has left a reputation more noble and unsullied than that of Nearchos.
The long and difficult voyage in unknown seas which he successfully
accomplished ranks as one of the greatest achievements in the annals of
navigation. He was free from the mad ambition to rule which gave rise to
the deadly feuds between Alexander’s other great generals, and stained
the records of their lives with so many dark crimes. He was a native of
Crete, but settled at Amphipolis, a Macedonian city near the Thracian
border. He held a high position at the court of King Philip, where he
attached himself to the party of the young prince, and was banished
along with Ptolemy, Harpalos, and others, who had involved themselves in
his intrigues. Alexander, on mounting the throne, recalled his former
partisans, and did not neglect their interests. Nearchos accompanied him
into Asia, where he was appointed governor of Lykia and other provinces
south of the Tauros. This post he continued to hold for five years. He
rejoined Alexander before he left Baktria to invade India, and in India
he was appointed commander of the fleet which was built on the Hydaspês.
He conducted it down that river and the Akesinês and the Indus to Patala
(now Haidarâbâd), a naval station at the apex of the Indus Delta. He
arrived at that place about the time when the south-west monsoon usually
sets in. Alexander, on returning to Patala from the excursions he made
to the ocean, removed the fleet to Killouta, an island in the western
branch of the Indus, which possessed a commodious haven. He then set
out on his return to Persia, leaving the fleet with Nearchos, who had
relieved Alexander’s mind of a load of anxiety by voluntarily proffering
his services to conduct the expedition by sea to the head of the Persian
Gulf. When we consider, as Bunbury remarks, the total ignorance of
the Greeks at this time concerning the Indian seas, and the imperfect
character of their navigation, it is impossible not to admire the noble
confidence with which Nearchos ventured to promise that he would bring
the ships in safety to the shores of Persia, “if the sea were navigable
and the thing feasible for mortal man.” Nearchos wished to defer his
departure till the monsoon had quite subsided, but as he was in danger of
being attacked by the natives, who were no longer overawed by Alexander’s
presence, he set sail on the 21st of September, 325 B.C. He was forced,
however, by the violence of the weather, when he had reached the mouth of
the Indus, to take refuge in a sheltered bay at a station which he called
Alexander’s Haven, and which is now known as Karâchi, the great emporium
of the trade of the Indus. After a detention here for twenty-four days,
he resumed his voyage on the 23rd of October. Coasting the shore of the
Arabies for 80 miles, he reached the mouth of the river Arabis (now the
Purali), which divides the Arabies from the Oreitai. The coast of the
latter people, which was 100 miles in extent, was navigated in eighteen
days. At one of the landing-places the ships were supplied by Leonnatos
with stores of corn, which lasted ten days. The navigation of the Mekrân
coast which succeeded occupied twenty days, and the distance traversed
was 480 miles English, though Nearchos in his journal has set it down at
10,000 stadia or 1250 miles. The expedition in this part of the voyage
suffered great distress for want of provisions. The coast was barren,
and its savage inhabitants, the Ichthyophagi,[415] had little else to
subsist on than fish, which some of them ate raw.[416] The Karmanian
coast, which succeeded, was not so distressingly barren, but was even, in
certain favoured localities, extremely fertile and beautiful. Its length
was 296 miles, and the time taken in its navigation was nineteen days,
some of which, however, were spent at the mouth of the river Anamis (now
the Mînâb), whence Nearchos made a journey into the interior to apprise
Alexander of the safety of his fleet. The coasts of Persis and Sousis
were navigated in thirty-one days. Nearchos had intended to sail up the
Tigris, but having passed its mouth unawares, continued sailing westward
till he reached Diridôtis (Terêdon), an emporium in Babylonia on the
Pallocopas branch of the Euphrates. He thence retraced his course to the
Tigris, and ascended its stream till he reached a lake through which at
that time it flowed and which received the river Pasitigris, the Ulaï
of Scripture, and now the Karun. The fleet proceeded up this river till
it met the army near a bridge on the highway from Persis to Sousa. It
anchored at the bridge on the 24th of February, 324 B.C., so that the
whole voyage was performed in 146 days. Nearchos received appropriate
rewards for the splendid service he had so successfully performed.
Alexander was sending him away on another great maritime expedition
when the illness which carried off the great conqueror broke up the
enterprise. In the discussions which followed regarding the succession to
the throne, Nearchos unsuccessfully advocated the claims of Heraklês, the
son of Alexander by Barsinê, who was the daughter of Artabazos and the
widow of Memnôn the Rhodian. He acquiesced, however, in the arrangements
made by the other generals, and was content with receiving his former
government, even though he was to hold it subject to the authority of
Antigonos. He accompanied his superior when he marched against Eumenes,
and interceded for the life of the latter when he fell into the hands of
his enemies. Nothing is known of his history after the year 314 B.C.,
when he was selected by Antigonos to assist his son Dêmêtrios with his
counsels when left for the first time in command of an army.
NIKANOR, the son of Parmenion, was commander of the hypaspists or
footguards in the Asiatic expedition. He was present in the three great
battles against the troops of Darius, and died of disease before the
charge of conspiracy was preferred against his brother Philôtas.
OLYMPIAS, the mother of Alexander, was a passionate, ambitious, and
intriguing woman. She was put to death by order of Kassander, the son of
the regent Antipater, in 316 B.C., thus surviving her son seven years.
OMPHIS.—_See_ Taxilês.
ONESIKRITOS was a Greek historical writer who accompanied Alexander on
his Asiatic expedition. He professed the philosophy of Diogenes the
Cynic, and on this account was sent by Alexander to converse with the
gymnosophists of Taxila. He was the pilot of Alexander’s ship and of the
fleet in sailing down the Indus, and afterwards during the voyage to
the head of the Persian Gulf. The history written by Onesikritos, which
embraced the whole life of Alexander, fell into discredit owing to the
manner in which he intermingled fact with fiction. His work was, however,
too much undervalued. He was the first author who mentions the island
of Taprobanê (Ceylon). In his later years he attached himself to the
fortunes of Lysimachos of Thrace.
OROSIUS was a Spanish ecclesiastic of the fifth century, who wrote a
history of the world from the creation down to the year A.D. 417.
OXYARTES, a Baktrian, the father of Alexander’s queen Roxana, was one of
the chiefs who accompanied Bessos on his retreat across the Oxus into
Sogdiana. Alexander, after marrying his daughter, appointed him satrap of
the land of the Paropamisidai, and his successors allowed him to retain
that government. It is not known how long he lived, but it is supposed
that he was dead when Seleukos undertook his Indian expedition, as his
dominions were among those which were surrendered to Sandrokottos.
OXYKANOS, called Portikanos by Strabo and Diodôros, ruled a territory
which adjoined that of Mousikanos, but its exact position or boundaries
cannot be ascertained.
PANINI, the celebrated Indian grammarian, was a native of Salâtura, in
Gandhâra. His date is generally referred to the fourth century B.C., but
this is still a matter of controversy.
PARMÊNION was the most experienced and most trusted general who
accompanied Alexander into Asia. He commanded the left wing of the
Macedonian army in the three great battles against Darius. He was left in
command in Media, and so did not accompany the expedition into India. His
assassination has left an indelible stain on Alexander’s character.
PATROKLÊS was a general who held under Seleukos and Antiochos an
important government over some eastern provinces of the Syrian empire.
He collected much valuable information regarding the little-known parts
which adjoined his province. His work, embodying this information, is
frequently quoted by Strabo.
PAUSANIAS was the author of an _Itinerary of Greece_, full of valuable
topographical and antiquarian information. He wrote in the age of the
Antonines.
PEITHÔN.—Three officers of this name accompanied Alexander into
Asia—first, Peithôn, the son of Sôsiklês, who was wounded and taken
prisoner by the Skythians under Spitamenes, and is not subsequently
mentioned; second, Peithôn, the son of Krateuas, who, like Ptolemy, was a
native of Eördaia, and a member of the select bodyguard; third, Peithôn,
the son of Agênôr, who, like the preceding, rendered distinguished
services in the Indian campaigns. The historians have recorded nothing
of their previous achievements, and when they come to mention those
performed in India, do not always make it clear to which of the two they
mean to ascribe them.
PEITHÔN, the son of Krateuas, after Alexander’s death proposed that
Perdikkas and Leonnatos should be appointed joint regents of the empire,
and for this service was rewarded with the satrapy of Media. After
the assassination of Perdikkas he was himself, through the influence
of Ptolemy, raised to the regency in conjunction with Arrhidaios, but
was soon compelled to resign and retire to his Median government.
He assisted Antigonos to overthrow Eumenes; but Antigonos, having
subsequently suspected him of entertaining treasonable designs, brought
him to trial before a council, and ordered him to be put to death in 316
B.C.
PEITHÔN, the son of Agênôr, took an active part in the wars against
the Malloi and Mousikanos while holding the command of one of the
divisions of the footguards. He was appointed satrap of Sindh from the
great confluence downward to the sea-coast, and was left behind in his
province when Alexander took his departure from India. After the death
of Alexander he was confirmed in his government, but, it would appear,
was ousted from it by Pôros. After the fall of Eumenes he received from
Antigonos, whose side he had favoured, the satrapy of Babylon. While
serving with Dêmêtrios, the son of Antigonos, he was slain in the battle
of Gaza, in which the young prince rashly and against his advice engaged
Ptolemy. This battle was fought in 312 B.C.
PERDIKKAS—one of Alexander’s greatest generals—was a native of the
Macedonian province of Orestis, and descended, according to Curtius, from
a royal house. Under Philip he held one of the highest offices at court,
being a sômatophylax, and under Alexander he held the same position
along with the command of a division of the phalanx, but afterwards of
a division of the companion cavalry. He distinguished himself at the
siege of Thebes, where he was severely wounded, and in the three great
battles against the armies of Darius. In the Persian, Sogdian, and Indian
campaigns he was frequently entrusted with separate commands of great
importance, and at Sousa was rewarded for his services with a crown of
gold and with the hand of the daughter of the Median satrap. He was
present with Alexander during his fatal illness; and it is said that
the king when expiring took off the royal signet-ring from his finger
and gave it to him, as if to indicate him as his successor. In the
deliberations which followed to settle the succession, Perdikkas took
a prominent part, and, with the consent of most of the other generals,
was appointed to act as regent of the empire on behalf of Roxana’s yet
unborn child, which, it was hoped, might prove to be a son. His selfish
ambition, however, and acts of cruelty soon created violent discontent,
and a combination was formed against him by Antigonos, whom he attempted
to bring to trial for misgovernment, but who effected his escape to
Macedonia, and persuaded Antipater, Krateros, and Ptolemy to take up
arms on his behalf. He was slain by his own troops in Egypt, whither he
had proceeded in the hope of being able to crush Ptolemy before taking
measures against the other confederates. Perdikkas was crafty, cruel, and
arrogant, without magnanimity, and, indeed, without any virtue except
personal courage and capacity as a general.
PEUKESTAS, a native of Mieza in Macedonia, was one of Alexander’s
great officers, and had the honour of carrying before him in battle
the sacred shield taken down from the temple of Athêna at Ilion. He is
first mentioned as one of the officers appointed to command a trireme
on the Hydaspês. He had a chief share in saving Alexander’s life in
the citadel of the Mallian capital, and for this service was rewarded
by being appointed a _sômatophylax_ and afterwards satrap of Persia.
After being presented at Sousa with a golden crown, he proceeded to take
possession of his government, when he adopted the Persian dress and
Persian customs, thus pleasing his subjects as well as Alexander himself.
He was in attendance on the king during his last illness, but does not
appear to have taken any leading part in the discussions held after his
death regarding the succession. He was, however, permitted to retain
his government. He took an active part in the war conducted by Eumenes
against Antigonos. He was vain and fond of display, and his treachery
towards Eumenes, whom he helped to betray into the hands of his enemies,
has left a dark stain on his character.
PHEGELAS, or, as he is called by Diodôros, Phêgeus, was chief of a
territory which lay between the Hydraôtes and the Hyphasis. With regard
to the name, M. Sylvain Lévi gives preference to the form _Phegelas_,
and states his reason thus: “The _e_ answers to the _a_ of Sanskrit, the
_g_ to the _g_ or to the _j_. _Phegeus_ does not border on a known form;
Phegelas, on the contrary, answers directly to the Sanskrit _Bhagala_—the
name of a royal race of Kshatriyas which the Gana-pâtha classes under
the rubric Bâhu, etc., with the name even of Taxilês, Âmbhi.” (_Journal
Asiatique_ for 1890, p. 239.)
PHILIPPOS, the son of Machatas, was one of Alexander’s officers. In 327
B.C. he was appointed satrap of India. After Alexander left India he was
assassinated in a conspiracy formed against him by the mercenaries under
his command.
PHRATAPHERNES was, under Darius, governor of Parthia and Hyrkania. He
accompanied that sovereign in his flight from Arbêla, but after his death
submitted to Alexander, who reinstated him in his satrapy. He joined
Alexander in India after Pôros had been defeated, but seems to have
soon afterwards returned to his satrapy, whence he sent supplies to the
Macedonian army when pursuing its distressing march through Gedrôsia. The
successors of Alexander allowed him to retain his satrapy.
POLYAINOS, a Macedonian, who flourished about the middle of the second
century of our aera, and was the author of a work on the stratagems of
war, which is still extant.
POLYKLEITOS was a native of Larissa, who wrote a history of Alexander.
Most of the extracts preserved from this work refer to the geography of
the countries which Alexander conquered.
POLYSPERCHON, or POLYPERCHON, was one of the oldest officers of a high
rank in Alexander’s service. After the battle of Issos he was promoted
to the command of a division of the phalanx in succession to Ptolemy,
the son of Seleukos, who fell in that battle. In Baktria he offended
Alexander by casting ridicule on the ceremony of prostration, and was
thus for a time in disgrace. He was present at the passage of the
Hydaspês, and also in the descent of the Indus, and was then sent with
Krateros to conduct the veterans from India to Karmania by way of the
Bolan Pass. He was not in Babylon at the time of Alexander’s death, and
hence was passed over in the allotment of the provinces made after that
event. When war, however, broke out between Antipater and Perdikkas, the
former committed to his hands the chief command in Macedonia and Greece
during his absence in Asia. The veteran general showed himself worthy
of the trust reposed in him, and received the reward of his services
at Antipater’s death, who appointed him, in preference to his own son,
Kassander, to be his successor in the regency. After many vicissitudes of
fortune, and disgracing his name by his treachery towards Phôkiôn, and
his causing Heraklês, the son of Alexander, whose cause he had espoused,
to be murdered, he disappears from history after the year 303 B.C.
PÔROS was the most powerful king in the Panjâb at the time of Alexander’s
invasion. He was then at enmity with Omphis, the king of Taxila, but
in alliance with Abisarês, the king of Kâśmîr. After his defeat and
submission to the conqueror, he was confirmed in his kingdom, the limits
of which were afterwards considerably extended. All that is known of his
history will be found in the translations, if read along with the notice
below, of Sandrokottos, except that after Alexander’s death he made
himself master of Sindh, from which he ousted Peithôn. The name of Pôros,
which is formed from _Paura_ or _Paurava_, with the Greek termination
_os_ added, shows that he belonged to a family of the Lunar race. Bohlen,
however, takes the name to be a corruption of the Sanskrit _Paurusha_,
which means “heroic.”
PORTIKANOS.—_See_ Oxykanos.
PTOLEMY, called the son of Lagos, is supposed to have been in reality the
son of Philip, as his mother Arsinoê was the concubine of that king,
and was pregnant when married to Lagos. Of all Alexander’s generals
Ptolemy was the one who approached him nearest in a capacity both for
war and government, while he did not fall short of him in magnanimity of
disposition. He was banished from Macedonia by Philip, who discovered
that he was promoting with others a marriage between Alexander and
the daughter of Pixodaros, the king of Karia. He rendered important
services in the war against Darius; and when Dêmêtrios, a member of the
select bodyguard, was arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the
conspiracy of Philôtas, Ptolemy was promoted to fill his place. It was
he who obtained information of the plot of Hermolaos, and by revealing
it was probably the means of saving the king’s life. In the battle with
the Aspasians, Ptolemy slew their leader with his own hand, and in the
campaigns in India he was on several occasions entrusted with separate
commands of great importance. The story of Alexander’s dream, which led
to the discovery of a plant by which Ptolemy was cured of a dangerous
wound inflicted by a poisoned arrow, must be apocryphal, since Arrian,
who had Ptolemy’s own memoirs of the expedition constantly before him,
is silent on the subject. At Sousa he received in marriage a daughter
of Artabazos. After Alexander’s death he obtained Egypt as his share
of the empire, and raised that country to a high pitch of prosperity.
He reigned for no less than forty years. The dynasty which he founded,
after subsisting for nearly two hundred years, ended with the death of
Kleopatra.
[Illustration: FIG. 25.—PTOLEMY III.]
PTOLEMY III. ascended the throne of Egypt in 247 B.C. in succession
to his father Ptolemy Philadelphos. In the early part of his reign he
overran Syria, and having thence turned his arms eastward, advanced
as far as Babylon and Sousa, and received the submission of all the
upper provinces of Asia as far as the borders of Baktria and India. On
returning to his kingdom he carried back with him the statues of the
Egyptian deities which Kambyses had removed to the East, and restored
them to their proper temples, an act which won for him the gratitude of
the Egyptians and the title by which he is generally known, Euergetês,
_i.e._ Benefactor. Like his father he distinguished himself by his
munificent patronage of literature and science. He was one of the kings
to whom Buddhist missionaries were sent by the Indian king Aśôka. He died
in the year 222 B.C.
PTOLEMY PHYSKON, king of Egypt, succeeded his brother Ptolemy VI.,
surnamed Philomêter.
RÔXANA, the daughter of the Baktrian chief Oxyartes, was considered
by the Macedonians the most beautiful woman in Asia, next to the wife
of Darius. Alexander, who found her charms irresistible, made her his
wife, and she bore him a posthumous son, called Alexander Aigos, who was
admitted to a share of the sovereignty under the regency of Perdikkas.
Before his birth she had enticed Alexander’s other widow, Barsinê or
Stateira, to Babylon, and caused her to be murdered. She subsequently
fell, with her son, into the power of Kassander, who placed them both in
Amphipolis, where in 311 B.C. they were both murdered by their keeper,
Glaukias.
SAMBUS was the satrap of a mountainous country adjoining the kingdom of
Mousikanos, with whom he was at feud. His capital, called Sindimana, has
been identified with Sehwân, a city on the Indus, for which see Note
S. Sambus fled on Alexander’s approach, not to evade submission, but
because he learned that his enemy, Mousikanos, had been received into the
conqueror’s favour.
SANDROKOTTOS (CHANDRAGUPTA).—Sandrokottos, with the exception perhaps
of his grandson, Aśôka, was the greatest ruler ancient India produced.
Though of humble origin, he overthrew the Macedonian power in the Panjâb,
conquered the kingdom of Magadha, and founded a wide empire such as
no Indian king had before possessed. He is also memorable on another
account. Those learned men who about a century ago took up the study of
Sanskrit, established his identity with the Chandragupta who is mentioned
in the Buddhist Chronicle of Ceylon as the founder of the Mauryan dynasty
of Magadha, and by fixing the date of his accession to the throne of
that kingdom, supplied the chronology of ancient India with its first
properly-ascertained aera, and thus brought it into line with the
chronology of general history.
Besides the notices of this great sovereign in the writings we have
translated, the following occur elsewhere in the classics:—Appian
(_Syriakê_, c. 55), speaking of Seleukos, says: “And having crossed
the Indus, he warred with Androkottos, the king of the Indians, who
dwelt about that river, until he entered into an alliance and a marriage
affinity with him.” Strabo (II. i. 9) says: “Both of these men were
sent to Palimbothra, Megasthenes to Sandrokottos, and Dêimachos to
Allitrochades, his son,” and in XV. i. 36 repeats the statement as
concerns Megasthenes. In XV. i. 53 we read: “Megasthenes, who was in the
camp of Sandrokottos, which consisted of 400,000 men, did not witness
on any day thefts reported which exceeded the sum of 200 drachmai, and
this among a people who have no written laws, who are ignorant even
of writing, and regulate everything by memory.” Lastly, in XV. i. 57
we read: “Similar to this is the account of the Enotokoitai, of the
wild men, and of other monsters. The wild men could not be brought to
Sandrokottos, for they died by abstaining from food.” Arrian in his
_Indika_ (c. 5) says: “But even Megasthenes, as far as appears, did not
travel over much of India, though no doubt he saw more of it than those
who came with Alexander, the son of Philip, for, as he says, he had
interviews with Sandrokottos, the greatest king of the Indians, and with
Pôros, who was still greater than he.”[417] Lastly, Athênaios mentions
him in his _Deipnosophists_ (c. 18 d): “Phylarchos says that among the
presents which Sandrokoptos, the king of the Indians, sent to Seleukos
were certain powerful aphrodisiacs.” It will be observed that Athênaios
transcribes the name of the Indian king more correctly than any of the
other authors.
These detached notices, combined with those which appear in the
translations, we may now gather together into a connected and consistent
narrative. Sandrokottos was of obscure birth, and, from the remark of
Plutarch that in his early years he had seen Alexander, we may infer that
he was a native of the Panjâb. It was at one time thought that he had
in some way offended the conqueror, and that to escape the effects of
his displeasure, he had fled for protection to the court of Magadha. But
this belief must now be given up, as it was based on a corrupt passage
in Justin, which, by the restoration of the correct reading, shows that
it was not Alexander whom he had offended, but Nandrus or Xandrames,
the Magadha king. We do not know what induced Sandrokottos to leave
his home and take service under the latter monarch, but we incline to
attribute it to a sentiment of patriotism forbidding him to seek office
or advancement under a power which had crushed the liberties of his
country. What the nature of his offence against Nandrus was does not
appear, but he so dreaded his resentment that he quitted his dominions
and returned home to the Panjâb. He found it, although Alexander had
now been six years dead, still under Greek vassalage, and ruled as
formerly in civil matters by Omphis of Taxila and the great Pôros, while
the military administration had passed into the hands of Eudêmos. Soon
after his arrival, however, the order of things was violently disturbed.
Eudêmos having decoyed Pôros into his power, treacherously murdered
him,[418] but had no sooner done so than he was recalled to the west
to succour Eumenes in his war against Antigonos. As he took with him
3000 foot, 500 horse, and 125 elephants, he denuded the province of the
main strength of the force by which it was held in subjection, and his
departure was fatal to Greek power. The Indians, who longed for freedom,
and were no doubt greatly incensed by the murder of Pôros, rose in
revolt. Sandrokottos, who headed this movement, having collected a band
of insurgents, overthrew the existing government, expelled the remainder
of the Greek garrison, and finally installed himself in the sovereignty
of the Panjâb and of all the lower valley of the Indus. The insurgents,
whom he led to victory, are called by Justin _robbers_; but we must
not thence infer that he was a bandit leader, who, by taking advantage
of an opportune crisis, rose to power by the help of desperadoes whose
crimes had banished them from society. His adherents were, in point
of fact, chiefly the _Arattâ_ of the Panjâb, who were always called
_robbers_, and are denounced as such in the _Mahâbhârata_. The Kathaians,
who so stoutly resisted Alexander at Sangala, were included under this
designation, which means _Kingless_, and implies that they lived under
republican institutions. The stories told by the same author of the lion
which licked the sweat from Sandrokottos when asleep, and of the elephant
which volunteered to carry him into battle, and thus gave presages of his
future greatness, reflect the true spirit of oriental romance, and were
no doubt derived from native traditions which somehow found their way to
the west. They remind one of Joseph’s dreams, in which he saw the sheaves
and then the heavenly bodies falling down in obeisance before him.