by David Grant
Pliny offered little more credulity to Hanno of Carthage who penned a paraplous of the west coast of Africa, and this is paradoxical considering that Herodotus had long before recorded the Carthaginian trading customs with African tribes in some detail.243 Whilst Pytheas’ return is unattested, his log did survive through the classical era. Hanno’s stele in the Temple of Baal in Carthage was destroyed when Rome rubbed salt in the city’s wounds, and yet fragments of his journal also survived.244 Pytheas and Hanno have been lucky, and modern confirmation of the accuracy of their observations has finally salvaged them and their voyages from earlier doubt.
The votive stele dedicated to Baal Hammon by Hanno the Carthaginian, son of Adonibal, 6th century BCE in Phoenician Punic, from Lilybaeum, and a fragment of Hanno’s Periplous of Africa. Once written on a stele at the Temple of Baal at Carthage, it is now preserved in a single manuscript, Codex Heidelbergensis 398. The full title of the Greek translation of the Punic is The Voyage of Hanno, commander of the Carthaginians, round the parts of Libya beyond the Pillars of Heracles, which he deposited in the Temple of Cronus. The account was known to the Romans and Arrian ended his account of Nearchus’ voyage, Indike, with a reference to Hanno’s journey which took place ca. 500 BCE. Source: Heidelberg University Library.
In contrast, Alexander’s testament has lacked a cartographer with the conviction to navigate by the waypoints scattered over the histories of the successors, and hopefully our conclusions provide a gnomon and lodestone for others to do just that.245 Because the entertaining though implausible, corroborating though more often conflicted, the largely intact but irrevocably damaged and inspiring yet troubling portraits of Alexander we gaze upon today, were framed by those extracting something useful from his life, whether for political, territorial or philosophical gain. The guilty finger might also point at Olympias and Eumenes, whose attempt at reintroducing a Will linked to an indigestible court conspiracy killed any chance the original had of finding a serious literary home. So along with those agenda-laden primary historians and those who later came under their sway, and beside the philosophers and rhetoricians who wished to add their brushstrokes to the art, it is their iconograph, and not Alexander’s, that has been hanging in history’s gallery. Ars longa, vita brevis, as Hippocrates once proposed.246
NOTES
1.Thucydides 2.34-46, from Pericles’ panegyric to the Athenian dead.
2.The inscription, according to legend, was engraved above the entrance to Plato’s Academy. Quoted in Elias of Alexandria’s commentary on Aristotle’s Categories.
3.Diogenes Laertius Diogenes 6.4.
4.Pappus of Alexandria described Euclid’s porismata as neither theorems nor problems but some kind of intermediate. See discussion in Pycior (1997) p 275.
5.See Proclus Commentary on the First Book of Euclid’s Elements 66.7 ff for the titles of earlier works. Euclid’s contribution and reliance on earlier works discussed in Shipley (2000) p 356.
6.Proclus on Euclid Elements 1 and 6-20, cited in Heath (1913) p 68 and p 354.
7.Heath (1913) p 355.
8.Riedweg (2002) pp 5-6, 59, 73.
9.Galen published On His Own Books to identify works truly his; Demetrius of Magnesia (1st century BCE) wrote the philological treatise On Poets of the Same Name which is much quoted in Diogenes Laertius’ doxographies; both discussed in chapter titled The Precarious Path of Pergamena and Papyrus.
10.Discussed in Boyer (1991) pp 100-119; the variant originated with Stobaeus, a Macedonian compiler of the late fifth century.
11.Pytheas was reckoned to have journeyed to Thule sometime around 320 BCE; see Roseman (1994) p III and Cunliffe (2001) p VII. Details of Hanno’s journey were mentioned at the end of Arrian’s Indike 43.11-12. Antonius Diogenes wrote The Wonder Beyond Thule in the 2nd century as a book of fabulae and did link it to Alexander at Tyre which might reconfirm the broad timeframe in which it was known to have been published.
12.Following Worthington (2000) p 160 for facts being potentially ‘bilingual’.
13.Diogenes Laertius Zeno the Eleactic 4; this was according to Aristotle The Sophist.
14.‘Acataleptic’ is derived from the Greek word meaning ‘incapable of being comprehended or ascertained’ pertinent to the doctrine held by the Sceptic philosophers, which proposed human knowledge never amounts to certainty but only to probability.
15.The Trivium comprised the group of literary disciplines: rhetoric, grammar and dialectic or logic, all concerned with the art of discourse. It was distinct to the quadrivium, which comprised scientific disciplines.
16.Heidelberg Epitome 1.2 for twenty-four satrapies.
17.A good summary of the various satrapal lists can be found in Goralski (1989) pp 104-105. Anson (2014) p 49 and p 189 for discussion on the division of responsibilities. Billows (1990) p 276 and p 278 for the various satrapal posts. Anson (2013) p 65 for the epistates role and pp 141-146 for the layers of administration; full discussion of titles in Anson (1992).
18.Hatzopoulos (1996) p 156 for magistrate titles and roles.
19.Quoting Hornblower (1981) p 103 on ‘centrifugal forces’.
20.Notably, some four or five years after Alexander’s death, Eumenes was still able to access the treasury at Cyinda in western Cilicia. It remained intact, as did the treasury at Susa, which Eumenes planned to use to pay his troops when wintering in Babylonia in 317 BCE with his mandate from the ‘kings’. Hieronymus pointed out that Antigonus benefited from an annual income of 11,000 talents after his defeat of Eumenes and assuming control of Cilicia in 315 BCE. Bellinger (1979) p 83 for a list of mints across Asia Minor.
21.Curtius 10.6.15 for Ptolemy’s proposal of group rule. We propose Seleucus was included in this line-up. Whilst Arrian 6.28.4 did not list him amongst the Bodyguards, he was listed as amongst the most important of the generals in Arrian Events After Alexander 1.2; it is not impossible he replaced Hephaestion who died in 324 BCE, as a new ‘eighth’.
22.Justin 13.4 for ‘princes to prefects’.
23.Arrian 7.5.4-6 for the crowning of the Bodyguards.
24.Arrian 3.5.4, Plutarch 22.1, Polyaenus 6.49, Plutarch Moralia 333a for Philoxenus’ role from 333 BCE.
25.Curtius 4.1.34-35 for a description of Antigonus’ role and task in Lydia, here referring to the old Lydian kingdom of Asia Minor west of the Halys. Also Arrian 1.29.3, Justin 13.4.14 for Antigonus’ previous regional command. For Balacrus’ career see Heckel (2006) pp 68-69.
26.See Heckel (2006) pp 96-97 for Craterus’ roles in Alexander’s absence.
27.Diodorus 17.80.3 confirmed Parmenio’s administrative role and guardianship of the 180,000 talents at Ecbatana. Black Cleitus was to govern the upper satrapies of Bactria and Sogdia, Curtius 8.1.19-21. Mazaeus had played a valuable role in Darius’ battles, especially Gaugamela; he was made satrap of Babylon soon after Gaugamela until his death in 328 BCE; Arrian 3.16.4, Curtius 5.1.44, Diodorus 17.64.5-6; he surely reported to a Macedonian general: Parmenio once installed. Phrataphernes was possibly reinstated in Parthia and possibly Hyrcania by Alexander after Darius’ death; Arrian 3.23.4, 3.28.2. At Babylon he was reconfirmed; Diodorus 18.3.3, Justin 13.4.23, a position implied in the Pamphlet Will, Metz Epitome 121. Arrian 3.16.9 and 3.18.11 for Abulites and Phrasaortes; Anson (2013) pp 141-142 for discussion of the layers of satrapal government.
28.Curtius 10.10.1-5 and Dexippus FGrH 100 F8 for Ptolemy’s regional grant. Curtius 10.10.1-5, Dexippus FGrH 100 F8, Justin 13.4-5 and Diodorus 18.3.1-3 for Lysimachus’ territories.
29.The grain trade from Cyrene discussed in Carney (1995) p 386. Justin 13.7 for the history of Cyrene. Bagnall-Derow (2004) pp 3-4 for the list of grain shipments from Cyrene.
30.Arrian Events After Alexander 1.34.
31.Diodorus 17.49.2-4 for the embassies from Cyrene that met Alexander on his way to the oasis at Siwa. For detail of Ptolemy’s annexation of Cyrene see Diodorus 18.21.7 and Arrian Events After Alexander 1.17. This is following Harpalus’ unsuccessful flight to A
thens as Alexander re-emerged from Gedrosia. Thibron, leader of his mercenary force, fled from Cyprus to Cyrene. After initial defeats, the population was divided on how to deal with him and Ptolemy sent his general Ophellas of Pella, a former trierarchos of Alexander’s Hydaspes-Indus fleet, to restore order. Thibron was eventually captured and handed over to the populace for execution and Ophellas continued to govern the region until his misadventure with Agathocles, tyrant of Syracuse (361-289 BCE) in 309/308 BCE. Ophellas was fatally betrayed and his wife Eurydice returned to Athens, marrying Demetrius Poliorketes. For his death see Diodorus 20.42.3-5, Justin 22.7.5-6, Suda O994. Cyrene was for a time ruled by Demetrius the Fair, youngest son of Demetrius Poliorketes, yet he was related to the Ptolemaic regime through his maternal grandfather, Ptolemy Soter.
32.Arrian Events After Alexander 1.3-4 for the ‘kingdom of Arrhidaeus’ and reiterated in Dexippus FGrH 100 F8 4. For Craterus being charged with safeguarding the freedom of the Greeks and thus a regime change was suggested, cosmetic or otherwise, Arrian 7.12.4.
33.Bosworth (2002) pp 10-11 for discussion of Craterus’ emulation of Alexander. Also see the full text of Demetrius of Phalerum On Style 289 in Fortenbaugh-Schütrumpf (2000) p 43. Craterus apparently received Greek emissaries on a raised golden couch dressed in purple robes.
34.Arrian Events After Alexander 1a.3, Dexippus FGrH 100 F 8.4 for protiston times telos; discussed in Anson (1992) p 39.
35.Diogenes Laertius Diogenes 6.57 for Diogenes’ reply to Craterus. The episode is not dated but the only period Craterus was back in Greece or Macedonia was either side of the Lamian War.
36.Plutarch 40.5 reported that a hunting scene in which Alexander fought a lion was represented on Craterus’ monument at Delphi. Also Pliny 34.64 for the monument; Borza-Palagia (2007) p 97 for its significance and pp 90-103 for lion hunts and their representation; pp 101-202 for Craterus’ monument and dedication. Curtius 8.1.11-18, 8.1.14-18, 8.6.7, 8.8.3, Arrian 4.13-14, Plutarch 55 for additional hunting incidents involving Alexander. See discussion and measurements in Stewart (1993) p 270 and descriptions on p 390.
37.Diodorus 18.3.3, Justin 13.3.23, Dexippus FGrH 100 F8 6.
38.Plutarch 69.1 for the Persian payment tradition.
39.Diodorus 18.7.1-3, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1947.
40.Diodorus 18.4.8, 18.7.1-9 and the new revolt and Curtius 9.7.1-12 for the previous uprising.
41.For T20, so Justin 13.4, there appears a lacuna that swallowed Peithon’s name, for Perdiccas’ father-in-law, Atropates, is clearly given Lesser Media.
42.Diodorus 18.7.4, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1947 for the mercenary revolt.
43.Diodorus 18.7.3-18.8 for the troop numbers and outcome.
44.Numbers were often misrepresented. For example it remains just as unlikely to interpret from Arrian 1.16.2-3 and Plutarch 16.12-15 that 18,000 mercenaries were slaughtered at the Granicus River. Arrian 1.14.4 suggested a similar number (‘little less’) of mercenaries to the Persian cavalry stated at 20,000, and that all died bar 2,000 prisoners; 1.16.2. The Macedonians allegedly lost only eighty-five cavalry and thirty infantry (less according to Aristobulus, so claimed Plutarch). Modern interpretations suggest more like 5,000 mercenaries were present. Discussion in Parke (1933) p 180.
45.Discussed in Gabriel (2006) p 114.
46.Diodorus 18.7.4-9.
47.Aelian 14.47a.
48.Diodorus 18.4.8 and 18.7-8 for Peithon’s actions quelling the revolt.
49.Diodorus 18.7.5-9 for the battle and its outcome.
50.Diodorus 18.7.8. Quoting JK Anderson in Hanson (1991) p 21 and Tarn 1 (1948) p 15 footnote 1.
51.Heckel (2006) p 196 (Peithon 4) for the governorship of the Indus region and to the sea and p 212 (Philip 5).
52.See discussion of Peithon’s role in Heckel (1988) p 61 footnote 8 citing the Metz Epitome 118 and Romance 3.33.15. Heckel (2006) p 195 concedes that ‘special powers’ were provided to Peithon to carry out this task. Heckel (2006) p 195. Arrian Events After Alexander 1.35 mentioned the Caspian Gates as the boundary of Media in the west.
53.Justin 13.4.13, for Atropates’ grant of Lesser Media; implied at Diodorus 18.2.3 here Peithon is mentioned in Media first; see Strabo 11.13.1 for confirmation. Arrian 3.8.4, 4.18.3, 7.4.1 for his previous governance and Arrian 7.4.5, Justin 13.4.13 for Perdiccas’ marriage to his unnamed daughter.
54.Diodorus 19.14.1, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1947. Diodorus 18.39.6 named the governor of Parthia ‘Philip’ yet he referred to him as ‘Philotas’ at 19.14.1; Heckel (2006) p 214 for the identity discussion.
55.Anson (2014) p 101 for the observation on Seleucus’ acceptance of Peithon.
56.Quoting Diodorus 19.14.4. See Heckel (1988) pp 60-61 and Goralski (1989) pp 104-105 for a useful full list and comparison of satraps and Pamphlet-nominated names.
57.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.
58.Diodorus 19.14.1-2. For Peithon son of Agenor’s appointment to the northern Indus bordering region; see Diodorus 18.3.3, Dexippus FGrH 100 F8, and for reconfirmation at Triparadeisus, Diodorus 18.39.6, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.36, Justin 13.4.21. Forces from Bactria are also mentioned at Diodorus 19.14.7. See chapter entitled The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers for discussion of Stasanor and Stasander.
59.Arrian 7.5.6. Peucestas is mentioned by name but Arrian suggested all of the Bodyguards received gold crowns.
60.Quoting Diodorus 18.5.4 and Plutarch Demetrius 46.4.
61.For Atropates’ appointment to Lesser Media see Justin 13.4.13, Diodorus 18.3.3. Arrian 7.13.2 and 6 for the ‘Amazon’ episode. Discussion in Heckel (2006) pp 61-62 and Bosworth-Baynham (2000) p 300. Diodorus 19.46.1-6 for events surrounding the removal of Peithon. Heckel (2006) p 62 for discussion and Strabo 11.13.1 for Atropates’ kingship and new title. Polybius 5.55.9-10 for Media Atropatene.
62.Diodorus 19.92.1-5 and 100.3-4, Appian Syrian Wars 55 and 57 for Nicanor’s installation as strategos of Media and the upper satrapies, Peithon’s previous domain. See identification discussion in Heckel (2006) p 178 (Nicanor 12) and Billows (1990) pp 409-410. Anson (2014) p 125 following Billows (1990) p 393 suggested Hippostratus assumed this role first, though Diodorus 19.46.5 seems to have suggested that role (strategos) applied to Media only. Hippostratus may have replaced him due to his poor performance when attacked; Diodorus 19.47.1-3.
63.Diodorus 19.92.3 for the negligent guard and 19.100.3 for Antigonus giving up hope of gaining income from the lands east of Babylon.
64.Diodorus 19.55.3 for Seleucus rebutting Antigonus’ demands. Diodorus referred to Babylon but nevertheless termed it the ‘country’ suggesting Seleucus governed the whole province not the city.
65.Following Heckel (2006) p 247.
66.Collins (2001) pp 270-273 for discussion of the chiliarch’s peripheral roles
67.Diodorus 18.3-4, Justin 13.4.17 and 13.4.23 for Seleucus’ appointment and Archon’s role.
68.Diodorus 18.6.3 described Egypt as the ‘best due to its revenues’ and Diodorus 18.5.4 described Media as the ‘greatest of all the satrapies’; the importance of the treasury at Susa and Persepolis, coming under Peucestas’ authority, made them desirable.
69.Justin 13.4.17; Diodorus 18.3.4 terms Peucestas’ appointment ‘a most distinguished office’.
70.Arrian Events After Alexander 1.
71.The Metz Epitome and Romance are in accord on Seleucus’ inheritance. Heckel (1988) p 16 for the Metz Epitome 118 and Stoneman (1991) p 154 for the Romance translation.
72.For Arcesilaus’ role (a probable Perdiccan) see Diodorus 18.3.3, Justin 13.4.23; Dexippus FGrH 100 F8 6 called him Archelaus.
73.Diodorus 19.100.5 for Patrocles and 19.99.3-4 for Seleucus�
�� campaign into Media.
74.Appian Syrian Wars 53.269 for Blitor and Seleucus’ escape. Nothing else is known about him. For Amphimachus’ appointment see Arrian Events After Alexander 1.35, Diodorus 18.39.6. Heckel (2006) p 22 and 53, and Bosworth (2002) p 113 for discussion on Amphimachus’ identity; probably ‘brother of Arrhidaeus’ in original manuscripts though later confused with King Philip III (Arrhidaeus). He was awarded the governorship of Mesopotamia at Triparadeisus; Diodorus 18.39.6, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.35. He was unlikely to have been the brother to the new King Philip III and was more likely brother of Arrhidaeus who became satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia and sources (Justin in particular) confused the identity of ‘Arrhidaeus’. Amphimachus’ later support for Eumenes at Gabiene suggests the latter too. As a governor of Mesopotamia, Amphimachus would have nevertheless been subordinate to Seleucus the regional strategos (or to Perdiccas in Syria), and yet was found operating under Eumenes at Paraetacene, Diodorus 19.27.4, so logically he defected at this point if not under Perdiccas’ authority; discussion in chapter titled The Tragic Triumvirate of Treachery and Oaths.
75.Mesopotamia is derived from ‘middle’ (mesos) and ‘river’ (potamos). See Diodorus 18.6.3 for confirmation of the origins.
76.Billows (1990) p 272 for discussion on Antigonus’ amalgamated governance of Mesopotamia and Babylonia under Peithon son of Agenor from 315 BCE onwards.
77.Arrian Indike 18.3.
78.The conflict between Docimus and Archon covered at Arrian Events After Alexander 24.3-5.
79.Diodorus 18.39.6 for Seleucus’ ‘reconfirmation’ as satrap of Babylonia. Diodorus 18.37.1-3, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.39, Justin 13.8.10-14.1.1, Appian Syrian Wars 53 for the sentence on the Perdiccans.
