by F S Naiden
18. Tales drawn chiefly from HR and passages in the Talmud, Nizami, and Firdausi, as well as several versions of the Alexander Romance. In references at the end of each chapter, a few—and far from all—parallels for these tales are cited. An introduction to this literature: Stoneman (2008).
Chapter 1
The Mediterranean Comes of Age
1. The flood: Garcia-Castellanos (2009), Hsu (1983). Macedonian flood stories: Decaulion in Thessaly (Apollod. 1.7.2), if not the stories of the Ogygian flood in Attica (Pl. Lg. 3.677a, Crit. 111–12, Tim. 22) and the flood of Dardanus in the northern Aegean (Pl Lg. 3.682a). These were local stories; national stories in the Near East included both Israel (Gen. 6–8) and Babylon, whose Noah was Atrahasis (Berossos FGrH 680 F 1.6–8, as portrayed on the walls of the Eanna temple as well as in Atrahasis (ANET 104–6) and SB Gilgamesh xi).
2. The Mediterranean as a pond lined by Greeks: Pl. Phaed. 109b.
3. The Mesopotamian view: Rochberg (2012). The Egyptian: O’Connor (2012). The Greek: Romm (1992), ch. 1.
4. Zeus’s anger at human noise: Cypr. fr. 1. Cf. Atrahasis II SBV iv.
5. In a word, a “sacred” but not divine kingship, the full divinization of the king being rare, as in Frankfort (1948), whereas the king’s being “infused with the divine,” as in I. Winter (2008), was common. The distinction between the divine and human would not perfectly apply to a king of this kind, as at Brisch (2008a), 8–9. Frankfort (1948), 337–38, dismissed the early kings of Greece and Persia, not to mention Macedon, as mere chieftains without the cosmic role of the kings of the Near East.
6. For Pharaonic oracles, see Černý (1935), (1942), and (1962). No comparative work has been done on Egyptian and Greek oracles.
7. For examples of Greek and Hebrew sacrificial mishaps, see Naiden (2005).
8. Ross (2016) compares Greek and Babylonian responses to eclipses.
9. A list of thirty roads, but only at the end of the Classical Period: Hatzopoulos (1997), 12–13, 17–21. Dependent on the king earlier: DS 13.49.1–2.
10. The unmixed wine: Gadaletta (2001), 134. Foresters: Theophr. HP 9.31–33. Herdsmen: Arr. An. 7.9.2.
11. Royal Zeus: Olympios, worshipped by the kings at Aegae as at Baege (1913), 7–12. Rings: Naiden (2013), 94 with fig. 3.
12. Zeus-Amon: Baege (1913), 1–5. Zeus-Amon was also worshipped by Greeks, but given the greater size of Greece, he was perhaps worshipped comparatively less: Paus. 9.6.1 (Thebes in the time of Pindar), 5.15.11 (Olympia, albeit undated), and elsewhere as at Classen (1959).
13. Spear-won land: see Ch. 2, n. 158. Land distribution: cf. Sparta, where the land was given to the Heraclidae, as at Tyrt. Fr. 1, noted by Malkin (1998), 44. Greek precautions: Chaniotis (2004), dealing with late Classical and Hellenistic evidence for the justification of land claims.
14. Heracles at Aegae: Christesen and Murray (2010), 433–34 with refs. The link to Orpheus and Orphism remains controversial, but it cannot be fortuitous that one of the favorable omens given to Alexander concerned Orpheus (App. 1b #2). The “phony man”: Polyaen. 4.2.1.
15. Purification of the army: App. 1a #61 with Liv. 40.6.1–7 and Hatzopoulos (1996), 1.319–20.
16. The king and not any temple officials made important contacts with shrines abroad, such as the shrine of Asclepius at Epidaurus. Mari (2007), 36–37, notes that this picture changes after 346, when Macedon joins the Delphic Amphictyony. For both Greek and Macedonian exx. of household sacrifices, see Naiden (2013), ch. 2. A different summary view of the king as chief priest of the Macedonians: Worthington (2014), 15–16; there is, surprisingly, no monograph on this topic.
17. Justin 11.1.8. Choose but not by a vote: Heckel and Yardley (2009) ad loc.
18. The one, doubtful piece of evidence for kings before Philip II being called basileus: a now-lost inscription from Oropus, discussed by Ellis (1971) and Lane Fox (2011b), 340. The political consequences of a modest royal style: Errington (1974).
19. The year 360: Hatzopoulos (1982). Priestly magistrates providing names for the dating of decrees, as eponymous archons did in Athens: Hatzopoulos (1996), 1.193–94, 384, and Riethmüller (2005), 174–76, 320–24. The πελειγᾶνες: SEG 48.785. Other views giving the people at large an important role: Costanzi (1915), 4–7, and Granier (1931), 13–15, arguing from Homeric comparanda; Hatzopoulos (1996), arguing from Hellenistic epigraphical evidence. Views giving the people only a small role: Errington (1978), although Errington (1990), 198, says that the nobility had to accept a new king; similarly, Borza (1991), 231–52.
20. As in the deaths of Crateuas in 399 (Arist. Pol. 1311b); and Pausanias in 394/3 (DS 14.89), for which date see Hammond and Griffith (1979), 170.
21. The Persians’ aversion: pace [Dem.] 12.21, which Hammond and Griffith (1979), 103, take to refer to a successful attack by Alexander I on the retreating Xerxes.
22. The Illyrians had begun using shields and spears earlier, around 700 BC, according to Randsborg (2001), but Bardylis apparently raised the funds to arm them, and to reward them (Theopompos FGrH 115 F 286).
23. Philip’s accession: Hammond and Griffith (1979), 205–8.
24. Justin 7.5.6–10, supported by Satyrus apud Ath. 12.557d–e, implies that Philip became king in 357, but DS 16.2.4 and schol. Aeschin. 3.51 do not mention a regency, leading Hammond and Griffith (1979), 209, to suggest that Philip became king immediately. Whatever his role, he controlled the court, as shown by his likely killing not only the exiled pretender Argaeus but also a half brother who was the most plausible rival then in Macedon (Justin 7.4.5). A chronology for 360–59: Lane Fox (2011a), 335–37.
25. A warning against facile comparisons: Carlier (2000). Momigliano (1934), 11, observes that the relation between the king and the companions was by far the oldest part of Macedon’s unwritten political arrangements. Admission to the royal circle: Marsyas FGrH 135 F 11. Once admitted, a companion could use a net, as Leonnatus and Philotas do (Plu. Alex. 40.1, Ath. 12.539d, Ael. VH 9.3). If kings used nets, no source says so.
26. For battlefield hetaireia in Homer, see Esposito (2015), chs. 2–3.
27. No order except when troops are mustered: Il. 2.362–63. Very nearly the contrary view: Homeric loose lines in an “open formation” as at Krentz (2007); similarly, Van Wees (2004), 184–99. An altogether contrary view, with a Homeric phalanx: Schwartz (2002).
28. The ceremony, or teletē, as performed at Magnesia, another community with official hetairoi: Hegesander FHG 4 fr. 25. At a minimum, a ceremony had already been established, but Philip greatly enlarged the number of members. Loyalty as a traditional requirement for hetairoi: Hes. Op. 707–9, Theog. 851–52, Hipponax fr. 15.15–16. Another view: Kienast (1973), 19–20, holding that hetaireia came to Macedon from Persia. Most scholars do not discuss any religious aspect of hetaireia; e.g., Plaumann (1913); Berve (1926), 1.30–37; Hampl (1958), 66–77; Hammond and Griffith (1979), 2.395–404. Habicht (1958), 12, does not, either, but acknowledges the psychological importance of religiously sanctioned reciprocal ties among hetairoi. There is no dispute concerning one religious aspect, the oath, for which see Hammond and Griffith (1979), 65–67, but without mention of hetaireia. The oaths sworn to Alexander’s successors (as at Plu. Eum. 12.2) did not confer the status of hetairos, or, for that matter, philos.
29. Betrayal would of course be irreparable: Aeschin. 3.91. Seniority was a Homeric concept, too, exemplified by Nestor, who has several Macedonian counterparts: Ruzé (1997), s.v. “Nestor.” The ceremony perhaps took place at Aegae, an older shrine than Pella, at which there is no reported religious activity before Archelaus, and older than Dium, with none before the establishment of the cult of Zeus Olympios.
30. A dancing companion: Theopompos FGrH 115 F 225, which is also the source for the citation.
31. Clubs: Plu. Lys. 13.4, Dem. 54.39. Tyrants’ clubs: Hdt. 5.71. Arist. Pol. 1313b. Oaths even for these scalawags: Plu. Mul. virt. 252d. Forbidden in Athens: Hyp. Eux. 8, but cf. Th. 8.48.3–4. Counterrevolutionary:
Th. 8.54. A quality of all companions, Macedonian and Greek: heavy drinking (Diphil. 20 K-A). An especially censorious attitude: Demosthenes, calling hetaireia douleia (Sud. s.v. ἑταιρεία). Eight hundred companions under Philip: Theopompos FGrH 115 F 225.
32. Cretans: as at n. 28 above. Enomoties: Lazenby (1985), 69–70. Cf. military hetairoi on Methymna perhaps known to Philip: Th. 8.100.3. Thebes, where Philip had lived in exile, had no military companions, only a small sacred band.
33. Philip at Samothrace: Plu. Alex. 2.1. Macedonian initiation (or better put, consecration) ceremonies: Mari (2011), 457–58.
34. Sacrifices to found a city: App. 1a #20. Not to mention the obvious duty of giving thanks, as any household head would, or propitiating the gods at frontiers or rivers and straits (euchatristēria at 1, 10–11, 15, 57, 60; diabatēria at 4–6, 33, 39, 48, 51), or asking for divine help before battle (12, 14, 17, 27). Sacrifices for victory: App. 1a #9, 28, 39, 43, 49. Suppliants: App. 2. Burial as a duty: Curt. 10.5.5, with the reciprocal obligation of the hetairoi to bury their leader. A possible parallel: I. Oropus 675, as at Henry (2003). Examples from reign of Alexander: App. 1a #2, 8, 13, 16, 29, 34, 37, 42, 43 (DS 17.89.3), 44, 47, 58, 62.
35. An exception proving the rule about named regiments: Arr. An. 7.14.7. Cf. Classical Athens, where the infantry was raised tribe by tribe, a task for magistrates, but again not locally. A British parallel: regiments named after commanders in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Regiment size of 1,500: Milns (1976), 102. Purple cloaks: Plu. Eum. 8.12. Eumenes went further than Alexander and Philip and gave purple garments to a greater number of officers. Another view of “the purple”: Briant (1994), 283–85. In Greece, generals wore purple, too (Ar. Pax 1175), showing that the Macedonians did not need to borrow this dress from Persia.
36. Which is not to say all companions, or even most, had been pages, or bodyguards, as observed by Ma (2011), 530–31, comparing the firmer social organization in the Antigonid court. Another view, which was that Philip invented this institution: Arr. An. 4.13.1, accepted by Bosworth (1980) ad loc., Heckel (1992), 239–40. Yet it was apparently older: Curt. 8.8.3. If so, Philip again formalized inherited practices.
37. For a description of modern professional officers, see Teitler (1977), ch. 1.2, with bibliography. An attempt to distinguish between the term “profession,” with its modern flavor, and “career” or “calling”: Naiden (2007).
38. Anaximenes FGrH 74 F 4 attributes the pezetairoi to “Alexander,” meaning to say Alexander II, 371–368/7 BC, in other words, about ten years before Philip came to the throne. If Alexander II did establish the pezetairoi, he did not organize them so as to achieve the results Philip would. A different view of this information: Erskine (1989). Arguably, the term pezetairoi at first applied not to the mass of infantry, but only to select troops, as at Theopompus FGrH 115 F 348 with Anson (1985), 246–48. The opposite view attributes the practice to Alexander III, as at Lane Fox (2011b), 361. For the promotion of officers, see Curt. 5.2.2–5. Promotions into the heavy infantry: Atkinson (1987). Into the hypaspists: Heckel (2013).
39. Power of the nobles: Borza (1991), 238. For the conduct of council business, all evidence dates from Alexander’s reign and the regency of Perdiccas, for which see Appendix 3. In some particulars the two stages of development overlapped, so that Arrian uses hypaspistēs to mean armor bearer (An. 1.11.8, 4.24.3) as well as light infantryman. Accompanying this overlap was social ambiguity, so that the “king’s own” among both the companion cavalry and the shield bearers were more prestigious—and more reliable—than other units that were functionally identical. The command of the “king’s own” was likewise prestigious; thus Heckel (2016), 81, suggests that at Gaugamela Hephaestion commanded this unit among the shield bearers.
40. Satyrus apud Ath. 12.557d–e, listing the wives, but whether he lists them in chronological order is controversial; see Tronson (1984), 118. Surely alive at the time of his death: Olympias, Meda, and Cleopatra. Serial monogamy: Green (1982), 138–40.
41. Bardylis fighting at age ninety: Lucian. Macrob. 9. Diplomatic complications between Bardylis and Philip make it possible that Philip married first and attacked afterward, as at Carney (2000), 57–58.
42. The pellets: Anochin and Rolle (1998). The bolt: Str. 7.330. An arrow: Theopompos FGrH 115 F 52, Dem. 18.67, followed by DS 16.34.5, Justin 7.6.14, Didym. ad Dem. 12.43.
43. Philip and Thessaly: Theopompos FGrH 115 F 162. A wedge: Ael. Tact. 18.4, Arr. Tact. 16.6. A diamond: Asclepiod. 7.2, Ael. Tact. 18.2.
44. Female cult membership: Plu. Alex. 2.1. Female literacy: Plu. Lib. educ. 14b-c.
45. The first tales told the child: Pl. HM 285e–86a, on slave women as tellers of mythical tales, and Cic. N. D. 2.5, on their greater willingness to believe in tales of monsters. The chief nurse: Arr. An. 4.19.3, Curt. 8.1.2, Justin 12.6.10. The cavalryman: Curt. 8.1.20.
46. Alexander and the Iliad: DC 4.39. He did not think the Odyssey worth the trouble (Plu. Alex. 8.2 with other refs. as at J. Hamilton ad loc.).
47. Little more than titles survive of two political works that likely would have interested Alexander and most companions—Peri Basileias and Huper Apoikōn (as in DL 5.22). Even the date of composition is unknown: J. Hamilton (1999) ad Plu. Alex. 7.5. Geography: Stoneman (2015), 63. Alexander’s curiosity, or pothos, directed at seeing or sailing across bodies of water: Arr. An. 1.3.5, 7.1.1, 5.26.1, 7.16.2, Ind. 20.1. Similarly, a pothos to cross rivers and mountains: Arr. An. 1.3.5, 4.28.4, both noted at Bosworth (1980), 30. A similar desire to examine specimens: Ael. NA 16.39. The sources never report a pothos to enter a shrine, in spite of Alexander’s conduct at Tyre and elsewhere. A different view: Seibert (1972), app. 13.
48. Olympias as a priestess, or at least a procession leader: Plu. Alex. 2.6. Alexander’s youthful offerings: Theophr. de piet. fr. 8 ed. Pötscher (1964).
49. Alexander and the hot coal: Val. Max. 4.3. ext. 1, saying that if Darius had witnessed this scene, he would not have resisted Alexander.
50. One hundred sacrificial couches: App. 1a #3. The significance of sacrifice at this location: Mari (2002), 51–60.
51. From Egypt to Dodona: Hdt. 2.55–56.
52. Several sources other than Plutarch contribute to this composite picture. Cowlick: Itiner. Alex. 13, Plu. Pomp. 2.1. Height: Curt 5.2.13, DS 17.66.3. Kilter: Plu. Alex. 4.2, Alex. fort. 335b. Voice: Plu. Quo. adul. 53d. Philip’s wrestling: Polyaen. 4.2.6. Alexander’s dislike of athletics: Plu. Alex. 4.10, Reg. apophth. 179d, Fort. Alex. 331b. The ball held over a basin: Amm. 6.5.14.
53. Nor could the Athenians fight artillery with artillery: Athenian artillery had scarcely begun, as noted by Marsden (1969), 70–71, in spite of the Athenian accomplishments in siege warfare in the preceding century (Ar. Av. 363, Th. 3.51.3). The first Athenian fortification meant to serve as an artillery platform, Aegosthena, dates from 335 at the earliest, according to Keyser (1994), 39. n. 53, or 300, according to Marsden (1969), 134–38. Superior numbers: Justin 9.3.9–10.
54. A few of Philip’s men in the hills: Hammond (1973), 541.
55. Macedonian distaste for military oracles: discounting Alexander’s supposedly consulting Delphi (Plu. Alex. 14.6, DS 17.93.4), a doublet for Heracles’s consulting Delphi in the same aggressive fashion (Paus. 10.13.8, Apollod. 2.6.2). Ditch-digging Macedonians: Plb. 5.2.4–5.
56. Polyaen. 4.2.2, 4.2.7. Battle narrative: mostly DS 16.85.5–87, with Plu. Alex. 9.1–2 for the sacred band. A different view of the dispositions: Ma (2008), 74. The same view, but with topographical details: Hammond (1973), 541.
57. Athenian courage: Justin 9.3.8–4.1. Theban courage: Plu. Pel. 18.7. Athenian amateurishness: Polyaen. 4.2.7.
58. Philip’s modesty at Chaeronea: Sotiriadis (1902). Philip at Olympia: Paus. 5.20.9–10. A more expansive interpretation: Green (1991), 81 with refs.
59. Scholarly views of combat trauma, but without reference to religion: Meineck and Konstan (2014), notably Tritle (2014). Macedonians consoling
themselves with Euripides: Plu. Fort. Alex. 331d.
60. A raised dais: DS 16.92.5, referring to those “around the throne,” as noted by Spawforth (2007), 91.
61. The oracle: DS 16.91.2, Paus. 8.7.6, regarded as spurious by Fontenrose (1978), 167, who does not distinguish between the vague prediction being made of Philip’s death, one that may not have been part of the original oracle, and the clear endorsement of an attack on Persia, which is consistent with pronouncements in Philip’s favor at Aeschin. 3.130, Plu. Dem. 19.1, 20.1. A similar view of this development: Walser (1984), 49–53.
62. Squillace (2010) calls the Greek appeals to Philip “propaganda” that did not provide any practical plan for Philip’s proposed invasion. As Bosworth (1994), 798, notes, Alexander retraced the route of Xerxes in Thrace, but he could not do the same in Asia. Except for Alexander’s letter to Darius (Arr. An. 2.14.4), the theme of revenge drops out of the Alexander historians until the army reaches Persepolis. The statue: Arr. An. 1.17.10–11.
63. Meda: Bengston (1985), 12, also holding that Olympias was “offizielle Gatin,” vs. Carney (2010), 415, observing that there was no such position.
64. DS 16.93.4–8; Plu. Alex. 10.6 omitting the details, but not the hybris; so also stuprum at Justin 9.6.5–6, and Arist. Pol. 5.1311b.
65. The assassination: DS 16.92.2–5. The theater: Drougou (2011), 248.
66. Other companions: DS 16.91.2. The rumors and counter-rumors: ibid., Arr. An. 2.14.5, and Curt. 4.1.12, where the accusation appears in a dubious context, as observed by Griffith (1968). The “sacrifice”: Paus. 8.7.6. The same view of this episode: Carney (1992), 179–80. The view that Olympias and also Alexander did hire Pausanias, or that Philip feared such a stroke: Green (1991), 91. Other views: Lane Fox (1974), 22–25; Heckel (1981), 55–57.
