Soldier, Priest, and God

by F S Naiden

  48. When Sandracottus rose to power is uncertain. As soon as Alexander left: Narain (1965), 162, following Buddhist tradition. By 317: Lamotte (1958), 239–41, closer to Jain tradition, which is 312. Philostrat. VA 2.43 says that an unnamed Indian ruler erected a brass obelisk saying only, “Alexander stopped here.” This inscription implies that the altars had already decayed so much that they were not identifiable.

  49. The council meeting before the voyage: App. 3 #32. The funeral of Coenus: App. 1a #47; Arr. An. 6.3.1 adds, “as elaborate as circumstances permitted.” That of Bucephalas: Plu. Alex. 61.

  50. Alexander borrowing money: Plu. Eum. 2.3–5, saying that he borrowed 300 talents from Eumenes, who had 1,000.

  51. The sacrifice to the Indus at the start of the voyage. App. 1a #48. Arr. Ind. 18.11 adds rivers in the Punjab, perhaps as remembered by Nearchus; thus Pédech (1984), 177. Fleet of 1,800 vessels: Arr. Ind. 19.7.

  52. The hazards of the confluence of the Jhelum and Chenab: Arr. An. 6.5; Curt 9.4.9–14, DS 17.97.

  53. Complaints of troops tired of fighting: Curt. 9.4.19–23.

  54. The Malavas are the Malli of Arr. An. 6.8.8–6.12, Curt. 9.4.15–9.6, and Plu. Alex. 63, and the Mandri of Justin 12.9.3–12. The refusal to cooperate: Arr. An. 6.14.2. The chief town was perhaps modern Multan.

  55. The Malava campaign and final siege: chiefly as at Arr. An. 6.8.4–6.13.5. The acts of sacrifice: App. 1b #21 and App. 1a #49.

  56. The wound suffered by Alexander during the siege: Arr. An. 6.10.1–2, Curt. 9.5.25–27, DS 17.99, Plu. Fort. Alex. 344–45, which are unanimous about the seriousness of the injury. The need to extract the whole arrowhead: Hipp. Epid. 5.1.94–95 = 7.1.121. The surrender of the Malavas: Arr. An. 6.14.1–3.

  57. The council meeting on the issue of Alexander’s leadership: App. 3 #33. The king’s unacceptable number of wounds: head (Granicus), neck (Sogdiana), shoulder (Gaza), chest (India), thigh (Issus), lower leg (at the Jaxartes), ankle or foot (beside the Kabul R.), the largest number of wounds reported for any ancient person according to Salazar (2000), 184. By comparison, Philip II was wounded on three occasions, described at Gabriel (2010), 10–14. The problem of fighting and being wounded versus commanding: Curt. Alex. 3.11.7, 10.5.27; Arr. Ind. 13.4; and the longer passage at Plu. Pel. 1–12, implying that this was a commonplace of ancient military history. Modern notice of the problem: Delbrück (1900), 1.259; Griffith (1947), 89; Garlan (1975), 146. Ancient comparanda: Wheeler (1991).

  58. Achilles the bad councilor: he attended only one comparable meeting (Il. 19.303–37), and then gave Agamemnon instructions, not advice. Alexander’s admiration for Agamemnon: Plu. Fort. Alex. 331c. This side of Alexander is little noticed: cf. Bosworth (1996b), 4–6, linking Alexander to Achilles alone; and Hampl (1958), 84, and Fox (1973), 497–98, linking Alexander and Achilles to Alexander’s advantage.

  59. The council meeting after the victory over the Malavas: App. 3 #34. The appointee: Philip the son of Machatas, Berve (1926), no. 780. Although Philip had been appointed as satrap for northeastern India at Taxila (Arr. An. 5.8.3), he effectively shared control of this region with Ambhi and Puru. The only other Macedonian appointee since Clitus: Nicanor, Berve (1926), no. 556. A different view of the Malava campaign: Bosworth (1996b), 142, seeing “terrorism” rather than the violent, but less indiscriminate, practice of extorting submission and supplies.

  60. The fleet lost at night: Arr. Ind. 42.7. The Ambashthas, as at McCrindle (1893), 155 n. 2, were the Abistanoi of Arrian (An. 6.15.1), the Sambastae of Diodorus (17.102), and the Sambagrae of Curtius (9.8.4–7), all identified as living in southernmost Punjab. Honoring the Macedonians as gods: Curt. 9.8.14. (The other possibility, heroic honors, was impossible for a living person). A guess as to what these divine honors were: Bosworth (1996b), 128, “a fire sacrifice,” meaning a holocaust as at n. 11 above.

  61. Mushika appears at Arr. An. 6.15.5–7, with the refusal to cooperate; and 6.17.1; at Curt. 9.8.9–11, 16; and at DS 17.102.5 and 102.6–7, with refusal in the form of flight.

  62. Mistreatment of Brahmins: Bosworth (1996b), 94–96. Some Brahmins supplicate: App. 2 #26. Supplication at Hamartelia: App. 2 #27. Other Indians begging for mercy: App. 2 #24, 25 (Polyaen. 4.3.30 being unspecified). Near Eastern begging: Naiden (2009), 21–24, 367–70, with many examples from Josephus alone. Indian surrenders after the withdrawal from the Beas, all after fighting, by author: Arr. An. 6.15.1 (Ossadians), 6.15.6 (Musicanus), 6.16.2 (Oxicani), 6.16.4 (Sindimana), 6.17.2 (Patala); Curt. 9.8.7–8 (Sambagrae); DS 17.91.7 (Sopeithes), 17.93.1 (Phegeus), 17.96.2 (Sibians), 17.102.3 (Sambastae), 17.102.4 (Sodrae and Massani). In all India, just two reports of conditional or negotiated surrenders: Arr. An. 5.20.4 (Glaucae), DS 17.91.2 (some Adrestians). Among major Indian cities, only Taxila capitulated; similarly, only Herat did in Iranian territory. The tribe that identified itself with Dionysus, imitating Nysa, but too late: Str. 15.1.8.

  63. Indian casualties and the enslavement of Indians: Arr. An. 4.25.4; 5.24.3, DS 17.89.2; DS 17.102.7. The total of as many as 110,000 casualties surpasses the total for all previous battles, ignoring the incredible 300,000 reported for Gaugamela. For enslavement, the Indian total of 110,000 surpasses the total for fighting east of the Zagros, again omitting 300,000 reported for Gaugamela. No figures for the enslavement of the Malavas, of the people of Mushika and Samba, and of other places: Arr. An. 4.27.8, Curt. 9.4.6, Arr. An. 6.7.3, DS 96.3, Curt. 9.8.13, DS 102.5, Arr. An. 6.17.1. By any estimate of the Persian Empire’s population, Indian casualties made the Macedonian invasion a costly one compared to Greek, Roman, or modern wars as at Krentz (1985), Brunt (1987) & Rosenstein (2004), or McPherson (2002), 3, 177 n. 56.

  64. Calanus’s piece of symbolism: Plu. Alex. 65.6–66.1, taking the “center” to be the middle portion, presumably Babylon, although a similar story told of Cyrus, Aristid. Or. 26.18, is said to mean that the ruler must be constantly on the move—the opposite conclusion.

  65. Shifting banks of the Indus: Aristoboulos FGrH 139 F 35. Patala: Arr. An. 6.17.5–6.

  66. Tidal bores: Peripl. M. Rubr. 45–46. This report of one: Nearchos FGrH 133 F 1. Another view: Engels (1980), 335, holding that the natives withheld this information. Mangrove swamps that disappear: Pl. NH 13.25.51.

  67. The mishap for Alexander’s crew: Kleitarchos FGrH 137 F 26.

  68. Nearchos and the whale: Nearchos FGrH 133 F 1; similarly, Curt. 10.1.12, DS 17.106, Str 15.2.11–13.

  69. Amon’s oracle for the vicinity of Karachi: App. 1a #50. Plu. Alex. 66.1, however, omits the oracle and situates the sacrifice on an island, in what is arguably a distinct act, as at Eggermont (1975), 28–29. Other views of this sacrifice: a commemoration of Siwah’s alleged instruction that all nations worship and obey Alexander, as at Altheim (1953), 204; mere apobatēria comparable to the sacrifices made after crossing the Indus and Hellespont, as at J. Hamilton (1999) ad Plu. Alex. 66.2.

  70. The sacrifice to Poseidon: App. 1a #51. Another view: Ehrenberg (1933), 292–93, saying that Indian gymnosophistai advised Alexander.

  71. Adapted from Ps.-Call. Γ 2.38. Although Firdausi and Nizami lack this story, Muslim versions are numerous. Among Hebrew versions: Midrash Tehillim, Ps. 93.5, HR 40.

  Chapter 10

  Persian In-laws

  1. The comparison to Napoleon: Strasburger (1952), 489.

  2. The plan to divide the army in three: Str. 15.2.4. Cf. Arr. An. 6.17.3, 6.21.3, a pair of passages implying no general plan, as is also true of Curt. 9.10.3–4.

  3. Nearchus volunteers for the difficult voyage: Arr. Ind. 20.4.

  4. Alexander’s competition with Cyrus: Arr. An. 6.24.3. The “fish-eaters”: Arr. Ind. 32–37. Other ancient sources for the “fish-eaters”: Eggermont (1975), 64–67, 77–82.

  5. Estimates of the size of the army: Ch. 8, n. 60, excluding noncombatants as noticed by Berve (1926), 1.180. The number of Argonauts: AR 1.1–227.

  6. An estimate of Alexander’s allotment of fighting men: Strasburger (1952), 490. Othe
r estimates: J. Hamilton (1999) ad Plu. Alex. 66.5.

  7. Human requirements for water: a gallon and a half per man, at Sidebotham (2011), 12; two to four gallons, at Junkelmann (1997), 172–75. Less generous: half a gallon per man, Engels (1978), 125. Horses needing on average sixteen times as much: Engels, ibid. Seven to 15 times as much: Roth (1999), 62. Mules about ten times: Roth (1999), 66–67.

  8. Crossing in a single night: Arr. An. 6.21.4. The battle and massive slaughter: DS 17.104–105.

  9. The mistake about the prevailing winds: Arr. An. 6.21.1–3. Alexander’s much noticed route: Strasburger (1952) with refs.

  10. Aristobulus’s investigations: Aristoboulos FGrH 139 F 49a.

  11. The flash flood in the desert: Arr. An. 6.25.5, Str. 15.2.6.

  12. Stealing supplies: Arr. An. 6.23.4. Phoenician foraging: Aristoboulos FGrH 139 F 49a.

  13. The chief study of the journey through Gedrosia, Eggermont (1975), speculates (61–63) that the fourth-century inhabitants were Iranians, in the light of DS 17.105.1–2, since this source reports the exposure of the dead, but also speculates that they were perhaps Dravidians, or were partly or mostly speakers of Pakrit, implying different burial customs.

  14. The king refuses proffered water: Arr. An. 6.26.1–3. Curt. 7.5.10–12 and Plu. Alex. 42.4.6–7 locate the incident elsewhere, and do not report that Alexander poured the water on the ground. Other views, especially those preferring Arrian’s version because it may come from Aristobulus: J. Hamilton (1999) ad Plu. Alex. 42.7 with refs.

  15. Devouring the army’s animals: Arr. An. 6.25.1.

  16. The short trip to the seashore: Arr. An. 6.26.5.

  17. Personnel changes made in Carmania: Arr. An. 6.27.3, naming Stasanor and Phradasmanes, Berve (1926), nos. 719 and 812 respectively.

  18. Abulites: Berve (1926), no. 5, and his son Oxyathres, no. 597.

  19. Desert losses: some 50,000 according to Strasburger (1952), 489. Three-quarters lost: Plu. Alex. 65.5, but without specifying a number. Only a minority of Alexander’s force: Tarn (1948), 1.107.

  20. Craterus’s forces: Arr. An. 6.17.3. Also some cashiered mercenaries: DS 17.106.3. Some 200 elephants under his command: Arr. An. 6.2.2, 6.5.5, leaving aside unspecified numbers acquired at 6.15.5, 6.16.2. Roxana and Barsine: Epit Mett. 70, reporting Roxana’s giving birth to a child in India, meaning that she accompanied one of the three forces back to Babylon, the force of Craterus being the prudent choice. Barsine was likely given the same escort, or perhaps did not make the Indian journey in the first place, as implied by Justin 13.1.7. Craterus’s little-studied route via the Bolan Pass: Ar. An. 6.17.3, Str. 15.2.4–5, 15.2.11, Justin 12.10.1 with Berve (1926), 2.224–25. The Indus ford: McCrindle (1893), 354.

  21. Menon: Arr. An. 3.28.1. Rebels: Curt. 9.10.19.

  22. The satrap Astapes: Curt. 9.10.21, 9.10.29 with Berve (1926), no. 5.

  23. The revel and the kiss for the eunuch: Curt. 9.10.24–27; Plu. Alex. 67 adding the kiss.

  24. Imitating Dionysus: Curt. 9.10.24–27, Karystios FGrH 358 F 4.

  25. The customary sacrifice and games: App. 1a #53.

  26. Nearchus’s mission: Arr. Ind. 32.10–13. His odometer: Engels (1978), app. 5.

  27. The inaugural sacrifice made by Nearchus: App. 1a #52.

  28. The Ladies’ Place: Arr. Ind. 21–22. Ladies’ Place as Karachi: Eggermont (1975), 54–57.

  29. Nearchus’s trade with Leonnatus: Arr. Ind. 23.7–8.

  30. Six hundred savages outwitted by Nearchos: Arr. Ind. 24. These unnamed people were among the “fish-eaters,” to judge from the similarity of the name of their town, Homerus, to the names of other towns in this region, as at Eggermont (1975), 64–66.

  31. The trick played on the seaside settlement: Arr. Ind. 27.6–28. No offering is mentioned, but the location was sacred to the sun god of the natives, whether Mithra or Surya.

  32. The story of the nymph: Arr. Ind. 31, Str. 15.2.13.

  33. The reunion with Alexander: Arr. Ind. 33.5–36.7.

  34. The seaside sacrifice: App. 1a #54.

  35. The islands of Oaracta, or Qeshm, and Ogyris, perhaps Masira: Arr. Ind. 37.1–4 and Str. 16.3.35. Topographical complications: Atkinson and Yardley (2009) ad Curt. 10.1.14. Arab offerings: Arr. Ind. 41.7–8.

  36. The reception given Nearchus: Arr. Ind. 42 with App. 1a #55.

  37. The marshes of Mesopotamia: Arr. Ind. 41.1–6.

  38. The archaeological evidence for this scene: Stronach (1978), 30–31. Curt. 10.1.32 mistakenly adds that Alexander put a crown on the coffin.

  39. Versions of who was to blame: Plu. Alex. 69.3, Str. 15.3.7; least plausibly, Curt. 10.1.31–35. The assignment given to Aristoboulos: FGrH 139 F 51b.

  40. Alexander unqualified to be king: Badian (1996), 22–24, who sees the desecration of the tomb as an act of Persian resistance. Other views: Cascon Dorado (1990), 257–58, seeing Curtius’s account as blaming Alexander for the disorder; and Brosius (2003), 174–75, holding that Alexander’s attitude toward Cyrus was ambiguous rather than modest or admiring.

  41. Death at Pasargadae: Str. 15.1.68. Burial elsewhere in Persia: Arr. An. 7.3.1, DS 17.107.1. Sundry accounts of this episode: J. Hamilton (1999) ad Plu. Alex. 69.6, which reports Calanus’s last words. Impiety and death by fire for Brahmins: Law of Manu 11.74. The use of fire would also be improper for a Jain.

  42. The pretender in Media: Arr. An. 6.29.3. The defiant Caucasus satrap: Autophradates, as at Berve (1926), no. 189.

  43. The dead satrap to the west of the Indus: Nicanor, with Berve (1926), no. 556, which assumes that Nicanor died in 326. To the east: Philip the son of Machatas, with Berve (1926), no. 780.

  44. Sins of the generals in Media: Arr. An. 6.27.4, Curt. 10.1.3. Similar sins committed by Parmenio, according to Justin 42.3.5, mistakenly reporting that Parmenio sacked shrines of Jason, to whom he sacrificed at Abdera at the start of the expedition. Aside from the familiar Greek and Hebrew sources on sacrilege (no contemporary Persian sources for the topic surviving), see Freedman (1998), 19, 161, 169 for similar Akkadian ideas about the subject.

  45. The companion killed by the Scyths: Zopurion, as at Berve (1926), no. 340.

  46. Execution of the troops: Curt. 10.1.6, although the number, 600, is doubted by Atkinson and Yardley (2009) ad loc. A different view of Alexander’s policy, seeing the reaction to Macedonian sacrilege as a “reign of terror”: Badian (1961), 16–18; so also Schachermeyr (1973), 474; Bosworth (1988a), 148, 240.

  47. [In this and the following two notes, B = Berve (1926), v. 2, and H = Heckel (2006).] A total of thirty-nine companions are sure to have attended the formal meetings listed in App. 3. Lost due to illness: Nicanor (B 554 = H s.v. no. 1), Erigyius (B 302 = Heckel s.v.), Coenus (B 439 = H s.v. no. 1). Lost in combat: Amyntas Andromenou (B 57 = H s.v. no. 4), Andromachus Heronos (B 75 = H s.v no. 1, dying either of wounds or by drowning), Hegelochus (B 341 = H s.v.). Punished for sacrilege: Cleander (B 422 = H s.v. no. 1), Sitalces (B 712 = H s.v.). Sent home: Sopolis (B 736 = H s.v.). Four dead at the hands of Alexander and the war council: Clitus, Parmenio, Philotas, and Alexander the Lyncestian, as in Ch. 7.

  48. “Less” meaning eighteen companions with military commands but not sure to have attended the formal meetings listed in App. 3. Among these, one dead in combat: Menedemus (B 504 = H s.v.). Put on trial: Heracon (B 354 = H s.v.). Sent home: Epocillus (B 301 = H s.v.), Gorgias (B 233 = H s.v.), Clitus the White (B 428 = H s.v. no. 3). If the fourteen bodyguards identified by Berve (1926) are included, there were three additional deaths due to illness or combat: Arybbas (B 156 = H s.v. no. 2), Ptolemy Seleucou (B 670 = H s.v. no. 3), and another Ptolemy lacking a patronymic (B 672 = H s.v. no. 1). One was executed: Demetrius (B 260 = H s.v. no. 2). Three of the five Persians put to death: Shatibrzana (B 697), Ordanes (B 590), and Zariaspes (B 335). The two who fought at Arbela: Bessus (B 212), Orxines (B 592). One who retired: Artabazus, co-commander with Coenus in 328 (Arr. An. 4.16.2–3).

  49. The Cypriot: Stasanor of Soli (B 719 = H
s.v.). The trustworthy Persian: Phrataphernes, (B 814). The Macedonian: Sybirtios (B 703 = H. s.v.). The murdered Macedonian in charge of two satrapies in India: Philip (B 780 = H s.v. no. 7).

  50. The recruitment and integration of Iranians: Arr. An. 7.6.2–5, reprised at 7.8.2. Only one mixed cavalry unit: 7.6.4. Mixed infantry: Arr. An. 7.23.1–4 (only in Babylon), DS 17.110.2 (at Susa). The timing of the reforms is thus partly uncertain, as is the number of troops raised. A matter of speculation: the Persian attitude toward the reforms. Brosius (2003), 176–77, suggests that this attitude was negative, citing evidence of Macedonians insulting Persians, such as Alexander’s promise that the offspring of Macedonians and Persians would be raised in Macedon (Arr. An. 7.1.2, DS 17.110.3)

  51. New companions included the seven named at Arr. An. 7.6.4–5, but surely there were others.

  52. The Susa sacrifice: App. 1a #55, although Arrian does not mention local gods. Thirty thousand Iranian recruits: Arr. An. 7.6.3, Plu. Alex. 71.1. Persian bodyguards: DS 17.74.5. Honors for Nearchus, not Craterus: Arr. An. 7.5.4–6.

  53. The group wedding, including incomplete lists of brides and grooms: Arr. An. 7.4.4–8, speaking of a “Persian manner.” A Persian degree of luxury: Chares FGrH 125 F 4, Ael. VH 8.7. The number of couples: eighty to one hundred, with sources as at J. Hamilton (1999) ad Plu. Alex. 70.3.

  54. The drinking contest: Chares FGrH 125 F 19b. A very similar view of this episode: Bosworth (1988a), 156–57 with refs. Marriages made to secure legitimacy, and not soldiers, for Alexander: Pirart (2002), 148–49.

  55. A profit turned from the wedding: Plu. Alex. 70.3. Alexander’s wealth more or less reflects the size of the coinage he minted; evaluating this coinage is a complex task that begins with estimating the number of dies used to mint these coins and then multiplying by 10,000 to 40,000. De Callatuÿ (1995, 2011) estimated 1,000 to 1,400 dies for the king’s staters, his main gold coin; 2,500 to 3,500 for his silver tetradrachms; and 2,700 to 3,300 for drachms. The total is some 8,000 to 10,000 dies. Multiplying the dies by 20,000 silver coins per die, but just 10,000 gold coins per die, yields the equivalent of 90,000 talents of silver coins. Add coins of Philip II, de Callatuÿ reckoned, and the total rises to about 120,000 talents, comparable to the estimates of Holt (2016), 181–93, for Alexander’s surplus in extraordinary payments. If we suppose 10,000 coins per silver die, the total is still 60,000 talents. Melted down, 60,000 talents yield 1,240 tons of silver. At the ancient Greek conversion rate of 13 to 1 for silver and gold, the tonnage in gold would be about 90. This estimate allows the comparisons to the nineteenth-century United States. In 1876, the gold contained in the United States currency amounted approximately 22.5 million troy ounces, or about 75 tons of gold. American silver money made little difference; see United States Monetary Commission (1879), 2.xiv. Additional literature on estimating the number of coins per die: Carter (1983). Low estimates based on Carter: Sellwood (1963) for 11,500 to 20,000 coins per obverse die; Buttrey (1993) and (1994), for 10,000 to 13,000 per die. High estimates: Crawford (1974), 2.694–697, for 30,000 coins per obverse die; Kinns (1983), 1–22, for 40,000 coins per obverse die.