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. 

Harpalos’ mismanagement or is it Alexander’s?

It is common knowledge that Alexander valued friendship above all. His first core group of friends took shape at an early age when they joined him in Mieza for Aristotle’s tutoring and these friendships lasted till the end of his life. Harpalos was one of them, and he was among those who were exiled by Philip for siding with and supporting his son in the Pixodarus affair. Once he became king, Alexander called them back and promoted them to high positions in his army. Harpalos, however, being physically unfit for military duty, was assigned as Treasurer.

In Alexander’s eyes, his friends could do no wrong, and a few such examples have transpired. There is Philotas’ first conspiracy in Egypt that was reported by his mistress Antigone and confirmed by Coenus, who was married to Philotas’ sister Antigone – strong evidence that Alexander refused to believe. That was in 332 BC, and Philotas survived another two years before being put to death in Alexandria in Drangiana for failing to report or for participating in another conspiracy to take Alexander’s life. It is pretty significant that the king left most of the judging and sentencing to his Companions and the Macedonian army.

The case of Harpalos is another matter and by far the most enigmatic example. Just before Alexander engaged in the Battle of Issus, and for some obscure reason, Harpalos fled to Megarid in Greece. He may have cowardly chickened out, not believing in his king’s victory against Darius, and seeking a safe haven elsewhere. Or, he may have been under the bad influence of a certain Tauriscus, who escaped at the same time to find refuge in Italy. In any case, this indicates that both men had serious reasons to fear Alexander’s wrath for whatever wrongdoing or embezzlement they had committed.

Two years later, however, Alexander inexplicably called Harpalos back and reinstated him with the resounding title of Guardian of the Babylonia Treasury and the Revenues Accruing Thereto and put him in charge of the enormous treasures he had so far collected in Asia Minor and in Egypt. Alexander reassured Harpalos that he would not be punished for whatever happened before. Why he made this decision or what triggered it is everyone’s guess. One would think he had enough capable and responsible officers in his army, he could trust with this highly sensitive position besides Harpalos. Maybe the fact that the aunt of his friend, Phila, was one of his father’s wives played a role, since this relationship also made him a family member. In any case, there is no rational explanation for Alexander’s decision. The fact remains that Harpalos occupied the most powerful position compared to Alexander’s other friends and this was in spite of the fact that he had betrayed his king’s trust.

After seizing the intact treasuries of Babylon, Persepolis, and Pasargadae, Alexander put the largest wealth ever accumulated in history into Harpalos' hands, installing him in Ecbatana with 6,000 troops to guard the booty.

As Alexander headed further east into the heart of Central Asia, his treasurer moved to Babylon where he lavishly spent the amounts of money for his own pleasures with prostitutes and hetaerae, setting up a court only equaled by Nero a few centuries later. He picked a courtesan from Athens named Pythionice, who was covered with gifts worthy of a queen. This extravagant love affair did not last, for she soon died and was interred in a stunning memorial for the baffling price of 200 talents paid for by the treasury. Yet Harpalos’ megalomania did not stop there since he also built a temple in Babylon where she would be worshiped as Aphrodite Pythionic and another expensive monument on the Sacred Road in Athens. This last epitaph was witnessed by our traveling reporter Pausanias several centuries later, who considered it unworthy of the 30 talents it had cost.

After this extravaganza, Harpalos sent for another Athenian hetaera, Glycera. Like her predecessor, she lived like a queen and even received divine honors. Her beauty was trumpeted forth in Syria with a statue dedicated to her beauty and at Tarsus, where a luxurious palace was constructed for her pleasure. Harpalos showed no respect for Alexander and certainly did not reciprocate his friendship. Like on the eve of the Battle of Issus, he probably expected his king to be the underdog in one of the many fights, battles, skirmishes, and confrontations with the barbarians in the east. Alexander would evidently be killed and never return to the court Harpalos had cut out for himself at Babylon.

But Alexander did return from India and soon discovered how many satraps had taken advantage of their privileged position to fill their own pockets. His response was immediate, and he promptly executed the culprits there and then. Obviously, Harpalos had every reason to expect his king’s anger, and he feared for his life. He packed up as much money as he could possibly carry, and with 5,000 talents [that is the equivalent of three billion dollars] and 6,000 mercenaries, he set sail for Athens.

It is known that Alexander sent three different embassies to demand Harpalos’ extradition, but they all returned empty-handed. Thanks to lavish bribes paid by Harpalos to the Athenian politicians – led by the ever-sour Demosthenes - who still resented Alexander’s successes and the Macedonian power, he was able to escape. Eventually, Harpalos was captured in Crete and assassinated by his own men, one year before the king’s own death.

How is it possible that Alexander, the conqueror of the world, was unable to catch and judge Harpalos wherever he was? Many men were killed for stealing less than Harpalos’ extravagant expenditure and the 5,000 talents (equaling 142 tons of silver and 14 tons of gold) he took with him to Athens. Alexander must have been aware of this corruptible behavior but turned a blind eye to it? Neither stupidity nor ignorance can be the reason for Alexander’s action – or non-action - and the most obvious explanation would be mismanagement.

This is an extremely serious accusation, and it is hard to believe that a bright mind like Alexander’s could be capable of such a misjudgment and such a miscalculation. As strange as it may be, it seems that Alexander was not truly interested in money but rather in conquering new territories and expanding his power, since there are other examples of embezzlement that were left unpunished or which he somehow accepted.

There is the case of Cleomenes, whom Alexander had appointed in Egypt to collect taxes and manage his finances, including the building of Alexandria. This man had set up a shady trade business selling wheat to Athens, extorted money from the priests on a broad scale, and cheated the soldiers in his service. An official complaint was filed and sent to Alexander, and guess what? The king not only pardoned Cleomenes for said crimes, ordering him to build a temple in honor of Hephaistion, but he also forgave him all future violations! Unbelievable! Ptolemy was much smarter, and as soon as he became king of Egypt, he executed Cleomenes. Chop-chop!

In between Harpalos’ two appointments as treasurer, there were the cases of Coeranus and Philoxenus, who got away with exorbitant amounts of money. The final replacement for Harpalos, Antimenes of Rhodes, made a reputation for oppression by imposing outrageous taxes, setting up a swindle business with slave owners and travelers on the royal roads. All these financial officers somehow escaped disciplinary actions, or at least none are being documented besides the cases of Harpalos and Cleomenes.

Maybe it is true that Alexander was not much interested in money, at least not beyond the strict necessity to finance his next campaign or war, which would automatically generate a new inflow of money. He loved to give and he gave in style, not only to his close friends but also to new allies (e.g. Porus), to his soldiers as a prize for merit and bravery in combat, and to his veterans sent back to Macedonia, including travel expenses, bonuses, and stipends for the wives they left behind in Asia. He entirely financed the huge Susa wedding, i.e., his own but also that of his one hundred Companions, and he offered wedding gifts for his 10,000 Macedonians who had taken Asian brides on the road. When he heard that his army was in deep debt, he paid them some 20,000 talents out of his own pocket (evidently from his treasury), requiring 280 tons of coins.

Being the richest man in the world with wealth acquired in a short decade, Alexander could not call on anyone with enough experience and skills to manage such huge sums. Even he, although a brilliant general and military leader, had no training in managing such enormous amounts of gold and silver. Even his shrewd father had always spent his money before even having it in his hands, but in his case, the consequences were limited because the amounts were less, and the world in which he moved was much smaller.

To Alexander’s credit, it should be noted that he leaned heavily on the existing Persian administrative system created by Cyrus the Great, but its true implementation would have taken more time since his Macedonian commanders and officers did not (yet) share Alexander’s broad vision of this new world he had created. In the end, they never did, for within one year their king was dead and they now had to manage the empire on their own. This, they could not do either, and they fought each other in fierce competition for the next forty years.

The treasures of Alexander the Great. How One Man’s Wealth Shaped the World by Frank Holt

Wow! That’s the one word that comes to mind after reading The Treasures of Alexander the Great by Frank Holt (ISBN 978-0-19-995096-6). It is fabulous, meticulous, and breathtaking from cover to cover. Nobody tackled Alexander’s finances before, which is not surprising given the relatively limited facts and figures available.

Frank Holt’s painstaking research is remarkable, and the vast amount of books he consulted to extrapolate pertaining information is absolutely breathtaking.

He starts with a general overview of Alexander’s campaigns, making several pertinent statements often overlooked by the casual reader. There is, for instance, the fact that rural economies suffered as much if not more than the cities taken by Alexander since the army helped themselves to consume the food and livestock in their path, leaving the local population totally depleted; or the fact that Alexander had no intention to stimulate economic growth in the lands he occupied. A true eye-opener is how he managed or mismanaged his plunder. Money as such was not important to Alexander, but the treasury reaping was. Frank Holt can prove that all the gold and silver amassed by the king was not turned into coinage, far from it. In antiquity, money did not play the role we know today, and payments persistently were made by barter and gifts of land (for instance, to the new colonists) and others.

From this study, it transpires that Alexander’s money management is far beyond comprehension and that the appointment of his boyhood friend Harpalus as treasurer was not a success (instead a disaster) since he fled just before the Battle of Issus for reasons unspecified. Alexander trusted him a second time in Ecbatana, with a treasury far beyond any amount of money anyone had ever accumulated! There are limits, even to friendship, one would say, and it is hard to believe that Alexander did not exercise any form of control over his financial managers, of which Harpalus is only one example – yet the worst one – as he robbed Alexander of thousands of talents and led a life that might have served as a model for the Roman Emperor Nero. 

The army had lost and disposed of their wealth on two occasions, and after crossing the Gedrosian Desert, all was lost again, and money became meaningless to the soldiers. How could Alexander not have known that his men were broke when they emerged from that hell? He made amends in Susa, but once these soldiers reimbursed their debts, they had nothing left.

The sad conclusion is that nobody fared very well from Alexander’s campaigns, neither the Persians, who lost their kings and livelihood to be ruled by foreign successors, nor the Macedonian soldiers, who ended up fighting each other and were still demanding their salaries two years after the king’s death.

This extraordinary book concludes with carefully gleaned facts and figures arranged in four separate Appendixes: (1) Ancient Measures and Modern Conversions; (2) Summary of Reported Assets, from inheritance and homeland revenues, from war and diplomacy, and from tribute in conquered territories; (3) Summary of reported debts, inherited debts, and specific losses and expenditures; (4) Where is it now, listing the known numismatic collections of Alexander coins. These tables are convenient for whoever wants to know every tiny detail and show, if needed, how thoroughly Frank Holt studied Alexander’s treasures.

The other side of Demosthenes

The friends of my friends are my friends, the saying goes. This implies that the enemies of my friends are my enemies. This automatically applies to Demosthenes since he was not a friend of Alexander’s and consequently not a friend of mine (see: Philip vs. Demosthenes, an ongoing business). Yet I keep encountering Demosthenes in many museums, even in the most unexpected corners. From Athens, Rome, Naples, and Florence, to Tirana, Copenhagen, Harvard, Malibu, and New York; Antalya, Cyrene, and Cologne to the Louvre; from the British Museum to the Hermitage, and many more that do not immediately spring to mind.

Demosthenes is known in history as a prominent statesman and orator of ancient Athens. Born in 384 BC, he delivered his first judicial plea at the age of twenty to secure his inheritance, and by the time he was thirty, he made his first public political speech. In those days, the power of Athens was waning, and Demosthenes was most determined to restore the city’s supremacy. Athens was still a democracy where people had the final say in all matters through the Assembly, which would address the issues and vote by a show of hands. Another essential component was the Boule or Council, which would set the agenda of the Assembly and serve as its advisor by meeting daily. Several men used their rhetorical skills to address the people, among which we find Demosthenes. His greatest adversary, however, was to become King Philip of Macedonia, Alexander’s father.

During the Third Sacred War, which lasted from 356 to 346 BC (see: End of the Third Sacred War and Peace with Athens), the Greeks allowed Philip to raise a vast number of soldiers, including forces from Thessaly or other allies. His enemies had underestimated his power, and by the time this war ended, they could no longer stop him.

Frictions started as early as 351 BC, at least when Demosthenes warned the Athenians about the threat of Philip’s expansion policy in the north. Demosthenes wrote his first open letter to the Macedonian king, the first of his so-called  Philippics. This word has become proverbial since it still today applies to any fiery speech aimed to condemn the person in question (in this case, Philip).

Demosthenes became highly influential in Athens’ decision to support Olynthus, their ally, against Philip. He wrote an extensive speech for each individual call for help, known as the three Olynthiacs. These were all delivered in 349 BC, the first one calling the Athenians to organize an expedition and send it on its way, the second one complaining that Athens did not budge, and the third one being aimed at Philip, calling him a barbarian and warning his fellow-citizens that the Macedonian king would quickly seize more and more of their colonies. In his last Olynthiac, Demosthenes pled for a military intervention to rescue the Olynthians and called for a large naval and military force to destroy Philip’s territory. The orator didn’t convince his public until it was too late.

It is important to note that Demosthenes (and probably most Athenians) did not realize that the days of Athens’ polis system were counted. It was clear that Philip could make his decisions and act upon them immediately, while the Athenian system was slow, meaning that by the time they reached a conclusion, the entire context had changed. Philip wanted a treaty of peace and an alliance in which he and the Athenians were equals, something that did not sink in with the Athenians. In any case, in early April 346 BC, an embassy of ten men was sent to Pella to discuss ‘peace and the common interests of Athens and Philip (cf. Demosthenes). This would be the first of four embassies.

This story is very well told by Mary Renault in her book Fire from Heaven, featuring young Alexander. Ten envoys traveled to Pella when Alexander was about ten years old. Among them were great men like Philocrates, Nausicles, Demosthenes, and Aeschines. Each had prepared his speech on the proposed alliance and peace. They had decided to speak in order of age, the youngest last, and this happened to be Demosthenes after Aeschines, who tells us that he began “in a voice dead with fright, and after a brief narration of earlier events suddenly fell silent and was at a loss for words, … Seeing the state he was in, Philip encouraged him to take heart and not to suppose that he had suffered a complete catastrophe. … But Demosthenes … was now unable to recover; he tried once more to speak, and the same thing happened.” What an appearance for such an orator! Having listened graciously to every ambassador, Philip summarized his idea: a bilateral agreement between him and his allies on one side and Athens and their allies on the other.

Demosthenes was terribly frustrated by his flop at the Macedonian court, making a fool of himself in the presence of both Philip and Alexander. This frustration soon turned to anger and even hatred towards his first audience during such an important mission! He must have resented both kings simply because they had witnessed how helpless he had been!

When the embassy left, Philip sent Antipater, Parmenion, and Eurylochus to Athens to repeat his peace terms and receive Athens’ consent in return. The news was buzzing in Athens’ Assembly, which initially was inclined to accept Philip’s proposal. Still, Demosthenes had to give his own twist to the story as usual and persuaded the Assembly to go for a Common Peace in which every state was free to join. Of course, Antipater refused this when he was called in the next day, for those were not his king’s terms. Ultimately, the Athenians and their allies swore their oaths to peace and alliance with Macedonia – not a happy day for Demosthenes.

Yet Demosthenes was stubborn – or should we say determined? In 345 BC, he did all he could to sabotage the treaty with Philip, while Aeschines, on the other hand, tried by all means to keep it alive. As expected, Demosthenes had done his utmost to convince the Athenians that the peace treaty with Philip was worthless, using every trick in the book to manipulate his audience and distort Philip’s words. As a result, by 342/341 BC, the famous peace treaty collapsed entirely.

Meanwhile, as Philip was called to intervene in the Chersonese’s conflict with neighboring Cardia, he wrote many letters of complaint to Athens as they had violated their mutual peace treaty by attacking his allies and pirating the Macedonian merchant ships. Demosthenes, of course, took it personally, and his speeches ‘On the Chersonese’ and his next Philippic were wildly applauded and successful in Athens. The Athenians even went so far as to request support from the Persian King, who gave the ambassadors large sums of money, some of which eventually found its way into Demosthenes’ pocket. Philip was no fool and seized the Athenian corn fleet. Despite failing to secure the shipping route, Demosthenes was crowned for his services at the Theatre of Dionysus during the festival of 340 BC. The world of politics was as strange in antiquity as it is today!

Thebes was a constant headache, siding with Athens or Philip as they saw fit. In early 339 BC, they seized Nicaea at the entrance of the Pass of Thermopylae. By so doing, they blocked Philip’s access road to central Greece, not for long, though, for Philip immediately marched around Thermopylae, scaring the hell out of the Thebans and the Athenians. The situation escalated, eventually leading to the Battle of Chaeronea in August 338 BC. Demosthenes acted again and convinced the Athenians to join him in an alliance against Philip. It was one of his greatest diplomatic triumphs, although it came at a high cost, for there were many demands that Thebes required in exchange.

Demosthenes participated in the Battle of Chaeronea alongside his fellow Athenians. Still, as we know, Philip defeated them (with young Alexander in his left wing against the Theban Band!). Once the fight was over, Demosthenes barely escaped, and his glamorous orator career was over.

The next time Demosthenes comes to the foreground again is evidently after Philip’s death when he is said to have celebrated the king’s assassination. Aeschines tells us that at that time, Demosthenes was in the middle of a mourning ceremony for the death of his daughter. When he heard the news of Philip’s murder, he interrupted his mourning and instead put a garland on his head to make thank offerings to the gods – indeed, not the proper thing to do!

Despite such disrespectful behavior, the Athenians still admired Demosthenes and the orator Ctesiphon even suggested honoring his colleague for his services by presenting him with a golden crown! Lengthy debates followed and dragged on for at least six years since we know that in 330 BC, Aeschines prosecuted this same Ctesiphon for legal irregularities implying Demosthenes. The latter wrote his own defense, known to be his most brilliant speech, ‘On the Crown’ that inspired every statesman ever since. He successfully defended Ctesiphon and exploited the ruling feelings of frustrated patriotism, arguing that all he ever had done was for the honor of Athens and to prove his loyalty to his city.

While Alexander took care of the Thracian and Illyrian uprisings that erupted after his father’s death, Demosthenes spread the news that the young king and his army had been slaughtered. Thebes and Athens took their chances, and with money provided by the Persian King Darius, a new rebellion was financed (Demosthenes apparently received about 300 talents!). As soon as the news reached Alexander, he force-marched his army south and razed Thebes to the ground. He did not attack Athens but demanded that all the politicians openly against Macedonia be exiled, with Demosthenes on top of his list.  This never materialized, mainly because Alexander treated Athens with a privileged reverence.

But this is still not the end of Demosthenes’ grudge, for in 324 BC, he was only too happy to give refuge to the defecting Harpalos, one of Alexander’s companions who was in charge of the king’s treasury. The Athenian Assembly, following Demosthenes' advice, had decided not to allow him to enter the city primarily out of fear of Alexander’s possible reprisal since Harpalos clearly was an insurgent. Harpalos was taken in custody, and his treasure (well over 700 talents) was confiscated and entrusted to a special committee presided over by Demosthenes. Once the money was counted, the committee found only half the sum as declared by Harpalos. They decided not to make this fact public for the time being. However, when Harpalus escaped, they discovered that Demosthenes had mishandled twenty talents. During the trial that ensued, it transpired that there was a much larger deficit than these twenty talents and that Demosthenes had been bribed by Harpalos. Yet it remains unclear how much money Demosthenes had manipulated and for what purpose it was used. In the end, he was fined but refused to pay. For this reason, he was sent to prison but escaped in a manner not unlike Harpalos. From then onward, he lived in exile, first at Troezen and later at Aegina.

Even after Alexander died in 323 BC, Demosthenes could not resist urging the Athenians to eliminate Macedonian supremacy. He returned to Athens and mingled in the Lamian War, from which Antipater (still regent at Pella) appeared victorious. Finally, Antipater had had enough and demanded Demosthenes be surrendered to him. The Athenian Assembly, in fact, condemned the city’s anti-Macedonian agitators to death, and that included Demosthenes. The orator escaped and found refuge at a sanctuary on the island of Poros, where Antipater eventually tracked him down. Feeling totally cornered, Demosthenes took his own life using poison. He was 62 years old.

Years later, and for reasons beyond logical comprehension, Athens erected a statue in honor of their able orator, a tradition that has apparently been perpetrated over many centuries – hence the many statues of Demosthenes we still find in the many museums today.

The Death of Alexander the Great. A Reconstruction of Cleitarchus. By A. Chugg

A titanic job, nothing less. In his book A Reconstruction of Cleitarchus (ISBN 9780955679025), Andrew Chug has compared the surviving texts from Curtius, Diodorus, and Justin to filter out the original work these authors have used themselves to filter out what was written by Cleitarchus of Alexandria. To a lesser extent, Chugg also includes Arrian, although this author mainly based his book on the texts left by Ptolemy and the Metz Epitome. A convenient drawing with the links used by each and every author in antiquity is quite revealing.

Cleitarchus, son of Deinon, wrote his account in the decades following Alexander’s death, and most of the surviving ancient texts were more or less based upon his work. However, not a single copy has come to us since they all were destroyed or discarded at some time or another.

Chugg pinpointed which texts or phrases are commonly used by Curtius and Diodorus, with eventually an addition when Justin uses the same words. A Table overview accounting for the matches is constructive. And so is the Table showing the first division of the Satrapies soon after Alexander died in Babylon, listing each territory with the name of the appointed governor (satrap) as given by Diodorus, Justin, Curtius, Cleitarchus himself, as well as separately by Arrian, Dexippus and the Metz Epitome. Sounds all very technical, but it becomes quite interesting when in the end, we can read this part of Alexander’s history as it was presumably put down by Cleitarchus in the first place. A daring undertaking but a highly interesting one.

Most of Chugg's book is centered around Cleitarchus' Book 13, covering the period from July 324 BC to July 323 BC and beyond, i.e., the very last year of Alexander’s life. The subjects treated here are many: the Flight of Harpalus; the Exiles Decrees, the Mutiny at Opis; Death of Hephaistion; The Cosseans; Death in Babylon; Aftermath and Entombment. After a detailed comment and investigation of each chapter, one can read the full text as it may have been put down by Cleitarchus initially. A captivating story, especially since specific paragraphs have been put back in their original sequence, ensuring the continuity of events.

The book ends again with a Table giving for each episode in Cleitarchus' terms, the corresponding sources, and references with additional comments in the last column. If, after all that, you still have questions, please do get in touch with Andrew Chugg in person.