Another isolated Hellenistic Mausoleum

Years ago, upon leaving the site of Ptolemais in Libya, I was pleasantly surprised by the remains of a Hellenistic Mausoleum (see: Ptolemais, heritage of the Ptolemies in the Cyrenaica). It looked abandoned and neglected; nobody could tell me anything about it. 

Presently, another similar Mausoleum has been spotted in Darende, near Malatya in eastern Turkey. In antiquity, the city’s name was Melitene, a vital crossing point over the Tigris River not unlike the role played by Zeugma (see: Zeugma, Border-town along the Euphrates River) and Dura Europos (see: Dura Europos, last stop on the Euphrates). It was also the end of the highway coming from Caesarea, modern Kayseri. The Romans fortified Melitene in the 2nd century AD to control access to the upper Tigris and southern Armenia and to defend themselves against the invading Parthians. Procopius of Caesarea, living in the 6th century AD, described Melitene’s theaters, agoras, and temples, of which nothing has been discovered until now. 

[Picture from Malatya GoTurkiye Destinations]

Scholars have established that this Mausoleum has the shape of a Greek temple built in Hellenistic style, not unlike the well-known Nereid’s Monument in Xanthos (see: Xanthos, the greatest city of Lycia), now at the British Museum in London. Based on its appearance and decorative features, the Mausoleum of Darende has been dated to the 2nd century AD. 

This building is meant to honor the deceased, although no inscription of any kind has been found to reveal his name. The monument shows four Ionian columns attached to the brick wall on each side. Between the columns and approximately four meters above ground are closed window niches, except for one on the west and one on the east side, which are open. All niches are framed between two small columns and crowned with an arch. Underneath each niche are thick wrought garlands like those often carved on Roman sarcophagi. 

The Mausoleum is about 6.5 meters high and is built in a perfect square of 6.65x6.65 meters outside. The entrance door was on the west side. The inside shape is rectangular, measuring 3.48x4.5 meters. This difference is because the interior chamber has a barrel vault supported by a thicker north and south wall. 

Presently, a restoration project has been started to support the damaged parts of the Mausoleum to preserve it in the best way possible for the future. The dirt covering the original stone floor will be removed, and the roof will also be cleared. 

Today, the Mausoleum lies hidden among the vast apricot orchards for which Malatya is famous, as the region provides 80% of Turkey’s production.

Preparations to sail down the Indus

The history of Alexander’s conquests in India usually relates the facts in a succession of events without paying much attention to the king’s thorough planning and preparation ahead. To sail down the Indus was an expedition by itself, which is generally ignored.

Alexander withdrew in style from the Hyphasis. After building twelve altars to thank the gods for having led him so far as conqueror and leaving an impressive memorial to his own accomplishments, he turned around to cross the Hyphasis, Hydraotes, and Acesines once again (see: Alexander erected twelve altars on the banks of the Hyphasis). 

Hence, the army marched to the Hydaspes, where Alexander had founded the cities of Alexandria Nicaea and Alexandria Bucephala (see: The edge of the world was not reached). According to his instructions, many ships had already been assembled, but he needed to build many more before sailing south. Within two months, the entire fleet was ready. It consisted of eighty thirty-oared galleys, troop carriers, flat-bottomed boats for horse transport, circular tubs, local river boats, and enormous grain-lighters for supplies. The latter is a forerunner of the modern LASH ship or Lighter Aboard Ship that loads and unloads barges, as still used on the Indus.  Known locally as zobruks, they have a shallow draught and huge sail, perfectly suitable in strong currents. Each vessel could hold more than two hundred tons of grain to feed the army on their voyage to the Ocean.

This was a massive operation that Alexander had planned meticulously. He selected the Phoenicians, Carians, Cyprians, and Egyptians who served in his army. From them, he chose men with nautical skills for crews and rowers. Other experts were selected from among the islanders (from the Aegean), Ionians from Asia Minor, and people from the Hellespont.

Imagine this armada of up to 2,000 vessels (half the flotilla that crossed the Channel on D-Day!), moving at the shouts of the coxswain (steersman) as his rhythmic call was echoed by the high riverbanks mingled with the noise of splashing oars. 

Another factor worth considering is the number of troops needed to be moved. Back on the Hydaspes, 35,000 fresh soldiers had swollen Alexander’s total manpower to a massive 120,000! His cavalry, at this point, has been estimated to be some 15,000. However, not all the men and horses boarded the ships; neither did the impressive baggage train.

Alexander organized the army in three divisions as he would personally lead the fleet from his Royal galley with the support of his shield-bearers guards, all the archers, and the Companion cavalry – totaling 8,000 men. Hephaistion would march along the east bank of the Hydaspes while Craterus would lead the west bank with part of the infantry and the cavalry. Hephaistion took with him the bulk of the fighting troops and 200 elephants. Their instructions were to march together in advance and wait for the fleet.

The king took command after having performed extensive sacrifices to his ancestral gods and the deities of the river and Ocean. With a golden goblet, he poured a libation into the river from the prow of his ship – entirely in style with the solemn occasion. 

As soon as the trumpets signaled the departure, the voyage started in regular order. It was a hazardous enterprise, but the king had instructed how many baggage vessels were to sail abreast and the place for the boats carrying the horses and the ships of war. All vessels were to keep their distance and stay in formation, adapting their speed accordingly. Given the different sizes of boats ranging from warships and baggage vessels to horse transports, they individually required accurate steering and high alertness of their pilots. The purpose was that the ships would not fall out of each other or sail down randomly. Nearchus of Crete was appointed admiral of the fleet, with Onesicritus of Cos as his second and helmsman of the Royal flagship. 

Even after the monsoon rains had stopped, the annual flow of the Hydaspes was two times faster than that of the Nile or three times that of the Euphrates and the Tigris combined. The current would increase notably as the river narrows, particularly at the confluence with the Acesines. The roaring of the water could be heard miles ahead as the surface roughened.  

At last, the fleet made it across the narrows where the two rivers met, and the banks receded. The stream slackened, and Alexander found a protected spot on the right bank to moor his ships safely. Here, the men could take a break and make the necessary repairs before moving onward. 

Alexander was about to enter the land of the warlike Malians, who had been preparing for the confrontation.

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] 

The stunning mosaic museum of Zeugma

It appears that I have missed the construction of the new museum for the mosaics saved from Zeugma. Since 2011, the Gaziantep Museum of Archaeology has housed the rich collection from the earlier Zeugma Mosaic Museum, and in 2017, the revamped museum finally reopened to the public. With its 1700 square meters of mosaics, it claims to display the biggest collection in the world. 

Zeugma reached headlines in 1990 when the Dam of Ataturk on the Euphrates River reached completion as part of the vast GAP project covering both the Euphrates and the Tigris. This is the fourth-largest dam in the world. As the remains of old Zeugma were to be flooded forever, thousands of people had been expelled from their homes and lands. Archaeologists from everywhere scrambled to save what they could before the river and sediments obliterated the ruins forever. For me, such an act of destruction is unforgivable, and I wrote several blogs on the disasters of building dams (see: My heart is bleeding for Allianoi, Damned dams! and Damned dams, once again) 

Looking at the events from the positive side, I have to admit that parts of Zeugma have been saved and preserved. They include the Hellenistic Agora, the Roman Agora, two sanctuaries, a theater, a Stadium, two bathhouses, and several necropolises. The Romans left their marks with a Legion’s Military Base, the city walls, and a good number of residential quarters. Archaeologists recognize the historical significance of this once prosperous city that has preserved testimonies from the ancient Semitic culture, Hellenistic and Roman occupation, and beyond. 

Since its foundation as Seleucia by Seleucos I, the city was a vital hub on the trade routes and flourished, especially during the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC. It was the Romans who, after their conquest of 64 BC, gave the town the name of Zeugma, which means “bridge” or “crossing” in ancient Greek. In 253 AD, the Persian Sassanids expelled the Romans, and their reign initiated the decline of Zeugma (see:  Zeugma, Border-town along the Euphrates River) 

As can be expected, most of the mosaics exhibited at The Gaziantep Museum of Archaeology date from the 2^nd century BC and are very much Hellenistic in style and imagery. However, there are exceptions where the scenes are purely Roman or display Greek and Roman gods side by side. Less often mentioned are the rare mural frescos that survived the earthquakes and mudslides that led to the abandonment of Zeugma. 

Several exceptional mosaics have been recovered in extremis from one of the residential villas, of which there must be many more. Imagine how much of old Seleucia is being lost because of a dam that will no longer exist, and justify its construction in the next century. How can we condemn IS for blowing up Palmyra and accept the willful destruction of our heritage here in Zeugma? 

About the preservation of mosaics

Mosaics from whatever time period or location always have a lot to tell about customs, religion, and simple daily life, and as such are very valuable testimonies of our past. 

Yet, as soon as the precious tesserae are exposed, the question arises about what to do with the mosaic and about the best way to preserve it. 

The problem was first confronted during the 18^th century when sites like Pompeii and Herculaneum were excavated. In those days, archaeology was not established as a proper science and most of the finds were carried away to be displayed in the mansions of the rich and famous. As a result, the mosaics were taken apart and the most pleasing pictures were framed in simple or elaborate frames. 

As the number of excavations steadily grew in the 19^th and 20^th centuries, archaeology matured equally and it became clear that not all mosaics – and certainly not the larger ones – could be moved for conservation inside a museum. 

Another option was to rebury the mosaics. To this purpose and probably by trial and error, different materials such as soil, gravel, or sand were used to cover the mosaics. The most obvious material was the soil, which was readily available at the excavation site. Besides, it made sense to rebury the mosaics using the same material that had contributed to their survival for many centuries. Nowadays, sand and gravel with or without plastic netting are often implemented all over antique sites. 

I often regret that I cannot actually have a look at those hidden treasures although I totally understand the logic behind this decision. However, standing at the entrance of the Royal Palace in Aegae and not being able to see the large round mosaic of the Tholos or Sanctuary is rather frustrating. In other places, like in Dion, Greece, (see: Dion, the Macedonian Sanctuary), strolling among the remains of Roman houses is not as rewarding as it could be if the many floors were exposed. 

At times, in order to help the visitor visualize the wealth of the mosaics in situ, shelters have been built to protect the precious stones under all circumstances. There are many such cases, such as Pella, Greece, or Nea Paphos in Cyprus. 

In the end, it all depends on the circumstances and the locations where the mosaics are discovered. In Zeugma, Turkey, (see: Zeugma, Border-town along the Euphrates River) even larger floors were removed from the site because the old city was to be flooded after the construction of a dam on the Euphrates. The only way to save what could be saved was to remove the mosaics and shelter them in a newly constructed museum in Gaziantep. 

Mosaic floors that belong to extensive villas are nowadays generally kept intact. A good example is the huge Villa of Piazza Armerina in Sicily (best known for the pictures of the bikini-girls) which has been largely roofed. On other occasions, the entire basement of the villa is cleared and made accessible underground as is the case in Ravenna, Italy. This site, called Tapeti di Pietra (carpets of stone) had been discovered during the construction of a parking lot underneath a modern building. Another similar situation occurred in Antakya, Turkey (see: Antakya’s rich collection of mosaics) where the heavily undulating mosaic floor will be incorporated into the hotel that is under construction. 

It appears that there are many options to safeguard a mosaic floor, all depending on the location and the circumstances in which they are found. Overall, the best and safest conservation choice is the reburial technique. However, this has to be done very carefully and the site must be kept under surveillance. It is sad to find mosaics disintegrating because the layer of sand and gravel is not thick enough and curious or malicious visitors scratch the protection away to expose the mosaics underneath. Many archaeological sites in the Middle East and North Africa are being damaged beyond repair like in Ptolemais, Libya (see: Ptolemais, heritage of the Ptolemies in the Cyrenaica).

Harran, better known under its Roman name Carrhae

Harran is the modern name for Roman Carrhae, where Crassus was crushed by the Parthians in 53 BC. Exploring these ruins, I wonder how much of old Carrhae was left after the Parthians killed 20,000 soldiers and took 10,000 more as prisoners.

Today’s Carrhae is in a dilapidated state where I quickly spot the Forum, some bathhouses, and temples. At the edge of the Forum rises a high square tower from the days of Prophet Mohamed. This is said to be the oldest minaret in Turkey and belonged to the Ulu Cami, i.e., the Congregation Mosque, the oldest university.

I did not expect to find any such remains in Harran as I was heading to see the unique and peculiar adobe constructions with a conical roof topped by a square vent made of the same material. The concept seems 3,000 years old, making me believe that Alexander saw these or similar constructions. These beehives, which were used till the 1980s, date from the 11th-12th century. Today, they are placed on the UNESCO World Heritage List. After building dams on the Euphrates, the villagers could now irrigate their fields and raise abundant crops of cotton, tomatoes, and aubergines. Before this irrigation project materialized, they had been constrained to herding goats and sheep. The beehive constructions are, however, maintained as a tourist attraction.

Following eastern hospitality, I am invited to take place on low V-shaped stools in the courtyard's shade. Tea is served by the men, who then withdraw to a corner of the yard. Meanwhile, children are running around, but I see no womenfolk.

I can freely roam in and around the rooms, in fact, one under each dome. As expected, they are cool and probably warm in winter, like Cappadocia's troglodyte caverns. My eyes have to adjust to the dim light since the only daylight is coming through one single window and the vent in the conical roof. The interior is made cozy, with carpets covering the floor and the walls. Low benches set against the walls display colorful cushions, and a few round and square tables fill the center of the room. In the sleeping quarters, I find beds standing high above the ground. The protective parapet has an opening to access the bed. I had noticed a similar contraption, but much higher above ground in the corner of the courtyard. Apparently, they are used during hot summer nights. The only modern touch is electric lighting and flushing toilets which look very much out of place.

The hill on the other side of the adobe settlement of Harran is crowned with a fort. This is where the Temple of Sin, the moon god, stood. But the stones and foundations have been reused for the construction of this fort. From my vantage spot, I have a great view over Harran where women with dark eyes and dark skin move in colorful dresses. Beyond the city, I spot green cotton fields separated by broad meandering waterways, some tributaries of the Euphrates, no doubt. It looks very peaceful as if time had no hold on the place, but the street boys tell me that only yesterday, a formation of warplanes from Iraq flew over. I find this an odd and awkward combination of past and present where there is no room for the present.

When Alexander marched east for his confrontation with Darius at Gaugamela, he passed through Harran. It is here that his scouts reported that the massive Persian army was marching north from Babylon. After giving his troops a few days rest, the king ordered a forced march to the Tigris as he meant to cross the river before his enemy could stop him.

I am hopeful that future excavations will expose much more of this unique city and maybe tell something about Alexander?

Edge of Empires. Pagans, Jews, and Christians at Roman Dura Europos by JY Chi and S Heath

Edge of Empires (ISBN 978-0-691-15468-8) by JY Chi and S Heath, depicts the history of Dura-Europos on the Euphrates in a unique way. The book was published by the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World at New York University on the occasion of the exhibition Edge of Empires: Pagans, Jews, and Christians at Roman Dura-Europos that ran from September 2011 until January 2012.

It contains lots of valuable information, both for those who know the site as for those who hear the name for the first time. 

After starting with a precious map and site plan of Dura-Europos, several aspects of the city and its excavation history are being highlighted.

Dura-Europos was discovered in 1920, and a French military detachment started excavations in 1922, under the direction of Franz Cumont. This initial approach is treated with an update in Chapter I, New Research by the French-Syrian Archaeological Expedition to Europos-Dura and New Data on Polytheistic Sanctuaries in Europos-Dura by Pierre Leriche and Gaëlle Coqueugniot, with the active collaboration of Ségolène de Pontbriand, Mission Franco-Syrienne d’Europos-Dura.

Chapter 2, Art Historical Frontiers: Lessons from Dura-Europos by Thelma K. Thomas, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, underscores the unparalleled array of religious art and architecture and highlights objects of everyday use.

Chapter 3, Trading at the Edge: Pottery, Coins, and Household Objects at Dura-Europos by Sebastian Heath, Institute of Study of the Ancient World, New York University, generally treats trade and military power in the 3rd century AD. Being at the edge of the Roman Empire, the city was coveted by the Parthians and the Sassanids. In 256 AD, after a fierce fight that left its marks all over town, the Sassanids took over. To save Dura-Europos, much of the houses and many structures were buried, preserving many objects that illustrate its far-stretching connection and military infrastructure.

Chapter 4, The Diversity of Languages in Dura-Europos by Jean Gascou, Université Paris-Sorbonne underscored the mixture of languages that were common in Dura-Europos. The list seems endless: Greek, Latin, Hebrew, forms of Aramaic, Syriac, Judeo-Aramaic, Northern Arabic, Iranian although in Parthian and Middle Persian form.

Chapter 5, Excavations at Dura-Europos: Archival Photographs from the Yale University Art Gallery, Dura-Europos Collection with a unique series of black and white photographs taken during the early years of excavations.

Last but not least, a Checklist with pictures complements the photographs used in the previous chapters of the book.

All in all, a very informative document, which I truly enjoyed reading from cover to cover. It brought back memories of the site as I saw it in 2009 (see: Dura-Europos, last stop on the Euphrates), i.e., just before the Arab Spring. I have no idea how it looks like today. Much has been destroyed as appears from areal views (see: Loss of our cultural heritage in the Middle-Eastern conflicts) or may simply have crumbled through negligence.

The edge of the world was not reached

After the Battle of the Hydaspes, Alexander proceeded deeper into Punjab, literally meaning The Land of Five Rivers. He had already made it across the Indus and the Hydaspes. However, there were still the Acesines River (modern Chenab), the Hydraotes River (modern Ravi), and the Hyphasis River (modern Beas) to tackle.

We know he had excellent scouting parties and always relied on local people's knowledge. Still, I can't help wondering if the messages were interpreted or understood correctly here in India.

The idea first occurred when Alexander was confronted with the monsoon rains, which he had underestimated as transpires from historical sources. Rain was, of course, not going to stop him, but these rains were far heavier and more disruptive than anything he knew or expected. The fact that the monsoons were seasonal recurrences escaped the attention of Alexander – or, to say the least, he did not take the matter as seriously as he should. We know that Nearchus was marooned in Pattala for several weeks before having the favorable winds to set sail and meet up with Alexander along the coast of the Gedrosian Desert is one such surprising timing mistake. This is very much unlike Alexander, and the question should be asked whether he really knew or understood the phenomena.

Crossing Punjab, a succession of five mighty rivers swollen by the melting snows from the Himalayas may have been tuned down by the interpreters, the locals, or both. Alexander did not give it the attention required, which cannot be ascribed to negligence. It could be explained that after witnessing countless rivers, among which the Nile, the Euphrates, and Tigris, and the Oxus and the Jaxartes – all major fast-flowing rivers in their own right – it was hard to imagine anything more threatening. Indeed, what could be worse? For instance, in Punjab, he had to deal with a succession of five such mighty and extremely wide rivers. For example, it can be noted that at the points where the army crossed these wild waters, the Indus was about 500 meters wide and the Acesines nearly 3,000 meters!

The Macedonians, by now, were seasoned troops functioning according to a well-oiled discipline whether they were on the march, fighting off some enemy, setting up camp, or crossing a river. They just did it, inspired and encouraged by their king. But eight years of constant warfare had scarred the souls of even the most faithful troops.

The Hyphasis River was one river too many, and the Macedonians stopped in their tracks, bluntly refusing to continue. As usual, Alexander fell back on his excellent oratory skills and tried to rekindle his men's enthusiasm by reminding them of the past glories since the day they had left Greece and all the riches they had accumulated since. They were now so close to the world's edge, and soon all of Asia would be theirs. To Alexander's amazement, his words fell on barren ground and were blown away by the wind. A painful and deadly silence followed his fiery speech.

[Picture from Alexander movie by Oliver Stone]

Coenus, who lately had led the significant cavalry charge at the Hydaspes, was pushed forward by the troops to formulate their resentment. He appropriately reminded his king that many soldiers who had come across the Hellespont eight years ago had been sent home as invalids. Others no longer fit for service had been left behind in newly founded cities. Others still had died in combat or from disease, and the survivors were often in shattered health as they all were marked by years of battle wounds and scars.

In fact, I think that the Macedonian spirit died on the killing ground along the Hydaspes. It had been such an outrageous carnage for so little profit as there were no grand cities to be plundered like previously in Persia. Besides, Alexander had given Porus his empire back, depriving his men of the incentive to face the next challenge or engage in another battle. The continuous downpour of the monsoon rains and the fanatical resistance of the Indians cannot have improved their mood. The army squarely refused to march on and demanded to return home. Coenus' words were received with loud applause, a sign of their far-reaching power.

Deeply offended, Alexander withdrew to his tent, licking his wound, no doubt. The non-negotiable decision of his army seriously hurt his ego and pride. When he emerged from his quarters three days later, he gave the orders to retreat, much to his dismay. This happened in September 326 BC.

It makes me wonder how much, in the end, the Battle of the Hydaspes was a victory for Alexander. His men had given their all, and they had nothing more to offer except love for their king.