Alexander

by Guy Maclean Rogers

  men for saving their own lives would have disastrous effects upon morale. Taking into account their

  grave necessity, Alexander pardoned those who had broken into the provisions.

  It was after Alexander and the army entered lands even less affected by the monsoon, however, that

  they really began to suffer. The deep sand, the blazing heat, and lack of water along the march caused

  great suffering and many casualties both among the soldiers and the baggage animals. The horses and

  the mules struggled across high hills of sand. When the provisions began to give out, the men

  gradually killed and ate most of the animals, telling their officers that the horses and mules had died

  of thirst or collapsed from fatigue. The officers chose to look the other way. The sick and those who

  could not keep up were left behind to die in sandy graves. No Lawrence was along to unwrite what

  had been written for them.

  Alexander, who cannot have fully recovered from his arrow wound, nevertheless led the men on

  foot through the scorching sands. At one point, some of the light armed troops found a small water

  hole from which they gathered up a helmetful of water. They brought this to the king. Alexander

  thanked them—and then poured the water out into the sand in full sight of the troops. We are told that

  the army was so heartened by this act that it was as if every man had drunk the water that Alexander

  had poured away.

  Cruelly, when the army managed to bivouac at one point near a small stream (to take advantage of

  its life-giving waters), the stream, swollen by a sudden rainstorm, which took place out of sight of the

  army, flooded the camp, drowning most of the women and children who had followed the army, and

  sweeping away the royal tent.

  Despite this last disaster, pushing along from Pasni down to the coast at Gwadar and from there

  inland to Pura, the capital of Gedrosia, the army finally rested after a march through the desert that

  took sixty days. In Pura, the troops were given a rest and were somewhat relieved by food sent on

  racing camels by Stasanor, satrap of Drangiana. Nevertheless Alexander pushed on to Carmania (in

  Iran) itself, where he received more food from Drangiana and elsewhere.

  REPREHENSIBLE AMBITION?

  Alexander had surpassed the achievements of Semiramis and Cyrus, but at a dreadful cost. The camp

  followers in particular were devastated by the heat, the lack of water and food, and by the flash flood.

  Some of the Roman-era sources claim that the king was overwhelmed by both grief and shame at

  being responsible for such a disaster.

  Following their lead, modern historians have gone so far as to argue that Alexander put the army

  through the hellish march across the desert of Gedrosia for its mutiny at the Hyphasis River, “to

  expiate its contumacy.” Others have judged that “his prior knowledge of the coast was inadequate and

  the egotism of his ambition reprehensible.”

  If Alexander intended the march as a punishment, however, it is difficult to understand why he

  traveled at night across the desert and prepared as well as he could for the navy, either by digging

  wells or by making provision for a market or an anchorage. Or why, when he finally obtained

  provisions, he distributed them among the baggage train. Nor would he have sent Thoas on his

  mission down to the coast. Above all, when he had a golden opportunity to punish his men for

  breaking into what limited supplies there were, he chose to ignore what they had done. All of these

  actions simply are not consistent with a speculative hypothesis about what Alexander was thinking—

  for which there is little or no evidence in any case. Alexander’s motives can only be judged by his

  actions. Those actions show that he did everything possible to relieve the suffering of his followers.

  Thus, Alexander did not lead the Macedonian army through Gedrosia to punish it for what had

  happened at the Hyphasis.

  Nor was Alexander guilty of relying upon inadequate intelligence. It was precisely because he

  understood that the coastline was a desert that he led the army inland, between the Central and

  Coastal Makran Ranges, where conditions, though harsh, were better.

  As for Alexander’s reprehensible ambition to cross the Makran itself, which led to such suffering,

  there is no doubt that the land army suffered greatly, although Plutarch’s figure of an army reduced to

  a quarter of its initial size (starting out from impossible figures of 120,000 infantry and 15,000

  cavalry) cannot be accepted at face value.

  Terrible as the casualty figures were, Alexander cannot be blamed for casualties that resulted

  neither from faulty intelligence nor from inadequate preparations. Even a king who claimed to be the

  son of Zeus had no control over winds, rains, heat, or floods. A flood, the result of a rainstorm that

  could not be seen as it approached the Macedonians’ camp, not Alexander’s ambition, killed the

  camp followers. But for completely unpredictable weather conditions there would have been no

  disaster in Gedrosia and no debate about Alexander’s ambition.

  As in the past, Alexander had made careful preparations for a combined land and sea crossing of

  the south coast of Gedrosia based upon largely accurate information. Unfortunately, factors over

  which he had no control destroyed his plans and an unknown (but significant) proportion of his army

  and its followers. For once, the gods to whom Alexander sacrificed had not accepted his offerings.

  CHAPTER 24

  The Reign of Terror?

  THE REVEL IN CARMANIA

  Whatever Alexander believed about his own culpability for what had happened in Gedrosia, the news

  brought to him in Pura about the administration of his empire was not destined to make him any

  happier. The details must be situated carefully in their context if we want to decide whether his

  response to the reports constituted a “reign of terror,” as some historians have claimed.

  Because he believed that Apollophanes, the governor of the Oreitae, had failed to carry out all of

  his orders, Alexander initially replaced him with Thoas. (In fact, Apollophanes was already dead,

  having been killed in a battle against the rebellious Oreitae.) When Thoas became ill and died,

  Sibyrtius was appointed in his place. Sibyrtius recently had been appointed satrap of Carmania, but

  now was given the governorship of both the Arachotians and the Gedrosians.

  On his way to Carmania Alexander also learned that Philip, the governor of India (from west of the

  Indus to Parapamisadae), had been assassinated by his own mercenaries. All the assassins were

  eventually killed by Philip’s Macedonian bodyguards. Until a new governor could be sent out,

  Eudamus and Taxiles were put in charge of Philip’s satrapy.

  Despite the fact that he had been suspected of advocating rebellion while Alexander was in India,

  Astaspes, who had been serving as the satrap of Carmania, came to meet Alexander. For the moment

  concealing his anger, Alexander greeted Astaspes in a friendly way and let him keep his job until he

  could review the reports about him.

  In Carmania, Craterus, with the rest of the army and the elephants, rejoined Alexander. Craterus,

  who had taken the northern and easier route back westward, also brought along Ordanes, who had

  been captured after he revolted. Massive supplies of food and livestock from the northern satrapies

  also arrived. B
owls of wine and huge jugs were set out on the thresholds of houses for the army by the

  Carmanians.

  Alexander and the survivors of Gedrosia then went on a seven-day drinking binge in imitation of

  the komus, a celebratory procession in honor of Dionysos. The king and his drinking companions

  supposedly rode in a cart weighed down with golden bowls and huge goblets, while the army joined

  the revels in decorated wagons. In this way the army spent “seven days on a drunken march, an easy

  prey if the vanquished races had only had the courage to challenge riotous drinkers.”

  There is no mention of this revel in the accounts of Ptolemy or Aristobulus (who were there), but

  this does not mean that the drunken binge did not happen. Ptolemy may not have thought it an important

  episode, and Aristobulus consistently underplayed Alexander’s drinking. But whether there was a

  full-scale Dionysian revel or just a long party during which the army attempted to drink away the

  memory of Gedrosia, more serious issues soon interrupted the festivities, as Alexander began to

  address the charges brought against various governors and officers.

  THE “REIGN OF TERROR”?

  Among the first to be judged was Astaspes, the governor of Carmania. After Alexander examined the

  reports about him, Astaspes was executed. About Astaspes’ execution by Alexander, Curtius

  commented that it showed that “luxurious living and base cruelty are not mutually exclusive.” But

  Curtius offers no proof of Astaspes’ innocence either.

  Next up in Alexander’s docket were Cleander, Sitalces, Heracon, and perhaps Agathon, officers

  who had been left behind with Parmenio in charge of the forces in Ecbatana. Coenus’ brother

  Cleander and Sitalces, who commanded the Thracian javelin men, had been involved in the

  assassination of Parmenio. These commanders brought the greater part of their troops with them to

  Alexander. Both locals and serving soldiers brought many charges against Sitalces and Cleander and

  their soldiers. These accusations included plundering temples, rifling ancient tombs, and committing

  unjust acts against the inhabitants of the province. Even Curtius admits that these men had assaulted

  noblewomen, and Cleander, it was said, had raped a virgin and then given her to his slave as a

  concubine.

  Sitalces and Cleander were found guilty of these crimes and were executed to put fear into any

  other satraps or governors: if they committed like crimes, they too would suffer the same fate. These

  executions kept in order the tribes that had surrendered to Alexander, for they proved that Alexander

  would not tolerate abuse of his subjects by his governors.

  We are informed that 600 of the common soldiers (from Ecbatana) were also executed for carrying

  out their commanders’ orders. If the commanders had not been guilty of the crimes they were accused

  of, and if their soldiers were not thought to be guilty of assisting them, it is very hard to see how

  Alexander could have expected that his own troops would carry out so many executions of fellow

  soldiers. The evidence must have been compelling.

  Moreover, Alexander did not simply conduct Stalinist “show trials” of bad apples, at which

  carefully prepared confessions of guilt were read out by the accused. Heracon, another one of the

  generals from Ecbatana, was initially acquitted of the charge brought against him. It was only later,

  when he was convicted on a second, separate charge (robbing a temple in Susa) that he was executed.

  Finally, on the same day that the 600 troops from Ecbatana were executed, two men brought in as

  ringleaders of the Persian insurrection, Zariaspes and Ozines (perhaps to be identified with the man

  called Ordanes by other sources), were also put to death.

  In Carmania, therefore, there were no innocent victims of Alexander’s suspicious temper and there

  was no “reign of terror.” Nor did Alexander use the allegations against Sitalces and Cleander as a

  convenient way of getting rid of the generals who had carried out the assassination of Parmenio.

  Sitalces, Cleander, and their henchmen were executed for crimes committed against Alexander’s

  subjects after the death of Parmenio. None of the ancient sources dispute their guilt. Astaspes,

  Ordanes/Ozines, and Zariaspes were put to death for insurrection while Alexander was away in

  India. None of the sources claim that these men were not plotting rebellion.

  THE DISMISSAL OF THE MERCENARIES

  Many scholars have connected the trials in Carmania to Alexander’s order that all of his governors

  and commanders in Asia should disband their mercenaries at once. The order has been interpreted by

  some historians as an attempt by Alexander to strip his generals and governors of troops who might

  have protected them from Alexander. Indeed, if some governors or generals were worried about how

  they had discharged their responsibilities while Alexander was away in India, such an order probably

  did inspire fear. Their sense of anxiety, however, cannot be used as evidence to explain why

  Alexander decided to disband, or, rather, release the mercenaries from service.

  For we know that the mercenaries Alexander ordered to be disbanded were not to be demobilized.

  Rather, they were to be transferred to service in Alexander’s army. Because Alexander had left so

  many of his own mercenaries in city foundations and garrisons in Asia, he issued the order primarily

  to bring his own levy of mercenaries back up to an acceptable level.

  At the same time, Alexander cannot have intended to deprive all of his satraps in Asia of all troops.

  These governors needed troops to keep order. They were expected to raise new levies, as Peucestas

  did when he was made satrap of Persis early in 324.

  Alexander’s order, nevertheless, had unanticipated effects. Rather than embarking upon a long

  march to join him, many of the mercenaries simply fled and joined bands of free-roaming brigands.

  Others eventually found their way to the Athenian Leosthenes, who delivered them to Taenarum in the

  territory of Sparta, a notorious depot for the hiring of mercenaries.

  Moreover, although Alexander probably did not issue the order so as to deprive his governors of

  all forces, it did alarm at least some of his satraps and generals. Some who had mercenary troops

  under their command revolted against the king’s authority. Others got together what money they could

  and fled.

  Most famously, after the trials and executions in Carmania, Alexander’s old friend and treasurer,

  Harpalus, fled from Babylon and Alexander (for the second time), this time taking with him 5,000

  talents of silver and 6,000 mercenaries.

  THE SECOND FLIGHT OF HARPALUS

  Perhaps assuming that Alexander would never make it back from India alive, Alexander’s boyhood

  friend had settled down to a life of luxury in Babylon, a city that afforded wide scope to a man with

  well-defined and expensive tastes. At first occupying himself with illegitimate amours with local

  women, Harpalus then squandered much of the treasure under his control on more expensive

  pleasures. Great quantities of delectable fish were brought from the Red Sea.

  Pythonice, the most dazzling courtesan of the day, was fetched from Athens, and as long as she

  lived she received gifts from Harpalus worthy of a queen. When she died, she was given a

  magnificent funeral and a costly monument of the Attic type.

  Aft
er her death, a second Athenian courtesan, Glycera, whose name in Greek could be translated as

  Honey, was brought out to keep Harpalus company amid Babylon’s hanging gardens. She too was

  kept in exceeding luxury, provided with a way of life that was madly expensive. Meanwhile, the

  treasurer made regular (cash) benefactions to Athens; whatever were his assumptions about

  Alexander’s long-term prospects, Harpalus had the born survivor’s sense to keep in mind a rainy day.

  The clouds began to gather when Alexander, like Dionysos before him, suddenly returned from the

  east, determined to show his power. The long party was finally over, and it was time to pay the bill.

  Harpalus, who knew exactly what happened to those whom Alexander suspected of disloyalty or

  regal pretensions, slipped out of town with his money and his mercenaries, first to Athens (where he

  perhaps hoped to incite a revolt), then on to Taenarum after he escaped from Athens with the help of

  the orator Demosthenes, and finally to Crete. There, on the most beautiful of all the Greek islands,

  Alexander’s refined bagman was done in by a certain Thibron, but not before leaving a long and

  messy trail of political infighting, accusations of bribery, and the inevitable lawsuits (even then) in

  his wake.

  Harpalus was one of the few men who ever crossed Alexander, not once but twice, and lived, at

  least for a while, to talk about it. While Alexander may have been extremely shrewd about human

  nature in general, to his boyhood friends he remained endearingly loyal, and even vulnerable, to the

  end of his life, never wanting to believe that his own absolute fidelity was not reciprocated.

  Harpalus, on the other hand, clearly preferred the charms of Pythonice and Honey to those of

  friendship.

  CHAPTER 25

  Nabarzanes’ Gift

  THE EUNUCH BAGOAS

  Finally, toward the middle of the winter of 325/4, Alexander reached Salmus (perhaps near Khanu),

  the capital of Carmania. Here he made sacrifices for the Indian victory and on behalf of the army for

  its safe passage through Gedrosia; this was perhaps a kind of backhanded admission that he had

  underestimated the challenge after all. He also held artistic and athletic competitions. Peucestas, who