by Amanda
ambitious though not yet fully defined plans for future conquests.
Therefore the accounts in the sources can be generally regarded a plausible.
On the other hand, this sudden flurry of diplomatic activity in the spring of
323 shows a certain tendency in the sources, stemming from Cleitarchus,
to stress the role of Alexander as a universal ruler. It is for this purpose
that the sources mention the embassies of peoples too exotic and too
remote to have any interest at the Macedonian king’s court. As such we
should consider the Iberians, the Celts from Gaul, the Ethiopians or the
Scythians – all of whom had a quasi-mythological status in Greek
tradition.74 Alexander did grant audiences to the Greek embassies but he
failed to give any of them significant concessions regarding the return of
the exiles. Instead he expressed good will by receiving such envoys with
kindness and sending them back with valuable items that had been looted
by the Persian during the 5th-century wars. It was then that the decision
was made to return to Athens the statues of the tyrannicides that had been
robbed by Xerxes in 480 and would eventually be brought back to Athens
in the diadochi period.75
The subject of greatest controversy is the alleged embassy from Rome.
Neither Ptolemy nor Aristobulus mention it for Arrian cites later authors
(Ariston and Asclepiades) as his source and this fact has led some scholars
to doubt the veracity of the reported event. Some modern historians
consider it to be an apocryphal tale invented by rhetorical schools at the
time of the late Roman Republic and early Roman Empire to compare
their state’s achievements with those of Alexander the Great. Such
intellectual exercises among Romans are of course well known,
particularly as far as the virtues of manliness, morality and happiness are
concerned and in this context Alexander was considered a figure
particularly favoured by fortune. The author of the most famous of such
comparisons was Livy, who tried to prove with touching naivety and
74 Diod., 17.112.1, 17.113.2-4; Arr., An. , 7.15.4-6; Clitarch., ap. Plin., Nat. , 3.57 (=
FGrH, 137 F31); Memn., FGrH, 434 F1(18); Just., 12.13. Bosworth 1988, pp.
165-167; Alessandri 1997, pp. 148-154; Alessandri 1997a.
75 Arr., An. , 7.19.1-2.
The Last Years
367
patriotic fervour that in a hypothetical confrontation between Alexander’s
army and that of the Romans the latter would win thanks to the quality of
the troops and greater talents of the long forgotten generals. Nevertheless,
the presence of Alexander as a theme in the deliberations of rhetoricians
and historians at the turn of the Christian era cannot be used as an
argument to determine whether or not an embassy from Rome arrived at
his court. In the 330s and 320s many conflicts in Italy raged between
native tribes and Greek cities supported by mainland Greek powers. It was
in such a war in 331 that Alexander the Great’s relative, Alexander of
Epirus, was killed by the Lucanians. Another problem was Etruscan piracy
in the Adriatic, which threatened Greek trade. At the start of his Persian
campaign Alexander had portrayed himself as champion of Hellenism,
now he may have wanted to play the same role with regard to Italy and
Sicily. Strabo informs us that Alexander’s envoys did intervene
diplomatically in Rome regarding the matter of Etruscan piracy. The
Roman embassy at his court could have well been a response to this
demarche. Perhaps the Romans did not wish to give Alexander the pretext
for launching an attack. The historical veracity of such a diplomatic
mission is confirmed in the account of the contemporary Cleitarchus,
whereas Ptolemy and Aristobulus’ silence is hardly surprising. Although
by then it was already the most powerful state in central Italy, Rome was
still a third-rate power in the world politics; amid so many barbarian
ambassadors converging on Babylon envoys from a provincial town on the
Tiber could have easily been overlooked by other contemporaries not
directly involved in royal diplomacy.76
Another controversial issue is the role played by Alexander’s half
brother Arrhidaeus at this time. In Bosworth’s reading of clay tablets of
the Babylonian Chronicle, the first year of the reign of Arrhidaeus in our
terms would be the year 324/323. Since the Babylonian year began in
April (1 Nisan), Arrhidaeus must have been installed as king of Babylon
before April 323, i.e. before Alexander’s death and naturally according to
his will. The entry on the clay tablets is the first piece of information we
have about Arrhidaeus ever since the Pixodarus affair. Arrhidaeus was
mentally retarded and therefore considered unfit to rule. He had remained
in Macedonia most probably under the care of Antipater but in 324, when
relations between the king and his regent had become strained, Alexander
decided to summon his half-brother to Babylon. Apart from Alexander,
Arrhidaeus was the only other male member of the Argead dynasty and
76 Arr., An. , 7.15 (after Aristos and Asclepiades); Clitarch., ap. Plin., Nat. , 3.57-58
(= FGrh, 137 F31); Str., 5.3.5; Liv., 9.17-19. Hypercritical: Walbank 1986; contra: Bosworth 1988, p. 167; Flower 2000, pp. 132-135.
368
Chapter VII
therefore his presence in Babylon naturally precluded the possibility of
him being used as a pawn in any political game or open conflict between
Alexander and Antipater. Having remained for such a long time in
Macedonia, Arrhidaeus was quite unknown to Macedonian soldiers; that is
why after Alexander’s death no one at first considered the possibility of
him becoming the official successor. In the spring of 324 Arrhidaeus was
possibly crowned king of Babylon, which was in keeping with a tradition
already practiced in the time of the Neo-Assyrian and Persian empires
when members of ruling dynasties frequently received this honorary title.
It was merely a symbolic monarchy used to satisfy the aspirations of
Babylonian elites. The king of Babylon only dealt with religious and
ceremonial matters, tasks Arrhidaeus was capable of performing. This
interpretation would elucidate a passage in Curtius showing Alexander and
Arrhidaeus co-hosting religious ceremonies, perhaps of the Babylonian
New Year in April 323.77
After Alexander’s return to Babylon preparations for the conquest of
Arabia were stepped up. The pretext to invade was the country’s failure to
pay homage to Alexander when all the other nations had already done so.
In the winter of 324/323 another reconnaissance expedition was launched
commanded by three captains: Androsthenes of Thasos, Archias of Pella
and Hieron of Soli. Again the mission failed to sail all the way around the
Arabian Peninsula, whose size contemporaries compared with some
exaggeration to the Indian Peninsula. The captains did, however, explore
the Arabian coast. They discovered the islands of Icarus (today Failaka in
Kuwait) and Tylos (today Bahrain) as well as the mainland city of Gerrha
(opposite the island of Tylos), which was the most important settlem
ent
and trading port the sailors encountered on this expedition. Preparations to
build a fleet also continued apace. In Babylon a great river harbour was
excavated reputedly capable of holding as many as a thousand ships. 47
ships were built in Phoenician shipyards and next transported in parts over
land and by river to Babylon, where they were reassembled. 500 talents
were also spent on recruiting Phoenician crews.78 In March 323 major
earthworks were begun to control the flow of the Euphrates. In three
months 10,000 labourers constructed dams and floodgates between the
Euphrates and the great Pallocotas (Pallukatu) Canal, so that the latter
could level out the water during spring floods. Thanks to this engineering
feat the lower reaches of the Euphrates could remain navigable and in
77 Grayson 1975a, pp. 115-119; Curt., 10.7.2. Bosworth 1992; Pelagia 2000, p. 196;
Carney 2001, pp. 73-79. Contra: Boiy 2007, pp. 114-115.
78 Arr., An. , 7.19.3-20.10; Str., 16.3.2-4. Högemann 1985, pp. 80-94; Bosworth
1988, pp. 168-170.
The Last Years
369
addition Alexander, as any good king of Babylon, showed his interest in
improving the irrigation system. Another element of the preparations to
invade Arabia was the building of a city on the Persian Gulf coast to be
inhabited by Greek mercenary veterans.79
It was also at this time that land army reinforcements reached Babylon:
Peucestas brought 20,000 troops from Iran; Philoxenus brought
detachments (probably mercenary) from Caria, Menander brought soldiers
from Lydia and Menidas some cavalry, whose origin we do not know. It
was also then that Alexander introduced the greatest change to the infantry
battle formation in his entire reign. Instead of the old uniform phalanx he
now introduced a new formation that was 16 ranks deep: the first three
ranks and the last rank comprised Macedonians traditionally armed with
sarissai, whereas the 12 ranks in between included Persians archers and
javelin throwers. Despite the now greater volume of men, this new
formation would have certainly had a weaker force of impact than the old
phalanx. Bearing in mind the language and culture differences between the
soldiers, we may also assume that this formation was also much less
cohesive. However, it was never put to the test in battle because the
Arabian campaign failed to get underway before the fateful June of 323.80
79 Arr., An. , 7.21; Str., 16.1.11; App., BC, 2.153. Högemann 1985, pp. 144-189; Fraser 1996, pp. 168-170; van der Spek 2000.
80 Arr., An. , 7.23.1-5. Green 1974, p. 471; Hammond 1996, pp. 244-245; Sekunda
2007, p. 333.
CHAPTER VIII:
DEATH, LAST PLANS, TOMB
1. The King Died
The death of a ruler as important as Alexander could not have been
presented by the ancient authors as something that happened unexpectedly.
According to them, already at Persepolis when Calanus was about to
mount his pyre he told Alexander that he would soon meet and embrace
him in Babylon. During the purges that followed Alexander’s return from
India Apollodorus, the army commander in Babylon, fearing for his own
life, consulted his brother, who was a soothsayer, and told him that
Hephaestion and Alexander were the people who terrified him the most.
The answer he eventually received was that Hephaestion would
imminently die and that a great misfortune would also befall the king; this
information reportedly came to him the day before Hephaestion’s death.1
Such tales are a frequently used literary creation where portends are more
often than not recalled only after the event they were supposed to have
prophesied actually happened. During the diadochi period stories of such
omens were used for political purposes. Plutarch lists colourful anecdotes
of obvious signs that probably originate from those times: of ravens
fighting in the sky as a result of which a dead bird falls at Alexander’s feet
or of the favourite lion in the royal menagerie which is killed when an ass
kicks it. Another tale has Alexander taking a boat trip in a lake near
Babylon when a gust of wind suddenly blows away his diadem and carries
it off into the rushes. The diadem is saved from sinking by a sailor who
lifts it off the rushes, which happen to be growing on the tomb of an
Assyrian king. The sailor places diadem on his head so that it does not get
wet and wades back to the shore. This is not only an omen of Alexander’s
death but also a foretelling that he would be succeeded by a stranger who
was not his son. The legend even has the diadem being saved by Seleucus,
1 Arr., An. , 7.18; Plu., Alex. , 69.6; Cic., Div. , 1.47; V. Max., 1.8, ext. 10. Baynham 2000, p. 254.
372
Chapter VIII
the founder of the most important Hellenistic dynasty and for whom
wearing Alexander’s crown was to predict a truly great future.2
On the other hand, in the ancient world belief in signs, miracles,
portends and the significance of dreams was universal. Therefore it was
natural that all sorts of soothsayers, diviners, magi, theurgists and
astrologers converged on the court of a pious and famously extravagant
monarch. It has been historically well documented that Alexander
surrounded himself which such specialists from both Greece and the
Orient. One can well imagine that in this very competitive market of sorts
everyone of them tried to achieve fame by accurately predicting good or
bad events, for accurate predictions could ensure the author the position of
power and wealth Aristander had enjoyed ever since the start of
Alexander’s Asian campaign. Therefore the king would have for certain
been constantly receiving prophesies and interpretations of signs. That is
why the historical truth of prophesises concerning Alexander’s death
should not be dismissed out of hand, particularly when classical authors
report events they themselves did not understand while modern scholars
have found them to be consistent with the beliefs and customs of ancient
Babylon.
Chaldaean astrologers, who were universally respected for their
knowledge and antiquity of discipline they practiced, had warned
Alexander long before his return to Babylon to avoid the city, or at least
not enter it from the east, thus facing the west, i.e. the land of the dead.
Arrian tries to rationalise the stance of the Babylonian priests by
explaining that they wanted to dissuade Alexander from returning so that
he would not discover their financial abuses and how little had been done
in the rebuilding of the Etemenanki ziggurat. He also maintains that
Alexander was already suspicious of them. This interpretation, however, is
not corroborated by facts known from other Greek or Babylonian sources.
During Alexander’s absence the reconstruction of the Etemenanki ziggurat
was actually proceeding more or less according to plan. Moreover, the
king did try to heed the Chaldaean warnings. At first he did not enter
Babylon and headed for Borsippa instead. Next he tried very hard to find a
way of not entering the capital from the east. Unfortunately marshes
2 LDM and early Hellenistic sources of Ps.-Callisth., 3.30; Plu., Alex. , 73.2-7.
Diadem: Arr., An. , 7.22; Diod., 17.116.5-7; App., Syr. , 288-291. Smelik 1978-1979, pp. 98-100; Heckel 1992, pp. 255-256; Bosworth 2000a; Baynham 2000.
3 Arr., An. , 7.16.5-17.6; Diod., 17.116.4; Plu., Alex. , 73.1-2; Just., 12.13. Smelik 1978-1979, pp. 93-96.
Death, Last Plans, Tomb
373
It is therefore almost certain that there were some natural phenomena
interpreted as bad omens. It could be a deformed baby born at that time
known from the Alexander Romance. Or whilst routinely observing the
heavens the Babylonian priests noticed something they interpreted to be an
omen of a particularly great danger to the king, which they duly reported
to him. Alexander tried to heed their warning, but eventually he entered
Babylon from the east. It was at this stage that the Greek sources report a
strange and in their interpretation inexplicable episode: an ordinary man,
according to some versions a convict who had just been freed from chains,
ascended and sat on Alexander’s throne. None of the sources provide a
convincing explanation of how that man had found himself on the throne.
The eunuchs guarding the throne did not attempt to remove this
sacrilegious commoner; instead they tore their garments and lamented
loudly. The man was eventually arrested but even under torture he could
not explain why he had behaved in such a way. Following the advice of
soothsayers, Alexander next had the unfortunate put to death. If we reject
Plutarch’s version in which the god Sarapis had personally freed the man
from his chains and ordered him to ascend Alexander’s throne wearing
royal robes and a diadem, then the only way the situation could have come
about was with the help of other mortals, and those could have only been
people normally close to the king. If we consider the fact that the
Chaldaean priests had just failed to help the king avoid the possibility of a
very bad omen sighted in the heavens being fulfilled, we may also
