Does age matter?

Writing about Alexander over the years, I have been handling chronological dates for his whereabouts in the correct time frame. There is, however, another approach to consider and that is Alexander’s age. 

We know he became king at the age of twenty and started his invasion of Asia at the age of twenty-two. He died a month short of his 33^rd birthday. All his marches, sieges, battles, and fighting are condensed within this last period of roughly ten years. 

A comparison with any modern monarchy is impossible because there are hardly any kings left and they no longer go to war at the head of their army. To compare Alexander with young men his age today is out of the question also simply because life and the circumstances of living are too far apart. 

Alexander has been taught by Aristotle but again this kind of education cannot be identified with the teaching of a young man in our modern world. I believe that even Philip, although he intended to do what was best for his son, underestimated the vastness of Aristotle’s knowledge. Alexander was meant to rise above Philip because he understood how to draw from Aristotle’s vast database (to use modern terminology) and merge it expertly with his innate infallible instinct - his genius. 

However, Philip may well have realized the potential of his 16-year-old son when he entrusted him with the seal of Macedonia while campaigning against Byzantium. The young prince honored his assignment as Regent by successfully putting down the Maedi revolt on the country’s northern border. 

Two years later, Philip put his son in command of his cavalry at the Battle of Chaironeia. Alexander did more than his share and annihilated the entire Theban Band, all three hundred of them! 

We don’t know how much time the young prince spent among the soldiers growing up in Pella, but I think it is safe to assume it was a lot. Leading the small contingent against the Maedi and the cavalry in Chaironeia speaks volumes. An army has that instinctive flair to recognize a true leader, one they can and will trust. 

This trust would only grow when Alexander became king after his father was murdered. In the next two years, he successfully led his troops against the Illyrians and the Thracians to secure his northern borders, sacked the city of Thebes in retribution for its betrayal, and confirmed his position as Hegemon of Greece as per the Treaty of Corinth. Alexander could never have contemplated his campaign in Asia without the full trust and commitment of his army. 

He crossed the Hellespont shortly before his 22^nd birthday and fought the Persian army for the first time at the Granicus River. Later that summer, he marched to Sardes and took Ephesos, Priene, Miletus, Didyma, and Halicarnassus. Alexander spent the following winter in Lycia, after which he conquered Phaselis and Perge. 

When he was 23 years old, he headed north to Sagalassos and from there to Gordion, where he cut the knot. Crossing Cappadocia, he returned to the shores of the Mediterranean. At Tarsus, he fell sick with a fever, which incapacitated him for several weeks. By the end of the year, he was engaged in the Battle of Issus, his first personal confrontation with King Darius. 

In two years, Alexander fought two major battles (see: The Battle of the Granicus and The Battle of Issus, where Alexander and Darius faced each other for the first time), besieged two cities, Miletus and Halicarnassus, and occupied all the major ports in Asia Minor. In our modern world, this means that he crossed all of Turkey. 

At the age of 24, he laid siege to two more cities, Tyre (building a mole in the process) and Gaza. His reception in Egypt was that of a liberator, and he was soon acclaimed as their new Pharaoh - a title that automatically made him a god in the eyes of the Egyptians. At the western end of the Nile Delta, he founded his first Alexandria, a city that still exists and prospers today! 

Many more sieges and battles were to follow in Central Asia and India. We almost take them for granted, despite that every siege and every battle came with its own technicalities and challenges. Alexander faced many hardships as he traveled through deserts, waded through countless rivers, and crossed mountains as high as those of the Hindu Kush! 

The three years Alexander spent in Sogdiana and Bactria, from his 27^th to his 30^th birthday, were an uninterrupted succession of skirmishes and fights in guerrilla wars he was totally unfamiliar with. The events culminated with his victory at the Battle of the Hydaspes against the Indian King Porus. By then, he and his men had covered some 28,000 kilometers, creating many new Alexandrias in the process. 

Although Alexander is usually depicted sitting on his horse, we have to keep in mind that he moved at the pace of his foot soldiers. Riding bareback was not comfortable, not for the rider and not for the horse (see: No saddles and no stirrups for Alexander’s cavalry). 

It is impossible to imagine anyone covering such a distance on foot. It would imply walking an average of 2,800 kilometers a year, ten years in a row! Let us keep in mind that many of his troops were veterans of his father’s days, men in their fifties, sixties, and even seventies! Not a leisurely trip for the fainthearted. 

Speaking of walking: how many pairs of shoes, boots, and sandals would the Macedonians have worn out? Providing new ones for some 40,000 men or more would have implied production on an industrial scale! Maybe we should believe the sources suggesting that the soldiers fought and walked sections of the route barefoot?

Sadly, Alexander died far too young, and so did Hephaistion, but men like Ptolemy and Seleucos lived to the ages of 84 and 77, respectively. Age clearly is not everything!

Antipater and Alexander

Antipater first emerges from history at the side of Philip, when he became King of Macedonia after his brother Perdiccas died fighting the Illyrians. 

From what could be established, Antipater was a Macedonian nobleman, born circa 399 BC. In his younger years, he must have accompanied King Philip (see: Macedonia Forged by Philip) during his campaigns to impose and improve the power of Macedonia. We actively see him from 346 BC onwards, aged 57. 

When Philip ended the successive Sacred Wars in 346 BC (see: Philip’s campaigns east and the Fourth Sacred War – Macedonia forged by Philip II - 11), a delegation from Athens arrived in Pella to negotiate the peace terms. After the usual diplomacy, they reached an agreement. Philip, however, didn’t trust the Athenians and sent Antipater, Parmenion, and Eurylochus to Athens to repeat his terms of peace. This is where Antipater is mentioned by Arrian for the very first time. 

During the Battle of Chaironea in 338 BC, when Alexander commanded the left flank with his cavalry, facing the Sacred Band, he was probably assisted by both generals Parmenion and Antipater. To seal the ensuing Common Peace, i.e., the League of Corinth (see: High stakes at Corinth), with the Athenians, Philip sent an official embassy led by nobody less than Alexander in the company of Antipater and Alcimachus. They carried the ashes of those Athenians who had fallen during the battle. 

The above clearly shows how much Philip trusted Antipater. It is known that the king formed a clique with Parmenion, Antipater, and Attalus, who were also bound by several intermarriages. 

Antipater’s private life is little known except that he produced an impressive number of children. His recorded sons were Iollas, Cassander, Pleistarchus, Philip, Nicanor, Alexarchus, and Triparadeisus. His daughters Phila, Eurydice, and Nicaea all married generals in Alexander’s army. 

After Philip’s assassination in 336 BC, Antipater and Parmenion, still devoted to their king, supported Alexander to be elected as his heir. However, the neighboring Thracians and the Greek states in the south had doubts about accepting the rule of this young king and revolted. Alexander had no choice but to confirm his kingship from the onset and attacked the troublemakers both north and south. 

As soon as he had established Macedonian control, he turned his attention to his Asian campaign and left Pella in 334 BC. He made sure to leave half of his troops in the capable hands of his regent Antipater, who became Hegemon. Besides this heavy responsibility, which included handling the finances of the military and the navy, he was headmaster of the School of Pages. 

On top of his own army, Antipater had the power to summon the militia of the Greek city-states. He must have managed the situation with excellence because he gathered a large number of infantry and cavalry, despite Alexander’s constant demand for reinforcements. Antipater’s troops were needed when he had to face Sparta’s revolt in the Peloponnese. 

The first group of reinforcements was already mentioned in 332 BC while Alexander was in Memphis, and some 500 mercenaries and 500 Thracian cavalry joined his lines. From Arrian, we know Alexander sent the funds needed to enlist or hire such recruits. When the king was in Susa, he sent a certain Menes back to become the new governor of Syria, Phoenicia, and Cilicia. Menes received 3,000 talents in silver with instructions to transfer as much money as Antipater needed to cover his war expenses against Sparta. The general made good use of it because he emerged victorious in the decisive battle at Megalopolis, just north of Sparta. 

Antipater was, unfortunately, seriously criticized by Olympias, who liked to interfere in all matters. After several years, it must have become challenging for Alexander to make sense of either version of the facts. A mother’s love is mighty, and the image of the once-trusted commander was eventually blemished. Even if Alexander wanted to dismiss Antipater, he had nobody to replace him – not until a year before his death. Alexander decided to send Craterus to replace Antipater as the new regent in Macedonia. The regent-to-be was sent back home at the head of those veterans no longer fit for service. 

Alexander called (or summoned) Antipater to come to Babylon, but the old general ignored the order and sent his son Cassander instead. That is a bizarre decision because Cassander was not his favorite. Whether Cassander forced his father to accept to let him go or if it was by mutual agreement in case of the poison complot is true, we’ll never know. We will remember that Antipater’s son, Iollas, was Alexander’s cupbearer then. 

Alexander left no heir or successor when he died in 323 BC. As a result, each of his generals claimed a part of this empire. As a matter of fact, Antipater took control of Macedonia. This, however, did not mean peace as Antipater got involved in the Lamian War. The Aetolians, a tribe south of Thessaly, decided to help the Athenian general Leosthenes defeat Antipater. Leosthenes managed to corner Antipater, but luckily Craterus came to the old general's aid, and the Siege of Lamia was thus broken. The war proper ended a year later, in 322 BC, during the Battle of Crannon, when Leosthenes was killed. 

Antipater died in 319 BC at the blessed age of eighty. Upon his deathbed, he left his realm to Polyperchon and not Cassander. The arrogant Cassander deeply resented this, and Macedonia was the scene of bitter fights between Polyperchon and Cassander for the next decade. But that is another story altogether. 

It is quite astonishing to note how much Antipater accomplished in his later years. From the time of the Sacred Wars that ended in 346 BC until he died in 319 BC, he lived through some twenty-five turbulent years. In our modern world, this is the time for retirement. Amazing!

Food for thoughts

Strolling through the Graeco-Roman section of a museum, I often come face to face with a statue or a head of Antinoüs, the lover of Emperor Hadrian. His outstanding beauty and the perfect traits of his being are true eye-catchers.

Hadrian, who lived 76-138 AD, was a world traveler in our modern concept. He regularly visited many cities of the prosperous Roman Empire, and the occasion was often thankfully remembered by the citizens who built a triumphal arch. Many such monuments are still visible today. They have become so familiar that I genuinely miss them when they are absent. This was the case, for instance, in Albania. In the historical context, that is not surprising, but as it turned out, I got used to the comforting idea of having Hadrian around.

As the arches remained in place, the statues of the emperor were generally safely removed to a museum. It is there that Antinoüs pops up next to him. In the back of my mind, I am confident that when you see one, you are almost certain to find the other nearby.

In antiquity, a man having a male friend or lover was a way of living. Such relations were commonly accepted, not like today when many people raise their eyebrows, to put it mildly, and condemn the relation entirely. In our modern world, people belonging to LGBTQ groups are still far from being accepted. But that is not the point I want to make, and this is not the place to discuss the matter either.

We’ll find various examples of such relationships in Classical Greece. The Theban Band, which was ultimately destroyed by Alexander at Chaironeia, consisted of elite pairs of lovers. It was a fierce and unbeatable Band of Brothers precisely because they were lovers and would defend their partner to the very end. It was a great honor to belong to this Band famed to be invincible, that is, till they were defeated by Alexander.

Achilles and Patroclus, as described by Homer, is another example. They were so vividly remembered that when Alexander reached the tomb of Achilles in Asia Minor, he and Hephaistion stripped their clothes and ran around the burial mound. They identified themselves with Achilles and Patroclus.

Another famous pair of lovers was Harmodius and Aristogeiton from Athens, who became the symbol of democracy after committing an act of political assassination in 514 BC. They killed Hipparchus, the last tyrant of the city, during the Panathenaic Festival. The Athenians recognized them as the founders of democracy and erected a bronze statue group in their honor. It stood on the Acropolis till it was robbed by Xerxes during the Persian War in 480 BC, and it was installed in Susa. This is where Alexander found the group in 330 BC, and he sent it back to Athens.

Clearly, the friendship/love between Alexander and Hephaistion was nothing new. It was common knowledge among the troops, who accepted it for what it was. The special place Hephaistion occupied in Alexander’s life was, however, a source of envy and even resentment among the other Companions and generals. They must have watched that relationship with Argus’ eyes as they all coveted Hephaistion’s privileged position. Yet, Hephaistion never took advantage of that position. He must have walked a tightrope trying to stay aloft and still accomplish the missions Alexander entrusted to him. He must have been a gifted diplomat, blessed with a huge dose of self-control and endless love for Alexander.

I find it quite intriguing that most of the statues of Hadrian and Antinoüs were made during their lifetime and have survived to this day. This is not the case for Alexander, whose statues were made after his death. Most are Roman copies from the 1^st and 2^nd century AD based on originals by Lysippos, Praxiteles, and other great artists whose works no longer exist. The images of Hephaistion are even scarcer, and one could wrongly assume that his relationship with Alexander was not important enough to be underscored in the art world.

On the other hand, we know that after the death of Hephaistion, many effigies were made. They were presented to the mourning Alexander by his generals. Perhaps they hoped to clear their own conscience or to find a way to console Alexander. It remains to be seen whether that gesture was genuine or only a way to plead their own case to obtain favors. It is not impossible that after Alexander’s own death, his generals destroyed the effigies of Hephaistion in an ultimate urge to satisfy their own desire for revenge.

The fact remains that Alexander and Hephaistion are rarely seen together. I have come across only two such cases. One set of statues stood in a showcase at the National Archaeological Museum of Athens (see: Alexander and Hephaistion side by side). Those statues, found in Alexandria, are a little less than life-size and date from the 1^st century BC. The other example is their respective heads on display at the Getty Museum in Malibu, California (see: Ode to Alexander and Hephaistion). They once belonged to a larger group made as early as 320 BC and found in Megara, near Athens. Both heads have been reworked in antiquity, and Hephaistion’s hair has been trimmed in the process.

Both men are evidently also depicted on the famous Alexander sarcophagus, now at the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul. However, they are not placed next to each other but on either side of the sarcophagus. Alexander is depicted fighting a Persian on one panel and Hephaistion is part of a hunting scene on the opposite side.

Dancing with the Lion: Rise by Dr. Jeanne Reames

Dancing with the Lion: Rise by Dr. Jeanne Reames (ISBN: 978-1-62649-900-3) is Book Two of Dancing with the Lion: Becoming by the same author - the historical fiction book about the youth of Alexander the Great described earlier (click here to read my post on Book One).

This second part answers many questions that I was left with after reading the first part. It seems that this book was split in two for publishing reasons but this certainly does no justice to the story. Whatever the reason for this separation, I don’t think that in this case, the end justifies the means.

This being said, I now understand the title (which I questioned after reading Book One) and it turns out that Philip is the Lion and Alexander his cub. Why revealing this so late in the story, especially since it was cut in two parts, is not the best idea. It feels familiar, however, to renew with the main characters of Alexander, Hephaistion, and Philip which are – as I pointed out in Book One - as close to reality as can be expected.

It was nice to pick up the story again and submerge into the action. We accompany Alexander as his father’s Page during his Thracian campaign. Elected to be his father’s Regent as Philip is besieging Byzantium, we witness the prince’s first command to successfully crush the revolt on the northern border of Macedonia. At Chaironeia, Alexander annihilates the Theban Band. The events leading up to the murder of King Philip and Alexander’s proclamation as his successor are the true climax.

Throughout the book, Alexander is very much aware that his life at court with all its intrigues and complications stands in sharp contrast with the warmth and charismatic life he discovers at Hephaistion’s home. It makes him realize that he has to pay a high price to live as a Royal Prince and heir to the throne of Macedonia.

In between, several chapters are treating the deep affection and love that blossom between the young prince and Hephaistion, both mentally and physically. I am not sure we need all the tiny spicy details for this phase of Alexander’s coming-of-age but there seems to be a tendency to present this book as an LGBTQ Romance rather than a Historical Romance. Well, maybe all readers will find something to their liking but as an Alexander novel the sexual approach is not a priority. After all, the Greeks in antiquity were bisexual and that should suffice.

Alexander at Thermopylae

Nothing much is left of this once so highly strategic pass. All we can see today is a flat rather fertile plain gently sloping down from tall mountain walls to the sea at the distant horizon.

Hard to imagine that it was here that the historical Battle of Thermopylae took place in 480 BC between Leonidas of Sparta and King Xerxes of Persia. For two full days Leonidas, the leader of the Greek city-states, was able to pin down the Persians at this pass until he was betrayed by a local resident who guided the enemy troops behind the Greek lines – a tactic that was to be used repeatedly by Alexander during his eastern campaigns. When Leonidas realized that he was trapped, he dismissed the bulk of the Greek army and fought a last stand with his 300 Spartans.

This act of bravery can only have fired Alexander’s imagination, especially considering that for him this battle took place less than 150 years earlier. Meanwhile, other battles had been fought here like the one his father led on his way to Chaironeia two years before and in which Alexander took part.

Today there is nothing to remind us of Alexander’s (or Philip’s) passage at Thermopylae, only a memorial monument erected in honor of the Spartan King Leonidas. The centerpiece is a most splendid modern statue of Leonidas in classical style carrying the famous inscription “Come and take them”, i.e. the words addressed by the Greeks to Xerxes who demanded their surrender. On either side of Leonidas runs a relief depicting battle scenes ending on the right-hand side with a marble figure of Taigetos, representing the highest mountain in the Peloponnese, and on the left-hand side the personified Evrotas, a river of Laconia. This monument stands pretty much at the edge of the old coastline that follows the adjacent modern highway.

It is here at Thermopylae that Alexander, after the murder of his father, summoned the members of the Amphictyonic Council, basically responsible for managing the oracle of Delphi. With their pledges of support, he can rally northern and central Greece to his cause – a minor detail in his later campaigns but a very important one in these early days of his kingship.

Thermopylae, meaning literally Hot Gates, is named after the hot springs that bubble up near the historical pass. The hot springs are still working today and it is quite exciting to sample the hot water temperature as the soldiers of Leonidas and Alexander must have done. What a rewarding way to get in close touch with the past.

Alexander’s eloquence

Eloquence is a fascinating aspect of Alexander's personality that only transpires on certain occasions and is hard to figure out as it automatically raises other questions. Was Alexander a born orator? He may well have been. Was Alexander inspired by his father's eloquence? Not unlikely since Philip was a shrewd manipulator in words and deeds, and this ability cannot have been lost on his son. Was Alexander a good pupil of Aristotle? No doubt, and certainly when it came to learning those skills which truly mattered to him.

The art of rhetoric is lost in our 21^st century of mass communication, where fast, phonetic language is the rule, but there were times when people would meet to talk for the sake of argumentation. Using our language effectively to convince and impress our interlocutor with the tiniest of nuances was an art. The fashion was popular with ancient Greeks, who liked to elaborate on their topics during their Symposia.

Historians like Arrian and Curtius often quote Alexander verbatim when he addresses his troops or responds to certain situations. Generally, these words are considered created by the authors rather than actually pronounced by the king. Maybe so, maybe not. Unfortunately, we have no original texts from Alexander's journals or memoirs written by his contemporaries like Onesicritus, Callisthenes, Ptolemy, or Aristobulus. Therefore, it seems too easy and even unfair to dismiss the idea that their accounts could have contained accurate original quotes and even speeches made by Alexander.

There are many examples of Alexander addressing his troops to motivate and encourage them at the onset of a battle. Still, he probably spoke to his audiences on many more occasions. It is said that he knew more than one thousand of his men by name, and I am confident that he used every opportunity to talk to them in person. In modern vocabulary, he is a good communicator.

We generally tend to accept the one-sentence quotes that are reported in history, like:

-    when young Alexander sees that Bucephalus is being led away because the horse is judged to be beyond training, and exclaims: "What an excellent horse do they lose, for want of address and boldness to manage him!"

-   when Alexander visits Diogenes in Corinth (that is, IF that meeting did indeed take place), he would have said, "If I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes."

-    when, after the Battle of Issus, Darius offers Alexander all of Asia to the Euphrates and the hand of his daughter in marriage, Parmenion encourages his king to accept this offer. Alexander drily responds, "So would I, if I were Parmenion."

-    or the plausible remark making Alexander say, "sex and sleep alone make me conscious that I am mortal," or the one showing his bleeding wounds stating that this is not "ichor" flowing through his veins (golden blood of the gods).

It is beyond doubt that Alexander addressed his troops just before the battle, for he had an excellent personal antenna to judge the morale of his men, and he knew exactly how to motivate them. Very modern is the openness with which Alexander tells his army what they are to expect, embellishing the truth in his favor whenever opportune. But we cannot blame him for that as, after all, the trick is used by every politician - then as now. The art consists in making the message clear and credible. "We are free men, and they are slaves" is one such quote.

The encouraging words he spoke just before crossing the Pillars of Jonah, over which Alexander would have to retrace his steps to the Pinarus River, where the Battle of Issus was to take place, are very telling. Both Arrian and Curtius spend many lines describing Alexander's speeches and personal addresses to his commanders and even to individuals of lower ranks, making sure to touch every man's pride and get their minds ready for the battle to come.

Like a fine psychologist, he plays the cord that touches the soul of every man. He reminds his Macedonians of their victories in Europe, including that at Chaeronea, rekindling their old-time valor; he reminds them of the Granicus and the many cities of Asia Minor they have already taken. When he faced the Greek allied forces, he brought up the brutal invasions of the Persians who burned their temples and homes, adding that now was the time for revenge. To the Thracians and Illyrians accustomed to a life of plunder, he tells them to focus on the gleaming gold and purple of the enemies and the booty they would yield. Of course, he needs all these soldiers since, according to the League of Corinth, they joined forces to fight against Persia; they need to be motivated as well. When he tackles the subject of the Greek mercenaries fighting in Persian service, he points out that they fight for pay. Alexander's foreign troops – Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians, Agrianes – were Europe's best and stoutest soldiers. Enough to kindle every man's pride!

Arrian concludes by putting these words in Alexander's mouth: "The enemy of Persians and Medes have lived soft and luxurious, while we Macedonians went to the hard school of danger and war. You have Alexander – they Darius!". We know the outcome of that battle!

At Gaugamela, Alexander addressed his soldiers in quite a different way since each and every one of them knew how important this victory over the King of Persia would be. Nevertheless, he stresses that every soldier should preserve his discipline in the hour of danger, that all orders must be obeyed promptly, and that all officers, regardless of their rank, must pass their commands to their subordinates without hesitation or delay. Most importantly, Alexander emphasizes that the conduct of each of his men is crucial to the fate of all. In other words, if everyone does their duty as expected, their success is assured, but if only one man neglects it, the entire army will be in peril. Strong talk.

Once his forces are arranged according to his plan, Alexander once again rides up and down the lines to lift the spirits of every man and every squadron with a last word of encouragement. Everything depended on the commitment of each and every one of Alexander's troops to maintain the frontline and avoid any gap in the formation that could be exploited by the Persians. Amazingly and against all odds, Alexander has indeed been able to maintain his line of defense. His men did not let him down!

Of an entirely different caliber is Alexander's earnest appeal to his Macedonians in the case of the Philotas Affair, in which his trusted general and boyhood friend is suspected of treason in an attempt to take the life of his king. This is a most threatening and highly alarming situation that can be compared to attacks on the lives of modern leaders like JF Kennedy or King Hassan II of Morocco. Thorough investigations followed these attacks with more or less success.

In Alexander's case, he had to lead the investigation himself and present it before his Macedonians under the prevailing laws. Alexander's exposé is worthy of the plea held by the most accomplished lawyer. He starts by telling his men how close he escaped death. He then shares his deep sorrow when learning that his longtime friends Philotas and Parmenion, his father's most trusted generals, had conceived a plot to take his life. The informants are then praised for their courage in bringing Alexander the bad news while bathing. Philotas, in his efforts to keep the matter quiet, must have had good reasons to do so, he says. He even reads aloud a letter Parmenion sent to his sons, Nicanor and Philotas, which he had intercepted, and in which Parmenion advised them to look out for themselves "for thus we shall accomplish what we have planned." A sentence that would have had no meaning had the conspiracy not been disclosed. Alexander takes his plea a step further by confiding his hitherto personal skepticism about Philotas, who had joined Amyntas (Alexander's uncle who was underage when his father was killed on the battlefield, upon which Philip was chosen as Macedonia's new king, with Philip's death he could claim the throne) to make an impious plot against his life. He tells his soldiers how these acts have torn him apart – working on their sentiments.

Alexander continues by reminding his soldiers that he had put Philotas in command of his elite cavalry, entrusting his life, hopes, and victories to him. He had elected his father, Parmenion, to rule over Media with all its richness, which required integrity and respect for his king. Now his trust has been broken, and he has fallen victim to such a shameful scheme! Alexander, in his speech, seeks refuge with his troops, going as far as to state that his own safety lies in their avenge.

Philotas' defense, which I will not detail here, is no less flamboyant and another example of good rhetoric that can only be traced back to Aristotle's teaching.

Alexander's plea in India was more significant and complicated when his Macedonians refused to march beyond the Hyphasis River. He called a meeting with his officers, hoping they would agree on going forward; however, without success. He then gathers his troops and reminds them of what they have accomplished so far. Working on their sentiments, he asks them if they are afraid (a sensitive note, no doubt) and then exposes the great prospects that lay ahead. Alexander has shared all his men's hardships and suffered the same wounds, the cold, heat, thirst, and famine. After these words, his men stood there in utter silence as nobody dared to respond or contradict any of the king's arguments till Coenus courageously stepped forward to verbalize the thoughts of the Macedonians present. They were determined not to go any further – they only wanted to go home after too many years away from their loved ones. We know that Alexander sulked in his tent for several days after that, but even he could not accomplish a miracle and had to give in and lead the army back west.

Alexander's discourse at Opis in 324 BC is the most famous and best documented. Here, Alexander called his Macedonians together and announced that he was discharging the veterans among them, the wounded, and those unfit for further service, so they could return to their homes. They would collect their pay, and their bonus would make them the envy of their family and friends at home. The king expected his decision would please his Macedonians (who wanted so badly to go home when they were in India!), but instead, they resented his words and told him so with loud shouting. They felt pushed aside in favor of the Persians and other foreign troops and cavalry. It hurt them deeply that the very people they conquered were to take their place.

Although Alexander was taken off guard, he immediately rushed into the rebellious mob to arrest the ringleaders of this mutiny. Then he made a fiery speech addressing his troops, who had contributed to his success over the years. He started by referring to his father, who brought the mountain people and goat herders to the rich plains of Macedonia and told them how to be victorious in battle. He, Alexander, had led them from victory to victory, adding all of Asia Minor to Macedonia, reaping the riches of Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia. They conquered the cities of Halicarnassus, Babylon, Persepolis, and Bactra. He took nothing for himself while they all lived in luxury. He shared his soldiers' toil and fatigue, hunger and thirst, freezing cold and scorching heat, and even their wounds. None of them was killed in flight, and those who fell in a glorious death were honored with a splendid burial, and their parents were released from taxation.

Finally, Alexander makes a defiant statement: "if you wish to depart, depart all of you!" He tells his Macedonians to go back home to report that when they returned to Susa after all those years of conquests – and he names the peoples, lands, rivers, and mountains they conquered – they deserted their king, leaving him under the protection of conquered foreigners. Do they expect their homecoming to be glorious in the eyes of their kin when they hear that they left their king behind? Powerful words which were much fiercer than those used in India.

Alexander retires to his quarters for three days. By the third day, he had drawn new plans appointing Persians to occupy the hitherto Macedonian commanding posts, which include his Companions and even his Silver Shields! That was just too much for the Macedonians to bear! The very thought of having those Persian Barbarians commanding them was inconceivable. They thronged around the entrance of Alexander's quarters, begging for admission and offering to give up the ringleaders of the mutiny. Once again, the army conquered their beloved king's heart, but Alexander's eloquence brought them back to reason.

"Every man of you, I regard as my kinsman, and from now on that is what I shall call you" are the words Alexander used to close the matter. I think this says a lot about the magnanimity of Alexander, but we should not forget that his eloquence widely contributed to his success.

[The picture of Alexander at Gaugamela is from Oliver Stone's movie Alexander]