A few words of praise for Oliver Stone’s vision of Alexander

Oliver Stone received loads of criticism for his Alexander movie, revisions, and comments as if he had it all wrong. Well, nobody from Alexander’s lifetime is still alive to contest what’s right or not. 

As said in my earlier blog post about Stone’s book Responses to Oliver Stone’s Alexander, it is so much easier to point out the shortcomings than to consider the author’s considerable merit. The critics seem to forget that Alexander’s life was far too complex, too active, too magnanimous, and too genial to be told in a movie of three hours for a public largely unacquainted with history or Alexander the Great. 

At the end of his book, Oliver Stone added a highly interesting chapter “Afterward”, an excellent explanation and justification for his vision of Alexander. I can only admire his stamina.  I saved this text from some link back in 2006 and had a fresh look at it today. It is striking to read how, nearly twenty years later, Stone’s approach to Alexander is still so close to the truth! 

His plea for humankind to understand Alexander is worthy of Demosthenes, the great Athenian orator. Here is an excerpt worth reading:

The response is in what Alexander did, and not his motives, which I suspect were something like most of ours: highly ambivalent, at times glorious, at times wretched. I sometimes feel professional historians, generally apart from the human give and take of the marketplace, expect too much from their leaders -- requiring them to act from abstract principles in a world harsh with chaos, greed and infighting. We can certainly say in Alexander’s defense that he kept the expedition marching eastward for 7 more years after Babylon, with a greatness of vision that could motivate a 120,000-man army. By leading from the front and sharing the burdens of his men, he showed himself above the comfort lines of materialism, and as a known foe of official corruption, he set high standards by punishing those found guilty of stealing, raping, plundering (including his school friend Eumenes). From all accounts written of Alexander, we see time and again, his great passion, pain, and self-torture in incidents such as the murder of Cleitus, the burning of Persepolis, the mutiny in India, the kissing of Bagoas in front of his men, and the bestowing of official acceptance on Asian men and womenfolk. There is no ancient ruler, outside of legend, that I have ever heard commit such potentially self-incriminating actions. This is, of course, one of the reasons his name continues to endure – who was ever remotely like him? ‘In the doing, always in the doing’, Alexander. 

Conquest is also a form of evolution. If Alexander had a smaller vision, he would’ve retreated long before to Babylon and consolidated his empire. He would’ve brought his mother, his sister and his entourage to the Persian Court. He would’ve made a stronger, more patient effort to combine Macedonian and Persian custom. This unification of cultures would’ve been the lifetime challenge for any emperor, and would’ve certainly changed the course of history. Why did he not? 

I see Alexander more as an explorer, like many others of such a nature, not quite knowing what’s going to come up on the horizon, yet boldly reaching for the new electrical charge of change. He stayed in motion until the end, and never returned to his Rome, London, Paris, Berlin, or Mongolia, as other conquerors have. He comes across in many ways as a man who was making it up as he went along -- from Babylon through Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and back to Babylon -- where in the end, he remained unsatisfied, dreaming of his expedition to the West. I would call him not an imperialist as present fashion would have it, but rather a ‘proto-man’, an enlightened monarch naturally in search of one land, one world -- the unity, so to speak, of the womb. Given that Alexander might’ve had a longer lifetime to develop this experiment, his empire might’ve yielded perhaps six or seven centers -- such as Babylon, Alexandria, Athens, Carthage, Rome, South Spain, a world with nerve centers that supposes, to a surprising degree, the global world centers we have today – but with one world government, centered on enlightened monarchy, or, barring that, some form of governing body. 

In unconsciously pursuing this ‘one world’ concept, under the guise of a personal quest, the Alexander of the drama we created would have to be a man who believed he was the right force to bring the world into a greater sense of unification and prosperity, that he was a step in the evolutionary process. And given the cataclysms possible, I do think Alexander ruled extraordinarily well for 12 years over men, both noble and bestial, in a social fabric that not only maintained itself, but greatly expanded in terms of culture, scientific discovery, and economic progress. It’s so easy to dismiss this great effort, I think too easy, to declare it broken after 12 years of rule. But can we say it really broke apart? Even if dissolved in four parts, the basic communal energies remained in place, and his creation culminated shortly, within 150 years, in the burgeoning Roman Empire.

I cannot agree more!

Macedonian swords set against history

As mentioned in an earlier post (see: Alexander’s battle outfit), the Macedonians basically used two types of swords. The straight sword with a double-edged blade, which was most popular, was about 60-70 cm long. The blade was exceptionally efficient because of the swelling toward the sword’s tip. It added weight and momentum to each blow. It was used by cavalry and infantry alike, as it functioned for hacking and stabbing. 

The kopis, or saber-shaped sword with the crooked hilt, was less common. The blade was 40-60 cm long, and only the curved side had a cutting edge. The kopis was more effective for fights on horseback since the rider could deliver a heavy blow from above. 

Sources tell us that the Cyprian King of Citium (ancient Larnaca) gave Alexander a masterly executed sword, which was exceptionally light and well-tempered (see: The role of Cyprus in Alexander’s campaign). 

Quality swords were widespread among Alexander’s commanders and even common troops. Several memorable encounters have been reported by our historians. The most striking one was when Cleitus, with a single blow, severed the arm and shoulder of a Persian attacking Alexander at the Granicus. The Paeonian cavalry leader Ariston used his sword to behead the Persian leader Satropates during a skirmish near the Tigris River. 

The kopis were handled by the Macedonians at the Hydaspes to slash at the elephants’ trunks. Ptolemy drove his sword through the thigh of a local chief during the Indian expedition, and Alexander cut off the hand of his Arab assassin with one stroke of his sword during the siege of Gaza. The Macedonian tradition of handling weapons with high cutting capacity is still alive in 276 BC when King Pyrrhus inflicted such a blow to his adversary that he cleaved his opponent in two parts, falling to either side! 

Now we may wonder where and how all these swords were made. Cyprus was known for its quality weaponry, but did the artisans accompany the Macedonians into Asia, or did they train a selected number of people in this specific craftsmanship? Either theory is plausible. 

There is, however, the case of Porus’ gift. After the Battle of the Hydaspes, King Porus gave Alexander a precious sword. This story leads us to another source, Wootz Steel (the name is a corruption of ‘ukku’), a well-kept secret amongst the metallurgists in India. The name first appeared when Alexander received a gift of over 2500 kg of ‘white iron’, a kind of steel that originated in India millennia before reaching Europe. 

Wootz steel is a type of crucible steel made using a clay crucible. The vessel was closed and heated for several days to a temperature of 1300-1400 degrees Celsius. In the process, the quality of the product acquired high ductility, high impact strength, and reduced brittleness. After a slow cooling, the Wootz ingots were ready. Archaeologists discovered an industrial steel center from around the 3^rd century BC in the southern state of Tamil Nadu. 

How was this new technology received in the Macedonian camp? It is hard to imagine that Alexander did not explore or use the possibilities of this Wootz steel. He always was a ringleader when confronted with new inventions and improvements in warfare. The next time we hear about this revolutionary steel is that Indians had a monopoly over the production and export of Wootz steel from the 3^rd to the 17^th century, reaching from the Roman Empire in the West to China in the East. 

In the Middle Ages, Damascus became the main supplier of the famous Damascene swords, which is only another name for weaponry made using Wootz steel. 

By the 8^th century, manufacturing in India had spread throughout Central Asia, where the Vikings had established trade posts to exchange their furs and slaves over Eurasia. Hoards of Arab dirhams have been found in Scandinavia, documenting these trades. As a result, by the 9^th century, the Vikings produced high-quality Ulfberht swords, made of crucible steel known as Wootz steel. 

[Picture from Ulfbeht sword - Credits: Secrets of the Viking sword]

The blades of Viking swords were generally 70 to 90 centimeters long and 5-6 centimeters wide. The so-called Ulfberht swords carried the inscription +VLFBERH+T, which may be linked to some religious invocation rather than the maker’s signature. The earliest known specimen was created in the 9^th century and was one of the heaviest (1.9 kg) and longest (102 cm) Viking swords. It is exhibited at the Museum of Cultural History in Oslo. Another surviving example is the sword of Saint Stephen from the 10^th century, which was the coronation sword of the Hungarian King Stephen. It still has its walrus-tooth hilt. 

The so-called Lincoln sword from the same era is one of only two known swords bearing the inscription +LEUFRIT, also made of crucible (most probably Wootz) steel. It was found near Monks Abbey in Lincolnshire, UK, in 1848. 

It is noteworthy that the science behind the production of Wootz steel was only understood in the 20^th century! From a technological point of view, this means that the metallurgists of ancient India were far, really far ahead of their time! 

Unfortunately, history has, to my knowledge, not linked the weaponry from Cyprus to the Wootz steel swords made in India. Consequently, we still don’t know how Alexander acted and reacted to Porus’ highly prized gift. I can’t imagine that Alexander did nothing to explore this newly acquired knowledge.

In the Footsteps of a World-Changer

Another enticing title for the tour which Peter Sommer Travel's offers to rub shoulders with Alexander the Great!

Most of us who are interested in the ancient world eventually come to look in detail at its cultures, religion, politics and art. But for a lot of us, what first grabbed us were the stories. Stories of individuals who lived extraordinary lives and had an impact out of all proportion to their lifespan. In this tour, you travel with such an individual, and experience the world they changed forever.

Alexander’s reign was epic in so many ways – the height of his ambition in taking on the mightiest empire in the world, his personal heroism in some of the most vividly-described, fiercest battles of the epoch, his deliberate emulation of the heroes and in the scale of the transformation his reign brought to the whole Mediterranean and Near Eastern worlds. It’s at the beginning of that reign that some of the most powerful tales come: the spear thrown to claim the land of Asia, the visit to the temple at Troy to obtain Achilles’ shield, the brutal charge at the Granicus which saw Alexander’s nearly-lost life saved by brave Cleitus – a debt tragically betrayed in a tent in central Asia years later. This is the glittering, dynamic curtain-raiser to a journey that would darken later on, beset by demons and difficulties.

Here you get to visit the stupendous sites of the early days of this almost unbelievable turning point in history, to feel a connection with the young hero-king. Contemporaries often set this up as the latest in a clash of civilisations, East versus West. Here you’ll see the deeper story – how the Greeks and their neighbours met and fought - or embraced: unsurpassed Istanbul-Constantinople, queen of Greek Christian civilisation bridging east and west, lofty, breath-taking Sardis from whose wealthy kings the early Greeks took so many ideas, and proud Bodrum, the ancient Halicarnassus that gave the world the insatiable explorer of other worlds, Herodotus, and the great Mausoleum, the perfect blending of Greek and eastern ideas. And behind and before all, there’s Troy – the centre and origin of so much of what it means to be Greek, or western, but whose story also fittingly is about what it means to be human, whatever side you’re on. With a fine new museum housing the treasures of its long and fabled, there’s never been a better time to go – and no better experts to go with. Alexander and Troy began our journey, too. In this inspiring tour, you’ll stand shoulder to shoulder with Alexander and, like him, discover and fall in love with a rich mix of Greek and eastern civilisations. Alexander followed his yearning to find a wider world. Not a bad idea. Paul’s written about the most modern phase of this encounter here, Agamemnon returns to Troy.  29th Apr - 10th May 2019 Read More

The Khyber Pass into India

On their return from Sogdiana (see: End of Alexander’s Campaign in Central Asia), the Macedonians spent a well-deserved rest of six months at Alexandria-in-the-Caucasus (Begram) in the heart of the Kabul Valley. Here, Alexander worked hard to reshuffle and reorganize his army.

[Map is from the Encyclopaedia Britannica]

His strategic phalanx was dismantled since it no longer served its purpose after the Bactrian guerilla wars. The mounted Lancers joined the Companion Cavalry together with the skillful horsemen from Bactria and Sogdiana, to which he added 2,000 horse-archers from Spitamenes’ nomads.

On another level, the commanding posts needed to be redistributed after the execution of Philotas and Parmenion and the murder of Cleitos. Their detachments were split between Ptolemy, Hephaistion, Perdiccas, and Leonnatus. The Royal Shield Bearers were promoted to the title of Silver Shields (Argyraspids), led by Seleucos and Nearchus, under the supreme command of Neoptolemus. The Royal Squadron of Companions remained under Alexander’s own command. These Cavalry Commanders and trusted squadron leaders enabled him to divide his army more freely between different locations at any one time.

That winter of 327 BC, the entire army was on the march again, with their forces divided in two. Hephaistion and Perdiccas are sent ahead to the Indus in order to prepare the crossing of that river with half the Companions and all the mercenary cavalry. The timing is well chosen to avoid the summer heat upon arrival in India. With the other half of the troops, Alexander starts his march up the Kunar Valley into the Swat Valley in modern Pakistan.

There is little or no information about the expedition of Hephaistion and Perdiccas as they head east. It is clear that to reach the Indus River, they must cross the Hindu Kush Mountains again. The obvious route this time leads over the Khyber Pass. Even today, the main road from Kabul to Peshawar runs over the same mountain pass.

The Khyber Pass is situated at an elevation of 1070 meters and is 53 kilometers long. The passage varies between 3 and 137 meters in width, meaning that the Macedonians had to cope with the inevitable bottlenecks. On top of that, the Khyber Pass is walled in by steep cliffs towering 200-300 meters above the men’s heads.

It is not known how long it took Hephaistion and Perdiccas to get across the pass, only that they marched to Peucelaotis and hence to the Indus. Their instructions, according to Arrian, were that they had to take all the places they encountered, either by force or by agreement.

Peucelaotis, however, resisted. Hephaistion besieged the town for thirty days, after which the defenders surrendered, maybe simply because their governor, Astes, was killed. The newly appointed governor was a certain Sangaeus who had deserted Astes some time before to join Taxiles. This made the man trustworthy.

Eventually, Hephaistion and Perdiccas reached the River Indus at Ohind/Hund (near modern Attock) in Punjab. Here, they built a fleet of thirty-oared galleys and a pontoon bridge of linked boats spanning the river, which at this point is at least 400 to 500 meters wide. This operation is not to be underestimated, for although the bridge was constructed far upstream in the Punjab region, the river is fed by snow and glacial meltwater from the Karakorum, the Hindu Kush, and the Himalaya Mountains, and its annual flow is known to be two times faster than that of the Nile or three times that of the Euphrates and the Tigris combined.

Even in antiquity, historians tend to focus solely on Alexander, but his generals also excelled in their missions, which were multiplied from Sogdiana and Bactria onwards. The War of the Diadochi that broke out after Alexander’s death certainly proves – if a proof is needed – how capable each and every one of his generals was. Well, they certainly had an excellent master!

[The Black&White picture is taken by John Burke, 1879-1880]

Alexander the Great by Robin Lane Fox

For several years, I used Robin Lane Fox’s Alexander the Great (ISBN 0-141-02076-8) as a reference book but it is not until now that I really read it cover to cover. It turned out to be a most captivating experience.

Before writing down my own impressions on this book, I looked at previous comments made by other purchasers on Amazon and I am truly appalled to see it qualified as “very badly written” and “hard to understand”. This is not a novel and cannot be compared to Manfredi’s tales. On the contrary, this is a serious work in which Robin Lane Fox put his entire heart and soul, together with his thorough knowledge of one of the most enigmatic persons who ever lived.

The book is not a quick history of Alexander’s life and conquests but an in-depth study of his actions set against the background of the world he lived in and to which he had to adapt time and again as he met other civilizations and foreign tribes during his march east.

While the author follows Alexander’s steps, he often stops to analyze the whole context and to place the story against the background which the king encountered. It is so easy to judge Alexander based on our own experiences but to judge him in the frame of so many new elements and circumstances is a totally different matter.

For instance, Robin Lane Fox takes the time to explain the Macedonian military machine and armory as put into place by Philip, Alexander’s father. He does the same for Persia where he highlights the court system and the complexity of its government – most of it not unknown to Alexander but an aspect that is more often than not skipped in our western literature. He explains Persian customs and court protocol, including the meaning of being the “King of kings”. He also reminds us of the fact that Alexander had no maps and no more directions to guide him than what Herodotus had written in his Histories (something like the maps of the stars used by the first astronauts flying to the moon in the 1960s).

Although some parts of Alexander’s march east are passed by quickly, the author certainly takes the time to discuss the main events. There is, for instance, Siwah, where he not only describes the voyage and Alexander’s reception by the priests but also the significance of the god Amon and the idea behind the title “son of Amon”. Lane Fox also analyses the battles of Issus and Gaugamela including Alexander’s preparations but also looks at the tactics from Darius’ point of view. The Philotas’ Affair implicating his father, Parmenion, as well as the conspiracy of the Pages and the murder of Cleitus are discussed extensively and weighed up against the circumstances and the irrefutable evidence with which Alexander was confronted. Other battles and sieges, especially the attack of the Aornos Rock, the decisive Battle on the Hydaspes and the Mallian fight in which Alexander is deadly wounded are clearly explained with all pros and cons. And let us not forget the mutiny of Alexander’s Macedonians at the Hyphasis and at Opis – how masterly the king addressed his men in both cases.

It is clear that Robin Lane Fox has a great admiration for Alexander and it shows but he also approaches this great king without prejudice and with a great effort to merely analyzing the facts. Considering that Alexander covered almost 20,000 kilometers in eight years coping with battles and sieges, crossing the widest rivers and the highest mountains, taking the responsibility to feed and care for one hundred thousand of people if we include the baggage train, Robin Lane Fox did an extremely good job to present Alexander as a human being, king, general and faithful friend.

Afrasiab excavations: remains of a monumental public building

To my surprise, excavations at Afrasiab (ancient Greek Maracanda or modern Samarkand in Uzbekistan) by the Franco-Uzbek Archaeological Mission have revealed the burnt remains of a monumental public building from the early Hellenistic period. Based on the charred remains of millet and barley, it has been established that this must have been a granary for the Greek garrison of Samarkand.

This square building made of mud bricks is characteristic of Hellenistic times. Archaeologists have determined that it was destroyed by a violent fire, which has baked the bricks and the cereals stored inside, transforming the content into a multicolored ash dust. The heat was so fierce that the bricks have intensively hardened and, at the same time have vitrified the soil as well as the lower parts of the walls, which at the same time led to their excellent preservation.

This granary was found at a depth of 8.5 meters, underneath successive occupation layers all the way to the mosque that was under construction in 1220 when Genghis Khan massacred a great deal of the population and destroyed Samarkand’s irrigation canals. This vast complex was divided into eight separate rooms of 11.5x5.5m, each set in two rows of four. Much attention was given to the construction of these storage rooms, whose walls were made of mud brick squares of 38x38cm and probably stood 2.5 meters high of which today some 2 meters are still preserved. It seems that the roof of this granary simply collapsed at the time of the fire, together with the now parched remains of the supporting beams.

It is clear that this building was used to store perishable food. Remains of millet and barley have been identified in four of these rooms, where millet was simply thrown on the unpaved floor. Analysis has shown that this was the so-called panicum miliaceum, i.e., a common millet generally found between northern China and western Europe and is grown on irrigated land. It is a cereal that does not germinate, meaning that it can easily be stored for up to ten years. This millet played a fundamental role in people’s food staples in Central Asia and would have been ideally used in garrison life or as a life-saving food in case of siege. It is evident that barley and millet were the major food supplies for soldiers, although in Achaemenid times, the barley-gruel was eaten by soldiers and slaves as well as horses, and the rations were counted. The barley, however, is thought to have been used more as fodder for the horses rather than to feed humans, and it seems to have been stored in sacks. In many places, the floors and the walls were covered with ashes in shades of green, blue, orange, red, yellow, and grey, which may refer to other kinds of food - yet unidentified. It has been calculated that the granary of Afrasiab could hold as much as 75 tons of cereals.

Further investigation has established that the fire was a very fierce one, and researchers don’t exclude a possible explosion caused by a high concentration of gas, as we know to happen in modern grain silos. There are also indications that attempts were made to extinguish the fire or to contain it; by letting the roof collapse, they hoped to kill the fire – to no avail, as the blaze devastated the entire storage building.

Typical for early Greek occupation in Afrasiab is the use of square bricks as in the granary, which matches similar bricks found in the inner gallery of the ancient rampart and the posterns of the so-called gate of Bukhara. Till recently, no traces of Greek residential houses have been found, although their presence has been suggested by Greek ceramics found in different locations surveyed by previous Soviet research. In fact, this granary is the first proof of the earliest Greek inhabitants of Afrasiab. Future excavations will certainly contribute to a better understanding of Hellenistic Samarkand.

This information is completing my earlier post: Afrasiab, ancient Samarkand, where I’m concentrating on Alexander spending the winter of 328/327 BC within these walls and on the circumstances leading to the murder of Cleitos.

[Pictures from Academia.org]

The Battle of the Granicus

Strangely enough, the Persian army had made no effort to stop Alexander and his army when crossing the Hellespont, which was a missed opportunity, no doubt. Still, they now awaited the Macedonian king near the Granicus River in Hellespontine Phrygia, a satrapy that stood under the control of Persia.

With my traveling companions from Peter Sommer's In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great, we head in that direction. The landscape is monotonous and uninspiring. After parking the minivan, we walk a short distance over a local asphalted road to the wooden railing of a bridge. Here, I lay eyes on the Granicus River for the first time, a river like so many, a good 25 meters wide and probably not deeper than one meter. I find it hard to believe such a decisive battle was fought on this lazy rivulet. I am itching to go down to the water's edge with an urge to get as close as possible to the thick of the fight.

Meanwhile, locals have stopped by to investigate what we are doing here. I wonder where they all come from so suddenly out of nowhere. They disagree about the location of the fight [proof that even today Alexander is still remembered!] and point us further upstream near the remains of a Roman bridge. Still, Peter has done his research and proven his right based on ancient descriptions of the terrain. At the horizon, I can see the wedge in the mountain range through which the Persians had marched to their position.

Alexander arrived at the Granicus late in the spring afternoon of 334 BC. Still, it is unclear whether he attacked the Persians immediately or waited till the following day as Parmenion cautioned him. Alexander's reply that he would not be stopped by this trickle of water after crossing the Hellespont does not explain either decision. I personally like to think that Alexander attacked immediately as the afternoon sun would shine in the faces of the Persians and might hamper their perception of the enemy – but that is only a personal opinion, of course.

[YouTube with thanks to Jim Cleary]

Both riverbanks are very steep, and we scramble down about four meters to the water level. The grass stands high and is very slippery. It's easier to slide down that to get a good foothold, and I wonder how the hypaspists managed with their leather sandals or boots to keep on their feet, let alone in formation! To actually stand here, however, is absolutely thrilling! Peter opens Arrian's Campaigns of Alexander and starts reading how the fight evolved out loud. It's a story we all know, but hearing it here on the very spot where both armies clashed is quite unique. Many frogs are jumping around the river's edge, and for some reason, they all join in as a loud croaking audience. More frogs have heard the signal and move in, drowning Peter's voice. The louder he speaks, the louder the croaking. When he stops, they stop. It is great fun but has a very unusual deafening chorus. Spirits from the past, I wonder?

Anyway, here I am, facing the entire Persian army lined up along the opposite river bank, and it takes my breath away. They are about 20,000 cavalry, having taken a position on a vast front. At the same time, the infantry (probably not as many as 20,000 as reported by Arrian) behind them – a strange and incomprehensible strategy for the cavalry had no space to charge, and the infantry didn't have the opportunity to fight until it was too late. Peter's reading is so lively that I can almost feel the Persian presence. With Alexander and most of the Companion cavalry, I am standing at the head of the right-wing alongside the phalanx that is flanked on the left by the Thessalian and Thracian cavalry under Parmenion's command.

Arrian writes that there was "a profound hush as both armies stood for a while motionless on the brink of the river." Everybody's adrenaline must have risen to an unbearable level! Who was going to shout the battle cry first? Right, the Macedonians, of course, and hell broke loose! Alexander first sent a small battalion across a new stratagem known as the pawn sacrifice, whereby a small detachment was used as a pawn to split up the enemy ranks. This distraction maneuver kept the Persians occupied while Alexander and the right wing set out to cross the river. I look up and down the bank where I am standing. Surely not here? It is too steep! But Alexander's front spread out over one mile, meaning that he was positioned further upstream where the slope of the riverbank was gentler. The crossing was done diagonally, expanding the Macedonian frontline and enabling them to ride up the opposite riverbank in a continuous formation once again. Parmenion, at the other end, had moved in much the same way. The Persians defended their precious position, and in a hand-to-hand struggle, Alexander's troops ferociously forced their way out of the water while the Persians did all they could to prevent them from getting there. It is impossible to put this clash in a time frame. Still, once Alexander himself was on the Persian bank, he was immediately taken in the thick of the fight and charged straight for the spot where the Persian commanders stood surrounded by serried ranks of their cavalry.

Meanwhile, the Macedonian infantry was making steady progress, and company after company made their way across the river. A fierce fight developed, man against man, horse against horse, each side determined to take the upper hand. Alexander's men had been well trained by his father, and most had years of experience. Armed with their long sarissas, they had a clear advantage over the light lances of the Persians.

In the heat of the fight, Alexander's spear broke, and he called one of his grooms for another, but the groom had only a stub of his own spear left, which he showed to Alexander. He then had to call for one of his bodyguards, who, luckily, could help out his king. At the same time, Alexander caught a glance of Mithridates, Darius' son-in-law riding ahead of a squadron of horses in his direction. He did not hesitate and instantly galloped forward, hitting his opponent in the face with his freshly acquired spear. At this point, Rhoesaces (satrap of Ionia) rode up to revenge Mithridates and hit Alexander on the head with his scimitar, seriously damaging his helmet; but that did not stop Alexander from killing him. Then Spithridates (satrap of Lydia) rode up to him with a raised scimitar but was intercepted by Cleitus (the Black), who chopped off his arm with scimitar and all. Nearly all the troops had come across and were fighting fiercely by now. The Persians were pinned down between the push of the Macedonians and their own infantry that was mingling among their horses. Their rout was complete.

The foreign mercenaries fighting for the Persians under the command of Memnon of Rhodes had been kept aside. They were still holding their original position, apparently struck by the suddenness of the Macedonian attack. Instead of pursuing the fleeing Persian army, Alexander focused on these mercenaries instead, ordering a combined attack of cavalry and infantry to butcher them all. He deeply resented that men from Greece were chosen to side with the Persian king and against him!

Persian losses evidently were high. As for the Macedonians, Arrian mentions that no more than 25 Companion cavalry were killed during the first assault, for which Lysippos was ordered to make bronze statues. The group stood in Dion (Greece), the Macedonian religious center at the foothills of Mount Olympus until it was moved to Rome in 148 BC by Metellus Macedonicus, having made Macedonia a Roman Province. All in all, about sixty cavalry and thirty infantry are said to have fallen at the Granicus. These figures are subject to debate as logically, they must have been much higher, but the dead were buried in style with their arms and equipment, and their direct family was exempted from taxes. No records of the wounded were kept; I guess that they must have run in the thousands. It is, however, recorded that Alexander visited them all, talking to them about their fight and their injuries and even examining their wounds.

Alexander then made an offering to Athena and, to let the Greeks participate in the honors of his victory, he sent 300 full suits of Persian armor to Athens. The inscription accompanying his gift read as follows: Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks (except the Lacedaemonians) dedicate these spoils, taken from the Persians who dwell in Asia. The other spoils, including purple garments, were sent as a present to his mother, except for a few items he kept for himself.

This was Alexander's first victory over the Persians, but he must have realized that although he had won the battle, he had yet to defeat the King of Persia. Another confrontation with Darius was inevitable, but the gods only knew when or where. For now, he had to take advantage of his momentary supremacy and move on to deliver the Ionian cities from their Persian oppressors.

The King is dead, long live the King!

Most histories about Alexander the Great simply start with his kingship and immediately jump to his conquest of Asia. This is where he spent the most important part of his life and where the great battles were fought. Still, he could not have even considered this campaign had he not first settled the unrest in Greece and the Macedonian northern borders – a fact that is often omitted, unfortunately.

In July 336 BC, just twenty years old, Alexander unexpectedly became the new King of Macedonia, and his life was to take a new turn. The most pressing matter was evidently to consolidate his place on the throne and to eliminate all those who could have been involved in the murder of his father. Next, he had to consider and evaluate all the pretenders to the throne that could be a threat - among them was Amyntas, the son of Philip's brother Perdiccas, now a grown man. Alexander, however, spared his simple-minded half-brother Arrhidaeus. And …. His final priority was his father's funeral, the construction of a vast pyre set afire in the presence of the entire Macedonian army, and the transfer of his remains to his last resting place inside the Royal Tomb outside the walls of Aegae. – a tomb that was found intact in 1977 by Manolis Andronicos.

No doubt, Alexander was itching to move on in his father's footsteps and set out for Asia as soon as possible, but more urgent matters kept him in Pella for a while. Athens had rejoiced at Philip's death, and many other cities still resented that Philip's Macedonia ruled the Greeks as Hegemon of the League of Corinth, a title that Alexander inherited, much to their discomfort and sorrow.

With the support of the army, Alexander marched south into Thessaly, where his route was blocked at the Tempe Pass. Instead of attacking the Thessalians head-on, he simply marched around the pass, settling the opponent's resistance once and for all. As he won the support of northern and central Greece, Athens could only do the same, and they sent their pledges of support to the new king. Leaving Athens for what it was, Alexander traveled to Corinth to ensure all the Greeks swore their oath of allegiance as they had done to his father before.

Now that Greece was secured, Alexander returned home for the winter, planning his spring campaign in Thrace to settle the unrest among the Triballi and the Illyrians living along Macedonia's northern border. This would be his first test with the army and asserting his authority as king before crossing to Asia.

In the spring of 335 BC, he left Amphipolis and was soon met by the Thracians, who held the pass over Mount Haemus. The enemy had hauled wagons up the pass to let them thunder down on the Macedonian army as soon as they were within reach. Alexander assessed the situation and ordered the phalanx to open up their ranks to let the wagons run through; where there was no space for the soldiers to step aside, they were instructed to lie down on the ground and lock their shields over their heads. As a result, the Thracian wagons hardly did any damage. It should be noted that the army followed Alexander's orders, showing that they trusted their commander – a matter of detail but a crucial point! It is said that 1,500 Thracians were killed, and their women and children were sent to Macedonia to be sold as slaves.

Alexander's next goal was the Triballi, who lived along the southern banks of the Danube River. Their strength was their many well-concealed defensive positions, and Alexander first had to dislocate them to attack them in open battle. One such encounter happened in their refuge on an island in the middle of Lyginus River, and Alexander sent out a small contingent of slingers and archers to lure them out of their hiding places. This stratagem worked as he intended, for soon, the Triballi rushed out in force only to be met by the whole Macedonian army. About 3,000 Triballi were killed, and those remaining sought refuge on the island of Peuces in the middle of the Danube, which had natural defenses because of its high banks, rocks, and the fast-flowing river. Since a front attack would be too costly, Alexander decided to wait and simply cut off the enemy's supply routes.

Unexpectedly, the Getae from the plains north of the Danube showed up with a force of 10,000 infantry and 4,000 cavalry, which could not be ignored because of their sheer number. Alexander decided to cross the Danube overnight with 4,000 men and 1,500 cavalry, using some small boats but mainly using floating devices made from the Macedonian leather tents filled with straw. When the Getae discovered them at daybreak, they fled. The fight was over before it began, and Alexander simply destroyed their crops. This meant that the Triballi on their island were entirely isolated, and all they could do was surrender. And so they did, together with the stray Thracians and Celts from the Balkans.

Behind Alexander's back, the Illyrians now revolted. Cleitus, the formidable king of the Dardani (from around Kosovo), had persuaded the Autariatae (from around Bosnia) to join forces and attack Alexander on his march to meet him. Even the Taulantii (from around Tirana) would march to join Cleitus. Alexander had to act fast so he would not be enclosed on all sides. He foiled Cleitus' plan and marched to Paeonia (Skopje), across the plains of Florina, to the heart of Illyria at Pelium, where Cleitus was holding a fortress. The Taulantians did not arrive in time to join forces with Cleitus; Alexander was there first. When he learned that the Taulantii had not posted sentries around their nearby camp, he immediately attacked them by night. Caught by surprise, they surrendered, leaving Alexander with one enemy less to face. On his way to attack Cleitus, a more pressing matter demanded his attention: Thebes had revolted and called the other Greeks to end Macedonian rule! This required a drastic change of plans. Luckily for Alexander, Cleitus escaped from the fortress but did not raise arms against him again; the Illyrians even sent troops to join Alexander's forces in Asia.

The attitude of Thebes was of the utmost importance. Thebes was endangering Alexander's hegemony of the League of Corinth and breaching the basic constitution of the Treaty. Thebes had signed the Common Peace and could not legally revolt unless it faced the armies of all the other League members. Alexander must have felt that Thebes' revolt was putting his authority in the balance and, on a personal level, that they were hampering his plans to attack Persia.

Alexander force-marched his army south from Illyria, covering 400 kilometers in 13 days over mountainous terrain, crossing Mount Grammus, Mount Pindus, and Mount Cambunia, allowing his men only one day's rest in Thessaly. This was so fast (more than 30km/day) that even the Thebans didn't believe it was Alexander standing before their city gates! Athens, who at first had taken side with Thebes, now withdrew (freaking out, no doubt), leaving Thebes to fight the battle on their own from the well-fortified Cadmea, where the Macedonian garrison was still surrounded by the Thebans. In the battle that ensued and despite their fortified position, the Thebans had to give way to the Macedonians led by Alexander personally. At least 6,000 Thebans died in the last stand, and 30,000 were taken prisoner to be enslaved. Unsurprisingly, Alexander wanted to set an example for the other members of the League of Corinth. At the same time, he diplomatically left the punishment of Thebes to the League, which urged the city's total destruction. At this stage, I believe Athens got scared and sent an embassy to congratulate Alexander for his victory over the Illyrians, and probably against their will, with his punishment of Thebes. To cut the matter short, Alexander demanded several of their politicians to be handed over to him, men like Demosthenes, Lycurgus, and Hyperides, but Demades, another Athenian orator, was able to convince Alexander to change his mind. Well, after all, now that Thebes was razed to the ground and cities like Corinth and Chalcis were in his hands, he could be generous towards Athens, which no longer had any support from other cities.

It was time for Alexander to return home, and nobody dared doubt his leadership. He spent nine days at Dion, the Macedonian sanctuary at the foothills of Mount Olympus, to feast in honor of the Muses and Zeus. He held several banquets in his royal tent that could fit one hundred couches, a true feast, Macedonian style. The vast plain at the foot of the old Greek theater is still there to kindle our imagination.

Back home, games were organized to honor the Olympian Zeus at Aegae. It was here that he issued the first coins bearing the image of Alexander; this was in 335 BC. He was now indeed King of Macedonia, feared and/or respected by all of Greece. He could now concentrate on the invasion of Asia. That is how he spent the winter, and in the early days of spring 334 BC, he set his army in motion, leaving Macedonia in the hands of his Regent, Antipater. Alexander would never see his homeland again.