MILITARY OPERATIONS AND CONQUESTS OF ALEXANDER, AFTER HIS
WINTER-QUARTERS IN PERSIS, DOWN TO HIS DEATH AT BABYLON.
From this time forward to the close of Alexander’s life—a period of
about seven years—his time was spent in conquering the eastern half
of the Persian empire, together with various independent tribes lying
beyond its extreme boundary. But neither Greece, nor Asia Minor, nor
any of his previous western acquisitions, was he ever destined to see
again.
Now, in regard to the history of Greece—the subject of these
volumes—the first portion of Alexander’s Asiatic campaigns (from
his crossing the Hellespont to the conquest of Persis, a period of
four years, March 334 B. C., to March 330 B. C.), though not of
direct bearing, is yet of material importance. Having in his first
year completed the subjugation of the Hellenic world, he had by
these subsequent campaigns absorbed it as a small fraction into the
vast Persian empire, renovated under his imperial sceptre. He had
accomplished a result substantially the same as would have been
brought about if the invasion of Greece by Xerxes, destined, a
century and a half before, to incorporate Greece with the Persian
monarchy, had succeeded instead of failing.[429] Towards the kings of
Macedonia alone, the subjugation of Greece would never have become
complete, so long as she could receive help from the native Persian
kings, who were perfectly adequate as a countervailing and tutelary
force, had they known how to play their game. But all hope for Greece
from without was extinguished, when Babylon, Susa, and Persepolis
became subject to the same ruler as Pella and Amphipolis—and that
ruler too, the ablest general, and most insatiate aggressor, of
his age; to whose name was attached the prestige of success almost
superhuman. Still, against even this overwhelming power, some of the
bravest of the Greeks at home tried to achieve their liberation with
the sword: we shall see presently how sadly the attempt miscarried.
[429] Compare the language addressed by Alexander to his weary
soldiers, on the banks of the Hyphasis (Arrian, v. 26), with that
which Herodotus puts into the mouth of Xerxes, when announcing
his intended expedition against Greece (Herodot. vii. 8).
But though the first four years of Alexander’s Asiatic expedition,
in which he conquered the Western half of the Persian empire, had
thus an important effect on the condition and destinies of the
Grecian cities—his last seven years, on which we are now about to
enter, employed chiefly in conquering the Eastern half, scarcely
touched these cities in any way. The stupendous marches to the rivers
Jaxartes, Indus, and Hyphasis, which carried his victorious arms
over so wide a space of Central Asia, not only added nothing to his
power over the Greeks, but even withdrew him from all dealings with
them, and placed him almost beyond their cognizance. To the historian
of Greece, therefore, these latter campaigns can hardly be regarded
as included within the range of his subject. They deserve to be
told, as examples of military skill and energy, and as illustrating
the character of the most illustrious general of antiquity—one who,
though not a Greek, had become the master of all Greeks. But I shall
not think it necessary to recount them in any detail, like the
battles of Issus and Arbêla.
About six or seven months had elapsed from the battle of Arbêla
to the time when Alexander prepared to quit his most recent
conquest—Persis proper. During all this time, Darius had remained
at Ekbatana,[430] the chief city of Media, clinging to the hope,
that Alexander, when possessed of the three southern capitals and
the best part of the Persian empire, might have reached the point of
satiation, and might leave him unmolested in the more barren East. As
soon as he learnt that Alexander was in movement towards him, he sent
forward his harem and his baggage to Hyrkania, on the south-eastern
border of the Caspian sea. Himself, with the small force around him,
followed in the same direction, carrying off the treasure in the city
(7000 talents= £1,610,000 in amount), and passed through the Caspian
Grates into the territory of Parthyênê. His only chance was to escape
to Baktria at the eastern extremity of the empire, ruining the
country in his way for the purpose of retarding pursuers. But this
chance diminished every day, from desertion among his few followers,
and angry disgust among many who remained.[431]
[430] I see no reason for doubting that the Ekbatana here meant
is the modern Hamadan. See a valuable Appendix added by Dr.
Thirlwall to the sixth volume of his History of Greece, in which
this question is argued against Mr. Williams.
Sir John Malcolm observes—“There can hardly be said to be any
roads in Persia; nor are they much required, for the use of wheel
carriages has not yet been introduced into that kingdom. Nothing
can be more rugged and difficult than the paths which have been
cut over the mountains by which it is bounded and intersected”
(ch. xxiv. vol. ii. p. 525).
In this respect, indeed, as in others, the modern state of Persia
must be inferior to the ancient; witness the description given by
Herodotus of the road between Sardis and Susa.
[431] Arrian, iii. 19, 2-9; iii. 20, 3.
Eight days after Darius had quitted Ekbatana, Alexander entered it.
How many days had been occupied in his march from Persepolis, we
cannot say: in itself a long march, it had been farther prolonged,
partly by the necessity of subduing the intervening mountaineers
called Parætakeni,[432] partly by rumors exaggerating the Persian
force at Ekbatana, and inducing him to advance with precaution and
regular array. Possessed of Ekbatana—the last capital stronghold of
the Persian kings, and their ordinary residence during the summer
months—he halted to rest his troops, and establish a new base of
operations for his future proceedings eastward. He made Ekbatana
his principal depôt; depositing in the citadel, under the care of
Harpalus as treasurer, with a garrison of 6000 or 7000 Macedonians,
the accumulated treasures of his past conquests, out of Susa and
Persepolis; amounting, we are told, to the enormous sum of 180,000
talents = £41,400,000 sterling.[433] Parmenio was invested with the
chief command of this important post, and of the military force
left in Media; of which territory Oxodates, a Persian who had been
imprisoned at Susa by Darius, was named satrap.[434]
[432] Arrian, iii. 19, 5.
[433] Arrian, iii. 19, 14; Diodor. xvii. 80. Diodorus had before
stated (xvii. 66, 71) the treasure in Susa as being 49,000
talents, and that in Persepolis as 120,000. Arrian announces the
treasure in Susa as 50,000 talents—Curtius gives the uncoined
gold and silver alone as 50,000 talents (v. 8, 11). The treasure
of both places was transported to Ekbatana.
[434] Arrian, iii. 20, 4.
At Ekbatana Alexander was joined by a fresh force of 6000 Grecian
mercenaries,[435] who had marched from Kilikia into the interior,
probably crossing the Euphrates and Tigris at the same points as
Alexander himself had crossed. Hence he was enabled the better to
dismiss his Thessalian cavalry, with other Greeks who had been
serving during his four years of Asiatic war, and who now wished to
go home.[436] He distributed among them the sum of 2000 talents in
addition to their full pay, and gave them the price of their horses,
which they sold before departure. The operations which he was now
about to commence against the eastern territories of Persia were
not against regular armies, but against flying corps and distinct
native tribes, relying for defence chiefly on the difficulties which
mountains, deserts, privation, or mere distance, would throw in the
way of an assailant. For these purposes he required an increased
number of light troops, and was obliged to impose even upon his
heavy-armed cavalry the most rapid and fatiguing marches, such
as none but his Macedonian Companions would have been contented
to execute; moreover he was called upon to act less with large
masses, and more with small and broken divisions. He now therefore
for the first time established a regular Taxis, or division of
horse-bowmen.[437]
[435] Curtius, v. 23, 12.
[436] Arrian, iii. 19, 10: compare v. 27, 7.
[437] Arrian, iii. 24, 1. ἤδη γὰρ αὐτῷ καὶ ἱππακοντισταὶ ἦσαν
τάξις.
See the remarks of Rüstow and Köchly upon the change made by
Alexander in his military organization about this period, as soon
as he found that there was no farther chance of a large collected
Persian force, able to meet him in the field (Geschichte des
Griech. Kriegswesens, p. 252 _seq._).
The change which they point out was real,—but I think they
exaggerate it in degree.
Remaining at Ekbatana no longer than was sufficient for these new
arrangements, Alexander recommenced his pursuit of Darius. He hoped
to get before Darius to the Caspian Gates, at the north-eastern
extremity of Media; by which Gates[438] was understood a
mountain-pass, or rather a road of many hours’ march, including
several difficult passes stretching eastward along the southern
side of the great range of Taurus towards Parthia. He marched with
his Companion-cavalry, the light-horse, the Agrianians, and the
bowmen—the greater part of the phalanx keeping up as well as it
could—to Rhagæ, about fifty miles north of the Caspian Gates; which
town he reached in eleven days, by exertions so severe that many men
as well as horses were disabled on the road. But in spite of all
speed, he learnt that Darius had already passed through the Caspian
Gates. After five days of halt at Rhagæ, indispensable for his army,
Alexander passed them also. A day’s march on the other side of them,
he was joined by two eminent Persians, Bagistanes and Antibêlus, who
informed him that Darius was already dethroned and in imminent danger
of losing his life.[439]
[438] The passes called the Caspian Gates appear to be those
described by Morier, Fraser, and other modern travellers, as the
series of narrow valleys and defiles called Ser-Desch, Sirdari,
or Serdara Kahn,—on the southernmost of the two roads which
lead eastward from Teheran towards Damaghan, and thence farther
eastward towards Mesched and Herat. See the note of Mützel in his
edition of Curtius, v. 35, 2, p. 489; also Morier, Second Journey
through Persia, p. 363; Fraser’s Narrative of a Journey into
Khorasan, p. 291.
The long range of mountains, called by the ancients Taurus,
extends from Lesser Media and Armenia in an easterly direction
along the southern coast of the Caspian Sea. Its northern
declivity, covered by prodigious forests with valleys and
plains of no great breadth reaching to the Caspian, comprehends
the moist and fertile territories now denominated Ghilan and
Mazanderan. The eastern portion of Mazanderan was known in
ancient times as Hyrkania, then productive and populous; while
the mountain range itself was occupied by various rude and
warlike tribes—Kadusii, Mardi, Tapyri, etc. The mountain range,
now called Elburz, includes among other lofty eminences the very
high peak of Demavend.
The road from Ekbatana to Baktra, along which both the flight of
Darius and the pursuit of Alexander lay, passed along the broken
ground skirting the southern flank of the mountain range Elburz.
Of this broken ground the Caspian Gates formed the worst and most
difficult portion.
[439] Arrian, iii. 20, 21.
The conspirators by whom this had been done, were Bessus, satrap
of Baktria—Barsaentes, satrap of Drangiana and Arachosia—and
Nabarzanes, general of the regal guards. The small force of Darius
having been thinned by daily desertion, most of those who remained
were the contingents of the still unconquered territories, Baktria,
Arachosia, and Drangiana, under the orders of their respective
satraps. The Grecian mercenaries, 1500 in number, and Artabazus,
with a band under his special command, adhered inflexibly to Darius,
but the soldiers of Eastern Asia followed their own satraps. Bessus
and his colleagues intended to make their peace with Alexander by
surrendering Darius, should Alexander pursue so vigorously as to
leave them no hope of escape; but if they could obtain time to
reach Baktria and Sogdiana, they resolved to organize an energetic
resistance, under their own joint command, for the defence of those
eastern provinces—the most warlike population of the empire.[440]
Under the desperate circumstances of the case, this plan was perhaps
the least unpromising that could be proposed. The chance of resisting
Alexander, small as it was at the best, became absolutely nothing
under the command of Darius, who had twice set the example of flight
from the field of battle, betraying both his friends and his empire,
even when surrounded by the full force of Persia. For brave and
energetic Persians, unless they were prepared at once to submit to
the invader, there was no choice but to set aside Darius; nor does
it appear that the conspirators intended at first anything worse.
At a village called Thara in Parthia, they bound him in chains of
gold—placed him in a covered chariot surrounded by the Baktrian
troops,—and thus carried him onward, retreating as fast as they
could; Bessus assuming the command. Artabazus, with the Grecian
mercenaries, too feeble to prevent the proceeding, quitted the army
in disgust, and sought refuge among the mountains of the Tapuri
bordering on Hyrkania towards the Caspian Sea.[441]
[440] Masistes, after the shocking outrage upon his wife by Queen
Amestris, was going to Baktria to organize a revolt: see Herodot.
ix. 113—about the importance of that satrapy.
[441] Arrian, iii. 21-23. Justin (xi. 15) specifies the name
of the place—Thara. Both he and Curtius mention the _golden
chain_ (Curtius, 34, 20). Probably the conspirators made use
of some chains which had formed a part of the ornaments of
the royal wardrobe. Among the presents given by Darius son
of Hystaspes to the surgeon Demokedes, there were two pairs
of golden chains—Δωρέεται δή μιν Δαρεῖος πεδέων χρυσέων δύο
ζεύγεσιν—Herodot. iii. 130: compare iii. 15. The Persian king and
grandees habitually wore golden chains round neck and arms.
On hearing this intelligence, Alexander strained every nerve to
overtake the fugitives and get possession of the person of Darius.
At the head of his Companion-cavalry, his light-horse, and a body of
infantry picked out for their strength and activity, he put himself
in instant march, with nothing but arms and two days’ provisions
for each man; leaving Kraterus to bring on the main body by easier
journeys. A forced march of two nights and one day, interrupted only
by a short midday repose (it was now the month of July), brought him
at daybreak to the Persian camp which his informant Bagistanes had
quitted. But Bessus and his troops were already beyond it, having
made considerable advance in their flight; upon which Alexander,
notwithstanding the exhaustion both of men and horses, pushed on
with increased speed through all the night to the ensuing day at
noon. He there found himself in the village where Bessus had encamped
on the preceding day. Yet learning from deserters that his enemies
had resolved to hasten their retreat by night marches, he despaired
of overtaking them, unless he could find some shorter road. He
was informed that there was another shorter, but leading through
a waterless desert. Setting out by this road late in the day with
his cavalry, he got over no less than forty-five miles during the
night, so as to come on Bessus by complete surprise on the following
morning. The Persians, marching in disorder without arms, and having
no expectation of an enemy, were so panic-struck at the sudden
appearance of their indefatigable conqueror, that they dispersed and
fled without any attempt to resist. In this critical moment, Bessus
and Barsaentes urged Darius to leave his chariot, mount his horse,
and accompany them in their flight. But he refused to comply. They
were determined however that he should not fall alive into the hands
of Alexander, whereby his name would have been employed against them,
and would have materially lessened their chance of defending the
eastern provinces; they were moreover incensed by his refusal, and
had contracted a feeling of hatred and contempt to which they were
glad to give effect. Casting their javelins at him, they left him
mortally wounded, and then pursued their flight.[442] His chariot,
not distinguished by any visible mark, nor known even to the Persian
soldiers themselves, was for some time not detected by the pursuers.
At length a Macedonian soldier named Polystratus found him expiring,
and is said to have received his last words; wherein he expressed
thanks to Alexander for the kind treatment of his captive female
relatives, and satisfaction that the Persian throne, lost to himself,
was about to pass to so generous a conqueror. It is at least certain
that he never lived to see Alexander himself.[443]
[442]
“Rarus apud Medos regum cruor; unaque cuncto
Pœna manet generi; quamvis crudelibus æque
Paretur dominis.” (Claudian. in Eutrop. ii. p. 478.)
Court conspiracies and assassinations of the prince, however were
not unknown either among the Achæmenidæ or the Arsakidæ.
[443] This account of the remarkable incidents immediately
preceding the death of Darius, is taken mainly from Arrian (iii.
21), and seems one of the most authentic chapters of his work.
He is very sparing in telling what passed in the Persian camp;
he mentions indeed only the communications made by the Persian
deserters to Alexander.
Curtius (v. 27-34) gives the narrative far more vaguely and
loosely than Arrian, but with ample details of what was going on
in the Persian camp. We should have been glad to know from whom
these details were borrowed. In the main they do not contradict
the narrative of Arrian, but rather amplify and dilute it.
Diodorus (xvii. 73), Plutarch (Alexand. 42, 43), and Justin (xi.
15) give no new information.
Alexander had made the prodigious and indefatigable marches of the
last four days, not without destruction to many men and horses, for
the express purpose of taking Darius alive. It would have been a
gratification to his vanity to exhibit the Great King as a helpless
captive, rescued from his own servants by the sword of his enemy, and
spared to occupy some subordinate command as a token of ostentatious
indulgence. Moreover, apart from such feelings, it would have been a
point of real advantage to seize the person of Darius, by means of
whose name Alexander would have been enabled to stifle all farther
resistance in the extensive and imperfectly known regions eastward of
the Caspian Gates. The satraps of these regions had now gone thither
with their hands free, to kindle as much Asiatic sentiment and levy
as large a force as they could, against the Macedonian conqueror; who
was obliged to follow them, if he wished to complete the subjugation
of the empire. We can understand therefore that Alexander was deeply
mortified in deriving no result from this ruinously fatiguing march,
and can the better explain that savage wrath which we shall hereafter
find him manifesting against the satrap Bessus.
Alexander caused the body of Darius to be buried with full pomp
and ceremonial, in the regal sepulchres of Persis. The last days
of this unfortunate prince have been described with almost tragic
pathos by historians; and there are few subjects in history better
calculated to excite such a feeling, if we regard simply the
magnitude of his fall, from the highest pitch of power and splendor
to defeat, degradation, and assassination. But an impartial review
will not allow us to forget that the main cause of such ruin was
his own blindness—his long apathy after the battle of Issus, and
abandonment of Tyre and Gaza, in the fond hope of repurchasing queens
whom he had himself exposed to captivity—lastly, what is still less
pardonable, his personal cowardice in both the two decisive battles
deliberately brought about by himself. If we follow his conduct
throughout the struggle, we shall find little of that which renders
a defeated prince either respectable or interesting. Those who had
the greatest reason to denounce and despise him were his friends
and his countrymen, whom he possessed ample means of defending, yet
threw those means away. On the other hand, no one had better grounds
for indulgence towards him than his conqueror; for whom he had kept
unused the countless treasures of the three capitals, and for whom he
had lightened in every way the difficulties of a conquest, in itself
hardly less than impracticable.[444]
[444] Arrian (iii. 22) gives an indulgent criticism on Darius,
dwelling chiefly upon his misfortunes, but calling him ἀνδρὶ τὰ
μὲν πολέμια, εἴπερ τινὶ ἄλλῳ, μαλθακῷ τε καὶ οὐ φρενήρει, etc.
The recent forced march, undertaken by Alexander for the purpose of
securing Darius as a captive, had been distressing in the extreme
to his soldiers, who required a certain period of repose and
compensation. This was granted to them at the town of Hekatompylus
in Parthia, where the whole army was again united. Besides abundant
supplies from the neighboring region, the soldiers here received
a donative derived from the large booty taken in the camp of
Darius.[445] In the enjoyment and revelry universal throughout the
army, Alexander himself partook. His indulgences in the banquet
and in wine-drinking, to which he was always addicted when leisure
allowed were now unusually multiplied and prolonged. Public
solemnities were celebrated, together with theatrical exhibitions
by artists who joined the army from Greece. But the change of most
importance in Alexander’s conduct was, that he now began to feel
and act manifestly as successor of Darius on the Persian throne;
to disdain the comparative simplicity of Macedonian habits, and to
assume the pomp, the ostentatious apparatus of luxuries, and even the
dress, of a Persian king.
[445] Curtius, vi. 5, 10; vi. 6, 15. Diodor. xvii. 74.
Hekatompylus was an important position, where several roads
joined (Polyb. x. 28). It was situated on one of the roads
running eastward from the Caspian Gates, on the southern flank
of Mount Taurus (Elburz). Its locality cannot be fixed with
certainty: Ritter (Erdkunde, part viii. 465, 467) with others
conceives it to have been near Damaghan; Forbiger (Handbuch der
Alten Geographie, vol. ii. p. 549) places it further eastward,
near Jai-Jerm. Mr. Long notes it on his map, as _site unknown_.
To many of Alexander’s soldiers, the conquest of Persia appeared
to be consummated and the war finished, by the death of Darius.
They were reluctant to exchange the repose and enjoyments of
Hekatompylus for fresh fatigues; but Alexander, assembling the
select regiments, addressed to them an emphatic appeal which revived
the ardor of all.[446] His first march was, across one of the
passes from the south to the north of Mount Elburz, into Hyrkania,
the region bordering the south-eastern corner of the Caspian Sea.
Here he found no resistance; the Hyrkanian satrap Phrataphernes,
together with Nabarzanes, Artabazus, and other eminent Persians,
surrendered themselves to him, and were favorably received. The Greek
mercenaries, 1500 in number, who had served with Darius, but had
retired when that monarch was placed under arrest by Bessus, sent
envoys requesting to be allowed to surrender on capitulation. But
Alexander—reproaching them with guilt for having taken service with
the Persians, in contravention of the vote passed by the Hellenic
synod—required them to surrender at discretion; which they expressed
their readiness to do, praying that an officer might be despatched
to conduct them to him in safety.[447] The Macedonian Andronikus
was sent for this purpose, while Alexander undertook an expedition
into the mountains of the Mardi; a name seemingly borne by several
distinct tribes in parts remote from each other, but all poor and
brave mountaineers. These Mardi occupied parts of the northern
slope of the range of Mount Elburz a few miles from the Caspian Sea
(Mazanderan and Ghilan). Alexander pursued them into all their
retreats,—overcame them, when they stood on their defence, with great
slaughter,—and reduced the remnant of the half-destroyed tribes to
sue for peace.[448]
[446] This was attested by his own letters to Antipater, which
Plutarch had seen (Plutarch, Alexand. 47). Curtius composes a
long speech for Alexander (vi. 7, 9).
[447] Arrian, iii. 23, 15.
[448] Arrian, iii. 24, 4. In reference to the mountain
tribes called Mardi, who are mentioned in several different
localities—on the parts of Mount Taurus south of the Caspian,
in Armenia, on Mount Zagros, and in Persis proper (see Strabo,
xi. p. 508-523; Herodot. i. 125), we may note, that the Nomadic
tribes, who constitute a considerable fraction of the population
of the modern Persian Empire, are at this day found under the
same name in spots widely distant: see Jaubert, Voyage en Arménie
et en Perse, p. 254.
From this march, which had carried him in a westerly direction,
he returned to Hyrkania. At the first halt he was met by the
Grecian mercenaries who came to surrender themselves, as well as by
various Grecian envoys from Sparta, Chalkedon, and Sinôpe, who had
accompanied Darius in his flight. Alexander put the Lacedæmonians
under arrest, but liberated the other envoys, considering Chalkedon
and Sinôpe to have been subjects of Darius, not members of the
Hellenic synod. As to the mercenaries, he made a distinction between
those who had enlisted in the Persian service before the recognition
of Philip as leader of Greece—and those whose enlistment had been of
later date. The former he liberated at once; the latter he required
to remain in his service under the command of Andronikus, on the
same pay as they had hitherto received.[449] Such was the untoward
conclusion of Grecian mercenary service with Persia; a system whereby
the Persian monarchs, had they known how to employ it with tolerable
ability, might well have maintained their empire even against such an
enemy as Alexander.[450]
[449] Arrian, iii. 24, 8; Curtius, vi. 5, 9. An Athenian officer
named Demokrates slew himself in despair, disdaining to surrender.
[450] See a curious passage on this subject, at the end of the
Cyropædia of Xenophon.
After fifteen days of repose and festivity at Zeudracarta, the chief
town of Hyrkania, Alexander marched eastward with his united army
through Parthia into Aria—the region adjoining the modern Herat with
its river now known as Herirood. Satibarzanes, the satrap of Aria,
came to him near the border, to a town named Susia,[451] submitted,
and was allowed to retain his satrapy; while Alexander, merely
skirting the northern border of Aria, marched in a direction nearly
east towards Baktria against the satrap Bessus, who was reported as
having proclaimed himself King of Persia. But it was discovered,
after three or four days, that Satibarzanes was in league with
Bessus; upon which Alexander suspended for the present his plans
against Baktria, and turned by forced marches to Artakoana, the
chief city of Aria.[452] His return was so unexpectedly rapid, that
the Arians were overawed, and Satibarzanes was obliged to escape. A
few days enabled him to crush the disaffected Arians and to await
the arrival of his rear division under Kraterus. He then marched
southward into the territory of the Drangi, or Drangiana (the modern
Seiestan), where he found no resistance—the satrap Barsaentes having
sought safety among some of the Indians.[453]
[451] Arrian, iii. 25, 3-8. Droysen and Dr. Thirlwall identify
Susia with the town now called Tûs or Toos, a few miles
north-west of Mesched. Professor Wilson (Ariana Antiqua, p.
177) thinks that this is too much to the west, and too far from
Herat: he conceives Susia to be Zuzan, on the desert side of the
mountains west of Herat. Mr. Prinsep (notes on the historical
results deducible from discoveries in Afghanistan, p. 14)
places it at Subzawar, south of Herat, and within the region of
fertility.
Tûs seems to lie in the line of Alexander’s march, more than
the other two places indicated; Subzawar is too far to the
south. Alexander appears to have first directed his march from
Parthia to Baktria (in the line from Asterabad to Baikh through
Margiana), merely touching the borders of Aria in his route.
[452] Artakoana, as well as the subsequent city of Alexandria in
Ariis, are both supposed by Wilson to coincide with the locality
of Herat (Wilson, Ariana Antiqua, p. 152-177).
There are two routes from Herat to Asterabad, at the south-east
corner of the Caspian; one by Schahrood which is 533 English
miles; the other by Mesched, which is 688 English miles (Wilson,
p. 149).
[453] Arrian, iii. 25; Curtius, vi. 24, 36. The territory of the
Drangi, or Zarangi, southward from Aria, coincides generally with
the modern Seistan, adjoining the lake now called Zareh, which
receives the waters of the river Hilmend.
In the chief town of Drangiana occurred the revolting tragedy, of
which Philotas was the first victim, and his father Parmenio the
second. Parmenio, now seventy years of age, and therefore little
qualified for the fatigue inseparable from the invasion of the
eastern satrapies, had been left in the important post of commanding
the great depôt and treasure at Ekbatana. His long military
experience, and confidential position even under Philip, rendered him
the second person in the Macedonian army, next to Alexander himself.
His three sons were all soldiers. The youngest of them, Hektor,
had been accidentally drowned in the Nile, while in the suite of
Alexander in Egypt; the second, Nikanor, had commanded the hypaspists
or light infantry, but had died of illness, fortunately for himself,
a short time before;[454] the eldest, Philotas, occupied the high
rank of general of the Companion-cavalry, in daily communication with
Alexander, from whom he received personal orders.
[454] Arrian, iii. 25, 6; Curtius, iv. 8, 7; vi. 6, 19.
A revelation came to Philotas, from Kebalinus, brother of a youth
named Nikomachus, that a soldier, named Dimnus of Chalastra, had
made boast to Nikomachus, his intimate friend or beloved person,
under vows of secrecy, of an intended conspiracy against Alexander,
inviting him to become an accomplice.[455] Nikomachus, at first
struck with abhorrence, at length simulated compliance, asked
who were the accomplices of Dimnus, and received intimation of a
few names; all of which he presently communicated to his brother
Kebalinus, for the purpose of being divulged. Kebalinus told the
facts to Philotas, entreating him to mention them to Alexander. But
Philotas, though every day in communication with the king, neglected
to do this for two days; upon which Kebalinus began to suspect him of
connivance, and caused the revelation to be made to Alexander through
one of the pages named Metron. Dimnus was immediately arrested, but
ran himself through with his sword, and expired without making any
declaration.[456]
[455] Curtius, vi. 7, 2. “Dimnus, modicæ apud regem auctoritates
et gratiæ, exoleti, cui Nicomacho erat nomen, amore flagrabat,
obsequio uni sibi dediti corporis vinctus.” Plutarch, Alex. 49;
Diodor. xvii. 79.
[456] Curt. vi. 7, 29; Plutarch, Alex. 49. The latter says that
Dimnus resisted the officer sent to arrest him, and was killed by
him in the combat.
Of this conspiracy, real or pretended, every thing rested on the
testimony of Nikomachus. Alexander indignantly sent for Philotas,
demanding why he had omitted for two days to communicate what he had
heard. Philotas replied, that the source from which it came was too
contemptible to deserve notice—that it would have been ridiculous
to attach importance to the simple declarations of such a youth as
Nikomachus, recounting the foolish boasts addressed to him by a
lover. Alexander received, or affected to receive, the explanation,
gave his hand to Philotas, invited him to supper, and talked to him
with his usual familiarity.[457]
[457] Curtius, vi. 7, 33. “Philotas respondit, Cebalinum quidem
scorti sermonem ad se detulisse, sed ipsum tam levi auctori nihil
credidisse—veritum, ne jurgium inter amatorem et exoletum non
sine risu aliorum detulisset.”
But it soon appeared that advantage was to be taken of this incident
for the disgrace and ruin of Philotas, whose free-spoken criticisms
on the pretended divine paternity,—-coupled with boasts, that he
and his father Parmenio had been chief agents in the conquest of
Asia,—had neither been forgotten nor forgiven. These, and other
self-praises, disparaging to the glory of Alexander, had been
divulged by a mistress to whom Philotas was attached; a beautiful
Macedonian woman of Pydna, named Antigonê, who, having first
been made a prize in visiting Samothrace by the Persian admiral
Autophradates, was afterwards taken amidst the spoils of Damascus
by the Macedonians victorious at Issus. The reports of Antigonê,
respecting some unguarded language held by Philotas to her, had
come to the knowledge of Kraterus, who brought her to Alexander,
and caused her to repeat them to him. Alexander desired her to take
secret note of the confidential expressions of Philotas, and report
them from time to time to himself.[458]
[458] Plutarch, Alexand. 48.
It thus turned out that Alexander, though continuing to Philotas
his high military rank, and talking to him constantly with seeming
confidence, had for at least eighteen months, ever since his
conquest of Egypt and perhaps even earlier, disliked and suspected
him, keeping him under perpetual watch through the suborned and
secret communications of a treacherous mistress.[459] Some of the
generals around Alexander—especially Kraterus, the first suborner
of Antigonê—fomented these suspicions, from jealousy of the great
ascendency of Parmenio and his family. Moreover, Philotas himself
was ostentatious and overbearing in his demeanor, so as to have made
many enemies among the soldiers.[460] But whatever may have been
his defects on this head—defects which he shared with the other
Macedonian generals, all gorged with plunder and presents[461]—his
fidelity as well as his military merits stand attested by the fact
that Alexander had continued to employ him in the highest and most
confidential command throughout all the long subsequent interval;
and that Parmenio was now general at Ekbatana, the most important
military appointment which the king had to confer. Even granting
the deposition of Nikomachus to be trustworthy, there was nothing
to implicate Philotas, whose name had not been included among the
accomplices said to have been enumerated by Dimnus. There was not a
tittle of evidence against him, except the fact that the deposition
had been made known to him, and that he had seen Alexander twice
without communicating it. Upon this single fact, however, Kraterus,
and the other enemies of Philotas, worked so effectually as to
inflame the suspicions and the pre-existing ill-will of Alexander
into fierce rancor. He resolved on the disgrace, torture, and death
of Philotas,—and on the death of Parmenio besides.[462]
[459] Plutarch, Alexand. 48, 49. Πρὸς δὲ αὐτὸν Ἀλέξανδρον ~ἐκ
πάνυ πολλῶν χρόνων~ ἐτύγχανε διαβεβλημένος (Philotas).... Ὁ μὲν
οὖν Φιλώτας ἐπιβουλευόμενος οὕτως ἠγνόει, καὶ συνῆν τῇ Ἀντιγόνῃ
πολλὰ καὶ πρὸς ὀργὴν καὶ μεγαλαυχίαν ῥήματα καὶ λόγους κατὰ τοῦ
βασιλέως ἀνεπιτηδείους προϊέμενος.
Both Ptolemy and Aristobulus recognized these previous
communications made to Alexander against Philotas in Egypt, but
stated that he did not believe them (Arrian, iii. 26, 1).
[460] Plutarch, Alexand. 40-48; Curtius, vi. 11, 3.
[461] Phylarchus, Fragment. 41. ed. Didot, ap. Athenæum, xii. p.
539; Plutarch, Alexand. 39, 40. Even Eumenes enriched himself
much; though being only secretary, and a Greek, he could not
take the same liberties as the great native Macedonian generals
(Plutarch, Eumenes, 2).
[462] Plutarch, Alexand. 49; Curtius, vi. 8.
To accomplish this, however, against the two highest officers in
the Macedonian service, one of them enjoying a separate and distant
command—required management. Alexander was obliged to carry the
feelings of the soldiers along with him, and to obtain a condemnation
from the army; according to an ancient Macedonian custom, in regard
to capital crimes, though (as it seems) not uniformly practised.
Alexander not only kept the resolution secret, but is even said to
have invited Philotas to supper with the other officers, conversing
with him just as usual.[463] In the middle of the night, Philotas
was arrested while asleep in his bed,—put in chains,—and clothed
in an ignoble garb. A military assembly was convened at daybreak,
before which Alexander appeared with the chief officers in his
confidence. Addressing the soldiers in a vehement tone of mingled
sorrow and anger, he proclaimed to them that his life had just
been providentially rescued from a dangerous conspiracy organized
by two men hitherto trusted as his best friends—Philotas and
Parmenio—through the intended agency of a soldier named Dimnus,
who had slain himself when arrested. The dead body of Dimnus was
then exhibited to the meeting, while Nikomachus and Kebalinus were
brought forward to tell their story. A letter from Parmenio to his
sons Philotas and Nikanor, found among the papers seized on the
arrest, was read to the meeting. Its terms were altogether vague and
unmeaning; but Alexander chose to construe them as it suited his
purpose.[464]
[463] Curtius, vi. 8, 16. “Invitatus est etiam Philotas
ad ultimas sibi epulas et rex non cœnare modo, sed etiam
familiariter colloqui, cum eo quam damnaverat, sustinuit.”
[464] Arrian, iii. 26, 2. Λέγει δὲ Πτολεμαῖος εἰσαχθῆναι εἰς
Μακεδόνας Φιλώταν, καὶ κατηγορῆσαι αὐτοῦ ἰσχυρῶς Ἀλέξανδρον, etc.
Curtius, vi. 9, 13; Diodorus, xvii, 80.
We may easily conceive the impression produced upon these assembled
soldiers by such denunciations from Alexander himself—revelations of
his own personal danger, and reproaches against treacherous friends.
Amyntas, and even Kœnus, the brother-in-law of Philotas, were yet
more unmeasured in their invectives against the accused.[465]
They, as well as the other officers with whom the arrest had been
concerted, set the example of violent manifestation against him,
and ardent sympathy with the king’s danger. Philotas was heard in
his defence, which though strenuously denying the charge, is said
to have been feeble. It was indeed sure to be so, coming from one
seized thus suddenly, and overwhelmed with disadvantages; while a
degree of courage, absolutely heroic, would have been required
for any one else to rise and presume to criticise the proofs. A
soldier named Bolon harangued his comrades on the insupportable
insolence of Philotas, who always (he said) treated the soldiers with
contempt, turning them out of their quarters to make room for his
countless retinue of slaves. Though this allegation (probably enough
well-founded) was no way connected with the charge of treason against
the king, it harmonized fully with the temper of the assembly, and
wound them up to the last pitch of fury. The royal pages began the
cry, echoed by all around, that they would with their own hands tear
the parricide in pieces.[466]
[465] Curtius, vi. 9, 30.
[466] Curtius, vi. 11, 8. “Tum vero universa concio accensa
est, et a corporis custodibus initium factum, clamantibus,
discerpendum esse parricidam manibus eorum. Id quidam Philotas,
qui graviora supplicia metueret, haud sane iniquo animo audiebat.”
It would have been fortunate for Philotas if their wrath had been
sufficiently ungovernable to instigate the execution of such a
sentence on the spot. But this did not suit the purpose of his
enemies. Aware that he had been condemned upon the regal word, with
nothing better than the faintest negative ground of suspicion,
they determined to extort from him a confession such as would
justify their own purposes, not only against him, but against
his father Parmenio—whom there was as yet nothing to implicate.
Accordingly, during the ensuing night, Philotas was put to the
torture. Hephæstion, Kraterus, and Kœnus—the last of the three
being brother-in-law of Philotas[467]—themselves superintended the
ministers of physical suffering. Alexander himself too was at hand,
but concealed by a curtain. It is said that Philotas manifested
little firmness under torture, and that Alexander, an unseen witness,
indulged in sneers against the cowardice of one who had fought by
his side in so many battles.[468] All who stood by were enemies,
and likely to describe the conduct of Philotas in such manner as to
justify their own hatred. The tortures inflicted,[469] cruel in the
extreme and long-continued, wrung from him at last a confession,
implicating his father along with himself. He was put to death;
and at the same time, all those whose names had been indicated by
Nikomachus, were slain also—apparently by being stoned, without
preliminary torture. Philotas had serving in the army a numerous
kindred, all of whom were struck with consternation at the news
of his being tortured. It was the Macedonian law that all kinsmen
of a man guilty of treason were doomed to death along with him.
Accordingly, some of these men slew themselves, others fled from
the camp, seeking refuge wherever they could. Such was the terror
and tumult in the camp, that Alexander was obliged to proclaim a
suspension of this sanguinary law for the occasion.[470]
[467] Curtius, vi. 9, 30; vi. 11, 11.
[468] Plutarch, Alexand. 49.
[469] Curtius, vi. 11, 15, “Per ultimos deinde cruciatus, utpote
et damnatus et inimicis in gratiam regis torquentibus, laceratur.
Ac primo quidam, quanquam hinc ignis, illinc verbera, jam non ad
quæstionem, sed ad pœnam, ingerebantur, non vocem modo, sed etiam
gemitus habuit in potestate; sed postquam intumescens corpus
ulceribus flagellorum ictus nudis ossibus incussos ferre non
poterat”, etc.
[470] Curtius, vi. 11, 20.
It now remained to kill Parmenio, who could not be safely left
alive after the atrocities used towards Philotas; and to kill him,
moreover, before he could have time to hear of them, since he was
not only the oldest, most respected, and most influential of all
Macedonian officers, but also in separate command of the great depôt
at Ekbatana. Alexander summoned to his presence one of the Companions
named Polydamas; a particular friend, comrade, or _aide de camp_, of
Parmenio. Every friend of Philotas felt at this moment that his life
hung by a thread; so that Polydamas entered the king’s presence in
extreme terror, the rather as he was ordered to bring with him his
two younger brothers. Alexander addressed him, denouncing Parmenio as
a traitor, and intimating that Polydamas would be required to carry a
swift and confidential message to Ekbatana, ordering his execution.
Polydamas was selected as the attached friend of Parmenio, and
therefore as best calculated to deceive him. Two letters were placed
in his hands, addressed to Parmenio; one from Alexander himself,
conveying ostensibly military communications and orders; the other,
signed with the seal-ring of the deceased Philotas, and purporting to
be addressed by the son to the father. Together with these, Polydamas
received the real and important despatch, addressed by Alexander
to Kleander and Menidas, the officers immediately subordinate to
Parmenio at Ekbatana; proclaiming Parmenio guilty of high treason,
and directing them to kill him at once. Large rewards were offered to
Polydamas if he performed this commission with success, while his two
brothers were retained as hostages against scruples or compunction.
He promised even more than was demanded—too happy to purchase this
reprieve from what had seemed impending death. Furnished with native
guides and with swift dromedaries, he struck by the straightest
road across the desert of Khorasan, and arrived at Ekbatana on the
eleventh day—a distance usually requiring more than thirty days to
traverse.[471] Entering the camp by night, without the knowledge
of Parmenio, he delivered his despatch to Kleander, with whom he
concerted measures. On the morrow he was admitted to Parmenio, while
walking in his garden with Kleander and the other officers marked
out by Alexander’s order as his executioners. Polydamas ran to
embrace his old friend, and was heartily welcomed by the unsuspecting
veteran, to whom he presented the letters professedly coming from
Alexander and Philotas. While Parmenio was absorbed in the perusal,
he was suddenly assailed by a mortal stab from the hand and sword
of Kleander. Other wounds were heaped upon him as he fell, by the
remaining officers,—the last even after life had departed.[472]
[471] Strabo, xv. p. 724; Diodor. xvii. 80; Curtius, vii. 2,
11-18.
[472] Curtius, vii. 2, 27. The proceedings respecting Philotas
and Parmenio are recounted in the greatest detail by Curtius; but
his details are in general harmony with the brief heads given by
Arrian from Ptolemy and Aristobulus—except as to one material
point. Plutarch (Alex. 49), Diodorus (xvii. 79, 80), and Justin
(xii. 5), also state the fact in the same manner.
Ptolemy and Aristobulus, according to the narrative of Arrian,
appear to have considered that Philotas was really implicated in
a conspiracy against Alexander’s life. But when we analyze what
they are reported to have said, their opinion will not be found
entitled to much weight. In the first place, they state (Arrian,
iii. 26, 1) that the _conspiracy of Philotas had been before made
known to Alexander while he was in Egypt_, but that he did not
then believe it. Now eighteen months had elapsed since the stay
in Egypt; and the idea of a conspiracy going on for eighteen
months is preposterous. That Philotas was in a mood in which he
might be supposed likely to conspire, is one proposition; that
he actually did conspire is another; Arrian and his authorities
run the two together as if they were one. As to the evidence
purporting to prove that Philotas did conspire, Arrian tells us
that “the informers came forward before the assembled soldiers
and convicted Philotas with the rest by other _indicia_ not
obscure, _but chiefly by this_—that Philotas confessed to
have heard of a conspiracy going on, without mentioning it
to Alexander, though twice a day in his presence”—καὶ τοὺς
μηνυτὰς τοῦ ἔργου παρελθόντας ἐξελέγξαι Φιλώταν τε καὶ τοὺς
ἀμφ᾽ αὐτὸν ~ἄλλοις τε ἐλέγχοις οὐκ ἀφανέσι, καὶ μάλιστα δὴ~
ὅτι αὐτὸς Φιλώτας πεπύσθαι μὲν—συνέφη, etc. What these other
_indicia_ were, we are not told; but we may see how slender was
their value, when we learn that the non-revelation admitted by
Philotas was stronger than any of them. The non-revelation,
when we recollect that Nikomachus was the _only_ informant
(Arrian loosely talks of μηνυτὰς, as if there were more), proves
absolutely nothing as to the complicity of Philotas, though
it may prove something as to his indiscretion. Even on this
minor charge, Curtius puts into his mouth a very sufficient
exculpation. But if Alexander had taken a different view, and
dismissed or even confined him for it, there would have been
little room for remark.
The point upon which Arrian is at variance with Curtius, is,
that he states “Philotas with the rest to have been shot to
death by the Macedonians”—thus, seemingly contradicting, at
least by implication, the fact of his having been tortured.
Now Plutarch, Diodorus, and Justin, all concur with Curtius in
affirming that he was tortured. On such a matter, I prefer their
united authority to that of Ptolemy and Aristobulus. These two
last-mentioned authors were probably quite content to believe
in the complicity of Philotas upon the authority of Alexander
himself; without troubling themselves to criticise the proofs.
They tell us that Alexander vehemently denounced (κατηγορῆσαι
ἰσχυρῶς) Philotas before the assembled soldiers. After this, any
mere shadow or pretence of proof would be sufficient. Moreover,
let us recollect that Ptolemy obtained his promotion, to be one
of the confidential _body guards_ (σωματοφύλακες), out of this
very conspiracy, real or fictitious; he was promoted to the post
of the condemned Demetrius (Arrian, iii. 27. 11).
How little Ptolemy and Aristobulus cared to do justice to any one
whom Alexander hated, may be seen by what they say afterwards
about the philosopher Kallisthenes. Both of them affirmed
that the pages, condemned for conspiracy against Alexander,
deposed against Kallisthenes as having instigated them to the
deed (Arrian, iv. 14, 1). Now we know, from the authority of
Alexander himself, whose letters Plutarch quotes (Alexand. 55),
that the pages denied the privity of any one else—maintaining
the project to have been altogether their own. To their great
honor, the pages persisted in this deposition, even under extreme
tortures—though they knew that a deposition against Kallisthenes
was desired from them.
My belief is, that Diodorus, Plutarch, Curtius, and Justin,
are correct in stating that Philotas was tortured. Ptolemy and
Aristobulus have thought themselves warranted in omitting this
fact, which they probably had little satisfaction in reflecting
upon. If Philotas was not tortured, there could have been no
evidence at all against Parmenio—for the only evidence against
the latter was the extorted confession of Philotas.
The soldiers in Ekbatana, on hearing of this bloody deed, burst
into furious mutiny, surrounded the garden wall, and threatened to
break in for the purpose of avenging their general, unless Polydamas
and the other murderers should be delivered to them. But Kleander,
admitting a few of the ringleaders, exhibited to them Alexander’s
written orders, to which the soldiers yielded, not without murmurs
of reluctance and indignation. Most of them dispersed, yet a few
remained, entreating permission to bury Parmenio’s body. Even this
was long refused by Kleander, from dread of the king’s displeasure.
At last, however, thinking it prudent to comply in part, he cut off
the head, delivering to them the trunk alone for burial. The head was
sent to Alexander.[473]
[473] Curtius, vii. 2, 32, 33.
Among the many tragical deeds recounted throughout the course of
this history, there is none more revolting than the fate of these
two generals. Alexander, violent in all his impulses, displayed
on this occasion a personal rancor worthy of his ferocious mother
Olympias, exasperated rather than softened by the magnitude of past
services.[474] When we see the greatest officers of the Macedonian
army directing in person, and under the eye of Alexander, the
laceration and burning of the naked body of their colleague Philotas,
and assassinating with their own hands the veteran Parmenio,—we feel
how much we have passed out of the region of Greek civic feeling into
that of the more savage Illyrian warrior, partially orientalized. It
is not surprising to read, that Antipater, viceroy of Macedonia, who
had shared with Parmenio the favor and confidence of Philip as well
as of Alexander, should tremble when informed of such proceedings,
and cast about for a refuge against the like possibilities to
himself. Many other officers were alike alarmed and disgusted with
the transactions.[475] Hence Alexander, opening and examining the
letters sent home from his army to Macedonia, detected such strong
expressions of indignation, that he thought it prudent to transfer
many pronounced malcontents into a division by themselves, parting
them off from the remaining army.[476] Instead of appointing any
substitute for Philotas in the command of the Companion-cavalry,
he cast that body into two divisions, nominating Hephæstion to the
command of one and Kleitus to that of the other.[477]
[474] Contrast the conduct of Alexander towards Philotas and
Parmenio, with that of Cyrus the younger towards the conspirator
Orontes, as described in Xenophon, Anabas. i. 6.
[475] Plutarch, Alexand. 49.
[476] Curtius, vii. 2, 36; Diodor. xvii. 80; Justin, xii. 5.
[477] Arrian, iii. 27, 8.
The autumn and winter were spent by Alexander in reducing Drangiana,
Gedrosia, Arachosia, and the Paropamisadæ; the modern Seiestan,
Afghanistan, and the Western part of Kabul, lying between Ghazna on
the north, Kandahar or Kelat on the south, and Furrah in the west.
He experienced no combined resistance, but his troops suffered
severely from cold and privation.[478] Near the southern termination
of one of the passes of the Hindoo-Koosh (apparently north-east
of the town of Kabul) he founded a new city, called Alexandria ad
Caucasum, where he planted 7000 old soldiers, Macedonians, and others
as colonists.[479] Towards the close of Winter he crossed over the
mighty range of the Hindoo-Koosh; a march of fifteen days through
regions of snow, and fraught with hardship to his army. On reaching
the north side of these mountains, he found himself in Baktria.
[478] Arrian, iii. 28, 2. About the geography, compare Wilson’s
Ariana Antiqua, p. 173-178. “By perambulator, the distance from
Herat to Kandahar is 371 miles; from Kandahar to Kabul, 309:
total 688 miles (English).” The principal city in Drangiana
(Seiestan) mentioned by the subsequent Greek geographers is,
Prophthasia; existing seemingly before Alexander’s arrival. See
the fragments of his _mensores_, ap. Didot, Fragm. Hist. Alex.
Magn. p. 135; Pliny, H. N. vi. 21. The quantity of remains
of ancient cities, still to be found in this territory, is
remarkable. Wilson observes this (p. 154).
[479] Arrian, iii. 28, 6; Curtius, vii. 3, 23; Diodor. xvii. 83.
Alexandria in Ariis is probably Herat; Alexandria in Arachosia
is probably Kandahar. But neither the one nor the other is
mentioned as having been founded by _Alexander_, either in
Arrian or Curtius, or Diodorus. The name Alexandria does not
prove that they were founded by him; for several of the Diadochi
called their own foundations by his name (Strabo, xiii. p.
593). Considering how very short a time Alexander spent in
these regions, the wonder is, that he could have found time to
establish those foundations which are expressly ascribed to him
by Arrian and his other historians. The authority of Pliny and
Steph. Byzant. is hardly sufficient to warrant us in ascribing
to him more. The exact site of Alexandria ad Caucasum cannot be
determined, for want of sufficient topographical data. There
seems much probability that it was at the place called Beghram,
twenty-five miles north-east of Kabul—in the way between Kabul
on the south side of the Hindoo-Koosh, and Anderhab on the north
side. The prodigious number of coins and relics, Greek as well as
Mohammedan, discovered by Mr. Masson at Beghram, supply better
evidence for identifying the site with that of Alexandria ad
Caucasum, than can be pleaded on behalf of any other locality.
See Masson’s Narrative of Journeys in Afghanistan, etc., vol.
iii. ch. 7. p 148 _seqq._
In crossing the Hindoo-Koosh from south to north Alexander
probably marched by the pass of Bamian, which seems the only one
among the four passes open to an army in the winter. See Wood’s
Journey to the Oxus, p 195.
The Baktrian leader Bessus, who had assumed the title of king,
could muster no more than a small force, with which he laid waste
the country, and then retired across the river Oxus into Sogdiana,
destroying all the boats. Alexander overran Baktria with scarce
any resistance; the chief places, Baktra (Balkh) and Aornos
surrendering to him on the first demonstration of attack. Having
named Artabazus satrap of Baktria, and placed Archelaus with a
garrison in Aornos,[480] he marched northward towards the river
Oxus, the boundary between Baktria and Sogdiana. It was a march of
extreme hardship; reaching for two or three days across a sandy
desert destitute of water, and under very hot weather, The Oxus, six
furlongs in breadth, deep, and rapid, was the most formidable river
that the Macedonians had yet seen.[481] Alexander transported his
army across it on the tent-skins inflated and stuffed with straw. It
seems surprising that Bessus did not avail himself of this favorable
opportunity for resisting a passage in itself so difficult; he had
however been abandoned by his Baktrian cavalry at the moment when
he quitted their territory. Some of his companions, Spitamenes and
others, terrified at the news that Alexander had crossed the Oxus,
were anxious to make their own peace by betraying their leader.[482]
They sent a proposition to this effect; upon which Ptolemy with a
light division was sent forward by Alexander, and was enabled, by
extreme celerity of movements, to surprise and seize Bessus in a
village. Alexander ordered that he should be held in chains, naked
and with a collar round his neck, at the side of the road along which
the army were marching. On reaching the spot, Alexander stopped his
chariot, and sternly demanded from Bessus, on what pretence he had
first arrested, and afterwards slain, his king and benefactor Darius.
Bessus replied, that he had not done this single-handed; others were
concerned in it along with him, to procure for themselves lenient
treatment from Alexander. The king said no more, but ordered Bessus
to be scourged, and then sent back as prisoner to Baktra[483]—where
we shall again hear of him.
[480] Arrian, iii. 29, 3; Curtius, vii. 5, 1.
[481] Arrian, iii. 29, 4; Strabo, xi. p. 509. Evidently Ptolemy
and Aristobulus were much more awe-struck with the Oxus, than
with either the Tigris or the Euphrates. Arrian (iv. 6, 13) takes
his standard of comparison, in regard to rivers, from the river
Peneius in Thessaly.
[482] Curtius, vii. 5, 19. The exactness of Quintus Curtius,
in describing the general features of Baktria and Sogdiana, is
attested in the strongest language by modern travellers. See
Burnes’s Travels into Bokhara, vol. ii. ch. 8. p. 211, 2nd edit.;
also Morier, Second Journey in Persia, p. 282.
But in the geographical details of the country, we are at fault.
We have not sufficient data to identify more than one or two
of the localities mentioned, in the narrative of Alexander’s
proceedings, either by Curtius or Arrian. That Marakanda is the
modern Samarkand—the river Polytimetus, the modern Kohik—and
Baktra or Zariaspa the modern Balkh—appears certain; but the
attempts made by commentators to assign the site of other places
are not such as to carry conviction.
In fact, these countries, at the present moment, are known
only superficially as to their general scenery; for purposes
of measurement and geography, they are almost unknown; as may
be seen by any one who reads the Introduction to Erskine’s
translation of the Memoirs of Sultan Baber.
[483] Arrian. iii. 30, 5-10. These details are peculiarly
authentic, as coming from Ptolemy, the person chiefly concerned.
Aristobulus agreed in the description of the guise in which
Bessus was exhibited, but stated that he was brought up in this
way by Spitamenes and Dataphernes. Curtius (vii. 24, 36) follows
this version. Diodorus also gives an account very like it,
mentioning nothing about Ptolemy (xvii. 83).
In his onward march, Alexander approached a small town, inhabited
by the Branchidæ; descendants of those Branchidæ near Miletus on
the coast of Ionia, who had administered the great temple and oracle
of Apollo on Cape Poseidion, and who had yielded up the treasures
of that temple to the Persian king Xerxes, 150 years before. This
surrender had brought upon them so much odium, that when the dominion
of Xerxes was overthrown on the coast, they retired with him into the
interior of Asia. He assigned to them lands in the distant region of
Sogdiana, where their descendants had ever since remained; bilingual
and partially dis-hellenized, yet still attached to their traditions
and origin. Delighted to find themselves once more in commerce with
Greeks, they poured forth to meet and welcome the army, tendering
all that they possessed. Alexander, when he heard who they were
and what was their parentage, desired the Milesians in his army to
determine how they should be treated. But as these Milesians were
neither decided nor unanimous, Alexander announced that he would
determine for himself. Having first occupied the city in person
with a select detachment, he posted his army all round the walls,
and then gave orders not only to plunder it, but to massacre the
entire population—men, women, and children. They were slain without
arms or attempt at resistance, resorting to nothing but prayers and
suppliant manifestations. Alexander next commanded the walls to be
levelled, and the sacred groves cut down, so that no habitable site
might remain, nor any thing except solitude and sterility.[484]
Such was the revenge taken upon these unhappy victims for the
deeds of their ancestors in the fourth or fifth generation before.
Alexander doubtless considered himself to be executing the wrath
of Apollo against an accursed race who had robbed the temple of
the god.[485] The Macedonian expedition had been proclaimed to
be undertaken originally for the purpose of revenging upon the
contemporary Persians the ancient wrongs done to Greece by Xerxes;
so that Alexander would follow out the same sentiment in revenging
upon the contemporary Branchidæ the acts of their ancestors—yet more
guilty than Xerxes, in his belief. The massacre of this unfortunate
population was in fact an example of human sacrifice on the largest
scale, offered to the gods by the religious impulses of Alexander,
and worthy to be compared to that of the Carthaginian general
Hannibal, when he sacrificed 3000 Grecian prisoners on the field of
Himera, where his grandfather Hamilkar had been slain seventy years
before.[486]
[484] Curtius, vii. 23; Plutarch de Serâ Numinis Vindictâ, p.
557 B; Strabo xi. p. 518: compare also xiv. p. 634, and xvii. p.
814. This last-mentioned passage of Strabo helps us to understand
the peculiarly strong pious fervor with which Alexander regarded
the temple and oracle of Branchidæ. At the time when Alexander
went up to the oracle of Ammon in Egypt, for the purpose of
affiliating himself to Zeus Ammon, there came to him envoys from
Miletus, announcing that the oracle at Branchidæ, which had been
silent ever since the time of Xerxes, had just begun to give
prophecy, and had certified the fact that Alexander was the son
of Zeus, besides many other encouraging predictions.
The massacre of the Branchidæ by Alexander was described by
Diodorus, but was contained in that part of the seventeenth book
which is lost; there is a great lacuna in the MSS. after cap.
83. The fact is distinctly indicated in the table of contents
prefixed to Book xvii.
Arrian makes no mention of these descendants of the Branchidæ in
Sogdiana, nor of the destruction of the town and its inhabitants
by Alexander. Perhaps neither Ptolemy nor Aristobulus, said
anything about it. Their silence is not at all difficult to
explain, nor does it, in my judgment, impeach the credibility
of the narrative. They do not feel under obligation to give
publicity to the worst acts of their hero.
[485] The Delphian oracle pronounced, in explaining the
subjugation and ruin of Krœsus king of Lydia, that he had thereby
expiated the sin of his ancestor in the fifth generation before
(Herodot. i. 91: compare vi. 86). Immediately before the breaking
out of the Peloponnesian war, the Lacedæmonians called upon the
Athenians to expel the descendants of those who had taken part
in the Kylonian sacrilege, 180 years before; they addressed this
injunction with a view to procure the banishment of Perikles, yet
still τοῖς θεοῖς πρῶτον τιμωροῦντες (Thucyd. i. 125-127).
The idea that the sins of fathers were visited upon their
descendants, even to the third and fourth generation, had great
currency in the ancient world.
[486] Diodor. xiii. 62. See Vol. X. Ch. lxxxi. p 413 of this
History.
Alexander then continued his onward progress, first to Marakanda
(Samarcand), the chief town of Sogdiana—next, to the river Jaxartes,
which he and his companions, in their imperfect geographical
notions, believed to be the Tanais, the boundary between Asia, and
Europe.[487] In his march, he left garrisons in various towns,[488]
but experienced no resistance, though detached bodies of the natives
hovered on his flanks. Some of these bodies, having cut off a few of
his foragers, took refuge afterwards on a steep and rugged mountain,
conceived to be unassailable. Thither however Alexander pursued them,
at the head of his lightest and most active troops. Though at first
repulsed, he succeeded in scaling and capturing the place. Of its
defenders, thirty thousand in number, three fourths were either put
to the sword, or perished in jumping down the precipices. Several
of his soldiers were wounded with arrows, and he himself received a
shot from one of them through his leg.[489] But here, as elsewhere,
we perceive that nearly all the Orientals whom Alexander subdued were
men little suited for close combat hand to hand,—fighting only with
missiles.
[487] Pliny, H. N. vi. 16. In the Meteorologica of Aristotle (i.
13, 15-18) we read that the rivers Bahtrus, Choaspes, and Araxes
flowed from the lofty mountain Parnasus (Paropamisus?) in Asia;
and that the Araxes bifurcated, one branch forming the Tanais,
which fell into the Palus Mæotis. For this fact he refers to
the γῆς περιόδοι current in his time. It seems plain that by
the Araxes Aristotle must mean the Jaxartes. We see, therefore,
that Alexander and his companions, in identifying the Jaxartes
with the Tanais, only followed the geographical descriptions and
ideas current in their time. Humboldt remarks several cases in
which the Greek geographers were fond of supposing bifurcation of
rivers (Asie Centrale, vol. ii. p. 291).
[488] Arrian, iv. 1, 5.
[489] Arrian, iii. 30, 17.
Here, on the river Jaxartes, Alexander projected the foundation of a
new city to bear his name; intended partly as a protection against
incursions from the Scythian Nomads on the other side of the river,
partly as a facility for himself to cross over and subdue them, which
he intended to do as soon as he could find opportunity.[490] He was
however called off for the time by the news of a wide-spread revolt
among the newly-conquered inhabitants both of Sogdiana and Baktria.
He suppressed the revolt with his habitual vigor and celerity,
distributing his troops so as to capture five townships in two days,
and Kyropolis or Kyra, the largest of the neighboring Sogdian towns
(founded by the Persian Cyrus), immediately afterwards. He put all
the defenders and inhabitants to the sword. Returning then to the
Jaxartes, he completed in twenty days the fortifications of his new
town of Alexandria (perhaps at or near Khodjend), with suitable
sacrifices and festivities to the gods. He planted in it some
Macedonian veterans and Grecian mercenaries, together with volunteer
settlers from the natives around.[491] An army of Scythian Nomads,
showing themselves on the other side of the river, piqued his vanity
to cross over and attack them. Carrying over a division of his army
on inflated skins, he defeated them with little difficulty, pursuing
them briskly into the desert. But the weather was intensely hot, and
the army suffered much from thirst; while the little water to be
found was so bad, that it brought upon Alexander a diarrhœa which
endangered his life.[492] This chase, of a few miles on the right
bank of the Jaxartes (seemingly in the present Khanat of Kokand),
marked the utmost limit of Alexander’s progress northward.
[490] Arrian, iv. 1, 3
[491] Arrian, iv. 3, 17; Curtius, vii. 6, 25.
[492] Arrian. iv. 5, 6; Curtius, vii. 9.
Shortly afterwards, a Macedonian detachment, unskilfully conducted,
was destroyed in Sogdiana by Spitamenes and the Scythians: a rare
misfortune, which Alexander avenged by overrunning the region[493]
near the river Polytimêtus (the Kohik), and putting to the sword
the inhabitants of all the towns which he took. He then recrossed
the Oxus, to rest during the extreme season of winter at Zariaspa
in Baktria, from whence his communications with the West and
with Macedonia were more easy, and where he received various
reinforcements of Greek troops.[494] Bessus, who had been here
retained as a prisoner, was now brought forward amidst a public
assembly; wherein Alexander, having first reproached him for his
treason to Darius, caused his nose and ears to be cut off—and sent
him in this condition to Ekbatana, to be finally slain by the Medes
and Persians.[495] Mutilation was a practice altogether Oriental
and non-Hellenic: even Arrian, admiring and indulgent as he is
towards his hero, censures this savage order, as one among many
proofs how much Alexander had taken on Oriental dispositions. We may
remark that his extreme wrath on this occasion was founded partly on
disappointment that Bessus had frustrated his toilsome efforts for
taking Darius alive—partly on the fact that the satrap had committed
treason against the king’s person, which it was the policy as well
as the feeling of Alexander to surround with a circle of Deity.[496]
For as to traitors against Persia, as a cause and country, Alexander
had never discouraged, and had sometimes signally recompensed them.
Mithrines, the governor of Sardis, who opened to him the gates of
that almost impregnable fortress immediately after the battle of
the Granikus—the traitor who perhaps, next to Darius himself, had
done most harm to the Persian cause—obtained from him high favor and
promotion.[497]
[493] Arrian, iv. 6, 11; Curtius, vii. 9, 22. The river, called
by the Macedonians Polytimetus (Strabo, xi. p. 518), now bears
the name of Kohik or Zurufshan. It rises in the mountains east of
Samarkand, and flowing westward on the north of that city and of
Bokhara. It does not reach so far as the Oxus; during the full
time of the year, it falls into a lake called Karakul; during the
dry months, it is lost in the sands, as Arrian states (Burnes’s
Travels, vol. ii. ch. xi. p. 299. ed. 2nd.).
[494] Arrian, iv. 7, 1; Curtius, vii. 10, 12.
[495] Arrian, iv. 7, 5.
[496] After describing the scene at Rome, when the Emperor
Galba was deposed and assassinated in the forum, Tacitus
observes—“Plures quam centum et viginti libellos præmia
exposcentium, ob aliquam notabilem illà die operam, Vitellius
posteà invenit, omnesque conquiri et interfici jussit: _non
honore Galbæ, sed tradito principibus more, munimentum ad
præsens, in posterum ultionem_” (Tacitus, Hist. i. 44).
[497] Arrian, i. 17, 3; iii. 16, 8. Curtius, iii. 12, 6; v. 1, 44.
The rude but spirited tribes of Baktria and Sogdiana were as yet but
imperfectly subdued, seconded as their resistance was by wide spaces
of sandy desert, by the neighborhood of the Scythian Nomads, and
by the presence of Spitamenes as a leader. Alexander, distributing
his army into five divisions, traversed the country and put down
all resistance, while he also took measures for establishing
several military posts, or new towns in convenient places.[498]
After some time the whole army was reunited at the chief place of
Sogdiana—Marakanda—where some halt and repose was given.[499]
[498] Curtius (vii. 10, 15) mentions six cities (oppida) founded
by Alexander in these regions; apparently somewhere north of the
Oxus, but the sites cannot be made out. Justin (xii. 5) alludes
to twelve foundations in Baktria and Sogdiana.
[499] Arrian, iv. 16, 4; Curtius, vii. 10, 1. “Sogdiana regio
magnâ ex parte deserta est; octingenta ferè stadia in latitudinem
vastæ solitudines tenent.”
Respecting the same country (Sogdiana and Baktria), Mr. Erskine
observes (Introduction to the Memoirs of Sultan Baber, p.
xliii.):—“The face of the country is extremely broken, and
divided by lofty hills; even the plains are diversified by great
varieties of soil,—some extensive districts along the Kohik
river, nearly the whole of Ferghana (along the Jaxartes), the
greater part of Kwarizm along the branches of the Oxus, with
the large portions of Balkh, Badakshan, Kesh, and Hissar, being
of uncommon fertility; while the greater part of the rest is a
barren waste, and in some places a sandy desert. Indeed the whole
country north of the Oxus has a decided tendency to degenerate
into desert, and many of its most fruitful spaces are nearly
surrounded by barren sands; so that the population of all these
districts still, as in the time of Baber, consists of the fixed
inhabitants of the cities and fertile lands, and of the unsettled
and roving wanderers of the desert, who dwell in tents of felt,
and live on the produce of their flocks.”
During this halt at Marakanda (Samarcand) the memorable banquet
occurred wherein Alexander murdered Kleitus. It has been already
related that Kleitus had saved his life at the battle of the
Granikus, by cutting off the sword arm of the Persian Spithridates
when already uplifted to strike him from behind. Since the death of
Philotas, the important function of general of the Companion-cavalry
had been divided between Hephæstion and Kleitus. Moreover, the family
of Kleitus had been attached to Philip, by ties so ancient, that his
sister, Lanikê, had been selected as the nurse of Alexander himself
when a child. Two of her sons had already perished in the Asiatic
battles. If, therefore, there were any man who stood high in the
service, or was privileged to speak his mind freely to Alexander, it
was Kleitus.
In this banquet at Marakanda, when wine, according to the Macedonian
habit, had been abundantly drunk, and when Alexander, Kleitus, and
most of the other guests were already nearly intoxicated, enthusiasts
or flatterers heaped immoderate eulogies upon the king’s past
achievements.[500] They exalted him above all the most venerated
legendary heroes; they proclaimed that his superhuman deeds proved
his divine paternity, and that he had earned an apotheosis like
Herakles, which nothing but envy could withhold from him during his
life. Alexander himself joined in these boasts, and even took credit
for the later victories of the reign of his father, whose abilities
and glory he depreciated. To the old Macedonian officers, such an
insult cast on the memory of Philip was deeply offensive. But among
them all, none had been more indignant than Kleitus, with the growing
insolence of Alexander—his assumed filiation from Zeus Ammon, which
put aside Philip as unworthy—his preference for Persian attendants,
who granted or refused admittance to his person—his extending to
Macedonian soldiers the contemptuous treatment habitually endured
by Asiatics, and even allowing them to be scourged by Persian
hands and Persian rods.[501] The pride of a Macedonian general in
the stupendous successes of the last five years, was effaced by
his mortification when he saw that they tended only to merge his
countrymen amidst a crowd of servile Asiatics, and to inflame the
prince with high-flown aspirations transmitted from Xerxes or Ochus.
But whatever might be the internal thoughts of Macedonian officers,
they held their peace before Alexander, whose formidable character
and exorbitant self-estimation would tolerate no criticism.
[500] Arrian, iv. 8, 7.
[501] Plutarch, Alexand. 51. Nothing can be more touching than
the words put by Plutarch into the mouth of Kleitus—Ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ
νῦν χαίρομεν, Ἀλέξανδρε, τοιαῦτα τέλη τῶν πόνων κομιζόμενοι,
μακαρίζομεν δὲ τοὺς ἤδη τεθνηκότας πρὶν ἐπιδεῖν Μηδικαῖς ῥάβδοις
ξαινομένους Μακεδόνας, καὶ Περσῶν δεομένους ἵνα τῷ βασιλεῖ
προσέλθωμεν.
At the banquet of Marakanda, this long suppressed repugnance found
an issue, accidental indeed and unpremeditated, but for that very
reason all the more violent and unmeasured. The wine, which made
Alexander more boastful and his flatterers fulsome to excess,
overpowered altogether the reserve of Kleitus. He rebuked the impiety
of those who degraded the ancient heroes in order to make a pedestal
for Alexander. He protested against the injustice of disparaging
the exalted and legitimate fame of Philip; whose achievements he
loudly extolled, pronouncing them to be equal, and even superior
to those of his son. For the exploits of Alexander, splendid as
they were, had been accomplished, not by himself alone, but by that
unconquerable Macedonian force which he had found ready made to his
hands;[502] whereas those of Philip had been his own—since he had
found Macedonia prostrate and disorganized, and had had to create for
himself both soldiers, and a military system. The great instruments
of Alexander’s victories had been Philip’s old soldiers, whom he now
despised—and among them Parmenio, whom he had put to death.
[502] Arrian, iv. 8, 8. οὔκουν μόνον γε (Ἀλέξανδρον) καταπρᾶξαι
αὐτὰ, ἀλλὰ τὸ γὰρ πολὺ μέρος Μακεδόνων εἶναι τὰ ἔργα, etc.
Remarks such as these, poured forth in the coarse language of a
half-intoxicated Macedonian veteran, provoked loud contradiction from
many, and gave poignant offence to Alexander; who now for the first
time heard the open outburst of disapprobation, before concealed
and known to him only by surmise. But wrath and contradiction, both
from him and from others, only made Kleitus more reckless in the
outpouring of his own feelings, now discharged with delight after
having been so long pent up. He passed from the old Macedonian
soldiers to himself individually. Stretching forth his right hand
towards Alexander, he exclaimed—“Recollect that you owe your life
to me; this hand preserved you at the Granikus. Listen to the
outspoken language of truth, or else abstain from asking freemen to
supper, and confine yourself to the society of barbaric slaves.” All
these reproaches stung Alexander to the quick. But nothing was so
intolerable to him as the respectful sympathy for Parmenio, which
brought to his memory one of the blackest deeds of his life—and the
reminiscence of his preservation at the Granikus, which lowered
him into the position of a debtor towards the very censor under
whose reproof he was now smarting. At length wrath and intoxication
together drove him into uncontrollable fury. He started from his
couch, and felt for his dagger to spring at Kleitus; but the dagger
had been put out of reach by one of his attendants. In a loud voice
and with the Macedonian word of command, he summoned the body guards
and ordered the trumpeter to sound an alarm. But no one obeyed so
grave an order, given in his condition of drunkenness. His principal
officers, Ptolemy, Perdikkas and others, clung round him, held his
arms and body, and besought him to abstain from violence; others at
the same time tried to silence Kleitus and hurry him out of the hall,
which had now become a scene of tumult and consternation. But Kleitus
was not in a humor to confess himself in the wrong by retiring; while
Alexander, furious at the opposition now, for the first time, offered
to his will, exclaimed, that his officers held him in chains as
Bessus had held Darius, and left him nothing but the name of a king.
Though anxious to restrain his movements, they doubtless did not dare
to employ much physical force; so that his great personal strength,
and continued efforts, presently set him free. He then snatched a
pike from one of the soldiers, rushed upon Kleitus, and thrust him
through on the spot, exclaiming, “Go now to Philip and Parmenio”.[503]
[503] Arrian, iv. 8; Curtius, viii. 1; Plutarch, Alexand. 50, 51;
Justin, xii. 6.
The description given by Diodorus was contained in the lost
part of his seventeenth book; the table of contents, prefixed
thereunto, notes the incident briefly.
All the authors describe in the same general way the
commencement, progress, and result, of this impressive scene in
the banqueting hall of Marakanda; but they differ materially
in the details. In giving what seems to me the most probable
account, I have borrowed partly from all, yet following mostly
the account given by Arrian from Ptolemy, himself present. For
Arrian’s narrative down to sect. 14 of c. 8 (before the words
Ἀριστόβουλος δὲ) may fairly be presumed to be derived from
Ptolemy.
Both Plutarch and Curtius describe the scene in a manner more
dishonorable to Alexander than Arrian; and at the same time
(in my judgment) less probable. Plutarch says that the brawl
took its rise from a poet named Pierion singing a song which
turned into derision those Macedonians who had been recently
defeated in Sogdiana; that Alexander and those around him greatly
applauded this satire; that Kleitus protested against such an
insult to soldiers, who, though unfortunate, had behaved with
unimpeachable bravery; that Alexander then turned upon Kleitus
saying, that he was seeking an excuse for himself by extenuating
cowardice in others; that Kleitus retorted by reminding him of
the preservation of his life at the Granikus. Alexander is thus
made to provoke the quarrel by aspersing the courage of Kleitus,
which I think noway probable; nor would he be likely to encourage
a song of that tenor.
Curtius agrees with Arrian in ascribing the origin of the
mischief to the extravagant boasts of Alexander and his
flatterers, and to their depreciation of Philip. He then tells
us that Kleitus, on hearing their unseemly talk, turned round
and whispered to his neighbor some lines out of the Andromachê
of Euripides (which lines Plutarch also ascribes to him, though
at a later moment); that Alexander, not hearing the words,
asked what had been said, but no one would tell him; at length
Kleitus himself repeated the sentiment in language of his own.
This would suit a literary Greek; but an old Macedonian officer
half intoxicated, when animated by a vehement sentiment, would
hardly express it by whispering a Greek poetical quotation to his
neighbor. He would either hold his tongue, or speak what he felt
broadly and directly. Nevertheless Curtius has stated two points
very material to the case, which do not appear in Arrian. 1. It
was Alexander himself, not his flatterers, who vilipended Philip;
at least the flatterers only did so after him, and following his
example. The topic would be dangerous for them to originate, and
might easily be carried too far. 2. Among all the topics touched
upon by Kleitus, none was so intolerable as the open expression
of sympathy, friendship, and regret for Parmenio. This stung
Alexander in the sorest point of his conscience; he must have
known that there were many present who sympathized with it; and
it was probably the main cause which worked him up to phrenzy.
Moreover we may be pretty sure that Kleitus, while expatiating
upon Philip, would not forget Philip’s general in chief and his
own old friend, Parmenio.
I cannot believe the statement of Aristobulus, that Kleitus was
forced by his friends out of the hall, and afterward returned
to it of his own accord, to defy Alexander once more. It seems
plain from Arrian that Ptolemy said no such thing. The murderous
impulse of Alexander was gratified on the spot, and without
delay, as soon as he got clear from the gentle restraint of his
surrounding friends.
No sooner was the deed perpetrated, than the feelings of Alexander
underwent an entire revolution. The spectacle of Kleitus, a bleeding
corpse on the floor,—the marks of stupefaction and horror evident
in all the spectators, and the reaction from a furious impulse
instantaneously satiated—plunged him at once into the opposite
extreme of remorse and self-condemnation. Hastening out of the
hall, and retiring to bed, he passed three days in an agony of
distress, without food or drink. He burst into tears and multiplied
exclamations on his own mad act; he dwelt upon the name of Kleitus
and Lanikê with the debt of gratitude which he owed to each, and
denounced himself as unworthy to live after having requited such
services with a foul murder.[504] His friends at length prevailed
on him to take food, and return to activity. All joined in trying
to restore his self-satisfaction. The Macedonian army passed a
public vote that Kleitus had been justly slain, and that his body
should remain unburied; which afforded opportunity to Alexander to
reverse the vote, and to direct that it should be buried by his own
order.[505] The prophets comforted him by the assurance that his
murderous impulse had arisen, not from his own natural mind, but
from a maddening perversion intentionally brought on by the god
Dionysus, to avenge the omission of a sacrifice due to him on the
day of the banquet, but withheld.[506] Lastly, the Greek sophist
or philosopher, Anaxarchus of Abdera, revived Alexander’s spirits
by well-timed flattery, treating his sensibility as nothing better
than generous weakness; reminding him that in his exalted position
of conqueror and Great King, he was entitled to prescribe what was
right and just, instead of submitting himself to laws dictated from
without.[507] Kallisthenes the philosopher was also summoned, along
with Anaxarchus, to the king’s presence, for the same purpose of
offering consolatory reflections. But he is said to have adopted a
tone of discourse altogether different, and to have given offence
rather than satisfaction to Alexander.
[504] Arrian, iv. 9, 4; Curtius, viii. 2, 2.
[505] Curtius, viii. 2, 12. “Quoque minus cædis puderet, jure
interfectum Clitum Macedones decernunt; sepulturâ quoque
prohibituri, ni rex humari jussisset.”
In explanation of this monstrous verdict of the soldiers, we must
recollect that the safety of the whole army (now at Samarcand,
almost beyond the boundary of inhabited regions, ἔξω τῆς
οἰκουμένης) was felt to depend on the life of Alexander. Compare
Justin, xii. 6, 15.
[506] Arrian, iv. 9, 6. Alexander imagined himself to have
incurred the displeasure of Dionysus by having sacked and
destroyed the city of Thebes, the supposed birth-place and
favorite locality of that god (Plutarch, Alex. 13).
The maddening delusion brought upon men by the wrath of Dionysus
is awfully depicted in the Bacchæ of Euripides. Under the
influence of that delusion, Agavê, mother of Pentheus, tears her
son in pieces and bears away his head in triumph, not knowing
what is in her hands. Compare also Eurip. Hippolyt. 440-1412.
[507] Arrian, iv. 9, 10; Plutarch. Alex. 52.
To such remedial influences, and probably still more to the absolute
necessity for action, Alexander’s remorse at length yielded. Like the
other emotions of his fiery soul, it was violent and overpowering
while it lasted. But it cannot be shown to have left any durable
trace on his character, nor any effects justifying the unbounded
admiration of Arrian; who has little but blame to bestow on the
murdered Kleitus, while he expresses the strongest sympathy for the
mental suffering of the murderer.
After ten days,[508] Alexander again put his army in motion, to
complete the subjugation of Sogdiana. He found no enemy capable of
meeting him in pitched battle; yet Spitamenes, with the Sogdians and
some Scythian allies, raised much hostility of detail, which it cost
another year to put down. Alexander underwent the greatest fatigue
and hardships in his marches through the mountainous parts of this
wide, rugged, and poorly supplied country, with rocky positions,
strong by nature, which his enemies sought to defend. One of these
fastnesses, held by a native chief named Sisymithres, seemed almost
unattackable, and was indeed taken rather by intimidation than by
actual force.[509] The Scythians, after a partial success over a
small Macedonian detachment, were at length so thoroughly beaten
and overawed, that they slew Spitamenes and sent his head to the
conqueror as a propitiatory offering.[510]
[508] Curtius, viii. 2, 13—“decem diebus ad confirmandum pudorem
apud Maracanda consumptis”, etc.
[509] Curtius, viii. 2, 20-30.
[510] Arrian, iv. 17, 11. Curtius (viii. 3) gives a different
narrative of the death of Spitamenes.
After a short rest at Naütaka during the extreme winter, Alexander
resumed operations, by attacking a strong post called the Sogdian
Rock, whither a large number of fugitives had assembled, with
an ample supply of provision. It was a precipice supposed to be
inexpugnable; and would seemingly have proved so, in spite of the
energy and abilities of Alexander, had not the occupants altogether
neglected their guard, and yielded at the mere sight of a handful of
Macedonians who had scrambled up the precipice. Among the captives,
taken by Alexander on this rock, were the wife and family of the
Baktrian chief Oxyartes; one of whose daughters, named Roxana, so
captivated Alexander by her beauty that he resolved to make her
his wife.[511] He then passed out of Sogdiana into the neighboring
territory Parætakênê, where there was another inexpugnable site
called the Rock of Choriênes, which he was also fortunate enough to
reduce.[512]
[511] Arrian, iv. 18, 19.
[512] Arrian, iv. 21. Our geographical knowledge does not enable
us to verify these localities, or to follow Alexander in his
marches of detail.
From hence Alexander went to Baktra. Sending Kraterus with a
division to put the last hand to the reduction of Parætakênê, he
himself remained at Baktra, preparing for his expedition across
the Hindoo-Koosh to the conquest of India. As a security for the
tranquillity of Baktria and Sogdiana during his absence, he levied
30,000 young soldiers from those countries to accompany him.[513]
[513] Curtius, viii. 5, 1; Arrian, iv. 22, 2.
It was at Baktra that Alexander celebrated his marriage with
the captive Roxana. Amidst the repose and festivities connected
with that event, the Oriental temper which he was now acquiring
displayed itself more forcibly than ever. He could no longer be
satisfied without obtaining prostration, or worship, from Greeks
and Macedonians as well as from Persians; a public and unanimous
recognition of his divine origin and superhuman dignity. Some Greeks
and Macedonians had already rendered to him this homage. Nevertheless
to the greater number, in spite of their extreme deference and
admiration for him, it was repugnant and degrading. Even the
imperious Alexander shrank from issuing public and formal orders on
such a subject; but a manœuvre was concerted, with his privity, by
the Persians and certain compliant Greek sophists or philosophers,
for the purpose of carrying the point by surprise.
During a banquet at Baktra, the philosopher Anaxarchus, addressing
the assembly in a prepared harangue, extolled Alexander’s exploits as
greatly surpassing those of Dionysus and Herakles. He proclaimed that
Alexander had already done more than enough to establish a title to
divine honors from the Macedonians; who, (he said) would assuredly
worship Alexander after his death, and ought in justice to worship
him during his life, forthwith.[514]
[514] Arrian, iv. 10, 7-9. Curtius (viii. 5, 9-13) represents
the speech proposing divine honors to have been delivered, not
by Anaxarchus, but by another lettered Greek, a Sicilian named
Kleon. The tenor of the speech is substantially the same, as
given by both authors.
This harangue was applauded, and similar sentiments were enforced,
by others favorable to the plan; who proceeded to set the example
of immediate compliance, and were themselves the first to tender
worship. Most of the Macedonian officers sat unmoved, disgusted at
the speech. But though disgusted they said nothing. To reply to a
speech doubtless well-turned and flowing, required some powers of
oratory; moreover, it was well known that whoever dared to reply
stood marked out for the antipathy of Alexander. The fate of
Kleitus, who had arraigned the same sentiments in the banqueting
hall of Marakanda, was fresh in the recollection of every one. The
repugnance which many felt, but none ventured to express, at length
found an organ in Kallisthenes of Olynthus.
This philosopher, whose melancholy fate imparts a peculiar interest
to his name, was nephew of Aristotle, and had enjoyed through his
uncle an early acquaintance with Alexander during the boyhood of
the latter. At the recommendation of Aristotle, Kallisthenes had
accompanied Alexander in his Asiatic expedition. He was a man of
much literary and rhetorical talent, which he turned towards the
composition of history—and to the history of recent times.[515]
Alexander, full of ardor for conquest, was at the same time anxious
that his achievements should be commemorated by poets and men
of letters;[516] there were seasons also when he enjoyed their
conversation. On both these grounds, he invited several of them
to accompany the army. The more prudent among them declined, but
Kallisthenes obeyed, partly in hopes of procuring the reconstitution
of his native city Olynthus, as Aristotle had obtained the like
favor for Stageira.[517] Kallisthenes had composed a narrative (not
preserved) of Alexander’s exploits, which certainly reached to
the battle of Arbela, and may perhaps have gone down farther. The
few fragments of this narrative remaining seem to betoken extreme
admiration, not merely of the bravery and ability, but also of the
transcendent and unbroken good fortune, of Alexander—marking him
out as the chosen favorite of the gods. This feeling was perfectly
natural under the grandeur of the events. Insofar as we can judge
from one or two specimens, Kallisthenes was full of complimentary
tribute to the hero of his history. But the character of Alexander
himself had undergone a material change during the six years between
his first landing in Asia and his campaign in Sogdiana. All his worst
qualities had been developed by unparalleled success and by Asiatic
example. He required larger doses of flattery, and had now come to
thirst, not merely for the reputation of divine paternity, but for
the actual manifestations of worship as towards a god.
[515] Kallisthenes had composed three historical works—1.
Hellenica—from the year 387-357 B. C. 2. History of the
sacred war—from 357-346 B. C. 3. Τὰ κατ᾽ Ἀλέξανδρον.
His style is said by Cicero to have been rhetorical; but the
Alexandrine critics included him in their Canon of Historians.
See Didot, Fragm. Hist. Alex. Magn. p. 6-9.
[516] See the observation ascribed to him expressing envy towards
Achilles for having been immortalized by Homer (Arrian, i. 12, 2).
[517] It is said that Ephorus, Xenokrates, and Menedemus, all
declined the invitation of Alexander (Plutarch, De Stoicorum
Repugnantiis, p. 1043). Respecting Menedemus, the fact can hardly
be so: he must have been then too young to be invited.
To the literary Greeks who accompanied Alexander, this change in
his temper must have been especially palpable and full of serious
consequence; since it was chiefly manifested, not at periods of
active military duty, but at his hours of leisure, when he recreated
himself by their conversation and discourses. Several of these
Greeks—Anaxarchus, Kleon, the poet Agis of Argos—accommodated
themselves to the change, and wound up their flatteries to the
pitch required. Kallisthenes could not do so. He was a man of
sedate character, of simple, severe, and almost unsocial habits—to
whose sobriety the long Macedonian potations were distasteful.
Aristotle said of him, that he was a great and powerful speaker,
but that he had no judgment; according to other reports, he was a
vain and arrogant man, who boasted that Alexander’s reputation and
immortality were dependent on the composition and tone of _his_
history.[518] Of personal vanity,—a common quality among literary
Greeks,—Kallisthenes probably had his full share. But there is no
ground for believing that _his_ character had altered. Whatever his
vanity may have been, it had given no offence to Alexander during the
earlier years, nor would it have given offence now, had not Alexander
himself become a different man.
[518] Arrian, iv. 10, 2; Plutarch, Alex. 53, 54. It is
remarkable that Timmæus denounced Kallisthenes as having in
his historical work flattered Alexander to excess (Polybius,
xii. 12). Kallisthenes seems to have recognized various special
interpositions of the gods, to aid Alexander’s successes—see
Fragments 25 and 36 of the Fragmenta Callisthenis in the edition
of Didot.
In reading the censure which Arrian passes on the arrogant
pretensions of Kallisthenes, we ought at the same time to
read the pretensions raised by Arrian on his own behalf as an
historian (i. 12, 7-9)—καὶ ἐπὶ τῷδε οὐκ ἀπαξιῶ ἐμαυτὸν τῶν
πρώτων ἐν τῇ φωνῇ τῇ Ἑλλάδι, εἴπερ καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος τῶν ἐν τοῖς
ὅπλοις, etc. I doubt much whether Kallisthenes pitched his
self-estimation so high. In this chapter, Arrian recounts, that
Alexander envied Achilles for having been fortunate enough to
obtain such a poet as Homer for panegyrist; and Arrian laments
that Alexander had not, as yet, found an historian equal to his
deserts. This, in point of fact, is a reassertion of the same
truth which Kallisthenes stands condemned for asserting—that the
fame even of the greatest warrior depends upon his commemorators.
The boastfulness of a poet is at least pardonable, when he
exclaims, like Theokritus, Idyll. xvi. 73—
Ἔσσεται οὗτος ἀνὴρ, ὃς ἐμεῦ κεχρήσετ᾽ ἀοιδοῦ,
Ῥέξας ἢ Ἀχιλεὺς ὅσσον μέγας, ἢ βαρὺς Αἴας
Ἐν πεδίῳ Σιμόεντος, ὅθι Φρυγὸς ἠρίον ῎Ιλου.
On occasion of the demonstration led up by Anaxarchus at the banquet,
Kallisthenes had been invited by Hephæstion to join in the worship
intended to be proposed towards Alexander; and Hephæstion afterwards
alleged, that he had promised to comply.[519] But his actual conduct
affords reasonable ground for believing that he made no such promise;
for he not only thought it his duty to refuse the act of worship,
but also to state publicly his reasons for disapproving it; the more
so, as he perceived that most of the Macedonians present felt like
himself. He contended that the distinction between gods and men
was one which could not be confounded without impiety and wrong.
Alexander had amply earned,—as a man, a general, and a king,—the
highest honors compatible with humanity; but to exalt him into a
god would be both an injury to him, and an offence to the gods.
Anaxarchus (he said) was the last person from whom such a proposition
ought to come, because he was one of those whose only title to
Alexander’s society was founded upon his capacity to give instructive
and wholesome counsel.[520]
[519] Plutarch, Alex. 55.
[520] Arrian, iv. 11. ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ τε καὶ παιδεύσει Ἀλεξάνδρῳ
συνόντα.
Kallisthenes here spoke out, what numbers of his hearers felt.
The speech was not only approved, but so warmly applauded by the
Macedonians present, especially the older officers,—that Alexander
thought it prudent to forbid all farther discussion upon this
delicate subject. Presently the Persians present, according to
Asiatic custom, approached him and performed their prostration; after
which Alexander pledged, in successive goblets of wine, those Greeks
and Macedonians with whom he had held previous concert. To each of
them the goblet was handed, and each, after drinking to answer the
pledge, approached the king, made his prostration, and then received
a salute. Lastly, Alexander sent the pledge to Kallisthenes, who,
after drinking like the rest, approached him, for the purpose of
receiving the salute, but without any prostration. Of this omission
Alexander was expressly informed by one of the Companions; upon which
he declined to admit Kallisthenes to a salute. The latter retired,
observing, “Then I shall go away, worse off than others as far as the
salute goes.”[521]
[521] Arrian, iv. 12, 7. φιλήματι ἔλαττον ἔχων ἄπειμι.
Kallisthenes was imprudent, and even blamable, in making this last
observation, which without any necessity or advantage, aggravated
the offence already given to Alexander. He was more imprudent
still, if we look simply to his own personal safety in standing
forward publicly to protest against the suggestion for rendering
divine honors to that prince, and in thus creating the main offence
which even in itself was inexpiable. But here the occasion was one
serious and important, so as to convert the imprudence into an act
of genuine moral courage. The question was, not about obeying an
order given by Alexander, for no order had been given—but about
accepting or rejecting a motion made by Anaxarchus; which Alexander,
by a shabby, preconcerted manœuvre, affected to leave to the free
decision of the assembly, in full confidence that no one would be
found intrepid enough to oppose it. If one Greek sophist made a
proposition, in itself servile and disgraceful, another sophist could
do himself nothing but honor by entering public protest against it;
more especially since this was done (as we may see by the report in
Arrian) in terms no way insulting, but full of respectful admiration,
towards Alexander personally. The perfect success of the speech
is in itself a proof of the propriety of its tone;[522] for the
Macedonian officers would feel indifference, if not contempt towards
a rhetor like Kallisthenes, while towards Alexander they had the
greatest deference short of actual worship. There are few occasions
on which the free spirit of Greek letters and Greek citizenship, in
their protest against exorbitant individual insolence, appears more
conspicuous and estimable than in the speech of Kallisthenes.[523]
Arrian disapproves the purpose of Alexander, and strongly blames
the motion of Anaxarchus; nevertheless, such is his anxiety to find
some excuse for Alexander, that he also blames Kallisthenes for
unseasonable frankness, folly, and insolence, in offering opposition.
He might have said with some truth, that Kallisthenes would have done
well to withdraw earlier (if indeed he could have withdrawn without
offence) from the camp of Alexander, in which no lettered Greek could
now associate without abnegating his freedom of speech and sentiment,
and emulating the servility of Anaxarchus. But being present, as
Kallisthenes was, in the hall at Baktra when the proposition of
Anaxarchus was made, and when silence would have been assent—his
protest against it was both seasonable and dignified; and all the
more dignified for being fraught with danger to himself.
[522] Arrian, iv. 12, 1. ἀνιᾶσαι μὲν μεγαλωστὶ Ἀλέξανδρον,
Μακεδόσι δὲ πρὸς θυμοῦ εἰπεῖν....
Curtius, viii. 5, 20. “Æquis auribus Callisthenes velut vindex
publicæ libertatis audiebatur. Expresserat non assensionem modo,
sed etiam vocem, seniorum præcipuè quibus gravis erat inveterati
moris externa mutatio.”
[523] There was no sentiment more deeply rooted in the free
Grecian mind, prior to Alexander’s conquests, than the repugnance
to arrogant aspirations on the part of the fortunate man,
swelling himself above the limits of humanity—and the belief
that such aspirations were followed by the Nemesis of the gods.
In the dying speech which Xenophon puts into the mouth of Cyrus
the Great, we find—“Ye gods, I thank you much, that I have
been sensible of your care for me, and that I have never in my
successes raised my thoughts above the measure of man” (Cyropæd.
viii. 7, 3). Among the most striking illustrations of this
sentiment is, the story of Solon and Crœsus (Herodot. i. 32-34).
I shall recount in the next chapter examples of monstrous
flattery on the part of the Athenians, proving how this sentiment
expired with their freedom.
Kallisthenes knew that danger well, and was quickly enabled to
recognize it in the altered demeanor of Alexander towards him. He
was, from that day, a marked man in two senses: first, to Alexander
himself, as well as to the rival sophists and all promoters of
the intended deification,—for hatred, and for getting up some
accusatory pretence such as might serve to ruin him; next, to the
more free-spirited Macedonians, indignant witnesses of Alexander’s
increased insolence, and admirers of the courageous Greek who had
protested against the motion of Anaxarchus. By such men he was
doubtless much extolled; which praises aggravated his danger, as they
were sure to be reported to Alexander. The pretext for his ruin was
not long wanting.
Among those who admired and sought the conversation of Kallisthenes,
was Hermolaus, one of the royal pages—the band, selected from noble
Macedonian families, who did duty about the person of the king. It
had happened that this young man, one of Alexander’s companions in
the chase, on seeing a wild boar rushing up to attack the king,
darted his javelin, and slew the animal. Alexander, angry to be
anticipated in killing the boar, ordered Hermolaus to be scourged
before all the other pages, and deprived him of his horse.[524] Thus
humiliated and outraged—for an act not merely innocent, but the
omission of which, if Alexander had sustained any injury from the
boar, might have been held punishable—Hermolaus became resolutely
bent on revenge.[525] He enlisted in the project his intimate friend
Sostratus, with several others among the pages, and it was agreed
among them to kill Alexander in his chamber, on the first night when
they were all on guard together. The appointed night arrived, without
any divulgation of their secret; yet the scheme was frustrated
by the accident, that Alexander continued till daybreak drinking
with his officers, and never retired to bed. On the morrow, one
of the conspirators, becoming alarmed or repentant, divulged the
scheme to his friend Charikles, with the names of those concerned.
Eurylochus, brother to Charikles, apprised by him of what he had
heard, immediately informed Ptolemy, through whom it was conveyed to
Alexander. By Alexander’s order, the persons indicated were arrested
and put to the torture;[526] under which they confessed that they had
themselves conspired to kill him, but named no other accomplices,
and even denied that any one else was privy to the scheme. In this
denial they persisted, though extreme suffering was applied to extort
the revelation of new names. They were then brought up and arraigned
as conspirators before the assembled Macedonian soldiers. There
their confession was repeated. It is even said that Hermolaus, in
repeating it, boasted of the enterprise as legitimate and glorious;
denouncing the tyranny and cruelty of Alexander us having become
insupportable to a freeman. Whether such boast was actually made or
not, the persons brought up were pronounced guilty, and stoned to
death forthwith by the soldiers.[527]
[524] Plutarch, Alexand. 54. He refers to Hermippus, who mentions
what was told to Aristotle by Strœbus, the reader attendant on
Kallisthenes.
[525] Arrian, iv. 13; Curtius, viii. 6, 7.
[526] Arrian, iv. 13, 13.
[527] Arrian, iv, 14, 4. Curtius expands this scene into great
detail; composing a long speech for Hermolaus, and another for
Alexander (viii. 6, 7, 8).
He says that the soldiers who executed these pages, tortured them
first, in order to manifest zeal for Alexander (viii. 8, 20).
The pages thus executed were young men of good Macedonian families,
for whose condemnation accordingly, Alexander had thought it
necessary to invoke—what he was sure of obtaining against any
one—the sentence of the soldiers. To satisfy his hatred against
Kallisthenes—not a Macedonian, but only a Greek citizen, one of
the surviving remnants of the subverted city of Olynthus—no such
formality was required.[528] As yet, there was not a shadow of proof
to implicate this philosopher; for obnoxious as his name was known
to be, Hermolaus and his companions had, with exemplary fortitude,
declined to purchase the chance of respite from extreme torture by
pronouncing it. Their confessions,—all extorted by suffering, unless
confirmed by other evidence, of which we do not know whether any
was taken—were hardly of the least value, even against themselves;
but against Kallisthenes, they had no bearing whatever; nay, they
tended indirectly, not to convict, but to absolve him. In his case,
therefore, as in that of Philotas before, it was necessary to pick
up matter of suspicious tendency from his reported remarks and
conversations. He was alleged[529] to have addressed dangerous and
inflammatory language to the pages, holding up Alexander to odium,
instigating them to conspiracy, and pointing out Athens as a place of
refuge; he was moreover well known to have been often in conversation
with Hermolaus. For a man of the violent temper and omnipotent
authority of Alexander, such indications were quite sufficient as
grounds of action against one whom he hated.
[528] “Quem, si Macedo esset (Callisthenem), tecum introduxissem,
dignissimum te discipulo magistrum: nunc Olynthio non idem
juris est” (Curtius. viii. 8, 19—speech of Alexander before the
soldiers addressing Hermolaus especially).
[529] Plutarch, Alexand. 55; Arrian, iv. 10, 4.
On this occasion, we have the state of Alexander’s mind disclosed
by himself, in one of the references to his letters given by
Plutarch. Writing to Kraterus and to others immediately afterwards,
Alexander distinctly stated that the pages throughout all their
torture had deposed against no one but themselves. Nevertheless, in
another letter, addressed to Antipater in Macedonia, he used these
expressions—“The pages were stoned to death by the Macedonians; but
I myself shall punish the sophist, as well as those who sent him
out here, and those who harbor in their cities conspirators against
me.”[530] The sophist Kallisthenes had been sent out by Aristotle,
who is here designated; and probably the Athenians after him.
Fortunately for Aristotle, he was not at Baktra, but at Athens. That
he could have had any concern in the conspiracy of the pages, was
impossible. In this savage outburst of menace against his absent
preceptor, Alexander discloses the real state of feeling which
prompted him to the destruction of Kallisthenes; hatred towards that
spirit of citizenship and free speech, which Kallisthenes not only
cherished, in common with Aristotle and most other literary Greeks,
but had courageously manifested in his protest against the motion for
worshipping a mortal.
[530] Plutarch, Alex. 55. Καίτοι τῶν περὶ Ἑρμόλαον οὐδεὶς
οὐδὲ διὰ τῆς ἐσχάτης ἀνάγκης Καλλισθένους κατεῖπεν. Ἀλλὰ καὶ
Ἀλέξανδρος ~αὐτὸς εὐθὺς γράφων~ Κρατερῷ καὶ Ἀττάλῳ καὶ Ἀλκέτᾳ
φησὶ τοὺς παῖδας βασανιζομένους ὁμολογεῖν, ὡς αὐτοὶ ταῦτα
πράξειαν, ~ἄλλος δὲ οὐδεὶς συνειδείη~. Ὕστερον δὲ γράφων πρὸς
Ἀντίπατρον, καὶ τὸν Καλλισθένην συνεπαιτιασάμενος, Οἱ μὲν παῖδές,
φησιν, ὑπὸ τῶν Μακεδόνων κατελεύσθησαν, ~τὸν δὲ σοφιστὴν ἐγὼ
κολάσω~, καὶ ~τοὺς ἐκπέμψαντας αὐτὸν~, καὶ τοὺς ὑποδεχομένους
ταῖς πόλεσι τοὺς ἐμοὶ ἐπιβουλεύοντας ... ἄντικρυς ἔν γε τούτοις
ἀποκαλυπτόμενος πρὸς Ἀριστοτέλην, etc.
About the hostile dispositions of Alexander towards Aristotle,
see Dio Chrysostom, Orat. 64. de Fortunâ, p. 598.
Kraterus was at this time absent in Sogdiana, engaged in
finishing the suppression of the resistance (Arrian, iv. 22, 1).
To him, therefore, Alexander would naturally write.
This statement, from the pen of Alexander himself, distinctly
contradicts and refutes (as I have before observed) the
affirmation of Ptolemy and Aristobulus as given by Arrian (iv.
14, 1)—that the pages deposed against Kallisthenes.
Kallisthenes was first put to the torture and then hanged.[531]
His tragical fate excited a profound sentiment of sympathy and
indignation among the philosophers of antiquity.[532]
[531] Arrian, iv. 14, 5. Curtius also says—“Callisthenes quoque
tortus interiit, initi consilii in caput regis innoxius, sed
haudquaquam aulæ et assentantium accommodatus ingenio (viii. 8,
21).” Compare Plutarch, Alex. 55.
This is the statement of Ptolemy; who was himself concerned in
the transactions, and was the officer through whom the conspiracy
of the pages had been revealed. His partiality might permit him
to omit or soften what was discreditable to Alexander, but he may
be fully trusted when he records an act of cruelty. Aristobulus
and others affirmed that Kallisthenes was put in chains and
carried about in this condition for some time; after which he
died of disease and a wretched state of body. But the witnesses
here are persons whose means of information we do not know to
be so good as those of Ptolemy; besides that, the statement is
intrinsically less probable.
[532] See the language of Seneca, Nat. Quæst. vi. 23; Plutarch,
De Adulator. et Amici Discrimine, p. 65; Theophrast. ap. Ciceron.
Tusc. Disp. iii. 10.
Curtius says that this treatment of Kallisthenes was followed by
a late repentance on the part of Alexander (viii. 8, 23). On this
point there is no other evidence—nor can I think the statement
probable.
The halts of Alexander were formidable to friends and companions;
his marches, to the unconquered natives whom he chose to treat as
enemies. On the return of Kraterus from Sogdiana, Alexander began his
march from Baktra (Balkh) southward to the mountain range Paropamisus
or Caucasus (Hindoo-Koosh); leaving however at Baktra Amyntas, with a
large force of 10,000 foot and 3500 horse, to keep these intractable
territories in subjugation.[533] His march over the mountains
occupied ten days; he then visited his newly-founded city Alexandria
in the Paropamisadæ. At or near the river Kophen (Kabool river),
he was joined by Taxiles, a powerful Indian prince, who brought
as a present twenty-five elephants, and whose alliance was very
valuable to him. He then divided his army, sending one division under
Hephæstion and Perdikkas, towards the territory called Peukelaôtis
(apparently that immediately north of the confluence of the Kabool
river with the Indus); and conducting the remainder himself in
an easterly direction, over the mountainous regions between the
Hindoo-Koosh and the right bank of the Indus. Hephæstion was ordered,
after subduing all enemies in his way, to prepare a bridge ready for
passing the Indus by the time when Alexander should arrive. Astes,
prince of Peukelaôtis, was taken and slain in the city where he had
shut himself up; but the reduction of it cost Hephæstion a siege of
thirty days.[534]
[533] Arrian, iv. 22, 4.
[534] Arrian, iv. 22, 8-12.
Alexander, with his own half of the army, undertook the reduction
of the Aspasii, the Guræi, and the Assakeni, tribes occupying
mountainous and difficult localities along the southern slopes
of the Hindoo-Koosh; but neither they nor their various towns
mentioned—Arigæon, Massaga, Bazira, Ora, Dyrta, etc., except perhaps
the remarkable rock of Aornos,[535] near the Indus—can be more
exactly identified. These tribes were generally brave, and seconded
by towns of strong position as well as by a rugged country, in many
parts utterly without roads.[536] But their defence was conducted
with little union, no military skill, and miserable weapons; so that
they were no way qualified to oppose the excellent combination and
rapid movements of Alexander, together with the confident attack and
very superior arms, offensive, as well as defensive, of his soldiers.
All those who attempted resistance were successively attacked,
overpowered and slain. Even those who did not resist, but fled to the
mountains, were pursued, and either slaughtered or sold for slaves.
The only way of escaping the sword was to remain, submit, and await
the fiat of the invader. Such a series of uninterrupted successes,
all achieved with little loss, it is rare in military history to
read. The capture of the rock of Aornos was peculiarly gratifying
to Alexander, because it enjoyed the legendary reputation of having
been assailed in vain by Herakles—and indeed he himself had deemed
it, at first sight, unassailable. After having thus subdued the upper
regions (above Attock or the confluence of the Kabul river) on the
right bank of the Indus, he availed himself of some forests alongside
to fell timber and build boats. These boats were sent down the
stream, to the point where Hephæstion and Perdikkas were preparing
the bridge.[537]
[535] Respecting the rock called Aornos, a valuable and elaborate
article, entitled “Gradus ad Aornon” has been published by Major
Abbott in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, No. iv.
1854. This article gives much information, collected mainly by
inquiries on the spot, and accompanied by a map, about the very
little known country west of the Indus, between the Kabool river
on the south, and the Hindoo-Koosh on the north.
Major Abbott attempts to follow the march and operations of
Alexander, from Alexandria ad Caucasum to the rock of Aornos (p.
311 _seq._). He shows highly probable reason for believing that
the Aornos described by Arrian is the Mount Mahabunn, near the
right bank of the Indus (lat. 34° 20´), about sixty miles above
its confluence with the Kabool river. “The whole account of
Arrian of the rock Aornos is a faithful picture of the Mahabunn.
It was the most remarkable feature of the country. It was the
refuge of all the neighboring tribes. It was covered with forest.
It had good soil sufficient for a thousand ploughs, and pure
springs of water everywhere abounded. It was 4125 feet above the
plain, and fourteen miles in circuit. The summit was a plain
where cavalry could act. It would be difficult to offer a more
faithful description of the Mahabunn. The side on which Alexander
scaled the main summit had certainly the character of a rock. But
the whole description of Arrian indicates a table mountain” (p.
341). The Mahabunn “is a mountain table, scarped on the east by
tremendous precipices, from which descends one large spur down
upon the Indus between Sitana and Umb” (p. 340).
To this similarity in so many local features, is to be added the
remarkable coincidence of name, between the town Embolima, where
Arrian states that Alexander established his camp for the purpose
of attacking Aornos—and the modern names Umb and Balimah (between
the Mahabunn and the Indus)—“the one in the river valley, the
other on the mountain immediately above it” (p. 344). Mount
Mahabunn is the natural refuge for the people of the neighborhood
from a conqueror, and was among the places taken by Nadir Shah
(p. 338).