politician Arrian (c. ad 86–175/6). We can only guess why the narrative reappears in the high empire at such length and with such a successful
reception. Diodorus Siculus’ history devoted two books to Alexander and his father Philip (D.S. 16–17). We noted above how Appian’s digression
and Plutarch’s Lives had just recently compared Julius Caesar with Alexander as quintessential, successful expansionists – a parallel to which Arrian tactfully does not allude. And we observed the “biographic turn”
in imperial historians, though Arrian’s work was not strictly a biography but the account of Alexander’s “expedition up country,” his anabasis. In Latin the historian Quintus Curtius Rufus, writing in the late first or early second century ad, composed a highly moralizing and rhetorical – but
not well documented – ten‐book History of Alexander (Books 3–10 survive). The legacy of Alexander was a magnet for literary and artistic appropriation in antiquity, notably in an Alexander Romance by an author known to us as Pseudo‐Callisthenes, written in the last centuries bc and first century ad in Alexandria. Did Arrian seek to tame the exaggeration by reworking the accounts of his main sources, Ptolemy and Aristobulus
(see Chapter 6 above)? Was his work undertaken simply out of personal
zeal, or was there a political agenda behind it, perhaps a commentary on monarchy and empire? These motives are equally plausible, but they must remain hypotheses.
Lucius Flavius Arrianus was born into a Greek family in Nicomedia in
Bithynia (modern Northwestern Turkey). He was a student of the Stoic
Epictetus at Nicopolis (Western Central Greece) and later published his teacher’s lectures in eight books. He served a highly visible career in state offices, beginning as an advisor to the governor of the province of Greece (Achaea), and traveled to many Roman provinces. Through the Greek
260
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
governor he befriended Hadrian in Greece in ad 108–12 and was given
by that emperor the right to speak in the Senate. He became a suffect
consul (a fast‐track promotion) in ad 129 or 130, and then legate to
Cappadocia (the wilds of Eastern Anatolia) in ad 131–7, with marked
success as general against a local tribe, the Alani. When Hadrian died in ad 138 and Antoninus Pius became emperor, Arrian quietly retired to
Athens and held a (largely honorary) archonship in ad 145/6, then he
became a member of the Areopagus for life (Atkinson 2013: xiv–xvi;
Bosworth 1988: 16–37).
Arrian’s works include an Anabasis of Alexander (covering 336–323 bc in seven books); Indica (one book); Events after Alexander (323–19 bc; ten books); Bithyniaca (eight books); Parthica (Rome’s wars with Parthia from Crassus to Trajan, in seventeen books; Appian may have served
there under Trajan); Discourses of Epictetus (eight books); On Hunting with Hounds; Voyage around the Black Sea; Essay on Tactics; and Order of Battle against the Alani. He avowed a spiritual kinship with the erstwhile general, philosopher, historian, and prolific writer Xenophon, and he stylistically fused elements of Herodotus and Thucydides with elements of
Xenophon.
Arrian’s most famous work is the Anabasis, which deals in seven books with Alexander’s accession and conquests until his death. Related to it are Events after Alexander and the Indica, the latter a digest of Indian mem-orabilia based on Megasthenes, Eratosthenes, and Nearchus, recounting
Nearchus’ mission to take the fleet from the Indus to the mouth of the
Tigris and to Susa in 325 bc. The Anabasis, our focus here, is thought to have been written in ad 140, but Bosworth persuasively argues for a composition date before ad 125 (Bosworth 1980, 1: 11). If we accept the
earlier date, the work was written in the context of Hadrian’s very pro-Hellenic regime. The work achieves a biographical balance of eulogy and criticism, selectively interlaced with colorful stories from late rhetorical sources. Arrian’s emphasis is on a dense and brief style at the expense of strict historical accuracy, and he keeps a constant eye on individual ethical responsibility. His criticism of sources is sharp and appropriate, and most of his views on Alexander are balanced (Baynham 2010: 325–32).
The preface of the Anabasis (Arr. An. Praef. 1–3) justifies the topic simply by discussing the variety of written accounts, which his own one uses selectively and surpasses in synthesis. There is no research travel, nor mention of the utility of the project, though he soon justifies the purpose of recording the deeds of the greatest historical figure (Arr. An. 1.12).
Only at the end does he make clear that criticism is combined with praise
“for the sake of my sense of truth and the utility of the work for people.
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
261
It is for this that I set to write, and like Alexander I did it not without the god’s help” (Arr. An. 7.30). This history is quasi‐biographical: not about a war, but about a man (Stadter 1980: 63–4). The Anabasis is an unapologetic, critical amalgam of others’ research, like much modern historical writing.
The narrative structure is essentially a series of marches followed by
Alexander’s interactions with the peoples at each juncture, whether in
describing a battle, a siege, a surrender, or notes on local administration (Stadter 1980: 76–88); and this mirrors Xenophon’s practice in the
Anabasis. After the preface, Arrian mentions little of the fabulous back-story of Alexander’s youth and goes right to his accession and his early expeditions to Athens and Thebes designed to solidify Macedonian
power there and to destroy Thebes along the way for resisting (Arr. An.
1.1–10). Alexander then undertook the plan of his father Philip II to
mount an expedition against Persia in revenge for the Persian Wars,
appropriating images of the Trojan War, then winning a battle at the
Granicus River with heroic daring, receiving Sardis, the Lydian capital, overcoming Miletus, and capturing Halicarnassus (Arr. An. 1.12–23).
Alexander crosses to Asia at Sestos (Arr. An. 1.11) and sacrifices at the grave there of Protesilaus, the first Greek ashore in the Trojan War (Hom.
Il. 2.107); this is also the spot where Herodotus, at the end of his work, recounts the story of that Protesilaus’ tomb and the gruesome crucifixion there that marked the end of the Persian Wars (Hdt. 9.116–21).
Alexander’s outset seems inauspicious. Alexander and his partner
Hephaestion then give offerings at the tombs of Achilles and Patroclus
(Arr. An. 1.12), which again suggests Homeric identification. That association is reawakened in Book 7, at Hephaestion’s death and funeral games, which are like those that Achilles had for Patroclus (Arr. An. 7.14; cf. Il. 23; Stadter 1980: 74–5). If Alexander is Achilles, Arrian is arguably his Homer. Book 2 covers the expedition to Gordium and the cutting of
the famous knot there in order to confirm the prediction that whoever is to do so would “rule Asia.” Next Alexander crosses the Halys River in
Cappadocia – a kind of “Rubicon” into Persian territory – and goes south to the Anatolian coast, then inland a bit to meet the Persian king Darius III at the famous battle of Issus in 333 bc, where he delivers to the
Persians a crucial defeat (Arr. An. 2.1–14). Arrian reserves special praise for Alexander’s kind treatment of Darius’ mother, wife, and children after this victory (Arr. An. 2.12). After Issus, Alexander writes to Darius that he is now “Lord of all Asia” and of Darius (Arr. An. 2.14). The ingenious, improvised sieges of Tyre and Gaza and the invasion of Egypt are described at 2.16–3.2. Alexander plans the foundation of Alexandria and
262
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
consults the oracle of Ammon at Siwah in the desert. The final defeat of Darius’ forces comes when Alexander moves eastward again, fighting the
epic
clash at Gaugamela (Arr. An. 3.7–15); the general immediately takes the key cities of Babylon, the administrative capital, Susa, and Persepolis, the royal capital (Arr. An. 3.16–18). Arrian criticizes Alexander for the torching of Persepolis (Arr. An. 3.18.12). Darius dies at the hands of his officers and his body is sent by Alexander for burial at Persepolis (Arr. An.
3.19–22). New threats from Bessus, self‐proclaimed “king of Asia,” and
his supporter Satibarzanes (a former Greek ally) lead Alexander to Bactria (now Northern Afghanistan). He fights tenacious insurgency in the hills there and in Scythian territory without much success (Arr. An. 3.23–4.6).
The first three books thus evoke numerous themes to which imperial
Romans were attuned, for example the luster of a heroic general appro-
priating images from the legendary past (Alexander is another Homeric
hero, and Roman‐era leaders can be both Alexander‐like and Homeric);
the justification of imperial conquest as a way to right historical wrongs or to silence imagined threats (selectively chosen and properly “spun”); the glorification of epic‐like battles; the need to march in step with divine oracular advice; and the pervasive theme of the civilized rightly conquering barbarian foes.
While Books 1–3 cover six years (336–330 bc), Books 5–7 probe more
intensely into three and a half (326–323 bc). Book 4, with an exceptional three‐year scope (329–327 bc), narrates the encounters with the tribal
lords of the Sogdian, Bactrian, and Indian mountains, and Book 5 the
march from the Punjab to Hyphasis, after which follows the return to
Persepolis in Book 6 and Alexander’s last year in Susa, Opis, Ecbatana, and Babylon in Book 7. In Book 4 comes a “great digression” (Bosworth’s term) showing the degenerating behavior of Alexander, which resembles
that of an Eastern despot: the brutal punishment of Bessus (Arr. An. 4.7), the Greek commander’s Persian dress and his requirement that others
bow before him ( proskune ̄ sis) – all of which provokes dissention between young and veteran soldiers and disagreement over Macedonian policies
(Arr. An. 4.7–14; Stadter 1980: 105–14). The climax of the digression comes with the tragic killing of Cleitus, a cavalry commander who insults the king – and he, in turn, angry and very drunk, kills Cleitus, but with much regret later (Arr. An. 4.8–9). Alexander can master the world but, ironically, not himself. The point of this section to Arrian’s audience may be either to show how Hadrian surpasses Alexander in restraint or – in
view of the imperial excesses of Caligula, Nero, and Domitian more gen-
erally – to warn those in power not to lose their “European” identity and
“go Asian”: a critique as old as that of Herodotus. After this seeming
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
263
turning point, Arrian’s criticism outweighs his praise of Alexander.
Yet glimmers of the latter’s better side come through at times: Alexander
“does not violate” the captive Rhoxane (Roxanne), the daughter of a
local nobleman Oxyartes, but marries her (Arr. An. 4.19), and this recalls the anecdote mentioned above that after the battle of Issus Alexander
becomes “a model of nobility and restraint” in his treatment of Darius’
family (2.12). When hearing of Alexander’s kind treatment, Darius prays to Zeus: if it is not Zeus’ will to keep him as king of Asia, “give my power
[ kratos] to none but Alexander” (Arr. An. 4.20). The crossing into India –
which is marked by the crossing of the Indus River (Arr. An. 5.1–8) – and the events of Books 5 and 6 mark an anabasis within the Anabasis, a superfluous expedition of conquest of all Asia and Africa (Arr. An. 4.7), far beyond the original goal of avenging the Persian Wars. Hence these
books represent Alexander’s imperialist hubris and also offer an exposition of Herodotean‐like foreign “wonders.” Some say that Alexander’s
“longing” ( pothos, a favorite Arrian word) was the crucial motive for his conquests, an intellectual curiosity linked also to type‐A ambition and to sexual desire (Stoneman 2010: 338–9).
Arrian returns at the end of Book 7 to a justification of his topic, a
need to balance his mistakes with the wondrous achievements of his
career (Arr. An. 7.29–30; see Stadter 1980: 73–4, 113–14). In this overview, Arrian, like Posidonius and Diodorus before him, follows
closely his Stoic beliefs by implying that all events are controlled by an external providence, and yet individuals are responsible for their own
actions. So the historian doubts Alexander’s claim of divine birth
(Cartledge 2010: xxii–xxiii), though he says: “he does not seem to me
to have been born without some divine agency [ to theion], one unlike any other human” (Arr. An. 7.30). The narrative often refers to oracles that Alexander consults, apparently in line with a cosmic direction to
events. Earlier, at the Tigris and en route to Babylon, Alexander had
met Chaldean seers whose advice is belittled and who seemed not to
help him, at which Arrian comments: “but the truth is that the divine
power [ to daimonion] led him to the place where he had to die once he reached it” (Arr. An. 7.16). The historian then recalls the Herodotean tale of Solon advising Croesus not to call a man happy before his death, and mentions here the Patroclus–Hephaestion comparison. Arrian thus
puts Alexander into the company of historical expansionist monarchs
and Homeric heroes whose fates definitely followed a greater cosmic,
and tragic, design.
In Arrian’s Anabasis generally there are significant allusions to the contemporary world of Hadrian. Arrian reports the possible embassy
264
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
from the Romans to Alexander once he was crowned as “king of Asia,”
saying: “he could see in these men a discipline, a conscientiousness, and a freedom of spirit, which, together with their answers to his questions about their political system, led him to predict something of the future power of Rome” (Arr. An. 7.15, Hammond, 2013: 211; Bosworth
2007: 448). On the other hand, Arrian’s Alexander himself becomes
more tyrant‐like in character, quickly prone to anger: “By that time he had become rather quick tempered and from the foreign obsequiousness
he was no longer reasonable with the Macedonians” (Arr. An. 7.8; cf.
7.4). Readers are meant to contrast this tyrant type with the more bal-
anced monarch, Hadrian (Bosworth 2007: 448). Arrian can also critique
his protagonist through allusion: Alexander at a crucial battle in India (Arr. An. 6.9) is implicitly compared with Hector in his final speech before his death, “May I not die without glory” ( Il. 22.304–5), though Alexander is shown as too rash and glory‐centered. Nor does Arrian portray positively Alexander’s search for a limitless empire, and this was in sympathy with Hadrian’s policy of keeping to one’s borders (Bosworth
2007: 451–2):
I can affirm one thing about his plan [had he lived longer], that it would not be something small and insignificant, nor would he stop with the
possessions he had, but still seek the unknown, even if he did not struggle against another, he would against himself. (Arr. An. 7.1)
In this context Arrian quotes the gurus of Taxila (Northern India), telling the king:
King Alexander, each human can occupy only so much earth as that on
which he stands. You are a human like the rest of us, except that since you are ambitious and reckless, you march over so much of the earth away from your own, making trouble for yourself and causing it for others. And then even soon when you die you will occupy only so much land as covers your corpse. (Arr. An. 7.1)
This anecdote is immediately
followed by the one about Alexander meet-
ing the sunbathing Diogenes the Cynic in Athens, who is unimpressed
and asks only that the ruler move out of his sun (Arr. An. 7.2). These digressions at the beginning of Book 7 all serve to undercut Alexander’s oversized ambitions, reminiscent of those of the Herodotean Xerxes.
Alexander has become the man he sought to take vengeance on. The
characterization has clear lessons for Roman leaders.
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
265
Dio Cassius
After Arrian and Appian, who flourished in the Antonine period (ad 138
to the 170s), the next major extant Greek historian is one who wrote
under the Severan dynasty (Septimius Severus to Severus Alexander,
ad 193–235). Dio Cassius (c. ad 163–after 229) from Nicaea in Bithynia
(modern Iznik, Turkey) wrote a Roman History from the origins to ad 229, in eighty books. He came from a distinguished family (his father was an imperial official), arrived in Rome about ad 180, and swiftly
entered the inner circles. He was made senator in ad 192 under
Commodus, praetor in ad 194 under Pertinax, and suffect consul twice
(last in ad 229) under Septimius Severus. From ad 218 until 228 he was
curator of Smyrna and Pergamum, proconsul of Africa, and legate of
Dalmatia and then of Upper Pannonia; he retired to Bithynia. During his career he endured a series of inferior and sometimes tyrannical emperors, which is reflected in the views of his work.
His Roman History ( Historia Romana) was researched and written sometime between 194 and 223 and contained eighty books, of which
only Books 36.1.1 to 60.28.3, covering the period 69 bc to ad 46, are
extant – but with gaps after 6 bc. Large parts of Books 78–80 (death of Caracalla to Elagabalus) are also extant. The twelfth‐century Byzantine scholar Zonaras has epitomized the books that go down to 146 bc and
those that cover the period 44 bc to ad 96; and the eleventh‐century
monk Xiphilinus has epitomized all the material from 69 bc to the end.
Organized in groups of ten, Books 1–40 cover the time from Aeneas to
Greek Historiography Page 42