by F S Naiden
29. Skeptical of the use of the mare on the battlefield as at Curt. 3.11.1, but not Arr. An. 2.11.5 or DS 17.37.1: Atkinson (1980) ad loc.
30. Macedonian deaths of 82 to 450 (Curt. 3.11.27, 3.12.13, Arr. An. 2.10.7, 12; Justin 11.9.10, DS 17.36.6) vs. Persians deaths of 110,000 or more according to Diodorus.
31. The funeral and games: App. 1a #13.
32. The sundry Damascus captives: Ath. 13.607f-608a. Cf. the less precise total for ordinary slaves (Curt. 3.13.16).
33. Cicero at the spot: Ad fam. 15.4.8–9 with Atkinson (1980) ad Curt. 3.8.22. Unfinished shrine: Theopompos FGrH 115 F 253.
34. The misdirected supplication: App. 2 #9, an act that may have led Curtius to suppose that other Persian women supplicated Leonnatus, too (#8). The situation of a slave, or famula: Curt. 3.12.24. Another view of the term of address “mother”: Brosius (1996), 22–23, suggesting it was a Persian courtly term Alexander adopted.
35. App. 2 #6. Reports of panicking Persians supplicating each other, as at App. 2 # 7, are dubious. In Iran and Mesopotamia, supplication usually accompanied professions of obeisance, which in this case could be given only to Alexander.
36. Antigone: Berve (1926), no. 86, noting that she came from either Pydna or Pella.
37. Berve (1926), no. 152. The fate of Ilioneus (no. 382), a Persian youth named after Alexander’s favorite Greek poem, is unknown.
38. Barsine’s son, and a potential heir: Plu. Alex. 21.8.
39. Curt. 3.13.14; Justin 11.10.2; Plu. Alex. 21.7 and Eu. 1.7. Barsine merely a “mätresse”: Schachermeyr (1973), 289; and Berve (1926), no. 206, also suggesting that the union between the two did not take place until 331, when the army returned to Syria. Concubines bearing legitimate children were to be found in Athens; we know too little about Macedonian marriage customs to say whether they existed there. Carney (2010), 243, describes her as “no courtesan.” Her knowing Alexander as a child: Lane Fox (1974), 177.
40. Rejection of luxury on Alexander’s part: Plu. Alex. 20.13. Cf. Justin 11.10.1, saying that Alexander admired this degree of luxury.
41. Arr. An. 2.14.6–9. Cf. Curt. 4.1.7–14, where Alexander responds to a less generous offer with a similar invitation for Darius to approach as a supplex, but mentions the female captives.
42. Coronation by acclamation at Sidon: DS 17.47.6. So also in Judea: 2 Ki. 2.23, 11.14.
43. Thirty-five-foot walls of Arad: Conrad (1992), 318.
44. Negotiations at Arwad: Arr. An. 2.13.7–8, Curt. 4.1.5–6.
45. Negotiations at Sidon: Arr. An. 2.15.6, Curt. 4.1.15–24.
46. Popular approval of the negotiation: DS 17.42.2, Curt. 4.1.17. (DS 17.47.1–6 mistakenly situates some parts of this story in Tyre.) No comparable political content: Justin 11.10.8–9. Accepting this story in spite of its Clitarchan origin: Lane Fox (1980), 382, and Green (1991), 246, both interpreting it without reference to religious duties. Accepting it in the main: Bosworth (2003), 181–86. Philosophical elements in the story, but again with no effect on the religious aspects of the kingship: Atkinson (1980) ad Curt. 4.1.15–26 with refs.
47. Nebuchadnezzar did do considerable harm to the Tyre’s commerce, and perhaps forced a change in government: Ezek. 19.20; J. AJ 10.228, Ap. 1.156.
48. The shining temple of Melkart: Hdt. 2.44.2.
49. Arr. An. 2.18.1–2. The contrary view, that he did not know of the festival: Wilcken (1932), 109. So also Edmunds (1971), 374, assuming that Alexander did not know that Melkart differed in some respects from Heracles.
50. Another view of mutual misunderstandings such as this one: Teixidor (1990), 71–74, arguing for “interpretation in either direction,” i.e., Near Eastern reinterpretation of Greek gods being symmetrical with Greek reinterpretation. Macedonian siege engines, however, made the relation asymmetrical in this case. Nor is there any evidence of Tyrian curiosity about Heracles, as noted by Bonnet (1988), 401. The Tyrians resisted on orders from Darius: Grainger (2010), 2. The religious issue a mere screen for political goals: Droysen (1833), 72–73.
51. App. 3 #8. For problems with the speech reported by Arrian, see Bosworth (1980) ad Arr. An. 2.17.8. Events would soon disprove Alexander’s claim that siege engines alone could breach the walls of Tyre. Like Alexander, Antigonus in 315 used his navy as well as his siege train to capture the city. Alexander no doubt spoke of his program for future conquests on other occasions as well as here, contra Tarn (1948), 2.286–87.
52. Objections offered by Polyidus, assuming he was still in service: Whitehead (2015), 79–80.
53. The act of sacrilege against the herald: Curt. 4.2.15. Greek immunity for heralds: Rhodes and Larsen (2012). Near Eastern immunity: Parpola (2003), 1047, 1067.
54. Pre-battle omens: App. 1a #9, 11, 14.
55. Modular towers: F. E. Winter (1971), 321.
56. Plu. Alex. 24.6–8 gives this characteristically reckless act a romantic cast by making the companion one of Alexander’s former tutors, Lysimachus.
57. Chaining the statue: Curt. 4.3.22. The suppliant: App. 2 #10.
58. Scythes and hooks: Curt. 4.3.26.
59. The drawbridge: Arr. An. 2.22.7 with Ath. Mech. 10.12, 15.5–6. Its use here: Whitehead and Blyth (2004), 89.
60. Calendar manipulation: Plu. Alex. 25.1–2. App. 2 #12. Casualties and more flight: Arr. An. 2.24.4–6, DS 17.46.4, Curt. 4.4.17.
61. Flight to Melkart’s shrine: App. 2 #11. Offering to Heracles: App. 1a #15. Perhaps Diades thought of the offering as coming from himself and his crews, since he was, as a papyrus fragment says, “the man who took Tyre along with Alexander,” as at Tarn (1948), 2.39. Macedonian funerals: App. 1a #16. Funeral games: Arr. An. 2.24.4. Captives: Curt. 4.4.17. The donative: DS 17.46.6.
62. The offer: Arr. An. 2.25.1 (not mentioning Egypt) differs from Curt. 4.5.1 (western Anatolia only, as also at Itin. Alex. 43) and DS 17.39.1 (no specifics). In any event, Darius makes large concessions, whereas in the reported offer of 331 (App. 3 #12) Darius makes the even larger concession of joint control of the empire (DS 17.54.2; according to Curt 4.11.6, Plu. Alex. 29.7, and Justin 11.12.10, Darius concedes Egypt and all Asia east of the Euphrates, or effectively the same thing). Parmenio thus has a stronger case at App. 3 #12 than he does at #9–10.
63. App. 3 #9; Plutarch dates a meeting with the same agendum to the next year (#10).
64. Alexander’s wish to go to Egypt: DS 17.40.2, 45.7, Arr. An. 2.17.1–4, 25.4. Scholarly dispute about his aims begins with Droysen (1833), 87, with other bibliography at Bloedow (2004), notably Beloch (1922), 3.1.641. Alexander’s interest heightened because he underestimated the distances involved: Yorck von Wartenburg (1897), 31–32.
65. A Macedonian expedition to obtain a sum total of spoils, ta hola (DS 18.50.2, 50.5, 54.4), but not an archē, as noted at Errington (1976), 158. Imperium macedonicum is a Roman concept; “empire of Alexander” is a modern one.
66. Of the two appointed to Cilicia and Syria, Balacros was a veteran, as noted by Berve (1926), no. 200. Little is known about the other, Menon (no. 514). The situation in Thrace: Bosworth (1988a), 166.
67. J. AJ 11.302–3. Disputes over the identity and career of this official, named Sanbaallat, begin with Büchler (1898) and continue through Dušek (2012), 128, who rejects a governor of Samaria of that name in the time of Darius III and Alexander.
68. Mount Gerizim: Magen (2008), 152–56, 160. The town: Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik (1942), 116–17, vs. earlier activity, 94–116.
69. The water tunnel: Sneh, Weinberger, and Shalev (2010), 61. Attributed to Hezekiah, but perhaps newer: Reich and Shukron (2011).
70. The Persian share of the revenue: J. AJ. 11.297. Black soil: Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik (1942), 111–12, for Samaria. Or, to credit the claims of the present Iranian government, a soil of Persian, Achaemenid origin: UNESCO (2010), 394–96.
71. An example of a bicultural coin: Meshorer and Qedar (1999), #42.
72. Enemies: Gen. 19:24. Violators: Lev. 11.1–2, Nu. 16:35. Sexual offenses: Lev. 20:14,
21:9.
73. The survey by Cantarella (2011) shows that Greek legal authorities did not use immolation as a punishment.
74. The tax break for Yehud: J. AJ 11.317–18, 326–39. The incineration of Andromachus: Curt. 4.8.9–11. Other views of this episode: Marcus (1966) ad J. AJ 6.512–32; Sartre (2001), 79–81. Perhaps Andromachus went so far as to conduct Greek sacrifices in the shrine, as at ABC 11, concerning the crown prince Antiochus.
75. The Assyrian siege of Samaria: 2 Ki. 17.5. The escape and the slave registries: Dušek (2007), ch. 4. The Macedonian colony in Samaria: Eus. Chron. 19.489 and Jer. Chron. 27.504, attributing the colony to Perdiccas, and Syncellus 314.6–13, to Alexander. This reconstruction of events: Cross (1963), 119.
76. Land reallotment after the rebellion: J. Ap. 2.42–43. Hebrew mercenaries in the army: J. Ap. 1.200–204.
77. HR 30–31. Other versions of the visit: J. AJ 11.331; and Ps.-Call. Γ 2.24 with a different course of events before the visit. Momigliano (1979) attributes the story to Judean rivalry with the Samaritans. Other scholarly views: Golan (1982).
Chapter 5
The Throne of Egypt
1. Mentor of Rhodes: DS 16.49–52.
2. Gaza’s hilltop fort was some eighteen to thirty meters (sixty to a hundred feet) above the plain, to judge from the modern situation: Bosworth (1980) ad Arr. An. 2.25.4. The rituals at Gaza: App. 1a #17, followed immediately by App. 1b #12; rationalistically, Plu. Alex. 25.4 separates the sacrifice and the flight of the bird.
3. The wound: Arr. An. 2.27.2, Curt. 4.6.17–20 (with the fainting).
4. The treacherous Arab: App. 2 #13; even more luridly, DH Comp. 12.8. Casualties: Curt. 4.6.30. Enslavement: Arr. An. 2.27.7. In private life, Alexander’s attitude toward supplication was conventional, as at Plu. Alex. 42.1–2.
5. Alexander mistakenly put in a chariot: Curt. 4.6.25–29.
6. Plu. Alex. 5.7–8, 25.6. The Greek tradition of modest sacrifices: Naiden (2013), 215–17.
7. Amyntas and his men escaped Syria via Tripoli, and thence invaded Egypt (Arr. An. 2.13.2, Curt. 4.1.27–33, DS 17.48.2–6). Another 8,000 made their way north, to Caria (Curt. 4.1.39, 17.48.1). Yet others went to Cilicia and eventually fought Antigonus (Curt. 4.1.34–35, DS 17.48.5–6). This division of forces was unlucky for Amyntas but lucky for Alexander. Mazaces, the replacement for the dead satrap (Arr. An. 3.1.2), surrendered to Alexander.
8. Clère (1951) describes a statuette placing Nakhtnebef’s son in an Iseion at some unknown date, but evidently a generation after his father, and thus in Alexander’s time.
9. The two chief temples at Heliopolis: Kákosy (1977), 1111.
10. The return of the statue of Darius to Susa: Razmjou (2002).
11. Gods writing on leaves: Gregory (2013), 33; Lepsius (1849), vol. 3 pl. 169.
12. The text of a stone, perhaps a pedestal, found at Alexander’s shrine at Bahariya, as at Bosch-Puche (2008), provides a complete titulary for Alexander, and thus confirms that Alexander was crowned pharaoh, pace Burstein (1991) followed by Stewart (1993), 174, and preceded by Badian (1985), 433. An alternative but very similar text for this stone: Blöbaum (2006), 54–55.
13. “Hymn to Amon-Re,” ANET 366.
14. Liquid sunlight: Moret (1902), 47–48. Alexander’s successor, Philip Arrhidaeus, whose mother was a dancer from Thessaly (Ath. 12.557b), was nourished by, but not born to, the goddess Amaunet at Karnak, as at Hart (2005), s.v. “Amaunet.”
15. Pharaonic ka: Bell (1985a). Name of Ptolemy IV’s ka: Edfou 1.61.19, 1.433.14.
16. The statues on the occasion of Philip’s death: agalmata versus an eidōlon (DS 16.92.5); see Mari (2008), 235. Other evidence for the worship of Philip during his lifetime is slight. The sacrifices made in Philip’s honor at Amphipolis may have lasted only two years, from his accession to the throne in 360 or afterward until his destruction of the city in 357 (Aristid. 1.715d ed. Jebb). No remark on how long these sacrifices took place: Habicht (1970), 11–12. Preserved in spite of the destruction: Mari (2008), 240 with refs. The fourth-century but not precisely dated temenē at Philippi, including one for Philip II, as at Ducrey (1988), were estates, not shrines, for they were alienable, as observed by Prestianni Giallombardo (1999), 930–36. Evidence for a tribe named after Philip at Philippopolis (IG Bulg 5.512) is of imperial date. Two dedications to Philip Sōtēr are difficult to date: SEG 41.599 and Pouilloux and Dunant (1954), 2.230. The phrase Zeus Philippios refers to worship on Philip’s part at Eresus, as at Rhodes and Osborne (2003), #83.2.4–5. Other views of this evidence: Habicht loc. cit. and Christesen and Murray (2010), 442–43.
17. Surprisingly, the Alexander historians are silent on the subject of the canal, which for Darius was an important project, as at Tuplin (1991).
18. Boat travel speeds in antiquity: Arnaud (2005), 217.
19. Memphis as at D. Thompson (2012), 8, 15, 24–26, 41.
20. Memphis as at D. Thompson (2012), 18, 20–21, 29, 78.
21. “Pharaoh,” i.e., Pr-‘3, a phrase used of kings from the Eighteenth Dynasty onward.
22. The only text for a coronation ceremony: Gardiner (1953), 22–23. Coronation here and here alone: Koenen (1977), 29–31, and Manning (2010), 92. Possibly several coronations: Gardiner (1953), 22. Ps.-Call. A 1.33 implies coronation in one place, but divine acclamation in several.
23. The sacrifice to the Apis bull: Plu. De Is. et Os. 353a, Ael. NA 11.10. The misconduct of Cambyses: Hdt. 3.27–29, an act of sacrilege that did not occur, as noted by Pfeiffer (2014b), 95 with refs.
24. The sacrifice: App. 1a #18. The competition: Plu. Fort. Alex. 334e.
25. Alexander’s route: Curt. 4.7.5, a Memphi eodem flumine vectus ad interiora Aegypti penetrat. (Curt. 4.8.3 rules out travel into Ethiopia.) Amon at Memphis: Guermeur (2005), 9–81. A possible sacrifice to Amon at Thebes by Alexander: Spiegelberg (1906), 222. The objection that the trip would take too long: D. Thompson per litteras. On foot or horseback it would, but it would not by boat; see Arnaud (2005), 17. Macedonian Epirus and Dodona: A. Lloyd (1975) ad Hdt. 2.56. Siwah and Dodona: Hdt. 2.32.1, Pi. fr. 58 ed. Maehler (1989); Baege (1911), s.v. “Amon.”
26. Luxor inscriptions of Alexander’s: Abd el-Razik (1984), 38 with pl. 11. Location: Ullmann (2002), pl. 5. Abd el-Razik (1984), on the outer walls: 10–43. Inner walls: 43–56.
27. The ka: Bell (1985a), 251–52, 289.
28. The importance of the Theban priesthood in particular: Veïsse (2004), 240–42. No more likely to rebel than other places, Thebes was more likely to recognize usurpers.
29. As Diospolis hē megalē, Thebes was distinguished from other cities of Zeus. The Hebrews called it No-Amôn, from the Egyptian Nw-t-imn, “the city of Amon.” “Amon” as Egypt: Jer. 46.25, Na. 3.8–10. Greek Thebes was a misnomer, apparently from TƷm.t, the ancient name of Medinet Habu, as shown by Sethe (1929), 53. Karnak: as at Barguet (1962), chs. 1–5 passim, esp. 192–97, on the shrine repaired by Alexander in the Akhmenou. No doubt Alexander saw the colossus of Memnon, as at Klotz (2008), 124; he presumably interpreted it in a Homeric, not Egyptian, sense.
30. Inside the Akhmenou: Barguet (1962), 194–95; Martinez (1989), 112.
31. Chonsu: Murnane (1981), pl. 112 and pl. 1; Traunecker (1987). More for Amon at Luxor: a chapel built to hold a sacred boat, as at Murnane (1985), 2.137–38. For Amon at Medinet-Habu: Hölscher (1939). Memphis: Spiegelberg (1905), 222, no. 1, a hieroglyphic stele indicating royal worship of the Theban triad, plus a demotic inscription that Spiegelberg supposed refers to the hieroglyphic inscription. For Amon at Tukh el-Garamus in the northern Delta: Guermeur (2005), 250. For Thoth at Hermopolis, unless this was the work of Ptolemy I: Roder (1959), 111, 300, and pl. 67 (d).
32. The titles: Bosch-Puche (2008) with a similar interpretation at Bosch-Puche (2013).
33. The Egyptian for “ruler of rulers,” ḥqȝw, is not a translation of “king of kings,” as noted by Bosch-Puche (2013), 137; cf. Grenier (1989), 16. Other gods: Chonsu, Mut, Hathor, Neither, and Isis, almost al
l celestial beings, as at Budde (2003), passim. “Lord of the world,” nb r ḏr, is likewise only for divinities; in the reign of Nectanebo II, for example, it is for Re-Horakhty, as at Lichtheim (1973), 2.43.
34. Amon and pharaohs: Thutmosis IV (ANET 446–48 from Urk. 4.1545.4–18); Hatshepsut (Urk. 4.342).
35. Amon and ordinary worshippers: Černý (1935), (1942), (1962), (1972). There were no ambiguous answers, save for those reported by Herodotus (2.11.2, 2.133.1, 3.64.4).
36. According to Arr. An. 3.3.1, a mere pothos motivated Alexander’s trip; so also the ingens cupido of Curt. 4.7.8.
37. Greco-Egyptian Siwah: Parke (1967), 202–4. Libyan origins: Colin (1998), 1.329–55. The shrine in Alexander’s time: Guermeur (2005), 423–28. The satellite shrine, visible in the nineteenth century: Minutoli (1824), 20–23. The failed attack: Hdt. 3.26.1–4.
38. The oracle given to the Macedonians: App. 1b #13, especially DS 17.50.6–51.2, Curt. 4.7.23–25. Cursory accounts: Plu. Alex. 27.4–5, Arr. An. 3.4.5–6, Justin 11.11.7–11. The one ancient source saying otherwise: Str. 17.1.43, reporting that others accompanied Alexander into the temple.
39. Persian building in Siwah, and elsewhere in Egypt, under the first two Dariuses: A. Lloyd (1983), 294; Briant (1974), 620; Vittmann (2003), 129. No quid pro quo involving Bahariya: Ladynin (2016), arguing for an early Ptolemaic date for the inscription published by Bosch-Puche (2008).
40. A similar bargain, but without Bahariya: Justin 11.11.7–11. Alexander’s knowing in advance what the oracle would say, but no bargain: Lane Fox (1973), 212. Undecided as to the bargain: Cartledge (2004), 268–69.
41. Details of the journey: Minutoli (1824), 17–20.
42. The text at the entrance: Guermeur (2005), 425. Soutekhirdisou may have been the founder of the shrine, as at Kuhlmann (1988), 104–5. Alexander was unwittingly imitating or lending himself to a local ruler, not a national or international one. This error or necessity had already occurred at Phaselis, Sidon, and Tyre.