In Search of the Lost Testament of Alexander the Great

by David Grant

  183.Curtius 10.2.8 stated 13,000 Macedonian infantry and 2,000 cavalry. Bosworth (2002) pp 64-97 for estimates of total troop numbers. Sprague de Camp (1972) p 136 for the 300,000 to 400,000 estimate. A higher estimate of 600,000 is from Kloft (1992) p 10 though no dating is specified and the number is likely based on the later population of Seleucia on Tigris. See population discussion in Boiy (2004) pp 229-232. Further city size discussion in Archibald-Davies-Gabrielson (2005) p 29 ff.

  184.Arrian 7.23.1, Curtius 8.5.1, Diodorus 17.108.1-2, Plutarch 47.3 and 71.1 for the arrival of new recruits. Diodorus 17.95.4 for the mercenary contingent that arrived in India before the voyage down the Hydaspes-Indus.

  185.See Reade (2000) p 203 and p 215 for discussion of the Summer or Outer Palace and its military construction and purpose.

  186.Curtius 10.7.1-3 and 10.9.20 used the term bellorum civilium Macedonibus when describing the fighting at Babylon following Alexander’s death.

  187.Herodotus 1.178. Also Aristotle Politics 1.3 for the great spaces enclosed by the walls.

  188.See Diodorus 18.2.2-4 and Justin 13.3.2 closely track. The same is implied, but not expressly stated in Arrian Events After Alexander 1.2-4.

  189.Heckel (2006) pp 159-161 for Meleager’s various commands. See below for Meleager’s temporary elevation to third-in-command.

  190.Curtius 10.8.8-11.

  191.Plutarch Moralia 337d-e. See Heckel-Yardley (2004) p 34 for translation.

  192.As suggested at Curtius 10.5.12 (quoted) and 10.8.10. 10.8.7 for Meleager’s three-day deliberations over uncertain plans.

  193.Curtius 10.7.13.

  194.Curtius 10.8.16-20.

  195.Curtius 10.7.2 for Arrhidaeus taking part in sacrifices and ceremonies.

  196.Diodorus 19.11.5 stated six years four months and Justin simply six years. However the date of the formal commencement of his reign is not specified. Arrhidaeus is later attested to have ‘received Phocion’, but this was in essence an embassy to Polyperchon, Arrhidaeus’ regent and his epimeletes. In an outburst of anger he almost ran Hegemon through with a spear; again this suggests he was neither self-controlled nor predictable; Nepos Phocion 3.3, Plutarch Phocion 33.8-12

  197.McKechnie (1999) pp 59-60. A contio was a Latin term for a public gathering though Livy for example used the term for a meeting, its audience and its speeches. Historians have reconstructed speeches given at public ceremonies when, inevitably, little real-time recording took place. Thus contio speeches are often nothing more than approximations, at best, of the spirit behind the original. See discussion in Frolov (2013). Hammond (1978) p 341 for the contio in the manner of Scipio.

  198.McKechnie (1999) p 59 and see full article for discussion on Roman themes in Curtius’ portrayal of Arrhidaeus.

  199.Following the observation in McKechnie (1999) p 59 of the allusion to the Roman struggle of the common man and aristocrat.

  200.Curtius 10.8.15 mentioned Damyllus (or Amissus) as one of the envoys; this might be a corruption of ‘Damis’ who defended Megalopolis against elephants in 318 BCE (Diodorus 18.71.2-3); see identity discussion in Heckel (2006) p 102. The other envoys were named as Pasas (or Pasias) a Thessalian and Pertilaus (or Perilaus); Heckel (2006) p 202 for identity discussion.

  201.Plutarch Eumenes 3.1 for his neutrality and continued presence inside the city. Translations from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1919.

  202.Curtius 10.8.22-23; the infantry ‘thought’ the armies were reconciled. Arrian Events After Alexander termed Meleager Perdiccas’ hyparchos whereas Justin 13.4-5 implied they were equals; see discussion by Heckel in Quintus Curtius Rufus, The History of Alexander, Penguin edition 1984, p 301 footnote 44.

  203.Attalus, son of Andromenes, was probably enrolled by Perdiccas into his plan with the promise of marriage to his sister, Atalante; he had served with Meleager on campaign. Justin 13.3.2-7 has Attalus backing up Meleager at the Assembly, more below.

  204.Anson (2013) suggests the lustration was linked to the death of the kings. Hammond (1991) p 32 for more detail on weapons and insignia.

  205.Curtius 10.9.12, Justin 13.4.7. See discussion on the chronology of the mutiny and lustration in Bosworth (2002) p 55. Polybius 23.10.17 for the sacrifice to Xanthus in the eponymous month, though here horses are referred to, not dogs. Tarn (1948) p 107 for Macedonian superstition related to fighting in Daisios, based upon Plutarch 16 claiming that Alexander doubled the length of April to justify the River Granicus battle.

  206.Curtius 10.9.20 for the use of ‘treachery’ to describe Perdiccas’ actions. Curtius 19.9.20-21, Justin 13.4.7-8, Arrian Events After Alexander 1a.4 Diodorus 18.4.7 placed Meleager’s death after the division of empire. Curtius’ account suggests Perdiccas arranged the lustration with the unwitting Meleager himself; Justin claimed Perdiccas acted without the knowledge of his colleagues.

  207.Aristotle Politics 5.5 translated by B Jovett, published by The Internet Classic Archive.

  208.See Anson (1988) p 476 for discussion on the view of Briant and Errington that Perdiccas was acting in consultation with the other influential generals, as echoed by Diodorus 18.3.1, though these arguments exclude a Will.

  209.See chapter titled Wills and Covenants in the Classical Mind for arguments relating to the call for Alexander to write a Will.

  210.Plutarch 76.4.

  211.Perdiccas’ inheritance and his attempt to install allied governors discussed in the final chapter titled Lifting the Shroud of Parrhasius.

  212.Curtius 10.6.4.

  213.Justin 13.4.4, translation based on Rev. JS Watson, published by Henry G Bohn, London, 1853.

  214.Arrian Events After Alexander 1.5 based on the translation in Goralsky (1989) p 86.

  215.Metz Epitome 123, translation from Heckel-Yardley (2004) p 289.

  216.Curtius 10.6.1-4. Quoting Atkinson (2009) p 26.

  217.For their capture at Issus see Curtius 3.11.25, Diodorus 17.36.2, Arrian 2.11.9, Justin 11.9.12, Plutarch 21.1. For their installation in Susa, Curtius 5.2.17 ff, Diodorus 17.67.1, and death at Babylon see Plutarch 77.6.

  218.Badian (1968) p 203 suggested Eumenes did indeed have the king’s papers or hypomnemata that outlined the last plans. We propose that position would have been used for faked correspondence too.

  219.Siebert (1969) pp 27-28.

  220.See discussion in Heckel (2006) p 115. The final mention of Docimus is after Ipsus at which he had defected to Lysimachus. He most likely betrayed the Perdiccans when besieged following the battle with Antigonus in Pisidia; see Simpson (1957) pp 504-505. See Heckel A and A (1978) for the argument for Attalus’ marriage to Atalante after Babylon to secure his support. Justin 13.3.2-7 suggested Attalus had sided with Meleager and sent assassins to kill Perdiccas. Arrian Events after Alexander 24.6 for Medius serving in the invasion of Cyprus in 321/210 BCE.

  221.Nearchus’ initial whereabouts after Babylon are not recorded. He next emerged supporting Antigonus against Eumenes in 319/318 BCE. As there was no initial hostility with Antigonus until Perdiccas’ plans to repudiate Nicaea were revealed, he may well have assumed the governorship of his satrapy, or served the royal army until Perdiccas’ death. Full discussion in the final chapter titled Lifting the Shroud of Parrhasius. For Nearchus’ marriage at Susa Arrian 7.4.6. Nearchus was married to the daughter of Barsine and Mentor; see discussion in chapter titled Lifting the Shroud of Parrhasius.

  222.See discussion of Ptolemy’s ongoing communications with Antipater in Errington (1970) pp 65-67. Leonnatus also defected to Greece, assisting Antipater in the Lamian War, and it appears he tried to turn Eumenes against Perdiccas too. Perdiccas’ eventual murder by Peithon and the Silver Shield commanders (and possibly Seleucus) suggests a broad early coalition against him; for Seleucus’ possible presence in Egypt see chapter titled The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers. Arrian Events after Alexander 1.21 for Antipater’s offer of Nicaea in marriage, Diodorus 18.23.1 for Perdiccas seeking her hand.

  223.Perdiccas’ dialogue with Demades discussed
in Errington (1970) p 62; Diodorus 18.48.2, Plutarch Phocion 30.5-6, Plutarch Demosthenes 31.4-6, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.14-15 each described, with some variations, how letters from Demades to Perdiccas were later discovered, requesting Perdiccas’ intervention in Greece. If genuine, their earlier concealment suggested to Antipater that Perdiccas was planning trouble. The correspondence may have been fabricated to enable Antipater to remove him; Goralski (1989) p 106 for discussion. Arrian Events After Alexander 1.14 for the ‘rotten thread’ analogy.

  224.For Docimus’ activity see Arrian Events After Alexander 24, 3-5 and Plutarch Eumenes 8.4. Pausanias 1.6.3 for Cleomenes’ support from Perdiccas.

  225.Antigonus was ordered by Perdiccas to support Eumenes’ invasion of Cappadocia; he defected to Antipater and Craterus Macedonia instead; Plutarch Eumenes 3-4, Diodorus 18.23.3-4, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.20.

  226.For the failed invasion of Cyprus involving Medius and Aristonus see Arrian Events After Alexander 24.6. Quoting Roisman (2010) p 118.

  227.The date of Perdiccas’ death, May/June 320 BCE, is backed up by the Babylonian Chronicle extract BM 34, 660 Vs 4 though still disputed; see Anson (2003) for discussion on ‘high’ and ‘low’ chronologies. For Seleucus’ possible participation in Perdiccas’ murder see chapter titled The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers.

  228.For Perdiccas’ murder see Arrian Events After Alexander 1.35, Diodorus 18.39.6, Nepos 5.1, Diodorus 18.36.5. For the canal project Diodorus 18.33.2-3, possibly to allow Attalus to bring the fleet in tow as Perdiccas advanced. Detailed discussion of the attack in Roisman (2012) pp 97-103. Diodorus 18.33.5 for Perdiccas’ promises and gifts.

  229.Arrian Events After Alexander 1.28; this could be the epitomiser’s confusion of Diodorus 18.36.6, a speech Ptolemy gave after Perdiccas’ death. Diodorus 18.36.6 for Ptolemy addressing the Macedonians after Perdiccas’ death.

  230.Quoting Hornblower (1981) p 103 on ‘centrifugal forces’.

  231.In Rome the Grass Crown was the highest and rarest of military decorations, associated with breaking a blockade to save the day.

  232.AF Rosiger, De Duride Samio, Diodori Siculi et Plutarchi auctore, Gottingen, 1874. See Justin 13.6 for his favourable treatment of Ptolemy. Trogus’ treatment is epitomised at Justin 13.6 to ‘Ptolemy, by his wise exertions in Egypt, was acquiring great power; he had secured the favour of the Egyptians by his extraordinary prudence.’

  233.The Battle of Actium took place in 31 BCE, probably when Diodorus finished his work but Caesar had by then already caused damage in the city, see chapter titled The Precarious Path of Pergamena and Papyrus for more detail.

  234.Diodorus 18.28.3 based on the translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1954; also recorded by Strabo 17.8 and the Romance 3.34.6 though dates of the transfer from Memphis to Alexandria are not given. Pausanias 1.7.1 stated Ptolemy II Philadelphos brought the body to Alexandria from Memphis. An alternative fate for the sarcophagus discussed in the final chapter titled Lifting the Shroud of Parrhasius. Also see Aelian 12.64 for an alternative tradition.

  235.Diodorus 18.28.3 and the earlier references to Alexandria at 17.52.1-6; Strabo 17.8 for his description of Alexandria.

  236.Diodorus 18.28.5-6, based on the translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1954.

  237.Curtius 10.10.20, based on the translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1946; Pausanias 1.7.1 stated Ptolemy II Philadelphos brought the body from Memphis to Alexandria.

  238.Diodorus 18.33.3, based on the translation in the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1954 and reiterated at Justin 13.4.

  239.Hornblower (1981) for discussion of Cleitarchus’ extending of his account to the burial in Egypt. For a good discussion of Diodorus’ change of source for these episodes see Anson (2004) pp 23-25.

  240.For the ‘prize of war’, Diodorus 18.39.5 and repeated at 18.43.1, so suggesting Hieronymus’ own sentiment. Archibald-Davies-Gabrielson (2005); 14,800 talents plus 1,500,000 artabae of grain by the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphos. An artaba was originally a Persian unit which spread west and was adopted by Rome; the Egyptian dry capacity was around 36.18 litres.

  241.St Jerome Commentariorum in Danielum 3.11.5 for Egyptian income under Philadelphos.

  242.Bagnall-Derow (2004) pp 181-195 for the Egyptian Revenue Laws and pp 285-288 for Egyptian administration.

  243.Herodotus 2.180-182, 3.47 for the early Greek presence in Egypt and 2.178 for the Hellenion; discussed in Boardman (1964) p 113 ff and Anson (2004) p 197 (Hellenion). For Cleomenes’ hyparchos role in Egypt, see Justin 13.4.11, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.5 Dexippus FGrH 100 F8 2. For his governorship of Pithom see Arrian 3.5.4 and for his financial mandate see Arrian 3.5.4, Curtius 4.8.5. For his maladministration, Arrian 7.23.6, 7.23.8. Diodorus 18.14.1 claimed Ptolemy found 8,000 talents in the Egyptian treasury. Pausanias 1.6.3 for his support and friendship with Perdiccas and his death at the hands of Ptolemy. Pharaonic Egypt comprised forty-two nomes and the designation survived into Roman times, with nomarchs often minting their own currency. Manning (2005) p 2 for the major Egyptian regions. Anson (2013) pp 148-149 for Alexander’s administrators in Egypt.

  244.Pseudo-Aristotle Oikonomika 2.1352.

  245.Arrian Events After Alexander 1.25 for Arrhidaeus’ complicity. Diodorus 18.3.5, Justin 13.4.6 for Arrhidaeus’ instructions to build and deliver the funeral bier. Curtius 10.5.4, 18.3.5, Justin 12.15.7, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.25, Pausanias 1.6.3, Strabo 17.8. for Alexander’s desire to be buried at Ammon. Justin 13.4.6 reported the body was supposed to be destined for Egypt as did Arrian Events After Alexander 1.25; assuming this was Hieronymus-derived then this argues strongly for Egypt as the legitimate destination. For accounts of the hearse’s fate and Ptolemy’s interception, see Diodorus 18.28.2, Strabo 17.8, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.25, Pausanias 1.6.3, Aelian 12.64. Pausanias 1.6.3 stated Perdiccas planned to take the body to Aegae, and Arrian Events After Alexander 1.25 suggested similar, both possibly following Antigonus’ warning to Antipater, which may have been propaganda. No author linked its final destination to Alexander’s own wishes, but rather to the opposing wishes of Perdiccas and Ptolemy. The Will stated the destination was Egypt. Also Stewart (1993) p 221 for discussion of Alexander’s intent. See chapter titled Lifting the Shroud of Parrhasius for alternative theory on its destination: Perdiccan held Syria.

  246.See discussion of the statues in Chugg (2009) p 44 and Chugg (2002) p 17.

  247.Diodorus 18.28.3.

  248.See full discussion and research in Chugg (2002) and for the location in Atkinson (2009) pp 242-245. Strabo 17.8 for confirmation of the Sema being part of the royal palaces and housing the tombs of Alexander and the Ptolemies; also Erskine (2002) for discussion and p 165 for the comment on inseparability. The Proverbs of Zenobius 3.94 (now available in the Corpus paroemiographorum graecorum I, p 81) reported that Ptolemy IV Philopatros built a burial complex, the Mnema, later called the Sema, to house all the royal corpses; discussed in Erskine (2002) pp 165-166. The Romance 34.6 also confirmed the existence of the Sema (named the Soma of Alexander).

  249.Romance 3.34.1-6 for the oracular predictions.

  250.Romance 1.1-12, discussed in chapter titled Guardians and Ghosts of the Ephemerides.

  251.Aelian 12.64 for the alternative version of the hijacking of Alexander’s body.

  252.Also known as Ptolemy ‘kokkes’ or ‘scarlet’; see Strabo 17.8 who also mentioned its location in the Sema, the burial place of kings.

  253.Discussed in detail in Chugg (2004) and (2007) and following Erskine (2002) p 167.

  254.Diodorus 18.26-28. For accounts of the hearse’s fate see Diodorus 18.28.2, Strabo 17.8, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.25, Pausanias 1.6.3. For the dating see discussion in Atkinson (2009) p 242. Athenaeus 5.206e confirmed Hieronymus provided the funeral bier detail. Kebric (1977) p 66 for its Durian style.

  255.‘Ionic temple on wheels’ quoting Stewart (1993) p 216.

  256.Quoting Stew
art (1993) p 220 for the observation that ‘no image of peace’ was included in the description and p 221 for the absence of the phalanx.

  257.Diodorus 18.26.1-3. The exact chronology according the Roman consulships is open to debate; see discussion in Loeb edition, 1947, footnotes on pp 86-87. However Diodorus closed a previous paragraph with ‘such then were the events of this year’, generally attributable to 322 BCE. And Diodorus stated at 18.28.2 that the engineer, Arrhidaeus, took almost two years completing his work.

  258.For the timing of Eumenes’ flight to Perdiccas in the face of Leonnatus’ intriguing see Anson (1986) p 214. However Perdiccas’ whereabouts are not attested; the assumption that Eumenes returned to Babylon does not need to be made. Perdiccas might have been closer, in Syria for example, where he meant the hearse to reside; see chapter titled Lifting the Shroud of Parrhasius for discussion.

  259.‘Patchwork’ quoting Hornblower (1981) p 94.

  260.Diodorus 18.5 1-7. See Tarn (1948) pp 6-7 for chronological arguments and p 33 for name-related arguments and Hornblower pp 80-82 for Tarn’s dating of the satrapal list in Diodorus’ geographical digression. Goropism or a goropianism stems from Goropius Becanus who proposed all Indo-European languages were traceable to Dutch (Antwerpian Brabantic) just as Parsons similarly traced them to Irish. Thus a goropism refers to an absurd etymology claimed to stem from a single root.

  261.A position supported by Hornblower (1981) p 80.

  262.Curtius 10.10.19.

  263.See dating discussion for Curtius in chapter titled Comets, Colophons and Curtius Rufus. Curtius might also have been able to draw from Trogus, assuming he published earlier.

  264.Pearson (1960) p 217 reinforced by MCJ Miller in Watson-Miller (1992) p 108. Curtius’ Will dismissal could refer to Diodorus’ later Will reference at 20.81.3 but Diodorus never specifically linked the division of the empire to the Will. And neither did Justin and so Trogus.

  265.There are some discrepancies: in Curtius’ account, the text dealing with Macedonia failed to mention either Craterus or Antipater, and simply mentioned ‘the king’ holding supreme power: Curtius 10.10.1-5. Here Asander has been mistaken with, or corrupted to, Cassander. There is another lacuna in Photius’ epitome of Arrian’s Events After Alexander 1.7 dealing with the eastern provinces. And Justin’s précis of Trogus work is corrupted the most, containing several otherwise unattested appointments, suggesting he clumsily merged the satrapal allocations at Babylon with those made later at Triparadeisus; Nearchus appeared in Lycia and Pamphylia, and Cassander appointed to the king’s guard, as he was at Triparadeisus.