by Amanda
135 Arr., An. , 2.25.4-27.7; Curt., 4.6.7-30; Hegesias, FGrH, 142 F5; Diod., 17.48.7; Plu., Alex. , 24.4-5; Plu., mor. , 341b; Plb., 16.22a.3-6; D.H., Comp. , 18; Zonar., 4.10. Bosworth 1980, pp. 257-260; Atkinson 1980, pp. 337-343.
From Abydus to Alexandria
199
control. The ancient authors routinely criticised successive Persian rulers
for treating the native population with cruelty and for not respecting the
country’s customs, culture and religion. The most notable example of this
allegedly was the killing of the divine Apis bull, first by Cambyses and
later also by Artaxerxes III. At least in the case of the first of these rulers
Herodotus’s claim that he killed the Apis bull with his own hands is false
for contemporary sources record how Cambyses honoured the divine bull.
The accusations regarding Artaxerxes III are in turn a repeat of
Herodotus’s topos of the sacrilegious ruler. Nevertheless, these incessantly
repeated tales are not merely colourful decorations to accounts of exotic
countries but a reflection of predominantly negative opinions of Persia in
Egypt passed on to the Greeks by informers from the Egyptian priestly
caste. Apart from the inevitable friction caused by differences in mentality
and culture between the invader and a subjugated people, Cambyses, the
first Persian ruler of Egypt, had deprived Egyptian temples of much of
their revenues and privileges. Darius I did help to better establish Persian
rule by founding new temples, codifying Egyptian law and building the
ancient equivalent of the Suez Canal, indeed linking the Red Sea with the
Mediterranean. However, in the 5th century subsequent Persian rulers
stopped visiting Egypt and no longer cared as much as Darius I or even
Cambyses for maintaining close relations with the political elite of that
country. Instead they tried to keep Egypt loyal with numerous garrisons of
Iranian, Semitic (in this number Jewish), Carian, Greek and Egyptian
soldiers: in Elephantine, Thebes, Abydos, Memphis, Faiyum and several
places in the Nile Delta. But neither they nor the bureaucratic and police
apparatus, the king’s ‘eyes and ears’, were able to stop the revolt that in
404 led to Egypt breaking away from the Persian Empire.136
Despite the efforts of successive Persian rulers to recapture this rich
province, over the next 60 years Egypt remained an independent state
ruled by the last three native dynasties. For two generations the energetic
pharaohs of the 28th-30th dynasties employed large armies of Greek
mercenaries to protect Egypt’s sovereignty. As these mercenaries were
used to being paid with money rather than in kind, the Egyptian rulers
founded a large mint, probably in Memphis, producing such excellent
copies of Athenian tetradrachms that for a long time modern numismatists
were unable to distinguish them from the original. An unintended but
important consequence of this was the acquainting of Egyptians to the use
of coin money. With time at least the inhabitants of Memphis were even
using bronze coins in minor transactions. Thus even before the
136 Bresciani 1985, pp. 505-520; Ray 1988; Cuyler Young 1988, p. 51.
200
Chapter IV
Macedonian conquest, the Egyptians had started to acquire the abilities
and customs necessary for the functioning of a ‘modern’ 4th-century
economy. It was Artaxerxes III who finally put an end to Egyptian
independence in 343. The last Egyptian pharaoh, Nectanebo II, fled abroad
– according to the Alexander Romance he went on to father the great
Macedonian, Alexander. Greek authors paint a decidedly negative picture
of Artaxerxes III’s rule in Egypt. Apart from demolishing the defensive
walls of major cities, temples were allegedly robbed; there were acts of
sacrilege and the theft of sacred scripts that were later sold back to the
priests by the corrupt chiliarch Bagoas. Egyptian sources, however, are
more equivocal. Some report the confiscation of land belonging to temples,
plunder and disruption in the social order, while others report life
continuing as normal and the temples being left undisturbed. As usual
some of the Egyptian elite – both priestly and secular – were able to adapt
quickly to the new situation and willingly cooperated with the new
authority. Clear evidence of social dissatisfaction with Persian rule came
with another rebellion when after the death of the active Artaxerxes III
there was no successor of adequate strength of personality to control
events. The rebel leader Khababash declared himself pharaoh and in the
years 338-336 held power at least in some parts of Egypt, including the
capital, Memphis. This rebellion, which was eventually quelled by Darius
III, was the source of great chaos for even most Egyptians regarded
Khababash to be a rebel rather than a monarch. He was not included in the
lists of kings and thus virtually condemned to be totally forgotten. The
Persian authority restored to Egypt by Darius III was strong and stable
enough to withstand the usurpation by Amyntas in the winter of
333/332.137
The ancient sources do not inform us of the objectives behind
Alexander’s expedition to Egypt – an expedition that delayed the final
showdown with Darius III by almost a year. Modern historians assume
that the conquest of this country was essential for the complete occupation
of the eastern Mediterranean area before the planned expedition into the
Asia interior. They note that the food resources of Syria and Palestine
would have been exhausted after the prolonged presence of the
Macedonian army. These resources had to be replenished before another
massive army set off to the East. On the other hand, we do know from the
ancient sources that Egypt made a great impression on Alexander. Like
many other ancient Greeks, he admired the Egyptian monuments and
137 Bresciani 1985, pp. 526-528; Lloyd 1994, p. 34; Briant 1996, p. 881; Le Rider
1997, pp. 83-88; Le Rider 2003, pp. 220-227; Debord 1999, p. 412; Burstein 2000.
From Abydus to Alexandria
201
towards the end of his life even planned to build a pyramid-shaped tomb
for his father.138
Gaza, which Alexander had captured in October 332, was 200 km
away from the nearest Egyptian city of Pelusium (today Tell el-Farama).
The route along the coast of the Sinai Peninsula was particularly
inhospitable: initially barren desert with absolutely no vegetation, later the
landscape changed into extensive coastal salt marshes. Rains in this part of
the Mediterranean coast could not be expected before November, and what
few wells there were had only small quantities of brackish water.
According to Arrian, the Macedonian army reached Pelusium on the
seventh day. No doubt the army marched so fast to minimise the time
spent in a territory deprived of food and water. The sources do not provide
any information about the logistic problems of this march but we know
from other cases of large armies crossing Sinai (from Cambyses to
Napoleon) that the previous preparation of food and water supplies was
essential. The army’s long stay at G
aza made possible the setting up of
provisions magazines on the coast. Provisions could also have been
supplied by the fleet commanded by Hephaestion, which was floating
towards Egypt alongside the Sinai shore. Once the army reached Egypt, it
encountered no major problems. The sources do not record any resistance
being put up the Persian satrap Mazaces, who approximately half a year
earlier had defeated Amyntas’s mercenaries. We do not know what
proportion of the Macedonian army accompanied Alexander to Egypt,
though it is certain that considerable forces had to remain in Syria to
protect this newly captured country against a possible Persian attack.
Perhaps these forces were commanded by Parmenion for none of the
ancient authors makes any mention of him being present in Egypt.
Nevertheless, the superior strength of the invading Macedonian army was
unquestioned and – also taking into account the unfavourable mood among
the Egyptians – that is most probably why Mazaces surrendered Pelusium
to Alexander.139
The Macedonian fleet next sailed up the Nile from Pelusium to
Memphis, while Alexander and the land army marched along the no longer
existing Pelusium Nile Delta arm to Ōn (Heliopolis to the ancient Greeks
and today a northeast suburb of Cairo). At Ōn the army crossed over to the
138 Marasco 1964, p. 10; Seibert 1972, pp. 109-111; Schachermeyr 1973, p. 235;
Dąbrowa 1988, pp. 63-64.
139 Arr., An. , 3.1.1-3; Diod., 17.49.1; Curt., 4.7.2-3; Fragmentum Sabbaiticum, FGrH, 151 F1.8; Just., 11.11.1; It. Alex. , 48. Wilcken 1967, pp. 112-113; Lane Fox 1973, pp. 194-195; Engels 1978, pp. 59-60; Seibert 1985, pp. 84-85; Bosworth
1988, pp. 68-70.
202
Chapter IV
west bank of the Nile and marched 40 km up river to Memphis. Satrap
Mazaces went out to greet Alexander and surrendered to him the capital
and the whole of Egypt. The victor’s trophies included 800 talents from
the satrap’s treasury. To celebrate the occupation of the capital of such an
important satrapy Alexander organised gymnastics and musical contests.
Greek artists were invited to perform in these events, and no doubt given a
considerable amount of time to arrive. Apart from Alexander’s own
soldiers, the spectators and audience must have included the so-called
Hellenomemphitai, i.e. the members of a Greek community that had
existed in Egypt since the 6th century and partly originated from the
mercenaries who had served the 26th Dynasty. Recorded events in
Memphis show that Alexander from the start took trouble to communicate
with the Greek and Egyptian communities separately and in accordance
with their different cultures. Apart from the Greek contests, Alexander
also laid offerings before the Egyptian gods. The Greek sources mention
Ammon-Ra (called by them Zeus), Osiris and Apis – deity known but
alien to Greek culture. Unlike the offerings he laid before Tyrian god
Melqart, whom he associated with Heracles, here Alexander only wished
to officially honour the native people’s gods. In other words, he wished to
fulfil the traditional religious obligations of the ruler and thus publicly
legitimise his claim to authority. No doubt Alexander also laid offerings at
a Greek temple (Hellenion) that was located in the Greek district of the
city.140
The pharaonic coronation of Alexander, tentatively dated to his first
stay in Memphis in December 332 is a matter of scholarly debate. The
only source to mention it directly is the Alexander Romance, whose
account is vague and unclear but which is generally well informed about
Egyptian affairs. According to the Romance, Alexander was led by
Egyptian priests to the Temple of Hephaestus (Ptah) at Memphis, dressed
in the garments of an Egyptian king and seated on a throne. In fact
Egyptian documents issued in Alexander’s times bear dates according to
regnal years of pharaoh Alexander. Numerous Egyptian reliefs present
Alexander in traditional pharaoh attire, and his name is written in the royal
cartouches as follows: ‘Horus, who conquered foreign lands; king of
Upper and Lower Egypt, chosen by Ra, beloved by Ammon, the son of Ra,
Alexandros.’ A noticeable lack of certain elements that normally appear in
a pharaoh’s title has inclined some historians to reject the Alexander
Romance claim that the Macedonian king was crowned in Egypt.
140 Arr., An. , 3.1.3-4, 3.5.2; Curt., 4.7.3-4; Ps.-Callisth., 1.34.1-2. Wilcken 1967, pp.
116-117; Bosworth 1980, pp. 262, 275; Thompson 1988, pp. 3-20, 83-84, 95-97,
106; O’Brien 1992, p. 86; Stewart 1993, pp. 171-173; Bloedow 1988.
From Abydus to Alexandria
203
Monarchs who had not even ever been in Egypt let alone crowned there
were also recorded with pharaonic titles; Egyptian priests did that to give
the fictitious sense of an unbroken succession of rightful rulers of Egypt,
the interruption of which could upset the cosmic order and bring
catastrophe to the country. We know that the Egyptian coronation
ceremony was a long and tedious affair, which in the opinion of the
sceptical modern historians would not have appealed to an impatient
Alexander. Therefore they believe that he would have only agreed to
engage in the bare minimum of cult activities that could be expected of a
foreign ruler and keep the religious caste happy.141
It is easy to notice that such argumentation, on the one hand, is based
on a subjective understanding of Alexander’s personality and, on the other,
it is also based on the fact that the principal sources remain silent about the
whole subject. We should, however, remember just how few historical
sources, both Greek and Egyptian, have actually survived. For example
there is only one source for the full Egyptian title of the great
Macedonian’s son, Alexander IV, and today we only have a mere copy of
the original from over 200 years ago. Thorough analyses of Alexander’s
royal title in Egyptian inscriptions show that it was abbreviated in various
ways depending on the nature of the given document. Its most extended
form includes three of the five elements of a pharaoh’s full title. Therefore
Egyptian sources do not unequivocally refute Alexander’s legitimate claim
to authority in Egypt. Indeed, any opinion on whether or not Alexander
was genuinely installed as pharaoh will remain hypothetical. Nevertheless,
a premise for an opinion can be formed by examining Alexander’s policy
with regard to Egypt’s tradition, culture and religion and how it was
received by the Egyptian priestly establishment, which was best educated
and positioned to appreciate the nuances of the ruler’s government.
Alexander ordered a shrine in the Temple of Thutmose III to be restored in
his name. In 330 the high-priest of Thoth, Petosiris, collaborated with the
king to rebuild a temple to his god at Hermopolis Magna. Alexander also
funded the construction of a totally new religious edifice, the so-called
Temple of the Barque, that is, a chapel where the god Ammon’s sacred
boat was kept. This still extant structure is not significant on account of its
141
Ps.-Callisth., 1.34.2; ‘1st year of pharaoh Alexander’ in document Hawara
Papyrus 2 (Jasnow 1997, p. 95, n. 2). Wilcken 1967, pp. 113-114; Tarn 1948, I, p.
41; Schachermeyr 1973, p. 236; Lane Fox 1973, pp. 196-197; Hamilton 1974, p.
74; Green 1974, pp. 269-270. Tradition of Alexander’s Egyptian coronation
rejected by: Badian 1985, p. 433; Bosworth 1988, pp. 70-71; Burstein 1991;
Burstein 1994; Stewart 1993, p. 174. Egyptian titles of Alexander: Wilcken 1967,
p. 114; Burstein 1991; Ladynin 1999.
204
Chapter IV
size, for it is only 5.7 m by 7.8 m large, but because of it location and
adornment. It is found in the central part of the Temple at Luxor, in an
area that could only be accessed by the priests and over which they had
total control. Although the building of the Temple of the Barque was
financed by the king, decisions regarding its detailed design and
ornaments were made by the priests of Ammon, who were the only people
in Egypt able to appreciate the significance of the various elements. The
temple’s walls are covered with reliefs depicting Alexander as a pharaoh
in the company of Egyptian gods. Art historians stress that these reliefs
strictly adhere to the classical Egyptian style, which can be distinguished
from the vast majority of works of art of the Late Egyptian period. The
fact that Egyptian priests made such an ideological and artistic decision
shows that they fully recognised the temple’s financial patron as a
legitimate ruler. Among his other investments was the reconstruction of
temples that had been raised by Nectanebo II, the last native ruler of Egypt.
Therefore Alexander did regard his Egyptian title seriously. He proclaimed
himself a continuator of the Egyptian monarchy and thus ideologically
distanced himself from the second Persian occupation of that country.142
Both Greek and Egyptian sources mention that Alexander laid
offerings to Egyptian gods, including those who took the incarnations of
