Remembering Alexander’s birthday

We can be certain that Alexander never expected a hoard of tetradrachms with his effigy to be found and cherished nearly 2,500 years after his death. If that is not a worthy birthday gift, what is? 

This find dates from 2017, when a farmer recovered the coins from his land near Batman, on the confluence of the Tigris River and the Batman River in southeastern Turkey. The coins were all Alexander tetradrachms minted in the period between 332 and 322 BC. 

The coins fell into the hands of a Turkish collector, who said the hoard was complete, although no container was recorded. Since then, all the coins have been sold and disappeared from the radar. This means we only have the collector’s word for the information that has transpired. 

The coins were minted in several of the 25 known locations, such as Amphipolis, Aradus (Syria), Side, Sidon, and to a larger extent (one-third) in Babylonia. 

The Amphipolis mint was very active during the regency of Antipater, although the silver did not originate from local mines. The majority of the precious metal came from looting, and by far the largest amounts were collected by Alexander from the Achaemenid Treasuries in Babylon, Persepolis, Pasargadae, and Ecbatana (see: Harpalos’ mismanagement or is it Alexander’s?). We will remember that the king borrowed money when he started his invasion of Asia and took the bullion from the cities as he conquered them. 

The Batman hoard may have belonged to one of the Greek and/or Balkan mercenaries Alexander disbanded in late 325 or early 324 BC, or to one of his Macedonian veterans he sent home after the mutiny at Opis in 324 BC. This last group of 10,000 veterans, led by Craterus, was moving slowly through Cilicia when the news of Alexander’s death reached them. In antiquity, the Batman region was on the border between the satrapies of Armenia and Mesopotamia, not far from Cilicia. For that reason, it makes sense to link the hoard to the demobilized soldiers commanded by Craterus. 

It is important to realize that the Alexander coins were minted according to the standard Attic drachma of 4.3 grams. It has been estimated that between 333 and 290 BC, approximately 60 million tetradrachms were produced (see: A few words about Alexander mints and coins). More importantly, every soldier, veteran, and foreigner was totally familiar with Alexander’s picture and trusted the value of the coin bearing his image. For a long time, coins with Alexander's image kept circulating because his veteran soldiers were used to receiving their pay in tetradrachms!  

It remains questionable whether or how many of the 60,000,000 tetradrachms will ever be found. As the coins keep surfacing, we have to thank Alexander for his long-lasting legacy. By wishing him “Many Happy Returns,” we truly pay tribute to the timeless legacy he has left us. 

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.

Another qanat discovered in Iran

A hitherto unknown qanat has been discovered near the town of Chaqabol in western Iran, roughly one hundred kilometers south of Hamadan (ancient Ecbatana).

Incredibly, so many of these underground water canals have been dug out over the centuries, and so many are still in working order. The main problem is the maintenance they require. I dedicated an earlier blog to the qanats (see: The qanats, one of the greatest inventions of mankind). 

It appears that in 2018, the cultural heritage body of Iran had documented some 120,000 qanats. About 37,000 such canals are still being used, mainly for irrigation purposes, compared to the approximately 50,000 qanats in Iran in the last century. 

With climate change affecting our daily use and need for water, the qanats regain their importance. Over the centuries, the local tribes and chiefs kept the system in working order. However, today's construction projects, such as cities and barrages on existing rivers, often disrupt and/or interrupt the water supply. Since those projects are overseen by a governmental institution, little attention is paid to this centuries-old supply system on which many local populations still rely. In the process, small communities lose their only access to water. They cannot raise their crops and lack water for their own basic needs. 

It is noteworthy that eleven aqueducts across Iran were put as “Persian Qanat” on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2016. 

We can learn a lot from our ancestors if we earnestly try to listen to them!

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 in the East.

Throughout their march from Greece to India, the Macedonians must have been plagued by recurrent earthquakes that disrupted their advance or their camp. 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 the 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 had 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 Kusha 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.

Rewriting the events leading to the Battle of Gaugamela

Our history of Alexander the Great is mainly based on what the Greek sources 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 Babylonian Library or on papyri 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 to Alexander. Michael Wood had an in-depth conversation with Prof. Irving Finkel 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, he executed his whirling move and rode 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 riverbank 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 service. 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, spoke 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 Stone's movie Alexander] 

An introduction to the Scythians

The Scythians are mentioned in different contexts throughout my blog, but they have never been discussed as a people. 

[Picture from World History Encyclopedia.  A map illustrating the expansion of the warrior nomad Scythians between the 7th and 3rd century BC across Asia and Europe. (Simeon Netchev - CC BY-NC-SA)]

We have to go back to Herodotus in the 5th century BC, who mentions the Scythians for the first time. The author concentrates on Ukraine, although his description might well extend to the tribes in Central Asia. When talking about the Scythians, we refer to many different tribes roaming the steppes north of the “civilized” world. Their habitat stretched roughly from the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea (north of Persia) to Central Asia and the desert of Mongolia. At this far easterly end, the Chinese protected themselves from Scythian invasions by building their famous Great Wall. 

Generally living in small bands, they attacked the cities and towns situated south of their extensive east-west frontier. After a more or less sudden devastating incursion, they would withdraw with their booty into their vast nomadic Eurasian steppe lands. Over the years, some tribes settled as farmers, but they were not interested in founding cities of their own. 

In Central Asia and Persia, the Scythians were called Sacae as both tribes shared the same Indo-European language and lifestyle. These Sacae are called Skudat, which the Persians understood as Sakâ. The Greeks, in turn, used the name Skythes or Skythai. No wonder the Scythians show up so often in history under a different disguise. 

The Persians suffered repeated attacks from the Scythians, who, even shortly, dominated the Medes in the 7th century BC. They are also known to have played a significant role in the Sack of Nineveh in 612 BC. 

As a result of Miletus’ colonization, the Kingdom of the Bosporus emerged (see: The Kingdom of the Bosporus). It reached its peak between the 6th and the 3rd century BC. During that period, the new settlers maintained strong cultural and trade relations with the Scythians. Over the centuries, the kingdom with its capital of Panticapaeum became a melting pot of civilizations as the Greeks mingled with neighboring Pontic Scythians. 

An earlier blog, A cast helmet from Central Asia, discussed a helmet found near Maracanda, in the tomb of a Sacae leader. The technique of cast helmets was customary in China, which proves that these nomadic Scythians lived far to the east. This particular helmet dated from the 6th century BC and became obsolete afterward. 

The Massagetai tribe living near the Aral Sea was also Scythian. In 529 BC, Cyrus the Great attacked this tribe, ruled by Queen Tomyris. That happened after Cyrus’ negotiation to marry her failed. She bluntly refused to submit to him. As a result, the king attacked her and her tribe, and she died on the battlefield. 

The Scythians also successfully withstood Darius the Great’s attack at the beginning of the 5th century BC. Later that century, the Pontic Scythians took possession of Thrace. 

In the 5th century BC, the Odrysian Kingdom was founded – merely a union of more than forty tribes that turned Thracia into a powerful state. The Odrysians and the Scythians had reached peaceful relations through their inter-dynastic marriages, which led to establishing the border of their lands at the Danube River. Both peoples mingled and were generally recognized as Scythians. Their agreement, however, was not meant to last as, in the end, southern and central Thrace were divided among the Odrysian kings. Eventually, Philip II conquered their land in 340 BC. The Getae ruled the northeast section. 

Alexander attacked these Getae after his pursuit of the Triballians to the banks of the Danube River in 335 BC. The Triballians had sought refuge on an island. Instead of attacking them in that awkward position, Alexander decided to isolate them and go after the Getae on the other bank of the Danube. He managed to ferry 4,000 infantrymen and 1,500 cavalry across the wide river by night. No wonder the Getae were in shock when they woke up with this army on their land and fled to the hinterland (see: Crossing the Danube River). 

A noteworthy Odrysian Thracian is Sitalces. His true origins remain relatively obscure, but apparently, he was a prince, maybe even the son of King Cersobleptes of the Odrysian Thracians. He joined Alexander’s army and proved to be a competent commander who led the Thracian javelin men on more than one occasion. The Thracians appear again at the Battle of Gaugamela. They were placed with the main body of the Macedonian troops, under the command of Sitalces once again (see: Sitalces, commander of the Thracians). Sitalces was also one of the three generals who, on Alexander’s orders, executed Parmenion in Ecbatana (see: The Philotas Affair – Part II – His judgment and execution). 

Back in Central Asia, we should mention the story of a Scythian chief named Karthasis, who offered one of his daughters – most probably one of those warlike Scythian young women - in marriage to Alexander. The King declined, but the story may well have triggered the tale of the Amazons. 

In 329 BC, Alexander marched north to Cyropolis, a city founded by Cyrus the Great. But Cyropolis was situated about 10 km away from the Jaxartes River. Alexander felt that it didn’t serve his purpose, i.e., to protect the country against the nomads inhabiting the lands beyond the majestic river. He decided to build a city of his own, Alexandria-Eschate or Alexandria-the-Furthermost (Ultima), right on the banks of the Jaxartes – the location of today’s Khodjend in Tajikistan. Shortly after starting his project, a general revolt broke out, and the entire area exploded into armed resistance, making it clear that the Macedonians were not welcome. The Scythians on the opposite shore of the Jaxartes also grew furious. Consequently, Alexander set the crossing of the river in motion. He conceived a flotilla of large rafts made of stuffed leather tent covers, rigged together and covered with a sturdy platform. These rafts could carry a heavy contingent of men and even horses. Besides, Alexander equipped them with long-range catapults, a kind of machine the Scythians would discover for the first time.

When the Scythians recovered from their first shock and surprise, they played their favorite maneuver by riding and attacking in circles. Alexander threw in a mixed force of infantry and cavalry and successfully broke the circle, sending the Scythians to retreat after being hunted down by Alexander for several miles into the desert (see: Alexandria-Eschate and Cyropolis). 

The above gives insight into the Scythians' link between Greece, Persia, India, and China. It may somehow have laid the foundation of the Silk Road as a vast trade network. 

Although the Scythians have no written records, they left us substantial archaeological evidence of their high skills in metalwork. Monumental burial mounts across the Eurasian steppe reveal high-quality jewelry, weapons, vessels, horse harnesses, belts, and other decorative items, mostly made of gold. 

Inevitably, some of these Scythian tribes, such as the Pontic Scythians, settled as farmers, while others kept roaming the vast steppes from Mongolia to the Black Sea area. In the early Middle Ages, the most westerly tribes blended in and mixed with the early Slavs.

Writing a letter home and the logistics implied

It sounds like the most obvious thing to do for a soldier, writing a letter home. But I find it quite remarkable that the Macedonian troops travelling with Alexander wrote letters to their family in their homeland because it implies that the average soldier could actually read and write! Maybe they didn’t all carry pen and ink in their backpack but papyrus or some kind of parchment – even though that seems to have been implemented only in the days of Cleopatra – was easy to take along.

The letters home are rarely mentioned in our literature but they become subject to close scrutiny when the Macedonians are divided after the plot and the execution of Philotas in 330 BC. Many were distressed by the murder of Parmenion, Philotas’ father. The army no longer stood unanimously behind the king’s decisions and policies. Alexander, however, could not let this group of discontent troops sow havoc in his ranks. He had to make sure to find the traitors and those who dared to criticize him. This was a serious matter and he decided to open and censor the army’s letters home. This was the only way for Alexander to locate the unruly elements. He removed the culprits from their own units and transferred them to a separate body, the ataktoi, a disciplinary unit that was specially created for the occasion. These men were sent on particularly dangerous or suicidal missions where they could and would redeem themselves – if they were not killed that is.

The courier service between the troops on the march and their homeland must have involved an incessant flow of riders and seafarers – not only for the common soldiers but also for official business that must have followed another channel.

The most frequent mail exchanges were undoubtedly Alexander’s official correspondences with his Regent, Antipater, and with foreign ambassadors and representatives. It was the task of his secretaries Eumenes of Cardia, who occupied that position previously under his father, and of Callisthenes of Olynthus, the nephew of Aristotle. There must have been an entire “office” of scribes of all kinds, including people who were familiar with the does of don’ts at foreign courts and a number of qualified translators and copyists to keep track of the documents.

Alexander certainly wrote his private letters to his mother Olympias personally for I doubt he would have entrusted these to anyone else. He may have employed a number of private and trustworthy couriers because the content of those documents was highly sensitive.

We are also aware of Hephaistion’s correspondence with Aristotle but it seems evident that he maintained a vivid correspondence with many scholars and high ranking officials spread all over the conquered territories and even beyond.

Also, the incoming mail had to be checked, sorted and distributed. The royal mail had priority and was opened, checked and sorted by the scribes in Alexander’s tent supervised, I assume by Eumenes who had to decide what had to be prioritized and what not.

The matter of correspondence, on whatever level, implies a huge logistic machinery of its own. It has been suggested that initially Parmenion was responsible for the army’s logistics, which may have included the mail services. However, once he was assigned as keeper of the immense Persian treasury in Ecbatana, we don’t know who replaced him to become the trusted brain behind those operations.