Part 2 of 2
III
So far the errors discussed have not in the main been of outstanding historical importance. They were selected as illustrations of the type of error Arrian is prone to commit and the criterion of choice was not the importance of the historical issue.
I wish now to deal with two problems where I believe that undetected errors in Arrian have had unfortunate repercussions upon the historical interpretation of Alexander's reign.The first concerns the early stages of the epic pursuit of Darius. On his march north from Persepolis Alexander quickened his pace when the news reached him in Paraetacene that Darius had decided to risk battle once more. The great train conveying bullion from Persepolis was left behind with an escort, and the rest of the army surged ahead equipped for battle. The speed quickened at the news that Darius had given up hope of battle and resolved upon flight.81 Finally at a distance of three days' march from Ecbatana a certain Bisthanes, allegedly a son of Artaxerxes III Ochus,82 reported that Darius had been in flight for five days with the treasures of Media and a small army.
According to Arrian, Alexander proceeded to Ecbatana and there dismissed his Greek forces, given them their full pay and 2,000 talents bounty. Parmenion was given instructions first to convey the Persepolis treasure to the citadel at Ecbatana and then lead a force along the south Caspian coast to Hyrcania.83 Then Alexander resumed his pursuit and led the remainder of his army on a forced march to Rhagae and the Caspian Gates.84 It is Arrian alone who states that Alexander passed through Ecbatana in his pursuit of Darius. His statement has been universally believed, and every history of Alexander includes the Median capital in the itinerary of the pursuit. It is, however, impossible that his account should stand.In the first place, the ancient sources disagree about the dismissal of the allied forces. Plutarch refers briefly to the discharge of the Thessalians, but he dates it after the news of Darius' arrest, which was only reported to Alexander when he was beyond the Caspian Gates after leaving Rhagae.85 This may be slovenly reporting by Plutarch, but the version of the vulgate sources is more complex and cannot be reconciled with Arrian. According to Diodorus, the Macedonian troops were eager for discharge after Darius' death and were only persuaded with difficulty to continue the campaign. The allied troops were then paid off and sent back to the coast.86 Curtius has the same story but inverts the chronological sequence. At Hecatompylus, the Parthian capital, Macedonian agitation to return home reached its height, and their eagerness was exacerbated by the recent dismissal of the Hellenic troops.87 Curtius' text is distorted by a lacuna [an unfilled space or interval; a gap.], but the implication is clear that the discharge preceded the agitation. But Curtius agrees with Diodorus (and Justin also) that the demobilization of the allied troops came after Darius' death.
Arrian's narrative is highly vulnerable. It is difficult to see how Alexander found time for all the measures which Arrian says he took at Ecbatana. The pursuit of Darius was very much alive.
According to Arrian himself, it was not until Alexander reached Rhagae and learned that Darius had passed inside the Caspian Gates that he gave up hope of catching him on foot.88 Previously his intention had been to overhaul Darius before he reached the Gates (the modern Sar-i-Darreh defile) and the haven of the plain of Khar.89 Both before and after Alexander's supposed arrival at Ecbatana Arrian stresses that the Macedonian army moved by forced marches.90 Yet Alexander is supposed to have broken his pursuit in order to demobilize his Greek allies and arrange their passage home. If that were not enough in itself, one need only reflect that Alexander had no money with him. The bullion train had been left far behind in Paraetacene so that Alexander could lead his army at speed in fighting order.91 Ecbatana itself was an empty shell. Darius had taken 7,000 or 8,000 talents with him,92 stripping the capital clean of bullion. Nothing remained for Alexander but the legendary gold and silver leaf which adorned the citadel.93 It follows with almost mathematical certainty that Alexander cannot have paid off the allied troops in the course of the pursuit. At best he can only have made provisional arrangements, to be implemented once the pursuit was over and more settled conditions returned.Curtius is the only other source to cover this section of Alexander's march. His account is very brief but also very informative. He mentions three reports to Alexander. The first was the news that Darius had left Ecbatana. At the news Alexander broke off his march into Media and went in pursuit. At Tabae, a town on the border of Paraetacene, further news came that Darius was in headlong flight for Bactria. Finally Bagistanes brought the news of Darius' impending arrest.94 These three reports cohere with Arrian's narrative. The report of Darius' departure from Ecbatana corresponds to Bisthanes' message (3. 19. 5); that of the flight to Bactria is parallel to Arrian's statement that deserters came over to Alexander in the vicinity of Rhagae, bringing news of Darius' further flight (3. 20. 2). Bagistanes is mentioned by both sources.
Curtius' narrative differs in that it represents Alexander turning aside from the route to Ecbatana in order to press the pursuit. This statement has been received with scholarly derision,95 but it seems to be perfectly plausible. Darius' route from Ecbatana took him east towards Rhagae (the modern town of Rey, 12 kilometres southeast of Teheran) and the Caspian Gates. Alexander was originally moving in a north-westerly direction from Persis, following the line of the Zagros massif. Once the news of Darius' flight reached him there was no point in continuing the march to Ecbatana. Every step took him further from his quarry, and by the time he reached Rhagae his line of march would have described two sides of a triangle. It was in fact perfectly possible for Alexander to have cut across from the route to Ecbatana and taken what is now the modern highway via Qom to Teheran. That would have given him a much better chance of intercepting Darius.96 Curtius' statement is inherently plausible and should be accepted. If we can believe Arrian that the news of Darius' flight came when Alexander was three days' march from Ecbatana, we may conjecture that Alexander made his diversion near the modern town of Arak (Sultanabad). There the road forks, one branch leading to Hamadan (Ecbatana) and the other diverging north by north-east to Teheran. It was presumably this second fork that Alexander took. His route passed through the northern extremity of the district of Paraetacene, which is known to have extended to the vicinity of the Caspian Gates.If we omit the paragraph about Ecbatana (3. 19. 5-8), Arrian's narrative agrees substantially with Curtius. At the news of Darius' flight from Ecbatana Alexander moved directly to Rhagae with the nucleus of the army. Now only three words of the offending paragraph state that Alexander himself entered Ecbatana ([x]). In view of his carelessness in handling the sources it is not too much to assume that there is an error of misunderstanding here also. All that is needed is to assume that Arrian's source digressed from the account of the pursuit to discuss Alexander's administrative arrangements. Once he had diverted from the road to Ecbatana there were two tasks to be carried out in his rear. The first was the securing of the bullion left behind in Paraetacene under the supervision of Harpalus. Parmenion was sent to reinforce the bullion convoy and to see to the transfer of the treasure to the citadel at Ecbatana. That mission completed, he was to continue through the territory of Darius' Cadusian allies, presumably with the intention of intercepting any Persian retreat through the Elburz mountains. But, while Parmenion moved south to the bullion train, Ecbatana needed to be occupied and prepared for the reception of the treasure. The Median capital was no longer enemy headquarters and its capture presented no problem, but it was prudent to have it secured before the arrival of the bullion from Persepolis. That role was allotted to the allied troops. At this point came the digression. Arrian's source dealt with the later demobilization of the troops. One can easily see why. In the vulgate sources the demobilization of the Hellenic troops is associated with discontent in the Macedonian army, and according to Curtius the discharge of the allies was an important ingredient in the agitation.97
Discontent in the army is a subject scrupulously avoided wherever possible by the official sources (so we must term Ptolemy and Aristobulus).98 Arrian has no suggestion that the Macedonians demanded to return home after Darius' death, and the whole story was probably omitted by his sources. Once that episode was excised, the demobilization of the allies was best dealt with in an anticipatory digression. I am assuming that Arrian's source recorded that Alexander sent the Hellenic troops to Ecbatana, where he later dismissed them.99 Arrian may then wrongly have inferred that Alexander himself went to Ecbatana. It is a very trivial slip compared with some of the others discussed, but it has beguiled all historians of Alexander into assuming a lengthy and wholly irrelevant halt at Ecbatana, during which Darius would have been able to increase his lead substantially, if not get clean away to Bactria.
Finally we can tackle one of the most annoying cruces [crosses] of Alexander's reign, the return journey to Egypt from the Oasis of Siwah. Arrian is wholly responsible, for without him there would be no problem. He records a divergence of views in his sources; Aristobulus said that Alexander took the same route back to Egypt, Ptolemy that he took another route direct to Memphis.100 The vulgate tradition agrees with Aristobulus, placing the foundation of Alexandria on the return journey.101 If Arrian is taken at face value, there is an inescapable dilemma, fundamental conflict among the primary sources over an issue both elementary and important.102Ptolemy stands alone in stating that Alexander took a direct route across the desert, but there is nothing inherently implausible in the statement. The route was not, as has been recently argued, a dangerous passage of trackless desert but a relatively well-beaten road. In modern times there have been two inland routes from Siwah, one branching east by north-east to the Nile Delta and the other going east through the oasis of Bahariah. Travellers apparently preferred the inland route in winter because it escaped the rains and cold of the coastal road.103 It was precisely in winter that Alexander visited the sanctuary of Ammon, and he might indeed have taken an inland route back to Egypt. There is, however, an argument from silence, which has some force, though it is far from decisive. If Alexander cut directly across to Memphis, his journey was a close parallel to the abortive invasion of Siwah by Cambyses, whose army had perished in the desert with a loss, Herodotus says, of 50,000 men.104 Whether true or false, the story would have been familiar to Alexander, and one would have expected him to have acted in conscious emulation, just as his journey across the Makran was allegedly stimulated by the legends of the failures of Cyrus and Semiramis.105 Plutarch indeed mentions Cambyses' expedition and raises the possibility of a north wind arising and burying Alexander's force.106 The parallel here is related to the outward journey alone, and it seems likely that, had Alexander made a successful crossing to Memphis, the Alexander historians would have underlined the parallel with Cambyses.
The important point is that Aristobulus and the vulgate sources say that Alexander retraced his steps to the coast, founding Alexandria on the return journey. Aristobulus was an eye-witness like Ptolemy, and Cleitarchus, the probable author of the vulgate tradition, may well have been a citizen of Alexandria.107 It is strange to find them misinformed on a point so fundamental. What is more, Alexander's route back to Siwah was surely a matter of record and there is no obvious reason for falsification. Where the factual material is so uncontroversial and the disagreement among primary sources so disturbing, the most economical hypothesis seems to be that of error in Arrian, a misunderstanding of the type discussed in part I. Aristobulus may have stated that Alexander returned to the coast and founded Alexandria, while Ptolemy stated baldly that he went straight back to Memphis, including no details of the itinerary. Arrian could easily have interpreted this as a divergence over the actual route followed and inferred wrongly that Ptolemy knew of another route followed by Alexander to Memphis. Error in Arrian is a hypothesis which has occurred to scholars, but it has not been unhesitatingly advocated.108 Now it can be seen that Arrian's narrative is frequently warped by misunderstanding, and the error I have supposed of misinterpreting Ptolemy is not outlandish but typical of Arrian's slapdash use of sources.
There seems to be a genuine conflict among the primary sources over the chronology of the foundation of Alexandria. Ptolemy apparently placed it on the outward journey to Siwah, the vulgate tradition on the return journey. There are similar divergences in chronology elsewhere in the tradition,109 and it is easy to see how the divergence might have occurred in this case. All that is necessary is to assume that Alexander was, as Arrian says, impressed by the site on his outward journey.110 On his return he laid the foundations of the new city. There is a hint in Curtius that this is what actually happened. His account follows that of Arrian, in that he stresses that Alexander's route passed by Lake Mareotis on the outward journey. On his return to the lake Alexander founded the city. Curtius begins his description in the pluperfect [denoting an action completed prior to some past point of time specified or implied, as in he had gone by then]; Alexander had decided ('statuerat') to build on the island of Paros, but on closer inspection he chose a site for the city on the mainland.111 This suggests that Alexander evolved plans for the city on the outward journey and implemented them on his return. In that case there would be a natural temptation to describe the entire foundation as one episode, placed either before or after the journey to the sanctuary. There is in fact only one piece of evidence which suggests that the work of planning was well advanced before the journey to Siwah. That is Plutarch's transitional phrase: [x] (Plut. Al. 26.11). Plutarch, however, is moving from one episode to another and might well be changing sources. His sutures connecting pieces of anecdote are notoriously unreliable for chronology,112 and it is dangerous to rely too closely on his wording. It is Plutarch himself, not his source, who has joined together the foundation of Alexandria and the beginning of the journey to Siwah. On the other hand, Curtius' pluperfect comes in the stream of the narrative and may be taken more seriously. The foundation of Alexandria is, however, a separate problem. Provided that Ptolemy's narrative did not originally conflict with the rest of the tradition, Alexander's journey to and from Siwah followed the same route, and it makes little difference whether the city was founded on the outward or return journey.
It is, I hope, amply shown that Arrian is prone to misunderstand and mishandle his primary sources. The errors he commits can in some cases be corrected from his own narrative, but more often they are revealed by critical comparison with the rest of the historical tradition of Alexander's reign. This is important. Only so long as Arrian's work is regarded as an uncontaminated repository of fact can it be regarded as the sole authoritative account of Alexander.113 As it is, it is clear that Arrian's primary sources were not extracts from the archives of Alexander but political histories with all the propaganda and distortion one would expect from first-generation authors with their own axes to grind. Above all, Arrian is too fallible in his handling of sources for his narrative ever to be dispensed from cross-examination. He may still be the most detailed extant source, but he requires constant assessment against the rest of the tradition.
_______________
Notes:1 The most impressive monument to this approach, and indeed its reductio ad absurdum, is E. Kornemann, Die Alexandergeschichte des Konigs Ptolemaios I von Aegypten (Leipzig 1935). For Kornemann the vast majority of Arrian's narrative was a verbatim transcript of Ptolemy, whose material was derived in its turn from the court archives. See the impressive review by H. Strasburger, Gnomon 13 (1937), 483-92, rightly protesting against the undervaluation of Arrian's own contribution. Even Strasburger, however, took for granted 'der aktenmaissige Grundstock' [Google translate: the file-based basic stock] of Arrian, which he agreed went back to Ptolemy (486). The belief in court Journals as the ultimate and official source of the tradition in Arrian goes back to Droysen (Geschichte des Hellenismus i.2 2. 383 -6), but the theory was most fully argued by U. Wilcken, [x], Philologus 53 (1894), 80-126, esp. 117: 'es sei mir erlaubt, in kurzen Zugen die Hypothese hinzustellen, dass die Ephemeriden Alexanders die Hauptquelle fur die Memoiren des Konigs Ptolemaios I gewesen sind, die wiederum den Grundstock der Anabasis Arrians bilden'. [Google translate: allow me to briefly outline the hypothesis put down that ephemeris Alexander's main source for the memoir of King Ptolemy I who again the basis of the anabasis Arrians form.] This statement by Wilcken became canonical for German scholarship (see the bibliography by J. Seibert, Alexander der Grosse, 1972, 5-6; 230- 1). In English literature the most decisive statements are to be found in the work of Sir W.W. Tarn, who for all his scepticism of German Quellenkritik wholly accepted its basic premiss, that Ptolemy used the Journal (cf. Alexander the Great ii. 1-2; 263-4; 374).
2 For recent attacks on the theory that the 'Royal Ephemerides' were Ptolemy's principal source see L. Pearson, Hlistoria 3 (1954/5), 432-9; E. Badian, Studies in Greek and Roman History (1964), 256-8; A.E. Samuel, Historia 14 (1965), 1-12; A.B. Bosworth, CQ 65 (1971), 117-23. On Ptolemy's view of his own role see C.B. Welles, 'The Reliability of Ptolemy as an Historian', Miscellanea Rostagni (Turin 1963), 101-16; and J. Seibert, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Ptolemaios I (Munch. Beitr. 56: 1969), 1-26. For propaganda against contemporaries see R.M. Errington, CQ 63 (1969), 233-42.
Arrian's enthusiasm for Ptolemy's account of Alexander has often been echoed in modern times. With much justification it is generally agreed that Arrian's account of Alexander, through its reliance on the works of Ptolemy and Aristobulus, is our best and, on the whole, most reliable account of Alexander. Recent work, however, has illuminated Ptolemy's weaknesses, and we can no longer regard Ptolemy as utterly reliable in every important respect. His version of the Alexander story is centred on Alexander, therefore Alexander is depicted out of the close context of the Macedonian court. It is only through the information preserved in other writers—traditionally, but undiscriminatingly, considered unreliable—that, for instance, the picture of Alexander's struggle with his Macedonian nobles has begun to emerge. And in matters of this kind Ptolemy's version is so much the court ‘official’ version that it cannot be regarded as trustworthy.
-- Bias in Ptolemy's History of Alexander1, by R. M. Errington, February 2009
3 Arr. 1. 12. 2-3. Arrian has in mind Thucydides' famous strictures of histories of the pentekontaetia (Thuc. 1. 97. 2), on which the passage is patently modelled (note the verbal echo [x]).
4 Arr. praef. 3; cf. 7. 30. 3.
5 6. 11. 2:[x].
6 'Suda', s.v. [x] (=FGrH 153 F 6). No fragments have survived, but the references to Alexander in Dio's Orations are generally favourable (cf. A. Heuss, Antike und Abendland 4, 1954, 90-4). On any chronology of Arrian's literary development Dio's work must have preceded the Anabasis. Dio had been born about A.D. 40 and may not have outlived Trajan. It would be useful to know whether Arrian had any acquaintance with Plutarch's work on Alexander. The biography itself may have been published between 110 and 115 (C.P. Jones, JRS 56 (1966), 69; J.R. Hamilton, Plutarch Alexander, 1969, xxxvii), perhaps not too long before the Anabasis (for this chronology see CQ 66, 1972, 163-85). The earlier speeches, De Alexandri fortuna aut virtute, were certainly available to Arrian, but he may not have been as familiar with the lesser works of Plutarch as he was with Dio of Prusa.
7 1. 12. 4: [x].
8 e.g. Ind. 43.14: [x]. Tact. 32.3: [x]. For further discussion see A.B. Bosworth, CQ 66 (1972), 148.
9
That is the entire tenor of the historiographical cursus( 1. 12. 3-5). Alexander has never achieved even the renown of the Ten Thousand despite the multitude of his historians and the greatness of his achievements. That gap Arrian will fill. Admittedly he concedes at 1. 12. 5 that the greatness of his subject will give him supremacy in Greek letters (cf. G. Schepens, Ancient Society 2, 1971, 262 -3), but he takes for granted his ability to produce the definitive history of Alexander's reign.The Ten Thousand (Ancient Greek: οἱ Μύριοι, oi Myrioi) were a force of mercenary units, mainly Greeks, employed by Cyrus the Younger to attempt to wrest the throne of the Persian Empire from his brother, Artaxerxes II. Their march to the Battle of Cunaxa and back to Greece (401–399 BC) was recorded by Xenophon, one of their leaders, in his work Anabasis.
-- Ten Thousand, by Wikipedia
10 Bithyniaca F. 1.3 (Roos): [x]. For discussion of text and interpretation see CQ 66 (1972), 178-80.
11 Lucian, De hist. conscr. 52: [x] see Lucian 48 with Arrian, Ep. ad I. Gellium 1-4 (Roos, Arriani scripta minora 196). Cf. Josephus, C. Ap. 1.50: [x].
12 e.g. the Bithyniaca of Asclepiades of Myrlea (FGrH 697); Alexander Polyhistor's [x] (FGrH 273 F 12-13; 125); Menecrates' history of Nicaea (FGrH 701); and the monograph on the Kings of Bithynia by Nicander of Chalcedon (FGrH 700).
13 Cf. P.G. Walsh, Livy (1961), 141 ff.; esp. 146-8. For more startling examples of what a secondary author could do with a respectable source see the discussion of Diodorus' use of Polybius by R. Drews, AJP 83 (1962), 384-5.
14 Arr. 1. 11. 1.
15 Schol. Dem. 19. 192:[x]. Cf. Steph. Byz., s.v. [x]. These and other references are quoted in full by W. Baege, De Macedonum sacris (Diss. Hal. xxii.l: 1913), 10-11. Once he had collected the references Baege saw at once that Arrian's statement about Aegae was mistake (p.8 'errore auctoris'; so F. Geyer, RE xiv. 716: 'statt "Aigai" muss "Dion" stehen'; J.N. Kalleris, Les Anciens Maceddoniens i, Athens 1954, 251, n. 2). For the site of Dium see Livy 44. 6. 15 with N.G.L. Hammond, A History of Macedonia i (Oxford 1972), 125.
16 Polybius 4. 62. 2.
17 Diod. 17. 16. 3: [x]. For the equation of the Olympia with the games in honour of the Muses see Schol. Dem. 19. 192, quoted above.
18 Dio, Orat. 2. 2: [x].
19 Arr. 1. 11. 1: [x]. The [x] does not necessarily refer to the subsidiary tradition; it merely means that the material is taken from a source different from the source of the preceding material, in this case probably Aristobulus (cf. Schwartz, RE ii. 912; H. Strasburger, Ptolemaios und Alexander, 23).
20 For full references to the cult of Zeus in Macedonia see Baege, op. cit. 1-20. The eponymous hero Macedon was said to have been a son of Zeus (Hesiod F 7 (O.C.T.)), and the Macedonian royal house was doubly descended from Zeus thanks to its Heraclid lineage (cf. Arr. 3. 3. 1-2).
21 Cf. Arr. 1. 10. 2; Plut. Camillus 19.10. The news of the destruction of Thebes reached Athens at the time of the Great Mysteries, which were held between 15 and 24 Boedromion (IG ii2. 1078. 11 ff.; S. Dow, HSCP 48, 1937, 111-20), roughly between 20 and 30 September according to the Julian calendar. Soon afterwards Alexander marched north to Macedonia.
22 For discussion of the Macedonian calendar see Beloch, GG iv2. 2. 26 ff.; A.E. Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology (Munich 1972), 139 ff. On the importance of the name Dios see Kalleris, Les Anciens Macddoniens i.158.
23 For Mazares the Mede see Herodotus 1. 156.2; 157.3; 160-1.
24 Mithrines was made satrap of Armenia immediately after Gaugamela (Arr. 3. 16. 5; Diod. 17. 64. 6; Curt. 5. 1. 44), and Amminapes was appointed to Parapamisadae immediately after the death of Darius (Arr. 3. 22. 1; cf. Curt. 6. 4. 25).
25 Berve, Das Alexanderreich (Munich 1926), ii.246, no. 486, following F. Justi, Iraniscbes Namenbuch (1895), 201, and O. Hoffmann, Die Makedonen (1906), 181.
26 Curt. 5. 2. 16-17: 'Susa urbem Archelao et praesidium III milium tradidit, Xenophilo arcis cura mandata est mille Macedonum aetate gravibus praesidere arcis custodiae iussis, thesaurorum Callicrati tutela permissa, satrapea regionis Susianae restituta Abulitae.' [Google translate: SUSA city Archelao protection and 3 and delivered Xenophilus charge of the citadel thousands Macedonia age heavy guard citadel in prison for having ordered, the protection of the treasures of Callicrates, the satrapy region was restored Abulites.]
27 Diod. 19. 17. 3; 48. 1; 48. 6.
28 So Berve ii.282, no. 578; Lehmann-Haupt, RE iiA. 143; Chr. Habicht, RE ixA. 1565-6. A.T. Olmstead, A History of the Persian Empire (Chicago 1948), 518-20, attempted a conflation of Arrian and Curtius. Mazarus, he rightly inferred, was the Persian commander of the citadel, retained by Alexander; Zenophilus (sic) was over the citadel. Olmstead wisely does not try to explain how the functions of the two men differed.
29 Curt. 5. 1. 43-4 (supplementary material in Diod. 17. 64.5, derived from the common source); Arr. 3. 16. 4.
30 Curt. 5. 1. 44: 'Bagophanem, qui arcem tradiderat, se sequi iussit.' [Google translate: Bagophanes the castle delivered to them, and ordered them to follow him.] Bagophanes is mentioned earlier in Curtius' elaborate description of the surrender of Babylon (5. 1. 20), by far the fullest and best extant account of the proceedings.
31 For a good description see F. Schachermeyr, Alexander in Babylon (SB. Wien, Phil.- Hist. Kl. cclxviii.3: 1970), 49-63.
32 The definitive discussion is by E.T. Newell, 'Miscellanea Numismatica: Cyrene to India', Numismatic Notes and Monographs 82 (1938), 82-8. Newell's conclusions have been accepted by A.R. Bellinger, Essays in the Coinage of Alexander the Great (1963), 65-6, and G. Le Rider, Schweizer Munzblatter 85 (1972), 1-7.
33 Newell, op. cit. 72-5.
34 E. Badian, Greece and Rome 12 (1965), 173, n. 4.
The evidence for independent coinages in Alexander's reign is very slender. Even in Phoenicia local issues were superseded by the royal coinage, the only concession being that the kings of Aradus and Byblus added their own monogram (Bellinger, Essays, 50-6). The nearest parallel would be the lion staters of Mazaeus, which may have been issued while Mazaeus was satrap of Babylonia under Alexander. But the very uniqueness of these issues has evoked doubts about their attribution to Alexander's reign (Badian, op. cit. 173, apparently followed by R. Lane Fox, Alexander the Great, 1973, 528). It is, however, a far cry from the satrap of Babylonia issuing his own coinage to the petty ruler of some unnamed city striking his own imitations of Attic tetradrachms.35 J.P. Six, Num. Chron. 1884, 141-3 Newell, 88, n. 172, observes that Mazarus as a mere phrurarch could not have struck his own coins under Alexander; that is true, and a conclusive argument against his own attribution. On his hypothesis Mazakes was at best under-governor, not a satrap.
36 Compare Curtius' description of Bagophanes, the Persian citadel commander of Babylon: 'arcis et regis pecuniae custos'. [Google translate: citadel and royal funds.]
37 Even if the Aramaic legend is proved to read 'Mazdak' (which, given the difficulty of reading, is very unlikely), the issuer of the coins may still be identified as the Persian commander at Susa. Arrian's text is not infallible in these matters; at 3. 22. 1 all manuscripts read [x] for [x], and there may be a corruption at 3. 16. 9.
38 So N.G.L. Hammond, JHS 94 (1974), 85, n. 34.
Hammond is committed to taking Arrian's wording in deadly earnest because of a belief that his account is taken ultimately from a day-to-day diary compiled under Alexander and transmitted in an abbreviated but substantially correct form. (pp. 77-8).
39 Thuc. 1. 24. 1; Ps.-Scylax 26; Eratosthenes ap. Steph. Byz., s.v. [x]; Strabo 7. 7. 8 (326). For the boundaries of the Taulantian kingdom see Hammond, ABSA 61 (1966), 247.
40 Arr. 1. 6. 10 [x].
Hammond, JHS 94 (1974), 85, translates [x] at 1. 6. 11 as 'Alexander's Own Cavalry', so conjuring a cavalry force out of thin air. The expression merely means 'Alexander's men' and does not imply the presence of cavalry. Compare 1. 28. 5, where [x] refers to a battle line composed exclusively of infantry.
41 1. 6. 11: Cleitus first took refuge in the city but then left to join Glaucias and the Taulantians. The siege must have been raised at the news of the revolt of Thebes (so Hammond 86). Arrian, however, says nothing of the circumstances of the Macedonian withdrawal.
42 Praef. 1: [x].
43 Arr. 3. 11. 9: [x].
44 Arr. 1.8.2; 1. 14. 2; 3. 16. 10; 3. 27. 1; Curt. 5. 1. 40; cf. Berve ii.26, no. 57.
45 The emendation appeared in two works both published in 1668, J. Palmarius Exercitationes in optimos auctores Graecos, 238, and the edition of the Anabasis by N. Blancardus. It was subsequently followed by all editors except Roos, who observed, 'Arriano error imputandus'.
46 Diod. 17. 57. 3; Curt. 4. 13. 28 (Phaligrus Balacri-the emendation Philippus is guaranteed by Diodorus).
47 Along with Meleager he led the train of booty sent back from the Danube in 335 (Arr. 1. 4. 5). He is not mentioned after the battle of the Granicus.
48 1. 14. 2: [X]. 1.14. 3: [X].
49 So R. Kopke, Jahrb. fur class. Phil. 99 (1869), 263-5; Droysen, Kleine Schhriften ii. 222-3 (accepted in Roos's text). The author of the supposed gloss must have been erudite, for the name of Craterus' father is correctly given as Alexander (Arr. 1. 25. 9; Ind. 18. 5).
50 Cf. 2. 8. 4; 3. 11. 10.
51 [x] is used at 3. 9. 6, 5. 20. 3, and 5. 21. 5 to refer to individual battalions. Polyaenus also refers to Perdiccas' battalion as [x] (4 . 3. 27; cf. Arr. 3. 18. 5). For the general usage see Isidore, Orig. 9. 3. 46: 'proprie autem Macedonum phalanx, Gallorum caterva, nostra legio dicitur.' [Google translate: properly applied in Macedonia host, with, the crowd of Gauls, our legion said.]
52 Cf. 1. 28. 3 ([x] and hypaspists listed separately); so 7. 11. 3.
53 Arr. 1. 14. 1 and 14. 6. The equation seems universally accepted; cf. Berve i.129; Tarn, Alexander ii.157; P.A. Brunt, JHS 83 (1963), 26; R.D. Milns, JHS 86 (1966), 167.
54 [x] does not occur in Greek literature before the Hellenistic period, and outside Arrian it does not denote a cavalryman (pace Tarn ii.157, n. 6, Didymus (col. xiii. 5-7) does not refer explicitly to a mounted [x]). [x] is more frequent; its use to refer to the vanguard goes back to Herodotus. Diodorus, however, uses the word to refer to Thracian cavalry (Diod. 17. 17. 4; for discussion see Milns, JHS 86, 1966, 167), and it was certainly a technical term in Alexander's army.
55 That appears to have been Berve's hypothesis (ii.164, no. 341). Hegelochus, he claims, was the commander of the [x] temporarily placed under the wider command of Amyntas. He seems, however, to conceive all the scouts as a single group. If Arrian's narrative is literally correct, there were two separate groups.
56 At 1. 16. 3 Arrian mentions Mithrobuzanes, satrap of Cappadocia, and three relatives of Darius; Mithridates, Abrupales, and Pharnaces. None appears in the list of commanders at 1. 12. 8. Again at 2. 11. 8, a passage very probably from Ptolemy (FGrH 138 F 6), Atizyes is said to have been one of the commanders at the Granicus. His name does not appear at 1. 12. 8. Even Kornemann (op. cit. 103) agreed that the beginning of the report of the council-of-war must come from Aristobulus.
57 The words are bracketed in every subsequent edition of Arrian, and modern historians who have noted the problem accepted the theory of a gloss without argument (e.g. Berve ii.224, n. 2; Kornemann, op. cit. 154, n. 132).
58 e.g. 4. 18. 3: [x]. 6. 17. 1: [x]. Cf. also 1. 17. 2; 3. 29. 5.
59 This seems typical of the glosses posited by Schmieder. For his performance at 7. 11. 3 see Bosworth, CQ 67 (1973), 246-7.
60 The change of nomenclature was immaterial to Schmieder, who had followed a suggestion of Blancardus and eliminated all forms other than [x] from his text. Once he had 'emended' 6. 17. 3 as [x], he could present the supposed gloss as an exact copy.
61 For discussion of the nomenclature and borders of the satrapy, see E. Herzfeld, The Persian Empire (Wiesbaden 1968), 331.
62 For other references to the Drangae see 3. 21. 1; 4. 18. 3; 7. 10. 6. For the Zarangae see 6. 27. 3; 7. 6. 3.
63 Used by the bematists (FGrH 119 F 2: both Strabo and Pliny), Nearchus (Strabo 15. 2. 5 (721)), and the vulgate sources (Diod. 17. 78.4; 81. 1; 105. 7; Curt. 6. 6. 36).
64 This depends on the assumption, which seems general, that 6. 17. 3 is taken from Ptolemy. If it does in fact come from Aristobulus, the argument is unaffected; we then assume that [x] was Ptolemy's term.
65 Justin 12. 10. 1-2. The convoy is said to have been led by Polyperchon, an obvious error. Polyperchon, however, may have been Craterus' lieutenant. He is not mentioned in Alexander's entourage after this time, and he is later explicitly attested as Craterus' second in command for the later convoy of veterans from Opis (Arr. 7. 12. 4; Justin 12. 12.8; cf. Berve ii.326, no. 654).
65a According to Strabo 15. 2. 5 (721) Craterus began his march at the Hydaspes ([x]). Even if the information is garbled in transition, it suits the northern point of departure rather than the area around Patala. A.E. Anspach, De Alexandri Magni Expeditione Indica (Leipzig 1903), 122, n. 389, suggested emending the text [x], so offending blatantly against the principle of the lectio difficilior [Google translate: reading difficulties].
66 Arr. 6. 15. 4: [x].
67 Arr. 6. 15. 3; cf. Curt. 9. 8. 9-10.
68 So Anspach, De Al. Magni Expeditione Indica 115, n. 365; Beloch, GG iv2.1. 30, n. 4. Oxyartes' name is bracketed in Roos's edition.
69 Arr. Succ. F 1. 36 (Roos); cf. Diod. 18. 39. 6; Dexippus FGrH 100 F 8. 5.
70 Diod. 18. 3. 2; Curt. 10. 10. 4; cf. Beloch iv2. 2. 312-13.
71 Diod. 17. 102; Curt. 9. 8. 10. At 9. 8. 5 Curtius cites Cleitarchus by name for the casualties inflicted upon the Indians of Sambos' kingdom (=FGrH 137 F 25). The figure is germane to the narrative, and almost certainly the passage is excerpted directly or indirectly from Cleitarchus.
72 Diod. 102. 4. Curtius 9. 8. 8 merely refers to them as 'aliae gentes', [Google translate: Some nations] but he places the foundation of an Alexandria in their territory.
73 Diod. 102. 1. Curtius 9. 8. 4 terms them Sabarcae. In both sources they appear as the people immediately south of the Malli, which is the position of Arrian's [x]; it is usually inferred that the same tribe is referred to by all three writers (Anspach, op. cit. 112, n. 356; Berve ii.315, n. 1).
74 For the procedure, compare Alexander's division of the army at the beginning of the Indus Journey (Arr. 6. 4. 1; 6. 5. 5-7).
75 The text at 6. 15. 1 is corrupt. There is a lacuna which contained the name of a second Indian tribe which surrendered to Alexander. Roos supplied the name [x] from the paragraph below (6. 15. 4), clearly thinking in terms of a doublet.
76 Diod. 102. 4; Curt. 9. 8. 8.
77 Arr. 4. 1. 3; compare the foundation of Alexandria in Egypt (Arr. 3. 1. 5).
78 Arr. 6. 15. 4; cf. Diod. 102. 1; Curt. 9.8. 3.
79
Despite the similarities of wording scholars have invariably believed in the foundation of two separate Alexandrias; cf. Droysen iii'. 2. 230; Berve i.294; V. Tscherikower, Die hell. Stadtegrundungen (Philologus Suppl. 19. 1: 1927) 109; Tarn ii.2 39. Tarn recognizes the scantiness of the evidence and suggests that, even if finished, both cities were swept away in Chandragupta's conquest.80 Strabo 15. 1. 33 (701). At the head of the chapter comes the curious reference to the 5,000 Indian cities, each the size of Meropid Cos. This has been thought a topical reference by Onesicritus, whose home, Astypalaea, was an immediate neighbour of Cos (L. Pearson, The Lost Histories of Alexander, 1960, 106).
81 Arr. 3. 19. 3-4.
82 Bisthanes (Berve, no. 215) is only mentioned by Arrian, and the emergence of a son of Artaxerxes III Ochus as late as 330 is a problem. According to the detailed account of Diodorus (17. 5. 3-5) all the sons of Artaxerxes were murdered by the eunuch Bagoas with the single exception of Arses, the predecessor of Darius III. When Arses was murdered in his turn the house of Artaxerxes was extinct (Diod. 5. 5). Diodorus may be mistaken and Bagoas' purge not exhaustive (so Th. Noldeke, Aufsatze zur persischen Geschichte, 1887, 81, n. 1), but on the other hand Arrian or his source might be in error about Bisthanes' relationship to the Achaemenid house.
83 3.19. 5-8.
84 3. 20. 1.
85 Plut. Al. 42. 5. For the arrest of Darius see Arr. 3. 21. 1; Curt. 5. 13. 3. There is divergence over the precise details but agreement that reports of Darius' danger were brought by Bagistanes the Babylonian.
86
Diod. 17. 74. 3-4: placed immediately after Darius' death and three days' journey from the Parthian capital Hecatompylos (for the location see J. Hansman, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1968, 116-19). This is a patent mistake. Curtius locates the troubles with the Macedonians at Hecatompylos itself (6. 2. 15). Diodorus' reference to the city comes in the course of his narrative of the journey into Hyrcania, which runs parallel to Curtius (Diod. 75. 1-2 = Curt. 6. 4. 1-7). Curtius makes the first stage a three days' march to the Hyrcanian border. The same three days' march occurs in Diodorus, who with typical lack of care makes Hecatompylos the terminus, not the starting-point, of the march. For another Diodoran error see n. 97.87 Curt. 6. 2. 17: 'fecerant fidem rumori temere vulgato Graeci milites redire iussi domos' [Google translate: made credit report Greek soldiers ordered to return home at random common houses]; cf. Justin 12. 1. 1.
88 Arr. 3. 20. 3: [x].
89 For the geography of the Caspian Gates see A.F. von Stahl, Geogr. Journ. 64 (1924), 318-19; H. Treidler, RE xxii. 322-33; J.F. Standish, Greece and Rome 17 (1970), 17-24.
90 Arr. 3. 19. 4: [x] 3. 20. 1: [x].
91 Arr. 3. 19. 3: [x].
92 Arr. 3. 19. 5 (7,000 talents) Diodorus 74.5 and Strabo 15. 3. 9 (731) agree on 8,000.
93. See particularly Polybius 10. 27. 10-13.
As late as the reign of Antiochus III almost 4,000 talents of coin was struck from the gold and silver embellishments of the temple of Anaitis. The rest of the palace complex, Polybius says, had been denuded of its decorations during the reigns of Alexander, Antigonus, and Seleucus I. There would presumably have been enough to pay off the allied troops, but Alexander hardly had the time to strip the necessary silver from the walls and roofs of Ecbatana.94 Curt. 5. 13. 1-3: 'Alexander audito Dareum movisse ab Ecbatanis, omisso itinere quod patebat in Mediam fugientem insequi pergit strenue. Tabas (oppidum est in Paraetacene ultima) pervenit; ibi transfugae nuntiant praecipitem fuga Bactra petere Dareum. certiora deinde cognoscit ex Bagistane Babylonio.' [Google translate: Alexander hearing that Darius had moved from Ecbatana, abandoning the journey which there was into Media, and follow after the fleeing proceeded. Tabas (a town in Paraetacene final) arrives; there refugees. They reported that the headlong flight of the Bactria to ask Dare. more to be relied. He also knows from Bagistanes, Christen.]
95 Cf. J. Marquart, Philologus Suppl. 10 (1907), 30-4, arguing that Curtius has conflated the two reports of Bisanthes and Bagistanes, conflating the events of a month into a single day and confusing the stay at Ecbatana with that at Rhagae. On the contrary, Curtius mentions both reports, although only Bagistanes is mentioned by name. His account may be brief, but it does not imply that all these reports came on a single day. It is moreover quite explicit; Alexander moved from the direct road to Ecbatana and passed through Tabae. The location of Tabae is unknown. Marquart suggested emending to Gabae, the provincial capital of Paraetacene mentioned by Diodorus (19. 26. 1; 34. 7), and he has been followed recently by R. Lane Fox, Alexander the Great, 529-30. That is unfortunate. Tabae is mentioned by Polybius as the town in Persis where Antiochus IV perished after his expedition against the shrine of Anaitis in Elymais (Polybius 31. 9. 3; cf. App. Syr. 66. 352; FGrH 260 F 56). Elymais was the Seleucid term for the mountain country between Susa and the Median border, comprising part of what had been Paraetacene. It seems clear that the town where Antiochus died is the same as that visited by Alexander; both are named Tabae (so Weissbach, RE ivA. 1840-1). The location of Tabae is still difficult. G. Radet (Melanges Glotz, Paris 1932, ii.772) mistakenly supposed that Tabae was the site of Bagistanes' message and located it at Padi, east of the Caspian Gates on the further side of the plain of Khar. It is, however, clear that it was only after leaving Tabae that Alexander received Bagistanes' 'more certain news'. From Curtius' narrative it looks as though the town should be placed somewhere on Alexander's route to Rhagae after leaving the road to Ecbatana. It is at this stage that Arrian places the influx of deserters from Darius' army with their news of the flight beyond the Caspian Gates. Alexander was still in Paraetacene; according to Strabo the district extended as far north as the Caspian Gates (16. 1. 17 (744); cf. 11. 13. 6 (524)).
96 G. Radet (Melanges Glotz ii.770) accepts Curtius in part, arguing that Alexander sent off a flying column to intercept the Persian force. None the less he regards the statement that Alexander himself diverged from the road as an indisputable error.
97 Curt. 6. 2. 17.
Diodorus 74. 3 reads as though the allied troops were physically present when Alexander discharged them ([x]). That is impossible. Alexander had only a small fraction of his army with him at the end of the pursuit of Darius, and it is most unlikely that the Hellenic troops were forced to march to Hecatompylos, only to be dismissed on arrival.98
Note particularly H. Strasburger's impressive list of hardships undergone by the Macedonian army (Hermes 80, 1952, 470-3); most are reported in full by the vulgate sources but either omitted or glossed over by Arrian.99 According to Arrian's own narrative the Thessalian cavalry who volunteered for further service at Ecbatana only reached Alexander much later in 330 when he was at the borders of Areia (3. 25. 4). They arrived with the mercenary cavalry who had served with Parmenion in Media. Had they re-enlisted when Alexander was physically present, he would presumably have taken them in the pursuit of Darius along with the mercenary cavalry of Erigyius (cf. 3. 20. 1).
100 Arr. 3. 4. 5: [x].
101 Curt. 4. 8. 1 (explicit); Diod. 17. 51. 4-52. 1; Justin 11. 11. 13. Plut. Al. 26 places the foundation of Alexandria before the journey to Siwah.
102
Alexander historians unhesitantly accepted the Ptolemaic version until C.B. Welles (Historia 11, 1962, 278-81) argued that Ptolemy was wrong and that Alexandria was in fact founded on the return journey. In this he was followed by E.N. Borza (Historia 16, 1967, 369). P.M. Fraser (Opuscula Atheniensia 7, 1967, 30, n. 27) exposed many of the weaknesses of Welles's arguments, but did not tackle the fundamental problem of the conflict of primary sources. See also, in support of Ptolemy, F. Schachermeyr, Alexander der Grosse' (SB. Wien cclxxxv: 1973), 253, n. 287; R. Lane Fox, Alexander the Great, 522: 525.
103 I here follow the discussion of O. Bates, The Eastern Libyans (1916), 14.
104 Hdt. 3. 25. 3-7.
105 Arr. 6. 24. 2-3; Strabo 15. 1. 5 (686) = FGrH 133 F 3.
106 Plut. Al. 26. 11-12. There is a possibility that this passage, like the description of the journey itself, is taken from Callisthenes of Olynthus.
107 Philodemus Rhet. 4. 1 = FGrH 137 T 12: [x].
It is unfortunately by no means certain that the Cleitarchus here mentioned was in fact the historian of Alexander. He may be an otherwise unknown rhetorician (cf. P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, Oxford 1972, ii.717-18).
108 Welles, Historia 11 (1962), 279: 'it is possible that he [Ptolemy] is wrongly quoted'; Borza, Historia 16 (1967), 369: 'whether it was Arrian's error in citing Ptolemy or an unresolved conflict in Ptolemy himself cannot be ascertained'.
109 Note the arrival of Amyntas with reinforcements from Macedonia, placed at Babylon by Curtius (5. 1. 40-2), at Susa by Arrian (3. 16. 9-11), and at an intermediate point in Sittacene by Diodorus (17. 65. 1).
110 Arr. 3. 1. 5: [x].
111 Curt. 4. 8. 1-2: 'contemplatus loci naturam primum in ipsa insula statuerat urbem condere; inde, ut adparuit magnae sedis insulam haud capacem esse, elegit urbi locum ubi nunc est Alexandrea.' [Google translate: contemplating for the first time on the island itself, had determined the nature of the the city found. From this, and in being ashamed of a great See, the island was not large enough, he chose the city Alexandria is the place where now.] For the visit to Lake Mareotis on the outward journey see Curt. 4. 7. 9; Arr. 3. 1. 5.
112 There is an exact parallel in Plutarch's description of Gaugamela. He describes Alexander's coolness before the battle and caps his account with a similar incident in the battle itself (32. 1-7). After the anecdote he reverts to the prelude of the battle and Alexander arming himself. The link, however, is very misleading and gives the impression that Alexander only put on his armour after the frenzied action described before (32. 8: [x]). This led Tarn to stigmatize the passage as the worst farrago of nonsense in the Greek language (Alexander ii. 352). All that is at fault is the misleading transitional phrase. For examples of violent chronological jumps in the Lysander see A. Andrewes, Phoenix 25 (1971), 211-12.
113
Note the sagacious remarks of J. Seibert, Alexander der Grosse (1972), 6, who stresses the danger of accepting the theory of the Ephemerides as the official basis of 'the best Alexander literature' without first refuting the criticisms evinced in recent research: 'sollte diese sich bestatigen, musste die bisherige Quellenkritik neu uberdacht werden.' [Google translate: should this confirm itself, had to the previous source criticism be reconsidered.]