Uncategorized

J.R.R. Tolkien

2nd September 2021 marks the 48th anniversary of the death of J.R.R. Tolkien, academic and, of course, author of The Lord of the Rings.

To the best of my knowledge, Tolkien never wrote about Alexander the Great. He would have known about him: after arriving at Oxford in 1911 Tolkien studied Classics for two years before switching to English Language and Literature. As a don, his focus was Anglo Saxon and medieval literature. In that capacity, he would surely have read the medieval version of The Alexander Romance.

I record the anniversary of Tolkien’s death here, though, because it seems to me that in his Middle-earth writings, The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion specifically, he gives us in story what Alexander gave us in life: heroism, nobility, disaster, and decline. I could go on as there are many crossovers. Tolkien wrote about lives lived on an epic stage. Alexander built that stage and then strode across it like a colossus.

For my whole life, I have loved reading about heroism. I don’t remember the moment as a young boy when I said to myself, ‘this is what I like’, but given that I read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings back then, it wouldn’t surprise me if they started it all off. Today, I appreciate the fragility of Man as well. I am very grateful to Tolkien for showing me both, and to those who wrote about Alexander’s life for not shying away from his (for the most part. Looking at you Arrian). I applaud Alexander himself for striving to be the best despite his weaknesses. Alas, they took him into some very dark places, but until the end - even after Hephaestion’s death - he continued on. That’s all we can ever do.

The photograph below is one of the last that was taken of Tolkien. He is standing next to one his favourite trees - a pinus nigra at the Oxford Botanical Gardens

Some years ago - in the 00s - I persuaded a friend to visit Oxford with me so that I could see that same pinus nigra. My friend was a very good sport and took what is still one of my favourite photos of myself, standing next to that same tree.

Alas! the tree is no more: it suffered damaged 2014 and had to be pulled down. I am more grateful than I can say to have been able to visit it.

Here is a close up of Tolkien’s grave. As you can see, he is buried with his wife, Edith; Beren and Luthien are two of the characters from Tolkien’s mythology, and with whom he identified himself and his wife.

In 1975, Mary Renault published The Nature of Alexander. By coincidence, HarperCollins has today published a collection of essays by Tolkien in which he discusses various aspects of his mythology. The book is titled The Nature of Middle-Earth.

Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: | Leave a comment

Views of Cleopatra

According to associate professor of English Francesca Royster, Cleopatra as pop culture icon tends to resurface during times of crisis in society.

The Week

A very interesting article about Ptolemy’s descendent, Cleopatra VII at The Week. You can read the article here. The statement makes Cleopatra sound rather like a character from folk lore who ‘appears’ in response to some anxiety or need among a certain people.

Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Arrian I.4.1-8

In This Chapter
Alexander crosses the Danube and leads an assault on the Getae.

The crossing of the Danube took place without any hitches - the 4,00 horse and 10,000 foot who had stood on the opposite bank to oppose him did not stay overnight but withdrew to their tents.

Once on the far side of the river, Alexander waited until dawn before moving his men inland. They crept through a cornfield, the infantry sweeping their sarissas from side-to-side so as ‘to flatten the corn’.

After reaching the end of the cornfield, Alexander ordered his infantry to proceed ‘in rectangular formation’. The king himself took his cavalry off to the Macedonian right wing.

He found the Getaean warriors encamped together. They were shocked by the sight of the Macedonian army and crumbled under ‘the first charge of the [Macedonian] cavalry’.

The warriors of the Getae fled back to their ‘city’ 3.5 miles away. Alexander followed them. Seeing him, the Getae promptly decided to abandon their city and flee into the interior of their homeland. Alexander took the city, gathered anything of value that the Getae had left behind and ordered Meleager and Philip to take it away. As the plunder began its journey south, Alexander destroyed the city and sacrificed to Zeus the Saviour, Herakles and the Danube itself at a site beside the river for not standing in his way during the operation. No Macedonian soldiers were lost during this mission.

Word of Alexander’s exploits travelled far and wide. Ambassadors and envoys came to greet him and declare their people’s friendship. Among them were ‘envoys from Syrmus’ who we saw retreat to the island in the middle of the Danube, and Celts from faraway. Alexander asked them what they feared most; he expected them to say him but had the cheek to call them ‘a pretentious lot’ when they replied that they most feared the sky falling on their heads!

Thoughts
At first sight, the decision of the Getae to leave the Danube river bank seems an inexplicable one but as you read on their reason why quickly becomes clear. As Arrian makes clear, the Getae regarded the Danube as a strong defence against enemy invasion. They reckoned that any attempt to cross it would be difficult and that a bridge would have to be built for the purpose. Thus, when Alexander appeared in front of them having not bothered to build a bridge at all, they were in shock.

Wikipedia describes the ‘shock and awe’ military tactic in the following terms,

Shock and awe (technically known as rapid dominance) is a tactic based on the use of overwhelming power and spectacular displays of force to paralyze the enemy’s perception of the battlefield and destroy their will to fight

Shock and Awe - Wikipedia

This is how Alexander defeated the Getae.
Overwhelming power - Arrian tells us that the Getae found ‘the close-packed phalanx… terrifying’. The sight of the cavalry no doubt also terrified them
Spectacular display of power - the fact that the Macedonian army had so easily managed to cross the Danube - in one night and without needing to build a bridge.

One of Alexander’s numerous strengths as a general was his ability to adapt his tactics according the circumstances. Not just offensively, but also in the matter of defence. So, when the Macedonians approached the Getaeans, the infantry did so in a ‘rectangular formation’, which would protect the men if the Getaeans got the better of them. Alexander’s ability to adapt always allowed him to stay one step ahead of his rivals in the field, and can be considered one of the chief reasons why he remained undefeated in war.

When Alexander followed the Getaean warriors to their ‘city’, he remained very respectful of the enemy. Thus, he ordered his cavalry to ride ahead of the infantry to protect it in case of any Getaean ambush or counter-attack. The Getaens, however, were already done for, and so their ‘city’ was good only to be sacked and razed.

The mission against the Getae seems to foreshadow the lead up to the Battle of the Hydaspes River - in fact, it almost feels like a simpler version of that conflict. The essentials of both conflicts, however, is the same: arrival at a river, working out how to safely cross it, engaging the enemy.

Similarly, the arrival of the ambassadors from various native peoples also reads as a much simpler version of the diplomacy that Alexander carried out in 324/23 BC when he met ambassadors and envoys from ‘practically all the inhabited world’ in 324 BC as described by Diodorus (Dio. XVII.113). On that occasion, they not only came to make friends with him but present gifts, make treaties and seek his judgement.

Read previous posts in this series here

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

Water and the King

On 9th April this year I started the Alexander in Asia Minor series on this blog. You can read the opening post here.

The series ended on 13th May. I hope you enjoyed reading it.

As I mentioned in my post of the 9th, I republished the series (which first appeared on my Alexander Facebook page) to keep the blog active while I walked the Camino in northern Spain.

I am delighted to let you know that I reached Santiago de Compostela on Friday (17th May). Lots happened along the Way but the one thing I would like to mention here is water.

We all know how precious good, clean drinking water is but how often are we consciously grateful for it? Prior to walking the Camino, I can’t say I was at all.

That very quickly changed. On the first day, I walked the Valcarlos route through the valleys at the foot of the Pyrenees. My backpack was too heavy and that, combined with the constant climbs and descents meant that I quickly drank both bottles of water that I was carrying with me.

In my reading before beginning the Camino I had gained the impression that water taps were available for use along the route but on the Valcarlos this turned out not to be the case. It was ironic it as it rained on and off throughout the day. There were streams and rivers, too, but were they drinkable?

In truth, I didn’t help myself. For instance, I walked on at the village of Valcarlos instead of retracing my steps to buy more water.

In the end, I became very thirsty and tired and was rescued, firstly, by a fellow pilgrim who let me have a swig of his water and then a little later by an American woman who gave me one if her water bottles.

Her kindness reminds me of the famous story about Alexander and water. Depending on which source you read, the incident either happened in the Bactrian (Curtius) or Gedrosian (Arrian) desert.

Curtius relates that as it crossed the Bactrian desert the Macedonian army fell prey to extreme thirst. During the journey, Alexander met two officers who were carrying water to their sons. One of the men offered Alexander a share of his water but when the king found out who it was for, he handed the water back, both for the sake of the man’s son and because he could not bring himself to drink alone.

According to Arrian, Alexander was given the water after it was found during the Gedrosian crossing. He rejected it out of hand in solidarity with his men. Tom Lovell captures the moment beautifully in his painting, below.

I was one person so was able to accept the water given to me. Alexander stood at the head of many who could not drink and so didn’t. For all his faults, even in the most trying circumstances, he remained faithful to one of his finest attributes as a king and general; namely, that he never made his men go through anything that he wouldn’t. If they could not drink, neither would he. As for me, I hope I never forget how grateful I was on 11th April to be given that most precious resource of all.

Categories: By the Bye, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | Leave a comment

The Odyssey Live


On Friday after work, I visited my favourite pub to jot down some notes for a story I’d like to write (nothing to do with Alexander, sadly) when a friend tweeted me a link to the Southbank Centre’s website; specifically, to the page dedicated to a play reading of The Odyssey by Homer, which was to take place on Sunday.

I have to admit, The Odyssey is not a poem I think much about. This is due mainly to the fact that Alexander, of course, was devoted to The Iliad. However, I liked the idea attending the play reading and so booked a ticket.

Along the way, I found that the reading would be using Emily Wilson’s new translation. Over the last few months it has gained a lot of attention due to the fact that she is the first woman to translate the poem. Can that really be true? Well, either way, and also significantly, her translation has been very well received.

On Sunday afternoon, I prepped for the event with a pub lunch and a glass of wine. At the centre, I saw a long queue leading towards a table at which Mary Beard happened to be sitting; I presume she was book signing. It would have been very rum if she was trying to enjoy quiet drink with friends.

The reading was really great fun. It was, of course, abridged but had been stitched together very well. The readers, all actors, were very good. One of them was Elliot Cowan, who played Ptolemy in Oliver Stone’s Alexander film. There was also Joseph Marcell who is famous for his role as the butler in The Fresh Prince of Bel Air. He has a very distinctive voice, which will always be good to listen to. Of the other readers, MyAnna Buring stole the show with her Helen of Troy/Sparta. She not only used her voice but body as well to bring out the comic in Helen’s dialogue. It was very impressive and funny.

I must mention Bellamy Young, an American actress, as well. When the actors weren’t standing up and reading, they sat down and remained pretty much glued to their scripts. Young, however, often took time to watch the speakers. Was she in awe of them? Learning from them? Just that much into the story? All of the above? Something else? I don’t know, but it added something to the performance. I’m not sure what, but it did.

As a measure of how much I enjoyed the play reading, by about two thirds of the way through I was wishing I could do a play reading of Alexander’s life using a script based on the five major sources of his life. Wouldn’t that be great? I think so, anyway!

Coming back to The Odyssey live, it felt like there were lots of young people at the event, particularly women, and although I can’t prove it, I am sure this is because of Emily Wilson. How wonderful to be able to open up an old text for a new generation and for people who might otherwise have been put off studying it.

As it happens, I bought Wilson’s translation a while ago. It has been sitting near my desk waiting its turn ever since. After yesterday, I am certainly encouraged to open it up and dive into it myself.

Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , | 1 Comment

Strategy, Leonnatus, and Selective Sourcing

This week’s Alexanderland post is a day late. That’s because yesterday, I spent a bit of time on Tumblr answering an enquiry about Alexander’s relationship with his mother, Olympias; did he love or hate her? If you would like to read the Q & A, you can do so by clicking here.

***

For the second half-week in a row I have managed to read a little more of Alexander the Great’s Art of Strategy by Partha Bose and The Marshals of Alexander’s Empire by Waldemar Heckel.

In the sub-chapter ‘Defenders Are Toast’, Bose states,

Napoleon, too, believed in the principle ‘When possible, always attack’. The function of strategy, according to generals like Napoleon and Alexander, was to make decisive contact with the enemy as soon as possible; everything would fall into place once that was done.
(Alexander the Great’s Art of Strategy, p.151)

There are two senses in which this statement can be understood - once the armies meet on the battlefield and as a general military principle. I am not quite certain which sense Bose has in mind. If he means ‘on the battlefield’, I agree with him. In his four major battles, Alexander never waited for either the satraps, Darius’, or Porus’ armies to come to him. He went to them. In doing so he took the initiative and never lost it. To give Porus his due, he at least managed to neutralise the advantage that taking the initiative gave Alexander, as may be seen by the scrum that developed between the two armies following the opening movements.

However, if Bose’s statement applies to Alexander’s general strategy, I disagree. After Issus, Darius fled east and Alexander headed south to Tyre and Egypt. After Gaugamela, both kings repeated this move. After the battles at Issus and Gaugamela, Alexander knew that Darius was in no position to fight him so he had time to pursue his other expedition aims - it was not all about fighting - namely, the securing of the Mediterranean seaboard, the taking of Egypt after Issus, and the securing of Babylon, Susa and Persepolis after Gaugamela.

***

In the sub-section titled ‘The Killing of Cleitus’, and in the context of a discussion of Black Cleitus’ murder, Bose says that Alexander,

… was now suffering from the powerful man’s conceit that he had seen engulf his father, according to which anyone who disagreed with him must be morally flawed.
(Alexander the Great’s Art of Strategy, p.163)

I haven’t read nearly enough about Philip II to confidently dispute this statement, but I have read enough to feel uncomfortable with this statement. As I sit here and write these words, the only time that I can recall Philip ‘suffering from the powerful man’s conceit’ is in the placement of a statue of himself alongside those of the Olympian gods (Diodorus XVI.95). I don’t know of any occasion when he regarded those who held different views as ‘morally flawed’.

***

Moving on to The Marshals of Alexander’s Empire. I am still in ‘Chapter ii: The ‘New Men”. Earlier today, I read about Leonnatus. I have to admit, not much really jumped out at me while I read this; with that said, two statements did make an impression on me.

Firstly, that after Alexander’s death, Leonnatus was nominated along with Perdiccas as joint-regent for Roxane’s (hoped for) son. I had forgotten this. Why so? Because when I read about the succession crisis, I always turn to Diodorus, and he does not mention Leonnatus at the Babylonian conference (see Diodorus XVIII.2). However, Curtius also mentions the conference, and he says,

Pithon began to follow Perdiccas’ strategy, designating Perdiccas and Leonnatus, both of royal birth, as guardians for Roxane’s future son.
(Curtius X.7.8)

This passage is, therefore, a reminder to me never to limit myself to just one of the sources. If I can I always need to look up what the others say.

As for Leonnatus at Babylon, Weckel says that the reason Peithon nominated Leonnatus was to keep Perdiccas’ ambitions ‘in check’ (p.104), which sounds about right.

***

Heckel quotes Helmut Berve in his summary of Leonnatus. According to the latter, he ‘was a potential unfulfilled’ (p.106). He was a late comer, too, not being promoted into the senior ranks of the Macedonian army until 332/1 when he became a somatophylake and did not receive his first ‘military command’ (p.98) until early 327 when Alexander put him in charge of the night crew as the Macedonian army worked round the clock to bridge the rock of Chorienes. Leonnatus reminds me of Ptolemy, whose rise through the ranks was also delayed - for the son of Lagus, it did not begin until late 330 when he, too, became a royal bodyguard.

However, though Ptolemy joined the senior ranks later than Leonnatus, he enjoyed his first solo command earlier - the pick up of Bessus in 329. Both Ptolemy and Leonnatus had blue blood in them, although I believe Ptolemy was minor nobility. Leonnatus was a member of the Lyncestian royal house and related to Alexander through the latter’s grandmother. Ptolemy’s and Leonnatus’ paths definitively diverged in the Wars of the Successors. Leonnatus died at the start after falling in battle against the Athenian general Antiphilos in 322 B.C. while Ptolemy secured himself in Egypt and very nearly outlived the wars, dying in 283 B.C.

***

My continued thanks go to Shiralyn Mayon who linked to the following two videos on my Alexander Facebook page. The first is a short clip from a History Channel documentary about Alexander. It focuses on his relationship with Hephaestion.

The video claims that Alexander met Hephaestion in early adulthood. To the best of my knowledge, we do not know when they met. They could have been boyhood friends. The rest of the video is is concerned, firstly, with how Philip II and Olympias feared that their son was a ‘femme (?) homosexual’ and so introduced him to ‘call girls’ to man him up some. And secondly, Peter Green wonders what do you do if you are a ‘feminine youth’ and your father is an ‘ultra masculine, heavily bearded, militarily successful, hard drinking, dominant alpha-male’. The answer, of course, is you never stop being slightly feminine, nor reject the one you love but play the same military game as your father and beat him at it.

Plaudits go to the commenter who tries to convince us that Alexander was anti-homosexual when the Macedonian king’s sexual relationship with the eunuch Bagoas is a matter of record. That’s what you get when you quote your sources selectively,

The second video is an advert for a 2012 exhibition based on Alexander. I don’t have much to say about it except that it does a great job of making the exhibition worth going to see.

Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | 3 Comments

Bad News from Greece: Amphipolis Tomb to be sold?

Bad news from Greece. The following article appeared in yesterday’s print edition of Kathimerini. The translation is my own.

Alexis Tsipras could be about to face his first crisis as leader of the Hellenic Republic after suggesting that Greece might sell the site of the Kasta Tomb in Amphipolis, Macedonia.

The revelation came when Tsipras answered questions during a dinner at the Maximos Mansion in Athens, the Prime Minister’s official seat, in honour of Thanos Anoitos, the founder of Greece’s largest technology company, FutureTech.

The Prime Minister was asked what future he saw for the tomb. “Actually, none.” he told startled guests, “That place represents a Greece that died 2,000 years ago. Who cares about that? I don’t. My eyes are set firmly forward, to the world - I must say - of brilliant organisations like FutureTech.”

When questioned further about his surprising response, Tsipras replied, “Let me tell you something. One month ago I received a letter. It was from the Historical Society of America. They are big people. Super rich businessmen run it; the President of America is its patron.

“The HSA wrote to say that it wants to buy the Kasta Tomb and either make it the centre of a theme park based on ancient Macedonia - just like Disney World - or dig the whole thing up and take it to America like they did with London Bridge so many years ago.

“And you know what? I’m happy for them to do either - I just want it out of the way. Even as I speak we are in negotiations with the HSA and I hope to have good news for the country within a few weeks.”

Gasps of astonishment went round the hall as Tsipras spoke and he was asked if he seriously intended to let sell such an important site, but the Prime Minister was unrepentant.

“To whom is the tomb important? Greece? I said a moment ago that it represents a Greece that died 2,000 years ago. Actually, that is nonsense! Macedonia was never part of Greece! Greeks hated Alexander the Great. If the people of his own lifetime hated him why should I - a proud Greek - like him now? No, if we get a good enough offer for the Tomb, it will enter foreign hands and - maybe - foreign territory. Good riddance, I say. Let us build a FutureTech phone mast on the site instead. Goodbye imperialist junk, good day to a tower that will help empower all Greek people.”

It is rumoured that several people at the dinner left in disgust at the Prime Minister’s words but this has not been confirmed.

That, however, may be the least of Tsipras’ problems. Senior officials in his Syriza party as well as opposition leaders have condemned the Prime Minister’s words and there have been calls for a vote of confidence to be held in Parliament. If this were to go against Tsipras he could be forced from office only months after winning the election.

We wait to see what happens next. Hopefully, sense will prevail.

Categories: Uncategorized | 8 Comments

From the Fields of Chaeronea…

It has been a long time since I last read a graphic novel but this one looks interesting - The Sacred Band of Thebes. From an Alexander perspective, it will be interesting to see how writers Bart Baker, Sid Jacobson and Glenn Rabney portray the role of Philip II and Alexander in the fall of the band during the Battle of Chaeronea.

“If there were only some way of contriving that an army should be made up of lovers and their loves, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonour, and emulating one another in honour; and when fighting at each other’s side, although a mere handful, they would overcome the world.” – Plato: Symposium

You can follow the graphic novel on Twitter @BandofThebes.

sacredbandofthebes

Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

T E Lawrence and Alexander

Many thanks to @AliceMartha for her permission to publish these photographs of T E Lawrence’s clothing and camera, which she took on a recent trip to the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.

Feisal asked me if I would wear Arab clothes like his own while in the camp… I agreed at once, very gladly; for army uniform was abominable when camel-riding …
(T E Lawrence, quoted on Wikipedia)

Another reason why Lawrence wore arabic dress is because it enabled him to fit in better with his hosts. As soon as I saw TEL’s clothing I thought of how Alexander adopted certain forms of Persian dress in order, not so much to ‘fit in’ with his subjects, but to fit them in to his new order. For the plan to work, though, it had to be accepted by the Macedonians. Unfortunately, that acceptance never came.

Tel_arabclothing
T E Lawrence was a good photographer. As I recall, he owned several in his lifetime - the first being given to him by his father, who was also a keen snapper. Perhaps slightly tangentially, seeing the camera below put me in mind of some of the unsung heroes of Alexander’s army, namely, his surveyors; the men who gathered the knowledge of the new lands they were exploring during the thirteen or so years of Alexander’s expedition.

Lawrence said that the happiest years of his life were spent on the archaeological dig at Carchemish in northern Syria (carried out between 1912-14) under Leonard Woolley. One can only wonder how Alexander’s surveyors looked back on their days of exploration. I hope it was with wonder.

Tel_camera
By the way - I recently discovered that D G Hogarth, Woolley’s successor at Carchemish, also wrote a biography of Alexander and Philip II. I found the book while looking for another in the library (it’s nice when that happens). If I can find it again, I will certainly give it a read.

Categories: Of The Moment, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | Leave a comment

Alexander’s first Days as King

Daily Diodorus
Vol. VIII. Book XVII Ch. 1, 2, 5 & 6 (Loeb Classical Library)
Read the other posts in this series here

Headlines
Alexander Secures The Macedonian Throne
Attalus is Assassinated
Darius Becomes Great King

The Story
In Chapter 94 of Book XVI of his Library of History, Diodorus relates how Pausanias assassinated Philip II. The first chapter of Book XVII begins with a brief introduction to Philip’s successor, Alexander III whom we call The Great. It is an introduction that the new king would have found very satisfactory. ‘In twelve years’ Diodorus says, Alexander ‘conquered no small part of Europe and practically all of Asia, and so acquired a fabulous reputation like that of the heroes and demigods of old’.

According to Diodorus, Alexander’s first action as king was to punish Philip’s murderers before overseeing the funeral of his father. Unfortunately, Diodorus does not tell us who those murderers were - in the previous book he implied that Pausanias acted alone. In the Footnotes, however, we learn the ‘known’ victims’ names,

  • Amyntas, son of Perdiccas III (Alexander’s ‘older cousin’)
  • Alexander of Lyncestis’ family (though not Alexander himself)
  • Cleopatra Eurydice (Philip’s seventh and last wife)
  • Europa (Cleopatra Eurydice’s infant daughter)

Cleopatra and Europa were murdered on the orders of Olympias. Alexander was greatly displeased by his mother’s actions. According to Plutarch ‘he showed his anger against’ her for the deaths. What this meant in practice one can only imagine.

When Alexander ascended to the throne of Macedon he was just twenty years old. Unsurprisingly, he was ‘not uniformly respected’ by his people. Despite this, he ‘established his authority far more firmly’ than was thought possible.

At this point, Diodorus makes up for his meagre account of the Battle of Chaeronea and failure to give more information about Philip II’s murderers by explaining what Alexander did to secure the throne. He,

  1. spoke to the Macedonians in a ‘tactful’ manner
  2. assured his people that he would rule the kingdom ‘on principles no less effective’ than those used by Philip II
  3. kept the army occupied with ‘constant training… and tactical exercises’. He also ‘established’ (perhaps this means ‘enforced?) discipline in the ranks as well

At the same time, Alexander sweet talked the various ambassadors who were at that time in Macedon so as to breed good will with the various Greek city-states.

If you know anything about Alexander you will undoubtedly be aware that one name has been conspicuous by its absence in this blog post thus far: Attalus. Diodorus calls him a ‘possible rival for the throne’ although the Footnotes make clear that he had ‘no known claim’. Either way, Diodorus now explains how Alexander sent an agent named Hecataeus to Asia Minor to either bring Attalus home alive or, if that were not possible, to assassinate him.

We have now reached Chapter 3 of Book XVII. It is here that Diodorus digresses to give an account of the Greek response to Philip’s death. To keep the narrative thread alive, we’ll jump forward to Chapter 5 to find out what happened to Attalus. I’ll come back to the Greek response in the next post.

In Chapter 5, therefore, Diodorus effectively accuses Attalus of treason. He says that immediately after Philip II’s death, the general ‘actually… set his hand to revolt and had agreed with the Athenians to undertake joint action against Alexander’. At some point, though, Attalus got cold feet. Instead of revolting, he forwarded to Alexander a letter written by Demosthenes (in which he, presumably, advocated rebellion against the king) along with his own ‘expressions of loyalty to remove from himself any possible suspicion’.

It was too late, though; Hecataeus was lurking in the shadows waiting for his chance to deal with the general once and for all. It soon came and Attalus met his end.

Diodorus now turns to Persia and gives a short account of how Darius came to be Great King. First, there was Ochus who ‘oppressed his subjects cruelly and harshly’. He was done away with by a eunuch named Bagoas (not the same Bagoas who Alexander liked). Bagoas put Ochus’ youngest son, Arses, on the throne.

Within two or three years, though, Arses developed that very dangerous thing when there is a power behind the throne: an independent mind. He ‘let it be known that he was offended’ at Bagoas’ behaviour in killing Ochus. You’re offended? said Ochus, Try being dead.

Ochus’ assassination brought the direct line of the Persian Royal House to an end. So, Bagoas put the grandson of Ostanes, who was Great King Artaxerxes II’s brother, on the throne instead. His name was Darius, and he was the third of that name. Upon hearing that Bagoas meant to murder him as well, Darius managed to kill the eunuch first.

In Chapter 6, Diodorus prepares us for the great war between Macedonia and Persia, Alexander and Darius, by highlighting the latter’s bravery ‘in which quality’ he says, ‘he far surpassed the other Persians’. In proof of this he tells how Darius once beat a Cadusian warrior who had ‘a wide reputation for strength and courage’ in single combat.

Comments
It is hard to fault the means by which Alexander secured the Macedonian throne. They show that he was not only a great general but capable of being a good ruler as well. In light of this, it makes his later failures in this regard more difficult to take. Perhaps he lacked the foresight to make political decisions of lasting rather than momentary value.

I don’t know about you but I am not really convinced that Alexander meant for Hecataeus to bring Attalus back to Macedon. If Attalus was a serious threat it would surely have been counter-productive to bring him back. Mind you, as we saw in the previous post, we are in a world where enemies could become trusted friends at a stroke.

Staying with Attalus - I wonder why he chose not to rebel against Alexander. He had an army to do so and was a popular general. Perhaps he feared Parmenion’s response - although could he not have been murdered? - or simply came to feel that loyalty rather than betrayal would serve him better in the long run.

For Alexander’s part, Diodorus says that he ‘had good reason to fear that [Attalus] might challenge his rule, making common cause with those of the Greeks who opposed him’ but does not really justify this statement. He doesn’t appear to mention the one occasion when Alexander and Attalus came to blows - the wedding party on the occasion of Philip II’s marriage to Cleopatra Eurydice - but perhaps he had that in mind.

Books
We Need To Talk About Bagoas - one previous owner, now dead
War and Peace - don’t worry if your edition comes without the ‘Peace’ section, there was very little of it in those days
The Way of all Flesh - A handy guide to poisons, written by A Eunuch

By-the-Bye
Attalus’ death brings the first days of Alexander’s rule to an end. Diodorus doesn’t say where he was killed but I should think it was in Asia Minor. This means that he died very close to where, some 55 years later, the Battle of Corupedium would be fought, which brought the awards of the Successors to an end. This seems fitting.

Categories: Diodorus Siculus, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: