by F S Naiden
62. The first Indian in the entourage, Sasigupta or Sissicottus, as at Berve (1926), no. 707. Scylax on kings: Skylax FGrH 709 F 5.
63. The performance of Indian troops at Gaugamela: Arr. An. 3.8.3–6, 14.5–15.2; Curt. 4.9.2.
64. Semiramis as Alexander and the Greeks thought they knew her: Ktesias FGrH 688 F 475, 570. Similar name: Sammuramat, regent of Assyria 811–806, although many other elements of history and also myth entered into the “Semiramis” of the Greeks, as at Pettinato (1988), 305–8.
65. Specimens for Aristotle: cotton and rice (Str. 15.1.18–20), volumes (Pl. NH 6.26), elephants (Thphr. HA 596a).
66. Specimens or experiences attractive to Alexander because of his pothos, manifest in India as follows: Arr. An. 5.2.5, to see Nysa; 7.7.2, to keep company with an Indian sage at Taxila; Arr. Ind. 20.1, to sail from India to Persia. Tigers called “manticores”: Ktesias 688 FGrH F 16.15.
67. The plan of campaign: Arr. An. 4.22.7, 4.23.1, Curt. 8.10.2–4. As Bosworth observes ad Arr. An. 4.22.7, the main force may have often been split in two, one part under Hephaestion, one under Perdiccas.
68. The Nysaeans supplicate: App. 2 #23. Mount Meros: Arr. An. 5.1.5–7 with Ind. 1.4–6. Skeptical: Str. 15.1.8. Nysa in Ethiopia: Hdt. 2.146. Accepting the essence of the story—the visit to the city and the link to Dionysus—are the numerous scholars listed by Bosworth (1995) ad Arr. An. 5.1.1.
69. Midas and India: Hyg. Fab. 91.
70. Ionian Greeks in the east: Str. 14.1.5, Curt. 7.5.28–31, Hdt. 6.9 (a threat to send Greeks into exile in Central Asia). Dionysus in the East: E. Ba. 13–15 with later sources at Bosworth (1996a), 119–23. Bosworth attributes the myth to Alexander’s interpreters, not to his hosts, as also at (1996b), 166–68. Attributing the myth to the hosts: Narain (1965), 157. Attributing the episode to the Alexander historians rather than Alexander or his hosts: Biffi (2005), 149.
71. Shiva and Skanda: Daniélou (1982), 91–98 with refs. Dionysus as Shiva, not Skanda: Karttunen (1989), 212–16. Supposing that these identifications would lay the foundation for a kingdom in India: Antela-Bernárdez (2007).
72. The campaign prior to the Rock of Aornos: Arr. An. 4.23–27, Curt. 8.10.5–7, 8.10.19–28. Leaders wounded in the Kabul Valley: Arr. An. 4.23.3.
73. The wound suffered by Alexander in the Kabul Valley: either the ankle (Arr. An. 4.26.4), the calf (Curt. 8.28), or the leg (Plu. Alex. 28.3)—the usual anatomical contrast between the more decorous Arrian and the less decorous Vulgate. Extermination of the population of the first large town: unless, against all odds, the mother and daughter of the now-dead king survived, as in Curt. 8.10.23–35, and thus the mother was able to supplicate, using the rare and exclusively Greek gesture of sending an infant son of hers toddling over to the supplicandus, Alexander, as at App. 2 #22.
74. Avarna or the Greek Aornos: Bosworth (1995) ad Arr. An. 4.28.1 with refs. The identification: Stein (1929), 128–53, and (1937), 1–104, acting on a suggestion from Col. R. Wauhope, RE, who had surveyed the western bank of the upper Indus during the Black Mountain campaigns in 1880s—the first European invasion of the area since Alexander. Doubts: Karttunen (1997), 49.
75. The struggle at Avarna: Arr. An. 4.28–30.5, used here, as opposed to Curt. 8.11.2–24. Doubts about Krishna being the model, or at least the only model: Karttunen (1989), 211–12. Alexander was not above combining gods in selfish or idiosyncratic fashion, as happened at Tyre.
76. The sacrifice atop Avarna: App. 1a #39. No supreme god is named, but perhaps Alexander sacrificed to this god, Athena, and Heracles, following the pattern on display at Issus. Curt. 8.11.24 prefers Athena and Nike.
77. The story of the aerial flight is adapted from Ps.-Call. Γ 2.41. Muslim versions are numerous. Among Hebrew versions: ‘Abodah Zarah 3.1, Numbers Rabbah 13.14.
Chapter 9
Self-Defeat
1. Movement of the Indian plate: Verma (1991), ch. 1.
2. Comparative size of great rivers: Kretch, McNeill, and Merchant (2004), s.v. “Indus River.” So also Ar. Ind. 4.12, and Pseudo-Krateros FGrH 153 F 2, putting both the Indus and the Ganges ahead of the Nile.
3. The history of the Sarasvati River: Kenoyer (1998), 27. Sarasvati’s course: Bryant (2001), 168. The change of course occurred before the notice taken at Rig Veda 3.33, where the Sutlej is already joined to the Beas as opposed to the Sarasvati. Another view: Francfort (1985), 260, holding that the desiccation of the Sarasvati occurred well before the second millennium. Early origin of the desert: Trivedi (2009), 45.
4. Mount Everest rising a little each year: Swiss Foundation for Alpine Research (1999), 11–12. Five to six centimeters (2 to 2.3 inches): National Geographic Society (1999). Indian notions of a world mountain: Kirfel (1991), 15–19; de la Vallée Poussin (1971), 3.156. Water quality at this mountain: L’ Abhidharmakośa de Vasubandhu 3.144. Hindu rings around the mountain: Kirfel (1991), 57–127. Buddhist version: L’ Abhidharmakośa de Vasubandhu 3.138. Jain version: Schubring (1962), 217–18.
5. A more generous view of Persian knowledge of India: Briant (2002), 754–58. Pre-Persian knowledge, which died away in the second millennium BC during the decline of the Mohenjo-Daro civilization: Karttunen (1989), ch. 2. Doubts about Persian contacts with the Ganges valley: Karttunen (1989), 64.
6. Harahvati from Sarasvati: loss of the initial sibilant. Similarly, Hindush, the Persian term for the Indian province in the Achaemenid Empire, as at Kent (1950), 136–38, where the term appears in the Persepolis and Naqsh-e Rustam inscriptions, is derived from the ancient Indian Sindhu, meaning the same region as modern Sind. Hindush, in turn, yielded the Greek name Indos by loss of the initial aspirant. Alexander’s intellectuals, however, did not realize that the name Indos derived from a word that referred to a single region rather than the entire subcontinent.
7. Elephants flinging themselves over a cliff to escape capture by Alexander and his party: Arr. An. 4.30.8. The invaders did not use the native hunting methods known to Megasthenes, FGrH 175 F 20.
8. The Indus bridge: Arr. An. 5.3.5 with Rollinger (2013), 67–72, on “Schiffsbrücken.” The likely spot: Udabhanda, as at Foucher (1942), 51. The modern crossing point near Attock is hilly and especially difficult in flood season: Caroe (1958), 33. Sacrifices at the Indus: App. 1a #40, preceded by #1 (Danube) and 6 (Hellespont).
9. Information available at Taxila: Engels (1980), 328. Misinformation about Ambhi’s name: Curt. 8.12.14.
10. Marshall (1951) describes culture and science in the city at 1.45–49, but without remarks about religion. Study of the Vedas at Taxila in the Achaemenid era: Prakash (1976), 140–42.
11. A generation later, Megasthenes described some of the differences between Greek and Indian practices at FGrH 715 F 32. Strangulation etc.: Kātyāyana Srauta Sūtra 6.5.17.
12. Writing in northwestern India: Nearchos FGrH 133 F 23. Arthśāstra 1.2, 6 refer to religious works likely to have been among the first compositions reduced to writing.
13. Ascetics mistaken for Cynics: Onesikritos FGrH 134 F 17, Plu. Alex. 65. No Cynicism: Aristoboulos FGrH 139 F 41. Tirthankara: Stevenson (1908), 1.414–15. Locating the encounter with the gymnosophists at Taxila: Aristoboulos loc. cit., Ps-Call. A 3.13.9–10. Just outside the city: Onesikritos loc. cit. Locating it somewhere in the kingdom of Samba (or Sabba): Plu. Alex. 64.
14. Vasuveda as Heracles: Curt. 8.14.11.
15. The issue of Alexander’s response to Indian religion: Karttunen (1989), 228–29, noting that he surely paid attention to the Brahmins, the most powerful of the three and also the most interested in sacrifice. Stupas at Taxila, perhaps in the Achaemenid period: Dani (1986), 41–42. The earliest securely dated examples of stupas admittedly date from the third century BC, not the late fourth, as at Coningham (2001).
16. Gifts by kings sometimes forbidden: Law of Manu 4.84. In Pallad. 3–4, Alexander does make one acceptable gift, oil, which may be used to honor the fire on which it is poured (Law of Manu 3.210).
17. Gifts and tribute: 200 ta
lents before reaching the city (Arr. An. 5.3.5), or 600 (Epit. Mett. 52), and then 80 talents in coin (Curt. 8.12.15), amounting to less than the 1,000 given to Ambhi by Alexander (Plu. Alex. 59.5). The promised booty and the complaint of a jealous companion: Curt. 8.13.15–17, concerning Meleager, who, as observed by Green (1991), 387, never received another promotion from Alexander. The Macedonian, not Indian, sacrifices at Taxila: App. 1a #41. The garrison and other particulars: Arr. An. 5.8.3.
18. As shown in App. #3, this is the only major battle without a council to discuss plans rather than hear orders as at Curt. 8.14.15–16, and a meeting is thus supplied to let the Macedonians plan both the division of forces (Arr. An. 5.9.2–3) and the dolus described by Curt. 8.13.17. Alexander’s personal plan: Fuller (1958), 186. The complex orders for the subordinates, which must have been discussed collectively: Hammond (1980), 210.
19. Alexander’s stratagems and difficulties: Arr. An. 5.10.1–4. The use of skins was no new trick: the Assyrians used inflatable skins, as at Barnett, Bleibtreu, and Turner (1999), no. 273.
20. The number of troops: Arr. An. 5.14.1, somewhat lower than suggested by the roster given at 5.12.2, a difference to be explained by lack of boats, as at Bosworth (1995) ad loc. Cutting up the boats: Casson (1971), 160–61. The error about the island in the river: Arr. An. 5.13.2. Alexander’s pre-battle stratagems became canonical: Front. Strat. 1.7.9–9a, Polyaen. 4.39. Modern praise of Alexander’s generalship during the battle begins with these stratagems: Fuller (1958), 186–88; Milns (1968), 215; Green (1991), 293.
21. Handling the enemy chariots: Curt. 8.14.4, more elaborate than Arr. An. 5.13.3. The comparison of elephants and castles: Curt. 8.14.13.
22. Coenus’s maneuver: Arr. An. 5.16.3, Curt. 8.14.15–18, in each case one of several orders given by Alexander to subordinates riding with him. As Bosworth (1995) observes ad Arr. An. 5.16.3, Coenus is replacing Parmenio as chief commander on the left, but leads cavalry alone.
23. Coenus may have ridden behind the entire Indian force, a route placing greater responsibility on him: Green (1991), 398. In front of the elephants but behind cavalry forces that Porus sent forward to halt Alexander, an alternative giving Coenus less scope: Fuller (1958), 192; Milns (1968), 212; Hammond (1980), 213.
24. Attack and elephant counterattack: Arr. An. 5.17.3; Curt 8.14.22 says only that Porus ordered the elephants forward. Alexander’s attack also sought to draw out Porus’s cavalry, a preliminary step: Fuller (1958), 196–97; Milns (1968), 214. The timing and coordination displayed by the Macedonians: Fuller (1958), 188, asking, “How was it possible to carry out all these operations in [about] 15 hours? The staff work of the Macedonian army must have been superb.” That, General, requires numerous, structured meetings. Heavy Macedonian casualties: DS 17.89.3 reporting 980 and the Mett. Epit. 61 1,200. The 310 at Arr. An. 5.18.3 is much too low. The Indian losses reported at Arr. An. 5.24.3, DS 17.89.2 are exaggerated, but numbered some thousands.
25. The approach made to Puru: Arr. An. 5.18.6–7, except that Arrian does not acknowledge Puru’s charge of treason, found at Curt. 8.14.36. The question of the identity of Meroes is vexatious. Candragupta Maurya was identified as Arrian’s Indian messenger “Meroes” by F. F. Schwarz (1968), 225, although the identification is rejected by Karttunen (1997), 259, as well as by Berve (1926), no. 518, and Bosworth (1995) ad loc. If Schwarz is right, Meroes or Maurya must be explained as a clan name, and Sandracottus, the Hellenization of Candragupta, must be a personal name. Arrian calls him an “old friend” of Puru’s, whereas Plu. Alex. 53.9, preferred to Arrian by J. Hamilton ad loc., says he was only a merakion, and thus unsuited for this diplomatic mission.
26. “Porus” in Pakrit: paurava, a tribal name of the ancient Punjab, as in Bevan (1935), 349–52.
27. The bargaining between Puru and Alexander: “Treat me like a King” (Arr. An. 5.19.2, in an account that minimizes Alexander’s concessions, which are confined to restoring Porus’s kingdom to him), and “Treat me as this day shows you should” (Curt. 8.14.43, including the concessions of additional territory and status as a companion, or amicus, at 8.14.45). Plu. Alex. 60.14–16 combines Arrian’s reply with territorial concessions. DS 17.89.6 agrees with Arrian’s report of one concession. The version given by Curtius is the only one to allude to the Indian army’s competent performance during the battle. Other views: Bosworth (1995) ad Arr. An. 5.18.4–19.2.
28. A somewhat different view of the problem of conquering a vast, hostile area: Droysen (1833), 210, recognizing that Alexander had to control leaders, not peoples, but supplying a feudal context. The contrary view, regarding the battle as a complete victory, and the surrender terms as unproblematic: Bosworth (1988a), 129.
29. Religious rituals after the battle: App. 1a #42, 43.
30. The only report of numerous Indian coins: Curt. 8.12.15. A description of the famed medallions including not only these decadrachms but also tetradrachms with similar iconography: Holt (2003), 93, observing that some were overstruck on Babylonian staters. Other views: Holt (2003), 96–101.
31. Alexander is perhaps carrying a scepter, not a spear: Holt (2003), 121–22. No such contradiction between divine and human instruments: the lost portrait by Apelles, showing Alexander with a thunderbolt, provided that this portrait showed Alexander on a throne (Plu. Alex. 4.2, Pl. NH 7.125).
32. Foraging: Arr. An. 5.21.4. Twenty cubits of high water on the Chenab at the time of the summer solstice: Nearchos FGrH 133 F 18, Aristoboulos FGrH 139 F 35. Wrecked boats and a “great many” drowned: Arr. An. 5.20.9.
33. The Nile supposedly found in India: Arr. An. 6.1.4–5. The lotuses found in India: Nearchos FGrH 133 F 20. The Chenab, not the Nile: F 10b. Cutting wood: Curt. 9.1.3–4. Teakwood was commonly used in ancient Indian boats, especially for long voyages such as Alexander contemplated. An example: Sidebotham (2011), 225–26.
34. India’s “big monkeys”: Str. 15.1.29; so also Ael. VH 17.25. Stone-throwing monkeys: Str. 15.1.56. Multicolored: Kleitarchos FGrH 137 F 19.
35. Sangala described here as in Diodorus: App. 2 #24. The Macedonian funerals: App. 1a. #44. Almost 100 Macedonian dead: Arr. An. 5.24.5. Arr. An. 5.22–24 and Curt. 9.1.1–18 report no supplication but the same result, unconditional surrender. As Bosworth (1995) observes ad Arr. An. 5.22.1–24.8, the three versions essentially differ, just as the versions of the Granicus battle do.
36. Differing estimates as to how much Alexander knew about the Ganges: Bosworth (1996a), 186–200; Green (1991), 404–5. The best single piece of evidence: a letter supposedly written to Alexander by Craterus, who tells the king the Ganges is enormous (Str. 15.1.35). Ten years later, the forces of north India would reportedly total either 600,000 infantry, 30,000 cavalry and 9,000 elephants (Pl. NH 6.22.4), or 400,000 altogether (Megasthenes FGrH 715 F 32). The estimated number of enemy elephants: 4,000 (DS 17.93.2) to 6,000 (Plu. Alex. 62.2). Indian advice given to Alexander (but not mentioning Sandracottus): Curt. 9.2.1–18.
37. Disaffection: Arr. An. 5.25.2, Curt. 9.2.3, DS 17.93.2–3, with characteristic differences, Arrian reporting complaints about the toils of campaigning, Curtius reporting that Alexander provoked discontent by giving an address to the army, and Diodorus reporting bad weather as well as exhaustion.
38. Council meetings on the morale problem: App. 3 #21. Assembly meetings: Curt. 6.2.21–6.4.1, 9.2.12–9.3.18. Foraging: Arr. An. 5.21.4, and also DS 17.94.2–4, where Alexander promises food to camp followers.
39. Seventy days of rain: DS 17.94.3, Str. 15.1.27.
40. The first meeting: App. 3 #29. For this and two later meetings Curtius substitutes a contio (9.2.12–9.3.18) and Plutarch a mass supplication (App. 2 #29). Independent commands for Coenus: Arr. An. 3.18.6, Curt. 5.4.20 (Persian Gates); Arr. An. 4.6.2, 4.17.3 (Sogdiana); Arr. An. 4.27.5, Curt. 8.10.22 (Western India); Arr. An. 5.21.1, Curt. 8.12.1 (India). The same for Craterus: Arr. An. 3.18.6, Curt. 5.4.15 (Persian Gates); Arr. An. 3.23.2 & 25.6 (Hyrcania); 4.2.2 (Sogdiana); 4.22.1, 4.23.5 (Western India); 4.28.7 (near
the Rock of Aornos); 5.11.3 (Hydaspes battle), 5.20.2 (at same site); and perhaps Curt. 8.10.4 (near Nysa). Similarly, leadership of wings of the army: Arr. An. 5.17.1, Curt. 8.14.15 (Coenus); Arr. An. 2.8.4, 2.20.6 (Craterus).
41. Opinions of Alexander’s speech: Hammond (1999), 248, saying that the speech is substantially accurate, vs. Bosworth (1988b), 124–25, calling it largely invented. Both views underestimate Ptolemy’s contribution—his command of social niceties like the role of seniority, and his confidence in geographical detail latter proved to be erroneous, like the location of the mouth of Ganges. A view that the speech is unsatisfactory, but that Alexander meant it to be so, in order to discourage his men: Endres (1924), 12–15, followed by Heckel (2003), 25. Unlike many speeches attributed to Alexander, this one is very similar in Arrian and Curtius Rufus, for both writers emphasize the theme of conquering all Asia (Arr. An. 5.25.3–26, Curt. 9.2.12–30).
42. The second council meeting: App. 3 #30.
43. Antipater’s literary work: Suda s.v. ’Αντίπατρος. Greek famine: GHI 196.3, 6, 22.
44. The third council meeting: App. 3 #31. The announcement of bad omens: App. 1a #45.
45. Other views of this episode: Worthington (2004), 95–96, saying that Alexander would lose his throne if he did not keep his men busy fighting; and Badian (2000), 73–74, saying that it was risky for Coenus to speak. Similarly, Keegan (1993), 42, speaks of a “mutiny,” whereas Carney (1996), 42, rightly prefers “quarrel.” After a mutiny, Alexander might have ordered a purification of the army, as after the disturbances at X. An. 5.7.35 and Curt. Alex. 10.9.11. A romantic link between king and soldiers broken (and no role for the officers as a group): Wilcken (1932), 150.
46. Alexander’s commemorative altars: App. 1a #46.
47. Supposed use of the altars by Indian rulers: Plu. Alex. 62.4–7. Washed away, leaving no remains: Stein (1937), ch. 1. Another view: Foucher (1938), 350, holding that Alexander had reached the easternmost Persian possessions, and erected the altars for this reason.
