by F S Naiden
47. The council meeting about Alexander the Lyncestian: App. 3 #4. The bird omen: App. 1b #6.
48. The Lyncestian suffered so much in confinement that he could not speak coherently in his own defense (Curt. 7.1.8–9).
49. Philotas’s supplication: App. 2 #19, although Philotas cannot have used the florid gestures found only in Curtius. Having the pages supplicate each other at an earlier stage of the conspiracy (#17) is perhaps dramatic license on Curtius’s part. A second council meeting about, but this time without, Philotas: App. 3 #23. A violation of Philotas’s right to attend: Hatzopoulos (1996), 331. Philotas and Alexander at dinner: Curt. 6.8.16.
50. The assembly of the army, as opposed to a council of officers, meets about Philotas: Arr. An. 3.36.2–3.
51. The third and last council meeting about Philotas: Ap. 3 #24.
52. The Greek custom of stoning those hateful to the gods: Cantarella (2011), 74–84. Stoning as a Macedonian custom: Curt. 6.11.38. It was not, however, the only method of capital punishment: Curt. 7.1.9.
53. The narrative as at Curt. 7.2.11–34, giving the only highly detailed account; cf. Arr. An. 3.26.3, Plu. Alex. 49.13, and other sources as at J. Hamilton (1999) at Plu. Alex. loc. cit.
54. For details concerning the fate of generals under Alexander, see Ch. 10, nn. 47–48. Alleged co-conspirators of Philotas acquitted: Arr. An. 3.27.1–2; Curt. 7.2.5–7, with a hint of supplication by the accused. Alexander’s accusing three brothers of being co-conspirators of Philotas (Curt. 7.10–7.2.10) was inspired or at least excused by the Macedonian custom that the blood kin of those who commit capital crimes should be put to death (Curt. 8.6.28–29). The execution of the Lyncestian: Curt. 7.1.1–9 and DS 17.80.2, a proceeding dominated by council members. Another view, ignoring the council: Badian (2000), 57–60.
55. Other views: a long-laid plan against Parmenio that takes an unexpected form, as in Badian (2000), 63, relying on Plu. Alex. 48; a cabal by officers jealous of Philotas, as at Heckel (1977) and Bosworth (1988a), 101–4, relying on Plu. Alex. 49. In contrast, Droysen (1833), 145–48, thought that the conspiracy was genuine and that Alexander’s orientalism was the reason for it. Droysen is partly right on both counts: the conspiracy was genuine, if insignificant, and “orientalism” of a sort was manifest in Alexander’s obsession with his status as son of Amon.
56. Antipater’s response to the Philotas affair: Plu. Apophth. reg. 183b. Antipater’s hostility to Alexander’s claim to be the son of Amon, or Zeus-Amon: Berve (1926), 2.50, citing Suid. s.v. Ἀντίπατρος.
57. Dispersal of powers: Arr. An. 3.29.7, partly because of the need to operate in smaller units on the Iranian plateau, a need that would only become greater in Bactria and Sogdiana. Parmenio’s cavalry left at Ecbatana: Arr. An. 3.19.7. More cavalry and javelin men left in India: 6.15.2. Through these reassignments, along with the dismissal of the Thessalians, Alexander dismantled the left wing of the army. Corresponding forces on the right wing mostly remained with him. The Agrianians fought at the Hydaspes (Arr. An. 5.12.2), the prodromoi at the Tanais (4.4.6). The Paeonians alone leave the scene earlier (last reported at Gaugamela, 3.13.4). Prodromoi absorbed by companion cavalry: Brunt (1976), lxxxv.
58. The only detailed account of Erigyius’s expedition: Curt. 7.4.32–38; cf. Arr. An. 3.28.3. First use of Asiatics: Curt. 7.3.1.
59. Passes blocked by the Persians: Seibert (1985), 121. Which pass is uncertain: perhaps the Khawak or Kushan Passes, both 14,000 feet, or the Salang Pass, 12,700, or the Sibar Pass, 8,900; see Schachermeyr (1973), 676–81. Porters in the army: Arist. Rh. 1.7.32; Ar. fr. 896 K-A, and Ran. 8. Rigors of the climb: Arr. An. 3.28.9, Curt 7.3.12–18, DS 17.82.
60. Adapted from Firdausi 19.2. Alexander present at Darius’s death: Ps.-Call. Α 2.20, Al-Tabari 696, Nizami 1.30.110. Only at Nizami 1.29.105–14 is Darius murdered with Alexander’s connivance. Cf. Alexander’s eliminating Zoroastrianism at Nizami 1.32 and his even more violent attack on Zoroastrian libraries as well as temples at al-Tabari’s Persian counterpart, Gardīzī 16.
Chapter 8
Sogdian In-laws
1. The rule of “warlords” in the countryside: the useful term of Holt (2005), passim, although Holt refuses to regard Artaxshasa as a warlord (36, 39).
2. Bactrian irrigation: Gardin (1980). Wealth: Hdt. 3.89–97. Poorer than Bactria, paying 360 talents: Syria (350 talents), Susa (300), Parthia (300), Moschi (300), Scythia (250), Matiene (200), Caspian region (200), Gandara (170). In spite of this wealth, few large cities: MacDowall and Tadei (1978), 214–18. The 1,000 cities of Justin 11.41.4 are settlements. Persian signal fires: Herzfeld (1947), 1.224 with refs.
3. The scene at the Amu Darya: Arr. An. 3.29.1–5. Six days to cross: Curt. 7.5.18.
4. The bargain with Spitamanah: Arr. An. 3.29.6, mentioning an embassy, as opposed to the melodramatic version at Curt. 7.5.19–26.
5. The degradation of Artaxshasa, with further grim details: Arr. An. 3.30.1–5, 4.7.3; Curt. 7.5.38, 7.10.10. The use of saplings: Plu. Alex. 43.6.
6. Alexander’s fibula broken: Arr. An. 3.30.11. The less important tibia: Plu. Alex. 45.5, Curt. 7.6.2–8.
7. A vacant throne: so also Hammond (1986) and Fredricksmeyer (2000), except they posit that a throne of Asia replaced that of Persia. No political vacancy: Altheim (1953), 68, describing the struggle against the invaders as a pan-Iranian “Volkskrieg.” Worthington (2014), 142, notices Alexander’s religious limitations, but without reference to ceremonial requirements at Pasargadae or elsewhere.
8. The councilors gathered informally (App. 3 #25). The name “City of Cyrus”: Benveniste (1943). Scythian diplomacy: Arr. An. 4.1.2.
9. The next injury: Arr. An. 4.4.3, but only Curt. 7.6.22–23 reports fainting and loss of speech. The casualties and slave sale: Arr. An. 4.3.4. Many in these campaigns were killed, as at Arr. An. 4.2.4, Curt. 7.6.16.
10. The engineering achievement at Alexandria Eschatē: Curt. 7.6.25. Dwarf apples: Theophrast. HP 4.4.2.
11. The companions vs. Alexander: App. 3 #26. More offerings: App. 1a #33 (festal sacrifice) vs. 34 (apobatēria). Cf. Curt. 7.7.8–9, 22–29, where the author sides with Alexander’s seer against Alexander.
12. Macedonian casualties during the pursuit of the Scythians: Curt. 7.9.16, Arr. An. 4.4.6.
13. Versions of the battle: Arr. An. 4.5.4–9, following Ptolemy in portraying a breakdown among Macedonian officers; 6.1–2, following Aristobulus in blaming the Macedonians rather than Pharnuces; and Curt. 7.7.31–39, giving credit to Spitamanah for outflanking and surrounding the enemy.
14. Tardy burial: App. 1a # 35. The date of the battle is uncertain. Fall 328: Tarn (1948), 1.73. The following winter: Berve (1926), 207.
15. Macedonian casualties: Arr. An. 4.3.7, 4.5.9, Curt. 7.9.21. Blame given to Alexander: Arr. An. 4.3.7, 4.5.2–6.2, encasing this response to the defeat in a difference of opinion between Ptolemy and Aristobulus.
16. Economic and military elements in Alexander’s formula of mixing ethnic groups: Bosworth (1988a), 247–48. The contrary view of the Central Asian cities, one condemning Alexander’s policy as aggressive and counterproductive: Holt (2005), 70, 154–55.
17. Anahita, irrigation and fertility: Yasht 5.1–5. Medes: Plb. 10.27.12. Persians: as at Boyce (1984), 61–62; so also Berossos FGrH 680 F 11, who knew of the Mesopotamian cult of the goddess. The statue at Bactra: Yasht 5.126–31, as interpreted by Müller and Darmesteter (1898), 2.53. Worship of her image “among the Bactrians,” hence in a shrine in Bactra: Berossos FGrH 680 F 11.
18. Sogdiana: Boyce and Grenet (1991), 191. Yet these customs were not universal or unaffected by other practices: Grenet (1984), 65; Boyce and Grenet (1991), 192–93.
19. The Macedonians report to Alexander, and he bans the burial practices: Onesikritos FGrH 134 F 5, Plu. Fort. Alex. 328d. The invaders should not have been surprised, since Hdt. 1.140 reports similar customs in connection with the Magi. Accepting the essentials of Onesicritus’s report: Boyce and Grenet (1991), 7. Harder to
credit: Pahlavi reports that Alexander destroyed manuscripts of the Avesta at Samarkand at this time, as at Ciancaglini (1998), 73.
20. The petroleum omen: App. 1b #18. Olive oil: Arr. An. 4.15.7, Plu. Alex. 57.5–9. Water: Curt. 7.10.14, with the Persian religious touch noticed by Jamzadeh (2012), 128.
21. Babylonian diviners at work in Central Asia: App. 1b #19.
22. The capture of Peithon: Arr. An. 4.16.5–7, followed by the counterattacks of Craterus and Coenus, 4.17.1–6. Mere “pockets of resistance”: Bosworth (1988a), 116.
23. The last campaign of Spitamanah: Arr. An. 4.17.3–6. His death: 4.17.7. Curtius does not connect any late campaigns (8.2.13–19) to the death (8.3).
24. Alexander’s new haughtiness: Plu. Phoc. 17. Censorship: Justin 12.5.7–8. Less loot in the way of silver: Holt (2016), 181–93, although he does not divide income by province. Bactria and Sogdiana contributed far less than large regions either before or after, excepting only Egypt and Babylonia, which provided no slaves since they had surrendered without a fight.
25. Planned or eventual garrisons: Arr. An. 4.22.3, DS 18.7.2.
26. The appointment: Curt. 8.1.19, 35. The reluctance of Clitus: Lane Fox (1973), 310–13. A survey of older scholarly literature on this episode: Bosworth (1995) ad Arr. An. 4.8, observing “all sources have something to contribute,” and J. Hamilton (1999) ad. Plu. Alex. 50–52.2.
27. The ominous sacrifice on Clitus’s behalf, preceded by his sacrifice and Alexander’s: App. 1a #36.
28. Companions jointly supplicate Alexander, a hapax drōmenon: App. 2 #21. This version of events: Curt. 8.1.22–52.
29. The second version of Clitus’s death: Plu. Alex. 50.8–51, derived from Chares as at J. Hamilton (1999) ad loc. It is characteristic of Plutarch that Clitus had proved himself a cultural match for Alexander (as he previously had in another way, by commissioning a portrait by Apelles, as at Pl. NH 35.93).
30. The third version: Arr. An. 4.8–9, which is also the source for the sacrifices discussed above and below.
31. The boundary stones of Dionysus: Curt. 7.9.15. The intellectuals (and Alexander) knew E. Ba. 15–16, referring to Dionysus in Bactria, and even if they did not, because these lines were interpolated later as discussed at Bosworth (1996), 120 n. 106, they recalled the offense given to this god by the mistreatment of suppliants at Thebes (App. 2 #1).
32. No weeping by Alexander at Arr. An. 4.9.2, where he is not said to have attempted suicide; tears, groans, and a suicide attempt at Plu. Alex. 51.11; stern self-condemnation and a suicide attempt at Curt. 8.2.2–4. These reactions correspond to the kind of killing found in each author—voluntary manslaughter in the first two, since Alexander kills Clitus on the spur of the moment, as noted by Bosworth (1995) ad Arr. An. 4.8.9, and murder in Curtius, since Alexander stalks his victim. However, ancient Greek legal categories, or at least those known to us, differ somewhat from those of the contemporary English-speaking world. There was no contrast between “murder” and “manslaughter,” but instead a contrast between phonos ek pronoias and phonos akousios, or intentional homicide and unintentional homicide, with intentional homicide sometimes being construed broadly, so that killing with an intent merely to do harm would be considered “intentional.” All three sources would thus render Alexander guilty of the more serious crime, phonos ek pronoias. See MacDowell (1978), 115.
33. Aristander’s way of blaming Clitus: Plu. Alex. 52.1. Companions preferring to blame Dionysus: Arr. An. 4.8.1. Badian (1964), 197, regards the suicide attempt as a fake.
34. A negative view of the situation in Bactria and Sogdiana in early 327: Holt (2005), 93. A positive view: Bosworth (1988a), 116–17.
35. The disastrous fire: Curt. 8.4.1–19, Val. Max. 5.1 ext. 1.
36. The largesse of the warlord: Curt. 8.4.19–20.
37. Rewards for scaling the heights above the Rock of Sogdiana, an event presented here using Arrian’s chronology, nomenclature, and list of principals (An. 4.18.5–19.4), not those of the Vulgate, preferred by Bosworth (1988a), 116 with refs. Rewards for each of the first ten climbers, as in Curt. 7.11.2–21, raise the total to fifty-five talents, still a modest sum in light of the figures in Holt (2016), 181–93.
38. Success of the settlement reached between Alexander and Huxshiartas: Arr. An. 4.21.1. If Curtius is right to report that some captives were sent to new colonies (Curt. 7.11.29), Huxshiartas may have guessed at Alexander’s colonization plans.
39. According to Arr. An. 4.19.5, the marriage took place at or near the Rock of Sogdiana, as here, but according to Curt. 7.11.1, 8.4.23, it took place elsewhere in Sogdiana, the version preferred by J. Hamilton (1999) ad Plu. Alex. 48.7 with refs. In Arrian, the marriage is an act of infatuation that the author does not endorse, as noticed by Bosworth (1995) ad loc.; in Curtius, the companions condemn the infatuation (8.4.30); neither author regards it as a political act.
40. Ancient Iranian marriage customs: Karimi Zanjani Asl (1999). Contemporary use of these customs: de la Porte (2004), 12.
41. The Iranian, not Macedonian, custom of bride and groom breaking bread together: F. von Schwarz (1906), 82, correcting Curt. 8.4.27.
42. An Iranian, not Macedonian, marriage ceremony: Lane Fox (1973), 317; Berve (1926), 1.357. Macedonian: Bosworth (1988a), 117 with refs. Mixed: Radet (1931), 254. A marriage to a slave, not an ally’s daughter: Curt. 8.4.26–30, reflecting the view of some offended companions.
43. In regard to Alexander’s children, Epit. Mett. 70 reports that Roxana bore Alexander a son in the summer of 326, only to see the baby die very soon afterward.
44. The most important resistance after the settlement achieved in Sogdiana: Curt. 8.1.6, with 1,000 casualties inflicted by Craterus in Paraetacene in the summer of 327. Other views: Howe (2016), 172, holding that some warlords wished to succeed Artaxshasa; Lane Fox (2007), holding that Alexander did not wish to duplicate Persian titles or methods; Bosworth (1988a), 117, holding that this phase of the campaign was “an act of conquest” as opposed to pacification.
45. Numerous Persians in the entourage: Curt. 6.2.9, reporting “a thousand” leading Iranians switched sides. As early as 328, Alexander made use of Persian guards—one of Clitus’s complaints (Plu. Alex. 51.1). The leading versions of the proskynesis episode (Arr. An. 4.101–4.12.7, Curt. 8.5.5–8.6.1, Plu. Alex. 54–55) all describe pressure exerted by Alexander on the companions, but not an ukase on his part, as noticed by Badian (1981), 48–54. Cyrus the Great as a possible model for this and other changes made by Alexander: Olbrycht (2014), 52–54. Further references: Sisti (2001), 2.400–411.
46. Proskynesis by Themistocles: Plu. Them. 28.1–29.2. Varying definitions of proskynesis to the Great King: Briant (2002), 222–24. The relation between supplication and proskynesis: Naiden (2009), 236–39. A survey: Delatte (1951).
47. The response of Leonnatus: Arr. An. 4.12.2. The response of Polyperchon, who does not appear in this passage in Arr. An.: Curt. 8.5.22–26.1. Later high command for Polyperchon: Curt. 8.11.1 with Heckel (1992), 190–91.
48. Different views of this episode: Bosworth (1988a), 287, holding that Alexander, like other Greeks and Macedonians, did not understand proskynesis as the Persians did, and thus believed that he was asking his own men to treat him as a god; Badian (1996) agreeing that Alexander was asking for divine treatment, but insincerely. Bowden (2013) traces interpretations of this kind to authors of the Imperial period as opposed to Alexander’s contemporaries. Scholars minimizing any misunderstanding on Alexander’s part: Wilcken (1932), 168–70; Lane Fox (1973), 322–23; Spawforth (2007), 104. Further refs.: J. Hamilton (1999) ad Plu. Alex. 54.3.
49. One hundred is merely an estimate of the number of pages; Berve (1926), 1.37 n. 3, identified only thirteen individuals as pages, as noted by Heckel (2016), 248. Callisthenes’s claim that Greek oracles recognized Alexander as a god: Kallisthenes FGrH 124 F 14, the oracular reports being thought genuine by Habicht (1970), 23.
50. Callisthenes and proskynesis: Plu. Alex. 54.3–6
and the very similar Arr. An. 4.3.5. Proskynesis by the waves of the Mediterranean: Kallisthenes FGrH 151 F 1.2.
51. The hunting incident: Arr. An. 4.13.2, Curt. 8.6.7. Hermolaus’s father: Berve (1926), no. 736.
52. The omen discerned by the Syrian prophetess: App. 1b #20. The trial of Hermolaus: App. 3 #27.
53. Hermolaus’s critique of Alexander the god: Curt. 8.7.13, 8.8.14. The political leanings of Sopolis and the fathers of the other pages are unknown.
54. The manner of punishment chosen for Hermolaus and his co-defendants: Arr. An. 4.14.3.
55. The trial of Callisthenes: App. 3 #28.
56. Callisthenes rejects the tyranny and divinity of Alexander: Arr. An. 4.11.6–7. Only his tyranny: Plu. Alex. 55.2. The banality of the contrast between nomos and bia: Bosworth (1995) ad Arr. An. 4.11.6 with refs.
57. Callisthenes’s death due to mistreatment: Chares FGrH 125 F 15, Aristoboulos FGrH 139 F 33. Otherwise he was hanged (Ptolemy FGrH 138 F 17), or died after being tortured (Curt. 8.9.21). Both Callisthenes and Alexander had annotated copies of the Iliad (Kallisthenes FGrH 124 T 10), but Callisthenes also wrote on Homeric topography (F 6–7).
58. The funeral of Erigyius: App. 1a #37.
59. Three among many views of Alexander and the Iranians: Briant’s claim in 1979 that Alexander was the last of the Achaemenids followed by the responses of Lane Fox (2007) and Wiemar (2007).
60. The size of the army taken to India: 120,000 (Curt. 8.5.4); cf. 120,000 at the start of the voyage down the Hydaspes (Arr. Ind. 19.5), and 135,000 at the end of the Indian campaign (Plu. Alex. 66.2). Forty thousand reinforcements: see Ch. 6, n. 80. Forty-five thousand in Central Asia: Arr. An. 4.22.3. Some 10,000 dismissed: Ch. 7, n. 23. The number may also be calculated by using the sums of money paid these troops; see Bosworth (1980) ad Arr. An. 3.19.5.
61. Scylax’s voyage: Skylax FGrH 709 T 3a as in Kaplan (2009) with refs., especially Schiwek (1962), 8–19, warning against drawing anachronistic distinctions among war, commerce, and exploration.