In Search of the Lost Testament of Alexander the Great

by David Grant

  20.Alexander’s failure to conquer Cappadocia at Diodorus 18.3.1-2,18.16.1 and implied at Curtius 10.10.3.

  21.Dexippus FGrH 100 F8.6; Plutarch Eumenes 3.2 for the extent of Eumenes’ grant. Xenophon proposed the idea of founding a mercenary-based colony on the Black Sea coast but met with local opposition. Parke (1933) p 29 for discussion of Xenophon’s numbers, quoting Isocrates Panegyrikos 4.146.

  22.Arrian 2.4.2, Curtius 3.1.22-24 and 4.5.13 for the previous association of Paphlagonia with Hellespontine Phrygia.

  23.Arrian 2.4.2 for Sabictas. Plutarch Eumenes 3.6 for Ariarathes’ control of all Cappadocia. See the discussion by Hornblower (1981) pp 240-243. Arrian 2.4.1-2 suggested Alexander had conquered the whole region. However Strabo 12.534 suggested there were two distinct Cappadocian satrapies.

  24.Xenophon 7.8.25 for the inclusion of Lycaonia.

  25.Ariarathes’ position under Persian authority is discussed in Anson (1988) pp 471-473 footnote 4. Anson noted that Curtius did not mention a Cappadocian contingent at Issus, citing Curtius 3.2.6. Also Anson noted that Bosworth concluded the Ariaces cited by Arrian 3.8.5 might have been a mistransmission of ‘Ariarathes’ at the battle of Gaugamela.

  26.As proposed in Anson (1988) p 474. Diodorus 18.16.2 for the mercenary contingent.

  27.Lucian How to Write History 2.13. Diodorus 18.16.2-4 and 18.22.1 and Appian Mithridatic Wars 2.8 reported Ariarathes himself was tortured and impaled. Justin 13.6.1 agreed.

  28.Diodorus 18.22.1-8 for Perdiccas’ campaign in Pisidia.

  29.Diodorus 18.33.3 for ‘man of blood’; discussion of the source of the sentiment in chapter titled Babylon: the Cipher and Rosetta Stone.

  30.Diodorus 18.23.1 for the arrival of both women. Diodorus 18.23.1, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.21, Justin 13.6.4 for Perdiccas’ seeking the hand of Cleopatra. Only the Heidelberg Epitome FGrH 155F-4 suggested the marriage took place.

  31.Further detail on Antigonus ‘defection’ to Antipater below and for Leonnatus’ refusal to assist Eumenes in chapter titled Lifting the Shroud of Parrhasius.

  32.Diodorus 18.29.6 for the convening of the council of war. Errington (1970) p 61 for discussion of Cleitus’ association with Craterus. He was victorious at sea assisting Antipater in the Lamian War, receiving Lydia at Triparadeisus as a result, Diodorus 18.39.6, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.37. Yet Cleitus had assisted Perdiccas before his failed invasion of Egypt, see Justin 13.6.16. His new alignment with Craterus and Antipater is implied at Arrian Events After Alexander 1.26 with their re-crossing the Hellespont, but a change of allegiance was never specifically stated. For Cleitus’ behaviour following naval victories in the Lamian War see Plutarch Moralia 338a. Athenaeus 12.539b-c for his walking on purple robes, and this suggesting royalty. For his victory in three naval battles see Diodorus 18.15.8-9.

  33.Arrian Events After Alexander 24.6 for the Cyprus affair.

  34.For Nicocles issuing his own coinage immediately after Alexander’s death, see Bellinger (1979) p 88.

  35.‘West of the Taurus’ suggested by Nepos 3.2, Justin 13.6.14-15 and following the observation in Heckel (2006) p 121. Plutarch Eumenes 5.1 for Eumenes’ wide-ranging powers.

  36.Following Justin 13.6 who mentioned Antipater too, though it appears he headed south with Antigonus.

  37.Arrian 2.27.6 for Neoptolemus’ dissent; the havoc he caused in Armenia (Plutarch Eumenes 4.1) suggests he was already disdainful of central authority. Plutarch Eumenes 5.2-6, Diodorus 18.29.2-6, Justin 13.6.15-13.8.5, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.27 for his subordination to Eumenes’ command and intriguing with and defection to Craterus.

  38.Plutarch Eumenes 5.2-4, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1919.

  39.Plutarch Eumenes 1.2.

  40.Diodorus 18.29.4 and 37.1. Plutarch Eumenes 8.1 for the timing: ‘10 days after the former’. Also see Billows (1990) p 65 for the May dating.

  41.Diodorus 16.35, Justin 8.2.3-5 for Philip leading a coalition of Macedonians, Thessalians and Thebans wreathed like gods. This was the so-called Battle of the Crocus Field in Thessaly. For Alexander at Tyre see Curtius 4.2.17, Arrian 2.18.1-2, Plutarch 24.3.

  42.Plutarch Eumenes 7.4-6 for ‘dashing together like triremes’ and the fight, and Diodorus 18.31.1-5 for their grappling together. Also covered at Arrian Events After Alexander 1.27 and Justin 13.8.4.

  43.Arrian 4.24.3-5 for Ptolemy’s slaying and stripping the Indian leader of his armour; presumably Ptolemy provided the detail.

  44.Voltaire, Letter to Jeanne-Grâce Bosc du Bouchet, comtesse d’Argental, 1748. It appeared in a letter to Marie-Louise, 1752: ‘To hold a pen is to be at war. This world is one vast temple consecrated to discord.’ Pliny 35.96 claimed Neoptolemus commissioned Apelles to paint him in a cavalry battle. Achilles had lent his armour to Patroclus who was killed by Hector who stripped the armour from him. Achilles then stripped Hector’s armour from his shoulders. This appears a humiliation. Achilles’ son was named Neoptolemus; Iliad 22.247-366 and 367 ff.

  45.Plutarch Eumenes 6.3-6. For varying reports on how Craterus died see Plutarch Eumenes 7.5-6, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.27 Nepos 4.3-4, Diodorus 18.30.5. Pharnabazus and Phoenix commanded the cavalry against Craterus’ wing; Eumenes claimed they were facing Neoptolemus and Pigres.

  46.Diodorus 18.37.1-3, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.39, Justin 13.8.10-14.1.1, Appian Syrian Wars 53 for the death sentence levied on Eumenes and his outlaw status. Plutarch Eumenes 8.2, Diodorus 18.41.6-8 and 19.12.2 also made it clear that an assembly gathering in Egypt resulted in a death sentence.

  47.For the sentence of death placed on Eumenes and fifty Perdiccans see Diodorus 18.37.1-3, Plutarch Eumenes 8.2, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.39, Justin 13.8.10-14.1.1 Appian Syrian Wars 53, Atalante’s two daughters by Attalus apparently survived her and were later murdered with Olympias at Pydna.

  48.Diodorus 18.37.2 for Attalus’ marriage to Atalante; Heckel (2006) p 62 (Attalus 2) for the underlying motives.

  49.Arrian Events After Alexander 1.38. This assumes that the Ptolemy being referenced should read ‘Polemaeus’ in which case he was son of Ptolemy, Antigonus’ brother; Billows agrees, see Heckel (2006) p 224 for discussion.

  50.Diodorus 18.39.6-7, derived from translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1947 and reiterated by Arrian Events After Alexander 1.38.

  51.Diodorus 18.50.1-2 for Antigonus’ role as strategos of Asia Minor. For his hegemon or supreme commander, Diodorus 18.39.7, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.38. Diodorus 19.29.3 referred to Antigonus’ role as ‘regency’. Discussed in Anson (1992).

  52.‘Constitutionalist’ summarising the comment and observation in Billows (1990) p 316.

  53.Plutarch Eumenes 8.3, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1919.

  54.Arrian Events after Alexander 24.8 for the narrowly avoided ambush.

  55.Plutarch Eumenes 8.4. Arrian Events After Alexander 1.40 for the clash at Sardis; Justin 14.1.7 and Plutarch Eumenes 8.6-7 for Eumenes’ earlier visit to Sardis when brokering the marriage. More on Leonnatus’ attempt at a union with Cleopatra in chapter titled Lifting the Shroud of Parrhasius.

  56.Following the observation in Carney (1988) p 401 on Antipater’s leniency; more on Cynnane’s plight in chapters titled The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers and Lifting the Shroud of Parrhasius.

  57.Curtius 3.1.11 for a vivid description of Celaenae and the surrounding countryside. Arrian 1.29 for the truce.

  58.Arrian 1.29.3 for Antigonus 1,500 troops.

  59.Cyrus had tasked his recruitment agents with finding Peloponnesians; Xenophon Anabasis 1.1.6 and 6.2.10. Parke (1933) p 29 for Isocrates’ rendering of Xenophon’s return.

  60.Curtius 3.1.2-6 for a description of the River Marsyas and city walls.

  61.Plutarch Eumenes 8.5-7 reported: ‘Having promised to give his soldiers their pay within three days, he sold them the homesteads and castles about the country, which were full of slaves and flocks. Then every captain in the phalanx or co
mmander of mercenaries who had bought a place was supplied by Eumenes with implements and engines of war and took it by siege; and thus every soldier received the pay that was due him.’ From the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1919. Hatzopoulos (1996) p 332 for the status and garb of philoi and hetairoi: purpurati – ‘clothed in purple’.

  62.Plutarch Eumenes 8.6, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1919.

  63.A translation of the recovered Gothenburg Palimpsest text can be found at http://www.attalus.org/translate/fgh.html.

  64.Plutarch Eumenes 8.7-8, Gothenburg Palimpsest line 19 and Arrian Events After Alexander F1 41-42 associates Attalus and (the latter) Alcetas in negotiations with Eumenes; there is possibly a lacuna in Diodorus that lost additional detail; Wheatley (1995) p 435 and footnote 25. Diodorus 18.37.3-4, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.39 for Attalus’ occupation of Tyre. Whether Ptolemy’s annexation precipitated Attalus’ departure or whether that came first is debatable.

  65.Diodorus 18.39.7, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.43-44 and see discussion in Anson (2004) pp 125-127 for events at Celaenae, the failure of forces to combine and Eumenes’ departure from Celaenae for Cappadocia. Gothenburg Palimpsest for Alcetas’ enthusiasm; the incomplete text leaves leeway for seeing this as a cynical ruse by Alcetas.

  66.Xenophon On Horsemanship 12.11 for the machaera. Xenophon’s Hipparchicus advised the pointing forward of the lance between the horses’ ears to make the approaching cavalry appear more fearsome; discussed in Hornblower (1981) p 198.

  67.Thucydides 2.100.4-5 stated that in 429 BCE Macedonian cavalry wore corselets. The mosaic on the floor of the House of the Faun in Pompeii clearly shows Alexander in linothorax, but whether it was lined with metal is unknown. Curtius 4.13.25 for Alexander’s reluctance to wear a cuirass.

  68.Anderson (1961) p 143 for the cavalry mount armour and fuller discussion of Macedonian cavalry in Gaebel (2002) pp 161-196. Snodgrass (1967) p 90 for the construction of the linen corselet; Snodgrass (1967) p 115. Alexander wore an ornate linen corselet at Gaugamela captured from the Persians and in the Herculaneum mosaic depicting the battle at Issus he is shown in similar armour, though without a helmet. Curtius 9.3.22 suggested old armour was burned when new panoplies were issued in India, suggesting a combustible material was worn (linen or leather) and not simply metal; Curtius 8.5.4, Diodorus 17.95.4 for the new equipping before and in India, which rather suggests the burning mentioned by Curtius was as the army entered India, not well into the Indian campaign, unless these are two separate events.

  69.Snodgrass (1967) p 104 for the use of the petasos as indicated by Xenophon.

  70.Xenophon Cyropaedia 6.1.50, 7.1.2. Curtius 3.11.15 for the weighty protection of the Persian cavalry and 4.9.3 for description of the mailed cavalry. Cataphract, Roman cataphracti, stems from the Greek kataphraktos meaning ‘fully enclosed’.

  71.Sekunda (2012) p 10 for a prick-spur image.

  72.Arrian 7.14.10. The hipparchy retained Hephaestion’s name out of respect. Devine Gabiene (1985) p 93 for Eumenes’ use of Alexander’s cavalry techniques.

  73.Plutarch Eumenes 9.1-2, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1919.

  74.Justin 14.1.

  75.Diodorus 18.40.1-6 for the two distinct defections and for Perdiccas’ defection and subsequent capture by Phoenix of Tenedus; also Plutarch Eumenes 9.1-2.

  76.Plutarch Eumenes 9.6, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1919; also Diodorus 18.40.8, Polyaenus 4.6.12.

  77.Plutarch 57.1-3, Curtius 6.6.14-15, Polyaenus 4.30.10, Plutarch Aemilius 12.11 for Alexander’s burning of the baggage. Diodorus 17.94.4 for the permission to plunder in India. Xenophon 4.1.12-13 burned his waggons before entering the mountains of Kurdistan in winter.

  78.Diodorus 18.40.8 for Eumenes’ losses. Anson (1977) p 251 footnote 1 for a discussion of the date of the battle at Orcynia.

  79.Anaklesis is a flight from the battlefield. This episode is once more Plutarch-derived and Diodorus 18.41.1-4 made no such reference, though an earlier confrontation is possibly being described here; as it has been noted, Orcynia might have been a Cappadocian district and not a specific battleground. Only Diodorus 18.40-41 mentioned Eumenes’ lost baggage train. It looks suspiciously as if Plutarch compressed the three battles into two and placed the doubling-back and funeral rites at Orcynia erroneously; see Diodorus 19.32.3.

  80.Plutarch Eumenes 10.1 translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1919. Also Justin 14.2, Diodorus 18.41.1-4, Nepos 5 for Eumenes’ entry into Nora. Anson (2004) p 131 for the date the siege commenced. Diodorus 18.41.2 for ‘lofty crag’.

  81.Diodorus 18.41.4-6.

  82.Diodorus 18.41.2-6 for the walls, ditch and pallisades; Plutarch Eumenes 11.1 simply mentioned ‘a wall’ was built around Nora.

  83.Plutarch Eumenes 10.2-4.

  84.See Heckel (2006) p 139 citing Hornblower (1981) p 6 and Diodorus 18.50.4.

  85.Eumenes’ ‘demands’ are consistently reported in both Plutarch’s and Diodorus’ accounts, so possibly Diodorus 18.41.7 compressed the moment for we would imagine the description of friendly relations and mutual respect was Hieronymus-derived.

  86.Plutarch Eumenes 10.3-4, based on the translation in the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1919.

  87.Plutarch Eumenes 10.2.

  88.Diodorus 18.53.4-5 suggested the siege lasted a full year; Nepos 5.6-7 suggested six months. If both are approximations, the answer may lie in between; the dating of the battle at Orcynia is uncertain but if in spring of 319 BCE, after Eumenes had wintered in Celaenae, then Antipater’s death came approximately six months later.

  89.Plutarch Eumenes 12-13 for the oath; Nepos claimed Eumenes eluded Antigonus’ officers but whether this means physically or psychologically with the oaths is uncertain.

  90.Quoting Green (2007) p 36 referring to Euripides Hippolytus 6.12.

  91.Iliad 9.312.

  92.Plutarch Eumenes 12.1-2, Nepos 5.7.

  93.Anson (1977) questioned the validity of the reporting of the changed oath. Anson (2004) p 136 considers it a fiction of Duris.

  94.Plutarch Eumenes 12.3 for the return of hostages after Eumenes’ release.

  95.Eumenes’ delay discussed in Anson (1977) p 253.

  96.Plutarch Eumenes 12.3 and Diodorus 18.53.6-7 for Eumenes’ re-gathering of forces.

  97.The focus on the reporting of the battle was Eumenes’ opportunity to seize Antigonus’ baggage train, but in flight there is little chance Eumenes could have salvaged his own. Plutarch Eumenes 9.3 left it unclear whether Eumenes had the opportunity to take the enemy booty during battle or after he had doubled back from his flight to Armenia. The former is most logical when considering Menander’s role.

  98.Diodorus 18.59.1-2 for Menander’s appointment to track down Eumenes. Strabo 14.5.10 described the location; for the Assyrian association see discussion in Bing (1973) pp 346-350. Modern excavations suggest a location on Mount Carasis high in the Taurus Mountains; discussed in Sayar (1995) pp 279–282. For the estimate of 20,000 talents see Roisman (2012) p 181. Quoting G Maspero’s History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria, The Grolier Society Publishers, Volume 8 part B, 1903, ‘Some Assyriologists have proposed to locate these two towns in Cilicia; others place them in the Lebanon, Kundi being identified with the modern village of Ain-Kundiya. The name of Kundu so nearly recalls that of Kuinda, the ancient fort mentioned by Strabo, to the north of Anchialê, between Tarsus and Anazarbus, that I do not hesitate to identify them, and to place Kundu in Cilicia.’

  99.Diodorus 18.57.3-18.58.4, Plutarch Eumenes 13.1-3, Nepos 6.1-5, Heidelberg Epitome F 3.2 for the letters sent to Eumenes.

  100.Diodorus 18.57.2-4 and 18.58.1-4. Arrian Events after Alexander 1.43-45 for the seventy elephants left with Antigonus and Antipater keeping the remainder; also Diodorus 19.23.2.

  101.Diodorus 18.58.1-3 for the second letter offering funding and the Silver Shields. Also detailed in Plutarch Eumenes 13.1-2.

  102.Diodorus
18.59.4-6 based on the translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1947.

  103.Diodorus 18.59.3 and Plutarch Eumenes 13.3-4. Roisman (2012) pp 177-236 for a useful study of the Silver Shields under Eumenes. Arrian Events After Alexander 1.38 for reference to Antipater giving Antigenes 3,000 of the most rebellious Macedonians to collect the treasure, or revenues, from Susa after Triparadeisus. For the origins of the Silver Shields see chapter titled Sarissa Diplomacy: Macedonian Statecraft. Heckel (1988) p 49 assumed the Silver Shields were already at Cyinda and Bosworth (2002) p 100 footnote 9 disputes this, suggesting Diodorus’ reference to ‘distance’ placed them in Susa. Diodorus 18.58.1 however stated orders were issued to ‘the generals and treasurers in Cilicia’, which might suggest the Silver Shields were already billeted there. If so, the residue guard apparently feared for their safety after Eumenes departed; Diodorus 19.62.1-2. They were labelled ‘troublemakers’ here and it could be that the ataktoi and Silver Shields (both 3,000) were mistaken for one another though ‘3,000’ appears a utility number used for a medium-sized body of men. For the formation of the ataktoi see chapter titled The Reborn Wrath of Peleus’ Son. It is likely the Silver Shields were stationed in Cilicia when Perdiccas invaded Egypt in 320 BCE and enrolled them there; see Heckel (2006) p 30 (Antigenes) for discussion.