by David Grant
278.The significance of Euripides’ lines relating to the curse of Oedipus (from Phoenician Women credited to Euripides) discussed in chapter titled Hierarchic Historians and Alexandrian Alchemy.
279.Pausanias 1.7.1 for Philadelphos’ murder of another half-brother by Eurydice.
280.Quoting Plutarch Pyrrhus 4.4. Some scholars use the term ‘repudiated’ when recognising that Ptolemy favoured Berenice; whether divorce actually took place is an open question, as, in fact, is the formal monogamy of the Diadokhoi. Pausanias 1.6.8 stated Antipater sent Eurydice to Ptolemy in Egypt; this was, it appears, sometime before his death in 319 BCE, and could have been as early as 322 BCE once Ptolemy was installed in Egypt, and not necessarily after Triparadeisus. Pausanias 1.6.8 does suggest a parallel marriage with Eurydice and Berenice, and Plutarch Pyrrhus 4.4 mentions ‘wives’ in the plural but not specifically parallel marriages.
281.Plutarch Demetrius 32.3 and with more explanation at 46.3; the chronology and who instigated the marriages at which point is unclear. It could be interpreted that only at the earlier date of the pledge did Ptolemy I Soter approve of the union. Bosworth (2002) p 263 footnote 66 for its dating.
282.Agathocles was married to another of Ptolemy’s daughters, Lysandra, hence he and Keraunos were brothers-in-law (also by virtue of Lysimachus’ marriage with Arsinoe II).
283.Diodorus 21.11-13 for Lysimachus’ defeats and capture at the hands of the Getae. For the waning support of Lysimachus after Agathocles’ death see Justin 17.1.1-4, Memnon FGrH 434 F5.7, Polyaenus 8.57. Pausanias 1.10.4-5 for Lysandra’s pleas.
284.Quoting Justin 17.1 and 17.2 for Lysimachus’ loss of fifteen children.
285.The javelin is recorded by Memnon History of Heraclea 7-9. Appian Syrian Wars 10.64 for the reference to Thorax burying Lysimachus. Plutarch Demetrius 29.5 for the mention of Thorax at Antigonus’ death at Ipsus.
286.Strabo 13.4.1 for the background to Philetaerus and the description of the mountain summit of Pergamum. Strabo 13.4.1 and Pausanias 1.10.4 for Philetaerus’ intriguing with Seleucus. Bagnall-Derow (2004) p 120 for the isopolity between Pergamum and Temnos as an example. Justin 26.5 ff for the decapitation of Keraunos.
287.Apollodorus ruled an ‘independent’ Cassandreia from 278 to 276 BCE until the city was captured by Antigonus Gonatas; see Diodorus 22.5.1-2, Polyaenus 6.7.1-2.
288.Gallic numbers at the battle based on Justin 25.1, though his version of their defeat is quite different. Pausanias 10.19.9 stated 152,000 infantry and 20,400 cavalry, Diodorus 22.9.1 stated 150,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry and Justin 24.6 stated 150,000 infantry and 15,000 cavalry were under Brennus’ command.
289.Discussed in Brown (1947) pp 685-686 drawing from Tarn (1923). Plutarch Pyrrhus 4.3 for Pyrrhus’ part supporting Demetrius at Ipsus. Pausanias 1.9.7-8 for Hieronymus’ accusation that Lysimachus plundered the graves and scattered the remains of the Aeacids. Momigliano (1977) pp 41-43 for Athens through the years of the Celtic invasion. Demetrius married Pyrrhus’ sister Deidameia soon after the death of Alexander IV (ca. 309 BCE).
290.Polyaenus 4.6.17, Plutarch Pyrrhus 26.3 for the Celtic contingent under Gonatas.
291.Justin 7.2.4-6 for the prophecy.
292.Quoting Green (2007) p 81.
293.Nepos De regibus Exterarum Gentium 3.1-3. See discussion in Shipley (2000) p 14. The original name may well have been de exellentibus ducibus exterarum gentium (The Book of the Great Generals of Foreign Nations) whilst an early manuscript attributed the work to Aemilius Probus; see Geiger (1979) for explanation.
294.Plutarch Demetrius 3.3-5. Quoting Bagnall-Derow (2004) p 101 for ‘labyrinthine’. Kebric (1977) pp 56 ff for Plutarch’s reliance on Duris.
295.Euripides Medea lines 619-620, translation by EP Coleridge, 1910, Internet Classics Archive.
296.Ovid Metamorphoses book 1 lines 128-131, Hesiod Work and Days lines 109-201 for the ages of men.
297.Discussed in Bosworth-Baynham (2000) pp 294-296.
298.Polybius 8.10.5-6.
299.Cicero De Officiis 2.5 recorded that Panaetius had commented: ‘… Alexander, who he says could not have achieved so great success without the support of other men.’
300.Justin 13.1, translation based on Rev. JS Watson, published by Henry G Bohn, London, 1853.
301.Polybius 28.7.8-14 explained that he had delivered a long speech to the Achaean League in favour of restoring honours to King Eumenes II of Pergamum.
302.Polybius 10.49 for the Seleucid-Graeco-Bactrian war of 210 BCE. Polybius 11.34.2-5 for the nomadic hoards and founding of the Graeco-Bactrian dynasty. Justin 41.1-7 for the fragmentation of the Seleucid Empire and the Graeco-Bactrian Graeco-Indian wars. Justin 15.4 for Diodotus’ rule. Also Strabo 11.11.1 and 21.21.1 for the extending power of the Greeks in Bactria. For the coin hoards see Holt (1996). Boardman-Griffin Murray (1986) p 422 for the Platonist finds.
303.Originally reported in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (JRAS), London, 1909, pp 1053-1055.
304.Hanson (1991) pp 26-27 for the comparison of wounds.
305.The Macedonian opinion of Rome’s war machine discussed in Champion (2000) p 428; King Philip V was reported by Livy 31.34.8 as shocked at the brutality and organisation of Rome’s army. Polybius 7.10.7-12 for Callicrates’ activity and Polybius’ own exile. Polybius 16.30-31 for the suicide of women and children at Abydus. Bagnall-Derow (2004) pp 68-69 for the fragments of Rome’s alliance with the Aetolian League. Polybius 4.2.5 and 4.24.1-3 for Philip’s youth, repeated in chapters 2,3,5; McGing (2010) p 97 ff. See Polybius 18.28-31 and 44 for the subsequent collapse of Macedonian authority over Greece.
306.Polybius 11.7.8 and 11.12 for Greek opinion of Philip V. Polybius 4.77 for his lamenting that Philip turned into a tyrant; translation from McGing (2010) p 33 and also p 154 for a further rundown of Polybius opinions of Philip V.
307.Justin 30.4.4 for the earthquake associated with the rise of Rome. The reduction in cavalry was also apparent at the battle at Sellasia in 222 BCE when infantry-cavalry ratios had dropped from 6:1 in Alexander’s day to 25:1; E Anson in Carney-Ogden (2010) p 84.
308.Quoting Griffiths (1935) p 65 and p 78 for the status of the citizen soldier and the foreign soldiers in the 2nd century BCE Macedonian ranks. Full discussion of dwindling Macedonian troop numbers in Adams (1996) pp 303-31. There is some evidence Etruscans were familiar with chainmail in the 3rd century BCE. Lenden (2005) p 154 for thureophoroi.
309.Justin 33.1.7 for the prodigy.
310.For Pydna see Plutarch Aemilius and the most complete coverage is provided by Livy 44.40-42 drawing from Polybius. For the lunar eclipse see Livy 44.37.8 and Aemilius Paullus 17.7. The exact site of Pydna has not yet been discovered; Diodorus 18.49.2 claimed it was moved inland ca. 410 BCE but Olympias’ attempt to escape her siege by ship (19.50.4, Polyaenus 4.11.3) suggests it was re-established back on the coast, possibly close to modern Makriyialos.
311.Plutarch Galba 1.2, translation by J Dryden, 1683. This recalls Plutarch Phocion 25.1 in which Phocion is said to have uttered ‘how many generals I see, and how few soldiers’ when preparing for battle and receiving advice from all ranks.
312.Livy 44.7. Plutarch Aemilius 17. Also see Casson (2001) p 66 for discussion of the eclipse.
313.Plutarch Aemilius 19.2 and 20.2 for the ability of the sarissa to penetrate shields and armour. Livy 44.40-42 related that a horse or mule got loose when being watered and a clash over its recovery precipitated the start of the battle; Livy added that reports claimed Paulus deliberately let the horse loose as a provocation, as entrails proved unpropitious unless Macedonians struck the first blow.
314.Plutarch Aemilius 19 recorded many differing outcomes, cowardly and otherwise, for Perseus’ retirement to the city. Bagnall-Derow (2004) p 82 for Rome’s complaint against Perseus.
315.Quoting Livy 44.46 for the description of Pella.
316.Xenophon Hellenika 5.2.13.
317.Strabo 7.20, 7.23; discussed in Greenwalt (1999); Theophrastus Enquiry
into Plants 5.2.1 detailed the value of Macedonian wood.
318.Livy 44.46 for the description of Pella after the Romans entered and sacked it. Pella was used by the Romans as a provincial base, so the basic city structure must have remained largely intact.
319.Justin 25.1-2, Diodorus 30.21-22, with similar commentary in Plutarch Aemilius 23-24; 23.3 for ‘lacerated by misfortunes’; Plutarch claimed Perseus was carrying 50 talents of riches with him; 23.9 for his regret. Livy 45.6/7-9 for the Royal Pages.
320.Livy 44.40.5-6 for the Chalkaspides and Leukaspides.
321.‘Play had been performed’ taken from Plutarch Demetrius 53.4 as his summation of Demetrius’ career. Valerius Maximus 2.2.2 recorded that Roman magistrates across the empire refused to speak in Greek, holding that ‘they held that in all matters the Greek cloak should bow to the Roman toga’. Roisman-Worthington (2010) p 252 for the start of the provincia. Livy 44.40-42 for the battle and 44.40.8 for the fate of the Rome-allied Palignians which suggest death numbers must have been far higher.
322.Livy 45.32.3 for the shipment of nobles to Italy.
323.Diodorus 30.22-24 for Aemilius’ lenient treatment though this is almost identical to Polybius 29.20 and Livy 45.7.4. Cicero De Officiis book 2 (Expediency) 22 and Plutarch Aemilius 38.1. Here ‘for all time to come’ meant until his own day. Polybius 30.15 reported seventy Epirote towns were sacked and 150,000 people were sold into slavery. Also Livy 45.29.4-32 for the outcome; discussed in Hatzopoulos (1996) pp 43-46 and p 222; Cicero De lege agrarian 1.2.5 for confiscation of state mines.
324.Polybius 24.6 for his ambassadorial role, 26.1.7 for the ‘mad man’.
325.Polybius 29.27.4, Livy 45.12.4 ff for Popilius Laenas. Polybius 29.23-25 for Egyptian calls for help to the Achaean League under the command of Polybius and his father. Quoting Polybius 39.7.7 on indolence, actually attributed to Ptolemy Philometor. Boardman-Griffin-Murray (1986) p 372 for Lampsacus’ appeal to Rome’s common ties with Troy for protection.
326.Rostovtzeff (1936) p 242 for the new trading environment. Archibald-Davies-Gabrielson (2005) p 151 for the banking role of Delos.
327.Polybius 31.2.12, 31.17.2, 35.4.11 for the discord in Pella. Lucian Alexander the false Prophet 6 for Pella’s fate.
328.Rome’s abolishment or otherwise of the Assembly discussed in Hatzopoulos (1996) pp 353-355.
329.Braudel (1969) p 189 on culture and civilisation.
330.In the Greek War of Independence, the Ottoman Empire finally recognised Greek independence in 1832, though the London protocol of 1830 declared Greece free and under her protection.
331.Velleius Paterculus Historiae 1.11.3-5 for the bronzes known as the ‘Granicus Monument ‘being taken to Rome.
332.Pliny 25.135 for the appointment of Metrodorus. Plutarch Aemilianus 22.7 for Scipio’s deeds at Pydna. Plutarch Aemilius 23-24 for Perseus fleeing.
333.Pausanias 7.10.7-12 for the 1,000 hostages.
334.Quoting McGing (2010) p 133 on Callicrates’ policy to Rome.
335.Polybius 28.6.9 for his Achaean command. Polybius 24.8-10 for his presence in Rome pleading his case. In contrast Polybius’ father, Lycortas, believed the Achaean League should state its case and relied on Roman common sense to be reasonable with demands. Rome wanted the Achaeans onside against Macedonia as evidenced by their embassy at Polybius 28.3-7, and 30.13 for the political motivation.
336.Polybius 45.6-47.4. Polybius admitted Cleoxenus and Democleitus had conceived the torch system, though he perfected it. The alphabet was broken into five lines and referenced by numerals 1-5 of each axis. McGing (2010) p 142 for discussion of the dating of Polybius’ Tactics. Polybius 31.23 for Scipio’s petitioning. Quoting from an inscription seen by Pausanias; Momigliano (1977) p 68. Polybius was uniquely in Rome (31.23.5) whereas other hostages were in provincial towns. McGing (2010) p 140 for his probable presence in Africa in 151/150 BCE. Polybius 38.10.8-10 for the reasons for the war of 146 BCE; he returned to Rome in 145/144 BCE to plead the league’s case, Polybius 39.8.1.
337.Polybius 29.21.1-9, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, volume VI, 1922-2.
338.This extract is repeated almost word for word at Diodorus 31.10.1-2 and shortened in Livy 55.9.2.
339.Perdiccas and Craterus were from Orestis, Leonnatus from Lyncestis, and Polyperchon from Tymphaea, Ptolemy from Eordaea, and Seleucus from Europus.
340.Justin 13.1.
3
HIERARCHIC HISTORIANS AND ALEXANDRIAN ALCHEMY
What influenced the testimony of the eyewitness historians and what were their personal agendas? More specifically, did they have an interest in burying Alexander’s Will?
The eyewitness historians – those on campaign with Alexander and those who stood beside his deathbed – provided testimony that spawned all later interpretation of events, though their accounts have since disappeared. The conflicting fragments we have suggest that they were constructed around highly personalised agendas.
These men were persuaded by their king to journey to lands few Europeans had ever seen, to partake in warfare on a scale history had rarely witnessed, and to scheme beyond the range of any tyrant or politician. In the life-changing, philosophy-challenging, world-shaping process, they were inspired by their campaign contributions to become ‘historians’ who appear to have acknowledged few literary restraints or rules of reputational engagement.
Here we review these archetypal sources, for the sum of the parts of their literary output was the Alexander the world would remember in the centuries thereafter.
‘It is a naive belief that the distant past can be recovered from written texts, but even the written evidence for Alexander is scarce and often peculiar.’1
Robin Lane Fox Alexander the Great
‘One should not look for thoughtful, or even consistent, characterisations any more than one looks for sincerity or accuracy… the mistake has commonly been made of trying to divide Alexander’s historians into two classes, favourable and unfavourable.’2
Lionel Pearson The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great
‘A history in which every particular incident may be true may on the whole be false.’3
TB Macaulay History
Disenchanted with the legacy of the literary output of these historians of old, the Roman-era satirist Lucian, whose essays have been described as forming a bridge between the dialogues of philosophers, the fantasy of Aristophanes and the criticisms of the satirists, wrote a parody appropriately named A True History to drive his point home. It was written in the thick of the Second Sophistic (broadly 54-230 CE), a period that recalled Rome’s nostalgia for all things Greek. Although Lucian proposed a historian’s mind should be ‘like a mirror’ – so reflecting events as they truly appeared – he was well aware of the cracks in the glass too.4
Besides proposing a trip to the moon, the Blessed Island and the Morning Star, and possibly drawing inspiration from the fantasy of Antonius Diogenes’ The Wonders Beyond Thule, Lucian’s satire on historicity ridiculed the writers who gave fantastical events a little too much credence.5 Amongst his victims were Homer, Herodotus and Ctesias’ Indike along with his twenty-three book Persika (history of Persia, the books appeared in the early 4th century BCE), which, considered together, formed the backbone of Alexander’s knowledge on Asia. Lucian, a self-proclaimed barbarian (most likely ethnically Assyrian), summed up his introduction with: ‘When I come across a writer of this sort, I do not much mind his lying, the practice is much too well established for that, even with professed philosophers; I am only surprised at his expecting to escape detection.’6
What becomes clear from the fragments of these lost accounts is that these ancient authors have never lacked attitude and agenda, and they showed little hesitation in criticising their literary forerunners, either for the sake of self-promotion, or to hamstring a rival. In fact it has been proposed that: ‘The contentious spirit of Greek historians can be considered a significant catalyst in the development of Greek historiograp
hy.’7 But that might be a touch encomiastic for the state of literary affairs, for when Hecataeus, the Milesian geographer and mythologist of the 6th BCE, complained: ‘I write these accounts as they seem true to me, for the stories told by the Greeks are various and in my opinion absurd’, he was apparently not offering posterity a methodology to better them.8 We know that historians who were broadly contemporary with Alexander and his father, such as Theopompus of Chios and Anaximenes of Lampsacus, and probably Duris of Samos too, even used their prologues and prefaces to attack their peers. As Momigliano put it: ‘The Greek and Romans were not apt to kneel in silent adoration before their own classical writers.’9
Less contentious are the few brief references we have to the period of Alexander’s immediate successors, the Diadokhoi, in, for example, a fragment of the Parian Chronicle (otherwise known as the Parian Marble) compiled ca. 264/3 BCE which cover events from 336 to 302/1 BCE, as well as the Babylonian Chronicle of the Successors, a fragmentary cuneiform tablet that now resides in the British Museum.10 A further inscription found at Scepsis recording the contents of a letter from Alexander’s one-eyed general, Antigonus Monophthalmos, to the Greek cities of Asia Minor, is an enlightening insight into the state of affairs and a fragile peace of 311 BCE that did not last. Stelae like these are, epigraphically speaking, primary witnesses too if they were inscribed by contemporaries; moreover, they have little room for the rhetoric that we find interwoven into manuscripts, a contention that would hold true were it not for the Egyptian Satrap Stele (erected in 311 BCE) which essentially reads as Ptolemaic propaganda in stone.11 As Sir Mortimer Wheeler reminded us in what serves as a useful warning on archaeological evidence: ‘The archaeologist is digging up, not things, but people’.12
