What Alexander really looked like.

Over the centuries, endless theories have circulated about the real appearance of Alexander. Statues, busts, paintings, and sketches have depicted Alexander as imagined by their creators, just as ancient and modern authors have described their version of Alexander. 

It is inevitable since Alexander became a legend during his lifetime. The legend took a life of its own, and still does today. 

[Picture from Wordscene]

I have just read an article on the Greek Reporter, “Beyond the Busts: Unveiling Alexander the Great’s True Face” by Paula Tsoni.  A very promising title that misleads the reader in many ways. The most absurd theory is the one quoted towards the end, reading: 

"A fresco depicting a hunt scene at the tomb of Philip II, Alexander’s father, at the archaeological site of Aegae is the only known surviving depiction of Alexander produced during his lifetime in the 330s BC."      …

"A most disruptive theory is proposed by Greek-French academic Byzantinologist Helene Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, who has herself been identified by the 2008 show Great Greeks as one of the 100 greatest Greeks of all time. In her 2018 book published by Gutenberg, the famous scholar suggests that the tomb in Aegae is, in fact, Alexander’s, and not his father’s. This would explain why the young king was depicted in the famous fresco inside that tomb."

First of all, it has been clearly demonstrated that the tomb in Vergina, ancient Aegae, belongs to Philip II and not to Alexander, who was entombed in ancient Alexandria. The latest confirmation of Philip’s presence in the Vergina tomb has been established by studying the adjacent tomb that turned out to be Cynane’s, Philip’s daughter (see: Cynane buried next to her father, Philip II). 

Secondly, stating that the hunting scene in Philip’s tomb (which is unclear) is “the only known surviving depiction of Alexander” is not correct. It has been established that the ivory heads recovered from a Macedonian funerary couch in Vergina belong to Philip and Alexander. Greek archaeologists agree that the Alexander head is the only one made during Alexander’s lifetime. 

There have been repeated tentative efforts to recreate the Macedonian King’s face, even showing occasional look-alikes. A lot of wishful thinking, no doubt, but not very realistic. 

The question about Alexander’s real face already arose in 2016, when I wrote about a hoard found at Mir Zakah in north-eastern Afghanistan (see: Alexander’s real face). The hoard had been hidden in a well for over two thousand years and contained an estimated 550,000 coins. One of them showed Alexander with wide-open eyes, a crooked nose, and wild curls on the obverse and a tiptoeing elephant on the reverse. This is Alexander as he saw himself - invulnerable, verging on godhood, immortalized in the moment of his triumph after his battle against Porus on the Hydaspes in India in 326 BC. 

Osmund Bopearachchi was the first to recognize the medallion, and together with Frank Holt, he wrote a book on the subject, “The Alexander Medallion, Exploring the Origins of a Unique Artefact.” This information is ignored by or unknown to the eminent Greek-French academic Byzantinologist Helene Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, used by the Greek Reporter!

[Picture of the coin is from The Hindu]

Macedonian swords set against history

As mentioned in an earlier post (see: Alexander’s battle outfit), the Macedonians basically used two types of swords. The straight sword with a double-edged blade, which was most popular, was about 60-70 cm long. The blade was exceptionally efficient because of the swelling toward the sword’s tip. It added weight and momentum to each blow. It was used by cavalry and infantry alike, as it functioned for hacking and stabbing. 

The kopis, or saber-shaped sword with the crooked hilt, was less common. The blade was 40-60 cm long, and only the curved side had a cutting edge. The kopis was more effective for fights on horseback since the rider could deliver a heavy blow from above. 

Sources tell us that the Cyprian King of Citium (ancient Larnaca) gave Alexander a masterly executed sword, which was exceptionally light and well-tempered (see: The role of Cyprus in Alexander’s campaign). 

Quality swords were widespread among Alexander’s commanders and even common troops. Several memorable encounters have been reported by our historians. The most striking one was when Cleitus, with a single blow, severed the arm and shoulder of a Persian attacking Alexander at the Granicus. The Paeonian cavalry leader Ariston used his sword to behead the Persian leader Satropates during a skirmish near the Tigris River. 

The kopis were handled by the Macedonians at the Hydaspes to slash at the elephants’ trunks. Ptolemy drove his sword through the thigh of a local chief during the Indian expedition, and Alexander cut off the hand of his Arab assassin with one stroke of his sword during the siege of Gaza. The Macedonian tradition of handling weapons with high cutting capacity is still alive in 276 BC when King Pyrrhus inflicted such a blow to his adversary that he cleaved his opponent in two parts, falling to either side! 

Now we may wonder where and how all these swords were made. Cyprus was known for its quality weaponry, but did the artisans accompany the Macedonians into Asia, or did they train a selected number of people in this specific craftsmanship? Either theory is plausible. 

There is, however, the case of Porus’ gift. After the Battle of the Hydaspes, King Porus gave Alexander a precious sword. This story leads us to another source, Wootz Steel (the name is a corruption of ‘ukku’), a well-kept secret amongst the metallurgists in India. The name first appeared when Alexander received a gift of over 2500 kg of ‘white iron’, a kind of steel that originated in India millennia before reaching Europe. 

Wootz steel is a type of crucible steel made using a clay crucible. The vessel was closed and heated for several days to a temperature of 1300-1400 degrees Celsius. In the process, the quality of the product acquired high ductility, high impact strength, and reduced brittleness. After a slow cooling, the Wootz ingots were ready. Archaeologists discovered an industrial steel center from around the 3^rd century BC in the southern state of Tamil Nadu. 

How was this new technology received in the Macedonian camp? It is hard to imagine that Alexander did not explore or use the possibilities of this Wootz steel. He always was a ringleader when confronted with new inventions and improvements in warfare. The next time we hear about this revolutionary steel is that Indians had a monopoly over the production and export of Wootz steel from the 3^rd to the 17^th century, reaching from the Roman Empire in the West to China in the East. 

In the Middle Ages, Damascus became the main supplier of the famous Damascene swords, which is only another name for weaponry made using Wootz steel. 

By the 8^th century, manufacturing in India had spread throughout Central Asia, where the Vikings had established trade posts to exchange their furs and slaves over Eurasia. Hoards of Arab dirhams have been found in Scandinavia, documenting these trades. As a result, by the 9^th century, the Vikings produced high-quality Ulfberht swords, made of crucible steel known as Wootz steel. 

[Picture from Ulfbeht sword - Credits: Secrets of the Viking sword]

The blades of Viking swords were generally 70 to 90 centimeters long and 5-6 centimeters wide. The so-called Ulfberht swords carried the inscription +VLFBERH+T, which may be linked to some religious invocation rather than the maker’s signature. The earliest known specimen was created in the 9^th century and was one of the heaviest (1.9 kg) and longest (102 cm) Viking swords. It is exhibited at the Museum of Cultural History in Oslo. Another surviving example is the sword of Saint Stephen from the 10^th century, which was the coronation sword of the Hungarian King Stephen. It still has its walrus-tooth hilt. 

The so-called Lincoln sword from the same era is one of only two known swords bearing the inscription +LEUFRIT, also made of crucible (most probably Wootz) steel. It was found near Monks Abbey in Lincolnshire, UK, in 1848. 

It is noteworthy that the science behind the production of Wootz steel was only understood in the 20^th century! From a technological point of view, this means that the metallurgists of ancient India were far, really far ahead of their time! 

Unfortunately, history has, to my knowledge, not linked the weaponry from Cyprus to the Wootz steel swords made in India. Consequently, we still don’t know how Alexander acted and reacted to Porus’ highly prized gift. I can’t imagine that Alexander did nothing to explore this newly acquired knowledge.

Does age matter?

Writing about Alexander over the years, I have been handling chronological dates for his whereabouts in the correct time frame. There is, however, another approach to consider and that is Alexander’s age. 

We know he became king at the age of twenty and started his invasion of Asia at the age of twenty-two. He died a month short of his 33^rd birthday. All his marches, sieges, battles, and fighting are condensed within this last period of roughly ten years. 

A comparison with any modern monarchy is impossible because there are hardly any kings left and they no longer go to war at the head of their army. To compare Alexander with young men his age today is out of the question also simply because life and the circumstances of living are too far apart. 

Alexander has been taught by Aristotle but again this kind of education cannot be identified with the teaching of a young man in our modern world. I believe that even Philip, although he intended to do what was best for his son, underestimated the vastness of Aristotle’s knowledge. Alexander was meant to rise above Philip because he understood how to draw from Aristotle’s vast database (to use modern terminology) and merge it expertly with his innate infallible instinct - his genius. 

However, Philip may well have realized the potential of his 16-year-old son when he entrusted him with the seal of Macedonia while campaigning against Byzantium. The young prince honored his assignment as Regent by successfully putting down the Maedi revolt on the country’s northern border. 

Two years later, Philip put his son in command of his cavalry at the Battle of Chaironeia. Alexander did more than his share and annihilated the entire Theban Band, all three hundred of them! 

We don’t know how much time the young prince spent among the soldiers growing up in Pella, but I think it is safe to assume it was a lot. Leading the small contingent against the Maedi and the cavalry in Chaironeia speaks volumes. An army has that instinctive flair to recognize a true leader, one they can and will trust. 

This trust would only grow when Alexander became king after his father was murdered. In the next two years, he successfully led his troops against the Illyrians and the Thracians to secure his northern borders, sacked the city of Thebes in retribution for its betrayal, and confirmed his position as Hegemon of Greece as per the Treaty of Corinth. Alexander could never have contemplated his campaign in Asia without the full trust and commitment of his army. 

He crossed the Hellespont shortly before his 22^nd birthday and fought the Persian army for the first time at the Granicus River. Later that summer, he marched to Sardes and took Ephesos, Priene, Miletus, Didyma, and Halicarnassus. Alexander spent the following winter in Lycia, after which he conquered Phaselis and Perge. 

When he was 23 years old, he headed north to Sagalassos and from there to Gordion where he cut the knot. Crossing Cappadocia, he returned to the shores of the Mediterranean. At Tarsus, he fell sick with a fever, which incapacitated him for several weeks. By the end of the year, he was engaged in the Battle of Issus, his first personal confrontation with King Darius. 

In two years, Alexander fought two major battles (see: The Battle of the Granicus and The Battle of Issus, where Alexander and Darius faced each other for the first time), besieged two cities, Miletus and Halicarnassus, and occupied all the major ports in Asia Minor. In our modern world, this means that he crossed all of Turkey. 

At the age of 24, he laid siege on two more cities, Tyre (building a mole in the process) and Gaza. His reception in Egypt was that of a liberator and he was soon acclaimed as their new Pharaoh - a title that automatically made him a god in the eyes of the Egyptians. At the western end of the Nile Delta, he founded his first Alexandria, a city that still exists and prospers today! 

Many more sieges and battles were to follow in Central Asia and India. We almost take them for granted, despite that every siege and every battle came with its own technicalities and challenges. Alexander faced many hardships as he traveled through deserts, waded through countless rivers, and crossed mountains as high as those of the Hindu Kush! 

The three years Alexander spent in Sogdiana and Bactria, from his 27^th to his 30^th birthday, were an uninterrupted succession of skirmishes and fights in guerilla wars he was totally unfamiliar with. The events culminated with his victory at the Battle of the Hydaspes against the Indian King Porus. By then, he and his men had covered some 28,000 kilometers, creating many new Alexandrias in the process. 

Although Alexander is usually depicted sitting on his horse, we have to keep in mind that he moved at the pace of his foot soldiers. Riding bareback was not comfortable, not for the rider and not for the horse (see: No saddles and no stirrups for Alexander’s cavalry). 

It is impossible to imagine anyone covering such a distance on foot. It would imply walking an average of 2,800 kilometers a year, ten years in a row! Let us keep in mind that many of his troops were veterans of his father’s days, men in their fifties, sixties, and even seventies! Not a leisurely trip for the fainthearted. 

Speaking of walking: how many pairs of shoes, boots, and sandals would the Macedonians have worn out? Providing new ones for some 40,000 men or more would have implied production on an industrial scale! Maybe we should believe the sources suggesting that the soldiers fought and walked sections of the route barefoot?

Sadly, Alexander died far too young, and so did Hephaistion, but men like Ptolemy and Seleucos lived to the ages of 84 and 77 respectively. Age clearly is not everything!

Where did Bucephalus die?

The question whether Alexander’s dear mount died on the Battle of the Hydaspes or at another location around that time has been discussed at length and obviously without any conclusive result.

Today, I have been wondering where Bucephalus actually died. It so happened that a friend of mine forwarded me an article about Bufliaz, a town on the foothill of the Peer Rattan Range in India that claims to be the place where Alexander’s horse died.

Bufliaz, according to the locals is named after Bucephalus (Bunifales) to commemorate the death. The town is located 39 kilometers east of Poonch or Punch, roughly some 120 km northeast of Taxila. This sounds pretty odd because it is generally accepted that from Taxila, Alexander marched to the southeast to the banks of the Hydaspes where his famous battle against Porus was fought.

Although Bucephalus may have died at Bufliaz that does not exclude that a city in his honor could have been built on the banks of the Hydaspes near modern Mong (see: Locating Alexandria Nicaea and Alexandria Bucephala).

Opinions about the burial site of Alexander’s prized horse vary widely. Jona Lendering cites Jhelum and G. Huntingford identifies a mound west of Jhelum as Alexandria Bucephala. Sir Aurel Stein tends to believe that Alexander went south from Taxila and crossed the Hydaspes near modern Behra. This town is close to Mong and could be the very site where the Battle of the Hydaspes took place. Michael Wood, although he agrees with Stein to identify Mong as ancient Alexandria Nicaea, suggests Garjak as Alexandria Bucephala. Garjak is said to have its own legend of a magical horse. Last but not least, Mansoor Behzad, a local historian supports the idea that Bucephalus was buried in Jalalpur Sharif, which lies 75 km northeast of Bhera.

Clearly, the possibilities are endless and in the end, we could only establish that Bucephalus died and was buried in that general area.

The art of creating purple dye

Purple dye made from the tiny murex shell pops up on a regular base throughout antiquity. It was an expensive coloring material reserved for royalty and other people of high rank who could afford it. With it, came the symbol of power and prestige which was particularly exploited by the Roman emperors and their ladies parading with their flashy robes.

The fashion seems to have started in ancient Phoenicia, where the shells were widely harvested. As these seafarers settled in new colonies around the Mediterranean, their craft and knowledge soon spread with Carthage at its center. The Romans eyed the wealth and prosperity of Carthage, and that included this much-coveted purple dye. It is not surprising that the emperors took control of this industry since the business was very lucrative. Petra was such a hub where purple cloth and other precious goods transited on their way between Arabia Felix (modern Yemen) and the Mediterranean. The Romans eventually took control of that trade route.

However, purple spread over the ancient world much earlier. The Macedonians, for instance, used purple fabric to wrap the cremated bones of their kings before placing them inside a precious larnax (see: The Tomb of King Philip II of Macedonia). It has been reported that Alexander himself wore purple for everyday use. If we look closely at the mosaic retrieved from the House of the Faun in Pompeii, we recognize the now faded purple-grey of his tunic that originally was deep purple (see: Alexander’s battle outfit).

On several occasions during his campaign in Persia, Alexander’s booty included purple cloth. In Susa alone, he collected more than 100 tons of the precious cloth (see: Alexander’s treasure at Kyinda). This is irrefutable proof that this expensive product was widely available among those who could afford it. In any case, there still was enough material available at the time Alexander organized the Grand Susa Wedding in 324 BC. It has been documented that the floor of his vast ceremonial tent was covered with purple carpets embroidered with gold.

The Persian Empire had amassed an unbelievable amount of wealth since the days of Cyrus the Great. This ruler’s tomb in Pasargadae, for instance, was carpeted with purple rugs. Also the mattress, on which Cyrus’ remains were resting, was colored purple. Median trousers and robes were dyed in a wide range of colors, the most prominent ones being hyacinth and purple.

Persepolis was another place rich with purple draperies and carpets. Diodorus states that the Persian wealth had even rubbed off onto the ordinary people who possessed “garments tainted with sea purple and embroidered with gold.”

The custom of wearing purple was perpetrated down to Seleucos I Nicator as seen on the rare mosaic from Apamea (see: The unique mosaic from Apamea), and to the Indian King Sopeithes, who ruled over a city on the Hydaspes River, tentatively identified as Bhera (see: The realm of King Sopeithes included modern Bhera?)  

This popularity of purple brings me to the next question: How exactly was this Tyrian or Phoenician dye made? The recipe has remained mostly secret until today as only a handful of people around the world knew the techniques involved.

The Archaeology News Network recently published a very revealing article about a man from Tunisia (to which Carthage belonged in antiquity) who started the long quest in search of the tricks of the trade. It is quite amazing to hear that neither archaeologists nor historians or experts in chemistry and dying technique know how to find and recuperate the dye from the murex shell. No historical document apparently provides any detailed information about the production method involved.

[Picture from Archaeology News Network (Credit: Fetih Belaid/AFP)]

Mohamed Ghassen Nouira, who runs a consulting company, had to start his investigation from scratch. Initially, he thought it would be enough to crush the whole shell in the hope of seeing how the concealed sea snail would release its fascinating color. He spent years on the project, confessing that he had to get used to the foul stench first. Who would have thought of that? In the end, he discovered that the dye is contained in the guts of the sea snail. The exact procedure is now a secret this Tunisian is carefully keeping to himself.

Artists, as well as researchers, are his main customers in the international market. Current prices range from $2,800 to $4,000 per gram, but our Tunisian man claims he sells his pure purple dye for less money. Well, considering that it takes 100 kg of murex shell to obtain one single gram of dye, it is not surprising that prices are sky-high.

As mentioned in the book The Macedonian War Machine by David Karunanithy, the final color could vary from rose-pink through bright red and blue to deep purple, depending on the strength of the dye used and its degree of exposure to sunlight. One seashell fits all, right?

It would be great if the wish of Mohamed Ghassen Nouira to have his work exhibited in the Tunisian museums would materialize. I think many other countries, especially around the Mediterranean Sea, should be interested as well. This ancient tradition truly deserves to be kept alive.

Alexander caring for the wounded and the dead

Battlefields always revolve around numbers and tactical moves. The human aspect is generally left out, simply because it is an inevitable by-product of war. Modern warfare is far more clinical, and statistics of the number of dead and wounded are kept pretty accurately.

In antiquity, the situation was entirely different. A person’s life was of little value. Men died in battle, women died in childbirth, and if they managed to escape that fate, they could fall victim to raids from a neighboring town and finally die as slaves. Not the happiest prospect for any being, unless you belonged to the upper class of society. But still.

The Greeks considered that dying on the battlefield was an honorable death, but they were not ready to sacrifice their lives for that sole purpose.

When I watched Oliver Stone’s picture of the aftermath of the Battle of Gaugamela with hundreds and thousands of corpses spread over the battlefield, I remembered a similar shot of Atlanta in the movie Gone with the Wind. In both scenarios, I wondered about the smell of the decaying bodies of men and beasts, the puddles of blood and excrement, the buzzing of the flies, and the vultures uttering their guttural screams. There is nothing glorious left on a battlefield after the victory is claimed by one party.

Following Alexander on his major confrontations at the Granicus, at Issus, at Gaugamela, and on the Hydaspes, our sources from antiquity wind up producing the strangest figures when it comes to counting the dead. Numbers on either side have been distorted. They were either to make the losses on the enemy’s side much higher than they were or to reduce the casualties on Alexander’s side to a questionable minimum. It is impossible to verify any of the information that has reached us through Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus, Curtius, or Justin, more so because it was penned down centuries after the facts.

As to the wounded, it seems they were not accounted for, or only in exceptional cases. Counting the dead on a battlefield did not equate to the ultimate number of casualties. Many of the wounded were bound to die afterward. 

Hygiene was a foreign word in antiquity, and if there was any basic knowledge, it was a far cry from our modern concept. We should remember, however, that Alexander had a great interest in medicine and learned from Aristotle everything he could. Healing illnesses with plants and specific concoctions was one aspect, but stitching the soldiers’ cuts back together and cleaning their wounds was another.

If we consider the many cases of trepanation that were successfully carried out since the Neolithic, we must admit that the knowledge available in antiquity is far beyond what we might think. Philip, Alexander’s father, lost an eye and survived the operation quite well. So did Antigonus Monophthalmus. Speaking of eyes, it is known that cataract surgeries were performed as early as 4,000 BC by the Egyptians. The list of medical wonders is probably endless, but the point I am trying to make is that the physicians in Alexander’s army were far more knowledgeable than we may believe. Cleanliness certainly was one of the main requirements. 

Early last century, for instance, it was essential to wash a bleeding wound with water and soap. This has been done for centuries and may well have been applied by the caretakers in antiquity. In my own youth, when a wound was infected, it was to be soaked repeatedly in hot water and soda crystals. The ancients may well have used something similar. The technique of cauterization was known long before the early trappers in the American West, and that knowledge was inherited from earlier generations. A hot knife, dagger, or even a sword would seal the wound and kill the bacteria at the same time.

It has been reported that Alexander visited the wounded after the battle. Going from one soldier to the next, he listened to their report, how they had been injured, acknowledged their courage, and showed them respect. I am sure that the king checked their wounds and how they were treated. The caretakers and physicians were watched closely by Alexander because he, himself, had considerable knowledge of healthcare and medicine. In the end, he gave his soldiers and the caretakers a huge boost in morale. There cannot have been a better medicine than that. In the end, this may well be the secret to justify the low rates of mortality among the Macedonian troops.

What about the wounded enemies, one might wonder? Well, I don’t think that the Macedonians were inclined to show much pity, if any, to their adversaries. They were not in for half measures, just as Alexander wasn’t. For them, the enemy had to be eliminated. I would doubt if any of the wounded were left behind with some breath in their lungs. 

When the enemy, however, asked to retrieve their dead to give them a proper burial, Alexander did not refuse. We’ll remember how he even sent the body of Darius III back to his mother to accomplish the funeral according to Persian customs. On an earlier occasion, at Issus, the king had also given the Queen Mother permission to bury the Persians from the battlefield. The recovery of wounded enemy soldiers is never mentioned.

The soldiers who died in Alexander’s service always received an appropriate burial with full honors. After the Battle of the Granicus, Alexander instructed Lysippos to create a bronze memorial for the 25 cavalrymen who had fallen on the battlefield. For several centuries, it stood in Dion, the sanctuary of Macedonia.

The list of lavish and expensive burials is a long one. I relied on Frank Holt’s account, as mentioned in his book “The Treasures of Alexander the Great”. For the soldiers as a group, there was a burial at Issus in 333 BC, Ecbatana in 330 BC, on the Polytimetus River in 329 BC, and Sangala in 326 BC. Personal and more elaborate funerals took place in honor of his generals/companions, Hector in Egypt in 331 BC, Nicanor in Alexandria Ariana in 330 BC, Philip and Erigyius in Sogdiana in 327 BC, Demaratus in 327 BC, and Coenus on the Hydaspes River in 326 BC. Also to be mentioned is the gymnosophist and sophist Calanus from Taxila, who immolated himself in Susa in 324 BC. Last but certainly not least was the expensive funeral pyre that Alexander had built for his dearest Hephaistion, who died in Ecbatana in 324 BC.

Clearly, nothing was too good for the dead.

[The picture of the battlefield is from Oliver Stone's movie Alexander]

The realm of King Sopeithes included modern Bhera?

After having stopped at the Hyphasis River (modern Beas) to build his Twelve Altars (see: Alexander erected twelve altars on the banks of the Hyphasis), Alexander returned to the Hydaspes River (modern Jhelum), where he founded Alexandria Nicaea and Alexandria Bucephala (see: Locating Alexandria Nicaea and Alexandria Bucephala).

At this point, Alexander split his army into three divisions: Craterus would lead his party down the right bank of the Hydaspes, Hephaistion the left bank, and Alexander would sail down the river to its confluence with the Indus River and the Ocean beyond.

Arrian (using Ptolemy’s account) states that both generals were instructed to march at all speeds to the palace of King Sopeithes. Why these orders were issued and what happened further, he does not tell. Diodorus and Curtius, who followed the writing of Cleitarchus, place the encounter with Sopeithes as early as the Hyphasis River, just after the siege of Sangala (see: The siege of Sangala, in modern Pakistan).

Whatever the case, the encounter of Alexander with Sopeithes is very well rendered in Andrew Chugg’s book “Alexander the Great in India. A Reconstruction of Cleitarchus,” which I used hereafter.

Sopeithes had the reputation of ruling with high moral principles. For him, moral eminence and physical beauty were rated above everything else. A young child was judged by its physical condition and, as a result, was allowed to live on if it was handsome, healthy, and vigorous. Otherwise, the youngster was killed. At the time of their marriage, the young people were matched with the sole objective of producing beautiful and athletic offspring, as opposed to the usual values of dowries or wealth. It is unsurprising to learn that the citizens considered themselves superior to others.

When Alexander arrived at the town occupied by Sopeithes, he found the city gates closed and its walls and towers unmanned. He assumed that either the city was abandoned or this was a trap. Imagine his amazement when the massive doors were flung wide open, and the Indian king stepped forward to meet him, flanked by his two eldest sons. Three handsome men and a very tall king wrapped in long garments embellished with gold and purple welcomed Alexander, who must have been impressed, if not by the wealth, then certainly by the attractive and imposing personages. The king wore gilded sandals set with jewels; strings of pearls hung down from his shoulders to his wrist, and huge dazzling gemstones adorned his ears. He held a golden scepter set with beryl that he yielded to Alexander in a gesture of goodwill. Sopeithes surrendered himself and his kingdom to Alexander.

He certainly knew how to win Alexander’s heart, and the young conqueror generously reinstated Sopeithes in his kingship. With so much generosity to go around, Sopeithes organized entertainment for the entire Macedonian force that lasted several days. Alexander was showered with splendid gifts, including a party of 150 large hunting dogs of unique valiant breed.

Now the location of this unnamed city held by Sopeithes is subject to discussion. Still, based on Arrian and the analysis made by Alexander Cunningham in 1871, it is thought to be Bhera on the right bank of the Hydaspes River (today, the new city of Bhera stands on the left bank). Recent excavations have exposed several mounds (Barrian mounds) yielding artifacts from Achaemenid, Greek, and Mauryan times.

[Picture from PAK]

The modern village of Mong, built on top of Alexandria Nicea, lies only 10 kilometers away, making it plausible that Alexander crossed the Hydaspes near Bhera.

It is noteworthy that another King Sophytes in the eastern territories, minted his own coins in Greek style between 315 and 305 BC. He may have been a satrap under Seleucos I.