Saving documents and books in antiquity

Nowadays, saving our documents and information on our computers is very obvious. Before the digital era, we relied on typewriters and printers to distribute our pamphlets, advertisements, letters, and books. 

It is hard to imagine that in antiquity nothing of the kind existed, but then the needs were entirely different. Public information, laws, decrees, and other important notices were inscribed on stone slabs or posted on walls in conspicuous places throughout the city, and eventually shared with other cities.  

Exchanging documents and letters over longer distances, as during Alexander’s campaigns, required writing on papyrus, a lightweight material that could be easily transported. His correspondence with Antipater, Olympias, Aristotle, Sisygambis, governors, and generals all over his ever-growing empire required an active exchange of news and information.

Eumenes and Callisthenes, serving as Alexander’s secretaries, must have been very busy and very organized. We tend to forget that they also kept copies of Alexander’s correspondence, official documents, and perhaps private letters as well. This becomes apparent when Eumenes’ tent went up in flames after a conflict that arose as Nearchus was preparing the fleet to sail the Southern Sea. 

Alexander had exhausted his own treasury and had to borrow money from his friends, including Eumenes, to finance Nearchus’ expedition. His secretary was to contribute 300 talents, but being stingy, he gave only 100 talents. Alexander did not accept Eumenes’ excuse that it was not without difficulty and decided to set his friend’s tent on fire. He expected Eumenes to rush his money out, and thus admit he had been lying. The plan went wrong, and the tent burned down entirely, leaving a clump of smelted gold and silver worth one thousand talents. In the process, Alexander’s archives were reduced to ashes. It is Plutarch who tells us that Alexander asked several governors and generals to send Eumenes copies of the papers that had been destroyed. This proves that Alexander did indeed keep a record of his correspondence! 

We so often read of papers and books that have only partially survived or are only known second-hand or not at all, except for the title. This situation is inherent to the mindset of the time and to the degradation of the natural support used (papyrus). 

Papyrus is a vegetal product and a very practical writing support, but it is also fragile. It has been calculated that papyrus documents had a lifespan of a maximum of one hundred years. This may have suited the needs at the time, but the chances of having them still around two thousand years later are very slim. 

Chances of survival were greater if there were many copies of a text, like, for instance, for theater plays. Yet, professional writers were expensive, and the costs were borne by the author. In Roman times, wealthy citizens could afford to have certain scrolls copied for their own use, but they would hardly survive after the Fall of the Roman Empire. 

Under exceptional conditions, some scrolls or bits of papyrus, however, reached us. The most telling example is the scrolls that survived the fire in Herculaneum after the volcanic eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD. Only recently have we been able to decipher their content without having to unroll the brittle carbonized scrolls (see: Reading the papyrus scrolls from Herculaneum). 

Another situation developed in Egypt. The garbage dump in Oxyrhynchus that served as fuel to the local population in the 19^th century appeared to contain a huge amount of hitherto unknown papyrus texts ranging from the Ptolemaic era to the Muslim conquests in the 7^th century AD. The papyri consist of private letters and public documents such as a variety of official correspondence, theater plays, records, sales, wills, and inventories. The deciphering of the papyri is ongoing, as only a handful of scholars are capable of recognizing where the bit of papyrus text belongs. 

When parchment was introduced in the 2^nd century BC, documents stood a better chance of survival, although even animal skins had their limits. However, parchment was extremely expensive to make. 

With the passage of time, interest and taste evolved and changed. Treatises, studies, analyses, and even books and poems went out of fashion and vanished altogether. 

As the writing supports were decaying, it is not surprising that documenting Alexander’s life is a nearly impossible task, despite the second-hand recordings by Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, and Plutarch, who could still access some original documents (see: Eyewitness accounts of Alexander’s life).

[Top picture Derveni papyrus 340 BC, Thessaloniki Museum.
Bottom picture from Archaeology News, Digs & Discoveries] 

Zopyrion, governor of Thracia in Macedonian service

Thracia had been annexed by Philip II in his efforts to extend the power of the Macedonian kingdom and to safeguard its borders. After his death, Alexander had to stamp his authority and his rule over the many tribes once again, all the way to the mighty Danube River to protect his back before setting out to Asia. 

One would expect the northern tribes to live happily ever after, especially since Alexander took a substantial contingent of Thracians with him as far as India and back under the command of their general Sitalces (see: Sitalces, commander of the Thracians). 

However, the many Thracian tribes never united and kept fighting among themselves, putting their individual interests above all. It was one of Antipater’s tasks, as Regent of Macedonia, to enforce the peace. 

[Helmet from Zopyrion's army, found in Olanesti, Moldova]

Ancient historians have left us very little information about what happened in Alexander’s homeland while he moved further east. One governor of Thrace is known as Zopyrion. His name caught my attention after seeing the picture of a helmet found in Olanesti, Moldova, that is linked to Zopyrion’s army. 

Unfortunately, the only reliable source of Zopyrion comes from Curtius. He simply stated that the governor made an expedition against the Getae and that his army was overwhelmed by sudden tempests and gales. He allegedly lost 30,000 men - a figure that is probably exaggerated. At that time, about 324 BC, Alexander was in Persia facing the misconduct of many satraps he had left in charge before moving on to Central Asia. 

However, another, much less trustworthy story is told by Justin. This one circulates widely on the internet, mostly repeating the content of the Wikipedia page. 

Justin, in full Marcus Junianus Justinus, probably lived in the 2nd/3rd century AD and got hold of the 44 books called the Philippic Histories by Pompeius Trogus that are now lost. Justin decided that Trogus’ history was far too voluminous, and he wrote his own abridged version. Sadly, accuracy was not Justin’s strong point, and he was not very concerned about his sources or the chronology of the events, already a weak point in Trogus’ account. 

As a result, the vivid description found on Wikipedia and the like is fraud with pitfalls. Here, Zopyrion is said to have assembled an army of 30,000 men. He started his march along the southern banks of the Black Sea and laid siege on Olbia, a colony of Miletus. At that time, Miletus was already incorporated into Alexander’s Empire, but Olbia was not. Left on its own, the city managed to survive the siege by granting freedom to its slave population and citizenship to the foreigners living there. An alliance with the Scythians counteracted Zopyrion’s ambition even further, and he ran out of resources. At this point, he ended his siege of Olbia and started to retreat. At the same time, his navy was apparently hit by a severe storm, devastating his fleet. In Justin’s account, Zopyrion’s campaign was short-lived, and he died with his troops at the end of 331 BC. He also reports that Antipater, as regent of Macedonia, conveyed the news to Alexander in a letter that also informed him that his uncle and brother-in-law, Alexander of Epirus, was killed in Italy. 

While it is correct that Alexander of Epirus was killed in Italy in 331 BC, the ambitious campaign of Zopyrion took place seven years later, in 324 BC. In the end, the details based on Justin’s account may contain some truth, but it is hard to filter them out. 

Another aspect of Alexander’s personality?

Life is full of surprises and Alexander’s life is no exception. Our best sources are extant books by Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, Plutarch, and Justin, but contemporary documents are far more difficult to find (see: Eyewitness accounts of Alexander's life). Alexander’s Royal Journals carefully kept by Callisthenes and Eumenes have not survived, except for some rare fragments whose origins cannot be verified with certainty.

Browsing through Robinson’s book, The History of Alexander the Great and the Ephemerides of Alexander’s Expedition, I was intrigued by the few lines that survived Ephippus’ writing. 

Ephippus of Olynthus was a historian and contemporary of Alexander. It is unclear whether this man is the same as Ephippus of Chalcis, mentioned by Arrian as one of the superintendents Alexander installed in Egypt. The reason to link both names is that the city of Olynthus is part of Chalcis. Otherwise, our Ephippus may well have lived at the king’s court or shortly after his death. 

He is known as the author of a lost pamphlet “On the death (or funeral) of Alexander and Hephaistion,” as mentioned by Athenaeus of Naucratis, who lived about the end of the 2^nd/beginning of the 3^rd century AD. The document held an account of the burial of Hephaistion and Alexander as well as of the king’s death. 

Robinson is quoting Athenaeus in several separate issues, shedding a different light on Alexander than what other, usually Greek, sources tell us. 

According to Ephippus, Alexander spent one hundred minas on a dinner with his friends, i.e., sixty or seventy of them. It seems the author is reacting to some critics about Alexander’s expenses compared to those of the Persian king, who spent four hundred talents for his 15,000 invites. Converting the currencies, however, both expenditures come to the same amount per capita.

Another observation made by Ephippus is that the Macedonians never understood how to drink in moderation, but drank a lot of wine at the beginning of a feast. The case of Proteas of Macedonia, who was a sturdy guy, is highlighted because he drank a great deal all his life. Alexander, Ephippus said, once ordered a six-quart cup of wine, and after a drink, toasted Proteas, thereby extending a challenge to him. Proteas took the cup, sang praises to his king, and drank the rest of the wine under the wide applause of those present. A little later, Proteas ordered another such cup, toasted the king, and took a drink. Alexander then (accepting the challenge) took it but could not hold it, falling back on his cushion and dropping the cup from his hands. The king fell ill and died. 

This scene inspired Oliver Stone in his Alexander movie during a scene played in India. However, this is not how the king died, and the text puts serious question marks behind the assumption that Ephippus lived at Alexander's court at the time of his death. The truth about Alexander’s death, for me, lies elsewhere as I discussed on previous occasions (see: A personal approach to the cause of death for Alexander).

Regarding the luxury of Alexander, Ephippus tells us that the king had a golden throne, and couches with silver feet “on which he used to sit and transact business with his companions”. These couches are known from the Susa wedding party, but the link is not made in this text. 

Ephippus continues by stating that Alexander also wore “sacred vestments”, such as the purple robe, cloven sandals, and horns of Ammon as if he were a god. At times, he would imitate Artemis, wearing her dress while driving his chariot. Alexander also had a Persian robe and displayed the bow and javelin of the goddess above his shoulder. Sometimes, he dressed as Hermes, and sitting with his friends, he wore the god’s sandals and the petasus, holding the caduceus in his hand. In everyday use, he would appear wearing a purple riding cloak and a purple tunic with white stripes, and the Macedonian causia holding the royal diadem. Referring to Heracles, Alexander would wear a lion’s skin and carry the god’s club. 

To my own astonishment, Ephippus also says that Alexander used to have the floor sprinkled with perfumes and fragrant wine, while incense and myrrh were burnt in his presence. If this is true, I presume it would happen only while the king resided in one of the Persian palaces? The bystanders are said to remain silent out of fear of his violence, “with no regard for human life.” 

Athenaeus further quotes Ephippus, saying that Alexander arranged a festival for Dionysus at Ecbatana. He does not tell us when this sacrifice occurred but I would assume it was in 324 BC, maybe around the death of Hephaistion. 

The local satrap Satrabates had invited all the troops (just try to picture the scene!) for his lavish feast, and many speeches of praise and flattery were made to impress Alexander. As in Samarkand, some of these praises turned into insolence. However, with the king’s complicity one of his armorers totally went overboard by having the herald announce that he, Gorgus, would shower the son of Ammon with 3,000 gold coins; and whenever Alexander would besiege Athens, he would add 10,000 full suits of armor and as many catapults and other missiles needed for the war. 

Such words clearly illustrate how preposterous and absurd these flatteries of Alexander were! Freedom of speech? 

Shifting through Ephippus' lines, it is difficult and even impossible to determine what is correct and what is not. As always, opinions are divided. Ephippus’ version of the facts is examined in detail by Antony Spawforth in his article The Pamphleteer Ephippus, King Alexander and the Persian Royal Hunt.

Eyewitness accounts of Alexander’s life

Alexander's life and exploits are best known to us from the leading ancient historians, Arrian of Nicomedia, Diodorus Siculus, Curtius Rufus, and Plutarch. Their works, however, were written several centuries after the king's death and based mainly on books that are now mostly lost. 

Since these authors used a different source or a combination of the available material, we ended up having different versions of the same story, which, in turn, can be interpreted individually. 

The oldest eyewitness account was written by Anaximenes of Lampsacus, who lived from c. 380 until 320 BC. It is highly probable that his On Alexander, which included the Battle of Issus and more, was published during Alexander's lifetime. After all, he accompanied the king to Persia. Except for some fragments, the book is lost. Upon the invitation of Philip II, Anaximenes lived at the Royal Court of Pella and wrote the king's history, Philippica.  

Callisthenes of Olynthus (c.360 – c.327 BC) was a nephew of Aristotle, upon whose recommendation he was appointed to become Alexander's Court historian. He accompanied the king to Asia, where he kept the official records of Alexander's expeditions. Around 330 BC, he wrote his Deeds of Alexander up to the Battle of Gaugamela or possibly the death of Darius in 330 BC. In 327 BC, Callisthenes was implicated in a conspiracy to assassinate Alexander. He was imprisoned and died seven months later. Except for a few fragments, the book is lost. 

Ptolemy, undoubtedly the best-known eyewitness, wrote his account between 320 and 283 BC. Ptolemy had grown up at Philip's court and became one of Alexander's generals to join him on his Asian campaign. As a result, his book covered the entire reign of Alexander, particularly from the military point of view. Arrian widely used Ptolemy's history, which he thought was very trustworthy. Unfortunately, this account is also lost, except for fragments. After Alexander's death, Ptolemy became king of Egypt and founded the Ptolemaic dynasty that ended with Cleopatra VII in 30 BC. 

Very shortly after Alexander's death, Nearchus of Crete wrote his Indike about his Indian campaigns. Nearchus had been with Alexander from the beginning. As the king's admiral, he would have led the fleet to the Gates of Heracles – a plan that never materialized. Only fragments of this book have reached us; it is otherwise lost (see: The Ephemerides of Alexander's Expedition by C.A. Robinson). 

Onesicritus, Alexander's helmsman sailing down the Indus, also wrote a now-lost book, How Alexander was educated, shortly after the king's death. A philosopher himself, he presented Alexander as such. Onesicritus was often in competition with Nearchus, and his book had a reputation for not being reliable. Few fragments survived (see: The Ephemerides of Alexander's Expedition by C.A. Robinson). 

After Alexander's death, his chamberlain Chares also wrote an eyewitness account, Histories of Alexander. He covered the later years of Alexander's reign. This book is lost, except for some fragments. 

Aristobulus of Cassandreia, in turn, covered the entire reign of Alexander in a kind of autobiography. The book, whose title is unknown, was written shortly after the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BC. Except for some fragments, it is lost. Aristobulus was one of the king's engineers and was put in charge of restoring Cyrus' tomb in Pasargadae. 

The most essential account was the Ephemerides, the Royal Diaries, the 'official' daily report that Eumenes of Cardia supposedly kept. He was appointed Alexander's personal secretary after having served Philip previously. There are serious doubts about the authenticity of these Royal Diaries because rumors circulate that the original document was later rewritten. Instead of having a book from Alexander's lifetime, it may well have become a forgery of a later date. The original is lost, except for fragments. The Ephemerides led to the Alexander Romance. 

The oldest known version of the Alexander Romance dates probably from the 3rd century AD, and its author is unknown, although it has been attributed to Pseudo-Callisthenes. The name has nothing to do with the Callisthenes mentioned above, who died before Alexander. The earliest version of the Romance was composed in Alexandria shortly after Alexander's death and related the story of his life, spiced with many fantastic tales that never happened. Over the centuries, the Romance was translated, truncated, embellished, and circulated throughout Europe and Asia. 

This list is incomplete; we know many other authors only by name. Their work is all lost, except for fragments or quotes by other historians. 

It is hard to believe that so few would have written about Alexander's exploits among the thousands of rulers, philosophers, generals, artists, and even ordinary soldiers who met him. The Persians and the Indians certainly shared their encounter with Alexander, yet barely any such documents surfaced until recently.

The hard reality is that even fragments of writing from Alexander's lifetime have survived. The most famous man in history would have disappeared had it not been for men like Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, and Plutarch.

Alexander's projects and future plans, including his conquest of the West, are also largely neglected. Yet every single one is worth mentioning, which I did in a separate post: Alexander’s missed voyage to conquer the West.

[Papyrus from Macedonian Archaeology Quota]

Latest update 30 January 2025

Weather conditions during Alexander’s march East

As I so often stated, the weather conditions are not important for historians. We find only a few examples in Alexander's campaigns, like the Monsoon in India and the flash flood in the Gedrosian Desert. Still, in reality, the weather did play a vital role in his campaign East.

Throughout their march from Greece to India, the Macedonians must have been plagued by recurrent earthquakes that disturbed their advance or campsite. Alexander could sacrifice to the gods, but he could not prevent or control these natural disasters. 

Speaking to one of the locals in Turkey, I remember him pointing out that he preferred to be “in the open” rather than inside any building when an earthquake occurred. Being outside, he would witness boulders rolling downhill and trees being shaken, but none of the rattlings would be as frightening as when sitting inside a house or shack.

It is easy to imagine how, in Alexander’s campsites, the army tents would collapse, banging up the occupants. Frightened horses and pack animals would try to run if they were not adequately secured by their attendants. When an earthquake hit the troops on the march, they could immediately react accordingly.

Another natural threat is the wind, which may not sound so dangerous, but the situation could be life-threatening when it creates a storm.

This idea occurred to me during my trip to Iran when I skirted the Zagros Mountains. In the winter of 330 BC, Alexander marched south using approximately the same route I was following a little later in the year, i.e., in April (see: The Zagros Mountains and the Persian Gates in Alexander’s footsteps).

I was plagued by a severe sandstorm that blew relentlessly during my three-day journey. Visibility was very low as the sands from the Mesopotamian Valley in modern Iraq were carried through the air. My clothes flapped around me as if they were to be torn away any moment while the sand was stinging my face and hurting my body. The wind whistled through the lunch place and the sand battered against the windows.

Inevitably my mind drifted back to Alexander as he must have known days like this. Traveling in the comfort of my air-conditioned vehicle was hard enough. However, when I stepped outside of this protective shell, I had a taste of what he experienced – if not here, certainly in other locations.

Curtius seems to be the only one to write about Alexander’s expeditions into the interior of Persia some time in Spring 330 BC, where he was troubled by heavy rain and “almost intolerable weather.” He even was stopped by heavy snow that had frozen solid; not for long, though, as he immediately started making his way, breaking the ice with a mattock, an example that his men promptly followed (see: Alexander amidst the pomp and circumstance of Persepolis).

While we take bad weather as a mere inconvenience, we cannot underestimate its far-reaching impact. That became clear after reading The Road to Oxiana by Robert Byron. Byron traveled to Iran and Afghanistan in 1933, using whatever means of transportation available. The weather conditions commanded his advance to a degree I did not expect. The Macedonian army must have faced similar conditions that hampered their progress to the same extent.

Byron is hit by what he calls a burning dust-storm, a good one hundred miles east of Hamadan, ancient Ecbatana. Near Bisutun, he witnessed great spirals of dust, “dancing like demons over the desert,” stopping his car and choking the passengers. 

Wind, rain, and ice are Byron’s main challenges. He attempted to drive south from Tehran to Isfahan in early February but was stopped some ten miles out. The road turned into a sheet of ice that partly thawed and had frozen again. The scene must have been spectacular, for he writes, “At this moment the sun rose, a twinkle of fire lit the snowy plain, the white range of the Elbruz was suffused with blue and gold,” A beautiful picture but a horrible travel condition.

A few days later, it rained for twenty-four hours. Byron was still stopped in Tehran by a “deluge of rain” in the last days of April. As he traveled further East via Damghan to Mashed, a route that approximately matches Alexander’s, “the rain fell like a bath-waste. For miles at a time the road was a river, the desert a flood, and every mountain a cataract.” The roads turned into fast-flowing rivers.

In Spring, Byron eventually reached Herat and continued due East to Kunduz. On his road to Balkh, where Alexander made camp and wintered in 328 BC (see: A view of the Karakum and Kyzylkum Deserts and Afrasiab, ancient Samarkand), Byron describes how “the rain came down in sheets. … every angle of the mountains was occupied by a cataract. … along that narrow ledge whence the red pinnacles rose into the clouds above, and whole ranges could be seen emerging from the clouds below…” A little further, he continues by saying that “the color of the landscape changed from lead to aluminum… The clumps of green trees, the fountain-shaped tufts of coarse cutting grass, stood out almost black against this mortal tint”.

Mazar-i-Sharif fared much better in his last days of May. He described how the clouds gathered on the mountains each afternoon, although summer should have set in six weeks before. People said they had never witnessed such conditions. The weather one hundred years ago was as unpredictable as today. The rain that fell before Byron’s arrival in the city was enough to close the road to Kabul for a whole month! An entire village had fallen down in a nearby gorge. Just picture Alexander having to cope with such extremes!

After Kunduz, Byron turned West, following the river of the same name to the plain of Bamyan, crossing the stream nine or ten times over wooden bridges. I doubt these bridges existed in Alexander’s days when the army had to find a way through the water. In June, Byron heard that a landslide blocked the other side of the Shibar Pass. In fact, “heaps of liquid mud and pebbles concealing large rocks.” The travel conditions became increasingly drastic. “The crops below the road, already half destroyed by the rivers of mud, were now menaced by a further spate.”

Alexander probably took this same road in the fall of 327 BC when he left Bactria for India by the Shibar Pass (see: Alexander crosses the Hindu Kush a second time). Nobody mentions any landslides occurring, but they were undoubtedly recurrent because further down Byron’s road to Kabul, another dozen landslides prevented him from reaching the city. Was Alexander just lucky and under the protection of the gods, one wonders?

The crossings of the Hindu Kush, in turn, have been pictured very well by Steven Pressfield in his book The Afghan Campaign. He describes the pure horror and misery the army endured in their daily lives of survival (see: From Afghanistan into Bactria across the Hindu Kush). Arrian, of course, gives us the facts but Pressfield, with his skills as a military writer, adds the human experience to the expedition.

Picking up Byron again, we read how on the road from Kabul to Ghazni – which Alexander traveled in the opposite direction to cross the Hindu Kush into Bactria – “two lorries were completely wrecked by the stream … the Kunduz ferry has overturned and sunk, drowning five women.”

Reading our history books, we are far from realizing that traveling or leading an army was a dangerous enterprise. Not only because of the enemies that had to be subdued but also because of the terrain and the weather conditions, which, as I said above, were seldom mentioned or recorded.

Alexander besieging Tyre

[Continued from Alexander preparing for the siege of Tyre] 

As soon as the newly formed fleet was duly organized and manned, Alexander set sail down to Tyre, leading the right-wing as usual. Imagine how impressive this flotilla of nearly 200 vessels must have appeared in the 4th century BC! The Tyrians inside their fortress did not know that the Cypriots and Phoenicians had changed side and they certainly did not expect this armada of ships. With hindsight, the outcome of the Battle of Issus enabled this change. Alexander’s victory was far beyond his confrontation with Darius and played a more significant role among all parties concerned. 

The gods definitely were on Alexander’s side because, at this time, about 4,000 mercenaries were brought in by general Cleander from the Peloponnese. Another welcome reinforcement of his troops after the losses suffered at Issus.

As Alexander’s fleet sailed at full speed towards Tyre, the enemy, surprised to see their previous allies at Alexander’s side, decided to simply block the entrance to both ports. In turn, the king blockaded the town. The contingent from Cyprus was to cut off access to the northern harbor, the one facing Sidon. The Phoenicians did the same at the southern harbor facing the mole turned towards Egypt. 

The true genius of Alexander sprang into action at this point. It had taken the king a full seven months to finish the nearly one-kilometer-long mole to the island before he could bring in his heavy artillery. By now, he had constructed many war engines, some of which stood on the mole. He also mounted battery rams to his transport ships and slower-sailing triremes - a first in the history of using floating siege craft weapons. All war engines were moved into action around the walls of Tyre. 

His plan came together, and in a coordinated attack with his land forces, he led his decisive battle in the summer of 332 BC. This is the simple way to put it as, in reality, the situation was far more complicated. 

Alexander decided to start his attack on the island's south side because the northern harbor entrance was very narrow and lacked space to maneuver. As soon as Alexander’s fleet came within range, the Tyrians attacked the approaching vessels from atop their strong walls with fire-arrows. They also had thrown many large blocks in the sea at the foot of their stronghold, forcing Alexander’s ships away from the walls. As a matter of course, Alexander ordered to remove those heavy stones that impaired his maneuver, but the enemy responded by sending divers to cut the anchor ropes that held the ships in place. The Macedonians replaced the ropes with iron cables which the Tyrians couldn’t cut. At the same time, troops from the mole managed to pass ropes around the stones and pull them away into deeper water. The ships could now approach the walls and easily close-in. 

Feeling seriously threatened, the defenders of Tyre turned their attention to the harbor on the Sidon side. Until then, they had hidden their fleet from view using rigged sails. They brought their plan into action from behind the screen, one day at noon when they knew the Macedonians were taking a break, and Alexander moved to his quarters on the other side of the island. They lowered the screen and silently slipped out in single file. As soon as they were within reach of the enemy ships, the men shouted and cheered, rowing forward at full speed. The Tyrian surprise attack proved successful until Alexander unexpectedly appeared on the scene and called all hens on deck! He ordered most of his ships as soon as they were ready for action to block off the south harbor entrance to prevent another sortie on that side. He took his quinqueremes and triremes to sail them round to the northern harbor – in fact, to the back of the Tyrian fleet. Their sailors noticed Alexander’s approach too late, and most of the vessels were rammed, whereas one quinquereme and one quadrireme were captured right at the port entrance. 

Tyre could no longer depend on their fleet, and this was the time for the Macedonians to bring forward their artillery. They started on the mole, but on that side, the walls of Tyre were too thick to be breached. Another attempt was made from the northern harbor, without success either. Then Alexander probed the southern wall where he found a weak spot and scored the first success, but the breach was just wide enough to throw the first bridge across. Consequently, the attack was repulsed. 

Alexander deemed the conditions right to bring his ship-borne artillery into action three days later. This time, his attack caused much damage, enough anyway to bring in his vessels equipped with gangways that could be thrown across the breach. Keeping the enemy focused on this attack, Alexander ordered some of his triremes round to both harbors, hoping they could force an entrance. Other ships carrying archers and ammunition for the artillery were instructed to sail around the island and fill the gaps left by the vessels caught up in the fight. The entire city-island was surrounded by a ring of fire. 

By now, the Macedonian navy attacking at the southern port had firm ground under their feet and forced the enemy lines over the entire width of the breach. Immediately, Alexander moved forward, making his way to the royal quarters. 

The king’s ships, meanwhile, proved to be as successful. The Phoenicians at the southern harbor smashed their way through the enemy lines, ramming some vessels and driving others ashore. The Cypriots joined in and sailed right into the northern port from where they gained control over that section of the city. The Macedonians swarmed out over Tyre and attacked its inhabitants with savage ferocity – fed up as they were by this long siege. 

Curtius tells us that 6,000 Tyrians were killed in the complete carnage, and 2,000 more were crucified outside the city walls. Another 30,000 people were sold into slavery. This is not exactly a pretty sight, but all wars have their own atrocities. 

Military speaking, Tyre is one of Alexander’s greatest and boldest sieges, and I genuinely regret not visiting this place for myself. However, it would have been tough to imagine the history written here. After two thousand years, the mole has transformed the landscape into a wide bay and assimilated the very island. 

Tyre was thoroughly destroyed by Alexander in his rage for having defied him for so long.

Rewriting the events leading to the Battle of Gaugamela

Our history of Alexander the Great is mainly based on what the Greek reporters tell us, picked up by later authors like Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, and Plutarch. We have ignored what Persian sources could say because of the difficulty deciphering the often fragmentary texts written on clay tablets from the Babylonia Library or on papyrus from the Oxyrhynchus site in Egypt.

Watching a documentary from 2009 of Michael Wood searching for the plain of Gaugamela in war-ridden northern Iraq revived the battle scenario of Alexander against Darius as seen from the Persian point of view, i.e., contemporary of Alexander. Michael Wood had an in-depth conversation with Prof. Irving Finkle of the British Museum handling several cuneiform tablets.  

These cuneiform clay tablets belong to the Astronomical Diaries kept in the temple of the Babylonian god Marduk. The diaries contain daily observations of the sky and all kinds of information about the current political events, the water level of the Euphrates and Tigris, the food prices and other various topics, and the meteorological records. Over the past two centuries, millions of these tablets have surfaced from all over Mesopotamia. The majority has not yet been deciphered, leaving us with wide lacunas. Therefore the work of Prof. Irving Finkle is very commendable. 

With Michael Wood, he concentrated on three lines on these tablets that require careful consideration in the case of Gaugamela. 

That month, the eleventh [corresponds to 18 September 331 BC], panic occurred in the camp before the king. The Macedonians encamped in front of the king [must be Darius at Arbela].

This inscription suggests that the Persian soldiers were demoralized or were reluctant to fight. 

The twenty-fourth [corresponds to 1 October 331 BC], in the morning, the king of the world [meaning Alexander as King of Asia] erected his standard [lacuna]. Opposite each other they fought and a heavy defeat of the troops. The king, his troops deserted him and to their cities [they went] They fled to the land of the Guti [meaning the road to Ecbatana]

These lines shed a very different light on the battle as opposed to what Greek historians wrote about Darius turning his chariot around and leaving his soldiers behind (see: "The troops of the king deserted him"). If the Persian troops left their king, that would be a totally different situation.

Prof. Irving understands that “the king’s men deserted him” means, the Persians refused to fight. This may very well involve Mazaeus at Gaugamela, as he was holding the right flank facing Parmenion’s contingent. Was the confrontation on that end of the long Persian front really as fierce as our Greek narratives want us to believe with Parmenion’s flank crumbling down? Or was it mainly a show to save face vis-à-vis King Darius?

If the soldiers on that flank (the Persian right) were not ready to engage in a fight, Alexander could more easily concentrate on his own right flank. Thus executing his whirling move and ride towards Darius through the formed gap. Darius fled from the battlefield, but it transpired that many of his troops had turned back before their king did. 

We may wonder whether, instead of an act of bravery or military genius on Alexander’s part, the battle was won thanks to the bribes of some of Darius’ generals, including Mazaeus (see: Two key afterthoughts on Gaugamela). 

On the eleventh [corresponds to 18 October 331 BC], in Sippar [this is just north of Babylon] an order of Alexander to the Babylonians was sent as follows: 'Into your houses I shall not enter.'

Here, the tablets are quoting Alexander verbatim as he confirms that he would not enter the houses of Babylon. In other words, he officially declares that his troops will not plunder the city. This was clearly a pre-arranged gesture. 

The above calls for some further explanation. 

Let’s consider the nearly obvious bribe of Mazaeus. We have to go back to the banks of the Euphrates where Hephaistion was building two bridges over the Euphrates at its narrowest point near Thapsacus (see: Crossing the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers). The Persian general had arrived on the other side and watched Hephaistion’s construction progress for several days. Hephaistion stopped his operation short of the opposite river bank as he did not want to see the end of his bridges destroyed by Mazaeus. Work was at a stalemate till Alexander appeared with the bulk of his army, and Mazaeus turned around to scorch more earth in front of the enemy’s advance as ordered by Darius. 

Mazaeus had 2,000 Greek mercenaries at his services. They must have been happy to talk to the Macedonians on the opposite bank to exchange the latest news during the stalemate. Robin Lane Fox implies that Mazaeus (who, having been satrap of Cilicia, did speak Greek) at that time could have forged some agreement with Hephaistion in view of the upcoming battle. At first sight, this seems outlandish, but this is very plausible on second thought. Hephaistion was often sent on diplomatic missions by Alexander, and the events on the bank of the Euphrates may well have been one such occasion. While he was waiting, Hephaistion had ample time to consult Alexander, still marching towards him. Such a private agreement would inevitably shed totally new light on the upcoming fight at Gaugamela (see: Two key afterthoughts on Gaugamela). 

As soon as Darius left the battlefield, Mazaeus followed suit and rode to Babylon. When Alexander approached the city some three weeks later, he was met by Mazaeus, who surrendered himself and the city. This has been recorded by Curtius and certainly fits into the prearranged agreement! 

Babylon was a well-defended stronghold with a 68 km-long wall that would have been a tough nut to crack had Mazaeus not surrendered it to the new King of Asia (see: Babylon and Alexander’s reorganization of the army). 

In his search for the battlefield location, Michael Wood also talked to Lt General Sir Robert Fry, head of British Forces in Iraq, who was in charge of his security. The general is a historian and fervent admirer of Alexander the Great with his own views on the military aspect. He says that, in figures, the Battle of Gaugamela was perhaps the biggest in history until Napoleon! It decided the fate of Asia. 

He further adds that - like all great leaders in history - Alexander left no weapon unused – even the gods. Alexander did not make his last sacrifice to Phoebus because he was afraid, but he wished fear and terror on the Persians! True to his generalship, Robert Fry marvels at the logistics of bringing an army of 50,000 to Iraq, 80,000 to Persia, and even more to India. Imagine the long supply line! 

The general also looks at the upcoming battle from Darius’ side and confirms that he has taken all necessary precautions. He had a superior cavalry with heavier horses, had the strength of numbers, and the battle itself was well prepared. The plan of the Persian king was to breach the phalanx in order to break the cohesion of the Macedonian army at its center and then envelop the outnumbered Macedonians. Darius had not expected Alexander to stretch the army to his right and create an opening to ride straight at him. The battle was not about their numbers, the general continued, but it came down to the decisions of two individuals. 

These are fascinating statements and ideas. General Fry ends with words along the line of “Alexander’s idea of defeating the Persians may be his idea of linking the eastern and western empires by trade routes and by an army integrated in ethnic terms. These are extraordinary imaginative ideas! Alexander was a globalist. He would thoroughly understand the world today.” How true that is!

[Pictures 2 and 3 are from Oliver Stones' movie Alexander]