by Amanda
Corrhagus with a single fatal blow of his club. The king was furious that
his compatriot had been so easily humiliated in a fight, all the more so
because it had happened in the presence of Indians. Alexander got his
revenge on Dioxippus some time later, when during a banquet he had a
gold cup planted close to the Athenian and next accused him of theft. The
disgraced athlete subsequently committed suicide.55
The march to the ocean was resumed in February 325. The fleet and
the land army were to meet up again at the point where the Acesines
flowed into the Indus. On the way there the column commanded by
Perdiccas forced the surrender of the Abastanians (alternatively called
Sambastai), who inhabited lands on both sides of the river Zadrus (today
known as the Sutlej) and were one of the so-called ‘independent’ tribes
over whom no monarch ruled. Ancient authors concur that yet another
Alexandria was founded at the confluence of the Acesines and Indus,
which according to Diodorus was to have a population of 10,000
inhabitants. However, since no traces of this settlement have been found to
date, some scholars are questioning its historical authenticity. As happened
so frequently during the Indian expedition, here too traces of the presence
of Dionysus were found, in whose footsteps the king always eagerly
followed.56
54 Arr., An. , 6.14.1-4; Curt., 9.7.12-14, 9.8.1-2. Bosworth 1988, p. 137.
55 Curt., 9.7.15-26; Diod., 17.100-101; Ael., VH, 10.22.
56 Arr., An. , 6.14.4-15.2; Diod., 17.102.1-4; Curt., 9.8.3-8. Eggermont 1993, p. 101;
Fraser 1996, pp. 70-71.
Expedition to India
325
The stopover at the confluence of the two rivers gave Alexander time
to settle the administrative matters of his empire. He appointed his father-
in-law Oxyartes the new satrap of Paropamisus in place of the now
dismissed Tyriespis, while the province of southern Punjab, which was
still being conquered, was entrusted to a Macedonian by the name of
Peithon. However, Peithon could not have been satrap there for long as by
the time of Alexander’s death Porus was also governing that region and
Peithon had been moved to a western part of India.57
On the next leg of their journey the Macedonians entered the land of
King Musicanus to the east of the Indus. In the account of Onesicritus this
kingdom had less in common with India than with a conventionally
idolized image of an aristocratic country similar to Sparta or Crete.
Apparently people there ate their meals together, youths performed tasks
that were in other places normally given to slaves and the use silver or
gold coins was quite unknown. Instead, the inhabitants enjoyed living long
lives in prosperity and equality thanks to the natural abundance of their
land. Unfortunately, these fantastic images conjured up by the cynic
philosopher obscure rather than shed light on what the Kingdom of
Musicanus was really like. The only feature that seems genuine was the
lack of slaves in the Punjab of those days. Instead there was serfdom.
Musicanus failed to turn up at the border to greet Alexander, which could
have been interpreted as a declaration of war. However, the rajah was soon
terrified by the swiftness of Alexander’s army as it proceeded to invade his
territory and hurried to greet the Macedonian to pay tribute and present
him with gifts. The surrender was accepted but Craterus occupied the
kingdom’s capital all the same. There he left a garrison in the citadel: just
to make sure the barbarians stayed loyal.58 The capital is most frequently
associated with today’s city of Alor on the eastern bank of the Indus in the
Pakistani province of Sind. Next Alexander launched a lightning campaign
against Oxicanus or Porticanus, whose land lay further south and who had
failed to provide the tribute required from all those whom Alexander
encountered. Detachments of cavalry, Agrianians and archers were
transported down the Indus by ship. Within two days the Macedonians
managed to storm two cities and kill the disobedient rajah, who had
decided to negotiate a bit too late. The sources give contradictory accounts
57 Arr., An. , 6.15.3-4; Arr., Succ. , ap. Phot., fr. 1.36; Curt., 9.8.9-10. Bosworth 1983, pp. 38-44.
58 Onesicritus, ap. Str., 15.1.34 (= FGrH, 134 F24); Arr., An. , 6.15.4-7; Curt., 9.8.8-10; It. Alex. , 112. Pearson 1960, pp. 100-106; Eggermont 1975, pp. 7-9, 25;
Seibert 1985, p. 167; Bosworth 1996a, pp. 85-87; Karttunen 1997, p. 79; Hahn
2000, p. 205, n. 200.
326
Chapter VI
regarding the fate of the remaining subjects of Oxicanus/Porticanus.59 The
ruler of the next kingdom, Sambus/Sabbas/Sabus (perhaps Sāmba),
preferred to immediately flee, leaving his capital, Sindimana to capitulate.
However, there is also a tradition, originating from Cleitarchus’ work,
which states that the people were incited by the Brahmans to resist and as
a consequence 80,000 were allegedly killed.60
Either way, the Macedonians encountered far more resistance in the
Brahman town of Harmatelia located in or close to Sambus’ kingdom at a
distance of four day’s sailing down river from Sindimana. On this
occasion the sources do not present the Brahmans as Indian sages but as an
Indian tribe, a caste that farmed the land, were warriors and performed
other tasks. This description is probably closer to the truth about the India
of those times. They allegedly smeared their swords and arrowheads with
poison so as to make them more lethal. Consequently many Macedonians
died after receiving wounds from such weapons. One of those said to have
been affected by this poison, though not fatally, was Ptolemy, the later
king of Egypt. A story that appears in the ‘Vulgate’ histories and no doubt
originated from Ptolemy himself states Alexander, who was concerned
about Ptolemy’s wound, dreamed of herb that could serve as an antidote to
the poison. This herb was supposed to have saved Ptolemy and other
wounded Macedonians from death. The Brahmans were defeated outside
their city’s walls and surrendered.61
It was at this time that the Musicanus decided to rebel. According to
Arrian, the rajah was persuaded by the Brahmans to make such a desperate
and, in face of the invading army’s vast superiority, quite hopeless
decision. The Brahmans in turn had most probably decided to resist not
only out of solidarity to fellow Brahmans in the lands of Sambus and
Harmatelia but also out of the outrage and deep hatred felt also by other
Indians towards the Macedonians for the crimes they had committed
against the country’s highest caste. Another reason for their enmity may
have been the presence of the Brahman ‘traitor’ Calanus in the camp of the
sacrilegious and hostile invader. Worse still, from the Sind Brahmans’
point of view though not so shocking to the Brahmans of northwest India,
Calanus was participating in drunken orgies. The revolt was easily crushed
by Peithon. This time no mercy could be shown to the rebellious
59 Arr., An. , 6.16.1-2; Diod., 17.102.5; Curt., 9.8.11-13; Str., 15.1.33. Seibert 1985, p. 1
67; Karttunen 1997, p. 35.
60 Arr., An. , 6.16.3-4; Diod., 17.102.6; Curt., 9.8.13-15; Plu., Alex. , 64.1; Str., 15.1.33. Bosworth 1988, pp. 137-138; Karttunen 1997, p. 35.
61 Cic., Div. , 2.135; Arr., An. , 6.16.5; Diod., 17.103; Curt., 9.8.17-28; Str., 15.2.7; Just., 12.10. Eggermont 1975, pp. 128-129; Bosworth 1998, p. 197.
Expedition to India
327
Musicanus; both he and his Brahman advisors were crucified. The
exceptional scale of slaughter and cruelty perpetrated during the southern
Punjab campaign may have resulted from frustration and the loosening of
moral restraints among psychologically exhausted Macedonian soldiers,
who were fighting a war they no longer believed in, on quite foreign soil
and in a difficult climate. On the other hand, it could have also resulted
from Alexander’s deliberate decision. In this part of India he was unable to
find rajahs who, like Taxiles and Porus, were willing to loyally cooperate
with the invader. Therefore he may have felt he had no choice but to break
the natives will to resist through the application of terror, particularly
against scheming Brahmans.62
The unprecedented wave of terror in southern Sind suppressed the will
to fight among Indians up until the Macedonians left. The ruler of the
Pataloi, who inhabited the Indus Delta, surrendered to Alexander even
before his troops had reached his land. The Macedonian king told him to
return home and prepare to greet the army. The rajah, however, felt he
could no long bear the tension and fled together with many of the
inhabitants of the region’s capital and surrounding areas; only some of
them could be persuaded to come back. On the way to Patala Alexander
had some of the phalangites and less physically fit veterans march together
with the elephants under the command of his best officer, Craterus. This
corps was to proceed along an inland route through Multan Pass to today’s
Quetta (the capital of the Pakistani province of Baluchistan), thence west
through the river Helmand valley and next on to Carmania. Craterus
fulfilled his mission and met up with his monarch in Carmania at the start
of 324.63 The rest of the army reached Patala approximately in mid June
325. There Hephaestion was instructed to set up a fortress; ships were built
in an improvised shipyard in preparation for the army’s return to the centre
of Alexander’s empire. In the meantime Alexander spent his time
exploring the Indus delta. His squadron sailed up to the point where Indus
flowed into the sea and there for the first time they experienced the
ocean’s huge tides, unknown in the Mediterranean. At low tide the ships
were grounded, and then as the sea rose again they were smashed against
the shore. During this expedition Alexander offered sacrifices to Poseidon
and other gods specified by the Ammon oracle. The sacrifices included
slaughtered bulls thrown into the ocean, a libation and the offering of gold
vessels. On one of the islands in the delta Alexander had an altar built for
62 Arr., An. , 6.17.1-2; Curt., 9.8.16; Diod., 17.102.4. Green 1974, p. 425; Badian
1985, pp. 469-470; Bosworth 1996a, pp. 95-96; Bosworth 1998, pp. 180, 196-199.
63 Arr., An. , 6.17.2-3, 6.17.5; Curt., 9.8.28-29; Str., 15.2.4. Goukowsky 1981, pp.
105-107; Seibert 1986, p. 169; Bosworth 1988, pp. 138-139.
328
Chapter VI
Oceanus and Thetis. This way he marked the southernmost boundary of
his expedition, just as he had earlier marked the northernmost and
easternmost boundaries. In other words, Alexander was stating that his
Indian expedition had reached its limit.64
The Indian campaign with the exceptionally difficult climate and the
quite alien peoples the Macedonians encountered and did not understand
had had a demoralising effect on Alexander and his subjects, which was
expressed in outbursts of open dissatisfaction and conflicts. At some stage
a dispute erupted between Alexander’s two top commanders – Craterus
and Hephaestion. It got so bad that they even reached for their swords and
as both had their ardent supporters it could have well led to civil war if
Alexander had not intervened. The king publicly rebuked Hephaestion,
whereas with Craterus he had words in private, thus showing that he
valued his military talent and respected his personal sense of dignity. On
this occasion the ancient authors recall that Hephaestion was regarded to
be Alexander’s friend, whereas Craterus, with his traditionalistic loyalty to
the Argead dynasty, was a friend of the king.65
From Alexander’s point of view his expedition to India was at best
only partly successful. In modern historiography it is almost exclusively
known from Western documentary sources and to a much lesser extent
from the occasional archaeological find in Pakistan. The expedition does
not seem to have had any impact on Indian literature and there is also no
other mention of Alexander as a historic figure. Like the Greeks of those
times, Indians were certain about the value and supremacy of their culture.
Contacts between the two civilizations continued to be only sporadic in the
early Hellenistic period; both sides limited relations to occasional
diplomatic exchanges and searches for exotic goods. The first individual
from the Greek world to make an impact on the Indian written tradition
was the ruler of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom Menander I (known as
Milinda in Buddhist literature), who himself adopted Indian customs,
culture and religion. However, it is generally believed that the most
important consequence of the 327-325 expedition was the break up of the
status quo in northern India, which indirectly led to the collapse of the
Nanda Empire and the emergence of the state of Chandragupta Maurya.
Another indirect consequence of Alexander’s expedition was an increased
influx of Persian artists and craftsmen, who were now deprived of
64 Aristobul., ap. Str., 15.1.17 (= FGrH, 139 F35); Arr., An. , 6.17.4, 6.18-19; Diod., 17.104.1-2; Curt., 9.9; Plu., Alex. , 66.1-2; Just., 12.10; It. Alex. , 114. Oikonomides 1988, pp. 31-32; Hamilton 1999, pp. 181-182; Worthington 2004, p. 165.
65 Plu., Alex. , 47.9-12; Plu., mor. , 181d, 337b; Diod., 17.114.1-2. Heckel 1992, p.
85.
Expedition to India
329
Achaemenid patronage. Thanks to this increased immigration the
Zoroastrian religion spread throughout India and an Iranian influence
became apparent in Indian arts and crafts.66
66 Narain 1965, pp. 165-167; Wheeler 1968, pp. 106, 121, 128-145, 153-156; Holt
1993a.
CHAPTER VII:
THE LAST YEARS
1. In the footsteps of Cyrus and Semiramis
After a difficult but for the time being victorious campaign in India the
Macedonian army returned to the central provinces of the Achaemenid
Empire in three groups. The easiest and most obvious of routes was taken
by Craterus’ corps (see Chapter VI.4). Another group, commanded by
Nearchus, travelled across the Arabian Sea, whereas Alexander took the
rest of the army along the coast. The latter two routes were more
dangerous. The Greeks had already sailed in the Indus region as well as
the southern seas on their way back to Egypt, but that was the 6th-century
voyage of the sailor Scylax of Caryanda in Darius’ service and his account
was not widely known among Greeks in the late 4th century. Nearchus
therefore was to sail across a quite unfamiliar ocean whose great forces
weakly constructed Greek vessels were ill-prepared to withstand. However,
it was Alexander’s corps who faced the greatest challenge. It included the
basic land forces, most of the baggage train, the soldiers’ families and
other camp followers. They were to march through Makran, a desert and
semi desert land deprived of rain except during the summer monsoon and
the winter season. The ancient authors state that Alexander was aware of
the potential difficulties and dangers that could face them. They provide
only one explanation for his decision, one originally passed on to them
from Nearchus: the desire to outdo Semiramis and Cyrus the Great. Both
were supposed to have used this route through Makran to try and invade
India. Both almost lost their entire armies in attempting to do so; allegedly
only 20 of Semiramis’ soldiers survived and as few as seven in Cyrus’
case. Regardless of how historically true these accounts of previous
expeditions are, such a reason for Alexander’s decision to take this route is
hardly surprising when we bear in mind how willingly he followed in
Heracles and Dionysus’ footsteps in India. Alexander was known to have
admired Cyrus the Great for a long time and just as previously he had
captured Aornos Rock to outdo Heracles, so too he could now have
wished to beat that other hero. We cannot tell whether, as M. Brosius
332
Chapter VII
assumes, behind this imitation of Cyrus the Great there also lay a political
plan of winning over the Persian aristocracy. Rationalising modern
historians attribute to Alexander motives that are nowhere recorded in the
sources. They say he wanted to punish the soldiers for their rebellion on
