7

Alexander and the Greeks

Artists and Soldiers, Friends and Enemies

Lawrence A. Tritle

Babylon, 323: Alexander’s death has left his great army leaderless and dissension grows in the ranks, particularly between the cavalry elite and infantry rank and file. Relations between the contending factions are tense, negotiations difficult. In this crisis three individuals emerge to defuse the situation and work out a solution: Damis of Megalopolis, Pasas of Thessaly, and Perilaus, all Greeks, all surely occupying positions of influence in Alexander’s army or court (Curt. 10.8.15).¹

Alexander’s relations with the Greeks has been the subject of several notable discussions. E. Badian in a well-known essay touched on the subject noting inter alia that Alexander’s program of “liberating” the Greeks of Asia had a profound impact on subsequent relations between these cities and the monarchs of the Hellenistic age (Badian 1966a: 61). This treatment updated an earlier discussion by V. Ehrenberg (the honoree of Badian’s essay) who in 1938 contributed a sweeping survey of the topic, attempting to solve such longstanding issues as the place of the island communities Chios, Lesbos, and Rhodes in the Corinthian League (Ehrenberg 1938: 16–17). Since Badian’s essay, now nearly forty years old, more recent discussions by A. B. Bosworth and C. Habicht recently supplemented by a collection of papers edited by O. Palagia and S. V. Tracy have added to the subject of Alexander and the Greeks.² In the present volume, E. Poddighe contributes to the topic, examining the issues and commenting on them with particular attention to the evidence preserved on inscriptions (ch. 6).

In all of these there will be fine points of argument mostly focusing on institutions and “official” relations between Alexander and the Greek cities. The approach taken in this essay will be somewhat different: to discuss those Greeks who in some fashion were associated with Alexander on the march to India, and back, or who otherwise served in the administration of his empire or military forces. The analysis will also shed some light on a longstanding debate regarding Greeks and Macedonians, namely the issue of “pro-” and “anti-Macedonian” Greeks, and the reasons why some Greeks joined Alexander’s cause, while others vigorously opposed him just as they had his father Philip.

Artists and Athletes with Alexander

In spring 328/7 Alexander focused his attention on “pacifying” Sogdiana and Bactria and ending the insurrection of Spitamenes.³ This led him to disperse his troops over a wide area and in doing so he became vulnerable to the hit-and-run warfare practiced in this region. Strengthened with tribesmen recruited among the Massagetae, Spitamenes attacked several of Alexander’s isolated garrisons, among them Bactra where he had left behind his sick and injured to recover, including several Companions, placing in command over them a court official, Peithon. Prodded by Spitamenes’ attack, Peithon and the Companions launched a retaliatory attack that miscarried as the Macedonians fell into an ambush. A hundred men were lost, among them Aristonicus, a harpist of long standing at the Macedonian court. Arrian, who records this incident, remarks that Aristonicus died fighting, not as a harpist but as a good and brave man (Arr. 4.16.6–7).⁴

The heroic death of Aristonicus reveals one of the more interesting and esoteric group of Greeks found in the company of Alexander – the musicians, artists, and athletes – who accompanied him in the march east. In itself Spitamenes’ little victory was no more than a bee sting, but the death of Aristonicus did upset the king. A well-known musician, Aristonicus seems to have been a member of Philip’s entourage since Chaeroneia (his Olynthian background suggests this) and was thus closely connected to Alexander and the Macedonian cause. It has been argued that Aristonicus had been in Alexander’s court since the crossing into Asia, and all of this may explain why Alexander ordered a statue to be set up in his honor at Delphi, depicting him with a lyre in one hand, a spear in the other (Plu. Mor. 334e–f).⁵ That Aristonicus also played a military role sheds light on the sometimes difficult conditions faced by Alexander’s army: that in an emergency every able-bodied man might be pressed into service, not unlike, for example, those Europeans in the legations and elsewhere in China who were caught up in the Boxer Rebellion, or even the artists and poets who so happily enlisted in the European armies of 1914. Aristonicus’ heroic death suggests that those in the sources casually identified as “musicians,” “actors,” or “athletes” were capable of other roles, including military and diplomatic, and in fact performed these.

That actors in the life and reign of Alexander played roles other than those on stage can be amply demonstrated. Two tragic actors, Aristocritus and Thessalus, figure at the beginning and end of the king’s life. Early on, one of the acts that earned the young prince Philip’s wrath was his meddling in the dynastic marriage offered Philip by the Carian dynast Pixodarus (Plu. Alex. 10.1). Evidently Aristocritus carried Philip’s counter-proposal that Pixodarus’ daughter marry his son Arrhidaeus. Stung that he had been passed over by his father, the young Alexander complicated the negotiations by sending his own envoy, Thessalus, a Corinthian actor, with the proposal that he marry Pixodarus’ daughter.⁶ In the end no marriage came from all this diplomatic activity and king and prince were temporarily estranged. The two actors, however, must have conducted themselves competently and faithfully, for they remained in Alexander’s service until the end of his reign, participating in the festivities that were part of the great wedding celebration at Susa in 324 (Chares, FGrH 125 F4 = Athen. 12.583f).

The diplomatic activities of Aristocritus and Thessalus are by no means uncommon and other actors served in similar roles. In 324 Alexander’s lifelong friend Harpalus fled from his administrative post in Babylon, taking with him a large sum of money as well as a large contingent of mercenaries and other followers.⁷ Harpalus eventually made his way to Athens where in the end he was rebuffed, though a number of prominent Athenians were entangled in his web of corruption and intrigue. In a speech attacking Demosthenes, Hypereides claimed that Demosthenes had persuaded an Athenian dancer named Mnesitheus to find out how much money Harpalus had brought with him (Hyp. 5, col. 9).⁸ It seems unlikely that someone unacquainted with Harpalus could learn such information, which suggests that Mnesitheus had accompanied Harpalus in his flight. As will be discussed below, large numbers of actors, artists, and musicians were already flocking to the east in search of work, and Mnesitheus might have been one of these. This is further evident in the selection of two actors, Ephialtes and Cittus, recruited to bring the news of Harpalus’ defection to Alexander. These actors must have been in or around Babylon and sent on their mission by those who assumed Harpalus’ duties. On hearing their report the two actors were imprisoned for a time, the king refusing to accept that they were telling the truth (Plu. Alex. 41.8).⁹

While the dramatic talents of actors account for their use as envoys, other artists who performed similar political activities were the star athletes of the day. Among these was Chaeron of Pellene, victor in both the Nemean and Olympic Games. Chaeron’s fame won him the attention of Alexander who empowered him as tyrant of his home town.¹⁰ In doing so, Alexander ignored the statutes of the Corinthian League, created by Philip in 337 and whose founding principles technically restricted such meddling in the affairs of member states. Pellene, however, was one of the Peloponnesian communities by which the Macedonians attempted to control Sparta, which had refused to join the League on its establishment. In 331 the Spartan king Agis III challenged Macedonian power, only to be defeated by Antipater, Alexander’s regent in Macedonia and Greece, who destroyed his army at Megalopolis. Pellene, led by Chaeron, remained loyal to the Macedonian cause and so played a small but important part in insuring Agis’ defeat (see Poddighe, ch. 6). As Heckel notes, Chaeron’s support of the Macedonian cause certainly accounts for the negative picture of him in the ancient sources.

Not all athletes who found themselves in Alexander’s elite circle, however, were as successful or as essential as Chaeron. A case in point is the Athenian Dioxippus, star pankratiast and Olympic champion.¹¹ A flagrant flatterer of Alexander (he once claimed that Alexander’s blood was like theichor of the gods), Dioxippus is found in Alexander’s entourage by 326/5 when he achieved some fame in defeating the veteran Macedonian soldier Corrhagus, evidently one of Alexander’s hetairoi, in single combat (and not to the death as is sometimes claimed). Challenged to a duel by Corrhagus, Dioxippus met the Macedonian nude and armed with only a club and a robe over his arm. According to Curtius (9.7.21–2), one of the sources that recounts this story, Dioxippus successfully dodged Corrhagus’ javelin, then closed with his opponent quickly, disarmed him, and threw him to the ground. Dioxippus was ready to finish off the stunned Macedonian with his club when Alexander intervened and saved Corrhagus’ life. Curtius (9.7.18) and Diodorus (17.100.4) tell that a sports-like atmosphere colored the match, the Greeks cheering on Dioxippus, the Macedonians Corrhagus. Winning at Macedonian cost, however, came with a price and in Dioxippus’ case it was a false accusation of theft which ultimately drove him to suicide (Curt. 9.7.23–6).¹²

Several problems complicate the interpretation of this incident, ranging from the Roman-style weapons and manner of fighting that Curtius ascribes to Corrhagus, to the reason for the duel in the first place. The first of these may be explained simply by a Roman author writing for a Roman audience who is not concerned with matters of authenticity. Curtius relates a duel in terms his readers would understand, and that is enough for him. The reason for the duel is a bit more complicated. Curtius (9.7.18) makes much of the supposed laziness and gluttony of athletes who are of little use, whereas soldiers face many dangers on the battlefield (an attitude that might well be found in some modern circles). Truesdell Brown accepts this explanation, agreeing that it is a typical soldier’s attitude. But the conclusion that follows from this argument – that soldiers like Corrhagus viewed athletes with “mixed feelings of envy and contempt,” that star athletes like “jugglers, tragic actors and musicians. . . went out to the front [only] as entertainers” – goes too far.¹³ Here it is useful to recall the story of Aristonicus, the harpist who died fighting alongside Macedonian soldiers and whose heroic death was immortalized at Delphi. This argues again that those in Alexander’s entourage – including the athletes – and probably more often than we know, participated in both military and political/diplomatic activities.

Alexander’s flatterers, however, were not restricted to star athletes such as Dioxippus. Among them as well was Gorgus of Iasus, hoplophylax, literally armorer, but more accurately arms merchant, to Alexander.¹⁴ While the sources describe him as a flatterer, there should be little doubt that he worked for the benefit of those lacking power or influence, though like lobbyists today this was not generated by compassion or generosity. This is evident in Gorgus’ promise to Alexander that, were the king to attack Athens, he would provide 10,000 sets of armor and an equal number of catapults and other weapons as well (Athen. 12.538b).¹⁵ With his brother Minnion, Gorgus facilitated the return of disputed water rights to Iasus, and the repatriation of Samian exiles homeward, this in connection with Alexander’s Exiles’ Decree of 324. He also assisted the city of Epidaurus with several petitions made to Alexander, the exact nature of which is no longer known. His lobbying on behalf of his native city, Samian exiles, and Epidaurus point to a well-connected and influential figure whose supplying of arms, no doubt punctuated by well-placed gifts, enabled him to influence decision-making at the highest level.

Possibly the most interesting group of actors, musicians, and other entertainers are the twenty-two known individuals who were among the 3,000 “artists from Greece” who performed at the great weddings at Susa in 324. The source identifying these entertainers is Chares of Mitylene, himself a Greek in Alexander’s service from the beginning of the Asian campaign, who eventually became eisangeleus, or “royal usher,” at Alexander’s court.¹⁶ Such a position enabled Chares to learn some of the names of these entertainers, which survive in the accounts of later writers Athenaeus (12.538b–539a) and Aelian (VH 8.7). These individuals came from all corners of the Greek world.¹⁷ They include:

Western Greeks (4)

Tarentum: Alexis, rhapsode; Heraclitus, harpist; Scymnus, juggler

Syracuse: Philistides, juggler¹⁸

Eastern Greeks (5)

Cyzicus: Hyperbolus, flutist

Heraclea: Dionysius, flutist

Lesbos: Cratinus, psilokitharist from Methymna; Heraclitus, juggler from Mytilene

Teos: Athenodorus, harpist¹⁹

Mainland Greeks (7)

Athens: Aristonymus, harpist; Athenodorus (4), tragic actor;²⁰ Phormion, comic actor (?)

Corinth (?): Thessalus, tragic actor

Chalcis (Euboea): Evius, flutist

Locris: Lycon, comic actor

Thebes: Aristocrates, harpist²¹

Unidentified origins (6)

Aristocritus, tragic actor; Ariston (4), comic actor; Caphisias, flutist; Diophantus (1), flutist; Phasimelus, harpist; Phrynichus, flutist²²

A short time later, in summer 324, most of these artists appeared again at Ecbatana where events ran for more than a week before the death of Hephaestion intervened and ended them.²³ Soon after, these same performers played at Hephaestion’s funeral and, a short time later, at Alexander’s (Arr. 7.14.10).

But the appearance of this great horde of actors, musicians, and other entertainers in Susa and Ecbatana is not unprecedented. In spring 331, after establishing his authority over Egypt, Alexander returned to Phoenicia to continue his campaign against Darius. At Tyre a second round of athletic and literary contests were held, events sponsored in part by the Cypriot kings Nicocreon of Salamis and Pasicrates of Soli.²⁴ Among the performers were Thessalus, the same actor who had earlier served as Alexander’s agent in the marriage negotiations with Pixodarus, and his rival Athenodorus. Much to the king’s disappointment, the judges awarded the prize of victory to Athenodorus: Plutarch records (Plu. Alex. 29.3) Alexander saying he would have given up part of his empire to see Thessalus win.

Both Athenodorus and Thessalus were among the performers participating in the events held in Susa and Ecbatana. At some point Athenodorus returned to Athens where he competed in the dramatic contests, winning a prize in 329; the Athenians, however, fined him for his absences from the city which led him to ask Alexander to pay his fine. The king declined, though he did provide him with the money to do so.²⁵ Thessalus does not appear in the sources again until 324, which suggests that he remained with Alexander on the expedition, not only as the king’s favorite actor but also as trusted emissary.

What is of interest first is the number of these individuals in the midst of Alexander’s empire. Aristocritus, Aristonicus, Thessalus (and perhaps Athenodorus) point to the various real world functions that musicians and actors performed at Alexander’s court. Second, the wide geographic range of this group, from Syracuse and Tarentum in the far-off Greek west to the eastern Aegean, also gives us some idea of the attraction for adventure and wealth that joining Alexander’s expedition offered to the bold or the ambitious and greedy, as the case may be.

Among Alexander’s artistic entourage were also a number of poets. At least seven or eight writers of verse accompanied Alexander in order to tell the tale of his great expedition. Little information of these individuals is known beyond their name and a few basic facts, such as the tragic poet Neophron of Sicyon, who accompanied his friend Callisthenes of Olynthus, nephew of Aristotle and perhaps the “official” historian of the expedition.²⁶ Neophron also shared Callisthenes’ fate, execution, when Callisthenes, who had a penchant for annoying Alexander with his free speech, finally ran afoul of the king in the so-called Pages’ Conspiracy and was put to death.²⁷ Another Aristotelian contact was the poet Aeschrion of Mytilene who also came to sing Alexander’s praises. Nothing that he wrote, however, survived for later sources to record.²⁸

Poets who made some impression in the historical record were Pierion and Pranichus, the catalysts perhaps in one of the more celebrated incidents in Alexander’s expedition, his murder of his long-time friend Cleitus the Black.²⁹ Pierion and/or Pranichus achieved some notoriety for composing some doggerel verse that, with black humor, joked about the deaths of some hundreds of Greek and Macedonian soldiers killed by Spitamenes in 328 near Maracanda (Arr. 4.5.2–6.7). Pierion-Pranichus recited this poetry at a symposium in Maracanda attended by Alexander and a number of his officers, including Cleitus, who was about to assume command over Bactria, and several newly arrived Greek visitors. The sarcastic humor infected the audience darkly, and soon some of the partiers were making disparaging comments about Philip and the older generation of Macedonians while praising Alexander and the “new” generation. All this proved too much for Cleitus, who reminded Alexander that he had saved his life, and that the king’s accomplishments were not his alone but achieved with much help from the Macedonians, including Philip. Both men, drunk and prone to violence, became engaged in a heated argument which finally left Cleitus dead on the end of a sarissa wielded by Alexander.³⁰

As noted above, another friend of Alexander’s who came to grief was Harpalus, and his downfall was the subject of a play by Python of Catane (or Byzantium).³¹ At a date likely to be c.324, Python staged a satyr play entitled Agên which satirized Harpalus and his affair with the courtesan Pythonice, whom he had treated as a queen in Babylon as he had access to the wealth of an empire – the Persian empire, now Alexander’s.³² The location of the play’s performance is obscure, and scholars have argued for venues from India to Persia. But two references suggest an Athenian debut. Python refers to the poverty of Attica (13.596a) and a gift of grain made by Harpalus to the Athenians that won him a grant of citizenship (Ath. 13.596b).³³ An Athenian debut also seems likely from Athenaeus’ reference to Python performing the play at a Dionysian festival (Ath. 13.595e).³⁴ Harpalus’ arrival in Athens, and his bribes of high-ranking Athenians which provoked bitter political feuding, rocked the city. Python’s play, however, regarding extravagant luxury and tyranny, issues that would have been in the minds of many Athenians and Greeks at the time, would have provided some good laughs, at both Harpalus’ and Alexander’s expense.

The artists and athletes who accompanied Alexander’s expedition performed functions that to the casual reader might seem outside the scope of their vocations. As argued above, however, the abilities of the actors actually enabled them to carry out duties essential to the administration of a state, whether for Philip or Alexander. Additionally, the sources and the artists identified suggest that many of these individuals moved easily between their homes and Alexander’s army. The Athenian athlete Dioxippus, for example, was not with Alexander from the beginning of the conquest of Asia, but joined Alexander when he was far to the east.³⁵ Another artist, the dancer Theodorus from Tarentum became involved in a scandal with Philoxenus, a financial officer in Asia Minor, who wanted to buy his two slave boys for the king (Plu. Alex. 22.1–2; Athen. 1.22d).³⁶ While Alexander rebuked Philoxenus for procuring for him, it is to be emphasized that a Greek dancer was traveling from Sicily to the east to find work and make a mark for himself.³⁷

The movement of literally thousands of artists of all kinds from across the Greek world to Alexander’s army and empire says much about the lucrative profit there was to be had in making such a trip. As news of Alexander’s conquests spread, but more importantly, the stories of vast wealth, an entrepreneurial spirit encouraged many enterprising Greeks to head east looking for Alexander’s army, knowing that from time to time athletic and artistic competitions of all kinds were held and that the king was generous.³⁸ And it may not have been difficult to find Alexander and his army either. Contingents of troops, including replacements from Greece, as well as numerous couriers were surely familiar sights on the roads across Asia and to and from the king’s camp. Aside from the usual dangers inherent in travel, artists and musicians would not have had a difficult time finding their way to Alexander, or in supporting themselves with impromptu shows along the way until they reached Alexander and hit the proverbial jackpot. It is this that explains how 3,000 entertainers came to be at Susa, ready to perform when the time was right. Such travels and the search for wealth and opportunity give a broader and different meaning to the old phrase “the impact of Alexander.”

Soldiers, Bureaucrats, and Alexander

Athens, 323: Alexander is really dead, not supposedly as in 335 when he arrived before a rebellious Thebes soon to destroy it. Two generals, one old, the other young, debate before the Athenian assembly the proposal to go to war with the Macedonians and recover their lost freedom. In as sharp a rebuke as might be found, the old general, Phocion, says to the younger, Leosthenes: “Boy, your words are like cypresses – tall, stately, and barren of fruit!”³⁹ Their clash certainly represents something of a generational conflict. But there were other issues at stake, namely the choices many Greeks made in deciding to accept or reject friendship and association with Alexander and what that meant for themselves and their communities.

Leosthenes’ military service during Alexander’s conquests illustrates nicely the activities of those Greeks fighting with and against the king. In his case, however, the story is only a little better known as well as more complicated. The complication comes in the person of Leosthenes’ father, also named Leosthenes, who was exiled from Athens following his misconduct (accepting bribes) in leading an expedition against the Thessalian tyrant Alexander of Pherae in 362/1.⁴⁰ This led to his exile from Athens, a dishonor that brought loss of political rights not only to him but to his son as well.⁴¹

The elder Leosthenes frequented the court of Philip of Macedon, perhaps remaining there until his death, and it is this that suggests that it was with Alexander and the Macedonians that the younger Leosthenes initially served.⁴² Shortly after Alexander’s death, Leosthenes returned to Greece, where the Athenians clearly reinstated him, electing him to the strategia, the board of generals. About the same time he contributed money to at least one liturgy and a costly one – support and maintenance of a warship – which argues that military service in the east had been profitable.⁴³ While the money might have come from Persian service, his father’s Macedonian connection argues that Leosthenes’ military career began with Alexander and the Macedonians and ended some time around 331 when many Greek troops were discharged. Eastern service, either with the Macedonians or Persians (or both), is the likeliest explanation of Leosthenes’ wealth, which, together with his military service and volatile times, enabled him to return to Athens and immediately assume a position of influence.

Leosthenes thus represents those Greeks who soldiered in the army of Alexander. Some fought alongside him, such as the cavalrymen from Boeotian Orchomenus who returned home when the campaign against the Persians was declared to be over (see below, p. 131). Others, such as Damis of Megalopolis and the Thessalian Pasas remained on active duty right up to the king’s death. The Greeks fighting for Alexander include:

Aeschylus, Rhodes (epsikopos of mercenaries, Egypt)
Agathocles, Samos (taxiarches, of allied troops)
Alcias, Elis (cavalry commander)
Cyrsilaus, Pharsalus/Thessaly (Thessalian cavalry?)
Holcias, Illyria (? – troop commander)
Moschion, Elis (allied cavalry)
Pasas, Thessaly
Philon (2), of the Aenianes⁴⁴
Polydamas, Thessaly⁴⁵
Philotas (3), Augaea, Chalcidice⁴⁶
Plato, Athens (troop commander)⁴⁷
Socrates, Apollonia (ilarch)⁴⁸

Other Greeks mentioned in the sources but without identification are:

Andromachus (1) (mercenary cavalry commander), Apollonides (2) (cavalry commander?), Ephippus (1), (episkopos of mercenaries, Egypt), Eudamas (= (2)?)⁴⁹

The activities of those Greeks on the “enemy” side are much more complex and certainly murkier.⁵⁰ More certain are cases such as the mercenary leaders Glaucus (Aetolia) and Patron (Phocis) who surrendered to Alexander after Gaugamela and who, with the remnants of their forces, were probably integrated into Alexander’s army.⁵¹ There is no evidence this happened, but what was Alexander to do with them? Place them in a prisoner-of-war camp, send them to the “rear” under guard when he needed every available man for fighting?⁵² The capture of the Persian “capitals” of Ecbatana, Persepolis, and Susa brought the great crusade against Persia to an end. Soon after, Alexander discharged the contingents of Greek allies in his army and sent them home. Evidence of this is to be found in the inscription from Boeotian Orchomenus which lists the surviving members of a cavalry unit which made the long journey home.⁵³ While certainly not capable of proof, the mustering out of the Greek allies would have left only those “volunteering” in his army and these would have been too few to account for the thousands of Greeks who attempted to return home after the king’s death.⁵⁴ Those mercenaries like Glaucus and Patron (and the men serving under them) who surrendered then were most likely incorporated into Alexander’s army and used (mostly?) for garrison duty, incidentally perhaps the most irksome duty imposed on a soldier, which might also explain why these men so willingly abandoned their posts.

In the months following Alexander’s death there were numerous clashes between the Greeks desiring to return home and Alexander’s successors attempting to maintain the integrity and control of his empire. Many were killed and it seems likely that few ever saw home again. Among these are:

Aristomenes, Thessaly (Pherae?) (mercenary commander)⁵⁵
Bianor, Acarnania (mercenary commander)
Glaucus, Aetolia (mercenary commander)
Leosthenes, Athens (mercenary)
Lycidas, Aetolia (mercenary commander, Egypt)
Mnasicles, Crete (mercenary commander)
Nicon, Athens (mercenary commander)
Ombrion, Crete (toxarches)
Patron, Phocis (mercenary commander)
Phoenix (2), Tenedos (mercenary cavalry commander)
Thibron, Sparta (mercenary commander)⁵⁶

Additionally, there are several others mentioned in the sources but whose origins are not recorded. These include Athenodorus (3), Bion, Biton, and Letodorus.⁵⁷

Related to the “army” men are the navy commanders and sailors. A number of these are the Greek Cypriote kings and their sons, who first served with the Persian fleet in its Aegean operations but then submitted to Alexander after his victory at Issus in 332. Some of these joined him and participated in the siege of Tyre (August 332) and then accompanied him to the east. Their known activities include the hosting of literary and dramatic competitions in Phoenicia, and command of the Hydaspes fleet in its Indian Ocean voyage.⁵⁸ The Greek Cypriote royalty include:

Androcles, Amathus
Nicocles (1), Soli
Nicocreon, Salamis
Nithaphon, Salamis
Pasicrates (1), Curium
Pasicrates (2), Soli
Pnytagoras, Salamis⁵⁹

There were, however, a large number of naval commanders, technicians, and sailors from around the Greek world who also went east with Alexander, and, like the artists and musicians, were surely attracted by the prospect of financial gain and opportunity. These sailors include:

Andromachus (3), Cyprus (nauarch)
Androsthenes, Thasos/Amphipolis (trierarch, Hydaspes fleet)⁶⁰
Critobulus, Cos (trierarch, Hydaspes fleet)
Eumenes, Cardia (trierarch, Hydaspes fleet)
Evagoras, Corinth (grammateus, Hydaspes fleet)
Hagnon, Teos (trierarch, Hydaspes fleet)
Hieron, Soli/Cyprus (sailor)
Maeander, Magnesia (trierarch, Hydaspes fleet)
Medius, Larissa/Thessaly (trierarch, Hydaspes fleet)
Miccalus, Clazomenae (naval recruiter)
Nicocles (1), Soli/Cyprus (trierarch, Hydaspes fleet)
Nithaphon, Salamis/Cyprus (trierarch, Hydaspes fleet)
Onesicritus, Aegina/Astypalaea (helmsman)
Thoas, Magnesia-on-the-Maeander (trierarch, Hydaspes fleet)⁶¹

Related to both groups are the military technicians and support personnel. Their valuable knowledge positioned them to see and hear things which they later recorded. Among these were the engineer Aristobulus whose account ultimately influenced Arrian’s, the future and surviving historian of Alexander’s campaign. Several others, however, also wrote specialist military books, including Damis of Megalopolis, the same who negotiated the settlement after Alexander’s death, who wrote a study on the use of war elephants. Other specialized studies included works on harbors (Cleon of Syracuse) and sieges (Charias and Diades of Thessaly). These support personnel and technicians include:

Aristobulus, Cassandreia (engineer)
Charias, Thessaly(?) (engineer)
Cleon, Syracuse (expert on harbors and water/irrigation?)
Crates, Chalcis (engineer)
Cretheus, Collatis/Black Sea (supply)
Damis (2), Megalopolis (military adviser/elephants)
Deinocrates, Rhodes (architect)
Diades, Thessaly (engineer)
Diocles, Rhegium (engineer)
Diognetus, Erythrae (surveyor)
Gorgus (1), Iasus (arms supply)
Gorgus (2), mining expert
Philonides, Chersonessus/Crete (surveyor)

Related to the military and naval figures and the military technocrats are those Greeks who found work ruling Alexander’s empire. While sixteen of these are identified in the sources, the origins of fewer than half are known. Of the seven whose local origin is known, three were Greeks from Egypt (Cleomenes) or Cypriote Greeks (Stasander and Stasanor). Perhaps of interest here is that, as “eastern” Greeks, these individuals might have had knowledge of local languages and customs which might explain their appointments to administrative positions.

Known origins⁶²

Antimenes, Rhodes (financial official)
Cleomenes, Naucratis/Egypt (governor of Egypt)
Ophellas (1), Olynthus (finances)
Stasander, Cyprus (governor of Aria-Drangiana)
Stasanor, Soli/Cyprus (troop supplier; governor of Bactria-Sogdiana)

Unknown origins⁶³

Apollonius (governor in Egypt; finances)
Asclepiodorus (3) (finances)
Callicrates (finances)
Megasthenes
Mentor (Eumenes’ staff?)
Nicias (finances)
Nicocles (3) (=Nicocles (1)?, envoy)
Proxenus (royal household)
Tauriscus (Harpalus’ staff)
Thersippus (envoy)

The final category of Greeks working or otherwise performing some duty in Alexander’s camp are those classified as his Companions, friends, intellectuals, court officials, and medical staff. These include:

Companions (or hetairoi)64	Friends65
Ariston (2), Pharsalus/Thessaly	Alcimachus (2), Chios
Cyrsilaus, Thessaly	Gorgus (1), Iasus
Demaratus (1), Corinth
Hagnon, Teos
Medius, Larissa/Thessaly
Nearchus, Crete/Amphipolis
Polydamas, Thessaly
Nicocles (1), Soli/Cyprus
Polydamas, Thessaly
Stasanor, Soli/Cyprus
Intellectuals66
Anaxarchus, Abdera
Anaximenes, Lampsacus
Callisthenes, Olynthus
Polycleitus, Thessaly
Pyrrhon, Elis
Court officials and staff67	Physicians68
Aristander, Telmissus (seer)	Critobulus, Cos
Artemius, Colophon	Dracon, Cos
Athenophanes, Athens	Hippocrates, Cos
Chares (2), Mytilene	Philip (9), Acarnania
Charon, Chalcis
Cleomenes (2), Sparta (seer)
Diodotus, Erythrae
Eumenes, Cardia
Heracleides (4), Thrace
Xenodochus, Cardia69

The following Greeks also appear at Alexander’s court, but their place of origin is unrecorded:

Companion: Perilaus (1)
Court officials: Callicrates, Melon, Mentor, Nicesias
Physicians: Androcydes, Glaucias (3)
Seer: Demophon (1)⁷⁰

For centuries before Alexander, Greeks had served abroad as soldiers and in many other capacities as well. Those who lacked the artistic talents of an Aristonicus or Thessalus offered their bodies, and as H. W. Parke noted long ago, “Alexander’s ever-increasing demands for new recruits must have contrived almost to drain Greece of soldiers, just as it actually did drain Macedon of citizens.”⁷¹

The Problem of Macedonian Friends and Enemies

Since scholars began studying relations between the Greeks and Philip and Alexander of Macedon in the mid nineteenth century, it has become a commonplace that the Greeks aligned themselves into two competing factions, pro- and anti-Macedonian.⁷² While Brian Bosworth once observed that “it has long been accepted that the labels pro- and anti-Macedonian are seriously misleading,”⁷³ scholars have continued to adhere to this nineteenth-century dogma in postulating this schism among the Greeks.

The problem is rooted in historiography, that is, how one goes about writing history, as well as how one looks to the present to interpret the past. It is well known that historians, like laymen, must from time to time generalize while advancing an argument. We generalize in order to summarize an argument, we select bits of evidence from all that we find and present those that best support the argument we wish to make. But a generalization or select evidence, while convenient, may and sometimes does too easily obscure a multiplicity of factors and results in a distortion of historical reality and the dilemmas people faced.⁷⁴ So in the matter of those Greeks labeled pro- and anti-Macedonian, the complexities of the economic and political realities they faced, as well as the bitter nature of domestic political battles of which they were a part, becomes lost in the labels. Moreover, such a simplified notion as pro- and anti-Macedonian as applied to Athenian politics at this time, fails to do justice to the hard choices confronting the Athenians.

The problem of pro- and anti-Macedonian is also rooted in the nature of nineteenth-century European politics and their divisions. It is no accident then that the alignment of Athenian politics around (supposed) support or hatred for Macedon, or Philip and Alexander, or both, is encountered in Arnold Schaefer’s study noted earlier.⁷⁵ Similar schematization of Athenian politics continued in Chiara Pecorella Longo’s 1971 study of Athenian politics, followed by George Cawkwell (1978), Wolfgang Will (1983), and Peter Green (2003).⁷⁶ Some scholars, however, have discounted the idea: Raphael Sealey (1993) and Edward Harris (1995) have both critiqued the notion, with Harris asserting that “to divide the politicians of Greece into two monolithic parties of pro-Macedonians and anti-Macedonians does not do justice to the rich variety of opinion in Greece at the time.”⁷⁷Since Harris’s and Sealey’s arguments have generally failed to discourage such schematization, it seems worthwhile to revisit the concept, and the supposed Macedonian sympathies of perhaps the longest serving Athenian general ever, Phocion, provide an excellent test case.⁷⁸

The debate over Athens’ decision to go to war with Macedon after Alexander’s death, briefly mentioned above, included the pointed exchange between Phocion and Leosthenes, both well-known military men. At the time some 80 years old, Phocion had surely outlived most of his contemporaries, or was visiting the few who were still alive in nursing homes or their equivalent.⁷⁹ Age and an extensive military record are not without relevance in examining Phocion’s actions and conduct.⁸⁰

Against Philip himself or his Greek allies in such places as Euboea and Megara, Phocion led Athenian military forces during at least five campaigning seasons (348, 343, 341/40, 340/39, 339/8). In these he succeeded in discouraging Philip from attacking Byzantium, overthrew Philip’s allies in Euboea (twice) and Megara, and harried the Macedonian coast, undoubtedly making things difficult for the Macedonian king.⁸¹ These earned Phocion Philip’s respect, for after his death his officers made it a point to make Phocion known to young Alexander (Plu. Phoc. 17.6).⁸² After Philip’s assassination there was much celebration in Athens, which prompted Phocion to remind the Athenians that the army that had beaten them at Chaeroneia was reduced by only one man (Plu. Phoc.16.8). Phocion’s assessment reflects that of a veteran commander able to analyze a military situation and see it for what it is – in this case all too dominating.

The old general and young king maintained a relationship, as far as can be discerned in Plutarch, of mutual respect, with Phocion refusing every gift Alexander offered him (Plu. Phoc. 18.1–7).⁸³ This friendship, while formal and political in nature, was only one enjoyed by a number of Athenians and Macedonians. Phocion enjoyed a similar relationship with Antipater, a friendship that later proved a great liability. Demades, Phocion’s contemporary, an influential orator and politician in Athens, also counted Antipater a friend, though it seems that Demades was more interested in his wealth than friendship. Antipater is said to have remarked that of his Athenian friends, Phocion and Demades, he could not persuade the first to accept any gift while the second was insatiable (Plu.Phoc. 30.2). Also among Antipater’s friends was Alexander’s old teacher Aristotle, who while not Athenian was a major intellectual presence in Athens.⁸⁴ Demosthenes appears to have had some sort of relationship with Hephaestion, and Waldemar Heckel has plausibly suggested that Hephaestion, Alexander’s closest boyhood friend and companion, may even have held Athenian citizenship thanks to its grant to his father Amyntor.⁸⁵ Relationships such as these surely complicate categories such as pro- and anti-Macedonian.⁸⁶

Alexander’s death in Babylon ignited a political storm in Greece that many believed would end the fifteen-year-long Macedonian domination. Nowhere was the debate more intense than in Athens, the most powerful of the Greek states. Many Athenians now saw an opportunity to reclaim the hegemony lost to Macedon at Chaeroneia. In the debate at Athens Phocion played a role, attempting to get his fellow citizens to see that deciding to fight was easy, but finding a winning strategy more difficult. For this appeal Phocion has been condemned as pro- Macedonian, a member of the peace party, but in fact his rationale seems rooted in his long experience as a soldier, questioning the apparently easy decision to go to war.⁸⁷ In the end he accepted the collective wisdom of his fellow Athenians and the command of citizen forces entrusted to him; with these he acquitted himself, repulsing a Macedonian invasion of Attica (Plu. Phoc. 25.1–4). The fact that he undertook this command at age 80 should argue, if the circumstances are examined critically, that his loyalty and commitment to the democracy cannot be challenged.

Macedonian victory brought with it an army onto Attic soil, something that Phocion had feared as the citizen soldiers of the Greek city-states proved no match for the experienced Macedonian veterans who had conquered the east. A personal relationship with Antipater enabled Phocion to blunt Macedonian demands, but only that (Plu. Phoc. 26.5–7). Antipater evidently agreed not to bring his army into Attica and forage as a favor to Phocion, undoubtedly an act that would have inflicted major losses upon the Athenians. But he also forced other conditions upon the Athenians, conditions for which Phocion has been condemned as accepting as philanthropous, “generous” or “humane” (Plu. Phoc. 27.5).

Peter Green has criticized my interpretation of all this, namely that Phocion did not just “tolerate” what Antipater demanded, but did so gladly. Yet with the victorious Macedonian army standing ready to attack should the Athenians become uncooperative, and with the once mighty Athenian fleet now destroyed or unmanned, it seems difficult to see what Phocion could have done differently. A defense of the city was impossible and Antipater was in no mood to negotiate.⁸⁸ In the recent war Leosthenes, commander of the allied Greek army, had trapped the old general in Lamia and pressed him hard. Leosthenes rejected Antipater’s overtures for peace and simply demanded unconditional surrender. Now Antipater returned the favor to the Athenians (Plu. Phoc. 26.7). Clearly Antipater had a score to settle and this left Phocion and his fellow ambassadors little maneuvering room in their negotiations. Finally, it is not irrelevant that Philip had similarly moved against Thebes after the Greek defeat at Chaeroneia in 338. With its military power all but destroyed, Philip forced Thebes to accept a new constitution and garrison, exile enemies of Macedon, and pay an indemnity. Students of these affairs need look no further for Antipater’s model: his “peace” for Athens simply followed Philip’s earlier handling of Thebes.⁸⁹

Finally, Green’s understanding of Plutarch’s use of philanthropia ignores generations of scholarship that has demonstrated how Plutarch, writing 500 years after the events he discussed and little understanding them, read his sources’ accounts of events and then rewrote them with the moral and philosophical vocabulary with which he wished to influence his reader’s approach to living life.⁹⁰ While incapable of proof, a likelier reading of Phocion’s supposed philanthropia is that Plutarch read in a source that Phocion grudgingly accepted what Antipater demanded because he had no other choice.⁹¹ This Plutarch then rendered as philanthropous, “tolerated,” a term that in his vocabulary carries a philosophical and moral connotation that was surely absent in his source.

Athenians committed to resisting the Macedonians blamed the envoys including Phocion for accepting that which they did not approve, and surely considered the resulting regime as “oligarchic,” hence such references to it in contemporary sources. As these critics grew in number, they found ready listeners in the contending Macedonian factions – Cassander attempting to take his father’s place, Polyperchon representing Philip III Arridaeus and himself, and other interested Macedonians farther afield. These were little concerned with those Athenians like Phocion, who by 318 found themselves snared in the intrigues of greater forces. The frailties of his eighty-four years finally caught up with him, and Phocion was sacrificed on the altar of power politics.⁹²

Conclusions

Available evidence suggests that many Greeks saw Alexander and service to him as a means to prosperity and greater social stature, familiar ambitions in any age. Many of these, like the flatterers who abounded at his court, were apolitical and saw service with Alexander only as a means of surviving the hardships of life. Others, however, joined Alexander, as many had earlier flocked to his father Philip, seeing in him not only a benefactor, but also the leader and maker of a new age.

¹ Plu. Eum. 3.1 claims that Eumenes, Alexander’s secretary, also became involved in the discussions but this seems to have occurred later.

² Bosworth 1988a; Habicht 1997; Palagia and Tracy 2003.

³ On the brutal nature of this campaign see Holt 2005.

⁴ See Bosworth 1995: 115–17 for more detailed treatment; note that Bactra is also Zariaspa.

⁵ See sources and discussion in Heckel 49; Bosworth 1995: 116 (who notes Berve’s (no. 132) suggestion that Aristonicus had been with Alexander since 334).

⁶ Plu. Alex. 10.2 states that Philip ordered the Corinthians to send Thessalus to him in chains, which may suggest that he was a native of that city. Alternatively, Philip perhaps attempted to use the judicial procedures of the Corinthian League in order to extradite him. See also Heckel 265.

⁷ On this see Bosworth 1988a: 149–50; Tritle 1988: 119–22.

⁸ See Heckel 169 for other sources and discussion.

⁹ Heckel 118 suggests that Ephialtes was an actor, noting the evidence (IG ii² 2418) attesting this career for Cittus.

¹⁰ Heckel 82–3.

¹¹ Heckel 115, 308 for discussion and evidence.

¹² Brown 1977: 76–88 extensively examines the little that is known of this incident. See Heckel 34, 49, 100 for other athletes noted in Alexander’s camp: Antigonus (Amphipolis), Aristonicus (2) (Carystus), and Crison (Himera/Sicily). Bracketed numbers appearing after names are Heckel’s; multiple examples are listed in alphabetic order throughout.

¹³ Brown 1977: 88. Curtius’ comments may also reflect later Roman attitudes regarding professional athletes.

¹⁴ See Heckel 127 for discussion and evidence.

¹⁵ Gorgus’ offer may have been made during the dispute between Athens and Alexander over Samos, which followed on the announcement of the Exiles’ Decree (see Poddidghe, ch. 6, for further discussion). Athenaeus’ source for this appears to be Ephippus of Olynthus, a contemporary historian.

¹⁶ Chares’ History of Alexander (FGrH 125 F4 records the names of the artists) ranks among the chief sources for Alexander’s reign, though its surviving fragments are chiefly of social and cultural value.

¹⁷ Two other musicians, both flutists, might be mentioned, Timotheus and Xenophantus (Heckel 268, 272). Timotheus, first mentioned performing at Philip’s court, joined Alexander in Egypt and later performed at Susa. It is not clear if he is Greek or Macedonian. Xenophantus played at the funeral of Demetrius Poliorcetes forty years later; Heckel seems right in arguing against any association with Alexander.

¹⁸ Heckel 21, 138, 246, 215.

¹⁹ Heckel 141, 114, 100, 137–8, 60.

²⁰ Heckel 61 declines to identify Athenodorus’ origin; see the discussion below.

²¹ Heckel 50, 61, 222, 265, 124, 152, 47.

²² Heckel 47, 49, 78, 114, 207, 223.

²³ Arr. 7.14.1; Plu. Alex. 72.1, 3. Alexander’s grief at Hephaestion’s death led to the cancellation of the performances and he specifically forbade the playing of musical instruments in camp, which surely ended the festivities.

²⁴ Arr. 2.24.6 records the first contests, celebrated after the fall of Tyre in August 332 (on the date see Bosworth 1980b: 255).

²⁵ Plu. Alex. 29.5. That Athenodorus could be fined suggests his citizenship (see Harrison 1971: 4–7 and fines levied by magistrates). Pickard-Cambridge 1988: 280 n. 7 passes over Athenodorus’ origin; Kirchner 1901: 1, 19–20 lists several contemporary homonyms.

²⁶ Heckel 174.

²⁷ Callisthenes, the nephew of the philosopher Aristotle, was the “official” historian of Alexander’s expedition, but his habit of sharing his thoughts too frankly, something Aristotle recognized (D.L. 50.5.4–5), led to his falling out of favor with Alexander, followed by his death. See Heckel 76–7, also FGrH 124.

²⁸ Heckel 6. Other poets also known only by name are Agis (Argos), Choerilus, and Sopater; see Heckel 8, 85, 252 for references.

²⁹ Plu. Alex. 50.8 notes that sources confused the names, calling Pranichus Pierion. See also Hamilton 1969: 141, Heckel 223, 232.

³⁰ For discussion of this incident and the sources see Tritle 2003.

³¹ Ath. 2.50f, 13.595e. Python’s identity is uncertain nor is it clear that he was part of Alexander’s entourage (Athenaeus’ obscure reference suggests the possibility that he was Athenian: Kirchner 1901: ii. 242–4 lists thirteen known Athenians so named). Even in the fifth century, non-Attic poets competed in Athens and this may have become more common in the fourth (see Henderson 2007: 179). Additionally, some 500 years separate Athenaeus from Python and it is not impossible that a number of details became confused.

³² Ath. 595e–596a; see also the discussion in Heckel 240.

³³ Osborne 1981–3: iii. 79 also notes Harpalus’ gift of grain that earned him citizenship some time between 327 and 324.

³⁴ With the details so obscure, it is nearly impossible to determine which Dionysian festival might be involved. In Athens there were three such festivals, the City, Rural, and Lenaea, but other festivals were also dedicated to Dionysus. See OCD³ 476 for discussion and references.

³⁵ Heckel 115.

³⁶ Heckel 263.

³⁷ Also involved in this affair was another dancer, Chrysippus, perhaps Theodorus’ traveling companion (see Heckel 85).

³⁸ Pickard-Cambridge 1988: 281–305 notes that artist guilds and regulations for them date to the early third century. This suggests that artists who traveled east during Alexander’s expedition did so as individuals, perhaps occasionally as ad hoc companies, but not in the way of organized troupes.

³⁹ Plu. Phoc. 23.1, with Tritle 1988: 125, explaining Phocion’s description of Leosthenes as boy, or meirakion. Phocion was a powerful speaker, one even Demosthenes dreaded in the give and take of assembly debate (see Plu. Phoc. 5.9).

⁴⁰ D.S. 15.95, and other sources cited in Davies 1971: 342. Note that early discussions of Leosthenes (e.g., Parke 1933: 203–4; Griffith 1935: 34–5) had no knowledge of his father and family connections.

⁴¹ On the loss of rights, or atimia, see Harrison 1971: ii. 169–70.

⁴² Pace Davies 1971: 342. It would not be the first time that a son had rebelled and rejected his father’s actions.

⁴³ Davies 1971: 342 notes that Leosthenes contributed money to a trierarchy during the Lamian War. See sources cited there.

⁴⁴ Heckel 6–7, 9, 101, 140–1, 170, 192.

⁴⁵ Heckel 225–6, noting that Polydamas carried the secret orders for the murder of Parmenion (Arr. 3.26.3).

⁴⁶ Heckel 216 suggests now that Augaeus in Curtius’ text may be a corruption of Aegaeus, a man from the old Macedonian capital; this would make Philotas Macedonian, not Greek.

⁴⁷ Curt. 5.7.12; Heckel 252, following Berve ii. 367, suggests that later source traditions may have confused the philosophic names Plato and Socrates and exchanged Socrates (of Apollonia) for Plato. But see Kirchner 1901: ii. 203–6 who lists seven fourth-century Athenian “Platos” which suggests that Curtius’ reference is no less a possibility than Berve’s suggestion.

⁴⁸ Heckel 252, with preceding note.

⁴⁹ Heckel 28, 41, 118, 120, 215–16.

⁵⁰ Cf. the case of Aristomedes, the Thessalian (Pherae) mercenary general, who was among those Greek mercenaries who abandoned the Persian cause after Issus, fleeing to Cyprus and Egypt. See the discussion in Heckel 47–8.

⁵¹ Heckel 126.

⁵² That Alexander was short on troops may be inferred from the musician Aristonicus volunteering for battle when Spitamenes attacked Bactra in 328. See discussion and n. 3 above.

⁵³ IG vii. 3206, now in Heckel 345. The names of twenty-three men survive. While the number of survivors originally listed is uncertain, as also the strength of the force when it went on the expedition, the relative brevity of the inscription might reveal something as to the losses such a unit took while fighting for Alexander.

⁵⁴ The number of mercenaries serving with Alexander is difficult to assess. D.S. 18.7.2 reports that 20,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry followed Philon the Aenian in attempting to fight their way home. All that may be safely said perhaps is that there were many. Cf. Parke 1933: 202–3 and Griffith 1935: 9–32.

⁵⁵ Aristomenes and Nicon of Athens (also listed here) appear on an inscription (IG v. 948) found on the island of Antikythera (ancient Aegilia). My thanks to N. Sekunda for the reference; he plans to discuss these individuals in a forthcoming study of the Persian Aegean counter-offensive of 333–330.

⁵⁶ Heckel 72, 126, 151, 152, 169, 183, 193, 265.

⁵⁷ Heckel 60, 72–3, 151, 162.

⁵⁸ On the competitions see Arr. 3.6.1; Curt. 4.8.16; Plu. Alex. 29.1–4; on Cypriote participation in the Hydaspes fleet see below.

⁵⁹ Heckel 28, 179–80, 193, 224.

⁶⁰ Brunt 1983: ii. 357, commenting on Arr. Ind. 18.3, notes that trierarch is honorific. It may be too that Arrian archaizes. In any case it seems likely that the term essentially means ship’s captain.

⁶¹ Heckel 29, 100, 120, 124, 128, 139, 156, 158, 167, 179–80, 183–4, 266.

⁶² Heckel 34–5, 88–9, 184, 255.

⁶³ Heckel 41, 58, 75, 167, 179, 234, 260, 264.

⁶⁴ Heckel 48, 101, 107, 128, 158, 171–3, 179, 225–6, 255.

⁶⁵ Heckel 10, 127.

⁶⁶ Heckel 27, 76–7, 225, 239.

⁶⁷ Heckel 45–6, 56, 61, 83, 84, 89, 113, 120–1, 137, 272.

⁶⁸ Heckel 100, 116, 140, 213–14.

⁶⁹ Xenodochus and Artemius of Colophon are mentioned as present the evening that Alexander killed Cleitus (Plu. Alex. 51.4). While they might belong to Alexander’s court, it seems just as possible that they were present as visiting diplomats. At one point during the argument, Alexander turned and asked them if they did not think the Greeks godlike compared to the bestiality of the Macedonians. If accurately reported (and this is a big if), the remark seems an odd thing for Alexander to say to familiars in his court (who would have been familiar with such Macedonian antics), but not to strangers.

⁷⁰ Heckel 202–3, 75, 161, 167, 179, 28, 126, 109–110.

⁷¹ Parke 1933: 202.

⁷² See, e.g., Schaefer 1885–7: i. 206–7; iii. 33 for examples of this schematization (see also his index which includes the entry “makedonische Partei”) and the more recent authors noted and discussed below.

⁷³ Bosworth 1985.

⁷⁴ See Marwick 1971: 224, who notes that “many of the well-worn labels and generalizations, unhappily, stand as barriers between the historian and his reader on one side and the real texture of the past on the other. . . . The trick to be used here, and whenever such phrases come to hand, is to switch on the mental television set, to endeavor to visualize the concrete realities implied in the phrase.”

⁷⁵ See n. 72.

⁷⁶ Pecorella Longo 1971: 83; Cawkwell 1978: 118–23; Will 1983: 9–11; Green 2003: 2–3.

⁷⁷ Harris 1995: 154 (with Tritle 1997: 700); also Sealey 1993: 163–5.

⁷⁸ Plu. Phoc. 8.2 notes that the Athenians elected Phocion forty-five times; see Tritle 1992 for discussion.

⁷⁹ While Phocion’s age is often noted in discussions, little attention – one might even say none – is paid to the issues of aging and how these, combined with stressful times, might have influenced and affected his judgment.

⁸⁰ This seems necessary following Green 2003 and Kralli 2006: 682. Kralli states that Phocion assumed prominence only after Chaeroneia, which begs the question of how he earned the respect first of Philip then Alexander; Kralli also argues that Phocion preferred a passive policy for Athens, but nowhere notes his military service (at 80!) in the Lamian War; finally Kralli states that Phocion’s actions were treasonous and “criminally negligent,” ignoring completely the political and military realities of Macedonian-occupied Athens. No less problematic is the argument (first made by de Sainte Croix 1981: 609 n. 2), analogizing Phocion to French World War I general and hero, and World War II traitor, Marshal Petain. Argument by analogy, while it does help to inform the reader, does not amount to proof.

⁸¹ See sources and discussion in Tritle 1988: 76–96.

⁸² Kralli 2006: 682 dismisses Phocion’s military record, neither paying attention to the many source problems of the fourth century, nor to Phocion’s service as a mercenary general in Cyprus (c.351? see D.S. 16.42.3–9, 46.1–3, and Tritle 1988: 152–6, 215–18), in an era when such service was common – and not seeing that incompetent commanders do not find employers.

⁸³ Plu. Phoc. 17.9 notes that Alexander made Phocion his xenos, a term synonymous with proxenos or guest-friend (see Tritle 1988: 194 n. 16 for discussion). Phocion did take advantage of his relationship, but not for himself. He used his influence to secure the release of several political prisoners (Plu. Phoc. 18.6–7).

⁸⁴ On this relationship see Paus. 6.4.8; Plu. Alex. 74.4, 77.3; and the discussion in Berve ii. 74.

⁸⁵ Heckel 1991. Heckel 133 notes additionally that in summer 332 Hephaestion commanded the Macedonian fleet and its Athenian contingent in moving the army’s siege train from Tyre to Gaza (Curt. 4.5.10). As an Athenian citizen (through his father’s honorary grant), Hephaestion’s command would be politically expedient.

⁸⁶ This becomes even clearer when the Harpalus affair is examined. Harpalus arrived in Athens with a huge sum of money and badly in need of refuge. Appealing to the Athenians as a suppliant, Harpalus bribed lavishly in the hope of winning support from prominent Athenians. Among these was Demosthenes, perhaps the most “anti-Macedonian” of all Athenians, who was prosecuted by Hypereides, no less “anti-Macedonian” in his politics ([Plu.] Mor. 846b–c); also caught up in the affair was Phocion’s son-in-law Charicles (Plu. Phoc. 21.3, 22.4), who unwisely befriended Harpalus. The confused nature of this affair cautions against the oversimplification of Athenian politics along pro- and anti-Macedonian lines.

⁸⁷ A modern parallel may be seen in US Army general Eric Shinseki, a critic of the US plan to invade Iraq in 2003. I doubt that General Shinseki could be called “pro-Iraqi” or “pro-Saddam” simply on account of his criticism of the Bush administration’s war plans.

⁸⁸ Green 2003: 3, on Tritle 1988: 130. Critics of Phocion, and those seeking to understand the problems faced by the Athenians in the aftermath of Antipater’s victory, could better appreciate their situation by looking at events in Baghdad and Iraq since 2003. Cf. Sealey 1993 for another view.

⁸⁹ Arr. 1.7.1; D.S. 16.87.3; Paus. 9.1.8 (garrison); Just. 9.4.7–8 (exiles); see also Hammond–Griffith 610–11; Bosworth 1980b: 74. That the Macedonians were sophisticated enough to comprehend the inner workings of Greek political life is a position that scholars seem reluctant to accept. Yet by this time several generations of Macedonians had absorbed Greek culture extensively, and at least one, Cleitus the Black, went to his death quoting lines of Greek drama. If such learning were possible, why not details ofpolis life?

⁹⁰ See Martin 1961: 164–75, preceded by Hirzel 1912: 23–32.

⁹¹ See also Lamberton 2003: 11, who notes Plutarch’s description of Phocion’s “mild” (praos) rule over Athens. Praos/praotes is yet another philosophical term Plutarch injects into his Lives and readers need to treat it as cautiously as philanthropia. See Martin 1960: 65–73.

⁹² These events properly belong to the history of the Successors and so are only summed up here. Readers might consult the collection of papers in Palagia and Tracy 2003 for further discussion.