliable evidence regarding Asian matters. More recent

  studies have shown the Seleucid state to have not only been a continuator

  of Alexander’s system of government but also of earlier Near Eastern, in

  particular of the Persian Empire.18

  After Alexander a return to the world as it had been before 336 was

  impossible. His conquests had created a new system of monarchic rule and,

  at the same time, monarchy acquired legitimacy in the Greek world, where

  previously kingship had only existed in semi-barbarian states such as

  Macedonia or Epirus or in Sparta, which always stood out with its

  penchant for archaic eccentricities. Alexander’s style of monarchic rule

  was to be imitated with varying degrees of success by subsequent

  Hellenistic kings, commanders and even Roman emperors. Hellenistic

  rulers, from the Attalids of the Kingdom of Pergamon to the rulers of the

  Greek state in Bactria, claimed genuine or fictitious ties of blood with

  Alexander to legitimise their rule. Similarly, the
free and proudly

  independent Greek polis of Rhodes legitimised its neutrality in armed

  conflicts on the basis of cleverly doctored documents claiming special ties

  with Alexander – these documents would later, for instance, also serve as a

  source for the popular Alexander Romance. After Alexander, the polis,

  which had previously been the dominant form of Greek government,

  ceased to be a major player in world politics. On the other hand, it not

  only survived but also flourished as never before. What is more, this type

  of state could now be found in places far beyond the Mediterranean. A few

  were established by Alexander himself, a great many more were founded

  by Hellenistic rulers, so that polis appeared in places as far off as today’s

  Afghanistan and Pakistan. Although it was probably not Alexander’s

  18 Billows 1990, pp. 306-308; Billows 1994, pp. 33-40; Kuhrt, Sherwin-White

  1993.

  382

  Chapter VIII

  express intention, his liberation of the Greek cities in Asia Minor

  contributed to the ultimate triumph of democracy in the world of the polis.

  At last, for the first time in history there was a common culture that united

  Greeks and the Hellenising elites of barbarian peoples from Pillars of

  Heracles to the Hindu Kush and Punjab.

  3. Alexander’s tomb

  Once the Macedonian commanders and soldiers in Babylon settled the

  most pressing political matters, attention was focused on arranging a

  funeral befitting the great king. First of all his body was handed over to

  Egyptian and Chaldaean embalmers, who must have done their work very

  well for Alexander’s mummified body could still be viewed at least six

  hundred years later. Next his corpse was placed in a gold anthropomorphic

  sarcophagus that was filled with perfumes and incense. Although

  Alexander had wanted to be buried in the Siwah Oasis, Perdiccas decided

  that his body should be laid to rest at the royal Argead necropolis in Aegae.

  His hearse took two years to build and was said to have been the most

  remarkable vehicle of ancient times.19 Its description, originally recorded

  by Hieronymus of Cardia, has been passed on to us by Diodorus: ‘In this

  year Arrhidaeus, who had been placed in charge of bringing home the

  body of Alexander, having completed the vehicle on which the royal body

  was to be carried, was making preparations for the journey. Since the

  structure that had been made ready, not only surpassed all others in cost –

  it had been constructed at the expense of many talents – but was also

  famous for excellence of its workmanship, I believe that it well to describe

  it.

  First they prepared a coffin of the proper size for the body, made of

  hammered gold, and the space about the body they filled with spices such

  as could make the body sweet smelling and incorruptible. Upon this chest

  there had been placed a cover of gold, matching it to a nicety, and fitting

  about its upper rim. Over this was laid a magnificent purple embroidered

  with gold, beside which they placed the arms of the deceased, wishing the

  design of the whole to be in harmony with his accomplishments. Then

  they set up next to it the covered carriage that was to carry it. At the top of

  the carriage was built a vault of gold, eight cubits wide and twelve long,

  covered with overlapping scales set with precious stones. Beneath the roof

  all along the work was a rectangular cornice of gold, from which projected

  heads of goat-stags in high relief. Gold rings two palms broad were

  19 Curt., 10.10.13; Diod., 18.3.5, 18.18.2; Paus., 1.6.3; Just., 13.4.

  Death, Last Plans, Tomb

  383

  suspended from these, and through the rings there ran a festive garland

  beautifully decorated in bright colours of all kinds. At the ends there were

  tassels of network suspending large bells, so that any who were

  approaching heard the sound from a great distance. On each corner of the

  vault on each side was a golden figure of Victory holding a trophy. The

  colonnade that supported the vault was of gold with Ionic capitals. Within

  the colonnade was a golden net, made of cords the thickness of a finger,

  which carried four painted tablets, their ends adjoining, each equal in

  lengths to a side of the colonnade.

  On the first of these tablets was a chariot ornamented with work in

  relief, and sitting in it was Alexander holding a very splendid sceptre in his

  hands. About the king were groups of armed attendants, one of

  Macedonians, a second of Persians of the bodyguard, and armed soldiers

  in front of them. The second tablet showed the elephants arrayed for war

  who followed the bodyguard. They carried Indian mahouts in front with

  Macedonians fully armed in their regular equipment behind them. The

  third tablet showed troops of cavalry as if in formation for battle; and the

  fourth, ships made ready for naval combat. Beside the entrance to the

  chamber there were golden lions with eyes turned toward those who would

  enter. There was a golden acanthus stretching little by little up the centre

  of each column from below to the capital. Above the chamber in the

  middle of the top under the open sky there was a purple banner blazoned

  with a golden olive wreath of great size, and when the sun cast upon it its

  rays, it sent forth such a bright and vibrant gleam that from a great

  distance it appeared like a flash of lightning.

  The body of the chariot beneath the covered chamber had two axles

  upon which turned four Persian wheels, the naves and spokes of which

  were gilded, but the part that bore upon the ground was of iron. The

  projecting parts of the axle were made of gold in the form of lion heads,

  each holding a spear in its teeth. Along the middle of their length the axles

  had a bearing ingeniously fitted to the middle of the chamber in such a

  way that, thanks to it, the chamber could remain undisturbed by shocks

  from rough places. There were four poles, and to each of them were

  fastened four teams with four mules harnessed in each team, so that in all

  there were sixty-four mules, selected for their strength and size. Each of

  them was crowned with a gilded crown, each had a golden bell hanging by

  either cheek, and about their necks were collars set with precious stones.

  In this way the carriage was constructed and ornamented, and it

  appeared more magnificent when seen than when described. Because of its

  widespread fame it drew together many spectators; for from every city into

  which it came the whole people went forth to meet it and again escorted it

  384

  Chapter VIII

  on its way out, not becoming sated with the pleasure of beholding it. To

  correspond to this magnificence, it was accompanied by a crowd of

  roadmenders and mechanics, and also by soldiers sent to escort it.’20

  The convoy with the catafalque led by Arrhidaeus proceeded slowly on

  the road leading through Damascus. In Syria it was met by the satrap of

  Egypt Ptolemy and his army. Ptolemy managed to persuade Arrhidaeus to

  disobey Perdiccas’ instructions and instead escort the catafalque to Egypt.

  For this act of betrayal Macedonia
n commanders who were Perdiccas’

  enemies somewhat later rewarded Arrhidaeus by granting him the satrapy

  of Hellespontine Phrygia.21 Ptolemy was fully aware of how symbolically

  important Alexander’s body was for legitimising political authority and

  therefore he too ignored the late king’s wish to be buried at Siwah, which

  was too remote to be of any practical use. The sensational archaeological

  discovery of Alexander’s tomb at Siwah Oasis remains nothing more than

  sensational, for now only the Greek archaeologist who discovered the

  tomb, L. Souvaltzi, still believes it to be that of the Macedonian king.

  Alexander’s final resting place was in Alexandria in Egypt. Some sources

  state that his body was immediately taken there, yet in 321 Alexandria was

  only just being built and Memphis was still Egypt’s capital. Therefore the

  version that Alexander’s body was first buried in Memphis should be

  considered true, especially as this is confirmed in the early Hellenistic

  chronicle Marmor Parium. The ancient sources do not provide an exact

  location of where Alexander was first buried. Modern historians assume it

  was in the Sarapeum, in today’s Saqqara, the site of a special religious

  importance, associated with the last native pharaohs Nectanebo I and

  Nectanebo II, and in his lifetime Alexander had claimed to be their rightful

  successor.22

  It was most probably Ptolemy I’s successor Ptolemy II Philadelphus

  who transported Alexander’s body to a mausoleum in Alexandria. Then in

  215 Ptolemy IV raised a new mausoleum. 23 This second mausoleum,

  called Soma (Body), was in all likelihood situated in the Ptolemaic

  necropolis within the extensive palace compound in the city centre and not

  20 Diod., 18.26.1-28.2; Ath., 5.40.

  21 Diod., 18.28.3; Str., 17.1.8; Arr., Succ. , 1.25, 24.1-8; Paus., 1.6.3; Ael., VH, 12.64. Heckel 2006, p. 53, s.v. ‘Arrhidaeus’ [2].

  22 Alexander buried in Alexandria at once: Diod., 18.28.3; Str., 17.1.8; Ael., VH,

  12.64; Epitome Heidelbergensis, FGrH, 155 F2. Alexander buried first in

  Memphis: Marmor Parium, FGrH, 239 B11; Curt., 10.10.20; Paus., 1.6.3; Ps.-