sign in sign up
<<
Home , Alexander (satrap), Arrhidaeus, Artaxerxes III, Attalus (general), Bagoas, Barsine

THE GREAT: AN EXAMINATION OF HIS PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND CHANGES IN CHARACTER

Few historical figures have garnered as much scrutiny and attention as . Biographers and , including , , Diodorus

Siculus, and , all devoted significant tomes to preserving the history of

Alexander. However, these sources are not true first-hand accounts. The writings of the historians who accompanied Alexander on campaign have not survived to the modern day, but their work lived on through the aforementioned authors, who utilized the now lost original sources to compose everything that we know about Alexander’s personality.

Thanks to this, one can glean a deep understanding of the man’s associations with others, including how he was viewed by friends and associates, his character, and the change in his psyche and its effect on his relationships. Perhaps the most integral elements in shaping the Macedonian king consisted of his interactions with his family, friends, and arch-adversary, Darius III. In examining these bonds one must recognize their shifting natures. From his early interactions with his parents, to the influence of his father’s death, to the associations with his childhood companions and Cleitus as they grew from playmates to generals, Alexander was a continuously changing figure. As a general undefeated in battle against the greatest armies of the time and as a young Macedonian king quickly becoming a Greek-Persian emperor, his self-image grew increasingly inflated over the course of his life. With each victory and the hordes of adulating subjects that came with them, the Macedonian assimilated more characteristics that stood in stark contrast to the traditional Greek approach with which he was raised. Instances like his reception from the of Ammon at and the proskynesis of his new

1 subjects, encouraged Alexander to identify himself as more than a mere human ruler.

While these changes accumulated gradually, one of the greatest agents in altering the demeanor of Alexander came with the death of Darius in 330BC. This event served as something of a tipping point into an era of a more Easternized Alexander, affecting all of his intimate relationships. His amplified sense of self-importance triggered his megalomania and his paranoia to grow uncontrollably. Congruent to the growth in his scope of authority and power, his increased mistrust of his companions led Alexander down a path of recklessness that ultimately played a part in his dramatic final years and, quite possibly, in his suspicious death.

Undoubtedly, one of the most significant influences in shaping the young

Alexander into the man he would become was his father, Phillip II of Macedon. himself was a great conqueror and talented leader, traits that he passed on to his favored son. When examining the two rulers, it is important to remember that Philip and

Alexander were brought up in very different circumstances. While Philip was also the son of a king, his father’s hold on Macedon was rather tenuous. This was reflected in Philip’s time as a in Thebes during the city’s over . His time spent in

Thebes ultimately beneficial, as he learned military and political tactics there from the greatest commanders of the time, Epanimondas and , to whom sources have indicated Philip was eromenos1. On the other hand, Alexander was raised in a court surrounded by friends, tutors, and other men and women loyal to Philip, who had exerted an ironclad control on his territories. Alexander had a fairly idyllic childhood thanks to his father’s control of Macedon through successful military campaigns, and being raised

1 Such Greek romantic couplings are discussed in more detail on p. 17-18 2 The term encompassed multiple meanings in the ancient world. In some cases

2 with the Royal Pages, an ingenious policy implemented by Philip that ensured that the next generation of nobles would be steadfastly loyal to Alexander. The differences in

Philip’s and Alexander’s upbringings were reflected in their reigns. Philip’s more humble beginning molded him into a more grounded ruler than his son would prove to be. And

Philip was by no means a modest ruler. For instance, the king portrayed himself as a god at certain ceremonies for propaganda purposes and faced accusations of hubris. His son would later mimic this action and seemingly take it a step further during his time in the

East. Even before Alexander’s birth, his father suspected that he would be exceptional.

Oracles informed Philip that his child with would be a worthy heir and “a boy who would prove as stout and courageous as a lion” (Plut. Alex. 227). In all likelihood,

Philip eagerly awaited the birth of an heir and was exceptionally pleased to have one who turned out so skilled and competent as Alexander.

The young Alexander sought approval from his father. A notable instance of

Alexander’s attempts to prove himself worthy included his taming of .

Philonicus the Thessalian brought Philip a horse that the king’s attendants deemed completely unmanageable. The ten-year-old Alexander immediately questioned this and took a great interest in this horse named Buccephalus. Philip responded to his son’s entreaties by admonishing Alexander, asking him “do you reproach…those who are older than yourself, as if you knew more, and were better able to manage him than they?” (Plut.

Alex. 230). The competitive prince responded that he could manage the steed better than any other person present, and if he failed, would pay the price of the horse. Alexander astutely realized that the animal was disturbed by its own shadow, and therefore he turned it directly into the path of the sun and slowly bridled and mounted it. He then

3 expertly managed and commanded the horse. Upon witnessing this display, Philip and his friends, who according to Plutarch initially watched out for Alexander with great anxiety and caution, burst into applause and praise. Obviously a very loving and proud father,

Philip

“shedding tears, it is said, for joy, kissed him (Alexander) as he came down from his horse, and in his transport said, ‘O my son, look thee out a kingdom equal to and worthy of thyself, for is too little for thee.’(Plut. Alex. 231).”

He expected great things from his son. Even with Philip and Alexander sharing the same competitive nature, the love between the two was strong and marked.

Philip always had his son’s future in mind. He procured the greatest contemporary intellectual, , to tutor Alexander in his youth. As Alexander grew older, Philip trusted his son with royal duties, such as hosting foreign ambassadors when the king was away. When Alexander was only sixteen, Philip left him his royal seal and tasked him with acting as the lieutenant in of Macedon while the king was fighting in

Byzantium (Plut. Alex. 233). Alexander, eager to prove himself to his father, conquered and expelled the Maedi (Plut. Alex. 233). Philip also recognized Alexander’s talent for war craft and battle maneuvering and encouraged him, remembering the ingenuity in battle tactics he witnessed as a youth in Thebes with the talented Epanminondas and

Pelopidas. Soon Philip began to regularly take Alexander into battle with him, giving his son the honored position of head of the Companion . At the Battle of Chaeronea,

Alexander led his unit against Thebes’ Sacred Band and annihilated them. Alexander had idolized these especially passionate warriors and is said to have wept openly after the battle in their memory. Philip then gave Alexander the honor of serving as ambassador to

4 to deliver the generous terms. Still Philip did not trust Alexander to go on a totally independent mission, so he sent to accompany him. This mission showed the potent charisma of the young and handsome Alexander. Indeed, the Athenian

Demosthenes, who utterly despised Philip and wrote the scathing Philippics against the king, was thoroughly charmed by his son, Alexander.

Alexander seemed to have received his love for glory from his father, but Plutarch stated that Alexander “neither sought nor valued it upon every occasion, as his father

Philip did” (Plut. Alex. 229). The father-son relationship was colored by jealousy and a sense of competition, more so on the part of Alexander. Philip himself was an extremely skilled ruler and conquered vast territories from his victory at the Battle of the Crocus

Field in 353BC, after which he gained control of all of and their vaunted cavalry, to uniting the Greek states under the in 338BC. While

Alexander certainly admired his father’s achievements, he also worried about how his legacy would compare to Philip’s. Plutarch wrote that

“whenever he (Alexander) heard Philip had taken any town of importance, or won any single victory, instead of rejoicing at it altogether, he would his companions that his father would anticipate everything, and leave him and them no opportunities of performing great and illustrious actions. For being more bent upon action and glory than either upon pleasure or riches, he esteemed all that he should receive from his father as a diminution and prevention of his own future achievements; and would have chosen rather to succeed to a kingdom involved in troubles and wars, which would have afforded him frequent exercise of his courage, and a large field of honour, than to one already flourishing and settled, where his inheritance would be an inactive life, and the mere enjoyment of wealth and luxury (Plut. Alex. 229-30).”

5 One must take into account that his reaction to his father’s many successes was probably shaped by the typical teenage mindset of any ambitious son of a powerful man of the time, namely a mixture of admiration, envy, the desire for appreciation, and the longing to succeed on his own. For the most part, Philip exhibited little jealousy towards his son and with good reason. As king, Philip was the ultimate power in the new he was building. Yet even this mighty ruler felt the need to assert his dominance over his son. At the Battle of Chaeronea in 338BC, Philip’s forces defeated Thebes, Athens, and their allies. More significantly, Alexander, leading the , had “his heart set on showing his father his prowess and yielding to none in will to win” and desecrated

Thebes’s legendary Sacred Band of warriors (Dio. Bibliotheca. 16.86.1-4). Yet in the inscription on the Lion of Chaeronea, the memorial Philip erected and dedicated to the fallen Sacred Band, the king made no mention of his son’s contributions in their total defeat. Philip wanted to be remembered as the one who had conquered this elite force.

The king was trusting of his son, but did not want to share all his glory with him.

Other problems brewed between father and son. One source of contention for the two stemmed from the quickly deteriorating marriage between Philip and Alexander’s mother, Olympias. Philip did not trust this wife at all. Olympias, in turn, groomed her son to be extremely loyal to her. For this reason, Alexander often took up for his mother during family quarrels, an action which no doubt irritated his father. This tension was not aided by Philip’s drinking. While many contemporary Macedonians were heavy drinkers,

Philip was most probably an alcoholic of some degree, which naturally contributed to familial troubles. Alexander held his father to lofty standards, but as he grew up and began to notice more of Philip’s erratic behavior, the prince became somewhat

6 disillusioned with his father. For instance, as was customary in the Macedonian royal house, Philip took multiple wives. His decision to marry , his first Macedonian wife, made Alexander feel that his position as heir could be threatened by any of their future children. It seems probable that his interfering mother, the deterioration of Philip from drinking, and the threat of Philip choosing a different successor helped this growing sense of paranoia develop. At Philip’s wedding to Cleopatra in 337BC, the bride’s uncle

Attalus “desired the Macedonians would implore the gods to give them a lawful successor to the kingdom by his niece (Plut. Alex. 233).” Hearing this and taking it as a direct slight, Alexander threw a cup at and exclaimed “what, am I then a bastard?” Drunk by this point of the evening, Philip sided with Attalus and upon getting up to chastise his son, slipped to the floor. Seeing this great man reduced to a stumbling drunk, Alexander insulted him, saying “See there…the man who makes preparations to pass out of and into , overturned in passing from one seat to another.” After this episode, Alexander and his mother either fled or were temporarily exiled by Philip.

In either case, they knew that Philip, in his impaired state, might lash out at them. With time and a visit from an old friend, of Corinth, Philip realized he wanted

Alexander back with him and sent for his son to return and reassured him that he was

Philip’s true heir. While Philip may have considered the disturbance in the father-son relationship to have been resolved with that reassurance, it had more long-lasting effects on Alexander’s perceptions of his father and the degree to which he should trust him.

This was not the only issue between father and son. Philip and Alexander were no strangers to rows and arguments. Another encounter that sullied the harmony between

Philip and Alexander in 337BC came about after Alexander was informed (probably by

7 Olympias) of a possible marriage between his half-brother Arrhidaeus and the daughter of the Carian Pixodorus. Alexander was upset that his father was even considering this union; false friends implied that with this impressive marriage, Philip intended to replace Alexander with Arrhidaeus as his heir. Worried that this might come to pass, Alexander sent a messenger to Pixodorus that Arrhidaeus was no fit match and that he was actually illegitimate and an imbecile. Hearing of this, Philip straightaway confronted Alexander and brought with him , a close friend of Alexander and the son of the distinguished general , to witness his admonishment (Plut. Alex.

234). It is not clear why Philip brought Philotas with him in this instance. Perhaps he was simply with Philip at the moment the ruler was informed of his son’s interfering. He could have been the one to inform Philip of Alexander’s bungling of the Pixodorus affair.

Maybe Philip wanted to contrast Alexander’s untrustworthy actions with those of a dutiful son. It seems more likely that Philip wanted Alexander’s punishment to be somewhat public, as a measure of keeping his heir’s ego in check, a problem that would spiral out of control in Alexander’s later life. In any case, during Philip’s harsh scolding of his son, he labeled him as acting like a degenerate and unworthy of the empire Philip would leave him. To make his unhappiness with Alexander’s machinations perfectly clear, Philip went so far as to banish some the young men from his Royal Pages who were among Alexander’s favorite companions including Thessalus, , ,

Erigyius, and Ptomely (Plut. Alex. 234). This act certainly would have upset the prince.

Upon his ascension to the Macedonian throne, Alexander recalled all of his friends and honored them with prestigious positions in his service, an early example of Alexander’s loyalty to his childhood supporters.

8 Despite these problems between father and son, and whatever the status of their relationship at the time, Alexander was among those most distressed following Philip’s assassination. At a festival in 336BC, Pausanius murdered Philip. It is not totally clear why, but many believe that Pausanius was assaulted by Attalus and then took this matter to Philip, who gave no or reparation for the actions done against Pausanius (Dio.

Bibliotheca.16. 93.3-94.3) Following his father’s demise, Alexander was swiftly proclaimed king. His first course of action was finding and severely punishing those involved in his father’s murder. Some speculated that Alexander himself may have been involved in a conspiracy to kill Philip, and instead of persecuting the murderers out of loyalty or in mourning for his father, Alexander was simply saving face. However there is little merit in these claims. There is no evidence to support Alexander’s involvement, nor does it seem very plausible. It is far more likely that Olympias may have been a part of the plot, as the king and queen were very openly estranged at this point. Why else would

Pausanius have waited so long for his revenge, and at an occasion beneficial to

Alexander, unless he was incited to this by Olympias, who always put the interests of her son first (Plut. Alex. 235).

Certainly a main factor in Alexander’s desire to conquer Persia was due to the influence and memory of his father. Philip had planned a campaign to defeat the as vengeance for the damage inflicted on Greece about a century earlier. This idea of revenge against the Persians was a favorite of all the . For instance, Demaratus the Corinthian, who was a great friend to both Philip and Alexander, wept openly when

Alexander first sat on the golden throne at , in remembrance for the Greeks who died at the hands of the Persians and who would never see the satisfaction of a Greek on the

9 Persian throne (Plut. Alex. 263). The plan to conquer Persia never came to fruition for

Philip. After his father’s death, Alexander was only too happy to take on a challenge and conquer an empire that his father never did. A driving force throughout Alexander’s life was his constant desire to out-do all others, and most especially his father. Alexander’s crossing of the Danube in 335BC demonstrated this since his father only reached the river, he but never crossed it.

Although Alexander’s relationships with his father was at times unstable, his interactions with his mother were much more consistently devoted. To better understand the relationship shared by mother and son, one must first examine the complexity of the relationship between Olympias and her husband Philip. She was a foreign princess from

Epirus, who Philip married for seemingly sentimental and political reasons. Sources say that a young Philip traveled through and there met Olympias, with whom he he quickly fell in love with (Plut. Alex. 226). However, shortly after their marriage, Philip began to distance himself from his new wife. Plutarch suggested that Philip, after seeing a snake lay beside his wife in bed or hearing of her participation in Orphic or Bacchic rituals, might have feared that she was an enchantress and best to be avoided. Unlike the

Greeks, the Macedonian royalty practiced polygamy. She was neither his first nor his last wife, but for a period Olympias was the most prominent of Philip’s spouses, as the mother of his heir. This combination of being raised among royal intrigue and holding an elevated and then demoted station in Philip’s house joined to help mold the queen’s rather officious character. Living as a foreign woman in a court filled with Macedonians and Greeks would not have helped Olympias feel secure in her position. She seemed to

10 have possessed a jealous nature, which was only exacerbated by Philip’s additional marriages, especially to his Macedonian wife, Cleopatra.

Alexander definitely adored his mother and the closeness they shared. Their relationship went past the typical mother-son dynamic of the period. Olympias was by far the most important female figure for all of Alexander’s youth and this continued into his adulthood. Such intimacy gave rise to something of an Oedipus complex in Alexander.

One of the reasons that he did not share many close relationships with women throughout his life undoubtedly stemmed from the domineering presence of his mother. When

Alexander was far from Olympias in Asia, he even took to calling Sisygambis, the mother of Darius, as “mother” (infra p. 29). This need for a maternal presence in his life, even to the extent of having substitute mother like Sisygambis, showed the dependence

Alexander had on Olympias.

After Philip drunkenly exiled Alexander, only his mother accompanied him in his banishment. They relocated to her native for a period. This experience showed that while Alexander dealt with a few periods of rejection from his father, Alexander never had cause to doubt his mother’s support. One of the most well known stories depicting an early glimpse into Alexander’s and Olympias’s relationship was of

Olympias telling Alexander that he was actually the son of . Plutarch cited

Eratosthenes in saying that Olympias told Alexander he was semi-divine when he was en route to his first expedition (Plut. Alex. 228); however that author went on to state that others rejected this and believed that Olympias firmly told Alexander that the rumors of a divine heritage were untrue (Plut. Alex. 228). It is debatable if Olympias encouraged or discouraged the idea of Alexander having a divine heritage. It seems very believable that

11 the queen would have encouraged her son to believe he was exceptional in every capacity, including in his parentage. Alexander was her only child, and she expected great things from him. Furthermore, she wanted to distance herself from the increasingly brutish Philip. Alexander probably initially accepted his mother’s declaration as those of a gushing parent. But as Alexander went from victory to victory and his power continued to grow, it is likely that he started to believe the statement. Alexander could also use his semi-divine heritage for political purpose in helping to cement his authority as he went on campaigns in the East.

Olympias was unquestioningly devoted to her son and kept his best interests in mind. She was often rumored, but never fully proven, to be at the center of schemes that benefitted or gave power to Alexander. For example, Plutarch stated that Olympias was the one to inform Alexander of the Pixodorus marriage proposal and encouraged him to halt any possible union in case it might sway Philip to leave his empire to Arrhidaeus, an event that in reality Philip never would have approved. Alexander was certainly aware of the tension between his parents. Plutarch stated that Olympias set Alexander against his father after the previously mentioned Attalus incident and that Olympias fortified

Pausanius’s resolve to kill Philip and was actively involved in some sort of conspiracy.

For all of their closeness, mother and son shared an imperfect relationship.

Alexander was very upset with his mother after Philip’s death, suspecting her involvement and knowing of her cruelty to Philip’s last wife Cleopatra in the aftermath of his death (Plut. Alex. 235). While Alexander hated Cleopatra’s uncle Attalus, he was very respectful of his father’s last wife, an action which no doubt incensed Olympias. With time, Alexander more readily acknowledged his mother’s rather jealous and manipulative

12 nature. Famously responding to a letter with a barrage of criticisms from Antipater against Olympias, Alexander said that “Antipater does not know that one tear of a mother effaces a thousand such letters as these” (Plut. Alex. 265). On occasion, Olympias would fall out with her son over his refusal to take some of her advice or allow her additional influence in state or military business. Even so, Alexander never let their correspondence fail and continued to send her generous gifts (Plut. Alex. 265).

Olympias was ever present in Alexander’s thoughts through their extensive letter writing. This continuous correspondence helped Alexander keep his mother on his mind while on campaign in Asia. He sent Olympias huge spoils after conquering Tyre and

Gaza and also sent some to Cleopatra and the rest of his friends (Plut. Alex. 250). After

Alexander met with priests in , he wrote to Olympias that they held some secret answers regarding the death of Philip that he would tell her then next time they met in person (Plut. Alex. 252). Unfortunately the secrets were never revealed, as the two would never again meet face-to-face. Alexander was notoriously private regarding the letters he received from his mother. Only his closest companion Hephaestion was allowed to read them with him. Yet even then, Alexander would immediately take off his ring and hold it to Hephaestion’s lips to , presumably as a sign of loyalty and confidentiality (Plut.

Alex. 265).

The influence of Olympias was exhibited in the respect Alexander had for women. Perhaps through remembering what his mother endured as a foreigner at the

Macedonian court and at the hands of Philip after he had lost interest in her, Alexander developed something of a modern outlook on women’s rights. For instance, when quelling the rebellion in Thebes, Alexander met with a noblewoman named Timoclea,

13 who had stoned and killed a Thracian captain after he violated her. Once Alexander heard her story, he freed her and her children from any punishments (Plut. Alex. 237). In fact, the king never let his troops assault any of the people they conquered.

Olympias tried to act as a voice of reason for her son from far away, in some letters advising him to be less generous in his gifts to his friends. She cautioned

Alexander to be more moderate in his munificence because “you (Alexander) make them all equal to kings, you give them power and opportunity of making many friends of their own, and in the meantime you leave yourself destitute” (Plut. Alex. 265). Clearly, she wanted Alexander alone to have the glory and the spoils it brought.

In addition to the upbringing received from his parents, Alexander also matured under the guidance of Aristotle. By nature, Alexander was an avid lover of learning and this inclination was cultivated by his relationship with Aristotle. Philip sent for the brightest mind of the age to act as tutor to Alexander and the other young men in the

Royal Pages program. Through this position, Aristotle, the renowned philosopher, would serve as another important relationship in Alexander’s life. The scholar tutored Alexander in morals, philosophy, and more. He also encouraged the development of Alexander’s burgeoning fascination with the East. Greek doctors were seen as the greatest of the time period with noteworthy Greek physicians, including Apollonides of Cos and of

Cnidus, serving as royal physicians in the retinue of the Persian king. Aristotle instructed

Alexander to have a deep interest in the field of medicine as well. Alexander himself was known to prescribe treatments and particular diets for his companions and friends when they fell ill (Plut. Alex. 232).

14 One of the greatest examples of the impact of Aristotle on Alexander lay in the

Macedonian king’s commitment to learning, especially reading the . Alexander kept a copy of ’s , called the casket copy, from his cherished tutor with him always, even laying it under his pillow with his dagger as he slept. Alexander often remarked that “he loved and cherished Aristotle no less…than if he had been his father, giving this reason for it, that as he had received life from the one, so the other had taught him to live well (Plut. Alex. 323).” Indeed Aristotle and the prince spent much time together in study, so much that Alexander felt comfortable enough to critique his teacher upon the publication of his oral works whilst he was abroad (Plut. Alex. 232). The two exchanged letters and comments on various philosophical works as Alexander went on campaign into Asia. Their rapport was maintained for much of Alexander’s life and travels.

However with time, Alexander found himself alienated from his former instructor

(Plut. Alex. 233). Little attention was given to why this estrangement developed other than from some general sense of mistrust. Even then, the king made a point to find the statue of the Greek rhetorician and poet Theodectes in Phaselis and honor Aristotle at it, because he had frequently studied and enjoyed the man’s work as a boy with Aristotle

(Plut. Alex. 242). Alexander certainly owed a great deal of his lasting preoccupation with learning and his fascination with the East to his tutor.

Many of Alexander’s childhood playmates were members of Philip’s Royal

Pages, an inspired strategy that ensured the obedience of Philip’s nobles by having them send their heirs to live at court. This system also served to develop a close relationship between the pages and Philip, who had them address him as a friend without any , a

15 technique Alexander would later utilize. The Royal Pages and Alexander were raised together and developed deep and lasting friendships.

Loyalty was fostered early in the Macedonian court. After Alexander became king, he put his friends into important positions under him, serving mainly as army generals. Alexander gave them farms, villages, and the like to ensure their ability to follow him on campaigns; he felt it so important that these childhood allies serve with him that he actually allotted them most of the royal property, and when asked what would be left for him, replied “his hopes” (Plut. Alex. 238). One such friend, , responded that he would be Alexander’s partner in his hopes, spurring many of his other friends to agree and refuse to accept the given estates (Plut. Alex. 239). This encounter shows both the generosity of Alexander to his network of childhood mates-turned- generals and the unyielding loyalty of his friends in this period.

During Alexander’s sudden sickness in in 333BC, none of the physicians would give the king any sort of remedy in the fears that if their cure failed then

Alexander’s Macedonian companions would seek revenge for poisoning him. Only his friend Philip the Acarnanian acted to provide a remedy for Alexander after seeing how critical the situation was. The king had actually received a letter from Parmenion warning that he had been informed that Philip was a spy for the Persian king Darius, but

Alexander was so trusting of his friend that he took the prescribed treatment immediately and quickly recovered to full health (Arr. Anab. 2.4.7-11). Alexander implicitly trusted his friends above all others in this period, even above the advice of the greatest of his father’s generals.

16 Alexander treated his friends very well for the most part. He encouraged them to treat him more like an equal than like a king. He threw great parties in their honor and granted them lavish gifts, including treasures, houses, and more. Even when Alexander felt some of his companions were growing idle or indulged too greatly in various pleasures, he reproved them in a gentle manner. When comparing the luxurious Persian lifestyle with the honorable Greek one, Alexander emphasized that the Greeks were the ones more noble for any pains they might go through (Plut. Alex. 266). For all

Alexander’s increasing self-importance in this period, he knew to keep his loyal

Macedonians and Greeks in his inner circle. During this time of ever increasing power for

Alexander, his loyal friends kept his ego in check. The king kept the best interests of his friends at heart, often writing letters to help or intercede for them even in seemingly trivial cases, such as an to search for a lost youth Seleucus owned or to thank

Peucestes for capturing Nicon (Plut. Alex. 267).

Unarguably the most significant of Alexander’s childhood playmates was

Hephaestion. A member of the Royal Pages, Hephaestion was probably just around

Alexander’s age, if not a year or two older. Alexander and Hephaestion were each other’s oldest and closest friends throughout both their lives. Indeed, it seems most likely this intimate friendship included romantic elements that began in youth and continued on.

Before further addressing the relationship of the two, an aside on the ancient

Greek view of sexuality versus the modern view is in order. In the ancient world, there was no concept of homosexuality comparative to the modern one. While there were homosexual relationships in the modern definition during Alexander’s time, the contemporary views of sexuality were more fluid and very different from the current

17 ones. distinctions of sexuality were more concerned with the physical acts themselves, namely which partner took the active or penetrative role. This participant was seen as more dominant and experienced, while the more passive partner was considered youthful and less dominant. The practice of pederasty, or the amatory bonds between an erastes and an eromenos, was very common in and regarded as an inherent part of a young Greek’s education. The erastes, an adult man, and the eromenos, a teenage to young adult man, shared an erotic relationship that also served as a type of coming of age rite of passage in the aristocratic class. Alexander’s own father was the eromenos of Pelopidas as a young man in Thebes. Male homosexual pairings were found throughout the Classical age. A prominent example consists of the warriors of the Sacred

Band of Thebes. Made up of 150 male couples, the extremely tenacious Sacred Band was created on the notion that a man would fight more valiantly beside his lover. This fighting force was among the most respected of the ancient world.

No one would have chastised Alexander for having a male lover. However, unique elements of Alexander and Hephaestion’s relationship included that Hephaestion was probably slightly older than Alexander. By cultural norms, this would have been seen as odd as Alexander the king was clearly the more dominant of the two.

Furthermore, the fact that they were near contemporaries was unusual for long time lovers. In the ancient Greek world, friends of a contemporary age may have sex with each other occasionally, but they were never in a systematized relationship like that of

Alexander and Hephaestion. The extended length of their relationship was also abnormal as it lasted into their thirties and most certainly would have continued if they had lived past then. By comparison, most pederasty pairings tapered off once the eromenos reached

18 his early twenties. However, no one would have had the authority or the temerity to question any romantic decisions made by Alexander, who was growing increasingly imposing as he conquered more and more lands.

One clear allusion to Alexander’s and Hephaestion’s close bonds came at the army’s visit to directly after crossing the Hellesponte into Asia in 334BC. There the king made offerings at the tomb of , the legendary of the , while

Hephaestion layed a wreath at the tomb of , Achilles’s beloved companion, in a form of parallel symbolism acknowledging their relationship (Arr. Anab. 1.12.2-5). This special detour to Troy was made specifically so that Alexander could honor Achilles and in turn for Hephaestion to honor Patroclus. Plutarch commented that while honoring these fallen heroes, Alexander remarked on his luck to have such a faithful friend in life, like his idol had in Patroclus, clearly referring to Hephaestion (Plut. Alex. 239). Many sources observed Alexander’s love for myth and legend, particularly Achilles. The young ruler delighted in comparisons to the glorious hero. Paying homage to Achilles at Troy and his having Hephaestion pay homage to Achilles’ lover certainly alluded to the loving relationship Alexander and Hephaestion themselves shared.

The two had a very intimate and caring relationship. Hephaestion was the only person Alexander permitted to read all his letters, including those from his mother. This was a testament to the deep trust Alexander had in the man, as Alexander was notoriously private concerning these letters. Hephaestion even carried on his own correspondence with Olympias. This was another example of how close the men were, as no other people in Alexander’s retinue were allowed to exchange letters with Alexander’s mother. One case which gives a glimpse into the nature of his feelings for Alexander and the powerful

19 position he held showed that he was able to quarrel with even Olympias. Hephaestion wrote her saying “Stop quarrelling with us and do not be angry or menacing. If you persist, we shall not be much disturbed. You know that Alexander means more to us than anything” (Dio. Bibliotheca. 17.114.3). Hephaestion was close enough to Alexander that this admonishment of his mother was completely permissible. An additional instance that illustrated their familiarity included an occurrence from the day after the Battle of in late 333BC. Following the battle, Alexander, accompanied by Hephaestion, entered into the tent housing the Persian royal women. Since the two men were dressed in matching attire, Sisygambis approached the taller Hephaestion and prostrated herself before him, thinking he was the king (Arr. Anab. 2.12.3-7). When an attendant conveyed her mistake,

Alexander “declared that she had not erred, since Hephaestion, too, was Alexander (Arr.

Anab. 2.12.3-7).” Alexander’s genial response to the woman’s gaffe was telling of his closeness with Hephaestion. It seems likely that Alexander would have reacted with more annoyance or anger if someone were to mistake Philotas or some man other than

Hephaestion for him. The king regarded his ever-loyal friend as an extension of himself.

In this era, his trust in Hephaestion was absolute. Alexander entrusted his friend with the responsibility of collecting all the Persian prisoners and bringing them before him so he could separate and free those of noble birth (Curt. Historiae. 6.2.8-9). By allotting this task to Hephaestion, Alexander made himself more likeable to the Persian aristocracy and, by association, made them also look favorably on Hephaestion.

Another dear friend of Alexander from childhood that remained with him was

Cleitus the Black, son of Dropides (Arr. Anab. 3.27.4). He was probably around

Alexander’s age and grew close to the then prince, because he was the brother of

20 Alexander’s nurse, Lanicae. Cleitus was of noble origin but not from the highest echelon of society as his family still needed to work. This showed that contrary to what one would expect, Alexander was a relatively unpretentious young man. He didn’t particularly care about the social origins of his friends, though he later would raise

Cleitus into a higher station by promoting him to general status. In turn, Cleitus was another unfailing loyal member of Alexander’s immediate entourage. Alexander created a new noble class with men like Cleitus, who were extremely devoted to him.

The first notable exchange between Alexander and Cleitus came at the Battle of the Granicus in mid 334BC, the first of Alexander’s great battles against the Persians.

Cleitus undoubtedly saved Alexander’s life at this clash. After being stuck by the battle- axe of the Persian commander , Alexander was in dire circumstances. Luckily for the king, Cleitus rescued him from a fatal blow by running his spear through the

Persian assailant (Plut. Alex. 240). The general’s actions at the Granicus showed how

Alexander’s friends were totally willingly to lay life and limb on the line for their leader.

In return the king was respectful of his men and let them speak openly and act as equals.

Alexander remembered this event for the rest of his life. It was the cause for additional remorse on the part of the king after the events surrounding Cleitus’s very unfortunate death in 328BC (infra p. 49-50).

Alexander’s relationship with his father’s greatest general, Parmenion, was also an important one. It seems that Alexander saw Parmenion as both a competent and distinguished mentor and as an adversary he had to live up to. In one discussion with

Parmenion, Alexander said, “I will not steal victory,” in response to the general’s advice to attack the Persian force at Gaugamela by night in 331BC. (Plut. Alex. 257).

21 Alexander often seemed to want to prove himself as exceptional, especially to

Parmenion. The king knew he needed Parmenion, as he was widely liked and very successful. He also respected the general, but at the same time, Alexander feared him.

Parmenion represented the head of power from Philip’s generation. Perhaps he saw

Parmenion as a pseudo-father figure, following Philip’s death. In any case, there was an apparent generation divide between the two men. In his interactions with Parmenion,

Alexander showed how he wanted to assert his dominance. For instance, when the general told Alexander that if he where in Alexander’s shoes he would accept Darius’s offers for and payment, Alexander replied “So would I…if I were Parmenion”

(Plut. Alex. 254).

An implicit facet of Alexander’s relationship with Parmenion concerned the king’s relationship with Philotas, Parmenion’s eldest son. Philotas was probably a few years older than Alexander but still close enough in age that they grew up together in the . The first mention of Philotas came when Philip brought him along when he chastised Alexander for getting involved in Arrihidaeus’s proposed marriage (supra p. 8)

(Plut. Alex. 234). Plutarch insinuated that Alexander and Philotas were close friends before this incident. It was not clear why Philip elected to bring Philotas along to watch him reprimand Alexander. Perhaps Philotas was the one to inform Philip of Alexander’s scheme or maybe Philip wanted Alexander’s admonishment to be somewhat public in the hopes that he would not repeat the behavior. The episode seems to have served as a cooling event for Alexander’s friendship with Philotas and the first of many steps that would contribute to the future Philotas Affair. It is probable that Alexander saw Philotas

22 as a rival in some stakes, as he was older, more experienced in warfare, and the son of the best Macedonian general.

After becoming king, Alexander chose Philotas to lead the Companion Cavalry, which was a very high honor. He obviously believed Philotas was a worthy and capable general, whom he could trust to command the Companions loyally. Preceding the , the servants of Alexander’s camp divided themselves into two groups and had a mock battle with each side led by a man nominated to play Alexander and the other nominated to play Darius (Plut. Alex. 256). When Alexander heard of this, he ordered the two captains to fight in single combat instead with Alexander arming the pretend

Alexander and Philotas arming the play Darius (Plut. Alex. 256). The play Alexander won. From this passage, Alexander’s distance from his general, Philotas, was noticeable and not a sentiment that the king kept entirely hidden. By casting Philotas to assist the play-Darius, Alexander created a parallel between the fate of the play-Darius (and Darius himself) and the mounting tensions between Alexander and Philotas. This encounter seemed to move past playfulness and into a darker segment of Alexander’s nature and machinations. It certainly symbolized the degree to which Philotas and also Darius were in disfavor with Alexander. It further implied that Alexander’s suspicious temperament and mistrustfulness were already being heightened in this period.

While in Egypt in 332BC, Alexander decided to visit the oracle at Ammon following in the tradition of his heroes and supposed ancestors and Herakles

(Arr. Anab. 3.3.1-2). After the long trek to the temple in the Siwa Oasis deep in the

Egyptian dessert, the high priest addressed Alexander as a god, a notion that Alexander grew increasingly fond of the longer he stayed in the East (Plut. Alex. 252). There is some

23 debate whether the priest meant to refer to him as ‘paidion’ (my son) or ‘paidios’ (son of god/Zeus), but whatever the case, Alexander began to welcome the (Plut. Alex. 252-

53). Alexander’s men, especially those who grew up with him in Macedon, were naturally a little wary of this concept. Although, when the initially introduced it, the men were not overly concerned as Egypt’s history was rich, illustrious, and very admired by the Greeks and Macedonians. Egypt was a special place for them, which made Alexander’s men more accepting of his adoption of a divine title there. However they still regarded it as an act of hubris on the part of their king. Realizing that his men might be uncomfortable with this concept, Alexander acted as usual and with little affectation of divinity around them, but in front of the foreigners they encountered in the

East, he adopted a divine loftiness (Plut. Alex. 253). Many ancient sources agree, that in this period at least, Alexander did not truly believe he was a god and instead used the claims to subdue and win over the various peoples he conquered. Alexander skillfully utilized this and other propaganda techniques to appease his new foreign subjects.

However Alexander sent a letter to Athens around this time where he claimed that his wounds bled Ichor and not the blood of a regular man (Plut. Alex. 253). This may have been an an early sign of the king’s delusion. He had already seized the impregnable city of Tyre, defeated Persian forces at multiple battles on their own lands, and accomplished many other impossible tasks. Alexander often drank well into the evening and

“would fall into a temper of ostentation and soldierly boasting, which gave his flatterers a great advantage to ride him, and made his better friends very uneasy. For though they thought it too base to strive who should flatter him most, yet they found it hazardous not to do it; so that

24 between the shame and the danger, they were in great strait how to behave themselves (Plut. Alex. 248).”

As his Macedonians and Greeks dealt with the changing temperament of the king,

Alexander grew more susceptible to flattery and delusions of divinity. The combination of the event at Siwa Oasis, coupled with the upcoming death of Darius, seemed to have served as the turning point for when Alexander truly began to believe he was an unconquerable god on earth.

An additional specific occurrence that can be credited for this alteration in his character was Alexander’s 330BC arrival in , the main of the Persian

Empire. Arrian wrote that Alexander ordered the and certain parts of the great city to be burned as revenge equal to the Persians’ razing of Athens decades earlier (Arr.

Anab. 3.18.10-12). This action was odd, because Alexander, not the Persians, was now owner of Persepolis. In effect, he ordered the destruction of his own city. Arrian’s account implied that this was a strategic action on the part of the Macedonian as the of the much-hated Xerxes and the treasury, which housed the vast fortune that

Alexander’s forces could not carry with them, were the areas that received the worst of the burnings. Comparatively, the palace of , a ruler who was respected by the Greeks, sat between these two areas and amassed only minor damage. Perhaps this burning of Persepolis was a deliberate action to extinguish any would-be-claimants to the throne from trying to take the city. Diodorus suggested that Alexander issued this decree whilst in a drunken state at the urging of a named Thaïs during a night of revelry with his men (Dio. Bibliotheca. 17.70.2-6). Previously the son of Philip had been rather decisive and in control of his actions, but as his megalomania and paranoia increased, Alexander turned more and more to parties and alcohol. Many Macedonians

25 seemed to have had terrible problems with alcoholism. The most obvious example of this was Philip, who in many accounts was never far from his cups. Yet for the first half of his life and travels, Alexander seemed to have unimpaired judgment and remained completely lucid. His increase in drinking was certainly correlated with the decline of his rational behavior, as evidenced by events like the burning of Persepolis.

Another hugely influential relationship in Alexander’s life was with the contemporary Persian Darius III. He proved to be the Macedonian’s greatest adversary on the first half of his campaigns. Before delving more deeply into their relationship and interactions, it is important to note the position Darius held in his empire. Officially, he was called the King of Kings or the . His subjects viewed him as the mediatory-figure between the people and as the deity’s representative on earth. The Greeks held a misconception over this distinction, as they believed that the Persians worshiped and honored their kings as gods. There were contemporary cultures who did in fact worship their rulers as gods, such as the Egyptian . Nonetheless, the Greeks were misinformed in categorizing the Persians in with that lot. This may have been connected to the Persian practice of proskynesis, how they traditionally bowed and prostrated themselves before their rulers in a manner that the

Greeks reserved for honoring the gods. In any case, the Greeks often classified the

Persians in with other ‘’ cultures in the East.

Darius ascended to the Persian throne in a very unique manner. Thanks to the earlier purging of the royal family, the poisoning of Darius’s predecessor Artaxerxes III

Ochus by his vizier left the empire without an immediate heir. The closest male relative was Darius. He was such a distant family member that he had not received the

26 customary education for a future Persian king. This being said, Darius proved himself to be a very capable ruler. One of his first acts of business was to exterminate Bagoas, the man who had put him in power. Still, his claim to the throne was rather tenuous.

Early on Darius felt fully confident that he would be able to defeat Alexander.

The Great King boasted vastly superior numbers, had the home territory advantage, and a slew of established generals. Yet even then, it seemed that Darius and Alexander shared a certain respect for each other. Darius sent his best generals to face Alexander, including the great navy general Memnon (Dio. Bibliotheca. 17.23.2-24.1).

The Persian ruler, by now wary of Alexander’s prowess, kept a Macedonian refugee named Amyntas, who was well familiar with Alexander’s character, with him; however Darius ignored Amyntas’ advice to face Alexander in battle on a large, open plain instead of narrow passes because “far from avoiding you (Darius), he (Alexander) will make all the speed he can to meet you” (Plut. Alex. 244). This information could have changed the tide of all the two king’s future encounters. The first battle at which both Alexander and Darius, with his full traveling court, were present was the Battle of

Issus in 333BC. Alexander used novel tactics in his victory there for whcih Darius’s forces were utterly unprepared. Plutarch stated that the Chares said Darius actually wounded Alexander in the leg at the . Alexander certainly seemed the type to take on Darius in single combat, as he always looked up to the great heroes of the Trojan War, who had proved their valor in similar duals. The Macedonian would have welcomed the chance to demonstrate his supremacy in such a way. Others dispute this assertion that Alexander and Darius met in one-on-one combat at Issus. In fact, this would be quite unlikely as the Persian king was typically stationed in the center of his

27 battle line but surrounded by his skilled Royal Body Guard and so very well protected.

Arrian wrote that Darius was among the first to flee when he saw the tide of the battle had turned completely in the Macedonian’s favor (Arr. Anab. 2.11.1-2). This encounter must have truly shocked Darius, who was accustomed to success. As he fled, Darius was very shaken, going so far as to abandon his imperial for a quicker escape on horseback and also leaving behind his bow, shield, and other royal emblems (Arr. Anab.

2.11.3-7). Alexander recovered these items as trophies for his victory over the ‘god-king.’

After his defeat, Darius sent a letter to Alexander offering ransom for his captives, all the Persian lands West of the , and marriage with one of his daughters (Plut.

Alex. 254). Alexander promptly rejected these generous terms and in turn offered Darius the chance to return, yield to him, and he would treat him kindly. Darius opted not to accept this and moved further east with his remaining army. Although Alexander won handily at Issus, he did not consider it a complete success as Darius managed to escape capture. The Macedonian leader did take Darius’ vast supplies and the portable court and entourage that accompanied every Persian on royal progress, travels, and even wars. After his victory, Alexander’s men began looting the Persian camp but saved

Darius’ former tent and its loot for Alexander alone (Plut. Alex. 245). The men knew that their king, in the model of legendary heroes, would appreciate the bulk of the treasure.

Among the most valuable things left behind by the Great King were the Persian royalty, Darius’s family, who Alexander now controlled. The Macedonian was exceptionally good to Darius’s family and the members of the court he left behind after fleeing. The Macedonian even invited Darius’s brother, Oxathres, into his circle of friends and let him keep all the titles and honors befitting a Persian prince (Curt.

28 Historiae. 2.6.11). Alexander seemed to develop a particularly close relationship with

Sisygambis, the mother of Darius (supra p. 11). When she mistook Hephaestion for

Alexander, Alexander responded that she was in fact correct, as Hephaestion too was

Alexander (Arr. Anab. 2.12.3-7). The king’s cheery reply showed his willingness to look past a minor faux pas from the Persian royals, particularly his new maternal figure.

Sisygambis was very affectionate with Alexander, calling him ‘son’ and sending him

Persian delicacies to sample each day (Plut. Alex. 247). This relationship was almost certainly influenced by the one Alexander shared with his biological mother, Olympias.

As aforementioned, Alexander had an Oedipal-like connection to Olympias. The time spent away from her may have made Alexander exceedingly willing to have another matriarchal figure to find and cling to. It must be noted that in no source does Alexander tell Olympias that he refers to Sisygambis as ‘mother’ although in their letter writing he unquestionably had the chance to mention this. This again alludes to the bond between

Olympias and her son, in which she came first above all other women to him; he knew her jealous temperament would not accept a position as co-mother to him by any definition.

While Alexander was certainly fond of Sisygambis, as indicated by the vast amount of time he willingly spent with her, the king also had political motivation to be close with her. To be fully accepted as a Persian king, Alexander needed to solidify himself as a member of the . By using such propaganda as calling

Darius’s mother his own mother, marrying a daughter of Darius, and marrying a daughter of the preceding Persian king Artaxerxes III, Alexander easily and thoroughly inserted himself into the Persian royal family.

29 Alexander was exceedingly respectful of Darius’s family and court. Upon hearing that Darius’s mother, wife, and daughters were in mourning, believing that Darius was dead, Alexander sent his envoy to inform them that he lived and that they had nothing to fear from Alexander and his men (Plut. Alex. 245). He treated them with compassion and provided for them in the manner in which they were accustomed. When

Darius’s wife, Stateira I, died in childbirth, Alexander showed sorrow for the loss and gave her a lavish funeral fit for a queen (Plut. Alex. 254). When an informant told Darius of this, he exclaimed that if the time for the end of his reign had come “then I beseech you grant that no other man but Alexander may sit upon the throne of Cyrus” (Plut. Alex.

256). This statement reinforced the more humble beginnings of Darius. One could hardly imagine Artaxerxes III making a similar proclamation. Darius recognized that while

Alexander may be his enemy, the Macedonian was raised to be the ultimate ruler since his birth. Growing up as Philip’s heir in the Macedonian court contrasted vastly with

Darius’s more rustic and unpolished upbringing. Alexander’s nature was still very chivalrous in this period. And by this point in time, his mission had fully shifted from attacking Persia for revenge on behalf of Greece to taking over the Persian Empire for himself.

The two rulers’ next encounter came at the Battle of Gaugamela in 331BC. Darius was extremely paranoid about the lunar eclipse the night preceding the battle. He worried over the threat that Alexander might cross the river and attack by night, so the Persian kept his troops armed and alert instead of granting them a chance for repose (Plut. Alex.

257). With each successive victory over Darius, Alexander had grown more and more confident of his invincibility. He felt that his troops did not need the advantage of

30 surprise and opted to let them sleep a full night before the battle commenced. The

Hellenic troops were well rested for battle the next day and handily defeated the Persian forces at Gaugamela. Alexander saw Darius across the and began a fierce pursuit of him, until Parmenion sent extra messengers to request that Alexander return to support the bulk of the army still fighting the Persians (Plut. Alex. 260). Alexander wanted Darius under his control and was accustomed to getting his own way, but he still valued his troops and returned to back them.

After Gaugamela, Alexander was proclaimed King of Asia (Plut. Alex. 260).

Darius was a fugitive again, so Alexander gave his men some time off for their success.

He wanted to capture Darius and get rid of any threat to his growing power. The notoriously impatient Macedonian decided to wait to seize Darius. A few months later,

Alexander had word that , the of , had captured Darius and would hold him for Alexander, who quickly set out with his army. Expecting to find their adversary in good health, Alexander’s men were shocked to find Darius riddled with darts and strewn on a chariot. The dying Persian requested some cold water, which was quickly procured for him, and stated that he wished to thank the gods for the humanity

Alexander showed to him and his family (Plut. Alex. 269). After these last few words, he died.

When Alexander reached the scene, he covered Darius with his own cloak, had the body laid in state as appropriate for a former king, and then sent it to Naqsh-i Rustam

(Persepolis). Alexander had wanted to take the Persian throne with the blessing of Darius.

Since this was now impossible, the Macedonian decided to punish Bessus in a very

31 Persian manner for the regicide of Darius. Upon his capture, Alexander chastised Bessus for killing a king, asking

“‘What bestial madness possessed you,’ he said, ‘that you should dare to imprison and then murder a king from whom you had received exemplary treatment? Yes, and you rewarded yourself for this treachery with the title of king which was not yours.’ (Curt. Historiae. 7.5.38).”

Plutarch wrote that upon Bessus’s capture, Alexander ordered him to be seized and ripped into pieces, a practice the Greeks found totally barbaric but that Persians accepted as appropriate punishment (Plut. Alex. 269). Arrian wrote that Bessus had actually been tortured at Bactra, then sent to for his beheading (Arr. Anab. 3.30.4-5). Quintus

Curtius Rufus stated that Bessus was actually shot with arrows and crucified by the

Macedonians (Curt. Historiae. 7.5.40). Although the sources disagree over the exact nature of his punishment, they all acknowledge that Bessus’s ears and nose were cut off before he was killed. This mutilation was the set punishment for a regicide.

An increasingly shrewd politician, Alexander knew how to best justify his ascension over Darius. He now claimed that Darius was not really an adversary but more of a brother-king and he found it necessary to utilize the appropriate Persian method of retribution. With the demise of Darius, Alexander inherited his royal and official titles.

This served to heighten Alexander’s sense of self-importance. Due to the Greek and

Macedonian misconceptions of Persian culture, Alexander now believed that the vast population of the Persian Empire would worship him as a god, thus inflating the new

Great King’s ego.

Alexander was extremely respectful of the court Darius left behind and of the

Persians in general. Plutarch stated that Alexander was only intimate with Barsine, the

32 widow of Memnon, in the period just preceding Darius’s death (Plut. Alex. 246). Yet,

Plutarch was the only source to mention this. But this seems very unlikely as Alexander was not exceedingly drawn to women. If this account was true, then Barsine must have been incomparably lovely to draw Alexander’s eye. Plutarch even went on to say that

Alexander was offended when his lieutenant offered him two young and beautiful Persian boys to buy, presumably for his pleasure (Plut. Alex. 246). It seemed more plausible that Alexander rejected these youths because they were captured slaves, not because he had any sort of aversion to taking foreign male bed-partners.

However, Alexander did find one person to his liking in the of Darius. It was a testament to something of an eccentric streak in Alexander that he had a relationship with a “barbarian eunuch” named Bagoas2. The youth was actually the favorite of Darius before the Great King’s downfall. It seems most likely that Alexander initiated his relationship with Bagoas while Darius was alive and on the run, as the youth traveled with Alexander’s camp on its expeditions. Alexander may have initially instigated a relationship with Bagoas as another political maneuver to insert himself into the Persian royal house, this time by adopting Darius’s lover as his own. However it started, their relationship lasted to the end of Alexander’s life. This was a remarkable feat especially when one considers that Alexander was not an overly amorous man. The king

2 The term eunuch encompassed multiple meanings in the ancient world. In some cases eunuch referred to a high court official in the Persia court. Indeed there was one also named Bagoas who helped Darius claim the throne. It seems unlikely that Alexander’s Bagoas was related to this one and even more unlikely that he was a high-ranking official. Eunuch also referred to castrated servants. The guards of the harem and royal ladies were of this variety under the notion that only they could be trusted around such temptation. No one knows for sure what distinction of eunuch Alexaner’s Bagoas was. In my opinion, it is improbable that he was castrated as he was noted for his beauty and castrated eunuchs were typically bloated and swollen in appearance.

33 was open about Bagoas’s position in his life and his status as a favorite. One should remember that while Bagoas and Alexander had a passionate relationship, it certainly never reached the level of intimacy that the king shared with Hephaestion.

All the aforementioned relationships and experiences built up to the event with the most significant impact on Alexander’s psyche, namely the death of Darius in July of

330BC. This substantial shift took Alexander, in his mind, from an already accomplished

Macedonian warrior king to a victorious emperor god. The new King of Kings had never felt the pang of defeat in battle. He came to think of himself as infallible, a concept that only served to increase his eccentricity. Alexander was still only twenty-five years old and prone to the soaring confidence of a young, unchecked ruler. He could look to no one for advice as no one had been in his situation before. Nor would he have wanted or felt the need to.

Alexander had previously chastised some of his friends and generals for growing lazy and proud in their actions, in effect for acting too Persian. However the ruler himself soon became enveloped in the Eastern way of life. Even before Darius’s death, Alexander began to experience much of the splendors given to a godlike king, such as the magnificent palaces at the Persian capitals with their rich treasuries. For instance, at Susa,

Alexander found a huge quantity of one hundred and ninety year old Hermionina cloth, an extremely expensive and exclusive commodity reserved for the Persian royals

(Plut. Alex. 262). The Greeks associated such luxuriant fabrics in rich colors like purple and crimson with Eastern decadence, a quality they found effeminate. However, the king embraced its use. Alexander’s developing megalomania was highly evident in this period.

He had begun living the lavish lifestyle of a traditional Persian ruler.

34 Immediately following Darius’s death in Bactria, Alexander led his men to , where he began to wear some Persian fashions. He initially only dressed accordingly when among foreigners, but the king then started to wear them among his own companions and eventually in most public audiences (Plut. Alex. 270). While this may have originated as a way to secure Persian support, Alexander’s deviation from traditional Greek ways grew. A myriad of towns were created or renamed for Alexander in this era, which may have also bolstered Alexander’s increased sense of self- importance. The king had never lost a battle, had accumulated huge swathes of land, and was unmatched by any previous or contemporary ruler. Even his beloved horse

Buccephalus was given high honors with new cities named for it. As Alexander became more Easternized, he did train some of his conquered people in traditional Greco manners. For instance, he chose 30,000 Iranian boys to be taught Greek and trained in the of the Macedonian warriors (Plut. Alex. 271).

Alexander’s fits of rage and temper also increased after the death of Darius. The king began to lash out at the slightest provocation, even against his close friends. These episodes were often followed by either genuine remorse or severe punishment to those who upset him. Two notable instances of this include the deaths of Philotas and later

Cleitus. In many cases, his relations with those around him became more volatile. It should also be noted that Alexander was drinking more heavily in this time, which probably contributed to a great deal of his more impulsive behaviors.

A potent combination of elements combined to increase the king’s megalomania and paranoia. These included Alexander’s reception from the oracle at the Siwa Oasis, the intrigue surrounding Philip of Macedon’s death, Alexander’s flawless record of battle

35 victories, the king’s young age, and most significantly the death of Darius. Following the

Persian’s death, Alexander’s increased distrustfulness and deviance from traditional

Greek behaviors amplified tension in his personal relationships. This extended to a turning point in Alexander’s relationship with his soldiers as a whole. They had accomplished their original mission of revenge on the Persian Empire with the burning of

Persepolis and the death of Darius, but now Alexander wanted to continue on with his conquests. Sensing the burgeoning tension, the king recognized that a faction was forming that disagreed with him. This feeling of reluctance from his men was completely alien to Alexander. Up to this point, no one had questioned him even in the most impossible circumstances, like fighting the Persian king on Persian soil. After being supported for his whole life by the unwavering loyalty of his men, Alexander was naturally unsettled by this turn of events. The king’s behavior grew more erratic. He began seeing the emergence of plots against him from within his own forces; some imagined and some not. Eventually, Alexander also had to deal with his men mutinying.

The death of Darius effectively accomplished the original mission of the

Macedonians and Greeks. However with his growing self-importance, Alexander implemented a new goal of continuous conquests. This was reflected in the alteration of the king’s propaganda tactics in this period. After the Battle of Gaugamela, he marched to

Babylon unsure of the reception he would receive at the Persian capital. Being welcomed to the city with great aplomb and showered in the luxuries reserved for the Persian king served as another element of this turning point in Alexander’s psyche. The other Persian capitals and cities similarly fell to him with relative ease.

36 From his time spent in the polyglot Persian Empire, the Macedonian realized that the vast lands and its peoples were accustomed to foreign rule. A pan-Asian empire had existed far back in Greek memory, starting with the Assyrians, then the , and now the Persians. With Alexander’s defeat of the latest Asian rulers, he began to view himself as the first ruler in the era of Greek power over Asia. It seemed like he planned on keeping the empire overwhelmingly intact. In most circumstances, he re-appointed the that had served under the Persians. This strategic move ensured that Alexander would not meet with any trouble from them and most surrendered to him with gusto. He did commission some of his own men to serve as satraps and co-satraps, which met with mixed reviews. Alexander’s assigning Macedonians and Greeks to these posts far from their homes, and in many cases far from the heart of the Persian Empire in remote areas like Bactria, enhanced the agitation of his men. His soldiers were satisfied with destroying Persia and wanted to return to their homeland after an already protracted campaign. When faced with Alexander’s new mission, many were markedly unenthusiastic. , one of Alexander’s greatest generals, spoke on behalf of the fatigued soldiers at the Hyphasis, telling Alexander

“We have crossed lands and seas, all of them now better known to us than to their inhabitants. We stand almost at the end of the earth; you are preparing to enter another world and you seek an even the Indians do not know…so that you may traverse in victory more land than the sun looks upon! That is a programme appropriate to your spirit, but beyond ours. For your valour will ever be on the increase, but our energy is already running out (Curt. Historiae. 9.3.7-9).”

To further cement his legitimacy as the successor to the Eastern throne, Alexander married a native princess named Rhoxana from Sogdiana, one of the wilder frontier areas

37 of the empire. Rhoxana was described as youthful, beautiful, and a gifted dancer. While she was most likely very appealing, Plutarch gave a more plausible explanation for their

327BC union when he said, “it gratified the conquered people to see him (Alexander) choose a wife from among themselves (Plut. Alex. 272).” The author also wrote that the couple was chaste before their marriage (Plut. Alex. 272). While Alexander was not known for a having an extremely passionate nature, the lack of noted affection between the two implied that the marriage was probably primarily a strategic move on

Alexander’s part, attempting to secure the empire’s borders. While a few authors did mention that Alexander’s marriage to his first wife was a loving one, it seems more likely that he married Rhoxana for the political benefits that accompanied such an alliance with a local, especially considering the continuing nature of his relationship with Hephaestion.

That being said, Alexander must have certainly found something attractive in the personality of Rhoxana to choose her for his wife over any other lady. Alexander’s men assumed that their king would take a Macedonian or a Greek as his wife, and most certainly as his first wife. The fact that Rhoxana was a Sogdian did little to endear her to them. Alexander acted completely unbothered by this deviation from what the

Macedonians and Greeks expected of him and continued along his path of Persian eccentricity. This choice for a first wife indicated that the king wanted his heir to be

Persian. Having a successor with strong links to the East would give them more legitimacy to be heir to Alexander’s new Greco-Persian Empire instead of having a

Macedonian firstborn that might only be accepted as heir to the kingdom of Macedon. In any case, Rhoxana seemed to have shared some qualities with Alexander’s own mother.

Olympias and Rhoxana were both foreign queens, and each possessed jealous natures and

38 lofty aspirations for their sons. When Alexander died in 323BC, Rhoxana was pregnant.

In order to ensure that her child would be Alexander’s sole heir, she sent for Statiera II, one of Alexander’s other brides, and her sister, the wife of Hephaestion, and brutally murdered them by tossing them into a well, which she then had filled with dirt (Plut.

Alex. 298). This act revealed Rhoxana’s penchant for unscrupulous plots, which was mirrored in Olympias. It also showed that she probably felt threatened by the presence of

Hephaestion in Alexander’s thoughts even well after both men’s deaths.

After his marriage with Rhoxana, Alexander went on to marry again. There is some debate over how many more wives he took, but sources agree that these spouses all played an integral part in the king’s policy of reconciliation in his new empire.

Alexander’s next wife was a member of the Achaemenid line. On Alexander’s return trip to Susa in 324BC, he married the eldest daughter of Darius, Stateira II3 (Plut. Alex. 292).

Even though Darius’s family was notably full of great beauties, this marriage was completely political. As aforementioned, Darius’s imperial ascension and rule was unstable. To transcend any doubt that Alexander was part of the Persian royal family, the king felt he needed to align himself with Darius’s predecessor as well. For this reason,

Alexander also married II, the youngest daughter of Artaxerxes III Ochus (Arr.

Anab. 7.4.4). Using his marriages as propaganda, Alexander firmly incorporated himself into both sides of the Achaemenid dynasty. Along with his own nuptials at this event,

Alexander arranged a mass wedding for all his generals and officers with their own

Persian brides. In this way, Alexander created a diplomatic opportunity to integrate not

3 Also called Barsine

39 only himself but also his favorite Macedonians and Greeks into the traditional Persian aristocracy.

Long before Alexander had any thoughts of integrating himself into the Persian royal family, he showed his strong aptitude for political savvy. When a young Alexander hosted the ambassadors of the Persian king for his father Philip, his winning and affable nature won the admiration of the foreign envoys (Plut. Alex. 229). Alexander utilized these same charms in his relationships with the family of Darius after his death. The king continued to show great respect for Sisygambis following her son’s death in Bactria.

After finding Darius’s corpse, Alexander sent it to her straightaway with the full royal pomp so that she could have the opportunity to say any finals words to her son (Plut.

Alex. 270). Even more significantly, when Sisygambis heard of Alexander’s death,

“she ripped off the clothes she wore and assumed the dress of mourning; she tore her hair and flung herself to the ground…finally, she surrendered to her sorrow. She covered her head, turned away from her granddaughter and grandson, who fell at her knees to plead with her, and withdrew simultaneously from nourishment and the daylight. Five days after deciding on death, she expired (Curt. Historiae. 10.5.19-25).”

While Alexander and Sisygambis’s relationship may have initially grown out of political maneuvering, it certainly developed into a lastingly affectionate one. She mourned more fervently for Alexander than for that of her own son. Perhaps the Persian queen recalled that Darius had deserted her and the rest of his family after the Battle of Issus, while

Alexander reliably acted with the utmost kindness and thoughtfulness towards them all.

One element that remained relatively unchanged throughout Alexander’s life was the presence of his mother and his enduring respect for her. Their correspondence steadily continued. However Olympias was not one to be satisfied with complacency.

40 Since she had already accomplished her main goals of seeing Alexander to the

Macedonian throne and watching him become a great conqueror, the queen turned to her own interests. While Alexander was far off in Asia, Olympias, along with Cleopatra, instigated a revolt against Antipater, the man Alexander had set as of Macedon and its adjacent territories. Olympias herself took control of her native Epirus with

Alexander’s response being that “his mother had made the best choice, for the

Macedonians would never endure to be ruled by a woman (Plut. Alex. 291).” The lack of any punishment and instead a humorous reaction from Alexander underscored the mother-son relationship. Even in this period where he grew progressively erratic in his behaviors and increasingly harsh against any disobedience on the part of his friends, the king was still very lenient with his beloved mother.

Alexander was never a man driven by carnal desires and was reported to have had fairly few sexual partners. He did not seem to be a subject to his own lust “though he was a young man at the very peak of his success, when men are apt to run wild (Arr. Anab.

4.19.6).” The majority of Alexander’s closest relationships were nurtured from early childhood. The king was reportedly good to all his wives but never particularly interested in them. It seems much more likely that any passionate feelings were privy to

Hephaestion and also to the newcomer "Bagoas, a eunuch exceptional in beauty and in the very flower of boyhood, with whom Darius was intimate and with whom Alexander would later be intimate (Curt. Historiae. 6.5.23).” One should note that while Alexander and Bagoas were lovers and attached up to Alexander’s death, their relationship did not seem to affect the king’s enduring closeness with Hephaestion. Unlike in his marriages,

Alexander was openly affectionate and demonstrative with the youth. His relationship

41 with the eunuch is imperative to note, because historians, even in the more prudish

Roman era, wrote of their uninhibited interactions. In one prominent instance, after marching his men through the Gedrosian Desert, Alexander reached the ’s royal palace, where a great feast was held. While staying there, Alexander gave a very public display of his attachment to his lover. Having won a dancing contest, Bagoas went to sit with Alexander accompanied by great cheers from his Macedonians, who shouted for their king to kiss Bagoas and gave acclamations of approval when he did (Plut. Alex.

291). Bagoas was very well-liked among the Macedonian troops, but there is little information indicating how the upper echelon of Alexander’s Macedonians felt about him. It is unlikely that they saw him as an usurper to Hephaestion’s role in Alexander’s life as Hephaestion was constantly at their king’s side.

A strong connection developed between the king and Bagoas. He even moved

Alexander to show mercy to Nabarzanes, a member of Darius’s court who had betrayed him in assisting Bessus. Nabarzanes was also the one to gift Bagoas to Alexander. “It was

Bagoas’ pleas that did most to influence Alexander to pardon Nabarzanes (Curt.

Historiae. 6.5.23).” Their relationship illuminated Alexander’s increased eccentricity over the duration of time he spent in the Persian Empire and on campaign beyond it.

Bagoas used the king’s increased paranoia to his advantage. All of Alexander’s were respectful of Bagoas, excluding Orsines, a powerful Persian satrap. Orsines refused to honor the youth as he honored Alexander’s friends. This upset Bagoas greatly, so he roused the king’s anger and suspicion against the satrap.

“Bagoas on one side…filled the king’s ears with false accusation and before he could even suspect that charges were being laid against him, Orsines was arrested. Not satisfied with seeing an innocent man executed, the eunuch

42 seized him as he went to his death. Looking at him, Orsines said: ‘I had heard that women once were rulers in Asia but this really is something new – a eunuch as king!’ (Curt. Historiae. 10.1.36-37).”

Alexander was enraged at this comment and executed Orsines. This episode further served to show the Macedonian’s unstable behavior, not even providing a sham trial for the satrap and instead executing him without a second thought.

Alexander’s mindset and changing attitude led to the ruin of several of his relationships. One reason for Alexander and Aristotle’s growing apart may have been the actions of the philosopher’s great nephew, Callistenes, who served as a historian on

Alexander’s expeditions. Unquestioningly gifted, Callistenes also proved divisive during his time on the campaigns. For example, Alexander requested that he give a speech lauding the Macedonians for their greatest virtues, which was met with great praise from the group, but then Alexander said Callistenes must give another oration on the

Macedonians greatest faults, which he did (Plut. Alex. 278). Unsurprisingly the second speech was not as well received and “so offended the Macedonians, that he was odious to them ever after (Plut. Alex. 279).” Callistenes would later be implicated, with no evidence to support his involvement, in a plot against the king and either hanged or died in

(Plut. Alex. 280).

Sentiments against Alexander’s Easternization grew. Most of Alexander’s Greeks and especially his Macedonians disapproved of his incorporating Eastern dress into his wardrobe, but they believed their ruler so virtuous and worthy that they initially excused this odd, but relatively minor, quirk (Plut. Alex. 270). The largest displays of the men’s resistance to the changing nature of Alexander were their mutinies. They were especially reluctant to continue Alexander’s expedition past the borders of Persian territories.

43 “Alexander was justifiably alarmed, for he had decided on an expedition to India and the furthest parts of the East. He assembled his generals in his tent and, with tears in his eyes, complained that he was being brought to a halt in the middle of a brilliant career, to return home more like a defeated man than a conqueror; that the obstacle he faced was not his men’s cowardice but the ill-will of the gods who had instilled in soldier of the highest courage a sudden pining for home – though they would have returned there shortly with increased glory and fame (Curt. Historiae. 6.2.18-19).”

In this instance, Alexander was able to convince his men to continue on in pursuit of

Bessus. But by 325BC, the weary and homesick army of Alexander refused to continue on into India in their rebellion at the Hyphasis River. Alexander, who was used to getting his way explicitly at this point, refused to leave his tent and flung himself onto the ground calling his men disloyal and preventing him from completing his quest of vanquishing the world (Plut. Alex. 286). This petulant outburst was not as well received as the previous one. His friends reasoned with him and after a period, Alexander left his room to the cheers of his soldiers. However it seemed that the king was not wholly mollified as he decided to take most of his troops back through the most treacherous stretch of land possible. Their punishment was having to trek through the Gedrosian Desert. More people died here than on any other part of the campaigns. An alternate theory for

Alexander’s decision to march through the Gedrosian Desert reflected the king’s constant desire to outdo all others. The prodigious Persian emperor had crossed it, so Alexander felt compelled to do the same. Both theories probably had some merit, as

Alexander was petty enough to want to penalize his soldiers and his thoughts were often consumed with cementing his status as greater than any previous ruler.

44 The further decline of Alexander’s relationship with his men was apparent at the

Opis Mutiny only year later in the summer of 324BC. Alexander decided to incorporate more Easterners into his army and decommission some of the aged Macedonians. These men felt rejected and unappreciated by their king and had also

“often been pained by Alexander’s Persian apparel, as it conveyed the same message, and by his supplying the Epigonoi with Macedonian equipment, and his inclusion of foreign cavalrymen in the ranks of the Companions. Accordingly, they could not bear to sit silent but began telling him to send them all home and to way war by himself along with his “father,” referring mockingly to Ammon (Arr. Anab. 7.8.2-3).”

Alexander responded harshly and had all the leaders executed.

Such occurrences made Alexander’s men began to feel increasingly neglected by their king. They especially resented his allowing Persians into the Companions, an elite unit that traditionally consisted of only Macedonians. Some of the men Alexander assigned to posts away from him felt that he was deserting them in favor of his new

Eastern allies. The Greeks and Macedonians were accustomed to being Alexander’s favorites and most had devoted their whole lives to him. For instance, resented that Alexander wanted send him to a far off place to fight nomadic tribes. He knew that being sent away from Alexander could translate to being forgotten by the king.

Some of Alexander’s generals also resented being appointed as co-satraps along with non-Macedonians and non-Greeks. Alexander often re-appointed Darius’s satraps and in some cases would assign one of his men to share the position. After the Battle of the

Hydapses in 326BC, the king allowed their battle opponent, , to rule there as

Alexander’s king (Arr. Anab. 5.19.1-3).

45 Another element of Alexander’s Easternization that directly affected his relationships with his friends was the Marriages at Susa in 324BC. The mass wedding was arranged by Alexander to help him unite the Macedonian and Persian cultures and to cement kinship, but many of his men were unhappy with their new brides. Some men had families they felt devoted to back home in Macedon or simply did not want to marry someone they considered foreign and barbaric. In fact, after Alexander’s death nearly all of the Macedonians divorced their new wives. Alexander took one of Darius’s daughters as his bride at the ceremony and gave the other daughter to wed his dear Hephaestion, while the rest of his Companions were married to other slightly less impressive women from the Persian (Arr. Anab. 7.4.4-6). The soldiers had already begrudgingly tolerated the king’s first marriage to a Sogdian, but further objections were raised over his marrying more foreigners at Susa and still being without a Greek wife.

The growth of Alexander’s paranoia after the death of Darius was most apparent during the Philotas Affair. Philtoas had continued to be dutiful to Alexander’s cause and was a man of great repute and generosity amongst the Greeks and Macedonians.

However, some authors suggested that he developed an arrogant and luxury-loving nature, so much so that his father cautioned him “my son, to be not quite so great would be better (Plut. Alex. 272).” Having heard rumors that Philotas thought himself

Alexander’s superior in actions and deeds in battle, brought this news to

Alexander. The king acted immediately and had Antigone of Pydna, a captured woman who was also Philotas’s , sent to act as a spy to report the general’s words and behaviors back to Alexander (Plut. Alex. 273). While this episode illuminated the growing divide between Alexander and Philotas, it also served to elucidate the increasing

46 competitiveness among the men in Alexander’s inner circle for the king’s favor.

Eventually Antigone reported back speeches Philotas allegedly made against the king, but

Alexander did nothing. Perhaps he was not entirely convinced by the words of what amounted to a slave woman. Or he may have believed her but had too much respect for

Philotas’s great skill as a general or his lofty father Parmenion. In any case, Antigone’s report intensified Alexander’s mounting mistrust. From this point on, he kept an eye on

Philotas.

Soon after, Limnus, a Macedonian from Chalastra, devised a plan to kill

Alexander and enlisted the assistance of a youth named Nichomachus. The nervous boy revealed the plan to his brother, Balinus, who immediately took this information to

Philotas, hoping he could inform Alexander (Plut. Alex. 273). Philotas told them that the king was busy with important business at the moment, so the boys asked once more and

Philotas once again responded that the king was occupied. They then took their information to another official who took them straight to Alexander. Hearing of the plot,

Alexander called for Limnus to be brought to him, but the man tried to fight off his guard and died. Now the king was worried, because the exact nature of the plot would have no chance of being revealed. Enemies of Philotas began to speak into Alexander’s ear, feeding him insinuations against the man. When Philotas was seized, he reportedly exclaimed, “Your Majesty, the bitter hatred of my enemies has triumphed over your kindness (Curt. Historiae. 6.8.22),” acknowledging Alexander’s easily swayed suspicions. Philotas was then tortured, where he begged Hephaestion for an intercession, perhaps thinking that due to his relationship with the king he might have intervening powers (Plut. Alex. 274). Alexander, watching the brutalization from behind a tapestry,

47 replied, “are you so mean-spirited and effeminate, Philotas, and yet can engage in so desperate a design (Plut. Alex. 274)?” When Philotas perished, he had not admitted to any machinations against the king during his and questioning. Alexander sent for his father, Parmenion, who he had installed as governor of Ecbatana, to be swiftly executed with his one remaining son (Arr. Anab. 3.26.3-4). While Philotas’s death was shocking in itself, as Alexander had never ordered a member of his original circle to be killed, the executions in Ecbatana plainly upset the Greeks and Macedonians. At least Philotas had been somewhat involved in a plot, while Parmenion was the model of a loyal general and more importantly an old family friend. He had nobly served under Philip and was the only senior general to advise the young Alexander to follow through on his plans to invade Asia (Plut. Alex. 274).

There is some debate over the true motivations behind the executions of

Parmenion and Philotas. Did Alexander see Philotas as a potential usurper with the support of his formidable general father? Did the king believe his ally really had hatched a plot to kill him? Or did Alexander use Philotas as a means to an end to curb the influence of the extremely popular Parmenion? Was Alexander so subject to his own distrustfulness that he would have executed anyone that he had heard rumors of plotting against him? Whatever the king’s reasoning may have been, Alexander could not leave

Parmenion alive after killing his son for fear of the general leading a rebellion. Diordorus recognized that the executions of Philotas and Parmenion may have served as an opportunity for Alexander to rid himself of possible rivals. The king also had Alexander of Lyncestis, a man who had been loyal to the king all his life, even when Alexander had his brothers killed, executed without facing any specific charges at the time of the

48 Philotas’s conspiracy; Alexander of Lyncestis was another possible rival to Alexander and someone that Olympias warned her son to watch out for (Dio. Bibliotheca. 17.32.1-4,

17.80.2).

Alexander showed no regret over the results of the Philotas Affair. After spending so much time in Asia, Alexander was acting much more like an undisputable Persian emperor than the impartial Greek one he used to be. It is likely that the environment played a role in the downfall of Parmenion and Philotas.

The Companion Cavalry, of which Philotas was general, was then redistributed to be under the split control of Cleitus and Hephaestion. This action emphasized the increased paranoia of Alexander. Even his most trusted allies were not deemed trustworthy enough to hold sole control over the unit and a safety measure had to be implemented to check these two powerful commanders.

Alexander executed even more of his companions over the next few years. For instance, Alexander put another friend, Menander4, to death while in India. He charged

Menander with deserting his garrison post and as the king had grown exceedingly harsh in his punishments, had immediately executed (Plut. Alex. 281).

While Alexander acted largely unaffected by most of these deaths, one provoked a substantial reaction from him. As the king began giving additional privileges to more

Eastern people, his Macedonians felt extremely offended. During one night of feasting and drinking in 328BC, Cleitus and Alexander started arguing over the king’s progressive

Easternization and self-glorification. Cleitus chastised Alexander for boasting that his accomplishments far surpassed those of his father and stated that without Philip,

4 A different man from one of Alexander’s generals named Menander, who would receive control of after Alexander’s death

49 Alexander would not have achieved all that he had, an assertion that did not sit well with the king. The quarrel grew increasingly heated with Cleitus asking him,

“why did he invite men who were freeborn and accustomed to speak their minds openly without restraint to sup with him. He had better live and converse with and slaves who would not scruple to bow the knee to his Persian girdle and his white tunic (Plut. Alex. 276).”

This was a notion that many men in Alexander’s Macedonian inner circle shared, having gone from relative equals before and through the first part of the campaign to seeing their friend paint himself as a god-king. Alexander was developing into more and more of a

Persian despot making his friends uncomfortable. Alexander had also recently informed

Cleitus that he had been was assigned to a oversee “the of Sogdiana5, which has often rebelled and, so far from being, pacified, cannot even be reduced to subjection

(Curt. Historiae. 8.35).” This was an honorable position, but Cleitus would have preferred staying by Alexander’s side in the midst of the glory and not be sent to reside in such a barbaric region. After Cleitus’s disparaging remark, Alexander searched for his , which a wise had hidden, and friends of Cleitus forced him from the room. Yet the man stubbornly returned through an adjacent door singing “In Greece, alas! How ill things ordered are (Plut. Alex. 276)!” This comment especially enraged

Alexander, who took it as an attack on his capabilities. He grabbed a spear from a nearby soldier and immediately ran it through his friend. At this Alexander was shocked out of his drunken rage and pulled the spear from Cleitus’s corpse. His remorse was instantaneous and deep.

“…Alexander took to his bed and lay prostrate in grief, calling out Cleitus’s name and that of Cleitus’s sister

5 Bactria

50 Lanicae, who had nursed him, saying that he had after all made her a fine return for her nursing now that he was grown; for she had seen two of her own sons die fighting for him, and now he had himself killed her brother with his own hand. Again and again he called himself the murderer of his own friends, and went without food and drink for three days and completely neglected all other care of his person (Arr. Anab. 4.9.1-4).”

This immediate mourning showed that the king was not yet so totally consumed by his megalomania that he could not recognize when he made a catastrophic mistake in killing one of the Companion leaders and more significantly a loyal, longtime friend.

However, after taking time to recover, this experience of grief and regret over the murder of his childhood friend rendered Alexander “more audacious and lawless than he had been” (Plut. Alex. 277). Although it seemed that Alexander grasped the severity his erratic behavior wrought, it was not enough to curtail further explosions of temper. The king had already spent such an extended time within the Persian Empire and the being treated as a semi-divine figure that his former Greek sensibilities seem to have been lost. His copious drinking also contributed to his loss of sound judgment.

Alcoholism appears to have been a major problem in Alexander’s family. This over- drinking tendency combined with more frequent feasting as Alexander went from success to success on his journey led to unpredictable outbursts like the murder of Cleitus.

Leading such a lifestyle explained his actions in the Conspiracy of the Pages in 327BC, when he executed many of the Royal Pages, the sons of principal Macedonian noble houses (Arr. Anab. 4.13.1-2).

One constant in Alexander’s life was the presence of Hephaestion. He was at the king’s side almost continuously from their shared childhood in the palace to serving as general under him. This shared existence revealed Alexander’s reliance on his friend. He

51 would never have sent Hephaestion to serve as a satrap as that would have infringed on

Alexander’s dependency. He continued to show more affection for Hephaestion than for any other person.

For his part, Hephaestion went along with Alexander’s burgeoning Easternization and emulated him in many of the customs he adopted. Hephaestion supported

Alexander’s decision to wed a local woman for political advantage and indeed suppported all of his new Greek-Eastern hybrid processes. As Alexander used more and more Persian manners, other close friends also mimicked him. Conversely, some, like

Craterus, continued to practice strictly Greek or Macedonian habits. Alexander “showed more affection for Hephaestion, and more respect for Craterus; Hephaestion, as he used to say, being Alexander’s, and Craterus the king’s friend (Plut. Alex. 272).” These two friends of Alexander eventually came to duel in India; when Alexander happened upon this he immediately chastised Hephaestion, telling him “without his (Alexander’s) favor he was nothing (Plut. Alex. 272).” While Alexander did reprove Craterus in private, his scolding of Hephaestion seems uncharacteristically harsh. This may come down to something as simple as anxiety at seeing him engaged in such a deadly encounter with a friend. Perhaps he recalled his own fatal quarrel with Cleitus, and seeing Hephaestion as a part of himself, was attempting to dissuade him from making the same mistake. In any case, Alexander quickly ordered both men to reconcile, swearing that he loved them above all other men, but if they fought again, he would put the aggressor to death (Plut.

Alex. 272).

Hephaestion’s position as a powerful general in Alexander’s army had been elevated to the highest possible position by his appointment to co-commander of

52 Companion Cavalry with Cleitus. Alexander’s decision to have his two closest friends share the role showed that he either wanted to give both men the but was worried over their military abilities, or it was a way to check their power. In any case,

Alexander clearly established Hephaestion as his second-in-command and the person closest to him. At the mass marriages at Susa in the spring of 324BC, Alexander gave him a very high honor by wedding him to Drypetis, a daughter of Darius, while

Alexander married the other (supra p. 46). The king chose this wife for his friend so that any of Hephaestion’s children would be Alexander’s nieces and nephews and that if they both had children, then these children would be cousins (Arr. Anab. 7.4.4-6). In this way,

Alexander openly recognized that he considered Hephaestion to be the closest of family.

In late 324BC, the army headed for Ecbatana and celebrated their successful expeditions with festivals in the city. While there, Hephaestion developed a severe fever and within seven days was dead. Whether this resulted from natural causes or foul play was unclear. Plutarch, Diodorus, and Arrian all insinuated that his condition was worsened by an increase in drinking, which led many to believe the general may have died of malaria6 (Plut. Alex. 294; Dio. Bibliotheca. 17.110.8; Arr. Anab. 7.14.4). What is known for certain was Alexander’s reaction, namely extreme mourning. Sources said that the king was watching an athletic competition when someone informed him of his friend’s worsening condition, and by the time Alexander rushed to his side, he was dead.

Alexander’s grief was so tremendous that “having flung himself onto his friend’s body,

Alexander moaned and wept and refused to leave until his Companions carried him off by force (Arr. Anab. 7.14.3).”

6 From James S. Romm’s note on this from ad loc.

53 There are numerous accounts of Alexander’s distress after Hephaestion’s death, which in itself indicated the importance of the event in the life of the king. Plutarch wrote that he had Hephaestion’s physician crucified for letting him perish (Plut. Alex.

294). Arrian gave credibility to the theory that Alexander’s megalomania had overtaken him. “That Alexander cut his hair over the corpse I do not consider improbable, especially given his emulation of Achilles7,” and “Alexander commanded that the temple of Asklepios8 in Ecbatana be razed (Arr. Anab. 7.14.4-5).” In the Ancient Greek world, the king’s destruction of such a temple approximated an extreme case of hubris. This combination of reactions to the tragic event showed the fused reality Alexander was creating for himself, with traditional mourning and sacrilegious vengeance, in addition to placing himself on par with the Greek heroes and gods as Achilles incarnate. Alexander went on to request that Hephaestion be honored as a great champion and for this reason did not appoint a new commander to the Companion Cavalry, hoping that it would be remembered as Hephaestion’s unit. The general was given all the honors allotted to a divine hero throughout the empire. To ensure this, Alexander had bribed the Egyptian satrap for immunity in any crime if the oracle of Ammon would approve these lofty honors (Arr. Anab. 7.23.6-8).

Alexander also set out to glorify his paramour’s memory with monuments and huge funeral services. He modeled them almost precisely on the funeral Achilles created for Patroclus. This homage to the heroes of the Iliad was a recurring theme in

7 This referred to Achilles’ extreme anguish over Patroclus’s death. Achilles cut his own hair and laid a lock of it in Patroclus’s hands as he was laid out in the funeral pyre. Greek mourners often cut their hair as an indication of their grief. 8 Asklepios was the Greek god of medicine, so this act was Alexander’s revenge on the deity for Hephaestion’s sickness and death.

54 Alexander’s life and in his relationship with Hephaestion. This was not exactly hubris, but close enough that there may have been some grumbling from Alexander’s Greeks.

However, if any men were upset over this extravagance they wisely kept their complaints far from the king’s ears, knowing his unstable temper. It is more likely that most of his men expected such a lavish funeral with traditional Greek elements like the games.

Alexander took it a step even further by incorporating an Eastern component and having the sacred flame at the main temple extinguished on the day of the funeral, an act typically reserved for the death of the Persian king alone (Dio. Bibliotheca. 17.114.4).

This was a fitting benefit for someone that Alexander considered a part of himself. The king had truly preferred Hephaestion above all others. When some claimed that Craterus was equally close to Alexander, he responded “Craterus was king-loving, but

Hephaestion was Alexander-loving (Dio. Bibliotheca. 17.114.2).”

After Hephaestion’s death, Alexander grew increasingly diffident of the gods and suspicious of his remaining friends, especially Antipater, whose son was his cupbearer and therefore always in close proximity, and , who had once laughed at the

Persians openly prostrating before Alexander (Plut. Alex. 296). These suspicions were a complete volte-face from the great loyalty he felt from his Macedonians and Greeks back at the start of the expedition. Hephaestion’s death was truly the catalyst for any hold on

Alexander’s lucidity, prompting the acceleration of his deterioration into paranoia and mistrust. The only exception to the king’s madness in this period was when “some answers which were brought him from the oracle concerning Hephaestion, he laid aside his sorrow, and fell again to sacrificing and drinking (Plut. Alex. 297).” Grief and recklessness punctuated by brief happier periods of recollection put stress on Alexander’s

55 remaining relationships. The king’s steady decline was certainly exacerbated by his drinking and also the reluctance of his men to continue on the campaign.

Soon after, Alexander developed a terrible fever in . He died mere weeks later on June 10 323BC at the age of 32. His generals and companions surrounded his deathbed and asked their king “‘To whom do you leave the kingdom?’ and he replied:

‘To the strongest,’” and with his final words requested that they provide him with a magnificent funeral (Dio. Bibliotheca. 17.117.3-5). This last entreaty showed that

Alexander was still focused on being remembered as someone special and exceptional.

That Alexander left no clear successor indicated the level of strain within his inner circle in the last few years of his life. While his heir was probably Hephaestion before his death, the king did not feel it prudent to appoint anyone officially to the position. He was likely paranoid that doing so would raise the influence of the heir enough to challenge his authority. His lack of selecting one was probably a measure taken to ensure against any possible rebellions against him. Rhoxana would give birth to a son, but that occurred months after Alexander’s death. The boy was used as a bargaining chip in political maneuvering and largely ignored. Alexander’s friends argued over who would inherit the king’s titles and powers. Eventually, unable to come to an agreement, they decided to split everything, establishing the Hellenistic Kingdoms and ushering in a new period of world history, the Hellenistic Age.

Given the Greek and Macedonian royalty’s propensity for assassination, there were many theories that Alexander was actually poisoned by someone close to him. This assumption holds some merit due to the resentment many people in his camp felt towards the king for keeping them on this extended campaign. However, Alexander had a

56 notoriously temperate appetite and was known to distribute and share much of his food among his friends (Plut. Alex. 248). Later with his paranoia and following the Eastern style, the king employed food tasters. The weeks-long duration of his illness supported that he died of natural causes of some disease, as poisons typically acted much more quickly.

Whatever the true circumstances were surrounding his death, Alexander had led an extraordinary life. Over the years, his personality and his relationships with those around him, both individuals and collective groups such as his troops, underwent great transformations. This is apparent in observing the vastly different reactions to his friends’ behaviors at the start of his campaign with his reactions after an extended period of time in the East. For instance, one boyhood friend who did not accompany Alexander on campaign was Harpalus, who had a lame leg. Yet early on, Alexander still gave him a post within his new empire as governor of a section of Asia Minor. In the time before

Darius’s death, Alexander seemed to have total trust in his friends and thought the best of each of them. For example, he imprisoned two messengers for false accusations when they brought news of Harpalus’s desertion from his post as governor, not believing that his longtime companion would be capable of anything but the utmost loyalty (Plut. Alex.

267). Only after Harpalus’s third offense, specifically absconding with part of the treasury, did Alexander take any significant action against him. If one compared this treatment with how Alexander later reacted to even a hint of disloyalty on behalf of

Philotas, it is apparent how very differently he reacted to his friends over time. It is probable that if Harpalus had made these same infractions later in the campaign, for instance after Alexander had gone to Bactria and after the death of Darius, then he would

57 have been treated much more harshly. This leniency on the part of Alexander was much diminished later on in his reign.

The influence of his time spent in the Persian Empire and beyond caused

Alexander to be more egotistical and regard himself as semi-divine. The king’s changing nature also contributed to high levels of paranoia. This trend likely started with the assassination of his father but gained the most strength during his time in the East, with events like the Conspiracy of the Pages and the Philotas Affair. People standing up to him and acting out against his plans exacerbated this paranoia further, as evidenced by the murder of Cleitus the Black and Alexander’s responses to the Hyphasis Mutiny and the

Opis Mutiny. The men who had used to call their king by his first name now knew that at any perceived provocation Alexander might order their death. Some of his relationships remained more stable, such as those with Olympias and Hephaestion. Yet even these were not immune from changes brought on by Alexander’s Easternization and increased mistrustfulness. He relied less and less on his mother’s advice as he spent more time away from her. For example, when Olympias urged Alexander to be less generous to his friends, he ignored her. He also took on something of a second mother in the form of

Sisygambis. And he never took Olympias on campaign with him, showing that Alexander desired some form of distance from his mother, going so far as to break with the tradition of the Persian imperial family by not taking her on his travels. The king’s distrust also prevented him from appointing Hephaestion as the lone leader of the Companion Cavalry following the demise of Philotas. It is interesting to speculate whether their relationship would have changed if Alexander’s son with Rhoxana had been born before the two men died. Perhaps Alexander would have devoted his primary attention to his son instead of

58 his friend. The ten plus years spent on campaign and in the midst of warfare certainly played a role in molding Alexander as well. All these experiences showed how the king’s relationships progressed over time with the change of his mindset.

59 Bibliography

Arrian. The Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander; Anabasis Alexandrou. Trans. Pamela Mensch. Ed. James S. Romm. New York: Pantheon, 2010. Print.

Curtius Rufus, Quintus. Trans. John Yardley. Comp. Waldemar Heckel. The History of Alexander (Historiae Alexandri Magni). New York: Penguin Group, 1984. Print.

Diodorus Siculus. "Vol. 8: Books 16.66-17." Trans. C. Bradford Welles. Biblioteca Historica. : , 1963. Print.

Plutarch. "Alexander." Trans. . Twelve Lives. Cleveland: World Pub., 1950. 226-98. Print.

60