Monthly Archives: February 2014

Plutarch at the Granicus

Before beginning his Life of Alexander, Plutarch warns us that he is not concerned with the ‘great exploits and battles’ of the Macedonian king but rather ‘those details which illuminate the workings of the soul’. He can hardly ignore the great moments of Alexander’s life, though… or can he? Let’s find out by looking at his account of Alexander’s four great battles. If you are already familiar with Plutarch’s account, you may want to skip forward to ‘Some Thoughts’ below.
.
The Battle of the Granicus River
In chapter 15 of the Life Plutarch tells us that when Alexander left Macedon his army was between 30,000 - 43,000 infantry and 4,000 - 5,000 cavalry in size. We must get used to these figures as he does not provide any more ahead of his account of the Battle of the Granicus, which begins in chapter 16.
.
According to Plutarch, ‘Darius’ generals had gathered a large army’. When Alexander arrived at the Granicus, however, it was not the size of the Persian force that alarmed ‘[m]ost of the Macedonian officers’ but ‘the depth of the river and… the rough and uneven slopes of the banks on the opposite side’.
.
Tradition was also on the mind of some of his officers for it was not the Macedonian custom to wage war in the current month (Daesius). According to Timothy E. Duff in his Notes, Daesius was roughly our May/June and the custom ‘may have’ arisen out of ‘the need to gather the harvest’. Alexander dealt with this objection by declaring the new month to be the last one (Artemisius) repeated.
.
The issue of the month was not the only objection that Alexander had to deal with. The Macedonians arrived at the Granicus late in the day and Parmenion, not unreasonably, counselled against attempting a crossing at such an hour. Alexander was having none of that, though and ‘declared that the Hellespont would blush for shame’ if he held back now.
.
Reservations and objections dealt with, Alexander plunged into the river with thirteen cavalry squadrons. Despite the swiftly running water and Persian missiles raining down on him the king and his men made it to the opposite bank - ‘a wet treacherous slope covered with mud’ - where they engaged the enemy.
.
Plutarch tells us that as the horsemen fought one another, Alexander was picked out by ‘many’ of the Persian cavalry ‘for he was easily recognizable (sic) by his shield and by the amazingly tall white feathers which were fixed upon either side of the crest of his helmet’.
.
The Persians’ attention was not in vain. As the battle raged, Alexander was struck by a javelin. Fortunately, it only pierced the joint of his breast plate rather than him. However, when a Persian nobleman named Spithridates struck him on the head with his sword - splitting the helmet and ‘grazing’ Alexander’s hair - it must have looked like his life was about to come to an early end.
.
Fortunately, just as Spithridates raised his sword for the coup-de-grace, Black Cleitus ran him through with his spear. For his part, Alexander killed another Persian named Rhoesaces with his sword. It seems that his helmet not only saved his life but stopped him from being stunned.
.
The Macedonian phalanx now made it across the river. Its presence made the difference. Plutarch says that ‘[t]he Persians offered little resistance, but quickly broke and fled’. The rout was not total, however; Darius’ Greek mercenaries - as well trained and disciplined as the phalanx - stood their ground. The mercenaries asked Alexander for quarter. ‘[G]uided by [his] passion’, however, he refused to give it and led a charge against them. During this battle, Alexander lost his horse to a spear thrust.
.
Plutarch puts the Persian losses a 20,000 infantry and 2,500 cavalry. As for the Macedonians, he cites Aristobulos who says they lost only 34 men, of whom 9 were members of the infantry. Timothy Duff notes that, according to Arrian, Macedonian losses were ‘somewhat higher’ and that 25 men died in the initial charge. Turning to Arrian, I note that he says (in addition to the 25) ‘rather more’ than sixty cavalry were killed. I am not sure what he means by that. He is more specific in regards infantry saying that ‘about’ thirty died.
.
However many Macedonians died, both Plutarch and Arrian agree that Alexander honoured his dead (in part or whole) by ordering his official sculptor, Lysippos, to make bronze statues of them.
.
Having paid his respects to the Macedonian dead, Alexander turned to Greece. He was ‘anxious’ for the Greek poleis to share in his victory so had 300 Persian shields sent to Athens with the famous inscription, ‘Alexander, the son of Philip, and the Greeks except the Spartans won these spoils of war from the barbarians who dwell in Asia’. Other plunder - luxury items - was sent to his mother in Macedon.
.
Some Thoughts
Plutarch’s account of the battle at the Granicus, its lead-up and aftermath, is very brief and focuses on key moments, which may be summarised, thus:

  1. The Macedonian officers’ reaction on arriving at the river
  2. Alexander Crosses the River
  3. The Persian and Macedonian cavalry engage
  4. Black Cleitus saves Alexander’s Life
  5. The Macedonian Phalanx’s arrival
  6. The Greek Mercenaries’ Last Stand
  7. Alexander honours the dead

Having said that, there is certainly enough here for us to make the following observations.
.
Plutarch gives us a fascinating insight into the mind of the Macedonian officers before the battle. And while I can understand why they were worried by the strength of the river and the ‘rough and uneven’ bank on the far side, the idea that they shouldn’t fight because it was the wrong month takes more getting used to. What we appear to be seeing here is a tradition that had lost its reason for being and now got in the way of legitimate progress. When I put it that way it does not seem so alien a moment, after all.
.
The other thing that jumps out at me is how quickly the battle concludes. I am guessing this is because the Persians fought in a loose and fundamentally disordered fashion, which was never going to be strong enough to resist the phalanx’s tight formation and superior weaponry (i.e. the sarissa). I can’t wait to read Arrian’s account of the battle for more details.
.
What might we say of Alexander? At first glance he comes across as thoroughly impatient in his desire to fight the battle and reckless for crossing the river before his men are ready join him. Is it really impatience, though, if you arrive at the battlefield, and - believing your men to be ready to fight - decide to get on with it?
.
As for his recklessness, well, he did not cross the river alone and it is not as if he did so intending to fight the entire Persian army. He must have felt that he had a good chance of cutting into it, if not defeating it, before the rest of his cavalry and infantry arrived. Alexander did not have a death wish.
.
So, for patience and recklessness could we not read confidence? After all, it is not as if Alexander was not capable of being patient and careful when need be. A case-in-point would be when he offered Thebes terms in 335 B.C. rather than just go straight ahead and attack the city (See Plutarch, chapter 11).
.
The other aspect of Alexander’s character that Plutarch draws out is his ruthlessness in dealing with the Greek mercenaries. Not even I can justify that. The battle was won. Giving the mercenaries quarter would have been not only a merciful act but also a politically clever one.
.
Finally, when Alexander sent the 300 shields back to Greece he was surely referencing the Spartans’ last stand at Thermopylae. If so, he was surely engaging in a very sly piece of historical revisionism - giving the shields to Athens makes it seem (to me, anyway) like he was crediting the Athenians for what Leonidas, his men and allies did rather than the Spartans.

Categories: Plutarch | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Plutarch’s Women: Olympias and Cleopatra Eurydice (Chapts. 5 and 9)

For the other posts in this series click here

Introduction

In this series we are looking at how Plutarch in his Life of Alexander represents the women whom Alexander met and knew. The first post centred on Olympias as she appears in the opening three chapters of Plutarch’s Life. We saw that she had a deep devotion to the rites of Dionysus, surrendering to the god during religious ceremonies with a wild abandon that outstripped that of her fellow Dionysians. Clearly, Olympias was a very passionate woman.
.
Olympias of Epirus

After chapter three, Plutarch’s next mention of a woman comes in chapter five. Once again, it is Olympias who features; this time, though, it is a passing reference to the fact that she was related to Alexander’s tutor, Leonidas.
.
Plutarch doesn’t explain how Olympias and Leonidas were related, which is a shame as it is an intriguing connection. On the one hand, we have the devout and wild queen, on the other, the ‘severe disciplinarian’ who, despite being of high birth, did not mind being called Alexander’s paidagogos (attendant), even though it was a job and title more commonly associated with servants or slaves.
.
The fact that Plutarch doesn’t mention how Olympias and Leonidas are related, and the fact that the latter is a servant in the first place, suggests to me that they were more distantly related than not. Either way, I can only guess at what a typical conversation between them might have been. I doubt they had much in common.
.
We now jump forward to chapter nine. Here, Plutarch informs us that,

[t]he domestic strife that resulted from Philip’s various marriages and love-affairs caused the quarrels which took place in the women’s apartments to infect the whole kingdom, and led to bitter clashes and accusations between father and son.

In regards the first part of this statement, what I take Plutarch to be saying is that the ‘domestic strife’ in the Royal house caused Macedon’s nobility to take sides - this family for Meda, that one for Olympias. Speaking of whom, Plutarch now gives us an explicit statement of her character. Following directly on from the above statement, he tells us that Olympias widened the ‘breach’ between Alexander and Philip, because she was,

a woman of a jealous and vindictive temper, who incited Alexander to oppose his father.
(my emphasis)

Now, Olympias may indeed have been every bit as nasty as Plutarch says but because he has not hitherto given any examples of Olympias being the harridan that he says she is it is hard to take his assertion seriously. On this point, I don’t think it is enough to point to Olympias’ conduct in the family dispute. If Olympias had not stood up for Alexander they both may have met the end that Olympias eventually gave to Cleopatra and her daughter. What Plutarch calls jealously and vindictiveness I might call bravery in one engaged in a fight for survival. At any rate, Plutarch is being very lazy in making an assertion and expecting us simply to go along with it.
.
Cleopatra Eurydice

Still in chapter nine, we conclude this post on the night in 337 B.C. that the quarrel between Alexander and Philip reached its lowest, and most (in)famous, point. Plutarch here introduces us to the Cleopatra referred to above and whom Philip had just married. She was, as you may know, the niece of Attalus, one of Philip’s most senior generals.
.
Plutarch has little to say about Cleopatra (who took the name Eurydice after her wedding). In fact, the only piece of personal information that we have is that she was ‘much too young for’ the king. I’m not sure what he means by this. I am assuming he is not saying that she was not yet of marriageable age. Could he be referring to the twenty or so year age gap between husband and wife? Maybe, although I am not aware that anyone worried about that kind of thing in those days. Well, maybe they didn’t in Philip’s day but really, I should be asking ‘what about in Plutarch’s day?’ The Greece in which he lived was a different to the one that existed four or so centuries earlier.
.
What happened at the wedding party is the stuff of legend. Attalus - drunk - asked the guests to pray to the gods that they might bless Philip and Cleopatra with ‘a legitimate heir’ to the Macedonian throne. Naturally, Alexander took offence at this and threw a cup at Attalus. Angered by this show of disrespect towards one of his senior men, Philip drew his sword and made to approach Alexander only to fall over drunkenly. Alexander mocked him before quitting the palace and indeed, Macedon, taking Olympias to Epirus before heading on to Illyria. Chapter nine concludes with Philip being brought to his senses by a Corinthian friend named Demaratus and calling Alexander home. Plutarch is very specific here. Only Alexander was asked back. Not Olympias.
.
To conclude, then, in chapter nine of his Life, Plutarch makes an unsupported statement regarding Olympias’ character and notes simply Cleopatra Eurydice’s (young) age. I can forgive his lack of attention to Cleopatra as she is only important to the story as her part in the story of Alexander’s life is very limited but Plutarch’s laziness in respect of Olympias is very regrettable. His approach to her is the stuff of poor journalism and straight forward propaganda. Whatever Leonidas thought of his relative, if he was as rigorous of mind as he was of body, I think he would have agreed with me.

Categories: Plutarch's Women | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

Rival Romans: The Road to Gordium

Introduction

My usual modus operandi on this blog is to use one source per post (usually Arrian). This makes writing it quicker and easier. In this series, however, I am going to branch out a little by using two: Plutarch and Curtius. My aim is simply to look at how they talk about Alexander and his expedition.
.
The numbers in parenthesis are the sections in Book III of Curtius’ text and Plutarch’s Life where the events referred to can be found.
.
The Road to Gordium

Plutarch begins his Life with a little family history and Alexander’s conception. Unfortunately, though, we can’t start this post at the beginning of his life as the opening books of Curtius’ History have been lost. The extant text begins a little while after Alexander’s victory at the Battle of the Granicus. We join him in central Asia Minor as he ‘settles matters’ in Lycia and Pamphylia and heads off to the city of Celaenae (1). While he is on the road, Curtius pauses to tell us about the origin and course of the river Marsyas, which runs through Celaenae, even adding a note about its place in Greek myth (2-5). I think Curtius fancies himself as a bit of a Herodotus.
.
Upon entering the city, Alexander finds it deserted - unsurprisingly, the citizens have barracaded themselves in its citadel. Despite warning the Celaenaeans that if they don’t surrender, he’ll kill them all (6), Alexander eventually agrees to a sixty day truce, at the end of which he will accept the Celaenaeans’ surrender if Darius has not come to their aid. He doesn’t, so Alexander does (8). By the way, here is an early example of Curtius’ inaccuracy. According to Heckel’s notes, Arrian tells us that Alexander spent just ten days at Celaenae before moving on (the Celaenaeans surrendered to Antigonus Monophthalmus who Alexander put in charge of the region).
.
Curtius gives a brief account of a request by an Athenian embassy for the release of Greek prisoners taken after the Granicus (9) before bringing Alexander to Gordium. Ahead of his arrival, though, a very significant development is recorded - that of the massing of the Macedonian army in its full strength: all the better to beat Darius in the coming battle with (10).
.
Let’s now jump over to Plutarch. We join him in the seventeenth chapter of his Life as he describes the political and military fall out of Alexander’s victory at the Granicus: Sardis (‘the principle seat of Persian power on the Asiatic seaboard’) surrenders along with the rest of the region - except for Herodotus’ home city, Halicarnassus, and Miletus. They are duly stormed. Plutarch gives the impression that they are both taken. In his Notes, however, Timothy E. Duff says that Halicarnassus was not subdued until the following year.
.
At this point, Plutarch makes an interesting observation about Alexander, using a word one does not often associate with the Macedonian king. He says that Alexander ‘hesitated’ in deciding whether he should seek Darius out for the final showdown or build up his forces first, namely, by ‘securing the coastal region and its resources, and training his army’. This happened not once but over and over again. I feel here like we have momentarily gone beyond Alexander the icon and found the man, the general, wrestling with the same problems that I should think every military leader ever has had to deal with. Given Plutarch’s desire to shed light on Alexander’s character let’s hope we get more insights like this.
.
Moving on, Plutarch does his own Herodotus bit by explaining how a spring near the city of Xanthus in Lycia brought an ancient bronze tablet to its surface, upon which was engraved a prophecy that the Persian empire would be overthrown by, guess who, the Greeks. Needless to say, Alexander was ‘encouraged’ by this. Plutarch then goes into full Biblical mode by citing certain unnamed historians who stated that the waves of the sea ‘receded to make way for’ the king. To be fair, he does add that on other occasions the waves came in as normal.
.
We can take or leave these miraculous events as suits us. Along with Duff, I suspect the hand of Callisthenes in these stories. One thing he had nothing to do with, though, is this quotation from a now lost play by Menander.

Like Alexander, if I want to meet
A man, he’s there before me in the street,
And if am obliged to cross the sea,
The waves at once will make a path for me.

I am going to guess (please correct me if you think I’m wrong) and say that Menander would not have referred to the ‘miracle’ of the waves had it not become at the least a fairly popular story in society. If it had, it surely indicates that reports of Alexander’s journeys were penetrating fairly deeply into the Greek consciousness. I have to admit, I usually only think about the Greeks of this period in terms of their political and military response to Alexander. This, for me, is not only a valuable insight into his cultural influence and their response in that field but also a valuable corrective.
.
Plutarch concludes his account of Alexander’s journey to Gordium with a reference to his journey along a self-built road and stay in the city of Phaselis. There, the king garlands a statue of a Greek tragedian named Theodectas, in honour of ‘his association with Aristotle and with philosophy’. This is a nice pointer to Alexander’s respect for his teacher and matters of the mind. He really was not, as I once thought, just about the fighting. Having said that, the fact that Alexander garlanded the statue after having ‘drunk well’ reminds us that you can take the man out of Macedon…
.
A Quick Conclusion

Despite being the longer work, Curtius deals with Alexander’s post-Granicus travels a lot more briefly than Plutarch. I don’t suppose we should make much of this, though, as we are missing the opening two books of his work.
.
Neither Curtius or Plutarch are above bringing Greek myths into their narratives, although in my translation, Curtius’ comments come across as being a little bit snotty (I’m thinking of the reference to ‘Greek poetry with all its myths’ and ‘poetic fantasy’). I would be happy to accept this interpretation as just an impression, though. By contrast, Plutarch treats the appearance of the bronze tablet and receding sea uncritically. I’m not sure whether it is because he finds no problem with them or simply doesn’t care to comment further.
.
Finally, Plutarch definitely wins the prize for making Alexander real to us. It is early days yet for Curtius but the opening of Book Three tells us no more about the king than simply what he did between Lycia and Pamphylia and his hesitation (which occurs in Phrygia). By contrast, Plutarch opens him up just a little but very tantalisingly indeed.

Categories: Rival Romans | Tags: , | Leave a comment

Plutarch’s Women: Olympias of Epirus (Chapt. 1-3)

For the other posts in this series click here

A Quick Preliminary

Plutarch’s life of Alexander is not a history but a character study. For this series of posts I am going read Plutarch’s Life chapter by chapter to see what - if anything - he has to say about the character of the women Alexander met and knew.
.
To keep the word count of each post at a reasonable (I hope) level I will discuss each appearance by a woman in the narrative individually, as and when I come to it.
.
Finally, and just for the record, I am reading Plutarch’s life of Alexander in the revised edition of Penguin Books Age of Alexander, translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff.
.
Olympias of Epirus

As is well known, women are the fairer sex. In past times they have also been called the weaker. But while this may be true in terms of out-and-out physical strength it certainly isn’t in terms of the intellect and/or will. Olympias’ life bears witness to the truth of this.
.
Plutarch mentions Alexander’ mother on the very first page of his Life. He describes how Alexander’s father, Philip II, fell in love with Olympias during their initiation into the Mysteries of Samothrace. Olympias was an orphan so Philip had to obtain the consent of her brother, Arybbas, in order to marry her.
.
The night before the newly-weds consummated their marriage, Olympias had a dream in which her womb was struck by a thunderbolt. A ‘blinding flash’ followed from which a sheet of flame emerged and spread out ‘far and wide’ before fading away. ‘Some time’ after the wedding, Philip had his own dream. In it, he sealed Olympias’ womb using a seal engraved with the figure of a lion.
.
Most of Philip’s soothsayers thought that his dream was a warning to keep a close eye on his wife. Why? Plutarch doesn’t actually say but one doesn’t need to be Herr Freud to guess the answer. Only one said otherwise. Aristander, who would go on to have an illustrious career in Alexander’s court, said that it portended the birth of a powerful son.
.
It looks like Philip sided with Aristander for Plutarch gives no indication that he took any action against his suspect wife. Sadly, however, his love for her did eventually cool down. According to Plutarch it happened after Philip found his wife in bed with a snake stretched out beside her. Plutarch says Philip feared that Olympias would cast an ‘evil spell’ on him or was the consort of some higher being’.
.
What was going on? Well, in Plutarch’s words, Olympias was an initiate of the all female ‘Orphic religion’ which ‘engaged in the orgiastic rites of Dionysus’. At this point, you would do well to stop thinking that this religion involved lots of sex. Well, for all I know, it did, but it also involved initiates entering into a possessed Dionysiac state - something that Olympias did ‘with even wilder abandon’ than her fellow cult members and consorting with snakes. The sight of these snakes emerging from ivy wreaths or twining round the initiates’s (women’s) wands ‘terrified the male spectators’.
.
Upon seeing his wife in bed with a snake Philip sent a messenger to Delphi to ask what the sight meant. The oracle replied that the snake was a god - Zeus-Ammon. Philip was told to sacrifice to this Greek-Egyptian deity and revere above all other gods.
.
Before continuing, let’s pause for a moment to consider what we have and haven’t read. What we have read is, very likely, Argead propaganda designed to convince people of Alexander’s divine parentage. What we haven’t read is anything that tells us what Olympias herself was like. All we can surmise from the opening chapters of Plutarch’s narrative is that she was very religious and that’s it.
.
Or is it? Plutarch continues,

According to Eratosthenes, Olympias when she sent Alexander on his way to lead his great expedition to the East, confided to him and to him alone the secret of his conception and urged him to show himself worthy of his divine parentage. But other authors maintain that she repudiated this story and used to say, ‘Will Alexander never stop making Hera jealous of me?’

The reason I mention this passage is that, apart from the fact that it confirms Olympias’ religiosity, it also - in my opinion, anyway - speaks to her humility. It tells me that Olympias was a woman who respected - no doubt, feared - the gods deeply and was concerned lest her son’s successes cause them to bring their wrath down on her.
.
This post is not about rehabilitating Olympias’ character but if I can find anything that shows she was not, or rather more than the proud, ruthless schemer of Oliver Stone’s film then I am very happy to mention it. People are always more complex in real life than on the silver screen and we - I - definitely need to remember that.
.
The third chapter ends with an account of Alexander’s birth, placing it on the same day as the destruction of Artemis’ temple at Ephesus (20th July 356 B.C.). Plutarch refers to a writer named Hegesias of Magnesia who said the temple burned down because Artemis had left it to attend Alexander’s birth. If nothing else, Hegesias wins plaudits for a fine show of sycophancy!
.
Before finishing, I would like to go back to the matter of Olympias’ religion. Plutarch says that she followed the same ‘observances’ as the women who lived around Mount Haemus (in Thrace). Twenty years after his birth, Alexander would cross the Haemus on his way to subdue the Triballians and Getae - I wonder if he met any women who had danced with his mother all those years ago and what he thought of them.

Categories: Plutarch's Women | Tags: , , , , , | 1 Comment

A Letter to Arrian (22) The King’s Nature

imageMy dear Arrian,

I start this letter on the third day of Alexander’s journey down the Hydaspes River. I don’t suppose it is really a laughing matter but I could not help but smile when I read how, whenever the opportunity arose, he stopped to make war on the native tribes. It is a wonder Alexander ever made it to the end of the Hydaspes let alone to Babylon!
.
The real reason for my smile, though, is because the king’s actions reminded me of an anecdote I once read concerning my favourite author (apart from you), J. R. R. Tolkien. He went on a walk with his friend C. S. Lewis. Whereas Lewis liked to keep a good pace, however, Tolkien was equally fond of stopping at every opportunity to examine the local flora. He loved his flowers and trees as much as Alexander loved to fight. If I listen carefully, maybe I can hear CSL’s and the Macedonian soldiers sighs still echoing upon the breeze*!
.
On the fifth day of their journey, the Macedonian fleet reached the fast flowing junction of the Hydaspes and Acesines rivers. You state that the clashing water made ‘such an appalling shindy that the men at the oars stopped rowing in sheer panic’. Leaving aside your translator’s use of the very old-fashioned word ‘shindy’, this passage convinces me that we are never closer and yet further away from the ancient mind as in the encounter with natural phenomena.
.
Close because 1900 years after your time we still do not full understand Nature in all her manifestations, and what we do not understand we will always find easy to fear. Far because what they feared was simply a noisy river; the Macedonians knew it was coming and - after all - these men had been through the fiercest battles. How could a river so affect them?! The answer lies, I think, in the fact that their worldview was radically different to ours.
.
If I may, I would now like to leave the Hydaspes and Acesines behind and focus on three occurrences that took place during Alexander’s Mallian campaign, all of which which tell me something very unsatisfactory about his character (at this time?).

  1. After breaching the defences of a town, Alexander entered the gap ahead of his men, he ‘stood there alone, a conspicuous figure, holding the breach’
  2. Upon chasing Mallians into the Hydraotes river, Alexander ‘plunged’ into the river while his cavalry was still unformed and his infantry had not yet caught up with him.
  3. Impatient with the progress of a siege, Alexander ‘snatched’ a ladder, climbed it, and jumped into a Mallian fort to take the fight to the Indians by himself.

As much as I love Alexander I cannot help but regard these as irresponsible actions for that they put him in needless danger. It would be tempting to suggest that Alexander had a death wish, perhaps born of anger after having to turn back for home, but I don’t think this is correct. He wanted glory - to achieve something that would, as you say a little further on, ‘live on the lips of men’. With this mindset, I imagine that from Alexander’s point-of-view bravery and foolhardiness were one in the pursuit of glory.
.
My friend, it has been good writing to you. I look forward to continuing your narrative.

Your friend,

φιλέλλην

The above picture is from Ancient History

An index of all the letters can be found here

* Dear Reader, I would be doing you an injustice if I did not add that it has been a long time since I read this anecdote. While I am certain I have got the essentials of it correct, please forgive me if I have got any details wrong. Feel free to leave a correction in the comments box.

Categories: Letters to Arrian | Tags: , | 2 Comments

Finding Alexander: In Philippopolis

I have written a few times already on this blog about Patrick Leigh Fermor, the Englishman who walked across Europe in his teens and led a daring raid to capture a German general in Crete during World War II. After the war, Leigh Fermor returned to travelling but eventually made his home in southern Greece.
.
In September last year I bought The Broken Road, which is the third and final volume of his account of the walk (I wrote about it here). Of course I intended to start reading it then but a couple of false starts followed before I came back to it properly. And even then… I must stop being distracted and learn to sit down and concentrate!
.
Anyway, I digress. The reason why I am mentioning the book here is to share with you a reference to Alexander that I found on page 33 (hardback edition). Leigh Fermor has just arrived in the ancient city of Philippopolis which, as you may know, was (re)founded by Philip II of Macedon in 340 BC. Nowadays, it is called Plovdiv. But just as Leigh Fermor calls Istanbul Constantinople, we’ll stick with Philippopolis. Leigh Fermor continues,

I drank in a composite aroma which seemed the substantive essence of the Balkans, compounded of sweat, dust, singeing horn, blood, nargileh-smoke, dung, slivo, wine, roasting mutton, spice and coffee, laced with a drop of attar of roses and a drift of incense, and wondered whether Alexander, as a boy, had ever seen this town which his father fortified on the eastern march of his kingdom against the Thracian tribes.

Leigh Fermor’s question is impossible to answer. We simply do not know enough about Alexander’s childhood to know where he travelled. Having said that, unless the Thracians were allies of Philip’s at any given point I doubt Alexander would have gone there. And even then his only reason for going would be as a hostage, and I am fairly sure that never happened to him.
.
What about when Alexander was grown up? That is, between 340 when Philip conquered the city (before which, according to Wikipedia, was called Eumolpias) and 334 when he crossed the Hellespont and left Europe forever? Well, Arrian is pretty good as a record of Alexander’s campaigns but to the best of my knowledge he doesn’t mention Alexander visiting the city when he campaigned in Thrace in 334.
.
Of course, it is quite possible that he may have done and the information was either lost to the historians of antiquity or they just didn’t record it. Unless that is the case, I think that the answer to Patrick Leigh Fermor’s question is probably if not definitely in the negative.

Categories: Finding Alexander, Of The Moment | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

The Gordian Knot

  • Following in Alexander’s footsteps thanks to Google Maps!
  • For other posts in this series, click here
In antiquity Gordium was the capital of Phrygia. Now, it is is the village of Yassıhüyük in Turkey

In antiquity Gordium was the capital of Phrygia. Now, it is is the village of Yassıhüyük in Turkey

Gordium is in Hellespontine Phrygia; the town stands on the river Sangarius, which rises in Phrygia and runs through Bithynian Thrace into the Black Sea.
(Arrian I. 29)

Upon reaching this place [Alexander] was irresistibly impelled to visit the palace of Gordius and his son Midas high up on the acropolis, in order to inspect the famous Wagon of Gordius and the Knot with which its yoke was fixed.
(Arrian II. 3)

Gordium

Gordium

[According to tradition] the man who undid the knot which fixed its yoke was destined to be the lord of Asia.

The cord was made from the bark of the cornel tree, and so cunningly was the knot tied that no one could see where it began or where it ended.
(Arrian II. 3)

Gordium

Gordium

For Alexander, then, how to undo it was indeed a puzzle, though he was none the less unwilling to leave it as it was, as his failure might possibly lead to public disturbances. Accounts of what followed differ: some say that Alexander cut the knot with a stroke of his sword and exclaimed, ‘I have undone it!’, but Aristobulus thinks that he took out the pin - a sort of wooden peg which was driven right through the shaft of the wagon and held the knot together - and thus pulled the yoke away from the shaft… In any case, when he and his attendants left the place where the wagon stood, the general feeling was that the oracle about the untying of the knot had been fulfilled.
(Ibid)

Categories: Mapping Alexander | Tags: , , , | 4 Comments

Men on the Moon

This morning on Twitter I read the following tweet by historian Tom Holland.
imageYou can follow his link to The Sky at Night’s webpage here.
.
I have to admit, I share his scepticism. Arrhidaeus’ claim-to-fame is really just the fact that he was Alexander the Great’s (half-)brother. Apart from staying alive as long as he did Arrhidaeus didn’t really do anything to be worthy of great honour.
.
To be fair, he wasn’t best placed to, having some form of (mental?) illness as a result of being poisoned by Olympias when he was just a boy (Plutarch 77). Perhaps whoever decided to name a crater after him was not thinking of Arrhidaeus as one of the great men of old worthy of remembrance but as a disabled man who deserved recognition for what he unfairly suffered.
.
Courtesy of Wikipedia, here is a list of people who have lunar craters named after them. It includes the following Greeks,

  • Agatharchides
  • Agrippa
  • Alexander the Great
  • Ammonius Saccas
  • Anaxagoras
  • Anaximander
  • Anaximenes of Miletus
  • Apollonius of Perga
  • Aratus
  • Archimedes
  • Archytas
  • Aristarchus of Samos
  • Aristillus
  • Aristotle
  • Autolycus of Pitane
  • Cleostratus
  • Euctemon
  • Harkhebi
  • Hipparchus
  • Philip III of Macedon
  • Bartholomaeus Pitiscus
  • Protagoras
  • Theaetetus
  • Zeno of Citium

The list comes with the usual provisos - as useful as Wikipedia is, it can sometimes be unreliable; and, of course, I may have missed someone out.
.
By-the-bye, as I went through the list I was struck by the fact that there appeared to be very few Roman names mentioned. Yet, if you click on the link to The Sky at Night‘s webpage, you will notice that Arrhidaeus’ crater is located close to one named after Julius Caesar. As I said, Wikipedia can be unreliable.
.
One last thing - I hope you noticed the two comments below Holland’s tweet. They are notable for different reasons. Unless I am mistaken ‘Keftiu’ is the ancient name for Crete - beloved of this author for its association with Patrick Leigh Fermor. The second reply just made me smile, thus :-)

Categories: Of The Moment | Tags: , | 1 Comment

Blog at WordPress.com. The Adventure Journal Theme.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 121 other followers

%d bloggers like this: