In Search of the Lost Testament of Alexander the Great

by David Grant

  104.Billows (1990) p 277 for discussion of the gazophylax role and p 281 for the phrouria and phrourarchoi. Strabo 12.2.6 for his reference to the treasury of Sisines.

  105.The legendary age of this veteran regiment stemmed from Diodorus 19.41.2 and was reinforced by Plutarch Eumenes 16.4, Justin 12.7.5 and the Romance 1.25.3-5 in which it was claimed the youngest of them was sixty and the oldest over seventy. The claims were repeated in other works, possibly in the belief this stemmed from an impeccable source: Hieronymus. The source was more likely Cleitarchus and as it has been pointed out, this is likely Hellenistic misinterpretation, or simple exaggeration. The Romance does suggest Alexander wanted to keep the elderly hypaspistes as instructors, which makes more sense and there is no reason to believe such elderly men still formed the active fighting ranks. Following the discussion by MCJ Miller in Watson-Miller (1992) pp 107-108.

  106.Diodorus 18.60.3, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1947. Further discussion of the origins of the missives in the chapter titled The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers.

  107.For the gift and refusal, see Diodorus 18.60.1-4.

  108.Cicero Laelius De Amicitia 17 quoting Ennius on the fickleness of fortune. Diodorus 18.60.1.

  109.Plutarch Eumenes 13.2, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1919.

  110.Diodorus 18.60.6 for the show of insignia. Curtius 10.6.15 for Ptolemy’s suggestion at Babylon. A hieromnemon was a religious official. It is unlikely Eumenes appealed to the soldiers themselves but the hierarchy above them; see discussion in Hornblower (1981) p 205. Diodorus 18.26.4 claimed the king’s armour at least left Babylon with the funeral bier. Plutarch Eumenes 13.4-8, Polyaenus 4.8.2, Nepos 7.2-3, Diodorus 18.60.4-18.61.3, 19.15.3-4 for the dream vision and its employment.

  111.See epilogue titled The Return to Aegae for more on the regalia found at Vergina and similarities (and differences) to those in extant texts.

  112.Diodorus 17.16.4 for a description, for example, of the Tent of a Hundred Couches which was again more a pavilion enclosure. It was used to celebrate the departure from Macedonia in 335 BCE and taken on campaign; see Athenaeus 12.538c and 12.539d.; Aelian 9.3 described it as being held up by fifty gold pillars; the golden chair might have meant a ‘throne’ or represented one. Curtius 6.8.23 for the tent that housed over 6,000 men at the trial of Philotas.

  113.Diodorus 18.60.4-18; Plutarch Eumenes 13.3-4.

  114.Diodorus 18.60.6 for the insignia and throne; Arrian Times After Alexander 1.25 and 24.1 for the unsuccessful roles of Polemon and Attalus with the funeral bier. Diodorus 18.28.4, for example, did not refer to the insignia when describing the burial in Egypt, though we must recall Caligula allegedly took his breastplate and Caracalla seems to have taken some weapons; Suetonius Caligula 52, Cassius Dio 59.17.3 for Caligula taking the breastplate and Epitome de Caesaribus Sexti Aurelia Victoris 21.4. Herodian 4.8.9 for Caracalla’s deposits and Cassius Dio 78.7.1 for his withdrawals. These (bogus) items could however have been deposited later by Ptolemy for propaganda purposes.

  115.The Alexander cult on Rhodes discussed in the chapter titled The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers.

  116.Diodorus 18.61.4.

  117.Diodorus 18.61.4-5 for the recruitment drive and numbers. Xenophon Anabasis 1.1.8-11 for Cyrus’ deception. Parke (1933) pp 231-232 for discussion of the pay to Cyrus’ mercenaries. The gold daric was over ninety-five per cent pure.

  118.Aristophanes Peace 1210 ff, written in 421 BCE. These numbers might have been comic exaggeration as an Athenian inscription of 415 BCE, just a few years later, gave prices of 2 drachmas for a secondhand javelin and 1.66 for a buttless spear. Snodgrass (1967) p 107 for detail. Anderson (1970) p 114 ff for the increasing appearance of peltasts.

  119.Parke (1933) p 235 for the mercenary possessions popularised by the Greek poets. The Corinthian helmet was close-fitting and tailormade and thus might not fit a son of its original wearer. Aristophanes Peace 527, 1129 and Acharnians 1099-1101 for cheese and onions; see Anderson (1970) p 46.

  120.Heckel-Jones (2006) pp 21-22 for discussion of Macedonian soldier pay rates. Curtius 5.1.45, Diodorus 17.64.6 being quoted.

  121.See Billows (1990) p 262 for discussion of military costs; misthos for 40,000 infantry would have amounted to 2,435 talents per year but this excluded cavalry on higher pay. Parke (1933) p 233 for standard mercenary rates. Arrian for example mentioned 10-stater men at 7.23.3-5 and Sekunda (1984) pp 24-25 for discussion of double-pay men.

  122.For Ptolemy’s attempts to subvert the Silver Shields see Diodorus 18.62.5. Diodorus 18.62.4 for Antigonus’ attempt to turn the Silver Shields; he almost succeeded as Teutamus had to be convinced by Antigenes to remain loyal to Eumenes. Diodorus 18.73.1 for Antigonus’ departure for Cilicia.

  123.Diodorus 18.63.6 suggested Eumenes was hoping to gather a fleet to send to Polyperchon; Polyaenus 4.6.9 reported that Phoenician crews were heading for a Cilician port laden with Eumenes’ funds, presumably from Cyinda and perhaps to collect more, though we must question whether the ships were coming from Cilicia rather than heading to it. There is, in fact, a similarity here with Diodorus 18.52.7 describing Antigonus’ assault of Ephesus where Antigonus again intercepted ships from Cilicia; we might wonder if Eumenes had sent the funds to Cleitus and was attempting to send more to him or to Olympias, perhaps via Polyperchon. Further detail of the victory over Cleitus at Polyaenus 4.6.8-9; more of Cleitus’ and Arrhidaeus’ defections and Olympias’ pleas in chapter titled The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers.

  124.Griffiths (1935) pp 297-316 for general discussion of mercenary pay rates. The numbers are taken from Griffiths (1935) pp 264-301 and rounded-up to account for provisions to feed the army. Discussion in Campion (2014) pp 183-184. Griffiths (1935) p 265 and p 283 for the ration allowance payments.

  125.Diodorus 18.73.1 for the size of Antigonus’ force. At that stage word of Peithon’s aggression in the eastern provinces and the planned repercussions may well have reached Eumenes.

  126.Diodorus 19.12.1-2 for Eumenes wintering in the villages of the Carians and sending out envoys to Seleucus. This could be a reference to Carrhae mentioned again at 19.91.1 where Seleucus later raised veteran troops and where Alexander had marched through on campaign; Diodorus 17.110.3.

  127.Diodorus 19.13.7 and 19.15.5, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1947. Roisman (2012) p 193 footnote 40 for a discussion on the dating of this new letter; dispatch from Phoenicia seems a sound conclusion, before Eumenes headed east.

  128.Heckel (2006) p 22 for discussion on Amphimachus’ identity; probably ‘brother of Arrhidaeus’ in original manuscripts though later confused with King Philip III (Arrhidaeus). He was awarded with the governorship of Mesopotamia at Triparadeisus; Diodorus 18.39.6, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.35. We argue he came under the authority of Seleucus (or Perdiccas at Syria, see chapter titled Lifting the Shroud of Parrhasius), and yet was found operating under Eumenes at Paraetacene, Diodorus 19.27.4, so logically he defected at this point. Diodorus 18.51.1-2 and 18.72.2-3 for Arrhidaeus’ activity in defiance of Antigonus.

  129.Diodorus 19.12.1-3 for the failed overtures to Seleucus and Peithon and 19.12.4-19.13 for the confrontation that followed.

  130.Diodorus 18.73.4 for Eumenes’ numbers soon after. A useful discussion of the campaigns in Cilicia, Mesopotamia and Iran, and events surrounding its build up and aftermath, can be found in Bosworth (2002) pp 98-167. Tarn proposed Eumenes held the Babylonian citadel in October 318 BCE, see the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1919 (1968 reprint) of Diodorus 19.13.5 footnote 1 for detail.

  131.Diodorus 19.15.4-6 for the continued invoking of Alexander’s presence and the arrival of Eudamus with elephants.

  132.For Peithon’s installation of his brother see Diodorus 19.14.1-2. Diodorus used the general term ‘upper satrapies’ for the Eastern Empire. No satraps from the upper provinces were aligned with Peucestas, though it was they who drove out Peithon. See chapter titled Liftin
g the Shroud of Parrhasius for further discussion.

  133.Diodorus 19.13.7 explained that the forces from the regions under Peucestas’ sway had already gathered to counter the threat of Peithon. We must assume Eumenes had heard of the gathering, for had he arrived in different circumstances, he might have received a rather colder reception. For the Persian lookout-post system see Diodorus 19.17.6-7 footnote 1 of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1919 (1968 edition). Herodotus 5.52-53 for the Royal Road and courier messenger times. Also for variants on the system, Diodorus 19.57.5 and Aristotle De Mundo 398b 30-35 for the one-day delivery of messages to Susa and Ecbatana. Homing pigeons were in use in Greece from 776 BCE onwards when news of the Olympic Games was sent to villages this way; it is thought this was learned from Persia where Sargon employed them ca. 2,350 BCE. In Egypt their recorded use goes back to 2,900 BCE and Caesar later used them when campaigning in Gaul.

  134.Herodotus 8.98, Xenophon Cyropaedia 8.6.17-18 and Diodorus 19.17.4-7 (amongst many others) for the Persian message system and Peucestas’ summons.

  135.Plutarch Lysander 19.5-7. A skytale is a tool used to perform a transposition cipher, consisting of a cylinder with a strip of leather wound around it on which is written a message. The Spartans in particular are said to have used this cipher to communicate during military campaigns. For the use of seals see Curtius 3.7.14.

  136.Athenaeus 10.451d cited Apollonius as the original source. For Archilochus see FGrH 188 1-2.

  137.See discussion in Collard (2004). Later references to the use of the skytale also appear in Plutarch, Aulus Gellius and Diodorus.

  138.Metz Epitome 100, Romance 3.32.3 for Cassander contacting Antipater via a coded message from Cilicia. Whilst attached to the Pamphlet detail, it does suggest codes were used in such situations.

  139.For the departure of Antigonus’ forces from Media see Diodorus 19.24.4 and for his alliance with Peithon and Seleucus see Diodorus 19.17.2.

  140.Plutarch Eumenes 14.2 (Pasitigris); Diodorus 19.18.3-8 (Coprates). The total number routed is closer to 10,000 but presumably many drowned in upturned boats and others escaped. Diodorus 19.18.3 for 4 plethra and 19.17.3 for 3-4 stades.

  141.See chapter titled The Reborn Wrath of Peleus’ Son and Plutarch 72 for the butchery of Cossaeans; Diodorus 19.19-20 for Antigonus’ clash with the tribe.

  142.Diodorus 19.21-22 for the geography of the journey to Persepolis and the festivities upon arrival.

  143.Plutarch Eumenes 13.5, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1919.

  144.Arrian 6.30.3 and 7.6.3 for Peucestas’ adoption of the Persian language and Diodorus 19.48.5 for his popularity amongst the Persians. Strabo 15.3.9-10 confirmed Alexander ferried the wealth of Persis to Susa. Plutarch Eumenes 13.4 for the reference to the former friendship between Eumenes and Peucestas; Nepos 7.1 for their intense rivalry. This may be a device of Duris however to emphasise his later betrayal of Eumenes, for the reference is immediately followed by a damning description of Peucestas behaviour at 13.5-6. Heckel (1988) p 75 for ‘high handed’ and who agrees at the time we propose the Pamphlet was drafted, Peucestas showed little or no support for Eumenes; for his performance at Gabiene, Diodorus 19.42.4, Plutarch Eumenes 16.

  145.Diodorus 19.23.2, Polyaenus 4.8.3. For Polyperchon’s earlier offer to bring the army from Macedonia to support Eumenes should he need it, Diodorus 18.57.4. Diodorus stated the letter was in ‘Syrian’ but this presumably means ‘Assyrian’. Diodorus often interchanged the terms geographically too. Arrian 3.8.5, Curtius 4.12.12 for Orontes at Gaugamela.

  146.Diodorus 19.23.1-4, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1947. Diodorus 19.23.1-2 for the undermining of Sibyrtius. We might assume he fled to the enemy as Antigonus gave Sibyrtius the remnants of the Silver Shields after their capture at Gabiene; see below.

  147.Diodorus 19.24.1-5.

  148.Plutarch Eumenes 13.6.

  149.Diodorus 19.24.5-5 for Eumenes’ illness. Plutarch Eumenes 14.5-6 stated ‘a few days’ after the banquet, but Diodorus’ account at 19.24.4-5 portrays the illness commencing once Eumenes heard of Antigonus breaking camp, so the actual timing is uncertain. Plutarch’s coverage of the events that followed is far more detailed and colourful than Diodorus’.

  150.Anson (2014) p 67 for discussion of the personal guard units of Eumenes, Peucestas, Leonnatus and Alcetas. Diodorus 19.29.5 and 19.28.3-4 for the guards of Eumenes and Antigonus at Paraetacene.

  151.As noted and discussed by Bosworth (2002) pp 12-127 and J Roisman in Carney-Ogden (2010) pp 142-143. Arrian 6.12.1-6.13.3 for Alexander’s behaviour after the Mallian battle.

  152.Plutarch Eumenes 14.4-15.3, Diodorus 19.24.5-6.

  153.Diodorus 19.25.1-3 for the relative encampments. Full battle tactics discussion in Devine Paraetacene (1985).

  154.Diodorus 19.25.2-19.

  155.Diodorus 19.26-27.

  156.Diodorus 19.26.1-7.

  157.Aposkeue, Greek for the baggage train; see discussion of its importance in Hornblower (1981) pp 188-189. It was variously referred to as skeue, aposkeue or paraskeue by Polybius, Cassius Dio and Appian, for example. Polyaenus 4.6.13 for the run-down of the baggage.

  158.Diodorus 18.40.8.

  159.Sekunda (1984) p 25 for supernumeraries and infantry baggage.

  160.Engels (1978) p 12 for the absence of waggons, and Frontinus Strategemata 4.1.6. Engels (1978) p 21 for pack weights. Curtius 4.9.19-21 for a description of the pack contents for each soldier. Hanson (1991) p 39 for 70 lbs/31 kg weight of panoply alone.

  161.Plutarch Eumenes 9.3 for the description of Antigonus’ baggage train. Polyaenus 4.2 for a description of the Macedonian soldier’s individual load.

  162.Diodorus 18.30.2 for Craterus’ promise to distribute Eumenes’ baggage train. Eumenes’ threat to harry the troops came after the battle with Craterus, and is recorded in papyrus PSI 12: 1284; see Goralski (1989) pp 95-96 for full transcription of the fragment and Bosworth (1978) for full discussion.

  163.For discussion of possible malaria in Alexander’s army and those of the Diadokhoi, see Borza (1987).

  164.Finlay (1973) p 38 for the philanthropon.

  165.Billows (1990) pp 286-290 for discussion on the tax system Antigonus maintained in Asia. Pseudo-Aristotle Oikonomika 2.1345. Arrian 1.16.7 for the tax remission for the fallen at the Granicus River.

  166.Diodorus 19.27-32.

  167.Diodorus 19.14.8-15.5 for Eudamus’ reinforcements in which the total elephant number was 120, presumably some had perished since their arrival, and his payment of 200 talents. Diodorus 19.27-29 for the total troop numbers and formations. Bosworth (2002) p 114 views the 200 talents as a credible necessity for provisioning the elephants requiring a huge amount of food.

  168.Diodorus 19.14.8. Compare this to Diodorus’ description of Triparadeisus at 18.39.6 where Porus and Taxiles are left unmoved solely because it would have required a royal army to do so. This suggests Eudamus might have been encouraged to kill Porus. Arrian 6.2 1 for Porus’ extended territory.

  169.Diodorus 19.29.3 for Antigonus’ Macedonian numbers and 27-28 for Eumenes’ numbers. Diodorus simply stated Antipater had given the 8,000 Macedonians to Antigonus ‘when he made him regent of the kingdom’, which translates as commander-in-chief in Asia, at Triparadeisus. Additional Macedonians would have been present in the Companion Cavalry but numbers were not specified.

  170.Double mounts were presumably horses carrying a spare or extra cavalryman, or, according to Livy 35.28.8, two horses per mount, and a title applied to the Tarentine cavalry who were described as skilled ambushers. Diodorus 19.29.5-6 reported that Antigonus used his own slaves as an advanced guard for his cavalry unit. Xenophon Anabasis 3.3.16 suggested the elliptical lead bullet flew twice as far as stones; Snodgrass (1967) p 84 for detail. Eumenes had two 50 cavalry-strong ilai of slaves accompanying him; see Diodorus 19.28.3. Amphippoi might be corrupted and even asthippoi or asphippoi; see chapter titled Sarissa Diplomacy: Macedonian Statecraft for discussion.


  171.Billows (1991) p 310 for discussion of the pantodapoi, the unit mentioned at Diodorus 19.29.3. At Paraetacenae both Antigenes and Peucestas had their own cavalry agema as did Eumenes, and at Cretopolis Alcetas had his own pages and hypaspists, Diodorus 18.45.3. Plutarch Eumenes mentioned Eumenes’ own bodyguard of 1,000 soldiers and Polyaenus 4.6.8 mentioned Antigonus boarding his best hypaspists on ships; following discussion in Anson (1988).

  172.Following Heckel-Jones (2006) p 43 for the syntagma additions.

  173.Hanson (1991) p110 ff for the construction of the salpinx.

  174.Following Heckel-Jones (2006) p 43 for the syntagma additions.

  175.An alternative view sees the skytalis attached to each fighter’s wrist so the dead could be identified but the risk of losing the stick in battle would have been high; this and the muster roll discussed in Hanson (1991) pp 56-57.

  176.Diodorus 19.31.5 for the death toll and wounded.

  177.Diodorus 19.31.3-5. Eumenes’ men would not occupy the battlefield to recover the dead due to their concern with the unguarded baggage train, leaving Antigonus able to do so and claim victory. But he himself was forced to send his baggage train on ahead to a neighbouring city for security; Diodorus 19.32.1-2.

  178.Xenophon Anabasis 4.7.25 ff and Plutarch Agesilaus 19.2 and Timoleon 29.4 for examples of the tropaion being erected.

  179.Polyaenus 4.6.10; the location of the battle is not specified but the circumstances sound like Paraetacene.

  180.Diodorus 19.34.1-6 for Ceteus’ funeral and the cremation of his wife. Diodorus 18.32.2 for mention of a ‘trophy’ being set up after battle with Craterus.

  181.Polyaenus 4.6.11 for the description of the land separating the armies. Diodorus 19.37-38 for the full account of their wintering and the relative distances between them at 19.34.8. The Gadamala mentioned at Diodorus 19.37.1 may well be the same Gamarga mentioned at 19.32.2.

  182.Plutarch Eumenes 15.4-7 and Diodorus 18.38.1-4 for the ruses involving fire.

  183.Diodorus 19.38-39 and Nepos 8-9 for the manoeuvring in the region of Gabiene and Plutarch Eumenes 15.6-15.7. Xenophon’s Hipparchikos (On Horsemanship) provided lessons on how to make a small force appear large and surely both Eumenes and Antigonus were familiar with the text.