NOTES

GENERAL NOTE ON SOURCES

For convenience throughout the book, I cite many quotations or opinions in the name of Alexander’s original historians, Callisthenes, Ptolemy, Aristobulus, Nearchus and Onesicritus. I cannot stress too strongly that all these quotations and opinions are only known at second or third hand, as rephrased by other classical writers often four hundred years later, some of whom might be writing on banqueting, geography or grammar. No word or phrase can be assumed to have been retained from the original, especially as the Macedonian authors were known as poor stylists, but sometimes the secondary sources name their original authorities, and at others the original names can be restored, almost certainly, by comparison and cross-argument. In these rare cases, instead of writing ‘said Aristobulus, as quoted by Strabo the Augustan geographer’, I have just written ‘said Aristobulus’. I only do so in cases where I regard the original’s identity to be certain and I only imply that the general sense, not the wording, is authentic.

A brief introduction to the names behind the quotations: Callisthenes was born in Olynthus in north-east Greece, a town wrecked by Philip, and was a kinsman, probably a cousin, of Alexander’s tutor Aristotle. He was employed as an already proven historian to write up Alexander’s exploits in Asia, if not before. Ptolemy the Macedonian was Alexander’s friend from boyhood and served as his officer. He wrote a history after Alexander’s death, whose date of publication is unknown. He ruled Egypt after Alexander’s death and founded the dynasty of the Ptolemies. Nearchus was a Cretan by birth who resided in the Greek town of Amphipolis which Philip had conquered and added to Macedonia; he too was a friend from boyhood and ended as Alexander’s admiral, publishing a memoir of his service, again after Alexander’s death. Onesicritus, from Astypalaea on the island of Cos, had studied under the philosopher Diogenes and ended by serving as a high officer in Alexander’s fleet; his fanciful work was probably the first to appear after Alexander’s death. Aristobulus is of unknown origin, though the name is known at Olynthus, home town of Callisthenes and close to his eventual residence in Cassandreia; he served Alexander, his only known task being to repair Cyrus’s tomb at Pasargadae. Perhaps he was an architect and in view of the apologetic tone of his history, it is tempting to call him the Albert Speer of the Alexanderreich. He began writing at the age of eighty-four, at least twenty-three years after Alexander’s death. One other historian matters: the little-known Cleitarchus, whose father had written a colourful history on Persia and who began life, probably, in the Ionian town of Colophon, a place with a long tradition of poets. He wrote in a lofty rhetorical style and was considered untrustworthy, though skilful. He is not known to have followed Alexander or witnessed his career, but he wrote by 310 B.C., within thirteen years of Alexander’s death, and he read the published work of Callisthenes, Onesicritus and Nearchus. He is said to have settled in Egypt’s Alexandria where he may have talked to Maccedonian officers and veterans, for his work ran into more than ten books and had access to accurate detail.

The main secondary authors are Arrian, a Greek from Bithynia (north-west Turkey) who rose to be a Roman consul under the emperor Hadrian and wrote his Expedition of Alexander, probably in later middle age, c. A.D. 150. He had read widely, but composed mainly from Ptolemy, Aristobulus and, for the last three books, Nearchus. Diodorus of Sicily lived perhaps c. 20 B.C. and produced a universal history by abbreviating original histories as casually as possible, confusing their datings and choosing incidents as much for their moral content and their proof of fortune’s vicissitudes as for their historical value; in his Book 17, he dealt with Alexander simply by cutting down the work of Cleitarchus and adding a few of his own comments. Justin lived perhaps c. A.D. 150 and is a third-hand source, abbreviating the work of Trogus, an educated Gaul probably from the Augustan age (c. 10 B.C.) whose book has not survived; his sources often show traces of Cleitarchus, also of Aristobulus and Callisthenes, but as cut down by Justin, his narrative is very wild and cannot be usefully dissected. Perhaps Trogus used one of the many later composers who wrote between his own date and the original histories. The Roman Quintus Curtius wrote a history of Alexander whose Books 3–10 survive; like Diodorus, he makes full use of Cleitarchus, heavily rephrasing him in his own Roman manner, and he intertwines another source, closetoone of Arrian’s, perhaps Aristobulus more often, or rather, than Ptolemy. I believe he read and translated their originals from Greek. His date is unknown but there is a senator mentioned in Tacitus who would fit him neatly; if so, I guess he wrote c. A.D. 45 with a lively memory of the late emperor Caligula, whose favour for Alexander and alleged tase for oriental customs were much to the dislike of senatorial contemporaries and were sometimes recorded in words which match Curtius’s own on Alexander. Other clues in his book support this; moreover, his account of the succession debates after Alexander’s death can be interestingly compared with the crisis in A.D. 41 when Caligula died and Claudius (said to be feeble-minded, like Philip’s bastard son Arrhidaeus) compelled the nobles to accept him.

Lastly there is Plutarch, the Greek from Chaeronea, whose Life of Alexander reflects his wide reading and memory of a full range of the original histories, rephrased in his own terms of the early 2nd century A.D. and sometimes marred by slips of detail. His biography was one of a series arranged in parallel pairs; Alexander paralleled Caesar. He also wrote rhetorical works defending Alexander against the charge that he was more lucky than talented.

It is always easy to blame the inadequacies of Alexander’s contemporary historians, but we should remember that no Greek had previously recorded the exploits of a living king in a mood of accuracy, without moralizing or writing panegyric, and that there was never a king before or since with exploits as vast as Alexander’s.

A NOTE ON THE NOTES

These selected notes do not pretend to be complete but I hope they will begin to explain all statements in the text which seem unusual or toó curt. Bibliographies of modern research into Alexander have suddenly sprung into favour. N. J. Burich, Alexander the Great: a bibliography (1970) lists over a thousand items, many of them irrelevant; Ε. Badian discusses many items of the past twenty years in Classical World (1971), nos. 3 and 4. The very full survey by Jacob Seibert, Alexander der Grosse (1972) spans a wide field without marking the more obvious degrees of merit. Those who wish to sample the vast expanse of Alexander studies are referred to Badian and Seibert; I believe I have covered every article mentioned by them, except for four which were inaccessible, and here Γ refer only to those which add to our stock of knowledge. I omit those which attack each other or rely, in my opinion, on what we do not know, or else mistake the little we do. To list my reasons for rejecting so many opinions would have required a companion volume and would not have concerned the search for Alexander, the true historian’s only business.

Those who like to multiply their ancient references to one broadly similar fact can profitably consult the very thorough noting of parallel passages in Konrat Ziegler’s text of Plutarch’s life (vol. II. 2 in the Teubner series, 1968); on the many background topics, where modern work is often vast, I have tried to single out the best or most recent study, leaving the reader to follow up the bibliography it cites. Apart from Arrian, Curtius, Plutarch, Justin and Diodorus, there are only two necessary books for Alexander scholarship, a cheering fact which the teeming bibliography must not conceal: Felix Jacoby’s Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker (1929) 2B, no. 117ff., with a commentary in vol. 2 D that is perhaps the finest in the series so far, and H. Berve’s Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographische Grundlage, vol. 1, pp. 147, 180–186, p. 276 (with chart) and all of the admirable vol. 2 (1926). I could never have written without these two great reference books, and my deep debt to them will be obvious to every fellow-researcher, all of whom depend on their help. Otherwise, the study of Alexander will only advance, if indeed it can, when historians make up their own minds and cut free of how others have made up theirs. A prime example is the fate of W. W. Tarn’s Alexander the Great, 2 vols. (1950), the most influential work in English for both critics and admirers; the brief narrative of vol. 1 is explained in thirty-six appendixes in vol. 2, but as thirty-five of the thirty-six are persistently mistaken both in method and evidence, the work has been ignored throughout the writing of this book. But the industry of believing and refuting Tarn still continues apace.

Having prepared long appendixes on the army from 331 to 323, a detailed survey of the sources and detailed discussions of the evidence for the Granicus battle, Cleitus’s murder and, above all, Alexander’s death, I feel it is better to banish them to learned journals because their results are mostly negative and feed on alternative scholarly views.

Briefly, I single out from them the question of Alexander’s relative scarcity of manpower from November 330 until winter 329/8. I believe seven hipparchies were introduced for strategic reasons in winter 329/8 when the massive reinforcements arrived. At the same time three new foot brigades, probably of half-trained non-Macedonian mercenaries, were added under Gorgias, Meleager and White Cleitus (soon replaced by Attalus Andromenous). These changes preceded Cleitus’s murder; they may have helped that quarrel, but they did not reflect it.

The Companions had diminished to c. 1900, but Iranian horse, I believe, were not yet put in the inner hipparchies. 120,000 men, I argue, is indeed a plausible number for the start of the Indus voyage; at most 40,000 will have entered Makran, probably less, depending on the (considerable?) size of Nearchus’s fleet. I suspect that here the fleet was larger than the land army. After Makran all numbers are impossible.

At the Granicus, I argue that DS’s account has accurate detail that deserves respect and is supported by other sources and passages, proving it to be more than DS’s own mistiming; I prefer it to A.-Ptol.-Aristob. and Plut., for several reasons, and in Α. 1. 14. 8 it is Ptol., I suggest, who elaborated the theme of Parmenion the injudicious adviser. In QC (Cleitarchus?) Parmenion’s advice tends almost always to be accepted; so, too, in Aristob. ap. P. 21. But in A. (except for A. 3. 9. 3–5, very probably due to Aristob. too), Parmenion is always rebutted. Just as (I believe) Callisth. may once have slighted Perdiccas, so he slighted Parmenion (e. g. P. 33); Ptol., I suggest, elaborated the theme against Parmenion, as he evidently did against Perdiccas.

As, for Cleitus, I feel the moderate account of QC and J. should be distinguished from the tyranny, philosophy, divinity and oriental decadence stressed by A. and P. (who does not use Chares as a main source). Contrast their two roles for Callisthenes and Anaxarchus and their various timings of the episode; like Α., the prologue to DS 17 proves DS told the incident ‘out of order’. I suspect this is DS’s own moral bias, not Cleitarchus’s. All sources are weak on the quarrel’s cause. Ptol. omitted it.

On the sources, I believe that P. used a collection of Alexander’s ‘letters’ throughout and if one is a forgery (as surely one is), then all are suspect. I do not agree they must be tested each on their own merit; such a test is anyway circular. I suggest there is more truth to Peripatetic hostility than is now assumed, though less than Tarn implied; I am convinced, too, against recent questioning, that Cleit. was the only source for DS 17 (the discrepancy between F1 and DS 17. 14 can be explained) and QC’s and DS’s copious parallels are due to him (so far from overstating this case, E. Schwarz, R-E 4, 1873 ff. put it too mildly and vaguely). As for Ptol., I accept arguments of his personal bias in principle, but I disagree with some existing detail; I suggest his later relationship to Thais, Laomedon, Cleomenes, Cyrene, Cyprus’s kings and fleet, Greek ‘freedom’, Perdiccas (applicable even more widely than has yet been shown), Syria and even Ammon (Paus. 9. 16. 1) have, all or some, left a mark in A.

As for Alexander’s death, the acute account of A. B. Bosworth CQ(1971), pp. 112ff. raises many points I cannot accept, not least his supposed ‘evidence’ in DS 18 of a plot to remove Alexander. Other hypotheses can be framed for the Diaries and I mean to explore Cassander’s influence (and, curiously, certain Peripatetics) as an alternative. Serapis, much of the Romance’s pamphlet, the Aelian quotation from the Diaries, the probable roles of Ptol. and Aristob., all need a new look.

In the following notes I use these main abbreviations:

Ael.	Aelian
Aeschin.	Aeschines
Aeschyl.	Aeschylus
Amm. Marc.	Ammianus Marcellinus
A.P.	Anthologia Palatina
Aristob.	Aristobulus
Aristot.	Aristotle
A.	Arrian
Athen.	Athenaeus
B.E.	Yale Expedition to Babylon, volume and tablet number
Berve	H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographische Grundlage vol. 2 (1926). There every name has a number, which I cite where necessary; otherwise, ‘Berve s. v.’ means ‘see the entry for the proper name involved in Berve, vol 2’.
Call.	Callisthenes
Cleit.	Cleitarchus
Dem.	Demosthenes
DL	Diogenes Laertius
DS	Diodorus Siculus; entries with chapter number only (e. g. DS 53) refer only to Book 17.
Eratosth.	Eratosthenes
HCPA	J. R. Hamilton, Hist. Comm. on Plutarch’s Alexander (1968)
Hdt.	Herodotus
Hyper.	Hypereides
Isocr.	Isocrates
Jos.	Josephus
j.	Justin
Lys.	Lysias
Onesic.	Onesicritus
Paus.	Pausanias
Philostr.	Philostratus
Plin. NH	Pliny, Natural History
Pl.	Plutarch, Life of Alexander, when cited only with a numeral (e. g. P. 16). Other lives are cited in recognizable abbreviations.
P. Mor.	Plutarch, or Pseudo-Plutarch, ‘Moralia’
Polyaen.	Polyaenus
Polyb.	Polybius
Ptol.	Ptolemy
QC	Quintus Curtius
S.	Strabo
Steph. Byz.	Stephanus the Byzantine
Suet.	Suetonius
Theophr.	Theophrastus
Thuc.	Thucydides
Tod GHI	M.N Tod, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, vol. 2
Val. Max.	Valerius Maximus
Xen	Xenophon

Other references are self-explanatory. Inscriptions and periodicals are cited in a form intelligible to scholars, who alone will use them. All fragments refer, unless specified otherwise, to numbers in F. Jacoby, Fragmente der Griech. Historiker (Ephipp. 126 F1, meaning fragment 1 of Ephippus, historian no. 126 in Jacoby’s complex arrangement).

NOTES TO CHAPTER 1 (pp. 17–27)

Dating: A. 1. 1. 1 (archon ‘Pythodemos’, surely Pythodelos) implies July 336; cp. 1G 2². 1. 240. Joseph. AJ. 19. 93 is a strange misapprehension. Niece-uncle marriage: L. Gernet, Anthropologie de la Grèce antique (1968) pp. 344ff. and the examples of this particular affinity which Dr J. Κ. Davies points out to me from his Ath. Propertied Familes (1970) nos 8792,11672. Philip the Leader: Tod GHI, vol. 2, no. 177 with notes pp. 228–9. The fact that Philip was called the Leader implies to me that the notion of an alliance was inherent from the start, perhaps through the individual alliances sworn with many cities in 338/7 (C. Roebuck CP (1948) p. 73). A mere peace would not have a Leader but a president: cp. Sparta’s Leadership of her Pel. allies (G. E. M. de Sainte Croix, Origins of the Pel. War (1972) pp. 303ff. and the suggestion by N. G. L. Hammond, Epirus (1967) pp. 538ff. of a similar hegemony by the Molossoi in Philip’s Epirus). Marriage to Cleopatra: Berve S.V. Cleopatra nr 434. Brawl: J. 9. 7. 3. P. 9. 6–10, Satyr. ap. Athen. 13. 557D-E. The quip about illegitimacy was surely not aimed at Alex.’s lack of pure Mac. blood; Philip’s own mother was Illyrian (S. 7. 7. 8) and the example, e. g., of Dionysius II suggests pure blood may not have mattered (but contrast Peisistratus’s heir: Hdt. 1. 61, 5. 94, Thuc. 6. 55. 1) Either the remark refers to Olympias’s divorced status or, its sources all being suspect, to the nonsense of the snake (P. 2. 6, and esp. J. 9. 5. 9 where this must be Olympias’s stuprum). Cleopatra’s children: Caranus (despite Tarn) certainly existed and the noverca must, for logic in J. 9. 7, be Cleopatra. If he was her son by a previous marriage – we do not know her age or home tribe – he would not have been the rival he was (J. 9. 7. 3, 11. 2. 3.). Cleopatra did have a daughter Europe by Philip (probably); Athen. 13. 557E. But DS 17. 2. 3. does not specify the sex of the child born a few days before Philip’s death; Paus. 8. 7. 7. (muddled by Berve) explicitly refers to a son of Cleopatra and it is not too serious that Satyrus as quoted by Athenaeus does not mention such a child (he only lived a very few days). The date of Philip’s remarriage is entirely uncertain: it may well fall in early spring 337 and Eurydice-Cleopatra (a love-match, according to Satyr.) may have been pregnant by Philip already. She may have borne Europe in summer 337; DS 93. 9 and P. 10. 5 show she was married at the time of Pausanias’s assault (Hamilton HCPA on P. 10. 5 disbelieves this on no grounds except a wish to discredit the story) and if this was connected to an Illyrian campaign (Ds 93. 6), the campaign may well fall in summer 337. Alex. will have fled for that summer, returned in autumn when the Pixodarus affair, a lengthy process of toing-and-froing, could fall either in the tail end of the sailing season of 337 or (as I prefer) in the sailing-season of 336. Caranus will have been conceived in October 337; his birth and the (recent?) exile of Alex’s friends will have pressed on Alex. in July 336. Certainly Europe and Caranus are distinct (J. 9. 7. 3,11. 2. 1 and the rhetorical plural of fratres in J. 12. 6. 14 as opposed to J. 9. 7. 12 and Athen. 557C) and it spoils the logic of J. 9. 7 to assume an unknown son by, e. g., Phila the Elimiot (so Berve – he would then be older and it is odder still that Satyr.-Athen. mentions no such child). Given the chronology, Caranus is surely Cleopatra’s baby son: his name too has a fine ring of Macedonian royalty (J. 7. 7. 7) which can only have scared Alex. more (cp. the name Europe?). The evidence of the Philippeum at Olympia is tantalizing (Paus. 5. 20. 9). It had statues of Philip’s father, Alex., Olympias and Eurydice, probably commissioned by spring 337. Eurydice may of course be Philip’s mother, but his new bride was called Eurydice before her marriage (A. 3. 6) and Philip may have been so keen on her that he included her in the monument. If so, the marriage is confirmed to early 337. Alexander of Epirus: Berve nr 38. Aigai: Theophr. Peri Anemon 27 is decisive for a site on northern foothills of Mount Olympus; Theophrastus had lived in Macedonia and his precise local knowledge even of Thracian Philippi testifies to his travels (P. Collart, Phillippes (1937) pp. 185ff.). Edessa is a very modern name for the older Vodhena (if this derives from the Phrygian word bedu, or water, we should remember the tradition of Phyrgian occupation of Mt Bermion: Call. F54); it is perhaps not the ancient Edessa, which was anyway distinct from ancient Aigai, e. g. P. Pyrrh. 26. 1. The Royal Tombs are always sited at Aigai, not Edessa: e. g. DS 22. 12. In Sept. 1970 I noted Theophrastus’s cloud-phenomenon at modern Vergina: for the burial grounds there cp. Balkan Studies (1961) pp. 85ff. and for the otherwise inexplicable palace: Vergina, Studies in Med. Archaeol. XII (Lund). Both are by M. Andronicos; despite a coin of Lysimachus in one foundation wall, the palace’s dating is far from certain. See Addenda. Sources for Philip’s murder: Aristot. Pol. 1311B is basic and may have helped to inspire DS 16. 92ff. (from Diyllus the Athenian – DS 76. 5 – and note the Athenian bias in perhaps 77. 3 and 92. 2; the theme of the sophist in 94 is very trite). J. 9. 6–7 is of unknown source but not therefore worthless; simply because these sources are dramatic, their ‘facts’, not motives, are not necessarily untrue. Persian background: J. 10. 3, DS 17. 5. 3, Ael V.H. 6. 8. Divine statue: DS 16. 92, Ael. VH. 5. 12, Athen. 6. 251 B, Lucian Dial. de Mort. 1. 3. 2, Callixein. FGH 627 F2. OGIS 332. 1. 27. S. Weinstock HTR (1957) p. 235 n. 142–3 on probable use by Alex. Syll³ 589 lines 41ff. on the gay pomp of these moments. O. Weinreich, Lykien Zwolfgotterrelief, SB Heidel. (1913) pp. 1ff. is masterly. For Caesar, cp. Dio. 43. 45. 2, Cic. ad Att. 13. 28. 3. Was this honour invented by Philip? His divine honours: Tod 191, with which cp. Zeus Seleukeios and Aphrodite Stratonikis; the adjectival form probably means ‘Zeus as patron of Philip’ and is not a very direct divinization of Philip, unlike, e. g. Juppiter Julius, Pythionice Aphrodite or Heracles Themison (FGH 80 F1). With Α. 1. 17. 10ff. cp. A. D. Nock HSCP (1930) p. 56 n. 2 whose doubts I do not share; more evidence in C. Habicht, Gottmenschtum u. die Gr. Stadte (1970) pp. 12f. Surely Philip was worshipped in his newly founded towns? DS 92. 6, 93. 1 show Philip’s motives were not blasphemy and Suida S.V. Antipatros is irrelevant. Readers of J. Becker, De Suidae Excerptis Historicis (1915) will hesitate before accepting any entry in the Suida as historical, let alone their testimonies on blasphemy, when so much goes back to excerptors like the Christian monk George. Pausanias’s death: DS 94. 4 (abbreviated by DS?), implies on-the-spot murder; Pap. Oxyrrh. 1798. FGH 148 line 16 mentions apotumpanismos (here, auton,as restored, probably refers to Pausanias, not an accomplice). A. E. Keramopoullos’s remarkable Ho Apotumpanismos (1923), with the full review by L. Gernet REG (1924) p. 261, and Aristoph. Thesmoph. 930–946, Aeschyl. Prometheus Bound 1ff. shows the plausibility of this; J. 9. 7. 10 latinizes the stake to a cross, but rightly notes that the body was buried. This fits apotumpanismos exactly, and in chains, Pausanias had days of hunger in which to talk. Oracle: DS 91. 2, Paus. 8. 7. 6; cp. Ael. V.H. 3. 45 (Trophonius). Motive: A. B. Bosworth CQ (1971) pp. 93ff. is unconvincing; does not explain timing of murder, a year or more after Philip’s remarriage, or why Lyncestis (whose politics owed more to Illyrians) should not have felt equally ‘excluded’ by Epirote Olympias. Among many other objections, how do we know that Cleopatra was a plainswoman? She might have been Lyncestian too Pausanias’s grievance: DS 93. 8–9 shows it occurred after Philip’s remarriage; no reason to backdate it to 344. ‘Pleurias’ may be Pleuratus or Glaucias (A. 1. 5. 6) and there are enough campaigns against Illyria of which nothing is known (e. g., QC 8. 1. 25, Frontin, 2. 5. 10, 3. 4. 5) for one to fit summer 337 or even 336. But Pausanias’s status as Bodyguard (if precise) fits oddly with his youth (cp. J. 9. 6. 5). Aristotle’s unreliability: e. g., Politics 1304A, with R. Weil, Aristote et l’histoire (1960). Orestids: DS 93. 3 with Hammond, Epirus pp. 528ff.Horses: J. 9. 7. 9, whose plural gives a role for accomplices. The revenge theme, applicable (in Aristot.) to Pausanias alone, and his instant death in DS 16(mistaken?) do not rule out the purge of accomplices in DS 17. 2. 1.,J. 11. 2. 1 (cp. A. 125); others, e. g. Alex. of Lyncestis may have talked and Pausanias could use help in his getaway. It is wrong to talk of rival versions of the murder; they all dovetail, but no source is reliable. Pausanias was not murdered by two fellow-Orestids, for Leonnatus was a Lyncestid via Philip’s mother (Berve S. V Leonnatus is wrong here, giving rise to the fantasy in C. B. Welles, Loeb Diodorus (1963) p. 101 n. 2: we do not know which Attalus this was, let alone whether the – middle-aged? – Perdiccas was already Alex.’s friend). Alex.’s complicity: only a belief in J. 9. 7; P. 10. 6 shows by the connecting gar that he has no more evidence than this witty quote from Euripides! J. 9. 7. 3. is right that Caranus’s birth is grounds for a belief in Alex.’s possible guilt. But it is no proof, though P. Dem Poliorc. 3 is timely. Alex. had saved Philip’s life (QC 8. 1. 24) and the vulgate’s question at Siwah – e. g. DS 17. 51. 2 – is a reminder that it all remained a mystery. However, Alex.’s guilt is an old and sensational fancy – e. g. Niebuhr in the 1820s; there is no evidence, and E. Badian, Phoenix (1963) p. 244 has simply revived it with rhetoric and without Caranus. Either way, the ‘silence’ of Diodorus proves nothing about anybody’s innocence. But for a similar role to Olympias’s, the Seleucid Laodice and the murder of Antiochus III in 246 is a suggestive comparison: Appian Syr. 65. Phylarch. FGH 81 F24, Polyaen. 8. 50 and J. 27. 1. 1. Demosthenes’s advance intelligence in 336 (P. Demosth. 22, Aeschn. 3. 160) does not imply he was an accomplice (so Mary Renault, Fire From Heaven (1970)) but that the Athenian ‘spies’ in the north (Aeschn. 3. 77) naturally brought the news to him first, and quickly.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 2 (pp. 28–42)

See Bibliography for works on Macedonia. Philip’s new kingdom: A. Momigliano, Filippo il Macedone (1934) passim. Note how the royal myth of Hdt. 8. 137f. expands into Theopomp. F 393 to include Orestis in Caranus’s legacy. Livy 45. 18. 3, 29. 11 are fine proofs of how Macedon could best be unified. Fen flooding: Homer Iliad 21. 157–8.Fish: e. g., Athen. 7. 328; Dem. 19. 229; Hdt. 5. 16. 4 for Paeonia. Minerals: useful maps in O. Davies, Rmn Mines in Europe (1935) and DS 16. 8. 6–7 (probably Peisistratus’s old mining interests). Berve S. V. Gorgo with R. J. Hopper BSA (1953) pp. 200–254, (1968) pp. 293–326 for available skills; R. J. Forbes, Metallurgy in Antiquity (1953); R. Pleiner, Iron-work in ancient Greece (1969). Drainage: S. 9. 2. 18, Theophr. CP 5. 14. 6 and the inscription from Philippi in CRAI (1938) p. 251. Forests: Thuc. 2. 100. 2, Theophr. loc. cit, Hdt. 7. 131 and G. Glotz REG (1916) p. 292; Theophr. H.P. 9. 2. 3 (vivid). Hunting: e. g. Hdt. 7. 125–6, Xen. Kyneg. 11. Trout: Ael. Hist. Anim. 15. 1. Fruit: e. g. Theop. 115 F 152. Heraclion: Ps.-Scylax 66f. on this whole coastline. Dion: S. 7 F17, Livy 44·7·3· Arch. Delt. (1015) pp. 44ff. PAE (1931) PP. 47–55. PAE (1933) pp. 59ff., Arch D. (1966) pp. 346ff. Orpheus: Paus. 9. 30. 5, Orphic. Frag. (Kern) F342, Timoth. Persae 234–6. S. 7. 17–18. Coast-towns: U. Kahrstedt, Hermes (1953) pp. 89ff. is unconvincing. Rich cities: Ps. Ar. Oec. 1350 A22. City-land: DS 16. 8. 5, 34. 5. Walls: Polyaen. 4. 2. 15, DS 13. 49. 1. Moments of freedom: Dein 1. 14, 1G4². 94 for 360s. Inland trade: Meiggs and Lewis, Gk Inscr. 65 line 2of. Law-courts: Ps.-Dem. 7. 12ff; A. R. W. Harrison CQ (1960) pp. 248ff. Hoplites: Thuc. 4. 124. Pella: Ps. Scymm. 624–5. Strabo Epitome F20, 22. P. Mor. 603C. Ph. Petsas, Balkan Studies 4 (1960) pp. 157ff. (full bibliography). Mosaics: C. M. Robertson JHS (1965) pp. 71ff; again in C. Picard RA (1963) p. 205. Lion Griffin: the coins with this emblem from Asian mints on Antipater’s arrival in Syria in 321/0 (G. F. Hill JHS (1923) pp. 160–1) perhaps imply it was his badge or regent’s seal; the theme dies out in Macedon, to my knowledge, after his death. A. M. Bisi, II Grifone (1965) is useful; Iranian carpet-patterns may be relevant (F. von Lorentz, Rom. Mitteil. (1937) p. 165), esp. in view of J. Boardman, Antiquity (1970) p. 143 for their influence on Macedonian tomb-paintings. Paintings: e. g. Ph. Petsas, Ho Taphos Tes Leukadias (1966); K. A. Romaios, Ho Taphos Tes Berginas (1951) and Dion drawings in PAE (1930) pp. 45ff. Roses: Theophr. HP 6. 6. 4, Hdt. 8. 138. 2, Caus. Plant 1. 13. 11 and Rosalia in HTR (1948) pp. 153ff. Highlanders: F. Papazoglou, Ziva Antika (1959) pp. 167ff. N. G. L. Hammond, Epirus (1967). J. B. Wace BSA (1911/2) pp. 167ff. Titles: e. g. Indica 18 or P. Perdrizet BCH (1897) PP. 112ff. Hill-forts: Thuc. 2. 99ff; 4. 125f. A. E. Keramopoullos PAE (1933) pp. 63ff., Arch. Ephem. (1932) pp. 48–133; Stud. Pres to Ed. Capps pp. 196ff. Tymphiots: S. 7. 7. 9, Hesych. Deipaturos. Steph. Byz. Tymphe. Tzetz. on Lycophron Alex. 800 (Polyperchon) Berve S. V. Amyntas Andromenous and his brothers Attalus, Simmias, Polemon. Phillippos s. of Amyntas. Orestai: S 7. 7. 8, Hammond, Epirus p. 528 (very relevant, if correctly dated). Berve S. V. Perdiccas, Craterus, Amphoterus, Alcetas, Pausanias Kerastou. Lyncestis: S. 7. 7. 8, Thuc. 4. 125f. Hdt. 5. 92f. on Bacchiads. P. de lib. educ. 20, P. 40. 1 = Phylarch. ap. Athen. 539f. Highland dress: Ziva Antika (1953) pp. 226, 234. Is it chance that the highest-priced slave in Meiggs and Lewis 79 and p. 347 (Hermocopid Lists) is a Macedonian woman? Sheep: A. 7. 9. 2 (suspect source). A. M. Woodward JHS (1913) p. 337 – splendid inscription. Note ox-drawn carts in Upper Macedonia: Thuc. 4. 128. 4.Elimiot Policy:Schol. on Thuc. 1. 57. 3. Aristot. Pol. 1311 B11 and note rich Elimiot graves in Arch. Eph. (1948/9) pp. 85ff. Berve S. V. Koinos, Kleandros and possibly the sons of Machatas, Harpalus, Tauron, Philip (and Calas Harpalou?). But a Machatas is known in Epirus (Polyb. 27. 15 and another in S. G. Dial. Inschr. 1371) and the lowlands (IG 10. 1032 – 3rd c. B.C.?; another in Syll. I³. 269 J); this is but one example of the extreme danger in reasoning about factions simply from the geographical hints of a man’s father’s name. The Elimiot faction, for intance, in E. Badian JHS (1961) p. 22 rests on such a guess, and nothing more. Philip’s new towns: e. g. DS 16. 71, S. 7. 6. 2, Plin. NH 4. 41. Etym. Magn. S. V. Bine. Suida S. V. Doulon polis and Poneron polis. J. 8. 5–6. Feudalism: A. 1. 16. 5, P. 15. 3; SIG 332 gives landholders freedom to sell their hereditary holdings. Double domiciles of Ptolemy Lagou, Aristonous, Perdiccas et. al. in Berve. Clans: for modern effects J. K. Campbell, Honour, Family and Patronage: Institutions and Moral Values in a Gk. mountain community (1964). Companions: DS 17. 16. 4 (approx. nos.). J. Kalleris, Les Anciens Maced. (1954) S. V. Hetairideia and Peligan (a word also used in inscriptions in Macedonian colonies in Syria). Titles: W. W. Tarn, Alex. the Great vol. 2. pp. 138ÍF. Kalleris (e. g. ‘edeatros’) collects a few Macedonian court-officials, but the style of 4th C. Macedon’s monarchy is unknown. Blood-feud: QC 6. 11. 20, DS 19. 51. Marriage: Hdt. 5. 92 on incestuous Bacchiads. For its general purpose, esp. the role of the dowry and kyrios, cp. W. K. Lacey, Family in Classical Greece (1968); also W. Erdmann, Die Ehe im alten Griechenland (1934). Livy 45. 29 shows its importance in Macedonian power. Trials: QC 6. 8. 25 (the true Ms. reading is not what Germans make it) may well be Curtius’s own guess; theories of Staatsrecht and clearly defined Army Assemblies are irrelevancies which I cannot refute here. Polyb. 5. 27. 6 is too vague to prove anything. Spear clashings: QC 10. 7. 14 and for its importance, G. E. M. de Sainte Croix, Orig. of Pel. War (1972) p. 348 (excellent). Mass-marriage: the discrepancy in numbers between Polyb-Callisth, F33 and A. 1. 29. 4 may be due to Polyb. including hundreds of bridegrooms married off in 334? QC 7. 5. 27 on Kings and birthrate. Amyntas Perdikkou: S. V. Berve, with Kynnane, Phil. Arrhidaeus (esp. P. 10. 2, 77. 7). Carian affair: must be during the sailing season in the Aegean, i. e. autumn 337 or, more probably in view of Philip’s invasion, late spring 336; if so, almost a prelude to Philip’s murder! P. 10 1–4, A. 3. 6. 5 cite it; cp. Isocr. Paneg. 162. Succession: Hdt. 8. 139. 2 with the stimulating parallels in M. Southwold’s study of Buganda succession-patterns in Assoc. Soc. Anthrop. Monographs no. 7 (1968), esp. stressing the relevance of age. Purges: cp. Philip in J. 8. 3. 10; also Bk of Daniel 6. 24; cp. Hdt. 3. 119; J. 10. 2. 5; Amm. Marc. 23. 6. 81, 24. 5. 3, 17·9·5;. Euseb. Praep. Evang. 8. 14 and Southwold’s Buganda parallels. Alex. of Lyncestis: A. 1. 25 and Berve S. V.; DS 16. 93f. is too brief to be dubbed ‘incompatible’ with the accomplices mentioned in DS 17. 2, A. 1. 23, 2. 14. J. 9. 6. 9 gives them a possible role. Aeropus: Polyaen, 4. 2. 2; cp. the useful lists of Macedonian names in I.I. Russu, Ephemeris Dacoromana (1938). Amyntas’s friends: J. R. Ellis JHS (1971) pp. 15–25 cites the necessary inscriptions; but his conclusions are almost all unacceptable. Reference should have been made to A. Aymard Études d’Hist. Anc. (1967) pp. 100–122, pp. 232–35 (important); I share the grave doubts of his p. 120. Note from the example of Doson and Philip (Aymard pp. 234–5) how a regent could be styled king; even if this Lebadeia inscription has been properly read (it is lost, now), who cut it, when, and how officially? We have no idea (IG 1². 71, esp. lines 25ff., is tantalizing evidence for the existence of several kings at once in Macedon, and not only of highland tribes; possibly, Alex. I’s kingdom was split between brothers, who each took the title; the parallel may be relevant to Philip and Amyntas IV). Berve S. V. Amyntas, Aristomedes (with the new inscription from Arch. Delt. (1966) A pp. 45ff. plausibly restored), Neoptolemus Arrhabaiou (surely the known Lyncestian Arrha-baios?). A. 1. 5. 4 dates Amyntas’s death as nearly as we can. Amyntas Arrhabaiou: brother of Neoptolomos, nephew of Alex. the Lyncestian? J. 11. 5. 8 may refer to him, for the Mounted Scouts were in Asia (I agree with R. D. Milns JHS (1966) pp, 167–8) and he was their leader in 334 (A. 1. 14. 1). Parmenion’s links: QC 6. 9. 17, 10. 24. Execution: J. 11. 2. 2, 12. 6. 14. Speech to army: DS 17. 2. 2, J. 11. 1. 10 (Α. 1. 16. 5 implies this tax-relief was temporary). Philip’s funeral: DS 2. 1, DS 19. 52. 5 Livy 40., Hesych. S. V. Xanthica. Similar festivals were known in Boeotia; cp. QC 10. 9. 11 for Alex.’s death. On ‘Macedonian’ style tombs, cp. Ph. Petsas, Atti de 7 Congr. Internaz. di Archeol. Classica (1961) pp. 401 ff. with vast bibliography. Eurylochus’s murder: Berve S. V. with J. 12. 5. 14. Attalus: DS 17. 2. 4–5 (orders to bring him back, if possible, alive). P. Dem 23. 1. BerveS. V. Hecataeus the Greek guide: DS 17. 2. 5, with P. Eum. 3, DS 18. 14. 4 (such local knowledge of Cardia would be invaluable; perhaps already in 336 he was Antipater’s friend? If so, he would be one reason for the enemity between Antipater and Eumenes, also from Cardia: P. Eum. 5. 5). Orestids: Berve S. V. Craterus Perdiccas, Amphoterus, Alcetas, Atalante, Pausanias son of Kerastos. Tymphiots: Amyntas, Andromenous, Attalus his brother; Simmias, Polemon, Polyperchon, Philippos Amyntou. Eordaia: Ptolemy Lagou, Aristonous. Elimea: Cleander, Coenos and possibly (not certainly) Harpalus (note the many Machatai known outside Elimea) and if so, Tauron, Philippos Machatou. Possibly, too, Calas Harpalou, who ends up in charge of the advance force, 335/4. 1 cannot stress too strongly, despite the use which I make of localities in this book, that these places of origin may be irrelevant (e. g. for Philip’s pages rehoused in the lowlands), misleading (e. g. Harpalus) or just disputed. Take Peithon Crateuou, for instance; when, in 321/0 he helps his fellow-Eordaian Ptolemy to murder Perdiccas, it might look quite an impressive link. However Ptolemy is thought to have disliked Aristonous, also Eordaian, even to the point of a bias in his history; Eordoi had been expelled by Aigai’s kings and their lands may have been settled with ethnic outsiders; Peithon’s own home town is disputed. A. 6. 28. 4 makes him Eordaian: Indica 18. 6 (surely based on an official document) makes him a man of Alkomenai which, with S. 7. 326 and much else, has been identified beyond doubt by F. Papazoglou Klio (1970) p. 305 as in Lyncestis. This explains why J. 13. 4. 13 (based on Hieronym.) calls him Peitho Illyrius. Could a baron own lands in two or more highland areas, as Peitho may have done in Lyncestis and (Argead) Eordaia? Did their wives bring property with them? We do now know, and all attempts to construct Macedonian factions, even if valid in principle (I am sceptical), wear a big question mark in detail. For completeness, I note men with (possible) Epirote links or names or fathers: Neoptolemus the archihypaspist, Arybbas the bodyguard till 332, possibly Meleagros Neoptolemou. The differing fates of the differing Lyncestians in 336/3 is a warning to any such approach. Alex.’s appearance: Literary texts are collected in C. de Ujfalvy, Le Type Phys. d’Alex. (1902) and sifted by T. Schreiber, Studien uber das Bildnis Alex. (1903). The bibliography is vast (cp. J. Seibert, Alex. der Grosse (1972) pp. 51–61): best modern summaries in E. J. von Schwarzenberg Bonn. Jahrb. (1967) pp. 58ff. and T. Holscher, Ideal u. Wirklichk. in den Bildnissen Alex. (1971). H. P. L’Orange, Apotheosis, in Anc. Portraiture (1947) is intriguing; G. Kleiner in Jahr. der Deutsch. Inst. (1950/1) pp. 206–30 and Uber Lysipp, Festschr. B. Schweitzer (1954) pp. 227ff. are more valid than M. Bieber, Alex. in Gk and Romn Art (1964). Official artists: P. 41–3 with J. P. Guepin, Bull. van Antik. Beschav. (1964) p. 129.Shaving: cp. Theopomp, F. 225 line 32. Hair-style: e. g. P. Pomp. 2, Ael. VH. 12. 14 and every monument except the hunting scene on the Alex.-sarcophagus. It had heroic implications (Holscher pp. 27–8) and Leonine ones (Ps.-Ar. Physiogn 806 Β – cp. E. Evans Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. (1969) for this neglected subject). The belief in Ephoros 70 F 217 is relevant; Ps.-Call. 1. 13, Jul. Val. 1. 13. Pella mosaic of lion hunt gives his hair-colour; cp. Ael. VH. 12. 14. Eyes: P. 4, P. Pomp. 2 and von Schwarzenberg p. 7of. The bi-coloured tradition in Ps. Call. 1. 13, Jul. Val. 1. 7, Tzetzes 11. 368 8s surely worthless! Scent: Aristox. ap. P. 4. 41; the Byzantine Tzetzes in his Chiliad (cited by Ujfalvy p. 31) attributes this opinion to Theophrast. too, probably (not certainly) through misreading P. 4. 4. Height: QC 5. 2. 13 (though Persian thrones were elevated). QC 7. 8. 9, 6. 5. 29, A. 2. 12. 6. Ps.-Call. 2. 15 and esp. 3. 4. I would not wish to wear the small Macedonian cavalry helmet in the Ashmolean Museum Oxford Youthful achievement: P. 9, with Tod 129 line 21 (restored) for an example of a deputy-king’s sealing. QC 8. 1. 24–25 is tantalizing. There was nothing ‘treasonable’ about naming a city Alexandropolis in Philip’s reign; nothing suggests it was a mere colony. J. 9. 5. 5 may be Alex.’s only visit to Athens.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 3 (pp. 43–67)

Childhood histories: Suida S. V. Marsyas. Diog. Laert 6. 4. 84 with Berve S. V. Onesicritus and Philiscus (his uncle or father?). Birthday: P. 3. 5, A. 7. 28. 1, Ael. VH. 2. 25 with W. Schmidt Geburtstag im Alterum (1908). Hdt. 1. 131, 9. 110; Plato 1 Alcib. 121 C, Genesis 40. 20 (the Pharaoh), Esther passim. Ephesus: P. 3. 6, 7 (magi are correct).Birth Legends: A. 4. 10. 1, P. 3. 3 (Eratosthenes). Olympias: P. 2. 2, QC 8. 1. 26, J. 7. 6. 10–11, Athen. 557 B-C (chronological) with Samothrace vol. 2 part 1. The Inscriptions, (1960) p. 13 with Syll³ 372 lines 5–6. Her portraits: U. Scchilone, Enc. dell. arte antic. (5) p. 672 (too uncritical). Coins: W. Baege, De Macedonum Sacris (1913) p. 86, with Duns 76 F 52 and the (spurious?) letter of Athen. 14. 659f. Cic. de Div. 2. 135; E. R. Dodds, Euripides’s Bacchae (introduction, passim). Theophr. Peri Eusebeias F 8 (ed. Potscher) is very much to the point; cp. P. 2. 2. Dodona: N. G. L. Hammond, Epirus p. 438 n. 5. Atrocity: J. 9. 7, Paus. 8. 7. 7, DS 19. 11. Vow to Health: Hypereid. Pro Eux. 31. Tutors:Berve S. V. Leonidas; nrs 469, 470 may be the same man! P. 5, P. 24. The list in Ps. Call. 1. 13 is corrupt and unverifiable; Menaichmus, pupil of Eudoxus, is also cited (correctly?) by Stobaeus; Anaximenes was indeed at court (Paus. 6. 18. 3). First appearance: Aeschin. 1. 168. Music: Ael. VH 3. 32. Suida s. v. Timotheus, Dio Chrys. Or. 2. 26; also the coin in C. M. Kraay-Max Hirmer. Gk. Coins (1966) pl. 171. 565, where Apollo wears Alex.’s looks! Hunting: Xen. On Hunt. 13. 18, Hdt. 7. 125–6, P. 23. Dogs: P. 61. 3, Theophr. 115 F 340, DS 92. Bucephalas: Chares ap. Gell. NA 5. 2, P. 6 and A. R. Anderson AJP (1930) pp. 1–21 for his legend; Steph. Byz., Bucephala is interesting. The date (345/4?) is given by P. Timol. 21, DS 76. 6 against Ps.-Call. 1. 17. Mounting: QC 6. 5. 18 with Xen. Equ. 6. 16, Pollux 1. 213. Macedonian patronage: Hdt. 5. 22, Thuc. 2. 99. 3, Hesiod F 3 (West), Pindar F 120–21 (Snell), Bacchyl. F 20 B (Snell), Suida S. V. Hippocrates and Melanippides, P. Mor. 1095D, Timotheus F 24 (Page). Ael. VH. 14. 17. Athen. 8. 345D, Ael. VH. 2. 21. Euripid. F 232–246 (Nauck) with Hyginus Fabulae 219 and B. Snell, Griechische Papyri der Hamburg… (1954) pp. 1–14. Ael. VH 13. 4. 1 and the epigram of the Macedonion Addaeus A.P. 7. 51; Gellius NA 15. 20. 9 is nice (cp. Amm. Marc. 27. 4. 8). Eurip. Bacchae, esp. lines 556f. with Dodd’s notes. Immigrants:Paus. 7. 25. 6, Theopomp. F 387, Dem. 50. 46, 19. 196. Isocr. Philipp. 18–19, Schol. ad Aesch. 2. 21, Ps.-Aesch. Ep. 2. 14. X. Hell. 5. 2. 13. Emigrants: Thuc. 6. 7. 3. Plut. Pelop. 26. Xenophon: Dem. 19. 196; cp. QC 5. 9. 1, DS 16. 52. 3–4. Painting: the friendly junta at Sicyon with C. M. Robertson, Greek Painting (1955) and Berve I PP. 73–9· Contrast the Macedonian stele from Vergina in N. Andronicos BCH (1955) p. 87 and the rough grey ‘Minyan’ pottery found at 4th c. Pella, Kozani and Vergina; its primitive ancestors were classified by W. A. Heurtley, Prehistoric Macedonia (1939). Campaspe: Plin. NH. 35. 86. Lucian Imagin. 7. Ael. VH. 12. 34.Macedonians and Greek outsiders:A. 210. 7, 3–22, 5. 26. 6, 7. 9. 4 distinguishes Greeks and Macdonians. Indica 18. 3 and 18. 7 points the contrast particularly clearly; P. Eumen. 8 suggests a backlash. Before idealizing some stout Macedonian peasant-tradition, betrayed by Alex., we should remember the variety of Upper Macedonian tribes, each with traditions of their own, already ‘betrayed’ by Philip! When A. 2. 14. 4 identifies Greeks and Macedonians in a letter from Alex., this may reflect Alex.’s own style of writing (cp. Hdt. 5. 20 for Argeads’ urge to be Greek); equally, it may reflect Arrian’s own beliefs, for by Roman times Macedonia seemed a ‘part of Hellas’. Note that Indica 18. 4–6 contrasts Nearch. and others with Greeks; Tod 182 implies differently, perhaps because it is an earlier document. ‘Makedon’, as under the Successors, is already a title of status, not racial purity. Cosmopolitans: e. g. Berve S. V. Eumenes, Critoboulos, Hippocrates, Xenocrates, Anaxarchus, Aristonicus, Polyeidus, Gorgo, Philonides and Aristander, with Lucian Philip. 21–22. Fools in Theophr. F 236. Orientals: Berve S. V. Sisines, Artabazus and Barsine, DS 16. 52. 3–4 with P. Eumen. 1 and Aristob. ap. P. 21. She was royal though her mother Apame, daughter of Artaxerxes II; Tarn must be ignored! Pages: A. 4. 13. 1, Berve S. V. Perdiccas (A. Indic. 18. 5-QC 10. 7. 8). Leonnatus (A. 6. 28. 4, Indic. 18. 3, QC 10. 7. 8). Aristonous: A. Indic. 18. 5 and A. 6. 28. 4. Ptolemy: ditto; cp. Berve 1 pp. 25ff. on bodyguards’ identity. Highlanders: Menelaus in Tod GHI. 143, 148. Xen Hell. Suida S. V. Antipatros; Aeshcin. 2. 43, 47. Hephaistion: cp. Aristotle’s and Xenocrates’ lists of titles of works. Lysimachus: A. 7. 5. 6, J. 15. 3. 6. Harpalus: Theophr. HP. 4. 4. 1. Archaic goods: see esp. Kallipolitis’s finds of 5th-4th c. at Kozani in Elimea, well published in Arch. Eph. 1948/9 p. 85. Jewellery: H. Hofmann, P. F. Davidson Jewel. in Age of Alex. (1965). Mistresses: Berve S. V. Thais, Glycera, Pythionice. Herodotus: Ptol. F 2, Callisth, F 38, Nearch. F 8, 17, 18,20 (though A. 6. 28. 6 implies his style was rough and its Herodotean flavour due solely to Α.). Theopomp. F1–4 (prepared for Philip in Asia?). Alex. himself picks it up in P. 34. 3. See now also O. Murray CQ (1972) pp 200f. Alexarchus: O. Weinreich, Mene-crates Zeus (1933), p. 12ff. and 108ff. with full bibliography. Alex.’s Tutor: Letter of Speusippus (ed. Bickermann-Sykutris), passim. Theopompus’s panegyric: F 255–6; he was a pupil of Isocrates’s (hence, perhaps, Isocr.’s snide Ep. 5, written after his rejection for Aristotele). Philip’s Platonic links were through Euphraeus, Xenocrates, the tyrants of Sicyon and Hermias and so forth. No reason to see Aristot.’s choice as political. M. Brocker, Aristotles als Alexanders Lehrer (1966) and W. Hertz, Gesammelte Abhand-lungen (1905) pp. 1ff. are both excellent. His father: DL 5. 1. Stageira: Brocker pp. 28ff. with the Ms. at DS 16. 52. 9 and the malice of Demochares ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang. 15. 13–15. His fee: Athen. 9. 398 E. Sen. Dial. 27. 5. DL 5. 12–16. Gellius NA. 3. 17. Against Plin. NH 8. 16, 44, cp. J. D’Arcy Thompson PCPS (1948) p. 7. Riches:DL 5. 12-I6 for his will, with the exaggerated Athen. 398 E, Gell. NA 3. 17. Wise man: DL 5. 31. Mieza: Ph. Petsas in Makedonika (1967) pp. 33ff. Dating: DL 5. 2 and Philoch. ap. Philodemus, Index Acad. 6. 28 on Aristot.’s absence in Macedonia in the year of Speusippus’s death. Writings for Alex.: Brocker p. 30, all of them undatable and unknown. F 658 (Rose) may be spurious. Philosopher in arms: Onesicr. F 17A. Aristotle and the young: Rhetor. 1389 A, Polit. 1340 Β 30. Antipater’s friendship: Ael. VH. 14. 1, Suida S. V. Antipatros, DL 5. 9, Paus. 6. 4. 8. Hephaistion: DL 5. 1. 12. G. A. Gerhard, Phoinix v. Kolophon (1909) pp. 14off., with Letter of Diogenes, Epist. 24 p. 241. (Teubner). His one possible bust is in the Istanbul museum, though identity is disputed. Homosexuality: G. Devereux. Symbol. Osl. (1965) pp. 68ff. is interesting, but not universally true; H. Licht, Sexual Life in Anc. Greece (1932) needs superseding; K. Bethe Rh. Mus. (1907) pp. 438ff. is only partly refuted by K.J. Dover BICS (1964) pp. 31ff.; Xen. Lac. Pol 2. 12 with H. I. Marrou, Hist. of Educ. (1965) pp. 61ff.; Theopomp. F 225. Alex and sex: P. Mor. 717 F, 65 F and esp. P. 22. 6 with Aristot. Nicom. Ethics 1102 B. P. 22, P. 40. 2, 41. 9. Theophrast. ap. Athen. 435A. His sister: P. Mor. 818 C. Isocrates’s letter: Epist. 5, which I accept as authentic. Ptol.’s parentage: P. Mor. 458 Β and de Nobil. 19. Mieza: Berve S. V. Peucestas. Philip and Homer: Ps.-Call. 1. 35, in the recension quoted by Brocker p. 55. Achilles: P. 5. 8, A. 1. 12, P. 8. 2, S. 13. 1. 27, Plin. NH 7. 108, Ath. 537C, Onesicr. F 38. P. 26. 1–2 (from many sources). Nicknames: Pericles as Nestor (Plato Sympos. 221C): note Suet. J. Caes 50. 1 for Pompey and Caesar. Homer in Macedonia: Athen. 620 (Cassander), DL 4. 46 and P. Mor. 182 F. cp. the Megarian vase in Lyncestis, recorded in AJA (1934) p. 474; also SEG (15) nr. 473: a Hellenistic vase’s inscription. Philip: DS 16. 87. 2; Isocr. Panathen. 74–80. Hdt. 1. 2f. and the precedent of Agesilaus in Xen. Hellen. 3. 4. 3–4. Margites: Aeschin. 3. 160, P. Dem 23. 2, Marsyas 135 F 3; cp., perhaps, Hypereid. pro Lycoph. 6. 21, Polyb. 12. 4A. Schol. to Aesch. 3. 160, Aristot. Ethics 1141A12, Plato Alcib. 2. 147B, Suida S. V. Margites and esp. Eustathius 1669. 41 (quoted in O.C.T. Homeri Opera vol. 5 p. 158); on the poem’s authorship, Suidas S. V. Pigres the Carian (more or less of Philip’s age) is interesting. Callisthenes: 124 Τ 10, F 10, F 14 line 18, F 32, F 53; cp. Aristob. F 6. L. Pearson, Lost Hist, of Alex (1960) pp. 36ff. sees the basic truth, but muddles its details. Art: T. Holscher, Ideal u. Wirklichkeit (1971) p. 28 and notes 80, 82, 183; von Schwarzenberg. BJ (1967), esp. p. 106 notes 65–6; C. Heyman, Antidor, Peremans (1968) p. 115, for coins.Achilles’s embassy: A. 3. 6. 2. Homer’s relevance: Plato Ion, passim; Republic 1–3; Dem. speeches 18 and 19, Aristot. F 495–500. A. W. H. Adkins, Merit and Responsib. (1960); Morals and Values (1972); esp. relevant is J. G. Peristiany, ed; Honour and Shame: the Values of Mediterranean Society (1965): and cp. the splendid books of P. M. Leigh-Fermor, esp. Mani and Roumeli, passim. For to philotimo; cp. A. 7. 14. 4–5. Macedonian customs: Aristot. Pol. 1324B (date?), Ptol.]-A. 4. 24. 4 Athenae. 18A, P. Mor. 338D with the excellent note of E. Fraenkel, Aeschylus’s Agamemnon, vol. 3. p. 754. Hunting: cp. the inscription in BSA (1911/2) p. 133 for Heracles the Hunter; the sport was essential for meat. Toasts: Ephipp. 126 F 1 and 2 with Nicobule 127 F 1; guest friends in Berve S. V. Iphicrates, Pindar; A. 2. 5,9. Companions: C. A. Trypanis, Rhein. Mus. (1963) pp. 289 f. sees their contrast with kinship; cp. F. Carrata Thomas, Gli eteri dell Aless. Magno (1955) for a collection of their different names. The term idioxenos may have been applied to Philip’s Greek courtiers and there may have been a growing class of (official) Friends; the terminology of Diodorus (despite K.M.T.-Atkinson Aegypt. (1952) pp. 204ff.) does not suffice to prove this.Hetairideia: Athen. 527D. Philip and glory: Speusippus’s letter, published by E. J. Bickermann-J. Sykutris in Abhandl. der Sachs-Akad vol. 80 (Leipzig, 1928) is splendid evidence, together with much of Isocrat., e. g. Philipp. 114, 118–20,132–145. Compare the similar fragments of Euripides’s Archelaus, ed. Nauck: e. g. 236–240, 244 and 246. For Alex.; Demades, Peri Dodekaet. 12 is contemporary evidence. Man’s motives: Thuc. 1. 75–76, 3. 82. Alex.’s favourite Homeric line: e. g. P. De Fort. A. 1. 3 (the line varies in other sources). All these anecdotes in their various forms should be read with care, because of the Second Sophistic’s taste for Homeric parallels, esp. on duties of kingship: cp. O. Murray JRS (1965) pp. 161ff., with copious notes. Cp. Lucian, Dial. Mort. 12. Homeric dream: P. 26. 3; Steph. Byz. S. V. Alexandreia tells a similar story, referring it to Jason of Argos and making it suspect, unless Jason and Heracleides took it from a reliable prototype (as I suggest). The possibility that its teller Heracleides, may have been the Alexandrian author says nothing for its truth; it is very simple-minded to trust local historians for local ‘facts’. Lowlanders from Crete: S. 6. 3. 2, 6; S. 7 F 11. Aristot. F 443 (all refer to Bottiaea). Mycenae: Paus. 7. 25. 6.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 4 (pp. 68–80)

Thessaly: DS 17. 4. 1, J. 11. 3, Polyaen. 4. 3. 23. State of Greece: note esp. P. A. Brunt CQ (1969) pp. 245ft.; the more open society can be gleaned at Athens from J. K. Davies, Ath. Prop. Families (1970) with S. Perlman, Athenae (1963) p. 327 and P. del P. (1967) p. 161; note, e. g., the origins of Lysander, Epaminondas, Iphicrates, and the internal arguments in mid 4th c. Sparta. Arbitration: Tod 179 and on the League U. Wilcken, Sitzb. Berl. Akad (1922), pp. 97ff., (1929) pp. 291ff. (fundamental, but to be read critically). Garrisons: P. Arat. 23. 2, DS 16. 87. 3, 17. 3. 3, Ael VH. 6. 1. Freedom: Polyb. 9. 28 with 18. 13–14; note SIG³ 317. Sparta: G. E. M. de Sainte Croix, Orig. of Pel. War (1972) cites the evidence; the alliances with Athens in the Peloponnese of the 340s should be viewed against Sparta’s commitment elsewhere in S. Italy; when the Spartan king returns, Peloponnesian states promptly look to Macedon again. Diogenes: P. 14. 2, A. 7. 2. 1, P. Mor. 331. Invincible: P. 14. 6, DS 93. 4, SIG 251 H with Tarn vol. 2 p. 338. Hyp. in Dem 32. 4. S. Weinstock HTR (1957) pp. 211ff. (brilliant). Philip’s drill: Polyaen. 4. 2. 1, 2. 2, 2. 15. Front. Strat. 4. 1. 6. Servants: Thuc. 3. 17. 3, 7. 75. 5, IG 2² 1751 (therapontes are servants), Theophr. Char. 25. 4, Hdt. 7. 229 and 9. 29 (seven Helots per Spartiate!). Supplies: Front. Strat 4. 1. 6, Polyaen. 4. 2. 10, Polyb. 16. 24. 5, 9 (on figs). Dem. 18. 157 on allies’ responsibilities is very interesting (cp. Tod 183 and notes and for the principle, Thuc. 6. 31. 5, Xen. Cyrop. 6. 2. 38). Philip’s engineers: E. W. Marsden, Gk and Rmn Artillery (1969–70) is the definitive work: Ath. Mech. W. 10. 5f. Philon. Par. 83. 7. Right wing: Polyaen. 5. 16. 2 (Pammenes) and so already in 359 known to Philip (DS 16. 45). Contrast left wing at Leuctra: P. Pelop. 23. 1. Cavalry: Theopomp. F 225 Β (what date in lines 30?); DS 16. 4. 3 with 17. 17. 3–5. Mares: J. 9. 2. Contrast horses on coins of Alex. I with those on Philip’s or in the Dion tomb-drawing of the late 4th c. (PAE (1930) p. 45) or on the Alex.-Sarcophagus. Companions: V. von Graeve, Der Alexandersarkophag (1970) pp. 88f.; A. Rumpf. Abh. Berl. Akad (1943) pp. 1ff. In art, e. g. Alcetas’s tomb at Termessus. Elsewhere, I mean to survey the growing numbers of monuments showing Macedonian soldiers. Cavalry tactics: Hdt. 4. 126–28, Thuc. 7. 30, Xen. An. 6. 3. 7–8, Thuc. 7. 78f, Xen. Cav. Comm. 7–8.Macedonian horsemen:Thuc. 2. 100, cp. Xen. Hell. 5. 2. 41. Note the coins of Alex. I with horseman and two spears, one for lancing, the other for throwing. It is conceivable that the Companions copied this and that art only shows them with their second spear. Cavalry spears: A. 1. 15. 5, contrast Xen. Hell. 3. 4. 14 and Polyb. 6. 25.Sarissophoroi: Berve vol. 1 p. 129. M. Rostovtzeff, Iranians and Greeks in South Russia (1922) plate 29; J. Baradez, Tipasa, ville antique (1952) p. 18 and perhaps the kontophoroi of Roman armies in the east: A. Tact. 4. 3, S. 10. 1. 12. Medieval Crusading cavalry were said to use lances up to 20 cubits long (Ibn Munqidh 1. 131); cp. the seal of Pons of Tripoli in G. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de l’Orient (1943) plate 18. nr 5. Prodromoi: advised in Xen. Hipp. 1. For two-handed sarissa, cp. the example in F. Studnicza JDAI (1923–4) pp. 68–72. Wedges: Asclepiod. Tact 7. 3; Migne Patrol. Graeca 36. 61A; AA. 1. 6. 3, 3. 14. 2; A. Tech. Tact. 16. 6. Harness: J. K. Anderson, Anc. Gk Horsemanship (1961) pp. 40–78, also I. Venedikov, Bull. de l’Inst. Arch. Bulgare (1957) pp. 153ff.; P. Vigneron, Le Cheval dans l’antiquite (1968) chap. 2 (excellent). Foot Companions: the word ‘phalanx’ in A. simply means an infantry line (e. g. A. 5. 21. 5), as elsewhere in Greek, and should not be applied to the sarissa-brigades only as a technical term. Sarissa: M. Andronicos BCH (1970) pp. 91ff.; also Theophr. HP 3. 12. 2 = Asclep. Tact. 5. 1; Polyb. 18. 29. 2 (starting from Hellenistic lengths). Compare the Pangaeum stele in BCH (1931) p. 172 n.I. The ‘short Macedonian cubit’ is a fantasy: cp. Xen. Anab. 4. 7. 6 for a short Chalybian cubit! In early Egyptian chronicles there are references to enemies ‘five cubits’ high; there was no short Pharaonic cubit. The cornel trees would be Comus mas and possibly australis. Sanguinea is too flimsy. Philip’s invention: DS 16. 3. 2 (a long process) with Marsyas FGH 135 F 17. Spear-heads in D. M. Robinson, ed., Olynthus vol. X pp. 378–446 are perhaps sarissas, though not as long as Andronicos’s finds at Vergina. Cp. those found in Lion of Chaeronea; Polyaen. 4. 2. 2 (mentioning synaspismos, a phalanx manœuvre) suggests the Foot-Companion formation fought at that battle, but all its accounts are vague and arguments from ‘silence’ of no weight. Files and cloaks: Callisth. in Polyb. 12. 19. 6; A. 1. 6. 1 for basic 8-depth, against the dekades of A. 7. 23. 3 and the Anaxim. fragment, FGH 72F4. Asclep. 6. 2 and Arr. 15. 2 imply 16 became the Hellenistic depth. Plut. Aem. Paul 18. 3 (cp. Xen. Anab. 1. 2. 16) on cloaks. Origins: DS 15. 44 (8½ feet to 13 feet?) Nep. Iphicr. 1. 3–4, Chabr. 1; Xen. Anab. 1. 8. 9, Cyrop. 6. 2. 10; 7. 1. 33. Hdt. 7. 8. 1 (for the Egyptian precedent); Townley Schol. to Iliad 13. 152 with Polyb. 18. 29–30. Asclepiod. Tact. 4. 3 (important); see now W. K. Pritchett, Anc. Gk. Milit. Practices vol. 1 (1971) pp. 144f. (more archaeological evidence now available than he uses for Macedonian shield and too dogmatic in assumptions). Armour: G. T. Griffith P.C. Phil. Soc. (1964) pp. 3ff. is unconvincing; breastplates may be costly (Aristoph. Peace 121of. is not all absurd) but Philip had mines, could use leather (note the bonfire of spare armour in QC 9. 3. 22) and Α. 1. 20. 10 implies Macedonians did all wear body-armour? cp. A. Hagemann, Griechische Panzerung (1919) for fuller archaeological evidence; cp. too the breastplated Ptolemaic footsoldier in Berytus (1964) pp. 71ff. Sometimes certain brigades of the Foot Companions are called ‘the lightest’ or ‘most mobile’: e. g. A. 3. 23. 2. Perhaps these were centre men without much body armour, a notion which helps with a frequent editorial blunder in the text of A. At A. 2. 23. 2, 4. 23. 1, 6. 6. 1 the one and only reliable Ms. (A) reads astheteroi, which must not be emended to pezhe-tairoi; A. 7. 10. 5 has the two terms together in the Ms. implying they are distinct! Some of these astheteroi were (partly) led by Coenus the Elimiot, then by his successor Peithon, and served in the centre of the ‘phalanx’, where one would expect lighter troops; Coenus’s brigade was often chosen by Alex. to join the Shield Bearers on lighter raids (Amyntas’s brigade in 330 may have been similar). The meaning of their name is obscure and A. 4. 23. If implies (wrongly?) that it covered all Foot Companions; there were not towns or citizens (asthetairoi?) in Elimea, for example. Macedonian shield: M. Launey’s masterpiece, Recherches sur l’armée hellenist. (1949) pp. 346ff. P. Couissin, Institut. Milit. et navales (1932) pp. 76ff. R. Zahn. Festschr. für C. Schuchhardt p. 48; if the soldier with such a shield on King Patraos’s Paeonian coins is a Paeonian (more prob. a Macedonian), this shield may have been another of Philip’s borrowings. Cp. also the bucklers on the coins of many Macedonian military colonies in Asia minor: e. g. L. Robert, Villes d’Asie Mineure pp. 32–3. Asclepoid. Tact. 5. 1 for size. Daggers: P. Aem. Paul. 20. 5. Cretans and slingers: Olynthus X pp. 378–446. Shield Bearers: probably Philip’s creation. Theopomp. ap. Schol. Dem Olynth. II (Dindorf p. 76) is too confused to be relevant.Armour: the Macedonian troops on the Alex. Sarcophagus are armed as I describe; despite von Graeve pp. 93–5, these cannot be Foot Companions, for their shields are too big to allow them to hold a sarissa. Shield Bearers surely carry a proper shield (hence, e. g., A. 1. 1. 9) and therefore no sarissa, as both hands are occupied. Their lightness: A. 2. 4. 3,. and e. g. A. 3. 18. 1 and 3. 18. 5, 3. 28. 2–3 are decisive. Naturally they are called part of the ‘phalanx’, because phalanx means no more than infantry line (or units). Slaves and harvest-armies: A. W. Gomme, Hist. Comm. Thuc. vol. 1 pp. 14ff., Thuc 1. 141. 3: Population: the regaining and seizure of highland tribes (populous enough to provide all or most of Alex’s. Foot Companions – Berve 1 p. 114 with DS 57. 2, where I guess that Craterus the Orestid and Amyntas the Tymphiot led Orestids and Tymphiots, making two brigades from each of these two tribes which Philip first made part of ‘the Macedonians’) and the seizure of the new populous ‘East Macedonia’ are not allowed for in attempts to calculate a rising birth rate inside Macedonia from 359 to 320. Also, the possible recruitment of serfs as Macedonians could swell numbers. Slaves: e. g. Polyaen. 4. 2. 21, J. 9. 7. 15, Dem. 19. 305,19. 139. P. Alex. 16. 2 is explained by Etym. Magn. S. V. Daisois (harvest month); the festival Daisia (harvest?) is now known in an inscription from Lyncestis, c. 2nd c. B.C., F. Papazoglou, Klio (1970) pp. 305ff.

NOTE TO CHAPTER 5 (pp. 81–90)

J. 9. 1–4 is the background (with QC 8. 1. 24?) to A.-Ptol. 1. 1. 4–1. 4. 8 and S.-Ptol. 7. 3. 8 (the quotations A. 1. 4. 7–8 and Ptol. F2 differ, but suggest Ptol. personally had read his Hdt.; cp. Hdt. 4. 93). Agrianians: A. 1. 5. Dionysus: Suet. Aug. 94. 5, Macrob, Sat. 1. 18, with Aristot. Mirab. 122, Hdt. 6. 125, and BCH (1961), pp. 812ff. for finds there; cp. the Dionysiac vase and papyrus in Arch. Deltion (1963) pp. 192ff. Hounds: Polyaen. 4. 2. 16, also Aen. Tact. 22. 14. Rafts: Xen. Anab. 1. 5. 10; their history extends from Assyrian sculptures to the utricularii of the Roman army. Hdt. 4. 72 (Scythian stuffed horses). Illyrians: N. G. L. Hammond BSA (1966) p. 239. Olympias’s murders:J. 9. 7. 12, 12. 6. 14, Paus. 8. 7. 7. Demosthenes: Aesch. 3. 239, Dein. 1. 10. 18. P. Dem. 20. Theban background: J. 9. 4. 6, Paus. 4. 27. 5, 9. 1. 3. Demades Perites dodekaetias 3f. Returned boeotarchs: Α. 1. 7. 11. Siege: A.-Ptol. 1. 7. 7, 1. 7. 10–11, 1. 8. 5 stresses Alex.’s hesitance to attack (cp. P. 11. 7, D.S. 9. 2). A.-Ptol. 1. 8 blames Perdiccas, Ptolemy’s enemy; contrast DS 12. 3 (surely correct). A.-Ptol. stresses Thebes’ deeply divided opinion (1. 8. 11, cp. P. 11. 12); Macedonians only enter the city through Theban apathy (1. 8. 5) and win easily (1. 8. 5f.), the lesser Boeotians excelling in the sack (A. 1. 8. 8. with DS 13. 5, J. 11. 3. 8, P. 11. 5). But DS 9. 1 stresses Theban unanimity, enthusiasm (9. 5, 10. 2, 10. 6, 11. 4) and strong resistance; possibly the reserves in 12. 1 are the force under Antipater mentioned in Polyaen. 4. 3. 12. All agree on the sally from the Cadmeia; only DS mentions Macedonian losses (DS 14. 1). Fate of city: A. 1. 9. 9 implies razing was referred only to the allies on the spot (mostly Boeotians). P. 11. 11 is unspecific; DS 14 describes a decree of the full allied council, cp. J. 11. 3. 8, but the Theban sack became a favourite theme for rhetoric. The sequels at Athens etc. (A. 1. 10) seem to me to fit better with an on the spot meeting. Given the Boeotians’ part (stressed too by DS 13. 5) the point is an academic one; an official ratification would eventually follow. Sale of captives: Cleit. F. I must be read in the context of Athen.’s speaker (4. 146–8), concerned to minimize Greek wealth and probably not quoting directly but summarizing (unfairly) Cleit.’s description. Surely, Cleit. is the source of DS 14. 4 too, where it is not entirely clear that this silver was raised solely from the sale of captives. The huge (unsold) plunder in 14. 1 is not inconsistent with Cleit. F 1 (the second part of which probably is not Cleit.), given the tendency of Athen.’s quoting speaker to minimize Greek wealth. The ‘whole wealth’ means ‘the whole wealth Alex. realized’. For price of slaves in smaller lots, cp. W. K. Pritchett Hesp. (1956) p. 277. Captives were sold as a block-bargain, e. g. Hellen. Oxyrr. 12. 4, Thuc. 8. 28. 4 (20 drachs. a head!). Theban losses: D.S. 14. 1 = P. 11. 12. Pindar’s house: P. 11. 6 and A. 1. 9. 10 with Pindar F 106. Dio Chrys 2. 33. W. Slater, Gk. Rmn. Byz. St. (1971) p. 141 is unconvincing. Com fleet: does Ps.-Dem. 17, esp. 20, refer to autumn activities of Alex.’s Danube fleet in 335? Hence no mention of the Theban disaster (contrast G. L. Cawkwell Phoenix (1961) p. 74, dating the speech c. 332/1). But Macedonia already held Sestos and the Hellespont in 335 and the advance force needed food. Athenian victims: P. Dem. 23 (Aristob., despite Jacoby); DS 15. 1, P. Phoc. 9, Suida S. V. Antipatros (10 victims); A. 1. 10. 4 (Ptol. not Aristob.?). Festival: DS 16, A. 1. 11. Marriage proposal: DS 16. 2, P. Dem. 23. 5; Berve S. V. Balakros 200, Koinos 439. A. 1. 24. 1–2. Parmenion’s friends: Philotas 802, Nicanor 554, Asandros 165, Koinos 439, Hegelochos 341, Amyntas 57, Attalus 181, Polyperchon 654, Simmias 704. Italian invasion: Aristot. F 614 (Rose). J. 12. 2. 1, 23. 1. 15, S. 6. 280, Livy 8. 24. 4. Alex and Rome: S. 5. 23. 2 is plausible; Memnon FGH 434 F 18, 2 slightly less so (cp. the surprising parallel in Ps.-Callisth. A. 1. 29–30). Also, W. Hoffman, Rom u. die Griech. Welt in 4 Jhdt. (1934) for a summary of the background.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 6 (pp. 91–105)

Antipater and Olympias: Berve S. V.; also Berve S. V. Cleopatra for their quarrels; Tod GHI 196 lines 10 and 21 prove Olympias to be queen-regent of Macedonia, Cleopatra of Epirus; their two kingdoms are missing from the grain list and their presence as the only two private individuals (with massive receipts) is otherwise absurd. Greek invasion:Philostr. VS. 1. 9. 4, Lys. 33, Xen. Hell. 6. 1. 12, Isocr. 5. 119, Paus. 6. 17. 9, P. Mor 1126D. Isocr. Epist. 3. 3 is important; cp. 5. 18, Panath. 10–14, Philipp. 129–131. N. H. Baynes, Byz. Studies and Other Essays pp. 144–67 (excellent) and S. Perlman, Histor. (1957) pp. 306–17. Peace among allies: Tod GHI 177, 183, Ps.-Dem. 17 (very important), Tod 179, 192 and esp. A. Momigliano, Terzo Contrib. alla Storia (1966) pp. 406ff. Athens: the extraordinary inscription best discussed by M. Ostwald TAPA (1955) pp. 103–28. Victory coins: A. R. Bellinger Studies, pp. 12–13 misses the point. H. A. Thompson, Ath. Stud. pres. W. S. Ferguson (1940) pp. 183ff. may be right; S. Perlman NC (1965) p. 57 is suggestive; note DS 18. 26. 6 for the nike theme. Alex.’s view: Onesic. F 19, DS 62. 7. Crusade: not to the fore in Isocr. (but cp. 4. 3. 15); DS 16. 89. 2, J. 9. 4. 6–10, A. 2. 14. 4 with P. Pericl. 17 and Thuc. 1. 96. 1. Polyb. 3. 6. 12–14 is very interesting. Athens: Lycurg. in Leocrat.; Ps.-Dem. 17 passim; Hypereid. 3. 29–32, cp. now F. W. Mitchel, Athens in the age of Lycurgus (1970). Polyb. 5. 10 is misleading: 1G 2² 1628. 22 on Athens’s ships (cp. DS 18. 10. 2). Also U. Kahrstedt Hermes (1936) pp. 120ff. on the Athenian contingent. A. (via Ptolemy, the eventual guarantor of Greek freedom?) does not bring out the full force of Greek and Athenian hostility to Macedonia, anyway a strange idea to him. Thespians: A.P. 6. 344. Sicily: Berve S. V. Demaratus. Use of satraps: Isocr. Philip 103–4. Callisthenes: FGH 124 with F. Jacoby, R-E (Pauly) 10. 2. 1680, an excellent survey, though Call. is not known to have been pro-Theban or keen for a national regeneration! T2 is probable, but not certain evidence of his precise kinship to Aristotle; Chares F 15 proves their very intimate link, presumably as pupil and tutor (A. B. Bosworth Hist. (1970) pp. 407ff. is only a quibble and certainly does not damage a close link between Call. and many Peripatetics). Cp. Τ 23 with F 42, F 10 (Troy), F 23, 24, 29 (early poetry, F 19, F 38 (Hdt.). Silliness: Τ 5, P. 54, Τ 20 and esp. Τ 21 (the scholarly Philodemus is probably reliable); F 1 (heiress), F 50 (Sparta), F 43 with J. K. Davies, Ath. Propertied Families (1970) pp. 50–51; the myth of Socrates’s two wives was so decisively refuted by E. Zeller, Die Philos, der Griechen (1963) vol. 2, 1. 54 that it is surprising it should at once reappear in CQ (1970) p. 56; F 46. Panegyric: T 20, F 2. One should remember the shaky literary models open to Call. for his history of a king (Cyropaed., Theopomp. and so on). The reference to Dar.’s death in F 14 line 25 proves that this section was not published as a hot-line despatch and sent back to rebellious Greece in 331. Athens and Egypt: F 51 with Anaxim. 72 F 20 and Plato Timae. 23D.Crusade: Jacoby on F 28 is ingenious; F 10 may be relevant; F 36 proves nothing. Homer: Τ 10, perhaps Τ 6, F 10Α, 12, 13, 14, 32, 33, 53. L. Pearson, Lost Hist. of Alex (1960) pp. 36ff. is right in principle but not in detail. Persia: see end bibliography for most of what follows. Empire’s fringes: P. 65. 6, a favourite story, cp. Hdt. 1. 134. 2. Darius:Berve. S. V., also S. V. Bistanes Ochou, cp. A. 2. 14. 5. Communications: P. 69. 1 with the slow letter in L. Robert Hellenica vol. 7 p. 7 and A. Aymard R.E.A. (1949) p. 340. F. Oertel, Festschr. Braubach (1964) pp. 32ff. discusses Damastes FGH 5F 8 in terms of a journey by Suez Canal, for which cp. J. Breebart, Mnemosyne (1967) pp. 422ff. F. Lammert, R-E. 21. 2. cols. 2438–42 rightly stresses the many floating boat bridges in the Empire. On fire-signals, a neglected topic, Aeschyl Agamem. 282 for the Persian word; Aristot. Meteor. is essential. On camels, I quote a Chinese Tang traveller to Bactria, as in E. H. Schafer’s remarkable study in Sinologica (1950) pp. 165ff. King’s personal rule: much earlier evidence, esp. Persep. Fort. Tabl. 6764; cp. Jos. A.J. 13. 4. 4, Hdt. 3. 84 on brooches. The personal tradition lasted, hence the art of the royal handshake in Sassanid times. Honoured equals: Xen. Cyrop. 2. 1. 3, 7·5·7 and esp. DS 17. 59 for a thousand Royal ‘Relations’ in army. Bureaucracy: for birth-rations, Persep. Fort. Tablets, ed. R. T. Hallock (1969) nr. 1219; Cp. Hdt. 1. 136. The weights and measures in Aramaic evidence from Elephantine match those in the Persepolis tablets. Supply-tickets: Persep. Fort. 1351, 1358, 1404. Persian weakness: end to Xen. Cyrop., prob. genuine. Isocr. 4. 140–9, 5. 95–100. For her power, compare her fleet in 334/3 with the similar reports in the Egypt invasion of DS 15. 42f. Alex.’s surveyors: note Tod. GHI 188 with SEG 14. 376 and H. Bengtson Symb. Osl. (1956) pp. 35ff. on Philonides. Supplies: Xen. Cyrop. 6. 2. 25–40 is basic; in 396, Agesilaus’s small army took food to Asia for 6 months (cf. Xen. Hell. 3. 4. 3), about the same volume as Alex. took. Xen. Anab. 1. 10. 18 is crucial (400 wagons for 10,000 men for a fortnight). Bakers are prescribed by Nicias for Sicily in Thuc. 6. 22; prob. until Issus Alex.’s troops would do their own cooking (A 2. 8. 1; cp. Xen. Hellen. 7. 2. 22). There they captured Darius’s cooks! Soldiers could also be paid money and left to serve themselves from a prearranged agora, so perhaps Alex.’s supplies were very decentralized. Persian gardens: P. Grimai, Les Jardins romains (1943) pp. 86ff. is outstanding; cp. Xen. Oecon. 4. 13–14, 20; gardeners, of a sort, can perhaps be detected in Persep. ‘Treas. Tabl. (ed. G. E. Cameron) nrs. 14 and 31. Age of paradox: Aeschin. 3. 132. Famine: Tod GHI 196 line 3 with notes on pp. 275–6. Fire temples:K. Schippmann, Iran. Feuerheiligtumer (1968) on a tradition which, as excavations are now proving, extends back to Media., cp. the probable Achaemenid fire-temple found in Seistan and reported by Italians in East and West over the last ten years. Long lease: B.E. 9. 48, from the 420s.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 7 (pp. 109–115)

Egypt revolt: F. Kienitz, Politische Gesch. Agyptens (1953) pp. 185ff. gives full space to the disputed figure of Khabash; that his revolt continued into 335/4 is still a possibility. Approach: A. 1. 11. 5f, DS 17. 2 = J. 11. 5. 10 (Cleit., and so not a Roman anachronism). The virgins: A. Momigliano, CR (1945) pp. 49–53; also G. L. Huxley, Studies in hon. of V. Ehrenberg (1967) pp. I47ff.; Ε. Manni Miscell. Rostagnea (1963) pp. 166ff.; the dating is uncertain, but Lycophron’s millennium may be Alexander’s (see below). Trojan sacrifices: A. 1. 12. 1–3 (his word legousin does not exclude Ptol. and Aristob. as his sources). DS 17. 3; J. 11. 5. 12; P. 15. 8; Ael. V.H. 12. 7; cp. Cic. Pro Arch. 24; Symm. Epist. 60. 72, Jerome Vita Hilar. 1, Petrarch Africa 9. 51–4 follow up the theme. Also Ps.-Call. 1. 42. 9–12. Menoitios: A. 1. 12. 1 and note the fickle Chares (QC 4. 5. 22). Dicaearchus: F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristot. (1967), vol. 1 pp. 13ff., esp. frag. 23. Xerxes: H. U. Instinsky, Alex. am Hellespont (1949) is unconvincing, not least because the details of Hdt. 7. 43, 54–5 are different from A.; for the gold phiale, cp. A. 6. 19. 5, where Xerxes is not in question and for the heroic overtones of phialai (very relevant here) H. Luschey, R. E. S. V. Phiale, with cult evidence. Thessalians: Philostrat. Heroicos (ed. Teubner) p. 208, line 8f.; also Heliodor. Aethiopica 3. 5; did the cavalry all stay with Parmenion (A. 1. 11. 6)? Caracalla: Dio 79. 16. 7, 18. 2 and F. G. Millar, Studies in Cassius Dio (1964) pp. 214ff. I am grateful to Mr C. G. Hardie for drawing this to my attention. Homeric road: Hom. II. 6. 13–15. Alex.’s favours for Troy: S. 13. 1. 26–7, where he remits the tribute even before his victory.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 8 (pp. 116–125)

Troop-numbers: DS 17. 3, with P. Mor. 327 D-E (Α. 1. 11. 3 prefers Ptol. to Aristob.). P. 15. 1, J. 11. 6. 2, Call. ap. Polyb. 12. 19. 1; on the squaring with Polyaen. 5. 44, D.S. 7. 10 (which names Macedonians in advance force), see e. g., P. A. Brunt JHS (1963) pp. 34ff., and R. D. Milns JHS (1966) pp. 167ff. All figures are speculative; the cavalry are esp. uncertain. Cyzicus: Polyaen. 5. 44. 5, DS 17. 7. Memmon’s wages: Ps.-Aristot. Oecon. 1359B. Lampsacus: the common source of Paus. 6. 18. 2, Val. Max. 7. 3. 4 and Suida S. V. Anaximenes is not likely to be good, but there may be one truth in this favourite sort of anecdote, that Alex. did at least visit the place. At A. 1. 12. 6 the only reliable MS. reads prosaktios, usually emended to the dubious River Praktios, with a curious twist in Alex.’s route as a result, up an impassable river gorge (W. F. Leaf, Strabo on the Troad (1923) pp. 71ff. has full geography). If we read something like par’ akten, along the coast, Alex. would go naturally north to Lampsacus, a city of known abundance: cp. Xen. Hell. 2. 1. 19; note Ps.-Ar. Oec. 1351 for Persian minting there. Persian plans: Α. 1. 12. 9 = DS 18. 2 = Call. via a Persian captive, perhaps Barsine, Memnon’s bilingual wife? Tyrant at Zeleia: SIG³ 279 with Berve S. V. Nikagoras are enough proof, to my mind. Memmon’s coins: A. E. M. Johnston JHS (1967) p. 86. Persian estates: a vast subject. Xen. Hell. 3. 1. 25–7, 3. 2. 12, 4. 1. 15–16, 4. 1. 33. Xen. Anab. 4. 4. 2, 4. 4. 7, Oecon. 4. 5, 4. 20. P. Alcib. 24 and esp. Xen. An. 7. 8, showing that 200 serfs were a mere handful! Who owned the eleven choroi at the source of the Granicus – Kaibel Epigr. Graec. nr 335? Persians, surely; cp. E. Benveniste, Paideuma (1960) p. 199 for Persian name for these domains. On pyrgos – tyrsis – baris, cp. L. Robert, Noms indigènes en Asie Mineure (1963) pp. 14–16, with bibliography. J. Keil-Premerstein, Dritte Reise, p. 102 gives the ground plan of one such ‘tower’. Daisios: P. 16. 2, Etym. Magn. S. V. Daisios. Persian numbers: A. 1. 14. 4, but DS 19. 5 gives even fewer horse. Persian armour:Xen. An. 1. 8. 7, On Horsemanship 12; P. Bernard, Syria (1964) p. 195 is remarkable, amplifying J. K. Anderson JHS (1960) pp. 7–8, who cites an armoured Thessalian on a coin, perhaps relevant to Alex.’s cavalrymen? cp. E. Ebeling Zeits. Assyr. (1952) pp. 203ff. Battle: See my forthcoming study. P. 16 is similar to A. 1. 13–16, despite additions and slips of memory; Aristob. ap. P. 16. 15 = A. 1. 16. 4 but Aristob. certainly was not P’s sole source or A.’s only authority. A. 1. 13–16 must be agreed by Ptol. too. DS 19–21 = Fragm. Sabbait. FGH 151 F 1 lines 3–4 (encamped); QC 8. 1. 20 = DS 20. 6, against A. and P. Note the Hyrcanians in DS 19. 4: exactly right: S. 13. 629, Tac. Ann. 2. 47, Pliny NH. 5. 120; Head, BMC Lydia p. 122; A. Fontrier, Mouseion (1886) p. 11 for the site. I support DS-Cleit. against A.-Ptol.-Aristob.; note Xen. Anab. 3. 4. 35, QC 3. 3. 8 on Persian night habits, v. relevant to a dawn battle. Hatred of Sparta: e. g. Isocr. 5. 74–5, Dem. 5. 18, 6. 9, 6. 13–15; 19. 10–11, 260–2, 303–6. See now G. E. M. de Sainte Croix, Origins of the Pel. War (1972) pp. 159ff. and esp. Appendix XXX. Slogan: A. 1. 16. 4, P. 16. 18. Who drafted it? Callisthenes? New Millennium: Duris FGH 76 F. 41, and for possible Homeric overtones of the month (Thargelion = Daisios) Call. 124 F. 10A and Β (important). Nemesis: Call. F. 28; cp. J. 11. 6. 10. For the Bactrians in the Lydian-Ionian force in DS 19. 4, cp. the Bactrian names in Ionia in L. Robert, Noms indigènes and ‘Orontes the Bactrian’, leader of the satraps’ revolt in 360s.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 9 (pp. 126–142)

Asia Minor: W. Judeich, Kleinasiat. Studien(1892), G. Glotz-Cohen, Hist. Grecque 4. 1 pp. 21ff. Also M. Rostovtzeff in Studies pres. to Wm Ramsay (1923) pp. 366ff; on tyrants and Persian favourites, the lists in H. Berve, Tyrannis bei den Griechen (1967) p. 332–40 and vol. II pp. 69off. are invaluable; an inscription, as yet unpublished, has been announced by J. Crampa which documents the Persian King’s land-tax on Greek estate owners outside the poleis in Asia Minor. cp. Xen. Hell. 3. 4. 25–6 for Persian priorities here; tribute came first. First moves: J. 11. 6. 1, A. 1. 17. Troy: S. 13. 593. Zeleia: Berve S. V. Nikagoras with the (undatable) Syll. 1. 297. Sardis: A. 1. 17, with the copious evidence for interference by Persian judges and law in provincial matters: e. g. Hdt. 3. 14, 3. 31, 5. 25, 7. 194 and general statement in Dar. Bis. 1. 21. Broad survey in E.B. Kraeling Brooklyn Aramaic Pap. (1953) pp. 36ff. In the Cowley papyri from Elephantine, there are Persian judges active in Memphis as well as the colony (16. 7, 20. 4, 27. 9, 42. 2 and 7: the typt in, e. g., Daniel 3. 2 may be police-officers and the frasaka, an inquisitor: W. Eilers Iran. Beamtennamen pp. 5–43, Cowley 37 with Eilers p. 28); also in Babylonia passim – e. g. B.E. X. 97, King’s canal-judges in B.E. X. 8, 92, judges of Parysatis’s household, UM 133, judges of Gobryas’s Satrapal Court – B.E. X. 84, 97, 128, judges of the Lands by the Sea – B.E. IX. 75. Also the circuit-trials of the King’s Eyes: e. g. Cowley 27. 9, Xen. Cyr. 8. 6. 16; also, garrison-commanders have judicial powers (Cowley 1. 3,25. 2,Kraeling 8. 2f.) and Sardis had a thousand-strong Iranian garrison and a mass of Hyrcanian colonists bivouacked nearby. Also, Persia persistently encouraged the coups of oligarchs in Greek cities; in view of this brief selection from the documents, the remarks of E. Badian Anc. Soc. and Institut (1966) p. 45 are unfortunate. The Jews are no counter argument, for if Ezra applied the Torah, he also had to apply the King’s own law (Ezra 7. 25f.). At Sardis, Alex. did bring change, as he announced. Freedom and democracy: A. H. M. Jones, Greek City (1940) p. 157, with OGI 222, 226, 229, 237. Alex. and aristocrats: A. 5. 2. 2. New era: C. Habicht Gottmenschtum (1970, 2nd ed.) p. 24. Cult: S. 14. 640, P. Mor. 335A. Habicht pp. 18f. and 251. E. g. SEG 4. 521 for its persistence. Precedent: e. g. Lysander (Arch. Anz. (1965) p. 440 – decisive). Syntaxis: e. g. Tod 185. Α. 1. 17. 7 implies it was also paid at Sardis, i. e. not confined to a Greek League. Whether the Asian Greeks belonged to the League of Corinth is a modern riddle whose importance escapes me (and, I imagine, Alex.) entirely; E. Badian Anc. Soc. and Inst. pp. 43–53 restates the view of A. H. M. Jones, Greek City p. 316 note 14 as follows: some Greek cities in Asia Minor paid a Contribution; members of the Second Athenian Confederacy paid Contributions; therefore all Greek cities in Asia were members of the League of Corinth. Apart from being a non sequitur, this does not allow for Α. 1. 17. 7, implying (to my mind) that Sardis paid contributions too, without belonging to any league? Alcimachus: Berve S. V., with W. G. Forrest, Klio (1969) pp. 201–4. I believe him to be the Macedonian sent to Athens in 338. Miletus: A. 1. 18. 3f with DS 22 (different detail). Motives for fleet in 22. 5 = A. 1. 20 (mostly) = Call.? With 1. 18. 7 we should perhaps remember that Ptol. employed the Cypriot fleet himself after Alex.’s death. Is Ptol. or A. responsible for omitting the retained Athenians (DS 22. 5)? Xen. Hell. 4. 1. 14 is relevant for merits of sea, as against land, transport in Asia Minor. The financing of ships by allied Chios in 332/1 (Tod 192. 9) was probably not demanded of all allies in 334? Miletus’s magistracy: Inschr. v. Milet 122. Darius’s son: Berve Ariobarzanes, nr 116. Carta: SIG³ 45, 46, Head. Hist. Num. p. 617 (coins), Pammyes’s elegiacs (SEG 4. 191), J. M. Cook and G. E. Bean BSA (1955) pp. 143ff. G. Bockisch, Klio (1969) pp. 118ff. amasses a full history of Carian dynasts. Ada: S. 14. 656, 635 and Berve S. V.; Alexandria by Latmos (Steph. Byz., Alexandria) is probably Alinda, for there is no alternative in that area, to my mind. Halicamassus: G. E. Bean and J. M. Cook BSA (1955) pp. 85ff. is essential, pointing merits of DS 23. 4–27. Again, A. omits hostility of Athenians (DS 25. 6). Perdiccas’s sortie (Α. 1. 21. 1) cannot be a mere fiction of Ptol.’s malice as it also appears in DS 25. 5 (DS-Cleit. did not use Ptol.); perhaps it was true, or in Call., and thus inspired Ptol. for his lies at Thebes. Razing: Vitruv. 2. 8. 10–14, Plin. NH 35. 172 against A. 1. 24. 6, DS 27. 6. Ptol. had campaigned here himself in 309/8, perhaps relevant to his history? New buildings in Asia: J. M. Cook BSA (1958) p. 34; Plin. NH 5. 117, S. 1. 58 (Clazomenae); Erythrae (Plin. NH 5. 116) Ilium (DS 18. 4. 5).Priene: Tod 184/5 (where the prefix basileus is not decisive for the date). Land-gifts: the wording of Tod 186. 9–13 strongly recalls similar phrases in SIG 278 lines 9–11, OGIS 9, 10 where Successors also bestow land on Royal Favourites. K. M. T. Atkinson, Antichthon (1968) pp. 32ff. is a good survey, correcting Rostovtzeff’s implausibilities.New owners: P. Eum. 8 only certain evidence, but satraps, too, should be added. Also Macedonian tyrants such as Eupolemus, Antipatrides (Polyaen. 5. 35), Philetairos, Philomelos and the many others marshalled in Berve, Tyrannis (1967) vol. 1 p. 418 and notes to p. 718; they will not have stayed content with ordinary properties. Note, however, the possibility that despite Alex., the descendants of Procles and Damaratus continued their Aeolian estates (and tyranny?) undisturbed – T. Homolle BCH (1896) pp. 505ff. Serfs: G. Sventiskaya VDI (1967) pp. 85ff. cites very full evidence, with the proper Party bias. K. M. T. Atkinson pp. 37–41 is decisive against Rostovtzeff’s view that serfs were freed. Hyrcanians: S. 13. 629, Xen. Anab 7. 8. 15 (splendid evidence), DS 17. 19. 4 (Spithridates was also satrap of Lydia), the Pozzuoli pillar carved under Tib., Tacitean evidence and the inscriptions are admirably summarized by L. Robert Hellenica (6) pp. 19ff. We should always remember these colonies: cp. A. Keramopoullos Athena (1904) pp. 161ff.; also sites like Cambysene, Xerxene, Dareiou Kome, Cyroupedion. Citizen-Iranians: in need of study. The wise remarks of P. Bernard, Syria (1964) pp. 211ff. with full bibliography mark out a subject which I must elaborate elsewhere. Anahita: L. Robert, Hellenica (6) chaps. 2–4 is the best survey; the evidence for Asia Minor’s Magi now stretches from the Dascylium reliefs to Pausanias, with a correspondingly vast bibliography. cf. P. Herrmann, Ergebnisse einer Reise in Nordost Lydien (1962) for more detail. Iranian neokoroi: Berve S. V. Megabyzus and the remarkable inscription (annoyingly unpublished) reported by L. Robert, CRAI (1953) pp. 410–11, also said to contain some ‘beaux noms Cariens’, confirming that the hellenization of the inland Carians was a matter of the 3rd c. B.C. Note the coins of Maiphernes the Iranian at Celainae (Noms indigènes p. 349) with Anahita as a symbol. Note too the Ephesus magi in P. Alex. 3. 7 priests of Artemis-Anahita there.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 10 (pp. 143–151)

Lycian campaign: A. 1. 24. 5–29. Freya Stark JHS (1958) pp. 102ff. discusses the route, not the qualities of the evidence. Omen: P. 17. 4, very interesting. Theodectas: P. 17. 9, Onesic. F 22. Alex. of Lyncestis: A. 1. 25. Aristob. F 2B, lines 8f., an unnoticed passage probably of some significance for the source-history of Alex.: Alex. of Lyncestis did lead Thracians in 335 (A. 1. 25. 1) and was certainly thought to be present at Thebes (A. 1. 7. 6). In this frag 2B, line 24, P. insists the culprit was a Macedonian; P. Alex. 12. 3 says ‘a Thracian’, but this is merely a slip, caused by the fact that Alex. of Lyncestis led Thracians. Despite the frequency of the name Alexander, I am prepared to bet these two Alexanders are the same man and that (once again) Aristob. has (deliberately?) confused a suspect’s demise. DS 32. 1 has the true date; for Sisines, cp QC 3. 7. 11 very explicit and credible. The Lyncestian’s nephew: Berve, S. V. Amyntas Arrhabaiou; A. 1. 28. 4 with his subsequent disappearance. Alex. of Lyncestis’s death: DS 80. 2, specifying a three-year imprisonment, i. e. an arrest in 333; cp QC 7. 1. 8 (‘three whole years’). QC 8. 8. 6, 10. 1. 40 refer to ‘two proofs’ against the Lyncestian; probably this is an attempt by QC or his source to conflate the two stories of the arrest. Obviously, QC knew both stories, for the absence of the arrest in Bk 3 means he told it in Bk 2, under 334, preferring A.’s version. But his preference is no proof of truths! Naturally, A. did not mark this (probable) discrepancy between Ptol. and Aristob.; under 334, Aristob. said nothing, having said it all in 335 in the Timocleia story, which A. omitted; so he just took Ptol.’s tale, the only one available. Mount Climax: Call. F 31; presumably Call. also mentioned divine aid, hence A. 1. 26. 2 and the general agreement on it by the Alex.-historians, well noticed by Jos. A.J. 2. 2. 348. Phrygian march: QC 3. 1. 1–8. Gordian Knot: A. 2. 3, QC 3. 1. 14, J. 11. 7. 3, Ael. Nat. An. 13. 1. Macedon and Phrygia: Call. F 54, Marsyas FGH 135 F 4. cp. E. A. Fredricksmeyer CP (1961) pp. 160f. Telmissians: A. 2. 3. 3. The important point is that Alex. waited till the very last day of his stay: cp. A. 2. 4. 1. ‘on the next day’. Note that the Phrygian god was identified with Zeus the King (A. 2. 3. 6), particularly appropriate when Alex. was a king under increasingly evident protection of Zeus (e. g. rains at Sardis, eagle at Milet, Climax etc.). Greeks to return home: QC 3. 1. 9.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 11 (pp. 152–167)

Magi: Aristot. F 6, Theopomp. ap. P. Mor. 370 C, 115 F 65, with J. Bidez-F. Cumont, Les Mages hellenises, vol. 2. 78. Naval war: DS 27. 6 (Cos as base). A. 2. 1 (note Alex.’s garrison at Mitylene – 2. 1. 4) and DS 29 belong mostly in May. DS 29. 4 is vague, but 31. 4 is perhaps too pessimistic (are these Greeks on mainland?). Piracy: A. 2. 1. 2. Alex.’s fleet: QC 3. 1. 9f. Mitylene: A. 2. 1. 4; presumably a peace was agreed afresh with each new Persian king. Possibly the admirals meant ‘be our allies, free and independent as in 386’ – but their wording and esp. A. 2. 2. 3 (Tenedos) imply that the islands had been obliged as allies since 386! This is not impossible, for Persian and satrapal interference in the Aegean, 386–334, needs a new study: cp. Tod GHI 138, 155, 165, Dem. 15. 9, Polyaen. 5. 44. 3, Theopomp. F 121, Dem. 15. 3. 14 and the evidence, of course, for 336/3. Alex. and Ancyra: QC 3. 1. 22, Call. F 53. Cappadocia: S. 12. 1. 1. 4 with Geogr. Graec. Min. (Muller) 2. 86. Berve S. V. Sabictas, Abistamenes and the troops for Darius in A. 3. 11. 7. Cilician Gates: Xen. An. 1. 2. 20, QC 3. 4 (QC 3. 4. 10 = Call. F 32, 33), A. 2. 4. 3. Darius: DS 30, QC 3. 2–3; the parallels between Darius’s dress and Caligula’s alleged dress (Suet. Calig. 52) are one more point that incline me to favour a Claudian date for QC. For the sign of execution, cp. Xen. Anab. 1. 6. 10. Naval war: A. 2. 2, QC 3. 3. 1. A. 2. 2. 2 shows Pharnabazus left 190 ships in Lycia. H. W. Parke, Greek Mercenary Soldiers (1933) p. 183 maps out the numbers nicely. Cardaces: S. 15. 734 (this may not be their explanation – cp. the various passages in Stephanus’s Thesaurus S. V. Kardax, col. 960 in vol. 5 of the 1841 edition, implying the name merely meant hired troops). Babylonian colonists: G. Cardascia, Les Archives de Murasu (1951) is fundamental; on king’s estates cp. esp. W. Eilers OLZ (1934) p. 95 for Persian favourites; Cardascia pp. 82–83; fiefs: Cardascia p. 8, also Recueils de la Soc. Jean Bodin (1958) pp. 55ff. and M. Dandamayev, Festschrift Eilers (1967) pp. 37ff. (proving Median origin).Taxes and collection: Cardascia pp. 78ff. and esp. 98f. Inalienable: cp. San Nicolo, Ungnad: Neubab. Rechtsurk. 1, no. 10 and Hammurapi, Code 36–38. A creditor may seize the harvest but never the land; a woman cannot own it, either. Owner remains liable, despite lease; Ur Excavation Texts IV, nrs. 59, 60, 101, 106.Continuity of fief in Seleucid times: Moore, Neobab. Busin. and Admin Docs. (1935) p. 139. Adopted Jew: Cardascia pp. 180–1 with parallels. Cp. p. 29 n. 5 and B.E. X. 37 for family’s holdings. Compare G. R. Driver, Aramaic Docum. (1957) – e. g. no. 1. On the Jew’s weapons: E. Ebeling Zeit. Ass. (1952) pp. 203ff. As king drained silver into his own treasuries, silver for a soldier’s own maintenance and ilku would become scarcer; where were Mesopotamia’s silver mines? Darius’s dream: P. 18. 6, QC 3. 3. 2–5, DS 31. 7. His numbers: Hamilton HCPA p. 48. March: QC 3. 3. 8 (I imagine this accurate account comes from Cleit. – DS 31 has a place for it. His father Deinon wrote a sound history of Persia). Alex.’s illness:DS 31. 4 does not mention Parmenion’s letter, but his silence (!) proves nothing QC 3. 4. 15 does not guarantee Parmenion stayed in Tarsus, any more than does A. 2. 5 (after a long interval). J. 11. 8. 5 may be right; perhaps Parmenion had arrested a spy in Alex.’s rear? In view of Alex.’s sequel, I do not believe QC 3. 5. 10, DS 31. 6. For Parmenion’s ‘guilt’ cp. Ps.-Call. 2. 8. 25. The variants between P. 19, A. 2. 4. 7–11, J. 11. 8. 3–9, QC 3. 5–7 are not significant. Naval war. A. 2. 2 (Persian warships needed daily bases, hence delay in Cyclades). Parmenion’s mission. A. 2. 5. 1, Xen. Anab. 1. 4. Anchialus: A. 2. 5. 2–4 with Call. F 34, Aristob. F 9, Athen. 530 A, S. 14. 5. 9. Soli: A. 2. 5. 6, but with 7, cp. 2. 13. 4 (did Cos fall again?). Alex. of Lyncestis: DS 32. 1. Harpalus’s flight: A. 3. 6. 7, with Tauriscus who was staleis (suggesting officially). I guess Harpalus was a spy; if so, is this A.’s error or another example of Ptol.-Aristob.’s ignorance of motives in the inner sanctum? March and geography: Ps.-Scylax 102 puts Mallus on R. Pyramus (cp. S. 14. 5. 16) and Xen. Anab. 1. 4. 1–6 allows 25 parasangs (i. e. 25 hours’ march) to the port of Myriandrus (five hours’ march – i. e. on very rough road – from Syro-Cilician Gates, modern Pillar of Jonah). A. 2. 6. 2’s two-day march to near (pros) Myriandrus is perfectly possible at, say, 12 normal hours a day: cp. M. Dieulafoy Mem. de l’Acad. Inscr. et Bell.-Lett. (1914) p. 58 for parallels. Also DS 18. 44. 2 for possible march-rate of 40 miles per day, 7 days running. Parmenion’s movements: most interestingly, QC 3. 7–8 has muddled the vulgate account and A.’s (ultimate) source into an incoherent whole; cp. Plin. Epist. 5. 8. 12 for this onerosa collatio! DS 32. 2–33 does not know that Darius got round into Alex.’s rear (DS 32. 4, last sentence is decisive): QC uses this dank preliminary, hence 3. 7. 5–10, esp. 10 ignores the 2-day march (3. 7. 5) and implies Alex. waited, on Parmenion’s advice, at Issus; then, the Sisines story follows, unknown to A; QC 3. 8. 12 would fit DS 32. 3, 31. 2 but then (in defiance of 3. 7. 10) he picks up A.’s version: A. 2. 7. 1 = QC 3. 8. 13–17. Again, crazily, he returns to DS’s version: that Alex. simply waited at Issus: 3. 8. 18 and esp. 19. 3. 8. 20 is an effort to patch up his muddle; 3. 8. 22–23 = A. 2. 8. 1, then 2 (at dawn). Defying Call.’s 100 stades, he slips back to DS’s 30 stades (3. 8. 24 = DS 33. 1). 3. 8. 27–3. 9 passim = Α. 3. 10. 1 = DS 33. 4; QC 3. 10. 4 = J. 11. 9. 3, 3. 11. 1–5 goes back to A.’s source; 3. 11. 7 fits DS again. This muddle (also detectable at Gaugamela) is Curtiusat his worst. Darius’s tactics: if Parmenion’s activities in QC 3. 7. 7’s muddle are true, would these barbarians have gone off to warn Darius? The deserter’s advice: A. 2. 6. 3 = P. 20. The vulgate gives the same role earlier to Charidemus. C. L. Murison, Historia (1972) pp. 399ff. has now summarized the many old views of these preliminaries, with their refutations and a good map; I believe he has placed Issus too far south, while his pp. 420–1 make several unwarranted deductions which are not in any source (no agent would in fact have slipped out of Soli to warn Darius in Syria, because they probably, like Alex., had no idea he was there).

NOTES TO CHAPTER 12 (pp. 168–177)

Alex.’s speech: a very interesting problem. A. 2. 7. 3 may well not be A.’s own free composition; DS 33. 1 = A. 2. 7. 3 on god’s evident favour (perhaps not the most obvious comment in Alex.’s position?). J. 11. 9. 2–7 is strikingly close to QC 3. 10 and surely due to Cleit. (QC 3. 10. 1–2, preceding it, = DS 33. 4 = Cleit.). QC places his speech where A. puts his last-minute exhortation (A. 2. 10. 2), but even so they have parallels: e. g. A. picks up QC and J.’s theme of a different point to each unit (but he harps on Persian softness, not plunder) and also the prospect of conquering all Asia; A. 2. 7. 6 = QC 3. 10. 5 = J. 11. 9. 6 (cumulus picks up A.’s own favourite word peras). I would much like to know if Alex. did mention this vast prospect already (cp. A. 2. 3. 7); however, A. may have composed his speech from ‘outside information’ in Cleit and the vulgate, where the theme of world conquest was always present. At 2. 7. 8 the legetai (by whom? Ptolemy?) shows the Xen. ref. is not A.’s own. Sacrifices: Pap. Oxyrrh. FGH 148, 44 col. 2.Battle-site: A. Janke, Auf Alexanders des Grossen Pfaden (1904) p. 53 (accepted with bad arguments by F. W. Walbank, Hist. Comm. on Polyb. vol. 2, on Polyb. 12. 17. 3). W. Dittberner, Issos (1908) argued well for the Payas; the two decisive measurements are the 100 stades initially between Darius and Alex. (Polyb.-Call. 12. 19. 4: the northerly Deli requires this to be c. 160 stades) and esp. the 14-stade field width (Polyb.-Call. 12. 17. 4. Untrue of the wide Deli). Persian scoutings: A. 2. 8. 5, QC 3. 8. 27–30. Battle-sources: Call. F 35 has strongly affected Α. 2. 7–11 (though Ptol. goes one wilder: A. 2. 11. 8–9 exceeds Polyb. 12. 20. 4; A. 2. 10. 3 implies Alex. was the first to launch into a charge – cp. A. 2. 7. 4, A. 2. 10. 1 for Persian cowardice; Polyb. 12. 18. 11 implies Persians began the charge on Alex.’s right, unless Polyb. has muddled Darius’s right wing with Alex.’s. Call.-Polyb. agrees with A.’s flankguard in Alex.’s line, the order of his approach march and its thinning, Darius’s place in the centre and his 30,000 Greek mercs (A. 2. 8. 6 = QC 3. 9. 2 = Polyb.-Call 12. 18. 2) and his 30,000 front-line cavalry (A. 2. 8. 5 = Polyb.-Call. 12. 18. 2). Call.-Polyb. does not number the Cardaces, but A. gives 60,000 and QC 3. 9. 3, 5 give 40,000 + 20,000 foot on Darius’s left and left centre. So presumably Call. gave 60,000 too. A. 2. 8. 6 calls them hoplites, not peltasts, but e. g., A. 1. 1. 8 (cp. Polyaen. 4. 3. 27, line 10, Teubner 1887 edit.) shows that to a Greco-Roman a hoplite meant an ‘armed man’. It could even apply to a Foot-Companion. A. 2. 10. 3 puts Alex. on right, but does not clash with Polyb.-Call. 12. 22. 2, Alex.’s wish to be ‘Opposite’ Darius; this need only refer to the angle of Alex.’s charge into the centre. QC continues to combine two sources – 3. 9 = A. 2. 8. 5–7, 2. 9, 3. 11. 1–3 = A. 2. 9. 2, 2. 11. 2; 3. 11. 4–9 = DS 33. 6–34. 4. The vulgate clashes openly with Call.: DS 33. 1 = QC 3. 8. 23, giving 30 stades where Call. gave 100. Alexander-Mosaic: A. Rumpf AM (1962)pp. 229–41 seems to me more plausible than B. Andreae, Das Alexandermosaik (1967). Spoils: QC 3. 11. 16, 3. 13, DS 36. 5, P. 20. 6–8. Persian Queens and ladies: DS 35. 5 = QC 3. 11. 21–23 with similar stress on Fortune. Ptol.-Ar. – A. 2. 12. 3–5 = QC 3. 12. 1–12 = DS 37. 3–4· But the stress on legality in A. 2. 12. 5 is from Ptol. and/or Aristob, an interesting insight. 2. 12. 6–8 = DS 37. 5 = QC 3. 12. 13–23, ending with moralizing too, which implies this took its cue here from Cleit. P. 20 follows A; he does not mention the Hephaistion story. The vulgate (rightly) plays on Alex. and Sisyg’s friendship. Alex.’s wound: Α. 2. 12. 1 = QC 3. 12. 2 = Chares F 6 (given by Darius) = DS 34. 5 = J. 11. 9. 9 = Call. surely. Parmenion’s letter:Athen. 13. 607F-608A – genuine?Barsine: Aristob. ap. P. 21, P. Eum I – decisive for her being Artabazus’s daughter and so of royal blood by Apame, his mother. Married first to Mentor – QC 3. 13. 14, their children – then to Memnon. cp. J. 11. 10. 2. QC 3. 13. 12f. on other important captives; also, QC 3. 12. 26 = DS 38. 2 on Darius’s son.Freedom of Greeks: Theopomp. F 253 line 21. Royal Mints: Bellinger p. 50 summarizes.

CHAPTER 13 (pp. 178–193)

A. H. M. Jones, Cities of the East. Rmn Provs. (1971, 2nd ed.) and V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civiliz. of the Jews (English trans. 1961), esp. pp. 40–1 and 90ff. give a cultural outline; G. F. Hill, History of Cyprus (1940) vol. 1 pp. 125–56 and DS 16. 42ff. (misdated) are essential. On siegecraft, Y. Yadin, Warfare in Biblical Lands (1963), the definitive work of E. W. Marsden, Greek and Rmn Siege Artillery (1969/70) to which I am heavily indebted, and the important text printed by R. Schneider in Akad. der Wissensch. Göttingen, Philol.-Hist. Kl Abhandl, XII (1912) pp. 1–87 explain the developments of machinery: for defences, cp. F. E. Winter, Greek Fortifications (1971). Fire-ships:cf. Thuc. 7. 53. 4. Fire-pots: Polyb. ap. Suida S. V. pyrphoros. Ships: L. Casson, Ships and Seamanship (1971) S. V. quinquireme. O. Leuze, Die Satrapieneinteilung in Syrien (1935) pp. 193ff. is for enthusiasts only, and pedantic throughout. Sources: at sea, A. 2. 13. 4–6, QC 4. 1. 34–39 (DS 48. 5–6 = Cleit.), QC 4. 5. 13–22, A. 3. 2. 3–7 are crucial, but lack chronology. A. 2. 13. 3 = DS 48. 2 = Call.-Cleit.? on burning of ships: pirates in A. 3. 2. 4, QC 4. 7. 18. The letter at A. 2. 14 = outline of QC 4. 1. 10, and so is original, though rephrased (e. g. A.’s own word achari: 2. 14. 8). With 2. 14. 5, cp. Hdt. 3. 2 and the survival of Bistanes son of Ochus (A. 3. 19. 5). G. T. Griffiths PCPS (1968) p. 33 sets out the evidence for Darius’s embassies but draws ingenious conclusions from DS 39. 2 which are far too subjective; DS 39. 3 = QC 4. 5. 1 = J. 11. 12. 3 = Cleit. and so belongs with Tyre’s siege, not with A. 2. 14 (not implausibly arrogant letter!). The third embassy, DS 54. 2 = QC 4. 11 = J. 11. 12. 10 = Cleit. and is surely a misdated muddle, perhaps confused by Darius’s wife’s death; P. 30. 1 attributes this to childbirth, i. e. surely to spring 332 (despite C. B. Welles Loeb DS p. 277!), and A. 4. 20. 1 may support the date (though she is still alive there – 4. 20. 2, perhaps an error). Surely this ‘third’ embassy is A.’s second one; QC and J. combine the sources and so list three embassies, but in fact Cleit. omitted the Marathus one and simply misdated the others? The Halys-ofFer is the only discrepancy which may conceivably reflect Alex’s, dishonesty at Marathus or Tyre, but I doubt it. Sidon; Abdalonymus is known as a gardener to DS 47. 4 = QC 4. 1. 16 = P. Moral. 340D = J. 11. 10. 9 = Cleit., possibly. S. Smith, Practice of kingship in early Semitic kingdoms, in Myth. ritual and kingship (1958, ed. S. H. Hooke) esp. pp. 58–9 is relevant, with H. E. Hirsch, Archiv. der Orientforschung (1963) p. 5. The thorough work of V. von Graeve, Der Alexandersarkophag (1970) is important, esp. pp. 125–32; A.’s silence may possibly be due to Ptol.’s own experiences in Sidon (against Abdalonymus?) in 312. Siege of Tyre: cp. J. 9. 2. 1 off.; for the ‘cause’, Polyb. ap. DS 30. 18 on laws of war. QC 4. 2ff. is mostly very close to DS-Cleit.; he stresses the difficulties (4. 3. 7 = DS 42. 5; 4. 2. 12 and 4. 3. 25–26 = DS 44; 4. 41 = DS 45. 7). Arr.-Ptol.? omits the crucifixions (QC 4. 1. 17 = DS 46. 4 = J. 18. 3. 18 = Cleit.); A. 2. 20. 4 omits Perdiccas (QC 4. 3. 1), perhaps through Ptol.’s bias? The (agreed) heroism of Admetus must be agreed via Call. Chares F 7 ap. P. 24. 14 is valuable. Siege of Gaza: QC gives Alex. three wounds (rightly?); A. only one. Batis in QC 4. 6. 29 = Cleit.; also cp. Heges. FGH 142 F 5 with Aristot. F 495–500. Ε. Rohde, Psyche (1923) pp. 582ff. is suggestive.Resettlement: J. 18. 3. 19 (for Tyre, with siege of Antigonus); Joseph. AJ 13. 15of. (for Gaza). Kings’ coinage: Bellinger, Essays, pp. 50–6 is proof of impossibility of generalizations. The Attic standard, also, was used in Cilicia and Phoenicia before Alex: (cf. A. Reifenberg, Jewish Coins (1947) pp. 8ff.), and perhaps by Azemilk of Tyre (F. Cross, Biblical Archeol. (1963) pp. 110ff. – possibly, however, a coin of 332/1). Kings also issue own coins after Alex.; rarely, but cf BMC Catal. Phoenicia, pp. 19–20, p. 66. Alex. and Cyprus: Berve Pnytagoras, with Duris F 12; Pumiathon ruled Citium, the least hellenized port on the island, and so his penalty here would not be surprising. For the great Euagoras’s capture of Tyre, cp. Isocr. 9. 62, stressing it was taken by force.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 14 (pp. 194–218)

Barathra: DS 16. 46, 20. 73. Berve S. V. Amyntas, Sabaces. Egyptian philosophy: DL proem. 2. Pers. rule: G. Posener, La première domination perse en Egypte (1936); Ε. Seidl, Aegyptische Rechtgeschichte (1956); F. K. Kientiz, Politische Geschichte Aegyptens (1953) cover most of the scanty evidence; the introduction to E. B. Kraeling, Brooklyn Aramaic Papyri (1963) is the best survey of the Aramaic documents. For state monopolies, J. M. Wickersham, BASP (1970) p. 45 usefully points out Hdt. 2. 94, as opposed to Ptolemaic practice. Papyr. Rylands 9. 7. 10 (cp. Seidl pp. 3of.) is evidence for the long tradition of oppressing Egypt’s countrymen, no new innovation by Persia, or Cleomenes or Ptolemy. Hdt. 2. 149, 3. 89, 4. 166 gives Persian tribute; W. Spiegelberg, Die sogennante demotische chronik (1914) is an invaluable text, but written strictly from a priest’s view. Temple land: Kienitz pp. 125–6, citing the Edfu temple’s estate. For the garrisons’ evidence, see end bibliography on Persia. Semtutefnakte: H. Schaefer, Festschr fur G. Ebers pp. 92ff. Priest’s power: Plato Polit. 290 D with J. Gwyn Griffiths CR(1965) pp. 150ff.; cp. O. Murray JEA (1970), p. 141, an excellent inquiry. Artaxerxes and Apis: Deinon, ap. P. Mor. 363 C, 355 C, Ael. N.A. 10. 28. Coronation: only in Ps.-Call. 1. 34. 2, perhaps confirmed by the official titles in temples; cp. the bust of Alex. in the Pharaoh’s crown, in T. Schreiber, Studien über das Bildn. Alex (1903) p. 149. Pharaoh’s divinity: G. Posener, De la divinité du Pharaon (1960) is not convincing, but marshals the evidence; the best account is still A. Moret, Caract. Relig. de la roy. phar. (1902). Ethiopia: QC 4. 8. 3 with the Nectanebo myth in O. Weinreich, Der Trug Nektanebos (1911); Callisthenes and Nile: F 12, not implausible, even in the extreme form of 12 A; J. Partsch Abh. Leipz. Akad(1909) p. 551 is not conclusive against its truth, any more than the circular argument of P. Bolchert Neu. Jahrb. der Kl. Alt. (1911) p. 150. Alexandria: A. 3. 1. 5–3. 2. With P. 26. 5 compare Ps.-Call. 1. 32. 4 and Steph. Byz.S. V. Alexandria; QC 4. 8. 6. Rhacotis: S. 17. 792, with S.-Eratosth 17. 802. G. Jondet, Les Ports submerges de l’ancienne île de Pharos (1916) suggests an earlier harbour. Motives: P. 26. 2, A. 3. 1. 5f. cite fame; Vitruv. 2. pref. 4. plumps for commerce. V. Ehrenberg, Alex. u. Ägypten (1926) pp. 23f. stresses the harbour’s fine site. I can see no evidence, apart from relative silence, for the view of J. G. Milne JEA (1939) pp. 177ff. that Greek trade with Egypt had dried up; Dem. 56 and perhaps the Naucratis Stele (cp. U. Wilcken AZ (1900) p. 133) imply the opposite. On Alexandrian trade: S. 17. 793 is most illuminating; on Rhodes’ role, see the survey and bibliography of E. Will, Hist. Polit. du monde hellenist. (1966) vol. 1 pp. 133.-86 and the very interesting evidence for the koina of Rhodian merchants, discussed by G. Pugliese Carratelli, Annuario (1939–40) pp. 147ff., only one of which is tentatively

dated even to the 3rd c. B.C.! Early Ptolemaic trade was certainly slow to organize itself, however high it ranked in the kings’ priorities; cp. E. Ziebarth, Beitr. zur Gesch. Seeraubs u. Seehandels in alt. Griech. (1929) pp. 90ff. for comparative evidence elsewhere. Naval war: QC 4. 5. 13–22 is essential; A. 3. 2. 3–7 records it, as usual, when announced to Alex. cp. QC 4. 8. 11. Tod 191 lines 30–2 is very demonstrative; Tod 192 is too imprecise to guarantee that Alex.’s behaviour in A. 3. 2. 7 flouted its line 15. It may only have been issued after the ringleaders had been sentenced by Alex.; he could say, line 14, that they were to be arrested according to the allies’ decree, but like the Spartan ringleaders in 331/0) they had to be tried by him personally, perhaps as his allied oaths specified in dangerous cases. Also, if in line 20 mechri an means ‘until’, not ‘as long as’ (nothing is decisive for this), then the inscription may belong in an earlier context? Certainly, the comments of U. Wilcken, Alex. the Great p. 120 are too dogmatic. Visit to Ammon: C. B. Welles Histor. (1962) p. 271 must be ignored as mistaken throughout; his argument that the foundation date of 25 Tybi means an April date is easily refuted by the likelihood that Ps.-Call. used the Roman calendar, mistakenly, rather than the Ptolemaic calendar, as Welles assumes Ammon and legend: A. R. Anderson, HSCP (1928) pp. 7ff. Motives: Call. F14 (I stress that this only survives in S.’s quotation and rearrangement). Note, however, that S.’s wording implies part, at least, of the Alex.-histories was worthy of belief. The mention of Darius’s death, as predicted by oracles sent to Memphis, dates Call’s final version to 330 at the earliest. Perseus: in Egypt, Hdt. 2. 91. 2. 15 and A. B. Lloyd, JHS (1969) p. 79; evidence for Perseus in Libya is late (schol. Pind. 10. 47; Apoll. Rhod. 4. 1513, Ovid Metam. 4. 617) and before Alex., he is not said to have consulted Siwah. For his integration, Hdt. 6. 53–4, 7. 61, 7. 150; E. Babelon, Catal. des monn. grecques: Les rois de Syrie, Arménie et Commagène p. 29f., pl. 8. 1, p. 38; cp. Malalas p. 199 (ed. Bonn) for the Seleucids and the similar coin types of Mithridates’s dynasty; cp. F. Cumont, RA (1905) p. 180 and the excellent survey by G. Glotz, Dictionn. Antiqu. S.V. Perseus. As an Argive hero, Perseus would appeal to Alex. the Argead King (cp. Philip V); as a Greek-Persian link, to Alex. the new Persian king. Arrian’s motive: A. 3. 3. 1–2 I will discuss in a study elsewhere; I stress again that none of the explanatory clauses (or any other part) can be referred to Ptol. or Aristob. in particular; A. 3. 3. 6 proves A.’s wide reading and even if Ptol. was responsible, this certainly would not make the motive true, in view of the talking snakes, his own role as Pharaoh and favour for Ammon (Paus. 9. 16. 1). Not one word of A. 3. 3. 1–2 can be pinned on any one source and the alleged parallel with QC 4. 7. 8 does not impress me. Ammon’s origins: A. Fakhry, The Siwa Oasis (1944) supersedes earlier discussions; J. Grafton Milne, Miscell. Gregoriana (1941) p. 145 draws attention to a possible Libyan original; C. J. Classen, Histor. (1959) pp. 349ff. is incomplete. Amasis was deciphered by Fakhry p. 73; Cyrene: F. Chamoux, Cyrène sous les Battiades (1953), dating the Zeus Ammon temple c. 500. Amasis’s mistress: Hdt. 2. 181. Amasis’s link with Ammon helps to explain his friend Croesus’s consultation there (Hdt. 1. 46). Spread in Sparta: Paus. 3. 18. 3, 21. 8, DS 14. 13. 6 (family link). Paus. 5. 15. 11 for Olympia, with F. Chamoux, Études 2 (1959) p. 31 and the new Siwah papyrus (c. 150 B.C.?) for Parammon; this trio may reflect Egyptian practice. Pindar: Pyth. 4. 5. 9, esp. 4 line 17; Fragm. 17. Paus. 9. 16. Vita Pindari 1. 29 (Westermann) Suida S.V. Pindaros. Lysander P. Lys 20. 4, Paus 3. 18. 3 Steph. Byz. S.V. Aphute. DS 14. 13. Cimon: P. Cimon 18. 7 (some truth here). P. Nicias 13,14. 7. Athens: A.M. Woodward BSA (1962) p. 5, S. DowHTR (1937) p 184. A. Dain Inscr. grecques du Mus. du Bardo (1936) no. 1 (Zeus Ammon at Athens). IG22 1496 line 95,1GZ2 338 Eurip. Alcestis 112f.; Aristoph. Birds 618. Hipponicusson of Callias had the nickname Ammon (whatever the reason, or merit, of the story). Ammon in Aegean: cp. Head, Hist. Numm. under Melos, Mitylene, Lampsacus; also coins of Lycian dynasts in 5th and 4th c. and the most easterly reflection, the hoard of Mesopotamian seal-impressions (from Greek coins), in E. Porada Iraq (1960) pp. 220ff. Nectanebo: Fakhry pp. 77–9; his Libyan origin, as argued by Kientiz, Polit. Geschichte Ägyptens (1953), may] match up with this building interest. Curiosity: A. 3. 3. 1–2 has the word pothos where QC 4. 7. 8 has an ingens cupido; too much must not be made of their particular choice of words, but the theme of’a strong urge’ took root from Call. who (in S.’s quotation) mentioned philodoxia. Aristotle’s example: Aristot. Constit. Cyrene F 531 (Rose) and esp. F 103; cp. Athen. 2. 44D. Cyrene: DS 49. 2, QC 4. 7. 9. Oddly, A. 7·9·8, in a speech compiled by A. refers to Cyrene’s submission; I therefore suspect Ptol. suppressed it under 332/1, for Ptol. was more than a mere ‘friend and ally’ of Cyrene! Alex’s route: Bayle St John, Adventures in the Libyan Desert (1849) is the finest account; G. Steindorff, Dürch die Libysche Wüste zur Ammonsoase (1904) is also a useful survey, though his description of the site in Z. fur Äg. Sprache u. Altert. (!933) P. 1 (with H. Ricke and H. Aubin) is superseded by Fakhry and marred by mistakes. Of the sources, QC 4. 7. 10 = DS 49. 3 = Cleit., evidently much influenced by Call. (rain, guiding crows, though not the winds). P. 27. 2 quotes Call., 29 27. 1 may perhaps be his in outline too; the most important comment is in A. 3. 3. 6, on the multiplicity of stories. Aristob. agreed with crows of Call.; with Ptol’s snakes, cp. Theophr. HP. 4. 3 and Aristot. Hist Anim. 8. 29. What purpose (whether religious or merely marvellous) these snake-guides served in Ptol.’s mind, I do not pretend to know. QC 4. 7. 30 mentions camels; the description in DS 49. 6 and 50 is confirmed in detail by St John and presumably stood in Call. too (who accompanied Alex.?). Eratosth. ap. S. 1. 3. 4 and 15 is interesting; is the 3000-stade road the direct return route from Siwah to Memphis, for the Paraetonium road is only c. 200 miles (1700 stades)? If so, the measurement may be a bematist’s. Oasis: we must hope for great things from the excavation begun by Ahmed Fakhry and reported in Beitr. zur Ägyp. Bauf. u. Alertumsk. (1971) pp. 17–33 and Zeit. für Papyr. u. Epig. (1972) p. 68, its first find of importance. Spring of the Sun: Hdt. 4. 181, Aristot. F 153 and esp. Chares F 8, muddled in its geography (the fault of its quoter? cp. F 15) but surely relevant to Siwah. Bribes: J. 11. 11. 6; cp. his story of Alex.’s friends asking if they should worship him as a god (11. 11. 11), unacceptable on J.’s word alone as he is so bad here. Alex’s privileged welcome: Call. F. 14. Greeting: I stand firmly by the views of U. Wilcken Sitzb. Preuss. Akad (1928) p. 576, (1930) p. 159, (1938) p. 101; true, S., quoting Call., cites the other flatteries as ta hexes, implying he is narrating them in order. But at touto mentoi he breaks off the ordered list, in my opinion, and rounds off the list with the prime flattery of all, the ‘express remark’ (rhetos never meant ‘in so many words’ in ancient Greek!) that Alex, was son of Zeus. Wilcken’s acute reasons for seeing this as the priest’s greeting are decisive. Call.-S.’s words ‘the priest hypokrinamenou ton Dia’ show decisively that Call. (and Alex., therefore) identified Zeus and Ammon; cp. Pindar F 17 and, beyond all argument, the Athenian inscription of the 360s, recording offerings to Zeus Ammon: A. Dain, Inscr. Grecques du Bardo (1936) no. 1. For a similar identification of Amun Ra as Zeus Thebaios, cp. BMI inscriptions no 1088 (also late 4th c. b. c.). F. Taeger, Charisma (1959) vol. I, pp. 193–4 n. 17 lists Ammon and Zeus in their interchangeable guises, noting how Greek usage preferred the name Zeus. Oracle procedure: J. Cerny BIFAO (1930) p. 491, (1936) p. 40 and esp. in Brown Egyptological Studies vol. 4 (1962) p. 35 with full illustrations; these are all fundamental to DS 50. 6–51. 2. cp. Lucian De Dea Syria 7. Inner sanctum: Fahkry, Siwah Oasis pp. 72–3. Order of ceremony: greatly disputed and prob, insoluble. The size of the temple court, at least as visible nowadays, does not leave much room for a full procession as described by DS 50. 6 but S.-Call.’s word themisteia and the ‘nods and signs’ (or do symbola mean tokens, as Cerny cites for Egypt?) surely guarantees that a procession took place. R. Laqueur, Hermes (1931) p. 467 argues well that themisteia entails a procession, so S.-Call. is indeed saying that the Egyptian ritual took place and Alex.’s friends could not hear the boat properly. Hypokrinomenos ton Dia means ‘playing the role of Zeus’ only in the sense of ‘speaking his part’. I guess this took place in the sanctum after the procession, however the ‘maidens’ were crammed into the small court. Certainly I do not think DS 50. 6 is a conventional description based on Egyptian practice elsewhere; it definitely picks up Call, and is true for Siwah. Beyond all doubt, as Wilcken stressed, friends did not hear the oracle’s message; this was a secret, and remained so. Pleasing response: A. 3. 4. 5. Sacrifice: A. 6. 19. 4–5. Indica 18. 11 may be relevant; Indic. 36. 3 is not. Xen. Anab. 3. 1. 6. Legend’s questions: QC 4. 7. 26 – DS 51. 2 = J. 11. 11. 9 = P. 27. 4 = Cleit, and perhaps many others; P. 27. 5, though I doubt if these included Call. (the responses reported at Memphis in F 14 would be an anti-climax if these Siwah questions had been reported by Call.; however, anti-climax was an inevitable part of the truth and perhaps artistically satisfactory for an episode which centred on Siwah). I am impressed by the two sacrifices made according to Ammon’s epithespismos on the Indus in A. 6. 19. 4–5, each to different gods in a different way. This perhaps implies a detailed talk at Siwah, unless Alex, was invoking Ammon’s name lightly in 325. Among friends: P. 47. 11–12, also in India. Usual sacrifice: A. 6. 3. 2, where the libation (no less of an honour) is made to Heracles his ancestor and to Ammon and to the other gods, such as were his custom. Tois allois is decisive, for the sense, that Ammon and Heracles were also part of the ‘customary gods’; the text must not be emended (Tarn at his worst), and if anything follows from the mention of Heracles as propator, it is that as next in sequence, Ammon is pater, certainly not that he is nothing special at all! Nearchus cp. Ind. 35. 8, where the te proves the close identification of Zeus kai Ammon in Alex.’s mind. Hephaistion*s death: A. 7. 14, P. 72. 3, DS 115. 6. Siwah burial: DS 18. 3. 5, QC 10. 5. 4, J. 12. 15. 7. Ptolemy’s coins: H. Kricheldorf, Munzen u. Medaillen Sammler (1969) p. 641; O. H. Zervos Amer. Num. Soc. Mus. Ν. (1967) pp. 1ff. Local coins: J. F. Healey NC (1962) p. 65. Callisthenes’s stress: Τ 21, F 14 line 19 and 24, F 36; Megasthenes (see my note ad. loc.) in A. 7. 2. 3; S. 15. 1. 9. Seleucus: J. 15. 4. 3, DS 19. 90. 4, Sokolowski, Lois sacrées (1955) nr 24. OGIS 212 line 13,219 line 26. Paidios: P. 27. 9 (who were these enioi?). Only the new papyrus published in Z. für Papyrol u. Epigr. (1972) p. 68 testifies as yet to Greek at Siwah, and it belongs c. 150 B.C. But Greek must have been known since c. 500 and Cyrene’s visits; the ruler’s name of Etearchus, as hellenized in Hdt. 2. 32, may tell more of Hdt. than of Siwah’s early hellenism. Egyptian background: neat summary in M. Gyles, Pharaonic Policies (1956) pp. 48ff.; cp. J. H. Breasted, Anc. Rec. of Egypt 4. 942, Hdt. 3. 2–4. But Siwah was not a mere puppet of Egypt and though her ritual was Egyptian, she would not necessarily have greeted Alex. by a Pharaoh’s title. Did the Memphis ‘coronation’, if true, precede or follow Siwah? Opis boos: A. 7. 8. 3; J. 12. 11. 6; neither unimpeachable. Makedon: Hesiod (West) F 3, Spartan kings: Thuc. 5. 16. 2, Hdt. 6. 57–8, X. Lac. Pol. 15. 9, Hell. 3. 3. Hermes ancestry: Hellanic. 323 F 24A, C. Plato: DL 3. 1. 2, cp. Pythagoras: Porphyr. In Pythag. 2. Genesis: the two examples of mere descent quoted by L. and S., genesis, are irrelevant; Hdt. 2. 146, Soph. Trachin. 380. Both mean paternity: cp. Call. F 14 line 24, surely not just S.’s word; A. 3. 3. 2, 7. 29. 3. This is a stronger claim than, e. g. that made by Ptol. Philadelphus in OGIS 54, who is called Zeus’s apogonos. Homeric heroes – Iliad 24. 55, 66. Cp. Hesiod, Theog. 96; U. Wilamowitz, Glaube der Hellenen vol. 1 p. 332ff. for Zeus’s fatherhood. Dionysius: P. Mor. 338B. Aegis: Polyb. 12. 12.B (Call. T. 20) and the statuettes in P. Perdrizet’s Mon. Piot (1910) p. 598. Envoys in 324: DS 113. 4. Lion on womb: Ephor. 70 F 217 (prob. Ephor. was dead by 330, or at least had written his work). Thunderbolt: P. 2. 3. Letter (suspect, esp. as not in the majority tradition): P. 27. 8, as opposed to hoi pleistoi. Callisthenes: A. 4. 10. 2: could be a later anecdote, but A. 4. 10. 1 may only show A. had not read Call.’s history. Eratosthen. ap. P. 3. 3. (Eratosthen may have disbelieved Olympias’s rumour, but he certainly believed she spread it! P. M. Fraser PBA (1970) p. 198 note 2 has missed this distinction.) Anthol. Graec. 13. 725 is an interesting comparison. Margites: Scholion to Aeschin. 3. 160, Tzetzes Chiliads 4. 867,6. 592 (important), Suida S.V. Margites, Eustathius 1669. 41 in OCT Homeri opera, vol. 5 p. 158. Note how later inscriptions call Alex. son of Zeus or ho ek Dios: cp. IG 10. 275, 276, 278. Kaibel Griech. Inschr. 1088; IG 224260; all are witness to the theme’s long life. Dionysius I’s heirs: P. Dion. 2, implying rivalry between wives; Dion. 6, Theopomp. ap. Athen. 425, DS 16. 6. Dionysius II, like Alex., was the older son. Disowning Philip: P. 50. 11, with QC 8. 1. 42. But it was so natural to a Roman to overstress this, in search of something for speakers to say (e. g. QC 6. 9. 18, 6. 10. 26–27,6. 11. 5, 8. 5. 5, 8. 10. 29 – a revealing misquote of Aristob. F 47 – QC 8. 7. 13. The theme attached to Philotas probably because of his alleged plot in Egypt, A. 3. 26, otherwise inexplicable to QC’s mind!). QC 8. 1. 23 is a different matter to disowning Philip. Alex. Was already enraged anyway at Opis and Samarkand, so the mention of Ammon did not by itself infuriate him: A. 7. 9. 2 (though A.’s fiction) suggests A. himself did not believe the ‘disowning’ story. DS 18. 4. 5 is the best evidence of contemporaries’ beliefs. Athenian letter: P. 28. 2. Hamilton’s arguments, where positive, are circular and prove nothing; the wording, esp. the mildly surprising word polis, for a landed cleruchy, fits the inscriptions of the Samians returning to Samos but that is no guarantee of the letter’s truth. One more letter from the forged collection, surely. Nectanevo: Onesic. F 39 may not be a slip for Ps.-Call.; cp. O. Weinreich, Der Trug Nektanebos (1911). Scipio: Livy 26. 19. 7. Octavian: Epigramm. Bobiensia 39 with Asclepiad. 617 F 2; cp. Paus. 4. 14. 7–8 on the Messenian hero Aristomenes. The most interesting parallel is that of Arsinoe II, favoured for comparisons with a host of Egyptian gods and even called ‘child of Ammon’, perhaps by reference to Alex., more probably by reference to Egyptian Pharaonic titles. Cp. J. G. Milne, Studies pres. to F. U. Griffith (1932) pp. 32ff.; note how Roman emperors, e. g. Vespasian (Acts of Pagan Martyrs (ed. Musurillo (1954) nr. 5B pp. 15ff.) were also called ‘son of Ammon’, again, surely, by a Greek interpretation of the Egyptian ruler’s title. But by then, Egypt was hel-lenized and more of an open book to outsiders; I do not believe this interpretation was likely, let alone so significant, for Alex. and his staff in 331. At the very least, it fed on a strong wish, for Greek reasons, to believe it. Best of men: P. 27. 11, possibly a true remark once made by Alex. It is certainly independent of P.’s preceding anecdote. Alex.’s return route: so far from being ‘impossible’, it was last described by W. Jennings-Bramley in Geogr. Journ. (1896) pp. 597ff. Justinian: Procop. De Aedibus 6. 2. The sacrifice to Zeus Basileus at Memphis need have nothing to do with Amun-Ra; Alex. was King, and favoured by Zeus, and so the title (which appears late in Greek history, frequently in Boeotia) was as natural as at Gordium, where Zeus’s thunder approved the King’s cutting of the knot.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 15 (pp. 219–232)

Erythrae: Paus. 2. 1. 5, Ρlin. NH 5·116 (probably never completed); Syll. 1014 (cult c. 270 b. c.); DS 3. 34. 7 (probably Agatharchides) on sailing times. Egypt administration: A. 3. 5. 2 with QC 4. 8. 4 (muddled and brief; so much for QC as a precise source for officialdom). None of this administration was new. See esp. G. R. Driver, Aram. Docs. (1957), the most instructive source for Persian rule in Egypt, though I consider it misdated (Arsam, I believe, is the king’s son active in the 460–450S; 5. 7, despite Driver’s note, can indeed read as Inaros, the Libyan rebel, thus dating the revolt; also, Arsam’s officers Artavanta, Artahanta, Artachaya, Artarahya can all be identified with characters in Hdt. known at this earlier date). Upper and Lower Egypt: Driver 2. 2, 5. 6; and the disputed area ‘Tshetres’ (Cowley papyr., e. g. 24. 39, 27. 9) or Pathros (Pap. Ryland 7. 13) which probably (despite J. Leibovitch, Bull. Inst. Egyp. (1934/5) p. 69) means Upper Egypt. Nomarchs: A. E. Samuel, Essays in hon. of C. B. Welles (1966) p. 213 stresses the Greek term’s vagueness; however, note the old Pharaonic title of ‘Governor of the South’ in J. H. Breasted, Anc. Records of Egypt 1. 320, 364 and the frataraka (the Foremost) who is based at Elephantine (Cowl. 27) and is more than a mere general (note esp. the title’s probable use on the coins of the Persepolis dynasts of 3rd c. B.C.). If Elephantine is the administrative seat for all Tshetres or Upper Egypt, then Cowl. 16. 7, 20 and 30 give Persia’s nomarchs, 490–410. Doloaspis has the Iranian-sounding ‘aspa’ in his name. For Petisis’s, cp. the important evidence of Psamtik I’s Petisis, Papyr. Ryland vol. 3, 9. 5, esp lines 13f., with Griffith’s notes pp. 71ff. and 106ff., written also by a Petisis, a priest of the later 6th century b. c. The link of Alex.’s Petisis is strongly suggested to me by the known adherence of Semtutef-nakte (summarized in F. K. Kienitz, Polit. Gesch. Ägypt. p. 111), whose origin at Heracleopolis is probable and whose eponymous ancestor (I imagine) was also, like Petisis, highly prominent under Psamtik and thereafter. For similar continuity, cp. J. Vercoutter BIFAO (1950) p. 86. Generals and admirals: cp. the Saite practice in the useful table in M. Gyles, Pharaonic Policies and Admin. (1959) p. 76. Note how officials could hold masses of titles (cp. Kienitz p. 42). Garrisons: Aram. rab hayla (Cowley 1. 3, 16. 17 etc.). The overseer may be a King’s Eye – C. 27. 9. The secretary is prob. the scribe: Hdt. 3. 128. 3, Cowl. 17. 1, Pap. Ryl. no. 17. 2. Treasurers: no exact parallel to Cleomenes, but Cowl. 26 refers to accountants of the treasury. Berve S.V., with his coins in B. Emmons, Amer. Num. Soc. Mus. Notes (1964) p. 69. E. Will REA (1960) pp. 254ff. puts him in context; cp. B. A. van Groningen’s commentary on Ps.-Aristot. Oeconom. Bk. 2 (1933). Lucian, Rhetor. Didask. 5 may refer to his rise to power. Persian methods: Driver 7 and 12 are interesting; would Cleomenes use nothing but Egyptian agents? Temples: A. T. Olmstead, Hist. of Pers. Emp. (1948) p. 512 for references. Nectanebo: O. Weinreich, Der Trug Nektanebos (1911) is excellent. Sesostris: H. Kees, RE 2. 2 (1923) 1861f. with F. Pfister, Stud, zum Alexanderroman, Wurzb. Jahrb. für die Altertumwissensch. (1946) pp. 56ff. Hector: Berve S.V., with Jul. Epist. 50 (Loeb) 446A, to be read in context of a letter to a man called Nilus. A. 3. 26. 1 may be relevant. Samaria: QC 4. 8. 9 with F. M. Cross, Biblic. Archaelog. (1963) pp. 110ff., justifying the unfairly disputed Sanballats in Jos. A.J. 11. 311. 25. J. 36. 3 supports Curtius; F. M. Cross, HTR (1966) pp. 201ff. supports land-grants mentioned in Jos. A.J. 11. 344. This major event is omitted by Ptol. (Α.), I suspect because of Perdiccas’s role in this area later so sensitive to the Successors. Steph. Byz S.V. Gerasa (with Henri Seyrig Syria (1965) p. 25; also in Syria (1061) p. 75; also Euseb. 2. 116 and Syncell. p. 496 (Bonn) for Samarian towns; cp. Steph. Byz. S.V. Dion. Agis: A. 3. 6. 7 (whose past tense is one decisive blow against delaying the revolt till 330; QC 6. 1. 21 is another). QC 4. 1. 39 on Crete: the discrepancy between the naval orders in A. and QC is not serious: both date them at Tyre (QC 4. 8. 16) and each gives half the orders. Reinforcements: DS 49. 1 = QC 4. 6. 30, QC 5. 1. 40–1. I cannot agree with the conjecture of G. Wirth, Historia (1971) p. 629 that these men fought Agis, then were shipped across a winter sea to Syria! Islanders: QC 4. 7. 12. Achilles: A. 3. 6. 2. Ammonias: Ath. Pol. 61. 7 with Dein, F 14. 2. This is the first example of the subsequent practice of naming a ship after a god: I believe it was a careful flattery, made in the months after Agis and news of Gaugamela. Mytilene: J.R. Healey N.C. (1962) p. 65 where the dating depends on the plausible assumption that Alex.’s own coin-types and standards grew to exclude any new Mitylenean issues in the latter half of his life and that this issue is Mytilene’s own last electrum type. Cp. Tod 201 lines 45–7 (I agree with Welles and Bickerman on a 332/0 date); we should remember Erigyius, Laomedon and Chares, all highly honoured Mytilenaens with Alex. Army quarrel: Eratosth. in P. 31. 1–5; very remarkable. Cypriots: P. 29 with Berve, Stasanor, Nicocreon, Pasicrates. Numbers: A. 3. 12. 5. Supplies: QC 4. 9. 12’s 11 days cannot be for the whole stage from Tyre to Thapsacus; only a partial measure like most in the sources. A. 3. 6. 8 shows the problem; Xen. Anab. 1. 10. 18 the scale. DS 19. 58. 2–3, 20,75. 3 for parallels. Darius’s alleged third peace-offer: QC 4. 11, DS 54, J. 11. 12. 7–16, P. 29. 7 and the story of Tireus (A. 4. 20. 1–4) which belongs in 332, if anywhere. Two routes: E. W. Marsden, Campaign of Gaugamela (1964) p. 12, an entertaining book but frequently mistaken. Xen. Anab. 1. 4–6 with R. D. Barnett JHS (1963) pp. 1ff. Julian’s camp: Amm. Marc. 24. 1f. Mazaeus: A. 3. 7, DS 16. 42 and J.P. Six, Num. Chron. (1884) pp. 97ff. DS 55. 1–2 and QC 4. 9. 12 muddle the Euphrates and the Tigris and the two different operations, one on each river: (1) Mazaeus with 3000 (A. 3. 7) or 6000 (QC 4. 9. 7 and 12) horsemen to bar the Euphrates and probably burn its south route: (2) Satropates and 1000 men to burn granaries on the Tigris’s far. bank. QC 4. 9. 7, 14 (where Mazaeus may be an error). Some 6 weeks divided these two tasks. Thapsacus: I share the doubts of Barnett p. 3 n. 8 over the new northerly site suggested by W. J. Farrell JHS(1061) pp. I53ff. Note too, it was only 7 stages by river from Babylon: Aristob. F 56. 11 line 18. Alex.’s route:A. 3. 7. 3; S. 11. 9. 1 on gold mines; Erat. in S. 2. 1. 38 on the distance. Tigris: A. 3. 7. 5 with DS 55. 3 = QC 4. 9. 15–21. Compare DS 19. 17. 3; also Liban. Orat. 17. 262–3, Amm. Marc. 24. 8. 5, 24. 6–7 for Julian’s predicament here. Marsden’s chronology p. 75 is wrong; his conjectures for Persian battle-numbers make too many unjustified assumptions. Darius’s advance force: A. 3. 8. 1, QC 4. 9. 24 = 4. 10. 10 (Satropat. and 1000 men in QC 4. 7. 9). Ariston’s heroics in P. 39. 1 belong here. Panic: Polyaen. 4. 3. 26, QC 4. 12. 14–17, P. 31. 5. Daybreak attack: A. 3. 9. 2–3. Alex’s retort: P. 31. 11 = A. 3. 10. 1 = QC 4. 13. 3 = Call, surely (A.’s legousi can include Ptol. and Aristob.).

NOTES TO CHAPTER 16 (pp. 233–243)

Alex, asleep: P. 32, DS 56, QC 4. 13. 17–25, J. 11. 13. 1–3. New weapons: QC 4. 9. 3–5, DS 53. 1–2. Stakes: QC 4. 13. 36, 4. 15. 1, Polyaen. 4. 3. 17 (Marsden pp. 41ff. is not convincing). Alex.’s battle-order: DS 57 = QC 4. 13. 26–31 = A. 3. 12 (except for the new leader of Amyntas’s battalion) = Call., surely. Amphistome taxis: Polyb. 2. 28. 6, Arr. Tact. 29. 1, Asclep. Tact 3. 5. Reserves: Thuc. 5. 9. 8, Xen. Anab. 6. 5. 9, Xen.-Hell. 6. 4. 12. Caesar’s example: Dio 41. 34. 1. Diothen gegonos: cp. Isocr. Euagoras 13–14, 9. 3. Persian battle-order: Aristob.-A. 3. 11. 3= QC 4. 12. 6f. (who fills Aristob.’s gaps) = Call., surely. A. 3. 8. 3 gives the commanders, not their battle order, and so is not a doubtlet of 3. 12 or obviously drawn from Ptol. Curtius’s two sources: 4. 13. 17–34 = DS 57; 4. 14. 8 = DS 59. 2 4. 15. 1–11 = DS 59. 5–8; 4. 15. 12–15,18–19 fit A. 3-I3. 3. 14. 1–2. Alex’s own heroics: A. 3. 14. 3, DS 60. 1, QC 4. 15. 19. Persian flight: A. 3. 14. 3–6 remains very puzzling: as at Issus, A. is harsher on Darius’s own conduct than either DS or QC (note 4. 16. 9 – from a Persian captive?) Parmenion’s message: contrast Call. ap. P. 33. 10 (how much of this quote is Call’s own?) with DS 60. 8, A. 3. 15. 1 and QC 4. 16. 2, 19 claim the message was obeyed; DS 60. 7 (Alex. was too far away to be reached) picks up QC 4. 16. 3; probably QC again combined two different stories and hence the clumsiness of 4. 16. 16–19. P. does likewise; P. 32. 5–7 may be DS’s story (cp. Polyaen. 4. 3. 6), whereas 33. 9 matches A. Hamilton HCPA p. 83 defends the “structure’ of these chapters without explaining the absurd tenses used in 37. 8. The wounded around Alex.: QC 4. 16. 32 = DS 61. 3 = A. 3. 15. 2 = Call.? Alex.’s letter to Greeks: P. 34. 2. South Italy: P. 34. 3 with Hdt. 8. 47; proof that Alex. (and his staff) knew Hdt.’s works? Mount of Victory: S. 16. 1. 4, 15. 1. 9, Dio 36. 50. 3, Suet. Aug. 18. 2 Cp. Zoroaster F 12 with J. Bidez-F. Cumont, Les Mages hellénisés vol. 2. 119.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 17 (pp. 244–257)

Motives: DS 65. 5 = QC 5. 2. 8 = Cleit. A. 3. 19. 1 may be comparable (ultimately Call, via a Persian captive?). Enioi in DS 85. 5 is v. interesting. I imagine this is not DS’s wide reading, but a reflection of different stories related by Cleit. side by side. March south: DS 64. 3 = QC 5. 1. 11, perhaps explained by Amm. Marc. 23. 6. 16–17. Persian Babylonia; G. Cardascia, Les Archives des Murasu (1951) is fundamental and an outstanding study; G. Driver, Aramaic Documents (esp. nos. 2 and 5 with notes) is relevant. Fertility: Hdt. 1. 192, 3. 92–94, esp. Hdt. 1. 193. Theophr. HP 3. 3. 5, Xen. Anab. 1. 6f. Palm-trees: E. Benveniste J. As. (1930) pp. 193–225. Foreign soldiers: Cardascia pp. 6–7, B.E. 9. 28, 10. pp. 8ff. Parysatis: Xen. Anab. 2. 4. 27 (slaves), UM 50, 60, 75 and esp. 133. Xen. Anab. 1. 4. 9 Ctesias F 89, Plato Alcib. 1. 123B. Bagoas’s estate: Theophr. 2. 6. 2 Ephemerides 117 F 2. Named estates: Cardascia pp. 82–3 for 4 Iranian squires. Arsames’s leases: Driver passim, usefully summarizing the nine documents on pp. 88f.; cf. I. M. Diakonoff VDI (1959) p. 70. Favourites: W. Eilers, Iran. Beamtennamen p. 52, 90 on a eunuch from Paphlagonia. Guarantee: VS 6. 171. King’s land: B.E. 9. 7, UM 2. 16, 73. 5, 58, 59 and crop-yields in Cardascia p. 160. UM 133, vol. 2. 1. 63 (chickens). Canal-leases: Cardascia pp. 77, 130, B.E. 10. 84, 123. 10. 54 is a fishing lease. Welcome: QC 5. 1. 17F. (important, and cf. F. Pfister, R-E Supp. 4. 277. S.V. Epiphaneia for religious parallels). Inflation: W. Dubberstein AJSL (1939) p. 20 collects scraps of evidence and generalizes wildly regardless of the sold goods’ quality the scanty information and so forth. Interest rates: Cardascia p. 5: 13½% under Nebuchadnezzar becomes 40–50% for Murasu (B.E. IX 6, 66, 68 – their lending was higher risk, however, and their capital overheads were larger). Cp. G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, The Babylon. Laws I pp. I73ff. (c. 20% in Assyrian and Babylonia Old periods). Cowley Pap. 10 and 11 are fine parallels: c. 60% rate for silver. Kraeling Pap. 11. 3 shows the far higher rate (50% a month) paid for grain: throughout, special factors must be considered. But 6–8% was common in Roman Egypt and the Achaemenids were draining silver out of the provinces into Susa. Slaves: the garda on Babylonian estates – B.E. X. 92, 127, 128, 95, 118 – are probably Royal Workers – W. Eilers, Iranische Beamtennam, pp. 63–7. Their exact status is uncertain; Russians assume they are slaves, and stress the clauses against slaves’ escape (no new feature in Babylonian – or any other – law – cp. for Alex., Ps.-Aristot., Oecon. 1353A). M. A. Dandamayev, Palestin. Sbornik (1965) p. 84 discusses detailed lists of fugitive slaves most interestingly. Callisthenes: Jacoby Τ 3 with Theon. Alex. Comm. on Almagest. 3. 1 and B. L. van der Waerden, Archiv für Orientforsch. (1963) p. 98. Bel and priesthood: A. 3. 16. 4–5 with I. M. Diakonoff in Festschrift B. Landsberger (1963) pp. 343ff.; G. H. Sarkisian VDI (1952) pp. 68ff. and A. Aymard REA (1938) pp. 1–42, an outstanding survey. The King and the temples I must discuss elsewhere; cp. M. Dandamayev VDI (1966) pp. 17–39 (excellent) and Festschrift Franz Altheim pp. 82ff. (tithes). But note Ps.-Arist. Oec. 1352B for their return in 323 b. c. Favours: G. H. Sarkisian V.D.I. (1953) pp. 59–73 with S. Smith Babyl. Hist. Texts (1924) pp. 150–9; also Eos (1957) pp. 29–44. Alex.’s governors’. A. 3. 16. 4 with QC 5. 1. 43, DS 64. 6. The lion-staters in Bellinger pp. 62–5 are not nearly so certainly dated as many imply; their Attic standard had been in use for years in Phoenicia and despite the hint of their four mint-marks (for each of Mazaeus’s four years in Alex.’s Babylon?) they could belong to the late 340’s or 334–1. For a possible link with Babylon, Berve S.V. Antibelos, Brochubelos or Artiboles. But the name Mazday-Mazaeus is derived from Ahura-Mazda. Babylon’s sights: F. Wetzel-E. Schmidt-Α. Mallwitz, Das Babylon der Spätzeit (1957); F. E. Ravn, Herodotus’s Description of Babylon (1942) – very useful. R. Koldewey, Das Widerestehende Bab. (1925) and esp. Die Königsburgen von Babylon (1931/2, two parts); cp. now the good survey in F. Schachermeyer, Alex. in Babylon (1970) pp. 49ff. Hanging gardens: P. 38. 15, Mor. 648 C, Theophr. HP 4. 4. 1 (is the failure of the ivy a sly hit at Alex.’s parallels with Dionysus? cp. the preceding sceptical reference to Meros and Dionysus). Pay: QC 5. 1. 45 = DS 64. 6. This could total over 2000 talents at a stroke. Reinforcements: DS 65. 1 = QC 5. 1. 39–42, as opposed to A. 3. 17. 10 (A. is v. thin through all this phase). Agris’s revolt: dated by QC 6. 1. 21 (against DS, never a source for chronology). DS 73. 5 = QC 6. 1 (admitting he recounts it out of place); DS 62 is better placed; 63. 1 is important. Susa treasures: QC 5. 2. 8, P. 36. Demaratus: P. 37. 7, P. Ages 15. 4, Mor. 329 D, DS 66. 3 with QC 5. 2. 13–15 (note the broad correspondence between them, even in their reported speech, though DS adds stress on the changes and chances of Fortune). A. Alfoldi, La Nouvelle Clio (1950) p. 357 is not decisive; theories such as H. Montgomery. Opusc. Athen. (1969) pp. 1ff. (that the eunuch’s wailing was ritual) are absurd. Greek festivals: A. 3. 17. 6, QC 5. 2. 17 = DS 67. 1. Nomads: DS 67. 4 = QC 5. 2. 3. A. agrees on the alternative route (A. 3. 17. 2), but not on the repulse (QC 5. 3. 9) or Tauron’s attack. Ptol. ap. A. 3. 17. 6 matches QC 5. 3. 12 but not 5. 3. 15; I do not pretend to understand how Ptol. and Cleit. (?) could partially agree, without Aristob. (and so not via Call.?). Persian Gates: Aurel Stein, Geogr. Journ. (1938) pp. 314ff, E. Herzfeld, Peterm. Mitteil. (1907) map 2 with Ur tablet 292 for Keys of Ansan (Persian kleides) and the Arab Hamdallah nuzhat 129. Battle: DS 68 = QC 5. 3. 4 = Cleit. A. 3. 18. 2 exaggerates the numbers given in DS 68. 1 = QC 5. 3. 17; A. 3. 18. 3 is as reticent about defeat, as usual. QC 5. 4. 20 and 30 mistakes role of Coenus’s brigades – A. 3. 18. 6. The hill-march was fearfully quick: A. 18. 6 says dromoi, and proves the lightness of the hypaspists. A. 3. 18. 9 does not specify this Ptol. as Ptol. Lagou. P. 37. 2 = QC 5. 4. 10 = Polyaen. 4. 3. 27 on Lycian guide. QC 5. 4. 14 might be a corruption for archers and cavalry (cf. A. 3. 18. 4); Polyaen 4. 3. 27 gives Meleager’s role to Hephaistion and Philotas. ‘Most hateful city’: DS 70. 1 = QC 5. 6. 1. Greek prisoners: J. 11. 14. 11–12, DS 69. 2 = QC 5. 5 (4000, not 800 Greeks but DS 69. 8 = QC 5. 5. 24).

NOTES TO CHAPTER 18 (pp. 258–264)

Persepolis: E. F. Schmidt, Persepolis (1953–7) vols. 1 and 2; G. Walser, Die Volker-schaften aus der Persepolis Reliefs (1966); the astronomical speculations of W. Lentz, W. Schlosser ZDMG (1969) p. 957 seem to me to be irrelevant. Most hateful city: QC 5.6.1 = DS 70.1 = Cleit. Slaughter: DS 70.2 = QC 5.6.6 = P. 37.3 (referring to Persepolis, after a presumed gap in the Mss.). Camels: DS 71.2 = QC 5.6.9. Pasargadai: QC 5.6.10, A. 3.18.10; the prote epidemia in Aristob. F 51B line 22 is distinct from the restoration in 324, despite the slightly vague order of events in lines 15–25. Persian campaign: QC 5.6.12–19 (30 days). Dating: QC 5.6.12, where the Mss. are corrupt and the subanyway imprecise. The heavy snow suggests a mid-March campaign; DS 73.1 has inverted the sequence. Alex. prob. reached Persepolis in mid-Jan 330 and left (P. 37.6) in mid or late May; the confusions expressed in C. A. Robinson AJP (1930) pp. 22fF. are one more example of the failure of scholars to realize how fast an army, esp. Alex.’s army when smaller and hungry, can march through mid-Iran’s bare steppes (cf. R. D. Milns Hist. (1966) p. 256 for another instance of this). S. 15.2.10 means what it says: Nov. 330, a possible date, as my text shows. Appointments: A. 3.18.11, with Berve s.v. Rheomithres QC 5.6.11. The burning: A. 3.18.11–12 (Ptol.?), if S. 15.3.6 is indeed from Aristob. who omits (thanks to S.’s quotation ?) Parmenion’s advice. But surely here, of all places, if Ptol. had disagreed with Aristob, A. would have given his alternative. Alex.’s regrets: P. 38.8 (agreed, and immediate); QC 5.7.11 (‘agreed,’ and immediate). A. 6.30.1 (six years later). Whether Alex, regretted it on the spot and ordered instant extinguishing is far more dubious (A., QC 5.7.6–8, DS do not mention or imply this), so too much must not be built on P. 38.8’s airy remark. Even if ordered, archaeology proves extinguishing did not succeed. Thais: Cleitarch. F. 11, hence QC 5. 7. If (stresses wine), P. 38 (is 38. 7 a guess?); DS 72 is Dryden’s source, stressing the madness and the Dionysiac revel. It is important that all versions alike stress the theme of revenge; that, at least, may be due to Call.? Thais and Ptolemy P. 38. 2. Athen. 13. 576D. SIG 314; certainly DS and QC play up the heroic role of women (Sisygambis, the Amazon, Spitamenes’s wife etc.) and their source stresses Ptol. perhaps even more than Ptol.’s history (DS 103. 6 = QC 9. 8. 22, DS 104. 5 = QC 9. 10. 6 = Cleitarchus who after all, was an Alexandrian), but I doubt if these two tendencies could combine to invent his mistress as a pyromaniac. QC 5. 7. 10 for what it is worth, sees through the A. story, firmly dismissing it as mere cover.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 19 (pp. 267–278)

Pursuit of Darius: G. Radet, Mélanges Glotz vol. 2 (1932) p. 765; also A. von Stahl, Geogr Journ. (1924) p. 312 for the end. Reinforcements: QC 5. 7. 12, muddling Socrates the Macedonian with Plato the Athenian! Probably these troops brought the news of Agis’s revolt: whether P. Agesil. 15 bears any relation to the truth (who would record it, in Media?) I cannot say. Darius’s plans: QC 5. 8. 1 = A. 3. 19. 1, 5. 8. 2 = DS 73. 2 = A. 3. 19. 3 for the second one. Isfahan: Tabae in QC 5. 13. 2–3 shd be Gabai, for it was on the Media-Paraitacene border (A. 3. 19. 4) and a palace at Gabai is named there by S. 11. 1. 18, DS 19. 26. 1, 34. 7. Persepolis to Hamadan is a rugged 450 miles, taking about 6 weeks. Crusade ends: A. 3. 19. 5, against QC 6. 2. 17 = DS 94. 3 (Cleit.). At Gaugamela, Erigyios led the allied horse, but at 3. 20. 1, in Hamadan, he leads mercenary horse; evidently his allied unit had broken up. Cleit. did not serve as a Greek ally, then, for he did not know when the allies were sent home. DS 74. 3–4 (QC 6. 2. 17) explains the ‘Volunteers’ in A. 3. 20. 6. Parmetiion’s orders: A. 3. 20. 7, an inexplicable passage, as he seems to have disobeyed it; the only purpose in going to Hyrcania would be to meet Alex. But he never did. At 20. 8, Cleitus is the Black, the future Hipparch. Finance: A. 3. 20. 7 probably refers only to a part of Persian treasure, as much was being convoyed to Susa (DS 71. 2); DS 80. 3 contradicts this, wrongly? We do not know if there was a Head Treasurer, still less if Harpalus was such a chief. Readers of A. R. Bellinger, Essays p. 48ff., A. Andreades, Annales d.’histoire économ. (1929) pp. 321ff., R. Knapowski in Geschichte Mittelasiens im Altertum (1970, ed. F. Altheim-R. Stiehl) will recognize that we cannot usefully plot Alex.’s finances at all, apart from remembering the problem. Knapowski’s detailed sums are the most positive attempt, but are full of unargued assumptions; I stress that we know next to nothing of payment in kind, sharing of booty (apart from the baggage-burning), Alex.’s weight-system (what was a talent to him?), his army pay (DS 64. 6 is not necessarily the pay for Macedonian troops for 2 months; Tod 183 proves nothing; A. 7. 23. 3 is the one landmark, but only for 324, and are we sure the stater is an Attic stater?); only a simple faith in Ms. figures could suggest that J. 12. 1. 3 (190,000 T at Hamadan) and DS 80. 3, S. 15. 3. 9 (180,000 T with Parmenion in Hamadan) mean that 10,000 T were taken east by Alex. himself! For evidence of bullion with Alex., 330–25, cp. QC 8. 12. 15; gold would be more precious in relation to weight. Travelling mints in Iran are known (e. g. the coins of Gotarzes the Parthian stamped kata ten strateian (but if a bar-currency were in use in Iran anyway (cp. A. D. H. Bivar, Iran (1971) p. 97 for this liklehood) minting would not be necessary. All in all, an insoluble problem and one which the fearfully tedious classification of Alex.’s coinage cannot advance, except further to weaken any lingering generalizations. The implication of DS 74. 5 = QC 6. 2. 10 (if this is not mistakenly applied to Alex.’s own officers) are far reaching. Post-houses: cp. Persep. Fortif. Tabl. 1351, 1358, 1555. Driver 6. Ps.-Ar. Oecon. 1353A. Alex.’s route: note he has divided his forces at Hamadan for speed and easier supplies. QC 5. 13 is hopelessly confused, ignoring his stay at Hamadan. For 9-day caravan-journey to Rhagae, cp. the comparative figures in J. Marquart Philolog., Supplem. 10 (1907) pp. 19ff.; A. 3. 20. 2 prob. applies to all 11 of Alex.’s days, implying he made a detour. Darius’s arrest: QC 5. 8. 6–12. 20 is rhetoric and not due to any mercenary source (though Bagoas and others must have discussed the affair later). Its few details are mostly known to A. (21. 1, 4–5, 10); the numbers are too high (A. 16. 2, 19. 5). Barsaentes is omitted; Darius is made to ‘know’ Greek (QC 5. 11. 5 – actually believed by Marsden Gaugam. p. 6!) so that he can make a speech proving how a Greek had saved him (QC 5. 11. 9); in fact he needed an interpreter (QC 5. 13. 7) whose capture coincided with A. 3. 21. 4; possibly he was the source of enemy details in 21. 4–6? Pursuit: von Stahl pp. 312f. ends it near Damghan, to my mind more plausibly than Radet’s more distant Shahroud. In the last 18 hours, Alex, does between 45–50 miles; as Damghan was about 200 miles away and he took 6 days, he may have spent a day foraging before setting out? J. 11. 15. 1 calls the village of the arrest Thara, surely Chavar (Pliny NH 6. 17. 2 – Choarene). Darius’s death: A. 3. 21. 10 (22. 2 has the usual poor view of Darius, perhaps A.’s own as much as his sources, though it is a recurring theme, not shared by QC-DS). A.’s account does not rule out P. 43. 3–4, though much adorned (cp. P. 30. 12, A. 4. 20. 3); cp. J. 11. 15, QC 5. 13. 24. One wonders who gave the alternative version in DS 73. 4; is this known to DS from his own reading, or had Cleit. mentioned it from, e. g., Onesicritus? Alex.’s behaviour: P. 43. 5, Mor. 322F. QC 6. 2. 7 (this Hystaspes is a very important figure in Alex.’s life: cp. A. 7. 6. 5). Gifts: P. 74. 5. QC 6. 2. 10, both to be referred back to Hamadan. DS 78. 1. Persian borrowings: Hdt. 1. 135. 2 Medes’ legacy: I. M. Diakonov, Istoriya Midii (1956) is a remarkable study, followed by a brilliant paper in W. B. Henning, Memorial Vol. (1968) pp. 98ff. on Median as source of Old Persian; M. Mayrhofer Anzeig. der Österr. Akadem. (1968) pp. 1ff. is an adventurous attempt at reconstructing the Medes’ lost language; the excavations at Nush-i-Jan (Iran, 1968ff.), Takht-i-Suleiman (ed. H. H. von der Osten, 1962) and other sites listed in W. G. Culican, Medes and Persians (1965), a book better on Medes than Persians anyway, all add to a growing study. For their tribes, cp. H. von Gall, Arch. Mitt. Iran (1972) pp. 261ff. Their court life: the outstanding chapter by W. Hinz, Iran funde u. Forschungen (1968), pp. 63ff. has put this in a new light; Hdt. 1. 99, the first two books of the Cyropaedia, Hdt. 1. 135, 7. 6. If. are but a few of the classical sources which fit his observations from Persepolis’s reliefs. Babylon: cp. D.J. Wiseman, Iraq (1966) p. 155, A. J. Sachs, Iraq (1953) p. 167, G. Widengren, Anc. Near East Relig. (1951) pp. 20ff. ‘King of Kings’ is a title known in Urartu; if the Persians borrowed this symbolism, did they ever take these elements seriously? Their own nomad rituals are a different matter. Persep. Fortif. Tablets nos. 1807, 1810, 1821–2, 1828,1830. Greeks and others: G. Goossens, La Nouv. Clio (1949) pp. 32ff. is still useful. It is odd that R. T. Hallock did not identify his official ‘Yauna’ (PF 1800, 1810) as a Yona, i. e. a Greek, prob. an interpreter, or his Karkis (PF 878, 882), as, surely, a Carian, whose compatriots were settled as sailors by Darius I on the Persian Gulf. Intermarriage: G. Cardascia, Murasu pp. 6–7, Rec. de Soc. J. Bodin (1958) pp. 115ff. Clay-Hilprecht B.E. 9. pp. 27–8,10 pp. 8–9, 88. Kohler and Ungnad, Hundert ausge-wahlte Rechtsurk. (1911) p. 73. Kohler-Peiser Aus dem babyl. Rechtsleben (1898) vol. 4 p. 5 is p particularly nice example. Whipbearers and Medes: W. Hinz, Iranische Funde, pp. 63ff. Bureaucracy: Fortific. Tablet 6764 quotes the King’s own words, an apt reminder that Persian rule was personal, despite the hordes of workmen and supply officers now revealed in R. T. Hallock’s Fortification Tablets: PF 1940,1957,1997 are cited for backlog of work, but it must be stressed that the translation of these documents is mostly an act of faith. Seclusion: Hdt. 1. 99, 3. 84. Xen. Cyr. 8. 4. 2, 8. 3. 10, Hdt. 7. 16, Chares F 4. – Dinners: Esther 1 and 5, Heracleid. 689 F 2. Deinon ap. Athen. 146C, DS 11. 69. 1, Poseidon. F 68 (exaggerated?). Food-offerings: Theopomp. F 124, an intriguing complement to Corp. Inscr. Graec. 2693B, possibly of the 5th c b. c., though these sacrifices were presumably offered to men like Mausolus too. G. Widengren Numen, Supplem. 4 (1959) p. 242 makes interesting suggestions, not all valid. Royal dress: P. Themist. 16. 2, Artax. 24. 6, Xen. Cyrop. 1. 3 and 8. 3; also G. Thompson Iran (1965) p. 121. Anne Roes, Iran. Antiqu. (1964) P. 133 and Bibl. Or. (1951) P. 137 with full bibliographies. The exact nature of the tiara can be disputed by invoking late lexicographers and the problem of the kidaris; I believe the Persepolis reliefs show the king in the ‘upright’ tiara and kidaris, and written evidence is too late or confused to realize the two terms refer to one style. Liongriffin: G. F. Hill JHS (1923) p. 156. Accession ritual: P. Artax. 2, Nicol. Damasc. 90 F66 with the brilliant analysis by A. Alfoldi, Schweiz. Archiv für Volkskunde (1951) pp. 77ff. There is no evidence that Alex. knew the Cyropaedia or indeed had to, once bilingual courtiers had joined him to talk of Cyrus. Alex.’s legendary proclamation: Ps.-Call. 2. 21. Elburz campaign: A. 3. 23–24; DS 75–76 = QC 6. 2–6. 5 very closely, differing from A. and giving an accurate landscape. Bagoas: Indica 18. 9 (despite Berve) is the neatest proof of his existence and high favour; it may be right to identify his father with Pharnouches the Lycian in A. 4. 3. 7 (perhaps a Greek-speaker?). Bagoas’s house at Babylon (Diaries Fl; misplaced in P. 39. 6) was not the eunuch’s (Plin. NH 13. 41) DS 5. 3–6 is a bit suspicious on Bagoas the elder’s manner of death, but age and looks probably disqualify this one from being the same man, and Nabarzanes his fellow surrenderer was anyway the new Chiliarch in the old Bagoas’s place. Caspian: Aristot. Meteor. 2. 1. 10, S. 11. 7. 4–5 say nothing of Alex.’s own view. J. R. Hamilton CQ (1971) pp. 106ff. needs rearguing, not least with the knowledge that the water of the south Caspian is famously sweet (e. g. Camb. Hist. Iran vol. 1 p. 48). Amazon: P. 46, Cleit. F. 16 (via Onesic.?) with J. 12. 3. 5, DS 77. 1f., QC 6. 5. 24 and M. Rostovtzeff, Iran. and Greeks in S. Russia (1928) for matriarchy Persian friends: Berve s. v. Artabazus, Phrataphernes, Nabarzanes, Bagoas, Autophradates; note QC 6. 2. 9 on their numbers; the ‘conquest’ of the forest tribes (cp. Baeton F 1 for their habits) will have impressed these Iranian nobles, whose descendants would later prefer the Arab invader to the threat of the mountain peoples. Alex.’s dress: Eratosth. ap. P. Mor. 330 A and the negative evidence of art (on the Alex. medallion, Alex. wears his two-plumed helmet, as on the Mitylene coins, not the King’s tiara), together with Cleit. DS 77. 5 refute the excesses and inaccuracies of P. 45. 1–2, A. 4. 7. 4, 8. 4, 9. 9, QC 6. 6. 4 and J. 12. 3. 8f. Wearers of purple: DS 77. 4–5 with Xen. Anab. 1. 2. 10; the splendid Macedonian horseman in P. Couissin, Instit. mil. et naval. (1932) plate 1; P. Eum. 8. QC’s purpurati have a precise background, though loosely applied. Honoured Friends: e. g. A. 2. 11. 8 and 9, with 1. 17. 4 (is en time a precise phrase?). Indica 27. 8 (same phrase, in Ionic). Cp. Welles, Royal Correspondence nr 44 line 2, 45 for Hellenistic continuity. Concubines: DS 77. 6, QC 6. 6. 8. Diadem: Livy 24. 5. 4 for Sicily: H. W. Ritter, Diadem und Königsherrschaft (1965); H. Brandenburg Stud, zur Mitra (1966). Caesar: Dio 44. 11. 2, 44. 15. 3. For nuances to the kandys, or sleeved cloak, which Alex. rejected, cp. A. Alfoldi, Stud. in Hon. of A. M. Friend (1955) pp. 40ff. Letter forms: Chares F 10, QC 6. 6. 6, ‘Spoils of victory’: QC 6. 6. 5. Brother-in-law: Berve s. v. Alexander of Epirus. J. 12. 1. 4. Hecatompylos: DS 75. 1, QC 6. 2. 15, name omitted at A. 3. 23. 1, though A. wrote a book on Parthians. Site found by J. R. Hansman JRAS (1968) pp. 111ff.; Eratosth. in S. 11. 8. 9 gives a distance which does not suit this site, but Eratosth.’s figures are not reliable or uncorrupt: e. g. the absurd distances given in S. 15. 3. 1. Parthian measurements in S. 11. 9. 1 do fit Hansman’s site (his short stade is a needless muddle, as the number of stades is only given roundly); von Stahl Geogr. Journ. (1924) pp. 312ff. had ended the pursuit of Darius anyway on Hansman’s site; the rock Stiboetes (QC 6. 4. 3, DS 75. 2) fits it well: P. Pedech REA (1958) p. 67. Speech and answer: DS 74. 3, J. 12. 3. 2–3, P. 47, QC 6. 2. 15, 4. 1 agree broadly on an incident A. omits – because it reflects poorly on the men’s loyalty?

NOTES TO CHAPTER 20 (pp. 279–291)

Aria: A. 3. 25. 5 does not entail Alex. went south to Herat, then up the rough Hari-Rud valley, a long detour; the troops in A. 3. 25. 2 need only have guarded the fringe of Aria, while Alex, set off by the shorter road to Merv. Baggage: QC 6. 6. 15 dates this better (the roads to Balkh are all bad!) than P. 57. 1, Polyaen. 4. 3. 10. Herat: A vesta Vindev. 1. 9, Mithra Yasht 10. 14; R. N. Frye, Heritage of Persia (1963) pp. 23ff. S. 11. 514, Pliny NH 6. 61. 6. 93 (important). Reinforcements: QC 6. 6. 35. Parmenion’s troops: a major problem, for where were the 6000 Macedonians of A. 3. 19. 7, left with Cleitus the Black? The appointment of Cleitus as Hipparch in Seistan implies that he and these 4 phalanx-brigades had joined Alex. by then; before, though, or after the plot? A. 3. 25. 4 says ‘having all his troops now together’, implying Cleitus joined Alex. again in Parthia. But A. does not record the reinforcements of QC 6. 6. 35, who arrived at this point, and this may have confused him; they alone may have united with Alex. QC 7. 3. 4 definitely implies Parmenion still had the 6000 Maced, or at best that they were en route for Alex. The army commands support this: the 3 brigades of Coenus, Craterus and Amyntas were with Alex, from Hamadan onwards and these three are prominent not only in A.’s narrative but in QC’s account of the trial; Perdiccas also features once in QC and although he had led an infantry brigade, now left with Cleitus, he is there called armiger (QC 6. 8. 17), suggesting he had given up his command to Alcetas his brother, later known to have held it. If so, his presence in Seistan does not imply the presence of Cleitus’s troops. This explains the few Macedonians who gather to hear the trial in QC 6. 8. 23; as for Parmenion, his orders to move east (A. 3. 19. 7) had probably been changed, for if he was flouting them, this surely would have been recorded to explain his murder. Certainly he had the other troops in A. 3. 19. 7; Berve s. v. Cleander, Agathon, Sitalces, Heracon, Menidas and perhaps Koiranos. Sources: A.-Ptol. 3. 26. 2–3 is basic (note ischuros in 2!), but I feel it is too brief for 26. 2’s wording to prove that the only real evidence was Philotas’s silence; other charges were ‘not unclear’, and though A. omits them, 26. 3 and 4 refer confidently to Philotas’s ‘epiboule’. DS 79. 3 is less sure (but note the ‘confession’ in 80. 2). The structure of QC 6. 8–1. 11 is suggestive: 6. 8. 15 is neatly picked up again at 6. 11. 10 (6. 11. 8 is very clumsy: why postpone Philotas’s death?). Implies QC elaborated 2 sources: (1) Ptol.-A. that Philotas was accused in public; 6. 8. 25 is prob. only QC’s guess, and its true Ms. text is interesting. Typically, QC built speeches from a few past facts (e. g. 9. 17, the Egyptian ‘plot’). (2) P. 49. 11: Philotas was tortured privately: excuse for more speeches in QC. This would explain the double sentencing (6. 11. 8, 11. 38), did not DS-Cleit. (surely QC’s main source) mention both the public trial and the confession by torture (80. 1–2). Did Ptol. omit the torture or did Cleit. invent it as an excuse? On stoning: R. Hirzel, Die Strafe der Steinigung, Abhandl. Leipzig Akad. (1909) p. 25. Macedonian language: 6. 19. 34–5, “4 (apt reference to Phrygians, old rulers of Macedonia). Alex. the Lyncestian: DS 80. 2, QC 7. 1. 7; not in Ptol.-A., nor are the Disorderlies (QC 7. 2. 35–38 = DS 80. 4 = J. 12. 4. 4–8 = Cleit.). Only DS 79 = QC 6. 7 = Cleit. has the preliminaries, and these are too similar to the Pages’ plot. Suspects: QC 6. 7. 15 is an unhelpful list, misdating Demetrius (A. 3. 27. 6). Persons in plot: Berve s. v. Antigone, Philotas (esp. P. 40. 1,48. 4, DS 67. 7 and the cavalry reforms in A. 3. 16. 11). Purge: QC 6. 11. 20, where the ‘law’ is QC’s own way of phrasing a custom; cp. 8. 6. 28, not refuted by 8. 8. 18. This family fear is not refuted, either, by the survival of Coenus, Parmenion’s son-in-law; he disowned Parmenion all the more vigorously (QC 6. 9. 30) because he had to clear his own life. Cleander the murderer was Coenus’s brother. On the other hand, Berve nr. 165, Asandros (Parmenion’s brother, possibly) arrived, ignorantly, in camp in 329 (A. 4. 7. 2), and is probably never mentioned again. Philip Menelaou, leader of Thessalians under Parmenion, also disappears after Sept. 330. Was Parmenion the cause, or mere chance, the Thessalians being disbanded in 329 anyway? Erigyios, who had led the allies on the left wing under Parmenion, actually denounced his c.-in-c. vigorously: QC 6. 8. 17f. So much for solid army factions. One wonders, of course, whether references to Asander in 323 (all listed under Berve nr 164) might in part refer to Parmenion’s possible brother (nr 165). Maybe he survived too; it is impossible to prove the ruin of Parmenion’s ‘faction’, let alone the ‘extermination’ of his family which is conjectured so often nowadays. Prophthasia: P. Mor. 328 F, Steph. Byz. s. v. Phrada. Only a miscalculation by Droysen has concealed the fact that this is modern Farah, a point about 180 miles distant from Herat and so within a mile or two of fitting the bematists’ figures of 1500–1600 stades, given uncritically and rounded down in S. 11. 8. 9.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 21 (pp. 292–307)

Alex.’s route to Kandahar: K. Fischer BJ (1967) p. 136 discusses the whole area with great thoroughness, but granted that Alex. begins from Farah, there is no reason for his wide loop south past the Vanishing Lake, except possibly for supplies, as Seistan was a famous granary even in Arab times. Arimaspoi: F. W. Thomas JRAS (1906) pp. 180ff.; Ctesias, ap. Photius, had already referred to Skythes amyrgioi in Sakastane, cp. Hellanicus F 171 on this Scythian plain. I wonder if an influx of these Scyths ended the city-culture of Seistan, as reported yearly by its Italian excavators in East and West. Arachosia = Hetumati (in the Avesta) = Etymandros in Plin. NH 6. 92. Bisitun inscript. 40f. on its satrap Vivana’s loyalty in 521; also the evidence in the Ritual Texts and the Fortificat. tablets from Persepolis for contacts with Persepolis and Arachosia as seat of a haoma cult. Satraps: Berve s. v. Menon, with the admirable chart in his vol. i p. 276. Kandahar: K. Fischer, as above: cp. A. Fussmann Arts Asiatiques (1966) p. 33. The Asoka inscriptions show Kandahar as a lively area of hellenism, finally refuting Tarn’s plea that this Alexandria was at Ghazni. Kandahar’s derivation from Iskander is correct. Elephants: ivory from Harahvatis in Darius’s Susa inscription and the wise remarks of A. J. Toynbee, Between Oxus and Jumna (1961) pp. 71ff. on Lashkari Bazar. Alex.’s route: A. Foucher, La vieille route de Bactres à l’Inde (1947) is the best account of the possibilities, esp. vol. 1 pp. 209ff. on the links between India and Arachosia. Scenery and supplies: A. 3. 28. 1, 28. 9 is improved by QC 7. 3. 6 = DS 82–3 (scenically correct), cp. QC 7. 4. 22–5 and S. 15. 621. I quote from Emil Trinkler, Through the Heart of Afghanistan (1928). For the whole of the next two years, F. von Schwarz Alex. Feldzuge in Turkestan (1893) is an indispensable guide to geography, based on 12 years’ military service in Sogdia (though he wrongly differentiates Balkh from Zariaspa; to the bematists, as in S. and Plin., they were identical). Alex. in the Caucasus: A. 3. 28. 4, 4. 22. 4–5; DS 83 surely corrects the text of QC 7. 3. 23. Note Plin. NH 6. 92 on Cyrus and Capisa; cp. R. Ghirshman in Mem. Del. Arch. Fr. en Afghan. (1946). DS 83 implies other nearby cities; cp. Ptol. Geogr. 6. 18. 4 one of which may be Kabul. We do not know whether Greeks and natives enjoyed equal civic status. For Prometheus: DS 83. 1 = QC 7. 3. 22 = Cleit (via Onesic.?) Eratosth.’s doubts: S. 11. 5. 5; A. 5. 3. 1–4; uparisetia and Persian background in E. Herzfeld, Persian Empire (1968) pp. 336–7. Aristot. and Hindu Kush: Aristot. Meteor. 350A. Supplies: QC 7. 4. 22f., and for prices cp. W. K. Pritchett Hesperia (1956) pp. 182ff. Balkh: Avesta, Vendidad 1. 7, Yasht 5 (Anahita). For its walls, Monum. Preislam. d’Afghan. (DAFA vol. 19, 1964). For villages, S. P. Tolstov, Drevnei Chorezmskoi Tsivil. (1948, Germ. trans. 1953) pp. 122–33. Resources: W. W. Tarn, Gks. in Bactria and India (1951) pp. 78ff. Lapis in R. J. Gettens, Alumni (Rev. du cercle des Alumni des fondations scientifiques, 1950) pp. 342ff. G. Herrmann Iraq (1968) p. 21. Persian administration: Smerdis son of Cyrus, Hystaspes brother of Xerxes, Masistes are examples of King’s family as satraps; there was a brief revolt, according to Ctesias, in Bacteria under Artaxerxes II. Bactrian desert: QC 7. 5 = prologue to DS Book 17= Cleit. (scenically correct). A. omits the hardship! Alex.’s endurance: QC 7. 3. 17, 7. 5. 9 (more plausible here than in Makran), 7. 5. 16. Bessus: A. 3. 30. 4, 25. 8 with A. 3. 23. 4. Branchidae: QC 7. 5. 28 = 5. 11. 11. 4 = Callisth. (despite F 14 line 22) is unlikely to have extended his history so far. Onesic. (used by S. and Cleit.) is perhaps responsible (cp. P. 60. 3 for his spurious crusading) and it is impossible to be sure his story is true. Not, however, a point of much importance. Sogdian independence: QC 6. 3. 9, with their lack of satrap and their command, together with the independent Indians, by Bessus at Gaugamela (A. 3. 8. 3). Alex.’s bearers: QC 7. 6. 7f. Cyropolis: E. Benveniste, Journ. As. (1943–5) pp. 163ff. Alexandria-Eschate: A. 4. 1. 3, 4. 1. Nomads: cp. K. Jettmar, Die Fruhen Steppenvolker (1969); M. Rostovtzeff, Iranians and Greeks in South Russia (1928); E. D. Phillips, Brit. Journ. of Aesthetics (1969) pp. 4–18 is a good introduction to their art; Aristot. Pol. 1256 A saw their point. Love-story: Chares F. 5 with Jacoby’s commentary. Spitamenes: S. 11. 8. 8 calls him a Persian, not a Sogdian or Bactrian. Spitam. was a kinsman of Zoraster. Prohibition: Onesic. frag. 5. Machines in A. 4. 2. 2 must be catapults, as trench would stop towers; stone-throwers too, as they pound the walls (A. 4. 3. 1). Razing of Cyropolis (QC 7. 6. 21) omitted by A. and (hence?) calls natives in 4. 4. 1 ‘volunteers’. QC 7. 6. 27 = J. 12. 5. 4 say prisoners, rightly. A. omits Meleager and Perdiccas (QC 7. 6. 19); were they suppressed by Ptol.? New towns/settlements in Sogdia and Bactria: A. 4. 16. 3, QC 8. 1. 1, J. 12. 5. 13, S. 12. 517 (includes the 7 razed cities). Bounds of Bacchus: QC 7. 9. 15, Plin. NH 6. 92; presumably a haoma-cult on the frontier. Casualties in QC 7. 9. 16 are omitted and losses in 7. 7. 39 minimized by A.; he also omits numbers of reinforcements at 4. 7. 2. Khwarezm: S. P. Tolstov, Drevnei Chorezmskoi Tsivil. (1948, German trans. 1953); cp. M. M. Diakonov’s fine account in Po Sledam Drevnikh Kultur (1954) pp. 328ff.; B. Rubin Historia (1955) pp. 264ff. discusses the early cavalry; Khwarezm horsemen can also be seen in the widespread terracottas found in western palaces (M. Rostovtzerff-Yale Class. Stud. (1935) P. 188. pl. 7) where they evidently served as garrisons, a point now proved by the reliefs in S. P. Tolstov, Po drevnim deltam Oksi (1962) from Koi-Kilgan-Kala. In the Persepolis inscription of Artaxerxes II or III, Uvarazmis (Khwarezm) occurs as a subject area; this does not mean it still was one. QC 7. 4. 5, A. 4. 15. 4 show its independence in Alex.’s day; the architectural influence of Achaemenid styles in Khwarezm noted in S. P. Tolstov (1962), pp. 112,114,128, may or may not imply membership of the Empire. Army numbers and Hipparchies: see my forthcoming study.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 22 (pp. 308–319)

Omen: P. 57. 5, A. 4. 15. 7–8 (stressing Ptol.’s role): QC 7. 10. 13–14. Merv: Plin. NH6. 47 implies an Alexandria there, and Plin.’s evidence is good on these cities; QC 7. 10. 15 supports him and from a splendidly ingenious deduction, F. Schachermeyer Alex. der Grosse (1949) pp. 515–16, note 187 adduces Crateras as the officer in charge in Merv. Bazeira: QC 8. 1. 10–19 with R. Merkelbach, Die Quellen der Alexanderroman (1954) pp. 48, 252; cp. the prologue to DS 27, i. e. Cleit. Sources for Cleitus: see my forthcoming study. His relegation: QC 8. 1. 20. His nephew: Berve s. v. Proteas. Spitamenes’s death: A. 4. 17. 7 gives no support to QC 8. 3. 1–15, typically romantic. Sogdian rocks: QC 8. 4 = DS prol. = Cleit. on the snowstorm. Alex.’s throne: QC 8. 4. 15, Val. Max. 5. 5. 1. Front. Strat. 4. 6. 3. Geography: F. von Schwarz, Alex. in Turkestan pp. 75ff., esp. on the second rock’s impregnability. QC 7. 11, though 28–29 is vivid, puts the first rock in winter 328; so too does the prologue to DS 17, one more excellent proof of their close adherence to their source Cleit. A. 4. 18. 4 (Ptol., probably) omits the crucifixion of Ariamazes but puts it, surely rightly, in early 327. Sisimithres’s rock (QC 8. 2. 19) bore also the regional name of Rock of Choriene (A. 4. 21): only QC 8. 2. 20 mentions, correctly, the river in its ravine. Roxane’s marriage: A. 4. 19–5f. is not chronologically precise; S. 11. 517 dates the wedding to Sisimithres’s rock; QC 8. 4. 21 a while after that; Sisim.’s food (QC 8. 4. 18f.) is the essential prelude to this wedding banquet! QC 8. 4. 21 (emending the Ms. to Oxyartes) implies a return visit to Oxyartes; the wedding probably belongs there (after A. 4. 21. 10). P. 47. 2 and QC 8. 4. 23 specify love at a banquet; A. 4. 19. 5 (citing Ptol. and Aristob. and contemporary opinion) insist on the love; P. and A. approve Alex.’s temperance (a theme of Aristob.?). QC does not explain that Roxane had already been a captive; A. muddles the timing, so that love at first sight seems even more plausible: Wedding custom: M. Renard and J. Servais, Antiqu. Class (1955) p. 29 bring no worthwhile argument against the observation of this custom by von Schwarz in Turkestan; QC 8. 4. 27 is merely QC’s ignorant guess. Painting: Lucian Imagin. 7; Plin. NH 35. 34 for Aetion’s contemporary date, so that the amorous style of his picture reflects the love story of Alex.’s own officers. Oxyartes and Artabazus: A. 3. 28. 10 (Oxyartes and Bessus). A. 4. 17. 3 and QC 8. 1. 10 (Cleitus’s appointment) date Artabazus’s resignation some months before Roxane’s marriage, so the two are unlikely to be related; however, Barsine had conceived Heracles by the time of Alex.’s wedding, so the Roxane affair must have been a snub (DS 20. 20. 1 for the child’s birth-date); note, though, that Berve s. v. Cophen served contentedly, so a rift with Artabazus is not in any evidence. Successors or Epigonoi: P. 47. 6, QC 8. 5. 1 (important). Possible Chiliarch: I reason this as follows: Hephaistion and Cleitus had been joint Hipparchs in 330; in winter 329/8,I believe, more hipparchs were appointed, while Cleitus was offered Bactria as his province. Hephaistion needed some new status, for he too had been a hipparch already; in 327, Alex.’s orientalizing took its first and last turn between 330 and 324; I suggest Hephaistion became Chiliarch then, esp. when Alex. was marrying a wife and therefore risking the spite of his oldest lover. For the office, which existed in various forms, none clearly distinguished by the Gk. term, let alone by later lexicographers and sources as bad as Ael. VH. 1. 21, cp. A. 3. 23. 3, Nepos Conon. 2 for it in its highest form, though lesser army and court officials could also be called ‘Commander of a 1000’: A. 1. 22. 7.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 23 (pp. 320–330)

Proskynesis: J. Horst, Proskynein (1932) collects the Greek evidence; Feodora, Prinzessin von Sachsen-Meiningen discusses it outstandingly well in Geschichte der Hunnen (1963, ed. Franz Altheim) vol. II pp. 125ff.; however, her linguistic argument fails in view of Call. F 31, for waves cannot blow kisses and evidently by Call.’s time (or his quoter’s) the word proskynein could also be used in a wider sense. The Audience Scene at Persepolis has been explained by Herzfeld and others as the Median usher sheltering his breath from the Sacred Fire; this is absurd, as the burners beside him may be for incense, not holiness, and nobles on Artaxerxes’s tomb pay the same gesture nowhere near a burner. The more plausible view, that the hand indicates the Mede is talking, is challenged by the very curious reproduction of the scene on the inside of a shield on the Alex. sarcophagus, revealed by the photography in V. von Graeve’s excellent Alexandersarkophag (1970) pl. 70. The hand here definitely is paying proskynesis; cp. the horseman on the Pazyryk carpet now in the Hermitage (5th c. B.C.). E. J. Bickermann Parola del Passato (1963) pp. 2141ff. is another fine study; Hamilton HCPA pp. 150–1 has missed its point and is unaware of the work cited above; for background, B. Meissner, Berlin Akad (1934) pp. 2ff. and for Sassanid differences: W. Sundermann Mitt, der Inst. für Orientfor. (1964) p. 275. J. P. V. D. Balsdon Histor. (1950) pp. 363ff. is also valuable, though his note 48 on Alex.’s curious father-complex quotes bad evidence. That the Greeks believed the Persians paid proskynesis to their king because he was a god (cp. ‘Xerxes the Persians’ Zeus’ in the extravagant Gorgias, ap. Longinus 3. 2) is implied in Isocr. Panegyr. 151 and asserted in QC 8. 5. 11, both of them highly unreliable. Xen. Anab. 3. 2. 13 proves nothing; Aristot. De Mundo p. 398, 22 ed. Bekker is worthless; Greeks complained proskynesis was slavish (Xen. Hell. 4. 1. 35, P. Them 27. 4), not blasphemous: cp. R. W. Frye Iran. Ant. (1972) p. 102 for the custom’s continuity. Greek ambassadors: Hdt. 7. 136, P. Themist. 27–28. Nepos Conon 3. 3 and esp. P. Artax 22. 8 (where kupsas rules out prostration) are not evidence that grovelling was standard practice, only that the King thought Greek envoys so abject that sometimes when they came as prisoners or pleaders, he made them go right down. The joke in A. 4. 12. 2 was that the Persian was overdoing it! Elephant: Aristot. Hist. Anim. 498 A 9, improving on others’ views: cp. De Incess. An. 709 A 10; Hist. An. 630B and Ael. Nat. An. 13. 22. 1. Persian queen: A. 2. 12. 6. Sources: A. 4. 10. 5f is completely worthless and unlikely even to derive from a peripatetic (not that that would say much for it?). A. 4. 14. 2 is very different from Aristot.’s own view in Rhet. 1361 A 36 (a barbaric honour, no more, no less). QC 8. 5. 13f. shares the same broad structure: a speech for, a speech against by Call., a veto on the practice, a mocking of Persians. However the opinions and style are not similar to A.’s: A. 4. 10. 3, 14. 3–4 are proof of A.’s wide reading here and he may even have composed the speeches largely himself (A. 4. 11. 9 drags in Xenophon!). Certainly, the nearest parallels are Imperial Roman: Ps.-Call. 2. 22, Claudius’s letter to the Alexandrians and Cyme’s proposal for Labeo; cp M. Charlesworth PBSR (1939) pp. 1ff. Chares in P. 54. 4 and A. 4. 12. 3 has the truth, to which add L. R. Farnell JHS (1929) pp. 79ff.; it is true that an eschara is known to have held the Sacred Fire in processions (Xen. Cyrop. 8. 3. 12) but it is a German fancy to see such fire in the mention of the hestia here. Call.’s attitude: F 23, 24, 42, 50 for his hellenism; T 21 is important, cp T 20; F 31 is prob. near enough to his own words. J. 12. 6. 17, QC 8. 8. 22 (as comforter). Anaxarchus: Berve. with full evidence. Against the bias of Clearchus ap. Ath. 548B (important), cp. Ael. VH 9. 37 Timon F 58. Philodem. De Vitiis 4. 5. 6 is very interesting; cp. perhaps A. 4. 10. 6–7 for the sentiment; with 4. 11. 6 cp. 4. 9. 7. Call.’s wine: T 12. His speech: Hermipp. ap. P. 54. 1 (dubious, as Hermippus was quite close to peripatetic). Mocking of Persian: A. 4. 12. 2, QC 8. 5. 22, P. 74, each of a different officer. Only QC 8. 5. 20 and P. 53. 1 single out the elder men as esp. hostile, but both passages are tendentious. Craterus’s tenacity: cp. P. Eumen 6. 2. Dropping of proskynesis: Only in A.’s false version, J. 12. 7 and QC 8. 5. 21 is proskynesis stated to have been dropped; A. 4. 14. 2 (though false) implies a different tradition. Chares’s story says nothing either way. DS 18. 61. 1 shows the Macedonians paid it posthumously to Alex. as a god; conceivably, Ptol. and Aristob. said nothing, because the incident was insignificant, except to fans of Call. But their silence (hence A. does not refer to them) may have been a carefully considered one. Pages’ plot: A. 4. 12. 7, 13. 5, 14. 1 show A.’s wide reading here. However, the close and exact similarity of A. 4. 13 to QC 8. 6. 1–23 suggests they used a common source; A. 4. 13. 4, 13. 7 differs trivially from QC 8. 6. 9, 6. 20. In view of A. 4. 13. 5 = 8. 6. 16, this source may well be Aristob., throughout. QC 8. 6. 11 is the only clue to the date after the proskynesis: S. 11. 11. 4 names the village as Cariatae, a name traceable near the Oxus. Persian hunting-custom: Ctes. 688 F 40, Xen. Cyrop. 1. 4. 14, P. Mor. 173 D. Protests: QC 8. 7f. picks up the false A. 14. 2. At 8. 7. 2, Sopolis had in fact gone home! (A. 4. 18. 3). Fathers: Sopolis(A. 4. 18. 3)Asclepiodorus (A. 4. 7. 2 with the past participle in 4–134). Chancles may be son of the loyal satrap of Lydia, but for another Menander see P. 57. 3. Callisthenes’s role: A. 4. 12. 7 implies two separate points, Call. as accomplice, Call, as instigator. Ptol. and Aristob. are not known to have asserted Call.’s complicity (A. 4. 14. 1; cp. QC 8. 6. 24, P. 554); this was a variant story (A. 4. 12. 7). QC 8. 8. 20 claims Call. was altogether guiltless (cp. ‘some’ in A. 4. 14. 1), though he suggests mild involvement as instigator (8. 6. 24). Alex.’s letter: if Hamilton can deduce the recipients’ absence from A. 4. 22 with QC 8. 5. 2 and 22 in 1961, a third century forger could have done so far more easily with the original histories, not A.’s choppy narrative, in front of him. I cannot see how such a letter would survive nor why Alex. should ever write so frankly. P. 55. 6 says ‘nobody knew the pages’ plans’; that is not inconsistent with instigation by Call.? Anaxarchus’s comment: Diels Vorsokr. 2. p. 239 (from his On Kingship). Letter to Antipater: P. 55. 7, as if in Call’s lifetime, only fits the delayed-action of Call.’s death (apologetic and therefore false?). His death: A. 4. 14. 3, Chares ap. P. 55. 9 (Malloi Oxydrakai may be P.’s own slip?) J. 15. 3. 3–7.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 24 (pp. 331–350)

India’s traders: Aristob. F 20 and cp. the bdellium trade Theophr. HP 9. 1. 2 with Plin. NH 12. 35. Indian legends: J. W. McCrindle Invasion of India by Alex. (1896) is a good sourcebook; Ctesias 688 F 45; Nearch. F 8, 11, 17–20 and Baeton 119 F 4; E.J. Bickermann CP (1952) pp. 65ff. is outstanding; cp. now O. Murray CQ (1972) pp. 20of. Heracles and Dionysus: A. Dahlquist Megasthenes and Ind. Relig. (1962) collects much evidence and draws wrong conclusions. The ‘date’ in Magasth. ap. Ind. 9. 9. The constant stress on India’s ‘ancient independence’ and the lack of any mention of the Persian precedent is interesting. Heracles: Berve nr 353, despite Tarn’s will to disbelieve. Alex, and kings: P. Alex. 4. Army: see my forthcoming study. Satraps: A. 4. 22. 5 and Berve I p. 276 (chart of satraps). Sasigupta: Berve Sisikottos nr 707. Nicaea: A. Foucher CRAI (1939) pp. 435f. Indian army: e. g. B. K. Majumdar Milit. Syst. in Anc. India (1960). Elephants: P. Armandi, Hist. Mil. des Éléph. (1843); H. Bonitz, Index Aristotelicus (1961) s. v. Elephas; H. F. Osborn, Proboscoidea (1936–42) vols. 1–2 and R. Carrington, Elephants (1958); a vast subject, and now, P. Goukowsky BCH (1972) pp. 473ff. on howdahs. Alex.’s route: S. 15. 1. 26 for its logic; O. Caroe, The Pathans (1958) pp. 45ff. improves on Stein’s views. The Swat excavations by Italians, reported in East and West, cannot be tied to place or date. Peucelaotis: M. Wheeler, Charsada (1962), guessing a link with Alex. Nysa: A. 5. 1–2, QC 8. 10. 7 = DS prologue = Cleit., P. 58. 6. Kafirs: E. T. Schuyler-Jones, Annotated Bibliog. of Nuristan (1966) is full of interest; G. Robertson, Kafirs of the Hindu Kush (1896); Eric Newby, A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush (1972, 2nd ed.) is the most delightful book referred to in these notes; K. Jettmar Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc. (1961) pp. 79ff. discusses ibex worship and ecstatic dancing of females (Bacchants?); cp. Robertson p. 384. G. M. Grierson JRAS (1900) pp. 501ff. on Kafir’s language; F. Maraini, Where Four Worlds Meet (1964) for Kafir religion. Mem: Polyaen. 1. 1. 2, QC 8. 10. 12, A. 5. 1. 6. Cp. D. C. Sircar, Ind. Stud. Past and Pres. (1967) pp. 233f.; Coffins: QC 8. 10. 8. Pir Sar: A. Stein, On Alexander’s Track to the Indus (1929), esp. pp. 100–59, is a masterpiece; cp. R. Fazy, Mélanges Ch. Gilliard (1944) pp. 7ff. Heracles myth: said to urge on Alex. (A. 4. 28. 4) despite Arr’s. own uncertainties as to its truth (28. 2) QC 8. 11. 5 credits Eumenes (Ptol.’s enemy) with heroics which A.-Ptol. 4. 29. 1 confines to Ptol. Taxila: Sir John Marshall, Taxila vols. 1–3 (1951) with M. Wheeler, Flames over Persepolis pp. 112–15; cp. the Aramaic inscription found there, of uncertain date (Seleucid?), by Cowley and Barnett JRAS (1915) p. 340. Indian customs: Nearch. F 11, 28. Aristob. F 42. Onesic. F 5. Gymnosophists: Onesic. F 17, Aristob. F 41, Nearch. F 23; A. 7. 2. 2f. is based on Megasthenes, not Onesic. (cp. 5. 15. 1). P. 65. 3 proves the chapter is a patchwork (against Hamiltion HCPA p. 180). Only Megasthen. mentions the theme ‘son of Zeus’, not the contemporary Onesic.; the drastic emendation of J. Enoch Powell (JHS 1939 p. 238) for P. 65. 2 is neither sense nor necessary. U. Wilcken Sitzb. Berl. Akad. (1923) pp. 161ff. wrongly argues that Aristob. F 23 refutes Onesic.’s entire story. Their legend: A. 7–1. 5f., with the new papyrus of V. Martin and P. Photiades, Rhein. Mus. (1959) pp. 77–139; despite J. D. M. Derrett, Class, et Med. (1960) pp. 64ff., I do not believe it to be a lost work of Arrian. F. Pfister Hermes (1941) pp. 143ff on the Gymnosophist legend; cp. J. D. M. Derrett, Zeitschr. für Relig. u. Geistesgesch (1967) pp. 33ff., best account so far of the Milindapanha and its link with the Alex Romance.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 25 (pp. 351–362)

Porus’s reward: QC 8. 12. 18; S. 15. 1. 28. New cities: M. Wheeler, Flames over Persepolis (1968) pp. 98–118 with new evidence. Battle site: uncertain, but I prefer A. Stein, Arch. Reconn. in N.W. India (1937) pp. 1–36. Battle: A. 5. 9–19, QC 8. 13–14, DS 87–89 (weak), P. 60 citing Alex,’s own letter which I deeply suspect; P. 60. 2 does time the battle (cp. QX 8. 14. 28) but all the letter’s other details match A.’s except for the absurdity of the thunderstruck Macedonians (P. 60. 2) which, despite Hamilton HCPA pp. 163ff., surely condemns it. Ptol. is left behind in QC 8. 13. 27, 23; not so in A. (and cp. QC 8. 14. 15)! QC 8. 14. 5 names Perdiccas; Ptol.-A. 5. 15. 1 omits him – deliberately? In my opinion, Ptol.-A. never mentions the Foot Companions in battle (contra DS 88. 2, QC 8. 14. 16 on their sarissas against elephants). At A. 5. 12. 2 I believe Cleitus’s and Coenus’s brigades to be Hipparchies (cp. A. 5. 16. 3; and soon after, A 5. 22. 6) and I suspect A. has muddled these 2 former Foot-commanders with their former units; A. 5. 13. 4 mentions no Foot Companions in the infantry line (phalanx merely means ‘battle-line’ here, as often); A. 5. 14. 1 names 6000 infantry (cp. 5. 18. 3), and 3000 hypaspists, 1000 Agrianians and 2000–3000 archers makes this up alone (A. 5. 12. 2; cp. their 3 commanders in 5. 16. 3); A. 5. 13. 4 implies Alex, had more than the 3 Hipparchies of 5. 12. 2 to choose from. I suggest he took Cleitus’s and Coenus’s too, and that they were no longer phalanx-leaders, though A. confused them under the neutral word taxis. Coenus’s charge: Against the enemy right (A. 5. 16. 3); QC 8. 14. 18 is muddled. Elephant-weapons: QC 8. 14. 29. For Porus, s. v. Berve nr 683. Bucephalas: Seal-stone in A. D. H. Bivar, Journ. Num. Soc. Ind. (1961) pp. 314–16, with O. Rubensohn, Hellenistisches Silbergerät in antiken gipsabgussen (1911) pp. 45–6 and pl. 6. E. T. Newell, E. Seleucid Mints (1938) esp. p. 239 and pl. 51, E. Babelon, Les monn. des Rois de Syrie (1890), introd. pp. 18–25; Appain Syr. 56, Malalas p. 202 (ed. Bonn). Suidas s. v. Bucephalas (emended text). Marco Polo: A. Ricci, Travels of Marco Polo (19392) p. 57. Alex. Medallion: cp. also W. B. Kaiser, JDAI (1962) pp. 227ff. Caesar: Dio 37. 54. 2, Plin. NH 8. 155 and now S. Weinstock, Divus Julius (1972) pp. 86–7.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 26 (pp. 363–372)

F. Schachermeyer Innsbruck. Beitr. zur Kulturgesch. (1955) pp. 123–35 (reprinted in G. T. Griffith, Main Problems) is properly indulgent to Alex.’s aims. Sacrifices: QC 9. 1. 1; DS 89. 3. Weather: Ctesias F 45: contrast A. 5. 10. 1, for Alex.’s knowledge. Timber: DS 89. 4 = QC 9. 1. 4 = S. 15. 1. 29 = Cleit. Onesic. Plans: Nearch. (ap. Str.) F 20; A. 6. 1. 2f.; their quotes disagree. Theophr.: HP 8. 4. 5 (surely these unknown Pissatoi are Indians?) Banyan: Onesic. and Aristob. in S. 15. 21–24: Theophr. HP 4. 4. 4–5. Ael. Hist. An. 5. 21 on Alex.’s peacocks (QC 9. 1) is very nice. Rains: Aristob. and Nearch. in S. 15. 1. 17–18: cp. Indica 6. 5. Snakes: Nearch. F 10B, Indica 15. 11, Aristob. F 38; Onesic. F 16, 22. A.’s Anabasis is unforgivably flat, omitting all these details on principle. Chenab: Ptol. ap. A. 5. 20. 8. Porus’s mission: A. 5. 21. 2. Indian casualties: A. 5. 24. 5. Prosperity’s Kingdom: S. Levi, Journ. As. (1890) pp. 234–40. Onesic. F 21. Dogs: Aristob. F 38, 40 (cp. S. 15. 1. 31). Reinforcements: DS 95. 3; QC 9. 3. 21. Ceylon: Onesic. F 12,13. Phegeus: DS 93. 2 = QC 9. 2. 1–7, P. 62. Magadha: e. g. Camb. Hist. Ind. pp. 279ff. K. A. N. Sastri, A Hist, of S. India from Prehist. Times…(Oxford, 1966) pp. 82ff. Ksandrames: against Camb. Hist. Ind., the name is better derived from Augrasainya, son of Ugrasena (B. Prakash, Stud. in Ind. Hist. and Civ. (1962) pp. 104ff. shows the link with Magadha’s dynasty, anyway attested in Buddhist sources). Landscape: A. 5. 25. 1 knows of a fertile land beyond the Beas (cp. Ael. Hist. An. 15. 7!); DS 93. 2 (QC 9. 2) refers to a deserted land ‘beyond the Indus river’; i. e. the Thar desert. D. Kienast Hist. (1965) pp. 184ff. wishes to emend this ‘Indus’ also to the Beas, and so criticize Cleit.’s geography. But Alex, may indeed have asked about the Indus too; cp. S. 15. 1. 26, 32, for his (initial) knowledge of the Thar desert, perhaps acquired from Phegeus on this occasion. As Alex. may have been further south on the Beas than Kienast believes (S. 15. 1. 32 does not exclude this), the Thar desert may in fact have been near to the south (the rivers and steppe-geography of the area are not known for 326 b. c.). Certainly, Cleit. the Alexandrian (who wrote c. 25 years before Megasthenes) did not dream up such a precise reference to Ksandrames, and whether or not his geography is a slip, Alex.’s staff knew the truth beyond the Beas (cp. A. 5. 25. 1). Ganges: Polycleit. F 10; A. 5. 26. 2, DS 18. 6. 2 are not to be discounted, esp. as a Royal Road with milestones ran from Taxila to Palimbothra (Plin. NH 6. 61f.). River-Jewels: Plin. NH 37. 1–77. Bribery: DS 94. 3, J. 12. 4. 12–11; again omitted by A! DS 94 1–3 is excellent. Mutiny: A. 5. 28–29 (again, Alex, sulks ‘for two days’) DS 95 = QC 9. 3. 19 = P. 62. 7 = J. 12. 8. 16, and I doubt if it is mere legend. Philostr. Vita Apoll. 2. 43 is interesting. Dhana Nanda: F. F. Schwarz Die Griechen u. die Maurya-Dynastie, in F. Altheim, Geschichte Mittelasiens im Altertum (1970) pp. 267ff. Barber’s son: B. Prakash, Studies in Ind. Hist. pp. 114ff. and the Jain Hermacandras Parisistaparvan 6. 232, 8. 2–3; his rule, e. g. the Visnupurana 4. 24. On numbers: B. K. Majumdar, Milit. Syst. in Anc. India (1960) with epic parallels; cp. S. Digby, Warhorse and Elephant in the Delhi Sultanate (1971) pp. 55ff. for comparable numbers. Chandragupta: P. Alex. 62. 9, Mor. 542D B. Prakash, Studies, passim. On Kautilya, studies are countless; e. g. U.N. Goshal, Hist. of Ind. Pol. (1966); H. Scharfe, Unters. zur Staatsrechtl. des K. (1968); Megasthenes needs study; R. C. Majumdar Class. Accounts of India (1960) and JAOS (1958) p. 273, (1960) p. 248 are moves in a better direction than O. Stein, Megasthenes u. Kautil. (S-B, Wien 1921). Palimbothra: L. A. Waddell, Report on Excav. at Patna (1903), M. Wheeler Flames over Persepolis (1968); Megasth. FGH 715 F 18,19, 32; Ael. Hist. An. 13. 18.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 27 (pp. 375–386)

Roxane’s miscarriage: Epit. Mett. 70. Fleet: contrast Ind. 19–20 with the different details and numbers of A. 62. 3–4. Nearch. puts the fleet lower than Ptol. and for his figure of 120,000 men see my forthcoming study. Qurqurrus: S. Casson, Ships and Seamanship (1971) p. 163. Horse-transport by sea is itself a skill, which, for example, the Normans only learnt from the Arabs and so managed to ship cavalry across the channel: Diction. des Antiquit. s. v. Hippagogoi for evidence. One wonders how Sassanid Persians brought horses from India by sea to Persia! Baggage-train: I quote from Mooltan by J. Dunlop, M.D. (1849). Purple sails: Plin. NH 19. 22. Malloi: A. 5. 22. 2 is important for prior enmity. Style of the campaign; A. 6. 14. 2, 6. 20. 1–2, cp 6. 15. 1, 6. 6. 1 and esp. 6. 15. 7 and Aristob. ap. A. 7. 20. 1–2: restoration of freedom and autonomia. Implies that memories of Persian rule on lower Indus were short (A. 6. 14. 2 – but note the startling QC 9. 7. 14, which in view of links with Arachosia discussed by A. Foucher, La vieille Route (1947) vol. 1 p. 209f. may not be wrong; the more we know of Arachosia, the more it mattered). Atrocities: A. 5. 24. 3–5 for their existence before the mutiny. Surrenders were treated mildly (DS 96. 2. 3, A. 6. 4. 2; DS 102. QC 9. 8. 4–7) but resistance was savaged: DS 96. 3, QC 9. 4. 5–6, A. 6. 6. 3, 6. 6. 5–6. 7, 6. 11. 1 with DS 99. 4. Alex.’s aims: M. E. L. Mallowan, Iran (1965) p. 1; W. F. Leemans, For. Trade in Old Bab. Period (1958) pp. 159ff. put them in perspective. For Alex. – Opiane, cp. Steph. Byz and A. 6. 15. 2 with Steph. s. v. Opiai, quoting Hecataeus (F 299) and (ultimately) Scylax; DS 102. 4, QC 9. 8. 8 probably refer to this Alexandria too, whose location (under a wrong ancient name) is discussed by Maj.-Gen. A. Cunningham, Ancient Geography of India, vol. 1 (1871) pp. 170ff. Mutinous doubts: A. 6. 7. 6, QC 9. 4. 16. Multan: A. 6. 8. 4 (the ‘greatest city’) and its topography support the site (P. Mor. 327B, 344C are mere rhetoric), Alex.’s rescuers: omission by A. of Aristonous (QC 9. 5. 15) is less likely to be Ptol.’s bias than is the vilification of Perdiccas in A. 6. 9, which recurs nowhere else. But it fits ill with views of Ptol.’s ‘personal’ history that he denied Cleit.’s story of his glorious presence; the denial does not prove which of them wrote first. Previous audacities: e. g. A. 4. 3. 3, 26. 6; QC 4. 4. 10. Medical theory: e. g. Galen 4. 708–9; F. Steckerl, Fragms. of Praxagoras (1958) pp. 17ff. F. Lammert, Gymnas. (1953) pp. 1–7 on the wound. Alex.’s recovery: A. 6. 12–13. Peace offerings: QC 9. 7. 15, 9. 8. 1. Building plans: A. 6. 16. 7, 6. 17. 1, 17. 4, 18. 1, 18. 7, 20. 1; 6. 20. 5, is surely Xvlinepolis, the Wooden City, of Onesic. and Nearch. F 13. Brahmins: DS 102. 5 is briefer and darker than the credible A. 6. 15–6f., proof of why severity was needed; cp. the ‘80,000’ killed in Sambus’s kingdom, QC 9. 8. 15 = DS 102. 6= Cleit., where A. 6. 16. 4f. is subtler and more realistic. A.-Ptol. omits (Cleit.’s?) flattering affair of Ptol.’s cure: QC 9. 8. 25, DS 103. 6, 5. 15. 2. 7. Detachment of Craterus: A. 6. 15. 5, picked up again at A. 6. 17. 3 (despite Craterus’s job at 6. 15. 7). Conceivably, the massacre of the Brahmins was omitted by Ptol. or Aristob. (or both) and A. flicked to a new source for it, returning to Craterus (cp. J. 12. 10. 1) where he left off. But the slip may simply by stylistic, like many of mine. Sacrifices at Pattala: A. 6. 19. 4–5, both to Ammon’s (differing) order. For the tide, cp. Periplous of Red Sea 37–40. Nearchus: Indica 20, esp. 20. 2 (near to pothos) and 20. 11. Financing: P. Eumen. 2.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 28 (pp. 387–402)

The Makran march has been brilliantly discussed in the one outstanding modern article on Alexander: H. Strasburger Hermes (1952) pp. 456ff. and his note in Hermes (1954) p. 251. I agree that A. 6. 23 = Ptol.; A. 6. 24–25 = S. 15. 2. 6–7. 1 = Theophr. HP. 4. 4. 13 = Nearch. But polloi in A. 6. 24. 1 implies Nearchus was not the only (original?) source to give a frank account. Gedrosians’ embassy in 330: A. 3. 28. 1, one important source of A.’s ‘knowledge’. Geography: the coastline is now known to have receded greatly (cp. the most recent inspection by the Pennsylv. Mus. team, reported in their bulletin ‘Expedition’ for 1962). The 3rd millenn. towns perhaps imply a kinder prehistory than Strasburger (and Sven Hedin) believe: cp. Antiquity (1962) p. 86, (1964) p. 307 for reports. But R. H. Raikes and E. Dyson in Americ. Anthropologist (1961), (1963) argue from study that this early settlement did not presuppose a milder climate; note, however, S. 15. 2. 3 where Makran is ‘less fiery’ than India. Mere heat was not its basic horror. Alexandria-Rhambaceia: A. 6. 21. 5, 22. 3 for its founding; DS 104. 8 places it ‘near’ the sea; Periplous of the Red Sea 37 knows of a capital town 7 days inland, on a river. Steph. Byz. s. v. Alexandria names an Alex-andria-in-Makarene (Makran), on the river Maxates; probably it was near Coccala (Ind. 23. 5 for Leonnatus’s meeting with the fleet) perhaps on the modern river Purali and doubtless on an ancient site. How far the spice trade mattered (A. 6. 22. 4) rather than the surrounds (Peripl. 37) I do not pretend to know. The settling of the town with Arachosii (QC 9. 10. 7) is not an error; under Persian administration (e. g. Darius Bisitun 47, and the absence of any province called Gedrosia), Makran was part of Arachosia (hence A. 3. 28. 1), an arrangement that Alex, returned to when his satraps died. Skirmishings: the stress on Ptol. in DS 104. 5 = QC 9. 10. 7 = Cleit. is omitted from Ptol.-A. cp. the very interesting DS 103. 6 = QC 9. 8. 21–28 = 5. 15. 2. 7, prob Cleit.; cp. now P. Goukowsky REA (1969) p. 320 (unconvincing). One should remember too the ‘pro-Ptolemaic’ source (Cleit.?) in DS 18. Motives for the march: Nearch. in A. 6. 24. 2–4 (too often mistranslated), S. 15. 2. 5 (note ‘they say’ – Nearch. and Cleit.?). Indica 20. 1; 32. 10 (important). Semiramis: QC 7. 6. 20, 9. 6. 23 and W. Eilers, Semiramis (1971) for her legend. Sea-trade: H. Schiwek Bonn. Jahrb. (1962) pp. 43–86; ponderous, but much bibliogr. on Nearchus’s route. N. Pigulewskaya, Byzanz auf den Wegen nach Indien (1969) is worth comparing. Spices: J. I. Miller Spice Trade of the Rmn. Emp. (1969) cites much evidence, to be used critically. Persian sea-trade: Dar. Susa inscrip. 30–5. Alex. and Staff: A.’s autoige at A. 6. 23. 1 is the only hint of disagreement. Supplies: A. 6. 20. 5 with QC 9. 8. 29; not for the garrison but the stratia (expedition, but in A. 6. 21. 3 = land army, not fleet). Some of these supplies may have been eaten by Nearch. during adverse winds (first 2 months), but Ind. 21. 13 implies men were going hungry very soon. Satrap’s death: Ind. 23. 5, A. 6. 17. 1; to call him an innocent scapegoat is sheer fantasy. His troops’ victory: DS 106. 8 garbles QC 9. 10. 19, whose source and order he is following; Ind. 23. 5 (cp. A. 7. 5. 5) is Nearch.’s own report and obviously correct (R. D. Milns Alex. the Great (1968) p. 235 is absurd). Sources for the march: Strasb. p. 478–86 is excellent. Nearchus’s voyage: Indic. 21–35. His grain-ships: kerkouroi in 31. 3. 23. 3. Cinnamon:J. I. Miller, Spice Trade, pp. 154f. Alex.’s rescue-camels: DS 105. 6, QC 9. 10. 17, P. 66. 3, A. 6. 27. 3 (C. B. Welles’s note in his Loeb Diodorus pp. 426–7 is another of his blunders). Kirman: S. 15. 2. 14, Onesic. F 32. Revel-triumph: A. 6. 28. 2; doubts are important (unlike 5. 1. 2, they did not have gods to allay them – cp. the revel at A. 5. 2. 7, incredible to A.) but he probably had not read Cleit, who sponsored the story first. DS 106. 1 = QC 9. 10. 22 = P. 67. 1–3. = Cleit.; though an Alexandrian(Jacoby T 12). Cleit. perhaps wrote before the Dionysus myth had been fully adopted by Ptolemies. Results: cp. A. Alfoldi, Rom. Mitt. (1954) pp. 88ff., F. Pfister, Real-Encycl. supplem. 4. 177ff., s. v. Epiphaneia (very thorough); Kallix. FGH 627 F 2; Val. Max. 3. 6. 6, Plin. NH 33. 150; Dio 77. 7. 1. Ptol. and Aristob.’s silence is without weight: could all this have begun from mere literary legend? Nearchus’s return: Ind. 33–36, esp. 35. 8. Bagoas: Dicaearch. ap Athen 13. 603 A-B Numbers of losses: Uncertain, but Strasburger pp. 486–7 is wrong.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 29 (p. 403–420)

Aristotle’s advice: Mary Boyce, trans. Letter of Tansar (1968) pp. 27ff. Machiavelli The Prince, chap. 4. Provincial unrest: the chart in Berve vol. 1 p. 276 is invaluable. Bactria: QC 9. 7 where I suspect Berve nrs 27 and 29 are the same man. The election of a king is not compatible with the move to go home, perhaps a minority attempt (QC 9. 7. 11 is vague). Iranian revolts: Berve s. v. Tyriaspis (cp. Proexes), A. 6. 27. 2 (India); Menon (with A. 6. 27. 3); A. 6. 29. 3 (how many associates?) Berve s. v. Autophradates (summoned yet again in winter 328/7: A. 4. 18. 2, AC 8. 3. 17 and eluded arrest; regnum affectasse suspectus he was at last brought to Susa in 325/4 and deservedly killed; QC 10. 1. 40–42 is a good warning against QC’s own rhetoric); Berve s. v. Astaspes (cp. Indica 36. 8 – the cause or the effect of his arrest? P. 68. 6 suggests it was the cause); Berve s. v. Orontes and Sabictas; Zopyrion (a very interesting march: J. 12. 2. 16, 37. 3. 2 on its scale; Marob. Sat. 1. 11. 33 on its direction, recalling Alex.’s objectives in A. 4. 15. 6; note how Olbia was an ally of ‘free’ Miletus, Tod 195). Alleged reign of terror: E. Badian in JHS (1961) pp. 16ff. has inspired whole books for the general reader by his trenchant comments; unfortunately, not only his opinions but at many vital points his evidence are mistaken. A thorough refutation is long overdue. In his list of victims, Apollophanes (no scapegoat, but explicable simply in terms of a native revolt and the East’s bad roads), Autophradates (summoned earlier), Antipater (uncertain) and perhaps Agathon should be removed, leaving 8 certain depositions, 5 of them Iranian, 4 of them governors under Darius. The statistics for 331–328, when arrests were made at court, are far more impressive; by then, Alex. had not been thwarted on the Beas. (We can omit Mazaeus, Phrasaortes and others between 331 and 327 who ‘died in time’). Badian’s list of detentions ignores geography (in Atropates’s case), evidence (Stasanor: A. 6. 29. 1; Peucestas: arrived on the eve of Alex’s death), possible slander in the pamphlet of Alex.’s last banquet (were the 20 officers present, or only accused of being present?) and, incidentally, the evidence for absentee satraps who often lived at court in Persian times (e. g. a vast subject, Driver, Aramaic Documents passim on Arsames, and esp. Xen. Cyrop. 8. 6. 4–5). Alex.’s increasing harshness: Indie. 36. 1–2 is interesting; A. 6. 27. 4 proves nothing; 6. 27. 5 is A.’s own comment; 7. 4. 3 picks up 6. 17. 4 and is relevant (but who said so – legetai?) Aristob. in 7. 18. 1 is the best evidence, but again Alex, was punishing, not venting his own frustration! DS 106. 2 (note his term misoponeria; was this idea present in Cleit.?) thinks it all justified; there is no objective original source with which to ‘tear away’ any ‘veil of unreality’, for even Cleit. wrote a eulogy and all other decent sources were courtiers. There is only the silly rhetoric of Curtius himself; cp. his twisting of the arrests of Astaspes (deliberately misdated: QC 9. 10. 21 and 30), Autophradates (misinterpreted) and Orxines (muddled, see below). I would like to know more of P. 68. 7, Alex.’s own spearing of a satrap, but note P. 68. 3, vindicating Alex.’s purge. Personally, I cannot see that he was any harsher than at his accession (though sources later liked to stress his change, Roman style, for the worse). QC 10. 9. 18,DS 18. 37. 2, 19. 51, put this brief purge into perspective! Median generals: Berve s. v. Cleander, Sitalces the Thracian, Agathon (once i/c Thracians) and Heracon. It is most odd that Badian does not list the mass killing of 600 mercenaries, but then he does not refer to the charges laid against their leaders either. Temple plunder: Polyb. 10. 27 is very relevant; for the offence cp. the death of Antiochus III in Persia, DS 28. 5. Rape: cp. the anecdotes in P. 22, 41 and Moral 333A, Disbanding of mercenaries: cp. Schol. on Dem. 1. 19 for precedent. DS 106. 2–3, though geographically in Kirman (Jan.-Feb. 324?) suggests this order belonged after (because of?) Harpalus’s flight (for who else had gathered money to escape?). Harpalus fled from Tarsus (Theopomp. F 253–4), not Babylon, absurdly far to lug so much treasure. He must have reached Athens by 22 July 324; he was admitted by Philocles whose generalship (as described in Deinarch 3. 1) is known to have been held by another man in 324/3 (IG 22 1631). Badian p. 42 reaches the same view for the wrong reason and adds an impossibly vague argument from Timocles’s Delius. I would guess Harpalus arrived in July, as did Nicanor; he will have fled Tarsus in June, with his 6000 mercenaries. If so, the mercenary order belongs c. mid-simmer 324; men in Alexandrias were apparently unaffected (DS 18. 7. If – were these mercenaries too or citizens of the realm?) and I wonder if, e. g., Cleomenes had to give up his troops? Certainly, many would not be Greeks, let alone Exiles! Pasargadai: Aristob. ap. A. 6. 29, S. 15. 3. 7. F 51. The ‘first visit’ in line 22 was in early 330; the repair order was given on the second visit. P. 69. 3 names Polymachus as the culprit. Aristob. F 51 B line 27 insists it was not the work of the satrap; QC 10. 1. 27f. is thus claptrap, for if the satrap had been accused of rifling Pasargadai, the apologetic Aristob. would not have refuted the charge. In fact, Orxines was hanged at Persepolis for robbing royal tombs (H. Strasburger Gnomon (1937) p. 492 asks ‘which royal tombs, then?’ Answer: those all round Persepolis’s terrace, still on view today). A. 6. 30. 1 does not exclude Bagoas from among the accusers. QC 10. 1. 37f. is merely Roman colouring! Susa: Aboulites and Oxathres, Berve s. v. Ps.-Aristot Oec. 1353A is valuable background; cp. Indica 38. 9. Loyal Iranians: Berve s. v. Atropates, Phrataphernes, Artabazus, Oxyartes. We certainly do not know their replacements were ‘nonentities’. They may have been princes, every one of them: DS 19. 48. 1–2 is very relevant to their merits; for Archon, satrap of Babylon cp. his prestigious inscript. in BCH (1959) pp. 158–66, dated by J. Bosquet to refer to a victory in the games before 334. Babylon prophet: Aristob. ap. A. 7. 18. Harpalus: Berve s. v., with all the evidence. Babylon portico: F. Wetzel-E. Schmidt, Das Babyl. der Spätzeit (1957) pp. 24ff. Theopomp. 115 F 255–7; 253–4, esp. 253 lines 25f., a vital comment. Berve lists all the precious evidence of comic poets too. DS 108. 4: we do not know whether Harpalus was head treasurer or only one among many. For Pythionice Aphrodite cp. Athen 254A, 588C, 587B and P. de Amat. 9 (Belestiche) and the mass of evidence for Arsinoe Aphrodite. Tarsus coins: E. T. Newell Tarsos under Alex., pp. 16–22, surely a trace of Harpalus. H. von Aulock J. für Num. u. Geldg. (1964) p. 79 does not affect this. The nearby treasury at Cyinda is discussed by R. H. Simpson Histor. (1957) p. 503. Harpalus’s brothers: Berve s. v. Tauron, possibly Philip and Calas Harpalou may be relevant; we simply do not know that Harpalus’s father Machatas was Elimiot (see my counter-examples on Chap. 2) or that this link with Cleander the Elimiot would have mattered, any more than, say, Ptolemy favoured Aristonous, his fellow Eordean, or Craterus favoured Perdiccas, also Orestid, in the not so dissimilar chaos when Alex, actually had died. Old neighbours can hate each other more violently than strangers. Arrest of messengers, if Harpalus’s first ‘flight’ was planned (as I believe) for spying, P. 41. 8 must refer to the second one. Letter from Greece: QC 10. 1. 43, where Coeni is surely a silly Ms. or Curtian slip for tou koinou in the Greek original. Exiles: DS 18. 56. 3, and esp. 4–5 are a fine reminder that exiles did not cease being exiled in 336–4. Arcadia, from which the one certain inscription referring to the Exiles Decree has come (Tod 202), had supported Agis in 332/1 and opposed Alex, in 336/5. In each case, men will have been exiled; cp. DS 18. 56. 4, implying many exiles had been banished since 334 inside Greece. P. A. Brunt CQ (1969) pp. 241ff. makes the 20,000 a wholly plausible number: DS 18. 8. 5 is quite explicit that all the exiles had gathered, numbering over 20,000 (no reason to ‘add in their wives and families’, with Badian!). Exiles Decree: not relevant to Alex.’s deification or to his mercenaries! If Alex, primarily wanted his roaming mercenaries to go home, he would have issued a Mercenaries Decree; in fact, there is no hint that these mercenaries were mostly exiles, rather than starving vagrants; still less are they known to have been Greeks. Badian pp. 25–40 muddles the whole issue; here, I only note that even by late 323 a mere 8000 were waiting at Taenaron and long after the Exiles Decree, showed not the slightest sign of returning ‘home’ (DS 18. 9. 1; 18. 21. 1 is probably their remnants); that there were most certainly not ‘more mercenaries in the Persian service than those at Issus’ (the reference to Hammond, Hist. of Gr. p. 665 is empty); that only at the Granicus (where Alex. slaughtered most Greek mercenaries available to Darius) were any Greek mercenaries branded as traitors and these were sent back to Macedonia’s mines, not punished with exile (A. 1. 16. 6); that the few Greek mercenaries left after the Granicus massacre and the Issus dispersion either died at Gaugamela or were mopped up in 330, on terms, when known, which turned not one of them into an exile (A. 3. 24. 5). One could elaborate, but mercenaries and exiles are not the same problem at all; I imagine the Exiles Decree applied only to the Greek League (DS 111, hardly a ‘grim and vivid description’, does not gainsay this, any more than it specifies that the men involved were Greek exiles, not Carians, Egyptians etc. Like 106. 2. I imagine this is mere hyperbole, DS 18. 8. 5 is decisive for the numbers involved – not more than those lured by Agis!) If the disbanding order does belong after Harpalus’s flight, the Exiles Decree may have been sent back to Greece before any mercenaries were on the roam at all. Tod 202 lines 9–16 shows that in Tegea at least, many returning exiles had been extremely well off. Arcadia was famed for mercenaries, but at Tegea, site of the most solid evidence for the exiles’ return, we also know of upheavals after Agis (QC 6. 1. 20), a more relevant point. Throughout we must allow for flocks of exiles who were driven out even before 338. The Decree: E. Bickermann REA (1940) pp. 25ff. is the one outstanding discussion, pointing out its legality (in theory) and the tactful revival of diagrammas in 319 (DS 18. 56. 1 with 56. 3). I have nothing to add to an article which should have settled the matter. Beurer of decree: Berve s. v. Nicanor nr 557. Date: R. Sealey CR (1960) p. 185. Calanus: P. 69. 6–70. 2 (the debauch), A. 7. 3, 18. 6, DS 106. S. 15. 717–8. Athen. 437A. Ael. VH 2. 41. Cic. de Div. 1. 47. Val. Max. 1. 8 ext. 10. Suida s. v. Calanus. Weddings: Chares F 4 with A. 7. 4. 4–8. On the points of status cp., e. g., W. K. Lacey, Family in Class. Greece (1968). The Dura marriage – evidence is remarkable: F. Cumont, Fouilles de Dura (1926) chapter 6, nos 62–67 and pp. 344–5. S. 14. 5. 25 is correct, culturally; cp. S. 17. 1. 12 where migades surely only means Greeks of mixed Greek origin, not Greco-Eyptians.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 30 (pp. 421–435)

Debts: A. 7. 5, where 7. 5. 2 does not, to my mind, read like A.’s own invention (despite A. Prol. 2) but a straight report of Alex.’s (alleged?) words. Only the Persian monarchy made a parade of truth as a virtue of a ruler. A. 7. 5. 3 agrees, interestingly, with J. 12. 11. 2–3 for the amount; the precise P. 70. 3 with QC 10. 2. 9–11 (cp. DS 109. 2) seems preferable. A. stresses it was debts (chrea) in excess of pay (A. 7. 5. 1); conceivably, the soldiers were owed money for their trophe, which they may have borrowed money to buy, instead of being given money officially during the Indian campaign. But Indians did not use easily equatable coinage and Greek accounting was feeble. Epigonoi: A. 7. 6, P. 71, omitted by QC. Companions’ losses: 7 or more Hipparchies seem to have shrunk to 4 by 324 (A. 7. 6. 4); true, Hephaistion is named in autumn 324 as a chiliarch leading a cavalry chiliarchy, but this need not have been 1000 men, any more than a Macedonian dekas was 10 men or a Roman century 100. Anyway, the unit is so called only after the replenishment at Susa: I do not believe the hipparchies’ number had been halved, because the strength of each had been raised to 1000, before the name chiliarchy occurs. I cannot solve the text of 7. 6. 4, if indeed it is corrupt; cp. 7. 8. 3 for similar use of alla gar: I discuss the hipparchies elsewhere. Pasitigris: A. 7. 7 with S. 16. 1. 9. Cp. the maps in G. B. Le Rider, Suse (1965). Alexandria: Plin. NH 6. 138–9 with J. Hansman, Iran, Antiqua (1967) pp. 21–58 (not all cogent); E. Herzfeld, Pers. Emp. (1968) p. 9, a brilliant point; cp. Isaiah 22. 5. The Arab name Karkh Maisan could mean ‘fortress’ as well as Carians. Opis meeting: a subtle affair, wasted on QC 10. 2. 12 who has not even reported the arrival of Epigonoi: we do not know if Ptol. or Aristob. recorded this; broad features are agreed, perhaps all through Cleit.; Alex.’s enraged speech (DS 109. 2, QC 10. 2. 14, P. 71. 4, A. 7. 9, J. 12. 11. 7; of course the actual speech in A. is A.’s own construct from scraps of wide reading and of no independent value, any more than QC’s), arrest of ringleaders (A. 7. 8. 3, J. 12. 11. 8, QC 10. 2. 30 agree on thirteen), two days’ sulk (A. 7. 11. 1, P. 71. 7; very suspect, after similar wait on the Beas and after Cleit.’s murder!). Persian appointments: DS 109. 3, P. 71. 4. QC 10. 2. 5, J. 12. 12. 3 and A. 7. 11. 3, the decisive text for the existence of both asthetarioi and pezhetairoi. Weeping surrender: DS 109. 3, J. 12. 12. 6, QC 10. 3. 5, P. 71. 6–8, A. 7. 11. 4. Quip about Ammon: P. 71. 3 has a variant, which perhaps discredits A. 7. 8. 3 = J. 12. 11. 6. Site of the mutiny: QC is too fragmentary to be specific; so is DS (despite 110. 3) and J.; P. 71 gives no location, except between Susa (70) and Hamadan (72). No doubt the grumbling began at Susa. Banquet: A. 7. 11. 8–9 with P. 70. 3 (in muddled order, but giving the very interesting detail of the gift of a gold cup). P. knows the logos in A. 7. 11. 9. Homonoia: Dem. 14. 36, Isocr. Philipp. 39–40, Panegyr. 173–4 etc. Cp. E. Skard, Zwei religios. polit. Begriffe (1932), a most useful study, esp. of the virtues of Heracles as befitting Alex. DS 18. 4. 4–5 and Tod 201 line 30 show A. 7. 11. 9 is not just A.’s rewording: the word homonoia, though pretty empty, was definitely in the air. Promise to children: A. 7. 12. 2; cp. 7. 8. 1 with P. 71. 10. Ethelontai ede in A. 7. 12. 1 says much: the veterans’ departure had been planned since A. 6. 17. 3; at Opis, their fellow-Macedonians were protesting that if any Macedonians were sent home, then they’d all walk out (A. 7. 8. 3, P. 71. 3, J. 12. 11. 5; QC 10. 2. 12 misses the nuance of Persian replacements) Imitation of Alex’s banquet: DS 19. 22. Alex. and Persian methods: e. g. S. 2. 69 (gazophylax); S. 2. 1. 6 (royal files). Episkopoi in e. g. 3. 22. 1, 28. 4 are presumably the old King’s Eyes. Wearers of Purple in P. Eum 8. 7. Origins of Greek culture: not an anachronistic ideal to see in Alex.; cp. Isoc. 5. 154 (perhaps as limited by S. Perlman, Histor. (1967) p. 338) and DS 1. 28. 9 (using Hecataeus of Abdera, writing under Ptolemy I: O. Murray JEA (1970) pp. 141ff., esp. p. 152 for the date and relevance). A. Diller, Race-mixture among the Greeks before Alexander (1937) is a useful background to Alex.’s dilution of his Hellenic ruling class and for the tenacity of Greek civic bodies abroad (it may have been different in the countryside, for such Greeks as lived there). Outside Egypt’s chora, note the rarity of mixed marriages in the (admittedly scarce) evidence for Greek ‘citizens’ in Egypt; W. Peremans, Vreem-delingen en Egyptenaren (1937) is still the fullest survey, with the judicious views of V. Martin, Actes du 8th Congrès Int. de Papyrol. (1955) pp. 85–90, which further decrease the numbers. F. Chamoux, Cyrène sous les Battiades pp. 215–25 underlines this. S. 14. 5. 25 firmly rules out any Greco-barbarian culture; note the famous case of the Macedonian who married an Arab and brought his children up as Greeks (to judge by their names): DS 32. 10. This fits A. 7. 12. 2; note the ready favour for Artabazus’s bilingual children (e. g. 7. 4. 6); Darius’s daughters were only married when they had learnt Greek (DS 67. 1) Peucestas was the one exception (A. 7. 6. 3 only makes sense if he was something unique); Alex., despite Bagoas, Magi and diadems, stood first for a hellenized culture and class. Elderly veterans: A. 7. 12. 6 (their condition). J. 12. 12. 8 (valuable); for Polyperchon, cp. QC 8. 5. 22; Antigenes was Philip’s man (P. 70. 5); Craterus (P. Eum 6, P. 47, DS 18. 4. 1). Antipater: note that orders were still addressed to him (P. 71. 8 and DS 18. 8. 4). A. 7. 12. 7 (based on A.’s own wide reading?) is decisive that all sinister guesses about Antipater’s future were guesses then, and still are. P. 49. 14 lacks any date or precision (no reason to date it to 324/3 rather than 330 or any other year); Antipater may have bought off the Aetolians with a treaty in 332/0, in order to be free for Agis; cp. DS 18. 25. 5 for a similar false treaty with them. There is no other sign (least of all after 323!) of any close friendship between Aetolia and Antipater. Returning veterans: Antigenes’s presence and the points adduced by F. Schachermeyer, Alex. in Bab. (1970) pp. 14 n 10 and 160 n 147 imply the elderly Silver Shields left for home in entirety; DS 18. 12, A. 7. 12. 1, DS 109. 1, J. 12. 12. 7 all put their numbers at 10–11,000. The numbers in DS 18. 16. 4 are for Alex.’s own veterans and for Craterus’s ‘recruits on the march’ (i. e. in 323/2). Dead generals: only Demetrius (apparently) and Coenus the Hipparchs. Bodyguard: Berve 1 p. 27. Perdiccas’s clique: Alcetas and Attalus Andromenous, with family: only 2 of the 4(?) remaining Foot Companion brigadiers. F. Schacherm. Alex. in Bab. pp. 13ff. characterizes the court allegiances in 323, but deduces too much from men’s behaviour after Alex.’s death, which changed everything, not least personal loyalties. Aristander: Ael. VH 12. 64 (omitted by Berve). Alex.’s dinners: Ephippus 126, F 2. Hatreds: P. 47, A. 7. 12. 7, P. Eum. 10 and 55 (Antipater). Bisitun: DS 110. 5. The route in 110. 3–4 is not without logic, once it is realized that it refers to his journey from Susa tQ Spasinou Charax (the Carian Villages), then through Sittacene (cp. S. 16. 1. 17); Sambana goes back to Kampanda (the old Persian name for the district of Bisitun); then, to the Celones (site of exiled Eretrians, Hdt. 6. 119, not Boeotians!), then to Bisitun. The days’ intervals are incomplete and the list is in a muddled order, but this itinerary certainly goes back to an eye-witness. Nisaean Fields: DS 110. 6, rounded down in A. 7. 13. 1. Amazons: A. 7. 13. 2 with S. Runciman, Hist. of Crusades vol. 2 (Peregrine ed.) p. 262 n 1; also Xen. Anab. 4. 4. 17. Hamadan: DS 110. 6 (influenced by Hdt.’s fabulous city? or by Deinon, via his son Cleit.) is refuted by the clear Polyb. 10. 27. Harpalus’s comedy: Athen. 586 D, 595E – 596B with B. Snell Scenes from Greek Drama (1964) pp. 99f. and H. Lloyd Jones, Gnomon (1966) pp. 16ff. Hephaistion: A. 7. 14, based on wide reading; a very fair critique (note that the story given in his abbreviation of Epictetus, 2. 22. 17, is repeated here disbelievingly). A. 7. 14. 8 omits the role of Perdiccas (DS 110. 8) but here, this must be due to A.’s shortening, not Ptol.’s malice. P. Pelop. 34. 2 and Ael. VH 7. 8 have the dismantled battlements; Polyb. 10. 27 refers to Hamadan as a ‘wall-less city’, which may be relevant. Hair cutting: cp. P. 72. 3 with Hdt. 9. 24. Cp. too P. Eum 2, 9. 10. Polyaen. 4. 3. 31 (with P. 72. 5’s comment). Lion of Hamadan: al Masudi, Les Prairies d’Or 9. 21 (French transl. 1865), the probability of which has been well stated by Prof, Luschey in a lecture in Tehran, still unpublished; the Lion of Chaeronea, the Lion of Amphipolis (for Nearchus) and even perhaps the Lions on the Asoka columns suggest this style was introduced and diffused by Macedonians (who lived among mountain-lions). Omen: Aristob. in A. 7. 18; preferable to P. 73. 3–5.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 31 (pp. 436–460)

Alex.’s finances: DS 114. 4 (contribution to funeral from subjects) with P. Artax. 23. 5; P. Eum. 2. 5 (another personal contrib.). F. Altheim-R. Stiehl, Die Aram. Sprache unter den Achaimen. (1963) vol. 1 pp. 109ff. discusses the evidence fully; J. 13. 1. 9 is the crucial text, a measure of the whole subject’s impossibility. If 30,000 talents seems an absurd sum for yearly tribute (and it does) then we simply cannot emend it and at the same time hold to the 50,000 figure for reserves! Alex.’s generosity: e. g. P. 39 with Xen. Cyrop. 8. 2. 7 on traditional generosity of Persian King: cp. P. 69. 1. Also Theopomp. F 224 (biased?) for Philip’s attitude. Antimenes the treasurer: Berve s. v. with Ps.-Ar. Oec. 1352B, 1353A. A. Andreades BCH (1929) pp. 10–18. Chiliarch:J. Marquart, Philolog. Supplem. (1907) pp. 222ff.; P.J. Junge Klio (1940) p. 13; E. Benveniste, Titres et noms propres en Iranien (1966) pp. 68ff.; W. Hinz, Iran. Funde (1968) pp. 63ff., the most plausible view; F. Schachermeyer, Alex, in Bab. pp. 31ff Eumenes: P. Eum. 2. 4. Pomp: DS 18. 60. 5 (throne and sceptre – 18. 27. 1). Phylarch 81 F (cp. DS 17. 17. 4, QC 9. 7. 15). Polyaen. 4. 3. 24. Duris 76 F 49 with Chares 125 F 4 (the audience tent served for weddings too). Persian parallels: cp. A. Alfoldi, La Nouvelle Clio (1950) pp. 537f.; also Studies in Hon. of A. M. Friend (11955) p. 50 for theatrical element and the precedent of Dionysus. Deification: Theopomp. F 253 lines 27f. are decisive for divine honours being paid by Greeks, somewhere, before 324 b. c. (the timai must be the same as those offered to Pythionice, for the sense of the sentence; for time as a divine honour cp., e. g., P. Mor. 804B). Honours: Tod 201 lines 45f. (plausibly restored). I agree with Welles and Bickermann in dating this to 332; one should remember the Ammon coins in NC (1962) p. 65 from Mitylene F. Salviat BCH (1958) pp. 193ff. has birthday games in Thasos c. 300 b. c. C. Habicht Gottmenschtum (1970, 2nd ed.) lists later evidence on pp. 17ff. S. Weinstock HTR (1957) p. 234 argues cogently for Alex.’s statue in divine procession. I feel it needs no qualification to assume all this during Alex.’s lifetime in, e. g., Greek Asia; that was what Theopomp. F 253 meant. Aristotle: Magna Mor. 1208B, not refuted by K. Latte, Klein. Schr. p. 51 on fondness for local deities. Becoming Zeus: Pindar Isthm. 5. 14, Olymp. 5. 56, cp. the (late) evidence for the Salmoneus myth; Apollod. 1. 89, Hyginus Fables 61. Pythagoras and Empedocles: Ael VH. 2. 26, 4. 17, 12. 32, 13. 19. Empedocles 31B, 112n, 4f. (Diels) Euthymus: Plin. NH 7. 152, citing Callimachus; Paus. 6. 6. 4–12. Ael. V.H. 8. 18, S. 6. 1. 5. Inschr. von Olymp. Nr 144, cp. the Thasian athlete in J. Pouilloux, Thasos vol. 1 pp. 62ff. Dion and Lysander: Habicht pp. 1–16, with the decisive new evidence in Archaeol. Anz. (1965) p. 440. Philippeum: Paus. 5. 20. 9 with K. Scott TAPA (1931) pp. 101ff., a valuable point not wholly refuted by P. Herrmann, Istanb. Mitteil. (1965) p. 87 n 49. cp. the Amynteion in Pydna (Schol. to Dem. Olynth. 1. 5, Aristid. 1. 715D). Also the Timoleonteion (P. Tim. 34, DS 19. 6. 4); was the Mausoleum posthumous? Pamphlet’s advice: Isocr. Philipp. 132,137,145 and esp. Epist. 3. 5; cp. Hesiod Theogony 96, Isocr. to Nicocles 3. 26. Aristot. Politics 1288 A 15 with Ethics 1145 A 23, Rhet. 1361 A. Freedom and divine kings: Habicht pp. 160ff. and A. D. Nock, Papers pres. to F. C. Grant (1951) pp. 127ff. Alex. and Athens: E. Bickermann, Athenae (1963) p. 70 with the full evidence on this insoluble topic. Hyper. Epitaph. 21 is in too highflown a context to begin to be decisive; we do not know what Hyper. meant by anankel The tomb for Harpalus’s mistress on the Sacred Way could be relevant to the quip about ‘servants as heroes’. But Demades’s prosecution suggests, to my mind, that some honours had gone through in 324/3 (Ael. VH. 5. 12, Athen. 251B). A. 1. 1. 3 must be pondered; A. 7. 23. 2 proves nothing. For Athens’ later attitude cp. P. Demetr. 10. 1 and DS 20. 46. Alex.’s alleged ‘demand’: Ael. VH. 2. 19, P. Mor. 219E share the one surviving source for this and, like Hogarth (cp. J.P.V.D. Balsdon, Histor. 1950 pp. 383ff.) I think it is ‘a statement so worthless that it does not deserve a place in the creed of any responsible historian’. The wearing of crowns by the envoys (as by theoroi) in A. 7. 14. 6 (where dethen is A.’s own irony, not necessarily implying the comparison was false) may imply Greek worship, but says nothing for Alex.’s demands. His religiosity: Lucian Slips of the Tongue 8 (note Eumenes’s letter!); Val. Max. 7. 3 ext. 1 (cp. Suet. Aug. 96. 2). Dolphin; Duris ap. Athen. 13. 606, Ael. Hist. An. 6. 15, Plin. NH 9. 8, Pollux 9. 84, proved to my mind by the coin in Head Hist. Num. 528. His credibility: A. Heuss, Antike U. Abendland (1954) p. 65 (excellent). L. C. Ruggini Athenaeum (1965) p. 3; D. Michel Latomus (1967) p. 139. M. Simon, Rech. d’hist. judéo. chrétienne (1962) DS 18. 60,61 is basic. Saffron shoes A. Alfoldi, Studies for A. M. Friend (1955) pp. 60ff.; M. Bieber Archaeol. Jahrb. (1917) p. 21. Thunderbolt: Plin. NH 35. 92, P. Alex. 4 and the Porus Medallion. Castor and Pollux: Plin. NH 35. 93 with F. Cumont, Le Symbolisme funér. des rom. (1942) pp. 64ff. Neisos gem: Furtwangler Antik. Gemm. plate 32. 11. Egyptian statues: P. Perdrizet Monum. Piot (1913): pp. 59ff.; J. Bernouilli Erhalt. Darstell. des Alex (1905) p. 112. The portrait in faience depicted in Bull. van der Antik. Besch. (1965) p. 80 suggests a cult-bowl, like those used in Ptolemaic ruler-cult. Apollo coins: Kraay-Hirmer plate 171. cp. Mausolus and Artemisia as Heracles and Demeter on coins. Alex. and Dionysus: A. D. Nock, JHS pp. 21ff. remains definitive, though at times a little too logical. Distant gods: P. Merlan, Zeitschr. für Philos, Forschung (1967) p. 485 is important; cp. the Demetrius Hymn (Duris F 14). Ephippus: 126 F 5. He has nothing whatsoever to do with the Ephippus in A. 3. 5. 2 whose patronymic must not be emended to an ethnic! Kock CAF vol. 2 pp. 250ff. seems to me to be the same man (probably); his victory at Athens in the 360s (IG 2223 25. 145) puts his birth c. 390 and even if his F 3 and 5 have been too hastily ascribed to Alex.’s doings in 335, F 14 (against Plato) and F 17 are suggestive. Athen., admittedly, does not specify him as ‘Chalcideus’ when he quotes him; I readily suppose, though, that Ephippus ‘comicus’ would also write in prose. Divine dress: O. Weinreich: Menekrates Zeus u. Salmoneus (1933) is a brilliant study, with wide-ranging notes. Parrhasios: Ael. VH. 9. 11, Plin. NH 35. 71; J. M. Edmonds, Elegy and iambus nr 3. Clearchus:J. 16. 5. 8, Suida s. v., Isocr. Epist. 7. 12, Memnon 434 F 11; M. Wallisch, Philolog. (1955) p. 250. Menecrates: Athan. 289 C, Weinreich passim and esp. pp. 92ff. for sources in full Isocr. To Nicocles 32 is valuable on the overtones of royal excess in dress. Divine pretensions in Macedon: I do not believe that Macedonians found these cults nationally repugnant; inscriptions are simply too scarce as yet to prove their basis, or otherwise, in Macedon, where there were few towns, anyway, in most areas. P. Perdrizet BCH (18) p. 417 is a good prelude; readers of J. Bekker, De Suidae Excerpt. Histor. (1916) will not set much store by Antipater’s alleged shock in the entry in the Suida, a work partly excerpted by a Byzantine monk from an epitome of Virtues and Vices. Sacred feasts: Diodor. Comicus ap. Athen. 239B; P. Demetr. 12, Antony 24. W. Herzog, Heilig. Gesetze von Kos nr 10 (Ab. Berl Ak. 1928). More in A. B. Cook, Zeus 2. 1168f., A. D. Nock HTR (1944) pp. 150ff. F. Herter Wien. Stud. (1966) p. 556 on DS 18. 61; cp. Theocrit. 17. 18. The Zalmoxis banquet in Thrace should be compared; Theopomp. F 31 with F. Pfister in Studies pres. to D. M. Robinson pp. 1,112ff. It is these practices which explain the quips in Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe 6. 17. 2; the finest Roman example is the Gytheum inscription for Augustus; Ehrenberg and Jones nr 102. On epiphanies, cp. F. Pfister R. E. Supplem. 4 vol. 301ff. Alex.’s dress: E. Neuffer, Das Kostum Alex. (1929) is still useful; J. P. Tondriau, Rev. de Philol. (1949) p. 41 is an invaluable complement. Hermes: Athen. 289C with Furtwangler, Antike Gemmen. pl. 31. 24, vol. II. 158. 24. Heracles: Varro in Servius ap. Virgil. Aene. 8. 564. Full list in R.E. 3. 1109. Also A. R. Anderson HSCP (1928) pp. 8ff.; Artemis: Philip’s statue in Ephesus’s temple of Artemis is probably irrelevant. DS 18. 4. 5 is Alex.’s link with her. Roman parallels: In the Gytheum inscription, Drusus is linked with Aphrodite; Caligula in Dio 69. 26. 6, Suet. Cal. 52; Philo. Emb. to Gaius 78f. omits the goddess bit. H. Delbruck Antike und Abendl. (1932) p. 21. Histor. Aug., Helibg. 28; P. Demetr. 23f. DL 6. 102 (Menedemus the Cynic). As Artemis, Ephipp. refers to Alex.’s sibune: for its Macedonian meaning, cp. Hesych. s. v. Sibune, DS 18. 27. 2; Papyr. Cairo Zenon 59362 lines 34f. For the attitudes to divine dress: Suet. Aug. 70 (a smear story). But note Suet. Aug. 94. 6. Weinreich pp. 82ff. deals well with Salmoneus. More Roman parallels in H. G. Niemayer, Stud. zur Statuar. Darstell. der Rom. Kais. (1968) p. 198; the seal-stones in E. Porada Iraq (1960) pp. 220ff. esp. pi. 31. 3, 9 are a very curious parallel, possibly all depicting gods and goddesses. Note too R. Merkelbach Quellen des Alexanderroman pp. 252–3. Alex, as melancholic: Ephippus F 5 line 34; (see Addenda) Drinking: the Diaries are the lynch pin for A.’s ‘increasing alcoholism’ and they are suspect; Aristob. F59, 62 may be apologetic, but one only apologizes when one thinks one has a case worth defending. Nomads: A. 7. 15. 1, DS 111. 4–6, Indie. 40. 7–8 (important). P. 72. 4 (P.’s own comment). S. 11. 13. 6. DS 19. 19. 3. Embassies: A. 7. 15, DS 113. 2, J. 12. 13. 1. Cleit. F 31 specified Romans, a trivial point to invent c. 310 b. c.; the silence of Ptol. and Aristob. (A. 7. 15. 6) can be explained by disinterest or by inclusion of Rome in the Tyrrhenians. A. 7. 15. 5 cites two obscure historians, not necessarily because A. had not read Cleit., but because only these two had the prophecy by Alex, of Rome’s future eminence (naturally omitted by Cleit.). DS’s silence proves nothing, though it may be due to DS’s own milieu rather than his negligence. S. Weinstock HTR (1957) p. 247 tends to support this Roman embassy; so do the events of 334–29 in southern Italy. A. 7. 15. 5 has an interesting stress on world mastery – cp. legousin, which includes Ptol.-Aristob; cp. ‘kingship of Asia’ in 15. 4. Dionysius I in fact had introduced Greeks to Celts and Iberians. New plans: Carthage’s embassy is important: J. 21. 6. 1, Frontín. 1. 2. 3. Oros. 4. 6. 21. QC 10. 1. 17 (following dealings with Nearch. drawn ultimately from the Indica) may just conceivably go back to Nearch. too, via Cleitarchus. A. 7. 1. 2 refs. to ‘some historians’ for a plan which the word eiso after Gadeira proves to be the circumnavigation of all Africa: cp. P. 68. 1 (source unknown). Hdt. 4. 42–3 puts the plan in perspective. A. 5. 26. 1 need only derive from this rumour; it is untrue that the ‘geography is not Alex.’s’ for we do not know Alex.’s own opinions, still less what he would say to encourage his men. A. 7. 16. 2 suggests he thought the Caspian might be Ocean. How could he know the truth? He certainly did not know minor works of Aristotle by heart. Apelles and War: Pliny NH 35. 93–4. Virg. Aen. 1. 294f. R-E 8A col. 2526f. Arabs: A. 7. 20 (a logos, but in fact Aristob. F 56: the S. quote does not suggest that Aristob. himself reported this as only a logos). P. A. Brunt, Greece and Rome (1965) p. 211 cites this passage as supporting evidence for Alex.’s ‘demand’ for worship; in fact there is no word of any demand here. In A. 7. 20. 1 he ‘did not think it unfit that he should be so worshipped’; in the S. passage, ‘he supposed he would be so honoured’. In view of his honours in Greek Asia this was a fair (and dry) comment. On Arabs cp. F. Altheim-R. Stiehl, Die Araber in der alt. Welt (1964) vol. 1. Unfortunately S. and A. differ in their quotes; S. in Jacoby line 22 says Alex. was ‘aiming to be master of everyone’; Arr. 7. 19. 6 (quoting this, unacknowledged, as adapted to his own view, as elsewhere) that he was insatiable (A. 7. 1. 4 suggests S. may be nearer the original). S. 785C says Alex. wished to make his basileion in Arabia. Spices: A. 7. 20. 2, Aristob. F 57. S. 16. 4. 19, Periplous of Red Sea 29. Explorers: A. 7. 20. 7, S. 16. 765–6, Berve s. v. Hieron, Archias, and Androsthenes s. of Callistratos, I would guess son of the famous Athenian who went to Thasos in exile: Dem. 50. 52, Scylax 67. This fits nicely with the pro-Macedonian conduct of their relation Callimedon, Ps.-Aesch. Ep. 12. 8. Gorgo: Ephippus F 5; SIG 312. Berve s. v. He may well be the same man as the metal-prospector. Samos: SIG 312, DS 18. 8. 7, notes to Tod 100. Note in SIG 312, DS 18. 8. 6 how popular this decision was with other Greeks. Samos in 334: A. 1. 19. 8. F. W. Mitchel, Athens in the Age of Lycurgus (1970) is useful for background, Thrasyoulus: CIA 2. 808A, 39. Attack on Athens: J. 13. 5. 1 and QC 10. 2. 2 are mere gossip; cp. Athen. 59 E for more camp background, all made plausible by Harpalus. When Harpalus’s failure was known, this gossip collapsed. Deification: Ael. VH 5. 12, Val. Max. 7. 2. 13. Gnom. Vatic. 236 (Sternbach). Timae. ap. Polyb. 12. 12. 3; Dein. in Dem. 94. Hyper. in Dem. 31, 15f. Alex.’s letter: P. 28. 2 (to be rejected in the absence of proof). Athens’s attitude: Duris 76 F 13. Craterus’s march: nothing sinister in the time it took! They were sick men (A. 7. 12. 14); they missed the sailing season of 324; there had been troubles in Cilicia (DS 18. 22. 1), possibly in 324/3. They would rest in winter. Leosthenes: chronology very difficult. Badian JHS (1961) p. 27 antedates it wrongly. DS 17. 111 (our only guide, together with 18. 9) is quite explicit; first, Alex, disbanded his mercenaries (order given in summer 324, probably received and obeyed by July?); mercenaries ran wild (better not to confuse the issue with QC 9. 7. 11, a very garbled passage); ‘afterwards’ (meta tauta) they flocked to Taenarum. ‘Finally’ (to teleutaion) they chose Leosthenes as leader. They were a mere 8000 (DS 18. 9); they paid no attention to the Exiles decree, because it had nothing to do with most of them (cp. another – or remaining? – 2500, still at Taenarum in DS 18. 21). DS 18. 9. 4 suggests Leosthenes’s negotiations took place in spring-early summer 323, when he was general (cp. Berve). 50 talents (111. 3) would not pay much of a force; note the scanty Athenian help in 323 July (DS 18. 11. 3). Paus. 8. 52. 5 is worthless (for the number, cp. QC 5. 11. 5, anyway excessive; Alex. had killed most of these and the rest came to grief with Agis or Amyntas in Egypt; the suggestion of E. Lepore, Parol, del Pass. (1955) p. 169 that Paus, copied the figure from a votive inscription is absurd). Paus. 1. 25. 3 is equally chaotic, though implies this took place in A.’s life. I am inclined to believe Leosthenes never went to Asia, ran no ‘ferry service’ and just met the men at Taenaron (DS 111. 2–3 confirms). Harpalus’s men had fled to Africa, taking money (and another 1000 mercenaries?) with them: (DS 18. 19. 2 with 17. 108. 6; contrast the 6000 men given by Arrian 156 F9. 16f.). In spring 323 Leosthenes’s prospects were even worse than Agis’s (note Athens’s guarded support throughout); even after Alex.’s death his effort failed, perhaps only hiring 5500 mercenaries (DS 18. 9 less DS 18. 21). His father: Schol. on Aeschin. 2. 21, implying he fled to Macedon after his exile following the defeat by Alex. of Thessaly. Persian admirals: the answer to Badian p. 28 is men like Autophradates (never caught or retained in 331) and Chares (likewise, P. Mor. 848E). After 331, Pharnabazus had joined Alex. and his kinswoman Barsine (P. Eumen. 7. 1). Babylonian prophets: Aristob. ap. A. 7. 16. 5f. (cp. Appian B.C. 2. 153) explains Alex.’s entry into Babylon as only made after a sincere attempt to obey the priests – is this apology? J. 12. 13. 3 (specifying Borsippa), DS 17. 112, P. 73 (surely specifying Nearch. as ultimate source) make the priests warn him away from Babylon altogether. In DS, Anaxarchus persuades him to go in. The massive authority of Nearch. and Aristob. guarantees that Alex. did try to take these warnings (whatever their nature) seriously. Plans for fleet: A. 7. 19. 3 = Aristob. F 56, garbled (intelligibly, though) in QC 10. 1. 19, P. 68. 2. Plin. NH 7. 208 (important), DS 18. 4. 4. Canals: A. 7. 21. 1 with Aristob. F 56 line 12 (Arabia his motive). Geography here is very vexed: cp. R. D. Barnett JHS (1963) pp. 1ff. and G. B. Le Rider, Suse (Mem. de la mission archéol. en Iran. 1965), esp. maps. Presumably the city was on a former outpost, perhaps the Diridotis of Indica 41. 6. Diadem: Aristob. in A. 7. 22, cp. App. Syr. 64, with the brief DS 116. 5 (out of chronological order). Aristob. (against DS) insists that it was the rest of the fleet who were lost, not Alex.’s and that the man was not killed! Cp. J. 15. 3. 11 for the theme of the story. Army: A. 7. 23, where 23. 3–4 imply that at most there were c. 6700 Macedonians in camp, if all 20,000 Pers. were enrolled in the new ‘phalanx’. The Carian reinforcements may include disbanded meres. Festivals: Chares F 9 with A. 7. 23. 5. Embassies: A. 7. 23. 2, DS 113. 3.–4 (revealing). Hephaistion’s pyre: DS 115 (for the cost cp. A. 7. 14. 8. not mentioning Perdiccas’s role: DS 110. 8). A. and DS both specify it was to be a pyre (cp. DS 18. 4. 2); J. 12. 12. 12 has tumulus, P. 72. 5 a taphos and much else. I am quite prepared to believe that Alex. planned an inflammable pyre; DS 115. 2 has the imperfect, perietithei, and nothing suggests this pyre was ever finished (cp. 18. 4. 2 – evidently still incomplete). Hamilton p. 188 says ‘we know the memorial was certainly completed’. We do not, anywhere. The measurements may be inflated by rumour simply because they never were finished; cp. the Last Plans. At Babylon, Harpalus’s precedent of a tomb to his dead mistress should not be forgotten. Apart from the cube-shape of a ziggurat, the Greekness of the design is stressed by C. Picard, Manuel d’art grecque vol. 4, p. 1182. Mt Athos: P. 72. 7, Mor. 335C. S. 14. 641. Lucian pro Imagin. 9. Vitruv. 2. 2. 3. Funeral: DS 114. 4–115. 1. Cult: A. 7. 14. 7, 23. 6 with P. 72. 4 (heroic enagismosl). DS 115. 6 with Lucian Calumn. 17 are mistaken but explained by E. Bickermann Athen. (1963) pp. 81ff. Hyper. Epitaph. 21 is too vague and obscure to guarantee that Alex. actually demanded Hephaistion’s worship by subject cities, and the plural anankazometha may refer to all Greece, not just Athens. Cleomenes: Berve s. v. Ps.-Ar. Oecon. 1352 A should be read with van Groningen’s sensible commentary and with the similar moves made by Chabrias under Tachos (E. Will REA (1960) p. 254). Dem. 56. 7f. is simply a complaint from an Athenian view; famine in Egypt itself (Aristot. Oecon. 13 52B 14–20) is the background to Cleomenes’s sharp practice. Despite the rhetoric of E. Badian JHS (1961) p. 19, A. (probably Ptol.!) 7. 23. 6 is still the best evidence for Cleomenes’s ‘sins’; otherwise, he ruled like any other shrewd official in occupied Egypt, suiting Alex.’s needs and showing the skill of many modern financiers on a commodity exchange (which no ‘philanthropic’ Socialism has ever tried to curb). The letter in A. is not original; note its Herodotean achari (cp. A. 156 F 130). I suspect Ptol. interfered here, anyway. For the contracts, cp. Papyr. Hibeh 199 lines 11f. for an early Ptolemaic parallel; also Welles RC 36; possibly a priest of Hephaistion would seem to have been presupposed by such an order and hence Cleitarchus, an Alexandrian, wrongly believed from contracts that Hephaistion was a full god. Stranger on throne: A.-Aristob. 7. 24. 1–3 (the best account, which in 24. 3 mentions torture by Alex.; unlike DS and P., Aristob. does not say the man was killed. Cp. his account of the retrieved diadem!). DS 116. 2–4 (picking up the alternative in A. 24. 2); P. 73. 7–74. 1, the worst version (condemned by anachronistic mention of Serapis). R. Labat, Le Caractère religieux de la royauté assyro-babylonienne (1939) pp. 95–110 is a good background. Berossos 680 F 2 gives the Sacaea’s date, thereby ruling it out here; the description in S. 11. 8. 4–5 would not fit this affair, either. Dio Chrys. 4. 1. 26 may merely be guesswork based on this passage. For Babylon’s New Year Festival cp. Labat p. 103, also irrelevant here. Substitute kings: R. Labat, Rev. d’Assyr (1945/6) pp. 123–42, W. G. Lambert, Archiv für Orientf. (1957/8) pp. 109–12. (1959/60) p. 119, S. Smith in Myth, ritual and Kingship (ed. S. Hook 1958) pp. 58–9. Most recently, Parpola’s commentary in LESEA (1971) pp. 54–65, a reference I owe to Prof. O. R. Gurney. For the Persian custom, which the eunuchs mistakenly invoked, cp. QC 8. 4. 15. It is very relevant that the Chaldeaans had warned Alex. away from Babylon; Theophrast.’s great respect for their predictions of death (recorded by Proclus, Plato Timae 3. p. 151, ed. Diehl) may derive from the way Alex.’s doom was ‘foretold’. ‘In Egypt, a god’: I quote from Tarn, Alex. vol. 1, p. 138. Alex.’s mistake was to kill off his scapegoat-substitute, instead of letting him bear the doom.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 32 (pp. 461–472)

Throughout, A. B. Bosworth CQ (1971) pp. 112ff. is the sharpest account; see, however, my forthcoming study. Successors’ resistance: Onesic. F 37, DS 118. 2, QC 10. 10. 18, J. 12. 13. 10. Ephippus: F 3 cp. Nicobule 127 F 1 and 2 but note the doubts in F 1 of her identity. Pamphlet: most conveniently set out and discussed in R. Merkelbach, Die Quellen des Alexanderromans (1954) pp. 220ff., building on A. Ausfeld, Rhein. Mus. (1895) p. 339, (1901) p. 517; cp. P. Ruggini, Athenae. (1961) p. 285. I discuss its problems, together with the Diaries in a forthcoming study. Antipater: DS 118, QC 10. 10. 14, A. 7. 27. J. 12. 14. 1, P. 77 with the Stygian water in Paus. 8. 17. 6, Plin. NH 30. 149. Theophrast. ap Antig. Caryst. Mir. 158 is misleadingly cited by Hamilton HCPA p. 215; Theophr. mentions the marvel of the poisonous water, not its use by Antipater. Possibly, Aristot. first commented on it and so it got into the story of Alex.’s death (Aristot. would naturally be said to poison him by a deadly Aristotelian method!) Cassander’s later fear of Alex.: P. 74, Mor. 180 F, both undatable stories. Poisons: cp. J. Berendes, Die Pharmacologie bei den alt. Culturvolkern (1891). When R. D. Milns, Alexander (1968) p. 257 cites strychinine as a poison which ancients mixed in wine, he is muddling the soporific Withania somnifera with the murderous Datura strymonium; Theophr. HP 7. 15. 4, also 9. 11. 5 distinguishes them clearly. Only the former was used in wine; it is not lethal. Strychnine, anyway, kills instantaneously, never after 10 days. Diaries: U. Wilcken, Alex. the Great (new ed., 1968) p. 236 first saw their point as propaganda. A. E. Samuel, Histor. (1965) pp. 1ff. adduces a Babylonian parallel which is irrelevant and anyway false, no such Diary being known (or possible) in Babylonian kingdoms. Much depends on the dating of F2A, for if Diou menos is read, Dios, on the correct equation, should be Octob.-November. See my article. The topography of Alex.’s illness. F. Schachermeyer, Alex. in Babylon (1971) pp. 65ff. Immersion in Euphrates: H. Pease HSCP (1942) pp. 10ff. with DL 8. 69, Suet, de Gramn. 26 and C. Honn, Stud, zur Gesch. der Himmelfahrt in Altertum (1928). Aristobulus: F 59, contrast Diaries F 3 lines 24–5. Decree for Iollas: Moral. 849 (I am very sceptical of this). Eye-witnesses in Athens: DS 18. 9. 4. Poisoning in history: David Douglas, William the Conqueror (1964) pp. 408ff. is a useful comparison; for Constantine, cp. Julian 277D, Liban Or, 18. 42 Amm Marc. 16. 2. 8. Aristotle and Caracalla: Dio 77. 7. 3. Alex, ‘more than mortal’: Polyb. 12. 23. 5. Darkness: QC 10. 5. 15–16. I cannot see that this has anything to do with Schachermeyer’s beloved Royal Fire (Alex. in Bab. p. 47). Alex’s ascension: DS 18. 4. 1, 18. 56. 1 and IG 12. 2. 645. Alex. and Stars: F. Salviat RA (1966) pp. 33ff. for Thasos; Plin. NH 35. 93; W. Wirgin, Hist. of Coins and Symb. in Anc. Israel (1958) plates 6–7. Last words: omitted by Ptol. and Aristob. – cp. A. 7. 26. 3 where porro means ‘beyond’, as usual, for we know that Aristob. (F 59) said things ‘different from’ the Diaries. DS 117. 4, 18. 1. 4, QC 10. 5. 5 (with a Roman comment on deification!) J. 12. 15. 6, A. 7. 26. 3, Ps.-Call. 3. 33. 26. The date of Alex.’s death is settled by D. M. Lewis CR (1969) p. 272; the legend of Aristotle’s involvement is traced by Plutarch, through a certain Hagnothemis, to Antigonus. This implies it sprang up c. 308–6, when Antigonus was hostile to Cassander and his ‘peripatetic’ henchmen, esp. Demetrius of Phalerum who eventually fled to Egypt out of fear for Antigonus; when Theophrastus, Cassander’s aide, was writing (why?) about the poison of ‘Stygian water’, the legend was a gift to Antigonus’s propaganda! I must, finally, stress Eumenes’s co-author Diodotus; Isocr. Letter 4 refers to the only Diodotus known in Macedonian circles between 360 and 320 and the man, an educated ex-pupil, is to be employed by Antipater (4. 9). The Diaries’ author came from Erythrae: Isocr.’s pupil had worked for ‘Asian dynasts’ (4. 7), fitting this allusion splendidly. If Diodotus worked on Antipater’s staff, the Diaries may indeed have been published as if by Antipater and Perdiccas, in the name of their respective secretaries. Who the authors really were is another matter; I suspect retouching by Cassander’s circle, possibly, too, by Demetrius of Phaleron who wrote books on the cures of Serapis. DS 19. 56. 1 may help to explain some of the names cited favourably in A. 7. 26. 2.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 33 (pp. 473–498)

The fate of the officers can be followed in QC 10. 5 (Hieronymus?), J. 13. if. and DS 18 and 19; E. Will, Histoire Politique du monde hellenistique vol. 1 (1966) is the best survey of the struggle’s logic, giving full bibliographies on dates and events. In the description of Alex.’s funeral-chariot (DS 18. 26. 3), we must note its name as a harmamaxa, a specifically Persian vehicle, and apply the Mithras precedents in A. Alfoldi, Rom. Mitteil. (1935) pp. 127ff., with full bibliography. Alex.’s plans have been put into a telling perspective by E. Badian, HSCP (1968) pp. 183ff.; A. B. Bosworth CQ (1971) pp. 112ff. has settled the problem of Perdiccas and Craterus. R. M. Errington JHS (1970) pp. 49ff. takes the Successors’ quarrel inch by inch, down to 321/0, but we should read Curtius (see F. Schachermeyer, Alex. in Babylon (1970) pp. 81ff. for the less plausible view that his source was Cleit.) with the succession crisis of 41, not 14 A.D., firmly in mind. However, J. 13. If. is a good support. The vast subject of the spread of hellenism can only be covered here in the bibliography; one of the few hellenized Persians known by name is ‘Boxos’ in Geographi Graeci minores vol. p. 111f., 2–4, based on Agatharchides; there is also the nameless Persian whose Greek epitaph in Alexandria is known in A.P. 7162 Note, men like Mithridates(DS 19. 39. 2) and Orontobates the Mede (DS 19. 46. 5) who appear in the Successors’ armies briefly; at the Seleucids’ court and in their administration, Iranians remain very rare indeed. The inscriptions of Greek Asia and nearby Aegean islands are the richest source of hellenized Iranians, naturally enough, ranging from descendants of Median family names to hellenized Bactrians making dedications at Delphi. levant. Most hateful city: QC 5. 6. 1 = DS 70. 1 = Cleit. Slaughter: DS 70. 2 = QC 5. 6. 6 = P. 37. 3 (referring to Persepolis, after a presumed gap in the Mss.). Camels: DS 71. 2 = QC 5. 6. 9. Pasargadai: QC 5. 6. 10, A. 3. 18. 10; the prote epidemia in Aristob. F 51B line 22 is distinct from the restoration in 324, despite the slightly vague order of events in lines 15–25. Persian campaign: QC 5. 6. 12–19 (30 days). Dating: QC 5. 6. 12, where the Mss. are corrupt and the sub anyway imprecise. The heavy snow suggests a mid-March campaign; DS 73. 1 has inverted the sequence. Alex. prob. reached Persepolis in mid-Jan 330 and left (P. 37. 6) in mid or late May; the confusions expressed in C. A. Robinson AJP (1930) pp. 22ff. are one more example of the failure of scholars to realize how fast an army, esp. Alex.’s army when smaller and hungry, can march through mid-Iran’s bare steppes (cf. R. D. Milns Hist. (1966) p. 256 for another instance of this). S. 15. 2. 10 means what it says: Nov. 330, a possible date, as my text shows. Appointments: A. 3. 18. 11, with Berve S.V. Rheomithres QC 5. 6. 11. The burning: A. 3. 18. 11–12 (Ptol.?), if S. 15. 3. 6 is indeed from Aristob. who omits (thanks to S.’s quotation?) Parmenion’s advice. But surely here, of all places, if Ptol. had disagreed with Aristob, A. would have given his alternative. Alex.’s regrets: P. 38. 8 (agreed, and immediate); QC 5. 7. 11 (‘agreed’, and immediate). A. 6. 30. 1 (six years later). Whether Alex. regretted it on the spot and ordered instant extinguishing is far more dubious (Α., QC 5. 7. 6–8, DS do not mention or imply this), so too much must not be built on P. 38. 8’s airy remark.