Soldier, Priest, and God

by F S Naiden

  43. The sanctum: Fakhry (1944), 72–73. Scholarly debate as to whether Alexander received an oracle or only a greeting: J. Hamilton (1999) ad Plu. Alex. 27.5. The religious purport of the priest’s statement: Tarn (1948), 2.354. Religious but also political purport: Kuhlmann (1988), 154–55.

  44. A sacrifice to Philip: Aristid. Or. 38.14. In other instances, sacrificing to Philip was out of the question, as at Olympia, where Philip erected eikones (Paus. 5.20.9). Other views: intimations of worship at Fredricksmeyer (1979), 58; true worship, at Habicht (1970), 3–16, and Fredricksmeyer (1981), but without citing any particular act of worship rendered to him. The same cautious view as here: Prestianni Giallombardo (1975), 37–45. Other eikones for generals: C. Hamilton (1979), 67–70. Worship of pharaohs was rare: Menes as at DS 1.74–75; Ramses II and III, as at Nelson (1942), 154–55; Thutmosis III, as at Bell (1985b), 35–36. A similar view of how the two oracles, one royal and one public, interacted: Kuhlmann (1988), 130–37. Doubting the processional oracle: Borchard (1933), 39–42.

  45. Bahariya: Fakhry (1972), 1.603; Guermeur (2005), 433–34 with other refs.

  46. Bosch-Puche (2008), 37: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ / ΑΛΕΞΑ<Ν>ΔΡΟΣ / ΑΜΜΩΝΙ / Τ[Ω]Ι ΠΑΤΡΙ. Cf. Ps.-Call. A. 1.30.5, where Alexander dedicates a shrine to Amon by inscribing Πατρὶ θεῷ Ἄμμωνι Ἀλέξανδρος ἔθηκεν (so also B and Γ 1.30). At Bahariya, it was not necessary to say that Amon was divine.

  47. The funeral for Hector: App. 1a #19.

  48. The Macedonian-style sacrifice at Memphis: App. 1a #21. Holding that this was a sacrifice to Amon: Bosworth (1980) ad Arr. An. 3.5.2. Olympias’s gift: Ath. 14.659f-660a, where she adds that the slave is also “skilled in preliminary offerings that [she] happens to make (προθύεται).” Other interpretations: Fredricksmeyer (1966).

  49. Philotas’s sneers: Aristoboulos FGrH 139 F 56.

  50. Philotas’s opinion: Plu. Alex. 48.5–6. Or did the rift between Alexander and Philotas begin earlier, at the time of the Pixodarus affair? Thus Heckel (2016), 52, citing Plu. Fort. Alex. 339f. Then religious differences deepened the rift.

  51. Winning formula: Justin 12.16.9. Other views of how Alexander’s notion of his own divinity developed: Seibert (1972), 192–206; Badian (1981); Bosworth (1988a), 278–90. Droysen (1833), 96–97, thought that Alexander’s notion of his status did not develop before Siwah, at the oracle, and that afterward he practiced on the naiveté and ignorance of most of his soldiers.

  52. Revenues: St. Jerome, In Dan. 3.11, Cicero apud Str. 17.1.13; Le Rider (2001), 229. Egypt vs. elsewhere: Hdt. 3.89–92. Cleomenes was appointed satrap sometime later, as shown by his holding this office at the time of Alexander’s death (Arr. fr. 6, Justin 13.4), as well as by [Arist.] Oec. 1352a. The disloyal Persian satrap: Hdt. 4.166; so also the first satrap in Lydia (Hdt. 1.155–56).

  53. A rebellion under the appropriately named pretender Amyrtaios, or Amenirdis, “Amon has given him,” Ỉmn- ỉr-dỉ.s.

  54. Administration of Egypt: Arr. An. 3.5.2–7, Curt. 4.8.4–5. The Persian and the Egyptian: Doloaspis and Petisis, the former having an Iranian name, even if he was of Egyptian origin, as at Arr. An. 3.5.2, with Harmatta (1963), 208. The uniqueness of Egypt: Badian (1965), contrasting it with Babylon and Phoenicia. Contrast with Persian administration: Bengston (1937), 7. The Egyptian populace, admittedly, did not always distinguish between a satrap and other administrators, as at H. Smith (1988), 184–86, reporting a demotic ostrakon reading PȜ-di-’Ist pȝ ihstrpny, or “Petisis the Satrap.”

  55. The role of Cleomenes: Curt. 4.8.5.

  56. The assignment of offices: Arr. An. 3.5.5.

  57. Other views of the purpose of Alexandria: Grote (1884), 12.199, a naval base; Cavaignac (1913), 2.432, a new colony, replacing Naucratis, similar to [Arist.] Oec. 1352c. A similar view: Ehrenberg (1926), 38, with Alexandria as a counterweight to Memphis. None of these scholars cite religious factors. The date of the city’s founding: 25 Tybi, as at Ps.-Call. A 1.32.10, is rendered compatible with App. 1a #20, a ceremony said to occur at an earlier date, by Bosworth (1980) ad Arr. An. 3.1.5. Here he suggests Alexander visited the site twice, once at Arrian’s earlier date, and once in April. I assume that the foundation ceremony occurred during the second visit, but this point is disputed; see especially Welles (1962).

  58. Alexandria’s waterworks: B. Alex. 5.

  59. “[By order of] Peucestas. No entry. Priest’s chamber,” as at Turner (1974).

  60. Egyptian coinage before Alexander: Kraay (1976), 294–95; Dumke (2011), 57–90. Imitation: Buttrey (1982). Demanhur: Newell (1923), 44, 166–67.

  61. App. 1b #14, but with characteristic differences among the sources: Arr. An. 3.2.1–2, simplifying the omen while implying his source is inferior to Ptolemy and Aristobulus; Curt. 4.8.6, making the use of barley an otherwise unreported nomos of the Macedonians; and Plu. Alex. 26.8, making the use of barley accidental.

  62. Adapted from Ar. Ps.-Call. 1.88–94.

  Chapter 6

  The Throne of Babylon

  1. Melkart: App. 1a #22. The Athenian prisoners: Arr. An. 1.29.5–6; 3.6.2, Cur. 4.8.12, with the supplicatory term orabant. Harpalus: 3.6.7.

  2. New diviners in the entourage: the Syrian (Arr. An. 4.13.5), and the Greek Pythagoras, a hepatoscopist (Plu. Alex. 73.1–4).

  3. The discussion of Darius’s offer: App. 3 #10.

  4. Known Persian losses: at least 112,000 (DS 17.21.6, 36.6). Macedonian losses so far (and up to Gaugamela): 656 to 1,029, i.e., Granicus, 34 to 129 (Plu. Alex. 19.8, Justin 11.6.12, Arr. An. 1.16.4–5); Halicarnassus, 40 to 50 (Arr. An. 1.22.7, DS 17.25.6); Issus, 82 to 450 (Curt. 3.11.27, 3.12.13; Arr. An. 2.10.7, 12.1; Justin 11.9.10; DS 17.26.6); Tyre, 400 (Arr. An. 2.24.4). Enemies entered his service at Miletus (Arr. An. 1.19.6, DS 17.22.4) and elsewhere in Anatolia (Arr. An. 2.5.7, Curt. 4.5.18).

  5. The arrival at Carcemish: Arr. An. 3.7.1–2, Curt. 4.9.11–12. Arrian’s “Thapsacus” near Carcemish and not farther south: Engels (1980), 64–65 with refs.

  6. Rejection of the Euphrates perhaps also because it became unnavigable in August and thus could not be used to transport supplies on rafts, as at Semple (1919), 160. Lack of forage: X. An. 1.4–5. Limits of pharaonic conquests: Manetho FGrH 609 F 2–3.

  7. Operations of Mazdai: Curt. 4.7.9, 4.7.12, distinct from the similar operation at the Euphrates, as noticed by Lane Fox (1973), 526. The Macedonians crossed somewhere north of the main ford, at Mosul, as noted by Marsden (1964), 20. Nineveh was destroyed by Cyrus according to Amyntas FGrH 122 F 2, a report that would interest Alexander.

  8. The eclipse: AD 1–330 ob. 3 as well as the Alexander historians as at Bosworth (1980) ad Arr. An. 3.7.6; the first incident datable to a particular day in both Occidental and Near Eastern sources for the expedition.

  9. Previous eclipses during the expedition: NASA (2009), pl. 202.

  10. The Egyptian interpretation of the eclipse: App. 1b #15.

  11. The council: App. 3 #11. The offerings: App. 1a #23. Another view: Ross (2016), supposing that Alexander understood the cause of the eclipse, rather than interpret it with priestly help.

  12. Arr. An. 3.8.7. As the battle occurred only eleven days after the eclipse, the Persians had accordingly arrived in Arbela by the date of the eclipse, Sept. 20. The exact location remains disputed but was some fifty to sixty miles north of Arbela, as reckoned at Bosworth (1980) ad loc.

  13. Persian panic: AD 1–330 obv. 14. As Rollinger and Ruffing (2012), 104, observe, there is no reason to suppose that the mere approach of the Macedonians caused the panic. Ministrations of the Magi: as after the solar eclipse at Hdt. 7.37. Or, if Darius was not reassured, he tried once again to negotiate with Alexander, leading to the meeting reported in Curtius (App. 3 #12), where Parmenio gives much the same advice as at #10.

  14. For astronomical progress in Babylon, see Rochberg (1984), especially 134, 136, for the date of the first horoscope in 410.

  15. The pre-battle omen: Labat (1965), #71.7.
<
br />   16. Another view of the cultural differences between Greece and Babylonia: Ulanowski (2016a), 83, comparing manteis and bārûtu.

  17. Dispirited Persian forces: Lenderling (2005), 167–69. The contrary view: Neujahr (2005), arguing that the “Dynastic Prophecy” predicted Darius’s victory over Alexander, rather than being composed ex eventu.

  18. This crucial council meeting before the battle: App. 3 #13.

  19. The next meeting: App. 3 #15. Arrian differs from the Vulgate and instead reports a meeting in between #13 and #15. Conceivably, this meeting, which is #14, and meeting #15 both took place, for Alexander summons the meeting at #14 in order to gain the officers’ support during the coming battle, and so meeting #15, about tactics, would still be necessary. Alternatively, Arrian has dropped meeting #15 and replaced it with #14.

  20. As Atkinson (1980) ad Curt. 4.13.1–10 observes, the rebuke given to Polyperchon in Curtius runs parallel to a rebuke given to Parmenio at Arr. An. 3.10.1–2, an informal encounter between Parmenio and Alexander rather than a meeting of the council. Plutarch’s report of the meeting (Alex. 31.10–14) names no individual speakers. As shown by App. 3, Plutarch never names individual speakers other than Alexander and Parmenio. A Persian version of the moral contrast between a day attack and an attack at night: Nizami 1.25.12–15, where an unnamed adviser tells Alexander to attack Dara by night and Alexander rejects the advice, saying that the sun cannot attack by night.

  21. Curt 4.13.15 reports the prayers to Zeus and Athena, and thus to two of the three dis praesidibus loci to which Alexander sacrificed before Issus (Curt. 3.8.22). Plu. Alex. 31.9 supplies a third god, as immediately below.

  22. Adoration of Ishtar by Assurbanipal: the hymn of Assurbanipal at Livingstone (1989), 14–17, rev. ll. 14–17. Cyrus and Ishtar: Borger (1996), 280 and 294, prism B1, ll. 115–17. Alexander and Phobos: App. 1a #24. The cult of Phobos at Sparta and elsewhere: J. Hamilton (1999) ad Plu. Alex. 31.9 with refs. Alexander overslept as in the sources at App. 3 #16. The Astronomical Diary reports the battle nonetheless began in the morning, as noticed by Van der Spek (1998), 297–98.

  23. The informal gathering the morning before the battle: App. 3 #17.

  24. The length of the front: Marsden (1964), 74. The size of the army: 40,000 infantry and 7,000 cavalry reported at Arr. An. 3.5.1. Devine (1989) estimates nearly the same number.

  25. The opposing orders of battle: Arr. An. 3.11.3–10, preferred to Curt. 4.12.6–13, although as Bosworth (1980) says ad Arr. An. 3.11.3, both may contain errors and omissions. The differences between the two sources are greater than for Issus (as at Ch. 4, n. 20).

  26. A somewhat different view of Mithra: Green (1991), 290–91, describing Mithra as a god of “holy war.”

  27. The numbers for the elite protecting the king are harder to estimate than for Issus, since no author gives a figure for the guard except DS 17.59.2 (1,000 συγγενεῖς).

  28. The moves and countermoves: Arr. An. 3.13.1–6 with Milns (1968), 122, adding that the Persians also wished to encircle the Macedonians. The omen: App. 1b #17. The focus on Darius: as at Lane Fox (1973), 239, who uses terms compatible with his stress on the Homeric elements (497–98).

  29. The Persian cavalry breakthrough: Curt. 4.15.5, as opposed to Arr. An. 3.14.5, 3.15.1, which envisions Indians dispatched from the center, presumably by Darius, not from the right by Mazaeus. So also Atkinson (1980) ad Curt. 4.15.5–13 with refs. A different view: Hammond (1980), 147, saying that the phalanx split because of pressure against Parmenio’s entire position.

  30. The very different version at Curt. 4.15.12 has one important point in common with this version, drawn from Arr. An. 3.14.6: a Macedonian subordinate takes charge of the situation. Although reaching the baggage train, the Persians never came close to reaching the women: Fuller (1958), 176. The absurd idea that Sisygambis did not want to be rescued: DS 17.59.7.

  31. Poor visibility: Curt 4.15.32, DS 17.61.1. Cf. good visibility at Arr. An. 3.13.1. A prearranged message: Green (1991), 294. Doubting Parmenio’s power to compel Alexander to turn around: Bosworth (1988a), 82–83.

  32. The issue of the message: not delivered, DS 17.60.7–8; delivered, Arr. An. 3.15.2, Curt. 4.26.3. A second issue: the number of messages, for which see Bosworth (1980) ad Arr. An. 3.15.1–7. A third issue: the distance between Parmenio and Alexander. Beloch (1922), 4.2.300, accepts the account at Curt. Alex. 4.16.8–10, which Fuller (1958), 177, calculated as putting Alexander twelve miles from the rest of the army. Both criticize Alexander, as does Lane Fox (1973), 240. Griffith (1947), 82–83, argues that Alexander was pursuing a leading Persian subordinate, Bessus, but not Darius, a switch reducing the distance. Only Marsden (1964), 61, supposes that the gap between Alexander and the main body was planned. The last stand by Darius: AD 1–330 obv. 15–18. Cf. Arr. An. 3.15.1–3, Curt. 4.15.30–33, and DS 17.60.3, in which Darius has already fled, and Alexander has the luxury of changing front.

  33. The wounded leaders: Curt. 4.16.32, DS 17.51.3.

  34. A close pursuit would imply panic in Darius’s entourage. The Alexander historians report panic (Arr. An. 3.15.1 in light of 3.14.3–4; and Curt. 4.16.1, DS 17.60.7, Plu. Alex. 33), but AD 1–330 obv. 15–18 does not.

  35. The Persian council meeting: App. 3 #47.

  36. Macedonian casualties are reported to be 100 to 500, more likely the latter (Arr. An. 3.15.6, Curt. 4.16.26, DS 17.61.3), vs. the colossal totals reported at Arr. An. 3.15.6, Curt. 4.16.26, DS 17.61.

  37. The stench of the dead: Curt. 5.10.11. Burial in Arbela: Str. 16.4.1.

  38. The tunnels of Sennacherib: Safar and Basmachi (1946). The naphtha experiment: Plu. Alex. 35.2–9.

  39. “King of Asia” at Plu. Alex. 34.1, preceded by Arr. An. 2.14.9, is accordingly an anachronism, as it is when used of Bessus at Arr. An. 3.25.3, pace Fredricksmeyer (2000), 140. A third view, that Macedonians hailed Alexander as “King of Asia” regardless of how Asians would respond: Schachermeyr (1973), 276–85. The Lindos dedication: Lindos II 2.105 with FGrH 532 F 1 36–38. The pharaoh’s statue: Hdt. 2.182.1.

  40. Hegelochus: Curt. 6.11.22. Perhaps he had died already, at Arbela. Doubting the story: Badian (1960), 332. Prosopographical complications: Atkinson (1994) ad loc.

  41. Antigonus’s battles: Curt. 4.1.35. Fall of Halicarnassus, thanks partly to Asander: Arr. An. 2.5.7.

  42. The battle of mice: Plu. Ages. 15.6. The same jealousy on Alexander’s part: Curt. 6.1.18–19.

  43. Babylon as a city the size of a nation: Arist. Pol. 3.1.12; similarly, Ar. Av. 552. A population of 250,000: Dandamaev (1996), 364. Only 50,000: Boiy (2004), 229–34.

  44. Labor: Jursa (2015), 349, 363, 361. Houses: Jursa and Hackl (2010), 807.

  45. The ziggurat was reported to be some 300 feet according to Schmid (1995), 128–30, versus 480 feet. The Elamite ziggurat at Choga Zanbil (as at n. 70 below) had a slightly bigger base, but its height is unknown. The Pharos lighthouse at Alexandria, built in the mid-third century BC, rose some 400–450 feet according to McKenzie (2011), 42. The number of members of the priestly college: fourteen at some point in the fourth century BC, according to Beaulieu (2006), 24. The Shatammu and assembly as, in effect, presiding officer and assembly: Van der Spek (1986), 60, and (1987), 61–64, stressing that this body was not a popular assembly. The shrine assembly doubled as a court: Boiy (2004), 218–19.

  46. Although the throne had been abolished, the phrase “King of Babylon” continued to be used off and on, a matter of no political significance, as at Stolper (1994b), 214.

  47. The effect of the rebellion against Xerxes on archives and management in one city, Borsippa: Waerzeggers (2010), 54. A rebellion against Darius III is doubtful: Stolper (1994), 240.

  48. Cyrus diverting the Euphrates: Hdt. 1.191, although the story was untrue, as noted by Beaulieu (1989), 225–26. Darius I needed a year and seven months to capture Babylon (Hdt. 3.150).

  49. Evidence for the bargain: AD 1–330 rev. 4–7. A different view of the negotiations: Kuhrt
(1990), 25–27, stressing Persian and Assyrian precedents. Mazdai’s position: bēl pīḫāti, the Babylonian preference, as at Stolper (2006), 227–28; or šakin māti, even reserving the term “satrap” for lower officials, as at Dandemaev (1988). Simply as “satrap”: Arr. An. 3.16.4. Cf. “hyparch” at 4.18.3, implying proconsular powers. Mesopotamian coronations with and without a coronation oath: Ben-Barak (1980).

  50. The change in accession date: year 8 of Alexander is indicated for AD 1–328 left edge of rev. The same honor done to Antigonus Monophthalmos when he was the most powerful man in the region, and was entered on the Uruk king list as king of Babylon for six years, even though Alexander IV was on the throne: BaM (1980), 2.88. The juniper garden, besides being a meeting place, contained several temples, including a “House of Deliberation”: Boiy (2004), 84 and Van der Spek (2006), 75 n. 4. Suppliants: App. 2 #14, reporting that Mazdai himself supplicated. Arrival in the city: AD 1–330 rev. 9.

  51. The milestones outside Babylon: Robson (2008), 167 with fig. 6.5. Height of the city walls: Str. 16.1.20. Map of the walls: Wetzel (1944), 48. Alexander’s parade: Curt. 5.1.19–23; perhaps BM 36761 rev. 11–14 as at Wiseman (1985), 116–21. Details concerning the approach and the parade route: Koldeway (1914), passim.

  52. Twigs thrown for Cyrus: ABC 7 rev. 3. Flowers: Curt. 5.1.23. The Babylonians were old hands at welcoming foreigners they had outnegotiated; see Kuhrt (1990), Boiy (2004), 106, Jursa (2007).

  53. Inner walls “a frontier as firm as time itself,” Al-Rawi (1985), 5–6, quoting Nabopolassar. The water screws: Berossos FGrH 141 F 8a. A skeptical view: Bichler and Rollinger (2005). Wherever this remarkable piece of remarkable hydraulic ingenuity was located, Alexander surely saw it and took an interest in it. The citadel gate: George (1992), 365–68.