by Amanda
themselves, another aspect of Alexander’s legacy that the commanders and
soldiers in Babylon had to resolve were his so-called last plans. Citing
information from Hieronymus of Cardia, who was a reliable contemporary
historian of that period, Diodorus states that Perdiccas found a document
( hypomnemata) in Alexander’s chancellery containing a list of
undertakings the king had been planning to realise over the subsequent
few years. The tasks included: the erection of an expensive mausoleum for
Hephaestion; the building of a thousand warships larger than triremes in
the ports of Phoenicia, Cilicia, Syria and Cyprus; the conquest of
territories in the West up to the Pillars of Heracles; the construction of a
road with ports and shipyards along the Mediterranean coast of Africa for
the purpose of this campaign; the erection of six temples in Delos, Delphi,
Dodona, Dion, Amphipolis and Cyrnus each costing 1,500 talents; the
construction of a tomb for Philip that would be greater than the pyramids
of Egypt as well as the mutual relocation of Europeans to Asia and Asians
to Europe. Perdiccas presented these instructions found in Alexander’s
notes to the assembled Macedonian soldiers, who voted to reject them.
The authenticity of these last plans has been debated by modern historians
and there are opinions that Perdiccas had actually forged them to distract
the army’s attention from the late king’s real orders, which were very
awkward for his successor.15
However, there is nothing in Alexander’s last plans as presented by
Diodorus that seems implausible, especially if we put them in the context
of the king’s conduct in the final year of his life. We can hardly call the
sum total of 9,000 talents intended to be spent on the construction of six
temples excessively high if Alexander had spent 10,000-12,000 talents on
Hephaestion’s funeral pyre and no less on repaying the debts of
spendthrifts in the Macedonian army. Alexander was barely 33 in 323 and
14 Habicht 1972; Anson 1991, pp. 236-239; Heckel 1992, pp. 165-170; Carney
2001, pp. 82-84; Bosworth 2002, pp. 37-63.
15 Diod., 18.4; Plu., mor. , 343d. Authenticity rejected by Tarn 1948, ii, pp. 378-398;
Pearson 1960, pp. 261-262.
380
Chapter VIII
he could have expected many more years of rule, which so far had meant
wars and conquests. Up until his death he had been preparing to invade
Arabia, whereas certain steps that had been taken in 324 indicate an
interest in the West as the next theatre of war. Embassies from nations
living around the west Mediterranean basin were arriving at Alexander’s
court, while his best general Craterus was in Cilicia supervising
preparations for a major campaign. This was to be a war against major sea
powers, Carthage as well as Athens, which had refused to accept its exiles,
and therefore it required the building of a fleet. The logistic designs (the
road and ports) can be easily explained if only by what the army had
experienced in Makran. Therefore Diodorus’ précis of the document read
out by Perdiccas does not provide enough evidence to question the
authenticity of such plans.16
Likewise, the rejection of Alexander’s last plans by the Macedonian
soldiers at Babylon does not constitute convincing evidence that these
plans were forged. From the Macedonian veterans’ point of view the most
objectionable parts of the Alexander’s last plans were the military ones.
They certainly would not have had much against the construction of
temples (including three in their homeland) or the construction of the tomb
of the very popular Philip II. However, the Macedonian soldiers had
already questioned the continuation of war after Darius III’s death. New,
difficult and distant campaigns could have only had a chance of being
realised under the charismatic leadership of Alexander. With Alexander
gone, Macedonian veterans’ questioning the sense of further campaigns
was quite to be expected. It is fair to assume that presenting Alexander’s
last plans to be accepted or rejected by the Macedonian army was a move
that made Perdiccas popular not only with the soldiers in Babylon but also
those commanded by Craterus in Cilicia for it was they who, against their
will, would have had to make the greatest contribution to the war in the
West. Moreover, although the decision of the assembled army in Babylon
might not have had legal significance, it certainly resolved the problem of
Alexander’s last plans in the political sense. It forced Craterus to lead his
army back to Europe and thus leave Asia in the hands of Perdiccas and his
allies.17
Therefore Alexander’s last military plans were never implemented. On
the other hand, his political plan to permanently include Asia elites,
particularly the Iranians, in the government of a state that was to a large
16 Wilcken 1937; Wilcken 1967, pp. 224-229; Schachermeyr 1954; Badian 1968;
Bosworth 1988a, pp. 207-211; O’Brien 1992, pp. 217-218; Hammond 1996, pp.
281-285.
17 Shipley 2000, p. 39; Bosworth 2002, pp. 58-63.
Death, Last Plans, Tomb
381
extent a continuation of the Achaemenid monarchy was more successful
than modern historiography is generally inclined to concede. The most
striking example of someone who shared Alexander’s views on this matter
was Peucestas, the satrap of Persis. But Antigonus Monophtalmus
overthrew Peucestas in 316 and it was actually Antigonus who made the
final nominations of Iranians to highest offices. Greek sources claim that
only 11% of the highest officials under Antigonus were Asians. Moreover,
the same ancient authors also claim that of high-ranking state officials and
army commanders of the Seleucid monarchy barely 2.5% were Asians.
Yet such sources are overvalued as evidence of the extent to which this
was a ‘Greco-Macedonian’ state. The fact that they concentrate mainly on
matters concerning the royal court, the western satrapies and exclusively
Greek affairs shows that they do not give the full picture and cannot be
considered as reliable evidence regarding Asian matters. More recent
studies have shown the Seleucid state to have not only been a continuator
of Alexander’s system of government but also of earlier Near Eastern, in
particular of the Persian Empire.18
After Alexander a return to the world as it had been before 336 was
impossible. His conquests had created a new system of monarchic rule and,
at the same time, monarchy acquired legitimacy in the Greek world, where
previously kingship had only existed in semi-barbarian states such as
Macedonia or Epirus or in Sparta, which always stood out with its
penchant for archaic eccentricities. Alexander’s style of monarchic rule
was to be imitated with varying degrees of success by subsequent
Hellenistic kings, commanders and even Roman emperors. Hellenistic
rulers, from the Attalids of the Kingdom of Pergamon to the rulers of the
Greek state in Bactria, claimed genuine or fictitious ties of blood with
Alexander to legitimise their rule. Similarly, the
free and proudly
independent Greek polis of Rhodes legitimised its neutrality in armed
conflicts on the basis of cleverly doctored documents claiming special ties
with Alexander – these documents would later, for instance, also serve as a
source for the popular Alexander Romance. After Alexander, the polis,
which had previously been the dominant form of Greek government,
ceased to be a major player in world politics. On the other hand, it not
only survived but also flourished as never before. What is more, this type
of state could now be found in places far beyond the Mediterranean. A few
were established by Alexander himself, a great many more were founded
by Hellenistic rulers, so that polis appeared in places as far off as today’s
Afghanistan and Pakistan. Although it was probably not Alexander’s
18 Billows 1990, pp. 306-308; Billows 1994, pp. 33-40; Kuhrt, Sherwin-White
1993.
382
Chapter VIII
express intention, his liberation of the Greek cities in Asia Minor
contributed to the ultimate triumph of democracy in the world of the polis.
At last, for the first time in history there was a common culture that united
Greeks and the Hellenising elites of barbarian peoples from Pillars of
Heracles to the Hindu Kush and Punjab.
3. Alexander’s tomb
Once the Macedonian commanders and soldiers in Babylon settled the
most pressing political matters, attention was focused on arranging a
funeral befitting the great king. First of all his body was handed over to
Egyptian and Chaldaean embalmers, who must have done their work very
well for Alexander’s mummified body could still be viewed at least six
hundred years later. Next his corpse was placed in a gold anthropomorphic
sarcophagus that was filled with perfumes and incense. Although
Alexander had wanted to be buried in the Siwah Oasis, Perdiccas decided
that his body should be laid to rest at the royal Argead necropolis in Aegae.
His hearse took two years to build and was said to have been the most
remarkable vehicle of ancient times.19 Its description, originally recorded
by Hieronymus of Cardia, has been passed on to us by Diodorus: ‘In this
year Arrhidaeus, who had been placed in charge of bringing home the
body of Alexander, having completed the vehicle on which the royal body
was to be carried, was making preparations for the journey. Since the
structure that had been made ready, not only surpassed all others in cost –
it had been constructed at the expense of many talents – but was also
famous for excellence of its workmanship, I believe that it well to describe
it.
First they prepared a coffin of the proper size for the body, made of
hammered gold, and the space about the body they filled with spices such
as could make the body sweet smelling and incorruptible. Upon this chest
there had been placed a cover of gold, matching it to a nicety, and fitting
about its upper rim. Over this was laid a magnificent purple embroidered
with gold, beside which they placed the arms of the deceased, wishing the
design of the whole to be in harmony with his accomplishments. Then
they set up next to it the covered carriage that was to carry it. At the top of
the carriage was built a vault of gold, eight cubits wide and twelve long,
covered with overlapping scales set with precious stones. Beneath the roof
all along the work was a rectangular cornice of gold, from which projected
heads of goat-stags in high relief. Gold rings two palms broad were
19 Curt., 10.10.13; Diod., 18.3.5, 18.18.2; Paus., 1.6.3; Just., 13.4.
Death, Last Plans, Tomb
383
suspended from these, and through the rings there ran a festive garland
beautifully decorated in bright colours of all kinds. At the ends there were
tassels of network suspending large bells, so that any who were
approaching heard the sound from a great distance. On each corner of the
vault on each side was a golden figure of Victory holding a trophy. The
colonnade that supported the vault was of gold with Ionic capitals. Within
the colonnade was a golden net, made of cords the thickness of a finger,
which carried four painted tablets, their ends adjoining, each equal in
lengths to a side of the colonnade.
On the first of these tablets was a chariot ornamented with work in
relief, and sitting in it was Alexander holding a very splendid sceptre in his
hands. About the king were groups of armed attendants, one of
Macedonians, a second of Persians of the bodyguard, and armed soldiers
in front of them. The second tablet showed the elephants arrayed for war
who followed the bodyguard. They carried Indian mahouts in front with
Macedonians fully armed in their regular equipment behind them. The
third tablet showed troops of cavalry as if in formation for battle; and the
fourth, ships made ready for naval combat. Beside the entrance to the
chamber there were golden lions with eyes turned toward those who would
enter. There was a golden acanthus stretching little by little up the centre
of each column from below to the capital. Above the chamber in the
middle of the top under the open sky there was a purple banner blazoned
with a golden olive wreath of great size, and when the sun cast upon it its
rays, it sent forth such a bright and vibrant gleam that from a great
distance it appeared like a flash of lightning.
The body of the chariot beneath the covered chamber had two axles
upon which turned four Persian wheels, the naves and spokes of which
were gilded, but the part that bore upon the ground was of iron. The
projecting parts of the axle were made of gold in the form of lion heads,
each holding a spear in its teeth. Along the middle of their length the axles
had a bearing ingeniously fitted to the middle of the chamber in such a
way that, thanks to it, the chamber could remain undisturbed by shocks
from rough places. There were four poles, and to each of them were
fastened four teams with four mules harnessed in each team, so that in all
there were sixty-four mules, selected for their strength and size. Each of
them was crowned with a gilded crown, each had a golden bell hanging by
either cheek, and about their necks were collars set with precious stones.
In this way the carriage was constructed and ornamented, and it
appeared more magnificent when seen than when described. Because of its
widespread fame it drew together many spectators; for from every city into
which it came the whole people went forth to meet it and again escorted it
384
Chapter VIII
on its way out, not becoming sated with the pleasure of beholding it. To
correspond to this magnificence, it was accompanied by a crowd of
roadmenders and mechanics, and also by soldiers sent to escort it.’20
The convoy with the catafalque led by Arrhidaeus proceeded slowly on
the road leading through Damascus. In Syria it was met by the satrap of
Egypt Ptolemy and his army. Ptolemy managed to persuade Arrhidaeus to
disobey Perdiccas’ instructions and instead escort the catafalque to Egypt.
For this act of betrayal Macedonia
n commanders who were Perdiccas’
enemies somewhat later rewarded Arrhidaeus by granting him the satrapy
of Hellespontine Phrygia.21 Ptolemy was fully aware of how symbolically
important Alexander’s body was for legitimising political authority and
therefore he too ignored the late king’s wish to be buried at Siwah, which
was too remote to be of any practical use. The sensational archaeological
discovery of Alexander’s tomb at Siwah Oasis remains nothing more than
sensational, for now only the Greek archaeologist who discovered the
tomb, L. Souvaltzi, still believes it to be that of the Macedonian king.
Alexander’s final resting place was in Alexandria in Egypt. Some sources
state that his body was immediately taken there, yet in 321 Alexandria was
only just being built and Memphis was still Egypt’s capital. Therefore the
version that Alexander’s body was first buried in Memphis should be
considered true, especially as this is confirmed in the early Hellenistic
chronicle Marmor Parium. The ancient sources do not provide an exact
location of where Alexander was first buried. Modern historians assume it
was in the Sarapeum, in today’s Saqqara, the site of a special religious
importance, associated with the last native pharaohs Nectanebo I and
Nectanebo II, and in his lifetime Alexander had claimed to be their rightful
successor.22
It was most probably Ptolemy I’s successor Ptolemy II Philadelphus
who transported Alexander’s body to a mausoleum in Alexandria. Then in
215 Ptolemy IV raised a new mausoleum. 23 This second mausoleum,
called Soma (Body), was in all likelihood situated in the Ptolemaic
necropolis within the extensive palace compound in the city centre and not
20 Diod., 18.26.1-28.2; Ath., 5.40.
21 Diod., 18.28.3; Str., 17.1.8; Arr., Succ. , 1.25, 24.1-8; Paus., 1.6.3; Ael., VH, 12.64. Heckel 2006, p. 53, s.v. ‘Arrhidaeus’ [2].
22 Alexander buried in Alexandria at once: Diod., 18.28.3; Str., 17.1.8; Ael., VH,
12.64; Epitome Heidelbergensis, FGrH, 155 F2. Alexander buried first in
Memphis: Marmor Parium, FGrH, 239 B11; Curt., 10.10.20; Paus., 1.6.3; Ps.-
