DOCSLIB.ORG

Arrian Notes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arrian Notes ARIAN 1 Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας A SYNOPSIS OF "Arrian The Campaigns of Alexander The Great" (356 -323 BC) CONTENTS Autumn 336 - Winter 334 | Europe and Western Asia 4 THE NORTHERN CAMPAIGNS! 5 THEBES 9 THE BATTLE OF THE RIVER GRANICUS - Spring 334 BC 11 Leaving Cert Question 2000! 14 THE RESTORATION OF DEMOCRACIES | ALONG THE AEGEAN SEABOARD! 19 The Costal Campaigns! 19 Miletus! 19 Leaving Cert Question 1998 20 Halicarnassus! 20 The Gordian Knot! 22 2 3 AUTUMN 336 - WINTER 334 | EUROPE AND WESTERN ASIA Autumn 336 MACEDONIA Philip II is assassinated, Alexander becomes king. Spring 335 NORTHERN CAMPAIGNS Alexander puts down revolts of subject peoples. DANUBE Alexander crosses the river, defeats Getae. DANUBE Triballoi offer surrender; Celts send envoys. ILLYRIA Rebellious Taulantians and other Illyrians are subdued. GREECE Alexander destroys Thebes, receives submission of major Greek cities with the exception of Sparta. Spring 334 HELLESPONT Alexander leads his army into Asia and visits Troy. GRANICUS The Macedonian army defeats Persian forces led by western satraps. Summer 334 WESTERN ASIA Alexander takes control of Sardis and Ephesus. THE SIEGE OF MILETUS Alexander takes Miletus by siege and disbands most of his navy. HALICARNASSUS Halicarnassus is captured, except for its citadel. Autumn 334 CARIA-LYCIA A l e x a n d e r a r r a n g e s n e w administrators, sends for new recruits. Winter 334/3 LYCIA Cities of Lycia surrender to Alexander. 4 THE NORTHERN CAMPAIGNS On Alexander’s succession to the throne, he assembled all Greeks in Peloponnese and asked for the command of the campaign against Persia, which had been previously granted to his late father Philip of Macedonia. In Athens, there was disquiet, but resistance collapsed the m o m e n t A l e x a n d e r approached. In fact, on arrival in Athens, he was granted greater honours than his father Philip. In the spring of 335, he marched with his army towards Thrace, where the Triballi and Illyrians, w h o s e t w o p e o p l e s bordered Macedonia, were attempting to take advantage of what they saw as political instability in the wake of Philip’s death. Consequently, Alexander undertook to march to Mount Haemus in ten days where he intended to secure his b o r d e r s b e f o r e e m b a r k i n g o n h i s campaigns in Persia. 5 However, on the mountain he met a large opposing force of natives. The Thracians were well positioned and intended to use carts as a sort of defensive palisade. They hoped to send carts crashing down upon the Macedonian phalanx, as the men were climbing the steepest slope of the mountain. Alexander, who quickly realised that this could prove very dangerous to his army, came up with a plan that demonstrated his ingenuity. Considering that he would have to cross the ridge, he told his troops to break out of formation and go to either side. The others were to lie on the ground close together and lock shields. In this manner the carts could pass over them without causing any harm. The manoeuvre was very successful and there were no casualties. On witnessing this display of discipline and self belief, the Thracian troops flung down their weapons in a sauve-qui-peut action and fled down the mountain. According to Arrian, 1,500 were killed and only a few were captured. The remaining men, women and children fled to the “Pine Tree,” an island on the Danube. Alexander heard of the Triballians’ escape and set out to engage them. Retracing his steps, he found them pitching camp and attacked. The tribesmen were caught napping and were completely unprepared for the oncoming Macedonian onslaught of archers and slingers. The Thracians held their position as best they could, but could not hold off the Macedonian infantry which kept coming in close order. Instead of shooting the Thracians, the cavalry began to ride them down in a series of fierce assaults all over the battlefield. Arrian claims that 3,000 Thracians died in this battle. Of the Macedonians, he says that a mere eleven cavalry and forty infantry perished. Three days after the battle, Alexander reached the Danube, where he found warships awaiting him: they had come up and across the Black Sea from Byzantium. Alexander manned these ships with heavy infantry and sailed for the island to which Triballians and Thracians had fled for refuge. Fortunately for the Thracians and Triballians, he could not put ashore. Therefore, he withdrew his ships and sailed across the river to the Getea who lived on the other side. This was of course an enormous achievement for anyone and certainly left an impression on other tribes and leaders. On approach, they saw 4,000 cavalry and 10,000 on foot were awaiting his arrival (and were preparing to resist). Arrian points out that the sight of this opposition enticed Alexander all the more. He decided to cross with only 1,500 cavalry and 4,000 infantrymen. They crossed at night and concealed their landing. They held their spears parallel to the ground in order to flatten the fields as they marched forward. Frightened by the fact that Alexander had managed to cross the Danube in one night without a bridge, and now confronted with the force of his attack, they fled to their town. However, Alexander maintained his pursuit so that the Getea now fled their town taking with them as many children and women as possible. Alexander then cleared the town of all valuables and razed it to the ground. 6 On the Macedonian’s return to camp, they met the representatives of the Celtic tribes who all wished to maintain Alexander’s friendship. Alexander, fully aware now of his power, decided to seek further recognition. He asked the representatives what they were most afraid of wanting to hear “You, my lord,” however, the answer he got was perhaps not to his liking: They were afraid “that the sky might fall on their heads.” Alexander later found out that the Autariates were planning to attack him. He embarked immediately to meet this challenge. Langaros (king of Agrianes) respected Alexander greatly, and offered to keep the Autariates occupied, as they were not much of a war-like tribe. Langaros was successful and as a result earned Alexander’s favour. He then proceeded along the river Erigon on his way to Pelium, a town occupied by the Illyrian chieftain Cleitus, which was the most defensible town in the district. He halted at the river Eordaicus intending on attacking the following day. Owing to the position of the fortress, Cleitus’ troops were able to attack Macedonian forces from all sides. Cleitus, seeing Alexander’s approach, sacrificed three boys, three girls and two rams and moved to attack at close quarters. However, as the Macedonians looked like they were about to counter, Cleitus’ troops abandoned their defences. As the Macedonians approached, only the victims of sacrifice were left lying where they fell. At this point, Alexander sealed off the town with the troops still inside and made ready to attack – but the following day Glaucias (another Illyrian leader) appeared with a very large contingent of troops. Alexander decided to abandon his project of taking over the town. The Macedonian force was considerably smaller than Glaucias’. Glaucias then seized the high ground. Alexander marched with a force consisting of the Agrianes, the Archers, the Guards, and a squadron of cavalry 400 men strong. Glaucias retreated on Alexander’s approach. It still seemed however, that Glaucias and Cleitus had caught Alexander in an awkward position. Their commanding position on the heights was strong, with both mounted troops and other detachments armed with javelins and heavy infantry. When Alexander withdrew, those confined within the town were all ready to attack. The country, through which the Macedonians would have to withdraw, was very narrow. The river to one side and the arduous foothills to the other meant that Alexander’s men could not even pass four abreast. Alexander therefore decided to draw up the main infantry in mass formation at 120 deep, posting on either wing 300 cavalrymen with instructions to make no noise and to obey orders smartly. He then ordered the heavy infantry to erect their spears, and at the word of command, swing them from right to left. The whole phalanx then moved smartly forward whilst swinging their spears causing it to execute various intricate movements. Alexander then ordered his left to form a wedge and advance to the attack. The enemy, shaken by the discipline of his troops abandoned their positions on the lower slopes. At that moment, Alexander ordered his men to clash their spears against their shields and release a war cry, thus frightening the Taulantians (dominant Illyrian tribe) who quickly abandoned the town. A 7 small party of enemy troops was still in possession of a hill by which Alexander would have to pass. He therefore ordered the Companions and the men of his personal guard to prepare for action and ride to the attack. Their orders were that if the enemy who had occupied the hill should still hold ground, half should dismount and fight on foot in close support with the mounted troops. The hill, however was not held, the enemy went off at a tangent towards the mountains. Alexander then ordered the Agrianes and archers (a force of about 2,000 men) together with the Guards, to cross the river along with the other Macedonian units.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • T C K a P R (E F C Bc): C P R
    ELECTRUM * Vol. 23 (2016): 25–49 doi: 10.4467/20800909EL.16.002.5821 www.ejournals.eu/electrum T C K A P R (E F C BC): C P R S1 Christian Körner Universität Bern For Andreas Mehl, with deep gratitude Abstract: At the end of the eighth century, Cyprus came under Assyrian control. For the follow- ing four centuries, the Cypriot monarchs were confronted with the power of the Near Eastern empires. This essay focuses on the relations between the Cypriot kings and the Near Eastern Great Kings from the eighth to the fourth century BC. To understand these relations, two theoretical concepts are applied: the centre-periphery model and the concept of suzerainty. From the central perspective of the Assyrian and Persian empires, Cyprus was situated on the western periphery. Therefore, the local governing traditions were respected by the Assyrian and Persian masters, as long as the petty kings fulfi lled their duties by paying tributes and providing military support when requested to do so. The personal relationship between the Cypriot kings and their masters can best be described as one of suzerainty, where the rulers submitted to a superior ruler, but still retained some autonomy. This relationship was far from being stable, which could lead to manifold mis- understandings between centre and periphery. In this essay, the ways in which suzerainty worked are discussed using several examples of the relations between Cypriot kings and their masters. Key words: Assyria, Persia, Cyprus, Cypriot kings. At the end of the fourth century BC, all the Cypriot kingdoms vanished during the wars of Alexander’s successors Ptolemy and Antigonus, who struggled for control of the is- land.
    [Show full text]
  • The Satrap of Western Anatolia and the Greeks
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2017 The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Eyal Meyer University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons Recommended Citation Meyer, Eyal, "The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks" (2017). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2473. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Abstract This dissertation explores the extent to which Persian policies in the western satrapies originated from the provincial capitals in the Anatolian periphery rather than from the royal centers in the Persian heartland in the fifth ec ntury BC. I begin by establishing that the Persian administrative apparatus was a product of a grand reform initiated by Darius I, which was aimed at producing a more uniform and centralized administrative infrastructure. In the following chapter I show that the provincial administration was embedded with chancellors, scribes, secretaries and military personnel of royal status and that the satrapies were periodically inspected by the Persian King or his loyal agents, which allowed to central authorities to monitory the provinces. In chapter three I delineate the extent of satrapal authority, responsibility and resources, and conclude that the satraps were supplied with considerable resources which enabled to fulfill the duties of their office. After the power dynamic between the Great Persian King and his provincial governors and the nature of the office of satrap has been analyzed, I begin a diachronic scrutiny of Greco-Persian interactions in the fifth century BC.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander's Seventh Phalanx Battalion Milns, R D Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1966; 7, 2; Proquest Pg
    Alexander's Seventh Phalanx Battalion Milns, R D Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1966; 7, 2; ProQuest pg. 159 Alexander's Seventh Phalanx Battalion R. D. Milns SOME TIME between the battle of Gaugamela and the battle of A the Hydaspes the number of battalions in the Macedonian phalanx was raised from six to seven.1 This much is clear; what is not certain is when the new formation came into being. Berve2 believes that the introduction took place at Susa in 331 B.C. He bases his belief on two facts: (a) the arrival of 6,000 Macedonian infantry and 500 Macedonian cavalry under Amyntas, son of Andromenes, when the King was either near or at Susa;3 (b) the appearance of Philotas (not the son of Parmenion) as a battalion leader shortly afterwards at the Persian Gates.4 Tarn, in his discussion of the phalanx,5 believes that the seventh battalion was not created until 328/7, when Alexander was at Bactra, the new battalion being that of Cleitus "the White".6 Berve is re­ jected on the grounds: (a) that Arrian (3.16.11) says that Amyntas' reinforcements were "inserted into the existing (six) battalions KC1:TCt. e8vr(; (b) that Philotas has in fact taken over the command of Perdiccas' battalion, Perdiccas having been "promoted to the Staff ... doubtless after the battle" (i.e. Gaugamela).7 The seventh battalion was formed, he believes, from reinforcements from Macedonia who reached Alexander at Nautaca.8 Now all of Tarn's arguments are open to objection; and I shall treat them in the order they are presented above.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Achaemenid Persia on Fourth-Century and Early Hellenistic Greek Tyranny
    THE INFLUENCE OF ACHAEMENID PERSIA ON FOURTH-CENTURY AND EARLY HELLENISTIC GREEK TYRANNY Miles Lester-Pearson A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews 2015 Full metadata for this item is available in St Andrews Research Repository at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/11826 This item is protected by original copyright The influence of Achaemenid Persia on fourth-century and early Hellenistic Greek tyranny Miles Lester-Pearson This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of St Andrews Submitted February 2015 1. Candidate’s declarations: I, Miles Lester-Pearson, hereby certify that this thesis, which is approximately 88,000 words in length, has been written by me, and that it is the record of work carried out by me, or principally by myself in collaboration with others as acknowledged, and that it has not been submitted in any previous application for a higher degree. I was admitted as a research student in September 2010 and as a candidate for the degree of PhD in September 2011; the higher study for which this is a record was carried out in the University of St Andrews between 2010 and 2015. Date: Signature of Candidate: 2. Supervisor’s declaration: I hereby certify that the candidate has fulfilled the conditions of the Resolution and Regulations appropriate for the degree of PhD in the University of St Andrews and that the candidate is qualified to submit this thesis in application for that degree.
    [Show full text]
  • The Herodotos Project (OSU-Ugent): Studies in Ancient Ethnography
    Faculty of Literature and Philosophy Julie Boeten The Herodotos Project (OSU-UGent): Studies in Ancient Ethnography Barbarians in Strabo’s ‘Geography’ (Abii-Ionians) With a case-study: the Cappadocians Master thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Linguistics and Literature, Greek and Latin. 2015 Promotor: Prof. Dr. Mark Janse UGent Department of Greek Linguistics Co-Promotores: Prof. Brian Joseph Ohio State University Dr. Christopher Brown Ohio State University ACKNOWLEDGMENT In this acknowledgment I would like to thank everybody who has in some way been a part of this master thesis. First and foremost I want to thank my promotor Prof. Janse for giving me the opportunity to write my thesis in the context of the Herodotos Project, and for giving me suggestions and answering my questions. I am also grateful to Prof. Joseph and Dr. Brown, who have given Anke and me the chance to be a part of the Herodotos Project and who have consented into being our co- promotores. On a whole other level I wish to express my thanks to my parents, without whom I would not have been able to study at all. They have also supported me throughout the writing process and have read parts of the draft. Finally, I would also like to thank Kenneth, for being there for me and for correcting some passages of the thesis. Julie Boeten NEDERLANDSE SAMENVATTING Deze scriptie is geschreven in het kader van het Herodotos Project, een onderneming van de Ohio State University in samenwerking met UGent. De doelstelling van het project is het aanleggen van een databank met alle volkeren die gekend waren in de oudheid.
    [Show full text]
  • Pajonija Opt.Pdf
    НАРОДНА БАНКА NATIONAL BANK НА РЕПУБЛИКА МАКЕДОНИЈА OF THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA Издавач: Publisher: НАРОДНА БАНКА NATIONAL BANK НА РЕПУБЛИКА МАКЕДОНИЈА OF THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA www.nbrm.gov.mk www.nbrm.gov.mk За издавачот: On behalf of the publisher: Петар Гошев, гувернер на НБРМ Petar Goshev, Governor of the NBRM Уредник: Editor: Катерина Христовска Katerina Hristovska Автор: Author: Ефтимија Павловска Eft imija Pavlovska Превод на англиски: Translated into English: Елизабета Баковска Elizabeta Bakovska Ефтимија Павловска Eft imiјa Pavlovska (кат. бр. 1-238) (cat. nos. 1-238) Лектура на македонскиот текст: Macedonian Proof Reading: Бисера Павлеска Bisera Pavleska Конзервација: Conservation: Дијана Ванчевска Dijana Vanchevska Билјана Бозароска-Павловска Biljana Bozaroska-Pavlovska Фотографии: Photographs: Владо Кипријановски Vlado Kiprijanovski Дизајн и компјутерска обработка: Design and prepress: АРТИСТИКА, Скопје ARTISTIKA, Skopje Печат: Print: НАМ Прес, Скопје NAM Pres, Skopje Тираж: Issue: 500 500 Скопје, 2008 Skopje, 2008 ISBN: 978-9989-107-14-6 © 2008 Сите права се задржуваат. © 2008 All rights reserved. Ни еден дел од оваа публикација не може да биде No part of this book can be copied or препечатен или репродуциран на елекронски, reproduced in electronic, mechanical or механички или друг начин без писмена дозвола any other form without written consent од издавачот. of the publisher. МОНЕТИТЕ НА ПАЈОНИЈА од Нумизматичката збирка на НБРМ Ефтимија Павловска THE COINS OF PAEONIA from the Numismatic Collection of NBRM Eft imija
    [Show full text]
  • All About Indian History
    Toprankers - Paramount SSC CGL Mock Test Get Test Series Put code - "EXAMPUNDIT" to avail discount Now Indian History - In Details INDIAN HISTORY PRE-HISTORIC as a part of a larger area called Pleistocene to the end of the PERIOD Jambu-dvipa (The continent of third Riss, glaciation. Jambu tree) The Palaeolithic culture had a The pre-historic period in the The stages in mans progress from duration of about 3,00,000 yrs. history of mankind can roughly Nomadic to settled life are The art of hunting and stalking be dated from 2,00,000 BC to 1. Primitive Food collecting wild animals individually and about 3500 – 2500 BC, when the stage or early and middle stone later in groups led to these first civilization began to take ages or Palaeolithic people making stone weapons shape. 2 . Advanced Food collecting and tools. The first modern human beings stage or late stone age or The principal tools are hand or Homo Sapiens set foot on the Mesolithic axes, cleavers and chopping Indian Subcontinent some- tools. The majority of tools where between 2,00,000 BC and 3. Transition to incipient food- found were made of quartzite. 40,000 BC and they soon spread production or early Neolithic They are found in all parts of through a large part of the sub- 4. settled village communities or India except the Central and continent including peninsular advanced neolithic/Chalco eastern mountain and the allu- India. lithic and vial plain of the ganges. They continuously flooded the 5. Urbanisation or Bronze age. People began to make ‘special- Indian subcontinent in waves of Paleolithic Age ized tools’ by flaking stones, migration from what is present which were pointed on one end.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander's Empire
    4 Alexander’s Empire MAIN IDEA WHY IT MATTERS NOW TERMS & NAMES EMPIRE BUILDING Alexander the Alexander’s empire extended • Philip II •Alexander Great conquered Persia and Egypt across an area that today consists •Macedonia the Great and extended his empire to the of many nations and diverse • Darius III Indus River in northwest India. cultures. SETTING THE STAGE The Peloponnesian War severely weakened several Greek city-states. This caused a rapid decline in their military and economic power. In the nearby kingdom of Macedonia, King Philip II took note. Philip dreamed of taking control of Greece and then moving against Persia to seize its vast wealth. Philip also hoped to avenge the Persian invasion of Greece in 480 B.C. TAKING NOTES Philip Builds Macedonian Power Outlining Use an outline to organize main ideas The kingdom of Macedonia, located just north of Greece, about the growth of had rough terrain and a cold climate. The Macedonians were Alexander's empire. a hardy people who lived in mountain villages rather than city-states. Most Macedonian nobles thought of themselves Alexander's Empire as Greeks. The Greeks, however, looked down on the I. Philip Builds Macedonian Power Macedonians as uncivilized foreigners who had no great A. philosophers, sculptors, or writers. The Macedonians did have one very B. important resource—their shrewd and fearless kings. II. Alexander Conquers Persia Philip’s Army In 359 B.C., Philip II became king of Macedonia. Though only 23 years old, he quickly proved to be a brilliant general and a ruthless politician. Philip transformed the rugged peasants under his command into a well-trained professional army.
    [Show full text]
  • Separating Fact from Fiction in the Aiolian Migration
    hesperia yy (2008) SEPARATING FACT Pages399-430 FROM FICTION IN THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION ABSTRACT Iron Age settlementsin the northeastAegean are usuallyattributed to Aioliancolonists who journeyed across the Aegean from mainland Greece. This articlereviews the literary accounts of the migration and presentsthe relevantarchaeological evidence, with a focuson newmaterial from Troy. No onearea played a dominantrole in colonizing Aiolis, nor is sucha widespread colonizationsupported by the archaeologicalrecord. But the aggressive promotionof migrationaccounts after the PersianWars provedmutually beneficialto bothsides of theAegean and justified the composition of the Delian League. Scholarlyassessments of habitation in thenortheast Aegean during the EarlyIron Age are remarkably consistent: most settlements are attributed toAiolian colonists who had journeyed across the Aegean from Thessaly, Boiotia,Akhaia, or a combinationof all three.1There is no uniformityin theancient sources that deal with the migration, although Orestes and his descendantsare named as theleaders in mostaccounts, and are credited withfounding colonies over a broadgeographic area, including Lesbos, Tenedos,the western and southerncoasts of theTroad, and theregion betweenthe bays of Adramyttion and Smyrna(Fig. 1). In otherwords, mainlandGreece has repeatedly been viewed as theagent responsible for 1. TroyIV, pp. 147-148,248-249; appendixgradually developed into a Mountjoy,Holt Parker,Gabe Pizzorno, Berard1959; Cook 1962,pp. 25-29; magisterialstudy that is includedhere Allison Sterrett,John Wallrodt, Mal- 1973,pp. 360-363;Vanschoonwinkel as a companionarticle (Parker 2008). colm Wiener, and the anonymous 1991,pp. 405-421; Tenger 1999, It is our hope that readersinterested in reviewersfor Hesperia. Most of trie pp. 121-126;Boardman 1999, pp. 23- the Aiolian migrationwill read both articlewas writtenin the Burnham 33; Fisher2000, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • A FRONTIER UNDER FIRE the Mere Passage of Alexander and His Army
    PART THREE A FRONTIER UNDER FIRE Alexander and the 'Barbarian' Resistance The mere passage of Alexander and his army across Bactria and Sog­ diana did not mark a turning point in the history of Central Asia. While it was not an everyday occurrence for the population of this region to evade a large Graeco-Macedonian army in its midst, the scattering of people from field to fortress did not signal a permanent break in their ancestral ways of life. They no doubt planned to return in time to fields and flocks, to renew old crops and irrigation canals, to revive the patterns of trade and travel between the cities, towns, and villages of this still­ Persian satrapy. The situation in the summer of 329 B.C. was thus highly charged, but not radically changed by the march of Darius' avenger. In the struggle between Alexander and Bessus for Darius' throne, we have seen that the Bactrians all but crowned the foreigner. There was no passion for the cause of Bessus, much less a nationalistic uprising. One by one, the principal nobles of Central Asia had abandoned the 'usurper' and made their peace with King Alexander; they then were rewarded and allowed to return to their various homes. 1 The Bactrians once serving under arms with Bessus had already gone back to their native towns and cities. 2 There was a Persian, old Artabazus, in place as Alexander's new satrap at Bactra. 3 The only scars upon the land had been made by the torches of Bessus, not of Alexander.
    [Show full text]
  • Aus: Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie Und Epigraphik 83 (1990) 194–214 © Dr
    IAN WORTHINGTON ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND THE DATE OF THE MYTILENE DECREE aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 83 (1990) 194–214 © Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn 194 ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND THE DATE OF THE MYTILENE DECREE The Mytilene decree1 is almost as controversial a document as the circumstances in which it was passed. Its contents, centring on the means by which returning exiles to Mytilene on the island of Lesbos could be reconciled with those resident there, point to a dating, presumably, of 324 BC, the year in which Alexander III of Macedon issued the famous Exiles Decree, applicable to the Greek cities.2 The text of the Exiles Decree is given at Diodorus 18.8.4, although it is quite likely that he did not quote it in its entirety since in this passage he states that all exiles except for those under a curse are to be restored to their native cities; elsewhere (17.109.1), he says those charged with sacrilege and murder are also excluded (cf. Curtius 10.2.4 and Justin 13.5.2), whilst Pseudo-Plutarch (Mor. 221a) indicates that the Thebans were also excluded.3 Although the Exiles Decree is inextricably linked to any assessment of the Mytilene decree, it is the latter which is the subject of this paper. 1 IG xii 2, 6, OGIS 2 = Tod, GHI ii no.201, SEG xiii 434. Especially significant is the new redaction (based on autopsy) and photograph (the first made available) of A.J. Heisserer, Alexander the Great and the Greeks: The Epigraphic Evidence (Norman: 1980) – hereafter Heisserer, Alexander – pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander and the 'Defeat' of the Sogdianian Revolt
    Alexander the Great and the “Defeat” of the Sogdianian Revolt* Salvatore Vacante “A victory is twice itself when the achiever brings home full numbers” (W. Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, Act I, Scene I) (i) At the beginning of 329,1 the flight of the satrap Bessus towards the northeastern borders of the former Persian Empire gave Alexander the Great the timely opportunity for the invasion of Sogdiana.2 This ancient region was located between the Oxus (present Amu-Darya) and Iaxartes (Syr-Darya) Rivers, where we now find the modern Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, bordering on the South with ancient Bactria (present Afghanistan). According to literary sources, the Macedonians rapidly occupied this large area with its “capital” Maracanda3 and also built, along the Iaxartes, the famous Alexandria Eschate, “the Farthermost.”4 However, during the same year, the Sogdianian nobles Spitamenes and Catanes5 were able to create a coalition of Sogdianians, Bactrians and Scythians, who created serious problems for Macedonian power in the region, forcing Alexander to return for the winter of 329/8 to the largest city of Bactria, Zariaspa-Bactra.6 The chiefs of the revolt were those who had *An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Conflict Archaeology Postgraduate Conference organized by the Centre for Battlefield Archaeology of the University of Glasgow on October 7th – 9th 2011. 1 Except where differently indicated, all the dates are BCE. 2 Arr. 3.28.10-29.6. 3 Arr. 3.30.6; Curt. 7.6.10: modern Samarkand. According to Curtius, the city was surrounded by long walls (70 stades, i.e.
    [Show full text]