All rise! Long live the King! Long live Alexander!

Reading a random paragraph in Plutarch’s Life of Alexander, we could easily picture the king solemnly entering the Throne Room of his imaginary Palace on the way to his birthday party. 

“He put on his helmet, but the rest of his armor he had on as he came from his tent, namely, a vest of Sicilian make girt about him, and over this a breastplate of two-ply linen from the spoils taken at Ipsus. His helmet was of iron, but gleamed like polished silver, a work of Theophilus; and there was fitted to this a gorget, likewise of iron, set with precious stones. He had a sword, too, of astonishing temper and lightness, a gift from the king of the Citieans,... He wore a belt also, which was too elaborate for the rest of his armor; for it was a work of Helicon the ancient, and a mark of honor from the city of Rhodes, which had given it to him”. 

Well, the event is much less romantic. Plutarch’s description fits Alexander as he is leaving his tent before the Battle of Gaugamela. 

Dressed to impress!              

                                Happy birthday, Alexander!

Iraq’s Kurdistan honoring the memory of Alexander the Great

Several years ago, there were talks between Athens and Baghdad to intensify cultural cooperation. One point on the agenda was that Athens would provide financial aid to reconstruct the National Museum of Baghdad (see: The Museum of Baghdad, what's new?). The other point was plans to erect a statue of Alexander the Great in Kurdistan, northern Iraq. 

[National Museum Baghdad]

The foreign ministries of both Greece and Iraq agreed to honor the memory of Alexander by building a statue of Alexander in Mosul, near the ancient site of the Battle of Gaugamela, where King Darius (see: The Battle of Gaugamela) was defeated in 331 BC. 

It is remarkable to hear Iraq’s wish to celebrate the victory of Alexander over the Persian King Darius, which led to the demise of the Persian Empire that included Iraq as well. 

Athens vowed to help the Iraqi government recover thousands of artifacts looted from Baghdad’s National Museum after the American invasion in 2003. 

These mutual promises apparently went no further than good intentions by both parties, as mentioned during a Lecture by Andreas P. Parpas at the Cyprus Centre of Cultural Heritage in Nicosia on 25 April 2018. 

Since then, nothing more has been heard about this project. 

Meanwhile, looted and stolen artifacts are slowly returning to the National Museum of Baghdad. In 2010, 540 treasures were returned, and 638 objects were located in the office of Iraq’s Prime Minister. In 2012, 45 relics of Sumerian and Assyrian art were returned by Germany. The US also returned 17,000 looted artifacts in 2021. And in 2023, the FBI was involved in the recovery of a gold and ivory piece of furniture dated to 5,500 BC. Despite serious efforts, it is estimated that about 10,000 treasures from the Baghdad Museum are still missing. 

On the other hand, the US pledged almost $700,000 to restore the ancient city of Babylon that was damaged by the US troops using the site as a military base (see: Babylon, victim of war). 

Peritas, Alexander’s dog

Alexander had a dog named Peritas. So much is certain, but when it comes to defining the breed or race of this dog, we quickly find ourselves among legends and mysteries. 

The story goes that Alexander received the dog as a puppy. The name Peritas seems to mean January in the Macedonian language. The dog generally is defined as a Molossian, a breed of fierce fighters that no longer exists and could be closely related to the Mastiff. It was especially loved for its speed, strength, and bravery. Other sources tend to believe that Peritas was a greyhound that Alexander brought up himself. 

The Molossian dog would fit the image of the conquering Alexander perfectly. It is said that he was an enormous, powerful dog that could fight as hard as any soldier. He would not hesitate to attack lions or elephants. Virgil confirms his talents: “Never with [Molossians] on guard, need you fear for your stalls a midnight thief, or onslaught of wolves, or Iberian brigands at your back.”  

Either legend or truth, Peritas would have jumped to bite the lip of an elephant about to attack Alexander during the Battle of Gaugamela.  

Another story is being reported from India during Alexander’s battle with the Malians. The soldiers had been slow to follow their king, exposing him to the full force of the enemy’s assault. Alexander was hit by a poisonous arrow while scaling the city wall (see: About the Death of Alexander the Great). Apparently, Peritas held the enemy off until the Macedonians joined up with Alexander. Mortally wounded, the faithful dog crawled to Alexander, laid his head in his lap, and died.  

In a more elaborate version, Leonnatus sent the dog to Alexander. The obedient Peritas valiantly fought his way through the Malians till he reached his badly wounded master and defended him from the attacking enemy until the Macedonian troops arrived. The deadly injured Peritas crawled to Alexander, laid his head in his lap, and died.  We will probably never know what happened exactly, but a statue of Peritas was erected at the entrance to the city that bears his name.  He enjoyed the same honors as Alexander’s horse, Bucephalus. 

Based on the wide number of ancient dog tombstones, we can safely say that Greeks kept their pets as their trusted companions and protectors – not unlike what we do today.  

Alexander is no exception as a dog lover. He kept a vast number of dogs that accompanied him in hunting and in war or were simply keeping him company. Which one of them is Peritas remains a mystery. I personally picture Peritas as being a greyhound, meaning he was not the hero so honored in India.  

The Greeks have left us many tombstone inscriptions in which they openly grieved the loss of their faithful companion. They cried and mourned them as we still do nowadays. One particularly poignant tombstone reads, “You who pass on this path, if you happen to see this monument, laugh not, I pray, though it is a dog’s grave. Tears fell for me, and the dust was heaped above me by a master’s hand”. 

Homer early on mentions Argos as the loyal friend of King Odysseus. The faithful dog recognizes his master when he returns home after twenty years. Odysseus, who wants initially to remain incognito, does not respond to his dog's affection, after which Argos lays back and dies.

Socrates took his philosophy so far as to attribute wisdom to dogs since they can distinguish their owner’s friends from their enemies. Diogenes (see: Alexander meeting Diogenes in Corinth) went as far as calling himself The Dog because "I flatter those who give me anything and bark at those who give me nothing." He had quite a sense of humor!  

Xenophon’s dog was called Impetus. He stated that a dog’s name was chosen with great care. Ancient Greeks were particularly fond of names that expressed power, courage, appearance, or speed.  In short, nothing new under the sun!

Who is Alexander? Part II

[Continued from Part 1 - Who is Alexander?]

Alexander heads for Asia at twenty-two, leaving Macedonia in the hands of his father’s trusted general Antipater as Regent. He sets out with an army of about 40,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. The gods are with him all the way. The first opposition happens in a tiny corner of Asia Minor, on the banks of the Granicus River. Darius III, King of Persia, King of Kings, believes that his presence is not required and merely delegates the confrontation to a mercenary in his service, a Greek on top of that, called Memnon. Well, Memnon, although a highly skilled general and Alexander’s most formidable opponent, is defeated. Nothing can stop Alexander now from taking one city after another, one port after another, all along the west coast of today’s Turkey. 

A year later, Alexander will face King Darius in person at the Pinarus River near Issus. The Persian army was huge compared to the Macedonian, but it was outmaneuvered during the first minutes of the battle. King Darius panics and flees into the backcountry. By leaving the battlefield, Alexander automatically emerges victorious. 

Both kings meet again, two years onwards, in a decisive confrontation on Persian soil near Arbela, a place better known as Gaugamela. It is a fight worthy of David and Goliath, where Alexander, with his 50,000 men, stands up against Darius’ troops, which may be 250,000 and has been exaggerated to 500,000. Whatever the numbers, his opponent counted many times more soldiers than his own force! From the tactical point of view, the battle proves to be such prowess that it is still taught at the Military Academy of West Point today. Alexander attacked an empire that was ten times bigger than his! 

Alexander’s accomplishments reached far beyond winning battles. He took on the organization of the entire enterprise, working out the logistics, relentlessly inspiring his army, and caring for all involved. Everyone looked up at him for guidance. 

Alexander’s empire extended from Greece to India and from Uzbekistan to Egypt at the height of his power. His army and baggage train in Asia must have counted at least one hundred thousand men. This mass of people inevitably included merchants, peddlers, blacksmiths, tailors, stone cutters, shipbuilders, entertainers, carpenters, cooks, architects, masons, road builders, and whores. Alexander managed to take his dismantled ships and catapult towers with him on the road so he could assemble them whenever needed. The word prefab was invented only eons later. 

The king moved all these people through the scorching deserts of the Karakum and the Gedrosian. He took them over the snow-capped mountains of the Zagros and the Hindu Kush. Also across swift-running rivers such as the Euphrates and Tigris, Oxus and Jaxartes, Indus, and entire Punjab. Just try to picture that crowd of soldiers, horses, followers, and equipment trudging through uncharted territories. It is dazzling! 

Alexander organized a government adapted to each and every land and tribe he conquered. He founded cities at strategic trade-road crossings, many of which still exist today. His task was absolutely colossal, and Alexander always was the driving force. Alexander also was a visionary, one we would love to have around today. He welded the world into one country.

Neither his Macedonians nor the Greeks were ready to comprehend the grandeur of his conquests, their vastness or scale. He made excellent use of the accumulated treasuries kept in the Royal Persian vaults, minting vast amounts of gold, silver, and bronze coins. The coins had Alexander’s image stamped on them, which was a somewhat new concept for until then, only gods were worthy of such a favor. The Alexander coins were known and accepted all over the empire. It was the euro of antiquity! 

Finally, there is Alexander’s legacy, i.e., the impact of Greek fashion, culture, and art on the occupied territories – a phenomenon that went down into history as Hellenism. From Athens to the Indus, the official language was Greek and remained so for nearly one thousand years until Islam took over with the use of Arabic. We owe it to Hellenism that the first statues of Buddha were made, that the first Library of Alexandria in Egypt was created, and that the Romans rose to power. Christianity spread so smoothly thanks to the usage of Greek, and the Renaissance is nothing less than a renewed connection with Hellenism. 

All of Alexander’s cities were built according to the Hippodamian plan with right-angled streets, including familiar buildings like temples, gymnasiums, agoras, theaters, and stadiums. Alexander’s love for games, sports competitions, and theatre contests with playwriters and actors traveling thousands of miles is another tradition that was continued for centuries deep into Central Asia and India. 

Our world would not be what it is today had it not been for Alexander. No other man in history impacted the world as much as Alexander the Great. Nobody conquered and ruled at the level of Alexander’s high standards, and nobody ever will.

Please consult my book for the full story of his conquests and achievements: "Alexander the Greatwas here, and so was I.”

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] 

Who decided on the mummification of Alexander?

Alexander’s death in Babylon and the cause of his death have been discussed before (see: A personal approach to the cause of death for Alexander the Great). This time, I would like to concentrate on his embalmment. 

Arrian does not mention what happened after Alexander’s death since the accounts of both Ptolemy and Aristobulus stopped at this point. However, he adds a splendid eulogy to the greatness of Alexander. Diodorus follows the same idea, stating that “He accomplished greater deeds than any, not only of the kings who had lived before him but also of those who were to come later down to our time.” 

Only Curtius’ history continues describing the mourning in the streets of Babylon by friend and foe, the earliest rivalry between the generals, and all kinds of intrigues that followed the king’s death. He is the only one to mention that Alexander lay unattended for seven days before his friends reentered the room. So much for a “friend,” right? He reports how his body did not show any sign of decay despite the Babylonian heat. As a result, the Egyptians and Chaldeans, "who were ordered” to care for the body, hesitated to handle it. It is only after they prayed to their gods for approval that “they emptied his body of entrails.” He goes on by saying that the gold coffin was filled with perfumes, yet nothing about the honey that covered Alexander’s body as seen by those who paid their respects to him years later in Alexandria. 

Several questions arise after reading these accounts. Curtius, for instance, is the only one to tell us about the widespread quarrel among the generals and troops alike (not yet about the matter of succession) and about the decision to embalm Alexander’s body. Plutarch casually remarks that the body remained unattended for several days. 

What transpires is that nobody stayed at Alexander’s bedside after he was declared dead. It is baffling and truly unacceptable vis-à-vis the King of Macedonia, the King of Kings, to be left without a single soul at his side to mourn him? Macedonia must have had a set procedure for treating the deceased king. Persia undoubtedly had a very ancient court protocol for such occasions! Yet, Alexander was left alone and unattended. Incredible! 

About a week later, the king’s entourage seemed to remember that their king was dead and required burial of some kind. According to Curtius, who appears the only source on this matter, “Egyptians and Chaldeans were ordered to care for the body.” Nobody says who issued such an order. The priests certainly would not act on their own to handle the remains of the King of Kings, the most powerful man of the world! Was there any discussion about the procedure and the choice of a funeral? 

In Macedonia, a king would be cremated on a fancy pyre, as was done for King Philip and even applied for Hephaistion. What did the Persian tradition prescribe? I suppose a burial since the Tomb of Cyrus contained his bodily remains, although we don’t know if the corpse had been embalmed or not. In ancient Mesopotamia, everything indicates that they buried the bodies in the earth since, according to their creation myth, Ea (Enki) had created humans out of the earth's soil. So they naturally 'return' the body to the earth once the person has died. However, in Alexander’s case, the priests “emptied his body of entrails,” which indicates an Egyptian tradition. 

How, then, was it decided that Alexander should be mummified? His body was originally to return to Macedonia. The royal tradition was that their lineage would simply die if the king was not buried in his homeland. At this stage, there were no known plans to bring the king’s corpse to Egypt at all. So, maybe it was decided to keep his body in good condition until it reached Macedonia, which actually meant years later. The only people of authority present in Babylon were Alexander’s generals, who seem, however, to have been more occupied with their own importance in the wake of their king’s death than with the proper burial – or any burial at all for that matter. 

I cannot imagine Perdiccas suggesting mummification, or Nearchus, or any other commander present, except maybe Ptolemy. At a very early stage, he had decided to take Egypt as his share. Not only that, but there were rumors that Ptolemy may have been an illegitimate son of Philip, making him Alexander’s half-brother. This has never been established, but the relationship was a public secret. At this stage, Ptolemy may have carried more weight than the other generals to suggest mummification. He will, however, have been careful not to disclose his secret plan to take Alexander to Egypt. Who knows? 

Another possibility is that the commanders were still fighting each other and had not decided where to bury their king despite leaving him unattended for about a week. The obvious place was Macedonia, but Babylon as the new capital of Alexander’s Empire may have been another candidate. Pending a final decision, it was wise to embalm the body to preserve it the best they could. 

But who performed the embalming on so short a notice? It is highly improbable that priests could have been summoned so quickly from Egypt. Maybe Alexander had some Egyptian doctors or priests in his entourage? That is not as far-fetched as it appears because at the time of the moon eclipse, shortly before the Battle of Gaugamela, when the army was wildly panicking, we know some Egyptian priests were present. They had told Alexander and his Macedonians that this was only an astronomical phenomenon - and hence, nothing to be worried about. This shows that he had kept Egyptian priests with him already then. These priests most certainly were familiar with the religious embalming process and able to preserve Alexander’s body for the long journey home. 

Craftsmen from across the empire created an unsurpassed funerary golden catafalque. Alexander’s preserved body was placed inside a gold sarcophagus inlaid with precious stones. It was covered with a purple funerary pall embroidered with gold, on top of which lay his armor and Trojan shield. After two years of careful and intense work, the shrine was ready, and the funeral cortege left Babylon for Pella.

As we know, the cortege never reached Macedonia since Ptolemy seized the catafalque in Syria and took it to Egypt. As the city of Alexandria was not yet entirely built, Alexander’s sarcophagus was temporarily kept in Memphis. We owe it to Ptolemy’s son, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, to give Alexander his last resting place in his Alexandria. 

In the following centuries, the tomb was visited by many Roman emperors till it disappeared from history. That was between the mid-3rd century and the last quarter of the 4th century AD.

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.