Soldier, Priest, and God

by F S Naiden

  Harpalus A childhood friend of Alexander III, who became treasurer of the empire, eventually residing in Babylon. He was the first companion known to have deserted Alexander, fleeing to Athens in an unsuccessful attempt to establish himself in Greece.

  Hephaestion A childhood friend of Alexander III, becoming his lover and later a top administrator and also commander of the companion cavalry. His death in Ecbatana, less than a year before Alexander’s own death, marked the beginning of the king’s final, fatal decline.

  Heracles, son of Alexander III The son of Alexander by Barsine, he took no part in politics until the Macedonian general Polyperchon persuaded him to try to become king of Macedon, and then betrayed him to Cassander.

  Heracles, son of Zeus The greatest of Greek heroes, important to the kings of Macedon both because of his military qualities and because he was reputedly an ancestor of the Macedonian royal family. Heracles was also the most important of the Argonauts, a group of heroes providing a precedent for the companions of Philip II and Alexander III.

  Heracles Melkarth The patron god of Tyre, the chief city in Phoenicia, and identified by Greeks with Heracles the son of Zeus, and thus identified by Alexander III as an ancestor. Sacrifices to Heracles Melkarth were an important prerogative of Tyrian kings.

  Jason Leader of the Argonauts, the heroes who brought back the Golden Fleece from Colchis, in eastern Asia Minor. Parmenio built a shrine to Jason at Abdera, an act comparable to Alexander III’s worship of Achilles at Troy.

  Leonnatus The same age as Alexander III, this companion was a bodyguard of Philip II before holding the same post under Alexander. In Central Asia he held independent commands; after Alexander’s death, he became a provincial governor in Asia Minor.

  Marduk The chief god of the Babylonian pantheon, and thus the patron of Alexander III once he became king of Babylon. Unlike Amon-Re, Marduk did not adopt Alexander III as his son.

  Mazdai A leading Persian general in the service of Darius III, he switched sides and surrendered Babylon to Alexander III, who made him governor of Babylonia.

  Memnon of Assyria This legendary figure died fighting against Alexander III’s ancestor Achilles at Troy, and was regarded by the Greeks as the chief builder of the city of Susa, one of the capitals of the Persian Empire.

  Memnon of Rhodes A Greek mercenary in the service of Darius III, Memnon was the first husband of Barsine, and thus the son-in-law of the Persian notable Artabazus, who later became Alexander’s leading Persian supporter.

  Nearchus A childhood friend of Alexander III who in India served as his leading admiral and commanded an independent force that sailed from the Indus to Mesopotamia.

  Nectanebo, or Nakhtnebef The last native pharaoh of Egypt, regarded by some Egyptian sources as the father of Alexander III. The Persians drove him from power twelve years before Alexander invaded Egypt.

  Olympias, née Polyxena The mother of Alexander III by Philip II, and thus the most important of Philip’s seven wives. The relatives of those she had put to death did the same to her in 316, seven years after Alexander’s death.

  Onesicritus The helmsman of Alexander III’s vessel, noteworthy for his philosophy of Cynicism, ironically combined with gross flattery of Alexander in reporting, for example, that the king made love to the queen of the Amazons.

  Parmenio The most important general of Philip II, a distinction that he retained under Alexander III until he was assassinated in Ecbatana shortly after the execution of his son Philotas. Another son of his, Nicanor, commanded the shieldbearers.

  Perdiccas A veteran of the wars of Philip II, this general commanded an infantry regiment and afterward succeeded Hephaestion as commander of the companion cavalry. After the death of Alexander III, Perdiccas became regent for Alexander’s two successors, Alexander IV and Philip Arrhidaeus.

  Philip II Son of King Amyntas III of Macedon, he came to the throne after being appointed regent for an infant king. He had daughters by two of his seven wives and a son, Philip Arrhidaeus, by a third. By Olympias he had a son, Alexander III, and a daughter, Cleopatra.

  Philip Arrhidaeus Half brother of Alexander III by one of Philip’s Thessalians wives, he became co-king after Alexander’s death.

  Philotas Son of Parmenio and commander of the companion cavalry until executed by a court-martial in eastern Iran. He was an early and vocal critic of Alexander III’s claim to be the son of Zeus-Amon.

  Polyperchon A veteran of Philip II, this able soldier became a regimental commander under Alexander and on the return march to Babylon served under his fellow traditionalist, Craterus. After Alexander III’s death he replaced Antipater as regent, only to lose power to Cassander.

  Porus, or Puru The most powerful of the kings in the Punjab, he was the chief opponent of the Macedonian invasion of India under Alexander III. After being defeated, he became an autonomous subject of Alexander’s and also a companion.

  Ptolemy, the son of Lagus A childhood friend of Alexander III, he served him first as a bodyguard, then as a commander of independent detachments. After Alexander’s death, he became governor of Egypt and later pharaoh.

  Roxana The daughter of a Sogdian warlord in Central Asia, she was married to Alexander III as part of his efforts to pacify this region. She bore him a posthumous son, Alexander IV, and like her son died at the hands of Olympias.

  Seleucus An infantry commander during invasion of Asia by Alexander III, he replaced Parmenio’s son Nicanor as commander of the shieldbearers. After Alexander’s death, he at first sided with the regent, Perdiccas, but then betrayed and killed him, receiving the province of Babylonia as a reward.

  Sisygambis The mother of Darius III, captured by Alexander III after the battle at Issus. Her daughter Stateira later was married to Alexander, and she committed suicide after his death.

  Xenophon A leading Greek mercenary and military writer of the early and mid-fourth century BC, Xenophon was important for Alexander III as the leader of a Greek force that returned home after fighting successfully in the Persian Empire and as a writer extolling Cyrus the Great.

  Zeus The chief god of the Greeks and Macedonians, identified with Amon of Egypt and Marduk of Babylon, among others. As Zeus-Amon, he was the divine father of Alexander III, but as the Greek god Zeus, he was not—a difficulty exploited by Philotas and other critics of Alexander.

  Zoroaster, or Zarathustra Born in Central Asia at some unknown date, but before the establishment of the Persian Empire, this Persian religious reformer imparted a dualistic quality to Persian religion, exalting Ahura Mazda over other gods.

  Appendix 1

  Acts of Sacrifice and Related Rituals

  This appendix lists acts of sacrifice and related rituals in the Alexander historians and in Strabo. It falls into two parts, 1a for sacrifice and libations and 1b for omens and oracles. The second part effectively overlaps with the first, since all acts of thusia included inspection of entrails, and thus provided an omen, and since all oracles given in shrines were preceded by an animal sacrifice.1 As the diction found in the sources is largely conventional, important terms are mostly paraphrased rather than reported verbatim.

  Where more than one source reports an act, Arrian comes first, followed by the Vulgate, which is indented. The burial of Darius, which Alexander facilitated, is included, but no acts in the Persian court are listed, for the Alexander historians very remarkably do not report a single act of sacrifice or libation, or a single oracle or interpretation of an omen, by any magos or other Persian priest. The same is mostly true of subject peoples. Also omitted are dedications not expressly said to be accompanied by sacrifices.

  These appendices list all reported acts, but not other acts that are unreported yet certain or very likely, such as the funerals after the battle of Gaugamela. Four suppositious acts, no. 38 in Appendix 1a and nos. 1, 3, and 16 in Appendix 1b, are italicized.

  Appendix 1a: Occasional Acts of Sacrifice, Including Libations

  The following list excludes not only dai
ly, routine sacrifices, as in the Ephemerides,2 and irregular, traditional sacrifices such as the Hetareida (Hegesander FHG 4 fr. 25), but also regular festivals such as the annual autumn festival to Dionysus (Arr. An. 4.8.1, Ephippus FGrH 126 F 5). Purification of the army is excluded for lack of any instance in which the historians report that Alexander performed this ritual. Instead this ritual appears at the end of this list, under “Occasional Acts Shortly After Alexander’s Death.”

  Under the heading “God or hero,” all funerary offerings are supposed to be directed to “Chthonic gods.” Under the heading “Type,” thusia designates some form of the verb thuein; sphagia designates sphazein; and sacrificium designates Latin verbs or nouns from the same root. Under “Request or purpose,” terms suggested by the express language of the source are found, e.g., diabatēria for river crossings or ocean voyages. At nos. 6, 36, and 40, acts closely associated with one another are grouped, but distinguished according to celebrant, god, or type. Where stated, the species and gender of an animal offering are indicated in a note. Unless asterisked, the sacrifiant or sacrificateur is Alexander.

  Appendix 1b: Omens and Oracles

  The following list includes all expressly reported omens and oracles in the Alexander historians, Strabo providing no examples. Under the heading “Interpreter/source” appears a mantis or other expert, or, if none is mentioned, the name of the persons reporting the omen or receiving the oracle. Under “Type” appears the object or incident that brought about the omen, or the word manteia, designating an oracle. Under “Interpretation” appears the outcome of the omen or oracle.

  Appendix 2

  Acts of Supplication

  This appendix provides a list of the acts of supplication, whether in shrines or elsewhere, in the Alexander historians. Where more than one source reports an act, Arrian appears first, followed by the Vulgate, which is indented. As the diction found in the sources is more various than is the case for sacrifice, important terms are often reported verbatim.

  Under the column “Suppliant/supplicandus,” the latter is the party approached during the act of supplication; in a shrine, this party is nominally a god, but is actually Alexander or some municipal authority. Under “Gesture/word” appears the language in which the source describes how the suppliant approaches the supplicandus and communicates his intent to supplicate. Sometimes the suppliant is not described, but only identified as an hiketēs or supplex, in which case only this word appears, and any verb is omitted. Under “Response” appears the reaction of the supplicandus to the suppliant, often conveyed either by a gesture or a word.

  This appendix lists all reported acts, but it does not include other acts that are unreported yet certain or very likely, such as supplications made by enemy soldiers or civilians during the siege of Gaza. Three suppositious acts, nos. 5, 20, and 30, are italicized.

  Appendix 3

  Formal Meetings of Alexander’s Companions

  This appendix provides a list of formal meetings of Alexander’s companions—in brief, his council meetings—in the Alexander historians and in Aelian. Where more than one source reports a meeting, Arrian comes first, followed by the Vulgate, which is indented. At the end of the list of meetings during Alexander’s reign appears a list of meetings shortly afterwards, and a list of Persian meetings. As the diction found in the sources is much more various than in the case of sacrifice, important terms are almost always reported verbatim rather than paraphrased.

  Except where indicated, the “issue” is military. “Summons” refers to the words by which the king calls the meeting; if the council meets without his say-so, “none” appears in this column. “Question” refers to the words by which the question is put, or by which information is adduced; if the latter, the question may be deduced from the information; sometimes the question is implied. If the words in this column are underlined, the council puts the question. Otherwise the king puts the question. “Speakers” refers to persons other than the king. “Response” refers to words by which the companions state their opinion, and sometimes to the words by which the king responds to them; except in cases explained below, a verb in the singular refers to the king and a verb in the plural refers to the council. If the companions do not state an opinion, “none” appears in this column. If the king rejects advice, “rejected” appears.

  This appendix lists all reported meetings, but not other meetings that are unreported yet certain or very likely, such as meetings to determine the line of march (a generic report of which appears at no. 35).

  Notes

  Introduction

  1. Writers on Alexander commonly make other comparisons—for example, with Napoleon, as at Clausewitz (1976), 580, and with Cortés, as at Bosworth (2000b). The comparison with Caesar first occurred to Caesar himself (Plu. Caes. 11.5–6, Suet. Caes. 7). Napoleon esteemed Eastern conquests such as Alexander’s: “L’Europe … c’est une taupinière. Il n’y a jamais eu de grands empires et de grandes révolutions qu’en Orient,” as in Dumas (1840), 41.

  2. Lucky Alexander: a tradition going back at least as far as Plu. Fort. Alex. Alexander as civilizer: the same down to Tarn (1948). Alexander as sociopath: Worthington (2004), the latest in a long list of writers beginning with Seneca and St. Augustine. Sociopath and even psychopath: Schachermeyr (1973), Badian (1996).

  3. For Asian deaths, which came mostly east of the Zagros, see Ch. 3, n. 18; Ch. 4, n. 30; Ch. 5, n. 4; Ch. 6, n. 36; Ch. 8, n. 9; Ch. 9, nn. 24, 63; and Ch. 10, n. 8. Macedonian deaths were far lower; see Ch. 6, n. 4, and Ch. 10, n. 19.

  4. Alexander’s skipping the ritual at Pasargadae described at Plu. Arta. 3.1–2: Arr. An. 3.18.10, Curt. 5.6.10. Destruction of the shrine of Anahita at Bactra: Onesikritos FGrH 134 F 5, Plu. Fort. Alex. 328d.

  5. A final sacrifice only four days before his death: Plu. Alex. 77.3.

  6. Alexander the virtual Anglican: Tarn (1948), 1.114. Similarly, Alexander as “monumentally superstitious” at Cartledge (2004), 209. Scrupulous piety, yet hubris, too: Aubriot (2003).

  7. Alexander the deluded god: Wilcken (1932), 109, 114–15, followed by Lane Fox (1973), 497, and Bosworth (1988b), 65, 70, 87, and, with reservations, Cartledge (2004), 209. Dissenting: Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1931), 265, followed by Kern (1963), 37. The literature on the deification of Alexander could be the subject of a book in itself. To the writers above add the following in English alone: Balsdon (1950), Badian (1981, 1996), Cawkwell (1994), and Chaniotis (2003).

  8. Pagan Führer: Schachermeyr (1973). Anticipating this view, but praising Alexander: Berve (1926). Alexander “the indiscriminate opportunist” in matters of religion: Green (1991), 182. Anticipating Green: Badian (1965), 166; following him, Worthington (2004).

  9. Alexander’s strategy: Lonsdale (2007), esp. ch. 3. Religion in military historians: Pritchett (1979), Jacquemin (2000); also Lonis (1979), 302–15, on victory parades. Also brief: Case (1915), 181–82. Notice of fundamental questions, such as sacrifice and purification: Kern (1915), Schwenn (1920).

  10. Alexander’s letters, alas, are almost all spurious. When most of them were composed is disputed: Romm (1992), 109–16, preceded by Pearson (1955), 448–49.

  11. Errington (1969) assails Ptolemy for his biases. Religion in Ptolemy: Kornemann (1935), 223–27. Criticism of Ptolemy while emphasizing religion: Altheim (1953), 110. Not surviving: the writings of Marsyas of Pella (FGrH 135), the brother of Antigonus, another leading soldier.

  12. Alexander’s contempt for Onesicritos: FGrH 134 F 7.

  13. Arrian’s usage concerning companions: App. 3 #4 vs. 6, 8. Diodorus always uses the Hellenistic term philoi: #8, 10, 12, 45. For Plutarch, see #10; philoi never being used, although sunhedrion is used (28), as it is in DS (12, 45). Outside of these instances, which are all formal gatherings of the companions, Plutarch occasionally uses philoi as mere elegant variation: Alex. 15.5, 19.5–6.

  14. Sundry rites are catalogued in App. 1a, 1b, and 2. For a sample of the many comparanda, see Naiden (2009, 2013).


  15. Among the articles and biographies on Alexander contributing to the emphasis on Near Eastern materials: Van der Spek (1998, 2014) and Lenderling (2005). An archeological and art-historical Alexander: Stewart (1993). A recent complaint of continuing underestimation of Near Eastern material: Bowden (2014). Edmunds’s standard article on religion (1971) omits Near Eastern aspects of the subject. So does Fredricksmeyer (2003), which is a brief treatment, as is Naiden (2011), which touches on ritualistic aspects of this subject. Alexander as pharaoh: Bosch-Puche (2008).

  16. Briant (2010) is a revision of his basic Alexander biography of 1974; see also (2015), insofar as religion affects the relation between Alexander and Darius III. Among recent works, note Hanaway (1982), Abramenko (2000), Blazquez (2000), Asirvatham (2001, 2012), Razmjou (2002), Mari (2002, 2008, 2011), Antela-Bernárdez (2007, 2016), Jamzadeh (1995, 2012), and Bowden (2013). Especially noteworthy is the comparative work of Ross (2016) and Ulanowski (2016a). No one has attempted a study of important rituals performed at a single location since Instinsky (1949). The only book on Macedonian religion remains the compilation of sources in Baege (1911).

  17. In many instances, Arrian, Curtius Rufus, and Plutarch’s Alexander all report some version of an event occurring during the expedition, and sometimes other ancient sources do, too, so any narrative must choose among or combine these versions, as is my practice in these pages. An introduction to this complex task: Bosworth (1996), ch. 2, “Windows on the Truth,” observing that each of these three sources has merits and demerits, a conclusion applicable to religious matters. Where these matters are concerned (but not otherwise), this book seeks to complement Robinson (1932), 13–62, and the commentaries of Bosworth (1980, 1995), Hamilton (1999), Atkinson (1980, 1994), Heckel and Yardley (2009), and Atkinson and Yardley (2010) in tabulating versions of events.